Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are fighting tooth and nail in the wrong battle. You are confusing what I want, with what I expect, with what I will accept. The three are not the same, as you will likely acknowledge.
Yes, you are quite right, Bludd. But I think you are confusing who, or rather what, I am fighting. It's certainly not you personally. It's the perception, championed by you, that this is how it's always been; "Lord of the Flies" is all we can expect. I don't think that's true, and I don't think we should accept it.
The thing is Bludd - every time you say that this is your expectation, you make it just that bit more likely to happen. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Those who don't want that kind of thing will read your posts (or others like them) and be turned off a game that they may in reality adore. Those who want the bloodbath will be encouraged to stay. It just carries more weight when you post, because you are - at the moment - the "face" of the bogeyman for many. In short - your posts matter.
Somebody, I forget who, said in another thread that we can set the culture of the game early on in EE, and that this may continue to set the tone come OE. I know from my own experience of WoW and other games that different servers of the same game can feel vastly different due to what is or is not accepted as a norm by the population as a whole. Those who don't like it will find another server (or game). It's perfectly possible that this will be the same in PfO, and I think we have an opportunity, no, an obligation, to try to see that this happens.
I'm also saddened that when I called you on "griefing the griefers" in an earlier thread, you denied you'd said it. You have now stated clearly that that is exactly what you'll do. I'm saddened because that just leads to more escalation of griefing - "an eye for an eye will leave everyone blind." PfO is a game - games have rules. In sports the refs administer these rules, not the players; here we have GoblinWorks. This is not real life, and leaving griefers to be dealt with by the devs is not an assault on anyone's pride, manhood or anything else. It's just the rules of a game. And griefing them back is just the equivalent of "He did it first, Miss" in the playground. No excuse, and no help whatsoever.
But mainly - it's a game. And games should be fun. For everyone. Even that idiot who griefed me last week. If he's still here, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. But if he griefs again - I will report him - with evidence, and leave it up to GW.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A "Eye for an Eye" does not mean a broken rule for a broken rule, or at least it does not mean that for me.
Actually I can see my retribution being ten-fold worse, or at least that is what I would advertise and try to carry out, but still within the rules.
If I am greifed as a Noob, by a veteran, I can't really grief him back in the same manner can I? So perhaps an "Eye for an Eye" is a bit too literal.
I would make anyone who griefs me or one of my company, sorely regret it and perhaps even beg for peace.
You may consider that griefing the griefers, but I will not take revenge off the table. The willingness to exact great reprisal for any assault is a valuable deterrent, or it will at least give one pause.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I shall endeavor.
The problem is, if my post that your views are naive and uninsightful are to be removed, how about calling me "pro griefer"?
Or purposefully trying to implicate others into an argument that they took no part in?
Try to endeavor to take criticism for when you are wrong Nihimon.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your simple solution is assuming that GW does not plan to let Settlements control who can and who cannot train at their training houses... GW already said that settlements will control it.Actually, it's based on my ability to read.
Reputation gating isn't really about what your town wants. There are just buildings that you can't install or keep running if they're going to have disreputable folks around them.Frankly, I'm glad that UNC has revealed itself to be so blatantly pro-griefer. I'm puzzled by Pax's decision to publicly support this, but if that's what they're really all about, then I suppose it's a good thing the community learns about that now, too.
This comment is hateful and uncalled for. It is also not representative of Pax Gaming or our Aeternum division.
I will not derail this thread any more. I apologize for even this much but it becomes difficult when divisional names are slandered so blatantly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your simple solution is assuming that GW does not plan to let Settlements control who can and who cannot train at their training houses... GW already said that settlements will control it.Actually, it's based on my ability to read.
Reputation gating isn't really about what your town wants. There are just buildings that you can't install or keep running if they're going to have disreputable folks around them.Frankly, I'm glad that UNC has revealed itself to be so blatantly pro-griefer. I'm puzzled by Pax's decision to publicly support this, but if that's what they're really all about, then I suppose it's a good thing the community learns about that now, too.
Nihimon,
This is purely from Bringslite and not a representative statement of any Organization.
Are we really getting to this point? Are these the tools that you choose to use to try and discredit other organizations?
What is up?
The UnC has clearly proclaimed it's self as anti-griefer. Repeatedly. I see little difference between their stated response to "being griefed" and some other organizations.
I am confused because I thought more of you than this.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd just like to add, in case anyone gets the wrong idea from my post above, that I do not think that Bludd or any other member of the UNC is pro-griefer. The difference I have with Bluddwolf is in how to deal with them, pure and simple. I am sure that it will come one sad day, but I have yet to see anyone on these boards openly espouse griefing. Until that time, let's do what I am going to do in game, and let GoblinWorks make that call.
And frankly, how Pax got caught up in this, I do not know. They've made a political decision about the use of banditry is all. I may not like it, but that's irrelevant. It has about as much to do with griefing as elephants do with trampolining.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... proclaimed it's self as anti-griefer. Repeatedly.
Andius is about as rabidly anti-griefer as anyone could imagine. And yet, when he started talking about using griefer tactics against griefers - specifically by his definition, not by Goblinworks' - then I spoke out just as adamantly against that.
If you claim to be "anti-griefer", and then turn around and clearly support all manner of things that most people understand is "griefing" and make specious arguments about how they're not "really" griefing or how they don't match your definition of griefing, then what does it really mean?
Reputation is a measure of how much of a griefer you are. That's its intended purpose. Those who are vocally stating that they won't care if they're Low Reputation or if they associate with Low Reputation people are manifestly pro-griefer.
I'm sorry if you don't like my definitions, but I think they're a lot more in line with Goblinworks' than are UNC's or Pax's.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... proclaimed it's self as anti-griefer. Repeatedly.Andius is about as rabidly anti-griefer as anyone could imagine. And yet, when he started talking about using griefer tactics against griefers - specifically by his definition, not by Goblinworks' - then I spoke out just as adamantly against that.
If you claim to be "anti-griefer", and then turn around and clearly support all manner of things that most people understand is "griefing" and make specious arguments about how they're not "really" griefing or how they don't match your definition of griefing, then what does it really mean?
Reputation is a measure of how much of a griefer you are. That's its intended purpose. Those who are vocally stating that they won't care if they're Low Reputation or if they associate with Low Reputation people are manifestly pro-griefer.
I'm sorry if you don't like my definitions, but I think they're a lot more in line with Goblinworks' than are UNC's or Pax's.
UNC plan to pursue banditry. Nowhere ever have the devs ever said that is griefing. If you believe differently then I suggest you back it up with a quote from them that describes banditry as griefing.
Until you can do so we would appreciate it if you would cease from declaring Pax an organisation that supports griefing as we patently are not. We are supporting a CC that plans to pursue banditry and privateer operations in foreign territories that does not equate to a pro griefer stance by any means.
Back up your assertions or stop making them. Even your own members such as Lhan are telling you they disagree maybe it is time to listen to them
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reputation is a measure of how much of a griefer you are. That's its intended purpose. Those who are vocally stating that they won't care if they're Low Reputation or if they associate with Low Reputation people are manifestly pro-griefer.
I'll disagree with this. Reputation is a measure of how much you engage in unsanctioned PvP, that is all it is for now. If next Wednesday GW announces its chat rules and says that GMs will levy reputation hits for seriously abusive chats, people who persist with out-of-Golarian names will take reputation hits, and they list other behavior that affects reputation, I'll adjust my view.
For now reputation only shows that the character has engaged in unsanctioned PvP. There will be lots of reasons that unflagged persons are going to have to die. It isn't just griefing.
Will player who are griefing have low reputations because they attack unflagged characters? Some will; some won't. I'd suggest that there are no griefers here, yet. Maybe not until EE starts.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
On the topic of the OP:
I believe there will be many ways that our characters can express their alignments through their activities. This however needs to be designed by GW in a Lawful Neutral fashion.
Yes, GW should be developing this game in a Lawful Neutral manner. Its rules need to be concrete (lawful) and balanced (neutral). If there are ways to advance a character's alignment towards Lawful, and they gain reputation for doing so, then there needs to be an equal way for a character to advance his alignment towards Evil and also gain reputation for doing so.
This may require that GW develop escalations that are Good, Neutral and Evil. If you are an opposing alignment, fighting that escalation grants you the same benefits.
This may require that certain activities that reduce reputation in one settlement, may increase reputation in another.
If they can not justify that approach to Alignment and Reputation, in a balanced way, then the two dynamics should be completely separated.
I really believe that another problem with both the Alignment and Reputation systems are the fact that they have automatic shifts and recoveries built into them.
If I want my character to be Chaotic Neutral and have a high Reputation, then I have to actively commit acts that are Chaotic, Neutral and do not delve too deeply into unsanctioned PVP too often. If I slip up and do so, I will have to counter act those slips with twice as many acts in the opposite direction to recover.
This would mean getting rid of Core Alignment, and just having Active Alignment. This would also get away from Reputation recovery over time or from the old flagging system, and tie reputation recover to specific acts.
If someone get to CE, low Rep, it is a long, long road of doing good deeds and sanctioned only activities to get back to Day Light.
As someone who went for -10.00 Piracy to +5.00 Security Status in EVE Online, I know what it is like to grind my way out of that play style. It took me about 8 months of ratting (NPC pirate killing) and mission running to get back into Empire Space (Hi Sec).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This however needs to be designed by GW in a Lawful Neutral fashion.
I've seen this before and it grates every time. Please, if you want to say balanced or concrete or whatever, (maybe just) use those perfectly good words. I'm not trying to be LG. You're not CN. GW isn't acting LN.
From a quick glance, I might agree with some of your points, but I wonder if I'm supposed to take the points seriously when you lead with that bit about real people needing to act LN.
(edit added words in paren to be less directive)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If I want my character to be Chaotic Neutral and have a high Reputation, then I have to actively commit acts that are Chaotic, Neutral and do not delve too deeply into unsanctioned PVP too often. If I slip up and do so, I will have to counter act those slips with twice as many acts in the opposite direction to recover.
I think that Chaotic Neutral might be pretty easy. Criminal acts will cause chaos shifts. Only evil acts cause evil shifts, so avoid slave-trading, grave-robbing, and violent crime against unflagged people.
(added)
I really believe that another problem with both the Alignment and Reputation systems are the fact that they have automatic shifts and recoveries built into them. ... This would mean getting rid of Core Alignment, and just having Active Alignment. This would also get away from Reputation recovery over time or from the old flagging system, and tie reputation recover to specific acts.
The problem with having lots of Good and Lawful acts readily available is that they would allow any of us to just go grind Good alignment to cover up any Evil deeds we did, maybe in the same play session. Kill 20 orphans, then go grind out the good acts. The core alignment and shift over time will really encourage the players with lawful and good-aligned characters to make use of the feud and war mechanics to avoid unsanctioned fighting.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The problem with having lots of Good and Lawful acts readily available is that they would allow any of us to just go grind Good alignment to cover up any Evil deeds we did, maybe in the same play session. Kill 20 orphans, then go grind out the good acts. The core alignment and shift over time will really encourage the players with lawful and good-aligned characters to make use of the feud and war mechanics to avoid unsanctioned fighting.
I would like to see just as many chaotic and evil acts readily available for those that want to grind their way back to Chaotic and or Evil alignments to cover up deeds we did that were lawful or good.
When I read your statement I can't help but come away with the idea that you believe the desired alignment is Lawful and or Good. I believe that for a role playing game, all alignments are equally desirous and important.
If there is any notion that an alignment, class, race or faction is favored by the Developers or the game mechanics, then OE will usher in the Min/Maxers who will flock to the favored combination. They will behave however they wish to and ignore the consequences, relying on the automatic shifts to recover them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... proclaimed it's self as anti-griefer. Repeatedly.Andius is about as rabidly anti-griefer as anyone could imagine. And yet, when he started talking about using griefer tactics against griefers - specifically by his definition, not by Goblinworks' - then I spoke out just as adamantly against that.
If you claim to be "anti-griefer", and then turn around and clearly support all manner of things that most people understand is "griefing" and make specious arguments about how they're not "really" griefing or how they don't match your definition of griefing, then what does it really mean?
Reputation is a measure of how much of a griefer you are. That's its intended purpose. Those who are vocally stating that they won't care if they're Low Reputation or if they associate with Low Reputation people are manifestly pro-griefer.
I'm sorry if you don't like my definitions, but I think they're a lot more in line with Goblinworks' than are UNC's or Pax's.
I don't know how much more in line with GW Pax's definition can get, since the Pax definition includes strict adherence to the EULA and any definitions of griefing GW itself publishes.
Let me be clear, I ban people from Pax Gaming yearly for griefing and exploiting, we are zero tolerance with it. But, what you describe as griefing is not griefing by even GW's definition.
Banditry and gank tactics *are not* griefing. What Bluddwulf says he and UNC intend to do (use the crap out of SAD's) *is not griefing*.
It's time for your misrepresentation of Pax Gaming's intent and what Pax Gaming does or does not support to stop.
You don't know us. You've never taken interest in getting to know us. You can not speak for us, because you are not one of us.
Right below this post box: "The most important rule: Don't be a jerk. We want our messageboards to be a fun and friendly place."
There's a Paizo rule for you there. You talk about people not sticking to GW's definitions, that Paizo one is pretty clear, you should maybe think about following it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
When I read your statement I can't help but come away with the idea that you believe the desired alignment is Lawful and or Good. I believe that for a role playing game, all alignments are equally desirous and important.The problem with having lots of Good and Lawful acts readily available is that they would allow any of us to just go grind Good alignment to cover up any Evil deeds we did, maybe in the same play session. Kill 20 orphans, then go grind out the good acts. The core alignment and shift over time will really encourage the players with lawful and good-aligned characters to make use of the feud and war mechanics to avoid unsanctioned fighting.
Lawful and/or Good is 5 different alignments, more than half of the alignment chart. Yeah, I'd like a game with alignments that matter and something between 1/3 to 2/3 of the characters choosing to be one of those 5 alignments.
Should it be a simple matter to grind out some acts to maintain a lawful state or a good state? If that were the case, then there would be less reason for players running Lawful characters to avoid failing contracts or breaking laws. There would be less reason for Good aligned characters to avoid unsanctioned PvP. There would be very little reason to spend Influence on feuds or to spend DI on wars, if we could avoid any alignment repercussions by just grinding undead kills to get Good points and grinding goblin kills to get Law points.
If every character in the game was CE, then the feud mechanic and the war mechanic and PvP flags and... well, most of the game could just be discarded. The game will be richer for having those 5 Lawful and/or Good alignments, and if those alignments are a challenge to maintain.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So at this point we're putting in an array of systems to provide mechanical advantage to staying at the Lawful, Good, and high Reputation ends of the spectrums. We suspect that these will be necessary to keep some kind of balance in the alignments, given the overall tendency of most player bases.
It sounds like their goal is a "balance" in the alignments, but I don't think they mean they want a proportional number of player characters in each alignment.
I think that many players will find that their choices often funnel them towards Chaotic Good social structures, thus those communities will often be the largest, most diverse, and most active.
It doesn't sound like they're going to consider it "unbalanced" if most player characters are Chaotic Good.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So at this point we're putting in an array of systems to provide mechanical advantage to staying at the Lawful, Good, and high Reputation ends of the spectrums. We suspect that these will be necessary to keep some kind of balance in the alignments, given the overall tendency of most player bases.It sounds like their goal is a "balance" in the alignments, but I don't think they mean they want a proportional number of player characters in each alignment.
I think that many players will find that their choices often funnel them towards Chaotic Good social structures, thus those communities will often be the largest, most diverse, and most active.It doesn't sound like they're going to consider it "unbalanced" if most player characters are Chaotic Good.
Hmm... I like this. If most of the players flock to lawful good and stick to sanctioned pvp the gray area of griefing that might exist inside unsanctioned pvp is diminished greatly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So at this point we're putting in an array of systems to provide mechanical advantage to staying at the Lawful, Good, and high Reputation ends of the spectrums. We suspect that these will be necessary to keep some kind of balance in the alignments, given the overall tendency of most player bases.It sounds like their goal is a "balance" in the alignments, but I don't think they mean they want a proportional number of player characters in each alignment.
If the Lawful and/or Good and high Rep types have to enter feuds and wars in order to avoid the alignment/rep hits of unsanctioned PvP, then it makes sense that they would need somewhat higher Influence or DI pools to pay for those feuds and wars. Any mechanical advantages have to be balanced, of course. If the Lawful types start almost as many wars as the Chaotics, then the mechanic advantages might be too strong. Likewise for Goods vs. Evils starting wars.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hmm... I like this. If most of the players flock to lawful good and stick to sanctioned pvp the gray area of griefing that might exist inside unsanctioned pvp is diminished greatly.
If most players are flocking to LG, it will be because most players in MMOs are Min/Maxers, and they are flocking to LG for that purpose. They won;t be flocking to LG because that is the way they play their characters.
Your second misconception is that there are "grey areas of griefing in unsanctioned PVP", as if there are no grey areas of griefing in sanctioned PVP.
Griefing can be perpetrated by any alignment, any reputation level, by any player character level, in PVE, and in either type of PVP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your second misconception is that there are "grey areas of griefing in unsanctioned PVP", as if there are no grey areas of griefing in sanctioned PVP.
This must be made as clear as possible. I have been fairly public in acknowledging that I have a fairly sordid past when it comes to griefing. We very rarely went out of the established game systems when we conducted what many people here would call griefing. Instead we turned the systems that the developers designed against them.
Developers are smart people. But they aren't omniscient. Any system can be turned against its designers. When I say that I am not calling for the developers to throw their hands up in the air and give up. Rather I am encouraging people to get out of the mindset that ALL griefers will have low reputation. Chances are that the most grief inducing griefers will be high reputation.
One hundred smart, driven people will always find loopholes that your one smart, driven developer didn't see. And when the developer closes that loophole the one hundred will move on to finding the next.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reputation is a measure of how much of a griefer you are. That's its intended purpose. Those who are vocally stating that they won't care if they're Low Reputation or if they associate with Low Reputation people are manifestly pro-griefer.I'll disagree with this. Reputation is a measure of how much you engage in unsanctioned PvP, that is all it is for now.
For better or worse, popular opinion or not, this is exactly how some would non-exhaustively define griefing. And their opinion is as valid as anyone else's (as is their right to share and support it).
...levy reputation hits for seriously abusive chats...
Many would also consider this griefing.
(To clarify, I am not necessarily disagreeing with you Urman. Personally, I will no longer use the terms RPK or griefing...simply because I cannot concretely define them nor point out specific context-free behaviours I would unequivocally call either one. I just wanted to point out a position that seems obvious to me.)
If most players are flocking to LG, it will be because most players in MMOs are Min/Maxers, and they are flocking to LG for that purpose. They won;t be flocking to LG because that is the way they play their characters.
I was under the impression that actual alignment would be a reflection of how you play your character. Has this changed?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Morbis is oh so right.
I also hope that the devs will be arbitrary and capricious enough that each iteration of exploitation of game mechanics found and deemed unfair or unacceptable results in perma-bans for those involved. That won't stop them rerolling of course, but it will discourage or disable active use of such exploits,even if only temporarily.
Let one hundred smart players cross swords with one (or ten) smarty developers, and the players will "win" every time. But only if we let them. And that's the most important part.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@morbis, @bluddwolf
I have no experience in an open world pvp sandbox game. I intent to find similar minded people to play with in PFO to avoid being griefed as much as possible. I would suggest you do the same.
Using griefing words is much easier to identify than griefing acts. Doing something once might not be griefing, but doing something twice might already very well be griefing.
I will probably be playing a good(aligned) guy if that is even possible, I hope it is. I don't suggest you do the same, that is your choice.
Accepting griefing isn't the answer. Of course griefing can appear everywhere in PFO. But I don't want that. Finding loopholes in gameplay mechanics is your expertise. You could say the people finding those loopholes are rendering a service to the game company. So I hope you render your service to PFO and GW before EE. After that who knows what will happen.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Morbis is oh so right.
I also hope that the devs will be arbitrary and capricious enough that each iteration of exploitation of game mechanics found and deemed unfair or unacceptable results in perma-bans for those involved. That won't stop them rerolling of course, but it will discourage or disable active use of such exploits,even if only temporarily.
Let one hundred smart players cross swords with one (or ten) smarty developers, and the players will "win" every time. But only if we let them. And that's the most important part.
Lhan,
I have to be honest, I find it unbelievable that anyone would accept, let along welcome a GM (a Judge for all intents and purposes) to be:
Capricious: changing often and quickly; especially : often changing suddenly in mood or behavior
: not logical or reasonable : based on an idea, desire, etc., that is not possible to predict
The same feeling I have for a judge being:
Arbitrary: : not planned or chosen for a particular reason : not based on reason or evidence
: done without concern for what is fair or right
If this is the only way the Devs / GMs believe they can control the player base, they have failed and miserably so. It is not that they have failed to control the activities they hope to, they have failed to produce a quality product. I would even venture to say that they have no business in creating such a product.
To guarantee "Capricious" and "Arbitrary" judgement shows that nothing has been learned from CCP's unfortunate incident. In that case, developer malfeasance with the corporation / alliance Band of Brothers (BOB), led to several firings, hundreds of player bannings, and it nearly destroyed the game.
If there are not concrete and balanced rules, Developers / GMs will fall prey to the temptation to show favoritism.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Every death ... can be blamed on the victim...Fascinating. I suppose that is strictly true, but I really want to add a 'rightly' between 'be' and 'blamed'. I disbelieve that would be true.
It is not making an ethical judgement, just a factual one. I have never lost a ship in EVE, accept for my own stupidity. I value the fact that I have lost less than 10 ships in nearly 10 years, and I'm a veteran of many conflicts.
I'm hoping that PFO will be much the same. That most fights can be fought smartly, and many will actually end up in a draw.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If this is the only way the Devs / GMs believe they can control the player base, they have failed and miserably so.
What data are you basing this evaluation on?
I guess I am a bit confused because your example of failure stems from an incident(s) that occurred in EVE that was decidedly not capricious or arbitrary.
And their is obviously a bit of hyperbole in the response to GWs colloquial statement. To me, it was obvious that the intent was to push those who cross the line of negative game-play away from the line by being unpredictable in handing out punishment among those who are playing in a way GW has non-arbitrarily stated is negative. Sometimes they might hand out punishment for a 2nd time offender, others might slip by the 14th time. In all cases, those punished will be "crossing the line" drawn by GW. If you do not want to risk "punishment", do not approach the line. Since this conclusion is their stated intent...seems to be working as intended, how is this a fail?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you do not want to risk "punishment", do not approach the line. Since this conclusion is their stated intent...seems to be working as intended, how is this a fail?
In a capricious and arbitrary system, there is no line to be approached or avoided. In a capricious and arbitrary system, if there is line, it can be different on a whim, or be there for some but not for all.
To agree with this is to agree with a judge who makes up the laws and the penalties as he goes. Unequal application of the rules or unequal punishment for violating the laws.
I base my assessment on 25 years or more of working on and even developing various systems of testing, evaluation and implementation of new models. In any basic task of problem solving or systems analysis, anything that is capricious or arbitrary must be identified and thrown out. Without doing so, will always leave you with a sub optimal result.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you do not want to risk "punishment", do not approach the line. Since this conclusion is their stated intent...seems to be working as intended, how is this a fail?In a capricious and arbitrary system, there is no line to be approached or avoided. In a capricious and arbitrary system, if there is line, it can be different on a whim, or be there for some but not for all.
To agree with this is to agree with a judge who makes up the laws and the penalties as he goes. Unequal application of the rules or unequal punishment for violating the laws.
I base my assessment on 25 years or more of working on and even developing various systems of testing, evaluation and implementation of new models. In any basic task of problem solving or systems analysis, anything that is capricious or arbitrary must be identified and thrown out. Without doing so, will always leave you with a sub optimal result.
Then we will have to just agree to disagree. Ironically, you are making the claim that this "failure" requires us to question the capacity/capability of GW to even build this game...but they are doing so, and any measure of experience you want to claim is, while impressive, probably less than that of the GW collective.
I note and understand your opinion that GW is full of fail, and thank you for sharing your position...just to reciprocate, my position is such that I am willing to give GW the benefit of the doubt; their collective expert-ness, will enable them implement and even innovate...and succeed in their stated endeavor.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The role of arbitrary and capricious judgments in PFO is to prevent solid lines for people to ride along without crossing, an activity that breeds anti-social and sometimes fairly harmful damage to populations at large. Corporate US practices can, in some instances, reflect very well how behaviors evolve when "the line" is a known entity.
I do not know that I support it over-all, but I do understand that it is possibly the strongest method of making 'skirting the line' a dangerous activity.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bludd, you seem to be missing the point that, while to us it may appear capricious and arbitrary, this doesn't mean it will be to GoblinWorks. I understand their position, and I understand their reasoning (and I too, as you know, work in education, and have a fair bit of experience in testing and evaluation). Or are you seriously suggesting that GW think it's a good idea to ban people for "whistling on a Tuesday" and that they will do so. All they are really saying is that when the ban-hammer comes down, they will not enter into discussions about why, or the rights and wrongs thereof. I am sure that there will be a system - it will just be totally opaque to us (hence "capricious and arbitrary").
Quite frankly, the amount of noise you are making about this make me feel that they are getting it right. This worries you, or you wouldn't be bringing it up constantly - and if it worries you it will affect your gameplay, consciously or not. If that's true for you, it'll be true for others, others who are far more likely to flirt with what some might call griefing behaviour. If it puts a little cramp in their style because they are worried by it and that leads to less griefing I'd say that it is working as intended.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I note and understand your opinion that GW is full of fail, and thank you for sharing your position...just to reciprocate, my position is such that I am willing to give GW the benefit of the doubt; their collective expert-ness, will enable them implement and even innovate...and succeed in their stated endeavor.This is of course more than a bit of hyperbole on your part as well. One concept that I disagree with does not equal "full of fail". The game I will be successful, I'm sure if that. I will enjoy the hand a great deal, I'm fairly certain of that as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is of course more than a bit of hyperbole on your part as well. One concept that I disagree with does not equal "full of fail". The game I will be successful, I'm sure if that. I will enjoy the hand a great deal, I'm fairly certain of that as well.
I note and understand your opinion that GW is full of fail, and thank you for sharing your position...just to reciprocate, my position is such that I am willing to give GW the benefit of the doubt; their collective expert-ness, will enable them implement and even innovate...and succeed in their stated endeavor.
Understood, hyperbole was not my intent, so please forgive my misinterpretation.
I will also just have to accept my lack of ability to reconcile the following two points:
If this is the only way the Devs / GMs believe they can control the player base, they have failed and miserably so. It is not that they have failed to control the activities they hope to, they have failed to produce a quality product. I would even venture to say that they have no business in creating such a product.
The "if" in the above has been stated to be true, so the rest, by your reckoning, must follow...and...
One concept that I disagree with does not equal "full of fail". The game I will be successful, I'm sure if that. I will enjoy the hand a great deal, I'm fairly certain of that as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do hope however, that alignment is a true measure of diachronic play with chaotic and evil acts being more heavily weighed than law and good respectively. It should not be possible to game the system by doing 4 hours of evil and 2...or even 4 hours of heavy rep grinding to nullify the alignment hit. And natural "drift" to selected alignment should be even more slow.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do hope however, that alignment is a true measure of diachronic play with chaotic and evil acts being more heavily weighed than law and good respectively. It should not be possible to game the system by doing 4 hours of evil and 2...or even 4 hours of heavy rep grinding to nullify the alignment hit. And natural "drift" to selected alignment should be even more slow.
I'd personally like to see the automatic drift removed, remove the core alignment, and just have active alignment.
Alignment =. You are what you do.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do hope however, that alignment is a true measure of diachronic play with chaotic and evil acts being more heavily weighed than law and good respectively. It should not be possible to game the system by doing 4 hours of evil and 2...or even 4 hours of heavy rep grinding to nullify the alignment hit. And natural "drift" to selected alignment should be even more slow.I'd personally like to see the automatic drift removed, remove the core alignment, and just have active alignment.
Alignment =. You are what you do.
Totally agreed.