| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will personally sign the KC's Awesome Pact Pact: Short of dealing with a griefer, I will only kill a fellow player in a fair fight.
...
Or if I think they're gonna start a fair fight.
Or if they bother me.
Or if there's a faction.
Or if I'm getting paid.
Mostly only if I'm getting paid.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
You are correct, it is positive gameplay, but it is not mutually beneficial. However the same can be said for all PVP. In PVP there is always a winner and a loser, the loser will have the toughest time seeing the benefit in losing.
However, if we use the phrases of "mutually entertaining" and "meaningful interaction", then perhaps the lose of the conflict can begin to understand their benefit. Similarly, if the winner of the conflict can see that by striving to make the encounter both entertaining and meaningful, then they too may see the benefit in engaging in positive gameplay.
We understand (UNC) that we are "speaking" to a great number of people with limited Open World PVP experience. I don't mean that as a jab in the least bit. We understand that there is a certain amount of trepidation concerning non consensual pvp and the loss of loot / time for your efforts. This is why we as the most vocal of all pvp / bandits have said we will not "over fish the pond".
We will try to ease you into the realities of Open World PVP. We will be open to conversing with those that we victimize and if they ask for advice, it will be given without mockery or any sort of ridicule. When we take in new characters, wishing to dabble or fully dedicate themselves to banditry, we will impress upon them the virtues of "Doing Banditry Right".
Well, I understand what you are saying, but still, it's not a RTS where there is a precise goal, which is to just fight. The goal here, is to build your own experience.
And the fact is that nobody wants bandits disrupting his activities. I mean, personally, my objective in the game is to stop you from doing that. It is not a "meta" objective, I don't want you to quit, to be banned, or to change your game style. But I want to fight for my RP ideals, which are to have a peaceful and productive environment.
Which is why I don't see the point to be in association with you, in a structure like RA, since my in game objectives won't benefit from it, you know what I mean ? If you wanted to be part of the RA on the same loose conditions (I'm not sure about my grammar here, I mean "not hard") of the NC, it would be different.
But my point of view is probably influenced by the way I see the RA.
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, I understand what you are saying, but still, it's not a RTS where there is a precise goal, which is to just fight. The goal here, is to build your own experience.
And the fact is that nobody wants bandits disrupting his activities. I mean, personally, my objective in the game is to stop you from doing that. It is not a "meta" objective, I don't want you to quit, to be banned, or to change your game style. But I want to fight for my RP ideals, which are to have a peaceful and productive environment.
Which is why I don't see the point to be in association with you, in a structure like RA, since my in game objectives won't...
1. GW goal is for you to build your own experience, but not without conflict.
2. That is a fine goal, and I welcome the conflict.
3. We have an identical meta game goal
4. And I want to fight for my RP goals, which are to have a world where there are risks and rewards to be experienced. More importantly, for those experiences to be both entertaining and meaningful for all parties.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Banditry is the easiest way to have all players exposed to some level of PvP threat without having people killed left and right for no real point. Where in most Open World PvP games you can come into the game on a new character, go to a neutral area with nothing of value, and expect to be roflstomped by people you've never had any dealings with simply because they can; banditry adds meaning.
With banditry you are being robbed because you have items of value. Which requires you to be alert/wary/smart if you are traveling around carrying high value goods.
Without banditry trading is a simple matter of "Take goods from point A to point B." It's boring. However some of the funnest times I had in Freelancer were trading and smuggling, because of pirates, cargo inspectors, enemy blockades etc.
There is nothing like slipping through an enemy blockade or even better, blowing up a pirate in your bulky/moderately armed trade vessel.
I expect there to be very similar dynamics between merchants and bandits in PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And these opposite goals will make a great game, but I don't really see the point to be in a common "group", if it doesn't benefit for both of us.
Then what you are describing is an alliance that is based on mutual benefit and not a metagame concept of positive game play.
What I mean by this is:
Positive Gameplay is player based.
Mutual Benefit is character based.
This is why the Roseblood Accord is almost universally misunderstood, even by people that have signed onto it. They are told that they are independent, but what will happen as soon as one of them puts self interest ahead of mutual benefit?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel the need to provide this quote:
When an Outpost is raided, the management company and associated PoI owners are notified. Any characters within the area of the Outpost (that aren't allied with the Outpost owners) are marked as Criminal and lose no stacks of Criminal until they leave the area.
The intention is to encourage short-term, regular PvP on the outskirts/frontiers of civilization. Raids are valuable to the raider, threatening to the defender, but resource-light enough for both to keep raids frequent and fun. We wanted to ensure that there were structures in game that positively encourage player versus player combat on both a macro and a micro level. Outpost raiding has implications for the Outpost, its PoI, and any affiliated settlement, making it a valuable tool for everyone from bandits to those embroiled in full-scale war. While an outpost is unlikely to change hands unless its affiliated PoI supports such a change, it can provide valuable resources to a canny raiding party. This should allow them to further their own goals in Golarion by methods which suit their play styles.
As a policy of the UNC, we see banditry in the forms detailed in the Dev blogs as being unquestionable examples of "meaningful interactions". The developers have never said in any blog or post that there should be a reasonable expectation of "mutual benefit" as a component of positive gameplay. Mutual benefit is a component of an alliance or a contract based agreement and not a community based initiative to promote positive gameplay as players.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
And these opposite goals will make a great game, but I don't really see the point to be in a common "group", if it doesn't benefit for both of us.Then what you are describing is an alliance that is based on mutual benefit and not a metagame concept of positive game play.
What I mean by this is:
Positive Gameplay is player based.
Mutual Benefit is character based.
This is why the Roseblood Accord is almost universally misunderstood, even by people that have signed onto it. They are told that they are independent, but what will happen as soon as one of them puts self interest ahead of mutual benefit?
Indeed, there is an explanation of why Roseblood is misunderstood.
The mutual benefit sought is the benefit of the players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The mutual benefit sought is the benefit of the players.
Yes, we agree. You being our content and us being your content is mutually beneficial to we as players.
We would not want your merchants to be bored on their long journeys, and we want to provide guards with meaningful employment.
We would not want your outposts to be over burdened with surplus resources, and so we will redistribute that surplus to others with greater need.
You may of course defend your holdings and therefore give to us the risk that we benefit from, to alleviate our boredom.
The UNC policy on the subject is encapsulated in this:
"We are a Positive Game Play community within an Open World PVP setting, making every effort to deliver Mutually Entertaining and Meaningful Interactions with Friends and Foes alike."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I personally don't see banditry as not being positive gameplay however logic keeps me from agreeing that taking from one in such a manner is mutually beneficial.You are correct, it is positive gameplay, but it is not mutually beneficial. However the same can be said for all PVP. In PVP there is always a winner and a loser, the loser will have the toughest time seeing the benefit in losing.
However, if we use the phrases of "mutually entertaining" and "meaningful interaction", then perhaps the lose of the conflict can begin to understand their benefit. Similarly, if the winner of the conflict can see that by striving to make the encounter both entertaining and meaningful, then they too may see the benefit in engaging in positive gameplay.
We understand (UNC) that we are "speaking" to a great number of people with limited Open World PVP experience. I don't mean that as a jab in the least bit. We understand that there is a certain amount of trepidation concerning non consensual pvp and the loss of loot / time for your efforts. This is why we as the most vocal of all pvp / bandits have said we will not "over fish the pond".
We will try to ease you into the realities of Open World PVP. We will be open to conversing with those that we victimize and if they ask for advice, it will be given without mockery or any sort of ridicule. When we take in new characters, wishing to dabble or fully dedicate themselves to banditry, we will impress upon them the virtues of "Doing Banditry Right".
What will you say to those that you try to victimize yet fail?
;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Y'know, I just had this idea about Stand and Deliver. What if one of the options was for the bandit to offer a "Guarantee"?
Basically, it goes like this: If the merchant dies in the next, say, ten minutes, the bandit loses rep even if the exchange was conducted peacefully.
This way, the bandit offers an additional incentive: Pay up, merchant, and not only will I definitely leave you alone, I will make sure others do, too.
Obviously, the bandit can choose not to offer this part of the contract, and there's no additional penalty for the merchant turning him down.
Exactly! Protection rackets seem right up the UnNamed Alley.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What will you say to those that you try to victimize yet fail?
;)
"Congratulations"
It's called good sportsmanship. I expect to lose often enough that banditry proves to be a rough life. I expect to win enough that it keeps me from leaving the life.
The only real failure is boredom, and a bandit's life will be anything but that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Y'know, I just had this idea about Stand and Deliver. What if one of the options was for the bandit to offer a "Guarantee"?
Basically, it goes like this: If the merchant dies in the next, say, ten minutes, the bandit loses rep even if the exchange was conducted peacefully.
This way, the bandit offers an additional incentive: Pay up, merchant, and not only will I definitely leave you alone, I will make sure others do, too.
Obviously, the bandit can choose not to offer this part of the contract, and there's no additional penalty for the merchant turning him down.
They already have the fleeced flag that gives them 20 minutes of protection. If anyone attacks them they will get a double rep hit.
Now if they want to pay up even more for us to become their caravan guards, that us a different story.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course, aside from the exception Goodfellow just noted, nobody seems to quite agree on how strict the NAP really is. The particulars will be determined in-game—perhaps even on the battlefield. ;D
Actually we do quite agree on how strict the NAP is. Goodfellows exception is the only exception currently accepted.
Robbing a fellow NC member out in the wilds is not acceptable. We are a Non-Aggression Pact.
That does not rule out planned fun. Which is completely different.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah, I think the bottom line is "don't do anything important". Stealing the life-saving medicine on its way to Golgotha's PoI, Orphantown? Not cool. Robbing some random UNC bandit? Eh, that's more of a gray area.
In terms of Freevale's commitment to The Northern Coalition NAP as it relates to UnC's policy discussion: it is not a gray area. It is simple. We have agreed to non aggression with the other signatories. As per our commitment as a settlement, that random UNC bandit is off the table.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Brought this question over form another thread, concerning the Guide Program.
How would guides ever escort Newbies to Aragon as you plan to have multiple contracts supporting one side or another in Feuds and Wars.
Any guide from The UnNamed Company will have made contact with a new player in Thornkeep. This new player / character most likely expressed an interest in banditry or is CN, CE, CG or TN.
A UNC company member in the guide program would be specifically looking to teach new players "the ropes" of banditry. There is no demand that they join UNC, or become a citizen of Aragon.
Should the UNC or Aragon be in an active feud or war, the new players will be informed of that. They would likely not be allowed to join either the UNC or Aragon during that open hostile period, unless they can be vouched for by an existing member in good standing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it the policy of UNC to attack and kill guides and/or new players who are in the vicinity of a feud or war contract but are not (yet) a member of the target?
A known and identifiable guide will always be safe, but anyone else in an active war / feud zone is fair game. This is especially true for a feud / war zone that we are actively engaged in.
From the looks of how the mechanics are working with the Towers, I'd guess that war zones will be FFA PVP. Guides and Noobs should not go there.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Is it the policy of UNC to attack and kill guides and/or new players who are in the vicinity of a feud or war contract but are not (yet) a member of the target?A known and identifiable guide will always be safe, but anyone else in an active war / feud zone is fair game. This is especially true for a feud / war zone that we are actively engaged in.
From the looks of how the mechanics are working with the Towers, I'd guess that war zones will be FFA PVP. Guides and Noobs should not go there.
If war zones are FFA, I have no concerns about that. I'll defer future questions on the matter until we know more about what effect declaring war will have.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If war zones are FFA, I have no concerns about that. I'll defer future questions on the matter until we know more about what effect declaring war will have.Is it the policy of UNC to attack and kill guides and/or new players who are in the vicinity of a feud or war contract but are not (yet) a member of the target?A known and identifiable guide will always be safe, but anyone else in an active war / feud zone is fair game. This is especially true for a feud / war zone that we are actively engaged in.
From the looks of how the mechanics are working with the Towers, I'd guess that war zones will be FFA PVP. Guides and Noobs should not go there.
We seem to be in agreement. Noobs have no business being guided or escorted into active feuds or war zones, unless of course they wish to experience PvP first hand.
This policy of not recruiting during wars and NBSI in effected systems (hexes) comes straight out of years of experience in EvE Online. In the war zone, there are no innocents. There are only combatants, spies and saboteurs or the potential of anyone turning out to be one.
|
Is it the policy of UNC to attack and kill guides and/or new players who are in the vicinity of a feud or war contract but are not (yet) a member of the target?
If a new players (how to wonder?!) enter in a War Zone (even if it is not FFA), what you can do?
Consider the risks, two Settlemtents are at War for some PoI, losing chars, attacking, defending, etc..., and a member of a Third Settlement went in. Will you risk to let any third part run in the middle of the fight freely helping enemies with intel or suplies?
Personally, I should warning the thirdie about what is going on and demand a position (helping us, or leave the battlefield) immediatly. If he is not helping, he could be helping the enemy. So it's a potential threat.
It's part of the guide job do not let the newbie risks himself if he is not prepared. If they are inside a war nor related to them, the guide is the only to be blame if one side of the war simply decide vanquish the threat.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I realize this a UNC policy discussion thread but given Decius's pointed questions obviously aimed to make us look bad I have a follow up question for him:
Can we assume that if we send unaffilated alts posing as newbs to spy on TEO/TSV troop movements in active warzones that you will leave them be?
Edit: This question is assuming that you will not suffer reputation penalties. I'm more interested to hear if TSV/TEO will honestly let their enemies use such tactics against them or if they are willing to sacrifice the enemy knowing all their troop movements as they happen to maintain the pretense of honor.
Just beware I'm going to bookmark your response and plaster it all over the forums if you go back on your word.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Also, remember that a lot of this will depend on exactly what changes from the norm during wartime. It could just be that only targets involved in the war are fair game in which 3rd parties are still NOT rep free kills, noob or not. Now with the towers, those are FFA areas during the PVP window so all targets will be treated as such. (Aragonian policy) but for a feud or war time, I am fairly sure it will be rep-free ONLY to targets involved in the war/feud.
That being said, it is my belief that if you are running a 3rd party (using a noob for instance) character through our lands during war time, we might let it go once or twice if we are feeling nice, but we might feud you and/or your company and kill you that way if we believe your assisting the enemy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Also, remember that a lot of this will depend on exactly what changes from the norm during wartime. It could just be that only targets involved in the war are fair game in which 3rd parties are still NOT rep free kills, noob or not. Now with the towers, those are FFA areas during the PVP window so all targets will be treated as such. (Aragonian policy) but for a feud or war time, I am fairly sure it will be rep-free ONLY to targets involved in the war/feud.
That being said, it is my belief that if you are running a 3rd party (using a noob for instance) character through our lands during war time, we might let it go once or twice if we are feeling nice, but we might feud you and/or your company and kill you that way if we believe your assisting the enemy.
Because of the likelihood of unaffiliated noobs being used as spies, in war zones, I would certainly try to impress upon GW to make active war zones FFA PvP zones in similar fashion that is being used in the War of Towers.
A settlement under siege should not have to suffer even a couple of instances of spying and not be able to respond for fear of losing reputation.
We have already seen the negative consequences of reputation loss in Morbis' streaming video, imagine if your own defense forces could not remain in their own settlement during a siege, if they attacked just three unflagged spies.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I disagree. The reason is this. If we attack anyone and everyone rep free just because we are at war with someone, I see that as losing any sort of meaningful choice on our part. Not everyone 3rd party player entering our territory will be a spy. Just as we might not be if we enter a region in war that we are not a part of.
Reputation is the "fee" we pay to attack a suspected spy. Maybe if we have proof of it, we should war dec, or feud them first. If we just attack on a suspicion of spying, then that should be treated the same as any other RPK.
I want spying to be a part of this game, though I don't want the "noob alt" type of spying. I would like to see spying as a role that is leveled and used, rather than just wondering around and finding what you can see or overhear in local chat. Something in the rogue tree or something. Info a spy could retrieve would be like command structure for use with assassin contracts, storage locations for raiding, and PVP window times. If spies were created as a role with these sorts of things in mind, then I am opposed to FFA war areas. (not saying for EE, though maybe the end of EE we could start to see some of these sorts of things perhaps?)
After all, we will still want trade and visitors right?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Reputation is the "fee" we pay to attack a suspected spy. Maybe if we have proof of it, we should war dec, or feud them first. If we just attack on a suspicion of spying, then that should be treated the same as any other RPK.
Excellent point. There is, after all, a reason that nations with a good reputation expel suspected spies rather than imprisoning or executing them immediately.
If you think you can afford the time, you feud them and give them 24 hours to get out of town. If you don't think you can afford the time, then you decide to take the reputation hit and get rid of them now.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I disagree. The reason is this. If we attack anyone and everyone rep free just because we are at war with someone, I see that as losing any sort of meaningful choice on our part. Not everyone 3rd party player entering our territory will be a spy. Just as we might not be if we enter a region in war that we are not a part of.
Reputation is the "fee" we pay to attack a suspected spy. Maybe if we have proof of it, we should war dec, or feud them first. If we just attack on a suspicion of spying, then that should be treated the same as any other RPK.
After all, we will still want trade and visitors right?
Experience tells me this would make our territory ripe for spies during war time. If we have to, then the Exalted Bastards will take the reputation hit.
Yes we still want trade, even during war time, but that is where the Lion Council comes into their role. That is where our NAP with our fellow Nothern Coalition members comes into play. Not just "Blue", but trusted without question "Blue".
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I realize this a UNC policy discussion thread but given Decius's pointed questions obviously aimed to make us look bad I have a follow up question for him:
Can we assume that if we send unaffilated alts posing as newbs to spy on TEO/TSV troop movements in active warzones that you will leave them be?
Edit: This question is assuming that you will not suffer reputation penalties. I'm more interested to hear if TSV/TEO will honestly let their enemies use such tactics against them or if they are willing to sacrifice the enemy knowing all their troop movements as they happen to maintain the pretense of honor.
Just beware I'm going to bookmark your response and plaster it all over the forums if you go back on your word.
You can, and will, assume anything you have a mind to.
Spies are combatants and should expect to be killed when identified.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It will be interesting to see what TEO/TSV considers to be sufficient evidence that someone is a spy before the start killing neutrals in their territory during wartime.
I can't speak for the rest of UNC but I am not against the use of such operatives and you will surely see some other major powers post OE who are not either.
I hardly think any of these groups will be having the spies openly label themselves as such. How will you tell the difference between an alt spy and a curious spectator? But if you were to simply take up the policy of telling all neutrals to vacate the area of the warzone on pain of death, or just slaughtering them for "suspicious activities" while they are supposedly safe then wouldn't your thinly veiled hostile inquiries prove to be quite hypocritical?
I feel UNC's policies are as fair as you can get because we clearly lay out to everyone what the expectations are. They don't have to worry about whether or not we may decide they are acting like a spy because we are 100% clear. If they are in our area while the war window is live without the express welcome of UNC then they are not supposed to be there.
Because of that clear expectation we protect them from harm, while if your groups pursue softer policies you do so either at the expense of the security of your citizens, or open those in your area up to arbitrary inquisitions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I realize this a UNC policy discussion thread but given Decius's pointed questions obviously aimed to make us look bad I have a follow up question for him:
Can we assume that if we send unaffilated alts posing as newbs to spy on TEO/TSV troop movements in active warzones that you will leave them be?
Edit: This question is assuming that you will not suffer reputation penalties. I'm more interested to hear if TSV/TEO will honestly let their enemies use such tactics against them or if they are willing to sacrifice the enemy knowing all their troop movements as they happen to maintain the pretense of honor.
Just beware I'm going to bookmark your response and plaster it all over the forums if you go back on your word.
You can, and will, assume anything you have a mind to.
Spies are combatants and should expect to be killed when identified.
Spies are playing the 'social conflict' part of the game, and as I've discussed ad nauseam, along with those playing the economic conflict role, are not flagged for combat. You will need to feud or war dec them, or suffer a reputation hit to get rid of them.
On the other hand (really don't want to get into this too deep, considering its...nature), dealing with spies is pretty hard IRL, too. To say nothing of drone controversy (literally, I will say nothing else referring to Obummer drones in this post). It can get you an ugly reputation if people decide you're attacking people who aren't really spies—even if they really are.
My real problem with spies is they're the most meta part of the game and therefore the most likely to cause hurt feelings*. Aside from that, this seems like how spies should work—you can adopt a "zero tolerance" attitude, and take Rep hits, or you can be more careful—and potentially risk losing the war. Of course, excessive Rep hits can accomplish the same thing even faster, so tricky, tricky.
As for OOC problems with targeting newbies...well, personally, I think most reasonable is just to give them a warning. Sure, it might be riskier than just murdering them automatically, but this is a game. I think the bigger priority is to try and treat new folk fairly.
*Of course, some people already dislike some other people. I'm not gonna name any names, but I think that particular S.S. FriendShip has sailed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
*Of course, some people already dislike some other people. I'm not gonna name any names, but I think that particular S.S. FriendShip has sailed.
Expect to see more of it.
We want a game people care enough about winning to engage in robust espionage and sabotage. That's a sign we're succeeding, not failing.
You don't get a game where people take things that seriously without it getting personal on some level. I know when I talked to Solemor about Goon Swarm there was a real, deep, personal hatred he felt for them as well as the the traitor that sunk BoB. I'm guessing 90% of the other members of BoB leadership would say the same.
This may be a game but people are going to be investing hundreds of hours of their real life and a considerable amount of genuine passion into their ventures and Goblinworks WANTS people to care enough to do that.
Certain acts will cut deep enough that it will spark personal hatred of other players. It comes with the territory.
Personally I determine whether I hold something against someone IC or OOC based on whether I feel they wronged my character or me as a player, and I'm not in the least ashamed to admit I hold OOC grudges for OOC actions.
|
|
At least UNC are frankly with the intentions and actions in combat. I don't see others doing the same. I see a lot of chaging minds inside the games, since the resources and terrain will become rare for the objectives.
In fact, I see a great weakness in these openings. Intel is important, and it's given to anyone in thread like this. In fact², seems some people are already using this info for start the "mind games".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
At least UNC are frankly with the intentions and actions in combat. I don't see others doing the same. I see a lot of chaging minds inside the games, since the resources and terrain will become rare for the objectives.
In fact, I see a great weakness in these openings. Intel is important, and it's given to anyone in thread like this. In fact², seems some people are already using this info for start the "mind games".
When you are open and honest with your intentions, "mind games" and attempts to twist one's words are mostly ineffective. Those that are effective can be easily dismissed with additional clarification and continued openness and honesty.
I learned a long time ago, it is better to tell everyone up front "You can trust me when I say, I want to steal your stuff, but I have no intentions of destroying you while doing it."
The key here is robbing the merchant without putting him/her completely out of business.
The other issue in this thread is entry into our territory during war time. I like to be upfront and tell anyone, "Now is not the time to stop by for coffee and cake, unless your are invited." Uninvited persons, during an active war, would hopefully be marked as trespassers through our settlement management tools.
Of course if we are aware that they are coming to assist us, then the permission can be issued and they would be free to enter. The attackers might be the ones that will try to stop them at that point, by either taking the rep hit or by expending the influence to feud that individual's company.
|
|
When you are open and honest with your intentions, "mind games" and attempts to twist one's words are mostly ineffective. Those that are effective can be easily dismissed with additional clarification and continued openness and honesty.I learned a long time ago, it is better to tell everyone up front "You can trust me when I say, I want to steal your stuff, but I have no intentions of destroying you while doing it."
I see.
Actually we have differents perspective from our differents life experiences, and that's not a bad thing really. And, as long I not 100% sure this is the best strategy, I'm supporting the frankly and well explained attitudes. That is a positive meta-gameplay that those Roseblood Pact tell, unlike mind games and manipulations, which are not.
And it's ironic.
My statement was not a criticism, only observatory. But, clearly, you understood. ;)
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I can't speak for the rest of UNC but I am not against the use of such operatives and you will surely see some other major powers post OE who are not either.
I hardly think any of these groups will be having the spies openly label themselves as such. How will you tell the difference between an alt spy and a curious spectator? But if you were to simply take up the policy of telling all neutrals to vacate the area of the warzone on pain of death, or just slaughtering them for "suspicious activities" while they are supposedly safe then wouldn't your thinly veiled hostile inquiries prove to be quite hypocritical?
.
Given that UNC hasn't prevented any alt-spies from joining, what advatage do they get from preventing third-party observers from passing on information?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Given that UNC hasn't prevented any alt-spies from joining, what advatage do they get from preventing third-party observers from passing on information?
Ask your alt spies what they have gained from our forums? Then ask them how much does that reveal as compared to what we freely discuss here in this thread?
The likely answer to both of those questions is "Not very much". Reason being, we have kept it simple and open. We want to steal your stuff, and we will kill you for it if we have to.
We have no secret alliances. Our tactics will be predictable, if you know what produces the greatest mechanical advantages in PvP. Our targets will be mostly targets of opportunity. Our methods will be ganking / Zerg tactics whenever possible. We practice the KISS principle.
If you know anything about bandit / pirate tactics, none of this is any real secret. We are thugs with brains, but we are still just thugs at heart and proud of it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Our tactics will be predictable, if you know what produces the greatest mechanical advantages in PvP. Our targets will be mostly targets of opportunity. Our methods will be ganking / Zerg tactics whenever possible.
While I'm aware that this is not what you mean but I'd like to imagine the UNC as a Cleric only, bow only zerg. hilarity ensues.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I realize this a UNC policy discussion thread but given Decius's pointed questions obviously aimed to make us look bad I have a follow up question for him:
Can we assume that if we send unaffilated alts posing as newbs to spy on TEO/TSV troop movements in active warzones that you will leave them be?
Edit: This question is assuming that you will not suffer reputation penalties. I'm more interested to hear if TSV/TEO will honestly let their enemies use such tactics against them or if they are willing to sacrifice the enemy knowing all their troop movements as they happen to maintain the pretense of honor.
Just beware I'm going to bookmark your response and plaster it all over the forums if you go back on your word.
Not speaking for anyone but myself, as I'm just a grunt. However, in a game like this I'd pretty much have to assume that most "troop movements" are known at very nearly the time they occur. Even if you kill someone it doesn't stop them from reporting what they already saw. It's also likely the case that it is nearly impossible to sufficiently vet every single grunt in your fighting force, let alone citizen of your settlement, let alone allied trader/merchant that you need to visit your lands to support your economy to know that they are not feeding information to an enemy. If you are moving a group of 4-5 tightly knit guys, then yeah maybe you can keep it secret but if your moving a mass of dozens of people, I'd pretty much have to assume it's going to be known in real time.
Surprise, I think is achieved in these games, not by having large scale movements undetected when they occur but by insuring that the enemy doesn't know your plans in advance of thier occuring and moving swiftly enough when you do move that it is difficult for them to organize a timely response.
Personaly I don't see much gain from killing individual spectators... although if there are 30 well armed "spectators" massed in a group hanging around just outside a POI, that scenario may be different. I wouldn't condemn someone for doing it, but it doesn't seem to me to be particularly productive. My own response, if called upon to deal with such a thing, would be to tell the person that they are somewhere they aren't supposed to be and warn them to move before resorting to hostility. That's my personal position...not my guilds. YMMV.
P.S. Not trying to intrude into your thread. It's a slow day at work ;) and I find the subject of how such things work in these sort of games kinda interesting.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Given that UNC hasn't prevented any alt-spies from joining, what advatage do they get from preventing third-party observers from passing on information?Ask your alt spies what they have gained from our forums? Then ask them how much does that reveal as compared to what we freely discuss here in this thread?
The likely answer to both of those questions is "Not very much". Reason being, we have kept it simple and open. We want to steal your stuff, and we will kill you for it if we have to.
We have no secret alliances. Our tactics will be predictable, if you know what produces the greatest mechanical advantages in PvP. Our targets will be mostly targets of opportunity. Our methods will be ganking / Zerg tactics whenever possible. We practice the KISS principle.
If you know anything about bandit / pirate tactics, none of this is any real secret. We are thugs with brains, but we are still just thugs at heart and proud of it.
Bah, I don't think that anyone has anything very sensitive in their forums right now, since well, there isn't that much sensitive things to have anyway.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It will be interesting to see what TEO/TSV considers to be sufficient evidence that someone is a spy before the start killing neutrals in their territory during wartime.
Not sure why this came up in the UNC Policy thread, but...
I'm largely inclined to kill anyone that's flagged Hostile to me. If I know who they are, I'll use more judgment.
If you're planning on coming to Phaeros while our PvP window is open and you'll end up flagged, I would recommend contacting someone first and arranging for an escort unless you're a well-known friend.
|
|
Personaly I don't see much gain from killing individual spectators... although if there are 30 well armed "spectators" massed in a group hanging around just outside a POI, that...
The gain from killing indivual spectators: FUN. It's always fun to frustrate an enemy spy campain... And the delight to hear him scream and keep him alive in a Bolton's way...
Uh-ham... Sorry, just digressing...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It will be interesting to see what TEO/TSV considers to be sufficient evidence that someone is a spy before the start killing neutrals in their territory during wartime.Not sure why this came up in the UNC Policy thread, but...
I'm largely inclined to kill anyone that's flagged Hostile to me. If I know who they are, I'll use more judgment.
If you're planning on coming to Phaeros while our PvP window is open and you'll end up flagged, I would recommend contacting someone first and arranging for an escort unless you're a well-known friend.
It came up because you have a T7V leader in here asking us what we would do, When he full well knows the answers, and he is full well known to try and cause an argument over the answer.
I will not be contacting anyone when I come to Phaeros, PVP window or not.