Goblin Squad Member
|
But given no one has challenged Grumpy Mel's calculations I have to consider they are probably correct and therefore it is far to easy to drift if the result is exclusion from your "guild"
Poor idea. If it were developer calculations, I'd agree, but Grumpy Mel doesn't know more about the actual calculations (that WILL change) than the rest of us.
Grumpy Mel's calculations are done from the figures given by the developers in one of the blog's. The post where he posts the calculations is on page 2 of this thread. If you feel they are wrong recalculate and then post your findings.
No one has yet challenged them which leads me to believe that they are not far wrong.
Could these figures change? Of course they could however we can only debate on what we have been told
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bringslite I have given examples of why I believe this system is bad.
Can you actually give a single benefit of this system other than "It will deter random player kills" because frankly it won't do that and will just give griefers another avenue to annoy you with.
This is one of my big issues I fail to see one positive of the system and I know I am not alone in this as others have expressed doubts. So rise to the challenge and give us a list of the benefits show me a scenario where it will enhance the game
If I watch my P's and Q's I can play a blessed warrior. A warrior with holy powers bestowed by his God. A Paladin.
If I watch my P's and Q's I can play a neat proffession like assasin. I just need to maintain an evil alignment so I can get the training I need.
If my settlement keeps a fairly "good" and generally "lawful" society, we can build better buildings and the maintenance may be reduced.
If my settlement is a little looser in allowed alignments we will have a wider range of trading partners, more options in agressision, be more colorful in general. "Wild" town are hella fun. ;)
Society is, overall, more inclined to cooperation and "good" deeds or at least non involvement (nuetral). Acting badly is frowned upon and generally not desirable to the whole.
You say "I know that I am not alone in this as others have expressed doubts". A few others have expressed doubts. A very few. There are some people that just chafe at any restrictions. I personally would like to be free to trade without the threat of open PVP. Not going to happen and I guess I can see why GW may be right to be adamant about that issue. It is at least worth a try.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This conversation is definitely focused on the edge-case.
@Dario, I'm saying I think my example is more likely to actually occur in-game. I think it's going to be extremely unlikely that an "average Good" player is "accidentally" involved in killing 4 other average Good players.This is why I don't have much to say on this subject.
Whether or not that is the case, I think LG groups will find it handy to have one person that can 'detect alignment' so they can better judge whether or not another group is approaching them 'aggressively.' If they are a group of neutrals or CE thugs, it won't make too much of a difference if they determine that the best course of action is to act against their alignment and attempt to murder them preemptively. If they are goods, they have a pretty good idea that they won't attack (especially if it takes weeks or months to recover their alignment).
While it may only take 3-5 murders to drop from Good to Neutral, that is based on the victims also being Good.
If the victims just murdered your friends, they are likely not even close to Good, or they were Good (but are now neutral for the murders) and had very good reason to do it. So, now you must also make the choice of whether you have a good enough reason to murder them. If you murder them, however, you WON'T drop out of Good.
If they are not good, it will take a killing spree of several unflagged groups to lose your alignment. Any CE murderers are likely flying flags anyway for the bonuses, knowing that their alignment isn't much of an obstacle for anybody wishing to stay LG.
The instances where you drop your alignment for murdering just a 'few' persons will be few and far between. And it makes sense to me in those cases.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Settlements can have an "official" alignment, without it being impacted by individual players or without it impacting the actions of individual players outside of its walls.
Let us for a moment say that a Settlement decides it will be a Lawful Good settlement.
1. It can build Lawful Good temples to LG Gods.
2. It can train skills to their highest tier that are Lawful and or Good.
3. It can set laws that they deem support a Lawful and Good society.
4. It will punish behavior within its limits, that is outside of its laws.
5. It will only be able to train any skills of its choosing, to a lesser degree than the Lawful and Good skills.
The Official alignment of the settlement can not be changed unless done so by the owner of the settlement.
Members of the settlement can only be removed by the managers of the settlement, not by any automated game mechanic.
None of those things you list would not be usable without the alignement system though. They are not benefits of the alignement system they are just being gated by the system because it is there.
Society is more inclined to cooperation? Sorry that is groundless conjecture.
I didn't claim any particular numbers and it is not restrictions I am chafing at what I am chafing at are artificial restrictions which damage rp because people play the system instead of their character...prime example of this was the Old republic where people made choices to optimise light or dark rather than playing their character.
Being able to trade free of pvp would be a restriction. Not being able to trade free of PVP is opening the game up. By the way I aim to spend most of my time in crafting and trade and I can assure you being PVP free would be really bad for us in game terms.
If the alignement system is so wonderful you should be able to form an argument for it that is irrefutable. So far you haven't
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...I would rather he felt free to rp his character personally and ignored the system
I assure you I will freely play my druid according to the values I/He adhere to. If in doing so I am thrown from Neutrality so be it. But my character's integrity is more significant than systemic evaluations. Where my alignment falls is where my alignment should be. If I am not a druid then I will surely find my natural niche, and the sooner the better. That does not mean the alignment system is stupid in any way: instead it is brilliant. It provides me a metric whereby I may know whether my preconception of neutrality fits the environment I inhabit. If not, then I had better find that out fast.
@Being
Do you agree that stopping the logging would be acting as a druid?
Do you agree if you become chaotic evil you would no longer be a druid?
if the answer to both is yes which it should be how do you reconcile the fact that you rp'ing a druid causes you to stop being a druid?
There is a reason that we take things into consideration which we term "Mens Rea" in a court of law rather than have automatic sentences for each crime. The same is true of RP. A mechanical system cannot adjudicate "Mens Rea" therefore is not fit for purpose and just foments injustice.
You think the sytem is good I point you at the same challenge as Bringslite
show us the benefits, should be easy as its such a wonderful system
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
None of those things you list would not be usable without the alignement system though. They are not benefits of the alignement system they are just being gated by the system because it is there.
Society is more inclined to cooperation? Sorry that is groundless conjecture.
I didn't claim any particular numbers and it is not restrictions I am chafing at what I am chafing at are artificial restrictions which damage rp because people play the system instead of their character...prime example of this was the Old republic where people made choices to optimise light or dark rather than playing their character.
Being able to trade free of pvp would be a restriction. Not being able to trade free of PVP is opening the game up. By the way I aim to spend most of my time in crafting and trade and I can assure you being PVP free would be really bad for us in game terms.
If the alignement system is so wonderful you should be able to form an argument for it that is irrefutable. So far you haven't
LOL Oh really? who/what will unsure that I do not run around with my paladin powers and do naughty things?
Society (as a whole) does prefer goodness, cooperation, and law. There are too many ways to prove that to even bother to argue that.
No matter which way you slice a cake, someone is going to feel like their piece is smaller. Just human nature. The best way is the way that most people prefer it.
Nothing is irrefutable except death. That argument is ridiculous.
Like I said, you see your slice of cake as smaller than some other slices. Oh well.
we werent talking about society in general but society in game. There is no reason to think that in game society is going to be predominantly good.
You still have to show some ways this system will benefit the game. I feel the fact that people won't abuse their paladin powers is pretty minor seeing as if the alignement system is in place the number of paladins is likely to be as near zero as makes no difference
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ZenPagan
First, you're assuming that the chaotic shift for attacking is equivalent to the evil shift for killing. From reading the blog, I don't believe this is the case. So yes, the druid would end up evil, but not necessarily chaotic. You should really go read it for yourself, instead of just relying on the math in selective summaries posted in a thread to prove a point.
Second,
Do you argue that a druid who deals with intruders via killing first should not be evil?
Do you agree that the druid policing an area he has no rightful claim over is not chaotic?
Third, "Mens Rea" is irrelevant. This is not a subjective alignment system. This is an objective alignment system. Why you do something is not relevant. What you do is. Good and Evil are not perceptions, they are actual things.
Edit to add: There are benefits associated with being Lawful and/or Good. The price of these benefits is a restriction on choice of action.
Of course why you do something is relevant there is no such thing even in Golarion as an absolute objective system.
What do you think the lawful good deity would condone in the following circumstance
a) steal to feed your starving children
b) let yourself and your children starve to death
according to you it would be b because stealing is inherently not lawful nor good. I suspect though he would be punishing you a little severely at this point
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
we werent talking about society in general but society in game. There is no reason to think that in game society is going to be predominantly good.
You still have to show some ways this system will benefit the game. I feel the fact that people won't abuse their paladin powers is pretty minor seeing as if the alignement system is in place the number of paladins is likely to be as near zero as makes no difference
Bah! Plenty of people, including myself, have written why the alignment system is beneficial. I suspect that anyone could write reasons until their fingers fall off and you would not be convinced.
Why? Because no argument can ever be "irrefutable".
Bye
Ok not irrefutable but you should be able at least be able to advance persuasive and substantive arguments but I have yet to see one whereas I have given many examples of how it will adversely hit rp.
So show me a situation it will improve rp....should be easy enough
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But now this juvenile relativism has made it necessary to actually explain a system of moral and ethical alignment. It is pitiful what we have become. It is also wonderful, because we are so much more aware of evil now, and are less blind.
That is a gem.
You don't find many, or any MMOs that I know of, that use an alignment system because it does not translate well. That alone is an indication that it is not needed or desired as a tool to control player choices.
I am not sure that is because it is a bad system. Maybe because it has not been done or that pvp has been either devs organise it or players organise it. In both cases there have been different set of problems.
Frankly I think having a game system which dictates which "guilds" you may belong to is a supreme stupidity.
@Being no that is the mechanic which means Goblinworks will not be getting money from me and I will instead take it to a game without such a stupid mechanic.
C'mon you can do better than this in your argumentation.
No one has yet challenged them which leads me to believe that they are not far wrong.
Yes, the actual numbers. I imagine the devs will err on the side of caution initially with these (they've said as much) and as players feedback they will change A LOT. So it's useful to know a starting point and possibly the data the devs are making their assumptions from:
1. Distance, Movement speed
2. Duration of a combat (different numbers)
3. What is the frequency of pvp kills players can make with or without flags
4. How long the change in alignment is required and it's implications before it can be switched again
5. Scaling all this across many players and variations of scenarios.
etc. It's dizzying. I would not get into a big flap over these details, personally.
Any game mechanic that prevents players from playing together is just bad and should be avoided.
Mastering all the ins and outs of the current alignment and flagging system is going to be a challenge, particularly for newer players. As the alignment system would be one of the core gameplay elements this could really hurt the new player experience
I do not believe it is a good idea to force someone primarily interested in PvP activities to grind PvE to maintain their alignment.
With the first point, forgive the cutting without the rest of it, but as a generalism this is true, but it cuts both ways, players if they wish to belong to a settlement will need to behave. That is the choice. Secondly if they do fall foul, they can with a cost, come back.
I'm positive to see that others are thinking the alignment system IS/WILL BE complex. This actually is great news: Initially it will be tricky but the web or relationships will be the life of the game. It will be complex info work tracking and keeping tabs on the possible changes of different shift in it. Hopefully the alignment system and other things eg Reputation and "Players Word of Mouth" and so on will guide new players.
Curious about that third point too. I imagine if they are PvP interested, they fall towards evil/chaos, then they have to "do the time" which ie they need to do something constructive for the settlement that does not put them at risk of falling further. It's a time out or yellow card in some ways to these players but give them something else to do in that time? I don't think the issue exists the opposite alignment shift way around ie fixing your aligment and accidentally gaining lawfulness! x-)
@AvenaOats if you were referring to my comment I should say I made it because it really is a deal breaker to me. If I find I do something in character and suddenly get kicked out of my settlement roster then my immediate response is log out and not bother logging back in.
If I am aware of this before I buy the game then I don't buy the game simple as that.
There will be a number of people between 1 and x that will think that way. I am not speculating how large it will be but I am certainly in the segment that gw has decided is its target market which is to say roleplayers that enjoy sandbox play
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What do you think the lawful good deity would condone in the following circumstance
a) steal to feed your starving children
b) let yourself and your children starve to deathaccording to you it would be b because stealing is inherently not lawful nor good. I suspect though he would be punishing you a little severely at this point
Can't resist.
The peasant that stole the bread is unlikely to be a PC in the game and neither is the Good God. Okay, so let's see....
The Paladin must choose to punish the peasant or ignore the crime? How about if the paladin, in a RP moment of brilliance, makes the choice to pay for the bread and chastises the King for not feeding his people well enough? Any Good God would likely see that as an adequate solution. There is an RP moment that involves a Good solution chosen by a character trying to play a LG alignment.
I know, I know...not enough for you.
To paraphrase a saying "obvious obstinacy is obvious..."
sigh and you miss the point I was making completely
I was replying to the person that claimed the alignement was objective and absolute. Who does the stealing is immaterial whether player or npc.
Yes how the paladin punishes is interesting but not relevant. It was all about someone claiming the reason for actions was irrelevant and only the action mattered
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@AvenaOats if you were referring to my comment I should say I made it because it really is a deal breaker to me. If I find I do something in character and suddenly get kicked out of my settlement roster then my immediate response is log out and not bother logging back in.
If I am aware of this before I buy the game then I don't buy the game simple as that.
There will be a number of people between 1 and x that will think that way. I am not speculating how large it will be but I am certainly in the segment that GW has decided is its target market which is to say roleplayers that enjoy sandbox play
All you mention is very interesting. For example we can look at it in all sorts of useful ways:
1. Being booted from YOUR settlement is HIGHLY MEANINGFUL. You feel the sting.
2. Hopefully it won't be sudden: Hopefully it will be judicious choice.
3. Hopefully GW will put in place an interesting system of clawing back into your settlement. But remember if lots of players are falling foul of their settlement, the WHOLE settlement's alignment might shift with dramatic repercussions (inserts "!" for effect). ;)
4. Of course this is CHALLENGING: People will REACT to this feature. But that makes it a big deal in game - for everyone.
5. On the question of deal-breakers: I know what you mean. But my position is personally, never one feature or specific graphics or specific other criteria. My deal-breaker is devs that have not stretched the realms of imagination and possibility in games. When I see the limits in mmorpgs I've played that is when I know the game's enjoyment is diminishing. If actions can create new/different chains of causation, then I'm still engaged in the possibilities of imagination with the game.
1) it is not highly meaningful it is a wont even bother playing
2) Every indication by dev figures is it could be one encounter
3) dont care
4) dont car wont play
5) I play to play with friends and to rp. This system shafts both in my opinion
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ZenPagan
Your concerns are valid from your personal point of view. You are completely entitled to your opinion and in deciding where you spend your gaming dollar. Keep this in mind though.
Now that we're starting to talk about concrete plans we're modifying our standard disclaimer a bit: you're now going to start receiving details on the current plan. We may still change the plan in response to feedback or playtesting, but we're moving beyond theories of what we might do and into the practical implementation of what we are going to do.
Everything that they are doing is subject to change.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf, I have a concern with one of your examples:
The other example was, you come across your gathering camp and there are corpses strewn about. A few paces away you see a company of known bandits, licking their wounds and dividing up loot. But, it has been more than a minute since the fight had ended, and they are not flagged as attacker or outlaw. Do I risk the chaotic shift in becoming the attacker, and the evil shift if I kill them or do I just walk away because I did not catch them during their flag?
The presumption in your example is that the bandits were the ones who murdered your gathering camp. You have approached the bandits from the east when to their west are the remains of the goblin spawn they have just cleared out in preparation for building a new hideout. Without proof, such as their loot being something from your camp that you recognized, attacking them should have consequences. I assume that the bandits are running the Outlaw flag? If so there will not be a penalty for attacking someone who has advertised that they are in for PvP. Even then, if they are running the Outlaw flag they could have looted your camps bodies and still not have killed them. Are you going to become your enemy by using your enemy's tactics?
Frankly I think having a game system which dictates which "guilds" you may belong to is a supreme stupidity. People play these games in large for the social aspect. Part of that social aspect is being part of the same grouping. The people who should dictate who are part of the settlement should be the people of the settlement.
The game is not dictating who should be in a guild or settlement, the guild and settlement charter signers are doing that. The charter of the guild, company, or settlement will make it clear who they want as members and under want conditions. When you knowingly do actions which alter your alignment or reputation such that you no longer meet the criteria for membership, why shouldn't you take responsibility for that? That settlement may not want you if you do those actions.
I do not believe it is a good idea to force someone primarily interested in PvP activities to grind PvE to maintain their alignment.
I agree. I think that there should be PvP activities that accomplish the same thing as the PvE activities for restoring alignment.
This is why I am still talking rather than just walking away and why despite that many may feel I am giving negative view which in a way I am, probably Ryan and his crew need to see points of view such as mine.
They are launching into a competitive market, there are many games coming out and as Ryan correctly predicted many of them are sandbox games as they require less up front investment. I am certainly active on more than this forum for up and coming games.
Some people will be sharing my concerns I don't know how many nor will I speculate but one thing we can always be certain of and has been proved many times over the years is that forums are just full of the mouthy gits like us and don't necessarily represent anything except themselves.
Even if I decide to walk away I know many that will play and therefore I would like this game to be the best that it can for them
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being
Do you agree that stopping the logging would be acting as a druid?
Possibly. I believe if the logging is uncontrolled (by which I mean only the NPC workers, and not a player character is there then the forest will be damaged by clear cutting and it would be on me to put a stop to said damage. If a player character is present to manage it then the operation is more efficient, suggesting that beneficial forestry management practices are in place (which is actually better for the forest as any competent woodsman can tell you) and it would be my duty to at least let his operation be if not even help him.
Do you agree if you become chaotic evil you would no longer be a druid?
Yes indeed I do.
if the answer to both is yes which it should be how do you reconcile the fact that you rp'ing a druid causes you to stop being a druid?
I don't believe it would, but if it did I would discover an important truth about my understanding of neutrality and alignment that I must learn, and the sooner the better. If I discover that contrary to my expectations I'm not suited to druidism then I need to figure that out early so I can find my true calling.
There is a reason that we take things into consideration which we term "Mens Rea" in a court of law rather than have automatic sentences for each crime. The same is true of RP. A mechanical system cannot adjudicate "Mens Rea" therefore is not fit for purpose and just foments injustice.
Except in Golarion justice is not served by human reason but divine authority. There is literally a world of difference, ZenPagan, Esquire.
You think the sytem is good I point you at the same challenge as Bringsliteshow us the benefits, should be easy as its such a wonderful system
I deny your authority to so require. Discovery of the world to be is yet before us. You can presume godly arrogance and decree a thing stupid and senseless if that is how your native alignment counsels you. You can insist that your way is better and more intelligent, and if you enter the world before us I may stumble across your unadaptive bones in a Golarian wood. But for my part I, for one, will adapt and I suggest I shall either thrive or die trying. But I am not going to pass judgment as you demand from a basis of nearly complete ignorance, unlike some other of our acquaintance.
The ball is in your jurisprudence your honor.
What reason do you assume having a pc present makes logging eco friendly. It may be just the peasant whipping is more effective so they cut more trees so you dislike them more I would of thought.
I have no authority to require it and indeed it is not a demand merely an observation that a system as beneficial as you claim it to be should be easily justifiable both by example and explanation. The fact that instead you decide to do neither but attack my question speaks volumes I think
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
sigh and you miss the point I was making completely
I was replying to the person that claimed the alignement was objective and absolute. Who does the stealing is immaterial whether player or npc.
Yes how the paladin punishes is interesting but not relevant. It was all about someone claiming the reason for actions was irrelevant and only the action mattered
Because GW has said that alignment in PFO will be objective. Because a computer cannot adjudicate subjective morality. Because alignment is as deeply involved in the design of this game as PVP. You can argue that the rules the computer operates on should be different, but you're not. You are arguing for no meaningful alignment. Which is as likely to sway things as arguing for no PVP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What reason do you assume having a pc present makes logging eco friendly. It may be just the peasant whipping is more effective so they cut more trees so you dislike them more I would of thought.
It has been established by the developer that a gathering site is more efficient if the PC is present to manage and defend it. Just because you want to somehow know what is yet unknown doesn't mean you get to conjure up your own facts, ZenPagan.
I have no authority to require it and indeed it is not a demand merely an observation that a system as beneficial as you claim it to be should be easily justifiable both by example and explanation. The fact that instead you decide to do neither but attack my question speaks volumes I think
I do not claim it is anything but a work in progress, ZenPagan. But where you are determined to throw alignment out the window and half Golarion with it I can see ways it could work quite well. The problem is that you do not want anything but what you want, and nothing I propose is going to change your mind so why on the green earth would I waste my time on you?
Anyone passing judgment from a basis of ignorance, in a bare act of prejudice, is not worth the trouble, especially if they cannot adequately think for theirself, and especially when sufficient illustrations have been already amply provided to anyone interested in reading the words of others rather than focusing on how they will conduct their sophistic argument.
@Being's first post I am merely going by dev posts what else can I go by. I am not imagining what they have written. Yes what they have said may change if we wait till the final product to comment on what they said then what is the point of crowdforging?
@Dario I am arguing that because a computer cannot adjudicate the motivations that the rules shouldnt be so harsh as to say you violate these you should be kicked out of your settlement.
@Being's second post...you think half of Golarion is alignement sorry no Golarion is a living breathing place. Alignement when adjudicated by a computer is a black and white world where things are either right or wrong with no shades of grey. Frankly a black and white world is a comic book shell.
There are only two things I care about in an mmo, the ability to rp well and the ability to share the experience with friends. You wish to throw both these out of the window for some unexplained gain of having an alignement system that dictates both how I rp and who I may be in a settlement with
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1) it is not highly meaningful it is a wont even bother playing
2) Every indication by dev figures is it could be one encounter
3) dont care
4) dont car wont play
5) I play to play with friends and to rp. This system shafts both in my opinion
But it evidently IS meaningful either you'd not decide to "quit" over it even at the possibility of it without even experiencing HOW it works.
The fact is: What makes an mmorpg fail: "don't care". It's true.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Again, it's only a problem if you try to force your own alignment system over the game's. The game says "X is good, Y is evil." You say "No, I think X and Y are both good, and I will behave as though they are." You're welcome to disagree, but you're complaining because you're not playing by the game's system, and are being punished for it.
If you think your character would take actions that the game says will change your alignment, then in this game, you are not the alignment you think you are. Plan accordingly or play accordingly.
@Avenaoats
Not meaningful because I won't even bother trying an mmo which may dictate which guild I may or may not join.
As I said I don't know how many people think like me nor am I going to speculate but I would point out that playing with friends is always high on the list of why you play mmo's
Every mmo out there before we play we evaluate and all of us have things which we regard as deal breakers. There are many mmo's I have evaluated and decided not to play for one reason or another.
If this was a AAA mmo I probably wouldnt even mention it but as I support in general what gw and other companies are doing it is worth mentioning as what drives players away is also useful info.
Am I alone? no idea, I may be alone or their may be a 1000 players out there that don't post nodding along to my words. All I do know is I am in their prime target audience and I have evaluated what they are saying and said no if it is implemented this way
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
To me it does not make any sense for the game to (potentially) automatically kick characters from chartered companies (or settlements) in case their alignment has drifted (in whatever direction) too far from the CC's (or settlement's) ”native” alignment. Any game mechanic that prevents players from playing together is just bad and should be avoided.This does not mean that the alignment shift of a single characters should be meaningless for their CCs/settlement. You could for example calculate a ”true” alignment for each CC/settlement as an average of all members (to avoid easy exploits just leave entirely out characters with less than one month of training time and thereafter use weighing, e.g. characters with 1 month of training counting as 1, those with 2 months as 2 and so on). This could then impact upkeep etc. in a similar manner as the currently planned ”native” alignment.
If characters are going to be kicked out of CCs/settlement because of their alignment, it should be done by the players, not the system.
...
Yet if the players of the settlement are of an average alignment two steps away from what your behavior has revealed you to be, then in effect it is the players of that settlement who have kicked you out because their behavior has averaged enough differently from yours. But it would be more accurate to instead identify that your behavior and choices in game have instead banished you from your friends because you play radically different from the way they play. They remained the same, on average. Your behavior was to some degree antithetical to theirs.
So if you know this is coming and you know how you intend to play isn't the sensible thing to do to form a settlement with people who are like you, who play the way you do, so that you can be comfortable that if your alignment changes most of them will have changed with you? If you are going to be a chaotic neutral barbarian why ever would you wish to settle among a bunch of self-righteous panty-waist paladins too afraid of a cut or bruise to show their own skin proudly while being oppressively legalistic and holier-than-thou? If you chose to be a righteous lamp in the darkness sent by the very gods to right wrongs and uphold justice why in the name of heaven would you join with a filthy band of ragamuffins too poor to own proper armor and living in lawless squalor in their dirty hovels?
Guide yourself. If the alignment system advises you that your behavior is not that of who your character thought they were then recognize the fact and amend one way or the other.
By the way, the 'average alignment' thing is my understanding currently of how they are going to build it.
@Dario
How many times do I have to say this. What a mechanical system says is irrelevant to me. I dont care if you have an alignement system I will play my character as my character. The only issue I have is you saying I cannot be in the same settlement as my friends because of your arbitrary system.
Either get rid of the alignement system or say settlements can have who they want but their overall alignement is an average of the players. Therefore leaving each settlement to police itself. A settlement that wants paladins would soon decide to kick out players that lowered the alignement which is fine. My gripe is having this decision taken out of player hands.
If this game dictates my actions I will turn round and say to this game sod off my money goes elsewhere. I am spoilt for choice game wise
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...There are only two things I care about in an mmo, the ability to rp well and the ability to share the experience with friends. You wish to throw both these out of the window for some unexplained gain of having an alignement system that dictates both how I rp and who I may be in a settlement with
Those two things are up to you.
I sincerely hope you find the game you seek.
@Dario
Those choices are made at character creation and you know about them in advance. The divorce from you guild in the proposed system here will come as a complete surprise to people. This is why they are different
@Being I hope you enjoy the game you are trying to craft which will be bereft of true player rp choice and full of griefers who enjoy changing your alignement. Meaningless statement? Naturally I am not going to respond to piffle like yours with thought
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Dario
How many times do I have to say this. What a mechanical system says is irrelevant to me. I dont care if you have an alignement system I will play my character as my character. The only issue I have is you saying I cannot be in the same settlement as my friends because of your arbitrary system.
Either get rid of the alignement system or say settlements can have who they want but their overall alignement is an average of the players. Therefore leaving each settlement to police itself. A settlement that wants paladins would soon decide to kick out players that lowered the alignement which is fine. My gripe is having this decision taken out of player hands.
If this game dictates my actions I will turn round and say to this game sod off my money goes elsewhere. I am spoilt for choice game wise
The settlement (your friends) sets the alignment, and thereby the alignments that can be members of it. Your actions determine your alignment. Player decisions determine whether or not you can be a member of the settlement. If your friends' decision (the settlement alignment) and your decision (how to act) are incompatible, that is a result of player decisions.
Edit to add: I'm willing to consider a system whereby settlement alignment is determined by the aggregate of the settlement's members. First glance raises some concerns, but it might be a discussion worth having in another thread.
@Dario I have no problem with a settlement being an aggregate and indeed it may lead to settlements expelling members. My entire point is encapsulated here. Players should be free to set the bounds of who they associate with. You accept chaotic evil players then your settlement's alignement will drop.
I would be happy with this and keep the alignement system as is. It puts the decisions in player hands. I just cannot support mechanical adjudicated alignement with its lack of mens rea and severe results like expelling people from communities they may have spent considerable time helping to create.
This sort of penalty is hugely out of proportion when you consider a lot of people falling foul will merely be victims of the capriciousness of timers
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This sort of penalty is hugely out of proportion when you consider a lot of people falling foul will merely be victims of the capriciousness of timers
This is the problem I have with your argument. The system is not randomly kicking people out. The people are making decisions, and the system is only applying the consequences of those player decisions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ ZenPagan,
Settlements do have an average alignment of their members. This is allowed by stating that all settlements have a base alignment, and its members can be up to one step removed.
The devs have also said that CC's can have members in different settlements. CCs can also be more diversely aligned then settlements can be as well.
A CC in Ryan Dancey's description is like a fleet in EVE. It is potentially transient in its membership, but then he also described it as being the first persistent player grouping (hmmm??) The settlement is like the EVE corporation, usually made up of more than one charter company, having all of the structures we normally associate with a player guild. A kingdom is like the EVE alliance, being made of several settlements, and having potentially hundreds or even thousands of members.
So back to the settlement alignment issue. A settlement could look like this:
-----TN-----
CG---CN---CE
-----TN-----
Chaotic Neutral being the center, the other three being one-step removed. TN is a part of all settlements, always one-step removed or at least not bearing any impact on alignment in any direction.
@Dario yes the player as far as he sees will be randomly kicked out. You assume before every attack players will sit and work out their alignement gain or loss. What will actually happen is players attack the got wtf where has my guild chat gone.
None of us are going to have time generally to calculate consequences. No one will join this game with the assumption generally that they may get kicked out of their "guild". When they do it will be a huge surprise to most people who don't research the games but just get dragged in by friends and most of the time their reaction will be wtf! screw this for a crap game
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you're the one attacking, then yes, you can take a moment to ask yourself if you're willing to deal with the consequences. If you're getting jumped and have to make a split-second decision, then you won't get the attacker flag and the consequences. Lack of consideration by the player does not make the system random. You're presuming that there will be nothing to explain alignment to new players.
@Avena see I suspect what people will do is attack then cry when things go wrong. That is certainly what happens in eve