Goblin Squad Member
|
Perhaps the real question (and no, I'm not being flippant here) is whether you're in the right game for your play style....Again, like real life, if you're a person who doesn't easily tolerate behavior different from your own, perhaps single player activities are more your style. After all, if you wouldn't seek out crowds of people all acting potentially differently than you in real life, why would you do so in a game, then expect all sorts of game mechanic constraints placed on everyone else's behavior to suit your temperament?I thought you made a point or two worth considering until you got to the "if you don't agree with me on this topic then you must be a narrow-minded person who might be intolerant" part. Really? LOL.
If my theories about alignment shifting pan out you might be in danger of becoming one of us, Micco.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not sure I see the advantage of taking away the player's choice in their starting alignment and forcing them to grind alignment to get where they feel their character should naturally be. The character might be new as an adventurer, but they're not new as a person.
With class choice out of the equation there's no reason other than an RP background to start as anything other than a fresh slate in a new environment. Excepting use of Alliance Packs or the like. It may not jive with the tradition of having a nicely written background to your character before you start a campaign, but it's fair to say that this is the start of your story and your adventures, make of your life what you will henceforth.
I honestly dislike the idea of joining Alliances providing a boost to your alignment. I don't think any one in-game decision should have a major, instant impact on your alignment. A neutral person who joins an Assassin's Guild isn't going to go out and start torturing puppies for fun suddenly.
Yeah, I'm not exactly committed to this, just throwing something out there to see if it rattles around much. =) Though I think you've got the wrong idea about what assassins do. They'd be murdering the puppies, not torturing them. That's only necessary when specified. ;)
Anyways, given the extreme commitment one makes to Alliances (read up on the whole Betrayal thing) it really isn't out of order for the Alliance you're joining to say your life is going to be one of Order and Justice .. and in the process offer your character a moral compass to guide your actions. But it really doesn't have to be a flat boost, it could be a gradual thing or a probationary period or whatever. In the long run I would much rather see people earn their way to the alignment they say they want instead of waving around empty platitudes about how Good they are with no proof to back it up. What better way to find out if you really want to be good than to walk the road to get there? Could be it chafes a bit much, could be it's exactly what you wanted. It's the journey that matters and you generally appreciate something more if you've had to work for it.
We can probably just scrap the whole free Alignment idea, it's really not that good.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Forcing my character to start the game with any particular alignment is just as bad as forcing him to start with a backstory that his parents have been murdered, or that he's on the run from the law after committing a rape.
It's my character. Don't force me into a backstory just because you think it's cool.
I don't have the slightest problem with my Paladin starting out as the bare minimum Lawful Good, where any Alignment shift away from either of those would result in an immediate change, but I will vehemently resist attempts to force him to start as Neutral.
I can't help the feeling that many will feel this way, and if it came to a vote, they would carry the day.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I understand how strong the wish is that people be able to choose exactly their alignment at the start. My main reasons for seeking a different outcome are:
1. We already know that alignment will have benefits/penalties. The devs have stated that an LG settlement will have mechanical advantages over other settlements. In fact, they stated that it will be something to strive for; something that will be difficult to earn and maintain.
2. Alignment is something that your character can earn over time. Just as you earn the skills to become a Paladin, why not earn the alignment to be a Paladin? Some of the merit badges for Paladin levels could even be tied to earning a certain alignment. You already can't base your backstory on being a powerful warrior/mage/crafter/leader, what is different about this?
3. Players picking an alignment they have no intention of keeping. Example: Every murderhobo-to-be starting out as LG so that they can avoid the suckiness of being CE for longer.
4. New players picking an alignment that doesn't fit their playstyle, causing them to make poor advancement choices (starting to train as a Paladin before they realize they don't have the patience to be LG).
3&4 are based on my dislike of any system that puts the burden of a big decision on a player; in this case, before a player even sets foot in the game. Many people (myself included) have no prior experience with an alignment system; how should I know what to pick? It could majorly work in my favor or majorly against me. I doubt even an explanation of the alignment system will give an idea of how it will work in-game; heck, even those here that have used it for years have no idea how it will work in-game ;P
I might be convinced that a character could choose an alignment but be at the very cusp of going neutral if some of these were addressed. And then still, I wonder why alignment shouldn't be earned just like class abilities (#2).
Otherwise, I think the idea that character's start Neutral but have a number of their first actions (or their actions for several in-game hours/days) have a magnified effect on shifting their alignment. This way, alignment would still be earned as I believe it should be(2), even if it is earned much more easily immediately after character creation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon I'm sure you can find better examples than rape going forward.
I am obviously more of a mind to accept Kakafika's 3 & 4, though not for the same reason he states. It's not taking the decisions out of player's hands I support, but encouraging them to make informed decisions. Like the time delay before land rush choices.
The suggestion of Good and Evil plateaus came up in the Alignment thread, this creates an environment for starting off at the earliest threshold of these alignments where the slightest misstep can send you back to Neutral. This does create the possibility of people choosing LG just for more wiggle room in their deeds before being punished, but I believe in informed player choice even when it opens a system up to opportunistic pricks.
I suggest that a penalty be leveraged against those who commit themselves to swinging from one end of the axis to another in too short a time. Just as Alliances aren't particularly keen on being Betrayed, I doubt Gods are particularly keen on it either. A possible punishment being members of their old Alignment get to attack them on sight without repercussions. That is an LG going LE only open himself to Good retaliation, where going CE would open him to both Lawful and Good. It nicely falls in line with existing mechanics for making uncharacteristic and very large changes to what you've established for your character, without making it more than a set of consequences one knowingly accepts when betraying everything they are.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Where everyone 'wins' every regardless of the actual score, and nobody can ever be allowed to fail, participation is the only criterion for a win and the shiny little trophies are so much more meaningful.
Everyone wants to be rich without earning it, and everyone wants to be good effortlessly. I understand.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Perhaps the real question (and no, I'm not being flippant here) is whether you're in the right game for your play style....Again, like real life, if you're a person who doesn't easily tolerate behavior different from your own, perhaps single player activities are more your style. After all, if you wouldn't seek out crowds of people all acting potentially differently than you in real life, why would you do so in a game, then expect all sorts of game mechanic constraints placed on everyone else's behavior to suit your temperament?I thought you made a point or two worth considering until you got to the "if you don't agree with me on this topic then you must be a narrow-minded person who might be intolerant" part. Really? LOL.
I see quite a bit of daylight between the portion of my words that you bolded and your paraphrasing of those words. What I don't see anywhere in my statement is a demand that people think as I do or leave a particular game. I've actually always been very tolerant of nearly every play style accept obvious griefing. What I was suggesting is that players should understand the type of game they are signing on to play and should not attempt to turn it into something more to their liking (much to the displeasure of those who like it as it is), when there are plenty of other games out there more to that person's gaming style and personal temperament.
So to reiterate, if you need layer after layer of insulating game mechanics to protect you from other players, perhaps a game filled with other players isn't the game you'd be most happy playing. If you need an inordinate amount of game provided security to protect your gaming experience, perhaps a world where players are allowed, by intended game design, to have direct influence upon one another is not the right fit for you.
This should, in no way, be misconstrued to mean that I think the discussion of such mechanics is valueless. To the contrary, I love that GW has provided these forums for us to kick around ideas, and I hope they are reading our posts and perhaps even garnering ideas for their use. There are parts of Nihimon's proposal, and also in the extensions tacked on by other posters, that I think are worthy inclusion (as stated earlier, I like the idea of not being flagged when protecting your own territory). I just don't want to see GW water down their intended desire for meaningful player interaction. Other games have gone out of their way to do so. Hopefully by sticking to their guns on this issue, it will be just one more way in which PFO sets itself apart.
Hobs
The Empyrean Order
http://theempyrean.org/
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I think this is what they were referring to.
Settlements that have a high Reputation have the "best stuff". Settlements that are Lawful operate more smoothly. So the "best" Settlement will be one operated with high reputation lawful good characters. "Best" being defined by some complicated n-dimensional matrix of availability of things like trainers, workshops, temples, markets, etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Do keep in mind, many things that have previously been posted have already been changed when the community started poking holes in it or thought it went against the spirit of Pathfinder or the Game They Want to Play.
Alignments and the posts about it have received a lot of attention from the community recently, and it has been awhile since we've received any new information, so they could be designing something differently.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Unfortunately Luxor, we've simply been trained through experience to expect some people to not respect the game or the people in it and use it as a digital playground in which they can satisfy boredom through immature actions hidden behind anonymity.
I'd like to say it will be different because so much of this game promises to redefine what we already know, but in griefing at least it does not look like this sandbox style of play eliminates the presence and impact of these asshats.
Sometimes people legitimately lose their cool, and that can be dealt with in the community, but for those that care not a whit about the community we must make sure that there is at least some means of protection or at least restitution for the victims of these undesirable wretches.
The trick is in doing so without interfering with the game as it is meant to be played. So we search for elegant solutions to a problem only a small percent of the population will truly experience at its worst, that also attracts as few of these wretches as possible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As far as insulating mechanics are concerned, I doubt I'll ever use the bounty system. I'm just not a vengeful/retributive person. I fully understand that participating means consenting to getting killed by other players. Good, I've just helped somebody else have fun. Our characters aren't real and they can't be permanently taken away (barring a glitch or inappropriate behavior). I sometimes wonder if there's been too much talk of griefing because we're still in a new player recruitment phase.
I have to agree with everything Luxor said... except that I quite enjoy taking righteous vengeance ;)
I don't really mind if somebody has fun by 'griefing' me.
In EQ when somebody decided it would be fun to kill me repeatedly while I tried to reach my corpse(s), I found the challenge of sneaking behind trees/huts/hills exciting. I usually would peek around a corner where I knew he/she wouldn't see me unless his camera was positioned perfectly and wait for the aggressor to run off to chase somebody else... or make a run to drag my corpse out from under them and hope they were AFK just long enough to not notice.
Then, when I saw them next, engaged in a close encounter with whatever high-level NPC they were camping or another player(s), revenge would be all the sweeter.
A few of these 'griefers' that I bumped into thereafter would neglect to notice me or bow respectfully. Being viewed as a threat or simply not worth the time to annihilate) by characters much more powerful than I also felt good.
Thing is, this will be much rarer in PFO due to the narrowing of the level gap. Alignment shifts, reputation, death-curses, and bounties will only further restrict FFA PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In EQ when somebody decided it would be fun to kill me repeatedly while I tried to reach my corpse(s), I found the challenge of sneaking behind trees/huts/hills exciting.
Hah, having played a Bard for most of my EQ career.. I had to be incredibly unobservant to get caught by the passive PvP one had to use for the killings. One pulse of Selo's and I was home free. ;) I do regret not having played on the PvP servers back then, it was something I wasn't comfortable with at the time and gives me a small amount of sympathy for those who cringe at this being "Open PvP"
I really hope enough races are added that in addition to Alignment based conflict we also see Racial conflict between characters and NPCs/monsters. One more thing to tie characters more closely together, and yet also be able to transcend when appropriate.
Thing is, this will be much rarer in PFO due to the narrowing of the level gap. Alignment shifts, reputation, death-curses, and bounties will only further restrict FFA PvP.
I do not think this kind of thing will be more rare simply due to the nature of the game. As you described, people will wait for opportune moments to engage. The scales between players are going to be light enough that practically anything can tip the balance: an ill-timed roaming creature, or a fresh out of char creation newb. I think this will happen whenever the situation presents itself if only given the players who will jump at it.
You guys are right about it needing to be all in good fun though, hopefully the gravity presented by the bounty system will only further the amusement of those so hunted.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Right, in that quote I was specifically referencing the case where a higher-power character could ANNIHILATE everybody in a zone; I suspect a bored higher-level thought to enter the zone just to casually kill everybody with impunity. The second sentence references FFA PvP in general.
As it gets harder to definitively win PvP battles, PvP becomes more rare. As the costs for engaging in PvP battles increases, PvP becomes more rare.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes, though some will take part in PvP regardless of the cost. It'll definitely be a shared effort between the players and the devs to make sure nothing ends up being prohibitively costly save griefing itself.
I'm definitely glad we won't see the kind of power scaling that allowed a higher level to start using the Fibonacci sequence to gauge how many lower levels they could kill at once based on how much past a 10 level gap they were.