Goblin Squad Member
|
That is again, incorrect.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...
Forgive me if I misrepresented your position.
I was - perhaps understandably - basing my opinion on statements like these:
My objection is to the idea that any person can set the standing towards one person, for other people or organizations.
Your so called social engineering is nothing more than an attempt to control how others behave, based on your decisions, and that is not your domain.
If your current position is that you don't object to Settlements being able to restrict access based on the aggregate opinions (ratings) of their Members, then I'm happy to hear it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.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 Most Dangerous Game
When players harvest resources far from civilization and then transport them home, they will be at an elevated risk of being engaged by hostile forces. They'll have to worry about monstrous creatures from the surrounding area, and they'll need to be especially worried about other players seeking to profit from their hard labor.
This creates a powerful game dynamic. Going out to get those resources is a pathway to wealth. But to succeed, you'll need help to protect your harvesting crew and your logistics and transport system. Folks who try to extract wealth without effective protection will likely find themselves beset on all sides by those who would forcefully take what they've harvested.
Ultimately, we feel that it should be pretty likely for players transporting valuable goods to be attacked by other players, with an increasingly likelihood as the value and distance they're transporting goods increases. The game economy will make getting into town with a big haul valuable precisely because there are people out there who want to take it from you: if you can get it to market, you get to charge a premium because of all the people that couldn't.
Deciding how much to carry, how many guards to bring, and whether to fight or try to flee when you see a bandit should be significant choices as a traveler. Conversely, player bandits should have to decide whether attacking just anyone is worth it, and whether it's better to make a surprise attack or actually try to extort goods from the traveler first (if they stand and deliver, it triggers none of the consequences).
If you're interested in PvP, this will be a way for you to constructively pursue that style of play without worrying about being condemned by the community for being a jerk, or facing significant mechanical penalties imposed by the game systems.
At the end of the day, if you're killing other players that are uninterested in PvP for no benefit, we want to make the costs significant enough to convince you to do something else, as that's the kind of thing that drives players away. However, if they know they have something valuable and fighting or fleeing from you is the price of profit, suddenly it's worthwhile for everyone. And those opportunities should be worth risking the consequences.
If we reserve a majority of our PVP to the Uncontrolled Hexes and the Under Siege hexes, where the devs want most of the PVP to take place, I fail to see how this is a fundamental change. rather I see it as consistent to the spirit of the Dev Blog.
However, I'd like to point to that last paragraph. I ask GW, does that price for profit only apply to those that attack, and not also to those that enter to look to access those rare and valuable resources?
I ask this because the penalties only work one way. Shouldn't there be a penalty for entering a PVP encouraged area, and not be flagged for PVP? Perhaps and equal reputation loss could be considered?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What two types of hexes did I limit my idea?That is utterly irrelevant next to the revelation that you consider what happens in Eve to not qualify as "griefing".
Your avoidance to answer a direct question has been accepted as a "check mate".
In EVE Online or in Pirates of the Burning Sea, to enter a PVP designated zone (null sec; red zone, in both games respectively) eliminates all perceived limitations of the civilized world. You have entered the "Kill Box", of your own choice, you bear the consequences of your choice. Therefore there can not be griefing because you have no reasonable expectation of not being killed.
If you get killed in those zones, you are transported to the nearest friendly clone station or port. If you choose to return, and get killed by the same person, still not griefing. Again, you chose to enter, knowing the risks or ignorant of them, makes no difference.
Both of the games give you a warning and enough time to get back out. I suggested exactly that for PFO.
Can there be griefing in Hi Sec EVE or in PFO NPC Settlement Zones, yes. I have not denied that, nor supported it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In EVE Online or in Pirates of the Burning Sea, to enter a PVP designated zone (null sec; red zone, in both games respectively) eliminates all perceived limitations of the civilized world. You have entered the "Kill Box", of your own choice, you bear the consequences of your choice.
This concept of "kill box" or "pvp zone" doesn't really exist in PFO, nor for that matter does "eliminating all perceived limitations of the civilized world," because there's *always* reputation and alignment - only legality varies by area.
You're simply trying to fit the square pegs of PFO's design points into the round holes of your preconceptions and desires. Try to see PFO for what it is instead of what you wish it to be.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your avoidance to answer a direct question has been accepted as a "check mate".
So, is it only "direct questions" (even if they sidestep an open topic) that qualify? Or should I take your avoidance of this post as a "check mate" as well?
Come on, Bluddwolf. We've had enough interaction not to have to treat each other this way.
Do you or do you not consider what goes on in Eve to be "griefing"? Do you or do you not accept that Ryan sees it as "griefing" and is committed to avoiding it in PFO?
The fact that "everyone knows" griefing is going there doesn't make it not griefing. Just like the fact that "everyone knows" that Chicago has multiple murders every day doesn't mean their decision to go there is tantamount to an acceptance of being murdered.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This concept of "kill box" or "pvp zone" doesn't really exist in PFO, nor for that matter does "eliminating all perceived limitations of the civilized world," because there's *always* reputation and alignment - only legality varies by area.
You're simply trying to fit the square pegs of PFO's design points into the round holes of your preconceptions and desires. Try to see PFO for what it is instead of what you wish it to be.
First, designating two types of zones (one of which is not persistent) into PVP zones is not changing what PFO "IS". It is at beast changing the rules of two types of zones, proportionately small in relation to the rest of the world.
Secondly, PFO is not anything but a series of evolving ideas right now, and nothing is set in stone. This is the ideal time to make suggestions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Do you or do you not consider what goes on in Eve to be "griefing"? Do you or do you not accept that Ryan sees it as "griefing" and is committed to avoiding it in PFO?
No I do not see that there is griefing in 0.0 space in EVE. Go there with permission, stealth, force or luck or leave it in a fresh clone 50 jumps away.
Yes there can be griefing in EVE and in PFO. Preying on Noobs in the Starter Areas = griefing. Corpse camping in PFO = Griefing if in Starter Zone. Respawn camping in PFO is griefing, if possible. Repeated killing of the same character, while actively looking for him, is griefing.
But, if he keeps on coming into a zone known for PVP, then he bears the responsibility of the consequences.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we reserve a majority of our PVP to the Uncontrolled Hexes and the Under Siege hexes, where the devs want most of the PVP to take place, I fail to see how this is a fundamental change. rather I see it as consistent to the spirit of the Dev Blog.
The Most Dangerous Game
...Deciding how much to carry, how many guards to bring, and whether to fight or try to flee when you see a bandit should be significant choices as a traveler. Conversely, player bandits should have to decide whether attacking just anyone is worth it, and whether it's better to make a surprise attack or actually try to extort goods from the traveler first (if they stand and deliver, it triggers none of the consequences).
...
At the end of the day, if you're killing other players that are uninterested in PvP for no benefit, we want to make the costs significant enough to convince you to do something else, as that's the kind of thing that drives players away. However, if they know they have something valuable and fighting or fleeing from you is the price of profit, suddenly it's worthwhile for everyone. And those opportunities should be worth risking the consequences.
The way it's set up now, Goldilocks gets to play a noncombatant and you get to play a bear.. er, a bandit. If Goldilocks has something - you're not killing her for no material benefit - then you weigh the costs to yourself (rep/alignment) against the benefit (gold/loot).
The way you seem to want it is you have none of costs and all of the benefits of the current system.
And there's already a difference between the controlled and uncontrolled hexes. If you play Outlaw in a settlement's controlled hexes you'll likely also pick up the Criminal flag, making you a prime target for Enforcers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"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.
Brilliant, apt, and, I hope, to be paraphrased as a standard response to the oft-recurring concerns about PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you or do you not consider what goes on in Eve to be "griefing"? Do you or do you not accept that Ryan sees it as "griefing" and is committed to avoiding it in PFO?
No I do not see that there is griefing in 0.0 space in EVE. Go there with permission, stealth, force or luck or leave it in a fresh clone 50 jumps away.
Yes there can be griefing in EVE and in PFO. Preying on Noobs in the Starter Areas = griefing. Corpse camping in PFO = Griefing if in Starter Zone. Respawn camping in PFO is griefing, if possible. Repeated killing of the same character, while actively looking for him, is griefing.
But, if he keeps on coming into a zone known for PVP, then he bears the responsibility of the consequences.
So, you're retreating from your statement that "No one claims there is griefing... in EvE...". This pleases me.
I'd still like you to address Ryan's commitment to ensure that PFO does not degenerate into the kind of unrestrained douchebaggery that is rampant in Eve.
But in a show of good faith, I'll try to directly address the question you asked me.
I suggest having the "Uncontrolled Hexes" and Settlement Hexes in a current state f siege to become automatic PvP zones.
First, if you care to look, you'll see that I've already been a vocal advocate for automatically flagging everyone inside a war zone. See Minimum Settlement Structure to Declare War?
However, automatically flagging everyone in "Uncontrolled Hexes" seems like a definite move towards the unrestrained douchebaggery that is rampant in Eve. I don't see any benefit of it, except for those who want PFO to be more like Eve, which is definitely not what the guy making PFO wants...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose we could all restructure the argument over and over to continue posting ad naseum. I'm just going to make a couple comments not aimed at anyone. There are not going to be 'open' pvp areas period. I believe this is a salient fact of the game no matter what the final game mechanics turn out to be. Structured pvp and the resultant player interactions are the content; PFO would not be in development without it. Asking for an area without flags/rep hits/alignment repercussions to me is akin to asking for a non-pvp server: it ain't happening. A solo adventurer is going to be very dissappointed in EE. A truly rich solo experience for a non-crafter will not be available until there is player made content 6 years from now. So we're stuck together. Pvp and settlement conflict will have controls everywhere, so people will want to play the game. A merchant risks loss of unthreaded items and costly resources in the Wilderness hexes. A bandit risks rep loss, alignment change and his own items-either side can miscalculate badly. That I believe is the fun of this particular game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the bandits in this thread are so tied to wanting an easy game experience, that they are blind to the fact that other players want the game to hold some semblance to how humans tend to behave, react, and view those actions. Because it is a ROLEPLAYING game and such things are required to play the ROLES we desire appropriately. The whole "it's a game, it's a game" argument does not demean our desires. Otherwise it would be equally valid for someone to argue that the game should be played with ASCII characters on a monochrome screen. You don't need realistic graphics, it's only a game.
Engaging a non-flagged character SHOULD cause reputation/alignment changes wherever they are. A woman wearing revealing clothes is not responsible for getting raped, the rapist is responsible for raping her. If you feel otherwise, our discussion is done as you seem to not understand right from wrong. Might it be careless? Should they know the risks? Yes. But that does not forgive the criminal for acting. Wandering into an uncontrolled hex is analogous to the revealing clothes in my example. And as such, entering an uncontrolled hex should not auto-flag someone.
Engaging a flagged character SHOULD NOT cause reputation/alignment changes. Or if it does, only minimally so. This is to represent someone 'Actively Looking for Trouble'. Independent folks may view this negatively, but society as a whole recognizes that they got what they deserved (similar to self-defense law).
I don't know why these bandits feel they should get a free lunch. Uncontrolled / Wilderness hexes are already the best hexes for banditry, as player reinforcements from targets are probably at their furthest away. You are basically asking to have no downside to harassing non-combatants in the safest regions for you to do so.
Maybe I should start asking for all of the rare resource harvest nodes to pop up in settlement hexes. GW wants people crafting and trading. That would make it easy for folks to fulfill their vision, after all!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Regarding war zones: I'm of the opinion that all parties to a war (settlements, their members, and their mercenaries/irregulars) should be able to freely attack each other and neutrals inside the territories at war. Neutrals should not get to attack the war parties or other neutrals without penalties inside the war zone hexes. Looting and banditry by neutrals remains bad behavior (edited).
Parties to a war should be able to attack each other in uncontrolled hexes without penalty, but attacking neutrals would be subject to penalties.
Attacking each other in a third party's territory might be ignored; attacking neutrals in a third party's territory might be Criminal, if someone wants to try to enforce it.
Edit: I say attack freely, but there may still be some penalties for warfare; LG fighting LG for example, might see a creep towards evil as the war continues.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm of the opinion that all parties to a war (settlements, their members, and their mercenaries/irregulars) should be able to freely attack each other and neutrals inside the territories at war. Neutrals should not get to attack the war parties or other neutrals without penalties inside the war zone hexes.
I would be fine with that.
My main objective was to legitimize the warring parties' right to drive off neutrals in the area without taking additional hits. Generally, armies don't allow un-aligned civilians to hang around - they could be spies!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I say attack freely, but there may still be some penalties for warfare; LG fighting LG for example, might see a creep towards evil as the war continues.
Agreed, and interesting ontopic-topic. GW could also force the aggressor in the LG-LG relationship to voluntarily change their own rep by just stating LG-LG cannot "war". They can fight, but it would be done without war mechanics, incurring all the rep and alignment hits declaring war prevents. This is one way to prevent too many LG societies from popping up beside each other, no room for expansion...and no opportunity for conquest. They would simply stall in their evolution as resources because scarce. Forced to lower their standards as a means of income...then the city gains a shady underside...and starts its slide to something other than LG.
EDIT: This limitation would be one of hopefully many counter balances to the benefits a LG society gets.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So, you're retreating from your statement that "No one claims there is griefing... in EvE...". This pleases me.
I can not retreat from a statement I never made. If you are going to quote me, please do so accurately:
No one claims there is griefing in the PvP zonesfound 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.
That is very different than the supposed quote you attributed to me, through either careless or purposeful redaction of the pertinent point.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
First, designating two types of zones (one of which is not persistent) into PVP zones is not changing what PFO "IS". It is at beast changing the rules of two types of zones, proportionately small in relation to the rest of the world.
Secondly, PFO is not anything but a series of evolving ideas right now, and nothing is set in stone. This is the ideal time to make suggestions.
I don't subscribe to your belief that lawless hexes and war zones will be "proportionately small" in relation to the rest of the game world. Not physically (there will always be a significant outer band of unsettled territory, and almost always some warfare somewhere), nor even less as a proportion of the "places where interesting things happen".
And to say "PFO is not anything but a series of evolving ideas right now, and nothing is set in stone" is disingenuous. Yes, most of what we're discussing is design, and the details aren't implemented yet - but complex ideas require foundations just as a concrete implementation does (if you can call computer code "concrete"...), and the one you're trying to change is one of the foundation blocks of the whole concept going back before the Kickstarter campaign.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Do you or do you not consider what goes on in Eve to be "griefing"? Do you or do you not accept that Ryan sees it as "griefing" and is committed to avoiding it in PFO?
No I do not see that there is griefing in 0.0 space in EVE. Go there with permission, stealth, force or luck or leave it in a fresh clone 50 jumps away.
Yes there can be griefing in EVE and in PFO. Preying on Noobs in the Starter Areas = griefing. Corpse camping in PFO = Griefing if in Starter Zone. Respawn camping in PFO is griefing, if possible. Repeated killing of the same character, while actively looking for him, is griefing.
But, if he keeps on coming into a zone known for PVP, then he bears the responsibility of the consequences.
Bro, this directly implies you think someone can go into a zone known for pvp without consequences. That someone is, you believe, not you. Not the bandit you want to play so badly. What several of us are saying is everyone risks losing their hard-earned goods and unthreaded gear whether they get flagged or not. Whether they lose rep or swing their alignment axis or not. Bludd-the people who don't want pvp HAVE LOST. Your proposed bandit and his organization are welcome in PFO and you are not considered griefing. Neither will you be able to stroll into any old settlement and order a milkshake-that's why you have alts.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I can not retreat from a statement I never made.
So you're sticking to your guns that whatever it is that goes on in the "PvP zones" (do you mean low or null security zones?) in Eve doesn't count as griefing?
That worries me, because it sounds like you're advocating for the same kind of hands-off approach in PFO. I think that would be a really bad thing. Ryan has been really clear he doesn't want that in PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Moving onto my next question.......
My understanding of the SAD mechanic is that if the offer is accepted, that traveler can then go on his way under a protection of 20 minutes time, that if attacked by myself or anyone else they get a double hit to reputation.
First let me say, I agree with this protection and the penalties associated with it.
Here is the question: If that traveler then picks up additional cargo, while under that 20 minute timer, shouldn't that dispel the timer?
In my view, a new cargo equals a new target opportunity, the traveler is no longer under the agreement that was made during the original SAD. A new SAD would not constitute a "repeated" attack because the traveler entered into a new encounter.
I believe the spirit of the 20 minute protection is to vacate the area and to bring the remainder of the cargo to safety. Not to have that protection while the travelers completes his rounds of picking up several additional loads at several different locations in the same immediate area.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe the spirit of the 20 minute protection is to vacate the area and to bring the remainder of the cargo to safety. Not to have that protection while the travelers completes his rounds of picking up several additional loads at several different locations in the same immediate area.
I believe the spirit of the 20 minute protection is to prevent a player that gives into SADs from being bled dry by multiple SADs. You make an explicit deal of 'Give us X and we'll let you live' based on the information you have at the time of making the deal. It is not about chasing players out of the hex. 'And don't come back' is not implied in the spirit of SAD.
If you hit a target too soon, that's your problem. Part of the challenge of picking your targets wisely.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, I'd prefer to answer by quoting Ryan.
It is not our intention to create an "anything goes" world where players are subjected to endless scams, ganks, and immersion breaking behavior.
It is our intention to apply some of the real world lessons learned in our major cities by focusing on "broken windows" - that is, stopping minor transgressions of our social behavior policies before they escalate out of hand. It is my opinion that doing so will reduce antisocial behavior substantially. People who want to be anonymous jerks will not get much pleasure out of being quickly and unceremoniously silenced, booted, or banned. Without the ability to encite "rage & tears", those folks will have no good reason to haunt Pathfinder Online.
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.
...
Pathfinder Online isn't going to... be an unregulated commentary on the evil that lurks in the hearts of men.
I only played Eve a little bit. I'm basing my understanding of it on Ryan's explanations.
My point is that Ryan sees the unregulated PvP of Eve as a bad thing, and he's explicitly designing PFO to be different. Bluddwolf seems to be arguing that the unregulated PvP in Eve isn't bad, and that "uncontrolled hexes" in PFO should be more like Eve. These are not compatible, and Bluddwolf's vision simply isn't going to win out over Ryan's.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My understanding of the SAD mechanic is that if the offer is accepted, that traveler can then go on his way under a protection of 20 minutes time, that if attacked by myself or [/b]anyone else[/b] they get a double hit to reputation.
The 20 minute timer is there to protect them against additional SADs. You're the only one who takes an extra Reputation hit for killing them.
Here is the question: If that traveler then picks up additional cargo, while under that 20 minute timer, shouldn't that dispel the timer?
I don't see why it should. If they can trick you into issuing a SAD before they're full, why shouldn't they be allowed to capitalize on that?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Moving onto my next question.......
ooohhmaaaan, i had to catch up 84 post.
for what it counts i´d like to give my twopence to that.War: agreed. i wasn´t sure about neutrals, but afer reading some post, yeah, they could be spies is a good retional for me.
pvp-hexes:
First concern, the griefercrowd will settle there and come out in force
when they get bored (burnjita? hulkageddon?).
Second: as proposed atm, we have a globaly regulated pvp-system right?
so, if you want to shift the balance so that areas of the map are forced-pvp, i don´t see a reason anymore to not have NO-pvp-areas.
-Not that i would want that, but if you cater to one groups wants...
i can´t see how that would be different from sending out a decoy that you catch instead of the real deal. it is using a system in a clever way. ;) the traveler in question should better make sure he has his time management right though.
My understanding of the SAD mechanic is that if the offer is accepted, that traveler can then go on his way under a protection of 20 minutes time, that if attacked by myself or anyone else they get a double hit to reputation.First let me say, I agree with this protection and the penalties associated with it.
Here is the question: If that traveler then picks up additional cargo, while under that 20 minute timer, shouldn't that dispel the timer?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I can not retreat from a statement I never made.So you're sticking to your guns that whatever it is that goes on in the "PvP zones" (do you mean low or null security zones?) in Eve doesn't count as griefing?
That worries me, because it sounds like you're advocating for the same kind of hands-off approach in PFO. I think that would be a really bad thing. Ryan has been really clear he doesn't want that in PFO.
Yes I am sticking to the statement I actually made, and not the one you redacted.
I was and did refer to Null Sec. Even low sec would reduce your security status for kills.
So, what exactly constituted griefing in null sec?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I can not retreat from a statement I never made.So you're sticking to your guns that whatever it is that goes on in the "PvP zones" (do you mean low or null security zones?) in Eve doesn't count as griefing?
That worries me, because it sounds like you're advocating for the same kind of hands-off approach in PFO. I think that would be a really bad thing. Ryan has been really clear he doesn't want that in PFO.
Yes I am sticking to the statement I actually made, and not the one you redacted.
I was and did refer to Null Sec. Even low sec would reduce your security status for kills.
So, what exactly constituted griefing in null sec?
Nothing constitutes griefing in null sec. Its a pure PVP area. If you go there you can expect a fight.
Which is exactly what I have been trying to tell people for pages. If you go into the wilderness then you should expect a fight.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I believe the spirit of the 20 minute protection is to vacate the area and to bring the remainder of the cargo to safety. Not to have that protection while the travelers completes his rounds of picking up several additional loads at several different locations in the same immediate area.
I believe the spirit of the 20 minute protection is to prevent a player that gives into SADs from being bled dry by multiple SADs. You make an explicit deal of 'Give us X and we'll let you live' based on the information you have at the time of making the deal. It is not about chasing players out of the hex. 'And don't come back' is not implied in the spirit of SAD.
If you hit a target too soon, that's your problem. Part of the challenge of picking your targets wisely.
I agree with this,
...and I also agree everyone should be flagged in a war zone. We had this problem in Saga of Ryzom, neutrals could not be attacked and so it became a strategy to use neutrals to spy, spot, and feed information to the opponent...and we could do nothing to stop it.
There should be a nice buffer zone with UI warnings.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It would be cool if what the base disagreements in all of these posts were, could be actually laid out simply. Without malice, without names, without name calling. Just the base disagreements.
I will bet that we can't even agree, anymore, what those are.
It would be cool, because then maybe Ryan or someone could come in here and settle a few things. I don't think that they like seeing the community tearing itself apart.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I will start (with just one), unless someone beats me to it.
I don't like having posters with concerns about possible abusive PVP being chased away with broad statements and put downs.
Not really a game issue or one that Ryan will likely care about, but that is one place where this started.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
So i've partnered up with some other new-to-pvp friends with a common goal of giving some other eve veteran friends of ours some grief in their sov space. We're not trying to take them down, we just want to annoy them for a while and have enough resources available to blow for the fun of it.Does anyone have suggestions on some guerilla tactics small gangs of mostly pvp-inexperienced pilots could partake in to spice up their lives? Bubble camps are a bit obvious and while they can be fun for a while it just doesn't make much of an impact.
Suggestions offered varied:
Get some cans an anchor them within dscan of something important (belt, station, custom office, gate), and rename them to something annoyintg but not against the term of service.
Not just inconceivable, but there are advice discussions about it.
EDIT: Fixed quote link.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree low sec is a pure PvP zone in EVE...I will even agree there is no griefing. If you go there, you must go with the expectation of a fight and the understanding that there is a chance you will not survive. Everyone can kill each other without real repercussions in game.
What I read into Ryan's comments is that no place in PFO will be like that. Open world PvP (of which I am a huge advocate), does not mean PvP without repercussions. I support your right to Steal At Daggerpoint the belongings of others...anywhere you want. I also support alignment and rep hits in response to all actions, for better or worse...and as everyone knows I also think the robbed should be able to alter your fame with his/her factions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My understanding of the SAD mechanic is that if the offer is accepted, that traveler can then go on his way under a protection of 20 minutes time, that if attacked by myself or anyone else they get a double hit to reputation.
First let me say, I agree with this protection and the penalties associated with it.
Here is the question: If that traveler then picks up additional cargo, while under that 20 minute timer, shouldn't that dispel the timer?
I asked upthread if anybody had a GW quote that says that the Outlaw can demand goods, or if is it just money/coin. If you can only demand coin, and the traveler paid, then I think he just bought his 20 minutes of immunity, and he can pick up more cargo if he chooses.
Having said that, I think the SAD mechanism (coin or loot, for example) has some gaps in it that I expect GW will fill before launch.
Edit: and the new loot drop rules in today's blog entry change things a lot, if killing your victim yields 75% of his unthreaded goods.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree low sec is a pure PvP zone in EVE...I will even agree there is no griefing. If you go there, you must go with the expectation of a fight and the understanding that there is a chance you will not survive. Everyone can kill each other without real repercussions in game.
What I read into Ryan's comments is that no place in PFO will be like that. Open world PvP (of which I am a huge advocate), does not mean PvP without repercussions. I support your right to Steal At Daggerpoint the belongings of others...anywhere you want. I also support alignment and rep hits in response to all actions, for better or worse...and as everyone knows I also think the robbed should be able to alter your fame with his/her factions.
I guess the big discussion we are at... When is that line crossed.
If I come up against someone I intend to SAD, and it turns out it is someone who repeatedly attacks first because of the PVP flag I am carrying... At which point do I just attack that person first and not give them the initiative?
If it is someone that does this, attacking first, I will return the favor even if it means an alignment or reputation hit. I am fine with that, but I dont want to hear later that Im griefing or RPKing.
Edit: I think modifying standings or whatever in relation to your own faction should be up to you. My only concern would be with everyone else. If you convince them to change standings thats fine, but it shouldnt be dictated by your own standings alone.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I come up against someone I intend to SAD, and it turns out it is someone who repeatedly attacks first because of the PVP flag I am carrying... At which point do I just attack that person first and not give them the initiative?
If it is someone that does this, attacking first, I will return the favor even if it means an alignment or reputation hit. I am fine with that, but I dont want to hear later that Im griefing or RPKing.
SAD gives boosts to stealth; I assume it can be launched from ambush so the other side doesn't normally see you first.
If you're riding the highroad and someone might attack you (because you're wearing a PvP flag - should you be immune?)... well, I guess you decide if you'll remain an Outlaw or drop the Outlaw flag to attack the other guy first. I'd suggest that you let him attack first if you think you can take him: you keep the Outlaw flag and get to loot his body. Otherwise, flee.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Looks like I missed the action on the way home...
What is truly hilarious is that they erased the post where you said to let our discussion move on and let the past be the past, and then erased my post agreeing and answering your questions politely.....but they left the ones up where I said the ever evil ka ka words. Go figure. If you could remember what you asked me, I think it was about griefing, I will be back on after making dinner to continue the new and improved constructive dialogues.