Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are assuming even numbers, I'm not.Those groups will get wiped by the groups that focus on killing alone. Opportunity cost is a thing.Not in the case of groups that focus on killing and looting.Unless there is a huge difference in carry-capacity between the killer and victim...Folks specializing in transporting goods will no doubt have increased inventory space equipped, while folks specialized in killing them probably won't.
Good point, Bluddwolf. An entire Company of Bandits, with some specialized in transporting goods, some specialized in killing, and some generalized in both, will definitely be able to carry all the gear that a single traveler specialized in transporting goods might have. I'm not sure how I missed that nuance in my analysis.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Good point, Bluddwolf. An entire Company of Bandits, with some specialized in transporting goods, some specialized in killing, and some generalized in both, will definitely be able to carry all the gear that a single traveler specialized in transporting goods might have. I'm not sure how I missed that nuance in my analysis.
Although an entire company is a bit over the top, especially if I take your "single traveler" literally.
Our entire company will be 50+ members (whatever the max will be). We have ideas on what constitutes a typical raiding party, but obviously it will have to be adjusted based on in game realities and norms.
I am a combined arms advocate and I imagine our troupes of bandits will be a diverse collection of builds and abilities.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You fight so hard for the strangest ideals. I'm not comprehending why you are dissecting the griefing concept, what is your goal here?Something so loosely defined as "Griefing" can not be fact, it is an opinion.
Just because some may share your opinion, does not make it fact.
The victim is made the victim of an action that he or she considered griefing.
I'm simply saying "griefing" is an individualized construct. I could be a level 1 character and get killed by a level 50 character, and not consider it griefing. Meanwhile someone else might feel that it was.
I can picture a scenario where I end up robbing or killing the same merchant a few times in a short time period, because he keeps on returning to the same stretch of road with a new cargo. To him I am repeatedly attacking him, and he might not recognize his own actions as a contributing factor in his victimization. He would feel that he has been griefed and would likely report my actions. If he gets the wrong answer from the Devs, he might then declare the game a murder sim and log off (potentially not returning).
Before anyone assumes what I'm saying I'd that nothing is griefing, I am not. I actually saying, almost anything can be considered griefing, based on the individual person's opinion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Something so loosely defined as "Griefing" can not be fact, it is an opinion.
Just because some may share your opinion, does not make it fact.
The victim is made the victim of an action that he or she considered griefing.
The nature of a thing doesn't depend on it's definition, the definition depends on the nature of a thing. Yet you appear to have that dependency relationship reversed and insist that it is opinion that informs reality rather than reality informing opinion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The nature of a thing doesn't depend on it's definition, the definition depends on the nature of a thing. Yet you appear to have that dependency relationship reversed and insist that it is opinion that informs reality rather than reality informing opinion.Something so loosely defined as "Griefing" can not be fact, it is an opinion.
Just because some may share your opinion, does not make it fact.
The victim is made the victim of an action that he or she considered griefing.
What is your definition of "hard work"?
Is that definition universal or is it subjective?
Btw, I'm not looking for the formula for Work (W = F*S)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Should we change it to 'Attempted Griefing'? Feels like we are arguing more about success than intent.
It's sort of academic to argue about it, in any case. Behaviors will happen, GW will decide some of those behaviors rise to the level of griefing and take action they deem appropriate. We're not in the decision loop.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The nature of a thing doesn't depend on it's definition, the definition depends on the nature of a thing. Yet you appear to have that dependency relationship reversed and insist that it is opinion that informs reality rather than reality informing opinion.Something so loosely defined as "Griefing" can not be fact, it is an opinion.
Just because some may share your opinion, does not make it fact.
The victim is made the victim of an action that he or she considered griefing.
What is your definition of "hard work"?
Is that definition universal or is it subjective?
Btw, I'm not looking for the formula for Work (W = F*S)
What is the relevance of your question? 'Hard', as opposed to 'easy', is by nature subjective. 'Work' is substantive, informed by reality.
If I bother to infer your intent, you wish to identify 'griefing' as something dependent on whether the 'victim' is bothered by an action.
Identifying them as 'victim' has implications, but again that line of argument veers from the objective case into subjective opinion.
I'm stating that since computers cannot quantify events internal to the player's emotion-state, yet will measure something programmatically defined as 'griefing', then griefing (with respect to PFO) will not be a matter of opinion. Griefing will be measurable and quantifiable. It will be informed by reality rather than opinion. Whether you personally conflate the two would be irrelevant except where you once more publicly pronounce your specious opinions as if they were fact.
The confusion you assert upon the reader does not reflect the mechanics that will be in the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Being
So you are under the assumption that GW will clearly identify griefing and attach mechanics to punishing those actions. That runs counter to what they have said.
If the program can not identify the emotional state of the victim, it can not identify the motive of the perpetrator either. At the very core of the definition of griefing is "intent". It is not measurable or quantifiable, but subjective.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
@ Being
So you are under the assumption that GW will clearly identify griefing and attach mechanics to punishing those actions. That runs counter to what they have said.
If the program can not identify the emotional state of the victim, it can not identify the motive of the perpetrator either. At the very core of the definition of griefing is "intent". It is not measurable or quantifiable, but subjective.
That's exactly what they said they would do. What they won't do is clearly identify griefing in advance, nor rely on programmed responses.
I believe that intent is "objective but not practical to directly measure." For practical purposes, that might simplify to "subjective", but it does not simplify to "every stated position is equally correct."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Being
So you are under the assumption that GW will clearly identify griefing and attach mechanics to punishing those actions. That runs counter to what they have said.
If the program can not identify the emotional state of the victim, it can not identify the motive of the perpetrator either. At the very core of the definition of griefing is "intent". It is not measurable or quantifiable, but subjective.
Motive? What has the mental state of a criminal to do with it? This isn't empathy online. It may be that an aggrieved victim will flag a target, but I expect there will be measurable characteristics to 'griefing' behavior identified internally to GW, and probably the specifics of those measurable characteristics will be a closely held secret.
Even a trade secret.
But it will not be whim, nor fancy, neither opinion nor belief.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But it will not be whim, nor fancy, neither opinion nor belief.
Oh it will most certainly be a belief. Here how I see it playing out.
First an action, let's us say an attack against an unflagged target occurs.
The victim feels that he has been griefed, because he was innocently minding his own business, picking berries. He was not flagged to his attacker in any way, and his attacker did not use a SAD, he just attacked. The victim reports the incident to a GM, through the petition system.
The GM views the petition and views the activities of the attacker. The attacker did in fact attack and kill the victim, and the attacker looted the victim's corpse of the berries.
The GM will either believe or not believe that griefing was the motive of the attacker. How the GM decides this will be capricious and arbitrary, and therefore may have no consistency in relation to his or her previous rulings in similar circumstances.
I'm not sure how in depth GMs go in investigating these types of situations? I don't know if they would actually contact the attacker, to find out why he attacked?
I have a felling that this kind of a ticket would be very, very low priority and the victim would eventually be told that it was not conclusively griefing, and to be careful out there.
It is in fact a sandbox and if three are 50,000 players in the sandbox, there will be 50,000 ways to play with the sand. You won't always like the way some are playing with the sand, but that doesn't mean their intent was to grief you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But it will not be whim, nor fancy, neither opinion nor belief.The victim feels that he has been griefed, because he was innocently minding his own business, picking berries. He was not flagged to his attacker in any way, and his attacker did not use a SAD, he just attacked. The victim reports the incident to a GM, through the petition system.
It really feels like the argument is just spinning in circles with one camp believing griefing is a thing that people do and the other camp believing that it is something people let happen to them. The big problem is that griefing is going to happen, and the intent is going to be causing grief. However, since the game is unable to read minds, most of this behavior will appear under the guise of legitimate game-play tactics such as 'banditry' or 'territory-control'. And it is going to be very difficult to prove one out from the other.
I would posit, that in the situation from Bluddwolf's post as a stand-alone incident - no griefing was done here. Dick move? Absolutely. But unless verbal or other harassment to try and get a rise out of the victim follows (Iam Stabinya whispers: "U mad bro?") it is not really griefing. However, if such behavior becomes expected from the game - that whenever I am out picking berries minding my own business I am more likely than not to be attacked - then the game will suffer and remain but one of many insignificant sandbox MMOs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
However, if such behavior becomes expected from the game - that whenever I am out picking berries minding my own business I am more likely than not to be attacked - then the game will suffer and remain but one of many insignificant sandbox MMOs.
To me, that "more likely than not" (combined with the unspoken "in low risk areas") is the key.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
However, if such behavior becomes expected from the game - that whenever I am out picking berries minding my own business I am more likely than not to be attacked - then the game will suffer and remain but one of many insignificant sandbox MMOs.To me, that "more likely than not" (combined with the unspoken "in low risk areas") is the key.
"In low risk areas" translates to the NPC Starter zones, and based on Lee's Map Presentation and comments, to engage in Unsanctioned PvP in those areas will be suicide. To then return and pick up the criminal flag to loot the bodies, would also be suicide. So the Suicide Gank tactic will not work either (my conjecture).
I think that is the appropriate situation for that NPE issue. It does still provide for sanctioned PvP, so the NPC Starter zones can not become a place of refuge for those hiding from "justice", retribution or as a feud or war target.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
However, if such behavior becomes expected from the game - that whenever I am out picking berries minding my own business I am more likely than not to be attacked - then the game will suffer and remain but one of many insignificant sandbox MMOs.To me, that "more likely than not" (combined with the unspoken "in low risk areas") is the key.
I disagree. I think that for the majority of the map, someone minding their own business should not expect attack. They should be wary of it, but they should not expect it unless they are doing something to draw attention. Like harvesting incredibly rare berries, harvesting in hexes that are well-publicized to be the territory of some settlement that keeps tight grip on harvest rights, or being in a hex like the meteor hexes where chances are likely that you have picked up something notable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree. I think that for the majority of the map, someone minding their own business should not expect attack. They should be wary of it, but they should not expect it unless they are doing something to draw attention.
I could not disagree with you more. PFO seems to be a game where you should expect an attack at all time (starter zones excluded), plan for it, learn to live with it and how to minimize its effects. Burden should be on the player to learn the harsh realties of the River Kingdoms and to make allies and learn to play (that is what the starter zone and friends are for).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I disagree. I think that for the majority of the map, someone minding their own business should not expect attack. They should be wary of it, but they should not expect it unless they are doing something to draw attention. Like harvesting incredibly rare berries, harvesting in hexes that are well-publicized to be the territory of some settlement that keeps tight grip on harvest rights, or being in a hex like the meteor hexes where chances are likely that you have picked up something notable.
To me it depends on how much they are harvesting as well. If they present a high or moderate value and lower risk, they will be a prime target for SAD or an attack.
It is not a matter of being wary of being attacked, it is a matter of being wary of what profile you present.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I could not disagree with you more. PFO seems to be a game where you should expect an attack at all time (starter zones excluded), plan for it, learn to live with it and how to minimize its effects. Burden should be on the player to learn the harsh realties of the River Kingdoms and to make allies and learn to play (that is what the starter zone and friends are for).I disagree. I think that for the majority of the map, someone minding their own business should not expect attack. They should be wary of it, but they should not expect it unless they are doing something to draw attention.
This line of thinking is what would make the game the same as all of the other mediocre sandboxes out there.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"In low risk areas" translates to the NPC Starter zones...
I understand that's your definition, but I don't think it's the definition.
I think most people recognize that "low risk areas" really means places that: aren't intentional conflict zones; don't have extremely valuable resources; and aren't claimed by your enemies or by groups that are known to be hostile to strangers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I disagree. I think that for the majority of the map, someone minding their own business should not expect attack. They should be wary of it, but they should not expect it unless they are doing something to draw attention. Like harvesting incredibly rare berries, harvesting in hexes that are well-publicized to be the territory of some settlement that keeps tight grip on harvest rights, or being in a hex like the meteor hexes where chances are likely that you have picked up something notable.However, if such behavior becomes expected from the game - that whenever I am out picking berries minding my own business I am more likely than not to be attacked - then the game will suffer and remain but one of many insignificant sandbox MMOs.To me, that "more likely than not" (combined with the unspoken "in low risk areas") is the key.
It might have been better if I'd said "not in high-risk areas" rather than "in low-risk areas". Perhaps Bluddwolf and Lifedragn both might have better taken my intended meaning.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This line of thinking is what would make the game the same as all of the other mediocre sandboxes out there.
That is a very definitive statement, having not played those "other mediocre sandboxes" I would be interested if you could elaborate ?
my previous post is in the line of "player takes responsibility" and not the more prevelant "hold hands and everyone gets a reward for participating" school of thought .
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"In low risk areas" translates to the NPC Starter zones...I understand that's your definition, but I don't think it's the definition.
I think most people recognize that "low risk areas" really means places that: aren't intentional conflict zones; don't have extremely valuable resources; and aren't claimed by your enemies or by groups that are known to be hostile to strangers.
No where does it say that only "extremely valuable" resources will be those that are fought over. Nor does it say that only territories "claimed" will be contested for.
Your definition of "low risk" is far more limited than mine, and I believe most who are approaching this game from the perspective of control, power and dominance. It would be better for you to think in terms of being more wary than less, and being subjected to more conflict than safety.
PFO will either thrive or whither based on whether or not it delivers enough player driven content or not. That content is founded on the fact that limited resources will drive players to band together and fight or trade for those resources. Now I know many will say, well we will just trade, and therefore avoid conflict. Trade is conflict as well. What you harvest, someone else can not. What you sell, someone else's supply remains unsold, and or loses value. The higher you rise, the more others will have a reason to pull you down.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Mortal, Darkfall, etc... Full PvP MMOs just tend to not do too well when other games are better suited to the model.
This article does very well to highlight my thoughts.
http://massively.joystiq.com/2013/12/20/some-assembly-required-yet-another- ffa-pvp-sandbox/
Please note that I did say that you should be wary. You COULD be attacked at any moment. But you should not be so paranoid to EXPECT that you will be. The difference is very stark in your assumption of how to interact with strangers. When you begin expecting that you are more likely to be attacked than not, then your first instinct slowly evolves to being the one to attack first. The game becomes an unrealistic scenario where the first thing people do is not get to know each other and assess whether someone is peaceful or a threat, but to try to kill each other. Those games already exist.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It might have been better if I'd said "not in high-risk areas" rather than "in low-risk areas". Perhaps Bluddwolf and Lifedragn both might have better taken my intended meaning.I disagree. I think that for the majority of the map, someone minding their own business should not expect attack. They should be wary of it, but they should not expect it unless they are doing something to draw attention. Like harvesting incredibly rare berries, harvesting in hexes that are well-publicized to be the territory of some settlement that keeps tight grip on harvest rights, or being in a hex like the meteor hexes where chances are likely that you have picked up something notable.However, if such behavior becomes expected from the game - that whenever I am out picking berries minding my own business I am more likely than not to be attacked - then the game will suffer and remain but one of many insignificant sandbox MMOs.To me, that "more likely than not" (combined with the unspoken "in low risk areas") is the key.
Not in high-risk areas is better. I view at least three categories.
Low-Risk: You are not very likely to be attacked.
Mid-Risk: You are not very likely to be attacked if you are minding your own business unless you are doing something to make you a more appealing target such as running a caravan or engaged in feuds/wars/faction-flagging.
High-Risk: You are likely to be attacked no matter what.
I see Mid-Risk to be the majority of the map. Low-Risk being NPC and non-warring settlement hexes. High-risk being Starmetal, warring settlement, and possibly Escalation hexes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Your definition of "low risk" is far more limited than mine...
If it wasn't obvious, this post was meant as an implicit acknowledgement that I was wrong.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Much of this is going to be based on the drawbacks for such behavior as "I attack others if I see them". There isn't any reason to believe that there will not be a strong element of that in PfO if there are no consequences to such behavior.
If you are in a company, settlement and/or faction of some type you had best be conscious that you are a willing target to someone. If they include the S&D, you are a target to anyone that trains and uses it. If the person has reputation to spare, or does not care, you are a target for them.
I am not insinuating that anyone is postulating anything different here, and I personally hope that the game is not a constant exercise in paranoia.
If I can gather/travel alone and succeed enough times (on average) to be profitable, I will be happy. That will be unlikely though, and it seems to be GW's intent that we take some responsibility in our own success. Do this through organized player patrols (near friendly settlements) and proper planning (with guards/friends) in "wilder" areas.
I have to agree that this is about the same as it is in most other FFA PVP sandbox games out there. It is at least. when you break it down. It seems that there will be MANY ways to be a legit target. Something that we would do better to face and embrace, than to deny.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have to agree that this is about the same as it is in most other FFA PVP sandbox games out there. It is at least. when you break it down. It seems that there will be MANY ways to be a legit target. Something that we would do better to face and embrace, than to deny.
I agree that there will be many ways to be a legitimate target, that we will be "often at risk", and that we should embrace that. I disagree that we should expect PFO to be "about the same as it is in most FFA PVP sandbox games out there". You referenced the reason for this in your first sentence, and it's something Ryan has made abundantly clear time after time.
We are going to break this pattern and we are going to redefine those preconceptions. In order to do that we must repeatedly and powerfully shock the system. One of those shocks is a negative feedback loop that links random killing to gimping character development.
It should be clear that Lifedragn and I are talking about this kind of random killing. Obviously, if you're in a feud, or in enemy territory, or even just in someone else's territory, you're taking on significant risk. It should also be clear that occasionally being killed randomly is tolerable. It's when the game gets to the point that you'll be randomly killed "more often than not" that it becomes a problem.
For example, there are a number of Home hexes where certain monster types always spawn. Players will be going to these areas to get the achievements they need to develop their characters. If most of these areas turn into murder simulators a la Darkfall, where you should expect to be attacked by pretty much anyone you see because more often than not you will be, then I think there's a problem.
Dominance is one aspect of PFO. If that aspect comes to dominate Exploration, Adventure, and Development, then I think there's a problem.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Your definition of "low risk" is far more limited than mine...If it wasn't obvious, this post was meant as an implicit acknowledgement that I was wrong.
We seemed to have cross posted, and I missed your amendment. "Not in high risk" is an improvement.
I also agree with Lifedrgn that there seems to be three zone types, maybe more.
Low Risk: NPC Settlement Hexes
Medium Risk: Major Roads, PC Settlements ( based on laws and enforcement)
High Risk: Everywhere Else
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That is what I am counting on. That there will be drawbacks and consequences that are very discouraging, to the point that such play as exploration, reasonable trade, PVE are tolerable. Not risk free. Not without planning and preparation on our part. Because I do not believe that is Ryan's or GW's intent at all.
The EE map will be larger than I had thought. That is good. It is still small compared to many though. There isn't a recall mechanic. I think that is fine also. There will (almost certainly) be a larger population density in PfO than these other games. We need to recognize that these things will have a HUGE impact on travelers/gatherers/merchants. It will probably be fun if embraced with the right attitude, but we shouldn't fool ourselves that it won't be quite bloody for a good long time to come.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Mortal, Darkfall, etc... Full PvP MMOs just tend to not do too well when other games are better suited to the model.
This article does very well to highlight my thoughts.
http://massively.joystiq.com/2013/12/20/some-assembly-required-yet-another- ffa-pvp-sandbox/Please note that I did say that you should be wary. You COULD be attacked at any moment. But you should not be so paranoid to EXPECT that you will be. The difference is very stark in your assumption of how to interact with strangers. When you begin expecting that you are more likely to be attacked than not, then your firost instinct slowly evolves to being the one to attack first. The game becomes an unrealistic scenario where the first thing people do is not get to know each other and assess whether someone is peaceful or a threat, but to try to kill each other. Those games already exist.
I think that part of this concern will be alleviated by your own experience and interactions within your most common region traveled. What I mean by this is, you will develop a Local Knowledge of the people most likely encountered in your area.
Your first encounter with a complete stranger will establish many of your future encounters with that same person. It will also impact other members of his/her membership group. Over time you will eventually develop your own Blue, Grey, Red standings for virtually everyone who frequents your area.
It is important to remember that they are looking at you for the first time as well, and viewing you with equal suspicion.
Even in games a brutal (mostly by reputation) as Darkfall and EvE, there is usually a hesitation or pause before either party reacts. During this time both sides are sizing each other up. I have found that starting with a chat in local is usually received unexpectantly but favorably.
The best way to begin is to ask a fairly noobish question or to compliment the other for some aspect. Whether you know the answer or not, or like their armor or whatever, doesn't matter. You have peaked their interest to help you or you stroked their ego enough for them not to attack. Everyone likes to play the role of teacher, it gives them a sense of power. Same way everyone likes to be praised for something.
It is easy to find someone to fight. It is harder to find someone to talk to. Even the most blood thirsty, needs a break from the slaughter.
* Note the character I chose to write this from.
Bluddwolf would probably SAD you. Harbinger would either kill you or give you gifts, depends on if he or you are wearing a green hat.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There are measurable motivators in the game: faction, alignment, cargo, chat logs, what have you. If there is a mechanically measurable motive then offing the character wasn't griefing.
Where there is no measurable motive then it was griefing. The criminal's interior state is meaningless. Your avowed intent is meaningless. What has meaning is measurable, thus quantifiable.
Where there is no measurable motive then it was griefing.
Is faith a measurable motive? Gunna be lots of Rovagug worshippers if so.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
"In low risk areas" translates to the NPC Starter zones...I understand that's your definition, but I don't think it's the definition.
I think most people recognize that "low risk areas" really means places that: aren't intentional conflict zones; don't have extremely valuable resources; and aren't claimed by your enemies or by groups that are known to be hostile to strangers.
I would say that 'low-risk areas' are the areas in which you are not likely to be attacked. I don't expect the developers' intent to be perfectly executed, so I expect there to be a small number of areas that were intended to be low-risk that aren't, and a small number of areas that were intended to be high-risk that aren't.