Goblin Squad Member
|
Ok this is my attempt to make sense of it all. I've taken a pretty nice poll among many of the groups and everyone seems to agree that the Reputation v.s Alignment system is not going the way we want it. The player base wants to play Chaotic and Evil as a roleplay/faction decision without having it inherently mean that you are low on the reputation scale and your DI has to suck.
The answer seems so simple though if alignment is treated as a faction wheel, INDEPENDENT of the reputation system even if there are CERTAIN activities that can affect you on both.
So here goes my idea on how to implement our beloved alignment system in PFO:
1. Nations and Settlements cannot be NN. The only NN settlements in the game are the NPC run cities for new characters. Players however can be.
2. The 1-step policy for Settlements and Nations pertains to the right and left of the wheel. Examples. LN can Have LN-LE-LG; CG can have CG-CN-NG; LG can have LG-NG-LN. A LG Nation can have LG-NG-LN settlements, meaning all together they span 5 alignments of characters. This is similar to the faction wheel on Fallen Earth. Allying yourself with somebody not in your nation costs influence, preventing LE and CG from working together for too long.
3. Each of the 8 settlement alignments has an NPC faction (LE-Hellknights) and an appropriate aligned NPC God to grind their alignment. Each alignment also has a flag to carry with buffs (bandit-CN/defender-LG/vigilante-CG etc.).
4. The chaos/evil/lawful/good axis all have in game pros and cons. Training classes like paladins v.s Barbarian v.s Necromancer for example. As per the last blog, chaos means bad at taxes but you can rob, evil means inefficient NPC's but they can buy slaves and raise undead, etc. THESE PROS AND CONS SHOULD BE BALANCED.
5. NN characters can join ANY settlement, but don't get the buffs the or advantages of their settlement. It's the mercenary or half way house alignment.
6. The actual Development Index (DI) of a settlement has nothing to do with the alignment, it is determined by the REPUTATION of the settlement which is determined by the REPUTATION of the characters that comprise it. The reputation system is the system meant to foment some types of PvP and punish other types of PvP.
Now this is something that actually could work using all of the systems PFo says they want to use without having it all collide into a complete clusterbomb.
Have at it boys.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've taken a pretty nice poll among many of the groups and everyone seems to agree that the Reputation v.s Alignment system is not going the way we want it.
I don't think nice is good enough, so I'll disagree with you. You do realize that the reputation is there to quell excessive "non-sanctioned" ganging(or just ganging if you like) and the alignment system has to be tied to the reputation system in someway because they both measure character behavior, partly similarly and partly differently, and this is what gives it nice shades of gray what most people don't seem to understand. It segregates players into groups and gives those groups a motivation and a chance to pursue a chosen role.
edit. to make my point more clear
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I feel like this is huge, and being entirely ignored:
Settlement Alignments have two mechanical effects aside from controlling settlement membership.
Corruption: Corruption measures how much inefficiency there is in your settlement, decreasing income from taxes and other fees. Corruption starts high for Chaotic settlements and low for Lawful settlements, but as laws are broken in the settlement its Corruption increases. So a Lawful settlement that enforces its laws poorly can end up with more Corruption than a Chaotic settlement (which is required to set fewer laws).
Unrest: Unrest measures how unhappy your NPCs are, causing them to work less hard and decreasing crafting and training efficiency so they take longer. Unrest starts high for Evil settlements and low for Good settlements, but, like with Corruption, Unrest increases when vile deeds are committed. Thus a Good settlement that does not patrol its borders for necromancers and the like may end up with higher Unrest than an Evil settlement (because peasants in an Evil domain are somewhat inured to the immorality of their rulers).
So you go into an enemy settlement to rob people, create undead minions, raid outposts, and take slaves etc. You can do this as much as you want as a chaotic evil player, but are extremely limited on how much you can do it and stay lawful good. It already benefits you, it already hurts them and then on top of that it causes corruption and unrest that hurt lawful good groups much, much more.
I realize this is going to get heavily downplayed but spin it however you want this is huge. Probably the biggest thing that has been handed to CE players so far.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
6. The actual Development Index (DI) of a settlement has nothing to do with the alignment, it is determined by the REPUTATION of the settlement which is determined by the REPUTATION of the characters that comprise it. The reputation system is the system meant to foment some types of PvP and punish other types of PvP.
This is what I have understood Ryan to say. He also says that it will be hard for some (CE) communities to have High re[. He has not said that ALL CE will have low rep, but it will be hard; just as LG will have a hard time keeping Corruption down.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But what if a CE character or settlement does not want to be the content for others? You are saying their only advantage and purpose is to take down other settlements' DIs. What if they have no interest in that? What if they want to have a high rep, well developed settlement and behave in a way that is still CE but does not produce reputation loss?
I could be a chaotic evil merchant, and be a notorious price gouger. I might give preferential pricing to you for wearing a green hat on Tuesday, but not any other day and not on the third Tuesday of the month on even number months and on odd months in leap year. Is he insane? Yes. Is he greedy (evil), yes. Is he doing anything to lose reputation, no!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What's the worst CE eg of a state/region from real world history that you can think of? I can think of LE but harder to find significant eg's of CE?
Seems to me CE of my interpretation would barely make a settlement or one that doomed to destroy itself or by comparison not contribute to civilization as much as the great civilization sources of old (China, Indus, Mesopotamia, Greece and Egypt eg).
@Bluddwolf
To quote a master
"To crush your enemies, to drive them before you, and to hear the wailing of their women!"
is the aim
Dancey is handing you a powerful weapon in the form of the alignment system and the reputation system. If you really hate it then use it well in early enrollment and exploit every edge mercilessly until those who now love it call for its repeal.
If we decide to come and the alignment system is here we will certainly be using it to disadvantage our enemies at every turn
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In terms of fiction I can envisage a Wild West town run by outlaws and criminals as CE.
But here's the proposition: Role-Players are expecting from eg coop games to be able to play all alignments.
But I don't think CE scales up very well from sample to full population. Certainly not real world studies and in terms of psychology incidence of psychotic behaviour has been reduced frequency likely due to selective pressure from social environmental factors.
However, does the lore of Pathfinder suggest that CE is viable? And how does it explain the higher than expected Frequency of CE both in the world and in terms of maximum capacity of CE's to share the same space before disintegration? Are they aided by evil/chaotic dieties that allow CE to spread and not burn itself out when it catches alight in a new area of the world (Golarion)?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf
To quote a master
"To crush your enemies, to drive them before you, and to hear the wailing of their women!"
is the aim
Dancey is handing you a powerful weapon in the form of the alignment system and the reputation system. If you really hate it then use it well in early enrollment and exploit every edge mercilessly until those who now love it call for its repeal.
If we decide to come and the alignment system is here we will certainly be using it to disadvantage our enemies at every turn
This is well and good for the many (and I know there will be many) Chaotic Neutrals and Evils that want to be the content of others. But others do not want to play that way in the sandbox.
This also sets up a clear advantage in being Chaotic Neutral (which I intend to be)over Chaotic Evil.
I have written in the past, if you want to be a Raider-Bandit the best core alignment to be is Chaotic Good. This way when you behave like a Raider - Bandit the mechanics will probably level you out to Chaotic Neutral.
Could you sell Conan as being Chaotic Good, rather than Chaotic Neutral?
I think you could make a marginal case for that. He was not greedy, although he was a thief. He did not steal for the acquisition of wealth, he stole for the challenge and mostly to fund his insatiable appetite for drinking, wenching and gambling.
He is a noble savage, chivalrous even, and the protector of the weak (especially hot, needy women) while having the capacity to exact cruel and savage brutality against his opponents (He ripped the heart out of his enemy in one story and showed it beating in his hand before the guy died). (* Take note Andius).
In almost every case I can think of, Conan killed mostly evil or corrupt people and the occasional neutral. Never anyone that was good or innocent, to my recollection.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In terms of fiction I can envisage a Wild West town run by outlaws and criminals as CE.
But here's the proposition: Role-Players are expecting from eg coop games to be able to play all alignments.
But I don't think CE scales up very well from sample to full population. Certainly not real world studies and in terms of psychology incidence of psychotic behaviour has been reduced frequency likely due to selective pressure from social environmental factors.
However, does the lore of Pathfinder suggest that CE is viable? And how does it explain the higher than expected Frequency of CE both in the world and in terms of maximum capacity of CE's to share the same space before disintegration? Are they aided by evil/chaotic dieties that allow CE to spread and not burn itself out when it catches alight in a new area of the world (Golarion)?
What if the gradations of the alignment axis were taken into account?
0 - 2500 Chaotic (mildly)
2501 - 5000 Chaotic (random)
5001 - 7490 Chaotic (arbitrary / unfair / corrupt)
7491 - 7500 Chaotic (You Crazy Bro!)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok this is my attempt to make sense of it all. I've taken a pretty nice poll among many of the groups and everyone seems to agree that the Reputation v.s Alignment system is not going the way we want it.
Sorry, but I didn't see the poll. Who was the poll provided to? UNC and... who?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
6. The actual Development Index (DI) of a settlement has nothing to do with the alignment, it is determined by the REPUTATION of the settlement which is determined by the REPUTATION of the characters that comprise it. The reputation system is the system meant to foment some types of PvP and punish other types of PvP.This is what I have understood Ryan to say. He also says that it will be hard for some (CE) communities to have High re[. He has not said that ALL CE will have low rep, but it will be hard; just as LG will have a hard time keeping Corruption down.
The whole thing is close to what they have now, I've just tweaked here and changed that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But here's the proposition: Role-Players are expecting from eg coop games to be able to play all alignments.
But I don't think CE scales up very well from sample to full population. Certainly not real world studies and in terms of psychology incidence of psychotic behaviour has been reduced frequency likely due to selective pressure from social environmental factors.
However, does the lore of Pathfinder suggest that CE is viable? And how does it explain the higher than expected Frequency of CE both in the world and in terms of maximum capacity of CE's to share the same space before disintegration? Are they aided by evil/chaotic dieties that allow CE to spread and not burn itself out when it catches alight in a new area of the world (Golarion)?
I think part of the problem is that the lore is created out of thin air. When the developers of various fantasy TT products envision a new nation, they declare its alignment by fiat. They don't concern themselves with your hoity-toity real world studies and psychology. The lore may be extremely detailed, but it isn't robust enough to survive contact with real players in an MMO.
So I'm agreeing - I don't think CE scales well to a full population. Nor does CG, I'd expect.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think what Bludd points out helps if the numerical scale breaks it down into 4 divisions per alignment direction that seems to help attribute proportions in a more nuanced way ie -7500 envisioned to be small set of the playerbase?
Then once the gradations are established, settlement indexes can be adjusted up or down based on the scale. The difference not being all or nothing between a 2500 and 2501. But there will be a noticeable difference if your alignment axis is 3500 compared to 6500.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bludd, what exactly do you mean by "being the content for others"?
Ryan Dancey often refers to the role that CE characters play are to provide the content for others. It take it kind of like a backhanded compliment, in way way it says CE play an important role and in the other it relegates CE to not much more than NPC mobs.
If he really wanted to have CE play that role, and have them suck as much as he expects them to, then CE should have true freedom as a trade off for sucking and being other's content. When I say true freedom I say no significant debuffs or consequences for being at -7500 and an explicit message to the player community that a CE character at -7500 is playing a legitimate role for the community.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As I read it, the problem with CE is how not to be low Rep. THe problem with LG is how to play LG and not be corrupted. If either group can stay high Rep then there are comparable rewards (No Paladin training in CE, no barbarians in training in LG; and similar trades for clerical training).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really should be taking a day off today posting...
1. Alignment leads to DIFFERENT settlement building options and skill-training and parameters of interest
2. Reputation leads to HIGHER or LOWER settlement building options and skill-training.
Do you add a 3rd parameter or use the scale as per Bludd's post above of using the numerical scale (0-7500) divided 4 ways; not nessarily equal divisions but perhaps narrower bands the most highly positive or negative - ie more extreme/outlier less wriggle room.
Also, I don't think purely numerical changes between divisions is enough ie degrees of difference. I think you need combination of continuous and discrete differences as well as cliffs between transitions (ie same as energy to change lq/s/g enthalpy as well as energy per degree of temp change concept). That makes a transition meaningful and avoids bobbing back and forth over the borderline.
So eg Chaos in Division 1 removed from 0 is strongest chaos in terms of effective settlement and theoretically should
House the most Chaos players eg Barbarian etc of that role is determined by Alignment. Division 4 needs to be small proportion worse settlement options ie lower ceiling per development level or/and more costly etc.
That's just an eg.
The interesting mix is that Chaos potentially can mix with the scummier players as it's alignment options eg CG,N,E etc if they are all division 4 or the best chaotic and evil settlements or both weirdly. Unless even some chaotic players find Div 4 unbearable in conjunction with Low Rep that slots in to cut off te worst even more?
Ideally it will be a protean mix around more stable chaotic settlements in Div 1 - so players can as chaotic can bounce around without too much hindrance but atst with consequences between divisions.
Mirror for Lawful etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I really should be taking a day off today posting...
1. Alignment leads to DIFFERENT settlement building options and skill-training and parameters of interest
2. Reputation leads to HIGHER or LOWER settlement building options and skill-training.
Do you add a 3rd parameter or use the scale as per Bludd's post above of using the numerical scale (0-7500) divided 4 ways; not nessarily equal divisions but perhaps narrower bands the most highly positive or negative - ie more extreme/outlier less wriggle room.
Also, I don't think purely numerical changes between divisions is enough ie degrees of difference. I think you need combination of continuous and discrete differences as well as cliffs between transitions (ie same as energy to change lq/s/g enthalpy as well as energy per degree of temp change concept). That makes a transition meaningful and avoids bobbing back and forth over the borderline.
So eg Chaos in Division 1 removed from 0 is strongest chaos in terms of effective settlement and theoretically should
House the most Chaos players eg Barbarian etc of that role is determined by Alignment. Division 4 needs to be small proportion worse settlement options ie lower ceiling per development level or/and more costly etc.That's just an eg.
The interesting mix is that Chaos potentially can mix with the scummier players as it's alignment options eg CG,N,E etc if they are all division 4 or the best chaotic and evil settlements or both weirdly. Unless even some chaotic players find Div 4 unbearable in conjunction with Low Rep that slots in to cut off te worst even more?
Ideally it will be a protean mix around more stable chaotic settlements in Div 1 - so players can as chaotic can bounce around without too much hindrance but atst with consequences between divisions.
Mirror for Lawful etc.
This is how the system should work.... Period! GW could do the exact same thing with Reputation, even though it is a separate system, and I hope it will be separate.
You should post this in the other threads and even PM it to the Devs directly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is how the system should work.... Period! GW could do the exact same thing with Reputation, even though it is a separate system, and I hope it will be separate.
But Reputation isn't a separate system. It extends the classic alignment system with a third axis. Didn't Ryan explain that yesterday, in his reply to your direct questions?
say what it is meant to do, definitively.Provide a vector orthogonal to the Chaos/Law, Evil/Good grid which indicates how selfish or community-focused the character is.Second, don't muddle it up with any other system, make it stand alone.It is orthogonal to, and thus a part of, our extension of the classic alignment system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is how the system should work.... Period! GW could do the exact same thing with Reputation, even though it is a separate system, and I hope it will be separate.But Reputation isn't a separate system. It extends the classic alignment system with a third axis. Didn't Ryan explain that yesterday, in his reply to your direct questions?
say what it is meant to do, definitively.Provide a vector orthogonal to the Chaos/Law, Evil/Good grid which indicates how selfish or community-focused the character is.Second, don't muddle it up with any other system, make it stand alone.It is orthogonal to, and thus a part of, our extension of the classic alignment system.
I understood that, but don't agree that they should be linked. They can be analyzed together, but by linking them that gives the impression that certain alignments will result in low or high reputation. That might work as an expectation, but should not be by design.
If I rolled my character with a CE core alignment but I never engage in PVP outside of feuds, wars or some other form of PVP that reduces reputation, I will have just as high a reputation as any other alignment has the opportunity for.
What I believe Ryan makes the mistake in is that he does not separate the character's core alignment from the way that the player plays. He assumes a chaotic evil character will be played in a chaotic evil way as it relates to preferred play (I'm not using sanctioned).
If he instead specified "active alignment" then I would agree. But some players choose a core alignment solely for the role play and don't actually behave that way within the game's mechanics.
If Chaotic Evil were truly allowed to be Chaotic Evil, then they would grief through the starter areas with impunity and GW would say "They are playing their role, they will still suck by not having access to upper tier stuff, but no further action will be taken, they are playing as your content".
If that is indeed the case, then I have no doubt a large segment of the OE population will play that way, without fear of being banned, and those that view that as toxic will scream to high heaven, PFO is a murder simulator.
The argument that CE has the advantage of playing the way they want is not true
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
This is how the system should work.... Period! GW could do the exact same thing with Reputation, even though it is a separate system, and I hope it will be separate.But Reputation isn't a separate system. It extends the classic alignment system with a third axis. Didn't Ryan explain that yesterday, in his reply to your direct questions?
say what it is meant to do, definitively.Provide a vector orthogonal to the Chaos/Law, Evil/Good grid which indicates how selfish or community-focused the character is.Second, don't muddle it up with any other system, make it stand alone.It is orthogonal to, and thus a part of, our extension of the classic alignment system.I understood that, but don't agree that they should be linked. They can be analyzed together, but by linking them that gives the impression that certain alignments will result in low or high reputation. That might work as an expectation, but should not be by design.
Do you know what "orthogonal" means? It's clear that decisions about what is lawful, evil, and despicable will be decided independently of each other.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf. I'll respond to your whole "What if CE characters want to build their own shiny little CE paradise where they all live in peace and harmony and mind their own buisiness." on some other day.
For now, a price gouger is lawful-evil unless doing something else to make them chaotic. Pure randomness is not a major factor when determining your place on the law-chaos axis.
Lawful implies you find value in the ideas of law and order themselves. For instance when a law violates their principles on the good/evil axis or gets in the way of your personal goals a lawful character might say something to the affect if "But it's the law!" Not as a warning that you will get in trouble but as a way of stating there is something inherently wrong in violating the law.
Someone who is neutral on this axis sees no inherent value in the idea of law and order. If a law promotes other values the hold dear such as justice, power, the protection of the weak, the domination of the lesser, or the preservation of balance then the law has value. If it promotes things they dislike such as injustice, limitation of their power, or imbalance then the law should be broken.
Someone who is chaotic objects to the ideas of law and authority themselves. There is no such thing as a good law because all laws constrain freedom to act. People should simply act as they will act and not hide behind the man made construct of laws. Leaders should simply be followed if they are worthy, not because they wield the lawful authority to lead.
So your random price gouger is not chaotic unless they are actively working against order and detest the idea of law itself.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
say what it is meant to do, definitively.Provide a vector orthogonal to the Chaos/Law, Evil/Good grid which indicates how selfish or community-focused the character is.Second, don't muddle it up with any other system, make it stand alone.It is orthogonal to, and thus a part of, our extension of the classic alignment system.
I understood that, but don't agree that they should be linked. They can be analyzed together, but by linking them that gives the impression that certain alignments will result in low or high reputation. That might work as an expectation, but should not be by design.
Do you know what "orthogonal" means? It's clear that decisions about what is lawful, evil, and despicable will be decided independently of each other.
Yes I know what "orthogonal" means, but Ryan also uses the term "vector" with it, which means "in relation to another" and that does not make them independently analyzed. The alignment system not only has a vector, but it actually intersects at True Neutral.
What I'm arguing is that Reputation can be, and perhaps should be viewed independently of the Vector Orthogonal of Alignment.
No harm is done to either system by separating them. Ryan's premise that CE who behaves outside of the desired actions, will end up Chaotic Evil and Low Reputation. But what keeping them separate eliminates the assumption that alignment choice guarantees reputation outcomes.
The big question is, will the system manipulate the outcome to match the assumption? Or will it be possible to prove the assumption wrong and still accurately represent the alignment?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And this ^ is the entire problem with the one-step principle: towns and cities don't come in all 9 alignments like individuals do so there can't be a matching town for every character. Any settlement in history that has survived long enough to grow was lawful.
Tons of LN including current North America and Europe, some LE like Hitler, former USA, and colonial Europe, no LG tht I've heard of, but all lawful. And mostly lawful in Golarion guidebooks too.
Individuals across the law-chaos spectrum have always lived in cities which are, by necessity, lawful entities or the cities don't last.
The presence of chaotic-aligned individuals hasn't buggered 10,000 years worth of lawful cities or 45 years of D&D so far so why can't they live in a lawful city in PO too?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf. I'll respond to your whole "What if CE characters want to build their own shiny little CE paradise where they all live in peace and harmony and mind their own buisiness." on some other day.
I never said "in peace and harmony" but their chaotic evil activities do not have to result in reputation loss either. That is the assumption I'm trying to dispel.
We can play chaotic evil and pillage and kill our way though the game, without having to be jerks about it. How so? By involving ourselves in any fight that we can engage in without reputation loss.
Who says we can't fight for free? We can fight for the love of killing others. You are involved in a war, we come and offer to join on your side, just to get the free kills, and whatever we can loot along the way. We don't care about you or your cause, just that it offers the opportunity for bloodshed!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Alignment isn't a perfect system when it comes to describing a singular alignment in the scale. I think it just works as a guide. That's why I think it cannot be applied to real world. But in a fantasy world of heroes and villains, I think it works extremely well as a guide to describe the motivations of npcs and even pcs. And still each individual decision is left for the player to make. His alignment doesn't make any choices for him. That's how I see the alignment in general.
Segregating players by playstyle hasn't been done in an mmo and I think it's about time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Segregating players by playstyle hasn't been done in an mmo and I think it's about time.
Except for it won't do that because most players really won't give a damn about alignment except in as much as what mechanical benefits they get and what skills it gates.
You can expect about 80% of players therefore to be in one or two alignments because they are the ones that give most benefits with least restrictions. My guess would be LE and LN
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Every action has a vector in alignment space; rather than trying to measure that vector by azimuth, elevation, and magnitude, try measuring it by the rectangular coordinates of ''lawful" "good" and "commendable".
Actions which provide negative commendable points are those which are deemed to be evidence that a character is a net negative contribution to the game. Actions which provide positive commendable points are evidence that a character is a net positive contribution. Their sum should be roughly proportional to the expected net contribution to the kind of community dynamic which is desired.
Griefing behavior is not part of that discussion. While there is overlap between griefing and actions which benefit players to the detriment of other players, the two correlate poorly. Cornering the market on lumber in order to profit from high demand makes the economic game interesting to people who play it; destroying all transports of lumber and taking the expected net economic losses from doing so for the lulz would be toxic behavior. Since most of the same actions are evident in each of those two patterns of behavior, reputation is used so that the people trying to corner the lumber market by, in part, burning competitor's shipments can make an informed decision about how many shipments they can burn, what their negative effects for doing so will be, and what they can do to mitigate those effects.
The system used to prevent griefing does not provide enough information to make an informed decision about the expected cost of griefing. That is a feature; if it did, people would use that to make informed decisions about how to maximize griefing. The system in place to encourage desired behavior should be clear about the expected value of performing the desired behavior.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Decius Brutus
You realise you have just argued that meaningful player interaction must be limited.
Cornering the market for lumber by destroying all your competitors shipments is the very essence of meaningful PVP.
Your statement above clearly implies it must be limited to only a few shipments by the reputation system. Once you limit it like that it becomes no longer possible to corner the market. Therefore what you in effect do is turn meaningul player interaction into meaningless PVP that does little except inflate the price of wood for everyone which means your competitors profit as much as you do.
You therefore gain nothing therefore the PVP can now be considered meaningless.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Cornering the market on lumber in order to profit from high demand makes the economic game interesting to people who play it; destroying all transports of lumber and taking the expected net economic losses from doing so for the lulz would be toxic behavior. Since most of the same actions are evident in each of those two patterns of behavior, reputation is used so that the people trying to corner the lumber market by, in part, burning competitor's shipments can make an informed decision about how many shipments they can burn, what their negative effects for doing so will be, and what they can do to mitigate those effects.
Your statement above clearly implies it must be limited to only a few shipments by the reputation system. Once you limit it like that it becomes no longer possible to corner the market. Therefore what you in effect do is turn meaningul player interaction into meaningless PVP that does little except inflate the price of wood for everyone which means your competitors profit as much as you do.
I've no idea where DB is clearly implying that it's limited to only a few shipments.
But it could be two or ten or more - the person cornering the markets by such means will make an informed decision of how much rep he'll personally accept. He might outsource the rest of the rep loss if he needs to. Or he might use feuds (gasp!) to attack outposts without rep loss. (Some people say using a feud in attacking an outpost is always a bad idea...)
@Urman
Feuds will only be possible against the incompetent for attacking merchants, crafters and gatherers.
There is absolutely no reason giving that crafters will be able to craft virtually everything but some keywords in an NPC settlement for any of the three types of character to be part of either your settlement or a chartered comapany. If they are not in a company they can be neither feuded against nor have war declared against them.
This is exactly why most null sec alliances have their crafters in high sec and often left in the npc corporations.
As to where he implies few I think you are misunderstanding my take which is anything less than all is a few. In the view of everything dancey has said waylaying more than 10 caravans of say 3 people is going to cost so much rep that you may as well not bother. If 10 caravans of wood destroyed is enough to corner the market then the market is borked
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nothing says that your market cornerer needs to be working alone. In fact, if he can corner the market working alone or with just his company I would suggest that things are indeed borked.
Meaningful, I think, is intended to be a two-way street. It should be meaningful to both sides. Perhaps "Let's go out and kill some people to corner the market" isn't as meaningful as "We can corner the market if we kill some people, we destroy lumber outposts controlled by TSV, we overharvest the woodlots in TEOs space, and we buy up everything Pax produces. We don't have enough rep to kill everyone, we don't have enough Influence to feud everyone, and we don't have enough coin to buy up all of the wood. But by using some of each of those counters we might be able to pull it off."
Nothing says that your market cornerer needs to be working alone. In fact, if he can corner the market working alone or with just his company I would suggest that things are indeed borked.
Meaningful, I think, is intended to be a two-way street. It should be meaningful to both sides. Perhaps "Let's go out and kill some people to corner the market" isn't as meaningful as "We can corner the market if we kill some people, we destroy lumber outposts controlled by TSV, we overharvest the woodlots in TEOs space, and we buy up everything Pax produces. We don't have enough rep to kill everyone, we don't have enough Influence to feud everyone, and we don't have enough coin to buy up all of the wood. But by using some of each of those counters we might be able to pull it off."
I wasn't actually thinking of it as a company venture more a settlement venture and yes I would expect all those things to be necessary. However at the end of the day there is no doubt it will come down to stopping shipments. Try as you might you are not going to be able to limit the harvesting enough on its own. Like Eve I expect trade hubs, given 15 starting settlements then I expect only one trade hub to be extant which I believe Pax has its eye on as a prize. The most efficient way therefore to corner the lumber markets is for us to intercept all shipments headed into Pax lands. Will we be using mercenaries? Naturally but we will still need to get our hands dirty to some extent
The PVP will be meaningful. It will be content for many apart from us. For example I imagine that not only would the people losing their cargo's be upset but I can imagine Pax might decide to take a hand.
If the reputation system kills that stone dead before we even think of attempting it then we will not do it and all that content is lost. That is not to say we will give up the idea it just means that instead we will march on all the wood producing settlements and attempt to raze them to the ground one by one.
If we wish to try dominating the lumber market then we will do it one way or another. I would have thought most would prefer us to be steered towards the first as it provides greater content for a greater number while at the same time spreading the loss more evenly
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And this ^ is the entire problem with the one-step principle: towns and cities don't come in all 9 alignments like individuals do so there can't be a matching town for every character. Any settlement in history that has survived long enough to grow was lawful.
Tons of LN including current North America and Europe, some LE like Hitler, former USA, and colonial Europe, no LG tht I've heard of, but all lawful. And mostly lawful in Golarion guidebooks too.
Individuals across the law-chaos spectrum have always lived in cities which are, by necessity, lawful entities or the cities don't last.
The presence of chaotic-aligned individuals hasn't buggered 10,000 years worth of lawful cities or 45 years of D&D so far so why can't they live in a lawful city in PO too?
I think it's important to note that the vast majority of settlements in PFO will be intentional communities. As such they will function extremely differently from typical real world cities that generally arise when populations congregate in areas that provide desirable living conditions or economic opportunities.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Or he might use feuds (gasp!) to attack outposts without rep loss. (Some people say using a feud in attacking an outpost is always a bad idea...)
My understanding of the Dev Bog, you can raid outposts without reputation loss, without having to be in a state of feud or war. If that is an accurate interpretation of the blog section "Going Viking", then why would you expend influence to begin a feud for the dole purpose of raiding an outpost?
If you are going to feud a company, you have other purposes as well as raiding their outposts, POIs and caravans. A feud will allow you to attack their members anywhere and under any circumstances without rep loss.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
@Decius Brutus
You realise you have just argued that meaningful player interaction must be limited.
Cornering the market for lumber by destroying all your competitors shipments is the very essence of meaningful PVP.
Your statement above clearly implies it must be limited to only a few shipments by the reputation system. Once you limit it like that it becomes no longer possible to corner the market. Therefore what you in effect do is turn meaningul player interaction into meaningless PVP that does little except inflate the price of wood for everyone which means your competitors profit as much as you do.
You therefore gain nothing therefore the PVP can now be considered meaningless.
No, I said that behavior which is harmful to the community must be limited, and then I provided an example of a manner in which a group of people would try to gain a lot of coin and create a lot of content for others while losing Reputation.
No, I said that behavior which is harmful to the community must be limited, and then I provided an example of a manner in which a group of people would try to gain a lot of coin and create a lot of content for others while losing Reputation.
But instead the system is going to limit the meaningful behaviour which I would say is not harming the community and instead of creating content we are instead incentivised to take out settlements one by one and burn them to the ground because the rep cost of taking caravans is likely to be too high.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
No, I said that behavior which is harmful to the community must be limited, and then I provided an example of a manner in which a group of people would try to gain a lot of coin and create a lot of content for others while losing Reputation.
But instead the system is going to limit the meaningful behaviour which I would say is not harming the community and instead of creating content we are instead incentivised to take out settlements one by one and burn them to the ground because the rep cost of taking caravans is likely to be too high.
What's the incentive to burn a settlement? And how is attempting to destroy a settlement not content for the citizens and well-wishers of that settlement?
EDIT: Your opinion of whether behavior is toxic or not is irrelevant to the issue- the relevant fact is whether the developers have determined the action is Bayesian evidence that the character is a net negative.
The incentive to bur the settlement is to stop its inhabitants producing wood.
Burning their settlement may well be content but I would suggest most people might find the trade war with us taking caravans and lots of different groups including all the settlements affected and the holders of the market hub getting involved a damn sight more content than us picking of settlements one by one and destroying them. We may then potentially rent them to subservient groups or may just make sure that the hex remains fallow depending on which is to our advantage.
Now I would have thought from a community perspective the trade war scenario is infinitely better but I am happy to be guided by you and if we come into game say "hey guys lets not harrass their merchants in a trade war they would much rather we went and kicked over their settlements"
TLDR version if you make other forms of PVP cost to much in alignment or rep and we believe that cost will mechanically affect us we will take the more drastic route which costs neither rep nor alignment
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... why would you expend influence to begin a feud for the dole purpose of raiding an outpost?You can Raid and destroy an Outpost without losing Rep, but you'll still lose Rep if you attacke the defenders who show up before they attack you, won't you?
No, because you will both become hostile if that were to occur. The only reason to use a feud first is in a settlement zone that has made raiding illegal. With the flip us mechanic you avoid the criminal flag for raiding, even if it is a crime. The criminal flag makes you a legitimate target, not only to the owning company of the outpost, but all citizens of the settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... why would you expend influence to begin a feud for the dole purpose of raiding an outpost?You can Raid and destroy an Outpost without losing Rep, but you'll still lose Rep if you attacke the defenders who show up before they attack you, won't you?
The other way I can look at your question is to pose another.... Are you suggesting that the defenders will show up and just stand there waiting for us to attack them?
As soon as they attack, which they can do without consequence, we can defend ourselves because they became hostile. Or they can stand there and watch us take their stuff, and we don't take the bait.
I believe the scenario will play out in a number of common ways:
1- Owners arrive and attack raiders
2. Owners arrive, realize raiders are too powerful and they run off, cut losses.
3. Owners arrive in force, raiders realize owners are too powerful and they try to run off, lose opportunity.
4. Owners don't arrive at all.
