Goblin Squad Member
|
I would like to humbly submit my nominations for the Players' Council. I think it should be an odd number. I think it should represent different views, perhaps drastically so. I think nominees should show high character, mental acuity, a devotion to the success of PFO and the ability to express themselves nicely via the written word. Lots of gaming experience is crucial. Obviously, no disrespect to anyone not included; witness the calibre of these nominees (in no particular order): AvenaOats; Being; Hobs the Short; Nihimon; Bluddwolf; Harad Navar; Hardin Steele; KitNyx; Jazzlvraz. I'm sure Goblin Works will have their own people in mind from an outside-of-these-boards perspective; that's cool. I welcome any input. Don't be afraid to nominate yourself!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What is the player's council?
We will likely have some form of player council like the EVE Online Council of Stellar Management that will be a representative body for the players to channel their suggestions and feedback through that will meet with the developers regularly and be a conduit for those ideas.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Nihimon: I can see your point but attributes have already changed. Flags are going to change. I think Venture Companies are already evolving from what the original Chartered Companies were going to be. Although it's true, how can you 'change' something that's not there in the first place? Is it too early for a committed Player Council to help with ideation?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Sepherum, I don't know.
My greatest fear about the development of PFO is that Ryan's vision for meaningful consequences for PvP will get diluted. I am going to resist anything that I see working towards that end. I would worry very much that having a Players' Council at this early stage would cause some of those on that Council to feel a sense of entitlement in demanding that their personal vision take precedence over Ryan's.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Sepherum, I don't know.
My greatest fear about the development of PFO is that Ryan's vision for meaningful consequences for PvP will get diluted. I am going to resist anything that I see working towards that end. I would worry very much that having a Players' Council at this early stage would cause some of those on that Council to feel a sense of entitlement in demanding that their personal vision take precedence over Ryan's.
I just don't see Mr. Dancey or the devs being railroaded by anyone, no matter how big their Napoleon complex is. And I think it's 'meaningful consequences for griefing' not 'pvp'. Player vs. Player content is what we're aimimg for. It's already a pvpers paradise-witness Mr. Dancey posting that there will be 'islands' (settlements) of high sec with roads in between, not high sec areas of the map. The best resources will be located in the Blair Witch Project areas. I wish we had our own nomenclature for stuff instead of constantly borrowing from EVE.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And I think it's 'meaningful consequences for griefing' not 'pvp'.
Sorry, but I disagree.
"Griefing" results in bans.
The "meaningful consequences" are for PvP. Those consequences include penalties for frequently engaging in PvP with other players who are looking for something other than PvP. Not all "meaningful consequences" are "penalties".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And I think it's 'meaningful consequences for griefing' not 'pvp'.Sorry, but I disagree.
"Griefing" results in bans.
The "meaningful consequences" are for PvP. Those consequences include penalties for frequently engaging in PvP with other players who are looking for something other than PvP. Not all "meaningful consequences" are "penalties".
People who want to do something other than pvp are in for a shrunken world, Bro. Yeah we do disagree; maybe the blog concerning flags will clear it up when that happens.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And I think it's 'meaningful consequences for griefing' not 'pvp'. Player vs. Player content is what we're aimimg for.
------------------
Killing people in a sandbox is not griefing them. Even killing them just because you can is not griefing them.
------------------
I've mentioned before that there's a misconception that "sandbox" means "unlimited freedom". Sandbox means that you build with the tools we provide, and you often astonish us with the unexpected uses to which you put those tools.
But that's the "sand". The other word in that term is "box". The box is the envelope we establish that defines the game and how it is to be played. One of those definitions is "don't be a jerk". Jerkiness is defined along one (of many) axis as killing without meaning.
As we've said many times before, dealing with disruptive greifing requires a multi-layered approach; there is no silver bullet. Therefore, there are in-game and out-of-game processes that are designed to limit such behavior, and responses that scale from warnings to substantial mechanical penalties as well.
We have also been clear that there are lots of forms of PvP that we consider inherently good for the game and are not jerkiness. Territorial warfare and banditry are two that we've been very up-front about. Banditry implies Bounty Hunting, and we've been up front about that as well.
There are forms of PvP that we consider inherently unacceptable behavior. If you are engaged in killing characters without an in-game rationale, just "for the lulz", that's not ok.
There are lots of gray areas in the Venn Diagram of "ok" and "jerkiness" when it comes to PvP, which is why we have a multi-layered, multi-dimensional, escalating approach to dealing with the problem. You will have meaningful choices to make about semi-jerky behavior, because engaging in those behaviors will have some, but not total, often not permanent negative consequences. You will have to decide if the fun you get from doing something that is "semi-jerky" is worth the price you'll pay in mechanical and social penalties.
These parts of the "box" mean that there are things you can do that we'll support, and things you can do that we won't, and things that if you do them, you'll face increasingly stiff penalties to the point where we hope you'll quit and go play some other game. You will not have unrestricted freedom to do whatever you wish, whenever you wish, to whomever you wish, for any reason.
This is Pathfinder Online not Lord of the Flies Online.
RyanD
First he clearly stated RPKing is not griefing, then he clearly stars it will be penalized to a point that he hopes people who do it will seek another game.
Consequences for PVP in PFO will not be limited to "griefing". This game is about meaningful player interaction and PVP is intended to be used to drive that instead of distracting from it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I think it's 'meaningful consequences for griefing' not 'pvp'. Player vs. Player content is what we're aimimg for.------------------
Killing people in a sandbox is not griefing them. Even killing them just because you can is not griefing them.------------------
...I've mentioned before that there's a misconception that "sandbox" means "unlimited freedom". Sandbox means that you build with the tools we provide, and you often astonish us with the unexpected uses to which you put those tools.
But that's the "sand". The other word in that term is "box". The box is the envelope we establish that defines the game and how it is to be played. One of those definitions is "don't be a jerk". Jerkiness is defined along one (of many) axis as killing without meaning.
As we've said many times before, dealing with disruptive greifing requires a multi-layered approach; there is no silver bullet. Therefore, there are in-game and out-of-game processes that are designed to limit such behavior, and responses that scale from warnings to substantial mechanical penalties as well.
We have also been clear that there are lots of forms of PvP that we consider inherently good for the game and are not jerkiness. Territorial warfare and banditry are two that we've been very up-front about. Banditry implies Bounty Hunting, and we've been up front about that as well.
There are forms of PvP that we consider inherently unacceptable behavior. If you are engaged in killing characters without an in-game rationale, just "for the lulz", that's not ok.
There are lots of gray areas in the Venn Diagram of "ok" and "jerkiness" when it comes to PvP, which is why we have a multi-layered, multi-dimensional, escalating approach to dealing with the problem. You will have meaningful choices to make about semi-jerky behavior, because engaging in those behaviors will have some, but not total, often not permanent negative consequences.
Banditry and Territorial Warfare are considered inherently good for the game and will be encouraged; that's a lot of pvp. They will effect people who don't want to pvp at all depending on where they go and what they do, and their attackers will not be penalized until they try another game; indeed this is content we want. I suppose I could highlight only the parts of the above statement that make a certain point, but in the end I was only pointing out that pvp is a major part of PFO, (I didn't say RPKing was) and people who leave Mr. Dancey's islands and roads of high sec are going to be surprised how much pvp there is.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would like to humbly submit my nominations for the Players' Council. I think it should be an odd number. I think it should represent different views, perhaps drastically so.
"Your request is not unlike your lower intestine: stinky and loaded with danger." ~ Ace Ventura.
I'm joking of course, I just love that quote. A Player Council is "loaded with danger" particularly for the executive producers of the game.
I have not seen a Player Council work out well, especially in its earliest stages, in the two major MMOs I've seen it in. Worse case scenarios, and the worse handled I've seen was Cryptic's Star Trek Online. The other is EvE's CSM, which is usually dominated by Goonswarm and or their front corporations.
The real problem with it is the undue influence and sense of entitlement these Player Councils spawn. There is also the resentment towards the members that sometimes develops, because there is no way to make everyone happy.
That all being said, I'm honored you would mention me, but I'm not sure I would want it. I would be more hopeful that GW decides not to have one, and avoid all of the drama that comes along with it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Banditry and Territorial Warfare are considered inherently good for the game and will be encouraged; that's a lot of pvp.
I agree and support that. Banditry and territorial warfare are the kind of conflicts that drew me here. My point was that you were saying the only behavior that is intended to have consequences is "griefing." That is false.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
People who want to do something other than pvp are in for a shrunken world, Bro.Nope.
Actually, Sepherum's point is a fact. In an Open World PvP MMO, the areas where PvP are considerably larger, than those areas that limit or prohibit PvP.
Even the NPC Settlements are not a complete haven from non consensual PvP. You will not be able to avoid: War Decs, Assassination, or Bounties, within those settlements.
PC Settlements will have varying degrees of PvP enabled, but none will be less than the NPC Settlements allow for. Those settlements that choose to have a larger window for PvP, will be given a mechanical advantage in their DI for taking on that added risk.
I think the problem here is the phrase "meaningful consequences". That is a negative approach. What GW and or Ryan's vision should be ( or may truly be) is that there will be "meaningful benefits" for engaging in PvP in a manner that supports GW's goals for PFO.
There should be no reputation loss for engaging in PvP, where both parties are flagged for PvP.
There should be no reputation loss for engaging in PvP, in zones that are designated as "Uncontrolled Hexes" were no law exists and there are no consequences for non consensual PvP. [Uncontrolled Hexes are mentioned in Dev Blog and later in Ryan Dancy's own post, cited earlier in this thread].
The only instances where you should lose reputation is by GW deciding you violated their rules of engagement. Their definition of griefing is the one that counts.
When someone travels outside of the more protected areas, and are not PvP flagged, attacking them does not make the PvP enabled attacker's act a "meaningless interaction" and it should not bestow upon the attacker with a reputation penalty just because their target was not flagged for PvP.
A choice was made to leave the relative safety of the settlement. There should be no penalty for bringing upon them the risk that they willfully accepted.
In the Flag Revamp, maybe there should just be a "PvP Flag". Then the user can choose from a menu, several buffs that they wish to have while under the PvP flag. Otherwise, there should be many different flags, that fit a variety of alignments and purposes, but all have Reputation stack in common. This old provide "meaningful benefits" and discourage those that would not use the flagging / PvP system properly in GW's eyes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sepherum,
Thank you for the mention, but I tend to be very skeptical of any body that might put the opinion of one player over that of any other. If, at an appropriate time (at least not until the game is actually live), GW wants to garner the opinions of particular players who possess expertise regarding specific game topics, I could see that being potentially beneficial for the game. I would rather see it done on a case by case situation rather than a council filled by the same finite membership - especially if that membership never changes, even when the topic being discussed does. To me, that would be the epitome of the "Old Boy's Club" that we EE players need to avoid becoming.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Blaeringr! I nominate you!Oh! a popularity contest!
I nominate Aunt Tony!
I appreciate it, and hopefully that nomination will do something to cancel out all the votes to have me banned.
And I will do my best to ensure the council governs this community with an iron fist, crushing all who oppose our draconian vision for PFO!
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Seriously though, it's way too early to start having representatives, especially since if there are 5 people on such a council, and ~5000 people in the first month, the prior probability of any one of the ~100 players currently active being on that council is about 10%.
There are complicating factors, particularly if the factions that have already formed grow larger while retaining the same leaders or figureheads.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Banditry and Territorial Warfare are considered inherently good for the game and will be encouraged; that's a lot of pvp.I agree and support that. Banditry and territorial warfare are the kind of conflicts that drew me here. My point was that you were saying the only behavior that is intended to have consequences is "griefing." That is false.
I worry the consequences will equate to punishments-for pvp instead of just griefing. Could be my bad. These days it seems most times peeps say 'there will be consequences' they mean it as a warning of punishment. The saleslady at Nordstrums doesn't go, "buy this perfume-there will be consequences!" unless, you know, she doesn't want to make a sale.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I nominate the whomever buys me a sufficient number of drinks... in game. Until then, I think we should do what we've been doing and just keep it as a community.
I've seen Player Councils in games well before the term "MMO" was coined. They were either elitist jerks or such a watered-down entity that they had no real power, but still took all of the blame.
The best way I've seen this sort of feedback handled is for the game company to request feedback from whomever they decide would be the best to talk to for that particular change. Maybe add a few that are slightly outside of that circle for varying opinions. They don't even need to pick the same people every time.
Goblinworks will know from the forums and in-game reputations which groups would be the best to talk to. They'll have the behind the scenes stats to know they've made a good choice.
A formal group that is granted some sort of title? Nah, that just leads to trouble.
Anyway, that's my tuppence.
Addendum: We've actually already got a council of players, technically. They have little green goblin icons next to their names on these forums.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My thought is that yes, we can offer insight into how we envision the game should play before we are even in the game so long as those things about which we speak are not things exclusive to PFO. Generalities, cautions learned by experience elsewhere, theoretic observations: such things we can address without having seen more than the description.
Things specific to pathfinder online indeed will have to wait until we can talk about them from an informed position.
Regarding the matter of inconsequential PvP and the oracular pronouncement that those who do not prefer PvP to be the whole focus of the game face a diminished field of play: It seems to me we have seen what happens to games where there is dedicated focus on PvP. The strong grow stronger and destroy their competition. The competition eventually recognizes they cannot be competitive and leave the game. The result is vacant Shadowbane and Darkfail: Unholy. Essentially vacant or just another sandcastle under the risen tide. New clans arise only to be destroyed and run off. That is an unsuccessful formula everywhere it has appeared.
What it looks like is that GW is going to attempt is a game where PvP is fully possible but to a greater or lesser extent regulated, where some semblance of structure is encouraged by the mechanics, and it occurs to me that such is needed for the PvP game in PFO to have legs, to have endurance.
I believe the PvP enthusiasts should face facts instead of living in vehement denial about what happens if they are unrestrained. Imagine instead what could be possible if that power you wield were also guided and channeled for the good of the game.
Just as music is the better for being in harmony and keeping time, just as poetry is better for the self-discipline the poet embraces, so too can PvP evolve into a fine art that does not destroy itself on the knives of its own success.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Some games are successful that do wholly focus on PvP but notice they are very regulated. CoD and that ilk are not persistent. They are matches, more of a sport than a game. MWO similarly, though we will see what community warfare may bring. Planetside is like a CoD match that never ends and I find it exhausting and eventually not at all fun, even while winning.
Only Eve... and Eve has problems Ryan is trying to resolve for PFO. Part of that solution appears to be structured regulation of PvP. I think we should try it because Shadowbane failed and I believe Darkfail: Unholy Wars is in the process of failing they will not easily avoid without finding a way to apply and somehow enforce discipline to the Art of PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the vision for PFO should be considered primarily role play where the player character has the option at any time to take matters into his or her own hands and apply the most extreme statement possible if he or she is willing to pay the consequences. For that to be meaningful there should be in-game real consequences.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm all for a council but I'll vote for someone based on what they contribute in-game, not on an Internet forum.What to you is a 'contribution' in a game? If it is their kill/death ratio or possibly their skill level in crafting comforters you might be biased. ;)
Well their kill/death ratio vs. me might come into play :o)
But seriously, I think the game will force enough interaction and community building that good representatives will stand out. And it's just not the "good" guys.
Players can be "evil" and not come off as jerks. Someone who ganks me and says "suck it noob" is different form the guy who ganks me and says "better luck next time".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen Player Councils in games well before the term "MMO" was coined. They were either elitist jerks or such a watered-down entity that they had no real power, but still took all of the blame.
Yay! Popularity contest! Time to see who has the longest e-peen!
Never mind the old man with the big stick, he's perfectly harmless.
There's one vote for Being!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I've seen Player Councils in games well before the term "MMO" was coined. They were either elitist jerks or such a watered-down entity that they had no real power, but still took all of the blame.Yay! Popularity contest! Time to see who has the longest e-peen!
I hope you're not talking about me. I'm sure as heck not going to run for some silly office.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I think it's 'meaningful consequences for griefing' not 'pvp'.Sorry, but I disagree.
"Griefing" results in bans.
The "meaningful consequences" are for PvP. Those consequences include penalties for frequently engaging in PvP with other players who are looking for something other than PvP. Not all "meaningful consequences" are "penalties".
As the quote man, I suggest you find Ryan's quote that states there is no defined greifing.
People who want to do something other than pvp are in for a shrunken world, Bro.Nope.
Yep
Edit: I found it
Killing people in a sandbox is not griefing them. Even killing them just because you can is not griefing them.
This is why we don't have a "rule" for what constitutes grief. Because if we had a rule, people will just use that rule as a license to be "just slightly less than griefing" other people.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I worry the consequences will equate to punishments-for pvp instead of just griefing. Could be my bad. These days it seems most times peeps say 'there will be consequences' they mean it as a warning of punishment. The saleslady at Nordstrums doesn't go, "buy this perfume-there will be consequences!" unless, you know, she doesn't want to make a sale.Banditry and Territorial Warfare are considered inherently good for the game and will be encouraged; that's a lot of pvp.I agree and support that. Banditry and territorial warfare are the kind of conflicts that drew me here. My point was that you were saying the only behavior that is intended to have consequences is "griefing." That is false.
Good day Deacon. Hope you are healing well.
@Sepherum - I get that feeling about half the time as well. Drink the koolaid, there will be consequences.
Im with you guys there. Too many people want it a care free game...
I say, you cant become a rich character without consequences.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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".
Ill throw this in here too.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right- there are meaningful consequences for killing other characters just because you can.
Consequences that don't actually have an effect on the number of people who engage in a behavior are not meaningful. Meaningful consequences are factors in the decision to engage in PvP. In the reference comparison games, the lulz and the odds of winning are the only factors in deciding whether or not to attack a character. For alignment consequences to be meaningful they must be as significant as the lulz or even more.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have not seen a Player Council work out well, especially in its earliest stages, in the two major MMOs I've seen it in. Worse case scenarios, and the worse handled I've seen was Cryptic's Star Trek Online.I've played STO for about two years and never heard of it. STO isn't a game that has nonconsensual PVP, so I really wouldn't imagine the need for one.
There is a lot more to discuss then PVP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
While Im aware of the CSM's work, Im not familiar with all the intricacies of the decision making (I started reading some of the minutes and got distracted a few pages in :P ). I would echo some of the thoughts expressed here about timing and the potential for abuse, while still recognising that there may be merit in the idea. My other concern would be reaching a significant portion of the playerbase, regardless of whether we have a council or use the forums. One thing I dont like in many MMOs is that the forums are crowded with naysayers, whining and claims that the game is being destroyed. In actuality its a small group of very vocal players repeatedly posting and not necessarily indicative of the player base as a whole. I would suggest some method of polling through the account (for paying accounts) to get a fairer representation of the opinions of the playerbase and/or crowdforging. Sure there may be a case of players with multiple accounts getting multiple votes (one per account), but theres no real way to avoid that regardless of medium.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Much of the crowd forging so far has involved individuals having and sharing good concepts, which are then polished somewhat by discussion and adopted later on.
A specific minor example is the suggestion that the additional penalty for being assassinated include severing threads linked to a bind point, or the concept of the reputation mechanics detecting when someone reneges on a ransom agreement (the Stand And Deliver system).
There's no voting on those concepts, just getting ideas out and recognized; the great ideas will be used without the need for more official process.