Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, I can speak for one evil company. A few points:
1) we're not on the land rush leaderboard because we don't want land.
2) we are lawful evil, and hate chaotic evil just as much as we hate lawful good.
3) we love being "minor cogs". In fact we are currently cogs in several large organizations. We aren't in those roles so that we can suddenly pop out like a jack in the box and cause all kinds of chaos and destruction - that would be a chaotic mentality. We view our infiltration targets as investments, and we like to see our investments grow.
4) don't be a cancer. You go around causing to much chaotic evil noise in the game and end up on our radar, we'll do our best to take that personally.
5) thanks to us, many companies who want to see law enforced a little more viciously but don't want to play evil will have the option of hiring us to get angry about the things they take personally.
I do not think fulcrum realizes it will be several months after Early Enrollment starts (possibly several months after open enrollment) before we can even take someone's settlement from them.
And not only is there tony's totaly legitament bread making to tell your hardships to and have everything suddenly get better, There is also several large companies that just will not abide bullying of this nature.
Fulcrum, you and your guild are now officially on my watch list. You step to far out of line and you will not like the outcome. you have been warned, I suggest you repent and beg Iomedae's forgiveness.
-Darsch, paladin of Iomedae
I took this as a rather astute but of roll playing that incidentally looks like it may address a serious issue. First of all since we are looking at over a year before the game opens up and some considerable time after that before there can be wars between settlements what else could it be?
Let's take a look at the land rush poll as Andius suggested though.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2paon?Poll-Kickstarter-Land-Rush-Leaderboard
I see only 9 guilds with more than 10 votes (looks like ~10% of the backers eligible to vote have done joined guilds and done so) of those the top 5 are all pretty much guild aligned and have text on their recruitment pages that either states explicitly or suggest they are willing to help those outside their guilds and/or will fight evil. Of the remaining 4 2 are good aligned and one aggressively so. One of the others doesn't have a recruitment page and the other allows 5 alignments 3 good, 1 neutral, and 1 evil and goes on to say that evil acts will not be permitted in their territory. Now the numbers are likely to change over time but there's a pretty strong trend established.Now look at the psychology of those that play evil characters. How many really want to be a minor cog in a large organization? On the other hand a lot of those who want to primarily craft or gather resources are content to be members of a good or at least neutral organization. I suspect we are going to see a dearth of powerful evil guilds. If one arises it's more likely to be an alliance of such guilds.
If we are to have massed battles and wars however it would be nice to see such organizations so getting a start on one now makes sense.
I will say I have seen some very well done recruitment pages by guilds that shall we say are on the shady side.
I have to agree with you. I very much hope to see several evil guilds. or i wont have anyone to use smite evil on lol.
This conversation is representative of the problems of role-playing 'evil' in a video game (or at all really).
Where is the line between 'role-playing' and 'being a jerk'?
Is it griefing if you repeatedly raid a player's caravans as he tries to send goods to a town your guild is besieging?
Is it griefing if you steal resources of a player because of no other reason than the opportunity was there and it was of benefit to you?
To properly roleplay evil against good players you do have to be at least a little 'adversarial'. In tabletops the GM always lets the players win eventually (unless he's a mean GM). In an MMO the only decider of who wins is who got the killing blow.
People who are playing good aligned guilds have certainly made no hesitation in stating they will 'hunt down and wipe out' evil players and are applauded. (Intriguingly they seem to be indicating they will be doing this right off the bat, regardless of whether or not the evil player has actually done anything to them. How.. 'good' of them...)
Evil players who do the same are accused of bullying and griefing.
I would like to play an evil character, and yes if necessary that would mean assassinating, stealing, opposing, ambushing, threatening, intimidating, whatever was appropriate (in the context of the game and my character). I would not mindlessly grief people, or roam aimlessly slaughtering. But if an opportunity to ambush and waylay came up, because of carelessness or poor planning, why should I not be able to play the character I intend?
I don't say any of this to be a jerk, I'm not out to ruin anyone else's fun, but unless we can allowed to be at least 'somewhat' evil, then there is no point in having them at all.
There'll still be conflict regardless, and people will accuse people of being jerks regardless of what alignment tag their character has.
True. Every single word.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Getting conserned there are too few evil guilds in an Open World PVP game that is still in early development is like getting conserned there are too few flies buzzing around a dump your dog just took on a hot summer day.
They will come. And when they do they will be beyond count. Just give it some time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Getting conserned there are too few evil guilds in an Open World PVP game that is still in early development is like getting conserned there are too few flies buzzing around a dump your dog just took on a hot summer day.They will come. And when they do they will be beyond count. Just give it some time.
The anology that you use makes the evil aligned players flies who feed on the good players, what does that make the good players? (I do hope that is taken lightly as it was intended, no offence is intended)
I believe the flood you are speaking of are those of the lowest online moral stock, the griefer, well burn those flies up. I think those that are trying to organize some evil at this point are only trying on creating a foil for the good guys. An entity that competes for resources but will still not stand for griefing. I for one would like to play on the darker side but would gladly join forces with a good character to stamp out those kind of players. Which is why lawful evil would be the only evil algnment I could play.
Kill you once, shame on you. Kill you twice (or 10 times), shame on me and a possible appearance ban from dev land.
A merchant caravan comes near our settlement sure I would destroy it and take the spoils if they won't pay the lawful fee's for passing our teritory. But if anyone spawn camps or trys to unlawfully murder lawful players in my hex, I'll gather my evil companions and stamp them out, while I'm contacting GW to get the ban hammer swinging.
From your thread Treaty of Rovagug - An offer to every non-griefer organization it seems that you understand that griefing and evil can and should be different things, I know that griefers will be pushed towards the evil algnment but please don't lump evil characters in with evil players.
Evil characters are ok, evil players are not.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Really all the grief is becasue there are two distinct sort of players the "co-operate to build something cool" crowd and the good old "I will win and I will be awesome" brigade.
GW seem to be trying to attract both with talk of both "non combat crafting merchant characters" and "open PvP allowed".
- Typically in a game the non-combat world building types see PvP players as "griefers".
- The PvP players see the non combat characters as weak ineffectual and needing to be taught a lesson about how to build a good character.
It will be interesting to see if they can pull this off.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really all the grief is becasue there are two distinct sort of players the "co-operate to build something cool" crowd and the good old "I will win and I will be awesome" brigade.
GW has clarified that they do not share that definition of griefing. To them, griefing is about just trying to ruin the fun of others, and has nothing to do with how or how hard you try to win.
If you are not clear on that distinction, there will be a communicative disconnect in any resulting discussions you try to have about griefing on these forums.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Really all the grief is becasue there are two distinct sort of players the "co-operate to build something cool" crowd and the good old "I will win and I will be awesome" brigade.GW has clarified that they do not share that definition of griefing. To them, griefing is about just trying to ruin the fun of others, and has nothing to do with how or how hard you try to win.
If you are not clear on that distinction, there will be a communicative disconnect in any resulting discussions you try to have about griefing on these forums.
I think that was the exact point I was trying to make. The two groups arguing are coming from totally different places and do not communicate well.
- What many non-combat players see as "griefing" the combat focused just see as "competitive play".
- Meanwhile what some (many?)combat focused players see as "ineffectual useless character builds" the non-combat players see as "good role-playing fun characters that can avoid all that tedious combat".
Two disparate play styles could be seen as incompatible, but PFO hopes to get them to integrate. It will be interesting to see how it goes. If they succeed it will make a great game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Communication or not though, there actually is a category of play that will be considered griefing.
So if you're saying that the griefing is due to lack of communication, then you're discounting the approach of playing solely to ruin other people's fun.
As far as integrating the other two types of gameplay, I hear a bread maker named Tony is trying to give the non aggressive players a helpful option.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The kickstarter landrush displays many guilds being represented by only one registered contributer. My assumption has been that this is the cause of speculation that there are guilds with only one member when the more likely case is there are guilds where only one member contributed more than $35 and were eligible to place their vote.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The kickstarter landrush displays many guilds being represented by only one registered contributer. My assumption has been that this is the cause of speculation that there are guilds with only one member when the more likely case is there are guilds where only one member contributed more than $35 and were eligible to place their vote.
Indeed, and also some people (like me) may be waiting to decide wich guild they will join or if they will create a guild themselves or play as lonewolves. The real number of players in most guilds is going to increase with time.
|
I think an important distinction we need to make here is that a Guild is a group of like minded and goal oriented people working together. By definition a Guild would require several people.
I wouldn't be in the least surprised to see all these KS donors who have Guild charter rights and aren't joining up with another Charter to be lumped together as a very open loose general population "Pathfinder" guild on day 1, because otherwise there is NO way these players will be able to compete against major settlements or large Guilds.
If someone wants to play a lone wolf that's fine, but lone wolves dont have guild affiliations, and neither should the be able to benefit from the things a guild has access to such as additional storage, unique buildings, and property.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Goblinworks didn't sell rights to a 'Guild'. They sold rights to a Chartered Company's name. A Chartered Company doesn't have to be a large guild that is devoted to every section of the game... I expect that the majority of Chartered Companies will be small groups of people getting together to become bandits, merchants, drovers, guards, druid circles... There will be a niche for every group.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think an important distinction we need to make here is that a Guild is a group of like minded and goal oriented people working together. By definition a Guild would require several people.
I wouldn't be in the least surprised to see all these KS donors who have Guild charter rights and aren't joining up with another Charter to be lumped together as a very open loose general population "Pathfinder" guild on day 1, because otherwise there is NO way these players will be able to compete against major settlements or large Guilds.
If someone wants to play a lone wolf that's fine, but lone wolves dont have guild affiliations, and neither should the be able to benefit from the things a guild has access to such as additional storage, unique buildings, and property.
I agree. Maybe GW should keep track of all those KS donors and see if more players are joining their guilds or not. If not , they should not be allowed to have guild rights in the beta gameplay period.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Maybe GW should keep track of all those KS donors and see if more players are joining their guilds or not. If not , they should not be allowed to have guild rights in the beta gameplay period.
Only if they reimburse them their money. These people paid a lot of money to have a Chartered Company name to themselves, it shouldn't be taken away because they don't have a full six members by opening day
|
|
Maybe GW should keep track of all those KS donors and see if more players are joining their guilds or not. If not , they should not be allowed to have guild rights in the beta gameplay period.Only if they reimburse them their money. These people paid a lot of money to have a Chartered Company name to themselves, it shouldn't be taken away because they don't have a full six members by opening day
What do you propose then? I think something like a system where all the chartered companies (Basically a guild name placard they can show off) should be grouped into an NPC alliance like the "Pathfinder Society" which will already have a presence in the area. This will let them have access to their charter benefits, and group them together under the umbrella of common interest.
It's like a corporation. The big daddy company is in charge, but there could be dozens if not hundreds of smaller scale franchises going down from there, and from there you could even parse it out into guilds, individual companies, and clans.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I had assumed that many chartered companies would be simple adventuring companies with no real intentions of getting a settlement.
Remember the $500 also gives you 5 accounts with 3 months subs. Some of these individuals probably contributed $500 because they wanted to support at a high level and hope to "sell" the other four accounts with Month One access when the early entry starts.
Even if someone really intends to run a chartered company by themselves playing all 5 accounts (plus destiny twins so 10 characters) personally how does that hurt anyone or damage the game ?
|
|
Even if someone really intends to run a chartered company by themselves playing all 5 accounts (plus destiny twins so 10 characters) personally how does that hurt anyone or damage the game ?
It doesn't hurt anyone but themselves, I think is the point we are trying to make. These players aren't going to be able to DO the things they probably want to do if they don't organize themselves and align with others. For example, they wont be able to harvest resources because they will always be alone for one, two they cant afford to conscript a caravan, have anywhere to store the goods, or a way to get it to market to make any money.
The best these people will be able to do it maybe hire themselves out to larger companies that need a little extra muscle.
|
|
Should not interfere with those settlements? I don't understand. Are you saying you think these 1-3 player, single account Charter owners will have their own settlements? I don't see that inferred anywhere on the KS, and REALLY hope they don't let that happen just because that person paid a little more than the others, it just doesn't make sense to let any single player have the resources amounting to 100,000+ Gold right off the start, only to lose them bandits or opportunistic neighbors within a week.
I perfectly understand letting them have a guild name, and whatever reputation bonuses it comes with, but access to the invaluable resources like kingdom building, and guild storage doesn't make sense for any individual player.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Are you saying you think these 1-3 player, single account Charter owners will have their own settlements?
From Kickstarter Land Rush Leaderboard:
This Leaderboard will determine the order that initial Settlements will be created in Pathfinder Online during the Early Enrollment period.
...
During Early Enrollment... Settlements will not face the threat of being displaced by hostile forces.
I can't find it right now, but I think I remember Ryan saying they were thinking of handing out 30-40 Settlement Hexes based on the Land Rush. That seems high, and I may be very wrong. But judging by the leaderboard right now, there are only 13 guilds listed with 10 or more members.
I expect some of the numbers will increase after the survey. I find it very easy to believe that some guild members just couldn't be bothered to register on the forums to vote.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
... I find it very easy to believe that some guild members just couldn't be bothered to register on the forums to vote.Some, to be sure, couldn't be bothered but many, I am equally sure, did not pledge the $35 requirement to participate in that poll.
Yeah I know this is the case for a number of the people that will be in my guild. They will likely join up once the game is closer to EE/Release but this far out they are still stuck playing GW2.