Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think one problem with Faction Warfare is that it is never ending and achieves nothing over that long period of time.
Could, after years of warfare, The Hellknights be driven from the River Kingdoms?
If the answer to that example is "No" then the faction wars will be without meaning, in the long term.
Even if GW does show some changes over time, if those changes are artificial and don't match up with the results of player involvement, factions will again be meaningless.
In another thread Ryan was writing about how "storytelling" has been virtually wiped out of MMOs. That is because the players have not been able to make an impact on the game world. either individually or collectively.
We are not talking about a Theme Park MMO here, we should be thinking of PFO as being a game we experience for many years, perhaps even more than a decade. I know that is wishful thinking on my part, but then again, if you asked me about EVE in 2004 I wouldn't have thought I'd still be playing it in 2014.
How is the original suggestion different from joining one of the settlements named after colors that are in a permanent state of war with each other?How are pandas different from alligators? They're both animals afterall...Would you make boots out of panda leather? Mucklucks??
No, but I'd love a pair of panda slippers.
Then explain the difference, don't just state that there is one and imply that everyone should see the point already.They're so different, there's really no reason to compare the two. The only thing they have in common, is that they're both PvP systems.How is the original suggestion different from joining one of the settlements named after colors that are in a permanent state of war with each other?How are pandas different from alligators? They're both animals afterall...Panda's nurse their young, have hair, and maintain a fairly constant internal temperature. Alligators lay eggs, have leathery skin, and are cold-blooded.
How is the original suggestion meaningfully different from joining one of the settlements named after colors that are in a permanent state of war with each other?
I'd prefer someone explain to me what the heck those two systems have in common. lol
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd prefer someone explain to me what the heck those two systems have in common. lolThen explain the difference, don't just state that there is one and imply that everyone should see the point already.They're so different, there's really no reason to compare the two. The only thing they have in common, is that they're both PvP systems.How is the original suggestion different from joining one of the settlements named after colors that are in a permanent state of war with each other?How are pandas different from alligators? They're both animals afterall...Panda's nurse their young, have hair, and maintain a fairly constant internal temperature. Alligators lay eggs, have leathery skin, and are cold-blooded.
How is the original suggestion meaningfully different from joining one of the settlements named after colors that are in a permanent state of war with each other?
Respectfully, the more you dodge the question, the more I doubt you have a valid point.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Respectfully, the more you dodge the question, the more I doubt you have a valid point.I'd prefer someone explain to me what the heck those two systems have in common. lolThen explain the difference, don't just state that there is one and imply that everyone should see the point already.They're so different, there's really no reason to compare the two. The only thing they have in common, is that they're both PvP systems.How is the original suggestion different from joining one of the settlements named after colors that are in a permanent state of war with each other?How are pandas different from alligators? They're both animals afterall...Panda's nurse their young, have hair, and maintain a fairly constant internal temperature. Alligators lay eggs, have leathery skin, and are cold-blooded.
How is the original suggestion meaningfully different from joining one of the settlements named after colors that are in a permanent state of war with each other?
It is getting kind of difficult to figure out which quotes go to whom
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is getting kind of difficult to figure out which quotes go to whomRespectfully, the more you dodge the question, the more I doubt you have a valid point.I'd prefer someone explain to me what the heck those two systems have in common. lolThen explain the difference, don't just state that there is one and imply that everyone should see the point already.They're so different, there's really no reason to compare the two. The only thing they have in common, is that they're both PvP systems.How is the original suggestion different from joining one of the settlements named after colors that are in a permanent state of war with each other?How are pandas different from alligators? They're both animals afterall...Panda's nurse their young, have hair, and maintain a fairly constant internal temperature. Alligators lay eggs, have leathery skin, and are cold-blooded.
How is the original suggestion meaningfully different from joining one of the settlements named after colors that are in a permanent state of war with each other?
I stopped trying. Lol
/thread
It is getting kind of difficult to figure out which quotes go to whomRespectfully, the more you dodge the question, the more I doubt you have a valid point.I'd prefer someone explain to me what the heck those two systems have in common. lolThen explain the difference, don't just state that there is one and imply that everyone should see the point already.They're so different, there's really no reason to compare the two. The only thing they have in common, is that they're both PvP systems.How is the original suggestion different from joining one of the settlements named after colors that are in a permanent state of war with each other?How are pandas different from alligators? They're both animals afterall...Panda's nurse their young, have hair, and maintain a fairly constant internal temperature. Alligators lay eggs, have leathery skin, and are cold-blooded.
How is the original suggestion meaningfully different from joining one of the settlements named after colors that are in a permanent state of war with each other?
I stopped trying. Lol
/thread
The point of this thread was really to discuss a one-flag system over the NPC faction system, and that point has been sorely missed.
As far as DeciusBrutus's question, I'm not even sure he read the OP, because if he had, I don't think I would've gotten that ?,
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Whoa, whoa, guys. Let's make something clear:
This thread is meant to discuss OPT-IN PvP, as compared to the OPT-IN PvP system which IS ALREADY in the game (NPC Factions), and the previous iterations of Opt-In PvP (the Crusader flag, Assassin Flag system).
The way I perceive the things highlighted above was not as systems to opt OUT or IN of/to PvP but rather opt OUT or IN of/in varying levels of consequences of PvP in favor of bonuses or freedom of action. All that while never being able to actually opt out of PvP itself by default or by choice. Most of the discussions nowadays are about the levels and where they should be.
In contrast the OP reads as if the default would be opted out of PvP all together.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guys guys guys.
What if there were a button that made you hostile (the game state) to everyone in the game? They could all attack you consequence free all the time so they aren't dependent on wars, feuds, or faction conflict to pvp?
tl;dr I'm a genius.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
##Intermission: This trailer is brought to you for your viewing entertainment while you collect refreshments##
##End of Intermission - get back to your seats the main feature is about to restart###
I think this is sort of the ultimate goal of whatever OW{PvP, PvE} system is used. To make a full Open World you integrate both. You need sliding scale of more proximity to PvP and more proximity to PvE based on the territory warfare above but obviously going for settlement islands connected into landmasses of nations and alliances.
Looking at the macro (map of territory control above) and the micro (flags between individuals) is important equally.
I don't see why PvE'ers can be part of the baggage train or logistical supply lines to the front lines or whatever version PFO ends up having of that while the most bloodthirsty pvp'ers form professional armies payed off levied taxes of the population.
Concerning different approaches:
1. PvE separate from PvP
2. Zones or lakes for PvP
3. Flag on/off PvP
4. Gradations of PvP risk eg Open World Sec (EVE)
5. Flags and gradations of type of PvP (PFO, Age of Wushu)
Seems to me to keep pushing further to innovate PvP?
Flag on/off appears to be back-tracking design idea away from PvP reducing interactions.
What you want is to increase different types of interaction of PvP not kill or be killed only. Even PvP where eg SAD occurs or some non-lethal ""combat"" (battle of wits). Etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Roleplaying reasons are never a good basis for making game mechanics decisions.
...for the approximately 22% of players not interested in story, thinking, or strategy.
Qallz, although your point of view regarding game design is that of a significant portion of the general player base, it is not the only one, and not PoV of the majority. You are outnumbered approximately three to one.
For an approximately equal share of the player base role-playing reasons are indeed the best basis for making game mechanic decisions, and for both other shares RP mechanics add complexity.
Your assertion is therefore a false one.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since there's almost certainly going to be the Red and Blue CCs or settlements, and nobody can explain what the OP would do other than create the ability for certain people to play a FFA PvP game using the same software as PFO, /thread.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Roleplaying reasons are never a good basis for making game mechanics decisions....for the approximately 22% of players not interested in story, thinking, or strategy.
Qallz, although your point of view regarding game design is that of a significant portion of the general player base, it is not the only one, and not PoV of the majority. You are outnumbered approximately three to one.
For an approximately equal share of the player base role-playing reasons are indeed the best basis for making game mechanic decisions, and for both other shares RP mechanics add complexity.
Your assertion is therefore a false one.
LOL. Dude, we can talk all day about how many people like what, who agrees with what, on and on. Truth is not a simple matter of addition.
BOOM! Shakalaka!
Edit: oh my bad. For a second I thought this thread was NBA Jam and Decius scored a slam dunk.
And people say I don't contribute.
Since there's almost certainly going to be the Red and Blue CCs or settlements, and nobody can explain what the OP would do other than create the ability for certain people to play a FFA PvP game using the same software as PFO, /thread.
Explain to me why giving the people who want to PvP more options to do so without forcing anyone who doesn't want to engage in any more PvP would be a problem for you.
If anything this would allow the PvP'ers to blow off steam
What I don't understand, is why people are all the sudden treating this as a NEW concept entirely, and then debating the validity of that concept.
Guess what? Giving PvP'ers the opportunity to engage in MOAR consensual PvP "using the same software", as you say, was the very REASON Ryan, Tork, and GW implemented the original PvP flagging system in the first place, and then the modified NPC Faction system.
Both had the same goal in mind: Allowing PvP'ers to have more opportunities to PvP consensually, and this system is no different. It's just a one-flag, simplistic, modification of the original PvP flag system.
On that note, carebears should be THRILLED with a system like this. Why? It allows the PvP'ers to blow off steam on eachother. What happens when you leave a lid on boiling water for too long?
The equivalent of that would be people just saying "Screw it" and just disregarding the reputation system entirely, giving the world CE Kingdoms left and right who's sole goal in the game is to abuse the reputation system as much as possible and wreck the time for all the PvE'ers.
I did address one of your posts earlier.And people say I don't contribute.BOOM! Shakalaka!
Edit: oh my bad. For a second I thought this thread was NBA Jam and Decius scored a slam dunk.
You gave a clarification which I already gave earlier in this thread, but whatever, I'm not bothered by your booms, or your shakalakas.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Since there's almost certainly going to be the Red and Blue CCs or settlements, and nobody can explain what the OP would do other than create the ability for certain people to play a FFA PvP game using the same software as PFO, /thread.Explain to me why giving the people who want to PvP more options to do so without forcing anyone who doesn't want to engage in any more PvP would be a problem for you.
Because developer time is fixed, and if they spend time on features that don't add anything valuable then some other feature suffers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because developer time is fixed, and if they spend time on features that don't add anything valuable then some other feature suffers.Since there's almost certainly going to be the Red and Blue CCs or settlements, and nobody can explain what the OP would do other than create the ability for certain people to play a FFA PvP game using the same software as PFO, /thread.Explain to me why giving the people who want to PvP more options to do so without forcing anyone who doesn't want to engage in any more PvP would be a problem for you.
I'm glad to hear that's the argument you're going with. It takes about two seconds to add in an Opt-In PvP flagging system which I described in the OP. Simple ruleset changes, that's all. Making emotes, or allowing people to sit in chairs... WAY more time-consuming.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Because developer time is fixed, and if they spend time on features that don't add anything valuable then some other feature suffers.
Exactly how I feel about alignment and reputation systems while we all have to wait for years, to get all of the core classes and races.
Would you like to put those: Alignment / Reputation vs Core Classes / Races head-to-head in a poll?
I have been noticing a trend lately, of people favoring their own posts.
I find it strange.
I started it. If I favorite a post of mine, it's because it's one which I genuinely like.
And I'm not the only one who does it.
I also favorite other people's posts too, more often than my own in fact.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do as well, but I think one is hardly a trendI have been noticing a trend lately, of people favoring their own posts.
I find it strange.
No, one is not a trend. As I said "I have noticed people". As in plural. I am not sure if it is an old practice or new. I just recently noticed it.
I do find it strange though.
Boredom made me speak of it here.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm glad to hear that's the argument you're going with. It takes about two seconds to add in an Opt-In PvP flagging system which I described in the OP. Simple ruleset changes, that's all. Making emotes, or allowing people to sit in chairs... WAY more time-consuming.Because developer time is fixed, and if they spend time on features that don't add anything valuable then some other feature suffers.Since there's almost certainly going to be the Red and Blue CCs or settlements, and nobody can explain what the OP would do other than create the ability for certain people to play a FFA PvP game using the same software as PFO, /thread.Explain to me why giving the people who want to PvP more options to do so without forcing anyone who doesn't want to engage in any more PvP would be a problem for you.
I agree with your conclusion then: The developers should not spend more than a couple of seconds on such a system.
I agree with your conclusion then.I'm glad to hear that's the argument you're going with. It takes about two seconds to add in an Opt-In PvP flagging system which I described in the OP. Simple ruleset changes, that's all. Making emotes, or allowing people to sit in chairs... WAY more time-consuming.Because developer time is fixed, and if they spend time on features that don't add anything valuable then some other feature suffers.Since there's almost certainly going to be the Red and Blue CCs or settlements, and nobody can explain what the OP would do other than create the ability for certain people to play a FFA PvP game using the same software as PFO, /thread.Explain to me why giving the people who want to PvP more options to do so without forcing anyone who doesn't want to engage in any more PvP would be a problem for you.
Thanks.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because opt-in PvP is not meaningful in a larger sense.
Option A: "I killed that guy, because he was flying blue's colors, and I'm flying red's"
Option B: "I killed that guy, because now we have control of this iron mine."
The game doesn't just seek to create interaction for interaction's sake, they want *meaningful* interaction.
There are plenty of games where people can kill each other for no reason. This will not be one of them. If that is not your cup of tea, that is your loss.
Because opt-in PvP is not meaningful in a larger sense.
Option A: "I killed that guy, because he was flying blue's colors, and I'm flying red's"
Option B: "I killed that guy, because now we have control of this iron mine."
The game doesn't just seek to create interaction for interaction's sake, they want *meaningful* interaction.
There are plenty of games where people can kill each other for no reason. This will not be one of them. If that is not your cup of tea, that is your loss.
But that's based on the presumption that allowing a system like the one I mentioned in the OP will "take away" from the "meaningful" systems.
To be clear:
I like the SAD system.
I like the Wars/Feuds.
I like any sort of caravan PvP system (where rep isn't damaged).
I like the fight over resources, and the dynamic it creates.
I don't think that allowing the "Opt-In" system I described in the OP will take away from any of those other systems.
Edit: In fact, it will only ADD to those systems, as I said before, by allowing the PvP'ers to blow off steam on each other, when they get bored, instead of just saying "screw Rep" all together, and going Chaotic Evil crazy Gangam style on everybody.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Because you are then providing a method that does not have a purpose. The developers want to channel that PvP urge into something meaningful and constructive. The PvE types will be out there largely fighting monsters and escalations, to build the city. The PvP types will be fighting wars to determine territory in which the PvE types work. PvP is a perfectly valid playstyle. GoblinWorks just wants to take that PvP and make it matter.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Because opt-in PvP is not meaningful in a larger sense.
Option A: "I killed that guy, because he was flying blue's colors, and I'm flying red's"
Option B: "I killed that guy, because now we have control of this iron mine."
The game doesn't just seek to create interaction for interaction's sake, they want *meaningful* interaction.
There are plenty of games where people can kill each other for no reason. This will not be one of them. If that is not your cup of tea, that is your loss.
But that's based on the presumption that allowing a system like the one I mentioned in the OP will "take away" from the "meaningful" systems.
To be clear:
I like the SAD system.
I like the Wars/Feuds.
I like any sort of caravan PvP system (where rep isn't damaged).
I like the fight over resources, and the dynamic it creates.
I don't think that allowing the "Opt-In" system I described in the OP will take away from any of those other systems.
Edit: In fact, it will only ADD to those systems, as I said before, by allowing the PvP'ers to blow off steam on each other, when they get bored, instead of just saying "screw Rep" all together, and going Chaotic Evil crazy Gangam style on everybody.
Dear Qallz,
I have a feeling that one of the types of people that GW wants to attract and keep (mostly) are those that do not get bored and lose all self control.
You could be one of those people.
Because you are then providing a method that does not have a purpose.
I think escalation cycles will be rare enough that when they get out of control, everyone will be forced to fight them to protect their settlement (and by everyone, I mean the PvE'ers and PvP'ers).
That being said, again, it does have a purpose: Giving PvP'ers who want more opportunities to PvP the right to do so. I'm starting to think the PvE'ers are just against it because they don't want anything the PvP'ers want by default, without really considering how such a system will affect them. In this case, it handles the overspill for when PvP'ers get bored of the other PvP systems in place, instead of just deciding that having a -7500 rep doesn't really bother them that much anymore.
Because opt-in PvP is not meaningful in a larger sense.
Option A: "I killed that guy, because he was flying blue's colors, and I'm flying red's"
Option B: "I killed that guy, because now we have control of this iron mine."
The game doesn't just seek to create interaction for interaction's sake, they want *meaningful* interaction.
There are plenty of games where people can kill each other for no reason. This will not be one of them. If that is not your cup of tea, that is your loss.
But that's based on the presumption that allowing a system like the one I mentioned in the OP will "take away" from the "meaningful" systems.
To be clear:
I like the SAD system.
I like the Wars/Feuds.
I like any sort of caravan PvP system (where rep isn't damaged).
I like the fight over resources, and the dynamic it creates.
I don't think that allowing the "Opt-In" system I described in the OP will take away from any of those other systems.
Edit: In fact, it will only ADD to those systems, as I said before, by allowing the PvP'ers to blow off steam on each other, when they get bored, instead of just saying "screw Rep" all together, and going Chaotic Evil crazy Gangam style on everybody.
Dear Qallz,
I have a feeling that one of the types of people that GW wants to attract and keep (mostly) are those that do not get bored and lose all self control.
You could be one of those people.
Who they WANT to attract, and who they inevitably WILL attract are two different matters entirely, and whether or not I personally lose control or not isn't really relevant to the game as a whole, just to the millions of innocents who would inevitably be slaughtered in my wake. (j/k, of course).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, let us hope that you can keep The Beast bottled as much as possible then. :)
My take on it is that GW wants to and will attract all sorts of players. Those that can adjust to the new (sort of) way that this game plays out will stay.
Some of those that detest PVP will hopefully come to see that it is far more interesting if it is meaningful and hopefully stay.
Some of those that adore completely free PVP will hopefully come to realize that it is far more interesting if it is more meaningful and consequential and stay.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because you are then providing a method that does not have a purpose. The developers want to channel that PvP urge into something meaningful and constructive. The PvE types will be out there largely fighting monsters and escalations, to build the city. The PvP types will be fighting wars to determine territory in which the PvE types work. PvP is a perfectly valid playstyle. GoblinWorks just wants to take that PvP and make it matter.
Part of the settlement vs. settlement conflict is to prevent your rivals from getting the resources to develope their settlement, to build siege weapons, etc.. That means part of the PvP will be directed at robbing and even killing PvE types hoping to avoid PvP types.
Because you are then providing a method that does not have a purpose. The developers want to channel that PvP urge into something meaningful and constructive. The PvE types will be out there largely fighting monsters and escalations, to build the city. The PvP types will be fighting wars to determine territory in which the PvE types work. PvP is a perfectly valid playstyle. GoblinWorks just wants to take that PvP and make it matter.Part of the settlement vs. settlement conflict is to prevent your rivals from getting the resources to develope their settlement, to build siege weapons, etc.. That means part of the PvP will be directed at robbing and even killing PvE types hoping to avoid PvP types.
Yea, that's another thing. The "Opt-In" PvP'ers WILL serve a role, or in fact, several roles. They'll be the "militant" wing of every single Settlement or Company. They'll be the first line of defense against the Gatherers and Miners, allowing them to do their job, while other PvP'ers come to take what they have.
If the PvP attackers successfully kill your defenders, you'll get SAD'd for everything you've got. If your peeps win out, you'll be able to keep mining in peace, and will make a fortune off your resources when you can bring them home safely to give to the Experts.
Well, let us hope that you can keep The Beast bottled as much as possible then. :)
My take on it is that GW wants to and will attract all sorts of players. Those that can adjust to the new (sort of) way that this game plays out will stay.
Some of those that detest PVP will hopefully come to see that it is far more interesting if it is meaningful and hopefully stay.
Some of those that adore completely free PVP will hopefully come to realize that it is far more interesting if it is more meaningful and consequential and stay.
I agree with some of your points here, but, I've seen massive polls which suggest that the MMO community is divided into about 40% of people who are more PvP-oriented, and 60% PvE-oriented.
The PvE'ers have a whole bucket-list of games they can enjoy, including WoW, the PvP'ers have been starved of a decent game for FAR too long now, and we're hungry...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, let us hope that you can keep The Beast bottled as much as possible then. :)
My take on it is that GW wants to and will attract all sorts of players. Those that can adjust to the new (sort of) way that this game plays out will stay.
Some of those that detest PVP will hopefully come to see that it is far more interesting if it is meaningful and hopefully stay.
Some of those that adore completely free PVP will hopefully come to realize that it is far more interesting if it is more meaningful and consequential and stay.
I agree with some of your points here, but, I've seen massive polls which suggest that the MMO community is divided into about 40% of people who are more PvP-oriented, and 60% PvE-oriented.
The PvE'ers have a whole bucket-list of games they can enjoy, including WoW, the PvP'ers have been starved of a decent game for FAR too long now, and we're hungry...
Well you should be happy then. While we aren't exactly sure as to all of the "hows", it is clear (to me at least) that GW is designing something in the middle of the two extreme camps. Something that, in my opinion, is a little bit more toward the PVP camp.
I am hoping that it will attract enough brave PVE preferenced players that there will be a nice juicy population and all sorts of people to meet, kill, trade with, protect, etc... Instead of a full blown PVP game that starts with an ok crowd that dwindles for lack of real meaningful play, like most of the others have.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
LOL. Dude, we can talk all day about how many people like what, who agrees with what, on and on. Truth is not a simple matter of addition.
Yep, but just because you view the world through those two eyes, it doesn't make you the center of the universe.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because opt-in PvP is not meaningful in a larger sense.
Option A: "I killed that guy, because he was flying blue's colors, and I'm flying red's"
Option B: "I killed that guy, because now we have control of this iron mine."
The game doesn't just seek to create interaction for interaction's sake, they want *meaningful* interaction.
There are plenty of games where people can kill each other for no reason. This will not be one of them. If that is not your cup of tea, that is your loss.
But that's based on the presumption that allowing a system like the one I mentioned in the OP will "take away" from the "meaningful" systems.
To be clear:
I like the SAD system.
I like the Wars/Feuds.
I like any sort of caravan PvP system (where rep isn't damaged).
I like the fight over resources, and the dynamic it creates.
I don't think that allowing the "Opt-In" system I described in the OP will take away from any of those other systems.
Edit: In fact, it will only ADD to those systems, as I said before, by allowing the PvP'ers to blow off steam on each other, when they get bored, instead of just saying "screw Rep" all together, and going Chaotic Evil crazy Gangam style on everybody.
It adds to it in the sense of diluting a fine whiskey with tepid water.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the PvP is tepid, then the game will be in trouble. We don't need meaningless PvP. We need the contextual dynamic of player characters interacting in the River Kingdoms as if the things going on there are important to them and not merely a dusty arena where the gladiators strut their epeens around for one another. The game should have LIFE to make victory and defeat meaningful.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the PvP is tepid, then the game will be in trouble. We don't need meaningless PvP. We need the contextual dynamic of player characters interacting in the River Kingdoms as if the things going on there are important to them and not merely a dusty arena where the gladiators strut their epeens around for one another. The game should have LIFE to make victory and defeat meaningful.
This is my hope as well. However, I don't see that self flagging before an action takes away from that. It is simply an indicator for all to see you are willing to engage in PvP. It is up to the players to create the meaningful interaction to explain why they will choose to fight.
In Fallen Earth many PvP flagged motorcycle clubs would gather together at various bars, sometime numbering over 100 characters inside and outside of the bar. PvP was rarely immediate. All kinds if interactions would take place, from racing in the street to dancing in the bar.
Sometimes, although rarely, the fight would never happen and everyone would part ways. Sometimes the fight would remain isolated to just a few or even just a pair of fighters. Other times it would break out into an all out brawl.
Self flagging allows for that, without having to start with the spark first.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Perhaps you could self-flag any of the ones mentioned eg bandit etc etc before you enter an area perhaps maybe 4 hexes around or so on and if you don't pre-flag you can't flag in that area afterwards so you can't perform that action without putting your intention in place by self-flagging?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Perhaps you could self-flag any of the ones mentioned eg bandit etc etc before you enter an area perhaps maybe 4 hexes around or so on and if you don't pre-flag you can't flag in that area afterwards so you can't perform that action without putting your intention in place by self-flagging?
I think the whole point is to have one flag, just a generic PvP flag. Intentions are sometimes secret or at least not advertised publicly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd say one generic flag is too gross.
You are always liable to PvP is a must.
But what type of flag you put on ad hoc, influences your reputation gain/loss from encounters which then gives you access to that change and the flag stays in place for a duration of time.
So PvP is always permissible. What you're changing is the reputation you're setting yourself up for from:
- bandit
- merchant
- guard
- assassin
etc.
You might even limit what skills you have as well?
I'm just dashing this idea off very sketchily atm but the idea is taking those roles on temporarily adding restrictions but accessing capacities.
Maybe it will force the the player to play the role more?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the flag type could be dtermined by what action was taking. Instead if the flag limiting your. Role, your action identifies the role you just participated in.
Your abilities (skills) are your abilities, it is more important how you use them, not which ones you have.
Every role you listed I may find myself doing. A guard does not have exclusive skills an Assassin can be a "guard", a bandit becomes a merchant when he hauls his loot to market, etc...