Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
The argument that if too much of "X" happens, then "Y" number may quit is not necessarily a major concern.
Well, I agree, which is why I don't really think that we should take too much into consideration "aggressive" oriented players, since there is already a vast offer of games for them, which they seem to never be satisfied of.
PvP needs to be an important part of the game, but it is time to make an actual MMORPG, and not an other MMORTS where every activity is just in the end an excuse to fight.
Goblin Squad Member
|
The argument that if too much of "X" happens, then "Y" number may quit is not necessarily a major concern.Well, I agree, which is why I don't really think that we should take too much into consideration "aggressive" oriented players, since there is already a vast offer of games for them, which they seem to never be satisfied of.
PvP needs to be an important part of the game, but it is time to make an actual MMORPG, and not an other MMORTS where every activity is just in the end an excuse to fight.
There is only EvE online, not some vast offering of sandbox open world PvP MMOs. I believe the design objective is to funnel all of our activities into the settlement vs. settlement PvP.
You may feel / believe you are far removed from the actual conflict, and this may very well be true, but some how your actions will play a role in the overall server conflict. Sort of like the Butterfly Effect.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We don't want there to be only fights. One way we tried to show that was pushing so hard for a viable SAD mechanic that was worth accepting and not just giving us another excuse to kill you. We WANT people to pay the "tax" and go about their day instead of just ambushing and killing all we come across.
The bit being tossed back and forth about people leaving is simply bludd saying people will leave. They don't like the game for 1 or more of a list of reasons and so they leave. Just because we are discussing the reason of loss through pvp actions isn't saying that is the only reason people will leave.
People will leave and others will join. It is how it works. Some people will find that this isn't the game they signed up for, again naming 1 or more of a million reasons why this isn't the game they signed up for, and will leave. I think this is a fact we can all agree will happen. At the same time, there will be people that join later in OE and such, that heard about it from EE players or through a commercial or whatever and decide "this is a cool game, I will stay." The point is that, when we discuss the people leaving the game, it is important to remember that they all don't leave for 1 reason. If they do, then that is something that needs to be identified quickly and corrected or else the game might be in danger or failing. If they all leave for different reasons, then it an be concluded that this isn't the game for them.
As the UNC, we are more PVP oriented and therefore, focused on the PVP aspects of the game. As stated before, it isn't our intend to drive masses from the game. The is 100% counter productive to our cause and desired playstyle. That being said, I am sure we will be the cause of some of the people leaving. As will any other bandit/assassin style "bad guy" organization in PFO. As proud as we would be to be the only "Bad guys" in PFO, we know we won't be. Besides, it gives us competition to see who is the better bandit, but I digress.
To address the posts above concerning UNC's stance and reaction to losing our settlements and such I say this. UNC has a strong "Anti griefing" policy. We don't support it and believe that true banditry and assassinations can be done without the use of griefing tactics. If any UNC is caught commiting such acts, an investigation will be held and the person(s) in question will be (if found guilty) expelled from the UNC. We have stated before that we support anti griefing actions and will join with those "good guys" to ward off and repel such actions by players who embrace the griefer playstyle.
As for losing a settlement, it all depends on how things work out. I know a while ago, it was stated that assassins will receive their training by NPC faction buildings. If those buildings are able to be built, or required to be built, inside of a PC settlement, then we will be attached to one that has it. If not, then I assume that by NPC faction building it would resides in a NPC settlement and therefore we are protected from such inconveniences that a loss of a settlement would incur. That being said I hope it is tied to PC settlements because that would remove our need to leave the NPC towns and also give us protection that no other role can achieve. Namely the "you can't take my home from me" protection.
If/when it is needed that the UNC own or reside within a PC settlement, and that settlement falls, we intend to retain this same stance we have stated before concerning a failed raid. We will regret our loss, learn from it, and retaliate once we are able and confident we can do so. We stand strongly and unmovingly by the river freedom "You have what you hold" and if we lose it, we can't hold it and wasn't ours to have. It is also our intent to never have anything we can't hold but realistically we know we will lose at times and a settlement will be just as venerable.
We expect to have many enemies, bandits normally do, and if we piss off enough of them and to a point that they band together to remove us (our settlement) then so be it. That is our problem and we will not cry over a loss we incur due to our own actions.
side note off topic, maybe if I check and respond to the forums more than once every day or two, I wouldn't feel compelled to respond with a novel... LOL Sorry for the book.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
There is only EvE online, not some vast offering of sandbox open world PvP MMOs. I believe the design objective is to funnel all of our activities into the settlement vs. settlement PvP.
You may feel / believe you are far removed from the actual conflict, and this may very well be true, but some how your actions will play a role in the overall server conflict. Sort of like the Butterfly Effect.
Er, Darkfall, MechWarriorThingy, and a lot of others which died because well, they sucked a little.
And yeah, I never thinked about the way fishing could nourish a diplomat who could betray his settlement to make a war, thank you, you just changed my vision of the game.
Uh-oh. Poking the dragon...that's always an effective ploy :-).
And given the thread it was done in could perhaps be considered griefing and may drive people away from the game. Oh noes! Better report TSV to a GM.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really see the point of this last post...It would seem Bluddwolf wants to bluster about how tough and experienced he is while pretending that others are naive fools who will curl up and cry and maybe even quit when their Settlement is destroyed.
Or he might be trying to show Audoucet how bad war will be but at the same time highlight how it is odd that people say banditry might make people leave the game.
People keep saying banditry is bad. Banditry is toxic. Banditry is griefing. Banditry will drive people from the game. But when war is mentioned they all just say We'll pick ourselves up!
Groups that have a strong sense of purpose, and are resilient and able to admit mistakes and move forward without tearing themselves apart at the seams can recover from losses.That's how we'll respond when we lose our Settlement.
Which should be how people react to being robbed.
People keep saying banditry is bad. Banditry is toxic. Banditry is griefing. Banditry will drive people from the game.Can you quote this, or is it just what you imagine ? No one criticised banditry.
Maybe this guy
Several posts down he mocked Bluddwolf for saying UNC were a NBRI company...you know a bandit company.
I'm too lazy to look up other quotes but there are lots of people who think banditry is the most horrible thing that could happen to them in PFO. I guess they will avoid wars and feuds by either logging out or not joining a company, but banditry scares them because they cannot use those tactics to avoid it. They actually need to be proactive and make friends and use other people to help them.
People keep saying banditry is bad. Banditry is toxic. Banditry is griefing. Banditry will drive people from the game.BS
More griefing from TSV against people giving opinions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Banditry has been equated to "random killing", and "random killing" has been equated to toxic behavior, and toxic behavior has been said to drive people from the game.
I think so far the only activity that has brought out more fear than banditry, was pickpocketing.
It is an example of the irrational fear of losing gear that has led to the majority of Theme Park MMOs to have completely meaningless PVP. The ever craptastic "capture the flag" arena PVP, "Hutt Ball" anyone?.
I will guarantee this reaction from these forums if the following scenario was to become reality:
If Feuds were so cheap in influence, that they could be self perpetuating by achieving merit badges from PVP kills.
The cries for influence cost of feuds to be made so high, that they would be uncommon, would be deafening.
The same would be for wars. What if warfare were common? The arguments would be, there is too much PVP in this game that has PVP at its core.
For all of the bluster that is expressed by those who have said, they don't have a problem with PVP, I have not read from any of them an instance when they would be the aggressor in PVP?
Hunting down bandits or other bad guys is not an aggressor. That is purely reactionary and defensive.
When would you attack another for personal gain, or more importantly, for the gain of your settlement?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When would you attack another for personal gain, or more importantly, for the gain of your settlement?
Everyone is too busy playing buddy buddy right now. Just wait for the game to start and these guys will be backstabbing each other in no time. As soon as there is a dispute over who gets to gather resources out of which hex, people will start wars.
Maybe the companies that are represented on the forums here actually think that they can be friends with everyone and they will only have to worry about "bandits". I look forward to them realizing the truth, that you can barely trust the people in your own company, let alone the folks from others.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
When would you attack another for personal gain, or more importantly, for the gain of your settlement?Everyone is too busy playing buddy buddy right now. Just wait for the game to start and these guys will be backstabbing each other in no time. As soon as there is a dispute over who gets to gather resources out of which hex, people will start wars.
Maybe the companies that are represented on the forums here actually think that they can be friends with everyone and they will only have to worry about "bandits". I look forward to them realizing the truth, that you can barely trust the people in your own company, let alone the folks from others.
This truly made me laugh out loud!! QFT +1
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Banditry has been equated to "random killing", and "random killing" has been equated to toxic behavior, and toxic behavior has been said to drive people from the game.
There is a key modifier you guys keep omitting from your strawman arguments, and that modifier is "too much." TOO MUCH banditry and TOO MUCH random killing is what is toxic. There is some amount of banditry and unprovoked pvp that is expected to be in this game and that most or all of us who find ourselves on the other side of the debate from you want in the game.
What we don't want is TOO MUCH of it. Someone used the example of not being greedy while shipping stuff...don't ship it all in one shipment because that's too risky, instead ship it in 4 smaller shipments so if you lose one, the loss isn't so bad. Well, that advice is good if you live in a world where roughly 1/4 of caravans get assaulted.If we instead live in a world where virtually every caravan is assaulted, that advice no longer applies. If you say to your friend "I hope just 1 of my caravans gets through without being robbed" and he laughs at you for being naïve, then the question of whether banditry is "toxic" is suddenly pretty appropriate.
Whether that's OK or not depends on the devs vision for the game. personally, I think the line has long been crossed if that's how common banditry is.
Being robbed should be a RISK, not a near certainty. That's how I see it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
When would you attack another for personal gain, or more importantly, for the gain of your settlement?Everyone is too busy playing buddy buddy right now. Just wait for the game to start and these guys will be backstabbing each other in no time. As soon as there is a dispute over who gets to gather resources out of which hex, people will start wars.
Maybe the companies that are represented on the forums here actually think that they can be friends with everyone and they will only have to worry about "bandits". I look forward to them realizing the truth, that you can barely trust the people in your own company, let alone the folks from others.
Hey, someone who gets it
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps some of the companies represented here understand that they will go to war over resources or other reasons. Perhaps they believe, rightly or wrongly, that there's no advantage in declaring a state of conflict with another group until the conflict is needed and they have a good chance of success.
While I am sure that some companies are playing it safe, it makes for a very one sided forum game at the moment. Poor UNC is getting picked on by everybody. When the truth is that once the game is actually running people are going to have full scale wars to worry about and bandits are going to be low on their list of concerns.
"Blarg! That scoundrel Bluddwolf and his wolf litter robbed some of our merchants today. I don't have time to worry about that right now though because I have to lead 100 people to siege an enemy settlement tonight."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Banditry has been equated to "random killing", and "random killing" has been equated to toxic behavior, and toxic behavior has been said to drive people from the game.There is a key modifier you guys keep omitting from your strawman arguments, and that modifier is "too much." TOO MUCH banditry and TOO MUCH random killing is what is toxic. There is some amount of banditry and unprovoked pvp that is expected to be in this game and that most or all of us who find ourselves on the other side of the debate from you want in the game.
What we don't want is TOO MUCH of it. Someone used the example of not being greedy while shipping stuff...don't ship it all in one shipment because that's too risky, instead ship it in 4 smaller shipments so if you lose one, the loss isn't so bad. Well, that advice is good if you live in a world where roughly 1/4 of caravans get assaulted.
If we instead live in a world where virtually every caravan is assaulted, that advice no longer applies. If you say to your friend "I hope just 1 of my caravans gets through without being robbed" and he laughs at you for being naïve, then the question of whether banditry is "toxic" is suddenly pretty appropriate.
Whether that's OK or not depends on the devs vision for the game. personally, I think the line has long been crossed if that's how common banditry is.
Being robbed should be a RISK, not a near certainty. That's how I see it.
I think that if you do a search for bandits not "over fishing the pond" you will be able to attribute it to either The Goodfellow or myself.
Trust me, we get it, we are actually looking to pave the way and model it for any that join us, even if just to learn the ropes.
Your idea about dividing up your cargo into four separate caravans is actually a good one. It is good, not because it is original, but rather because it does not rely on any mechanic and instead requires you to be proactive.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Banditry has been equated to "random killing", and "random killing" has been equated to toxic behavior, and toxic behavior has been said to drive people from the game.
I think so far the only activity that has brought out more fear than banditry, was pickpocketing.
It is an example of the irrational fear of losing gear that has led to the majority of Theme Park MMOs to have completely meaningless PVP. The ever craptastic "capture the flag" arena PVP, "Hutt Ball" anyone?.
I will guarantee this reaction from these forums if the following scenario was to become reality:
If Feuds were so cheap in influence, that they could be self perpetuating by achieving merit badges from PVP kills.
The cries for influence cost of feuds to be made so high, that they would be uncommon, would be deafening.
The same would be for wars. What if warfare were common? The arguments would be, there is too much PVP in this game that has PVP at its core.
For all of the bluster that is expressed by those who have said, they don't have a problem with PVP, I have not read from any of them an instance when they would be the aggressor in PVP?
Hunting down bandits or other bad guys is not an aggressor. That is purely reactionary and defensive.
When would you attack another for personal gain, or more importantly, for the gain of your settlement?
You have been the biggest equivocator of random killing and "banditry", by claiming that if there are any non-random factors involved that your actions no longer qualify as 'random'.
Pickpocketing hasn't brought out any fear, simply because there's no risk to the victim- it's simply a (possibly somewhat random) cost. Pure costs will never be popular.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What broken said is what we at the UNC have been saying with different words. We won't speak for other companies but we will restate what we hav said from the beginning. We follow the coin. If banditry becomes too much risk for less reward, then we will stop being bandits as that is not where the coin is. If we are the only bandit company (extremely unlikely) then there will be plenty of "clients" and we would just move around similar to crop rotation (instead of changing crops, we change fields).
Broken is right. TOO MUCH "bad guys" doing bad things is bad for PFO. The UNC agrees. We don't want griefers, we don't want people leaving the game, we want everyone to have a fun and enjoyable time in the game. That includes us. I hope that it gets to a point like Zodd has stated, where wars and other "acceptable PVP" are taking up the main focus and banditry becomes and inconvenience to most people. Then maybe we can do our work in peace :-)
Seriously though, would that maybe change your views about banditry, and maybe the UNC as well, if we used the words "too much" when we talk about banditry and RPKing? As in "we will be bandits, but won't rob you TOO MUCH," or even "we won't take TOO MUCH if we get a viable and working SAD system in place". "We won't ambush you (AKA RPK) TOO MUCH". Is this a better way to understand the UNC's intentions?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Decius, I am not sure what you mean by "Pickpocketing hasn't brought out any fear, simply because there's no risk to the victim- it's simply a (possibly somewhat random) cost. Pure costs will never be popular." People were being upset (from what I remember at least) about pickpocketing due to the fact that it was thought:
A) they wouldn't know until they check their inventory, and
B) People could take things like money from them.
At least with a SAD system, they would know it was happening, and would see what they are losing. If pickpocket was done as it is known to be, they wouldn't unless they "rolled high enough on perception."
Could you explain what it is you are trying to say please?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan said that pickpocketing will not be in the game.
This is by far the saddest thing I have heard today. I was really looking forward to something like this. It really is too bad, since it means if someone wants your stuff, they have to kill you for it, and that is a net loss for everyone.
A chaotic act that you had to pull off while stealthed, had to remain hidden from everyone until the act was complete, and still had a moderate to high risk of detection at the same Tier of training, would have been a great test of skill and patience. Aside from just robbing PCs, doing the same to NPCs is also great fun.
I really hope they reconsider this one, it should not be a walk in the park, but the risk of theft should be present. Even if the thief were limited to seeing only a random selection of non-equpiped, non-threaded items and a random selection of the coins carried, this would still add a whole new world of gameplay and keep people on their toes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Shadowbane is the only game I've seen that did Pickpocketing well. There were various ways of getting caught but the really skilled (and lucky) could make off with some great stuff and the mark was none the wiser.
Obviously you couldn't take anything equipped but coin and everything in the inventory was fair game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think at least the kind of Pickpocketing that leaves the pickpocketed player completely unable to do anything against it, is out.
It could be fun to brainstorm about Pickpocketing if we can make it adhere to the following:
1) It should be about player-interaction;
2) It should involve meaningfull choices for the participants;
3) It should not be a niche activity that only a few will be interested in;
For instance, I can see a meaningful choice allright for the pickpocketer: take a risk to possibly gain some money, or get detected by the Player/Guards and endure Death and Equipment damage to all your lovely Stealth gear; But the meaningful choice for the victim is a tougher nut to crack.
I was thinking about some mini-game between the pickpocketer and the victim: some kind of rope-pulling contest that could be won(with rewards and penalties). This at least gives the victim a chance to participate. However this means that anyone can be pulled into this mini-game, which is not fun. So you can toggle it off, which means most players will do this anyway: wasted precious development time.
I think being able to only pickpocket NPC's is your best bet: possible detection could be both by guards or by players so involving them indirectly (adhering to 1). After detection the pickpocketer has the attacker flag and anyone can chase him, though I think the guards most likely will do him in already. So how fun detection is for players depends on a couple of other settlement mechanics (guards).
There is a "Steal" feature in Age of Wushu which is fun; you need to gather intel from another Martial Arts guild by hailing certain NPC's in their city. Meanwhile you appear to players of the Guild as a neutral player(or even an NPC, not sure). With every Hail you gain intel which provides a reward in Gold and other perks. However each Hail also gives a chance to lower your Stealthmeter. The amount that it lowers is somewhat random I think. The moment this meter hits zero, you become "red" and any player can attack you. There is a way to "buy" more stealth by hailing yet another NPC and get some item that boosts your Stealth. This is on a timer so can only be done once I think. Anyway, kind off fun.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We should probably shift pick-pocketing discussion, if it is going to be revived, back to the thread it belongs in, I certainly had a lot to say on the topic. =\
As for AoW, entirely too much about that game seems contrived.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You have been the biggest equivocator of random killing and "banditry", by claiming that if there are any non-random factors involved that your actions no longer qualify as 'random'.
This is because I know the definition of random:
ran·dom [ran-duhm]
adjective
1. proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern: the random selection of numbers.2. Statistics. of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen.
3. Building Trades.
a.(of building materials) lacking uniformity of dimensions: random shingles.
b.(of ashlar) laid without continuous courses.
c.constructed or applied without regularity: random bond.4.Informal.
a.unknown, unidentified, or out of place: A couple of random guys showed up at the party.
b.odd and unpredictable in an amusing way: my totally random life.
In my previous post(s) I had listed the various levels of risk vs reward relationships and explained how each would direct our choice in target selection. This is not by definition, random, it is in fact calculated.
In another post I had explained our process of target selection, factoring in several profile features of the target. Again, not random.
In other posts, and their number would be too numerous to recount, we have spoken to our intent of not "over fishing the pond", meaning we would maintain a sense of impact of our actions. Not exactly random when it can influence future actions.
You keep on using the word "random" but you have no understanding of what it means. You have also attached a negative connotation to random or randomness, and since you do not like our intent, you reject any claim that we make that our actions are anything but random.
The combination of ignorance of the definition and bias in your desire to label our actions with "random" renders your statement useless in any legitimate discussion of our policies.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You have been the biggest equivocator of random killing and "banditry", by claiming that if there are any non-random factors involved that your actions no longer qualify as 'random'.This is because I know the definition go random:
ran·dom [ran-duhm]
adjective
1. proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern: the random selection of numbers.2. Statistics. of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen.
3. Building Trades.
a.(of building materials) lacking uniformity of dimensions: random shingles.
b.(of ashlar) laid without continuous courses.
c.constructed or applied without regularity: random bond.4.Informal.
a.unknown, unidentified, or out of place: A couple of random guys showed up at the party.
b.odd and unpredictable in an amusing way: my totally random life.
In my previous post(s) I had listed the various levels of risk vs reward relationships and explained how each would direct our choice in target selection. This is not by definition, random, it is in fact calculated.
In another post I had explained our process of target selection, factoring in several profile features of the target. Again, not random.
In other posts, and their number would be too numerous to recount, we have spoken to our intent of not "over fishing the pond", meaning we would maintain a sense of impact of our actions. Not exactly random when it can impact future actions.
You keep on using the word "random" but you have no understanding of what it means. You have also attached a negative connotation to random or randomness, and since you do not like our intent, you reject any claim that we make that our actions are anything but random.
The combination of ignorance of the definition and bias in your desire to label our actions with "random" renders your statement useless in any legitimate discussion of our policies.
I think you are using a definition of "random" that reduces it to uselessness, in the context of pvp. Obviously your targets are not going to be the result of pure randomness. Obviously you are not going to obtain a list of every character currently logged on, run it through some algorithm, and kill the character that your algorithm randomly selected. Obviously. But I'm not sure why you are dismissing other people's opinions because they use more useful definitions of "random killing" than you do.
This is just my personal opinion, but assaulting a player simply because he's there, and might have valuables, is not a meaningful interaction. I understand that others may disagree with this. But I'd like the reasons for pvp to be a little deeper than that or I worry that all this talk about "meaningful pvp" won't amount to very much. I think pvp revolving around POI's, settlements, territory, all of that kind of thing IS meaningful, and generally going to be fun."Hey look, that guy is lower level than me. Let's see what stuff he has" isn't meaningful to me.
Seriously though, would that maybe change your views about banditry, and maybe the UNC as well, if we used the words "too much" when we talk about banditry and RPKing? As in "we will be bandits, but won't rob you TOO MUCH," or even "we won't take TOO MUCH if we get a viable and working SAD system in place". "We won't ambush you (AKA RPK) TOO MUCH". Is this a better way to understand the UNC's intentions?
I brought up the point about "too much" banditry/pvp because I think more people need to realize that this isn't a debate between 2 sides, one saying "All pvp/banditry is fine" and one saying "all pvp/banditry is bad." And mischaracterizing someone's points by using one of those extreme positions as a strawman isn't very helpful. I'm pretty sure most of us recognize that some amount of banditry & killing is appropriate in the game, the discussion is about where that line should be drawn and what balance creates the most fun experience.
I don't think banditry is BAD, but I think it has to be treated very delicately and balanced very carefully because it can easily turn rotten.|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Maybe this guy
Several posts down he mocked Bluddwolf for saying UNC were a NBRI company...you know a bandit company.
I'm too lazy to look up other quotes but there are lots of people who think banditry is the most horrible thing that could happen to them in PFO. I guess they will avoid wars and feuds by either logging out or not joining a company, but banditry scares them because they cannot use those tactics to avoid it. They actually need to be proactive and make friends and use other people to help them.
Actually, you're not too lazy, you're just incapable to do it because no one said that.
If you think that banditry equal to killing on sight every non-Allied targets just because you can, then maybe are you confusing banditry with psychopathic rampage, which is NBSI. Bbut maybe are you not familiar enough with the concept of NBSI.
Bluddwolf, your habit of quoting the dictionary to play with words is only convincing to your teammates. You are again thinking that other people are stupid.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bluddwolf, your habit of quoting the dictionary to play with words is only convincing to your teammates. You are again thinking that other people are stupid.
If we are discussing or arguing over the meaning of words, then providing the definition from which we are arguing from is instructive. You don't have to agree with how we are framing our argument, but you may benefit by knowing the basis of it.
The only "stupid" comment that I have read is the one where you claim you know what I am "thinking".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There seems to be an assumption that banditry is some how not connected to the larger settlement vs. settlement conflict.
No matter how independent "bandits / raiders" try to remain, their activities will ultimately end up supporting one or a few settlements, at the expense of others. This does not have to be through any formal agreement (sponsorship or contract), it will occur more naturally through social networking (meta game) relationships.
I very much wish to encounter Hobs the Short very early on in EE. I will attack, kill and rob him without mercy, and bearing full consequences of the action, But then, I would never have reason to molest, in any way, Hobs again.
I believe that Hobs understands why this is. I will leave it to him to try to explain, or perhaps someone else will have the insight in my character's character or in my character as a player (not as a person) to explain it (I'm certain The Goodfellow knows).
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
"a.unknown, unidentified, or out of place: A couple of random guys showed up at the party. "
Well, they weren't random, they chose to come to the party, they didn't appear out of thin air, they took a very specific car, for a very specific party, in a very specific house ! The organisers of the party shouldn't say it's random, since it obviously wasn't.
By the way, loterie isn't random ! You choose your numbers, and you choose to buy a ticket !
Actually, randomness doesn't exist, since if I know all the variables, I can predict anything. The universe had a perfectly non-random explanation, for today's weather.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Broken Sextant
I believe, from past experience, that if the only accepted as positive or meaningful PvP is that which is conducted through the use of feuds and wars, it will lead to the contrived PvP that we see in theme park MMOs.
The PvP limited to feuds and wars is also very easy to avoid, as evidence by the great majority of War Decs in EvE that result in no kills or losses for either side. When many industrial corporations get war dec'd, they dock their fleets and "turtle" until the war dec period expires. They switch over to Alts or they just refuse to undock or log in, until the week is up.
This is why there must be ways to at least SAD a caravan, outside of the Feud or War system, and without being hit with reputation loss, where one encounter outside of feud / war could lead to reputation loss that takes months to recover from.
As you said, if there is too much banditry, that could be a bad thing for the game. The same holds true for if there is too much low risk harvesting / trade.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Quantum mechanics and Brownian motion argue otherwise.
Even quantum physicists, don't actually understand quantum physics yet.
And yes, 1 + 5 = -12, in non euclidean universe Number 77854.
As you said, if there is too much banditry, that could be a bad thing for the game. The same holds true for if there is too much low risk harvesting / trade.
I shall say it again, but I have nothing against actual banditry.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I believe, from past experience, that if the only accepted as positive or meaningful PvP is that which is conducted through the use of feuds and wars, it will lead to the contrived PvP that we see in theme park MMOs.
The PvP limited to feuds and wars is also very easy to avoid, as evidence by the great majority of War Decs in EvE that result in no kills or losses for either side. When many industrial corporations get war dec'd, they dock their fleets and "turtle" until the war dec period expires. They switch over to Alts or they just refuse to undock or log in, until the week is up.
Come on. In most theme park MMOs there's nothing really at stake in pvp. The winning team gets a better pvp rating, or more warzone tokens or whatever. Here, you lose your settlement. Kind of a big difference. You can't just log out and hide or your settlement is gone.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah, I din't buy that one either. Seems there is a rather important difference between PFO and EVE. I am sure there are many more.
I also think that Wars and Feuds will actually bring forth roving bands of players that will threaten trade and caravans, but this time with a more war-like and economic motive, which is to administer a blow to the enemy. So it is not that Bandits are the only solution to making sure Trading and Transporting carries a risk (which it should).
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
@Decius, I am not sure what you mean by "Pickpocketing hasn't brought out any fear, simply because there's no risk to the victim- it's simply a (possibly somewhat random) cost. Pure costs will never be popular." People were being upset (from what I remember at least) about pickpocketing due to the fact that it was thought:
A) they wouldn't know until they check their inventory, and
B) People could take things like money from them.At least with a SAD system, they would know it was happening, and would see what they are losing. If pickpocket was done as it is known to be, they wouldn't unless they "rolled high enough on perception."
Could you explain what it is you are trying to say please?
Sure. It has to do with the neurology of fear, and the fact that as described the player would be unaware of pickpocketing until well after it happened. It's literally impossible to develop the fear response without experiencing the stimulus.
Thus, losing things in a manner beyond your control or detection is a cost.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Regarding "random" as regards decision theory, it means the same thing as "determined by factors not known when the decision is made". Basing a decision on the outcome of a coin flip is random even if the coin has already been flipped, but not revealed. Attacking "the next good target to pass this way" is random target selection from the set of "good targets".
The bad equivocation has always been between 'random target selection (from a set of "good targets")' and "indiscriminate targeting" (of which there are examples which also qualify as "random".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Actually, you're not too lazy, you're just incapable to do it because no one said that.
Actually, plenty of people have said that and continue to do so. Read the endless SAD thread, or the rest of this one for that matter.
If you think that banditry equal to killing on sight every non-Allied targets just because you can, then maybe are you confusing banditry with psychopathic rampage, which is NBSI. Bbut maybe are you not familiar enough with the concept of NBSI.
Psychopathic rampage? Your a joke.
Bluddwolf, your habit of quoting the dictionary to play with words is only convincing to your teammates. You are again thinking that other people are stupid.
No, he uses it because most of you twist words like random or grief into your own version. Again, Bludd is right.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let me ask this, and try and take this whole conversation another direction, for those opposing us in this discussion concerning banditry and random killing and such, how would you play a bandit? What would you want in game to ensure your playstyle (as a bandit) is fun and exciting and provides meaningful interactions and a positive effect on the community? If what way would you wish for bandits to exist, perform their role, be successful, and not ruin another player's gaming experience in PFO?
I am not being a smart a$$, I am asking an honest question. We have stated our views on this as we intend to play bandits. It is my belief that we all want the same thing, but we are arguing over how to get there. Maybe if you guys post your view (not criticizing ours, but "your the dev, you make bandits" style of post) of how this would be done, we can compare them and move forward with this discussion.
Granted this might not be the "best" thread for it, but at the same time, seeing as the UNC will be bandits, this applies to our policies as such. Please, again I am asking a serious set of questions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, since I have accepted that "The Unmentionable Thread" is taboo and stayed out of it, things are more in perspective (for me).
This is the UNC Policy thread. They have posted their intended policies here. They have evolved them, clarified and modified them. They seem to fit the spirit of what GW wants.
Reading all of the most recent stuff, it seems like the focus of the thread is lost here.
What are the issues that are bugging people about the UNC policies as they have been explained, many times now?
Why do we assume that UNC will loot any more than faction/feud/war enemies? Why do we assume that they will not have to pay consequences if they do it outside of "sanctioned" means?
Why do we assume that GW will let things get so bad that very few people will want to play this game?
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Let me ask this, and try and take this whole conversation another direction, for those opposing us in this discussion concerning banditry and random killing and such, how would you play a bandit? What would you want in game to ensure your playstyle (as a bandit) is fun and exciting and provides meaningful interactions and a positive effect on the community? If what way would you wish for bandits to exist, perform their role, be successful, and not ruin another player's gaming experience in PFO?
Well, mostly, just like the way Bluddwolf describe it it is fine. I only reacted to a comment of Xeen, about NBSI.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let me ask this, and try and take this whole conversation another direction, for those opposing us in this discussion concerning banditry and random killing and such, how would you play a bandit? What would you want in game to ensure your playstyle (as a bandit) is fun and exciting and provides meaningful interactions and a positive effect on the community? If what way would you wish for bandits to exist, perform their role, be successful, and not ruin another player's gaming experience in PFO?
I am not being a smart a$$, I am asking an honest question. We have stated our views on this as we intend to play bandits. It is my belief that we all want the same thing, but we are arguing over how to get there. Maybe if you guys post your view (not criticizing ours, but "your the dev, you make bandits" style of post) of how this would be done, we can compare them and move forward with this discussion.
Granted this might not be the "best" thread for it, but at the same time, seeing as the UNC will be bandits, this applies to our policies as such. Please, again I am asking a serious set of questions.
I don't think you are trying to be a smart a$$ at all, in this or any other thread.
It's hard to answer your question because I'm not the devs, this isn't my game, and we only know a very small amount of information about the game. So it's hard to say "I'd do this THIS way" without knowing the other pieces of the puzzle.However in general terms, I'd make the costs of banditry relatively high. Allow SADs, allow random PK, but make the resulting penalties in terms of reputation and alignment significant. I'd ERR on the side of "too harsh" to banditry because I'd rather the game feel a little too comfortable than a little too harsh at first. Then as people settle in, if it turns out that the life of a bandit is too rough I'd adjust things accordingly until the desired levels of banditry are reached.
I think that's better than having banditry be too easy and too consequence free, and as a result there being bandits everywhere you look and taking the game in the "murder-fest" direction that causes people to quit.
I think too much banditry/random pvp is more destructive to a game than too little.
What are the issues that are bugging people about the UNC policies as they have been explained, many times now?
I don't wanna get wobbed!!!!
/woeisme
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Let me ask this, and try and take this whole conversation another direction, for those opposing us in this discussion concerning banditry and random killing and such, how would you play a bandit? What would you want in game to ensure your playstyle (as a bandit) is fun and exciting and provides meaningful interactions and a positive effect on the community? If what way would you wish for bandits to exist, perform their role, be successful, and not ruin another player's gaming experience in PFO?Well, mostly, just like the way Bluddwolf describe it it is fine. I only reacted to a comment of Xeen, about NBSI.
So when I said, "NBSI = Not Blue Stab It"... Whith nothing else, just to bump our recruitment thread instead of saying bump or whatever else... you thought it was ok to rush in and call us Griefers.
All you did was make yourself look like a fool.