The one-flag system could be used to just give someone MOAR opportunities to PvP with other PvP'ers, and, if it is, so what? If you don't flag, I don't see how it hurts YOUR personal play experience (as I've said many times in this thread, it encourages PvP'ers to be more likely to leave the carebears alone, and focus on one another).
But, what's the real reason for such a flag? Freedom.
A sandbox game is all about Freeom, and a one-flag system such as described gives anyone who intends to play a much more "militant" role, the ability to do so.
The incentives are good enough, and the duration LONG enough (60 day ramp-up) so that if someone intends to play a militant role, they'll all be flagged.
It would take care of a lot of petty issues and annoyances with the Repuation system, like... how far away from a Settlement will the FFA PvP zone be? How can people attack a mining operation without fear of Rep loss (since stealing valuable resources is a valid means of PvP).
If there's a group with multiple guilds at the edge of my Settlement hex or in a bordering Wilderness hex, I can't declare War on them all (obviously) but I know that my PvP window is about to drop, and they'll come on hard, and I'd like to hit them with a surprise attack before they get near my Settlement, how can I do that without losing Rep? Well, you send your large, militant group of Opt-ins to go kill THEIR militant Opt-ins, and if the others join in, then you can kill them too.
As I said, it gives freedom, and let's the steam out for PvP'ers.
Right now, I feel like the PvP in PFO is sort of "PvP-on-rails".
Sure, I can SAD anyone at any time, but a LOT is lost when I have to walk up to someone and formally SAD them, as compared to just ambushing them (and as I've said before, it's a HUGE advantage to melee'ers, and a huge DISadvantage to ranged attackers).
I can attack anyone I'm warring feuding with, but only with major DI costs, and I can't attack their allies without rep loss (which is far too painful), and I can't
I can't attack an ally of an enemy guild who I see out in the wild. If people cleverly set up multiple guilds, or have unguilded affiliated people as a way of giving themselves means of gathering resources by forcing enemy guilds to either declare a million wars, or, to attack them with rep loss, then at least I can go over, kill the flagged guards, and then SAD whatever merchants are left over (rather than giving up all element of surprise and trying to SAD everyone, which, isn't really an intended use of that system anyways [SAD'ing large groups of people to start large PvP battles]). People forget that the abuse of the Reputation system goes both ways. People fill find countless ways of abusing the Rep system to AVOID PvP, AND still be able to gather all the resources they need, and do whatever else it is they want to do in the process.
If you want to make the Reputation system as painful as it is (taking months to regain the rep for one kill) you have to give such a suffocating system room to blow off steam, because if you don't you'll just have countless people abusing the Rep system or ignoring so hard that it will have to be repealed entirely.
This one-flag system is about Freedom, not about pointless killing. But, if there's some pointless killing involved for the people who knowingly CHOOSE to sign up for it, then so what? That doesn't hurt the people who aren't a part of it...
I see nothing this one-flag system gives you that furthers the goals of PFO. If you want more meaningless PVP, there are other games.
Did you not read the giant post I just made only 15 minutes which is located only 2 posts above this one?
And in regards to the meaningless PvP in other games, I'd love an example. lol
Call of Duty.
And yes, I read that post. It provided nothing I'd consider a boon to the current system. You just want more meaningless PvP. I get that.
HAHA. I knew you couldn't give me a real example. I wouldn't consider a FPS a suitable equivalent.
Also, blatantly denying everything I said in that post rather than trying to debate it is an ego-protecting way of admitting defeat, because if you had any real points, you would've made them. I get that.
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a feeling that we (the posters) can't even agree about what "meaningless PVP" is, much the same as not agreeing what "RPK" or "griefing" is.
Without agreeable definitions of at least some of the terminology, you just have a never ending debate.
@ Qallz
These boons for flagging up that you suggest, would they apply in combat vs. the unflagged? You may have addressed this, but not in the OP.
|
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...
For eg:
Bandit can do SAD only with bandit-flag.
Bandit can lower rep cost to accost "Traveller/Hauler" flags
Bandit gets higher rep cost to accost non-"above".
Traveller can have extra capacity to move stuff compared to very small capacity otherwise. Gets speed buff.
Traveller gets higher rep cost for declining a SAD
Traveller gets lower cost for non-Bandit combat.
In fact the traveller flag is NECESSARY for serious logistic work, howabout? Unless upgrading to the "Hauler" flag ie oxen etc.
One of the things would have to be flagging "warm up" before it takes effect and duration "locked in" and "warm down" perhaps?
You could think up similar interactions for other roles in isolation or in connection?
I have a feeling that we (the posters) can't even agree about what "meaningless PVP" is, much the same as not agreeing what "RPK" or "griefing" is.
Without agreeable definitions of at least some of the terminology, you just have a never ending debate.
@ Qallz
These boons for flagging up that you suggest, would they apply in combat vs. the unflagged? You may have addressed this, but not in the OP.
Yea, I agree. To me, if I see someone in the woods who looks to be about my skill level, and I kill them, thus matching my wits and skills against theirs, thus keeping my skills sharp, and at the top of their game, it might be Chaotic Evil, but that's meaningful to me.
I have to admit that constantly hearing these undefinable words like "meaningful" is getting more than a little nauseating to me.
In regards to the boons, Ryan has said that he wants to balance risk vs. reward, so people who are exposing themselves to more risk, should be rewarded, so yes, they're just general bonuses that would apply everywhere, however, that's not any different than the current system in-place. Ryan has said that depending on what NPC-faction you join (and how many enemies that faction has) will depend on how much you're rewarded. People who are exposing themselves to more danger should be given a few advantages for doing so.
Only if people really dedicate themselves to a militant role for a long period of time though, would they get said advantages.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Call of Duty.
And yes, I read that post. It provided nothing I'd consider a boon to the current system. You just want more meaningless PvP. I get that.
HAHA. I knew you couldn't give me a real example. I wouldn't consider a FPS a suitable equivalent.
Also, blatantly denying everything I said in that post rather than trying to debate it is an ego-protecting way of admitting defeat, because if you had any real points, you would've made them. I get that.
It is easy to say I'm not giving a real example when you don't provide your qualifications. WoW also has meaningless PvP, but that probably won't meet your magical standards either.
It is easy to say I'm not giving a real example when you don't provide your qualifications. WoW also has meaningless PvP, but that probably won't meet your magical standards either.Call of Duty.
And yes, I read that post. It provided nothing I'd consider a boon to the current system. You just want more meaningless PvP. I get that.
HAHA. I knew you couldn't give me a real example. I wouldn't consider a FPS a suitable equivalent.
Also, blatantly denying everything I said in that post rather than trying to debate it is an ego-protecting way of admitting defeat, because if you had any real points, you would've made them. I get that.
HAHA ... I wouldn't consider myself to have "magical standards" because I don't want WoW for it's PvP? WoW? Really? You went there? WoW is NOT a PvP game, and saying that I could join WoW for it's PvP is only a further display of your ignorance.
I don't think I need to waste any more time on this debate with you, you just forfeited all credibility with that last comment. Sorry.
I see. So because you don't want to say what your requirements are for a "valid" PvP game, you're declaring yourself the "winner" or something.
No, I'm declaring myself the winner because you've proven to me that you have no idea what you're talking about, and that your only intention in this thread is to make feeble attempts to disagree with me because you feel that's your responsibility as a PvE'er. If you had something to say, we might have something to discuss.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I see nothing this one-flag system gives you that furthers the goals of PFO. If you want more meaningless PVP, there are other games.
PvP will be meaningless if you choose to make it so. Your assumption that PFO's focus on settlement vs. settlement, faction vs, faction or company vs company PvP will always have meaning.
Some will join factions, not because they represent something they believe in, but because they will be the gateway for more consequence free PvP.
Some feuds will be entered with no history or slight to justify them. Some companies will feud random, smaller or newer companies, just for the consequence free PvP.
Some settlements will wage war, just for the lolz, because they can. It dies not have to do with resources, history, land, alignment, faction, etc. it will be done, because they can.
Some if you are in for quite a surprise when you suddenly realize how many players will not care about any if the systems or supposed meaningfulness, and will PvP fir the sake of PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I see nothing this one-flag system gives you that furthers the goals of PFO. If you want more meaningless PVP, there are other games.PvP will be meaningless if you choose to make it so. Your assumption that PFO's focus on settlement vs. settlement, faction vs, faction or company vs company PvP will always have meaning.
Some will join factions, not because they represent something they believe in, but because they will be the gateway for more consequence free PvP.
Some feuds will be entered with no history or slight to justify them. Some companies will feud random, smaller or newer companies, just for the consequence free PvP.
Some settlements will wage war, just for the lolz, because they can. It dies not have to do with resources, history, land, alignment, faction, etc. it will be done, because they can.
Some if you are in for quite a surprise when you suddenly realize how many players will not care about any if the systems or supposed meaningfulness, and will PvP fir the sake of PvP.
Right. Adding a single flag won't change any of that. That's the point.
I see nothing this one-flag system gives you that furthers the goals of PFO. If you want more meaningless PVP, there are other games.Some if you are in for quite a surprise when you suddenly realize how many players will not care about any if the systems or supposed meaningfulness, and will PvP fir the sake of PvP.
Yea, that crowd hasn't really showed up yet, but I have a feeling it's going to come as quite a shock. Most of the people here are PF TT players (as am I).
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see. So because you don't want to say what your requirements are for a "valid" PvP game, you're declaring yourself the "winner" or something.No, I'm declaring myself the winner because you've proven to me that you have no idea what you're talking about, and that your only intention in this thread is to make feeble attempts to disagree with me because you feel that's your responsibility as a PvE'er. If you had something to say, we might have something to discuss.
And because you think a discussion has winners and losers, everybody loses. The one thing we've been able to agree on so far is that it isn't worth the time to design, code, and test another system of universal PvP.
We can't even agree on if "meaningful" is a mostly-objective descriptor, or what you mean when you use it.
I see. So because you don't want to say what your requirements are for a "valid" PvP game, you're declaring yourself the "winner" or something.No, I'm declaring myself the winner because you've proven to me that you have no idea what you're talking about, and that your only intention in this thread is to make feeble attempts to disagree with me because you feel that's your responsibility as a PvE'er. If you had something to say, we might have something to discuss.And because you think a discussion has winners and losers, everybody loses. The one thing we've been able to agree on so far is that it isn't worth the time to design, code, and test another system of universal PvP.
We can't even agree on if "meaningful" is a mostly-objective descriptor, or what you mean when you use it.
I haven't agreed to that. You mentioned your only objection to the system designed in the OP was time-resources, and as I explained, it takes very little time to make the simple ruleset changes I outlined in that post.
And the upsides FAR outweigh whatever minimal time would be required to implement it, if for no other reason than to prevent the PvP'ers this game will inevitably draw from working to undermine the Reputation system in an effort to obtain its repeal (which I have to admit, is starting to seem like a pretty sweet proposition to me at this point).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I disagree that adding a single flag, that WILL take significant resources even if you think it won't, will have a meaningful effect on those that don't care about the reputation system. I can see them simply not running flagged in order to get an extra thrill from ganking those that think they're safer if those around them are unflagged.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
if for no other reason than to prevent the PvP'ers this game will inevitably draw from working to undermine the Reputation system in an effort to obtain its repeal (which I have to admit, is starting to seem like a pretty sweet proposition to me at this point).
This assumes they will actually implement an alignment / reputation system at all come OE. They (Ryan) had already said that neither system will be in place through most if not all of EE. The reason being was that we will have very little else to do but spend the fist year or more just whacking each other in PvP that will have no meaning (no settlements or settlement warfare; no factions; no feud system).
Yes, for well over a year EE will have nothing but meaningless PvP, other than killing and hoarding wealth and resources fir when the real game will supposedly arrive.
Don't be shocked if the Devs say, after further review the game is working as intended without the alignment / reputation systems.
In my opinion, time would be better spent on rolling out all of the core classes and races.
if for no other reason than to prevent the PvP'ers this game will inevitably draw from working to undermine the Reputation system in an effort to obtain its repeal (which I have to admit, is starting to seem like a pretty sweet proposition to me at this point).This assumes they will actually implement an alignment / reputation system at all come OE. They (Ryan) had already said that neither system will be in place through most if not all of EE. The reason being was that we will have very little else to do but spend the fist year or more just whacking each other in PvP that will have no meaning (no settlements or settlement warfare; no factions; no feud system).
Yes, for well over a year EE will have nothing but meaningless PvP, other than killing and hoarding wealth and resources fir when the real game will supposedly arrive.
Don't be shocked if the Devs say, after further review the game is working as intended without the alignment / reputation systems.
In my opinion, time would be better spent on rolling out all of the core classes and races.
/agree.
People often forget about the psychological principle known as incentive. If people are given an incentive to engage in Wars, Feuds, SAD's, Resource-gathering, and Caravaning, they will. Regardless of what other PvP is available or not available to them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While it is not a bad idea for those that want to PVP for PVP;s sake, I also don't think that it adds anything to the game in the direction that GW wants. I could be wrong, and if it is deemed as partly workable and necessary, I won't begrudge it.
It seems to me that the systems already revealed will accomplish exactly what GW wants. They will need testing and tweeking, but that is natural. I will be surprised if we see most of the features (mentioned),that most of us seem to agree that we want, in the first few years.
If there is an influx of large numbers of players bent on wrecking GW's game, they will have to figure out how to deal with it. (Including support from players that are "on board" with GW's ideals) That is the same risk that anyone faces when offering something to the public.
@ Qallz
What is the trade off of your system for the imaginary camp that wants zero PVP? Unless I am mistaken, all that your suggestion does is benefit those that want to be able to attack "more of everything that they see".
@ QallzWhat is the trade off of your system for the imaginary camp that wants zero PVP? Unless I am mistaken, all that your suggestion does is benefit those that want to be able to attack "more of everything that they see".
The people who have little-no intention of engaging in PvP won't really be affected by this system, (they can still be attacked of course, but that can happen regardless of whether this system was in place or not). So I guess that's another part of the beauty of it, it just won't really affect them...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Right. Adding a single flag won't change any of that. That's the point.
It is not adding a flag, or at least it doesn't have to be. It is replacing all of the other flags with just one flag. That I think is the point the OP is making.
In other games, when you see so e one flagged for PvP you can only awfully assume one thing.... They are willing to fight. Why is it necessary for them to broadcast their intentions?
You will eventually grow to know your local community, and learn who you can trust and who you can not. That is also a part of meaningful interaction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
if for no other reason than to prevent the PvP'ers this game will inevitably draw from working to undermine the Reputation system in an effort to obtain its repeal (which I have to admit, is starting to seem like a pretty sweet proposition to me at this point).This assumes they will actually implement an alignment / reputation system at all come OE. They (Ryan) had already said that neither system will be in place through most if not all of EE. The reason being was that we will have very little else to do but spend the fist year or more just whacking each other in PvP that will have no meaning (no settlements or settlement warfare; no factions; no feud system).
Yes, for well over a year EE will have nothing but meaningless PvP, other than killing and hoarding wealth and resources fir when the real game will supposedly arrive.
Don't be shocked if the Devs say, after further review the game is working as intended without the alignment / reputation systems.
In my opinion, time would be better spent on rolling out all of the core classes and races.
Interesting. From the last Blog, I got the impression that Rep and Alignment would be added in at the start of EE or VERY early. That is an admitted assumption from the gist of the blog.
It would seem foolish, to me, to test such a complex system right when you offer the game to the general public.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I guess I just don't understand why you need a flag at all. The game is PvP. It has PvE elements, but it's primarily a PvP game. If someone thinks having people flagged as specific factions that add nuance is too restrictive, they have the option of attacking whoever they please.
Right. Adding a single flag won't change any of that. That's the point.It is not adding a flag, or at least it doesn't have to be. It is replacing all of the other flags with just one flag. That I think is the point the OP is making.
In other games, when you see so e one flagged for PvP you can only awfully assume one thing.... They are willing to fight. Why is it necessary for them to broadcast their intentions?
You will eventually grow to know your local community, and learn who you can trust and who you can not. That is also a part of meaningful interaction.
Yea, I don't really get why some people have turned this thread into an argument over the validity of a system where PvP-focused players are given more opportunities to PvP with each other. Such systems have been in place for a LONG time. I'm merely offering a more simplistic alternative (which would take less time to code).
I guess I just don't understand why you need a flag at all. The game is PvP. It has PvE elements, but it's primarily a PvP game. If someone thinks having people flagged as specific factions that add nuance is too restrictive, they have the option of attacking whoever they please.
They only have the option of attacking whomever they please if they aren't taking this game seriously. Anyone who takes the game seriously in any way would know better than to spend the next 3 months recovering on Reputation for enjoying one measly kill.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I just don't understand why you need a flag at all. The game is PvP. It has PvE elements, but it's primarily a PvP game. If someone thinks having people flagged as specific factions that add nuance is too restrictive, they have the option of attacking whoever they please.They only have the option of attacking whomever they please if they aren't taking this game seriously. Anyone who takes the game seriously in any way would know better than to spend the next 3 months recovering on Reputation for enjoying one measly kill.
I think that is exactly what Ryan and GW want.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that is exactly what Ryan and GW want.I guess I just don't understand why you need a flag at all. The game is PvP. It has PvE elements, but it's primarily a PvP game. If someone thinks having people flagged as specific factions that add nuance is too restrictive, they have the option of attacking whoever they please.They only have the option of attacking whomever they please if they aren't taking this game seriously. Anyone who takes the game seriously in any way would know better than to spend the next 3 months recovering on Reputation for enjoying one measly kill.
Precisely what I've been trying to get at. Thank you. There's nothing wrong with people being rewarded for playing the game seriously, or rather, being punished for not doing so. If you want to be a powerful force in the game, you'll make intelligent choices about who you kill. Or if you just want to PvP for its own sake, you can be a low-Rep CE with less power.
If someone just wants the option to PvP MOAR without having to worry about consequences of doing so, that's not what the game was pitched as.
If someone just wants the option to PvP MOAR without having to worry about consequences of doing so, that's not what the game was pitched as.
Then I have to wonder what the NPC-faction system is for, if not to give players who want more "meaningless" PvP the option to do so. And CE characters will be a joke, but, if given no other option, can still ruin everyone's time with a whole lot of zerging. >:)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If someone just wants the option to PvP MOAR without having to worry about consequences of doing so, that's not what the game was pitched as.Then I have to wonder what the NPC-faction system is for, if not to give players who want more "meaningless" PvP the option to do so. And CE characters will be a joke, but, if given no other option, can still ruin everyone's time with a whole lot of zerging. >:)
Obviously the faction system is to give you a cause to fight for. We don't yet know what longer term effects this can have (we may eventually drive the Hell Knights from the River Kingdoms! Or perhaps take their territory away.).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If someone just wants the option to PvP MOAR without having to worry about consequences of doing so, that's not what the game was pitched as.Then I have to wonder what the NPC-faction system is for, if not to give players who want more "meaningless" PvP the option to do so. And CE characters will be a joke, but, if given no other option, can still ruin everyone's time with a whole lot of zerging. >:)
Not sure, except that it is to give people that want moar PVP options a little moar PVP (consequence free), and if they do it right, add some cool depth to the game. Until I see it laid out, I won't assume that it will be useless.
Sounds like fun. :)
Obviously the faction system is to give you a cause to fight for.If someone just wants the option to PvP MOAR without having to worry about consequences of doing so, that's not what the game was pitched as.Then I have to wonder what the NPC-faction system is for, if not to give players who want more "meaningless" PvP the option to do so. And CE characters will be a joke, but, if given no other option, can still ruin everyone's time with a whole lot of zerging. >:)
Lol.
Not sure, except that it is to give people that want moar PVP options a little moar PVP (consequence free)If someone just wants the option to PvP MOAR without having to worry about consequences of doing so, that's not what the game was pitched as.Then I have to wonder what the NPC-faction system is for, if not to give players who want more "meaningless" PvP the option to do so. And CE characters will be a joke, but, if given no other option, can still ruin everyone's time with a whole lot of zerging. >:)
That's my point exactly. And the one-flag system I proposed is just a replacement to that... not adding anything new.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My current objection is that it draws a stark line between PvPers and non-PvPers when you throw in significant bonuses. You're right that it would be wrong to not have any incentives to using the flag; that's a whole lot of extra risk for no reward. But, a binary on/off flag which gives such significant advantages would, in my opinion, not mesh well with the game's overall goals of blending the PvE, PvP, and other camps of players into one big unified player base.
The reasoning is simple: a PvP character is already significantly advantaged against a non-PvP character before your flag's bonuses. With the flag's bonuses available too, I'd worry that non-PvPers would see no reason at all to try and fight PvPers; they don't have the build for it and they don't have the massive buff the enemies have (and if it isn't a massive buff, most PvPers will not use it because of the value of surprise and the protection of the Rep system). These non-PvPers would likely die in every encounter with PvPers which they didn't have a very significant numbers advantage; assuming both sides can field equal numbers, they'd have no reason to try and participate in small-scale PvP.
It seems to me like it further exaggerates the difference between "sheep" and "wolves", making it even more pointless for a sheep to try and fight anybody who self-identifies with constant PvP (it was practically unwinnable for the sheep already as-is). Might as well just start running, as you might survive that way.
In conclusion, I definitely agree that we should include as many ways for PvPers to blow off steam as we can. However, we need to be careful about making the PvPers too strong compared to the other players as a result. In a game that hopes to have PvPers, PvErs, crafters, and everything else all playing in the same space, I don't want to see PvPers "ruling" that space; every person should have a place where they can contribute to the game world and feel rewarded, otherwise our game turns into a PvP-only game as the other camps leave to games better suited to them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hey, if they find that your suggestion is easier and accomplishes what they are aiming at, Kudos to you.
Nothing that I have seen here, does that exactly.
When you tack on combat bonuses for a feature, you pretty much make it mandatory (in a competitive sense).
If everyone that PVP's regularly does it to get the bonuses, then it is pretty much the same as if it does not exist at all. Except you are now able to kill the "unflagged" quicker.
I don't see how a one-flag system creates the complexities of a multi-sided faction system where a number of groups might be hostile or neutral or friendly to each other in any combination, while the members of any one group are all mutually allied.
How does that work?
It doesnt, but that's not it's intent. That's what the player-created factions are there for.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What about advocating for an extra check box, for the PVP Wild Child that does not involve bonuses?
A simple option that does not affect any but those that choose it. You get more potential (consequence free) targets. You seem sure that there will be many that just want to roam and fight for fighting's sake.
That would be far more easily implemented than balancing new buffs into the system.
What about advocating for an extra check box, for the PVP Wild Child that does not involve bonuses?
A simple option that does not affect any but those that choose it. You get more potential (consequence free) targets. You seem sure that there will be many that just want to roam and fight for fighting's sake.
That would be far more easily implemented than balancing new buffs into the system.
Ryan's made it clear that he wants to balance risk/reward, so players who're are taking on more risk of PvP should be rewarded for it. But honestly, that wouldn't be a deal-breaker for me, though I'd prefer the buff only be suspended if the PvP'er aggressively attacks an "Unsanctioned" target.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Risk and reward is an emergent characteristic of the game, not a feature added to it. Making the rewards scarce and allowing players to compete over them is sufficient for risk to equalize with net reward.
Does the proposal do anything to disincentivise flagged characters from betraying their ad-hoc teammates, or is turning on former allies an expected result.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The main advantage I would like to see from any PvP flag is more freedom to engage in PvP in terms of who I can engage while maintaining a high reputation and my desired alignment. The main disadvantage if like to have from any PvP flag is to have the reputation penalty for killing me removed.
Removing rep for attacking PvP oriented characters just makes sense. I see the role of reputation as reducing toxic behavior and killing someone who frequently initiates PvP is simply not toxic to the community. If you are going out and starting fight that indicates you are the kind of player who can handle being targeted out for PvP, and who may even enjoy it.
Because of that I strongly condone certain flags such as the criminal flag being forced upon you when you initiate certain kinds of conflicts. I also support flags you can choose to take to trade the rep penalty for killing you for things such as the ability to take more bounty contracts or get faster rep/alignment gains.
I can agree with Shane though. PvPers will already be geared and trained for PvP. If you then give us flags that enhance our character power there will eventually come a point where non-PvPers shouldn't even bother resisting.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 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.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.
I understand the simplification, but as I implied I think it dilutes the meaning of the PvP. It is a step backwards. You are asking us to believe that people focused on PvP are going to take time before and after battle to exchange meaningful role-playing behaviors when that is just a bit incredible.
The variety of the flag system that has been proposed articulates PvP into types using significant characteristics. Each of those types has a distinct meaning. I realize there are some who wish to eliminate the story context of the types of PvP by eliminating alignment and reputation and factions asserting that those varieties are meaningless for the player who is all about fighting with other people and dominating the battle. But not everyone wishes to leave all semblance of meaningful interaction and storytelling behind, Bludd.
Why devolve what could be an advance in PvP, potentially resulting in an increase in the number of players willing to take part in PvP, increasing the number and variety of opponents available?
Why step backwards into the very same problems that killed Shadowbane when you could step forward into an evolutionary development of player versus player interaction?
Why are you trying to pour water into my whiskey?
I understand the simplification, but as I implied I think it dilutes the meaning of the PvP. It is a step backwards. You are asking us to believe that people focused on PvP are going to take time before and after battle to exchange meaningful role-playing behaviors when that is just a bit incredible.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.
What do YOU care if other people are RP'ing or not? Are you afraid everyone's just going to PvP, and no one's going to bother RP'ing if there's a flag like this in the game?
I don't see why you think you have the right to "force" your preferred playstyle on everybody else...
Part of me advocating this system is to move away from that. The PvP'ers will get more PvP, the non-PvP'ers don't have to engage in the system, and can do just as much role-playing as they could otherwise.
Also, PvP OPENS more PvP-based RP'ing for the PvP'ers who ALSO enjoy Role-playing, and they can do it without Reputation loss.
Ever think of that?