Goblin Squad Member
|
So I think I like the Reputationhit-->less access to Cities/trainer/utility better.
Yes, so do I, i think the Revenge part of the punishing system is of the least value. It is more important that actions has consequences, that everything has different flavours. Therefore it is important that there are a gradual loss of "good" privilegies and perhaps aquired "Evil" privilegies (access to evil Spell, feats etc, no or less aggro from certain mobs).
We are going to have an player run economy, perhaps in the future we will have player run escalations", Dungeon lords and Golotha will be a tower of terror run by a Liche?
To me the greatest weakness of Evil is the problem of lacking cooperation and organisation. Perhaps will low low reputation characters ressurect in CE rotters hole, with a 24 hour PvP window and only simple trainers.
And to all this I think a bounty system is nessecary, a system that means you can only post a bounty on your killer...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Maybe they could extend the Rep loss to create a state of semi permanence.
Every time you lose rep due to attacking another player, your [maximum rep] is reduced by (for example) 50. Once a month, your [maximum rep] gets increased by (the same number). If you killed 20 people last month, your maximum rep is 6500+50=6550 Still perfectly manageable. But if you do that every month for a year, You're stuck in the negative rep zone for a long time.
Someone who accumulates 1 unsanctioned kill a month will not have an issue. Anyone that generates more than one unsanctioned kill per month will slowly, but inexorably, slide to a state where their rep is trapped in the lower numbers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will be honest about the rep-hits: I liked them the way they were. Extremely punishing for unsanctioned kills. Off course I did not like how easy it was to accidentally get such a rep hit by friendly fire and such but that should be fixed anyway.
I think *every* act of agression should have some political basis. And "I just want your stuff, stranger, cuz Economy and stuff" does not cut it. I want an aggresive act to have some substrate in the grander scheme of the political and economical game. Something that can be tracked, can be *known* to the player, can be anticipated somewhat, can be acted upon.
I feel that Feuds, Wars, belonging to opposing factions(including SAD) and local Settlement laws should offer more then enough opportunity for lots of killing/banditry: not only that but these are in fact measures of quality of how the game is faring. The Economy, nationalism and sense of landownership in this game should be so crucial and deep, that the game is rife of them.
And if a player wants to go solo harvesting, and wants to avoid all reputation-free PvP by not belonging to a company(unfeudable), choosing the most Neutral faction(if possible) and avoiding *any* PC-controlled Hexes where FFA laws have been instated, then fine.
There will be drawbacks to this. Off course he would still have to belong to a Settlement (Wars). He would not earn any influence for a Company which could be frowned upon by Settlement leaders. Neutral Factions could have less benefits then more outspoken factions that have enemy factions. And he would have to avoid a lot of hexes with local PC/laws, no doubt.
I think if some hex is overrun by unaffiliated gatherers, then find out what settlement they belong to, and make that settlement answer for it. The settlement would most likely kick those unaffiliated gatherers out, rather then risk a war. That would mean these gatherers would have to resort to NPC towns and become second rate citizens.
The new rep-hits are way too lenient...Since I am not a player who would initiate PvP, ever, I do not see that as an opportunity to get some free kills in myself: I see it as a possibility for others to get an (accumulated) hundreds of kills in on *me* without tanking their rep. The rep-hit is my only defense against a PK, and now every person that is so inclined all of a sudden can be one without much repercussion. That will multiply the chance of getting killed "for your stuff", without it having a political basis that can be tracked, can be taken into account beforehand, can be acted upon. This goes for both the unaffiliated player as well as the affiliated player so it is not a case of " join a company".
I am afraid that with the current penalty we will be looking at a murder sim pretty soon.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am afraid that with the current penalty we will be looking at a murder sim pretty soon.
I don't think so.
Personally, I find myself wanting to pull back from the "murder simulator" analogy, and talk about games that are "overwhelmed by random PvP". There are a number of games that fit the latter definition but not the former, and I think it's the latter definition that most folks are trying to avoid.
There absolutely has to be random PvP, and there has to be enough of it that it represents a real risk. For me, it's all about the probability of being attacked by a stranger in the wilderness. If that probability is 70%, I think the game is "overwhelmed by random PvP'. Intuitively, I think something like 15% might be right, but I really don't know.
At any rate, I think even with relatively lenient Reputation penalties, I don't think there are enough true wolves to reach the point where PFO is overwhelmed by random PvP. The fact that there's any penalty at all will, I think, have a significant impact on player behavior.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am afraid that with the current penalty we will be looking at a murder sim pretty soon.I don't think so.
Personally, I find myself wanting to pull back from the "murder simulator" analogy, and talk about games that are "overwhelmed by random PvP". There are a number of games that fit the latter definition but not the former, and I think it's the latter definition that most folks are trying to avoid.
There absolutely has to be random PvP, and there has to be enough of it that it represents a real risk. For me, it's all about the probability of being attacked by a stranger in the wilderness. If that probability is 70%, I think the game is "overwhelmed by random PvP'. Intuitively, I think something like 15% might be right, but I really don't know.
At any rate, I think even with relatively lenient Reputation penalties, I don't think there are enough true wolves to reach the point where PFO is overwhelmed by random PvP. The fact that there's any penalty at all will, I think, have a significant impact on player behavior.
I want it to be a calculated risk, and I will admit right away that I would want to be able to get that risk down to something like 1% rather then 15%.
Being able to get it down to such a low percentage off course will have repercussions for the way I (can) play the game. Needless to say that the game still has to be fun enough for *me*, even with the restrictions that I set upon myself in order to get that percentage so low.
So I will:
- Be always knowledgable of the current Feuds and Wars in my Area;
- Learn to recognize *enemy behavior*
- Make an informed decision about a good Faction;
- Train up perception;
- Train up Stealth, if viable;
- Learn to monitor my Minimap;
- Always make sure I am not emburdened;
- Have trained any usefull escape-skill;
- Avoid PC-controlled Hexes that have FFA laws;
- Be willing to accept SADS up to a non-crippling frequency;
Hopefully the game will still be fun to play with all that; it probably will not be if all of the above would still give me a 15% chance of loosing a lot of my items and would send me back to a shrine and/or corpse run.
GW is walking a very fine line here. Do not underestimate the rage of a gatherer who has been mining coal for an hour and looses it all to a stranger.
PFO *needs* a large contingent of happy farmers. Keep them happy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm with Tyncale. I can keep playing if I get hit by bandits once every twenty or thirty trips. If it's once every 6-7 (15%) that's too much and I'm out of here.
It's important to understand that it's not "once every 6-7" trips. It's once every 6-7 encounters where you met a stranger in the wilderness. The unstated assumption is that the encounter also presented a reasonable chance of success for that stranger (or their group) to defeat you (or your group).
That said, 15% might well be too high, I really don't know. My point is that, if it doesn't happen enough to impact your behavior, then it's not happening enough.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There absolutely has to be random PvP, and there has to be enough of it that it represents a real risk. For me, it's all about the probability of being attacked by a stranger in the wilderness. If that probability is 70%, I think the game is "overwhelmed by random PvP'. Intuitively, I think something like 15% might be right, but I really don't know.
It is not that simple. If I wandered around losec in EVE in a newbie frigate on autopilot or went mining losec belts solo in a Venture there is more like 100% chance I would be ganked. In fact some idiot may hotdrop a carrier on me just to be funny (assuming they did not assume I was bait).
On the otherhand I have a couple of losec alts that have been flying covops frigates and deep space transports through losec for several years now and they have never even been shot at. If I do get involved in PvP in losec its because I am on a roam in a PvP clone and looking to start trouble. I usually lose but its all part of the game. Hence its hard to put percentages on it.
The point I am making is meaningful choices are always important and a poorly equipped solo player with no stealth skills should be at higher risk but still have options.
What I do not want to see is the EVE situation where mining ships have been more or less set up by the devs as targets for random harassment by low skilled PvPers, sort of the recommended target of choice for new players wanting to start PvP. Players should never be left with no options.
Basically skilled players with the right sort of gear and skills should be able to avoid PvP if they choose against random bandits and only get caught by a large well organised ambush. Lower skilled players out gathering should definitely be at high risk but must still have some options as well - feeling like you are totally at the mercy of whatever random idiot wanders past is not fun and will not help player retention.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As there are going to be plenty of protected hexes I see no problem to gather in the early stages of play.
Later on there is an question of risk versus profit. Do I gather here in my kingdom or going to the more profitable and unpatrolled mountains?
I was under the impression only your settlement(where the buildings are)and a few main roads near Thornkeep had any protection at all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Several hexes out from Thornkeep are NPC Patrolled and will (eventually, if not currently) have Wardens respond to any unsanctioned PvP.
[Edit] One of Harad's maps shows the NPC-Patrolled areas with red hex outlines.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I got the impression that the whole main road was going to have some protection ... They are protected from escalation now at least...
That's correct.
Again referring to one of Harad's maps, the gold hex outlines represent NPC-Patrolled Roads.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What I do not want to see is the EVE situation where mining ships have been more or less set up by the devs as targets for random harassment by low skilled PvPers, sort of the recommended target of choice for new players wanting to start PvP. Players should never be left with no options.
Low skilled players will not be able to defeat anyone but low skilled players. Most small gang PvP pirates are highly skilled characters, flying T1 or T2 ships by choice.
The prize is the solo miner in a T2 Indy ship, foolish enough to be in low sec. In all of my months (recently) we only came across one such target (T3 ship in 0.0, docked afk at a pos).
All of the rest were faction based frigate / cruisers in low sec, that were (if they knew what they were doing) usually difficult to catch with their pants down. All loses were the result of pilot error, lack of experience or poor timing when to engage certain abilities.
The point is, the system should be designed to pit bandits vs harvester / merchants and guards vs. bandits. Bandits don't seek to engage guards, guards don't seek to engage merchants, and merchants stay close to guards or try to evade bandits.
It is kind of a tough sell that the EvE Devs did not get the balance right.
Age of Wushu (Wulin in Europe) has imprisonment and you can actually visit the perpetrator in the jail. He can also try to arrange a breakout, with friends.
I was ganked at some point and soon after it was announced in chat that such and so was apprehended and got 2 hours jailtime or some (due to a rather interesting bounty system that I will not explain here).
I decided to visit the guy in jail, see what it was like to see him there and go "neener, neener" :) . When I got there he was jumping on his bed, up and down. I made a few laughing and point emotes but I do not think he even noticed me.
Needless to say the "neener, neener" act was not fulfilling at all, and I had not expected it to be. It was kinda cool to see at least the system in working, with action-consequence.
Not sure if the guy would jump on his bed for the whole two hours, log off or that he was arranging a breakout: I did not wait to find out.
All in all, I think it is very hard to make this sort of thing fun/unfun, unless you implement all sorts of additional systems like the breakout. And then you are actually rewarding the ganker with some extra gameplay. The prison sentence does nothing for the "victim" and most likely nothing for the criminal either, other then at some point deciding to not bother with the game anymore.
So I think I like the Reputationhit-->less access to Cities/trainer/utility better.
It is the only way to punish people who are bandits, really. I do think it needs to be complex and most games probably don't have it right, even if they do have it.
Again, if you get imprisoned for 4 hours after being captured for doing something... people are gonna act like that's gonna make you quit the game?
It is mind blowing to me that the ganking and stealing part is totally cool but the idea of time-loss (because time > gear for bandits) is abhorrent.
Trust me, it would make people more focused. As for break outs, that's kind of funny. There should be something... even paid releases.
I think the rep makes less sense because it's more crippling and the world is huge. No way would one city across the map know you were bad unless you were renown... I dunno. I guess in the context of this game where they want everyone tied to a certain place... and not giving people reason to have to 'pick up everything and move' when they wear out their welcome... it makes sense.
Alas.
Edit: The rep system just needs to be more dynamic. If someone has v high rep killing him would be like killing a nobleman and get you bottomed out. If you kill someone who is up and down, they might let that go more. I think that would be the idea... as it is, it is too lenient.
Edit 2: by v hi I mean someone who hasn't killed, not someone who is maxed. It's relatively easy to just max.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This causes me to wonder about what happens to low rep people once they are attached to only one or two bindpoints. Rezzing with low rep in a settlement is currently an extraordinarily tedious endeavor. If a person is only bound to their home settlement, they'll need to be awfully careful about their reputation and/or dying. At my recent average of about 2.3 seconds per death at the guards' hands, if you aren't fast, and/or lucky, it takes less than 30 seconds to burn off brand new gear.
(edit: new people entering the game will die faster and may have no comprehension about WTF just happened to them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This causes me to wonder about what happens to low rep people once they are attached to only one or two bindpoints. Rezzing with low rep in a settlement is currently an extraordinarily tedious endeavor. If a person is only bound to their home settlement, they'll need to be awfully careful about their reputation and/or dying. At my recent average of about 2.3 seconds per death at the guards' hands, if you aren't fast, and/or lucky, it takes less than 30 seconds to burn off brand new gear.
(edit: new people entering the game will die faster and may have no comprehension about WTF just happened to them.
Step One: Know your settlement respawn layout
Step Two: Just before Death, switch to Cleric Focus and have speed buff feats.Step Three: As soon as you respawn hot speed buff feat and head to exit the settlement.
I'm also hoping to set the settlement Reputation threshold to slightly lower than the NPC settlement level of -2500. I won't be concerned about maximum DI, maybe even not ever, and I would look to make it known that Aragon is a place where you can train several hours (days of game play) earlier than elsewhere. I'm playing with the idea of -3500 being our initial target (or roughly four hours / two days earlier).