Goblin Squad Member
|
Not one thing I said to him about PFO was false. That was even before Ryan's recent posts.
I will stand by what I said, this game is far more PvP oriented then you or others led him to believe. To be fair, it is even more so now, after Ryan's posts. Perhaps you would have different advise for him today?
This game is not going to be a good fit for anyone that is very adverse to an Open World PvP MMO. It's evolution in just this passed week, if we are to believe Ryan's warnings, is nothing short of a 180 degree change from what many people had thought of PFO.
Out of curiosity, what do you think Ryan changed with his latest posts?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Bluddwolf,
You didn't listen to anything anyone else said in the original thread, so I kind of feel like I'm wasting my breath responding, but on the off-chance that you're going to be something other than a brick wall...
Perhaps you would have different advise for him today?
Re-reading my posts in that thread, not at all. I completely stand by my posts.
... their goal of allowing meaningful PvP while quashing meaningless griefing.
I think it's going to be common for people to think of "open PvP" in terms of getting ganked by someone much higher level while they're out trying to complete quests to level up. That entire paradigm is so far from what PFO is all about that it's going to be hard to communicate with them unless they take the time to learn about PFO's unique take on each of those aspects of MMO game play.
It is entirely reasonable to believe that Realmwalker real issue is with griefing - especially given his statement to that effect - and that the only solution he sees to that problem is to avoid PvP altogether.
It is also reasonable to try to point out to Realmwalker that much of his prior experience with non-consensual PvP in other MMOs isn't applicable to PFO.
* PvP in PFO will be significantly different than any PvP experience you've had in other MMOs.
* Goblinworks is making great efforts to ensure that players in PFO are not subjected to griefing.
Yeah, I'm really comfortable standing by all of those posts.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Bluddwolf: You've said several things that made me believe that you were unable or unwilling to engage in reasonable discussion and argument. When someone points out that you have broken the weak community norms (for example, by not recognizing that the term you used is derogatory), you consistently refuse to acknowledge that you have violated those norms and offer a defense of your action instead. If you are communicating effectively when you do that, then you are trying to be offensive and hostile. If you are not communicating effectively, then you are being consistently boorish and offensive.
Neither I nor anyone else is perfect; I believe I believe I am poorly calibrated in the opposite direction- I should delay my conclusion that you are either boorish or hostile until I have more evidence than I need, because I am aware of and compensating for the Fundamental Attribution error. However, I recognize that a boorish or hostile person is one that often acts in a boorish or hostile manner, and I have come to that conclusion regarding you.
The one thing you could do to most effectively change my conclusion about you would be to, in the future, when someone points out that you have broken a local norm (such as casually referring to 'carebear' mentality, or telling somebody that their input isn't wanted because they think that PFO PvP is going to be a lot like a WoW PvP server, or that the premise of one of your points has been firmly refuted already), instead of providing a justification for why your action is acceptable, stop the offending behavior (optionally acknowledging that you are changing behavior/usage). Apologies and attempts to reconcile are neither necessary nor sufficient.
If you think I'm wrong or out of line, please remember that meta-discussion of this topic is also relevant object-level behavior.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Out of curiosity, what do you think Ryan changed with his latest posts?Not one thing I said to him about PFO was false. That was even before Ryan's recent posts.
I will stand by what I said, this game is far more PvP oriented then you or others led him to believe. To be fair, it is even more so now, after Ryan's posts. Perhaps you would have different advise for him today?
This game is not going to be a good fit for anyone that is very adverse to an Open World PvP MMO. It's evolution in just this passed week, if we are to believe Ryan's warnings, is nothing short of a 180 degree change from what many people had thought of PFO.
For one, if every small organization thought they were going to be able to hold their own settlement, they were pretty much wrong. 10 people won't be able to hold a settlement. This kind of makes you wonder how much of the land rush will actually stick come OE.
Two, Chaotic evil is $*%#, which other devs later refined.
Three, alignments with settlements will not be as constricting as originally stated.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
Thanks, there was only one think that caught my unprepared. I was expecting Open-world PvP and Open-world consequences, tempered by an alignment/reputation system with bite. I was surprised (and disappointed) by what sounds like a de-toothing of the alignment/reputation system.
Removing the temper...changes the characteristics of the metal.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bluddwolf = Boorish and Hostile
Personally, **please see personal opinion disclaimer**, I think Bludd makes several valid points and is speaking matter-of-factly based on his own experience rather than a less personal 3rd party perspective.... which I believe unless things have changed he is still entitled to do. Based off of his own experiences, can you fault him? If so, you can also fault yourselves while you are at it. Everyone is subject to the effects of their own environments and experiences, be it willful or forcible.
Care-bear? Derogatory? Really? REALLY? We are referring to someone's play-style / play-preference... something they have COMPLETE control over. We are not talking about race/ethnicity/religion/sexual orientation. If this is a "local norm" obviously it's not, because I've been here since what, 2011, early 2012 and I've never been made aware of this Faux-pas.
If you make accusations please quote factual, referenced information... not generalizations you've come to accept as those are subject to interpretation and likely flawed and/or misconstrued.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For anyone that is unaware, the term carebear is simply the generic EVE in-game term for a character that lives in high security space and spends most of its time in trade, hauling, industry, mining or missioning and ratting. Carebear basically equals PvE in safe space.
Whilst the term is occasionally still used in a derogatory way (and almost certainly was originally intended that way in the distant past) it is now mainly a generic term for characters who work and reside in safe space ... as opposed to WH dwellers or those in losec or null or even a hisec island. Hence comments like "I think I might play my carebear trader alt at Jita for a while".
Oddly the term is rarely applied to highly dangerous PvE activities like incursion running but can apply to null "renter corps" as rented systems acquired from a big alliance/corp in null can be as secure or more so then hisec.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Out of curiosity, what do you think Ryan changed with his latest posts?Not one thing I said to him about PFO was false. That was even before Ryan's recent posts.
I will stand by what I said, this game is far more PvP oriented then you or others led him to believe. To be fair, it is even more so now, after Ryan's posts. Perhaps you would have different advise for him today?
This game is not going to be a good fit for anyone that is very adverse to an Open World PvP MMO. It's evolution in just this passed week, if we are to believe Ryan's warnings, is nothing short of a 180 degree change from what many people had thought of PFO.
For one, if every small organization thought they were going to be able to hold their own settlement, they were pretty much wrong. 10 people won't be able to hold a settlement. This kind of makes you wonder how much of the land rush will actually stick come OE.
Two, Chaotic evil is $*%#, which other devs later refined.
Three, alignments with settlements will not be as constricting as originally stated.
Apart from identifying the sort of problems posed by large guilds "out there"; ie in EVE reading te goons history it appears they were only opposed by disparate fighting groups.
The other information that will make a lot of sense is the minimum viable number of players that can run a settlement with a growth projectors of at least 4+ months let's start with. Secondly how many new members at each significant growth stage?
So we get a better picture of different PFO community numbers per group and contrast to settlements we'll start seeing who are the major pillars likely employing the other side of the community. At some stage this would be a good way to gel the community usefully.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...Thanks, there was only one think that caught my unprepared. I was expecting Open-world PvP and Open-world consequences, tempered by an alignment/reputation system with bite. I was surprised (and disappointed) by what sounds like a de-toothing of the alignment/reputation system.
Removing the temper...changes the characteristics of the metal.
I agree with this, but half the equation is the aggregate choice of the players to use the above in a way compatible with their intentions. Goons etc will warp the above for their own means ie LE? And stomp all over smaller disparate settlements unless they run into an equally large opposed BigTown. It's due to numbers and numbers all attempting to act in THAT way. It'll be like perpetual end-game in an RTS where one size is churning out units while the other is on a death spiral. That's probably WCS: Instead of a diverse tableaux of settlements balanced carefully around small shifts in power, where Alignment and Reputation all have impact. Some speculation but it's the problem of huge power blocks.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Out of curiosity, what do you think Ryan changed with his latest posts?
I don't think Ryan changed anything.
For one, if every small organization thought they were going to be able to hold their own settlement, they were pretty much wrong. 10 people won't be able to hold a settlement. This kind of makes you wonder how much of the land rush will actually stick come OE.
Ryan made that clear over a year ago:
I think there will be many more people who want to run a Settlement than there will be Settlements. The difference will be which of those people are good enough social engineers to put together a large enough group that is cohesive enough to take and hold territory.
Two, Chaotic evil is $*%#, which other devs later refined.
Three, alignments with settlements will not be as constricting as originally stated.
I'll refrain from arguing those points right now, since we've been promised future blog posts detailing the new changes. Suffice it to say I find Bluddwolf's expectations extremely unlikely, and I expect that whatever is finally revealed will be consistent with what Ryan has been saying all along.
The only thing that has really changed as far as I'm concerned is my own personal focus on the goal: "Gather together a large number of people who share common objectives and create a shared sense of purpose."
I've also taken a hard look at my own assumptions.
I think we (The Seventh Veil) were presumptive in positioning ourselves as something "greater" than a Settlement or a Player Nation. I think we need to refocus on the primary goal of creating a viable Settlement that will cater to caster training with a Knowledge/Lore-oriented theme.
I also think we need to recognize the possibility that the "Great Powers" currently on the Guild Land Rush Leaderboard may not even get Settlements in the Land Rush. We don't know how many large organizations backed the Kickstarter and simply didn't bother to vote.
If there's any "doom and gloom" in Ryan's recent statements, it's this:
You're probably going to build up some awesome stuff in Early Enrollment, and lose it in Open Enrollment.
And yes, it has clarified my thinking in many ways, but it hasn't led me to despair, and it doesn't feel like a "change" as much as a "reminder".
I hope we're successful. I'm not taking it for granted that we will be. I'm reaching out to others in the community in the hopes of getting more support for the defense of the systems Ryan has said will be in place to try to keep PFO from becoming toxic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Care-bear? Derogatory? Really? REALLY? ... If this is a "local norm" obviously it's not, because I've been here since what, 2011, early 2012 and I've never been made aware of this Faux-pas.
@All - lets not use the term carebear.
... please quote factual, referenced information...
I wouldn't dream of doing it any other way.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Bluddwolf = Boorish or HostileFixed -ed.
Personally, **please see personal opinion disclaimer**, I think Bludd makes several valid points and is speaking matter-of-factly based on his own experience rather than a less personal 3rd party perspective.... which I believe unless things have changed he is still entitled to do. Based off of his own experiences, can you fault him? If so, you can also fault yourselves while you are at it. Everyone is subject to the effects of their own environments and experiences, be it willful or forcible.
Care-bear? Derogatory? Really? REALLY? We are referring to someone's play-style / play-preference... something they have COMPLETE control over. We are not talking about race/ethnicity/religion/sexual orientation. If this is a "local norm" obviously it's not, because I've been here since what, 2011, early 2012 and I've never been made aware of this Faux-pas.
If you make accusations please quote factual, referenced information... not generalizations you've come to accept as those are subject to interpretation and likely flawed and/or misconstrued.
Remember that meta-discussion of this topic is also relevant object-level behavior.
I didn't say that his points were wrong, and I've actively tried to engage with his points. I didn't assign blame or demand a behavior change. I DID flatly state the results I observed, noted that I didn't think those were good results, and offered a suggestion about how one might get better results by making an absolutely small change.
My conclusions about what past behavior indicates are almost certainly not going to change; I must form my judgements based only on all of the information I have. But past behavior is only a moderate indicator of future behavior.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not going to rehash old news. My original coent was made to address Realwalkers original comment on page 9 of that thread. It was before he qualified what Gus definition if abusive was, but that us neither here but there.
My first comment to his first was not boorish, but perhaps brutally honest, and connected to his "Deal Breaker" comment. Realmwalker then, much later said that he had always said that he would give it a try. His first post, which I responded to, begs to differ.
Part of the issue of misunderstanding is that I often start a post, walk away to do something and then later finish the post and send. This at times denies me the view of a few posts in between. I am just explaining not making an excuse, because I still stand by my first response on page 9 anyway.
To use the terminology of moving to a care bearish mentality, is not the same as calling someone a care bear. It is referring to the slippery slope argument. To not understand that difference is the result of a thin skinned individual or the ignorance of the English language. One I have no wish to grant understanding to and the other I do, considering potential language barriers that might exist.
Some here are very selective of what snippets of text to cut and paste and what new posters or play styles they will deem worthy of support. Yet the will criticize others for doing the same.
Was it any different in the solo play thread to instead try to encourage the point if view, the person posted a Dev response that mocked that solo player point of view?
There was no butt kissing, awe you need to give the game a try. Or look at my uber data base of threads that might convince you otherwise.
Reconcile this!!!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
He [Ryan] predicted that some of the EE settlement will get rolled, pretty early on in OE.
He can say all he wants about a settlement's PVP window being quite small if they set it at 1 hour per day. If someone throws 5,000 "wolves" at its defenses during that hour, I bet it falls.... That is if the server doesn't crash, LOL!!
I hope that it requires a settlement to destroy or capture another settlement. That could mean building a siege train or some other game mechanic, but I hope that it will be impossible for any number of disposable, unaffiliated characters to destroy an established settlement.
If some group makes thousands of throw-away characters that don't care at all about alignment or reputation penalties, they can constantly kill you at the settlement borders through sheer weight of numbers, but they should be unable to destroy the settlement itself.
It would still be either annoying or enjoyable content (depending on your perspective) to deal with an infestation of criminals, but at least we shouldn't have to worry about a barbarian horde destroying all the settlements and clear-cutting the river kingdoms.
If a group goes to the trouble of building up a settlement that has enough DI and structures to be able to launch a successful siege assault on a neighbor, then I think they are contributing to the game in a meaningful way, even if they are the Lawful Evil "bad guys" of the River Kingdoms.
This solution is kind of hard on new players who join after all the settlement spots are filled, as they would have to wait until new frontiers are opened up to get a settlement of their own, but it would prevent the tactic of "make a thousand disposable toons and go rip down a settlement for lulz."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Gaskon: I think the devs intend for a siege camp to be set up. That amount thrown at one settlement, could leave the attackers exposed elsewhere. Also EVE has some sort of system where players are alerted of an attack ie the defensive properties are adequate enough to hold of 24 hours or something. I guess the pvp window just means the NPC defence force is asleep: But the settlement's defences (walls etc) should still be dang hard to break open, unless said attackers have taken weeks or longer to deprive supply lines to that settlement...
The other factor of a small pvp-window (high security) is that that should combine with strong alliances also. ;)
@Avena
Pos's work as follows in Eve
When the shields of a player owned station are reduced to 50%, the operators may not add Strontium Clathrates to the Control Tower, nor may they online any modules that require CPU.
When the shields are reduced to 25%, if there are at least enough strontium clathrates to power the tower for at least one hour, the POS enters reinforced mode. In Reinforced mode...
The starbase force field becomes invulnerable to all damage, but will no longer recharge itself to repair damage done to it.
The station begins consuming Strontium Clathrates.
All CPU-requiring modules turn off, and cannot be brought back online until the force field integrity is 50% or above again. This may disrupt research, production, mining, etcetera.
The tower will accept no further fuel of any sort.
Note:
Structures that require no CPU to operate will still function.
You can still target and remote repair defensive structures that are not inside the force field of the control tower and attempt to bring them online.
You may anchor structures (for instance, defenses) at the control tower.
The station will remain in reinforced mode until the supply of strontium clathrates runs out. The tower will consume them at a rate of 200 / period, with the period depending on the size of the tower. Larger towers have shorter times between refuelings.
Coming out of reinforced mode
The control tower will go online again, and can be targeted normally.
The shields will start to recharge again.
Any structures that went offline due to the reinforced mode status will have to be manually onlined again when the shield returns to 50% or higher status.
It is likely that whoever put the POS into reinforced mode will be waiting when the tower leaves that mode.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If a person or group has thousands of paid subscriptions, they should (theoretically)be able to do anything that thousands of players with one subscription each can do.
I think the case 'only people who currently have a settlement can ever take one' is bad.
+1
I completely agree. If I'm paying for the game, or even if it's F2P, TBH, I fully intend to do whatever I want, so long as I'm not breaking the EULA.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm under the impression Settlements are massive investments - and hence massively durable to attack. If siege is anything like Sun Tzu's time then it will take:
The lowest is to attack a city. Siege of a city is only done as a last resort.
Take three months to prepare your machines and three months to complete your siege engineering.
Thus the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy's plans, the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy's forces, the next in order is to attack the enemy's army in the field, and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If a person or group has thousands of paid subscriptions, they should (theoretically)be able to do anything that thousands of players with one subscription each can do.
I think the case 'only people who currently have a settlement can ever take one' is bad.
The consequence of this promotes irresponsibility. If large numbers of agents have nothing whatsoever to lose they can destroy with impunity, risking nothing whatsoever. Encouraging that seems radically contradictory to some other memes on this board about resisting wantonly destructive organizations.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If a person or group has thousands of paid subscriptions, they should (theoretically)be able to do anything that thousands of players with one subscription each can do.
I think the case 'only people who currently have a settlement can ever take one' is bad.
+1
I completely agree. If I'm paying for the game, or even if it's F2P, TBH, I fully intend to do whatever I want, so long as I'm not breaking the EULA.
Then, as Avena suggests, attempting to destroy a walled settlement should be suicidal without sufficient preparation and investment.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it should be easy to take over or destroy a settlement, I just don't think it should be harder if you don't already have title of a settlement.
Settlement control should be determined in the field, and anyone with a large enough army should be allowed to participate.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the case 'only people who currently have a settlement can ever take one' is bad.Indeed. It makes it impossible to break in to the Settlement-running game.
I agree, it would close off a potential source of positive content.
I wonder how often new settlement locations will be opened up as the population grows, and how will those locations be allocated.
However, I'm considering solutions to the problem of "what happens when thousands of bored gamers show up in OE with the intention of wreaking havoc, instead of building up something of their own."
If the cost of some protection from the wolf hordes is that a newly arrived group has few options for claiming a settlement, I think I'm okay with that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
While we've got a lot of what Ryan mentioned covered, I'll repost something I had posted elsewhere.Let's compile some things Pax has done.
[big list of stuff]I am highly amused by the inclusion of humility near the top of your list :)
Humility takes many forms. When dealing with allies, we are very humble. I think a list of factual information rather than an equally long list of boastful claims is very humble in retrospect. Ask anyone who has had dealings with us on a consistent basis, they will tell you the same.
Now humility towards one's opponent is a different story. You should have respect for your opponent, but do what must be done.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm considering solutions to the problem of "what happens when thousands of bored gamers show up in OE with the intention of wreaking havoc, instead of building up something of their own."
Ryan has considered this problem, too. His answer was Mass Combat, as described in You're in the Army Now.
In essence, a trained, cohesive Unit will steamroll even a much larger "mob".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think I understand the "what" of the OP, to prepare for a possible invasion by an outside organized group. What I want to know is "why". Is this opposition on moral grounds? ,meaning you are against the destruction of settlements and oppose the invasion as a united community, because you don't do those things. Or is that you want to do the same things as a goon swarm and don't want them to come in and do it better than you can? If the EE crowd is going to do the same things and burn down settlements then there is no moral grounds to oppose a large group coming in and doing it too.
Most of you sound like it is just a self-serving goal to stop anyone bigger than you are by ganging up to oppose them. But you want to act the same way they do and conquer other settlements. Without a moral basis to unite behind player groups will look for who gives them the best deal. That may be all this community is capable of, the game can be played as a game of settlement conquest.
I never said I was against expansion by conquest, but I am against the complete destruction of a settlement unless they have already first destroyed a settlement. Is the EE community going to conquer each others settlements? Are you going to destroy other player settlements?
Is the only reason this thread got started because a goon swarm is big and we need to be just as big to stop them?
Why do you want to unite, is it to oppose conquest or to oppose the destruction of settlements? Or is it to oppose 'them' doing it but you do the same things? You can either unite to dominate as much of the world as you think you can, and do whatever you feel like to opposition. Or you can have a moral basis to agree on and unite to oppose anyone who does what you don't allow. It is either going to be we want to rule and not them or we don't do what they do and will stop them from doing it.
If you can't agree on the simple idea that no one can destroy another settlement unless they first have destroyed a settlement then this building of community is a rejection of any moral standard and it is all about being a bigger bunch of thugs than them. No point in even discussing when conquest of other settlements becomes wrong, if destroying another settlement is ok. Do you want to build a world based on rules that come from a moral consensus on what is not tolerated, or be a bunch of conquering tyrants who need to unite against any bigger tyrants to save your stuff from being taken?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I want to know is "why".
I can't speak for the OP, but for my part, the "why" boils down to protecting the principles of a non-toxic community. I don't care who gets conquered or has their Settlement completely destroyed - I've taken Ryan's warning to hear and I fully expect to completely lose everything at least once. I'll learn from that experience and hopefully do better the next time.
What I don't want to see is a sea-change in the behavior that is considered "acceptable", to the point where someone coming on the boards to ask a question is met with "learn to search, noob". Or where someone who expresses their own trepidation about PvP is met with "deal with it" or "go somewhere else".
There is a battle going on right now for the soul of this community. It's clear to me, and I want the side that strives for civility and inclusiveness to win.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why do you want to unite, is it to oppose conquest or to oppose the destruction of settlements? Or is it to oppose 'them' doing it but you do the same things?
The proposition of the united front is to stand against those who would Destroy Settlements purely for the fun of Destroying Settlements. Or mindless destruction, if you would.
It is not the destruction of settlements itself that is opposed, but more about the purpose and meaning of doing so. The game is about meaningful interactions.
If someone wishes to destroy our settlements and claim the land or resources, we may be a bit sore but we respect their rights to do so. If they destroy our settlements for the lulz and then just leave the scorched earth behind without doing anything with it, then we would feel violated.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I want the side that strives for civility and inclusiveness to win.
I think it's more of an issue that people have varying interpretations of what constitutes those ideas. I believe the whole community wants civility and inclusiveness. That's going to make the game BETTER... I don't think anyone wants the game to suck. We just have different opinions on gauging those ideas.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why do you want to unite, is it to oppose conquest or to oppose the destruction of settlements? Or is it to oppose 'them' doing it but you do the same things?
The proposition of the united front is to stand against those who would Destroy Settlements purely for the fun of Destroying Settlements. Or mindless destruction, if you would.
It is not the destruction of settlements itself that is opposed, but more about the purpose and meaning of doing so. The game is about meaningful interactions.
If someone wishes to destroy our settlements and claim the land or resources, we may be a bit sore but we respect their rights to do so. If they destroy our settlements for the lulz and then just leave the scorched earth behind without doing anything with it, then we would feel violated.
There is always something to be gained by the destruction of a settlement or even on the micro level of killing an individual character. This is where this whole premise of RPKing falls flat on its face. It does not exist. No one has the right to determine someone else's perception or definition of meaningful.
If I kill you and take 1 copper piece, but I left behind the 5 silver pieces you had. That may not make sense to you, but maybe I'm the 1 Copper Piece Bandit, and it makes perfect sense to me.
Do you seriously think an army will destroy a settlement, expend all of the time and resources, and leave its coffers behind? Of course they won't, they will at the very least replace the resources they spent. If they leave the rest behind, that is still within their definition of meaningful.
No one owns someone else's "meaningful interaction". Even if the Devs sanction an action, that does not strip it of its meaning, that is just an expression of the Devs / GMs power to disagree with the action.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
At least from my perspective, every group has the authority to use their military forces as they see fit. That includes conquering every tiny productive settlement, and turning it into a barely used NBSI settlement on the outskirts of their massive empire. That includes the destruction of settlements for the sale of their destruction. That includes absolutely everything that wont get you banned for griefing.
By this same authority, we are given the right to use our military to support causes we believe in. That includes defending small and vibrant settlements from more powerful nations who would close off their territory to the outside. That includes targeting out groups who take part in actions we view as harmful to the community. That includes adding our power to alliances and treaties that support the same ideals we do.
No group has the authority to tell us what we can and can't do with our military, and what agreements we can and can't sign.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No one has the right to determine someone else's perception or definition of meaningful.
Actually, yes they do - but it will be the devs who decide, not us.
Unless and until we get clear guidance from them on the matter, all of us jumping up and down and throwing definitions at each other (and a complete refusal to give a definition is a form of definition in and of itself) is just so much smoke. To paraphrase Churchill, there are a lot of people using and misusing quotes from the devs in the way that a drunk man uses a lamppost, more for support than illumination. Quite honestly, I'd be willing to bet that if there are any Goonswarm or Dreddit members reading this forum (and I bet there are a few), they must be rubbing their hands with glee.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Actually, yes they do - but it will be the devs who decide, not us.Unless and until we get clear guidance from them on the matter, all of us jumping up and down and throwing definitons at each other (and a complete refusal to give a definition is a form of definition in and of itself) is just so much smoke. To paraphrase Churchill, there are a lot of people using and misusing quotes from the devs in the way that a drunk man uses a lamppost, more for support than illumination. Quite honestly, I'd be willing to bet that if there are any Goonswarm or Dreddit members reading this forum (and I bet there are a few), they must be rubbing their hands with glee.
LOL. Like they just conquered France with Nostradamus prophesy pamphlets. My 2¢, the people that care about this game at this juncture are right here.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think what the Devs at GW are going for with the concept of 'meaningful' is to use those rules to guide the players to behave like they would if they were people living in a fantasy world. For instance, if you burn down a settlement the game rules might shift your alignment to CE and your reputation to -10,000. Only insane killers go around killing everyone they see ,so game rules will try to simulate that you are viewed as such in the world. You might think it is ok to do what you want but the sims in the game world will see you as the despot that you are. It will be interesting to hear more from GW about their plans on what kind of game world they are trying to make, is going to war consequence free in a Pathfinder World? Is the whole point of meaningful PVP to try to simulate a 'real' fantasy world instead of it being a world of psycho-killers with a fantasy background?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think what the Devs at GW are going for with the concept of 'meaningful' is to use those rules to guide the players to behave like they would if they were people living in a fantasy world. For instance, if you burn down a settlement the game rules might shift your alignment to CE and your reputation to -10,000. Only insane killers go around killing everyone they see ,so game rules will try to simulate that you are viewed as such in the world. You might think it is ok to do what you want but the sims in the game world will see you as the despot that you are. It will be interesting to hear more from GW about their plans on what kind of game world they are trying to make, is going to war consequence free in a Pathfinder World? Is the whole point of meaningful PVP to try to simulate a 'real' fantasy world instead of it being a world of psycho-killers with a fantasy background?
Reputation slide would depend on the 'At-War' status of the groups. The devs wish to promote settlement warfare, including destruction.
I fully concur on the CE slide though. Harmful to Others at Benefit to Self is evil. And Destruction is often considered Chaotic Evil. (Domination would be Lawful Evil as per Demons vs Devils)
I would not be surprised if settlement destruction was done by defenders who know they are losing in order to deny the invading force the benefit of having a base to build upon, assuming that they still intend it to be possible to take a settlement over of course.
Certainly if it was the first settlement of a kingdom to fall to invading forces denying them a part built forward base of operations inside the boundaries of what was your kingdom seems like a potentially valuable military strategy
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the most part I have brushed aside the pencil and paper scaredy cats that come on here and say we are going to ruin their brand. But if Lawful Evil is the default alignment to "win", then IMO that is bad business for Paizo. Golarion is not a Futuristic Dystopian Corporatocracy setting. If PFO becomes that, we are doing the setting a major disservice. This is a setting where good and evil are in constant opposition, and good as a general rule, wins.
If being good has disadvantages, evil has to have them too. The alignment system must be made to create a broad range of settlements under different alignments.
Just random thoughts for crowdforging.
