Goblin Squad Member
|
A few walls of text by Mr. Dancey have shocked many on these boards regarding how Pathfinder Online will be played. I'm not understanding the level of surprise. From the beginning the content has been portrayed as character generated; not a WOW pvp server fight over fields of enchanted tulips (tho, of course this will happen) but the struggle of player organizations, settlements and kingdoms for resources, power and domination. The diplomat, travelling merchant, solo monster hunter, etc. will have little to do until this metaconflict is on the path to development. When EE begins, it seems to me wise to build characters towards the end of creating strong, survivable settlements. This opens the door for other playstyles and serves to augment any strategy to deal with the Open Enrollment barbarian invasion.
my sugestion is a different focus on social grouping, instead of focusing on isolated
chartered companies,focus on a city-state idea, with the most cc as possible,including the shady individuals (OC of course).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A few walls of text by Mr. Dancey have shocked many on these boards regarding how Pathfinder Online will be played. I'm not understanding the level of surprise.
Some of us have been here a long time...and many of us, I think, got a distinct impression from early discussions that GW was not trying to recreate a fantasy themed EVE. My (perhaps false) memory includes dev post after dev post that highlighted this fact. Since all we can do is make conclusions based upon discussion, and no outright change in direction had been explicitly announced, why would we not draw upon these early points?
I am a fan of EVE, so these revelations are not necessarily a bad thing. I am however very disappointed because I was excited to play a different kind of game. I can go play EVE to be cutthroat and ruthless, I was looking forward to playing something more socially cooperative...with a strong PvP lean.
At the same time, unless the decision has been made to remove the flag, alignment and reputation system (which in my opinion would be a huge mistake), there are distinct and marked differences between EVE and PfO, making me wonder at the validity and rationales of Mr. Dancey's recent posts.
We have no choice but to wait and see where this goes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ KitNyx: I understand...I've also been here from the beginning. Even then, I do remember comments about 'conquer', 'expand' and 'dominate'. I also remember Mr. Dancey mentioning that he fully expected bozos to import (export?) organizations from other games. Also that soloing would be hard enough that the devs 'salute' those with the will to see such a playstyle through. Perhaps our brethren with encyclopedic knowledge of the messageboards (now who could that be?) will dig them up for us. I also believe that Mr. Dancey has very concrete ideas of how to avoid the abuses he saw in EVE.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ KitNyx: I understand...I've also been here from the beginning. Even then, I do remember comments about 'conquer', 'expand' and 'dominate'. I also remember Mr. Dancey mentioning that he fully expected bozos to import (export?) organizations from other games. Also that soloing would be hard enough that the devs 'salute' those with the will to see such a playstyle through. Perhaps our brethren with encyclopedic knowledge of the messageboards (now who could that be?) will dig them up for us. I also believe that Mr. Dancey has very concrete ideas of how to avoid the abuses he saw in EVE.
I acknowledge seeing those references too...perhaps some of us were just being self deluded by an overabundance of wishful thinking.
Anyways, not trying to justify, just what seemed to me to be a question in your OP, my apologies if it was rhetorical.
"A leader is a man who can adapt principles to circumstances." ~ General George S. Patton
I intend to do just that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ KitNyx: I understand...I've also been here from the beginning. Even then, I do remember comments about 'conquer', 'expand' and 'dominate'. I also remember Mr. Dancey mentioning that he fully expected bozos to import (export?) organizations from other games. Also that soloing would be hard enough that the devs 'salute' those with the will to see such a playstyle through. Perhaps our brethren with encyclopedic knowledge of the messageboards (now who could that be?) will dig them up for us. I also believe that Mr. Dancey has very concrete ideas of how to avoid the abuses he saw in EVE.I acknowledge seeing those references too...perhaps some of us were just being self deluded by an overabundance of wishful thinking.
Anyways, not trying to justify, just what seemed to me to be a question in your OP, my apologies if it was rhetorical.
"A leader is a man who can adapt principles to circumstances." ~ General George S. Patton
I intend to do just that.
Cool. If we build strong settlements I just don't see anyone taking over anything-at least not that I'm involved in. I've played mutiple tabletop Diplomacy tournaments at cons over the years; can't imagine facing a worse bunch of bozos than that. Or beautiful bastards, if you like!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps our brethren with encyclopedic knowledge of the messageboards (now who could that be?) will dig them up for us.
O, brother! *grins*
Hopefully, it won't be necessary. I think we all agree that this has been part of the vision from the beginning. I also think Ryan's most recent post puts this all in the proper perspective.
I think that most people should be clear that they won't be "running Settlements". Let's imagine that there's 100 Settlements in the next couple of years. Maybe 6 people run each of them. So that's 600 "Settlement Runners' out of a population that will be in the tens of thousands - maybe a hundred thousand by that point.
The vast, vast, vasty majority of people are not "running Settlements". They're doing the interesting stuff like exploration, adventure, development and domination. Almost all of that takes the form of small group activities that last from a few hours to a few days.
Most of the game is built around these activities. They are expected to be conducted in an environment where large social organizations are constantly in competition for territory, and that competition drives the markets that make everything else worth doing. But most people, most of the time, won't be engaged in those territorial struggles in an active combat role. Most of the time you'll be rushing to build infrastructure and develop characters faster than the other guys. Most of the time you'll be contributing to the success of your "team" by doing all the things you want to be doing in the game, and the better you are at doing those things, the healthier your local community will be.
This thread has a lot of discussion about the kinds of issues that people "running Settlements" will have to pay attention to, but it's not a good measure of what playing the game will be like for most people, most of the time.
If it's not obvious by the way I keep asking Ryan for advice, I'm not at all confident that I have the innate knowledge to run a Settlement. The Stewards of The Seventh Veil are a motley crew with no real-world connection other than our presence on these boards. We won't be playing EVE. So, even though Ryan was kind enough to offer me a veritable treasure trove of advice, I worry that it will be for naught because we won't be able to follow it.
I am truly and sincerely grateful that Andius has the temperament to paint a huge target on his back and dare the "anonymous a#&!&~!s of teh interwebz" to "bring it on".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Honestly I am unsure where we dwarves will fit into the PFO world now that we are beginning to understand just how brutal it will be. I may be wrong but from what I gather there will be no place for small independent settlements. Optimistically I don't see our membership every exceeding 100 players. If I am understanding things correctly this relatively small roster would exclude us from the settlement end of the game. Our only choice may be to join with one of the big three here on the boards. This is something that all of the smaller themed groups will have to deal with.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know that a number of posters are proponents for their own ideal gaming environment. Ryan's very successful wall of words spell may cause some to believe that their ideal just went "poof". I respectively say, "don't sell yourselves short". You have all spoken with conviction and passion. I think that this passion is equal to any griefer. It may or may not be true that we in EE will have to restart our builds at OE. Regardless, I'll stack the commitment (even the committed opposition) I've seen here against any griefer organization that tries their old tactics when they come to PFO. I think they are going to be in for a nasty surprise. Maybe not at first, but just as the Japanese discovered in WWII, you don't want to wake the sleeping giant.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know that a number of posters are proponents for their own ideal gaming environment. Ryan's very successful wall of words spell may cause some to believe that their ideal just went "poof". I respectively say, "don't sell yourselves short". You have all spoken with conviction and passion. I think that this passion is equal to any griefer. It may or may not be true that we in EE will have to restart our builds at OE. Regardless, I'll stack the commitment (even the committed opposition) I've seen here against any griefer organization that tries their old tactics when they come to PFO. I think they are going to be in for a nasty surprise. Maybe not at first, but just as the Japanese discovered in WWII, you don't want to wake the sleeping giant.
"Be the change that you wish to see in the world." ~ Gandhi
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even at their peak, 98% of players on EVE were not part of the infamous alliance. They were able to get away with most of the stuff they did because they only bothered small numbers of other people at any one time, and used a propaganda advantage to make themselves seem fearsome and invincible. Most of the game proceeded as normal, observing the loud noise elsewhere. Had there been even a principle of groups setting aside their differences and targeting one for extermination, all of their stuff would have been destroyed several times.
I can't tell you what griefing is, but conquering as much of the world as possible using every means possible is NOT griefing. If Bigtown comes in with a large number of players, willing to spend a lot of time and effort to conquer and control a large area and keep it to themselves, that is exactly as intended. They will take whatever they want, until they make a number of enemies that total their own effectiveness, and then their expansion will be matched by their losses. Smaller groups that are not willing to put forth large amounts of effort will be relegated to less desirable locations.
I'm going to generalize a little bit more: Don't settle anything that you can't afford to lose.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cool. If we build strong settlements I just don't see anyone taking over anything-at least not that I'm involved in. I've played mutiple tabletop Diplomacy tournaments at cons over the years; can't imagine facing a worse bunch of bozos than that. Or beautiful bastards, if you like!
There are few things that can put more strain on a friendship than a friendly game of Diplomacy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Honestly I am unsure where we dwarves will fit into the PFO world now that we are beginning to understand just how brutal it will be. I may be wrong but from what I gather there will be no place for small independent settlements. Optimistically I don't see our membership every exceeding 100 players. If I am understanding things correctly this relatively small roster would exclude us from the settlement end of the game. Our only choice may be to join with one of the big three here on the boards. This is something that all of the smaller themed groups will have to deal with.
Fear not O Lord of Elder Days! We shall work to recruit more and more of our Dwarven brethren and will, in time, build a citadel worthy of our ancestors!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Maybe you can form up a settlement with the other little folk like halflings or gnomes.
This reminded me of the idea of selling building skins in the cash shop. Though likely more expensive than individual players would care to buy, with the buying power of a whole settlement, you could actually make your settlement look uniquely Dwarven, Halfling, Elvish, etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I asked about the feasibility of playing the game as a relatively small themed CC at Gen Con. I was happy to hear that the team was working on ways for smaller groups to maintain their identity and a decent amount of autonomy even within very large player nations. It is extremely refreshing to have a game company that really takes time to consider and respond to player concerns.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Arcane Elven character interested in exploring ruins and such for new Arcane research and items. Very limited PvP, though I will stand with my TEO brethren, and the community as a whole against those who will seek to ruin the game and players' fun, and help build an Elven community for players of the best Fantasy race ever :D Oh, and make lots of gold!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I asked about the feasibility of playing the game as a relatively small themed CC at Gen Con. I was happy to hear that the team was working on ways for smaller groups to maintain their identity and a decent amount of autonomy even within very large player nations. It is extremely refreshing to have a game company that really takes time to consider and respond to player concerns.
This point is extremely interesting!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Maybe each Chartered Company could have a small structure or area "reserved" within their settlement (think of a Moose Lodge or Rotary Club). That way each Charter Company could have a "chapter house" to give them a unique identity within the settlement. All the old rules apply, but it would take some work from the artwork team to make that idea fit. I wouldn't want all the awesome work they've done (as seen on the video a few weeks ago) to be undone or started over. But allowing a little personalization would not only feel really good for each little company, but each settlement would be not only unique but charming.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...and this presents something of a quandary for Ryan's determination that what will make PFO a game rather than an environment is the establishment of a successful settlement.
This focus is slightly ameliorated by a subsequent finding that after a certain point of development, existence will indicate success.
My thought is that unlike the former statement equating settlement success with playing the game, the latter might also apply to surviving independents.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A few walls of text by Mr. Dancey have shocked many on these boards regarding how Pathfinder Online will be played. I'm not understanding the level of surprise. From the beginning the content has been portrayed as character generated; not a WOW pvp server fight over fields of enchanted tulips (tho, of course this will happen) but the struggle of player organizations, settlements and kingdoms for resources, power and domination. The diplomat, travelling merchant, solo monster hunter, etc. will have little to do until this metaconflict is on the path to development. When EE begins, it seems to me wise to build characters towards the end of creating strong, survivable settlements. This opens the door for other playstyles and serves to augment any strategy to deal with the Open Enrollment barbarian invasion.
What were these 'surprising' walls of text? I am not understanding what is surprising folks either. I can't keep up with the whole board, and I probably read some of these without being alarmed?
I see the quote about not everyone running settlements. Which is not a surprise. In real life, we do not get anywhere if everybody is a leader. Folks willing to follow a cause they believe in is what causes collaboration and progress. The most successful leaders are the ones who can draw enough followers to reach their goal and manage them appropriately. Many of us will be participants in building and contributing to settlements, but only a handful of us will be running them. No surprise there.
The discussions about abusive behavior from EVE that will not be tolerated in PFO is expected from early communications.
The discussions about growing a community now and being prepared for larger groups to come in later and try to dislodge us older folks was also something I expected. That we should be worrying about WHEN we will lose settlements and have to rebuild, not IF.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A few walls of text by Mr. Dancey have shocked many on these boards regarding how Pathfinder Online will be played.What were these 'surprising' walls of text?
...Ryan Dancey's most recent fire starter...
For those of you who missed it:
"Let us imagine BigTown. BigTown is run by a huge group of people from some other MMO who have been playing together cohesively for years, and know how to maintain that cohesion in the face of lots of attempts to disrupt.
They come to Pathfinder Online, and via brute force, pitch someone out on their ear and take a Settlement. Let's ignore how that happens for the time being and just say that it does.
BigTown has a guy who has proven to be ridiculously competent at security. This guy has seen pretty much every iteration of various exploration / discovery mechanics and has a "book" on how to min/max them. Call him Guardsman.
He's partnered up with BotGuy. BotGuy has learned how to break into the communication between the game client and the servers, and he's an expert at creating unlicensed, unauthorized programs that masquerade as legit clients. He does it so well that his stuff is almost never detected outright. His prime output is a "headless client" - essentially a program that interacts with the server but that doesn't have to display any 3D graphics. He can run hundreds of these things on a PC. With Amazon's AWS, he can run thousands with scripts and little effort.
Guardsman tells BotGuy: I need 24x7 coverage here, here, here, and here. I need a notification sent to the following hundred people every time a Not Blue character is detected. We need to know exactly where the detection was.
BotGuy creates as many alts as necessary, sets them up to exist wherever necessary, runs them with headless scripts. When a Not Blue is detected, Guardsman and his team log on (there are enough of them that they have 24x7 coverage), and they move by the fastest possible route to the location the detection occurred.
Guardsman has trained his team to seek and destroy. They find the trespasser quickly, and remove the threat. After a reasonable pause to ensure it wasn't a feint or a distraction, they log out and go back to whatever they're doing in their Real Lives.
In this way, BigTown has enforced security across a huge territory. To displace them, you have to break Guardsman's defenses. You can't do that solo. You need AnotherBigTown.
This is the problem everyone will face. These groups are ALREADY OUT THERE, and they'll come to our game as soon as we prove we're not another doomed to fail tiny MMO. They're good. They're well trained. They're cohesive. And they want your land."
And a bit later:
"The way you defeat BigTown is by making AnotherBigTown. It's the reason there won't be a bunch of small boutique Settlements with NRDS security policies. They'll be rolled up by the first wave of organized external Guilds when they show up. By Open Enrollment, it's going to be Europe circa 1900, not Europe circa 0. Everyone who is SERIOUS about running a Settlement is going to be focused on size, cohesion, discipline and security.
We'll keep working on expanding the territory so there's always a place to go and plant a flag and start building, but I can tell you based on what I saw happen in Wormhole Space in EVE that the frontier is going to be claimed by the people who were 2nd best in the last territorial war, and if they learned a thing or two, they'll be even tougher than when they were last beat.
Settlement creation and administration is not a game for casual players."
"Not Blue" and "NRDS" refer to common security rules for territory-protection: "If it doesn't show on radar as a friendly, kill it", or "Not Blue Shoot It" (NBSI), and "If it doesn't show on radar as an enemy, don't kill it", or "Not Red Don't Shoot" (NRDS).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ah. Still not much of a surprise. I know some of us will be trying to prove out that NRDS will be able to work. I for one understand that it has severe disadvantages to NBSI and will take a lot of work. Not afraid of that.
And if it turns out that the game is unable to work with a NRDS policy at all, then it will be time to quit and play something else. But not going to throw in the towel until after we've made the attempt. Mission Impossible? Maybe, but I am going to have fun in the attempt!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We are not making EVE Online, and the differences between our game and EVE will be greater than their similarities.
There are innumerable posts where Ryan tries to clarify the many ways PFO will be unlike EVE. One utterly consistent theme is that PFO will not take a hands-off approach to griefing (a.k.a. meaningless PvP).
I think we are all "pro-PvP" at this point.
Heck, if you've been paying attention and take Ryan at his word, I think we're all in favor of massive amounts of meaningful PvP.
@Onishi - we're putting our eggs in the basket of exploration, development, adventure and domination.
Not meaningless PvP, or greifing PvP.
There will be massive amounts of meaningful, non griefing PvP.
(emphasis Ryan's)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And that seems to be the clear message, if you're not the kind of player that embraces player to player conflict, which is after all an almost 180 turnaround from the approach we bring to Pathfinder Paper and Dice, this is probably not going to be the game for you.
I don't think that needs to be the message. When I played pnp games, our group played those games (mostly) cooperatively. But sometimes we'd forgo the D&D sessions and play some competitive board game instead. We had fun with both.
Every game is different; EVE is not WoW and PFO won't be EVE or WoW. PFO looks like it will have a lot of cooperative activities and a lot of competitive activities (and uncertainty as to which of these we'll face in the next hour of gaming). Each of us will have to try it before we can really say it isn't for us.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eve has TONS of cooperative play. How do you think those PC megacorps come into being?
Every game is different; EVE is not WoW and PFO won't be EVE or WoW. PFO looks like it will have a lot of cooperative activities and a lot of competitive activities (and uncertainty as to which of these we'll face in the next hour of gaming). Each of us will have to try it before we can really say it isn't for us.
But EVE is also more lasseiz-faire on the consequences of PvP. PFO is focusing on the Consequences for PvP angle, both positive and negative consequences, pretty hard. That in and of itself is a notable separator between the two. How effective a separator this is will be dependent on where the final design falls on magnitude for consequences. The consequences are not meaningful enough, then meaningless PvP will become plentiful.
The warnings from Ryan are pointing out that there will still be groups that come in with the intent of scorched-earth gaming and competing with them is going to be about having enough friends that are able to organize and allow you to come back at them. And that while cheating will be cracked down on where discovered, it can become difficult to detect when you have a large player base.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Actually from what I have seen so far, the consequences of PVP in PFO are rather similar to Eve's.
Im sure we will see more, but for now there isnt much.
Reputation = Security Status... We dont really have much more then that.
(I know alignments, but that will affect everyone no matter what you fall into)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A few walls of text by Mr. Dancey have shocked many on these boards regarding how Pathfinder Online will be played. I'm not understanding the level of surprise. From the beginning the content has been portrayed as character generated; not a WOW pvp server fight over fields of enchanted tulips (tho, of course this will happen) but the struggle of player organizations, settlements and kingdoms for resources, power and domination. The diplomat, travelling merchant, solo monster hunter, etc. will have little to do until this metaconflict is on the path to development. When EE begins, it seems to me wise to build characters towards the end of creating strong, survivable settlements. This opens the door for other playstyles and serves to augment any strategy to deal with the Open Enrollment barbarian invasion.
I for one agree that there needs to be a specific approach to this, and Ryan Dancey's post gave us a possible blueprint, that has been widely ignored.
EE will give many of us a unique opportunity to prepare for the "barbarian invasion" that you describe. When those barbarians do arrive, they will find different types of settlements:
1. Those that have spent their time, building themselves up in wealth and resources, focusing primarily on PVE escalations, trade and crafting, and very little in the way of PVP experience.
2. Those that have spent their time with a balanced approach, participating in all things, fairly equally.
3. Those that have spent their time building strength and focusing more so on PVP (Offensive and defensive) and less so on more peaceful endeavours.
4. Those settlements that will welcome in the barbarian invasion and give them a foothold, uncontested or perhaps they were the horde's advance team.
First choice of settlement leaders now, is to choose which type of settlement they will be.
Second, following the advice of Ryan Dancey (Paraphrased):
Set aside your concerns for alignment, reputation and policies. These may have long term impact, but not during EE - a time where they may go through many significant changes.
Note on Reputation: This is not advocating the acceptance of griefing, it is a suggestion that your range of acceptable reputations not be set so high, that you exclude the more experienced PVP'ers available to defend your settlement.
Until it is clear that negative reputation can not be earned, merely from participating in a lot of PVP, rather than violating the rules of PVP, it is probably safe to permit access to -1500 (first 20%) on the negative range, and up to the +7500.
Instead build a settlement based on based on mutual purpose. Put in place leaders that have experience in surviving and meeting threats like a barbarian invasion.
Ryan said games like EVE were "Made by Wolves, for Wolves." PFO may not be made by wolves, but we will have to face wolves. They won't worry about alignment, reputation or policies. They will be coming in, without something to lose, but a big prize to gain.
There is still we do not know....
The Flag Revamp that has been suggested, may have a big impact on settlement plans.
Types of Zones, and how they will work.
Types of Activities that are PVP based (Banditry, Skirmishes, Raids, Wars, etc).
How long into EE, before Settlement Conquest is turned on.
Now to give my opinion on the OP question... My realistic expectations of my play style...
If I'm a settlement leader I'd go with #3 or $4, but I'd prefer #3. I would focus my settlement access to almost all alignments, to allow for the maximum number of PVP flag types to employ. I would request and if need be, require that all citizens have basic skills to survive and fight. I would probably go with a population mix of:
40% PVP focused
40% Mixed focused (PVE and PVP)
20% Crafting / Management (PVE, minimal PVP)
My military would be made up mostly of LE Enforcers, CN Outlaws and LE Assassins, with the possibility of a few CG Guardians as well.
Unified Purpose: Survival, Strength and No Sheep for the Wolves
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Reputation = Security Status... We dont really have much more then that.
I think this is one of the biggest points of contention, currently.
In EVE Online, all the "real" action takes place in Null Sec Space. However, Security Status isn't affected by anything that happens in Null Sec Space.
I am well aware that there is a faction that wants PFO to adopt a similar strategy, but I think this would be contrary to Ryan's clearly stated goals.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And the flip side is... He clearly stated there will be wilderness areas just like 0.0... but it seems settlements will not be built there as it will be the 2nd tier outside of settlements.
I think the biggest problem we have is... Trying to put the words into the mouth of a man that has stated support for both sides equally then focus on one side of it for our way.
At this point it is all Assumption.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Until it is clear that negative reputation can not be earned, merely from participating in a lot of PVP, rather than violating the rules of PVP...
(Bluddwolf's emphasis)
I think this is backwards, although it may well be that we're saying the same thing.
I don't think the burden should be to prove that you can't get a negative Reputation merely from participating in a lot of PvP without breaking the rules.
Rather, I think the burden should be to prove that you can participate in a lot of PvP without breaking the rules, and still maintain a High Reputation.
To me, there is a very significant distinction between those two statements.
... we will have to face wolves. They won't worry about alignment, reputation or policies.
I think it is absolutely critical to understand Ryan's design, and why the general purpose of Alignment and Reputation is vitally important even if the specific implementations aren't. Players who come to PFO and play as Wolves without worrying about Reputation will find their options severely limited, by design, with the intent being to get them to grow bored with the game and leave if they can't alter their play style to something less anti-social.
How long into EE, before Settlement Conquest is turned on.
The implementation of territorial warfare will almost certainly mark the transition from Early to Open Enrollment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am well aware that there is a faction that wants PFO to adopt a similar strategy, but I think this would be contrary to Ryan's clearly stated goals.
Ryan has stated we won't experience the griefing found in EvE's High Sec, in PFO's NPC settlement zones. He has never said anything negative about EvE's 0.0, and in PFO settlement hexes will be able to set their own tolerances for PvP ( or at least that us the plan).
I don't understand the resistance to having varying zones of PvP, from virtually none to FFA? Settlements can then decide for themselves how much or how limited they wish to enable PvP (by restricting certain activities).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And the flip side is... He clearly stated there will be wilderness areas just like 0.0... but it seems settlements will not be built there as it will be the 2nd tier outside of settlements.
I think the biggest problem we have is... Trying to put the words into the mouth of a man that has stated support for both sides equally then focus on one side of it for our way.
At this point it is all Assumption.
I think it's a significant stretch to suggest that Ryan has stated support for both sides "equally". There is one post that I'm aware of where he acknowledges that there will probably be "some" areas that, in effect, automatically flag everyone that enters. I myself have lobbied for this to be the case for any hex in a state of war. There are countless posts where he has stressed the importance of consequences for PvP.
So, rather than "equal" support, I would put it at 99 (or greater) to 1.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan has stated we won't experience the griefing found in EvE's High Sec, in PFO's NPC settlement zones.
Those are not distinctions that Ryan made.
I don't understand the resistance to having varying zones of PvP, from virtually none to FFA?
It's a matter of "how much". If "most" of the Wilderness Hexes are FFA (meaning consequence-free), then "most" of the PvP will be consequence-free.
The most important thing is not that characters can kill other characters. And it's a corollary of that statement that the more often a character kills other characters, or helps a character killer, the harder it must be for that character to recover from doing so.
If you attack someone unprovoked in a hex that is unclaimed or where murder is not set up as a Crime by the owning settlement, you will certainly get the Attacker flag and probably lose alignment and rep for killing the target.
Can you have a bounty placed on your head if you have received the "attacker" flag, but have not received the "criminal" flag?"Yes.
I think we all understand that all of these implementation details can change, but I think it's important to point out the consistent themes that have been around from the beginning that lead me to believe that "most" of the PvP in PFO will not be consequence-free.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Rather, I think the burden should be to prove that you can participate in a lot of PvP without breaking the rules, and still maintain a High Reputation.
To me, there is a very significant distinction between those two statements.
... we will have to face wolves. They won't worry about alignment, reputation or policies.
If you can still receive negative reputation while using a PvP flag, or get a negative reputation from PvE activities (ie control undead or use of slaves), those are the instances that I'm referring to.
I also did not say to completely discount negative reputation. I even put a number to it. I would not accuse some one with a -1500 out of a possible -7500, of being a griefer, or even assume that he/she is.
Just as I would not assume that someone with a + 3500 Reputation, had not griefied anyone just a few minutes or hours earlier.
Referring to Ryan's quote, he specifically warned us to make decisions based on the fact that alignment, reputation and policies are not vitally important for the purpose of settlement preparation during EE.
I wish for a change, you would quote that specific line of his warning, otherwise I feel you will never acknowledge he made it. I understand it does not support the narrative you keep on spinning over and over again. But it is there, isn't it?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand the resistance to having varying zones of PvP, from virtually none to FFA? Settlements can then decide for themselves how much or how limited they wish to enable PvP (by restricting certain activities).
Someone else mentioned the important distinction.
The whole game is FFA PvP. You can engage in it at any time or any place. Some places are less acceptable, which means your risk for engaging there is higher.
What is frequently advocated for is FFC (Free From Consequences) which very few people desire to see anywhere. The consequences are the difference. You kill me when I am not flagged for PvP, you take the reputation hit. You kill me regardless of flag (unless flying a specialty flag like Champion that ignores it) you take the alignment consequences. If you perform this act near a settlement, NPC guards may respond. You do this in the middle of the wilderness, no guards and plenty of time to run and hide before any 'retribution' comes along.
I do not understand why this is so undesirable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you can still receive negative reputation while using a PvP flag...
Reputation hits will depend on what flags your target has, not what flags you have.
It is absolutely necessary that you be able to receive a negative reputation while using a PvP flag.
I also did not say to completely discount negative reputation. I even put a number to it. I would not accuse some one with a -1500 out of a possible -7500, of being a griefer, or even assume that he/she is.
Just as I would not assume that someone with a + 3500 Reputation, had not griefied anyone just a few minutes or hours earlier.
I've actually been thinking about this a lot lately, and I think it would be best if we could actually view another character's entire Reputation History, so we can tell if someone is in the habit of getting a really Low Rep and then grinding it back up.
Referring to Ryan's quote, he specifically warned us to make decisions based on the fact that alignment, reputation and policies are not vitally important for the purpose of settlement preparation during EE.
I wish for a change, you would quote that specific line of his warning, otherwise I feel you will never acknowledge he made it.
Worrying about alignments, reputation, and security policies is not going to have much effect on your long term success at this juncture.
That quote? I don't think it means what you think it means.