Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think anyone here really wants to limit PVP any more than has been described as the developer's intent. Some are just looking for a vehicle to manage who can or can't use their settlement's services.
In addition, KitNyx is right, the game includes PVP, but it is not all about PVP. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They'll eventually tell us, unless they change it to something else :)
*laughs* So true! :)
**********************************************************
KitNyx is right, the game includes PVP, but it is not all about PVP. :)
Indeed.
It should be noted that balancing all possible character builds is not an objective of the design team.
In fact, balancing most character builds isn't an objective of the design team.
PvP balance is only one facet of a character and doesn't really define its usefulness in the game except for those characters who are focused on PvP. It is good to have several different builds that are balanced in PvP to create interesting strategic choices and to avoid a situation where everyone has a cookie-cutter character.
We've defined 4 areas of focus for the game: Exploration, Adventure, Development and Domination. Different types of characters will be better at one of those aspects of the game than others. A character optimized for fighting aberrations, undead, fey and other sorts of "monsters" might not be very effective at fighting player characters. A solider that is optimized to fight coherently in a unit might not be very good in a 1:1 encounter. And a person who constructs buildings might not put up much of a fight at all.
There are specialized roles that aren't balanced either. Characters who can track others, or who can scout ahead without being detected, etc.
Don't get too focused on figuring out how we'll balance every type of character against every other type of character. Because we're not going to do that.
RyanD
Open PvP is not the focus of the game. It's one of many design choices that make the things that the game actually focuses on more meaningful.
There will be plenty of players who were quite happy playing other Open PvP games that were nothing but grief-fests, and will be dismissive towards anyone who says that style of PvP is "broken". They will denigrate players who utterly rejected that type of PvP, and they will try to make PFO something as close to that style of PvP as they can get away with.
I just hope Ryan's decision to scale back on the negative consequences of being Chaotic Evil doesn't slip into another decision to scale back on the negative consequences of being Low Reputation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Now, I freely admit that I have only skimmed the blogs and have tried my hardest to read all the posts here...but what is it that everyone here wants? Why is there such a push for more regulation of playing styles to eliminate "griefing"?
I am all for a reputation system that restricts evil/unlawful players from main cities or towns that have a good alignment requirement, but my preference for the wilds would be for players to build settlements and allow who they wish into them.
Eve Online is not everyone's cup of tea, but I think their usage of security status when dealing with system to system travel is great, and with some tweaks, could serve this game well.
The way I look at it, if you want a nice safe game with minimal threat of being killed/ganked/griefed/raped/fondled/ or whatever....stay in high security/high rep areas (like main good cities).
In Eve, you could spend a life time playing just that portion of the game and be content. But with minimal risks comes minimal profits. I think that the wilderness where characters want to mine resources, be bandits or lawmen, quest should definitely be MORE profitable, but maintain a much higher risk, of course one of those risks being other players coveting what they in have.
But if I am a CN character who decides to cater to the illicit, have trainers for rouges and assassins, and more because I can turn a profit (much like the seedier parts on every real nation), so be it.
We do not need strict game over cite to help spare peoples feelings because that would actually nerf the depth of the game and all of our experiences. Wonderful things happen when characters are allowed to choose their own destiny in a sandbox. Rivalries are made, alliances forged, friendships found and hatreds stoked.
So while I can understand some ones anxiety of logging into a part of an MMO where they can be slaughtered at anytime, I am afraid too many people are actually just looking for an MMO with no risks, a place where trading caravans can travel unmolest due to restrictive game mechanics without ever sacrificing profits to higher guards, and that just doesn't sound fun to me.
I guess the reason I am excited about this game is because some one is finally taking a fresh look at a stale Fantasy MMO genre, integrating some great ideas, and doing it with enthusiasm. So let's try something new, Skyrim, Balder's Gate NWNs, WOW, Diablo...the game people seem to be asking for ( I may be wrong) already exists ten times over. I want something new.
Oh, and I want mounted combat so I can lance someone.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There can be no good without evil, so I say bring on the assassins, thieves, bandits and evil wizards. I am really excited about this game, but I am getting a little nervous that many people on these forums want to turn this into an online Balder's Gate or limit PVP to zones like SWOTOR which is complete garbage.
If you look at the reputation and flagging mechanics then you will see that bandits and assassins can ply their trade without reputation loss. Evil kingdoms can take part in their wars and schemes without reputation loss. There is one type of PVP that the system targets. Random player killers. If you kill people here and there without a contract, a war, a stand and deliver, or some other reason... you'll be alright. Your rep loss won't be to big and it will recover easily.
If killing people without cause becomes a habit for you. A common style of play... your reputation will tank and you will suffer all the penalties of a low rep character.
The reputation system wasn't my suggestion. I never asked the developers to control RPKing. I always wanted to do that myself. It is a strong message from the developers though. Random slaughter is not the vision they have for this game. I personally hope the penalties aren't too severe, but just severe enough that people realize that kind of PVP isn't supported in this game.
This game isn't for the typical PVP crowd any more than it's for those who never want to be engaged in PVP for any reason ever. Both sides need to adjust their expectations as this is something that has never been done before.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Its pretty sad that there is a large number of people that want to limit PVP to the point of being useless.Well, I have to disagree that this is a PvP game, this is a politics and intrigue game (because just as you decide to play it as a PvP game, I decide to play it as a politics and intrigue game). Everything I have argued for, including open world PvP, is in the hope of making my play style interesting. My request for a "fame" system, is a request for political/intrigue content/tools.
As far as I am concerned, sure PvP is part of the game, but you PvPers are just pawns in our bigger game. Calling PFO a PvP game is like saying chess is single move forward game with the occasional diagonal attack thrown in.
As for bandits, I must admit I see them as an uninteresting nuisance since they intend to have no land holdings, hence nothing for me to take.
Umm... I don't even know where to begin with that.
Pvp is the name of the game, I mean PFO. Everything you do in this game after the initial learning will be against another player. If you harvest, you have to compete, if you craft, you compete, if you run settlements, you compete... What is not PVP besides escalations and some dungeon crawls?
Edit: my bad, escalations and dungeon crawls can become pvp
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why is there such a push for more regulation of playing styles to eliminate "griefing"?Because griefing sucks. Games that allow rampant griefing suck. We don't want PFO to suck.
It sucks is not a reason.
Eve which allows whatever, by no means sucks.
Granted it is to difficult for most people to grasp, and has too much pvp for most people.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Pvp is the name of the game, I mean PFO. Everything you do in this game after the initial learning will be against another player. If you harvest, you have to compete, if you craft, you compete, if you run settlements, you compete... What is not PVP besides escalations and some dungeon crawls?
That's a pretty broad definition of PvP; it incorporates every bit of conflict and competition between two players in a game.
By that standard, back when I was playing on a PvE server in WoW, and spent a couple of hours racing another player to kill the boogums as they spawned... I was heavily involved in PvP!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Right, which is PVP. People will destroy me at making money on the markets. I admit that. In combat it will be reversed.
I may take part in doing what I normally wouldn't just to get my point across... Taking down settlements.
People will cry after they start losing settlements. Worse so then when the bandit comes up and SAD's them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There can be no good without evil, so I say bring on the assassins, thieves, bandits and evil wizards. I am really excited about this game, but I am getting a little nervous that many people on these forums want to turn this into an online Balder's Gate or limit PVP to zones like SWOTOR which is complete garbage.If you look at the reputation and flagging mechanics then you will see that bandits and assassins can ply their trade without reputation loss. Evil kingdoms can take part in their wars and schemes without reputation loss. There is one type of PVP that the system targets. Random player killers. If you kill people here and there without a contract, a war, a stand and deliver, or some other reason... you'll be alright. Your rep loss won't be to big and it will recover easily.
If killing people without cause becomes a habit for you. A common style of play... your reputation will tank and you will suffer all the penalties of a low rep character.
The reputation system wasn't my suggestion. I never asked the developers to control RPKing. I always wanted to do that myself. It is a strong message from the developers though. Random slaughter is not the vision they have for this game. I personally hope the penalties aren't too severe, but just severe enough that people realize that kind of PVP isn't supported in this game.
This game isn't for the typical PVP crowd any more than it's for those who never want to be engaged in PVP for any reason ever. Both sides need to adjust their expectations as this is something that has never been done before.
I can live with a reputation system, especially for psychotic killer types. If someone is a Jack the Ripper and is killing random people, I think it is fair to lower his rep so he may not enter the major (game controlled) cities. I also have no problem with letting players who run settlements/cites to dictate who high a rep you have to have to even get in their gates (that's their choice).
But I also think that if somewhere in the wilds a player wants to run a decadent city where anyone can enter, train and trade, they should have that choice.
If a city like that gets out of control, and we all know murders, rapists and thieves are holed up there, it will only be a matter of time before Paladins, White Wizards, and Clerics of Good form up and bring the war to them. It broadens the game play and makes the world more alive and immersive.
If you are a merchant that is constantly harassed by the same group of bandits, he should hire guards, soldiers, make alliances, ect. I would hate to see a system of game play where evil characters are somehow penalized with game mechanics rather than with player on player consequence.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Those of you who think PFO is all about PvP are wrong, and you're doing a disservice to players like Realmwalker who might consider it if they could get past the idea it's going to be just like every other Open PvP grief-fest they've already seen and rejected.
But I can't prove my point through repetition any more than you can, so I think I'll leave it at that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Im not angry at all.
WoW... lol, not a PVP game.
Sure there is some competition, but the biggest difference is... Players will be crafting everything, which makes it PVP in PFO. You are required to flag for combat in WoW. PFO will not require a flag. etc etc
Nihimon, people like Realmwalker cannot handle it when they lose in combat. This is exactly what Ryan has said will not be a game for them. Trust me, I have a friend that whines and cries while playing a warzone in SWTOR... You lose nothing in a warzone... But people cannot handle losing.
This is exactly why they want to limit the numbers at launch and build up slowly from there. People in general will not be able to handle an Open World Sandbox PVP game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now, I freely admit that I have only skimmed the blogs and have tried my hardest to read all the posts here...but what is it that everyone here wants? Why is there such a push for more regulation of playing styles to eliminate "griefing"?
The short answer is, because it's immersion-breaking.
I want the game world to make sense. I want to be able to judge with reasonable accuracy whether or not I'm doing something that someone else may care enough about to fight and kill over. If I'm collecting some valuable resources in the wilderness; hauling some goods from one town to another to make a profit; at war with another settlement; then I should reasonably expect that someone, somewhere, has an interest in attacking me. I'm totally fine with that.
Heck, even the occasional random killing is not immersion-breaking - psychopaths exist, though rarely. But the important part is, the reaction and attitude of the game world to truly random and/or depraved killings/behaviour should also make sense in context, and the world does not consist solely of players - all the npc commoners and such count as well. Random killing without a corresponding reaction by the game world is immersion-breaking. To a lesser extent the same is true of banditry, hence the push for controls that will allow settlements to react sensibly and appropriately in-context to those who break the social contract.
I want to play a game where I engage in conflicts for a reason beyond "I feel like getting into a fight." EVE lost a lot of its appeal for me when, even at the alliance level, the conflicts mostly seemed to be about "we just want to blow s&## up, and you happen to be next to us."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But I also think that if somewhere in the wilds a player wants to run a decadent city where anyone can enter, train and trade, they should have that choice.
If a city like that gets out of control, and we all know murders, rapists and thieves are holed up there, it will only be a matter of time before Paladins, White Wizards, and Clerics of Good form up and bring the war to them.
Valtorious - I think that from everything we've read so far, if some players want to set up a decadent city they are free to do so. Well, free to try.
I think that managing a herd of players to build, manage, and defend a settlement is going to be very challenging, and very competitive. If small independent gangs (of whatever alignment) interfere with the economic interests of an organized nation or settlement alliance (of whatever alignment), blood will be shed and the small gang will go elsewhere or cease to exist.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Xeen
I'm willing to give it a shot and willing to listen reasons. My main problems are abusive pvp'ers and sorry to say it I have yet to play an MMO that supported PVP that did not have a large amount of abusive PVP'ers
That is what we really know about "people like Realmwalker".
Do you plan to be an abusive PVPer, Xeen?
Follow that up with critical thinking about how we treat people that come here and ask questions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was drawn by the 'OPEN WORLD SANDBOX' portion combined with the Pathfinder setting. Those do not exist anywhere else at present - regardless of whether they are PvP-centric or not.
My personal PvP stance favors larger-scale settlement conflict over resources and disfavors smaller-scale watch your back in the woods conflict. I understand that the latter is part of the game and will not go away. All I desire is a control lever to mark players who are issuing SADs as characters who are unwelcome in a given settlement (not broadly all settlements). I thought Reputation would be the right place, as I imagined a merchant telling everyone about how he was robbed and who did it - thus building a negative reputation in the game world. However, I was mistaken in that reputation is not an IC mechanic, but an OOC meta-game mechanic.
My initial dump all loot response was part of my 'it sucks to watch your back to play PvE content' mentality. However, whereas I support the option ideologically, I do not support it immersively. Unless you have a rigged wagon ready to explode, it is going to take time and effort to destroy goods. To the point that hitting a macro to do so just is not realistic. A better mechanic would be to require it to take time per item. Then you have a more meaningful choice. Are you going to start smashing your goods, try to run away, or fight back. You cannot do more than one. And if you start smashing goods, you better prioritize as you will only be able to do so many before you are dead. Unless you have invested in that exploding wagon. But then you are taking the risk that folks will just scare you into blowing up your own goods as a joke and then just smile and wave you by.
As to unaffiliated companies training at a settlement, I think it has been clearly expressed in Dev Blogs so far that the settlement will have a lot of control over who can train there and how much it will cost. Some places will be a free for all with special discounts for sponsored venture company members. Others will tightly restrict training resources to 'companies and individuals in good standing'. I would expect, for example, that companies which are known to be Evil-Aligned to be unable to pay for training in TEO operated settlements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Those of you who think PFO is all about PvP are wrong, and you're doing a disservice to players like Realmwalker who might consider it if they could get past the idea it's going to be just like every other Open PvP grief-fest they've already seen and rejected.
But I can't prove my point through repetition any more than you can, so I think I'll leave it at that.
i feel your pain, +1 to you.
as i´ve read a few, "every thing is pvp", and "only pvp counts" and "eve isn`t as bad as it´s reputation(i thought it was worse to be honest, but i haven`t beein to null-sec sofar) i`d like to quote Ryan again:
EVE was built by people who intentionally wanted a game where people could do all the bad stuff that modern civilization prohibits - and then see how others would react to their misbehavior. They wanted a world where players would have to assume the worst about everyone they met.It is essentially a commentary on the pitfalls of unregulated corporatism.
We'll never know how Darkfall would have developed. The game was a victim of its own success. Adventurine tried to do a "big bang" launch, mimicking the way a theme park MMO launches with a huge spike of players at startup. Unfortunately, that spike killed their billing system, and sand box games don't work well when the game does not have time to develop social and economic structures or for people to spread out through the world. By the time the developers got a handle on the influx of players, it had already been dismissed by many who might have tried it. All that was left were folks looking for a hardcore PvP experience. (Adventurine did themselves no favors by promoting hardcore PvP at the expense of everything else, especially since most of the money & time spent on the project had gone into its themepark and exploration content.)
Pathfinder Online isn't going to do either of these things. It's not going to be an unregulated commentary on the evil that lurks in the hearts of men. And it's not going to be blown up on day one by a million people who show up and say "now what?"
That's why we're going to use all 3 tools at our disposal to direct the community away from abusive misbehavior from the start and not just rely on people self-policing themselves.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But I also think that if somewhere in the wilds a player wants to run a decadent city where anyone can enter, train and trade, they should have that choice.
They do have that choice. It's just that that city will have to take penalties in order to allow low reputation players to live there. A city that allows Jack the Ripper to openly walk it's streets is obviously going to have some problems attached to that decision. It's a hovel for the criminally insane, not a smoothly run home for an industrious population.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can learn a lot about Ryan's opinion of a certain sort of "PvP enthusiast" by searching his posts for terms like "sociopath" or "jerk".
This one really sticks out for me:
I've mentioned before that there's a misconception that "sandbox" means "unlimited freedom". Sandbox means that you build with the tools we provide, and you often astonish us with the unexpected uses to which you put those tools.
But that's the "sand". The other word in that term is "box". The box is the envelope we establish that defines the game and how it is to be played. One of those definitions is "don't be a jerk". Jerkiness is defined along one (of many) axis as killing without meaning.
As we've said many times before, dealing with disruptive greifing requires a multi-layered approach; there is no silver bullet. Therefore, there are in-game and out-of-game processes that are designed to limit such behavior, and responses that scale from warnings to substantial mechanical penalties as well.
We have also been clear that there are lots of forms of PvP that we consider inherently good for the game and are not jerkiness. Territorial warfare and banditry are two that we've been very up-front about. Banditry implies Bounty Hunting, and we've been up front about that as well.
There are forms of PvP that we consider inherently unacceptable behavior. If you are engaged in killing characters without an in-game rationale, just "for the lulz", that's not ok.
There are lots of gray areas in the Venn Diagram of "ok" and "jerkiness" when it comes to PvP, which is why we have a multi-layered, multi-dimensional, escalating approach to dealing with the problem. You will have meaningful choices to make about semi-jerky behavior, because engaging in those behaviors will have some, but not total, often not permanent negative consequences. You will have to decide if the fun you get from doing something that is "semi-jerky" is worth the price you'll pay in mechanical and social penalties.
These parts of the "box" mean that there are things you can do that we'll support, and things you can do that we won't, and things that if you do them, you'll face increasingly stiff penalties to the point where we hope you'll quit and go play some other game. You will not have unrestricted freedom to do whatever you wish, whenever you wish, to whomever you wish, for any reason.
This is Pathfinder Online not Lord of the Flies Online.
RyanD
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
These parts of the "box" mean that there are things you can do that we'll support, and things you can do that we won't, and things that if you do them, you'll face increasingly stiff penalties to the point where we hope you'll quit and go play some other game. You will not have unrestricted freedom to do whatever you wish, whenever you wish, to whomever you wish, for any reason.
This is Pathfinder Online not Lord of the Flies Online.
RyanD
Odd, I remember reading this quote now but I had honestly forgotten it when I was saying the exact same thing earlier in the topic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But I also think that if somewhere in the wilds a player wants to run a decadent city where anyone can enter, train and trade, they should have that choice.They do have that choice. It's just that that city will have to take penalties in order to allow low reputation players to live there. A city that allows Jack the Ripper to openly walk it's streets is obviously going to have some problems attached to that decision. It's a hovel for the criminally insane, not a smoothly run home for an industrious population.
But what penalties? And decadent cities don't often need to be industrious in the same ways law respecting communities need to be because they can survive on money made from the illicit and slavery. I don't think I am seeing here from you (I think) that you are opposed to banditry and criminal behavior, more that you don't want a lot of players portraying psychos whose only motivation is killing.
I understand that stance because it would be not very good role playing, but by the same token, even evil civilizations should have the choice. Maybe giving a dual system for the settlements where they can have prerequisite reputation scores for entering, but also give the settlement leaders the option to ban or even arrest and execute individuals for offenses would be fair.
Even evil settlement leaders will enact some sort of retribution against wanton destruction, not for love of good or the law, but for the damaging of their property (their people, goods, ect).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But I also think that if somewhere in the wilds a player wants to run a decadent city where anyone can enter, train and trade, they should have that choice.They do have that choice. It's just that that city will have to take penalties in order to allow low reputation players to live there. A city that allows Jack the Ripper to openly walk it's streets is obviously going to have some problems attached to that decision. It's a hovel for the criminally insane, not a smoothly run home for an industrious population.
But what penalties? And decadent cities don't often need to be industrious in the same ways law respecting communities need to be because they can survive on money made from the illicit and slavery.
Such as the money to be made from SAD or theft by murder or an extortion racket? I think that would be the point the developers are making: if you want to be a bandit, good for you! But that money will be part of your revenue stream, not the cherry on top for a successful settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Now, I freely admit that I have only skimmed the blogs and have tried my hardest to read all the posts here...but what is it that everyone here wants? Why is there such a push for more regulation of playing styles to eliminate "griefing"?The short answer is, because it's immersion-breaking.
I want the game world to make sense. I want to be able to judge with reasonable accuracy whether or not I'm doing something that someone else may care enough about to fight and kill over. If I'm collecting some valuable resources in the wilderness; hauling some goods from one town to another to make a profit; at war with another settlement; then I should reasonably expect that someone, somewhere, has an interest in attacking me. I'm totally fine with that.
Heck, even the occasional random killing is not immersion-breaking - psychopaths exist, though rarely. But the important part is, the reaction and attitude of the game world to truly random and/or depraved killings/behaviour should also make sense in context, and the world does not consist solely of players - all the npc commoners and such count as well. Random killing without a corresponding reaction by the game world is immersion-breaking. To a lesser extent the same is true of banditry, hence the push for controls that will allow settlements to react sensibly and appropriately in-context to those who break the social contract.
I want to play a game where I engage in conflicts for a reason beyond "I feel like getting into a fight." EVE lost a lot of its appeal for me when, even at the alliance level, the conflicts mostly seemed to be about "we just want to blow s+&$ up, and you happen to be next to us."
Now this makes sense to me. I agree with you about Eve. I had fun with it for years, but I think the real deal breaker is when they gave people the option to sell PLEX cards for ISK, which quickly gave people who like killing an unlimited fleet of gank'o'matics as long as they were willing to get divorced when their wife found the credit card bill (and most were, Eve players have a really high divorce rate).
I agree that PVP with a purpose is more rewarding, and I myself am thinking of starting a Lawful Good order, so I am not in fact, fighting for a style of play that I find appealing. I just want to make sure that I have ass'hats to fight against.
In the end, I just want the restrictions we place on behavior to have a very light touch because as Xeen as sort of insinuated, there are a lot of people out there who seem to want to have a hotkey called "I win" the minute anyone commits banditry against them (not speaking of you or anyone else I have convoed with here).
Oh, and can we have mounted combat and lances so I can impale evil people?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Such as the money to be made from SAD or theft by murder or an extortion racket? I think that would be the point the developers are making: if you want to be a bandit, good for you! But that money will be part of your revenue stream, not the cherry on top for a successful settlement.But I also think that if somewhere in the wilds a player wants to run a decadent city where anyone can enter, train and trade, they should have that choice.They do have that choice. It's just that that city will have to take penalties in order to allow low reputation players to live there. A city that allows Jack the Ripper to openly walk it's streets is obviously going to have some problems attached to that decision. It's a hovel for the criminally insane, not a smoothly run home for an industrious population.
But what penalties? And decadent cities don't often need to be industrious in the same ways law respecting communities need to be because they can survive on money made from the illicit and slavery.
What is SAD? I have seen it a few times and can't figure out what it means.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What is SAD? I have seen it a few times and can't figure out what it means.
It's short for Stand And Deliver, a mechanic where declared Outlaws can demand a portion of a person's goods, or they will attack. If the offer is refused, they can attack and kill the merchant with no alignment or reputation penalties. It has also been referred to as Stealing At Daggerpoint.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But what penalties? And decadent cities don't often need to be industrious in the same ways law respecting communities need to be because they can survive on money made from the illicit and slavery.
Ryan said "Chaotic Evil will be at a substantial mechanical disadvantage. (Their Settlements will suck)" (Jan 13, 2013)
How they will suck, what penalties there are - we don't know. I'd venture to say that a really decadent city might have problems keeping common folk when Jack the Ripper and his 20 friends are in town. So they might fall back on slavery just to keep their common folk numbers up and the forges working. Otherwise they might have to import a lot of crafted goods, which means all of their coin from robbery is going down the road to that hardworking LN town. But that's just guesswork. We've been told they'd be at a disadvantage, is all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Odd, I remember reading this quote now but I had honestly forgotten it when I was saying the exact same thing earlier in the topic.These parts of the "box" mean that there are things you can do that we'll support, and things you can do that we won't, and things that if you do them, you'll face increasingly stiff penalties to the point where we hope you'll quit and go play some other game. You will not have unrestricted freedom to do whatever you wish, whenever you wish, to whomever you wish, for any reason.
This is Pathfinder Online not Lord of the Flies Online.
RyanD
And I agree with this. There is no need for griefing new players, there is not need for ruining the game for people just for the luls.
There is a need for combat. Combat that some will love and others will not. Thats the only thing that has me annoyed, PFO will have restrictions enough to keep people from destroying everything... We do not need more.
Andius ans his crew will hunt down and destroy bandits. I say that sounds like fun and is the highest form of PVP. Please hunt me down, I will enjoy it even if I die alot. (which I plan to)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's short for Stand And Deliver, a mechanic where declared Outlaws can demand a portion of a person's goods, or they will attack. If the offer is refused, they can attack and kill the merchant with no alignment or reputation penalties. It has also been referred to as Stealing At Daggerpoint.What is SAD? I have seen it a few times and can't figure out what it means.
Ahh. I don't think I have a problem with SAD if their certain game mechanisms in place that make sense. If Outlaws claim a land as their own, I can see penalizing their reputation for banditry...even more so if merchants decline their offer and they murder them for it.
But then again, shouldn't reputation points be non-static and based on circumstances?
Say bandits (players) stop and apply SAD to a group of Lawful Good Clerics and Monks bringing supplies to an orphanage and end up murdering them. I think a hit to their rep should be applicable, but shouldn't their be different rep scores for different alignments and factions.
Say I am playing a CG fighter and my posse engages in banditry against a caravan of slavers or merchants travelling to a Lawful Evil settlement, they refuse, we fight, they die, and I end up giving the loot to people in the slums (think Robin Hood). Are the same reputation penalties going to apply statically or will they be situation based/alignment based? Will Good characters have free reign to murder chracters of evil alignments without rep loss? Or should the reps be fluid between factions?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nihimon, people like Realmwalker cannot handle it when they lose in combat.That's incredibly rude.
Sure
All I was stating is... Most people, and yeah I named someone and shouldnt have, will throw hissy fits and quit games when they lose one thing.
IF THERE IS NO LOSS, THERE IS NO GAIN!!!
Whats the point of building an Empire if you have no risk of losing it.
Sad times we live in where everyone expects to be the winner.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's short for Stand And Deliver, a mechanic where declared Outlaws can demand a portion of a person's goods, or they will attack. If the offer is refused, they can attack and kill the merchant with no alignment or reputation penalties. It has also been referred to as Stealing At Daggerpoint.What is SAD? I have seen it a few times and can't figure out what it means.
Just to flesh out the rest of the mechanics:
If the offer is accepted, the bandit takes possession of some quantity of merchant's goods with no alignment penalty and gains a reputation increase...in all cases, as part of the SAD mechanics.
It has been discussed that perhaps then the merchant has a short period in which no bandit can attack them to decrease the chance of running into sequential SADs initiated from different parties.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But what penalties? And decadent cities don't often need to be industrious in the same ways law respecting communities need to be because they can survive on money made from the illicit and slavery.Ryan said "Chaotic Evil will be at a substantial mechanical disadvantage. (Their Settlements will suck)" (Jan 13, 2013)
How they will suck, what penalties there are - we don't know. I'd venture to say that a really decadent city might have problems keeping common folk when Jack the Ripper and his 20 friends are in town. So they might fall back on slavery just to keep their common folk numbers up and the forges working. Otherwise they might have to import a lot of crafted goods, which means all of their coin from robbery is going down the road to that hardworking LN town. But that's just guesswork. We've been told they'd be at a disadvantage, is all.
I can live with that, but to be fair, shouldn't they have some advantages as well? After all, we can see people throughout real history who in all actuality could be considered any of the evil alignments and forged whole empires built on the blood, sweat and tears of the unfortunate.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I can live with that, but to be fair, shouldn't they have some advantages as well? After all, we can see people throughout real history who in all actuality could be considered any of the evil alignments and forged whole empires built on the blood, sweat and tears of the unfortunate.
Agreed, one example of how it might work, slave labour can be even more productive than normal labourers, but work forces might steadily decline, requiring constant "replenishment"...and there's always a slight chance of rebellion, an instant escalation event happening on your city.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Wow, so much here to respond to....
@ Bringslite,
Yes, I have a knack for hitting the hornets nest with a stick. I like to think my threads get people thinking, or peed off.... mission accomplished either way.
I wanted to add a prediction of mine. Ryan Dancey has written that PFO is not Lord of the Flies Online. Yes, he is right, it is going to be much more harsh than that.
In Lord of the Flies, a plane crash leaves a group of your school boys stranded on a topical island. In a matter of weeks,the boys fracture into two groups and one of the groups becomes "wild" and violent. Near the end one of the boys, kills one of the others. Then shortly after that rescue comes and they all ponder and cry about how uncivilized they had become.
In PFO, there will be no such rescue or pondering. The uncontrolled hexes, where the more rare and valuable resources, are going to become a kill zone. Unlike EVE Online's 0.0 space, these uncontrolled zones are not going to be 30 - 50 jumps away from the settlement zones. Unlike EVE Online, there won't be hundreds or even thousands of these zones, where one may find near total isolation in it.
To enter this zone and not be PVP ready will be suicide. You will have to worry less about bandits, than you will about other settlement privateer groups,striving to harvest the materials before you do. You will then have to run a virtual gauntlett, to get it to the safety of your own settlement. This is all by DEV design, which is why many of us believe that PVP is the major component of the game. That might be a bit of an exaggeration, but not for those who will try to live and will certainly die in those uncontrolled hexes.
Final note, it is equally accurate for SAD to mean "Speak and Deal".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But what penalties? And decadent cities don't often need to be industrious in the same ways law respecting communities need to be because they can survive on money made from the illicit and slavery. I don't think I am seeing here from you (I think) that you are opposed to banditry and criminal behavior, more that you don't want a lot of players portraying psychos whose only motivation is killing.
I understand that stance because it would be not very good role playing, but by the same token, even evil civilizations should have the choice. Maybe giving a dual system for the settlements where they can have prerequisite reputation scores for entering, but also give the settlement leaders the option to ban or even arrest and execute individuals for offenses would be fair.
Even evil settlement leaders will enact some sort of retribution against wanton destruction, not for love of good or the law, but for the damaging of their property (their people, goods, ect).
You're right. I want evil players who want wealth, power, etc. and are willing to use sinister means to achieve them. Not evil players who love destruction for the sake of destruction. People who want to enslave the world, not watch it burn. That seems to be Ryan's stance on it as well.
Lawful evil can benefit from slavery, and you don't have to seek destruction to make money from the illicit. Ridiculous fixation on destruction brings no benefits to anyone. That's why deities of all alignments banded together to fight Rovagug.
The penalties as far as I am aware, is that allowing low reputation player lowers some or maybe all of the development indexes of the settlement. One particular penalty I remember being cited is that some skills will not be available at the trainers in low reputation settlements.
The general idea I'm getting from Goblinworks is they don't feel random destruction is a fully valid form of gameplay, and want to discourage it. That want players who do it, and settlements that make the choice to allow it, to feel some pain.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But what penalties? And decadent cities don't often need to be industrious in the same ways law respecting communities need to be because they can survive on money made from the illicit and slavery. I don't think I am seeing here from you (I think) that you are opposed to banditry and criminal behavior, more that you don't want a lot of players portraying psychos whose only motivation is killing.
I understand that stance because it would be not very good role playing, but by the same token, even evil civilizations should have the choice. Maybe giving a dual system for the settlements where they can have prerequisite reputation scores for entering, but also give the settlement leaders the option to ban or even arrest and execute individuals for offenses would be fair.
Even evil settlement leaders will enact some sort of retribution against wanton destruction, not for love of good or the law, but for the damaging of their property (their people, goods, ect).
You're right. I want evil players who want wealth, power, etc. and are willing to use sinister means to achieve them. Not evil players who love destruction for the sake of destruction. People who want to enslave the world, not watch it burn. That seems to be Ryan's stance on it as well.
Lawful evil can benefit from slavery, and you don't have to seek destruction to make money from the illicit. Ridiculous fixation on destruction brings no benefits to anyone. That's why deities of all alignments banded together to fight Rovagug.
The penalties as far as I am aware, is that allowing low reputation player lowers some or maybe all of the development indexes of the settlement. One particular penalty I remember being cited is that some skills will not be available at the trainers in low reputation settlements.
The general idea I'm getting from Goblinworks is they don't feel random destruction is a fully valid form of gameplay, and want to discourage it. That want...
This makes sense to me, but even though we are obviously living in a fantasy world, I would like rules like this to make sense rather than it just being the DEVS caving into people who want to be able to move a merchant caravan cross continent with out hiring guards with no chance of getting robbed.
I think at this point, I can't make any further intelligent comments unless I know some more specifics about how they are going to implement this. I would rather most penalties be in the realm of character responses and role-playing ("Hey, those jerks in x city let the bastards who keep robbing and killing us hole up there, grab a battering ram!")
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Odd, I remember reading this quote now but I had honestly forgotten it when I was saying the exact same thing earlier in the topic.These parts of the "box" mean that there are things you can do that we'll support, and things you can do that we won't, and things that if you do them, you'll face increasingly stiff penalties to the point where we hope you'll quit and go play some other game. You will not have unrestricted freedom to do whatever you wish, whenever you wish, to whomever you wish, for any reason.
This is Pathfinder Online not Lord of the Flies Online.
RyanD
And I agree with this. There is no need for griefing new players, there is not need for ruining the game for people just for the luls.
There is a need for combat. Combat that some will love and others will not. Thats the only thing that has me annoyed, PFO will have restrictions enough to keep people from destroying everything... We do not need more.
Andius ans his crew will hunt down and destroy bandits. I say that sounds like fun and is the highest form of PVP. Please hunt me down, I will enjoy it even if I die alot. (which I plan to)
You're putting words into my mouth. If the bandits are chaotic good and use banditry against the corrupt and evil in support of the greater good, we will ally ourselves with them. In and out of character.
If the bandits target the general population, and steal from the innocent to further their own means, then we will fight them in character. Out of character we won't care as much, and I have no desire to hunt them down and destroy them. It will be a respectful rivalry.
If powerful bandits intentionally target out newbs, (Such as frequently camping areas rarely visited by non-newbs or continually targeting newb companies) or randomly slaughter people they have no reason to without even offering a SAD, then we will oppose the in and out of character. We will do everything in our power to wipe them out, and we will show them no respect.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think what I will find most interesting is how well people are going to stick to their alignments/reps once someone else has the resources and land they want. As Bluddwolf pointed out, I think once these resources and land become more and more rare, "good"characters are going to face some real moral issues as to whether or not killing other people trying to settle somewhere they themselves wanted to settle is ok. I agree, Lord of the Flies is going to be PG compared to this.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Odd, I remember reading this quote now but I had honestly forgotten it when I was saying the exact same thing earlier in the topic.These parts of the "box" mean that there are things you can do that we'll support, and things you can do that we won't, and things that if you do them, you'll face increasingly stiff penalties to the point where we hope you'll quit and go play some other game. You will not have unrestricted freedom to do whatever you wish, whenever you wish, to whomever you wish, for any reason.
This is Pathfinder Online not Lord of the Flies Online.
RyanD
And I agree with this. There is no need for griefing new players, there is not need for ruining the game for people just for the luls.
There is a need for combat. Combat that some will love and others will not. Thats the only thing that has me annoyed, PFO will have restrictions enough to keep people from destroying everything... We do not need more.
Andius ans his crew will hunt down and destroy bandits. I say that sounds like fun and is the highest form of PVP. Please hunt me down, I will enjoy it even if I die alot. (which I plan to)
You're putting words into my mouth. If the bandits are chaotic good and use banditry against the corrupt and evil in support of the greater good, we will ally ourselves with them. In and out of character.
If the bandits target the general population, and steal from the innocent to further their own means, then we will fight them in character. Out of character we won't care as much, and I have no desire to hunt them down and destroy them. It will be a respectful rivalry.
If powerful bandits intentionally target out newbs, (Such as frequently camping areas rarely visited by non-newbs or continually targeting newb companies) or randomly slaughter people they have no reason to without even offering a SAD, then we will oppose the in and out of character. We will do everything in our power to...
Sorry, I was agreeing with the quote of Ryan.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As for bandits, I must admit I see them as an uninteresting nuisance since they intend to have no land holdings, hence nothing for me to take.
This is of course by design. I will crawl out of some secret hole, each day, without an item in my pocket and nothing but threaded gear. Each day all I must do for it to be a success, is to return to that hole with one cooper piece of loot, taken through intimidation or force of arms. I seek not to defeat my enemy, by placing in danger my own wealth, but rather through superior tactics or greater numbers. If they should prevail, I have died in combat, in which there is no shame. I will have no settlement to call my home, nor one to worry about, since I took no part in building it. If you burn them down, I have lost nothing. But, I will gain in the opportunity of those that will rebuild or thise who would exact their revenge upon you.
No matter how you look at things, I win the day, because all I need is one copper looted and the adventure that led to taking it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think what I will find most interesting is how well people are going to stick to their alignments/reps once someone else has the resources and land they want. As Bluddwolf pointed out, I think once these resources and land become more and more rare, "good"characters are going to face some real moral issues as to whether or not killing other people trying to settle somewhere they themselves wanted to settle is ok. I agree, Lord of the Flies is going to be PG compared to this.
I've run into this issue in other games before. It's an issue of the carrot or the stick. Most of the time people in these games use the stick to get what they want, but the carrot can be surprisingly effective.
So we want territory A held by Good Guys A. If they give it to us we'll help them get territory B from Bad Guys B, and pay them 500k gold.
We've just acquired territory held by a friendly faction without violating our morals.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can live with that, but to be fair, shouldn't they have some advantages as well? After all, we can see people throughout real history who in all actuality could be considered any of the evil alignments and forged whole empires built on the blood, sweat and tears of the unfortunate.
The advantage is they don't care if their alignment slips when they do nasty things to other people. Freedom from self-restraint.
I think what I will find most interesting is how well people are going to stick to their alignments/reps once someone else has the resources and land they want. As Bluddwolf pointed out, I think once these resources and land become more and more rare, "good"characters are going to face some real moral issues as to whether or not killing other people trying to settle somewhere they themselves wanted to settle is ok.
You seem to already be aware of this, as evidenced in the above quote, although you're coming at it from the point of view that it's impossible to resist doing those nasty things.
No matter how you look at things, I win the day, because all I need is one copper looted and the adventure that led to taking it.
What about looking at it from an opportunity cost point of view? Seems you could achieve so much more than a couple muggings and a few pennies to show for your efforts.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think what I will find most interesting is how well people are going to stick to their alignments/reps once someone else has the resources and land they want. As Bluddwolf pointed out, I think once these resources and land become more and more rare, "good"characters are going to face some real moral issues as to whether or not killing other people trying to settle somewhere they themselves wanted to settle is ok. I agree, Lord of the Flies is going to be PG compared to this.I've run into this issue in other games before. It's an issue of the carrot or the stick. Most of the time people in these games use the stick to get what they want, but the carrot can be surprisingly effective.
So we want territory A held by Good Guys A. If they give it to us we'll help them get territory B from Bad Guys B, and pay them 500k gold.
We've just acquired territory held by a friendly faction without violating our morals.
And in a perfect world, when the stars align, that might work. But what if they refuse that offer? I am not questioning your integrity, and I do not forsee this being a problem early on. But as time moves and resources become more rare, who knows?