Goblin Squad Member
|
Are you suggesting that as a strategy that should be viable, or suggesting it as something that might need work to remove because it makes a mockery of the intent of the systems used.?Between the extremes of "Red to All" and "Gray to All" is an interesting space. I think it should be very similar to the space created by being a member of a company with one active member.Yes, the "Holding Company" will find its use in PFO.
Holding Company = 10 Alts (or whatever the minimum will be, maybe 10 to start it and 1 to hold it?)
Active characters play as unaffiliated for most of the week, month, whatever.
Every once in a while, they all rejoin the Holding Company, transferring the influence to it, depositing their loot, etc..
They go on a raiding spree, using up that influence. Once it is used up, they drop out of HC.
The HC can get feuded, but it will only consist of a non playing alt.
Do this for a few months, then a second alt is used. Wipe out the old Holding Company and start a new one under a new name. Different alt as head.
Neither of your questions are relevant.
"Should it be viable?" is irrelevant. The question is "Will it be possible?" Viability is unknown until it can be tested.
I believe it will be possible to set this up, using both meta-game and other in-game mechanics in their proper use.
Your second question seems to be built on the premise that there is an obligation to function within the spirit of the rules or systems. I do not believe there is any such obligation, because who am I to judge, accurately, the spirit of anything?
If I follow the "spirit" of anything, it is by choice and done to the best of my interpretation. I follow concrete rules, because that I feel is my obligation to do so as a member of this gaming community.
If some action I take results in a warning or a consequence, it will not be done again. In the absence of a stated rule or warning to not do certain, specific activities, I will do whatever meets my current objective as quickly and completely as possible.
If i stumble upon something that I think is really unfair, I would report it to GW as a potential bug or exploit. If I feel it is really unfair, I would not do it again.
The above system I describe as the "Holding Company" does have some trade offs involved with it. It also fits in with with an alignment concept of a "Chaotic" organization that is constantly moving and shifting, like a disguise ability at the company level.
Just for the sake of probability, Holding Companies would also be used as settlement management groups. This cadre of player alts, would never adventure, never set foot outside of their settlement walls. They will accumulate maximum reputation with no effort. They will be untouchable, except for perhaps in time of war or assassination.
Holding Companies are a staple of EVE Online corporate / alliance structure. I expect to see them used in PFO as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@DeciusBrutus I'm not sure if that form of holding company could be viable. I think it's based on a misunderstanding of the systems as explained.
As Bringslight pointed out, characters don't earn Influence and transfer it to their company; a company gains Influence as its members earn achievements. Any achievement gained by a character who is not currently in a company is wasted - it will never be counted as Influence. For that reason I predict that settlements will be very interested in making sure every character is in a company.
And if GW ever implemented some form of mechanism allowing redlisting of unaffiliated characters... Those members of the holding company who leave it for most of the week would be unaffiliated targets most of the time.
---
I do think there will be holding companies where settlements tuck new players for a while until they take a more permanent place. That type of holding companies will amass Influence, but likely will never be brought down to 1 member - because there will probably be an Influence cap based on membership numbers, and dropping below that number may mean the permanent loss of accumulated influence. At some point the holding company is converted to an active company, with a large reserve of Influence.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because the anonymity of the internet turns people into jerks.
Yeah, pretty much.
A MMO is nothing like a tabletop game. Pathfinder Society is as close as tabletop gets to Massively Multiplayer, and they deal with potential trolls by simply disallowing PvP and evil characters (no 'but it's in character!' dodge). Some PFS tables work great, some are as competent as a themepark PUG, but you don't have to worry about the other players deciding to sneak attack you after the last encounter and take everything (XP and gold aren't done by shares anyway). In a home game, you're either friends with the people you game with or becoming friends through the game. Some kids & teens may pull the 'turning on the party' crap for a while but eventually that gets worked out.
Face to face, anyone living in a technologically-developed area (the market for MMOs) equipped with typical human empathy (not a sociopath) tends to be rude at worst. Crimes happen, but you don't walk down the street getting robbed and attacked every day. Anonymity is intoxicating, and it's all too easy to dehumanize those whom you can't see or even hear. If you acted in the real world as you act in a game, you probably wouldn't do it for long. In the game world we can't really remove those who act sociopathically from the general population.
Execution doesn't work because even if death were permanent (and people still played) the bad actors would just learn to build killer characters more quickly. Soon, everyone either becomes like them or leaves the game. You may as well play a FPS, RTS, or MOBA at that point.
If there were prisons, those locked up would just play other characters or cancel their subscriptions. If there were ways to break out, they have nothing to do but keep attempting to, effectively imprisoning the guards who have to watch them constantly.
What's left? Burdens that problem players carry with them, which still allow them to play (and perhaps reform) but which are difficult to duck and directly slow down their ability to keep being a problem. Since alignments are objective on Golarion, that can be used to create a 'Just World' system which actually works without relying on convincing people that there's some nasty afterlife (or lower rung of reincarnation) waiting for them if they act in certain ways. How one acts can be directly correlated to one's long-term success. Those who want to fight as often as possible have wars, feuds, and faction conflicts to keep them busy. Those who simply want victims that can barely fight back will find their capacity for acting sociopathically hampered. Unlike a simple opt-in PvP system, players still have to consider that it may be worth it to someone to take an alignment/rep hit to stop them from doing something, so they can't abuse their immunity, but also unlike a complete free-for-all PvP system the game doesn't degenerate into killing everyone before they kill you.
It's different than much of what has gone before, but it sounds like it can work, and worrying too much about angry internet criticism tends to hobble game development from exploring new ideas.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Are you suggesting that as a strategy that should be viable, or suggesting it as something that might need work to remove because it makes a mockery of the intent of the systems used.?Between the extremes of "Red to All" and "Gray to All" is an interesting space. I think it should be very similar to the space created by being a member of a company with one active member.Yes, the "Holding Company" will find its use in PFO.
Holding Company = 10 Alts (or whatever the minimum will be, maybe 10 to start it and 1 to hold it?)
Active characters play as unaffiliated for most of the week, month, whatever.
Every once in a while, they all rejoin the Holding Company, transferring the influence to it, depositing their loot, etc..
They go on a raiding spree, using up that influence. Once it is used up, they drop out of HC.
The HC can get feuded, but it will only consist of a non playing alt.
Do this for a few months, then a second alt is used. Wipe out the old Holding Company and start a new one under a new name. Different alt as head.
Neither of your questions are relevant.
"Should it be viable?" is irrelevant. The question is "Will it be possible?" Viability is unknown until it can be tested.
I believe it will be possible to set this up, using both meta-game and other in-game mechanics in their proper use.
Your second question seems to be built on the premise that there is an obligation to function within the spirit of the rules or systems. I do not believe there is any such obligation, because who am I to judge, accurately, the spirit of anything?
That was one binary question: Do you think it is is good or bad?
You will use any tactic if it gives you an advantage. That's simply an observation.
My question was on a different level: Will the existence and use of this tactic improve or harm PFO?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My question was on a different level: Will the existence and use of this tactic improve or harm PFO?
I'm not being evasive with my answer, just as honest or practical as I can be,
It doesn't matter if it is good or bad for PFO, only will it exist or not. For some it will improve the game, for others it will harm, and for the vast majority it will make no difference.
Then you have to remember or consider, characters can be in up to three companies (one settlement sponsored, and the other two not). This leads me to believe that at least one if the three is open to use as a holding company. The other may be a Ad Hoc slot. The main (for most) the sponsored company.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
My question was on a different level: Will the existence and use of this tactic improve or harm PFO?I'm not being evasive with my answer, just as honest or practical as I can be,
It doesn't matter if it is good or bad for PFO, only will it exist or not. For some it will improve the game, for others it will harm, and for the vast majority it will make no difference.
Then you have to remember or consider, characters can be in up to three companies (one settlement sponsored, and the other two not). This leads me to believe that at least one if the three is open to use as a holding company. The other may be a Ad Hoc slot. The main (for most) the sponsored company.
Wait, is your opinion on any dynamic or suggestion purely based on whether or not it would make a game which was more fun for you, predicated on the assumption that PFO will exist and thrive?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have encouraged others to have a more open play-style. Whether someone RPs, PvPs, PvE, or all of the above, it matters not. What matters is realizing that as a group you should encourage meaningful interaction with others.
A play-style that asks for mechanics in order to benefit ones self and penalize others is not a valid play-style. I am not talking about the class, race, or any of those mechanics. I am talking about mechanics for social interactions of a group.
If you continue to fail to understand, and lump me in with "No rulez and Regulations Bro!" Then you do no understand my opinions. And you should request to meet with me on Teamspeak or some other medium.
As for community policing its own? I never stated that. I stated that the strong will survive. If toxic behavior provides a stronger approach than "civil" behavior, then I and every other leader and member has failed. But that is not a sufficient reason to provide us a mechanical benefit or perk.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Wait, is your opinion on any dynamic or suggestion purely based on whether or not it would make a game which was more fun for you, predicated on the assumption that PFO will exist and thrive?
Let's try to be a little less esoteric, I like to be more direct and clear.
If the game, any game, is not fun for me then it doesn't matter what it means for others. A game does not thrive or even exist for me, if I'm not interested in playing it. Whether I have an interest in playing it has no bearing on your interest.
PFO will exist, and it will either meet enough of my expectations or it won't. My expectations or fun on not predicated on your expectations or fun, and vice versa I'm sure.
I play games out of self interest, the same that I read certain books or watch certain movies or TV shows. Whether others enjoy the same makes no difference to me.
So back to the original question: Will the use of the tactic of holding companies improve or harm PFO?
If it serves my purpose(s), yes. If it makes no difference to me, then I'm neutral towards it. If it harms me, then it is harmful to me.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Wait, is your opinion on any dynamic or suggestion purely based on whether or not it would make a game which was more fun for you, predicated on the assumption that PFO will exist and thrive?Let's try to be a little less esoteric, I like to be more direct and clear.
If the game, any game, is not fun for me then it doesn't matter what it means for others. A game does not thrive or even exist for me, if I'm not interested in playing it. Whether I have an interest in playing it has no bearing on your interest.
PFO will exist, and it will either meet enough of my expectations or it won't. My expectations or fun on not predicated on your expectations or fun, and vice versa I'm sure.
I play games out of self interest, the same that I read certain books or watch certain movies or TV shows. Whether others enjoy the same makes no difference to me.
So back to the original question: Will the use of the tactic of holding companies improve or harm PFO?
If it serves my purpose(s), yes. If it makes no difference to me, then I'm neutral towards it. If it harms me, then it is harmful to me.
Keeping things concrete:
I would have lots of fun with a mapping mechanic that required taking azimuths and elevations, then doing the math to survey , but because I think that it would make PFO overall worse in an objective sense, I don't champion its inclusion.
You wouldn't care if there was such a mechanic, because you wouldn't interact with it. (Unless it came at the cost of something that you wanted.) Am I correct in this conclusion?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I couldn't say, that would assume that my interests in PFO are monolithic. I look at PFO as a game I hope to play for a decade or more.
As you may know, I am interested in playing both my bandit and my monk, almost equally so. I don't have to argue so much from my monk's perspective because the play style I intend for him would be a threat to virtually no one. He will be a lawful good, healer / traveler. He will walk the earth and aid all who are in need if aid, regardless if affiliation or alignment.
What I have argued most for him is that there is unarmed combat and non lethal combat. I intend to put my efforts to crowd forging those goals.
The last piece of the puzzle I feel I need for my bandit is how caravans will work. Once that is out in the open, I'll take up the fight for my monk.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A play-style that asks for mechanics in order to benefit ones self and penalize others is not a valid play-style. I am not talking about the class, race, or any of those mechanics. I am talking about mechanics for social interactions of a group.
Do you think mechanics should be in place to incentivize what GW considers positive gameplay and disincentivize what they consider negative gameplay? If you do, you probably only differ with some others as to how much you want the mechanics to interfere.
Ryan has basically said that he would like NRDS to be common, but he thinks that most settlements will run NBSI (someone correct me if I have misinterpreted). I agree with him that most settlements will be NBSI with things as-is (if we look at the most obvious example...), and also agree that having the majority of play space be NRDS is more desirable than NBSI; this is why I think some sort of mechanic to incentivize NRDS is not uncalled for.
As for my personal desire for some sort of Exile/trespasser mechanic, I feel that as-is the system is almost forcing people to use questionable tactics just to defend themselves effectively, which is definitely a big no-no. Of course the specifics of the mechanic should be carefully considered, but all I want is some way for people to protect themselves (and this isn't really asking for my desired playstyle to be given mechanics, as mercantilism and community projects have very little to do with settlement defense).
Ryan has basically said that he would like NRDS to be common, but he thinks that most settlements will run NBSI (someone correct me if I have misinterpreted). I agree with him that most settlements will be NBSI with things as-is (if we look at the most obvious example...), and also agree that having the majority of play space be NRDS is more desirable than NBSI; this is why I think some sort of mechanic to incentivize NRDS is not uncalled for.
The problem is though Shane NRDS is not significantly disadvantaged as it is in eve due to the hot drop. (see the analysis I did somewhere or other of the two philosophies which no one has refuted)
The solutions proposed to make NRDS viable (which as I mentioned above I am unconvinced that NRDS is non viable) so far have resulted in either an abrogation of the crime mechanic or the other suggestion has been make all people without player settlement affiliation automatically hostile and free to kill.
Am I the only one perplexed by we want to be not red dont shoot it and the way to enable that is to make all new players red?
Whatever mechanic you put in those that want to be NBSI will step around and it won't affect them. Like DRM it will only affect those that think the spirit of the rules matter.
As I pointed out currently you have four declarations of intent. 3 of them have specified they are going NRDS. Only 1 has said they will go NBSI and they may not even ever join the game.
I might cautiously suggest people are reacting to a threat they are imagining rather than one that appears real.
Yeah, whether or not NRDS can be done effectively will remain to be seen.
It does I am merely suggesting that we wait and see rather than doing the kneejerk reaction now.
It is far far easier to add in new mechanics than to remove ones that are shown to be worthless. In addition you have far more information about what is causing the problem which gives you a better idea of how to fix it.
I am not saying there will be no problem with NRDS or NBSI I am saying we do not know and have no reason to believe so currently and therefore designing mechanics based on nothing but fear is not productive.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Am I the only one perplexed by we want to be not red dont shoot it and the way to enable that is to make all new players red?
I'll admit, I am perplexed that you think that hare-brained idea is still on the table. :)
I don't think being a member of an NPC Settlement and walking outside the Settlement's security zone should flag you as killable on sight by all everywhere.
I do think maybe there's a worthwhile idea to examine that a PC Settlement can define NPC Settlement members as hostile within the territory the Settlement controls so they can be killed on sight as a policy of the PC Settlement.
That ties back into the question of how and if we can enable Settlements to have security policies as a mechanic and not a social compact, and if they can how players are informed of them.
I think the only thing that might have survived from my suggestion was something like maybe characters that aren't affiliated with a company could be slotted into a group called "people that belong to an NPC settlement and don't belong to a company". And that group could be redlisted or whatever like a company could be.
Am I the only one perplexed by we want to be not red dont shoot it and the way to enable that is to make all new players red?I'll admit, I am perplexed that you think that hare-brained idea is still on the table. :)
I wasn't suggesting it was still on the table
I am suggesting it was a good illustration of the sort of knee jerk reaction I was referring to.
Frankly the one about the companies is equally as bad because it solves none of the suggested problems just adds more hoops for the legitimate new player to jump through if they want to step out of the npc zones. Certainly it would put a bit of a kink in the idea of the guide program. It also remains the case you want to do this to support NRDS the whole purpose of which is inclusivity until you do something wrong.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My suggestion was merely a way point in making security policies operate as a game mechanic rather than a meta-gamed thing depending heavily on alts.
Now, maybe alts are unavoidable, and whatever groups can pay for and effectively operate their large alt-armies will be the winners. Or maybe PFO can look at the game design and chip away at the necessity to use alts.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is not that holding or small unaffiliated companies are a terrible thing. Not at least in general. It is more, in my opinion, what they will sometimes be used for and whether those uses are just a way of getting around the play that some people feel is "meaningful according to GW". It is pretty obvious that, at least for now, it is not wrong to use them in those ways. Or maybe that it is not preferred, but it fills gaps that can't be immediately addressed.