Goblin Squad Member
|
I also concur that that was pretty solid.
The difference here is really about "Anybody here could attack me" versus "Everybody here is likely to attack me".
The first is a reasonable and realistic element of the game. It puts you on edge and makes you wary. That heavily armored guy rushing up behind you on a mount can be heart-pounding. And then that sense of silly relief when he just passes by without molesting you. You get tense when strangers are around. You do not necessarily have to fight or flee, but you should keep alert because maybe that next guy will decide to stop and shake you down to see if you have any nice treats in your pockets. Most people will act like people, social animals that are happy to get by without molesting you if you don't molest them. But any moment one of them may reveal themselves as a monster.
The latter is just annoying. "I just want to collect some lumber, but I can't move 20 feet outside the safe zone without someone trying to fight me! It isn't even high level lumber!" Most people are anti-social monsters and behave in ways that have no realism in the provided world and environmental settings. No thank you. If I wanted this, I'd go play Battlefield.
"Attack me at any time. But don't attack me just because you can."
This is almost exactly what I was speaking to, particularly the first half.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is almost exactly what I was speaking to, particularly the first half.I also concur that that was pretty solid.
The difference here is really about "Anybody here could attack me" versus "Everybody here is likely to attack me".
...snip...
"Attack me at any time. But don't attack me just because you can."
I think everyone is largely on the same page about this at this point. It is merely a difference in perspective we were approaching it from.
Andius and I desire the risk, but we do not want to see the majority of players fighting everyone they can just because they can. We are focusing on the fact that the majority will fall into the NRDS or NRDS-leaning camps when in the wild, but there should be the expectation that some NBSI will be out there to pose that risk.
Bluddwolf, if I am reading your statement correctly, it is not that you expect most players to run NBSI but that you and probably most of the UNC will be playing the role that does follow NBSI and places that risk out there. And once a reputation for such behavior is present, a lot of the NRDS will consider your group Reds and thus reciprocate the risk back onto yourselves for a mutual experience. Through playing this role, you actually elevate the dangers for yourselves to a more desirable level for how you wish to play.
Is that close to the mark?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Then in fact we don't differ at all on that point. What I mean by saying "Everyone I see like likely to try to kill me!" is "Everyone I see is likely to try to kill me!"
In EVE / Null Sec if you see someone without an allied tag over their head and they don't:
A. Attack you.
B. Run for the hills.
That is the exception to the rule. Most people will view you as either a threat, or a target. Kill and then revive is actually a very polite greeting in DF. Kill/gank is standard, as is kill/pod in null-sec (Unless you're Lord Zanuul, the non-RPK who wiped your whole group and revived them).
What I would prefer is that if you see someone and they aren't foaming at the mouth (There isn't some visible indicator they are of an enemy nation, have low rep or a criminal/attacker flag, etc.) that you're going to sniff each other's butts and go about your day or even work together.
The people who will screw with you if you're not trying to get PvP (By flagging up as much as possible) should be a minority. And the people who do it that aren't already foaming at the mouth should be an extreme minority.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Then in fact we don't differ at all on that point. What I mean by saying "Everyone I see like likely to try to kill me!" is "Everyone I see is likely to try to kill me!"
In EVE / Null Sec if you see someone without an allied tag over their head and they don't:
A. Attack you.
B. Run for the hills.That is the exception to the rule. Most people will view you as either a threat, or a target. Kill and then revive is actually a very polite greeting in DF. Kill/gank is standard, as is kill/pod in null-sec (Unless you're Lord Zanuul, the non-RPK who wiped your whole group and revived them).
What I would prefer is that if you see someone and they aren't foaming at the mouth (There isn't some visible indicator they are of an enemy nation, have low rep or a criminal/attacker flag, etc.) that you're going to sniff each other's butts and go about your day or even work together.
The people who will screw with you if you're not trying to get PvP (By flagging up as much as possible) should be a minority. And the people who do it that aren't already foaming at the mouth should be an extreme minority.
But they should still exist in just enough numbers to promote a little tension. In a world of bandits, nobody makes anything to steal. And if anything, the more folks who go with cooperative leanings in the game, the larger an impact (and potentially larger the rewards) there will be when someone who bucks the trend does show up! Only a minority of people will go out to try to slay a dragon. Only a fraction of them will succeed. But man, that hoard is pretty sweet when they do!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But they should still exist in just enough numbers to promote a little tension. In a world of bandits, nobody makes anything to steal. And if anything, the more folks who go with cooperative leanings in the game, the larger an impact (and potentially larger the rewards) there will be when someone who bucks the trend does show up! Only a minority of people will go out to try to slay a dragon. Only a fraction of them will succeed. But man, that hoard is pretty sweet when they do!
Absolutely. I would say the number of people running a Not Blue Rob It policy most places they go needs to be somewhere between 30-5%. About 30-50% of the game needs to be evil/corrupt in that they will frequently do things that benefit themselves at the expense of others, and in doing so ignite conflicts. Things like aggressively taking territory from other active groups or trying to dominate the trade market through intimidation in a manner similar to Pax. That includes the NBRI crowd. About 30-50% need to be out there actively seeking to protect and promote the welfare of others in a manner similar to TEO. And the rest of players can pursue a "I just want to live my life, and won't mess with you if you don't mess with me" style of play. Or actively pursue balance like Being.'
These number of course, also depend on how much in-fighting there is within each category. They assume pretty much no in-fighting within the corrupt groups or the protector groups, and no "across the aisle" alliances. Both of which I'm sure we'll see.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Andius, based on the EVE presentation you linked to earlier, I'd expect that 50-70% of potential players might actually fall into that "I just want to live my life, and won't mess with you if you don't mess with me" style of play. Which leaves only 30-50% to split between the evil/corrupt and the good/busybodies.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I just want the culture to be, "Everyone I see, may want to shoot me".
That when when they don't, I'm pleasantly surprised, and perhaps we strike up a conversation and form a mutually beneficial grouping to do something. (Ie. Grind that escalation of something).
In most cases, I will have my hand on the hilt of my sword and I will be sizing him/her up. If he/she is "grey" and poses little threat, show little inclination of wanting to fight.... and....most importantly.... appears not to have much in the way of wealth. I would most likely let him or her pass on.
If I'm incredibly bored, he or she looks like they may have wealth, I'll likely SAD him/her. If he really doesn't have much, I'd still demand at least 1 copper piece (out of principle) and send him on his way.
If he runs.... Well... now he just made me work. If I'm going to give my legs a workout, I might as well give my sword arm an exercise as well.
If he puts up a fight, win or lose, I'll have great fun (hope he does too, but I won't lose sleep over it if he doesn't).
When Lord Zanuul killed us all, that was the most fun I had all that night in DF.
I'm glad I came up with NBRI, because that really does capture what my character is all about. I'm not a killer by nature, just a thief. I'm glad that I goaded the spat when I said I would be an agent of Rovagug. That gave me the idea that Bluddwolf will be nihilistically greedy. Which to me means, he will be (at times) greedy to the point of his own peril. Potentially biting off more than he can chew, with the hope of pulling off the mother of all hauls.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would really hope if the community devolved to the point that I'm surprised when someone doesn't attack/run when I see them. If that's the community you are in, because you SAD a bunch of people in get a thief/criminal flag, then that's cool. I just hope it isn't forced on everyone else.
As much as I love PvP, I like to feel that there is a community worth protecting. That's the main thing missing for me from these other games. Who's there to protect when the entire community is made up of rampaging murderers?
In order for a sheep dog to not just be another wolf, there needs to be some sheep. In Darkfall they've been hunted to extinction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As much as I love PvP, I like to feel that there is a community worth protecting. That's the main thing missing for me from these other games. Who's there to protect when the entire community are rampaging murderers?
You protect your own, that is who is worthy. Leave it to others to protect their own. Those that wish to go it alone, accept the risks of solo play.
In all of these games you keep on trying to "save the community" from this devolution and your results appear to be the same. They remain unchanged and you move on to try again in another game.
Honestly, have you thought that they don't want saving? Maybe they know it is an Open World PvP game and have accepted the prevailing culture of one?
We already know that the starter zones will be as near perfectly safe for the new player experience, that none of those other games had. That is as far as the game mechanics needs to go in my estimation.
Let the players decide how much and how often the amount and frequency if the protection or risk they wish to partake in.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Honestly, have you thought that they don't want saving? Maybe they know it is an Open World PvP game and have accepted the prevailing culture of one?
Because we want an alternative. Just because that is how it has always been done, doesn't mean that is how we always want it to be. PFO is a grand experiment in something different. If the prevailing culture is that great, those who love that culture can play those games. If we can establish a different culture here, and *new* players join the genre and stay, we *all* win.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think there is plenty of evidence that there is a sizeable community that doesn't want to get murdered all the time, who is willing to give this game a crack. In-fact all evidence shows it's much larger than the tiny minority who want a complete bloodbath.
What I find consistently in games like Darkfall is there are many players who want the experience I'm promoting... among the newb community. And the vast majority of them generally end up leaving fairly quickly. That it's blood-crazed veterans building a self feeding problem who are responsible for the community being all wolves. Like the evil described in Pathfinder lore, they believe the weak deserve to be culled and only the strongest are worthy to carry on, and so that is the community they build. By destroying the larger community that doesn't think that way.
The problem is, when someone plays the game with a "I want to cooperate with people whenever possible" type of mentality it doesn't hurt anyone. When enough people come in with the "I want to kill everyone I see" it utterly destroys their game. You can force them to feel pain. You cause them lots of pain. They are powerless against you. A few of them leave, and the sheep to wolf ratio falls a bit. The wolves jump on the remaining sheep with extra vengeance. More sheep leave. The cycle continues until all that's left is wolves feeding on each other. Even though they were originally a minority population.
If sheep want to play this game, if wolves want sheep to feed on, then there must be sheepdogs to protect the sheep from the wolves. People who love PvP, but don't enjoy killing without just cause.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think you're missing something . Individuals/groups they play to succeed. That is why games are addictive. They provide enough successes in minor doses over the course of gameplay. That ratio is what makes or breaks a game. Thats why individuals will spend hundreds of dollars on cell phone games. But I feel I'm diverting, so.
Like I said, people want to "win" at what they do. It is fundamental in human nature. This game will require people to work together in order to achieve major success. Whether it be warfare, gathering, crafting, trade, or adventuring. The trully successful will group together. Those that dont will most likely be the ones who quit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Then we seek to provide a game in which "success" is not exclusively defined as "killed the most people in the last five minutes".
There should be room for people who define success as creating a merchant empire.
There should be room for people who define success as owning a small inn.
There should be room for people who define success as running caravans.
There should be room for people who define success as creating fun content for others.
There should be room for people who define success as helping new players learn the ropes.
What success means is highly individualized. Let that happen in this game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Then we seek to provide a game in which "success" is not exclusively defined as "killed the most people in the last five minutes".
There should be room for people who define success as creating a merchant empire.
There should be room for people who define success as owning a small inn.
There should be room for people who define success as running caravans.
There should be room for people who define success as creating fun content for others.
There should be room for people who define success as helping new players learn the ropes.
What success means is highly individualized. Let that happen in this game.
If you were expecting an argument, I don't know what to say to you. You emphasized my point. Success is determined by the player, and those successes are what they seek. In addition, any major successes will require contacts and groups of individuals.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Which is why, ironically, I think our two organizations have the same goal. We both want to see people having fun. Lets work together to reach that result. I think Bluddwolf and crew can be a benefit to the community, by showing them that there can be such a thing as a principled bandit. I think having more than one large city so people have choices. I do not think our organizations are opposed to the goals of the other.
Together, we can ensure that there are many forms of success to be found in PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there is plenty of evidence that there is a sizeable community that doesn't want to get murdered all the time, who is willing to give this game a crack. In-fact all evidence shows it's much larger than the tiny minority who want a complete bloodbath.
This is a "Strawman" argument, since there is no one on these forums advocating for that.
I have said repeatedly, I want risk to be felt by all, but not to have risk visited upon all, all the time.
Just as I expect that there will be times that I experience more risk then I expected and receive no reward for my efforts.
Logging into the game is a gamble. Almost every aspect, including resource gathering, trade and crafting is a competition. In all aspects there will be risk, reward, winners and losers. That is the dynamic, meaningful human interaction, game play that I am expecting.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Advocating for low consequences to PvP, or for the sheep dogs to step aside and ignore the pattern of behaviors that create the cycle that ends in the wolves feeding on wolves with no sheep left to hunt, is in-fact advocating for a complete bloodbath.
Letting players "just decide" in an unregulated environment is effectively handing the community to a minority of hardcore PvPers, because they will drive everyone else off. To go back to the wolf and sheep analogy, it's throwing a pack of wolves into a flock of sheep with no restrictions on what they can do, and no sheepdogs to protect them and saying "Just decide how you want to play."
In all of these games you keep on trying to "save the community" from this devolution and your results appear to be the same. They remain unchanged and you move on to try again in another game.
Honestly, have you thought that they don't want saving? Maybe they know it is an Open World PvP game and have accepted the prevailing culture of one?
We already know that the starter zones will be as near perfectly safe for the new player experience, that none of those other games had. That is as far as the game mechanics needs to go in my estimation.
Let the players decide how much and how often the amount and frequency if the protection or risk they wish to partake in.
You seem to me, to be suggesting that:
A. Most players of accepted the prevailing culture of PvP games. AKA a bloodbath.
B. That I should stop trying to protect the few who don't and let people "just decide" how they want to play.
Would you disagree on either of those points?
PS. One of the things that attracted me to PFO is that I always jump into these kinds of games after the wolves have driven the sheeps to extinction, and then fight an uphill battle trying to save those still coming into the game when the entire community is against them. I came here for a chance to stop the cycle before it begins.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
PS. One of the things that attracted me to PFO is that I always jump into these kinds of games after the wolves have driven the sheeps to extinction, and then fight an uphill battle trying to save those still coming into the game when the entire community is against them. I came here for a chance to stop the cycle before it begins.
Do you honestly believe adding another sheep will stop the wolves?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Advocating for low consequences to PvP, or for the sheep dogs to step aside and ignore the pattern of behaviors that create the cycle that ends in the wolves feeding on wolves with no sheep left to hunt, is in-fact advocating for a complete bloodbath.
Letting players "just decide" in an unregulated environment is effectively handing the community to a minority of hardcore PvPers, because they will drive everyone else off. To go back to the wolf and sheep analogy, it's throwing a pack of wolves into a flock of sheep with no restrictions on what they can do, and no sheepdogs to protect them and saying "Just decide how you want to play."
In all of these games you keep on trying to "save the community" from this devolution and your results appear to be the same. They remain unchanged and you move on to try again in another game.
Honestly, have you thought that they don't want saving? Maybe they know it is an Open World PvP game and have accepted the prevailing culture of one?
We already know that the starter zones will be as near perfectly safe for the new player experience, that none of those other games had. That is as far as the game mechanics needs to go in my estimation.
Let the players decide how much and how often the amount and frequency if the protection or risk they wish to partake in.
You seem to me, to be suggesting that:
A. Most players of accepted the prevailing culture of PvP games. AKA a bloodbath.
B. That I should stop trying to protect the few who don't and let people "just decide" how they want to play.Would you disagree on either of those points?
PS. One of the things that attracted me to PFO is that I always jump into these kinds of games after the wolves have driven the sheeps to extinction, and then fight an uphill battle trying to save those still coming into the game when the entire community is against them. I came here for a chance to stop the cycle before it begins.
Bold 1: Apparently GW agreed with my stance and provided more opportunities for consequence free PVP, EVERYWHERE, and not just in the FFA zone I hoped for.
Bold 2: So now you acknowledge you have no clue what a "sandbox MMO" is either.
Bold 3: Considering your track record, having not changed the culture of any of those previous games, you have already lost in PFO.
Yes, I know all about your "uphill" battles, however fighting gravity is PVE not PVP.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bold 1: Apparently GW agreed with my stance and provided more opportunities for consequence free PVP, EVERYWHERE, and not just in the FFA zone I hoped for.
Bold 2: So now you acknowledge you have no clue what a "sandbox MMO" is either.
Bold 3: Considering your track record, having not changed the culture of any of those previous games, you have already lost in PFO.
Yes, I know all about your "uphill" battles, however fighting gravity is PVE not PVP.
Objection 1: Factually inaccurate; Sanctioned PvP is neither consequence-free nor FFA.
Objection 2: Null; reduces to an assertion that a definition is in dispute.
Objection 3: wut. It would be easier to list the fallacies that this assertion WASN'T committing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Andius: Over-aggressive but well-intentioned statement about pursuing PvP in a Good-aligned manner.
Bluddwolf: Faux-polite backhanded insult and attempt to make being a guardian of the average merchant seem worse than being a bandit.
TEO Member: Caution Andius to be less abrasive.
3rd Parties: Point out all the flaws in Bluddwolf's facts, and reprimands Andius for instigating with his moral high-horse.
Tada, the PFO forums in a nutshell. And, yeah, I know that's an exaggeration. It just seems a little repetitive the way this appears to circle back and forth.
What if we all just agreed that PvP will happen; that evil-aligned PCs will be bandits, and that good-aligned PCs will happily kill those self-same bandits. That's what it all comes down to. Neither side is better for the game. We need both.
That said, it shouldn't have to be pointed out that playing an evil bandit who robs people is going to make a person/group seem unfriendly no matter how charming, smart, or otherwise talented they may be.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What if we all just agreed that PvP will happen; that evil-aligned PCs will be bandits, and that good-aligned PCs will happily kill those self-same bandits. That's what it all comes down to. Neither side is better for the game. We need both.
That said, it shouldn't have to be pointed out that playing an evil bandit who robs people is going to make a person/group seem unfriendly no matter how charming, smart, or otherwise talented they may be.
The Golgothan Empire will not tolerate bandits preying upon our citizens. We are evil. We are not bandits. There is much more to this game than alignment and roles within PvP. This is a game where we as the players get to erect a civilization.
I jest on these forums quite often. I poke at these alignment issues, these PvP "discussions", and other argumentative threads. I do this, because I feel some have missed the point. The point is, Goblinworks has provided us with a canvas. On this canvas we can paint whatever image we want in our little corner. And instead of creating something magnificent within our corner, we worry far too much about what others are doing with theirs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I hope PFO promotes pvp through wars, feuds and sads. I'm not really into free faction pvp and I hope pvp outside those three has serious effect on characters reputation. Though anyone can learn sad and become a highway robber without losing much rep(though I hope the alignment change is significant according to sad outcome), but I'm ok with that, cause it's rp(by the means of using a game mechanic).
Edit. I could add bounties and assassinations to that list.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
First, to TEO, forgive me this short abduction of your thread.
The point is, Goblinworks has provided us with a canvas. On this canvas we can paint whatever image we want in our little corner. And instead of creating something magnificent within our corner, we worry far too much about what others are doing with theirs.
Well said. Where possible, the things we do in our corners may overlap and coordinate with what others do in theirs. Where this is possible, I think we shall create marvelous, player-generated fun, the likes of which hasn't been seen in agames in a long, long while. Where our objectives and practices clash, I trust GW to provide us with mechanics that will enable us to resolve our differences in-game (most of which will provide another whole dimension of fun).
However, a continual hashing and rehashing of game philosophy, when both parties know each other's positions far too well by now, seems unproductive. Honestly, I think the two most vocal "sides" may not be that far apart in how they believe the current PvP rules should work. Rather, the continued animosity may boil down to simply not liking each other as players/posters - a sentiment which keeps bubbling up in every thread they post in, regardless of the topic.
Can we please, for the productivity of the discussion and out of respect for fellow players, even if we dislike certain individuals, keep the focus of our posts on content rather than character...on the topic of the post, not the poster.
I thank all those in advance who make a concerted effort to do so.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The Golgothan Empire will not tolerate bandits preying upon our citizens. We are evil. We are not bandits.
This I understand; evil PCs are no more required to be bandits than good PCs are required to fight them. I was referring to the particular recurring argument between TEO and UNC, and not all players of both alignments. I have to apologize for being unclear on who I was referring to.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A note to thread watchers. TEO is interested in like-minded players joining our ranks. We are 'good' inclusive, from farmers to soldiers, from prophets to crafters.
We have a dedicated teamspeak server, and are currently active in other online games so that we can get to know each other. Our website is active, and as PFO comes closer to launch is becoming more and more active.
We also are interested in other guilds who want to become allies (and who share similar principles). Please make inquiries either on our board or this one, and one of our outreach members will be in contact.
Within our group, we have an amazing array of really nice and friendly people, whether you are interested in playing 40 hours a week, or 2 hours per week.
To enjoy PFO, most players will engage better if they are surrounded by similar players. With that in mind, think about becoming a member, a friend and/or an ally. It will make all of our experiences that much better, and more memorable.
Braxinbalivan the Sage
The Frozen Prophet
Citizen of the Empyrean Order
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if we all just agreed that PvP will happen; that evil-aligned PCs will be bandits, and that good-aligned PCs will happily kill those self-same bandits. That's what it all comes down to. Neither side is better for the game. We need both.
That said, it shouldn't have to be pointed out that playing an evil bandit who robs people is going to make a person/group seem unfriendly no matter how charming, smart, or otherwise talented they may be.
The Golgothan Empire will not tolerate bandits preying upon our citizens. We are evil. We are not bandits. There is much more to this game than alignment and roles within PvP. This is a game where we as the players get to erect a civilization.
I jest on these forums quite often. I poke at these alignment issues, these PvP "discussions", and other argumentative threads. I do this, because I feel some have missed the point. The point is, Goblinworks has provided us with a canvas. On this canvas we can paint whatever image we want in our little corner. And instead of creating something magnificent within our corner, we worry far too much about what others are doing with theirs.
We really aren't focused on what people do in their own corner. We want to create a part of the world where people aren't always having to worry about being attacked, just because someone is bored. That really is it. We don't want to force our way of thinking on the whole of the server. We just want to paint part of the canvas differently than has been done in open PvP games.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I never said we would chase people down while inside neutral territory. I simply said we would come to the defense of people we perceive to be being attacked without just cause wherever we came across them, unless asked not to by the owners of that hex. So in order for us to jump in, someone has to have already started the fight.
I later went on to specify that we will generally assume anyone attacking someone in their own territory has just cause. And if we do not make assumption we would do so knowing full well we were starting a war.
So if Golgotha does not want it's citizens being preyed upon by bandits, we would actually be assisting your forces. Does that fall under your classification of interdiction, and would you like us not to do so?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Timeless
The respect goes both ways, we appreciate your clarification, even if you are on the wrong side of the fence.@ Alexander
I would believe you if it weren't for comments to the contrary that made Golgotha define our border policy as it is now.
Alexander's description is much how I envision our plans. We intend to be very active in making our own location and borders safe. We intend to lend full support in promoting safety to "New Players Zones" as needed. Surrounding unclaimed and willing neutral/friendly/allied hexes can expect to see patrols roaming on occasion if we are successful enough in our own territories that the "Wolf Hunters" find it too boring. Neighbors that express a desire for us to restrain from such activities within their borders will be respected, so long as they are not actively harboring threats to our territories. For example: a group that harbors and offers training for bandits that frequently assault our territories or frequently harass new players. A similar groups that harbors bandits that never come near our territories and leaves novice players alone is unlikely to draw our attention until diplomatic commitments draw us in.
It is our hopes that we will be able to provide the most benefit to the most players desiring such protections by drawing them nearer to us. I am imagining, and hoping, that even large groups would have trouble cross a map to impose ideologies much less being able to do so for more than a handful of surrounding hexes.
At an in-character level, my characters would like to see Good triumph over Evil the world over. At the meta-player level, it doesn't mean much to creating a 'Shining Beacon in the Night' if there is no darkness for the light to contrast against.
If for some reason, Andius and his militants get it in their heads to go Butt-Kicking For Goodness in Golgothan territory at a time when Golgotha is not presenting any threat to us, then I hope you soundly defeat him and send him packing. If it becomes a repeat offense that is ruining the fun for your group, then I would highly advise you to bring it to our council's attention so we can try to strike a more enjoyable balance or stop the behavior outright.
TL-DR; TEO Enforcement is going to be focused on 'Not In My Backyard, and Leave My Friends Alone Too' first and foremost. If you feel TEO militants are harassing your organization without just cause or are otherwise ruining your play experience, we request opening diplomatic channels with the more level-headed council.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ Timeless
The respect goes both ways, we appreciate your clarification, even if you are on the wrong side of the fence.
Perhaps wrong side of the fence from your perspective. Personally, I see having mutual respect for each other as players with differing in-game motivations could provide for substance to create mutually interesting events around. It is entirely possible to use each other to create a stark contrast between organizations or even foster a rivalry without actually hating each other.
There should be benefits to PvP for PvP's sake ("The Wolf")
AND there should also be benefits to helping rescuing people from PvP. (What I think Andius meant by the "Sheepdog")
AND there should (and are) small territories where noobs are safe (NPC Hexes).
Also, I should mention, while I do like the idea, of PvP'ers killing sheep, vs. PvP'ers protecting sheep, I really hope the game's deep systems allow for deeper, richer, and more complex conflicts than just "Good vs. Evil" (think Game of Thrones).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would hope the folks who are really into PvP will seek out others who are also really into PvP, rather than focusing on "sheep".
Pirates don't attack the Navy Frigate, they attack the Merchant Fluet. It really is that simple.
If the merchant does not wish to fall prey to the pirate (bandit), he hires an escort. It is really that simple, too.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would hope the folks who are really into PvP will seek out others who are also really into PvP, rather than focusing on "sheep".Pirates don't attack the Navy Frigate, they attack the Merchant Fluet. It really is that simple.
If the merchant does not wish to fall prey to the pirate (bandit), he hires an escort. It is really that simple, too.
I don't consider the "Merchant Flee" to be "sheep". As I've said over and over, I think a player running a caravan full of trade goods should expect to be an attractive target for bandits.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
From the context, I think he meant fluyt, not fleet. A fluyt was a cargo ship designed by the Dutch for transoceanic trade. It was cheap to build and not readily converted to war use.
That is correct Urman, wasn't sure on the spelling, not that my Iphone wouldn't have changed it to something completely different anyway.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heh. I remember fluyts from a Empire total war. They were what I used to begin building the rest of my navy. And that consisted largely of captured Spanish galleons, another trade ship.
Anyway I'm fairly sure I've also said people driving wagons/carts/pack animals should be PvP flagged.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Heh. I remember fluyts from a Empire total war. They were what I used to begin building the rest of my navy. And that consisted largely of captured Spanish galleons, another trade ship.
Anyway I'm fairly sure I've also said people driving wagons/carts/pack animals should be PvP flagged.
I have likewise always said our true targets would be those playing a larger role in the economic game.
The solo character picking berries on the roadside will be completely safe from even our SADS, unless those berries have significant value (rare).
Farmer Joe with a wagon full of chickens, isn't high on our list either. We may SAD him if we are hungry for some eggs or wild wings.
I know I have played a big part in building up fear about what the UNC will actually do when we hit the game. But, for the most part, "Sheep" (whomever they might be??)are likely not on our menu of preferred targets.
Noobs in Nooblands will be safe, as soon as we are no longer noobs ourselves. Unless of course those noobs are members of a company / settlement that we are actively hostile towards (war, feud, etc.).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would hope the folks who are really into PvP will seek out others who are also really into PvP, rather than focusing on "sheep".
When it comes down to "business", it's all about risk vs reward. If the other target is a widely known "Good PvPer" and the reward is high enough, I'll go after it. (If I think my skills/training can match).
But when I'm on my own time, not worrying about gold, or other Contracts, and I see that "well known champion of good" who's known for always winning his fights, yea, I'll attack. I'll do it on my own terms of course, stealth, ambushes, poison (when in-game), you know, the assassins way of fighting.
Their is no other way of getting better/ testing your own actual player skill then live scenarios. Yea, I could just accumulate "experience" and get the skills to DO stuff, but I won't actually be GOOD at it, unless I practice, use the skills.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm all for being targeted out as a result of my status as a champion of good. I was very sad to see the actual champion flag go. You can bet that I'll be advocating for more ways to champion the cause of justice that will result in me getting flagged to my opponents.
If people are fighting me then they aren't fighting someone who doesn't want PvP and that's always a good thing in my book. And good =//= an idiot in combat. I fight to win too. Maybe we can share poison recipes. ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If people are fighting me then they aren't fighting someone who doesn't want PvP and that's always a good thing in my book.
Now that the flags are gone, how does anyone determine who wants PvP and who does not?
Clearly someone at a crafting table, does not want PvP at that moment. But, how about that guy sitting at the bar?
Then there are those actions that encourage PvP. A merchant hauling a load of resources might not want PvP, but he is certainly making himself a target for it. The same holds true of the character that sets up a harvesting kit on a node / mother load.
Maybe "wanting" or "not wanting" PvP are the wrong terms to be used. You really can't log into an Open World PvP MMO and not accept that PvP could happen, even if you don't want it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I liked the mechanic where you'd get certain benefits for turning a PvP flag ON, and those benefits would accumulate over time, so you couldn't just shut your PvP flag off at the drop of a hat without starting from scratch again. People SHOULD be rewarded for opting into PvP REGARDLESS of whether they want PvP or not.