Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As far as PvP is concerned (cos I know that's the thrust of your question :P), I'd like to see the following as general truisms come the start of OE, that could be used as "advice" to new players:
1) Nowhere is truly safe, except perhaps the NPC starter cities (and even then, who knows).
2) As a corollary to that, just seeing someone you don't know outside of your settlement / starter city should not immediately start a fight or flight response (we will lose a HUGE amount of possible player interaction if this is true).
3) Don't carry what you can't afford to thread or lose, and don't complain if you do lose it.
4) Make sure that if you have something valuable to move from A to B that you either move in a large group, hire some guards, or know how to sneak well. This is a world-wide shard - there is no downtime at 3am!
5) If you want to PvP, you are encouraged to choose targets that are flying PvP flags, not just mechanically (no or low rep/alignment hit vs higher for attacking the unflagged) but also by the community as a whole. This is, of course, not an enforceable rule.
6) Again as a corollary to that, the understanding that not flying a flag does not make you immune from PvP. If someone still decides to attack you, rep penalties for doing so notwithstanding, you'd better be prepared to fight or run. They are perfectly within their rights to do so and moaning about it won't help.
7) If you are really sick of being attacked, don't complain, just go where the attackers can't get you - offline. They'll get bored before you know it, and move on to other targets.
8) As a community, we do not accept griefing. If you are being griefed, copy your combat log / fraps it, and report it. (NOTE: your definition of being griefed may not coincide with the devs'; their decision is final).
9) Players who become known for behaving in a truly toxic manner will be denied training in all player settlements at at least the L and G end of the alignment spectrum. (oooh, controversial!)
10) Finally, have fun with your PvP - losing can be as much fun as winning, and you can even make friends out of it.
I'll duck now and wait for the bullets to fly in my direction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
By OE we will hopefully have at least three settlements begun. My guess is that these will be aligned differently though all may have comparable reputation levels. I anticipate each will compete for new players in the NPC controlled starting areas. It may be that there will be different starting areas for different general alignments if there is an option to select an intended alignment at character creation.
Hopefully the settlements will have adequate controls allowing only the most reliable access to the most sensitive assets.
Each settlement will likely have a core leadership who will structure their politics, and that is where I think variance will appear. Most likely there will be divisions of labor into Military, Mundane Administration, Diplomacy, and Treasury/Economics. Perhaps diplomacy will include recruition. Perhaps Military will control escalation strategies with the advice of Treasury/Economics. I would anticipate whoever leads a settlement will partake in all branches to a degree whether council or monarch.
I think that as settlements grow they will become allied with some and opposed to others, and when that happens Kingdoms will be born.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Lhan - I like all those points. I'm not even going to ask what your definition is because I don't want to go there yet again, but watching and seeing how #9 turns out will be interesting. In all honesty I hope that "truly toxic players" don't find a home anywhere, but I don't even think there will be a consensus come OE. Again, all good and relevant points.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Lhan's stuff
1)Exactly Right
2)Honestly, if you lose that FoF response, make sure your gear is threaded. LOL, but seriously just talk to people, even if you have the FoF in mind. Even if they attack you, dont just cower or cry about it, talk to them (after you make an attempt to fight back).
3)You will not be able to thread it all, and if you gear down for what you cannot, you will just lose it, and then have to repair your threaded gear.
4)Nonsense, Quick Travel, trust me, its flawless
5)I honestly hope they change this mechanic... as in get rid of it... its a throwback from Themeparks and a crutch for those that cannot afford the time to learn the game.
6)Exactly Right
7)There are places to go, your settlement for one.
8)Yep, get proof
9)LOL, Your right, not controversial, there will always be choices (maybe not till OE gets rolling though)
10)Exactly Right
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
its a throwback from Themeparks and a crutch for those that cannot afford the time to learn the game.
Or another way to write that might be:
it's an innovative new mechanic for PfO and a way of helping those who do not wish to play the game in Xeen's preferred play style. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
its a throwback from Themeparks and a crutch for those that cannot afford the time to learn the game.Or another way to write that might be:
it's an innovative new mechanic for PfO and a way of helping those who do not wish to play the game in Xeen's preferred play style. :)
5) If you want to PvP, you are encouraged to choose targets that are flying PvP flags, not just mechanically (no or low rep/alignment hit vs higher for attacking the unflagged) but also by the community as a whole. This is, of course, not an enforceable rule.
Lol. That's an area Goblinworks intends to innovate. It's probably a constant iteration in tandem with players but te feature of PFO I'm most interested in.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
its a throwback from Themeparks and a crutch for those that cannot afford the time to learn the game.Or another way to write that might be:
it's an innovative new mechanic for PfO and a way of helping those who do not wish to play the game in Xeen's preferred play style. :)
5) If you want to PvP, you are encouraged to choose targets that are flying PvP flags, not just mechanically (no or low rep/alignment hit vs higher for attacking the unflagged) but also by the community as a whole. This is, of course, not an enforceable rule.
Lol. That's an area Goblinworks intends to innovate. It's probably a constant iteration in tandem with players but te feature of PFO I'm most interested in.
My hopes is that there will be enough meaningful PvP provided through flags, warfare (really hoping that there will always be at least one war going on), caravans and banditry etc. that there is always a good amount of 'sanctioned' PvP to be had.
If a full-time PvP-inclined player can get all the wished for PvP through such conduits, would it be bad if some players somewhere 'opt out' of PvP to happily farm/adventure in relative safety? Greet the strangers they meet with a "hello" rather than an axe in the face? All the while understanding that tomorrow, their home might be a hotspot for conflicts (but if it is, they can go do their thing somewhere else until it blows over). Knowing that the worst thing that is likely to happen to them is losing a portion of their haul to some bandits forcing them to stand and deliver and being killed only on rare occasion for whatever reason that makes no sense to them.
If you encourage certain kinds of PvP and discourage others, I think such an environment is possible and I don't see it would be a bad thing if it were so.
I don't however think the way to go to achieve this is to convince PvP-ers to 'play nice', I think it should be done by done through mechanics such as reputation to make it emerge naturally. In the best of games, a PvPer shouldn't be thinking "I wish I could go kill some helpless carebears today, if only I could get away with it cheaply" but rather "Ooh, today settlement X is warring against settlement Y, I'm going to join the fight for loot, glory and some good combat". If the fight then spills over into neighbouring regions and some 'innocents' get killed once or twice that will be understandable and no big deal.
If the system depends too heavily on everyone feeling a responsibility to keep the world friendly it will break down before long. Providing better alternatives to running around killing everyone on sight is the way to go.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Lhan and AvenaOats - GW has modified the flagging system (which is good) but the flagging mechanic has been around since Diablo as far as I remember. That doesnt make it new and innovative. What is new is GW's take on it. Its still a theme park idea. If you want to protect yourselves, dont rely on flags... If I want to PVP, I will not rely on flags as my only means.
@Wurner - No one will be able to Opt Out of PVP, no matter the flag system. Also, it wont be "OOh, Im going to join int etc...;" it will be more like, "OOh, These settlements are at war, time to go take out some stragglers."
@Hardin - Yeah, I know, it was more sarcastic
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Lhan and AvenaOats - GW has modified the flagging system (which is good) but the flagging mechanic has been around since Diablo as far as I remember. That doesnt make it new and innovative. What is new is GW's take on it. Its still a theme park idea. If you want to protect yourselves, dont rely on flags... If I want to PVP, I will not rely on flags as my only means.
Sure flags have been around for forever, but you have to look at why these flags exist.
In themeparks, flags were implemented because outside of certain areas, you were incapable of PvP without them.
In PFO PvP is available almost everywhere, but it has consequences outside certain situations. The consequences have been being promised as far back I can remember. They are integrated into the very core of what this game represents. Later on they decided to add flags, to allow people to bypass the consequences vs. targets that desire PvP.
So it's PvP with consequences and flags, or PvP with consequences and no flags. Sorry, but the PvP with no consequences has never really been an option on the table. You should have read about this project more before pledging if you think it ever was.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No one will be able to Opt Out of PVP, no matter the flag system.
About opting out: I absolutely don't mean recieving immunity from player hostility. I mean choosing not to participate in it, avoiding it, not engaging in it. To what extent PvP (outside of the 'sanctioned' variety, such as banditry) will be brought to players against their will if they take precautions to avoid it is currently unknown and I won't take your word for it not being to some degree possible. It sounds highly unlikely to me that someone who actively avoids PvP won't see less of it than someone who doesn't avoid it.
Also, it wont be "OOh, Im going to join int etc...;" it will be more like, "OOh, These settlements are at war, time to go take out some stragglers."
"..I'm going to join the fight for loot, glory and some good combat"
I would put forward that motivations for taking out stragglers might include at least 2/3: loot & combat. If PvPers congregate in warzones I would see it as a win for the game world.
The comments above don't really touch at what I intended my post above to convey though. The TL/DR version:
--It is possible to create a system where PvPers don't want to spend (the majority of) their time pestering those who don't want to PvP. Creating fun and rewarding PvP opportunities could steer players towards that rather than zone-wide killing sprees as seen in other open-world PvP games that lack interesting PvP activities.--
A win-win situation. That's what the mechanics should strive towards.
I know there are many gamers who know nothing sweeter than the tears of frustrated PvEers. The solution is not to appeal to their conscience but to salt those tears and, more importantly, to provide other forms of nutrition.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
@Lhan and AvenaOats - GW has modified the flagging system (which is good) but the flagging mechanic has been around since Diablo as far as I remember.
You are simply mistaken, either about Diablo or about what a PvP flag is intended to be.
Diablo multiplayer had a toggle which determined if you were attacking other players or not; there was no way (other than chat) to indicate your preference for or against PvP behavior directed at you.
Diablo 2 expanded very slightly: you could not change PvP status outside of town, and all other players could tell whether you were flagged or not. The intent was to allow players to quickly exit when someone went hostile; the implementation was spotty.
I haven't and won't play D3, due to DRM philosophical objections, but it's PvP system is literally tacked on as a seperate mode, according to research.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, it is one of the few advantages that AI (PvE) has over people (PvP). If you have a mob, that mob is playing his/her/it's role 100% faithfully IN-CHARACTER ie we can say provides an 100% honest signal. The downfall is that most of the AI solutions are limited (we'll have to see how good the AI storybricks is in EQ:N).
So I think GW if they are innovating the area is to resolve these related problems. The way that is going to happen is iteration of a system that effectively (more so over time) trains players in certain contexts to behave a certain way (the way you'd probably design the AI's behavior to aim for) to respond IN-CHARACTER that equals as much as possible ie matches the OOC goals of the player but utilizes as much of the "intelligence to adapt" of the player themselves OOC into the IC avatar.
So, starting with the IC, it's about making that signal more honest, isn't it? And to do that you flag the avatar which the player voluntarily does for an incentive (eg some bandit abilities ie an AI STATE change) Therefore you're matching the STATE of the avatar with INTENTION of the player = honest signal to the game world. Of course players are super intelligent AI and so will likely do "unexpected behaviors" ie exploits which compromise the signal. The flip side is that you get state of the art AI... . So the idea with flags is that the player has set an intention to perform an action and breaking that intention should come with a suitable cost and equally performing the intention for longer should have some extra incentives. Those costs could be short and long-term to the degree and type of behavior the player is really doing irrespective of their choice type, and hence eg alignment/reputation transition.
That's more or less the flag system along with it feeding into the other systems. Your alignment, reputation and flags are all informing different states your character is in which tells you and other players your likely behavior - as you'd get with a mob be it a dragon or mouse (in the rawest forms: Friendly, Neutral, Enemy). Again the flag is like equipment on your avatar. It opens up options (Eg SAD, Bounty-Hunting etc) and trains you a certain playstyle and social group where that's applicable. But instead of skill swapping it's actions which belong to certain behaviors - that the game needs to train into players via punishment and inducement. And that's where it's hoped with respect to pvp combat actions, we can get honest pvp as per a mob but by a player? [theorizing] There are other actions eg a diplomat career hopefully their could be negotiation options/actions for a non-combat but equally versus context, set of behaviors??! [/theorizing]
So there's huge space to innovate? To say it's not innovative - yet - is of course right. But it could be very cool... if players play along!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No one will be able to Opt Out of PVP, no matter the flag system.About opting out: I absolutely don't mean recieving immunity from player hostility. I mean choosing not to participate in it, avoiding it, not engaging in it. To what extent PvP (outside of the 'sanctioned' variety, such as banditry) will be brought to players against their will if they take precautions to avoid it is currently unknown and I won't take your word for it not being to some degree possible. It sounds highly unlikely to me that someone who actively avoids PvP won't see less of it than someone who doesn't avoid it.
Also, it wont be "OOh, Im going to join int etc...;" it will be more like, "OOh, These settlements are at war, time to go take out some stragglers.""..I'm going to join the fight for loot, glory and some good combat"I would put forward that motivations for taking out stragglers might include at least 2/3: loot & combat. If PvPers congregate in warzones I would see it as a win for the game world.
The comments above don't really touch at what I intended my post above to convey though. The TL/DR version:
--It is possible to create a system where PvPers don't want to spend (the majority of) their time pestering those who don't want to PvP. Creating fun and rewarding PvP opportunities could steer players towards that rather than zone-wide killing sprees as seen in other open-world PvP games that lack interesting PvP activities.--
A win-win situation. That's what the mechanics should strive towards.
I know there are many gamers who know nothing sweeter than the tears of frustrated PvEers. The solution is not to appeal to their conscience but to salt those tears and, more importantly, to provide other forms of nutrition.
Of course, someone who trys to avoid it will be more successful then someone who does not try.
But you cannot expect to avoid it.
With the flag system, they already set it up for PVPers to pester PVEers. The bandit role does that quite well.
Going to a war zone to take out stragglers and try to get nice loot is the name of the game for bandits.
Tears dont concern me... I always thought that was kinda lame.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Lhan and AvenaOats - GW has modified the flagging system (which is good) but the flagging mechanic has been around since Diablo as far as I remember.
You are simply mistaken, either about Diablo or about what a PvP flag is intended to be.
Diablo multiplayer had a toggle which determined if you were attacking other players or not; there was no way (other than chat) to indicate your preference for or against PvP behavior directed at you.
Diablo 2 expanded very slightly: you could not change PvP status outside of town, and all other players could tell whether you were flagged or not. The intent was to allow players to quickly exit when someone went hostile; the implementation was spotty.
I haven't and won't play D3, due to DRM philosophical objections, but it's PvP system is literally tacked on as a seperate mode, according to research.
Whether you could see the flag or not... It was still a flag. I remember being able to tell if someone was flagged... but it had been what 15 years?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, it is one of the few advantages that AI (PvE) has over people (PvP). If you have a mob, that mob is playing his/her/it's role 100% faithfully IN-CHARACTER ie we can say provides an 100% honest signal. The downfall is that most of the AI solutions are limited (we'll have to see how good the AI storybricks is in EQ:N).
So I think GW if they are innovating the area is to resolve these related problems. The way that is going to happen is iteration of a system that effectively (more so over time) trains players in certain contexts to behave a certain way (the way you'd probably design the AI's behavior to aim for) to respond IN-CHARACTER that equals as much as possible ie matches the OOC goals of the player but utilizes as much of the "intelligence to adapt" of the player themselves OOC into the IC avatar.
So, starting with the IC, it's about making that signal more honest, isn't it? And to do that you flag the avatar which the player voluntarily does for an incentive (eg some bandit abilities ie an AI STATE change) Therefore you're matching the STATE of the avatar with INTENTION of the player = honest signal to the game world. Of course players are super intelligent AI and so will likely do "unexpected behaviors" ie exploits which compromise the signal. The flip side is that you get state of the art AI... . So the idea with flags is that the player has set an intention to perform an action and breaking that intention should come with a suitable cost and equally performing the intention for longer should have some extra incentives. Those costs could be short and long-term to the degree and type of behavior the player is really doing irrespective of their choice type, and hence eg alignment/reputation transition.
That's more or less the flag system along with it feeding into the other systems. Your alignment, reputation and flags are all informing different states your character is in which tells you and other players your likely behavior - as you'd get with a mob be it a dragon or mouse (in the...
Im glad you brought some of that up. The reason I say its themepark based concept is that...
It takes away the element of surprise
Just because someone is not flagged, you do not know their intent
Just because someone is flagged, you still dont know their intent
People will oppose it just because it exists.
We dont need a flagging system to do all the things the flagging system allows. People are going to play the way they see fit...
For instance, we can compare the Reputation system to Security Status in Eve. You can go up and down constantly and still do everything in the game. Sure it takes more work to go up as opposed to down, but it can still be done. (the reason I bring that up is the flagging system is used to avoid some rep losses)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I expect the first iteration of the system will be very restrictive and very punitive. In that sense, Xeen, you could say it is a themepark concept: But that's exactly where the balance of why many mmorpgs have been done that way to date - and not vica versa. So the effort for GW is to push towards sandbox direction where more "freedoms" are explored by devs and players. I think that's what the devs more or less said they envisage the early days to err on the side of caution, first?
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Whether you could see the flag or not... It was still a flag. I remember being able to tell if someone was flagged... but it had been what 15 years?@Lhan and AvenaOats - GW has modified the flagging system (which is good) but the flagging mechanic has been around since Diablo as far as I remember.
You are simply mistaken, either about Diablo or about what a PvP flag is intended to be.
Diablo multiplayer had a toggle which determined if you were attacking other players or not; there was no way (other than chat) to indicate your preference for or against PvP behavior directed at you.
Diablo 2 expanded very slightly: you could not change PvP status outside of town, and all other players could tell whether you were flagged or not. The intent was to allow players to quickly exit when someone went hostile; the implementation was spotty.
I haven't and won't play D3, due to DRM philosophical objections, but it's PvP system is literally tacked on as a seperate mode, according to research.
The only flag was whether or not your attacks damaged other player characters. That is intrinsically different from a flag that removes a disincentive for your own character to be attacked.
WoW flags characters as "participating in PvP" for performing certain actions. Characters so flagged are subject to PvP, while unflagged characters are immune from PvP. That is also intrinsically different from PFO, in that PFO characters will not be outright immune outside of very limited circumstances.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
People are going to play the way they see fit...
Exactly so. And the consequences will accrue and people will choose better informed. And the people will play as they prefer... and learn some more.
If well done, they will prefer to play in accord with the design rather than spitting into the wind.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
People are going to play the way they see fit...Exactly so. And the consequences will accrue and people will choose better informed. And the people will play as they prefer... and learn some more.
If well done, they will prefer to play in accord with the design rather than spitting into the wind.
Is there anything you might want to spit in the wind?
I could see wanting to spit a piece of gum into the wind, and then having it blow back into my mouth, and continue chewing. That would be a pretty neat trick, kids would be amazed, I bet.
I wonder what the wind velocity would have to be, on a standard piece (stick) of gum, in order to achieve such a feat?
I bet there is government grant money out there to be had, for just such a study.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If well done, they will prefer to play in accord with the design rather than spitting into the wind.
Or they will do both. Have multiple characters doing every aspect of the game... Which is how its done in most skill based games.
I know a guy in Eve that has 8 accounts... multiple skilled characters on each account... He has 8 logged in doing different things at once.
He PVP's with two, and the rest are either hauling or mining or whatever.
It will happen here as well. There will be guys that have a -7500 rep character and a +7500 rep character.
Which is why I say that people will play as they see fit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
By rights people should play as they see fit, but the design should promote beneficial behaviors and discourage destructive behaviors where 'destructive behaviors' mean acting in a manner contrary to the design goals.
All good stories have conflict: it is a necessity. In this your are right that we will need PvP across the spectrum of behaviors and in the market as in the wild. But considering the spectrum of possible expressions of PvP there are some that promote the game's design, whatever that turns out to be (and we do have strong clues), and some that would work contrary to the game's design.
Those that are contrary to the game's design should be very much like spitting into the wind. Not something anyone would choose to do twice.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Or those individuals will adapt to a new game and bring forward a new style. But in all likelihood people will play as they see fit and try and adapt the game to "their" play-style. It may be important to establish a standard of conduct early on so that it will be able to evolve and adapt. I expect to see a heavy amount of PvP as well as other activities such as RP, Crafts, Socializing, etc...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If well done, they will prefer to play in accord with the design rather than spitting into the wind.Or they will do both. Have multiple characters doing every aspect of the game... Which is how its done in most skill based games.
I know a guy in Eve that has 8 accounts... multiple skilled characters on each account... He has 8 logged in doing different things at once.
He PVP's with two, and the rest are either hauling or mining or whatever.
It will happen here as well. There will be guys that have a -7500 rep character and a +7500 rep character.
Which is why I say that people will play as they see fit.
I see two principally different ways that possibly could stop people from successfully using alts to "feed" their low-rep character.
One is to simply gimp anyone with extremely low rep, placing a reputation based cap on what tier of abilities that can be slotted for example. Call it divine intervention or something.
Another way is to punish trading with low-rep chars. If rep is lowered when trading with low-reps, the alts will lose rep. Now in order to stop people from just spawning new trader alts it could be made so that in order to access banks and auction houses you need a certain amount of paid XP below your belt, let's say a week of paid time or so. Also add a minimum reputation requirement to using these facilities. Combined that prevents spawning of new alts to feed a low-rep main since each alt requires an investment of time and money and it will quickly lose rep when dealing with the main, making it useless.
Or simply prevent extremely low-rep chars from trading completely.
Whether this would be beneficial to the game I haven't really pondered, just saying that it could be possible to prevent the scenario you describe if GW so wishes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah the # of a/c's is just the tip of the ice-berg. Iirc I saw a pic of x127 a/c's one player in EVE had or could have been chars.
1. It is going to happen is what Ryan's said.
2. GW may incentivise chars stay in x1 a/c for regular players
3. Multiple chars to have multiple experiences sounds like a positive result for game design and for GW revenue.
4. V low rep just means even more limitations/isolations on chars with that state/longer - hence more costly in terms of duration of?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I feel worried about that 'week of paid time' requirement for access to market and bank: that is paying for advantage.
Second, if EE is all subscription then everyone has paid time regardless of rep. That means the system will be untested until F2P is enabled in OE.
Paid XP equivalent to a week as a requirement for using bank and auction house: not the smoothest solution since many may want to use these facilities at day one. Pay for advantage? Not the way I see it, if 2.5 years of paid experience equals fullfillment of one single "class" then a "one week old" (in XP terms) alt will still be like an infant in comparison.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah the # of a/c's is just the tip of the ice-berg. Iirc I saw a pic of x127 a/c's one player in EVE had or could have been chars.
1. It is going to happen is what Ryan's said.
2. GW may incentivise chars stay in x1 a/c for regular players
3. Multiple chars to have multiple experiences sounds like a positive result for game design and for GW revenue.
4. V low rep just means even more limitations/isolations on chars with that state/longer - hence more costly in terms of duration of?
Multiple accounts can't be prevented.
Completely bypassing the reputation system by using alts to provide for a character that is too low rep to get supplies from settlements, can (if GW should so desire) be prevented.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Any fairly sophisticated Venture Company will have in place a system of alts and a reputation swap, using out of game communication. I've never liked the reputation minigame. People who can afford multiple accounts would be foolish not to take advantage of it, if they were serious about the game. Note that to have a series of characters, from high rep LG to low rep CE exchanging reputation as part of an organized chain, would not be griefing or even break the user's agreement. Establish a minimum ceiling rep score you want to maintain for X character, and give out the extra to allies who need it thru intermediaries. You could even sell it on a black market.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any fairly sophisticated Venture Company will have in place a system of alts and a reputation swap, using out of game communication. I've never liked the reputation minigame. People who can afford multiple accounts would be foolish not to take advantage of it, if they were serious about the game. Note that to have a series of characters, from high rep LG to low rep CE exchanging reputation as part of an organized chain, would not be griefing or even break the user's agreement. Establish a minimum ceiling rep score you want to maintain for X character, and give out the extra to allies who need it thru intermediaries. You could even sell it on a black market.
I'll believe it when I see it. I can think of a way to avoid this and I think the devs (who spend more time than I thinking about this stuff) can surely come up with even better ideas.
Say there is a cap on how much rep you can gain in a day. Say the cap is at a fraction of what you lose if you assault and kill an unflagged, high-rep character. That would make it impossible to combine anything but an extremely low reputation with certain playstyles.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So now we want to gimp the low rep players even more? They will already have skill training problems....
No.
It is discussing possibilities within a framework.
It does not seem to add anything beneficial.
Another idea:
It could be like Russian Roulette however, that indiscriminate pvp against higher rep characters, there's a chance of a worse death penalty?
I'm really just throwing ideas and seeing if they fit.
Don't worry I think I'm True Neutral on the PvP picket fence! ;)
Edit: Scrap that! How about the "worse death penalty Russian Roulette" chance for ANY character that pvp's outside the flags or whatever system the devs are encouraging the players to play by?
I know that may sound restrictive, Xeen, but it's thinking up an idea that allows freedom but reckless freedom vs responsible freedom. What do you think? Btw I like PvP a lot, I just want to see meaningful pvp as the devs suggest and equally help avoid themepark pvp ONLY = BORING. :)
Edit2: Gah, sorry for thread-jacking: Ok to refine further: How about each time a character dabbles in "wreckless pvp" they increase the Russian Roulette chance of worse death penalty each time until they eventually do die and it just stacks up waiting per death until it finally hits them? You could add that not only the chance goes up but the actual penalty cost goes up in some fashion??
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So now we want to gimp the low rep players even more? They will already have skill training problems....No.
It is discussing possibilities within a framework.
It does not seem to add anything beneficial.
Another idea:
It could be like Russian Roulette however, that indiscriminate pvp against higher rep characters, there's a chance of a worse death penalty?
I'm really just throwing ideas and seeing if they fit.
Don't worry I think I'm True Neutral on the PvP picket fence! ;)
I'm not sure if you are aware AvenaOats, but killing unflagged high-rep characters is already supposed to be more penalized than killing unflagged low-reps:
To give you an idea of how much these things will cost or grant in terms of reputation, killing a player with Reputation 0 who has no flags will cost about 500 Reputation, while killing an average low-reputation player (-5,000 reputation) will cost about 16 reputation and killing an average high-reputation player (5,000 reputation) will cost about 2,400. Note that killing Criminals, Attackers, people in wars, people with bounties, etc., all reduce or eliminate these reputation hits. So a high-reputation character who kills a low-reputation character without any flags is not going to suffer much for it, but if he does it repeatedly, the reputation hits will accumulate.
Having systems in place that makes life difficult for low-reps, e.g. hindering of training & gear replacement, should be enough to direct most players toward activities that don't bring large losses of reputation, as long as all loopholes in the system are covered (I'm giving GW the benefit of the doubt here).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Wurner: I made a few edits. I realize Reputation tracks that behavior and is worse in the above. But I'm thinking if that system is full of loop-holes THEN if looking at death penalty change might help?
As said, it's just looking at the idea. Perhaps hopefully the Reputation change will be more than adequate.
It really boils down to how successful Reputation loss (1) causes loss of time for those characters AND how successful the devs want players to (2) reduce their frequency of attacking non-flagged players. Perhaps live feedback is the only way to really know.
I really hope lots of decisions to pvp are still OPEN and don't want to restrict PvP but as well as "keeping players honest". In fact I have no qualms if a new player strays from a settlement too far and is ganked. That is a steep challenge for the aggressor (should be ie guards and enemy zone) and early lesson for the defenseless newb: Watch out! It's just it's frequency of happening should clearly be very low: Newbs are told: "Keep close little lamb! There's hungry wolves loose in the dark woods!" and the wolves are fully aware of the danger of going after a farmer's herd. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know that may sound restrictive, Xeen, but it's thinking up an idea that allows freedom but reckless freedom vs responsible freedom. What do you think? Btw I like PvP a lot, I just want to see meaningful pvp as the devs suggest and equally help avoid themepark pvp ONLY = BORING. :)
I never questioned that for you lol.
Anyone who attacks a high rep player indiscriminately will lose a larger chunk of rep. Granted they could get to a point that their reputation cannot get any lower.
I just think the death penalties for anyone is already enough. If you die, you lose alot of stuff. (threading wont be enough to save everything)
Everything for the game is subject to change.
Oh, and be careful sitting on a picket fence lol
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
True Neutrality (even with regard to PvP) isn't sitting on a fence, it is promoting balance.
Consider: Some people enjoy PvP already, and enjoy it more than any PvE ever imagined.
Other people intensely dislike PvP but love grinding mobs all day everyday so they can become more powerful and grind mobs all day that are similarly more powerful.
If you take any popular game and strip out all the PvE enthusiasts there are very few players left and the game fails.
If the PvE players remain and the PvP players leave because they are disallowed their favorite way to game, then the PvE players eventually grow bored and the game dies on the vine.
What is really needed is to increase the player base that enjoys PvP. That way we will have those who are dedicated to PvP plus all those who enjoy PvE and also enjoy playing the military, political, and economic forms of PvP that PFO should be rich with.
The best of all possible virtual worlds.
But in order to get there we have to assure that they will be attracted and not scared off, invested in the richness of the world being created (that has a nice ring to it: 'the world Being created') and a thriving PvP community that regulates itself so that the PvP population doesn't impale itself on its own daggers and destroy the game with their own predatory natures.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So now we want to gimp the low rep players even more? They will already have skill training problems....
High reputation chaotic and evil players have a place in this game but when I read comments like these...
My experience is that when people are constantly getting killed, they get angry and quit. We want the people who get angry and quit to be the people causing the problem in the first place.
This is Pathfinder Online not Lord of the Flies Online.
...it becomes fairly obvious to me that low reputation players aren't meant to be balanced. They're meant to be penalized until they change their behavior or quit the game.
Those coming here expecting Open World PvP to mean unlimited freedom to abuse others without consequences will be sorely disappointed. This game is Open World PvP because it allows played to engage each other in an open world setting, but the developers never promised or even hinted at that there would be no consequences for taking things too far.
The toxic community present in EVE and Darkfall isn't what the developers want, it isn't what most players will want, and it isn't what we've been promised by any stretch of the imagination.