Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except, Bludd, that that is exactly what has already happened in DarkFall (and Mortal Online if I understand Andius correctly). What evidence do you have to suggest that the same will not happen in PfO if there are no consequences for behaving in such a manner?
This kind of player needs to have it explained to them.
And what do they need explained, exactly? I'm sorry but that comes across as extremely patronising, as does saying that people making a complaint (legitimate or not) about being killed are somehow trolling or whining. Maybe we should "explain" to those who want to PvP all the time that yes, they can gank little Johhny even when he's not flagged, but they are going to have to sit on the naughty step for a while if they do (in the form of lost rep or alignment shift). Does that sound any less obnoxious?
We have already discussed our differing opinions on what freedom to "opt out" of PvP means, and until Ryan Dancey says otherwise, I shall continue to maintain that this means there are no true safe zones in game, in the way that there are in a WoW PvE server. In other words, you are vulnerable all the time. This does not mean that there should be no consequences for those who opt to engage in PvP against those who clearly are not interested in so doing (*either at that time or permanently). Otherwise, what exactly is the point of the flag system anyway? If there is no incentive not to fly a flag, then why not just make all of the flag bonuses permanent and based on alignment (or choice)?
The bottom line here is the bottom line. Irritate, annoy or generally p*ss off enough off the player base and they will take their MMO cash elsewhere. The gankfest that is DarkFall is not exactly a raring commercial success - and I am pretty sure it's not the model that Paizo want to follow with regard to subscription.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Lhan, That is not the argument I was making. I was not talking about the consequences or lack thereof for the attacker. That is besides the point.
The argument that I said was that, no matter what the controls, there will be some who will not accept the loss, even after a single bad experience.
Darkfall, EVE and other Open World PVP games are not perfectly good comparisons for what PFO might be. In both Darkfall and EVE, there is auto flagging based on what type of area you enter. When you enter those zones, can you truly be "Griefed"? In EVE, the answer is "No", because there is no reason to return to your wreck, assume it is gone. In Darkfall, where do you respawn when you die?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was not talking about the consequences or lack thereof for the attacker. That is besides the point.
Ah but Bludd, that's where we differ. That is the whole point. It is exactly what Ryan means when he says that pickpocketing strays into the realm of the "unfair". It doesn't matter what the truth is, what matters is the perception of that truth. People are far less likely to complain if they know that the attack on them cost the attacker something as well. If there are consequences, the "fairness balance" goes a long way to being equalled.
The argument that I said was that, no matter what the controls, there will be some who will not accept the loss, even after a single bad experience.
These are not the people we should be worrying about; here I think you are right in suggesting that they may not have understood one of the fundamental pillars of the game. We should be worrying about those who feel that way after 10, 50 or 100 such attacks and then leave the game. Not because they are against PvP, but because they are against meaningless PvP, which it is when the attacker has nothing to lose. If, as an attacker, you don't have to stop and think before an attack,"is this worth it?" then I would suggest that it is meaningless PvP. If on the other hand, I know that the guy who has just bashed my head in has had to deal with some ingame problems in order to be able to do so, then I shall applaud his dedication to the dark side. And ask for some cookies.
Darkfall, EVE and other Open World PVP games are not perfectly good comparisons for what PFO might be. In both Darkfall and EVE, there is auto flagging based on what type of area you enter. When you enter those zones, can you truly be "Griefed"? In EVE, the answer is "No", because there is no reason to return to your wreck, assume it is gone. In Darkfall, where do you respawn when you die?
In EvE you may be right (not always). In DF, you res at your bind point. But I was ganked yesterday, ran back to my gravestone and recovered everything off my corpse (and Urman's too) bar a couple of essences and the money (all 25G of it). Still, I'm not entirely sure of your point here. What does resing elsewhere or threading have to do with people's perceptions of the fairness of being ganked?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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 to me is of more worry then the "Goons" showing up. In my opinion it is the real threat of a Sandbox game.
Which is exactly what I was trying to explain in one of those previous threads.
We will see thread after thread of... "I was attacked by ***, we need to nerf this, oh and add *** to your RPKer/Griefer lists."
What really happened in the game is... "*** SAD's you for 10gp, I am a not one gold group, No to SAD, *** kills you and takes everything. To the forums, Ill get him back for this!!!"
Seen it in every game Ive played so far. People get mad when they die in pvp. They exaggerate the circumstances, and try their best to save face at the same time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So you expect to be thanked for killing someone?
I agree the constant calls for nerf X in other games are annoying and usually futile. But you really expect people not to complain if they get attacked? Of course they will, and vociferously. Your actions will have consequences, both in game and meta-game.
I just hope that the response will be to hire bandit hunters in game (or assassins etc) in order to even the score. But I wouldn't count on it and nor should you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hopefully such players can choose to go back to their CC's or Settlement and take it up with them. They may even be able to pay a bounty-hunter, too. If not then it's a one-off, if not, then it's a possibility for diplomatic proceedings, if not... it means The River Kingdoms are dangerous = v fun. :)
LE as above quote, are the real movers and shakers, rumble in the jungle of the River Kingdoms. CE will just be a case of "call in the vermin exterminator" if the vermin problem is proving to be breeding to high. Or pay to get a cat or terrier. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The bottom line here is the bottom line. Irritate, annoy or generally p*ss off enough off the player base and they will take their MMO cash elsewhere. The gankfest that is DarkFall is not exactly a raring commercial success - and I am pretty sure it's not the model that Paizo want to follow with regard to subscription.
I read a game design article a long time ago (so no citation) that discussed the Bartle Test categories (killer, explorer, achiever, and socializer). The theory was that a MUD or MMO needed some amount of player killers to remain challenging. However, once the player killer population got above some fraction, their numbers would drive other players from the game. That may have happened in Darkfall - the numbers are low, the player killers are desperate for targets. Wolves get hungry when their intended (weak) prey are gone.
EVE might have a higher threshhold than some games because of the relative safety within spaces controlled by large corps. (So this might be an artifact of the choke points that will not be in PFO.) A lot of players also spend their time in high sec. I'd imagine PFO stands a real risk of being as unpopulated as Darkfall if they make it too much fun for uncontrolled player killing, if there aren't choke points and the safe zones are small.
Evil needs to be acceptable enough to keep a certain amount of player killers in the game. It needs to be disadvantaged enough that the primary player killers don't rise above fraction F. The designers get to worry about what fraction F is.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, I dont expect it to be any different in PFO.
Neither should everyone else expect PFO to be that much (yeah some) different then most the other sandbox games.
I have a feeling that most of the communities put together will be like CVA in Eve. NeRDS based pvp. Reactive more then proactive... playing NRDS means you will not be keeping an eye on all the neutrals that enter your territory.
Here is a for instance from Eve that took place Thursday night. My group and I, put a fleet together to roam the Providence Region of Eve. Providence is a large group of NRDS alliances that work together. They are pretty well left alone by the other alliances in game because they either pay them off or because Providence is a poor region.
So we head out in a frigate gang of 10, 6 damage ships and 4 logistics ships. 2 of our group are flying their Faction Warfare alts that are neutral to the Provi block. These Faction Warfare guys are in a pvp corporation, but that is an NPC corp. The NRDS guys cannot set an NPC corp red without it affecting their own alts and etc.
So we hit a couple ships, including a Tengu worth 2.5 billion ISK. The Provi Block setup a response fleet and chase us around for a bit. We play cat and mouse with them, knowing full well that their Battleship heavy fleet of 25 will kill us easy.
Finally we get in a nice position. Their scout is a Loki (expensive T3), and he feels superior knowing he has his group just 1 jump behind. So we setup off a gate at 100KM. The Loki pilot burns toward us and we attack. His pals jump in but are 80 to 100KM away from him... out of T1 Logistics range and the majority of their ships are too slow. So they start to snipe at us.
We killed the Loki, they killed 5 total frigates. Their loss is at 700 million ISK and our losses are well under 50 million ISK. We lost garbage ships that a starting player can fly (not as well fit though), and they lost a high skill ship... Including the fact that when you die in a T3, you also lose some skill points.
The end result that should be payed attention to, and Bludd has tried to explain, is... Experienced PVPers will know how to make the best of a bad situation because that is what they do. Reputation and alignment means very little in the long run.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The bottom line here is the bottom line. Irritate, annoy or generally p*ss off enough off the player base and they will take their MMO cash elsewhere. The gankfest that is DarkFall is not exactly a raring commercial success - and I am pretty sure it's not the model that Paizo want to follow with regard to subscription.I read a game design article a long time ago (so no citation) that discussed the Bartle Test categories (killer, explorer, achiever, and socializer). The theory was that a MUD or MMO needed some amount of player killers to remain challenging. However, once the player killer population got above some fraction, their numbers would drive other players from the game. That may have happened in Darkfall - the numbers are low, the player killers are desperate for targets. Wolves get hungry when their intended (weak) prey are gone.
EVE might have a higher threshhold than some games because of the relative safety within spaces controlled by large corps. (So this might be an artifact of the choke points that will not be in PFO.) A lot of players also spend their time in high sec. I'd imagine PFO stands a real risk of being as unpopulated as Darkfall if they make it too much fun for uncontrolled player killing, if there aren't choke points and the safe zones are small.
Evil needs to be acceptable enough to keep a certain amount of player killers in the game. It needs to be disadvantaged enough that the primary player killers don't rise above fraction F. The designers get to worry about what fraction F is.
There is no safety within space controlled by large groups. Controlled space is mostly reactionary, being proactive in trying to keep your space safe is boring and will drive people off.
The reason people leave games is because they are bored. If those players were not bored they would stay and join a group like Andius' to avoid PVP. The themepark games where there is no real PVP has problems with numbers too. Sure WoW kept a large player base, but that is mainly because people dont want to see the money they spent wasted by switching games.
Most studies are bogus. They look at the data they want to and discard the rest... Trust me I know first hand, I work in the automotive industry.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So you expect to be thanked for killing someone?... But you really expect people not to complain if they get attacked? Of course they will, and vociferously.
I'm not calling for someone to be told that "this game isn't for them." or anything like that.
Our Philosophy of Fun
You can see that we're trying to avoid some of the problems that afflict other sandbox MMOs while still retaining open-world PvP, providing the risks that make your fellow players meaningfully dangerous, and thus a great source of stories! Pathfinder Online is going to be a place where law-abiding characters who just want to focus on PvE and chaotic berzerkers and highwaymen can all follow their destinies.
Death is a setback, not a final rest. The amount of risk you accept in the event of your character's death also determines the glory and rewards the character can potentially find as they explore, develop, adventure and dominate in the River Kingdoms!
No I don't expect people to thank someone for killing them. I expect them accept PVP as a part of a PVP game. That should be in the EULA in big bold letters and be the first thing that you see. PEOPLE CAN AND WILL KILL YOU IN THIS GAME.
People need to accept PVP as part of a PVP game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I doubt there will be any wilderness areas in the game where you will not constantly have to be on your guard, ready to fight or flee,
We know that some players would like to have the ability to opt out of PvP altogether. We are not going to enable that kind of functionality, because we feel that PvP is an intrinsic, critical part of "meaningful human interaction".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As I said above:
... until Ryan Dancey says otherwise, I shall continue to maintain that this means there are no true safe zones in game, in the way that there are in a WoW PvE server. In other words, you are vulnerable all the time. This does not mean that there should be no consequences for those who opt to engage in PvP against those who clearly are not interested in so doing (*either at that time or permanently). Otherwise, what exactly is the point of the flag system anyway? If there is no incentive not to fly a flag, then why not just make all of the flag bonuses permanent and based on alignment (or choice)?
Not being able to opt out of PvP does not mean making PvP free from consequence for those who engage in it. How do your bolded points above change this?
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Mainly because people do not accept that they will be subject to it.
Consequences or no
Edit: too many threads with similar discussions, meant to put that in another. Although it does fit here to.
Reality has a way of ignoring expectations.
People who find the game unacceptable won't play it; people who think it would be better with less or different PvP will lobby for that, and reality will march onwards unless they can provide a reason that the design hasn't already considered in forming the compromise position that it already has.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Mainly because people do not accept that they will be subject to it.
Consequences or no
Edit: too many threads with similar discussions, meant to put that in another. Although it does fit here to.
I have to admit, I have no idea who you and Areks are yelling at...I see no one here asking for or saying PvP will not be in game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This seems to be deteriorating into a discussion about the benefits or otherwise of a full-PvP world (again). I can't speak for all of the Keepers of the Circle but probably in common with most NG/CG groups, I would see us aligning with any large group as required for community defence and not for any other purpose. That is to say if the threat imagined by the OP comes to pass, I would be willing to co-operate with AnotherBigTown but as soon as the threat is mitigated I would be off doing my own thing again. I wouldn't be interested in participating in any world-domination council.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is exactly what Ryan means when he says that pickpocketing strays into the realm of the "unfair". It doesn't matter what the truth is, what matters is the perception of that truth. People are far less likely to complain if they know that the attack on them cost the attacker something as well
I come away from this excerpt with two ideas, and obviously I differ with them completely.
First, it appears to me that Ryan is not considering the nature of theft through stealth. The whole point of Sleight of Hand based stealing is that the only defense of the victim is passive. The risk of the thief is getting caught and the punishment will most likely be death and loss of whatever the thief held himself.
To say the interaction is "unfair" because the defense is passive, shows to me a basic lack of understanding of the nature of the interaction.
The second point is, again it seems to me that Ryan believes, the attacker even in victory must have a negative consequence for victory. In most game based conflicts the dynamic is risk vs reward. What it appears here is that Ryan believes it is Loss vs Greater Loss.
I have argued that mechanics should be fair, but not every interaction will or should be. I think once you start trying to make every interaction fair, you create systems that are imbalanced and ultimately broken.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The risk of the thief is getting caught and the punishment will most likely be death and loss of whatever the thief held himself.
Except that neither of these is a punishment, or even an inconvenience. Death in an MMO costs nothing, and if the punishment is to lose what is in your bags, what thief in his right mind will take anything with them when they go stealing? It didn't take the Goblin Squad long to work out the benefits of "naked" gathering in DarkFall.
The second point is, again it seems to me that Ryan believes, the attacker even in victory must have a negative consequence for victory.
The way I read it, Ryan is saying that there should be consequences for inconveniencing other players, otherwise there is no reason not to. Unhappy players don't stay players very long. Seems like sound commercial reasoning to me.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is far more important that the mechanics seem fair than that the mechanics be fair. It seems unfair to lose things without the feedback indicating what you could have done differently; losing without being aware that a contest was occurring at all feels very unfair.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think, once again, we're arguing past each other because of perceived definitions. When I place a head of lettuce on my kitchen table there is at least one consequence-there's lettuce on my table. I wonder if, when posters say 'meaningful consequences for pvp'(not 'griefing'), they are refering to some kind of punishment for pvp, no matter where or when it is-not just, "hey bozo, there's lettuce on your table." We already know that the most valuable resources will be in low or null sec areas to promote player 'interaction'.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The meaningful consequence of leaving lettuce on your table is that your salad is wilted. That has secondary consequences, such as your dinner date getting food poisoning. Then you end up spending the night in the ER.
Meaningful consequences are ones that you care about. You probably don't care about lettuce on the table, but you probably do care if you spend the night in bed or in the ER.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think, once again, we're arguing past each other because of perceived definitions. When I place a head of lettuce on my kitchen table there is at least one consequence-there's lettuce on my table. I wonder if, when posters say 'meaningful consequences for pvp'(not 'griefing'), they are refering to some kind of punishment for pvp, no matter where or when it is-not just, "hey bozo, there's lettuce on your table." We already know that the most valuable resources will be in low or null sec areas to promote player 'interaction'.
This
From what I see, a large number want you to theoretically be kicked out of game for a few days because you initiated pvp against someone that doesnt want it.
@KitNyx - no, no one is saying they dont want pvp. They know it is a pvp game. What they do want it to be able to avoid it at any time they choose.
New motto being chosen...
"No gathering without consequences"
"No crafting without consequences"
Now that sounds dumb, but people want to make large profits without any worry that they could lose some of it.
Also yep, it has deteriorated again... Im sorry I was a part of it in your thread Sepherum
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Except that neither of these is a punishment, or even an inconvenience. Death in an MMO costs nothing, and if the punishment is to lose what is in your bags, what thief in his right mind will take anything with them when they go stealing? It didn't take the Goblin Squad long to work out the benefits of "naked" gathering in DarkFall.
1. Death in PFO comes with 100% loss of non threaded items, and item decay for your threaded items. Other than that, there may be other costs involved.
2. As a thief, starting the day naked may be common, but at so e point you will be carrying a moderate to great amount of loot. That is, unless you are running to the bank after every time you loot someone, which is very inefficient and you miss many opportunities.
I would recommend in Darkfall that we "test" out some PvP roams and see what mind if success a d how much loot we can collect in a short period of time. Then you may begin to realize what risk and consequence thieves / gankers really do feel.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The meaningful consequence of leaving lettuce on your table is that your salad is wilted. That has secondary consequences, such as your dinner date getting food poisoning. Then you end up spending the night in the ER.
Meaningful consequences are ones that you care about. You probably don't care about lettuce on the table, but you probably do care if you spend the night in bed or in the ER.
You're right. I don't want to spend the night in the ER. You've made my point for me; you're not simply talking about meaningful consequences-you didn't say I might make a great salad. You automatically gave my date metaphorical food poisoning. You're campaigning for punishment of pvp. I thought Bluddwolf was aiming at a straw man, but he's not. If you leave Mr. Dancey's islands and roads of high sec, you will be subject to unwanted pvp. Luckily, if you wish to venture out and acquire the most valuable resources your attackers will not get the in-game equivalent of salmonella. I say luckily because Goblin Works is not going to put enough resources into quests, lairs and dungeons to make the game a success. Player vs. Player conflict must be the content and the engine that runs the crafting economy.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
You're right. I don't want to spend the night in the ER. You've made my point for me; you're not simply talking about meaningful consequences-you didn't say I might make a great salad. You automatically gave my date metaphorical food poisoning. You're campaigning for punishment of pvp. I thought Bluddwolf was aiming at a straw man, but he's not. If you leave Mr. Dancey's islands and roads of high sec, you will be subject to unwanted pvp. Luckily, if you wish to venture out and acquire the most valuable resources your attackers will not get the in-game equivalent of salmonella. I say luckily because Goblin Works is not going to put enough resources into quests, lairs and dungeons to make the game a success. Player vs. Player conflict must be the content and the engine that runs the crafting economy.The meaningful consequence of leaving lettuce on your table is that your salad is wilted. That has secondary consequences, such as your dinner date getting food poisoning. Then you end up spending the night in the ER.
Meaningful consequences are ones that you care about. You probably don't care about lettuce on the table, but you probably do care if you spend the night in bed or in the ER.
I didn't give anyone food poisoning; you should know that food left AFK between 40 and 140 degrees Fahrenheit might become spoiled, and not leave food out unless you can afford to lose it when the bacteria find it.
The meaningful consequence of you leaving lettuce on the table is that the bacteria get a salad, and you don't. If you hired guards to protect your lettuce, you might keep the bandits from spoiling it (or you might not) and you would create a meaningful interaction between the bandits and the guards- namely, if the guards fail, they lose prestige and the ability to work for other chefs (because nobody wants to hire guards who fail) in addition to the direct combat losses.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They know it is a pvp game. What they do want it to be able to avoid it at any time they choose.
For the last time, nobody is arguing that people should be able to opt out of PvP, nor do they believe that this is possible. Nor is anybody talking about punishing PvP. PvP between consenting adults is fine and good. What they are saying is that if someone indicates that they are not looking to PvP (whether permanently as a playstyle or temporarily "cos tonight I just don't feel like it"), then there should be consequences if you choose to ignore their preference, and that those consequences should make you have to think twice before attacking an unflagged target.
Again, nobody has the option to opt out of PvP. But they should have the option of making an attack on them a little more unpalatable than an attack on someone who is ready, willing and able to take you on. Is it really so hard to see the difference?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1. Death in PFO comes with 100% loss of non threaded items, and item decay for your threaded items. Other than that, there may be other costs involved.
2. As a thief, starting the day naked may be common, but at so e point you will be carrying a moderate to great amount of loot. That is, unless you are running to the bank after every time you loot someone, which is very inefficient and you miss many opportunities.
1. See 2
2. And your point is that you want to be greedy too? Either take your stuff to the bank or face the risks that everybody else does, all the time. That is a "penalty" faced by all characters in the game, regardless of whether they are thieves or not, and as such is no punishment at all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the confusion is some believe that "meaningful PvP" means that there needs to be meaningful consequences for participating in it, especially for the winner.
Instead the mind set should be: "meaningful PvP" is when the decision to engage in it was based on meaningful motives, and the consequences of losing are also meaningful.
If death were more of a consequence, then engaging in PvP without a legitimate reason would be far riskier than the reward might provide. This should not be done to the point that PvP is out right discouraged, and there lies the main balancing issue for the Devs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
They know it is a pvp game. What they do want it to be able to avoid it at any time they choose.For the last time, nobody is arguing that people should be able to opt out of PvP, nor do they believe that this is possible. Nor is anybody talking about punishing PvP. PvP between consenting adults is fine and good. What they are saying is that if someone indicates that they are not looking to PvP (whether permanently as a playstyle or temporarily "cos tonight I just don't feel like it"), then there should be consequences if you choose to ignore their preference, and that those consequences should make you have to think twice before attacking an unflagged target.
Again, nobody has the option to opt out of PvP. But they should have the option of making an attack on them a little more unpalatable than an attack on someone who is ready, willing and able to take you on. Is it really so hard to see the difference?
Why does the traveler that enters the open world PvP not bear the risk or consequences of their choice to enter the zones outside if the protected zone of a settlement or NOC settlement?
I can not expect to enter a settlement flagged as a Outlaw and not be attacked. No one should expect to enter an wilderness hex, and not be attacked. If you punish the PvPer for PvPing in a PvP zone, you are punishing people for PvP.
As Xeen had said, what is the meaningful consequences for crafting or being a merchant?
Maybe if a merchant puts an item for sale, higher than the market average, he will lose 1 reputation for every silver above that average. That seems to me to be a meaningful consequence for being a greedy merchant.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why does the traveler that enters the open world PvP not bear the risk or consequences of their choice to enter the zones outside if the protected zone of a settlement or NOC settlement?
They do; you can kill them, flagged or not.
I can not expect to enter a settlement flagged as a Outlaw and not be attacked. No one should expect to enter an wilderness hex, and not be attacked. If you punish the PvPer for PvPing in a PvP zone, you are punishing people for PvP.
Then don't flag as an outlaw, you have that option. Nobody is telling you that you cannot attack the unflagged, and nobody will expect not to be attacked. What we should try to discourage is people being attacked "just for sh!ts and giggles"; that kind of mentality is what is rife in DarkFall and why the game is almost dead.
As Xeen had said, what is the meaningful consequences for crafting or being a merchant?
I am hopeful that this is just Xeen engaging in hyperbole, and that it does not really need spelling out. There is a vast difference between behaviour in game that impinges on others' enjoyment of that game and behaviour that does not. How often have you seen someone "whine" (to use your terminology) on an MMO forum about other people crafting?
Maybe if a merchant puts an item for sale, higher than the market average, he will lose 1 reputation for every silver above that average. That seems to me to be a meaningful consequence for being a greedy merchant.
You will always have a choice not to buy. You are not offering the same choice to your victims. See why one needs more consequences than the other?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
<in the voice of Dennis Hopper>
Those darned crafters, man. I tell ya something has to be done about them. They are keeping my fun and profits locked up inside their stinking safe zones. It completely breaks my enjoyment of the game and I will not stand for it. /ragequit
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You're right. I don't want to spend the night in the ER. You've made my point for me; you're not simply talking about meaningful consequences-you didn't say I might make a great salad. You automatically gave my date metaphorical food poisoning. You're campaigning for punishment of pvp. I thought Bluddwolf was aiming at a straw man, but he's not. If you leave Mr. Dancey's islands and roads of high sec, you will be subject to unwanted pvp. Luckily, if you wish to venture out and acquire the most valuable resources your attackers will not get the in-game equivalent of salmonella. I say luckily because Goblin Works is not going to put enough resources into quests, lairs and dungeons to make the game a success. Player vs. Player conflict must be the content and the engine that runs the crafting economy.The meaningful consequence of leaving lettuce on your table is that your salad is wilted. That has secondary consequences, such as your dinner date getting food poisoning. Then you end up spending the night in the ER.
Meaningful consequences are ones that you care about. You probably don't care about lettuce on the table, but you probably do care if you spend the night in bed or in the ER.
I didn't give anyone food poisoning; you should know that food left AFK between 40 and 140 degrees Fahrenheit might become spoiled, and not leave food out unless you can afford to lose it when the bacteria find it.
The meaningful consequence of you leaving lettuce on the table is that the bacteria get a salad, and you don't. If you hired guards to protect your lettuce, you might keep the bandits from spoiling it (or you might not) and you would create a meaningful interaction between the bandits and the guards- namely, if the guards fail, they lose prestige and the ability to work for other chefs (because nobody wants to hire guards who fail) in addition to the direct combat losses.
Nice! Sounds like the game we all want to play. Glad something cool came out of this thread. Sorry we ended up with a salad analogy; yeah it sucked but Decius made the most of it. Once these bozos stop fighting over the lettuce the potion makers can add Neumans' Own garlic herb dressing.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe if a merchant puts an item for sale, higher than the market average, he will lose 1 reputation for every silver above that average. That seems to me to be a meaningful consequence for being a greedy merchant.
That seems to me to be a transparent attempt to remove the meaningfulness form the Reputation system in general.
Meaningful interaction for pure merchants means that bandits make a given route so risky that nobody will transport goods for a profitable price across it. It means market manipulation and counter-manipulation where vast enterprises risk insolvency trying to drive prices up or down to their profit. It means mercenaries being paid to desert the woodcutters they were protecting, in order that a settlement that required that wood to prepare for a siege go undefended.
On the micro-scale, a small time merchant makes decisions that affect their cash flow and bottom line, starting with the decision to participate in the market to begin with.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We're back at consequences for PvP again? Really? I thought it was really simple.
1) There will be consequences for engaging in PvP against players who are not seeking PvP. These consequences come in the form of Reputation loss, Bounties, and Death Curses.
2) Just because you can levy these consequences does not mean you are immune to assault. It just adds extra risk for assailants to calculate. You can and will likely eventually be attacked even if you don't want to be.
3) A Bounty and/or Death Curse is much harder to see fulfilled in low/null sec (wilderness) areas, and no NPCs will rush to your aid in these places. Some enemies will take the risk that they can hide and get away to let your curse/bounty expire. Always remember that factors that impact risk/reward of attacking you are What You Carry, Where You Are, What Flags You Have, Your Own Reputation, Your Perceived Strength\Weakness.
If you want to avoid PvP you will need to move in groups. Carry only what you need. Avoid more wild regions as much as possible. Maintain a high reputation. You can still get attacked if you do all of this. But less opponents will find you worth their time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...a meaningful consequence for being a greedy merchant.
I've never understood accusations thrown at merchants for being greedy. One may object to a merchant's prices, but one's under no obligation to buy, except in the instance of a monopoly on a required good with no substitute, such as some basic utilities.
In the real world, entrance costs may be so high as to provide some protection from price competition, but few such barriers exist in game-worlds. Price something too high and someone else will beat you and take your customers.
Tomorrow, both of you will examine the market, make your choices, and try again.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That seems to me to be a transparent attempt to remove the meaningfulness form the Reputation system in general.
Unfortunately, this is what I see too. I find no surprise that it is the self-proclaimed ruthless PvPers among us who are asking for all social repercussions of PvP to be removed.
The whole point of Sleight of Hand based stealing is that the only defense of the victim is passive. The risk of the thief is getting caught and the punishment will most likely be death and loss of whatever the thief held himself.
To say the interaction is "unfair" because the defense is passive, shows to me a basic lack of understanding of the nature of the interaction.
I actually agree totally with Ryan Dancey's interpretation theft...and more importantly, the resulting social/metaphysical consequences. I think people should quit trying to plan their alignment/reputation and just play how they want...then live with the repercussions of their choices.
If rewards available to others become attractive, consider if they are worth changes in your game play. If not, well that is your decision. If your decision appears to "gimp" your character, you can always make different decisions moving forward. Either way, making any decisions now is a bit...premature.
I understand that in the meantime, the point of being here is so we can all share our views about what should and should not be in game. Just realize, many of us view social consequences for actions as a huge draw of PfO...for me one of the primary ones. For others, that draw is purely PvP. It just seems it is the same people expressing concern about PvP being "weakened" because people complain, who are now trying to "weaken" alignment and reputation (the social consequences mechanics), an aspect some others (like myself) find as vital to the holistic picture as PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That seems to me to be a transparent attempt to remove the meaningfulness form the Reputation system in general.Unfortunately, this is what I see too. I find no surprise that it is the self-proclaimed ruthless PvPers among us who are asking for all social repercussions of PvP to be removed.
I actually agree totally with Ryan Dancey's interpretation theft...and more importantly, the resulting social/metaphysical consequences. I think people should quit trying to plan their alignment/reputation and just play how they want...then live with the repercussions of their choices.The whole point of Sleight of Hand based stealing is that the only defense of the victim is passive. The risk of the thief is getting caught and the punishment will most likely be death and loss of whatever the thief held himself.
To say the interaction is "unfair" because the defense is passive, shows to me a basic lack of understanding of the nature of the interaction.
My disagreement with Ryan's view of pickpocketing has nothing to do with the alignment / reputation system at all. I did not even mention them, but since you brought them up, I will explain.
I believe that the alignment shift to chaos and the reputation hit for being caught pickpocketing or stealing by stealth in general, should be more significant than using force to steal.
The reason why, is the support for that can be found in the lore of the River Kingdoms.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You do not think the fact that one holds their own life and freedom is more fundamental and irrefutable than one holds the material items in their backpack? I do. Besides, if we really want to start spouting River Freedoms and game mechanics, care to explain how a SAD is not a toll?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As Xeen had said, what is the meaningful consequences for crafting or being a merchant?
I am hopeful that this is just Xeen engaging in hyperbole, and that it does not really need spelling out. There is a vast difference between behaviour in game that impinges on others' enjoyment of that game and behaviour that does not. How often have you seen someone "whine" (to use your terminology) on an MMO forum about other people crafting?
I will comment on both here.
Hyperbole, well yes and no. If a crafter can make stacks of gold, become among the richest people in game, and never be at risk of attack, losing some wealth, or etc. Then that is a problem.
As for people whining about other people crafting... Happens all the time in Sandbox MMO's. Usually it is because people can make loads of money risk free.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If a crafter can make stacks of gold, become among the richest people in game, and never be at risk of attack, losing some wealth, or etc. Then that is a problem.
I agree that would be a problem, but it won't be a problem in PFO because the Crafters won't be free from risk.
Assassinations
It should be possible for someone to go virtually anywhere they can manage to gain admittance and target virtually any character for an assassination. This implies, obviously, that there should be ways to avoid alignment (and other) restrictions on access to various NPC areas.
Crafters won't even be free from risk in the otherwise perfectly safe NPC starter areas.