Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't follow the point of this conversation.
What I'm seeing: some people arguing over what "random" and "toxic" and other terms mean as though the devs who made the various statements being quoted and tossed around are walking dictionaries and hyper literalists.
GW has a vision for the game: they've made it clear there will be PvP. They've made it clear some forms of PvP will be considered abusive and that there will be both community tools and developer tools used to deal with it. Where those lines lie, they've been very purposeful about not clarifying, so those who think they've got it figured out - those on both sides of this silly drawn out why the hell haven't you run out of breath yet argument - are arguing where they either think that line is or should be.
The answer is simple: they're going for a system that will keep things going in a way that, just like the blogs talking about economic balance between gatherers, builders and adventurers, will keep a balance between a variety of playstyles - including PvP. And if you think you've found a loophole in the system that will let you be a hyper-aggressive beast all the time to anyone you want, then maybe you're right. Maybe you're really seeing a loophole in the current system, or maybe that's what GW wants. I'm sure they sincerely do want at least a few players to play that way. But if they find the player base is more aggressive than they had envisioned, expect a rework of the flag system, or the reputation system, or the alignment system.
Whatever you think the current rule system is - you're wrong. Each and every one of you. The rule system is in change and will continue to change to sculpt what they want to sculpt. Some people will laud the changes when they come and some will cry "nerf". But the changes will happen, and happen again, and again.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Whatever you think the current rule system is - you're wrong. Each and every one of you.
A point I've made myself. Which is why I mostly confine myself to repeating what Ryan or one of the devs have already said.
Are people sick of hearing us go 'round and 'round? I'm kind of sick of it, too. Still, if there were someone on the forums who insisted on repeatedly stating-as-fact that there would be ways to play PFO that let you experience Escalations and Dungeons and Settlement Management without ever being subject to PvP, I would just as consistently point out they were wrong.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please point out what I may convince him to change his mind from and to. Because, as I understand it, I'm merely pointing out what Ryan's already said is going to be.
@Nihimon: Xeen's the guy arguing that there shouldn't be an Outlaw flag *and* arguing that 'some people' are trying to get stricter anti-pvp codes. I'd guess that either he's projecting or he's trying to work the refs/GW.
@Blaeringr: I agree, the game will be changing all through EE and beyond. What's the point of this discussion? At this point, I *think* some are arguing for no flags, in some cases, and less consequence for PvP. I think the other side is arguing/saying that they like the stuff GW has said so far and they're looking forward to that game. But mostly the discussion is to inform GW that there are partisans for this side or that side - not many here are changing their minds at this point. It's crowdforging of a sort.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd guess that either he's projecting or he's trying to work the refs/GW.
I'd determined this quite some time ago. I just didn't want to give the appearance of being unwilling to directly address someone's point. I try to be a trustworthy debating partner - admit when I'm wrong, not accuse people of things I know aren't true, provide links for the complete context, etc.
I think the other side is arguing/saying that they like the stuff GW has said so far and they're looking forward to that game.
That's the side I'm on :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whatever you think the current rule system is - you're wrong. Each and every one of you.A point I've made myself. Which is why I mostly confine myself to repeating what Ryan or one of the devs have already said.
Are people sick of hearing us go 'round and 'round? I'm kind of sick of it, too. Still, if there were someone on the forums who insisted on repeatedly stating-as-fact that there would be ways to play PFO that let you experience Escalations and Dungeons and Settlement Management without ever being subject to PvP, I would just as consistently point out they were wrong.
Well, I rarely participate in these discussions anymore because I was sick of wasting my breath. Amusingly, there are some here who argue that pushing the line of abuse/non-abuse in PvP is abuse. For example, Bluddwolf's claim that people asking to increase the ability to opt out of PvP is griefing. I read support ant similar arguments from others here...the amusing part is that they feel they can do the same...from the other direction and it NOT be griefing. So they can come on here and argue for more PvP and less consequences for abusive behaviour, and they for some reason see that as different than the "griefing" committed by those who come on here arguing for less PvP and more consequences for abusive behaviour.
I like where Ryan drew the line, I would prefer it stay right where it is. Some are here arguing it should be moved, I thank Nihimon (and others) for being the counter to that. I hope the devs are not pushed by the vocal minority into moving the line, one way or the other. If reason is found later to do so,that is another matter.
That said, I am sorry I do not have the patience to debate this topic any more; I thank those who have the intestinal fortitude to bolster the line.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the other side is arguing/saying that they like the stuff GW has said so far and they're looking forward to that game.
This is mostly true for me. I tend to be PvP adverse, though I like what a lot of the game is about. The proposed mechanisms to moderate risk and reward over PvP engagements is what sold me on this game being worthwhile to pursue even with the unfavorable elements. I have been staunchly against those who want to throw said mechanisms out the window, but I feel I have been fairly reasonable in accepting that nobody will be immune.
I did not back EVE. I did not back an open world Halo Death Match. I backed a game with a number of checks and balances aimed at providing for multiple play styles without promising absolute safety. A game that encourages you to leave that unflagged player alone, but does not force you to.
I feel that by and large, the game I would like to play is being made. There may be some aspects that are not perfect, but close enough. I just have to keep saying it and defending it because the echo chamber on the other side wants to tear it all down.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect that EE will have a lot of banditry. By OE, the banditry will be small. Caravans of small gain will occasionally be attacked. bandit will be the bane of new characters. Communities will have systems to snag an problem bandit. It will be community conflict.
I wonder, will the rules allow for troops to follow caravans, say 20 seconds game time, 5 seconds, or whatever it takes to arrive in middle of SAD? That is standard (real world way to use honey pots to reduce banditry.
Lam
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I suspect that EE will have a lot of banditry. By OE, the banditry will be small. Caravans of small gain will occasionally be attacked. bandit will be the bane of new characters. Communities will have systems to snag an problem bandit. It will be community conflict.
I wonder, will the rules allow for troops to follow caravans, say 20 seconds game time, 5 seconds, or whatever it takes to arrive in middle of SAD? That is standard (real world way to use honey pots to reduce banditry.
A bandit who is only a bane of new characters will be doing it wrong. New characters as a general rule don't have enough goods to be worth the time it will take to accost them. It is far better to allow them to grow fat and happy before the slaughter. I look forward to the emergent gameplay between bandits and their various prey. Honeypots are a fantastic tool against banditry, though they could be detected or countered through use of advanced scouting and non-standard assault techniques. I would love to be a part of a caravan ambush or raid that escalates, on both sides, into an epic brawl.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You are short-sighted. Think it through.So how long should the Outlaw flag persist?It shouldnt exist.
I did. At first I thought the Flags were a good idea... Then realized as an MMORPG, with a flagging system, you just remove the RPG aspect of the game as I stated in a post above.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A bandit who is only a bane of new characters will be doing it wrong. New characters as a general rule don't have enough goods to be worth the time it will take to accost them. It is far better to allow them to grow fat and happy before the slaughter.
This is assuming the reason for the bandit attacking is actually to gain loot. The systems in place are to drive them to attack these loot-fat targets. That is intended design. And while I do not wish to be the victim of such attacks, I understand that it is on me to take preventative measures in game. The more I have to lose, the more help I should bring along to secure it.
My concern is the player who attacks indiscriminately using banditry as an excuse.
Acceptable: "That guy is carrying some good stuff. Let's go kill him and take it."
Unacceptable: "I want to kill someone. That guy looks like an easy target. May as well take his stuff because we can."
Determining which motive a player is operating under can be near impossible to program in. So thus the blanket Reputation system which is meant to cause players to ask whether their reason to attack is worthwhile.
Flags are because some players want the thrill, and want to engage. They forgo the Reputation charge to make themselves more enticing targets and to signal that they want others to bring it on. To entice more players into accepting these aspects of the game, incentives are added to flags to make it more efficient to do what you are trying to do otherwise.
As such, I feel flags are very useful in moderating the game and more strongly promoting the play styles of each individual.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I did. At first I thought the Flags were a good idea... Then realized as an MMORPG, with a flagging system, you just remove the RPG aspect of the game as I stated in a post above.
I've always thought that the flags (and alignments/reputation system) weren't there for the 10% (am I being generous?) of the players that will be role-playing. I've assumed the flags were there to modify the actions of the 90% of the players that have been trained in other games to be min-maxxers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I did. At first I thought the Flags were a good idea... Then realized as an MMORPG, with a flagging system, you just remove the RPG aspect of the game as I stated in a post above.You are short-sighted. Think it through.So how long should the Outlaw flag persist?It shouldnt exist.
Flags don't remove RP any more than your active alignment or reputation is forced on you. These adjectives describe your behavior to the game mechanics relative to some baseline, they don't cause your behavior.
Their consequences may well inform your future behavioral choices, but that is because a game by its nature has rules, and without those rules you aren't playing that game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I did. At first I thought the Flags were a good idea... Then realized as an MMORPG, with a flagging system, you just remove the RPG aspect of the game as I stated in a post above.You are short-sighted. Think it through.So how long should the Outlaw flag persist?It shouldnt exist.Flags don't remove RP any more than your active alignment or reputation is forced on you. These adjectives describe your behavior to the game mechanics relative to some baseline, they don't cause your behavior.
Their consequences may well inform your future behavioral choices, but that is because a game by its nature has rules, and without those rules you aren't playing that game.
hmmm
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Basically what is being said is, "We will punish you for taking the alignment of CE."
That's not the way I read it.
My impression was something like this (my interpretation):
a) In an alignment neutral game Chaotic Evil has natural mechanical advantages over the other alignments. PvP min-maxers would hence all tend towards chaotic evil.
b)Online gaming in general (as opposed to offline games like Pathfinder and D&D) attract a huge percentage of people who just want to bignote themselves and be a pain in the butt and harass people. These people are also going to tend towards chaotic evil.
c) Add to that the people doing CE for genuine roleplay reasons and you will end up with a game predominantly chaotic evil where everyone else is at a disadvantage and eventually either becomes CE themselves or quits.
NOW ... clearly even people who want to be CE bandits are not going to be happy on a server where everyone else is also a CE bandit. So this is not a desirable setup for any game aiming at long term success.
THEREFORE ... if you want a balanced game (rather than a game where only unsuspecting noobs play other alignments) you need to nerf to some extent the natural advantages and attraction of CE.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Neadenil Edam That's sort of my take as well. And the game doesn't have to be evenly balanced between the 9 alignments, each having 11% of the population. They aren't factions or nations; it's a character trait or maybe a path. Frankly, a little LG can go a long way and 10-15% might be a bit cloying. If they have a hard time attacking each other, too many LG might cause stagnation. Likewise, if 3-6% of the players are CE but most of them are actively involved in spreading their special blessings, that might be enough chaotic evil to meet the community's needs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Basically what is being said is, "We will punish you for taking the alignment of CE."
That's not the way I read it.
My impression was something like this (my interpretation):
a) In an alignment neutral game Chaotic Evil has natural mechanical advantages over the other alignments. PvP min-maxers would hence all tend towards chaotic evil.
b)Online gaming in general (as opposed to offline games like Pathfinder and D&D) attract a huge percentage of people who just want to bignote themselves and be a pain in the butt and harass people. These people are also going to tend towards chaotic evil.
c) Add to that the people doing CE for genuine roleplay reasons and you will end up with a game predominantly chaotic evil where everyone else is at a disadvantage and eventually either becomes CE themselves or quits.
NOW ... clearly even people who want to be CE bandits are not going to be happy on a server where everyone else is also a CE bandit. So this is not a desirable setup for any game aiming at long term success.
THEREFORE ... if you want a balanced game (rather than a game where only unsuspecting noobs play other alignments) you need to nerf to some extent the natural advantages and attraction of CE.
So what your saying is that they have pre-nerfed CE and nothing more.
If everyone was playing CE, I would be LG... Why? Where the majority of people are is usually where the game is easiest to play.
With all that said, you did read it as Bludd did... really a nerf is a punishment. Nerfing usually is not for balance, but to make sure other aspects of the game are being use, not just the one thing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
LE looks like it may be the powerhouse... all the benefits of L without the restrictions of G.
...In the same way that eating your vegetables before you may leave the table is a punishment.
CE, the brussel sprouts of the alignment world.
It would be helpful and informative to list the pros and cons of CE, separated into C and E as well. Heading off to a meeting, but it's an idea to get people thinking and discussing what CE is really all about. Leave reputation out of it, though. It's hard enough getting people to see CE without automatically thinking Low Rep.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
LE looks like it may be the powerhouse...
Ryan agrees with you:
...LAWFUL EVIL will be the place for players who want to be really powerful bad dudes.