Goblin Squad Member
|
You say that GW is trying to change the minds of non PvPers to be more accepting of PvP, by changing the practices of PvP through limitations, and negative consequences attached to PvP.
Another detail that might be worth pointing out, if I may, is that Ryan tends to prefer talking about Jerks rather than PvP. There are jerks in PvE no question. PvP includes simply the most noticeable cases, but I suspect there will be systems in place for PvE jerks as well. No idea what they might be, but maybe this will give some of us hope, and PvP is just the example case.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That this is a PvP game with some pve elements, not that its a pve game with some pvp elements.American Football is not a game about tackling.
Yet everything you do in football involves tackling, being tackled, or avoiding a tackle.
Everything in PFO will be directly or indirectly linked to PVP. In some way shape or form.
But then again we are talking about an Open World Sandbox PVP game not American Football.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That this is a PvP game with some pve elements, not that its a pve game with some pvp elements.American Football is not a game about tackling.Yet everything you do in football involves tackling, being tackled, or avoiding a tackle.
Everything in PFO will be directly or indirectly linked to PVP. In some way shape or form.
But then again we are talking about an Open World Sandbox PVP game not American Football.
Everything you do in Football is about getting the ball to the other end of the field. Tackling is something to deal with along the way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Everything you do in Football is about getting the ball to the other end of the field. Tackling is something to deal with along the way.That this is a PvP game with some pve elements, not that its a pve game with some pvp elements.American Football is not a game about tackling.Yet everything you do in football involves tackling, being tackled, or avoiding a tackle.
Everything in PFO will be directly or indirectly linked to PVP. In some way shape or form.
But then again we are talking about an Open World Sandbox PVP game not American Football.
Yes, the point is to get the ball to the other end of the field. Yet the whole time you have your mind on not being tackled.
But I think this is a bit off topic, we were discussing how nonPVPers can be just as toxic as PVPers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In (American) football I played an offensive and defensive tackle. The point of my positions was to smash people. For me football was about tackling. Hence the name of my position. They put me in that position because I was 6'7" and well over 200 pounds. It was a position very well suited to my strengths and I enjoyed playing it. But that was just one position on the field. There were other positions that were about running, and passing, and getting that ball over the line. Without those positions, mine would have been meaningless. What's the point of smashing through the opponent's line or holding yours if nobody is trying to advance the ball?
It's an extremely apt comparison, both in that I will be playing roughly the same position in PFO. Like with football PvP is a position well suited to my strengths and interests, but there are others with different strengths and interests. And just like football, my position will be meaningless without crafters and PVEers and other players building societies which I must both attack and defend.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The reason that all focus has been on PvP is that it is the largest single factor in either drawing in or chasing away customers. Many games allow you to opt out of crafting, or end-game PvE raids if your favorite aspect is PvP and there is very little lasting harm to your PvP game aside from maybe cheaper access to some nice craftables before you get enough points to buy PvP-oriented gear.
These games never have to segment off PvE to prevent the PvPers from leaving.
These games never have to segment off the crafting to prevent the PvPers from leaving.
These games frequently segment off the PvP to keep the crafters and the PvEers from leaving.
I am all for trying to work out ways to avoid the crappy behavior of end-game elitists who refuse to run with an average-for-first-approach geared player because they don't want to spend the extra 10 minutes it will add to their dungeon run.
But let us at least be honest about what is reflected in the market. PvP-favoring players rarely avoid games that feature other elements and often see them as value adds if they feel like doing something a little lighter for the day. PvE-favoring and Craft-favoring players frequently avoid open PvP because they have the perception (rightly so from many games) that their play styles serve primarily as prey and content. This is why so many games just build out PvE and PvP server rulesets differently.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a community we have a joint problem. The joint problem is that toxic behavior in previous sandbox MMOs has damaged the general public's ability to discriminate between a game mechanic and obnoxious behavior.
If we are to succeed in our quest to rehabilitate PvP and restore it to its rightful place next to crafting, questing and exploring in the list of features people desire in their MMOs we need to go far beyond the minimum to recover that audience.
Again, I don't want to encourage "everything that is not forbidden is permitted" thinking. I want to encourage people to actively work towards taking personal responsibility for collectively fixing a big problem - that too many people think "PvP" means "the game will be filled with jerks doing jerky things to me to a level that is intolerable".
Don't spend time trying to figure out where the line is between ok and not ok. There isn't one. Spend time instead playing far away from the line and encouraging everyone you play with to do the same. Our actions, as a community, are what will allow us to rise above and past the old assumptions that PvP means the game will be toxic.
Sorry buddy (and I dont say that as a negative) but from my themepark and sandbox gaming experience PVE'ers are just as toxic. "Oh great another newb, you cant join us on this raid as you are not enough of a power gamer to have the high end equipment we require."
Most of the toxicity I have seen with PVP in other sandbox games... Or I should say the cause of that perception... is that people in general have lost their competitiveness and hate the fact that they will lose something. In fact it makes them angry... enjoying a sandbox pvp game, then having to pvp when it doesnt suit their schedule.
The biggest complaints I have ever seen on the Eve forums is the fact they lost their shiny ship fit out with all that shiny equipment. Hey lets put a years worth of money into one ship and take it out during a war.
Lack of Competitiveness and...
The difference with PvE games is that if you run into someone that is being a jerk you can simply chose to not associate with them and play with your own group of friends who you know are not jerks.
That's simply not an option in PvP games. There is no freedom of association in them. You can't choose who you interact with and who you don't because uninvited interaction is part of the territory of PvP. That's a HUGE difference.
I say this as someone who enjoys and play PvP in most games OTHER then MMO's and is certainly willing to give it a shot here in PFO.
However in most of the PvP games format I've played there was always the option to choose not to play with individuals who were unpleasant.
Board Games you simply didn't accept invitations to play with that individual again, same with online Turn Based or Real Time Strategy Games. With FPS games you simply found a different server for the next match.
The 2 MMO's that I've played which were PvP focused and seemed to have generaly enjoyable atmosphere's as well as gameplay were PlanetSide2 and WWII Online. I'm not sure exactly why that was, other then both played like FPS games.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It sounds to me like the same problem that pervades PvP also infects the political player organization in raid systems of PvE games.
Agreed, personally I have no interest in raiding, never have...for the reasons mentioned here. I have always been too casual a player to care about grinding up to the perfect gear/spec. Good thing GW is not wasting their time focusing on raid mechanics.
My question then, is GW "griefing" raiders by totally excluding that gaming option from the game? Should they take a rep or alignment hit? Or be outright banned?
How dare GW spend so much time building a "better" PvP system instead of focusing of raiding...oh wait, that was not the point...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But let us at least be honest about what is reflected in the market. PvP-favoring players rarely avoid games that feature other elements and often see them as value adds if they feel like doing something a little lighter for the day. PvE-favoring and Craft-favoring players frequently avoid open PvP because they have the perception (rightly so from many games) that their play styles serve primarily as prey and content. This is why so many games just build out PvE and PvP server rulesets differently.
Your right, PVP favoring players do not avoid games that have crafting and PVE content.
Then again, the people who are PVP favoring and do not want anything to do with crafting and PVE... dont play MMORPG's.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But let us at least be honest about what is reflected in the market. PvP-favoring players rarely avoid games that feature other elements and often see them as value adds if they feel like doing something a little lighter for the day. PvE-favoring and Craft-favoring players frequently avoid open PvP because they have the perception (rightly so from many games) that their play styles serve primarily as prey and content. This is why so many games just build out PvE and PvP server rulesets differently.Your right, PVP favoring players do not avoid games that have crafting and PVE content.
Then again, the people who are PVP favoring and do not want anything to do with crafting and PVE... dont play MMORPG's.
Eh. I've seen plenty of people who don't touch Crafting or PvE in games like EVE, WoW and GW2. I mean in WoW there's the whole "twink" culture of getting the most badass character possible at level 19 just to dominate PvP. If they do any PvE at all (as opposed to getting it all from the Auction House), it's because the item they want is Bind on Pickup.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How is the crafter that is taking all the lessons you want them to learn, Bluddwolf, ruining the game for anyone?
We are not talking about griefing here, never have been, so "ruining the game" is not on the table.
I'm not quite sure what your question is asking?
How does a crafter take away from someone else's game? If that is what you meant, that is easy.
A crafter takes away from other crafters. If I were to be a crafter, I would see other crafters, especially those with more skill than I have, as harming me. I would counter them, from behind the scenes. I would hire assassins to kill him frequently, but not directly through my own character but through an alt, and via meta game communications. I would have my adversary killed as often as I could afford. I would hire bandits to raid his suppliers. I would do whatever it took to drive my competitor from my settlement, which is necessary if markets remain local.
I would do the exact same things if I were a merchant or a harvester. Any other merchant or harvester is my competition. I would use whatever means necessary to defeat them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That this is a PvP game with some pve elements, not that its a pve game with some pvp elements.American Football is not a game about tackling.
Im not sure if that fits. unless im mistaken the central theme of PfO is territory and resource control. Systems are being built in order to provide a limited resource so that players compete to control it.
SO unless there is a PvE method that you can do to take over someone's settlement that does not involve conflict with the settlements' players, I dont see how what you say fits.
After a certain point there is only ONE way to expand, and that is to take away what another player has. There is no if ands or buts about that, unless iv missed a major update.
The result is that almost the entirety of the conflict in PfO arises from player vs player confrontation...pvp. PvP also includes thing like having spys in other organization and other non combat conflict that puts players at odds with other players.
And sure football isnt about tackling. However tackling is one of the foundational skills in the sport. Fully half of the people on the field are looking to tackle the other team. So while yes the goal of the game is to move the ball and score, the primary method to prevent that from happening is to tackle the person with the ball. I suppose you can say that making sure they dont catch passes, intercepting passes, knocking the ball away are not tackling, but the fact of the matter is that one team is in conflict with the other team, and the method they employ is basically pvp, they just use different strategies to get it done.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
How is the crafter that is taking all the lessons you want them to learn, Bluddwolf, ruining the game for anyone?We are not talking about griefing here, never have been, so "ruining the game" is not on the table.
I'm not quite sure what your question is asking?
How does a crafter take away from someone else's game? If that is what you meant, that is easy.
A crafter takes away from other crafters. If I were to be a crafter, I would see other crafters, especially those with more skill than I have, as harming me. I would counter them, from behind the scenes. I would hire assassins to kill him frequently, but not directly through my own character but through an alt, and via meta game communications. I would have my adversary killed as often as I could afford. I would hire bandits to raid his suppliers. I would do whatever it took to drive my competitor from my settlement, which is necessary if markets remain local.
I would do the exact same things if I were a merchant or a harvester. Any other merchant or harvester is my competition. I would use whatever means necessary to defeat them.
I think you confused harming you with harming your character. The things a crafter-griefer can do to harm you are roughly similar to what any other type of griefer can do. For example, a merchant character could purchase and destroy all of a particular resource, much like a high-level WoW character could prevent anyone in a low-level area from defeating a particular quest monster. Then there are the various forms of 'verbal' abuse possible on chat, which are independent of niche.
Cutthroat business practices aren't necessarily griefing by themselves- just like camping a lower-level spawn isn't. However, when individual actions which might be part of a business are taken in a pattern which is not a business and is intended to prevent others from playing the game, it seems reasonable to call said behavior griefing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cutthroat business practices aren't necessarily griefing by themselves- just like camping a lower-level spawn isn't. However, when individual actions which might be part of a business are taken in a pattern which is not a business and is intended to prevent others from playing the game, it seems reasonable to call said behavior griefing.
This is a huge problem I am having with some people on this forum. Stopping your rival being successful whether it is in a pure pvp arena or in the indirect pvp arena that is busines . It is not griefing it is doing what you have to do to be successful.
If you don't want to compete and go whining to Ryan about how the other nasty merchant won't let you make a profit because he is undercuttting you or preventing you from getting market supplies I would suggest you are probably in the wrong game. Man up and work out how to beat the other guy
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cutthroat business practices aren't necessarily griefing by themselves- just like camping a lower-level spawn isn't. However, when individual actions which might be part of a business are taken in a pattern which is not a business and is intended to prevent others from playing the game, it seems reasonable to call said behavior griefing.This is a huge problem I am having with people on this forum. Stopping your rival being successful whether it is in a pure pvp arena or in the indirect pvp arena that is busines . It is not griefing it is doing what you have to do to be successful.
I don't think anyone is objecting to that. I know I intend to go after my rivals on every front possible. I think what's being objected to is the mentality so often seen in these games that everyone is your rival.
This is a virtual world not a chess match or a game of Halo. Some people will be doing things that harm you. Some will be doing things that help you. Some one greatly effect you in any way at all. Sure, that other guy out hunting wolves may lower the price of the pelts you bring to market but that guy in town making fur jackets is the reason there is a demand for wolf pelts in the first place. Whether or not he belongs to your group. And those people out adventuring on that snow covered mountain peak are the reason that guy is making fur jackets. And that guy out harvesting acorns... why should you even give a crap about him?
The meaningful choice in game-play is what should you do about the other guy hunting wolves? What should you do about the people living in that settlement you want for your own group? Would the danger that comes from robbing that caravan of gold still make it worth your while to rob? That's what most of us are here for. That's what makes the difference between a legitimate good-aligned playstyle and a legitimate evil playstyle. Not "LOL I KILLED JOO ACORN HAVESTING NOOB! LOLZ! LOLZ!" *teabag* "U MAD BRO?!" That's what makes you toxic to the community, and even a griefer
I think the point Decius is making is if the point in market PvP is to edge out competition so you can make a higher profit in the end, that's meaningful. If it's just to ruin the market to piss people off. That's meaningless. I think such cases will be rare enough and hard enough to identify that it won't be worthwhile to regulate market PvP, but I agree with the sentiment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's what makes you toxic to the community, and even a griefer
Recommend we try to keep our points objective rather than personal. This looks like you are identifying Steelwing personally as a griefer.
Your observation may be correct or it may not, but the only relevance is that his point of view is contributing to our shared understanding of the problem we are trying to solve. I think the problem we are trying to solve is how to do PvP right, such that not only PvP but PvE players, not only dedicated but casual play styles can fit well together in the same game. PvP done right. RP done right. PvE where it makes sense, and always within an environment each faction can enjoy. That is a tall order and without each faction having their say our mission will most likely fail.
Reactionary personal confrontation is counterproductive. We are seeking constructive understanding of a common problem with the objective of finding solutions. The input we get from Steelwing's competitive faction are archetypical and necessary for a complete solution.
It will be better to save the confrontation for EE/OE where players can actually do something about domination.
Instead we should attempt to always replace personal accusations with objective descriptions. Say what you mean but before posting edit the subjective to the objective. In stead of 'That's what makes you toxic to the community, and even a griefer' let's say 'That's what makes Jerks toxic to the community, and even griefers.'
Steelwing's presentation style asserts Alpha dominance which prompts aggressive reactions in other Alpha types, but conversational domination only becomes real when someone reacts predictably to his stimulus. Causing reaction is control. Reactionary replies are a form of submission.
Reactionary replies make domination real.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's what most of us are here for. That's what makes the difference between a legitimate good-aligned playstyle and a legitimate evil playstyle. Not "LOL I KILLED JOO ACORN HAVESTING NOOB! LOLZ!...
Not one person, in over the year that I have been reading these forums, has advocated this.
I may have used it as an extreme example of what could happen, but never what should happen. This is where the extremes on either side, push both even further apart.
Ryan said he want to bring PVP, PVE, Crafting, Exploration on par with each other. That I can hope for, if the system is integrated well enough to support it. But that can not be conceptually or mechanically achieved if only one of those aspects bears all of the negative responsibilities of its actions.
I have said over and over again. Give us all the good reasons to PVP, in the ways that GW wants us to, and they will be less concerned with putting in layers of consequences when it is not.
If PFO is about Settlement vs. Settlement conflict (competition or conquest), then any actions directly related to that should have multiple incentives and no negative consequences for participating in it (other than the win vs. loss consequence).
That way, actions outside of what GW wants to see will be rare, have less impact and can be dealt with more efficiently and severely.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stopping your rival being successful whether it is in a pure pvp arena or in the indirect pvp arena that is busines . It is not griefing it is doing what you have to do to be successful.
So is stopping your rival being successful, perhaps by convincing him not to play PFO at all, also playing the game? This seems to me not a reductio ad absurdum, but the next small step on the road you've laid out here.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This looks like you are identifying Steelwing personally as a griefer.
Since we don't yet have a game to play, I have trouble thinking of anyone as an actual griefer. Some folks here, however, do seem to have an easier time than others advocating activities and mind-sets that, if carried into PFO itself, will feel kinda griefy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan said he want to bring PVP, PVE, Crafting, Exploration on par with each other. That I can hope for, if the system is integrated well enough to support it. But that can not be conceptually or mechanically achieved if only one of those aspects bears all of the negative responsibilities of its actions.
I have said over and over again. Give us all the good reasons to PVP, in the ways that GW wants us to, and they will be less concerned with putting in layers of consequences when it is not.
Well said, and I concur.
If PFO is about Settlement vs. Settlement conflict (competition or conquest), then any actions directly related to that should have multiple incentives and no negative consequences for participating in it (other than the win vs. loss consequence).
I don't want to recommend trying to limit their toolset. I do recommend leaving the negative consequences on the table (or in the toolbox).
I don't think it is wise to try and limit the developers' options. If everyone is enticed into good behavior by the rewards, then that will be great and the stick will never be seen anyway.
However we are dealing with the most devious, sneaky, ingenious species on Earth. Walk softly and carry a BEEG stick.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's what makes you toxic to the community, and even a griefer.Recommend we try to keep our points objective rather than personal. This looks like you are identifying Steelwing personally as a griefer.
The comment was not aimed specifically at Steelwing. In this case "you" was addressing the audience in much the same way as. "Eating proper portions of healthy foods and exercising regularly is how you maintain a healthy weight. Not doing these things is what makes you fat."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's what makes you toxic to the community, and even a grieferRecommend we try to keep our points objective rather than personal. This looks like you are identifying Steelwing personally as a griefer.
Looking at that quote in context, I think it's pretty clear that Andius was not referring to Steelwing personally.
The meaningful choice in game-play is what should you do about the other guy hunting wolves? What should you do about the people living in that settlement you want for your own group? Would the danger that comes from robbing that caravan of gold still make it worth your while to rob? That's what most of us are here for. That's what makes the difference between a legitimate good-aligned playstyle and a legitimate evil playstyle. Not "LOL I KILLED JOO ACORN HAVESTING NOOB! LOLZ! LOLZ!" *teabag* "U MAD BRO?!" That's what makes you toxic to the community, and even a griefer
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That this is a PvP game with some pve elements, not that its a pve game with some pvp elements.American Football is not a game about tackling.Yet everything you do in football involves tackling, being tackled, or avoiding a tackle.
Everything in PFO will be directly or indirectly linked to PVP. In some way shape or form.
But then again we are talking about an Open World Sandbox PVP game not American Football.
Nobody scores more points than the kicker, who almost never tackles or gets tackled.
Don't try me I can do football analogies ALL DAY LONG.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's important first to understand the fundemental difference between PvP and PvE from the perspective of the PvE player.
In PvE if you find that another player is being a jerk or are disturbed by that player, you can simply walk away and choose not to associate with them. If they follow you, seek you out or try to interact with you after that then that becomes harrasment and is a violation of most games Terms of Service. That's actualy true in PvP FPS games too, where you can just go to a different server for the next match.
In a PvP game like PFO uninvited interaction is part of the territory, there is no getting around it. People have a legitimate game-play reason to seek you out when you don't want them to do so. That's going to be a tough hurdle to get over if you really do want people that are generaly shy about doing PvP in MMO's to be accepting of it as a legitimate part of gameplay.
If that's the case, then I think it's going to be especialy important to not be percieved as anywhere near "jerk-like" in ones behavior to other players.
Note, it may sound a bit odd but from my days of playing a text based MUD that did have player character villians that did commit the occasional (pking was VERY infrequent) murder was that they often would whisper to thier victem afterwards something like "nothing personal" or "good RP" or "this is why my character did this" or "if you want any advice on the game just send me a tell OOC". That often went a long way toward making things alright... just a reminder from the person that I'm playing a game here and so are you, as a player I want you to enjoy the game even if my character is a bit of a SOB that needs to slit your characters throat in order to accomplish his objectives.
Stopping your rival being successful whether it is in a pure pvp arena or in the indirect pvp arena that is busines . It is not griefing it is doing what you have to do to be successful.So is stopping your rival being successful, perhaps by convincing him not to play PFO at all, also playing the game? This seems to me not a reductio ad absurdum, but the next small step on the road you've laid out here.
This is an absurd speculation and you could make it about any PVP whatsoever. PfO will be a competitive game this is competition. If someone cannot handle competition that is hardly the fault of those competing.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stopping your rival being successful whether it is in a pure pvp arena or in the indirect pvp arena that is busines . It is not griefing it is doing what you have to do to be successful.So is stopping your rival being successful, perhaps by convincing him not to play PFO at all, also playing the game? This seems to me not a reductio ad absurdum, but the next small step on the road you've laid out here.This is an absurd speculation and you could make it about any PVP whatsoever. PfO will be a competitive game this is competition. If someone cannot handle competition that is hardly the fault of those competing.
Exactly: it's about competition, not destruction. If there's no coin to be had by destroying someone else, there's probably no valid reason to do it. When players get to the size that they can destructively manipulate local markets, then they are also at the point where they should be able to predict what manipulations are profitable and what ones aren't, and players who consistently lose money in manipulating the market to harm others will be identified.
Just like characters who repeatedly kill other characters without profit will be identified.
Stopping your rival being successful whether it is in a pure pvp arena or in the indirect pvp arena that is busines . It is not griefing it is doing what you have to do to be successful.So is stopping your rival being successful, perhaps by convincing him not to play PFO at all, also playing the game? This seems to me not a reductio ad absurdum, but the next small step on the road you've laid out here.This is an absurd speculation and you could make it about any PVP whatsoever. PfO will be a competitive game this is competition. If someone cannot handle competition that is hardly the fault of those competing.
Exactly: it's about competition, not destruction. If there's no coin to be had by destroying someone else, there's probably no valid reason to do it. When players get to the size that they can destructively manipulate local markets, then they are also at the point where they should be able to predict what manipulations are profitable and what ones aren't, and players who consistently lose money in manipulating the market to harm others will be identified.
Just like characters who repeatedly kill other characters without profit will be identified.
There is always profit to be had potentially in killing other players because they may have lootable equipment
Manipulations of markets are always profitable if successful. The only time people will lose money manipulating markets is because they fail to do so. Failing to manipulate a market is hardly griefing.
You are also with the statement " If there's no coin to be had by destroying someone else, there's probably no valid reason to do it" neglecting the perfectly valid reason to do it which is by destroying it I am denying its use to my enemy.
I may have no interest in setting up for example a POI in a particular hex but it certainly is a valid move to destroy a POI set up by others in order to deny them control of the land. Just as it is a valid move to destroy shipments of wood rather than let them get into enemy hands. This is exactly why retreating armies would often burn crops and buildings as they went, to deny the enemy.
I would certainly expect us to be taking a policy of destroying settlements that are becoming too advanced even if we do not want them for ourselves purely as a defensive measure. Just like a disease you are more easily cured if treated early rather than be allowed to develop into a full blown case
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Market manipulation in the sense of "buy all the lion meat and resell it at inflated prices" is the probably-profitable kind.
Market manipulation of "buy all of the cotton and burn it because a weaver objected to my off-color joke" is the griefing kind.
Traditional economics clearly explains how to oppose the former, but offers little in the way of how a player could respond to the latter.
Market manipulation in the sense of "buy all the lion meat and resell it at inflated prices" is the probably-profitable kind.
Market manipulation of "buy all of the cotton and burn it because a weaver objected to my off-color joke" is the griefing kind.Traditional economics clearly explains how to oppose the former, but offers little in the way of how a player could respond to the latter.
Who said anything about buying and destroying. I talked about destroying supplies in transit certainly. I don't need to destroy something I buy off the market because it is in my possession and I can merely stockpile it for later use after I have driven your weavers out of business. Besides which the only reason I would be trying to do so would be because I am in the weaving market myself which sort of implies I have a use for the cotton I buy.
I will however certainly be targetting your cotton harvesting and destroying your outposts and ambushing and burning your cotton wagons.
As to targetting people for off colour jokes etc. Well the only person I have seen suggest they would do such a thing is that paragon of anti griefer goodness Andius
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Everyone is a rival
If you are not with me, by default that means you are against me. If you are part of someone elses team you are a threat. Why? Because resources are limited and there is only one way to get more of them, and thats to take it from someone else. Sure right NOW you might not be interested in expanding, but what happens when your settlement caps out and you run out of training spots for your members? You only have two options.
The first is that you get rid of members until you have enough training for people who are left, the second is that you expand your territory so that you have more settlements thus you can provide more training.
Either you are taking it directly from gatherers or merchants moving goods or you are preventing them from gathering in the first place or you control the market. You do the first by killing and looting them, you do the second by controlling territory (so they cant control it) or by destroying their outposts/gathering bases, and you do the last by forming a monopoly.
what I find worrying is that it seems like many players are thinking this game is a pve game. so you get a settlement and build it up and unless you opt in you never have to pvp and you wont lose your settlement. The game is build around player conflict.
It almost seems like people expect this game to be like Ragnarok Online, where its basically all PvE and then once in a while they open up settlements to be attacked at scheduled times and only during those times.
I honestly hope thats not the case. One major issue I see is that I would consider doing things like killing every merchant/gatherer of a target settlement before officially declaring war as part of the contest and fair in order to get an advantage. I am afraid that many many people here will look at it like its griefing. I am afraid that people will think that any pvp where they dont specifically flag themselves is griefing when in truth is just playing the game.
As to targetting people for off colour jokes etc. Well the only person I have seen suggest they would do such a thing is that paragon of anti griefer goodness AndiusQuote please.
Digs in his box of quotes
Cant find the original for some reason but here is hobs response to it including the requote
A medium rep player will deal with most of these and sometimes kill off people they "just don't like" for instance if I killed anyone who aggravated me on the forums.
That's how I would like it anyway.
First, my bolding for emphasis. Also, I included the last part because it seems to reference your whole post (including the first quoted portion above), which would lead me to believe that the first portion above is not a hypothetical, but your possible intended action.
Question - are you saying you intend to potentially kill people in-game because they aggravate you on the forums?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fun Police Alert:
Andius has demonstrated premeditated intent to commit a Fun Crime.
Penalization Level increased to maximum!
;-)
Fun Police Alert:
Andius has demonstrated premeditated intent to commit a Fun Crime.
Penalization Level increased to maximum!;-)
I don't particularly care what Andius does or does not do in this vein. I was merely responding to someone (Decius) painting a picture of me going after someone for daring to make an offcolor joke when I had done no such thing and that there is only one person who has alluded to doing so *Shrug* .As the prospect of someone initiating pvp due to what someone said seemed to concern Decius so much I felt it my duty as a friend to bring it to his attention that it was something his avowed ally seemed to be intending.
See you act all friendly and get berated for it
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone is a rival
If you are not with me, by default that means you are against me. If you are part of someone elses team you are a threat. Why? Because resources are limited and there is only one way to get more of them, and thats to take it from someone else.
That's making a huge assumption about the scarcity resources but let's think about this for a second. If you are playing the game by yourself you must produce every item you use yourself, gather the materials yourself, come up with any a tricks and strategies you will use yourself, transport anything you need moved yourself etc.
Not only does this have you engaging in a ton of activities, some of which you will enjoy more than others, but it has your skill training all over the place. You will not be very effective at anything because of all the roles you must fill.
Now a baker joins the game. We'll say you don't enjoy baking. He specializes in producing bread. He tailors his skills to producing large volumes of quality bread. What does this mean to you? You can now purchase bread from him, allowing you access to higher quality food more cheaply, and allowing you to refocus the training and effort you were using to create food. Then a leather worker joins. You use leather armor and he can also provide you with things like bags, quivers, and saddles that you might not have even had before, increasing your efficiency in various tasks and allowing you to refocus the effort you were using to create and mend your own boots and armor.
Basically with each new person joining the economy it runs more efficiently and your coin goes further. There a few exceptions. When someone joins and provides a service close enough to the services you provide that it reduces your business or forces you to lower prices. Or when as you stated, access to the resources you desire becomes more limited.
But overall others are increase your own economic value. It's why humans tend to congregate together into towns, cities, and eventually metropolises despite all the other downsides of doing so. It's why the standard of living you enjoy makes you seem a god compared to your hunter-gatherer ancestors.
Cooperation yields abundant fruits for all involved, even if all that cooperation entails is the exchange of goods and services. Indeed the cases where someone's efforts do not indirectly aid you in at least a minor way are the exception to the rule. Not the rule.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As to targetting people for off colour jokes etc. Well the only person I have seen suggest they would do such a thing is that paragon of anti griefer goodness AndiusQuote please.Digs in his box of quotes
Cant find the original for some reason but here is hobs response to it including the requote
A medium rep player will deal with most of these and sometimes kill off people they "just don't like" for instance if I killed anyone who aggravated me on the forums.
That's how I would like it anyway.
First, my bolding for emphasis. Also, I included the last part because it seems to reference your whole post (including the first quoted portion above), which would lead me to believe that the first portion above is not a hypothetical, but your possible intended action.
Question - are you saying you intend to potentially kill people in-game because they aggravate you on the forums?
As can be seen by my answer in the second post, it is clearly misrepresenting my position to say I will kill people based on them aggravating me on the forums. I clearly state my position in that I believe it is non-toxic but will not be engaging in it.
I didn't say anything even remotely related to "dirty jokes."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Overall im not talking about crafted goods.
If i was going to make a hardcore settlement I will do EVERYTHING in my power to ensure that I have access and control as much crafting as I can in house. I will expect people to run crafter/gatherer alts so that I am able to do that. I will trade with others where its cheaper and better for me to do so. however you should NEVER be at the point where you are relying on someone else, that opens you to attack.
If you are relying on an armor crafter to make all your T3 goods, then in order to get rid of your settlements settlements ability to easily get T3 goods I have to take out that crafter. Because you now do not have someone that can do that, i have created an advantage. Now im not saying to not buy T3 gear from someone else, it makes perfect sense to do so if you can do it in an economical way (it costs you less to buy from them, you have higher priority crafting you are currently working on), but you shouldnt place yourself in a situation where you you rely on someone else.
Overall the resource i am talking about is training. Training is a finite resource that cannot be gathered outside of one very specific way, which is controlling territory, either settlements or PoIs. High level training requires settlements. If your settlement hits the point where you can no longer provide adequate training to all your members you have three options available to you. the first is to ration the training, which will probably piss off the people who cant get training, the second is to kick out members until you can support the number of members you have, which will probably piss those people off, or you can expand and take over someone elses settlement, which will piss those people off.
Training is what I think will drive a lot of the pvp, along with the normal resource control. Remember a settlement isnt about having a really nice looking base you can brag about, there are serious things that you cannot do if you do not have one.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If any group controls enough power that it can deny all other factions access to anything other than a localized resource it will HAV grown so powerful that all other factions will unite against them or the games stagnates until they inevitably start to turn on each other and tear themselves apart.
It's better to simply assume others will eventually gain access to everything you can create, and target enemy factions and those who stand directly between you and your goals.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Here is the thing, I dont need to control say all the metal that can be mined in PfO.
I have to control how much metal YOU can get.
If i make the choice to go to war with you, then before I actually siege your settlement im going to do everything in my power to make it so that you dont have enough supplies to outfit your members or to repair the siege damage.
This means that I will target your gatherers and make sure they cannot bring in enough metal for you to make armor. if you buy metal from someone else, im going to target either that merchant or the person who is carrying the goods. If you go....well i cant get metal so ill try to just buy the armor, im going to target whoever gets the armor to you or the merchant who is supplying you. I can either kill the merchant and tell him everytime he does business with you he will suffer or give him an incentive to not do business with you.
So its not about me controlling everything, its about me making sure you cant get what you need.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here is the thing, I dont need to control say all the metal that can be mined in PfO.
I have to control how much metal YOU can get.
If i make the choice to go to war with you, then before I actually siege your settlement im going to do everything in my power to make it so that you dont have enough supplies to outfit your members or to repair the siege damage.
This means that I will target your gatherers and make sure they cannot bring in enough metal for you to make armor. if you buy metal from someone else, im going to target either that merchant or the person who is carrying the goods. If you go....well i cant get metal so ill try to just buy the armor, im going to target whoever gets the armor to you or the merchant who is supplying you. I can either kill the merchant and tell him everytime he does business with you he will suffer or give him an incentive to not do business with you.
So its not about me controlling everything, its about me making sure you cant get what you need.
Good luck! You'll need it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is the thing, I dont need to control say all the metal that can be mined in PfO.
I have to control how much metal YOU can get.
If i make the choice to go to war with you, then before I actually siege your settlement im going to do everything in my power to make it so that you dont have enough supplies to outfit your members or to repair the siege damage.
This means that I will target your gatherers and make sure they cannot bring in enough metal for you to make armor. if you buy metal from someone else, im going to target either that merchant or the person who is carrying the goods. If you go....well i cant get metal so ill try to just buy the armor, im going to target whoever gets the armor to you or the merchant who is supplying you. I can either kill the merchant and tell him everytime he does business with you he will suffer or give him an incentive to not do business with you.
So its not about me controlling everything, its about me making sure you cant get what you need.
None of this is assuming everyone is your rival. It's assuming those doing business with your enemies are your rivals. I don't disagree with that. I disagree with this:
Everyone is a rival
If you are not with me, by default that means you are against me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
sure everyone is a rival. If at basically any time I can be attacked I have to treat others as threats. This doesnt mean that I attack them every time I see them, it means that we are in contest to each other. We both wan the same things, the resources that are around the world.
If you are not harvesting or producing for me you are a rival. you are rival in economics because you are selling the same type of goods I am, or you are trying to harvest the same materials I am, or you are trying to buy the same goods I am, or you control settlements that I need to expand. you are a rival because you are recruiting valuable players who are good at what they do and I want those players to be on my team, weather they provide muscle, harvesting, crafting, or organizational management. You could be a direct rival where we are actually fighting.
If you are not part of my settlement or you are not someone I trust and we have some sort of alliance with, I have to prepare for the fact that at any time you COULD attack me. Im not saying everyone will do that, but im saying a settlement that is not prepared to go to war will be a settlement that gets targeted and taken over.
That doesnt take into account folks that will target my people to loot things off their corpse.
So if you are not with me you are against me. We may not be conflicting by beating each other with swords, but thats not the only way someone can be in conflict.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose those are your views to hold. They may drag us into conflict if you are serious enough about them but that's part of what this game is about. I choose to view all who are not in league with those who are in opposition with me as friends. Partially because I honestly believe seeing the economy, and more importantly this game succeed are indeed good for me. Partially because I view it as a self-fulfilling prophecy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...and then we come to the question: Will Assassins have a place in PFO?
I know I should save this for the Goodfellow, but I can't resist. I certainly intend to use our internal core of Assassins extensively. My only fear is that GW will try to limit their use to political targets, and not just any target that needs to have a message sent to.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...and then we come to the question: Will Assassins have a place in PFO?
I don't see why not. By the rules they have to be evil. But there are many situations where an Assassin can do good by killing.
Kill the Tyrant that wants to start a war against the peaceful neighbor, get hired to kill a slave boss that stole your sister, etc...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I choose to view all who are not in league with those who are in opposition with me as friends. Partially because I honestly believe seeing the economy, and more importantly this game succeed are indeed good for me. Partially because I view it as a self-fulfilling prophecy.
And this, even with all the things we do not agree upon (and there have been many), is the reason Phaeros will friends, if not allies, with Brighthaven.