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.
We had a discussion about the origin of the concept behind the SAD, and I be
Ie e it came from a discussion Andius and I were having.Andius at the time was suggesting that if he and his group of enforcers saw a group of known criminals, but who were not currently flagged, he was powerless to doing anything about it without risk of losing reputation. I agreed with his situation. At the same time the issue of non lethal combat was also being brought up, probably in another thread.
The gist of the discussion was that how could both outlaw and enforcer do what they hoped to do as pRt of their roles, without being forced to both become CE and Low Rep.
To the best of my recollection, the SAD mechanic was revealed not long thereafter. This was close to or over a year ago, so some of my sequence may be wrong. But, regardless of how it came about, the SAD does allow for what I represented.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being, yeah, I've often wondered if some of the more outlandish statements are simply click-bait, or intended to provoke an argument to keep a thread near the top of the list.
If we wanted to keep a thread near the top of the list, we would just bump it.... Allow me to demonstrate.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But that is the insidious genius of your conspiracy, Bludd: Mere 'bumps' wouldn't attract the unsuspecting innocent reader into your malevolent web.
Insidious, at times, yes.
Genius, would never claim to be one, but clever at times yes.
Conspiratorial, not likely, I'm too upfront and prefer to be tenacious, brash and in one's face.
Now... Hobbs.... That is the cutthroat you need to look out for! We might as well give him the title "Darth".
Is it just me or do others find this comment hilarious...
@Being, yeah, I've often wondered if some of the more outlandish statements are simply click-bait, or intended to provoke an argument to keep a thread near the top of the list.
when followed several posts later by...
editted to remove comment about UNC credibility.Highlighting this for no particular reason...
and keeping this thread ticking over and near the top of the list.
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.
Which is why chaotic settlements will not be as good as lawful ones. Criminals will be chaotic and tied to chaotic settlements for training. Those settlements are not as 'good' as lawful ones. Balance restored.
Do you feel that you have been forcibly placed in your role? Are you a victim? Or was your role something you chose? If the former then sorry. If the latter stop whining. It was your choice and remains your choice to be the bad guys. So should anyone be surprised if you are treated like outlaws?
I'm surprised. People should be smart enough to separate in game from out of game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't forum wars form the middle ground between game and meatspace?
As a matter of fact it is arguably a conceptual fallacy to distinguish 'real life' behavior from online behavior. What we do online is every bit as real as meatspace 'doing', given the nature of each.
Is it unintelligent in your estimation to consider behavior real behavior, regardless of milieu and regardless of anonymity?
What makes you think it is smart to maintain an illusory dichotomy like that? Is truth a matter of convenience for you?
~~~~~~~~~~
Federally Mandated Advisory: The denizen herein can drone on for hours about atypical and uncomfortable things using obscure language as if it were his natural environment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Being is right.
A dichotomy in behavioral patterns leads to close-mindedness. Close mindedness leads to hate. hate leads to anger. anger leads to suffering. Suffering is the path to the spanish inquisition...
Don't forum wars form the middle ground between game and meatspace?
As a matter of fact it is arguably a conceptual fallacy to distinguish 'real life' behavior from online behavior. What we do online is every bit as real as meatspace 'doing', given the nature of each.
Is it unintelligent in your estimation to consider behavior real behavior, regardless of milieu and regardless of anonymity?
What makes you think it is smart to maintain an illusory dichotomy like that? Is truth a matter of convenience for you?
~~~~~~~~~~
Federally Mandated Advisory: The denizen herein can drone on for hours about atypical and uncomfortable things using obscure language as if it were his natural environment.
I'm not sure what your saying here. Are you saying the forums is a place where people can express their in game issues at other characters? That is, because a bandit is bad in the game people can react to them that way here?
Fallacy or not that seems pretty stupid to me. In fact that brings up a good point. If I decide someone is stupid because of their posts on these forums, can I attack them personally like I would in the game?
Didn't think so.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed. I always find it really annoying when someone uses "it's a game" or "it's a forum" to justify being an ass.
[My friend] gets up and goes to use the can, and I hear the very distinct and not muffled-by-a-door sounds of a stream of liquid hitting the toilet bowl.
Me: Are you pissing with the door open?!
[Friend]: Dude... it's just D&D
me and all other players: *incredulous look of disbelief*
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed. I always find it really annoying when someone uses "it's a game" or "it's a forum" to justify being an ass.
[My friend] gets up and goes to use the can, and I hear the very distinct and not muffled-by-a-door sounds of a stream of liquid hitting the toilet bowl.
Me: Are you pissing with the door open?!
[Friend]: Dude... it's just D&D
me and all other players: *incredulous look of disbelief*
When I was a teenager, at my D&D buddies house, I got so drunk I pissed into a sandwich bag ( pre ziplock) right in his kitchen. I then staggered to the bathroom trying not to spill any and hoped the bag didn't burst.
This guy Rennick was worried about the sound of someone pissing! Damn, my friends and I were near maniacs as teenagers and young adults. D&D, alcohol, pot, heavy metal girls and pellet guns...... Damn I miss the 80's!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure what your saying here. Are you saying the forums is a place where people can express their in game issues at other characters? That is, because a bandit is bad in the game people can react to them that way here?
Fallacy or not that seems pretty stupid to me. In fact that brings up a good point. If I decide someone is stupid because of their posts on these forums, can I attack them personally like I would in the game?
Didn't think so.
Your ability to understand has little bearing on my intelligence. You weren't confident of your reading yet based upon that poor understanding you decided to pass judgment and call me stupid, which is pretty damn stupid of you.
You are posting as yourself. When you play a game online you are also playing as yourself. You are not magically something else when playing the game, you are just as real and the behavior you exhibit is real as well. There is no dichotomy between what is in the game and reality. The consequences of what you do in the game are different from what they would be if you did those things in 'real' life, but your behavior as a player making your character do things in-game is every bit as real behavior as what you do in meatspace. If you do an evil thing you have still done an evil thing.
Is that clear enough for you or do I also need to teach you to read?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My opinion is that we all use various personas in RL and in virtual space as much by design as by mood or habit?
I've done various temp jobs and assumed a different accent, persona and backstory. Why? Not sure tbh, maybe jumping onto the couch would help explain some things but no more than "because I could" or "to make the time pass more interestly" or "to feed information I felt more in control over as a means be visibly anonymous" when you're just a number in a short-term job.
Ryan posted this over at Massively, worth posting here:
Most AAA Theme Park MMOs take between 5 and 7 years to go from "let's make a game" to "you can play this game". On that schedule, we'd be looking at releasing the game sometime between 2016 and 2018.
Early Enrollment means you can begin playing this year, not two to four years from now. We think that's a meaningful value to a lot, but not all, players. The tradeoff is that the game you'll play this year has fewer features than the game you'll pay between 2016 and 2018. Of course, you can just wait until those out years to play - there's no difference to you between waiting for those features that you want to be added, and waiting for a whole game to be delivered. Some people will do just that - they'll keep an eye on the game and when it has added the things they care most about then they'll join up.
For those players who are interested in the experience of being in at the very beginning, and thus having the ability to really shape the progression and development of the game through their input, they'll relish the chance to start play this year. For those players, waiting two to four more years to play, and then having to accept that whatever design choices we made in the interim are locked in and set in stone is a bad plan.
There is a significant problem with sandbox games that theme park games don't have, and that is the problem that much of what makes the game fun has to be built by the players during play. The economy, the politics, the territorial divisions, etc. all emerge from the meaningful interactions of the players, not by fiat of the developers.
If we attempted a classic Theme Park launch and tried to get a million people to play the game, the result would be a disaster. Those million players would all show up in a mostly empty world, with a mostly empty economy, with no social structures to adhere to and nothing to do - except randomly whack each other. It turns into a murder simulator rather than a high fantasy epic.
Limiting the number of players allowed into the game for a while means that there's a controlled growth in the population. The first players in know they're entering a world where they have to pick up tools and make content for everyone who comes after - but they are volunteering for that work. As we gradually allow more people into the game we are constantly expanding its scope to accommodate that growth. There should never be a time when the only thing worth doing is randomly ganking another player just for the lulz.
It seems counterintuitive, but that's how EVE became so successful. When they started they only had about 20,000 players. But they grew incrementally every year until 2010. That's the exact same plan we're going to try and engineer into Pathfinder Online.
I think the speed to deliverable playable game is a very big positive in this development approach. Hopefully it can pick up the requisite momentum after a very feature-lite opening.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No Bludd, it isn't an evil thing to capture a queen in chess. The evil things a player does, whatever they are, do remain evil. In chess I imagine it would be for me to upset the chessboard when you captured my queen. Minimal, yes, but still a 'bad' thing.
What is an evil thing? That is a subject for philosophers with more time on their hands than is good for them. But we both know there are evil things. My point is that you are you, whether face to face or through a medium. The things you do are the things you do whether or not you do them with a tool.
When someone is murdered using a sidearm it wasn't the sidearm but the gunman who did the deed. Just because you are using an avatar as your tool does not magically transform your actions into 'not-real'.
This fiction some propose that 'it's only a game' is fallacious.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No Bludd, it isn't an evil thing to capture a queen in chess. The evil things a player does, whatever they are, do remain evil. In chess I imagine it would be for me to upset the chessboard when you captured my queen. Minimal, yes, but still a 'bad' thing.
What is an evil thing? That is a subject for philosophers with more time on their hands than is good for them. But we both know there are evil things. My point is that you are you, whether face to face or through a medium. The things you do are the things you do whether or not you do them with a tool.
When someone is murdered using a sidearm it wasn't the sidearm but the gunman who did the deed. Just because you are using an avatar as your tool does not magically transform your actions into 'not-real'.
This fiction some propose that 'it's only a game' is fallacious.
Oh c'mon Mr. Pot, Dr. Kettle knows you post a LOT on a MB for game that hasn't been released.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ Being,
Is it an evil thing to capture your opponent's Queen in Chess?
How is the competitive experience any different in an MMO or any other genre of PC game as compared to a board game?
No. It is suboptimal to try to capture your opponents queen in chess, if you are playing according to the rules.
Chess is won by putting the opposing king into checkmate, and capturing pieces (including the queen) is often an effective way to do so- but there are situations where a move which captures the opposing queen is a losing move.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Man is hardwired to resent having worked for something and having someone come and try to take it without benefit to the man. Whether it is a game or not. Whether it is play as intended or not.
It is weird, but true.
Edit: I also suspect that the more investment in the "game" (time, money, whatever) has a direct effect on how much the man resents losing his work. The amount of investment in a single game of chess is trivial to that for a character in an MMO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Man is hardwired to resent having worked for something and having someone come and try to take it without benefit to the man. Whether it is a game or not. Whether it is play as intended or not.
It is weird, but true.
Edit: I also suspect that the more investment in the "game" (time, money, whatever) has a direct effect on how much the man resents losing his work. The amount of investment in a single game of chess is trivial to that for a character in an MMO.
What do you believe the response will be to losing a settlement?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What do you believe the response will be to losing a settlement?
Probably one of the more important questions asked on these forums.
There is a chance people will see losing a settlement as less personal but maybe not.In fact, if you have been gathering and trading for your settlement for months, sunk coin in it, helped expand it and then lose it, yes, that will cause some drama. Hopefully the proces of founding and growing a settlement will be as much fun as the goal, else I can see people quit.
I think this is what in fact happened quit a bit in Shadowbane.
It has surprised me that we have not seen much comparison with Shadowbane on these forums, when it comes to the Settlement-building part. And the losing them part......
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Man is hardwired to resent having worked for something and having someone come and try to take it without benefit to the man. Whether it is a game or not. Whether it is play as intended or not.
It is weird, but true.
Edit: I also suspect that the more investment in the "game" (time, money, whatever) has a direct effect on how much the man resents losing his work. The amount of investment in a single game of chess is trivial to that for a character in an MMO.
What do you believe the response will be to losing a settlement?
I think that it will be a mixed reaction. The groups with the greatest bonds will suck it up and carry on. I have seen entire clans dissolve in DFUW when they lose their cities. Individuals will do as they will when it happens. Some may lose heart, some will overcome and look at it as a challenge.
My point was that some of the ire toward bandits (for example) is just natural. It is seated in the subconscious, whether we realize it is a game and overcome it is another matter.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My point was that some of the ire toward bandits (for example) is just natural. It is seated in the subconscious, whether we realize it is a game and overcome it is another matter.
And I was mocked (jokingly perhaps) when I argued that I was trying to cure people of their loot monkey materialism.
But, you are coming very close to using the "It's just a game defense", and that has come under fire recently as well.
I agree with everything you have says in these two posts. Now that should seal your fate! ; o )
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that it will be a mixed reaction. The groups with the greatest bonds will suck it up and carry on. I have seen entire clans dissolve in DFUW when they lose their cities. Individuals will do as they will when it happens. Some may lose heart, some will overcome and look at it as a challenge.
There is a reason that the large alliances in EvE Online only really respect you once you have been smashed into the dirt and come back from it. Being able to fight yourself to the top of the pile isn't impressive. Doing it, being knocked down, and coming back stronger than ever is.
Everyone is going to lose everything they have worked for in this game. How you respond to that fact determines how much worth you have as a player.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My point was that some of the ire toward bandits (for example) is just natural. It is seated in the subconscious, whether we realize it is a game and overcome it is another matter.And I was mocked (jokingly perhaps) when I argued that I was trying to cure people of their loot monkey materialism.
But, you are coming very close to using the "It's just a game defense", and that has come under fire recently as well.
I agree with everything you have says in these two posts. Now that should seal your fate! ; o )
Lol. Perhaps my fate is sealed then. The hardest thing to overcome is the hatred of unexpected and unwanted PVP. I know all about that and yet I finally found DFUW too easy in aquisition of materials, skills and wealth. Not that I came to be a pro at PVP, just that I found it was quite possible (in that game) to get all of those things despite roving killers. Not at all by hanging in the safe zones either. :)
This game will (hopefully) be far more challenging. What I did there (largely alone) will require that I group with friends far more often and cooperate much more in an organization (in this game).
But don't worry. There will still be droves of players that risk doing dangerous things alone or in small groups, despite any amount of advice. You will have plenty to keep you busy... ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that it will be a mixed reaction. The groups with the greatest bonds will suck it up and carry on. I have seen entire clans dissolve in DFUW when they lose their cities. Individuals will do as they will when it happens. Some may lose heart, some will overcome and look at it as a challenge.There is a reason that the large alliances in EvE Online only really respect you once you have been smashed into the dirt and come back from it. Being able to fight yourself to the top of the pile isn't impressive. Doing it, being knocked down, and coming back stronger than ever is.
Everyone is going to lose everything they have worked for in this game. How you respond to that fact determines how much worth you have as a player.
I agree. It will be true grit that determines who will last and who will pass on in the settlement game. I just hope that there is room for other types of play and that it is not too discouraging for them.
Edited to more fully express hopes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure what your saying here. Are you saying the forums is a place where people can express their in game issues at other characters? That is, because a bandit is bad in the game people can react to them that way here?
Fallacy or not that seems pretty stupid to me. In fact that brings up a good point. If I decide someone is stupid because of their posts on these forums, can I attack them personally like I would in the game?
Didn't think so.
Your ability to understand has little bearing on my intelligence. You weren't confident of your reading yet based upon that poor understanding you decided to pass judgment and call me stupid, which is pretty damn stupid of you.
You are posting as yourself. When you play a game online you are also playing as yourself. You are not magically something else when playing the game, you are just as real and the behavior you exhibit is real as well. There is no dichotomy between what is in the game and reality. The consequences of what you do in the game are different from what they would be if you did those things in 'real' life, but your behavior as a player making your character do things in-game is every bit as real behavior as what you do in meatspace. If you do an evil thing you have still done an evil thing.
Is that clear enough for you or do I also need to teach you to read?
I have to respectfully disagree with you being. A good example of why I disagree is right here in PFO, though I can pull examples from nearly every other game. I have already chosen to play an assassin with a side of bandit. Robbing and murdering for fun/profit is my character's motive to wake up and climb out of bed every day. Me as a person (not my character) is actually quite the opposite. I work hard, go to school to further my education, and try to be an overall good person.
While the though has crossed my mind, especially if I get overly angry with someone, I would never actually go through with murder. Despite my training as a US Marine, and other life experiences, I am quite aware of my abilities in RL, but would never use them unless absolutely necessary and even then only in self defense.
I say all this because me as a person, vs me as a player (depending on the role but in this case as "The Goodfellow") are almost completely opposite. Goodfellow wouldn't think twice about slitting a persons throat, though would much rather have a contract first as to get paid for his time.
You can argue the "while you post as yourself" part of your statement, but the "you play a game as yourself" if the main issue I have. I intend to play Goodfellow as a ruthless murderer. Your statement above means that I, myself, am a ruthless murderer. According to your statement, that is true since PFO will be played online. I am disagreeing to that. I understand that a specific RPG or RP server could be ruled out as "I was just roleplaying" but PFO isn't only going to be a RPG, it is an MMO and does not REQUIRE roleplaying though it is offered and, in some circles, promoted as the preferred method of playing.
You go on to state that "Your behavior as a player making your character do things in-game is every bit as real behavior as what you do in meatspace." Am I to understand this as to mean that since I am forcing my character in PFO "The Goodfellow" to murder people, I am a murderer?
If this is not the way you meant it, then please clarify as this is how I am reading it. As we all know, the written word can be misunderstood quite easily as there is no body language and no tone and such to help me (the reader) to fully understand what your saying. If this IS how you meant it, then I strongly disagree for reasons stated in this same post.
Last thing, as I posted in another post, while we get upset and heated, I am asking everyone to please refrain from comments such as "is that clear enough for you or do I also need to teach you to read?" as it just fuels fights and gets people riled up and distracted from the topic being discussed. Most people, myself included, tend not to think clearly when heated and comments like that cause heated mindsets.
Again, I am simply asking everyone to consider this when posting. If we can calm the bickering and fights between many members of these forums scattered about the forums, we can make these last few months prior to alpha and EE more productive and promote the friendly and fun environment that these forums were a year or so ago. Thank you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I completely agree with what people are saying about losing a settlement or really anything. (like a really nice sword you just bought or crafted and then died...) In eve, I had a Drake that was decently rigged out and geared and I was very comfortable in. An unfortunate encounter with a T2 drone carrier I was at war with parted me from her and it upset me. However, it is just a game and it caused me to learn to A) don't travel alone when at war, and B) don't fly what you can't afford to lose.
In PFO, I don't think it will be THAT brutal since we have threads and such, but the concept is still there. Don't build a settlement if you don't have the forces and trust in those forces to maintain it and protect it. Don't travel with anything you can't stand to lose. If you have the mindset of "Worst case scenario", then things will always turn out better then or as expected. :-)
Some people are not accustomed and have no desire to get accustomed to losing things they work for, and those will be the players that find this isn't the game for them, just like people have left Eve and WoW and every MMO out there. Others will overcome and adapt to the lose that will occur in PFO. Weather it is a death to a PVE event you underestimated, or a RPK that will happen on occasion, loss will be a part of the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You can argue the "while you post as yourself" part of your statement, but the "you play a game as yourself" if the main issue I have. I intend to play Goodfellow as a ruthless murderer. Your statement above means that I, myself, am a ruthless murderer. According to your statement, that is true since PFO will be played online. I am disagreeing to that. I understand that a specific RPG or RP server could be ruled out as "I was just roleplaying" but PFO isn't only going to be a RPG, it is an MMO and does not REQUIRE roleplaying though it is offered and, in some circles, promoted as the preferred method of playing.
You go on to state that "Your behavior as a player making your character do things in-game is every bit as real behavior as what you do in meatspace." Am I to understand this as to mean that since I am forcing my character in PFO "The Goodfellow" to murder people, I am a murderer?
If this is not the way you meant it, then please clarify as this is how I am reading it. As we all know, the written word can be misunderstood quite easily as there is no body language and no tone and such to help me (the reader) to fully understand what your saying. If this IS how you meant it, then I strongly disagree for reasons stated in this same post.
Goodfellow, Certainly I understand where you are coming from. I understand that you, as a good Marine, would rather lay down your own life for the sake of your brother than take his.
Nevertheless, virtual murder is virtually murder, and by murdering another player's toon your are engaging in real behavior that does commit virtual murder. True or false?I'm not trying to contend that the virtual murder of a game avatar is anything like real murder. It is more like taking Bluddwolf's queen. BUT. There is a human being on the other end. Another player is invested in his activities and you have intervened, possibly causing anguish to him. Certainly raising his stress levels. And there are some fairly insulting things you could do that cause some players to completely lose it. They Rage. They may damage their relationships with others if they don't handle it well.
Stop with the objection that they should deal with it: I understand that already.
But your in-game actions do have very real consequences and those odd ones among us who get off on that sort of thing are arguably partly responsible. It isn't just a game because what happens in it can leak into the real world. We are supposed to be responsible for the things we do and dismissing your responsibility for what you do with the excuse that it is only a game is false, and unworthy of you, and unworthy of your brother.
Boxers are deadly competitors, yet the most polite of people. Why, I wonder, aren't we? Is it at all because we deny responsibility for the part we play in another person's bad experience?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I should also point out that I disagree with the whole concept of obligatory RP: That just isn't going to happen and should not happen. But hiding the nametag of those you don't know is widely different from requiring RP. It would require a minimal amount of socialization, but not RP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@being Ok I think I see where your coming from. Your not saying that my actions through my character are my actions as if in the real world (play a murder makes you a murder) but instead are saying that if I play a murderer, in game I a murdering another person and causing them pain and stress and other "bad" feelings. your right and I agree with that. While part of me wants to say, as you put "deal with it" and I was raised to be think skinned and not let things really bother me unless they were really important (and anything game related shouldn't be THAT important but to each his own) however, I do want to describe a simple picture. This is a sandbox game, and the term comes from the old school playground that had sand to play in. It expresses the freedom to create whatever your imagination could come up with. 1 kid might use a dumb truck and move sand from one side to another, simulating a construction site preparing for building a structure or sorts, another might dig a whole and try to build a tunnel complex, and then a bully would run through a smash the other kids creations.
While I am not condoning the bully, and even playing the bad guy I am not intending to wreak every creation other players build, however it is almost the same thing. Yes the kid who built a castle lost the time he invested in building that castle, just as a settlement is built, but then falls to war. It isn't a happy event (except maybe for the victors) but it can, and likely will happen.
The example above is a very overly simple example that I hope expresses my views of how PFO will be. The upside to a sandbox, freedom to be creative and do as you want within limits of the box (predefined by GW through programming), the down side, one person's choices and creations can potentially ruin another's. You can try to minimize this, but it can't be removed without limiting the creativity that makes it a sandbox in the first place.
My hope and dream for PFO is that the combined effort of GW and the community itself will allow us to retain our sandbox freedoms, while limiting the "bullies" trashing our creations with "theirs."
Concerning your post about the names thing, allow me to clarify my stance on it. It would require SOME RP or, at the very least, some interaction or activity to reveal other person's names and affiliations. While I would love a fully immersive RP experience that would require this sort of system in place, As stated before, I don't feel it is a wise choice to force that level of RP on a player base without first announcing it as one of the driving points for the game. Dark souls (I think it the name) is upfront and honest about the brutal difficulty of the game. Death is very severe. Or Diablo and their "Hardcore" characters. Upfront they tell you, death is death, no save point, no reloading, just gone. You can't even have your gear looted by a friend and given back to you or anything. Gold on your character = gone, items everything.
Anyway, point is, yes the name thing could be implemented without requiring a full RP experience and instead, force some level of interaction by way of a /greet or similar command. I would fully support this idea in this format.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That was my intent (regarding the names thing). For the rest I understand your points and they are good. My objective in this is to identify plainly why I object to the standard cop-out 'It's only a game.' It stops being 'only a game' when human beings play it. Then it is a game and also players. People.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
*nod* understood. And for something that hasn't been voiced at all, (that I have found) remember that bandits don't just take your stuff and live like kings. We will be hunted semi often and will die a lot. This will cause us to lose some of that "hard-earned" gear and require us to "reacquire" some from someone else. It is a loop, similar to that of a PVE and crafter loop, just maybe a little smaller and more constant.
Anyway, now that that topic seams to be settled, at least I think so, next gripe vs UNC?? LOL
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Being
What warning should Goblin Works issue to a prospective player to create the "tacit approval" for loss, just by logging in?
The issue I see with your argument is that it places no responsibility upon the player who feels victimized and doers not treat the game as "just a game." Without the condition of tacit approval, is everyone supposed to walk on egg shells or ask permission to do anything that could upset someone.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But your in-game actions do have very real consequences and those odd ones among us who get off on that sort of thing are arguably partly responsible. It isn't just a game because what happens in it can leak into the real world. We are supposed to be responsible for the things we do and dismissing your responsibility for what you do with the excuse that it is only a game is false, and unworthy of you, and unworthy of your brother.
Maybe that should also be part of the tacit approval bit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Everyone has a different condition, and we cannot cater to all those conditions.
"Deal with it" is rather harsh, but accurate. Each person, whether they experience strife they go through IRL or virtual, has to deal with that problem in their own manner.
In my personal opinion, I hope I, and others, get robbed, killed, maimed, heartbroken, and/or more. It is a vital experience of life, and it should be experienced by all. If you don't experience these things, and only get the good, the nice, the prosperous, then you are missing out on a critical facet of what it means to be alive. Almost all the greatest works of mankind have come from a position of pain, of hurt, and of darkness. It is a sad, beautiful truth.
It isn't what a man is like when he sits "at the top of the pile" but rather what he is when he has to dig out of the deepest pit when he truly becomes who he is.
So people will lose, and will get hurt, and all other sorts of things. It works both ways, for bandits and murderers will get this pain and strife just the same. It is the way of things. Hunters hunt, and in turn are hunted by others. Does that mean the hunted should just let it happen? no. But neither is it right to stop such activities, if that is the being's true nature.
dig?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But your in-game actions do have very real consequences and those odd ones among us who get off on that sort of thing are arguably partly responsible. It isn't just a game because what happens in it can leak into the real world. We are supposed to be responsible for the things we do and dismissing your responsibility for what you do with the excuse that it is only a game is false, and unworthy of you, and unworthy of your brother.Maybe that should also be part of the tacit approval bit.
This philosophy prevents the playing of any multiplayer game, unless players are informed of the risks and then their choice to play is the tacit approval to accept those risks.
In EvE the mantra is:
You are never safe
Only fly what you can afford to lose
It us only about the isk (it is nothing personal)