Goblin Squad Member
|
The problem is... The quote of Ryan above is only partial and it was about pick pocketing not PVP.
If you engage me in combat, I can try to run, fight, negotiate, call for help, etc. I feel like I have choices and can affect the outcome.
If you successfully pick my pocket, by definition, I had no meaningful choices or interaction with you - I just got screwed. This elicits as I said a response of anger and sense of loss disproportionate to the likely value. 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.
The complete quote.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.
I will agree with you on this. I follow that in Eve, I could attack everyone in Low-Sec but dont.
In 0.0 on the other hand, Its more shoot first then check character age if the ship looks funny.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I didn't read Nihimon's post the way you did Xeen. Sounds like he didn't write it the way you interpreted.
Might be the case for Ryan's words as well.
A person can read, but it is no guarantee they read well.
Indeed.
Unfortunately, it doesn't matter what I write, it only matters what Xeen wants to pretend is being said.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I didn't read Nihimon's post the way you did Xeen. Sounds like he didn't write it the way you interpreted.
Might be the case for Ryan's words as well.
A person can read, but it is no guarantee they read well.
If you have a general assumption that when you run into other people in the wilderness that they wont attack you... Means to me that you do not want to be involved in PVP unless its on your terms. Thus limiting PVP.
If you are attacked in the wilderness then you should already know why... Really? Massive restriction on PVP.
Ryan will consider PFO a failure if the above isnt followed... Yeah... Yeah... Yeah...
@Being: How did you read it? (asking honestly)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I didn't read Nihimon's post the way you did Xeen. Sounds like he didn't write it the way you interpreted.
Might be the case for Ryan's words as well.
A person can read, but it is no guarantee they read well.
Indeed.
Unfortunately, it doesn't matter what I write, it only matters what Xeen wants to pretend is being said.
Explain it then, correct me on your wording.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.
I think that at the beginning there will not be areas where aggressive player interaction will have no alignment and/or reputation hits. Of course Bludd brought up a statement by Mr. Dancey that seemed to contradict this point. Everything is still subject to change and crowdforging; indeed, we are witnessing the process of ideation as it unfolds (ideation is a skill, just like multitasking, my career counselor tells me!). There really can't be contradictions at this stage of development. What we will have by OE is a minigame of align/rep that each individual character will have to balance with their particular goals.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Explain it then, correct me on your wording.
It's simple. There's a massive difference between being in a game where people can't attack me, and being in a game where - generally - people don't attack me without a reason.
There, now you can proceed to find some other trivial distinction to focus on to make sure you don't just take what I write at face value.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For the record I don't find Ryan's two quotes contradictory in the least.
Griefing is intentionally trying to destroy the game for others. RPKing isn't griefing unless it's intended to be.
What Xeen and his UNC buddies are failing to comprehend is this:
-Griefing is bad for the game and will carry consequences.
-Not all activities which are bad for the game and carry consequences are griefing.
Ryan is saying that RPKing isn't griefing, but he's also saying it isn't acceptable and won't be tollerated. Disagree? Find me the quote where Ryan says griefing will be the only behavior to carry consequences. You can't, because it doesn't exist. You're assigning your own assumptions to his logic and that makes it contradictory because your assumptions are wrong.
It's a really simple concept to wrap your mind around unless you are resistant to doing so. This game will not cater to anyone who is here to kill "for the lulz" any more than it will cater to people who never want to be engaged in PvP ever.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This game will not cater to anyone who is here to kill "for the lulz" any more than it will cater to people who never want to be engaged in PvP ever.
Which is to say both of those are playstyles you can engage in, they'll just both be restricted in how far you can advance your character. Those who never expose themselves to the possibility of PvP will find themselves unable to complete the in-game requirements for advanced training. Likewise, those who ruin their Alignment and Reputation by slaughtering everyone they see just because they can will be unable to find Settlements that will provide advanced training.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Explain it then, correct me on your wording.It's simple. There's a massive difference between being in a game where people can't attack me, and being in a game where - generally - people don't attack me without a reason.
There, now you can proceed to find some other trivial distinction to focus on to make sure you don't just take what I write at face value.
What we have here is text... Everything either of us write will be taken at face value. You have done it wrong, and so have I. Get used to it.
The trivial distinction (to you) is the one I have been arguing the whole time but seem to just be ignored.
You want to know the reason before I attack you. Wont happen
You want the reason to be justifiable in your mind. May or may not happen
If its Random then its bad. Random to whos perspective? Yours alone?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If its Random then its bad. Random to whos perspective? Yours alone?
I would say with the myriad of mechanics that have been announced and are being advocated to allow PvP without reputation loss, that when the reputation mechanic is finished those operating outside of it on a routine basis can be safely assumed to be RPKers.
That would make it the game's perspective.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For the record I don't find Ryan's two quotes contradictory in the least.
Griefing is intentionally trying to destroy the game for others. RPKing isn't griefing unless it's intended to be.
What Xeen and his UNC buddies are failing to comprehend is this:
-Griefing is bad for the game and will carry consequences.
-Not all activities which are bad for the game and carry consequences are griefing.
Ryan is saying that RPKing isn't griefing, but he's also saying it isn't acceptable and won't be tollerated. Disagree? Find me the quote where Ryan says griefing will be the only behavior to carry consequences. You can't, because it doesn't exist. You're assigning your own assumptions to his logic and that makes it contradictory because your assumptions are wrong.
It's a really simple concept to wrap your mind around unless you are resistant to doing so. This game will not cater to anyone who is here to kill "for the lulz" any more than it will cater to people who never want to be engaged in PvP ever.
Never said those specific two do.
Its Bludd and his UNC buddies, I am a part of his group.
Griefing will carry consequences and we all agree with that. So your argument is a bit limp.
I do disagree. What you may consider random, someone else considers it with an intent.
Really you want me to find a quote that focuses on a subject that no one has written? How is that working for you as an argument?
Killing for the lulz is the one thing I consider griefing. I have no intention of ruining anyones game for the lulz.
You assume (wrongly) from a previous thread that I will do just that. Of course it was only part of an argument you focused on but who cares right?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If its Random then its bad. Random to whos perspective? Yours alone?I would say with the myriad of mechanics that have been announced and are being advocated to allow PvP without reputation loss, that when the reputation mechanic is finished those operating outside of it on a routine basis can be safely assumed to be RPKers.
That would make it the game's perspective.
So what your saying is, if I dont fly a Flag, dont declare war, or dont ask you first... Then Im RPKing and deserve to be banned?
Good thing its just your opinion then isnt it? I have read nothing that says I have to follow these specific rules or good bye. (and Im referring to specific rules that are not for the lulz)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For the record I don't find Ryan's two quotes contradictory in the least.
Griefing is intentionally trying to destroy the game for others. RPKing isn't griefing unless it's intended to be.
What Xeen and his UNC buddies are failing to comprehend is this:
-Griefing is bad for the game and will carry consequences.
-Not all activities which are bad for the game and carry consequences are griefing.
Ryan is saying that RPKing isn't griefing, but he's also saying it isn't acceptable and won't be tollerated. Disagree? Find me the quote where Ryan says griefing will be the only behavior to carry consequences. You can't, because it doesn't exist. You're assigning your own assumptions to his logic and that makes it contradictory because your assumptions are wrong.
It's a really simple concept to wrap your mind around unless you are resistant to doing so. This game will not cater to anyone who is here to kill "for the lulz" any more than it will cater to people who never want to be engaged in PvP ever.
Actually I was comparing the post by Stephen Cheney referenced by Nihimon in this thread to Mr. Danceys' statement that there may not be consequences for pvp in the far wilderness. Thought I pretty clearly wrote they seemed contradictory but can't be. Because we shouldn't hold the devs to any statement when they preface every Blog with 'this is subject to change.'
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The trivial distinction (to you) is the one I have been arguing the whole time but seem to just be ignored.
You want to know the reason before I attack you. Wont happen
You want the reason to be justifiable in your mind. May or may not happen
If its Random then its bad. Random to whos perspective? Yours alone?
You are still acting as if I'm arguing that those should be absolutes. I've never said that, and I've tried - over and over again - to explain it clear enough that you'll understand it.
Yes, you should be able to attack me without me having any idea why you're doing so.
Yes, you should be able to attack me for no reason at all, or for a reason I don't understand or agree with.
Yes, you should be able to randomly kill me.
Those acts should have consequences.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You are quite clearly trolling. I know damn well you are aware you can kill without rep loss if a SAD is offered and rejected, and only someone looking to sensationalize the argument would assume I'm advocating banning people for low rep.
My argument with you is RPKing. Not Reputation.
Maybe I wasnt clear enough. It happens, but since I specifically said RPKing... Maybe its you that is trolling.
My problem with even having a statement like Random Player Killing is that ... and here is the argument... again...
What you may consider Random, I may not.
We have nothing set in stone that determines that from the devs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The trivial distinction (to you) is the one I have been arguing the whole time but seem to just be ignored.
You want to know the reason before I attack you. Wont happen
You want the reason to be justifiable in your mind. May or may not happen
If its Random then its bad. Random to whos perspective? Yours alone?
You are still acting as if I'm arguing that those should be absolutes. I've never said that, and I've tried - over and over again - to explain it clear enough that you'll understand it.
Yes, you should be able to attack me without me having any idea why you're doing so.
Yes, you should be able to attack me for no reason at all, or for a reason I don't understand or agree with.
Yes, you should be able to randomly kill me.
Those acts should have consequences.
Ok, so let me get this straight. You are ok with the above correct?
If yes, then why would you think that Ryan would consider the game a failure if the above happens?
If they did not want this in the game at all, then why make a full set of statistics for it? Just pull out the ban hammer and solve it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We have nothing set in stone that determines that.
We won't ever have that, if Ryan's statements so far hold out. GW's not going to establish guidelines to advise people how to avoid GM-sanction; that sanction arriving out of the blue will remain one of the tools in a GM's arsenal, designed to make certain players uncertain of whether they'll "get away with it".
I look forward to people whining on the boards about "my friend did [XXX], so I knew it was okay, but I was banned for three days!". Ah, the laughs we'll have...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We have nothing set in stone that determines that.We won't ever have that, if Ryan's statements so far hold out. GW's not going to establish guidelines to advise people how to avoid GM-sanction; that sanction arriving out of the blue will remain one of the tools in a GM's arsenal, designed to make certain players uncertain of whether they'll "get away with it".
I look forward to people whining on the boards about "my friend did [XXX], so I knew it was okay, but I was banned for three days!". Ah, the laughs we'll have...
They wont ban people for rules that are not set in stone without a warning first.
The above people will be trying to get away with a lie. Which will be laughable.
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.
I will agree with you on this. I follow that in Eve, I could attack everyone in Low-Sec but dont.
In 0.0 on the other hand, Its more shoot first then check character age if the ship looks funny.
Do you disagree with my opinion, or with my observation? Do you want the actual behavior to be more like EvE, where only some players suffer a meaningful consequence for destroying other ships in only some areas, or do you want almost all players to have a meaningful consequence by default in almost all areas?
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
You are quite clearly trolling. I know damn well you are aware you can kill without rep loss if a SAD is offered and rejected, and only someone looking to sensationalize the argument would assume I'm advocating banning people for low rep.My argument with you is RPKing. Not Reputation.
Maybe I wasnt clear enough. It happens, but since I specifically said RPKing... Maybe its you that is trolling.
My problem with even having a statement like Random Player Killing is that ... and here is the argument... again...
What you may consider Random, I may not.
We have nothing set in stone that determines that from the devs.
When you use the term RPKing, what exactly do you mean by that? What behavior is RPKing, and what behavior is not? In a world that aims to have meaningful consequences for everyone, for what should happen to characters/players who RPK?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Do you disagree with my opinion, or with my observation? Do you want the actual behavior to be more like EvE, where only some players suffer a meaningful consequence for destroying other ships in only some areas, or do you want almost all players to have a meaningful consequence by default in almost all areas?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.
I will agree with you on this. I follow that in Eve, I could attack everyone in Low-Sec but dont.
In 0.0 on the other hand, Its more shoot first then check character age if the ship looks funny.
My agreement was more towards, People shouldnt attack everyone all the time. I wont, you cannot make money from others if they are too afraid to travel.
Granted I would like to see the areas of each level of security status. Like Eve has it. Eve has a larger number of areas of "settlements" (sov space) that are consequence free then I expect to see in PFO. There is more 0.0 then empire space... Large parts of 0.0 are used little since it is relatively worthless value wise.
I would like a pretty equal number of areas for each security type. Wealth should follow those areas... Higher Risk, Higher Reward.
Settlements should have the option to adjust their security level which will also affect the adjacent hex. (a little)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
When you use the term RPKing, what exactly do you mean by that? What behavior is RPKing, and what behavior is not? In a world that aims to have meaningful consequences for everyone, for what should happen to characters/players who RPK?You are quite clearly trolling. I know damn well you are aware you can kill without rep loss if a SAD is offered and rejected, and only someone looking to sensationalize the argument would assume I'm advocating banning people for low rep.My argument with you is RPKing. Not Reputation.
Maybe I wasnt clear enough. It happens, but since I specifically said RPKing... Maybe its you that is trolling.
My problem with even having a statement like Random Player Killing is that ... and here is the argument... again...
What you may consider Random, I may not.
We have nothing set in stone that determines that from the devs.
In all honesty... With an Open World Sandbox PVP Game... Random Player Killing or RPKing has no meaning. Griefing for the lulz does.
Ryan himself says that he expects most of the player base to follow Eve's NBSI, meaning if your not a friend then you will be attacked. I think most will consider that RPKing, I do not.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
When you use the term RPKing, what exactly do you mean by that? What behavior is RPKing, and what behavior is not? In a world that aims to have meaningful consequences for everyone, for what should happen to characters/players who RPK?You are quite clearly trolling. I know damn well you are aware you can kill without rep loss if a SAD is offered and rejected, and only someone looking to sensationalize the argument would assume I'm advocating banning people for low rep.My argument with you is RPKing. Not Reputation.
Maybe I wasnt clear enough. It happens, but since I specifically said RPKing... Maybe its you that is trolling.
My problem with even having a statement like Random Player Killing is that ... and here is the argument... again...
What you may consider Random, I may not.
We have nothing set in stone that determines that from the devs.
In all honesty... With an Open World Sandbox PVP Game... Random Player Killing or RPKing has no meaning. Griefing for the lulz does.
Ryan himself says that he expects most of the player base to follow Eve's NBSI, meaning if your not a friend then you will be attacked. I think most will consider that RPKing, I do not.
So, what did you mean when you used the term "RPKing", if it has no meaning?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you have a general assumption that when you run into other people in the wilderness that they wont attack you... Means to me that you do not want to be involved in PVP unless its on your terms. Thus limiting PVP.
Few really want to be involved in PvP on their opponent's terms rather than their own I should think.
@Being: How did you read it? (asking honestly)
Honestly I read it such that Nihimon was, as usual, not saying anything about what he wants but instead attempting to report what the most current thinking of the devs looks like for PFO's ever evolving system, according to his indexing effort of the things they have said (and for which I believe this community owes him a debt of gratitude, btw). He has historically been tremendously conscientious about distinguishing his thoughts from theirs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ok, so let me get this straight. You are ok with the above correct?
Yes, I'm okay with the game allowing that kind of behavior, as long as there are consequences...
If yes, then why would you think that Ryan would consider the game a failure if the above happens?
I never said I believed Ryan would consider the game a failure if the above happens. I said I believe Ryan would consider the game a failure if the above happens all the time to everybody.
... if the general assumption when going into the wilderness is that you 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.
If they did not want this in the game at all, then why make a full set of statistics for it? Just pull out the ban hammer and solve it.
*sigh* There you go again. How can you hear me say over and over again that it should be allowed but have consequences, and yet still pretend I'm saying it shouldn't be allowed at all?
Quite simply, they want it to be possible, and so do I. They want it to happen occasionally, and so do I. But they want most of the PvP to be for a reason that makes sense to the person getting attacked.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They wont ban people for rules that are not set in stone without a warning first.
...the meta-rule will be: "If you're acting like a jerk, we'll feel free to give you a time-out lasting from minutes to forever without appeal and without warning."
No rule? Arbitrary enforcement? Playing favorites for people with good reputations and social credibility? That makes it hard and not fun to jerk people's chains for the lulz, and even removes the post-ban 3rd party forum whines about unfairness and developer misconduct, and how one's rights have been violated, etc.
Pathfinder Online will be judged on its actual community tenor, not its theoretical limits. And I'm very confident that it will be graded highly by the kind of people interested in a healthy, reasonably non-toxic, mutually respectful, vibrant society we want as customers.
And enforcement of these rules will be arbitrary, and capricious. They'll vary from rep to rep, and with the load we're coping with, and a million other unquantifiable factors. You will have avenues to appeal these decisions, and those appeals will also be arbitrary and capricious.
Yes, he says both that there will be appeals, and that there won't. I chalk that up to arbitrariness and capriciousness; I applaud both in this case.
As someone whose livelihood depends on predictability (I build forecasting models), my tolerance for unforeseeable variability is incredibly low, so you can see how important I deem this aspect of the game's management.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Source?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?
That was my question too...I do know that at one time Bluddwolf proposed that this is how it should be...and we had a long discussion about it, but I do not remember any Mr. Chancey confirmation. I am very much against the idea of consequence free zones. Reputation is a meta-gaming metric used to quantify how often/well you play within the bounds of what GW determines is "positive gameplay". Why would there be any regions outside the scope of this? Alignment is a measure of gods' favour, why would their be regions outside their vision?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
*sigh* There you go again. How can you hear me say over and over again that it should be allowed but have consequences, and yet still pretend I'm saying it shouldn't be allowed at all?
Quite simply, they want it to be possible, and so do I. They want it to happen occasionally, and so do I. But they want most of the PvP to be for a reason that makes sense to the person getting attacked.
And there you go again... NOWHERE have I read that it has to make sense to the victim.
Which has been the basis of all our arguments.
Just because you think its random, does not make it so.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
NOWHERE have I read that it has to make sense to the victim.
There, now you can proceed to find some other trivial distinction to focus on to make sure you don't just take what I write at face value.
That the attack will "make sense to the person getting attacked" is a meta-requirement in the general sense. Not an absolute requirement in every single instance.
I am not suggesting that the game must ensure that every player who gets attacked knows the actual reason for the attack beforehand.
I am suggesting that, in general, the reason that a player gets attacked should be something that makes sense to a reasonable person, even if the actual person doesn't understand it at the time.
But that's all a very fine-grained parsing of a mostly irrelevant aspect of "PvP should have consequences and be meaningful".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p8bg?Kickstarter-Community-Thread-Player-vs-Pl ayer#1
Reading Suggestion
Excellent suggestion.
Allow me to highlight something relevant:
Players who attack and kill other players outside of certain situations, such as declared wars or pursuing bounties placed on criminal characters, face the possibility of worsening their Reputation and beginning a slow decline towards Chaotic and Evil alignments. A low Reputation will keep players from entering more advanced settlements, while Alignment limits what abilities you can learn, factions you can ally with, etc. Players will engage in PvP without some thought as to their target selection will quickly find themselves only welcome in the most wretched of settlements and many respectable groups will turn them away.
And this is also quite relevant:
If you are one of those people who doesn't like the idea of PvP we ask for you to keep an open mind. We're well aware of the kind of non-fun experiences that PvP has created in some games, and we think we have lots of ideas on ways to keep misbehavior under control in Pathfinder Online.
And just to be clear, I'm not including that last quote to suggest that I'm "one of those people who doesn't like the idea of PvP". I'm including it because of it's clear, and utterly consistent reference to the "non-fun experiences that PvP has created in some games" and the "ideas on ways to keep misbehavior under control in Pathfinder Online".
It's almost like Ryan's trying to get the point across that PvP in Pathfinder Online will be different than it is in other games, because there will be consequences that will ensure it doesn't devolve into a toxic grief-fest. Where have I heard that before?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Players who attack and kill other players outside of certain situations, such as declared wars or pursuing bounties placed on criminal characters, face the possibility of worsening their Reputation and beginning a slow decline towards Chaotic and Evil alignments. A low Reputation will keep players from entering more advanced settlements, while Alignment limits what abilities you can learn, factions you can ally with, etc. Players will engage in PvP without some thought as to their target selection will quickly find themselves only welcome in the most wretched of settlements and many respectable groups will turn them away.
Exactly. The general theme from the devs has always been that killing people for no reason lowers your reputation. If your reputations get's too low you are going to take penalties, and those penalties are going to make your character suck.
Though they've separated alignment and reputation a bit since that quote was made, the standing sentiment I've alway seen from the devs is still that low reputation characters will suck.
Reputation is an anti-RPK mechanic, like it or not. If you want to PvP whenever you want, wherever you want, for whatever reason you want, then you need to start getting used to the idea that your character will be total crap.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Reputation is an anti-RPK mechanic, like it or not. If you want to PvP whenever you want, wherever you want, for whatever reason you want, then you need to start getting used to the idea that your character will be total crap.
I would say that it is more accurately the rewards for high reputation are carrots for those who most frequently or most strongly play within the bounds of "positive game-play" as dictated by GW...the way they want people to play their game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Meaningful PvP:
Meaningful reason to engage in PvP and a Meaningful Consequence for losing in PvP.
I find the concept of "meaningful consequences for PVP" to be flawed, and therefore counter productive. If this is an Open World PVP MMO, then GW should be crafting a system that:
1. Encourages meaningful engagements of PVP
2. Revamp the Flags to expand the varied uses of PVP and grant sufficient bonuses to make flagging more desirable than remaining unflagged.
3. Tie various activities to PVP flags (ie Only Outlaw Flag allows SAD; Only Traveler Flag allows use of caravans, etc).
4. Include or increase Reputation bonus for any use of a PVP Flag vs. a PVP Flagged opponent.
5. Have a varied zone type of expanding PVP participation, similar or even identical to the system found in EVE Online (High security; Low Security and Null Security).
6. Punish GM decided griefing, very severally.
I have always found that you get more through positive reinforcement than you do from "the stick". Not receiving the rewards of participating in PVP in a meaningful way, is the punishment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf, the problem is that, without the "stick" of consequences, the game will devolve into a toxic grief-fest.
In general, . 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. . 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.
So, there you've already gotten a clear statement that if your fears are justified, and the game makes it prohibitively difficult to play a bad guy, they'll relax the rules and allow you more leeway. What more do you want?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have always found that you get more through positive reinforcement than you do from "the stick". Not receiving the rewards of participating in PVP in a meaningful way, is the punishment.
I would say that it is more accurately the rewards for high reputation are carrots for those who most frequently or most strongly play within the bounds of "positive game-play" as dictated by GW...the way they want people to play their game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have always found that you get more through positive reinforcement than you do from "the stick". Not receiving the rewards of participating in PVP in a meaningful way, is the punishment.I would say that it is more accurately the rewards for high reputation are carrots for those who most frequently or most strongly play within the bounds of "positive game-play" as dictated by GW...the way they want people to play their game.
yes, we are in agreement...
@ Nihimon
"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."
Incentivize = Positive Reinforcement
Stephen Cheney does not mention disincentivizing negative behaviors.
No where am I saying not to punish griefers. I'm saying not to punish PVP, as if it is an undesired use of the game mechanics.
Please explain how this, does not promote the game play that the devs have said they desire:
Meaningful PvP:
Meaningful reason to engage in PvP and a Meaningful Consequence for losing in PvP.
I find the concept of "meaningful consequences for PVP" to be flawed, and therefore counter productive. If this is an Open World PVP MMO, then GW should be crafting a system that:
1. Encourages meaningful engagements of PVP
2. Revamp the Flags to expand the varied uses of PVP and grant sufficient bonuses to make flagging more desirable than remaining unflagged.
3. Tie various activities to PVP flags (ie Only Outlaw Flag allows SAD; Only Traveler Flag allows use of caravans, etc).
4. Include or increase Reputation bonus for any use of a PVP Flag vs. a PVP Flagged opponent.
5. Have a varied zone type of expanding PVP participation, similar or even identical to the system found in EVE Online (High security; Low Security and Null Security).
6. Punish GM decided griefing, very severally.
I have always found that you get more through positive reinforcement than you do from "the stick". Not receiving the rewards of participating in PVP in a meaningful way, is the punishment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf, if this is true, than all discussion of how unfair the game is to CE is moot. CE is the base case, the benefits given to other alignments are carrots given for various types of positive game play...and thus are not only fair, but a "good thing". Those players languishing in the CE end of the pool are welcome to change their ways after all...if they care to. Do you agree with this?
I do have to admit though, I do not see how:
I find the concept of "meaningful consequences for PVP" to be flawed, and therefore counter productive.
follows from your list of "must haves". Nor do I understand why many items on your list are required for the carrots to work.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I really like Stephen Cheney's point. If we start with super harsh penalties on these kinds of behaviors and end up lowering them, then that will be far better than if we start out super relaxed and end up having to implement more and more programs to penalize them and encourage players not to play those roles.
People are more open to penalties that are there to start with than ones that are added later on. Very few people will react negatively to taking away penalties from something that is truly underpowered.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Reputation is an anti-RPK mechanic, like it or not. If you want to PvP whenever you want, wherever you want, for whatever reason you want, then you need to start getting used to the idea that your character will be total crap.
The problem with that is... "everyone except me and my friends" is not "random" it's "selective"... but it looks like that will carry the same consequences as what people are pushing to be the definition of "random".
One day I could choose to kill everyone with two vowels in their name. Or everyone from a specific archetype. Those acts are not random.
Hell my character could have been wronged by a priest and decide I want to kill all of them. That's not RPKing. But if I go to an area where priests are using to train and test skills and start killing everyone, that will "appear" random when it is in fact "selective".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Stephen Cheney does not mention disincentivizing negative behaviors.
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.
Yes, they are "incentives" and "advantages" for "staying at the Lawful, Good, and high Reputation ends of the spectrums".
The problem with that is... "everyone except me and my friends" is not "random" it's "selective"...
You could make the same argument that "everyone who plays an Elf" is "selective" instead of "random".
You could make the same argument that "everyone I see on Tuesdays" is "selective" instead of "random".
The word to describe those arguments is "specious".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One day I could choose to kill everyone with two vowels in their name. Or everyone from a specific archetype. Those acts are not random.
No, but they are arbitrary in that they have no meaning, except that you just decided to do so, with no underlying reasoning. This is just as bad as random. Since nobody else can determine your reasoning - or lack of it, they appear random. Appearance is generally all that the GMs will have to go on when deciding if something is ok or not, the truth that that is what you have decided to do is irrelevant.
Hell my character could have been wronged by a priest and decide I want to kill all of them. That's not RPKing. But if I go to an area where priests are using to train and test skills and start killing everyone, that will "appear" random when it is in fact "selective".
And this is just spurious RPing in an attempt at justification of what is in fact toxic behaviour. We could all "role-play" characters with irrational hatreds, mental problems or just as sociopaths, who will kill X on sight, although in the case of the character you propose, I wonder if in fact he'd be willing to take healing from a "friendly" priest (i.e. one of your in-game friends) - I would guess so. The problem with that is, how do we then differentiate this game from a generally KOS game like DarkFall? Practically, we would now be in the same boat. The difference with RPing around a table is that everyone knows what your motives are, and so your actions don't appear irrational or unfair. This is not true of an MMO, and needs to be taken into consideration. Unlike the DM in PnP gaming, the devs won't have the time to take you aside, discuss what you're doing and why, and make adjustments to the game world that take your RP decisions into account, while keeping it fun for everybody. It's manageable with a group of fewer than ten, but not with thousands of players. This is not your gaming table, nor is it my gaming table. It's everybody's. It will appear as RPKing and it will appear unfair and/or as toxic behaviour, and you will be the one, rightly or wrongly, who will have to bear the responsibility for that.
Just because you can "justify" something with an RP motive doesn't mean that behaviour isn't bad for the game, because you can justify just about anything with an RP motive.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that PFO's wilderness is where reputation and alignment mechanics will be the most important. Since behaviour in "secure areas" can be enforced by NPCs as well as players (due to supposedly larger concentration of players closer to settlements), reputation need not be that important there. Characters will have to to a large degree follow the laws and policies there or be killed by the guards or other players. (I'm not proposing that controlled areas will/should be "safe" zones, just that there are ways to deal with uncontrolled and unwanted agression there)
I see the possibility of losing reputation in the wilderness as a soft (i.e. not absolute) safeguard against unbarred, un-fun (for many, not all) kill-on-sight mayhem. The lower player concentration and the absense of guards will ensure that plenty, but not excessively so, acts of predatory aggression can still take place there.
If reputation is not going to be at play in the wilderness then it might as well be scrapped because the settlements and surrounding areas have other, stronger, mechanics to control behaviour, making reputation somewhat redundant.
(The above is based on the viewpoint of the primary reason for the reputation system being the directing player behaviour)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p8bg?Kickstarter-Community-Thread-Player-vs-Pl ayer#1
Reading Suggestion
Excellent suggestion.
Allow me to highlight something relevant:
Players who attack and kill other players outside of certain situations, such as declared wars or pursuing bounties placed on criminal characters, face the possibility of worsening their Reputation and beginning a slow decline towards Chaotic and Evil alignments. A low Reputation will keep players from entering more advanced settlements, while Alignment limits what abilities you can learn, factions you can ally with, etc. Players will engage in PvP without some thought as to their target selection will quickly find themselves only welcome in the most wretched of settlements and many respectable groups will turn them away.And this is also quite relevant:
If you are one of those people who doesn't like the idea of PvP we ask for you to keep an open mind. We're well aware of the kind of non-fun experiences that PvP has created in some games, and we think we have lots of ideas on ways to keep misbehavior under control in Pathfinder Online.And just to be clear, I'm not including that last quote to suggest that I'm "one of those people who doesn't like the idea of PvP". I'm including it because of it's clear, and utterly consistent reference to the "non-fun experiences that PvP has created in some games" and the "ideas on ways to keep misbehavior under control in Pathfinder Online".
It's almost like Ryan's trying to get the point across that PvP in Pathfinder Online will be different than it is in other games, because there will be consequences that will ensure it doesn't...
My only response is... Duh um er... Really? You have got to be kidding, I didnt realize you could lose Reputation and Alignment in PVP.
/sarcasm
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Reputation is an anti-RPK mechanic, like it or not. If you want to PvP whenever you want, wherever you want, for whatever reason you want, then you need to start getting used to the idea that your character will be total crap.
And again, If you bothered to read those threads...
If I decide to kill you for entering an area where my harvester is gathering... There is nothing Random about it. I am protecting my interests. In those threads you will read that Ryan supports just that.
You will see it as Random, I will not.