|
From my point of view, there is nothing more satisfying than protecting a caravan or group of players from a group of bandit PKs or hunting down that one with a ridiculous list of kills.
That said, some of the features being listed on Goblinworks are really going to ruin my entire experience.
A character who, for role-playing purposes or simply for fun, chooses a chaotic-evil alignment and joins a settlement of like minded characters should not be forced to suffer penalties or live in crumbling buildings
WE THE PLAYERS ARE THAT PENALTY or lack thereof.
There should not be "secure zones" with "Marshals".
WE THE PLAYERS ENFORCE WHICH ZONES ARE SECURE
WE THE PLAYERS ARE THE MARSHALS
I say, if humanity is such that the biggest kingdom is that of bandits or barbarians, then let it be so.
I'll be the one on the other side of that war, ensuring the safety of my friends and fighting those bandit kings because that is an awesome challenge.
Goblin Squad Member
|
Alignment needs to have meaning in PFO. It's a huge part of the game. If this game was pure anarchy, then I could see the system you mentioned working extremely well.
Being unlawful or evil should have consequences. Those who choose to be "bad" know they're not going to have an easy time in game and should be ready to accept any hardships based on their alignment. Having a powerful chaotic-evil character should be uncommon and that character would be looked upon with awe.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do like your enthusiasm. That approach has not worked out well in previous games for a significant part of the players that PfO wants to attract, though.
Yet people like you will make the whole system jell perfectly (if it can) as part of the layered approach that GW wants to try to tackle the problem that they see as significant. :)
Alignment needs to have meaning in PFO. It's a huge part of the game. If this game was pure anarchy, then I could see the system you mentioned working extremely well.
Being unlawful or evil should have consequences. Those who choose to be "bad" know they're not going to have an easy time in game and should be ready to accept any hardships based on their alignment. Having a powerful chaotic-evil character should be uncommon and that character would be looked upon with awe.
But Good is supposed to be harder than Bad, especially in a land like the River Kingdoms where it's gone out of style.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But Good is supposed to be harder than Bad, especially in a land like the River Kingdoms where it's gone out of style.Alignment needs to have meaning in PFO. It's a huge part of the game. If this game was pure anarchy, then I could see the system you mentioned working extremely well.
Being unlawful or evil should have consequences. Those who choose to be "bad" know they're not going to have an easy time in game and should be ready to accept any hardships based on their alignment. Having a powerful chaotic-evil character should be uncommon and that character would be looked upon with awe.
No KC. Good is supposed to win more times than it loses. It makes stories more pretty.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
WE THE PLAYERS ARE THAT PENALTY or lack thereof.
There should not be "secure zones" with "Marshals".
WE THE PLAYERS ENFORCE WHICH ZONES ARE SECURE
WE THE PLAYERS ARE THE MARSHALS
I salute you sir and join you in your hunt of the lawless... but with all the chaos during EE, your ideal may be a way off.
Still, let us call the hounds to the hunt and effect a palpable fear in the stone-cold hearts of predators-of-man. Let us steal their toilet paper and laugh at their misfortune. A pox on their eyes, that we may dull their senses with ragwort. A pox on their liver, that we may relieve them of their amber diet. And a pox on the purses, that we replace coin with plastic facsimiles so that they are incarcerated for minor misdemeanors!
- In PoX we trust
|
|
Though I can understand the viewpoint of the community at large, I would contend that except for the limitations proposed against certain types of players and much like the world around us, what is being created in this open-world sandbox is anarchy with form that those designing, testing, and eventually playing are hoping will turn into a positive community, much like various countries in the world.
However, not all countries are like that and not every player that wants a decent place to call home should be forced into it. The world of Pathfinder I know houses more evil than good, both among the playable and non-playable races. There should be chaos until those that want something more form it.
If someone who is playing a chaotic evil character because that is what they like to role play worked just as hard as a lawful good character who is playing for the same reason, they should have about equal, if different, rewards.
That said: Once I get money to buy the $100 early access (assuming those passes are still available when I do), my main is likely to be a lawful good cleric-type with a big sword, because I enjoy the idea of the Knights Templar.
No KC. Good is supposed to win more times than it loses. It makes stories more pretty.But Good is supposed to be harder than Bad, especially in a land like the River Kingdoms where it's gone out of style.Alignment needs to have meaning in PFO. It's a huge part of the game. If this game was pure anarchy, then I could see the system you mentioned working extremely well.
Being unlawful or evil should have consequences. Those who choose to be "bad" know they're not going to have an easy time in game and should be ready to accept any hardships based on their alignment. Having a powerful chaotic-evil character should be uncommon and that character would be looked upon with awe.
This ain't no fairy tale.
This is REAL LIFE.Except not.
Actually Good imo will have their own problems. Evil can use many more tactics to achieve their goals, evil characters will not worry that their acts will bring them into clutches of Evil - they're already there :)
Aside from slavery and necromancy, what tactics do you believe Evil will have access to the Good will lack?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Actually Good imo will have their own problems. Evil can use many more tactics to achieve their goals, evil characters will not worry that their acts will bring them into clutches of Evil - they're already there :)Aside from slavery and necromancy, what tactics do you believe Evil will have access to the Good will lack?
More freedom of action in terms of PVP.
|
|
@Marlagram
Is killing evil? At which point is killing considered self defense? If you save the lives of 10 friends by killing 1 dangerous stranger, do you consider that evil? Is the taking of a settlement evil? What if it was all good characters taking the settlement from a "neutral" party who was creating trouble for the world at large?
To be lawful good does not mean staying on the defensive all the time. It means easier (is that supposed to read harder?) decisions, good gods, more of your party likely to have a variety of abilities instead of just those associated with the attack, bounty-hunting, being trusted by other players for various positions in various parties....
Honestly, being a good character seems to hold more promise even for PvP characters in the long run.
The only reasons to be an evil character are if you only want to build your character for those tasks specifically (leading to a less open game experience and less likelihood of building a settlement), want to cause chaos (won't join a settlement anyways), or wish to RP it (those few who make it to having multiple settlements and can somehow maintain a kingdom together deserve it)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I understand it, Eve has a large contingent of players that, as long as they are willing to opt out of certain activities, are safe from PvP most of the time, can still have fun and even feel useful for the greater good.
That is one the most important reasons that Eve is succesful and could grow to 500k subs imo.
If PFO fails to deliver such an experience (option) then I think it will go the way of Darkfall, Shadowbane, UO-before-trammel and the several hardcore PvP servers like Mordred and AC Darktide. (Which is The Way of the Dodo).
PFO may be wanting to fill a niche but I do not think they are shooting for a 10k subscriber niche.
This is a bit of a general statement that I could as well have posted in another thread, but there is a lot of PvP talk going on, and I think peple must realize that there is a large amount of players that want to be part of something bigger then a Themepark MMO/Raiding guild, but are much less directly competitive then your average PvP-er. Eve proofs that apparently there could be a place for them, but this time hopefully in a Fantasy setting with swords and sorcery.
My biggest concern will be how people will react to (and able to bounce back from) a destroyed settlement. It should not be too easy since then the whole settlement-competition will grow bland; too difficult and people will think "no thanks, not putting in another 6 months again".
The Shadowbane Syndrome.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just remember the construction/crafting side is going to be as relevant (and rich in content?) as the destruction/pvp side to the game. Alignment/rep probably provides the long-term incentive for players when making the former choice over the immediate gratification of the latter choice? And how gratifying that latter choice is as we all know. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A character who, for role-playing purposes or simply for fun, chooses a chaotic-evil alignment and joins a settlement of like minded characters should not be forced to suffer penalties or live in crumbling buildings
That is a matter of player choice.
Choosing is meaningful only where the choice makes a difference.
Choosing to be chaotic evil means that the conditions of your habitat will be different than had you chosen otherwise.
If your choice of possible behaviors is more important than the benefit of your environment then you chose wisely. Otherwise, less so.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
From my point of view, there is nothing more satisfying than protecting a caravan or group of players from a group of bandit PKs or hunting down that one with a ridiculous list of kills.
That said, some of the features being listed on Goblinworks are really going to ruin my entire experience.
A character who, for role-playing purposes or simply for fun, chooses a chaotic-evil alignment and joins a settlement of like minded characters should not be forced to suffer penalties or live in crumbling buildings
WE THE PLAYERS ARE THAT PENALTY or lack thereof.
There should not be "secure zones" with "Marshals".
WE THE PLAYERS ENFORCE WHICH ZONES ARE SECURE
WE THE PLAYERS ARE THE MARSHALS
I say, if humanity is such that the biggest kingdom is that of bandits or barbarians, then let it be so.
I'll be the one on the other side of that war, ensuring the safety of my friends and fighting those bandit kings because that is an awesome challenge.
First of all, Welcome to the Forums!
Although I agree with much of what you say, there will still be systems in place that limit total freedom of action and therefore take up some of the responsibility of self reliance from the players and grants them to the systems.
It is hopefully not going to lead to laziness and an over reliance on those systems to do for the players what they should try to do for themselves, but that remains to be seen.
I have examples of this, but not the time now to write them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From my point of view, there is nothing more satisfying than protecting a caravan or group of players from a group of bandit PKs or hunting down that one with a ridiculous list of kills.
Sounds like you may want to check out our little group, The Empyrean Order.
That said, some of the features being listed on Goblinworks are really going to ruin my entire experience.A character who, for role-playing purposes or simply for fun, chooses a chaotic-evil alignment and joins a settlement of like minded characters should not be forced to suffer penalties or live in crumbling buildings
WE THE PLAYERS ARE THAT PENALTY or lack thereof.
There should not be "secure zones" with "Marshals".
WE THE PLAYERS ENFORCE WHICH ZONES ARE SECURE
WE THE PLAYERS ARE THE MARSHALS
I say, if humanity is such that the biggest kingdom is that of bandits or barbarians, then let it be so.
I'll be the one on the other side of that war, ensuring the safety of my friends and fighting those bandit kings because that is an awesome challenge.
There is still going to be plenty of opportunity to play the role you wish. However without the systems being put in place, you would have fewer people seeking your protections as the game would be unplayable for that audience. I'd honestly rather go play the Guild Wars 2 sandbox than an FFA PvP game.
The current vision is trying to construct a bridge between the two audiences, and we will have a deeper and more rich game because of it.
More freedom of action in terms of PVP.Actually Good imo will have their own problems. Evil can use many more tactics to achieve their goals, evil characters will not worry that their acts will bring them into clutches of Evil - they're already there :)Aside from slavery and necromancy, what tactics do you believe Evil will have access to the Good will lack?
Can you clarify? Are you indicating there are PvP tactics so dishonorable Good would not consider them? Or are you saying that the ability to attack someone unprovoked (thus losing settlement reputation) is an advantage?
I'm not being sarcastic, by the way. I am trying to work out what advantages Evil has.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Can you clarify? Are you indicating there are PvP tactics so dishonorable Good would not consider them? Or are you saying that the ability to attack someone unprovoked (thus losing settlement reputation) is an advantage?More freedom of action in terms of PVP.Actually Good imo will have their own problems. Evil can use many more tactics to achieve their goals, evil characters will not worry that their acts will bring them into clutches of Evil - they're already there :)Aside from slavery and necromancy, what tactics do you believe Evil will have access to the Good will lack?
Actually, I am not sure that I can clarify. Originally, some actions that were "preferred PVP", (like killing) had a small shift toward evil. They warned that even paladins that killed (in war etc...)would have to be careful and "atone" every so often or risk falling. Thinking about it, I am not sure that is the case anymore.
That's what I'm worried about. I'm not sure Evil has the advantages it once had. Evil alignment shouldn't be a bad thing--that's what low Reputation is for.
|
|
@Being
I'm curious. Our conversation so far has been that of lawful good vs chaotic evil. Do the detriments to a settlement occur only to chaotic characters or only to evil? To put this another way: Does it make sense that lawful evil characters should not have great empires? Or is the chaotic element that brings down the quality of buildings - something that should apply to both those of good or evil?
With the reputation system, everyone will see at a glance that maybe they shouldn't trust these guys trying to make this settlement and are unlikely to trade with, defend, or even move through the region of an evil settlement without planning to attack it. Would an army of good characters attacking an evil settlement affect an alignment change? I would say no.
On a large scale, the systems already announced should make it really hard to gather power as an evil character, or even gather allies. As communities and kingdoms start to form, evil characters will have less and less of a role in society (except maybe as spies, assassins, and politicians).
The greatest worries seem to be about what happens before these communities form or during the rush of the original release. With evil already at an overwhelming disadvantage socially, it seems like just an additional slap in the face to not reward those that somehow make it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Being
I'm curious. Our conversation so far has been that of lawful good vs chaotic evil. Do the detriments to a settlement occur only to chaotic characters or only to evil? To put this another way: Does it make sense that lawful evil characters should not have great empires? Or is the chaotic element that brings down the quality of buildings - something that should apply to both those of good or evil?
With the reputation system, everyone will see at a glance that maybe they shouldn't trust these guys trying to make this settlement and are unlikely to trade with, defend, or even move through the region of an evil settlement without planning to attack it. Would an army of good characters attacking an evil settlement affect an alignment change? I would say no.
On a large scale, the systems already announced should make it really hard to gather power as an evil character, or even gather allies. As communities and kingdoms start to form, evil characters will have less and less of a role in society (except maybe as spies, assassins, and politicians).
The greatest worries seem to be about what happens before these communities form or during the rush of the original release. With evil already at an overwhelming disadvantage socially, it seems like just an additional slap in the face to not reward those that somehow make it.
Alignments have settlement factors on both scales, name Good/Evil is an unrest factor and Law/Chaos is a corruption factor.
Good settlements have a low Base Unrest score, but are heavily impacted by evil deeds performed around their settlements. Evil settlements have a middling Base Unrest score, but are less impacted by Evil deeds around their settlements - as the residents are somewhat used to it and thus react less strongly.
A well managed Lawful Evil settlement will be at a disadvantage in those raw factors compared to an equally well managed Lawful Good settlement, just as would a Chaotic Good settlement - only for reasons of corruption rather than unrest. A well-managed Chaotic Evil settlement will be at a higher disadvantage to the well-managed Lawful Good settlement. However! A poorly managed Chaotic Evil settlement will have an advantage against a poorly managed Lawful Good settlement, because the unrest and corruption ding CE a little, but really tear LG a new one.
The incentive is in place to balance the general trend of a game sinking to the lowest common denominator.
Reputation is actually a secondary system with other effects. However, many of the acts that will lower reputation happen to be both Chaotic and Evil, which leaves the implication that low rep players will most frequently be Chaotic Evil. Development Indices, a currency used by settlements to allocate and spend for improvement, are capped by factors including length of an Open PvP window (the wider the window, the higher your cap) and by Minimum Reputation Limits (again, the higher the min rep limit the higher the cap).
Combining a low reputation (lower DI availability) with a Chaotic Evil (mediocre unrest and corruption - which also affect DI) alignment means that you will have limited resources to devote to settlement infrastructure. It is likely possible to develop a moderately sized CE settlement and achieve moderate success in the game, however you are unlikely to acquire a big settlement with top end training. This will be a challenge to accomplish, but not impossible, and will likely stress numbers of members over highly trained members - which accurately represents most (not all) of the Chaotic Evil societies and races from the tabletop lore.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do the detriments to a settlement occur only to chaotic characters or only to evil?
For the most part, it's being Low Reputation that makes you suck. Being Chaotic and Evil and Low Reputation makes you really suck.
Lawful Evil is absolutely meant to be a powerhouse.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There should not be "secure zones" with "Marshals".
WE THE PLAYERS ENFORCE WHICH ZONES ARE SECURE
WE THE PLAYERS ARE THE MARSHALS
I'd like to point out that the Marshall idea, which hasn't been fleshed out for us in a blog or anything, has player characters as enforcers, so the second caps part there is already planned.
As for the separate idea of safe zones, the only "safe zone" is starter towns where not much can be accomplished, and even there you can be killed (see EVE suicide ganks). And frankly I'd prefer safe starter towns as opposed to free killing and robbing of newbs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I only hope I got most of that right. This is a picture painted across over a long period of following blog posts and developer forum comments, and I may have missed an update or misunderstood a point, but the general spirit is there.
We have a lot of people trying to explain bits and pieces, but the beauty of the design doesn't really begin emerging until you start to place everything together.
Also of note is that the reduced unrest and corruption penalties for Chaotic/Evil actions for those who declare as such I find to be very thoughtful. It provides incentive to identify with your play-style rather than simply picking the strongest mechanical benefit overall. Across the game, LG is the strongest 'Settlement Alignment' from raw mechanics, but only for groups that adhere to LG. Picking LG and not playing LG is going to hurt. So for any group of individuals, the best mechanical advantage at an individual level is going to be to those who own up to their behaviors and choose the appropriate alignment to match. It is also a balance to the benefit that Evil has to more freely kill other players without impacting their choice alignment - whereas Good has to be much more picky about their targets.
|
|
Yeah, I hadn't gotten too deep into the forums yet and I can't afford the early release ATM as I am unemployed, so the place I was getting my information from (much as new players might) was the Goblinworks website, which seems to say different things than I am discovering here.
"There will be a continuum of security established around NPC Settlements and along certain roads."
-this seems to indicate to me that a web of roads stretching forth from beginning areas and intersecting one another would provide safe routes for players across the map, therefore decreasing the ability of bandits to plunder and leaving protectors of caravans with less to do.
"In those areas, PvP may be disabled, or attackers may face rapid and overwhelming response from NPC "Marshals" who will appear and destroy aggressors"
With these two lines together, the website seems to indicate that there will be networks of roads that those not willing to take on attackers (such as merchant caravans) can use that are protected by invincible NPCs, making other routes less viable, protection from other players less valuable, and banditry nearly impossible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Oh dear... what end is trying to be furthered through flattery? In all honesty, I do what I can but the real test doesn't begin until we are in the game.
@Kios - I am imagining that the 'along certain roads' statement may be a sub-section of the roads already drawn on the River Kingdoms map that run to critical PoIs (Starter Towns, Faction HQs, etc... your basics for enabling access to the game). There will (hopefully) eventually be roads constructed based on common player routes that would not be located so near to these protected zones. Additionally, the closer a Settlement Hex would be to one of these protected networks, the more attractive said Hex becomes. As such, you are going to trade off your safer merchant routes with more people trying to attack your settlement and take the prime real estate from you.
It actually drives a dual purpose, if done well. Merchants who favor lighter PvP may restrict their business to locales near the safe routes. They see less PvP as per their play-style, but suffer a potentially smaller opportunity pool due to excluding customers in the majority of the unprotected map.
But this PvP opportunity does not disappear, it is redirected from bandits along the road to settlement warfare. Which makes sense. Bandits are less likely to inhabit well-patrolled roads. But there are going to be lots of settlements (probably most) that cannot locate themselves along one of these routes. Competition will be fierce for access to these safer routes.
TLDR; Nothing is really lost. Caravan protection/assault is redirected and focused out in the 'wilderness settlements' and settlement defense/conquest is focused in on the 'prime real estate'. The various play-styles are still well catered to and makes somewhat realistic sense.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"There will be a continuum of security established around NPC Settlements and along certain roads."
-this seems to indicate to me that a web of roads stretching forth from beginning areas and intersecting one another would provide safe routes for players across the map, therefore decreasing the ability of bandits to plunder and leaving protectors of caravans with less to do."In those areas, PvP may be disabled, or attackers may face rapid and overwhelming response from NPC "Marshals" who will appear and destroy aggressors"
With these two lines together, the website seems to indicate that there will be networks of roads that those not willing to take on attackers (such as merchant caravans) can use that are protected by invincible NPCs, making other routes less viable, protection from other players less valuable, and banditry nearly impossible.
Mr. Dancey has also mentioned, however, that the more profitable resource nodes will be well outside the NPC starter zones, deep in the wilds. Therefore, while a new merchant/crafter getting his feet wet in the safe zones may not need an expert caravan guard, as that merchant progresses and is in need of higher quality and more complex materials, they will be required to explore in the wilds and risk bandits. Thus, your guard role will still be necessary.
If you have ever played EVE: a salvager, miner, or explorer can find some basic things in the high-sec, 'noob' zones, but if they really want to make some money, or find anything other than the most basic of goods, they have to brave the low-sec and null-sec zones.
I imagine that is the same general idea that Mr. Dancey and his gobbies are aiming for.
Daz
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Oh dear... what end is trying to be furthered through flattery? In all honesty, I do what I can but the real test doesn't begin until we are in the game.
No goal, been saying it all along. Though if you'd like I can use seduction? hue hue hue. Anyway, I disagree you ARE a good leader. Every in-role moment is a test of your abilities to lead your guild, out of game or in. Whether you CONTINUE to be a good leader remains to be seen. So you see, you are, but you can easily lose that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Another item of value to factor when thinking of tradeoffs is that it is likely your more valuable resources are bound to be in the most risky areas, and well away from 'safer' areas. The upside for more rural settlements away from roads should be that resources are more abundant. Yet with that abundance will also come lower population and greater escalatory challenge. Proximity to major roads may well bring greater threat from settlement warfare and higher population density, but the remote settlement will also have fewer neighbors to help bear the brunt of whatever war does come.
Where several powers are closely placed, the ones considering open hostility will be given pause, since if they weaken themselves in combat with one town two more may use that opportunity to advantage. Not so much in remote areas.