Goblin Squad Member
|
I have always supported your "Apprehend System" as being the equivalent of the SAD, but more likely than not a Lawful based skill. But, as a Neutral I could see you having access to it as we'll.
This would leave SADs to CG, CN, CE, NG, N, NE
This would leave Apprehend to LG, LN, LE, NG, N, NEThere you go a balanced and fair system!
That's not quite how I remember it... regardless now we actually have a talking point. I assume at this point you are agreeing that good/lawful forces have nothing as powerful as the SAD to counter it. So let's start addressing that point.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have always supported your "Apprehend System" as being the equivalent of the SAD, but more likely than not a Lawful based skill. But, as a Neutral I could see you having access to it as we'll.
This would leave SADs to CG, CN, CE, NG, N, NE
This would leave Apprehend to LG, LN, LE, NG, N, NEThere you go a balanced and fair system!
That's not quite how I remember it... regardless now we actually have a talking point. I assume at this point you are agreeing that good/lawful forces have nothing as powerful as the SAD to counter it. So let's start addressing that point.
No you should not assume that, because it would be incorrect. As I told you before, but you chose to ignore it, when the SAD was moved from the alignment based Outlaw flag and made a skill, that opens the skill up for anyone to train.
But you typically ignore what does not fit within your narrative or agenda. You don't want the same, you want advantages, or perhaps you feel you're entitled to them or you need them. Overall your lack of confidence and over reliance on game mechanics is encouraging.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If Ryan has been saying that use of "sanctioned" and "unsanctioned" on the forum does not match dev use, then look at the quote recently posted to this tread:
The Man in the Back Said Everyone Attack:
Much more important are the tense and complicated relationships between rival factions—and this is where we have chosen to refocus the world for opt-in PvP. By "opt-in," we mean that individual players choose how much PvP they want to see outside the larger struggles of settlements and companies. (Of course, PvP is possible at any stage in Pathfinder Online, but without the sanction of warfare, bounties, feuds, or voluntary player actions—characters performing criminal or heinous acts, for example—there are consequences of reputation and alignment.)
This speaks to sanctioned warfare, bounties, feuds, or voluntary player actions. An attack on a character so flagged would not take rep or alignment hit.
This does not say doing a SAD and then attacking with out the above flagged conditions would not hit rep nor alignment.
Without those flags, -- characters performing criminal or heinous acts, for example—there are consequences of reputation and alignment.
If SAD is criminal (based upon laws of settlement) attackers would take hits. Killing would also take hits.
That is one way to parse the quote.
Of course Pax could make that attacks on those in Pax but not heading market are not criminal attacks not criminal. Pax could allow SAD on all non-Pax community but require that it is limited to 1 copper if target is heading to Pax Market. (can one choose market destination while en route? (If on the road from Isle of Ely to Cambridge, is Cambridge or London the destination).
Lam
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Of course Pax could make that attacks on those in Pax but not heading market are not criminal attacks not criminal. Pax could allow SAD on all non-Pax community but require that it is limited to 1 copper if target is heading to Pax Market. (can one choose market destination while en route? (If on the road from Isle of Ely to Cambridge, is Cambridge or London the destination).
Neither Pax divisions have stated a desire to allow attacks or SADs on non Pax members.
There have been statements of intent (based on the limited knowledge we currently have) to in some cases stop "grey" visitors to Pax as a security measure. In that case it would not be a UNC banditry operation, but a Callambea security concern.
Just offering clarity of intent to the hypothetical.
-Charlie George.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No you should not assume that, because it would be incorrect. As I told you before, but you chose to ignore it, when the SAD was moved from the alignment based Outlaw flag and made a skill, that opens the skill up for anyone to train.
My point is a game with PvP as the primary content generator that there should be counterbalancing mechanics allowed to forces of good/law that don't slide you toward chaotic/evil.
You don't want those, because you want to be able to kill without consequence or fear of retribution as is evident by the fact you don't think a paladin should be able to intervene if a bandit is stealing a pacifist newbs last coin right in-front of him. It's because you want EZ-Mode for bandits.
You want all the gains and all the profits but none of the consequences. I'm willing to give up my ability to kill characters who haven't flagged themselves through some form of aggressive action. I'm willing to give up the profits I could get if I operated in a chaotic-evil manner. I'm willing to give up the protections afforded to other good aligned high rep characters. You aren't willing to give up anything!
What are you giving up? What's your downside for SADing people? There is none. At least none of any real consequence if you get your way. Who's relying on protections from mechanics? I'm willing to give mine up. I proposed and supported the champion flag, and still want some way to give up my protections in order to get the kill rights I need for my role. But you think I should take the normal hit if I kill you.
You don't want any meaningful difference between the alignments, you think you should be able to SAD whoever you want to for however much you desire, you think there should be equal hits for killing a newb and killing you unless YOU initiate the conflict in any and every scenario unless I'm paying a heap of money for a bounty that allows me no more than a single kill. Something you get for free on everyone if they don't hand over their possessions the moment you ask. You've even suggested people take reputation hits for not just handing all their money to you when you ask for it. You want the profits AND the protections. I want neither. All I want is the right to protect people from those who prey on them without dragging down the rep and alignment of my organization.
Who's the one who's afraid here???
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Andius,
Everything I described is part of the game mechanics as we know them. I will say this again, maybe the fifth or sixth time will finally sink into your skull...
SAD is not alignment based, it is now a skill that anyone can use, if they train in it. If at some point the Devs at the very least make it chaotic, well then it can be equally used by CG, CN or CE. If you like the SAD mechanic so much, then train and use it.
No I am not willing to give up anything that GW has not said I have to give up, why would I? GW has said that if I want to SAD, I have to give up ambushing the target and an opportunity of looting 75% of the loot. If the caravan owner decides to reject the SAD, I have to then decide to fight (without ambush) or not to fight. Even if I win, I still gave up the advantage of ambush.
I think it is important for you to read, maybe for the first time this:
Hostility
A lot of PvP complexity we were previously storing in flags is now summarized in the Hostile state. There are a variety of cases that can make a player appear hostile to another player (e.g., faction membership, being at war, criminal flags, etc.). If you see a player that is hostile to you, there is no alignment or reputation penalty for attacking or killing that player. Often, hostility will be reciprocal (i.e., both players appear hostile to one another because their settlements are at war or their factions are enemies) but this is not required. If hostility is not reciprocal (a player sees you as hostile but you see them as friendly or neutral), once you are attacked, your attacker now appears hostile to you as well. That is, you don't take reputation or alignment penalties for defending yourself, even if you were a sanctioned target for your attacker.
Attacking an outpost will make you and your group hostile to the members of that outpost's managing company (as well as the owners of the controlling PoI if that company has subcontracted outpost management). That means that they can attempt to stop you without penalties. Raiding does not automatically make you hostile to every member of the settlement that owns that territory, however.
To enable the whole membership to come to the aid of its outposts, a settlement might choose to make raiding a crime in its territory. In that case, initiating a raid will give all raiders the Criminal flag (making them more chaotic and making them sanctioned targets for anyone). However, like all crimes, Criminal flags from raiding may have a detrimental effect on the settlement; even lawful settlements may have to consider whether making raiding a crime risks that their enemies will steal their resources and increase their corruption from frequent raiding. Additionally, the criminal flag is always overcome by active feuds or wars, so raiding will be a legitimate action if you first declare a feud or war on the settlement, PoI, or management company associated with your target outpost.
Although this potentially seems complicated, the hostility system is designed and presented in game to simplify on-the-spot combat decision making. We will cover hostility (and related changes to PvP) in more detail in a later blog post.
As you can hopefully see, there are consequences for the bandit / raider being made hostile towards a target.
Furthermore, if your settlement decides to make issuing SADs a crime, then the issuing of a SAD will incur the criminal flag, making the bandit a "sanctioned" target of your hostility.
Where is the EZ mode in that? If you want to be a protector of the weak, then do it. The same system that I am using to be a raider / bandit is the same system that you can use to stop me or punish me for it.
We both must make risk vs. reward decisions. If you are not up to making on-the-spot combat decisions
then pick up some crochet hooks and start knitting Green Hats.
BTW last time I checked, I did not develop any code for PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nothing you said changes anything I said.
I'm fully aware I can SAD people regardless of my alignment. I'm also aware that I won't stay my alignment if I do.
Once I hand you and yours a few sound defeats you're going to run off and pick on easier prey. At that point, by the way things you want to run, I can't do anything to you anymore. Even though it's my role to protect people. You want to be able to go out and target out weaker and easier groups, and force the veterans who want to protect them to trash their rep and alignment.
Anyway we've drug this out here long enough. I'll be on TS.
Nothing you said changes anything I said.
I'm fully aware I can SAD people regardless of my alignment. I'm also aware that I won't stay my alignment if I do.
Once I hand you and yours a few sound defeats you're going to run off and pick on easier prey. At that point, by the way things you want to run, I can't do anything to you anymore. Even though it's my role to protect people. You want to be able to go out and target out weaker and easier groups, and force the veterans who want to protect them to trash their rep and alignment.
Anyway we've drug this out here long enough. I'll be on TS.
The way the reputation system is set up, I don't see any way you can "protect" people without trashing your reputation. You'll be like the Dark Knight. The good guy with the -7500 rep. :)
To clarify, I'm talking about getting revenge on people who were SAD'd, not actually mercenary protection services, where you're there when they do get SAD'd.
The market will regulate itself in terms of how much PC protectors cost to help merchants transport their goods.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I like the image of Andius and Bluddwolf meeting, each demanding that the other turn over a single copper piece to pass unmolested, both refusing, then fighting to the death.
But I'm pretty sure that the addition of the demand doesn't add anything significant to what was already going to happen.
"No, you give ME everything you have, and then I will pass in peace!"
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Nothing you said changes anything I said.
I'm fully aware I can SAD people regardless of my alignment. I'm also aware that I won't stay my alignment if I do.
Once I hand you and yours a few sound defeats you're going to run off and pick on easier prey. At that point, by the way things you want to run, I can't do anything to you anymore. Even though it's my role to protect people. You want to be able to go out and target out weaker and easier groups, and force the veterans who want to protect them to trash their rep and alignment.
Anyway we've drug this out here long enough. I'll be on TS.
The way the reputation system is set up, I don't see any way you can "protect" people without trashing your reputation. You'll be like the Dark Knight. The good guy with the -7500 rep. :)
To clarify, I'm talking about getting revenge on people who were SAD'd, not actually mercenary protection services, where you're there when they do get SAD'd.
The market will regulate itself in terms of how much PC protectors cost to help merchants transport their goods.
I think that what you think you see is a failure of the reputation system. Why don't you see it that way?
I think that what you think you see is a failure of the reputation system. Why don't you see it that way?Nothing you said changes anything I said.
I'm fully aware I can SAD people regardless of my alignment. I'm also aware that I won't stay my alignment if I do.
Once I hand you and yours a few sound defeats you're going to run off and pick on easier prey. At that point, by the way things you want to run, I can't do anything to you anymore. Even though it's my role to protect people. You want to be able to go out and target out weaker and easier groups, and force the veterans who want to protect them to trash their rep and alignment.
Anyway we've drug this out here long enough. I'll be on TS.
The way the reputation system is set up, I don't see any way you can "protect" people without trashing your reputation. You'll be like the Dark Knight. The good guy with the -7500 rep. :)
To clarify, I'm talking about getting revenge on people who were SAD'd, not actually mercenary protection services, where you're there when they do get SAD'd.
The market will regulate itself in terms of how much PC protectors cost to help merchants transport their goods.
Well Andius's always talks about how being good is about "self-sacrifice". I think that fits in perfectly with that definition of altruism and "Goodness". It further fits in very well with the definition of "Good" from both the D&D and PF TT games.
You want to sacrifice yourself for the greather good? The reputation system is a fantastic way you can do that.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well Andius's always talks about how being good is about "self-sacrifice". I think that fits in perfectly with that definition of altruism and "Goodness". It further fits in very well with the definition of "Good" from both the D&D and PF TT games.
You want to sacrifice yourself for the greather good? The reputation system is a fantastic way you can do that.
So, everything that anybody -wants- to do costs reputation, in your mind, and they need to grind it back up by doing things they don't want to in order to have a high reputation? That's a bigger failure than I thought you were saying it was.
To be perfectly clear, the failure I think you should see is the disincentive for characters to hunt down bandits after they hit someone.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To be perfectly clear, the failure I think you should see is the disincentive for characters to hunt down bandits after they hit someone.
Under the old flagging rules, there was a flag for killing your victim (though I think some disputed that), and the killing flags lasted 10 minutes, +10 minutes for each victim.
But if a character demanded and got a SAD, they could shed their alignment-based Outlaw PVP flag pretty quickly and totally escape pursuers that way. Which was odd - if merchants are content for bandits and bandits are content for anti-bandits, you'd think the bandits would have to remain flagged for some amount of time after a robbery. Or maybe it's not strictly time-based, but can be dropped if they get to a hideout to reset it, or it expires in some time if they have no hideout... (edited a couple times)
So, everything that anybody -wants- to do costs reputation, in your mind, and they need to grind it back up by doing things they don't want to in order to have a high reputation?
No, pretty sure you just came up with that on your own.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well Andius's always talks about how being good is about "self-sacrifice". I think that fits in perfectly with that definition of altruism and "Goodness". It further fits in very well with the definition of "Good" from both the D&D and PF TT games.
You want to sacrifice yourself for the greather good? The reputation system is a fantastic way you can do that.
So, everything that anybody -wants- to do costs reputation, in your mind, and they need to grind it back up by doing things they don't want to in order to have a high reputation? That's a bigger failure than I thought you were saying it was.
To be perfectly clear, the failure I think you should see is the disincentive for characters to hunt down bandits after they hit someone.
I have to agree that what you posted was a bit of a "work up" of Qallz's point there. Unless I am wrong, it is that the "altruistic" will do the things that get them hit right in the Rep dept., because they are the right thing for a good guy to do regardless of the hit he may have to take.
Edit: please correct me if I got either of you wrong. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To be perfectly clear, the failure I think you should see is the disincentive for characters to hunt down bandits after they hit someone.
I tried to explain this to Andius last night.
1. You can train and then use the SAD ability back, at the bandits.
2. If the Bandits SAD, and then attack you because you rejected the offer, members if your own company can hunt them down.
3. If your settlement makes SADs illegal within your own lands, then both wardens and any if you can hunt down the bandits.
What you can't do, without consequence, is to stick your nose into someone else's affairs.
How are you serving your own settlement if you are off galantine around trying to be the world police force?
If I were a merchant in T7V - TEO territory and I find out that while I was getting ambushed by bandits, the security forces of my settlement were off protecting some unaffiliated merchant on the other side of the map, I'd be pissed.
Your settlement managers would rightly question the altruism vs. selfishness (Ryan's measure) of your support for your settlement. If your settlement wants you to engage 3rd parties, the also as Ryan wrote, "You take one for the team"' and suffer the small reputation hit and slide a bit towards chaotic and evil. Or as I said earlier, just SAD them.
Well Andius's always talks about how being good is about "self-sacrifice". I think that fits in perfectly with that definition of altruism and "Goodness". It further fits in very well with the definition of "Good" from both the D&D and PF TT games.
You want to sacrifice yourself for the greather good? The reputation system is a fantastic way you can do that.
So, everything that anybody -wants- to do costs reputation, in your mind, and they need to grind it back up by doing things they don't want to in order to have a high reputation? That's a bigger failure than I thought you were saying it was.
To be perfectly clear, the failure I think you should see is the disincentive for characters to hunt down bandits after they hit someone.
I have to agree that what you posted was a bit of a "work up" of Qallz's point there. Unless I am wrong, it is that the "altruistic" will do the things that get them hit right in the Rep dept., because they are the right thing for a good guy to do regardless of the hit he may have to take.
Edit: please correct me if I got either of you wrong. :)
Sort of. My point was more that if you associate being "Good" with "self-sacrifice", you should be dumb enough to be OK with the rep hits associated with that sacrifice. lol
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So SAD is now completely bereft of Alignment changes?
They have removed the alignment based flags and made SAD and Assassination trainable feats / slotted skills.
At most SAD was a Chaotic based activity, and it was always open to CG, CN or CE. If it still had alignment implications I would argue it should be allowable for NG, N and NE as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So SAD is now completely bereft of Alignment changes?
Edit: To be clear, is this a good example?
Andius SADs Bluddwolf. Bluddwolf says "Pike off." Andius kills Bluddwolf. Andius' alignment is unaffected.
We don't know, Drakhan. Under the old rules for Outlaws, there was an implication that Andius, in your example, would take an alignment hit but not a rep hit. But we haven't seen anything about the new SAD, except that it's a trainable skill rather than alignment- or faction-based.
We don't know, Drakhan. Under the old rules for Outlaws, there was an implication that Andius, in your example, would take an alignment hit but not a rep hit. But we haven't seen anything about the new SAD, except that it's a trainable skill rather than alignment- or faction-based.So SAD is now completely bereft of Alignment changes?
Edit: To be clear, is this a good example?
Andius SADs Bluddwolf. Bluddwolf says "Pike off." Andius kills Bluddwolf. Andius' alignment is unaffected.
I'm pretty sure SAD's will affect both alignment and rep.
1) If you're in a place where SAD's are illegal (which will probably be most places outside of Monster Hexes) then SAD'ing will make you more Chaotic (pretty sure).
2) It will probably always make you more Evil (again, pretty sure).
3) And regardless a successful SAD will always increase your rep.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We don't know, Drakhan. Under the old rules for Outlaws, there was an implication that Andius, in your example, would take an alignment hit but not a rep hit. But we haven't seen anything about the new SAD, except that it's a trainable skill rather than alignment- or faction-based.So SAD is now completely bereft of Alignment changes?
Edit: To be clear, is this a good example?
Andius SADs Bluddwolf. Bluddwolf says "Pike off." Andius kills Bluddwolf. Andius' alignment is unaffected.
I'm pretty sure SAD's will affect both alignment and rep.
1) If you're in a place where SAD's are illegal (which will probably be most places outside of Monster Hexes) then SAD'ing will make you more Chaotic (pretty sure).
2) It will probably always make you more Evil (again, pretty sure).
3) And regardless a successful SAD will always increase your rep.
If that's the case, SAD is definitely NOT acceptable for a LG character.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I could see actually killing the person should the SAD fail being an evil act. Taking things against a persons will isn't an evil act, in my mind. It definitely isn't a good act, but it could be done for good. Robin Hood would be an example of 'good' use of the SAD mechanic. But murdering a person when they refuse you really is.
Personally I would like to see a resolution to SADs that don't fit into the binary accept or die, particularly for those kind of characters. If a SAD could be used to set-up effective blockades, for example, I think that it would give additional depth to the game. Unfortunately I cannot really think of the means of enforcing displacement conditions that are actually mechanically useful.
For example: Give me 10% of your cargo, or turn this caravan around and go back the way you came. Or die. If a character gives the caravan the option to resolve the SAD without handing over cargo, but instead being displaced, any alignment modifiers for the Or Die part would be substantially reduced (because the target has been given more options to avoid it).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I could see actually killing the person should the SAD fail being an evil act. Taking things against a persons will isn't an evil act, in my mind. It definitely isn't a good act, but it could be done for good. Robin Hood would be an example of 'good' use of the SAD mechanic. But murdering a person when they refuse you really is.
Maybe it worked for Robin Hood because he exclusively targeted people who had gotten rich from unjust means. (The equivalent of evil + low rep in his story.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I've always argued that when you kill someone after a rejected SAD it should give evil points proportional to your target's status on the good-evil scale.
That's been met with strong resistance by much of the evil community, because apparently they think they should be able to SAD whoever they want an unlimited amount, but it should make anyone who uses it against them evil, even if they strictly target evil players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have no idea what they will end up doing. No one will ever convince me that stopping and intimidating someone to give up some or all of their goods is not evil.
It may turn out to be only chaotic or neutral as measured by the game, but it is still evil.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree with that; if killing is evil in this game, and as Pharasma-marked characters we only lose our gear from dying, then SAD'ing would be killing someone just a little bit. Don't see how violence is evil but threatening with violence isn't.
I should have qualified the statement a bit. hehe
Simulated Evil
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's been met with strong resistance by much of the evil community, because apparently they think they should be able to SAD whoever they want an unlimited amount, but it should make anyone who uses it against them evil, even if they strictly target evil players.
If someone self-identifies as wanting to do evil things to their neighbors in game, why do you expect that they will concede any advantage it gives them? I mean, one might argue that someone else isn't arguing or negotiating in good faith. But if you're dealing with someone who plans to be a murdering bandit in game, how long will you negotiate before you decide that murdering bandit and good faith might be mutually exclusive terms?
If that seems too harsh, just consider your counter-party. How likely are they to give up anything in negotiation? If they've rarely given up any concessions so far, then in future negotiation you might expect that they'll continue to rarely offer any concessions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's been met with strong resistance by much of the evil community, because apparently they think they should be able to SAD whoever they want an unlimited amount, but it should make anyone who uses it against them evil, even if they strictly target evil players.If someone self-identifies as wanting to do evil things to their neighbors in game, why do you expect that they will concede any advantage it gives them? I mean, one might argue that someone else isn't arguing or negotiating in good faith. But if you're dealing with someone who plans to be a murdering bandit in game, how long will you negotiate before you decide that murdering bandit and good faith might be mutually exclusive terms?
If that seems too harsh, just consider your counter-party. How likely are they to give up anything in negotiation? If they've rarely given up any concessions so far, then in future negotiation you might expect that they'll continue to rarely offer any concessions.
I am certainly not going to give up any of the speculative advantages to the roles that I am speculating on playing, if not forced. I am not even contemplating playing a character on the Dark Side either. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's been met with strong resistance by much of the evil community, because apparently they think they should be able to SAD whoever they want an unlimited amount, but it should make anyone who uses it against them evil, even if they strictly target evil players.If someone self-identifies as wanting to do evil things to their neighbors in game, why do you expect that they will concede any advantage it gives them? I mean, one might argue that someone else isn't arguing or negotiating in good faith. But if you're dealing with someone who plans to be a murdering bandit in game, how long will you negotiate before you decide that murdering bandit and good faith might be mutually exclusive terms?
If that seems too harsh, just consider your counter-party. How likely are they to give up anything in negotiation? If they've rarely given up any concessions so far, then in future negotiation you might expect that they'll continue to rarely offer any concessions.
Because we're discussing how to make a game that will be fun for all sides out of game? We aren't our characters.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I've always argued that when you kill someone after a rejected SAD it should give evil points proportional to your target's status on the good-evil scale.
That's been met with strong resistance by much of the evil community, because apparently they think they should be able to SAD whoever they want an unlimited amount, but it should make anyone who uses it against them evil, even if they strictly target evil players.
As the expression goes, "You can keep on saying this, but it won't make it true".
You want to be able to attack and kill anyone you feel is harmful to the game, anywhere in the game, as often as you want, and with no or very limited consequences. That is not just my opinion, it is an opinion held by many.
If we both played our characters the way we wanted to, you would hit CE + Low Rep and mine would be CN + Moderate Rep. Now you do have a chance of playing that same character type as a CN or with some effort a LN, but your character is just too blood thirsty and vindictive to fit well within any Good alignment.
You have had it explained to you maybe 7 times now, how you can use SAD yourself or to limit your actions to defending the members of your own company and or within your own settlement's territory and perhaps avoid a majority or even all of those Rep hits and Alignment shifts. But, you don't want to play within the systems that the game has suggested there will be. You want something that you're not going to find in PFO, just as you didn't find it in any other MMO.
In PFO, protect and avenge your own is perfectly expected and the game mechanics will support you. That is what Ryan was referring to as an expression of altruism. What are you doing for your settlement? If what you are doing has no connection or benefit to your settlement, you are spending your time selfishly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Because we're discussing how to make a game that will be fun for all sides out of game?
You might be interested in a game that will be fun for all sides. Do you think everyone is? Me, I'm not sure everybody is.
I am certainly not going to give up any of the speculative advantages to the roles that I am speculating on playing, if not forced. I am not even contemplating playing a character on the Dark Side either. :)
And that's the counter to my cynicism. What I see as bad for the game, another person might see as an advantage for their role, but not really a game-breaker. And it's not like other players have much leverage to force any of us to move from our positions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because we're discussing how to make a game that will be fun for all sides out of game?You might be interested in a game that will be fun for all sides. Do you think everyone is? Me, I'm not sure everybody is.
Every game that's ever tried to be everything to everybody has failed. Miserably. It's all about going small, and going Niche.
PFO is a PvP-Focused Sandbox MMO, btw. If that's not your cup of tea, then keep looking.
EQN is coming out for people who like a PvE-focused Sandbox.
Want a PvE-focused theme park? WoW is at your disposal.
Can't think of a PvP-focused Theme Park atm, but I know they're out there. DAoC was to some extent, at least it wasn't Sandboxey by today's standards, though it was for 2001.
I always group games into those 4 primary categories. Are they PvP-focused or PvE (determined by what the endgame is, really). Are they Sandbox or Theme Park? Those are the two biggest factors.
If a game developer isn't sure how to answer those two questions, that's a sure Tortanic on the way.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I've always argued that when you kill someone after a rejected SAD it should give evil points proportional to your target's status on the good-evil scale.
That's been met with strong resistance by much of the evil community, because apparently they think they should be able to SAD whoever they want an unlimited amount, but it should make anyone who uses it against them evil, even if they strictly target evil players.
As the expression goes, "You can keep on saying this, but it won't make it true".
You want to be able to attack and kill anyone you feel is harmful to the game, anywhere in the game, as often as you want, and with no or very limited consequences. That is not just my opinion, it is an opinion held by many.
If we both played our characters the way we wanted to, you would hit CE + Low Rep and mine would be CN + Moderate Rep. Now you do have a chance of playing that same character type as a CN or with some effort a LN, but your character is just too blood thirsty and vindictive to fit well within any Good alignment.
You have had it explained to you maybe 7 times now, how you can use SAD yourself or to limit your actions to defending the members of your own company and or within your own settlement's territory and perhaps avoid a majority or even all of those Rep hits and Alignment shifts. But, you don't want to play within the systems that the game has suggested there will be. You want something that you're not going to find in PFO, just as you didn't find it in any other MMO.
In PFO, protect and avenge your own is perfectly expected and the game mechanics will support you. That is what Ryan was referring to as an expression of altruism. What are you doing for your settlement? If what you are doing has no connection or benefit to your settlement, you are spending your time selfishly.
I suspect that Andius will be able to feud enough groups of people to have his PvP and rep too. I don't foresee TEO lacking for influence, what with the numbers they are bringing to the table.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For clarity, I was talking about fun for both sides of the Bandit/Enforcer relationship. If the bandits get to play without repercussion and the Protectors get put in CE/Low Rep status for doing what should be LG/High Rep, there's something wrong.
There are repercussions, don't believe anyone who says otherwise. Enforcers (old flag system) have no alignment or reputation repercussions when they enforce their settlement' s laws In Their Settlement's Lands". That is the part that Andius refuses to accept.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a side not people are making the assumption that bounty hunting is going to be a lawful aligned occupation. Both in real life and in game I think this is a pretty dubious notion.
Certainly from a game point of view many settlements will frown upon people trying to collect bounties within their territories thus putting the bounty hunter very firmly in the criminal bracket if they continue to pursue their quarry.
(Note this should not be read as being the Pax position, once we have considered the issue and come to a decision as is our custom we will post that position in (hopefully) plain and unambigous language. If pressed my guess would be that we would probably accept bounty hunting by certain foreign groups negotiated as part of treaties and outlaw the rest.
Before the forum paladins jump in shout down this personal position they should bear it in mind that a bounty may be set (as far as our current knowledge goes) upon anyone who has initiated any for of unsanctioned PVP on you. Unsanctioned PVP however does not indicate with any accuracy whether the initiator is performing meaningful PVP or not nor does it distinguish between the initiator doing it as an actual agressor or as a preemptive strike to get the drop on know agressors. A good example of the latter is that I as a merchant set off up the road with my wagons and ten guards. I see the pant stealing bandits up the road and assessing the situation decide that as this notorious bandit group is undoubtedly going to try and SAD me that instead I will take them by surprise by asking my ten guards to jump them before they have prepared.
Technically I am guilty of a crime according to the system, frankly from an rp perspective it is very much an act of self defense against known bandits and I see no reason to cede them the first strike advantage
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As a side not people are making the assumption that bounty hunting is going to be a lawful aligned occupation. Both in real life and in game I think this is a pretty dubious notion.
Certainly from a game point of view many settlements will frown upon people trying to collect bounties within their territories thus putting the bounty hunter very firmly in the criminal bracket if they continue to pursue their quarry.
(Note this should not be read as being the Pax position, once we have considered the issue and come to a decision as is our custom we will post that position in (hopefully) plain and unambigous language. If pressed my guess would be that we would probably accept bounty hunting by certain foreign groups negotiated as part of treaties and outlaw the rest.
Before the forum paladins jump in shout down this personal position they should bear it in mind that a bounty may be set (as far as our current knowledge goes) upon anyone who has initiated any for of unsanctioned PVP on you. Unsanctioned PVP however does not indicate with any accuracy whether the initiator is performing meaningful PVP or not nor does it distinguish between the initiator doing it as an actual agressor or as a preemptive strike to get the drop on know agressors. A good example of the latter is that I as a merchant set off up the road with my wagons and ten guards. I see the pant stealing bandits up the road and assessing the situation decide that as this notorious bandit group is undoubtedly going to try and SAD me that instead I will take them by surprise by asking my ten guards to jump them before they have prepared.
Technically I am guilty of a crime according to the system, frankly from an rp perspective it is very much an act of self defense against known bandits and I see no reason to cede them the first strike advantage
It would be my hope that your guards are UNC bandit / raiders, for who better to ambush a group of bandits than another group of bandits.
We will gladly take the rep hits and alignment shifts, "take one for the team", as an expression of our altruism "For the Empire!!!" Our oath is pledged "On Coin, Blade and Pain of Blood".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would hope that it is only a lawful action if settlements allow it to be so Areks. The setting law aspects of settlements has as yet not be fleshed out but allowing bounty contracts would certainly be in my view a prime candidate. We certainly should be frowning on bounties being collected on our citizens when they have committed no crime in our lands and we have only the word of foreigners
If bounties are always lawful it is just one more flaw in the extensive litany of flaws embodied by the alignment and reputation system and a definite usurpation of settlement perogative
It would be my hope that your guards are UNC bandit / raiders, for who better to ambush a group of bandits than another group of bandits.
We will gladly take the...
My guards may well be UNC...until at least I educate other bandits that my caravans are not a soft target and I will get a little peeved by those that try and interrupt my commercial enterprises :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You want to be able to attack and kill anyone you feel is harmful to the game, anywhere in the game, as often as you want, and with no or very limited consequences. That is not just my opinion, it is an opinion held by many.
Then apparently "many" have not been reading or listening to anything I say. I'll post it in the form of a picture so you can understand it:
Constantly = Able to do it an unlimited amount within any timeframe.
Frequently = Generally able to do it as desired if mixed with other alignment raising activities.
Occasionally = Able to do it once in awhile. Will have to cut down on it or change alignment if it's a regular part of your primary playstyle.
Rarely = Almost never able to do it without changing alignment.
Now compare chaotic-evil with neutral-good. If that doesn't sink in for you, nothing will.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If bounties are always lawful it is just one more flaw in the extensive litany of flaws embodied by the alignment and reputation system and a definite usurpation of settlement perogative
After Ryan Dancey's most recent posts, I'm starting to realize that the only meaningful reputation is the one I hold in the eyes of my company and settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You want to be able to attack and kill anyone you feel is harmful to the game, anywhere in the game, as often as you want, and with no or very limited consequences. That is not just my opinion, it is an opinion held by many.Then apparently "many" have not been reading or listening to anything I say. I'll post it in the form of a picture so you can understand it:
Constantly = Able to do it an unlimited amount within any timeframe.
Frequently = Generally able to do it as desired if mixed with other alignment raising activities.
Occasionally = Able to it once in awhile. Will have to cut down on it or change alignment if it's a regular part of your primary playstyle.
Rarely = Almost never able to do it without changing alignment.Now compare chaotic-evil with neutral-good. If that doesn't sink in for you, nothing will.
lol Tell me that you did not get to choose the mandatory adverts for that. :)