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


Pathfinder Online

101 to 150 of 767 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Bringslite wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
There is nowhere that in any blogs that have even so much as implied that trying to control a hex by force is out of bounds. Indeed the very fact that we are expected to fight over resources of which the richest would be in monster hexes definitely implies that trying to control a hex by force is expected play

Hmmm. Did I write that poorly? I do not think that trying to control any hex with force is an incorrect way to play. I think that if you read more closely what kind of things have been written about how we use the tools they give us, you will see that some of your tactics from EVE will not be ok.

We intend to enforce rule by and in order of preference

a) Direct control by our troops
b) Sad's by contracted bandits
c) Mercenary units willing to take the alignment and reputation hits

Which of these is it you are specifically object to?

None.

Then may I enquire which things I have written about that I missed off the list I made. Something has obviously caused concern. Maybe it was myself however just phrasing our methods badly

Goblin Squad Member

TEO is NG. Banditry is chaotic. Failing to see your point.


Drakhan Valane wrote:
TEO is NG. Banditry is chaotic. Failing to see your point.

Assassins are evil. At least 2 of your members probably 3 are members of assassin bands. TEO has discussed clandestine alliances with dark omen, as far as I have seen that hasn't changed despite blaeringr trying to cut a deal with golgotha

Assassins are evil you are ng....go address your own people then come back and persuade goblinworks not to allow it and lecture everyone else

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steelwing wrote:
Where the settlement mechanics allow us to set NBSI we have no problems. Outside that area where we believe we can control we make use of unacceptable SAD's. If that fails we have a squad of CE low rep alts to take out the people. It is no huge problem

I do not feel like this kind of play will make the cut as acceptable. As I wrote: Time will tell. I only have some of the philosophies and vision for their game to go by (that Gonlinworks has written) and hope that I have interpreted it correctly.

Despite all of these things that they have written about their intentions. Despite repeating their intent over and over, there are still some people that so want the game to be their separate "comfort zone" that these things are ignored as if they have not been made clear. It is there to read but is completely incomprehensible for some reason.

Oh well. ;)


Bringslite wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Where the settlement mechanics allow us to set NBSI we have no problems. Outside that area where we believe we can control we make use of unacceptable SAD's. If that fails we have a squad of CE low rep alts to take out the people. It is no huge problem

I do not feel like this kind of play will make the cut as acceptable. As I wrote: Time will tell. I only have some of the philosophies and vision for their game to go by (that Gonlinworks has written) and hope that I have interpreted it correctly.

Despite all of these things that they have written about their intentions. Despite repeating their intent over and over, there are still some people that so want the game to be their separate "comfort zone" that these things are ignored as if they have not been made clear. It is there to read but is completely incomprehensible for some reason.

Oh well. ;)

Some of our people will have CE low rep alts and will be hiring out as a company if we join. This will be because they want to PVP when we are not in a state of war. They do the same in Eve where they have alt's in a mercenary company that hire out to people for hi sec wars.

They will hire out to many and not just us, however it makes sense from our point of view to pay that hiring fee to alts of our own people rather than hire a completely different group to do it.

In much the same way as I do not blame TEO for having assassins and bandits on the pay roll. I merely use that to point out to drakhan that you can't have it both ways


Bringslite wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Where the settlement mechanics allow us to set NBSI we have no problems. Outside that area where we believe we can control we make use of unacceptable SAD's. If that fails we have a squad of CE low rep alts to take out the people. It is no huge problem

I do not feel like this kind of play will make the cut as acceptable. As I wrote: Time will tell. I only have some of the philosophies and vision for their game to go by (that Gonlinworks has written) and hope that I have interpreted it correctly.

Despite all of these things that they have written about their intentions. Despite repeating their intent over and over, there are still some people that so want the game to be their separate "comfort zone" that these things are ignored as if they have not been made clear. It is there to read but is completely incomprehensible for some reason.

Oh well. ;)

I also meant to ask would you be uncomfortable if we were hiring a group of CE thugs that weren't our people? If so why is it different in your view?

Goblin Squad Member

Players and characters are separate. My opinions do not reflect TEO and I am not part of the leadership. So telling me to go address my own people is a bit silly.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Where the settlement mechanics allow us to set NBSI we have no problems. Outside that area where we believe we can control we make use of unacceptable SAD's. If that fails we have a squad of CE low rep alts to take out the people. It is no huge problem

I do not feel like this kind of play will make the cut as acceptable. As I wrote: Time will tell. I only have some of the philosophies and vision for their game to go by (that Gonlinworks has written) and hope that I have interpreted it correctly.

Despite all of these things that they have written about their intentions. Despite repeating their intent over and over, there are still some people that so want the game to be their separate "comfort zone" that these things are ignored as if they have not been made clear. It is there to read but is completely incomprehensible for some reason.

Oh well. ;)

Some of our people will have CE low rep alts and will be hiring out as a company if we join. This will be because they want to PVP when we are not in a state of war. They do the same in Eve where they have alt's in a mercenary company that hire out to people for hi sec wars.

They will hire out to many and not just us, however it makes sense from our point of view to pay that hiring fee to alts of our own people rather than hire a completely different group to do it.

In much the same way as I do not blame TEO for having assassins and bandits on the pay roll. I merely use that to point out to drakhan that you can't have it both ways

Interesting. I know that you have a nice post somewhere back there, wherein you wrote that there is absolutely no reason to have CE low rep characters and that there will be plenty of PVP available.

Why will some of your members have such, purposely?

Edit: I see your reason written for such now. Why did you change your mind?


Drakhan Valane wrote:
Players and characters are separate. My opinions do not reflect TEO and I am not part of the leadership. So telling me to go address my own people is a bit silly.

Players and characters are indeed different and I know you are not part of the leadership. I do not in any way doubt the sincerity of your views nor do I disparage them and I fully endorse your ability to try and make the case to Goblinworks. Naturally I would argue against it but thats just my point of view.

However I do feel coming in and raking me over the coals for something that your own group is planning on doing is a little bit like picking on someone because they happen to be target of the month. By all means condemn those methods but spread the dislike to all that are planning on using it don't focus it all on me.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bringslite wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Where the settlement mechanics allow us to set NBSI we have no problems. Outside that area where we believe we can control we make use of unacceptable SAD's. If that fails we have a squad of CE low rep alts to take out the people. It is no huge problem

I do not feel like this kind of play will make the cut as acceptable. As I wrote: Time will tell. I only have some of the philosophies and vision for their game to go by (that Gonlinworks has written) and hope that I have interpreted it correctly.

Despite all of these things that they have written about their intentions. Despite repeating their intent over and over, there are still some people that so want the game to be their separate "comfort zone" that these things are ignored as if they have not been made clear. It is there to read but is completely incomprehensible for some reason.

Oh well. ;)

What GW has expressly said, over and over again, you can do things that will cost a reputation hit. Ryan specifically said, not to worry about your individual alignment or reputation but be altruistic to the needs of your settlement. Sometimes a settlement, even a Lawful Good one, will have the need to break from its "comfort zone" and do what needs to be done. "The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few or the one" that is a famous quote that referred to the sacrifice of one person, but it would equally apply to one principle or perhaps even a few principles.

Ryan had also said, over and over again, it will be very hard to maintain Lawful Good as a settlement. They will face many tough decisions, but that is what the drift to Core Alignment was put in place for.

So when you keep on saying, "I don't think that will make the cut", I believe that Ryan and the devs have made it pretty clear that it will. Those are the meaningful choices and they already bear consequences.


Bringslite wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Where the settlement mechanics allow us to set NBSI we have no problems. Outside that area where we believe we can control we make use of unacceptable SAD's. If that fails we have a squad of CE low rep alts to take out the people. It is no huge problem

I do not feel like this kind of play will make the cut as acceptable. As I wrote: Time will tell. I only have some of the philosophies and vision for their game to go by (that Gonlinworks has written) and hope that I have interpreted it correctly.

Despite all of these things that they have written about their intentions. Despite repeating their intent over and over, there are still some people that so want the game to be their separate "comfort zone" that these things are ignored as if they have not been made clear. It is there to read but is completely incomprehensible for some reason.

Oh well. ;)

Some of our people will have CE low rep alts and will be hiring out as a company if we join. This will be because they want to PVP when we are not in a state of war. They do the same in Eve where they have alt's in a mercenary company that hire out to people for hi sec wars.

They will hire out to many and not just us, however it makes sense from our point of view to pay that hiring fee to alts of our own people rather than hire a completely different group to do it.

In much the same way as I do not blame TEO for having assassins and bandits on the pay roll. I merely use that to point out to drakhan that you can't have it both ways

Interesting. I know that you have a nice post somewhere back there, wherein you wrote that there is absolutely no reason to have CE low rep characters and that there will be plenty of PVP available.

Why will some of your members have such, purposely?

They have no need to have such characters in order for our settlement to function. Nor will these characters be part of our settlement anymore than other peoples alts will necessarily be part of theirs.

To get their fill of pvp they will however have characters which will be played occasionally when for whatever reason they are not getting enough PVP. These characters will not be aimed to be being CE or low rep necessarily but stand a better chance than most of ending up there and if they do they will merely regard it as part of the challenge.

It should be noted these mercenaries will not be particularly available to us in times of war either when we will be wanting everyone on their main character whether for attack or defense.

Some people want to explore, some want to craft, some want to pve, some want to pvp. They fall in the last category. Sometimes we may well go a couple of months without a war and at that point they will wish to pursue their preferred game style

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
So when you keep on saying, "I don't think that will make the cut", I believe that Ryan and the devs have made it pretty clear that it will. Those are the meaningful choices and they already bear consequences.

I am sure that a great many more things than they want us to do will be possible. Especially at first. I am sure that more things than I want to be ok, will be also. I am also sure that less things that you want to be "ok play" will be.

It is all good.

Goblin Squad Member

I will also field that question...

I don't purposely have members that will be CE and Low Reputation, but two of them will want to be there by their own personal choice. They will not care if that means that one particular character will suck, it will be just one character of many.

There is a certain value in having the "Monster in the Basement". Someone that will be willing to do anything needed "For the Cause."

Just as Ryan had said, it would be foolish not to be NBSI towards unknown PCs from the NPC Settlements. It would be foolish for every settlement, not to have a few "Monsters in the Basement", attached to them in meta game so as to have plausible deniability.

Goblin Squad Member

I will pose a question or two then also.

Will these monsters in the basement be looking for challenging PVP?

I assume that they will want to win when they PVP, so who will be their targets?


Bringslite wrote:

I will pose a question or two then also.

Will these monsters in the basement be looking for challenging PVP?

I assume that they will want to win when they PVP, so who will be their targets?

Their targets will be whoever they are contracted to fight just as it is in Eve. As I said we have a group of a certain number who have alts in hisec who specifically hire themselves out for hisec wars and they fight for the highest bidder. Obviously they do not take on contracts which involve fighting us.

In PfO I expect them to do much the same. I am sure Pax and TEO will make use of mercenaries (whether alts of people in the group or not) in much the same way. Indeed there will be much clandestine hiring of bandit groups at allied scum :)

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Bringslite wrote:

I will pose a question or two then also.

Will these monsters in the basement be looking for challenging PVP?

I assume that they will want to win when they PVP, so who will be their targets?

Their targets will be whoever they are contracted to fight just as it is in Eve. As I said we have a group of a certain number who have alts in hisec who specifically hire themselves out for hisec wars and they fight for the highest bidder. Obviously they do not take on contracts which involve fighting us.

In PfO I expect them to do much the same. I am sure Pax and TEO will make use of mercenaries (whether alts of people in the group or not) in much the same way. Indeed there will be much clandestine hiring of bandit groups at allied scum :)

I fear that they will only be of middling competitive value if they are hampered by low reputation. Though that has not been fully detailed yet so I could be wrong.


Bringslite wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Bringslite wrote:

I will pose a question or two then also.

Will these monsters in the basement be looking for challenging PVP?

I assume that they will want to win when they PVP, so who will be their targets?

Their targets will be whoever they are contracted to fight just as it is in Eve. As I said we have a group of a certain number who have alts in hisec who specifically hire themselves out for hisec wars and they fight for the highest bidder. Obviously they do not take on contracts which involve fighting us.

In PfO I expect them to do much the same. I am sure Pax and TEO will make use of mercenaries (whether alts of people in the group or not) in much the same way. Indeed there will be much clandestine hiring of bandit groups at allied scum :)

I fear that they will only be of middling competitive value if they are hampered by low reputation. Though that has not been fully detailed yet so I could be wrong.

They certainly will not be low rep deliberately but if they are hired to do a job and that requires a rep hit then they will do so. It will be priced into the job. All settlements will need people to take that rep hit for them.

They will however be fully aware of formation combat and be able to take on formations and I suspect they will mostly have numbers on their side which will help

Goblin Squad Member

As this thread is hoplessly off topic anyway....

I have to ask if someone wants to do an assassination they have to do it under contract no? Same thing is true for bounty? The person doing the hiring has to be hurt in some way by the target of the contract? I thought I read that death curses and assignation took a toll on alignment?

Anyone???

I am not talking about meta bandit contracts.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bringslite wrote:

I will pose a question or two then also.

Will these monsters in the basement be looking for challenging PVP?

I assume that they will want to win when they PVP, so who will be their targets?

They will be looking to exact brutality and vengeance on their target. They are not just released from the basement to go ravage the countryside.

Traitors will get their attention, and it will be grievous attention to be certain. But others may fall to the depths with the UNC and also get their attention as well.

Hell, they don't even post on forums like these because they would likely get banned inside of a few days. Think Qallz x 10 (No offense to Qallz).

Longstreet (yes I utter his name here) even managed to get banned (briefly) by CCP if you can believe it.

Longstreet has even accused me of being somewhat care bearish in comparison to the way he likes to play.


Vwoom wrote:

As this thread is hoplessly off topic anyway....

I have to ask if someone wants to do an assassination they have to do it under contract no? Same thing is true for bounty? The person doing the hiring has to be hurt in some way by the target of the contract? I thought I read that death curses and assignation took a toll on alignment?

Anyone???

I am not talking about meta bandit contracts.

death curses I believe cost some reputation or influence and may only be done to someone who has killed you and is therefore on your death list.

The same with bounties I believe.

My understanding is that assassination will be able to placed upon anyone but the costs will be significantly higher. Goblinworks has implied that we are only likely to use it on settlement leaders to lower DI pre invasions. Having said that the blog was quite a long time ago

Goblin Squad Member

Vwoom wrote:

As this thread is hoplessly off topic anyway....

I have to ask if someone wants to do an assassination they have to do it under contract no? Same thing is true for bounty? The person doing the hiring has to be hurt in some way by the target of the contract? I thought I read that death curses and assignation took a toll on alignment?

Anyone???

I am not talking about meta bandit contracts.

Death Curses take a toll on the issuer's reputation, not alignment.

Assassinations are Evil aligned activities, but they are fulfilling a contract and so are also Lawful in nature.

If a PC wants to contract an Assassin and that contract would cost them an alignment shift, they do not want, they will use an alt or a "Monster in the Basement" to do it through meta game means (TS3, Vent, Personal Forums, etc).

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Bringslite wrote:

I will pose a question or two then also.

Will these monsters in the basement be looking for challenging PVP?

I assume that they will want to win when they PVP, so who will be their targets?

Their targets will be whoever they are contracted to fight just as it is in Eve. As I said we have a group of a certain number who have alts in hisec who specifically hire themselves out for hisec wars and they fight for the highest bidder. Obviously they do not take on contracts which involve fighting us.

In PfO I expect them to do much the same. I am sure Pax and TEO will make use of mercenaries (whether alts of people in the group or not) in much the same way. Indeed there will be much clandestine hiring of bandit groups at allied scum :)

I fear that they will only be of middling competitive value if they are hampered by low reputation. Though that has not been fully detailed yet so I could be wrong.

They certainly will not be low rep deliberately but if they are hired to do a job and that requires a rep hit then they will do so. It will be priced into the job. All settlements will need people to take that rep hit for them.

They will however be fully aware of formation combat and be able to take on formations and I suspect they will mostly have numbers on their side which will help

See, none of that seems out of my understanding of what GW has indicated as play as intended. Just that quote of yours that I pulled up painted a different picture. It seemed to indicate that you would purposely have low rep alts to save and use just because they have nothing to lose. That seems as out of place as "newby rep bombs", the way that I read it.

But do continue. Some of the things that you bring up need to be realized and examined. I don't get as gloom and doomed as some that read them because I know that the game will NOT be all about them, even if I do realize that some or similar things will be SOP for successful groups.


Sorry if you found the quote misleading it certainly wasn't meant to be. I thought it was a pure statement of fact and I am not sure what difference you see in what I have said since except that the CE people will be for hire by others as well. I am not sure why this somehow makes it better though.

Goblinworks gives us tools. We look for the best way to apply those tools that is all there is to it however. Some seem to take exception to it though.

I guess it is like the difference between table manners and table etiquette. Some worry about how to get their food into their mouth and onwards into their stomach without spilling it or putting others off their food. Others get the vapors if you have the temerity to use the wrong fork for eating soup or the wrong knife for cutting fish.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Sorry if you found the quote misleading it certainly wasn't meant to be. I thought it was a pure statement of fact and I am not sure what difference you see in what I have said since except that the CE people will be for hire by others as well. I am not sure why this somehow makes it better though.

I will examine why I feel it is different and let you know what conclusions that I come to. It would suck if I come to realize that there is no real difference. :)

processing.....

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steelwing wrote:
Some people want to explore, some want to craft, some want to pve, some want to pvp. They fall in the last category. Sometimes we may well go a couple of months without a war and at that point they will wish to pursue their preferred game style

To offer another opinion (not TSV official policy), I am actually kind of confused about why what Steelwing is suggesting is rubbing people the wrong way.

As a past leader of a guild, I see two primary purpose for guilds in a sandbox...and as such, I see two facts that to me are irrefutable. One, it is the job of a guild to protect the lives and interests of its members (within reason). If my guild decides that hiring anyone in-game to perform a role that will increase the strength of our position or my ability to insure the well-being of our members, I will have no qualms with supporting it (with the caveat that TSV is dedicated to high-Rep)...even if this means we hire a CC to act counter to our alignment (not Rep). This includes doing our utmost to block strategic roadways...if we feel it is tactically required to insure our well-being.

Two, and this is the most important...sandboxes are community driven, most of the content will come from the community. The second primary purpose of a guild is to support the development of content for its members. TSVs structure was even created specifically to fulfill this goal. TSV will have members who want to PvP...I fully expect to get members who want to do nothing but PvP. Our ROE and our internal rules will place a lower limit on what we allow for Rep, but that is our choice. As long as a CC/Settlement stays within the bounds created by GW, who are we to say they are "doing it wrong"? I fully expect TSV will not suffer for enemies, so I am not particularly concerned about being able to provide enough PvP content to those members who want it. Answer me this though, imagine a group no one wanted to mess with, who tried to maintain a LG-ish, high Rep settlement. How would you suggest their PvP hungry members sate their appetite? Alts in merc CCs sound like exactly the correct and GW sanctioned path. Returning to my point one, why not have that settlement hire those mercs to keep the money in-house?

Steelwing has done nothing but state that he and his intend to do the two things I just said a guild must do. He will defend his interests and provide content for his people. The only difference is my insistence for high Rep, but again, as long as Steelwing stays above the line drawn by GW, who are we to say he is wrong?

I guess I just read Steelwing's posts and see someone who wants to give me and mine content...not just take our stuff. Someone who wants to test himself against the best I can field and vice versa - A breath of fresh air.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

@ Steelwing

Ok. Dinner is down and processing is complete.

The whole idea of using maximum SADs and/or CE alts to do your work for you bothered me because it does not seem to be in the spirit of the game.

In the use of the SAD, it is a way around the intended use for SAD and the reputation penalties for attacking (in essence) free of consequences. I don't think that GW wants the SAD mechanic to be used in that way. The same as I don't believe that GW wants me to fix all of my caravans with a convenient 1gp SAD for the timer. I hope that I turn out to be right about that.

With the use of the rep-less alts, it bothers me because they really have nothing to lose anyway. It also seems like an abuse of intention if they can be used effectively. This case is a bit different though, now that I have thought about it a bit. It occurs to me, the more that I debate this back and forth, just HOW terribly hampered GW intends to make low reputation toons. They will really have to be useless, otherwise how will the activities that get them there really be consequential? Some of our resident Brains (Nightdrifter comes to mind) have crunched the numbers for us. The difference in the power of the tiers of weapons and gear are looking to be quite significant, even if the power curve of raw ability is pretty flat. In a nutshell: those low rep toons will be pretty useless anyway.

So what is the difference? The SAD should not be abused that way or it will not work as a system. Low rep throwaway toons will be ineffective vs. well geared and trained opponents because if they were effective, the whole system would be basically useless.

Edit: What I would prefer to see is a "Flag" or something that you could use to make an unclaimable hex a war zone. You plant it/activate it and, in that hex, IT IS ON! for the duration of your endurance as a force.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:

@ Steelwing

Ok. Dinner is down and processing is complete.

The whole idea of using maximum SADs and/or CE alts to do your work for you bothered me because it does not seem to be in the spirit of the game.

In the use of the SAD, it is a way around the intended use for SAD and the reputation penalties for attacking (in essence) free of consequences. I don't think that GW wants the SAD mechanic to be used in that way. The same as I don't believe that GW wants me to fix all of my caravans with a convenient 1gp SAD for the timer. I hope that I turn out to be right about that.

With the use of the rep-less alts, it bothers me because they really have nothing to lose anyway. It also seems like an abuse of intention if they can be used effectively. This case is a bit different though, now that I have thought about it a bit. It occurs to me, the more that I debate this back and forth, just HOW terribly hampered GW intends to make low reputation toons. They will really have to be useless, otherwise how will the activities that get them there really be consequential? Some of our resident Brains (Nightdrifter comes to mind) have crunched the numbers for us. The difference in the power of the tiers of weapons and gear are looking to be quite significant, even if the power curve of raw ability is pretty flat. In a nutshell: those low rep toons will be pretty useless anyway.

So what is the difference? The SAD should not be abused that way or it will not work as a system. Low rep throwaway toons will be ineffective vs. well geared and trained opponents because if they were effective, the whole system would be basically useless.

I think SAD is intended to be used anyway it is useful. I never got the impression otherwise. There has even been talk of SADding SADders as the way to halt them etc...no one ever claimed that was outside the spirit of SAD. I have to agree with Steelwing on this one, SAD is a tool to be wielded by anyone who is capable of doing so.

I do agree with you Bringslite concerning the low-Rep characters. But, as long as Steelwing's people stay above the bad-Rep line dictated by GW, who are we to say they are playing outside "as intended"?

I expect GW to both place limits on both SAD and the use of low Rep toons (as you already pointed out) so I do not think it will be an issue. In fact, although Steelwing said they might be CE low-Rep characters, he has also already stated his people will play the mechanics, insuring their characters are able to utilize the best/most of the system. This means they will need to be high-Rep and high-Rep is gained through playing as intended...and contributing content to the community.

Goblin Squad Member

Don't get me wrong here. I have nothing against Steelwing personally. He asked what the difference was from the impression I got reading an earlier post and his description of intended activities written later.

It will be quite some time before any of this is of relevance anyway, so it is all just a speculative exercise. :)

Goblin Squad Member

KitNix wrote:
I think SAD is intended to be used anyway it is useful. I never got the impression otherwise. There has even been talk of SADding SADders as the way to halt them etc...no one ever claimed that was outside the spirit of SAD. I have to agree with Steelwing on this one, SAD is a tool to be wielded by anyone who is capable of doing so.

If you think about it, SAD (as far as what is released about it now) is a single trainable skill that pretty much negates the "consequential PVP" machine if it is used that way. In fact, it does if it is just used in a mundane way by bandits. Why would GW do that?

I have my doubts that the first real working version of SAD will be quite what we think that it will be.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:

It will be quite some time before any of this is of relevance anyway, so it is all just a speculative exercise.

...

I have my doubts that the first real working version of SAD will be quite what we think that it will be.

I totally agree with you (and I never thought you were attacking Steelwing personally, nor did I intend to defend him, only the relevant points of discussion.)

Goblin Squad Member

This whole derailment is highlighting the confusion problem I see with the current Reputation mechanic.

Death Curse Rep loss and flip-a-coin-serial-killer Rep loss are totally different concepts getting measured by the same number so when you dive into the pool of CE alts hired to break laws by lawful settlements, potentially toxic abuse of SAD, and what happens to characters and their players the water gets very murky very fast.

@Steelwing regarding the question you asked a lot of posts ago (I think in this thread? 100 posts in they all look the same) with my version of Karma active once you get low enough it blunts the abilities of that account's characters (like no longer able to issue SAD) explicitly to limit their negative impact on other players.


Bringslite wrote:

@ Steelwing

O
The whole idea of using maximum SADs and/or CE alts to do your work for you bothered me because it does not seem to be in the spirit of the game.

In the use of the SAD, it is a way around the intended use for SAD and the reputation penalties for attacking (in essence) free of consequences. I don't think that GW wants the SAD mechanic to be used in that way. The same as I don't believe that GW wants me to fix all of my caravans with a convenient 1gp SAD for the timer. I hope that I turn out to be right about that.

Sorry got busy there for a while but back in idle mode for now so time to address this.

It all comes down to the words emergent gameplay. A lot of mechanics will be used in ways the devs hadn't expected. This is the very nature of emergent game play complexity arising from creative use of simple rules.

GW is now aware of this potential use (or as some would prefer abuse). If they put in SAD's in game which allow us to use it in such a way despite knowing in advance that we intend to use it that way then I would have to say that it is obviously not something they consider misuse. On the other hand they may decide to cap a SAD at for example 10% of goods carried for example (10% is a complete off the top of my head figure and is in no way shape or form to be considered my suggestion it is purely an example).

I believe that they intend us to fight to gain control of hexes outside of those mechanically considered part of our settlement zone it therefore seems to me that it is reasonable that we have some way of doing so without having to suffer a rep hit every time. Just take down a party of for example lawful good gatherers and their guards to prevent them setting up a gathering camp for example could take your entire group from max rep to min rep in one go. Do you believe it is intended that we should not be able to contest that territory against such a group?

(War's and feuds do not cut the ice here because there are so many ways to prevent it being possible. While you may well maintain a feud condition with those groups you most commonly bump into in these hexes I do not expect it to be able to be in feuds with more than a handful of groups at a time)


Proxima Sin wrote:

This whole derailment is highlighting the confusion problem I see with the current Reputation mechanic.

Death Curse Rep loss and flip-a-coin-serial-killer Rep loss are totally different concepts getting measured by the same number so when you dive into the pool of CE alts hired to break laws by lawful settlements, potentially toxic abuse of SAD, and what happens to characters and their players the water gets very murky very fast.

@Steelwing regarding the question you asked a lot of posts ago (I think in this thread? 100 posts in they all look the same) with my version of Karma active once you get low enough it blunts the abilities of that account's characters (like no longer able to issue SAD) explicitly to limit their negative impact on other players.

I can't honestly recall the question now. I do remember the rough details of the the conversation however. The reason Karma will not work still remains. People will use different accounts for different characters.

There are many reasons to do so even without the issue of account wide rep. For example I full expect as some point that there will be a need for a tool such as the Eve API check tools. Purely because people will need to curb infiltration. That tool needs to be able to see the alts on the account to be of use. The tool will not stop serious infiltrators but it will at least stem the casual infiltrator (probably about 80%)

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steelwing wrote:
The reason Karma will not work still remains. People will use different accounts for different characters.

+1

Never punish a player for using a single account. I've been pushing that line for two years now.

If there are penalties that accrue to "related characters", they need to accrue to characters that can be related in-game, not to characters on the same account, same PC, same LAN, etc.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey, I am pretty fresh to the game mechanics being discussed here atm, but it has been an interesting read to say the least. I am here on my quest to learn more about where PFo is and where it is heading...possibly. So please bear with me if I use terms wrong etc. I appreciate polite correction of all mistakes made.

---------------

What I think is causing much of the discussion here is not necessarily the game mechanics themselves, but the rather how differently players approach the game. I for one would play the game viewing the game from the inside...using the tools at hand presented by the game (not necessarily in a RP way), but some look outside the game to find ways to exploit. Such as multiple accounts to harass etc.

For me it would be unheard of to buy another account just to be able to circumvent a game mechanic or it's repercussions. As long as you have enough character slots to cover your in-game needs it should be avoided.
If things are being done for your benefit in-game you should be man enough to face the consequences dictated by the game, or create game content by hiring outsiders to do it for you. By having multi-accounts to achieve this instead of using other player's characters or your own account's alts, that could be used to inflict account wide repercussions, is on the same level of using hacks or cheats to me.

And if a group wants to be evil megalomaniacs then great! The rest of the server will just have to band together to fight them then. This will create exciting events etc. It will create a vivid game world that offers diversity. But the problem would occur if the forces of good are not strong enough. For those instances there would have to be some level of limitation (and this goes the other way as well) on how much of the game world could be controlled by a certain alignment of something.

I would enjoy a game world where a strong evil group could be rule the land...only to be toppled by a rebellion or something like that, but in all practicality such a game world would also alienate so many players with a different playstyle than PvP. I think that the game would suffer for it.

In the end a game can't regulate all the loopholes etc without creating a game that already is out there and we don't want to play.
It is up to us to be good "players" and not step around the obvious intent of the game. Why play the game if you are only going to circumvent the rules the majority is playing by?
Evil characters are fine...evil players are not.

TL:DR
Sorry I got long winded! I prolly lost my train of thought a couple of times in there...

It comes down to player moral. Not character moral.
What should be regulated are player's ability to exploit the game.
Not a character's ability to exploit the world.

Goblin Squad Member

Wow just wow... it amazes me how people throw around exploit, cheat, and hack when talking about different characters.

Doing what Steelwing is talking about, having multiple characters/accounts is exactly in the intent of the game.

If GW is going to regulate that play style, then maybe they should regulate the others too.

From now on, its and exploit and a cheat to use a crafting alt. You must use your main character to adventure, craft, and pvp or you should be banned. If you dont do this then you are using alt characters to exploit the game design.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pax JayBrand wrote:
It is up to us to be good "players" and not step around the obvious intent of the game... Evil characters are fine...evil players are not.

Completely agree.

Pax JayBrand wrote:
What should be regulated are player's ability to exploit the game. Not a character's ability to exploit the world.

Unfortunately, it's impossible to regulate "player" behavior because it's impossible to identify the "player". On the internet, no one knows you're a dog.

We've been discussing these kinds of problems since shortly after PFO was announced.

How should we deal with "throwaway alts" that are used to insulate two characters from the Reputation consequences of directly trading with each other? Imagine that low-rep character A wants to trade object X to high-rep character B, but doesn't want to give B a rep hit, so they decide to use throwaway alt character C to intermediate. Now imagine that "throwaway alt character C" is actually a chain of 100 throwaway alt characters. The ideal solution would still result in some sort of rep hit to B, and would impose a cost to create C.

Ryan has suggested (if I'm remembering correctly) that passing items through a Market would cleanse them so that the rep hit would not get passed on to unsuspecting buyers. I'm hopeful that Goblinworks has plans to analyze their data to identify patterns where A sells X on the Market at an inflated price to B. I would be delighted if Goblinworks occasionally applied retroactive rep penalties to B when this pattern was identified. I would be absolutely thrilled if Goblinworks banned both A and B for a significant amount of time in addition to applying retroactive rep hits.

It is absolutely imperative that the players not feel like they are protected from being punished for violating the spirit of the rules merely because it's theoretically possible that they weren't. This is why I'm such a strong supporter of Goblinworks' decision to be "arbitrary and capricious".

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon, link me where it says that rep hits will pass from player to player through items.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

On the up side people with 16 accounts each will ensure the survival of PFO.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:
Nihimon, link me where it says that rep hits will pass from player to player through items.

First, I'm not positive my understanding of the plan is correct, and obviously everything is subject to change and much of it is still TBD (to be determined).

But since you asked so nicely, here's one place Ryan brought it up. (Thanks Jazzlvraz, it was easier to find your link than the original)

But let's continue:

vjek wrote:
and hand every piece of gear, every resource, and every single coin, item of value, everything acquired, over to my second account, who proceeds to make anything I want, and hand it back.

Trading directly with CE characters could be considered a chaotic and evil act. So doing a direct character-to-character transfer could rapidly degrade the alignment of your non-CE character.

You have an inventory problem. PCs can't carry that much stuff; certainly not stacks of armor and weapons. So you'll need to arrange for transport in bulk of some kind, from the place where your CE character has accumulated it to someplace else. That's a vulnerable supply line; who guards CE-linked materials?

If you could get your stuff to a market and sell it anonymously, the buyer wouldn't have that problem. But as s CE character your available markets will be small and inefficient so may not have many buyers.

Your good PC has to go to somewhere your CE PC can meet them to transfer items for sale. That means your good PC is going to have to go into dangerous places. How do you ensure that your good PC doesn't get ganked by the kinds of a&@@$~~s who live in the places your CE character lives?

Goblin Squad Member

Vwoom wrote:
On the up side people with 16 accounts each will ensure the survival of PFO.

Remember, we pay for Characters (training), not for Accounts.


ppl will use low rep alts to do the dirt work( and will use a lot) and imo will be almost impossible to enforce a ban or penalty against them. gw are doing their part by trying to minimize this issue with the training facility nerf for low rep chars. If this tactic causes many problems and grief i have no doubt that gw will extend the penalty of low rep chars to a stat nerf. So its up to the community how it will be used.

Goblin Squad Member

Thanks

I see that there is an alignment issue, but not a rep issue. If that is still on the table anyway.

Guess we shall see.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:
Vwoom wrote:
On the up side people with 16 accounts each will ensure the survival of PFO.
Remember, we pay for Characters (training), not for Accounts.

I don't suppose anyone is reevaluating the presumption that they need to get around the rules. Is it all that novel of an idea that, just maybe, the game is designed well enough to play it the way it was designed to be played? That possibly circumventing game mechanics is not only unnecessary, but inefficient?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Being wrote:
Is it all that novel of an idea that, just maybe, the game is designed well enough to play it the way it was designed to be played?

Yes. If Pathfinder Online manages to release such that the most efficient method for performing every action needed to be taken is that designed by the developers, then GoblinWorks will have accomplished something no other modern developer has ever accomplished. In the history of modern video game design there has never been a game within which developer intent was the most efficient method for playing the game.

It would be the very definition of a novel idea.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Alexander_Damocles wrote:
You have made your intentions to break the system quite clear. Either play the game the developers are building, or leave. Frankly, I'm tired of your superior attitude and that you can outsmart the company and talk down to the CEO.

It is a game of territorial control...I am playing that game. I did not say we would be using our alts to get other settlements in trouble. I said that unscrupulous players would. If goblin works starts banning settlement players because CE players or bandits seem to be working to advantage a settlement guess what griefers are going to do.

I am playing the game the developers are building, I am planning on territorial domination. If you are not playing that game then it is you that is not playing the game they are building not me.

If GW really intends certain road hex's to not be made impassable in such a manner...they really have the ultimate solution available....make those hex's non-pvp zones. Again their stated goal is to make sure that there are no real choke points on the map. So if you effectively create a choke point preventing players from getting to 2 portions of the map that they want players to be able to access (rather then just walling off your own area or making travel have to divert and take a wider route) then I expect they will ultimately take the action of disallowing PvP in those hex's so players can get the access to the map that they want them to have.

Goblin Squad Member

Kabal362 wrote:
ppl will use low rep alts to do the dirt work( and will use a lot) and imo will be almost impossible to enforce a ban or penalty against them. gw are doing their part by trying to minimize this issue with the training facility nerf for low rep chars. If this tactic causes many problems and grief i have no doubt that gw will extend the penalty of low rep chars to a stat nerf. So its up to the community how it will be used.

Yes there are work arounds. As there probably will be to be everything in the rep system. The point is that when you force players to jump through hoops for every single action, eventually they get weary of it and move on to a game that fits their play style better. It's true on an individual basis, it's even truer on a group basis.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
It has nothing to do with "alts." It has everything to do with having a Lawful settlement enforcing its territory by Chaotic means.

Can a settlement hire mercenaries?

Can a settlement only hire mercenaries of the same alignment?

I think the answers to that are obviously yes for the first and no for the second.

If you think the answer to the second is yes can you give me your thoughts on the tie up between blaeringr's group and TEO a putatively neutral good organisation allying with assassins that have to be evil. (Yes I know this was talked about quite a while ago between blaeringr's group and TEO) but I know for a fact that blaeringrs group have at least one player in common definitely and quite probably two.

In tabletop, most GM's would forcibly shift the player to chaotic. Causing the laws to be broken by ones own actions is as chaotic an action as breaking those laws onself. The game mechanics simply can't capture those sort of interactions because you are using an out of game method to perform them.

I have no idea whether GW will bother to try to worry about such circumventions, most likely not. However, Drakhan's observation is largely correct. In the sense of "world logic" your settlement would be acting in largely a "chaotic" fashion rather then a lawfull one.

Goblin Squad Member

From what I read recently, a lot of roads will be created by Players. The roads between NPC towns will have varying degrees of PVP levels. Mainly from NPC's will show up and help to no NPC's will show up to help.

The main thing that was referred to about choke points was from Eve. We will not be using jump gates or anything similar. So if there is an area that you want to go through, but it is heavily traveled by bandits... just go around.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:

From what I read recently, a lot of roads will be created by Players. The roads between NPC towns will have varying degrees of PVP levels. Mainly from NPC's will show up and help to no NPC's will show up to help.

The main thing that was referred to about choke points was from Eve. We will not be using jump gates or anything similar. So if there is an area that you want to go through, but it is heavily traveled by bandits... just go around.

Yup. Or go armed and expect conflict sometimes. Never bearing more than you can afford to lose, and excepting that a defeat sometimes is just part of the game.

You can still be prosperous and successful if you use your noggin.

101 to 150 of 767 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / It's 3am, do you know where your settlement is? All Messageboards