| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a swarm of high rep, LG noobs are over harvesting the resources in your settlement and then they ship it all off to somewhere else. What will you do, if they don't listen to reason? What if they refuse to stop harvesting within your territory, to the detriment to your own harvesters?Make harvesting without authorization a criminal action. They get flagged, you kill them, problem solved.
Ah I see....we object to random people committing vigilante murders in our territory and say we will make it unlawful and we are hauled over the coals for it and accused of acting in an evil manner.
You however wish to pass a law condemning that poor silvery haired grandmother to death because she has the temerity to wish to gather some firewood to warm her aging arthritic bones during the cold cruel months of winter and your settlement is a bastion of all that is good in the River kingdoms.
:)
You realize we're talking about hypothetical actions/situations, not laws we're planning to enact, right?
My reply to Andius was deliberately a little tongue in cheek hence the smiley.
However while you may be talking about hypotheticals we in the empire are not. We will be enacting a law that we do not permit killing within the empire except for those carried out from necessity by our law enforcement agents. This is not a hypothetical it is a statement of intent. You have had officers from both of our proposed settlements come on and tell you in no uncertain terms that if you come on our lands and kill you will be considered a criminal and executed.
When we make a statement here that is official it is never a hypothetical it is our considered policy position (whilst subject obviously to revision should the known facts change).
By all means discuss the hypothetical laws Brighthaven may pass, frankly it seems a bit counterproductive though because many may not realise that you are discussing hypothetical laws and assume that your settlement will in fact enact such a statute
Goblin Squad Member
|
Our currently planned policy us to keep resources available to neutral parties visiting our territory unless there is a shortage. The solution was tailored to the person asking the question. Anyone associating that statement with Brighthaven is clearly taking it completely out of context.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In this "new" context of "spending" reputation, I am not taking it as if it were a coin or good, but rather spend it via actions that lower rep doing an action that will benefit the company/settlement/kingdom. That is how I understood the "spending rep" concept.Do you think you're "spending weight" when you exercise?Well, "consuming calories". Since stored calories have very little useful value in the era of readily available food, I don't consider the expenditure costly.
If my total caloric intake were restricted, I might consider spending calories more stingily.
This assumes that there won't be more reputation gaining opportunities than reputation loss activities that are required based on the situation.
The greater the faucet of reputation the freer the actions the players will have. I'm of the opinion to just let the players play, but I can see why GW wants to balance that out carefully otherwise it becomes a mosh pit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't understand how a system that's defined by the developers can be emergent. However, I'm beginning to understand that it can be used in emergent ways, and I think that's what Ryan's trying to tell me.
That's what emergence is, bro. Wholes have properties that parts don't. Whole, human persons have capacity for language and agency that aren't located in or explainable in organs, cells, or any other lower level of complexity. When whole human persons interact linguistically, we get utterances like "Gnarly, dude" which are not found in a priori grammars or LADs, but have meaning and pragmatic force emergently. And when you give whole human persons simple systems like games--Dungeons & Dragons, EQ, EVE--gameplay that no one planned for emerges. Goon swarms, Fear Kiting, FD splitting, every table top game you ever played--they're all emergences from systems designers put together. The hallmark of emergence is complexity, dynamism and richness, not that it is always unintentional or a surprise.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Now if we can only get rid of the idea that reputation loss should be based on the reputation differential between the attacker and the defender.It isn't based on the reputation differential. Never has been. Reputation loss is based entirely on the victims reputation.
A low rep victim costs less rep to kill. It costs the exact same amount for a low rep killer as for a high rep killer.
A high rep victim costs more rep to kill. It costs the exact same amount for a low rep killer as a high rep killer.
Yep. I think the reason you have different rep amounts is because this is meant to segregate playstyles.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
re: proposed solution to 'green hat tuesday':
Since wearing a green hat now is starting to be (hypothetically) considered equivalent to 'flagging yourself', it can be implemented as exactly that.
Give Hobs a recipe for a hat that flags you as [sanctioned target] while wearing it. Noone will wear it by mistake (for long). Make it lootable but not necessarily threadable.
With even a single one of these hats, we would see emergence of "capture the hat" contests or something close to Blood bowl. Lore-breaking, yes, but only until the lore catches up ;-) Lore-wise, it could easily be implemented as the trademark of some outlaw/heinous organization.
re: Emergence.
Any system in continuous development is emergent. Devs respond to players doing things they didn't consider in the previous design, the players respond to the changes in new ways the devs didn't think of, and the game evolves.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
re: proposed solution to 'green hat tuesday':
Since wearing a green hat now is starting to be (hypothetically) considered equivalent to 'flagging yourself', it can be implemented as exactly that.Give Hobs a recipe for a hat that flags you as [sanctioned target] while wearing it. Noone will wear it by mistake (for long). Make it lootable but not necessarily threadable.
With even a single one of these hats, we would see emergence of "capture the hat" contests or something close to Blood bowl. Lore-breaking, yes, but only until the lore catches up ;-) Lore-wise, it could easily be implemented as the trademark of some outlaw/heinous organization.
re: Emergence.
Any system in continuous development is emergent. Devs respond to players doing things they didn't consider in the previous design, the players respond to the changes in new ways the devs didn't think of, and the game evolves.
Green Hat Tuesday does not just makes those who wear a green hat a target. Wearing a green hat makes you an attacker.
There is no safety from the green hat, on Green Hat Tuesday! On Green Hat Tuesday, logging in is opting in!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really hope there's really granular (and comprehensive) law settings.
Imagine the joy when some settlement makes their laws private, or even secret, and still insists "ignorance of the law is no excuse"...just as some real-world societies have seemingly done.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yep. I think the reason you have different rep amounts is because this is meant to segregate playstyles.
Ryan had also explained that there will be way to both earn and lose reputation from other means than just PvP.
Based on his most recent posts at least part of the segregation is differentiating between those that will do what their settlement needs (altruism) and those who guard their reputation for self interest (selfish).
If I were a settlement leader I would actually view someone on either extreme as being less useful or trustworthy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I really hope there's really granular (and comprehensive) law settings.Imagine the joy when some settlement makes their laws private, or even secret, and still insists "ignorance of the law is no excuse"...just as some real-world societies have seemingly done.
I'm hoping that settlements could have laws that are not equally applied to citizen and non citizen, or within settlement territory compared to outside if their territory.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bludd, as another solution to your example I could also see giving settlements the authority to declare people "tresspassers" inside their territory, and make them free targets as far as rep goes (maybe alignment too, but I dunno the implications of such). It's quite simple, if you don't want a settlement to declare you open season don't do things to piss them off inside their territory. I prefer this method because it allows people to own a section of land without having to set hard and fast rules. It would allow people to rule in a more Chaotic or Evil fashion (depending on how it's used). Furthermore it would prevent issues like you describe from arising. If everything's codified into a set of rules people will find ways of annoying the settlement inside those rules, no matter how granular the ruleset gets. If, however, the settlement can simply remove anyone that's annoying it, then it has an actual claim over the land, and the authority so that people show some respect.
If abuse of these declarations is a large concern, then a timer could also be placed on first declaration, to the effect of "get out of our lands in the next 10 minutes or we'll make you get out". I would really rather such a declaration be permanent until removed by the settlement if this were the case, however, because if not it would lead to people just making 9 minute runs into the lands to pester people then running outside the borders and repeating.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yep. I think the reason you have different rep amounts is because this is meant to segregate playstyles.Ryan had also explained that there will be way to both earn and lose reputation from other means than just PvP.
Based on his most recent posts at least part of the segregation is differentiating between those that will do what their settlement needs (altruism) and those who guard their reputation for self interest (selfish).
If I were a settlement leader I would actually view someone on either extreme as being less useful or trustworthy.
Then you would be segregating by playstyle, as intended.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Then you would be segregating by playstyle, as intended.
Yep. I think the reason you have different rep amounts is because this is meant to segregate playstyles.Ryan had also explained that there will be way to both earn and lose reputation from other means than just PvP.
Based on his most recent posts at least part of the segregation is differentiating between those that will do what their settlement needs (altruism) and those who guard their reputation for self interest (selfish).
If I were a settlement leader I would actually view someone on either extreme as being less useful or trustworthy.
Or more accepting because what is being measured is different. You could not look at someone with a + 7500 vs someone with a + 2500 and say that the + 7500 is more useful to your settlement than the lower rep character.
The lower rep character may in fact be a character that will do what needs to be done, while the other is selfishly protecting his reputation for self interest.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then you would be segregating by playstyle, as intended.
Yep. I think the reason you have different rep amounts is because this is meant to segregate playstyles.Ryan had also explained that there will be way to both earn and lose reputation from other means than just PvP.
Based on his most recent posts at least part of the segregation is differentiating between those that will do what their settlement needs (altruism) and those who guard their reputation for self interest (selfish).
If I were a settlement leader I would actually view someone on either extreme as being less useful or trustworthy.
Or more accepting because what is being measured is different. You could not look at someone with a + 7500 vs someone with a + 2500 and say that the + 7500 is more useful to your settlement than the lower rep character.
The lower rep character may in fact be a character that will do what needs to be done, while the other is selfishly protecting his reputation for self interest.
Right, so you would be doing your part of segregating the population by playstyle, as intended.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In a very interesting turn of events, I find it kind of humorous that high rep is being interpretted as being selfish.
Now, how can we punish those with high rep since we are punishing those with low rep? >:)
Well for a starting point, mains or alts that are used for single town trading or crafting will not often engage in PVP. (In a relatively stable settlement) They will accumulate rep until they persist at or around the maximum. I think that they should be taxed double for contributing only to the settlements DI yet not to it's fighting PVP. ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well for a starting point, mains or alts that are used for single town trading or crafting will not often engage in PVP. (In a relatively stable settlement) They will accumulate rep until they persist at or around the maximum. I think that they should be taxed double for contributing only to the settlements DI yet not to it's PVP. ;)In a very interesting turn of events, I find it kind of humorous that high rep is being interpretted as being selfish.
Now, how can we punish those with high rep since we are punishing those with low rep? >:)
It is common in some Eve alliances to value pvp over economic players. That won't be our personal stance, and I hope for the game generally that economics has viable contributing elements to warfare.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is common in some Eve alliances to value pvp over economic players.
Is that because "toxic PvP" is not discouraged?
I think it's important to keep in mind that being a Random Player Killer in PFO will still cause you to end up in a crappy Settlement with gimped abilities. Yes, I do believe it's very important to keep that in mind.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is common in some Eve alliances to value pvp over economic players.Is that because "toxic PvP" is not discouraged?
I think it's important to keep in mind that being a Random Player Killer in PFO will still cause you to end up in a crappy Settlement with gimped abilities. Yes, I do believe it's very important to keep that in mind.
No, because in this case I am speaking of alliances in Null, and during open aggression against other alliances. Since that is similar to how I am seeing settlement war shaping up, I would not qualify it as toxic.
Joining a corp purely to gank fellow corp members would be considered toxic by GW (and me). That would be an example of something Eve does not necessarily discouraged by CCP but I would expect would be by GW.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Right, so you would be doing your part of segregating the population by playstyle, as intended.
Segregating does not have to be done geographically. You could also use the word categorizing. Then there is the possibility that a settlement manager might prioritize based on the needs of the settlement for purposes of recruitment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is common in some Eve alliances to value pvp over economic players.Is that because "toxic PvP" is not discouraged?
I think it's important to keep in mind that being a Random Player Killer in PFO will still cause you to end up in a crappy Settlement with gimped abilities. Yes, I do believe it's very important to keep that in mind.
It's also important to keep in mind that while PFO shares many similarities with EVE, one thing it doesn't share is the fact that it is an experiment designed to show the evils of unchecked pure capitalism.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
additionally I do not disagree that we are being told by the developers that random player killing, en masse (by whatever metric) will lower your reputation and cause the effects you describe.
I apologize if I gave any other impression than full agreement on that intent. I had thought I had stated such clearly. but I might not have.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is common in some Eve alliances to value pvp over economic players.Is that because "toxic PvP" is not discouraged?
I think it's important to keep in mind that being a Random Player Killer in PFO will still cause you to end up in a crappy Settlement with gimped abilities. Yes, I do believe it's very important to keep that in mind.
How does Pax Charlie's reply to my attempt at humor spark that response Nihimon? I am just curious. Is it tied into other things, up thread, that I missed?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is common in some Eve alliances to value pvp over economic players.Is that because "toxic PvP" is not discouraged?
I think it's important to keep in mind that being a Random Player Killer in PFO will still cause you to end up in a crappy Settlement with gimped abilities. Yes, I do believe it's very important to keep that in mind.
It's also important to keep in mind that while PFO shares many similarities with EVE, one thing it doesn't share is the fact that it is an experiment designed to show the evils of unchecked pure capitalism.
I agree, and I hope another of the primary differences will by a merchant "buy in" that makes them as important during times of strife as the soldier. Maybe not complete equality, I would not mind if even merchants had to have basic defensive skills, but I would love for economics to be valued more in PFO than what is common in Eve
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is common in some Eve alliances to value pvp over economic players.Is that because "toxic PvP" is not discouraged?
I think it's important to keep in mind that being a Random Player Killer in PFO will still cause you to end up in a crappy Settlement with gimped abilities. Yes, I do believe it's very important to keep that in mind.
If a settlement is populated solely by players more concerned about their personal reputation than serving what their settlement needs, their settlement will likely suck for different reasons.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How does Pax Charlie's reply to my attempt at humor spark that response Nihimon? I am just curious. Is it tied into other things, up thread, that I missed?It is common in some Eve alliances to value pvp over economic players.Is that because "toxic PvP" is not discouraged?
I think it's important to keep in mind that being a Random Player Killer in PFO will still cause you to end up in a crappy Settlement with gimped abilities. Yes, I do believe it's very important to keep that in mind.
It seems fairly straightforward to me.
1. Pax Charlie George made a statement about the relative value of PvP players versus "economic" players in EVE.
2. I wondered if that had something to do with the fact that EVE makes no effort to discourage toxic PvP.
3. Whenever I talk about EVE's lack of constraints on toxic PvP, I feel compelled to remind everyone that PFO will have significant constraints on toxic PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Right, so you would be doing your part of segregating the population by playstyle, as intended.Segregating does not have to be done geographically. You could also use the word categorizing. Then there is the possibility that a settlement manager might prioritize based on the needs of the settlement for purposes of recruitment.
Exactly, so as as settlement leaders use reputation to make informed decisions, you end with differing playstyles segregated.
As intended ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If a settlement is populated solely by players more concerned about their personal reputation than serving what their settlement needs, their settlement will likely suck for different reasons.It is common in some Eve alliances to value pvp over economic players.Is that because "toxic PvP" is not discouraged?
I think it's important to keep in mind that being a Random Player Killer in PFO will still cause you to end up in a crappy Settlement with gimped abilities. Yes, I do believe it's very important to keep that in mind.
If that were the majority case for the PVP oriented players of a settlement, it could well lead to sucking by extinction. This is, of course, dependent on how common "taking one for the team" really becomes important. I think that it will probably be pretty situational and not really all that common, considering all of the ways there are to engage in non or low cost PVP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How does Pax Charlie's reply to my attempt at humor spark that response Nihimon? I am just curious. Is it tied into other things, up thread, that I missed?It is common in some Eve alliances to value pvp over economic players.Is that because "toxic PvP" is not discouraged?
I think it's important to keep in mind that being a Random Player Killer in PFO will still cause you to end up in a crappy Settlement with gimped abilities. Yes, I do believe it's very important to keep that in mind.
It seems fairly straightforward to me.
1. Pax Charlie George made a statement about the relative value of PvP players versus "economic" players in EVE.
2. I wondered if that had something to do with the fact that EVE makes no effort to discourage toxic PvP.
3. Whenever I talk about EVE's lack of constraints on toxic PvP, I feel compelled to remind everyone that PFO will have significant constraints on toxic PvP.
Thx for clearing that up for me. I think that is a good idea. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How does Pax Charlie's reply to my attempt at humor spark that response Nihimon? I am just curious. Is it tied into other things, up thread, that I missed?It is common in some Eve alliances to value pvp over economic players.Is that because "toxic PvP" is not discouraged?
I think it's important to keep in mind that being a Random Player Killer in PFO will still cause you to end up in a crappy Settlement with gimped abilities. Yes, I do believe it's very important to keep that in mind.
It seems fairly straightforward to me.
1. Pax Charlie George made a statement about the relative value of PvP players versus "economic" players in EVE.
2. I wondered if that had something to do with the fact that EVE makes no effort to discourage toxic PvP.
3. Whenever I talk about EVE's lack of constraints on toxic PvP, I feel compelled to remind everyone that PFO will have significant constraints on toxic PvP.
Fair enough.
But in this specific case, I am speaking on situations that would likely not be deemed toxic by GW. Also in this case pvp is still valued over merchant interests.
Some of this is because merchant corps generally reside in more secure mechanical areas, and are thus less involved in null territory war.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a settlement is populated solely by players more concerned about their personal reputation than serving what their settlement needs, their settlement will likely suck for different reasons.
But the settlements that will suck the most will be ones that allow their members to expend reputation points on purposes that do not have a direct/noteable advantage to their settlement, as that penalizes what buildings they construct and skills they can train. Any serious settlement is going to start kicking fast if their members are spending rep points because of the color of hat someone is wearing or simply to show them that "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Nihimon
I can't speak for Charlie, but at first, I saw your post as unfriendly. I think that I will try and "chillz" on assumptions.
Thanks again for clearing it up.
Naw, unless it is a direct insult I default to it being a legitimate point, these days.
I can subscribe to "Don't be a Jerk", but I don't want it to be a detriment to expressing strong opinions.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How does Pax Charlie's reply to my attempt at humor spark that response Nihimon? I am just curious. Is it tied into other things, up thread, that I missed?It is common in some Eve alliances to value pvp over economic players.Is that because "toxic PvP" is not discouraged?
I think it's important to keep in mind that being a Random Player Killer in PFO will still cause you to end up in a crappy Settlement with gimped abilities. Yes, I do believe it's very important to keep that in mind.
It seems fairly straightforward to me.
1. Pax Charlie George made a statement about the relative value of PvP players versus "economic" players in EVE.
2. I wondered if that had something to do with the fact that EVE makes no effort to discourage toxic PvP.
3. Whenever I talk about EVE's lack of constraints on toxic PvP, I feel compelled to remind everyone that PFO will have significant constraints on toxic PvP.
In eve null sec alliances have no reason to value the industrial player for a simple reason. The best place to do industry is in high sec. Due to this null sec alliances have absolutely no need of industrial players as an integral part of their alliance, there will always be people building what they need in high sec. Indeed many alliances do not actually have industrial players in their ranks but instead have a high sec corp that houses them. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with PVP toxic or otherwise purely the way industry is set up in Eve
Pfo on the other hand is set up differently and we know because they have told us that the best crafting facilities will all be in player run settlements and npc crafting facilities will be at best rudimentary. Settlements will need crafters in their ranks in a way that null sec alliances don't
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How does Pax Charlie's reply to my attempt at humor spark that response Nihimon? I am just curious. Is it tied into other things, up thread, that I missed?It is common in some Eve alliances to value pvp over economic players.Is that because "toxic PvP" is not discouraged?
I think it's important to keep in mind that being a Random Player Killer in PFO will still cause you to end up in a crappy Settlement with gimped abilities. Yes, I do believe it's very important to keep that in mind.
It seems fairly straightforward to me.
1. Pax Charlie George made a statement about the relative value of PvP players versus "economic" players in EVE.
2. I wondered if that had something to do with the fact that EVE makes no effort to discourage toxic PvP.
3. Whenever I talk about EVE's lack of constraints on toxic PvP, I feel compelled to remind everyone that PFO will have significant constraints on toxic PvP.In eve null sec alliances have no reason to value the industrial player for a simple reason. The best place to do industry is in high sec. Due to this null sec alliances have absolutely no need of industrial players as an integral part of their alliance, there will always be people building what they need in high sec. Indeed many alliances do not actually have industrial players in their ranks but instead have a high sec corp that houses them. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with PVP toxic or otherwise purely the way industry is set up in Eve
Pfo on the other hand is set up differently and we know because they have told us that the best crafting facilities will all be in player run settlements and npc crafting facilities will be at best rudimentary. Settlements will need crafters in their ranks in a way that null sec alliances don't
Now that actually does go farther to addressing my concerns.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If a settlement is populated solely by players more concerned about their personal reputation than serving what their settlement needs, their settlement will likely suck for different reasons.But the settlements that will suck the most will be ones that allow their members to expend reputation points on purposes that do not have a direct/noteable advantage to their settlement, as that penalizes what buildings they construct and skills they can train. Any serious settlement is going to start kicking fast if their members are spending rep points because of the color of hat someone is wearing or simply to show them that "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition."
As I stated earlier, some settlement managers may view either extreme as suspect as to their usefulness.
I think it is improbable that any settlement will have maximum or minimum reputation on average.
I'd also like to add a potential unintended consequence. If one settlement did hit the highest level of reputation and thus provided the highest level of training and equipment, wouldn't that make it a target for the others?
So I could certainly see some settlement managers not wanting to hang that target on themselves. I could see the other settlement managers seeing their own interests served by that settlement....... Disappearing......
@Pax Charlie George
I think it is one of the more interesting aspects of PfO that they haven't taken the same stance as Eve in making staying in NPC governed safe zones for your entire life a viable option.
Contrast in Eve where the only thing you cannot achieve in game while staying in high sec is flying a capital ship (with the exception of the Orca or freighter)
With the PfO view that if you want other than basic training and basic crafting facilities you will have to venture out to player run settlements.
In this respect it does appear that Eve is the "carebear" option.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But the settlements that will suck the most will be ones that allow their members to expend reputation points on purposes that do not have a direct/noteable advantage to their settlement, as that penalizes what buildings they construct and skills they can train. Any serious settlement is going to start kicking fast if their members are spending rep points because of the color of hat someone is wearing or simply to show them that "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition."
See mook horde. Once you start kicking them, if they keep playing they have to go somewhere. I think people are grossly underestimating the seriousness with which the CE Low Rep crowd will take when playing the game. It's human nature to "learn to love the suck", they'll find a way to make the best out of their situation and find a way to win effectively while doing so. To think that they aren't taking their settlement seriously because they don't kick out low rep players is quite possibly a misinterpretation of their intent.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As I stated earlier, some settlement managers may view either extreme as suspect as to their usefulness.
I think it is improbable that any settlement will have maximum or minimum reputation on average.
I'd also like to add a potential unintended consequence. If one settlement did hit the highest level of reputation and thus provided the highest level of training and equipment, wouldn't that make it a target for the others?
So I could certainly see some settlement managers not wanting to hang that target on themselves. I could see the other settlement managers seeing their own interests served by that settlement....... Disappearing......
There will be places for high reputation players to go where it won't be held against them. I guarantee it.
Neither do I. I suspect there won't be any advantages to the settlement past +5000.
It could make that settlement a very valuable ally. I would certainly fight to preserve such a settlement if we were in good relations.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Whenever I talk about EVE's lack of constraints on toxic PvP, I feel compelled to remind everyone that PFO will have significant constraints on toxic PvP.
CCP does not have very many constraints on PvP, because they don't agree with your idea that PvP is toxic.
I can see there being two way of constraining supposed toxic PvP. First is to limit PvP in some way shape or form. The other way to limit toxic PvP is to limit what falls within the definition of toxic PvP.
If no form of PvP is labeled toxic, then there is no toxic PvP. As of yet GW has not labeled any form of PvP as being toxic. Even Ryan has written that Radom Player killing is not griefing, and that it would be difficult to determine if an attack was truly random.
Ryan point blank told us that the reputation system is not a reflexion of toxic vs. non toxic PvP. He had also specifically said that the reputation system was not meant to be a form of protection, not even for noobs.
In about 31 - 33 hours we will see what this week's Dev Blog holds for us,
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ Nihimon
I can't speak for Charlie, but at first, I saw your post as unfriendly. I think that I will try and "chillz" on assumptions.
Thanks again for clearing it up.
My sincere apologies to you and Pax Charlie George then. I certainly didn't intend it even as a challenge to what PCG said.
I have a feeling it's probably fairly apparent to folks who have been paying attention, but I've been making a serious effort not to respond to folks when my response would actually be unfriendly. It's easier on me and the community (I believe) that way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In eve null sec alliances have no reason to value the industrial player for a simple reason. The best place to do industry is in high sec. Due to this null sec alliances have absolutely no need of industrial players as an integral part of their alliance, there will always be people building what they need in high sec. Indeed many alliances do not actually have industrial players in their ranks but instead have a high sec corp that houses them. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with PVP toxic or otherwise purely the way industry is set up in Eve
Pfo on the other hand is set up differently and we know because they have told us that the best crafting facilities will all be in player run settlements and npc crafting facilities will be at best rudimentary. Settlements will need crafters in their ranks in a way that null sec alliances don't
Thanks for the explanation. That makes sense.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
It is common in some Eve alliances to value pvp over economic players.Is that because "toxic PvP" is not discouraged?
It's because avoiding PvP and solely focusing on PvE is "easy mode". All it requires is the willingness to be incredibly bored for long stretches of time, and avoid making fairly simple mistakes.
The PvP people have to constantly be working to maintain their edge, they have to be "on call" for some amount of defined time (and answer those calls when they come). None of the critical decisions an Alliance makes are about what ore to mine or what modules to manufacture. All of the critical decisions an Alliance makes are about what systems to defend and what systems to attack. So the PvP focused players naturally gravitate to all the decision making parts of the Alliances and the PvE players get shunted into thankless logistics management.
There are far more people who want to mine ore and make stuff than there are competent fleet commanders or competent supercapital pilots. The really top-echelon PvP players; the people who can swing a battle from a loss to a win are extremely rare. In fact there are so many people who want to mine ore and make stuff that they often do it on their own without being a part of an Alliance, existing in highly secure space and producing the huge volume of commodity resources at the bottom of the pyramid of the economy in the game "just because it's fun" even though they eke out little or no profit.
They get no respect; the Goons refer to them as "Jews". Most other Alliances don't hold them in any higher regard, and all have their own pejorative nicknames for those players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is common in some Eve alliances to value pvp over economic players. That won't be our personal stance, and I hope for the game generally that economics has viable contributing elements to warfare.
I hope the PFO design makes the distribution of resources such that it is extremely difficult for any settlement or nation to be self-sufficient.
If resources are geographically and politically separated, such that a settlement with lots of access to "lumber" doesn't have easy access to "stone", then interactions between settlements will be rewarded.
Whether you trade peacefully, or send out raiding parties to get your missing resources, it'll encourage more diversity in player interaction than just forting up in your little section of the map and locking your borders.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is common in some Eve alliances to value pvp over economic players. That won't be our personal stance, and I hope for the game generally that economics has viable contributing elements to warfare.
I hope the PFO design makes the distribution of resources such that it is extremely difficult for any settlement or nation to be self-sufficient.
They've actually state exactly that. They don't want any one settlement to be able to self-sustain as it usually discourages interaction with others.... the opposite of the main premise behind this game, meaningful player interaction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In fact there are so many people who want to mine ore and make stuff that they often do it on their own without being a part of an Alliance, existing in highly secure space and producing the huge volume of commodity resources at the bottom of the pyramid of the economy in the game "just because it's fun" even though they eke out little or no profit.
I can actually relate to that. When I tried EVE, I was really entranced by the market and the arbitrage you talk about so often.
Just curious, but what would your advice be for players who were interested in minimizing their exposure to PvP without really gimping themselves by being stuck in NPC Settlements? Would a successful High Reputation Lawful Good Settlement (obviously, dependent on a large number of factors outside of this hypothetical) be the kind of place where these kinds of players would be most protected?
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
3. Whenever I talk about EVE's lack of constraints on toxic PvP, I feel compelled to remind everyone that PFO will have significant constraints on toxic PvP.
I think it would be wrong to say there is "toxic PvP" in EVE. The toxicity of EVE's community is not due to the PvP. It is due to the fact that the company encourages really bad behavior between the members of its community.
There is some griefing in EVE that is driven by PvP, specifically pointless ganking of underpowered or rookie pilots where the loss of the attackers are not offset by any meaningful in-game effect except pissing off the targets. There's also a griefing mode where a much larger and more powerful organization keeps a numerically, economically and/or cohesively inferior target organization in a constant state of war "just because it's fun" to pick on people weaker than oneself.
The toxicity comes from tolerating harassment, sexism, racism, rampant homophobia, and communications in open channels of the worst sort of content. It flowers in an environment where scamming is rampant and unpunished. It is amplified when CCP appears to not only condone, but promote acts like breaking huge Alliances out of fits of pique, or betraying organizations from within by stealing incredibly valuable shared assets after winning the trust of the target organization (both enabled by the crappy design of the security and shared-value systems in the game). It spiraled out of control very early in the game's history, the company shrugged its shoulders and said "we think it's interesting to see what people do when there's no restrictions", and that set the pattern for all the abusive behavior that followed.
It's a community with a value system based on adolescent male power fantasies and the worst aspects of young male posturing and testosterone-fueled displays of aggression and lack of empathy.
The PvP is not the problem. The original sin of tolerating horrifically bad behavior between community members is the problem.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think it would be wrong to say there is "toxic PvP" in EVE... The PvP is not the problem.
I understand what you're saying.
There is some griefing in EVE that is driven by PvP, specifically pointless ganking of underpowered or rookie pilots where the loss of the attackers are not offset by any meaningful in-game effect except pissing off the targets.
This was what turned me off to EVE. I take a lot of responsibility for not adequately preparing myself, but my experiences made me realize EVE just wasn't the game for me.