Goblin Squad Member
|
My problem is going to be "new" settlements/nations not getting any members. It is a hallmark of MMOs that the big factions (TEO, L7V, Pax and co. no offense meant) get bigger and the small factions get smaller. People want to be where all the super glory is, and places like IGN and whatnot only focus on telling the stories of those big factions, because that is where the big battles and world-scale political manuevers take place. Small guilds get no represntation. It happened to me twice in Dragon's Prophet and once in Planetside 2. We had an IGN person join up for like a week, then she left saying "I really loved this guild, and you guys are all hilarious, but this just isn't the sort of story that works on IGN."
Edit: I will admit that this is not always the case. Ideally, a group like my planned one for PfO will be relatively small but very well known. Similar instances where a group of extremely high-leveled, extremely old (in-game experience), extremely impacting players exist in many MMOs to be sure, but they usually are not open for recruitment and thus not something to be concerned about here.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes, but that is not the concern. I'm talking about small/new clans trying to recruit members for themselves. Not specifically becoming gigantic, or a nation, or looking for more power. Just the recruiting aspect.
We will have to cast the light (perhaps inaccurately so) upon the big organizations as squashing freedom of action, or not meeting certain niche interests found within the whole of the community.
An example, and no offense meant: Pax is planning on starting off with at least two settlements: LN and LE. If they add a third, it will probably be LG so that all three settlements have LN in common.
Chaotic aligned characters might be welcomed to visit the Pax nation, but they will have limited or no chaotic training there. This was the crux of the dissolution of the PAX / UNC alliance.
This is perhaps a better discussion to have in the "Nations / Kingdoms" thread?
Yep i am thinking the same about big nations going to get more and more people and small ones become less popular.
But in end big guilds always split up from my game experience and Pathfinder will be no exception to that.People's ego are superior than any bennefit a big nation can offer.
But as a small company you can achieve alot of things,you maybe cant match a nation in arms but you can match the popularity and reputation.so people will want to be part of your company.
The majority of players want to be in a big guild with alot of people but some players prefer a small elite group and when i joined one or created my own so far never had issues to find recruitments.
made the joining extremely difficult to keep the numbers low.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Probably, but the idea concept was sparked here, so I thought I would state it here.
And yes. The light shall be shed. Most certainly, if that is what is needed.
Dang, I already tried to move the topic to the Kingdom Politics thread. I always dislike talking about good topics in unrelated threads - makes it harder to find in the future - and can sometimes completely derail the original thread.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Not to take away from The Goodfellow's eloquence, but everything he wrote has been our stance from day one, and has been said repeatedly albeit more abruptly or bluntly.We WANT to be the bad guys, the reason you hire guards for your caravans and POI's, and why you don't travel alone if you don't have to. We want to give bounty hunters and people dedicated to helping/protecting others someone to hunt and protect against. People seam to think we are out to break PFO or turn in into a murder sim or something and that isn't what UNC stands for. We want that meaningful interaction, that Human to Human interaction.Hear! Hear! Would that everyone who expressed UNC's goals did it so eloquently.
That's really not the difference. "The Goodfellow" was talking about playing a role in a game. Unfortunately, many of your posts tend to focus on attacking the players themselves - for being weak, or fearful, or easily intimidated, or whiners, etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@lifedragn,
Oh. Oh it moved alright. There you can see it in its natural habitat.
@Nihimon,
Now now. I understand that you wanted to help the goodfellow, but two attacks don't create a ceasefire. They just start Kobold and I on the path to trolldom.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For some people, yes. But that is not exactly the point. It is the image, and it is not the sole domain of one publisher, but most/all.
Think about it, if someone was in your guild, and they suddenly came out saying "Oh by the way, all of you and your guild is going to be the subject of a feature in X newspage" doesn't that create a sense of pride and elation? It also leads to a sense of elitism, which has already been discussed over.
This, however, is a discussion for another (linked) thread, not exactly this one.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There are such awfull games alive? Even WoW Battlegrounds have a "meaning" .@Lyrik
It is a slang term. Basically a game where all people do is go around and kill everyone else for the hellofit and other equally reasonable goals. And by reasonable I mean pointless and stupid.
Many FFA PvP sandboxes have these elements. It may not always be a majority of players, but there are usually significant enough groups to drive away non-hardcore players.
I remember the roving murder-gangs of UO. Mounted groups of mages that sweep across the fields killing everything and everyone. It wasn't about loot or territory or any of that, half of the time they didn't even bother to loot.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I understand Ryan's reasoning to highlight MVP in this article. You can't say everything about the game every time. There is a legit concern about getting people to understand MVP and crowdforging and that message needs to be made on its own so you don't confuse people with all the other jazz.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I remember the roving murder-gangs of UO. Mounted groups of mages that sweep across the fields killing everything and everyone. It wasn't about loot or territory or any of that, half of the time they didn't even bother to loot.
I think the bad rep of PvP started already with UO. That is like 16 years ago. I remember reading about this awesome concept of thousands of players inhabiting the same fantasy world, battling monsters, crafting, purchase houses and what not, and could not wait to get into the game myself. But then I read an interview about the PvP, the griefing, the corpse camping, and all kinds of cheesy PvP exploits, and that made me decide to not buy the game, and wait for Everquest instead.
So even before I actually had experienced PvP griefing, I was turned off by PvP through the reviews. That may say something about me but it certainly did also say something about the impact of such behavior on "virgin" players to the MMO market like me.
I am wondering, was there much griefing in MUDs and games like Meridian 59?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am wondering, was there much griefing in MUDs...
I played Legends of Future Past for several years, and I saw so little sign of it that I was probably more stunned that I should've been the first time I ran head-long into it in a bigger game. Legends probably never had more than 100 players on-line concurrently, and it seemed quite easy for most of the "regulars" to know each other, which helped the sense of camaraderie, even among "good" and "evil" players.
This was also back in the days of pay-per-hour-played charges, so that naturally helped keep populations under control and focussed on those who had both resources and incentive to "play right".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
By the way Meridian 59 has gone revenant, gone open source and free to play. An interesting history ishere.
Meridian 59 was focused on PvP because there was no other content to speak of.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are 100% right about the impact of Ultima Online. In fact you can draw a straight arrow from UO to EverQuest to World of Warcraft that relates to the ability of characters to engage in meaningful interaction, and that arrow was set in motion by what happened in UO.
UO was accidentally cursed by a design choice that didn't seem as impactful as it turned out to be. That design choice was to allow a very "Free form" approach to in-game behavior by the players. The UO devs thought that what would happen would be interesting social behavior. But what actually happened was sociopathy.
The hole UO dug was so deep that the entire industry with the exception of CCP (who was founded by guys who loved playing UO) ran screaming in the opposite direction swearing that they would never make THAT mistake again.
That was the original sin that tied PvP to griefing and harassment in the minds of many players who came afterward. People who have never even seen UO have opinions about PvP and griefing based on what they've been told it is like.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The sins of the father, eh?
I play(played) a MUD called Aardwolf. There was a brief griefing spree a while back, but other than that, no not really. The thing with MUDS is that it is too RP-heavy, too game-intense (roll with it), and too much for the dedicated, that most of the times only those sorts of people even think about them, and very few actually play them. To top it off, there is usually little to no imaging, so the joyful experience of seeing heads roll literally, and bodies flop to the ground is all pretty much removed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's really not the difference. "The Goodfellow" was talking about playing a role in a game. Unfortunately, many of your posts tend to focus on attacking the players themselves - for being weak, or fearful, or easily intimidated, or whiners, etc.
I'm not in agreement with this characterization, although I have probably labeled expressed concerns as being the consequence of fears or intimidation. "Whiners" is more of an issue of name calling, and I usually make great efforts not to resort to that.
I do agree that my delivery is different and more abrasive than Goodfellow's, but the in-game actions will be no different than his stated goals and activities.
I have always said it, within our own circles, but it has been said to me from outsiders as well. The UNC is upfront about our intentions, and that rubs some people the wrong way.
We are coming out of a game for the most part, that played by "Hardcore Rules" and very, very few actions were considered griefing. If GW makes those same actions fall within GW's consideration of griefing, they will not be done by myself and the members of UNC will be strongly discouraged from them as well.
If on the other hand, GW does not label such activities as griefing or otherwise prohibited, and those activities will help us achieve our goals, they will be done and they will be done as often as they meet our needs.
I have no obligation to follow the spirit of anything I don't choose to follow. That to me is the essence of Chaotic Neutral.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The only real griefing I ever experienced was in Age of Conan, when it first launched. The respawn point on White Sands was camped almost continuously and they would keep you pinned there for hours. This particular group must have worked in shifts, and after a few days, I just stopped going to that server.
Fortunately, there were plenty of servers to choose from and you could have characters on different servers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have no obligation to follow the spirit of anything I don't choose to follow. That to me is the essence of Chaotic Neutral.Which means he WILL follow GW' rules. So that is clear.
Yes, if GW says some activity is forbidden, it will not be done by me and I would discourage my members from doing them as well. It is up to GW to say what those activities are, I'm not going to be in the business of interpreting the "spirit" of their intent.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As said before, and this will be the last I speak of it here because it is way off topic from the OP and I atleast try to keep topics on topics, Bludd and I really are saying the same things. We do not hide what we are and what role we intend to play in PFO. We don't feel the need to do so. If anything, it is a good thing that we don't hide this because it allows the community to discuss things with both "Sides" of the issue and both POVs being represented. IMHO that is what crowdforging is all about. Devs say something, or present a mechanic or concept, and we discuss it and tweak it till we (the community) feel it is balanced and fun. Since there are many who wish to play "Good guys" and crafter/merchant types, there side gets plenty of "face time" and their voice is heard and normally together and on the same page. We come in and bring a "bad guy" POV and allows for a more balanced concept to be discussed.
People seam to think that we are out for ourselves, and to a point they are correct. However, while we are attempting to ensure that we are able to play our chosen role without being gimped and weakened, we also do not desire our opponents to suffer the same fate, for the same reasons we don't want to suffer it. If we (The whole community) can find a way to balance the mechanics and game features and ensure enjoyment for all parties involved, then we will truly have a game that will last and be enjoyed for many years, and might even be the new "WOW" that everyone else clones.
So, once again I wrote another damn wall LOL, as I said at the start of this post, I am done with this particular topic in this particular thread. We can continue it elsewhere if anyone wishes to, but I ask that a topic be made (or properly used) for it, like the UNC policy thread since I am speaking only for the UNC and our desires and stance on these matters. Please try to keep posts related to the topic of the title and OP. I am not perfect and I am not asking for perfection, just an effort on all parties to do so. Thank you.
Concerning the OP, I finally finished reading the whole blog post (kept getting sidetracked and distracted for almost 2 days) and I just wanted to say well written and I think it captures the essence and concepts of what it was meant to. GG Ryan. well done.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This particular group must have worked in shifts, and after a few days, I just stopped going to that server.The acceptance of that behavior by Funcom utterly eludes me. But then ... Funcom.
LOL. So true. In funcom's defense they eventually put in a pretty effective "criminal" system. But that's the last time I will defend Funcom.
I can't think of any better reason to believe in PFO other than the fact that this constant community interaction by GW promises quicker fixes to broken systems.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The majority of players want to be in a big guild with alot of people but some players prefer a small elite group and when i joined one or created my own so far never had issues to find recruitments.made the joining extremely difficult to keep the numbers low.
There are advantages both ways, but the debs had said there will be difficulties for larger groups, say over 50, as there will be inefficiencies in DI (development Index, maybe) accumulation; possibly even a cap at some higher head count.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My thoughts on the 'Big getting Bigger' concept?
In Pathfinder Online, we might end up like the Romans in that there might be a finite limit that a Company or Corporation can hold successfully.
We have no 'world-wide' channel for them to communicate with, meaning they'll need a third-party program like Ventrillo or Mumble.
We have no 'global' Auction Houses for them to control. Attempts to monopolize will result in people simply moving to new Hexes with less oppressive markets.
The nail that sticks up gets hammered down. Mega-Companies are going to be that uppity Nail, and the big Company will have the better equipment, which makes them the targets for the more organised Bandit Clans and Mercenary Corporations.
I think, given Pathfinder's PvP Rules and Settlement buildings/PoI control mechanisms (as described thus far) that Corporations will only be able to grow so big before they literally become too big and too unwieldy to expand any further without obscene amounts of third-party mechanisms involved.
Most folks aren't going to be willing to invest the sheer volume of time and real-life money/resources into a game. The people that are that prepared are likely to form the 'Core' of a Company, and be a solid nucleus around which the Company forms, but the Company itself will likely cycle members at a reasonable rate, ensuring a slow growth interspaced with ego-clashes and 'bubbles' that cause the Company to lose members, ground and resources.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, once again I wrote another damn wall LOL, as I said at the start of this post, I am done with this particular topic in this particular thread.
This community at least seems quite tolerant of verbosity, so long as the author is saying something.
As I pointed out earlier the community is bright enough to realize that those who intend to prey on others will provide a key feature of the tale, that of real conflict. Yet the misconception that the predators should be the more than equal to the prey persists. There is a counter-argument that since the predators will ever have the initiative then real and practical balance will not be mechanically obtained by equality in ststs and skills.
The best 'bad' outlaw will almost always have the initiative because his objective is to engage, where everyone else is naturally focused on the rest of the game.
If you have two fighters of equal skill and equal defense then the first to land a blow will win. If you are always by your nature and preference the first to strike then that is unbalanced, even though everything else is exactly the same. The only way to compensate for that is with mechanics that identify the bandits as a fair target, allowing the 'good' to seek first strike without damaging themselves. The concept of 'flags' allows this. The concept of faction allows this. The concept of reputation should allow this. Bandits will still be able to strike first, just less reliably. The SAD permits first strike advantages to become possible for the defender.
Seeking to eliminate the measures to remove the monopoly of opportunity is a disservice to the game rather than a service, and anything the Unnamed attempt to argue to the contrary will be opposed. That should be understood clearly. Allegations to the effect that anyone who will not be a bandit and argues that the first strike advantage should not be a monopoly of the lawless and evil is somehow inferior, less worthy, less 'manly' is a rhetorical ploy, a fiction, and unworthy of someone pretending to work 'for the good of the game'.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being
I will disagree that the first to land a blow wins. It is more than skill and ability. There is always extenuating circumstances, and also the items a player has will always be differing in some small way from another generally. It also depends on reaction. If someone is constantly in a caravan, and has been hit by bandits multiple times, they will develop a certain reaction-set to deal with those sorts of situations. Experience counts for a lot.
I also agree this is not the place for this discussion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
All else being equal, Brother.
Pointing out that differences in opinion aren't on topic does not make an argument right or wrong, it only diverts discussion.
I argue that the mechanics intended to turn the ambusher's first strike monopoly into attacker/defender parity is part of the MVP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The point was to divert discussion to another location... I thought I made that clear, and I apologize if I didn't
Also, I feel that if a guard is good enough at his job he will be able to spot and be proactive with an ambush. High perception is key.
ALSO the current system is that when a convoy enters the bandit hideout's "PoI radius" it will drop out of fast travel. This will give the caravan warning that they are about to be ambushed, as well as warning the bandits. I don't see how a caravan traveling along a road can be altogether caught unaware, at least not unless they aren't paying attention at all.
In the wilderness, not on the roads, they should expect an ambush at all times. If they don't then they are fools.
A caravan should not be one giant clump. they should have outliers and scouts, as well as wings. There are standard procedures to protecting a caravan that I would love to share, as well as ways to counter different types of ambushes, which for the most part involve the nearest wing or group of outliers charging the ambushers so as to distract them while the main party makes good the escape (it is much more complex than that, but that's the basic concept most times).
Again, I'd suggest moving this somewhere else...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
ALSO the current system is that when a convoy enters the bandit hideout's "PoI radius" it will drop out of fast travel.Not quite. When the caravan moves into range for a hideout the Bandits are to be provided with the opportunity to elect whether to interdict it and force it out of fast travel. That is a significant difference that drastically reduces risk for the bandits because they have opportunity to remain hidden if they decide they would be overmatched.
Again, I'd suggest moving this somewhere else...
If that were really your intent then wouldn't you sensibly begin the new thread with your 'last word' rather than continue here?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not going to care :I if my character is hunting the bandits, it doesn't matter if they committed the act or not, their intent was there. Any reputation or alignment lose is a regrettable evil.
But this has almost nothing to do with the original point and even less to do with the original post.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Neither is the topic of 'bandit desires greater advantages in selfless service to the game' proprietary to the UNC. By moving the conversation into the UNC proprietary thread you in effect coerce your interlocutors to promote the UNC brand. The topic should be of general interest and not aligned exclusively to the UNC.
Your continual 'gotta get in the last word' posts recommending that I help bump the UNC thread (thereby promoting your company cause and elevating the UNC's recruition profile) is not only even farther off topic, it is self-serving.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this topic really belongs in Could PFO Thrive with No Unsanctioned PvP?
</silly>
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they don't ambush the caravan then it isn't a problem anyway.It won't be a problem for the bandits. It would only be a problem for those who would hunt the bandits. Immunity from consequences exclusively for predators may well be a problem.
The UNC has supported every system that the Devs have put forward to allow the guardians of peace their first strike opportunities.
SADs were created to provide "good aligned" characters the ability to interdict without always having to kill.
The Marshal System, we fully support, and I had been the first to suggest that it should be expanded from its brief, initial description.
What I or we have argued against is any system that creates a game mechanic that does something players should do for themselves. We have also argued against proposals that do not have with them costs of training, slotting or influence. We have opposed systems that would thrust others without agency to become PvP flagged in the hopes that they would protect those that they have no agency with.
Any suggestion that the UNC had not asked for or fought for a balanced approach is either ignorant of our stance or willfully misrepresenting it.
Directing others to our discussion thread is not a support for or against our views, it is a support of the discussion. Or should we hold the mentioning and direction to the Nihimonicon to the same standard?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Referencing the Nihimonicon doesn't bump the thread it is in.
The UNC threads are all labeled as advertisements. Taking conversations of general interest into one of your several proprietary threads uses those who disagree to bump your company brand to the top of the forums.
Clever? Maybe. Self-serving? Definitely. So where is the harm in that? If I want to see hot topics I don't want to slog through UNC spam thread to find it, even if I somehow learned it was buried in there.
I suspect that may be how you emerge from your proprietary thread at times with some off the wall interpretations. It looks sometimes like you've been intellectually inbred, conceptually isolated as a Galapagos specie to evolve along your own line of thought only to emerge... like a Goony Bird? OMG SO THAT is what happened to you!!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to take this opportunity to point you all to a great place to discuss the matter of shameless advertisements...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
SADs were created to provide "good aligned" characters the ability to interdict without always having to kill.
The SAD mechanic as originally stated allowed chaotic-aligned Outlaw characters to steal from others without reputation penalties, whether their victims surrendered goods or the Outlaw killed the victim. It's in the PFO blog, "I Shot a Man in Reno Just To Watch Him Die," Feb 6, 2013. It says nothing whatsoever about giving "good aligned" characters the ability to interdict without always having to kill.
editted to remove comment about UNC credibility. Second edit to change paragraph order.