Goblin Squad Member
|
When I read the title, Passive or Active, I was thinking in terms of actively doing things in game that will gain reputation. We already know that there is plans for passive reputation gain, while logged in, and that it is very slow.
What we don't know is if there will be activities that gain rep (other than accepted SADs)?
It would be nice to know what those activities will be.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm in favor of the passive recovery being tied to subscription (active training), and so it is on or offline. It can remain very slow as it is now, which would take about 3 months to go from -7500 to +5000 (rough estimate).
I would suggest that passive recovery should only bring you to the new character starting Reputation of +1000. Then you have to do perform reputation gaining activities to bring it above that base.
I would like to see the reputation penalties equitable regardless of the status of the player perpetrating them or the victim that is being subjected to the rep losing actions. That means a flat cost of reputation for an action (ie. - 500 Rep for killing outside of non rep losing methods).
"Two Wrongs do not make a Right" should be part of the GW mantra, just as "Don't be a Jerk" is for the forums.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do like the idea of slow rep gains while subscribed. It could be at a very slow rate (a point per 2 hours at the best?) but it should be slowed if you are low enough rep to have your active rep gain slowed.
What did you think of this?
I would suggest that passive recovery should only bring you to the new character starting Reputation of +1000. Then you have to do perform reputation gaining activities to bring it above that base.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What did you think of this?
I would suggest that passive recovery should only bring you to the new character starting Reputation of +1000. Then you have to do perform reputation gaining activities to bring it above that base.
Probably a good thing. We could argue over the numbers. I'd probably put the cap a little bit higher, but the thing I like is that if someone wants to just come back back in a couple months after they've recovered from a series of mistakes, they should get that chance.
Idea: Subscribers get a cap at +2500 and non-subs get a cap at +0. If someone wants to rubber-band their rep, they'll have to take some time off to accomplish it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"Two Wrongs do not make a Right" should be part of the GW mantra, just as "Don't be a Jerk" is for the forums.
Unfortunately your idioms don't jive with the Pathfinder universe. I see Ragathiel. The lawful good god of vengeance. And Milani, the chaotic good god of rebellion against oppression and injustice.
I see the crusader and vigilante roles that actively seek out and destroy evil.
Back up your position with lore. Not personal morals and references to characters on trash TV. Find me the evil god of "doing bad things to bad people". Find me the characters, roles, and organizations that are classified as evil for killing those who would harm the weak and the innocent.
Sure there are some evil groups that feel like they are doing a service to society by "culling the weak" but there are none with an ideology like mine, which is that violence is only acceptable in stopping those who promote violence against people who have done no harm.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Game mechanics are not always going to be backed up with lore. Not all of the lore can be put into the game either.
There is no rational reason why high rep characters get to behave in low rep manner. Even if there are few or no low rep characters, the sense if entitlement that an imbalanced system creates is as toxic as the behaviors GW is trying to discourage.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Game mechanics are not always going to be backed up with lore. Not all of the lore can be put into the game either.
But when you take a universe where the good are encouraged to stand up and use their force to cast down evil and protect the innocent, and turn it into one where such behavior is penalized and considered toxic you no longer have a right to call it "Pathfinder Online."
You call it "Bluddwolf's EZ Mode for Bandits Online."
You have absolutely nothing in the lore you can throw at me to back up your position. I can throw practically every other word in the books and every other encounter in the adventure paths at you to back up mine.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The point of the requirement to be logged in and engaged for passive rep gain is because the point of Reputation is a measure of how you act as a player.
Any system that allows for gaining Rep while not engaged, like anything logged out, breaks the foundational premise of Repuation.
I support a hard cap around 1000-2000 on how high passive Rep gain can take you though, you shouldn't get too many cookies just for not being a problem. And it makes Rep significantly higher than that actually mean something. Numbers to be hashed out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Game mechanics are not always going to be backed up with lore. Not all of the lore can be put into the game either.But when you take a universe where the good are encouraged to stand up and use their force to cast down evil and protect the innocent, and turn it into one where such behavior is penalized and considered toxic you no longer have a right to call it "Pathfinder Online."
You call it "Bluddwolf's EZ Mode for Bandits Online."
You have absolutely nothing in the lore you can throw at me to back up your position. I can throw practically every other word in the books and every other encounter in the adventure paths at you to back up mine.
Last time I checked, I'm not a developer working for GW. You don't like the reputation system to apply to you, I get it. Lobby them to give you separate rules. Let me know how that turns out.
But until then, you have to use the same mechanics as everyone else. Read Hostility portion of blog. Read how to use the SAD yourself. We will likely be using the exact same tools.
I hope to have everyone flagged as hostile in the vicinity of my SADs, they can be entrapped by the "Hostility Bomb" you are calling for.
I'll never SAD for the sake of the SAD, but as a trap to snare the people in the vicinity you want to force into PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I hope to have everyone flagged as hostile in the vicinity of my SADs, they can be entrapped by the "Hostility Bomb" you are calling for.
I'll never SAD for the sake of the SAD, but as a trap to snare the people in the vicinity you want to force into PvP.
This would be hilarious if it hadn't been going on so long and you weren't so completely oblivious to the fact that the problem is being caused by you not understanding anything.
Where are you even pulling this crap from? Where have I called for a "Hostility Bomb" that flags everyone in the vicinity of a SAD to the bandit?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I hope to have everyone flagged as hostile in the vicinity of my SADs, they can be entrapped by the "Hostility Bomb" you are calling for.
I'll never SAD for the sake of the SAD, but as a trap to snare the people in the vicinity you want to force into PvP.
This would be hilarious if it hadn't been going on so long and you weren't so completely oblivious to the fact that the problem is being caused by you not understanding anything.
Where are you even pulling this crap from? Where have I called for a "Hostility Bomb" that flags everyone in the vicinity of a SAD to the bandit?
Oh how silly of me, I should have known. You only want everyone in the vicinity to be able to attack the bandit, free of consequences. Yet another advantage for the "Tyranny of the Good".
You have gone on and on about how you want freedom to do what good characters do, kill anyone you "feel" is a bad guy, and not suffer the consequences for your unprovoked attacks. We'll I want the freedom to do what CN or evil characters do, to rob or kill anyone I want, and not suffer the consequences for my unprovoked SADs or attacks.
I noticed selectively clipped my quote above, so I'll ask you directly:
Why do you feel you are entitled to your own rules? If you don't feel you can defend the world in an open world PvP MMO without all kinds of mechanical advantages, then maybe this is not the genre for you. You don't seem to like any of the games like this (Eve, Darkfall, Mortal, etc.). Why subject yourself to yet another game who's culture will not bend to your will or play style?
I have offered many solutions for you. I have offered many ideas that are actually balanced. But all you want is to play Chaotic Evil and Low Rep, but not have any consequences because you claim to be Neutral Good and you are some kind if a pillar of. The community or something.
Go ahead, try to come up with one idea that is actually balanced and not favoring yourself. You're incapable of doing without mechanical advantages in my opinion. Prove me wrong.
This fight still going? Pardon same fight different words.
Give up this time Andius
Bluddwolf kick your ass
Same fight, different thread. Welcome to the forums btw.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But when you take a universe where the good are encouraged to stand up and use their force to cast down evil and protect the innocent, and turn it into one where such behavior is penalized and considered toxic you no longer have a right to call it "Pathfinder Online."
Only in an environment where you have an absolute knowledge of what action is truly good, and which action is truly evil. Short of that absolute, gnostic environment we must place cherished justice in the hands of the law, a dispassionate arbiter, simply because sometimes good looks bad and bad looks good. We cannot always tell, especially if we are relying on our 'feelings', but destroying an innocent you thought was guilty lasts a very very long time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why do you feel you are entitled to your own rules? If you don't feel you can defend the world in an open world PvP MMO without all kinds of mechanical advantages, then maybe this is not the genre for you. You don't seem to like any of the games like this (Eve, Darkfall, Mortal, etc.). Why subject yourself to yet another game who's culture will not bend to your will or play style?
-------------------------------------------------
My Position: When someone attacks someone else unprovoked that should flag them to everyone else.
Your Position: That's unbalanced! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!
Goblinwork's Position:
Attacker
The character has attacked another character outside of a war situation, and the target character did not have a PvP flag. It denotes which character is the aggressor in PvP combat.•Anyone killing a character with Attacker does not suffer reputation or alignment loss.
•Attacker is removed if the character is killed.
•The Attacker flag lasts for one minute after combat ends.
•If the character gets the Attacker flag he gets an Aggressor buff that lasts for 24 hours that has no effect besides being a counter. Each time he gets Attacker increases the stack of Aggressor by one.
•If the character gets a high enough stack of Aggressor, determined by his Reputation, he gets the status Murderer, which lasts 24 hours and does not disappear on death. It acts the same as Attacker, allowing repeat offenders to be hunted down for longer periods of time.
-------------------------------------------------
My Position: There should be lesser rep penalties for killing low rep characters.
Your Position: That's unbalanced! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!
Goblinwork's Position:
To give you an idea of how much these things will cost or grant in terms of reputation, killing a player with Reputation 0 who has no flags will cost about 500 Reputation, while killing an average low-reputation player (-5,000 reputation) will cost about 16 reputation and killing an average high-reputation player (5,000 reputation) will cost about 2,400.
-------------------------------------------------
My Position: There should be lesser evil slide for killing evil players.
Your Position: That's unbalanced! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!
Goblinwork's Position:
Killing other players without flags results in loss of good vs. evil along the same scope as losses in reputation described above. So if a paladin kills someone of average evil (-5,000 good vs. evil) they will lose 16 points on the good vs. evil scale. Assuming the paladin is likewise of average good (5,000 good vs. evil), they would have to kill over 150 people of average evil to lose their good alignment, though if they kill characters who are also good they will quickly find their alignment slipping to neutral and evil. Killing a single person of average good alignment will put most good characters on the verge of neutral, if not over the edge.
-------------------------------------------------
My Position: There should be benefits to law and good to balance the restrictions they have to follow, while chaotic and evil are free to do a lot more stuff.
Your Position: That's unbalanced! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!
Goblinwork's Position:
Settlement Alignments have two mechanical effects aside from controlling settlement membership.
Corruption: Corruption measures how much inefficiency there is in your settlement, decreasing income from taxes and other fees. Corruption starts high for Chaotic settlements and low for Lawful settlements, but as laws are broken in the settlement its Corruption increases. So a Lawful settlement that enforces its laws poorly can end up with more Corruption than a Chaotic settlement (which is required to set fewer laws).
Unrest: Unrest measures how unhappy your NPCs are, causing them to work less hard and decreasing crafting and training efficiency so they take longer. Unrest starts high for Evil settlements and low for Good settlements, but, like with Corruption, Unrest increases when vile deeds are committed. Thus a Good settlement that does not patrol its borders for necromancers and the like may end up with higher Unrest than an Evil settlement (because peasants in an Evil domain are somewhat inured to the immorality of their rulers).
Chaotic Evil will be at a substantial mechanical disadvantage. (Their Settlements will suck)
Therefore, characters who behave in a manner consistent with CE will tend to group together. CE behavior will be consistent with low reputation. Low reputation Settlements will produce characters that are disadvantaged vs. other kinds of Settlements because the quality and nature of the structures in CE Settlements will suck.
We're creating a funnel that pushes people who act like jerks into a situation where they are stuck playing with other jerks, and one cost for being a jerk is that they are less powerful than people who are not jerks. If some non-jerks who want to be CE "just because" get swept up in that funnel, frankly, I'm ok with that. I'd rather have a very good and effective jerk funnel that unfortunately traps a few non-jerks than a wide open playing field for jerks that relies solely on moderation and community peer pressure to control bad behavior.
(And frankly, I think it will be reasonably hard to be CE and not be a jerk)
-------------------------------------------------
My Position: RPKers are toxic to gaming communities. Running up to people and just killing them for no good reason should be strongly penalized.
Your Position: That's unbalanced! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!
Goblinwork's Position:
Many MMOs with PvP develop a degenerate culture where any character that can be killed is killed. This then drives people who don't like dying pointlessly out of the game, leaving only people who are ok with pointless killing.
I have said from day one that our goal is a game with lots of PvP and little meaningless PvP. Killing newbies "just because" is the ultimate definition of meaningless PvP. We'll just work and work and work, with in game mechanical systems, community management and supervisory authority to keep punishing people who kill meaninglessly, especially if they're meaninglessly killing newbies.
I just don't know how much more plainly I can state this. I'd rather shut down the game and quit than run a simplistic murder simulator for the enjoyment of a tiny fraction of sociopaths.
Reputation is our system for measuring how a player behaves in game. We want to provide a means by which a player can judge the aggressiveness of other players at a glance, get some idea how likely they are to attack, and get an idea as to their social behavior. Reputation only affects your interactions with other players; it has no bearing on your interactions with NPCs, quests, escalation cycles, or other PvE content. A character with a high Reputation is likely someone who only engages in PvP via feuds, wars, or factional combat (if he engages in PvP at all), while a character with low Reputation likely attacks people regardless of those PvP structures or is rude or abusive to other players. Reputation has no direct effect on combat, crafting, or skills, but does limit availability of training, facilities, and social interactions.
Reputation ranges from -7,500 to 7,500, with starting characters having a Reputation of 1,000. For each hour of play time during which the character does not lose Reputation, he gains Reputation. The exact amount of Reputation is likely to change multiple times in testing, but currently we're shooting for 1 Reputation per hour (minus .25 Reputation for every 2500 points below 0). So a character with -5000 Reputation would only get .5 Reputation per hour during which he did not lose Reputation. This means it can be pretty hard to dig yourself out of a Reputation hole. Every four straight hours the character earns Reputation, the amount earned increases slightly (currently by .25), up to a limit of something like 10 points per hour. So if a character behaves for four hours, he'll start earning 1.25 Reputation per hour instead of 1.
We've been working with the concept of Hostility: anyone who is at war with your settlement, feuding with your company, in an enemy faction and set up for factional PvP, or flagged as Criminal or Heinous is displayed as Hostile to you. You can attack them without fear of Reputation loss and they are treated as an enemy. There is a hierarchy to Hostility, so if you are in the same group with someone from a company you are feuding with, that party member is treated as an ally as long as you are in the group together.
When a character attacks a character who was not Hostile, the character making the attack gets flagged as an Attacker. If the character with Attacker hits their target again in the next thirty seconds, they become Hostile, and lose Reputation. Note that Reputation is lost on striking a target twice rather than on death; this means Reputation is lost when your intention to kill someone is made clear rather than if you are successful.
The amount lost is determined using a formula that uses the target's Reputation and ability scores. You lose more Reputation if the target has high Reputation and/or low ability scores (because low ability scores are a good measure of a newer character). Also you lose more Reputation for killing members of your settlement, group, player nation, company, faction, etc. We're looking at other ways to increase new player Reputation gain rates and make killing them inflict more Reputation loss. Our goal is to create a system where killing new players or people who are completely uninvolved in PvP are pretty punishing, while killing average players is moderately punishing, and killing low Reputation PvP players does not cost much Reputation.
We created the temporary Attacker aspect of the system to account for accidental attacks (like catching an ally in a Fireball); if you mistakenly hit a target and don't follow up, you can avoid Rep loss. However, if you have the Attacker flag and your target dies by another means before it expires, you still lose Reputation. This is to prevent players from attacking targets and then leading them into monsters to avoid Reputation loss, or getting a large group of players together and having each person attack the target once.
Characters with the Attacker flag (or that are otherwise rendered Hostile) can be attacked by other players without suffering Reputation loss. So if you accidentally hit someone, you'd best apologize quickly: they can hit you, or even kill you, if they can manage it in thirty seconds.
Characters that lose Reputation for a kill are flagged with the stackable Killer debuff, which is only visible to the player that has it. It lasts for four hours, and, if you suffer Reputation loss due to killing a player character in that span of time, the timer resets and your Killer stack increases by 1. For every stack of Killer you have, your Reputation losses increase by 20%. If you reach Killer 10 you gain the Mass Murderer flag and become Hostile to everyone for 24 hours.
Reputation can also be lost if the player is flagged for abusive behavior, such as racist comments, camping, abusing new players, etc. All the specifics of reporting and verifying such behavior are still being worked out but we hope to create a system that allows as much community control as possible.
The means by which we display Reputation is not set yet, but it will likely be some manner of icon over your character when targeted. It will display the general range of your Reputation so others can know what sort of threat you pose. More detailed information can be found by "inspecting" you via a character interaction option.
-------------------------------------------------
My Position: Killing newbs should carry higher penalties.
Your Position: That's unbalanced! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!
Goblinwork's Position
The amount lost is determined using a formula that uses the target's Reputation and ability scores. You lose more Reputation if the target has high Reputation and/or low ability scores (because low ability scores are a good measure of a newer character).
-------------------------------------------------
I like EVE, Darkfall, Mortal, Wurm, Xsyon, etc. then all the other regurgitated theme park trash I've seen on the market since I got worn out on Freelancer.
I'm just tired of these games catering to the lowest common denominator. I'm tired of people never getting a chance to jump into the meat of the game which is territorial control and faction warfare because they get so sick of the abusive, exclusive, and toxic atmosphere those games produce. They get tired of low lifes ganking them over and over for no reason when they have had little time to develop anything in the way of player skill or character stats.
I'm tired of the endless grinds. I'm tired of every sandbox coming out with combat systems that require T3 connections to be fully competitive unless you live next door to the server or else are marginally more exciting than their mining systems.
I'm ready to see a game developed by people who say things like:
I just don't know how much more plainly I can state this. I'd rather shut down the game and quit than run a simplistic murder simulator for the enjoyment of a tiny fraction of sociopaths.
I'm ready to see a game not catered to people like you. You've been hear over a year now, you've been screaming about how great every other PvP game is and moaning, about how PFO isn't doing everything just like them for a year. You've failed to make any real impact on how this game is being designed. You've really failed to get your way on a single point of this huge debate.
So my question would be, why are you here if you think murder simulators are so great? Clearly you must realize PFO isn't going to pander to your demands by now. Why don't you just either be quiet or get over the fact that PvP won't be the way you want it and move on to other issues like everyone who came here asking to have non-consensual PvP removed?
I'm done wasting my time with you. You're just never going to get it, and really, it's not like I need to explain this all for Goblinwork's sake. They know who you are, they know what you represent, they know how shortsighted you are, and they know that you're a part of the potential audience who will either have to just get over it or move on.
I see no reason to continue debating with you, or responding to your presence at all unless you prove you are capable of dealing with reality instead of misrepresenting everything that I say, that my allies say, that the developers say, and living in a state of denial about the way this game will be. I can point to one discussion I've ever had with you that has ever lead to a single productive thing so maybe it's just time we stop attempting to converse.
At least with other's I've disagreed with in the past such as Nihimon and Mbando they were in touch with reality, were generally able to carry on rational debates, and our arguments actually gave the devs the basis for some great mechanics that really moved their plans in the right direction like dedication bonuses. You've had an incredible amount of opportunity to have that kind of productive discourse with me as well but you've thrown it away in favor of throwing fits about things you can't change.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why do you feel you are entitled to your own rules? If you don't feel you can defend the world in an open world PvP MMO without all kinds of mechanical advantages, then maybe this is not the genre for you. You don't seem to like any of the games like this (Eve, Darkfall, Mortal, etc.). Why subject yourself to yet another game who's culture will not bend to your will or play style?-------------------------------------------------
My Position: When someone attacks someone else unprovoked that should flag them to everyone else.
Your Position: That's unbalanced! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!
Goblinwork's Position:
Attacker
The character has attacked another character outside of a war situation, and the target character did not have a PvP flag. It denotes which character is the aggressor in PvP combat.•Anyone killing a character with Attacker does not suffer reputation or alignment loss.
•Attacker is removed if the character is killed.
•The Attacker flag lasts for one minute after combat ends.
•If the character gets the Attacker flag he gets an Aggressor buff that lasts for 24 hours that has no effect besides being a counter. Each time he gets Attacker increases the stack of Aggressor by one.
•If the character gets a high enough stack of Aggressor, determined by his Reputation, he gets the status Murderer, which lasts 24 hours and does not disappear on death. It acts the same as Attacker, allowing repeat offenders to be hunted down for longer periods of time.-------------------------------------------------
My Position: There should be lesser rep penalties for killing low rep characters.
Your Position: That's unbalanced! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!
Goblinwork's Position:
I Shot a Man in Reno[/url]...
epic
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Maybe the answer is simple. Leave it up to the settlement to make the laws. Robbery/Banditry is either legal or illegal. If illegal, the bandits can be attacked by these so called vigilantes with no penalty. If legal, they can still be attacked, but the vigilantes get the attacker flag and various other repercussions for their actions. In a wilderness hex there are no laws, so have at it.
As I said in the pickpocket/sleigh of hand thread ages ago, I still find it ironic that killing someone always seems to be the answer to theft. I would love to see some sort of intermediary legal/justice system that allowed characters to bring criminals to justice that didn't involve simply up and whacking them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Posting portions of Dev Blogs that have been superseded by newer ones does not make your case.
There are only two flags remaining at this time, Criminal and Heinous. The system of "Hostility" has replaced the Attacker Flag, or at least the Devs have not explicitly mentioned that the attacker flag still remains, along with the other two.
Hostility according to the Dev Blog requires that you have some agency to the victim or to the location where the attack or crime had been committed.
I did not make up this rule, Goblin Works did.
If you attack someone that is not hostile to you, then you will suffer the consequences of that choice.
I did not make up this rule, Goblin Works did.
There are no less than 10 ways that you can avoid taking Reputation hit when attacking some one.
I did not make up this rule, Goblin Works did.
Those 10 ways are the same for everyone, whether you are good, neutral or evil. Whether you are high reputation or low reputation. Whether you are a Paladin or a Necromancer, and every class type in between.
I did not make up this rule, Goblin Works did.
Andius wants this new "Vigilante" to be above any of the rules the rest of us have to follow. He does not offer any skill proposal for it. He does not offer any offset for that power. It does not require any slotted ability.
Just his claim, "I am a vigilante and I should be able to kill any wrong doers, as defined by me".
Ok, Judge Dredd! Unfortunately City of Heroes closed Paragon City.
So please Andius, provide your suggestion with all of the rationale for it, and the offsets and costs associated. Stephen Cheney has often said that this is a way to put our ideas out there. But, saying I want to do this and that's it, has never received their stamp of approval.
I did not make up this rule, Goblin Works did.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are only two flags remaining at this time, Criminal and Heinous. The system of "Hostility" has replaced the Attacker Flag, or at least the Devs have not explicitly mentioned that the attacker flag still remains, along with the other two.
Just a quick note: The attacker flag is still in place as mentioned here.
When a character attacks a character who was not Hostile, the character making the attack gets flagged as an Attacker. If the character with Attacker hits their target again in the next thirty seconds, they become Hostile, and lose Reputation. Note that Reputation is lost on striking a target twice rather than on death; this means Reputation is lost when your intention to kill someone is made clear rather than if you are successful.
*bold is mine
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There are only two flags remaining at this time, Criminal and Heinous. The system of "Hostility" has replaced the Attacker Flag, or at least the Devs have not explicitly mentioned that the attacker flag still remains, along with the other two.Just a quick note: The attacker flag is still in place as mentioned here.
When a character attacks a character who was not Hostile, the character making the attack gets flagged as an Attacker. If the character with Attacker hits their target again in the next thirty seconds, they become Hostile, and lose Reputation. Note that Reputation is lost on striking a target twice rather than on death; this means Reputation is lost when your intention to kill someone is made clear rather than if you are successful.*bold is mine
Attacker Flag (old system cited by Andius) is replaced by new system Hostility. Not all of the same elements of the old carried over to the new. This is what I had suggested when I used the word "superseded".
A lot of PvP complexity we were previously storing in flags is now summarized in the Hostile state. There are a variety of cases that can make a player appear hostile to another player (e.g., faction membership, being at war, criminal flags, etc.). If you see a player that is hostile to you, there is no alignment or reputation penalty for attacking or killing that player. Often, hostility will be reciprocal (i.e., both players appear hostile to one another because their settlements are at war or their factions are enemies) but this is not required. If hostility is not reciprocal (a player sees you as hostile but you see them as friendly or neutral), once you are attacked, your attacker now appears hostile to you as well. That is, you don't take reputation or alignment penalties for defending yourself, even if you were a sanctioned target for your attacker.
Attacking an outpost will make you and your group hostile to the members of that outpost's managing company (as well as the owners of the controlling PoI if that company has subcontracted outpost management). That means that they can attempt to stop you without penalties.
To enable the whole membership to come to the aid of its outposts, a settlement in its territory. In that case, initiating a raid will give all raiders the Criminal flag (making them more chaotic and making them sanctioned targets for anyone). However, like all crimes, Criminal flags from raiding may have a detrimental effect on the settlement; even lawful settlements may have to consider whether making raiding a crime risks that their enemies will steal their resources and increase their corruption from frequent raiding. Additionally, the criminal flag is always overcome by active feuds or wars, so raiding will be a legitimate action if you first declare a feud or war on the settlement, PoI, or management company associated with your target outpost.
Although this potentially seems complicated, the hostility system is designed and presented in game to simplify on-the-spot combat decision making. We will cover hostility (and related changes to PvP) in more detail in a later blog post.
Requoted for emphasis:
Even in the case of raiding, not everyone in the vicinity will see you as "Hostile".
This is why Andius will not be able to attack whomever he wishes with impunity. He will have to make the choice to become the "Hostile" party himself.
He does not feel that he should have to make that choice or suffer the same consequences as everyone else.
@ Ishmell and others, you have been reasonable participants in this at times unreasonable argument, and I appreciate that.
The whole issue boils down to the last point I made. That sense of entitlement that certain individuals feel they have due to their alignment choice or the perceived (self absorbed) importance of their role to the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Epic
Yes indeed, an "Epic Failure"....
You are new, so I will chalk up you being misled in not realizing that Andius is posting older Dev Blogs.
From a newer Dev Blog, germaine to this issue:
Hostility
A lot of PvP complexity we were previously storing in flags is now summarized in the Hostile state.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You keep misinterpreting the dev's statements and misquoting them to fit your agenda and then pointing fingers at people who do not share your interpretation.
...
I did not make up this rule, Goblin Works did.
...
Really? Kindly look at the Blog that I provided and point out the misquote or misinterpretation.
Kindly, look through this list and point to the one(s) that are not backed up by either Dev Blog or Dev Post:
1. If someone attacks a citizen of your settlement, you can freely defend them.
2. If someone attacks a member of your company, you can freely defend them.
3. If someone attacks a member of your ad hoc group, you can freely defend them.
4. If someone violates a law in your settlement hex, you can freely attack the criminal.
5. If you have an active feud, war or are a member of the opposing faction, you can freely attack that person.
6. If that person raided your outpost, POI or similar structure, you can freely attack that person.
7. If that person attacks you, you can freely defend yourself.
8. If you have a bounty, assassination or death curse against that person, you can freely attack that person.
9. If your settlement hex is in state of war, and the person is within a certain range, you can freely attack that person. (recent comment by Ryan, not sure if it is developed yet).
10. If you SAD someone and they turn down the offer, you can freely attack that person.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are only two flags remaining at this time, Criminal and Heinous. The system of "Hostility" has replaced the Attacker Flag, or at least the Devs have not explicitly mentioned that the attacker flag still remains, along with the other two.Just a quick note: The attacker flag is still in place as mentioned here.
When a character attacks a character who was not Hostile, the character making the attack gets flagged as an Attacker. If the character with Attacker hits their target again in the next thirty seconds, they become Hostile, and lose Reputation. Note that Reputation is lost on striking a target twice rather than on death; this means Reputation is lost when your intention to kill someone is made clear rather than if you are successful.*bold is mine
Echoing Ishmell, the attacker flag was indeed mentioned by the Devs in the late Dec 2013 blog. It's been tweaked a little - like the two-attack rule before you take a Rep hit to allow for accidental hits. But it's still in place.
The hostility blog was late Sep 2013. Since the attacker flag was discussed later, it doesn't appear that the hostility system replaced the attacker flag.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Kindly, look through this list and point to the one(s) that are not backed up by either Dev Blog or Dev Post:
1. If someone attacks a citizen of your settlement, you can freely defend them.
2. If someone attacks a member of your company, you can freely defend them.
3. If someone attacks a member of your ad hoc group, you can freely defend them.
...
I'll definitely question #1, #2, and #3. I'd like to see what you think backs those up. And like Papaver says, it's not on me to prove no evidence exists.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'll definitely question #1, #2, and #3. I'd like to see what you think backs those up. And like Papaver says, it's not on me to prove no evidence exists.Kindly, look through this list and point to the one(s) that are not backed up by either Dev Blog or Dev Post:
1. If someone attacks a citizen of your settlement, you can freely defend them.
2. If someone attacks a member of your company, you can freely defend them.
3. If someone attacks a member of your ad hoc group, you can freely defend them.
...
So, you are under the belief that an attacker can attack a member of your group,company or citizen (where laws prohibit assault and murder) and he would only appear "hostile" to just that member?
Well that would be an MMO first, and a boom for all the would be attackers. I do hope you are right.
None of the Dev Blogs or Dev posts mention there will be footwear in PFO, shall we question that as well?
But, I will put these questions to the Devs for their clarification (not the footwear one) and we will see what response we get.
I will note that much of the list I provided is explained in the Hostility portion of the Blog.
HostilityA lot of PvP complexity we were previously storing in flags is now summarized in the Hostile state. There are a variety of cases that can make a player appear hostile to another player (e.g., faction membership, being at war, criminal flags, etc.). If you see a player that is hostile to you, there is no alignment or reputation penalty for attacking or killing that player. Often, hostility will be reciprocal (i.e., both players appear hostile to one another because their settlements are at war or their factions are enemies) but this is not required. If hostility is not reciprocal (a player sees you as hostile but you see them as friendly or neutral), once you are attacked, your attacker now appears hostile to you as well. That is, you don't take reputation or alignment penalties for defending yourself, even if you were a sanctioned target for your attacker.
Attacking an outpost will make you and your group hostile to the members of that outpost's managing company (as well as the owners of the controlling PoI if that company has subcontracted outpost management). That means that they can attempt to stop you without penalties. Raiding does not automatically make you hostile to every member of the settlement that owns that territory, however.
To enable the whole membership to come to the aid of its outposts, a settlement might choose to make raiding a crime in its territory. In that case, initiating a raid will give all raiders the Criminal flag (making them more chaotic and making them sanctioned targets for anyone). However, like all crimes, Criminal flags from raiding may have a detrimental effect on the settlement; even lawful settlements may have to consider whether making raiding a crime risks that their enemies will steal their resources and increase their corruption from frequent raiding. Additionally, the criminal flag is always overcome by active feuds or wars, so raiding will be a legitimate action if you first declare a feud or war on the settlement, PoI, or management company associated with your target outpost.
Although this potentially seems complicated, the hostility system is designed and presented in game to simplify on-the-spot combat decision making. We will cover hostility (and related changes to PvP) in more detail in a later blog post.
If an outpost is afforded more protection than an individual member of a group, that would indeed be interesting. But, I have to imagine you (Urman) can't expect that to be true.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kindly, look through this list and point to the one(s) that are not backed up by either Dev Blog or Dev Post:
List seems generally accurate to me except #9 which I'd say is more CEO speculation than professional Designer idea at this point.
These things are all congruent with the design objective of lots of PvP, not a lot of meaningless PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Here's a simple example that I think proves #1 false.
Bluddwolf and Wolfkin are members of Unnamed Settlement. Outside of their settlement territory Bluddwolf randomly attacks a random newbie. He gains the Attacker flag. I can now attack him without gaining an Attacker flag myself. Wolfkin cannot automatically defend him/attack me without consequences, ie, gaining the Attacker flag and suffering the rep hit.
I believe the same logic applies to #2, substituting Unnamed Company for Unnamed Settlement.
I think statements #1-#3 as written are absolute. They probably could use a number of caveats, like what happens when your buddy is already flagged for PvP.
(minor edits)
List seems generally accurate to me except #9 which I'd say is more CEO speculation than professional Designer idea at this point.
True, but for anyone who disagrees with the CEO on that point, it's time to hit the bricks. lol (I kid, of course... but srysly, good idea Ryan ).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Kindly, look through this list and point to the one(s) that are not backed up by either Dev Blog or Dev PostWhy? The burden of proof is at the end of the one who makes the claim. And so far you have failed to provide any relevant evidence to support your claim.
Kindly, look through this list and point to the one(s) that are not backed up by either Dev Blog or Dev Post:List seems generally accurate to me except #9 which I'd say is more CEO speculation than professional Designer idea at this point.
These things are all congruent with the design objective of lots of PvP, not a lot of meaningless PvP.
Checkmate!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Posting portions of Dev Blogs that have been superseded by newer ones does not make your case.
Excellent summation of the game design
The ability to engage in meaningful PvP through systems I'm very well aware of doesn't shake my point at all.
</debate>
<victory parade>
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We're all winners! Wooo!
I'm not sure what point Andius was making, if it was that he should be allowed to attack whomever he wishes, without being flagged as "Hostile" just because he is good and they are not, then it is not a win.
The whole issue that prompted this was that Andius want the SAD to trigger everyone in the vicinity to see the character issuing the SAD as hostile.
We still do not have an answer to that direct question. Based on the Blog, and what it says on "Hostility" it does not seem that would be the case.
So like taking baby steps we will ask the question directly...
@ Ryan or any other Dev
Will a SAD trigger everyone in the vicinity to see the character issuing the SAD as hostile?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Kindly, look through this list and point to the one(s) that are not backed up by either Dev Blog or Dev Post
there you go:
List seems generally accurate to me except #9
I'm not sure this will make it through you obsession with Andius but this:
The whole issue that prompted this was that Andius want the SAD to trigger everyone in the vicinity to see the character issuing the SAD as hostile.
is not the same as:
...he should be allowed to attack whomever he wishes...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Kindly, look through this list and point to the one(s) that are not backed up by either Dev Blog or Dev Postthere you go:
List seems generally accurate to me except #9
9. If your settlement hex is in state of war, and the person is within a certain range, you can freely attack that person. (recent comment by Ryan, not sure if it is developed yet).
I had that covered... Still checkmate!
List seems generally accurate to me except #9 which I'd say is more CEO speculation than professional Designer idea at this point.
Do you think other people can't finish reading a sentence, or is that just your problem?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Ryan or any other Dev
Will a SAD trigger everyone in the vicinity to see the character issuing the SAD as hostile?
Ryan responded to this in another thread:
Will a SAD trigger everyone in the vicinity to see the character issuing the SAD as hostile?TBD. Seems weird to me though.
It seems that you can try to make a case for it, if you can get passed Ryan's feeling that it is weird.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Here's a simple example that I think proves #1 false.Seems unlikely you should see the attacker flag for anyone in your social graph.
That's the first time I've seen the social graph mentioned in regards to flagging and reputation penalties.
Is it intended that anyone can jump in and join any fight that their friend (someone with one of a number of relationship on the social graph, not defined more specifically in this question) is involved in, and have the same rep/alignment changes as their friend (i.e. none for a defender or someone with a good reason), but parties without any relationship with any of the combatants nor any good reason should be penalized for getting involved?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@DeciusBrutus I don't understand the social graph part of it myself. I still have a hard time believing that attacking a flagged character will allow all unflagged members of the flagged character's settlement, company, and party to jump into the fight. We'll see.
I could see it going either way. The old adage 'an attack on one of us is an attack on all of us' comes to mind.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it intended that anyone can jump in and join any fight that their friend (someone with one of a number of relationship on the social graph, not defined more specifically in this question) is involved in, and have the same rep/alignment changes as their friend
The example was: I am in a social graph with A, and A gains the Attacker flag, I can attack A without penalty.
That seems weird to me. You shouldn't be able to attack people in your social graph without penalty.
Is the Attacker flag local to viewing characters or universal to the whole system?
If local:
If A attacks B, and then B engages A, people in A's social graph should not see the Attacker flag on B. B's action against A isn't Attacker flagged.
Everyone in B's social graph should see A as Attacker flagged. We don't want B's allies to stand around doing nothing while B responds to A. But we don't want A's allies to stand around doing nothing while B's allies fight A.
Should B's allies become Attacker flagged to A's social graph if they engage A? That implies a loophole where A engages B to drag a lot of B social graph members into Attacker status for a strong A social graph force standing by to engage without consequence. It appears that all of A's social graph should become Attacker flagged to all of B's social graph.
That implies a condition where a 1:1 fight anywhere suddenly puts Attacker flag on potentially thousands of characters without warning. That would be bad.
Perhaps the scope of the social graph subject to Attacker flagging should expand over time. For the first interval, the social graph is just the ad hoc party. The second interval is the chartered company. The third interval is the Settlement, and the last interval is the Kingdom. The length of each interval should probably be longer at each step. Some warning mechanism needs to be passed so that misbehaving A can be booted before a larger network becomes engaged. Perhaps the social graph should also have a geographic proximity - being within a certain radius of A escalates the flagging for individual characters, not the whole social graph level so that characters can't cherry pick fights by configuring ad hoc parties or chartered companies advantageously. Perhaps the radius limits the spread of the social graph members affected so that character far removed from the fighting aren't flagged. That implies issues of gaming the radius, which could be controlled by policy or by lack of transparency.
If universal:
Accept weirdness ... Or:
Have exclusion lists. A's attacker flag is excluded from A's social graph.
Implies that A's social graph is unflagged to B and B's social graph until A's social graph members engage, and since they aren't engaging Attacker flagged targets that earns A's allies the Attacker flag. B's social graph remains unflagged as long as they exclusively engage A and A's Attacker flagged allies, not A's unflagged allies. Could lead to A's allies not helping A. I guess A should be more careful.
Universal seems a lot easier to implement.