Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Andius if you believe the game mechanics will shift you to an inappropriate alignment or unfairly hit you with a reputation hit, then you should join the growing voices that are calling for Alignment to be a purely RP / Social feature and for Reputation to either be removed or be a reflection of the character to settlement relationship.
What is your standing with your company and settlement is the only truly important measure.
Then player settlements can be raised to the level of being their own factions, and GW can abandon the notion of bringing in NPC factions into the sandbox where they should not be needed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But I don't think it should just be a social mechanic. I think Neutral-Good by the graph I just showed is perfect fit for me. There is a chance I could shift to Chaotic-Good in that system, and I'm fine with that.
I'm with Ryan:
I just don't know how much more plainly I can state this. I'd rather shut down the game and quit than run a simplistic murder simulator for the enjoyment of a tiny fraction of sociopaths.
There will be rep and alignment or there won't be a Pathfinder Online. Deal with it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But I don't think it should just be a social mechanic. I think Neutral-Good by the graph I just showed is perfect fit for me. There is a chance I could shift to Chaotic-Good in that system, and I'm fine with that.
I didn't say a social mechanic, I said an RP/ Social feature. As for your graphic, as eye pleasing as it is, demonstrates an unbalanced biased towards good alignments. Not so much in what good can and can not do, but what Neutral can do to Good, Neutral and Evil.
If Neutral can kill Evil constantly, it can kill both Neutral and Good constantly as well.
join the growing voices that are calling for Alignment to be a purely RP / Social feature and for Reputation to either be removed or be a reflection of the character to settlement relationship.Out of curiosity, who is currently asking for this?
The alignment being purely for RP purposes things sounds good to me. The second one I'd have to think about.
@Bludd: How do you think that second thing would play out?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
join the growing voices that are calling for Alignment to be a purely RP / Social feature and for Reputation to either be removed or be a reflection of the character to settlement relationship.Out of curiosity, who is currently asking for this?The alignment being purely for RP purposes things sounds good to me. The second one I'd have to think about.
@Bludd: How do you think that second thing would play out?
So do you think there should be any mechanical differences between the alignments? As long as they are all fairly balanced?
|
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.
As for your graphic, as eye pleasing as it is, demonstrates an unbalanced biased towards good alignments. Not so much in what good can and can not do, but what Neutral can do to Good, Neutral and Evil.
If Neutral can kill Evil constantly, it can kill both Neutral and Good constantly as well.
Apparently truer words have never been spoken. How sad.
At least the developers seem to understand reason.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
join the growing voices that are calling for Alignment to be a purely RP / Social feature and for Reputation to either be removed or be a reflection of the character to settlement relationship.Out of curiosity, who is currently asking for this?The alignment being purely for RP purposes things sounds good to me. The second one I'd have to think about.
@Bludd: How do you think that second thing would play out?
I'm currently hashing an idea out and it will likely find its way into a new thread sometime after the next Dev Blog.
Its basic premise is "Let the players play, as long as it meets the needs of their settlement".
Settlement managers will identify positive game play activities that serve their settlement best, and then your reputation is based on how you serve those interests.
Because settlements will need a reliable number of citizens to function, and a positive growth of population, both retention and recruitment will be paramount to a settlement's "Safety, Power and Cohesion".
This will make the Settlement a Faction and the Core of the Reputation relationship.
That is the short version of it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So do you think there should be any mechanical differences between the alignments? As long as they are all fairly balanced?join the growing voices that are calling for Alignment to be a purely RP / Social feature and for Reputation to either be removed or be a reflection of the character to settlement relationship.Out of curiosity, who is currently asking for this?The alignment being purely for RP purposes things sounds good to me. The second one I'd have to think about.
@Bludd: How do you think that second thing would play out?
There can be mechanical differences (ie. Unholy Word is an Evil Only spell), but there should not be any mechanical advantages.
In an MMO, once a mechanical advantage is discovered, Min-Maxers will flock to it and strip it of any true meaning it was supposed to have. That then leads to "Cookie-Cutter Builds" and the player standing around shouting LFG, but because he does not have a particular skill, he is left standing there.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As for your graphic, as eye pleasing as it is, demonstrates an unbalanced biased towards good alignments. Not so much in what good can and can not do, but what Neutral can do to Good, Neutral and Evil.
If Neutral can kill Evil constantly, it can kill both Neutral and Good constantly as well.
Apparently truer words have never been spoken. How sad.
At least the developers seem to understand reason.
If Neutral is supposedly obligated to treat Good, better than Evil, than they are not really Neutral. If that is the developer's understanding, than they don't understand it well enough.
But I don't see developers making this statement, I see you making this statement for them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm currently hashing an idea out and it will likely find its way into a new thread sometime after the next Dev Blog.
Its basic premise is "Let the players play, as long as it meets the needs of their settlement".
Settlement managers will identify positive game play activities that serve their settlement best, and then your reputation is based on how you serve those interests.
Because settlements will need a reliable number of citizens to function, and a positive growth of population, both retention and recruitment will be paramount to a settlement's "Safety, Power and Cohesion".
This will make the Settlement a Faction and the Core of the Reputation relationship.
That is the short version of it.
I could get behind such a system...or something like it...of course I would need to see your proposal fully outlined before committing. But, this is a very different thing than the current Reputation system. In the end, I previously advocated for both systems existing, since they measure different things. I am not convinced the current proposal is flawed, only admitting the possibility it might be augmented.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In an MMO, once a mechanical advantage is discovered, Min-Maxers will flock to it...
Taking this as the important part from the mechanics perspective...and system design portion, why is this a bad thing if you make the requirement for achieving it, denying what the system designers have deemed "bad" for the system...and also required participation in what the designers have deemed "good" for the health of the system?
I would prefer we design a "good" game and make the RP fit, than take the RP and force the mechanics fit, resulting in a less-than-good game.
Honestly, I've said from the start that alignment will just segregate people in a negative way.
People in real life play all different in-game alignments, without regard to their RL alignments.
It's true to some extent that in real life, people tend to flock to people who have a similar alignment as them "birds of a feather". In-game? No way. Alignment isn't going to mean shit to anyone. It's just going to piss people off when they have to choose between one group of friends that's one alignment, and another who plays another alignment.
These sort of things start to fade into the background when you get into the game. People are going to forget about the Pathfinder tabletop.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In an MMO, once a mechanical advantage is discovered, Min-Maxers will flock to it and strip it of any true meaning it was supposed to have. That then leads to "Cookie-Cutter Builds" and the player standing around shouting LFG, but because he does not have a particular skill, he is left standing there.
Following your logic to it's fullest extreme we should all have identical characters with identical skills, feats, alignment, gear etc.
The solution that's been around since the dawn of customizable characters is situational advantage. Different choices make you better for certain purposes in certain situations. Your rogue can utterly destroy most sorcerers in an ambush but toe to against a fighter he stands no chance, and that sorcerer is better than either when facing a cluster of enemies trying to push through a choke point.
Just like you can't tell me which class is the "best" you can't tell me which alignment is the "best". It all depends on your tactics and playstyle. Reputation was never meant to be balanced. High rep > low rep, but low rep is an option if you just can't constrain yourself. If everyone chooses to play a 5000+ rep character, that will not be a problem or negatively effect meaningful content.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But I don't think it should just be a social mechanic. I think Neutral-Good by the graph I just showed is perfect fit for me. There is a chance I could shift to Chaotic-Good in that system, and I'm fine with that.
I'm with Ryan:
I just don't know how much more plainly I can state this. I'd rather shut down the game and quit than run a simplistic murder simulator for the enjoyment of a tiny fraction of sociopaths.There will be rep and alignment or there won't be a Pathfinder Online. Deal with it.
I see you edited your post, from its original, but I can still ask.
If Rep and Alignment are very different or even just superficial, is that a "deal breaker" for you, for Ryan, for GW, for PFO or for Paizo?
I believe that Reputation and Alignment are not integral to PFO's success. However if Reputation is a reflection of how our settlement views our characters, that may have the desired limiting or freedom granting effects that will make the game unique.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A few years ago it wouldn't have been a deal breaker for me. With another great Open World PvP MMO like Star Citizen due to launch it's dog-fighting module next month, and shaping up to be a more interesting game in many regards...
Yes, if GW gives superficial alignment/rep I see no reason to waste more time with it, and feel GW employees would be better off signing on with a title that can deliver on it's promises.
I don't see that happening though. GW has delivered few messages more consistently or clearly than that this game will not be a murder simulator catered to sociopaths like EVE.
I would be the third member of TEO I'm aware of to switch over to Star Citizen by the way. Waruko and Solemor Farmen already have. This game is competing with all other sandboxes. Few care about genre enough to suffer through inferior mechanics.
I have faith that Ryan Dancey and GW won't disappoint me. I don't believe this title is inferior to SC, just different. This will be a great game If they stick to their guns, and deliver what they have promised.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A few years ago it wouldn't have been a deal breaker for me. With another great Open World PvP MMO like Star Citizen due to launch it's dog-fighting module next month, and shaping up to be a more interesting game in many regards...
Yes, if GW gives superficial alignment/rep I see no reason to waste more time with it, and feel GW employees would be better off signing on with a title that can deliver on it's promises.
I don't see that happening though. GW has delivered few messages more consistently or clearly than that this game will not be a murder simulator catered to sociopaths like EVE.
I would be the third member of TEO I'm aware of to switch over to Star Citizen by the way. Waruko and Solemor Farmen already have. This game is competing with all other sandboxes. Few care about genre enough to suffer through inferior mechanics.
I have faith that Ryan Dancey and GW won't disappoint me. I don't believe this title us inferior to SC, just different. This will be a great game If they stick to their guns, and deliver what they have promised.
I too will be in Star Citizen, I already have my pirate package and will be cruising the trade lanes in search of prey.
I have faith that GW will not abandon the project if they can't manage to get the reputation or alignment system to work in the way that they might have originally envisioned or advertised.
Holding them to their promises, years before even the MVP has been tested is not a fair judge of them or their game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Holding them to their promises, years before even the MVP has been tested is not a fair judge of them or their game.
I highly disagree. They have speculated as to the implementation of gathering, crafting etc. they've told us it's all subject to change.
They have promised this game will be a sandbox. They've promised this game game will be based in the Pathfinder universe. They've promised this game won't be a murder simulator.
They didn't put it across as suggestions or theory-crafting, they said this is how our game will be. I will be holding them to those promises.
I know you would decry them as liars and walk (as would I) if the cut Open World PvP after promising it like they have. This is no different.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I know you would decry them as liars and walk (as would I) if the cut Open World PvP after promising it like they have. This is no different.
Not true, I would do neither, call them liars or walk away. I would play PFO until my sub ran out (23 months) and then see if there is anything else out there that offers me a better gaming experience.
I have played dozens of MMOs, some short term and some very long term. As I have said, I can play in any kind of MMO culture and I can play any play style.
The only deal breaker I have is if my sub is up and something better has come along.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm going to be playing Star Citizen as well. Huh. Bounty Hunter Package. Sounds appropriate to fight the pirates.
I'd be playing it now, but the Hanger Access of Beta requires 64-bit OS and I can't back up my harddrive to wipe and switch over to that setting.
For Christmas I'll be getting an external HD that will give me the storage I need to backup and setup for the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I know you would decry them as liars and walk (as would I) if the cut Open World PvP after promising it like they have. This is no different.Not true, I would do neither, call them liars or walk away. I would play PFO until my sub ran out (23 months) and then see if there is anything else out there that offers me a better gaming experience.
I have played dozens of MMOs, some short term and some very long term. As I have said, I can play in any kind of MMO culture and I can play any play style.
The only deal breaker I have is if my sub is up and something better has come along.
Fine. Apparently you are ok if they take your kickstarter money promising Pathfinder Online and deliver My Little Pony Online.
I hold people to their promises, especially after I pay them hundreds of dollars to deliver on them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fine. Apparently you are ok if they take your kickstarter money promising Pathfinder Online and deliver My Little Pony Online.
I hold people to their promises, especially after I pay them hundreds of dollars to deliver on them.
I have no doubt I could turn My Little Pony into a murder simulator in your view.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have no doubt I could turn My Little Pony into a murder simulator in your view.Fine. Apparently you are ok if they take your kickstarter money promising Pathfinder Online and deliver My Little Pony Online.
I hold people to their promises, especially after I pay them hundreds of dollars to deliver on them.
Or at the least a bandit simulator. No need to show up unless you want to be robbed!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have no doubt I could turn My Little Pony into a murder simulator in your view.Fine. Apparently you are ok if they take your kickstarter money promising Pathfinder Online and deliver My Little Pony Online.
I hold people to their promises, especially after I pay them hundreds of dollars to deliver on them.
And I'm sure you would be focusing on getting ways to beat up on the weakest individuals possible and then crying loudly if the veterans of your opposition were willing to give up all their protections to get even half the tools you have. Such courage. You are truly a man to be feared.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm focusing on how to serve my company and settlement in ways that fulfil their needs, rather than worrying about my personal reputation in the view of some meaningless (in comparison) outsider's view.
I have promised the leadership / membership of the UNC we will have fun and make coin.
I have promised my settlement that the UNC will abide by their laws in their lands and will provide our skills and dedication to serve its needs.
My reputation in their eyes is what matters. If everyone starts thinking in terms of doing what is needed for their settlements, first and foremost, then across the board all settlements will begin to expect the same.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You are truly a man to be feared.
Unfortunately for your merchants, you are not. You have even said you have no plans to even guard your settlement's own caravans. Instead you will be out in the wilderness serving your own needs.
No caravan of Pax will ever have to wonder if the UNC will not guard it, if requested. Pax will never have to wonder if the UNC will not do whatever deeds need to be done, regardless of what we have to sacrifice.
Our oath is sworn "On gold, blade and pain of blood".
That is the only reputation system an Open World PVP MMO needs. Will the players be there to support their buddies.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The fact you think babysitting every caravan that enters your territory is the most useful purpose to put your soldiers to highlights how critically unprepared you will be if you go against opponents who have fought and won wars in this kind of environment before.
Smart merchants can handle themselves. You only put dedicated guards on high priority shipments. Your enemy's holdings in ashes sends a much stronger message than a dozen guards picking their nose alongside every shipment of onions.
You seem to think you have unlimited manpower to throw at everything. I'm used to taking down much larger organizations with a handful of dedicated men, so I operate with efficiency in mind.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You have even said you have no plans to even guard your settlement's own caravans.Uh, what? TEO caravans will be protected. They may not be by dedicated guards of the TEO militia, but we don't train our merchants to be stupid.
The militia may or may not handle that task. Depends on how bored they are really, because a good merchant can run through straight up hostile territory and make it out fine 90% of the time. But if there is a banditry problem, the primary task of our dedicated military will be finding and destroying their hideout.
I suspect the reason bandits won't choose to operate within our territory isn't because they expect every merchant to be surrounded by a small army but because there will be nowhere for them to operate from.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I suspect the reason bandits won't choose to operate within our territory isn't because they expect every merchant to be surrounded by a small army but because there will be nowhere for them to operate from.
In the end, that's part the question of the day - do bandits need a hideout to launch attacks from, do they have some other limitation, or can anybody effectively become a bandit at anytime, as long as they spent some XP for training the SAD skill?
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to be playing Star Citizen as well. Huh. Bounty Hunter Package. Sounds appropriate to fight the pirates.I'd be playing it now, but the Hanger Access of Beta requires 64-bit OS and I can't back up my harddrive to wipe and switch over to that setting.
For Christmas I'll be getting an external HD that will give me the storage I need to backup and setup for the game.
I thought that a 32-bit OS would not run on 64-bit architecture. Ten seconds on Google dispelled that misapprehension.
I learned something today.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm going to be playing Star Citizen as well. Huh. Bounty Hunter Package. Sounds appropriate to fight the pirates.I'd be playing it now, but the Hanger Access of Beta requires 64-bit OS and I can't back up my harddrive to wipe and switch over to that setting.
For Christmas I'll be getting an external HD that will give me the storage I need to backup and setup for the game.
I thought that a 32-bit OS would not run on 64-bit architecture. Ten seconds on Google dispelled that misapprehension.
I learned something today.
At least vista home premium can run on both but you have to reformat and then reinstall Windows OS and set it to 64 bit. Then from your backup you bring your programs over. My problem is my HD does not have the free space to do a full backup.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't try a full backup- reinstall your software normally, and backup only the settings and saves.
I know in Win7 the expected paths for programs vary, and copying things back won't create the appropriate registry entries.
Don't forget any obscure drivers you may not have on disk. ;) My laptop taught me that one... twice =)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I've said from the start that alignment will just segregate people in a negative way.
People in real life play all different in-game alignments, without regard to their RL alignments.
It's true to some extent that in real life, people tend to flock to people who have a similar alignment as them "birds of a feather". In-game? No way. Alignment isn't going to mean s~!@ to anyone. It's just going to piss people off when they have to choose between one group of friends that's one alignment, and another who plays another alignment.
These sort of things start to fade into the background when you get into the game. People are going to forget about the Pathfinder tabletop.
Human beings are largely self-sorting. Like segregates to like and from different where there are no external constraints (such as sociopolitical prejudice). Asserting the alignment system or reputation system will be the agent for sorting is like saying the alignment/reputation systems will force you into unnatural acts. The rating systems don't force your decisions the player does. The rating system describes your chosen behavior in terms that the game can trace.
If you pick an unnatural alignment it isn't a fault of the game system that you fail to behave in that alignment but your own.
Ya makes yer choices and pays yer bills.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan, is there a term you would like us to use to differentiate between PvP that does incur Reputation and Alignment penalties versus PvP that does not?
I think there are unwanted and misleading implications that arise from typing activities other than griefing with adjectives.
Ryan, was that your response to my question?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan, is there a term you would like us to use to differentiate between PvP that does incur Reputation and Alignment penalties versus PvP that does not?I think there are unwanted and misleading implications that arise from typing activities other than griefing with adjectives.Ryan, was that your response to my question?
I took what Ryan meant to be that the use of "unsanctioned" was not GW's idea and that it gives the false impression that "Unsanctioned PVP" is somehow a violation of their desired activities and before long some players will begin to equate "unsanctioned PVP" with griefing.
There is probably no moral or judgmental differentiation between PVP and PVP that has a reputation consequence. There are legitimate circumstances that would call for both. Ryan had mentioned, "Taking one for the team" and "making snap command decisions" (paraphrased).
In the criminal justice system there are two conditions "In hot pursuit" and "eyes can not trespass". These two conditions override certain constitutional protections, but the same law enforcement officials are not expected to make a practice of them all of the time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
ok, well now that those "definitions" are out of the way, lets get to the "meat and potatoes" of the discussion:
How do we reward desired meaningful PVP as to make it the preferred course of action when the situation calls for it, and 'punish' the less desired PVP actions where they CAN be used but are discouraged as less than meaningful, based on the situation in which the PVP action choice is presented?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes. I think there is an inherent problem with using an adjective to describe in-game actions. Because situationally everything is ok, and everything is a problem. The situation and the context are what determines acceptability.
Does that mean you don't expect us to talk about PvP in terms of whether or not it has Reputation & Alignment consequences? Or that you expect us to use phrases like "PvP that has Reputation & Alignment consequences" versus "PvP that doesn't have Reputation & Alignment consequences"?
I can totally understand it if you're worried about loaded adjectives, and skeptical that any adjective can be meaningful and not loaded. When I asked the question, I started trying to think of neutral adjectives and couldn't find any.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't the problem more likely to be involved in the adjectives we build into our conversations, memes that become habitual rather than critical?
We should still be exercising critical thinking instead of printing hallmark cards out of our concepts and trading them back and forth.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@"The Goodfellow" "Meaningful" is an adjective applied to PVP, so - if I'm reading Ryan correctly - it all depends on the context and situation.
I'd offer that successes in PVP will lead to in-game rewards. Control of resource gathering zones. Safe roads. Loot from interloping merchants. With DI, Influence, or Reputation "currencies" being spent to draw other players into PVP, all PVP has some cost to somebody. If someone is using those currencies to engage in PVP that doesn't yield sufficient rewards (or doesn't deny someone something), then it will be inherently discouraged by the cost to engage in that PVP.
Rather than attempting to define all types of PVP to be encouraged and all types of PVP to be discouraged, GW seems to be developing a system that will reward or penalize PVP variably, depending on a lot of things. Sometimes a murder will be the right choice in the game. Sometimes it won't. Likewise wars and feuds.
(edit to add: Alignment might also be considered a currency used in PVP)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I doubt Ryan is trying to discourage conversation...
I didn't mean to imply that at all. I can understand how he might be interested in focusing our conversations on things that matter instead of things that don't, though. And I realize my understanding of his vision is incomplete enough to truly not know whether it's largely irrelevant whether or not there are Rep & Alignment consequences for particular types of PvP. In fact, I was struck by his prior statement that someone with a High Rep might be more interested in maintaining a Rep Score than in doing what is necessary to secure a Settlement.
[Edit] And, the part I quoted gets edited out :)