Goblin Squad Member
|
Sandbox = the ability to make persistent changes to the environment...
...that might or might not have an impact on other players. What you are referring to, the implicit effects ones changes to an environment have on the behaviour of others is called stigmergy. Stigmergy does require the ability to make persistent changes...hence a sandbox, but that relationship is not transitive, persistent changes do not necessarily impact other players (I can play solo sandboxes or make changes that never impacts another).
EDIT: But, Vailla...at this point, since I suggested I see your point, I am not really arguing with you, just arguing a technicality that the relationship is not necessarily A = B.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I hope not.
You did read the second part of my post right?
Lets try with example. If you are killed often you guild will suffer, they MUST protect you in order to be successful. Scouts on lookout for enemies,guards etc.** spoiler omitted **
Sandbox = everyone has impact on everyone else.
Yeah, I read your excuses to justify free-player-killing. But it doesn't changes the reality.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Critical difference here Bludd; he's not saying 'out of 10 attempts on my life', he's saying 'out of 10 attempts at gathering'. Are you saying that if you were a gatherer and you died 7 times out of every 10 times you tried gathering (so only getting stuff 3 out of 10 times, and losing whatever you had 7 times), you wouldn't be stressed by that? Personally I'd like to see success at least half of my times, especially when doing gathering as safely as Lifedragn described. I'd expect death maybe 2-3 times out of 10 for the described scenario, personally.
Trivia time: In ten business start-ups (gathering attempts), NINE fail the first year.
Think about that the next time the boss looks at you funny. Try and have some respect. They persevered through it all, no matter how stupid you think they are today.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I believe Audoucet has put it better then I can. I have no desire to play in a world full of psychopathic killers. I believe thats what the anonymous cloak playing one of these game provide will bring out the worst in people in terms of bullying etc.....and I'm not putting too much stock in the safe guards.
NC pvp is one of the corner stones of the game. I realize that ship has sailed. I am willing to give the game a try. Who knows, I may even like it.
I think it will very much depend on the fraction of aggressive player killers in the player base, and the mechanisms/penalties they risk for their behaviour.
The bulk of the player base will have to enforce their societal standards to whatever degree the rules don't. If 90% of the players accept a game where most PvP takes place in the form of feuds and wars and other wholly sanctioned ways, they have the ability to coerce the rest to limit predation. When the aggressive PK side gets large enough, to the point where the pro-sanction side of the population is too small to limit predation, then the game risks exodus: MMO players can always opt out of a game.
The penalties for bad behavior matter. If a low rep player killer is disadvantaged compared to a high rep opponent, then the pro-sanction side has an effective force multiplier. I would think that the tipping point for exodus - the fraction of aggressive PK that the game will tolerate - can be higher with the rep system. How much depends on how severe the penalties are.
Urman Thank you for taking the time to respond to my post. . Hopefully these sanctions will work. But I have my doubts. It's a moot point really. I'm willing to give the game a try. We shall see how it goes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
For what it's worth, among the MMO players I know, the majority will avoid any game with non-consensual PvP. I won't even look at them. Because we all know perfectly well that the world is full of people who can invent offenses at the slightest excuse, and will gleefully determine that other people "need killing" in the game.
The fact is, in games with no non-consensual PvP, I've never seen the world of unkillable jerks even happen, let alone be a problem. GMs deal with people who are genuinely causing trouble, mostly people just ignore the petty annoyances, and since it doesn't have much effect, the griefers get bored pretty quickly most of the time. So in any given year or so of gameplay, I might spend five minutes with someone being disruptive in a way that has any impact at all on my gameplay. I can live with that.
Goblin Works is making efforts to direct PVP towards those that desire it. I am not saying that all of the PVP will be consensual, but in most cases you will understand the circumstances in which you found yourself involved in PVP.
In other words, you can mitigate your exposure to non consensual PVP with a some effort on your part. I encourage you to try the game out, before you pass judgement on it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For what it's worth, among the MMO players I know, the majority will avoid any game with non-consensual PvP. I won't even look at them. Because we all know perfectly well that the world is full of people who can invent offenses at the slightest excuse, and will gleefully determine that other people "need killing" in the game.
"OMG!! They're coming right for us!"
I hope some powerful Lawful Good settlements are able to surpass that challenge, mostly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Goblin Works is making efforts to direct PVP towards those that desire it. I am not saying that all of the PVP will be consensual, but in most cases you will understand the circumstances in which you found yourself involved in PVP.
In other words, you can mitigate your exposure to non consensual PVP with a some effort on your part. I encourage you to try the game out, before you pass judgement on it.
Bludd,
For all the new rage-monster avatar, that's a wonderful reply on all counts. +1 :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Goblin Works is making efforts to direct PVP towards those that desire it. I am not saying that all of the PVP will be consensual, but in most cases you will understand the circumstances in which you found yourself involved in PVP.
In other words, you can mitigate your exposure to non consensual PVP with a some effort on your part. I encourage you to try the game out, before you pass judgement on it.
Sometimes you really surprise me. Why is it that I feel like if I'd written those exact same words, you'd have written a 5 paragraph reply explaining to me all the ways I was wrong?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes you really surprise me. Why is it that I feel like if I'd written those exact same words, you'd have written a 5 paragraph reply explaining to me all the ways I was wrong?Goblin Works is making efforts to direct PVP towards those that desire it. I am not saying that all of the PVP will be consensual, but in most cases you will understand the circumstances in which you found yourself involved in PVP.
In other words, you can mitigate your exposure to non consensual PVP with a some effort on your part. I encourage you to try the game out, before you pass judgement on it.
Evolution
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For what it's worth, among the MMO players I know, the majority will avoid any game with non-consensual PvP. I won't even look at them. Because we all know perfectly well that the world is full of people who can invent offenses at the slightest excuse, and will gleefully determine that other people "need killing" in the game."OMG!! They're coming right for us!"
I hope some powerful Lawful Good settlements are able to surpass that challenge, mostly.
Or possibly, maybe a Neutral Good settlement as well, eh? Eh?
/shameless plug
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm really surprised there hasn't been a larger push for a Lawful Good Settlement. I'm pretty sure Mbando's Peace Through Vigilance will be walking that Lawful Good line, and there are probably a few other Companies that are in that same vein. Perhaps those folks just aren't as keen to get into petty squabbles on the internet...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I actually rarely encounter very many Lawful Good types that play Pathfinder or D&D outside of Paladins, Monks, and the occasional Cleric who are compelled mechanically to the alignment. I think a lot of folks feel that the alignment is too stifling. The Law is frequently used against Lawful Good characters in a campaign instead of acting in their favor, so I believe we may be seeing some of that stigma come through.
I actually rarely encounter very many Lawful Good types that play Pathfinder or D&D outside of Paladins, Monks, and the occasional Cleric who are compelled mechanically to the alignment. I think a lot of folks feel that the alignment is too stifling. The Law is frequently used against Lawful Good characters in a campaign instead of acting in their favor, so I believe we may be seeing some of that stigma come through.
Yea, I feel the same way. Just saying the words "Lawful Good" kind of make me feel like I'm suffocating. lol
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Lawful Good does not mean that you must impose those values on others. You can hold yourself to Lawful Good values, and yet accept that others don't hold those same values.
A Paladin can still be a Paladin and not seek out to destroy evil. He or she can choose to not commit acts that are chaotic or evil in nature, for themselves.
This is not to say they do not defend the others from evil, they are just not preemptive about it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think people avoid lawful good because they don't want to promote that alignment. They avoid it because it limits the methods you can use to promote good. Lawful-good implies you place about as much importance in being lawful as being good. That you consider vigilantism to be nearly as bad as oppression.
I know that at least for me, good is the only objective worth pursuing. Law is only useful if it furthers good, as is chaos.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think people avoid lawful good because they don't want to promote that alignment. They avoid it because it limits the methods you can use to promote good. Lawful-good implies you place about as much importance in being lawful as being good. That you consider vigilantism to be nearly as bad as oppression.
I know that at least for me, good is the only objective worth pursuing. Law is only useful if it furthers good, as is chaos.
This is what I was trying to state with Lawful Good players tend to feel Law is used against them and not for them.
Players that attempt to impose law upon others in tabletop games are usually not looked well upon, but I also do not see them that often either.
I don't think people avoid lawful good because they don't want to promote that alignment. They avoid it because it limits the methods you can use to promote good. Lawful-good implies you place about as much importance in being lawful as being good. That you consider vigilantism to be nearly as bad as oppression.
I know that at least for me, good is the only objective worth pursuing. Law is only useful if it furthers good, as is chaos.
This is what I was trying to state with Lawful Good players tend to feel Law is used against them and not for them.
Players that attempt to impose law upon others in tabletop games are usually not looked well upon, but I also do not see them that often either.
I don't even see good people too often anymore either, because that can be just as confining.
The last bout of Pathfinder I played, everyone in the group was Chaotic Neutral except for one, who was Chaotic Good. 6 people total.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Minecraft is the canonical example of a PvE sandbox. There's no question that is one of the reasons it is massively successful. You can turn your 8 year old loose in it and not have any real worries about the kids' experience. There's absolutely nothing that says that "PvP" - or even interplayer conflict - is a requirement for a sandbox experience.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Qallz
It depends a lot on the group. Most groups I'm in are primarily good. The alignments people play in a PVE driven game may not reflect their alignments in a game based on player interaction. I know at least for me I'll do things to an NPC I would never consider doing to a player.
@Qallz
It depends a lot on the group. Most groups I'm in are primarily good. The alignments people play in a PVE driven game may not reflect their alignments in a game based on player interaction. I know at least for me I'll do things to an NPC I would never consider doing to a player.
Yea, but from a role-playing perspective, there shouldn't really be any difference. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know at least for me I'll do things to an NPC I would never consider doing to a player.
Yeah. I actually worry that I may have scarred my nephew a bit when I was playing one of the Ultima games (or maybe it was Might & Magic?) and used the "Armageddon" spell (or whatever it was called) that killed everyone on the map. He seemed quite shocked that I would do that, and it was a little difficult to explain that they weren't actually people, so it wasn't actually wrong.
I know at least for me I'll do things to an NPC I would never consider doing to a player.Yeah. I actually worry that I may have scarred my nephew a bit when I was playing one of the Ultima games (or maybe it was Might & Magic?) and used the "Armageddon" spell (or whatever it was called) that killed everyone on the map. He seemed quite shocked that I would do that, and it was a little difficult to explain that they weren't actually people, so it wasn't actually wrong.
ROFL. THE HORROR!!! :O
WHY? WHY WOULD YOU DO SUCH A THING!?!? :O lol
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yea, but from a role-playing perspective, there shouldn't really be any difference. :)@Qallz
It depends a lot on the group. Most groups I'm in are primarily good. The alignments people play in a PVE driven game may not reflect their alignments in a game based on player interaction. I know at least for me I'll do things to an NPC I would never consider doing to a player.
Which is why I only play good aligned roles in Open World games, but am open to evil roles in PVE only games.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a little surprised as well that there aren't more folks expressing an interest in a LG CC or Settlement. Based on Ryan's/Stephen's comments it should be a real game challenge to hew to LG, which I think is pretty cool :) I like the that a lot: straight is the way, and narrow the gate, and there are few that find it.
I'm committed to a LG path for personal reasons of immersion and engagement--hard for me to see myself RPing an evil character. That being said, how cool would it to be one of the few who have followed that hard road; a cleric who can call on the Archons, or a Paladin who has walked the very darkest roads in complete and utter faith? That's pretty badasstic, if you ask me ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Which is why I only play good aligned roles in Open World games, but am open to evil roles in PVE only games.Yea, but from a role-playing perspective, there shouldn't really be any difference. :)@Qallz
It depends a lot on the group. Most groups I'm in are primarily good. The alignments people play in a PVE driven game may not reflect their alignments in a game based on player interaction. I know at least for me I'll do things to an NPC I would never consider doing to a player.
I usually tend to favor the good-aligned roles in most games. Perhaps it is because I feel that makes it exceptionally fantastical. If I were to label hero and villain in the real world, I feel I would come out with many more villains than heroes with the majority of people being apathetic. Not that the villains think of themselves as such.
I find it a challenge to avoid being a 'good guy' even when playing an evil character though. "Fear not, ladies and gentlemen of the village! None of your children needs become an orphan to these vile orcs. Show me to your graveyard and I shall provide all the warriors we shall need to turn these savages away!"
I would be comfortable filling a villainous role as well, were it ever desired. Though when it comes to PFO, I feel there will be plenty of "villains". Unfortunately, most of them will not be roleplaying a villain so much as playing a ruthless death match the same way they would approach Halo (trash talk and teabagging included).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm a little surprised as well that there aren't more folks expressing an interest in a LG CC or Settlement. Based on Ryan's/Stephen's comments it should be a real game challenge to hew to LG, which I think is pretty cool :) I like the that a lot: straight is the way, and narrow the gate, and there are few that find it.
I'm committed to a LG path for personal reasons of immersion and engagement--hard for me to see myself RPing an evil character. That being said, how cool would it to be one of the few who have followed that hard road; a cleric who can call on the Archons, or a Paladin who has walked the very darkest roads in complete and utter faith? That's pretty badasstic, if you ask me ;)
But Law leaves an open gate to Tyranny. And what truth is there in Good when it is imposed upon all by the strength of a state? Through liberty and freedom does true Goodness arise. For only when men and their hearts are set free can we really see what lays within! A man who is free to do as he pleases, yet still chooses to hold to the path of benevolence to others is the very epitome of what it means to be a Good Man!
Also known as: My argument for Chaotic Good.
i see a lot of ppl wanting the devs to put artificial barriers on players interactions (in this case PvP). there is an old phrase " Evil only thrives when the good ones does nothing" (sorry i know my english is pretty bad).
Take a look at the beauty of the sandbox design, the world is what the players make them, want the world only flowers and butterflies? grow a backbone and instead of asking for artifical barries or leaving, join likeminded ppl and make it happen, "oh but i just want to be a crafter!" great, make weapons, potions, or whatever goods for the champions of righteoness" "i just want to roleplay a bard or a politician!" great! use ur social skills to preach peace, be a diplomat or a well respected guy that can travel anywhere. Instead of complaining, do something real.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm a little surprised as well that there aren't more folks expressing an interest in a LG CC or Settlement. Based on Ryan's/Stephen's comments it should be a real game challenge to hew to LG, which I think is pretty cool :) I like the that a lot: straight is the way, and narrow the gate, and there are few that find it.
I'm committed to a LG path for personal reasons of immersion and engagement--hard for me to see myself RPing an evil character. That being said, how cool would it to be one of the few who have followed that hard road; a cleric who can call on the Archons, or a Paladin who has walked the very darkest roads in complete and utter faith? That's pretty badasstic, if you ask me ;)
But Law leaves an open gate to Tyranny. And what truth is there in Good when it is imposed upon all by the strength of a state? Through liberty and freedom does true Goodness arise. For only when men and their hearts are set free can we really see what lays within! A man who is free to do as he pleases, yet still chooses to hold to the path of benevolence to others is the very epitome of what it means to be a Good Man!
Also known as: My argument for Chaotic Good.
Any extreme is an excuse for tyranny. True Neutral is the only balanced and free path.
(I feel like I am advocating fox news)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
i see a lot of ppl wanting the devs to put artificial barriers on players interactions...
... the world is what the players make them...
In general, we're pretty sure that MMOs are a race to the bottom, Lord of the Flies style, if you don't put in mechanics to try to incentivize better behavior.
Ryan and the devs have been selling us those barriers since pretty much day one. It's not like a bunch of folks showed up and tried to change the game to suit their own preferences. At least, it's not like the folks who are proponents of consequences are doing that...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
i see a lot of ppl wanting the devs to put artificial barriers on players interactions (in this case PvP). there is an old phrase " Evil only thrives when the good ones does nothing" (sorry i know my english is pretty bad).
Take a look at the beauty of the sandbox design, the world is what the players make them, want the world only flowers and butterflies? grow a backbone and instead of asking for artifical barries or leaving, join likeminded ppl and make it happen, "oh but i just want to be a crafter!" great, make weapons, potions, or whatever goods for the champions of righteoness" "i just want to roleplay a bard or a politician!" great! use ur social skills to preach peace, be a diplomat or a well respected guy that can travel anywhere. Instead of complaining, do something real.
Are you speaking of barriers or consequences? Not very many are advocating for barriers. This was not a serious push to add barriers to PvP, but was rather a thought discussion as to whether or not the game could succeed if they were added. However, consequences are a known necessity to foster the nature of game that is being built. Consequences are being advocated for strongly. A barrier doesn't give you access, a consequence allows you to decide if it is worth it or not.
As for good men and evil. Evil also thrives when it outnumbers good 20-to-1. The problem with the sandbox design is the whole internet anonymity thing that is part of the platform.
i see a lot of ppl wanting the devs to put artificial barriers on players interactions (in this case PvP). there is an old phrase " Evil only thrives when the good ones does nothing" (sorry i know my english is pretty bad).
Take a look at the beauty of the sandbox design, the world is what the players make them, want the world only flowers and butterflies? grow a backbone and instead of asking for artifical barries or leaving, join likeminded ppl and make it happen, "oh but i just want to be a crafter!" great, make weapons, potions, or whatever goods for the champions of righteoness" "i just want to roleplay a bard or a politician!" great! use ur social skills to preach peace, be a diplomat or a well respected guy that can travel anywhere. Instead of complaining, do something real.
Are you speaking of barriers or consequences? Not very many are advocating for barriers. This was not a serious push to add barriers to PvP, but was rather a thought discussion as to whether or not the game could succeed if they were added. However, consequences are a known necessity to foster the nature of game that is being built. Consequences are being advocated for strongly. A barrier doesn't give you access, a consequence allows you to decide if it is worth it or not.
As for good men and evil. Evil also thrives when it outnumbers good 20-to-1. The problem with the sandbox design is the whole internet anonymity thing that is part of the platform.
Heavy consequences can create barriers(do you want to cross it?), the more barriers we add the more themeparkish we get. I may be oldfashioned because i prefer to confront *uckwads in a more free enviroment than ask for "divine" help and complain.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What is the correlation between barriers and themepark-ness? Or even the lack of barriers ans sandbox-ness.
Also, lets not reinforce this false dichotomy between themepark and sandbox. It is possible to be both, so therefore while there might be varying degrees of each in any game, the lack of one does not make the other.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I believe that Lawful Good would be more popular if players of LG characters would divorce themselves of the notion that lawful good means that you must thrust your beliefs onto others. Sometimes it is hard to tell Lawful Good from Lawful Evil.
Obedience leads to devotion, which leads to edict, which becomes zealotry, followed by oppression and settles into tyranny.
I plan to play Lawful Good in an introspective way. I will be lawful good, I don't expect any others to live that way. I will model that way of life, and hope it is followed. I will not ask others to change, and certainly not demand or force others to change.
I will defend myself, only when attacked. I will defend others, only when they are on the verge of defeat. I will heal anyone in need. I will give freely to anyone who asks for what I have in surplus. I will give to the truly needy the last of what I hold, if they ask for it. I will make no man, my enemy, in the hope that none view me as their's.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm a little surprised as well that there aren't more folks expressing an interest in a LG CC or Settlement. Based on Ryan's/Stephen's comments it should be a real game challenge to hew to LG, which I think is pretty cool :) I like the that a lot: straight is the way, and narrow the gate, and there are few that find it.
I'm committed to a LG path for personal reasons of immersion and engagement--hard for me to see myself RPing an evil character. That being said, how cool would it to be one of the few who have followed that hard road; a cleric who can call on the Archons, or a Paladin who has walked the very darkest roads in complete and utter faith? That's pretty badasstic, if you ask me ;)
But Law leaves an open gate to Tyranny. And what truth is there in Good when it is imposed upon all by the strength of a state? Through liberty and freedom does true Goodness arise. For only when men and their hearts are set free can we really see what lays within! A man who is free to do as he pleases, yet still chooses to hold to the path of benevolence to others is the very epitome of what it means to be a Good Man!
Also known as: My argument for Chaotic Good.
The difference is in the laws that are made by the people, sanctioned by the people, and of benefit TO the people.
When those things fail and the laws are made by the few, sanctioned by the few, and for the benefit of the few; therein lies your Tyranny. True Lawful Good is not part of that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What is the correlation between barriers and themepark-ness? Or even the lack of barriers ans sandbox-ness.
In the past, I believe Dancey has said there are two parts to any sandbox. There's sand, the creative stuff that we shape with our imagination to make the game. And there's the box, the rules and boundaries which keep the sand in place. Something like that. I don't think he sees boundaries and sandboxes as exclusive concepts.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
i see a lot of ppl wanting the devs to put artificial barriers on players interactions (in this case PvP). there is an old phrase " Evil only thrives when the good ones does nothing" (sorry i know my english is pretty bad).
Take a look at the beauty of the sandbox design, the world is what the players make them, want the world only flowers and butterflies? grow a backbone and instead of asking for artifical barries or leaving, join likeminded ppl and make it happen, "oh but i just want to be a crafter!" great, make weapons, potions, or whatever goods for the champions of righteoness" "i just want to roleplay a bard or a politician!" great! use ur social skills to preach peace, be a diplomat or a well respected guy that can travel anywhere. Instead of complaining, do something real.
Picking flowers, baking cookies, or even building wondrous cities and making fantastic items are not my primary concern.
I want to kill things, first and foremost among them being players. I just want to do so in a manner that has meaning, in a world that has a lot more complexity and intrigue than Lord of the Flies. I want to fight men not just end the suffering of rabid animals.
Games with absolutely no rules and restrictions have proven over and over and over that they only cater to the lowest common denominator among us.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I want to kill things, first and foremost among them being players. I just want to do so in a manner that has meaning, in a world that has a lot more complexity and intrigue than Lord of the Flies. I want to fight men not just end the suffering of rabid animals.
Games with absolutely no rules and restrictions have proven over and over and over that they only cater to the lowest common denominator among us.
In the system (Alignment) that you so vigorously support, your character would eventually become Chaotic Evil.
Your meaningfulness is subjective, and I'm sure your victims won't agree or care what your meaning was. You are willingly joining The Lord of the Flies.
As for the games that you say have absolutely no rules and restrictions, patently false statement. They all have rules and restrictions, you just choose not to follow them or you don't understand them.
You can play Darkfall, within its rules and limitations, and never fall prey to PvP. You can also limit your own actions, and never gank a fallen foe. You can choose to never attack anyone, unprovoked. The same holds true for Eve Online, and many of the other Open World PvP MMOs.
Your problem has always been, you believe others should play your way. You want the culture of those games to bend to your will, and none if hem have. You want the mechanics of the game to do what you can not, and they never will. The Devs won't do that, for one reason...... $$$!
Open World PvP MMOs adopt the popular culture of what you dislike the most about them. Reason being, that is what the genre is and that will not change until it stops selling. What you fail to realize is, it always sells.
Now before you jump on, "Well then explain Darkfall's declining numbers", I got that covered.... Terrible UI and unbelievable amount of grinding for skill points.
I could fix Darkfall with just a few minor changes:
1. Tab Targeting
2. Ability Trays
3. Prowess Earned by meaningful skill use or Time, not kill 3000 of this or harvest 200 of that.
The Open World PvP aspects of the game, even its cutthroat mentality, is not what hurts the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
After reading through the blog concerning raiding outposts and POIs, it appears unlikely that any related PvP will be unsanctioned.
Even the resulting Criminal Flag (if raiding is even a crime), does not include a reputation loss and only bestows a Chaotic shift. If forces of the owners of the Outpost or POI attack the criminal flagged raiders, both the new attackers and the raiders are labeled "Hostile" and neither suffer alignment or reputation ramifications.
When an Outpost or POI is raided, only the members of the raiding party and the company owners of the site are flagged as "Hostile". This strikes me as being a cheaper way to increase the sanctioned target population, than actually initiating a feud (which costs influence).
Now the question is, will the caravan traveling from an Outpost or a POI be treated in the same manner?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Don't forget that it's likely to cost you Influence in order to launch a Raid.
Although that was not stated, as it was for feuds, it is a possibility. I would hope for, and of course lobby for, PvP to generate influence in a sufficient quantity that it would be self perpetuating.
Don't have enough influence to raid that outpost? SAD or ambush a caravan to gain that influence needed, then go raid the outpost.
I'm wondering if influence will be divided into two, a PvP pool and a PVE pool. You must do an activity at a fairly entry level activity, to earn enough points to unlock access for more complex, dangerous and rewarding activities.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Don't forget that it's likely to cost you Influence in order to launch a Raid.
I'm not sure that's right. I thought Tork said that raiders wouldn't need to declare feud, but if raiding was prohibited by the owning settlement then they would become flagged targets for everyone. They could avoid the criminal flag by declaring feud against the POI/Outpost owners.
(I don't fully understand the moral logic, myself. I'd think that raiders *could* legitimately raid an unguarded outpost. But rationally, once they start killing the owners, I don't understand why they don't get an alignment hit. It would make more sense to me if they had to spend Influence to make a sanctioned raid, or take alignment hits from an unsanctioned raid. In my view a raid (vs. one company at a specific place) should cost less Influence than a feud (vs. one company anywhere). A shortfall in my thinking, I guess.)