Goblin Squad Member
|
"Maybe the mistake was made to use the word "honor" as part of the reputation system discussion?"
I wouldn't call it a mistake, but rather, it was just a response to an interesting post.
You obviously have a definition of your own, as everyone does, and perhaps the two should not be intertwined. Perhaps people can try to look at both sides.
When there will likely be tons of PCs roaming around with some sort of PVP flag, I don't see it as reputable or honorable to attack those that aren't.
I certainly don't mind if you disagree, and I am sure you don't care if I do either.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Short answer to the first question, "Yes, I think it is dishonorable to travel through a PvP area and not be flagged for PvP." It is as dishonorable as attacking and killing all in a caravan, not PvP flagged in a Settlement hex with laws against such activities.
I specifically asked: Are they not Equally dishonorable? @ Nihimon
I see the point you're making, and it almost kinda sorta makes sense from a very game-centric perspective. But from the sense of developing Characters who inhabit a believable world, it really doesn't make any sense at all. Ask yourself how much sense it would make in a novel.
Returning to the very game-centric perspective, I think it's valid to want to play a Bandit with High Reputation, but I think it's also appropriate for the game to make you have to work to maintain that High Reputation. If you could easily maintain a High Reputation while killing and robbing people, you - and a whole lot of others - would do that all day long, and the game would suffer for it.
The devs are already working on a system to allow you to play the Bandit without losing Reputation:
Outlaws use a new mechanic we are working on developing called stand and deliver, which allows the Outlaw to demand money from their victim through a trade window. If the victim refuses, the Outlaw gets to carry out his threats of force without losing reputation.
The key is that you'll have to issue a Stand-and-Deliver challenge, removing your ability to launch sneak attacks. And you'll have to honor the agreement if your target pays.
I don't see any value in making all traveling merchants gankable, and I see a lot of potential for abuse.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
When there will likely be tons of PCs roaming around with some sort of PVP flag, I don't see it as reputable or honorable to attack those that aren't.
"There is a time and a place for everything"
The place for PVP is in certain zones, specifically anticipated and even planned for PVP. To enter this area and claim "it is dishonorable or disreputable to attack me here because I am not flagged for PVP" is an act of cowardice. The traveler is essentially hiding behind their PVE status, and the mechanic that will penalize PVP attacks against them.
What I'm suggesting is that in lawless, unsettled, wilderness hexes, that all PVP be reputation neutral regardless if a PVP flag is used or not used. This will disincentivize the practice of not using a PVP flag in a PVP hex. It won't punish you for not using the flag, but it won't give you any advantage either.
It will give an incentive to using a PVP flag, by granting the traveler the bonuses. Isn't this why the Devs designed the flagging system? This encourages those meaningful interactions in PVP, that the devs desire. It pushes most of the PVP out of the settled hexes, and creates a haven for both PVP and PVE players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bluddwolf: how would a group of players cause an area to become free-for-all PvP? Should it require maintaining a hideout or settlement nearby? How can such an area be returned to "wild" or "civilized"?
Two ways an area can become FFA:
1. State of War in that hex. Just as it is in Pirates of the Burning Sea. As a port is brought to the point of war, the waters surrounding it become FFA. You are warned when you enter it, and have a 30 second timer to get out. If you get out, you are safe again and must wait until the state of war is over. That could take days, as a matter of fact. If you remain, you remain at your own risk.
You can't enter a war zone and complain you got killed by shrapnel. You are collateral damage for the chaos that is war, including intentional chaos. We are not talking about women, children and the elderly here, we are talking about player characters, none of which are "the weak or helpless."
2. There should be some zones designated by GW as FFA zones. These are essentially the 0.0 zones (EvE Online analogy). Again, give warning and time to get out. If you stay, you have accepted the risk.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What I'm suggesting is that in lawless, unsettled, wilderness hexes, that all PVP be reputation neutral regardless if a PVP flag is used or not used. This will disincentivize the practice of not using a PVP flag in a PVP hex. It won't punish you for not using the flag, but it won't give you any advantage either.
My issue with this is that if there is no disincentive for PKing, attack easily becomes the default action. See Darkfall:UW for an example. From my experience, it was "kill first, ask questions later (the latter part is optional)" in that game. I believe it is this behaviour that GW wants to get rid of through the flag system.
EDIT: 'Warzones' in settlement hexes under siege I can agree with, depending on how it's done. It can solve a lot of issues that we have discussed in other threads such as how to hinder neutral supply trains and such.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My issue with this is that if there is no disincentive for PKing, attack easily becomes the default action.
Yeah, this is the same problem I pointed out when I said "If you could easily maintain a High Reputation while killing and robbing people, you - and a whole lot of others - would do that all day long, and the game would suffer for it." I'm sure it doesn't mean anything that Bluddwolf replied to posts after mine before (or without) replying to mine.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
War zones, which last only so long as a war does, are a great example of a place where the rules of war are the only rules. Areas outside of roads and distant from structures and claimed areas could go either way; I'd need to know more about what goes on in "nullsec" areas to make that judgement call.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My issue with this is that if there is no disincentive for PKing, attack easily becomes the default action. See Darkfall:UW for an example. From my experience, it was "kill first, ask questions later (the latter part is optional)" in that game. I believe it is this behaviour that GW wants to get rid of through the flag system.
What I'm suggesting is that there should be no incentive not to flag for PVP, in a PVP designated zone.
Player Killing is what the flagging system is designed to encourage. Random Player Killing only occurs in the absence of killing without a motive. If there were no looting, then there would be no motive, outside of war. But, there is looting, and this will be the primary purpose for your average PVP combat.
I don't subscribe to the idea that there is such a thing as "Random Player Killing." It is a fabricated bugaboo in my opinion, espoused by those who are opposed to open world pvp.
This is not directed at you personally Wurner, I don't know where you stand on the issue of open world PVP, but there are some who have expressed opposition to PFO being open world pvp, and are thinned skinned when it comes to my views on the subject.
To summarize:
I want the Reputation System
I want the Flagging System
I want PVE safe areas
I want PVP enabled areas
I want Risk and Reward
I want those areas that support a mix of play styles
But most of all, I want balance and equal treatment of all play styles.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I can't issue a SAD in a settlement hex, without being PvP flagged. You have a defense, delay the conversation and call for help. You final line of defense is to decline it and fight. Once that fight occurs, you will get support from NPC warden if we are close enough to a settlement. I take in greater risk for the same potential of reward within close proximity of a settled hex.
I'm arguing that a non PvP flagged traveler should not be encouraged to not flag for PvP in a PvP enabled hex. A traveler should not be able to hide behind that PvE status to make it more costly to attack them then others who voluntarily do the more honorable thing and flag for PvP in a PvP zone.
I can not reasonable expect to fly my Outlaw Flag in the center of a Settlement, and I could be killed without loss if reputation for doing so. You should not be able to enter a pvp zone marked as PvE, and expect not to get killed with the added protection of punishing the killer with additional reputation loss.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There is a trivial defense against SAD: kill the outlaw. They should get an 'involved' flag as soon as they demand GP or HP.
That's the same defense that works against all other forms of getting attacked in the wilderness.
If you mean "they" to be the bandit, the Involved Flag when issuing the SAD would be redundant. The Outlaw Flag is a PVP flag. The bandit can be attacked by an Enforcer, without penalty, before, during or after a SAD.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
If you mean "they" to be the bandit, the Involved Flag when issuing the SAD would be redundant. The Outlaw Flag is a PVP flag. The bandit can be attacked by an Enforcer, without penalty, before, during or after a SAD.There is a trivial defense against SAD: kill the outlaw. They should get an 'involved' flag as soon as they demand GP or HP.
That's the same defense that works against all other forms of getting attacked in the wilderness.
And once they start being actively hostile to a specific individual, anyone at all can jump in, at the cost of adding themselves to the dogpile.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And once they start being actively hostile to a specific individual, anyone at all can jump in, at the cost of adding themselves to the dogpile.
Yes, that is how I see it. There is one additional known, how will the alignment and reputation systems handle multi flagging?
If in attacking a caravan, using Outlaw, Assassin and Traveler flags how do Enforcers and Guardians protect their own alignments and reputation considering the mixed flag party they are crashing?
We have probably seen combat that becomes a huge fur ball (MWO term), and with friendly fire and other confusion, designed match ups of flagging may not occur.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"Maybe the mistake was made to use the word "honor" as part of the reputation system discussion?"
I wouldn't call it a mistake, but rather, it was just a response to an interesting post.
You obviously have a definition of your own, as everyone does, and perhaps the two should not be intertwined. Perhaps people can try to look at both sides.
When there will likely be tons of PCs roaming around with some sort of PVP flag, I don't see it as reputable or honorable to attack those that aren't.
I certainly don't mind if you disagree, and I am sure you don't care if I do either.
It opens up the discussion, as we're looking at ideas. For eg the "honourable thing to do" type of situations. I'm also curious what sort of penance actions players can voluntarily take? Maybe take their items to be smelted down or some economic hit/honest hit?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I can not reasonable expect to fly my Outlaw Flag in the center of a Settlement, and I could be killed without loss if reputation for doing so. You should not be able to enter a pvp zone marked as PvE, and expect not to get killed with the added protection of punishing the killer with additional reputation loss.
If life would be that cheap in the wilderness, it is likely that people wouldn't venture far from settlements except in PvP spec or with sizeable escorts, thus making the world a less interesting place for all (including bandits).
Attacking 'innocents' in this game will apparently come with a prize tag in the form of reputation cost in order to make people think twice before they start killing indiscriminately.'Balance and equal treatment' between all playstyles sounds like a big contradiction to me.
Treat 'FFA PvPers' and 'carebears' equally and you'll see the carebears quitting the game right and left. This is because the PvPers playstyle interacts negatively with the carebears' and unbalances the game towards FFA PvP.
To get balance you need to restrict the FFA PvP side which means the two groups won't be equally treated.
The flags and reputation systems will hopefully allow those who seek consensual PvP to get as much of it as they want. The 'predator-prey' type PvP will be somewhat restricted (to please carebears and also to make the big wide world less inhospitable) but still possible through SADs and perhaps certain flags, or by accepting reputation hits.
(By the way, in no way did I feel attacked by you Bloodwolf. Disagree with my ideas all you wish, it is open season :D)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
After reading the Blogs again, especially The Most Dangerous Game, it becomes clearer what the devs may have planned.
Conversely, player bandits should have to decide whether attacking just anyone is worth it, and whether it's better to make a surprise attack or actually try to extort goods from the traveler first (if they stand and deliver, it triggers none of the consequences).
Versus an unflagged:
Stand - and - Deliver is the way to go. It seems that this is not even treated as an attack at all, which I had thought and characterized it as a leveraged trade, in the past.
The only real protection for non PVP flagged travelers is from an ambush followed by an attack.
Versus Flagged:
The ambush / attack becomes more practical and rewarding. We will get the full benefit of the Outlaw flag (ie Stealth bonus and higher loot %)and still suffer limited alignment and rep hits, because they were flagged for PVP.
Prior to this thread, and discussion, I had been thinking that SADs were almost always a better choice. Now I can see, only with non PVP flagged victims.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...it is likely that people wouldn't venture far from settlements except in PvP spec or with sizeable escorts...
I recall seeing somewhere that EVE, with all its efforts to stop exactly that phenomenon, still has a significant fraction of players who never leave high-sec, probably for all the usual "no-to-PVP" reasons.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...it is likely that people wouldn't venture far from settlements except in PvP spec or with sizeable escorts...I recall seeing somewhere that EVE, with all its efforts to stop exactly that phenomenon, still has a significant fraction of players who never leave high-sec, probably for all the usual "no-to-PVP" reasons.
I can imagine (not an EVE-player myself). For that reason, I don't want to see any hard distinction between something like 'safe zones' and 'PvP zones'. As a general rule, the mechanics should be the same. Difference being: in and (to a lesser degree) around settlements you have NPC guards and fellow players that can intervene on your behalf if you get attacked.
Even if you are practically safe, in theory it should be possible to attack and perhaps kill you. I don't like the dichotomy between safe zones and PvP zones in for example Darkfall:UW. It leads to the kind of thinking that "this is a PvP zone so anything goes, I'll kill anything that moves" as well as "I don't want to PvP so I'll just stay here in the warm, comfy safe zone".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Wurner,
GW has already described a zoned hex system that closely mirrors what EvE Online does have. It is hardly the case to be made that the system in EvE has not been hugely successful.
NPC Settlements will virtually prohibit PvP, excluding wars, bounties and assassination contracts.
Settled Hexes: Based on the settlement managment's decisions, laws could also severely limit PVP. The only exclusion would be warfare, during their PvP window. A settlement may also make bounty and assassination contracts illegal if they wished.
Wilderness Hexes: Surronding the settlements, are still close enough to the NPC warden range and roving PC patrols, to make undesired PvP very risky.
Unclaimed Hexes: No laws or sanctions apply, for PvP flagged characters. The SAD system is the mechanism to use fir bandits to still loot those not flagged for PvP, but if those travelers resist the SAD, they open themselves up for FFA PvP.
As you may understand now, PFO will essentially have its High, Low and Null security zones.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...it is likely that people wouldn't venture far from settlements except in PvP spec or with sizeable escorts...I recall seeing somewhere that EVE, with all its efforts to stop exactly that phenomenon, still has a significant fraction of players who never leave high-sec, probably for all the usual "no-to-PVP" reasons.
This is by design. If you don't wish to PvP, you can choose not to and remain mostly within those safe areas.
If you desire a lot of PvP, you will know where to go to find it.
If you want a more moderate amount if risk vs. reward, you will travel or live mostly in those areas between settlements, but not in or too far from them.
These are three different play styles, all being supported equally. The main thing that is retained is player choice. This is also why it is called "Open World PvP".
Now there is a trade off for "living" in each of these three categories of play styles or hexes.
PVE: Low Risk vs. Low Rewards
Mixed: Moderate vs. Moderate
PvP: High vs. High
Any demand for Low Risk and High Reward is unreasonable and may indicate an imbalance in the game mechanics.
You at best, provided planning and execution be able to pull off Low Risk and Moderate; or Moderate Risk and High Reward.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mixed: Moderate vs. Moderate
During my time in EVE, lo-sec was always my pet peeve. I could almost never get from no-sec to hi-sec without getting podded by gate-campers.
Folks kept telling me to pay the tolls, but no one ever asked me to. The boards reported that several groups were just gate-camping for grins; I hadn't found enough friends to ask for escort, so I walked away.
Needless to say, I'm very much looking forward to PFO with EVE's rough edges sanded down a bit, and starting out with a group of friends...The Seventh Veil.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bluddwolf,
what you described in your two last posts sounds mostly good to me and in line with what I wish for the game as described in my above posts. Mechanically, the zones are the same (except NPC settlements), difference being the density of NPC guards and other players. Oh and also laws, which I forgot about but add extra disincentive to 'random PK' in zones where it applies.
I think that even in the unclaimed hexes, reputation, alignment and flags should still apply in exactly the same way as other areas. I got the impression that you wish for these areas to be close to completely FFA, which I disagree with since it creates a great distinction between these zones and other, safe(r), zones, which might nurture the attitudes and problems I described above. The threshold should not be too high for someone to enter unexplored wilderness. Many people will want to hunt, explore, dungeoneer and gather there and if you make it completely FFA then that may seem to benefit PvP predatorial types but it could harm most everyone else, thus by extension the game itself including PvP predators.
To summarize:I want the Reputation System
I want the Flagging System
I want PVE safe areas
I want PVP enabled areas
I want Risk and Reward
I want those areas that support a mix of play stylesBut most of all, I want balance and equal treatment of all play styles.
Excuse me for borrowing your quote to clarify my own views (and point out that I mostly agree with you):
I want the Reputation System
I want the Flagging System
I will grudgingly accept completely PVE safe starter areas
I want all other areas to be PVP enabled areas where the full effects of the Reputation and Flagging systems apply
I want Risk and Reward, but not at the cost of excluding players from large areas and parts of the game
I want pretty much all areas to support a mix of play styles
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Wurner,
I want Risk and Reward, but not at the cost of excluding players from large areas and parts of the gameI want pretty much all areas to support a mix of play styles
These two really do depend on what exactly you mean?
If by exclusion, you are telling a player that they can not have high reward and little or no risk, then they should be excluded. They can not have that ratio, it will destroy the player economy.
All areas, for the same reason above, can not equally support all play styles. If you enter an unsettled hex, you are entering a higher reward zone, and therefore you must bear a higher risk.
It sound great when you say, "I want to support all", unless that means supporting unreasonable expectations.
We already know that the "full effects" of the Reputation and Flagging system, do not apply equally in all zones. There are exemptions and there are certain flags that do not exist outside of settled hexes (ie. trespasser).
My realization that occurred when last reading the Dev Blog was the situations when confronting a PVP flagged vs. Non PvP flagged character became clearer to me.
If you are not PVP flagged, you get the SAD offer. If you are PvP flagged, you may not get the SAD offer.
My company of bandits will SAD almost every non PVP flagged traveler we see in the "Unclaimed Hexes". If we don't, that is giving them access to high end materials and no risk. So the cost for them is to pay a toll. The player economy can not support unhindered resource gathering, especially rare materials, without causing hyperinflation.
If they are going to travel with PC guards, and roll strong, then they might as well roll with the PVP flag. They are encouraged to do so, because the Traveler Flag gives them faster movement and more cargo capacity. They will need the extra profit to pay their guards.
Bandits are the regulators of that aspect of the economy. This is supported in the Dev Blog, cited above, and in the River Freedoms of the game lore.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bluddwolf,
I'd expect and hope for no less than that bandits try to mug whomever they can.
I meant that if you take risk vs reward to the extreme, read 'no consequences for attacking anyone and everyone as long as you can defeat them', you might end up with zones that many players will never set their foot in, where the only interactions worth considering are 'attack' or 'run away'. If Risk in this case means 'I'm very very likely to get whacked' and reward is 'I can whack anyone I please without consequence' then I think having a large part of the world dedicated to this would be harmful and risk and reward should be dialed down a notch.
About playstyles, I was thinking in terms of PvE and PvP, not risk vs. reward. It goes hand in hand with decreasing security as you move away from settlements that it will be easier to avoid NPC guards and anti-PKs in the wilderness but I'd like to see that most areas can have both kinds of activities. Wouldn't the risk vs. reward be inversed for PvPers and PvEers as based on proximity to settlements? Victims will be more likely to get caught 'off guard' right outside a settlement, carrying valuables?
I don't want to "support all" equally everywhere but I don't want there to be such a huge difference between 'safe' and 'unsafe' zones as to lock everyone interested in PvP out from the one and everyone interested in PvE out from the other.
PvEers need PvPers to spice up the otherwise predictable process of farming nodes and monsters etc.
PvPers need PvEers to go farm and transport in areas where they can be robbed or killed.
Making "PvE areas" slightly more possible to PvP in and "PvP areas" slightly more possible to PvE in benefits both categories of players and the game as a whole. The way I read the blogs, this is what they intend. I perceived some of your posts as arguing against this and that is what got me posting.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Having seen the concept of 'lack of honor' come up more than a few posts back. I thought it would be worth taking a moment to identify a couple of distinctions.
Having a lack of honor can essentially mean two wholly different things. Typically if you tell someone they lack honor, it would mean that you are in fact telling them they are dishonorable. That what they possess is the opposite of honor. This is very different from the concept of having no honor.
Think of it like modern day credit. If you never use it, you never get any. In many cases this can have much the same effect as having bad credit, but without the history to back it up one way or the other.
Conversationally, it's probably worth making this distinction where honor and, more to the point, reputation is concerned. Having 0 honor is not the same as having -2500, or even -1.
I'm sure some of you probably already had this in mind, but it seemed as though some may not have framed it quite like that. Carry on.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honor is also completely subjective.
Some (myself included) would argue that there are objective Virtues which have been known to Man for thousands of years, and that the idea that these Virtues are relative or subjective is very new and utterly false.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Honor is also completely subjective.Some (myself included) would argue that there are objective Virtues which have been known to Man for thousands of years, and that the idea that these Virtues are relative or subjective is very new and utterly false.
It does seem that as cultures have developed, Man has managed to twist the most basic ideals to fit his subjective and current needs. IMO you are right Nihimon, at heart we do all really know what the virtues stand for and mean.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There's certainly going to be a level above Alignment above Reputation that the players have personal discretion on: Partly affected by the preceding, partly by their community and partly by the emergence of actions and resultant decisions on how to react in game and possibly even RP too depending on such things as the flavor of character, the occupational undertaking preferred get wired into things; as well as unspoken or unbidden rules eg "Death before dishonour!"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It does seem that as cultures have developed, Man has managed to twist the most basic ideals to fit his subjective and current needs. IMO you are right Nihimon, at heart we do all really know what the virtues stand for and mean.Honor is also completely subjective.Some (myself included) would argue that there are objective Virtues which have been known to Man for thousands of years, and that the idea that these Virtues are relative or subjective is very new and utterly false.
What seems to be missing is a grasp of why such virtues are fundamentally beneficial. Part of this is due to the retirement of dueling and the evolution of the social contract that made litigation society's substitute for mortal combat. It is also closely related, in my view, with the decline of polity (politeness).
Had Andrew Jackson been called a liar publically, even in the Senate, he would have pulled a pistol and shot his accuser dead as a doornail.
Hey guys.
I come from EvE where I am typically considered a griefer, mostly due to my methods. I have a variety of reasons to do what I do, including profit, personal vendetta and ideological differences. I work for my community, raising newbros into the life (including spending significant [stolen] monies on them), freeing the oppressed from their crappy gaming organizations, and generally being a good dude in the eyes of my chosen peers.
I feel like the system you're describing will punish me because of my methods, no matter what my intentions may be. I also see talk of being barred from things due to a low reputation. Is this something we expect would be automagic, meaning I may end up barred from the settlement belonging to the community I serve, or is it something we expect will be player controlled?
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Hey Psychotic Monk.
If your behavior in EvE is considered griefing in EvE, it will probably be considered griefing in PFO. If that is the case, you won't have to worry about reputation, because you'll end up banned. The reputation system isn't designed to discourage griefing, it's designed to gently encourage friendly competition.
Now, we can take a step back, and talk about specific actions and motives; what do you mean by "personal vendetta" and "ideological differences" as motives? What is a 'crappy gaming organization', and what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for someone to be 'oppressed' by one, and how do you go about changing that?
Finally, who are your chosen peers, and what do they think 'good dudes' do?
Well, my methods include joining peoples corporations to take advantage of the rules that allow me to shoot them, theft, and suicide ganking. These are things that are well within the rules of EvE, and as a sandbox MMO I was under the impression that this flavour of work would also be acceptable in PFO. If I'm mistaken, my apologies. I only just got here.
By personal vendetta, I mean that I've come across them before and have some reason to continue a previous conflict. By ideological differences I mean that I tend to view the desire to encourage newbies to hide away from PvP and have no ambition other than to toil away for the benifit of an exploitive CEO repugnant and do what I can to destroy those organizations so the members can find places that will provide them with better gameplay.
My chosen peers are those that engage in similar work to me and have compatible attitudes, and I do a great deal both in and out of game to support them and their playstyle.
But imagining for a second I were attached to a group that you guys would consider otherwise within all norms, am I really to understand that engaging in theft or targeted murder or spying on their behalf is something PFO wouldn't be open to? My bias may be showing here, but is ~honourable~ combat at dawn really the only form of organizational competition we'll accept?
edit: I don't mean to show up just to pimp my own blog, but for an idea of what the day-to-day in my community looks like, you can check out www.belligerentundesirables.com
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Psychotic Monk.... Well Met!!
Considering you only have two posts, and both I have argued along similar lines, I see you are a man of talent and a mind set that would serve my company of bandits well.
As for the definitions of what is griefing, or ganking, or a good dude... Well those things are very much subjective.
But, I think you will find a number of forum goers here are not quite prepared for what EVE Online (CCP) allows as far as griefing is concerned. However, with a bit of finesse and manipulation within the projected system(s), you can infact be a ruthless and Psychotic Monk and still retain a fairly decent reputation.
Also, it occurs to me that as different communities will likely have differtent norms, do we know of any plans to be able to set standings regarding who will be accepted into a community and who won't, rather than a somewhat arbitrary judgement on methods, rather than result?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, my methods include joining peoples corporations to take advantage of the rules that allow me to shoot them, theft, and suicide ganking.
I will try to address these:
1. It is unclear if there is blue vs. blue combat in PFO. Goblin Works has already said that they will not support a sparring system, and that all attacks will trigger the same consequences. In short, killing a temporary fleet mate does not protect you from the negative consequences of murder.
2. Suicide Ganking is barely possible or profitable in EVE anymore. But, it is virtually impossible in PFO, because there is almost no alpha strike one-shot kill possibilities within the combat system. By my rough calculations you would need 8:1 to one-shot a complete noob toon.
The looting system further makes it nearly impossible to make suicide ganking necessary or profitable.
3. Ganking, if we share this definition is definitely possible:
Ganking = The use of superior numbers or force to shift the risk vs. reward to a more favorable ratio in your favor.
If you plan for a fair fight, your plan was created by an idiot.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Also, it occurs to me that as different communities will likely have differtent norms, do we know of any plans to be able to set standings regarding who will be accepted into a community and who won't, rather than a somewhat arbitrary judgement on methods, rather than result?
As you say, different communities will have different standards. My Company of Bandits has no such standards of reputation or alignment, because we have opted out of entangling ourselves to a settlement. This does tow things, it grants us the freedom to associate with whom we wish and behave to a certain degree, below the accepted "norms" of most other communities. It also protects settlements from the negative aspects of being openly associated with us.
Just so you know, the current Reputation Scale runs from -7500 to +7500. Does this mean that my company will welcome a whole bunch of members at -7500? No, but if we understood how you got there or even sanctioned some of it, then it will be ok.
I'm projecting that we will completely accept -4500 to +4500.
BTW, I sent you a PM, not sure if you know how to check those.