Goblin Squad Member
|
Does kill-stealing violate the River Freedoms, or the laws of the Gods, or is it strictly a meta-game impolite-thing-to-do? If it's only the latter, I'm not sure it can be judged or controlled by the alignment-and-reputation mechanics we've been discussing, which have, so far, been pretty-well anchored in in-game reasoning.
I think it's just the impolite thing to do. Settlement leadership will have to resolve this stuff all of the time, I'll bet. If Nevy belongs to the same settlement as the paladin, he's got that recourse. If Nevy's harvesting in his settlement's area, he's got recourse. If he and the paladin are fighting over resources in unclaimed territory, he's got to deal with the rep system, accept the losses, or escalate with feud, faction warfare, etc.
I thought the scales ran -7500 to +7500?
:Forehead-smack: You're right. 2400 is roughly 1/6 of the whole scale.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But how badly am I losing reputation on the murder of the lawful good paladin? Is that one kill enough to alter my reputation and make my game life harder? If not, how many killings of the innocent foes it take for me to become chaotic evil and have to face the consequences of my evil deeds?Specific answer: *casts Summon Nihimon*
*enjoys a hearty laugh*
Killing other player characters reduces your Good-Evil score by 500
And Urman is right about the scaling.
To give you an idea of how much these things will cost or grant in terms of reputation, killing a player with Reputation 0 who has no flags will cost about 500 Reputation, while killing an average low-reputation player (-5,000 reputation) will cost about 16 reputation and killing an average high-reputation player (5,000 reputation) will cost about 2,400.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's totally backwards--the whole point is that those kind of decisions--I'm taking your stuff from you, I'm not taking any more crap from you--involve estimating risk and making a tradeoff. If you every once in a while use force, if you're judicious, then you're not going to loose your alignment or rep, giving you a chance to make contextually appropriate, judicious trade-offs. But if every day you're meeting "jerks" who you "just know" need to be attacked, you're going to be a low rep, CE character pretty quickly.
That's the idea.
So the kill stealing, "supposed" Paladin gets a free pass, and Nevy is the one that has to take the hit to rep for the Paladin's jerk play.
Tyranny of the High Rep, Good Aligned... is who will be the biggest jerks in the game if the system enables them.
Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing. ~Robert E. Howard
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So the kill stealing, "supposed" Paladin gets a free pass, and Nevy is the one that has to take the hit to rep for the Paladin's jerk play.
There's nothing that requires Nevy to attack and kill the Paladin. He doesn't have to take the rep hit; he has that option, if he thinks it's worth the cost.
It's a notional problem. We don't know how kill-stealing will work, for one thing, or if the spoils from PvE kills at harvesting/gathering camps will be automatically collected, for example.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So the kill stealing, "supposed" Paladin gets a free pass, and Nevy is the one that has to take the hit to rep for the Paladin's jerk play.There's nothing that requires Nevy to attack and kill the Paladin. He doesn't have to take the rep hit; he has that option, if he thinks it's worth the cost.
And so.......the kill stealing, "supposed" Paladin gets a free pass, and Nevy is the one that has to take the hit to rep for the Paladin's jerk play.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So the kill stealing, "supposed" Paladin gets a free pass...
More often than not, complaints of "kill stealing" involve the complainer feeling that he's entitled to something to which he's not actually entitled. That said, there are definitely cases where you've spent 30 minutes fighting through a camp to clear to the boss, and some a#!@&*@ runs past you to tag the boss first. Another classic case is where you're fighting the mobs around a particular resource node and someone runs in and starts harvesting it while you and the mobs are both too busy to do anything about it.
I tried to start a discussion about game mechanics to deal with this situation directly, rather than "throwing the baby out with the bathwater", in Challenge Mechanic - To drive off other characters
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I truly hate kill stealing, or groups that move into a spawn area that my group was at first. It is frustrating.
The real culprit that offends is the toon that jumps in and steals the killing blow. That can be lessened with coding on %'s of damage dealt or even 1st blow gets credit and partied groups use round robin credit. Admittedly it could have it's own problems, also, but it could be a partial solution.
As for toons or groups of such that move in and work the area while someone is already there.... Is it better that they move in and work some mobs next to you or move in and kill you then work the mobs alone?
In unclaimed territory it seems it is supposed to be either about co-operation or biggest guns do as they like (if they are willing to face all consequences). That could also be helped with a sort of "claim". First come lays a "claim" on timer. Now they are open to and showing that they will PVP to defend the little spot they are working.
It seems like content. Part of the content is making the choices that could lead to rep/alignment loss.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The point on kill stealing is the same as in eve null sec
PVE resources such as escalations are exactly that and will be jealously guarded. Try going into someones null sec system and running their anomalies even in an nrds system you will find the locals wanting a word with you at the end of a missile.
Settlements will want to ensure their pve inclined players have sufficient content in the settlement controlled hexes and will not be welcoming interlopers to join in the fun.
Note when I say settlement controlled hexes I am not talking about the ones in which the settlement can set the laws but the ones in which a settlement can bring sufficient force to bear to be considered the defacto owner
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for toons or groups of such that move in and work the area while someone is already there.... Is it better that they move in and work some mobs next to you or move in and kill you then work the mobs alone?
Exactly - it's a two way street. Without the rep and alignment system the big bad paladin just kills Nevy. With the systems in place they have to work things out, and it might involve death or it might not. Without the rep system it's just all death all the time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So the kill stealing, "supposed" Paladin gets a free pass, and Nevy is the one that has to take the hit to rep for the Paladin's jerk play.There's nothing that requires Nevy to attack and kill the Paladin. He doesn't have to take the rep hit; he has that option, if he thinks it's worth the cost.And so.......the kill stealing, "supposed" Paladin gets a free pass, and Nevy is the one that has to take the hit to rep for the Paladin's jerk play.
Yes, PFO has a strong focus on competition over resources, and yes, the devs are working on a rep/alignment system to help keep such competition from becoming toxic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes, PFO has a strong focus on competition over resources, and yes, the devs are working on a rep/alignment system to help keep such competition from becoming toxic.So the kill stealing, "supposed" Paladin gets a free pass, and Nevy is the one that has to take the hit to rep for the Paladin's jerk play.There's nothing that requires Nevy to attack and kill the Paladin. He doesn't have to take the rep hit; he has that option, if he thinks it's worth the cost.And so.......the kill stealing, "supposed" Paladin gets a free pass, and Nevy is the one that has to take the hit to rep for the Paladin's jerk play.
You have that backwards. In the case described by Nevy, it is not the competition that is toxic, it's the consequences being placed on the wrong party that is toxic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes Bluud, PFO has a strong focus on competition, and internal cognitive frames/self-indugences like "we're not competing--me good, others bad" don't have any impact on that competition.
And yes, the devs have outlined a general system for structuring that competition so that it's not toxic, and it looks like no amount of repeating "The over-riding game design principle is I should be able to do anything I like" will really change that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes Bluud, PFO has a strong focus on competition, and internal cognitive frames/self-indugences like "we're not competing--me good, others bad" don't have any impact on that competition.
And yes, the devs have outlined a general system for structuring that competition so that it's not toxic, and it looks like no amount of repeating "The over-riding game design principle is I should be able to do anything I like" will really change that.
Non responsive reply, Mabando...... Nothing to do with Nevy's hypothetical.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A thought that keeps crossing my mind is if it wouldn't be better if the alignment thresholds were soft instead of hard. Instead of -7500 = hard shift to evil, it can't be something where as you gradually shift, it gets MORE EXPENSIVE to train both in money and training time.
Training Time = Real Money..... So you are suggesting that all non good aligned players pay more to play this game?
Talk about a subscription loss death spiral! You would just lose your PvP focused players, you'd lose the RP'ers as well. Not everyone wants to play Good aligned characters.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A thought that keeps crossing my mind is if it wouldn't be better if the alignment thresholds were soft instead of hard. Instead of -7500 = hard shift to evil, it can't be something where as you gradually shift, it gets MORE EXPENSIVE to train both in money and training time.Training Time = Real Money..... So you are suggesting that all non good aligned players pay more to play this game?
Talk about a subscription loss death spiral! You would just lose your PvP focused players, you'd lose the RP'ers as well. Not everyone wants to play Good aligned characters.
I'm not suggesting anything that's not already confirmed as part of the design. I'm just suggesting it be a soft cap instead of a hard one. I'm saying it especially for the likes of you, who will be playing my fave alignment, CN. It would be easier to manage the "moral mathemetics" with soft thresh holds.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...Nothing to do with Nevy's hypothetical.
My hypothetical: we come up with a fine-tuned perfect solution to his hypothetical, and then PFO contains some game mechanic that makes kill-stealing obsolete, non-existent, or in-offensive. We've thus wasted our time in the discussion, and possibly hurt our inter-relationships via harsh interaction.
We also simply could deny the premise of the hypothetical and wait to see what GW puts in their game as we learn more about their design.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There us no such thing as Random Player Killing, so long as there is a motivation for it. Since motivation can be anything, even irrational, no killing can truly be random. My now infamous example demonstrates this:
If I decide that on Tuesdays I will kill anyone wearing a "Green Hat", my killing has meaning to me. My victim does not have to know my motivation, understand it or agree with it. The victim's ignorance of my motivation does not strip the event of its meaningfulness.
So I agree with you, kill that Paladin. If he loses, he deserved it, loot him and carry on.
One (or both) of us has a misconception in this. I believe that to the game mechanisms the individual player has no input over what is or is not meaningful: Your evaluation that the green hat on Tuesdays is meaningful is irrelevant as far as what has in-game consequence. There is no ethical relativism, no subjective opinion involved but rather absolutist values.
Your idea of 'meaningful' will be like the ravings of a madman in-game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To Nevy's conundrum, I have two things to suggest.
1) Nevy does not own the zombie spawns. It is just as rude to expect the paladin to wait for him to finish as it is for the paladin to move in solo. Nevy may have 20 minutes until bed-time, but he may have been playing for four hours and perhaps the Paladin only has an hour to play that day. 20 minutes would be 1/3 of his day. Driving off the paladin is just as greedy as the paladin moving into the area is (pre-kill stealing). Though, paladins should not be acting out of greed... it may be difficult to police.
2) The subject of Kill Stealing can and should be discussed separately from the reputation mechanic. First tag, killing blow, and most damage done all have problems inherent in the designs. Which is the best system requires measuring them against each other. First tag and most damage done both favors higher skilled characters who can dish out more damage as well as receive more damage, allowing them to tag multiple foes right up front to 'reserve' them. Killing blow, I feel, is the worst of the lot.
In short, if the mechanics can reasonably deal with Kill Stealing, then Nevy should have to suffer consequences to kill the paladin who is now killing some of the zombies spawns. It is up to him as to whether or not it is 'worth it'.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kill stealing is a minor annoyance at worst in a game that credits you, and gives you loot rights for any creature you initiate combat with. Something that always aggravates me much more is when I engage the NPC's around a resource node or objective, and somebody else comes and ninjas it while I'm finishing them off.
There are two ways to deal with that kind of thing:
1. Exile them from your settlement's territory, if it's a widespread problem in a group you can consider economic sanctions or declaring war a feud. That is the high rep lawful/good way to deal with it.
2. Slaughter them and don't worry about it. Sure you'll take a rep hit, but as I've said before, rep regeneration should be fast enough that if you only kill when you have a reason, you won't become low rep.
Could PFO thrive without option 2? Had it been marketed differently, probably so. I'll bet Homes and Watson, Summersnow, and a lot of other people with similar opinions who left during the kickstarter would really enjoy that policy. It's a very valid game design.
At this point I would say no, because it's attracted a very different audience based on promises made. To me, having the option to kill someone makes interactions far more meaningful even if I never use it. Also a very valid game design, and what I personally prefer.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was just rolling up to a mob of zombies on my paladin when this rogue comes around the corner and starts whining about being here first and some imagined right to the kills. Naturally I just ignored him; I had just as much a right to the zombie spawns as he did. Though he was upset about it, he decided killing me then and there wasn't worth the rep hit.
Unless he's attacking and taking loot from mobs you've already aggro'd, I don't see the argument. And coding can prevent him from taking loot from the mobs you've aggro'd.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To Nevy's conundrum, I have two things to suggest.
1) Nevy does not own the zombie spawns. It is just as rude to expect the paladin to wait for him to finish as it is for the paladin to move in solo. Nevy may have 20 minutes until bed-time, but he may have been playing for four hours and perhaps the Paladin only has an hour to play that day. 20 minutes would be 1/3 of his day. Driving off the paladin is just as greedy as the paladin moving into the area is (pre-kill stealing). Though, paladins should not be acting out of greed... it may be difficult to police.
2) The subject of Kill Stealing can and should be discussed separately from the reputation mechanic. First tag, killing blow, and most damage done all have problems inherent in the designs. Which is the best system requires measuring them against each other. First tag and most damage done both favors higher skilled characters who can dish out more damage as well as receive more damage, allowing them to tag multiple foes right up front to 'reserve' them. Killing blow, I feel, is the worst of the lot.
In short, if the mechanics can reasonably deal with Kill Stealing, then Nevy should have to suffer consequences to kill the paladin who is now killing some of the zombies spawns. It is up to him as to whether or not it is 'worth it'.
This also reflects my view. Thanks.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since there is no XP from kills, they only reasons to "kill steal" are to perform "kill x" in-game achievements that may be related to skill training ot faction quests, or to steal loot.
It's easy enough to only grant loot rights to the first team to engage a mob, and there is no reason not to give credit to every that damages a mob for kill x purposes.
If you have a restrictive no-kill stealing policy in place, then it discourages acts of random kindness where a vet just shows up to help a stranger kill a pve opponent.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Kill stealing is a minor annoyance at worst in a game that credits you, and gives you loot rights for any creature you initiate combat with. Something that always aggravates me much more is when I engage the NPC's around a resource node or objective, and somebody else comes and ninjas it while I'm finishing them off.
There are two ways to deal with that kind of thing:
1. Exile them from your settlement's territory, if it's a widespread problem in a group you can consider economic sanctions or declaring war a feud. That is the high rep lawful/good way to deal with it.
2. Slaughter them and don't worry about it. Sure you'll take a rep hit, but as I've said before, rep regeneration should be fast enough that if you only kill when you have a reason, you won't become low rep.
Could PFO thrive without option 2? Had it been marketed differently, probably so. I'll bet Homes and Watson, Summersnow, and a lot of other people with similar opinions who left during the kickstarter would really enjoy that policy. It's a very valid game design.
At this point I would say no, because it's attracted a very different audience based on promises made. To me, having the option to kill someone makes interactions far more meaningful even if I never use it. Also a very valid game design, and what I personally prefer.
Andius, how on earth do I keep finding myself agreeing with you!?
For two people who have had very contrasted views in the past, we seem to find ourselves on the same side of the argument more often times than not here recently.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There us no such thing as Random Player Killing, so long as there is a motivation for it. Since motivation can be anything, even irrational, no killing can truly be random. My now infamous example demonstrates this:
If I decide that on Tuesdays I will kill anyone wearing a "Green Hat", my killing has meaning to me. My victim does not have to know my motivation, understand it or agree with it. The victim's ignorance of my motivation does not strip the event of its meaningfulness.
So I agree with you, kill that Paladin. If he loses, he deserved it, loot him and carry on.
One (or both) of us has a misconception in this. I believe that to the game mechanisms the individual player has no input over what is or is not meaningful: Your evaluation that the green hat on Tuesdays is meaningful is irrelevant as far as what has in-game consequence. There is no ethical relativism, no subjective opinion involved but rather absolutist values.
Your idea of 'meaningful' will be like the ravings of a madman in-game.
Bluud's making that up--he knows that's not true :) Making a distinction between meaningful PvP and the kind of RPK/griefing Bluud is advocating is a consistent, defining aspect of PFO.
@Onishi - we're putting our eggs in the basket of exploration, development, adventure and domination.
Not meaningless PvP, or greifing PvP.
There will be massive amounts of meaningful, non griefing PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There should be a non-aggroing, instant, reasonably long-range "Claim" ability to lock targets and make them grey to other players. If you don't actually aggro the target during the first round of combat, you lose your Claim and can't Claim that target again for 1 or more minutes. You shouldn't have to use Claim, but it should be available if you usually open with an ability that takes a while to cast and are worried about the jerk following you around dropping instant-cast low-damage abilities on the mobs when he sees you about to pull. It's that behavior that prompted a lot of games to abandon "first damage locks" and require a certain threshold of damage be done.
This kind of "Claim" ability is probably not really compatible with an artificially constrained Action Bar unless it's something that can be performed without taking up a slot.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In PvP, the attacker-involved relationship is set early, probably at first hit. It's important for figuring out who the aggressor is and who is the defender; who takes alignment and rep hits and who doesn't. Of course, this may change as the design progresses, but however it works in PvE should be similar to how it works in PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some kind of proportionate distribution of what ever is distributed(loot, rep, align) is more to my liking.
I think I'd prefer that, too.
[Edit] Seems like it could be applied to Resource Nodes as well, if we can convince them to make even the regular Resource Nodes allow multiple characters to harvest from them simultaneously.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The resource nodes are tied to an underlying Resource Pool. If NPC loot is associated with a similar table, then it could be done. Two people attacking a deer in a zone with a full Deer Hides pool might both be able to get hides from the same mob (as happens in Guild Wars 2). But if two people are farming deer in a zone, the underlying resource pool will drop faster than if it were only one. Everyone has an equal shot at loot from the same mob (pro-cooperation per kill) but the total amount you can get for yourself drops more quickly if a lot of people are looting (pro-conflict resource competition).
This can be viewed as an abstraction of a bunch of hunters in the woods looking for hides. The guys who get in early find an abundance of prize animals, you get workable material from each. After they've been hunted down, you are more and more likely to be left with sickly or mangey animals. Many hides are simply not of the quality you would need for crafting good items.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Should there be a 'mini-raid' mechanic where two hunters conduct a sanctioned fight over a micro-territory? Should the line be drawn between sanctioned and unsanctioned as 'fair fight' when evaluating such a battle for hunting rights? Or is it only the bandit that can have a SAD-like mechanic?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Should there be a 'mini-raid' mechanic where two hunters conduct a sanctioned fight over a micro-territory? Should the line be drawn between sanctioned and unsanctioned as 'fair fight' when evaluating such a battle for hunting rights? Or is it only the bandit that can have a SAD-like mechanic?
I would oppose this for wilderness/monster hexes. Hunters are meant to hunt animals, not other hunters. A mechanic like this is going to be used by people who want to hunt other hunters. Even if it were used in the spirit that you are suggesting, I would still find it unfavorable. We already have to worry about encroaching upon territory owned by other settlements, do we really want to have to try to keep track of 'hunting rights' territories in the wilds? Hunters will have enough to worry about with keeping track of markets, monsters, bandits, and murderous psychotics.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Being, I think adding more and more little exceptions to the moral code (it's ok if you're killing someone over deer, but not felling trees) just weakens the alignment and rep system. Let individuals decide what they'll kill over, given standard consequences.
Should some players have the ability to say "Kings X!" cross their fingers and make a SAD-like demand over a deer hunt? I hope not. I'm not sure one subset of characters should have the ability to create a 'legitimate' reason to kill at the drop of a (green) hat.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It does seem like competition over mobs should play out pretty much the same way that competition over other resources does.
It still does not eliminate the fact that kill stealing sucks. Perhaps there are some irritants in a game with open PVP that are just "there".
Certainly there are options, whether directly in-game or reporting (for consistent unresolvable griefing), to deal with pretty much all situations.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I decide that on Tuesdays I will kill anyone wearing a "Green Hat", my killing has meaning to me. My victim does not have to know my motivation, understand it or agree with it. The victim's ignorance of my motivation does not strip the event of its meaningfulness.
It strips the event of meaningfulness for the other player.
Do you expect people to go: "Oh, some guy I don't know killed me - but he probably had his own reasons, so that's ok then" ??
Compare this to the scenario where I've been warned that "on Tuesdays Bluddwolf will kill players wearing green hats" (and I love my green hat). Do I submit? Heck no! Then I meet Bludd in the woods and go down proudly flying the green.
Still not understanding or agreeing with the motivation, my death is now meaningful and personal: I died because I chose pride (or vanity) over cowardice. And I may just run straight back flaunting an even bigger green hat just to show him he didn't break me.
I would even settle for "sometimes Bluddwolf randomly attacks people not wearing the same colour hat as he does".
But "killing for no apparent reason" (and the keyword is 'apparent') is functionally equivalent to "random killing".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It does seem like competition over mobs should play out pretty much the same way that competition over other resources does.
It still does not eliminate the fact that kill stealing sucks. Perhaps there are some irritants in a game with open PVP that are just "there".
"Kill-stealing" is an EQ/WoW concept. "Kill Stealing" only makes sense when the design is predicated on grinds:kill N of mobs, or grind out N kills of a placeholder P to get Boss Mob B, to get drops D1 or D2 from Drop table BD. Goblins aren't our content--interactions with other players are.
Now, if we're taking about competing over resources--harvesting resources, component drops from mobs, escalations--then again "kill-stealing" isn't a useful framework to import from games like EQ and WOw--we're not playing those games. Competing over resources is part of the content. We want to have Nevy just friggin' sure Nevy's party has "rights" to resource X, and my party equally sure we have a right to the resource, and then do complex social work in game to resolve the conflict. That's sort of the goal here:
- We talk and hash it out.
- You're red, and this is NBSI: BLAM!
- OMG you guys are complete butt-heads--we're spending influence on a Company feud.
- You know what? That's it. Screw it, I don't care what the alignment/rep hits are--you're going down, pal.
That's fun. That's good. That's rich, and above all, it's meaningful. A "greying out" mechanic where you try and repeat EQ doesn't make any sense in this frame of reference.
@Randomwalker
Sorry I have to disagree strongly here. It is the motivation of the initiator which determines meaningfulness not that of the one having it done to. In many cases the PVP will be meaningful but the victim will be deliberately kept in the dark.
Example I as a merchant find you are always undercutting me. I hire a group of thugs to harass you and raise your costs so you can no longer undercut me without taking a loss. I certainly don't want you to know why these thugs are targetting you but it does not mean the pvp is not meaningful
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If I decide that on Tuesdays I will kill anyone wearing a "Green Hat", my killing has meaning to me. My victim does not have to know my motivation, understand it or agree with it. The victim's ignorance of my motivation does not strip the event of its meaningfulness.
It strips the event of meaningfulness for the other player.
Do you expect people to go: "Oh, some guy I don't know killed me - but he probably had his own reasons, so that's ok then" ??
Compare this to the scenario where I've been warned that "on Tuesdays Bluddwolf will kill players wearing green hats" (and I love my green hat). Do I submit? Heck no! Then I meet Bludd in the woods and go down proudly flying the green.
Still not understanding or agreeing with the motivation, my death is now meaningful and personal: I died because I chose pride (or vanity) over cowardice. And I may just run straight back flaunting an even bigger green hat just to show him he didn't break me.
I would even settle for "sometimes Bluddwolf randomly attacks people not wearing the same colour hat as he does".
But "killing for no apparent reason" (and the keyword is 'apparent') is functionally equivalent to "random killing".
Now, if Bluddwolf were to declare "I must kill you if you do not remove that abomination of a green hat (for it is Tuesday!)" and give the player a chance to be baffled for a second before he dies (or removes the hat), then it is definitely content creation. Especially if he's talking to other players and they affirm that this is indeed a thing happens. It adds atmosphere. Especially when a group of green hats comes to ruin his day (on Tuesdays).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Randomwalker
Sorry I have to disagree strongly here. It is the motivation of the initiator which determines meaningfulness not that of the one having it done to. In many cases the PVP will be meaningful but the victim will be deliberately kept in the dark.
Example I as a merchant find you are always undercutting me. I hire a group of thugs to harass you and raise your costs so you can no longer undercut me without taking a loss. I certainly don't want you to know why these thugs are targetting you but it does not mean the pvp is not meaningful
In WoW, I solved this situation by buying out the merchants who were selling their Stranglekelp for way too little and reselling for a profit. Eventually the main culprit just started selling to me directly. :D
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'll submit before and I'll say again choosing a roleplay where you kill people based on a random condition such as "anyone wearing a green hat on Tuesday" is simply killing for the sake of killing AKA RPKing with a thin disguise.
Such a role was chosen in an attempt to justify slaughter which would be and still is utterly meaningless and without any positive value to this game or it's community.
It will be possible in this game but it will be penalized by the developers and envoke the wrath of organizations in favor of positive gameplay. As it should.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Pax can enforce whatever laws they wish in their own territory. I would expect if things such as "Green Hat Tuesday" became laws people would choose not to subject themselves to such insanity and simply stop going there. The ability for them to make that choice is what makes it meaningful.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Pax and Golgotha can enforce whatever laws they wish in their own territory. I would expect if things such as "Green Hat Tuesday" became laws people would choose not to subject themselves to such insanity and simply stop going there. The ability for them to make that choice is what makes it meaningful.
Sure, I was not suggesting they should or would. I was simply asking if...then would it be meaningful? Kings and rulers have, afterall, made more arbitrary rulings throughout history.
Would such a thing add content or be simple justification for meaningless RPK?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
At the point it's confined to a specific region it turns from a system in which any player may be killed at any time simply for playing the game to a system where by entering a certain area you subject yourself to the rulings of lunatics. At that point you can simply go to regions where more sane factions hold sway.
As I stated above, it's the choice that makes it meaningful.