Goblin Squad Member
|
It is my understanding that a Lawful Good Paladin who attacks and kills a flagged Criminal will move his alignment even more towards Lawful Good.
Right but we aren't talking "criminal tag" we are talking Necromancer or Evil Priest...raising undead, doing blood sacrifices, preying to Evil Gods.
In essence being EVIL.
In that case the Paladin (under the proposed system) shifts toward CE and potentialy get's tagged (criminal/attacker) and bountied for simply DOING WHAT A PALADIN IS SUPPOSED TO DO.
The proposed system ends up with all sorts of results that absolutely make no sense we're in....
... might work for EvE, Fantasy RPG, really not so much.
You are simply assuming that everyone that is E-V-I-L in the super-natural, baby-sacrificing to Dark Gods sense is going to be marked with a Criminal/Attacker tag and therefore fair game against alignment shifts that don't make sense...not really the case.
Heck LE and CE characters are just as hosed too....those guys fight among themselves and each other ALL the time as well..
Lets say THEY encounter a CE Evil Character with a Criminal Tag and your supposition is true....are they unable to attack that character because doing so would shift THEM towards LG?
How would that make sense?
Unless the system can handle all the intercacies of the circumstances under which one Alignment would attack another and adjucate that accurately (and it won't because we are talking a computer here) then you are going to end up with completely non-sensical and inappropriate alignment shifts....and the end result will be players end up grinding to get thier alignments back (if possible) to where they wanted them in the first place. Nothing gained and a loss of player time.... or you end up with people simply not fighting each other AT ALL because it shifts them inappropriately.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@GrumpyMel, I don't think the Alignment shifts are static, I think they're very dynamic and based on the relative Alignments of the characters involved.
I also don't think that Lawful Good Paladins are "supposed to" kill every evil civilian they come across. I think this is where the "Lawful" comes in.
It might very well be the case that Good killing Evil always moves Good's Alignment more towards Good. However, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that randomly killing another player would always move Lawful's Alignment more towards Chaos.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Eh some of what I'm hearing makes me think this is quickly going PvE only. They've already said evil (or is it only chaotic evil?) is gonna have a harder time to get training, gear, etc. they also said things will cost significant more for those characters.
I've a very strong suspicion that pretty much everyone is going to be lawful good. Seeing as how this is a sandbox and not a theme park the randomly generated dungeons will probably get tiresome fairly quickly. If we're so heavily putting penalties in evil and/or Pvp then what do we have left? I suppose we could pretend it's FarmVille or maybe sit around a virtual campfire telling Amazing Stories.
I get not wanting griefing, but I was hoping this would be more a community type response (guilds dedicated to good, etc). It just sounds like there are multiple systems coming into formation to, well quite frankly, heavily discourage Pvp.
If the goal is to get organization vs organization Pvp over resources why not just allow a guild war tag and otherwise make it PvE?
Yeah...I think they need to divorce the Alignment systems completely from anti-griefing measures...
They can have gradiated security zones so people KNOW what level of risk they are walking into. The could also have some sort of quota-karma system...similar to a death-curse. Essentialy when you kill another player regardless of when/how...they have the opportunity to curse you (or NOT). Make it clear to the player-base that the CURSE is intended to indicate the player GREIFED you, not just retribution for a valid kill. The character gets a certain number of "freebie" kharma points per week that get used up by curses with no ill effects....after that they start suffering an increasingly severe debuff to the point where eventualy they can't even harm a bunny. Maybe suspend that in a War Zone.
So people who are going around killing lots of people for no reason get cursed to the point they can't operate. People who are killing folks for valid reasons don't suffer many curses from thier kills...and they choose thier targets in a more descriminating fashion. I know I wouldn't cure someone unless they made it abundantly clear they were being $sshats.
I mean we want EVIL characters in the game, don't we? We want Good players, we WANT conflict and these people fighting each other, don't we?.... and neutrals too.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Blaeringr, I don't think that the Criminal flag is permanently associated with a Bounty. As I understand it, if a Lawful Good Paladin kills you while you have the Criminal flag, they gain Lawful Good Alignment. However, your victim's ability to re-up the Bounty on your head does not mean that you keep the Criminal flag, so that a Lawful Good Paladin collecting that Bounty after the Criminal flag wears off might actually move his alignment away from Lawful Good.
Not talking about the criminal flag. It's the bounty system itself that allows you to pay back an eye with a hundred. The target can specify his friends, these pretend paladins, to collect a pitiful little bounty and keep issuing it over and over. If they raise the minimum required, his friends will just pay him back so he can keep re-issuing it and they can keep ganking under the pretenses of the law.
In our previous discussions, I was under the impression that criminal = potential bounty target, but they have separated the two. In the old context I'd agree with what you're saying.
But now, with little focus on PvE content, and hamstringing one side of PvP content, I am surprised they still think they're making a game with any content.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@GrumpyMel, I don't think the Alignment shifts are static, I think they're very dynamic and based on the relative Alignments of the characters involved.
I also don't think that Lawful Good Paladins are "supposed to" kill every evil civilian they come across. I think this is where the "Lawful" comes in.
It might very well be the case that Good killing Evil always moves Good's Alignment more towards Good. However, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that randomly killing another player would always move Lawful's Alignment more towards Chaos.
Right...the Necromancer says...don't mind me sacrficing this infant to Rovagug and creating these 10 ghouls here...I'm a "civilian".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So people who are going around killing lots of people for no reason get cursed to the point they can't operate. People who are killing folks for valid reasons...
It would seem the stalemate on the forums right now is that some will not accept that there could be any valid reason to kill another law abiding player.
And Goblinworks seems very hesitant to wade in and draw any clearly defined line. By only dabbling a little in the subject and giving half answers about how much PvP is too much, whether this is their actual design or not, they can hopefully still pull in as many as possible from both sides of wherever that line ends up being.
31 days left to see if that tactic works.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So people who are going around killing lots of people for no reason get cursed to the point they can't operate. People who are killing folks for valid reasons...It would seem the stalemate on the forums right now is that some will not accept that there could be any valid reason to kill another law abiding player.
And Goblinworks seems very hesitant to wade in and draw any clearly defined line. By only dabbling a little in the subject and giving half answers about how much PvP is too much, whether this is their actual design or not, they can hopefully still pull in as many as possible from both sides of wherever that line ends up being.
31 days left to see if that tactic works.
Yeah but the logical conclusion is...without PvP what is there left for a player to do in the game? They came right out at the start of the project and said they don't have the resources to build alot of PvE content... so just what will players do if no one is attacking one another?
|
Yep just what I was going to say. If we make it so unattractive for players to be the opposition then what's left for adventure? No offense but if I want to walk around and explore a landscape ill play skyrim. I'm seeing a lot of talk about setting up sourcing contracts for ore, smelting operations, etc. Yes please by all means keys play a factory simulator. Where's the thrill and fun going to be?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I was thinking in terms of Ryan's posts like this one.
I don't think he ever intended us to believe that "Exploration, Adventure, Discovery" were "Theme Park" elements which they wouldn't have the resources to build much of....
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon I made some pretty big posts today trying to clearly explain how I think bounties change things.
Basically, a player can now kill somebody PvE griefing or otherwise just annoying them, and then the griefer can now put up bounties open to several bounty hunter Companies on the person. That person was only defending their enjoyment of the game, but for one action, have now opened themselves up to PvP from most of the River Kingdoms.
If bounties were not applicable in this case, the player that defended their enjoyment of the game pays a cost in alignment and reputation. I agree with you in that that cost should scale up the more Lawful and the more Good you aim to be.
The player is still penalized, but that is a cost they can weigh in their mind. If the other player is completely ruining their experience, it may be a cost they are willing to incur.
I also believe that non-political (aka outside of wars, aka RPKing) PvP should happen. Indeed, I believe that it is requisite of a world claiming to be "Open PvP". I believe that alignment and reputation severely restrict RPKing, and I am willing to live with that level of restriction. I think bounties restrict it too far.
We really don't have much new information on bounties, so I'm hoping we can get something on which to base our expectations of how big a change this will be.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon I made some pretty big posts today trying to clearly explain how I think bounties change things.
And I've posted questions generally in response...
If a Bandit was planning on just killing random people in the wilderness, shouldn't they already expect to be targeted for retaliation, regardless of whether or not there's a bounty on their head? Why does the fact that the person that killed you is getting paid for it really change the situation?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why does the fact that the person that killed you is getting paid for it really change the situation?
Either the bounty system, which is meant to deter griefers, does so effectively, or it doesn't. If it does, it will also deter bandits. If it doesn't, then you have a system broken in other ways.
I put up a more lengthy post about it here.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Having a bounty on your head means kill a single person. No more. Now you can have that renewed over and over for as long as you play the game. It's possible you will never be free for one moment of PvP. That means their friends, or any bounty hunter, if they choose, can now kill you anywhere and anytime. Ryan explained that the bounty system was meant to deter griefers.
He talked about a system that was to stop people from preying on newer players, or from preying on the same person over and over, or from attacking people who choose to avoid the risk and stay in safe places.
Now they've expanded it to include pretty much any aggression outside of a declared war. And for people who will be in secretive companies that don't engage in war at all, that means pretty much no PvP.
And that's fine if that's what GW wants. But it is not at all the setting they described when they first put out the game.
All of this is going to be play tested. If no PvP is going on you can be sure the reigns will be loosened. I think it's refreshing for an MMo to err on the side of anti-griefing and then open it up rather than err on the side of griefing and then try to bottle up something that's out of control.
But there will be PvP in this game, plenty of it, and not in minis, in the open world.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Either the bounty system, which is meant to deter griefers, does so effectively, or it doesn't. If it does, it will also deter bandits.
I'm not sure that's true. I believe there's a distinction between "griefers" who are randomly killing people "for the lulz" as long as there's virtually no cost to them, and Bandits who embrace the challenge of playing Chaotic Evil and living with a Bounty on their head.
I believe the Bounty mechanic can effectively deter casual Griefers, while not posing an insurmountable challenge to Bandits.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@NihimonI'm not saying there's no difference. That's the problem. The bounty system doesn't treat them differently.
And if you don't think it will be a powerful enough deterrent, then that's another problem given this statement:
Furthermore, we expect that some players will form bounty-hunting organizations, and those organizations will also need to maintain scrupulous reputations as agents of vengeance rather than agents of collaboration. Knowing that these experienced and deadly foes may be lawfully unleashed to hunt down and kill murderers
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Blaeringr, I was very much trying to explain how the Bounty system can treat Griefers and Bandits exactly the same, and serve as a powerful deterrent to one and not the other.
The key difference is that casual Griefers aren't going to want to deal with the costs imposed by the Bounty system. Bandits will have already embraced those costs. And Griefers who embrace those costs and persist in Griefing will end up being banned.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Nihimon I made some pretty big posts today trying to clearly explain how I think bounties change things.And I've posted questions generally in response...
If a Bandit was planning on just killing random people in the wilderness, shouldn't they already expect to be targeted for retaliation, regardless of whether or not there's a bounty on their head? Why does the fact that the person that killed you is getting paid for it really change the situation?
Sure, if bandits are killing people in the wild, they should expect people to enter that space to engage them. A bounty introduces many new mechanics, though. For instance, I imagine that there will be trainable skills related to bounty-hunting, maybe a tracking skill. Also, I doubt claiming a bounty would be unlawful, giving the bounty-hunters another edge over the bandit.
Bandits already have alignment shifts, reputation loss, loss of bind point options, and mediocre settlements as disadvantages. Somebody running around the wilderness killing everybody they can is going to be pushed into insignificance by being forced to live in wretched hives of scum and villiany where they can't advance their character economically or mechanically.
Bounties are an acceptable deterrent to attempting banditry in the areas under immediate lawful control. It is one of the the many benefits that the inhabitants of Lawful settlements enjoy in exchange for foregoing banditry. Bandits should not have the same deterrents in the wilderness.
We don't even need to talk about a bandit. If ANYBODY kills a person that was annoying them, they risk having unlimited bounties placed on their head by the person that provoked the attack. If, as you say, bounties don't really change the situation for the bandit, then this at least is a good reason to limit the areas bounties can be applied.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Blaeringr, I was very much trying to explain how the Bounty system can treat Griefers and Bandits exactly the same, and serve as a powerful deterrent to one and not the other.
The key difference is that casual Griefers aren't going to want to deal with the costs imposed by the Bounty system. Bandits will have already embraced those costs. And Griefers who embrace those costs and persist in Griefing will end up being banned.
I still think your assumptions of other players' motivations are short sighted. But you haven't been told that enough times, so you thought you'd remind me again?
But what of bandits who decide to begin a little occasional griefing? There's no more line for them to cross.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
@Blaeringr, I was very much trying to explain how the Bounty system can treat Griefers and Bandits exactly the same, and serve as a powerful deterrent to one and not the other.
The key difference is that casual Griefers aren't going to want to deal with the costs imposed by the Bounty system. Bandits will have already embraced those costs. And Griefers who embrace those costs and persist in Griefing will end up being banned.
I still think your assumptions of other players' motivations are short sighted. But you haven't been told that enough times, so you thought you'd remind me again?
But what of bandits who decide to begin a little occasional griefing? There's no more line for them to cross.
They get more bounties and more death curses. (Giving death curses to bandits/griefers is one thing that new alts would seem to be great for, if the cost is measured only in reputation)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
They get more bounties and more death curses. (Giving death curses to bandits/griefers is one thing that new alts would seem to be great for, if the cost is measured only in reputation)@Blaeringr, I was very much trying to explain how the Bounty system can treat Griefers and Bandits exactly the same, and serve as a powerful deterrent to one and not the other.
The key difference is that casual Griefers aren't going to want to deal with the costs imposed by the Bounty system. Bandits will have already embraced those costs. And Griefers who embrace those costs and persist in Griefing will end up being banned.
I still think your assumptions of other players' motivations are short sighted. But you haven't been told that enough times, so you thought you'd remind me again?
But what of bandits who decide to begin a little occasional griefing? There's no more line for them to cross.
And how does that differ from mugging someone?
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
And how does that differ from mugging someone?They get more bounties and more death curses. (Giving death curses to bandits/griefers is one thing that new alts would seem to be great for, if the cost is measured only in reputation)@Blaeringr, I was very much trying to explain how the Bounty system can treat Griefers and Bandits exactly the same, and serve as a powerful deterrent to one and not the other.
The key difference is that casual Griefers aren't going to want to deal with the costs imposed by the Bounty system. Bandits will have already embraced those costs. And Griefers who embrace those costs and persist in Griefing will end up being banned.
I still think your assumptions of other players' motivations are short sighted. But you haven't been told that enough times, so you thought you'd remind me again?
But what of bandits who decide to begin a little occasional griefing? There's no more line for them to cross.
Target selection, stand and deliver ultimatums, and the other factors that differentiate mugging from griefing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And if the ultimatum fails? What's the difference, consequence-wise, to the bandits who kill their target for loot, and the bandit who hounds the same target for a little while killing him over and over for lulz?
It's the same target, so no extra bounties after the first time. And if the bandit doesn't do this frequently, he may fly under the moderator radar.
So essentially the same consequences.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If I had to sum up some of the argument in three sentences, read the bold portions:
Expanding the bounty system to more areas of the world will decrease FFA PvP interactions (I imagine GW will make the economy work anyway). Some of us want this, some of us do not. This is a personal preference, and we won't change eachother's minds about this. Whichever direction development takes them, Ryan expects there to be FFA PvP regardless.
As we expand the bounty system to more of the game world, it loses its effectiveness as a deterrent to FFA PvP in specific places. Hexes next to a settlement begin to carry many of the same costs as hexes in the wilderness. I think making a distinction that killing players in hexes adjacent to settlements is 'worse' is good for fostering a respectful community. Many players will use the 'line' that the game mechanic draws as the 'line' at which they limit their FFA PvP activities, in order to limit their negative impact on other players (players in such hexes will be there specifically to avoid PvP). I would if I were to play a bandit.
The bounty system makes little distinction between a player that killed one person once, and a player that routinely kills many players. As pointed out, once you 'cross the line' and get a bounty on your head, the cost of gaining more bounties is less than the first (that margin may be large or small, but almost always less than the first, or first 10). If a player kills a person for some specific reason (unprovoked or otherwise) and gets a bounty, the next time they are making the decision whether or not to kill somebody, the cost of their actions is lower. This means they are more likely to continue killing people after the first bounty.
I gave an alternate idea and reasons why I believe it is a better deterrent to the most frustrating/harmful/(meaningless?) style of Random Player Killing here.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Fuller response here
In short, the Bounty System doesn't deter "honest" Bandits any more than the Bandits themselves deter honest Harvesters, honest Explorers, honest Traders, honest Adventurers, etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So if you guys have changed your stance, that's fine. I think people are just asking for a very straightforward answer to that end, or a straightforward answer that denies that the stance has changed.
Blaeringr man, you are killing it :) I love the way you keep ostensibly asking for information, but cleverly frame the issue as one of truth and reliability. I mean hey, framing the devs/design process in contrast to being "straightforward," and as as flip-floppers who keep "changing their stance," that's pretty sharp from a rhetorical perspective. And then part where you're the long-suffering dentist "extracting the truth" and "prying" the truth from GW, --man, you got 'em!
I got to tell you, right now there's no doubt you've achieved your intended rhetorical effect, and the devs are shame-facedly coming to grips with their lack of virtue. And of course now that you've made clear to the masses how lacking in virtue GW is, the community will no doubt just fall in line with your argument goals.
I'm particularly impressed with how effective this approach is. If you want to get someone to listen to you, to be engaged and willing to consider your position, I think the best strategy is to treat them as the enemy, and really go after their character. That way, if you move on to the facts of the case and try and make an appeal, they'll be so chagrined they'll be well positioned to listen.
Nice :) Peace out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In my second and third bold sentences, I was trying to make the distinction that an expanded bounty system and choose-what-you-loot deters 'casual' bandits, as well as anybody that might have a reason for killing somebody even once. It also makes it so that the cost of continuing to kill other players is less each time after the first.
It was always my view that 'casual' harvesters, explorers, traders, and adventurers would be protected by staying near settlements, while venturing forth into the wilderness brings more PvE and PvP challenges.
There has been a shift in thinking from 'stick to some areas that are lawful to reduce your risk of PvP' to 'there will some wilderness areas that bounties won't be applied, though alignment shifts and reputation loss will.'
Following up on my second bold sentence, I'd rather have 'honest' and 'casual' banditry be defined by not engaging in activities that would result in a bounty being placed.
I have been convinced by previous discussions and the general backlash against 'Open PvP' that it is for the best that we should discourage banditry mechanically in areas near settlements, where newer players and/or more casual players will likely spend more time than the more 'hardcore' players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not a fan of pvp and anything that limits the chance of getting ganked is great.
However, I have to agree with the pro-pvp crowd that there are far too many penalties being placed on open pvp.
Further, I thimk this alignment system is becoming a bloated mess and overly complicated. It'll be cool if you can make it work though.