Goblinworks Founder
|
Is it totally bad idea (and dead horse) that when you lose reputation (or maybe also alignment) you also lose max reputation (or alignment) that is forever lost. For example if you lose 50 rep you also lose 5 max rep or something like that. Or maybe this max value lost is also possible to get back somehow if its too harsh.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I think the alignment system is going to be the major impediment to griefers. I think they'll find that we've intentionally designed the game so that people who behave badly often find themselves at a serious power deficit vs. their peers and I know from experience there's nothing that drives those kind of people around the bend faster than thinking that someone else has an advantage they don't have. As the alignment system forces these people to cluster together I expect it will be very much Lord of the Flies within those groups. I think that they'll serve as a great example of what not to do. The horror stories of maltreatement and constant upheaval coming out of the Chaotic Evil settlements are going to look really unappetizing to everyone else. (And every once in a while the CE people will rally behind some strong leader and come boiling out across the map ready to pillage, but that's just more great content for everyone else so I think it's a feature not a bug).
If I understand you right, you're saying that players should have the consequence of playing with players who play similarly? That the major disadvantage of a CE low-rep settlement is that it is the only place where characters who kill everyone they come across can congregate, and that settlement will suck not because of artificial penalties to chaotic, evil, and low reputation, but mostly because it is populated almost exclusively by characters who kill others and take their stuff?
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would love a degree of clarification on that point, myself. I am fine if you anticipate Chaotic Evil players having a difficult time because they are largely forced to deal with other Chaotic Evil players. I would be less fine if Chaotic Evil players have a difficult time simply because of a universal negative modifier.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I has thought we had moved more away from alignment having penalties and more toward reputation having all the penalties with the alignments being relatively balanced.
This is an interesting development.
He did say: Well, I'm pretty far off the reservation now, so you'll have to indulge me. This is very much theorycrafting and opinion rather than fact or plan. I'm reading his bit as theory rather than plan. I figure it fits into this thread, which to me has always been more about hypotheticals than anything else.
Speaking purely hypothetically, I've always thought the evil and chaos sides of the alignment chart always had more room for mischief and mayhem. I figured good and law would need mechanical benefits just to provide relative balance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If alignment is also a metric of positive gameplay, I expect to be LG...I am just a sucker for positive gameplay and community building (and prefer function determine story rather than the other way around...give us good function, the story will work itself out).
And I imagine my community will echo me for the most part.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have to go with Andius on this one... I thought CE sucking was off the table and Reputation was the deciding factor...
Now it sounds like Ryan agrees that reputation can be farmed, good, great, but now making something like alignment a bad thing... that sucks for people who want to play CE, but intend to be moderate or high reputation.
I like your first post Ryan, and half the second... But you just took away a large chunk of play style.
I know its way off the reservation... which is fine, but maybe we need a serious Alignment and Reputation dev blog.
I have to go with Andius on this one... I thought CE sucking was off the table and Reputation was the deciding factor..
Yea, I'll third this. I thought people would be free to play their alignments as well. I plan on playing CN not CE, but still, CE is only one step away, and I don't see why CE people should be at a disadvantage if they're following the meta-game rules.
I think we need to separate RL alignment from in-game alignment here.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...maybe we need a serious Alignment and Reputation dev blog.Seconded.
And thirded. I am seriously confused about the direction of the game now. I have been at peace with the model that had Reputation being a mechanical stick that could drain the life out of settlements. Without a mechanical stick, we are merely going to see large organized groups of very nasty people absolutely dominate the game. Relying on other players for moderating peers will quickly go Lord of the Flies, because those who would moderate are most likely the first to give up. I sure hope the devs intend to maintain a means of automated moderation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am seriously confused about the direction of the game now.
I'm not. It's been remarkably consistent. Jerks are going to suck, and if you're overly worried about whether or not the mechanics that make that happen are going to hurt you, then you probably have good reason.
Of course, "some people" might think that attacking other players without their consent is being a jerk, but I think most of us all realize that's ridiculous.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If alignment is also a metric of positive gameplay, I expect to be LG...I am just a sucker for positive gameplay and community building (and prefer function determine story rather than the other way around...give us good function, the story will work itself out).
And I imagine my community will echo me for the most part.
Yeah, I've been thinking about this more and more and I'm wondering whether The Seventh Veil might be better off aiming for Lawful Good from the beginning. I'm sure we'll have some interesting discussions about it :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Ryan,
Thanks very much for your answer. It's not really important to me how it's implemented, and I agree that it seems kind of silly to think of playing Chaotic Evil in a positive way. But the question still remains doesn't it? I mean, doesn't there need to be a "bright line" way to define whether a particular action is or is not going to have Alignment and Reputation consequences?
I am seriously confused about the direction of the game now.I'm not. It's been remarkably consistent. Jerks are going to suck, and if you're overly worried about whether or not the mechanics that make that happen are going to hurt you, then you probably have good reason.
Of course, "some people" might think that attacking other players without their consent is being a jerk, but I think most of us all realize that's ridiculous.
Yea, but we're not talking about jerks here, because jerks we can loosely define as "people (in real life) who go out of their way to use game mechanics to wreck the experience of other people, just for the fun of it". People choosing to play a Chaotic and/or Evil character shouldn't be punished for this from a meta-game standpoint.
Obviously if a chaotic people breaks the laws in a certain location there should be consequences in-game, but not a meta-game whip keeping these people from playing their alignment successfully.
Edit: I'd also like to point out that this doesn't just affect people of the CE alignment, but anyone on the Chaotic OR Evil axis of alignments.
So that would include: Chaotic Evil, Chaotic Neutral, Chaotic Good, Lawful Evil, and Neutral Evil. And perhaps even True Neutral to a smaller extent.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
People choosing to play a Chaotic and/or Evil character shouldn't be punished for this from a meta-game standpoint.
Why? What positive interaction do they create for other players?
[Edit] Something above and beyond "(And every once in a while the CE people will rally behind some strong leader and come boiling out across the map ready to pillage, but that's just more great content for everyone else so I think it's a feature not a bug)."
People choosing to play a Chaotic and/or Evil character shouldn't be punished for this from a meta-game standpoint.Why? What positive interaction do they create for other players?
[Edit] Something above and beyond "(And every once in a while the CE people will rally behind some strong leader and come boiling out across the map ready to pillage, but that's just more great content for everyone else so I think it's a feature not a bug)."
They allow people to play the "White Knight" or as some people would say the "Sheep Dog". They do the dirty jobs that some settlements need done but don't want to do openly. They add intrigue. As Ryan said, they add content when they gather up on a large scale and spill out over the lands. TV and movies are all about the forces of Evil fighting the forces of Good, and if the game punishes any Evil, it'll just get boring.
I could go on, but the point is they engage in all sorts of game mechanics which people are supposed to partake in: Assassination, Banditry, Crafting, Attacking/Guarding caravans, Large-scale Wars/Feuds, etc. They just do them for different reasons and from a different standpoint.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Qallz, everything you mentioned is equally true of Lawful Evil. So, what's special about Chaotic Evil?
I know "some people" don't want to accept this, but PFO is very much about creating a world where killing other players outside of Wars, Feuds, etc. has consequences, and those consequences accumulate to make your character suck. The proposed solution is Alignment and/or Reputation. Do you have a better solution? (Please don't waste time with "let the players sort it out themselves".)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have never been a fan of the alignment scale, but I have made peace with it at the least.
The only fear I had with CE potentially sucking was the possibility of it branding a legitimate meaningful role as sucking.
I am slightly less concerned that this will be a possibility. I don't want a River Kingdoms with little advantage for rogue type characters. I do want a game with less wanton killing of new players. I would even not mind a game that mechanically discouraged the targeting of extremely low risk marks repeatedly (low risk / low payout).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Qallz, everything you mentioned is equally true of Lawful Evil. So, what's special about Chaotic Evil?
Absolutely Nothing. That's my point. Which is why I'm saying they don't deserve special (negative) treatment from a meta-game standpoint.
I know "some people" don't want to accept this, but PFO is very much about creating a world where killing other players outside of Wars, Feuds, etc. has consequences, and those consequences accumulate to make your character suck. The proposed solution is Alignment and/or Reputation. Do you have a better solution? (Please don't waste time with "let the players sort it out themselves".)
I specially said that the some people thing wasn't directed at you, don't be a dick. And in any case, my solution is a simple one: the affect that he's proposing for both low reputation and Chatoic/Evil characters could JUST be applied to low reputation... so the people who are breaking the rules from a meta-game standpoint are punished, while the people who choose to play a CE character but follow the meta-game rules (AKA aren't griefers) are NOT punished from a meta-game standpoint.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't want a River Kingdoms with little advantage for rogue type characters.Pathfinder doesn't have an alignment restriction on the rogue class. Have we heard that PFO will have alignment restrictions on that class?
I should have been more clear. I was meaning rogue type as in occupational. Theft, banditry, assassinations, etc.
Of those examples banditry used to worry me would move you towards both Chaotic and Evil. My concerns are less so because of the SAD system.
Sorry for the confusion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And in any case, my solution is a simple one: the affect that he's proposing for both low reputation and Chatoic/Evil characters could JUST be applied to low reputation... so the people who are breaking the rules from a meta-game standpoint are punished, while the people who choose to play a CE character but follow the meta-game rules (AKA aren't griefers) are NOT punished from a meta-game standpoint.
This is what I have been saying for a while. Glad to see others joining the cause. The two can be related, but should remain separate. Alignment is more "morals" and RPing, but reputation would be used to determine who gets punished and who is "playing correctly."
What are you talking about? Did you think that "some people" was directed at you? And it made you upset enough to call me a dick?I know "some people" don't want to accept this...I specially said that the some people thing wasn't directed at you, don't be a dick.
Yea, I thought you were referring to a post I made earlier in this thread when I used "some people". I got that because you put it in quotes, but if that's not what you meant then nvm. Forget I said it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Without a mechanical stick, we are merely going to see large organized groups of very nasty people absolutely dominate the game.
And Bluddwolf throws the gates open to herald the coming of the Goons
Relying on other players for moderating peers will quickly go Lord of the Flies, because those who would moderate are most likely the first to give up. I sure hope the devs intend to maintain a means of automated moderation.
I love Lord of the Flies.... casting Call below
Ralph = Mbando
Jack = Bluddwolf
Piggy = left blank to avoid insulting "Some People"
Simon = Hobs
Roger = Morbis
Sam and Eric (Twins) =
Without a mechanical stick, we are merely going to see large organized groups of very nasty people absolutely dominate the game.And Bluddwolf throws the gates open to herald the coming of the Goons
Relying on other players for moderating peers will quickly go Lord of the Flies, because those who would moderate are most likely the first to give up. I sure hope the devs intend to maintain a means of automated moderation.I love Lord of the Flies.... casting Call below
Ralph = Mbando
Jack = Bluddwolf
Piggy = left blank to avoid insulting "Some People"
Simon = Hobbs
Roger = Morbis
Reading the description of Piggy on Wikipedia (I'm not familiar with Lord of the Flies) I can't say I'm offended.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...they don't deserve special (negative) treatment from a meta-game standpoint.
I've spent quite a bit of time trying to think of a single Chaotic Evil character from history, literature, film, television, or any medium that anyone, including other Chaotic Evils, would voluntarily spend their time with if they had choices. I've not yet thought of one, and it's reinforced my understanding and acceptance of Ryan segregating them; perhaps they are indeed special.
Caligula, The Joker (and Harley Quinn), John Wayne Gacy, Edward "Blackbeard" Teach, Hannibal Lecter, Julian Sark (Alias), Pol Pot, YoSafBridge (Firefly), John Doe (Se7en), Idi Amin, Iago (Othello), Marlo Stanfield (The Wire)...the list can continue indefinitely, of course, and, it's hard to argue, is pretty repulsing. Can anyone think of a counter-example: a Chaotic Evil that you'd not dread being around?
...they don't deserve special (negative) treatment from a meta-game standpoint.I've spent quite a bit of time trying to think of a single Chaotic Evil character from history, literature, film, television, or any medium that anyone, including other Chaotic Evils, would voluntarily spend their time with if they had choices. I've not yet thought of one, and it's reinforced my understanding and acceptance of Ryan segregating them; perhaps they are indeed special.
Caligula, The Joker (and Harley Quinn), John Wayne Gacy, Edward "Blackbeard" Teach, Hannibal Lecter, Julian Sark (Alias), Pol Pot, YoSafBridge (Firefly), John Doe (Se7en), Idi Amin, Iago (Othello), Marlo Stanfield (The Wire)...the list can continue indefinitely, of course, and, it's hard to argue, is pretty repulsing. Can anyone think of a counter-example: a Chaotic Evil that you'd not dread being around?
First of all, we're not discussing forced segregation, we're discussing whether CE players should be punished for being Chaotic/Evil regardless of whether they have a high rep or not.
Second of all, not all CE people are insane serial killers, and I'm sure there are plenty of examples you could find in film, television, etc, where someone who was Neutral or Evil aligned with a CE person to move towards some end goal. etc.
Thirdly, explain to me why players should not be able to choose for themselves whether they want to associate with these people, and instead have some meta-game system making it hard for them (if you really feel like you were checkmated on that last debate, then I think it's time to move on to a new one).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can anyone think of a counter-example: a Chaotic Evil that you'd not dread being around?
I have to admit to being a Riddick fan...and in the second movie they refer to calling upon Riddick because "In normal times, evil would be fought with good. But in times like these, well, it should be fought by another kind of evil."
I must assume this means Riddick as CE is being called upon to fight the Necromongers who were clearly LE. Riddick clearly has no respect for order and no compunctions about killing or acting in manners that gets others killed.
This said, I think he is evil in that his needs are untempered by compassion or emotion, not because he likes to necessarily inflict harm. He is just very primal, with survival being the primary drive...and again, compassion being zero drive.
But, as long as no one is threatening him or standing between him and freedom, I do not necessarily think "being around" Riddick would be unpleasant.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I wouldn't want to hang out with him but Atilla the Hun was chaotic evil and did have quite a following. Chaotic Evil can build a following any time they lead their followers to plenty of loot and victory. They won't stick around long if they stop generating loot or suffer much defeat though.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the designer's ideas about reputation and alignment are still in a lot of flux, and there will be a better time to dig into the mechanic once we've done more work on other systems. I don't believe that whatever plan we start with will survive contact with the community and will need to be revised many times based on feedback and exploitation discovery.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am seriously confused about the direction of the game now.I'm not. It's been remarkably consistent. Jerks are going to suck, and if you're overly worried about whether or not the mechanics that make that happen are going to hurt you, then you probably have good reason.
Of course, "some people" might think that attacking other players without their consent is being a jerk, but I think most of us all realize that's ridiculous.
I'm not... Is a normal Nihimon response there... Im not sure youd ever disagree with anything Ryan says.
It's been remarkably consistent... Well now that is just not true, and you know it.
Here is the thing Ryan was not thinking about. And I point this out so we can at least get back to low rep sucking and Alignment just being a RP standard.
CE characters are not CE players. They will not join in a mass herd and have infighting that will keep them weak. Some leader showing up every now and again to rally the horde is not reality either.
The CE horde will be organized and a threat at all times. The players are not the characters.
Now if these players were Role Playing their characters then sure you may end up with what Ryan talked about, but that is not reality. They will not be fighting each other in a slum run settlement waiting to be rallied.
It will not be lord of the flies with these people. That is just not going to happen.
Again, just because a character is CE does not mean the player is actually Evil.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
When we start talking about a system that has many shades of gray, it's difficult to keep up with the conversation. And if we segregate some shades of gray and start only talking about those or changing only a part of the palette, that might make distortions in the entirety of the palette.
When the blog came out where reputation and alignment were described as closely tied and unsanctioned and sanctioned pvp didn't exist, to me it felt like the only system that could really cater to a quite a large player base because of the many play styles it would support. The fact that both sanctioned and unsanctioned pvp might both have reputation and alignment changes might be an idea worth exploring...
I still think reputation and alignment should be as closely knit as possible. This I think will create a broad perspective of game styles for people to experiment. The more the merrier. And through these experiences GW will learn a lot about their system...
My suggestion to the system would be to make reputation a five star scale. The more whole stars your kingdom should have the more benefits it's settlements, characters, buildings etc would have or the leaders of the settlements could choose what benefits they would want. This way the reputation could be made a settlement wide attribute and not just to punish low reps.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am seriously confused about the direction of the game now.I'm not. It's been remarkably consistent. Jerks are going to suck, and if you're overly worried about whether or not the mechanics that make that happen are going to hurt you, then you probably have good reason.
Of course, "some people" might think that attacking other players without their consent is being a jerk, but I think most of us all realize that's ridiculous.
I have to say I'm with you on this one. The reputation and alignment are not too separate mechanics, but a one system. The reason for this system is probably what most people don't understand, but in my opinion the reason for this system is to allow a broad range of playstyles for a lack of better understanding. Combined with other mechanics and player dynamics PFO should thrive.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have to say I'm with you on this one. The reputation and alignment are not too separate mechanics, but a one system. The reason for this system is probably what most people don't understand, but in my opinion the reason for this system is to allow a broad range of playstyles for a lack of better understanding. Combined with other mechanics and player dynamics PFO should thrive.I am seriously confused about the direction of the game now.I'm not. It's been remarkably consistent. Jerks are going to suck, and if you're overly worried about whether or not the mechanics that make that happen are going to hurt you, then you probably have good reason.
Of course, "some people" might think that attacking other players without their consent is being a jerk, but I think most of us all realize that's ridiculous.
How does having CE penalized allow for a broad range of play styles?
Seriously, explain that to me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The CE horde will be organized and a threat at all times.
They will not be fighting each other in a slum run settlement waiting to be rallied.
It will not be lord of the flies with these people. That is just not going to happen.
This would seem to me that you're saying you do not want CE penalized in any way, but then you think people will not actually roleplay CE as it should be. Reputation aside, CE characters will be able to use violence and intimidation on a whim and receive no penalties for doing so, yet their players can coordinate and act in an organised fashion at all times.
This to me is pretty good reasoning why CE should be penalized in some manner (or settlements thereof).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How does having CE penalized allow for a broad range of play styles?
Seriously, explain that to me.
Chaotic Evil: A chaotic evil character does what his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are likely to be poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.
Chaotic evil represents the destruction not only of beauty and life, but also of the order on which beauty and life depend.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Jiminy - No, an alignment should not be penalized. Its part of the game. You cannot put reputation aside, it is the factor that keeps CE people honest. I agree also that Reputation does not work as intended right now and can be fixed.
@Aeioun - I have played D&D for 20 years, I dont need a definition of CE.
Basically, Ryan said that people will play where the most power is. And if playing CE means you will be weak, they will just play this side of CE so they are not weak.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the reputation system should have a balancing 'notoriety' system, equal and opposite in effect. Characters may gain notoriety whenever they lose reputation through willful actions.The purpose of the Reputation system is to encourage positive gameplay. What would be the purpose/use of the notoriety system?
Pardon my groping for a concept, but if notoriety accrues with reputation loss we begin to form a meaningful organization to CE player character aggregates where the most notorious are provided political power, just as in every fantasy setting they do. The bosses are the baddest of them all. They rule by fear. The benefit I am scrying in this grope is that when the chaotic gain a sense of community they are less unpredictable and oddly more approachable, but more importantly we provide a political mechanism that might better encourage organized invasions of the potentially placid lawfuls with all their treaties and wax seal-emblazoned documentation.
Providing a mechanism to facilitate coordination of the chaotic enhances dynamism and assures better balance between law and chaos, just as we have so strongly focused on the good-evil axis.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Part of the fledgling thought is that it is, I think, undeniable that even the worst will either recognize fear and consequence in the face of annihilation and better toe the line or else be driven out by their own. If the worst of the worst is given a way to increase his or her power, then the problem may become an asset.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the designer's ideas about reputation and alignment are still in a lot of flux, and there will be a better time to dig into the mechanic once we've done more work on other systems. I don't believe that whatever plan we start with will survive contact with the community and will need to be revised many times based on feedback and exploitation discovery.
And I'll say for the umpteenth time this is is the ONE thing crowdforging will actually be very important for. Making the alignment system work is going to be HARD.
I still think it's a mistake to use parallel systems. The alignment system all by itself is a massive undertaking of virtual social engineering. I'd stick to that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@xeen
That definition clearly says CE sucks at settlement building and the devs have decided for now that it takes an orderly settlement to train the most highest skill. I think that allows for a broader scale of playstyles than without this kind of definition.
Have you ever had rich white tea that opens up the taste of water. It's tea but you can only taste water in it, but the taste of water is broader than what it would be without the tea leaves.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I want to thank Ryan for bringing up the topics and theorycrafting that had presented in his previous posts. In my mind they are a reminder to us all that not everything that some of us might hope for will come to pass.
I do find some problems with Ryan's theorycrafting, on maybe two points.
First, alignment just as reputation can be gamed, so long as there is the automatic shift back to core. Then if there is anyway through activities that can also shift alignment in any direction, those too will be used to further shift alignment back to one less detrimental.
The flaw in your assumption is that MMO players care about alignment. I can telly you as a very experienced MMO player, I couldn't care less. If I find out that one alignment is optimal, as compared to others, I'll set my core to that. Then I will do whatever the heck I want, and only when I feel the need I will grind my way back to my core.
For the same reason, you premise that CE will suffer the consequences of having to congregate among just other CE characters. Their settlements will suck because they are populated by blood thirsty, unpredictable maniacs. Again, you are confusing the characters with their players.
Your typical MMO player doesn't care about alignment. They will just as likely be the most organized horde of chaotic evil characters that you or I have ever imagined, putting the organizational skills and structure of Lawful Evil to shame.
RP'ers will tell them "Then you are not Chaotic Evil, learn to play your alignment."
The Chaotic Evil horde will respond "This is not your Grandfather's TT RPG, Learn to Play and MMO."
I know some people here want so desperatly for PFO not have the same culture as the average Open World PVP MMO, but it will. Shortly after the release of OE, the MMO players will outnumber the EE (more TT RPG centric players or the more Theme Park MMO players)and the gamed will become your typical sandbox, Open World PVP MMO.