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


Pathfinder Online

501 to 550 of 767 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
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.

That sounds about right. And from what we know today, that character rep hit for bad player behavior isn't necessarily minor. At a minimum it will probably shift the character to a low rep regain rate.

Goblin Squad Member

Consistency and lack of confusion.

I feel rep hits should be enough of a response when players run their characters out of the framework of the sandbox. If we're not going to do it that way but also attach CE shifts to unacceptable behavior as well because we don't distinguish between a player's decision to break GWs rules and character action, then that way should be consistent.

Goblin Squad Member

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

Consistency and lack of confusion.

I feel rep hits should be enough of a response when players run their characters out of the framework of the sandbox. If we're not going to do it that way but also attach CE shifts to unacceptable behavior as well because we don't distinguish between a player's decision to break GWs rules and character action, then that way should be consistent.

I am not sure that I am tracking your meaning there. I can't really defend GW's latest clue that they will punish bad chat with rep penalty and not also alignment penalty. Unless you want some way for the computer to hold us all to account for perfect RP chat in a "core" alignment vein.

Edit: Why is it confusing and inconsistent if they define for us what will do what and apply it when we do "what"?

Goblin Squad Member

I'm sure a victory will be claimed when no one rolls their core alignment as Chaotuc Evil, and no one slides to Chaotic Evil.

The shallowness of that victory will be in the fact that characters with other alignments will be motivated by chaos and evil, while hiding behind another alignment and operating within the systems so as not to lose reputation. Motivations are untraceable by either other players or even the game mechanics.

So what could this look like?

The Good Settlement is NG. It has a few POIs and a number of Outposts. Suddenly it is feuded by another company. The Good Seetlement investigates and funds out that it has been feuded by a Lawful Good Company known as Divine Dissonance.

The Goods send an emissary to discover what caused this feud. Their emissary is attacked and killed without mercy or word as to why there is conflict. The DDs then raid the outposts, killing every NPC and anyone arriving to aid the outposts.

The DDs then use a third party, meta gamed to assassinate the leader of The Goods. This is followed by additional raids, and slaughter of any feud targets.

The feud ends and finally the Divine Dissonance contacts The Goods and explains that they feuded the Goods because they wore a red hat on Green Hat Tuesday.

Not one of the actions I mentioned above would cost DD any alignment shift nor lose any reputation. It's motivation was purely Chaotic Evil. Untraceable, undetectable and unpunishable.

Your alignment system is now completely meaningless, but you won't have any Chaotic Evil characters.... Woot!! Epic Fail.

Goblin Squad Member

The chat facet of bad behavior would likely be a screenshot reviewed by a GM rather than a language filter algorithm. The blog explicitly said rude and abusive = low rep, by whatever means.

"Bringslite wrote:
Edit: Why is it confusing and inconsistent if they define for us what will do what and apply it when we do "what"?

Are we distinguishing player-at-keyboard as a responsible entity different from character action or not?

In the case of murder sprees we're not, that's why the character's alignment shifts even though it was the player at the keyboard choosing to act chaotic and evil in a rep loss manner. If we skip alignment shifts in the cases of a player flaming through their character, that means we *are* recognizing the player as a different entity than what the character sheet measures, which is contrary to the murder spree precedent. So when each new situation comes, will the player and character be separate or not?

A character misrepresents the reasons they want to join a settlement. When that's reported to a GM is that an alignment shift? Is it fraud by that player against other players for reputation loss or role playing of a spy? I can't predict without a consistent precedent about whether player choice and character sheet effects are separate or joined. GW can spend the time to review, internally debate, and rule on every scenario our plotting collective imaginations come up with over years but is that the best use of GM and dev time?

Consistency.

Goblin Squad Member

@Bludd

They don't expect people to roll out a CE, but they do expect people to find themselves CE.

Yes that would all be sanctioned PvP.

Did you think that all settlement warfare would be for alignment reasons? Well it will be over land. People are just as likely to go to war over a disputed hex that produces something they don't have that the neighbor does even if they are both LG settlements. They might even have had a short term alliance to take out the LE folks that border both of their LG hexes but resources are king.

War without gain is a waste of resources. If your example of DD attacking the Goods resulted in nothing but PvP then DD is stupid for wasting resources it took to declare, and sustain the feud for no gain.

Would you prefer is they were fighting over a Helen?

@Proxima

More likely a /abuse report feature that gives the GW folks the entire conversation (100 to 50 lines of text) so they can determine who was at fault or if it was mutual they are not going to act on a screen shot of the "f" word alone. So to speak.

Oh oh, I like the spy thing. A good spy will never take a hit of any kind. A good spy will die defending the settlement he is spying on. If he sucks at being a spy then you feed him false information at just the right time. Still no alignment hits for anybody yet. He may as well roll a new account if caught, RL rep will be destroyed for the spy avatar. I think the community will be that small when it comes to a spy. *rant off*

I will not get into the other discussion...

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin wrote:

The chat facet of bad behavior would likely be a screenshot reviewed by a GM rather than a language filter algorithm. The blog explicitly said rude and abusive = low rep, by whatever means.

"Bringslite wrote:
Edit: Why is it confusing and inconsistent if they define for us what will do what and apply it when we do "what"?

Are we distinguishing player-at-keyboard as a responsible entity different from character action or not?

In the case of murder sprees we're not, that's why the character's alignment shifts even though it was the player at the keyboard choosing to act chaotic and evil in a rep loss manner. If we skip alignment shifts in the cases of a player flaming through their character, that means we *are* recognizing the player as a different entity than what the character sheet measures, which is contrary to the murder spree precedent. So when each new situation comes, will the player and character be separate or not?

A character misrepresents the reasons they want to join a settlement. When that's reported to a GM is that an alignment shift? Is it fraud by that player against other players for reputation loss or role playing of a spy? I can't predict without a consistent precedent about whether player choice and character sheet effects are separate or joined. GW can spend the time to review, internally debate, and rule on every scenario our plotting collective imaginations come up with over years but is that the best use of GM and dev time?

Consistency.

All opinion: It seems to me like they are punishing the character of the player and kind of distinguishing. Some of the player's characters deserve to be punished and some are "being played nice" and don't need to be punished. When they are acting within the sandbox parameters they are contributing to the community and don't need punishment. I feel confident that when GW does want to ban a player they will ban all of the characters that they know about. If they decide not to do that, the player is still losing his investment in that single character anyway.

I think that you are equating alignment shift with punishment when it is more like behavior that defines where a character fits into the alignment spectrum as defined by GW. They will define what actions under what circumstances move your alignment and after that it is up to you to manage it.

If you know that some alignment will be treated as "naughty" and you choose it anyway, then I see little difference in making an RP choice of less than optimal skills for character "flavor". If you slide into a sub optimal alignment against your will because of actions, then I have to say "Time to get grinding!"

I don't know how much GW will regulate infiltration and similar activities, if at all. Can't really speak on that. Has there been something about that, which I don't recall?

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:


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.

Sounds like a decent plan. (...although I feel bad for the extremely small minority, and hope they understand the situation before anything really frustrating happens to them.)

Goblin Squad Member

@ Vwoom,

Feuds are company level PvP, especially those directed at outposts, POIs and company level targets.

If CE companies are going to be driven "underground" by hiding behind other alignments, then I could also expect those same characters to meta game their company as well. They could be ad hocs, while maintaining an alter ego in another company, another settlement.

It really is so easy to work around so many of these devised systems, and not break a single rule of the game.

Yes I know some will say, "that is not in the spirit of the game". There is no obligation to follow the spirit of anything, and certainly not the game. There is only the obligation to follow the Eula and the formal rules of the game.

The Devs have the obligation for the spirit and the mechanics of the game to be as one. If they can't or won't, well that is their limitations. We don't have to compensate for their shortfalls, if there are any.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:

I'm sure a victory will be claimed when no one rolls their core alignment as Chaotuc Evil, and no one slides to Chaotic Evil.

The shallowness of that victory will be in the fact that characters with other alignments will be motivated by chaos and evil, while hiding behind another alignment and operating within the systems so as not to lose reputation. Motivations are untraceable by either other players or even the game mechanics.

So what could this look like?

The Good Settlement is NG. It has a few POIs and a number of Outposts. Suddenly it is feuded by another company. The Good Seetlement investigates and funds out that it has been feuded by a Lawful Good Company known as Divine Dissonance.

The Goods send an emissary to discover what caused this feud. Their emissary is attacked and killed without mercy or word as to why there is conflict. The DDs then raid the outposts, killing every NPC and anyone arriving to aid the outposts.

The DDs then use a third party, meta gamed to assassinate the leader of The Goods. This is followed by additional raids, and slaughter of any feud targets.

The feud ends and finally the Divine Dissonance contacts The Goods and explains that they feuded the Goods because they wore a red hat on Green Hat Tuesday.

Not one of the actions I mentioned above would cost DD any alignment shift nor lose any reputation. It's motivation was purely Chaotic Evil. Untraceable, undetectable and unpunishable.

Your alignment system is now completely meaningless, but you won't have any Chaotic Evil characters.... Woot!! Epic Fail.

On Conquest Wednesday, Bigtown takes over both settlements. Only players who demonstrate both useful skills (including the critical skill of 'doing boring things for a long time') and subservience to their new masters are allowed to keep characters in either settlement.

OtherBigTown welcomes the new exiles, promising to offer them training in how to retake their old territory and keep it, in exchange for good will, occasional tribute, and general support.

Next Tuesday, The Good Liberation Company keeps training and mining, while The Divine Dissonance has feuds another random company on Green Hat day. OtherBigTown wishes The Divine Dissonance the best of luck as they politely send them out on their own.

End result: The Divine Dissonance ends up sucking, and serves as a funnel for characters who act like they do to also suck.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
All opinion: It seems to me like they are punishing the character of the player and kind of distinguishing. Some of the player's characters deserve to be punished and some are "being played nice" and don't need to be punished. When they are acting within the sandbox parameters they are contributing to the community and don't need punishment...

I was going through some old rulebooks the last few days, including Harnmaster and Chivalry and Sorcery. Both of those rule systems expected certain behavior of noble PCs - which might be called a chivalric code. Fighting chivalric enemies only permitted after a challenge or in warfare (feuds and warfare). Don't attack the weak and defenseless (no attacking unflagged). Be gallant around the ladies (don't spam f-bombs in chat).

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Urman wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
All opinion: It seems to me like they are punishing the character of the player and kind of distinguishing. Some of the player's characters deserve to be punished and some are "being played nice" and don't need to be punished. When they are acting within the sandbox parameters they are contributing to the community and don't need punishment...
I was going through some old rulebooks the last few days, including Harnmaster and Chivalry and Sorcery. Both of those rule systems expected certain behavior of noble PCs - which might be called a chivalric code. Fighting chivalric enemies only permitted after a challenge or in warfare (feuds and warfare). Don't attack the weak and defenseless (no attacking unflagged). Be gallant around the ladies (don't spam f-bombs in chat).

Them do be some old books Son! ;)

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

By underground you mean take a different core alignment and be careful not to act in a manner that would make there active alignment CE then that is fine with me. Even if they have to game the alignment, and rep system then that is grind time they have to use in game to recover from those undesirable actions. It is still a time sink. If they are forced to declare war or feuds to act in a way that would be CE outside of war or feuds then they at least they have to muster the resources to declare a war, and are also open to attack from the people they are engaging in the war. I am still ok with that.

I know you are right some folks with only take the best mechanical alignment, and don't give a squirt about D&D, or Pathfinder but at the least they will be playing in a way that is the minimum standard. Even if they have 14 accounts and 7 throw away toons they will never be able to twink them and eventually need to create a replacement throw away.

Call me optimistic but I have much confidence in the GW folks the more I read the more it grows.

I played Red servers and Blue servers, no matter what the system is there will be jerks riding the line. Killing or finding a way of killing for no other reason than to send you back to your spawn point. The fewer there are in PO the happier I will be.

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Your alignment system is now completely meaningless, but you won't have any Chaotic Evil characters....

I, for one, will still be playing, safe in my belief that GW will be looking out for the 90%, even if the 10% figure out a way through whatever loopholes they find in the current-as-told-to-us-so-far systems. I look forward to seeing what new ideas the 90% can come up with to aid GW in knocking the emotional stuffing out of that 10% until, as Ryan's said more than once, they get bored and leave.

I believe Ryan and crew're attempting to design a game not for everyone, but for those who find the inevitable 10% in so many games so odious that they've left those games. Perhaps GW will find a way to drive out the minority, rather than that minority driving out the majority; I want to be watching them try, and, if possible, helping.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
("good" defined as "generating results that are generally in-line with my expectations and desires")

I love that :)

Ryan Dancey wrote:

... 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

...

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.

That's one for the Ages, man. Amen!

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I did laugh at that definition of "good".

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
. Next Tuesday, The Good Liberation Company keeps training and mining, while The Divine Dissonance has feuds another random company on Green Hat day. OtherBigTown wishes The Divine Dissonance the best of luck as they politely send them out on their own.

Lol, you expect a settlement to kick out a company that not only has high reputation but has also effectively raided several outpost, just because they did not follow your perception of what alignment they were.

You do understand this game is being built nit only as a Settlement vs. Settlement PvP combat simulator but as one that is more akin to EvE's Null Sec Alliance vs, Alliance fight for Sovereignty simulator?

Experience PvPers with a High Reputation and a proven record of success will never be turned down for citizenship or from mercenary work.

That allows me to take this back to the OP..... It's 3 AM, do you know where yor defensive army is? Or are you going to rely on your two crafters from New Zealand to be your sole line of defense?

Sure your settlement will be safe, it will likely have its PvP window closed at that time. But your Outposts and possibly your POIs will be vulnerable.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:
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 :)

I prefer that spelling too, but I think it just means I read more British authors as a kid.

'Grey' in particular may also have been influenced by reading & playing Greyhawk material, although I double the 'L' in words like 'traveller' & 'jewelled' as well. I usually use the 'U' version of words like 'honour' & 'valour', unless I'm referring to a source which doesn't spell them that way, such as the virtues from the Ultima series. Words which I learned later in life, such as 'skeptical' or 'fetus' I tend to spell the American way. Back when I was playing LotRO, I used Tolkien's spellings, including his peculiar archaisms like 'connexion' or 'waggon'.

I don't really expect anyone to notice most of those details, and these days I'm usually just glad when they remember how to spell simple words like 'you' or 'why'. I sometimes use "Literacy: It's not just for wizards anymore!" as a signature on fantasy-themed forums which support that feature. Today I ran across another great line: "If you say 'plz' because it is shorter than 'please', I will say 'no' because it is shorter than 'yes'."

Anyway, back to the endless alignment argument. If that topic ever runs out of steam, perhaps we can debate the definition of 'free will'? :P

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin wrote:
Consistency.

There is inconsistency between abusive chat and abusive character behavior. One can be measured by the machine in real time and the other cannot.

GMs cannot be everywhere all the time and will not have the time to review every chat log, even with automated parsing.

Realistic expectations must be factored when evaluating reason. To expect consistency in rule application where there is inconsistency in detectable, measurable characteristics it is unreasonable to expect complete consistency between two very different kinds of behavior.

Subjectively, toxic chat may feel equal to toxic behavior. In terms of metrics they are quite different. Expecting adjudicative consistency between them is an unrealistic expectation for an automated system, and we cannot afford enough GMs to monitor every conversation.

tl;dr It is unreasonable to expect consistency between unequal things.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DeciusBrutus wrote:

On Conquest Wednesday, Bigtown takes over both settlements. Only players who demonstrate both useful skills (including the critical skill of 'doing boring things for a long time') and subservience to their new masters are allowed to keep characters in either settlement.

OtherBigTown welcomes the new exiles, promising to offer them training in how to retake their old territory and keep it, in exchange for good will, occasional tribute, and general support.

Next Tuesday, The Good Liberation Company keeps training and mining, while The Divine Dissonance has feuds another random company on Green Hat day. OtherBigTown wishes The Divine Dissonance the best of luck as they politely send them out on their own.

End result: The Divine Dissonance ends up sucking, and serves as a funnel for characters who act like they do to also suck.

The Divine Dissonance: Its 3am on Next Tuesday, Do you know where your settlement is?

The Good Liberation Company: Its being burnt to the ground again, because OtherBigTown kicked you from the settlement and replace you with us.

OtherBigTown Leadership: Woops... Get out on the battlefield!!!!

OtherBigTown Members: You fools, you kicked the guys that can handle this situation.

Goblin Squad Member

This post is not about rolling la la happy chaotic evil it's about the chums in the RD quote.

Okay it finally came to me, the thing I've been trying to say 100 different ways. If I get some acknowledgement then it will be the last thing I have to say about it until there's new crowdforging to do, and I think a lot of you want that. It's founded on this sentiment

Ryan Dancey wrote:

... 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

...

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.

Since CE is going to be in the game, it's going to be on a path to do something, can we all agree on that?

Rather than let that path be laid out by the scraps of happenstance, I've been trying to say let's consciously build that path thoughtfully so it might be CE, act in the world, and generate conflicts in-game (just like everyone else will), but our CE path only results in the fun engaging types of conflicts which make good stories that turn into news articles read by people who don't even play the game. And if you set one pinky toe outside that path, the wrath Gods will descend from the clouds and CRUSH you.

Rather than let the players who end up in CE flop around like fish on a dock, mutating to radioactive whim and folly, let's thoughtfully build a Pathfinder Online course that leads CE to still add the most possible value for everyone in the game (and maybe do things that make them not the guys in the RD quote anymore).

You know, or be crushed.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

What I understand from Mr. Dancey is that CE will be a result, not a goal. I expect that the alignment explanations when you chose your starting Core alignment will explain that CE is not the path to funtown. If you choose that route, you will do so with the full understanding that you're limiting yourself.

Silver Crusade Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:

On Conquest Wednesday, Bigtown takes over both settlements. Only players who demonstrate both useful skills (including the critical skill of 'doing boring things for a long time') and subservience to their new masters are allowed to keep characters in either settlement.

OtherBigTown welcomes the new exiles, promising to offer them training in how to retake their old territory and keep it, in exchange for good will, occasional tribute, and general support.

Next Tuesday, The Good Liberation Company keeps training and mining, while The Divine Dissonance has feuds another random company on Green Hat day. OtherBigTown wishes The Divine Dissonance the best of luck as they politely send them out on their own.

End result: The Divine Dissonance ends up sucking, and serves as a funnel for characters who act like they do to also suck.

The Divine Dissonance: Its 3am on Next Tuesday, Do you know where your settlement is?

The Good Liberation Company: Its being burnt to the ground again, because OtherBigTown kicked you from the settlement and replace you with us.

OtherBigTown Leadership: Woops... Get out on the battlefield!!!!

OtherBigTown Members: You fools, you kicked the guys that can handle this situation.

They started a feud with a random company, costing them influence and materials, things that are valuable to the settlement. Further, it could run the risk of drawing the settlement into a war. A loose cannon is not something a settlement needs.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If I remember right though, the feud is the cost of the company and not the settlement. It may not draw the settlement into the war.

I could be wrong on that.

If thats the case, then the settlement has nothing to lose in the equation.

Silver Crusade Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Companies could have used that influence on a sanctioned feud.

Lets put it simply: influence is a resource. Spending it on activities that do not advance the settlement's goals is not desired. Thus, a settlement will want people who put settlement first, not a random feud.

Goblin Squad Member

That depends on the settlement though. In the example that Bludd used, the settlement would have been all in favor. Maybe the kingdom wanted to expand, and that settlement either had the resources the kingdom needed or in a strategic location. Maybe the settlement is a PVP based settlement that turns around and sells the spoils.

Again, sure they could kick the PVP company from their settlement... It may turn around and bite them in the ....

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin wrote:

Since CE is going to be in the game, it's going to be on a path to do something, can we all agree on that?

Rather than let that path be laid out by the scraps of happenstance, I've been trying to say let's consciously build that path thoughtfully so it might be CE, act in the world, and generate conflicts in-game (just like everyone else will), but our CE path only results in the fun engaging types of conflicts which make good stories that turn into news articles read by people who don't even play the game. And if you set one pinky toe outside that path, the wrath Gods will descend from the clouds and CRUSH you.

Rather than let the players who end up in CE flop around like fish on a dock, mutating to radioactive whim and folly, let's thoughtfully build a Pathfinder Online course that leads CE to still add the most possible value for everyone in the game

I think that would be a wonderful outcome. I have always favored making silk purses from lemons. Lemonade from a sow's ear? ewwww


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:

I'm sure a victory will be claimed when no one rolls their core alignment as Chaotuc Evil, and no one slides to Chaotic Evil.

The shallowness of that victory will be in the fact that characters with other alignments will be motivated by chaos and evil, while hiding behind another alignment and operating within the systems so as not to lose reputation. Motivations are untraceable by either other players or even the game mechanics.

So what could this look like?

The Good Settlement is NG. It has a few POIs and a number of Outposts. Suddenly it is feuded by another company. The Good Seetlement investigates and funds out that it has been feuded by a Lawful Good Company known as Divine Dissonance.

The Goods send an emissary to discover what caused this feud. Their emissary is attacked and killed without mercy or word as to why there is conflict. The DDs then raid the outposts, killing every NPC and anyone arriving to aid the outposts.

The DDs then use a third party, meta gamed to assassinate the leader of The Goods. This is followed by additional raids, and slaughter of any feud targets.

The feud ends and finally the Divine Dissonance contacts The Goods and explains that they feuded the Goods because they wore a red hat on Green Hat Tuesday.

Not one of the actions I mentioned above would cost DD any alignment shift nor lose any reputation. It's motivation was purely Chaotic Evil. Untraceable, undetectable and unpunishable.

Your alignment system is now completely meaningless, but you won't have any Chaotic Evil characters.... Woot!! Epic Fail.

because this is the game being played as intended.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
It really is so easy to work around so many of these devised systems, and not break a single rule of the game.

If not a single rule of the game is broken then where is the problem, Bludd? The whole idea of abiding by rules is using them as guidelines. If they aren't breaking any of the rules then, whatever they think they are doing in metaspace, they are playing within the rules.

Devising a work-around for one rule may run into another.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think the design intent is to have a totally un-exploitable series of systems in place at day 1, Bludd. The idea is, because players will always find a way, GW can just get the major exploits to begin and then let the players find the other holes that need patching. It's called iteration, and one spot where I feel CCP could have made a massive difference to the tone of their game.

Addressing issues given by the community makes it feel like the company cares about the players' experiences being positive, and makes it look like the company is constantly making the game better. This is one place where Riot (developers of League of Legends) excel IMO; they're constantly improving what they already have in addition to putting out new content.

Goblin Squad Member

I am not sure that what Bludd described is an exploit. It seems to me more of a "Working as Intended" thing. They use the feud system for their PVP, which is what GW wants.

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Shane Gifford wrote:

I don't think the design intent is to have a totally un-exploitable series of systems in place at day 1, Bludd. The idea is, because players will always find a way, GW can just get the major exploits to begin and then let the players find the other holes that need patching. It's called iteration, and one spot where I feel CCP could have made a massive difference to the tone of their game.

Addressing issues given by the community makes it feel like the company cares about the players' experiences being positive, and makes it look like the company is constantly making the game better. This is one place where Riot (developers of League of Legends) excel IMO; they're constantly improving what they already have in addition to putting out new content.

As Xeen said, what I'm pointing to is using the systems as designed and intended. Where those systems don't come together is where the meta game elements are brought in. There is absolutely nothing that can be done to prevent meta game being an advantage or being used to fill in those gaps.

On the CCP point. Sure they could have changed the tone, but in hindsight I would bet they have no regrets and what they call "emergent gameplay" other companies call "working as intended".

Goblin Squad Member

Sorry, I should have used a quote to show what I was commenting on. My last post was meant to be directed at this comment:

Bluddwolf wrote:
It really is so easy to work around so many of these devised systems, and not break a single rule of the game.

My point was that we will find ways to work around; that's part of the design process and should not be taken to mean that the system should be scrapped. I did go off on a little tangent at the end though.

As for that tangent; indeed, they attracted an audience, found out what worked to keep that audience, and did it. Nothing wrong with that at all. However, the perceptions about EVE being toxic and such I feel stem at least in part from the seeming inactivity of CCP when it comes to perceived negative aspects of their game, including perceived exploits (as perceived by the general audience of players, not by CCP themselves).

Goblin Squad Member

I've never played EVE but almost all the comments I have seen about EVE's PVP is that it is toxic. Regardless if it is or not, perception will usually rule the day.

If PFO can get a reputation outside of the game as being non-toxic PVP, it will most likely draw a great deal of new players to at least try it out.

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

Banesama wrote:

I've never played EVE but almost all the comments I have seen about EVE's PVP is that it is toxic. Regardless if it is or not, perception will usually rule the day.

If PFO can get a reputation outside of the game as being non-toxic PVP, it will most likely draw a great deal of new players to at least try it out.

Yet EVE is highly successful and still gaining subscribers after 10 years.

Silver Crusade Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Which is great for EVE! But PFO is not EVE Version 2. GoblinWorks isn't trying to steal away their customer base, nor is it trying to completely emulate all of its behaviors.

Goblin Squad Member

That's okay with me as long as I still get to train up Rifter after the tutorial. Those things rock.

Goblin Squad Member

Fiendish wrote:
Banesama wrote:

I've never played EVE but almost all the comments I have seen about EVE's PVP is that it is toxic. Regardless if it is or not, perception will usually rule the day.

If PFO can get a reputation outside of the game as being non-toxic PVP, it will most likely draw a great deal of new players to at least try it out.

Yet EVE is highly successful and still gaining subscribers after 10 years.

If PFO was to try to become an EVE-clone, then it would probably fail just like so many WoW-clones. A new game should always strive to be different and hopefully new.

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

Banesama wrote:
Fiendish wrote:
Banesama wrote:

I've never played EVE but almost all the comments I have seen about EVE's PVP is that it is toxic. Regardless if it is or not, perception will usually rule the day.

If PFO can get a reputation outside of the game as being non-toxic PVP, it will most likely draw a great deal of new players to at least try it out.

Yet EVE is highly successful and still gaining subscribers after 10 years.
If PFO was to try to become an EVE-clone, then it would probably fail just like so many WoW-clones. A new game should always strive to be different and hopefully new.

My point wasn't copy it, my point was that they must be doing something right.

Goblin Squad Member

Banesama wrote:

I've never played EVE but almost all the comments I have seen about EVE's PVP is that it is toxic. Regardless if it is or not, perception will usually rule the day.

If PFO can get a reputation outside of the game as being non-toxic PVP, it will most likely draw a great deal of new players to at least try it out.

The same kind of players that see any non consensual PvP as toxic in Eve, will see non consensual PvP in PFO as toxic. This is because very few players who don't like PvP will reflect on what they had done or could do differently when they lose in unexpected PvP. It is much easier to complain they were a victim of unfair methods than to admit they may have done something stupid.

I was in a corp / alliance where the Indy corp section would not entertain the thought that their excessive strip mining of the nearby low sec system was resulting in frequent war decks by mercenary corporations. As a matter of fact the alliance leader hid that fact from the military corp of the alliance, but rather blamed us for showing too much of an aggressive posture.

Those same kind of players will attract unwanted attention in PFO where the resources will supposedly be even more limited. The raider will always be blamed a lot quicker than the miner.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
The same kind of players that see any non consensual PvP as toxic in Eve, will see non consensual PvP in PFO as toxic.

I don't see that as a necessary consequence. They will see non-consensual PvP as toxic unless something is done differently. And it appears that, unless you discount all the measures GW is putting into PFO, everything you have been disparaging, arguing against, deriding, minimizing, and rejecting over the past year or so, then something different is being done. If we support and refine those systems, if we maximize our capacity to present them as viable (if we reasonably can do so with a straight face), then we may well be able to present non-consensual PvP as reasonable and meaningful.

What I cannot imagine, what has become incredible to imagine, is that certain self-avowedly superior parties would ever support the idea that their opinions of themselves, and the potential to reduce their chosen challenges to the level of meaninglessness, might be less important than the improving the game for everyone (including yourselves).

It is amazing that we are expected to buy into the assertion that PvP is desired because it is more challenging than PvE, and yet accept every last argument imaginable against every game system proposed to regulate PvP behavior and make it more challenging.

If you guys really wanted PvP to be challenging and meaningful you would work with GW on these regulatory measures instead of against them. If you don't then I'm forced to the conclusion that you want your PvP to be easy mode and your pretense at bravado and superiority is laughable.

Goblin Squad Member

@Being You're assuming rational actors in your theoretical, Bluddwolf is talking about the players who think rationality is a semi-popular British punk band from the 70s. I think that's why the two of you are reaching different conclusions in the matter.

I'm fascinated and entertained by how our real life alignments get pan sifted out of the river into the open air in the forums. Being is obviously lawful, Bluddwolf is blatantly chaotic. As a Neutral I think the answer to POs perception largely rests in whether the players who hated non-consensual pvp of EVE and try PO as alternative are 10% or 40% of the early population and how many of them tread where GW doesn't protect e.g. will have gotten green hatted or more likely SADed while they were enjoying a stroll through the frontier countryside.

[Edit: because those are the players that will conflate their experience with a worldwide cancer of hooliganism and repeat it 75 times a day, hyperbolizing as much as I just did, across the gaming corner of the internet.]

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
The same kind of players that see any non consensual PvP as toxic in Eve, will see non consensual PvP in PFO as toxic.

I don't see that as a necessary consequence. They will see non-consensual PvP as toxic unless something is done differently. And it appears that, unless you discount all the measures GW is putting into PFO, everything you have been disparaging, arguing against, deriding, minimizing, and rejecting over the past year or so, then something different is being done. If we support and refine those systems, if we maximize our capacity to present them as viable (if we reasonably can do so with a straight face), then we may well be able to present non-consensual PvP as reasonable and meaningful.

What I cannot imagine, what has become incredible to imagine, is that certain self-avowedly superior parties would ever support the idea that their opinions of themselves, and the potential to reduce their chosen challenges to the level of meaninglessness, might be less important than the improving the game for everyone (including yourselves).

It is amazing that we are expected to buy into the assertion that PvP is desired because it is more challenging than PvE, and yet accept every last argument imaginable against every game system proposed to regulate PvP behavior and make it more challenging.

If you guys really wanted PvP to be challenging and meaningful you would work with GW on these regulatory measures instead of against them. If you don't then I'm forced to the conclusion that you want your PvP to be easy mode and your pretense at bravado and superiority is laughable.

I have agreed in theory, since we have not played it yet, to the following:

1. SADs
2. Feuds
3. Wars
4. Factions
5. Reputation System as Judge of Player Behaviors
6. Bounties, Assassinations and Death Curses as consequences of being on Enemies List
7. The concepts of Sanctioned PvP vs. Unsanctioned PvP
8. Criminal Flagging

The only "system" I have objected to is attaching game mechanics with preconceived notions that amount to "Guilty, even if Proven Innocent".

I've also argued for equity of alignment, not equality of alignment. This would recognize the difference of alignment, but would not pick a clear winner or loser.

The argument that we have called for EZ Mode PvP is baseless. Every action that we have proposed in taking makes us a sanctioned PvP target. Even the SAD can, by the choice of the person being SADed, become a sanctioned PvP engagement.

Kindly show one action that a bandit / raider can take that would not make them a sanctioned PvP target.

The only EZ mode that I see as desired is for those who don't want to or can't defend their own members or themselves from non consensual PvP. Even with the possibility of hiring that protection, they don't want to spend the gold to do it. Suggest the simple precautions they could take, "No, just make those that attack automatically suck!" Is their answer.

It is one thing for an individual to not be self reliant and look to a group to protect them. But for a group to not be self reliant and expect the game system to protect them, begs the question.... What good is your group then?

This is a game. All of our characters are Immortal! You don't even lose your best gear!! We are not even talking about the loss of a settlement, and hold onto your hats GW when that happens.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fiendish wrote:
My point wasn't copy [EVE], my point was that they must be doing something right.

I played EVE for a fairly short period of time, and left because I really don't like random murder-fests and the UI and Skill Trees were nigh unfathomable - or at least, would require an investment of time beyond what I was willing to make in light of my distaste for random murder-fests.

And yet, I'm still drawn to it for its economy. I was blow away by how effective the simple Buy & Sell Order system was in creating a vibrant, meaningful market. I submit that the economy might be what EVE is doing right, and their success is despite the random murder-fest nature of the game, not because of it.

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Fiendish wrote:
My point wasn't copy [EVE], my point was that they must be doing something right.

I played EVE for a fairly short period of time, and left because I really don't like random murder-fests and the UI and Skill Trees were nigh unfathomable - or at least, would require an investment of time beyond what I was willing to make in light of my distaste for random murder-fests.

And yet, I'm still drawn to it for its economy. I was blow away by how effective the simple Buy & Sell Order system was in creating a vibrant, meaningful market. I submit that the economy might be what EVE is doing right, and their success is despite the random murder-fest nature of the game, not because of it.

Honestly I am not experienced enough one way or the other as to speak to the nuances of EVE, my point is that apparently whatever they have or haven't done continues to bring in more players. The game is growing not dying as many other MMOs are, unusual for such an old MMO.

Goblin Squad Member

Certainly it would seem that many of the players are attracted to the game as "Spreadsheets in Space Online", who won't care about the spaceship combat, and there are others who do other non-PvP actions as well. Even still, I don't think the game survives in spite of the prevalence of PvP, but rather that is a part of the game which attracts part of their audience (no doubt a large part of it). I think reducing their success to doing one thing right isn't the answer we're looking for here.

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Shane Gifford wrote:
... I don't think the game survives in spite of the prevalence of PvP, but rather that is a part of the game which attracts part of their audience (no doubt a large part of it).

Do we have any good numbers on how many players play EVE and rarely if ever leave High Sec?

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
I submit that the economy might be what EVE is doing right...
Pax Shane Gifford wrote:
I think reducing their success to doing one thing right isn't the answer we're looking for here.

You're right, of course. I shouldn't have implied that the economy was the only thing they were doing right, and honestly didn't intend to. My intended point was that I think the economy draws in a lot of players who aren't really fans of the way PvP is handled.

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

The only "system" I have objected to is attaching game mechanics with preconceived notions that amount to "Guilty, even if Proven Innocent".

I've also argued for equity of alignment, not equality of alignment. This would recognize the difference of alignment, but would not pick a clear winner or loser.

The argument that we have called for EZ Mode PvP is baseless. Every action that we have proposed in taking makes us a sanctioned PvP target. Even the SAD can, by the choice of the person being SADed, become a sanctioned PvP engagement.

I second that, Being your attempt to call out people who disagree with certain aspects of the developer's ideas as wishing for "EZ-mode" PvP and wanting to harm the overall success of the game was a poor attempt to misstate our intentions, but a fine piece of bloviation.

501 to 550 of 767 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / It's 3am, do you know where your settlement is? All Messageboards