Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is not "working as intended", it is "failing as expected".
That is presuming another person's intent. You are asserting that it fails because you presume that is not what is the desired outcome. You do not have your finger on the intentions of anyone but yourself, if that.
I suspect it is not failure at all, and that Nihimon's concept is more accurate: it matters little that Steelwing's outfit will play LG for reasons other than RP. What matters is that their play will conform to the mechanics, the rules, of the game. Their primary characters will behave as Lawful Good whether they have disposable alts or permanently gimped CE alts doing their dirty work or not.
You mistake Steelwing's tone for his substance and presume the intent of the design differently from the case. It is not a failure on the part of the designers. It is a failure of at least one prospective player to accurately ascertain the design.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi, sorry if I ramble on too long, but I am sort of exchanging ideas with a lot of different people so I get mixed up sometimes.
To reiterate some of the things I have said and condense some of my arguments....all of my proposed ideas or criticisms of some current views of the alignment system are solely based on the theory of alignments for characters and/or settlements having inherent bonuses.
If alignments are really just a small game mechanic meant to flush a character out during creation and an indicator of what abilities he may or may not use. All of my arguments are pointless as in regard to what alignments may or may not do. And I am fine with that. Letting the community decide on a players goodness or evil or honor based solely on player interaction is a viable system and with a reputation system meant to enhance meaningful PVP while limiting the amount of noob slaughtering powerful characters can inflict...I am truly excited by that prospect.
But on the other hand...if we are rewarding players and especially communities with certain alignments a bonus or a perk beyond that of the other alignments...then we will have problems like...the monsters in the basement scenario...where good guys use bad guy alts to defend their good guys lands. Lands that are better than any land a neutral or evil person could ever own. It becomes unfair in a way that it will lead to a reversal of the EVE meta gaming....(instead of having high rep alts to haul cargo for your low rep Main...you will have Evil alts fighting battles for your good Main)....all of which could be avoided.
I freely admit I know nothing about game creation, programing or coding, but being both an MMO gamer and a former table top guy...I don't think that an alignment system that would make sense is an impossible feat just because the gaming world has treated players like idiots with predetermined human=good, orc=bad options.
Some one said earlier that in a land of game domination, LG wouldn't be able to spread it's domain or defend it. That implementing a version of restricted SAD in LG lands for minor criminal behavior wasn't a good idea. Why? Obviously we are online. Their are no courts or prisons. But as in EVE, I suspect that giving a person a criminal timer when engaged in unlawful behavior isn't hard to do. It's a infallible jury our good characters have at their disposal....and then they get to be the judge and or the executioner. They give the criminal the choice....return the goods you took and a fine (predetermined from options given to the settlement based on alignment, not "strip naked or I will kill you"). That has a lawful aspect to it. It makes sense.
Now you are wondering...well wouldn't that make thievery in a LG community more likely since characters know they will only be killed if they resist law enforcement. YES. If LG communities are getting bonuses... then yes it should be a little harder.
And as far as spreading domain and conquering territory....what if a settlement/faction of LG alignment wanted to attack their neighbors. Once again, we are faced with online gaming and alignments not translating from table top. But that doesn't mean it can't be done in a fashion. What if factions had to give a certain amount of advanced warning before attacking based on alignment?
What if LG characters had to give another settlement it was intent on conquering 36 hours of warning (time we could tell ourselves was for the innocent civilians to evacuate) before invading? They are getting the bonuses, why not make things a little more difficult (emphasis on little). What if evil settlements could attack at will, a compensation to the fact that their citizens aren't as happy and productive as LG communities. What if neutral communities received bonus wealth from the lax laws on vice inherent in those communities.
Listen, like I said...if it's the programmers intent not over-complicate things with alignments, I can't say it enough...I am good with that. But if we are going to have alignments give bonuses, then I think there is a way and probably a lot of good ideas out there that would not only not detract from a game of conquest, but bring a further element of immersion and game play which I don't see as a bad thing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So you're okay with the Good guys killing criminals, as long as they give the criminals a chance at making it out alive via fines. Does that sum that particular opinion up for you?
Stand - and - Deliver...... The gift that keeps on giving.
Paladin / Sherriff: Ho there! You have been accused of theft!
Suspect: I have stolen nothing, Sir Zeolot
Paladin: (the merchant told me he had 16 ermine pelts stolen). "Then you won't mind showing me the contents of your bag".
Suspect: Under what authority, Good Sir, do you stop me?
Paladin: "I am Sherriff of these lands, and you will comply".
Paladin searches and sees 16 pelts, 10 pearls and 10 silver.
" You shall hand over the 16 pelts and you are fined 8 silver, You will comply!"
Paladin returns the pelts to the merchant, donates 4 silver to the shrine of his Deity, gives 2 silver to his Lord / settlement and keeps 2 silver for his troubles.
You will notice, I did not bother with whether or not the Paladin killed the thief or the thief accepted the SAD. That is immaterial to the Paladin filling this role. It is what the Paladin does with the spoils.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So you're okay with the Good guys killing criminals, as long as they give the criminals a chance at making it out alive via fines. Does that sum that particular opinion up for you?
Just an idea...and it is all based on alignments having inherent values. Like I said...if we are abandoning the idea of alignment as a tool to gauge behavior...then concepts of game enforced idealism is dumb is pointless.
But at that point we get into a debate of whether or not rep or SAD mechanics should be relevant or if NSBI is a fair system....I am not trying to mix the two schools of thought, just trying to give ideas for alignment based play.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So you're okay with the Good guys killing criminals, as long as they give the criminals a chance at making it out alive via fines. Does that sum that particular opinion up for you?Stand - and - Deliver...... The gift that keeps on giving.
Paladin / Sherriff: Ho there! You have been accused of theft!
Suspect: I have stolen nothing, Sir Zeolot
Paladin: (the merchant told me he had 16 ermine pelts stolen). "Then you won't mind showing me the contents of your bag".
Suspect: Under what authority, Good Sir, do you stop me?
Paladin: "I am Sherriff of these lands, and you will comply".
Paladin searches and sees 16 pelts, 10 pearls and 10 silver.
" You shall hand over the 16 pelts and you are fined 8 silver, You will comply!"
Paladin returns the pelts to the merchant, donates 4 silver to the shrine of his Deity, gives 2 silver to his Lord / settlement and keeps 2 silver for his troubles.
You will notice, I did not bother with whether or not the Paladin killed the thief or the thief accepted the SAD. That is immaterial to the Paladin filling this role. It is what the Paladin does with the spoils.
And I like this version of game play...as long as alignments as a game mechanic don't have value. This is actually, in all reality, and enhancer to anyone who wants to role-play because if the Paladin is acting honorably and is right...that the thief did steal those pelts...justice has been done.
If not, and the Paladin is just a corrupt Sheriff, it won't be long before the community knows it and either avoids those lands or does something about it.
EDIT: I keep saying "as long as alignments don't have inherent value". I would like to add...or unequal value. If there are benefits and draw backs to each specific alignment in regards to community...but those differences equal out....I am fine with that as well. My concern is LG having unequal bonuses with no draw backs to game play.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?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.
I have the right to enter any territory I wish. You must force me out.
Lip service, lol.
You are conflating ABILITY with RIGHT. You have the ABILITY to enter any territory in the game. No one is proposing that the game restrict you from doing so. You do not have the Legal Right to enter property that someone else ones within thier own Soveriegn jurisidiction. Those are part of the very definitions of Soveriegnty and Property Rights.
The fact that you would insist that a Soveriegn Realms own Law Enforcment should be flagged as Criminals, Chaotic and of Low Reputation for thier OWN Laws in thier OWN Soveriegn Territory is beyond absurd. Yes, I must physical force you out...but there is no way in heck I must be CRIMINAL or CHAOTIC or LOW REPUITATION in order to do so in my OWN Settlements Territory, If my settlement desires it be illegal for you, XEEN, to enter.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And yet, for all these hilarious comments, no one has explained to me how this NBSI system will not be completely abused. Speaking for myself...I have no problem with low-rep characters being targeted by high rep characters (although I do not think low-rep characters should get another rep hit for simply defending himself since it will lead to no one ever being able to fix their rep.)
But a system where players/communities, at no cost to themselves, can designate whole other guilds to "kill on sight" in their lands is, as I said before...repetitious at best when dealing with low-rep characters and counter alignment base role-playing. To my understanding...a known dishonorable criminal is already flagged. Adding this NBSI or exile system isn't really for dealing with low-lifes and evil characters...it sounds like a way for Lawful Good characters who want to play counter to their alignment to abuse a rule set and allow them to act in Chaotic Evil ways.
So, let me repeat it again...it sounds to me like with an NBSI system LG settlements can declare other LG guilds that they are competitive with and engage in complete consequence free slaughter....which sounds to me like the very thing that most of the people arguing the merits of this system have been whining against since he beginning of these forums.
Unless we want the developers to waste more time developing more rule sets to deal with the brand new rule sets that were just proposed. Maybe an NBSI monitor to make sure it is being used properly. Then we can have a monitor monitor the monitor to make sure Lawful settlements are not exiling other similarly aligned guilds for no reason.
I think your understanding is a bit off. A criminal is flagged TO members of a settlement while they remain within that settlements territory after commiting a crime and for a SHORT while afterwards. So commit a crime, step outside the territory for 20 minutes. Step back inside, you are no longer flagged.
Outside of criminals within a settlements territory, heinous, war or feud. The ONLY way you get flagged as hostile toward an individual is by attacking someone that individual has STANDING TOWARD (Same Company, Same Settlement or Same Player Kingdom) and that hostile flag wears off a SHORT while after the attack ends.
So in order to be flagged as HOSTILE you had to have JUST attacked someone who was associated with me....or just commited a crime in territory I own or be an enemy in a declared state of war.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You are conflating ABILITY with RIGHT. You have the ABILITY to enter any territory in the game. No one is proposing that the game restrict you from doing so. You do not have the Legal Right to enter property that someone else ones within thier own Soveriegn jurisidiction. Those are part of the very definitions of Soveriegnty and Property Rights.
The fact that you would insist that a Soveriegn Realms own Law Enforcment should be flagged as Criminals, Chaotic and of Low Reputation for thier OWN Laws in thier OWN Soveriegn Territory is beyond absurd. Yes, I must physical force you out...but there is no way in heck I must be CRIMINAL or CHAOTIC or LOW REPUITATION in order to do so in my OWN Settlements Territory, If my settlement desires it be illegal for you, XEEN, to enter.
I am conflating nothing.
In the River freedoms, You Have What You Hold. If you cannot keep me out then I have the right to be there. If you cannot keep me out, then you no longer have the right to own the territory. Im not paying lip service to this, I am planning to play this way. If you cannot keep it then it is mine.
This is a sandbox game, you want laws in your territory, then you enforce them. No mechanic is needed for that.
And I have insisted nothing other then the above.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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?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.
I have the right to enter any territory I wish. You must force me out.
Lip service, lol.
You are conflating ABILITY with RIGHT. You have the ABILITY to enter any territory in the game. No one is proposing that the game restrict you from doing so. You do not have the Legal Right to enter property that someone else ones within thier own Soveriegn jurisidiction. Those are part of the very definitions of Soveriegnty and Property Rights.
The fact that you would insist that a Soveriegn Realms own Law Enforcment should be flagged as Criminals, Chaotic and of Low Reputation for thier OWN Laws in thier OWN Soveriegn Territory is beyond absurd. Yes, I must physical force you out...but there is no way in heck I must be CRIMINAL or CHAOTIC or LOW REPUITATION in order to do so in my OWN Settlements Territory, If my settlement desires it be illegal for you, XEEN, to enter.
I think that problem lies with that in NSBI or within a reputation system...we are looking for the game mechanics to enforce our settlements rules. Property rights are only enforced by nations who can enforce them. I think what Xeen is trying to say is if we are going to have an "eye in the sky" rule system that regulates criminal behavior or conquest...that it is evenly applied. Morally speaking...a nation could pass any law they desired and enforce it...doesn't make it right....so asking for NSBI as a consequence free rule for settlements but then applying penalties to banditry through game mechanics is uneven at best. Why should bandits or raiders suffer a reputation penalty for taking other peoples things and settlements suffer no penalties for invading other settlements and thieving on a larger scale?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And yet, for all these hilarious comments, no one has explained to me how this NBSI system will not be completely abused. Speaking for myself...I have no problem with low-rep characters being targeted by high rep characters (although I do not think low-rep characters should get another rep hit for simply defending himself since it will lead to no one ever being able to fix their rep.)
But a system where players/communities, at no cost to themselves, can designate whole other guilds to "kill on sight" in their lands is, as I said before...repetitious at best when dealing with low-rep characters and counter alignment base role-playing. To my understanding...a known dishonorable criminal is already flagged. Adding this NBSI or exile system isn't really for dealing with low-lifes and evil characters...it sounds like a way for Lawful Good characters who want to play counter to their alignment to abuse a rule set and allow them to act in Chaotic Evil ways.
So, let me repeat it again...it sounds to me like with an NBSI system LG settlements can declare other LG guilds that they are competitive with and engage in complete consequence free slaughter....which sounds to me like the very thing that most of the people arguing the merits of this system have been whining against since he beginning of these forums.
Unless we want the developers to waste more time developing more rule sets to deal with the brand new rule sets that were just proposed. Maybe an NBSI monitor to make sure it is being used properly. Then we can have a monitor monitor the monitor to make sure Lawful settlements are not exiling other similarly aligned guilds for no reason.
I think your understanding is a bit off. A criminal is flagged TO members of a settlement while they remain within that settlements territory after commiting a crime and for a SHORT while afterwards. So commit a crime, step outside the territory for 20 minutes. Step back inside, you are no longer flagged.
Outside of criminals...
So this isn't "attack anyone on sight in my territory that I want"? Because war decs that nullify both sides rep hits are ok with me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Nihimon The burden is on the low rep character and you expect them to faithfully execute this responsibility because... they're such upstanding citizens?
As I originally said, problematic.
I want to put my part of the bickering to rest.
Nihimon and like-minded are so lawful they trust GoblinWork's (still unwritten?) computer code to be an infallible judge of moral fiber* and trust their victims will want to know specifically why they were attacked.
I don't hold either of those faiths. I'm going to catch dipwads in the act and smash their faces when possible whether or not they're flagged hostile to me so they feel an instinctive causal connection between acting like a jerk and getting beat up and losing their stuff.
Neither of us are bad people.
*GW's CEO doesn't think it will be an infallible indicator of toxic behavior. He mentioned multiple nuances in a recent interview and posted about squads of low-rep alts having a legitimate game use for settlements.
Proxima, from what I've read, there are only a very narrow set of circumstances under which a person CAN be flagged "Hostile" to you. Such action must have happaned immediately prior to the Flagging and the person so Flagged would recieve a WARNING that they were about to be Flagged before being allowed to continue the action which would Flagg them.
Frankly GW's proposed mechanisms err's VERY MUCH on the cautious side of NOT Flagging people HOSTILE outside of a very narrow scope of actions. Nihimon, IMO, is actualy being rather generous in affording High Rep "Hostile" flagged characters the opportunity to try to explain why they were so Flagged...and I support that.
Low Rep and Hostile Flag to you is almost an assurance of a character upto no good, IF GW's mechanics are working even partialy as intended. If not and they are completely off the wall (a possibility I'm sure), then I'm sure folks like Nihimon will make allowances for that until such time (if any) as GW can get them working reasonably as intended.
No one here wants to go around attacking people without just provocation. If "Hostile" isn't a very, very strong indication that the person is actualy "Hostile" toward you, then the game has very fundamental, game breaking, mechanical issues...because GW's entire game design premise kinda rests on that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So this isn't "attack anyone on sight in my territory that I want"? Because war decs that nullify both sides rep hits are ok with me.
His understanding is a bit off as well. When he says ONLY, it is not the ONLY ways.
But yeah, outside of someone being hostile for a multitude of reasons. Then you will take an alignment and rep hit for killing someone.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You are conflating ABILITY with RIGHT. You have the ABILITY to enter any territory in the game. No one is proposing that the game restrict you from doing so. You do not have the Legal Right to enter property that someone else ones within thier own Soveriegn jurisidiction. Those are part of the very definitions of Soveriegnty and Property Rights.
The fact that you would insist that a Soveriegn Realms own Law Enforcment should be flagged as Criminals, Chaotic and of Low Reputation for thier OWN Laws in thier OWN Soveriegn Territory is beyond absurd. Yes, I must physical force you out...but there is no way in heck I must be CRIMINAL or CHAOTIC or LOW REPUITATION in order to do so in my OWN Settlements Territory, If my settlement desires it be illegal for you, XEEN, to enter.
I am conflating nothing.
In the River freedoms, You Have What You Hold. If you cannot keep me out then I have the right to be there. If you cannot keep me out, then you no longer have the right to own the territory. Im not paying lip service to this, I am planning to play this way. If you cannot keep it then it is mine.
This is a sandbox game, you want laws in your territory, then you enforce them. No mechanic is needed for that.
And I have insisted nothing other then the above.
Nothing proposed here removes or lessens my need to physicaly enforce the laws my settlement sets in it's own territory. It simply does not place an absurd mechanical penalty on me for doing so.
To wit, If I'm try to enforce my settlements Laws, I am acting LAWFULLY not CHAOTICALY. I am acting as a LAW ENFORCER not a CRIMINAL....and by enforcing my settlements OWN Laws, I am upholding my reputation...not SULLYING IT.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You are conflating ABILITY with RIGHT. You have the ABILITY to enter any territory in the game. No one is proposing that the game restrict you from doing so. You do not have the Legal Right to enter property that someone else ones within thier own Soveriegn jurisidiction. Those are part of the very definitions of Soveriegnty and Property Rights.
The fact that you would insist that a Soveriegn Realms own Law Enforcment should be flagged as Criminals, Chaotic and of Low Reputation for thier OWN Laws in thier OWN Soveriegn Territory is beyond absurd. Yes, I must physical force you out...but there is no way in heck I must be CRIMINAL or CHAOTIC or LOW REPUITATION in order to do so in my OWN Settlements Territory, If my settlement desires it be illegal for you, XEEN, to enter.
I am conflating nothing.
In the River freedoms, You Have What You Hold. If you cannot keep me out then I have the right to be there. If you cannot keep me out, then you no longer have the right to own the territory. Im not paying lip service to this, I am planning to play this way. If you cannot keep it then it is mine.
This is a sandbox game, you want laws in your territory, then you enforce them. No mechanic is needed for that.
And I have insisted nothing other then the above.
Nothing proposed here removes or lessens my need to physicaly enforce the laws my settlement sets in it's own territory. It simply does not place an absurd mechanical penalty on me for doing so.
To wit, If I'm try to enforce my settlements Laws, I am acting LAWFULLY not CHAOTICALY. I am acting as a LAW ENFORCER not a CRIMINAL....and by enforcing my settlements OWN Laws, I am upholding my reputation...not SULLYING IT.
So what should the reputation penalty be for invading another settlement and taking their lands? You are obviously breaking their laws.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nothing proposed here removes or lessens my need to physicaly enforce the laws my settlement sets in it's own territory. It simply does not place an absurd mechanical penalty on me for doing so.
To wit, If I'm try to enforce my settlements Laws, I am acting LAWFULLY not CHAOTICALY. I am acting as a LAW ENFORCER not a CRIMINAL....and by enforcing my settlements OWN Laws, I am upholding my reputation...not SULLYING IT.
Its not an absurd mechanical penalty.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You are conflating ABILITY with RIGHT. You have the ABILITY to enter any territory in the game. No one is proposing that the game restrict you from doing so. You do not have the Legal Right to enter property that someone else ones within thier own Soveriegn jurisidiction. Those are part of the very definitions of Soveriegnty and Property Rights.
The fact that you would insist that a Soveriegn Realms own Law Enforcment should be flagged as Criminals, Chaotic and of Low Reputation for thier OWN Laws in thier OWN Soveriegn Territory is beyond absurd. Yes, I must physical force you out...but there is no way in heck I must be CRIMINAL or CHAOTIC or LOW REPUITATION in order to do so in my OWN Settlements Territory, If my settlement desires it be illegal for you, XEEN, to enter.
I am conflating nothing.
In the River freedoms, You Have What You Hold. If you cannot keep me out then I have the right to be there. If you cannot keep me out, then you no longer have the right to own the territory. Im not paying lip service to this, I am planning to play this way. If you cannot keep it then it is mine.
This is a sandbox game, you want laws in your territory, then you enforce them. No mechanic is needed for that.
And I have insisted nothing other then the above.
Nothing proposed here removes or lessens my need to physicaly enforce the laws my settlement sets in it's own territory. It simply does not place an absurd mechanical penalty on me for doing so.
To wit, If I'm try to enforce my settlements Laws, I am acting LAWFULLY not CHAOTICALY. I am acting as a LAW ENFORCER not a CRIMINAL....and by enforcing my settlements OWN Laws, I am upholding my reputation...not SULLYING IT.
So what should the reputation penalty be for invading another settlement and taking their lands? You are obviously breaking their laws.
Right now it is nothing for either side if a War is declared. It is a simple system overall [though I doubt that the coders would agree! :)] and can be made more elaborate and sensible as the game goes on.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Right now it is nothing for either side if a War is declared. It is...You are conflating ABILITY with RIGHT. You have the ABILITY to enter any territory in the game. No one is proposing that the game restrict you from doing so. You do not have the Legal Right to enter property that someone else ones within thier own Soveriegn jurisidiction. Those are part of the very definitions of Soveriegnty and Property Rights.
The fact that you would insist that a Soveriegn Realms own Law Enforcment should be flagged as Criminals, Chaotic and of Low Reputation for thier OWN Laws in thier OWN Soveriegn Territory is beyond absurd. Yes, I must physical force you out...but there is no way in heck I must be CRIMINAL or CHAOTIC or LOW REPUITATION in order to do so in my OWN Settlements Territory, If my settlement desires it be illegal for you, XEEN, to enter.
I am conflating nothing.
In the River freedoms, You Have What You Hold. If you cannot keep me out then I have the right to be there. If you cannot keep me out, then you no longer have the right to own the territory. Im not paying lip service to this, I am planning to play this way. If you cannot keep it then it is mine.
This is a sandbox game, you want laws in your territory, then you enforce them. No mechanic is needed for that.
And I have insisted nothing other then the above.
Nothing proposed here removes or lessens my need to physicaly enforce the laws my settlement sets in it's own territory. It simply does not place an absurd mechanical penalty on me for doing so.
To wit, If I'm try to enforce my settlements Laws, I am acting LAWFULLY not CHAOTICALY. I am acting as a LAW ENFORCER not a CRIMINAL....and by enforcing my settlements OWN Laws, I am upholding my reputation...not SULLYING IT.
So what should the reputation penalty be for invading another settlement and taking their lands? You are obviously breaking their laws.
See...I'm fine with warfare. This whole NBSI thing bugs me. If a person comes into your land and commits a crime...they are already flagged and can be killed. Why the extra step. Just sounds like suspected banditry is trying to be nerfed as a viable play style simply because our plans of conquest are not on a grand enough scale. If you don't like a group...just declare war on them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See...I'm fine with warfare. This whole NBSI thing bugs me. If a person comes into your land and commits a crime...they are already flagged and can be killed. Why the extra step. Just sounds like suspected banditry is trying to be nerfed as a viable play style simply because our plans of conquest are not on a grand enough scale. If you don't like a group...just declare war on them.
It boils down to a question: Should there be a way for a Sovereign Entity to dictate who can come and go in their territory or not? A way that is less costly than feuds and wars. We don't even know how costly those will be yet, but it has been suggested that they will not be cheap. I am not certain that ANYONE will be able to feud/war dec off every bandit company or mischief maker. There may just not be that much DI and/or Influence reasonably available.
So for now, there are these "unaffiliated Alts" as a solution to the gap. Settlements will not have to declare on every company to keep their territory safer. Main "high rep" characters will not have to be ruined trying to do the dirty work.
Why should "trespass" be ok and a permanent marker? Well, if I know a character or company by name (because they come often and do mean things in my territory), then I can pretty much assume that they will be doing the same thing when they come back. Why should I have to take a reputation and alignment hit every time they come back? Why should I have to spend DI or Influence on EVERY such person or group constantly? I will soon be out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, if I know a character or company by name (because they come often and do mean things in my territory), then I can pretty much assume that they will be doing the same thing when they come back. Why should I have to take a reputation and alignment hit every time they come back?
The question kind of answers itself, doesn't it?
The folks who intend to "come often and do mean things" in your territory need you to take those Alignment & Reputation hits to minimize the effects of the Alignment & Reputation system on them.
If the Good Guys suck just as bad as the Bad Guys, then the Bad Guys can go on being Bad Guys without ever having to reconsider their choices.
The existence of a hypothetical case in which the Bad Guy isn't really Bad means that the Good Guys should almost never be able to treat the Bad Guys like Bad Guys. Note that the existence of the hypothetical in which the Bad Guys actually are Bad Guys is of no merit, and should not be considered.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There is the simple solution of letting the Bad Guys have first move and flag themselves. That doesn't do much for you though as they assemble a large force of "unflagged" on your doorstep. Nor if they do it in little bits (some just innocent distractions, standing there) and you have to try and monitor them all at once.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, if I know a character or company by name (because they come often and do mean things in my territory), then I can pretty much assume that they will be doing the same thing when they come back. Why should I have to take a reputation and alignment hit every time they come back?The question kind of answers itself, doesn't it?
The folks who intend to "come often and do mean things" in your territory need you to take those Alignment & Reputation hits to minimize the effects of the Alignment & Reputation system on them.
If the Good Guys suck just as bad as the Bad Guys, then the Bad Guys can go on being Bad Guys without ever having to reconsider their choices.
The existence of a hypothetical case in which the Bad Guy isn't really Bad means that the Good Guys should almost never be able to treat the Bad Guys like Bad Guys. Note that the existence of the hypothetical in which the Bad Guys actually are Bad Guys is of no merit, and should not be considered.
The answer to the question is: Feud the company! Tork Shaw gave you the answer.
I guarantee you Bringslite, Pax will use the Feud System against companies harrying their lands. Pax will declare a war against a settlement that is openly aggressive towards it.
Why is it that no one from Pax is asking for mechanics to protect their settlements? They are not asking to have consequence free PVP within their own lands, against anyone on their whim.
Pax has the only viable settlements at this time. Not because they are already in the game, you don't need a game to know this. Pax's settlements are viable because they have an understanding that if they can't protect their own, they don't deserve to have their own. They are confident that they can protect their own.
Others, I don't need to mention them, don't have the confidence that they can defend their own. They refuse to consider using the same tools that we all have at our disposal. They know that if they feud a company of bandits, they can not defend themselves 100% of the time and not even in their own backyard. So they want to illicit the help of the game mechanics and to press into service any and all in their lands, to protect their lands.
Forget the fact that Criminals are flagged already. Forget the fact that Hostile state can be met with consequence free attacks from those that attacked their outposts or POIs. Forget the fact that there still are NPC wardens that do respond in PC settlement hexes.
They want High Sec security with the benefits of Low Sec sovereignty and access to wealth.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Bluddwolf
Personally, I am content to see what GW's current plans evolve into. I do not like all of them. I do not agree on all of their definitions of "meaningful PVP", but I will try them and see how it plays out.
I was simply trying to answer Valtorious question on why some people feel they way that they do. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The answer to the question is: Feud the company! Tork Shaw gave you the answer.Well, if I know a character or company by name (because they come often and do mean things in my territory), then I can pretty much assume that they will be doing the same thing when they come back. Why should I have to take a reputation and alignment hit every time they come back?
Yeah, if a Character or Company is a problem for you, then the obvious answer is to Feud the Company! Pay no attention to the damage that can be caused by unaffiliated characters...
Unaffiliated Alts are used to shield your primary characters, company, settlement from the consequences of unsanctioned actions.
Bluddwolf should clearly be free to use unaffiliated alts to shield his mains from the consequences of PvP, but you should definitely not be asking for any game mechanics that might allow you to reasonably react to that. Silly boy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The answer to the question is: Feud the company! Tork Shaw gave you the answer.Well, if I know a character or company by name (because they come often and do mean things in my territory), then I can pretty much assume that they will be doing the same thing when they come back. Why should I have to take a reputation and alignment hit every time they come back?Yeah, if a Character or Company is a problem for you, then the obvious answer is to Feud the Company! Pay no attention to the damage that can be caused by unaffiliated characters...
Unaffiliated Alts are used to shield your primary characters, company, settlement from the consequences of unsanctioned actions.Bluddwolf should clearly be free to use unaffiliated alts to shield his mains from the consequences of PvP, but you should definitely not be asking for any game mechanics that might allow you to reasonably react to that. Silly boy.
Unfortunately, that appears as if it will be the case for awhile. I am pretty confident that if it screws things too far in the wrong direction that it will be fixed. I don't have to like it, and I will keep saying that I don't, until I can be convinced that I do like it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately, that appears as if it will be the case for awhile.
I really hope the devs latch onto Urman's idea from another thread.
Maybe the game should take a lesson from the good people of the New Guinea: people (alts or mains) that have no company can be presumed to have no friends, and can be moved into the category of enemy or prey if they move outside NPC controlled areas. (editted: I'm halfway serious. I think alts in general are a blight; a way to bypass meaningful interaction and avoid consequences.)
@Urman that's not a halfway bad idea. Remaining in an NPC Settlement is an indication that you don't want to be bound by the social norms of the rest of the game world. Maybe they shouldn't be bound to you either.
Unfortunately, that appears as if it will be the case for awhile.I really hope the devs latch onto Urman's idea from another thread.
Maybe the game should take a lesson from the good people of the New Guinea: people (alts or mains) that have no company can be presumed to have no friends, and can be moved into the category of enemy or prey if they move outside NPC controlled areas. (editted: I'm halfway serious. I think alts in general are a blight; a way to bypass meaningful interaction and avoid consequences.)@Urman that's not a halfway bad idea. Remaining in an NPC Settlement is an indication that you don't want to be bound by the social norms of the rest of the game world. Maybe they shouldn't be bound to you either.
So you would like all new players to be flagged as enemies and prey? Ok fine by me if that is what you want but don't go complaining when people kill every newbie that dares stick their head out of the npc zone
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So you would like all new players to be flagged as enemies and prey? Ok fine by me if that is what you want but don't go complaining when people kill every newbie that dares stick their head out of the npc zoneUnfortunately, that appears as if it will be the case for awhile.I really hope the devs latch onto Urman's idea from another thread.
Maybe the game should take a lesson from the good people of the New Guinea: people (alts or mains) that have no company can be presumed to have no friends, and can be moved into the category of enemy or prey if they move outside NPC controlled areas. (editted: I'm halfway serious. I think alts in general are a blight; a way to bypass meaningful interaction and avoid consequences.)@Urman that's not a halfway bad idea. Remaining in an NPC Settlement is an indication that you don't want to be bound by the social norms of the rest of the game world. Maybe they shouldn't be bound to you either.
Yes more and more complicated mechanics and more and more possible loopholes. I wonder if there is much difference in character "power" required to raid an unguarded outpost?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Which is why I was (only) halfway serious.
But really, should new characters be venturing outside of the NPC zones without any connection to social groups? My view is that if PFO is going to be a game about company and group warfare (and other things - but company and settlement things), new players should be strongly encouraged (almost required!) to either join a company (even an NPC settlement sponsored one) or join a PC settlement before stepping outside of the protected areas.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have to say that I do not see how this helps a NRDS perspective. It gets around the problem of alts by making life all that much harder for the true novice or the unaffiliated - the very people we wish to welcome and bring into our settlements.
If the only colors you wind up having are red and blue, then there is no meaningful difference between NBSI and NRDS.
So you would like all new players to be flagged as enemies and prey?I had a feeling that idea might scare some folks...
Not you, obviously. You're much too tough and capable and well-connected to an elite group to be scared...
The only players of ours it would affect is the gatherers and we have a back up plan in the event that such a move comes about we will just get them to join one of the NRDS settlements.
I was merely pointing out the ramifications of the suggestion as people have been keen to promote the protection of new players
Which is why I was (only) halfway serious.
But really, should new characters be venturing outside of the NPC zones without any connection to social groups? My view is that if PFO is going to be a game about company and group warfare (and other things - but company and settlement things), new players should be strongly encouraged (almost required!) to either join a company (even an NPC settlement sponsored one) or join a PC settlement before stepping outside of the protected areas.
Under your suggestion membership of an npc sponsored company would still leave you flagged as an enemy as the important part of the flagging is being based in the npc settlements
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The only players of ours it would affect is the gatherers...
Oh, my bad, I thought you had a plan to use unaffiliated alts to sad and unaffiliated monsters in the basement to kill. Silly me.
To put things bluntly. How are you going to stop us. Put alignment restrictions and we will just use unaffiliated alts to sad and unaffiliated monsters in the basement to kill.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah, if a Character or Company is a problem for you, then the obvious answer is to Feud the Company! Pay no attention to the damage that can be caused by unaffiliated characters...
Unaffiliated Alts are used to shield your primary characters, company, settlement from the consequences of unsanctioned actions.Bluddwolf should clearly be free to use unaffiliated alts to shield his mains from the consequences of PvP, but you should definitely not be asking for any game mechanics that might allow you to reasonably react to that. Silly boy.
1. You react to unaffiliated alts who commit crimes or raid in your settlement with your defensive forces (NPCs, PCs).
2. You react to unaffiliated alts that are not criminal flagged, or Hostile, with SADs at 100% to guarantee their rejection, giving you a free kill and maximize loot.
3. You react to unaffiliated alts with your own unaffiliated alts.
Silly Boy, these are open to everyone and they are using the current mechanics and systems GW has already proposed.
Why is it that you feel I have an advantage over you? You have all of the advantages of a settlement; you have NPC guards; you have all of the tools that I have (including the all POWERFUL and AWE INSPIRING SAD) and you still need more?
LOL....
This reminds me of when Fantastic Sandwiches (EVe Corp, forget the exact name) who had 3 active members, had frozen an entire alliance (KTS - Khanid Trade Syndicate) of over 150 members, into inaction and fear of undocking for nearly a week.
Once the alliance lost the protection of CONCORD because of the War Dec,they were crippled with fear. At first their fear was for loss of industrial ships. Then their fear was that if they engaged them in combat, and FS still won the battles, it would encourage them to extend the war dec for longer.
Relying on mechanics makes for a weak organization, regardless of its size.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Under your suggestion membership of an npc sponsored company would still leave you flagged as an enemy as the important part of the flagging is being based in the npc settlements
It wasn't intended that way - I apologize for any miscommunication. When I wrote "people (alts or mains) that have no company can be presumed to have no friends..." I fully intended it to include both NPC sponsored companies and PC sponsored companies, since both can be feuded. After Ryan's comment I realized that it should have also included unaffiliated citizens of PC-run settlements (I don't think that there will be many of those, but just to ensure they're protected by their association).
The only players of ours it would affect is the gatherers...Oh, my bad, I thought you had a plan to use unaffiliated alts to sad and unaffiliated monsters in the basement to kill. Silly me.
Yes we are those characters however will be in our territory and be there for the purpose of killing trespassers. If you see them it doesn't matter if they are hostile to you because they will be hitting you in short order in any case unless you are blue to us. What part of that do you believe is affected by this suggestion?
The only unaffiliated characters it would affect as I have said are gatherers and as I have mentioned we have a back up plan
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You react to unaffiliated alts that are not criminal flagged, or Hostile, with SADs at 100% to guarantee their rejection, giving you a free kill and maximize loot.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and predict that this isn't how SADs will work in-game. Although, it certainly explains why you're so gung-ho about SADs - you seem to think they're going to let you kill whomever you want without having consequences.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... those characters however will be in our territory and be there for the purpose of killing trespassers.
So, the preferred method of harassing you will be to send in a few trespassers to distract your players and force them to focus on their alts, which they'll have to do in larger numbers since they won't have advanced training... I wonder if there will be Mercenary Companies that specialize in filling that role.
... those characters however will be in our territory and be there for the purpose of killing trespassers.So, the preferred method of harassing you will be to send in a few trespassers to distract your players and force them to focus on their alts, which they'll have to do in larger numbers since they won't have advanced training... I wonder if there will be Mercenary Companies that specialize in filling that role.
Feel free to try we will have plenty of players up for a fight and happy to engage
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You react to unaffiliated alts that are not criminal flagged, or Hostile, with SADs at 100% to guarantee their rejection, giving you a free kill and maximize loot.I'm gonna go out on a limb here and predict that this isn't how SADs will work in-game. Although, it certainly explains why you're so gung-ho about SADs - you seem to think they're going to let you kill whomever you want without having consequences.
SADs have consequences or better, costs. A SAD has to be trained, slotted, and then I have to give up the element of surprise and ambush to use it. Meanwhile, while I'm negotiating the SAD, the traveler is on TS or Vent calling in a posse.
SADs not having costs or consequences is another myth that you perpetuate, again because you have no confidence in your own organization's abilities to protect its own members.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
SADs not having costs or consequences is another myth that you perpetuate....
Seriously? You thought I was trying to say that?
To be clear, it's the "killing whomever you want with no consequences" part that I think you're wrong about. You know, the part I quoted where you said "SADs at 100% to guarantee their rejection, giving you a free kill..."
... again because you have no confidence in your own organization's abilities to protect its own members.
Bluster, bluster, blah, blah, blah.
I'm Nihimon. My main character will be named Nihimon. Any alts I have will be listed here under my Aliases. I'm a Steward of The Seventh Veil. If I'm not in a Company with that same name, I'll be in a Company that's publicly listed on our website. If possible, I'll be living in a Settlement named Phaeros. Regardless, you'll be able to find me if you want to play in-game.
You're the one who's going to be hiding, buddy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Proxima, from what I've read, there are only a very narrow set of circumstances under which a person CAN be flagged "Hostile" to you...
You said very smart things about the hostility flag. Except my post you were responding to was solely about how assaults on low rep characters without context (that fact he presents the doctrine as gleefully absolutist and eschews context is pretty key here) are problematic to his stated desired outcome of segregating toxic players to be content.
Low Rep and Hostile Flag to you is almost an assurance of a character up to no good...
If the hostile is from war/faction/feud then "up to no good" in Nihimon's connotation is nowhere in the vicinity of assured; that's what I mean by having too much faith in computer code. There may be other universally legitimate reasons to attack that character but those are totally unrelated to a feedback loop for jerks.
If the hostile is from criminal action, yeah they were probably dirty dealing within the last few minutes. This is the moment when getting killed and losing their stuff IS a wholehearted feedback loop that I was talking about as my personal policy (notice the .24 seconds I spent examining context).
One of multiple reasons I keep hoping we will be able to know the specific reason/s behind a hostility flag at the same moment that we're informed that it exists on another character.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the hostile is from war/faction/feud then "up to no good" in Nihimon's connotation is not at all assured; that's what I mean by having too much faith in computer code.
If the Hostile flag is due to "war/faction/feud", then it's telling you "hey, the people you've chosen to follow want you to kill this guy, regardless of his Reputation!"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Proxima Sin
I am sorry, but you are still not making sense to me. Some people will go straight towards "hostile" characters, some will evaluate the situation. Obviously, because you can still party and play alongside someone that is flagged "hostile".
There is a hierarchy to Hostility, so if you are in the same group with someone from a company you are feuding with, that party member is treated as an ally as long as you are in the group together.
It is not discrimination to prefer to target "low rep" players in the same way that it is not discrimination to target cargo haulers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Again, Nihimon's suggested doctrine is that we attack all low reps all the time as part of a feedback loop from being toxic in the game and making themselves other people's content. The hostility part is really a very small part of it that just green lights consequence-free assaults.
@ Nihimon Right you identified one of the other valid reasons I mentioned to attack that character that has absolutely nothing to do with low rep feedback loops.
@Bringslite If you kill all the low reps you can find all day erry day but they don't know or care why, it's not a feedback loop discouraging specific behaviors which is Nihimon's stated goal. And it has the possibility of being perceived by third parties as another type of bloodthirsty green-hatter which was the initial irony that struck me when he first wrote down his idea.