Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Avena
LG | NG | CG
LN | TN | CN
LE | NE | CE
1 step is a shift of one space horizontally or vertically on the standard 3x3 grid. To move diagonally, you have to first move one step horizontally, then one step vertically, making it two steps total.
In effect, make a plus sign (+) and center it on your alignment. That gives you everything that is within one step.
LG | NG | CG
LN | TN | CN | X
LE | NE | CE
LG | NG | CG
LN | TN | CN
LE | NE | CE
________X
LG | NG | CG | X
LN | TN | CN
LE | NE | CE
@Bluddwolf
I'm still unsure what actual problem your proposal is solving.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Once again we get a contradiction. If True Neutral is one-step from all alignments, then that includes diagonals. Then it goes on and says diagonals are two steps.
When we have to ask for clarification on what should be black or white issues, then there is a problem with the source.
One step or two steps for diagonal, there is no room for a grey area in the answer. One step, including diagonal, resolves the issues I have with the system.
Ryan answered that, though, on the same page as Nihimon's linked post:
I think the issue of Neutral being 1-step away from all alignments is the error.
Otherwise, all the big successful Settlements will be Neutral, and anyone who proposes starting a Settlement that isn't Neutral will face a huge uphill battle.
Yea.......... I really have a problem with the logic of Ryans last statement. Because as near as I can tell, that will happen anyway. Its already gonna be an uphill batlle for any extremes. Be they LG or CE. It will be a problem due to lack of population, and lack of freedom created by the alignment system. So that excuse holds no water, because we all know the alliance system will "force" most players between TN LN NG CG. I think it will be very hard to garner support for anything else, which leads to a lower population, which in turn leads to unsuccessful settlements, which will have an avalanche effect.
So if we are truly worried about balance among settlements of differing alignments, then either the alignment system should be removed, the alignment system should be tweaked, or more insentive should be gived for alignment extremes. To me the biggest opposition I have towards alignment is how it interfers with training. If I have to pay lots of gold, or grind out faction alliance then thats fine, but if advanced chaotic training doesnt exist, then Im screwed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
(snipped)... So if we are truly worried about balance among settlements of differing alignments, then either the alignment system should be removed, the alignment system should be tweaked, or more insentive should be gived for alignment extremes. To me the biggest opposition I have towards alignment is how it interfers with training. If I have to pay lots of gold, or grind out faction alliance then thats fine, but if advanced chaotic training doesnt exist, then Im screwed.
I expect there won't be as many CE settlements as NG ones but surely there will be some NN and NE where CN and CE players can train. You're not the only one planning on playing chaotic, I can vouch for that ;D
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would very much like there to be some kind of Law or Slider or something for Settlements to define how tolerant they are for alignments.
It defines how many steps away from the Settlement someone can be to join (varying from 0 to 4, the maximum), and increasing tolerance places penalties on the Morale and Security indexes.
Why? The normal citizenry can be assumed to match the alignment of the Settlement very closely. They will not be happy with powerful (and functionally immortal) people of wildly different alignments in their town. In addition, one can assume that the more tolerant the Settlement, the greater variety of NPCs will be present, which can make the town a bit more internally unstable.
Sounds like a good trade off to me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well if I can get ADVANCED chaotic training from a TN settlement, then I have consideraly less to fuss about. From my understanding thats not the case. My understanding is that having maxed out certain indeces as well as a settlements alignment will determine what training they can offer. So if a setlement is TN, and has max civilization idex, then the closest I might get to rogue training is Ranger. To get max rogue training it might still require max civilization, but it would still require of some variant of Choatic settlement. Unless thwy are making Bandits (chaotic) and Rogue ( Neutral) . But GWs has said that Banditry is Chaotic training, and I associate the occupation Bandit witj the class Rogue. Also, while I realize I wont be the only chaotic neutral player, that doesnt mean it would be enough for a settlement or that there would be training.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How many times are people going to accept being mechanically kicked out of their circle of friends before they start to just decide to go find another game?Why not go make friends that play like you do?
Great answer, that solves the whole issue. "Sorry you get kicked out of our settlement by a game mechanic. Oh and by the way, we can't be friends anymore either. Yeah I know you're my brother, we can still be that, but we can't group in this game unless you play exactly like me."
That is one hell of a marketing pitch, don't you think?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How many times are people going to accept being mechanically kicked out of their circle of friends before they start to just decide to go find another game?Why not go make friends that play like you do?Great answer, that solves the whole issue. "Sorry you get kicked out of our settlement by a game mechanic. Oh and by the way, we can't be friends anymore either. Yeah I know you're my brother, we can still be that, but we can't group in this game unless you play exactly like me."
That is one hell of a marketing pitch, don't you think?
I disagree: I'm seeing Settlement Membership as GAMEPLAY. Managing your affiliation. If I have say 80 friends on facebook, I don't send them spam or post annoying things on their wall etc. I have to take responsibiliy to enhance their experience as one of their "friends" and not the reverse. Managing settlement in/out again is mangement of the settlement. Perhaps the settlement can charge a renewal fee (what is annoyingly called an admin fee in rl!) for the individual for transgressing and returning or if that individual is high rep and they know them well, they can just tick 'em back in - simple.
That sounds like interesting management to me? And in terms of pvp'ing frenzy suitable deterrent unless you're chaotic in which case the membership problem is more lax?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My Crowdforger Guild group includes two would-be assassins, one bandit, one monk, and someone thinking seriously of going for paladin. All those alignment restrictions will never fit in a single one-step group. So, we'll set up the CC based on the most common alignment in it, and the rest of us will place a character in it that fits, so we can play as a group. Then we'll have the characters who don't fit that CC looking to join other CCs... where we'll be making new friends.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My Crowdforger Guild group includes two would-be assassins, one bandit, one monk, and someone thinking seriously of going for paladin. All those alignment restrictions will never fit in a single one-step group. So, we'll set up the CC based on the most common alignment in it, and the rest of us will place a character in it that fits, so we can play as a group. Then we'll have the characters who don't fit that CC looking to join other CCs... where we'll be making new friends.
What I find rather amusing is that of that diverse list, the paladin is the only one who can't fit in. It is entirely possible to have monks, assassins, bandits, and even a non-paladin champion of good in the same group.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My Crowdforger Guild group includes two would-be assassins, one bandit, one monk, and someone thinking seriously of going for paladin. All those alignment restrictions will never fit in a single one-step group. So, we'll set up the CC based on the most common alignment in it, and the rest of us will place a character in it that fits, so we can play as a group. Then we'll have the characters who don't fit that CC looking to join other CCs... where we'll be making new friends.
With my suggested solution, you could go with a NG settlement:
The primarily Neutral settlements (ie NG and NE) will have access to 6 alignments.
NG = CG, NG, LG, CN, TN, LN Excluding all of the Evil alignments
NE = CE, NE, LE, CN, TN, LN Excluding all of the Good alignments.
These settlements can train there non primary skills to 275, and their primary skills (N, G or E) to 300.
Or you could go with a TN settlement that would be open to all 9 alignments.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
LG | NG | CG
LN | TN | CN
LE | NE | CE@Bluddwolf
I'm still unsure what actual problem your proposal is solving.
The problem my suggestion solves is that it includes TN into every settlement configuration. It also further diversifies the extremes (corner alignments).
I have also accounted for different caps on training based on the number of alignments each settlement is open to. While TN is the most diverse, it can only train N to maximum.
This will avoid the likelihood of everyone starting a TN settlement.
Because the corners will have the most restrictive acces, they an provide the highest tiers of training. I used example of 290 for non core alignments and the standard 300 for the core alignment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seems to me that alignment homogeneity among settlements would trend toward stasis rather than dynamism. Nothing happening, no conflict: a socially inert suburban life. If there is no difference between the composition of lawful evil settlements and chaotic good settlements the alignment system becomes just as you propose would be ideal, Bluddwolf: meaningless. Entropic. No story.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Seems to me that alignment homogeneity among settlements would trend toward stasis rather than dynamism. Nothing happening, no conflict: a socially inert suburban life. If there is no difference between the composition of lawful evil settlements and chaotic good settlements the alignment system becomes just as you propose would be ideal, Bluddwolf: meaningless. Entropic. No story.
In response to this, then why hasn't a utopian society succeeded in real life? The answer, atleast IMHO is because of the human factor. If you take the alignments as base fact and remove the human factor I believe you are 100% correct Being. (Can't believe I said that.) But I believe that the human element will always present conflict.
Edit: Corrected an error.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The problem my suggestion solves is that it includes TN into every settlement configuration.
That's one of the things it's doing, but you haven't told me what the problem is.
It also further diversifies the extremes (corner alignments).
By "diversifies" are you asserting that it allows corner settlements to have more alignments, or that it makes the various corner settlements more diverse, and thus distinct from each other?
I have also accounted for different caps on training based on the number of alignments each settlement is open to. While TN is the most diverse, it can only train N to maximum.
This will avoid the likelihood of everyone starting a TN settlement.Because the corners will have the most restrictive acces, they an provide the highest tiers of training. I used example of 290 for non core alignments and the standard 300 for the core alignment.
This is a possible solution for one of the problems that only exists because of your proposal. Though I suspect this will still result in the vast majority of settlements being TN, since the highest of skill training will only matter to the characters with years in the game. Best case scenario, settlements are TN for the next two or three years and then begin to drift to various alignments. More realistically, almost all settlements are TN, and each major kingdom eventually founds one settlement in each of the alignment corners to provide training.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What do you imagine a utopian society has to do with anything, Deacon? You complain of strawmen, yet are the builder of them.
Apparently you are too argumentative to even understand when someone agrees to a degree with you. Its a shame really, I'm sure I won't find anything else you say important.
"Nothing happening, no conflict: a socially inert suburban life." If that is not utopian than I may be mistaken, can you clarify what you were attempting to say? (No sarcasm, genuinely curious as to your opinion).EDIT: In addition I believe it was Sheherazad who stated you created your "strawman" argument. Easy to confuse really, we both have Crimson <insert>: before our names.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Seems to me that alignment homogeneity among settlements would trend toward stasis rather than dynamism. Nothing happening, no conflict: a socially inert suburban life. If there is no difference between the composition of lawful evil settlements and chaotic good settlements the alignment system becomes just as you propose would be ideal, Bluddwolf: meaningless. Entropic. No story.
Your example of Lawful Evil and Chaotic Good settlements in my suggestion, does not accurately describe what my suggestion proposes.
The only alignment these two settlements would share in TN. Corner Settlements will only have four alignments.
If by the introduction of TN into all settlements, you claim that renders the alignment system meaningless, than it was severely flawed to begin with.
Using True Neutral settlement as an example. If it is truly a True Neutral settlements, would it not be open to all alignments?
It would have to be neutral as it relates to Law vs. Chaos and Good vs. Evil. Diagonal steps must count as one-step, in order for the system to accurately represent the True Neutral alignment.
Once you accept that fact, then you have to accept the fact that Diagonal Steps must count as one-step for all alignments.
PFO is a Sandbox, MMORPG. What you and others are supporting is a system that arbitrarily takes away player freedom of association and that segregation adds nothing to the gaming experience.
I will ask it again, how does the introduction of neutrals to a settlement change the core character of the settlement?
If a settlement accepts so many neutrals that it actually shifts its core alignment, then that was the choice of the settlement managers. That is a far different thing than a game mechanic saying "You can't do that".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I find rather amusing is that of that diverse list, the paladin is the only one who can't fit in. It is entirely possible to have monks, assassins, bandits, and even a non-paladin champion of good in the same group.My Crowdforger Guild group includes two would-be assassins, one bandit, one monk, and someone thinking seriously of going for paladin. All those alignment restrictions will never fit in a single one-step group. So, we'll set up the CC based on the most common alignment in it, and the rest of us will place a character in it that fits, so we can play as a group. Then we'll have the characters who don't fit that CC looking to join other CCs... where we'll be making new friends.
It'll actually exclude this particular monk, too, as he's leaning lawful good - which should offer some interesting RP between him and the paladin. But the point is, our first choices of characters won't all work in the same group under the alignment system - whether it's one character excluded, or two or three - and that's OK. It's not "sorry, can't play with you" but "we'll play this group together, and these characters separately".
The system's a bit more complicated than Horde-versus-Alliance, hero-versus-villain, or even DAoC's old Albion-versus-Hibernia-versus-Midgard, but our group has always needed to run at least two characters each in order to both play our favored race/class/faction, and play as a group, and I don't find the divide by alignment any more or less doable. And I actually like the idea that no one CC or settlement can appeal to everyone (and only a neutral settlement/CC can attract a (bare) majority of alignments).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Once you accept that fact, then you have to accept the fact that Diagonal Steps must count as one-step for all alignmentsThose are not facts, Bluddwolf, but assertions.
PFO is a Sandbox, MMORPG. What you and others are supporting is a system that arbitrarily takes away player freedom of association and that segregation adds nothing to the gaming experience.
Community alignment is not arbitrary. Consider this community, the posters in the PFO forum. Would you say alignments play a role here? I would. I consider your push for abolishment of the alignment system is chaotic aligned, or at least more chaotic than I would prefer. Yet I am not lawful aligned either and resist the imposition of oppressive political 'if you ain't with us you're agin us' dictatorships.
I have to give credit where it is due: you have constructively proposed a synthetic system that could work. Your proposed synthesis is more toward true neutral than your original position of throwing it all out all together and for that I commend you. Synthesis with my hopefully TN position is not yet synthesis with those I consider oppressive, overly structured Lawful bureaucrats.
I will ask it again, how does the introduction of neutrals to a settlement change the core character of the settlement?It moderates the extremity of the extremist aligned settlement.
If a settlement accepts so many neutrals that it actually shifts its core alignment, then that was the choice of the settlement managers. That is a far different thing than a game mechanic saying "You can't do that".
Right. Yet you can only easily tell a PCs rep, not alignment. Without systemic auto-exclusion of actively alien alignments, the town management can only include or exclude based on rep. Management cannot tell that all these new immigrants are core evil chaotic while currently acting like true neutrals. Your ostensibly lawful good town is suddenly, once you accept the subterfuge of the swarming applicants, in the alien hands. Yet with auto-alignment systemic restriction the management doesn't have to figure out what the applicant's alignment really is. The alien character cannot even apply, is my thought.
Incidentally I think this is why core alignment will be considered by automated settlement mechanics where only rep, and observed active alignment at most is what town fathers can know when considering an application for membership.
But beyond that, if LE town membership is made open to TN, and CG can actively pretend to be TN, then it might turn out that the LE settlement will lose its LE advantages just when they need them most, since the forces of CG are arrayed on the horizon with war on their chaotic minds.
And if not, then there will be no meaningful difference between LE settlements and LG settlements and no reason for them to be in conflict other than for the sake of yet more meaningless (in context of the game) PvP.
With the alignment mechanisms then those who pretend to be lawful good will have to behave lawfully good. Without it they can do whatever they want, just like the chaotic rogues would like them to, and the Druids will be happy because there are no more extremists running around causing trouble.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would very much like there to be some kind of Law or Slider or something for Settlements to define how tolerant they are for alignments.
It defines how many steps away from the Settlement someone can be to join (varying from 0 to 4, the maximum), and increasing tolerance places penalties on the Morale and Security indexes.
Why? The normal citizenry can be assumed to match the alignment of the Settlement very closely. They will not be happy with powerful (and functionally immortal) people of wildly different alignments in their town. In addition, one can assume that the more tolerant the Settlement, the greater variety of NPCs will be present, which can make the town a bit more internally unstable.
Sounds like a good trade off to me.
I'm just going to leave this here, since no one seems to have noticed it before, or they are too embroiled in personal arguments to pay it any attention...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the point is, our first choices of characters won't all work in the same group...
I sympathize with this point, but I would ask you to consider the fact that any group, whether at the table or in virtually every other MMO, faces the same challenge. I've been roped into playing "the tank" so often that I've only ever been able to get a Wizard(Mage/Sorc/Whatever) to max level in WoW, even though a Wizard has always been my "first choice".
I would also point out that any game system that allows a Paladin and an Evil Bandit (not what you said, but used for the sake of argument) to consistently group together without some repercussions is fundamentally misunderstanding what a Paladin is.
[Edit] Okay, I read the rest of your post, Deianira, and I see that you have already clearly considered that, and more. Thank you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But the point is, our first choices of characters won't all work in the same group...I sympathize with this point, but I would ask you to consider the fact that any group, whether at the table or in virtually every other MMO, faces the same challenge. I've been roped into playing "the tank" so often that I've only ever been able to get a Wizard(Mage/Sorc/Whatever) to max level in WoW, even though a Wizard has always been my "first choice".
I would also point out that any game system that allows a Paladin and an Evil Bandit (not what you said, but used for the sake of argument) to consistently group together without some repercussions is fundamentally misunderstanding what a Paladin is.
Nihimon, you and I are actually making the same point, which is that it's fine that those characters won't all work together (see the bolded phrase in my last post). I'm actually in favor of the one-step alignment restriction as it makes player choices matter very much, and will lead to a wider range of settlement "personalities."
Oh - and I empathize with the tank issue. I've ended up in that role quite a lot myself - and likely will in the guild group as well - which is why Deianira's planned as a wizard (or sorceror if the translation of the class to PFO looks interesting; Deianira's leaning toward CG and I have some great bloodline ideas for that).
(Edit: <giggles at simultaneous posting/editing> Clearly a passionate topic!)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
How many times are people going to accept being mechanically kicked out of their circle of friends before they start to just decide to go find another game?Why not go make friends that play like you do?Great answer, that solves the whole issue. "Sorry you get kicked out of our settlement by a game mechanic. Oh and by the way, we can't be friends anymore either. Yeah I know you're my brother, we can still be that, but we can't group in this game unless you play exactly like me."
That is one hell of a marketing pitch, don't you think?
I do not remember saying anything about losing your other friends, must everything be so extreme? I was simply suggesting making your in-game relationships meaningful to your character. What you do as the player, and the friends you keep...is beyond the scope of the game or the game mechanics.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do not remember saying anything about losing your other friends, must everything be so extreme? I was simply suggesting making your in-game relationships meaningful to your character. What you do as the player, and the friends you keep...is beyond the scope of the game or the game mechanics.
WOT?!? But I want to become the great terror in the night and murder innocent people with my mighty one shot kills launched from the shadows. Why can't i play with my bff the paladin of Iomedae???
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What do you imagine a utopian society has to do with anything, Deacon? You complain of strawmen, yet are the builder of them.
Dude... that was an attack. No bones about it, an attack. He just conceded that you were CORRECT about homogeneity in society being the cause of stagnation, and used a utopian society as an example. Your kneejerk response to the idea of a utopian society he used as his example in his post is evidence of your desire to spite him. It is not because you sought to correct a mistake. I see through the charade, and my only response is contempt. Stop being a pedantic jerk.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do not know many of the details, but the scuttlebut I'm reading in in this thread alone makes me curious and apprehensive at the same time. Speculations on the finished product can be fun, but it's just too early to know for sure.
That being stated...I would hate to think that there is only one way to look at alignment in the scheme of the game overall. Incorporating alignments that have any meaning in an MMORPG is a bold move, and I am interested in the result. Unfortunately, this anticipation seems to be causing a little anxiety. I understand that. When I was a child, I would get very nervous about going to see a doctor, always afraid I would have to have shots. I can remember several times I pitched a fit over shots. As it turned out, the shots weren't nearly as painful as I feared. I hurt more from the aftermath of the screaming and weeping than I ever did from those little hypodermic needles.
You may be asking yourself why I wrote all that down. Here's my answer. I wrote all that to write this: we sit here analyzing the benefits and detriments of alignment in game we haven't yet touched. There seems to be a range of emotions on the topic. Good. However, we don't know what's going to happen. I think most of us will play the game, alignment system or not, and try to find ways to make the system work to its best advantage for us. The anticipation of pain is an illusion, and it won't be nearly as bad as some are making it sound. So, maybe the (figurative) temper tantrum should stop. There's no such thing as a PERFECT game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like:
We should treat all the trivial things of life seriously, and all the serious things of life with sincere and studied triviality."
Afterall, Alignment is Serious Business! randomwalker seems to have got the stick by the right end in the other thread considering the latest development on the subject.
It's also because we can only look at this high-level and one person says I think I see such and such a detail from this height which might be a solid inference or not. Looking back, Re-assessing at the desired outcomes that GW wish for for this system, is a useful leveller for this discussion I think:
"So what are we trying to incentivize and disincentivize?"
Behaviors we want:
- Large PvP wars. (Thus wars eliminate all reputation losses.)
- Players able to defend themselves without concern. (Thus the Attacker flag.)
- Players to attack each other over resources, money, territory, etc.
- Most PvP to occur outside of settlements where there are no guards, laws, etc.
- Players who are not PvP combat machines having some ability to discourage attacks via bounties, death curses, reputation loss, etc., but these should not be so onerous as to prevent PvP if the profit potential is there.
- Players able to play their alignment, but at the same time not grief players of opposite alignment. If one player is chaotic evil and another lawful good, each should not be able to abuse the other without limit or recourse.
Behaviors we don't want:
- PvP conflicts where the death of the target means no gain for the attacker, i.e. randomly killing people for no reason.
Abuse of new players.- Players cooperating to game reputation and alignment systems to their advantage.
- Players willfully committing crimes or evil acts under the shield of reputation or alignment penalties so onerous no one would try and stop them.
"There are other behaviors aside from these, but this hopefully gets you the idea."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Crimson Elite: Royal
A well stated and balanced point of view. Shared and posted by many people, many times throughout the various threads on these topics.
The "one step rule" does allow for a very wide range of alignments for settlement/CC populations. The corners are more restrictive, as they should be. They are the "extremes" of philosophy and conduct (neutral notwithstanding, if you consider it an "extreme").
There are no limits to adventuring together with any other alignments. There are possible dangers though involving factions and getting mixed up in things because you are grouped with the wrong PC.
The latest thread lays out a system wherein penalties for alignment "violations" are less severe. It also leaves more breathing room for those that protest they don't want to be defined as a category in a 9 point measurement system. Perhaps this will settle a little now. Perhaps not.
Why the topic becomes so heated sometimes? I believe that it is because people are very set in their opinions of it and cannot be convinced to change. We all want to change or can't understand the "other guy's" opinion and it just won't work. Frustration sets in...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How do you know when a player, through their character, is telling the truth? A character may state it's intention but act in contrary ways which are hidden from other characters. But those contrary actions are not hidden from the game. There has been repeated mention of long term, deep cover characters in other mmo's who have betrayed their group or guild as the result of meta-gaming (play outside the game) between players. I propose that alignment shift from the intended or stated alignment (the core alignment) to the active alignment is a way to identify potential double agents, an early warning sign for a double cross.
If this is reasonable then I can project that players who have characters that they plan to use in this way will not be in support of alignment as a game mechanic. They will also find disguise an essential tool to counteract alignment shift detection as it may be the only way to reduce the chance of early discovery.
Even if you don't like alignment as a mechanic, it does have practical value.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Quzon Mal (friend of birds) People will create a character on day zero minus however many days; namely guilds are already infiltrated and will play their character meta of meta! To the extent they are completely invisible and transparent except for the fact they are siphoning off information to use carefully and without trace from the one organisation to their character (alts) or allies in another. This is actually fair-gameplay, in RP terms, a stranger comes to the River Lands spins a story about being a refugee and all their family were slaughtered etc (how convenient) and so are a complete blank slate, and may even prove themselves to be excellent members of a settlement even rising into positions of power and actually running the settlement beneficially but with an eye on their ulterior long-game.
This sort of paranoia is unavoidable and even desirable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It was not an attack and still isn't. It was a question. What does the concept of utopia have to do with the issue? He says I'm making strawman arguments and yet turns around and provides his own. I still haven't seen a strawman argument I am responsible for, we only have his false attribution. Deacon set up the strawman 'utopia' argument and described how utopia will never work because you have humans involved. I do not believe having no difference between good and evil is a utopia. Utopia has nothing to do with anything.What do you imagine a utopian society has to do with anything, Deacon? You complain of strawmen, yet are the builder of them.Dude... that was an attack.
No bones about it, an attack.False.
He just conceded that you were CORRECT about homogeneity in society being the cause of stagnation, and used a utopian society as an example.Conceding his agreement is irrelevant to the objective of determining the truth: truth is not subject to democratic vote. This isn't some sort of game you can win or lose.
Your kneejerk response to the idea of a utopian society he used as his example in his post is evidence of your desire to spite him.My 'reaction' wan't kneejerk at all. It was a question. Do you understand the distinction between a question and an argument or is English your second tongue?
It is not because you sought to correct a mistake.You haven't the first clue about my motivations.
I see through the charade, and my only response is contempt. Stop being a pedantic jerk.
I should say you are the jerk, you are the one attacking, and contempt from a, um, person like you is almost a complement.
Could you answer me one small question? Why would I ever want to attack Deacon? It isn't attacking someone to disagree with them. I had nothing to gain from attacking someone who was, as far as I was concerned at the time, a relative nobody.
He said he doesn't want the alignment system. I disagreed. That wasn't an attack, it was disagreement.
And by the way: this is for you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Being and Deacon / Crimson Elite.....
Gentlemen, whatever arguments you may have had over the issue of alignment are now being lost in the more negative back and forth you are engaged in now.
After listening to the most recent Gobbocast, it is clear that alignment as a system is still evolving. Stephen Cheney made it seem clearer that our core alignment is the measure, however our active alignment is where we are at any given moment. This I believe might be he best compromise between having freedom of action and still have alignment meaningful. Another comment was that there are only extreme cases where alignment nd skills are connected.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Another comment was that there are only extreme cases where alignment nd skills are connected.
My ears perked up a bit when I heard this. If this is truly the case, then I should be able to find all or almost all of the training I want. Even if I have to buy it. Which would end any alignment worries I have, and I can move on from this subject as creating/building/joining a settlement isn't something I care about too much one way or another.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you build a chaotic evil lawful good neutral settlement with your friends so that you can play your assassadin and raging monk, I don't see how you are making any significant choices: it is not the case that a typical choice closes off some significant portion of the remaining space.
I know gamers and people have a history of hating changes if the are strictly better for them, so it doesn't surprise me that the strong weakening of Allaince/Horde dynamic isn't universally popular.
Decius,
Respectfully, I believe this is an unfair characterization of the objections to the proposed systems. Many of the people here who have spoke criticaly of the proposed system have been very receptive of other mechanisms of PFO that have deviated radicaly from the percieved "MMO norm". So I don't believe it's fair to chalk criticism up simply to resistance to change.
Furthermore, I believe it's a little bit presumptous to categorize said system as being "better for them" in a game designed to provide entertainment. Since entertainment is ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE, one mans "awesome" is anothers "sucks raw eggs". The system hasn't even been implimented yet, so we don't even have any objective proof of how well it will function to meet it's own objectives. However, even assuming the system performs flawlessly according to it's own specifications. If those specifications inhibit an individuals entertainment in an activity whose sole purpose it to entertain, it can hardly be described as "better" for said individual. At best you could say the mechanism is well suited for it's INTENDED AUDIENCE. YMMV.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Grumpy. I do not disagree with what you are saying, but I interpreted Decius's comment to be referring specifically to objections to "significant choices", not to deviations from "MMO norm" or to "change".
(Although I agree totally with your YMMV comment...but Decius usually does not make such amateur lapses in logic, so I must assume we are both misinterpreting his intent.)
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
If you build a chaotic evil lawful good neutral settlement with your friends so that you can play your assassadin and raging monk, I don't see how you are making any significant choices: it is not the case that a typical choice closes off some significant portion of the remaining space.
I know gamers and people have a history of hating changes if the are strictly better for them, so it doesn't surprise me that the strong weakening of Allaince/Horde dynamic isn't universally popular.
Decius,
Respectfully, I believe this is an unfair characterization of the objections to the proposed systems. Many of the people here who have spoke criticaly of the proposed system have been very receptive of other mechanisms of PFO that have deviated radicaly from the percieved "MMO norm". So I don't believe it's fair to chalk criticism up simply to resistance to change.
Furthermore, I believe it's a little bit presumptous to categorize said system as being "better for them" in a game designed to provide entertainment. Since entertainment is ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE, one mans "awesome" is anothers "sucks raw eggs". The system hasn't even been implimented yet, so we don't even have any objective proof of how well it will function to meet it's own objectives. However, even assuming the system performs flawlessly according to it's own specifications. If those specifications inhibit an individuals entertainment in an activity whose sole purpose it to entertain, it can hardly be described as "better" for said individual. At best you could say the mechanism is well suited for it's INTENDED AUDIENCE. YMMV.
Background: In Everquest, several races were strongly limited in what content they could experience, due to factional effects. Iksar, in particular, had trouble getting to the major trade hub of EC because the NPCs (including vendors) there were hostile and powerful. In the Planes of Power expansion, a zone was added that connects to just about everywhere, has merchants for everything, and the NPCs there are not only by default non-hostile, combat is prevented. All of the previous methods of travel remained unchanged, so the added options were strictly better from a decision theory standpoint. Many people complained about the 'removal' of the systems where faction grinding was necessary and training tradeskills took a lot of travel time to collect materials, as well as a lot of money.
In WoW, the faction system is even simpler: You can't communicate or group with anyone of the opposing side (alliance vs horde). No exceptions. The lack of player-controlled traitors (even though traitors to the side exist in canon) is not widely regarded as a flaw.
The history of people disliking changes that are strictly better for them is significantly longer. The strict form of alignment limitation would be that you simply cannot play with characters of the opposed alignment; the loosest form would be where alignment is never considered. The intermediate form, where alignment opens some options while closing others, is strictly better for players than the strict form, because they have all of the options of strict alignment, plus some.
I was and am using "strictly better" in a jargon sense from decision theory. Having additional choices for oneself is always strictly better in that sense, even if one would prefer that others not have that choice. It can be rational to wish that other people not have a specific additional choice, but I haven't seen anyone indicate that they are trying to police other people.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Decius,
I was quietly reading the arguments being made by both sides and finding valid points with both...and then the comment about neither side being able to communicate in WoW as "not widely regarded as a flaw" was made. Here's where Mel's previous comment seemed to be the case...that a mechanic can serve it's intended purpose, but at least in my opinion, be a horrible decision and reduce a player's level of fun.
I understand why this mechanic was placed in WoW (I alpha and beta tested the game). However, from a role-playing stand point, I thought it was possibly the most prohibitive mechanic ever put in an MMORPG. To not be able talk with your opponent stripped all the role-play, intrigue, and player created content/story right out of the conflict and reduced it to pure PvP. When the only interaction you can have with your opponent is killing them, the supposed RPG reverted back to the military strategy game it was derived from. Think of the best movie conflicts you've ever seen, edit out all the dialogue between the antagonist and protagonist, leave only the fight scenes, and then put it in a continual loop...that, to me, was WoW. The same battles over and over, without any RP depth at all.
Having come from 7+ years of UO, where the social interaction between conflicting individuals and guilds was more than half the fun, having all that removed from the conflict just seemed incredibly restrictive and was, ultimately, why I stopped playing the game. So though I may not be totally against the proposed alignment system, though I can see how it may help promote conflict and force players to make certain choices, I also have seen game mechanics meant to artificially control conflict (either to limit or promote it) lead to considerable problems, even though those mechanics may have been successful in their intended purpose.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yet in Pathfinder I believe we will have diplomacy in the game, formally, and communication will be possible if only between intermediaries which could not occur in bi-polar WoW.
I think that commonly, in general, Decius is correct that the divisions between alliance and horde was a satisfactory solution to problems that would have existed otherwise. It was not optimal for RP: true. But RP in WoW was and is fairly uncommon. It existed, but most players never experienced much of it there.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Except that in games the choices available to one do not exist in a vacume since both the A.I. if the game has one and other players will adapt to the new choices availble changing ones experience of the game even if one did not neccesarly avail oneself of the wider set of options. How could that possibly be said to be "strictly better" for the player irregardless of thier subjective tastes?
If Chess were changed to allow any play peice to move in the same fashion as any other piece (i.e. pawn moves as queen) that would not make for a "strictly better" game since it drasticaly changes the player experience of the game...unless the player were playing BOTH sides by himself and agreed to not use the new movement options if he did not enjoy them. If the player were to play against the A.I. or another player...the wider movement rules would be used and change the players experience regardless of whether he wished it or not.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Except that in games the choices available to one do not exist in a vacume since both the A.I. if the game has one and other players will adapt to the new choices availble changing ones experience of the game even if one did not neccesarly avail oneself of the wider set of options. How could that possibly be said to be "strictly better" for the player irregardless of thier subjective tastes?
If Chess were changed to allow any play peice to move in the same fashion as any other piece (i.e. pawn moves as queen) that would not make for a "strictly better" game since it drasticaly changes the player experience of the game...unless the player were playing BOTH sides by himself and agreed to not use the new movement options if he did not enjoy them. If the player were to play against the A.I. or another player...the wider movement rules would be used and change the players experience regardless of whether he wished it or not.
The existence of a game which is superficially similar to chess, except that pieces move differently is strictly better than the nonexistence of such a game.
Chess players can play chess against other chess players, and not-chess players can play not-chess. There can even be overlap between the two groups of players.
A player might rationally believe that pawn promotion is a bad feature of chess, and choose never to use it. (never advance a pawn to the 8th rank) Unless his opponent knows that about him, his opponent must still defend against it. The option of pawn promotion is strictly better for that player. However, the player in question suffers a disadvantage because his opponent is not bound by the same choices.
Likewise, the ability to communicate and group with members of opposing alignments is strictly better than not having that ability; players (e.g. hardcore paladins) may choose to never group or communicate across alignments, but they will be at a competitive disadvantage against people who use all available options.
The only rational objection I see to the system as I understand the developers currently proposing being too permissive is that some players want to police other players' roleplaying as it relates to alignment.
The other complaint, that it is too restrictive because it prevents certain combinations of characters from being members of the same settlement and/or CC, implies that the choice to be a member of an alignment-restricted group should be less meaningful than the only meaningful aspect currently proposed. I think I am reasonable in interpreting that as implying that choosing to be a paladin should be without meaningful tradeoffs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If Chess were changed to allow any play peice to move in the same fashion as any other piece (i.e. pawn moves as queen) that would not make for a "strictly better" game since it drasticaly changes the player experience of the game...unless the player were playing BOTH sides by himself and agreed to not use the new movement options if he did not enjoy them. If the player were to play against the A.I. or another player...the wider movement rules would be used and change the players experience regardless of whether he wished it or not.
Interestingly enough I agree with you that equitable balanced structure in a game is better than having no rules at all. For me your chess analogy, just like the rules that force a certain structure for a sonnet or haiku poetry, suggest that enforcing alignment strictures might be qualitatively better for the game than not so enforcing. Requiring very strict limitations on ball handling in the sport Americans call soccer make soccer a better game, Basketball is better for having rules against double-dribbling, and chess is qualitatively better because the rook is unable to move diagonally.
But I think the 'better' DeciusBrutus is referring to has different rules than what you or I think loosely of as "better". His usage is inflected with the mechanics of decision theory.|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To not be able talk with your opponent stripped all the role-play, intrigue, and player created content/story right out of the conflict and reduced it to pure PvP.I think that is one of the worst designs in mmorpgs I've ever seen.
Oh, it definitely is. It can be sidestepped - I was part of a cross-faction "shady" guild on the Earthen Ring RP server back in the day, and we managed it by keeping a separate chat program (XFire) running so we could talk to each other - but it was clunky and annoying to have to do, and we couldn't talk to any cross-faction people outside the guild without inviting them to the chat program (which we didn't want to have to do for just random RP).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Decius,
I think you have a flaw in your arguement in two areas....
- The first area is failing to look at the distinction between the universe as a whole and one specific activity that is a subset of that universe. It is probably "strictly better" that some game called "Crazy Chess" exists in the Universe as a whole for those who enjoy it to play it. That does not automaticaly make "Crazy Chess" a strictly better game then Chess and we could probably observe that in a practical sense by observing the number of players who are playing and enjoying Chess. Since a games primary function is to provide enjoyment, one that provides alot of enjoyment can't really be considered worse then one which provides little enjoyment. Nor does it mean that all Chess-like games should adopt "Crazy Chess" rule-sets since that would actualy ELIMINATE the choice of playing regular chess for those who enjoyed it. For any given individual the existence of "Crazy Chess" might be better or NEUTRAL....since if they do not care for "Crazy Chess" it's existence provides no real value to them.
- The second area of failing is taking into account that the existance of one choice WILL neccesarly effect others...possibly to the extent of removing them. This is especialy important when considering that not all individuals are rationale or altruistic actors. For example, it is probably NOT "strictly better" to give every person the choice to destroy the planet at any time they choose....since some person will inevitably take that choice thereby removing all other choices from everyone.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Note that in terms of the specific discussion of the Alignment System for PFO, I (as I'm sure is well known by now) fall into the camp of not having one and simply letting people RP thier characters as they choose. My arguements for such are as follows:
- From an engineering standpoint I believe it is simply far too difficult to impliment well and will result in a system that is badly flawed, does not work as intended and will be easly circumvented. Resulting in a huge expenditure of reasources that could be better put toward other systems.
- I don't believe it's actualy neccesary to create the type of game GW seems to want to create.
- It's an impossibly simplistic model for human behavior that doesn't fit well.... even in the sort of Cosmology represented by the Pathfinder Universe.
- It's implimentation eliminates or reduces the possibility for OTHER sorts of activities....such as internal Diversity, Rivalry, Conflict and Drama within settlements and organizations.
- In implimentation it will probably end up detracting from the enjoyment of the game for most of PFO's player-base more then it adds.
That said.....I don't neccesarly believe that games with more simplistic factional models such as WoW or DAOC are worse or better then PFO...they are intended to provide a different sort of play experience for thier audiences.....and I actualy tend to enjoy the sort of play experience provided by such strict systems sometimes myself. Importantly though, the play experience provided by those systems mesh well with general play experience those games aim for and is easy to impliment in practical terms. I remain to be convinced how PFO's will....and though I don't doubt GW's talent..I have serious reservations about how well the mechanism will actualy work in practice.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
@Decius,
I think you have a flaw in your arguement in two areas....
- The second area of failing is taking into account that the existance of one choice WILL neccesarly effect others...possibly to the extent of removing them. This is especialy important when considering that not all individuals are rationale or altruistic actors. For example, it is probably NOT "strictly better" to give every person the choice to destroy the planet at any time they choose....since some person will inevitably take that choice thereby removing all other choices from everyone.
It is certainly strictly better for me if I have an option that destroys the world, in addition to all of my current options.
I would not prefer to live in a world where everyone had that ability, because I want to police other people's world-destroying.
It is true that not all actors are rational. I acknowledged as such when I said that lots of people dislike choices that are better for them; JC Penny lost $163 million after making pricing changes that were strictly better for their customers, mostly because people prefer to believe they are getting a better deal than they are.