Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf, the problem is that, without the "stick" of consequences, the game will devolve into a toxic grief-fest.
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?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.
To be able to prove the opposite. WTF do you think we are pushing for here?
We do not intend to be complete a$@%$**s trying to run a slaughter fest.
Now If I decide to play that role, in a Sandbox I should have that option.
|
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.
@Andius as well as KitNyx
Here is the thing.. After Ryan said CE will be the a#~&!~~s... I forget the devs name, but the former Darkfall guy stated in many paragraphs that the CE players will have all the same opportunities to increase their characters and build settlements as anyone else.
SO really the CE argument that your character will suck is moot.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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)
The wilderness areas will be islands that can be avoided to a degree. The best target area for bandits such as myself will be outside of settlements, where reputation will be in full effect.
The only thing in wilderness areas of value will be escalations and resources to gather.
The way the River Kingdoms works is... Might makes Right, or really You have what you hold... SO, if we follow that, when I attack you and take your stuff then your reputation should go down and mine goes up. (and no I do not expect it to be that way in game, just an example that fits in RP since its and RPG)
|
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.
It has never been stated that both parties need to know the reason for PVP to be justifiable. It would become a PVE game if we had to justify everything to everyone in PVP.
Actually, Ryan has discussed the specific topic... Killing someone over religion is not griefing, but it is Evil.
So apparently it is ok to do in game... And since its an RPG, and he has an RP reason, then its not Random and is acceptable.
Thats why I say RPKing has no meaning in a Sandbox RPG.
Arbitrary I can agree with you on. Having two vowels is a bit much as a justification, but over religion like he focused on should be completely acceptable. Evil but acceptable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The wilderness areas will be islands that can be avoided to a degree. The best target area for bandits such as myself will be outside of settlements, where reputation will be in full effect.
The only thing in wilderness areas of value will be escalations and resources to gather.
The way the River Kingdoms works is... Might makes Right, or really You have what you hold... SO, if we follow that, when I attack you and take your stuff then your reputation should go down and mine goes up. (and no I do not expect it to be that way in game, just an example that fits in RP since its and RPG)
There has been no mention anywhere of consequence free PK areas. That is, Pking under most circumstances will result in an alignment shift, and in some cases a reputation hit. Flags is the only guaranteed way to stop these things happening (not location).
Reputation in PFO is a measure of how well your character has been played within the rules and mechanics designed by the devs. It is not a measure of IC fame on infamy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The only thing in wilderness areas of value will be escalations and resources to gather.
Farming mobs and resource nodes for money and materials will be a huge activity in game, the basis for building constructions and crafting items. Everyone will need money and materials, at least indirectly in the form of crafted goods. To a large degree, the success of a settlement will depend on how successfully they can farm those commodities. Which is why this:
The wilderness areas will be islands that can be avoided to a degree.
sounds like an understatement to me. If the mobs and the resource nodes can be found in the wilderness then that is where many people will spend a lot of time. If enough players go there then I suppose they can 'support' a group of players who perform different social functions and never leave the comfy zones but I think the vast majority will want to gather resources, fight monsters and adventure in the wilds.
Those kinds of PvE activities and the players performing them are what I consider the things that GW wants to somewhat shield from unbarred PvP mayhem. There should be a sense of danger, due to the possibly quite large possibility of running into enemies (during war), bandits, possibly players flying certain flags and occasionaly people willing to kill on sight and take the reputation hit in order to rouse trouble versus your settlement/mine your nodes/take your stuff etc.
The possibility of being killed by anyone should always be there but it would be sad in my opinion if it was the default interaction between strangers meeting in the wild because it does so at the cost of other kinds of interactions. But if killing is consequence free then the smartest move will be either to attack or run away. That is my experience from Darkfall. Having a pricetag attached to attacking people who have done you no harm will hopefully create a less harsh, empoverished and hostile (but still not safe) world.
Note: By wilderness I mean any zone without NPC guards and patrols. I think having islands with less consequences but higher possible farming yields would be bad because it would segregate the community spatially and it would be hard to make the 'bountifulness' of the islands properly balanced against the danger to ensure that the one type of zone is not preferred by all compared to the other type, thus rendering portions of the game world unused and deserted. Rather than having different rules, I think it will sort itself out organically by having the rarest resources and best mobs furthest away from settlement, thus increasing the risk of running into bandits and other enemies during the trip back increase. Directing travels to and fro through bottlenecks can create hotspots for bandit activity. This will by itself provide enough of a risk-vs-reward gradient away from settlements without necessitating different rulesets in different parts of the world.
My hope is that there will always be enough people flying "opposite" flags, fighting wars, playing criminals vs. bounty hunter etc. that there are always opportunities for "legitimate", reputation-rewarded PvP.
|
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.
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.
The difference between these two philosophies is why I'm quite glad there'll be live GMs with arbitrary and capricious powers to keep the game true to whatever vision GW settles upon. They'll be able to determine whether behaviour in-game is appropriate, perhaps including consultation with an accused perpetrator, perhaps not.
We've been told that what GW knows about a given player will enter into their decisions, so we're establishing the beginnings of a paper-trail here on the boards for them to use in a couple of years.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The word to describe those arguments is "specious".
Such an excellent, and apropos, word.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that PFO's wilderness is where reputation and alignment mechanics will be the most important.
I agree. Wholeheartedly.
I understand Ryan might have a good reason to have some consequence-free zones, but I will be quite surprised if he decides that most wilderness zones should qualify.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You know, it might make good sense for there to be scattered islands of reduced consequence hexes, just as there are scattered islands of high consequence areas... just ensure they are not contiguous but graduated.
The image I have in mind is Mirkwood in the Lord of the Rings. Say up in the North of the river kingdoms is a great forest. The edges of the forest might be moderately dangerous and filled with chaotic types but deeper the peril grows. The appearance and mood of the forest changes to become darker and more threatening, and the consequences of mishap are increased for the victim and reduced for the perpetrator. Yet outside the forest things are more homely and appear more safe, and the negative consequences for criminality are increased, but not so much as they would be adjacent or inside a settlement trying to make a living there.
Now, I wonder would it be sensible were the most dangerous, PvP-prone areas to coincide with escalation hexes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that part of the problem is a) how flags will be used and b) each persons understanding of RPKing.
As an example, a group of brigands come across a group of harvesters doing their thing with a vein of adamantite. The brigands really want that adamantite so they kill the harvesters to get it. Does this scenario qualify as RPKing? Assuming the harvesters are not under any flag, what consequences would the brigands face?
Scenario 2: A sentry is walking his beat around a Top Secret Installation (tm) which could be the previously mentioned gathering operation. He comes across an adventurer in full combat gear (as most adventurers are wont to do). If the adventurer sees the Top Secret Installation (tm) he/she might alert additional players who may come in and attack. So the sentry takes proactive measures, ambushes the adventurer and kills him/her. Same questions as above regarding RPKing and consequences.
The issues, as I see them, are:
1. If PvP is too restrictive and/or has excessively harsh consequences, it will lead to less 'meaningful PvP'
2. If these restrictions/consequences are tied solely to flags, then the bloc that wants to avoid all PvP can keep the flags off as a deterrent to PvPers.
3. If there are not enough consequences for unplanned PvP (i.e. not wars), then things could rapidly devolve into constant NBSI.
Ideas for a solution
On an initial read it sounds like the key may be in how the flags are implemented. Here is what I would suggest (Im thinking out loud here):
1. Everyone is under one or more flags at all times. The default flag is 'Civilian'. This flag provides small(?) combat penalties to the character with possible bonuses to non-combat activities. Killing a 'Civilian' is considered an Evil act with reputation loss.
2. All other flags bring the characters combat capabilities up to 'normal' or 'expected' levels but flags them for PvP (i.e. no reputation loss). Alignment hits may vary. Each flag has its own associated bonuses (e.g. Bandit flag has SAD). Each flag is usable by more than one alignment (e.g. all Nx and Cx alignments could use the Bandit flag)
|
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.
I don't need to re-read those threads just because you are trying to say I'm arguing positions that I'm not.
I've never stated any motivation for PvP to be random except "for the lulz", "because I want to", and "because whoever gets the most kills wins!" which are really all the same to me in the end. RPKing is killing someone just because.
What you learn about the reputation mechanic if you read up on it, is that reputation is lowered by killing people, and there are meaningful consequences for a low reputation. However they have added in a lot of ways to kill people without lowering reputation, intended to provide the means to engage in meaningful PvP on a regular basis without consequences.
They still seem to stand firmly behind the idea that low reputation characters will suck, which is why I made reference to the fact they've separated rep and alignment.
If the developers have decided you can engage people in the area of a resource you're harvesting that does not contradict anything I've said. Just words you put in my mouth in another trollish attempt to make me look bad. Or perhaps because debating the points I've actually made is beyond your capabilities.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As an example, a group of brigands come across a group of harvesters doing their thing with a vein of adamantite. The brigands really want that adamantite so they kill the harvesters to get it. Does this scenario qualify as RPKing? Assuming the harvesters are not under any flag, what consequences would the brigands face?
I don't think it qualifies as RPK; there's a clear in-game rationale for attacking the harvesters and stealing their stuff. However, the attackers should probably slip towards Chaotic Evil, and their Reputation should decrease.
Scenario 2: A sentry is walking his beat around a Top Secret Installation (tm) which could be the previously mentioned gathering operation. He comes across an adventurer in full combat gear (as most adventurers are wont to do). If the adventurer sees the Top Secret Installation (tm) he/she might alert additional players who may come in and attack. So the sentry takes proactive measures, ambushes the adventurer and kills him/her. Same questions as above regarding RPKing and consequences.
Again, I don't think this qualifies as RPK. However, I think it's much more complex to determine what consequences should ensue, and there's almost certainly not enough information in your example to make an informed decision. Given Ryan's statement that PFO "is a game where there is non-consensual PvP, but not a game where that PvP occurs everywhere and without warning or consequence", I think it's reasonable to expect that the "adventurer in full combat gear" should have received some kind of warning that he was Trespassing. If that warning was ignored, I would expect the Sentry would not slip towards Chaotic, and would not lose Reputation, but might (probably not, though) slip towards Evil if he kills the interloper.
The issues, as I see them, are:
1. If PvP is too restrictive and/or has excessively harsh consequences, it will lead to less 'meaningful PvP'
2. If these restrictions/consequences are tied solely to flags, then the bloc that wants to avoid all PvP can keep the flags off as a deterrent to PvPers.
3. If there are not enough consequences for unplanned PvP (i.e. not wars), then things could rapidly devolve into constant NBSI.
#1 is a very valid concern, and one the devs are already well aware of and prepared to address by loosening the restrictions in that event. The initial assumption, though, is that the restrictions are necessary in order to avoid devolving into a toxic grief-fest, which you acknowledge in #3.
#2 is a different story, and I'm not sure why that would be a problem. Keep in mind that the Flags can (and probably will) be used as a gating mechanism to greater efficiency. What harm does it do if a player who is generally uncomfortable with PvP chooses to go out into the Wilderness and try their hand at doing some minor personal Harvesting? They can still be attacked and killed, and they can have their stuff stolen. The only "problem" with this scenario is that the player who attacks them will face the normal consequences - see #1 and #3 above.
1. Everyone is under one or more flags at all times. The default flag is 'Civilian'. This flag provides small(?) combat penalties to the character with possible bonuses to non-combat activities. Killing a 'Civilian' is considered an Evil act with reputation loss.
2. All other flags bring the characters combat capabilities up to 'normal' or 'expected' levels but flags them for PvP (i.e. no reputation loss). Alignment hits may vary. Each flag has its own associated bonuses (e.g. Bandit flag has SAD). Each flag is usable by more than one alignment (e.g. all Nx and Cx alignments could use the Bandit flag)
Keep in mind, the point of the Alignment and Reputation system is not to protect the bandits and killers from consequences of killing unflagged players, it is to impose those consequences in order to create social norms that will minimize the "non-fun PvP" from most other Open PvP games.
Players who generally want to avoid PvP should be free to remain unflagged and experience the rest of the game - not without the threat of PvP, but with an expectation that they probably won't be ruthlessly killed anytime someone spots them in the wild.
The Alignment and Reputation hits are meant to be incremental. If an adventurer is hauling the treasure from his latest dungeon-delving without even the pretense of security, even a Paladin can swoop in and kill him and take his stuff without suffering any permanent "gimping".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Or perhaps because debating the points I've actually made is beyond your capabilities.
And as it seems, debating the points Ive actually made is beyond yours...
I know what the reputation mechanic is intended to be. I have no problem with it.
My argument with you is Reputation is not an anti RPKing mechanic. It is a mechanic that effects people who kill without wars, flags, FFA areas, and the like.
Again, because you consider something random, does not make it such. It also doesnt mean because I do not consider it Random does not mean I will not lose reputation when I kill you.
So I guess we could go round and round... may as well when Im at work with nothing to do but serf.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There has been no mention anywhere of consequence free PK areas.
There has, and I'm glad Xeen dug it up.
Here's Ryan's post
Enjoy, FFA zones
It's worth reading the whole thing.
Here's another post from earlier in the same thread that's also relevant:
You can Bounty and/or Death Curse anyone who kills you* unless you had one of the mitigating flags when you died (Attacker, Criminal, At War, etc.).This is a very big leap from earlier blogs that very explicitly stated that kills in the wilderness would not trigger the bounty system.Wrong. Full stop. Period.
We have never said that there were no penalties to killing a character in the wilderness. You have read that into statements we've made, but we have never said that (or if we have it was not in a blog, so I don't feel particularly bound by that level of nuance).
The idea of the bounty has been, and always will be that it's a way to make it very dangerous and painful to kill another character. You can easily be stuck with a "whack me" sticker for the rest of your character's life if you pick on someone who can afford to keep the bounty running. Kill with caution.
(All emphasis is Ryan's)
[Edit] And before someone focuses on that 'stuck with a "whack me" sticker for the rest of your character's life' part, yeah, we know the specific implementation details have changed. The spirit remains.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My argument with you is Reputation is not an anti RPKing mechanic. It is a mechanic that effects people who kill without wars, flags, FFA areas, and the like.
Right, so it punishes you if you kill people without a meaningful reason aka RPKing them. So... it's an anti-RPK mechanic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My argument with you is Reputation is not an anti RPKing mechanic. It is a mechanic that effects people who kill without wars, flags, FFA areas, and the like.Right, so it punishes you if you kill people without a meaningful reason aka RPKing them. So... it's an anti-RPK mechanic.
Um no...
Not all meaningful reasons require a mechanic.
Would you kill a guy that is gathering resources from a highly valuable vein of ore, that your settlement REQUIRES... You ask him to leave, he says no. Keeps on gathering.
Would that be acceptable to you?... The resource is highly rare and you cannot advance your settlement without it. You know he wont sell it to you, because he is sending it to another settlement for use. (not friends and not enemies)
Would you kill the guy to secure it for your settlemnt?
Is that enough reason?
Is that in the mechanic that keeps your reputation intact?
By the way... Resources like that will exist. You will be required to defend resources that your settlement needs. Others will try to take it... That will be the failing of NRDS.
Killing him would lower your reputation, but there is nothing random about it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That lowering reputation is an indicator that offing the intruding miner is insufficiently meaningful in terms of game metrics to avoid the reputation hit. The player would then have to make an active decision to eat the rep hit for the sake of a greater good, something of higher value in this case a rare resource. Reputation is projected to be valuable enough to assure that your offing him is meaningful enough to your character to be worth it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Then that becomes a meaningful choice - do I want these resources more than I want to maintain my reputation? If so, then kill him and take the hit - if not, leave him be, or hire someone else (a bandit, assassin etc) to make sure he doesn't ignore you next time. This will also provide further in-game interactions, which is surely what we're trying to promote.
EDIT: Being beat me to the punch.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So you decide it is more important to gain the resource than maintain your pally-pure reputation and you fight him. If you win you get what you want but suffer a rep hit. If he wins (and you started the fight) then he gets what he wants without the rep hit.
Question: does he get to loot your unthreaded items without penalty as well?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My argument with you is Reputation is not an anti RPKing mechanic. It is a mechanic that effects people who kill without wars, flags, FFA areas, and the like.Right, so it punishes you if you kill people without a meaningful reason aka RPKing them. So... it's an anti-RPK mechanic.Um no...
Not all meaningful reasons require a mechanic.
Would you kill a guy that is gathering resources from a highly valuable vein of ore, that your settlement REQUIRES... You ask him to leave, he says no. Keeps on gathering.
Would that be acceptable to you?... The resource is highly rare and you cannot advance your settlement without it. You know he wont sell it to you, because he is sending it to another settlement for use. (not friends and not enemies)
Would you kill the guy to secure it for your settlemnt?
Is that enough reason?
Is that in the mechanic that keeps your reputation intact?
By the way... Resources like that will exist. You will be required to defend resources that your settlement needs. Others will try to take it... That will be the failing of NRDS.
Killing him would lower your reputation, but there is nothing random about it.
The scenario described isn't RPKing as you are engaging him for the resource and not "just because." But it's also not something you're going to get penalized for unless you're playing outside your alignment.
If the resource is on your territory you should be able to control it's access. If it's not on your territory it would be a chaotic act to take it from him... and wait!... chaotic factions CAN do that without reputation loss using a SAD.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...and if you won and he became really irate he could also, at some expense, put out a contract on you, a bounty. He could also 'curse' you, though I am unclear as to exactly what that would do. But as the instigator of the fight you don't get the opportunity to place a bounty or curse him if he is successful in defending against your attack and kills you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Depends what you each mean by RPK, doesn't it? Having high reputation is an advantage we have heard, so everyone will want to have high rep. At least characters not belonging in an asylum. So if the definition of RPK includes killing without a good enough reason the reputation losses incurred by wanton slaughter should quickly educate those who kill to be more selective about it. In that sense anyway Andius appears to be correct this time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...and if you won and he became really irate he could also, at some expense, put out a contract on you, a bounty. He could also 'curse' you, though I am unclear as to exactly what that would do. But as the instigator of the fight you don't get the opportunity to place a bounty or curse him if he is successful in defending against your attack and kills you.
I agree.
@Andius... Here is what you are missing I guess.
YOU WILL GET A REPUTATION HIT FOR IT (outside of the current Flag system)
Alignment and Reputation are separate stats. They have nothing to do with each other outside of the Flag system.
Sure you could SAD him, but If I remember correctly your group will be what? LN? or was it NG? Either way you cannot SAD him. So now what?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So they have to decide whether it is worth the rep hit to take the perp out. From what I have heard Andius would not hesitate if he was sure of the player character's guilt. If the player character was an innocent but unwilling to sell the resource then I really don't know what Andius would decide. My guess: if he had to have it for some higher purpose he had.... I dunno what he would choose.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...and if you won and he became really irate he could also, at some expense, put out a contract on you, a bounty. He could also 'curse' you, though I am unclear as to exactly what that would do. But as the instigator of the fight you don't get the opportunity to place a bounty or curse him if he is successful in defending against your attack and kills you.I agree.
@Andius... Here is what you are missing I guess.
YOU WILL GET A REPUTATION HIT FOR IT (outside of the current Flag system)
Alignment and Reputation are separate stats. They have nothing to do with each other outside of the Flag system.
Sure you could SAD him, but If I remember correctly your group will be what? LN? or was it NG? Either way you cannot SAD him. So now what?
We play our alignment, which wouldn't assume we have a right to kill / steal from someone just because they are harvesting resources we want, when we have no legitimate claim to those resources.
The reputation mechanic provides you with all the tools you need to play your alignment without reputation loss. In this regard the two systems work together.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Depends what you each mean by RPK, doesn't it? Having high reputation is an advantage we have heard, so everyone will want to have high rep. At least characters not belonging in an asylum. So if the definition of RPK includes killing without a good enough reason the reputation losses incurred by wanton slaughter should quickly educate those who kill to be more selective about it. In that sense anyway Andius appears to be correct this time.
Negative, Random Player Killing... Is what RPK means to me... which is, killing for no reason.
You can and will get a reputation hit for killing someone outside the current set of rules. No matter if you have a reason or not. They cannot and will not make a mechanic for every situation that may come up. Just wont happen.
If you have a reason, it is not Random, even if you get a reputation hit.
Which is why I say, the term RPKing does not fit in an Open World Sandbox PVP game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...and if you won and he became really irate he could also, at some expense, put out a contract on you, a bounty. He could also 'curse' you, though I am unclear as to exactly what that would do. But as the instigator of the fight you don't get the opportunity to place a bounty or curse him if he is successful in defending against your attack and kills you.I agree.
@Andius... Here is what you are missing I guess.
YOU WILL GET A REPUTATION HIT FOR IT (outside of the current Flag system)
Alignment and Reputation are separate stats. They have nothing to do with each other outside of the Flag system.
Sure you could SAD him, but If I remember correctly your group will be what? LN? or was it NG? Either way you cannot SAD him. So now what?
We play our alignment, which wouldn't assume we have a right to kill / steal from someone just because they are harvesting resources we want, we we have no legitimate claim to those resources.
The reputation mechanic provides you with all the tools you need to play your alignment without reputation loss. In this regard the two systems work together.
Really? Well I forgot to mention the Resources are in and area you claim. (yes I can change the senario) Since you are playing Not Red Dont Attack, neutrals gather in your areas all the time.
They are your resources so to speak.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well Xeen I see your point (re: it is a sandbox game) but here is what the devs have to try and do: they cannot have measurable metric for everything a player could do, so they have this reputation system that allows a player to essentially judge himself. Reputation is in a way the coin of the realm. If you decide in Golarion to kill someone then you have to evaluate the worth to you of doing that. If it is worth the rep hit to you, then you get to try. If you decide it isn't then you will stop yourself. And if you just don't care then the developers think they might be able to figure that out, and toss your account out on its ear... and that will not be solved as easily as getting a new account because with that tossed account goes all the training time you invested, if any, and without training your character would not be likely to have successfully killed the guy in the first place.
Training takes real time.
Personally I don't prefer the term RPK anyway. I'd use something else that wasn't already overladen with as many meanings as there are players posting about it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Then this scenario is assuming there is a shortage of that particular resource as that's likely the only reason we would hassle people about gathering in our lands.
At that point we will ask that they either cease and desist or turn over a portion of those resources depending on the rules we've set for the gathering of that particular resources in our lands.
Should they not comply, we will exile them from our territory until they've paid reparations. If they return without those reparations, we kill them. I've detailed an exile mechanic that would allow that, and I believe the devs have hinted they have something like that in the works as well.
We are Neutral-Good, don't assume we need the tools to play our characters the way you would like to.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
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.
And there will be alignment and reputation effects for being the kind of person who murders everyone who sees you.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Really? Well I forgot to mention the Resources are in and area you claim. (yes I can change the senario) Since you are playing Not Red Dont Attack, neutrals gather in your areas all the time.
They are your resources so to speak.
Then they are either paying the established rent for the right to harvest those resources, or they are Trespassing. In the first case, there is a specific reason to protect them against other attackers. In the second case, there should be no alignment nor reputation penalty to killing them after providing sufficient warning.
Is there a third case, like where the 'claim' is not recognized? If the claim is not recognized, then the 'right' to those resources belongs to whomever has them on their person; You Have What You Hold applies to territory as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Despite the ongoing argument, you're all basically discussing what meaningful pvp looks like; not campaigning for 'any' pvp. That cheers me. However, there may well be rare resources out in the wilderness that are the subject of a free-for-all. Rare, valuable resources. Thus an in-game meaningful free-for-all. Hobs won't go out there; but he'll buy it off you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Then this scenario is assuming there is a shortage of that particular resource as that's likely the only reason we would hassle people about gathering in our lands.
At that point we will ask that they either cease and desist or turn over a portion of those resources depending on the rules we've set for the gathering of that particular resources in our lands.
Should they not comply, we will exile them from our territory until they've paid reparations. If they return without those reparations, we kill them. I've detailed an exile mechanic that would allow that, and I believe the devs have hinted they have something like that in the works as well.
We are Neutral-Good, don't assume we need the tools to play our characters the way you would like to.
I could care less how you play your character.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And there will be alignment and reputation effects for being the kind of person who murders everyone who sees you.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.
Um what? Im not talking about bull s$&~ reasons to kill someone. Im talking about legitimate reasons that the devs should not waste time coding.
Or did you mean everyone I see
If it is possible for them to attack my harvester, your damn right Im going to protect him... preemptively
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Really? Well I forgot to mention the Resources are in and area you claim. (yes I can change the senario) Since you are playing Not Red Dont Attack, neutrals gather in your areas all the time.
They are your resources so to speak.
Then they are either paying the established rent for the right to harvest those resources, or they are Trespassing. In the first case, there is a specific reason to protect them against other attackers. In the second case, there should be no alignment nor reputation penalty to killing them after providing sufficient warning.
Is there a third case, like where the 'claim' is not recognized? If the claim is not recognized, then the 'right' to those resources belongs to whomever has them on their person; You Have What You Hold applies to territory as well.
The third case I will give you, thats your play style and your choice.
Now though, if you are playing Not Red Dont Attack... Isnt anyone who is neutral welcome in your territory? How can they be trespassing then?
If they are paying rent, is that any nobler then bandits? (I know most would say yes, just food for thought)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I could care less how you play your character.
Then why are you asking how I would respond in that situation?
Now though, if you are playing Not Red Dont Attack... Isnt anyone who is neutral welcome in your territory? How can they be trespassing then?
Because if you establish rules that they break, then they become "red" for the purposes of a NRDS.
Not Red Don't Shoot is less a policy of their name literally needing to be red, and more a general principle of not killing everyone who wanders into your territory unless they provide you with a solid reason to do so.
NRDS is also a separate subject from RPKing, as "they were in my territory and I didn't want them to be there" is actually a fairly solid reason. It's still toxic to the game once enough people go NBSI but that is an entirely separate discussion with separate solutions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I ask how you would respond because of the reputation discussion.
NBSI isnt toxic, that is my opinion and Im sure it isnt shared.
They were in my territory, even though I accept neutrals in my territory, sounds kina contradictory.
I agree that RPKing and NRDS is a separate issue, but it seems rather subjective. If I do it to protect my gathering alt then its RPKing and I lose Rep, but if you do it because they are in your territory... even though they were allowed there through NRDS, kinda makes it the same issue. Especially if you ban them from your territory just so you can kill them for gathering resources.
Also, just because your settlement bans someone from your territory, doesnt mean you will not get a rep hit for killing them. At least I have not read that anywhere, please find it if Im wrong.
If it does exist then it diminishes the purpose of reputation. Because you can game that system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Also, just because your settlement bans someone from your territory, doesnt mean you will not get a rep hit for killing them. At least I have not read that anywhere, please find it if Im wrong.
You lose Reputation for killing some while you have the Attacker Flag.
If you have the Attacker flag, when you kill a target you lose reputation proportional to the reputation of the target (it's less disreputable to murder targets that have low reputation).
You don't get the Attacker Flag if your target had any other Flag.
Attacker
The character has attacked another character outside of a war situation, and the target character did not have a PvP flag.
The Trespasser is a PvP Flag.
Trespasser: Entering a settlement city that has forbidden you entry (due to too low reputation or other mechanics) applies the Trespasser flag, which persists while you're in the area and briefly after leaving. This might also be applied for entering other areas where your simple entry is sufficient to allow you to be attacked and driven off.
I believe the Criminal Flag replaces it, though.
Criminal
The character has broken the law of a settlement while inside its boundaries.Each time a character gets the Criminal flag they lose law vs. chaos.
Anyone may kill a Criminal character without fearing reputation or alignment loss.
Criminal is removed once the character has been killed.
The Criminal flag lasts ten minutes unless the character does something to get it again before the duration runs out.
If the character gets the Criminal flag again within the duration of its existing Criminal buff, the count of Criminal increases by 1 and the duration resets and adds ten minutes, up to a maximum of 100 minutes.
If the character gets to Criminal 10 they get a new flag, Brigand, which lasts for 24 hours, and does not disappear on death. It acts the same as Criminal, allowing repeat offenders to be hunted down for longer periods of time.
Still, it's clear that - in general - if there's a Criminal (or Trespasser), you can kill them without losing Reputation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
They were in my territory, even though I accept neutrals in my territory, sounds kina contradictory.
Except the point is they were breaking rules in your territory. That entirely changes the situation.
If I do it to protect my gathering alt then its RPKing and I lose Rep, but if you do it because they are in your territory... even though they were allowed there through NRDS, kinda makes it the same issue. Especially if you ban them from your territory just so you can kill them for gathering resources.
1. You have the SAD mechanic for robbing competing resource harvesters.
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.
2. If what you say is true, I would assume there will be a mechanic you can use to run people away from your resource gatherer.
Also, just because your settlement bans someone from your territory, doesnt mean you will not get a rep hit for killing them. At least I have not read that anywhere, please find it if Im wrong.
Thank you Nihimon
If it does exist then it diminishes the purpose of reputation. Because you can game that system.
Not really. No matter what it means you have to own the territory run everyone out. That means that if you piss too many people off, they'll come take it from you. I would also advocate that this kind of behavior should either harm your development index directly, or indirectly though mechanics that make high player activity inside your hex a requirement for raising them past certain points.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... I would assume there will be a mechanic you can use to run people away from your resource gatherer.
Some time ago, I suggested a "Challenge Mechanic - To drive off other characters".