Goblin Squad Member
|
There is member of the community (Steelwing -- many have responded so he has been part) who is demanding data about how the game works. Some of these will be worked by crowd forging. Some the responses are"test as you fly", but this is not acceptable as it can not be gamed out of the rules.. Steelwing (sorry but I do not know which pronoun to use) does not accept that some things are to be determined. My advice (as poorly as I am valued in this community) is: lurk, understand, come back in OE when you can tell your friends what is happening. You seem to demand too much that is not decided. YOu are welcome to post an be in this community. But you are not offering value.
There is a lot to be revealed. It is not mature. Hang in here. DOn't go away. Don't expect that you can predict 2 years in advance of the next great thing. For some mind this will not be great. For those with greater concepts, …. Come back 2 months before OE and read the actual rules, not opinions of what they might be. THen talk to your friends/
lam
Lam it wasnt game mechanics I was asking about. I was asking about technical details which they should know now.
If they don't know them now then frankly they have picked technologies with a blindfold on.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There is member of the community...
Is he asking questions and pushing the sphere of inquiry in directions we have not? Is it possible that, whatever the rest of us are feeling emotionally, his pressures and scrutiny may result in a better, less exploitable game?
I know I would not wish to be asking the questions he raises or pushing the boundaries he pushes.
It is annoying and challenges patience, but the good of the game may be served in ways that are not comfortable for the rest of us.
Yes, I wish he were nice, but I more wish the game to have resolved as many problems as possible early enough to do something about them.
Sometimes good medicine tastes foul. And sometimes things seem foul because they are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Should he be banned from the forums? Well, let's put it this way... the guy makes ME look good.
Take from that what you will.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I read all of Steelwing's posts as pretty hostile. It's unreasonable to start getting terse if a high level dev doesn't immediately answer your questions about formation combat that's waaay out in EE especially in a thread about the reputation and alignment blog. I stayed out of that bit but I second Lam's advice as being good advice to everyone.
Let's ban everyone!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I was asking about technical details which they should know now.
If they don't know them now then frankly they have picked technologies with a blindfold on.
It's far easier to believe that they've picked appropriate technologies with full and expert knowledge of the pros and cons of their choices, but do not choose--for whatever reasons--to discuss those things with us at this time. If your review of PFO for your group requires those answers now, then perhaps you've reached the end of your review process unexpectedly quickly, and you can report back to them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Jerks will be banned. The beholders have not yet made a determination (as far as we can tell) that is not ours to make. Until his posts vanish I must suppose that his posts may be reckoned valuable for the purposes of the game whether I am comfortable with the personality behind them or not.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think most people took offense when he asked questions, got answers, and said "That's not good enough, gimme more information." All the people taking offense made him go on the defensive and now it's at this point.
Steelwing, I said it before and I'll say it again: the devs do not owe you anything. You don't have to act like your dollars are the most important dollars in the world. Yes, they have to start attracting customers sometime, but that time is not necessarily 2 years before the game's officially released, and that attracting process does not necessarily equate to devs putting time aside to answer questions that they don't want to or can't answer at the moment.
All the abuse for GW, with name calling and such because they don't want to answer your question, is definitely not helping your case.
I think most people took offense when he asked questions, got answers, and said "That's not good enough, gimme more information." All the people taking offense made him go on the defensive and now it's at this point.
Steelwing, I said it before and I'll say it again: the devs do not owe you anything. You don't have to act like your dollars are the most important dollars in the world. Yes, they have to start attracting customers sometime, but that time is not necessarily 2 years before the game's officially released, and that attracting process does not necessarily equate to devs putting time aside to answer questions that they don't want to or can't answer at the moment.
All the abuse for GW, with name calling and such because they don't want to answer your question, is definitely not helping your case.
I have never claimed my dollars are worth more in any way. The point was merely that GW already has the people who have made their mind up and believe in them on the hook and the money in their wallets. Now they need to start addressing those of us who are more sceptical and trying to persuade us that it is worth buying in. I believe that they plan to run a second chance to buy in soon do they not? If asking fairly basic questions, and they don't need highly long answers just a few sentences, is rebuffed with answers like yes and lots which is what Dancey answered then frankly why should I turn round and go "Oh ok I will believe all your claims in that case".
If he had answered something along the lines of
"we believe that we can get at least 300 players in an area and we hope to increase that number substantially by lowering view distances or automatically switching people to low res textures. We are looking to deal with the balance issue of people not being able to bring their full force by several means the main one currently being examined is using a system of pro rata'ing the allowed size of forces to base settlement numbers though that is only one option being examined"
I would have been happy with such an answer and would at least be able to say to myself "seems a reasonable approach to the balance issue and the numbers aren't that bad"
I have only I believe thrown anything that could be called name abuse at two posters Mbando and Quandary both in response to what I perceived as very hostile responses to me.
The only response that could be remotely called abusive towards GW was to Dancey when he made a pretty unprofessional response to a question which some of the more established forum members also took exception to.
I did not come on here as hostile but some forum members took it upon themselves to try and bully me and acted like jerks. If my response to this offended them tough. If they can't take it don't dish it out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, let's put it this way... the guy makes ME look good.
Take from that what you will.
Frankly this is actually probably the most offensive thing anyone has yet said to me on the forum.
You notice I haven't had any posts removed unlike you nor has a moderator had to come in and warn me against using an act of violence often used against the fairer sex as a perjorative term.
You sir are nothing but pond life and I expect to get many angry letters from amoeboid life forms for making that comparison.Frankly I wouldn't even compare my worst enemy to someone like you.
Your opinion is worthless
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So being able to kill people freely while not in a declared war or feud with them with no reputation loss is "working as intended" ? Given your latest blog on alignment and reputation I think not and I think most of your acolytes would think notTo which you proposed a solution which was even more exploitable and I was referring to that solution as you know.Asserting something is exploitable doesn't make it so. In this case, you haven't even suggested a meaningful exploit.
Well, this is not constructive. Arguing with the CEO of GW what is "working as intended". That's why you have your own thread, steelwig.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Now they need to start addressing those of us who are more sceptical and trying to persuade us that it is worth buying in.
I've seen nothing to indicate that now is the time they need to start addressing sceptics; the game's design and development are so much in flux that they've not yet launched the follow-up fulfilment tool for post-Kickstarter folks to participate monetarily. I believe that launch will be the kick-off of the "let's get more folks on-board" movement, and we'll see quite a lot of effort directed that way, given the energy they put into the Kickstarter.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Steelwing: You're a new poster. But otherwise some of what you say is fine. I disagree with the "unprofessional" tag. That's standard variable responses we're used to, here and in fact accept (I think): It serves a purpose staying variable even if "that tag" keeps being used by new posters. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Me Likey This Thread
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What's all this talk about not being pvp'er and being pvp'er, that's just hilarious. I was under the assumption that this game has other players as content and that's a strong indication of a pvp game. I'm confused, who let the carebears in... lol
As for a consequence free pvp game, that has been said many times that PFO is not going to be one of those... I know people are slow to learn and the older we get the slower we learn... lol
What's all this talk about not being pvp'er and being pvp'er, that's just hilarious. I was under the assumption that this game has other players as content and that's a strong indication of a pvp game. I'm confused, who let the carebears in... lol
As for a consequence free pvp game, that has been said many times that PFO is not going to be one of those... I know people are slow to learn and the older we get the slower we learn... lol
Now I'm confused. Didn't you say in another thread that PFO would be just fine with no PvP whatsoever?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Now I'm confused. Didn't you say in another thread that PFO would be just fine with no PvP whatsoever?What's all this talk about not being pvp'er and being pvp'er, that's just hilarious. I was under the assumption that this game has other players as content and that's a strong indication of a pvp game. I'm confused, who let the carebears in... lol
As for a consequence free pvp game, that has been said many times that PFO is not going to be one of those... I know people are slow to learn and the older we get the slower we learn... lol
If you wanna start lookin' for my quotes, be my quest. I'm not really of fan of opinions, you know, they change over time...
At least this game concept proves that carebears and gankers will never be able to peacefully coexist lol havent read so much hatred between the two groups since Age of Conan forums when that was under development.
Well, PvE'ers and PvP'ers really want two separate games. That's why smart devs now are making their games for either/or, instead of trying to please both. That's what I though PFO was... a sandbox, PvP-focused game where players are the content, but, after reading blog posts like GW's last little gem, I'm not so sure.
If you wanna start lookin' for my quotes, be my quest. I'm not really of fan of opinions, you know, they change over time...Now I'm confused. Didn't you say in another thread that PFO would be just fine with no PvP whatsoever?What's all this talk about not being pvp'er and being pvp'er, that's just hilarious. I was under the assumption that this game has other players as content and that's a strong indication of a pvp game. I'm confused, who let the carebears in... lol
As for a consequence free pvp game, that has been said many times that PFO is not going to be one of those... I know people are slow to learn and the older we get the slower we learn... lol
I'm not a fan of searching for people's quotes, but in any case, welcome to the dark-side, and if you're playing us false, it won't be hard for me to kill ya.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not a fan of searching for people's quotes, but in any case, welcome to the dark-side, and if you're playing us false, it won't be hard for me to kill ya.If you wanna start lookin' for my quotes, be my quest. I'm not really of fan of opinions, you know, they change over time...Now I'm confused. Didn't you say in another thread that PFO would be just fine with no PvP whatsoever?What's all this talk about not being pvp'er and being pvp'er, that's just hilarious. I was under the assumption that this game has other players as content and that's a strong indication of a pvp game. I'm confused, who let the carebears in... lol
As for a consequence free pvp game, that has been said many times that PFO is not going to be one of those... I know people are slow to learn and the older we get the slower we learn... lol
I just realized, you're talking character wise. Wheh! No hard feelings, but soft, mushy feelings! Oh yeah!
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@all: This discussion is unproductive and I expect that if it continues it will devolve into a new threshold of toxicity for this community.
It would be wise to let it die without moderator involvement, or to derail it into the MOVIE DISCUSSION THREAD.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, PvE'ers and PvP'ers really want two separate games. That's why smart devs now are making their games for either/or, instead of trying to please both. That's what I though PFO was... a sandbox, PvP-focused game where players are the content, but, after reading blog posts like GW's last little gem, I'm not so sure.
This reminds me of politics, the carebears and the gankers stand both to lose everything in a zero sum game if the other side gets their way through or get the highest influence over the Devs so the "debate" deterioates into verbal fighting in order to make it clear to the devs that if they side with the other team they will suffer horribly and the game will be a flop and vice versa.
I'm for much pvp too and the last blog posts relieved me of some of my fears, but I understand your concern since if I read the last blog correctly it will take a -7500 rep player over 250 days to get to neutral standing 0.
I just hope i.e the reputation penalty for killing enemies in "stand and deliver" and other banditry related actions is reasonable such as "-10" and not "-100" as that will mean a world of difference, and also hope that the amount of loot you can force from a target is high enough to make it a very tough decision for the victim to fight, surrender or flee.
Well, PvE'ers and PvP'ers really want two separate games. That's why smart devs now are making their games for either/or, instead of trying to please both. That's what I though PFO was... a sandbox, PvP-focused game where players are the content, but, after reading blog posts like GW's last little gem, I'm not so sure.This reminds me of politics, the carebears and the gankers stand both to lose everything in a zero sum game if the other side gets their way through or get the highest influence over the Devs so the "debate" deterioates into verbal fighting in order to make it clear to the devs that if they side with the other team they will suffer horribly and the game will be a flop and vice versa.
I'm for much pvp too and the last blog posts relieved me of some of my fears, but I understand your concern since if I read the last blog correctly it will take a -7500 rep player over 250 days to get to neutral standing 0.
I just hope i.e the reputation penalty for killing enemies in "stand and deliver" and other banditry related actions is reasonable such as "-10" and not "-100" as that will mean a world of difference, and also hope that the amount of loot you can force from a target is high enough to make it a very tough decision for the victim to fight, surrender or flee.
First of all, the Zero Sum analogy is (sort of) correct. Game Developers have to pick a side, as I said. Games that've tried to please both crowds have failed 100% of the time.
I would prefer Dancey and the team pick a side, rather than this back-and-forth dance of cowardly trying to appeal to everyone. At least if they side with the PvE'ers completely, I'll know to look elsewhere for a new MMO home.
And in regards to SAD'ing... the Rep system is designed to reward players for taking actions that GW wants them to do, and punish them for taking actions they DON'T want them to do, so, players will actually GAIN rep for completing SAD's successfully (or possibly for killing people who declined their SAD). Though we're not sure at this time how much.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One approach that has not been adequately tried is to invite roleplayers into a game that perforce focuses on PvP because RP is woefully incomplete if the player cannot engage another player who is his enemy. The serious value here is that PvP must attract more players into their chosen gamestyle if the genre is to survive as anything more interesting than capture the flag (and similar).
If you can somehow entice all those millions of PvE players into your game with the realistic expectation that any PvP they become embroiled in will be meaningful in a way that appears to their preferred playstyle, as GW appears to be attempting here, then it will work primarily to the PvP enthusiast's advantage.
You have a thesis: it is more interesting to fight a worthy opponent. They have an antithesis: it is not interesting to be meaninglessly murdered. The proposition here is that there is a synthesis that can be designed that will satisfactorily solve the disagreement and result in a superior game that can eventually and gradually be good for all of us.
My objective is to try and facilitate the expression of just such a solution. I think it is in all our interests to do the same, because it could vault PvP into a new paradigm of excellence.
Sounds good on paper, but my experience is that RP'ers and PvP'ers don't mix. RP'ers tend to just want to quest around and stuff and not really be bothered by PvP. PvP'ers just want to kill RP'ers while they're questing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have a thesis: it is more interesting to fight a worthy opponent. They have an antithesis: it is not interesting to be meaninglessly murdered. The proposition here is that there is a synthesis that can be designed that will satisfactorily solve the disagreement and result in a superior game that can eventually and gradually be good for all of us.
My objective is to try and facilitate the expression of just such a solution. I think it is in all our interests to do the same, because it could vault PvP into a new paradigm of excellence.
I find your embrace of dialectics disturbing.
If the current state of the western world is to provide a historical and empirical example then I think it is the opposite that will be true.
Nonetheless reading through the blog it seems the system of incentives and punishment in a free setting is working theoretically, this is one of the reasons I want so badly to pay in order to get into alpha to be there in game when the thesis is put to the test and will evolve into your synthesis.
The analogy to Hobbes hypethetical "state of nature" has probably been used a few times to describe a total free pvp game, then again the opposite of the carebears wet dream of a pve utopia sounds like a free mans nightmare.
No matter if the game flops or not this will certainly be interesting, and my money is literally on the hope that it will become a new paradigm of excellence.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I find your embrace of dialectics disturbing.
If the current state of the western world is to provide a historical and empirical example then I think it is the opposite that will be true.
The current state of the western world is a product of an aborted conversation between German Idealism, Marxism, and Pragmatism. This is an unnatural outcome caused by the atrocity that was the Second World War.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sounds good on paper, but my experience is that RP'ers and PvP'ers don't mix. RP'ers tend to just want to quest around and stuff and not really be bothered by PvP. PvP'ers just want to kill RP'ers while they're questing.
I understand. I believe that is exactly the problem to be solved. The only sure bet is that if nobody tries to develop a solution it won't be solved. The PvE'ers won't have many of those quests to run off doing. PvP'ers will discover refinements in PvP, just like a poet finds refinement in the sonnet forms.
It will at least be interesting.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
And in regards to SAD'ing... the Rep system is designed to reward players for taking actions that GW wants them to do, and punish them for taking actions they DON'T want them to do, so, players will actually GAIN rep for completing SAD's successfully.
Close. The reputation gain and desired behavior is honoring the extortion by not killing the target after getting paid for safe passage.
That is being encouraged because it is more interesting for the traveler to have the choice to pay the extortion and believe that they will be allowed to proceed, rather than a choice to pay a ransom when they believe that they will be killed regardless.
And in regards to SAD'ing... the Rep system is designed to reward players for taking actions that GW wants them to do, and punish them for taking actions they DON'T want them to do, so, players will actually GAIN rep for completing SAD's successfully.Close. The reputation gain and desired behavior is honoring the extortion by not killing the target after getting paid for safe passage.
That is being encouraged because it is more interesting for the traveler to have the choice to pay the extortion and believe that they will be allowed to proceed, rather than a choice to pay a ransom when they believe that they will be killed regardless.
The victimized flag will last for like, 20-25 minutes, and if someone kills the victim, they take a 2500 rep hit. I think the SAD'er is rewarded for COMPLETING a successful SAD, and, if they kill the person after, they'll lose A LOT more rep than they gained from completing the SAD. So, basically, we're saying the same thing.
Dancey hasn't made it clear yet whether there will be a rep gain involved for killing people who blatantly turn down your SAD (at least, I don't think he has).
Sounds good on paper, but my experience is that RP'ers and PvP'ers don't mix. RP'ers tend to just want to quest around and stuff and not really be bothered by PvP. PvP'ers just want to kill RP'ers while they're questing.I understand. I believe that is exactly the problem to be solved. The only sure bet is that if nobody tries to develop a solution it won't be solved. The PvE'ers won't have many of those quests to run off doing. PvP'ers will discover refinements in PvP, just like a poet finds refinement in the sonnet forms.
It will at least be interesting.
There is a solution, and it works: Make a game for BOTH PvE'ers and RP'ers, those two are compatible.
Locking thread. Personal insults and abusive behavior are completely unacceptable on our forums—flag the post and move on.