Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
- 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
You've thrown down the gauntlet on Alignment. It's worth battling for I think. Bear in mind the starting position is that MOST other themepark mmorpgs seem to do Evil vs Good which is the tired, normative experience. To push the boundaries PFO has to go into uncharted territory. My rationale for some form of Alignment is that player groups should be measured by Power, by Money and by Social. With each influencing the other. I think Alignment serves the Social measurement of progress that interacts with the other two. That's my basis for being interested in the system.
1. I think you're right about engineering it: It going to be tricky.
But I think Alignment as a basic system with Reputation as a more fluid social rating system could be a great type of gameplay interaction between players diametrically opposite yet supporting combat gameplay (pen v sword). I remember the mmorpgs where a player was a great leader of a group and made the gameplay x10 more fun just by everyone cooperating with their orders in a pvp battle. Why not have some social rating system for such players that positive feed-backs and more players will flock to their banners?! I think the second lesser reason is that pathfinder source material has alignment - which imo just so happens to be useful to co-opt for a social measurement system (which is always meant to be loosely interpreted as looking at Gygax's history of adding it, I believe).
2. So I agree the challenge is high, but the game DOES need it (mmorpgs need a SOCIAL MEASURE or form of interaction development in this direction.
3. The implimentation I think is a big counter/leash to Open PvP which itself is expanding combat content to fit alongside with pvE content. PvP otherwise (the POWER axis) easily runs riot. So yes it likely reduces the scope of other interactions, but those would get squashed in FFA PvP all too easily, I'm assuming. That's the first priority I think and where I see Alignment initially fitting in (which is kinda neat considering pvp and alignment are such hot issues).
4. Hopefully the system can be developed over time and according to how players work with it and how it moderates POWER which itself moderates MONEY: And it will be interesting to see what emerges. This is something about games that modern mmorpgs miss: That no one knows where the game is heading: That creative space is still unwritten, that story untold and the players are charting new paths (say cheese!) ahead.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
3. The implimentation I think is a big counter/leash to Open PvP which itself is expanding combat content to fit alongside with pvE content. PvP otherwise (the POWER axis) easily runs riot. So yes it likely reduces the scope of other interactions, but those would get squashed in FFA PvP all too easily, I'm assuming. That's the first priority I think and where I see Alignment initially fitting in (which is kinda neat considering pvp and alignment are such hot issues).
I think you have highlighted one possible strength of the alignment system: there have been numerous posts in the forums by Pathfinder players that are interested in the MMO, but do not really want to be in a FFA PvP environment.
Some of these PF players won't want to play with any PvP. But if settlements can protect their villagers from casual violence from their village mates, I think a lot of PF players might be willing to risk occasional settlement vs. settlement PvP. The alignment system and reputation system make that protection possible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How so? You could still talk through emotes, you just didn't share a common language. So you could say /wave /laugh /thanks /applause /point /no /yes and so on. That made for much nicer interaction and much more roleplay than any other mmorpg I have ever seen. The feeling you get when you make friends through emotes is priceless. The language barrier in wow was probably one of the best decisions they made with the game. Having a language barrier is also very realistic.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.
First off, emoting simple expressions and gestures is not what I would consider on par with meaningful dialogue. Second, I never meant that I wanted to be friends with the opposite side. Rather, I wanted to be able to flesh out story arcs with enemies, RP interrogation, allow for spies and treachery, etc. The verbal interchange - quips, taunts, demands, revelations of plots, etc. - all make the conflict richer. My desire to promote a healthy RP community should not be misconstrued to mean that I want everyone to RP being blissfully happy with one another. Without conflict, you have very little story. Without the ability to talk to your enemies, that conflict is reduced to killing them, and little else.
As for a language barrier being realistic, that is true to an extent. But after years of war, it is also realistic that both sides would learn the other side's language for purposes of diplomacy, to confer with spies, to interrogate prisoners, and so on.
in a truly good rp environement there are no set sides merely alliances that shift like the desert sands
Alignment is irrelevant.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@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.
Except that the article isn't giving you the full story. Penny went through a full re-branding attempt which ALSO included removing many brands they used to carry from the shelves and replacing them with newer, "hipper" and more expensive brands. End result, people no longer had the option to buy what they were used to buying at Penny because the store no longer carried it. I wouldn't exactly call that "strictly better" for thier customers. (http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/jcpenneys-real-problem-fashions-ron-johnson /)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
in a truly good rp environement there are no set sides merely alliances that shift like the desert sands
I think that depends on the kind of RP in which you're involved. For example, a simulation-heavy game in which you're a soldier in a war. It's rather helpful to be able to identify the opposition.
Of course, exceptions will occur, but the general idea in this case is knowing that there is a clear division of sides.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Consider that larger towns/cities have multiple neighborhoods which may have different alliances. Merchants quarter, thieves quarters, the barracks, ....
Just a though to allow more flexibility that many players want. The question becomes what is minimum size for a neighborhood.
Lam