Goblin Squad Member
|
There is plenty of people who have problems with PVP. Some say...
I will just attack
I will try to destroy my stuff
You will have no skills
etc etcSure, play that way if you want to. You will get griefed from then on.
First off, are you going to wimp out like Valtorious and pretend you weren't actually talking about me when you referenced "I will just attack"?
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
I will always resist attempts to steal from me.
It doesn't take that much effort to see that I made that statement in direct reply to you earlier in this same thread.
So now let's look at what you're actually saying:
Nihimon has a "problem with PvP" because he will "always attack" me when I try to steal his stuff. As a result of his actions, he "will get griefed from then on".Utterly pathetic, and I hope it's obvious enough that everyone else sees it as clearly as I do.
I have to agree with Nihimon.
Ones words and actions can show people, who you really are.Those who seek to grief and ganking for laughs,
will sooner or later find themselves griefed and ganked for laughs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf, I am not aware of any regular poster who is opposed to "ganking" according to your definition.
I think when people oppose "ganking", they're using the term to represent a powerful character killing radically weaker characters who don't stand a chance, and doing it "for the lulz". By that definition, it is griefing, and you can expect them to be treated accordingly.
When there's a legitimate reason to fight, you'd be a fool not to use every advantage you can muster.
Legitimacy of action is a very subjective thing to question. My legitimate reasons can be based on need, desire, or emotion. It does not require others to know it, understand it or agree with it, that does not make my actions any less legitimate.
Griefing takes place in an MMO because the mechanics of the game allow for it to happen. Since it may be out of the power of the Devs to completely prevent the unwanted actions from happening, due to the mechanics, then they should change the circumstances from the opposite direction.
If you can't take the griefing from the attacker, take being griefed from the victim. How does this work.
Auto flagging for PvP if the player takes certain actions, is the short answer.
Examples:
If you enter an uncontrolled hex, you are automatically flagged with a PvP flag of your choice based on what flags are permissible for your alignment.
If you enter a settlement hex that is actively under siege, should be another instance of auto flagging.
Of course once an unwary traveler crosses into either situation, he / she will receive a warning and a 30 second timer to turn around before the PvP flag goes into affect. This will give the traveler sufficient time to turn around if they do not wish to take the risk.
This exact system is used in Pirates of the Burning and in EvE Online ( although it is about 15 seconds in EvE).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Using an economy of force comes awful close to using almost enough force. I simply ask, why settle for economy when you have overwhelming at your disposal?
Economy of force is required if you expect to do more than one thing at a time. If you don't use economy of force, then your bandit group stays always together even when they grossly overpower the target. Using economy of force, you might be able to merely overpower 1 or 3 more targets at the same time.
Having overwhelming force available at the time of contact adds that intimidation factor, it shatters all hope and eliminates the chance that luck can play a role.
There's truth to this. But the other 1 or 3 targets are now gone.
Economy of force is fighting a fair fight...
No. No. No. Economy of force has nothing to do with a fair fight. It's about using only the assets you need to in some places so you can get the odds you want in other places.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Economy of force is fighting a fair fight...No. No. No. Economy of force has nothing to do with a fair fight. It's about using only the assets you need to in some places so you can get the odds you want in other places.
You are correct, I should have said "Economy of force flirts with fighting a fair or equal fight."
I was also not advocating the use of 10:1 odds, for the reasons that you suggest. In my example I used an example of 8:5 odds as being a preferred minimum ratio. It is all conjecture now, until we know what the group size limits will be in PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf, I am not aware of any regular poster who is opposed to "ganking" according to your definition.
I think when people oppose "ganking", they're using the term to represent a powerful character killing radically weaker characters who don't stand a chance, and doing it "for the lulz". By that definition, it is griefing, and you can expect them to be treated accordingly.
When there's a legitimate reason to fight, you'd be a fool not to use every advantage you can muster.
Legitimacy of action is a very subjective thing to question. My legitimate reasons can be based on need, desire, or emotion. It does not require others to know it, understand it or agree with it, that does not make my actions any less legitimate.
Griefing takes place in an MMO because the mechanics of the game allow for it to happen. Since it may be out of the power of the Devs to completely prevent the unwanted actions from happening, due to the mechanics, then they should change the circumstances from the opposite direction.
If you can't take the griefing from the attacker, take being griefed from the victim. How does this work.
Auto flagging for PvP if the player takes certain actions, is the short answer.
The flagging idea is interesting, but I hope reputation mediates whether or not someone decides it's worth attacking another player, as well as present conditions eg trespassing in a hex with laws.
I think what you say about griefing removing from attacker or victim is neat way of putting it. I think maybe one off it's just one of those things (low level background noise). If it's a pattern eg frequency, weak target, maybe near newbie ville - then it's a spike and is griefing and a judgement on it's "legitimacy" is reached irrespective of any player's private feeling "needs, desires, emotions".
Maybe if you also have judicars/referees or something - players that can bring down judgement in game, if present. That might be another layer. For eg they can bring down exceptional rep losses if present? And they done training/earnt the respect of players in game etc?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Maybe if you also have judicars/referees or something - players that can bring down judgement in game, if present. That might be another layer. For...
This is the job of the GMs, not players. This is the primary reason why I oppose the rebuke / praise idea that GW has in mind. Sure they say they won't allow for the gaming of the reputation system,but then they suggest a tool that runs the risk of that very thing happening.
The only way to prevent the gaming of the reputation system is to keep players out of the earning or loss of reputation, outside of their direct and chosen actions in PVP. I also don't believe that any PVE activity, Good, Evil, Chaotic or Lawful, should have any bearing on reputation.
Reputation should mean: How does the player play with this character, within the rules of the game GW has set?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Legitimacy of action is a very subjective thing to question. My legitimate reasons can be based on need, desire, or emotion. It does not require others to know it, understand it or agree with it, that does not make my actions any less legitimate.
It actually is for Goblinworks to judge. And all of your victims will naturally try to judge it as well. And if enough of your victims fail to see the legitimacy and complain to Goblinworks, and Goblinworks also fails to see the legitimacy, then you could end up subjected to a timeout lasting from minutes to forever.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ All,
Can we please refocus onto some of the more germaine discussions taking place.
Economy of Force
Legitimacy of Action
Auto Flagging for PVP: If griefing can not be removed completely from the attacker, then remove being griefed from the victim. In other words, you can not claim to be griefed if you placed yourself into the limited circumstances I provided in previous post.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How does "killing for lulz" which everyone (including the Devs) has agreed is bad, not fit legitimately under:
My legitimate reasons can be based on need, desire, or emotion. It does not require others to know it, understand it or agree with it, that does not make my actions any less legitimate.
Also,
Reputation should mean: How does the player play with this character, within the rules of the game GW has set?
That is what Reputation means in PFO...the few who I have seen objecting to it (check the Anti-Rep, Anti-Alignment thread) tend to lean toward the "bandit" persuasion if my memory is correct. Anyways, no objection here.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you can't take the griefing from the attacker, take being griefed from the victim. How does this work.
Auto flagging for PvP if the player takes certain actions, is the short answer.
Examples:
If you enter an uncontrolled hex, you are automatically flagged with a PvP flag of your choice based on what flags are permissible for your alignment.
I don't think forcing people to flag for PvP is required. I think GW is already on this with the reputation system and with the existing PvP flags.
Let's say Goldilocks wants to go into the dark woods to gather mushrooms.
The way it generally works now, if Goldi goes unflagged and is attacked by the three bears, they are now flagged and they take some rep and evil hits for the attack. If she was flying a flag then the bears don't take a rep or evil hit. If Goldilocks wants to signal that she'd prefer to avoid PvP this afternoon, then she goes unflagged and the bears get to decide if they want to attack her or not.
I think you're asking GW to make all uncontrolled hexes into free-for-all PvP zones where there are no reputation or evil hits. That's up to GW; I don't know that that environment is their intent.
Edit: I would think that killing a noncombatant Goldilocks is evil/a stain on your rep wherever you do it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Maybe if you also have judicars/referees or something - players that can bring down judgement in game, if present. That might be another layer. For...This is the job of the GMs, not players. This is the primary reason why I oppose the rebuke / praise idea that GW has in mind. Sure they say they won't allow for the gaming of the reputation system,but then they suggest a tool that runs the risk of that very thing happening.
The only way to prevent the gaming of the reputation system is to keep players out of the earning or loss of reputation, outside of their direct and chosen actions in PVP. I also don't believe that any PVE activity, Good, Evil, Chaotic or Lawful, should have any bearing on reputation.
Reputation should mean: How does the player play with this character, within the rules of the game GW has set?
I hope I'm on topic (great thread btw Bludd) responding with the above.
The reason I mention it, is in part I referee sports so it's a natural input for me to make and I see plenty of disputes in the sport I ref even if it's actually easy rule system to avoid confrontation/disputes on excess force etc.
But your definition of "if you cannot take griefing from the attackers, then the victims" is a good way of putting it. I was thinking that's the point of refs, sure they can (and do!) mess up, but by and large it might allow "griefing of griefers" if to use their language (the idea to take griefing from griefers): That does not mean a ref might hit some false positives but the presence or potential presence would be another control layer. We play our characters, and we are also ourselves in games. The same with being a player (if qualified to ref) and arbitrating on a rep sting for a case of griefing on the spot. It's a suggestion of a unformed idea, I need to think more on the merits and problems. But for eg new players could certainly feel confidence with such a player guiding them and ruling on yes - you got pvp'ed and it's nothing except good gameplay or - that player is attempting to grief et al.
As far as I remember Reputation is effectively about PvP via:
1. Who (high rep vs low rep eg)
2. Where (hex)
3. How (attacker flag)
The more frequent you pvp the more your rep goes down. So there's that constant. And the variables are the type of pvp and flags you have and if you have high rep you can have a wider margin to increase or decrease reputation in an interaction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Where exactly was a offensive before I was insulted the first time?
I'll do you the honor of addressing your question directly, just to show you how it's done.
I don't remember seeing a hissy fit thrown. And any credibility you could of had countering any posters debating style went out the window when you generalize any subscriber who is generally concerned about the state of PVP in a new game to a "sociopath"...and let's not forget the cute jab at the end. I'm pretty sure the most important rule stated for these forums was not to be a jerk, and now set forth the motion that we also now fight like 12 year old girls with BS like...not naming names.And some people will throw hissy fits at the suggestion that their sociopathic tendencies need to be reined in. And they'll build up straw men, so they can be seen making a big show of tearing them down. But I won't name names...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 , will throw and quit games .
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.
As you can see, I was directly responding to Xeen's continuing rudeness. His false apology for "naming names" was immediately followed by another rude accusation of "throwing hissy fits".
And both of you consistently rephrase what other posters say in ways that clearly - to anyone with a functioning brain - have nothing to do with that poster's actual intent.
So, after I mocked Xeen for his continuing rudeness and his false apology for "naming names" and his accusations of "hissy fits", you decided to call me out.
I've highlighted the statements in your post which I think qualify as "offensive". If you think I insulted you before that post, I encourage you to link it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Some PvP, such as war, is well within the desired gameplay for a "territorial conquest game". That will always award positive Rep because GW wants us to do it..and that is all Rep measures - how well or often we play the way GW wants us to.
The rest I think will be tolerated or encourage small-scale with limitations, such as assassination and banditry.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think forcing people to flag for PvP is required. I think GW is already on this with the reputation system and with the existing PvP flags.Let's say Goldilocks wants to go into the dark woods to gather mushrooms.
The way it generally works now, if Goldi goes unflagged and is attacked by the three bears, they are now flagged and they take some rep and evil hits for the attack. If she was flying a flag then the bears don't take a rep or evil hit. If Goldilocks wants to signal that she'd prefer to avoid PvP this afternoon, then she goes unflagged and the bears get to decide if they want to attack her or not.
I think you're asking GW to make all uncontrolled hexes into free-for-all PvP zones where there are no reputation or evil hits. That's up to GW; I don't know that that environment is their intent.
Edit: I would think that killing a noncombatant Goldilocks is evil/a stain on your rep wherever you do it.
I would see Goldilocks as trying to have her cake and eat it too, by hiding behind the additional protection of the added penalties for attacking an unflagged character.
I understand that GW intends for this circumstance to be dealt with the SAD mechanic, and I agree with that. However, I will state this as policy for myself and perhaps my entire company.
In the uncontrolled hexes or in settled hexes under siege, I and or the UnNamed Company as a whole will issue SADs at a significantly higher cost versus unflagged characters, than we will to those flying a PvP flag. This is not meant to punish those that don't fly a PvP flag, but rather to reward those that do.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And by not making the uncontrolled hexes free fire zones, you have that option. Another bandit gang might approach Goldilocks and recruit her to get them supplies that they can't get in town. With an implied threat of violence, or maybe not. The way it is set up now allows more possible interactions, I think.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Uhm...Who is trying to change the PVP system now?
I am not trying to change it, only trying to incentivize its use. I'm also trying to address the desire of anti griefing , from the other direction.
No one claims there is griefing in the PvP zones found in Pirates if the Burning Sea or in EvE, because entering those zones is tacit agreement to be subjected to PvP or to partake in it.
I suggest having the "Uncontrolled Hexes" and Settlement Hexes in a current state f siege to become automatic PvP zones. This is not changing the PvP system, it is more clearly defining what GW described as "Lawless" in the case of the "Uncontrolled hexes" and it expresses the chaotic nature if the battlefield for Settlement Hexes under siege.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In the uncontrolled hexes or in settled hexes under siege, I and or the UnNamed Company as a whole will issue SADs at a significantly higher cost versus unflagged characters, than we will to those flying a PvP flag. This is not meant to punish those that don't fly a PvP flag, but rather to reward those that do.
*laugh* this is exactly what what we "settled" people were trying to accomplish with a fame system, reward the behaviour we personally find constructive. Restricting bandits access to our resources is not meant to be a punishment, they are afterall playing within GW "preferred" behaviours, we just want to be able to offer more to those who share our values.
EDIT: Why was it wrecking PVP with rules when we ask for it, incentivizing when you do it?
*ding, ding, ding*, sorry, one sec...let me shut of my bias detector.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No one claims there is griefing... in EvE...
This is factually incorrect, and suggests a serious misunderstanding on your part.
There's zero attempt to limit in-game grief in EVE. The developers think its a feature, not a problem.
It sounds like you also "think its a feature, not a problem". I would recommend you reconsider that stance in light of Ryan's clear statements that it's a huge problem, and one he intends to avoid.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bludd,
So your means of encouraging people to fly a PvP flag will be to punish (with higher SAD prices and likely death when they turn it down) those who choose not to PvP, and thereby, do not fly a PvP flag? The system, in regard to this particular topic, seems to be aimed at making those who do not fly a flag less palatable targets. Certainly, there's no promised safety for the unflagged traveling abroad (I'm not advocating that there should be), but having a system that at least makes them less desirable seems to be an attempt on GW's part to help mitigate attacks on less PvP interested players. Your intended tactic seems as if you wish to force everybody into the same level of PvP with no penalties. This strikes me as much as you wishing to have the cake and eat it as the other way around.
Given the heat of several posts, I'll add that Bludd already knows that I'm not a PvPer, but that I fully support the need for those playing less savory individuals in the game. I'm just looking for clarification as to how his proposed tactic is any less desirous of tilting the game play of others towards his play style (PvP) and possible advantage (i.e. no penalties if everyone is flagged).
*waves at Bluddwolf*
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In the uncontrolled hexes or in settled hexes under siege, I and or the UnNamed Company as a whole will issue SADs at a significantly higher cost versus unflagged characters, than we will to those flying a PvP flag. This is not meant to punish those that don't fly a PvP flag, but rather to reward those that do.*laugh* this is exactly what what we "settled" people were trying to accomplish with a fame system, reward the behaviour we personally find constructive. Restricting bandits access to our resources is not meant to be a punishment, they are afterall playing within GW "preferred" behaviours, we just want to be able to offer more to those who share our values.
EDIT: Why was it wrecking PVP with rules when we ask for it, incentivizing when you do it?
*ding, ding, ding*, sorry, one sec...let me shut of my bias detector.
I never denied that you have the right to set the access to your settlement to whatever you want. Please point to where I had said so.
You can set your settlement access to exclude all but Lawful and all but those who have a +7000 reputation, if that is what you wish to do. Your settlement would be very exclusive, that is for sure, but that would be your choice.
Just as it is my choice to say that I would charge less in a SAD to someone flying the PVP flag, than I would someone not flying the PVP flag.
I don't see the inconsistency in my stance. Where I believe we might differ is that I would not make my choice based on the compilation of some kind of a public sentiment, and certainly not having how individuals "voted" as part of some kind of report from data mining.
I forget if it was you or Nihimon, to be honest, where I got the impression that this would be the policy to be spread by some social engineering idea. Then enforced by restricting access to your settlement to our known or even causal associates.
It was the perceived networking of the social engineering that I disagreed with, not your individual right to set your own / settlement's access permissions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It was me. Although based on your argument I would change my proposal. Instead of seeing your associations, your associations would be able (if they wanted) to get a report of members with a fame below x amount...they can decide to act upon the information or not.
This should settle any concern you might have had, while also allowing my society to police itself...which is the other half of what I want.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Uhm...Who is trying to change the PVP system now?I am not trying to change it, only trying to incentivize its use. I'm also trying to address the desire of anti griefing , from the other direction.
No one claims there is griefing in the PvP zones found in Pirates if the Burning Sea or in EvE, because entering those zones is tacit agreement to be subjected to PvP or to partake in it.
I suggest having the "Uncontrolled Hexes" and Settlement Hexes in a current state f siege to become automatic PvP zones. This is not changing the PvP system, it is more clearly defining what GW described as "Lawless" in the case of the "Uncontrolled hexes" and it expresses the chaotic nature if the battlefield for Settlement Hexes under siege.
Oh, okaaaay. Yeah, ...
Maybe too much emphasis is placed on griefng. I haven't seen anyone around here advocating it in any way. The problem is in the definition. That can only be resolved by GW. For now the flags and the rep system seem pretty good to limit it. Their plans to adjudicate it also seem alright.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I never denied that you have the right to set the access to your settlement to whatever you want.You just don't want him to be able to set it based on the aggregate opinions of his Settlement's Members...
That is again, incorrect. I stated very early on, if that aggregate was the result of a known vote or setting of "standing", I personally would not want to belong to such a company or settlement, and I went further on to say that I would leave the settlement / company and take out an Assassination contract against the responsible leader for attempting to violate my free will.
I would be opposed to any type of social engineering that includes the ability to data mine what an individual's associations or standings for others are.
It could lead to a settlement manager saying, "if you don't set your standing at X for this character Y, you will risk being kicked out or denied access to this settlement / company."
before you quote Ryan Dancey saying that they won't allow for the Reputation System to be gamed, I'll counter that. If Ryan Dancey or GW in general were that concerned about gaming the Reputation system, they would not have the rebuke / praise feature nor would they be entertaining the idea of selling reputation as a commodity. If you don't want a system to be gamed, don't make it in a way where it can be gamed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Valtorious - I'm sure there's been miscommunication as well. Overall you've been very friendly in your posts, though one of you last posts likely broke the forum rules. I think we'd do better to take a breather, listen and ask questions than conduct a flame war [Discussion that catches fire].
The problem with pvp is it is tinderbox ground for a flame-war of impassioned personal opinions on the subject. It's additionally another very HEALTHY reason not to label PFO as a "PvP Game" - particularly in light of discussing pvp as a fully integrated subset of the full game experience possible; albeit a very centrally placed one. Equally it's HEALTHY to warn new players that pvp is a big part of the game, but not the only game in town!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Maybe too much emphasis is placed on griefng. I haven't seen anyone around here advocating it in any way.Trying to say that what goes in in Eve isn't "griefing" is a roundabout way of advocating for it.
You need to read a bit more in depth of what I wrote, instead of scratching the mere surface to make your point.
So I will direct you to a new question: What two types of hexes did I limit my idea?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I suppose we could wait and see the design, play it awhile in EE, and then decide if it works how we/they like...
No, wait! Let's fight over an unpolished system.... Yeah let's do that for awhile. :)
Crowd Forging here... The devs did say that they read the forums, even if they don't respond.
If I can convince them to reserve the Uncontrolled Hexes for pvp acceptant players. Then I would suggest having similar (not the same) rules for Settlement Hexes under siege. I these would not only support their flagging system ,but it will also add an interesting dynamic to warfare.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Valtorious - I'm sure there's been miscommunication as well. Overall you've been very friendly in your posts, though one of you last posts likely broke the forum rules. I think we'd do better to take a breather, listen and ask questions than conduct a flame war [Discussion that catches fire].
The problem with pvp is it is tinderbox ground for a flame-war of impassioned personal opinions on the subject. It's additionally another very HEALTHY reason not to label PFO as a "PvP Game" - particularly in light of discussing pvp as a fully integrated subset of the full game experience possible; albeit a very centrally placed one. Equally it's HEALTHY to warn new players that pvp is a big part of the game, but not the only game in town!
Yeah, in the long run I really don't care what we label the game as. I think there, as was with EVE, enough game content for people who want to risk nothing in the wilds to have a great experience. And I think it's clever marketing not to scare people away, but we also have to be honest to new players that if they think they are going to strike out on their own into the frontier at low level, that guys like Xeen or Bluddwolf aren't going to monetarily or physically rape them.
As I have said before, if they can capture the sec status philosophy of eve with some tweaks, I think this can be very cool. What I've heard about concerns about "griefing" I understand, but I also think that those type of players, especially in a fantasy world, can add excitement and fun.
If I am playing a good warrior, and I hear some guy is murdering lowbies in the wilds outside a settlement, or that we have a massmurder using disguises in a main city....tracking them down sounds like a lot of fun. As does sieging settlements who endorse or turn a blind eye to that behavior. I'm not for a complete free for all, I just wanted to here the devs ideas as well as some of the players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I suppose we could wait and see the design, play it awhile in EE, and then decide if it works how we/they like...
No, wait! Let's fight over an unpolished system.... Yeah let's do that for awhile. :)
At this point we aren't arguing about the game, just having a pissing contest while my kids take a nap.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I suppose we could wait and see the design, play it awhile in EE, and then decide if it works how we/they like...
No, wait! Let's fight over an unpolished system.... Yeah let's do that for awhile. :)
Crowd Forging here... The devs did say that they read the forums, even if they don't respond.
If I can convince them to reserve the Uncontrolled Hexes for pvp acceptant players. Then I would suggest having similar (not the same) rules for Settlement Hexes under siege. I these would not only support their flagging system ,but it will also add an interesting dynamic to warfare.
The difference between the two that I see is that your forces a fundamental change to the balance of PvP, the fame system as I proposed gives social groups a way to police themselves and their resources. I do not want to tell others how they have to play.
EDIT: Sorry, misread your post. On a quick read I thought you were proposing that if I support you, you support me...you were not. Sorry.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I (and I imagine others) see open world PvP as a means to an end, that end being interesting settlement interactions. Some others see open world PvP as an end in and of itself - to me this is just sad and missing the point, and my hunch is that GW agrees, because of the limitations they are designing.
I am reminded of an old quote about UNIX, which I think is apt: "UNIX doesn't prevent you from doing stupid things, because that would prevent you from doing clever things." On the other hand it most certainly doesn't *advocate* doing stupid things.
I view PFO in a similar fashion, though substitute "stupid things" with "bad behaviour". UNIX punishes you brutally for doing "stupid things" by letting you do them and thus shooting yourself in the foot. PFO I think will do the same regarding "bad behaviour" via the reputation and alignment systems (among others). The tools for engaging in "bad behaviour" may exist in the game (and be a main feature, even), but that's not really their intended purpose.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I (and I imagine others) see open world PvP as a means to an end, that end being interesting settlement interactions. Some others see open world PvP as an end in and of itself - to me this is just sad and missing the point, and my hunch is that GW agrees, because of the limitations they are designing.
I am reminded of an old quote about UNIX, which I think is apt: "UNIX doesn't prevent you from doing stupid things, because that would prevent you from doing clever things." On the other hand it most certainly doesn't *advocate* doing stupid things.
I view PFO in a similar fashion, though substitute "stupid things" with "bad behaviour". UNIX punishes you brutally for doing "stupid things" by letting you do them and thus shooting yourself in the foot. PFO I think will do the same regarding "bad behaviour" via the reputation and alignment systems (among others). The tools for engaging in "bad behaviour" may exist in the game (and be a main feature, even), but that's not really their intended purpose.
Well said, thank you.