Urman wrote:

Should special attacksmoves (ie, those that require trained feats, specific keywords, or both) be only visually apparent or identified in combat logs? (ie, "Anchor cleaves Boatboy for 23 damage.")

All my information concerns focus upon the pre combat phase. I want to see the risk come back into PVP and information lack is a good way of doing that. I really detest the Eve situation where you know exactly who has won or lost before any small squad engagement because you know exactly what equipment your enemy has.

It mere leads people to always attack when they can win and always run when they are going to lose. Both rational responses but it would be much nicer if each and every engagement had a great degree of uncertainty of the "I think I can beat him but...." variety.

Once combat is joined being able to check out things in the combat log is nice to have but it is information that you get too late to make a decision. You could certainly argue you will know next time you meet that character but they may well be wearing different equipment with different keywords and have different skills slotted.

Indeed I suspect it likely that competent PVP'ers will ring the changes between a set of different builds on a regular basis just to ensure their opponents can never be sure what they are facing

I agree that this would be quite a bit of fun added to PVP, the element of mystery and chance not based completely off skill leaving some uncertainty.

Wexel Daventry wrote:

Ha! I don't care if I'm wrong or not, I just want some way into the Alpha and if I can worm my way in using a sporting event, I will! I just hope Ryan sees this and cares enough about his team to put it on the table. I claim dibs though for thinking of it!

I would really, really love to see them open up the Fulfillment Tool again to allow new folks to pledge into the Alpha.

Yeah, that would be a really good option although I still don't know if I could come up with the several hundred more dollars to pay my way in. Still, it would be great if we could.

I like Pax JayBrand's idea. That would give both options and add a meaningful system and skills. I do see where you're coming from Leperkhaun though and could live with the system either way.

One of my many personality flaws is the harder you hit me the harder I come back :) Generally they leave me to it unless I get someone pulling me up for rudeness in which case I generally ask for a review knowing I can get a little passionate. So far they have only asked me to change my stance twice. They generally know I thrive in a high octane style environment though so leave me to it and trust me to defer to them if I am unsure of my ground

At least you know your flaws, most don't or choose to see them as merits. Being passionate is good and gives us late night forum stalkers something to talk about ;).

Well,as you hit back harder, I intend to hit you hard in game, if we can manage to make PFO interesting enough to have you pitch it and get results.

Wexel Daventry wrote:

Steelwing wrote:

Wexel Daventry wrote:

@ Steelwing

Oops, sorry about the totally off topic questions. Thanks for the response. I am fascinated by the diversity of individuals, families, and groups and you give interesting tidbits without revealing much (and I don't mean to pry either). I will glean what I can from your future statements without pestering you. Sounds like you have a highly intelligent family.

I wouldn't claim higher intelligence I would claim higher cohesiveness than a lot of families. Though I admit that last is personal opinion

Whether you claim it or not, higher cohesiveness rarely persists without high intelligence to back it when the involved parties are not just blindly following a leader but have a voice, opinion or stance on a matter, and when voiced, give sound arguments to support or naysay a given course. I may be reading into it too much but either way it is a compliment as I like to see families working smoothly together.

I have many faults which my family manages to occlude. I lack empathy and I am quick to anger. As I said to someone else earlier though because I and they recognize this we work together to try and smooth over these. I also bring positives to my family that aren't relevant here. But the basic point is we work together to be more than the sum of the individuals

And this is admirable. We are all lesser alone, and more as a whole.

Wexel Daventry wrote:

Ha! I don't care if I'm wrong or not, I just want some way into the Alpha and if I can worm my way in using a sporting event, I will! I just hope Ryan sees this and cares enough about his team to put it on the table. I claim dibs though for thinking of it!

Fair enough. :)

Hey! You didn't list what you would put up. I doubt that he will take it unless you are risking something pretty good!

Yeah, I thought of that and I really don't have anything he wants. I've already thrown in hundreds of dollars, stalk the forums, click refresh on the blog Wednesdays way to many times. I tell my friends about the game, try to crowdforge as well as possible. If I just had a wheelbarrow, that would be something!

Ha! I don't care if I'm wrong or not, I just want some way into the Alpha and if I can worm my way in using a sporting event, I will! I just hope Ryan sees this and cares enough about his team to put it on the table. I claim dibs though for thinking of it!

Wexel Daventry wrote:

@ Steelwing

Oops, sorry about the totally off topic questions. Thanks for the response. I am fascinated by the diversity of individuals, families, and groups and you give interesting tidbits without revealing much (and I don't mean to pry either). I will glean what I can from your future statements without pestering you. Sounds like you have a highly intelligent family.

I wouldn't claim higher intelligence I would claim higher cohesiveness than a lot of families. Though I admit that last is personal opinion

Whether you claim it or not, higher cohesiveness rarely persists without high intelligence to back it when the involved parties are not just blindly following a leader but have a voice, opinion or stance on a matter, and when voiced, give sound arguments to support or naysay a given course. I may be reading into it too much but either way it is a compliment as I like to see families working smoothly together.

Wexel Daventry wrote:

Well, even if your group doesn't come, maybe you and the family will grab accounts and give us a run for our money! And you're welcome.

The group is a democracy and most (75%+) have been together for a long long time (5 years+) when looking at a sandbox it is likely we will take a vote and all move or none move. Doing anything else splits our resources over two games. This is why I won't even take PfO to them till nearly OE. I can't ask them to swap to a game to undefined. When I goto them with PfO I will be expected to provide a good case for them to consider it

I do hope that it is a game they will want to play and it wins them away from EVE. Given the forums general stance against you, I wouldn't think that has helped much but you seem to have taken it in stride and it has not effected you in the least. With that being the case, Hopefully the game is robust enough at that point to merit their full attention and it will capture their hearts and minds.

@ Steelwing

Oops, sorry about the totally off topic questions. Thanks for the response. I am fascinated by the diversity of individuals, families, and groups and you give interesting tidbits without revealing much (and I don't mean to pry either). I will glean what I can from your future statements without pestering you. Sounds like you have a highly intelligent family.

Well, even if your group doesn't come, maybe you and the family will grab accounts and give us a run for our money! And you're welcome.

@Fiendish

Total apologies now not just in PM's we just had a big family debate on what I said to you and the verdict was I was wrong because I condemned you on the ground of not doing something (reading my description) rather than an active wrong doing by wilful misquoting or misunderstanding. Thanks to Bringslite for raising it and full apologies to Fiendish for offences caused

Steelwing, are you the only one in your family that posts here? Do you all use the same account? Not that I think you will answer but I find it very interesting that your family jumped in on that. A tilt of the hat to you and the family for working together like that. Definition of team work.

@ Steelwing

While I will never play in your fashion, and disagree with some of the things you want in the game, I highly value your input on these forums and see that you pose intelligent arguments/statements based on your experiences in your play style.

Without your input over these past few weeks, I don't think many of the issues raised would have had as pervasive a viewpoint given as we need. We need your views and experience as a community even if just as the opposing view to a lot of us.

I hope that you do continue to state your views and I even hope that you and your armada? fleet? guild? come to PFO. We need all kinds and the more the merrier. I think out of everyone we have heard from at this point your group poses the largest threat and is therefore, in my mind, the greatest content the game will have for us to combat, that is, until a bigger fish comes along or we grow into one ourselves.

I'm looking forward to playing with and against you!

Well, I hate to say it but the folks over here in the Denver area are just a bit on the obsessed side too. Care to make a wager Mr. Dancey? I sure do want some way to get into the Alpha and didn't have the cash to pay my way in!

What, you are a haberdasher by trade? Wanting to make a fast buck as his hat size keeps expanding, eh? WE'RE ONTO YOU DAVENTRY! Make no mistake!

I do believe that is the fastest I've been caught red handed in a while. But seriously, he has been one of the few constants within the forums as well as level headed and helpful to a fault.

Anyone else want to join me in requesting (pretty please!!!) some footage from Friday's play test with Paizo staff? Video footage is always a crowd pleaser and what better for a bunch of crowdforging maniacs like us forum junkies?

The update I've been waiting for! Great bunch of data and really looking forward to everyone's thoughts on it. Thanks GW team!

Wexel Daventry wrote:

Oh…..I just realized I actually asked to be IN the closet…with a gnome I don't know... in that way! Oh well, I've been in worse situations.

Don't worry, your safe word is Rumpleskinklebandercalifragilisticqbertwhachamacllit.

You only have to say it 3 times...and then backwards 3 times, of course.

Rumple…. uh, I'm never getting out of here!

on a side note. *click*, *click*, *click*…..hundreds of times at this point.

Oh…..I just realized I actually asked to be IN the closet…with a gnome I don't know... in that way! Oh well, I've been in worse situations.

Wexel Daventry wrote:

Nihimon wrote:

I'd love an announcement that Alpha will start next week :)

Yeah, that would really really make all of our days but alas, I do not think it will be. Plus I'm not in the alpha pack so i would be sooooo jealous of those that are!

Yeah, I don't think alpha backers are that eager to have a creepy gnome hiding in their closet!

Do you have room in there for a human as well? I great at hiding in small spaces even without the gnome sized advantage!

I'd love an announcement that Alpha will start next week :)

Yeah, that would really really make all of our days but alas, I do not think it will be. Plus I'm not in the alpha pack so i would be sooooo jealous of those that are!

Buffs are a normal part of Pathfinder and all forms of casters have some and even non-casters have buffing powers occasionally as well. If you make it too exclusive to one role then you will end up with the alt buff bots all over the place. I would figure, give each role their own with the added ability for some of these buffs to effect a designated person(s) or the current party just as it does in the TT game or many other MMORPGs. Maybe to make it more Sandbox like you could have casters or roles that can do a build your own type buff mechanic. In the TT game you can create your own spells and classes with balanced powers. With a Sandbox classless setup like PFO will be it gives huge potential to craft buffs or other powers and spells to do this type of work.

To return to the topic, I do not think the OP was asking or suggesting alliances or "Big Town". I think he was asking for mechanics and design consideration. PaP is the opposite side of PvP...both are player interactions, the OP just does not think all interactions need be hostile, combative, or even competitive. I agree with the OP, I hope there are mechanics that allow me to assist and cooperate with another who might not necessarily have asked for it (or even mechanics for doing this on a larger scale). I hope the net gain from such a situation would be greater than that of doing the act solo.

That is exactly the type of thing I was looking for but failed to express it quite so well. PVP is great but have the other side too.

I am still hoping for SOME mystery as it adds another layer to how you will interact with another player. First, do I know them? Next, if I don't and can't tell much, what can I tell? Dressed like a bandit, outlaw, guard, fighter, cleric etc? With others? What CC? What weapon? Hostile, neutral or friendly? There are so many opportunities for meaningful interaction just at this level that I would feel it is just wasted to /show 4 name, CC, Settlement, Kingdom, Rep, Align, Hostility and so forth without any meaningful interaction. It would make it a lot simpler to just give the option of attack or not but where's the fun in only 2 options?

I'm sure we will end up with the mathematically consistent route and have magic or some other mechanic to explain why that happens.

@Leperkhaun

I do fully realize that and look forward to the game as it will be. Also as Pax Shane said I will play it like Kingmaker. I also agree that it won't be the mainstay of the game for quite a while and by then it will be the best part of the game anyway so everyone will have a great time.

Whippee! Let the wild rumpus begin!

Lovely rumpus! Wish I knew how to dance(Wex looks on with interest then disappears into the shadows).

Welcome, Wexel. Glad to have you. If you've not thought of it yet, please consider voting in the Landrush thread stickied at the top of the boards.

Oh, I certainly did! But thanks for the reminder.

Wexel Daventry wrote:

I'm for a system where you only know what you can determine by sight.

This needlessly punishes those with poor vision but who can otherwise read.

Ha, I hadn't thought of that but it does make sense. So give a little information but not enough to make a full assessment and keep some mystery.

Wexel Daventry wrote:

I have played RPGs for 25 or more years and while there are always enemies out there in them, there are so many more neutral and then the few that become allies.

Have fun with the settlement warfare, banditry and PVP options but don't make that ALL there is to a Sandbox PVP world, the only thing to think about in the game being to dominate everyone else. Makes for a very lonely world, with eventually only you in it if you play well enough. Win everything and you lose in the end because you run out of game, no competition, no one can touch you, no fun to be had. Or maybe that is fun for some but it isn't to me.

PFO is not and never will be a virtual representation of the PnP game,(i wish it would be but...), Its a PvP Settement building game that happens to be set in the pathfinder world. Thats about as PnP "Pathfinder" as it gets.

Embrace the game as it will be, not as it could be.

I will and do even now. I just hope that we can give a plethora of options in other areas as well. Settlement building is great, settlement warfare will be a lot of fun. The social interaction will also be great. I don't expect the PnP game (though I too wish it could be) but I truly hope for a lot of the feel of it.

We'd like to welcome our newest member Wexel Daventry!

Thanks Skwiziks! It's nice to finally have formally joined instead of lurking until EE. I remember when TSV formed and I had planned on getting in shortly after that but just waited over a year.

I'm for a system where you only know what you can determine by sight. This means that unless you know the character you would not even see their name or if they were hostile or a friend until there was meaningful interaction or possibly some sort of inspection to gather some further clues. If you do know them, have interacted before or they are part of your settlement or allies then you would get more information. Leaves quite a bit of mystery and doesn't tell you much on if you should or shouldn't tangle with the character before you make your decisions. Add to this more detail if you SAD and interact with them or come into close contact to inspect one another. Also feels more like Pathfinder to me as you never know who might be sitting at the bar across the room and only get what you can see. I think it would be fun.

@Bringslite

Thanks for bringing the light! I agree and am sure GW is taking it all into account. We will get a good game with many facets and intricacies and be proud to have help it come to reality.

@Steelwing

I know you only describe your possible plans and your group's standard procedure. I have no problem with you or them and feel you bring valid and interesting views to the forum that we should consider even though the picture you paint is not the one I hope we end up with.

@GarinT

I feel you. Since Steelwing arrived with his EVE corp view from null sec and how they do things it has seemed a bit grim for those not into that play style. Almost like greifing (@Steelwing, not actual greifing, but I would say you are the most combative and righteous in your views but precisely careful as well) the forums with a come back for every positive post or constructive idea to give the impression of a game completely geared towards his groups gaming style of dominate EVERYTHING with ways around any system designed so that it doesn't work that way. That works for them and will be the part of the game they focus on. I like reading his posts because they give a view I think we all need to hear.

There will be groups like that...but some of us are focusing on what we hope other parts of the game will be, a richer world with more to do than kill or dominate everyone else in the most serial killer type mechanical unfeeling fashion possible. The game for them is to game the system and "win" for whatever that means to them. The game for me is a Fantasy Sandbox to build, create, play, socialize, explore and fight in both PVE and PVP ways. There will definitely be groups like that as well as even Steelwing mentioned.

We are all looking forward to this game and I think we will all have fun at it and it will not be nearly as bleak of a picture as is painted on these boards at times.

@Proxima Sin

I would say +1 on the Rep and Alignment sections and Karma is interesting but I have no idea if GW would consider it and as Steelwing says, some will just have multiple accounts to get around this or just as their standard practice.

I have 3 accounts myself, although I intend 1 as my main with the 2nd and 3rd for family and friends and not as a backdoor to be toxic and not have it effect my main.

@Bluddwolf

As things stand right now I agree that there would be no hit as Alignment isn't Alignment but a rules mechanic and this type of activity is following those rules.

I am hoping that Alignment isn't just rules/laws and the only sentence death for breaking them. Maybe we could have a "Pay the fine and get the hell out of my town" with PC or NPC enforcers option as well.

@Pax Shane and Leperkhaun

I think for LE settlements you could just kill the characters but for LG and LN you need a mechanic. As Pax Shane described, so way to get them off your land. This wasn't the intent of this thread but having a similar system to SAD but for settlements, a Cease and Desist (CAD) where you could request papers, contracts, tolls or taxes and allow possibly a temporary (timed) blue status to get their business done or could even assign an NPC guard to escort the trespasser off your territory if that was the end result of the Cease and Desist. If they break the deal, they lose Rep, get an alignment hit and the guard(s) get to kill them and loot to bank or whoever issued the CAD. No magic teleport, no taking control of someone else's character, but you still have the option of killing or extracting resources, controlling your territory and don't just have the option of kill or ignore.

I'm pretty sure this has been suggested before and could just be an extension of the SAD system or even just further options of the SAD system. It could even extend into a Assist and Defend system for proactive assistance to others even if not directly involved with a fight giving others the option for a short term alliance to pick a side and jump in without getting flagged as a criminal or something similar.

I think that if a SAD system is valuable then a non-lethal carry people away type of mechanic can be worth the time to create it.

An NBSI settlement for all intents and purposes is one which says no foreigners allowed except for those with proper paperwork. People sneaking over the border despite knowing this suffer the full effect of the law (in this case execution). There is nothing intrinsically evil about that because people know the risk when they cross the border. They are immediately flagged as criminal because they are now law breakers.

I still feel that this action is Evil even if Lawful. It is a lack of care for life, circumstances or having compassion. Making someone a criminal because they came on your land and having the penalty be death is a valid game mechanic and completely lawful. If that is the law of the land then that land is ruled by evil even though pragmatic and what the game may enforce as LG.

@Steelwing

I feel that a policy of NBSI is always LE unless it isn't truly NBSI and is simply determine if said party will become Blue, can work out a deal, comes in peace and so forth and if this fails then shoot it.

I have never heard of any Pathfinder city that was LG or LN and if they saw a merchant caravan coming to their gates they weren't familiar with, would send out the guard to for all intents and purposes murder and rob them. This is a LE action, it is not neutral or good even if there is a law about it.

I may not fully understand how NBSI works in EVE but by the sound of it there is no warning or communication, just annihilation, shoot first and ask no questions later. Please feel free to educated me be if that is not the case.

If that is the case I would feel a LG community would slide towards LE and arrive there promptly. If that isn't built into the game and being LG means just being Lawful and forget the Good bit then alignment has lost its meaning and is just a game mechanic for you to use as efficiently as possible.

@ Wexel, you brought up the idea of something neutral and I am going to assume you mean some way for players to play the game without settlement vs settlement loyalties deciding how we are going to react to each other . No way for that to happen in hexes that are claimed by a settlement but if the entire map is designed so that every hex can be claimed by some settlement that would be a huge mistake as I see it.

It is possible to limit how much land a settlement can claim so there would be buffer zones of no-mans land in between settlements where you wont be attacked rep free for trespassing. Now the POI in these no-mans land hexes will be neutral to the direct influence of settlement conflict. The type of gameplay you want could take place there , I would like part of the map to be available for gameplay that is not directly related to settlement pvp conflict but is open to other possibilities .

The whole game does not have to revolve around just settlement war but can include other reasons to have the choice to pvp or work together with people . GW could create new types of POIs that make cooperation a priority in a no-mans land hex , like a Trade Fair POI where players set up trade shops to sell things.

So depending on the map design and the placement of settlements and how much land they are allowed to own, plus the inclusion of permanent 'neutral' hexes with POIs that have reasons to use beyond
just PVP , you could see what you want without any changes to the basic game design.

I don't want to see the entire map being able to become no-trespassing. Some of the map or a lot of it being like a permanent semi-wilderness would be very cool.

I think this has real merit! I honestly am completely fine with Steelwing's view of how his settlement should run as well as how they he feels others should run that way too. I'm just looking for something outside of that and the direction you are going with this is a solution that could work.

The neutral ground between settlement controlled areas being area that players can create POIs that are not associated with settlement warfare but with other activities. That Trader's post or Inn along the road, the Bandit's hideout, the temple to a foreign God, Crafting fairs or anything we can dream up and get GW to implement. I know these would get raided unless all involved parties were backed by powers you don't want to cross or are friends with or there is a game mechanic to make them work an another way.

To me this is working in the direction I was thinking of. I hope there are more ideas like this.

Wexel, I think it's already there. This isn't a PvP game--it's a Social Structure vs. Social Structure game. Those social structures require player cooperation and social behavior. There's as much explicit discussion of player cooperation in the design as there is player conflict. The farm system of having sub-contractors hold POIs for you, the economic chain of gathering, transporting, crafting and distribution, the training system, settlement management, alliances, all of this is about cooperating with other players. Even the conflict stuff is mostly about cooperation and mutuality: creating siege engines, logistics for combat, the formation system, are all about cooperation, and I'm sure there will be plenty of emergent stuff. Really assassination sounds like the only part of SSvSS that won't be explicitly cooperative between groups of players.

Of course all of this cooperation and mutual assistance is aimed at taking and holding territory, but, umm, it's a game. There has to be stakes for it to be fun.

I agree that there are a lot of ways for allies and CCs that are part of the same settlement to work together. I completely agree. It is at another level that I'm talking about. Maybe we just focus so much on the PVP settlement warfare that it all blends. I agree we need that element to have a game that is fun to play.

I just worry that it will slide into the only way to play. Every group is LE and NBSI in principals if not set that way in the game mechanics. I would wish for something more though I know not the way (and it may be more though I know it not).

@Steelwing

Well, I would expect nothing less in a group like yours. The entire concept is not something that I thought or would expect your organization to be open to except to take advantage of if you can find a way. It isn't about what it can do for you but about what we can do for each other.

I am mentioning this now in the hopes that we can crowdforge and possibly have the devs add into the design a way for NRDS to be an effective and option rich choice instead of just a settlement open to being taken advantage of.

The whole premise of NBSI seems to align very well with LE Alignment and in PFO if the entire design is around that premise for PVP then LE is what the world will be no matter what your settlement's Alignment is set to.

I want other options because LE is not how the entire River Kingdoms is. Sure, some communities will be LE but would a LG or NG settlement really be NBSI? Only if that is the only game mechanic the system is programed to operate with.

Lets make a better system where all Alignments and NRDS works just as well as LE and NBSI

Steelwing wrote:

Vwoom wrote:

No settlement will have everything it needs, agreements will be the bread and butter of growth from everything I have read. Overly aggressive settlements just might fine it harder to trade for what there hex lacks.

No one is saying settlements won't have agreements. I am just trying to fathom what this call for player assisting player is as it seems to me it is just a sort of weak and limited alliance type.

Most aggressive settlements btw will be looking to form multisettlement nations to ensure they can supply their own needs btw but that is irrelevant to this particular discussion

I took it as a call for a design focus. Wexel (and others such as myself), hope that at the design level, ways we the community can assist and cooperate with each other is a large consideration; This, in opposition to ways we can impede and kill each other.

I think the reason why Wexel felt the need to mention it was because 98.72% of our posts here are PvP related. He wanted to mention his desire that PvP be balanced by the tools that actual create a community, as opposed to those that just require a community.

Make sense?

Yes, I think you put it much more clearly than I did. And to further that I don't want to ruin the PVP by making EVERYONE allies to get there. No where in Pathfinder or the real world do you find an entire land fragmented and NBSI. In fact, most people will work together given the chance but larger nations have different policies and try to take each other over. Fine, I totally agree it should be in the game and be a major part, just not the only part that has meaning in the overall scheme.

@Steelwing

I have to admit it is a bit confusing and having read most of your posts it seems the farthest from your group's intended play style so would be even more confusing.

It essentially comes down to the community of players making the neutral/safe zones of PFO without it being an NPC game mechanics safe zone (something I would really rather be left to starter characters) or in the sense of it still being completely open to PVP but not a constant territorial warfare zone or NBSI area. Still PVP but the total opposite end of the spectrum from "toxic" PVP type situations.

As Vwoom mentioned, no settlement will have everything it needs and there should be plenty of options and locations for even un-allied settlements to work together effectively to fill those gaps without pointing their guns at each other in a Mexican Standoff because everyone not blue is effectively red. From your statements on this forum that is your intended way of playing (on your settlement's controlled land). I could only assume you would expect the same in anyone else's controlled lands therefore putting you into the above described scenario whenever not on your lands.

I don't have a solution to anything in regards to my PAP designs, as it will be either something we crowdforge, or that the devs build if they deem it is needed. My hope is that even if there is nothing in the game to allow for it that we as a community can build it ourselves. Maybe a settlement that is player run but built as a neutral hub. Sure you can still get Assassinated there or have a tavern brawl but it isn't NBSI. Work together even if in general you would see everyone as an enemy.

Maybe that clarifies a little but then again, it is a strange concept and I may not be communicating it very well. I have played RPGs for 25 or more years and while there are always enemies out there in them, there are so many more neutral and then the few that become allies.

Have fun with the settlement warfare, banditry and PVP options but don't make that ALL there is to a Sandbox PVP world, the only thing to think about in the game being to dominate everyone else. Makes for a very lonely world, with eventually only you in it if you play well enough. Win everything and you lose in the end because you run out of game, no competition, no one can touch you, no fun to be had. Or maybe that is fun for some but it isn't to me.

I've been lurking these boards long enough to have a pretty good handle on how the game is shaping up as a whole and the more I read the more I see the Sandbox of meaningful interaction heading in the direction of a PFO full of one against all. By that I mean that a huge portion of the focus of the game is centered on PVP, confrontation, taking what others have created or ruining/destroying anyone not on your side/team.

While this can be fun and I fully intend to play this game no matter what comes out in the end, I had always imagined a Sandbox where the Players build the world and make the story as giving us more options to have Players Assisting Players or PAP.

When I read over these forums I see so many ways shaping up to destroy everyone else and as territory warfare is the object of the game now, it seems like each settlement will be an island in an ocean of enemies (with maybe a couple of other linked islands or allies). The ocean is everyone else and I for one wish to have more options to build and assist others and not have the only option be that we are only allies or enemies. There is a large world to build and I would love to see more options for being neutral to other settlements but being able to help each other grow, trade services, training, resources and other meaningful interactions that don't force everyone into a dichotomy of ally/enemy at every turn. I am not against PVP at all though.

I know that in order for you to have a game you have to have apposing sides, ways for you to have meaningful interaction, build teams, overcome obstacles, create a CC, Settlement, or Kingdom eventually. I know this isn't a PVE centered game and I don't want it to be so. What I do want to see is just as many options to help each other as to attack each other. Just as many ways to help that other settlement next door as to destroy it but not have to ally with everyone in all settlements to do so. Sure there should be perks to being allies that you don't get with simply assisting in some mutual way but when there is no neutral ground you always have to make the decision of ally or enemy to have meaningful interaction. I don't want to always have every other player be suspect unless an ally. If they are an enemy though, game on, play it to the hilt and annihilate them...or make peace if that is possible. Life isn't black and white, there is a ton of grey that we can play with. I'd like to see that filled with options.

Before everyone tells me that you can stay neutral and don't have to make everyone friends or enemies, I know that, but I don't think it very likely in a PVP world to have that be the case based on what I've seen and read on these forums. It will be kill or be killed unless you make another option. I'm just looking for ways to give those other options for the middle ground and not only options for allies or enemies. These may exist and just are not focused on. These may not be desired by anyone but myself.

What do others think?

Ok, figures it would be on the day I did most of my posting. Thanks Bludd!

Did anyone else have their posts disappear (like magic) on this thread? Did the board go down and drop a number of postings?

courts should never happen. In general actions have consequences and IN GAME if you piss someone off the consequence of that is that he can come back with a 100 people and destroy you. The consequence is that he can declare war on you and campaign to destroy all you have created.

He can pay bandits, mercs, and assassins to target you specifically so that you can never make a profit and that every time you step foot outside you are worried you will get killed.

The alignment and rep systems in game are what GW wants to use to encourage (and thats all it will be it will encourage a style of play) people to not turn this game into the ffa that EVE is. Outside of that GW plans on taking an active role against griefers and people who cheat/exploit.

Let GW handle all of that. The only "court" system should be something like LoL's tribunal for players who BM, BUT not players who pvp.

There is a difference between griefing someone and you just being a target.

It doesn't have to be a court system, as Nihimon says, it could be included in the contract system. I'm not even set on having anything, just adding thoughts, ideas and options. The devs will make what they make, but we have the chance to effect that with our ideas. I'm just interested in seeing fun game mechanics that allow lots of meaningful interaction and as that is the goal anyway, ideas that further that, add depth to it, give systems for the players to have more of it, I think we should all throw our ideas at it and if it isn't worth the time, they won't implement it.

What I would love to see is the Devs post challenges to the community to design theoretical systems for feature concepts that they could implement (or not) based on the community consensus. It seems there is more arguing on these boards about who's opinion is right than creative ideas to further the game design (although it has had these as well).

My goal is to play this game and have fun, we all have a unique opportunity to effect what that game is in the end. I would love to see this forum rise to the occasion and really add to that creation instead of spend the time arguing. We might get a lot more out of the game that way.

By the way, I agree that you could use any or all of those systems as retribution or harassment but I think it would be fun to have other systems too.

I actually agree with you that you don't need a coded mechanic for control of your own group. I just thought it might be some "meaningful interaction" within the game that serves more than one purpose, as well as allows granular control of internal settlement PVP instead of just all or nothing as far as rep/align hits within your own group. I'm sure there are better ways to do it and it may never even be wanted as part of this game. What would your suggestion be to allow for the most fun and players who would want to play the game?

I've never played EVE and most of what i have learned of it is on this forum so is skewed by the opinion of the one who stated it, but it seems as though its system for allowing this is not universally liked and allows for loopholes that griefers use. Is there a better system?

I really couldn't care less if the mechanic or a like one is in the game, as I will happily play even if there is greifing rampant throughout. It is a game and I plan to play for fun in what little spare time I have, if someone calls my character names, kills him over and over, gangs up on him or anything else, I will take it as a challenge and part of the game to overcome and have fun with. I've never been the least bit bothered by those sorts of things in MMORPGs. For this game I won't be bothered by it either, but a Justice system could be fun for other reasons as it allows another layer of "meaningful interaction", consequences for you, the player, if you don't follow the rules you have agreed to.

Anyway, you are right that it would most likely be a waist of coding time but as things progress and the system fleshes out, we may find that this or a similar mechanic could add a whole new level of game play. I look forward to finding out.

DeciusBrutus wrote:

Steelwing wrote:

DeciusBrutus wrote:

Steelwing wrote:

Pax Shane Gifford wrote:

People have voiced desires for justice beyond just killing someone and/or taking their stuff, but so far I don't think actual ideas for court-like systems have been discussed. Could be worth mulling over in a new thread (unless I'm wrong and a thread has already been started for it).

Court systems won't work for one of the following two reasons and probably both

1) People do not like having their character control taken away which is a necessity for court systems especially if some form of prison is one of the punishments

2) A court system can be mandatory or optional. If optional no one will take any notice of anything other than their own settlements court. If mandatory (while I can't speak for all groups only ours but I suspect we aren't alone) any attempt to use your court system on the member of any other group would be regarded as an act of aggression and would result in a war

1) The only control that should be forced on another character is expulsion from the group.

2) I think that a court system that tries to exact a fine from another group -should- be allowed to result in a diplomatic incident or worse.

That said, I think that any court system should fall into the strange region where player discussion and in-character interaction intersect, rather than being primarily 'avatars in courtrooms'.

Court systems are purely rp constructs. Most players do not rp and have no wish to. Try and put any of ours on trial and it wouldn't be a diplomatic incident we would be kicking your doors down. You want to rp fine...leave those of us who don't out of it.

Our lot won't go out of our way to disrupt rp but if it starts impinging on us we will soon lose that leave it alone attitude

Absent some kind of extradition agreement, nobody should try to bring one of you in for trial.

That's one example of what a 'diplomatic incident' can

...

My main reason for thinking in this direction was not to try and police everyone with your Settlement's court system, but to give a way for Settlements to deal with their own members without having the only option being exile or death and putting that power, the real power to do something in game, in the hands of the players of that Settlement. You couldn't effect another Settlements members with it. When you join a Settlement or group of any size you agree to follow the laws of that group. This might give a way to handle those players who break the rules without removing them from the group/settlement in full or whatever level the leaders think correct based on their laws/rules. It also give the ability to PVP those within your own group without rep/align loss if only in a certain area so designated. At least that is where my thoughts were going.

An example would be if you added a new member to your group/settlement and one of your groups rules is not to verbally harass others. This member ignores this rule and mouths off to someone at an Inn. That person could report it to the group\settlement and if they so chose they could issue a summons, hold the players status in the settlement, and charge a fine or if it was a more serious issue even execute the rule/law breaker without rep/align penalty as a member of their own group/settlement.

This may not even be needed at all as a system, but it does give a wanted option of inner settlement PVP as an option (without rep/align hits) and also other options than kill or exile. Just something for thought.