I fail to understand

[Pax Deacon]

To clarify:
After I received mixed results of trying to motivate the LE and NE community I retreated into lurker status to manage and maintain our records, policies, etc.. on the Pax Forums. But! I kept coming back to these forums to see if new introductions were announced, maintain diplomatic ties in vested groups, and to see new blog posts.

With that quick explanation out of the way let me continue. I fail to understand a subtle movement within these forums. Clarification requested? Granted.

Players requesting mechanics in order to enforce social behavior/norms. I fail to understand why, in a sandbox environment, these mechanics would be requested and even still needed to any degree.

When operating in a sandbox environment, you are treading as closely as modern technology allows into a table-top experience. Players will drive the economy, the player vs player content, and many more aspects of the game. you can be your Hero, your Villain, etc...

And therein lies my problem: Why do we need mechanic benefits/penalties for social norms? Society did not advance throughout the stages as it did with pre-coded "structure" in which to provide benefits and penalties to models of society. And fear not, the game we play is nothing more than a digital model of social and economic growth.

Players will control the aspects of society. Or rather, the winners and successful will control the aspects of society. In a game of survival of the fittest I see players requesting crutches to lean on for they can not fathom the idea of being forced to stand on their own two legs. But! that is not the intended model here. The intent is for players to band together to form their social norms and societies. Those that succeed will set the standard that newer organizations will follow in order to succeed and so on and so forth until only the strongest organizations survive.

So why provide mechanical crutches to individual or group initiatives? If you seek to provide a benefit to something to set it as the standard, then get your groups boots on the ground and make it a benefit. Your example is worth more than any mechanic. Mechanics are rules that will be manipulated and worked around in order to achieve the desired effect, but establishing a societal norm will cause those seeking to get around it to face the brunt of a community. And without a mechanical benefit to manipulate it will force the two communities to conflict and the survivor will enforce its norms.

Just my two-cents:
Lord Regent Deacon Wulf, Golgotha

[Papaver]

While I do not think I am capable of making a complete case regarding that subject I think one of the main differences between Society ( I assume you mean the RL human society) and a Sandbox gaming community is that in Society the majority agree that killing is bad because they do not want to be killed. Under the current ( lol ) form of killing someone in real live they are dead when you kill them and they stay dead. That is absolutely not the case in PFO.

Imagine what RL would be if the consequense of killing someone would not be their death.

[Ravenlute]

Papaver wrote:

While I do not think I am capable of making a complete case regarding that subject I think one of the main differences between Society ( I assume you mean the RL human society) and a Sandbox gaming community is that in Society the majority agree that killing is bad because they do not want to be killed. Under the current ( lol ) form of killing someone in real live they are dead when you kill them and they stay dead. That is absolutely not the case in PFO.

Imagine what RL would be if the consequense of killing someone would not be their death.

See Torchwood: Miracle Day

"The central plot of Miracle Day is that suddenly no one on Earth can die, which incites increasingly troublesome legislative changes around the world as the global population soars."

[Drakhan Valane]

Because the anonymity of the internet turns people into jerks.

[Andius]

Papaver wrote:

Imagine what RL would be if the consequense of killing someone would not be their death.

Then throw open the doors of every cell in every prison, abolish the idea of and erase the possibility of prison, and arm everyone with lethal weapons.

Then imagine anyone who's not enjoying what's happening here can simply go to another world where none of this is happening. Some go to Trammel, some go to WoW, many to the mystical land of Minecraft, and even a few go to a place called Real Life never to be seen again and, leaving only those who enjoy utter anarchy and complete the bloodbath.

You now have an unregulated FFA PvP MMO. Enjoy.

[Bluddwolf]

Drakhan Valane wrote:

Because the anonymity of the internet turns people into jerks.

Then why play an MMO where your exposure to supposed jerks is guaranteed?

[Andius]

Because I'd rather FFA PvP with jerks than play a theme park.

Fortunately this isn't an unregulated FFA PvP game, so the scenario I described won't be PFO.

[AvenaOats]

Drakhan Valane wrote:

Because the anonymity of the internet turns people into jerks.

Strictly it's the "lack of consequences" of which being anonymous is a major contributory factor.

@OP: Social organization. Look at facebook or any other such and how those now compete with mmorpgs. Facebook works by linking friends in RL and mapping that in "virtual space". MMORPGs link random people who are able to spam/annoy etc and therefore the results are by contrast much smaller network growth of customers and quality of experience/interaction/utility by pure numerical comparison of users, let's say?

All just food for thought, not really addressing the mechanics question of how mmorpgs achieve these results via simulating a fictional world of alter-egos.

[Pax Shane Gifford]

Bluddwolf wrote:

Drakhan Valane wrote:

Because the anonymity of the internet turns people into jerks.

Then why play an MMO where your exposure to supposed jerks is guaranteed?

(opinion here) Because many of these people aren't really jerks, they are only acting like jerks because that's how they expect they should act. If we can condition them to behave a different way in this MMO, then we won't have as many people acting like jerks.

Of course, plenty of them are actually jerks, but we can still use those people. Just as you can condition someone who isn't a jerk to act like a jerk, you can also condition a jerk to act like a non-jerk.

Really, it all comes down to how we think we should act in a situation, and a large part of that is how we see other people responding in similar situations. So, it's my hope anyways, when people see others giving respect in PvP or acting kind to a new player, they will unconsciously think of that as the norm for this game and do so themselves.

[Lifedragn]

Bluddwolf wrote:

Drakhan Valane wrote:

Because the anonymity of the internet turns people into jerks.

Then why play an MMO where your exposure to supposed jerks is guaranteed?

Because there is still value in playing the MMO. When someone operates a store and a shoplifter is caught trying to steal goods, we punish the shoplifter. We don't ask the shop owner why he is trying to run a business when exposure to thieves is gauranteed. Just as the shop-owner isn't going to catch everyone that is claiming their five-finger discounts, we have to accept there will be a certain level of jerky behavior we need to deal with. But just as the shop-owner installs security systems to reduce and minimize damages caused, we wish to add mechanics and systems to minimize toxic atmosphere.

That article linked on the forums just a few days back about why relying on FFA PvP to enforce behavior doesn't work well explains the scenario much better than I ever could.

[Snorter]

Pax Shane Gifford wrote:

Of course, plenty of them are actually jerks, but we can still use those people. Just as you can condition someone who isn't a jerk to act like a jerk, you can also condition a jerk to act like a non-jerk.

A jerk can still be useful, even if only as a bad example.

Better still, if a jerk can be pointed in the right direction, he can reduce the damage caused by other jerks, because your pet jerk is busy jerking around the other jerks, so they don't get the opportunity to be jerks to non-jerks elsewhere.

[Pax Deacon]

So off topic, I never thought it could be misrepresented so thoroughly. I referenced the growth of societies. Cultures and subcultures, complete in their stages of birth, growth, and death. You can take it however you want, but I did not define "death" as a need. The strongest culture will survive while the others will emulate it. I'm not sure how you took that to mean RL exclusively.

Instead of taking it to the extreme, for whatever reason, you should have said consequences. For I doubt there is a single soul who thinks playing against cultural norms in PFO will not derive consequences. What I am saying, is that we do not need mechanical enforcement when there is ample opportunity to get player enforcement. And incoming buzzword: It promotes meaningful player interaction.

So again for clarity, because apparently I was not nearly clear enough on my previous entry.

We do not need mechanics to enforce play-styles with benefits and penalties beyond what the developers have already restricted us with. Players themselves are the greatest mechanic in this regards as they will, by existing and being successful, enforce their own cultural norms. In fact, I would argue that what has been added to the game thus far is unnecessary. Specifically in the regard of trying to curb play-styles.

[Xeen]

You have it correct Deacon.

Most of the people that want mechanics, for everything under the sun, should not be playing in a sandbox game. In fact, I dont think they even understand the concept.

[Pax Deacon]

I also ask if the individuals who responded with naysay (thus defending the mechanics) do not truly believe in the impact of their organization. If you do not think your group of people (a culture/society some would say) can have a beneficial or detrimental impact on other groups then you are in the wrong mindset in dealing with a game of such social and political magnitude.

If you are still thinking as an individual, you are wrong. Individuals have little impact until they gather a following. It is when a number of "individuals" who have banded together into a "group" seek change or impact, that it happens.

[Lifedragn]

Deacon, have you read this article yet?

[Pax Deacon]

I read the article the first time it was posted.

Lifedragn, I ask this: Do you not think that TEO can have a beneficial or detrimental impact on other groups?

TEO itself can be the mechanic you are looking for.

TEO can provide a benefit (protection, trade, etc) to like-minded organizations that follow closely in its cultural norms.

TEO can provide the consequences to organizations that choose to clash with their established cultural norms. (War, embargo, etc.)

[Papaver]

Deacon, have you considered that by wanting a mechanically unregulated Sandbox you are in the wrong mindset for PFO?

[Pax Deacon]

You mean because I want my experience to be in line with the table-top?

Or because I want social and political intrigue?

Or is it because I trust in Golgotha's and Pax's ability to have an impact on this game?

No, I believe it must be because I don't need someone to tell me how to play. That I discovered a rather lengthy time ago, that in order to be successful you have to actually work for it.

This is a sandbox environment: Create it with your own standards.

Papaver, that should answer your Troll question. But you messed up. PFO identified itself as a sandbox game. Which means, the developers provide us the "box" and we build the rest. Stop asking for handouts.

[Nihimon]

Xeen wrote:

You have it correct Deacon.

Most of the people that want mechanics, for everything under the sun, should not be playing in a sandbox game. In fact, I dont think they even understand the concept.

Pax Deacon wrote:

PFO identified itself as a sandbox game. Which means, the developers provide us the "box" and we build the rest. Stop asking for handouts.

I think maybe you and Pax Deacon are the ones who are unclear on the concept.

Ryan Dancey (Goblinworks Blog: Screaming for Vengeance) wrote:

I've mentioned before that there's a misconception that "sandbox" means "unlimited freedom". Sandbox means that you build with the tools we provide, and you often astonish us with the unexpected uses to which you put those tools.

But that's the "sand". The other word in that term is "box". The box is the envelope we establish that defines the game and how it is to be played.

[Pax Deacon]

Nihimon wrote:

Xeen wrote:

You have it correct Deacon.

Most of the people that want mechanics, for everything under the sun, should not be playing in a sandbox game. In fact, I dont think they even understand the concept.

Ryan Dancey (Goblinworks Blog: Screaming for Vengeance) wrote:

I've mentioned before that there's a misconception that "sandbox" means "unlimited freedom". Sandbox means that you build with the tools we provide, and you often astonish us with the unexpected uses to which you put those tools.

But that's the "sand". The other word in that term is "box". The box is the envelope we establish that defines the game and how it is to be played.

I reiterate: PFO identified itself as a sandbox game. Which means, the developers provide us the "box" and we build the rest.

The difference is this: I'm not asking for a mechanic. I'm asking for community involvement in establishing cultural norms to which will apply in pathfinder online. That they will have their own benefits and consequences.

[Pax Deacon]

I'll ask the developers directly:

Would you rather see the communities in PFO establish and enforce their own societal norms, or would you like to code everything in?

[Nihimon]

Pax Deacon wrote:

I'll ask the developers directly:

Would you rather see the communities in PFO establish and enforce their own societal norms, or would you like to code everything in?

So, the options they have are:

1. No social mechanics at all
2. Code everything in

Seems a bit stark, perhaps this isn't the right place for absolutes.

[Bringslite]

Pax Deacon wrote:

Nihimon wrote:

Xeen wrote:

You have it correct Deacon.

Most of the people that want mechanics, for everything under the sun, should not be playing in a sandbox game. In fact, I dont think they even understand the concept.

Ryan Dancey (Goblinworks Blog: Screaming for Vengeance) wrote:

I've mentioned before that there's a misconception that "sandbox" means "unlimited freedom". Sandbox means that you build with the tools we provide, and you often astonish us with the unexpected uses to which you put those tools.

But that's the "sand". The other word in that term is "box". The box is the envelope we establish that defines the game and how it is to be played.

I reiterate: PFO identified itself as a sandbox game. Which means, the developers provide us the "box" and we build the rest.

The difference is this: I'm not asking for a mechanic. I'm asking for community involvement in establishing cultural norms to which will apply in pathfinder online. That they will have their own benefits and consequences.

"Complete community freedom", to police itself, has consistently failed to result in a game with a culture and atmosphere that GW has described it wants for PfO.

[Urman]

I think I'd like to ask the developers directly:

Would you rather design and build the game you envision and have talked about over months and months, or some game that somebody in these forums would really like you to build?

[Pax Deacon]

Then let me address this:

1) Have the groups in PFO establish the SOCIETAL NORMS
2) Code in the SOCIETAL NORMS

I apologize for my shorthand.

@Bringslite
I am arguing against needless mechanics such as a benefit for NRDS policy or a detriment for NBSI. Those policies themselves provide their own benefits and detriments. Those are just examples.

There is not doubt that certain aspects will need to be coded in to establish the GW ideals. But mechanics in regards to social behavior are ridiculous.

[Steelwing]

Urman wrote:

I think I'd like to ask the developers directly:

Would you rather design and build the game you envision and have talked about over months and months, or some game that somebody in these forums would really like you to build?

Once the game goes live it is out of Goblinworks hands and the culture of the game will be what the majority want it to be regardless of what mechanics they put in.

[Xeen]

Thats not true Bringslite

There are plenty of examples of this in that horrid Toxic game called Eve.

You have alliance blocks like CVA and Severance that police their own Region of space and force out the people who do not follow their laws.

There are corps in High sec that will war dec any corps that war dec small or new corps.

There are NRDS groups that have operated in all areas of low sec space, and police that territory.

That is one of the reasons I laugh at anyone who calls the game Toxic. Sure you have all elements, bad and good, but you have ALL ELEMENTS and the game thrives.

[Xeen]

Urman wrote:

I think I'd like to ask the developers directly:

Would you rather design and build the game you envision and have talked about over months and months, or some game that somebody in these forums would really like you to build?

Exactly, and I believe that is what Deacon is talking about.

When the developers give in to the community, the game usually goes down hill fast... That is part of what happened to SWTOR. The devs gave in on so much that the game became more of a joke then it already was.

[Pax Deacon]

I truly appreciate the fact that you think I am representing something else. But several times I have had to clarify, let me do so again. For I do not want others to misrepresent me, as they have already done so far:

Mechanics in regard to social interactions (AKA NRDS and NBSI) are ridiculous.

I do not wish to change the game. I wish to play the game they announced. Not add mechanics to play the game I wants. (I think you confused me with yourselves. I didn't ask for more mechanics to make my play-style easier.) I also do not want current mechanics taken away, even if I do not agree with them or see a point (I do not claim to be all-knowing, I'm sure they had a reason)

We already have mechanics in place in regards to social interaction that I believe are acceptable: Reputation.

[DeciusBrutus]

I would prefer that Goblinworks continue to make an active effort to influence cultural norms in a positive direction.

Does anybody really prefer the expected outcome if those efforts ceased?

[Bringslite]

Xeen wrote:

Thats not true Bringslite

There are plenty of examples of this in that horrid Toxic game called Eve.

You have alliance blocks like CVA and Severance that police their own Region of space and force out the people who do not follow their laws.

There are corps in High sec that will war dec any corps that war dec small or new corps.

There are NRDS groups that have operated in all areas of low sec space, and police that territory.

That is one of the reasons I laugh at anyone who calls the game Toxic. Sure you have all elements, bad and good, but you have ALL ELEMENTS and the game thrives.

I don't think that the overall culture and atmosphere in EVE (which is overly used) is what GW is shooting for. Despite that there are some pockets of players that come closer to that ideal. I have never played EVE so I am not claiming that it is toxic or fine, but I am pretty sure that GW wants something more evolved for a wider audience than EVE fans.

[Bringslite]

Pax Deacon wrote:

@Bringslite

I am arguing against needless mechanics such as a benefit for NRDS policy or a detriment for NBSI. Those policies themselves provide their own benefits and detriments. Those are just examples.

There is not doubt that certain aspects will need to be coded in to establish the GW ideals. But mechanics in regards to social behavior are ridiculous.

Pax Deacon wrote:

We do not need mechanics to enforce play-styles with benefits and penalties beyond what the developers have already restricted us with. Players themselves are the greatest mechanic in this regards as they will, by existing and being successful, enforce their own cultural norms. In fact, I would argue that what has been added to the game thus far is unnecessary. Specifically in the regard of trying to curb play-styles.

Perhaps I do not grokk, what you wrote, that is bolded there.

[Lifedragn]

Pax Deacon wrote:

I read the article the first time it was posted.

Lifedragn, I ask this: Do you not think that TEO can have a beneficial or detrimental impact on other groups?

TEO itself can be the mechanic you are looking for.

TEO can provide a benefit (protection, trade, etc) to like-minded organizations that follow closely in its cultural norms.

TEO can provide the consequences to organizations that choose to clash with their established cultural norms. (War, embargo, etc.)

I think that the track record for FFA PvP games proves out a series of games that I have no interest in playing.

I have no delusion that TEO will be some all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful entity that can police an entire game. Nor do I believe that it should be. We feel that we can make a region of the map "safer from non-consensual PvP" than the rest of the world. But that degree of "safer" is relative to the baseline of the world. If the baseline of the world is too skewed towards FFA PvP with no mechanical consequences, then I fear that the population for the nature of player that I wish to appeal to will become too small and marginalized to make the effort worthwhile.

Your very points are derived from a misunderstanding of why I joined TEO in the first place.

Speaking as an individual, I have no true desire to inflict consequences upon others. I have very little desire to engage in PvP at all, to be honest. I originally joined TEO because I felt the mechanical advantages and disadvantages were not going to be enough to foster an environment I hope to play in, which is largely PvE. I did not realize that this game was so PvP focused when I backed it, because the kickstarter page had very strongly downplayed the PvP aspects (which is my fault for not digging deeper and finding these forums before handing out money). I joined TEO out of a show of support for those who had decided to fight FOR the pvp-averse players like myself. And now I have decided to become a more active figure in the struggle in the hopes to create a region where PvP-averse players can reasonably enjoy the game. Under the current conditions, I find this to be an achievable goal. We can tip the scales enough from the present condition to have a chance of success, though not guaranteed.

To throw out the mechanics under the pretense that I believe our group can influence the game is not only a silly exercise of egotism, it would actually contradict my personal goals. Personally, I should be advocating for the equivalent of Trammel. However, as you have claimed, I am no longer an individual but the leader of a group. And as such a leader it is my responsibility to represent as many individuals from my group as possible.

TEO is a hybrid camp of those who wish to influence the world and be the enforcers combined with those who seek to benefit from the safety that the enforcers are providing. As the leader of such a group, it is my responsibility to advocate for a point of balance where both camps can feel satisfied. I believe the current system provides just the right amount of balance to where players can feel comfortable in an enforced area, while still having plenty of work and play experience for the enforcers.

[Vwoom]

My job changes everyday. I get a new project and I start from scratch with the tools I am given and eventually write up the instructions for others to use. Then I am off to a new project and take phone calls when people don't understand my instructions or more often did not really read them completely.

Each set of tools is different for a different purpose, and every year of two the new tools are for the old job and I do a brain dump of that old data.

I think some people need to do that brain dump and accept the new tools. Sandbox has a definition in your brain that does not match PFO. If you have to call it the PFO Sandbox model, and move on.

I donated to the Kickstarter because they were talking about these tools you don't want from the beginning. People are asking for all sorts of things but the developers are only going to add those things if they feel like its a good idea, and then only after it is well thought out.

Perhaps when the rubber hits the road you will love the system?

[Vwoom]

Think of us all as Preppers.

Edit retracting this statement based on OP most recent post.

Perhaps I misunderstood or was reading to much into aformenntion misrepresentations.

[Lifedragn]

Pax Deacon wrote:

I truly appreciate the fact that you think I am representing something else. But several times I have had to clarify, let me do so again. For I do not want others to misrepresent me, as they have already done so far:

Mechanics in regard to social interactions (AKA NRDS and NBSI) are ridiculous.

I do not wish to change the game. I wish to play the game they announced. Not add mechanics to play the game I wants. (I think you confused me with yourselves. I didn't ask for more mechanics to make my play-style easier.) I also do not want current mechanics taken away, even if I do not agree with them or see a point (I do not claim to be all-knowing, I'm sure they had a reason)

We already have mechanics in place in regards to social interaction that I believe are acceptable: Reputation.

Your original stance very much sounded as if you wanted existing mechanics removed. I apologize for coming to the wrong conclusion on that.

As with regards to NRDS and NBSI, the question becomes about the nature of environment we wish to see. If we want a sprawling, explorable world, then NRDS is a system that you would want to see promoted. If you want a world where territory domination is the preferred style to the exclusion of all other playstyles, then NBSI is the way to go.

The reason a lot of people are advocating for NRDS is that they feel that NRDS provides for the most freedom in allowing multiple play-styles to thrive but that the security advantages of NBSI are so inherent that most settlements will choose NBSI and block off large portions of the map. Advocating for an advantage of NRDS is meant to help equalize the math to make it more appealing to open your territory, as it is felt that the game will be more welcome to more players that way.

I have been pretty silent on the NRDS/NBSI front aside from saying that I want my home settlement to espouse NRDS. I think it is too early for me to say as to whether a mechanic will be needed to make it viable or not. Either way, I am willing to try proving it out. If I see it met with repeated failure, then it may be the time to ask for mechanics. But I would like to wait and see how it plays out under the current system.

[Deianira]

Lifedragn, thank you very much for your post. I've bern trying to compose something similar, but as I'm at work, it's difficult to focus my thoughts toward anything coherent.

[Valtorious]

Here is the thing. I can understand the desire to limit griefer style players. I get that. No one wants a 10th level knight offing noobs at the border of the frontier consequence free. Fine.

But the funny thing is...most of the NRDS, NBSI talk is being motivated by this fear of banditry....and it's just a little sad. It is obvious just from the little information we have that banditry, while it might be viable, will in no way be as profitable as owning and running settlements.

But it is exactly the players on these forums who have the grandest designs of conquest and expansion, who will have wealth, large guild numbers, resources, soldiers and castle walls and the ability to declare war on bandit guilds at ANYTIME they wish who want a further advantage in the form of game mechanics.

[Steelwing]

Valtorious wrote:

Here is the thing. I can understand the desire to limit griefer style players. I get that. No one wants a 10th level knight offing noobs at the border of the frontier consequence free. Fine.

But the funny thing is...most of the NRDS, NBSI talk is being motivated by this fear of banditry....and it's just a little sad. It is obvious just from the little information we have that banditry, while it might be viable, will in no way be as profitable as owning and running settlements.

But it is exactly the players on these forums who have the grandest designs of conquest and expansion, who will have wealth, large guild numbers, resources, soldiers and castle walls and the ability to declare war on bandit guilds at ANYTIME they wish who want a further advantage in the form of game mechanics.

NBSI has absolutely nothing to do with banditry as I have explained to you before. Bandits are of no consequence whatsoever you are not even on the radar.

I will let the NRDS people answer for themselves

[Nihimon]

Valtorious wrote:

But the funny thing is...most of the NRDS, NBSI talk is being motivated by this fear of banditry...

I don't think so. As far as I understand it, it's all about security. If we know that a particular Character is a spy for one of our enemies, why shouldn't we be able to flag him in such a way that we can kill him consequence-free when he's actively spying on us? Without that ability, we are at a significant disadvantage.

[Vwoom]

My biggest interest in NDRS is To prevent rep/algn griefing before invasion. Sending people that must be removed for no other reason than to force the settlement to remove them and take faction hits to do so. I am not a fan of the take a bit for the team or monster in the basement method. I would prefer to have a way to make trespassers yes consequence free kills. Not that they all have to die just those trying to use the games rule in ways not intended to bomb a settlement.

[Bluddwolf]

Lifedragn wrote:

As with regards to NRDS and NBSI, the question becomes about the nature of environment we wish to see. If we want a sprawling, explorable world, then NRDS is a system that you would want to see promoted. If you want a world where territory domination is the preferred style to the exclusion of all other playstyles, then NBSI is the way to go.

The reason a lot of people are advocating for NRDS is that they feel that NRDS provides for the most freedom in allowing multiple play-styles to thrive but that the security advantages of NBSI are so inherent that most settlements will choose NBSI and block off large portions of the map. Advocating for an advantage of NRDS is meant to help equalize the math to make it more appealing to open your territory, as it is felt that the game will be more welcome to more players that way.

I have been pretty silent on the NRDS/NBSI front aside from saying that I want my home settlement to espouse NRDS. I think it is too early for me to say as to whether a mechanic will be needed to make it viable or not. Either way, I am willing to try proving it out. If I see it met with repeated failure, then it may be the time to ask for mechanics. But I would like to wait and see how it plays out under the current system.

Your post was finely thought out, until you go to the BOLD sentence.

It depends on the nature of the failure and what attempts you took to prevent said failure.

NRDS may fail because the Dominance facet of PFO makes it impractical.

NRDS may fail because you can not have both openness and security at maximum levels (No best of both worlds).

NRDS mail fail because your settlement is to big to ignore as a potential threat.

NRDS may fail because your settlement is too small to ignore as a potential soft target.

NBSI has similarly important problems, but they result from not being open enough. If people are afraid to travel there, they won't, even if invited they may do so only begrudgedly and probably with a healthy dose of paranoia.

NRDS will only be successful is players make it so. If you need mechanics to make it viable, then it really isn't viable. A crutch is never better than a fully healed and healthy leg.

The other issue I think many of us are falling victim to is that we are all thinking on a grande scale.

Those of us looking to run companies are thinking, "I have 20, 30, 80 members" and not "but at any given time maybe only 20% of my members will be online at the same time".

Settlement leaders are thinking of sprawling towns or even cities, with hundreds or even thousands of citizens. They are not thinking that their settlement started out as some backwater sh**hole with mud hunts and shanties, surrounded with a chicken-wire fence, and that it could remain that way for quite some time.

If you grow your size and the capacity to manage it at an equilibrium, you won't need game mechanics to make your company or settlement viable. You'll know what you can do as opposed to just knowing what you want to do.

[Vwoom]

I think a lawful way to enforce your boarders is not to much to ask for given the game dynamics of lawful vs chaotic. As I have always seen D&D not the over simplification of good vs evil.

[Andius]

100% player controlled FFA PvP cultures have been tried, and failed, and tried, and failed, and tried, and failed, and tried and failed over and over and over again.

PFO's equivalent to high sec cannot sustain anywhere near 70% of this game's population as happens in EVE. Does that yellow area look as large as high sec to anyone here? And we don't even know that all of the yellow will have NPC wardens. My guess is that if the roads do there won't very many and they won't be all that strong.

The FFA PvP model cannot sustain a high population without regulation. Anyone who believes otherwise does so in complete ignorance to the reality of this situation and the history of the games that have tried it.

If we're just going to sit around with a few hundred people and gank eachother all day I might as well go play Darkfall or Mortal. Because if PFO were to go that route (which it won't) it would shortly end up with the same amount of subscribers which means the same amount of resources but those games have had years more to debug and build content for their games. They haven't advanced very far very fast on either of those fronts, but neither would PFO, and they would have the head start.

I have a strong interest in not seeing this game suck, because I paid a lot of money to get in early based on the fact that it wouldn't. I don't really give a crap if people are attacking me randomly without consequence or there is a broken SAD mechanic that allows you to SAD anyone for 100% of their carried goods without getting flagged to anyone would try to help and that gives rep GAINS to the person who does it being used against me.

What I care about is the fact that anyone thinking that model can be used against everyone in this game, and that we'll still subscribers in the 6+ digits and a large enough income flow to make this game not entirely suck either has absolutely no clue what they are talking about or is just plain daft.

It's not even a gamble for GW and PFO. The outcome is predetermined for anyone with the brains to see it. If they go unregulated they will fail.

What I want to see is a balanced approach where the game disincentives rampant bad behavior and puts controls on how much damage it can possibly cause to prospective players. That doesn't mean you have no control over the community or the influence over the game's atmosphere. Settlement warfare is going to have a MASSIVE impact on how this game pans out. It just means if a bunch of sociopaths come in and gain a lot of influence they won't be able to entirely ruin the game for everyone else. That's something I'm ok with. It's not my responsibility to stop this game from utterly failing.

[Bringslite]

I am in agreement that too many mechanics are not going to help. I would like to see those detailed by GW (some are already through player suggestion) implemented and evaluated and tweaked before we complicate things much more. Your best way to roll is going to be 1. With friends, 2. With less at stake than you can't afford to lose. All of this is a personal feeling.

I also feel like the tiny team (although they are giants in my mind) and the tiny budget dictates some (MVP) hard choices. Most people that want more mechanics are ok with them being slated for some "future time". That is great, but maybe it isn't so bad to see and adjust what is already planned first?

On the other hand, what in the heck will we do here if we do not explore new ideas and fight about them?

[Bluddwolf]

Vwoom wrote:

My biggest interest in NDRS is To prevent rep/algn griefing before invasion. Sending people that must be removed for no other reason than to force the settlement to remove them and take faction hits to do so. I am not a fan of the take a bit for the team or monster in the basement method. I would prefer to have a way to make trespassers yes consequence free kills. Not that they all have to die just those trying to use the games rule in ways not intended to bomb a settlement.

There is somewhat of a disconnect between saying "I want to be NRDS, so I will have a list of hundreds or even thousands of players on my "Red List".

Tork Shaw said it in the other thread.. There will be no red / white list. he also asked, why don't you just use the Feud?

That is what the systems are there for. Otherwise, since there is no information on the Influence system as of yet, GW should just drop it.

Why should a PVP focused MMO have a cost assigned to what it considers sanctioned PVP?

Why should settlement hexes that have laws, be FFA PVP, and the wilderness areas without laws have constraints on PVP?

PC Settlements are not supposed to be as safe as the NPC Starter Towns. The wilderness hexes are not supposed to be as safe as the PC settlements.

[Lifedragn]

Bluddwolf wrote:

Lifedragn wrote:

As with regards to NRDS and NBSI, the question becomes about the nature of environment we wish to see. If we want a sprawling, explorable world, then NRDS is a system that you would want to see promoted. If you want a world where territory domination is the preferred style to the exclusion of all other playstyles, then NBSI is the way to go.

The reason a lot of people are advocating for NRDS is that they feel that NRDS provides for the most freedom in allowing multiple play-styles to thrive but that the security advantages of NBSI are so inherent that most settlements will choose NBSI and block off large portions of the map. Advocating for an advantage of NRDS is meant to help equalize the math to make it more appealing to open your territory, as it is felt that the game will be more welcome to more players that way.

I have been pretty silent on the NRDS/NBSI front aside from saying that I want my home settlement to espouse NRDS. I think it is too early for me to say as to whether a mechanic will be needed to make it viable or not. Either way, I am willing to try proving it out. If I see it met with repeated failure, then it may be the time to ask for mechanics. But I would like to wait and see how it plays out under the current system.

Your post was finely thought out, until you go to the BOLD sentence.

It depends on the nature of the failure and what attempts you took to prevent said failure.

NRDS may fail because the Dominance facet of PFO makes it impractical.

NRDS may fail because you can not have both openness and security at maximum levels (No best of both worlds).

NRDS mail fail because your settlement is to big to ignore as a potential threat.

NRDS may fail because your settlement is too small to ignore as a potential soft target.

NBSI has similarly important problems, but they result from not being open enough. If people are afraid to travel there, they won't, even if invited they may do so only begrudgedly and probably with a healthy...

I did include 'repeated failures' with the intent being that multiple approaches were taken. I should clarify that if we are failing and others are succeeding, then it is a personal failure and not a reflection on NRDS. The intent of the message is: We should ask for mechanics after NRDS is shown to not be viable, not before.

[AvenaOats]

The World Until Yesterday: Prologue - An Airport Scene, p.4-5, abridged:

(1931 was the date of the first contact of indigenous New Guineans with Western explorers)

Jared Diamond wrote:

Still another distinction of the 2006 crowd compared to the 1931 crowds was a feature we take for granted in the modern world: Most of the people who were crammed into that airport hall were strangers who had never seen each other before, but there was no fighting going on between them. That would have been unimaginable in 1931 when encounters with strangers were rare, dangerous, and likely to turn violent. [...]

In the modern Western world we have come to take this freedom to travel for granted, but previously it was exceptional. In 1931 no New Guinean born in Goroka had ever visited Wapenamanda a mere 107 miles to the West; the idea of travelling from Goroka to Wapenamanda, without being killed as an unknown stranger within the first 10 miles from Goroka, would have been unthinkable. Yet I had just travelled 7,000 miles from Los Angeles to Port Moresby... .

The World Until Yesterday: Chapter 1 - Friends, Enemies and Strangers and Traders p.49:

Jared Diamond wrote:

Traditional peoples, living in societies of a few hundred individuals, obtain access to each other's lands by being known individually, by having individual relationships there, and by asking permission individually. In our societies of hundreds of millions, our defintion of "relationships" is extended to any citizen of our state or of a friendly state, and the asking of permission is formalized and granted en masse by means of passports and visas.

All those restrictions on free movement cause members of small -scale societies to divide people into three categories: Friends, enemies and strangers.

The Kingdoms game seems more reminiscent however of a medieval world human organization but the contrast between the two extremes the "world until yesterday" and the "modern western world" are useful. The Kingdoms game appears closer to "The War of the Barons" or "Principalities" such as before Italy was united under one state government at the highest end of settlements forming kingdoms?

So there's the thought that a mixture of NBSI (as per tribal situation) and NRDS (closer to the state system of larger alliances of international people movement) could evolve in PFO. However given the game is going to be much more like these fiefdoms at war, then the tendency towards NBSI rises to the top though perhaps the odd trade settlement could have NRDS leading to a more state like experience of people movement around the map?

I think PFO will be successfully fun if some of these diverse experiences between groups and individuals materialize in a constantly shifting dynamic between Friends, Enemies, Strangers and Traders.

The World Until Yesterday: Chapter 1 - Friends, Enemies and Strangers and Traders p.64-65:

Jared Diamond wrote:

But they also do much trading of objects equally available to either party, and they do that trading to maintain relationships for political and social reasons.

[Nihimon]

Bluddwolf wrote:

There is somewhat of a disconnect between saying "I want to be NRDS, so I will have a list of hundreds or even thousands of players on my "Red List".

Tork Shaw said it in the other thread.. There will be no red / white list. he also asked, why don't you just use the Feud?

I agree, a Red List of hundreds or thousands of Trespassers isn't necessary. I really liked this idea that Tork floated.

Tork Shaw (Question for Ryan About NRDS / NBSI) wrote:

... 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.

I also agree that some of the folks arguing for a Red List might be doing so based on biases picked up from other games. It's entirely possible that the Feud/War systems will be sufficient for everyone who plans to run NRDS focused on positive game play. I tend to think even those won't be overly necessary for the folks who are really committed to that positive game play part, but we won't know until we're actually watching how things work in-game.

Bluddwolf wrote:

That is what the systems are there for. Otherwise, since there is no information on the Influence system as of yet, GW should just drop it.

I have no idea what this means.

[Ryan Dancey]

Steelwing wrote:

Once the game goes live it is out of Goblinworks hands and the culture of the game will be what the majority want it to be regardless of what mechanics they put in.

That's as incorrect an assumption as saying that a sandbox game implies unlimited freedom.

Business is abundantly provided with examples of communities and products which are well managed by their creators and express the will of their creators with regard to how those communities behave.

Simply because most MMOs have done a terrible job of community management, and have accepted de facto loss of control doesn't mean that's a mandatory outcome or even an overwhelmingly hard outcome to avoid.

In the nightclub business the process is called "editing the line". Control the participants, control the environment, bounce people who refuse to conform, and highlight positive contributions and the community will self-select towards the objectives set for it.