Rah's page

Rah wrote:

I should point out that predictability equals boredom in PvP.

I don't believe the game is designed around individual PvP matches being where all the "fun" is. It's a game largely about Territorial Control. The PvP will be "fun" because it matters.

Rah wrote:

You try to make combat fair and non-frustrating. That is not what combat is :)

Actually, I think this design will result in combat that is much more realistic because it removes the situation where a level 25 character can take on a literally infinite number of level 1 characters. Mike Tyson would probably get his butt kicked if he were swarmed by a random sample of 5 male college students.

Correct me if I am wrong, but is the threat of brigands not a big part of the game as well?

Realism is fine up to a degree. If I wanted a real fight, I would go spar :)
In this game I would like to be able to achieve power. Make me work for it, sure, but I would like to see a pay-off.
If we all become bland copies of each other, well, it loses some appeal to me.

And one more point, your Stand and Deliver mechanism is useless in this setup. I lose all element of surprise, which would be even more valuable in your currently desired path.
Why go to the trouble of Stand and Deliver someone so they can say no and fight back on equal footing?
I would try to kill a solo adventurer before SAD-ing him this way.
And no way I would ever offer it to two characters.

Again, just spouting perceived consequences. I may have missed something but this is how it looks to me now.

Relatively unskilled characters will not beat relatively well equipped high skilled characters in fights. But they should be able to try to run away without always being killed no matter what. And a low skill character and a medium skill character working together should be a good match for a high skilled well equipped character; not a 50/50 fight, but a high enough chance of victory that the high skilled character has to consider death a reasonable potential.

We want a flatter power curve than most of the theme park games. But not a flat one. The case we're trying to avoid is high skill character one-shotting every low-skill character it fights, and low-skill characters being totally unable to do any (meaningful) damage to a high-skill, well equipped character.

Let me start by saying I understand why you would go this route.

In your possible future setup it becomes a game of simple numbers. For instance: I see two characters walking on the road, no way I am going to chance mugging them because they are two. Fair chance of reprisal and since they always do damage, even more chance that I will not be the victorious one. (Even with high gear). I would potentially lose more than I could gain if I went full gear. In lower gear, no use in bothering for the above mentioned reason.

Now if we did have critical and miss chances, anything could happen. Yes, the risk to the gear would still be there, but as a higher level character, killing the low level one first before they knew what hit them and then hitting the other one would give me a better chance.
However, the higher level passerby would still have a chance against me.

You try to make combat fair and non-frustrating. That is not what combat is :)

Just my two cents.

Yes, stay out of our woods. Or pay us to roam them.

Rah wrote:

The problem with this is that you would end up (probably) with a Shadowrun kind of corporate system, where you get Megacorps, who will become too big to stop and start ruling.

Every system has the potential for one group of people to become too powerful. That's human nature.

So, instead, you focus on devising a system that respects individual freedom and dignity, and hope that the human beings alive in any generation have the courage to Stand Tall against whatever form of tyranny they face - whether it's Corporatism, Cronyism, or simple Totalitarianism.

I agree with you for the first part. I disagree with you about the hoping that it will work out. It is probably possible to teach the new generations that. Teach them the higher ideals at an early age, ideals like Truth and Justice. And maybe add Honor for good measure.

Anyway, did not mean to hijack the thread, this is the last I will comment on this off topic :)

Rah wrote:

Danneth Sky wrote:

There are many flavors of anarchy - If I had to choose one, I'd probably pick Anarcho-capitalism.

The problem with this is that you would end up (probably) with a Shadowrun kind of corporate system, where you get Megacorps, who will become too big to stop and start ruling.

It's hard to say exactly what would happen, since we've never seen a system like that (that I know of) fully in place. Many of the "too big to fail" corporations we've seen in our lifetimes have had tremendous help from the State in achieving that status. Even in the industrial age, we've never seen a truly "free" market.

An experiment on a somewhat smaller scale (maybe a country) would definitely be interesting.

There are many flavors of anarchy - If I had to choose one, I'd probably pick Anarcho-capitalism.

The problem with this is that you would end up (probably) with a Shadowrun kind of corporate system, where you get Megacorps, who will become too big to stop and start ruling.

Rahath wrote:

"The Chaotic on the other hand will emphasize the power of individualism, whether anarchy (evil) or liberation (good)." - Being

Anarchy is lawlessness, it is not automatically Evil. I resent that, sir :)

Hmm... point taken.

I think the 'good' expression of individualism is liberty or independence. He views the lawful as a bunch of codependent weaklings.

What would be the evil counterpart who views lawful evils as codependent sheeple?

Individualism would in the good sense equate to liberty and freedom, I guess.

"The Chaotic on the other hand will emphasize the power of individualism, whether anarchy (evil) or liberation (good)." - Being

Anarchy is lawlessness, not automatically Evil. I resent that, sir :)

As a future bandit/assassin, I will ask you to yield only once and that is before I initiate combat. If you do not, no amount of yielding after that will save you.
You will have one chance, and one chance only.

Rah wrote:

In fact, jail of 5 minutes would be a bigger deterrent than the flags. :)

That and/or a fee to be set free would be great IMO. So a good char could subdue a criminal and bring him to prision. The criminal player would face the choice of being kept in jail for some time or paying a fee to be released. That would work for me.

Seems like a fairly good tool for enforcing the law, to me at least.

In fact, jail of 5 minutes would be a bigger deterrent than the flags. :)

I do like Durgadin's suggestion. That there could be some means for subduing a criminally flagged person would be a nice option. For instance, toggle your subdue option, defeat the bad guy, and somehow be able to drag him to town. Whether you're being bad in a meta-game sense (griefer) or RPing a criminal, cooling that toon's jets in an NPC prison for a period of time might make you rethink your actions (i.e. stop griefing or be sneakier about where you're doing your evil acts). Perhaps having to pay a fine...we might curtail some yahoo behavior if it starts costing the character gold. It also provides your next victim a short reprieve. Perhaps x-amount of time for x-crime. Sure, whiners will complain that you're disabling their character when they paid good money to play the game, but the game is only enforcing more realistic (rather than more game-mechanical) consequences for your character's actions. And...that's why you have alts.

I know some will think this idea far too strong a consequence. We're still in the developmental stages and this is just another idea tossed out there to be discussed, fleshed-out, or outright discarded. Far more important is the continued civil debate.

Planning to become a nefarious, Evil, bandit/assassin, I actually would not mind this mechanic. It is another interesting challenge, trying to stay out of jail. Heck, maybe even a possible mini-game to escape?

I am assuming there is a way to change your alignment the other way around? Clearing hexes of critters and such?

All bandits just start with a LG character, do their thing untill it is time for the reversal and then clean up a bunch in the hexes.
Rinse and repeat. :)

I do not think all alignments should be "equal". Nor do I think all player behavior should be tolerated, nor do I think any character concept should be accommodated.

It is in working within limits that we find Beauty and Truth.

Limits indeed.

This is alreday available to Chaotic and Evil players. They are free to break the laws, kill players, and take their stuff. That is thier benefit. The conqunence for those actions is to have access to less favorable settlements than those who choose to have at lease a veneer of civility by keeping either evil, chaos, or reputation above a minimum level.

That is not the whole truth. The ones "wronged" also have the ability to track the offending player, possibly. That is kind of a big extra in favor of the wronged. Plus they magically know their name and can place a bounty on them and all their friends. (Just going by what Ryan said)

But to have whole settlements pay for the ability to kill another player, which anyone can do, seems excessive.

Nor am I advocating a "red is dead" game. What I would like to see though is viability for all alignments.
I do not think fairness is too much to ask.

But like Being so eloquently said, we will have to wait and see, it is too early for judgements.

Dakcenturi wrote:

...

Furthermore, as has been pointed out, the whole evil settlements being weaker. I really see that as Chaotic Evil settlements that everyone hates and the only people that go their are mass murderers who no one likes being weaker. I didn't see anything about LE settlements.

Interestingly this touches on some arguments found in philosophy from such people as Thomas Hobbes and David Hume and others who wrote about the social contract individuals agree to when they continue to live within a social environment.

Part of what makes a Lawful stettlement work better/more efficiently is that the members of that society give up a significant portion of their volition, empowering the makers of laws to focus and coordinate the work being done. In a way the citizens of lawful settlements are in some ways weaker than the citizens of chaotic settlements.

Chaotic settlements are less efficient and productive exactly because their citizens do not give up their volition and are less bound by the rules implemented by the makers of law in their community.

So I should expect the settlements and benefits of Lawful societies to be more powerful and their citizens to be less powerful respectively than those of chaotic settlements.

How exactly that is to be expressed in the game certainly remains to be seen.

Ah, I see your point more clearly now.

Yes, I agree, Lawful (both for Good and for Evil) settlements and/or Kingdoms should function more efficiently.

Chaotic should have some effect to show that being Chaotic comes at a cost in Settlements, but it also comes with rewards. And that is what I would like to see taken into account.

Maybe specific structures for Chaotics of both Good and Evil.
A balance to offset the cost a bit.
Chaos is not the only thing being bred, it is also liberating.
A force of renewal after the consumption of the old.

Rah wrote:

@Elorebaen

But do you not see that in going that route you set up the basic laws of the world to be oriented toward good. The Good and Neutrals whom you want to start creating a society and structure for the game in the beginning.
Evil however could possibly be severely limited due to the world being created primarily with good in mind.
Why should the Evil side have less of a chance to build an equally sound structure in their own way?
Why should we start with a disadvantage?
Evil finds a way (Yes, I am aware it sounds like a quote from Jurassic Park) :)

Consider: Isn't the non-dogmatic usage of 'Good' inherently linked with civilization? Isn't the non-dogmatic usage of evil anti-civilization?

Do you want to pretend there are no advantages to voluntarily in coordination for the advancement of the common weal? What is chaotic except disruptive to organization and coordination? What is evil but contradictory to what is good for society?

How can anarchy function well? How can evil be as good as good is?

So of course good will be better than evil and law more coordinated than chaos.

How could it be otherwise?

Isn't your point more toward the imbalance of power between these factions?

The fact is we have only been hearing about the game from the point of view of the Good and the Lawful. The game design has to understand the capabilities and powers of one side before the other side can become balanced. Once the design has fully determined all the powers and advantages of good and law the design can turn to balancing what is less clear and less known.

Yes, it is more beneficial for a species to cooperate than it is to destroy. I would be in full agreement with you on that.

However, we are not trying to recreate our world. We are trying to recreate a world with 9 universally accepted alignments in its existence.

In the world of Pathfinder, all are equally valid.
Hence, so should their opportunities be, in that world.
And the calamities that would have/cause on other alignments.

But once again, if we follow that path, of Good being the first to be fleshed out, Evil would start with a serious disadvantage.
Good and Neutral could build their infrastructure without too much relative effort and only when they are fully formed, Evil could really begin to flourish.
Which seems rather unfair to me.

(Forgive me if my grammar is not in order, English is my second language)

@Elorebaen

But do you not see that in going that route you set up the basic laws of the world to be oriented toward good. The Good and Neutrals whom you want to start creating a society and structure for the game in the beginning.
Evil however could possibly be severely limited due to the world being created primarily with good in mind.
Why should the Evil side have less of a chance to build an equally sound structure in their own way?
Why should we start with a disadvantage?
Evil finds a way (Yes, I am aware it sounds like a quote from Jurassic Park) :)

GW is setting up a baseline foundation for general society that has structure and not a complete bloodbath, which is why it tends towards good. This is needed. Why? Based on years of MMO experience.

Once we have a solid baseline it is easy enough to tweak things in order to get other results - like for instance, catering to an evil subset.

I would like to see a well-thought out discussion started by someone invested in the evil side that takes the current design and shows the implications, and what they believe is still needed. I think that would be helpful overall, as opposed to the quick reactions.

So you would create a world, in which in-game 9 different alignments exist as a universally accepted standard, and cater primarily to good (at first).

My question would be, why not build it around the 9 different alignments right from the start?

Sure, it is complex, but that is why they are the game designers. I am quite sure they can overcome this problem, maybe even with some community help since we seem to have one of the most mature ones I have seen in an MMO so far.

@Valkenr

It is not about ease. It is about fairness.
Bring on your challenges, but also bring the rewards from being Evil.
Balance.

@AvenaOats
My point is that the alignment system appears to lack balance, with the current information given.
I concur that we need to see what the Devs mean by "better buildings", but the created impression (at least for me) is that Good and Neutral get advantages for being that alignment and Evil gets sh*fted. (Pardon my french)

I do not mind challenges for being Evil, I do mind one alignment seemingly singled out and punished disproportionally.

Ok, so it's Care Bear PvP. Weak Devs, very weak.

You claim to want meaningful PvP and your vision of that is to hinder players to such an extent that they will become CE in no time and thus have vast disadvantages compared to players of the Good and Neutral alignment who will probably make up the bulk of the server (maybe even because of your game-mechanics).

Disappointing to say the least.

I get the impression that people are under the assumption that bandits/thieves will steal anything and everything that is not tied down in every possible area.
Just to give you a little insight into this bandits idea of his profession:
Draining the herd to extinction is not a good business practice.
Take some coin and/or materials from your "mark" but leave him in relative wealth later on, so he can continue his/her business practice and thus keep the flow going.
Also killing unneeded is time consuming (5 minute wait) and not preferable. Only if needed.

Just a thought shared, take it for what you will.

Have all the bounties you want. Have them last forever. It does not matter.

As a bandit, I will rob you if the opportunity presents itself.
As a bandit, I will give you a choice to hand over coin willingly.
As a bandit, I will kill you if you fail to comply, but let you go if you do.
As a bandit, I will laugh in the face of your bounty and welcome the challenge and the seekers of bounties.
As a bandit, I will not be stopped.

A bandit