Goblin Squad Member
|
I personnaly not sure I like the attacker flag all that much. Assassin flag, Outlaw, Champion, betrayer, ect make sence and have a purpose. Attacker is just so....anyone and everyone. I don't think attacking someone should flag or give any sort of a penalty (Alingment or rep or anything) because it could be anything that gives that flag. An accident, (wrong place wrong time with AOE) it could be a calculated risk, (hit 1 friendly fighter but kill 5 goblins) it could be intentional, (I'm an assassin and you are my target) all of these for the same flag??? I think it would end up being a perma flag for some and the only ones that never get it are crafting alts that never leave the city.
I would propose instead that it be more specific, like the other flags. As a flagged assassin, You KNOW I will be attacking someone, so why do I need a flag for it? Maybe if I am flagged assassin, it adds the "attacker flag" to the pros and cons of the assassin flag. If I kill someone, I get the murderer flag, 5+ stacks of that earns me the mass murderer flag. Who cares if I started it or not, I killed someone. (At war obviously doesn't trigger this) If there is no death, then there shouldn't be flag or alignment/rep hits. If I get into a bar fight cause someone spills their ale on me, why is that chaotic to punch him in the face? If I beat some sence into him and leave him bleeding but alive on the floor, why should I take a rep or alignment hit? Now if I kill him......
If I rob you, but get overzelous and attack you instead, why should that be a different flag? It is almost like a situational thing.
As a side note, I think that reputation should have both +/- sides and each has its own perks and disadvantages. Like if I wanna be an assassin, I should be gaining - rep so that I become infamos and people begin to fear to sepak my name and even hearing a rumor that it is Possible I have a contract for them will strike fear into their hearts. That shouldn't be a high rep, that should be a low rep, meaning high -rep. someone at or near 0 rep is unknown and is a nobody (like a new player or someone off the grid.) I also think rep should have effects on NPC treatment of you and maybe influence through knowledge checks of how PCs treat you. (Something like auto flagging me as a murderer if they succeed a knowledge local check and my -rep is high from killing pcs.)
I think you are misunderstanding how the attacker flag works. It's SUPPOSED to be 'so anyone and everyone'. If you attack someone unprovoked, you get the flag. It's there to merely be a visual reminder of something that's happening. It only does any good against the player(or players) you've attacked. There may be situations where others can attack you, but that will mostly be because of other flags only peripherally related to Attacker.
A lot of the things you have listed are already in the game. I really suggest you go back and reread the Blogs on all the different kinds of flags. I think you misunderstood some stuff, or maybe have just picked your info up from these boards. Same thing goes with the rep and alignment systems.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I had written a post some time ago, where I suggested that as a reward for role playing either our professions or our alignment we should be rewarded for specific or all actions that supported those.
For example, I declare that I am a bandit. I should be rewarded with a positive Reputation for every instance where I robbed someone.
If someone declares themselves to be a healer (not neccessarily a Cleric) then they gain reputaion for everyone that they heal.
The Devs have said that Reputaion is not an indicator of good or evil, but how we play with other players. Well, by us playing our declared roles, we are playing with other players in a positive way.
This will make the Attacker Flag useless, because it does not impact reputation anyway, just adds a Chaotic shift. But as Milo points out, not all attacks should be considered Chaotic.
The devs have said repeatedly, they want PVP to be "meaningful". That is great, and I think they are well on their way to creating a systme that does just that. Now lets see if they will support the idea of makeing playing various roles "meaningful" by rewarding reputation for good role playing and doubling or even tripling the negative reputation hit for griefing or not playing to your declared role when done at the expense of others.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@zanathos I did read the blogs, every one and while it is possible that I have misread and/or don't understand how the devs intended the attacker flag to be used, I don't feel I did. I have a very strong sense that there are too many "carebear" types that are so afraid of possible greifing that they are willing to gimp PVP down to make this a mainly PVE game where no one plays a "bad guy" and it just gets stupid.
I like what bludd had purposed with "playing your role" to get reputation from it, the only down side is how would that work with my intended role of the assassin? Do I get rep for killing people? Only while flagged as an assassin? Is it only when I fulfill a assassination contract? If so, since they are intended to be rare, is it a huge boost to warrant the lack of contracts? Not to poke holes, just asking questions.
As for the attacker flag, I go again to the "How is attacking someone, provoked or not, a chaotic action?" What if a paladin is protecting someone and pushes a target back away? Does the push (In TT terms requires a touch attack and opposed strength checks to succeed) warrant the attacker flag since he is "attacking" the other person? If so then he can't do it for fear of losing his paladinhood. Now I agree that running around attacking everyone I see could be a chaotic act, but then there lies the issue of how many targets attacked per hour/day/whatever warrants the shift chaotic? Keep in mind, I fully support murder as an evil act and requires an alignment shift, except where it was warranted, such as war.
I just envision the attacker flag not as a flag by it's self, but rather as part of other flags. After all, if this is simply a way to allow someone to defend themselves without repercussions, then I say do away with that flag all together and let people defend themselves as they see fit.
My suggestion to this is to let there be some sort of control or option to "pull the last punch" for say so you don't kill the target, but instead leave him with 1 hp and on the ground. That way, you can defend yourself without fear of killing the person and gaining the penalties of murder. If you want to be a murderer (Like I intend to be, seeing as I am an assassin) then I turn that off and if I want you to live, I will stop attacking you.
If my eyes, this will lead to people getting into a confrontation, say a bar fight, and they can beat the hell out of each other, but if there is not intent on one or the other party to kill the other, then no fear. Once defeated, the target retains 1 hp, and is "Disabled" for a short time frame. This will also allow for bandits and other highwaymen to beat someone into submission so that they are "in a better position" to accept a SAD. Not saying every SAD has to start with a beating, but if your a particularly brutal sort, you can. The one being beaten doesn't have any penalties that death would normally bring, nor do they suffer penalties for defending themselves, should they choose to do so.
I, and my fellow bandits, are fighting so hard to ensure there is a place for us and our practices. it seems that there are too many people concerned that it will be abused and they won't have any fun. The key here is compromise, cause your trying to ruin my fun to protect yours. You don't want to be 1 shotted, then how can I play an assassin? I am willing to put limits (CD on the ability, required me being flaged and having contract on your first, ect.) just like I am saying here with the beating someone without death. That is so you can defend yourself and win without killing us. I, personally, have no qualms about murder so if I am fighting you, you better win LOL.
Constructive feedback is appreciated. If you wanna whine about bandits ruining your day, there is a thread for that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I fail to really see the harm in the attacker flag... all it represents is a label saying "he started something".
It isn't meant to be a long term flag it is simply cover so that in situations like
Joe and Bob are out walking, Fred attacks Joe, Fred gets the attacker flag, meaning if Bob can kill fred, nothing bad comes of Bob.
The main thing I fail to see, is why people want some intermediate step of death... or why they see it as lesser than death. Death is already extremely minor, you die, you lose the bits that you gambled to bring to the fight that you couldn't thread, and you lose the time to get out to the location. Knocking someone out wasting their time, or setting them up to be killed by something else... shouldn't be lesser penalties on the person who does it.
I could agree that the penalties of killing could benefit from being less, of course we don't even really have the numbers to know what they are to begin with beyond "some rep, some alignment shift" etc...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Milo the game design as it is laid out depends on player conflict both organized and individual. That is a core value in the design against which almost all other values are being measured. An equal core value by which almost all other values are judged is that every player should be free of abuse. It is abuse that is to be discouraged, not the expression of PvP as a game element.
Concerning yourself that those two things will change because of spoken fears by some people is pointless.
I get the feeling that a lot of people(me as well) still see any mmo with PvP, That the PvP means gank fest, I kill you, you kill them, they kill me and so on.
Trying to change that view is going to take some time, and some hard work.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It wasn't always that way with online games. While MUDs are not really considered MMOs, with only a few hundred or low thousands logged on at any one time, there are plenty of those that did not degenerate into a chaotic kill fest. Yes, it did happen in short bursts here and there, but the sense of community was very strong, and that community banded together to stomp the griefers most times. In my opinion, MMOs just need to try to get back that sense of community and these other things will be flow on effects.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree that we may be set too much in the mind set of what PVP is or was like in other MMOs.
If I flagged myself as an Outlaw, and I care about my reputaion and alignment, I will be looking for other players that are also using their flag of choice. I'm specifically looking for those using the Travler Flag, as a bandit. I would then SAD them or attack them based on which would be a better choice.
This means that if I flagged myself as an Outlaw, and someone walks by without a flag, I would likely leave them alone. That is unless, I see that they are carrying so much walth and are so under protected, that I would SAD them first. I would not attack first, because they were unflagged and I would take a substantial reputation hit for everyone killed.
The questions are these:
1. Will enough players voluntarily flag themselves for PVP, to provide enough targets to keep PVP'ers satisfied with just those that want to PVP?
2. Will the PVP flags of choice, grant sufficient benefits, that most players will choose the added risk for the rewards the flags generate?
3. As a community, will we ba content with sticking to just pvping with the willing, when they are plentiful enough, and leave those that are not flagged alone?
4. Will GW not incentivize any PVP killing, but especially cheap and easy pvp killing, by keeping any sort of tally of personal pvp kills?
I'm talking about kill boards and or accolades for PVP kills. I have found that the presence of these two things leads more to griefing and random player killing than any other motivation in an MMO.
GW must not have any type of PVP kill count, whether it be on a board, a character record, or grant accolades for it. Otherwise, they will be feeding the very behavior they are trying to prevent from happening or stop.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
From some talk on the forums I am worried about #1, Bludd. If most people try to avoid PvP by not using the flags, there wont be many PvP flagged chars. And this will lead to the answer for #3 being "NO". I too would mostly want to engauge only those flagged for PvP or durring war, or if its for a contract. If just 25% of the population normally flagged themselves for PvP, then I think this could work. But if it ends up being something more like 5%...... yea Ill probably just start SADing/attacking anyone.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People tend to hate what they fear, and ganking has such fear grown around it that it is almost mythical in proportion.
The only way that can be debunked is by community action, and a subsequent player-sourced marketing of how fun well-played PvP can be.
The package must be changed to be appealing. Nobody buys damaged goods if they have a choice.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just like teaching people who have never role-played that it is well worth the effort...we need to lead by example. By having a well knit player community that respects the person behind the computer, even if in-character you just robbed him, we can hopefully show those who are fearful of PvP that it is not synonymous with griefing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just like teaching people who have never role-played that it is well worth the effort...we need to lead by example. By having a well knit player community that respects the person behind the computer, even if in-character you just robbed him, we can hopefully show those who are fearful of PvP that it is not synonymous with griefing.
This is similar to what was said on another thread about how bad guys are not always bad people and respecting one another is what will lead to anti-griefing. Having a respectable bad guy will lead to good RP and fun game time. it provides content for everyone with the use of SAD.
@bludd I think if GW make each of the flags have a good boost for a role (similar to what they are now, I do like most of them) then I think we will see flags being used fairly often. If they make the flag more cumbersome then they are worth, then we won't see them used much. In either case, I think both flagged and non flagged players will be "interacted with" especially travelers being "taxed" by outlaws and bandits.
One thing to keep in mind, those people who are interested in playing chaotic and evil will actually have to do chaotic and evil things (such as attacking unprovoked and killing unflagged people) in order to maintain and achieve those alignments. Depending on how the characters start out alignment wise, will determined if there is mass attacking and killing near the beginning in order to "race" to those alignments.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One thing to keep in mind, those people who are interested in playing chaotic and evil will actually have to do chaotic and evil things (such as attacking unprovoked and killing unflagged people) in order to maintain and achieve those alignments. Depending on how the characters start out alignment wise, will determined if there is mass attacking and killing near the beginning in order to "race" to those alignments.
I very much doubt the bold part, Milo...
I would not be surpirsed if GW gives you a way to be evil by killing NPCs or by fulfilling Assassination Contracts, so that you never have to resort to unprovoked attacks and murders of unflagged PCs.
Everything that they have said thus far makes me believe this.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
ok, well I am just saying, If I want to play a chaotic character, and gaining the attacker flag for attacking unprovoked gives shift to chaotic, then I won't mind punching someone for the hell of it. Killing people will hurt the rep so that will be refrained from, but the evil gain wouldn't bother me, as I need to be evil to flag assassin. I agree that there should be PVE or other ways to "gain" chaotic and evil to prevent people randomly attacking and killing to maintain or even earn their desired alignment, but it will still exist. I support purposeful use of this and will personally refrain from random attacking/killing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ok, well I am just saying, If I want to play a chaotic character, and gaining the attacker flag for attacking unprovoked gives shift to chaotic, then I won't mind punching someone for the hell of it. Killing people will hurt the rep so that will be refrained from, but the evil gain wouldn't bother me, as I need to be evil to flag assassin. I agree that there should be PVE or other ways to "gain" chaotic and evil to prevent people randomly attacking and killing to maintain or even earn their desired alignment, but it will still exist. I support purposeful use of this and will personally refrain from random attacking/killing.
Actually, GW Devs have stated several times in the blogs and on these boards that the built in 'alignment drift' only happens towards lawful and good alignments, and that they're plaaning to put in an option to turn that off. In other words, if you are evil and want to STAY evil you won't have to go around drowning puppies and killing unicorns and rainbows all day in order to stay that way......
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@zanathos
Ok, that is probably true, but they also haven't said anything about starting alignments. Does everyone start LG, or TN and then shift based on actions or the natural shift if it is turned on? or do we pick our starting alignment during character creation?
If we all start TN or LG, then I have to "Drown a few puppies" to get to the CE alignment I want, but once there, I won't need to maintain it. (Although technically according to that alignment, I might want to anyway but that would be "griefing" and wont be "playing my character" but I won't go there right now.)
If we pick the alignment in character gen, then that part if void and won't be an issue.
@zanathos
Ok, that is probably true, but they also haven't said anything about starting alignments. Does everyone start LG, or TN and then shift based on actions or the natural shift if it is turned on? or do we pick our starting alignment during character creation?
If we all start TN or LG, then I have to "Drown a few puppies" to get to the CE alignment I want, but once there, I won't need to maintain it. (Although technically according to that alignment, I might want to anyway but that would be "griefing" and wont be "playing my character" but I won't go there right now.)
If we pick the alignment in character gen, then that part if void and won't be an issue.
Depending on how they do things, I can see two ways of doing this. The most LIKELY method I see is that you simply pick a starting alignment, and you begin in the middle of the 'rating' for those axis of Law-Chaos and Good-Evil. Then you turn off the alignment 'drift' and you're(a chaotic or evil character, that is) where you want to be. I also assume there will be separate switches for the two of them, for people who want to be Lawful Evil or Chaotic Good.
The other way(which I think is VERY unlikely) would be what you suggest, where everyone starts true neutral and their actions shift their alignment. This goes against everything in every video game version of D&D I've ever seen, not to mention all the source material including the Pathfinder RPG. This option is so unlikely as it's not even worth mentioning, tbh. I merely did so for completeness.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It wasn't always that way with online games. While MUDs are not really considered MMOs, with only a few hundred or low thousands logged on at any one time, there are plenty of those that did not degenerate into a chaotic kill fest. Yes, it did happen in short bursts here and there, but the sense of community was very strong, and that community banded together to stomp the griefers most times. In my opinion, MMOs just need to try to get back that sense of community and these other things will be flow on effects.
MUDs were tiny communities where generally it was not hard to know everyone who was playing. MMOs are a completely different kettle of fish - the communities are orders of magnitude larger, and unfortunately it seems there's a limit to how many others (most) people are willing to give a s&&! about.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If an game is advertised as an Open World PVP MMO, one that has in place a dev staff that has said repeatedly that they will monitor and adress instances of griefing, than we should take them at their word until we see otherwise.
To say that because it is an MMO, that has Open World PVP, that will automatically create griefing is an assumption. One that already assumes that all efforts, Devs, Moderators and player community have failed or will fail.
What arguements I have seen, frequently, are positions that advocate limiting the mechanics that allow for the Open World PVP, and in some cases reject the very idea that there can be "meaningful non consensual pvp".
Some of these arguments have gone so far as to practically equate the use of: Stealth, theft, pick pocketing, assassination, alpha strikes, usinf superior force, and all forms of non consensual pvp to Griefing. That all of these listed result in one of the two parties to be subjected to an "Unfun" game experience.
What some of us have been asking for is three things, primarily:
1. Maintain the Open World PVP focus
2. Allow classes or the skills of classes to fuunction they way they traditionally have in PnP RPGs.
3. Give us clear guidelines to follow in order to stay on the right side of the "meaningful player interaction", that the Devs want us to follow, without suffering negative impacts.
4. Use whatever tools the GMs / Devs have at their disposal to stop griefing.
For the most part, I think that GW has done an great job of doing these four things. I acknowledge that they are dificult to balance, and appreciate that they are working hard to do so.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Attacker flag, along with the other flags exist because the Dev's want PvP to be frequent in certain contexts and not be frequent in other contexts. The Flag system along with the Reputation and Alignment systems are mechanisms they will use to incentivize/decentivize player PvP behavior rather then put a hard and fast "You may never do X" mechanic in place which prevents ALL player behavior of a certain type.
The Attacker flag is essentialy an indicator that the player has INIATED PvP in certain contexts and other players are free to DEFEND themselves against said players without Reputation and Alignment consequences.
Essentialy the Dev's want SOME possibility of PvP occuring outside of "acceptable" CONTEXT's so they put in Shifts that will push the player toward Chaotic Evil with low Reputation....which is a combination which will impose significant mechanical penalties on the player...in hopes of DETERING such activity. This allows a player to OCCASIONALY engage is such activity without suffering huge penalties....but if they are doing it all the time, they will have to live with the consequences of those choices. The other flags are mostly a way for players to engage in PvP under "acceptable" contexts outside of War which is another acceptable context.
Some of these arguments have gone so far as to practically equate the use of: Stealth, theft, pick pocketing, assassination, alpha strikes, usinf superior force, and all forms of non consensual pvp to Griefing. That all of these listed result in one of the two parties to be subjected to an "Unfun" game experience.
I agree with what you have to say, Bluddwolf. The part I quoted is what scares me. I have played absolutely every major MMO, a lot of the smaller ones and was active in MUDs and MUSHes before that.
With the exception of 'using superior force' all of those examples have never really been done in a way where it was remotely fair to everyone involved. It degrades into all players who play the 'classes' involved becoming kill on sight by the whole game OR nearly everyone playing those classes. A skill based advancement system like PFO further muddies the waters since absolutely EVERYONE can have these skills unless they're using abilities with alignment requirements to limit this. Do you really want everyone to all have the exact same abilities?
I haven't read anyone arguing against using superior force, unless you're talking about the safe areas for n00bs. It seems silly for people to expect a lvl 5(or however we'll determine a character's strength) PC to be able to defeat a level 12 character.
Non consensual PvP has it's biggest issues when you get the roaming gank parties started up. 3v1 fights, or 8v3 fights aren't PvP - or at least not fun PvP. While PvP doesn't always need to be fun for both sides, there should be ways for clever or good players to have a chance most of the time... at least a chance to run away. No one's ever gonna be happy about being ganked, unless they're playing the bait for their friends hiding in the brush for some counter-ganking.
I just don't want a game where everyone's running around, stealthed all the time, waiting for a chance to get their full round of Sneak Attacks off on their opponents. In games like NWN, though the persistent world's had some issues with these things it wasn't really that big of a deal because the innate limitations that go with a rogue(mediocre AC, squishy, vulnerable to non Reflex based magic) limited them a lot. That won't be a thing in PFO. I bring up NWN because it's the closest thing to what PFO is trying to make, a D&D based persistent open PvP world.
Man, I loved me some NWN. I may have to go see if any of the old persistent world's I used to play on are still up...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Zanathos,
But what you describe as roaving parties killing willy-nilly simply because they are larger are exactly the groups that the flag and reputation systems are designed to punish, and if they're that "active", likely the ones that GW will target for GM intervention.