As it seems that the choice resides in the controller of the POI or settlement then you make it a law, vigilante action allowed is on or off.
As to the part about all people in the vicinity of an outpost or POI raid getting a criminal flag you will need to dispute that one with the devs. Wasn't my idea and I have already questioned it in this thread
Goblin Squad Member
|
I find it hard to believe that a settlement would be able to toggle "vigilante" in the way described.
If a player has a "criminal" flag that means anybody can attack. No?
Are saying that a specific hex it would give a player a "criminal" flag for attacking someone who has a "criminal" flag? That would mean a player can commit crimes in his home hex which would lower DI. I can see a player fleeing to his own settlement with a flag but entering the hex should not become a safe zone. That someone is just going to stop at the county line is stupid.
I have to say that makes little sense. It is a sanctioned action or it is not, in which case there should be no flags at all.
Oh and I have to say it, Steelwing is right, Inns (taverns) are not special if you are at war there is no hospitality rules. No one will want to leave a building that allows faster recovery in the hands of their rival. Making the Inn a far more attractive avenue of approach or target then a tower. If it can be taken intact even better.
If someone (CE/low rep?) is a third party actor who enters the Inn before a raid with the intention of creating a diversion just prior to the attack then that person should not have be welcome in your Inn. That last point is a harder sell I am sure cause the next thing would be "well what if he did not have a bad rep" well work it out. I don't know.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I thought you were originally speaking of an assassin killing someone inside an inn. Seems like the rules for that, and the rules for raiding a PoI such as an inn, would be two different things.
My guess is, if a group initiates a raid on an inn it will give all the people in the area ample time to clear out before declaring any stragglers criminal.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't taking an alignment shift and a reputation hit worth serving the community?
If "taking an alignment shift and a reputation hit" is necessary in order to "serve the community" then I submit that Alignment and Reputation are not working as intended.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Isn't taking an alignment shift and a reputation hit worth serving the community?If "taking an alignment shift and a reputation hit" is necessary in order to "serve the community" then I submit that Alignment and Reputation are not working as intended.
You need to pull up one of Ryan Dancey's quotes then, because that is exactly what he said was "altruistic". It's not about Your personal alignment or reputation! but taking one for the team. In this case the team = the ideal that you claim to believe in.
If you are unwilling to defend that ideal and sacrifice a bit of yourself in doing so, you have already lost.
Found it...
I would be worried that a high rep character was played by someone who cared more about a rep score than doing what was necessary to make e Settlement safe, powerful and cohesive.
You have been "Nihimonized" by Bluddwolf! Lol.... That is worth being awake at 2:00 AM
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And those taverns will be in (from the kick starter page) "In addition, this reward gives you ownership of a tavern somewhere in the Crusader Road starting area for Pathfinder Online."Which implies they will out of bounds for this discussion in any case.
I had already noted that we were talking about two types of tavern and that only the second was available for PVP in this thread. It is a reasonable assumption as I posted that tonight that I have not been stricken with amnesia and am therefore talking about the POI type
The discussion about the PoI-type Inn is fruitful, because it directly touches the hot topics of what happens to who concerning their reputation when x does y. This applies for all PoI types.
What intrigues me though is the *function* of Inns in all this. I do not propose that Inns be a safe haven, however because of their function, which would mostly be perks to players, I feel they are more of a target/hotspot then your average Guardtower PoI that is protected by NPC Guards.
Adding to the problem is indeed that we know too little about how a PoI-Inn can be managed when it comes to flags and toggles for reputation-hits, access and such.
How backer-Inns will fit into all this is even more of a questionmark, since these will have an actual player-owner (who I would think is also automatically the Innkeeper) rather then be owned by a Company holding a PoI. And these Inns themselves will be not conquerable. Which sais nothing about being able to PvP in them, true.
I also hope that the phrase "Crusader Road Startingarea" does not mean "PvP-disabled newbie area" but rather is the initial playground for players when OE starts. Thus including the NPC startingcities but also many (if not all) of the contestable hexes including the player-settlement hexes.
If all backer Inns get offered a location in a smallish triangle between safe NPC cities, without any contestable/playersettlement hexes in the area, then that would be a bummer.
I tried to find that hex map but I could only find a rough draft in this blog: map
Is there a more up to date map?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One of the ideas for settlements would be civvies clothes and leaving your armour and weapons (& wands) at a guard tower/gatehouse upon entry.
Perhaps a similar hats and cloaks + weapons will be part of the furniture at an Inn: "No mortal combat on the premises, patrons!" ?
That could take care of fighting on the premises.
What about attacking an Inn? As said the NPC Guards. I'm not sure for POI Inn's, I wonder if alliances and treaties are enough and "DMZ" is enough?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's not really relevant to the discussion, Bluddwolf. It's one thing to take a rare action that goes against your ideals for the sake of your settlement. It's another to be consistently punished for doing what should be in line with your alignment.
Alignment is a segregation / funneling mechanism and not as much of a role playing device.
If an alignment were granted the ability to attack anyone without that character being seen as hostile to you, then everyone would be that alignment to have that free attack ability.
But if you are interested enough in your argument then by all means, put it out there. Try to explain to Ryan that Alignment is for role playing and not a funneling game mechanic. Tell him that certain alignments should have the ability to freely attack anyone not hostile to them, because they have judged it is within their alignment concept to do so. Furthermore, that attack should not be penalized on the grounds that it falls within the description of that alignment.
This I and others have been arguing for sometime now, but you have been either silent on the topic or against us. Now that you see your own limitations, you will agree that maybe we were right.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Back to the topic, Inns or Taverns should not be safe havens for any form of sanctioned PvP. If you are a feud, war, bounty, assassination or death curse target you are still vulnerable to being attacked in this structure. If the tavern owner wants to make his or her tavern a safe haven, they can set their permissions to keep out that target not the legitimate pursuer.
Now if you were talking about a temple or church that was devoted to of Deity of Sanctuary, then I would agree. But the character fleeing into that sanctuary should take a massive reputation hit for doing so.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Something has been nagging me since I began reading this thread and I realized is was the terms being used. To keep POI Inns and $5000.00 Crowdforger Taverns separate, we should probably call them by their rightful names.
So for clarification, here's the POI Inn description from the Dev blog The Window's A Wound, The Road Is A Knife (link):
Inn: A welcoming tavern that provides lodgings, player power regeneration, limited trade goods, some training for social classes, and a space for social interaction
And here's the $5000 Crowdforger Tavern description (link)...scroll down by pledge amount:
Crowdforger Tavern Owner - Patrons at this level get all the Alpha level rewards, including full access to the Alpha playtest and month one access to the Beta through the Early Enrollment process. In addition, this reward gives you ownership of a tavern somewhere in the Crusader Road starting area for Pathfinder Online. This tavern will be located on one of the roads between settlements and will be a valuable stopping off point for people moving through the wilderness. The exact location will be offered to each backer on a first-backed, first choice basis. You'll work with the Goblinworks staff to customize aspects of your tavern, including the design of an NPC "regular" who always sits at the bar, giving customers a friendly face to see every time they come to visit. You'll also get a chance to choose five illustrations from Paizo Publishing's vast catalog of fantasy imagery to hang as paintings in your tavern. The Goblinworks staff will work with you to name your tavern and design a unique sign outside. Six months of upkeep costs for the tavern will be issued to your account when you start the game. As long as you pay upkeep coin for the tavern every month, it is immune to siege warfare and can never be taken away from you.
-------------------------
As for some of the recent discussion and speculation about the Crowdforger Taverns, I'm not certain "somewhere in the Crusader Road starting area" necessarily means starter area as in "starter towns" so much as it might mean the original map area either in EE or OE. The next sentence states "will be located on one of the roads between settlements and will be a valuable stopping off point for people moving through the wilderness." They do not specify that the settlements mentioned are NPC, but do mention "moving through the wilderness" which has, in the past, been described as the hexes lying further from the starter towns and in between the islands of safety that player settlements represent.
It further states that "As long as you pay upkeep coin for the tavern every month, it is immune to siege warfare and can never be taken away from you." So the actual building cannot be harmed and the owner cannot lose possession of that structure so long as upkeep coin is paid, but nothing at all is mentioned about violent acts being prohibited, etc.
Finally, nothing in the original description of Crowdforger Taverns included the more current POI Inn perks, but given that these taverns predated the POI Inns, it is possible (but not guaranteed) that these perks will apply to Crowdforger Taverns.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree with you that there are two types of Inns.
I think the fact that the 5k pledge buildings are called Taverns while the blog describes the PoI-type as Inns is merely semantics but I could be wrong. I would expect the Taverns to give the same perks as the PoI-inns: at the KS they might not have any details yet about the perks of Inns so they just mentioned "valuable stoppingpoint". Later, in the blog, they were able to specify it a bit further.
The biggest differences between the two types imo are who owns them(single player vs Company), their possible location (Crusader Road Starting Area vs anywhere) and their persistance in the world(indestructable vs destructable.
I am very curious if there are any more differences (settings/toggles for reputation flagging, access, NPC guards and such) and what exactly comprises the "Crusader Road Starting Area".
Also the role of the Innkeeper: will the 5k Tavernowner have a special title (Innkeeper) and will he be immune to getting clobbered in his own Inn? Or will that NPC they talk about in the description act as Innkeeper? Will a Company that owns a PoI Inn be able to assign a player as Innkeeper who can then set flags and toggles? Or an NPC?
I am pretty sure most of this is TBD though. The question about what comprises the Crusader Road Starting Area could probably be answered though.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I suppose Inns (POI-buildings) could be subject to the kingdoms game. And Taverns perhaps along the major roads between NPC settlements etc etc are immune as above. Good distinction.
Perhaps permissions such as carrying criminal flag or has a bounty on them then they are attack on sight by the NPC guards options? I still see such places however as social spaces not combat spaces.
The unspoken rules of hospitality and sanctuary in these fantasy lands I think Inns/Taverns should make use of this intuitive exception? Maybe stinging Rep hits and more for combat in such places?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I suppose Inns (POI-buildings) could be subject to the kingdoms game. And Taverns perhaps along the major roads between NPC settlements etc etc are immune as above. Good distinction.
Perhaps permissions such as carrying criminal flag or has a bounty on them then they are attack on sight by the NPC guards options? I still see such places however as social spaces not combat spaces.
The unspoken rules of hospitality and sanctuary in these fantasy lands I think Inns/Taverns should make use of this intuitive exception? Maybe stinging Rep hits and more for combat in such places?
The biggest problem is going to be to make Inns a truly wanted destination for players. I agree with the overall sentiment that Inns should not be safe-havens. This could make Inns into very nice targets/hotspots, for the simple reason that actual *players* will be hanging around them, unlike for instance a Guardtower PoI with some NPC guards.
But if Inns are to be a player-hotspot and thus target also means that the Inn should provide some serious benefits for those that visit it. Else nobody will bother.
Let us examine the perks they mentioned so far:
Powergeneration: looks to be an important draw, unless somehow it becomes much more convenient for players to go to their home-or allied settlement for this. Because then 99% will choose for the much safer option of going there instead of the Inn. Or they can choose for teaming up with a class that can powergenerate, or use (expensive) potions.
Buffs from drinks and eating: only if Inns (and settlements) are the only place where you can apply these buffs.
Low Level skilltraining for certain classes: only works if you can *only* get these at Inns. Then it could work just fine.
Wound healing(from crits): as with powergeneration. I understand that specific (high level?) spells may be able to heal wounds: this could lead to players choosing to hang with a Cleric 99% of the time, or maybe prefer to be selfsufficient in this through spending (huge amounts) of skillpoints for a Heal Wounds skillline(most likely very infeasible but still).
Lodging: I am assuming this could mean that an Inn is a good place to log out of the game for some reason. This will only work if reaching your own settlement is a hassle, as well as getting back to where you were (in case you may be near an area that you harvest and you want to return there).
"A place to socialize": this is really vague. People will not go to an Inn to socialize if they have no business there. Inns are most likely somewhat dangerous places to be in the Wild, away from Settlements. People will socialize where it is most opportune for them to be to cater to their needs and will choose the safest place to do it: I expect a Settlements crafting station to be the place where 90% of the socializing will occur(and near Trainers).
All of the above is dependent on many other game-mechanics, like having global chat. If global chat does not exist, then Inns could be a place where you can chat it up with strangers i.e. people that are not in your Alliances/Settlement/Teamspeak group. That could be a draw, which would be nullified by something like global chat.
Traveltimes (most importantly the time to reach your own settlement) will play a huge role too. Consumables, how hard are they to come by?
How crippling are Wounds? Spells? I am not saying it is convenient or easy to always team up with a Cleric: but if it is more convenient and safer then going to an Inn, then Inns will be empty.
Personally I think PFO is the *one* game where they could make Inns actually work: as in becoming true Places of Interest in a MMO, where people (have to) gather, where they can create a true need for Inns. True social hangouts because of *need*, in a dangerous world.
It is the *need* part that is so hard to implement imo, because people *will* find a safer, more convenient place or way to cover their needs, if there is one.
Sorry for all my ranting: would like to see Inns realize their potential for once in a MMO. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why not make taverns non safe havens from the other end of the equation and by owner choice?
1. The Owner of a tavern can bar patrons who are under a current PvP flag, including: Criminal, Heinous, Feud, War, Faction, Bounty, Assassination or Death Curse.
2. The owner can choose to grant access to any patron regardless of flagging, but that means that the tavern can have PvP occur within it and following standard PvP rules.
3. If the company that owns the tavern is flagged, or it's owner as an individual, the tavern settings do not override the flagging system.
4. If the owner wants to make his or her tavern a sanctuary, perhaps there should be some cost or consequences associated with that.
Cost: Tavern Owner must expend influence to admit fugitives
Consequence: Fugitive Loses Reputation for avoiding sanctioned PvP
* Fugitive refers to being a fugitive from the PvP flagging system and does not infer that that character has done anything wrong for being flagged.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't taking an alignment shift and a reputation hit worth serving the community?If "taking an alignment shift and a reputation hit" is necessary in order to "serve the community" then I submit that Alignment and Reputation are not working as intended.You need to pull up one of Ryan Dancey's quotes then, because that is exactly what he said was "altruistic". It's not about Your personal alignment or reputation! but taking one for the team. In this case the team = the ideal that you claim to believe in.
If you are unwilling to defend that ideal and sacrifice a bit of yourself in doing so, you have already lost.
Found it...
I would be worried that a high rep character was played by someone who cared more about a rep score than doing what was necessary to make e Settlement safe, powerful and cohesive.You have been "Nihimonized" by Bluddwolf! Lol.... That is worth being awake at 2:00 AM
And here's where Ryan explained why there might be a conflict between being High Reputation versus "doing what was necessary to make a Settlement safe, powerful and cohesive".
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that at the top end of rep, there's a thing you have to do every day at a certain time to gain a point or two of rep unattainable any other way. The is just hypothetical so don't read anything more into it.
Now imagine that there is something really important that the Settlement needs done that conflicts with fulfilling that rep gaining activity.
Doing the necessary thing implies you don't maximize your rep. Maximizing your rep implies you put that number ahead of your collective obligation to your Settlement.
That is the kind of meaningful choice that I'd be interested in when vetting a potential recruit: do they play "for a number" or for the team?
I don't see anything in there about losing Alignment or Reputation in order to serve your Settlement.
What I do see elsewhere is statements like this:
Ensuring that people know that becoming Chaotic and Evil will seriously degrade their character's powers is a way of communicating that arriving at that alignment indicates you've been bad..
That's what makes me think that if situations in which moving towards Chaotic and Evil is a good thing are commo,n then that is a sign that the system has failed.
I expect I'll occasionally do things that decrease my Alignment and Reputation. I'll choose to do them because it's the most convenient means of accomplishing my short-term goals. And I'll know I'm being "bad". But I won't do them often enough to suffer for them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Nihimon
Your post is not in disagreement with my comment. I never suggested that a vigilante should interfere as a common occurrence. I said that they would have to weigh those consequences the same as everyone else.
If moving in a chaotic and evil direction is common place, that is not the failure of any system, that is the will of the people paying to play the game.
In the end, PFO is a product and GW us a business. Same rules apply as any other business. The customer is always right and it's all about the All Mighty Dollar.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"A place to socialize": this is really vague. People will not go to an Inn to socialize if they have no business there. Inns are most likely somewhat dangerous places to be in the Wild, away from Settlements.
Just a quick scan response, then more response later.
Possible make Inns only place to start and contract an adventure? Ie specialist place in that respect? Idk off the top of my head.
Sometimes you have to leave "space" for things to develop organically. But how to sow the seeds the right way? Things like Bards and music and entertainment could be a start along with food - replenish and so on. the economy of the Inn needs to be looked at too.
If the wilds are indeed dangerous, could be a sharp contrast as chilled out place?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"A place to socialize": this is really vague. People will not go to an Inn to socialize if they have no business there. Inns are most likely somewhat dangerous places to be in the Wild, away from Settlements.Just a quick scan response, then more response later.
Possible make Inns only place to start and contract an adventure? Ie specialist place in that respect? Idk off the top of my head.
Sometimes you have to leave "space" for things to develop organically. But how to sow the seeds the right way? Things like Bards and music and entertainment could be a start along with food - replenish and so on. the economy of the Inn needs to be looked at too.
If the wilds are indeed dangerous, could be a sharp contrast as chilled out place?
I like the idea of Inns having some contractboard where players could pick up a contract or adventure. Anything to lure players to the Inn would be good in my book.
I agree that things will grow organically: it may be that the current plan is for players to get contracts in their settlements, but they may decide to transfer that to Inns if it seems feasible at some points.
There is no way to pre-plan everything so that it will work as intended and I expect a lot of things to change, also with the function of Inns. I am just hoping that Inns will not fall to the wayside, they could play such an important role in this game.
Maybe I am having a too romantic notion about the "wild" in this game; maybe everyone will hole up in their settlements untill they are ultimately required to leave for some reason like a siege, or a large collective hit-and-run gathering mission, or a quick attack on a PoI somewhere; and nobody will be "out in the wild"(i.e. outside their settlement) for a second longer then necessary; and having to go to an Inn for your adventure-contract will be considered a huge nuisance; and caravans will never stop by an Inn because each caravan run is a huge risk and will take a huge undertaking that requires many players to finish the run asap.
I think one of the more interesting statistics that I would like to see is, how large the average percentage is that players are within their own or an allied settlement. I am pretty sure it will be high but how high? If that is 97% then maybe something went wrong.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that the kickstarter owned inns should be pvp free on the inside and a short distance around it. I dont think those inns should be places where folks go to kill other people as I dont think that is in the spirit of what GW wanted for them.
PoI inns, should be open pvp, perhaps if influence is used some guards can be bought but they shouldnt receive any extra protections than any other PoI.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's not really relevant to the discussion, Bluddwolf. It's one thing to take a rare action that goes against your ideals for the sake of your settlement. It's another to be consistently punished for doing what should be in line with your alignment.Alignment is a segregation / funneling mechanism and not as much of a role playing device.
If an alignment were granted the ability to attack anyone without that character being seen as hostile to you, then everyone would be that alignment to have that free attack ability.
But if you are interested enough in your argument then by all means, put it out there. Try to explain to Ryan that Alignment is for role playing and not a funneling game mechanic. Tell him that certain alignments should have the ability to freely attack anyone not hostile to them, because they have judged it is within their alignment concept to do so. Furthermore, that attack should not be penalized on the grounds that it falls within the description of that alignment.
This I and others have been arguing for sometime now, but you have been either silent on the topic or against us. Now that you see your own limitations, you will agree that maybe we were right.
Except it is both. The RP and funnelling aspects are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the RP elements are DRIVEN by the funnelling aspects. Your argument here appears to rely on alignment being something it isn't. It relies on alignment being the OPPOSITE of what it is in some cases. A LG society looks after the well-being of people through the use of judicious laws. You argue that HELPING PEOPLE should be punished. This sounds like the OPPOSITE of what Mr. Dancey wants. The jerk-funnel is supposed to punish those who want to ruin the game experience, not the other way around. How, I ask you, is HELPING PEOPLE a TOXIC behaviour?
Legality aside (which should be up to the settlement, not your fiat), helping people is a good act. If the system does not recognize that, it has failed. You seem dead set on the alignment system being a failure. Those of us as proponents of Assist mechanics and the like are trying to ensure the system is not a failure.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's not really relevant to the discussion, Bluddwolf. It's one thing to take a rare action that goes against your ideals for the sake of your settlement. It's another to be consistently punished for doing what should be in line with your alignment.Alignment is a segregation / funneling mechanism and not as much of a role playing device.
If an alignment were granted the ability to attack anyone without that character being seen as hostile to you, then everyone would be that alignment to have that free attack ability.
But if you are interested enough in your argument then by all means, put it out there. Try to explain to Ryan that Alignment is for role playing and not a funneling game mechanic. Tell him that certain alignments should have the ability to freely attack anyone not hostile to them, because they have judged it is within their alignment concept to do so. Furthermore, that attack should not be penalized on the grounds that it falls within the description of that alignment.
This I and others have been arguing for sometime now, but you have been either silent on the topic or against us. Now that you see your own limitations, you will agree that maybe we were right.
Except it is both. The RP and funnelling aspects are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the RP elements are DRIVEN by the funnelling aspects. Your argument here appears to rely on alignment being something it isn't. It relies on alignment being the OPPOSITE of what it is in some cases. A LG society looks after the well-being of people through the use of judicious laws. You argue that HELPING PEOPLE should be punished. This sounds like the OPPOSITE of what Mr. Dancey wants. The jerk-funnel is supposed to punish those who want to ruin the game experience, not the other way around. How, I ask you, is HELPING PEOPLE a TOXIC behaviour?
Legality aside (which should be up to the settlement, not your fiat), helping people is a good act. If the system does not...
Because you are asking the system to do two things it can not do. First it has to assume that you are in fact helping someone. Second it has to determine that the action then absolves you from the consequence system of attacking someone that is not flagged to you.
In order to give you what you want, Ryan would have to open up the entire system for everyone to attack without consequences. Is that what you really want?
If you are truly trying to "help" someone, then when they have been assaulted, you initiate a SAD against their attacker. You demand an amount you are sure will do one of two things:
1. Provide the recent victim for fair compensation
2. The SAD amount will guarantee is being rejected and you kill the original attacker(s) without consequences.
If you issue the SAD where SADs are not a crime, you will not get the Chaotic shift.
It is a meaningful choice you are presented with, by the rules of engagement as are detailed in the Dev Blogs.
If you disagree with the limitations placed on open PVP, then lodge them with Goblin Works, not me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you are truly trying to "help" someone, then when they have been assaulted, you initiate a SAD against their attacker.
<sarcasm>Because SAD is the only mechanic for initiating PvP without consequence.</sarcasm>
I think there will be some design effort aimed at dealing with situations where combat erupts around you and the system doesn't already know which side you should be on. My intuition leads me to suggest a simple pop-up that would allow anyone in the vicinity to simply declare for one side of the other, or to remain neutral, but I don't know what kind of ramifications that would have on the rest of the design.
I'm very curious to hear what Ryan or the devs has to say about this.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Because you are asking the system to do two things it can not do. First it has to assume that you are in fact helping someone. Second it has to determine that the action then absolves you from the consequence system of attacking someone that is not flagged to you.
In order to give you what you want, Ryan would have to open up the entire system for everyone to attack without consequences. Is that what you really want?
I'm not asking it to do something it can't. I'm asking it to be able to do something. It does not have to assume. We're asking for a mechanic to remove the need to assume. So I am must definitely NOT asking for everyone to be able to attack without consequence. I'm asking for more meaning in my choices.
Like Nihimon suggests, it could be as simple as a pop-up to state your intent. Perhaps it could be as simple as asking to be invited into the defender's party which could absolve you of the crime of being nearby during a raid and being able to help defend.
Why do you insist that SAD should be the sole mechanic to do everything, especially for things it really isn't intended for?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you are truly trying to "help" someone, then when they have been assaulted, you initiate a SAD against their attacker.<sarcasm>Because SAD is the only mechanic for initiating PvP without consequence.</sarcasm>
I think there will be some design effort aimed at dealing with situations where combat erupts around you and the system doesn't already know which side you should be on. My intuition leads me to suggest a simple pop-up that would allow anyone in the vicinity to simply declare for one side of the other, or to remain neutral, but I don't know what kind of ramifications that would have on the rest of the design.
I'm very curious to hear what Ryan or the devs has to say about this.
You are describing what I called the "Hostility Bomb" when Andius first came up with the idea that everyone in the vicinity should be able to jump to the aid of anyone they choose, as if they too saw the "attacker" as hostile.
Even Ryan had commented that that would be a bazaar system, or some other adjective to that effect.
Again, you have to be careful for what you ask for because you just might get it. Players like me will use that same system to great advantage. I may even think of a few more twisted ways to make you regret having even thought of the idea.
Bottom line is, the hostility system is pretty good as it stands now. You can come to the aid of anyone you have "agency" with (member of group, company and settlement under certain circumstances). If you do not have agency, you won't see the attackers as hostile. This does not mean that you can't attack them, you just have to accept the consequences. Or you can mind your own business and stay out of it.
Some settlements have even said they would treat any vigilante as a criminal if they were interfering with events in their lands.
No one is a global police force, and it don't see Ryan and gang creating the "Tyranny of the "Supposed" Good".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For those that contributed enough to get the Tavern in the kickstarter, I would think it would be wise to make it PvP free.
I can see a situation where a group of people might go there just to start a fight and drive away all the business for the Tavern. For a person that contributed that much money in the kickstarter, this would be like a kick in the face.
That should only apply to the Tavern not the PoI Inns.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Because you are asking the system to do two things it can not do. First it has to assume that you are in fact helping someone. Second it has to determine that the action then absolves you from the consequence system of attacking someone that is not flagged to you.
In order to give you what you want, Ryan would have to open up the entire system for everyone to attack without consequences. Is that what you really want?
I'm not asking it to do something it can't. I'm asking it to be able to do something. It does not have to assume. We're asking for a mechanic to remove the need to assume. So I am must definitely NOT asking for everyone to be able to attack without consequence. I'm asking for more meaning in my choices.
Like Nihimon suggests, it could be as simple as a pop-up to state your intent. Perhaps it could be as simple as asking to be invited into the defender's party which could absolve you of the crime of being nearby during a raid and being able to help defend.
Why do you insist that SAD should be the sole mechanic to do everything, especially for things it really isn't intended for?
A few questions....
1. Would you also be offered the opportunity to join the attacker?
2. If not a SAD, wouldn't this be a de facto Feud against the attacker?
3. Would you have to spend influence to join in?
4. Shouldn't this flag you as an outlaw if this kind of action were made illegal?
5. If treated as a Feud, then you would be o.k. with you company entering a feud state with the group you are attacking?
6. Won't you then extend the ring of the "vicinity" to include more, and more people into the "Hostility Bomb"?
That sounds like Shades of Arch Duke Ferdinand to me.... Let the Chaos Begin!!!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For those that contributed enough to get the Tavern in the kickstarter, I would think it would be wise to make it PvP free.
I can see a situation where a group of people might go there just to start a fight and drive away all the business for the Tavern. For a person that contributed that much money in the kickstarter, this would be like a kick in the face.
That should only apply to the Tavern not the PoI Inns.
As I suggested, the Tavern Owner could bar anyone with a PvP flag or other active PvP target Flag, from entering.
The only thing that it should not prevent is if the owner him or herself is also a valid target for PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't help but think the attackers would have a flag of some sort. Aggressor, criminal, something that would negate this entire conversation.
I thought the question was what would you do if you were in range to have flag that you did not merit.
If you want to help you would attack the aggressors and try to make it clear to the defenders that was you intent. If you are welcome in their Inn that should be easy. I can't understand why you would expect any sort of hits for your actions.
Also, SAD will not be a skill that everybody trains and equipes IMHO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A few questions....
1. Would you also be offered the opportunity to join the attacker?
2. If not a SAD, wouldn't this be a de facto Feud against the attacker?
3. Would you have to spend influence to join in?
4. Shouldn't this flag you as an outlaw if this kind of action were made illegal?
5. If treated as a Feud, then you would be o.k. with you company entering a feud state with the group you are attacking?
6. Won't you then extend the ring of the "vicinity" to include more, and more people into the "Hostility Bomb"?
That sounds like Shades of Arch Duke Ferdinand to me.... Let the Chaos Begin!!!
1. Absolutely.
2. Why would it be?
3. Why would you?
4. Sure. Silly thing to make illegal, be sure.
5. Why would it be?
6. No. It wouldn't be any worse than the "Hostility Bomb" of the initial Raid making everyone in the vicinity a Criminal.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In a game like this, I think anyone should be able to hide or seek safety anywhere...as long as his or her skills can facilitate it (like a high stealth, HiPS, invis, counter tracking, etc.).
Conversely, I think anyone should be able to hunt anywhere, keeping the same thing in mind (high disguise skill, tracking, true sight, scent etc.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Players like me will use that same system to great advantage. I may even think of a few more twisted ways to make you regret having even thought of the idea.
I thought Ryan's comment yesterday
We are going to actively attack community toxicity from the grass roots up. As I've said before there is no silver bullet to this problem. The approach we're going to use is a multi-layered approach. One of those layers is giving people an extremely clear message about their in-game behavior. If they act badly as defined by the desires of 90% of the community their bad actions will hurt their in-game power level. I feel reasonably confident I can proxy my opinion for what 90% of the people I intend to sell this game to want. We have lots of time to make minor adjustments and consider corner cases.
So the reason we're making a funnel of suck is to make it possible for our players to clearly see it, clearly understand its consequences, clearly understand how their in-game actions relate to that funnel, and clearly see that they can be and will be affected by it. And we accept up front that as a result there are some people who will be so frustrated by the straightjacket that they cannot be satisfied and happy within that system. And that's OK.
made it clear that GW will greet using their systems to advantages not agreed to by the 90% with "okay, then, time to adjust that system". I think anything that can be described using the word "twisted" is going to nearly always and pretty-much automatically come under that 10% review, with an eye toward change.
In EE, but also especially in alpha, I foresee GW being very responsive to players objecting to game design elements being highjacked, loopholed, or abused by a minority, no matter how vocal. I will not be surprised if the ban-hammer swings at least once in EE, with all the "but I paid my money, and I'm not allowed to play my way" screaming that'll accompany that event, both on the boards and elsewhere in the gaming media; it'll be free publicity for GW and their new game-paradigm.
They may even set up a strawman player, expressly for the purpose of booting him and creating that media opportunity. Perhaps they already have :-).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In regards to the feud thing, that's something for the Company initiating the Raid to decide. If UNC is raiding a Pax outpost and TEO is frequently aiding the defenders, then I would imagine that UNC would want to Feud TEO.
What mechanic is TEO using to aid Pax, when attacking UNC raiders?
The way the system is now, TEO would not see UNC as "Hostile" to its agency. What would allow TEO to attack without gaining the "Attacker Flag"?
SAD
Feud
War
Faction
Or if UNC is Criminal Flagged at the time of the encounter.
That is how the system works now. Are you suggesting a new system, that has the same costs but similar functions to the SAD?
How could this be employed in the Tavern discussion of the OP, and not in a raid situation?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To the OP: I think a fair summary of all of the reasonable positions is "Sure, it should be possible to start a fight in an Inn, but it should rarely or almost never actually happen, because people don't hide in Inns nor go there looking for victims.
Since you mentioned DeviousBrutus, here is an example of his work, right here in this thread. It gave me a chuckle. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Jazzlvraz,
I hope you are all prepared if 90% of the community comes from Eve! Lol, I really did have to laugh at that one myself.
But, that is also Ryan's out, his scapegoat, if the vision doesn't come to fruition. GW could just claim, "We were meeting the demands of the majority of our customer base".
It is another one of those "It remains to be seen" issues.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In regards to the feud thing, that's something for the Company initiating the Raid to decide. If UNC is raiding a Pax outpost and TEO is frequently aiding the defenders, then I would imagine that UNC would want to Feud TEO.What mechanic is TEO using to aid Pax, when attacking UNC raiders?
That's what we're asking for!
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
In regards to the feud thing, that's something for the Company initiating the Raid to decide. If UNC is raiding a Pax outpost and TEO is frequently aiding the defenders, then I would imagine that UNC would want to Feud TEO.What mechanic is TEO using to aid Pax, when attacking UNC raiders?
The way the system is now, TEO would not see UNC as "Hostile" to its agency. What would allow TEO to attack without gaining the "Attacker Flag"?
SAD
Feud
War
Faction
Or if UNC is Criminal Flagged at the time of the encounter.That is how the system works now. Are you suggesting a new system, that has the same costs but similar functions to the SAD?
How could this be employed in the Tavern discussion of the OP, and not in a raid situation?
Let's take a tiny step: Assume that there exist buffs, heals, or other beneficial effects that one character can give another.
Clearly, providing those effects to someone that I am fighting against is an action hostile to me. For it to be otherwise is a failure mode.
One alternative is that it is impossible to provide any beneficial effect towards somebody if there is already some hostility; the other reasonable alternative that I see is to provide players with the information about who they will become involved with as a result of their action, and what effects their involvement will have. (Conveying this information quickly is a Hard Problem of UI design, not in the current scope).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Perhaps it could be as simple as asking to be invited into the defender's party which could absolve you of the crime of being nearby during a raid and being able to help defend.
Mmm, I don't think that will work well, if I understand what you're proposing. If the defender is busy fighting the last thing he will appreciate is a screen popping up covering the action asking him if he'd like some help. Maybe if he sees himself confronted with a situation he could have a panic button somewhere that would automatically accept your offer?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Jazzlvraz,
I hope you are all prepared if 90% of the community comes from Eve! Lol, I really did have to laugh at that one myself.
I really don't think Ryan was talking about 90% of any particular game's community, but rather 90% of the several million members of the Fantasy MMO community.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I think about fighting in an inn, it doesn't come in the form of swords drawn slaughter. It comes in the form of bar brawls.
I think the games should probably offer bar brawls as a fully supported form of non-lethal combat and actively discourage or even remove the ability to engage in normal pvp in a inn.
I don't know about everyone else here, but I do sometimes need to be able to kick back and relax without worrying about somebody murdering me in game. Inns as a safe haven would allow players to do that. It would also go a long way toward encouraging exploration, travel, and cultural exchange if people can find a safe place to stay away from home.
Getting players out and seeing the world and other players should be actively encouraged at all levels not just for elite pvp players that can survive the trip.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any sort of pop up that blocks vision would be exploitable so it would not be a pop up in any case. Smart players will have many different key binding / hot keys set up.
It's so exploitable that I can't imagine being able to issue a SAD (which is, after all, a mechanism specially designed for avoiding combat) to someone already in the middle of a fight...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Any sort of pop up that blocks vision would be exploitable so it would not be a pop up in any case. Smart players will have many different key binding / hot keys set up.It's so exploitable that I can't imagine being able to issue a SAD (which is, after all, a mechanism specially designed for avoiding combat) to someone already in the middle of a fight...
Vwoom is absolutely right about pop-ups. Darkfall tried to deal with this by keeping the "pop-up" out of the way, and that worked reasonably well even if it did make it so that a lot of folks completely missed group invites and such while they were still getting used to the ui.
Another consideration is that any kind of pop-up, even if it's out of the way, is likely to block any other attempts to trade, for example, until that first pop-up is accepted or dismissed.
Personally, I'd like to be able to block any trades I don't initiate. If two players both have this setting, then they would each have to explicitly attempt to initiate a trade with the other before the trade ui was displayed and they were locked into a transaction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Not sure I'd like to see any fighting/combat in Inns, at all. Total down-time, talking and even being civil, buying a round with your nemesis opposite numbers etc?!
Telling stories, talking about RL, etc etc.
Hay for your horse and recharging mounts would be good too for some coin?