Goblin Squad Member
|
I interpreted his meaning to be that there would be PVP before there would be the alignment / reputation systems to govern PVP.
Probably so, because it is a more elementary game system. I expect it might be hashed out in Alpha testing if we have enough time with an initial version implemented in EE. It will surely need tuning with a larger sample set, but it is surely part of the MVP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon,
You do understand what a "Red vs. Blue" structure means, do you not? It is PvP for two primary reasons, training and consequence free (or acceptably limited consequences) fun, sometimes referred to as "PvP for the sake if PvP".
My interpretation that the consequences may not be implemented until later on in EE was not out if thin air, as I stated. It had in why Ryan had written.
For yet another time I will state, if I took that interpretation beyond Ryan's meaning, then I was mistaken.
Thus us why I asked the follow up request that EE not be described in broad terms, but perhaps it could be broken down into phases. That way we could all benefit from placing comments into a proper frame of reference of time.
@Nihimon,
You do understand what a "Red vs. Blue" structure means, do you not? It is PvP for two primary reasons, training and consequence free (or acceptably limited consequences) fun, sometimes referred to as "PvP for the sake if PvP".
My interpretation that the consequences may not be implemented until later on in EE was not out if thin air, as I stated. It had in why Ryan had written.
For yet another time I will state, if I took that interpretation beyond Ryan's meaning, then I was mistaken.
Thus us why I asked the follow up request that EE not be described in broad terms, but perhaps it could be broken down into phases. That way we could all benefit from placing comments into a proper frame of reference of time.
The quote implies the very same thing I've been saying throughout this entire thing all along: Ryan wants a "PvP for the sake of PvP" system to allow the PvP'ers to blow off steam on eachother without them all going CE and having Low Rep. That's exactly what that quote is saying.
He further says "even if" the other systems aren't mature enough to emerge naturally, not ONLY IF. Meaning either way, he think that's important and/or necessary.
So now, I can say, finally, and with a happy skip in my step... /thread.
A simple one-flag system or RvB would only be a placeholder until the faction system can be implemented. Is that what you want, Qallz? If you're only asking it to be an EE placeholder system, I could see that working out.
Hordes of CE -7500 Rep people running around and ganking everyone who's trying to gather resources, do caravaning, do SAD'ing, attack outposts, or POI's, execute Bounty contracts... Is that what you want Mr. Valane?
Alright, fine, a temporary thing until the other systems are in place, I think that's a good compromise. Could we all agree on that at least?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Nihimon,
You do understand what a "Red vs. Blue" structure means, do you not?
I'm not sure why you're asking me that question. I'm not personally concerned about a Red vs. Blue system, and don't recall making any posts about such a thing.
Mostly, I try to point out when I think someone is misrepresenting what Ryan or the devs have said by linking to the original text and allowing other forum readers to make up their own minds. I generally try to properly couch my statements, saying things like "I think you may be reading too much into that", and I often acknowledge the possibility that I might be wrong myself and start a new thread asking the devs for clarification.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The best thing that all of us could do is to stop gleaming so much of what WE individually WANT to read from the collective Dev's postings.
Remember that everything is evolving and thus changing. I can think of at least 3 of us that have been corrected about different major misconceptions in the last few days. I am one of those.
Sometimes it is like most of us are speaking different languages to each other, and I think that we kind of are doing that. Pretty interesting that our varied approaches to game play actually make it real difficult to debate things in any sensible way.
Makes for some forum activity, so if that is all that you want (useless back and forth) then YMMV.
As has been noted, this forum is still pretty tame compared to the average out there and I think that we should take a little collective pride in that.
@Nihimon,
You do understand what a "Red vs. Blue" structure means, do you not?
I'm not sure why you're asking me that question. I'm not personally concerned about a Red vs. Blue system, and don't recall making any posts about such a thing.
Mostly, I try to point out when I think someone is misrepresenting what Ryan or the devs have said by linking to the original text and allowing other forum readers to make up their own minds. I generally try to properly couch my statements, saying things like "I think you may be reading too much into that", and I often acknowledge the possibility that I might be wrong myself and start a new thread asking the devs for clarification.
It would seem though, that some people here value your opinion Nihimon? Do you think that allowing an Opt-In Flagging system for the people who want it, would hurt your gaming experience?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Do you think that allowing an Opt-In Flagging system for the people who want it, would hurt your gaming experience?
Because it's not something I particularly care about, I really don't understand the likely ramifications. That's why I'm hesitant to offer an unconsidered opinion.
Also, I'm not sure I understand how it would significantly differ from the announced plans to have "for the cause" Faction Flagging. If there's a strong demand for some kind of "Red vs. Blue" opt-in PvP, it seems the simplest way to accomplish that would be to use two opposing factions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
PFO is going to be an open world PvP game where anyone can be attacked anywhere. What the opening post suggests is not an "opt-in PvP" but an "opt-out of PvP consequences" flag, with additional incentives (mechanical benefits) to get as many people as possible to opt-out of the PvP consequence system.
In my opinion the only consequence free PvP (outside the various forms of "meaningful" PvP, as determined by Ryan and Co arising out of wars, feuds etc.) could and probably should be a "training ground" (or to begin with maybe an instanced training barn) settlement improvement where consenting River Kingdomians could enter for a friendly bout of fisticuffs or swordplay without reputation or alignment concerns.
I actually believe that the basic consequence system as proposed by GW is pretty clever in all its simplicity:
- it attaches certain desirable/undesirable consequences to certain alignments/reputation levels
- it attaches certain alignment/reputation impacts in the range of 0-max to certain actions, which GW wishes to limit/increase
This system alone, without any flags, factions or other shenanigans, should be flexible enough to facilitate a FFA PvP game, virtual PvE game or something in between (which is what I suppose a lot of as are hoping to get). All GW needs to do is to set the consequences/impact on the level on which the average player experience is consistent with what GW is targeting.
PFO is going to be an open world PvP game where anyone can be attacked anywhere.
Assuming you're in no way taking the game seriously, then yes. Anyone who takes the game seriously, isn't going to spend the next 3 months recovering on reputation, just so they could kill you.
Of course, the PvE'ers love to pretend as if this makes the game FFA PvP, so that they can continue to slay mobs, while bravely avoiding PvP at all costs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PFO is going to be an open world PvP game where anyone can be attacked anywhere.Assuming you're in no way taking the game seriously, then yes. Anyone who takes the game seriously, isn't going to spend the next 3 months recovering on reputation, just so they could kill you.
The Reputation system is so damaging, and so hard to recover from, that to anyone who takes the game seriously, an "Unsanctioned" target is no different than one they literally can't attack. Period.
Of course, the PvE'ers love to pretend as if this makes the game FFA PvP, so that they can continue to slay mobs, while bravely avoiding PvP at all costs.
Reductio ad absurdum.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Reputation system is so damaging, and so hard to recover from, that to anyone who takes the game seriously, an "Unsanctioned" target is no different than one they literally can't attack. Period.
There will be a world of difference between a High Reputation "Unsactioned" target and a Low Reputation "Unsanctioned" target.
I find it very likely that most players just won't be interested in killing High Reputation "Unsanctioned" targets.
The kinds of players I'll most likely want to kill, for example, will be Low Reputation Chaotic Evil characters. I expect to be able to kill several such characters every day without suffering any ill effects.
The Reputation system is so damaging, and so hard to recover from, that to anyone who takes the game seriously, an "Unsanctioned" target is no different than one they literally can't attack. Period.There will be a world of difference between a High Reputation "Unsactioned" target and a Low Reputation "Unsanctioned" target.
I find it very likely that most players just won't be interested in killing High Reputation "Unsanctioned" targets.
The kinds of players I'll most likely want to kill, for example, will be Low Reputation Chaotic Evil characters. I expect to be able to kill several such characters every day without suffering any ill effects.
I doubt that. These people will roll in hordes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
These people will roll in hordes.
See Nihimon (Alignment as a faction wheel) for an on-point response.
I was using "hordes" in the more general sense, as in, a large # of people. I didn't mean to say they'll be disorganized. People playing LR/CE in-game, can be both intelligent, and well-organized IRL. To think that because they're playing CE in-game means theyre dumb and chaotic IRL is wishful thinking, at best.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I was using "hordes" in the more general sense, as in, a large # of people. I didn't mean to say they'll be disorganized. People playing LR/CE in-game, can be both intelligent, and well-organized IRL. To think that because they're playing CE in-game means theyre dumb and chaotic IRL is wishful thinking, at best.
I'm not suggesting they'll be disorganized in real life. I'm suggesting their characters won't have the training required to get the benefits of using Formation Combat, and that a cohesive unit of highly trained characters played by skilled players in Formation will be able to steamroll a much larger force that doesn't have those Formation Combat advantages.
I was using "hordes" in the more general sense, as in, a large # of people. I didn't mean to say they'll be disorganized. People playing LR/CE in-game, can be both intelligent, and well-organized IRL. To think that because they're playing CE in-game means theyre dumb and chaotic IRL is wishful thinking, at best.I'm not suggesting they'll be disorganized in real life. I'm suggesting their characters won't have the training required to get the benefits of using Formation Combat, and that a cohesive unit of highly trained characters played by skilled players in Formation will be able to steamroll a much larger force that doesn't have those Formation Combat advantages.
I'm sure the CE Zergs will be able to just avoid these. I'm guessing the formation combat people will move at a slower speed, and without speed buffs, as in real life. The formation combat is specifically designed for attacking Settlements/POI's, not for regular Open-World PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In real life formations can move faster than an individual.
Ugh... do you have a source for that? I'm not educated enough in historical warfare to argue against it in good faith, but I would be extremely surprised if a Roman Legion could move at speed quicker than an individual doing the same. Especially over substandard terrain.
In real life formations can move faster than an individual.Ugh... do you have a source for that? I'm not educated enough in historical warfare to argue against it in good faith, but I would be extremely surprised if a Roman Legion could move at speed quicker than an individual doing the same. Especially over substandard terrain.
Yea, I can say confidently, without a source, that that's total crap. There's no way being in formation improves someone's run speed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The formation combat is specifically designed for attacking Settlements/POI's, not for regular Open-World PvP.
I re-read the last couple of posts and realize I was getting this conversation confused with another I was having at the same time.
The kinds of players I'll most likely want to kill, for example, will be Low Reputation Chaotic Evil characters. I expect to be able to kill several such characters every day without suffering any ill effects.
You're right, I won't be using Formation Combat to kill these folks. And you're right that there will be cases where I'm significantly outnumbered and won't be able to kill them at all.
Not burst speed. A sustained march. In formation a large group of soldiers will move faster than the same number individually.
Yes, I agree that a sustained speed allows one to cover more distance than sprinting for a short distance, and then moving slowly to catch one's breath, but someone doesnt need to be in a formation for that, nor would a formation be of any benefit for it.
The formation combat is specifically designed for attacking Settlements/POI's, not for regular Open-World PvP.I re-read the last couple of posts and realize I was getting this conversation confused with another I was having at the same time.
The kinds of players I'll most likely want to kill, for example, will be Low Reputation Chaotic Evil characters. I expect to be able to kill several such characters every day without suffering any ill effects.You're right, I won't be using Formation Combat to kill these folks. And you're right that there will be cases where I'm significantly outnumbered and won't be able to kill them at all.
I'm also pretty sure I'm right about the formations not being used in Open-World PvP thing, but only for attacking Settlements/POI's. But, you may have to find a quote to find a quote to back that up quotemaster.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not burst speed. A sustained march. In formation a large group of soldiers will move faster than the same number individually.Yes, I agree that a sustained speed allows one to cover more distance than sprinting for a short distance, and then moving slowly to catch one's breath, but someone doesnt need to be in a formation for that, nor would a formation be of any benefit for it.
Oh. I guess all those armies in real life history traveled wrong. My bad.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the most accurate way to state it is those trained to march long distances will cover long distances faster than those who are not. Those trained to march in formation are likely the same who have been trained to march long distances.
I'm not sure PFO will adopt this level of realism though. I kind of think big armies will mount up, ride to where they need to go, de-summon their mounts, and then create a formation.
I could be wrong though.
Oh. I guess all those armies in real life history traveled wrong. My bad.Not burst speed. A sustained march. In formation a large group of soldiers will move faster than the same number individually.Yes, I agree that a sustained speed allows one to cover more distance than sprinting for a short distance, and then moving slowly to catch one's breath, but someone doesnt need to be in a formation for that, nor would a formation be of any benefit for it.
LOL. I was saying an individual doesn't need to be in formation to move at a brisk pace rather than in bursts.
I think the most accurate way to state it is those trained to march long distances will cover long distances faster than those who are not. Those trained to march in formation are likely the same who have been trained to march long distances.
I'm not sure PFO will adopt this level of realism though. I kind of think big armies will mount up, ride to where they need to go, de-summon their mounts, and then create a formation.
I could be wrong though.
Yea, I have a feeling the formation will form up about 50-100 years outside the Settlement walls. I'm almost positive I recall Ryan saying that these formations would be used for Settlements, NOT Open-World PvP, but cud be wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yea, I have a feeling the formation will form up about 50-100 years outside the Settlement walls.I'm in favor of long sieges but seems a tad excessive. ;)
I meant Lightyears, not years. Lightyears are a unit of distance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Not burst speed. A sustained march. In formation a large group of soldiers will move faster than the same number individually.
I think part of the reason might be that the marching soldier can stay closer to the people around him and predict their motion with near certainty, and thus keep his pace up. A mob of people trying to move the same direction at a brisk pace would be more prone to slowing each other down because they have to react to the individuals around them, people suddenly stepping in front of them, etc.
Having said that, I've no idea how GW would program that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I kind of think big armies will mount up, ride to where they need to go, de-summon their mounts, and then create a formation.
I'd offer that creating a formation should take some time and if done on foreign soil should be an inherently hostile act. Moving in formation or moving seige engines on foreign soil should also be hostile to the locals.
(If you need to cross friendly territory to get somewhere, let your friends know before you arrive so they can escort you.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In real life formations can move faster than an individual.Ugh... do you have a source for that? I'm not educated enough in historical warfare to argue against it in good faith, but I would be extremely surprised if a Roman Legion could move at speed quicker than an individual doing the same. Especially over substandard terrain.
Many individuals in close proximity to one another often attempted to outrun the Roman Legions. They seriously failed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Many individuals in close proximity to one another often attempted to outrun the Roman Legions. They seriously failed.
I could understand that, in that large mobs run into the same problems that road traffic engineers fight every day (small stops being exaggerated down a line) and discipline largely negates those. However I would be surprised if a Roman Legion on the march could cover more ground than an individual making the same journey. Especially if they weren't required to take the same path, instead just needing to both reach the same destination. But as I said, I don't consider myself edumacated enough to say that with any certainty.
In real life formations can move faster than an individual.
Yes, but we were not comparing large unorganized mobs speeds to organized formations' speeds. This was the original assertion which I refuted.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However I would be surprised if a Roman Legion on the march could cover more ground than an individual making the same journey.
Given equal discipline I would concede. But.
Consider: a horse can run faster than a man, yet a man can outrun a horse. It was done all the time in the American West. The man just keeps running. The horse eventually gives up.
A formation can cover long distances better (more cohesively) than a mob can, but an individual covers very long distances better than either.
Looks like you and Drakhan finally disagree on something.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Where, oh where has this conversation gone?It was going round in circles, so I decided to take the tangent and go somewhere else.
Sometimes it is not the destination, but the journey that counts.