Goblin Squad Member
|
Generally the process is as Decius describes: Ideas are fleshed out and given life through community dialog. We know the developers read what we have to say. Whether or not something we think of is used directly or only influences something they already had in mind is far less important than that we are having the conversation and the devs take interest.
They appear to be bright enough that I rather prefer the idea of influencing them rather than handing them ideas. We know too little, and might regret asking for something that seems beneficial only until we are enslaved to it.
Until they actually ask of us something, then I think it is better to approach them the way we have been than set some select few of us aside as a 'Gray Council' as if those worthies were so special they deserve their own short bus.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Xeen
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 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 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 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 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 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.
Sinking in yet?
It doesn't matter if its "griefing" or not. It's not ok, and it won't be accepted here.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Andius,
Where do you see anything in Xeen's post that suggests he will be engaging in PVP and killing any character, just for the lulz?
When Ryan Dancey writes: "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."
But he does not identify what forms of PVP he is specifically talking about, that leads to assumptions and it is not very responsible of him to make statements without clarification.
I can assure you, the membership of The UnNamed Company will always loot whom we kill. Even if our objective is not to acquire wealth, we will still not pass up the opportunity to loot. I'm not even concerned about what the reward is, big or small, we will still loot. Looting is our in-game rationale. Having the challenge of PVP is the emans of us acquiring our loot.
Ryan Dancey's quote is setting up a "straw man". Not one person intending to play the role of a bandit, or any evil character, on these boards has promoted the idea of griefing or killing for no gain..... NOT ONE!! The only unprovoked threat of random killing has come for the "get off my lawn" advocates and Ryan Dancey, when he brought up the topic of NBSI.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I can assure you, the membership of The UnNamed Company will always loot whom we kill. Even if our objective is not to acquire wealth, we will still not pass up the opportunity to loot. I'm not even concerned about what the reward is, big or small, we will still loot. Looting is our in-game rationale. Having the challenge of PVP is the emans {sic; means?-ed} of us acquiring our loot.
That means, among other things, that members of The UnNamed Company will never kill people who are known to not be carrying anything lootable, nor anybody at all when they are unable to carry any more.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That means, among other things, that members of The UnNamed Company will never kill people who are known to not be carrying anything lootable, nor anybody at all when they are unable to carry any more.
I can assure you, the membership of The UnNamed Company will always loot whom we kill. Even if our objective is not to acquire wealth, we will still not pass up the opportunity to loot. I'm not even concerned about what the reward is, big or small, we will still loot. Looting is our in-game rationale. Having the challenge of PVP is the emans {sic; means?-ed} of us acquiring our loot.
You message is confused, it does not make sense.
What does is mean "When they are unable to carry any more"?
I clearly said: "I can assure you, the membership of The UnNamed Company will always loot whom we kill. Even if our objective is not to acquire wealth, we will still not pass up the opportunity to loot."
The implication in this is that we do not always kill simply for loot, we may have been contracted for other purposes. However, we will not pass up an opportunity to loot, if the opportunity presents itself.
The other point that is confused, "Never kill people "Known" to not carry anything?
How are we to know that? How are we to trust that, this time, you are not carrying something that we can loot?
These debates are the reason why I would not want to see some kind of a player council. There is no way to bridge the divide between those that understand and those that don't understand what Open World PVP means.
PVP does not need to have meaningful consequences. PVP needs to have meaningful reasons to engage in it. The "meaningful consequences" should be attached to losing in PVP.
If someone does not wish to PVP, they have two very good options to avoid it (although not completely):
1. Don't travel without adequate protection.
2. Don't seek to engage in activities that grant access to higher rewards, without accepting the higher risk that comes with that engagement.
It is my greatest hope that GW does borrow the concept of security zones from EVE Online. That Open World PVP Sandbox MMO has thrived on that model for nearly 10 years!!!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
2. Don't seek to engage in activities that grant access to higher rewards, without accepting the higher risk that comes with that engagement.
I think the problem with the mentality displayed over and over in previous titles is that stepping out of the safezones or simply playing the game is an activity that justifies anyone to kill you.
This creates environments where new players are abused, and the game gets much safer and easier the longer you play because it's just as dangerous but now you hold power.
What I want is the opposite progression. The less power you hold the more consequences there are for engaging you in PVP. As you grow in power game mechanics start to create more and more justifications and even incentives to come against you. Especially if you speed that process along by engaging in PVP focused behaviors like robbing people or donning a champion flag.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan Dancey's quote is setting up a "straw man". Not one person intending to play the role of a bandit, or any evil character, on these boards has promoted the idea of griefing or killing for no gain..... NOT ONE!!I respectfully disagree.
I read his post, and no where there does he state that he will not loot who he kills. As a matter of fact he explicitly said that he would, and if it was anew player, he might even give him his stuff back.
So your interpretation is not based on any of the words he actually stated. I respectfully say, your interpretation is a fabrication of your irrational fear of uncontrolled, non scripted PVP.
This video message may help: “Toward the Sounds of Chaos.”
Nothing in there says, "They won't get ganked." Nothing in there implies "The Good Guys always Win."
If you are looking to stop PVP being directed at non PVP players in an Open World PVP game, "Run towards the sounds of chaos" and defend them. One of the devs had said, "We don't want a mechanic to do something a player can do." [paraphrased from memory]
That is sound advise. What is the "Meaningful consequence for PVP", be prepared to deal with your victim's friends the next time.
That is the kind of consequence I'm willing to accept and I'm looking forward to it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...those that don't understand what Open World PVP means.
I'm of the opinion that this cannot be a factual, objective definition, but only a personal, subjective one. No one person's definition will be any more "right" than another's, except Ryan Dancey's and those of his fellow devs; their definition will perforce win the day.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I read his post, and no where there does he state that he will not loot who he kills.
And that is significant how? Taking the two tarnished copper coins off the guy making his first expedition outside the safezone doesn't justify running up and slaughtering them with no previous bad blood, no rejected SAD, or anything else to motivate that action except a desire to PVP.
Xeen very strongly implies he's going to PVP when he wants to PVP and he doesn't give a damn who he's killing or why he's killing them.
Nothing about the war mechanics, SAD options, champion/enforcer flags, assasinations and bounty hunting or any of the other pro-PVP mechanics I support promotes "scripted" PVP. It just supports not being a jerk.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seems were drifting off-topic here. For whats its worth, although Im not a 'hardcore PVPer' and lean more towards team-PVE and crafting, I wouldnt want a game to 'hand-hold' me. I would strongly prefer that the wilderness be wild and dangerous. And if I step out into it unprepared, then I can expected to get killed. Sure it might put some people off, but more importantly itll keep more people involved because of the constant risks in facing the world. The only thing that I think really needs to be done (based on experiences with EVE) is clearly explaining to new players the consequences of their actions and, if there are areas of differing protection from marshals, how protected they will be by NPC guards. And no, I dont consider killing a new player griefing. Poor taste perhaps, but not griefing. On the other hand, if the killer is camping the new player area specifically to kill new players, then yes I would consider that to be griefing and it should be stopped.
Back on topic, as far as my mentioning the 'voting' mechanism I wasnt advocating that it replace the current system. I was making the point that should GW wish to poll the playerbase, it might be preferable to link the results with paying accounts to get an indication from the playerbase. Obviously this need not apply in all cases and is more a response to some of the very vocal feedback on other MMO forums from a minority of players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Xeen
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sinking in yet?It doesn't matter if its "griefing" or not. It's not ok, and it won't be accepted here.
Sinking in to you yet?
NBSI
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan Dancey's quote is setting up a "straw man". Not one person intending to play the role of a bandit, or any evil character, on these boards has promoted the idea of griefing or killing for no gain..... NOT ONE!!I respectfully disagree.
The gain will be loot and experience. The wilds will likely be the consequence free PVP zones. Get used to it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I read his post, and no where there does he state that he will not loot who he kills.And that is significant how? Taking the two tarnished copper coins off the guy making his first expedition outside the safezone doesn't justify running up and slaughtering them with no previous bad blood, no rejected SAD, or anything else to motivate that action except a desire to PVP.
Xeen very strongly implies he's going to PVP when he wants to PVP and he doesn't give a damn who he's killing or why he's killing them.
Nothing about the war mechanics, SAD options, champion/enforcer flags, assasinations and bounty hunting or any of the other pro-PVP mechanics I support promotes "scripted" PVP. It just supports not being a jerk.
NBSI and loot their stuff. SAD's will be offered, but expected to be rejected.
If your in the wilds it means you are ready for PVP. If you are not, then you will learn to be. Thats a big part of an Open World Sandbox PVP game. Please though, set me red once the game starts.
Loot and experience is enough. And no Im not talking about xp, but combat experience. Sometimes I will gain experience, and sometimes my target will.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1:
2: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.
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.
Quote 1 I read as follows: They are not going to take a stand defining what constitutes griefing and say 'this is a list of behaviours that constitute griefing, anything on this list is forbidden and anything not on this list is ok'. They are going to skip the grief or no grief discussion and simply try to reduce "unacceptable behaviour" through game mechanics and possibly as a last resort through active intervention. Attacking every single character you encounter in the wild comes across to me as the kind of behaviour they will try to prevent, quote number 2 indicates that. What I understand about the reputation system tells me that the whole point (or a large part of the point) with it is to punish that sort of behaviour.
Not to say there won't be open world PvP but to avoid being severely punished for participating in it I believe targets will have to be picked more carefully. Attacking characters that are formally your enemy, characters with certain flags and characters with very low reputation can presumably be done without inflicting (heavy) punishment upon oneself.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It appears to me that our shared understanding of Mr. Dancy's revelation hinges on exploring what is meant by "in-game rationale".
Bluddwolf and, I think, Xeen appear to be responding that the "in-game rationale" is afforded by in-game loot and character experience. Ryan provided an example of what is not an in-game rationale with "lulz".
"Lulz" seems to me to describe a metagame phenomenon. Loots is an in-game objective.
A side in the conversation appears to be pointing out that concern over 'character experience' in a game where time duration is what gains experience is actually meta.
I do not see that loot is meta however.
Are in-game objectives enough in themselves to qualify as in-game rationales?
An 'objective' can form part of a rationale but is not itself a rationale. A rationale in context of in-game behavior seems to me to entail elements of 'story' or 'mythos', like it should be packaged in roleplay. Does this seem right to you?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
That quote you keep using. I do not think it means what you think it means.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just for the record, BLudd and xeen are not alone and do speak for the UNC. Just because the rest of us are quiet (damn RL obligations) doesn't mean we don't have a voice. But that isn't really important, just making sure people understand it isn't 2 voices alone.
A quick addition from my "interpretations." The will be a PVP game. There won't be "battlegrounds" or "Arenas" that confine the PVP to only those who sign up and choose to enter. It will happen as your stroll through the forest, climb a mountain, barter in a city, and even craft at a forge. Remember, not all PVP happens with blades and results in death of the character. Some PVP happens with competing merchants trying to sell the same goods. Crafters fighting over crafting the better weapon or gear. Suppliers trying to secure trade lanes and get goods to market. And then there is the contracts (assassin and bounty) that can occur anywhere. Even in "High-sec" PVP can happen.
The debate over "meaningful" will never be resolved because it is a subjective term. It boils down to being the Devs' view and interpretation. Since they are making the game, we play by their rules. Sure we can try to influence them and win them over, but ultimately it is their choice. If you don't like their rules, go somewhere else. If RD says griefing is killing someone not PVP flagged, then no one will flag unless they want PVP. If RD says bad things happen only to those PVPing inside a controlled area where the law states no PVP, then so be it. The biggest issue with us debating it here and now is that there is too much speculation and assumptions going on mixed in with personal views and opinions and it is warping the concepts that the Devs put forth.
We got a year before the EEers get in-game. Read the forums, voice your opinion, and read the blogs. But don't get all emotional and upset and hostile when people don't agree. Save it for the in-game PVP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That quote you keep using. I do not think it means what you think it means.
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.
And why do you say that? What do YOU think it means? Some of us are taking it at face value and reading exactly what is said.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That quote you keep using. I do not think it means what you think it means.
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.
I take it to mean what it says... What do you think it means?
I think it means that killing people because you can is not griefing. They have said that they do not want griefing in the game. So... PVP will not be griefing... Now, camping outside the starter town and killing any noob that ventures out over and over again, I would consider that griefing.
But how about this one for you... I will keep posting and posting it until everyone understands that they will be subject to PVP... and it may not be the PVP that makes them happy.
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".
Griefing and RPKing are subjective terms. Andius is on a crusade to take RPKing out of the game... What I am trying to do is make everyone aware that what one person calls random, another person has goals in mind.
I know that because I kill someone for the PVP experience and loot, I will be labeled as a griefer and RPKer... Even though it will not be random, nor griefing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And why do you say that? What do YOU think it means? Some of us are taking it at face value and reading exactly what is said.
I take it to mean what it says... What do you think it means?
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.
For this reason. Selectively quoting is easy - it doesn't make you right.
I think it means that killing people because you can is not griefing. They have said that they do not want griefing in the game. So... PVP will not be griefing... Now, camping outside the starter town and killing any noob that ventures out over and over again, I would consider that griefing.
Agreed totally and utterly.
But how about this one for you... I will keep posting and posting it until everyone understands that they will be subject to PVP... and it may not be the PVP that makes them happy.
Have you bothered to even read what I have written? We are all clear on this
Ryan Dancey wrote:
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".
Again. Nobody can opt out - and nobody is suggesting that they can
Griefing and RPKing are subjective terms. Andius is on a crusade to take RPKing out of the game... What I am trying to do is make everyone aware that what one person calls random, another person has goals in mind.
I know that because I kill someone for the PVP experience and loot, I will be labeled as a griefer and RPKer... Even though it will not be random, nor griefing.
Fair enough. Let's hope that your doing this does not drive too many people away from the game. There should be plenty of flagged people out there for you to PvP anyway. Or are you worried about attacking someone who might actually put up a fight?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Recently, many threads seem to drift into emphatic discussion agreeing on PFO is for PvP. What does this have to do with a Player's Council?
am
Another reason all the subjects seem to drift... On Subject, The player council will have influence, a minor one, over the devs in what they implement. PVP has been the biggest heated debate on the forums, and will continue to be until the devs make a pure PVP blog that deals with these issues directly.
The biggest problem, we all have quotes from Ryan that put him in both camps.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And why do you say that? What do YOU think it means? Some of us are taking it at face value and reading exactly what is said.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.For this reason. Selectively quoting is easy - it doesn't make you right.
Your right, killing people for the lulz will affect you... Probably a ban.
My quote is right as well. So where are we now?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Xeen - editing while you post again. Sorry
I don't think we are as far apart as we seem to be. I also think that this discussion is good for the way PfO and its community will finally end up.
You seem to think that I am advocating that there be a way to be safe from PvP. I am not.
It appears to me that you are advocating no consequences for choosing to PvP people who do not want to be (and by consequences I do not mean being banned for griefing - that is not part of the discussion and I think we agree here). If that is the case then we do differ - I strongly believe the rep system should be used in such a case, and that people who engage in non-consensual PvP should take a rep hit. That is all I am suggesting, nothing more. Is that too far away from your position?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
The biggest problem, we all have quotes from Ryan that put him in both camps.
Having read Ryan for awhile I think it much more likely that what his words have been interpreted to mean and what they were intended to mean vary.
It is very unlikely in my view that Ryan contradicted himself and much more likely that what you believe he meant is substantially your belief rather than his meaning.
This is not to suggest that I have divined his True meaning, but only that he is more bright than your preferred reading suggests.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...The will be a PVP game. There won't be "battlegrounds" or "Arenas" that confine the PVP to only those who sign up and choose to enter. It will happen as your stroll through the forest, climb a mountain, barter in a city, and even craft at a forge.
...
Even in "High-sec" PVP can happen.The debate over "meaningful" will never be resolved because it is a subjective term. It boils down to being the Devs' view and interpretation. Since they are making the game, we play by their rules. Sure we can try to influence them and win them over, but ultimately it is their choice. If you don't like their rules, go somewhere else.
...
Agree with the above. The question is, what is "the Devs' view"? Many people (myself included) see strong evidence supporting the idea that the Devs want to create a PvP landscape that allows for all the PvP you can shake a stick at while at the same time doing their best to prevent the kind of extremely hostile world that you will find in for example Darkfall.
Exactly where and how the line will be drawn is partially up in the air but it seems pretty clear that there will be a line and that crossing it will bring negative consequences not just from fellow players but from the game mechanics themselves and also possibly, in extreme cases, from GMs.
I believe that the strong reactions against certain posts by certain UNC members are because they come across as either arguing against such a 'line' or as stating that there won't be such a 'line' at all (outside of NPC controlled/patrolled areas). Those stances clash heavily with what I have gathered from dev blogs and posts and I believe many other posters on these forums feel the same.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Players' Council is going to decide...
Given that we don't yet have either a Player's Council or its charter, I think we don't have any way to say what they'll be involved in deciding. From the discussions that've occurred so far on the subject, I see every chance that they'll be so polarised that their first meeting will also be their last.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Xeen - editing while you post again. Sorry
I don't think we are as far apart as we seem to be. I also think that this discussion is good for the way PfO and its community will finally end up.
You seem to think that I am advocating that there be a way to be safe from PvP. I am not.
It appears to me that you are advocating no consequences for choosing to PvP people who do not want to be (and by consequences I do not mean being banned for griefing - that is not part of the discussion and I think we agree here). If that is the case then we do differ - I strongly believe the rep system should be used in such a case, and that people who engage in non-consensual PvP should take a rep hit. That is all I am suggesting, nothing more. Is that too far away from your position?
We do not disagree completely. I agree there needs to be consequences. I do not agree though that engaging in PVP with someone that does not want to should always result in a rep loss.
If someone rejects a SAD - no rep loss if you kill them.
If they are in the wilderness (2 hexes from a settlement) then no rep or alignment hit.
just as examples
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
The biggest problem, we all have quotes from Ryan that put him in both camps.Having read Ryan for awhile I think it much more likely that what his words have been interpreted to mean and what they were intended to mean vary.
It is very unlikely in my view that Ryan contradicted himself and much more likely that what you believe he meant is substantially your belief rather than his meaning.
This is not to suggest that I have divined his True meaning, but only that he is more bright than your preferred reading suggests.
I didnt mean that man is not bright, nor that I have any preferred reading. I have read it all (maybe not retained).
There are some contradictions. Maybe not intended, and maybe some are intended since it is an RPG and there will be different areas of play that affect play styles in those areas.
For instance, security zones vs PVP/gathering... The higher risk the higher reward. I guess that would not be a contradiction exactly, but until everything is spelled out we dont know.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there is more to be gained from having flags, alignment change and reputation loss (and gain) active in all zones than there is in having consequence free zones. I don't like the division of the world into safe-zones vs. ffa-zones. There should of course be a distinct change in security levels near settlements compared to complete wilderness but completely consequence free areas might lead to spatial separation of PvEers and PvPers which might be almost as harmful to the open world as instanced PvP battlegrounds.
I'm not saying that killing a single unflagged harvester should cause reputation to drop through the floor, causing the attacker to be thrown out of a settlement but the kind of open world gankfest arena, where killing each other is the default interaction, that you can find in Darkfall is most unappealing to me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Fair enough. Let's hope that your doing this does not drive too many people away from the game. There should be plenty of flagged people out there for you to PvP anyway. Or are you worried about attacking someone who might actually put up a fight?
It would not be fun if they didnt. You should see what we do in Eve.
We engage larger groups that are guaranteed to beat us, because we can, and because we fight as a small gang all the time. 9 times out of 10 we win the ISK war. (cause more damage then we take)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think there is more to be gained from having flags, alignment change and reputation loss (and gain) active in all zones than there is in having consequence free zones. I don't like the division of the world into safe-zones vs. ffa-zones. There should of course be a distinct change in security levels near settlements compared to complete wilderness but completely consequence free areas might lead to spatial separation of PvEers and PvPers which might be almost as harmful to the open world as instanced PvP battlegrounds.
I'm not saying that killing a single unflagged harvester should cause reputation to drop through the floor, causing the attacker to be thrown out of a settlement but the kind of open world gankfest arena, where killing each other is the default interaction, that you can find in Darkfall is most unappealing to me.
Where I agree in some ways, not completely.
Eve has been the model so far, and completely discussed as what will be followed as security areas. Once you are away from the High Security areas (settlements) there will be no NPC's to help you if attacked. In the middle zones, you can expect help but maybe not fast enough.
Once you are in the wilderness then watch out. The reason for no rep/align loss is because its one mans word against anothers in the River Kingdoms and one mans word is meaningless... From what I know the River Kingdoms are a no holds bard, bandit infested, you keep what you kill, free zone, ruled by Robber Barons.
The consequence free zones are where you will find all the big wealth in resources and not controlled by settlements (wilderness areas). If you expect to gain that wealth you will need to fight for it.
They have said they do not want wars for every little thing that comes along.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was going to lament the hijack of my thread but I don't now. I think, for instance, the kind of civil back and forth between Xeen and Lhan about specifics is the sort of debate these messageboards need; it's not a question of opting out of pvp but the implementation of meaningful pvp so different playstyles can play their way. Everyone, including me, likes to say you can't define 'griefing', but I've noticed over the past weeks that there is a base-line we can jump off from: Both 'sides' of the pvp debate agree that camping less experienced characters at a starting area is griefing. That's not providing content-that's making it so a RL housewife/husband can't play the game. We can expand from that, no? And Wurner made a great point I hadn't considered; that any area with no law/align/rep hits could lead to a 'spatial separation' between RPers and PVPers. That doesn't seem to augment meaningful human interaction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As I remember, I went to a party thrown by an old friend once and met her husband. Turned out he played WOW, and I was surprised; he didn't seem the type. We talked some more and I realized his WOW wasn't mine. He had a max-level warrior on a high ranked arena team-"full brutal". He thought of WOW as an extension of the FPS video games he played. I had worked hard to tailor the best cloth armor in the game. He probably thought I was a wimpy care bear. I was thinking this badass can't tank Karazhan.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I was going to lament the hijack of my thread but I don't now. I think, for instance, the kind of civil back and forth between Xeen and Lhan about specifics is the sort of debate these messageboards need; it's not a question of opting out of pvp but the implementation of meaningful pvp so different playstyles can play their way. Everyone, including me, likes to say you can't define 'griefing', but I've noticed over the past weeks that there is a base-line we can jump off from: Both 'sides' of the pvp debate agree that camping less experienced characters at a starting area is griefing. That's not providing content-that's making it so a RL housewife/husband can't play the game. We can expand from that, no? And Wurner made a great point I hadn't considered; that any area with no law/align/rep hits could lead to a 'spatial separation' between RPers and PVPers. That doesn't seem to augment meaningful human interaction.
I guess the point I was trying to make in my last point... and didnt do it. Was addressing that very separation.
You will have a large number of PVE players that will not leave settlements unless they have no choice regardless whether there are FFA zones or not (which Ryan has said there will be). Just the risk of being SADed or attacked will be enough to keep them in safe areas.
The other thing that requires FFA areas is the wealth that will be there. Risk vs Reward is something that will draw large groups to the area. Even pure gathering players will go there for the wealth alone.
Very similar to Eve. The high end minerals are in 0.0 (FFA) space. Large mining operations exist there even with the risk. They just take steps to decrease the risk, but they are never risk free.
I think the same thing will happen in PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.
I think it's great that you found such a relevant quote, because that really captures the essence of what a significant faction is really pushing for lately - the ability to opt out of PvP altogether.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...or alignment hit.
GW's already told us we can't escape the Gods' views on alignment; reputation'll be different:
When you take certain actions that the game world defines as being bad or good, it has an affect on your alignment.
Debating alignment in relation to real world people or events is pointless as we do not live in a universe constructed by a pantheon of squabbling gods who regularly manifest to give their disciples explicit directions as to this desires, nor is our universe imbued with absolute moral fibers - unlike Golarion, which was and is.
Murder is the act of killing someone without justification. Justification doesn't include "he's being mean to me" or "she's a disciple of a god I hate". Justifiable reasons include a declared war, a bounty, killing a criminal, etc. Murder is evil, killing is not.
Murder is considered an evil act even when it's not an unlawful act.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think it's great that you found such a relevant quote, because that really captures the essence of what a significant faction is really pushing for lately - the ability to opt out of PvP altogether.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.
By your post in the other thread discussing PVP... Id say you fall into that category.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...or alignment hit.GW's already told us we can't escape the Gods' views on alignment; reputation'll be different:
When you take certain actions that the game world defines as being bad or good, it has an affect on your alignment.Debating alignment in relation to real world people or events is pointless as we do not live in a universe constructed by a pantheon of squabbling gods who regularly manifest to give their disciples explicit directions as to this desires, nor is our universe imbued with absolute moral fibers - unlike Golarion, which was and is.Murder is the act of killing someone without justification. Justification doesn't include "he's being mean to me" or "she's a disciple of a god I hate". Justifiable reasons include a declared war, a bounty, killing a criminal, etc. Murder is evil, killing is not.Murder is considered an evil act even when it's not an unlawful act.
Ryan has already stated that there will be Consequence Free areas. Since the consequences of PVP are Alignment and Reputation...
Maybe it will be a Reputation Free area... Who knows really?
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
That means, among other things, that members of The UnNamed Company will never kill people who are known to not be carrying anything lootable, nor anybody at all when they are unable to carry any more.
I can assure you, the membership of The UnNamed Company will always loot whom we kill. Even if our objective is not to acquire wealth, we will still not pass up the opportunity to loot. I'm not even concerned about what the reward is, big or small, we will still loot. Looting is our in-game rationale. Having the challenge of PVP is the emans {sic; means?-ed} of us acquiring our loot.I clearly said: "I can assure you, the membership of The UnNamed Company will always loot whom we kill. Even if our objective is not to acquire wealth, we will still not pass up the opportunity to loot."
The implication in this is that we do not always kill simply for loot, we may have been contracted for other purposes. However, we will not pass up an opportunity to loot, if the opportunity presents itself.
The other point that is confused, "Never kill people "Known" to not carry anything?
How are we to know that? How are we to trust that, this time, you are not carrying something that we can loot?
Are you getting into the philosophical reasons why 'knowing' is not meaningful, or are you trying to weasel around using the fact that rational agents can only use the range (0,1) to describe likelihood, rather than [0,1]?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By your post in the other thread discussing PVP... Id say you fall into that category.I think it's great that you found such a relevant quote, because that really captures the essence of what a significant faction is really pushing for lately - the ability to opt out of PvP altogether.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.
"your post in the other thread"... that's handy.
I understand it's simpler for you to act like you're making a valid point if you pretend the other side wants to opt out of PvP altogether. If you were honest, you'd admit that I'm not making that argument.
Yes, the game system will make it possible for you to be attacked without warning when you're out in the Wilderness (and elsewhere). The actual argument we're making is that such an attack will have consequences.
You do actually have a valid argument to make, and I'm honest enough to recognize it and address it directly. Your best argument is that "if you put those consequences on those attacks, then you will no longer have those attacks". Stephen Cheney has already responded directly to this argument:
In general, we're pretty sure that MMOs are a race to the bottom, Lord of the Flies style, if you don't put in mechanics to try to incentivize better behavior. Keep in mind that we're quite likely to have a large contingent of players that wound up Evil not due to a principled roleplaying decision, but because they like killing dudes and think evil has the best clothes.
So at this point we're putting in an array of systems to provide mechanical advantage to staying at the Lawful, Good, and high Reputation ends of the spectrums. We suspect that these will be necessary to keep some kind of balance in the alignments, given the overall tendency of most player bases. If it turns out that we were overly cynical about human behavior, and it does indeed result in a chilling effect on players willing to play down at the other end of the spectrums, we'll happily relax or remove some of these rules. But it seems like it'd be more agreeable to start strict and ease off than to try to patch in a bunch of new penalties later.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It rapidly degenerates into paranoia and breaks socialization in a game designed to be driven by socialization.
This effect is related to why people have such a strong negative reaction to being ganked.
Paranoia, and massive distrust of every other player in the game is rampant in most Open PvP MMOs. It's certainly rampant in Darkfall.
I am very hopeful that I'm correct in believing Ryan is trying to create a game where this is not the case - where the general assumption when seeing another player out in the wilderness is that they won't attack you, or that you'll already know they had a good reason and what that reason is if they do. Naturally, there will be instances where this is not the case, but if the general assumption when going into the wilderness is that you will be killed and looted, then I think Ryan will consider PFO a failure because the social norms and the game mechanics will have failed to create a game where the PvP is meaningful.
This isnt making that argument?
Your not making an argument here about consequences... Your saying that if you are attacked in the wilderness it will be a surprise... Meaning you do not want nor should you suffer PVP unless you want it.
Think before you call someone dishonest.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I want the actual behavior to be that when an experienced player encounters a new player in the wilderness, they engage sometimes and sometimes do not engage.
Contrast that to Darkfall, where I have never encountered a player with higher skills who did not immediately engage.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I did, actually. I was harvesting a node in a danger III zone and decided to port back to town because I was overweight. As you know, porting to bindstone takes quite some time.
While in the bubble to port a rider came by, a warrior. He stopped and looked at me, a low level caster, then rode on his way apparently satisfied I was leaving (and probably not worth his time).