Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm wandering through neutral territory, I see someone I don't know from an organization I'm not familiar with, or even better I see Hobbs, knowing he's a pacifist, and that he belongs to no organization other than The Guide Program. This person is clearly not aggressive, and I have no reason to suspect he has good loot on him, and even if I did I could SAD him. I'm just passing through and have no reason to defend this area. In short, there is not a single meaningful reason to kill this this guy other than. "Because I want to." I kill him.
That is RPKing.
If I had been at war with this guy's group, if I had issued a SAD, if this guy was wearing a PvP flag, if this had been inside territory I own and we had exiled him / ran a NBSI policy then not only would it not be RPKing, but I would take no rep hit. However with none of these, or any other condition met, I take a well deserved rep loss.
What if Hobs was killed because he was wearing a green hat, or he is short, or some other rationale that is somewhat consistent?
I could be playing a CE character that chooses a random color of the day, and he will attack anyone wearing that color. Or I could be a CE racists killer with something against Gnomes (maybe I'm upset that Halflings did not win the poll).
There are four things I have repeated about your concept of RPKing:
1. It is not necessary for you to know, understand or accept what the player's motives are for it not to be random.
2. It would be extremely rare for anyone to kill someone and not check them for loot. This also makes the act, not random, but the motive is established possibly after the fact.
3. There is no such thing as "Random Player Killing" if there is any reason (in game or out of game) for the player's motives.
4. RPKing is not a violation of Ryan Dancey's rules for how PFO could or should be played.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think there's something to be said for this imo. I think younger players want to learn and explore themes and value "honesty" - you can't hide the darker side of things in life forever. That does not mean glorifying them, but certainly showing tensions and unease in a fantasy land that is in the full throes of civil wars where looting and...I'm not advocating a rated "R", but PFO probably would be, and should be "Mature".The Pathfinder brand will not appear on products targeted for mature audiences only. Period.I am not sure at this point if we'll even bother with ESRB or other ratings. They're only necessary if you want to sell a game through traditional Rick & mortar retailers.ESRB rating or not, Paizo will not be approving content that would be inappropriate for the average 13-year-old.And so, by virtue of this, we should assume that the Hell Knights will not be associated with slavery?
There will be no drug or alcohol use; No prostitution or skimpily clad Priestesses of Calistria; nothing too scary or violent, certainly not the depiction of bloodshed in combat... I guess they are shooting for the D&D Cartoon TV series?
I do hope they realize that was is considered PG-13 now, would have been rated "R" in the 1970's, so perhaps there may be some hope that we won't be playing My Little Pony Online in a Pathfinder skin.
I don't even expect Age of Conan, but how about the Elder Scrolls series level of mature themes?
Oh...and then there is this....
Are they really sure they want to market PFO to the target audience of 13 and up?
I think the legal mess is the bigger issue than trying to censor and protect the younger players. I think the most appropriate direction might be to hint at things without being explicit. I'm sure we'll get enough darkness and depravity out of the player base without having to add a whole lot to the standard backdrop.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if Hobs was killed because he was wearing a green hat, or he is short, or some other rationale that is somewhat consistent?
I could be playing a CE character that chooses a random color of the day, and he will attack anyone wearing that color. Or I could be a CE racists killer with something against Gnomes (maybe I'm upset that Halflings did not win the poll).
Then your rationale is random and meaningless itself. Those just given sound less like legitimate RP and more like a thin RP excuse given in an attempt to justify your RPKing. The reputation mechanic doesn't need to waste it's time reading your shallow justifications. It just gives you the rep hit. Maybe it's time to consider playing another role.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
He may have good loot, which is enough no matter how you look at it. If Im LE and cant SAD, or if I do not have the Flag up.
Not random
still lose reputation
may lose L (acceptable)We can discuss this till we all die... It will not change our opinions...
If you want to rob people pick the appropriate alignment. A LE character shouldn't be concerned with the loot they are carrying as it would be unlawful to take it. That's like saying "I killed him because he was a TEO member but lost reputation because we weren't at war! That wasn't random!!!!"
No, it wasn't. But it also wasn't the game's fault you didn't use the mechanics it provides you to avoid rep loss.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Xeen, I don't think anyone's arguing with you if you accept that there will be Reputation and Alignment Consequences. For some reason, though, there still seems to be a concerted effort to try to get the devs to do away with the Reputation system.
Not do away with it, I haven't said that nor as Xeen. I say apply it differently, and in some cases more severely.
I hope we can eventually come to a consensus on a few points:
Alignment is not a consequence, the shifts are accepted, desired and appropriate based on a player's actions with his/her character.
Reputation is the measure of how a player plays with his/her character within the rules established by Goblin Works.
Reputation is purely a measure of PvP interactions. Reputation should never be impacted by PVE interactions. PVE is the domain of Alignment.
Now to the harder part of discussing options, solutions:
My suggestions:
1. All flag vs. flag interactions grants Reputation to both parties. The values must be equal, to avoid anyone throwing the match for a higher reputation boost.
2. Merely flying a PVP flag will not grant Reputation boost over time, only when it is put to use.
3. Attacking an Unflagged target, while not flagged, gains you a reputation hit.
4. Attacking an Unflagged target, while flag, still gains a reputation hit, but less so than if you too were unflagged.
5. Certain activities can only be done through the use of PVP Flags (ie. SAD from Outlaw; Caravan from Traveler; etc.)
6. When a player's character reaches -7500 Reputation a report is automatically generated, to be reviewed by a GW GM. While at this -7500 the character is tagged with a semi permanent flag "Suspect". This "Suspect" flag will fly for a minimum of 1 hour of game time, and until the -7500 is returned to -7499.
During the period that the "Suspect Flag", any flagged player can attack the "Suspect" with a double reputation bonus for(the Suspect gets zero), and no Alignment shift unless he/she chooses.
If after investigating the GM decides that the "Suspect" was griefing, then the "Suspect Flag" can be left in place for a 24 hour time period.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Xeen, I don't think anyone's arguing with you if you accept that there will be Reputation and Alignment Consequences. For some reason, though, there still seems to be a concerted effort to try to get the devs to do away with the Reputation system.Not do away with it, I haven't said that nor as Xeen. I say apply it differently, and in some cases more severely.
I hope we can eventually come to a consensus on a few points:
Alignment is not a consequence, the shifts are accepted, desired and appropriate based on a player's actions with his/her character.
Reputation is the measure of how a player plays with his/her character within the rules established by Goblin Works.
Reputation is purely a measure of PvP interactions. Reputation should never be impacted by PVE interactions. PVE is the domain of Alignment.
Now to the harder part of discussing options, solutions:
My suggestions:
1. All flag vs. flag interactions grants Reputation to both parties. The values must be equal, to avoid anyone throwing the match for a higher reputation boost.
2. Merely flying a PVP flag will not grant Reputation boost over time, only when it is put to use.
3. Attacking an Unflagged target, while not flagged, gains you a reputation hit.
4. Attacking an Unflagged target, while flag, still gains a reputation hit, but less so than if you too were unflagged.
5. Certain activities can only be done through the use of PVP Flags (ie. SAD from Outlaw; Caravan from Traveler; etc.)
6. When a player's character reaches -7500 Reputation a report is automatically generated, to be reviewed by a GW GM. While at this -7500 the character is tagged with a semi permanent flag "Suspect". This "Suspect" flag will fly for a minimum of 1 hour of game time, and until the -7500 is returned to -7499.
During the period that the "Suspect Flag", any flagged player can attack the "Suspect" with a double reputation bonus for(the Suspect gets zero), and no Alignment shift unless he/she...
I like it mostly.
I have a feeling that it will be like Eve's security system. The scale (Eve's) is -10 to 10... Negative being criminal.
Above -2 means a whole lot of nothing
At -2 in 1.0 security space, NPC's attack you
at -2.5 in 0.9 security space, NPC's attack you
at -3 in 0.8 security space, NPC's attack you
so on and son on
Till you hit -5, then anyone and everyone can attack you anywhere, and you will be attacked by all NPC's in high sec space... and gate guns in low sec space.
How that completely translates in PFO... I dont know what they have planned for the zones so no answer.
It should be along the lines of... you become an open target to anyone at a certain negative rep number...
Also, a kill log should be created like kill mails... only real way to see griefing if it is happening.
Report generated, look at kill mail logs and see
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I hope we can eventually come to a consensus on a few points:
Alignment is not a consequence, the shifts are accepted, desired and appropriate based on a player's actions with his/her character.
Reputation is the measure of how a player plays with his/her character within the rules established by Goblin Works.
Reputation is purely a measure of PvP interactions. Reputation should never be impacted by PVE interactions. PVE is the domain of Alignment.
I don't think we'll come to consensus on those points, except for the last one.
I am a big fan of there being in-game mechanical benefits to staying at the Lawful and Good end of the Alignment spectrum, with Chaotic Evil generally being a bad place to be.
Reputation, to me, is a measure of how well other players like and appreciate what you're doing.
And while I agree Reputation should not be impacted by PvE, I'm fairly inclined to suggest that Reputation only ever increase as a function of time, with all in-game impacts on Reputation being negative.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What about your role? Doesn't the reputation system take away the role of the good heroes? If the bad folks are punished and discouraged by the system what is the purpose of a paladin player for example?Then your rationale is random and meaningless itself. Those just given sound less like legitimate RP and more like a thin RP excuse given in an attempt to justify your RPKing. The reputation mechanic doesn't need to waste it's time reading your shallow justifications. It just gives you the rep hit. Maybe it's time to consider playing another role.What if Hobs was killed because he was wearing a green hat, or he is short, or some other rationale that is somewhat consistent?
I could be playing a CE character that chooses a random color of the day, and he will attack anyone wearing that color. Or I could be a CE racists killer with something against Gnomes (maybe I'm upset that Halflings did not win the poll).
The theory is that there will be enough bad folks despite the punishments.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Reputation is the measure of how a player plays with his/her character within the rules established by Goblin Works.
Reputation is purely a measure of PvP interactions. Reputation should never be impacted by PVE interactions. PVE is the domain of Alignment.
Reputation is a meta-gaming measure of how well/often you play within the mechanics defined by GW as "positive gameplay". There is nothing in that definition that makes it specific to PvP. If GW determines there are positive and negative ways to enjoy PvE, then there should definitely be Reputation consequences to "negative" PvE play. Some examples I have seen from other games, kill stealing, aggro dragging, pathing exploits (not that I think playing smart should be penalized), etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What about your role? Doesn't the reputation system take away the role of the good heroes? If the bad folks are punished and discouraged by the system what is the purpose of a paladin player for example?Then your rationale is random and meaningless itself. Those just given sound less like legitimate RP and more like a thin RP excuse given in an attempt to justify your RPKing. The reputation mechanic doesn't need to waste it's time reading your shallow justifications. It just gives you the rep hit. Maybe it's time to consider playing another role.What if Hobs was killed because he was wearing a green hat, or he is short, or some other rationale that is somewhat consistent?
I could be playing a CE character that chooses a random color of the day, and he will attack anyone wearing that color. Or I could be a CE racists killer with something against Gnomes (maybe I'm upset that Halflings did not win the poll).
I have asked that before, no one (people on this forum, not devs) cares about that.
Sure, there are theories about it happening anyway, but you are correct... It does take the RPG out of MMORPG.
Really though, it just gives some that warm and fuzzy feeling.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What about your role? Doesn't the reputation system take away the role of the good heroes? If the bad folks are punished and discouraged by the system what is the purpose of a paladin player for example?Then your rationale is random and meaningless itself. Those just given sound less like legitimate RP and more like a thin RP excuse given in an attempt to justify your RPKing. The reputation mechanic doesn't need to waste it's time reading your shallow justifications. It just gives you the rep hit. Maybe it's time to consider playing another role.What if Hobs was killed because he was wearing a green hat, or he is short, or some other rationale that is somewhat consistent?
I could be playing a CE character that chooses a random color of the day, and he will attack anyone wearing that color. Or I could be a CE racists killer with something against Gnomes (maybe I'm upset that Halflings did not win the poll).
You can rob without reputation loss, you can start wars and build an imperialist regime without reputation loss, you can claim a highly used hex and adopt a NBSI policy without reputation loss, likely sabotaging other group's development indexes will not cause reputation loss, and I expect to just see this list grow and grow.
The most meaningful player interaction I've ever seen is a series of four server wide wars sparked when our group which was chaotic good at the time, declared war on a lawful-neutral group because we didn't like their taxation policy.
Not bad guys are griefers, not all bad guys RPK, and not all wars are between good guys and bad guys. The reputation system should make things so that it isn't like the entire server is constantly at war with everyone except their allies, but it will leave plenty of room for war and conflict if that's what you desire. It really just pulls a considerable amount of pressure off those who don't desire it. Not all the pressure, but a lot of it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What if Hobs was killed because he was wearing a green hat, or he is short, or some other rationale that is somewhat consistent?
How do I keep being dragged into PvP discussions?
And for the record, I do't wear green or hats. The short part I can't help. If I'm being targeted because I'm short, that killer will be a very busy guy in a world with Halflings, Dwarves, and Gnomes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What if Hobs was killed because he was wearing a green hat, or he is short, or some other rationale that is somewhat consistent?
How do I keep being dragged into PvP discussions?
And for the record, I do't wear green or hats. The short part I can't help. If I'm being targeted because I'm short, that killer will be a very busy guy in a world with Halflings, Dwarves, and Gnomes.
There won't be Halfings for a while!! Doesn't that just make you want to kill a Gnome?
And, for the record, I did not drag you into this, Andius did. It seems he has some latent aggression towards you... LOL /joking
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well to give Hobbs a break I offer myself as another know pacifist in this community. Heck I am even a gnome so the short jokes would work as well. I also do not wear hats but I do have green hair and I like ribbons.
/waves at Hobbs us Gnomes do have to stick together especially us pacifist ones.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment is not a consequence, the shifts are accepted, desired and appropriate based on a player's actions with his/her character.
Picking at this one point: I don't think that word means what you're using it to mean here.
Consequences are not necessarily negative or unwanted.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no such thing as "Random Player Killing" if there is any reason (in game or out of game) for the player's motives.In short, there is not a single meaningful reason to kill this this guy other than. "Because I want to." I kill him.
That is RPKing.
There has been so much pointless bickering over the term RPK.
If what Andius describes should not be called R-PKing, let's call it something else like P-PKing or Q-PKing.He is describing a phenomenon, calling his arguments unvalid because you interpret the terminology differently does not mean that the concept isn't valid of discussion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But...but...Bluddwolf and Xeen say they don't need justifications! That sounds easy.
Perhaps that's the answer to Hobs's question, now that I've thought on it.
LOL?
The point we are trying to make is.
1)You dont need to know the justifications
2)The justifications may be an RP reason
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, though I played a pacifist for years in Ultima Online (never even attacked a mob), Hobs will not be a pacifist. Though I have no intention of attacking anyone, I fully expect to help quell escalations that threaten the safety of settlements (mostly healing the real warriors) and I will be very protective of the new players that I am escorting as a Guide.
True, when not acting as a Guide, if I'm accosted in my travels, you can hack away. I won't be carrying anything worth taking, but have at. However, be warned...I'll be back to engage you in a lengthy discussion about why you feel it's necessary to kill people. As a follower of Sarenae, it's my life's work to try to get you to see the error of such habits, and I can be very persistent.
In a forest somewhere in Golarion:
PK1: Here comes another one...get ready.
PK2: Wait a minute...we just killed that guy.
PK1: Why's he coming back? He didn't have anything on his body to recover.
PK2: Fine, kill him again. We'll teach him a lesson.
PK3: Hang on... Oh crap! I've heard of this guy. He'll talk your ear off.
PK1: Let him. Hard to talk for long with a sword in your gut.
PK3: No, you don't get it. He won't quit. He'll keep coming back. He never quits.
PK2: That's crazy. Doesn't he have anything better to do than annoy people when they're trying to play a game?
PK1: This sounds bad. Let's get outta here!
Hobs: Gentlemen...good to see you're still here. I wanted to have a word with you if I may. *smiles*
PK3: RUN!
PK2: AaaAAaaa!!!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Since UNC is doing a terrible job arguing for reasons to kill someone outside the reputation system I'll do it for them. Some reasons far more meaningful than "they were were wearing a green hat" or "because" would be:
• They were talking crap in-game / on the forums but don't belong to a company you can feud with.
• Your company is unable to afford the influence to maintain feuds with all the organizations you have beef with.
• They are an alt of a player you have a major grievance with, for instance If I killed Bluddwolf's monk alt.
• You have reason to believe they are supplying your enemies.
These reasons are really not random or meaningless. But I'll take a reputation hit for them. The fact is that while these reasons are pretty legitimate, allowing me to pursue them all totally free of consequence is unhealthy for the game. It's obvious reading the responses to this topic that most PFO supporters don't want consequence free PvP outside wars / flags etc. My intention there was to create system that protected PvEers from rampant slaughter by PvP types while appeasing PVPers with plenty of room for destruction but the majority of the community hated it because they loathe the idea of consequence free PvP anywhere in-game.
The reputation system doesn't ban you the moment you step out of line, or even lead to a ban at all. What it does is give progressively harsher and harsher penalties the farther it drops. That means when you see that particularly mouthy unflagged player you will get the choice. Is it worth the rep loss to kill them or not? I expect that most players will violate the reputation system on occasion, and not be penalized too harshly.
But if you are a loose cannon, a green hat RPer (My new term for people who use flimsy RP excuses to justify toxic behavior), or are just out killing for the hell of it, you'll be accumulating a lot more kills than someone only killing outside the rep system for fairly valid reasons.
Ultimately catering to people who are here for a fun Open World Sandbox experience with strong elements of PvP conflicts mixed in is going to be more successful than catering to loose cannons, GH-RPers, and "Because I want to" PKers.
I think those arguing the other side don't realize why WoW-Clones are so hated and unable to replicate WoW's success. It's not the WoW part, it's the clone part. Ultimately PFO without a meaningful alignment and reputation system is just an EVE clone with a fantasy skin and some minor alterations / gimmicks. EVE players will come, get bored quickly, and return to EVE (Like I'm honestly expecting UNC to do.) PFO with a meaningful alignment / reputation system is a game with a completely different nature and target audience that will be loyal to PFO over EVE because the experience is much more in line with what they want.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
..Alignment is not a consequence...
Intended or chosen alignment, true. Active alignment, false.
Your actual alignment is a consequence of your choices regardless of your intentions except insofar as you can restrict the automatic drift toward goodness.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm with Decius Brutus in pointing out that consequence is inherently neither positive nor negative. Active alignment is an effect caused by the player character's choices. In that consequence results from precedence as effect results from cause, active alignment is a consequence whether desired or undesired.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But...but...Bluddwolf and Xeen say they don't need justifications! That sounds easy.
Perhaps that's the answer to Hobs's question, now that I've thought on it.
That is not true Jazzlvraz..
I did not say we do not need justification, what I said was that our justification does not have to be known,accepted or approved by anyone else (accept for the GM).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
EVE players will come, get bored quickly, and return to EVE (Like I'm honestly expecting UNC to do.) ...
You can expect it, or perhaps even hope for it, but I'm paid in full for the first two years.
You can expect that the UNC will be bringing as much PVP as we want, and probably more than you can curtail.
Outlaws can use the SAD system to "attack" unflagged PCs. We can use ambush to attack those that are flagged PVP. Reputation will not be a factor, and alignment never was.
I think it is more likely that you will not remain, if PFO turns into the same kind of game that all of the other Open World PVP games are. Unfortunately for you, EVE is a shining example of how successful one can be.
There will never be boredom for bandits and assassins, for as long as there are people to rob and people to kill.
As I stated earlier, if the UNC should ever take control of a settlement. We will exploit it to its fullest; destroy its Lawful and or Good structures; replace them with chaotic and evil structures or just leave them as stinking holes; we will throw our doors open to the scum of the River Kingdoms. We will leave it in mush worse shape than we found it and then sell it off to the highest bidder.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The point we are trying to make is.
1)You dont need to know the justifications
2)The justifications may be an RP reason
And the point we are trying to make, and I include Ryan in this, is that when people are constantly getting killed, they get angry and quit. It doesn't matter what the killer's actual intention is. The only thing that matters is the victim's perception of the killer's intent. If the victim believes it's random, they get angry and quit. But we don't want them to get angry and quit, we want the jerks who made them feel that way to get angry and quit (or better yet, start playing with a little more compassion for other human beings).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The reputation system doesn't ban you the moment you step out of line, or even lead to a ban at all. What it does is give progressively harsher and harsher penalties the farther it drops. That means when you see that particularly mouthy unflagged player you will get the choice. Is it worth the rep loss to kill them or not? I expect that most players will violate the reputation system on occasion, and not be penalized too harshly.
I would add that you lose less Reputation for killing lower Reputation characters. It seems very likely to me that the kinds of players who will tempt me to kill them even when they're unflaggged will likely have very low Reputations :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Warning: Unintended essay ahead
There are positive consequences too. For example, if you like metaphilosophical discussions, all you have to do is keep killing Hobs. His persistence in returning is a positive consequence for you. Likewise, if you are a complete jerk and simply want to kill PVE folks 'for teh lulz' and to 'collect tears', well, then any hatemail, death threats, bounties, and forum whines are positive consequences.
These jerks are the primary target of reputation system, and as currently sketched it does a partial job in combating them. They won't generally care that they are losing reputation, many may even see that as a badge of honor. The alignment, many won't give two shakes of a wet stick about that.
Even though they can't be kept from gaining skill points, by restricting training available to the dwellers of the lower end of the rep scale they should/will be at a distinct disadvantage. It's not enough though. When somebody hits -7500, there needs to be a consequence.
I like the automatic assignment of a PVP flag given to -7500 characters. This flag should stick with them until they grind their reputation back up to above -4000. Under this flag reputation gain should be assessed on a log scale, it should take a lot of clawing to get rid of it, which means a lot of meaningful PVP. Likewise, under this flag, you cannot fly any other PVP flags, and you may only gain reputation through PVP with others who are flying a flag and have positive reputation. Granting extra rep for killing those thusly flagged, however, is highly exploitable and is not something I think should be done.
There are still ways to game this, though. Simply set up an alt, get them positive reputation, and have him kill you repeatedly. Not exactly the result desired since this is in no way meaningful. So here's my idea.
If you hit -7500 and get this flag, you must still grind your rep back to -4000 to get it removed. You may not gain rep through normal means, however. In order to gain rep under this flag, you must fight those who you killed, while they are flying a PVP flag. You may only fight them a number of times equal to the number of times you killed them to gain this rep.
Even with all this there are still ways to game the system. What is there to prevent a couple of friends from donning PVP flags, fighting each other and maxing their rep, then going on a killing spree until they are -7400, and repeating? There need to be some time constraints on reputation gain, otherwise it becomes a bottable or AFK process. Gaining reputation needs to require the individual to be present and active as well. Flying an Outlaw flag while you are logged in, in the hideout, but AFK because you are logged into EVE or MWO shouldn't gain any rep.
Handling reputation loss is easy. The situations that this happens in are easily definable. So how should reputation be gained? Well, through meaningful PVP of course! Should reputation be gained through active events, or should it be through potential events as well? What is meaningful PVP? How can meaningful PVP be separated and identified as distinct from attempts to game the system?
Here are some meaningful PVP encounters:
Bandit vs Traveler or Teamster on the road
2 companies under feud
Settlements at war
Raids on POI or gathering camps
Assassinations (and attempts)
Bounty Hunters vs Outlaws
Settlement Guardians vs Trespassers during wartime
Escalation Defense*
Some of these may not involve two parties that are individually PVP flagged, but they are valid encounters. Raids on POI/gathering camps, Bounty Hunters vs Outlaws, Wartime trespassers, Escalation Defense, and Assassinations all may thrust a potentially unprepared, or unwilling participant into a PVP situation. Some solutions might be:
Raids on POI/gathering camps - The raiders fly a 'Raider' flag. As with most PVP flags, this means anyone may attack them without a reputation penalty, but the raider may not initiate combat against anyone not flying a PVP flag. A Raid is similar to Stand and Deliver, but issued against a static target rather than a character. The raiders may take a percentage of the goods from the structure, or they may choose to attack it to destroy it.
Bounty hunters vs Outlaws - If someone has a bounty on them, they've done something to deserve it. A bounty hunter may attack their target, regardless of the target's PVP flag status, as though they were flying a flag. If you have a bounty against you, you shouldn't be able to assume you are safe anywhere.
Wartime Trespassers - Neutral parties in a war zone are not neutral. Entering a war zone should provide a warning beforehand. Anyone in a warzone is a valid target.
Assassinations - Someone targeted by an assassin receives a warning that they are being observed and targeted. They have an option to get out.
Escalation Defense - If someone is attempting to maintain an escalation to use it to harass an area, it stands to reason that they may want to keep people from directly combating it. Escalation defenders flag themselves for PVP in an escalation area, and may attack anyone in the escalation area. If you are attempting to quell an escalation, you should prepare to meet not only the NPCs, but also their PC defenders. Note that this Escalation Defense does not necessarily mean that the escalation NPCs will ignore the defenders.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like the automatic assignment of a PVP flag given to -7500 characters.
When you put it that way, it's a very attractive option. I very much like the idea that characters at rock bottom Reputation are automatically flagged such that killing them is consequence-free - possibly even to the point that it's not a Crime where killing is normally a Crime.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And the point we are trying to make, and I include Ryan in this, is that when people are constantly getting killed, they get angry and quit. It doesn't matter what the killer's actual intention is. The only thing that matters is the victim's perception of the killer's intent. If the victim believes it's random, they get angry and quit. But we don't want them to get angry and quit, we want the jerks who made them feel that way to get angry and quit (or better yet, start playing with a little more compassion for other human beings).The point we are trying to make is.
1)You dont need to know the justifications
2)The justifications may be an RP reason
If someone is constantly getting killed, they are doing something wrong.
-Traveling in the wilderness alone
-Traveling the highways alone
-Attacking people
Just a couple simple examples.
Also, the "victims" perception of the killers intent...
That can be twisted just as easily as the "killers" intent.
I saw someone do it in Eve. An idiot out in 0.0 shooting a npc pirates on a gate, fleet warps in, he blows up, and he runs to the forums with a massive rage quit post.... "I got high sec ganked, now I quit." One of his killers posts his kill mail, and he never posted in that thread again.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like the automatic assignment of a PVP flag given to -7500 characters.When you put it that way, it's a very attractive option. I very much like the idea that characters at rock bottom Reputation are automatically flagged such that killing them is consequence-free - possibly even to the point that it's not a Crime where killing is normally a Crime.
That is like giving people who like candy a list of everyone else who likes candy !
Someone with no flag is semi-mysterious, but someone with the Neg75 flag, man you'd know they have done a lot of PKing ... it's a free background check for evil settlement/company applicants.
I think the bottom of the rep ladder should be enough of a penalty by itself. Why else do all that work of having a rep system ?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like the automatic assignment of a PVP flag given to -7500 characters.When you put it that way, it's a very attractive option. I very much like the idea that characters at rock bottom Reputation are automatically flagged such that killing them is consequence-free - possibly even to the point that it's not a Crime where killing is normally a Crime.
6. When a player's character reaches -7500 Reputation a report is automatically generated, to be reviewed by a GW GM. While at this -7500 the character is tagged with a semi permanent flag "Suspect". This "Suspect" flag will fly for a minimum of 1 hour of game time, and until the -7500 is returned to -7499.
During the period that the "Suspect Flag", any flagged player can attack the "Suspect" with a double reputation bonus for(the Suspect gets zero), and no Alignment shift unless he/she chooses.
If after investigating the GM decides that the "Suspect" was griefing, then the "Suspect Flag" can be left in place for a 24 hour time period.
Funny, when I say it you ignored it Nihimon. Sintaqx agrees with it, and you think it's a wonderful idea.
That is ok though, because Sintaqx is UNC, so it is good to have you agree with at least one aspect of our hopes, beliefs and plans.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And the point we are trying to make, and I include Ryan in this, is that when people are constantly getting killed, they get angry and quit. It doesn't matter what the killer's actual intention is. The only thing that matters is the victim's perception of the killer's intent. If the victim believes it's random, they get angry and quit. But we don't want them to get angry and quit, we want the jerks who made them feel that way to get angry and quit (or better yet, start playing with a little more compassion for other human beings).The point we are trying to make is.
1)You dont need to know the justifications
2)The justifications may be an RP reason
So you would rather have someone who makes a false assumption, and one prone to rage quitting, to stay and have the falsely accused quit or change the way he/she legitimately plays the game.
This is the epitome of the toxic care bearism that plagues otherwise good Open World PVP games. Worrying about rage quitters is a waste of time. Good riddance is the appropriate response, and I have never known a forum (and I was an official forum moderator for Bethesda Softworks) that does not immediately delete "I Quit Threads".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In a game designed to revolve around Settlement vs Settlement conflict, the pvp-avoiding gatherer is a much more valuable role than the roving murderer.
An MMO will never lack for players that are willing to go out attacking and killing other characters. If all the roving murderers quit the game because its too "carebear" you can simply increase the in-game incentives for PVP conflict.
An MMO that consistently drives off new players and the players that like to build things up instead of tear them down will soon find itself an empty wasteland.
Especially in a game with the premise that "everything worth having is built by the players" you need a lot more worker bees than you need parasitic wasps to have a healthy ecosystem.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Funny, when I say it you ignored it Nihimon.
When you presented your idea, the part that I liked was buried in the middle of a bunch of stuff I didn't like. When Sintaqx stated it, he led a paragraph with a sentence dedicated to only the part that I liked, so it was easy to pull it out and agree with it.
So you would rather have someone who makes a false assumption, and one prone to rage quitting, to stay and have the falsely accused quit or change the way he/she legitimately plays the game.
This is the epitome of the toxic care bearism that plagues otherwise good Open World PVP games. Worrying about rage quitters is a waste of time. Good riddance is the appropriate response, and I have never known a forum (and I was an official forum moderator for Bethesda Softworks) that does not immediately delete "I Quit Threads".
Ryan has promised us that Goblinworks is "well aware of the kind of non-fun experiences that PvP has created in some games, and we think we have lots of ideas on ways to keep misbehavior under control in Pathfinder Online". I would rather he keep that promise than allow PFO to have the same kind of PvP experience I can find in EVE or Darkfall.
It is my enduring hope that PFO will be the kind of game my wife will play with me. In order for that to happen, Ryan is going to have to deliver on that promise. If he doesn't, I doubt that my wife and I will be the only ones who decide we'd rather not be "other people's content".
One final note on "rage-quitters". If I joined a pickup game of basketball in a local park, and the "regulars" consistently fouled me - throwing elbows, stepping on my feet, shoving their hands in my face and eyes - all without ever facing any consequences for doing so, so that I decided to leave and not come back, I think only an a~+%~** bully would characterize that as me "rage-quitting".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Funny, when I say it you ignored it Nihimon.When you presented your idea, the part that I liked was buried in the middle of a bunch of stuff I didn't like. When Sintaqx stated it, he led a paragraph with a sentence dedicated to only the part that I liked, so it was easy to pull it out and agree with it.
So you would rather have someone who makes a false assumption, and one prone to rage quitting, to stay and have the falsely accused quit or change the way he/she legitimately plays the game.
This is the epitome of the toxic care bearism that plagues otherwise good Open World PVP games. Worrying about rage quitters is a waste of time. Good riddance is the appropriate response, and I have never known a forum (and I was an official forum moderator for Bethesda Softworks) that does not immediately delete "I Quit Threads".
Ryan has promised us that Goblinworks is "well aware of the kind of non-fun experiences that PvP has created in some games, and we think we have lots of ideas on ways to keep misbehavior under control in Pathfinder Online". I would rather he keep that promise than allow PFO to have the same kind of PvP experience I can find in EVE or Darkfall.
It is my enduring hope that PFO will be the kind of game my wife will play with me. In order for that to happen, Ryan is going to have to deliver on that promise. If he doesn't, I doubt that my wife and I will be the only ones who decide we'd rather not be "other people's content".
One final note on "rage-quitters". If I joined a pickup game of basketball in a local park, and the "regulars" consistently fouled me - throwing elbows, stepping on my feet, shoving their hands in my face and eyes - all without ever facing any consequences for doing so, so that I decided to leave and not come back, I...
Really?
Your going to compare RL to a game?
Also, if you do not want to be other peoples content, maybe look for a non sandbox MMO to play.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In a game designed to revolve around Settlement vs Settlement conflict, the pvp-avoiding gatherer is a much more valuable role than the roving murderer.
An MMO will never lack for players that are willing to go out attacking and killing other characters. If all the roving murderers quit the game because its too "carebear" you can simply increase the in-game incentives for PVP conflict.
An MMO that consistently drives off new players and the players that like to build things up instead of tear them down will soon find itself an empty wasteland.
Especially in a game with the premise that "everything worth having is built by the players" you need a lot more worker bees than you need parasitic wasps to have a healthy ecosystem.
You got that close...
The gatherer will bring you the supplies.
The roving murderer will keep the settlement yours.
The are both needed....
Except the pvp gatherer will be more useful then the non pvp gatherer, and on par with the pure PVPer.
Non pvp gatherers will become a liability in the long run.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really?
Your going to compare RL to a game?
No. Nihimon compared the game of basketball, a structured conflict between opposing players, to the game of PFO, a structured conflict between opposing players.
*edit* took out an unnecessary line
Comparing it to real life, would be if he said "you elbowed me in a game of basketball so I'm charging you with aggravated assault".
Both games have carefully constructed sets of rules designed to keep the game safe and enjoyable for all participants. Both games will have layers of social convention on top of those rules, such that some actions may lie within the limits of the rules, but still be considered unacceptable by some groups.
The rules of basketball are the same, but fouls get called very differently depending if the players are a middle school JV team, or a pickup game of adults.
Actually, the more I think about the analogy, the more I like it.
For example, in basketball it is possible to distinguish between a foul for a legitimate reason, such as to stop an easy 3-point attempt, and a foul made for sheer vindictiveness. Both are treated the same by the rules, but one is identifiable as "toxic", the exact point some of us have been trying to make about non-consensual PVP.