Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
nurfed Bounties into uselessness.
Aparently they now only exist so GW can falsely claim to have a system to discourage griefing.
Since this changed after the kickstarter will we be able to adjust our pledges downward when the pledge manager comes out?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Im beginning to think its as a couple have said already. GW is concentrating so much on anti-griefing tactics, it is blinding them to the lack of ballance this creates for meaningful PvP.
I think this alignment system is getting a bit out of hand too. Its nice they are trying to make it more true to the TT version, but not at the expense of making the game fun.
Law vs Chaos seems ok the way they describe how it will work.
Good vs Evil is sounding a bit fruity. I dont expect it to try to accuarately reflect good vs evil, besides its often in the eye of the beholder. Like durring the early days of the Church: Roman Catholic vs Eastern Orthidox. For all points and purposes each thought they were right and the other was wrong, so each called the called other side EVIL. What about Samurai in fuedal Japan? With them it was more like might made right, the losers were called evil.
I think Good vs Evil should be more of a state of mind that you choose to side with, and that way everyone I enteract with will know where I stand at all times. I want to be neutral and play both sides, I fins=d it very unrealistic to have my alignment swing like a pendalum everytime I work for opposing teams. Its not like I have actually become or support the ideaology of good or evil. So Id rather just choose G, N, or E, and stick with it, and have a lengthy quest(with like a 6 month waiting period before you can do it again possibly longer) to become different if I change my mind.
In short good vs evil is too complex and makes things a bit wierd in trying to make it into an alignment system.
Reputation seems like it could be a bit off too. What about contracts? I assume contracts are one of the main things that effect reputation based on how faithfully you carried them out. Now they want to attach murder to loweing reputation? Thats not right. Seems to me they need to have 2 different categories: one that is based on contracts and one that is based on your presonal behavior outside of contracts. I think its unfair for someone to possibly not trust or want to deal witt me even if I have done and will do all contracts faithfully.
Bounty Hunters shouldnt have that much personal information on my character. If they want to give them tracking abilities to take them right to me then thats fine, but they shouldnt have access to my associates and dealings. That should be the job of information brokers, if the bounty hunter wants to take extra steps and try to buy that info themselves then so be it.
Death Curse: This is the most ridiculous thing yet. Its completely unballances and it will have the exact opposite effect of its intended use. If you dont give some criminals a little hope, all you are doing is fueling their "I dont give a damn" attitude". Because you make it impossible for PvPers to want to carry anything of value even threaded. So they will carry crap gear and have no fear of loss and therefore no fear of adopting a "KoS anything that moves" stance. Then they will eventaully leave out of boredom. Then the bounty hunters have nothing to do, and the economy is not held in check. Sounds pretty boring.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is getting very unbalanced and biased to LG. If GW wants a truly enjoyable sandbox PvP game, they seriously need to design the game so the game is balanced at neutral, not LG.
The reputation is purely for LG. In so many games and adventures, there a huge load of famous evil characters that carries huge influences for having very high reputation in their areas, and even in the LG territories for these evil characters have achieved great status.
There definitely need to have another reputation measure for gaining reputation for doing chaotic and evil acts, which the evil territories can use for building settlements, training, etc. Basically the same as for LG, but used for CE. Evil would use the evil reputation scale instead of the good scale used for good territories.
I not planning to play an evil character, but think the current proposal is ridiculous biased to LG.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I also Have an answer going along with my proposal to get rid of the Good vs Evil alignment system and just go with Good Neutral and Evil sides.
I know it could be important for certain things like paladin and cleric. So how about a "Blasphemy Flag", while this flag is in effect abilities dependent on their diety will not be available and the character has been abandoned by their god. This could also make them vunerable for sanctioned attacks by worshipers of their own god.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
nurfed Bounties into uselessness.
Aparently they now only exist so GW can falsely claim to have a system to discourage griefing.
Since this changed after the kickstarter will we be able to adjust our pledges downward when the pledge manager comes out?
I agree, after reading how unbalanced the game has become, one should have the option to reduce the pledge, for what was advertised in Kickstarter is not what being implemented. Getting funding on false pretences.
Thank goodness, I was forced to pledge at lowest level to get the extras (non-MMO stuff). So I have no need to lower my pledge. I was thinking of upping my pledge, but at this rate of unbalancing I probably just stick to my original pledge for the non-MMO stuff.
One thing that I do not agree is the fact that Lawfull and good settlements apparently (if I did not missanderstood) will have more acess to better buildings.
Why , for example a LE settlement would be less capable of building better buildings than LG ????
I Can understand Chaotic (not only the CE) settlements having problems, but I see no reasonable explanation for an Evil having that kind of restricition. On the contrary, Evil settlements should be allowed to build stuff good cannot as, for example, buildingss related to slavery or black magic.
How do GW intend people to play evil roles if they will not be allowed to have access to cities where the better buildings for training and crafting will be built??????
IMO at least LE and NE settlements shoud be able to build equivalent stuff in comparison with the good ones or you will never got a suitable balance, and will make playing evil a less enjoyable experience than playing a good or neutral one.
I think GW needs to clue us in on what they mean by LG settlements having access to "better" buildings. I got the impression that these better buildings would be related to training facilities. But that doesn't really make sense as an upgrade to a building used to train a skill should be dependent on some factor other then alignment. Honestly I can't imagine what sort of desired building would be alignment dependent unless it was some deity related temple or religious structure. Even then why wouldn't LE get their own evil version of the same building? A bit of clarification would really help here.
I still believe that a LE settlement should be a reverse mirror of a LG settlement, both receiving the same type of buildings, just at opposite ends of the good/evil axis.
Goblinworks Founder
|
I'm wondering if a settlement can make Bounty Hunting illegal?
I can see why either a pacifist or an evil settlement would not want Bounty Hunters trolling their streets and freely attacking its citizens.
This is an interesting point. I could see a lawful neutral, lawful good or even a tyrannical lawful evil society frowning upon bounty hunters or vigilantes taking the law into their own hands. Some might consider it illegal to bypass the authorities of law enforcement placing bounty collecting of any form in a similar category to kidnapping or assassination.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There is an apparent imbalance in the nature of settlements as described. I'm not sure that "freedom of action" will be a legitimate incentive for Chaos/Evil if all of the tangible benefits go to Law/Good.
Maybe certain parts of the settlement (citizenry, certain buildings, etc) function slightly better for Law/Good cities, or depending on the settlement's alignment it can have access to certain buildings; with positive, negative, or mixed connotations to the structures depending on the settlement's alignment.
And as always, any hard system can be exploited and undermined. A strict alignment system, if not properly managed and calibrated, could be turned on its head.
----------------------
I would advocate for the bounty system to have more flexibility in regards to time.
Instead of making a bounty post last 24 hours, allow the player to determine the length from 24 hours to, oh let's say, a week? Longer times may require a surcharge in M-Currency, and a renewal could be placed at the end of the term set by the player.
Additionally, allow for the player (or maybe the bounty-hunter) to set the amount of time any one actor (or group of actors I hope) can hold the bounty. As little as a day or as much as the entirety of the term. Bounties should be able to be abandoned by bounty-hunters at any time.
Lastly, a good MTX-currency item would be something that allowed the posting of bounties from a remote location. A specialized "Sending" scroll essentially. One-time use consumable item that gives you full options for setting up a bounty from anywhere in the game. Maybe an advanced version could allow a specific bounty-hunter (or group) to accept the bounty immediately from a remote location.
Giving the system more utility will allow it to have a more prominent role in the day-to-day events of the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think there's a slight problem with the current design as the alignment system currently performs two separate roles:
1) It in some form and capacity performs the RP functionality that is familiar from TT version of the game.
2) It doubles as anti-griefing mechanic to deter people from being evil by issuing penalties for evil-doers.
It's like trying to tune a guitar to two different keys simultaneously. That don't work so good.
Ok, so it's Care Bear PvP. Weak Devs, very weak.
You claim to want meaningful PvP and your vision of that is to hinder players to such an extent that they will become CE in no time and thus have vast disadvantages compared to players of the Good and Neutral alignment who will probably make up the bulk of the server (maybe even because of your game-mechanics).
Disappointing to say the least.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
hmmm kinda feeling twisted about this blog. It seems that the whole concept will be to keep people being all on the good side. I do want to see some benefits for the evil ones as well since it is part of the game.
This game will need it's pvp and it shouldn't be grinded into the ground with all the rules and regulations. I can understand the hits on rep/alignment when it happens in a heavy guarded zone or in one from an charter, but in the lawless regions it shouldn't be tbh.
Please sort out for those who want to be evil as well so that there will be an incentive for them to play and please don't over protect the players to much :(
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a quick impression: Some of the last 7 or so posts (skipping here and there) are not talking about the number of players who are of a type of alignment, the frequency of flagging, the number of bounties being issued average daily etc... .
=
My take-homes from the current state of the alignment system with pvp:
1. Chaos sounds fun breaking all the rules - people will do it.
2. Evil if part of this axis is NPC stuff, interacting with dark gods and evil skills (??) also sounds interesting if done lawfully.
3. Neutral variants are expected to be the highest frequency variant according to previous dev statement of intention.
4. Until we know what "better buildings means" and in which order and magnitude from LG...CE, and what numbers of the population are what alignment, it's too early to declare LG = uber.
-
Lastly PvP is so fun, I don't expect the alignment system will get in the way of that enjoyment for a lot of players, especially those working within it to achieve objectives + fun.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
to hinder players to such an extent that they will become CE in no time and thus have vast disadvantages compared to players of the Good and Neutral alignment who will probably make up the bulk of the server (maybe even because of your game-mechanics).
My expectation is that CE will be full of players who revel in PvP FFA. They will contain some seriously skillful players and what I imagine is that CE players will be other CE players main and favorite form of content.
@AvenaOats
My point is that the alignment system appears to lack balance, with the current information given.
I concur that we need to see what the Devs mean by "better buildings", but the created impression (at least for me) is that Good and Neutral get advantages for being that alignment and Evil gets sh*fted. (Pardon my french)
I do not mind challenges for being Evil, I do mind one alignment seemingly singled out and punished disproportionally.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of people aren't getting that it's the Chaotic/Evil/Low-Rep settlement that is at a disadvantage.
Chaotic Evil + high rep will probably get you around 75% of the way to 'max'. Getting high rep while shifting chaotic evil will be a challenge in its own.
Bottom line, it is easier to live in polite society.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So the only issue with the alignment system is that CE players won't have access to the same "goodies" as good? Im sure the devs will read these posts and make a change. I think fundametally the alignment system works.
I love this community and how we can discuss issues without flaming each other.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Defending the weak from an aggressor seems like a moral imperative for paladins, but it looks like they'll need a way to incapacitate foes without actually killing them in order to do that.
Indeed. IMO a non-lethal way to collect a bouty (by capturing or rendering the enemy unconcious) will be necessary to keep the balance and allow good players to get involved in the bounty hunting process.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Valkenr
It is not about ease. It is about fairness.
Bring on your challenges, but also bring the rewards from being Evil.
Balance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GW is setting up a baseline foundation for general society that has structure and not a complete bloodbath, which is why it tends towards good. This is needed. Why? Based on years of MMO experience.
Once we have a solid baseline it is easy enough to tweak things in order to get other results - like for instance, catering to an evil subset.
I would like to see a well-thought out discussion started by someone invested in the evil side that takes the current design and shows the implications, and what they believe is still needed. I think that would be helpful overall, as opposed to the quick reactions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Defending the weak from an aggressor seems like a moral imperative for paladins, but it looks like they'll need a way to incapacitate foes without actually killing them in order to do that.Indeed. IMO a non-lethal way to collect a bouty (by capturing or rendering the enemy unconcious) will be necessary to keep the balance and allow good players to get involved in the bounty hunting process.
I agree with this statement....but It appears they may need to think about sieges as well. What if a settlement of "good" players decides the "evil" guys next door need to be dealt with. How will that keep the "good" players from becoming "evil"?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I also Have an answer going along with my proposal to get rid of the Good vs Evil alignment system and just go with Good Neutral and Evil sides.
I know it could be important for certain things like paladin and cleric. So how about a "Blasphemy Flag", while this flag is in effect abilities dependent on their diety will not be available and the character has been abandoned by their god. This could also make them vunerable for sanctioned attacks by worshipers of their own god.
I like this idea very much.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree with this statement....but It appears they may need to think about sieges as well. What if a settlement of "good" players decides the "evil" guys next door need to be dealt with. How will that keep the "good" players from becoming "evil"?Defending the weak from an aggressor seems like a moral imperative for paladins, but it looks like they'll need a way to incapacitate foes without actually killing them in order to do that.Indeed. IMO a non-lethal way to collect a bouty (by capturing or rendering the enemy unconcious) will be necessary to keep the balance and allow good players to get involved in the bounty hunting process.
Already accounted for. Either declaring war, or the fact that good killing evil is not going to push good towards evil, in fact it would push good towards good.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have never been a big fan of an alignment system. An alignment system restricts role playing through the use if game mechanics, and I wonder why this needs to be in place.
There are many ways to limit unwanted PvP. Some of which have not been discussed:
1. Make sure not to track pvp kills. With no record of pvp on leader boards you will not have pvp farming.
2. Either no player looting or full player looting will limit unwanted pvp. One thing fake, hardcore papers hate is full looting. They don't want to risk 1 gold of their own loot in pvp. Or no looting and you remove some of the incentive for pvp.
I don't actually agree with 2, but it would work. There just seems to be too much worrying over potential griefing and restrictions and limitations are bleeding into other unrelated systems of the game.
The Alignment and Settlement systems are the two most impacted. Good vs Evil should have no impact on settlements, law and chaos makes more sense.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GW isn't sharing with us things they have not yet fully decided, although they are sharing some things they are considering.
We haven't heard what it is that chaotic and evil will have that balances the game. I think it is premature to judge overall factional imbalance.
If CE is able to more easily gain goblins as cannon fodder it would go a long way toward balancing any LG advantages that have been shared with us.
While it is good to give voice to concern, it is not yet time to form judgement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Alignment should be a role-playing and story-telling device. It has nothing to do with real life players misbehaving.
Please reconsider using alignment as a punishment system, as you are punishing half (well the way things are going more like 10%) of your playerbase for doing nothing more wrong than selecting an option during the character creation process.
One other thought, how on earth does a Chaotic Good society even function using this system?
GW is setting up a baseline foundation for general society that has structure and not a complete bloodbath, which is why it tends towards good. This is needed. Why? Based on years of MMO experience.
Once we have a solid baseline it is easy enough to tweak things in order to get other results - like for instance, catering to an evil subset.
I would like to see a well-thought out discussion started by someone invested in the evil side that takes the current design and shows the implications, and what they believe is still needed. I think that would be helpful overall, as opposed to the quick reactions.
So you would create a world, in which in-game 9 different alignments exist as a universally accepted standard, and cater primarily to good (at first).
My question would be, why not build it around the 9 different alignments right from the start?
Sure, it is complex, but that is why they are the game designers. I am quite sure they can overcome this problem, maybe even with some community help since we seem to have one of the most mature ones I have seen in an MMO so far.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
GW isn't sharing with us things they have not yet fully decided, although they are sharing some things they are considering.
We haven't heard what it is that chaotic and evil will have that balances the game. I think it is premature to judge overall factional imbalance.
If CE is able to more easily gain goblins as cannon fodder it would go a long way toward balancing any LG advantages that have been shared with us.
While it is good to give voice to concern, it is not yet time to form judgement.
I second this.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
GW is setting up a baseline foundation for general society that has structure and not a complete bloodbath, which is why it tends towards good. This is needed. Why? Based on years of MMO experience.
Once we have a solid baseline it is easy enough to tweak things in order to get other results - like for instance, catering to an evil subset.
I would like to see a well-thought out discussion started by someone invested in the evil side that takes the current design and shows the implications, and what they believe is still needed. I think that would be helpful overall, as opposed to the quick reactions.
So you would create a world, in which in-game 9 different alignments exist as a universally accepted standard, and cater primarily to good (at first).
My question would be, why not build it around the 9 different alignments right from the start?
Sure, it is complex, but that is why they are the game designers. I am quite sure they can overcome this problem, maybe even with some community help since we seem to have one of the most mature ones I have seen in an MMO so far.
In a sense that's what they are doing. Alignment is a scale, so at certain points you could call the scale a particular alignment. *shrugs*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I forgot to mention, Judas Priest ftw!
As does Rush! :D
One other thought, how on earth does a Chaotic Good society even function using this system?
As near as I can tell, they will be black sheep, just like CE are.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
nurfed Bounties into uselessness.
Aparently they now only exist so GW can falsely claim to have a system to discourage griefing.
Since this changed after the kickstarter will we be able to adjust our pledges downward when the pledge manager comes out?
Nice work--it's like no matter how cleverly GW tries to peddle their lies, you just see right through 'em and call it out. Please, please don't ever stop pointing out their "false" claims, and making clever Kickstarter references to drive home the financial stakes for GW's mendacity.
@Elorebaen
But do you not see that in going that route you set up the basic laws of the world to be oriented toward good. The Good and Neutrals whom you want to start creating a society and structure for the game in the beginning.
Evil however could possibly be severely limited due to the world being created primarily with good in mind.
Why should the Evil side have less of a chance to build an equally sound structure in their own way?
Why should we start with a disadvantage?
Evil finds a way (Yes, I am aware it sounds like a quote from Jurassic Park) :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm a little worried about balance as well--it sure sounds like being evil (even LE) will be a raw deal, but it also seems like LG being involved in PVP outside of warfare will get done wrong. Some specific questions GW:
1) How can I as a LG paladin meaningfully engage in making the Crusader Road safer? Mechanically, how can I participate in PVP without endangering my status as a paladin? Find bandits and use choice words on them?
2) Where's the "Goody Two-Shoes" flag? You've got a mechanism for the forces of good to go after the forces of evil, which makes mechanical sense to me. I don't need to be attacked by a slaver personally to want to run in and pull a Moses on them as a paladin. But don't we want evil characters to have just as much sanction to go after the enemies of their infernal master?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
2) Where's the "Goody Two-Shoes" flag? You've got a mechanism for the forces of good to go after the forces of evil, which makes mechanical sense to me. I don't need to be attacked by a slaver personally to want to run in and pull a Moses on them as a paladin. But don't we want evil characters to have just as much sanction to go after the enemies of their infernal master?
This question has me foxed for the time being also. Am I interpreting right as a form of "natural enemies" state of relationship type of classification: Therefore all (most flags) are off? But perhaps it would clash with the general system they are attempting to design first?
I don't know, maybe a Paladin can be more liberal in attacking anyone with an "Evil" axis over a certain threshold (eg abominable worshippers of some unspeakably evil god)?
Hell yea! But I was referring to the title =)I forgot to mention, Judas Priest ftw!As does Rush! :D
As was I. Well the heading of one of this weeks blog posts anyway. "There Is Trouble in the Forest" Ummm, on second thought perhaps they didn't mean this to be a quote from the song "trees". My bad!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Alignment should be a role-playing and story-telling device. It has nothing to do with real life players misbehaving.
Please reconsider using alignment as a punishment system, as you are punishing half (well the way things are going more like 10%) of your playerbase for doing nothing more wrong than selecting an option during the character creation process.
One other thought, how on earth does a Chaotic Good society even function using this system?
I don't have a pnp background (not since decades ago with dnd) so don't know how aligment really works in that. But what I take to be the essential difference:
1) PnP - you choose alignment to create a character you wish 'to act' as.
2) MMO - you choose a character and what you decide to train and what decisions you decide to take/do or how you react, shapes your alignment meter.
I think this is the essential difference?
And as said, 2) is modulated via 3 core "sliders" L-C, G-E, Rep. It seems to me that you have the interplay between:
1) Lore
2) Gameplay
I think that 2) should have more emphasis than 1) but still take into account 1) where and can and possibly as much as it should without compromising 2)?
That's purely how I envisage the system, and may be well off target in my reasoning! ie I hope I have not created a false dichotomy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
IMO the way it is going to be (or at least as it sounds after the blog post) people will have a hell of a trouble in keeping the alignment they intend to roleplay.
We only know a small portion of what may cause someone to become more chaotic, evil, or low rep. We don't know yet what will cause you to become lawful, good, or gain rep. It may not be that difficult to stay a paladin with minor good acts more than making up the minor evil act of killing an evil player.
How about Ranger's Favored enemies? Will the killing of those enemies influence the ranger's alignment?
If they choose a PC race and kill PCs, then yes. Rangers don't have alignment restrictions, and will likely be a favored class for those who want to FFA PvP. Especially if most of the community plays Human.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Since this changed after the kickstarter will we be able to adjust our pledges downward when the pledge manager comes out?Sometimes you just get burned when you make an investment, C'est la vie.
I agree, when you invest in a work in progress you must be prepared to the possibility of the end prouduct may not be totally satisfactory for you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
IMO the way it is going to be (or at least as it sounds after the blog post) people will have a hell of a trouble in keeping the alignment they intend to roleplay.We only know a small portion of what may cause someone to become more chaotic, evil, or low rep. We don't know yet what will cause you to become lawful, good, or gain rep. It may not be that difficult to stay a paladin with minor good acts more than making up the minor evil act of killing an evil player.
If they choose a PC race and kill PCs, then yes. Rangers don't have alignment restrictions, and will likely be a favored class for those who want to FFA PvP. Especially if most of the community plays Human.
How about Ranger's Favored enemies? Will the killing of those enemies influence the ranger's alignment?
Thanks, Imbicatus, I did not know that about rangers in Pathfinder, but it accords well with PFO, as Rangers/Druids have been tentatively mentioned as well suited skill-sets for solo-ing in the dangerous wilderness, self-sufficient/fighting-chance style.
Also agree, there's the tip of the iceberg with how the flags work. I guess it's one of those "million dollar" questions: How much flexibility is there between what your game actions/reactions declare your alignment to tend towards and what you as a player decide to aim for/prefer to act as in terms of your own notions of what each alignment personally means?
I'm sure that's a question that will keep popping up. But what someone says they are/do and what they actually are/do: Maybe that's where the reputation system really kicks in (unless as mentioned, it can be bought off: Sin City style!)?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As was I. Well the heading of one of this weeks blog posts anyway. "There Is Trouble in the Forest" Ummm, on second thought perhaps they didn't mean this to be a quote from the song "trees". My bad!Hell yea! But I was referring to the title =)I forgot to mention, Judas Priest ftw!As does Rush! :D
You still get a +1 for mentioning one of my all-time favorite bands! Any band that worships at the Temple of Tolkien as much as they do rock the loudest!
As for the topic at hand, I think, and it is just my opinion, people are trying to equate PFO too much to PFRPG, and they are reading more into the blog post than is actually there. I don't see things as being "nerfed" so much as being in flux. There is a long time before even EE and things can still change and evolve. If anything, this blog posting shows me that the Devs and Ryan are reacting to our requests, which is never, ever a bad thing.
I, speaking for myself, still plan to have a second account for an evil PC, and nothing I read makes me want to change this fact.
Perhaps people could take a step back, breath a little and await more posts that elaborate on things mentioned as TBD and for more on things not mentioned? As someone who used to own half of a commercial MUD, I can tell you from the other side, things are always left unsaid simply because we didn't want to let too much info out until we had a better idea as to what we wanted to do, based upon player input. I can see Ryan taking this same tact, especially since nothing is set in stone yet.
Some will agree with me, while others won't, but most of us are adults and should act like that, giving well thought out reasoned proposals. I just don't see threatening to lower or even cancel pledges is the best way to see effective change go forward. Yes, you are entitled to feel that way, and I am not saying you can't voice it, but a post made in anger is less likely to be responded to than a well thought out proposal as to how GW might change some things. Generally people, and the Devs are people, react negatively to negative posts. I see all those who pledged along with me as a sort of family, and while families squabble all the time, only those that work hard keep the family together. You still have a voice in what can happen, and if nothing else, Ryan is showing he is listening, as are the Devs. This need not be, and I doubt it is, the final word on this issue. So, I implore you to post your proposals as to how to better balance things for the most fun for all.
Sorry if that was a bit preachy, but I don't wish to see anyone bail on this so early (or at all) in the process. It is organic, so naturally everything is constantly in flux and thus subject to further revisions and changes. I am looking forward to meeting you all in game and would hate to miss out on meeting anyone.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Elorebaen
But do you not see that in going that route you set up the basic laws of the world to be oriented toward good. The Good and Neutrals whom you want to start creating a society and structure for the game in the beginning.
Evil however could possibly be severely limited due to the world being created primarily with good in mind.
Why should the Evil side have less of a chance to build an equally sound structure in their own way?
Why should we start with a disadvantage?
Evil finds a way (Yes, I am aware it sounds like a quote from Jurassic Park) :)
Consider: Isn't the non-dogmatic usage of 'Good' inherently linked with civilization? Isn't the non-dogmatic usage of evil anti-civilization?
Do you want to pretend there are no advantages to voluntarily coordinating with others for the advancement of the common weal? What is chaotic except disruptive to organization and coordination? What is evil but contradictory to what is good for society?
How can anarchy function well? How can evil be as good as good is?
So of course good will be better than evil and law more coordinated than chaos.
How could it be otherwise?
Isn't your point more toward the imbalance of power between these factions?
The fact is we have only been hearing about the game from the point of view of the Good and the Lawful. The game design has to understand the capabilities and powers of one side before the other side can become balanced. Once the design has fully determined all the powers and advantages of good and law the design can turn to balancing what is less clear and less known.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to re-iterate that this is all still early development and things are ever changing and very likely to be different to some extent a year or even a month down the road.
The whole point of these blogs is for Goblinworks to be transparent with the community in what they are considering for their design and allow us to provide constructive feedback. It was even clearly stated that
If it turns out that we were overly cynical about human behavior, and it does indeed result in a chilling effect on players willing to play down at the other end of the spectrums, we'll happily relax or remove some of these rules. But it seems like it'd be more agreeable to start strict and ease off than to try to patch in a bunch of new penalties later.
So while I'm not trying to say don't discuss the topic, I am simply asking that you take a step back for a moment and think about what your typing before you post. Brash statements of (paraphrasing) "This is horrible" isn't really that helpful. Statements of "This is horrible, this is why, and this is what I would recommend instead" are a lot more helpful.
As a side note to all this, I still don't see this as excessively harsh on evil. I plan to play an evil character (not a rampaging murderer but an evil antagonistic character) and I may be reading more into this, but some of the things that evil are allowed to do that would potentially get them flagged are things I see as being an advantage, something that makes it easier for me being evil, that good/neutral won't be able to utilize. So now there is simply some risk to my reward.
Furthermore, as has been pointed out, the whole evil settlements being weaker. I really see that as Chaotic Evil settlements that everyone hates and the only people that go their are mass murderers who no one likes being weaker. I didn't see anything about LE settlements.
As for the topic at hand, I think, and it is just my opinion, people are trying to equate PFO too much to PFRPG, and they are reading more into the blog post than is actually there. I don't see things as being "nerfed" so much as being in flux. There is a long time before even EE and things can still change and evolve. If anything, this blog posting shows me that the Devs and Ryan are reacting to our requests, which is never, ever a bad thing.
Crowdforging is still such a new process that I can't blame people for being a bit gunshy.. Normally when Devs post something like this, it's already been through the test server, been vetted by them (the Devs) and will be going live no matter what the players think or feel. It's going to take some time for that system to fade from people's minds.
I do hope the Devs will let us know which way they are thinking in terms of LG settlements having access to better buildings. Even if its still up in the air, it will help us all to know what they meant by that.