Goblin Squad Member
|
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.
Please quote where I said I wanted CE to be rewarded for meaningless PVP against those who don't wish to PVP?
Hopefully that's not hostility or irritation I sense in your text, that's not why I'm debating this with you.
Simply put, I don't think Paizo's vision of CE matches up with Ryan's vision of CE. I want more Pathfinder in my Pathfinder. I don't want Ryan's version of Pathfinder Redux.
I want CE to have meaningful interaction through PVP and believe that making themselves the target necessary for advancement is a viable course of action.
Nihimon, you can either address that or continue preaching Ryan's gospel but if you actually care about the advancement of this community, you might try engaging us on points we feel are valid instead of just quoting Ryan and using him as a reference point as to why we are wrong.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Please quote where I said I wanted CE to be rewarded for meaningless PVP against those who don't wish to PVP?
Please quote where I said you said that.
Hopefully that's not hostility or irritation I sense in your text...
Hopefully, you're reading and reacting to the words I write rather than the state of mind you imagine I'm in.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's an interesting topic to ascertain if different skill progression is absolute (across the board) or relative (good for a CE player where that is what is meaningful to a CE).
The problem with relative is how long will a CE player find that meaningful? I know we can shift our alignments if we change our minds, but you want CE to be rewarding without reaching a point of dropping out. I think free pvp anytime to anyone is meaningful and with a supply of other CE's perfect balance. And higher challenge against some other Alignments. I wonder if that works? Also add suitable themes and flavor and specific-CE-problems to solve skills to train also so it's a different experience as well as different gameplay?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gentlemen and Ladies-I'd like for us not to argue past each other and I hope I didn't add to the confusion about CE characters. I think there can be several versions of them. By far the largest number of this probably small group will be CE, low-rep players whose status is a reflection of the game trying to sweep them out of playing altogether; or at least change how they are comporting themselves significantly. For example, a bozo who camps the husk of much less powerful peeps, spams real-world expletives and hacks the system so marshals can't see him. The next even smaller group will have their work cut out for them; to roleplay a chaotic evil person in-game.The difference is this player attacks you, takes your stuff, whispers "For you my Dark Master!" and takes off to be a villain somewhere else, under the pvp rules and user agreement. His target is an in-game avatar in PFO on the imaginary continent of Golarion. His target is NOT the bozo who just got off work in Chico, CA. He will be CE, probably sometimes NE, and his rep probably can't hit rock bottum. The third CE role-the one I suggest-is to be a villain in something like Hob's storytelling universe, a really fascinating concept. The more I ponder it, I believe the Visigoth Horde will be NE and won't have rock-bottum rep either.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...CE should have access to equal training...
You have convinced me, I agree CE settlements should have access to equal level of training as settlements of other alignments. For me the convincing part was invoking the Drow.
I think it should work something like this: building off the idea that CE vs. CE should be encouraged, I think that is the primary way CE can gain rep, killing other CE. Similarly, CE dying at the hand o another CE should lower rep (to keep from rep farming by simply killing each other). This means the highest Rep CE will be the strongest and/or most vicious (those who play CE best). Similarly, while I propose CE settlements should be able to create an equal level of training, I think they should create less "training resources".
Since rep and alignment are the primary way to limit access to training, this will result in motivation.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
It should apply to everyone who behaves the way you want to by remaining unflagged for most of the time. I expect that most players who want to play outlaws will leave their character's flag on constantly, rather than try to tactically avoid the negative consequences of remaining flagged.
A similar effect could be had by limiting the addition or removal of flags to certain specified areas; adding flags at an appropriate settlement and removing them only at legal bind points would be one way to do that.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
...CE should have access to equal training...You have convinced me, I agree CE settlements should have access to equal level of training as settlements of other alignments. For me the convincing part was invoking the Drow.
I think it should work something like this: building off the idea that CE vs. CE should be encouraged, I think that is the primary way CE can gain rep, killing other CE. Similarly, CE dying at the hand o another CE should lower rep (to keep from rep farming by simply killing each other). This means the highest Rep CE will be the strongest and/or most vicious (those who play CE best). Similarly, while I propose CE settlements should be able to create an equal level of training, I think they should create less "training resources".
Since rep and alignment are the primary way to limit access to training, this will result in motivation.
Interesting idea, I just think that there are better ways to prevent rep farming than giving a penalty to the loser of a fight; I want to be able to tell the difference between somebody who has a "gank everybody" policy and somebody who just loses a lot.
Rep farming is itself something that we need a multifaceted approach that solves the general case anyway.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Rep farming is itself something that we need a multifaceted approach that solves the general case anyway.
This is another area where I assumed there would be a complex n-to-n relationship map where each character's Reputation with each other character would be stored and used to weight a number of different things that occurred between any two characters. Not having that kind of social network map makes very hard to keep a large group from circle-jerking Rep gains, as well as making it harder to determine whether a particular group really has good reason to despise a particular bandit because he consistently preys upon members of that small group even though he has a "high rep" elsewhere.
On the flip side, having that social network map also makes it fairly easy to accomplish fairly complex things related to anonymity and multiple identity.
I'm not sure that's the kind of thing that can be bolted on later.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Rep farming is itself something that we need a multifaceted approach that solves the general case anyway.This is another area where I assumed there would be a complex n-to-n relationship map where each character's Reputation with each other character would be stored and used to weight a number of different things that occurred between any two characters. Not having that kind of social network map makes very hard to keep a large group from circle-jerking Rep gains, as well as making it harder to determine whether a particular group really has good reason to despise a particular bandit because he consistently preys upon members of that small group even though he has a "high rep" elsewhere.
On the flip side, having that social network map also makes it fairly easy to accomplish fairly complex things related to anonymity and multiple identity.
I'm not sure that's the kind of thing that can be bolted on later.
Exactly. Some things should or shouldn't make it even to EE and/or can't be bolted on later. Could be useful to have a player liason, consultation, group, or...something.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It should apply to everyone who behaves the way you want to by remaining unflagged for most of the time. I expect that most players who want to play outlaws will leave their character's flag on constantly, rather than try to tactically avoid the negative consequences of remaining flagged.
I don't know where, from my scenario, you are getting the idea I was talking about unflagging to avoid consequences. I was clearly talking about switching from one PvP, after its usefulness had been used, to another PvP flag.
We will all have access to at least two types of flags, in my case Outlaw / Traveler. Once I have attacked and looted a caravan, I may very well need to switch to the Traveler Flag to leave with the cargo I just looted.
Now my escort, I could think of a variety of alignments that would make sense:
CE = Outlaw / Assassin to do the killing and issue the SAD to cover our own caravan.
NE = Traveler / Assassin
LE = Enforcer / Assassin to protect the caravan against other Outlaws
LN =. Enforcer / Traveler ( I don't see us having these in any number).
CG = Outlaw / Champions to issue SADs to our own caravan; Protect our caravan from Evil; Increase the Reputation loss for Champions or Enforcers who would attack us, if they end up killing our CGs.
LG = Enforcer / Champions who could just be used to protect our caravan, so they are technically completing a contract, and protecting the members of the caravan from attack.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ NihimonPlease quote where I said you said that.
Hopefully, you're reading and reacting to the words I write rather than the state of mind you imagine I'm in.
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.If
Please quote where I said I wanted CE to be rewarded for meaningless PVP against those who don't wish to PVP?
that was not your meaning then please enlighten me as to exactly what it was?
I don't place you in any state of mind. I simply read the words and interpret them naturally. Earlier it seemed to me you were irritated and somewhat condescending. Regardless if that was your intent or not, that would not change my response nor my attitude towards you.
You are well rooted in your position and I can appreciate that, as so am I. I see your points and while I disagree with some of them, I accept that and come back. You never seem to address any of ours, you just seem to quote something, anything Ryan said to prove us "wrong" and that isn't engaging us in any meaningful discussion.
The only problem with that is this project is organic and ever changing. Simply restating something that was said in the past is not a credible posture as Ryan has demonstrated before that if we are vocal enough, he will accept the position of the community and try and accommodate it. I challenge you to debate us on the merits and flaws of our arguments in the context in which it is presented with the full understanding that we can alter the course of this game for the WHOLE of the community.
Stating what we already know will lead to stagnation. Debating the possibilities yet to be addressed will lead to progress. CE can be more than where the unsavory characters reside. It can be just as meaningful as any other aspect of the game. What say you?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...CE should have access to equal training...You have convinced me, I agree CE settlements should have access to equal level of training as settlements of other alignments. For me the convincing part was invoking the Drow.
I think it should work something like this: building off the idea that CE vs. CE should be encouraged, I think that is the primary way CE can gain rep, killing other CE. Similarly, CE dying at the hand o another CE should lower rep (to keep from rep farming by simply killing each other). This means the highest Rep CE will be the strongest and/or most vicious (those who play CE best). Similarly, while I propose CE settlements should be able to create an equal level of training, I think they should create less "training resources".
Since rep and alignment are the primary way to limit access to training, this will result in motivation.
Glad to see that my argument holds merit for you.
The bolded portion makes significant sense being as CE usually look for the most direct route to an objective. I see it as "Why diversify into specified training when we can train lots of people generally faster" sort of spirit.
While you still want specialization, it will rarer due to the nature of chaos, but it's not going to be non-existant and CE will have to go after CE to be allowed the training. I think this is absolutely in the spirit of CE.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You never seem to address any of ours, you just seem to quote something, anything Ryan said to prove us "wrong" and that isn't engaging us in any meaningful discussion.
I address them very directly, offering both my own assessment of them, and my understanding of Ryan's assessment of them. However, I continue to disagree with them. Why do you act as if my failure to agree with you is the same thing as failing to address your points?
I challenge you to debate us on the merits and flaws of our arguments...
I gladly accept.
I recommend we begin by each choosing a reasonably neutral representative. Our representatives would then choose a third person without interference from us. Those three would serve as arbitrators, judging whether or not we're directly addressing each other's points, and judging whether we're resorting to logical fallacies.
Once that's done, I would ask you to clearly and concisely state your position so that I can directly address it anew, rather than trying to cobble it together from a variety of posts in disparate threads.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Interesting idea, I just think that there are better ways to prevent rep farming than giving a penalty to the loser of a fight; I want to be able to tell the difference between somebody who has a "gank everybody" policy and somebody who just loses a lot.
Rep farming is itself something that we need a multifaceted approach that solves the general case anyway.
Well, the impact to rep farming was just a icing on the idea. I was actually just thinking about it from a logical perspective, if being the strongest raises ones rep in a given culture, being beat by the strongest lowers it. At the bottom of such a culture would be the scavengers, those who cannot fight to take what they want...by subside off the scraps of the strong.
Also, since doing nothing slowly raises ones rep, the loss of rep is the only truly meaningful part of the system. It was not intended to be a punishment or penalty, rather a natural extension of the system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon - Below are points I'd like to hear from you on. The quotes on the bottom is where I requested you quote where I stated what you believed to be my line of thought. Instead of answering, you simply asked me to quote where you stated what I claimed you said. I did so and asked you to respond with your actual intent if I had misinterpreted anything. I obliged you however, you did not return the favor.
The gist of my stance. Ripped from previous posts in this thread.
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.
You miss my intent completely as I truthfully want nothing to do with CE. What I do want is for CE to be accurately represented in game. You do this by devising and including mechanics that make the acquisition significant skills and advancement that are tied to CE also tied to betrayal, in-fighting, and backstabbing.
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.
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.
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.
The quotes.
Please quote where I said I wanted CE to be rewarded for meaningless PVP against those who don't wish to PVP?
Please quote where I said you said that.
@ Nihimon
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.
If that was not your meaning then please enlighten me as to exactly what it was?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Holy posts Batman!
Since I care pretty much nil for alignment, I really don't mind CE being the psychotic madhouse / monster alignment tied to RPK, Griefing, etc ad naseum.
Since that is operating definition, I think bandits no longer fit the CE mold. Good pirates in Eve are not hap hazard, and there is nothing random about their activities.
While this game won't be Eve, I expect banditry to be similar to piracy. I am less concerned with CE than I am the meaningful pvp behind roguish characters. If they could train and operate under alignments minus LG and CE this conversation would be over for me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Since I care pretty much nil for alignment, I really don't mind CE being the psychotic madhouse / monster alignment tied to RPK, Griefing, etc ad naseum.
Neither do I. But those that choose to fly the flags which activities lead to shifts to that alignment need to have a chance to be those compelling villains if they so desire. CE needs to be more than the drain that unsavory players eventually descend to because you will have handicaps in place to make those players less potent and that will lead to those with legitimacy in the villain realm being handicapped as well. I know the CE "good" will have to suffer for the CE "bad", but I believe there are things that we can do to mitigate those circumstances.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Meh, I don't mind if CE has disadvantages, as long as organized crime doesn't have to worry about slipping to there.
That is just my opinion. I don't mind random player killing mechanically, but I also am not a champion of their cause. Not to say anyone else here is, that is just me clarifying my own opinion.
If CE is mindless, then it should be hard to slip there if you have a reason to attack the target, even if it is purely monetary.
The problem is mechanically I don't see how a distinction can be made between banditry and RPK for lulz. That is where I see the problem.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
It should apply to everyone who behaves the way you want to by remaining unflagged for most of the time. I expect that most players who want to play outlaws will leave their character's flag on constantly, rather than try to tactically avoid the negative consequences of remaining flagged.I don't know where, from my scenario, you are getting the idea I was talking about unflagging to avoid consequences. I was clearly talking about switching from one PvP, after its usefulness had been used, to another PvP flag.
We will all have access to at least two types of flags, in my case Outlaw / Traveler. Once I have attacked and looted a caravan, I may very well need to switch to the Traveler Flag to leave with the cargo I just looted.
Now my escort, I could think of a variety of alignments that would make sense:
CE = Outlaw / Assassin to do the killing and issue the SAD to cover our own caravan.
NE = Traveler / Assassin
LE = Enforcer / Assassin to protect the caravan against other Outlaws
LN =. Enforcer / Traveler ( I don't see us having these in any number).
CG = Outlaw / Champions to issue SADs to our own caravan; Protect our caravan from Evil; Increase the Reputation loss for Champions or Enforcers who would attack us, if they end up killing our CGs.
LG = Enforcer / Champions who could just be used to protect our caravan, so they are technically completing a contract, and protecting the members of the caravan from attack.
Why do you think that you won't be able to be an Outlaw Traveller, or any other combination that you meet all of the prerequisites for?
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All: on the subject of alignment, keep in mind that alignment is descriptive of one's character's actions. A character who is CE is that way because they have done things which are defined to be a5γκΡᎹψ in nature. If you don't do those kinds of things, you won't have a CE character, even if you think you want to have one.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Meh, I don't mind if CE has disadvantages ... If CE is mindless, then it should be hard to slip there if you have a reason to attack the target, even if it is purely monetary.
Neither do I, I just want them to be as relevant and as creative as the other aspects of the game. Again, CE needs to be disadvantaged but there also should be more than just "well, your settlements suck because you're CE and only jerks are CE".
Oppression of the free world through slavery and rampant war would be CN then would it not? There is clear intent with no real rhyme or reason besides accomplishing the objective... ruling all settlement hexes.
Mindless CE is a hard sell because the above seems clearly CE, but not mindless. At the same time, why is it a bad thing is a player wants to rule the world? Why should that adventure path be any less worthy that saving said world? And yes, you can rule through chaos, rule does not have to be established by law.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... The Champion flag allows them to kill unflagged evil aligned characters without consequence.
Meh, I go away for half a day, an untruth is thrown into the thread, and nobody calls it out. This bit about Champions is false. It is not true. Why people repeat this I can only guess.
A Champion will take reputation hits when attacking unflagged evil characters. They will also suffer a criminal flag, depending where the killing takes place. This is not "without consequence".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My last interpretation of Champion was : While Champion is active:
Attacking unflagged evil characters gives the player the Involved flag instead of Attacker.
The player gets a bonus to Perception and Crit Resistance that scales up each hour they remain flagged.
The player does not lose good vs. evil for killing unflagged evil characters (but will still lose law vs. chaos if the attack is a crime, and will lose proportional reputation, so don't go abusing the evil characters who aren't much involved in PvP; just because you're a crusader against evil, it doesn't give you license to be a jerk).
The player earns extra good vs. evil for each character with Heinous killed up to a daily max.
The player earns reputation at the end of the first hour this flag is active. This award increases each hour up to a set maximum. This count resets whenever the bonuses from the flag reset.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Why do you think that you won't be able to be an Outlaw Traveller, or any other combination that you meet all of the prerequisites for?We will all have access to at least two types of flags, in my case Outlaw / Traveler.I guess you missed that, and all the others I listed.
Why do you think that you won't be able to be an Outlaw Traveller at the same time, or any other combination you meet all of the prerequisites for?
I was clearly talking about switching from one PvP, after its usefulness had been used, to another PvP flag.
We will all have access to at least two types of flags, in my case Outlaw / Traveler. Once I have attacked and looted a caravan, I may very well need to switch to the Traveler Flag to leave with the cargo I just looted.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
All roles are not equal. Not all roles will be supported by the basic game mechanics. Not all character ideas are equally valid or beneficial to the game.
This will be the third time in this thread I've made this point and none of the "all roles need to be equal" supporters have addressed it.
Being a lone hermit in the middle of the woods won't be a viable role.
Being a pacifist herb gatherer won't be a viable role.
Why do you keep insisting that high-rep chaotic evil needs to be a viable role?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being a lone hermit in the middle of the woods won't be a viable role.
Being a pacifist herb gatherer won't be a viable role.
Either of these could most certainly be a viable role, for that player, if that's the way they want to RP their character and play the game. If by "viable" you mean as efficient by some measurement (especially by "best build" or "playing to win"), then I suppose you are correct, but to label these as not viable seems to exclude alternative styles of game play.
You probably didn't mean it that way, but I'm always trying to look out for those who don't play the same way or for the same reasons most others do.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Being a pacifist herb gatherer won't be a viable role.
A difficult road perhaps, but not viable?
Although it may not have a vast and immediate impact on the game world, it is not beneficial to the game?
In my view, if one of the nine alignments does not have a viable, and beneficial role to the game, then the alignment system is flawed and does not present a viable or beneficial system for the game.
What is incumbent of the developers is to create an alignment system that benefits all for using it properly. That is what having a "meaningful alignment system" means.
The developers are not supposed to pick "winner and losers". They are supposed to create balanced systems, with a set of as few rules as possible, and then monitor that the players play within those rules.
This is what a Sandbox MMO RPG is. What it is not is, "well if the player chooses that part of the sand box, he will be punished, but it was his choice."
Developers are supposed to be Lawful Neutral Gods, creating orderly and balanced systems.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.All roles are not equal. Not all roles will be supported by the basic game mechanics. Not all character ideas are equally valid or beneficial to the game.
This will be the third time in this thread I've made this point and none of the "all roles need to be equal" supporters have addressed it.
Being a lone hermit in the middle of the woods won't be a viable role.
Being a pacifist herb gatherer won't be a viable role.Why do you keep insisting that high-rep chaotic evil needs to be a viable role?
Let me clarify my meaning. By roles, I mean archetypes and alignments. If someone wants to play a CE Human fighter (barbarian) they should have an equal amount of emphasis placed on their character development as opposed to simply stating that because unsavory players gravitate to that, we won't put as much emphasis on it. If no one wanted to play that role, I would be fine with it.
Currently there are at least two organizations and one settlement that intend to be the scum and villainy of the game. That is a significant enough player base to warrant an exploration into the betterment of that play style. Again as I have stressed before, I don't want CE to have an advantage... I want their disadvantages tied to the actual behavior patterns the mechanics are supposed to emulate and that tied to their higher progression. I am speaking specifically of the four adventure archetypes, whatever yet disclosed crafting/trading/merchant archetypes and the nine alignments.
Only Urman, KitNyx, and Charlie George have actually address that point.
@Gaskon - If I have not fully explained my position, please inquire about what you have questions about.
1. The roles that I am concerned about will be in EE.
2. I apologize if I had not addressed them earlier, I thought my explanation as to their validity was address enough.
3. Of those two roles, I can tell you during EE, you will be able to gather items. If you choose never to fight back, you will not be forced to. That is my definition of a pacifist herb gatherer and based off what we have been told, you will be able to gather items and not fight back making the Pacifist Herb Gatherer a very viable role that will be supported come EE although I doubt it will be very popular. As far as lone hermit goes, I don't see anyone just standing around the woods by themselves doing nothing at all, although I am sure that will be supported come EE too.
4. I keep insisting that HR CE have a viable role because we have a player base that wants it supported. Those two organizations and one company that I mentioned to you. Why should their game play be any less enjoyable than yours?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In my view, if one of the nine alignments does not have a viable, and beneficial role to the game, then the alignment system is flawed and does not present a viable or beneficial system for the game.What is incumbent of the developers is to create an alignment system that benefits all for using it properly. That is what having a "meaningful alignment system" means.
The developers are not supposed to pick "winner and losers". They are supposed to create balanced systems, with a set of as few rules as possible, and then monitor that the players play within those rules.
This is what a Sandbox MMO RPG is. What it is not is, "well if the player chooses that part of the sand box, he will be punished, but it was his choice."
Developers are supposed to be Lawful Neutral Gods, creating orderly and balanced systems.
Why this is so hard to understand is beyond me. Maybe we could get some developer input on this? I mean aside from a community member using quotes that is.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The sandbox has shovels that people can play with. It is better if some of those shovels are different shapes and sizes, rather than just different colors.
Don't expect to be told your win conditions; you can win in any manner you choose to, and most ways of winning do not require others to lose.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bluddwolf, just compile your list of exploits and tricks for when you can play the game. If they work in game, then they merit discussion, and I am sure people would be happy to hear solutions from the person who discovered the problem.
So you are saying, you have nothing to add to the discussion at this time. Fair enough, I'll be happy to get you caught up to speed with how the discussion went, when you are ready.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why this is so hard to understand is beyond me. Maybe we could get some developer input on this? I mean aside from a community member using quotes that is.
In my view, if one of the nine alignments does not have a viable, and beneficial role to the game, then the alignment system is flawed and does not present a viable or beneficial system for the game.What is incumbent of the developers is to create an alignment system that benefits all for using it properly. That is what having a "meaningful alignment system" means.
The developers are not supposed to pick "winner and losers". They are supposed to create balanced systems, with a set of as few rules as possible, and then monitor that the players play within those rules.
This is what a Sandbox MMO RPG is. What it is not is, "well if the player chooses that part of the sand box, he will be punished, but it was his choice."
Developers are supposed to be Lawful Neutral Gods, creating orderly and balanced systems.
I think Ryan said in a challenging way, quote-unquote: "Having a settlement in PFO is the win condition."
We know there will not be enough settlements for everyone. We know pursuing securing a settlement will lead to different groups choosing different means via the game to do so and taking advantage of changing events to do so. We know that a viable settlement is founded on a community with high cooperation, organisation and dedication. So what is being selected for and what makes the game a winning state is that type of human player structure which the game reflects a real-world consistency of. Isn't that what meaningful player interaction boils down to, ultimately?
What is not being selected for is anything that impairs that goal. So how does alignment and reputation come into the conversation? Reputation impacts on PvP which is a main tool to securing economic advantages which in turn secure power by means of settlement resources to player groups. If players use high pvp to achieve that goal, that's just a large group or an aggressive group that could do this, and does not so much rely on the above. For eg in extremis CE is not intended to be as competitive at the highest levels of the game eg settlements. But they might have a role to play in providing assassins or players who want to pvp liberally. In terms of Alignment, different aligments may provide different opportunities or niches for settlements to find a way to exist. That in turn is probably to ensure there's always conflict between different settlements or at least different settlements have different vulnerabilities to different groups so there's many ways of non-settlement players to attack into that power system and possibly more so easily nearer the ""lower"" alignments of Chaotic and/or Evil?
Alternatively you could view the reputation (and to some degree alignment) axis as a punishment for players in the highly cooperative groups, as punishment takes away something important for these groups so is a good inducement to make them regulate their behavior, possibly? That said LE who are intended to be cooperative won't be so nearly "punished" because they're doing what Ryan is saying is the "win condition" as well as LG, as far as I can make out.
To sum: There's a lot of ways of looking at the above relationships: Viable, Equivalent, equal, competitive, balanced, alternative, proportional etc It's a guess why it's difficult to communicate? Not all players will want to be perceived as competitive in the kingdoms game ("winning the game", but they might very well be viable to the scales of power in other contributions directly or indirectly and alternative contribution to the game with it's own viability balanced to other factors??)
Again quote-unquote: "If you want to be content for others, CE will be it," sounds to me like CE will be a constant thorn in operations in all hexes so long as CE players can attempt to cause disproportionate damage atst as not being able to scale that up in any significant or lasting way? Maybe CE players will skill-train in other alignments then go back to all out pvp and drop to CE to have fun, then grind back to skill-train and then repeat? I'm still a bit hazy on how they'll play out. But sounds like terrorists or anarchists?! And hopefully even more competitive and balanced and equal etc when fighting each other (lol).
I'm bit too enthusiastic to see enough criticisms of this, it's not what I'm good at tbh, and maybe not as useful as a strong critique but what is interesting to me is if PFO has diverse types of communities with different world views and motivations across the whole map all co-existing in the same game. One thing I heard about EVE is that something happening to some players in some part of that game is totally oblivious to other players, is how deep the game goes: Maybe that was what they tried to convey in that butterfly effect trailer, by ccp?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"If you want to be content for others, CE will be it"
(I don't know who said this originally so I am not going to attribute it)
There is an important caveat here that most people seem to miss: it says if you want to be content, which most people ignore. Plenty of people will be other peoples' content; only some of them will want to be, however.
Most people interpret the quotation as meaning "CE players will be providing all/most of/ a lot of (take your pick) the content for other players." This is backwards. If someone is an unwilling participant in any interaction, then they are the content, not the other way around. How are CE gankers and suchlike providing content for the gatherers and explorers they kill more than the victims are providing the content for them? There are plenty of ways in which a gatherer can have a meaningful and interesting time without the added fear of being attacked by someone who has no compunction about causing death and disruption (and no alignment slip worries) - what are the CE players to do if there are no targets to pick on? Their playstyle depends on their victims; the reverse is not true.
Some people seem to be presenting playing a CE character as somehow providing a service for every one else in the form of content to the game, and that this should be sufficient answer to make sure that it is viable. They are not going to be providing any more content than any other alignment. In fact, the content they require is more dependent on other players than the other way around.
I've seen several discussions about wolves, sheep and sheepdogs. Everybody has ignored the most important part of the triad - the sheep. Sheep are stupid, and by using such terminology for the "sheep" in PfO we are not only doing them a disservice, but ourselves as well (in the interests of fairness, a disclaimer: I fully intend to be a sheep). Sheep are stupid - people are not. Sheep can't move to the next farm, MMO players certainly can, and will. You don't have to read the toxic cesspit that is DarkFall global for very long to hear the lamentations of the PKers that they have nobody left to kill; all the PvPers are either allied or locked up in their own settlements, and the "noobs" all stay in the green zones. There was apparently a policy of griefing new clans until they left, and guess what - it worked.
Before we start worrying about making the apex predators' role work, we have to make sure that the roles of the prey are sufficiently viable for them to survive and prosper. If that means reigning back a bit on CE (at least at the beginning) then so be it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Quote-unquote may have been a bit lazy. Usually High PvP'ers want others to be the content as you note, so the above is reversing that it looks like?
There is no good reason to play a chaotic evil character except if you like being other people's content.
cont:I think the strongest opposition that Lawful Good Settlements will face will come from Lawful Evil Settlements.I think that many players will find that their choices often funnel them towards Chaotic Good social structures, thus those communities will often be the largest, most diverse, and most active.
I see most of the "neutral" positions on the alignment grid as either a delicate balancing point that you have to work hard to maintain so that you can be a bridge between other, larger social structures, or a temporary waypoint as your character's actions pull them towards one of the four corners.
Which can be interpreted to mean: Being a bounty target, being a mob, ensuring players group up to avoid ganking, increasing the danger of wild hexes and providing lots of pvp for other such similar inclined players.
The sheep/wolf/lion/lamb analogy starts to take on a life of it's own!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...providing lots of pvp for other such similar inclined players.
If the players they intend to PvP will only be the LG bounty hunter types (Andius springs to mind) then this holds up. But just because someone is playing CE doesn't mean that they will be stupid either. They're going to pick the soft targets. The sheep.
I have a fairly high tolerance for being ganked. It's happened a fair bit in DarkFall and I don't care (I do care when the server Dcs me and then ganks me so I lose all my stuff, but that's a different issue). I don't think I am necessarily typical, however. PfO won't work as a game if everyone and his brother choose to play a CE character because it has no downsides. Andius' points on the Balancing Alignments thread about what has happened in Mortal Online regarding the choice of Lawful and Unlawful are not only pertinent, they are crucial. It has nothing to do (with all due respect to Areks) with game mechanics and poor combat systems, and everything to do with social interaction in the meta-game. If PfO is to succeed, this has to be avoided. Otherwise it will end up as a non-twitch DarkFall, where all the less successful PvPers congregate (all three of them).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The idea that unless controlled the player base would roll Chaotic Evil, is baseless. It comes from an irrational fear and a hyperbolic perception, often times created from just one "bad" experience.
I have seen and heard this fear / exaggerated belief demonstrated already, within the PFO community.
One of our players was killed by Meow Mix, in Darkfall, and MM was labeled an RPK'er. If killed by another member of the same clan as MM, they become collectively as "Known RPKers".
The same kind of reactions are going to happen in PFO. Someone will be killed for their first time in PFO, in non consensual PVP, and they will cry "Foul"! They will fly to these boards and Troll - Whine, "PFO is filled with griefers" and threaten to quit if something isn't done about it.
This kind of player needs to have it explained to them, "There are no comfy chairs in PFO". As soon as you log in, you are taking a risk, mitigated only by your location and your defensive actions. As soon as you log in, you are someone else's content, to your benefit or at your expense.
Lhan, I know you understand this, but there are others who don't. What I think you may not be understanding is the power that Role Playing plays in games that are more connected to the major RP franchises (D&D or LOTR).