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?
I just wanted to mention here that speaking in terms of conflicting "communities" is probably not a winning perspective. Here, we are one community, the Pathfinder community, made up of individuals who may have experiences in other communities. Creating disputes, disagreements, and ultimately solutions within this community is commonplace. My point is, welcome to our community, your opinions and expectations are welcome. I know that you will find a good company or group of like-minded individuals within this community that support your ideals. If not, you can always make one.
@Sade
I don't mean the forum community. I mean in-game organizations. I think it's fairly safe to assume that in-game organizations will engage in some form of conflict at some point...?
|
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. 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
Hi There and Welcome!
I checked a little of your blog and you seem interested in creative gameplay and the motives of players as a key part of gameplay.
There's a lot of unknowns and lot of how things interact eg settlement running can vary with different political systems. I think alignment and reputation are intended to assort players towards other players with similar play-styles? I think these add a "social tax" on your key actions such as pvp, contracts. Certainly a "long con" is possible and has been discussed, but major differences could be between EVE and PFO that:
1. Griefing if blatant enough is just going to be against the spirit of the game and in danger of a ban.
2. Managing these above social systems is going to take more investment for the type of opportunity to gank a target legitimately or not in your eyes and the game's eyes.
3. These systems are assorting players of like-minded play styles within set confines, so look at 2. ie managing will be required if your play style pushing you further towards a boundary of where you mates are. That's part of the gameplay of the individual managing (aka balancing) their group status and their own actions.
But I think players enjoy using their wits to find solutions to their goals of their own making and working with these systems aims to encourage that so long as it does not promote anti-social behavior: Which appears to fit your method of thinking, I suggest. For hypothetical eg, alliances of various CE or Chaotic settlements it seems reasonable to assume that there will be plenty of back-stabbing and shifting of sides among such an area of the game map. What I'm not sure on and hope is the case is that people will rate high reputation to people who operate in that sort of community if such antics are rewarding gameplay even for the "losing sides". Then you're having emergent gameplay within the rules and within the spirit of the rules of the game, equally.
This thread by Ryan Dancey might be a better appraisal of what to expect, that my attempt:
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.
That's a refreshing view, and one which I hope others will take. I would hope the same when such things as software-controlled tags are applied. Yeah, I got tagged as 'Heinous' for using undead. But I did that because I am a mage who suddenly and inconveniently needed a small and disposable army to fight off the bad guys while I went to rescue Timmy from the troll king.
The explanation behind behaviour can be revealing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.That's a refreshing view, and one which I hope others will take. I would hope the same when such things as software-controlled tags are applied. Yeah, I got tagged as 'Heinous' for using undead. But I did that because I am a mage who suddenly and inconveniently needed a small and disposable army to fight off the bad guys while I went to rescue Timmy from the troll king.
The explanation behind behaviour can be revealing.
I personally, and I know I'm not in the minority on this, don't believe that any PVE action should cost you reputation. Reputation should be exclusive to PvP. Alignment can be a measure of both PvE and PvP.
If I grief you with zombies, why should that cost more Rep than if I griefed you with a sword?
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Organizational espionage and social engineering raids will probably be something you can only do once per character, if that often; getting the trust required will be hard after the first time it happens. I don't think such behavior should count as griefing, especially if you show a large personal profit.
Attacking people for the explicit purpose of making them afraid of being attacked is pretty low-rep, if it isn't outright griefing.
Declaring vendetta against every group that operates under a 'protection' agreement will probably get you expelled from everywhere, because nobody will want to risk harboring someone who makes that many enemies.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Declaring vendetta against every group that operates under a 'protection' agreement will probably get you expelled from everywhere, because nobody will want to risk harboring someone who makes that many enemies.
I'm confused by this statement?
Isn't the companies that have openly declared that they will fly the enforcer / guardian flags, those that have a vendetta against all that are outlaws or evil?
Wouldn't the outlaws and evil characters be the ones that are operating under "protection" agreements with settlements that grant them safe harbor?
Are you suggesting that the Enforcer / Guardians run the risk of alienating themselves from these neutral, chaotic or evil settlements?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Organizational espionage and social engineering raids will probably be something you can only do once per character, if that often; getting the trust required will be hard after the first time it happens. I don't think such behavior should count as griefing, especially if you show a large personal profit.
Attacking people for the explicit purpose of making them afraid of being attacked is pretty low-rep, if it isn't outright griefing.
Declaring vendetta against every group that operates under a 'protection' agreement will probably get you expelled from everywhere, because nobody will want to risk harboring someone who makes that many enemies.
It's been my experience with several different games that you can typically resuse a character roughly once per enemy organization at a minimum. This also prompts the question if I would need character skills to do damage or if surprise and superior planning would be enough to overcome low character ability and do some reasonable amounts of damage.
There's also the point that you can do a fair amount of damage without getting burned. Theft often leaves little trace, relaying enemy comms can be a huge help (even in the middle of a fight "they're going to flank from the right, get some defensive dudes over there.") and you can even grind morale down from the inside or throw a wrench into the gears by making sure that whatever jobs you are entrusted with are done badly or get pounced on by the enemy at just the wrong time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Pychotic Monk
A real short point to make, outside of the PM I wrote.
PFO does not have the looting potential or the death penalty that EvE does.
1. No alpha strike 1-shot kills = No suicide ganking. Unless you are prepared to have 8:1 odds or better. But still you will have #2 to deal with.
2. You are limited to loot only what is not threaded (protected). Players will protect their most valuable gear, obviously. Of that unprotected gear or items, you will only be able to loot a portion (we don't know what the portion amount will be). Anything else not looted or threaded, will be destroyed.
3. There is no known death penalty, other than being transported to your nearest respawn point. No loss of money based on recovery of death and no loss of skill training. There are no clones in PFO, we are resurrected by Devine power.
So your power to threaten in PFO, as compared to EvE, will be severely limited. Yes, there will still be intimidation and extortion. There will still be murder and looting. Just bit at the same levels that you can pull off in EvE.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Declaring vendetta against every group that operates under a 'protection' agreement will probably get you expelled from everywhere, because nobody will want to risk harboring someone who makes that many enemies.I'm confused by this statement?
Isn't the companies that have openly declared that they will fly the enforcer / guardian flags, those that have a vendetta against all that are outlaws or evil?
Wouldn't the outlaws and evil characters be the ones that are operating under "protection" agreements with settlements that grant them safe harbor?
Are you suggesting that the Enforcer / Guardians run the risk of alienating themselves from these neutral, chaotic or evil settlements?
I think the more common protection deals will be with a good-aligned organization that styles itself as a protector. In addition, there will be protection rackets. A group targeting all of the peaceful vassals and merchants who survive mostly by paying an obvious racket will become enemies of both the lord and mobster.
And there's a huge difference between hostility to the one getting payment and hostility to the one getting protection.
This is getting a little into derail territory, but what you're describing is two groups forming inter-supporting communities where one has a stated goal to hunt down and destroy the other and one has a stated goal to engage in (sometimes noncombat) pvp with a wide variety of people mostly because they enjoy it.
Which of these groups is the evil one in this scenario again? Which of these groups should be given in-game mechanical advantages?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is getting a little into derail territory, but what you're describing is two groups forming inter-supporting communities where one has a stated goal to hunt down and destroy the other and one has a stated goal to engage in (sometimes noncombat) pvp with a wide variety of people mostly because they enjoy it.
Which of these groups is the evil one in this scenario again? Which of these groups should be given in-game mechanical advantages?
The only two flags that give an in-game mechanical advantage to for carrying out Random Player Killing Vendettas are the Enforcer (Lawful) and Guardian (Good) flags.
If you think about, only these two flags allow you to kill any Outlaw (Chaotic) or Evil character they see. There is some question as to how much they will suffer Reputation hits, but they will have no alignment hits at all, if they got their guess correct. Remember, we do not show alignment, only reputation. Although there are divine means of detecting alignment.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is getting a little into derail territory, but what you're describing is two groups forming inter-supporting communities where one has a stated goal to hunt down and destroy the other and one has a stated goal to engage in (sometimes noncombat) pvp with a wide variety of people mostly because they enjoy it.
Which of these groups is the evil one in this scenario again? Which of these groups should be given in-game mechanical advantages?
I only meant Good and Evil in the alignment sense. I expect there to be many Evil characters that make the game more fun for everyone, and at least some Good characters that make the game less fun than it would be in their absence.
Declaring yourself hostile to all Good characters (and flagging yourself appropriately) isn't neccesarilly a bad thing. It does have some inherent drawbacks.
If you'll humor me, why should arbitrarily declaring yourself Evil and killing Good have inherent drawbacks while declaring yourself Good and killing Evil not?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Eh, you can declare yourself Outlaw and have benefits from that as well. I'm not terribly concerned about a mechanic that allows Good and Lawful characters the ability to hunt down their opposites without repercussions, it's in the nature of the alignment and CE characters will probably be doing it as well just as a matter of course.
It's not an 'unfair' system. Good and Evil are well defined absolutes, not ideals open to interpretation. From what I recall of EVE, this is a vast departure.
Which isn't to say that there won't be many of shades of grey, that's what Neutral is for after all!
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
If you'll humor me, why should arbitrarily declaring yourself Evil and killing Good have inherent drawbacks while declaring yourself Good and killing Evil not?
Not should, does. And declaring yourself enforcer or champion will have drawbacks similar to those of being outlaw. They arise emergently from being directly opposed to specific other people.
What I tried to say earlier is that attacking BOTH the vassals of a Good duke AND the protectees of an Evil warlord in order to "free them from oppression" will have the result that you are prohibited in Good-allied areas and in Evil-allied areas. If you were effective enough to draw ire, the powerful players you anger might even start to lean on unallied settlements for the purpose of retribution.
I simplified the number of sides for the sake of easy discussion. The concept generalized to an arbitrary number of sides, if you irk all of the powerful players.
In fact, irking several powerful groups might be the most dangerous thing for small operators to do. That applies to bandits, commerce raiders, and enforcers, but those groups will typically be backed by a different powerful group.
Ah, I was misunderstanding. As someone just coming into this now I've got a somewhat incomplete view of what we expect is going to be implemented. I thought you were saying that there was going to be a mechanical advantage to Good.
Cool then.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My take on it is if you are stating a starting position in the different alignment axis that translates to a "grid of actions" that influence that axis (a notable set of those being pvp combat actions).
So if you were to state: "I'm 90% Evil**" then that's what it translates to in the game according to the above relations. IE if you have to start somewhere and over time if where you start accords with what you do your CORE alignment matches your ACTUAL alignment of in this case being Evil or Chaotic and possibly both, in game.
In terms of Evil vs Good, why does the game for Evil/Chaotic Alignment have "inherent drawbacks" and not for Good - those are SOCIAL drawbacks for freedom/flexibility to exercise pvp actions, breaking contracts etc actions. But you gain... well, we'll see whether or not you gain in the end, perhaps simple fun from this game style and possibly fear and prestige and influencing the game world powerfully, even if every bounty-hunter is in town is on your case and so on.
**I think it's more strongly Chaotic range that involves PvP, though I have not bothered to tabulate all the known actions so far, but Evil will do for the eg.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Ah, I was misunderstanding. As someone just coming into this now I've got a somewhat incomplete view of what we expect is going to be implemented. I thought you were saying that there was going to be a mechanical advantage to Good.
Cool then.
I think there will be mechanical advantages as well, but I think the advantages for Good will be as nice as the advantages for Evil, but with slightly harder prerequisites.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Psychotic Monk,
Another point to add to this list:
PFO does not have the looting potential or the death penalty that EvE does.
1. No alpha strike 1-shot kills = No suicide ganking. Unless you are prepared to have 8:1 odds or better. But still you will have #2 to deal with.
2. You are limited to loot only what is not threaded (protected). Players will protect their most valuable gear, obviously. Of that unprotected gear or items, you will only be able to loot a portion (we don't know what the portion amount will be). Anything else not looted or threaded, will be destroyed.
3. There is no known death penalty, other than being transported to your nearest respawn point. No loss of money based on recovery of death and no loss of skill training. There are no clones in PFO, we are resurrected by Divine power.
4. There is no Blue vs. Blue in PFO, or at least not the same as in EVE. In PFO if you attack a member of your own party or your own company, then you will be flagged as the attacker. Not only can they attack you, without consequence, but if near a settlement the NPC wardens will also show up and attack you.
Basically, there is no AWOXing in PFO!
Griefing in PFO will not be an easy task at all, and doing character wipes won't protect you form being banned.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's been my experience with several different games that you can typically resuse a character roughly once per enemy organization at a minimum. This also prompts the question if I would need character skills to do damage or if surprise and superior planning would be enough to overcome low character ability and do some reasonable amounts of damage.
But, you are not talking about "enemy organizations", you are talking about joining an organization and then preying upon them as free kills.
Yes. If I'm killing them it's because they are my enemy. Also, that seems a bit like a semantic difference.
My friends find me perfectly trustworthy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One problem with an infiltrator career is that a developed character is a terrible thing to waste. The really fun orgs to infiltrate and sabotage will be smart enough to know something about your character before they let you in or let you into a position where you could damage them very much. That developed character is then pretty much useless. Your name will follow you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes. If I'm killing them it's because they are my enemy. Also, that seems a bit like a semantic difference.
Apparently, you're ignoring the points of difference between EVE and PFO that I have tried to make clear.
Our characters might be chaotic neutral and a few maybe evil or both chaotic evil, but we as players are not. I do have a few that will grief if asked to, but not infiltrating buddy killer type of griefing.
Some will actually be surprised, that you have managed to shoot below the depths that The UnNamed Company will go to.
In case you are not familiar with this piece of lore:
You Have What You Hold:
In contrast to many other civilizations on Golarion, this freedom draws a moral distinction between robbery and mere stealing. Taking
something by force is considered acceptable, even begrudgingly
praiseworthy. Burglary, on the other hand, is punishable
under common law.The difference is in allowing a victim the ability to resist, the opportunity to face his or her robber, and to plan for repossession if so desired. This allows for a rough honesty, letting Riverfolk know and face their enemies.
This is the UnNamed Company's Code, with only slight modification...
We do not consider banditry praiseworthy, begrudgingly, it is as praiseworthy as any combat. It is only in its motive that it differs.
Our victims will be able to face us, without infiltration and betrayal.
We are brutally honest about what our motives are, a twist of the Three G's... Greed, Gold and Glory.
Ah yes, I neglected to mention in my list above...
The Traitor Flag.... yet another anti griefer measure that PFO has in store for players who mistake this for an EVE Clone.
This meme of only honourable combat, is it a player construct only or is this something the devs are supporting as well.
Are there not going to be any way for a cleverer or more dedicated opponent to do damage to a numerically superior opponent? That seems pretty boring, that the solution going to be determined only by who has the most dudes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This meme of only honourable combat, is it a player construct only or is this something the devs are supporting as well.
Are there not going to be any way for a cleverer or more dedicated opponent to do damage to a numerically superior opponent? That seems pretty boring, that the solution going to be determined only by who has the most dudes.
I wouldn't say that. There are no "memes" of honorable combat. You will simply have a more difficult time if you work outside the system. Yes the system is designed by the game developers, but it is also guided a little by the player base.
I think that you might have to get creative in the ways that you go about those things. There are many, many, many, vulnerabilities that could be used against your opponents. Whether they are singular or large organizations. The best, most damaging, will likely have to be co operative efforts, but possibly not.
An assassin can wreck a whole settlement's day, alone.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This meme of only honourable combat, is it a player construct only or is this something the devs are supporting as well.
Are there not going to be any way for a cleverer or more dedicated opponent to do damage to a numerically superior opponent? That seems pretty boring, that the solution going to be determined only by who has the most dudes.
It's quite refreshing to have this perspective from the EVE angle than the reverse that's often from the themepark angle of PFO being "too open pvp".
That said, with PFO one particularly strong emphasis is towards players collaborating and cooperating in their own formed communities (of friends and more) to establish their place in the world/map ie settlements which should be very, very difficult to bring down and should be very inexhaustable to create and run. So with that emphasis of the game, pvp itself probably is more expedient with settlements that are very free and low security and mix of people and run laissez-faire and possibly where trade has a more rapid amount of transactions - or in ramshackle settlements of development and with people who are too busy pvp'ing and being hit back, than to properly run a settlement except a large gang running a place for a tidy fat tax on the members who have no-where else to go.
What seems to be the case is the big, powerful settlements, will probably have a lot of work to do to sustain these as they are larger, they require more resources so invaribly will be contesting wild hexes and so forth with the unmentionables above. If it comes down to wars with armies, then any side that has weakened another via intrigue and subterfuge and sowing the seeds of discord, that's going to pay dividends later when the banners are struck. To add: Those might be social engineering (eg a disruptive trade union in a democracy), trade disputes (ripping off another settlement on the sly) or directly eg this blog describing assassination system: Join Forces Underground
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This meme of only honourable combat, is it a player construct only or is this something the devs are supporting as well.
Are there not going to be any way for a cleverer or more dedicated opponent to do damage to a numerically superior opponent? That seems pretty boring, that the solution going to be determined only by who has the most dudes.
There is no social construct of honorable combat that permeates this community per se. What we do have is a number of Developer statements and constructs that lay out behaviors that they want and do not want to see. The Devs have then begun to build a system around those wants and unwanted behaviors.
For those of us who wish to operate outside of the law (the established laws of settlements) and yet still retain a moderate to high reputation, must utilize the tools and cope with the restraints given to us.
The part of being clever is to be a successful criminal and have a high reputation. That, in my opinion, is the ultimate F-U to the cearbear mentality often found in Open World PVP games. This is something that EVE Online does not have. A criminal in EVE is slapped with a -10 security status and exiled off into low or null sec space (generally speaking).
In EVE Online the criminal is often someone who wipes their toons frequently to avoid the real consequences of their actions. No matter how "clever" their criminal act was (infiltration, building of trust, followed by theft) if it has to be followed by a character wipe, that to me is not success in my opinion.
Bludd, as an experienced EvE criminal I can tell you with very large amounts of confidence that very few kinds of the work effect your sec status and while very occationally a character needs to be sold (as is entirely legal within eve) characters never need to be deleted and, in fact, deleting characters to avoid the consequences of crime is against the rules.
Although it occurs to me we're talking a lot about eve when we're supposed to be talking about PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Although it occurs to me we're talking a lot about eve when we're supposed to be talking about PFO.
OK, a PFO question, how do you expect to deal with this?
Traitor/Betrayer: Leaving a player or NPC group after betraying them may result in a flag: Traitor for PC groups and Betrayer for NPC alliances. These flags last for quite some time to allow the player to be punished for whatever actions were taken against the previous member group.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Every time you sell or scrub your toon, you are wasting the time and $$$ invested. I doubt that there will be much market for really low rep toons with known names. You never know, though.
There will be lots of opportunity for mischief within the rep system. GW does not intend to baby the player base, nor do they intend complete "free-for-all" slaughter.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This meme of only honourable combat, is it a player construct only or is this something the devs are supporting as well.
Just to touch on this. Evidently EVE has a particular culture, various descriptions could be used, maybe: "A Culture of Mistrust"?
So maybe if PFO is successful it will generate a similar personal culture. Possibly more of a sporting or honourable culture or even to describe another way, even a culture of Reputation-building - though by no means exclusively: With more persistence and consequence to your actions, socially that might be an interesting result.
Honour came up as a variant description due to this curious condition in the wiki: Culture of law and culture of honor
Cultures of honour will often arise when three conditions exist:
- A lack of resources
- The benefit of theft and crime outweighs the risks
- A lack of sufficient law enforcement (such as in geographically remote regions)
Although it occurs to me we're talking a lot about eve when we're supposed to be talking about PFO.OK, a PFO question, how do you expect to deal with this?
Traitor/Betrayer: Leaving a player or NPC group after betraying them may result in a flag: Traitor for PC groups and Betrayer for NPC alliances. These flags last for quite some time to allow the player to be punished for whatever actions were taken against the previous member group.
I'm not sure. It depends on how what the effects of the flag are and how long they last, what triggers them, and if I can talk my way out of it. There are a lot of variables in play there. Worst case scenario I let that character cool down and do work on other characters. I'm sure there's a ton of options.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not sure. It depends on how what the effects of the flag are and how long they last, what triggers them, and if I can talk my way out of it. There are a lot of variables in play there. Worst case scenario I let that character cool down and do work on other characters. I'm sure there's a ton of options.Although it occurs to me we're talking a lot about eve when we're supposed to be talking about PFO.OK, a PFO question, how do you expect to deal with this?
Traitor/Betrayer: Leaving a player or NPC group after betraying them may result in a flag: Traitor for PC groups and Betrayer for NPC alliances. These flags last for quite some time to allow the player to be punished for whatever actions were taken against the previous member group.
Although this has yet to be confirmed, recently at least, I believe Reputation is account wide.
The long term flags (at least 24 hours) do not disappear with death or logging off. Characters do not get banned, players do. This may very well be applied to the IP Address of your computer. Even a second account won't help you either.
I have a personal friend who was caught purchasing isk from a gold farmer website, back in '05, long before Plex. He avoided getting an IP ban only because he was a beta tester going back to the first batch in '03. What CCP did do was hit his account, all three character slots with a -1 billion isk wallet. When he rolled a new toon, -1 billion waiting for him.... Back in '05, a billion was a lot, and he was stuck with -3 billion. It took him and a few of us nearly 6 months to help him out of the hole he was in. Worse part of it, he only bought 100 million isk.
What I hope you are getting is that it is probably better to work within the systems and not try to find ways around them. Your character can still be the "bad guy". You just can't be the bad player.
I havn't said anything about doing things disallowed by the TOS/EULA. I'm glad bans will be account-wide. It wouldn't make sense otherwise.
No one has told me that my style of play or any of the things I've suggested I'd like to do will be disallowed by PFO. Have I misread?
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
You came close when you discussed 'personal vendetta'. If you have a problem with a player or character and the result is that you continue to harm a character even when it doesn't benefit you, or single one player or character out, I think that would be against the griefing rules.
Joining a band of thugs that make an area dangerous for everyone else is just being content for people who want to hunt down sociopaths. You'll probably lose reputation and become unwelcome in settlements that you harm, but there's always the option of trying to maintain your own settlement. You might choose to see it as playing PFO on a harder difficulty setting or alternate mode, like playing the TES series as a fistfighter.
Personal vendetta doesn't say anything about my methods, just my motivation. And I would think harming someone because of revenge or something similar viewed as valid reasons. And even if it wasn't valid reasons... so? I don't think someone needs to write an essay before they engage in pvp inside of a pvp game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No one has told me that my style of play or any of the things I've suggested I'd like to do will be disallowed by PFO. Have I misread?
I have mentioned a few, but you seem to be ignoring them. I think your practice of joining a group and then attacking and killing your own members, will be your ticket to the ban hammer.
Some of the Devs with GW are formerly from CCP, they know EvE very well. The Devs have specifically suggested a long term flag just for buddy killers, the Traitor Flag. It is a long term flag, and while the other long term flags are set at 24 hours, the Traitor Flag is still left at an undetermined length of time. I will assume it will be longer than a day.
I believe you asked earlier, who determines that you are a traitor?
The player you killed will report it, a GM will verify, and you will be flagged if it was verified. Along with that flag goes the alignment, reputation and the kill on sight status you will bear until the term of the flag expires. Since long term flags to not expire on death, that kill on sight could turn out to be a real nuisance. Now expand that possibility to not just include the one player you killed, but his or her entire company, or settlement.
Then the victim of your treachery could follow that up with a bounty, an assassination contract, a death curse or... All three!
The point I'm trying to make is, there are a lot of ways your victims can out grief you!! By using all of the tools that GW has put in place to stop griefing.
I have mentioned a few, but you seem to be ignoring them. I think your practice of joining a group and then attacking and killing your own members, will be your ticket to the ban hammer.
Sorry if I missed the link or dev quote, but I still havn't seen anything that says my methods are bannable. If they are, then I certainly wouldn't use those particular methods, but I don't see any reason that thinks like awoxing should be bannable and I havn't seen anything from a dev that says that they will be.
@Brutus If my opponent, who is finding ways to cause me harm without leaving the equivalent of highsec (economic methods come to mind) then why shouldn't I be allowed to use whatever tools I devise in order to hit them back?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sorry if I missed the link or dev quote, but I still havn't seen anything that says my methods are bannable. If they are, then I certainly wouldn't use those particular methods, but I don't see any reason that thinks like awoxing should be bannable and I havn't seen anything from a dev that says that they will be.
Griefing is bannable. Devs aren't going to define griefing in black or white terms. Dancey said it, you want a quote, PM him and ask for one. I don't feel like finding it.
The REP mechanic, if it works the way they say it will. Even without being banned, you should be locked out of just about all settlements after a day or two of your play style. That's if your play style is feasible because they've also said that when it comes to 4-6 on 1, your character could be maxed out and you'd still probably die against young characters.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I have mentioned a few, but you seem to be ignoring them. I think your practice of joining a group and then attacking and killing your own members, will be your ticket to the ban hammer.
Sorry if I missed the link or dev quote, but I still havn't seen anything that says my methods are bannable. If they are, then I certainly wouldn't use those particular methods, but I don't see any reason that thinks like awoxing should be bannable and I havn't seen anything from a dev that says that they will be.
@Brutus If my opponent, who is finding ways to cause me harm without leaving the equivalent of highsec (economic methods come to mind) then why shouldn't I be allowed to use whatever tools I devise in order to hit them back?
I don't think that betrayal itself should be considered griefing; there's a trivial way to avoid being betrayed, and it is certainly meaningful player interaction.
If you are fighting with someone who is attacking you (for a reason other than the fact that you are harassing them), then I think you would be in the clear. If they have no way for them to end your vendetta, then you are probably griefing them. Can you provide an example of a similar case in EvE, that we can extrapolate from?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Dancey said it...
Here's some quotes:
From the thread Ryan started on griefing:
"First, there's no hard & fast definition of "griefing" that will satisfy everyone. For some, any limit to their activities is too restrictive, and to others, any non-consensual interaction is too permissive."
"It is not our intention to create an "anything goes" world where players are subjected to endless scams, ganks, and immersion breaking behavior."
"Players should be able to operate in an area of risk/reward that makes them feel most comfortable."
"It's impossible to ban a PERSON from Pathfinder Online because its very easy for one human to impersonate many different players - and people can and will do so for all sorts of reasons. The best we can do is try to connect accounts together when we believe they're controlled by individuals who have been excluded from the game, but that is never a perfect solution. The same gay-bashing, neo-nazi thug who insulted your mother and your pet (and then got banned) could be playing the character you're conducting extensive trade with or even following as leader of your party or Settlement."
From another thread:
"The definition of griefing is to intentionally cause distress to another person with the primary intent of making that person feel bad."
"Killing people in a sandbox is not griefing them. Even killing them just because you can is not griefing them.
"...we don't have a "rule" for what constitutes grief. Because if we had a rule, people will just use that rule as a license to be "just slightly less than griefing" other people."
I don't see a problem for me in that quote.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Keep in mind, as I think it was mentioned before, If you wanna pull that crap some people did in Eve, where you join a Corp (settlement) and then attack and kill it's members until you get kicked out, then that's fine. You will suffer rep losses, and alignment (though that might be less meaningful) and will incur several in-game repercussions. This means bounties, death-curses, ect. Yeah, sure you can circumvent these, like having a friend kill you for the bounty, while naked so you don't lose anything, but what about assassin contracts out on you. I am sure, you alone will keep me wealthy and employed if this is the case. And I will have plenty of fun fulfilling those contracts.
See, there's a response I like! Player solutions to player problems!