@Bringslite
Eve has meaningful choices...that is the only criteria.
@Being
Good and evil are human concepts and have continually altered throughout history and vary from society to society. Most of the time up to recently in human history this has been defined by religous views of the prevailing culture. Fortunately we are growing out of this.
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
@Being
Good and evil are human concepts and have continually altered throughout history and vary from society to society. Most of the time up to recently in human history this has been defined by religous views of the prevailing culture. Fortunately we are growing out of this.
You have a different perception than I have, and your perceptions are no more or less valid than mine are. However I would point out to you, as you seem to have overlooked it, that civilization is a human creation that has evolved over many millennia, and among its evolved and intrinsic features is a consideration that there is a better and there is a worse. This suggests to me that your estimation and opinion expressed above is incorrect, and contradicts the counsel of our ancestors.
Your actions have consequence because your reputation spreads which can have impact on your ability to make deals
Your actions have consequence because attacking the wrong person can embroil your alliance or corporation in a long and costly war which may ultimately lead them to losing their systems
Mining in the wrong systems even in high sec can have consequences
A lot of corps insist players that want to be part of them conduct themselves in certain ways because they do not want the consequence
The big difference is that in Eve it is not a system that decides what the consequences are but the reaction of other players. These are meaningful consequences that cause you actual problems.
Eve - Consequences of your actions determined by the players affected
PfO - Consequences of your actions determined by a non discrimatory system and may not even be cared about depending on what role you are playing
Now some of these maybe in PfO but there have been many arguing that these should be restricted such as those who argued war should be consensual
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Boring. Redundant. Unsolvable. Confirmed Mechanic.
How about discussing some ideas to tweak the system that are realistic?
-Whitelists
-CCs not requiring settlement sponsorship so they are free to dictate alignment (in company) as they see fit.
-Longer timers for flags, contracts, etc.
-Enemies list should either last longer or be determined by the player himself.
Shall I go on or do you guys want a turn? ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Eve - Consequences of your actions determined by the players affected
PfO - Consequences of your actions determined by a non discrimatory system and may not even be cared about depending on what role you are playing
I expect that in PFO the consequences of your actions will also be determined by the players affected, just as much as they are in Eve.
Plus PFO will have elements and consequences that Eve does not, and these are implemented to solve problems Eve has experienced without recourse.
You have a different perception than I have, and your perceptions are no more or less valid than mine are. However, I would point out to you, as you seem to have overlooked it, that civilization is a human creation that has evolved over many millennia, and among its evolved and intrinsic features is a consideration that there is a better and there is a worse. This suggests to me that your estimation and opinion expressed above is incorrect, and contradicts the counsel of our ancestors....
@Being
Good and evil are human concepts and have continually altered throughout history and vary from society to society. Most of the time up to recently in human history this has been defined by religous views of the prevailing culture. Fortunately we are growing out of this.
Actually I would suggest that your response shows I am correct. Civillisation is a human creation and those civillisations have evolved and their views of right and wrong have changed through the years. This shows exactly what I said which is paraphrased as "Good and Evil are not absolute but are defin
ed by the cultural perspective of the prevailing civillisation. There are things we accept as fine today that will be regarded as bad in 200 years time and vice versa just like we look at things that happened 200 years ago in day to day life and think they were awful, or in some cases better.
By the way I am not arguing my perceptions are more or less valid, realising things depend on the observer being a prime point I am making. You observe through a north american cultural lense which is vastly different in many ways to mine.
To give an example of this look at the issue of for instance the death penalty, gun control to name but two. That is not to say all americans are pro death penalty or anti gun control just that it is the prevailing attitude of american culture, the uk is the reverse. I would not even try and argue that uk culture is better because of this merely that they have different viewpoints about what the "good" value is on these issues.
There are many more issues on which various quite civillised cultures around the globe disagree on the "good or evil" of something
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You have a different perception than I have, and your perceptions are no more or less valid than mine are. However, I would point out to you, as you seem to have overlooked it, that civilization is a human creation that has evolved over many millennia, and among its evolved and intrinsic features is a consideration that there is a better and there is a worse. This suggests to me that your estimation and opinion expressed above is incorrect, and contradicts the counsel of our ancestors....
@Being
Good and evil are human concepts and have continually altered throughout history and vary from society to society. Most of the time up to recently in human history this has been defined by religous views of the prevailing culture. Fortunately we are growing out of this.Actually I would suggest that your response shows I am correct. Civillisation is a human creation and those civillisations have evolved and their views of right and wrong have changed through the years. This shows exactly what I said which is paraphrased as "Good and Evil are not absolute but are defin
ed by the cultural perspective of the prevailing civillisation. There are things we accept as fine today that will be regarded as bad in 200 years time and vice versa just like we look at things that happened 200 years ago in day to day life and think they were awful, or in some cases better.
By the way I am not arguing my perceptions are more or less valid, realising things depend on the observer being a prime point I am making. You observe through a north american cultural lense which is vastly different in many ways to mine.
To give an example of this look at the issue of for instance the death penalty, gun control to name but two. That is not to say all americans are pro death penalty or anti gun control just that it is the prevailing attitude of american culture, the uk is the reverse. I would not even try and argue that uk culture is better because of this merely that they have...
That North American cultural lens happens to be the one that the Developers of PFO are looking through. Instead of insisting that they change everything to look good through your lens, why not work within the system to fix it so that it looks good through ALL lenses?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Actually the prevailing attitude on the gun control issue among the general population appears to be not very dissimilar to what it is in the UK, but there is a difference in context that has led to the current disagreement between our elected representatives and what the people currently prefer. This issue points up the function of having a representative government. The people over here have an exceedingly short memory it seems unless prodded by motivated commentators who remind and influence them. The representational form of Government tends to resist momentary fluctuations in mass opinion, for better or worse.
Regarding the, to my thinking, larger issue we shall probably be unable to resolve the question of whether good and evil is modal or formal in your or my lifetime, but I deem it a good thing, if you will pardon my humor, to have engaged with a fellow over it once more.
Well met, Zen.
@Bringslite we are discussing the real world not PfO currently. Indeed I also do not think I have insisted they change it, I do not think it will work well as implemented and have argued that point and stated why I think so. That surely is what crowdforging is the sharing of opinions which the developers then read. I doubt on any issue they ever completely take all from one side but a point of view from here and one from there and that one over there is something we should consider
@Being I am all for civillised discussions and the two of us have kept it reasonably that way it is how we learn. We just have to accept that we have different viewpoints on this and as long as we don't think in terms of one is right one is wrong but realise the truth probably lies somewhere in between :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bringslite we are discussing the real world not PfO currently. Indeed I also do not think I have insisted they change it, I do not think it will work well as implemented and have argued that point and stated why I think so. That surely is what crowdforging is the sharing of opinions which the developers then read. I doubt on any issue they ever completely take all from one side but a point of view from here and one from there and that one over there is something we should consider
@Being I am all for civillised discussions and the two of us have kept it reasonably that way it is how we learn. We just have to accept that we have different viewpoints on this and as long as we don't think in terms of one is right one is wrong but realise the truth probably lies somewhere in between :)
Huh? You have clearly stated several times that if they implement the alignment system as proposed, you will not play. That it is a deal breaker for you. You don't consider that insisting with all of the power at your command?
No bringslite that is not insisting that is highlighting my strength of feeling about it. Besides anything else it wasn't the alignement system per se I was talking about when I said that it was the fact that I could be kicked out of a settlement I helped build by a mechanical system even if my friends were happy for me to remain.It was a simple statement of truth. Do you think I consider Ryan et al will be worried if I decide not to play? Of course they will not.
If you seriously thought that I considered this a threat that might make them change their mind then you need to reevaluate your opinion of me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Okay. Whatever you say.
Since you seem to agree that we will have to disagree, why not try and work within the system to better it if that proves neccesary? Why be so adamant in your opinion that you have refused to see the other side of the coin? Dismissed all of the "examples" that you have asked for and we have put forth? Many people have said that they see your point but you have barely budged. Why not give it a shot instead of just giving up or being so fixed in your position that you refuse to try?
PFO will only be richer with a large variety of opinions and playstyles.
I did in passing suggest a system before which would get around the "kicked out of settlement automatically" problem while leaving the decision on who is in a settlement in the hands of players while providing consequences for those choices which did not involve one iota of change to the alignement system but no one seemed interested so I didn't elaborate so it is not true to say I haven't made suggestions
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I repeat myself:
Boring. Redundant. Unsolvable. Confirmed Mechanic.
How about discussing some ideas to tweak the system that are realistic?
-Whitelists
-CCs not requiring settlement sponsorship so they are free to dictate alignment (in company) as they see fit.
-Longer timers for flags, contracts, etc.
-Enemies list should either last longer or be determined by the player himself.
Shall I go on or do you guys want a turn? ;)
I didnt suggest whitelists nor the lack of sponsorships,nor did I suggest anything about the enemy list. Extending the timers was something I suggested in response to your question on how the timers could be made more palatable.
So in point of fact whereas you could of merely asked me what the idea was and perhaps got a constructive dialog you instead decide to point at 3 ideas suggested by others and not even commented upon by me and one I suggested in response to a totally different question.
@bringslite apologies I was replying still when you posted that so ignore my previous and no problem I will expand but it will take a little time to type
Basis of the idea
As alignement is something the majority wish to keep a method of allowing settlements to be the arbiters of who they have as members without avoiding the consequence of the alignement of the members
All numbers used are not reflective of actual numbers but purely for ease of illustration and the system of axis used is I believe what goblinworks has in mind
I am only going to use good to evil to demonstrate for simplicity sake
The good evil axis is as follows
Good Neutral Evil
100==============================0=======================-100
A settlement has 10 characters as members and their position on the axis of good evil is noted
char A +90
char B +70
char C +20
char D -50
char E +30
char F +80
char G -70
char H +90
char I +90
char J +60
settlement alignement on good evil axis therefore is sum of alignements/members or 410/10 = 41
There are requisites for various buildings such as for instance a paladin chapter house(required for the ability to use paladin skills) is a good value of no less than 75
Other buildings may not stop working but work less efficiently depending upon the alignement for instance a forge might work less efficiently the the further from 100 points lawful you get.
Buildings may require minimum or maximum (eg assassins guild may require a maximum of -50) from one or both axis the other axis being lawful - neutral - chaotic
This way it would be down to players who is part of their settlement and it may be in their interests to tell bob to stop being so evil or be kicked out thus putting the players in control and not a mechanical system.
Something like this I could certainly live with and I think it maintains consequence without getting rid of player choice
Forgot to add updates would happen every 24 hours, settlement leaders would be able to see the alignement contributions so know who to have a talking to
Good to hear you like it Being...I am all for actions having consequences I just prefer where possible that those consequences are driven by players where possible I think this system does that
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Your system looks pretty much like what has been described as being planned. Different numbers, as you pointed out, but the general idea is the same (as far as I understand their plans).
This though:
This way it would be down to players who is part of their settlement and it may be in their interests to tell bob to stop being so evil or be kicked out thus putting the players in control and not a mechanical system.
I think what you are getting at is let the settlement managers kick Bob out instead of the system? So it is on them whether their buildings run down etc... If that is your idea, I can't see too much wrong with it.
Anyone else see something I don't see?
@bringslite indeed that is my point, if my friends tell me sorry mend your ways else we can't have you in the settlement that is fine to me. It is when the friends are quite happy for me to be there but the system kicks me out that I have a problem
This way it opens up the following rp situation in my opinion
I do something that sends my alignement plunging, it knocks out the paladin building. Instead of an arbitrary boot I might get a public trial or be able to plead my case before a tribunal. Perhaps those the system perceived I wronged may be invited to attend as witness's etc
rp possibilites, player choice, consequences for actions what more can you ask?
@bringlite
partly my fault I think that people have felt I was trolling which I wasnt. There are two issues I was complaining about and while they are linked it is coincidentally.
I dont like the alignement system but can live with it
I do not want any mechanical system dictating who I can consort with that should be a player choice,the system is irrelevant it could be one I like
These got run together because under plans one causes the other if I had two different threads to argue them in maybe things would have been less heated. Anyway I think now you understand where I am coming from :)
sorry I have to disagree with that bringlite I am not stubborn merely belligerently intransigent :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Can we think of a way it could be exploited?
I'm trying to think of a way but haven't come up with one. I might not be subtle enough so I ask: when we put things in the hands of the players we run risks that don't come up in a mechanical feature(though to be fair mechanical features are also prone, possibly more prone, to exploitation).
Okay, so if on the scale of (-100)~(100) lets say the span of (-34)~(34) is neutral. In the case where the average falls above or below neutral the settlement average is going to go either evil or good. In that case under my understanding of the currently GW-described system where the settlement average is 41 we could propose that anyone within 34 points of 41 (between 7 and 75) could be members. If that is true then only four of the original settlers could be members (70, 20, 30, and 60). All those 90 paladins and the 80 Ranger would have to be kicked out along with the -50 bandit and -70 wizard.
If that is the way the currently planned system worked, the currently planned system would be untenable.
Therefore I would guess that the average acceptable alignment does not shift like that, but is fixed. Instead, since 41 is good (greater than 34) on the scale then under the current system only two would be excluded: better than the first model, but still unworkable for ZenPagan and any who share his sentiment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Can we think of a way it could be exploited?
I'm trying to think of a way but haven't come up with one. I might not be subtle enough so I ask: when we put things in the hands of the players we run risks that don't come up in a mechanical feature(though to be fair mechanical features are also prone, possibly more prone, to exploitation).
Okay, so if on the scale of (-100)~(100) lets say the span of (-34)~(34) is neutral. In the case where the average falls above or below neutral the settlement average is going to go either evil or good. In that case under my understanding of the currently GW-described system where the settlement average is 41 we could propose that anyone within 34 points of 41 (between 7 and 75) could be members. If that is true then only four of the original settlers could be members (70, 20, 30, and 60). All those 90 paladins and the 80 Ranger would have to be kicked out along with the -50 bandit and -70 wizard.
If that is the way the currently planned system worked, the currently planned system would be untenable.
Therefore I would guess that the average acceptable alignment does not shift like that, but is fixed. Instead, since 41 is good (greater than 34) on the scale then under the current system only two would be excluded: better than the first model, but still unworkable for ZenPagan and any who share his sentiment.
Try to forget the numbers in the scale and look at the idea.
I would say visitors do not count
as to alignement I would say this system is more granular than alignements for instance you may require 80+law and 80+ good for paladin chapter house but only 60+ good for a abbey (monks) this way you can say these powers are powerful but if your settlement want access they have to decide to be more picky. You can still require the individuals using the building to also have alignement criteria so you could for example say
A settlement can build a paladin chapter hall and maintain it at 70 law 70 good but an individual needs 90 good 90 law to be able to use it to train skills. It would certainly not be a case of the settlement has a paladin chapter house therefore all members can use it.
It is nice to see though that people are not writing off the idea. My view is it gives settlements choice and provides the ability to have a diverse band of people but at a cost
@being perhaps I have not explained properly missed the post earlier.
Under my system settlements have no alignement restrictions, lawful good and chaotic evil could potentially be part of the same community(though I consider it unlikely and will explain in a bit)
A community that accepts wide ranging alignements will have to accept that they will not be able to operate extreme alignement buildings such as a paladins'chapter house(lg) or assassins guild (ce) and the equivalents for le and cg
They also have to expect that some of their buildings will not operate at maximum efficiency for instance the forge example I gave. The trade off of course is that their members can be a wider range of alignements.
More alignement focussed communities get the benefit of the alignement extreme buildings.
Now back to the lawful good and chaotic evil in the same community. Largely the people who want these alignements will be doing so because they wish to play one of the alignement extreme classes such as paladin or assassin.
Personally I just feel this gives a lot more player choice and puts it firmly into the player camp as to what they wish. It will also build more believable settlements where probably 70 percent are a mix with the odd few where you have a monastic order (such as the temple of the thirty from the david Gemmel books if you are familiar with them) or an their evil equivalent such as a cult of assassins ( perhaps the nighthawks stronghold from the Feist books)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@being perhaps I have not explained properly missed the post earlier.
Under my system settlements have no alignement restrictions, lawful good and chaotic evil could potentially be part of the same community(though I consider it unlikely and will explain in a bit)
A community that accepts wide ranging alignements will have to accept that they will not be able to operate extreme alignement buildings such as a paladins'chapter house(lg) or assassins guild (ce) and the equivalents for le and cg
They also have to expect that some of their buildings will not operate at maximum efficiency for instance the forge example I gave. The trade off of course is that their members can be a wider range of alignements.
More alignement focussed communities get the benefit of the alignement extreme buildings.
Now back to the lawful good and chaotic evil in the same community. Largely the people who want these alignements will be doing so because they wish to play one of the alignement extreme classes such as paladin or assassin.
Personally I just feel this gives a lot more player choice and puts it firmly into the player camp as to what they wish. It will also build more believable settlements where probably 70 percent are a mix with the odd few where you have a monastic order (such as the temple of the thirty from the david Gemmel books if you are familiar with them) or an their evil equivalent such as a cult of assassins ( perhaps the nighthawks stronghold from the Feist books)
Should have left it where it was Amigo. I am not down with paladins walking the same streets as evil clerics. Just doesn't make sense.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Also, there is no class that requires someone to be CE. Paladins must be LG, but every other alignment restricted class has more options. Assassins are any evil (3 possible alignments), Monks are any Lawful (3 Possible Alignments), Druids are any Neutral (5 possible alignments), and Barbarians are any non-lawful(6 possible alignments). In your Neutral city example, the only class that would be excluded are Paladins.
As I explained bringslite it is I think a) unlikely certainly evil clerics and paladins are extreme alignement classes. I am assuming both a paladins chapter house and a chaotic evil temple require particular law and good or chaotic and evil measurements to be built and maintained
Remember also that alignement is not discernible on sight so in a settlement two extremes could exist and not realise it unless either did a public act to demonstrate it.
I am not claiming there are not aspects here that people may not like, I am proposing this as an alternative on the grounds that I do not think people will like being told by a mechanical system they cannot be in a settlement with friends because of alignement.
Assuming I accept your argument for a moment that alignement is good for the game and what is good for the game is a valid reason to stop friends being part of a settlement if they wish to be.
All of the faction based mmo's that allow pvp have suffered from faction imbalance. It would be therefore good for those games to place players into the lowest based faction as they join a server. They do not do this because of the fundamental position that stopping people playing with friends is bad for business.
This suggestion means people can always be in a settlement with friends, as long as those friends are willing to tolerate the character you wish to play and suffer the consequences. If they won't the player at the very least is not going to be able to blame the game for being kicked out of the settlement.
The lure of the alignement extreme classes I think will definitely ensure that while there will be communities which do have lg and ce players they won't be common and they will not get the full benefits of their alignement by being in that community. Ie again player choice causing consequence
@Imbicatus as I indicated you can be more granular and put minimum law/chaos/good/evil requirements on any building
For instance you can require any monastery to need 70+ lawful. As I also said just now to be a CE cleric will require a temple and that can have requirements. I personally think it gives balancing options when you look at the specialist classes.
For instance Paladins have much higher requirements of settlements they can be part of and it is easier for those settlements to lose the ability to support so you could actually give paladins a little more power to compensate for this without unbalancing the game due to the fact that it would be much much harder to be a paladin
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ZenPagan
Assuming that a playrer can only belong to one settlement, why would an evil cleric live in a nuetral settlement where he could not get training? Why would any extreme alignment choose to live in a settlement where they could not get training?
Why would a paladin live in a city with a chaotic evil temple? He would go crazy with want to burn it down.
Too far out there.
@Bringslite that was exactly my point in response to the point about a paladin walking the same streets as a CE priest. A settlement could not accomodate both in a meaningful sense.
Settlements have 2 choices
Allow diversity of alignements and accept you wont have access to alignement extreme buildings and some of your buildings may operate under less that 100% efficiency
or
Specialise for alignement and get some bonuses but accept your members will have to keep to more stringent requirements for alignement
Note in neither case do the characters get kicked out automatically it is quite permissible for a settlement to accept its paladin chapter house will fall into disrepair if it does not deal with the players that have dropped(or increased in alignement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ZenPagan
Well I suppose that is not much diff then. I am not sure why a settlement would choose that route nor would it affect any PCs except the settlements members. Outside PCs could just go elsewhere for thier training? I guess it would be a non issue. Sounds like you are just basically describing a nuetral settlement in any case. or just a really run down one trying to allow all alignments.
The difference being a settlement can choose we will continue to have the same members and shift alignement wise which may affect our buildings or we can ask members to reform or remove them
Vs the current design
The alignement of the settlement remains unaffected but anyone who falls outside a spectrum of alignement for whatever reason gets booted automatically.
As an aside and I am not speculating on the probability merely that is a possible
settlement has say 15 characters they go out in a group and meet party B. For some reason they all end up with alignement change so they no longer fit the settlement alignement and all get the automatic boot. What happens to the settlement which now has no members?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
settlement has say 15 characters they go out in a group and meet party B. For some reason they all end up with alignement change so they no longer fit the settlement alignement and all get the automatic boot. What happens to the settlement which now has no members?
Settlements will have hundreds if not thousands of members. If you have a settlement with only 15 members, its going to be destroyed by larger groups or escalations in short order.
supposition
a settlement may be created with as little as one cc
now if you had said kingdoms may have hundreds or thousands yes I would agree eventually. I suspect intialy most settlements will certainly be sub 50 though especially considering according to the landgrab poll the biggest ee kingdom is of memory about 116 members (empyrean order) and no I havent checked the exact number
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Settlements will have hundreds if not thousands of members. If you have a settlement with only 15 members, its going to be destroyed by larger groups or escalations in short order.
off the topic: I believe it is in the interest of bigger kingdoms to join forces with settlements, CCs or smaller kingdoms that share the same ideology and/or assimilate them some way into their organization(for more tax payers).
Didn't read the whole thread. I think Stephen's statement is pretty clear. But can we choose to shift towards just law or good or is it both at the same time?