Goblin Squad Member
|
The ultimate necessary evil of turning the game into a murder simulator.
Not according to Ryan. He has specifically stated the use of the "Monsters in the Basement" have a meaningful use.
It does not go without notice that you did not see the idea of "Red Listing" as contributing to moving PFO closer to a murder simulator.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree that "Monsters in the Basement" represents a break or hole in the system. I think it represents a probable reality for any government, but particularly those found in the River Kingdoms. They represent the deep and dark secrets and the will or desire to dominate their situation. They are the ultimate, necessary evil of ruling a settlement.
The ultimate necessary evil of turning the game into a murder simulator.Not according to Ryan. He has specifically stated the use of the "Monsters in the Basement" have a meaningful use.
Hey, Bludd, go back and re-read Ryan's actual words:
I just fail to see how making people play alts to circumvent the alignment and rep systems is supposed to be meaningful player interaction. Why bother with the systems at all if you're just going to force players to circumvent them or fail.They're not circumventing the alignment & rep system per se. They're addressing a known weakness in the design (as it stands right now) which is that NBSI is a meaningful interaction for certain kinds of territory (i.e. territory that your Settlement is actively either defending or exploiting), but it is not a meaningful interaction in other kinds of territory or circumstance (ganking for the lulz).
We cannot allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good, and so we need to start with a basic system with a known flaw, then Crowdforge that system over time to move close to an ideal where the system enables the meaningful interaction we want, and penalizes the meaningless actions we don't.
Again, as I stated earlier, the fact that the system is circumvented in some cases by some characters does not mean the system is a failure.
In his view, with which I entirely agree, those 'monsters' exist to address a shortcoming of the game mechanics. That is by no mean tacit endorsement of their existence as a whole, but rather as a solution to a temporary problem. The very clearly stated goal is to improve the game system to address that flaw so that those 'monsters' aren't necessary to create a meaningful interaction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Fulfilling shortcomings is meaningful. They have a use and they will be used. I am of the mind that the "hole" Ryan is talking about can't be filled, or if it is more likely the "Monsters" are used sparingly enough or in settlement hex defensive situations where they become a tolerated reality.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fulfilling shortcomings is meaningful. They have a use and they will be used. I am of the mind that the "hole" Ryan is talking about can't be filled, or if it is more likely the "Monsters" are used sparingly enough or in settlement hex defensive situations where they become a tolerated reality.
I understand what you are saying...and really there is no way to regulate what players of any alignment do when it comes to hiring people to do their dirty work, Paladins hiring assassins and what not. But when it comes to holding a settlement, the concept that the good citizens of blah blah blah would have no unrest when their rulers are letting evil "monsters" run rampant in their community so they can kill minor criminals or even other good travelers doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It's sort of hard to imagine a nice family of farmers in a good aligned territory taking their children to market and not objecting to witnessing government sanctioned orcish berserkers gutting jay walkers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Valtorious: The 'monsters in the basement' approach isn't the long-term goal. It's an interim stop-gap during EE while emergent behavior shakes out so that the devs can get a handle on what those 'monsters' are being used for and accommodate that play-style with game mechanics.
@ Everyone in the Stand & Deliver circle-jerk: The mechanic that was presented ages ago was based on a system that has changed substantially. Furthermore, no such mechanic will be present in EE (and maybe not 'till late OE) and what it might look like will depend highly upon, again, emergent gameplay. If you want to fantasize about how you might exploit an imaginary mechanic, knock yourself out, but, please, stop polluting otherwise meaningful discussions with your masturbatory drivel.
I understand that. I, for the most part was just stating what I would like to see in the game. And as you said about the meaningful discussions...I was trying to have that about the concepts of alignment and their effects on settlements. I have no interest in arguing about how well my imaginary kingdom is going to do in a game that doesn't exist yet, I have interest in the ideas that are forming that game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's sort of hard to imagine a nice family of farmers in a good aligned territory taking their children to market and not objecting to witnessing government sanctioned orcish berserkers gutting jay walkers.
Heh, it would be bizarre if our own society only had the punishment options of death or fines under penalty of death, wouldn't it?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's sort of hard to imagine a nice family of farmers in a good aligned territory taking their children to market and not objecting to witnessing government sanctioned orcish berserkers gutting jay walkers.Heh, it would be bizarre if our own society only had the punishment options of death or fines under penalty of death, wouldn't it?
There are no prisons in the game. And law enforcement is the good characters in this scenario. If it were real life...the person would be apprehended, given a trial, and pay a fine and/or go to jail. If the suspects resist the police and/or use violence...the police can escalate their violence. Since it's a game and we have no prisons and our jury can be a flagged timer on characters who just broke the law...all we have left is the law enforcement who is still giving the criminal an option to leave with a minor fine. It might not be totally realistic, but hey, I'm trying here. lol
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
First you just had a tresspasser and now you have an enemy, am I reading that right?
@Valtorious Age of Wushu has prisons, it is an odd feature. I got killed once by a "red" player who soon after got caught by players with the "police"flag (or some) and a system-chat message that he had to spend so many hours in prison. His avatar is actually put in prison in the town where Iw as and I decided to look him up. I saw him through the bars and he was hopping up and down on his prison bed. It was a strange experience. I think I was kinda childish and did the /laugh emote, but he wasn't paying much attention. :) I do not even think he was AFK,but it sure looked like it was all part of good fun.
Very odd mechanic. You can break out of it too, or your friends can help you break out. The game has a pretty extensive "criminial" and rep system too. I did not really like the setting and the pure Martial Arts Combat though. But it could be quit exiting.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm generally not in favor of mechanics that have someone twiddling their thumbs unable to do anything.
I'm however fairly favorable toward mechanics that make it so that if you get killed, you can't be out harassing someone else in the time it takes you to grab a ready bag and re-gear.
Unfortunately for someone that really likes combat to the point of exclusion of other activities, most forms of the second will also be the first. Maybe a high enough portion of players are well enough rounded that wouldn't matter though.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
/ignores last 80 posts.
I'm pretty down with this town marshal idea. I was arguing for every stakeholder in a settlement or POI hex to have that ability at some personal cost to avoid the delays of going to a centralized source for the mechanic but I'm also happy to start where GW wants to start. Also, "Deputized!"?
My primary thought with a Marshal is that we don't want to create settlement settings that trap a few people into some obligation to be logged in at certain times and if they miss a "shift" the settlement suddenly lacks that ability until such time another marshal logs in.
I'd suggest the powers of marshal be contained in the badge (a distinct inventory item whatever form it takes). That leaves the possibility that leadership can decide on a pool of capable people who then pass the badge (powers and title of marshal) between each other when playing for constant coverage, or a more traditional this-one-guy-is-our-marshal style who doesn't share the badge.
I also put forward deputization. Temporary powers of the marshal that last on one character for a few hours. Increased security response in times of increased threat or an easier sweep of the hex for any trouble. Some limits on it like alignment, reputation level relative to the settlement, done in person, three deputies maximum logged in at a given time, 2-4 hour duration depending on testing, voluntarily endable.
Of course all the powers are null outside the marshal's jurisdiction hex. POIs might get a marshal for their hex if they spend the influence for it?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
/ignores last 80 posts.
I'm pretty down with this town marshal idea. I was arguing for every stakeholder in a settlement or POI hex to have that ability at some personal cost to avoid the delays of going to a centralized source for the mechanic but I'm also happy to start where GW wants to start. Also, "Deputized!"?
My primary thought with a Marshal is that we don't want to create settlement settings that trap a few people into some obligation to be logged in at certain times and if they miss a "shift" the settlement suddenly lacks that ability until such time another marshal logs in.
I'd suggest the powers of marshal be contained the the badge (a distinct inventory item whatever form it takes). That leaves the possibility that leadership can decide on a pool of capable people who then pass the badge (powers and title of marshal) between each other when playing, or a more traditional this-one-guy-is-our-marshal style who doesn't share the badge.
I also put forward deputization. Temporary powers of the marshal that last on one character for a few hours. Increased security response in times of increased threat or an easier sweep of the hex for any trouble. Some limits on it like alignment, reputation level relative to the settlement, done in person, three deputies maximum logged in at a given time, and 2-4 hour duration depending on testing, voluntarily endable.
Of course all the powers are null outside the marshal's jurisdiction hex.
The Marshal / Sherriff function could be a skill / feat. It could be a trainable skill and then slotted. It could likewise have a tool set, as suggested with an item that grants various levels and types of buffs (key words) that further support the role.
Settlements or individual players would not be limited in how many marshals they could have. Essentially, everyone in a settlement could be a Marshal if they chose to.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
First you just had a tresspasser and now you have an enemy, am I reading that right?
@Valtorious Age of Wushu has prisons, it is an odd feature. I got killed once by a "red" player who soon after got caught by players with the "police"flag (or some) and a system-chat message that he had to spend so many hours in prison. His avatar is actually put in prison in the town where Iw as and I decided to look him up. I saw him through the bars and he was hopping up and down on his prison bed. It was a strange experience. I think I was kinda childish and did the /laugh emote, but he wasn't paying much attention. :) I do not even think he was AFK,but it sure looked like it was all part of good fun.
Very odd mechanic. You can break out of it too, or your friends can help you break out. The game has a pretty extensive "criminial" and rep system too. I did not really like the setting and the pure Martial Arts Combat though. But it could be quit exiting.
That's pretty funny.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The Marshal / Sherriff function could be a skill / feat. It could be a trainable skill and then slotted. It could likewise have a tool set, as suggested with an item that grants various levels and types of buffs (key words) that further support the role.
Settlements or individual players would not be limited in how many marshals they could have. Essentially, everyone in a settlement could be a Marshal if they chose to.
One of the key attributes in the description Tork gave was power limited to one person. But if you can convince them to make it slottable, possibly with a highish minimum Reputation requirement relative to their settlement's minimum, I'm behind that too.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the Marshall/Sheriff thing is going to be effective they need to have it so that the more times you have to use it on an individual, the longer it lasts.
With all the different territory controlling groups though that might be more trouble than it's worth in terms of tracking. Exiling would be much simpler.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the Marshall/Sheriff thing is going to be effective they need to have it so that the more times you have to use it on an individual, the longer it lasts.
With all the different territory controlling groups though that might be more trouble than it's worth in terms of tracking. Exiling would be much simpler.
I think a major consideration against a Red List is the amount of server processing required to check the list of exiles for the name of every Character who crosses into your Settlement Hex. It's probably even one of those things that a sizable force of mischief-minded miscreants (thinking of you, Fult) would coordinate to do en masse in an attempt to crash your hex.
It seems right to me to put social pressure on the miscreant's Company or Settlement if he's making a nuisance of himself.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's probably even one of those things that a sizable force of mischief-minded miscreants (thinking of you, Fult) would coordinate to do en masse in an attempt to crash your hex.
Ryan has stated before intentionally crashing the servers is a bannable offense.
Also I don't see any major advantage to an actual list as opposed to a system where the controlling settlement sets it so anyone at or below X diplomatic status automatically gets trespassed. Put a 15 minute time on diplomatic status changes and make it so changes to settlement policies take effect each downtime.
As I mentioned earlier use the Darkfall security zone system (30 second timer when entering an area before getting flagged and a warning when that timer starts and ends) and tint areas you're not allowed red on the main map and mini-map.
Solves literally every problem redlisting has been accused of causing. And all said it's a pretty damn simple system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It could be a processing matter and certainly it is not as simple as Darkfall's, but actually far more complex. It is not a simple on/off system that covers every avatar for a few areas. It is probably much easier to code a system for ALL, than it is to have many little areas, each with their separate lists of certain individuals and companies that are constantly changing. All the while, inside these little areas are constant calculations checking actions against laws, all of which are different in the little areas. Etc...etc...ad infinitum.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't see any major advantage to an actual list as opposed to a system where the controlling settlement sets it so anyone at or below X diplomatic status automatically gets trespassed. Put a 15 minute time on diplomatic status changes and make it so changes to settlement policies take effect each downtime.
As I mentioned earlier use the Darkfall security zone system (30 second timer when entering an area before getting flagged and a warning when that timer starts and ends) and tint areas you're not allowed red on the main map and mini-map.
Solves literally every problem redlisting has been accused of causing. And all said it's a pretty damn simple system.
What cost do you propose for this power to auto-flag and set to "Red" consequence free for all PVP?
Are there any skills that have to be trained and slotted for its use?
Does it cost influence to place it on each character exiled?
Does it cost your settlement's Development Index to initiate the Exile / Red List?
Does the presence of exiled characters, after the timer, increase the corruption rating of your settlement?
Does an exiled character see your settlement's citizens as hostile, and can they be freely attacked by the exile?
Is this how Brighthaven plans on presenting its NRDS policy, by having a massive Red List, and promoting that as a standard for settlements across the River Kingdoms in PFO?
As for Darkfall's Security Zone System, or EVE's for that matter, they are essentially the same, wouldn't that be beneficial to have across the entire map?
NPC Zones = High Sec
PC Settlements = Null Sec w/ their own laws
Everything in between = Low Sec
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's probably even one of those things that a sizable force of mischief-minded miscreants (thinking of you, Fult) would coordinate to do en masse in an attempt to crash your hex.Also I don't see any major advantage to an actual list as opposed to a system where the controlling settlement sets it so anyone at or below X diplomatic status automatically gets trespassed.
That bolded part has to have a list somewhere. Either the Settlement has a list of every Character that has Diplomatic Standing (including what their Diplomatic Standing is), or every Character has a list of every Settlement with which they have Diplomatic Standing (including what their Diplomatic Standing is).
Searching through either of those lists every time any Character enters any Settlement Hex is processor-intensive. Searching for a single value stored on the Character (is this Character unaffiliated) and then (if true) for a single value on the Settlement (do we auto-flag unaffiliated Characters) is much less intensive.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The cost is controlling the settlement. Your territory, your rules. I wouldn't expect someone who relies on can-flipping to find PvP to understand the significant effort required to take and defend territory but it's a lot bigger deal than picking which high sec systems you want to grief.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's probably even one of those things that a sizable force of mischief-minded miscreants (thinking of you, Fult) would coordinate to do en masse in an attempt to crash your hex.Also I don't see any major advantage to an actual list as opposed to a system where the controlling settlement sets it so anyone at or below X diplomatic status automatically gets trespassed.That bolded part has to have a list somewhere. Either the Settlement has a list of every Character that has Diplomatic Standing (including what their Diplomatic Standing is), or every Character has a list of every Settlement with which they have Diplomatic Standing (including what their Diplomatic Standing is).
Searching through either of those lists every time any Character enters any Settlement Hex is processor-intensive. Searching for a single value stored on the Character (is this Character unaffiliated) and then (if true) for a single value on the Settlement (do we auto-flag unaffiliated Characters) is much less intensive.
The diplomacy list is something we already need, and have already been told we're likely to receive.
EVE has a much more complex system than the 3 step system they've proposed or even the 5 step one I would want and it displays that status for every player you see. How could this be much more intensive?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The cost is controlling the settlement. Your territory, your rules.
This will certainly make it a lot easier to run a Chaotic Evil settlement, and not have any of the corruption / unrest / alignment / reputation / DI consequences to worry about.
Your exile mechanic turns all greys to exile, making them a free target for all blues, greys and reds (other exiles). It turns your settlement hex into a free for all zone.
Fortunately the devs have already said, no red / white lists. Tork had specifically directed us to just use the feud system. He also threw you a bone in the form of the Marshal / Sheriff which I would suggest that you prod them into fleshing that out a bit more.
As it read, it seemed like there is a limit to the number, perhaps only one per settlement, and I would argue that a settlement should have more. If it relies on just one person, what happens the other 20+ hours per day?
Here is my suggestions, very brief and not fully fleshed out:
1. Multiple characters can be trained to hold the title of Marshal. But only one Marshal is needed to be online at one time.
2. Based on the Marshal's skill level, he or she can control a number of Deputies.
3. The Marshal acts as a Field Commander and grants buffs to his / her deputies. These buffs are also based on the marshal's skills.
4. Watch Towers not only increase the viewing range throughout the settlement hex, but they also extend the buff range of the marshal's skills as well.
5. If the Marshal leads a posse him / herself, the buffs to the deputies are increased.
Essentially what this does is it turn the Marshal into a Command Ship. Now he becomes the "long arm' of the law and when present in the hex, he will make for a formidable opponent.
Like a Command Ship, they require extensive training, but on the field there a few substitutes.
Damn, if it were this layered and interesting, I'd roll an alt to play a Marshal myself. Maybe even make my DT Monk a Marshal.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Implementing a redlist would be technologically trivial. It's one additional DB table lookup per boundary entry (whatever that happens to be) and some sort of mechanic to prevent griefing (like a timer) when adding someone new who is in the territory.
As for a Marshal Service, having the primary limiting factor of its use be characters who have access does nothing to prevent abuse by those characters and places an especially large burden on those players to be available. I would much rather the ability be rationed by a per use cost to the settlement (such as corruption) and be freely available to be given out to anyone the settlement leadership trusts to only use the ability judiciously.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Here's a concept: maybe assigning people as Marshalls costs DI, just like maintaining any building would. People with Marshall power can declare others as trespassers, possibly with an upper limit per day or total, or possibly with a soft cap in the form of corruption/unrest/whatever if you assign more red flags than the limit.
What this would mean is that a settlement can hand out Marshall powers to as many people as they need, so there isn't an unwanted dependency on a few people, but the more police forces you give Marshall power to the higher the cost. Maybe the first one or two are free before you have to start paying forward DI, that way a small settlement getting on its feet can at least start with one police officer to patrol during their small PvP window.
Thoughts?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Here's a concept: maybe assigning people as Marshalls costs DI, just like maintaining any building would. People with Marshall power can declare others as trespassers, possibly with an upper limit per day or total, or possibly with a soft cap in the form of corruption/unrest/whatever if you assign more red flags than the limit.
What this would mean is that a settlement can hand out Marshall powers to as many people as they need, so there isn't an unwanted dependency on a few people, but the more police forces you give Marshall power to the higher the cost. Maybe the first one or two are free before you have to start paying forward DI, that way a small settlement getting on its feet can at least start with one police officer to patrol during their small PvP window.
Thoughts?
I think that is what I described above, although I did not limit its use. If it is a slotted skill I don't see why its use should be limited. That would be like saying, you can only swing a sword x number of times today.
In mine, the Marshal's skill level determines the number of Deputies he can deploy.
In my idea, a settlement can have more than one Marshal, but only one can function at one time. This will potentially allow for 24 hour coverage as long as the collection of marshals organize their shifts.
In my idea, the Marshal system is not a game mechanic, it is a proactive human interaction. The Marshal on duty, and his or her deputies, actually have to perform their roles.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Implementing a redlist would be technologically trivial. It's one additional DB table lookup per boundary entry (whatever that happens to be) and some sort of mechanic to prevent griefing (like a timer) when adding someone new who is in the territory.
As for a Marshal Service, having the primary limiting factor of its use be characters who have access does nothing to prevent abuse by those characters and places an especially large burden on those players to be available. I would much rather the ability be rationed by a per use cost to the settlement (such as corruption) and be freely available to be given out to anyone the settlement leadership trusts to only use the ability judiciously.
Not according to Tork Shaw, who wrote about the issues he sees with "Red Listing":
1) If you want to 'redlist' players then you should go to war/declare a feud. That is the system in place for that. If your settlement is being harassed it is likely by a decent sized group of players - likely one or more companies, not a single player or a small number of players. You can redlist a company of any size, just not individual players.
2) Redlisting individual players makes it too cheap and too easy for people to abuse that system to pick on players at a moments notice. If you are a settlement administrator and you fancy killing some peeps for a laugh you could just pop them on the red-list and go at it. In addition it is a much larger quantity of data to store and indicate to the player.
3) I am super-hesitant to mention this since its not properly fleshed out yet and Stephen and I discussed it earlier and thought it might not be pertinent to bring up yet, but... there is a sketched out system for certain settlement positions (notably the town sheriff/marshal) to give individual players the "criminal" flag in order to force them out of town. This would a) have a warning/delay on its activation, and b) have some cost associated with it (most likely DI). It is a very specific, short-term red-list ability so that if a handful of people really are being ass***** to folks in your town you can make them a PVP target for everyone.
Personal, individual redlists can quickly become obnoxious, aside from the technical implications of implementing such a system. Pathfinder Online is about Player Vs Player combat in the context of companies and settlements - so feuds and wars are our preferable source of opt-in conflict.
Besides the technical implications he does mention, there is the issue of redundancy.
Criminal Flags
Hostility Flags
Self Defense
Social Group Defense
SADs
Feuds
Bounties
Assassinations
Faction Conflict
Wars
* And the proposed Marshal / Sheriff feature
These are all ways in which you can actively protect your settlement hex and or visit retribution upon those that violate your security.
All of these have various costs and or trade offs and contributes to the primary goal of increasing meaningful human interactions.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
It's probably even one of those things that a sizable force of mischief-minded miscreants (thinking of you, Fult) would coordinate to do en masse in an attempt to crash your hex.Also I don't see any major advantage to an actual list as opposed to a system where the controlling settlement sets it so anyone at or below X diplomatic status automatically gets trespassed.That bolded part has to have a list somewhere. Either the Settlement has a list of every Character that has Diplomatic Standing (including what their Diplomatic Standing is), or every Character has a list of every Settlement with which they have Diplomatic Standing (including what their Diplomatic Standing is).
Searching through either of those lists every time any Character enters any Settlement Hex is processor-intensive. Searching for a single value stored on the Character (is this Character unaffiliated) and then (if true) for a single value on the Settlement (do we auto-flag unaffiliated Characters) is much less intensive.
I think that scale problem already exists whenever the system has to determine if two players are hostile to each other because they are members of companies which are feuding.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Wouldn't the number of companies that are feuding and settlements at war be significantly less than the number of characters in feud/war groups? If there are 10-50 people per company (average of 30), then the list of feuding companies is about 30x smaller than the list of feuding characters. And the system also has to maintain 30x fewer lists, because it needs one per company, not one per player.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Wouldn't the number of companies that are feuding and settlements at war be significantly less than the number of characters in feud/war groups? If there are 10-50 people per company (average of 30), then the list of feuding companies is about 30x smaller than the list of feuding characters. And the system also has to maintain 30x fewer lists, because it needs one per company, not one per player.
Yes, and then if the player is using alts (particularly throw away alts) then the list will include many names no longer attached to characters. Imagine how huge this list would be, several years down the road and consider the fact that every settlement will maintain such a list.
This is why the Feud System applies to all members of the company being feuded, and why feuds are temporary unless reinstated continuously. This is why feuds have associated costs, so they are not frivolously issued. But, a settlement or company is not limited in the number of feuds they partake in, unless they don't have the influence to do so.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think (I hope) that everything is being designed around the encouragement to BE in a company. If they really want to give us incentive to BE in a company then they should make it better than not. You are part of the social "society, you have friends, people know you by your affiliation. Word of what you do and when you act well spreads easier. Less unaffiliated Alts and they are not as easy to "maintain" as exploit monsters.
Make passive rep gain contingent on membership in a company.
Just throwing something out, on a boring Sat morning.
I think (I hope) that everything is being designed around the encouragement to BE in a company. If they really want to give us incentive to BE in a company then they should make it better than not. You are part of the social "society, you have friends, people know you by your affiliation. Word of what you do and when you act well spreads easier. Less unaffiliated Alts and they are not as easy to "maintain" as exploit monsters.
Make passive rep gain contingent on membership in a company.
Just throwing something out, on a boring Sat morning.
Unaffiliated alts are mostly wanted to be unaffiliated from the settlement, not necessarily totally unaffiliated. There is nothing to stop them being in a company nor any reason for them not to be.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Urman
It is not well thought out, admittedly. So let's see.
Influence is an incentive for companies and settlements.
Reputation, while needed to be maintained at certain levels for a settlement, is still mostly an incentive at an individual level.
One problem: unaffiliated Alts are difficult to counter (in large numbers) and impossible to feud.
One solution: Make passive rep gains only click "on" when a toon is in a company. Active rep gains (whatever they are) are still open and reflect positive play, better than passive.
Argument: I will still just switch in and out of a holding company when I need to gain passive rep.
One solution: Fine but you must be a company member for "X" days/hours before that gain kicks in.
There is no way to achieve 100% prevention in people twisting the mechanics. Every way that you make it less efficient, time consuming, or difficult the fewer the number of people there will be willing to jump the hoops.
So the answer was "no company, no passive gain"
@ Urman
It is not well thought out, admittedly. So let's see.
Influence is an incentive for companies and settlements.
Reputation, while needed to be maintained at certain levels for a settlement, is still mostly an incentive at an individual level.
One problem: unaffiliated Alts are difficult to counter (in large numbers) and impossible to feud.
One solution: Make passive rep gains only click "on" when a toon is in a company. Active rep gains (whatever they are) are still open and reflect positive play, better than passive.
Argument: I will still just switch in and out of a holding company when I need to gain passive rep.
One solution: Fine but you must be a company member for "X" days/hours before that gain kicks in.
There is no way to achieve 100% prevention in people twisting the mechanics. Every way that you make it less efficient, time consuming, or difficult the fewer the number of people there will be willing to jump the hoops.
So the answer was "no company, no passive gain"
In Eve it is common when war decced for a corporation to be dissolved thus voiding the war dec then immediately reformed. I expect this to happen for feuds in PfO that way they would lose maybe a minute or two of rep ticks
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Unaffiliated alts are mostly wanted to be unaffiliated from the settlement, not necessarily totally unaffiliated. There is nothing to stop them being in a company nor any reason for them not to be.I think (I hope) that everything is being designed around the encouragement to BE in a company. If they really want to give us incentive to BE in a company then they should make it better than not. You are part of the social "society, you have friends, people know you by your affiliation. Word of what you do and when you act well spreads easier. Less unaffiliated Alts and they are not as easy to "maintain" as exploit monsters.
Make passive rep gain contingent on membership in a company.
Just throwing something out, on a boring Sat morning.
Yeah. But those kind of Alts are best used at "home" for that. They can pop out when you need them and are safer on home ground.
The point is, the unaffiliated masses being used in the wilds. They have nothing that they care about losing, so they can be used for anything. If they are in a company they can be feuded. If they are not, they can be used for "whatever" and stay competitive with passive rep gain when they are not at work.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In Eve it is common when war decced for a corporation to be dissolved thus voiding the war dec then immediately reformed. I expect this to happen for feuds in PfO that way they would lose maybe a minute or two of rep ticks@ Urman
It is not well thought out, admittedly. So let's see.
Influence is an incentive for companies and settlements.
Reputation, while needed to be maintained at certain levels for a settlement, is still mostly an incentive at an individual level.
One problem: unaffiliated Alts are difficult to counter (in large numbers) and impossible to feud.
One solution: Make passive rep gains only click "on" when a toon is in a company. Active rep gains (whatever they are) are still open and reflect positive play, better than passive.
Argument: I will still just switch in and out of a holding company when I need to gain passive rep.
One solution: Fine but you must be a company member for "X" days/hours before that gain kicks in.
There is no way to achieve 100% prevention in people twisting the mechanics. Every way that you make it less efficient, time consuming, or difficult the fewer the number of people there will be willing to jump the hoops.
So the answer was "no company, no passive gain"
I doubt that will work well. You will probably lose your pool of Influence when you disband.
Unaffiliated alts are mostly wanted to be unaffiliated from the settlement, not necessarily totally unaffiliated. There is nothing to stop them being in a company nor any reason for them not to be.I think (I hope) that everything is being designed around the encouragement to BE in a company. If they really want to give us incentive to BE in a company then they should make it better than not. You are part of the social "society, you have friends, people know you by your affiliation. Word of what you do and when you act well spreads easier. Less unaffiliated Alts and they are not as easy to "maintain" as exploit monsters.
Make passive rep gain contingent on membership in a company.
Just throwing something out, on a boring Sat morning.
Yeah. But those kind of Alts are best used at "home" for that. They can pop out when you need them and are safer on home ground.
The point is, the unaffiliated masses being used in the wilds. They have nothing that they care about losing, so they can be used for anything. If they are in a company they can be feuded. If they are not, they can be used for "whatever" and stay competitive with passive rep gain when they are not at work.
As I pointed out above if they are in a company and are feuded then they disband the company voiding the feud and wasting the influence spent on it then immediately form a new company.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As I pointed out above if they are in a company and are feuded then they disband the company voiding the feud and wasting the influence spent on it then immediately form a new company.Unaffiliated alts are mostly wanted to be unaffiliated from the settlement, not necessarily totally unaffiliated. There is nothing to stop them being in a company nor any reason for them not to be.I think (I hope) that everything is being designed around the encouragement to BE in a company. If they really want to give us incentive to BE in a company then they should make it better than not. You are part of the social "society, you have friends, people know you by your affiliation. Word of what you do and when you act well spreads easier. Less unaffiliated Alts and they are not as easy to "maintain" as exploit monsters.
Make passive rep gain contingent on membership in a company.
Just throwing something out, on a boring Sat morning.
Yeah. But those kind of Alts are best used at "home" for that. They can pop out when you need them and are safer on home ground.
The point is, the unaffiliated masses being used in the wilds. They have nothing that they care about losing, so they can be used for anything. If they are in a company they can be feuded. If they are not, they can be used for "whatever" and stay competitive with passive rep gain when they are not at work.
Easy there big guy. Your answer went up when I was writing mine. That happens on text forums. :)
I doubt that will work well. You will probably lose your pool of Influence when you disband.That would be my expectation as well, the (permanent?) loss of all Influence the company earned to that point.
These are alts that were going to be unaffiliated before the suggestion. They need influence for which particular reason? They aren't planning on feuding anyone.
Heh no worries it happens all the time to me as well :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
These are alts that were going to be unaffiliated before the suggestion. They need influence for which particular reason? They aren't planning on feuding anyone.I doubt that will work well. You will probably lose your pool of Influence when you disband.That would be my expectation as well, the (permanent?) loss of all Influence the company earned to that point.
That is a fair point. I am not sure about everything that Influence will be needed for. Maybe not at all for those types of companies.
It would be a shame if it were that easy to avoid feuds.
These are alts that were going to be unaffiliated before the suggestion. They need influence for which particular reason? They aren't planning on feuding anyone.I doubt that will work well. You will probably lose your pool of Influence when you disband.That would be my expectation as well, the (permanent?) loss of all Influence the company earned to that point.That is a fair point. I am not sure about everything that Influence will be needed for. Maybe not at all for those types of companies.
It would be a shame if it were that easy to avoid feuds.
I expect it to be a common thing even among proper companies. Got a company of gatherers that gets feuded? Only common sense to disband then reform as you have no chance of fighting.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As I pointed out above if they are in a company and are feuded then they disband the company voiding the feud and wasting the influence spent on it then immediately form a new company.
That's a good point, if it's alts that are forming a company just to avoid being targeted as unaffiated.
I suppose one obvious counter for GW is: If company A is feuding company B, and company B disbands, then company A has 'won' the feud and all of the Influence spent on that feud is restored.
Another counter is that there can be timers for disbanding or costs for forming a company. Not to mention the characters might have to go back to the sponsoring settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
These are alts that were going to be unaffiliated before the suggestion. They need influence for which particular reason? They aren't planning on feuding anyone.I doubt that will work well. You will probably lose your pool of Influence when you disband.That would be my expectation as well, the (permanent?) loss of all Influence the company earned to that point.That is a fair point. I am not sure about everything that Influence will be needed for. Maybe not at all for those types of companies.
It would be a shame if it were that easy to avoid feuds.
I expect it to be a common thing even among proper companies. Got a company of gatherers that gets feuded? Only common sense to disband then reform as you have no chance of fighting.
I doubt that it will be common. Influence looks like it has a wide range of uses. It is not just for feuds. It may be common for companies that are just used for very limited things though. (as you have described)
As I pointed out above if they are in a company and are feuded then they disband the company voiding the feud and wasting the influence spent on it then immediately form a new company.That's a good point, if it's alts that are forming a company just to avoid being targeted as unaffiated.
I suppose one obvious counter for GW is: If company A is feuding company B, and company B disbands, then company A has 'won' the feud and all of the Influence spent on that feud is restored.
Another counter is that there can be timers for disbanding or costs for forming a company. Not to mention the characters might have to go back to the sponsoring settlement.
As I have pointed out griefers will use the feud as a tool of choice just as they use war decs for griefing industrial corps in Eve. One of the things that they seek to do in Eve and see as a win is cause a corporation to disband. You wish to reward them for doing it by refunding the influence so they can move on to the next gatherer company?
As to timers for disbanding you also have to put timers on people leaving a company as well in that case otherwise its just case of 99% leave and the company leader waits for the timer to expire while logged off.
Cost to form a company? Coin is easy to come by. Can't charge influence because individual characters have none of their own. Can't charge reputation because no one can gain reputation until they are in a company.
The suggestion basically causes a huge amount of knock on problems while not actually solving the problem it was meant to address which is that of unaffiliated alts.