Old grudges never die?

[Marlagram]

OK. War is fought, sabotage, assassinations and direct assault brought victory to the winners. Opposition lies in ruins. So, what will this opposition do when their defeat will be near or just happened? Especially if they feel they were cheated. Not really cheated, but more like “our enemies broke some unwritten rules” (this article explains such situation).
First of all, if I will be in such position I'll start to burn all the buildings in my settlement. I worked hard to live here and now some ******* trying to steal the results of my efforts. Sorry, no way. You'll get some ash and cinder, couple of embers, maybe.
Second, I'll hurt my enemies whenever and wherever I can. They want my hexes? NP, I'll destroy their buildings on their hexes far away. Preferably on the most of them, but I am realist, so 3-4 buildings will do. My home is falling now – so why not to drive cost of victory for my enemies up a little?
For me this will be end, probably. But I know some people who are even more vindictive than I am :) So what about continuous hostile actions? This is EVE situation, where most of the corporations are in the state of perpetual war with all other players (NBSI – Not Blue – Shoot It!). In the EVE this will cost you security rating (reputation and alignment in PFO terms). But having mechanic for fast restoration of reputation most EVE PvP'ers aren't bothered much. This policy is applied for "just in case" reason. I hope PFO will have additional mechanic to restrain losers from going berserk This is not RL – where winners can kill and bury defeated side with all their anger, frustration and grief and sit victorious. People will be back for revenge.
I can see another EVE situation happening in PFO. If your small company want to hurt big boys – roll next set of characters and start occasional raids on the caravans and structures of the enemy. You are under NPC organization, you can “wait out” alignment and reputation hit, you will not be linked to your main chars. Pure fun for you and pure grief for your foes. Will be here some mechanic to prevent such griefing? And will be here some encouragement for the losers to continue play?
Thoughts?

[Bringslite]

Well, this will be a very competitive game as far as settlement expansion goes. If rep and alignment hits are not a problem to the losing side waging an eternal war of vengeance, there may be nothing to stop them until that rage burns out. Eventually accumulated costs (of every sort) will cool down all but the fiercest of ragers. Those that will never stop (unless it becomes a griefing thing) should be free to do as they like.

[ZenPagan]

The not blue shoot it system is not because of grudges but because the way that eve is set up it is the most rational option. In Eve there are absolutely no advantages at all to allow none alliance players into your sovereign territory.

PfO has the concept of development indices. One of these civillisation is related to how open your settlement is.

I haven't had chance to read the linked article so can't comment on that but will have a look later

[cartomancer]

Don't destroy your buildings, trap them or sabotage them in some way. That should be less time consuming. You'll want to destroy spawn points and siege engines of course, but razing the clothing store might not be worth the effort.

[Marlagram]

If there is a trap - there are means to disarm it. So plain old demolition works best :)

[Bringslite]

Outright destruction of the possible prize (intact building) is much more "I spit in your eye" fun than a trap.

[Marlagram]

If I lose for sure - why give chances to my enemy to capture some prize? So there should be no traps, yes.
Other thing if my enemies starts to capture strongpoints in my settlement, but there is still hope to repel them - then "full trappings" are viable option.

[KarlBob]

ZenPagan wrote:

The not blue shoot it system is not because of grudges but because the way that eve is set up it is the most rational option. In Eve there are absolutely no advantages at all to allow none alliance players into your sovereign territory.

PfO has the concept of development indices. One of these civillisation is related to how open your settlement is.

I haven't had chance to read the linked article so can't comment on that but will have a look later

I agree that NBSI is a rational, prudent posture, but I wouldn't agree that there are NO benefits to allowing non-allied players into your sovereign systems. Neutral parties could buy things from your mercantile players and crafters. They could help you repel an NPC incursion, assuming you and your allies didn't want to take care of it yourselves.

NBSI still makes sense because of all the other things "neutrals" (spies) could do. They could track your movements to determine systems that are weakly defended, and when most of your players are offline. They could examine your ships (edit: and shops, I suppose) for clues about your military doctrines, and examine your space stations (POSes (player owned stations or structures) in EVE jargon) to see the kind and amount of defenses you've placed around them. They could even fly into one of your systems, find a deep, dark hiding place, and go offline indefinitely, only to pop back into the game months later, during an attack, to relay ship movement (edit: shops don't move. Thanks, autocorrect) and fleet composition info to the enemy (multi-boxing and deep cover characters are pretty frequent in EVE).

Given all of the above, it's no surprise at all that most alliances practice NBSI in their own systems. The few groups I've ever seen do otherwise were heavy-duty roleplayers, dedicated to portraying wild and woolly free ports. Needless to say, they had special challenges when other alliances became jealous of their holdings.

[ZenPagan]

Frankly while admittedly neutrals could sell to you that would mean not only access to your space but docking rights.

Even if not spies and truly neutral all they do is deplete the resources such as rats, belts, scanning sites. All sov holding alliances in my experience have more than enough logistics alts with jump freighters to handle their own supply needs. Manufacturing in null sec is almost always capital ships these days. It is just easier to send ore to high and manufacture there and transport goods back down

[KarlBob]

ZenPagan wrote:

Frankly while admittedly neutrals could sell to you that would mean not only access to your space but docking rights.

Even if not spies and truly neutral all they do is deplete the resources such as rats, belts, scanning sites. All sov holding alliances in my experience have more than enough logistics alts with jump freighters to handle their own supply needs. Manufacturing in null sec is almost always capital ships these days. It is just easier to send ore to high and manufacture there and transport goods back down

All true, but I have seen RPers declare free ports and practice NRDS (not red, don't shoot) in sovereign nullsec (solar systems with 0 (null) security presence from the NPC alliances, that can be owned lock, stock and barrel by players).

Edit: ZenPagan, I know you don't need the terms explained, I'm just trying to help the non-EVE players follow our conversation, because NRDS/NBSI-related ideas might very well show up in PFO.

[ZenPagan]

I thought all the nrds null sec alliances mainly cva were in providence or stain. That is npc nullsec and can't be player owned.

[KarlBob]

ZenPagan wrote:

I thought all the nrds null sec alliances mainly cva were in providence or stain. That is npc nullsec and can't be player owned.

I might be thinking of them, after all.

It's been about a year since I logged in to EVE. All the EVE discussion on these boards is tempting me to get back into it, though. I think this time I might try faction warfare instead of sovereign nullsec.

[Uncle Tony]

Pull up a seat, have a piece of break neck baguette, or try a backstab berry muffin, and tell Tony all about your problems. I promise, you'll feel better afterwards.

:D

[Bringslite]

Uncle Tony wrote:

Pull up a seat, have a piece of break neck baguette, or try a backstab berry muffin, and tell Tony all about your problems. I promise, you'll feel better afterwards.

:D

Hello Uncle Tony! I feel better just knowing that you are around to listen to the tiny problems of the little guy. You make some good bread. Could I have some delivered to my sister's rat faced boyfriend?

:)

[Uncle Tony]

Rat faced boyfriends? If it's a matter of dishonesty and cheating, we have a special on "you lie, you rye".

If it's more an issue of abuse though, then perhaps your sister would prefer to order some "beat his crêpe out"?

[Bringslite]

Uncle Tony,

I really appreciate you listening to my troubles. Please just deliver a Full Breadbasket of samples of your best work for my future brother in law. Believe me, he deserves your Best Bread. Please let me give you a little something to buy your lovely wife a nice Mother's Day present. Bless her soul.

[KarlBob]

Uncle Tony, I regret that I can only mark your post as a favorite once. Just reading about your totally legitimate bread-making services brightened my day.

[Tuoweit]

You won't be able to capture anything - an enemy can only raze a settlement, not capture it. So no need to go all scorched earth.

As for vengeance, I suppose it's up to the attackers to conduct themselves in a manner that doesn't draw too much long-term ire from the victims. Some people will hold grudges regardless, but as long as they stay within the rules, I'm not sure you can really call it griefing, even if they are selective in their targets. If the attackers behave in reprehensible fashion on the other hand, I suppose you reap what you sow.

Oh, and Providence is not NPC space.

[ZenPagan]

Nope you are correct it was Stain and syndicate I was thinking about

[Dario]

Tuoweit wrote:

You won't be able to capture anything - an enemy can only raze a settlement, not capture it. So no need to go all scorched earth.

I'm pretty sure the latest blog (and it's attendant discussion thread) mean this is no longer the case.

[Nihimon]

Tuoweit wrote:

You won't be able to capture anything - an enemy can only raze a settlement, not capture it.

Yeah, the last couple of blogs have suggested this is no longer the case; although I do recall Ryan previously saying something along the lines of what you're thinking.

You Can Live in Grace and Comfort wrote:

This is not finalized yet, but the principal is that capturing the hall should win the war and change ownership of the settlement.