Goblin Squad Member
|
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.
Yes that's more the idea I was going for. There are going to be specific points in time I would rather not be engaged in PvP such as when I just scored a valuable item and am trying to get it into secure storage.
That is also the exact moment I would want to engage my enemies in PvP, which is why I loved the champion flag. It's a more permanent, meaningful, and broad form of "opt in".
I’ve been away from the forums for a bit, and can’t access the blog right now (at work), but why were the flags removed?
Read the second-to-most-recent blog post "The Man In The Back Said Everyone Attack".
Also, while I liked the Champion, Assassin, Outlaw flags, etc. They could benefit too by just allowing a single PvP flag that everyone can use... one that gives general bonuses, like HP, +%Dmg, Damage Absorption, etc..
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes, I agree (for the Free-For-All Flag). I would prefer to have a flag specific to me in case I am doing something where I don’t want to PvP at the moment, and not be linked to other members of my faction on whether I am a target.
I’ll be honest, I am one who will probably very rarely be actively searching out PvP as I will be a dedicated Crafter. At least for my first character.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.
We all know we need to accept that it could happen even if it's not wanted, and in fact that is one of the truly great things about PFO that excited me from the very beginning.
However, it's also clear that there will be some players who want to see it, and some who don't.
In our earliest design documents, we put a lot of emphasis on combat between players of opposing alignments. In recent months, we've decided to shift the focus slightly to bring it more in line with the world of Pathfinder. Good and evil characters are not constantly at each other's throats over matters of philosophy in Golarion. Indeed, killing creatures based on alignment alone is sanctioned by few. Much more important are the tense and complicated relationships between rival factions—and this is where we have chosen to refocus the world for opt-in PvP. By "opt-in," we mean that individual players choose how much PvP they to see outside the larger struggles of settlements and companies. (Of course, PvP is possible at any stage in Pathfinder Online, but without the sanction of warfare, bounties, feuds, or voluntary player actions—characters performing criminal or heinous acts, for example—there are consequences of reputation and alignment.)
________________________________________________________________ ______
... how does anyone determine who wants PvP and who does not?
The answer is very simple.
You will be able to tell which players are sanctioned pvp targets at a glance, and on slightly closer inspection you'll be able to tell why.
And of course, it's important to remember the overarching design principles at work.
We are NOT protecting players from attack or preventing attacks on innocent players. Not at all. But what we are doing is incentivising 'better' kinds of PvP that drive the WHOLE GAME forward, instead of just the maniacal, lonely, sociopathic ambitions of PvP gankers. Those players will exist and can exist, but we dont want another pure Darkfall PvP bloodbath. We want a world that reflects Golarion where combat and magic are the main sources of power but order, rules, loyalties, alliances, conventions, and social codes prevent the descent into total, uninhabitable anarchy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Speaking for myself, I will give more thought to when I do PVP in an unsanctioned way than when I PVP against a "sanctioned target."
It's not so much that there will be alignment shifts or reputation penalties when engaging unsanctioned targets. I really don't believe reputation will be an issue for me. I really couldn't care less about alignment, I'll play my character in whatever way I choose and become whatever alignment that represents.
I'll consider more an attack against an unsanctioned target because I would want to make sure there was a reason behind it. I reason that I myself believe in, and hopefully GW will as well.
Just to be clear, unsanctioned targets will still be on my menu. I'll just be more prepared to explain why they were, should anyone I'm concerned about questions it.
For me, that is just as much "meaningful interaction through PVP" as any faction war.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking for myself, I will give more thought to when I do PVP in an unsanctioned way than when I PVP against a "sanctioned target."
It's not so much that there will be alignment shifts or reputation penalties when engaging unsanctioned targets. I really don't believe reputation will be an issue for me. I really couldn't care less about alignment, I'll play my character in whatever way I choose and become whatever alignment that represents.
I'll consider more an attack against an unsanctioned target because I would want to make sure there was a reason behind it. I reason that I myself believe in, and hopefully GW will as well.
Just to be clear, unsanctioned targets will still be on my menu. I'll just be more prepared to explain why they were, should anyone I'm concerned about questions it.
For me, that is just as much "meaningful interaction through PVP" as any faction war.
This is closer to how I would like to see the PvP go. Objective-oriented, even if that objective is 'That guy has a good haul, he should share it with me'. We're still going to hunt you down if you do that around our settlements or travelling members, but there shouldn't be any malice in the act. Malice is reserved for the 'U mad, bro?' crowd.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Quick- Through proper training and efficient systems such as ready bags, I hope we can achieve any time sensitive objectives with a speed that leaves other organizations struggling to keep up.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hello Csypher; Im not a TEO member but I want to welcome you to the boards. If you want, stop by the Community Introduction thread; many friendly people there to welcome you to the boards as a whole.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TEO as an organization may differ a bit from my exact ideals but this still might clear things up for you a bit. Everything bolded is something I agree with. Not in a sense that that I agree it belongs to alignment this is being described but that I agree the values being described are admirable.
Since neutral good characters see no inherent worth in laws, other than how well they provide for the common good, they may disagree with lawful good characters on a number of issues. Conflicts between characters of these types will center around the lawful good character always wanting to work within the law to accomplish good, even if breaking the law might result in more good for people. They will not accept the neutral good character's argument that working around the law is sometimes a better way to accomplish the spirit of the law. To lawful good characters, the letter and spirit of good laws should not be violated. They see a legal system as something that should be followed, as long as it is good, even if an illegal, or shady way might accomplish better results. Neutral good characters will be disgusted by their lawful good allies' adherence to laws, when the path is clear for them--break the law. Lawful good characters will contend that if they do not follow the law to accomplish what is right, how are they different from criminals? Their ethical sensibilities will be offended by the way that a neutral good character might do things.
Neutral good characters will always attempt to work within the law, but sometimes recognize the need to disobey laws for the greater good. Chaotic good characters will never consider the law in any of their decisions. If they happen to work within the law, it isn't because they made a decision to do so. Chaotic good characters feel that they know what good is, so they don't need laws to force themselves to be good. Chaotic good characters are also individualists. They will find their own way in the world and live the way they want to. Neutral good characters will avoid lies, but the chaotic good character has no aversion. The neutral good character will try to keep his word once given, but the chaotic good character will discard an oath when it no longer is useful to him in doing what is right. The chaotic good character isn't primarily concerned with providing the greatest good for the greatest number of beings. He will always behave in a manner that is considered good, but he may only be interested in a select group of beings, or he may perform acts of goodness when the mood strikes him. You never know when a chaotic good character will take up a cause, but you can be fairly certain of when a neutral good character will.
Just to clarify for this section, the sins I bold mean I agree that they shouldn't be committed:
A list of Ten Commandments for a neutral good religion may look like this:
1. You shall lie only to evil-doers.
2. You shall not harm the innocent.
3. You shall not murder.
4. You shall help the needy.
5. You shall honor those who promote goodness.
6. You shall follow the law unless breaking the law results in more good.
7. You shall not betray others.
8. You shall bring evil-doers to justice.
9. You shall steal only to promote goodness.
10. You shall seek unlimited good for others.
Likewise, a neutral good religion may list the following as sins. This list is given in the order of least severe infraction to most severe.
1. Refusing to defy authority to perform a good act.
2. Failing to speak out against an evil act.
3. Following a law or keeping your word when you feel that breaking the law would result in more good.
4. Theft, robbery, or willful vandalism unless it harms an evil being or cause.
5. Willful causing of harm to a good being.
6. Failing to assist good beings when they are in need.
7. Turning down a chance to destroy or bring to justice an evil being.
8. Allowing major act of evil to go unavenged. Betraying a friend or ally for evil reason.
9. The murder of an innocent.
10. Aiding the servants of Evil.* Committing a heinous or demented act.
* It depends on how and why. I'll help the servants of evil in any instance where I feel doing so promotes the greater good. For instance assisting servants of Asmodeus against followers of Rovagug.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As I read TEO statements, it seems more LG than NG. Is TEO afraid that there will be little support for LG (sometimes called L Stupid). It is not clear the the concept of NG which "outlaws" normal N behavior is NG.
Lam
Would you be so kind as to highlight some of the statements? Andius himself definitely seems to lean toward the Lawful side even if he does not fully embrace it. However, that is one individual in the entirety of the organization. My stances are usually leaning chaotic with high emphasis on individual liberty. It would be quite unusual for a dissenting and independent voice such as myself to rise as high as I have in a lawful organization.
Such disagreements may be more highly visible on our TEO forum than here, but a recent meta example may be the Settlement Alignment discussion between Andius and I. His original version was a very structured 'here are your limits' proposal, whereas my counter was to 'add some consequences to reaching outside of your range but then give people the choice as to whether to accept them or to avoid them'.
I fully intend to play my characters in a similar way. I will not break a good law because I respect the law, it is because the law is written in a way that I would choose to act anyways. However, I may lean more towards neutral as I may begrudgingly consider laws for the consequences of breaking them.
The spirit of TEO is to combat "Evil" in a meta-sense. We seek to struggle against individuals and groups that are felt to abusive from an out-of-character sense. We may never agree on where those lines are with the entire community, but if we fall too far outside of the majority then we surely expect to be brought to heel. In character, we stand for Good. What laws or stances we take are for the benefit of Good. These laws and stances will exist and be enforced where appropriate (non-chaotic) but we will be looking at each infraction individually and are willing to overlook incidents entirely if we feel there was benefit to the larger mission of promoting Good in the community (non-lawful).
I am not entirely sure why you had to bring Lawful Stupid into the argument. Do you believe it to be true? That term only really applies to bad and/or uncreative role players. Lawful Good can be a very fun and reasonable alignment for someone to play and for others to be around when it is done properly.
TLDR; TEO's mission is not a Lawful one, it is a Good one. As such, we see no need to restrict ourselves to either Law or Chaos.
As I read TEO statements, it seems more LG than NG. Is TEO afraid that there will be little support for LG (sometimes called L Stupid). It is not clear the the concept of NG which "outlaws" normal N behavior is NG.
Lam
Yea, I agree, I thought TEO was LG for a while, because I forgot it was NG, then saw the thread again and remembered it was NG. But hey, NG works, doesn't matter to me.lol
T: well, here´s a no-brainer then:
[b]Trustworthy[/u]-but i´d also like to add that we will always be [b]tangible[/u] to the woes of others.
U: Underline.
It starts with a "[u]" and ends with a "[/u]".
Note to myself:
boy you are easily distractible and unconcentrated
always use the preview before posting, then nobody will noticealso, this: [u]Underlining[/u] does not seem to work
Lol, no hard feelings my German friend. We all make mistakes. Now, who wants to do P?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Empyrean Order is now an official part of the Covenant of the Phoenix gaming community. We will be keeping our name, leadership, and structure. The main change is that we are now hooked into a large active group with whom we can enjoy the many other titles they play, and that they can now come and enjoy PFO together with us as a part of TEO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nihimon and Decius both sat in on the meeting a there was a chance for Nihimon to ask them some questions and later on to present TSV and let them know a bit more about our alliance.
It was very cool for us to have the full backing of our allies in making this move.
