Goblin Squad Member
|
Do you have an easy find quote that supports this?
Not really; it's an extrapolation from the general description of Salute & Rebuke.
3) Players can choose to rebuke or reward other players in terms of Reputation and Alignment, either increasing or decreasing the attribute respectively. This costs the player giving the rebuke/reward Reputation or Alignment, and you must have a higher Reputation/Alignment than your target, but it lets you reward other players for good behavior or punish them for bad behavior. This costs Reputation/Alignment in order to stop people from just doing it willy nilly. If you choose to reward someone for good behavior, you get a minor buff as a reward for being a generous person.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Do you have an easy find quote that supports this?Not really; it's an extrapolation from the general description of Salute & Rebuke.
3) Players can choose to rebuke or reward other players in terms of Reputation and Alignment, either increasing or decreasing the attribute respectively. This costs the player giving the rebuke/reward Reputation or Alignment, and you must have a higher Reputation/Alignment than your target, but it lets you reward other players for good behavior or punish them for bad behavior. This costs Reputation/Alignment in order to stop people from just doing it willy nilly. If you choose to reward someone for good behavior, you get a minor buff as a reward for being a generous person.
Well thanks. Maybe that would be a good comprise if worked right. I don't mean to stir up all of the previous concerns, that I now remember, about that topic. :)
Do you have an easy find quote that supports this?Not really; it's an extrapolation from the general description of Salute & Rebuke.
3) Players can choose to rebuke or reward other players in terms of Reputation and Alignment, either increasing or decreasing the attribute respectively. This costs the player giving the rebuke/reward Reputation or Alignment, and you must have a higher Reputation/Alignment than your target, but it lets you reward other players for good behavior or punish them for bad behavior. This costs Reputation/Alignment in order to stop people from just doing it willy nilly. If you choose to reward someone for good behavior, you get a minor buff as a reward for being a generous person.
It should be noted that the only mention of the salute and rebuke system in the dev blogs is this one
"Any player that hurts you shows up on your enemies list. This list allows you to salute or rebuke the enemy (granting or reducing reputation, at the cost of your own). The entry disappears if you aren't hurt by that enemy again within several days (exact time frame to be determined). If you died within a certain window (also TBD) after someone's entry was refreshed on your enemies list, that person is noted on the list as one of your killers (those who injured you right before you died may be a bigger factor in your death than whoever made the final blow). If you want to get even, you can establish a bounty on anyone listed as a killer on your enemies list."
bolded the relevant part. Does this mean they won't expand the system for other things? No idea however it does say to me that they wish to limit the potential of salute and rebuke and I would suspect the reason for that is due to the possibilities of abuse.
However as ever I go by this is what the Devs wrote and until they tell us otherwise anything further falls into the realm of speculation that may well not be true.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I believe the plan right now is that once OE begins, high level training will only be available at PC settlements that have spent the requisite DI to have the right facilities. You will be able to purchase training from them if you're even allowed in, of course. That is why Mr. Dancey thinks that most players will belong to a PC settlement, imho. Who knows, could change but the highest forms of training will never be available at an NPC location, also imho.
I believe the plan right now is that once OE begins, high level training will only be available at PC settlements that have spent the requisite DI to have the right facilities. You will be able to purchase training from them if you're even allowed in, of course. That is why Mr. Dancey thinks that most players will belong to a PC settlement, imho. Who knows, could change but the highest forms of training will never be available at an NPC location, also imho.
I wasn't disputing that only pc settlements could provide high level training.
I was suggesting that as settlements became less casual by weeding out of the least fit that casual players would gradually find that the requirements for membership of settlements or alliances be more commitment than they were willing to give.
This of course assumes that it is my prediction is the one that comes true and not Nihimons
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe the plan right now is that once OE begins, high level training will only be available at PC settlements that have spent the requisite DI to have the right facilities. You will be able to purchase training from them if you're even allowed in, of course. That is why Mr. Dancey thinks that most players will belong to a PC settlement, imho. Who knows, could change but the highest forms of training will never be available at an NPC location, also imho.I wasn't disputing that only pc settlements could provide high level training.
I was suggesting that as settlements became less casual by weeding out of the least fit that casual players would gradually find that the requirements for membership of settlements or alliances be more commitment than they were willing to give.
This of course assumes that it is my prediction is the one that comes true and not Nihimons
I think that what you are predicting is a degenerate state, and that it will be averted by increasing the map size in such a manner as to prevent the existing hardcore groups from claiming all of the space. There should always be some room on some fringe for a settlement run by players who have other hobbies.
I think that what you are predicting is a degenerate state, and that it will be averted by increasing the map size in such a manner as to prevent the existing hardcore groups from claiming all of the space. There should always be some room on some fringe for a settlement run by players who have other hobbies.I believe the plan right now is that once OE begins, high level training will only be available at PC settlements that have spent the requisite DI to have the right facilities. You will be able to purchase training from them if you're even allowed in, of course. That is why Mr. Dancey thinks that most players will belong to a PC settlement, imho. Who knows, could change but the highest forms of training will never be available at an NPC location, also imho.I wasn't disputing that only pc settlements could provide high level training.
I was suggesting that as settlements became less casual by weeding out of the least fit that casual players would gradually find that the requirements for membership of settlements or alliances be more commitment than they were willing to give.
This of course assumes that it is my prediction is the one that comes true and not Nihimons
And those settlements will only be able to offer low level training until they have built up there DI over a period of months. Guess what the original settlements are doing in the meantime it will be one of
a) They are recruiting the least casual of the players in the NPC settlements which they will then use to man these new settlements when they take them over.
b) They will demand tribute and military levies and insist these new settlements become what is knowm in eve vernacular as pets
c) They are regularly purging these settlements ensuring that they never become strong enough to be a threat.
There is only so much land that GW can open up because they need to keep demand higher than supply otherwise the settlement warfare portion of the game fails due to no one needing to fight.
I should clarify here as well.
It is not that these efficient settlements actually care about casual people having a settlement or actually wish to prevent that. What it comes down to is the "If we don't grab that settlement our enemy over there will do so and so we have to grab it first"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no monopoly on growth that is not curtailed by overexpansion. Eventually, you run into the same problems that all expansive powers do. Some of which are lack of completely trustworthy manpower and costs and too many personal ambitions. The thing here that is different than the real world is that the penalty for breaking from the empire is not permanent death.
If these were not real problems, older games would be "finished" already.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sucessful null sec alliances expect on the whole a certain amount of commitment from those that join them. This level of commitment is more than some on these boards wish to commit themselves to.
That makes it sound like Firefly Online but not in space. The organized, high-tech Alliance minded Core always pushing the Browncoats to the edges of habitable space game, with swords.
I call dibbs on Jayne.
There is no monopoly on growth that is not curtailed by overexpansion. Eventually, you run into the same problems that all expansive powers do. Some of which are lack of completely trustworthy manpower and costs and too many personal ambitions. The thing here that is different than the real world is that the penalty for breaking from the empire is not permanent death.
If these were not real problems, older games would be "finished" already.
There is certainly a problem with over expansion and I expect many failscades to happen in PfO just as they have in Eve in the past. Those empires will rebuild themselves over time in different guises however and (assuming my view is correct and not Nihimons) the trend will continue for settlements even if they start off casual to become more and more towards the status of a second job. Personally I don't think expanding the map will help but we shall see.
If things go as I expect I would probably forsee that what would happen is that eventually GW would think about adding a new area but making it a hi sec style area. When settlements take months of nurture and building up to become good then settlement warfare games favor the committed.
Having said all this of course it surely doesn't matter anyway because I am sure you all have faith in Nihimons prediction
Sucessful null sec alliances expect on the whole a certain amount of commitment from those that join them. This level of commitment is more than some on these boards wish to commit themselves to.That makes it sound like Firefly Online but not in space. The organized, high-tech Alliance minded Core always pushing the Browncoats to the edges of habitable space game, with swords.
I call dibbs on Jayne.
Never played firefly online so can't really comment. I won't dispute however your claims to Jayne (whoever she might be) on the grounds you should never incriminate yourself where your wife or daughters might read it :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There is no monopoly on growth that is not curtailed by overexpansion. Eventually, you run into the same problems that all expansive powers do. Some of which are lack of completely trustworthy manpower and costs and too many personal ambitions. The thing here that is different than the real world is that the penalty for breaking from the empire is not permanent death.
If these were not real problems, older games would be "finished" already.
There is certainly a problem with over expansion and I expect many failscades to happen in PfO just as they have in Eve in the past. Those empires will rebuild themselves over time in different guises however and (assuming my view is correct and not Nihimons) the trend will continue for settlements even if they start off casual to become more and more towards the status of a second job. Personally I don't think expanding the map will help but we shall see.
If things go as I expect I would probably forsee that what would happen is that eventually GW would think about adding a new area but making it a hi sec style area. When settlements take months of nurture and building up to become good then settlement warfare games favor the committed.
Having said all this of course it surely doesn't matter anyway because I am sure you all have faith in Nihimons prediction
Arguing for or against such broad predictions at this early stage is basically futile, even though possibly entertaining. Too many random factors apply. There is a small epeen prize, at some point, and a further argument that it is not yet time (somewhere in the future) to say that it has or has not come to fruition permanently or it is still premature to account said prediction fulfilled or failed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Having said all this of course it surely doesn't matter anyway because I am sure you all have faith in Nihimons prediction
Nah, I think your analysis have a lot of merit. A lot depends on what limiting mechanics GW builds in to provide friction in empire building and in meta-gaming large alliances. How fast we burn through Di (and Influence) also matters. Since we've been told almost nothing about how nations work, I'm not betting on anyone's predictions at this point.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Never played firefly online so can't really comment. I won't dispute however your claims to Jayne (whoever she might be) on the grounds you should never incriminate yourself where your wife or daughters might read it :)Sucessful null sec alliances expect on the whole a certain amount of commitment from those that join them. This level of commitment is more than some on these boards wish to commit themselves to.That makes it sound like Firefly Online but not in space. The organized, high-tech Alliance minded Core always pushing the Browncoats to the edges of habitable space game, with swords.
I call dibbs on Jayne.
Jayne's a badass dude, mate. Firefly.
Having said all this of course it surely doesn't matter anyway because I am sure you all have faith in Nihimons predictionNah, I think your analysis have a lot of merit. A lot depends on what limiting mechanics GW builds in to provide friction in empire building and in meta-gaming large alliances. How fast we burn through Di (and Influence) also matters. Since we've been told almost nothing about how nations work, I'm not betting on anyone's predictions at this point.
Both yourself and bringlite are correct that we are woefully short of information with which to make firm predictions which is why I try and limit myself to speculating on what devs have actually said rather than what they have said plus my extrapolations from that to how I think those systems may include as well.
Predictions at this stage have a pretty good chance of going wide of the mark and something we should all bear in mind
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Never played firefly online so can't really comment. I won't dispute however your claims to Jayne (whoever she might be) on the grounds you should never incriminate yourself where your wife or daughters might read it :)Sucessful null sec alliances expect on the whole a certain amount of commitment from those that join them. This level of commitment is more than some on these boards wish to commit themselves to.That makes it sound like Firefly Online but not in space. The organized, high-tech Alliance minded Core always pushing the Browncoats to the edges of habitable space game, with swords.
I call dibbs on Jayne.
Jayne Cobb is about a 6'3" 230ish pound man, he's the hero of frikken Canton. I'm not sure if that helps with your wife...
There is no Firefly Online except in my imagination. It was a very brief but excellent TV show in 2002 with so much fan support it got a movie in 2005 (all available on Netflix).
Fox Network - Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well as I said, predictions can be good for a little back and forth, which IS something to do while we hang around this forum. :)
I don't have too many "deal breakers" in the way of expectations, as long as I can get my money's worth in fun out of it. If that proves impossible, I will move on. I do have a few "hopes" that the game will resemble, somewhat, my take on what is described by GW. We all probably have different ideas of what that is.
This would be a super slow forum if we all agreed on the meanings of the Dev's written words.
I can agree with that Steelwing. I huge factor that we have no idea about is the spacing of settlement hexes on the map. That alone will change so very much... Never mind the number of potential settlements at OE and the number planed in the long run.
I believe they have mentioned that there is 220 settlement hexes on the full map. Though it will be quite a while before the full map is opened up. I presume the plan is slowly move the borders to the edge as player numbers increase.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I can agree with that Steelwing. I huge factor that we have no idea about is the spacing of settlement hexes on the map. That alone will change so very much... Never mind the number of potential settlements at OE and the number planed in the long run.I believe they have mentioned that there is 220 settlement hexes on the full map. Though it will be quite a while before the full map is opened up. I presume the plan is slowly move the borders to the edge as player numbers increase.
That does not sound like a lot compared to, say, EVE (just guessing) but a great deal more than are possible in Darkfall. It will be interesting to see how GW manages the growth of empires, whether they are mechanical or meta gamed (if meta can be managed). They won't want the game to become futile for everyone but a few power blocks. At least I wouldn't think that they would.
Sorry for the massive derail of your thread, Nihimon. :(
I can agree with that Steelwing. I huge factor that we have no idea about is the spacing of settlement hexes on the map. That alone will change so very much... Never mind the number of potential settlements at OE and the number planed in the long run.I believe they have mentioned that there is 220 settlement hexes on the full map. Though it will be quite a while before the full map is opened up. I presume the plan is slowly move the borders to the edge as player numbers increase.That does not sound like a lot compared to, say, EVE (just guessing) but a great deal more than are possible in Darkfall. It will be interesting to see how GW manages the growth of empires, whether they are mechanical or meta gamed (if meta can be managed). They won't want the game to become futile for everyone but a few power blocks. At least I wouldn't think that they would.
Sorry for the massive derail of your thread, Nihimon. :(
You have to remember in Eve you have people a lot more thinly spread
For example Northern associates alliance has 4600 odd players and controls 221 systems. Giving a density of around 20 players per system.
A settlement will have according to Dancey 500 to 1000 players so on those figures they would have 5 to 9 settlements
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Steelwing
Seems like a much different set up then, and I suppose that GW can tweak available training and crafting slots and queues if they want. At least I hope that they plan for flexibility as well as growth. Land expansions never seem quite fast enough. Especially with the strategies that you have pointed out.
@ Steelwing
Seems like a much different set up then, and I suppose that GW can tweak available training and crafting slots and queues if they want. At least I hope that they plan for flexibility as well as growth. Land expansions never seem quite fast enough. Especially with the strategies that you have pointed out.
I presume they get the 500 to 1000 range from what they are considering may be available for training and crafting slots both of which I understand to be in limited supply and why I suggested in another topic that having too many to a settlement would be detrimental
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I presume they get the 500 to 1000 range from what they are considering may be available for training and crafting slots both of which I understand to be in limited supply and why I suggested in another topic that having too many to a settlement would be detrimental@ Steelwing
Seems like a much different set up then, and I suppose that GW can tweak available training and crafting slots and queues if they want. At least I hope that they plan for flexibility as well as growth. Land expansions never seem quite fast enough. Especially with the strategies that you have pointed out.
I need more details! I sense some problems between limited training spots, aging character training needs, and expansion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Figure 19 companies holding a settlement, the 6 surrounding hexes, and the 12 outposts for those hexes. That's up to 950 pax if the companies are full up at 50 persons - and that a minimal sized settlement.
A strong settlement might hold the next ring of surrounding hexes. That's 12 more hexes, 24 more outposts. Or +36 companies/+1800 pax at full strength.
Now, not all companies are going to be at full strength. The outer POIs are more likely to be a full strength, for example, and the inner outposts might be of minimal strength. But I'd expect a settlement should be able to cover the training needs of such a force; 2750 or more characters for a strong, heavily manned settlement.
Figure 19 companies holding a settlement, the 6 surrounding hexes, and the 12 outposts for those hexes. That's up to 950 pax if the companies are full up at 50 persons - and that a minimal sized settlement.
A strong settlement might hold the next ring of surrounding hexes. That's 12 more hexes, 24 more outposts. Or +36 companies/+1800 pax at full strength.
Now, not all companies are going to be at full strength. The outer POIs are more likely to be a full strength, for example, and the inner outposts might be of minimal strength. But I'd expect a settlement should be able to cover the training needs of such a force; 2750 or more characters for a strong, heavily manned settlement.
Why do you assume a company cannot hold more than one POI or outpost?
I would personally go for the number that Dancey has said a settlement is designed to hold till we get further information to the contrary. The limitation as I said will be on how much training and crafting a settlement can supply. Apart from that the only other constraint is the minimum number to hold the territory
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My personal understanding is that Reputation is the easy way to determine whether another player is generally a "jerk". That is, they frequently break contracts, or attack other players for no real reason, etc.
Is it reasonable for me to plan to use Reputation this way?
Specifically, my current plan is to generally attack and try to kill any Flagged Characters I see that are also Low Reputation. If they have a High Reputation, I'll base the decision on a lot of other factors like alliances, etc.
I'd very much appreciate any input from Ryan or the devs on whether Reputation is intended to serve as a signal to other players about the kinds of things a Character is prone to do.
I believe rep will be a pretty good measure for bad actors, but middle to high rep can could be grinded out. Then again high rep from low will take much effort perhaps I should do the same for both. Yeah it was me that got the thread off topic sorry. No wait it was Jayne, I like smack in em too...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why do you assume a company cannot hold more than one POI or outpost?
Because they've told us:
Each PoI is run by a single company and can be upgraded by setting aside Influence (along much the same lines as a settlement is upgraded). Owners can choose to invest in functionality, security, or resource generation, to create their own unique, persistent space in-game. and
Outpost locations need to be claimed by a company (with a small Influence cost) that can then select what kind of Outpost it will be. The cost of claiming and building an Outpost increases significantly if that company already has any holdings, so it makes more sense for a PoI-owning company to find other, smaller companies to run their Outposts (essentially subcontracting rather than running everything themselves).
I think it will certainly be possible for one company to hold more than one POI or outpost, but any company that does so has less Influence available for feuds, POI upgrades, and other things that can be bought with Influence. My company count also doesn't factor in any crafting-pure or free military companies, only those tied to hexes.
Why do you assume a company cannot hold more than one POI or outpost?Because they've told us:
Each PoI is run by a single company and can be upgraded by setting aside Influence (along much the same lines as a settlement is upgraded). Owners can choose to invest in functionality, security, or resource generation, to create their own unique, persistent space in-game. and
Outpost locations need to be claimed by a company (with a small Influence cost) that can then select what kind of Outpost it will be. The cost of claiming and building an Outpost increases significantly if that company already has any holdings, so it makes more sense for a PoI-owning company to find other, smaller companies to run their Outposts (essentially subcontracting rather than running everything themselves).
I think it will certainly be possible for one company to hold more than one POI or outpost, but any company that does so has less Influence available for feuds, POI upgrades, and other things that can be bought with Influence. My company count also doesn't factor in any crafting-pure or free military companies, only those tied to hexes.
You are still neglecting the fact that they are designing (as far as we know) settlements to hold and support 500 to 1000 people.
The numbers you are proposing would make a settlement equivalent to a top ten eve alliance. It really isnt going to happen in the first few years of the game. If Dancey's figures are correct it won't happen at all because a settlement will not be able to train that many.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good and evil are not relative in Pathfinder. They are defined by the gods. Since we're playing the roles of the gods, that means we define good and evil.
Law and chaos are effectively also absolute, not relative, but it is easier to define them than it is to cover all the gray areas of good and evil. But for the sake of argument,assume they're also god-defined.
Reputation is a vector orthogonal to the good/evil law/chaos matrix and it reflects the degree to which your character (initially) engages in meaningless PvP. I expect over time it will reflect other behavior as well. The objective is to quantify to some degree how your character conforms to the goal of maximizing meaningful human interaction. To begin, we are focusing that down to "how meaningful is your character's PvP history".
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since we want characters to belong to PC Settlements we'll keep twisting knobs if necessary to create the conditions where that's the norm. There are a lot of those knobs to adjust so I'm pretty sure we'll find a workable set of adjustments and pacing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Good and evil are not relative in Pathfinder. They are defined by the gods. Since we're playing the roles of the gods, that means we define good and evil.
Law and chaos are effectively also absolute, not relative, but it is easier to define them than it is to cover all the gray areas of good and evil. But for the sake of argument,assume they're also god-defined.
Reputation is a vector orthogonal to the good/evil law/chaos matrix and it reflects the degree to which your character (initially) engages in meaningless PvP. I expect over time it will reflect other behavior as well. The objective is to quantify to some degree how your character conforms to the goal of maximizing meaningful human interaction. To begin, we are focusing that down to "how meaningful is your character's PvP history".
We all understand how it goes down. How does it go up?
Just by killing low rep characters? If thats the case, it will be meaningless since very few will be low rep. Most understand that their characters will suck, and do whatever it takes to be powerful. If they keep playing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just by killing low rep characters? If thats the case, it will be meaningless since very few will be low rep. Most understand that their characters will suck, and do whatever it takes to be powerful. If they keep playing.
It is not a well thought out plan. If it works too well, you have no low rep characters and the "good guys" have no content, that = fail. If the system of suck does not work well, that too = suck.
The only way to twist the nobs is to create a balance, in which case it just become a grind and or everyone ends up in the middle ground of reputation. If everyone is middle reputation, then settlements will not have access to high tier skills and crafting. Everyone becomes average, but balanced.
If a settlement figures out the min max of the whole system and becomes King of the Hill, well we all know how that game works out.
Tier 3 training or gear will be rare and unnecessary for at least two years, or that it what it seems to me. If you have just played for 2 years without it, do you really need it? Since not everyone will have it, everyone who does not has the motive to tear it down.
PFO becomes a mosh pit! I just love the sound of that! Oh the chaos of it all, Oh the brutality and carnage.... Oh the humanity! Delicious.......
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reputation... reflects the degree to which your character (initially) engages in meaningless PvP... The objective is to quantify to some degree how your character conforms to the goal of maximizing meaningful human interaction.
That's extremely consistent with my current understanding and I'll gladly take it as confirmation that my current plan is "reasonable". Characters with Low Reputation will be the Characters who (initially) engage in a lot of meaningless PvP. I think it's perfectly reasonable to make those folks my content.
Thanks for the reply, Ryan.
Reputation... reflects the degree to which your character (initially) engages in meaningless PvP... The objective is to quantify to some degree how your character conforms to the goal of maximizing meaningful human interaction.That's extremely consistent with my current understanding and I'll gladly take it as confirmation that my current plan is "reasonable". Characters with Low Reputation will be the Characters who (initially) engage in a lot of meaningless PvP. I think it's perfectly reasonable to make those folks my content.
Thanks for the reply, Ryan.
So we are all agreed then killing someone for wearing a green hat is meaningless pvp
Declaring a feud on his company because he is wearing a green hat and killing them all is meaningful pvp
I can so totally see the difference
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just by killing low rep characters? If thats the case, it will be meaningless since very few will be low rep. Most understand that their characters will suck, and do whatever it takes to be powerful. If they keep playing.It is not a well thought out plan. If it works too well, you have no low rep characters and the "good guys" have no content, that = fail.
That case is a huge success. Having no outside opponent, players will latch on to any minor difference and divide over that. I doubt that high-Rep characters are monolithic enough to share any finite resource among themselves, or even to agree on ROEs that ensure that upstarts can't wedge themselves in somewhere.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reputation... reflects the degree to which your character (initially) engages in meaningless PvP... The objective is to quantify to some degree how your character conforms to the goal of maximizing meaningful human interaction.That's extremely consistent with my current understanding and I'll gladly take it as confirmation that my current plan is "reasonable". Characters with Low Reputation will be the Characters who (initially) engage in a lot of meaningless PvP. I think it's perfectly reasonable to make those folks my content.
Thanks for the reply, Ryan.
So we are all agreed then killing someone for wearing a green hat is meaningless pvp
Declaring a feud on his company because he is wearing a green hat and killing them all is meaningful pvp
I can so totally see the difference
Killing someone for a reason the gods don't recognize has a cost. Declaring a feud on another organization provides a reason that the gods recognize, but has an orthogonal cost.
If the cost is meaningful to the player, then the action must be at least as meaningful. Adjustments to make sure that the costs remain meaningful as everything changes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reputation... reflects the degree to which your character (initially) engages in meaningless PvP... The objective is to quantify to some degree how your character conforms to the goal of maximizing meaningful human interaction.That's extremely consistent with my current understanding and I'll gladly take it as confirmation that my current plan is "reasonable". Characters with Low Reputation will be the Characters who (initially) engage in a lot of meaningless PvP. I think it's perfectly reasonable to make those folks my content.
Thanks for the reply, Ryan.
So we are all agreed then killing someone for wearing a green hat is meaningless pvp
Declaring a feud on his company because he is wearing a green hat and killing them all is meaningful pvp
I can so totally see the difference
My take on it, is that it is a start. Hooligans that declare feud (for whatever reason) will be spending their Influence. There is a cost to feud that they won't be able to spend like it is unlimited. They won't be able to feud everyone all the time, so it is a limiting factor. Sure they can disguise any reason with a legitimate one, but remember that GW does want to allow penalty free PVP as long as there is a cost and thus some limits to it.
I don't agree that "a green hat" is a valid reason. It is an excuse. I believe that some of the other ways to use Influence will make your CC's settlement want to encourage you to use it in those other ways too. That is more pressure to not be frivolous with your Influence pool.
Your previous point that it will be so cheap to feud that it will make no difference, is up to GW to fix. They need to make sure they find a good middle ground of costs and ways to prevent it from becoming a griefer tool. Let's say (for the sake of fun discussion) that you accept that this will be one of the systems that are in. What can you think of that will help GW prevent the worst results possible from it? :)
They will tweak and tune the whole thing if we make it unmanageable anarchy somehow with easy and ridiculous feuds. The system can be built on and elaborated as it goes, until it works best for what they want it to.
Better this, so far, than the complete anarchy of NOT having a cost and so NO limits.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that what you are predicting is a degenerate state, and that it will be averted by increasing the map size in such a manner as to prevent the existing hardcore groups from claiming all of the space. There should always be some room on some fringe for a settlement run by players who have other hobbies.I believe the plan right now is that once OE begins, high level training will only be available at PC settlements that have spent the requisite DI to have the right facilities. You will be able to purchase training from them if you're even allowed in, of course. That is why Mr. Dancey thinks that most players will belong to a PC settlement, imho. Who knows, could change but the highest forms of training will never be available at an NPC location, also imho.I wasn't disputing that only pc settlements could provide high level training.
I was suggesting that as settlements became less casual by weeding out of the least fit that casual players would gradually find that the requirements for membership of settlements or alliances be more commitment than they were willing to give.
This of course assumes that it is my prediction is the one that comes true and not Nihimons
And those settlements will only be able to offer low level training until they have built up there DI over a period of months. Guess what the original settlements are doing in the meantime it will be one of
a) They are recruiting the least casual of the players in the NPC settlements which they will then use to man these new settlements when they take them over.
b) They will demand tribute and military levies and insist these new settlements become what is knowm in eve vernacular as pets
c) They are regularly purging these settlements ensuring that they never become strong enough to be a threat.
There is only so much land that GW can open up because they need to keep demand higher than supply otherwise the settlement warfare...
Large, efficient settlements successful enough to do the things you listed will only want members with relatively high reputations, otherwise their strength will be curtailed. Even casual players who are willing to pitch in (remember a PC can sign up to 'work' on a single structure; just one at a time, and continue playing) that have the rep/alignment thresholds are extremely useful. In fact, I expect all players with moderate and higher rep will be courted for venture co. and settlement memberships for that very reason.
...I think that what you are predicting is a degenerate state, and that it will be averted by increasing the map size in such a manner as to prevent the existing hardcore groups from claiming all of the space. There should always be some room on some fringe for a settlement run by players who have other hobbies.I believe the plan right now is that once OE begins, high level training will only be available at PC settlements that have spent the requisite DI to have the right facilities. You will be able to purchase training from them if you're even allowed in, of course. That is why Mr. Dancey thinks that most players will belong to a PC settlement, imho. Who knows, could change but the highest forms of training will never be available at an NPC location, also imho.I wasn't disputing that only pc settlements could provide high level training.
I was suggesting that as settlements became less casual by weeding out of the least fit that casual players would gradually find that the requirements for membership of settlements or alliances be more commitment than they were willing to give.
This of course assumes that it is my prediction is the one that comes true and not Nihimons
And those settlements will only be able to offer low level training until they have built up there DI over a period of months. Guess what the original settlements are doing in the meantime it will be one of
a) They are recruiting the least casual of the players in the NPC settlements which they will then use to man these new settlements when they take them over.
b) They will demand tribute and military levies and insist these new settlements become what is knowm in eve vernacular as pets
c) They are regularly purging these settlements ensuring that they never become strong enough to be a threat.
There is only so much land that GW can open up because they need to keep demand higher than supply otherwise
Settlements that I describe will have sufficient high rep committed players. Once you hit the cap of people you can train then no more needed that is the point we look at taking another settlement.
Casual players add nothing unless they cannot fill out the training slots with committed players which is highly unlikely.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Reputation... reflects the degree to which your character (initially) engages in meaningless PvP... The objective is to quantify to some degree how your character conforms to the goal of maximizing meaningful human interaction.That's extremely consistent with my current understanding and I'll gladly take it as confirmation that my current plan is "reasonable". Characters with Low Reputation will be the Characters who (initially) engage in a lot of meaningless PvP. I think it's perfectly reasonable to make those folks my content.
Thanks for the reply, Ryan.
So we are all agreed then killing someone for wearing a green hat is meaningless pvp
Declaring a feud on his company because he is wearing a green hat and killing them all is meaningful pvp
I can so totally see the difference
The difference is that a feud costs influence. GW controls how an organization earns influence and the mechanic, like everything else, will be subject to crowdforging and tweaking. A 'feud griefer' will attract a lot of attention.
P.S. No matter what I feel about green hats and reasons, switching the focus of "green hat" killing from "everyone" to a "CC or two" is pretty much the same as "we want to feud you because we like PVP". That is defined in the blog on Influence as valid.
The point I was trying to make bringslite was this insistence that people want meaningful pvp and not meaningless pvp is actually baloney.
What they actually want is goblinworks approved pvp and that approval actually has no bearing on whether that killing is meaningful to your character, settlement or alliance.
I hearby move that from on it is referred to as GW Approved pvp as it definitely has no relation to the tags meaningful or meaningless
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
P.S. No matter what I feel about green hats and reasons, switching the focus of "green hat" killing from "everyone" to a "CC or two" is pretty much the same as "we want to feud you because we like PVP". That is defined in the blog on Influence as valid.The point I was trying to make bringslite was this insistence that people want meaningful pvp and not meaningless pvp is actually baloney.
What they actually want is goblinworks approved pvp and that approval actually has no bearing on whether that killing is meaningful to your character, settlement or alliance.
I hearby move that from on it is referred to as GW Approved pvp as it definitely has no relation to the tags meaningful or meaningless
So are there any ways that spring to mind to help make wars and feuds more meaningful? I am sure that most people would prefer to be feuded/warred for meaningful reasons. Sometimes that will be a mutual want to just PVP, but not always.