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.
Understood and I think I agree.
Again, I want to reiterate that I was not suggesting anything about UNC, Aeternum, or Golgotha (or their sanity) with my hypothetical.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
This was the argument used by Goonswarm when they began their suicide ganking campaigns against Hulks ("Hulkaggeddon") They claimed that while to the outside world it looked like they were engaging in RPK, really they were "Role playing" an in-game event. Later, this morphed into their claiming that a lot of 'bots used Hulks and that they were really trying to degrade RMT and 'bot activity. (The latter may even be true; RMT and 'bots are a problem for a group that is based on throwing masses of low-level characters at problems...)
To the players who found their Hulks blown up by suicide gankers, it didn't feel like much of a worthwhile excuse.
This is the kind of corner case that we'll have to have a lot of community input on. In EVE, it was not an issue as nothing they were doing was going to illicit a response from CCP (although things like naming the leader of the effort "the Prophet Khartoon" and declaring a "jihad" struck too close to too many nerves for my taste personally...)
We might have a different approach in our game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Simply amazing...... What started out as an, admittedly absurd, but accurate , argument has grown into an event that has significant meaning. This thread alone proves that "Green Hat Tuesday" will be an example of meaningful PvP. It will not only have meaning for its perpetrators, but for its victims as we'll.
Who will be the "Server First"!!!!! "Hey all, I just got killed on a Tuesday, wearing a green hat."
I suspect the first killer will be Hobs the Short. He would probably sell the hat to someone, and then as they turn away...... He will strike a death blow!
Even Ryan Dancey has chimed in, comparing "Green Hat Tuesday" to Goonswarm's "Hulkageddon"...... Glorious beyond my wildest dreams, for it to be compared to such a legendary event.
Now there are those who would claim it has no meaning, now that is absurd. "green Hat Tuesday" is the first event that has developed organically, accidentally and will be universally meaningful for everyone.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Again, I want to reiterate that I was not suggesting anything about UNC, Aeternum, or Golgotha (or their sanity) with my hypothetical.
I was speaking to the sanity of an organization which would implement such policies, I do not think Pax would actually shoot themselves in the foot by driving away traders with a "Green Hat Tuesdays."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Again, I want to reiterate that I was not suggesting anything about UNC, Aeternum, or Golgotha (or their sanity) with my hypothetical.I was speaking to the sanity of an organization which would implement such policies, I do not think Pax would actually shoot themselves in the foot by driving away traders with a "Green Hat Tuesdays."
I lol'd.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Again, I want to reiterate that I was not suggesting anything about UNC, Aeternum, or Golgotha (or their sanity) with my hypothetical.I was speaking to the sanity of an organization which would implement such policies, I do not think Pax would actually shoot themselves in the foot by driving away traders with a "Green Hat Tuesdays."
It was never a Pax thing, nor was it actually a UNC thing..... But I'm going to do what I can to make it a PFO thing.
A day of fun, revelry, debauchery, merriment, murder, robbery and of course contests and parades for the best Green Hats!!
And I'll be distributing free green hats to newbies and telling them that green hat tuesdays mean that they get xp 2x faster if they're wearing a green hat on tuesday.
"Tuesday after lunch is the cosmic time of the week." Please don't denigrate Tuesdays. THurday would be a better choice!
lam
Ah, the joys of dripping acid.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is the kind of corner case that we'll have to have a lot of community input on. In EVE, it was not an issue as nothing they were doing was going to illicit a response from CCP (although things like naming the leader of the effort "the Prophet Khartoon" and declaring a "jihad" struck too close to too many nerves for my taste personally...)We might have a different approach in our game.
While I understand why your experience with the Goons may have soured you on this kind of event taking place, I would encourage you to look beyond that and see other examples where it has been less toxic for the community. I would posit that the Goons Hulkageddon was a toxic influence because the Goons themselves made it toxic.
I used to be an active member in the Murderherd, a fairly well known Age of Conan gaming community that, to this day, is fairly well respected (and feared) by players on our old server. I have had people recognise my username in other games and whisper me “Are you that guy from Murderherd? I loved you guys!”. From what I have been told by other ex-members, this is fairly common. When I joined Pax Gaming I had the same response by a few of their members.
Every Monday we ran Murder Monday, an event where we would all get together and scourge the countryside in the name of Pants. Anyone we encountered we would demand remove their pants on pain of death. We honoured that agreement, and we were adamant that anyone taking part did the same.
Don't get me wrong, we certainly had our detractors. There were some people who viewed us as griefers who could do with getting brought down a peg or two. But the vast majority of the response we got was favourable. We added content to what was otherwise a fairly boring experience. And this was on an RP-PVP server, so it isn't as if we were only playing with other people who wanted All PvP All the Time.
I would at least ask that you are initially try to remain neutral should something like Green Hat Tuesday arise. If you deem that the community response to the event grows such that it is an overwhelmingly negative influence, then tell us to cut it out on pain of banning. Otherwise I fear that you could artificially restrict what could be a fun event that adds enjoyable content to the player community. I honestly feel that if it was run by a group that is truthfully dedicated to making it an enjoyable experience for both sides of the coin, that it would at least be more beneficial than not.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Every Monday we ran Murder Monday, an event where we would all get together and scourge the countryside in the name of Pants.
To this day, I am not sure if this is the case or not, but our former LotRO leader, Lyon, was known as the Pantless Leader of Pax Thalion.
Officers of Pax Gaming, please join me in welcoming Potato!
He will be serving in Pax Golgotha's Maelstrom PvP branch. Some of you have already felt the wrath of his skill first hand when his was "Jamboreen" in "Murderherd" a frequent opponent of our Age of Conan Pax Division.
Welcome!!
Some of you have already felt the wrath of his skill first hand when his was "Jamboreen" in "Murderherd" a frequent opponent of EVERYONE IN AGE OF CONAN EVERFixed.
It just goes to show how something like "Murder Mondays" or "Green Hat Tuesdays" can really stick with people and transcend the game.
Merry ride to low rep CE to those celebrating "The Green Hat Tuesday". :)
There will be no rep loss for Green Hat Tuesday.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I may wear a green hat on tuesdays. Just to spite.. I mean generate content. Bands of green-hatters squatting on UNC territory just to show defiance...
I actually agree with Bluddwolf that this could transcend into a in-game cultural event. ("Here's your green hat, wear it on tuesdays as a symbol that the killers will never defeat us. Expect to be jumped, though").
I maintain that this is only meaningful to those that know about it.
Eventually, GW could sanction it by allowing settlements to make laws against certain apparel. But until that imaginary tuesday, learn to live with the rep (and other) consequences.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's outrageous!Merry ride to low rep CE to those celebrating "The Green Hat Tuesday". :)There will be no rep loss for Green Hat Tuesday.
Not really when you think about it. People will be informed. Hopefully green hats won't be too common. Specifically wearing a green hat on "Green Hat Tuesdays" will be implied consent, thus no REP loss should occur.
Now, if we were to go with an idea we chuckled over last nite and have "Green Hat Tuesday" on a Monday, that would be intentionally misleading the public and not only have the possibility of resulting in an alignment hit towards chaos, but REP loss as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would imagine it would be conditional. The developers will in the end decide whether these types of events cause rep loss, possibly based on the thoughts of the community.
I could support or not support a Green Hat Tuesday, depending on where it occurs. If it is occuring in an area primarily devoted to brand new players, I am less supportive. If it is happening in "wilder lands" I am significantly for it. There is surely going to be enough warning that the event will happen at X time of the year, as long as it is not specifically targeting new player areas I really see no harm in it. It's a goofy fun event for pvp folk.
There does need to be some room in the community for events that are just fun. Not directly tied to one cannon event or the other, but just a goofy thing to do.
LOTRO has a pretty in depth bardic system, and sometimes it is used to mimic modern rock or pop music, or putting on a dance party. This happens even inside of more strict roleplay communities. It is in effect a social event with little or no cannon backbone. I don't think that has to be a bad thing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I very much hope random PKing that is justified post-hoc ("Umm...they were...wearing a green hat. That's why I killed them!"), or random PKing predicated on the arbitrary ("Umm, we need a reason to PK, so uhh, ok it's about pants. RPKing on pants, def let's do it") is permitted, and has the appropriate alignment and reputation consequences.
Bluud picked "green hats" precisely because it's an example of an arbitrary excuse that you could justify because game systems can't divine intent. RPKing based on arbitrary markers (green hats, blue hats, pants, no-pants, Oh hell I just like running around with other man-babies and killing newbs) is just that, and it's marked very clearly not only by the arbitrariness of the marker, but also by the lack of in game advantage. If you want to kill another party so you can strip mine a gathering node, you gain an in-game advantage consonant with the game philosophy--if you want to kill people randomly 'cause giggles, you're engaged in RPKing.
Which is ok--Ryan has laid out why those people have a place in the game as content, and where the alignment/rep funnel goes.
So indeed, merry ride to low rep CE for those celebrating RPKing--you belong squatting on a pile of filth, fighting over scraps with the other scum :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I actually don't mind if "Green Hat Tuesday" incurs alignment / reputation consequences, actually I prefer if it does. Green Hat Tuesday can take various forms, based on the alignment of the individual or participating companies / settlements.
LG and NG: Green hat wearing individuals do good deeds for the day.
CG: Green hat wearing individuals play harmless pranks against others.
LN and N: Wears and sells green hats to others.
N and CN: Wears and steals green hats from others.
LE: Have laws that either require or deny the wearing of green hats
NE: Wears green hats, and sells Green Hats that have negative buffs
CE: Wears and kill all that are wearing a green hat
These are just a few possibilities.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What if for the sake of argument:
This community ends up taking Ryan's comment that a crowdforging discussion could be made for consequence free pvp areas or "wild lands". A thread is made, and the area(s) end up being instituted when the game launches.
From a mechanical standpoint, if Green Hat Tuesday always took place on X day of the year / month always in a Wild Land area then it would not suffer from the reputation losses associated with not being meaningful interaction.
I know, highly hypothetical. What I am getting at is if a consequence free area of the map were to be introduced would that change peoples feelings on Green Hat Tuesday (if it happened exclusively there)?
I know the original premise was a snark, but the resulting conversation here is drawing lines in the sand. I am curious if there is room for pvp conflict for its own sake and nothing else under any reasonable conditions.
In this hypothetical everything is pretty consensual. You would have to be in a certain place, at a certain time or year, wearing a certain color of hat to be a hard target. It would also be in an area where everyone is a target anyhow.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I very much hope random PKing that is justified post-hoc ("Umm...they were...wearing a green hat. That's why I killed them!"), or random PKing predicated on the arbitrary ("Umm, we need a reason to PK, so uhh, ok it's about pants. RPKing on pants, def let's do it") is permitted, and has the appropriate alignment and reputation consequences.
Bluud picked "green hats" precisely because it's an example of an arbitrary excuse.....
So indeed, merry ride to low rep CE for those celebrating RPKing--you belong squatting on a pile of filth, fighting over scraps with the other scum :)
1. It's D x 2, not U x 2.
2a. I agree I want the alignment / rep consequences.
2b. One day a year will have NO impact on anyone's alignment / rep
2c. You don't seem to be taking this topic in a fun loving way.
2d. "You Mad, Bro?"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What if for the sake of argument:
This community ends up taking Ryan's comment that a crowdforging discussion could be made for consequence free pvp areas or "wild lands". A thread is made, and the area(s) end up being instituted when the game launches.
From a mechanical standpoint, if Green Hat Tuesday always took place on X day of the year / month always in a Wild Land area then it would not suffer from the reputation losses associated with not being meaningful interaction.
Respectfully, this misses the whole point. It is already a meaningful interaction, whether it has alignment / reputation consequences attacked to it or not.
If it gets shoved into some corner, allowing posers to wear a green hats, but not actually enter that zone, the whole thing loses its meaning.
It should take place everywhere, but especially where it will create the most entertainment or shock value.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is already a meaningful interaction
Obviously this is not a truism, it seems many would disagree with this statement.
On one side I agree with the unconvinced, I am not sure it is the "ideal" meaningful, on the other...I have played sandboxes that relied upon player generated content...and I have seen communities welcome anything that spiced up their game time. Something like this would have been welcomed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I actually used the example of Murder Monday for a very specific reason; As described so far, Pathfinder Online supports such an event far more than Age of Conan ever did. What we were basically doing in AoC is an unenforced Stand and Deliver. Pathfinder Online has direct mechanical support for doing what we did.
An example. Every Monday evening all of the Golgothan Military forces gather in the city centre square, and we venture out into the world. Anyone we encounter we SAD, demanding that they give us their pants. If you accept, we let you go on your way. If you refuse, we follow through the consequences of refusing a SAD (I imagine death). We do this for a multitude of reasons; It's fun, it's good practise for our new recruits, it's a team building exercise. Chances are at least some of us will be drinking while we steal the communities pants, and that always adds a laugh or two.
A fully reputation saving method for doing Murder Monday. We will still probably be forced into Evil. We might be forced into Chaotic depending on how they end up pushing certain mechanics. But we won't be low reputation.
Now obviously this might not actually be possible; SADs might have a prohibitive forced cooldown (stupid) or they may have a prohibitive influence cost (less stupid). But I'm fairly sure that those subsystems haven't been fully divulged quite yet.
In fact this is one of the reasons I really like the concept of SADs. It allows groups like those I have historically belonged to do have our silly, b@#++@#+ fun without actually killing the people we target. We become less of a blight for some parts of the community, and instead can focus our energies on entertaining everyone involved instead.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What if for the sake of argument:
This community ends up taking Ryan's comment that a crowdforging discussion could be made for consequence free pvp areas or "wild lands". A thread is made, and the area(s) end up being instituted when the game launches.
From a mechanical standpoint, if Green Hat Tuesday always took place on X day of the year / month always in a Wild Land area then it would not suffer from the reputation losses associated with not being meaningful interaction.
Respectfully, this misses the whole point. It is already a meaningful interaction, whether it has alignment / reputation consequences attacked to it or not.
If it gets shoved into some corner, allowing posers to wear a green hats, but not actually enter that zone, the whole thing loses its meaning.
It should take place everywhere, but especially where it will create the most entertainment or shock value.
I think I have misrepresented my point.
1. I am not speaking on "meaningful interaction" in the personal or subjective sense. I am speaking of MI as an intended GW mechanic. I know meaningful interaction means a lot of things to a lot of people, but I am pretty sure the developers have a narrower view on what that will entail.
2. I wanted to present a hypothetical to get a feel on where the community sets on player versus player content outside of the faction and settlement parameters.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is already a meaningful interactionObviously this is not a truism, it seems many would disagree with this statement.
There are likely some who are opposed to it, but that does not strip it of its meaning.
Meaningfulness does not require consent or agreement, only motive and an impact.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On one side I agree with the unconvinced, I am not sure it is the "ideal" meaningful, on the other...I have played sandboxes that relied upon player generated content...and I have seen communities welcome anything that spiced up their game time. Something like this would have been welcomed.
That is actually a critical point. The Murderherd had Murder Monday largely because the game didn't facilitate our PvP desire sufficiently well. That we entertained our targets as much as we did ourselves didn't really come into it that much. We didn't have methods of 'sanctioned' release, so we made our own. Now, some of the things that Dancey and Co. have described look to remedy that situation. A lot of the toxic elements of these silly little events can be removed from play simply by having reasonably easy to access PvP outlets for the “I wanna have some PvP fun” crowd.
Feuds, SADs, Faction Warfare and the like will hopefully accomplish that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In fact this is one of the reasons I really like the concept of SADs. It allows groups like those I have historically belonged to do have our silly, b+#+$~@% fun without actually killing the people we target. We become less of a blight for some parts of the community, and instead can focus our energies on entertaining everyone involved instead.
This would be the other question I posted out of genuine curiosity. Will there be room in PFO for goofy fun (pvp, social, pve or otherwise) that is not rp or cannon based (while not being looked down upon by members of the community)?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is already a meaningful interactionObviously this is not a truism, it seems many would disagree with this statement.There are likely some who are opposed to it, but that does not strip it of its meaning.
Meaningfulness does not require consent or agreement, only motive and an impact.
I know you believe this, and I respect your right to believe it, but again, some possibly including me, do not believe it to be irrefutably true. This, I think, is the philosophical difference at the root of our differences in opinions about mechanics. You keep arguing your side, "the other side" will keep arguing theirs...the people in the middle with argue theirs...and hopefully GW can find a solution that makes everyone happy.
But please, realize not everyone agrees with this position.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That is actually a critical point. The Murderherd had Murder Monday largely because the game didn't facilitate our PvP desire sufficiently well. That we entertained our targets as much as we did ourselves didn't really come into it that much. We didn't have methods of 'sanctioned' release, so we made our own. Now, some of the things that Dancey and Co. have described look to remedy that situation. A lot of the toxic elements of these silly little events can be removed from play simply by having reasonably easy to access PvP outlets for the “I wanna have some PvP fun” crowd.Feuds, SADs, Faction Warfare and the like will hopefully accomplish that.
'Zactly. I think the majority of people who want to directly engage in PvP will have multiple, non-toxic ways to it--t's at the core of the design philosophy. Which is great too, because those people will be just as committed to isolating tools who want to RPK. If you're serious about PvP and being competitive in PFO, there's no way you're going to let a bunch of man-babies drag you down on their trip down the CE slide onto the filth pile.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is the motivation of the initiator which determines meaningfulness not that of the one having it done to.
I'd hate to have you sitting as judge for an assault case. The intent of the perpetrator is largely irrelevant when assessing whether a crime was committed. That intent may be considered at sentencing, but not necessarily.
All this PvP talk is exausting... Can we just take away PvP entirely... or make it a FFA Bloodbath? Either way I'd be happy at this point. lol
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is the motivation of the initiator which determines meaningfulness not that of the one having it done to.I'd hate to have you sitting as judge for an assault case. The intent of the perpetrator is largely irrelevant when assessing whether a crime was committed. That intent may be considered at sentencing, but not necessarily.
Except for two things
1) This is not about committing a crime it is obvious that the only person who knows whether they have a motive to kill the victim is the offender.
2) If you really want to drag real life into it yes intent is a huge part of deciding whether a crime has been committed it is what the whole point of "Mens rea" is about. mens rea
If you are happily mining ore in the woods and I come and kill you there is no way you can distinguish whether I killed you because
a) I am being a jerk and rpking
b) You are exploiting a resource that I wish to exploit myself
c) I wished to loot your corpse because I had noticed some of your equipment was quite nice
d) We have an operation happening in the area and all members were instructed to ensure there were no prying eyes to witness what we were up to
e) to z) other sundry reasons for killing you
Unless I happen to whisper you and let you know which of the reasons I killed you for you as the corpse have no way of telling. You therefore cannot ever be in a position to judge whether I had a reason to kill you or not.
If you are arguing that PVP interactions are only meaningful if the victim believes they are meaningful then you are arguing that for some people the game will contain no meaningful PVP at all. That position is patently codswallop
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
... there is no way you can distinguish whether... I am being a jerk and rpking...
Which is exactly why the game systems must treat it as if you probably are unless the game systems themselves are aware of a valid reason.
Which is exactly why I think it's critically important for the game systems to be aware of aas many valid reasons for PvP as we can think of.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1) This is not about committing a crime it is obvious that the only person who knows whether they have a motive to kill the victim is the offender.
The mechanism has no system for determining your intent, only that the deed happened under x conditions. Your 'meaningful' intention is thus irrelevant.
2) If you really want to drag real life into it yes intent is a huge part of deciding whether a crime has been committed it is what the whole point of "Mens rea" is about. mens rea
For some few types of crime, yes. For others, mens rea is not factored. Mens rea implies a lack of meaning for the offender, rather than the presence thereof.
Whether the individual thinks their personal enjoyment is meaningful and ganking innocents is pleasure does not have bearing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
the majority of people who want to directly engage in PvP will have multiple, non-toxic ways to it--t's at the core of the design philosophy. Which is great too, because those people will be just as committed to isolating tools who want to RPK. If you're serious about PvP and being competitive in PFO, there's no way you're going to let a bunch of man-babies drag you down on their trip down the CE slide onto the filth pile.
Are you missing the obvious on purpose?
This is a ONCE A YEAR EVENT.... JUST ONE DAY OUT OF 365 DAYS.
If you do not want to participate in it, you don't have to. I have already explained that there could be a variety of ways to play your alignment while participating in it.
This has nothing to do with "serious, competitive PVP". It is about having a community event that is a bit on the non serious side. A day when we can CHOOSE to throw on a green hat and forget about alignment or reputation consequences, if you choose to.
If the date is known and participation is voluntary, how could that at all be considered toxic?
It's just a game Bro', we are looking to have a bit of fun.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oppression is no more right one day of the year than it would be every day of the year. The reason all these rules are defining the game is to eliminate oppression and free up the game for others whose opinions matter just as much as anyone else'.
'Just a game' is like excusing a racial epithet with the 'It was only a joke' argument. It isn't a joke to those who have rage at the effrontery and arrogance of those who believe them lesser and treat them as subhuman objects.
If it is not fun for your victim it is wrong, whether just one time, just one day, or any time it happens.