Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have the SAD mechanic? How do you know I wont be playing LE, or N? (I will more then likely play LE to start, but not for certain)
I doubt there will be a mechanic to run people away... as it could very well be in the wilderness. That would make it part of the game, suffer the rep hit.
If you own the territory, and set everyone negative just so you can kill them is gaming that system (not dramatically though). But playing NRDS and setting select people, who have lived in the area for months, negative just so you can kill them right now is gaming it in a way.
The groups that play NBSI... and piss too many people off... will more then likely be better at PVP then the too many people... If you want to take it from them, it will either cost you ALOT, or you will lose.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon.
I was thinking just a simple sphere of influence around harvesting camps placed in unclaimed lands. It would be very easy to implement.
You could call it "staking a claim".
I have the SAD mechanic? How do you know I wont be playing LE, or N? (I will more then likely play LE to start, but not for certain)
Then you may have to accept the limitations of your alignment. Deal with it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Personally, I would also suggest a Non-Lethal mechanic. Victory "clobbers" your opponent for some amount of time, rendering them unable to do much beyond speak or move. They would also be allowed to fight back if attacked again, but would not be able to initiate aggression.
This would allow you to do your harvesting. If this is a prolonged operation and you are worried about the unwelcome competitor waiting until later, then it is your responsibility to make sure it is guarded.
Various interactions and effects that could occur with a clobbered individual would need to be explored for exploitative nature.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon.
I was thinking just a simple sphere of influence around harvesting camps placed in unclaimed lands. It would be very easy to implement.
You could call it "staking a claim".
Yeah, I'm down with a Claim Mechanic :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Personally, I would also suggest a Non-Lethal mechanic.
Ryan's already been pretty clear with his answer to 'Why no "non-lethal" duels?' I wouldn't expect that to change.
I originally supported the idea of Defeating a character, and then requiring a second action to actually Kill them. I've come around on it now, though, and realize this just makes the PvP less consequential.
|
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.
How did I get dragged into this mess? :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am not proposing a Duel mechanic. I am proposing a Non-Lethal damage mechanic. I would posit that while the term nonlethal is shared, the spirit of the suggestion is completely different.
Most actions can accommodate this mechanic using the spirit of the tabletop rules.
Attack Penalty mimics the tabletop's -4 to hit when dealing nonlethal damage with lethal weapons.
Merciful meta-magic feat could be applied to spells. Perhaps the spells are slightly weaker as a result.
Some abilities may not have non-lethal option. Such as Barbarian Rage.
This is meant very specifically for kicking someone's butt and running them off, or at least making them not a problem, without the Evil alignment shift for doing so. You do not "challenge someone". You attack them! They may choose to fight you back with lethal force, that is your risk to take!
What you get is removing ability for competitor to act. Though you sacrifice looting ability.
#1 Contrary to the Duel post you linked, this ADDS immersion, because now the good guys can take meaningful action that is not Killing and Looting.
#2 People are asking Sir Awesome about duels with actual words, or they are pre-arranged. You don't just throw flags in people's faces saying "Fight Me".
#3 The offsetting reward is keeping Joe from harvesting your resources for a few minutes.
#4 The risk is that you fight with non-lethal engaged, your foe may not be so willing to act in kind. Mercy has its costs.
#5 Whether people do it depends on the implementation. I feel this is certainly the domain of Non-Evil characters. But not everyone may find it worthwhile.
#6 The spirit of this mechanic is very different from the folks who hang out in WoW Capital City X dueling everything that moves. The people who would use this are not those people.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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
Maybe...
An area where you do not get a penalty for murder and a consequence free area could potentially be two different things. Do you count reputation score changes (positive or negative) and alignment shifts as penalties, or do you class them as game mechanics?
If the latter, it is possible that Ryan means that flags will not matter in these areas and you can attack or kill anyone without getting the various short term flags or impacting on the long term flag your character is flying. Given he has stated that alignment shifts with murder because 'murder is evil' (as dictated by the pantheon), then it is possible that would still occur anywhere at anytime.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Others have posted the relevant links to previous discussions on nonlethal damage. Although I used to advocate implementing nonlethal damage, now Im not so sure. It ultimately leads to back to actions having consequences. Arguably the point about implementing nonlethal damage is to avoid consequences from PvPing. That alone makes me stop and consider the impact of such an implementation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Personally, I would also suggest a Non-Lethal mechanic. Victory "clobbers" your opponent for some amount of time, rendering them unable to do much beyond speak or move. They would also be allowed to fight back if attacked again, but would not be able to initiate aggression.
This would allow you to do your harvesting. If this is a prolonged operation and you are worried about the unwelcome competitor waiting until later, then it is your responsibility to make sure it is guarded.
Various interactions and effects that could occur with a clobbered individual would need to be explored for exploitative nature.
If you have the choise of disabling a target for a long time rather than killing it, without suffering reputation consequences, then I see this being used all the time, bypassing the reputation system and all that it intends to achieve.
The issue as I see it is that players might need a way to establish and hold control of operations in an area without having to resort to attacking and losing reputation (possibly a lot of it, if organized swarms start farming in their territory to harm the settlement). There are a few things I think would be necessary for a mechanic that will push people away:
- Only useable by "owners" of a territory in that very territory
- Not too strong a mechanic, it shouldn't be possible to remove someone from your territory and keep them out without them being able to resist/sneak back in.
- Not free, choosing to expel people must come at a cost or every ambitious settlement might do it to everyone who isn't an ally.
An expulsion system could fulfill the first two of my criteria, not sure about the third.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Simple solution for those concerned about non lethal combat being exploitive, give the victim the choice to remain subdued (unconscious) or to release and die.
If I were subdued and then my attacker proceeded to loot me, I would just release and die. This would place my attacker on my enemies list, giving me the option to Bounty, Death Curse.
Back to the OP and the issue of a Player Council..... A question for GW, or any other who chooses to answer:
Why does GW feel a player council is needed?
I would think that the boards are quite enough for the various player concerns to be heard.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Back to the OP and the issue of a Player Council..... A question for GW, or any other who chooses to answer:
Why does GW feel a player council is needed?
I would think that the boards are quite enough for the various player concerns to be heard.
I don't think a council of players is necessary now. Actually it's not possible since there are no players =).
The forum discussions haven't grown so vast that they are unsurveyable. Eventually though, they might. Maybe at OE or so, there will be so much traffic on the forums we have then (probably not at paizo.com) that GoblinWorks rather poll a few community representatives than try to dig through the threads to find out what the players think. Possibly.
I think it's best to wait and see whether such a situation eventually arises before creating a council. Maybe the future community manager(s) feel the situation is under control without the help of volunteers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Certainly there are plenty of individuals posting who have disparate points of view and opinions, and for each GW has an email address. It is no great leap to conclude that at any time the developer could ask representative interests that match their intended demographic market or even a decently sized random sample whatever they are interested in learning. I know I would be glad to contribute and I believe everyone who posts would be equally interested in helping make the game the best it can be.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would think that the boards are quite enough for the various player concerns to be heard.
We've previously estimated, in various threads, that only a couple hundred voices are heard even occasionally on the boards; routine posters are fewer. We've also expressed some concern about Venture Companies, for instance, that will appear in Early Enrollment but aren't participating in the Land Rush, nor the boards themselves.
The boards are, of necessity, a self-selected audience with biases making us an unreliable population from which to select a control group. That's a statistical concept, true, but it's also a decent opening salvo for the definition of a Player's Council.
I agree with other voices that it's far too early for such a Council; we need actual players--investing their time and other limited resources--from whom to select invitees and nominees. I believe any selection process will need both people whom other players trust to speak, and, separately, others from whom GW wants to hear.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I further expect that there will be an opportunity for those backers who invested in Alpha level contributions to provide feedback, but it seems advisable for GW to have just such a 'control' group of interested contributors who are not in Alpha to check their findings against.
Other hand it has surely been instructive for them to see all the political machinations and preferences that are given voice in our conversations here.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are some direct and indirect benefits to having a Player Council. The first, and most obvious, is direct player input on things before they are introduced to the player populace. Fresh eyes on a project is not a bad thing. Having the Player Council be a stakeholder on key projects would help keep developers on-track and could increase the usefulness of the project.
A Player Council also gives the populace an additional route to introduce suggestions and concerns. As the player base grows, so too will the number of 'issues'. For many people it's easier to take a 'No' from another player rather than a developer.
A Player Council also provides another route for official information to flow through, complete with fact and opinion from a nominally trusted source. I like reading responses from Ryan, Stephen, Tork, etc. the forums but they are only 3 people. A volunteer PR and Support system, which is what a Player Council would be generally, staffed by avid players with additional insight, increases the likelihood of a concern (on both sides) will be satisfactorily addressed.
Handled correctly, there's no downside to having a Player Council. EVE's CSM8 is a good example of how things can work well. Communication is the key.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I had a great friend whose whole job was managing a group of selected customers for Ebay. Their function mirrors what Sintaqx said. You might say that they didn't form the group until they had customers. You might also say they ended up putting out fires instead of having systems in place to avoid fire in the first place. And it wasn't surprise at the volume of business either; Ebay planned on being successful. There was of course no internet auction 'community' to draw upon, but that is not the case here. It seems most people don't like the idea of a council, at least not now; I get it. But for an editorial program that could sum up and bullet the most cogent ideas and concerns of these forums. There's a lot to sift thru, although the back and forth can be entertaining for a lurker or voyeur.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Player Council also gives the populace an additional route to introduce suggestions and concerns.
I think this is key. I expect the primary responsibility of members on the Player Council will be to make themselves available to other players in game to hear their concerns, distill them, and faithfully present them to Goblinworks.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest gripes I have heard over a Player Council are that it's a popularity contest, and that it only represents a fraction of the player base. The fear is that the most vocal members of special interest groups formed of minority players end up dictating system-wide policy and development direction.
A Player Council is a popularity contest, and anyone who says otherwise is either lying or deluded. It's politics, pure and simple, and it's rare indeed to see an introvert elected to a public office. It's these introverts that make up the majority of the populace, so the vast majority of them don't want to, or don't care to participate in the politics of the game. It's not why they play. The irony in this is that oft times the most qualified person for the job is the one who doesn't want it.
It's estimated that 10% or less of the players in an MMO participate in forum discussions on the official game message boards. Less than 25% read the boards. And less than 50% read official correspondence, either by the blog or by email.
At this point in PFO, these numbers aren't as representative since we don't yet have a game to log into and get lost in, but even so it is rather telling to look at the kickstarter contribution numbers and compare that to the number of active folks on the boards here. We have a vocal minority, one that thankfully covers a broad range of interests and opinions, and a decent cadre of lurkers that follow the back and forth here.
If/when GW decide to open up a Player Council they will need to pay attention to the system used to select the members, to reduce the ability of the larger groups to throw their weight around at the expense of the smaller, more specialized groups. Nearly any system can be gamed, as we've seen in EVE's CSM elections, the goal is to reduce the negative impacts of the gaming that will take place.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest gripes I have heard over a Player Council are that it's a popularity contest, and that it only represents a fraction of the player base.
Agreed completely on this one. With the carebear mentality that floats around these boards pretty regularly, I'd honestly be afraid of some of the suggestions that would make their way to the devs ears if it were to be chosen right now. Honestly I hope that there's no election system for it at any point. I'd much rather see the devs pull people from the community in a private manner once EE actually starts, and people can comment and make judgements on the game as it actually plays as opposed to the ideas and what-ifs that are floating around right now.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would avoid having a player council at all.
The policy should be an Open Forum where developers and community managers actually seek and respond to requests made from the player community as a whole as opposed to giving special license to a select few. An idea worth considering is an idea worth considering, regardless of who it comes from.
The problem with "representative" bodies is that they are usually too self-involved to appropriately reflects the concerns of the populace appropriately. Even those who believe they are doing what the people want are frequently running that charge through their own biased world-views.
-1 To Player Councils.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
With the carebear mentality that floats around these boards pretty regularly...
I see many people accuse others of being c@#$%^&*s, but
1) I don't see many of those accusations as being based in reality, but mostly in supposition, mis-interpretation, and needing a target for the point the accuser wants to make, and
2) Ryan's asked us not to use that term:
@All - lets not use the term carebear.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With the carebear mentality that floats around these boards pretty regularly...I see many people accuse others of being c@#$%^&*s, but
1) I don't see many of those accusations as being based in reality, but mostly in supposition, mis-interpretation, and needing a target for the point the accuser wants to make, and
2) Ryan's asked us not to use that term:@All - lets not use the term carebear.
1: I read these boards enough to see the reality of it. Every time I see anti-pking and anti-pvp sentiment and a post, it's the first thing that jumps to mind. And there's enough of it to make my point. I'm sorry if you disagree. Thank you for picking out a single word of my post though, and ignoring the rest of it.
2: Don't really care if Ryan asked me not to use the term. It has been around from the beginning of online gaming, and it won't stop being used. If it becomes considering enough of a bad, no-no word, then the forums can word filter it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest gripes I have heard over a Player Council are that it's a popularity contest, and that it only represents a fraction of the player base.Agreed completely on this one. With the carebear mentality that floats around these boards pretty regularly, I'd honestly be afraid of some of the suggestions that would make their way to the devs ears if it were to be chosen right now. Honestly I hope that there's no election system for it at any point. I'd much rather see the devs pull people from the community in a private manner once EE actually starts, and people can comment and make judgements on the game as it actually plays as opposed to the ideas and what-ifs that are floating around right now.
One of the ideas floating around that is not a what-if is that we will have meaningful pvp. Perhaps a lot of it. 'Carebears' will have a place in the River Kingdoms. They already have their own venture company.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the ideas floating around that is not a what-if is that we will have meaningful pvp. Perhaps a lot of it. 'Carebears' will have a place in the River Kingdoms. They already have their own venture company.
Meaningful PvP is what I'd ideally have. But I also have no problem with killing people to take their stuff. Ultimately, I hope the carebears do have their place within the game. I won't take that away from them. But I wouldn't necessarily want one on a player council speaking for me. Which was my point to begin with.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Care Bear, Fanboi, Troll, Griefer, Ganker, RPKer" are all terms that are a part of the lexicon of Online Gaming and none should be considered a "protected class".
Care Bears and Griefers are equally toxic to the game play of an Open World PvP MMO.
Trolls and Fanbois are on opposite ends of the same argument, and they battle it out on forums. Trolls are compelled to complain about a game they hate, and yet the post in the forums even after their subscription has ended. Fanbois can't acknowledge obvious flaws in a game, and attack any minor criticism with vitriolic fervor.
Griefers are players that kill for the sole purpose of ruining someone else's gaming experience. This is a very difficult activity to identify, unless the griefers are blatantly griefing new players, corpse camping or respawn camping.
Gankers are often, wrongly, thrown into the same conversation with griefers. This is due to the lack of understanding of their victims, not differentiating from the use of a tactic (ganking) and a sinister motivation (griefing).
RPKers is also in the eye if the victim. A victim will often assume that they were RPK'd, because they do not know or understand their attacker's motives. It is easier to lay blame for losing in PvP on the perception that you were griefed, ganked or RPKed, rather than just that you were outclassed and defeated.
Regardless if you agree with my definitions, it really isn't a big deal to be called anyone of these terms. They all reflect a play style or behavior, and hey are not personalized, especially when they are written in the context of representing the "Mentality of......."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thank you for picking out a single word of my post though, and ignoring the rest of it.
I didn't ignore with any intent to insult, I simply had nothing to add. Because of the "popularity contest" aspect of the topic, I doubt GW'd go with community nominations, or at least not make them the exclusive--and I hope not even the majority of the--participants.
I'd actually like to see what would happen if the Council were selected and conducted in secret, complete with Non-Disclosure Agreements. Us not knowing who's on it, and them not being able to say, might open up some discussion options.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
With the carebear mentality that floats around these boards pretty regularly...I see many people accuse others of being c@#$%^&*s, but
1) I don't see many of those accusations as being based in reality, but mostly in supposition, mis-interpretation, and needing a target for the point the accuser wants to make, and
2) Ryan's asked us not to use that term:@All - lets not use the term carebear.1: I read these boards enough to see the reality of it. Every time I see anti-pking and anti-pvp sentiment and a post, it's the first thing that jumps to mind. And there's enough of it to make my point. I'm sorry if you disagree. Thank you for picking out a single word of my post though, and ignoring the rest of it.
2: Don't really care if Ryan asked me not to use the term. It has been around from the beginning of online gaming, and it won't stop being used. If it becomes considering enough of a bad, no-no word, then the forums can word filter it.
OMG, how dare you!!!
Why would you call anyone a carebear?
Thats it, Deal breaker, Im out.
/sarcasm
Oh yeah, join the UNC... Oh damn, cant get anything right.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have the SAD mechanic? How do you know I wont be playing LE, or N? (I will more then likely play LE to start, but not for certain)Then you may have to accept the limitations of your alignment. Deal with it.
Yep, it will allow me to be an assassin instead, and with the current alignment system, I can just drop to Chaotic and fly the SAD flag, take a week off and be back to Lawful. (or however long)
I shall give you the .... Carebear Stare
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Didn't realize how seriously you guys would end up taking my mocking suggestion that this turn into an e=peen measuring contest.
I'm sleepy now, but I'll log back on tomorrow evening and count all the posts to give you a final tally then.
subtract 10 from mine, I use PVP to make up for the lack of peen
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
subtract 10 from mine, I use PVP to make up for the lack of peenDidn't realize how seriously you guys would end up taking my mocking suggestion that this turn into an e=peen measuring contest.
I'm sleepy now, but I'll log back on tomorrow evening and count all the posts to give you a final tally then.
That's exactly what e-peen is though. Emphasis on the "e"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Care Bears and Griefers are equally toxic to the game play of an Open World PvP MMO.
Right I remember all those Open World PvP game where the "carebears" came in and destroyed the community and ran many of the new players out of the game! Like....... um...... well...............
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Care Bears and Griefers are equally toxic to the game play of an Open World PvP MMO.Right I remember all those Open World PvP game where the "carebears" came in and destroyed the community and ran many of the new players out of the game! Like....... um...... well...............
Care Bears have a tendency of trolling the forums, and in games like EVE, they have managed to change the nature of PVP to such an extent that the main form of PVP remaining is 0.0 Space, big fleet combat.
The changes (off the top of my head):
1. Jump to Zero = No more gate camps without the use of an Interdictor / Warp Bubble. When first introduced the J2Z was in effect, before anyone could have the skill requirements needed to pilot an Interdictor equipped with a warp bubble. Interdictors are very skill intensive ships to use, and so many lowbie pirates were driven away from the gate camping practice.
2. Gradual Elimination for the need to "Jet Can", put Ore Thieves almost completely out of business. Only idiots jet can mine today, and they a very rare.
3. Punitive costs associated with war decs. This has cut the number of small corp wars in High Sec down dramatically.
4. Crime Watch has virtually killed 90% of the High Sec criminal (non violent as well) activities. Stealing from a wreck that the original owner did not want anyway will flag you for 15 minutes with an "Anyone Can Kill Me". I wouldn't mind if just the owner and his/her corp - alliance could do so, but not anyone who cared to interfere.
There are likely quite a few more changes that either eliminated PVP or pushed it out to 0.0, and took it out of the hands (partially) from small gangs.
Yes, you can still see many of those things that used to be, once in a while, but that is just it. Now when you travel through Low Sec, you are lucky to see anyone in local and they usually run off immediately or they are just warping to zero, through the system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is a honest and open question, not a loaded one, as I started playing EvE in 2005 and haven't really played for the last 4 years at least, so some of these changes are new to me.
Why do you think these changes have come about, and why, in your opinion, has CCP acquiesced to the "trolling of the care bears"? What was their motivation and how has it changed the game for them (i.e. CCP)?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the issue with calling names in an otherwise cogent post is that the name-calling takes the place of content for the reader. It is careless of a poster with something to say to use inflammatory language that will displace whatever they were trying to communicate.
Beyond that I would appreciate it if we collectively resist turning these forums into anything that would tempt comparison to the infamous Call of Duty forums.
We are not children here. Please resist the urges to be reactionary in our replies.
I will attempt so to do as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is a honest and open question, not a loaded one, as I started playing EvE in 2005 and haven't really played for the last 4 years at least, so some of these changes are new to me.
Why do you think these changes have come about, and why, in your opinion, has CCP acquiesced to the "trolling of the care bears"? What was their motivation and how has it changed the game for them (i.e. CCP)?
It is impossible to say how the changes affected CCP. I am also not going to attribute EVE's continued success to those changes, exclusively, because we don't have a control sample (ie. two servers, one with the changes and one without).
I personally believe that PVP has become less accessible to new players, small group PVPers, and any player / group not willing to join a big alliance and head out into 0.0 space. This is not to say that there are not a few groups or solo players still clinging onto being "independent" of those pressures, but they are far fewer than they used to be and that is an undeniable fact.
CCP has made other changes that have also made it more difficult or certainly less lucrative to being a High Sec missions runner. But this too I see as a related effort to push these combat oriented pilots, out into 0.0 ratting practices, where the real ISK can be made.
Pushing PVP out into the fringes of the map has both positive and negative effects, and it is difficult to say whether it is overall more positive or negative. What I can say as my own opinion is that the PVP community, in general, did not ask for a majority of theses changes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Being,
I typically avoid calling someone names, but I will label an activity of mind set as one.
As I said earlier, I would use the word "mentality" in a genuine expression of my opinion that someone is expressing the mentality of these various emotionally charged words.
"The is a slippery slope, that leads to the care bearish mentality" is not the same as "You are a Care Bear."
"That for some, is considered griefing" rather than, "You are a griefer".
I choose my words wisely, but also with the intent of conveying the message I'm truly trying to get across without being coy. If I am anything I'm direct.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Re: Player Council, my 2c is it should work like this,
( because in all honestly, raising [& razing] settlements is what this game is all about )
-
All Settlements get to pick one representative to sit on a 'player council'.
Each month, the extant settlements are polled by GW to keep the council membership current and accurate, as sieges and political changes occur. The council will bring 'player' concerns to GW's attention once, be acknowledged, and then leave it in GW's hands.
-
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That might very well be the best system, Pinosaur, if the definition of 'settlement' is flexible enough for whatever turns out to be the final expression of the game.
I know we have a faction who wishes for something like a Gypsy caravan to be a type of settlement for example. I'd like a loose confederation of allied players to be a settlement of sorts even though they had no city, per se, but only a definable geographic area such as a certain forest that contained their assets. And barbarian types might be migratory yet should have representation.