Goblin Squad Member
|
OK, there seem to be some absolutes about good vs evil:
Murder is evil; slavery is evil.
How far does this go?
Tea party argues that taking property is evil, whether it is thief, con art, or the government. These are all argued to be coercion. Some governments feel it is noble to take from the privileged and share. And of course there is "Robin Hood".
One can not go by historical earth society. Slavery in many forms has been historical , but the strange twist in US is now regarded as evil as are the 20th century versions.
In Rome, the head of the household could kill dependent members of the house.
Are these law vs chaos or are they matter of local "laws". What happens in ares with no laws?
How far does criminal flag range? If a character commits act illegal in one domain and returns home where it is legal, are they still displaying criminal? If these acts would have been illegal at home, are they still criminal? What about third settlement? Will the third settlement 'know' about the crime or if it is illegal under local laws?
lam
That is two new themes. Good enough for now. I will ask about destiny's twin some other day.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How far does criminal flag range? If a character commits act illegal in one domain and returns home where it is legal, are they still displaying criminal? If these acts would have been illegal at home, are they still criminal? What about third settlement? Will the third settlement 'know' about the crime or if it is illegal under local laws?
Under the current flagging rules, if a character commits a criminal act in one domain, the character is flagged for 10 minutes and suffers a chaos hit. If you get home or to a third settlement within that 10 minutes, then yes, you're still flagged and can still be attacked. Consider it a hot pursuit flag: it used to be if you committed a crime in one state and fled across a border, you were subject to pursuit and arrest from the first state.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I know slavery is viewed as evil. In most cases I would agree. But sometimes it isn't so white and black.
For example: Some Native American tribes would take in prisoners from other tribes during war as slaves. However, they would eventually become full members (non-slave) of the tribe in time. And if they were not taken in by the tribe. They would likely would've starved to death or been killed by wild animals.
----------
In the games, I use to run in the past, I would often run the world in the Law vs Chaos.
Celestial beings could be just as evil as demons and vice versa. Though the 'mortal' beings (PCs and common NPCs) would still treat things as Good vs Evil. They would be setup or betrayed by that angel, only to be saved by the demon in some cases.
:shrug: We don't need to worry about whatever excuses people had for the evil they did in our world. All that matters to our PFO characters is that in the PFO world, slavery is evil.
But what if you wanna get things done cost-effectively? Wages cut into your bottom line. You can save money by using slaves, and then pass those discounts onto your customers, which is an inherently "good" act...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I feel this thread was intended to dredge up the old alignment issues which have been looked over for the sake of faction PvP.
And I will state again, it is not uncommon for differing alignments to work together for a common goal. Alignment should be nothing more than RP flavor added to the game. It is impossible to assign an alignment to a real human being, which is being represented by an avatar in this game. I say this, because I believe some forget, there are flesh and blood human beings behind the computer monitor. Their choices and motivations are impossible to translate into a game given modern day technology.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Their choices and motivations are impossible to translate into a game given modern day technology.
@Lord: There's core and active alignment for that reason. The other thing to consider is that if you drew up a tabulated alignment changes you'd see there are actions our characters can voluntarily take (player volition too!) that slide alignment. The question is how well matched the designers and the players both feel about those chosen actions in game? Eg slavery is economic (no wages!) but as there is a metaphysical reality in PFO then it has repercussions on that dimension of our characters.
I understand what you are saying, but as with all games, what you say applies no less. If I play some contact sports, when I was a kid, I actually do feel like killing the other players from time to times when they foul/cheat etc. Really that's the danger of being fired-up. But if I don't "translate that into the game" via discipline and knowing the rules of the game (and the respecting the referee above all being drilled in and even more being sin-binned/sent off letting down ALL my team-mates more than myself is strong incentive to keep your cool) it does not matter to the rules of that game or the other players if that is "my underlying motivation".
I think it's the degree that that forms an action in game that has repercussion to the game and to the other players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I feel this thread was intended to dredge up the old alignment issues which have been looked over for the sake of faction PvP.
I thought the OP was merely asking about how absolute certain alignment-defining acts (murder and slavery) were. Did the alignment penalties and criminal/heinous/attacker flags apply in uncontrolled areas? Did the criminal flag apply if you crossed into an area where that act was no longer a crime?
The alignment-based flags like outlaw and champion have been superseded by faction PVP concepts. Other flags like attacker, criminal, and heinous have not.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I feel this thread was intended to dredge up the old alignment issues which have been looked over for the sake of faction PvP.I thought the OP was merely asking about how absolute certain alignment-defining acts (murder and slavery) were. Did the alignment penalties and criminal/heinous/attacker flags apply in uncontrolled areas? Did the criminal flag apply if you crossed into an area where that act was no longer a crime?
The alignment-based flags like outlaw and champion have been superseded by faction PVP concepts. Other flags like attacker, criminal, and heinous have not.
Well, they havent been re-addressed anyway. They will still exist in some form.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A good way to look at good and evil vs. law and chaos is to break them into some component definitions. This does not represent the full scope of the alignments, but as an example set Good vs. Evil as a scale of Suffering and Law vs. Chaos as a scale of Structure.
Good and evil on a scale of suffering means that Good-aligned creatures more often than not will actively choose to take action that reduces overall levels of suffering in others. Actively causing others to suffer is considered deplorable to these people and they will very rarely take actions that would do so despite the chance for personal gain. Evil is actively choosing to take actions that are known to cause suffering in others to increase or, in the case of psychopathic evil, even taking those actions because it increases said suffering. Usually there is a motive or opportunity for personal gain, but not always. Neutral characters on this scale will avoid knowingly causing suffering most of the time, but neither will they go out of their way to reduce it in others. They are likely to choose routes that may indirectly cause suffering in others for the sake of personal gain.
Given this definition, the theft of money being good or evil depends on how it is used. If the money is taken from a few that have plenty of it, such as Robin Hood, and given to many poor that would otherwise not be able to afford food or shelter then it may be considered Good. A bandit collecting small "bridge tolls" from luxury goods merchants would be considered Neutral. A group of bandits locking down all trade around a settlement and preventing food and money from reaching a starving populace would be Evil.
Structure as a function of Law and Chaos includes things such as Hierarchies and Codified Laws. A chaotic system may have a leader, a privileged class of underlings that the leader favors for any given reasons, and everyone else. Becoming the ruler is often as simple as wresting the position from the current leader through Force or Guile. Some chaotic systems may have no leaders, but instead a group of respected members that others turn to for guidance. A lawful system is likely to have many more tiers and positions and rules about who can fit into which positions and why.
Under this definition, Slavery is usually Lawful in the real world as a function of institutional rules which establishes the slave as personal property. There are usually very specific ways that one becomes a slave (birth, punishment of unpaid debts, collected from areas not covered by these laws and introduced to the area as a slave). And usually very specific terms for gaining freedom again, if possible. Such as working off that unpaid debt you had owed, or a term limit for how long one may be kept as a slave.
Slavery in a chaotic system is usually the result of being weak enough for someone to oppress you. You are made a slave because someone thinks they can keep and control you, and you remain a slave until you are freed or manage to gain the power to escape or break free of your own volition.
Slavery on a Good/Evil scale as a function of suffering could be Neutral if conditions for slaves were fairly good. I would say that the personal choice lost through enslavement is enough to prevent it from bumping into Good. Usually it is going to be evil as historically it is multiple slaves doing terrible work for the benefit of a few. More people suffer than people have suffering alleviated.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Potential players of this or any MMO have to stop thinking in terms of using the real world social morays and norms and trying to apply them to a game.
What is Law vs. Chaos and or Good vs. Evil in the real world do not translate or transfer to gaming.
Even the concept of being "harmed" becomes a bit ridiculous in games. The only thing you actually lose in an MMO is the time spent acquiring that item or skill. You don't pay for those skills or items, you pay for the experience of playing the game. The hyper materialism, entitlement and greed of players is astounding and quite childish to behold.
The only real discussion that we should be having is: What will the concepts of Law vs. Chaos and Good vs. Evil look like in the River Kingdoms in Pathfinder Online?
If every settlement makes a certain activity illegal, than that activity will be Chaotic, regardless of its true nature.
If every settlement on the server decides that they will open the doors to and welcome -7500 reputation characters, then -7500 won't be the low point, it will be the average. If everyone accepts the disadvantages, then there are no disadvantages.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What is Law vs. Chaos and or Good vs. Evil in the real world do not translate or transfer to gaming.
That is because these are Abstract concepts in the real world that are being given Concrete definitions in game. Taking real world scenarios and placing them into the game universe is a very strong way to share understanding of what the terms mean. What is considered Good/Evil/Law/Chaos in the real world should not define, but rather inspire what is considered such in the game world.
Even the concept of being "harmed" becomes a bit ridiculous in games. The only thing you actually lose in an MMO is the time spent acquiring that item or skill. You don't pay for those skills or items, you pay for the experience of playing the game. The hyper materialism, entitlement and greed of players is astounding and quite childish to behold.
When you claim that the concept of being harmed is a bit ridiculous, it certainly appears that the focus is on the player and not on the characters. When I imagine my character being killed in combat, I am imagining an excruciatingly painful experience. There is definite suffering on behalf of the character though they are resurrected upon death, through Pharasma's divine power. Good/Evil/Law/Chaos are all In-Character elements.
I will concur that the notion of "harming" players in a game is pretty far out there. Reputation is currently the closest metric for measuring anything that might be construed as such. And I feel the current incarnation is sufficient until we are able to see it play out and determine if adjustments are needed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The Reputation system is a useless metric, not designed to do what it claims. I can think of half a dozen or more ways to game it, without using any hacking or major exploits. Just by using one system against the intentions of another.
If I wished to start a settlement to prove how low rep (-7500) does not limit the individual character in any significant way (for the first few Years! of the game) I certainly could do so.
All it would really take is for a large portion of the game's population to ignore those negative perceptions of low reputation, and more than half of the battle would be won.
No chance GW would ban 40% or more of the player base, and that is very likely to be the rough percentage I expect the low rep crowd to represent come OE.
My point being, you can pretend and GW can believe they have the concrete definitions of Law, Chaos, Good and Evil all you like. In the end the mob will rule, twisting those definitions to the point of breaking or ignoring them all together right from the game's launch.
I think you would have an easier time selling the concepts within the lore of the game's setting, rather than trying to interject real world morals and morays. There is a good reason GW picked the River Kingdoms as the game's setting, they can run fast and loose with those definitions if they like, and not bound them to the concrete.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Reputation system is a useless metric, not designed to do what it claims.
*sigh* I imagine you're just saying this to "get a reaction".
I can think of half a dozen or more ways to game it...
I'd call your bluff on that, but the simple fact is that it's so un-defined at this point that you couldn't possibly demonstrate your ability to "game it" any more than I could test your claim.
But still, I think I'll call your bluff on that. I actually think I'd really, really like for you and UNC to show me how wrong I am by embracing being -7,500 Reputation and showing me how little impact it has on your characters or your allies.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The Reputation system is a useless metric, not designed to do what it claims.*sigh* I imagine you're just saying this to "get a reaction".
I can think of half a dozen or more ways to game it...I'd call your bluff on that, but the simple fact is that it's so un-defined at this point that you couldn't possibly demonstrate your ability to "game it" any more than I could test your claim.
But still, I think I'll call your bluff on that. I actually think I'd really, really like for you and UNC to show me how wrong I am by embracing being -7,500 Reputation and showing me how little impact it has on your characters or your allies.
So far it has been said that low rep characters will not get the high end skill training... It has also been said it takes 2+ years to max out a class...
You should be able to think on it from there.
Ill go ahead and spell some of it out... -7500 for 2 years, then increase rep to finish off high end training, then back to -7500 while you multi-class. Be allied to a group that will give you access to their training houses without joining said group... Keeps their rep high.
I'd rather he spell out those 6+ ways to game the reputation system. That way Stephen Cheney's mad goblin posse could improve upon the concepts they've outlined so far...
I have a simple one... That they cannot fix... Not without changing the whole system.
Reputation is said to be an anti griefing mechanic.... If you have low rep your an a!!@!$~ and griefer.
So, here is how to grief without losing rep... War dec mechanic. Constant warfare with said group, kill them everywhere you can till they cannot do anything constructive... or fold their company... Then War dec any new company said person or persons join. Sure, there are limits to the war system, but its simple enough to cause short term grief.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The Reputation system is a useless metric, not designed to do what it claims.*sigh* I imagine you're just saying this to "get a reaction".
I can think of half a dozen or more ways to game it...I'd call your bluff on that, but the simple fact is that it's so un-defined at this point that you couldn't possibly demonstrate your ability to "game it" any more than I could test your claim.
But still, I think I'll call your bluff on that. I actually think I'd really, really like for you and UNC to show me how wrong I am by embracing being -7,500 Reputation and showing me how little impact it has on your characters or your allies.
Reputation can be bought and sold (traded) as a commodity, under the current system, and at no expense for the seller of Reputation.
Would I be numerically -7500, no. But in reality, would I be -7500, oh yes I could. This is how the system has failed.
The greatest test and failure of a system is to ask and answer the following:
What if the rules of the system are ignored, its consequences are ignored and there is no way to enforce the rules of the system?
What if this represents the majority or at least a great enough portion of the population that enforcement is not feasible?
You see those MMOs that you and others have declared to be "toxic" did not get that way by a small minority of the player base. They got that way because that was what the majority, perhaps only briefly, wanted the game to be.
EVE Online is a perfect example of this. It has the community that CCP and the player base wants. You may think it is toxic, but you are not in the majority opinion of that game's community. They are quite happy for you to leave it.
Darkfall is much the same. Those that play it, seem to enjoy it. Those that have left it, have left it.... simple.
PFO will have whatever community, the community brings to it. Regardless of what GW wishes it to be. I hate to break it to you all, but a financially successful bloodbath will be welcomed by GW / Paizo. Oh they might keep it s secret, and say how distressed they are about it, but they'll rub their greedy little hands together with glee and count the coin!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My point being, you can pretend and GW can believe they have the concrete definitions of Law, Chaos, Good and Evil all you like. In the end the mob will rule, twisting those definitions to the point of breaking or ignoring them all together right from the game's launch.
These concepts are already defined in the game world and choosing the River Kingdoms does not change what these absolutes would be. The River Kingdoms in aggregate is Chaotic Neutral and is comprised of a number of rising and falling domains at any given point in its recent history. None of that changes what is construed as Evil or Good in Golarion or the eyes of its deities and other powers-that-be. The portions of alignment that are subject to tweaking are going to be those elements that necessarily need to be so that they can be programatically calculated by a computer algorithm instead of the usual human interpretation done by GMs at a gaming table.
The key difference to note between Real World and Golarion is that the Real World has more shades of gray. Golarion is set up to have fewer shades (the extremes plus neutral) in order to provide more contrast and certainty to the positions.
It is way too early to get into another fight about the Reputation system. What it is intended to be is what I try to focus on. How effective it is will be something to argue about when we have more solid details in which to work with. Your critical questions are currently Not Answered in any sufficient manner.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
PFO will have whatever community, the community brings to it. Regardless of what GW wishes it to be. I hate to break it to you all, but a financially successful bloodbath will be welcomed by GW / Paizo. Oh they might keep it s secret, and say how distressed they are about it, but they'll rub their greedy little hands together with glee and count the coin!
Sounds like 'Goblins at work', to me. :)
The danger is that you do see an upswing in subs initially as the wolves move in and realize they've got lots of sheep surrounded = bloodbath. But then after the good times, the wolves are left with other wolves to hunt. And you may see a decrease in subs as the alpha wolves establish themselves and the zeta wolves slink off with their tails between their legs, having grown lean again since the last time fresh meat was "wolfed down" is now just a distant taste!
So how did EVE Online get it right?!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...game the reputation system.
I believe that one of the reasons Ryan's said they'll not spell out chapter and verse of the rules of behaviour is so that they can maintain in-house "control" of what's gaming and what isn't. "Arbitrary and capricious" enforcement will take care of much of the system-gaming folks may be planning.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PFO will have whatever community, the community brings to it. Regardless of what GW wishes it to be. I hate to break it to you all, but a financially successful bloodbath will be welcomed by GW / Paizo. Oh they might keep it s secret, and say how distressed they are about it, but they'll rub their greedy little hands together with glee and count the coin!Sounds like 'Goblins at work', to me. :)
The danger is that you do see an upswing in subs initially as the wolves move in and realize they've got lots of sheep surrounded = bloodbath. But then after the good times, the wolves are left with other wolves to hunt. And you may see a decrease in subs as the alpha wolves establish themselves and the zeta wolves slink off with their tails between their legs, having grown lean again since the last time fresh meat was "wolfed down" is now just a distant taste!
So how did EVE Online get it right?!
First the proof that EVE got it right is by looking at the fat that their subscription numbers have increased fairly steadily over the 10 years. I believe they did this by not changing the game in any dramatic way, and what changes they did do came in a fairly consistent time frame (one big patch every 1.5 - 2 years).
They also stayed true to two major concepts, first being, the character is the end game. The second is that character skills > Gear.
Finally, the game lore, which few people actually credit is actually very interesting and supports the cutthroat mentality of the EVE community.
The mantra is a truism:
You are Never Safe
Don't Fly What You Can't Afford to Lose
It's All About the ISK.
CCP never gave into the pressure of either the "Wolves" or the "Care Bears", although it has always been and likely always will be slightly biased towards the wolves.
Although I have only been playing Darkfall for a few months, I can see their numbers have been growing lately. This probably has a lot to do with the Steam Sale last month, but that first 30 days free had expired already and the numbers are still trickling in.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So how did EVE Online get it right?!
The market.
When I played EVE, I was utterly blown away by the complexity of the market and that transportation of goods for profit was such a major part of the game.
IMO, that's why EVE is so successful despite the fact that there aren't real consequences for random player killing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So how did EVE Online get it right?!The market.
When I played EVE, I was utterly blown away by the complexity of the market and that transportation of goods for profit was such a major part of the game.
IMO, that's why EVE is so successful despite the fact that there aren't real consequences for random player killing.
There is no such thing as random player killing, especially not in EVE.
Every death (ship loss and or pod kill) can be blamed on the victim's lack of situational awareness. Being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and unaware of your risk, is never random. It is virtually a guarantee that you will lose your ship.
The success is mostly due to the players accepting the game's culture and learning to survive and even thrive in it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What I was asking for is an understanding of what, in game, would move one toward Law or Chaos.
Is it only based upon local Law? Is it based upon the organizations one attends? If a settlement is chaotic, is defying its few rules a lawful act?
What are the events/behaviors that will move in the Chaos/Law dimension?
There are examples of behaviors on Good/Evil, and ways to invoke exceptions (e.g. bounty hunter, faction flagged foe (FFF))
I find little to demonstrate the L/C dimension.
lam
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hopefully someone answers Lams question, but...
I'm a bit worried about the system controlling random player killing in PFO also. I think Bludd has a point that can't be ignored. The good thing is that we have the alignments, the bad thing is that we have faction warfare that diminishes the effects of the alignments. What I hope will separate the alignments apart is that some people will attack others just for the loot and the thrill and others won't. These others that won't attack others just for the loot or the thrill are good aligned I would presume. If there are no noticeable differences in behavior between good aligned, neutral aligned and the evil aligned, then it's just wolves against wolves. But if there are differences in the behavior relating to alignment groups, this I think will be the salt of the game at least for me. I think the quantity of the good aligned groups in PFO will show the system it's failures or successes. Let's face it, most people that play pvp games are wolves, as I have understood from this thread that it is like this in EVE also...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What are the events/behaviors that will move in the Chaos/Law dimension?
Criminal flag and (at least some) non-sanctioned pvp are chaotic.
Barbarian rage should be a chaotic act.
We haven't heard about the contract system for a long time, but I expect fulfilling contracts should be lawful actions.
Possibly being a member of a settlement without breaking the laws is a lawful act? Defending your settlement in a war could also be seen as a lawful act.
Raising faction rating with certain factions should also be lawful/chaotic acts.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So how did EVE Online get it right?!The market.
When I played EVE, I was utterly blown away by the complexity of the market and that transportation of goods for profit was such a major part of the game.
IMO, that's why EVE is so successful despite the fact that there aren't real consequences for random player killing.
Um... Did you actually play Eve? Or was it more like how Andius "played" Eve?
When you killed someone that was not a "sanctioned" target you lost Security Status... Kinda like in PFO where you will lose Reputation.
Oh yeah, and there is no such thing as Random Player Killing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it might be useful to reconceptualize from "random" to "opportunistic" player killing?
Motive might be: Taking value for yourself from the encounter (eg items and fun of defeating another player) and/or inflicting a cost on that player and group (eg items lost and fear/disproportionate reprisal (aka maximum force) backed up by reportable action = honest signal).
Means: Is the real meat on the bone. If you provide Open PvP then pvp can occur anywhere.
Opportunity: Is the one to regulate: Eg if killing another makes you free game for anyone else and you are not only defeated but penalized then your scope for rational opportunity is lowered.
Could that be a useful way of describing the stakes in a random pvp encounter and then picking it apart to determine what was going on in that random sample? There will always be an element of chance ie some newbie runs off into naga-land and gets the local tribe a new knucklehead!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So how did EVE Online get it right?!The market.
When I played EVE, I was utterly blown away by the complexity of the market and that transportation of goods for profit was such a major part of the game.
IMO, that's why EVE is so successful despite the fact that there aren't real consequences for random player killing.
Um... Did you actually play Eve? Or was it more like how Andius "played" Eve?
When you killed someone that was not a "sanctioned" target you lost Security Status... Kinda like in PFO where you will lose Reputation.
Oh yeah, and there is no such thing as Random Player Killing.
I'm not gonna start arguing about terms, but I understand it's possible that someone goes along and kills every player he meets or every other for that matter whether they are flying flags or not and whether the player himself is flying flags or not and without even looting them and not segregating them based on alignment, so whether to call it optimistic or random is all the same to me, but if you wanna keep on changing concepts this dialog is not going to work, that much I can say. I don't know why someone would do that, but because it's possible that's something we should focus on.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To be clear, are we talking about high-sec or low/null-sec space here? Because if we are talking high-sec space then no, you cannot kill every single person you meet. Anyone who tries to tell you that you can is lying. And to add weight to that statement, I was an extremely active high-sec pirate for a long time in EvE online, I know the hoops that you have to jump through to make it viable.
And if we are talking about low/null-sec space, well then of course you can be attacked at any turn. You are intruding into space owned by other players. They don't want you there. They own the resources within that space and your presence there threatens those resources.
And EvE online does segregate players by alignment. If you drop below a particular security status (-4.0?) then the NPC guards in high-sec space will make your life a living hell. The reputation system that Pathfinder Online is touting will fix everything is an almost copy-paste of EvE Onlines Security Status system*.
Don't make claims about games you clearly only have an anecdotal understanding of.
And also, there is no such thing as random player killing in an open world, sandbox PvP game.
*edit: With more consequences. I'm don't mean to imply that the reputation system won't work. But EvE has already implemented many of the ideas that make the reputation system up.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For Eve security:
-2.0 not welcome in 1.0 space
-2.5 not welcome in 0.9 space
-3.0 not welcome in 0.8 space
-3.5 not welcome in 0.7 space
-4.0 not welcome in 0.6 space
-4.5 not welcome in 0.5 space
-5.0 shoot on site anywhere
and you can go as low as -10.0
You are also open to being attacked by other players when in space you are not welcome.
And you can get to -5.0 very quickly if you shoot everyone you see. I did it in one day of play going from 2.0 to -5.5ish... All in low security space... the area of space where it warns you about possible PVP when you go to jump in...
Eve even stops you from jumping to make sure you know its low sec space.
@Morbis - I have told many of the PFO forum warriors that Eve Security Status is the influence for Reputation... The just laughed and replied with "No its not. PFO will not be like Eve." Of course they have forgotten all about those old Dev Blogs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's late. Or early. Or whatever. Anyway I'll give this a shot. Maybe someone will listen to me. Arguing over RPKing is even more useless than arguing over griefing-you can continuously move the goalposts of the debate by defining and redefining the concept to suit your own argument, say things to provoke, wash, rinse, repeat. What is most important is that Goblin Works has said they will have mechanics in place to discourage what they call 'meaningless' player killing. Or 'meaningless' pvp. As defined by them-little specifics there. They simultaneously want to encourage meaningful pvp as a cornerstone of the game. OK. Tall order, yes? One side can say endlessly that because of loot PKing is never 'random' and the other side can answer endlessly 'what about running around just killing for the lulz?' And then we get 'if you aren't prepared to pvp you DESERVE it', then we get indignation and blah, blah, blah, and it's the same people over and over. Here's what Lord Bozo thinks (oh, that's me): Bluddwolf is right that the present state of things will result in a black (or grey) market of selling reputation as one way to game the system-as long as characters can give or grant rep. With a series of alts who serve as reputation dumps; multiple user accounts and out of game communication. Can't stop this. I've never understood the functionality of this aspect of rep and I think it should be scrapped-why can someone 'give' me rep? For any reason? I either earn it or I don't. This assumes that reputation remains relevant. It's certainly possible that a large number of subscribers would just ignore low rep and that would neuter the system as an anti-griefing tool. Now, some smart peeps have also seemed to think that because you regain rep over time that hurts it's effectiveness; ah, no. GW controls how much you regenerate over time or if you can sink so low that you just lose this privilege altogether. Also under what circumstances you can 'atone'. Not a factor. Now to my final point. One time, long ago, I had a max-level, high gear rating char in WOW. I inadvertently targeted a Horde Griffin Master. He didn't just kill me fast, he killed me so fast I didn't see the attack animation. If Goblin Works wishes to have a high sec area they can do so period. If it's based on rep you won't be able to game the system without serious hacking. I'm not talking about the npc guards of a PC run settlement. I'm talking about Marshalls. They can be made fast, unassailable, flawless tracking, one-shot killing machines. The areas they patrol could be not be goonswarmed, stealthed or circumvented if the Devs want to have such areas. Sorry, Bludd, Xeen, UNC, et. al., but if these creatures target based on low reputation the system will be extremely effective unless you want to break the user's license agreement and perhaps the laws of your state. Marshalls could react to anyone in the area gaining the attacker flag (or whatever parameters GW goes for) as fast as the server allows, one shot them and destroy all their stuff-even the threaded items. How about them apples? I am not campaigning for any such areas, I am telling you I can't believe you haven't thought of it yet. I personally think the entire reputation system should be scrapped and replaced by a system of pvp flags. I may start a thread to talk about just that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spaces and paragraph organization are your friend.
They had the Marshals in Eve, called Concord... They showed up in force and you died. They did not target based on security status, that was left up to the "NPC Guards." Who were quite effective at killing anyone... But Concord killed anyone who attacked someone else in High Sec space without it being "sanctioned" first.
You died, right now, and there was nothing you could do to stop it.
Im not sure why the direction was pointed at the UNC, I have no problem with something like that being in game... So long as its put in the proper place.
Concord was in High Security space only in Eve, Marshals should be no different in PFO... Starter areas and NPC towns ONLY.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The argument that rep won't do what it's supposed to because it doesn't do it in EVE doesn't convince me.
It's like someone saying to the Wright brothers: "Hey, some other guys already tried achieving flight using a craft with wings and a propeller. It didn't quite work for them so it won't work for you!"
Incorporating some of the same elements does not mean the final product will be identical or function in the same way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Spaces and paragraph organization are your friend.
They had the Marshals in Eve, called Concord... They showed up in force and you died. They did not target based on security status, that was left up to the "NPC Guards." Who were quite effective at killing anyone... But Concord killed anyone who attacked someone else in High Sec space without it being "sanctioned" first.
You died, right now, and there was nothing you could do to stop it.
Im not sure why the direction was pointed at the UNC, I have no problem with something like that being in game... So long as its put in the proper place.
Concord was in High Security space only in Eve, Marshals should be no different in PFO... Starter areas and NPC towns ONLY.
Yeah, I know... misuse of Wall of Text spell , certainly. Sorry, didn't mean to 'point' at peeps, but Bludd has said that a rep system could be unenforcable if players ignored it. I'm saying in places with Concord/Marshalls rep would be very relevant if that's why they came after you. Being one-shotted and losing your stuff would be an example of a 'meaningful consequence for unwanted pvp' some have pushed hard for. As I stated, I'm not condoning it at all. But I think you may have butted heads with proponents of it in the past...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The argument that rep won't do what it's supposed to because it doesn't do it in EVE doesn't convince me.
It's like someone saying to the Wright brothers: "Hey, some other guys already tried achieving flight using a craft with wings and a propeller. It didn't quite work for them so it won't work for you!"
Incorporating some of the same elements does not mean the final product will be identical or function in the same way.
Reputation will do what its supposed to do, in the way in which GW implements it. No one has said otherwise... What we have said is that it wont do what some of our fellow forum warriors have proclaimed it to do.
It does in Eve what it is supposed to do. The same will be for PFO.
All Bludd has said is that there will be work arounds if people choose to ignore reputation. There are always work arounds for game mechanics... if there are not then it is no longer a mechanic but a lack of mechanic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah, I know... misuse of Wall of Text spell , certainly. Sorry, didn't mean to 'point' at peeps, but Bludd has said that a rep system could be unenforcable if players ignored it. I'm saying in places with Concord/Marshalls rep would be very relevant if that's why they came after you. Being one-shotted and losing your stuff would be an example of a 'meaningful consequence for unwanted pvp' some have pushed hard for. As I stated, I'm not condoning it at all. But I think you may have butted heads with proponents of it in the past...Spaces and paragraph organization are your friend.
They had the Marshals in Eve, called Concord... They showed up in force and you died. They did not target based on security status, that was left up to the "NPC Guards." Who were quite effective at killing anyone... But Concord killed anyone who attacked someone else in High Sec space without it being "sanctioned" first.
You died, right now, and there was nothing you could do to stop it.
Im not sure why the direction was pointed at the UNC, I have no problem with something like that being in game... So long as its put in the proper place.
Concord was in High Security space only in Eve, Marshals should be no different in PFO... Starter areas and NPC towns ONLY.
Agreed
I went cross eyed in the middle but I read through it lol.
Yeah, The Marshall thing would be going to far unless it was only in certain NPC and starter areas.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah, I know... misuse of Wall of Text spell , certainly. Sorry, didn't mean to 'point' at peeps, but Bludd has said that a rep system could be unenforcable if players ignored it. I'm saying in places with Concord/Marshalls rep would be very relevant if that's why they came after you. Being one-shotted and losing your stuff would be an example of a 'meaningful consequence for unwanted pvp' some have pushed hard for. As I stated, I'm not condoning it at all. But I think you may have butted heads with proponents of it in the past...Spaces and paragraph organization are your friend.
They had the Marshals in Eve, called Concord... They showed up in force and you died. They did not target based on security status, that was left up to the "NPC Guards." Who were quite effective at killing anyone... But Concord killed anyone who attacked someone else in High Sec space without it being "sanctioned" first.
You died, right now, and there was nothing you could do to stop it.
Im not sure why the direction was pointed at the UNC, I have no problem with something like that being in game... So long as its put in the proper place.
Concord was in High Security space only in Eve, Marshals should be no different in PFO... Starter areas and NPC towns ONLY.
Agreed
I went cross eyed in the middle but I read through it lol.
Yeah, The Marshall thing would be going to far unless it was only in certain NPC and starter areas.
I think I remember reading that instead of zones we should think of 'islands and roads' of high sec with the remainder of the hexes pretty much open pvp. Perhaps that's where the Marshalls will patrol.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People should be cautious about comparing security status in Eve and reputation in PfO and drawing inferences in my opinion.
In eve security status is frankly only relevant in high sec.
Eve high sec is the equivalent of PfO starter area's and npc towns and I fully expect PfO reputation to have the same effect there as in eve high sec.
However
Eve high sec provides enough space and content that many never feel the need to leave. My impression is that PfO npc area's will be small and have only basic level content
Eve high sec provides all the training you need and is usually the best place to find the skill books, PfO npc areas provide inferior training opportunities.
In short players in Eve need to access high sec due to the fact that most industry and the big markets are there. It is less clear that this will be the case in PfO as for many there will be little need to ever return to npc areas
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
People should be cautious about comparing security status in Eve and reputation in PfO and drawing inferences in my opinion.
In eve security status is frankly only relevant in high sec.
Eve high sec is the equivalent of PfO starter area's and npc towns and I fully expect PfO reputation to have the same effect there as in eve high sec.
However
Eve high sec provides enough space and content that many never feel the need to leave. My impression is that PfO npc area's will be small and have only basic level content
Eve high sec provides all the training you need and is usually the best place to find the skill books, PfO npc areas provide inferior training opportunities.
In short players in Eve need to access high sec due to the fact that most industry and the big markets are there. It is less clear that this will be the case in PfO as for many there will be little need to ever return to npc areas
OH yeah, there will be massive differences in the long run. The basis though is the same. I agree that from what we know now is that PFO "High Sec" will be a much smaller place.
In the end though, they have made way too many references to Eve for the comparisons to not be present. They are taking Eve and turning it into PFO... Tweak this and tweak that to get the final product.
No PFO will not be an Eve clone. But it is a cousin.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's totally not random at all! I have a Top Secret Number Generator that I used that gave me the number 26. You were the 26th character I saw today, so I killed you. But it's totally not random... or aimless... or arbitrary... or indiscriminate...
This is my "Green Hat" argument
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's totally not random at all! I have a Top Secret Number Generator that I used that gave me the number 26. You were the 26th character I saw today, so I killed you. But it's totally not random... or aimless... or arbitrary... or indiscriminate...
complete nonsense, give up on it
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A question for those that have played EVE: Is there a separate reputation/alignment system in EVE like GW plans to implement in PFO? That would be nice to hear.
I mean GW plans to implement two meters that both correspond to character behavior. The other one is clearly a random player killer meter and the other one is something that is both pvp and pve oriented. And as I understand it these two meters work together to bring like minded people together inside the game.
It seems some of the most vocal members of this community are against the alignment system and want to bring the EVE world with no random player killing into PFO. Which is cool in a way, It would be really cool if PFO wouldn't have random player killing, but I'm not really sure if the people who say there is no random player killing in an open world sandbox pvp game are the right people to bring such a thing to PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A question for those that have played EVE: Is there a separate reputation/alignment system in EVE like GW plans to implement in PFO? That would be nice to hear.
No.
Imagine if the Alignment and Reputation system in PFO only ever mattered while you were in the NPC Settlements. That's effectively what EVE is like.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's totally not random at all! I have a Top Secret Number Generator that I used that gave me the number 26. You were the 26th character I saw today, so I killed you. But it's totally not random... or aimless... or arbitrary... or indiscriminate...
Something you were doing made you a target. You were in space that you 'shouldn't' have been. You were hauling cargo that is valuable enough to draw someone’s eye. You were affiliated with someone you 'shouldn't' have been. None of these qualifiers are random. They may seen random from the point of view of the victim, but how the victim feels doesn't mean anything when it comes to defining something as RPK'ing.
In an open world, competitively driven game (such as EvE, or if PFO continues with its player driven market, this game) then your mere existence is an act of competition. If you are a trader then you are conducting economic PvP. If you are a mission runner then you are conducting resource PvP (by utilizing one of the economic faucets). If you are a diplomat then you are conducting political PvP. And as such you are a valid target for physical PvP. You can bring your strength to bare on others through your preferred means, why is it when someone does the same with theirs they are RPK'ing?
Unless all you do is sit in the newbie area using /emotes to pretend you are going on adventures (which is cool, if that is what you want to do), then you are a valid target. No action committed against you is random.