Well, the problem with Highsec is that despite the "rules" in such a place, CCP chooses to leave alone anyone that does the behaviours you list. Lowsec is even worse and where a lot of the "Lord of Flies" becomes obvious in EVE. There's nothing to protect you (even half-assed measures) and there isn't any incentive to truly band together like in Nullsec.
I would certainly agree lowsec is even worse than hisec in terms. I think you do CCP a disservice the recent crimewatch update was their attempt to do something....not saying it worked but they did try.
What crimewatch did do however is it made it possible for hisec people to help themselves. For the first time ever someone who decides to gank you is not only attackable to you and your corporation (assuming it is not an npc corporation) but everyone in space.
Hisec players however instead of banding together and showing these red flashies what for still avoid attacking them so they wait out their 15 minute timer. Redock reship and are off suicide ganking again.
If hisec players were willing to drop their mostly solo playstyles and occasionally come together they would soon make suicide ganking a forgotten art.
The point remains....the safest place to mine and pve in Eve is largely in the null sec sov area's. A place where the only rules are player rules
Low sec is an awful place on the whole it is neither one thing or the other because on the one hand you can kill with impunity and on the other there is nothing anyone really needs to go there for because you can get the same stuff in high or null.
Low sec is mostly populated by pirates that prey on those that pop in but they have done the over feeding side of things so in many ways low has got the rep of go there and you will die. If they had limited their killing so people felt that 6 or 7 times out of 10 they would survive low then it might be different
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like the idea of rep not having any carrot behaviors. (Things that you do because they are +rep) If everything is stick (Avoid because -rep), then I think the resultant behavior will resemble learned helplessness.
But I think that the existence of repeatable and accessible actions which increase reputation is the necessary and sufficient condition for grinding.
There was a train of thought before the rollback that I will summarize here:
The Reputation mechanic (in my reading) was invented by GoblinWorks for Pathfinder Online to identify players that are detrimental to the environment for other players to have fun. In that case allowing +Rep actions is like giving cookies to someone for not being a horrible person to you, which they should just be doing automatically.
What we're running into is a problem of differentiating the real world reputation of players and the roleplayed reputation of each character because in the current system they're both being measured by the Reputation mechanic at the same time.
So let's make everything more distinct, clear, and easy to understand for everyone especially players coming into a totally new game environment from other MMOs and TT.
Karma: Account-wide measure of whether the player is a jerk to other players reflected by every character on the account. The ideal is everyone has max Karma because we're never awful jerks to one another. Non-hostility killing, scamming, inflammatory language, etc. loses Karma and if low enough the account is mechanically censured to blunt the affects of that player's poor behavior on other players until they either reform or get banned. Why affect every character on the account? Because why should a jerk get one ultra primo character to play just because they ruin other people's gaming time only with their other two characters?
Reputation: Now only measures each character, not the player behind them. Are they pleasant or a pain in groups, do they always overcharge for merchandise, are they important to their local community, do they help out new travelers to the River Kingdoms, etc.
Alignment: With those other two sorted out clearly and effectively Alignment is free to return to its original D&D purpose. No longer does any particular Alignment have to suck so bad it's functionally unplayable just because some-but-not-all of the jerks in the game will eventually end up as that one. We will no longer have to worry about Alignment being manipulated as a tool to gain mechanical advantage. We can make each Alignment have some advantages and some disadvantages compared to the others but ALL NINE balanced, viable, and bring more content to every player; the way it's supposed to be in a D&D game.
What do the Crowdforgers think am I full of /sit or +1?
I don't like the idea of rep not having any carrot behaviors. (Things that you do because they are +rep) If everything is stick (Avoid because -rep), then I think the resultant behavior will resemble learned helplessness.
But I think that the existence of repeatable and accessible actions which increase reputation is the necessary and sufficient condition for grinding.
There was a train of thought before the rollback that I will summarize here:
The Reputation mechanic (in my reading) was invented by GoblinWorks for Pathfinder Online to identify players that are detrimental to the environment for other players to have fun. In that case allowing +Rep actions is like giving cookies to someone for not being a horrible person to you, which they should just be doing automatically.
What we're running into is a problem of differentiating the real world reputation of players and the roleplayed reputation of each character because in the current system they're both being measured by the Reputation mechanic at the same time.
So let's make everything more distinct, clear, and easy to understand for everyone especially players coming into a totally new game environment from other MMOs and TT.
Karma: Account-wide measure of whether the player is a jerk to other players reflected by every character on the account. The ideal is everyone has max Karma because we're never awful jerks to one another. Non-hostility killing, scamming, inflammatory language, etc. loses Karma and if low enough the account is mechanically censured to blunt the affects of that player's poor behavior on other players until they either reform or get banned. Why affect every character on the account? Because why should a jerk get one ultra primo character to play just because they ruin other people's gaming time only with their other two characters?
Reputation: Now only measures each character, not the player behind them. Are they pleasant or a pain in groups, do they always overcharge...
As I and others pointed out elsewhere why would we ever put our characters on the same account. I doubt very much I will do so even without this measure as there is no real downside to multiple accounts
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I and others pointed out elsewhere why would we ever put our characters on the same account. I doubt very much I will do so even without this measure as there is no real downside to multiple accounts
I like the way one of the newer posters phrased it best (can't remember your name, sorry).
Multiple accounts to get around Karma is effectively paying a real money fine to GW for bad behavior. That's awesome.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As I and others pointed out elsewhere why would we ever put our characters on the same account. I doubt very much I will do so even without this measure as there is no real downside to multiple accountsI like the way one of the newer posters phrased it best (can't remember your name, sorry).
Multiple accounts to get around Karma is effectively paying a real money fine to GW for bad behavior. That's awesome.
Training costs the same if it's on the same account or different accounts.
As I and others pointed out elsewhere why would we ever put our characters on the same account. I doubt very much I will do so even without this measure as there is no real downside to multiple accountsI like the way one of the newer posters phrased it best (can't remember your name, sorry).
Multiple accounts to get around Karma is effectively paying a real money fine to GW for bad behavior. That's awesome.
It is also largely irrelevant. I started playing eve in 2003. Charge me 40$ for the game and I am paying the equivalent of 4$ a year for the benefit of separate accounts. Apart from that it costs me no more to keep training going for 2 characters on 2 accounts than it does 2 characters on 1 account.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Low sec is an awful place on the whole it is neither one thing or the other because on the one hand you can kill with impunity and on the other there is nothing anyone really needs to go there for because you can get the same stuff in high or null.
Low sec is mostly populated by pirates that prey on those that pop in but they have done the over feeding side of things so in many ways low has got the rep of go there and you will die. If they had limited their killing so people felt that 6 or 7 times out of 10 they would survive low then it might be different
Low sec has not been that bad in years. Jump to Zero really cut down on the numbers; Pirates mostly use ransom; many players just plot the longer course around the low sec; and many, many other methods to avoid falling prey to low sec pirates.
There was a big uptick in low sec kills when Faction Warfare was first introduced, because in good Ol' CCP fashion, they put the entry level Faction Agents in Low Sec and then gated the mission zones to allow at best Destroyers to enter. This put swarms of low powered ships, inexperienced (PVP) pilots, in very disorganized blobs into a meat grinder that was the opposing faction and very skilled -10 Security status pirates in low sec.
So can we say everyone definitely wants to avoid having a low-sec analog in PO?
No, not everyone and certainly not definitely. I think that there is a place for low sec style zones in PFO, just as much as there is for High sec and Null sec.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Can someone explain to me what exactly low sec is? I understand the high sec and null sec concepts; is this just an area where NPC guards show up, but do so very slowly and ineffectively? Can you control regions of it through the game mechanics? What niche is it supposed to fill?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Can someone explain to me what exactly low sec is? I understand the high sec and null sec concepts; is this just an area where NPC guards show up, but do so very slowly and ineffectively?
Low sec space is typically a series or star systems (jumps) that separate High Sec Empire space. These corridors were the home for pirates and later faction warriors to hunt for prey.
Low sec differs from High sec in that there are no NPC Wardens (CONCORD) and the penalties for killing other players are lessened. Low sec pirates would still eventually hit -10, but they tended to live in Low sec anyway, so it was no matter.
Low sec was also different from High sec in that it offered access to higher value ore and ratting (NPC Mobs). Big Low Sec mining operations almost always had decent security, but sometimes they did not and they fell prey.
Low Sec is more dangerous than Null Sec, because of the shear numbers of ships passing through them. You have Null sec systems that might not see anyone pass through for weeks.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So what mechanically separates low sec from null sec? Is it that you take penalties to your rep-type score in low sec but not null sec?
Also, sorry for ninja edits. I do them a LOT.
Yes, there is no "Rep" loss in Null sec. Null sec is also vastly larger than low sec, and it is governed largely by mega alliances (or at least that is my impression).
It has been many years since I ventured out into Null Sec. I spent much of the last year or so living in Eldulf, Molden Heath:
What I liked most about this location, which we called "The Island", is that it was several systems (six); only accessible by three, single low sec jump systems.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I see. It seems, then, that the majority of space in PFO would be more similar to low sec than null sec; you take the penalties for killing other people in cases not covered by the PvP systems in all areas of the PFO map, as far as we've heard. Though it also shares the territory-building aspects with null sec, so I guess it's a combination of the two.
What I'd really like to know is:
1. What goals were EVE's developers trying to accomplish with this tiered system of security?
2. Did they expect the current set-up, whereby low sec is ignored and players mostly stick to high or null sec depending on playstyle? If they didn't expect it to go this way, what could they have done better to accomplish the aforementioned goals?
There is obviously a lot that has been learned from EVE, in many different aspects of the game. I'm basically just playing catchup now as most of the conversation went over my head before. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From what I gathered in my fleeting experience, you were supposed to learn the ropes in high-security space where the risks were low and predictable, and then move into lower-security (higher reward) areas when you felt ready. Not terribly different from going Northshire - Goldshire - Westfall, or whatever; you're facing bigger dangers and increasingly far away from help.
But then players figured out how to suicide-gank newbies even in high-security space (for teh lulz) and the developers decided rather than interfere with the new phenomenon they'd just call it a feature.
(I don't take this to mean regulation created what Eve has become, or that Eve didn't have enough - it just had ineffectual regulation, and not much will to tweak the regs and get them working decently.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Proxima Sin
I would say +1 on the Rep and Alignment sections and Karma is interesting but I have no idea if GW would consider it and as Steelwing says, some will just have multiple accounts to get around this or just as their standard practice.
I have 3 accounts myself, although I intend 1 as my main with the 2nd and 3rd for family and friends and not as a backdoor to be toxic and not have it effect my main.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
EvE is very much like Lord of the Flies. That's part of what is desired, isn't it?No actually it isnt. Go play in one of the null sec alliances and have a look where the players are in total control.
Go to hi sec where the system is relied on and thats where you find all the scammers,gankers and griefers
Are we talking about the same book? Of course there's a strict hierarchy with only a few defectors.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We have said we will apply our rules in our lands. So will every other settlement. What is your problem with that statement? Our lands consist of where we can enforce our rules nothing more and nothing less.
Don't like our rules feel free not to enter our lands. You have the ability to not be ever subject to our rules I suggest you use it. Goblinworks are not going to be telling settlements how they must be all nice and allow druids to go where they want whatever you think
The issue is that you are quick to assert your right to make rules in your land and hold that a right situation, yet cry foul when GW would asserts its right to make rules in their land. You apply a different standard to others than you do to yourself. You are abusive toward your host and your fellows yet expect everyone to be hospitable to you.
If you dislike GW's rules you have the ability to not ever be subject to them.
We have said we will apply our rules in our lands. So will every other settlement. What is your problem with that statement? Our lands consist of where we can enforce our rules nothing more and nothing less.
Don't like our rules feel free not to enter our lands. You have the ability to not be ever subject to our rules I suggest you use it. Goblinworks are not going to be telling settlements how they must be all nice and allow druids to go where they want whatever you think
The issue is that you are quick to assert your right to make rules in your land and hold that a right situation, yet cry foul when GW would asserts its right to make rules in their land. You apply a different standard to others than you do to yourself. You are abusive toward your host and your fellows yet expect everyone to be hospitable to you.
If you dislike GW's rules you have the ability to not ever be subject to them.
Would you care to show a post where I have stated we would break the rules of the game?
Why is it that in a crowd forging scenario such as this I am not allowed to question the rules being set but others are? You yourself have questioned the rules yourself on numerous occasions. Is it perhaps because I do not agree with your view of what the rules are and only people that think like you are allowed to question the rules that Goblinworks are suggesting.
In addition you are moving goalposts here. The claim that I was responding to was that we were trying to tell other groups that they had to play by our rules which patently is not the case. Other groups are free to set whatever rules they wish in their lands
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Can someone explain to me what exactly low sec is? I understand the high sec and null sec concepts; is this just an area where NPC guards show up, but do so very slowly and ineffectively? Can you control regions of it through the game mechanics? What niche is it supposed to fill?
Conceptually
*High Sec is NPC rules and the NPC wardens are there near instantly to enforce them.
*Null Sec is player rules, player infrastructure, player enforced. It's mostly not worth the effort for strangers to mess around there unless they're in a fleet with 500 other people.
*Low Sec is NPC sovereignty and rules but the NPCs don't enforce them. There are technically guns at the gates and stations which have become laughable and easily tankable. So it's a case where players don't have the ability to assert their force in a permanent fashion and NPCs don't enforce their own laws so there are no immediate consequences to any breaking of rules. That's when you get roaming teams tackling and blasting weaker ships for teh lulz and for the monetary kill value.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would you care to show a post where I have stated we would break the rules of the game?.
That is just another of your interestingly misleading questions. It isn't that you threaten to break a rule, it is that you argue for their to be no other rule than what the strong assert on the weak. Any rule that applies equally to all you take issue with. You don't want a sandbox game, because all games have rules. Instead you only want the sandbox part, a bare functioning environment.
PFO is a game. It will have rules.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I said in another thread:
I do agree that PFO looks to be more restrictive than most sandbox-style MMO's. This could be why they have always been pitching it as a "hybrid sandbox/theme park"; it's a sandbox MMO with more direction given to the player than your typical sandbox MMO.
Just something to consider.
Would you care to show a post where I have stated we would break the rules of the game?.That is just another of your interestingly misleading questions. It isn't that you threaten to break a rule, it is that you argue for their to be no other rule than what the strong assert on the weak. Any rule that applies equally to all you take issue with. You don't want a sandbox game, because all games have rules. Instead you only want the sandbox part, a bare functioning environment.
PFO is a game. It will have rules.
Ok so now the goalposts have moved?
Can you show me a post where I have asked for removal of a rule?
I have certainly suggested that people should think twice before adding even more rules that is certainly true. That is however because I do not believe a lot of these rules advocated give players anything but a false sense of protection.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It isn't that you threaten to break a rule, it is that you argue for their to be no other rule than what the strong assert on the weak.Can you show me a post where I have asked for removal of a rule?
Just a guess, but I imagine Being is alluding to statements like this one:
I wouldn't mind if there was no contract system in PfO. The one in Eve isn't actually necessary as reliable groups soon gain a metagame reputation for trust. This is why groups like the Frog transport teams do so well.
There are huge area's that are not supported by the contract system and players still manage to deal in these areas without to many problems by using trusted third parties that have established a reputation.
I also imagine you won't consider this a case where you "have asked for removal of a rule".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If a group does not have the influence to feud with the merchant company and their numbers are nearly equal to the bandits, even SADs are off the table. The only reasonable option is to let them pass without being engaged.
You keep saying this, but it seems completely wrong. Did something about how SAD works change?
From what I remember: Bandit offers SAD. If Merchant accepts, they pay and the Bandit walks away with more clink in his purse. If the Bandit attacks after SAD is accepted, they lose rep. If the Merchant denies, the Bandit can attack with minimal/no rep loss.
Again, has something about that changed?
It isn't that you threaten to break a rule, it is that you argue for their to be no other rule than what the strong assert on the weak.Can you show me a post where I have asked for removal of a rule?Just a guess, but I imagine being is alluding to statements like this one:
I also imagine you won't consider this a case where you "have asked for removal of a rule".I wouldn't mind if there was no contract system in PfO. The one in Eve isn't actually necessary as reliable groups soon gain a metagame reputation for trust. This is why groups like the Frog transport teams do so well.
There are huge area's that are not supported by the contract system and players still manage to deal in these areas without to many problems by using trusted third parties that have established a reputation.
and lets quote what that was in response to shall we
The whole reason people are arguing for a coded system can be spelt out in one sentence
I do not want to have to enforce treaties I want the system to do it for me.
That argument is just as valid against an in-game Contract system, and yet the devs feel an in-game Contract system is important, perhaps even vital.
Perhaps there's something to be learned from that fact.
The bolded part being the relevant part. It certainly wasn't advocating removing it I was replying to your statement that it would not bother me if it was removed because players would still accomplish the equivalent of contracts via an earned trust system as they do in Eve for such things as Titan sales etc.
I certainly didn't come out advocating removal I merely agreed with you that the game would manage without it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I certainly didn't come out advocating removal I merely agreed with you that the game would manage without it.
So, I was right :)
I also imagine you won't consider this a case where you "have asked for removal of a rule".
And just to be clear, I was not suggesting the Contract system is something "the game would manage without it". I actually think the Contract system is vital.
I do not think the contract system is a bad thing by any stretch of the imagination. All I was saying is that if it isn't there and it won't be for many transactions just like it isn't available in Eve for many transactions then players will still manage to deal in those areas
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do not think the contract system is a bad thing by any stretch of the imagination.
I wasn't under the impression you did think that.
I just pointed out where you basically said it wasn't necessary, and suggested that Being might be alluding to statements like that when he suggested you advocated the removal of rules and systems that were largely put in place to protect players.
Do you not see how arguing that a system put in place to protect players is actually unnecessary might give the impression you'd rather leave the players to defend themselves?
I do not think the contract system is a bad thing by any stretch of the imagination.I wasn't under the impression you did think that.
I just pointed out where you basically said it wasn't necessary, and suggested that Being might be alluding to statements like that when he suggested you advocated the removal of rules and systems that were largely put in place to protect players.
Do you not see how arguing that a system put in place to protect players is actually unnecessary might give the impression you'd rather leave the players to defend themselves?
But as I said I wasn't in that thread arguing that it should be done away with and if Being is getting that impression then his inference is faulty .Are you suggesting I shouldn't respond to statements such as the one you posed?
What I was doing was arguing that alliances shouldn't be a contract style thing which was a rule suggested by someone other than goblinworks. I also explained why I felt it was a bad idea.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If a group does not have the influence to feud with the merchant company and their numbers are nearly equal to the bandits, even SADs are off the table. The only reasonable option is to let them pass without being engaged.You keep saying this, but it seems completely wrong. Did something about how SAD works change?
From what I remember: Bandit offers SAD. If Merchant accepts, they pay and the Bandit walks away with more clink in his purse. If the Bandit attacks after SAD is accepted, they lose rep. If the Merchant denies, the Bandit can attack with minimal/no rep loss.
Again, has something about that changed?
You are not picking up on the "nearly equal". I'm assuming that the advantage gained by ambush is pretty significant. It is what would allow a group of bandits to challenge a well guarded caravan.
We would typically not SAD a well guarded caravan, but instead attack it, to have that advantage. If we SAD them and they reject, yes we avoid reputation loss but we also lose advantage in the fight as well. The end result would be, if we can not feud with an NPC company sponsored caravan, then it takes ambush off the table. Our rep hit would be too high. If they reject the SAD on a regular basis. We would just let them pass, and search for another caravan, not being protected by NPC shield or High Repuation.
Ryan may say that is working as intended, I'm only guessing. He might also say that an NPC sponsored company is not immune to feuds. I seriously doubt that, or he will hear the cries of those that will claim that that will lead to griefing noobs.
This is the merchant opting out scenario I described in my thread. Caravans hiding behind NPC sponsorship and High Reputation to act as a shield.
I know that Ryan claimed that they would not be able to train upper tier traing while still attached to an NPC settlement. I ask, how much upper tier training does a Caravan crew need?
Even if a Wagon had tiers, and only up to Tier 2 can be trained in an NPC settlement. Would the difference between T3 Wagon and T2 Wagon warrant the added risk of being feuded and or ambushed?
It will all come down to how Feuds and Influence will work.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But as I said I wasn't in that thread arguing that it should be done away with and if Being is getting that impression then his inference is faulty .
If you believe Being's salient point was that you were "arguing for the removal of rules", and feel a compulsive need to argue just that point until the cows come home, then I'm quite sure nothing I can say will be of any use to you.
If you were instead actually trying to understand Being's point - namely that you're rude and abusive and that the general tenor of your posts seems to assert a consistent viewpoint that the game should not protect players from other players - then you've already been given enough information to do so.
But as I said I wasn't in that thread arguing that it should be done away with and if Being is getting that impression then his inference is faulty .If you believe Being's salient point was that you were "arguing for the removal of rules", and feel a compulsive need to argue just that point until the cows come home, then I'm quite sure nothing I can say will be of any use to you.
If you were instead actually trying to understand Being's point - namely that you're rude and abusive and that the general tenor of your posts seems to assert a consistent viewpoint that the game should not protect players from other players - then you've already been given enough information to do so.
I am rude to those that are rude to me first. Show me an instance where I have been the instigator. I have pointed out this time and time again.
People who aren't rude to me such as Bringslite, Pax Shane Gifford, Hobs etc don't seem to have any problems having quite civil discussions between us. Those that waded into me when I appeared which a handful did found that rather than being cowed I hit back tough luck frankly I don't care what those people think.
As to me asserting a consistent point that I believe players protecting themselves is the best method of protection yes totally correct. That is certainly not an invalid viewpoint it is merely one you dislike. News at eleven people are allowed to hold views that you dislike. This does not in itself make them rude or abusive or even wrong in those viewpoint
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am rude to those that are rude to me first. Show me an instance where I have been the instigator.
"Rude" is a subjective judgment. I might feel you were rude to me even though you don't agree, and vice versa. If we all chose to be rude to those who were rude to us, we would likely all be rude all the time, most of us believing we were not the instigators.
As to me asserting a consistent point that I believe players protecting themselves is the best method of protection yes totally correct.
Glad to know my discernment hasn't completely failed me.
That is certainly not an invalid viewpoint it is merely one you dislike. News at eleven people are allowed to hold views that you dislike. This does not in itself make them rude or abusive or even wrong in those viewpoint
Show me one post where I said I "dislike" such a view, or said you weren't allowed to hold it.
I am rude to those that are rude to me first. Show me an instance where I have been the instigator."Rude" is a subjective judgment. I might feel you were rude to me even though you don't agree, and vice versa. If we all chose to be rude to those who were rude to us, we would likely all be rude all the time, most of us believing we were not the instigators.
As to me asserting a consistent point that I believe players protecting themselves is the best method of protection yes totally correct.Glad to know my discernment hasn't completely failed me.
That is certainly not an invalid viewpoint it is merely one you dislike. News at eleven people are allowed to hold views that you dislike. This does not in itself make them rude or abusive or even wrong in those viewpointShow me one post where I said I "dislike" such a view, or said you weren't allowed to hold it.
I inferred it from the fact that you linked rude and abusive to that viewpoint in your statement
"namely that you're rude and abusive and that the general tenor of your posts seems to assert a consistent viewpoint that the game should not protect players from other players "
were your words. The use of the and conjunctive in the context of the sentence led me to assume you felt there was a link between the two.
Yes rude is certainly a subjective view I agree. I will therefore modify my statement to "I have been rude and abusive to those I perceive to be abusive and rude to me first". Does that satisfy you? The fact remains that I have perfectly amicable relations and non inflammatory comments with many that disagree with my point of view.
I am not by nature a rude person but neither am I prepared to be meek.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok so now the goalposts have moved?
Which goal posts? The transitory convenient ones you set out? The ones GW has set out? Mine?
I have objectives, but those have not moved.
As if you will read rather than cherry -pick, my goal is an online fantasy role playing game finally done right. A game that permits and has mechanisms for reasonably realistic, meaningful player-versus-player combat, a useful tool and the last resort of diplomacy. A game that permits and has mechanisms for crafting: herbalism, smelting, alchemy, woodcraft, forestry, animal husbandry, hunting, trapping, fletching and all the rest. A game set in a well established and defined setting. People will interact in diverse ways with people and with the environment. Some will organize and gather power, and others will socialize, explore, and discover. Some will express themselves politically and others will express themselves in sorcery.
Yet the game I see through the positions you have laid out have very little of that, and very little real value, except insofar as you threaten to sweep it all aside with your hunger for power and domination. A Cyclops who sees through only one eye, with one objective, and perceives no depth but his own. You wish to push people around, and behave like a schoolyard bully.
When a tyrant proclaims his intent to make war on what I hold to be worth the while in a game, when the tyranny of his greed, his need, and his grasping for power is crass, and imposes his sickness on others then I'm forced to consider that the only effective practical counter will be to beat him to a bloody pulp at his game, which in turn makes me as bad as he, and which finally deprives me of my hoped for game, as much a dragon as the dragon I would be forced to hunt down.
It is like the Emperor encouraging Luke to rage, rage his way into alliance with the dark side.
I very much dislike that, and wish you would abandon your evident crusade to ruin what could have been a good game had you never infected it with your pestilential hungers.
But even if you did leave off, let go, really stop trying to engineer your way to your myopic envisioning of 'success', how short-sighted am I to imagine you are more than a mere mouthpiece of many others just like you? Such a pity that all of that talent is not being applied to improving the world instead of spoiling the dreams of others.
GWs goals... I don't think they have moved. It will be left up to us to find an effective counter, but it certainly will not help if you succeed in crowdforging yet more loss in the few rules we have left to work with in our effort to attain a real accomplishment in gaming. A PvP-enabled virtual world where players of all types can co-exist, and where your Eve-style corporate machines do not drive everyone else away in disgust.
Your goals? I imagine your goalposts may have moved. That is more likely the ones you noticed because what do you care about the goals of anyone else? Like those of the Sophist, your goals seem mere conveniences of the moment for whatever argument you happen to be wrestling just then.
tl;dr: u mad bro?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I inferred it from the fact that you linked rude and abusive to that viewpoint in your statement
"namely that you're rude and abusive and that the general tenor of your posts seems to assert a consistent viewpoint that the game should not protect players from other players "
were your words. The use of the and conjunctive in the context of the sentence led me to assume you felt there was a link between the two.
Funny, I would have expected the use of the phrasing "Being's point - namely..." would have led you to assume I was paraphrasing my understanding of Being's point, not making my own.
Ok so now the goalposts have moved?Which goal posts? The transitory convenient ones you set out? The ones GW has set out? Mine?
The ones you set in your questioning
first it was this snipped for brevity
The issue is that you are quick to assert your right to make rules in your land and hold that a right situation, yet cry foul when GW would asserts its right to make rules in their land. You apply a different standard to others than you do to yourself.
If you dislike GW's rules you have the ability to not ever be subject to them.
Would you care to show a post where I have stated we would break the rules of the game?
Then instead of providing a quote showing where I had suggested we would break the rules you came back with
That is just another of your interestingly misleading questions. It isn't that you threaten to break a rule, it is that you argue for their to be no other rule than what the strong assert on the weak. Any rule that applies equally to all you take issue with. You don't want a sandbox game, because all games have rules. Instead you only want the sandbox part, a bare functioning environment.
PFO is a game. It will have rules.
Ok so now the goalposts have moved?
Can you show me a post where I have asked for removal of a rule?
And again you didn't provide me a quote about where I had asked for rules removal
Now to answer the rest of your post
I have never claimed your position has changed, neither has mine funnily enough. You are concerned with different parts of the game than those points I haven't said that those parts of the game are worthless they are just not parts that I have mentioned. The fact that I do not mention them says nothing about my feelings on them.
If you check in some of my posts I have applauded Goblinworks for making high level crafting need settlements. I think it is a good move because it makes supply and logistics part of the whole settlement game which they arent in eve and I believe it is a detriment to Eve.
As to the rest...you don't like the power struggles that go with settlement warfare and the competitive game that promotes? Why then are you wanting to play a game that revolves around settlement warfare and territorial domination. It is like playing grand theft auto and wanting to role play an accountant
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Crowdforging isn't going to work if every debate devolves into people arguing about who was rude first. Or calling people out as "being negative" whenever they voice an opinion different from Goblinworks.
Let's try to focus more on the topics and less on each other.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why then are you wanting to play a game that revolves around settlement warfare and territorial domination.
That narrow slice of the game that you're focused mind obsesses over is not the whole. I understand that in your monocular view that is the only game, but it is not. You imagine it is all that matters but it isn't. We could as well say it revolves around economics. You could also say it revolves around magic. You could also say it revolves around exploration and discovery.
The problem for me is that your game will impact mine in ways that mine cannot impact yours. I can imagine your glee over that. Therefore I want game mechanics that will hold a kingdom or settlement to their commitments in game or make them pay dearly for the pleasure of breaking a treaty. You will wish to make all your treaties out-of-game, and those like you will all prefer that, but those who actually would like to count on your honoring your commitments will want their treaties handled by the game. The game should provide an escrow system to guarantee the fulfillment of contracts. Because My game will not affect yours very much, I hope for a BUNCH of regulations piled up on you.
Your public service demonstrating the various problems we will face with your preferred game style, inordinate needs, and self-esteem issues is very much appreciated. Thank you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Crowdforging isn't going to work if every debate devolves into people arguing about who was rude first. Or calling people out as "being negative" whenever they voice an opinion different from Goblinworks.
Let's try to focus more on the topics and less on each other.
Well said, but it is each other that will be the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Your public service demonstrating the various problems we will face with your preferred game style, inordinate needs, and self-esteem issues is very much appreciated. Thank you.
It appears someone has gotten under your (Bark) skin! ;-)
/Joking, sorry I could not resist a bit of Druidic humor.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I know that Ryan claimed that they would not be able to train upper tier traing while still attached to an NPC settlement. I ask, how much upper tier training does a Caravan crew need?
Even if a Wagon had tiers, and only up to Tier 2 can be trained in an NPC settlement. Would the difference between T3 Wagon and T2 Wagon warrant the added risk of being feuded and or ambushed?
I believe NPC settlements would likely only give T1 training, only the low stuff until you get out on your own two feet (not confirmed by devs, just my impression based on what they've said regarding NPC settlements), and I would expect the difference between T1 and T3 to be rather extreme (I would also expect the difference between T2 and T3 to be quite significant).
Don't forget, access to only T1 training doesn't only mean this guy has crappier wagons. He also has less health and defenses, is worse at detecting your buddies who are ready to ambush him, and can do even less in a combat situation than your typical merchant.
This is really going on a tangent now, but I would think that if someone needs to train the skills to drive a caravan, killing that character quickly would grind the caravan operation to a halt. So if someone decides to super-specialize in caravan driving without buying defenses or health, they'll likely end up dying during the fight and be put in a rough spot where they likely lose their caravan goods.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well said, but it is each other that will be the game.Crowdforging isn't going to work if every debate devolves into people arguing about who was rude first. Or calling people out as "being negative" whenever they voice an opinion different from Goblinworks.
Let's try to focus more on the topics and less on each other.
And we'll be fireballing each other there too.