Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Awhile back it was stated alliances will cost influence to maintain, implying that there will be benefits to maintaining official alliances in-game. What benefits would you like to see?
Personally the main thing I want to see if I'm spending influence, is the ability to join them in defensive wars for free, and a reduced cost to joining them in aggressive wars.
Also should the alignment/reputation effect who can ally them or how much it costs to ally them?
Discuss.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps training benefits too.
Some characters might receive better training for certain skills in an ally's Settlement. They shouldn't receive the benefits of a character that belongs to that Settlement, but better than some unaligned character.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
First I will start with a disclaimer, that I'm not a big fan of big alliances. I do recognize that they will exist and there will be benefits for being a part of one.
The term "Alliance" may have a different meaning in PFO than in other MMOs. I take it to mean one or more Kingdoms that form a block, but GW may use the term to mean a Kingdom (2 or more settlements).
I could see the argument made that being a member of an alliance would have some benefits. It actually already does, as a social structure and defensive structure. But you are speaking more to buffs.
There should potentially be some mechanical buffs associated with being in an alliance, but I believe they should only be realized after the alliance has been together for some time, and they should not be major buffs.
To balance this out, there should also be buffs for individuals, companies, settlements, and kingdoms that remain independent of larger structures.
Where are the voices for the Independent Spirit?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Personally the main thing I want to see if I'm spending influence, is the ability to join them in defensive wars for free, and a reduced cost to joining them in aggressive wars.
If allies should be encouraged to help each other in this way, I think it should be balanced by an overhead cost of influence and resources as upkeep to keep the alliance together. It makes sense to me that in joining an alliance you lose some of your freedom of action, hurting your ability to start ventures on your own through a recurring cost and/or a reduction to influence cap.
Through some such mechanism there would both be advantages and drawbacks to joining an alliance. A 'lone' kingdom or settlement would have more influence to spend on whatever it might want while for a settlement in alliance, some influence is tied up in the alliance project but joint ventures (such as wars) are discounted.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well yes, a cost of influence to maintain an alliance is their only confirmed feature at this point. Social structure can be maintained through the meta-game and is therefore not a real benefit.
I see it this way. You could either spend influence on alliances and then fight the enemies attacking them for free / pay a bit less to go to war with their enemies. Or you can spend that influence on going to war with whoever you feel like.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Xeen,
Do you think that preventing "accidents" should be the only function of being part of an alliance?
Wouldn't it be interesting to make something more of the system, or at least try to do so? With the understanding that alliances won't be relevant until the implementation of settlements and warfare, far down the road, of course.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What I am saying is that creating an allaince between kingdoms is benefit enough. You have made a public statement that you are allies, and that if one is attacked then the other will help.
So not only do you keep your members from killing each other, but you have made a statement that should prevent unwanted aggression.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The inability to mark targets friendly/wary short of official alliances and wars would be a critical failure on the GW's part. If that is present but there is a cost associated with alliances then people will just use that.
Ryan said in a response to me, in another thread, we will likely have the ability to do just that. It will work much int he way that setting standings in EVE works.
Individual to Individual
Individual to Company
Individual to Settlement
Individual to Kingdom
Individual to Faction
Then continue with each of the other categories:
Company to....
Settlement to....
etc., etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What I find most disturbing (not with this thread BTW) with the perceived trend is that PFO is shaping up to be a Big Alliance vs. Big Alliance game.
So, I ask again, where are all of the voices of the Independent Spirit at?
If there are numerous buffs and advantages to being in large organizations, beyond just the social advantages, than PFO becomes more RvR PVP and not more individualized.
Where is the support for?
Solo Characters or a small grouping of players (ie. Druids)
Unaffiliated companies (Ie Bandit, Assassin or Mercenary Companies)
Settlements of just one Sponsored Company (Boutique Settlements)
Kingdoms of just Two Settlements
If there are to be buffs for being in large organizations, than there should be buffs for remaining independent. These buffs would obviously be different, but should be equally beneficial.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I started to reply but thought better of it. No point in advertising I thought.
I do believe the independents can aggregate and organize if we desire, and if anyone would like to take the initiative on this it would be timely.
If independents confederate loosely, with a very dispersed powerbase and a well maintained communications infrastructure we could possibly be a viable force if we are both numerous and can figure out a way to obtain needed training.
If we must build a high rep settlement to obtain the necessary training then that settlement will probably not long survive without much greater formality and rigor, which would compromise our independence and violate what I see as our purpose.
This difficulty could be compensated for if there is adequate training somehow available outside player-run settlements.
First step should be organizing communications.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Currently I do not see GW building the game for independents. My recommendation for those who would rather play as independents to affiliate with the least objectionable companies and try to maintain a good idea of what is going on in the River Kingdoms. If GW comes out with infrastructure support for druids, rangers, barbarians, gypsies, and the like, then we can look into building a robust center of power on what will then be the frontier. GW is building a settlement warfare game that, as independents and wanderers, appears it will be as unfriendly to independents as it will be to chaotic evils.
Until such a time our building any overt in-game target is only offering up the plump fruit of our labors to the most powerful extremists. As soon as we are targetable you can kiss it all goodbye.
If independents are communicative then the rest should be able to rally to assist any oppressed confederate.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Currently I do not see GW building the game for independents. My recommendation for those who would rather play as independents to affiliate with the least objectionable companies and try to maintain a good idea of what is going on in the River Kingdoms. If GW comes out with infrastructure support for druids, rangers, barbarians, gypsies, and the like, then we can look into building a robust center of power on what will then be the frontier. GW is building a settlement warfare game that, as independents and wanderers, appears it will be as unfriendly to independents as it will be to chaotic evils.
Until such a time our building any overt in-game target is only offering up the plump fruit of our labors to the most powerful extremists. As soon as we are targetable you can kiss it all goodbye.
If independents are communicative then the rest should be able to rally to assist any oppressed confederate.
Wow, that is stronger than I would have said, but then again you are probably correct in that opinion.
I would suggest as an offset for not being in a larger organization that certain buffs be granted for having smaller organizations.
Example:
A settlement made of just one company will have more cohesion and therefore should have a higher DI limit than a settlement made up of multiple companies.
These buffs should not be game changers, just balance out vs. a buff that a larger settlement may have.
I could see higher defensive buffs for single corp settlements as well. Moire unity of purpose and that "Us vs. the world mentality".
I believe a company is limited to 50 players. That is not enough for a settlement and barely enough for a decently defended POI
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe a company is limited to 50 players. That is not enough for a settlement and barely enough for a decently defended POI
I don't think 50 is a hard cap. Rather, I think it's just the upper end of the range at which the Company is gaining Influence efficiently, so that a Company with 500 members (if possible) won't gain Influence any faster than a Company with only 50 members.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, that is stronger than I would have said, but then again you are probably correct in that opinion.
Well, look clearly at it.
My consideration, expressed in the harshest language I would select, is that in order to gain any advanced training we will be required to become obedient codependents in a structured, militaristic state.
That is antithetical to druidism, and not rangerly at all. So my brethren ranging the woodlands will be as significantly disadvantaged as CE unless we can form a credible state ourselves, which is again antithetical to a confederation of independently motivated players.
If my vision of fielding the 'balancing force' in any uneven martial conflict were realized it would be exceedingly difficult to form lasting alliances. If we're always to support the underdog we will be seen as most unreliable to the interests of any serious power that is seeking domination.
That puts any effort we venture squarely into the target category.
Our only realistic defense, at least that I imagine, would be to decentralize, disperse the security profile. If we only come together for great efforts and resist this over-centralization of power, then it does not look terribly conducive to skilling up our accrued XP, especially if even friendly kingdoms and allied settlements have to fill their training slots with their own needs.
It is impractical to organize at all for us, other than by metagame networking, and even then I despair it will avail us of a unifying cause and spirit. We may be vital now, but if we face long years of frustration it may wear down and discourage even the best of us.
Better to join in with other settlements remembering the dream of liberty when we take up arms for any just cause, and someday, perhaps, our sun will rise in real liberty as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Wow, that is stronger than I would have said, but then again you are probably correct in that opinion.Well, look clearly at it.
My consideration, expressed in the harshest language I would select, is that in order to gain any advanced training we will be required to become obedient codependents in a structured, militaristic state.
There are some announced groups who do not intend to be militaristic states requiring subservience of members nor sponsored CCs. Hopefully that plan does not preclude the existence of a strong defensive militia/military.
As far as answering the OP, an obvious benefit would be the ability to create formations together and share other built-in means of communication. Similarly, one should be able to limit availability of created contracts and sales of goods and services to "allies".
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe a company is limited to 50 players. That is not enough for a settlement and barely enough for a decently defended POII don't think 50 is a hard cap. Rather, I think it's just the upper end of the range at which the Company is gaining Influence efficiently, so that a Company with 500 members (if possible) won't gain Influence any faster than a Company with only 50 members.
We haven't worked out the curving function yet, but the idea is that a 500 member company gets influence faster than a 50 member company, but not nearly ten times as fast. Thus, splitting that single giant company into up to ten smaller (equally sized) companies increases the total influence gain across the new set of sister companies (splitting into fewer than ten companies still increases it, but not as much as splitting into ten would). Once the individual companies are around 50 members or smaller, the diminishing returns function eases off so splitting even smaller is less of a gain.
Phrased another way, once your company starts growing toward 50, you should give serious thought to splitting, and you should be thinking about it pretty heavily once you're getting close to three digits. Once you clear three digits across all your sister companies*, you should think about building a settlement to give a parent structure to all those new individual companies to unify them back up again.
* maybe the mid to high three digits once the game is mature and competition is more intense, maybe not quite three digits early on
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Being
Technical points aside there is no reason a like minded group of Druids, Rangers, Gypsies etc could not form a company. As a Neutral force interested in balance in all things. Every member would be free to do there thing all day everyday, short of mass-murder. That company could be loosely allied with a settlement they saw as the underdog and when the time was right join the settlement. Do their part in the defense from outside the besieged settlement thus earning the good will of the settlement, and in turn the training they desire.
Plenty of talk has been made of strangling a settlement prior to war. What if an aggressor could not get players from there spawn point back to the battle because the woods/plains/swamp was crawling with druids and rangers (snipers essentially) that could track and kill returning aggressors? Forcing them to at least get into a defensible group to return to the battle, or better yet return to there home bank to get armor and a weapon.
*Everything I have read will not allow for local bind points like other games, that may have changed but I have not seen it.
The CE folks will never have that option to earn training as the upper level training facilities simply will not function if the settlement does not set the bar for entrance into the settlement higher than CE/N/G.
Personally I like the idea of a hideout in the woods that is a company of Druids and from a RP point of view it makes sense that one would exist. You would not expect to see a druid living in a city any more than you would expect to find cleric living in a tree. That is not to say there is no room for it in literature.
Disclaimer:
1. Before anybody says it I do not mean camping people spawn points.
2. No need to sight examples of clerics living in trees or druids building cities folks. I am talking a-typical.
3. There have been some folks siting the source material of the River Kingdoms as a harsh place but that is simply what a TT game needs if every other hex was full of people that would welcome you in feed you and shine your armor for you the TT game would be far less fun. I fully believe Ryan is creating a platform for us to make the River Kingdoms what we want them to be. 3a. Unless you are a sociopath.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
The easy answer would be that a declaration of war or feud on any one company or settlement or kingdom causes a state of war or feud to exist with all allied groups of the same level. A 'mess with one of us, mess with all of us' signal backed up with a commitment.
The downside would be the influence cost, along with the entangling requirements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What I find most disturbing (not with this thread BTW) with the perceived trend is that PFO is shaping up to be a Big Alliance vs. Big Alliance game.
So, I ask again, where are all of the voices of the Independent Spirit at?
Really hoping something like the 'Brotherhood without banners' from GoT can exist and actually thrive to a degree in PFO. Sure, it shouldn't be easy and there definitely would need to be some fancy footwork happening in the background, but really want to see such independents able to survive.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being
Technical points aside there is no reason a like minded group of Druids, Rangers, Gypsies etc could not form a company. As a Neutral force interested in balance in all things. Every member would be free to do there thing all day everyday, short of mass-murder. That company could be loosely allied with a settlement they saw as the underdog and when the time was right join the settlement.
Or, be part of establishing a settlement with such a belief...
Do their part in the defense from outside the besieged settlement thus earning the good will of the settlement, and in turn the training they desire.
Agreed, I think Druid Groves (and other places relevant to training other classes) will end up a POI or building site, when druids (and other respective classes) are introduced.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My consideration, expressed in the harshest language I would select, is that in order to gain any advanced training we will be required to become obedient codependents in a structured, militaristic state.
Interesting question: how involved, committed and "obedient" will one have to be to a settlement in order to get training? -or- Is there an alternative way of getting training?
I think that as we approach the 2.5 year mark, when top tier training becomes relevant, the political situation might be stable enough for some advanced settlements to allow people to join and train without making huge commitments of effort. Since characters who train was mentioned as one way to gain influence, the settlements might even welcome indies to join them for training once the core members have gotten what they need.
I don't think it has been stated whether all training recieved is still valid if you leave the settlement you got the training from, this definitely has a lot of bearing on how viable an independent playstyle could be.
Much of the game seems to revolve around the settlements and the competition between them, players need to be encouraged to partake in that but at the same time I sympathise with the sentiment that those who choose not to should still have a fun and playable game as far as possible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being
Technical points aside there is no reason a like minded group of Druids, Rangers, Gypsies etc could not form a company. As a Neutral force interested in balance in all things. Every member would be free to do there thing all day everyday, short of mass-murder. That company could be loosely allied with a settlement they saw as the underdog and when the time was right join the settlement. Do their part in the defense from outside the besieged settlement thus earning the good will of the settlement, and in turn the training they desire.
Thanks, Vwoom. I think that is pretty much what I was trying to suggest, but my product was inept in that it was pointedly individual rather than at the company level. If TN agents were to self-identify as a whole settlement then that settlement would be very vulnerable, exposed between the extremists on either side. This is the same problem faced by political moderates in any two party system, but in Golarion TN will find itself caught between four rocks and hard places. So the solution will be to identify moderate settlements (NG, LN, CN, and NE) to attach to rather than attempting to form a TN settlement. The semi-cardinal alignments might be selected to balance whichever cardinal alignment is dominant. The problems there are that dominance will shift over time, yet affiliations made earlier will be less fluid than the balance of power, and because the game has not begun we cannot reliably predict which cardinal alignment will dominate.
It is most unfortunate for me that my guild remains uncommitted to this game. I am by nature a loyalist. It feels wrong to me to develop an organization that would ultimately prove to be a competitor to my own guild. I will have to ask and await response from the guild leader to see whether I should establish an NG company in the name of the Crimson Wing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being (and everyone else reading), although I understand it is not your specific worry, do note that it should still be possible to build a TN settlement, just not a TN kingdom.
Not if it is not barred by Goblin Works, and you are not allowed to make a TN settlement.
The Devs have said (including Ryan) that they have a concern that if they allow for a TN settlement a majority (or even all) would set their settlement core alignment to TN.
Think about it, if structures have alignment requirements, then TN would give access to all. Their belief is all settlements would then be the same. I disagree with that last point. Settlements would still be unique, because the companies that make them would be unique. Alignment is not necessary to create uniqueness or the desire to compete against each other.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bludd, they said they don't want TN kingdoms, because they would have settlements on each side (LN, NG, NE, and CN) and thus be able to have all 9 alignments in a single kingdom; this would mean the player base doesn't have to make a meaningful decision in choosing alignment. As far as I have read they haven't said anything about TN settlements being off the table, as a TN settlement would still have to exclude the corner alignments.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Devs have said (including Ryan) that they have a concern that if they allow for a TN settlement a majority (or even all) would set their settlement core alignment to TN.
I don't believe that's accurate.
You can totally have a NN Settlement. Your members will be NN, CN, LN, NG, AND NE. That sounds awesome to me!
I think that the concern was that if NN was within 1-step of the corners, then every rational Settlement would be NN so they could have everyone join. I'm pretty sure that was the context of that discussion so I don't think this is a change.
Being Neutral was never a problem. Just having a Settlement that served as a join function for all alignments.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thank you Nihimon, I had transposed the concern for Kingdoms with Settlements.
@ Shane
You can still have a TN Kingdom, with three settlements, and cover all 9 alignments.
LN (LG, LE), TN (NE, NG) , CN (CG, CE)= Kingdom
NG (LG, CG), TN (LN, CN), NE (LE, CE) = Kingdom
The only way to prevent a Kingdom from having all 9 alignments is to limit kingdom size to just two settlements.
At that point kingdoms would have two settlements and meta game the third.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The only way to prevent a Kingdom from having all 9 alignments is to limit kingdom size to just two settlements.
I don't think that's accurate.
Characters must be within one (non-diagonal) step of their Settlement. Each Settlement must be within one (non-diagonal) step of its Nation. If there are no Neutral Nations, then all Nations will be on an edge or a corner. That will result in 6 Character Alignments being allowed in any Nation.
[Edit] Correction, Nations in the middle of an edge would allow 7 Character Alignments.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The only way to prevent a Kingdom from having all 9 alignments is to limit kingdom size to just two settlements.I don't think that's accurate.
Characters must be within one (non-diagonal) step of their Settlement. Each Settlement must be within one (non-diagonal) step of its Nation. If there are no Neutral Nations, then all Nations will be on an edge or a corner. That will result in 6 Character Alignments being allowed in any Nation.
[Edit] Correction, Nations in the middle of an edge would allow 7 Character Alignments.
No, a nation down either center, having three core alignments would be one step and include all 9 alignments.
The Core Alignment of each settlement is outside of the (XX):
LN (LG, LE), TN (NE, NG) , CN (CG, CE)= Kingdom
NG (LG, CG), TN (LN, CN), NE (LE, CE) = Kingdom
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
LN (LG, LE), TN (NE, NG) , CN (CG, CE)= KingdomLN and CN can't both be in the same Nation. They could only be in the same Nation if that Nation was Neutral, which Goblinworks has indicated they won't allow.
If true, that is ridiculous. If alignment is merely a mechanic to produce an artificial outcome, then what meaning should alignment hold for us?
I will rob, steal and occasionally murder, but claim that my character is Lawful Good. The disconnect would be no worse than what GW is doing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Bludd would you clarify the dots you are connecting? I feel like you just wrote a complicated formula on a chalkboard, the middle sequence of which reads" "And then a miracle happens!".
How do you get from asserting that alignment is mechanical to claiming it is lawful good to murder, steal, and rob?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd personally like to see that if one's active alignment is out of sync long enough that it'll pull you core to it.
Core Alignment was put into the game to support folks who didn't want an automatic drift towards Lawful Good. I think perhaps the problems that are surfacing now are due to the other uses to which Core Alignment has been put, such as Settlement Membership.
It might simplify things if the only thing Core Alignment did was control the direction of the automatic shifts. That would mean that Settlement Membership would only be based on Active Alignment, and I think that would be a good thing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Being,
You must have missed the part where I said it was as disconnected as the alignment system GW us proposing.
@ Drakhan,
Yes, if they are going to have an alignment system, I want them to do it right. Otherwise I will make a complete mockery of it and use every loophole and preach any inconsistency to true alignment that springs to my devious imagination.
@ Nihimon
I agree with you. The problem is they are trying to interweave alignment into to many, unrelated system. Furthermore, alignment is looking more like a major system, and not more appropriately a subsystem.
Yes I know Ryan thinks it is a major system, but it is not, and it won't be what sells PFO.
Hmmmm. Three for three, almost near agreements in one post!!!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That would mean that Settlement Membership would only be based on Active Alignment, and I think that would be a good thing.
I would disagree, if only based on how much effort it would take to begin managing settlement management. However rare, a NN character in a CN settlement accidentally drifts into LN for a brief time and gets booted from his CN company and settlement and has to get reinvited? Yikes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We get it. You hate the alignment system. But at least you'll do an invaluable bit of crowdforging to help GW get it right. I'd personally like to see that if one's active alignment is out of sync long enough that it'll pull you core to it.
Who was it that said they hated the alignment system?
I have talked to a couple guys on TS that dont like alignment... but I dont think they are in recent conversations.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ Being,
You must have missed the part where I said it was as disconnected as the alignment system GW us proposing.
@ Drakhan,
Yes, if they are going to have an alignment system, I want them to do it right. Otherwise I will make a complete mockery of it and use every loophole and preach any inconsistency to true alignment that springs to my devious imagination.
@ Nihimon
I agree with you. The problem is they are trying to interweave alignment into to many, unrelated system. Furthermore, alignment is looking more like a major system, and not more appropriately a subsystem.
Yes I know Ryan thinks it is a major system, but it is not, and it won't be what sells PFO.
Hmmmm. Three for three, almost near agreements in one post!!!
Can't agree with that one. I do think that alignment ends up being the major selling point for PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That would mean that Settlement Membership would only be based on Active Alignment, and I think that would be a good thing.I would disagree, if only based on how much effort it would take to begin managing settlement management. However rare, a NN character in a CN settlement accidentally drifts into LN for a brief time and gets booted from his CN company and settlement and has to get reinvited? Yikes.
There should be no mechanical effect for active alignment being one step removed from core alignment, which is one step removed from the core alignment of the settlement.
What I would further add is that a character should be allowed to have an active core alignment that is one step removed from the settlement alignments (not just its core).
Thus would allow a character to be one step (core) from the permissible alignments and two steps active.
Every town has its seedy side, and every town has the little old lady that everyone loves.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes I know Ryan thinks [alignment] is a major system, but it is not, and it won't be what sells PFO.
Can't agree with that one. I do think that alignment ends up being the major selling point for PFO.
Yeah, meaningful Alignment is already what sold me on PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Being, You must have missed the part where I said it was as disconnected as the alignment system GW us proposing.
I have a cognative disconnect there, Bludd. I think both alignment and reputation are each connected with the whole design.
I think that some of the ways alignment and reputation connect to one another in the design might be revisited down the road, but there is no question in my mind that alignment has a place in Golarion and that reputation has a necessary place in a societal model. I understand how a low reputation would argue against the good and would argue that a similar notoriety scale should balance reputation on the evil side. I'm not yet convinced that reputation should impel alignment to CE but there appears to be a paradigm in Pathfinder that suggests that happens.
I don't see rep and alignment as disconnected at all and I fail to understand how you can continue to imagine then as disconnected.
When you assert that alignment is 'merely a mechanic to produce an artificial outcome' I resonate with conviction that your point is dead wrong. Your following consequence is necessarily similarly wrong if my conviction is right and my conviction is reasoned and defensible.
Then to propose that you'll rob, steal and kill as lawful good in consequence I get a moment of astonishment at you. So I asked for a bit of detail how you get there from a false premise.
So how is that premise false. Alignment is not a mechanic to produce an artificial outcome. Core Alignment is a description of what you profess as the ideal objective of your character's intended behavior. That character's active alignment gauges how closely your are able to achieve that ideal objective using metric values derived from your game-meaningful actions.
Reputation gauges your interrelations with other player characters and the laws of settlements. It measures your reliability in honoring your contracts and measures your choices.
Alignment is anything but disconnected: it is very closely connected. Alignment is not a mechanism intended to produce an artificial product, it is a measure of your achievement. Reputation is not an artifice intended to produce an artificial behavior though it can be used for limiting and discouraging unwanted behavior. Reputation is a measuring and reporting tool that traces your choices and notices if you attack without in-game meaningful reasons, where what is meaningful is marked off for you plainly with flags and factions and will probably be even color coded for the benefit of the particularly dense.
You are as free as a bird, or better, but the things you do in game will be quantified and measured and is anything but 'disconnected'. The results are like reports. Reports don't make stuff happen, they report what did happen.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would like to see kingdoms have some kind of identity that includes several but not all alignments. Like a kingdom is good or evil or lawful or chaotic, and settlements that match can join. Call it roleplaying or making a believable fantasy world. So at most you will see 5 different character alignments in a kingdom, unless I figured that wrong , and 3 different settlement alignments in a kingdom. Or else alignment will mean nothing at the kingdom level and that doesn't sound right.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes I know Ryan thinks [alignment] is a major system, but it is not, and it won't be what sells PFO.Can't agree with that one. I do think that alignment ends up being the major selling point for PFO.Yeah, meaningful Alignment is already what sold me on PFO.
What do you see as the big selling point of alignment?