Goblin Squad Member
|
I am not objecting to the 25/75 when you win the field. Rather if you are driven off. My team should be allowed to load my body and its 75% into wagon, whatever and bring it back without getting flagged (don't leave friends behind). They should not need to stand around waiting for our spirits to return.
OK, if they remove items from the corpse and keep, ..., but maybe that is more than 25% loss and the suffer a different reputation loss (or maybe they do get flagged).
Lam
My understanding is that only two parties have rights to the 75% of the loot. The party that killed the the individual killed. Anyone else touching those items during the timer, will get the Thief Flag (PVP - Alignment Shift + Rep Hit).
The devs said they are still working on whom of the party that kills, actually has the rights. The same may hold true if the player killed, was also in a party.
However, if other members of a party have looting rights for their fallen comrade, then you run into the problem of blue vs. blue PVP/looting. Only noobs and fools join ad hocs for this reason in games like EVE Online.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I also wonder (I'm not at all sure) if it would be appropriate to re-envision the Treaty of Rovagug as a mutual support pact opposing any NBSI Settlements that begin to gain power. Just a thought, like I said I'm not at all sure if this is appropriate.
Not at all necroing this for no reason, but based on the conversation we had this evening, I'd say "No, it is not appropriate."
A settlement that decides it will make itself NBSI, is no different then a settlement that decides to bar from entry any individual, for any reason.
The penalty for running an NBSI settlement is already built in. They have chosen to turn away potential members.
NBSI is not breaking any rules, it is just being isolationist.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Could you elaborate?NBSI is not breaking any rules...Just to be clear, it's not necessary that a Settlement be "breaking any rules" in order for them to be identified as a threat and opposed.
As to the meaning, don't try to read too much into it. I'm not really saying anything other than what my words actually said.
As to why I bothered to say it, that's simply because Bluddwolf stated it was "not appropriate" to oppose NBSI Settlements, and implied that a reason it was not appropriate is because they weren't breaking any rules.
I'm not trying to say it is appropriate. I'm simply saying that "they're not breaking any rules" isn't a compelling reason to say it's not appropriate.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why would NBSI be considered a threat?
I can assure you, my home is NBSI, especially at night and if you enter it without my invitation. That does not pose a threat to anyone, except for the intruder.
Was it not Ryan Dancey who suggested that setting settlements to NBSI, might be a good idea for EE settlement security, once OE begins? Implying that once you have had adequate time to assess the threat of OE, you could later open up or remain more restrictive, as you saw fit.
At the very least he believed that most EE settlements would be NBSI, but he did not leave the impression that that would be a bad idea.
So, why is NBSI a threat?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
NBSI is a threatening policy when it applies not only to your home, but to the streets outside your home, and to places far from your home.
Attacking everyone not an ally everywhere you go might be sufficiently bad to unite civilized players against you.
The context in which I had written, and in which Ryan had mentioned was for settlements to set themselves as NBSI. Just because a company / settlement decides to practice NBSI within its own controlled hexes, does not mean that same policy must be applied everywhere they go.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why would NBSI be considered a threat?
For the same reason that the US would consider it a "threat" if Canada summarily executed every American who crossed the border.
Was it not Ryan Dancey who suggested that setting settlements to NBSI, might be a good idea for EE settlement security, once OE begins?
I expect most Settlements to be NBSI (Not Blue Shoot It)... at least until some group shows that Pathfinder Online's differences from EVE make that not the always correct choice.
Saying that you "expect" something to be the case is not the same as suggesting it "might be a good idea".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why would NBSI be considered a threat?For the same reason that the US would consider it a "threat" if Canada summarily executed every American who crossed the border.
You ever here of a travel advisory?
We can not and should not try to draw parallels to the real world. It is a game, one harsher than the real world.
So much for creating a confederation of communities. NBSI is a "threat" that will be met with NOWSI ( Not Our Way, Shoot It).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I expect most Settlements to be NBSI (Not Blue Shoot It)... at least until some group shows that Pathfinder Online's differences from EVE make that not the always correct choice.Saying that you "expect" something to be the case is not the same as suggesting it "might be a good idea".
I don't see how you reach this interpretation?
Ryan qualifies his statement with.... "Until some group shows that PFO is different from EvE, the choice of NBSI may not always be the correct choice" (paraphrased for clarity of how I read it).
This leaves the stated fact that there are instances where NBSI is a good idea, if PFO does not prove to be different from EvE. Before you jump on, "there will be differences", there would have to be significant differences, and there is little evidence of that.
Having intentions and plans, are not implementation. I'll believe it when I see it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If every settlement ends up playing NBSI, I'll be looking for another game. I'm not saying that some settlements will not have what they deem to be good reasons for going that route, nor would I sanction some confederation of communities attacking every settlement that chose to be NBSI. I'm never for forcing your play style on another. For me, however, the whole point of playing a massively multiplayer game is to experience different players, their unique characters, their individual interpretations of the game world, etc. So if every settlement went NBSI, I would be looking for another game because the hope for travel and trade and interaction outside your own home would be destroyed.
My hope is that most settlements will be brave enough to set the example and go with NRDS for the numerous benefits it provides the whole community. Of course, someone is likely to point out that the Goons are coming, that we can't be so naive, etc., but if you're going to give up playing the game the way you think would be the most fun for fear of who might come into the game and cause you hardship, well...you might as well not even start. You're already beat. They've already won.
Sorry for the poor mood. I guess I'm just getting tired of the negative vibes and never ending arguments.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf, you so consistently misrepresent what I say that I'm forced to conclude you're just trolling me.
NBSI is a "threat" that will be met with NOWSI ( Not Our Way, Shoot It).
I'm not trying to say it is appropriate. I'm simply saying that "they're not breaking any rules" isn't a compelling reason to say it's not appropriate.
It's like if I said "that might be a lady's bicycle", and you said "that's not a lady's bicycle because it's blue", and I said "just because it's blue doesn't mean it's not a lady's bicycle", and then you said "see, he's saying it's a lady's bicycle".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Hobs,
I'm sure most settlements will be more open, than NBSI. It seems that GW is working on a system that makes the benefits of being more inclusive, greater than being less inclusive. However, they still acknowledge that some settlements can choose to be exclusive (Ie. Dwarves Only Settlement).
I agree with you in the negative approach towards any notion of having a differing play style that may have been abused in other MMOs.
Not all PVP in noob areas is bad for the game.
Not all ganking is bad for the game.
Even a small amount of griefing (I Said Small Amount!) is not really bad for the game. It helps to create the contrast, sometimes needed, to allow for the players to realize what meaningful pvp looks like.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If every settlement ends up playing NBSI, I'll be looking for another game. I'm not saying that some settlements will not have what they deem to be good reasons for going that route, nor would I sanction some confederation of communities attacking every settlement that chose to be NBSI. I'm never for forcing your play style on another. For me, however, the whole point of playing a massively multiplayer game is to experience different players, their unique characters, their individual interpretations of the game world, etc. So if every settlement went NBSI, I would be looking for another game because the hope for travel and trade and interaction outside your own home would be destroyed.
My hope is that most settlements will be brave enough to set the example and go with NRDS for the numerous benefits it provides the whole community. Of course, someone is likely to point out that the Goons are coming, that we can't be so naive, etc., but if you're going to give up playing the game the way you think would be the most fun for fear of who might come into the game and cause you hardship, well...you might as well not even start. You're already beat. They've already won.
Sorry for the poor mood. I guess I'm just getting tired of the negative vibes never ending arguments.
I don't think that all settlements will go the NBSI route. It is reasonable to say some will for various reasons.
In short it would not make my immediate threat list to know NBSI settlements exist, and I suspect you will have plenty of open settlements to visit :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf, you so consistently misrepresent what I say that I'm forced to conclude you're just trolling me.
NBSI is a "threat" that will be met with NOWSI ( Not Our Way, Shoot It).I'm not trying to say it is appropriate. I'm simply saying that "they're not breaking any rules" isn't a compelling reason to say it's not appropriate.It's like if I said "that might be a lady's bicycle", and you said "that's not a lady's bicycle because it's blue", and I said "just because it's blue doesn't mean it's not a lady's bicycle", and then you said "see, he's saying it's a lady's bicycle".
Sometimes, your interpretations ignore obvious portions of the statement. Your analogies are often times, disconnected from what is being written.
I will repost the quote: "I expect most Settlements to be NBSI (Not Blue Shoot It)... at least until some {b]group shows{/b] that Pathfinder Online's differences from EVE make that not the always correct choice."
Your interpretation of this was: "Saying that you "expect" something to be the case is not the same as suggesting it "might be a good idea".
That is exactly what Ryan suggested... It might be a good idea, UNTIL, PFO settlements prove they can make NBSI "not the correct choice."
It will take some effort on our parts to prove that you can have a secure settlement and remain NRDS. I believe that Ryan was only suggesting that we set settlements to NBSI, just during the early time frame after OE. Essentially, testing the waters and see how the influx of new companies reacts towards the Pre OE populated server community.
If I were in charge of a kingdom, lets say with the minimum of two settlements, I would set one to NRDS and the other to NBSI.
I would use the NRDS settlement as the gatekeeper settlement / trade hub, to filter potential citizens from the undesirables.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If every settlement ends up playing NBSI, I'll be looking for another game.
And you won't be alone in that.
I'd also like people to consider just what tone making early settlements go NBSI will set for the new players of PfO in OE. If we want a game of turtled up alliances and settlements with no movement between them, and a culture of mistrust and hostility, it seems to me universal (or even prevelant) NBSI is the perfect way to bring it about.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I read that quote as "I expect most settlements to be NBSI even though it isn't always the best paradigm. I think that might change once a group proves that it isn't always the best."
I'm confused as to why you think that it will start out as a good idea and then become a bad idea.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I read that quote as "I expect most settlements to be NBSI even though it isn't always the best paradigm. I think that might change once a group proves that it isn't always the best."
I'm confused as to why you think that it will start out as a good idea and then become a bad idea.
When you say, "it isn't always the best idea", that implies that there are times when it is the best idea. That is what "isn't always" allows for.
I don't think NBSI is a good or a bad idea. It is a choice that a settlement will choose to serve its best interests. It is only a bad idea, if it does not lead to the desired result, and it is a good idea if it does.
We are in agreement as to how to "read" Ryan's message.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I read that quote as "I expect most settlements to be NBSI even though it isn't always the best paradigm. I think that might change once a group proves that it isn't always the best."
Agreed. If PFO turns out to be a game where NBSI is sometimes the best paradigm, fine. If it turns out to be a game where NBSI is usually/always the best paradigm, then the devs may have failed. But it sounds like Ryan suggests that it won't always be best - the challenge is for a group to prove it. Most group will go with what works in other games until it's proven to not work.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When you say, "it isn't always the best idea", that implies that there are times when it is the best idea.
I believe Ryan was using a stylistic device called leitotes, where one uses understatement for rhetorical effect. It's a way of avoiding saying "it's not the best idea, you big poopy-heads!", conveying just that while remaining above the level of kindergarten dialogue :-).
He also avoided using--for now--a large mallet to whack us on the head.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
At the end of the day, NBSI sacrifices ability for open trade and neutral parties to do business with you in order to enhance safety and security. The game has been stated many times to be about meaningful player interaction. I imagine an NBSI nation would need to be quite large, expansive, and aggressive in order to not fall apart economically.
That is all pure speculation, but it seems to hold with the spirit of the game. Isolating yourself, as an individual or as a nation, makes the game exceedingly difficult to succeed at.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
At the end of the day, NBSI sacrifices ability for open trade and neutral parties to do business with you in order to enhance safety and security. The game has been stated many times to be about meaningful player interaction. I imagine an NBSI nation would need to be quite large, expansive, and aggressive in order to not fall apart economically.
Very true, and with such a focus on the economic side of the game in the early stages being successful and keeping the NBSI standing will be very difficult. It doesn't mean people should be discouraged from trying it. I think going to war with an entity that maintains these principles over a long time will be very difficult and fun. I don't believe we should go to war with them over their decisions when it comes to their own national security.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I hope to see the design that leads to players choosing practices/customs that leads to the most possible outcomes. It sounds like choosing high security narrows future interactions such as diversity of trade etc. That sounds like a good trade-off for different communities short-term vs long-term and hence the possibility space vs narrowing that down for specific defined goal to secure. If PFO has this, then the level of strategy could be awesome, couldn't it?
Concerning various meta-style communities, the potential strength of these is players sharing the same interpretations of the rules of the game that promote the widest array of play styles that positively connect up for the benefit of the game overall even if a particular player or style of play (eg griefing) is more compromised. The better the players make the game, the more value each player's stake in the game becomes. I really think such individual level eventually leads to community level to the quality of the mmorpg. Even Koster mentions this in a recent interview:
No. It was easier working on UO because we were a small team, and we were all pulling in pretty much the same direction. The only other time that has happened for me like that was when we architected Metaplace. SWG had a much larger team and many pressures on it. The social games also had pressures and lots of conflicting goals. That skunkworks moment, when you have a team that is small enough to move fast, big enough to make something substantial, and all in sync on what we’re making, is something magical.
[...]
I took a lot of flak years ago for saying that MMO stuff was swallowing everything. But Minecraft is also a personal MMO, and Xbox Live is an MMO, and Twitter, and so on, it’s everywhere now. I think that the traditional virtual world is in a tough spot. A lot of the things that made it appealing are available in other formats now. So it really has to retreat to doing what it does best, doing the things that Xbox Live or a MOBA and so on can’t do. And that probably means losing audience, because the things that MMORPGs do best are more time consuming, slower paced, more immersive, than what we have gotten used to.
It's kind of one of the ideas behind this so-called "Confederation" version 0.xx! But it seems any large sociable guild can bring this with them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I wouldn't recommend going to war for any reason other than identifying a credible and likely threat, and I think I would always rcommend going to war in that case. Of course, "war is politics by other means."
So is an organization maintaining a NBSI policy evidence enough of a credible and likely threat? If not, at what point does the policy become a threat?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I wouldn't recommend going to war for any reason other than identifying a credible and likely threat, and I think I would always rcommend going to war in that case. Of course, "war is politics by other means."So is an organization maintaining a NBSI policy evidence enough of a credible and likely threat? If not, at what point does the policy become a threat?
I imagine that depends on how aggressive they are outside of their borders. If you have large raiding parties running out and killing all non-blues, it gets to be a pretty decent threat fairly quickly. If they tend to stay in their own areas, they are less of a threat.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So is an organization maintaining a NBSI policy evidence enough of a credible and likely threat? If not, at what point does the policy become a threat?
There's not enough information in your hypothetical to make a decision.
Ultimately, it will all boil down to our ability to discern threats. It will be helpful, but not strictly necessary, if we are able to convince others of the threat as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... I got the impression that GW might be willing to the penalties for being low-rep to the point that their settlements turn to crap and they can't compete.
If large groups with NBSI policies make up 50% or more of the user base, it might be a hard pill to swallow for any company to justify pushing away the majority of your paying customers.
Stephen Cheney has made it clear that, for this very reason, they have to start with high penalties and gradually dial them back if necessary.
Also, having high penalties at the beginning creates a better chance that the proper community attitudes develop early on. Once it goes toxic, it's going to be in a downward spiral that's going to be very hard to escape.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even after Mr. Danceys' Wall of Text spell, I believe that what we can glean about settlement mechanics and rep/alignment will discourage an 'NBSI' policy by successful settlements. The toxic, ganking behaviour described by the Darkfall Goblin Squad posters would certainly merit a low-rep chaotic evil standing in PFO; a sign that Goblinworks' ambitious attempt to build a game where pvp is only one pillar of a full, rich experience just might become reality. Still one huge point I've made elsewhere hasn't been addressed: If a chaotic evil settlement sucks-to the point that it's very existence is untenable-where do the bad guys you all wanna get you're kicks fighting gonna get bad guy training? How is GW going to hand off training to players via training halls if you can't build and improve the halls? Evil Rogues? Barbarians? Clerics of Lamashtu? Rangers who don't help Halflings but lead 'em to Weathertop, steal their money and eat their bacon? Can a Venture Co. sponsor a POI such as a 'Shadowgrove' that trains evil Druids? I mean since a NE Druid settlement would be too weak in game terms. They said in the Q&A that Venture Companies would get cool stuff of their own-how about a Rogue school in the dungeons of Fort Inevitable?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Still one huge point I've made elsewhere hasn't been addressed: If a chaotic evil settlement sucks-to the point that it's very existence is untenable-where do the bad guys you all wanna get you're kicks fighting gonna get bad guy training? How is GW going to hand off training to players via training halls if you can't build and improve the halls? Evil Rogues? Barbarians? Clerics of Lamashtu? Rangers who don't help Halflings but lead 'em to Weathertop, steal their money and eat their bacon? Can a Venture Co. sponsor a POI such as a 'Shadowgrove' that trains evil Druids? I mean since a NE Druid settlement would be too weak in game terms. They said in the Q&A that Venture Companies would get cool stuff of their own-how about a Rogue school in the dungeons of Fort Inevitable?
Neutral Evil / Chaotic Neutral / True Neutral may all be willing to provide some degree of services to Chaotic Evil. Chaotic Evil groups and individuals will likely integrate into those other society types.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If a chaotic evil settlement sucks-to the point that it's very existence is untenable-where do the bad guys you all wanna get you're kicks fighting gonna get bad guy training?
There is no good reason to play a chaotic evil character except if you like being other people's content.
Maybe I should, but I really don't feel any sympathy for people who want to play Chaotic Evil and also want to avoid being other people's content.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If a chaotic evil settlement sucks-to the point that it's very existence is untenable-where do the bad guys you all wanna get you're kicks fighting gonna get bad guy training?There is no good reason to play a chaotic evil character except if you like being other people's content.Maybe I should, but I really don't feel any sympathy for people who want to play Chaotic Evil and also want to avoid being other people's content.
N-Bone I don't want anyone to be able to avoid being other peeps' content. I'm askin' where will they get training in order to play the bad guy at all? So- they CAN be content. I'm also offering some cool IDEAS (I hope) for Venture Compnanies to fill the possible void. Chaotic Evil settlements have to be marginalized to correct flaws Mr. Dancey sees in EVE (as part of the rep/align/flags system). Trust me, if some bozos form a NE Druid settlement close to my Little Mordor (LE) and go all NBSI I'll join the Paladins of Squeeky Cleanness to knock it down.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
N-Bone I don't want anyone to be able to avoid being other peeps' content. I'm askin' where will they get training in order to play the bad guy at all?
Sorry. I actually knew I wasn't directly addressing your question, but felt compelled to say what I said.
I genuinely believe that Ryan's attitudes about Chaotic Evil are based on his assessment that it is most likely that Chaotic Evil characters will also be Low Reputation. Ultimately, there really isn't a place for CE + Low Rep chars to get quality training, and I really hope it stays that way.
There might be players who have the dedication and ability to play High Rep CE, but they're going to have to work at it, and again I don't think that's a problem.
As for the Venture Company POIs, I've been too giddy about the possibility of being able to build Libraries in other Settlements to really give much thought to what other purposes they might be put :)
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
CE characters can get their general training anywhere that accepts them, evil training in any evil settlement, and chaotic training in any chaotic settlement.
The CE-only skills might be hard to acquire, because they have to build a settlement and they might have too many enemies to do that. If so, it's because they have made too many enemies, not because they are the wrong alignment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ryan Dancey has a very skewed and unimaginative view of the Chaotic Evil character.
PFO will be a game about settlements competing over territory and resources.
Chaotic Evil characters are the people that no settlement wants because they are the least productive and cooperative members of society.
If you have some deep roleplaying based desire to play a chaotic evil, realize that you are deliberately choosing to burden yourself with severe mechanical penalties, and you'll be the "bad guy" of the game. In most successful fantasy settings, the "bad guy" is intended to lose in the long run, while posing a short term risk.
If the mechanical penalties are so onerous that no one decides to play CE, then the game will chug merrily along, with all the meaningful pvp interactions and large-scale settlement conflicts most of us are looking forward too.
Have you read the Pathfinder rules about chaotic evil characters? Its even suggested that the GM not allow evil characters in the standard campaign.
The first six alignments, lawful good through chaotic neutral, are standard alignments for player characters. The three evil alignments are usually for monsters and villains. With the GM's permission, a player may assign an evil alignment to his PC, but such characters are often a source of disruption and conflict with good and neutral party members. GMs are encouraged to carefully consider how evil PCs might affect the campaign before allowing them.
and
A chaotic evil character does what his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are likely to be poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.
Are you sure Ryan is the one with the skewed perception of what Chaotic Evil really is?
All your descriptions of the Unnamed Company make it sound Lawful Evil with possibly some Neutral Evil members.
No organized group with codes of conduct, rules of engagement and ambitions to sign contracts wants a Chaotic Evil member, or worst of all a Chaotic Evil leadership.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All your descriptions of the Unnamed Company make it sound Lawful Evil with possibly some Neutral Evil members.
No organized group with codes of conduct, rules of engagement and ambitions to sign contracts wants a Chaotic Evil member, or worst of all a Chaotic Evil leadership.
There lays the problem with Alignments... PFO essentially forces bandits to be Chaotic, in order to use the Outlaw Flag. Yet, The UnNamed Company is highly organized and does have codes that we will follow. The Alignment also forces all Assassins to be Evil. So our company would best be described as: Chaotic (Lawful) Neutral (Evil).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Chaotic Evil: The major precepts of this alignment are freedom, randomness, and woe. Laws and order, kindness, and good deeds are disdained. Life has no value. By promoting chaos and evil, those of this alignment hope to bring themselves to positions of power, glory, and prestige in a system ruled by individual caprice and their own whims.
Is the abolishment of a settlement and the slaughter of those inhabitants not chaotic and evil? But those actions are not objective-less. They want to rule, they want wealth, and they want power. I fail to recognize how this plight is any less significant of the paladin wishing to save the world from the demonic hordes.
Being the bad guy shouldn't equate to mechanical disadvantage so good always triumphs. How is a one sided story a compelling story? It's not. That's why "Empire Strikes Back" is a great movie. It's a significant triumph for evil and makes the story of good all that more compelling.
Darkness has to triumph at times otherwise there is nothing to contrast against that which is light.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There lays the problem with Alignments... PFO essentially forces bandits to be Chaotic, in order to use the Outlaw Flag. Yet, The UnNamed Company is highly organized and does have codes that we will follow. The Alignment also forces all Assassins to be Evil. So our company would best be described as: Chaotic (Lawful) Neutral (Evil).
Not really seeing a problem.. if you want to rob people, be a chaotic bandit, but be very careful in choosing your targets so you don't slip into evil as well as chaotic.
If you want to be an assassin, make sure your targets are legitimate military targets, not just random travellers, so you don't slip into chaotic.
Both those restrictions are designed to let you engage in meaningful PVP, while discouraging the playstyle of "lets kill people willy nilly"
If you're saying you want to be both an bandit and an assassin simultanously, then you are going to be chaotic evil, and incur the mechanical penalties designed to discourage people from doing so.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being the bad guy shouldn't equate to mechanical disadvantage so good always triumphs. How is a one sided story a compelling story? It's not. That's why "Empire Strikes Back" is a great movie. It's a significant triumph for evil and makes the story of good all that more compelling.
Darkness has to triumph at times otherwise there is nothing to contrast against that which is light.
A successful, evil settlement will be Lawful Evil, not Chaotic Evil.
'Empire Strikes Back" is a great example of a Lawful Evil settlement crushing a small Chaotic Good outpost.
Chaotic Evil winning would have been if Jabba fed everyone to the Sarlaac, then went home and was killed when his Gammorian guards got bored and murdered him.
Chaotic Evil is the lone, brutish killer, or the pillaging horde, neither of which is a desirable adversary in a game designed around settlement vs settlement conflict.
You can't have meaningful settlement vs settlement interactions when one side is unable or uninterested in building a settlement.
If Chaotic Evil ever "wins" Pathfinder Online, its time to shut down the server and declare the experiment a failure.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Being the bad guy shouldn't equate to mechanical disadvantage so good always triumphs. How is a one sided story a compelling story? It's not. That's why "Empire Strikes Back" is a great movie. It's a significant triumph for evil and makes the story of good all that more compelling.
Darkness has to triumph at times otherwise there is nothing to contrast against that which is light.
A successful, evil settlement will be Lawful Evil, not Chaotic Evil.
'Empire Strikes Back" is a great example of a Lawful Evil settlement crushing a small Chaotic Good outpost.
Chaotic Evil winning would have been if Jabba fed everyone to the Sarlaac, then went home and was killed when his Gammorian guards got bored and murdered him.
Chaotic Evil is the lone, brutish killer, or the pillaging horde, neither of which is a desirable adversary in a game designed around settlement vs settlement conflict.
You can't have meaningful settlement vs settlement interactions when one side is unable or uninterested in building a settlement.
If Chaotic Evil ever "wins" Pathfinder Online, its time to shut down the server and declare the experiment a failure.
Yo, G there are posters who want to RP chaotic evil without being griefers. I also think there ought to be the opportunity for a barbarian horde to attack settlements and establish some kind of encampments. Like the Visigoths or Vandals. Not sure exactly what alignment they would end up , tho. Don't see how any group can 'win' PFO no matter what alignment they happen to be. I've always believed winning fantasy gaming involved continued, successful participation; defining success for yourself within the rules.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess in my head I've been defining "winning" as controlling 75% or more of the available territory, when considering the settlement vs settlement part of the game. You are right, that any individual player can define winning in their own terms
Yo, G there are posters who want to RP chaotic evil without being griefers.
I'd like to explore this idea, because I've seen a couple people say it.
I'm genuinely curious.. what sorts of activity would an "RP chaotic evil non-griefer" do? What part of those activities requires them to be CE?CE characters are "vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable." How do you play that without just being an annoying jerk?
If you do find a non-abusive way to play a CE character are you willing to accept significant mechanical disadvantages to do so?
Just like we already know that a solitary pacifist herb gatherer is a possible playstyle, but will also accept significant mechanical disadvantages.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd like to explore this idea, because I've seen a couple people say it.
I'm genuinely curious.. what sorts of activity would an "RP chaotic evil non-griefer" do? What part of those activities requires them to be CE?CE characters are "vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable." How do you play that without just being an annoying jerk?
So what if I want to play a Dothraki-esque character? As a member of a Dothraki-esque horde? Why is that so unacceptable? We have our little hut cities, but we manage to take down every settlement? All the sudden the game is a failed experiment because someone's preconceived notion of who should win got blown out the window?
No, that means you didn't band together and kick our butts like you were suppose to. Don't pigeon hole a play style because you don't agree with it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what if I want to play a Dothraki-esque character? As a member of a Dothraki-esque horde? Why is that so unacceptable? We have our little hut cities, but we manage to take down every settlement? All the sudden the game is a failed experiment because someone's preconceived notion of who should win got blown out the window?No, that means you didn't band together and kick our butts like you were suppose to. Don't pigeon hole a play style because you don't agree with it.
Yes, in a game that is designed to be about settlement vs settlement territorial control warfare, if a group that doesn't possess a settlement is capable of destroying all the other settlements, I would conclude that the game design failed.
I would also say that since the game is designed to encourage meaningful player interactions the game will have failed if the only interactions between members of different settlements are combats.
IMO, combat is only meaningful if it is one of a number of possible interactions. If its the only possible interaction, then it loses its meaningfulness.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And I'd just like to state that the hypothetical situation I just mentioned is highly unlikely, but I do believe that people have a right to play chaotic evil hordes bent on mass destruction and as such accept their role as other people's content. When they win, because they will, maybe not as often as they should, but people shouldn't be butt hurt about it. They should rethink their strategy and take their lands back from the barbarian horde. That's a compelling story. A barbarian horde that always loses isn't imposing therefore makes a less compelling story.