Goblin Squad Member
|
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 whole heartedly argue that those circumstances would be player failure not game design failure.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
A "right" to play CE hordes I can accept, as long as the game has sufficient mechanical disadvantages for CE.
If everyone was interested in a enjoyable roleplaying experience, then we wouldn't need restrictions and disadvantages for CE.
However, we know that in a PVP mmo, there will be large numbers of players who care nothing about roleplaying, and just want to piss off other people for the fun of it.
We need game mechanics that make those people swiftly become CE and impose enough disadvantages on them that their effect is mitigated.
If you really want to play CE, you're going to have to live with those disadvantages, just like if you really want to play a lone hermit, you're also going to have significant mechanical disadvantages.
Another thought... a dothraki horde would be best represented by a npc escalation, not with PCs playing the horde members.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.
Why do you think the Dathraki are Chaotic Evil?
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.
And who is suggesting you should not be able to play one or that a large organized group of people playing as you hope to would be a pain in their butt?
Rovagug (pronounced ROH-vah-gug)[1] seeks only to destroy creation
...
While Rovagug hates most deities equally, he reserves especial hatred for Sarenrae, who was instrumental in combating the Rough Beast long enough that the archdevil Asmodeus could imprison him. This hatred is returned by all other deities as well, and even feuding gods joined together to seal Rovagug away from the world.
...
His worshipers are only slightly less dedicated, glorying in destruction for its own sake and dismissing building and creating as a pastime for those too weak to destroy. Some worshipers do so out of nihilistic misery, others out of self-loathing, and yet others through a simple, burning rage towards the universe.
...
Churches to The Beast are banned in nearly every civilized city, and his worship is suppressed in most nations.
This is CE on Golaron. First, this does not describe the Dathraki, second...if training beyond the most basic requires social investment, how would these people accomplish this? Finally, if training is a resource, why would settlements invest in characters who contribute nothing back but destruction and misery?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.A "right" to play CE hordes I can accept, as long as the game has sufficient mechanical disadvantages for CE.
If everyone was interested in a enjoyable roleplaying experience, then we wouldn't need restrictions and disadvantages for CE.
However, we know that in a PVP mmo, there will be large numbers of players who care nothing about roleplaying, and just want to piss off other people for the fun of it.
We need game mechanics that make those people swiftly become CE and impose enough disadvantages on them that their effect is mitigated.
If you really want to play CE, you're going to have to live with those disadvantages, just like if you really want to play a lone hermit, you're also going to have significant mechanical disadvantages.
Another thought... a dothraki horde would be best represented by a npc escalation, not with PCs playing the horde members.
So what mechanical disadvantages are the other alignments going to have? If they aren't going to have any, on what grounds do you feel specific alignments should be exempt from such disadvantages?
Likely correct about some people not wanting to roleplay.
Interesting and likely correct on the NPC horde.
I'm really just playing devil's advocate here, but I think most points are valid.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think this is where I become wildly unpopular for my opinion that I have never liked alignment systems.
I didn't even like them in AD&D - Pathfinder.
Good to Evil is fair in and of itself. Law to Chaos is good in and of itself. When you combine both you just tend to have a number crunch.
That said I know it is likely to be a thing in PFO, and no hatred on my part for it. I just hope it allows for functioning banditry (without a alignment grinder) in some form. It just isn't the River Kingdoms without the threat.
I would also argue that other MMO titles that boast territory dominance as a function still have other ways to "win". Market dominance and providing non mechanical functions (like arbitration, middle man work, etc) are pretty popular imaginary vocations in sandboxes. The same could be said for piracy and bounty hunting.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So what mechanical disadvantages are the other alignments going to have? If they aren't going to have any, on what grounds do you feel specific alignments should be exempt from such disadvantages?
I think a small percentage, say 15% for the sake of discussion, of players will play LG no matter what.
I think a small percentage of players will play CE no matter what.
The vast majority of players will play whatever alignment gives them the most mechanical advantages.
I think the game will be more fun for everyone, both good and evil alignments, if the majority of players are closer to LG than to CE.
Thus, I think CE needs disadvantages to make the game successful.
Also, CE has the advantage of being able to kill anyone at any time without risking penalties. That is a significant advantage over LG.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why do you think the Dathraki are Chaotic Evil?
And who is suggesting you should not be able to play one or that a large organized group of people playing as you hope to would be a pain in their butt?
This is CE on Golaron. First, this does not describe the Dathraki, second...if training beyond the most basic requires social investment, how would these people accomplish this? Finally, if training is a resource, why would settlements invest in characters who contribute nothing back but destruction and misery?
What makes you think the Dathraki are not CE? What would you classify them as?
Last time I checked, a vast majority of people were in favor of handicapping thus discouraging the CE role.
CE are driven by a power and have a goal. Everything else is madness. If catapults must be built to bring down the walls and the goal is behind those walls, those catapults are going to get built one way or another. They won't be the best catapults, but they are going to find someone who knows how to build them, find a way to gather/steal the resources, probably only test the machine once or twice and go for broke.
By saying that CE is inept past the basic social investment is an invalid argument because you fail to acknowledge the differences between the structures of those alignments. If CE has no ability to advance socially, then why are the Drow among the most fear denizens of the Darklands? They are self contained CE with a social structure and they are formidable. That is why this entire line of reasoning is faulted from the beginning.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So what mechanical disadvantages are the other alignments going to have? If they aren't going to have any, on what grounds do you feel specific alignments should be exempt from such disadvantages?
I think a small percentage, say 15% for the sake of discussion, of players will play LG no matter what.
I think a small percentage of players will play CE no matter what.
The vast majority of players will play whatever alignment gives them the most mechanical advantages.
I think the game will be more fun for everyone, both good and evil alignments, if the majority of players are closer to LG than to CE.
Thus, I think CE needs disadvantages to make the game successful.
Also, CE has the advantage of being able to kill anyone at any time without risking penalties. That is a significant advantage over LG.
Agreed on most fronts. Except that CE will suffer the same consequences for killing people. Low Rep and flags. Flags make them an easier target for people not flying the champion or enforcer flags. Low rep hinders their advancement. Most quick and dirty solutions for CE ie slavery, undead, will flag them and make them susceptible to PvP which is the intended result anyway. I see these hindrances equal to those of having to maintain a LG alignment.
I do see the point that an 80% CE player population would be troublesome to say the least so I understand the necessity for disadvantages.
I do not agree with the idea that those disadvantages have to hinder the development of high rep CE, with the assumption that the Rep system works anywhere near as envisioned. High rep CE should receive equal boons as high rep LG. Reward well behaved players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If CE has no ability to advance socially, then why are the Drow among the most fear denizens of the Darklands? They are self contained CE with a social structure and they are formidable. That is why this entire line of reasoning is faulted from the beginning.
Drow I think are an interesting example.
The Drow are so strong individually, that if they weren't CE, they would easily conquer most lands, few would be able to stand against them.In most D&D based fiction, Drow are strong mechanically, but the social disadvantages make them balanced. (betrayal, infighting, lack of trust)
In PFO, there will be no way to impose those social disadvantages, CE guilds will be no more prone to betrayal and infighting than a LG guild.
Thus, the game should impose mechanical disadvantages to simulate the inherent problems that prevent CE societies from ruling and expanding.
I'm not clear on how the rep system is designed to work. Everytime I try to picture a high-rep CE, it just looks like Lawful Evil to me. A principled robber? An assassin that only kills other pvp flagged targets? Once you start putting restrictions on the depredations of CE, it looks less like CE to me.
Can you describe what sorts of actions a high-rep CE would perform? Couldn't those roleplaying concepts fit into LE or CG instead?
I feel like some people (not specifically you Areks) just want to call themselves CE, without actually performing chaotic evil actions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What makes you think the Dathraki are not CE? What would you classify them as?
Actually, you are making the claim I am denying...why do you think they are CE?
Lack of stone buildings has nothing to do with alignment (but of course the Dathraki do have a single permanent settlement with strict and rigid laws/codes of conduct, including zero violence within the settlement).
I would classify them as neutral.
By saying that CE is inept past the basic social investment is an invalid argument because you fail to acknowledge the differences between the structures of those alignments. If CE has no ability to advance socially, then why are the Drow among the most fear denizens of the Darklands? They are self contained CE with a social structure and they are formidable. That is why this entire line of reasoning is faulted from the beginning.
This is a good and valid point I cannot address. I have been having my own difficulties reconciling all elves with the Chaotic alignment.
Assuming GW did do away with the repercussions of the alignment system, how would you go about trying to dissuade "undesirable gameplay" as defined by GW?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do not agree with the idea that those disadvantages have to hinder the development of high rep CE, with the assumption that the Rep system works anywhere near as envisioned. High rep CE should receive equal boons as high rep LG. Reward well behaved players.
Again, I do not know that a High Rep CE will have that much trouble finding ways to develop. Being High Rep will likely allow them into both Evil and Chaotic settlements that are not Chaotic Evil settlements.
The Chaotic Evil settlement itself is what is endangered with our current understanding of the rules. Though I think it rather explains itself. Lawful is sensible to have large, well-organized settlements regardless of Good/Evil. Chaotic is unorganized, and therefor tougher to build a large settlement. Within the Chaotic alignment scale, Good characters are most likely to act in concert for mutual benefit, even if in disorganized fashion. Evil is more likely to balloon and bust in cycles as power structures are ever in flux and members backstab each other for personal gain.
I know Salvatore isn't everyone's cup of tea, but his portrayal of the Chaotic Evil drow society of Menzoberranzan does a good job of highlighting Chaotic Evil as a 'successful' settlement. The reason that most encountered Drow tend to be badasses is because everyone who wasn't was probably already killed off by jealous rivals that decide the best way to compete is to remove your competitor. We cannot properly simulate how that settlement works in PFO without the concept of perma-death. Your next best options are depictions of monstrous races or evil barbarians, of which are more likely to live in caves or nomadic camps and create their biggest threat with large numbers of fodder to throw at enemies.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Drow I think are an interesting example.
The Drow are so strong individually, that if they weren't CE, they would easily conquer most lands, few would be able to stand against them.
In most D&D based fiction, Drow are strong mechanically, but the social disadvantages make them balanced. (betrayal, infighting, lack of trust)In PFO, there will be no way to impose those social disadvantages, CE guilds will be no more prone to betrayal and infighting than a LG guild.
Thus, the game should impose mechanical disadvantages to simulate the inherent problems that prevent CE societies from ruling and expanding.
Glad to see that you are not just blindly disagreeing with me and hopefully you don't think I am with you.
I think that if people believe that infighting, betrayal, lack of trust, are what quantifies the weight of being CE then those concepts should be brought into the game. Don't just substitute a mechanical disadvantage because CE organizations are suppose to be in-fighting when they aren't. Have CE features that allow them to screw each other over and make it worth their while as an individual to do so. Have their reputation tied to stabbing each other in the back, so those that have access to the best training are the most crooked. I see these as creative constructive solutions that are viable alternatives to the blanket "mechanical inferiority" that discourages that role.
All roles should be supported in the game. While CE will be other people's content, that doesn't mean that it should be any less appealing to play.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know Salvatore isn't everyone's cup of tea, but his portrayal of the Chaotic Evil drow society of Menzoberranzan does a good job of highlighting Chaotic Evil as a 'successful' settlement. The reason that most encountered Drow tend to be badasses is because everyone who wasn't was probably already killed off by jealous rivals that decide the best way to compete is to remove your competitor. We cannot properly simulate how that settlement works in PFO without the concept of perma-death. Your next best options are depictions of monstrous races or evil barbarians, of which are more likely to live in caves or nomadic camps and create their biggest threat with large numbers of fodder to throw at enemies.
You hit it dead on Lifedragn. That is one of my biggest problems is that I grew up on Salvatore and the Dark Elf Trilogy. It was a very intriguing tale and I think that mechanics can be implemented to compensate for the "necessary evils" of CE. I think CE can vastly be improved upon to make it more CEish and less default jackass, all done through mechanics that encourage CE vs CE behavior. I don't think this has been explored at all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have CE features that allow them to screw each other over and make it worth their while as an individual to do so. Have their reputation tied to stabbing each other in the back, so those that have access to the best training are the most crooked.
That would be awesome, I'd love to see some system that gives evil a bonus for killing other evil people. "hmm.. +50% loot if I stab my company leader in the back during this combat"
I think part of the problem is the actions a well roleplayed CE character takes are going to look very similar to the actions that a non-roleplaying griefer or abusive player are going to take, and I am strongly in favor of penalizing the latter, even if it means alienating the former.
I don't agree that all roles should be supported.
We already know that the game mechanics will make some roles difficult to play: the lone hermit, the pacifist gatherer, etc.
If adding chaotic evil characters to the list of disadvantaged roles is the price we pay for discouraging the "I just want to randomly kill weaker toons" MMO player, than I am willing to pay it.
I have enjoyed the discussion, but won't be online again for a while. I hope to hear other people's thoughts on the topic.. what does a high-rep CE character look like that doesn't deserve to be lumped in with the scum of the riverlands? And couldn't high-rep CE just be called Lawful Evil?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You hit it dead on Lifedragn. That is one of my biggest problems is that I grew up on Salvatore and the Dark Elf Trilogy. It was a very intriguing tale and I think that mechanics can be implemented to compensate for the "necessary evils" of CE. I think CE can vastly be improved upon to make it more CEish and less default jackass, all done through mechanics that encourage CE vs CE behavior. I don't think this has been explored at all.
I know Salvatore isn't everyone's cup of tea, but his portrayal of the Chaotic Evil drow society of Menzoberranzan does a good job of highlighting Chaotic Evil as a 'successful' settlement. The reason that most encountered Drow tend to be badasses is because everyone who wasn't was probably already killed off by jealous rivals that decide the best way to compete is to remove your competitor. We cannot properly simulate how that settlement works in PFO without the concept of perma-death. Your next best options are depictions of monstrous races or evil barbarians, of which are more likely to live in caves or nomadic camps and create their biggest threat with large numbers of fodder to throw at enemies.
I think the biggest issue there becomes algorithmic complexity. Given enough time, something could probably be developed. But in order to get a product available to play they need more simple scales. High Rep = beneficial, Low Rep = Harmful. Lawful = More DI Bonuses, Chaotic = Less DI Bonuses. This is why CE settlements will end up closer to goblin camps than they will Drow cities.
Encouraging CE vs. CE behavior could be quite challenging as well. The fact that being poisoned by the person you just completed a job for is a temporary setback in wealth instead of a career-ending event is a huge factor to balance against.
I would be interested in exploring how a more inclusive and meaningful alignment system may look like, but I'm not sure this thread is the appropriate place.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have enjoyed the discussion, but won't be online again for a while. I hope to hear other people's thoughts on the topic.. what does a high-rep CE character look like that doesn't deserve to be lumped in with the scum of the riverlands? And couldn't high-rep CE just be called Lawful Evil?
A high rep CE player could be a bandit who only attacks flagged travelers while flying an Outlaw flag for stealth benefits. He is not interested in making deals, and does not issue SADs, feeling that killing and moving on is both more fun and more expedient to their goals.
Attack Only Flagged = High Rep activity. No rep loss from unflagged PvP.
Unprovoked kills = Evil
Stealing goods = Chaotic
This character does not detract from the game, as they only target those who are consenting to PvP through the user of flags. You could consider that they are adding value to the game. I don't necessarily want them around settlements I frequent, but I would not see this playstyle to be so harmful as to be toxic to the community.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A high rep CE could also be someone with a very strong personality who recruits lots of higher rep NE and CN to help him develop a settlement where they can all get training. He protects himself with an elite NE bodyguard. Laws are limited, pretty much, to "don't make The Boss be a jerk".
Such a character might provide limited training to other CE - but he likely doesn't cater to gutter dregs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A high rep CE player could be a bandit who only attacks flagged travelers while flying an Outlaw flag for stealth benefits. He is not interested in making deals, and does not issue SADs, feeling that killing and moving on is both more fun and more expedient to their goals.
Attack Only Flagged = High Rep activity. No rep loss from unflagged PvP.
Unprovoked kills = Evil
Stealing goods = ChaoticThis character does not detract from the game, as they only target those who are consenting to PvP through the user of flags. You could consider that they are adding value to the game. I don't necessarily want them around settlements I frequent, but I would not see this playstyle to be so harmful as to be toxic to the community.
The scenario I like best is this:
Group of bandits made up of CNs and CE's...
CN Bandit issues the SAD. Meanwhile the CE Assassin is "Observing" the merchant, and building up his Assassin's mask stack.
CN Bandit, asks for a boat load in the SAD, and it gets rejected.
CE Assassin(s) move in for the kill, while the CN bandit shifts over to Traveler Flag.
Both CNs and CEs load the loot up in the Traveler Flag flying CNs.
The CE Assassins, switches to Outlaw Flag and issues a SAD to the Bandit / Traveler. Takes his cut of the loot, and gains Double Rep bonus. The Assassin, now Outlaw, praises the CN Bandit Traveler, so he now gets the Rep 1/2 the Rep bonus.
Traveler Bandit goes off with the protection of the recently SAD'd and with Assassin escort.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What makes you think the Dathraki are not CE? What would you classify them as?Actually, you are making the claim I am denying...why do you think they are CE?
This is a good and valid point I cannot address. I have been having my own difficulties reconciling all elves with the Chaotic alignment.
Assuming GW did do away with the repercussions of the alignment system, how would you go about trying to dissuade "undesirable gameplay" as defined by GW?
Traveling band of marauders with in-fighting as seen at the wedding reception of Khal Drago is enough for me to say CE with N tenancies.
I do not believe the connection to be between elves and chaos as much as Drow having a "successful" CE society on par with the rest of society. I use those terms subjectively.
I am not campaigning for the abandonment of alignment repercussions, simply equality among those repercussions and actual mechanics that emulate the desired deficiency as opposed to blanket mechanics that simulate those same deficiencies.
If CE is where GW believes most "undesirables" will end up... make CE the most desirable target for CE.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A high rep CE player could be a bandit who only attacks flagged travelers while flying an Outlaw flag for stealth benefits. He is not interested in making deals, and does not issue SADs, feeling that killing and moving on is both more fun and more expedient to their goals.
Attack Only Flagged = High Rep activity. No rep loss from unflagged PvP.
Unprovoked kills = Evil
Stealing goods = ChaoticThis character does not detract from the game, as they only target those who are consenting to PvP through the user of flags. You could consider that they are adding value to the game. I don't necessarily want them around settlements I frequent, but I would not see this playstyle to be so harmful as to be toxic to the community.
The scenario I like best is this:
Group of bandits made up of CNs and CE's...
CN Bandit issues the SAD. Meanwhile the CE Assassin is "Observing" the merchant, and building up his Assassin's mask stack.
CN Bandit, asks for a boat load in the SAD, and it gets rejected.
CE Assassin(s) move in for the kill, while the CN bandit shifts over to Traveler Flag.
Both CNs and CEs load the loot up in the Traveler Flag flying CNs.
The CE Assassins, switches to Outlaw Flag and issues a SAD to the Bandit / Traveler. Takes his cut of the loot, and gains Double Rep bonus. The Assassin, now Outlaw, praises the CN Bandit Traveler, so he now gets the Rep 1/2 the Rep bonus.
Traveler Bandit goes off with the protection of the recently SAD'd and with Assassin escort.
Simple solution is cool down timers for reflagging when after utilizing flag specific abilities. That would triple the time necessary to complete this action and allow for the merchant to bring back allies, possibly preventing this from happening. If it doesn't get prevented, the merchant should have hired better guards.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If CE is where GW believes most "undesirables" will end up... make CE the most desirable target for CE.
If someone wants to be a high rep CE, then when they get the urge to attack unflagged people they should attack low rep people. Rep loss is based on your target's rep. And if you're attacking low rep CE, that's not going to ruffle anyone's feathers - you can do it all day long and the paladins and champions and guardians won't say boo.
Lets you demonstrate your ability to deal some serious hurt, low rep loss, doesn't cause your neighbors to mount a crusade... that works, right?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If CE is where GW believes most "undesirables" will end up... make CE the most desirable target for CE.If someone wants to be a high rep CE, then when they get the urge to attack unflagged people they should attack low rep people. Rep loss is based on your target's rep. And if you're attacking low rep CE, that's not going to ruffle anyone's feathers - you can do it all day long and the paladins and champions and guardians won't say boo.
Lets you demonstrate your ability to deal some serious hurt, low rep loss, doesn't cause your neighbors to mount a crusade... that works, right?
As far as I can see it does. It only makes sense. I would LOVE to see it tested in theory. The trick is making CE a more lucrative target for CE. You tie that to character advancement through the use of available training stations and merit badges to be the best of the best of CE. In the end, you could end up with a really powerful jackass, but you've got other jackasses trying to take him or her down... plus you've just created more difficult content for those high level crusaders who "really" want to test their mettle.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The scenario I like best is this:
How quickly and joyfully I'll take my money somewhere else if this became a standard. It feels bleak and mechanical; it lacks even a hint of RP, as if it's designed explicitly to exploit the inevitable weaknesses of the systems we've been told about so far.
I hope Ryan's able to come through with his promises to have no hard-and-fast rules about what's forbidden, and to have GMs using the "I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it" system. I agree I want no clear lines for someone to edge up to, knowing exactly how far he can go.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The scenario I like best is this:How quickly and joyfully I'll take my money somewhere else if this became a standard. It feels bleak and mechanical; it lacks even a hint of RP, as if it's designed explicitly to exploit the inevitable weaknesses of the systems we've been told about so far.
I hope Ryan's able to come through with his promises to have no hard-and-fast rules about what's forbidden, and to have GMs using the "I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it" system. I agree I want no clear lines for someone to edge up to, knowing exactly how far he can go.
If plausible, once identified, blatant breaks like that would be remedied I hope. Like I said, adding a cool down timer to reflagging is an easy answer. It also seems to be the route they are going with high level abilities needing to be recharged at taverns and such. I could easily see needing to go to a tavern/church/establishment to reflag.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A high rep CE player could be a bandit who only attacks flagged travelers while flying an Outlaw flag for stealth benefits. He is not interested in making deals, and does not issue SADs, feeling that killing and moving on is both more fun and more expedient to their goals.
Attack Only Flagged = High Rep activity. No rep loss from unflagged PvP.
Unprovoked kills = Evil
Stealing goods = ChaoticThis character does not detract from the game, as they only target those who are consenting to PvP through the user of flags. You could consider that they are adding value to the game. I don't necessarily want them around settlements I frequent, but I would not see this playstyle to be so harmful as to be toxic to the community.
The scenario I like best is this:
Group of bandits made up of CNs and CE's...
CN Bandit issues the SAD. Meanwhile the CE Assassin is "Observing" the merchant, and building up his Assassin's mask stack.
CN Bandit, asks for a boat load in the SAD, and it gets rejected.
CE Assassin(s) move in for the kill, while the CN bandit shifts over to Traveler Flag.
Both CNs and CEs load the loot up in the Traveler Flag flying CNs.
The CE Assassins, switches to Outlaw Flag and issues a SAD to the Bandit / Traveler. Takes his cut of the loot, and gains Double Rep bonus. The Assassin, now Outlaw, praises the CN Bandit Traveler, so he now gets the Rep 1/2 the Rep bonus.
Traveler Bandit goes off with the protection of the recently SAD'd and with Assassin escort.
I am sorry, but this is just low. This is a very bad example of how to be a High Rep CE player, and I hope this falls under the type of behavior that GMs crack down.
It does have tactical value to have CE Assassins ready to support when a victim refuses SAD. But using the system to exploit reputation mechanics is not cool at all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If plausible, once identified, blatant breaks like that would be remedied I hope. Like I said, adding a cool down timer to reflagging is an easy answer. It also seems to be the route they are going with high level abilities needing to be recharged at taverns and such. I could easily see needing to go to a tavern/church/establishment to reflag.The scenario I like best is this:How quickly and joyfully I'll take my money somewhere else if this became a standard. It feels bleak and mechanical; it lacks even a hint of RP, as if it's designed explicitly to exploit the inevitable weaknesses of the systems we've been told about so far.
I hope Ryan's able to come through with his promises to have no hard-and-fast rules about what's forbidden, and to have GMs using the "I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it" system. I agree I want no clear lines for someone to edge up to, knowing exactly how far he can go.
This could potentially also work through having all Outlaws, though, with little need to swap flags. You just lose Assassin's Mask benefits and Traveler Benefits to haul loot away. If flags don't need swapped, it's still easy enough to game the system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If plausible, once identified, blatant breaks like that would be remedied I hope. Like I said, adding a cool down timer to reflagging is an easy answer.
Large(r) penalties for SADing members of your own VC and settlement might also be needed. I do wonder if SAD will be gamed so much that it will just be removed.
I also think that a SAD should only immunize the caravan for an amount of time; like enough time to move 1 tile for every 10% of the caravan lost to the SAD.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Probably not going to work.
The scenario I like best is this:
{set and change long-term flags a lot}
Yeah, if assassins can 'observe' and 'assassinate' anyone, they will be seriously OP and every combat group will have a handful of them brought along. I don't think assassin mechanics will work against other targets than those they have a contract for.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ All,
I can see that the "Scenario I like Best" has had the desired result. In the past I have written about to exploits that I could see being used, and personally disliked. However, when I had raised those concerns I got hardly a peep out of the community. So using reverse psychology, using those two exploits for a bandit's purpose, I go the swift condemnation I hope you hold to.
The two exploits I'm referring to:
1. The "One Copper Piece SAD" - A Chaotic character can flag Outlaw and issue a One Copper Piece SAD to give to his own company / settlement's caravans the 20 minute protection, plus he/she gets double rep bonus up to daily max.
I had argued against this, but I guess many had thought, "What a good use for our Chaotic Good Bandits".
@ Urman, you can up with a possible solution. I'll slightly modify it to make it mechanically simpler: Members of the same company / settlement can not issue SADs on each other.
2. The Praise / Rebuke System - I am on record for being against this system. I wrote about it being abused by settlement leaders and I'm adamantly against it being used as a commodity that can be sold to others (I believe a Dev had suggested that possibility).
The Praise / Rebuke System should be removed.
If the two changes I suggest are done, the "Scenario I like Best", loses the exploitation of the Reputation System it has built into it.
If that is how the systems will remain, then there is no violation of the rules of the game and I would use the scenario.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
GW had indicated that they saw a probable exploit there; I have faith that they'll close it up or remove it - why build in an exploit? I was just throwing out 2 ideas. I bet they have a white board full of ways to close the loophole.
I think any fix has to prevent meta-gaming. Since it is quite easy to demand SAD one minute, then open a trade to swap the goods back the next minute.. It's ripe for exploiting.
A couple of other possible 'rules' for SAD:
- The rep gain for the bandit could be dependent on the rep of the victim, but reversed. "Rob from the rich and give to the poor". So low rep one-donkey peddlers give less rep gain on a SAD than high rep merchants with their groaning ox-wagons. This makes SADing one's low rep friends less useful.
- The merchant could take a rep hit to match the robbers rep gain. This would discourage friendly SADs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
- The merchant could take a rep hit to match the robbers rep gain. This would discourage friendly SADs.
I do not like the abusive potential on this one.
I would remove Rep Gain from SAD. Rep has already been stated to be something that slowly accrues naturally unless you take actions to harm it.
Removing the Rep penalty from SAD should be enough. Instead of a gain, the accrual is not impacted. So a low rep bandit issuing SADs remains low rep, but is able to build it back up over time if he continues his reformed behaviors without sacrificing a bandit lifestyle. The high rep bandit is not being penalized for SADs and is able to continue as usual.
Doing that would make friendly SADs mechanically pointless, but still be a worthwhile endeavor for bandits wishing to maintain a high reputation in their work.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Lifedragn I like it; that would reduce the exploit. The problem with it is that all alignments currently have 2 roles in which to gain reputation/karma at an increased rate. If you remove the Outlaw rep gain for chaotics, something needs to be added in its place. I personally think there should also be a better evil role as well.
Edit to add: Assassination and the outlaw's SAD are special attacks, and it seems odd to have roles that are so tied to a special attack. I think it would be better to keep the two special attack types, but have 2 different roles for evil and chaotics to gain rep. That could potentially open it up for neutrals to use SADs/shakedowns.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would tie the Reputation bonus to all flags, then it could be removed from the specific act of issuing a SAD and having it accepted.
I would also suggest that the reputation bonus is turned off, inside a settlement. This would prevent players from raising a PvP flag, to boost reputation stack, in an area where PvP is not likely to occur.
Hopefully the Flag Revamp will address a lot of the issues, but it will likely raise new ones as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you remove the Outlaw rep gain for chaotics, something needs to be added in its place.
I don't understand this.
There will be tons and tons and tons of players who come to PFO more than wanting to kill and steal. The major innovation Ryan has for PFO is that there will actually be mechanical consequences for them doing so.
Why on earth are we worried about trying to create mechanical benefits for them doing so?
I understand there's a possibility that some of the consequences may need to be dialed back after the fact. I completely fail to see why there would be any benefit in scaling them back or even reversing them this early, when the real danger is that the kill-and-steal crowd is going to completely swamp the meaningful player interaction crowd.
Ryan as much as told us that playing Lawful Good would mean you basically need to avoid PvP. Chaotic Evil doesn't need to be coddled in order to thrive.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
@ All,
I can see that the "Scenario I like Best" has had the desired result. In the past I have written about to exploits that I could see being used, and personally disliked. However, when I had raised those concerns I got hardly a peep out of the community. So using reverse psychology, using those two exploits for a bandit's purpose, I go the swift condemnation I hope you hold to.
The two exploits I'm referring to:
1. The "One Copper Piece SAD" - A Chaotic character can flag Outlaw and issue a One Copper Piece SAD to give to his own company / settlement's caravans the 20 minute protection, plus he/she gets double rep bonus up to daily max.
I had argued against this, but I guess many had thought, "What a good use for our Chaotic Good Bandits".
@ Urman, you can up with a possible solution. I'll slightly modify it to make it mechanically simpler: Members of the same company / settlement can not issue SADs on each other.
2. The Praise / Rebuke System - I am on record for being against this system. I wrote about it being abused by settlement leaders and I'm adamantly against it being used as a commodity that can be sold to others (I believe a Dev had suggested that possibility).
The Praise / Rebuke System should be removed.
If the two changes I suggest are done, the "Scenario I like Best", loses the exploitation of the Reputation System it has built into it.
If that is how the systems will remain, then there is no violation of the rules of the game and I would use the scenario.
I think there's going to be a complication specifically to remove the circle-jerk reputation cycle; I think that it will shift that exploit to require a much larger number of accounts.
My objection to your proposal was that it requires adding and dropping strategic flags in a tactical manner. I didn't say that it shouldn't be allowed, I said that it probably wouldn't work. Your assassin that has spend 20 minutes flagged as such won't be at a significant advantage when attacking someone he's observing, and your outlaw with 20 minutes flagged as such won't be consistently able to stop the traveler with the maximum traveler bonuses.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan as much as told us that playing Lawful Good would mean you basically need to avoid PvP.
A LG character can flag Enforcer or Champion. The Champion flag allows them to kill unflagged evil aligned characters without consequence.
I don't see how this prohibits LG from PvP?
Then you can add in the potential as a LG Bounty Hunter, who will gain Lawful for completing contracts and not suffer Rep kids for killing their marks. Again, no consequences to PvP there either.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My objection to your proposal was that it requires adding and dropping strategic flags in a tactical manner. I didn't say that it shouldn't be allowed, I said that it probably wouldn't work. Your assassin that has spend 20 minutes flagged as such won't be at a significant advantage when attacking someone he's observing, and your outlaw with 20 minutes flagged as such won't be consistently able to stop the traveler with the maximum traveler bonuses
I never anticipated using the 10 hour stacks more than once per day, and only on the first encounter. The rest of the time, we will at best only have the one hour stack.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Lifedragn I like it; that would reduce the exploit. The problem with it is that all alignments currently have 2 roles in which to gain reputation/karma at an increased rate. If you remove the Outlaw rep gain for chaotics, something needs to be added in its place. I personally think there should also be a better evil role as well.
I am not sure why all rewards need to be equal across the field. The benefit for this role is in obtaining loot.
Though I would say that perhaps the Reputation gain as a reward should just be done away with altogether.
Reputation slowly accrues unless you commit Deed X, under which case you take a reputation penalty and stop accruing for Time Y before it begins accruing again. You can use stacks to amplify rep hit or time duration if required.
Trying to make reputation both a carrot and a stick is not really necessary. We have plenty of carrots, so it would be acceptable to use as a stick.
If you want a carrot factor or way to increase it faster, then allowing Rep to climb faster while Flagged for PvP would fit in well with the theme of 'You can do things more efficiently with a PvP flag than without.' It would feel consistent, to me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Chaotic Evil doesn't need to be coddled in order to thrive.
No, but it should be treated fairly. Last time I checked the champion flag allowed PvP for LG.
What I am suggesting is actual mechanics that replicate the so called disadvantages that CE "should" have within a successful CE society. If CE is the most appealing target for CE in-fighting and betrayal among players is "likely" to ensue. Those that do work together for a short time will be disadvantaged individually and easier targets for those out for themselves. If they can coexist then their settlement won't be a mess of shanties, but if they go to war, every character that gives bonuses to their DI should have an appetizing reward for betrayal tagged to them. Their training facilities should have the same type of rewards for sabotage.
The lowest CE players that are only out for themselves will go for these some of the time and handicap the force as a whole leading to the disadvantage you all talk about.
Or you could just say CE is where all the jackasses go, put absolute minimal effort into it and call it day. Which, for the record, is substandard.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan as much as told us that playing Lawful Good would mean you basically need to avoid PvP.A LG character can flag Enforcer or Champion. The Champion flag allows them to kill unflagged evil aligned characters without consequence.
I don't see how this prohibits LG from PvP?
Yeah, I don't see how that would prohibit LG from PvP, either. Fortunately, that's not what I based my statement on.
Paladins should not be engaged in killing other characters except in defense of Lawful Good Settlements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am not sure why all rewards need to be equal across the field. The benefit for this role is in obtaining loot.
Nothing prevents any other alignment from getting the same loot via PVP. All alignments face the same Reputation shifts and Alignment shifts for the same actions. The penalties decrease with increased frequency. If you choose not to benefit from PVP and getting loot that is a player choice, not a character choice. Players should not be penalized for their choice of character role is the point. That is why all rewards and deficiencies need to be equal. Otherwise the game is favoring one role over another and will lead to an unbalanced game where law and good always win over chaos and evil. That should not happen in a PvP game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah, I don't see how that would prohibit LG from PvP, either. Fortunately, that's not what I based my statement on.Paladins should not be engaged in killing other characters except in defense of Lawful Good Settlements.
That quote predates the flagging system which allows for Paladin PVP and is thus invalid.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Chaotic Evil doesn't need to be coddled in order to thrive.No, but it should be treated fairly.
I do believe that people have a right to play chaotic evil hordes bent on mass destruction and as such .
I really liked that, and almost responded to it earlier just to point out that I liked it, but there had been so many other posts since that I didn't really feel it was appropriate.
However, now that you're talking about making sure CE is treated "fairly" (whatever that means to you), I want to make sure you understand that "being other people's content" means being subject to PvP in a way that doesn't really harm other characters - meaning other characters won't take much of an Alignment or Reputation hit for killing you, even though you'll still take the Alignment and Reputation hits for killing them.
It sounds like you want to be able to play CE without "being other people's content", or maybe you'd be okay with that as long as you weren't also burdened with the consequences being a "semi-jerk" so that you could still get all the benefits of a good (not Good) Settlement and the highest levels of training.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
My objection to your proposal was that it requires adding and dropping strategic flags in a tactical manner. I didn't say that it shouldn't be allowed, I said that it probably wouldn't work. Your assassin that has spend 20 minutes flagged as such won't be at a significant advantage when attacking someone he's observing, and your outlaw with 20 minutes flagged as such won't be consistently able to stop the traveler with the maximum traveler bonusesI never anticipated using the 10 hour stacks more than once per day, and only on the first encounter. The rest of the time, we will at best only have the one hour stack.
Well then, it's only a question of fact about whether your short-term use of long-term flags will provide enough bonuses or even access to the abilities that you want to use.
For example, I think it's reasonable to expect that an Outlaw might need to be flagged as such (and subject to attack as an Outlaw) for a minimum amount of time before they get any benefit at all, including the ability to offer SAD demands. A 20-minute timer seems enough to prevent the emergence of 'Outlaws of opportunity' while not actually inconveniencing many people who want to play as career outlaws.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That quote predates the flagging system which allows for Paladin PVP and is thus invalid.Yeah, I don't see how that would prohibit LG from PvP, either. Fortunately, that's not what I based my statement on.
Paladins should not be engaged in killing other characters except in defense of Lawful Good Settlements.
Yes, it predates the flagging system. Ryan even prefaced it by saying "[t]his is just me, Ryan, writing, not me Ryan the CEO of Goblinworks, and not Ryan giving directions to his game designers."
Still, the statement is useful in that it allows us to see the general vision Ryan has for the game, which is significantly different from the general vision that you and Bluddwolf go to such lengths to promote.
Paladins should be standing in ancient barrows fighting wights, or issuing challenges to ogres who are terrorizing the Common Folk, or hunting and killing demonic creatures that have infiltrated civilization.
Your assertion that these statements about Ryan's vision for the game are invalid because a later blog added some flag is kind of short-sighted, because it ignores the larger vision with which this particular element is logically consistent.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I really liked that, and almost responded to it earlier just to point out that I liked it, but there had been so many other posts since that I didn't really feel it was appropriate.However, now that you're talking about making sure CE is treated "fairly" (whatever that means to you), I want to make sure you understand that "being other people's content" means being subject to PvP in a way that doesn't really harm other characters - meaning other characters won't take much of an Alignment or Reputation hit for killing you, even though you'll still take the Alignment and Reputation hits for killing them.
It sounds like you want to be able to play CE without "being other people's content", or maybe you'd be okay with that as long as you weren't also burdened with the consequences being a "semi-jerk" so that you could still get all the benefits of a good (not Good) Settlement and the highest levels of training.
Firstly, I'm glad you liked it and glad we agreed on it. Being the target of PVP without the other alignments taking much of a hit is not the problem at all. In fact I agree that LG shouldn't take an alignment hit for killing CE. That's not my issue.
My point is there has to be equal training across the board. I know we aren't dealing in levels but indulge me for a second.
If LG is level 50 and can get to level 50 by performing their archetypal function, then CE needs to be able to as well. Those that choose CE and do it well, should be rewarded with being able to be level 50 and be that challenge content for LG. But those should be the exception to the rule, for were it easy for CE to be level 50 then the game would be flooded with them.
You miss my intent completely as I truthfully want nothing to do with CE.
If CE wants the highest level of training building to be available to them... fine. They have to destroy their competition to get and have to take out another CE settlement. I don't see that as coddling, I see that as making CE a meaningful play style.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My point is there has to be equal training across the board.
Yeah, I got that. I even pointed it out.
I also get how you would design a game you built in order to accomplish your vision.
My point is that your vision is not Ryan's vision. Ryan's vision involves characters suffering negative consequences for engaging in meaningless PvP against other players who are trying to avoid it, and those penalties include being unable to train to the highest levels if they do it too often.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That quote predates the flagging system which allows for Paladin PVP and is thus invalid.Yeah, I don't see how that would prohibit LG from PvP, either. Fortunately, that's not what I based my statement on.
Paladins should not be engaged in killing other characters except in defense of Lawful Good Settlements.Yes, it predates the flagging system. Ryan even prefaced it by saying "[t]his is just me, Ryan, writing, not me Ryan the CEO of Goblinworks, and not Ryan giving directions to his game designers."
Still, the statement is useful in that it allows us to see the general vision Ryan has for the game, which is significantly different from the general vision that you and Bluddwolf go to such lengths to promote.
Paladins should be standing in ancient barrows fighting wights, or issuing challenges to ogres who are terrorizing the Common Folk, or hunting and killing demonic creatures that have infiltrated civilization.Your assertion that these statements about Ryan's vision for the game are invalid because a later blog added some flag is kind of short-sighted, because it ignores the larger vision with which this particular element is logically consistent.
I think you need to take Ryan with a grain of salt when it comes to vision. He is a great visionary and I have no doubt that he wants to see an awesome game made. The transference of that vision into working mechanics and a viable game will have some visionary loss through translation. You are naive if you think different my friend.
I think BW and I have different visions for the game but manage to find common ground. I think we both, and Ryan as well want to see a Sandbox MMORPG with themepark elements skinned with Pathfinder and we want to see it succeed. In order to do that, we need to address deficiencies.
One of those deficiencies is "Chaotic evil is going to be $^#%$&#". Ryan does the game a disservice there because he is selling the potential of CE short, and thus selling the game short. I would much rather see exploration into how to make CE less like "&^%^*&%" and more of a viable playing style.
Otherwise why include LG in a PVP game if it's just going to do PVE? Could we just simulate that paladins are running around and doing those good deeds?
The problem is while I do see standing in ancient barrows fighting wights, or issuing challenges to ogres who are terrorizing the Common Folk, or hunting and killing demonic creatures that have infiltrated civilization, I see CE players rolling Wizards and warlords controlling those elements in an attempt to destroy a PC settlement and the Paladin having meaningful pvp interaction with CE to prevent that. I don't think that is out of line at all with the vision of the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For example, I think it's reasonable to expect that an Outlaw might need to be flagged as such (and subject to attack as an Outlaw) for a minimum amount of time before they get any benefit at all, including the ability to offer SAD demands. A 20-minute timer seems enough to prevent the emergence of 'Outlaws of opportunity' while not actually inconveniencing many people who want to play as career outlaws.
This would amount to a 20 minute delay for each time I use my Outlaw Flag. Would this also apply to all flags?
Once an Enforcer has used his flag against outlaws, he must wait 20 minutes before he can use a PvP flag again.
I will always preach... Balance, balance, balance.