@Steelwing, I have no intention of debating you. I'm simply going to occasionally mock your attempts to convince everyone that Ryan will fail :)
Mock away it isn't my group that will suffer these people.
Goblin Squad Member
|
Instead of just blindly taking Dancey's word for it...
I prefer his word, when he tells us he'll take whatever actions are needed to implement GW's vision for the game they set out to design. If people get around the rules GW puts in, I expect new, or more, rules from GW; I also expect input, via Crowdforging, from the community, on what rules are working and which aren't.
Marketing one's ideas during Crowdforging will be important. Those simply yelling the same thing repeatedly will, I hope, not find "enough" other players joining their side of the discussion.
Diplomacy, clear-thinking, and creating things which appeal to large numbers of folks should, I pray, win the day.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But what we can't have is a game that has the devs enforce property rights for the player.
I think we may agree here more than not. I think the big area of disagreement is what constitutes a light touch. And honestly, I think the mechanics are going to see a LOT of adjustment over the first couple of years as they try to hone in on the right amount of touching. We need to keep in mind that all we are talking about is 'early implementations' because regardless of what we come up with, it will be a very rare occurrence that any of it survives contact with the real world.
Additionally, it has been pretty clear from the beginning that not all play-styles are meant to be equal. Frankly, they cannot be if you wish to have a game that appeals to many play-styles. The reason is that some play-styles impede other play-styles. Let us take the bandit as an example...
For a healthy game conflict, a small number of bandits is positive addition. It adds an element of risk for merchants and travelers. A lot of bandits is a game killer, though. It will drive away your casual audience, which is often the largest potential revenue source. In order to get the right balance of bandit population in your game you need two measures... the effectiveness of player enforcement and the effectiveness of mechanical enforcement. I do not think we disagree on this aspect either. We are just approaching from the different ideas of how effective player enforcement will be. I would rather approach with the idea that player enforcement may be weaker than anticipated and start with higher mechanical enforcement that can be adjusted down if I am incorrect. You seem to believe that player enforcement may be stronger than anticipated and would rather see mechanical enforcement be lower and adjusted up as needed. Please correct me if I am wrong on this reading.
We have a lot of time...and I see a lot of these ideas, mine as everyone else's as contingency ideas. When EE guys begin, I would like to see as a result of these debates/ideas certain things tried, and if they fail or could be better, we would have back up ideas already in place.
I had some ideas about SADS and bandits in another post, and I really don't want to go over it here again...but I think that if a reputation system is thoroughly thought out and implemented, it will limit griefing and eliminate many of these arguments. That, to me would be a light touch. And although I understand what you are saying....it might be easier to implement rules as EE and PFO goes along than to peel them away.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
#1. You may have a suspicion, but you are making an assumption.That alright I have you for company here in Assumptionville.
#2. Not always.Precisely my point. To read your statement it was an absolute.
#3. When you begin chatting with the enemy, 24 hours before the onset of a war, you are revealing information to them. This is especially true if you don't have full control over your membership. You don't want every "swinging d*ck" having a chat with the enemy.
Not talking is also providing information, limits your options, provides no opportunity to gather your own information, and turns you into an object rather than a personality or community in the eyes of your adversary. If you are silent you are complicitly affirming your status as a tongue-tied target unlikely to be able to coordinate a defense. I could go on, but the bottom line is that it is the height of stupidity to voluntarily eliminate any useful tool from your bag of tricks for fear of giving something away. Unless the community leadership is totally inept they will perceive as much as they reveal negotiating before a storm. Without negotiation then is no alternative than war. With negotiation options may increase.
#4. In most cases, and in MMOs, (two Disclaimers for you), Diplomacy is for ending conflicts, not preventing them. If you open a dialogue with an Aggressor and you are looking to give them, what you already have, you have sown the seeds of your settlement's own doom. They will either take you out in one fell swoop or slowly bleed you dry. You'd be better off giving them the finger and getting wiped out. That gets you to the business of rebuilding faster.
If in Eve the only place for diplomacy is either surrender or acceptance of surrender then Eve is horribly lacking in dimension
#5. When the real world has respawns (immortality) we can make accurate comparisons. Until then let us keep it to the common occurrences seen in other Open World PVP MMO Sanboxes.
You keep hiding behind your 'Its Only a Game' plushy, Bluddwolf. Players are real people living in the real world feeling real emotions and thinking real thoughts and making decisions using real values that determine real motivations.
Disclaimer: All of my opinions expressed are based on my experiences in EVE, over the course of 9 years and through the experiences of five characters ( Mission Runner; Miner; Pirate; Main (A bit of everything);and a High Sec Criminal (newest). Only two of which I still have, the rest deleted, in case anyone wants to try to trace them down.
Alright. But I sincerely doubt your observations hold up well even in Eve. Where people wield power there will be negotiations beyond surrender situations. Similarly your other points don't hold water in my estimation. I've been wrong before, but I've more often been right.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We are just approaching from the different ideas of how effective player enforcement will be. I would rather approach with the idea that player enforcement may be weaker than anticipated and start with higher mechanical enforcement that can be adjusted down if I am incorrect. You seem to believe that player enforcement may be stronger than anticipated and would rather see mechanical enforcement be lower and adjusted up as needed....it might be easier to implement rules as EE and PFO goes along than to peel them away.
It might be easier to launch with fewer mechanical rulesets - I think you're right about that.
It might not be as well received, if new mechanical rulesets have to be added later - players can get irritated when the rules change. There may also be a significant risk of introducing a problem if the mechanics of a ruleset have to be added quickly, later, because mechanical enforcement is urgently needed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We are just approaching from the different ideas of how effective player enforcement will be. I would rather approach with the idea that player enforcement may be weaker than anticipated and start with higher mechanical enforcement that can be adjusted down if I am incorrect. You seem to believe that player enforcement may be stronger than anticipated and would rather see mechanical enforcement be lower and adjusted up as needed....it might be easier to implement rules as EE and PFO goes along than to peel them away.It might be easier to launch with fewer mechanical rulesets - I think you're right about that.
It might not be as well received, if new mechanical rulesets have to be added later - players can get irritated when the rules change. There may also be a significant risk of introducing a problem if the mechanics of a ruleset have to be added quickly, later, because mechanical enforcement is urgently needed.
Yeah, I have no idea which would be the better way to go. Either way could be frustrating to players, but I am hoping that much of it will be flushed out during EE. We all have to expect going into this that things might change many times. It could be something as trivial as if nerfing the mages ability to run while spell casting or something much bigger.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Apply the mechanic's rule of thumb: estimates should always be higher than what is likely to be charged. Similarly here: If an unnecessary regulation is removed there should be less outcry than if a new regulation is imposed. And then if it turns out it really was needed you already have all the hooks and handles needed to re-implement. It should make for a handy cudgel in the developer's bag of tricks.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, here is A sandbox is a style of game in which minimal character limitations are placed on the gamer, allowing the gamer to roam and change a virtual world at will. In contrast to a progression-style game, a sandbox game emphasizes roaming and allows a gamer to select tasks. Instead of featuring segmented areas or numbered levels, a sandbox game usually occurs in a “world” to which the gamer has full access from start to finish.
^That is the standard and with out a doubt most widely accepted definition of what a sandbox game is. So if one were to read these forums and have this knowledge, you can come to only a few conclusions.
AH! One of the biggest pet peeves I have with the definitions of these terms. I'm not saying you are wrong when you say this is a widely accepted definition, but I'm telling you the definition is wrong and we should push back against it.
What you are describing is an "Open World" game, not a "Sandbox". "Open World" is not the opposite of Theme Park, it is the opposite of a Railroad. Railroad games remove the option from the player to move within the game world in meaningfully unrestricted ways. Last of Us is a Railroad, for example. So are most single-player FPS campaigns.
"Sandbox" and "Open World" are not synonyms. Skyrim is an Open World game but it is not primarily a Sandbox. Ditto for the Grand Theft Auto franchise.
Sandboxes are games where the player has agency. They are games where the player can make meaningful persistent changes to the game environment and in the case of a multiplayer game, where those changes are visible to the other players.
Minecraft is a Sandbox, for example.
Pathfinder Online will be a Sandbox because the players will make meaningful persistent changes in the form of (most) all the gear in the game being crafted by the players, by the player's ability to build persistent structures (and destroy those structures), and by interacting with the escalation cycles. The players will have a persistent effect on the way the map is divided into territories and by determining which groups of players control which territories.
We describe Pathfinder Online as a hybrid themepark/sandbox because there are elements of the game design which the players cannot change persistently, like the terrain, the location and progression of escalations, the locations where structures can be erected and eventually dungeons and explorable areas gated in some way from the main map. Our game is 80% sandbox, 20% theme park. It would be fair to say that most MMOs are hybrids to a greater or lesser degree - World of Warcraft, for example, has crafting so there are persistent player-created objects in the game world; they just have very little effect on it and aren't the focus of most player's attention most of the time. World of Warcraft and its siblings are 5% sandbox, 95% themepark which is why we just call them "Themeparks".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Also, here is A sandbox is a style of game in which minimal character limitations are placed on the gamer, allowing the gamer to roam and change a virtual world at will. In contrast to a progression-style game, a sandbox game emphasizes roaming and allows a gamer to select tasks. Instead of featuring segmented areas or numbered levels, a sandbox game usually occurs in a “world” to which the gamer has full access from start to finish.
^That is the standard and with out a doubt most widely accepted definition of what a sandbox game is. So if one were to read these forums and have this knowledge, you can come to only a few conclusions.
AH! One of the biggest pet peeves I have with the definitions of these terms. I'm not saying you are wrong when you say this is a widely accepted definition, but I'm telling you the definition is wrong and we should push back against it.
What you are describing is an "Open World" game, not a "Sandbox". "Open World" is not the opposite of Theme Park, it is the opposite of a Railroad. Railroad games remove the option from the player to move within the game world in meaningfully unrestricted ways. Last of Us is a Railroad, for example. So are most single-player FPS campaigns.
"Sandbox" and "Open World" are not synonyms. Skyrim is an Open World game but it is not primarily a Sandbox. Ditto for the Grand Theft Auto franchise.
Sandboxes are games where the player has agency. They are games where the player can make meaningful persistent changes to the game environment and in the case of a multiplayer game, where those changes are visible to the other players.
Minecraft is a Sandbox, for example.
Pathfinder Online will be a Sandbox because the players will make meaningful persistent changes in the form of (most) all the gear in the game being crafted by the players, by the player's ability to build persistent structures (and destroy those structures), and by interacting with the escalation...
z
Ryan...not to be argumentative now (since everyone is starting to play nice), but you said the definition is wrong...and then sort of repeated the definition. However, everything you said about what the game is going to be....I'm all for it. I understand that the game will be player ran as far as most content goes as opposed to an open world that you just wander around in. That is what attracted me to much of this but that is also the crux of most debates on the forums.
Rules, mechanics, regulations....what ever we want to call them, as I have stated previously, if they lead to a better game for everyone, how could I be against it. But almost all of my debates have come from myself saying that all rules should be applied evenly. That is why I thought that the Reputation system and SADS were so interesting. That is pretty much the whole debate.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ryan...not to be argumentative now (since everyone is starting to play nice), but you said the definition is wrong...and then sort of repeated the definition.
I'm pushing back against two things.
In contrast to a progression-style game, a sandbox game emphasizes roaming and allows a gamer to select tasks. Instead of featuring segmented areas or numbered levels, a sandbox game usually occurs in a “world” to which the gamer has full access from start to finish.
That's an Open World, not a Sandbox.
Also, here is A sandbox is a style of game in which minimal character limitations are placed on the gamer
The degree to which restrictions are placed on the gamer doesn't reflect the Sandbox nature of the game. Those restrictions are the "box" in which the sand is kept. The degree to which the gamer is restricted from taking actions reflects the rules of the game world, not the agency of the player.
This is what I call "everything not forbidden is permitted" thinking and it's one of the reasons that Sandbox MMOs become toxic. The idea that there are "no rules" leads the 5% of the population who are the seeds of toxicity to behave in ways detrimental to the good order of the game and to the benefit of the community.
We're pushing back on those assumptions and telling people not only will there be rules but that "everything that is not forbidden is permitted' thinking is wrong in the context of our game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Very insightful. Now go find me a post where I said I want no rules.Poems with structure tend to be better poems. Music with tempo and harmony tends to be better music.
Games without rules tend to not be games at all.
I don't contend you want no rules. It appears to me you only want rules convenient to your desires.
Some rules will likely not be convenient to your desires just the same as some will not be convenient to mine.
The difference may be that I appreciate the product of haiku, and sonnets, and music, and well designed games even if it forbids my moving the rook like a bishop.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We describe Pathfinder Online as a hybrid themepark/sandbox because there are elements of the game design which the players cannot change persistently, like the terrain, the location and progression of escalations, the locations where structures can be erected and eventually dungeons and explorable areas gated in some way from the main map.
I do like this caveat. The game isn't 100% sandbox. There are some things the players have no agency to change.
I am curious - while not all open world games are sandboxes (a character can roam with free will, but without much agency or persistence), are all sandboxes open worlds?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Very insightful. Now go find me a post where I said I want no rules.Poems with structure tend to be better poems. Music with tempo and harmony tends to be better music.
Games without rules tend to not be games at all.
I don't contend you want no rules. It appears to me you only want rules convenient to your desires.
Some rules will likely not be convenient to your desires just the same as some will not be convenient to mine.
The difference may be that I appreciate the product of haiku, and sonnets, and music, and well designed games even if it forbids my moving the rook like a bishop.
This a very key point to how I feel. I do love the ability to use strategies and tactics that my opponent has not considered, but I also love that there is some structure to what is "ok" and what is not.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Back to the actual conversation, I personally don't advocate for more rules and mechanics because it will stop griefers (at least, not every mechanic). Most of the time it's because I think the proposed mechanic will get more people playing the game in ways that GW wants them to play in, and get less people playing in the ways that GW doesn't want them playing in. Don't have to bring in griefing for the second part, it's just a paradigm shift; a completely different attitude to this particular game than pretty much all the sandbox MMO's I've seen before it (though from the sounds of it UO had the type of culture that's being sought after here).
I think the reason we need the game to take steps to set the culture, rather than just hoping it forms a particular way, is because the gamers who are going to play this game already have an idea in their head to what the game is, and how it should be played. Making the game something distinct will both serve to break that "stereotyping" trend and set the direction for how the game's new culture should develop (as without direction the game's culture could go any number of ways).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan...not to be argumentative now (since everyone is starting to play nice), but you said the definition is wrong...and then sort of repeated the definition.I'm pushing back against two things.
In contrast to a progression-style game, a sandbox game emphasizes roaming and allows a gamer to select tasks. Instead of featuring segmented areas or numbered levels, a sandbox game usually occurs in a “world” to which the gamer has full access from start to finish.That's an Open World, not a Sandbox.
Also, here is A sandbox is a style of game in which minimal character limitations are placed on the gamerThe degree to which restrictions are placed on the gamer doesn't reflect the Sandbox nature of the game. Those restrictions are the "box" in which the sand is kept. The degree to which the gamer is restricted from taking actions reflects the rules of the game world, not the agency of the player.
This is what I call "everything not forbidden is permitted" thinking and it's one of the reasons that Sandbox MMOs become toxic. The idea that there are "no rules" leads the 5% of the population who are the seeds of toxicity to behave in ways detrimental to the good order of the game and to the benefit of the community.
We're pushing back on those assumptions and telling people not only will there be rules but that "everything that is not forbidden is permitted' thinking is wrong in the context of our game.
Ok, that made more sense to me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Back to the actual conversation, I personally don't advocate for more rules and mechanics because it will stop griefers (at least, not every mechanic). Most of the time it's because I think the proposed mechanic will get more people playing the game in ways that GW wants them to play in, and get less people playing in the ways that GW doesn't want them playing in. Don't have to bring in griefing for the second part, it's just a paradigm shift; a completely different attitude to this particular game than pretty much all the sandbox MMO's I've seen before it (though from the sounds of it UO had the type of culture that's being sought after here).
I think the reason we need the game to take steps to set the culture, rather than just hoping it forms a particular way, is because the gamers who are going to play this game already have an idea in their head to what the game is, and how it should be played. Making the game something distinct will both serve to break that "stereotyping" trend and set the direction for how the game's new culture should develop (as without direction the game's culture could go any number of ways).
And even though some of these other games have espoused similar ideals, they have failed miserably. We never have had anything to go on but these promises before, and we have nothing more to go on here. There is a bit of difference here, because we can actually see some of the ideas behind this vision and there are regular postings that affirm the vision.
They do not appear to be a weak approach in the general sense of the goal. The details may change, but I feel confident where one of the focuses is HERE, and I did not ever have that feeling in those other games. Looking back at other games, it is easy to see that (before) it was lip service with no real intent.
How will it all really come out? Time will tell, but these guys (GW) inspire more confidence than I have had before.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Very insightful. Now go find me a post where I said I want no rules.Poems with structure tend to be better poems. Music with tempo and harmony tends to be better music.
Games without rules tend to not be games at all.
I don't contend you want no rules. It appears to me you only want rules convenient to your desires.
Some rules will likely not be convenient to your desires just the same as some will not be convenient to mine.
The difference may be that I appreciate the product of haiku, and sonnets, and music, and well designed games even if it forbids my moving the rook like a bishop.
Of course that is what you meant. That is why you singled me out and then sang your little song. And in doing so...what?
And your argument I fear is purposely vague. It appears I have rules in which are only convenient to my desires. If you mean that I only want rules that will make the game good since that is my desire....what is the point of posting that non-sense at all? We are all here hoping the game is good.
However...if you meant I am proposing ideas that are only beneficial to my proposed style of play....I would take the fairness and balance of my ideas against the NBSI crowd any day of the week.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Back to the actual conversation, I personally don't advocate for more rules and mechanics because it will stop griefers (at least, not every mechanic). Most of the time it's because I think the proposed mechanic will get more people playing the game in ways that GW wants them to play in, and get less people playing in the ways that GW doesn't want them playing in.
I concur.Perhaps game designers should avoid reactionary designs focused on particular styles of play, but instead only focus on the good of the game.
It doesn't seem really creative to react to 5% of the prospective playerbase. That's reactionary. The constant drone of warnings that 'I'll play my way anyway' should be irrelevant. Rules should apply universally.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Of course that is what you meant. That is why you singled me out and then sang your little song. And in doing so...what?
And your argument I fear is purposely vague. It appears I have rules in which are only convenient to my desires. If you mean that I only want rules that will make the game good since that is my desire....what is the point of posting that non-sense at all? We are all here hoping the game is good.
However...if you meant I am proposing ideas that are only beneficial to my proposed style of play....I would take the fairness and balance of my ideas against the NBSI crowd any day of the week.
Okay Val. I am amazed that you knew I was singling you out since you are the one who quoted me rather than vice-versa, but I was clearly wrong about you. You believe like I do that the primary difference between games and life is that games are fair. I'm fine with that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I made the case a while ago that if we're going to have mechanics to deter the most egregious types of undesired behavior, might as well make the mechanics literally prevent those actions from happening.
That doesn't interfere with the freedom of a sandbox game because it only stops kids from playing with sand outside of the box. I still support the principle if GW heads that way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What I see is the probability that the Feud system will be used frequently, and most frequently against the companies least prepared for defending themselves in a feud.
These companies will then call for GW to restrict the feud system. We have already seen some calls for, or vocal support of feuds costing more when waged against certain types if companies, the supposed "New Company".
If they manage to pull that off, then the next step will be to limit wars, if they occur too frequently or involve too many at one time.
With most of the population PvPing within the confines of feuds and wars, high reputation will be the norm. At that point the definition of "low reputation" will shift to anything less than starting reputation of +1000, so 999 will become low reputation.
PvP will become limited to wars and those wars will be limited to settlement conquest wars. Basically it becomes the Null Sec Sovereignty Wars, and little else smaller scale than that.
This is the slippery slope. This is why it is hoped that we see more information on Feuds, Caravans, Company Level PvP and even Small Gang and Individual Level PVP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I made the case a while ago that if we're going to have mechanics to deter the most egregious types of undesired behavior, might as well make the mechanics literally prevent those actions from happening.
That doesn't interfere with the freedom of a sandbox game because it only stops kids from playing with sand outside of the box. I still support the principle if GW heads that way.
I agree for the most part. We just need to agree where the box ends and I am sure everyone will get there. One of my previously listed fears is a game with bad restrictions for some/all play styles would cause a huge influx of psycho alts. I'm not a big fan of Meta-gaming. And I mean that from all angles. I don't want a game where bandits need good guy alts to be effective and where good guys need bad guy alts to do their dirty work. Maybe that is just wishful thinking, it's not as if my toons on other games haven't trade gear and such before, so of course there will be some of meta-gaming.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want a game where bandits need good guy alts to be effective and where good guys need bad guy alts to do their dirty work.
I completely 100% agree, there shouldn't be a "need" for those. However, I think we need to accept that the system can't address the "use" of alts. It's probably in our own best interests to treat each alt as if it were an entirely separate player, even if we have suspicions that it isn't.
The reason I'm not really too worried about alts is that they'll still be bound by the same rules as the mains, so if they're "psycho alts", which I assume is shorthand for Chaotic Evil and Low Reputation, then they're going to suck just as much as their mains would if their mains were Chaotic Evil and Low Reputation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't want a game where bandits need good guy alts to be effective and where good guys need bad guy alts to do their dirty work.I completely 100% agree, there shouldn't be a "need" for those. However, I think we need to accept that the system can't address the "use" of alts. It's probably in our own best interests to treat each alt as if it were an entirely separate player, even if we have suspicions that it isn't.
The reason I'm not really too worried about alts is that they'll still be bound by the same rules as the mains, so if they're "psycho alts", which I assume is shorthand for Chaotic Evil and Low Reputation, then they're going to suck just as much as their mains would.
Yeah, I agree. My personal preference (not judging others) is to have separate characters with separate motivations because I am the type of person who like a little diversity in game play In essence, I can get bored easily. I'm not against having two of my characters in the same guild or anything, but I want them to be 2 complete entities, not just a main and a throw away I use support my main.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't want a game where bandits need good guy alts to be effective and where good guys need bad guy alts to do their dirty work. Maybe that is just wishful thinking, it's not as if my toons on other games haven't trade gear and such before, so of course there will be some of meta-gaming.
This occurs when there are too many limitations placed on how the sand is played with in the box. As of yet those limitations seem to be manageable, but we have not seen how much influence it will cost for things such as feuds or how much DI it will cost for wars. If these costs become prohibitively high for all but the largest companies or settlements, then they will resort to using alts in a fashion that avoids the systems designed to limit behaviors not desired by GW.
"Not Desired" does not mean "Prohibited", "Greifing" or "Bannable".
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With most of the population PvPing within the confines of feuds and wars, high reputation will be the norm. At that point the definition of "low reputation" will shift to anything less than starting reputation of +1000, so 999 will become low reputation.
Is that an official prediction? My prediction is that Reputation will remain an absolute measurement even if there are no characters with low Reputation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Is that an official prediction? My prediction is that Reputation will remain an absolute measurement even if there are no characters with low Reputation.
With most of the population PvPing within the confines of feuds and wars, high reputation will be the norm. At that point the definition of "low reputation" will shift to anything less than starting reputation of +1000, so 999 will become low reputation.
Being that GW has not set absolute points dividing low - average - high, then the different points at which the terms will be used are not absolute. Everyone will have a different point at which they consider low, average and high.
If few if any characters end up with negative reputation, than starting rep -1 may become the example of "low rep".
As for an "Official" prediction, I'm not an official, so any prediction I make are that if a layperson.
You are likely more mathematically inclined than I am, so you should recognize that when the average increases the lower end of the Bell Curve also increases. In a room full of billionaires there are still some at the bottom 5%, that are comparatively poor if compared to the top 5%.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Is that an official prediction? My prediction is that Reputation will remain an absolute measurement even if there are no characters with low Reputation.
With most of the population PvPing within the confines of feuds and wars, high reputation will be the norm. At that point the definition of "low reputation" will shift to anything less than starting reputation of +1000, so 999 will become low reputation.Being that GW has not set absolute points dividing low - average - high, then the different points at which the terms will be used are not absolute. Everyone will have a different point at which they consider low, average and high.
If few if any characters end up with negative reputation, than starting rep -1 may become the example of "low rep".
As for an "Official" prediction, I'm not an official, so any prediction I make are that if a layperson.
You are likely more mathematically inclined than I am, so you should recognize that when the average increases the lower end of the Bell Curve also increases. In a room full of billionaires there are still some at the bottom 5%, that are comparatively poor if compared to the top 5%.
Maybe the cure would be to stop thinking of reputation in a black or white context. If you begin to think of rep as honor...maybe everyone would be happier. If rep is represented by a number, and there is either low rep or high rep, we sort of run the risk of lumping all nefarious activity together.
We will probably be able to get a much better handle on things once PFO decides what exact behavior warrants reputation loss and if there is a point where certain behaviors max out. By that I mean...if rep is a scale from 1-10 (I know it's not, but I am using simple #s) would a person who starts at 10 and consistently picks people pockets or mine resources on another's property sink only to a 5 and stop? Because if it doesn't, people will be known as griefers and murderers for simple thievery. The game will quickly become either a maxed rep score, or a minimum rep score field of characters and the game's diversity would dwindle. Also, in a number system, since I am assuming there are ways to rehab your rep, we will see people manipulating the system by murdering someone...then atoning for a few days then murdering someone again.
I would to prefer to think of it in colors...yellow being the people on top who play good and honor contracts; Orange are people who do commit nefarious and unlawful acts, but within the confines of meaningful PVP or at least offering a SAD. And then the red dudes. These guys can be the wanton murderers and griefers. We could cement those reps by making movement between the color zones a monumental task. Maybe quests, ratting, and a predetermined time of not breaking the rules of the zone above you in order to atone.
That way bandits, thieves, and outlaws will be known, known to be playing within the confines of the sandboxes rule set....and then the idiot psycho killers will be known as well.
Sorry so long.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd expect that our view of "acceptable" rep will greatly depend on what training it allows us. For example, I'd expect a major breakpoint to correlate to some particular Tier 2 feats and another breakpoint that correlates to some Tier 3 feats.
Were skills / feats actually connected to reputation level or was it that a settlement could not build a structure of sufficient tier if it did not have the average reputation level to build it?
This begs the question, what if you have a high reputation and you have trained a skill requiring a high reputation, but the settlement average drops below what it needs to support that structure where you trained?
Would this not be the equivalent of your settlement being lost, on highly trained character?
What if it is not just Reputation average that declines, but the settlement falls below the DI to support that training structure?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Were skills / feats actually connected to reputation level or was it that a settlement could not build a structure of sufficient tier if it did not have the average reputation level to build it?
This begs the question, what if you have a high reputation and you have trained a skill requiring a high reputation, but the settlement average drops below what it needs to support that structure where you trained?
Would this not be the equivalent of your settlement being lost, on highly trained character?
What if it is not just Reputation average that declines, but the settlement falls below the DI to support that training structure?
Settlements need *minimum* reputation set at some level to allow Tier 2 and Tier 3 facilities to function. *average* reputation doesn't matter for that purpose.
I think your point about DI may be valid; a settlement might lose DI a number of ways and might be forced to shutter some facilities.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
You are likely more mathematically inclined than I am, so you should recognize that when the average increases the lower end of the Bell Curve also increases. In a room full of billionaires there are still some at the bottom 5%, that are comparatively poor if compared to the top 5%.
But giving a billion dollars each to people who are not in the bottom 5% doesn't increase the bottom of the bell curve at all, despite increasing the average by a billion.
You are assuming a normal distribution, and I don't think that assumption is valid when discussing factors which will fail to push some people towards high Reputation at all (The bottom 5% of Reputation holders will be the ones that never cared about it, and therefore the effects that increase average Reputation don't result in them changing behavior to result in a higher Reputation)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
PvP will become limited to wars and those wars will be limited to settlement conquest wars. Basically it becomes the Null Sec Sovereignty Wars, and little else smaller scale than that.
This is the slippery slope. This is why it is hoped that we see more information on Feuds, Caravans, Company Level PvP and even Small Gang and Individual Level PVP.
Impressive construction, much like those teetering structures depicted in a Dr. Seuss picture book. It is wide and wobbly but built upon a narrow foundation.
Yet it has merit. And I don't feel the alarm you seem to feel in your dire prediction. It's like a dry description of fact punctuated with excess exclamation marks. I don't see your outcome as a 'slippery slope' even if your pronouncement turns out to be prophetic rather than mere frantic hand-waving.
You appear to be describing an end-state remarkably like what I think Ryan has been recommending we should expect, except of course you type-cast it as an Eve event when it will be a PFO event instead.
PFO may turn out to be quite different from Eve. You could use very similar mechanics and end with a very different game. I could paint a still life with oils, or a landscape using the exact same colors, canvas, and brushes. LotRO and Wow use very similar D&D-like mechanics but are very different games.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
PvP will become limited to wars and those wars will be limited to settlement conquest wars. Basically it becomes the Null Sec Sovereignty Wars, and little else smaller scale than that.
This is the slippery slope. This is why it is hoped that we see more information on Feuds, Caravans, Company Level PvP and even Small Gang and Individual Level PVP.
Impressive construction, much like those teetering structures depicted in a Dr. Seuss picture book. It is wide and wobbly but built upon a narrow foundation.
Yet it has merit. And I don't feel the alarm you seem to feel in your dire prediction. It's like a dry description of fact punctuated with excess exclamation marks. I don't see your outcome as a 'slippery slope' even if your pronouncement turns out to be prophetic rather than mere frantic hand-waving.
You appear to be describing an end-state remarkably like what I think Ryan has been recommending we should expect, except of course you type-cast it as an Eve event when it will be a PFO event instead.
PFO may turn out to be quite different from Eve. You could use very similar mechanics and end with a very different game. I could paint a still life with oils, or a landscape using the exact same colors, canvas, and brushes. LotRO and Wow use very similar D&D-like mechanics but are very different games.
Dynamics that took years to develop in EVE, might be the starting off point (conceptually) of the settlement vs. settlement conquest game here in PFO.
The construction that I am suggesting might not be as narrow at the base as you might think.
My focus or if you wish, agenda, is to support these: Feuds, Caravan / Outpost and POI Raids, Company Level PvP and even Small Gang PVP, and Individual PVP.
This is not to say that I or my company would not be involved in large scale settlement or nation vs. nation PVP. It is just that we see ourselves as a cog in the wheel of that, not the wheel itself.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Lets be perfectly clear about how MOST Bandits/Brigands will operate.There's a continent's worth of assumptions in this post, many of which are unlikely to prove true.
- Most bandits/brigands WILL be members of the NPC Starter Settlements so no way to declare WAR upon them (at any expense) and so that they will be able to use legitimate newbies as cover for thier operations.
- Most bandits/brigands will NOT be members of any company so there will be no way to feud them (at any expense) and no way to hold them accountable for thier actions.
Assumptions:
Members of NPC Settlements can be members of Companies
Members of NPC Settlements will be able to soulbind to points other than the NPC Settlement for resurrection. Dying halfway across the map from where you soulbind will be a pretty big limitation on how effective a bandit can be.
Members of NPC Settlements will be able to make Hideouts.
Members of NPC Settlements will be able to train and use exotic character abilities linked to maximizing banditry operations.
Respectfully,
- Company Membership.... not really relavent unless it presents an unignorable mechanical advantage in combat/banditry. It also begs the question of how one creates the precursors (cleared territory, watchtowers, etc) to establish a settlement in the first place. Unless I'm missing something, you would pretty much create a catch-22 here Ryan for new organizations seeking to enter the game and establish a settlement or existing organizations seeking to recover from a lost settlement. In order to be effective in the things that are needed to begin to create a PC settlement you need to be a member of a company but if you are not already a member of a PC settlement you can't be a member of a company. See the problem?
- Soulbind: That could be some detterent depending how big the map is and how difficult travel is from an NPC settlement. However, the assumption is (and I think you'll find this to proove true in practice)that once bandits do encounter armed resistance sufficient to kill some of thier members there will be no desire or utility to stick around and fight anyway. The operation is blown at that point, they WANT to be far away from the scene because they don't want to be around anyone that is likely to kill them. They only want to fight non-combat characters who have little ability or skill in PvP. Since they won't be carrying much of value anyway...they'll have no interest in returning to the corpse. Frankly, you'll probably be doing them a favor by setting a bind point far away from the scene.
- Hideouts: Again depends on utility but most bandits, I think, won't want to be holding any structure or piece of territory...even a temporary one that can be attacked. They'll leave that to handlers who they are Alts for.
- Training: Possible deterent...but again thier focus won't be on engaging combat trained characters, they'll want to avoid contact with those at all costs. They'll want to fight the merchant/crafter who has never lifted a blade in anger in thier life. They just need to be able to defeat those. The armed patrol, they'll run from.....or play innocent around until they get bored and leave.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So how does a character avoid being either a member of a PC or an NPC Settlement?They don't, a bandit company could be a Ad Hoc made up of characters from other companies and more than one PC settlement. The actual "Bandit Company" operates outside of the knowledge of the system, by organizing outside of the GW/ Paizo forums and using TS / VOIP to communicate while in game.So the bandit group isn't really/officially a company. It earns no Influence (so cannot declare feuds). Its members belong to a number of different companies and more than one settlement.
A counter-bandit company encounters them. Couldn't the counter-bandits open a feud against one of the (not-present) companies (maybe the most-distant), then attack the 1 bandit that belongs to that company? Do the rest of the bandits have no right to defend their party member when he's attacked in a feud? Just wargaming this out.
Good question. How is all of this affected in a mixed group of affiliated (but separately) and non affiliated, that are "partied"? Is it basically like a mutual defense pact for individual characters?
The did write that they are working out a hierarchy of hostility.
You can party with anyone. If not, then the game gets a whole lot more limited for everyone....not just those who want to be bandits.
My assumption is that the bandits are partied together. Not members of any company and members of an NPC settlement. Who do you declare feud against...there is no company game object to set as target for a feud. Who do you declare War against? The entire NPC settlement?
Heck lets say the bandits even are members of companies and spread there companies out. Each feud costs you something to declare. You declare Feud on a company to kill one of thier members who isn't carrying something once? Want to engage the entire bandit group...pay the cost to feud 20 companies? Congratulations you've just spent more then it would have cost you to let the bandits rob you blind?
These are the kind of design decisions that have to be taken into account when trying to impliment such systems because players WILL game the heck out of them to gain the best mechanical advantage from them in conflicts.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My focus or if you wish, agenda, is to support these: Feuds, Caravan / Outpost and POI Raids, Company Level PvP and even Small Gang PVP, and Individual PVP.
Settlements are comprised of companies, and companies will comprised of 'gangs' and individuals. Feuds, Caravans, Outposts/POI defenders and aggressive raids and even small gang and individuals constitute settlement warfare. They are not left out of the wars, they make the wars. So what is left of PvP when all those elements are removed from your schema?
Placing PvP at the settlement/kingdom/alliance scale should provide room for the rest of the players to grow and adventure. It is a matter of granularity.
What is left as a base for your construction seems quite narrow. It appears to be remarkably similar to deliberately unaffiliated gank squads intentionally preying on those not actively engaged in war. You know, people playing the game. Adventuring. Role playing. Creating meaningful sandbox interactions. So what am I missing in your conceptual architecture?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can party with anyone. If not, then the game gets a whole lot more limited for everyone....not just those who want to be bandits.
My assumption is that the bandits are partied together. Not members of any company and members of an NPC settlement. Who do you declare feud against...there is no company game object to set as target for a feud. Who do you declare War against? The entire NPC settlement?
Heck lets say the bandits even are members of companies and spread there companies out. Each feud costs you something to declare. You declare Feud on a company to kill one of thier members who isn't carrying something once? Want to engage the entire bandit group...pay the cost to feud 20 companies? Congratulations you've just spent...
Did GW do away with bounties? Target the individuals.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You can party with anyone. If not, then the game gets a whole lot more limited for everyone....not just those who want to be bandits.
My assumption is that the bandits are partied together. Not members of any company and members of an NPC settlement. Who do you declare feud against...there is no company game object to set as target for a feud. Who do you declare War against? The entire NPC settlement?
Heck lets say the bandits even are members of companies and spread there companies out. Each feud costs you something to declare. You declare Feud on a company to kill one of thier members who isn't carrying something once? Want to engage the entire bandit group...pay the cost to feud 20 companies? Congratulations you've just spent more then it would have cost you to let the bandits rob you blind?
These are the kind of design decisions that have to be taken into account when trying to impliment such systems because players WILL game the heck out of them to gain the best mechanical advantage from them in conflicts.
Yeah. That was the point of the question. There are a goodly number of problems associated with every feature. Some that can be addressed and some that can't.
I would really like to see a mechanic list for "trespassing" individuals from sovereign territory. It is possibly bulky and resource intensive, but it solves so many problems of these work arounds. I don't think that it needs to be as complicated as Andius' "Exile" idea, just a simple list.
*You are on it and enter the hex, you go "hostile" flagged.
*You want off of it, talk to the boss.
*Those that proclaim it unfair, are likely those with an unfriendly agenda in any case.
*Make it an option when the target is already criminal and you spot them in the hex.
*Solve the problem of "corruption" scammers with a personal 1/day per account marker.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I also think the idea that ad hoc'ing a social graph external to the game design and managing to remain effective is also a pretty big assumption.
For short-term limited-area operations it would work ok, I guess (depends on how cohesive those people are at coordination out of game) but I don't think it would work well to achieve longer-term objectives or campaigns over a wide area.
There's a virtual internal lines of communication problem that the ad hoc'ers will confront that degrades their effectiveness over time & distance.
The idea behind the unaffiliated in this case, Ryan, is that they aren't really unaffiliated. They are ALTS of some player organization that likely does have a formal in game orginizational representation. They are purpose built for thier job of doing the dirty work for the player organization while allowing that organization to circumvent all the mechanical repurcussions of those actions.
That's ok, we know that's going to happen. It's probably unavoidable.
We just need (I feel) some way for an ingame player organization to say...yeah I know you guys are upto no good even if the game mechanicaly can't discern this.... and flag them as hostile if they enter territory that player organization owns....while allowing people who's affiliations look identitical to them as far as the game systems are concerned but ARE legitimately neutral players to remain unflagged.
Respectfully, I think you guys are trying to over-engineer this. A simple manual fingering of an individual as unwanted/hostile within a settlements owned territory, even if it's temporary and on a timer works. It's something a settlement or any soveriegn power SHOULD be able to do in thier own territory....and if you require it to be manualy applied and timer based it shouldn't have any greater resource impact on your systems then any buff/debuff that would also be applied to characters.