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


Pathfinder Online

151 to 200 of 767 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bringslite wrote:
Xeen wrote:
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.

Or go armed to the teeth and looking for conflict :)

Goblin Squad Member

avari3 wrote:
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.

Not if jumping through those hoops leads to a better result. Once a large enough population begins jumping through those same hoops, then the pressure will be on the Devs to remove some of those hoops.

As another poster made the point above, some of you truly believe that Goblin Works is developing the "MMO of All MMOs" and they will fix all of the ills of the MMO experience.

I take the RTBS (Remains to be Seen)view of that.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
Xeen wrote:
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.

Or go armed to the teeth and looking for conflict :)

Agreed, but that is an entirely different persona. ;)

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
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.

That's entirely possible. Again it's effectively about what GW want players to be able to do and not to do. If GW really want players to be able to use a particular road hex without worry, then they have the ultimate means to do so if neccessary. I don't play EvE, but I'm fairly sure if CCP really wanted to make it impossible to suicide gank in a particular area, they could simply disable non-consentual PvP.

The main point I'm trying to get across is to not assume that PFO will just be EvE v2 with Elf Skins. Ryan and company have specificaly stated that they do not want to emulate certain aspects of EvE in PFO so one can't proceed from the idea of "well it works in EvE, so..."

Ultimately they want, I believe, to attract a certain subset of customers that don't and wouldn't play EvE....and if they want that badly enough, then they will make sufficient modifications to the rules to prevent things that would drive such players away.

My general impression is that they don't want vast sections of the map effectively walled off from the entire player base.... so they likely will take whatever steps are neccesary to prevent that from happening.

That's NOT saying that organizations won't be attempting to exert some level of control over hex's they can't claim....likely some level of that is quite desirable by PFO...but if it gets to the point where 99 percent of the player base can only effectively access 1 percent of the map, I would expect them to make whatever modifications are neccesary to keep thier design goal for the game viable.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
avari3 wrote:
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.

Not if jumping through those hoops leads to a better result. Once a large enough population begins jumping through those same hoops, then the pressure will be on the Devs to remove some of those hoops.

As another poster made the point above, some of you truly believe that Goblin Works is developing the "MMO of All MMOs" and they will fix all of the ills of the MMO experience.

I take the RTBS (Remains to be Seen)view of that.

Bludd,

I have absolutely no idea if GW will be succesfull in making a game that meats their stated design intent. Personaly, I'm taking a very large leap of faith that PFO will end up making a game significantly different in experience then the cesspool that most FFA PvP games end up becoming. I pretty much loathe the way FFA PvP games tend to play in practice....but I've taken GW at thier word that they intended to offer a different experience then those.

If they fail, no skin off my nose...I'll just write it off and go back to playing other types of games that interest me... plenty of those to choose from. Big deal for GW, though. I suspect that PFO simply won't be able to sustain itself if it has to cater exclusively to the types of players that ALREADY enjoy playing Darkfall and Mortal Online and EvE.... there are only so many games that an audience of that size can sustain, and I can't see too many folks that are already fully satisfied with those games making a switch. I think PFO is going to have to reach out to other audiences beyond those, including those who have no interest in playing them. Will it succeed? As you said...it remains to be determined.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

GrumpyMel,

I not only think that GW can make a game that would appeal to players that already enjoy playing Darkfall, Mortal or EVE, but I think they can produce a game that will shut down Darkfall, and maybe Mortal and put a serious dent in EVE.

Darkfall's biggest issue it it has the most terrible UI I have seen in an MMO. It is also the grindiest MMO I have played as well. You are virtually forced to craft 100 pieces of every armor type, just to get some easy Prowess, then you just throw it all away because no one will buy it from you anyway.

Mortal I never played, because it kept on crashing in character creation... Need I say more?

PFO has the opportunity to pull many, 10's of thousands, from EVE Online. The greatest weakness of EVE is the lack of avatars. The broader, MMO player base have a more difficult time identifying with a character they virtually never see. The ships not being able to be customized (visually) does not give that sense of alter identity players crave.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

GrumpyMel,

I not only think that GW can make a game that would appeal to players that already enjoy playing Darkfall, Mortal or EVE, but I think they can produce a game that will shut down Darkfall, and maybe Mortal and put a serious dent in EVE.

Darkfall's biggest issue it it has the most terrible UI I have seen in an MMO. It is also the grindiest MMO I have played as well. You are virtually forced to craft 100 pieces of every armor type, just to get some easy Prowess, then you just throw it all away because no one will buy it from you anyway.

Mortal I never played, because it kept on crashing in character creation... Need I say more?

PFO has the opportunity to pull many, 10's of thousands, from EVE Online. The greatest weakness of EVE is the lack of avatars. The broader, MMO player base have a more difficult time identifying with a character they virtually never see. The ships not being able to be customized (visually) does not give that sense of alter identity players crave.

I'm not Ryan or his investors but I suspect completely shutting down Darkfall and Mortal Online would not garner enough customers to garner a reasonable return on investment and meet PFO's financial goals. I'm not sure about Darkfall but it's fairly well published that Mortal Online only continued to operate as long as it has due to large influx's of cash to sustain operations. I suspect in order to meet the long term goals that they want to achieve they'd have to not only shutdown Mortal Online and Darkfall but end up stealing away at least 50 percent of EvE's market share. Maybe I'm wrong about that. Maybe that IS GW's plan afterall and maybe it's achievable.

However, I don't think it's a very solid or winning recipie to exclusively target the limited audience of a well entrenched brand and battle it for market share. That would seem a microcosim of the same strategy that many of todays struggling AAA Themeparks have attempted with WoW. Usualy a product does best when trying to create it's own audience, reaching out to customers that aren't currently being served well or preferably at all and to create as many strong points of differentiation between itself and any potential competition as possible.

I suspect, though I could be way off base....that EverQuest Next is a closer competitor to at least a significant portion to PFO's target audience then PFO...and PFO is hoping to both beat it to market and offer a somewhat different emphasis.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
avari3 wrote:


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.

Not if jumping through those hoops leads to a better result. Once a large enough population begins jumping through those same hoops, then the pressure will be on the Devs to remove some of those hoops.

As another poster made the point above, some of you truly believe that Goblin Works is developing the "MMO of All MMOs" and they will fix all of the ills of the MMO experience.

I take the RTBS (Remains to be Seen)view of that.

I don't think PFo will be different because GW's is BETTER at designing hurdles to certain play styles, I think they will be different because they are WILLING. Mortal, Darkfall and pretty much everybody else looking for a niche in the PvP sandbox market is crawling over each other to be the "most hardcore" while PFO is going in the other direction, more funnels.

Anybody who wants to limit types of PvP can. That's the point.

CEO, Goblinworks

We will have positive cashow with 10% of EVE's player base.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
We will have positive cashow with 10% of EVE's player base.

O.o Care to put that in layman's terms? (anybody who understood it or Ryan himself, that is)

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.

'Positive cashflow' is financial-speak for 'we make more money than we spend'. It is not quite the same thing as 'profitable', but it does mean 'the checks don't bounce'.

'10% of EVE's player base' is about 50,000 subscribers, based on my research.

Goblin Squad Member

Ah, cashflow. Sorry, but I assumed that cashow was some other term that I was too ignorant to know about. ^_^'

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

They're cashews. Delicious.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My brain was trying to "cash cow" but it did not fit the rest of the sentence.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

D'oh. I parsed it without even seeing a typo.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
D'oh. I parsed it without even seeing a typo.

Same here. Weird.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
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.

Karma would definitionally work. It's main purpose is to mechanically blunt the affect of negative players on the world with the characters they use to do that. There's already an algorithm planned for rep(Karma) loss if you go on a psychotic spree attacking/killing non-hostiles. When you link that so low rep(Karma) loss triggers the blackout of more than basic combat ability that player may be attacking noobs outside town but automatically becomes much less effective at ruining their gaming experience.

If you create more accounts to get around that, those characters soon become mechanically ineffective too. There really is no point to creating more accounts to be bad with under the system. All you can do is keep your non-jerk characters on a different, unhindered account which means you're probably paying GW extra money just to behave badly.

@Nihimon The point isn't punishment, because look how well that's worked this last 10 years. It's to blunt the detriment on other player's gaming while a TBD behavior modification system can run on that player hopefully helping them decide to just play the game without being gum in anyone's hair. At worst, it prohibits them from running rampant at full power until the final ban.

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin wrote:
If you create more accounts to get around that, those characters soon become mechanically ineffective too. There really is no point to creating more accounts to be bad with under the system. All you can do is keep your non-jerk characters on a different, unhindered account which means you're probably paying GW extra money just to behave badly.

In addition, you low rep CE alt who you push people around with will likely be rather ineffective at pushing people around. If you keep remaking and resetting your skill training your character will be quite weak.

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin wrote:
@Nihimon The point isn't punishment, because look how well that's worked this last 10 years. It's to blunt the detriment on other player's gaming while a TBD behavior modification system can run on that player hopefully helping them decide to just play the game without being gum in anyone's hair. At worst, it prohibits them from running rampant at full power until the final ban.

I'm sorry, but I really haven't been following the conversation as closely as I should have. Can you give me a recap of the Karma system, with particular attention paid to the ways in which it differs from the Reputation system that's already planned?

Thanks

Goblin Squad Member

There are two ways to read how Steelwing intends to exert territory control.

1. He will be using the existing game mechanics to their maximum effect, and create CE alts that are in no way attached to his main character to avoid the consequences of his enforcement policy.

2. He will be using the existing game mechanics to their maximum effect and create CE alts which he hires out using the in-game contract system to enforce his policies.

The first one is exploiting the rules, but there as he points out there is little that can be done about it if he tries hard enough. The second is perfectly acceptable and makes proper use the games systems to achieve his desired goals. With the second scenario somebody is going to end up taking some kind of hit to probably alignment, but everything is working as intended.

If Steelwing intends to use the second reading, more power to him.


Hark wrote:

There are two ways to read how Steelwing intends to exert territory control.

1. He will be using the existing game mechanics to their maximum effect, and create CE alts that are in no way attached to his main character to avoid the consequences of his enforcement policy.

2. He will be using the existing game mechanics to their maximum effect and create CE alts which he hires out using the in-game contract system to enforce his policies.

The first one is exploiting the rules, but there as he points out there is little that can be done about it if he tries hard enough. The second is perfectly acceptable and makes proper use the games systems to achieve his desired goals. With the second scenario somebody is going to end up taking some kind of hit to probably alignment, but everything is working as intended.

If Steelwing intends to use the second reading, more power to him.

There is absolutely no difference between 1 and 2.

Goblin Squad Member

Eh, the first one doesn't seem that terrible to me. He's going to need a whole lot of CE alts to do something to another group. I don't see abuse, only someone playing a second alt in a specific way within the game's systems.

If there were a group of CE thugs with no claim to the land who were squatting an area and roughing up everyone who came through, that seems extremely in-character to me. These are the sort of encounters you get when playing Pathfinder TT even. The characters are taking the penalties for that playstyle, namely living in CE sucksville and being more of a nuisance individually than anything, and nothing about this specific encounter seems inherently toxic to me, so I'd be fine with it. Just mass up about half the number of characters and you could kill them all after they attack you (once more reinforcing the idea that you need a group in this game; you don't like the CE scum pushing you out of good harvesting areas, do something about it with your friends).

It doesn't matter whether the characters are motivated to push others out of the area out of selishness or to benefit their main characters, as we should be looking at the actions needing of punishment and/or correction and not their motivations (as computers can't judge motivations well).

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
There is absolutely no difference between 1 and 2.

An in game contract, in game monetary transaction, and in game connection, and an in game hit to the company hiring the CE alts.

The first one assumes you skip the in game contract and everything associated with it. It's a subtle difference, but an important one.

Goblin Squad Member

It is all just talk until we know how much real bite the reputation system has. Even if it does have real bite to it, there are other ways to achieve the same objectives.

There are plenty of ways and motivations for many people to keep trade routes open too. It will be content any way that you slice it.

If it becomes impossible for your average Joe prospector, mob slayer, teamster to practice his play ANYWHERE, you will know then that the system is broken. It should and probably will be a danger multiplier to attempt things solo or in very small groups. Go about with friends and allies, well trained and well armed and you will be much more successful.


We will not be using in game contracts for hiring out our mercenaries regardless of who is hiring them. There is absolutely no reason to or advantage in doing so. In fact being willing to hire out without contract gives us a far more valuable service to sell

This will apply to mercenaries units that are either CE low rep or high rep LE units.

Even were contracts to be used you can be sure the hirer would not be taking rep hits because they would merely use an intermediate to place the contract

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I have no doubt that there will be many groups joining PFO that will use any tactics they can to accomplish the goals they set out.

It will either be as intended, or beyond the intended game mechanics.

It will be either traced and corrected by the developers, or it won't.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Then it falls under willful abuse of the system and I hope you end up paying for it.

You are given the tools to do it legitimately, you choose not to use them.


Hark wrote:

Then it falls under willful abuse of the system and I hope you end up paying for it.

You are given the tools to do it legitimately, you choose not to use them.

Just because they have a mechanism in game does not make it an exploit not to use it. There are many reasons not to use such a system and it will be more often the buyer wishing to avoid it.

If both buyer and seller are happier to do it outside of formal contracts then that is their business not anyone elses. By your argument anyone attacking any other person unless that other person is already hostile to them is an exploit. The devs have already stated that so called "unsanctioned PVP" is neither unexpected nor exploitive

Goblin Squad Member

Did anyone say it would be an exploit? An abuse of the system isn't always exploitation. The 'paying' for it is in an inefficient employment of systems in place to reward meaningful interaction, such as honoring a contract or treaty. Honoring a contract isn't only fulfillment by the buyer but also by the contractor to perform as agreed. It will be to the several parties' benefit to avail themselves of rewards, as denying themselves those rewards is a loss. Failure to honor either side of a contract or treaty would of course carry penalties, but that would never be the reason you don't want your agreements in writing, would it?

CEO, Goblinworks

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I actually don't think keeping a batch of CE mercenary accounts around will help, tbh. I think any time a CE character shows up anywhere accessible to a wide cross section of players, the CE character is going to die. They're other people's content and there will be more people trying to kill them than there will be CE characters. We have all sorts of knobs to twist to amp up or amp down that effect, and we'll twist 'em as needed.


Being wrote:
Did anyone say it would be an exploit? An abuse of the system isn't always exploitation. The 'paying' for it is in an inefficient employment of systems in place to reward meaningful interaction, such as honoring a contract or treaty. Honoring a contract isn't only fulfillment by the buyer but also by the contractor to perform as agreed. It will be to the several parties' benefit to avail themselves of rewards, as denying themselves those rewards is a loss. Failure to honor either side of a contract or treaty would of course carry penalties, but that would never be the reason you don't want your agreements in writing, would it?

So our low rep CE mercs get a rep reward of a few hundred for carrying out the contract while at the same time getting -2500 rep for every high rep character they kill....I can really see why that is going to be so important for them....kill 10 high rep characters over a week or so the contract runs and instead of -25000 rep hit they will only get -24500.

The reward is money, the client will pay more for a service which causes them no inconvenience and cannot be tied back to them. We will have plenty of meta reputation for fulfilling our end of the bargain, buyers seeking to renege on their side might want to consider the wisdom of that as a merc group can get a little vexed when they don't get paid


Ryan Dancey wrote:
I actually don't think keeping a batch of CE mercenary accounts around will help, tbh. I think any time a CE character shows up anywhere accessible to a wide cross section of players, the CE character is going to die. They're other people's content and there will be more people trying to kill them than there will be CE characters. We have all sorts of knobs to twist to amp up or amp down that effect, and we'll twist 'em as needed.

And that is indeed as I have pointed out on a few occasions the solution, players get together and deal with the threat. Unfortunately the preferred solution for some is ask for the system to punish instead so they don't have to deal with things themselves

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

The problem isn't a single player doing it. The problem is a goonswarm style settlement of 500 players all doing it.


Drakhan Valane wrote:
The problem isn't a single player doing it. The problem is a goonswarm style settlement of 500 players all doing it.

Your settlements should be the same size, according to many you will have the advantage of better training and better cooperation, what then is the problem?

By the way if goonswarm came along there is a couple more of them than a mere 500

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
I actually don't think keeping a batch of CE mercenary accounts around will help, tbh. I think any time a CE character shows up anywhere accessible to a wide cross section of players, the CE character is going to die. They're other people's content and there will be more people trying to kill them than there will be CE characters. We have all sorts of knobs to twist to amp up or amp down that effect, and we'll twist 'em as needed.

If CE is to be mechanically disadvantaged to this degree, then I agree any reasonable group will not use them.

I expect competitive groups to optimize. If the tactic is trash I expect it not to be used, or to marginalize the threat level of people that continue to use it.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
We have all sorts of knobs to twist to amp up or amp down that effect, and we'll twist 'em as needed.

I think this is what people have been taught to expect, and what they're talking about when they advocate for things you (Steelwing) characterize by saying "the preferred solution for some is ask for the system to punish instead so they don't have to deal with things themselves".


Nihimon wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
We have all sorts of knobs to twist to amp up or amp down that effect, and we'll twist 'em as needed.
I think this is what people have been taught to expect, and what they're talking about when they advocate for things you (Steelwing) characterize by saying "the preferred solution for some is ask for the system to punish instead so they don't have to deal with things themselves".

And your point is? It does not change the fact that the best way to achieve the security you wish for is to protect yourself and not rely on some game mechanic to do it for you.

By all means don't take that advice it really doesn't phase me at all but don't expect to get any level of in game security from relying on game mechanics.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
The problem isn't a single player doing it. The problem is a goonswarm style settlement of 500 players all doing it.

Your settlements should be the same size, according to many you will have the advantage of better training and better cooperation, what then is the problem?

By the way if goonswarm came along there is a couple more of them than a mere 500

Of course they'd have more than 500. The point is you could have 500 CE low rep alts that are enforcing a blockade of all traffic on a single hex. How many people are going to be able to stand up to that force? And when they do decide to send their whole settlement to deal with that threat, they declare war on your settlement and raid you with their well developed characters who have not been punished at all for enforcing their blockade with low rep alts.

Your choices: Protect your own settlement against a potential threat? Or do you go anyway to clear out the blockade with your massed troops and hope they're bluffing with their war dec?


Drakhan Valane wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
The problem isn't a single player doing it. The problem is a goonswarm style settlement of 500 players all doing it.

Your settlements should be the same size, according to many you will have the advantage of better training and better cooperation, what then is the problem?

By the way if goonswarm came along there is a couple more of them than a mere 500

Of course they'd have more than 500. The point is you could have 500 CE low rep alts that are enforcing a blockade of all traffic on a single hex. How many people are going to be able to stand up to that force? And when they do decide to send their whole settlement to deal with that threat, they declare war on your settlement and raid you with their well developed characters who have not been punished at all for enforcing their blockade with low rep alts.

Your choices: Protect your own settlement against a potential threat? Or do you go anyway to clear out the blockade with your massed troops and hope they're bluffing with their war dec?

I think you misread what I said. I have never claimed we would have 500 low rep alts. Nor would the low rep alts be part of the settlement. What I said was low rep alts was one of the ways we may use to enforce our control of a hex that our settlement does not mechanically own but we feel is strategically important.

Our settlement(s) will be exclusively high rep characters of whichever alignment spectrum we deem most mechanically advantageous (probably LN,LG or LE). We will also have alts. Some of these will act as bandits, some will be mercenary groups. When we wish to enforce control on a hex we will use both as needed to do so. In addition to whatever our high rep settlement characters have available to enforce control.

By all means declare war on us, we welcome it.

(As a side note anyone who thinks if the goons came to PfO they are going to be low rep CE is very mistaken, they will do exactly as we are doing and choose alignment and rep for advantage.)

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
So our low rep CE mercs get a rep reward of a few hundred for carrying out the contract while at the same time getting -2500 rep for every high rep character they kill....I can really see why that is going to be so important for them....kill 10 high rep characters over a week or so the contract runs and instead of -25000 rep hit they will only get -24500.

Except that just like an assassination contract there will likely be benefits you forego when you forego the contracts. Instead of being low rep CE they could be moderate rep CE and that translates to training and savings. Oh, but I forgot: you like pronouncing uninformed decisions because they can't be traced back to you and it is so much easier to trigger answers than doing the research and making reasonable inferences.

Steelwing wrote:
The reward is money, the client will pay more for a service which causes them no inconvenience and cannot be tied back to them. We will have plenty of meta reputation for fulfilling our end of the bargain, buyers seeking to renege on their side might want to consider the wisdom of that as a merc group can get a little vexed when they don't get paid

Money they cannot spend is worthless to the CE characters. The clients may pine for the rep rewards of contract fulfillment. You may have a very small customer base... except I realize you will own the entire map just as soon as you convince your corporation to prop you up.

Which low rep, btw, will make the CE enforcers pitiable in collections under a gross. Your 'enforcers' may be run off by relative newbs.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

But where is the line? Is it okay to abuse the system if you only do it with 1 character? 10 characters? 100? 1000?

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:

Money they cannot spend is worthless to the CE characters. The clients may pine for the rep rewards of contract fulfillment. You may have a very small customer base... except I realize you will own the entire map just as soon as you convince your corporation to prop you up.

Which low rep, btw, will make the CE enforcers pitiable in collections under a gross. Your 'enforcers' may be run off by relative newbs.

No, the money is great because the low rep CE character will be filtering it to their high rep LG characters.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steelwing wrote:
(As a side note anyone who thinks if the goons came to PfO they are going to be low rep CE is very mistaken, they will do exactly as we are...

Yes that was one of the predictable characteristics we figured out long ago.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
And that is indeed as I have pointed out on a few occasions the solution, players get together and deal with the threat. Unfortunately the preferred solution for some is ask for the system to punish instead so they don't have to deal with things themselves

You're being disingenuous with your faux-libertarian Atlas Shrugged meme. What irks you is the prospect of having rules regulating your in game activity. You could care less about the character of those you contend with.


Being wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
So our low rep CE mercs get a rep reward of a few hundred for carrying out the contract while at the same time getting -2500 rep for every high rep character they kill....I can really see why that is going to be so important for them....kill 10 high rep characters over a week or so the contract runs and instead of -25000 rep hit they will only get -24500.

Except that just like an assassination contract there will likely be benefits you forego when you forego the contracts. Instead of being low rep CE they could be moderate rep CE and that translates to training and savings. Oh, but I forgot: you like pronouncing uninformed decisions because they can't be traced back to you and it is so much easier to trigger answers than doing the research and making reasonable inferences.

Steelwing wrote:
The reward is money, the client will pay more for a service which causes them no inconvenience and cannot be tied back to them. We will have plenty of meta reputation for fulfilling our end of the bargain, buyers seeking to renege on their side might want to consider the wisdom of that as a merc group can get a little vexed when they don't get paid

Money they cannot spend is worthless to the CE characters. The clients may pine for the rep rewards of contract fulfillment. You may have a very small customer base... except I realize you will own the entire map just as soon as you convince your corporation to prop you up.

Which low rep, btw, will make the CE enforcers pitiable in collections under a gross. Your 'enforcers' may be run off by relative newbs.

Well there is only one person misinformed here and it is you Being I have just as much knowledge of the blogs as you. Let me spell it out for you as you obviously missed it every time I have stated it.

We will have aims. We will achieve that in the way we deem most efficient. The methods I have suggested will be judged on those criteria. If we deem it more efficient to do so without contracts then we will do so. The whole point of the mechanics is they provide meaningful choice, we can choose to use them and we get some advantages and some disadvantage or we can choose to ignore them and that gives a new set of advantages and disadvantages. That is our choice to make and as I have pointed out we will do what is most efficient for us with no reference to what people like you consider we should do because of some such idiocy as sportsmanship.

Our low rep alts will have no problem spending money I can assure you.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
If we deem it more efficient to do so without contracts then we will...
Well that is backtracking a bit, isn't it? Maybe you can learn after all. Just a bit ago you were averring you would not use contracts. Now you admit you may. So either you were deceptive or betraying ignorance when you said
Steelwing wrote:
We will not be using in game contracts for hiring out our mercenaries regardless of who is hiring them.


Being wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
If we deem it more efficient to do so without contracts then we will...
Well that is backtracking a bit, isn't it? Maybe you can learn after all. Just a bit ago you were averring you would not use contracts. Now you admit you may. So either you were deceptive or betraying ignorance when you said
Steelwing wrote:
We will not be using in game contracts for hiring out our mercenaries regardless of who is hiring them.

And it is very unlikely we will. There may be odd occasions when it gives us some benefit but it will not be often. You on the other hand seem to assume that the benefits from contracts (benefits which havent been even been detailed except for there will be some sort of rep gain) will always make it worthwhile. This is patently not the case.

If taking out an offensive (non wartime) merc contract (which is they type we are talking about) is going to cost the hirer rep which seems likely then our customers are unlikely to want to use contracts. If you think people are going to willingly take a rep hit and advertise the fact they were the ones hiring the mercenaries then it is you that is thinking wrongly.

Goblin Squad Member

I believe everyone realizes that a high rep town will use third party intermediaries for that function, increasing player interaction and increasing the distributed circulation of the economy. OTOH that would be better for the game and not one of your stellar characteristics.

Goblin Squad Member

@Being I think that the official/unofficial use of intermediaries all depends on how/whether rep is affected by dealing with low rep individuals.

As much as I'd like the alt who is fencing a bandit's goods to somehow be marked as such, I think the reality of on-line games is that alts will be created in almost any circumstance where such negative rep transfers might occur. It might not be worth GW's coding time to have rep transfer based on trades, given the imperfect world of alts.

Goblin Squad Member

Okay Urman, but the team is right now designing things. It could be that there are benefits associated with contract fulfillment, and those gains, such as reputation could be made tangible and worth the while plus you would have the contract in writing, as it were. You bothered to contract, you bothered to honor your contract, and you fulfilled your contract. That would mean credit as well as not being discredited.

(reliable, honest, does the job contractor: I recommend his work. Real craftsman)

(paid me a good silver fer dat piece: I'd work fer 'im agin in just a heartbeat.)

Reputations rise. Credit is awarded. You start getting favorable rates. You become the go-to guy. All positive consequences of honoring your word.

In game contracts is a way for that to be realized. Without it it is your word against his: no proof.

151 to 200 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