CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Case in point he condemned hulkageddon while completely neglecting it made those organising it a healthy isk profit as they had a large portion of the materials needed to manufacture new hulks.
To be clear:
I think it's toxic when a character calling himself "the Prophet Khartoon" promotes a "jihad" against other players, during which the participants went out of their way to use as many vile and racist comments as possible about their intentions and their victims.
YMMV
RyanD
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the real reason folks avoid EVE is not because of the players themselves, but rather because the game systems do nothing to constrain the behavior of those players.And what is the most commonly cited reason for avoiding Eve? Would it be something to do with the people who play Eve? Oh dear that would be right wouldn't it.
"I don't want to play Eve because it is full of gankers and griefers....Oh no! PfO is proving attractive to those nasty Eve players."
Internally I have heard a range of different complaints about why some of our members don't play, or don't enjoy Eve.
1. Plays like a spreadsheet.
2. It's not avatar based.
3. I don't know what to do (generally from our themepark players not used to be released from the rails)
4. I don't like being told how to fit my ship.
5. Large learning curve.
6. I don't like pvp.
7. Combat is not dynamic enough.
etc, etc.
While the danger element enters that list, it is not the only (or the most commonly stated) inhibitor. That is just what I have noticed inside Pax, though.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps the most important fact to glean from Ryan's characterization of EVE is that he wants PFO to attract the kind of players who avoid EVE.
Oh goodness no. I think we'll have a GIGANTIC population of EVE players. I think they'll be our biggest cross-draw.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
True, but if enough EvE players do come here, they will bring their culture in with them and those who avoid EvE will have a choice to make.Attracting the players who avoid EVE is not the same as repelling the players who embrace EVE.
Their culture won't change the game systems. I'm not really worried about a flood of Chaotic Evil Low Reputation players - they'll fall by the thousands. If they're not Chaotic Evil and Low Reputation, then I'm not really worried because they won't be doing the kinds of things that make some people avoid EVE.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps the most important fact to glean from Ryan's characterization of EVE is that he wants PFO to attract the kind of players who avoid EVE.Oh goodness no. I think we'll have a GIGANTIC population of EVE players. I think they'll be our biggest cross-draw.
As I tried to clarify to Steelwing, I didn't mean to imply that those were the only types of players you wanted to attract.
Their culture won't change the game systems. I'm not really worried about a flood of Chaotic Evil Low Reputation players - they'll fall by the thousands. If they're not Chaotic Evil and Low Reputation, then I'm not really worried because they won't be doing the kinds of things that make some people avoid EVE.True, but if enough EvE players do come here, they will bring their culture in with them and those who avoid EvE will have a choice to make.Attracting the players who avoid EVE is not the same as repelling the players who embrace EVE.
Well there is a big assumption right there....whatever makes you think they will be low rep CE?
Example if our group comes in we will pick the most mechanically advantageous alignment for us,set up a settlement and then we will start declaring wars...no rep loss no alignment loss. We will then continue to declare wars and sack settlements.
Combined with other null sec eve groups I suspect within a few years that there will be 3 or 4 big power blocs with an uneasy detente and occasional outbreaks of war
No low rep or Chaotic Evil required but we certainly won't be coming to play all nice with you. If you can't defend what you have we will take it from you.
There will certainly be none of these gentlemens agreement to meet up for prearranged battles such as Lifedragn suggested back a ways.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Their culture won't change the game systems. I'm not really worried about a flood of Chaotic Evil Low Reputation players - they'll fall by the thousands. If they're not Chaotic Evil and Low Reputation, then I'm not really worried because they won't be doing the kinds of things that make some people avoid EVE.True, but if enough EvE players do come here, they will bring their culture in with them and those who avoid EvE will have a choice to make.Attracting the players who avoid EVE is not the same as repelling the players who embrace EVE.
Have I missed some information? I know CE-Low Rep is supposed to suck, but I was unaware it was to the point where they were essentially not a threat anymore.
If that is the case, I am still fine with the model. I was just unaware.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Their culture won't change the game systems. I'm not really worried about a flood of Chaotic Evil Low Reputation players - they'll fall by the thousands. If they're not Chaotic Evil and Low Reputation, then I'm not really worried because they won't be doing the kinds of things that make some people avoid EVE.Well there is a big assumption right there....whatever makes you think they will be low rep CE?
I don't think, and didn't say, they would necessarily be Chaotic Evil and Low Reputation. I considered two possibilities, only one of which was CE & Low Rep, and explained why neither worried me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Their culture won't change the game systems. I'm not really worried about a flood of Chaotic Evil Low Reputation players - they'll fall by the thousands. If they're not Chaotic Evil and Low Reputation, then I'm not really worried because they won't be doing the kinds of things that make some people avoid EVE.Have I missed some information? I know CE-Low Rep is supposed to suck, but I was unaware it was to the point where they were essentially not a threat anymore.
I'm referring to the Formation Combat system that is intended to give a cohesive unit of highly trained characters the ability to overwhelm much larger mobs.
You don't think when you look around the boards that a lot of people who are looking to run settlements with tiny organisations are going to get upset with groups coming in en masse and booting them out of their settlements then?
You don't think we will get the same sort of angst on the PfO forums that we get on the Eve forums when those nasty griefers come and kick over their sandcastle for no reason? (no reason according to the victim naturally)
I would expect if the eve null sec organisations do come here, and again it will only be if the game is successful. That most of the current groups here will not be part of the settlement warfare game except as cannon fodder in someone elses army.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You don't think when you look around the boards that a lot of people who are looking to run settlements with tiny organisations are going to get upset with groups coming in en masse and booting them out of their settlements then?
You don't think we will get the same sort of angst on the PfO forums that we get on the Eve forums when those nasty griefers come and kick over their sandcastle for no reason? (no reason according to the victim naturally)
I would expect if the eve null sec organisations do come here, and again it will only be if the game is successful. That most of the current groups here will not be part of the settlement warfare game except as cannon fodder in someone elses army.
I might disagree there. Eve players will have a distinct advantage when it comes to managing numbers, but I think there is room for relatively new powers to succeed.
If you can be defeated, dust yourself off, and get back in the game you might stand a chance.
An ability to put aside differences and form larger power structures will likely go far as well, if well maintained.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right, but do we know enough to say that not only will CE/LR suck and be content, but will be easily farmed content?
Or have I misread you and that was not what you were trying to say?
I was simply referring to these sentiments from Ryan:
Armies vs. Disorganized Opponents
As an amateur military historian, my opinion is that the efficacy of skirmishers vs. trained military forces is wishful thinking on the part of some posters.
Units were still fighting in formation up to the Civil War (when artillery and accurate firearms finally made them so dangerous that they had to be abandoned for trenches and the static battle lines of the first World War). Formations were the best way to both defend and attack, and formation based combat was the norm from the battles of ancient Egypt through several thousand years of history because it was simply better than all alternatives.
The Romans rolled over every barbarian horde they fought - from the British Isles through middle Europe across north Africa, into the Levant, down the Nile, and around the Black Sea - with the exception of rare cases when they got themselves into battle in terrain where their formations could not be used to effect (Black Forest in Germany) or where the conditions they fought in were so hostile that their ability to maintain unit cohesion was degraded beyond the point where they could function effectively (deep in the desert of the middle east).
An army posts sentinels and stands watch. They don't let random bands of barbarians ride up unmolested and into their camp at night. Armies are trained to get up and get into formation quickly even in the chaos of a surprise attack. Armies use scouts to find and fix the location of nearby hostile forces so they don't expose themselves to an unexpected assault. Armies rely on intelligence gathered from many points to prepare for battle, understanding the terrain, the weather, the ability to protect supply lines, the order of battle of the opposing force, the reinforcements that may be available, the relative capabilities of the opposing commanders, etc.
There's a good reason that professional armies dominate wars. It's because they win them.
Regardless of your opinion of my opinion, Pathfinder Online isn't real, and we have control over the game mechanical advantages to fighting in formation to ensure that they overwhelm disorganized opponent forces, so it won't be theoretical, it will simply be fact: .
(emphasis mine in last paragraph only)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like what I see because those systems are weapons to be used in war. The more complex the system the more loopholes we can use to subvert them to our own ends
I'm sure if any loopholes appear they'll be patched up.
Example if our group comes in we will pick the most mechanically advantageous alignment for us,set up a settlement and then we will start declaring wars...no rep loss no alignment loss. We will then continue to declare wars and sack settlements.
Working as intended. Have you revealed your cards? I'm sure many will want to spend their extra DI points towards you. :)
Of course, the more soldiers the more powerful a kingdom is.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Their culture won't change the game systems. I'm not really worried about a flood of Chaotic Evil Low Reputation players - they'll fall by the thousands. If they're not Chaotic Evil and Low Reputation, then I'm not really worried because they won't be doing the kinds of things that make some people avoid EVE.True, but if enough EvE players do come here, they will bring their culture in with them and those who avoid EvE will have a choice to make.Attracting the players who avoid EVE is not the same as repelling the players who embrace EVE.
Yes, because we have never seen this before... LOL. "Head, meet sand".
Why do you not consider that everyone will use formation combat, including the zergs, Including CE + Low Rep.... absolutely everyone?
Why do you assume that the most aggressive will be Chaotic Evil? Ryan has made it pretty clear there is no reason to roll your character as CE, but you can play that way.
As Steelwing has repeatedly said, what ever advantage or loop hole they can find, they will use it. I have said, alignment is of no importance and we will rubber band through alignment where ever we need to to accomplish out goals.
Reputation is only a factor if there is an imbalance of power as a result. If one settlement is the only source of high level crafting or skill training, that is a target on their backs. Do you think everyone else will idly sit buy and let them amass vast wealth and power, unchallenged?
Balance of Power due to jealousy will rule the day. They will tear the king off of his hill.
PFO will quickly turn into the equivalent of EVE's null sec Alliance vs. Alliance warfare, and there will be no room for the small, boutique style settlements to exist outside of that big cultural system.
The very systems that some here cling to, will be their settlements' undoing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ok let's say someone uses a tactic where any other alignment is allied with CE/LR because that way they gain some kind of combat advantage in wars. So this might be a loophole and if GW finds it creates a toxic atmosphere into the game, I'm sure they'll do something about it. It's their game. What do you think they want? To celebrate those people who discover loopholes?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Interesting.
Oh alright, you are saying they won't be a challenge in the land battle structure. That is fair.
I read wrongly that you were indicating they would likely not be a threat period. For example in the wilds or performing hit and runs on PoI's.
I expect that we'll be able to use Formation Combat anywhere we're likely to need to defend our interests against a huge mob. But you're right that that won't encompass all the scenarios we might face. I also expect the difference in training to be significant enough that a group of 6-8 highly trained good players will make life hard for a mob of 30-40 poorly trained good players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I expect that we'll be able to use Formation Combat anywhere we're likely to need to defend our interests against a huge mob. But you're right that that won't encompass all the scenarios we might face. I also expect the difference in training to be significant enough that a group of 6-8 highly trained good players will make life hard for a mob of 30-40 poorly trained good players.Interesting.
Oh alright, you are saying they won't be a challenge in the land battle structure. That is fair.
I read wrongly that you were indicating they would likely not be a threat period. For example in the wilds or performing hit and runs on PoI's.
Fair enough, thanks for the explanation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why do you not consider that everyone will use formation combat, including the zergs, Including CE + Low Rep.... absolutely everyone?
Training.
Why do you assume that the most aggressive will be Chaotic Evil?
I didn't make that assumption. My assumption is that the most random killers will be Chaotic Evil and Low Reputation. And that it's those random killers that make EVE toxic for a lot of folks.
As Steelwing has repeatedly said, what ever advantage or loop hole they can find, they will use it. I have said, alignment is of no importance and we will rubber band through alignment where ever we need to to accomplish out goals.
Reputation is only a factor if there is an imbalance of power as a result. If one settlement is the only source of high level crafting or skill training, that is a target on their backs. Do you think everyone else will idly sit buy and let them amass vast wealth and power, unchallenged?
Balance of Power due to jealousy will rule the day. They will tear the king off of his hill.
PFO will quickly turn into the equivalent of EVE's null sec Alliance vs. Alliance warfare, and there will be no room for the small, boutique style settlements to exist outside of that big cultural system.
The very systems that some here cling to, will be their settlements' undoing.
I have no doubt whatsoever that there will be large organizations from EVE that come to PFO and totally steamroll their enemies.
When I said I'm not worried about them, I meant I'm not worried about them turningo PFO into a murder simulator. I never meant to imply that I wasn't worried about them destroying my Settlement.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Speculating on formation warfare, especially when we have had so little information on it except that there is this concept called formation warfare may be previous.
Perhaps to sound a note of caution it may be worth waiting for some sort of blog before we assume it will allow us to lay waste to hordes and leap tall buildings in a single bound.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Speculating on formation warfare, especially when we have had so little information on it except that there is this concept called formation warfare may be previous.
Perhaps to sound a note of caution it may be worth waiting for some sort of blog before we assume it will allow us to lay waste to hordes and leap tall buildings in a single bound.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
GW has already demonstrated their intent to change individual PVP using rules and game mechanics, to be their version of good PVP. The same thing will no doubt happen with settlement warfare , it is easy to invent systems to prevent players from doing what they did in EVE or any other game. Players will look at what makes them the strongest and play the game that way , the game rules and mechanics can control behavior. A system to stop PFO from becoming a mega alliance dominated world is possible if GW wants to do it.
You're in the Army Now!Speculating on formation warfare, especially when we have had so little information on it except that there is this concept called formation warfare may be previous.
Perhaps to sound a note of caution it may be worth waiting for some sort of blog before we assume it will allow us to lay waste to hordes and leap tall buildings in a single bound.
And that blog has no figures or anything else to support any of the claims you have been making. It does little more than say there will be formation combat,it will require some training, this is how it may appear mechanically, this is what it is likely to be used for. It gives absolutely no facts nor figures.
From that you get 6 - 8 people defeating 30 or 40 people and small squads being able to fight off the hordes of chaos? I think it is fair enough to call that rampant speculation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An ability to put aside differences and form larger power structures will likely go far as well, if well maintained.
I think this will be something that happens again and again over the months and years ahead. On both the side of sandcastle kickers and the sandcastle kickees. And I am a strong proponent of avoiding any form of bridge burning because of it.
From the knowledge I have, it appears that TSV, Pax, and TEO (in no particular order) are the largest groups currently active and a lot of organizations large and small are already thinking about PFO Politics as it relates to these groups. My knowledge also assumes that if one of these factions comes to kick over your sandcastle, you are most likely going to have a pretty well-defined reason why. One problem is assuming that these organizations are going to continue to be the largest as we enter EE, and all bets are off come time for OE.
Let's just say for simplicity that these three remain The Big Three going into EE. They set up in locales they find favorable and use their sizes to remain stable points of power. The mid-size groups with no interest in aligning with one of these power will be kicking around smaller groups for the next choice of land. Smaller groups will have to learn to set aside their differences and come together if they have any hopes of getting ahead. When there are then too many mid-sized groups vying over lands, or mid-sized groups drooling over lands held by the big groups, they will start coming together with the goal of dislodging others.
Now to address another point. If the political landscape changes drastically from now to EE, then it is the big groups that will have the most difficulty adjusting. After a year or more of establishing and becoming bonded to an identity, only to find yourself having to change it in order to survive is challenging. And the larger the group, the more confident they become that their identity will not need to bend (much the way you see the rise and fall of national powers in real life).
The change in political landscape is inevitable, in my mind. The Big Three as it stands now are not likely to remain the Big Three for very long. Chances are that no member of The Big Three will still be in The Big Three in three or four year's time. But that is not to say that we will not survive and still be successful. These three groups may well find that they have more in common than they do with later newcomers who rise to the top. At that point, it could very well be that the ability to put aside differences and work together is the only thing that will allow us to retain our independent identities and thrive against larger adversaries.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't believe you!
While this is some nostalgic fun, to be fair I don't necessarily agree with your assessment numbers wise.
That said I am not sure debating what the actual numbers advantage is gets us anywhere. Those advantages will be what they will be.
I will say if it is as extreme as you have given as examples, I am not sure anyone will play CE/LR. That would be a little unfortunate loss of content.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
An ability to put aside differences and form larger power structures will likely go far as well, if well maintained.I think this will be something that happens again and again over the months and years ahead. On both the side of sandcastle kickers and the sandcastle kickees. And I am a strong proponent of avoiding any form of bridge burning because of it.
From the knowledge I have, it appears that TSV, Pax, and TEO (in no particular order) are the largest groups currently active and a lot of organizations large and small are already thinking about PFO Politics as it relates to these groups. My knowledge also assumes that if one of these factions comes to kick over your sandcastle, you are most likely going to have a pretty well-defined reason why. One problem is assuming that these organizations are going to continue to be the largest as we enter EE, and all bets are off come time for OE.
Let's just say for simplicity that these three remain The Big Three going into EE. They set up in locales they find favorable and use their sizes to remain stable points of power. The mid-size groups with no interest in aligning with one of these power will be kicking around smaller groups for the next choice of land. Smaller groups will have to learn to set aside their differences and come together if they have any hopes of getting ahead. When there are then too many mid-sized groups vying over lands, or mid-sized groups drooling over lands held by the big groups, they will start coming together with the goal of dislodging others.
Now to address another point. If the political landscape changes drastically from now to EE, then it is the big groups that will have the most difficulty adjusting. After a year or more of establishing and becoming bonded to an identity, only to find yourself having to change it in order to survive is challenging. And the larger the group, the more confident they become that their identity will not need to bend (much the way you see the rise and...
I agree some of your points, but not with big groups not adjusting well. I won't speak for any other organization, but we have changed quite a bit since our first announcement on these forums, and expect to change more as time moves forward.
The ability to rebound from a face melting defeat and changing direction in the face of new obstacles or information I would think will be pivatol to survival.
I also disagree that TSV, TEO, or Pax are really "big" in light of alliances in other land control games. I know what you are getting at, but comfort in our current numbers would be dangerous for any of us to fall into.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
From that you get 6 - 8 people defeating 30 or 40 people...
No. I get that from Nightdrifter's analysis of what we've been told so far about the combat system. My general understanding is that, ceteris paribus, 1 T3 = 4 T2 = 16 T1. That's also based on an assumption that even relatively Low Rep characters will have access to some T2 gear and skills (skills aren't really tiered, but it's a useful abstraction).
... and small squads being able to fight off the hordes of chaos?
I don't think I used the phrase "small squads". It's hard to tell because you don't provide a link or a quote, but I assume you're referring to this:
I'm referring to the Formation Combat system that is intended to give a cohesive unit of highly trained characters the ability to overwhelm much larger mobs.
I believe that's consistent with what Ryan was talking about in the post I linked above. It certainly feels consistent with the general impression I've gotten from reading other posts of his.
A well coordinated, cohesive unit acting in formation should be superior to almost any random force of zergs.
you specifically talked about 6-8 people beating 30 to 40
6-8 is a small squad and is a laughably small number when it comes to formation combat frankly. I would hope formation combat requires at least 20 to 30 people to even become viable as a tactic. But as with the rest of the information on formation combat it is an unknown.
What prompts me to post is your airy assumption it will all be ok because of formation combat.
It is also a stretch to believe that the figures nightdrifter calculated or the formation combat information has not undergone transformation frankly anything over a year old from the blogs is likely to have changed substantially, hell even 6 month old information can barely be regarded as much more than circumstantial evidence.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
you specifically talked about 6-8 people beating 30 to 40
6-8 is a small squad and is a laughably small number when it comes to formation combat frankly. I would hope formation combat requires at least 20 to 30 people to even become viable as a tactic.
Again, it would be helpful if you provided a link or a quote, if only so you could re-read it before making accusations.
I expect that we'll be able to use Formation Combat anywhere we're likely to need to defend our interests against a huge mob. But you're right that that won't encompass all the scenarios we might face. I expect the difference in training to be significant enough that a group of 6-8 highly trained good players will make life hard for a mob of 30-40 poorly trained good players.
There were two distinct things I said I expected. One was that a Formation would steamroll a much larger mob. The other is that a small squad of 6-8 would "make life hard" for a mob of 30-40 "poorly trained" good players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What prompts me to post is your airy assumption it will all be ok because of formation combat.
I didn't post that it would "all be ok". I posted that "I wasn't worried". That's my persona opinion, even if it is based on similar statements from Ryan. I'm having trouble finding it right now, but I believe Ryan specifically suggested Formation Combat would be a powerful balancing tool against goon-style hordes, which was the topic of conversation when I made my post.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
To be clear, I think Alliance warfare in EVE is pretty spectacular. There are problems with it, of course, since it's essentially the first attempt at such a thing, but over all it works amazingly well. It requires people to form large, cohesive groups. It requires those groups to engage in a wide variety of game play - exploration, mining, crafting, and combat. It requires people to develop the ability to act in large numbers "under orders". It requires money management. It requires discipline to remove disruptive members. It requires security policies to be formulated and followed.
It requires people to gain specialist knowledge of a wide range of tactics, including scouting, fleet management, retreating in good order, toe-to-toe brawling, long distance sniping, skirmishing, and defensive warfare.
Of course it took 2+ years to even begin being that robust. EVE released in May of 2003. There were effectively 3 Exodus releases which took until December of 2005 to fully deploy. The ability to claim a star system was added a year after launch. Not until the last of the Exodus expansions was implemented did the biggest and most powerful ships (Titans) enter the game.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
Ryan specifically suggested Formation Combat would be a powerful balancing tool against goon-style hordes, which was the topic of conversation when I made my post.
Assuming reasonably skilled players, formations should always defeat mobs. That said, the Goons made a strategy out of fielding huge fleets of low-powered characters and ships with excellent fleet command, not simply chaotically flying all over the battlefield. If the Goons fielded a huge army of low power characters in formation, they will likely have a lot of success.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Since you are obviously a fan of big alliances, don't you see how the one-step alignment requirements for Kingdom - Settlement - Company places a limit on their formation?
Will it? Why won't non-roleplayers just set an alignment for their settlement and have everyone stay within one-step? And can't groups from different settlements work together, even if they have different alignments? (they might not be formally aligned. Is that a game-killer?)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Since you are obviously a fan of big alliances, don't you see how the one-step alignment requirements for Kingdom - Settlement - Company places a limit on their formation?Will it? Why won't non-roleplayers just set an alignment for their settlement and have everyone stay within one-step? And can't groups from different settlements work together, even if they have different alignments? (they might not be formally aligned. Is that a game-killer?)
We expect to do just that. My only concern is for the uninformed players coming into the game, setting their alignment to something we don't support and then being left out in the dark when they decide they want to join up. I forget, have they said that there is a way for core alignment to shift after character creation? I understand that all of that stuff is still TBD, but I can't remember what we know right now.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
*Devil's Advocate*
Maybe the two most important questions are:
1. Is it worth designing the restrictions if they are easy to work around for meta gamed alliances and/or people that don't care about alignment?
2. What can be done to prevent or curb #1, and keep the system as described?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Pax Morbis, I think we've been told a character can always shift core alignment to her current active alignment.
I agree that could be an issue - character creation without full knowledge is always a bit iffy. I'd almost like the characters to have some time in the game before finalizing the process.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
'Time based advancement? I'll never catch up" and "spreadsheets in space" are the two most common reasons I have heard.
Mine has always been "I played it for a month, and it turns out the game is really boring for me". It is a game that has extremely large gaps of doing nothing at all sprinkled with some of the very best gaming possible. I very, very rarely hear people say they don't want to try EvE because of the game culture.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Ryan
Since you are obviously a fan of big alliances, don't you see how the one-step alignment requirements for Kingdom - Settlement - Company places a limit on their formation?
I have largely been on the same page that one step alignment might be too strict, but the recent Unrest and Corruption mechanics actually work strongly into this if you assume the GW is trying to make LG behavior the most appealing as a counter to a perceived (whether real or not) default trend to the, far too often referenced but I will do it again, Lord of the Flies scenario.
If you consider the One Step alignment requirements in the whole picture of trade-offs by settlement alignment then it actually becomes a fairly important mechanic. When you look across the spectrum of 'mechanical advantage' the king appears to be a well-run Lawful Good settlement with High Reputation limits. This appears to me to be a scenario where all members of a settlement are engaging in the forms of play that GW is putting a development focus on promoting (not that a lack of promotion means a given behavior inherently unfavorable in moderate amounts). The worst settlement to have is a poorly-run Lawful Good settlement which actually finds itself worse off than a Chaotic Evil settlement of similar size, reputation, and management skill.
Viewing the whole problem from the opposite direction actually causes a lot of things make sense to me that did not before. Instead of viewing Lawful Good as the default position because it offers the most advantage and beating Chaotic Evil with a stick, what is actually going on is that the devs are looking at Chaotic Evil as the way these games tend to go and are trying to give a carrot to players who behave better. In order to ensure that players are not creating LG settlements just for the advantage and then filling them with CE players, or LG players acting in CE ways, is to punish a settlement for allowing those types of behaviors to go on.
Ultimately, the One Step alignment system is an added tier to help prevent gaming the alignment system. It naturally appears that there are tons of holes in it now, but we also have an incomplete picture.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*Devil's Advocate*
Maybe the two most important questions are:
1. Is it worth designing the restrictions if they are easy to work around for meta gamed alliances and/or people that don't care about alignment?
If it is 'worth it' to attempt to increase the number of quality players willing to engage in PvP, and there are quality players in the RP and PvE communities, AND the restrictions so designed are implemented then yes, it is worth designing and implementing the restrictions. If the system is gamed as surely it will be then it will be tweaked. Restructured. Simplified. Made more complicated. Whatever it takes, it is vital <pounds podium with the heel of his shoe>, if PvP is to survive in this era of every player wins flattery ongoing in computer games, that PvP attract more able players. If it takes having rules in a game (which is the difference between a game and a virtual environment) then it must be successfully done.
It will not be avoided: the system will fail. It will have to be rebuilt. It will have to be adjusted incessantly.
But there is no alternative unless we are willing to lose the game of Gaming.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whatever it takes, it is vital <pounds podium with the heel of his shoe>, if PvP is to survive in this era of every player wins flattery ongoing in computer games, that PvP attract more able players.
No. You seem to have a false understanding of the current market trends. PvP games aren't dying, in fact the two most played games in the world are both almost entirely PvP based (League of Legends and World of Tanks). The competitive, player versus player market doesn't need any help to survive. If anything it seems to be the PvE focused games that are really struggling to keep themselves above water.
Pathfinder Online could probably survive without roleplayers and PvE-only players quite easily. Obviously that isn't the vision that the developers are aiming for, and obviously that isn't what is going to end up happening. But lets not pretend that PvP gamers are needing rescued here. The “game” in “gaming” has never been more apparent.