Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf, I was replying to Being. I'm addressing his points. His ending point, as I understood it, was that the cost of developing S&D mechanics has to be weighed against the returns to the game - and his opening statement "I'm beginning to question whether it should be a feature at all" indicates that he is leaning towards the view that S&D is not worth the cost of development. I still think S&D still adds to the game; that's what my reply to Being was about.
So you think I was glossing over some point about many-on-many S&D? Being didn't mention it at all, so I'm not sure where your sudden concern comes from. Whatever - I was replying to Being.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are many kinds of "Bandit" throughout history and fiction. They range from the almost "Saintly Rascal" to the "Wretchedly Evil". From the openly established to the skulking bridge troll.
Without the S&D system in PfO, all we are likely to have are the Wretchedly Evil Bridge Trolls. Seems sort of limited, although I will agree that the system is complicated and begging to be abused.
Seems like almost everyone feels that, done right, the final mechanic should not penalize reputation for numbers (in cases that it would not) if not abused.
Have faith that the Team will work out the nuances of involvement.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Without a rep bonus, I do not see the need to train the skill for it.I'm beginning to question whether it should be a feature at all. Pull the function and simplify the model. If the bandit would just-as-soon accept a payoff then let the bandit simply confront the merchant, simply pose the choice 'your money or your life', and let the chips fall where they may. I don't think the SAD mechanic will increase content. I don't think it will mitigate the tendency to gank any more than the reputation system will. At this point it seems an unnecessary complication gumming up the works.
Compare the cost with the returns.
SAD isn't primarily intended to mitigate the tendency to gank. The Reputation system has that purpose, and any discussion of SAD that is predicated on the Reputation system failing is a discussion of the Reputation system.
Assuming that ganking strangers is widely regarded as unprofitable, SAD allows for a strong group to profitably take stuff that belongs to strangers within limited circumstances. The intent is to prevent there from existing many niches that are essentially zero risk (because zero-risk activities are simply grinding, which is undesirable).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Forencith
I was looking at this as a sort of grand company, but if it is a "faction" then I totally understand what you are saying. I was thinking that you'd have to quit your company and join this group if you wished to caravan or SAD. but if it is the background factioning system already in place then I admit my wrong with joy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf, I was replying to Being. I'm addressing his points. His ending point, as I understood it, was that the cost of developing S&D mechanics has to be weighed against the returns to the game - and his opening statement "I'm beginning to question whether it should be a feature at all" indicates that he is leaning towards the view that S&D is not worth the cost of development. I still think S&D still adds to the game; that's what my reply to Being was about.
So you think I was glossing over some point about many-on-many S&D? Being didn't mention it at all, so I'm not sure where your sudden concern comes from. Whatever - I was replying to Being.
My comment on the glossing over was prompted by this:
"It also may encourage players to group more; grouping makes social ties and social ties keep people in games."
Without Stephen's suggestion of "Thick of Thieves" the encouragement of grouping would only be experienced by merchants, not the bandits under the criminal flag.
But, I will have faith in Stephen and Lee that they will implement either that idea or one similar that encourages both the use of SADs and still allows bandits to protect or defend their own within their player grouping.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Forencith
I was looking at this as a sort of grand company, but if it is a "faction" then I totally understand what you are saying. I was thinking that you'd have to quit your company and join this group if you wished to caravan or SAD. but if it is the background factioning system already in place then I admit my wrong with joy.
For the record, I see serious issues with using the faction system in this way. There is no reason why all bandits, or assassins for that matter, should be part of a united faction. I proposed it to solve one problem, it creates others.
Of course, we do not yet know anything about whether one can be members of multiple factions or how that will work. Maybe factions like a Bandit or Assassin guild can be "neutral" or even unaligned and so membership in it does not preclude membership in other factions...and in fact alignment of other factions always overrides that of these. That solution then allows good bandits and evil bandits to be at odds. But again...what issues does it raise? I...we just do not yet know.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Forencith
It has always been a staple of D&D that Assassins and Thieves were "forced" or very strongly compelled to join the guild. There was no distinction of alignment, the "Guild" came first.
In the Elder Scrolls series, once you had stolen something or murdered someone, you would be visited by a representative of those guilds. If I recall correctly, if you did not join the Assassins Guild,in the earlier editions, you would be attacked in your sleep every once in a while.
I think it is likely that these roles (Assassins, Thieves, Bandits) may need NPC support of faction, because the visceral reaction that they get from the player base, is likely going to result in PC settlements rejecting the support for those roles.
I can imagine that if one settlement catered to all of the thief, bandit, assassin roles it would be targeted by multiple settlements looking to rid the world of those roles. To be fair, the same may hold true for Paladins. Druids and Barbarians may also not seek to congregate in major settlements, for a number of role playing reasons as well.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that it would be very interesting and meaningful if a player organization tried to enforce a demand that all characters of a certain niche join them. I think it would be a win condition if any such group managed to accomplish such a feat.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Without a rep bonus, I do not see the need to train the skill for it.I'm beginning to question whether it should be a feature at all. Pull the function and simplify the model. If the bandit would just-as-soon accept a payoff then let the bandit simply confront the merchant, simply pose the choice 'your money or your life', and let the chips fall where they may. I don't think the SAD mechanic will increase content. I don't think it will mitigate the tendency to gank any more than the reputation system will. At this point it seems an unnecessary complication gumming up the works.
Compare the cost with the returns.
SAD isn't primarily intended to mitigate the tendency to gank. The Reputation system has that purpose, and any discussion of SAD that is predicated on the Reputation system failing is a discussion of the Reputation system.
Assuming that ganking strangers is widely regarded as unprofitable, SAD allows for a strong group to profitably take stuff that belongs to strangers within limited circumstances. The intent is to prevent there from existing many niches that are essentially zero risk (because zero-risk activities are simply grinding, which is undesirable).
Your assumption is wrong. Ganking strangers will always be profitable. Unless you die in the fight. Even if the stranger only has 5GP to his name.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Your assumption is wrong. Ganking strangers will always be profitable. Unless you die in the fight. Even if the stranger only has 5GP to his name.Without a rep bonus, I do not see the need to train the skill for it.I'm beginning to question whether it should be a feature at all. Pull the function and simplify the model. If the bandit would just-as-soon accept a payoff then let the bandit simply confront the merchant, simply pose the choice 'your money or your life', and let the chips fall where they may. I don't think the SAD mechanic will increase content. I don't think it will mitigate the tendency to gank any more than the reputation system will. At this point it seems an unnecessary complication gumming up the works.
Compare the cost with the returns.
SAD isn't primarily intended to mitigate the tendency to gank. The Reputation system has that purpose, and any discussion of SAD that is predicated on the Reputation system failing is a discussion of the Reputation system.
Assuming that ganking strangers is widely regarded as unprofitable, SAD allows for a strong group to profitably take stuff that belongs to strangers within limited circumstances. The intent is to prevent there from existing many niches that are essentially zero risk (because zero-risk activities are simply grinding, which is undesirable).
Why is it that you believe that Reputation will be widely regarded to be of zero value? What changes can you envision that would make Reputation valuable?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Xeen seems to be of the conviction, that one (if not the) major mechanics for makinf sure the game will not turn into a murdersim, simply either won't work or it will hqve such a little effect, that you don't have to worry about it.
It seems the main reason for this is "because I said so".
His conviction is so strong, that it comes out as fact most of the time.
But, to be fair, he might be right.
We don't know til we see it.
With that in mind, we should probably discuss anything as if none of the suggested mechanics will work.
That would be very constructive.
I disagree, some of the suggested mechanics will work, but it might not actually affect the intended population.
It is kind of like have gun control laws that are too strict. The only people not denied access to them are criminals and even the police are often limited in what they can carry or their rules of engagement are also limited.
None of the suggested mechanics will have any meaningful impact on griefers. Their goals are nothing more than to get their jollies out of ruining other players' experience. That does not require skills, training, alignment, reputation, company or settlement relationships, etc. All it requires is $15.00 per month, an email address, a game account and a character.
Reputation is a mechanic that will only be cared about by players who care about it. If there is a large enough segment of the population that do not care, they will find that working together in meta game with characters of high rep will allow them to avoid much of the "suck".
This has been proven to be true. Every successful low security pirate corporation {in EVE Online)has an alternate or support corporation in high sec.
In PFO, even if a low rep company has difficulty accessing higher tier training and skills, they could still have a support company or settlement that supplies them with all the coin they need to replace all that they lose, if and when they do lose.
My theory goes, if a group can not gain access to high tier training (because of their play style), they can still level the playing field by tearing others down to their level.
If I'm a criminal with -7500 rep, I have nothing to lose. I can however, seek out the most developed settlement in the land and spam criminal acts within their borders to increase their corruption / damage their Development Index, and drag them down to nearer my level.
MMO Socialism 101: if you can not build it, destroy someone else's. In the end if no one has it, no one is at the bottom.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My theory goes, if a group can not gain access to high tier training (because of their play style), they can still level the playing field by tearing others down to their level.
If I'm a criminal with -7500 rep, I have nothing to lose. I can however, seek out the most developed settlement in the land and spam criminal acts within their borders to increase their corruption / damage their Development Index, and drag them down to nearer my level.
MMO Socialism 101: if you can not build it, destroy someone else's. In the end if no one has it, no one is at the bottom.
If that is where we end up with the system that is in place at the outset, I would expect GW to crank up the suckiness of low-reps until it is no longer possible.
In the worst case, there are plenty of ways to severely hurt low-rep characters in ways that turn them into a mere nuisance to other players, like: limit usage of items to T1, flat combat penalties, remove ability to trade items with other characters & bank/vault access, restrict usage of abilities, remove rep hit for killing low-reps etc.
Hopefully none of those measures will be needed but if necessary, it can be done. It could be set up so that even if the game population consists of 1% of players playing "as intended" and 99% low-rep "scum", the 1% is so powerful they will have total control of the entire server.
The challenge, I think, is that not all low-reps will be "bad" players and not all "bad" players will be low-reps.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My theory goes, if a group can not gain access to high tier training (because of their play style), they can still level the playing field by tearing others down to their level.
If I'm a criminal with -7500 rep, I have nothing to lose. I can however, seek out the most developed settlement in the land and spam criminal acts within their borders to increase their corruption / damage their Development Index, and drag them down to nearer my level.
MMO Socialism 101: if you can not build it, destroy someone else's. In the end if no one has it, no one is at the bottom.
1. If that is where we end up with the system that is in place at the outset, I would expect GW to crank up the suckiness of low-reps until it is no longer possible.
In the worst case, there are plenty of ways to severely hurt low-rep characters in ways that turn them into a mere nuisance to other players, like: limit usage of items to T1, flat combat penalties, remove ability to trade items with other characters & bank/vault access, restrict usage of abilities, remove rep hit for killing low-reps etc.
2. Hopefully none of those measures will be needed but if necessary, it can be done. It could be set up so that even if the game population consists of 1% of players playing "as intended" and 99% low-rep "scum", the 1% is so powerful they will have total control of the entire server.
3. The challenge, I think, is that not all low-reps will be "bad" players and not all "bad" players will be low-reps.
#1 assumes the player has the same goals as most players. As I described earlier, the true griefer would not be affected by any of this.
I would not presume that a player could not find enjoyment in playing a character, forever trapped as a T1 skilled and equipped character. Nor would I presume that this character could not play a beneficial role in the overall community, even as nothing more than a "nuisance".
#2 I expect that you are exaggerating with your percentages. Obviously, if it were 99% of the server pop is low rep, they will pressure GW to cater to their play style and GW would do it, because that is where the customer based and their money is at.
#3 Not sure what your comment here was intended to say, but "challenge" might be the wrong word. I would replace "challenge" with "reality".
The challenge will be to not significantly impact the bulk of the player base in attempting to control or punish the minority. Instead of trying to control through built in game mechanics, wield the "Ban Hammer" with swift efficiency.
Best way to ban is to sell the game with a verification code. If you one is banned, the code is banned. They would have to buy a new code in order to reenter the game. At least this way GW would stand to make more money if griefers decide they want to give it another go.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf,
If I am not mistaken, you are discussing griefers in this post and I know you have a rather narrow definition of griefing compared to some. I don't critizise you for that and I don't want to start another "what is griefing"-discussion.
I think the rep system can discourage playstyles that aren't griefing from a strict definition but still would be considered unwanted. For example, the kind of playstyle you described here:
If I'm a criminal with -7500 rep, I have nothing to lose. I can however, seek out the most developed settlement in the land and spam criminal acts within their borders to increase their corruption / damage their Development Index, and drag them down to nearer my level.
MMO Socialism 101: if you can not build it, destroy someone else's. In the end if no one has it, no one is at the bottom.
(I do understand that it is a hypothetical example and that you did not state that you will actually attempt this strategy.)
This strategy, if possible under the rulesets we start out with, can be made invalid as a result of "cranking up the suck". The situation in your example was the starting point of my previous post.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You LOL at anything written against Bludd or myself. Why bother making a post about it?I lol'ed :)With that in mind, we should probably discuss anything as if none of the suggested mechanics will work.
That would be very constructive.
Your first sentence is an outright lie that's not even close to the truth. But I've grown accustomed to the fact that you and others can make such statements freely but, being perceived as more reasonable, I face social pressure not to return in kind.
To answer your question, I bothered to post because I wanted to signal to Cirolle and others that I got the joke and thought it was funny. I favorited the post for the same reason. It's a form of self-expression that's common on public forums.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Xeen seems to be of the conviction, that one (if not the) major mechanics for makinf sure the game will not turn into a murdersim, simply either won't work or it will hqve such a little effect, that you don't have to worry about it.
It seems the main reason for this is "because I said so".
His conviction is so strong, that it comes out as fact most of the time.
But, to be fair, he might be right.
We don't know til we see it.
With that in mind, we should probably discuss anything as if none of the suggested mechanics will work.
That would be very constructive.
You missed it.
Reputation is Security Status in Eve. With a couple things added, but is it enough to matter? No one has told us enough to even make a judgement.
If someone wants to worry about reputation, they will. If they do not care, then what?
"Because I said so" is not the basis of any of my arguments. My basis is the other PVP based territory control games. Guess what, they exist. Have you played one? And I mean more then just as a care bear? Most of the guys here on the forums have not. Even if they have played Eve, what they discussed about the game tells me they mainly ran around taking care not to get involved in PVP. The guys that have played Darkfall, didnt do much different. The UNC has a transcript of a group of Goblin Squad members that wouldnt even engage one guy... In fact, ran over a cliff just to make sure they wouldnt engage him.
The suggested mechanic is reputation. What do we know about it?
You cannot go into NPC territory at -2500. So what
You may not be able to train high level skills. Ryan said its a 0.5% difference... So what
I dont remember seeing it official, but I bet at -2500 to -5000 you are attackable by anyone with no consequences. So what
You may not be able to enter PC settlements. So What
Anything else? None of the above will concern a large number of people. With all the above, Low Rep people will NOT suck.
I would rather play the game High Rep.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You LOL at anything written against Bludd or myself. Why bother making a post about it?I lol'ed :)With that in mind, we should probably discuss anything as if none of the suggested mechanics will work.
That would be very constructive.Your first sentence is an outright lie that's not even close to the truth. But I've grown accustomed to the fact that you and others can make such statements freely but, being perceived as more reasonable, I face social pressure not to return in kind.
To answer your question, I bothered to post because I wanted to signal to Cirolle and others that I got the joke and thought it was funny. I favorited the post for the same reason. It's a form of self-expression that's common on public forums.
What first sentence? I read alot of your posts that are outright lies plenty. You conveniently forget about the quotes of Ryan we show you in the next thread because it does not fit your desires.
You always return in kind. Do even act like you are being reasonable.
You are the joke Nihimon.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You may not be able to train high level skills. Ryan said its a 0.5% difference... So what
Didn't someone already fish out the quote you're thinking of and show you that this is not what is meant by it?
Aha, there it is. Ryan was talking about a high reputation character suddenly losing access to his settlement, as would be the case if your settlement is destroyed. He was not talking about a high rep character suddenly becoming low rep, nor was he talking about the specific benefits a high rep character would receive. I think assuming "the penalties the characters receive in both cases would be the same" is an assumption that shouldn't be made, as they're specifically planning to make low rep suck more.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is it that you believe that Reputation will be widely regarded to be of zero value? What changes can you envision that would make Reputation valuable?How the hell should I know?? We have almost no information on how reputation is going to work, and Alpha is almost here.
If you don't believe that a system can work unless you know everything about it, you will never be able to operate at the highest level of any large organization.
Assume that things that are described will work as described, in accordance with the base rate of such things. Wait until you have evidence that something isn't working before concluding that it doesn't work.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You may not be able to train high level skills. Ryan said its a 0.5% difference... So whatDidn't someone already fish out the quote you're thinking of and show you that this is not what is meant by it?
Aha, there it is. Ryan was talking about a high reputation character suddenly losing access to his settlement, as would be the case if your settlement is destroyed. He was not talking about a high rep character suddenly becoming low rep, nor was he talking about the specific benefits a high rep character would receive. I think assuming "the penalties the characters receive in both cases would be the same" is an assumption that shouldn't be made, as they're specifically planning to make low rep suck more.
But your leaving out the other discussions, stating that low rep characters would suck because they would not have access to skill training. Which is only the case if there is no low rep settlements. Also, Low rep settlements will not have access to high end skills.
So we are back to, Low Rep cannot train high end skills.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why is it that you believe that Reputation will be widely regarded to be of zero value? What changes can you envision that would make Reputation valuable?How the hell should I know?? We have almost no information on how reputation is going to work, and Alpha is almost here.
If you don't believe that a system can work unless you know everything about it, you will never be able to operate at the highest level of any large organization.
Assume that things that are described will work as described, in accordance with the base rate of such things. Wait until you have evidence that something isn't working before concluding that it doesn't work.
Decius, do you know what the color purple tastes like?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
do you know what the color purple tastes like?It's that artificial grape flavour.
Eh... I thought purple tasted like Dragon Fruit
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Decius, do you know what the color purple tastes like?Why is it that you believe that Reputation will be widely regarded to be of zero value? What changes can you envision that would make Reputation valuable?How the hell should I know?? We have almost no information on how reputation is going to work, and Alpha is almost here.
If you don't believe that a system can work unless you know everything about it, you will never be able to operate at the highest level of any large organization.
Assume that things that are described will work as described, in accordance with the base rate of such things. Wait until you have evidence that something isn't working before concluding that it doesn't work.
Yes. Unfortunately, I can't explain what qualia are like to entities that don't experience them. It seems like you only experience purple as a visual and/or audible analog.
What does that have to do with believing that things will happen the way people say they will?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
do you know what the color purple tastes like?It's that artificial grape flavour.
Eh... I thought purple tasted like Dragon Fruitdo you know what the color purple tastes like?It's that artificial grape flavour.
Chicken, the answer is chicken. Do not ask how I know.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Decius, do you know what the color purple tastes like?Why is it that you believe that Reputation will be widely regarded to be of zero value? What changes can you envision that would make Reputation valuable?How the hell should I know?? We have almost no information on how reputation is going to work, and Alpha is almost here.
If you don't believe that a system can work unless you know everything about it, you will never be able to operate at the highest level of any large organization.
Assume that things that are described will work as described, in accordance with the base rate of such things. Wait until you have evidence that something isn't working before concluding that it doesn't work.
Yes. Unfortunately, I can't explain what qualia are like to entities that don't experience them. It seems like you only experience purple as a visual and/or audible analog.
What does that have to do with believing that things will happen the way people say they will?
I am glad you asked. Allow me to answer with a question.
What does knowing a system have to do with operating at the highest level of any large organization? Running people has nothing to do with game mechanics.
I never said the system will not work as described. I just said that the system as described will not matter in the manner most of you believe. That does not mean it will not work as intended.
For SAD, I just do not believe the merits are enough to outweigh the drawbacks for me. That is just for me, I am not trying to impose that opinion on anyone else.
For Reputation, What we know of the system is not as harsh as everyone believes. That is for me, not anyone else. Everyone else has their own opinion on how it affects them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But your leaving out the other discussions, stating that low rep characters would suck because they would not have access to skill training. Which is only the case if there is no low rep settlements. Also, Low rep settlements will not have access to high end skills.So we are back to, Low Rep cannot train high end skills.
Ryan's quote does not have to do with characters who do not have high end training. That's why I say it is invalid for this current discussion. The quote is talking about people who have high rep training already, but then suddenly lose access to their settlement/training facilities. You seem to assume that the person who has high end training then loses the training settlement will be in the same boat combat-effectiveness-wise as someone who never trained the skills in the first place; I don't think that'll be the case.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am glad you asked. Allow me to answer with a question.What does knowing a system have to do with operating at the highest level of any large organization? Running people has nothing to do with game mechanics.
I never said the system will not work as described. I just said that the system as described will not matter in the manner most of you believe. That does not mean it will not work as intended.
For SAD, I just do not believe the merits are enough to outweigh the drawbacks for me. That is just for me, I am not trying to impose that opinion on anyone else.
For Reputation, What we know of the system is not as harsh as everyone believes. That is for me, not anyone else. Everyone else has their own opinion on how it affects them.
Operating at a high level in an organization requires being able to defocus. No human can possibly understand the fine detail in every aspect, but they do need to know the general idea of how other areas affect their specialty.
The developers of PFO, for example, need to know that UNC is a group and that they should be expected to take coordinated actions- but they don't know the internal structure of such groups, not because it hasn't been determined, but because the details are irrelevant; there is no design decision that hinges on whether any group will operate as a direct democracy.
Likewise, a high-level decision-maker of a large organization (of which there are at most two related to PFO that I know of- CoTP and Pax Gaming) cannot know the details of everything under their control. They must trust that the other people in their organization are performing as understood. The cook would gain no benefit from knowing where the division will be next week, and the colonel would gain no benefit from knowing the time until the next batch of scrambled eggs needs to be ready.
At the middle and immediate level, I don't need to know how Reputation loss will be costly to know that it will be, and to know that that cost can be increased until it has the desired effect- the cost of Reputation loss can be increased to the point that is has almost the same effect on behavior as mechanical prohibition. Somewhere in that space lies the desired compromise position.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think one thing that has been overlooked here is the definition of "suck". No matter what Ryan or GW believes will constitute "suck", there will be a group of players who will still perfectly enjoy the game at that level of "suck". Bottom line, it won't suck for them.Of course there will be a group of players like that.
However, this (sub) discussion sprang from Xeen saying that is S&D wasn't going to give rep, then he wouldn't use it and just take the rep hit instead.
So, we are not talking about "some" people, we are talking about Xeen, and maybe all of UNC for all I know.The reason he would take the rep hit, is because he simply doesnt think it will matter.
Well, that was his opinion, but then he also said he would like to play as a high rep.Now that I think about it, it all smells a little of "If you dont give me what I want, then I will just act against how you want me to act"
Realizing that, I actually think I am done with this part of the discussion.
I believe you may be misunderstanding the purpose of the reputation system. In taking an action that costs reputation, you are not breaking the rules or ignoring the reputation system, you are accepting the cost of the reputation loss in exchange for some reward.
There will be times where the reward is great and yet the target is not a sanctioned target. There may be times your settlement needs you to act outside of sanctioned methods, and you will take the hit for the team.
Perhaps you just misspoke, but I can assure you, I will never "act the way you want me to act." I wouldn't expect that Xeen or anyone else would either, certainly not in UNC anyway.
Xeen has every right to play the way he wishes to and to ask of the Devs whatever he wishes to. Only he can say what reward is worth his risk.
In the UNC, we may prefer to have high rep, but we don't require it. We require loyalty and we promote based on contributions (in game this means being a good earner).
Our motto is "On Coin, Blade, and Pain of Blood". We are motivated by Greed, Conflict and Loyalty or Vengeance / Retribution.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I think one thing that has been overlooked here is the definition of "suck". No matter what Ryan or GW believes will constitute "suck", there will be a group of players who will still perfectly enjoy the game at that level of "suck". Bottom line, it won't suck for them.
How comfortable are you being closely associated with one or more of those people? Can you imagine a level of suckiness that would require that class of players to decide whether murdering a character was a net loss of what they cared about?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think one thing that has been overlooked here is the definition of "suck". No matter what Ryan or GW believes will constitute "suck", there will be a group of players who will still perfectly enjoy the game at that level of "suck". Bottom line, it won't suck for them.How comfortable are you being closely associated with one or more of those people? Can you imagine a level of suckiness that would require that class of players to decide whether murdering a character was a net loss of what they cared about?
Because I believe that each person will make choices based on their own concept of risk versus reward, and have their own concept of suck and the fact that I don't pay for their subscription, I have just one answer to give to your questions:
"yes".
Yes, I can see myself in close association with someone who may not hold the same beliefs as I have, especially when it comes to risk vs. rewards and their own definition of what "sucks" or what is enjoyable for that matter. I have always been capable of running in "mixed" company.
Yes I can imagine that the class of player could eventually reach a level of suck where they might decide the murder does give a net loss. I can also imagine a class of player who will murder another character no matter what the consequences and for reasons that I may never understand.
If you are asking me if I fully understand what makes a griefer tick, I have no clue. I'd find that playstyle to become boring, fast.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think one thing that has been overlooked here is the definition of "suck". No matter what Ryan or GW believes will constitute "suck", there will be a group of players who will still perfectly enjoy the game at that level of "suck". Bottom line, it won't suck for them.How comfortable are you being closely associated with one or more of those people? Can you imagine a level of suckiness that would require that class of players to decide whether murdering a character was a net loss of what they cared about?
Sorry, DeciusBrutus, what do you mean? For players in that state/level of suckiness, I don't think the decision to kill another character is going to be a long drawn out process.
As an aside, the number of players that will enjoy playing the game from the low-rep gutter would seem somewhat limited just by player temperament. Lower classed abilities than many of your victims does not seem to match the killer mentality that gets one into the low-rep gutter. It remains to be seen if very large social groups can fight as low rep hordes - but do they need to, if they're more powerful fighting as mid- or high-rep hordes?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan's quote does not have to do with characters who do not have high end training. That's why I say it is invalid for this current discussion. The quote is talking about people who have high rep training already, but then suddenly lose access to their settlement/training facilities. You seem to assume that the person who has high end training then loses the training settlement will be in the same boat combat-effectiveness-wise as someone who never trained the skills in the first place; I don't think that'll be the case.
But your leaving out the other discussions, stating that low rep characters would suck because they would not have access to skill training. Which is only the case if there is no low rep settlements. Also, Low rep settlements will not have access to high end skills.So we are back to, Low Rep cannot train high end skills.
Isnt that what it means to lose access to the skills? He said when you lose access to the settlement that allows you to have a skill, you lose the use of said skill. He didnt say you lose some of the skill, he said you lose use of the skill.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think one thing that has been overlooked here is the definition of "suck". No matter what Ryan or GW believes will constitute "suck", there will be a group of players who will still perfectly enjoy the game at that level of "suck". Bottom line, it won't suck for them.Of course there will be a group of players like that.
However, this (sub) discussion sprang from Xeen saying that is S&D wasn't going to give rep, then he wouldn't use it and just take the rep hit instead.
So, we are not talking about "some" people, we are talking about Xeen, and maybe all of UNC for all I know.The reason he would take the rep hit, is because he simply doesnt think it will matter.
Well, that was his opinion, but then he also said he would like to play as a high rep.Now that I think about it, it all smells a little of "If you dont give me what I want, then I will just act against how you want me to act"
Realizing that, I actually think I am done with this part of the discussion.
And here we are again. Another person that thinks they know what i am thinking.
I will play the way I wish to play. I want to play High Rep. I will more then likely play close to 0. Meaning, I will gank when I decide to gank, and not when I decide not to. Known merchants beware, unknown gatherers feel safe.
That does not mean, when we have more information, that I will not just train the skill and use it completely. Hard to say for sure at this point with the limited info we have on the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think one thing that has been overlooked here is the definition of "suck". No matter what Ryan or GW believes will constitute "suck", there will be a group of players who will still perfectly enjoy the game at that level of "suck". Bottom line, it won't suck for them.How comfortable are you being closely associated with one or more of those people? Can you imagine a level of suckiness that would require that class of players to decide whether murdering a character was a net loss of what they cared about?Sorry, DeciusBrutus, what do you mean? For players in that state/level of suckiness, I don't think the decision to kill another character is going to be a long drawn out process.
As an aside, the number of players that will enjoy playing the game from the low-rep gutter would seem somewhat limited just by player temperament. Lower classed abilities than many of your victims does not seem to match the killer mentality that gets one into the low-rep gutter. It remains to be seen if very large social groups can fight as low rep hordes - but do they need to, if they're more powerful fighting as mid- or high-rep hordes?
Exactly right.
The other thought to add to this is.... Once we are at 2.5 years of the game, will you suck if you have already skilled to max for a "class" then go complete low rep? My guess is no. The biggest "suck" I see for being low rep is skill training. If you already have all the skills you want, then what is the draw back?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think one thing that has been overlooked here is the definition of "suck". No matter what Ryan or GW believes will constitute "suck", there will be a group of players who will still perfectly enjoy the game at that level of "suck". Bottom line, it won't suck for them.How comfortable are you being closely associated with one or more of those people? Can you imagine a level of suckiness that would require that class of players to decide whether murdering a character was a net loss of what they cared about?Sorry, DeciusBrutus, what do you mean? For players in that state/level of suckiness, I don't think the decision to kill another character is going to be a long drawn out process.
As an aside, the number of players that will enjoy playing the game from the low-rep gutter would seem somewhat limited just by player temperament. Lower classed abilities than many of your victims does not seem to match the killer mentality that gets one into the low-rep gutter. It remains to be seen if very large social groups can fight as low rep hordes - but do they need to, if they're more powerful fighting as mid- or high-rep hordes?
Exactly right.
The other thought to add to this is.... Once we are at 2.5 years of the game, will you suck if you have already skilled to max for a "class" then go complete low rep? My guess is no. The biggest "suck" I see for being low rep is skill training. If you already have all the skills you want, then what is the draw back?
The real question is: Would they leave such an obvious loophole in the system?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm just curious as to why someone would continue to argue for mechanics in a game where they have so little faith in the creator of it?
I assume, and may be wrong, that you are referring to what bringslite said?
@Bringslite - I wouldnt consider that a loophole. First you would have had to play the game for 2.5 years. I am sure GW would consider that a good investment and well worth it. The majority of the people here on the boards will not be in game once it hits 2.5 years.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just curious as to why someone would continue to argue for mechanics in a game where they have so little faith in the creator of it?I assume, and may be wrong, that you are referring to what bringslite said?
@Bringslite - I wouldnt consider that a loophole. First you would have had to play the game for 2.5 years. I am sure GW would consider that a good investment and well worth it. The majority of the people here on the boards will not be in game once it hits 2.5 years.
There are so many shades/levels between "fresh newb" and "2.5 year vet". Why design a system of rep and consequences, if you can walk all over it?
Nope. That would be a lot of work for naught. I just won't believe it, until I see it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Xeen & Bluddwolf
You guys seem like you are somewhat in support of the system they have described. You at least seem willing to play within it, if everyone else does. The people that we have to watch for are the ones that you have described. Those that don't give a "rat's ass" about the health of the complete game. The ones that don't want any challenge to their PVP. They just want to kill anything they think is weaker. The system described is for people that want challenging PVP with a purpose.
And yes, that leaves room for ganking (at opportunity) for a "game play" goal. Just not ganking "becooze lolz".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Xeen & Bluddwolf
You guys seem like you are somewhat in support of the system they have described. You at least seem willing to play within it, if everyone else does. The people that we have to watch for are the ones that you have described. Those that don't give a "rat's ass" about the health of the complete game. The ones that don't want any challenge to their PVP. They just want to kill anything they think is weaker. The system described is for people that want challenging PVP with a purpose.
And yes, that leaves room for ganking (at opportunity) for a "game play" goal. Just not ganking "becooze lolz".
I can't speak for Xeen, although I think we are on the same page. What I am saying is that those players exist and they will be in PFO.
People need to stop believing that the rep or alignment system will be some kind of a panacea. No amount of suck will mean a thing to a player who will just reroll a character, or even start a new account.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Xeen & Bluddwolf
You guys seem like you are somewhat in support of the system they have described. You at least seem willing to play within it, if everyone else does. The people that we have to watch for are the ones that you have described. Those that don't give a "rat's ass" about the health of the complete game. The ones that don't want any challenge to their PVP. They just want to kill anything they think is weaker. The system described is for people that want challenging PVP with a purpose.
And yes, that leaves room for ganking (at opportunity) for a "game play" goal. Just not ganking "becooze lolz".
I can't speak for Xeen, although I think we are on the same page. What I am saying is that those players exist and they will be in PFO.
People need to stop believing that the rep or alignment system will be some kind of a panacea. No amount of suck will mean a thing to a player who will just reroll a character, or even start a new account.
I won't speak for everyone but it has been said before by the developers and us normal folk that there definitely is no clear-cut solution. We all know this, but you are mistaken if you don't think making a griefer/murderer suck will have zero impact on that type of player. Especially if it takes a year to make your character have decent skills. The idea of simply destroying a character you spent a year creating can be quite devastating! You're right, they can just reroll a character, but it will be a long while before a good aligned veteran has anything to fear.
Furthermore, we don't know just how sucky these griefer/murderer characters may become. Who knows, it might be like comparing gods to mortals where a good aligned character can almost "1 hit" a character that has a horrible reputation and alignment.
We don't yet know specifics, we shall see.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'll let others tell you about GW stance on the "one-shot" kill. Same goes for "good alignment" compared to others as far as the power curve goes.
As you say, we will all find out some time during EE (probably late EE). Right now we have sparse information and a few contradictions.