Goblin Squad Member
|
Can you provide an example, that is not outright griefing...Why must it be "not outright griefing"? My entire point was that some PvP is griefing, and just because the game mechanics allow it to occur doesn't mean it's acceptable and doesn't mean that those who log in to such a game are automatically accepting that risk.There is no way to respond to this because you won't give an example of what you are referring to.
What PVP that you would consider griefing, that GW may not?
What on earth makes you think GW may not? I think you must be making assumptions about what you think I'm saying that aren't borne out by my words.
You say the act of logging into the game means you acknowledge the risks of being attacked. Your clear implication is that anyone who complains about being attacked is just a whiner.
I'm saying - very directly, and as clearly as I can manage - that there will be certain instances of "being attacked" that we have not accepted the risk of, precisely because those instances of being attacked are outside the rules established by Goblinworks.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Increase your Rep and be LG and you reduce your risk.Not from feuds, wars, factions, refused SADS, and assassinations you won't. Even if you respond to an Outpost or POI raid, all the raideres have to do is wait for your to hit them twice and then you and they will both be hostile to each other. None of these impact alignment or reputation.
They are all the assumed risks of logging in.
Then why were you complaining about High Rep LG merchants if it isn't a benefit at all?
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
There's a difference between losing a round and being victimized.
When playing poker, you take the risk of losing money. You are victimized if you play poker with players who collude against you by any of the well-documented ways to collude in poker-even if they don't break the rules of Hoyle.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Increase your Rep and be LG and you reduce your risk.
Thats not true. You increase the penalty for getting killed. its not the same as mitigating your risk. You are at the same risk as someone else to getting killed for your equipment.
The only way to reduce the risk is to travel in groups or stay i settlements where the risk is much lower.
Folks need to understand that when they are logged into the game they run the risk of getting killed and having their things taken from them. This isnt like WoW where you are on a pve server and unless you flag yourself, go to the arena/BGs you are safe from anything happening.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Increase your Rep and be LG and you reduce your risk.Thats not true. You increase the penalty for getting killed. its not the same as mitigating your risk. You are at the same risk as someone else to getting killed for your equipment.
I think it might be kinda-sorta a little true in that Lawful Good Characters are likely to be segregated somewhat from Chaotic Evil players in a way that somewhat reduces the risk of random PvP - at least to the extent that members of a Lawful Good Settlement are likely to be exposed to fewer Chaotic Evil Characters than are members of a Chaotic Evil Settlement.
The alignment system segregates players. It drives players with similar playstyles together...
We're creating a funnel that pushes people who act like jerks into a situation where they are stuck playing with other jerks...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Increase your Rep and be LG and you reduce your risk.Thats not true. You increase the penalty for getting killed. its not the same as mitigating your risk. You are at the same risk as someone else to getting killed for your equipment.
The only way to reduce the risk is to travel in groups or stay i settlements where the risk is much lower.
Folks need to understand that when they are logged into the game they run the risk of getting killed and having their things taken from them. This isnt like WoW where you are on a pve server and unless you flag yourself, go to the arena/BGs you are safe from anything happening.
What? But Bluddwolf assured me that high rep LG merchants would be practically untouchable!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What? But Bluddwolf assured me that high rep LG merchants would be practically untouchable!
You are being disingenuous and you know it. The fact that you would leave out all of the detail and context if what I said tells me that you agree that my scenario was correct.
Ryan even agreed that my scenario was correct but he felt it would gimp the merchant, which I respond that that remains to be seen.
Your attempt to discredit my scenario = epic fail
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What? But Bluddwolf assured me that high rep LG merchants would be practically untouchable!You are being disingenuous and you know it. The fact that you would leave out all of the detail and context if what I said tells me that you agree that my scenario was correct.
Ryan even agreed that my scenario was correct but he felt it would gimp the merchant, which I respond that that remains to be seen.
Your attempt to discredit my scenario = epic fail
Just learning from the master. Your big complaint was that merchants could make themselves difficult to engage in PvP (unless the PvPer wanted to harm their rep/alignment) by following a set of guidelines, of which being LG and high rep were part of. Either being high rep and LG are a deterent to others PvPing or they are not. If they are, my statement that they reduce your risk is true. If they are not, then they would not be the obvious go-to for EVERY merchant to adhere to.
Which is it?
Increasing penalties for killing you generally IS a way to reduce risk. It might not be enough in all cases, but the same applies for locking your doors. It may not PREVENT you from getting robbed, but it will reduce the RISK of getting robbed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think it might be kinda-sorta a little true in that Lawful Good Characters are likely to be segregated somewhat from Chaotic Evil players in a way that somewhat reduces the risk of random PvP - at least to the extent that members of a Lawful Good Settlement are likely to be exposed to fewer Chaotic Evil Characters than are members of a Chaotic Evil Settlement.
Except that doesnt reduce your risk really. At any point in time those players can travel around the world without restriction. Anyone they come across can be a target. There are no exceptions to that. So its not like you can hole up somewhere and be really safe. even in your settlement someone can pay an assassin to kill you without you even leaving.
Not only that but take a look at CE and LG, you probably wont find them in the same settlement. however there is NOTHING that prevents a CE settlement from being right next to a LG settlement, and unless the LG settlement can push the CE settlement out, well the CE folks will be right next door with easy pickings. There is nothing artificial that says CE folks have to stay in a corner of the world and cant participate in the rest of the world.
I think a lot of people are thinking that evil will have this side of the map and good will have that side of the map. Like how horde and alliance in wow are separated. in PfO that will not be true. Evil/good/lawful/chaotic will setup in any place where they are strong enough to take and hold. That means that two hexes south is a CE settlement, four hexes east is a huge LE kingdom, to your west is a TN merchant settlement....etc. So how far away are the people who want what you have? whats preventing them from setting up right next to a ripe area and raiding that area?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think it might be kinda-sorta a little true in that Lawful Good Characters are likely to be segregated somewhat from Chaotic Evil players in a way that of random PvP...Except that doesnt reduce your risk really. At any point in time those players can travel around the world without restriction. Anyone they come across can be a target. There are no exceptions to that. So its not like you can hole up somewhere and be really safe. even in your settlement someone can pay an assassin to kill you without you even leaving.
I tried to adequately qualify my statement. I certainly didn't intend to give anyone the impression that I thought someone would be able to "hole up somewhere and be really safe".
My point is simply that you're more likely to get randomly murdered wandering around between three Chaotic Evil Settlements than you would if you were wandering around between three Lawful Good Settlements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yet if players control their activity rather than their alignment, then it isn't necessarily true that 'you' would be safer. It is intuitively true, but intuition is to opinion as necessity is to fact. If the wanderer is not 'Good' it makes an exceptional case, and may not be uncommon.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What? But Bluddwolf assured me that high rep LG merchants would be practically untouchable!You are being disingenuous and you know it. The fact that you would leave out all of the detail and context if what I said tells me that you agree that my scenario was correct.
Ryan even agreed that my scenario was correct but he felt it would gimp the merchant, which I respond that that remains to be seen.
Your attempt to discredit my scenario = epic fail
Just learning from the master. Your big complaint was that merchants could make themselves difficult to engage in PvP (unless the PvPer wanted to harm their rep/alignment) by following a set of guidelines, of which being LG and high rep were part of. Either being high rep and LG are a deterent to others PvPing or they are not. If they are, my statement that they reduce your risk is true. If they are not, then they would not be the obvious go-to for EVERY merchant to adhere to.
Which is it?
Increasing penalties for killing you generally IS a way to reduce risk. It might not be enough in all cases, but the same applies for locking your doors. It may not PREVENT you from getting robbed, but it will reduce the RISK of getting robbed.
Wrong on several issues....
First, you have left out the major component of my argument form the other thread. Merely saying that alignment and reputation were a part of it, omits the major part of it.
You have left out the "Opt Out" portions of the argument. If a merchant opts out of joining a PC company, settlement or an NPC faction then he or she is immune to feuds, wars or faction conflict. This for the bandit takes off the table ambush, unless the bandit is willing to accept a fast trip to CE and Low Rep = sucking.
I also included the numerical need for the merchant to travel with at least 2 or three other PC in a similar opt out set up. Now the three or four represent the potential of -7500 to -10,000 Rep loss from just ambushing one event.
This part of the scenario, Ryan had agreed would happen. He noted that the merchant would be limited in his own abilities, not being associated with a PC settlement. At which I responded, what upper tier training does a merchant really need and will the difference be enough to take on the risk?
There is an assumption going around that NPC settlements will only be able to train tier 1 skills. I do not buy into that assumption, or at least I think that faction might fill in the gap for tier 2 training.
NPC settlement training: Tier 1
Faction Training: Tier 1 and 2
PC Settlement Training: Tier 1, 2 and 3.
This system I can see as working, it increases access as the increase of risk rises as well.
It was never a complaint, but simply my pointing out a loophole. I even expressed it as "If I were a merchant, I would Opt Out".
I am almost certain I will have an merchant / trader alt to interact with those settlements that won't interact with my bandit company.
Even if GW attaches reputation loss to trade with low rep characters, then I would just use throw away alts to act as middle men.
I plan on having several characters:
1. Main (High rep) CN PVP
2. DT RP Solo PVE/PVP(High Rep) LG = No connection to 1, 3 or 4.
3. Alt (Mod Rep) PVE, Potential Throw Away
4. CE Low Rep PVP "Monster in the Basement".
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also included the numerical need for the merchant to travel with at least 2 or three other PC in a similar opt out set up. Now the three or four represent the potential of -7500 to -10,000 Rep loss from just ambushing one event.
Why? Doesn't it make sense that attacking a group (marking you as hostile to the entire group) would apply the same Reputation penalty as attacking the lowest-Reputation member of the group, rather than offering a low-Rep character the ability to have the deterrent property of a high-Reputation alt that simply walks next to him?
If they aren't grouped in such a manner as attacking one results in hostility to all of them being recognized, then the reputation penalty for attacking each of them is unchanged; if the others get involved in a fight once it has started, then you shouldn't have any shift for their involvement. They can, of course, simply keep walking and make you pay the price for each one you ambush- but that's roughly the same as coming one at a time, and you already have to calculate the Reputation/Coin exchange rate when ambushing people.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ambushing a group of high reputation people minding their own business that you have no (flag-wise) qualm with is greatly detrimental to your reputation? How terrible!
I remain hopeful that the Caravan System will give us "qualms". But there are other ways around the system(s), as I and others have pointed out.
Then we have the undeniable fact that all of these supposed systems are all in the "Remains to be Seen" stage. EE will of course tell the tale.