Goblin Squad Member
|
@Urman, yes. Attackers gain the attacker flag and can be attacked, and they didn't make any exceptions there so I would expect it to carry through.
I don't see why, if someone is acting as a raider and thus seeking out PvP in the ways GW wants him to, you should be able to wail on him without him attacking back. In fact there's no place in the game where you can wail on him without him having the chance to counterattack.
Except that when someone attacks a flagged (or hostile?) character; a Criminal, a Heinous necromancer, etc., they *don't* gain an attacker flag themselves. They are now hostile from their target's viewpoint, naturally. But they aren't suddenly an open target for everyone.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I've never had any problems with UNC. I'd rather have a bunch of role players being the bad guys than some dudebros quipping how much they want another beer while trying to prove their manliness in no particular direction. If I have to hear that in game I'm going on a murder spree.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If UNC were all just role-playing Bandits, I wouldn't have a problem either. Unfortunately, Bluddwolf and Xeen have a long and sordid history of attacking new posters who expressed concerns about PvP, and of significantly misrepresenting the way PvP will work in PFO while doing so.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Urman, Gaining the attacker flag, if I am not mistaken, means you are fair game for the person you attacked. However, in some cases, gaining the attacker flag means you are now a criminal, in areas where attacking people in illegal, and thus are fair game to ANYONE. The attacker flag only makes your fair game to those you attack and their group. The criminal flag is what makes your fair game to anyone. I think that is what your trying to say, and make this wording will help make it clearer. As always, this is my understanding and if it is wrong then it happens, but it makes sense to me and seams the most logical way to handle it.
That being said, I think the big issue people are having when it comes to attacking people without rep/alignment loss is for those who share Andius's desire to help police his territory, and wanting to attack bandits and raiders without hurting them selves rep/alignment wise. My only thing to say on that is, if they (we) are flagged, have at us and your fine, if you see us not flagged, you must wait or take the hit to attack us. Your choice. Same goes for us in that we can attack anyone we want at any time, though we will take the rep/alignment hit. Sometimes it will be worth the hit in our opinions and we will do so, other times we won't and will use SAD instead. But that is our choice.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If UNC were all just role-playing Bandits, I wouldn't have a problem either. Unfortunately, Bluddwolf and Xeen have a long and sordid history of attacking new posters who expressed concerns about PvP, and of significantly misrepresenting the way PvP will work in PFO while doing so.
I disagree with this statement. Not as a member of UNC but from me as a player and poster's perspective. I don't think either of them have "Attacked" anyone on the forums. Sure there has been some heated debates and there have been times when both sides of the debate have gotten out of hand, but I wouldn't say it like you did. "A long and sordid history of attacking new posters." Yes bludd and xeen are passionate about their position and defend it when feeling attacked, which all of us at the UNC have felt from time to time because of our perceived intentions.
We have made efforts, especially recently, to be open, honest, and straight forward about our desires and intent both in game and for the game. Meaning we support all viable playstyles and want a balanced game where everyone can enjoy and live out their online persona. We have volunteered to be the bad guys. That doesn't make us bad guys, it is just a role that we intend to find enjoyable and challenging as normally the bad guys are disadvantaged in some way. This is normally due to the good guys being the main characters in a story and "good always wins" and such. But in PFO, it isn't just a story about the hero's and the "Good guys," it is our story also and when people say things on these forums that seem to deny us our side of the story, we get heated.
Remember, you can't have a story without some sort of challenge or bad guy to face off against.
Got off topic as I sometimes do and im sorry. Point of this post was just that I disagree with you saying that Bludd and Xeen have attacked people (you said new posters and If anything I feel they attacked you and andius if that actually did attack anyone). Especially saying it is a "long and sordid history" of this behavior.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If UNC were all just role-playing Bandits, I wouldn't have a problem either. Unfortunately, Bluddwolf and Xeen have a long and sordid history of attacking new posters who expressed concerns about PvP, and of significantly misrepresenting the way PvP will work in PFO while doing so.
Evidence please!
Show where I or Xeen have disagreed with a Dev response or Dev Blog on how PVP will work?
Every peek into the window of what PVP might look like, made by Stephen, Tork or Lee has been accepted and built in where possible into our own policies where possible. At least until such time that changes made older statements obsolete.
What we haven't accepted at face value is every intention, as if it is a done deal. Where certain parts we disagree, we have tried to Crowd Forge in our self interest. The parts that we agreed with, we fully supported.
There are also instances where my interpretations were incorrect, and others where they were. I believe my interpretation of Going-A-Viking; Hostility; and Raiding are fairly accurate, based on the information we have at this time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I say "possible" because, if I am not mistaken, (and if I am, let me be the first to lobby for it) bandits will be flagged from the moment of issuing the SAD. Issuing the SAD should be the first "act" of the robbery, and as such, invoke the flags associated with such actions.
Some will recall that I am a proponent of privacy of information. Most notably I'm against even displaying the names over the heads of characters unless you have interacted with that character before.
Before reacting please recognize that every time I say that I get shouted down. Again I urge the reader to consider my point anyway, despite the overwhelming number of negative responses I expect.
I believe it would lead to a better game if you cannot tell who I am until you have at least met me. It would make it more difficult for you to tell whether I am red or blue or grey. It would make it less likely that a large hostile organization could assign an effective KOS hit contract on me for their murder-specialist disposable alts. Assassins couldn't easily pick me out of a crowd, they would have to do a little leg-work instead.
Well, similarly it seems to me it would be better if the game system did not display these flags, but instead should only move our reputation based upon their values.
A large part of the problem for the 'Good Guys' is in proving guilt. A large part of the advantage the criminal enjoys is being indistinguishable and anonymous unless he or she screws up.
The server should know without doubt a character's guilt or innocence, but would it make a better game if there were need for a Sherlock Holmes and allow for a Moriarty? Moriarty should be able to scuttle about on his nefarious missions without being accosted by every wanna-be lawman. Apprehending the culprit should be a serious victory leading to acclaim if he rightly deduces Moriarty's identity.
There is no sleuthing possible, nor is it at all needed if every bad guy is waving a bad-guy flag everywhere he goes.
I really think those who dismiss these considerations for the sake of what they are used to in other MMOs should rethink the real value of convenient systemic crutches.
You may climb the mountain faster if you drop those crutches by the wayside.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... Unfortunately, Bluddwolf and Xeen have a long and sordid history of attacking new posters who expressed concerns about PvP, and of significantly misrepresenting the way PvP will work in PFO while doing so.I disagree with this statement. ... "A long and sordid history of attacking new posters." Yes bludd and xeen are passionate about their position and defend it when feeling attacked, which all of us at the UNC have felt from time to time because of our perceived intentions.
About the misrepresentation point: before you and Nihimon can agree or disagree, you might have to define "misrepresentation."
If GW says that PFO will work some way, but a poster says it won't, is the poster misrepresenting things?
If GW doesn't say that PFO will work some way, but a poster says it will, is the poster misrepresenting things?
My view is that if a poster says things will work a certain way, he or she should know that as a fact, having checked the blogs or threads. Or he should deliberately include caveats.
For example, up-thread you say:
The attacker flag only makes your fair game to those you attack and their group. The criminal flag is what makes your fair game to anyone. I think that is what your trying to say, and make this wording will help make it clearer. As always, this is my understanding and if it is wrong then it happens, but it makes sense to me and seams the most logical way to handle it.
I don't think GW has ever said that criminal flags and attacker flags are treated differently as you describe. But your last sentence is clearly a caveat, so I don't see what you wrote as misrepresenting what GW has told us.
But that's my view. It's up to you and Nihimon to decide what you see as misrepresentation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I still think Bandits shouldn't gain any benefits to their SAD unless they've already been flagged for some time before they issue it.Agreed, and the longer they have been flagged, the more bonus they get. Respawning should restart the timer.
I'd go so far as to suggest that outlaws should be unable to create a hideout for ambushing travelers with a SAD until they first self-flag as an outlaw.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
If UNC were all just role-playing Bandits, I wouldn't have a problem either. Unfortunately, Bluddwolf and Xeen have a long and sordid history of attacking new posters who expressed concerns about PvP, and of significantly misrepresenting the way PvP will work in PFO while doing so.Evidence please!
Show where I or Xeen have disagreed with a Dev response or Dev Blog on how PVP will work?
There was that point a little bit ago where you lied about how the SAD came about and implied that it was certain that anyone who wanted to could issue a SAD demand that was impossible to meet.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Urman,
We do know this much to be certain, the Criminal Flag is only gained in settlement hexes where that action was defined by laws to be illegal.
The Hostility state, which is created by raiding an outpost (for example) is only viewed by the owners of the Outpost, its related POI and members of the settlement (if raiding is illegal in that settlement).
Clearly the Criminal Flag is a separate mechanic from the simple Hostility or Attacker Flag systems. Not all Hostility is a Crime, but it is likely all Crime will be treated as a Hostile act.
One of our main arguments has been over whether or not a SAD that is accepted will still generate Hostility or the Attacker Flag. We have never gotten a statement from the Devs, one way or the other. My opinion on that matter is that even for the Devs that is still TBD. However, a settlement will likely be able to make SADs illegal in their controlled lands.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There was that point a little bit ago where you lied about how the SAD came about and implied that it was certain that anyone who wanted to could issue a SAD demand that was impossible to meet.If UNC were all just role-playing Bandits, I wouldn't have a problem either. Unfortunately, Bluddwolf and Xeen have a long and sordid history of attacking new posters who expressed concerns about PvP, and of significantly misrepresenting the way PvP will work in PFO while doing so.Evidence please!
Show where I or Xeen have disagreed with a Dev response or Dev Blog on how PVP will work?
Link the post please.... I'm fairly certain I stated to the best of my recollection the SAD came about from a conversation Andius and I had about the issue. However, the Devs have never attributed to whom the idea of the SAD came from. If I also recall, I believe Nihimon attributed it to me, so perhaps he lied?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think I discovered the first reference on one of my research jaunts and the post was yours, so attributed it to you, Bludd.
I think Nihimon subsequently may have corrected me, pointing out it had an earlier beginning.
But I could be mistaken, what with my old timers' disease and all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If UNC were all just role-playing Bandits, I wouldn't have a problem either. Unfortunately, Bluddwolf and Xeen have a long and sordid history of attacking new posters who expressed concerns about PvP, and of significantly misrepresenting the way PvP will work in PFO while doing so.I disagree with this statement.
Fair enough, and I enjoyed reading your entire post. You paint a picture of activity that I completely agree is necessary in order to make PFO a thriving and interesting game. I wish you success in those endeavors.
Saying the SAD was for people who wanted nonlethal ways of banditry was a "lie" is pretty extreme.
The Outlaw flag is for players who want to rob other players, commit acts of banditry, etc. It can be used by chaotic evil players to be brigands, or by chaotic good players to be Robin Hood-style robbers. Outlaws use a new mechanic we are working on developing called stand and deliver, which allows the Outlaw to demand money from their victim through a trade window. If the victim refuses, the Outlaw gets to carry out his threats of force without losing reputation.
This indicates that at least part of the reason for the SAD was to give Chaotis Good bandits the chance to rob nonlethally.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There was that point a little bit ago where you lied about how the SAD came about and implied that it was certain that anyone who wanted to could issue a SAD demand that was impossible to meet.If UNC were all just role-playing Bandits, I wouldn't have a problem either. Unfortunately, Bluddwolf and Xeen have a long and sordid history of attacking new posters who expressed concerns about PvP, and of significantly misrepresenting the way PvP will work in PFO while doing so.Evidence please!
Show where I or Xeen have disagreed with a Dev response or Dev Blog on how PVP will work?
Link the post please.... I'm fairly certain I stated to the best of my recollection the SAD came about from a conversation Andius and I had about the issue. However, the Devs have never attributed to whom the idea of the SAD came from. If I also recall, I believe Nihimon attributed it to me, so perhaps he lied?
I found it myself.... [url]http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qr42&page=3?Pathfinder-Onlines-Ryan-Dancey -on#102[/url]
We had a discussion about the origin of the concept behind the SAD, and I believe 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.
I believe the BOLD qualifiers take what I said out of the realm of lying.
... DERP ....
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I discovered the first reference on one of my research jaunts and the post was yours, so attributed it to you, Bludd.
I think Nihimon subsequently may have corrected me, pointing out it had an earlier beginning.
But I could be mistaken, what with my old timers' disease and all.
You're referring to this post:
My research indicates you may have been the first advocate to propose both the SAD mechanic and the Hideout mechanic.Uhm, no.
Bluddwolf's first post was on December 29th, 2012. Hideouts were introduced in Player-Created Buildings and Structures on February 29th, 2012, a full ten months before that.
Although it's likely true that Bluddwolf's posts were instrumental in inspiring the devs to come up with the Stand and Deliver mechanic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Link the post please.... I'm fairly certain I stated to the best of my recollection the SAD came about from a conversation Andius and I had about the issue. However, the Devs have never attributed to whom the idea of the SAD came from. If I also recall, I believe Nihimon attributed it to me, so perhaps he lied?
(added quote for clarity)
I found it myself.... [url]http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qr42&page=3?Pathfinder-Onlines-Ryan-Dancey -on#102[/url]
...
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.
I believe the BOLD qualifiers take what I said out of the realm of lying.
... DERP ....
Except the original post was up-thread from the one you just posted in your defense. The original post was:
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?
There aren't a lot of caveats to that part I bolded. You're saying there that SAD was created to provide good characters the ability to attack without having to kill. Not that it's just one effect of SAD, or that it was a recollection from a year prior. You made an assumption, I believe, of why GW created outlaws and the SAD attacks and stated it as fact.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think it's likely that Decius was referring to this post, rather than the later one in which you walked this statement back.
SADs were created to provide "good aligned" characters the ability to interdict without always having to kill.
I think that's likely because this post was immediately followed by this reply from Decius:
The SAD mechanic was created for people who don't want to take other characters' stuff in the same way that we have always been at war with Eastasia.
I'd like to refer again to my own post.
The Outlaw flag is for players who want to rob other players, commit acts of banditry, etc. It can be used by chaotic evil players to be brigands, or by chaotic good players to be Robin Hood-style robbers. Outlaws use a new mechanic we are working on developing called stand and deliver, which allows the Outlaw to demand money from their victim through a trade window. If the victim refuses, the Outlaw gets to carry out his threats of force without losing reputation.
I would say that giving Chaotic Good bandits a way to be bandits was probably pretty high on the list. Certainly high enough to stave off childish claims of "lying".
Does referring to what's at worst an assumption as a lie really help this remarkably controversial issue get resolved, though?
Also, I'm not sure how the lie stuff helps address this:
Unfortunately, Bluddwolf and Xeen have a long and sordid history of attacking new posters who expressed concerns about PvP, and of significantly misrepresenting the way PvP will work in PFO while doing so.
So far, the only "misrepresentation" that's been dug up is Bluddwolf claiming the SAD mechanic was made for different reasons than it actually was.
I can't say the stuff didn't happen, because I been gone a while (I sure do remember Bluddwolf being pretty smug about his bandit plans back then, though he seems to have mellowed since), but accusations of things like "lying" and "attacking new posters" need to be backed up. Those are very personal and serious accusations.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Does referring to what's at worst an assumption as a lie really help this remarkably controversial issue get resolved, though?
Also, I'm not sure how the lie stuff helps address this:
Unfortunately, Bluddwolf and Xeen have a long and sordid history of attacking new posters who expressed concerns about PvP, and of significantly misrepresenting the way PvP will work in PFO while doing so.So far, the only "misrepresentation" that's been dug up is Bluddwolf claiming the SAD mechanic was made for different reasons than it actually was.
I can't say the stuff didn't happen, because I been gone a while (I sure do remember Bluddwolf being pretty smug about his bandit plans back then, though he seems to have mellowed since), but accusations of things like "lying" and "attacking new posters" need to be backed up. Those are very personal and serious accusations.
I think the reason that one misrepresentation was "dug up" was it wasn't a hard job - that was just two days ago. How many examples do you want?
Maybe an example that's actually a misrepresentation of the way PvP works and not just a misrepresentation of semi-accurate semantics?
And how about some examples of "attacking" new players? That should matter a lot more, I'd think.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So far, the only "misrepresentation" that's been dug up...
I'm loath to spend time dredging all this crap up again. I know most folks have no interest in seeing a Fifth Crusade against Bluddwolf.
... accusations of things like "lying" and "attacking new posters" need to be backed up.
If you're interested in why I still refuse to let Bluddwolf and Xeen off the hook for attacking new posters and misrepresenting the game, I suggest you start here. Then feel free to continue here, here, and here.
Thanks, Nihimon. Honestly, from what I can find, the argument was over Bluddwolf telling someone the game might not be for them because they used the phrase "dealbreaker". That doesn't seem like any sort of pattern for attacking new players, it seems like one bit of ill-placed advice.
EDIT: Keep in mind this is me speaking as someone who used to find Bluddwolf very annoying because of his frequent comments about the invincibility of banditry. I just don't see that side of Bluddwolf in his most recent posts.
EDIT x2:
After reading this forum, the level of PVP that is going to be used means I am highly unlikely to support it, play it or spend money on it. Many of my friends feel the same way. Unless there is a way to flag or unflag PVP or at least set up "no PVP" servers then it is a deal breaker to me. Not every one enjoys PVP and most of the time I have played in mmo's that included it there were always griefers out there that kill players just for the sake of killing them, no matter what the level difference, no matter if it gained them nothing. Most of the time these types of players ruin the fun I have when in a mmo.
...I'd love to support a Pathfinder MMO, but unfortunately PVP ruins it for me.
This game will not be to everyone's taste. This is not good and it is not unfortunate, it is just a reality.
I wish you luck in your search for a game that is to your liking.
Wow. So vicious.
In fairness, the big issue arose when Bluddwolf said Realmwalker's problem was PvP in general and not griefing. However, Bluddwolf often used phrases like
If you still want to give the game a try, that is your choice and I welcome you to it. But, don't expect the game to be any different than what I have written.
Heavily critical? Yeah. A bit rude and dismissive? Maybe a small bit, I won't deny. Attacking? Driving off? I didn't see that, sorry. I think things mighta gotten worse in the later pages of the thread as people kept arguing with Bluddwolf, but it did not start out as attacks. I think people were just so used to Bluddwolf's banditry bragging at that point that they saw his statement as yet another proclamation of how the sheep are gonna die.
As put by one:
You know Bluddwolf, and i mean no disrespect, you being an inportant member of this community and all, but i get the feeling this has more to do with who you want in the game or not.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless I am mistaken Bluddwolf is still the same person he was.
However, he has an organization into which he has invested time and effort. That is something that could conceivably be damaged, reducing the value of his effort and time.
Diplomacy depends on having a reason to compromise. Bluddwolf has grown more diplomatic. I think it has improved his presentation. He is more realistic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think GW has ever said that criminal flags and attacker flags are treated differently as you describe. But your last sentence is clearly a caveat, so I don't see what you wrote as misrepresenting what GW has told us.
Bah, the new formatting on the blogs makes it a lot more cumbersome to search through them as a whole.
You are right; the blog post about these things seems to treat Attacker and Criminal as one and the same as far as allowing anybody to attack that character. Wonder if that's still the idea at GW or not...
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Moving back on topic, my Banditry Bottom Line is this: I be able to SAD people. If they refuse, I be able to fight them. If someone sees what I'm doing, they be able to intervene on the merchants' behalf no matter who they are. Afterwards, guards be able to track me down and fight me without be having alignment or reputation conflicts. This be weird way to talk.
EDIT: And before I issue SAD, I prefer not be flagged, but once flag is up it be stay up and okay this speaking style is stupid.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I think it's likely that Decius was referring to this post, rather than the later one in which you walked this statement back.
SADs were created to provide "good aligned" characters the ability to interdict without always having to kill.I think that's likely because this post was immediately followed by this reply from Decius:
The SAD mechanic was created for people who don't want to take other characters' stuff in the same way that we have always been at war with Eastasia.
That was exactly the post I was referring to. The earlier posts regarding the actual history of SAD are background that I believe makes the more charitable interpretation be lying, rather than having such poor recall of recent events.
For the record, there remains no sane interpretation to the announced SAD mechanics that would allow anybody to make a demand against an arbitrary target that the typical target literally cannot meet. That would take all of the players that want to kill characters and drink tears (the group that Reputation is intended to discourage) and simply force their characters to demand "Give me more than you have or die!" before engaging in a behavior that is contrary to the established goals of PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... the argument was over Bluddwolf telling someone the game might not be for them because they used the phrase "dealbreaker".
The argument was over Bluddwolf and Xeen ridiculing the guy himself, and Bluddwolf ridiculing those of us who tried to address the guy's concerns.
If someone shows up on these forums saying "Wow, I can't believe this is going to be a PvP game, those are always griefy murder simulators and I refuse to play them", what kind of response would you want to see from this community?
1. Don't like PvP? Get lost.
2. PvP doesn't have to mean murder simulator, and here's some quotes from Ryan and the devs that you might find useful.
3. OMG you suckers are lying to this sucker, PFO is a game that's all about PvP!
4. Hey, we're just trying to help the guy get a more accurate picture of what the game's really like.
5. BUT HE ALREADY SAID HE REFUSES TO PLAY THEM!!!
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Moving back on topic, my Banditry Bottom Line is this: I be able to SAD people. If they refuse, I be able to fight them. If someone sees what I'm doing, they be able to intervene on the merchants' behalf no matter who they are. Afterwards, guards be able to track me down and fight me without be having alignment or reputation conflicts. This be weird way to talk.
EDIT: And before I issue SAD, I prefer not be flagged, but once flag is up it be stay up and okay this speaking style is stupid.
That's the way I see things working. Not a generic "give me stuff or die" ability, but the ability to mimic the Stag Lord, demanding stuff and hurting people who don't give it to you but (Spoiler alert) characters are not only free to hunt and kill you, but get rewarded for doing so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bluddwolf didn't say "Don't like PvP? Get lost."
He said, "This may not be your kind of game, judging by what you called a dealbreaker." He then got sarcastic when people started reprimanding him for that.
Like I said, I don't think his response was the best one, but...let me see if I can dig up the quote...
...looking...
FOUND IT!
Actually, we welcome criticism and ALL forms of feedback. That's how we learn to do better at our jobs.
That said... the way one presents criticism matters. If you come off as too antagonistic because of the use of phrases like "hate Paizo with a passion" or thread titles like "What was Paizo thinking?" you HAVE to expect folks will react negatively to your criticism and feedback.
One thing we at Paizo develop are pretty thick skins when it comes to antagonism on the internet (it's sort of a requirement, alas), and we can take a lot and still glean helpful information out of most feedback. I'd like to hope that EVERYONE who posts on the internet has thick skin as well... but that's not the case.
And so, if you post inflammatory or aggressive posts... you need to prepare yourself for inflammatory or aggressive replies.
It saves a lot of time to just not post like that in the first place. Instead of "hate Paizo with a passion" write "frustrated with some design decisions Paizo makes." Instead of creating a thread titled "What was Paizo thinking?" give it a title like "Concerned with goblin alchemists—Help!"
In the end... remember the most important rule: Don't be a jerk. That applies to everyone.
I can't remember why I was trying to find this now.
Oh! I remember! Realmwalker made a post that was really dramatic, so it got a defensive reaction.
That was a huge waste of my time. You realize I have an essay due in like an hour!?
Anyways, my point is that Bluddwolf's response wasn't the best, but it wasn't really an attack so much as it was just a rather critical response of an inflammatory post.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
characters are not only free to hunt and kill you, but get rewarded for doing so.
This can't go too far, though. Realism aside, the flag shouldn't linger too long--probably not more than a day, at most. As long as you aren't in hostile territory and haven't SAD'd in the last day or so, attacking you should incur the normal penalties (except perhaps for those you attacked previously). If some bandits are really giving trouble, either deal with the Reputation penalties or hire bounty hunters. Bandits should not be the PFO equivalent of starlings, trapped in a constant free-for-all.
My priority is that we have to keep in mind that bandits are not griefers, and that their play style is in fact just as vulnerable to griefing as the style of a caravan guard. As such, we should not make them constant pariahs, and we should definitely not make it a piece of cake for actual griefers to come along and start harassing them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If UNC were all just role-playing Bandits, I wouldn't have a problem either. Unfortunately, Bluddwolf and Xeen have a long and sordid history of attacking new posters who expressed concerns about PvP, and of significantly misrepresenting the way PvP will work in PFO while doing so.
There was that point a little bit ago where you lied about how the SAD came about and implied that it was certain that anyone who wanted to could issue a SAD demand that was impossible to meet.If UNC were all just role-playing Bandits, I wouldn't have a problem either. Unfortunately, Bluddwolf and Xeen have a long and sordid history of attacking new posters who expressed concerns about PvP, and of significantly misrepresenting the way PvP will work in PFO while doing so.Evidence please!
Show where I or Xeen have disagreed with a Dev response or Dev Blog on how PVP will work?
So far, the only "misrepresentation" that's been dug up...I'm loath to spend time dredging all this crap up again. I know most folks have no interest in seeing a Fifth Crusade against Bluddwolf.
... accusations of things like "lying" and "attacking new posters" need to be backed up.If you're interested in why I still refuse to let Bluddwolf and Xeen off the hook for attacking new posters and misrepresenting the game, I suggest you start here. Then feel free to continue here, here, and here.
Please for the love of god, don't let this thread fall into a 10 page rage fest between UNC and Nihimon & Co. It's part of the reason why I (and probably many others) are loath to post as much on the forums. So please no finger pointing or dredging up old history. To be clear from my reading of this thread Nihimon threw the first punch in this thread so don't take this as a rant against UNC.
Now back on topic. I don't have a problem with how UNC has stated they will act as bandits, as we need the 'bad' guys. Some of the disagreement seems to be over the finer detail of the flag system. Such as will a criminal flag in one area translate to a criminal flag in a hex controlled by a different party. Or will the attacker flag only be seen by the character (and his group) that has been attacked. I believe the simple answer to such questions is we don't know yet, and we haven't been given that level of fine detail yet. Heck Goblinworks may not know the answer themselves yet, as they may not be up to coding that part of the game.
In relation to taking a rep hit against 'bandits' before they've issued a SAD, I agree it's a tricky issue. I can see some player using this as a Mexican standoff, in they a group could easily block a road a caravan wants to use and refuse to budge. If the caravan guards attack first then they take the rep hit. So what can be done about this type of behavior?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I say "possible" because, if I am not mistaken, (and if I am, let me be the first to lobby for it) bandits will be flagged from the moment of issuing the SAD. Issuing the SAD should be the first "act" of the robbery, and as such, invoke the flags associated with such actions.Some will recall that I am a proponent of privacy of information. Most notably I'm against even displaying the names over the heads of characters unless you have interacted with that character before.
Before reacting please recognize that every time I say that I get shouted down. Again I urge the reader to consider my point anyway, despite the overwhelming number of negative responses I expect.
I believe it would lead to a better game if you cannot tell who I am until you have at least met me. It would make it more difficult for you to tell whether I am red or blue or grey. It would make it less likely that a large hostile organization could assign an effective KOS hit contract on me for their murder-specialist disposable alts. Assassins couldn't easily pick me out of a crowd, they would have to do a little leg-work instead.
Well, similarly it seems to me it would be better if the game system did not display these flags, but instead should only move our reputation based upon their values.
A large part of the problem for the 'Good Guys' is in proving guilt. A large part of the advantage the criminal enjoys is being indistinguishable and anonymous unless he or she screws up.
The server should know without doubt a character's guilt or innocence, but would it make a better game if there were need for a Sherlock Holmes and allow for a Moriarty? Moriarty should be able to scuttle about on his nefarious missions without being accosted by every wanna-be lawman. Apprehending the culprit should be a serious victory leading to acclaim if he rightly deduces Moriarty's identity.
There is no sleuthing possible, nor is it at all needed if every bad guy is waving a bad-guy flag everywhere he goes....
Overall, yes it would become a much deeper system. There are a number of problems to work through before being viable. Number 1 is Ryan's old throwback to uniqueness of appearance. We won't even be liable to get "About 6'1", stocky build, long and wavy red hair" let alone call in a sketch artist to try to identify an unknown criminal. Really, I think if this one problem could be solved, then all other issues could be solved readily enough to make it a reality.
The reason I feel this issue is so important is the power that anonymity gives to criminal elements. No visible flags or names would make for very difficult enforcement, even trying would be a gamble with your own reputation. I fear this would cause criminal behavior to increase, which drives away non-criminal minded players and create a negative feedback loop.
The theory sounds intriguing, but putting it into practice sounds risky.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
characters are not only free to hunt and kill you, but get rewarded for doing so.This can't go too far, though. Realism aside, the flag shouldn't linger too long. As long as you aren't in hostile territory and haven't SAD'd in the last day or so, attacking you should incur the normal penalties (except perhaps for those you attacked previously).
Agreed - except the part about the last day or so. I'd hope that any flagged timer that the robbers might get from using SAD would expire a whole lot faster than that. If I recall correctly, the Criminal flag expires in 10 minutes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please for the love of god, don't let this thread fall into a 10 page rage fest between UNC and Nihimon & Co. It's part of the reason why I (and probably many others) are loath to post as much on the forums. So please no finger pointing or dredging up old history. To be clear from my reading of this thread Nihimon threw the first punch in this thread so don't take this as a rant against UNC.
HE STARTED IT
Agreed - except the part about the last day or so. I'd hope that any flagged timer that the robbers might get from using SAD would expire a whole lot faster than that. If I recall correctly, the Criminal flag expires in 10 minutes.
Kobolds have an average life span of three hours. Our concept of time is kinda wonky.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please for the love of god, don't let this thread fall into a 10 page rage fest between UNC and Nihimon & Co. It's part of the reason why I (and probably many others) are loath to post as much on the forums. So please no finger pointing or dredging up old history. To be clear from my reading of this thread Nihimon threw the first punch in this thread so don't take this as a rant against UNC.HE STARTED IT
Agreed - except the part about the last day or so. I'd hope that any flagged timer that the robbers might get from using SAD would expire a whole lot faster than that. If I recall correctly, the Criminal flag expires in 10 minutes.Kobolds have an average life span of three hours. Our concept of time is kinda wonky.
I think you mean "three combat rounds."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Overall, yes it would become a much deeper system. There are a number of problems to work through before being viable. Number 1 is Ryan's old throwback to uniqueness of appearance. We won't even be liable to get "About 6'1", stocky build, long and wavy red hair" let alone call in a sketch artist to try to identify an unknown criminal. Really, I think if this one problem could be solved, then all other issues could be solved readily enough to make it a reality.
The reason I feel this issue is so important is the power that anonymity gives to criminal elements. No visible flags or names would make for very difficult enforcement, even trying would be a gamble with your own reputation. I fear this would cause criminal behavior to increase, which drives away non-criminal minded players and create a negative feedback loop.
The theory sounds intriguing, but putting it into practice sounds risky.
The challenge I don't dispute, but its magnitude may not be so great.
The way I see it we should all go about the world as our characters and respond to activities as we would were we really there and our characters. The characters I know, whom I have interacted with in some meaningful way I can see their names over their heads as if I recognized them, even though they look like my own twin. Those I don't know have no name over their head. No blue names, red names, not even grey names. So if I see some armed unnamed men attacking a named man I will have a decent idea who's who. I can then meaningfully decide whether to go to my acquaintance' aid or not. If I don't he may have spotted my inaction and would then have a debt to settle with me, but if I aid him I have the chance that those attacking him may well be in the right. I should have to own the responsibility for my actions. If I don't know the named guy from Adam, or he was rude when I met him, I might well leave him to his own devices and be ready with an answer when he comes calling. "Why did you let those unnamed men kill me when you might have stepped in? he might ask. And then since he asked I could tell him that his previous behavior had not left me willing to gamble on his righteousness.
And that would work well, I think.
If I saw an unnamed man alone I might be prone to meet him. If I saw several unnamed men I would be rather cautious, and would certainly be polite, at least until I knew they were not worth a dog's tongue of salt.
Is it perfect? Nothing is. Would it be better? Look at the problems it would solve. Sure Red/Blue becomes who do I know... but that is pretty realistic, isn't it?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It would be a pretty poor design if anyone could block movement of anything, simply by standing in the way. If there are such conditions of "collision" programing, the offender should at the least provoke "hostility".
The solution is Mortal Online's shove option which lets you push people out of your way without harming them. But it's been stated in another thread we are unlikely to have collision detection because of technical limitations.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bluddwolf didn't say "Don't like PvP? Get lost."
He said, "This may not be your kind of game, judging by what you called a dealbreaker." He then got sarcastic when people started reprimanding him for that.
/sigh
I strongly suggest you re-read the thread closely, starting here, and paying particular attention to who's saying what, and who calls out whom, and for what. Nobody called Bluddwolf out for saying that, even though Bluddwolf was calling folks out for trying to engage the guy.
I just can't bring myself to try to document the whole thing again, but I'll leave you with these:
Those of you who think PFO is all about PvP are wrong, and you're doing a disservice to players like Realmwalker who might consider it if they could get past the idea it's going to be just like every other Open PvP grief-fest they've already seen and rejected.
I think telling someone that Pathfinder Online is all about PvP is like saying football is all about tackling. It fundamentally misses the point, while being technically logically defensible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Actually this is exactly supposed to be a 10+ page long (civilized) rage fest between UNC and its "allies" and everyone else who has a problem with UNC.
I got tired of people getting into it on other threads, and being recommended making a thread for it that wasn't promoting UNC's policy thread. So I made this.
That said:
@Being:
The problem I have with your solution is that it basically forces all players who play the game to be completely immersed and have full RP. Personally, I like this, and would wish it to happen, however this isn't my game, nor do I own the rights to it. As such I cannot state who should or shouldn't be allowed to play it, that is up to GW and Paizo Inc.
I can still state my own opinion, but it rests that we cannot at the moment expect everyone to play as full RP immersion all the time, even if they normally try to, and especially if they don't.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I say "possible" because, if I am not mistaken, (and if I am, let me be the first to lobby for it) bandits will be flagged from the moment of issuing the SAD. Issuing the SAD should be the first "act" of the robbery, and as such, invoke the flags associated with such actions.Some will recall that I am a proponent of privacy of information. Most notably I'm against even displaying the names over the heads of characters unless you have interacted with that character before.
Before reacting please recognize that every time I say that I get shouted down. Again I urge the reader to consider my point anyway, despite the overwhelming number of negative responses I expect.
I believe it would lead to a better game if you cannot tell who I am until you have at least met me. It would make it more difficult for you to tell whether I am red or blue or grey. It would make it less likely that a large hostile organization could assign an effective KOS hit contract on me for their murder-specialist disposable alts. Assassins couldn't easily pick me out of a crowd, they would have to do a little leg-work instead.
Well, similarly it seems to me it would be better if the game system did not display these flags, but instead should only move our reputation based upon their values.
A large part of the problem for the 'Good Guys' is in proving guilt. A large part of the advantage the criminal enjoys is being indistinguishable and anonymous unless he or she screws up.
The server should know without doubt a character's guilt or innocence, but would it make a better game if there were need for a Sherlock Holmes and allow for a Moriarty? Moriarty should be able to scuttle about on his nefarious missions without being accosted by every wanna-be lawman. Apprehending the culprit should be a serious victory leading to acclaim if he rightly deduces Moriarty's identity.
There is no sleuthing possible, nor is it at all needed if every bad guy is waving a bad-guy flag everywhere he goes....
I do need to read a few more posts after this one, but I wanted to comment on this directly.
I remember something about the names not showing being discussed, but I do like what your saying here. Not even from the perspective of "the bad guy" but just as a player. I am not sure of the actual implantation and limitations on that end, but from a RPer, and just how in-depth I personally like games, I think this would be awesome. It would definitely lead to some interesting encounters and assassins would LOVE the idea of truly blending in. Plus I would rather enjoy the challenge of figuring out who my target is, instead of the alternative. It would actually boost their protection against assassination as it would take more work to figure out who is who. This would also tie into the skills like knowledge local and perception. Gather info (knowledge local) could get a "last known location" or maybe a current pic of the character or something.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being:
The problem I have with your solution is that it basically forces all players who play the game to be completely immersed and have full RP. Personally, I like this, and would wish it to happen, however this isn't my game, nor do I own the rights to it. As such I cannot state who should or shouldn't be allowed to play it, that is up to GW and Paizo Inc.I can still state my own opinion, but it rests that we cannot at the moment expect everyone to play as full RP immersion all the time, even if they normally try to, and especially if they don't.
Oh what a horrible thought. Yet that is pretty close to what I wished the game would turn out to be. A game world to be immersed in where everyone had all that is needed to fully RP even down to how we wage war on one another.
But I certainly haven't, and don't, promote the idea that anyone should be excluded and I don't quite grasp where you got the idea that somehow saying you would prefer to RP would somehow state who should and should not play it.
Of course not everyone will play full RP. What planet do you think I think I am living on? But what about the system I describe excludes those who don't RP? I'm not even sure if I can fully RP the way you are asserting that would play out.
I just think it makes better sense to have everyone initially be strangers, meet one another, agree to exchange character names, and if they later turn out to be asshats or paragons I can choose to color their name to remind myself of past boons and slights. But if we have had no interaction I'd rather also know that so I can go out of my way to make the stranger feel welcomed and run my own chosen risk of betrayal, deception and sleuthing my way around Golarion.
I don't think we need the bad guys waving flags around proclaiming their badness, we should simply find out that we mistook an innocent for an outlaw and deal with the consequences.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bluddwolf didn't say "Don't like PvP? Get lost."
He said, "This may not be your kind of game, judging by what you called a dealbreaker." He then got sarcastic when people started reprimanding him for that.
/sigh
I strongly suggest you re-read the thread closely, starting here, and paying particular attention to who's saying what, and who calls out whom, and for what. Nobody called Bluddwolf out for saying that, even though Bluddwolf was calling folks out for trying to engage the guy.
I just can't bring myself to try to document the whole thing again, but I'll leave you with these:
Those of you who think PFO is all about PvP are wrong, and you're doing a disservice to players like Realmwalker who might consider it if they could get past the idea it's going to be just like every other Open PvP grief-fest they've already seen and rejected.I think telling someone that Pathfinder Online is all about PvP is like saying football is all about tackling. It fundamentally misses the point, while being technically logically defensible.
/sigh....
As you can see Kobold, the issue is that you are showing support for something that I had said.
Now you will be presented with quotes from a year ago that have nothing to do with what prompted this latest round of attacks on UNC and me in particular.
What was my oh so egregious offense?
I said the SAD was designed for Good Aligned characters and the Devs had said the SAD was a tool for "Robin Hood" types.
Never mind the fact that in a vast, vast, vast majority of opinions Robin Hood was a Chaotic Good character, I had clearly LIED!!!
Perhaps the title of the next thread like this should be "Thread to discuss the problems with Nihimon and Co. and their hysterical hair splitting of everything UNC or Bluddwolf write, and other related controversial issues".
@ Nihimon
Your Fifth Crusade failed, and so will this one. I have actually evolved with some of my views and even some of my goals within the game, and you are still clinging onto arguments going back to last July!
EE and more importantly OE will show us whether or not PFO will be so dramatically different from all the other MMOs out there. Intentions mean jack diddly squat. The proof will be in the pudding as they say.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As you can see Kobold, the issue is that you are showing support for something that I had said.
Yeah, I'm notorious for attacking anyone who supports anything you say...
* Yes, you can flag or unflag PvP but not being flagged for PvP does not protect you from being the victim of a PvP attack. It just means that the attacker will incur the negative hit to reputation and possibly to alignment ( depends on the alignment of the attacker).
* No there will be no PvE only server.
* This is an Open World PvP Sandbox MMO, that will have just one server and no complete way to shield yourself from unwanted PvP. If you are unwilling to change and play in a game with those facts, you are best served to continue your search elsewhere.
.
I would also add:
* PvP in PFO will be significantly different than any PvP experience you've had in other MMOs.
* Goblinworks is making great efforts to ensure that players in PFO are not subjected to griefing.
I really need to jump on that Nihimon guy's case for supporting you in what you were saying back then.