Vailla's page

I was explaining that there is reason to protect you .
Am not arguing against the rep system , lets give it a shot if the people feal more comfortable ,but to stop player-killer you best bet is another player-killer.
And you will have such on your side.

@ Maccabee

You aren't harsh but i was kind of expecting the opposite reaction.
I thought that my examples show that everything you do is important.
Unlike WoW for example where if you are lower level no one has reason to bother that you are killed.

Vailla wrote:

@ Maccabee

You should realize that everything you do is PvP in sandbox game.
You could peacefully mine or gather mushrooms or whatever, yet you are still a threat. If i am enemy, and i dont kill you, i will get my head chopped off because of the superior longsword that you crafted or i will get blasted by fireball because you gathered stone for the 3th level wizard tower etc.

Well you will, play alone.

I hope not.

Sandbox = everyone has impact on everyone else.

@ Maccabee

You should realize that everything you do is PvP in sandbox game.
You could peacefully mine or gather mushrooms or whatever, yet you are still a threat. If i am enemy, and i dont kill you, i will get my head chopped off because of the superior longsword that you crafted or i will get blasted by fireball because you gathered stone for the 3th level wizard tower etc.

On the bright side, because of the above reasons you combat oriented guildmates have very real reason to protect you.
In theme park games people get the best gear from dungeons ,that's why they spend their time in raids. Here they get the best gear/training etc because of you work.
Thats your best defence not the reputation or any other similar attempt.

Bluddwolf wrote:

/ignore is your recourse in that situation.

I think that allowing players to get away with being abusive to other players and telling the victims to "ignore it" is very, very bad for the game.

Who is arguing that they should get away with it? If you dislike someone's behaviour, you assemble your friends/guild etc and go search and destroy. Simple, unless he can just turn off PvP and laugh at you of course .

Vailla wrote:

Andius wrote:

Bluddwolf wrote:

What if Hobs was killed because he was wearing a green hat, or he is short, or some other rationale that is somewhat consistent?

I could be playing a CE character that chooses a random color of the day, and he will attack anyone wearing that color. Or I could be a CE racists killer with something against Gnomes (maybe I'm upset that Halflings did not win the poll).

Then your rationale is random and meaningless itself. Those just given sound less like legitimate RP and more like a thin RP excuse given in an attempt to justify your RPKing. The reputation mechanic doesn't need to waste it's time reading your shallow justifications. It just gives you the rep hit. Maybe it's time to consider playing another role.

What about your role? Doesn't the reputation system take away the role of the good heroes? If the bad folks are punished and discouraged by the system what is the purpose of a paladin player for example?

The theory is that there will be enough bad folks despite the punishments.

I don't doubt that there will be enough bad folks.I doubt that they will play evil alignment .

Bluddwolf wrote:

What if Hobs was killed because he was wearing a green hat, or he is short, or some other rationale that is somewhat consistent?

I could be playing a CE character that chooses a random color of the day, and he will attack anyone wearing that color. Or I could be a CE racists killer with something against Gnomes (maybe I'm upset that Halflings did not win the poll).

Then your rationale is random and meaningless itself. Those just given sound less like legitimate RP and more like a thin RP excuse given in an attempt to justify your RPKing. The reputation mechanic doesn't need to waste it's time reading your shallow justifications. It just gives you the rep hit. Maybe it's time to consider playing another role.

What about your role? Doesn't the reputation system take away the role of the good heroes? If the bad folks are punished and discouraged by the system what is the purpose of a paladin player for example?

you can use champions/enforcers to engage and you aren't willing to go outlaw... you're just going to have to deal with it. Or hire Blaeringr/Bluddwolf/Bloody Hand to deal with it.

Exactly, player response. That's better than the mechanical one.

@ Andius

I don't think you see the whole picture.
The rules apply to all, if devs make the towns hard to destroy for example your foes will just use it and spam towns .

If the unflaged characters are hard to engage ,your enemies will use unflaged miners to steal your resources.

Abusive behavior can take many forms.

Vailla wrote:

Almost any restrictions the devs place in the game will be bypassed and many of them will actualy be used against your goals.

One of the many reasons it's so critically important for the community itself to censure certain behaviors, and even certain viewpoints (such as arguing that griefing is actually good for the game).

I believe that's what will happen. For example PvE minded players will be superior crafters and gatherers and as such , great advantage to any town that can protect them from the PvP they wish to avoid.

Vailla wrote:

Everyone is on this side.

I wish that were true.

It's clear to me that there are a number of people in this community who would be perfectly content if Ryan failed in his desire to make PvP in PFO different than in other games. It's also clear to me that there are people who are convinced he is going to fail, and they want to play in that failure.

That kinda creeps me out.

He *will* fail, mechanical restrictions are weak defence against human intellect.

If you want meaningful PvP, with meaningful consequences you have to do it yourself.
The tools are already there: when someone acts in unacceptable fashion , grab you sword /gather materials or produce consumables depending on your playstile and waste his home.
Here you go - consequences .

This is the "battle for the soul of this community" that I'm talking about.

On one side are the folks who support Ryan's vision of meaningful PvP, with meaningful consequences. That's the side that I want to win. That's the side that has to win in order for PFO to be a success.

Everyone is on this side.

Vailla wrote:

KitNyx wrote:

Spartans had training and trust in each other, Persians feared the whip...given like numbers, who would have won and why?

Is not about whip vs trust.

The better trained / armed ones win.

Then perhaps I am claiming that in general it is more likely/easier for a lawful culture to develop both lawful citizens...and better trained soldiers...and better arms. I am extending that to say they are better at formation warfare.

I don't think L cultures are better in this way.

But the main point is the balance. Large scale battles will decade the faith of settlements and weeks if not months of work. Skirmishes just aren't that important.

Spartans had training and trust in each other, Persians feared the whip...given like numbers, who would have won and why?

Is not about whip vs trust.

Personally, I would argue CX cannot be part of a mixed formation...it is a consequence for being CX, you are less able to be ordered.

CE isn't less able to be ordered , just less willing. And in most armies one's personal preferences matter very little.

Is not big deal anyway, but there should be similar limitations to the other alignment to balance the things out.

Now imagine spartan combat where each man expected and acted as if beyond a doubt the person next to them was going to act as prescribed for any given formation. How could this be done well when the only thing you could trust about the person guarding your backside is that they could not be trusted to be guarding your backside?

Easy. When you know what the warchief will do to you if you

About Xeen post, i cant see why roleplaying a mad druid or mage that kill everyone who sees is grief.

Some consider any attack against them unacceptable , others simply don't care.

What you describe are the stupid / unorganized kind of griefers, they will be the least of your problems.

About the other part , this kind of mechanical limits are bad.
There is no mechanic that makes G character give up 20% of his income for charity , or debuff L character stats when there is no superior to bark orders.

What i liked in your post is the commander thing.
Do you think that they should be specific "commander" skills that give bonuses to formations?
That sounds cool.

@ Sintaqx

Interesting post ,but you should try to see things from the griefers POV. They want to destroy you, and they dont care about RP.
If the most efficient way to fight is to be LG they will play LG.

And i don't like this prevailing opinion that CE cannot act as group.
This simply is not true, CE person my not like to take orders (act in formation in your example) but as long as there is some bigger and meaner warchief /head priest /whatever above him ,he will do what he is told simply out of fear if not for anything else.
Most CE societies operate that way after all.

@Realmwalker
If the game lives up to its potential there will be many ways to contribute without fighting.

You could make deal with the dominant outlaw force thus gaining allies and protection from the both side of the law.( and probably nice profit)

Or you could forego combat and max your exploration/tracking skills in order to lead your armed friends to the bandit hideouts.

Those are just two examples ,they are many more.
The hope is that the game will require you to use your head to advance , not your manual dexterity.

Honestly speaking, is alignment required?

Alignments add diversity , without them the towns will be mostly identical.

@Tork: You could make different CE settlements with different factional alignment choice of dark deities, be particularly ferociously aggressive with each other: I'm sure that would play into the hands of being CE?

Players can do that , if you want to be especially aggressive against some CE settlement just do it.

To the best of my understanding, the game design means you will be a worthy, effective adversary for good guys like me--you're not going to get whupped regularly because of the design system, but because I'm smarter than you ;)

That's all.

- so they designed it so that all the unwanted pvp actions force you into the CE-low rep corner.

And the reason for including CE here is....?

i don´t think that is poor game design, i think it is brilliant.

That's easy to say when the game design does not hamper your own gameplay.

CE's catchphrase could be then, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn!" ;) ]Quoted material here....

That's the spirit.

Vailla wrote:

Btw i wasn't aware that playing LG = auto win is major part of the design.

Were you aware that your attempt to twist my point into a lame shadow of my real point is both obvious and transparent? It's clear to everyone that you do this because you can't make a passable argument against my real point.

Don't take it to seriously.

I can't make a passable argument against your real point , because i can't see you point.

Why do you think that handicapping CE alignment benefits the game?

Vailla wrote:

If there is a way to play CE without griefing there shouldn't be penalties.

Does the fact that some forms of killing - namely self-defense - are valid mean there shouldn't be any penalties for any killing? Of course not.

Players who choose to play CE do so knowing that CE will suck, and that most CE Characters will get that way by being a~#@++&s.

If you still choose to play CE, that's fine, no one's trying to stop you. But the idea that Ryan should reverse a major aspect of the game design to suit you is just ridiculous.

There shouldn't be penalties for killing that is supported by the game. SAD,assassination ,warfare.

Btw i wasn't aware that playing LG = auto win is major part of the design.
For some strange reason i expected equal opportunities.
:)

@ AvenaOats

You don't have full freedom by playing CE, what you have is the freedom of the already damned, you can play meaningfully or don't ,it doesn't matter you are already penalized.

Vailla wrote:

If the only way to play CE...

Why are you arguing about whether it's "the only way"? What does that have to do with anything?

I thought that it is obvious.

What is the problem?
We all agree that ganking is bad it drives players off the game and should be discouraged.

If the only way to play CE is to gank - good, handicap it or ban it outright,but it's not the case.

Vailla wrote:

Zanathos wrote:

you become chaotic evil by being one of gank happy jerks that MOST MMO players don't want to play with. Or deal with. Ever.

You become CE by selecting it when you create your character.

How about straight from the horse's mouth?

Kickstarter Community Thread: Player vs. Player Conflict wrote:

You get to be Chaotic Evil by ganking people, betraying people, and generally acting like an a~#!&$~.

You may not like this, but it is the way it works. Zanathos was absolutely right.

Really? That's the only way?

Which is exactly why PFO has automatic systems that push them towards Chaotic Evil when they act like a@!@*#~s...

Be realistic , LG just needs to lay low until his alignment recovers when he need training , after that he is free to do as he please.

@ Lhan
Little actually. Except that the bandits will suffer rep loss for trying to keep their hideouts hidden,but i see you point there is no guarantee that you wont run into some KOS types.

My point is that there are many more meaningful choices.
He could hire guards thus making the game interesting for them, or make deal with the bandits exchanging information for safe passage.

And probably many more ways to make this interesting encounter ,instead of just unflag and move on.

The result is the same- the unprepared player dies.
Lhan will have to invest in skills/equipment/guards to survive the NPCs
Why not use the same means to avoid/drive off the bandits?

@Lhan

If you travel alone and without skills to protect yourself any NPC mob can kill you without consequences. Why should the bandits be more limited then the monsters?

From the other hand if you are prepared you could avoid both PC and NPC danger.

@ AvenaOats

I don't disagree with this but it does not address the issue.

If you play the game socially you're generating value for the game and other players and that will be reflected in your power progression/money progression which in turn will devolve even more value into the game. The opposite of that is griefing

Alignment penalties don't really reflect the value CE adds to the game. They just outright assume that CE is harmful.

CE settlement will offer great content for would be heroes(and villains ofc).
Why should the game lose it? To limit griefing ?
The reputation system can do that.

The better approach is to reward/punish according to the value one offers to the game, not according to alignment.

Unwanted behaviour=> Low reputation=>limited character progression.

What Zanathos is saying is in online mmorpgs, there are already a population of CE players by definition of their behaviour.

This kind of players are highly unlikely to actually play CE, they will probably choose the most advantageous alignment.

Alignment fulfills a wider range of criteria than player-player interactions, which is only what Reputation "records and remembers" and updates - that's the difference. (side-note: Interestingly XBox appears to have a Reputation system being planned for player networks.)

Alignment may fulfil a wide range of criteria than player-player interactions, but the point of the penalties is to limit precisely the disruptive PvP.

you become chaotic evil by being one of gank happy jerks that MOST MMO players don't want to play with. Or deal with. Ever.

You become CE by selecting it when you create your character.

What exactly alignment penalties add to the game, that can't be better accomplished by the reputation?

The way things are going ,the game loses content and gains nothing in return.

"That said, it does need clarification and is a hotly discussed topic."

I can see that.

Anyway they can outright ban the CE if they want but as long as one alignment have mechanical advantage over the others there will be ugly results.

Namely people will start with the favored alignment but wont play it as intended, and will try to loophole the system to keep the benefits.

The working theory behind making CE settlements 'lesser' than others, is that the individuals that make up that settlement do not have to worry about alignment repercussion for their actions. They can (and will) do anything, whenever the whim strikes them.

Lawful and Good individuals do not get this luxury. They have to work at maintaining their alignment in that they cannot resort to force as the first option in any encounter. If they do this repeatedly, they will soon slide towards Chaotic and Evil.

There is problem here. CE have to worry about his reputation so they aren't really free.

What i dont understand is where is the point of handicapping alignments , for limiting the undesired behaviour there is reputation sistem.

Lower income/crafting is understandable , it will encourage CE to do banditry in order to catch up thus creating jobs for lawful guards as the things should be.

But if CE settlement is undefendable, it will just be obliterated.

BTW shouldn't all alignments be on equal footing?