Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do not hold the same opinion of players who just don't like PvP.Judging from your post history I do not believe you.Hobs does not like PVP, and I get along with him just fine. Reason being, He doesn't whine about it. He doesn't look for game mechanics to do what players can or should do for themselves.
I love being brought into discussion I wouldn't otherwise likely post in.
For clarification, I may not choose to personally partake in PvP in most games (though I have when necessary), but it does not mean I dislike PvP as part of the game I play. I don't believe you can have a truly interactive, living/breathing sandbox world without PvP. In my opinion, if you add too many restricting mechanics on how people can realistically decide to interact with one another, you end up with a less realistic, more "on rails" game experience. This doesn't mean I don't believe in consequences for actions. However, I believe most of those consequences should be natural consequences, enforced by players, rather than imposed by game mechanics.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Those significant and unrealistic consequences are greatly due to game development choices. Every issue argued on these forums could be viewed as a spectrum, with extreme positions at either end. Where the slider finally ends up in each of those is largely determined by GW. My only point is that in most cases, I would rather the slider be shoved further towards player choice rather than game mechanic imposed rules.
I would disagree that player enforcement is unnaturally laughable, though perhaps viewed as undesirable or even (by some) impossible for the amount of effort, communication, and compromise that it might require.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do not hold the same opinion of players who just don't like PvP.Judging from your post history I do not believe you.Hobs does not like PVP, and I get along with him just fine. Reason being, He doesn't whine about it. He doesn't look for game mechanics to do what players can or should do for themselves.
I love being brought into discussion I wouldn't otherwise likely post in.
For clarification, I may not choose to personally partake in PvP in most games (though I have when necessary), but it does not mean I dislike PvP as part of the game I play. I don't believe you can have a truly interactive, living/breathing sandbox world without PvP. In my opinion, if you add too many restricting mechanics on how people can realistically decide to interact with one another, you end up with a less realistic, more "on rails" game experience. This doesn't mean I don't believe in consequences for actions. However, I believe most of those consequences should be natural consequences, enforced by players, rather than imposed by game mechanics.
@ Papaver
And in this statement you have the difference between a care bear (by my earlier definition) and players like Hobs, who may not like PvP but understand its role and woukd prefer there are fewer mechanical limits to it.@ Being,
I never claimed to be a Saint, but if you wish to confer me with that distinction, please allow me to fetch my Green Hat! ;-P
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Papaver
And in this statement you have the difference between a care bear (by my earlier definition) and players like Hobs, who may not like PvP but understand its role and woukd prefer there are fewer mechanical limits to it.
Hobs specifically stated that he in fact does not dislike PvP.
Also I find it counterproductive to call people who try to influence the game development in a less Open World PvP direction toxic for the simple reason that you do not wish it to move that way. Would you find it fair if your standpoint would be constantly reduced to being called the griefer standpoint just because it conflicts with what other people want from this game?
@ Papaver
And in this statement you have the difference between a care bear (by my earlier definition) and players like Hobs, who may not like PvP but understand its role and woukd prefer there are fewer mechanical limits to it.Hobs specifically stated that he in fact does not dislike PvP.
Also I find it counterproductive to call people who try to influence the game development in a less Open World PvP direction toxic for the simple reason that you do not wish it to move that way. Would you find it fair if your standpoint would be constantly reduced to being called the griefer standpoint just because it conflicts with what other people want from this game?
The game was designed as an open world pvp game that focussed upon territorial control and domination with some restrictions to prevent random player killing. To influence the game away from that is to try and change the game to something it was not advertised as nor designed as.
Someone trying to turn it into a murder simulator which is also something it was not designed to be would soon be labelled toxic by the usual suspects on these boards and rightly so. Therefore it is perfectly fair to term moves to push it in the other direction toxic
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The game was designed as an open world pvp game that focussed upon territorial control and domination with some restrictions to prevent random player killing. To influence the game away from that is to try and change the game to something it was not advertised as nor designed as.
If you take a look at the goblinworks website you will clearly see that the game was in fact not designed as an open world pvp game but instead as a Sandbox Themepark Hybrid.
Age of conan is a themepark game and open world pvp
Eve is a sandbox game and open world pvp
How does asserting it is a sandbox/themepark hybrid say anything about whether it is an open world pvp game?
The point remains....the assertion that it is a themepark/sandbox hybrid says absolutely nothing about the open world pvp status of a game. It does not matter if every themepark or every server is open world. The fact a theme park can be open world pvp means the distinction of being a themepark/sandbox hybrid says nothing about the open world pvp nature of PfO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The point remains....the assertion that it is a themepark/sandbox hybrid says absolutely nothing about the open world pvp status of a game. It does not matter if every themepark or every server is open world. The fact a theme park can be open world pvp means the distinction of being a themepark/sandbox hybrid says nothing about the open world pvp nature of PfO.
Okay that's fair.
But a small note on the "if you try to move it away from the original design you are toxic" point:
I was under the impression that Crowdforging is exactly that. Moving the design as the community sees fit or at least have the community heavily influence the design proccess.
As a complete aside to the main discussion I am also unconvinced about the its a hybrid argument. What are the theme park elements here exactly. I think most agree Eve is a sandbox and I am unclear what theme park elements PfO has that Eve doesn't.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As a complete aside to the main discussion I am also unconvinced about the its a hybrid argument. What are the theme park elements here exactly. I think most agree Eve is a sandbox and I am unclear what theme park elements PfO has that Eve doesn't.
The escalation. EvE doesn't have anything on the PvE side that can actually endanger player controlled territory if given the chance.
The point remains....the assertion that it is a themepark/sandbox hybrid says absolutely nothing about the open world pvp status of a game. It does not matter if every themepark or every server is open world. The fact a theme park can be open world pvp means the distinction of being a themepark/sandbox hybrid says nothing about the open world pvp nature of PfO.Okay that's fair.
But a small note on the "if you try to move it away from the original design you are toxic" point:
I was under the impression that Crowdforging is exactly that. Moving the design as the community sees fit or at least have the community heavily influence the design proccess.
I am not actually disagreeing with you that crowd forging shouldn't move things. What I am doing is calling bull on the idea that people crowdforging the game in one direction are toxic whereas people crowdforging in another direction are not toxic.
On a more personal note however I look at it this way. The kickstarter detailed in general the sort of game this is. Crowd forging the details is fine. Crowdforging the structure of the game from what is described is in my view unfair.
You could say for example if 60% of the community crowdforged the game to be pve only then it is the majority having their say. I think the 40% who contributed to the kickstarter however on the grounds it was a game with significant pvp would be fully justified in being pretty upset with that result
As a complete aside to the main discussion I am also unconvinced about the its a hybrid argument. What are the theme park elements here exactly. I think most agree Eve is a sandbox and I am unclear what theme park elements PfO has that Eve doesn't.The escalation. EvE doesn't have anything on the PvE side that can actually endanger player controlled territory if given the chance.
Eve has escalations. Do they threaten territory no they don't. However I do not believe for a moment that PfO's will either despite whatever Dancey says. The day a settlement in PfO falls to an escalation I will volunteer to eat (without the benefit of ketchup) your soiled underwear
When running anomalies there can be escalations there. There is nothing special about escalations it is exactly what Rift has been doing since its inception. I would also suggest that if escalations do indeed threaten settlements (changing the world in a permanent fashion) that actually makes them a sandbox feature not a themepark feature.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eve has escalations. Do they threaten territory no they don't. However I do not believe for a moment that PfO's will either despite whatever Dancey says. The day a settlement in PfO falls to an escalation I will volunteer to eat (without the benefit of ketchup) your soiled underwearAs a complete aside to the main discussion I am also unconvinced about the its a hybrid argument. What are the theme park elements here exactly. I think most agree Eve is a sandbox and I am unclear what theme park elements PfO has that Eve doesn't.The escalation. EvE doesn't have anything on the PvE side that can actually endanger player controlled territory if given the chance.
Uhm yuck... Who pays the international postage? I just want to make sure that the details are clear, while at the same time hope that I never have to read of the fulfillment of that deal.
Uhm yuck... Who pays the international postage? I just want to make sure that the details are clear, while at the same time hope that I never have to read of the fulfillment of that deal.Eve has escalations. Do they threaten territory no they don't. However I do not believe for a moment that PfO's will either despite whatever Dancey says. The day a settlement in PfO falls to an escalation I will volunteer to eat (without the benefit of ketchup) your soiled underwearAs a complete aside to the main discussion I am also unconvinced about the its a hybrid argument. What are the theme park elements here exactly. I think most agree Eve is a sandbox and I am unclear what theme park elements PfO has that Eve doesn't.The escalation. EvE doesn't have anything on the PvE side that can actually endanger player controlled territory if given the chance.
I am fairly convinced that Papaver will not be going commando due to underwear ingestion anytime soon :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am fairly convinced that Papaver will not be going commando due to underwear ingestion anytime soon :)Uhm yuck... Who pays the international postage? I just want to make sure that the details are clear, while at the same time hope that I never have to read of the fulfillment of that deal.Eve has escalations. Do they threaten territory no they don't. However I do not believe for a moment that PfO's will either despite whatever Dancey says. The day a settlement in PfO falls to an escalation I will volunteer to eat (without the benefit of ketchup) your soiled underwearAs a complete aside to the main discussion I am also unconvinced about the its a hybrid argument. What are the theme park elements here exactly. I think most agree Eve is a sandbox and I am unclear what theme park elements PfO has that Eve doesn't.The escalation. EvE doesn't have anything on the PvE side that can actually endanger player controlled territory if given the chance.
Let us hope so. I salute you on the "sans ketchup condition"! Actually quite brave. :)
PvE content as themepark content: PFO will be getting dungeons to crawl. They won't be as simple as EVE missions.
Eve has anomalies which also can be not simple especially when they involve sleepers. It is still a form of content Eve has...the degree of difficulty does not make a difference to saying one game is theme park /sandbox hybrid and the other is not.
I would say that honestly they are both the same from what I can see. The only difference in PfO I can see is I cannot loot you inside a dungeon but have to wait till you come out.
Eve's instanced zones you can still be located and warped to while within them
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Those significant and unrealistic consequences are greatly due to game development choices. Every issue argued on these forums could be viewed as a spectrum, with extreme positions at either end. Where the slider finally ends up in each of those is largely determined by GW. My only point is that in most cases, I would rather the slider be shoved further towards player choice rather than game mechanic imposed rules.
I would disagree that player enforcement is unnaturally laughable, though perhaps viewed as undesirable or even (by some) impossible for the amount of effort, communication, and compromise that it might require.
How do you envision player enforcement working in a world where no player can be killed (where they stay killed) sans game mechanics offsetting the respawn of the malefactor?
How do you envision player enforcement working in a world where no player can be killed (where they stay killed) sans game mechanics offsetting the respawn of the malefactor?Those significant and unrealistic consequences are greatly due to game development choices. Every issue argued on these forums could be viewed as a spectrum, with extreme positions at either end. Where the slider finally ends up in each of those is largely determined by GW. My only point is that in most cases, I would rather the slider be shoved further towards player choice rather than game mechanic imposed rules.
I would disagree that player enforcement is unnaturally laughable, though perhaps viewed as undesirable or even (by some) impossible for the amount of effort, communication, and compromise that it might require.
Players exercise control by denying settlement membership. This cuts off training, crafting and storage. We would certainly be putting pressure on settlements to expel members or companies which we regard as causing us in game problems.
For those players causing the more community type problems it shouldn't be hard to get all settlements to agree not to admit the truly toxic
And if he and some buddies try to set up their own settlement to train more yahoos like themselves...crush it.
*Gives Hobs a strange look* I think you have been hanging out with bad company for to long :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Not at all. If we're talking about players who's only real intent is to ruin other people's game experience for their own pleasure, they are the one example that the entire community needs to unite against and remove. But this is only if they have proven themselves to be that much of a pain. Groups who come to play the game as intended, but do so rather ruthlessly by some people's standards, may not be liked, but do not deserve to be driven from PFO. I'm not suggesting that discerning between the two will necessarily be an easy task, but it is a very important one. Because of this, it is a decision that should not rest with a few people or groups, nor be decided on hastily.
Heh it was just the "crush them" sentiment seemed somewhat un hobs like :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm protective of certain things...my family, my students, and my gaming community. If these are players whose only thrill comes from harming a game community by trying to ruin its members' gaming experience, they don't deserve to play the game. Hopefully, GW would simply ban such yahoos, but until then, we needn't remain passive. As I've stated in several threads today, if players can achieve something productive for ourselves, then by all means, we should do so.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yet significant and unrealistic consequences are already imposed by the mechanics of reincarnation. Player enforcement is unnaturally laughable without more mechanics, Hobs.
Pure 100% truth. We have the criminals and the sociopaths drastically outnumbered. The problem is that they keep coming back after they die. This isn't even a design choice. It's a reality of online games. Even if your account gets deleted after you die people will make a new account. Under a new IP if necessary. This drastically changes things from a more realistic scenario where if someone is going around engaging in sociopathic behavior you throw them in prison or if necessary, kill them. When you do that they simply cannot cause problems for the rest of the world until they get out of prison, or ever again if they are dead. Also one good cop can put away or put down dozens, and dozens of trouble making scrubs over the course or their career.
In a game, they respawn. They keep coming back again, and again, and again. Lesser consequences means more people willing to engage in sociopathic behavior who might be too cowardly to do so in real life. It means those sociopaths get to stick around even after the greater population comes together and puts them down. They must be put down, over and over, and over. The tiny portion of veteran players who make a major effort to look out for weaker players simply do not have the time to offer a protection level even up to the level of that seen in some of the most violent regions and time periods of human history. The wild west looks like a gated community surrounded by an army of law enforcement in comparison to an unregulated MMO.
Many of us want a lot of danger, myself included, but many more are not willing to submit themselves to total anarchy.
That's why PFO needs mechanics such as reputation and character power being majorly influenced by a tie with something destructible and not easily rebuilt. (Such as settlements.) Without that, you get a murder simulator, as has been proven, over, and over, and over, and over by every other non-faction based MMO where the majority of the map is a Open World PvP zone. To dispute this is like disputing that water is wet.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Actually, veteran players protecting new players outside of their social network is a very small minority of players. I don't mean that as a slight, it is a reality. What is not by design is an accommodation for that playstyle. From what I have read of the design plans of GW, accommodating that playstyle may very easily become something that is used for the exact opposite purpose.
Also, it should be noted that it is often cited on these forums about how unpopular "murder simulators" are, and often COD is used as an example. I did a bit if surfing and discovered in COD alone, 40 million subscribers!
Perhaps the reason you keep on seeing the same behaviors, over and over again in MMOs is because those play styles are hugely popular and your play style is out numbered 100:1 ( and that might be generous).
I'll tell you a bit of truth from my experience with EvE (although it us a bit dated). Pirate Corps that relied on gate camping, rarely bothered the ships of large corporations or alliances.
The same will hold true for the most part in PFO. If your organization is large enough and willing enough to protect or avenge your own members, your members will gradually be left unmolested more frequently.
Your greatest defense is discouraging the initial attack in the first place. Bandits will look for softer targets or ones that have proven that they will shrug off small setbacks.
There us no real substitute for players taking care if their own.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Actually, veteran players protecting new players outside of their social network is a very small minority of players. I don't mean that as a slight, it is a reality. What is not by design is an accommodation for that playstyle. From what I have read of the design plans of GW, accommodating that playstyle may very easily become something that is used for the exact opposite purpose.
Well, I for one hope there are plenty of people who are willing to help and protect the newer characters, even if those newer characters go off to someone else's settlement. I know I am. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
PvE content as themepark content: PFO will be getting dungeons to crawl. They won't be as simple as EVE missions.Eve has anomalies which also can be not simple especially when they involve sleepers. It is still a form of content Eve has...the degree of difficulty does not make a difference to saying one game is theme park /sandbox hybrid and the other is not.
I would say that honestly they are both the same from what I can see. The only difference in PfO I can see is I cannot loot you inside a dungeon but have to wait till you come out.
Eve's instanced zones you can still be located and warped to while within them
I originally mentioned escalations because to contrast missions, anomalies and sleeper sites they don't wait for player activation nor will they remain contained to the small area they started in. My understanding is that escalations will, if not taken care of, actively go after player controlled structures.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The tiny portion of veteran players who make a major effort to look out for weaker players simply do not have the time to offer a protection level even up to the level of that seen in some of the most violent regions and time periods of human history.
Actually, veteran players protecting new players outside of their social network is a very small minority of players.
Thanks for backing me up.
In terms of population:
Those opposed to sociopathic behavior > Sociopaths > Those who actively combat sociopaths when not in their own self-interest
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, it should be noted that it is often cited on these forums about how unpopular "murder simulators" are, and often COD is used as an example. I did a bit if surfing and discovered in COD alone, 40 million subscribers!
Perhaps the reason you keep on seeing the same behaviors, over and over again in MMOs is because those play styles are hugely popular and your play style is out numbered 100:1 ( and that might be generous).
You are absolutely right. And obviously as popularity makes right regardless of the genre and context PFO should have COD gameplay also. In fact let's make sure we have the most popular gameplay elements and have PFO be a hybrid of COD, WoW and candy crush saga.
On a related note: thank you for mentioning that I pay subscription for COD I never noticed that before.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
COD isn't even comparable to PFO. In COD multiplayer everyone has roughly equal stats at the start of each match and everyone's objective is to kill everyone on the opposing team. Period. Unless you are harming your own team or using some form of hack/exploit there is no behavior (outside your conduct in chat) which I would consider being a dick.
PFO may have less gap than most MMOs but there is still a huge stat based power gap between newb and vet. You don't have an objective. It's a virtual community with no set teams or victory conditions. You can benefit from cooperation just as easily (or easier) as you can from exploitation. The point isn't racking up kills it's meaningful human interaction which =/= killing people. Killing people can be meaningful under the right circumstances, and without it this game will fail. Just like salt is good in some circumstances and without it you'll die. But it's not the only thing you need in your diet and too much of it can kill just as easily.
I love an occasional match based PvP game such as Age of Empires, Halo, Dust 514, etc. But don't even try to compare them to an MMO unless you're talking arena based PvP.
|
So maybe I don't keep up on the material enough, but I'm honestly confused.
This is a sandbox that previously trumpeted itself as all player driven content, right? And we're also saying that Chaotic Evil will be a funnel of suck. Does this partially apply to Lawful Evil? I'm very worried that IF all content is player driven and we make people not want to be the bad guys what does this leave us with? Craft Simulator 2000?
What happens when the game is run by a few small LG settlements? Sit around the campfire making S'mores, singing Kumbaya, and having the inevitable circle?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lawful Evil doesn't necessarily suck. Lawful settlements, *if* they keep the crime rate down, will have an advantage over Chaotic settlements. Good settlements, *if* they keep the people happy, will have an advantage over Evil settlements. Now, LE can be brutal in the application of its laws. It shouldn't have much of a challenge there. Lawful *good*, on the other hand, has to not only enforce their laws, but do so in a fair and just manner, meaning they will need to work harder to keep things there.
Mechanically, LE looks to be fairly powerful. CE, well, they won't have many advantages. The one they will have is this: unless it burns rep, they have *zero* reason not to do whatever they want. And that kind of crazy is a factor in its own right.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a habit of prefacing posts I make that wander into the realm of PvP with, "I don't usually comment in PvP threads, but..." However, this discussion, to me, is more about community than PvP.
First, I get the sense that we're talking past one another - that we're gravitating to the poles of a discussion, as happens far too often on this board, rather than acknowledging the large span of common ground we likely share. This is an observation, not a wagging finger, in that I am not innocent of the habit either. It's human nature to some degree, and something we need to remind ourselves of to avoid having it become the default practice when arguing a point. That way leads to a polarization of the boards where we tend to see the poster first and their argument second, if at all.
To the debate at hand, I do not think anyone wants a "murder simulator" that will drive off all but the bloodthirstiest players. No one, that I am aware of, has stated that they don't think the reputation system, if done correctly, doesn't serve a purpose. If they thought so, I would disagree with them. They may argue over how quickly one plummets to "suckage", but not that repeated, unsanctioned (sorry Ryan) killing should be tolerated. Add to that the promise from GW that they will be actively working by mechanic and GM to weed out such players. The real discussion here involves us - we, the community of the game. The question seems to be, how much should we rely on GW and game mechanics to ensure our safety from the very worst play-styles, and how much of that responsibility falls to us?
Like so many of these discussions, it's a matter of degree and circumstance. Like anyone, all I have is personal experience to guide my opinion. For this particular topic, my experience comes from UO, where I saw a game world go from FFA PvP to a divided, two server system that separated the people who liked FFA PvP and the people who wanted completely consentual PvP (PvP was only possible on Trammel if you accepted a war declaration upon your guild by that of another, and either side could turn off that status at any time). From my experience, Felucca (FFA PvP) eventually became inhabited almost entirely by PvP hungry players who tended to hold the Trammelites in contempt. Trammel (consentual PvP) eventually became a rather bland and often frustrating place, since those who wished to grief you in every way except PvP could do so without any fear of retaliation. Even with RP plots, where a certain amount of potential threat was called for, required multiple permissions, juggling of guild memberships, etc, just to gain you the highlighting you needed for the possibility of PvP. As other more sophisticated games popped up, many of the people on the Trammel side simply lost interest in a world that had very little challenge or real danger left in it.
In my opinion, and many others from that period, what killed UO was the split. Isolating the two halves of the community created polarized gaming experiences - neither of which were as meaningful as the whole.
And yet, in the original UO on the Catskills server, there was Kinship. Kinship was a player-made town back when all of UO was a FFA PvP game. The members and friends of the town banded together against reds (the highlighted color of those permanently marked as murderers). If one began attacking Kinship citizens or visitors, a message went out on ICQ and people came scrambling. Within minutes, the murderer was fleeing through the woods with a posse of Kinship members in hot pursuit. They would ban the person from every building they owned and put their name on a community wide list. They policed their own, both in their town and out in the wider game world, and did it in a game with few mechanics to aid them...certainly not as many as GW has already described for curtailing unwanted player behavior.
The lesson I took from UO was that players, willing to work together for their common good, can make a difference. Do some mechanics help...certainly. But too many such mechanics restrict the ability of players to make what might be perfectly meaningful choices and take an active hand in defining the game climate they wish to create and play in. Similar to the constant debate about alignment...too many laws means there's too little freedom...too much freedom means there's too little law. I suppose I would rather have more freedom in the game structure, and allow we, the community, by our efforts, to provide more of the law.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I suppose I would rather have more freedom in the game structure, and allow we, the community, by our efforts, to provide more of the law.
As mentioned before as we do not have the freedom to enforce the provided laws beyond slightly inconveniencing the offender the mechanical laws are needed.
And as long as there is no way to actually impact the character with actual threat of loss of progression ranging from the couple of skillpoints you loose in EvE if you don't have an up to date clone to straight up permadeath we as players simply do not have the capability of providing any kinds of laws.
I suppose I would rather have more freedom in the game structure, and allow we, the community, by our efforts, to provide more of the law.As mentioned before as we do not have the freedom to enforce the provided laws beyond slightly inconveniencing the offender the mechanical laws are needed.
And as long as there is no way to actually impact the character with actual threat of loss of progression ranging from the couple of skillpoints you loose in EvE if you don't have an up to date clone to straight up permadeath we as players simply do not have the capability of providing any kinds of laws.
Sorry as I have already said
We as players have complete control over peoples access to high level training and crafting facilities. We are also likely to have control over their access to player markets.
Someone is toxic to that extent every player settlement bans them. No training, no crafting, no storage facilities. Assuming in addition as seems likely that major markets are in player settlements also no ability to access the major market hubs.
How much more influence do you want over these players?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
When there are two constructive but opposing views on a solvable problem the solution is usually found to be a synthesis between the two (thesis and antithesis).
Most 'problem' cases, the ones (hopefully rare) that are predicted to make player enforcement efforts 'laughable' should be the exact cases where in-game mechanics apply as a supplement to community efforts.
Absent those hopefully rare cases the mechanics should be unnoticed and dormant. They should not be an issue. They should only rear their ugly heads in the specific cases where player enforcement is ineffective.
I don't think that should be objectionable.
So is the alignment/rep 'funnel' being built to be out-of-the-way where it isn't needed? That is the question I believe the designers need to evaluate closely.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...We as players have complete control over peoples access to high level training and crafting facilities. We are also likely to have control over their access to player markets.
Someone is toxic to that extent every player settlement bans them.
That's where there will likely be a problem. There will be an organization of like-minded toxics who build a toxic settlement. The only player recourse will be to remove that settlement. Yet there is a possibility that ten million CoD players may overwhelm the relatively few of us who would oppose them. If the game has mechanics that are otherwise innocuous that ten million should be so disadvantaged that they will fail. Without those otherwise hidden mechanics the more likely outcome is that we will fail.
The question, I'm thinking, is whether the current 'jerk-funnel' design can be innocuous in normal play.
Proxima Sin and the rest who are championing the potential for CE-oriented quality play have presented the view that the current design as we understand it will not be sufficiently innocuous.
Is my expression adequate?
...We as players have complete control over peoples access to high level training and crafting facilities. We are also likely to have control over their access to player markets.
Someone is toxic to that extent every player settlement bans them.
That's where there will likely be a problem. There will be an organization of like-minded toxics who build a toxic settlement. The only player recourse will be to remove that settlement.
Is my expression adequate?
And that is once more a perfectly fine player driven solution. If a player is toxic enough that 90% of settlements refuse to let them in then there shouldn't be any issue dealing with the remaining settlements that do. Merely pointing out to them the coalition of agreement against them and there probably fate if they do not fall into line will often be enough
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We as players have complete control over peoples access to high level training and crafting facilities. We are also likely to have control over their access to player markets.
Someone is toxic to that extent every player settlement bans them. No training, no crafting, no storage facilities. Assuming in addition as seems likely that major markets are in player settlements also no ability to access the major market hubs.
Regarding the access to training and crafting facilities: If there is demand then someone will inevitably provide the supply for it.
Also I do not believe that natural main trading hubs will form in player controlled territory. In addition to that I guarantee you that it will be impossible to exclude a player from the market completely.
We as players have complete control over peoples access to high level training and crafting facilities. We are also likely to have control over their access to player markets.
Someone is toxic to that extent every player settlement bans them. No training, no crafting, no storage facilities. Assuming in addition as seems likely that major markets are in player settlements also no ability to access the major market hubs.
Regarding the access to training and crafting facilities: If there is demand then someone will inevitably provide the supply for it.
Also I do not believe that natural main trading hubs will form in player controlled territory. In addition to that I guarantee you that it will be impossible to exclude a player from the market completely.
I did not claim you could exclude them completely. The training and crafting is the major control point in any case.
As has been noted. A settlement that doesn't fall into line when the majority of settlements are in agreement can either be persuaded into line fairly easily or at worst destroyed. Player control. It is easy and it works
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I did not claim you could exclude them completely.
And that is my main point. I think you should be able to to that. In addition to that I think that taking away a players potential future progress is also not enough. I think it pivotal to be able to take away a players already achieved progress. Only then the needed potential consequences will be present to achieve the workable self policing that Hobs has hinted at.
I did not claim you could exclude them completely.And that is my main point. I think you should be able to to that. In addition to that I think that taking away a players potential future progress is also not enough. I think it pivotal to be able to take away a players already achieved progress. Only then the needed potential consequences will be present to achieve the workable self policing that Hobs has hinted at.
And that facility is in place and resides in Goblinworks hands. It is called a ban. It is not something that should rest in players hands.
Hobs told you player policing worked in UO, all they could do in UO was kill the players character. There was as far as I know no permadeath in UO. Therefore you can hand out a lot harsher penalties in PfO as a player than you could in UO where player policing worked.