It's 3am, do you know where your settlement is?


Pathfinder Online

451 to 500 of 767 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Banesama wrote:
Fiendish wrote:

People love to associate chaotic evil with chaotic stupid.

I just don't like the idea of gaming the system for mechanical benefit as there are a lot of other great character concepts that would get destroyed by the current alignment system. However that apparently is "working as intended".

Reason why a lot of people associate chaotic evil with chaotic stupid is because that is usually what happens.

Of my 20+ years of roleplaying with the various groups I have been in (I moved around a lot) I can only think of 2 people that I played with that could really pull off playing Chaotic Evil w/o being Chaotic Stupid.

And I'm not one of them. Frankly I find it too hard for me to stay Chaotic.

I will always be in favor of de-penalizing the CE label to at least leave the door open for well-played bad guys and if they start acting chaotic stupid let low reputation deal with them as explained in the blog last month.

Less is often more, the fewer moving parts systems have the less likely they are to break.

Pax Keovar wrote:
If GW or enough of the community consider it a problem that people set their core alignment to a point they don't actually play simply to take advantage of drifting back that way, perhaps there could be a...

*If it got to that point*, instead of piling more on you could just scrap Core alignment to make everyone be what alignment they really are.

Goblin Squad Member

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Proxima Sin wrote:
I will always be in favor of de-penalizing the CE label to at least leave the door open for well-played bad guys and if they start acting chaotic stupid let low reputation deal with them as explained in the blog last month.

I think this is already the case. I think Ryan's seeming intransigence in acknowledging it is partly due to his desire to avoid setting unrealistic expectations. If Ryan consistently points out that "Chaotic Evil sucks", "Chaotic Evil is for a!@@*#*s", "There's no reason to play Chaotic Evil unless you want to be other people's content", then it's hard for folks to get upset when those things come true. On the other hand, if he were to proclaim "Sure, you can be Chaotic Evil and still be awesome", then everyone who tried and failed would be whining until the end of days.

I think that Ryan and Stephen are probably right that the vast majority of folks who end up Chaotic Evil will have gotten there by being murder-happy jerks, so they'll also be Low Reputation and they'll suck. Stephen has already acknowledged the door is open for those who manage to walk a very fine line.

I'd really hate to see them neuter what seems like a very effective jerk funnel just to accommodate an extremely small minority of players, some of whom are undoubtedly insincere about their goals and intentions.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

No, it is not the case. Ryan said they will suck and they are making it that way on purpose. CE cant even not suck with high Rep.

If CE could be awesome if played well, then if someone tried it and failed then that is there problem... Whining or not.

Ryan and Stephen being probably right about folks ending up CE... etc... Is from the point of view of them ending up there, which means they started somewhere else.

The effective jerk funnel is reputation. CE is not required for it, but GW chose to link them.

There are people who would happily play CE and walk that fine line with high rep... but being that CE will suck no matter what... Whats the point really?

Stephens door acknowledgement was slammed shut by Ryan.

Goblin Squad Member

Heh, no CE is awesome they're all villainous despicable wretches, but you can do that in a friendly way. I guess my sense of actor-character is more delineated? For anyone with any form of bad intentions the reputation hierarchy and low reputation is the jerk funnel if it has any teeth.

A post earlier in this thread Ryan just said he doesn't want people acting chaotically + evilly, within GWs rules or not; it's hard to read the post as meaning anything other than it's a second type of problem in addition to the standard MMO problems. So the opinion that appreciates well-played within the rules CE as adding to the game and community is out the door. The best to hope for is a tightrope but it's probably a noose.

I'd hate to see alignment-tied mechanics result in 80% of the population within two steps of each other and going at each other's throats metagaming a full grid.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:
No, it is not the case. Ryan said they will suck and they are making it that way on purpose. CE cant even not suck with high Rep.

I'd like to see a quote to back that up. From what I've seen, Ryan's argument is that Chaotic Evil will be Low Reputation because the things that make you Chaotic Evil also make you Low Reputation, so it's not really worth considering the extreme edge case where someone is Chaotic Evil and High Reputation.

Xeen wrote:
Stephens door acknowledgement was slammed shut by Ryan.

Again, I'd like to see a quote to back that up. Because I remember things differently.

This is from Friday, January 24th. A mere 4 days ago, in this very thread:

I don't think it will be possible to play a low rep Lawful Good character. For the same reason I think it will be (practically) impossible to play a high rep Chaotic Evil character. Because your rep will track your actions and your actions will determine your alignment. You know - "role playing".

It seems inescapable that the "(practically)" bit is a direct acknowledgement that the door is still open, while also acknowledging that it will be extremely unlikely that anyone actually manages to go through it.

That doesn't seem any more absolute than Stephen's own statement at the time he opened the door.

There's been no change on this front from what we've told you about alignment and rep previously. That is, we expect the majority of CE characters to also have very low reputation, because ganking lowers all three axes. So Ryan's shorthand is "CE will suck," because we genuinely believe that there won't be very many CE players that maintain high reputation.

There are a few of you that plan to play CE as a roleplaying choice, and try to make sure you're only doing it in a way that doesn't cost you too much rep. That's awesome, and we really hope you succeed. If you have a high-rep CE town, the penalties are the minimal ones that we've mentioned before; it's the low-rep that really hurts you. But we still expect that CE will be very strongly correlated with low-rep, because we don't expect that the majority of players coming in outside of the forum community will be choosing CE for roleplay, just drifting there due to behaviors that also lower rep.

If the early enrollees manage to set up enough high-rep CE settlements to create and maintain an expectation of "playing CE but not being a jerk about it" among later players, that'd be great. Just don't get your hearts set on pulling it off :) .

Goblin Squad Member

I'm sure Nihimon can find the quotes (Edit: Looks like you already did. Your title is well deserved Erudite.) but I think the main reason Ryan has given for CE sucking is most CE settlements will be low rep and therefore not have as good of training.

The only disadvantage inherent to CE settlements I have seen confirmed is a a higher starting ammount for corruption and unrest. Those mechanics are not related to training and we frankly don't even know how much higher they will start, or how big of a deal they will be. They could be anything from game-breakingly powerful to a complete non-issue.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
@Proxima Sin - you appear to be proceeding from a false premise. I have no intention of making a game where people who want to play Chaotic Evil characters will be happy with their experience. One of the design goals of this game is not "Let people play every alignment option in rough balance with all the others". In fact the exact opposite is true: we're intentionally and publicly stating we have a bias and we'll intentionally sacrifice an alignment for the purpose of overall community quality.

And yes, Stephen did say that... Obviously, which I agreed with, but Ryan refuted it since.

Goblin Squad Member

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I think that Ryan and Stephen are building a game based on the expectation that the vast majority of their players are going to pick an alignment for whatever reason and play the game without thinking about alignment. The common player might change a character's alignment if required to join a group in game, and then they'll go back to not worrying about it.

The game is being built with the expectation that roleplayers will be a minority of the players shortly into OE. CE roleplayers will be subsection of that - a sliver of the potential player base. CE roleplayers who can manage to play their character for more than a week without drifting into chaotic-stupid territory might be a very small piece of that sliver.

But what customers might GW attract with a working Jerk Funnel™? People who are adverse to the PvP-gank fest they've encountered (or just heard about) elsewhere. The calculation might simply be (number of players who might be lured in to PFO if ganking is reduced/controlled) .greatly exceeds. (number of players who can manage to decently roleplay CE and won't play anything else).

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.

@Xeen, I guess I see the nuance that's been there all along.

Chaotic Evil will suck. Chaotic Evil is for a!%$@#@s. There's no reason to play Chaotic Evil unless you want to be other people's content.

It's possible (but extremely unlikely) that you'll be able to play Chaotic Evil and High Reputation, in which case your Settlement will escape the penalties that make Chaotic Evil and Low Reputation Settlements truly suck.

There's no intent to design the game such that Chaotic Evil is fun for folks. But if you're dead set on doing it, there's a very small, straight, and narrow path you can walk to do that. You will still be surrounded by a$#$#!%s, and you will still be other people's content, but if you're okay with that, knock yourself out.

The primary design intent inherent in the Alignment system is to funnel jerks away from other players so PFO doesn't devolve into a murder simulator. That goal is paramount, and will not be sacrificed in order to satisfy an extremely small minority of players who want to RP Chaotic Evil (some of whom are undoubtedly arguing under false pretenses and really just want to grief other players without consequence).

It seems utterly consistent to me with what I've heard over the last two years. The statements of the devs back up the idea that this has been a consistent message all along.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
If a player sets their core alignment to CE, and they do not kill outside of feud, war, faction of self defense, will the alignment still suffer mechanical disadvantages?

You'll have to find a Chaotic Neutral or Neutral Evil Settlement that is actively trying to keep their rep high enough to compete with other Settlements which means that de facto you'll be playing with and like less chaotic and less evil characters - the whole Settlement may be playing in ways that tend to drift their alignment away from Chaotic Evil.

So if the Settlement is well managed, you will likely have access to a fairly broad range of character abilities, but still not the absolute most exotic. That may or may not matter materially.

If you want to play your Chaotic Evil character Chaotically and Evilly, you'll probably not be able to remain a part of that Settlement - they'll boot you to protect their own Development Index.

This indicates a doorway too. It still remains that playing in a chaotic and evil way has many drawbacks to reputation. So set your core to CE, play NE or CN or whatever else you end up being able to do. Just don't expect to be able to play in a real chaotic and evil combination and pull it off well. It is what it is.

I sooo tried to stay out.... :(

Goblin Squad Member

@Nihimon Two pages ago I was deconstructing this down to the point of identifying the things that are chaotic and evil without being low rep to demonstrate the path for a high rep CE to add their colors to the quilt when

Ryan Dancey wrote:
@Proxima Sin - you appear to be proceeding from a false premise. I have no intention of making a game where people who want to play Chaotic Evil characters will be happy with their experience. One of the design goals of this game is not "Let people play every alignment option in rough balance with all the others". In fact the exact opposite is true: we're intentionally and publicly stating we have a bias and we'll intentionally sacrifice an alignment...

So, yeah, there's your quote. [Edit: that Xeen beat me to -merde- but I did the work so I'm leaving it]

It's this part

Ryan Dancey wrote:
... for the purpose of overall community quality.

that leaves me confused why the reputation system isn't enough to achieve that goal.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
I sooo tried to stay out.... :(

Nihimon tries to hide the fact that he's shivering uncontrollably and chilled to the bone just under the surface

Jump on in, the water's fine!

Goblin Squad Member

@Proxima Sin, I refer you to my post above, and to Bringslite's.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's like different languages are being spoken.

Goblin Squad Member

T7V Lord_Bane wrote:
I represent the "Nihimon Fan-Club" and our colors are platinum and crimson. :p

Yeah and we're pretty strict about the platinum. Grey is BS.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Its pretty simple really, if things stay as most recently stated anyway...

Chaotic - SAD
Evil - Assassin

Do these and you will have both alignments and a high reputation.

No one CE, even playing that way, will escape the fact that they will suck. Ryan just stated that they are openly making sure of it. So either there is more to it then we have been told so far, or they are being gimped by design.

Of course, there are people who are fine with this. They do not plan to play CE, nor do I, but there are people who would like to.... They just dont want to be pre nerfed into uselessness.

Calling them a%#~$!!s, griefers, jerks, its a jerk funnel, and whatever else is just being childish.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
T7V Avari wrote:
None of that grey BS.

I feel a special affinity for Americans who use "grey" instead of "gray". It's a shibboleth of sorts, and I think it's a clear sign of exceptional character :)

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
@Proxima Sin, I refer you to my post above, and to Bringslite's.

Regarding Bringslite's point: I had already thought of ways CE can play legitimately and contribute positively to the game without rep loss and GW could institute more if they decided on a "9 balanced alignments" design goal.

Regarding Nihimon's point: A sales pitch of "Anyone that tries to play a murder simulator like those other sandbox MMOs will be pulverized into a fine dust by our reputation system!" is a fine and strong pitch that gives the identical reassurance and offers 12.5% more game to potential players than your sales pitch.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
No one CE, even playing that way, will escape the fact that they will suck. Ryan just stated that they are openly making sure of it. So either there is more to it then we have been told so far, or they are being gimped by design.

except:

Ryan wrote:
So if the Settlement is well managed, you will likely have access to a fairly broad range of character abilities, but still not the absolute most exotic. That may or may not matter materially.

Plus the freedom to not be concerned about chaotic and evil hits involved in the "sanctioned" PVP that are available.

I won't assume anything here Xeen, but how much advantage do you really want CE players to have? Do you feel like, if GW gets the balance right, it might not be so bad to be CE with high rep? That it might be ok (to be really sucky) if you are CE with low rep?

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Feel free to play a high rep CE character. You will not have much company.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite, I was under the assumption that... no matter the alignment, if you were low rep then you would likely be sucky.

Goblin Squad Member

Drakhan Valane wrote:
Feel free to play a high rep CE character. You will not have much company.

Were you talking to me?

Goblin Squad Member

@ Xeen

Yes I think that is true. If you can manage to be any alignment with low rep, you will probably suck. We were discussing CE though, pretty clearly (I thought).

It just goes round and round because the words mean different things to different people. It is a great thing that there is one "Entity" that will, in the end, give us the definitions. Whether we all end up agreeing or not. :)

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Proxima Sin wrote:
... a "9 balanced alignments" design goal.

And I think that is exactly what Ryan was addressing. It's not a design goal to have 9 balanced alignments. That doesn't mean it's absolutely impossible to play Chaotic Evil and High Reputation, it just means it's not a design priority and it's not likely to actually occur in the real world.

I scrolled back and looked at your list of actions that could theoretically drive someone towards Chaotic Evil without also reducing their Reputation.

So really it becomes a question of what can you do in-game that is faster than Drift to shift Chaotic and/or Evil that doesn't result in rep loss, right?

Break laws. Your laws or enemies' laws in their lands (a feature of all chaotics)
Assist an evil god or other faction
Are there any alignment shifts attached to who you trade with?
I've always thought contributing materials, skills, or fighting for an officially structured feud or war should accrue shifts in the direction of the sponsor. When a CE fights in a GW-sanctioned war/feud for NE settlement/company his Law vs. Chaos isn't engaged either way (Neutral) but he accrues small shifts towards evil as he takes part in the war supporting an evil entity. Likewise contributing/fighting for a LG settlement feels like it should come with simultaneous accrued shifts toward L and G.

Potential problems:
Does killing monsters in the countryside or especially escalations come with G or L shifts?
Fulfilling contracts leads to L? Might have to eschew official contracts and meta some agreements with people that think the CEs self-interest rests most in having it completed; that's meaningful decisions on both sides.

I'm curious how many folks you think will actually play that way, and why you seem 100% convinced that such a playstyle will be insurmountably gimped?

It seems like you're expending a lot of effort trying to get Ryan to phrase his response in a particular way, rather than taking his response at face value. It's possible. No one (practically) will actually do it.

It also seems like you're getting tunnel vision on this one particular aspect of the game, and losing sight of all the other factors that must be weighed. It seems to me like the hypothetical balance you're looking for would actually imbalance the actual community. If Chaotic Evil is mechanically equivalent to Lawful Good, while retaining greater freedom of action, then players will choose to be Chaotic Evil. If you remove the restrictions on the actions of Lawful Good, then there's no meaningful alignment.

Ultimately, it seems like you're arguing that meaningful alignment should be abandoned as a design goal simply because it theoretically could be.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
Bringslite, I was under the assumption that... no matter the alignment, if you were low rep then you would likely be sucky.
Bringslite wrote:

@ Xeen

Yes I think that is true. If you can manage to be any alignment with low rep, you will probably suck.

I actually don't think that's true.

Lawful Good settlement with high Reputation will be very hard to maintain in that state (because they require a large number of citizens also maintaining that state), so we feel that they should gain a number of bonuses. However, those are bonuses from all three of the axes: Law vs. Chaos, Good vs. Evil, and Reputation. A settlement with two of them high will not be far behind in capabilities, it's only when you let all three drop that you become a wretched hive of scum and villainy.

But, again, we run up against the problem of theoretical versus actual. Just because it's possible to be Low Reputation Lawful Good doesn't mean anyone will actually do it, and it's probably not worth worrying about.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:

@ Xeen

Yes I think that is true. If you can manage to be any alignment with low rep, you will probably suck. We were discussing CE though, pretty clearly (I thought).

It just goes round and round because the words mean different things to different people. It is a great thing that there is one "Entity" that will, in the end, give us the definitions. Whether we all end up agreeing or not. :)

Yeah, we were talking about CE. But you asked about balance. I am just thinking of D&D, where the power you have has little to to with your alignment. Not counting Paladins and Clerics of course... although the power of clerics is equal per alignment from my memory, they are just different.

PFO added in Reputation to handle PVP stuff.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Xeen wrote:
Bringslite, I was under the assumption that... no matter the alignment, if you were low rep then you would likely be sucky.
Bringslite wrote:

@ Xeen

Yes I think that is true. If you can manage to be any alignment with low rep, you will probably suck.

I actually don't think that's true.

Lawful Good settlement with high Reputation will be very hard to maintain in that state (because they require a large number of citizens also maintaining that state), so we feel that they should gain a number of bonuses. However, those are bonuses from all three of the axes: Law vs. Chaos, Good vs. Evil, and Reputation. A settlement with two of them high will not be far behind in capabilities, it's only when you let all three drop that you become a wretched hive of scum and villainy.
But, again, we run up against the problem of theoretical versus actual. Just because it's possible to be Low Reputation Lawful Good doesn't mean anyone will actually do it, and it's probably not worth worrying about.

It is true from an individual's point of view. You will have less access to training, unless I am mistaken? If your individual rep is low enough, regardless of alignment, you will be unable to access NPC or player controlled buildings, unless I am mistaken?

There does remain that it will be highly unlikely that you will incur a low rep and not be dragged (somewhere) in alignment on the way.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Xeen wrote:
Bringslite, I was under the assumption that... no matter the alignment, if you were low rep then you would likely be sucky.
Bringslite wrote:

@ Xeen

Yes I think that is true. If you can manage to be any alignment with low rep, you will probably suck.

I actually don't think that's true.

Lawful Good settlement with high Reputation will be very hard to maintain in that state (because they require a large number of citizens also maintaining that state), so we feel that they should gain a number of bonuses. However, those are bonuses from all three of the axes: Law vs. Chaos, Good vs. Evil, and Reputation. A settlement with two of them high will not be far behind in capabilities, it's only when you let all three drop that you become a wretched hive of scum and villainy.
But, again, we run up against the problem of theoretical versus actual. Just because it's possible to be Low Reputation Lawful Good doesn't mean anyone will actually do it, and it's probably not worth worrying about.

No I dont expect to see anyone LG low rep, but your video quote proves that you can be CE high rep and still be behind in capabilities.

Goblin Squad Member

The only reason any particular character alignment is mentally associated with a**%@&e hooligans at a keyboard is because GW linked their system that measures when players act outside game boundaries to an inside boundaries role playing device separate from the player punishment mechanism. *Why would you measure something that ideally shouldn't be in the game ever with a major in-game system?* It's like filming a scene with Harry Potter in the wizarding drunk tank if Daniel Radcliff gets a DUI and fined.

If GW from the beginning had said, "Breaking pvp structures is a player behavior problem and results in reputation loss and inhibited training. In other news, raising dead is allowed but it makes your character Evil." The instinct to profile player behavior based on role play alignment would be backseat to profiling player murderer expectations from their reputation score. But we all know that isn't the case today.

But having the shunned alignment/unapproved action connection mentioned over and over does lead to role-play-tool-based profiling of bad keyboard behavior and the reputation-ignoring argument of "Good needs mechanical advantage to balance that Evils can kill outside approved structures all day long and don't have to worry about alignment shift! How many advantages do you want Evil to have?" which bolsters the admitted bias. Just like making you a freebie for anybody to attack for doing certain evil stuff supports the bias.

Evil-labeled (escpecially CE) suckage is a design goal. I'm just not clear why evil is shunned as valueless in the same manner as typical MMO problem behavior.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
Bringslite wrote:

@ Xeen

Yes I think that is true. If you can manage to be any alignment with low rep, you will probably suck. We were discussing CE though, pretty clearly (I thought).

It just goes round and round because the words mean different things to different people. It is a great thing that there is one "Entity" that will, in the end, give us the definitions. Whether we all end up agreeing or not. :)

Yeah, we were talking about CE. But you asked about balance. I am just thinking of D&D, where the power you have has little to to with your alignment. Not counting Paladins and Clerics of course... although the power of clerics is equal per alignment from my memory, they are just different.

PFO added in Reputation to handle PVP stuff.

At base, I am not against the balanced approach and more like D&D. I just don't really believe that it would result in a game much different than any of the others out there. Nor do I feel like it would work well for what GW has been describing. There has to be fewer predators than potential prey. You have to make the game attractive to the potential prey or they won't play.

I am trying to speak Wolf Tongue here so that we might understand each other better. :)

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Proxima Sin wrote:
Evil-labeled (escpecially CE) suckage is a design goal. I'm just not clear why evil is shunned as valueless in the same manner as typical MMO problem behavior.

Just a guess here: Because it is just exactly that real CE behavior is what GW wants to have much less of, but still possible for the danger factor, so they are discouraging it with some mechanics. GW has decided that some kinds of play are what they see as "wreckers" for games when those styles are given free reign and freedom of action without consequences.

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin wrote:
... the reputation-ignoring argument of "Good needs mechanical advantage to balance that Evils can kill outside approved structures all day long and don't have to worry about alignment shift!

Except there is a set of characters that can be targeted while ignoring reputation losses. Low rep characters of any alignment *can* be targeted with extremely low rep penalties. GW doesn't have the luxury of ignoring this; they have to take it into account in their design and expectations.

Ryan has spelled out that he expects players who are focused on garnering lots of PvP achievements to prey on low rep CEs (because many low rep people will be CE). And he's further suggested that he expects that many of those people preying on the low rep CEs will themselves be Evil. Because characters who hunt/kill low rep characters outside of feud and war will be taking low rep hits, but normal evil hits.

Good characters won't have the same opportunity to hunt the low rep types, because they won't be able to afford the constant evil hits. So while reputation is a factor, Evil will have kill/loot and achievement gaining opportunities that Good will not easily be able to take advantage of. That seems to be what they're planning for, anyway.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Proxima Sin wrote:
The only reason any particular character alignment is mentally associated with a**%@&e hooligans at a keyboard is because GW linked their system that measures when players act outside game boundaries to an inside boundaries role playing device separate from the player punishment mechanism.

I don't think that's right. I've always associated Chaotic Evil with random murder.

Proxima Sin wrote:
Evil-labeled (escpecially CE) suckage is a design goal.

I'm fairly certain that's not true. Lawful Evil is consistently held up as the powerful counter-weight to the benefits of Lawful Good. Lawful Evil won't suck unless they're also Low Reputation.

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
Proxima Sin wrote:
... the reputation-ignoring argument of "Good needs mechanical advantage to balance that Evils can kill outside approved structures all day long and don't have to worry about alignment shift!

Except there is a set of characters that can be targeted while ignoring reputation losses. Low rep characters of any alignment *can* be targeted with extremely low rep penalties. GW doesn't have the luxury of ignoring this; they have to take it into account in their design and expectations.

Ryan has spelled out that he expects players who are focused on garnering lots of PvP achievements to prey on low rep CEs (because many low rep people will be CE). And he's further suggested that he expects that many of those people preying on the low rep CEs will themselves be Evil. Because characters who hunt/kill low rep characters outside of feud and war will be taking low rep hits, but normal evil hits.

Good characters won't have the same opportunity to hunt the low rep types, because they won't be able to afford the constant evil hits. So while reputation is a factor, Evil will have kill/loot and achievement gaining opportunities that Good will not easily be able to take advantage of. That seems to be what they're planning for, anyway.

Good players will have the opportunities though because most likely a lot of those low-rep players will be flagged Criminal and Heinous and thus will be able to be attacked without any rep loss to the good players.

I don't mind even being more vulnerable to attack as a CE but I don't feel my advancement should be hampered. (i.e. training and crafting limitations.)

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
. If Chaotic Evil is mechanically equivalent to Lawful Good, while retaining greater freedom of action, then players will choose to be Chaotic Evil. If you remove the restrictions on the actions of Lawful Good, then there's no meaningful alignment.

What I don't understand with Ryan's, or some of the posters' responses here is this. You have a group of players asking to role play an alignment and play within the prescribed rule of positive actions that GW has said they are desirous to see, and you are all taking issue with it.

It is like you are collectively having a temper tantrum that your preconceived notions can be thwarted by players playing in a positive way, "How Dare They!!!" "I want Chaotic Evil to Suck!! I demand that it will suck!!!"

Honestly I don't know what to make of it. Not one word of encouragement. Not one thank you, for trying to make it work.

All we have seen is a childish wringing of hands and tears for that preconceived notion that CE must suck, if not everyone will be CE. Isn't that the same thing as saying, only CE desire to role play their alignment?

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
What I don't understand with Ryan's, or some of the posters' responses here is this. You have a group of players asking to role play an alignment and play within the prescribed rule of positive actions that GW has said they are desirous to see, and you are all taking issue with it.

I'm not taking issue with it. I'm pointing out - repeatedly - that they've already told you it's possible. Go ahead and try, just don't expect them to bend over backwards to make it easy for you.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Proxima Sin wrote:
The only reason any particular character alignment is mentally associated with a**%@&e hooligans at a keyboard is because GW linked their system that measures when players act outside game boundaries to an inside boundaries role playing device separate from the player punishment mechanism.

I don't think that's right. I've always associated Chaotic Evil with random murder.

Opinion

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
...we'll intentionally sacrifice an alignment...

As long as people are parsing everything down almost to individual letters, I thought I'd point out that Ryan said "we'll"--as in "we will"--when he could easily have said "we've"--as in "we have". The former indicates future-tense willingness, the latter a past-tense fait accompli.

We've repeatedly seen how carefully Ryan chooses individual words to convey very specific messages to us, so I take this latest to mean that the much-ballyhooed door is still open.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Nihimon wrote:

I don't think that's right. I've always associated Chaotic Evil with random murder.

Opinion

I fail to see where Nihimon intended his readers to take it as anything but his opinion; he even made explicit reference to himself...twice. You obviously intended your response to contain some measure of refutation, but, because opinions are irrefutable, I don't understand your message to your readers.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Proxima Sin wrote:
The only reason any particular character alignment is mentally associated with a**%@&e hooligans at a keyboard is because GW linked their system that measures when players act outside game boundaries to an inside boundaries role playing device separate from the player punishment mechanism.

I don't think that's right. I've always associated Chaotic Evil with random murder.

Opinion

Does anyone have the opinion that random murder is not properly associated with Chaotic Evil?

You call it opinion, I call it tautology...

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
. If Chaotic Evil is mechanically equivalent to Lawful Good, while retaining greater freedom of action, then players will choose to be Chaotic Evil. If you remove the restrictions on the actions of Lawful Good, then there's no meaningful alignment.

What I don't understand with Ryan's, or some of the posters' responses here is this. You have a group of players asking to role play an alignment and play within the prescribed rule of positive actions that GW has said they are desirous to see, and you are all taking issue with it.

It is like you are collectively having a temper tantrum that your preconceived notions can be thwarted by players playing in a positive way, "How Dare They!!!" "I want Chaotic Evil to Suck!! I demand that it will suck!!!"

Honestly I don't know what to make of it. Not one word of encouragement. Not one thank you, for trying to make it work.

All we have seen is a childish wringing of hands and tears for that preconceived notion that CE must suck, if not everyone will be CE. Isn't that the same thing as saying, only CE desire to role play their alignment?

I agree that you don't understand Ryan's responses. Nor do you apparently understand ours either, which is fine as they are opinion, trying to explain why we feel that GW is doing what it is doing.

I don't see anyone throwing a temper tantrum here, just maybe a few that just won't except what we all know so far. I do want CE to suck for those that play it like the alignment is defined. Those that find a way around that and contribute something of value to the game, I am fine with. Why they should be CE + High Rep and still be a bit hampered has been opinionated by posters and explained by GW, over and over.

It is CE and Low Rep that will really suck. Most low rep players will be CE for obvious reasons already laid out many times. Some CE and high rep players will just be hampered a bit but will have more freedoms and that has been explained.

Why is there still a disconnect?

CEO, Goblinworks

19 people marked this as a favorite.

I think that what perhaps what people are missing is the critical factor of feedback.

Most people need guidelines and clear references to understand how their actions influence the results they obtain. Especially when you are talking about something as abstract as an MMO.

My thesis is that a bright, simple, clear guideline is needed to help people make good choices ("good" defined as "generating results that are generally in-line with my expectations and desires")

A second thesis is that a lot of people will come to Pathfinder Online with two incorrect preconceptions about the way the game is played. Those two preconceptions are:

1: Open World PvP implies a murder simulator

2: Killing early, often, and without discrimination is the route to long-term success

These two preconceptions mutually reinforce each other. If #2 is true, #1 is inevitable. This is the trap that game after game after game fell into. (Sometimes they didn't "fall" into it as much as they embraced it as a design paradigm on purpose.)

We are going to break this pattern and we are going to redefine those preconceptions. In order to do that we must repeatedly and powerfully shock the system. One of those shocks is a negative feedback loop that links random killing to gimping character development.

Another, related problem is community toxicity. Observation tells us that toxicity proceeds from a sense of external fairness and justice not applying inside the game world simulation. 90% of people want to be treated fairly and justly. But the anonymous internet lets a small group of sociopaths act unfairly and unjustly - and those actions, if not harshly countered, leads a larger (but still small) group of people to act out power fantasies and work out issues they can't resolve in real life with aggression. The result is that the majority feels they are subjected to unfair and unjust experiences. And they leave.

We are going to actively attack community toxicity from the grass roots up. As I've said before there is no silver bullet to this problem. The approach we're going to use is a multi-layered approach. One of those layers is giving people an extremely clear message about their in-game behavior. If they act badly as defined by the desires of 90% of the community their bad actions will hurt their in-game power level. I feel reasonably confident I can proxy my opinion for what 90% of the people I intend to sell this game to want. We have lots of time to make minor adjustments and consider corner cases.

So the reason we're making a funnel of suck is to make it possible for our players to clearly see it, clearly understand its consequences, clearly understand how their in-game actions relate to that funnel, and clearly see that they can be and will be affected by it. And we accept up front that as a result there are some people who will be so frustrated by the straightjacket that they cannot be satisfied and happy within that system. And that's OK.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sometimes, Ryan, I remember why i fell in love with you...

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
Why is there still a disconnect?

GW called murder sprees the result of a player at a keyboard acting outside the bounds of acceptable behavior in a MMO, outside the sandbox.

GW invented a whole system out of the blue to deal with players in the new-to-Pathfinder MMO environment that do things out-of-bounds and make the game suck for them because of it; but they're repurposing these separate in-bounds mechanics on the problem.

For me, that's why.

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
Why is there still a disconnect?

GW called murder sprees the result of a player at a keyboard acting outside the bounds of acceptable behavior in a MMO, outside the sandbox.

GW invented a whole system out of the blue to deal with players in the new-to-Pathfinder MMO environment that do things out-of-bounds and make the game suck for them because of it; but they're using these separate in-bounds mechanics on the problem.

For me, that's why.

Fair enough, and for the record I understand (I bslieve) why you aren't comfortable with this approach and that it has to do with perceived equality and noting to do with an attempt to open the door for "murder simulator #172".

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
Proxima Sin wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
Why is there still a disconnect?

GW called murder sprees the result of a player at a keyboard acting outside the bounds of acceptable behavior in a MMO, outside the sandbox.

GW invented a whole system out of the blue to deal with players in the new-to-Pathfinder MMO environment that do things out-of-bounds and make the game suck for them because of it; but they're using these separate in-bounds mechanics on the problem.

For me, that's why.

Fair enough, and for the record I understand (I bslieve) why you aren't comfortable with this approach and that it has to do with perceived equality and noting to do with an attempt to open the door for "murder simulator #172".

I'd say the same goes for me, truthfully I don't mind things being harder for me as a CE either. It's the thou shall not advance as a character due to lack of opportunity (training, etc) that really bugs me.

Goblin Squad Member

@ Fiendish

I was also thinking of you (from what I have read of your posts). Apologies for not adding you or anyone else that has the best interests of the game at the heart of their concerns. :)

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:


Fair enough, and for the record I understand (I believe) why you aren't comfortable with this approach and that it has to do with perceived equality and noting to do with an attempt to open the door for "murder simulator #172".

When I read Ryan's post to pulverize murder simulators into a fine powder in the context of reputation and a low reputation funnel to SuckTown I love it. I do love it and 100% support. In the context of alignment shifts it doesn't connect for me.

A player on his Paladin character calls someone a long string of names I can't type here, takes a rep hit for being rude and abusive (direct from the blog), and shifts CE enough that he loses his Paladin abilities. That last part sounds a bit ridiculous to me.

The Paladin's actions are clearly unacceptable to over 90% of players. It's chaotically ignoring the codes of civil speech, it's sadistically hurting another player's feelings (even if he failed to make the recipient cry), and of course we don't draw a distinction between the character and the player behind it for all those reasons in the other threads so the Paladin's alignment shifts toward CE.

It's not the example you're used to because this example hasn't been repeated every 5 seconds to get internalized, but it is structurally identical to that Paladin going on a murder spree: Unacceptable to 90%, outside established pvp structure is chaotic, attacking non-hostile is evil (even if you failed to kill), no distinction between player's CE decision to break GW rules and the character = CE shift on the character sheet.

The foul mouth Paladin clearly deserves a reputation hit once a GM sees the screencap. Is his alignment going to change commensurate with his acting outside GWs rules?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Proxima Sin wrote:
Bringslite wrote:


Fair enough, and for the record I understand (I believe) why you aren't comfortable with this approach and that it has to do with perceived equality and noting to do with an attempt to open the door for "murder simulator #172".

When I read Ryan's post to pulverize murder simulators into a fine powder in the context of reputation and a low reputation funnel to SuckTown I love it. I do love it and 100% support. In the context of alignment shifts it doesn't connect for me.

A player on his Paladin character calls someone a long string of names I can't type here, takes a rep hit for being rude and abusive (direct from the blog), and shifts CE enough that he loses his Paladin abilities. That last part sounds a bit ridiculous to me.

The Paladin's actions are clearly unacceptable to over 90% of players. It's chaotically ignoring the codes of civil speech, it's sadistically hurting another player's feelings (even if he failed to make the recipient cry), and of course we don't draw a distinction between the character and the player behind it for all those reasons in the other threads so the Paladin's alignment shifts toward CE.

It's not the example you're used to because this example hasn't been repeated every 5 seconds to get internalized, but it is structurally identical to that Paladin going on a murder spree: Unacceptable to 90%, outside established pvp structure is chaotic, attacking non-hostile is evil (even if you failed to kill), no distinction between player's CE decision to break GW rules and the character = CE shift on the character sheet.

The foul mouth Paladin clearly deserves a reputation hit once a GM sees the screencap. Is his alignment going to change commensurate with his acting outside GWs rules?

Good question. Opinion: Reputation shifts are about "bad" or least desired player behavior. Alignment shifts are about actions that can be measured that fit into the alignment that you shift toward, Alignment shifts are not necessarily a measure of "bad" behavior. Just a measure of behavior. Some behaviors just coincide with both rep and alignment.

I would say that a rep hit would be enough. Speech, while it can be hurtful, can be ignored.

I'll bet that there are some holes that you can find in that as it is a "from the hip" shot (not well thought out). ;)

451 to 500 of 767 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / It's 3am, do you know where your settlement is? All Messageboards