Goblin Squad Member
|
Then how do you account for the cowardice that we have probably all seen in an OPen World PVP MMO?
That's an extremely vague thing you're asking me to account for.
I expect it will be exceedingly easy to hold the line against a mob, because it will be obviously effective to do so.
It will probably be harder to hold the line against another army, but that's not really what we're talking about here.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I doubt it requires military experience, but wartime service in PFO might require commitment equal to a raiding guild in a themepark game.
In EVE I've been on my fair share of alarm-clock ops and multi-hour fights. It's part of doing business if you are serious about controlling, defending, or taking territory in a global game. I've also spent hours on end doing logistics work, making sure that ships and modules are at the staging areas in sufficient numbers, fitted and ready to go, keeping POSes and jump bridges fueled and making sure there's enough LO for cynos to be lit. I've even been called on the carpet because my killboard was showing that I hadn't been involved in a fight in weeks in the middle of the war. (the CEO and logistics director were quick to back me up, thankfully).
Basically, you need to have at least the same level of commitment that your opponents do or you are going to lose. If they are on Raiding Guild Commitment level, you need to be as well. This is harder on smaller groups since it places a greater strain on each member.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm referring to those players that "break the line" and run off, because they are bearing the brunt of the assault.
I have seen this in raid groups, seen it in fleets, seen it in in squads in almost every MMO I have ever played. There is almost always that one player, especially in PUGS that will run off.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah. We see it in MechWarrior Online as well.
There is also the 'hero' who, hiding until he thinks the enemy will be sufficiently weakened, emerges too late at the end to merely die alone ignominiously.
Other hand there are those castigated for dying too early with low total damage output and no kills and few assists... yet were on point to take the focused fire of the OpFor while others got their scores, or were the lone scout locating the enemy and cut down, or the flanking pilot finding himself alone whose buddies stopped to chase a squirr.., I mean scout, on a harassment mission.
Cowardice is a character flaw. Some are called cowards are only guilty of tactical error, or trusting their teammates.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As one of those squirrels myself, I love watching a couple heavies or assaults break off to chase me. Of course if nobody does chase me they are going to be continually finding themselves taking the full damage from a jenner right to the tender back CT until they do. When piloting a medium, I stick close to the heavies and assaults to keep the lights and other mediums off the main DPS.
Oft times I've been called a coward because I've not taken any damage until late in the game, having spent most of the time out on recon or capturing points. Usually the ones placing the labels are grossly uninformed on what is really going on while they are busy eating lead in the furball.
Everyone has a role they can assume. Sometimes it's more advantageous to take up a role that you are ill-suited for in order to give someone else a greater advantage. Sometimes that role may be cannon fodder, and if you break the line and fail in that role, the whole plan could unravel.
I think this is the key to formations. In a formation your individual specialization matters much less than your ability to follow instructions. Failure to do so should reduce the efficacy of the formation. If half your people are unable to follow the instructions then an equal mass of individuals could easily overrun your position.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There will always be a good percentage of players who simply regard any form of tactics as pointless or cowardice.
In the offline Warhammer 40k game this is best exemplified by those space marine players who refuse to play anything other than a full on assault on a small table facing off on the "short" side. In the WII combat flightsim IL2 (which I played for 10 years) it manifested as furball WWI style tight turning dogfights pounding each other in late war aircraft that were never in reality ever used that way.
Often this extended to include the server moderators who would kick anyone using historically correct (and sensible) tactics such as zooming in from a height at speed and then kiting away, regarding anything other than flying in ridiculously tight circles pounding each other as just "running away".
Its an attitude that is sort of unavoidable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"Dishonourable" tactics will most definitely be used by many folks at some point if it will give them an edge. If I'm facing a small army with only a handful of friendlies, I'm most definitely not going to go toe to tow with them. I'm going to pick at the edges, draw off splinters to lead into ambush, sneak into camp and put laxative in the coffee in the middle of the night, and strike the supply wagons or raid their farms and fields while they are away. If instead of an army I'm facing a group about my size, well, I'll probably use similar tactics if it is advantageous. Use mobility against heavy armor, distraction and diversion against skirmishers and casters. Unless you are specifically set up to brawl it doesn't make a lick of sense to go toe to toe against someone who is.
It's all about using the right tool for the job, and the most effective route to victory.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Talking about "Dishonorable" tactics, I'm going to choose Chaotic Good for my Core Alignment, and then behave in a Chaotic Neutral manner.
Sure I won't be able to flag Assassin, but the UNC will have plenty of Assassins in our ranks.
But, what the Chaotic Good will do is hurt the Reputation of any Good Aligned Enforcer / Champion that kills me. Since I also intended to maintain a positive Reputation myself, SAD'ing most of the time, they will get an even greater hit to their Reputation.
Then they will have their "Meaningful Consequences for PVP".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Talking about "Dishonorable" tactics, I'm going to choose Chaotic Good for my Core Alignment, and then behave in a Chaotic Neutral manner.
Sure I won't be able to flag Assassin, but the UNC will have plenty of Assassins in our ranks.
But, what the Chaotic Good will do is hurt the Reputation of any Good Aligned Enforcer / Champion that kills me. Since I also intended to maintain a positive Reputation myself, SAD'ing most of the time, they will get an even greater hit to their Reputation.
Then they will have their "Meaningful Consequences for PVP".
Well, I will also happen to be Chaotic Good. How much I do so will depend on how comfortable I grow with PvP, but I could use SAD against bandits in order to help reclaim loot in the name of their victims. Of course, my chaotic good is more true to the alignment.
I do not know what you are trying to get at by making posts about gaming the system?
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Talking about "Dishonorable" tactics, I'm going to choose Chaotic Good for my Core Alignment, and then behave in a Chaotic Neutral manner.
You realize that the effect of that will be that your 'active alignment' will be CN, and you won't gain any benefit for trying and failing to be good, right? Or are you calling out specific bugs that you think will exist in the implementation of the alignment system?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd assume he's trying to play the devil's advocate, arguing one side in hopes that someone makes concrete proposals on how such an exploit wouldn't work. Or maybe he's actually considering playing a chaotic good now. Isn't this the guy who said, "Be Forthright - Get to the Point and Don't hide your true agenda"? Or did that list of positive be-havior die off?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd assume he's trying to play the devil's advocate, arguing one side in hopes that someone makes concrete proposals on how such an exploit wouldn't work. Or maybe he's actually considering playing a chaotic good now. Isn't this the guy who said, "Be Forthright - Get to the Point and Don't hide your true agenda"? Or did that list of positive be-havior die off?
Devil's Advocate...
I used this "Then they will have their "Meaningful Consequences for PVP"."
As a way to point to how the very system that some of the "good" guys clamour for, and I turned it back at them.
I personally do not believe in an Open World PVP game, there should be consequences for winning in PVP. The only thing that needs to be "meaningful" is your reasons for PVPing or for there to be "meaningful benefits" for PVPing.
I'm also not saying that you must flag for PVP all of the time. I have said that certain activities should require a PVP flag in order to participate in them. If you don't want to PVP, then don't participate in those activities.
No, you should not be able to operate a caravan, loaded with 2 tons of gold ore, and not be flagged for PVP.
Yes, you can as a solo explorer, have a small pouch full of gold ore, and not have to flag for PVP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf I'll have to admit, most of the law and order types haven't talked a lot about how to deal with attacking "good" characters.
But there has been a little talk about how to deal with the "good" mules that we will inevitably see, carrying loot for the bad guys. I figure any such "good" characters will have some bogus story. Perhaps they are roleplaying a cleric providing healing and aid for a group of bandits, hoping quixotically of converting the non-roleplaying outlaws. He's just carrying all of their loot just to gain their trust, yeah, that's it.
Me, I deal with actions, not roleplaying or other motivations. If a nominally good character is keeping company with a criminal group, then they can get added to a settlement's criminal/trespasser list. A simple solution to a simple problem.
But if your dude is flagged as an Outlaw there's really no problem for any character that attacks him, is there?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But if your dude is flagged as an Outlaw there's really no problem for any character that attacks him, is there?
No, not as an Outlaw, but the bandit after having issued the SAD or having ambushed their target, can then flag as a Champion. This would potentially thwart other Champions from attacking, so that they don't suffer the Evil shift that they would get for killing another good aligned character.
Mechanically speaking, I'm not sure if will turn out this way. It was an exercise in extreme sarcasm.
There, that sounds rather more like Bluddwolf.
@ Urman, perhaps my saying "Forthrite" was a bit too strong. I do at times like to meander around to get to my points, but I do eventually get to them and stand by them. When I discover that I'm wrong, I own it as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bluddwolf,
It is my understanding that PfO is not an Open World PvP game, it is a game with Open World PvP. It is a nice distinction, and perhaps too subtle for some, but it is a distinction nonetheless. Your whole argument (and that of certain other members of UNC, such as Xeen) seems to be based on the premiss that PfO is nothing more than the support system for a PvP free for all, that crafters are there to provide gear for you to loot, that settlements will exist primarily to provide training in order to allow you to PvP better. I may be doing you a disservice if that is not what you believe, but it's sure as hell coming over that way.
There will be more parts to PfO than PvP and there will be more, far more to PvP in PfO than banditry, and roaming around in the woods, looking for the next soft target. The thing is, most of those other parts of PfO, and indeed some of those other types of PvP will be constructive. You are fond of using the word sandbox, and PfO is a sandbox, but what does that mean? It means it is tabula rasa at the moment, but with great potential to build something truly amazing. I read posts on this forum that I am not even sure I understand, but I can share the poster's excitement at their latest idea, and their anticipation at being able to build in the River Kingdoms, in whatever form that may take, physical or metaphorical, be it settlement, craft, or perhaps societal contacts (Hobs, I'm looking at you).
What is it that you think you are bringing to the River Kingdoms? There will be plenty of PvP without you, to be fair; inter-settlement conflicts will see to that. You may provide some content for bounty hunters etc., but they are also providing content for you, and they could equally well work as mercenaries in the internecine wars we are sure to have. So where is the added value that you are bringing to PfO? What are the UNC building?
I truly believe that the game will need (and please excuse my terminology, it is not a dig at you personally but it is, I think, pertinent) parasites, for that is what banditry really is, parasitic. You will make PfO more interesting, and you will add to the stories that are told. But don't lose sight of the fact that your play style is predicated the assumption that there will be enough people willing to play the game differently and build things up, which you can then knock over. Don't make the mistake of thinking that they are building them up just for you to knock them over. If they were, we'd be back at tabula rasa, and that'd make for a very boring game.
(Apologies if this comes over as snarky, it's not meant to; it's late and I can't sleep :( )
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf - one of the things with flags that hasn't been explained, is how groups and flags work. It's not been spelled out if one guy in a party can be flagged as a Champion and the other 5 be flagged as Assassins.
The flagging rules regarding "Involved" were not great, but it sounded like if a party of Champions rides in and attacks the flagged Assassins, then those two groups might now be Involved. You might then have to flag as an Assassin to join in the fight to help your buddies, but as a CN or CG you wouldn't be able to.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I'd assume he's trying to play the devil's advocate, arguing one side in hopes that someone makes concrete proposals on how such an exploit wouldn't work. Or maybe he's actually considering playing a chaotic good now. Isn't this the guy who said, "Be Forthright - Get to the Point and Don't hide your true agenda"? Or did that list of positive be-havior die off?Devil's Advocate...
I used this "Then they will have their "Meaningful Consequences for PVP"."
As a way to point to how the very system that some of the "good" guys clamour for, and I turned it back at them.
I personally do not believe in an Open World PVP game, there should be consequences for winning in PVP. The only thing that needs to be "meaningful" is your reasons for PVPing or for there to be "meaningful benefits" for PVPing.
You have very different definitions of "meaningful" and "consequences" than I do.
From where I sit, consequences are the results of actions. "No consequence" means zero change; it is close enough to say that most quests in EQ had almost no consequences.
"Meaningful" means that the players care about the consequences. Smart players won't typically care about the gear lost or gained, because it will be stuff they can afford to lose and won't be a major factor. For that reason, the loot off of the reference baseline character is not considered meaningful. Caravans might have meaningful amounts of stuff of them more often, or they might not; the loot off of the reference caravan may be considered meaningful.
If you attack the reference baseline character without an additional reason, the only meaningful consequence for the attacker is to shift alignment or reputation. A defeated victim gains the meaningful options to offer bounty or death curse on you, while the victor gets inconsequential loot and bragging rights.
If you approach a caravan with sufficient force to threaten it, you can engage meaningfully; perhaps they are willing to succeed in transporting some fraction of their cargo, and are willing to offer the rest to you after only the threat of violence; the SAD mechanism provides protection for them by making you suffer a greater loss of rep if you renege on the ransom.
If only one party or the other does not present a credible threat, there should be no SAD, only a decisive battle.
Andius finds enough meaning in his use of champion flags; I don't think that further discussion is warranted here. Likewise, assassination will have mechanics to make boh sucseessful and failed attempts meaningful.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No, not as an Outlaw, but the bandit after having issued the SAD or having ambushed their target, can then flag as a Champion. This would potentially thwart other Champions from attacking, so that they don't suffer the Evil shift that they would get for killing another good aligned character.
/me smacks forehead
I read your post a couple of times before it hit me - if you flag as a Champion, you're flagged. For PvP. Those Champions from Andius' group that are looking for Outlaws? They can attack you if you're flagged as a Champion, because they only take the good/rep hit if they attack unflagged good people. They might drop the Champion flag - that isn't clear in the bulleted part of the description - but flagged is flagged and there are no evil, chaos, or rep hits for attacking flagged people, not as flags are currently described.
Did you write that as a puzzler to confuse me, or did you forget that flagged people can always be attacked?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Urman,
To my understanding Flag vs. Flag still incurs alignment shift. For the most part I couldn't care less about the alignment shift. I have never written such a concern. I know that my actions will always keep my active alignment to Chaotic and either Neutral or slightly Evil or Good. I'm assuming I will be Chaotic Neutral both Core and Active, even over an extended period of time.
@ DeciusBrutus
We have the same definitions of 'Meaningful" and of "Consequences", we just put them in a different position in the sentence.
You say, "Meaningful Consequences for PVP", as if winning in PVP needs to have a negative mechanical consequence.
One of the Devs said, "Make no system the players can do for themselves".
If you want to make the consequences for winning in PVP, then make the Bounty / Assassination systems more significant.
I say, Make the reasons for engaging in PVP more "meaningful", and make the "consequences" for losing more significant.
I said above:
I'm also not saying that you must flag for PVP all of the time. I have said that certain activities should require a PVP flag in order to participate in them. If you don't want to PVP, then don't participate in those activities.
No, you should not be able to operate a caravan, loaded with 2 tons of gold ore, and not be flagged for PVP.
Yes, you can as a solo explorer, have a small pouch full of gold ore, and not have to flag for PVP.
I don't understand why that bold typed section is being ignored, or it is not seen for the balance it is meant to embody.
There should be zones in PFO, even small ones, that autoflag PVP. These zones are the FFA zones that Ryan Dancey described, and where the rarest of resources (motivation for going there) can be found. If such a zone existed in the game, there is where most of the PVPers will carry out most of their PVP.
Settlement wars, will be a magnet for those seeking PVP. For the same reason that the FFA zones will. Higher Risk, Higher Reward and No Consequences for Winning.
If operating Caravans required the Traveler Flag, just as the issuing of a SAD requires the Outlaw flag, you would see meaningful reasons to focus banditry towards caravans and away from the small time merchant.
The same would hold true for setting up large harvesting sites, watchtowers, hideouts. All of these are PVP based structures, and should be operated only through the use of PVP flags.
These four points I believe are balanced. They all encourage PVP focus characters to concentrate their activities towards PVP activities. It leaves the small time, non flagged, wanderer in the wilderness off our target list.
@Lhan, It is getting a bit late here, but I do intend to get back to your post.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm also not saying that you must flag for PVP all of the time. I have said that certain activities should require a PVP flag in order to participate in them. If you don't want to PVP, then don't participate in those activities.
No, you should not be able to operate a caravan, loaded with 2 tons of gold ore, and not be flagged for PVP.
Yes, you can as a solo explorer, have a small pouch full of gold ore, and not have to flag for PVP.
I may be only one voice of those who will be crafting in this game but what I quoted above seems very fair and balanced to me. If I expect to have high rewards I should expect high danger as well.
I fully expect if I engage in the above activities I should be prepared to fight or have enough guards to insure that I will come out ahead in the encounter. Those encounters and the lose of goods are just the price of doing business. What I wish to see is that after a long day of gathering crafting etc my net gains are ahead of my net loses.
Will it take preparation and thought to end up ahead I believe so but that what's going to make the game fun.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You say, "Meaningful Consequences for PVP", as if winning in PVP needs to have a negative mechanical consequence.
I don't know if you are being deliberately disingenuous here or if you truly believe that this is what people are saying. To be fair, I have only just realised the disconnect myself. The rep hit has nothing whatsoever to do with winning or losing in PvP. It is a hit you will take for being the aggressor in combat against an unflagged opponent. I suppose I could take it as arrogance or that you have supreme confidence that you will in fact win every fight you choose, and therefore feel like you are being penalised for winning, but we all know that correlation does not equate to causation. That is not what you will be being penalised for.
I look forward to the day when you attack me, take the rep hit, and lose the fight :P
<Adds yet another big X target for the UNC to his back>
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The rep hit does not come with the attacker flag only. It is applied to having the attacker flag and killing. Furthermore, the victim can then add the additional rebuke if the choose.
I personally, would always SAD an unflagged first to avoid the attacker flag and then if my intentions was to kill the target, I would just issue a SAD amount that would likely be rejected.
As for expecting to win most of the battles I choose. I think most players expect to win the battles they choose, but sometimes they will lose the battles they expected to win.
In the greater scene of things, I'd expect to have the big target on our backs, we are bandits, that goes with the territory. I expect to have many bounties on my head, and more than my fair share of assassination attempts as well. This is the life I have chosen for my character.
But I direct you to the remainder of the post above, where I laid out four points. What do you think of those points?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I have the post you are referring to:
There should be zones in PFO, even small ones, that autoflag PVP. These zones are the FFA zones that Ryan Dancey described, and where the rarest of resources (motivation for going there) can be found. If such a zone existed in the game, there is where most of the PVPers will carry out most of their PVP.
I am categorically against auto-flagging anyone outside of a war zone. I do not want player choice diminished. By making zones auto-flag you are effectively closing them to the players who simply will not flag up, because they don't enjoy PvP, and are therefore also denying yourself some possible targets. I may be alone in feeling this - it will be for the community, and more importantly the devs, to decide what happens with this one.
Settlement wars, will be a magnet for those seeking PVP. For the same reason that the FFA zones will. Higher Risk, Higher Reward and No Consequences for Winning.
Agreed they will be a magnet. But again, the consequence is not for winning - it is for being the aggressor against the unflagged. Just because you don't take a rep hit if you lose doesn't make it less true - it just means there are two possible consequences for your attack - loss of rep or loss of gear. If you don't like that idea attack someone who is flagged. It's not that hard a concept to grasp.
If operating Caravans required the Traveler Flag, just as the issuing of a SAD requires the Outlaw flag, you would see meaningful reasons to focus banditry towards caravans and away from the small time merchant.
I would agree with this if it were changed to (again because I don't like the idea of making flags mandatory):
If operating more efficient Caravans required the Traveler Flag
However, since we don't yet have any idea what a caravan actually is or any of the mechanical benefits it brings, and we are also waiting on a major flag revamp, I think it is premature to start discussing this. I may very well agree with you when we find out exactly what "caravan" will mean.
The same would hold true for setting up large harvesting sites, watchtowers, hideouts. All of these are PVP based structures, and should be operated only through the use of PVP flags.
I was unaware that harvesting was in fact PvP, or that it had been decided that harvesting sites were de facto PvP structures. I think you might find that there are others with differing interpretations of that. Targets yes, but really? Do you want everything laid out on a plate for you? Sheeeesh!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bluddwolf,
It is my understanding that PfO is not an Open World PvP game, it is a game with Open World PvP. It is a nice distinction, and perhaps too subtle for some, but it is a distinction nonetheless. Your whole argument (and that of certain other members of UNC, such as Xeen) seems to be based on the premiss that PfO is nothing more than the support system for a PvP free for all, that crafters are there to provide gear for you to loot, that settlements will exist primarily to provide training in order to allow you to PvP better. I may be doing you a disservice if that is not what you believe, but it's sure as hell coming over that way.
No, we do not believe this is a pure PVP game with everything else supporting that.
Although, it is close. Its a settlement game with settlement warfare (PVP) mechanics that have crafters and builders supporting that. The rest of the world is open.
It is an Open World Sandbox PVP Game. And that is yet another distinction. It allows you to do everything you want in the game, but being a sandbox makes players the content... When players are the content, what do you think will happen? Sure there are a lot of answers, but PVP will be the fun part, and the majority... Whether its Banditry to Wars to RP Wars.
Im the one termed as Extremest... (Most think Im Evil player purely, but will find me right next to them with a LG character and not know it) Which is fine. I am going to continue going to war over PVP elements in the game. Why? If I do not then it will be twisted into a game that we have 100's of already. The sandbox part of the game will die.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No, not as an Outlaw, but the bandit after having issued the SAD or having ambushed their target, can then flag as a Champion. This would potentially thwart other Champions from attacking, so that they don't suffer the Evil shift that they would get for killing another good aligned character./me smacks forehead
I read your post a couple of times before it hit me - if you flag as a Champion, you're flagged. For PvP. Those Champions from Andius' group that are looking for Outlaws? They can attack you if you're flagged as a Champion, because they only take the good/rep hit if they attack unflagged good people. They might drop the Champion flag - that isn't clear in the bulleted part of the description - but flagged is flagged and there are no evil, chaos, or rep hits for attacking flagged people, not as flags are currently described.
Did you write that as a puzzler to confuse me, or did you forget that flagged people can always be attacked?
Certain Flags only allow you to attack certain people. Champion requires you to attack Evil only, and you will lose that flag if you attack non evil... Then get the consequences of attacking as if un flagged.
But if both were flagged Champion then how would that work? Both have the PVP flag and can attack each other freely I believe.
Which is why I hate the flag system. If your a champion and attack a good guy, that you know plays evil but just happens to not be at the time... Your penalized for it. I dont like that, takes the RP element out of the game. Makes sense for LG, but not CG nor LE.
So really I guess, if a CG SAD's someone then drops his flag immediately after, he wouldnt need to flag champion... Just unflagging will do what Bludd was suggesting.+
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am going to continue going to war over PVP elements in the game. Why? If I do not then it will be twisted into a game that we have 100's of already.
You mean those 100s of other games you and other PvP enthusiasts warred incessantly in their forums over and that failed miserably when it came to the actual expression they warred for? How... encouraging. Question: What is the definition of insanity?
The sandbox part of the game will die.
How can a sandbox die? For me the sandbox died when I was five. Another five year-old threw the sand in my eyes because he did not want to share. He got his sandbox alone.
Survey all the PvP centric games, the ones where the only thing left is a PvP system but nobody left to PvP against. What are those rolling tumbleweeds suggesting to you?
PvP is only fun when there are enough other players to engage. You made a point I made earlier, that the game needs bandits to have conflict. The other side of that coin is also true: Bandits very much need the entirety of that very civilization they pretend to despise.
A leech without a host is very very hungry, all the rest of his short life.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am going to continue going to war over PVP elements in the game. Why? If I do not then it will be twisted into a game that we have 100's of already. The sandbox part of the game will die.
Right. If Ryan Dancey is allowed to build the innovative game he imagined, with the systems he envisioned to make it different from other games, then that's what will cause it to be "twisted" into something we already have "100's" of.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Which is why I hate the flag system. If your a champion and attack a good guy, that you know plays evil but just happens to not be at the time... Your penalized for it. I dont like that, takes the RP element out of the game. Makes sense for LG, but not CG nor LE.
So really I guess, if a CG SAD's someone then drops his flag immediately after, he wouldnt need to flag champion... Just unflagging will do what Bludd was suggesting.+
You make a compelling case that the Outlaw flag shouldn't be droppable immediately after a killing or SAD.
So how long should the Outlaw flag persist? For balance comparison, the Champion and Enforcer flags need to be flown for a complete hour for those characters to get their reputation bonus. An hour seems too long, since the Outlaw might have been flying her flag for a least a little while before the crime. So having the flag persist for 30 minutes after an attack or SAD might be equitable.
Oh, and the Champion and Enforcer have to be online to get their reputation bonuses, right? So the Outlaw flag timer should only decrement while the Outlaw is online. He can spend the time in a hideout, or hidden in the woods, but disappearing into the ether to run out the timer shouldn't work. Logging off should only allow us to delay consequences, not avoid them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You make a compelling case that the Outlaw flag shouldn't be droppable immediately after a killing or SAD.
I wholeheartedly agree. I think there should be a Cooldown after enabling a Flag before you can use it's special features, and a Cooldown after using the special features before you can disable it.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
@ DeciusBrutus
We have the same definitions of 'Meaningful" and of "Consequences", we just put them in a different position in the sentence.
You say, "Meaningful Consequences for PVP", as if winning in PVP needs to have a negative mechanical consequence.
Where did you get "negative". It isn't a word or concept I referenced at all. The consequence of winning a PvP engagement should be positive- the invader is turned back, the caravan remains/becomes under your control, or you collect the bounty.
The negative consequences need to arise from PvP that is undesired: if a new player wanders to a location where the marshals will not respond in time, and doesn't have anything of significant value on him, he should typically not be attacked even if someone notices.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The negative consequences need to arise from PvP that is undesired: if a new player wanders to a location where the marshals will not respond in time, and doesn't have anything of significant value on him, he should typically not be attacked even if someone notices.
Why not? In EVE, when a player is about to jump out of High Security space for the first time, an automated message warns that the destination solar system is a potentially dangerous place. If the player jumps anyway and gets blown up by PC pirates, it's a learning experience: "Don't go to Low Security space if you're not prepared to fight."
The PFO equivalent might be a gate in the wall around an NPC settlement, with a prominent sign over the gate saying "You are now leaving Starting Town. The army patrols our territory, but their response time is slower than the City Guard. Proceed at your own risk."
Either way, that first step away from safety should be dangerous, and exciting. Getting killed during that first trip can be a good thing: Losing easily-replaced starter gear is better than being lulled into a false sense of security until you enter a very dangerous situation with stuff that would be harder to replace.
A new player wandering should have some warning before he or she enters dangerous territory, but once the decision to proceed anyway is made, he or she should be just as vulnerable to attack as anyone else.
The trick is to make sure that crossing from safety to danger isn't something that can happen un-noticed.
(This is something that 1999-era Everquest handled poorly. It was all too easy for my low level halfling to wander into a zone filled with much higher level monsters and get curb-stomped.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The negative consequences need to arise from PvP that is undesired: if a new player wanders to a location where the marshals will not respond in time, and doesn't have anything of significant value on him, he should typically not be attacked even if someone notices.Why not?
We're well aware of the kind of non-fun experiences that PvP has created in some games, and we think we have lots of ideas on ways to keep misbehavior under control in Pathfinder Online.
The key parts of Decius's phrasing are "doesn't have anything of significant value on him" and "typically".
No one's suggesting that this hypothetical player be immune from PvP. What I believe Ryan is suggesting is that the decision to target that player needs to weigh things like whether or not that player is really interested in PvP, or is doing something meaningful enough that it doesn't matter.
... he or she should be just as vulnerable to attack as anyone else.
Again, no one (no one regularly posting on these forums, no one taking part in this conversation currently) is suggesting different.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You mean those 100s of other games you and other PvP enthusiasts warred incessantly in their forums over and that failed miserably when it came to the actual expression they warred for? How... encouraging. Question: What is the definition of insanity?
Um, What? There are nowhere near 100's of PVP based games... Now there are 100's of failed PVE based games. So do you know the answer to your own question?
The only PVP based game in existence worth anything is Eve. I have yet to find a PVE based game that is worth paying for... May as well grab a game off the store shelf.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The negative consequences need to arise from PvP that is undesired: if a new player wanders to a location where the marshals will not respond in time, and doesn't have anything of significant value on him, he should typically not be attacked even if someone notices.Why not?We're well aware of the kind of non-fun experiences that PvP has created in some games, and we think we have lots of ideas on ways to keep misbehavior under control in Pathfinder Online.The key parts of Decius's phrasing are "doesn't have anything of significant value on him" and "typically".
No one's suggesting that this hypothetical player be immune from PvP. What I believe Ryan is suggesting is that the decision to target that player needs to weigh things like whether or not that player is really interested in PvP, or is doing something meaningful enough that it doesn't matter.
... he or she should be just as vulnerable to attack as anyone else.Again, no one (no one regularly posting on these forums, no one taking part in this conversation currently) is suggesting different.
I think you missed the part of KarlBob's post where it said You have a warning.
That is all you need, to know you entered an area for advanced play. Come back later.
The fact that its a new player, or that he has nothing will be unknown to other players at this time. (they may add a DOB, but we havent heard that yet)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am going to continue going to war over PVP elements in the game. Why? If I do not then it will be twisted into a game that we have 100's of already. The sandbox part of the game will die.Right. If Ryan Dancey is allowed to build the innovative game he imagined, with the systems he envisioned to make it different from other games, then that's what will cause it to be "twisted" into something we already have "100's" of.
What?
The war is against other players... That want stricter anti pvp codes... So what Im saying is, you may convince him to change his mind and thus ruin the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, I can believe that having noticeable reputation hits and negligible rewards involved in attacking stray new players might result in a few more of them surviving their first trip into the larger world. The "fun" of curb-stomping them will still be there, for those who consider that fun, but it will have to be weighed against the annoyance of a low reputation.
I suspect that a lot of new players will still get their first taste of PVP when they aren't looking for it, though. As long as they understand it can happen, that's fine with me.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I was not saying that he should be immune, I was saying that it should not be profitable (in any sense) for an established character to kill a new player in the typical new-player scenario.
Basically, have characters be vulnerable, and aware that they are vulnerable, before it becomes profitable to actually gank them. I think that rep penalties are a good way to shift the ROI calculation, since there will be little risk.