A Few Simple Ways to Make NRDS Viable


Pathfinder Online

451 to 500 of 1,127 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Proxima Sin wrote:
Nihimon's idea is to quickly mark that off the checklist to know the conditions are good to KILL ALL THE LOW REPS!!! He didn't speak about giving a moment of consideration of why the hostility flag was up, any of the context or repercussions there, or any sort of context to understanding the low Rep status. Just green light green light kill kill kill.

Nihimon's idea is that being Low Reputation is a clear signal that you've had a generally negative impact on the community.

We're going to manage the game mechanics in such a way that things that you do which are positive contributions to the community tend to enhance your character's reputation and things which are negative to the community tend to reduce your character's reputation.
It's impossible for me to be able to quickly make a decision based on all the context of your actions; often, I'll have no way of knowing what you did. I understand there are folks who want me to freeze into inaction based on that lack of knowledge, but that ain't gonna happen.

And instead of spending one moment to find out what's going on in this situation, you're automatically going to turn into an executioner to punish that character for perceived crimes against the game in the past based on your profiling criteria. That creates a whole host of problematic circumstances that should be its own thread.

It also turns you -within those discrete situations- into a mindless face stabber. A Dexter-esque serial killer.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

I don't think NDRS is too powerful, I think it is a farce to say, "We are NDRS, but we have 20,000 people on our Exile / Red List, and we can kill them on sight without consequences."

Yes I know 20,000 is an exaggeration, but is it really? Wouldn't an NBSI settlement use this mechanic to great effect and still legitimately claim it too is NRDS?

NRDS and NBSI are academic concepts. You could easily claim NBSI but make all but T7V Blue. It's about attitude, not mechanics. But what's your alternative if we can't set people as red or blue (despite GW saying we'll be able to on at least a settlement/CC level)?

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Proxima Sin wrote:

And instead of spending one moment to find out what's going on in this situation, you're automatically going to turn into an executioner to punish that character for perceived crimes against the game in the past based on your profiling criteria. That creates a whole host of problematic circumstances that should be its own thread.

It also turns you -within those discrete situations- into a mindless face stabber. A Dexter-esque serial killer.

They aren't perceived crimes: they're documented and logged crimes by the gods. If you are low rep, you have a long, consistent history of meaningless PvP and (eventually) other negative actions.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

I don't think NDRS is too powerful, I think it is a farce to say, "We are NDRS, but we have 20,000 people on our Exile / Red List, and we can kill them on sight without consequences."

Yes I know 20,000 is an exaggeration, but is it really? Wouldn't an NBSI settlement use this mechanic to great effect and still legitimately claim it too is NRDS?

I don't see your point here. A settlement could set an official NBSI and claim to allow people in; the distinction between NRDS and NBSI is not how many people they let in, it's what your system defaults to when you get a Grey in your territory. What you seem to be proposing is that we can't have NBSI at all, or effective NRDS, without resorting to CE rep-dump alts or some other method which works around the systems instead of with them.

Also, you can kill them on sight inside your own territory without consequences. Seem to be missing the very critical distinction there.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:

I don't think NDRS is too powerful, I think it is a farce to say, "We are NDRS, but we have 20,000 people on our Exile / Red List, and we can kill them on sight without consequences."

Yes I know 20,000 is an exaggeration, but is it really? Wouldn't an NBSI settlement use this mechanic to great effect and still legitimately claim it too is NRDS?

What is the advantage of NRDS, and why would it be retained if a settlement red lists strangers on first sight?

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:
Xeen wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:


Proxima, one must assume if the "Hostile" flag system is working correctly, the individual carrying it would already, by definition, have engaged in hostile action against you, your company or your settlement. They would not be so flagged otherwise. The only exception would be members of companies/settlements your settlement is in an official state of war with. I believe the ability to engage people who have already commited hostile actions against is axiomaticly within the concept that the designers consider acceptable PvP. I would not consider it "vigilantism" but "self-defense"

In RP terms, I at least, might consider offering an otherwise High Rep some Terms or the opportunity to explain themselves and thier flag. Pirates and Scallywags on the other hand, deserve no quarter (no offense Bludd).

The Hostile flag does not specifically mean someone has engaged you, your company, or your settlement. A Hostile Flag means engagement with a non flagged player, a feud, or of opposing faction.

As far as I understand, your interpretation does not accurately represent the proposed mechanic. If you attack a member of Company A and I am a member of Company B, you are NOT flagged hostile to me ONLY to members of Company A. In order for you to be flagged as HOSTILE to me, I must have some standing (Company, Settlement, Kingdom) to the attacked individual or resource or you must have done it in territory that my settlement OWNS and where doing so is a CRIME.

Not correct.

If I attack a member of Company A, for no reason I gave you above... I just attacked him. I will be fagged Hostile to everyone in the game for a time.

Goblin Squad Member

Drakhan Valane wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

I don't think NDRS is too powerful, I think it is a farce to say, "We are NDRS, but we have 20,000 people on our Exile / Red List, and we can kill them on sight without consequences."

Yes I know 20,000 is an exaggeration, but is it really? Wouldn't an NBSI settlement use this mechanic to great effect and still legitimately claim it too is NRDS?

NRDS and NBSI are academic concepts. You could easily claim NBSI but make all but T7V Blue. It's about attitude, not mechanics. But what's your alternative if we can't set people as red or blue (despite GW saying we'll be able to on at least a settlement/CC level)?

Your missing the point.

The concept of NBSI and NRDS is not about red and blue, its about grey.

NBSI attacks anyone not blue.
NRDS attacks only reds.

Sure you can set anyone you want red in the game. You still get the consequences for attacking them only because they are red.

The proposed exile mechanic allows you to attack anyone on that list scott free. All you have to do is add them to the list, at no cost to you.

Honestly, I am fine with it, so long as.... If I am exiled from TEO territory, then I can attack any member of TEO scott free.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

I don't think NDRS is too powerful, I think it is a farce to say, "We are NDRS, but we have 20,000 people on our Exile / Red List, and we can kill them on sight without consequences."

Yes I know 20,000 is an exaggeration, but is it really? Wouldn't an NBSI settlement use this mechanic to great effect and still legitimately claim it too is NRDS?

What is the advantage of NRDS, and why would it be retained if a settlement red lists strangers on first sight?

The advantage of NRDS is that you allow greys into your territory and make money from trade. They can buy equipment from your markets, and sell things you may need.

Thats the advantage. Of course there are disadvantages to it as well. You cant have one without the other.

The proposed exile mechanic does nothing for NRDS. Its just a mechanic to get away from consequences for PVP with people you dont like.

Goblin Squad Member

Drakhan Valane wrote:
Proxima Sin wrote:

And instead of spending one moment to find out what's going on in this situation, you're automatically going to turn into an executioner to punish that character for perceived crimes against the game in the past based on your profiling criteria. That creates a whole host of problematic circumstances that should be its own thread.

It also turns you -within those discrete situations- into a mindless face stabber. A Dexter-esque serial killer.

They aren't perceived crimes: they're documented and logged crimes by the gods. If you are low rep, you have a long, consistent history of meaningless PvP and (eventually) other negative actions.

Not necessarily true.

If I kill a guy, who is not flagged hostile, but he is known for ganking people. Then I will lose rep, but my attack was not meaningless.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
If I kill a guy, who is not flagged hostile, but he is known for ganking people. Then I will lose rep, but my attack was not meaningless.

This started with if you see a guy marked as Hostile will you attack. I believe Steelwing asserted that most will not. Nihimon said he would if the Hostile was also Low Rep. There has a been a lot of byways but I support that "profiling" as expected, as well as Steelwings because if one harvesters is ganked, a different harvester will not expect he can defeat the ganker and will hope to simply not get involved.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Xeen wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

I don't think NDRS is too powerful, I think it is a farce to say, "We are NDRS, but we have 20,000 people on our Exile / Red List, and we can kill them on sight without consequences."

Yes I know 20,000 is an exaggeration, but is it really? Wouldn't an NBSI settlement use this mechanic to great effect and still legitimately claim it too is NRDS?

What is the advantage of NRDS, and why would it be retained if a settlement red lists strangers on first sight?

The advantage of NRDS is that you allow greys into your territory and make money from trade. They can buy equipment from your markets, and sell things you may need.

Thats the advantage. Of course there are disadvantages to it as well. You cant have one without the other.

The proposed exile mechanic does nothing for NRDS. Its just a mechanic to get away from consequences for PVP with people you dont like.

So, you can't trespass/exile everybody and still have the benefits of NRDS, because you wouldn't be. You also can't be NRDS without the ability to make some people Red; a lower power version that only applies within controlled territory seems reasonable.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:

Your missing the point.

The concept of NBSI and NRDS is not about red and blue, its about grey.

NBSI attacks anyone not blue.
NRDS attacks only reds.

Sure you can set anyone you want red in the game. You still get the consequences for attacking them only because they are red.

The proposed exile mechanic allows you to attack anyone on that list scott free. All you have to do is add them to the list, at no cost to you.

Honestly, I am fine with it, so long as.... If I am exiled from TEO territory, then I can attack any member of TEO scott free.

Red and blue are absolutely meaningless concepts if they work the way you describe. I'm referring to Red as someone who is flagged hostile to you.

Being able to murder everyone from a settlement anywhere you want just because they forbid you from entering their land is insane and toxic.

Goblin Squad Member

Drakhan Valane wrote:
Xeen wrote:

Your missing the point.

The concept of NBSI and NRDS is not about red and blue, its about grey.

NBSI attacks anyone not blue.
NRDS attacks only reds.

Sure you can set anyone you want red in the game. You still get the consequences for attacking them only because they are red.

The proposed exile mechanic allows you to attack anyone on that list scott free. All you have to do is add them to the list, at no cost to you.

Honestly, I am fine with it, so long as.... If I am exiled from TEO territory, then I can attack any member of TEO scott free.

Red and blue are absolutely meaningless concepts if they work the way you describe. I'm referring to Red as someone who is flagged hostile to you.

Being able to murder everyone from a settlement anywhere you want just because they forbid you from entering their land is insane and toxic.

And the exile mechanic is any different? If you want your cake (ability to kill who you want) then you can eat it too (meaning my sword).

Red is an enemy
Blue is a friend

Thats what it is. Not the way I describe, but what it is. NBSI and NRDS are Eve terms.

If someone is hostile to you, then they are hostile and not red. Granted the color of hostile may be red, but we dont know that now.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

The point of the exile mechanic is to set the Trespasser flag. A Trespasser is a Criminal and thus Hostile. How is this so complicated?

Goblin Squad Member

The trespass mechanic sets trespass flags. We don't need extra fluff that can cause confusion.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
Has an official trespass mechanic ever been announced? I think all talk of trespass mechanics and exile and the like have been between players in the forums, not from GW.

Actually, yes.

Characters with low reputations may also find they're not wanted in certain places. Settlements can set a minimum reputation to enter the city; players who don't meet the requirement are warned, and become trespassers if they continue to enter.
Trespasser: Entering a settlement city that has forbidden you entry (due to too low reputation or other mechanics) applies the Trespasser flag, which persists while you're in the area and briefly after leaving. This might also be applied for entering other areas where your simple entry is sufficient to allow you to be attacked and driven off.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:

I don't think NDRS is too powerful, I think it is a farce to say, "We are NDRS, but we have 20,000 people on our Exile / Red List, and we can kill them on sight without consequences."

Yes I know 20,000 is an exaggeration, but is it really? Wouldn't an NBSI settlement use this mechanic to great effect and still legitimately claim it too is NRDS?

The key part about NRDS is Not Red Don't Shoot.

That's exactally the kind of policy we intend to run. If you're not our enemy, and you come into or borders and respect our rules then you a free pass through our lands, engage in trade, run missions, fight escalations, and even extract resources we haven't put limitations on.

You come into our borders and you're hostile or you break our laws, then you pay our fines or we tell you to leave, and if you don't we kill you. That is the very definition of NRDS.

You're just pissed because you know that UNC is going to get a red designation from practically every settlement out there. Welcome to being an outlaw. If you can't hack it as one then stop sniffling and pick a new career.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Urman wrote:
Has an official trespass mechanic ever been announced? I think all talk of trespass mechanics and exile and the like have been between players in the forums, not from GW.

Actually, yes.

Characters with low reputations may also find they're not wanted in certain places. Settlements can set a minimum reputation to enter the city; players who don't meet the requirement are warned, and become trespassers if they continue to enter.
Trespasser: Entering a settlement city that has forbidden you entry (due to too low reputation or other mechanics) applies the Trespasser flag, which persists while you're in the area and briefly after leaving. This might also be applied for entering other areas where your simple entry is sufficient to allow you to be attacked and driven off.

And here is the basis for the exile mechanic.

Goblin Squad Member

Drakhan Valane wrote:
They aren't perceived crimes: they're documented and logged crimes by the gods. If you are low rep, you have a long, consistent history of meaningless PvP and (eventually) other negative actions.

That's the profiling I'm talking about.

That's not the only way to become Low Rep. Some proportion will have gotten low Rep the way you describe and some proportion will have arrived there through a different route, we won't know the proportions until there's a game to play.

Some proportion will be still looking to cause as much havoc as possible and some will be attempting to repair their Reputation, again there's no way to speculate which of those is the one Nihimon is about to blindly gank because of their current Rep score.

Is auto-ganking low rep without any thought a meaningful and positive contribution to the game environment?

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Proxima Sin wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
They aren't perceived crimes: they're documented and logged crimes by the gods. If you are low rep, you have a long, consistent history of meaningless PvP and (eventually) other negative actions.

That's the profiling I'm talking about.

That's not the only way to become Low Rep.

Reputation is a vector orthogonal to the good/evil law/chaos matrix and it reflects the degree to which your character (initially) engages in meaningless PvP. I expect over time it will reflect other behavior as well. The objective is to quantify to some degree how your character conforms to the goal of maximizing meaningful human interaction. To begin, we are focusing that down to "how meaningful is your character's PvP history".

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

@PS

Yes there is he has a hostility flag up meaning he just attacked someone twice. If he is mending his ways why is there blood on his hands.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Proxima Sin wrote:
Is auto-ganking low rep without any thought a meaningful and positive contribution to the game environment?

Yes. It serves as the "feedback loop" to signal to those players that what they've done is not appropriate.

Is letting Hostile Low Reputation characters get a free pass from most of the community a meaningful and positive contribution to the game environment?

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Vwoom wrote:

@PS

Yes there is he has a hostility flag up meaning he just attacked someone twice. If he is mending his ways why is there blood on his hands.

It's the only way he knows how to say "hello!"

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Proxima Sin wrote:
That's not the only way to become Low Rep.

Technically no. You could be bombarded with player after player finding that case where they can give you a meaningful reason to kill them and you kill them from sun up until sundown.

You could also win 10 lotteries in a row.

For the most part the quantity of low rep actions required to become a low rep player should generally reflect you engaging in meaningless slaughter.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius just requested the blog's trespass system be more granular and wanted everyone to call it his term "exile" instead of trespassing. I feel like trying to make the name "exile" a thing even though we already have that function being called trespassing has obfuscated the discussion and had the result of adding extra fuel to the pointless bickering in this particular thread.

The opinion of someone who just wants to talk about the game (not speculate on anyone's motivations behind supporting this rule or that mechanic).

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
You're just pissed because you know that UNC is going to get a red designation from practically every settlement out there. Welcome to being an outlaw. If you can't hack it as one then stop sniffling and pick a new career.

LOL pissed, the red designation means nothing.

Please, make sure to feud us too.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin wrote:

Andius just requested the blog's trespass system be more granular and wanted everyone to call it his term "exile" instead of trespassing. I feel like trying to make the name "exile" a thing even though we already have that function being called trespassing has obfuscated the discussion and had the result of adding extra fuel to the pointless bickering in this particular thread.

The opinion of someone who just wants to talk about the game (not speculate on anyone's motivations behind supporting this rule or that mechanic).

You have a lot of problems with the terms people use. Would you prefer to name the action of kicking someone out of your territory "Expel" instead? The verb "trespass" cannot be used to define someone as a trespasser. How would you like to refer to the act of defining a trespasser?

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Proxima Sin wrote:
Is auto-ganking low rep without any thought a meaningful and positive contribution to the game environment?

Yes. It serves as the "feedback loop" to signal to those players that what they've done is not appropriate.

Is letting Hostile Low Reputation characters get a free pass from most of the community a meaningful and positive contribution to the game environment?

No one said free pass. My stance is that it should be based on what makes the guy hostile and the butterfly affects of engaging or non-engagement.

It's just ironic to me that you hate players you potentially have never interacted with because you assume they were out mindlessly killing, and so you want to kill any of them you can without a quarter-second of thought.

Goblin Squad Member

Drakhan Valane wrote:
The point of the exile mechanic is to set the Trespasser flag. A Trespasser is a Criminal and thus Hostile. How is this so complicated?

Its not complicated. No one said its complicated.

The trespasser flag is for entering a settlement you are not allowed in. Andius' proposed Exile Mechanic is for the territory controlled by the settlement.

Again, Im fine with it. So long as I can use the Bully Mechanic.

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin wrote:

Andius just requested the blog's trespass system be more granular and wanted everyone to call it his term "exile" instead of trespassing. I feel like trying to make the name "exile" a thing even though we already have that function being called trespassing has obfuscated the discussion and had the result of adding extra fuel to the pointless bickering in this particular thread.

The opinion of someone who just wants to talk about the game (not speculate on anyone's motivations behind supporting this rule or that mechanic).

Trespasser, as defined in the blog, is someone who is not allowed into the Settlement Hex because that Settlement has set their Reputation requirement above that Character's Reputation

Exile, as hinted at by Ryan, is someone who is not allowed into the Settlement Hex because that Settlement has explicitly barred that specific Character.

Seems pretty clear to me that there's a very significant distinction. Not sure why you don't see it.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Proxima Sin wrote:

Andius just requested the blog's trespass system be more granular and wanted everyone to call it his term "exile" instead of trespassing. I feel like trying to make the name "exile" a thing even though we already have that function being called trespassing has obfuscated the discussion and had the result of adding extra fuel to the pointless bickering in this particular thread.

The opinion of someone who just wants to talk about the game (not speculate on anyone's motivations behind supporting this rule or that mechanic).

Trespasser, as defined in the blog, is someone who is not allowed into the Settlement Hex because that Settlement has set their Reputation requirement above that Character's Reputation

Exile, as hinted at by Ryan, is someone who is not allowed into the Settlement Hex because that Settlement has explicitly barred that specific Character.

Seems pretty clear to me that there's a very significant distinction. Not sure why you don't see it.

No where did I see in that quote said hex, it said settlement, as in the city.

In fact is says Settlement City.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Trespasser: Entering a settlement city that has forbidden you entry (due to too low reputation or other mechanics) applies the Trespasser flag, which persists while you're in the area and briefly after leaving. This might also be applied for entering other areas where your simple entry is sufficient to allow you to be attacked and driven off.

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin wrote:
It's just ironic to me that you hate players you potentially have never interacted with because you assume they were out mindlessly killing, and so you want to kill any of them you can without a quarter-second of thought.

I certainly don't "hate" them. I expect a lot of them are actually good people. I just want the systems to function, and I believe that part of that is making that bit about them being "other people's content" actually mean something.

Goblin Squad Member

key word, might

and the rest is non specific, could be outpost or wizards tower, or hideout.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:

@Bludd,

What Andius is advocating for is simply the right for a Hex's legal owner to excersize control over which individuals have a legal right to enter thier territory. It makes entry into that hex without permission a CRIME and therefore the individual in question becomes a valid target for law enforcment and millitary forces of the owner to engage WITHIN THE OWNERS TERRITORY without suffering alignment or reputation hits themselves.

A few questions...

1. If I enter as an "Exile" I am flagged as criminal to just the owners of the settlement hex?

2. If I am then "hostile" to their members, do their members also appear hostile to me? Or do I have to wait for them to attack me?

3. How is this different then the Trespasser Flag?

4. How is this different than my just having the "Hostile Flag" and potentially the "Criminal Flag" caused by my own actions?

5. What is the cost for setting individuals or companies to "Exile"?

* Trespasser and Criminal Flags do not have a cost for the settlement because they require a negative action on the part of the character to "earn" those flags.

The Exile Flag differs in that it does not require a negative action to trigger its use.

1) It would have to work consistantly with any other criminal action. Entering a hex you are prohibited by the owners is a criminal act. I have no idea if GW has stated there intent for that flag to be specific to hex owners or everyone in the Hex. I would assume just hex owners since visitors wouldn't have any proper jurrisdiction to enforce local laws....although perhaps they would be given a purely informative flag.

2) It would work consistantly with how any other CRIMINAL flag currently is proposed to work.

3) It really isn't, which is why Andius had not used a different term which seems to be creating some level of confusion rather then simply proposing a rifenment of the little we currently no about Tresspass in light of other mechanics that have been instituted since Tresspass was proposed by GW. Possibly the only difference is the method by which the Tresspass flag is set, since previously it was set by the settlement applying blanket filter rules (e.g. if Alignment = Chaotic and Reputation > 1000 then apply Tresspass). This would allow an authorized officer/member of the settlement to apply it manualy to an individual outside of those course rules. Possibly it could be done on a timer (e.g. tresspass for 24 hours) since dropping it down to an individual level might pose a resource issue for GW's systems.

4) It would make your entry into a Hex that the owner prohibited you entry a crime. That's it, after that it functionaly becomes identical to a CRIMINAL flag. About the only difference I can imagine would be that if you were ALREADY within the OWNERS hex when flagged with EXILE, you would be given a sufficient amount of time to EXIT that hex before the CRIMINAL flag kicked in. That would be to protect people from the HEX Owners abusing the mechanic.

5) The mechanical cost would be none. Since a hex owner should be able to excersize SOVERIEGNTY in thier own hex without cost. The practical cost would be that an owner who exercised it too recklessly would end up barring individuals who's presence might otherwise be a benefit to the Hex (e.g. traders, customers, adveturers coming to help with escalations, etc)

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Are some people now really arguing that it should not be okay to attack players designated as "In a state of Hostility with you"?

Really?

Goblin Squad Member

Now that Ive posted, let me rephrase it...

No

At least in my case, if you exile me and make me consequence free to kill... then you should be consequence free to kill as well.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:

Now that Ive posted, let me rephrase it...

No

At least in my case, if you exile me and make me consequence free to kill... then you should be consequence free to kill as well.

Feel free to retaliate by exiling (expelling, whatever) the offenders from your territory. Or declare a war/feud. You have so many options.

Goblin Squad Member

The only cases that I know of (where hostility is not mutual) so far, would be flagged as criminal and/or heinous. I haven't thought this through very much, but I think that if I see a "Hostile" marked criminal or heinous toon and I attack them, no one should lose reputation regardless of who wins.

If that is already the case, where is the problem?

Goblin Squad Member

Drakhan Valane wrote:
Xeen wrote:

Now that Ive posted, let me rephrase it...

No

At least in my case, if you exile me and make me consequence free to kill... then you should be consequence free to kill as well.

Feel free to retaliate by exiling (expelling, whatever) the offenders from your territory. Or declare a war/feud. You have so many options.

Nice, so now you want to use Bludd's point. Just Feud the offenders in the first place.

Thank you for that amazing post. Seriously!!

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bringslite wrote:

Are some people now really arguing that it should not be okay to attack players designated as "In a state of Hostility with you"?

Really?

There's actually a long history of that on these forums. Some folks just can't wrap their heads around the fact that there are more than just Sheep and Wolves. If you're not a Wolf, you're supposed to act like a Sheep goshdarnit!

The idea that the Wolves might actually face resistance from Sheepdogs seems to be pretty rage-inducing. The idea that those Sheepdogs won't suffer just as much as the Wolves is simply unthinkable.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

"Let's not bicker... and argue... about who killed who."

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Bringslite wrote:

Are some people now really arguing that it should not be okay to attack players designated as "In a state of Hostility with you"?

Really?

There's actually a long history of that on these forums. Some folks just can't wrap their heads around the fact that there are more than just Sheep and Wolves. If you're not a Wolf, you're supposed to act like a Sheep goshdarnit!

The idea that the Wolves might actually face resistance from Sheepdogs seems to be pretty rage-inducing. The idea that those Sheepdogs won't suffer just as much as the Wolves is simply unthinkable.

LOL, your posts are so amusing. We are pointing out the fact that you are hypocrits.

You want the people that dont share your point of view to get all the consequences... and you get to do the same exact things but do it Scott free.

The best part is you think you are inducing rage in us. We are just laughing the whole time.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Proxima Sin wrote:
It's just ironic to me that you hate players you potentially have never interacted with because you assume they were out mindlessly killing, and so you want to kill any of them you can without a quarter-second of thought.
I certainly don't "hate" them. I expect a lot of them are actually good people. I just want the systems to function, and I believe that part of that is making that bit about them being "other people's content" actually mean something.

I'm with you about making jerks some good content. Remember my TEARS story from a few days ago?

It's the thoughtlessness of absolutism I see as problematic. An automatic blood doctrine echoing the behavior that you despised from the low rep person.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
Xeen wrote:

Now that Ive posted, let me rephrase it...

No

At least in my case, if you exile me and make me consequence free to kill... then you should be consequence free to kill as well.

Feel free to retaliate by exiling (expelling, whatever) the offenders from your territory. Or declare a war/feud. You have so many options.

Nice, so now you want to use Bludd's point. Just Feud the offenders in the first place.

Thank you for that amazing post. Seriously!!

You really don't understand, do you? Is it really so incomprehensible that people should be able to defend themselves? Next you'll be arguing that people should get rep hits for defending themselves against an aggressor. Feuds do not tell people to stay off your land. Wars do not say that. THE WHOLE POINT is to tell people to stay out, we don't want you here. If you come here, we can use whatever force is necessary. It is about defending your territory.

If you don't like that we can kill you for trespassing, you have those options. In the real world, if you trespass on someone's land and murder them, you're going to jail. You can argue all you like that it was because they were impeding on your freedom, but the jury will not rule in your favour. You might be able to claim insanity, but that's your best defence.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Proxima Sin wrote:
It's the thoughtlessness of absolutism I see as problematic. An automatic blood doctrine echoing the behavior that you despised from the low rep person.

It is absolutely, 100% certifiably not an echo of their behavior.

They have consistently engaged in PvP with folks who were not even flagged Hostile.

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:

Now that Ive posted, let me rephrase it...

No

At least in my case, if you exile me and make me consequence free to kill... then you should be consequence free to kill as well.

Why do you assume that you have some inherent right to enter territory that you don't own? and that the owners of the territory should have no right to expel you from that territory...or should be considered criminals, chaotic and evil for enforcing millitary control over thier own territory?

The very definition of Ownership implies the right to exclude others from access or use of the Property Owned. By seeking entry when you have been prohibited, you are engaging in a criminal act.

Edit: Since the game has no mechaism for ARRESTING or DETAINING individuals....that leaves attacking.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Proxima Sin wrote:
It's the thoughtlessness of absolutism I see as problematic. An automatic blood doctrine echoing the behavior that you despised from the low rep person.

It is absolutely, 100% certifiably not an echo of their behavior.

They have consistently engaged in PvP with folks who were not even flagged Hostile.

They would also have to be currently flagged hostile.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:
Xeen wrote:

Now that Ive posted, let me rephrase it...

No

At least in my case, if you exile me and make me consequence free to kill... then you should be consequence free to kill as well.

Why do you assume that you have some inherent right to enter territory that you don't own? and that the owners of the territory should have no right to expel you from that territory...or should be considered criminals, chaotic and evil for enforcing millitary control over thier own territory?

The very definition of Ownership implies the right to exclude others from access or use of the Property Owned. By seeking entry when you have been prohibited, you are engaging in a criminal act.

They pay lip service to the river freedoms, but as soon as someone tries to hold what they have, they get upset. Defending your territory is wrong, didn't you know?

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Proxima Sin wrote:
It's the thoughtlessness of absolutism I see as problematic. An automatic blood doctrine echoing the behavior that you despised from the low rep person.

It is absolutely, 100% certifiably not an echo of their behavior.

They have consistently engaged in PvP with folks who were not even flagged Hostile.

You're automatically killing everyone you think you can get away with which sounds a lot like your fear of low rep characters automatically killing anyone they think they can get away with.

The difference between my and your definition of making low reps content is that I will wait until I personally see or receive reliable, believable testimony that the low rep guys in question are in the current timeframe being an environment spoiling nuisance.

Other than that it's the context of the hostility flag that influences my decision to engage or not and Rep score of the individuals in question is absent from that calculation.

451 to 500 of 1,127 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / A Few Simple Ways to Make NRDS Viable All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.