Alignment and Reputation in PvP


Pathfinder Online

51 to 100 of 164 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Well I wasn't specifically talking about CE characters. Even NE or LE characters will be restricted as far as I read it. Why shouldn't a bunch of bandits from Thornkeep (just an example, no offense intended) be able to band together and maraud? And it would be up to the "good" players to stop them. Or can they and I am not understanding how the restrictions work?

And again, I am well aware that this may not be possible. Even while I type this I certainly don't want to come in a total n00b and keep getting whacked for some a-hole's "xp"... :)

Goblin Squad Member

Docora wrote:

Well I wasn't specifically talking about CE characters. Even NE or LE characters will be restricted as far as I read it. Why shouldn't a bunch of bandits from Thornkeep (just an example, no offense intended) be able to band together and maraud? And it would be up to the "good" players to stop them. Or can they and I am not understanding how the restrictions work?

And again, I am well aware that this may not be possible. Even while I type this I certainly don't want to come in a total n00b and keep getting whacked for some a-hole's "xp"... :)

From what I have seen, there are trade offs for the different alignments that settlement's choose. I think it is the consensus that "CE" will not be the best choice for a settlement to adopt. There are no real details yet. It seems that the other "evils" will be on equal footing with "good" and "neutral".

Absolutely "bad guys" can group up and roll all over, causing havoc. I am hoping they will. Just not constantly.

Consider this: There is more freedom of action in low rep and CE. You will probably not have the best settlement or training opportunities, but you will not be as concerned about who you can engage in PVP, either. If that is your cup of tea, then you will not much be affected.

As far as I understand GW's view, it only takes a few bad apples to make a game terrible for a great number of people. They want to ensure that there are as few "bad apples" as possible. They consider players that really act CE to be bad apples...

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bringslite wrote:
...in all of the "Drow" fiction that I have read, they seem able and willing to cooperate when there is need and it is in their best interests.

Please also remember that the Drow in fiction are exactly that: in fiction. They need to be shown a certain way in the tale to advance the purposes of the storyteller, and there aren't any real human beings controlling each one of them, as there will, of necessity, be here.

Writing about Chaotic Evil societies while recognising all the limitations and logical conclusions about such societies would likely not lead to publication, as entertainment value might end up being minimal:

"A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him."

It's hard to imagine a sustainable narrative about a group of serial killers large enough to be called a society.

Goblin Squad Member

Is it written in stone that all CE-aligned characters are aspiring serial killers?

Goblin Squad Member

Debrio wrote:
Is it written in stone that all CE-aligned characters are aspiring serial killers?

No. I would not limit anyone to such a narrow niche. I do think that you would find a high percentage of psychopathic AND possibly serial killers in that range. What do you expect from a chaotic evil player that embraces the alignment according to the definition the RPG game gives us?

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
Debrio wrote:
Is it written in stone that all CE-aligned characters are aspiring serial killers?
No. I would not limit anyone to such a narrow niche. I do think that you would find a high percentage of psychopathic AND possibly serial killers in that range. What do you expect from a chaotic evil player that embraces the alignment according to the definition the RPG game gives us?

Well, there is obviously a whole range of possibilites limited by imagination really.

I think the key is to differ between third and first person perspective. A mentally deluded character who think he is doing something productive by pouring poison in a lake (for example) might not consider himself "evil", even though many would agree that the act itself is evil from a third person perspective.

That's why I'm a bit reluctant to the phrase: "If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse." But maybe I'm taking the philosophy-thing too far here.

Goblin Squad Member

There is a wide range within both Chaotic and Evil. Unfortunately when most players (and I include Devs as well) see the two together, they sewe the extremes of both.

Chaotic =

Whimsical to Anarchy

Evil =

Selfish to Serial Killer

Now some may argue that my lower range is actually closer to CN, but then there is probably some grey area in that.

Silver Crusade Goblin Squad Member

I think others have pretty accurately conveyed my feelings on this idea already. It's been done before in other games, and it'd promote a type of PvP that we weren't sold and didn't buy into when we first backed the project. It sounds like a dramatic tonal shift being done as a knee jerk reaction before the project is actually tested by the players.

Other than that...

Valkenr wrote:

I'm going to preface this by stating my view in regards to Open PvP. From my experience, PvP is what keeps games fresh, PvE is never challenging, because in the end, every fight comes down to a formula, and it is impossible to generate PvE content fast enough to appease the masses. PvP provides unpredictable gameplay, and is necessary for a sustained game.

The italics are stated absolutes that really stem solely from opinion, the problem is how much weight you're giving them. And the boldface are just factually incorrect. Your post would read a lot better if that introduction was just simply cut.

PvE is certainly challenging, if it wasn't you wouldn't have things like Algalon the Raid Destroyer or Vaelstraz the Guild Corrupter being colloquial nicknames given to bosses in WoW. Much less, "fast enough" varies from player to player, and a game like WoW being able to keep a majority of their subscribes from month to month, wherein the vast majority of their players don't even participate in PvP suggests that they certainly do keep pace. This point rings more true for FF14, an mmo that's growing despite have very, very little actual PvP.

Goblin Squad Member

Lone_Wolf wrote:

I go back and forth on this issue. There need to be "bad guys" in the game; without them it's no fun. We should all want that.

The thing is, we don't necessarily need 'bad guys' at all. With the way the factions and settlements are set up, almost everyone will have some competition, or an opposing force, that will provide all of the conflict we need. Those are your 'bad guys' right there.

Goblin Squad Member

Conversely, what we definitely DON'T want are ACTUAL bad guys. People who are only in the game to cause problems for other people because they think it is fun.

Goblin Squad Member

It is definitely debatable, but historically, wars and conflict are usually fought by two groups of 'good' people who just happen to have opposing views. Does that mean they are Chaotic Evil. No. (Maybe Hitler, but I digress.)

In fantasy games and literature, it is often simply easier to make the 'bad guy' a raving lunatic Chaotic Evil person. But it is just a gimmick, and verily I propose that the BEST literature out there features 'villains' who are really just good guys who are misguided or think they are doing the right thing.

Goblin Squad Member

Dazyk wrote:

Conversely, what we definitely DON'T want are ACTUAL bad guys. People who are only in the game to cause problems for other people because they think it is fun.

It would not take very much of this to cause me to abandon the game, despite the amount of money I pledged during the KS. Never having played an MMO maybe this is naive, but nevertheless will likely be how I react to it.

Goblin Squad Member

Harneloot wrote:
Dazyk wrote:

Conversely, what we definitely DON'T want are ACTUAL bad guys. People who are only in the game to cause problems for other people because they think it is fun.

It would not take very much of this to cause me to abandon the game, despite the amount of money I pledged during the KS. Never having played an MMO maybe this is naive, but nevertheless will likely be how I react to it.

I think there are many others in the same boat as you.

The one thing I know for sure is that we cannot possibly expect the game to be perfect. There are going to be issues. Despite all of GW's best intentions, we will be griefed. I honestly think it is inevitable.

That being said, the transparency that the Devs have shown, along with their fairly clear goals and aspirations for the game, strongly suggests to me that these issues will be few, and quickly remedied.

Daz

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are always people who will grief, and it doesn't take many bad experiences to cause people to spend their money elsewhere. This is why I'm so cautious about mechanics that could potentially be used to grief, or even just feel like griefing. Like bandit abilities. We just have to trust the devs to balance it appropriately.
But, make your voice heard during EE if you think the balance is off.

Goblin Squad Member

Broken_Sextant wrote:

There are always people who will grief, and it doesn't take many bad experiences to cause people to spend their money elsewhere. This is why I'm so cautious about mechanics that could potentially be used to grief, or even just feel like griefing. Like bandit abilities. We just have to trust the devs to balance it appropriately.

But, make your voice heard during EE if you think the balance is off.

+1

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.

There will be tons of "bad guys" who don't grief. I don't think being Low Reputation will be a major turn off to a lot of them. I expect a significant number will wear being Chaotic Evil and Low Reputation as a badge of honor. They'll kill whoever they want and deal with the consequences.

The trick is going to be getting the "good guys" to stick around. Once you start focusing design effort on making it easier to play "bad guys", I think you're starting down a rabbit hole that ends in a very bad place.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:

There will be tons of "bad guys" who don't grief. I don't think being Low Reputation will be a major turn off to a lot of them. I expect a significant number will wear being Chaotic Evil and Low Reputation as a badge of honor. They'll kill whoever they want and deal with the consequences.

The trick is going to be getting the "good guys" to stick around. Once you start focusing design effort on making it easier to play "bad guys", I think you're starting down a rabbit hole that ends in a very bad place.

Exactly.

Goblin Squad Member

I never said it should be easier, I said, shouldn't it be equal?

But I digress, it was merely a question. I will just have to wait and see how it plays out.

Shadow Lodge Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:

There will be tons of "bad guys" who don't grief. I don't think being Low Reputation will be a major turn off to a lot of them. I expect a significant number will wear being Chaotic Evil and Low Reputation as a badge of honor. They'll kill whoever they want and deal with the consequences.

The trick is going to be getting the "good guys" to stick around. Once you start focusing design effort on making it easier to play "bad guys", I think you're starting down a rabbit hole that ends in a very bad place.

I personally see it as a badge of honor to set alignment to CE, play as CE, Role Play CE and still maintain a moderate to high reputation, proving the skeptics (including the Devs) wrong.

Goblin Squad Member

I agree with the OP and his other posts in a few ways, and disagree with it in many others.

I agree that the current system is biased towards LG.

I agree that Banditry should be accepted and wildly upheld as a legitimate (metagame sense) play style, but that it should be just one of many.

I agree that agree that highly militaristic, highly *ahem* types of people who participate in a NBSI policy should be able to do so as a legitimate, meaningful policy.

I disagree that abolishing the current system is the way to go, nor do I think the current system is overcomplicated.

I disagree that doing so would solve the problem, but would rather increase the disproportion between the social classes/castes in the game of experience vets and newbs, between manipulators and the gullible (not necessarily a bad thing) and finally, between those who "pay" and those who don't (specifically here I mean those who join up to the mega corps and those who are in their own smaller groups. Not the strong vs. the weak, mind you but the big vs. the not as big).

Goblin Squad Member

Although I don't think the Alignment system needs to be abolished, I think GW has room to rethink some if their intentions for it, and they may have already.

A settlement manager or management team has a limited number of building lots within their settlement. Each structure type has an alignment (neutral being universal). Each structure can be increased in level (tier). However not all of the possible structures I. The game can be supported by any one settlement.

This by its very nature will create a de facto "core alignment" for the settlement. The settlement leaders will prioritize their building plans based on the wants and needs of their population.

Players will move to the settlements that provide those services that they need. The benefit of actually being of the same alignment as the settlement's core is that it will be a priority to support that alignment. To be a citizen of that settlement would come with additional perks, priority access to training slots and perhaps free training.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As soon as robbery and murder become common they stop being meaningful or interesting.

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
As soon as robbery and murder become common they stop being meaningful or interesting.

That could more easily be said of harvesting, trade, and crafting. Robbery and murder (PvP combat in general) is almost always situationally different, has elements of timing and luck, and the outcome is never guaranteed.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Harvest, trade, and crafting are supposed to be common. Random (Rep reducing) murder is not.

Goblin Squad Member

Drakhan Valane wrote:
Harvest, trade, and crafting are supposed to be common. Random (Rep reducing) murder is not.

Being did not mention "random", nor "rep reducing". Murder can also apply to assassination, and that will always be meaningful and interesting.

Robbery is supposed to be quite common in fact, if you re read the Dev Blog on outpost raids. Outpost raiding is designed to be the most common form of PvP, according to the DevBlog.

I find it comical that you favorited a post based on its flawed context, without having thought it through. I don't really think Being had thought it through either, he was just trying to be witty.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
Harvest, trade, and crafting are supposed to be common. Random (Rep reducing) murder is not.

Being did not mention "random", nor "rep reducing". Murder can also apply to assassination, and that will always be meaningful and interesting.

Robbery is supposed to be quite common in fact, if you re read the Dev Blog on outpost raids. Outpost raiding is designed to be the most common form of PvP, according to the DevBlog.

I find it comical that you favorited a post based on its flawed context, without having thought it through. I don't really think Being had thought it through either, he was just trying to be witty.

I think that what Being meant was that if murder is common enough, it tends to become less meaningful or interesting to the victim. You know The Victim, the part of your philosophy that doesn't matter?

Goblin Squad Member

Something tells me Being probably did think it through, and he probably chose the word "murder" carefully. At least, when I read what he wrote, I get the impression he's talking about "murder" in the sense of "unjustified killing". I doubt he intended to include the concept of "no Rep loss", and I doubt he would care if it were "random". To me, anyway, the statement stands well on its own, and I agree with it.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
I think that what Being meant was that if murder is common enough, it tends to become less meaningful or interesting to the victim. You know The Victim, the part of your philosophy that doesn't matter?

It actually doesn't matter to the victim, regardless of the attacker's motivation. The victim will always see it as a loss, and not like it.

When I fall victim to PvP, I don't ponder for a second, why I got attacked? I immediately think of what I did wrong and how I need to prepare for the next time. I often try to contact the character that just killed me and ask them, what could I have done differently. You might be surprised at how helpful they will generally be.

It is for that reason that I would always be helpful to a victim of mine, who requests such advice. For the rest that don't think to do so, or who just whine about their loss, you are correct..... They don't matter in my calculations of meaningful or interesting.

Goblin Squad Member

If robbery becomes commonplace then it becomes drudgery to play your victim. You and your gang or others like them spring out of nowhere and proceed to make virtual life miserable for anyone moving goods. The cost of transporting valuables escalates uncontrollably because the guards need more money to equip as the weaponry and armor grow more expensive. Nobody tries to move anywhere because at every turn in the road there's Bluddwolf trying to play local bully. It becomes commonplace and unremarkable. Not fun. Bothersome. Grueling.

Your contention that the economy depends on banditry is dangerously skewed by your interest in imagining it needed. It isn't needed. There should be plenty to do were banditry rare. War. Negotiation. Trade wars. Building a town. Managing escalations. Interacting with other players in meaningful ways. Plenty to do besides dealing with those who would rather take than earn. Parasites at the neck of civilization.

Banditry should be a significant and meaningful event, not something you can predict on any given day.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Being wrote:
As soon as robbery and murder become common they stop being meaningful or interesting.
That could more easily be said of harvesting, trade, and crafting. Robbery and murder (PvP combat in general) is almost always situationally different, has elements of timing and luck, and the outcome is never guaranteed.

Not really. the race to produce more goods for less or superior goods for more is an ongoing race that many people enjoy. The competing parties to voluntary transactions both benefit, at least until someone wins and someone loses but even that is a process that can span months and years.

Banditry is not as essential to good gameplay as you seem to think. Yes, having to hire guards should benefit the economy. At the same time making it a punishing experience to even try is not going to play out well for you bandits either. If you fish a hole dry then where will you find more fish?

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
Banditry should be a significant and meaningful event, not something you can predict on any given day.

Pretty much agree. I would not like to see banditry as "rare". A little more than "uncommon" (on average) would probably make the game palatable. Of course, "spikes" in local activity would spice things nicely, every so often.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
When I fall victim to PvP, I don't ponder for a second, why I got attacked? I immediately think of what I did wrong and how I need to prepare for the next time. I often try to contact the character that just killed me and ask them, what could I have done differently. You might be surprised at how helpful they will generally be.

Bingo.

If you are dieting constantly, you are doing something wrong. You need to asses the situation, see what wen't wrong, and see what you can do to improve your self.

If you are not built around PVP, why would expect not to die if you go wandering in the wilds?

There is these hexes, they are protected by NPC Marshals, these hexes are where you play if you don't want the threat of death looming over your head. I don't know what happened in the six months I wasn't really following things, but now there seems to be this idea that you should be able to wander the entire map and not expect to get attacked, and the idea of 'only carry what you are willing to lose,' has gone out the window.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
I often try to contact the character that just killed me and ask them, what could I have done differently. You might be surprised at how helpful they will generally be.

In my limited experience in EVE, I did this exact thing and I will say that every time I did (which may have only be ~ 6 times total) the perpetrator was always willing to give me pointers. They’d say things like “don’t do x next time” or “try this next time”. It was very helpful for me in those cases and made me “better” at what I was doing. In most cases, the perpetrator was surprised I was not all P-O-ed at them and they’d say so, I guess when most folks get killed they lash out, if they reach out at all.

Anyway, for those folks who want to engage in this type of thing in PFO I would say be open to providing that feedback to your victims, and for those who are victims, I would encourage you to reach out to the character that killed you and ask why and what you can do better next time (as Bluddwolf indicates).

I think many of the bandit types (the “respectable” ones anyway; so to speak!) want their victims to be more challenging, and at least form my very limited experience in EVE they are willing to provide the feedback to help you get better and not be the victim next time.

Goblin Squad Member

Valkenr wrote:
If you are not built around PVP, why would expect not to die if you go wandering in the wilds?

Why would I expect to be killed if I am carrying nothing of value and I am just “wandering” around to see the sites? Maybe I want to see what that mountain range looks like. Maybe I’m scouting for dragons to fight.

If I’m poking around in some area that you don’t want me in, hail me and tell me to leave or else. Why just sneak up on me a smoke me?

I know one reason may be that you think perhaps I'm spying. I think hailing me and telling me to leave helps address that, somewhat.

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
Banditry is not as essential to good gameplay as you seem to think. Yes, having to hire guards should benefit the economy. At the same time making it a punishing experience to even try is not going to play out well for you bandits either. If you fish a hole dry then where will you find more fish?

We move to a new hole before the fishing spot runs dry. This point has been made by The Goodfellow and I on several occasions.

I have witnessed, several High Sec Wars in EvE due to the over mining of nearby low sec asteroid fields. Never did the Indy corporations take responsibility for starting the wars, as if resource exploitation was their right. But they certainly whined a lot after their 4th consecutive week of War Dec'ing. They usually end up abandoning the low sec systems in question, at least that is what I had seen on several occasions.

The point is, both parties (harvesters and bandits) can over "mine" or over "fish" their local pond.

Goblin Squad Member

Lone_Wolf wrote:
Valkenr wrote:
If you are not built around PVP, why would expect not to die if you go wandering in the wilds?

Why would I expect to be killed if I am carrying nothing of value and I am just “wandering” around to see the sites? Maybe I want to see what that mountain range looks like. Maybe I’m scouting for dragons to fight.

If I’m poking around in some area that you don’t want me in, hail me and tell me to leave or else. Why just sneak up on me a smoke me?

I know one reason may be that you think perhaps I'm spying. I think hailing me and telling me to leave helps address that, somewhat.

I think in most cases, contrary to Ryan's believe, solo explorers or even harvesters will be fairly safe from professional banditry.

If you are solo and are ganked by bandits in a territory that the UNC is operating in, feel free to drop us the name of the person(s). We will shoo them off, train them, absorb them or kill them. I'd of course prefer to absorb or at least train them.

Goblin Squad Member

Valkenr wrote:
... there seems to be this idea that you should be able to wander the entire map and not expect to get attacked...

Perhaps you should take a closer look at people's actual concerns rather than relying on someone else's dismissive mischaracterizations of them.

[Edit] I think that this kind of "advice" isn't really helpful. There are a lot of folks who really don't like being "randomly killed". Ryan has made clear that "randomly killing other players" in PFO is going to be linked to gimping your character. Instead of chastising these folks about how they're somehow less manly than you because they can't take it, try to engage them positively and get them to open up about what they do think is acceptable. You might actually change some folks' minds and make some friends or even guildmates in the process...

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
Banditry is not as essential to good gameplay as you [Bluddwolf] seem to think. Yes, having to hire guards should benefit the economy. At the same time making it a punishing experience to even try is not going to play out well for you bandits either. If you fish a hole dry then where will you find more fish?

I think this is in the same vein as Ryan's observation that it's easy to write AI that can win every time, but the trick is to write AI that's engaging to players so they keep coming back. The value of Bandits, in my opinion, has nothing to do with the economy, but rather has everything to do with making PFO an engaging game - if there's no risk in transporting goods, there's no value in it.

So, then it becomes a question of "how much risk?" Obviously, there will be a lot of variance in different parts of the map, but I think the default assumption should be that it's like going into a level-appropriate Theme Park Dungeon - if you're solo, you're going to die. If you're in a really good group, you'll probably do well, but that's not guaranteed.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Valkenr wrote:
... there seems to be this idea that you should be able to wander the entire map and not expect to get attacked...

Perhaps you should take a closer look at people's actual concerns rather than relying on someone else's dismissive mischaracterizations of them.

[Edit] I think that this kind of "advice" isn't really helpful. There are a lot of folks who really don't like being "randomly killed". Ryan has made clear that "randomly killing other players" in PFO is going to be linked to gimping your character. Instead of chastising these folks about how they're somehow less manly than you because they can't take it, try to engage them positively and get them to open up about what they do think is acceptable. You might actually change some folks' minds and make some friends or even guildmates in the process...

Emphasis mine.

Valkenr is currently guildless? I had no idea.

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Charlie George wrote:
Valkenr is currently guildless?

I can't imagine why you'd assume that. Valkenr is, like me, a Steward of The Seventh Veil. It seemed clear to me I was encouraging him to try to consider the fact that the people he's engaging might become friends, or even guildmates.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Valkenr wrote:
... there seems to be this idea that you should be able to wander the entire map and not expect to get attacked...

Perhaps you should take a closer look at people's actual concerns rather than relying on someone else's dismissive mischaracterizations of them.

[Edit] I think that this kind of "advice" isn't really helpful. There are a lot of folks who really don't like being "randomly killed". Ryan has made clear that "randomly killing other players" in PFO is going to be linked to gimping your character. Instead of chastising these folks about how they're somehow less manly than you because they can't take it, try to engage them positively and get them to open up about what they do think is acceptable. You might actually change some folks' minds and make some friends or even guildmates in the process...

Wasn't Ryan being somewhat dismissive of the possibility of being able to solo and not falling victim of RPKing all of the time?

I was not being dismissive of Valkenr's concerns, I actually support his desire to be a solo explorer or harvester or whatever. I believe that Ryan has overstated the dangers of solo play, if proper precautions or actions are taken.

Wasn't it Ryan who pointed out your somewhat mischaracterization of the game, potentially creating the idea that PFO will be safer than it actually will be. Or that the multi layered systems to control player behaviors will all be in place and all work perfectly as intended.

I'd rather error on saying that systems will not be in place, than they will be.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Pax Charlie George wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Valkenr wrote:
... there seems to be this idea that you should be able to wander the entire map and not expect to get attacked...

Perhaps you should take a closer look at people's actual concerns rather than relying on someone else's dismissive mischaracterizations of them.

[Edit] I think that this kind of "advice" isn't really helpful. There are a lot of folks who really don't like being "randomly killed". Ryan has made clear that "randomly killing other players" in PFO is going to be linked to gimping your character. Instead of chastising these folks about how they're somehow less manly than you because they can't take it, try to engage them positively and get them to open up about what they do think is acceptable. You might actually change some folks' minds and make some friends or even guildmates in the process...

Emphasis mine.

Valkenr is currently guildless? I had no idea.

I can't imagine why you'd assume that. Valkenr is, like me, a Steward of The Seventh Veil. It seemed clear to me I was encouraging him to try to consider the fact that the people he's engaging might become friends, or even guildmates.

It was less clear to me, which is why I posed the question. Thanks for the clarification :)

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
I was not being dismissive of Valkenr's concerns, I actually support his desire to be a solo explorer or harvester or whatever.

That's some industrial strength misreading you've got going on there...

Bluddwolf wrote:
Wasn't it Ryan who pointed out your somewhat mischaracterization of the game...

If Ryan named any names, I don't recall. I certainly don't recall him calling me out personally. Not to say I haven't tried to follow his lead on it....

Bluddwolf wrote:
I'd rather error on saying that systems will not be in place, than they will be.

I'm at a complete loss to understand how this relates to anything I said.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Wasn't Ryan being somewhat dismissive of the possibility of being able to solo and not falling victim of RPKing all of the time?

Here's the post in question. I've highlighted some important bits.

I'm increasingly worried that the messages coming out of the community don't match what will actually happen in game, and the disconnect between what people hear, and what they experience, will cause blowback. So I'm trying to be blunt when asked this question directly:

"Will I get killed regularly in Pathfinder Online by other players?"

The answer to this question is "yes you will".

American football is not a game about tackling, but tackling happens on almost every play. Pathfinder Online is not a game about killing other players, but your character will be killed by other players regularly.

Pathfinder Online is a game about conflict. One mode of conflict is combat. It will be the primary mode of conflict as Early Enrollment begins. Suggesting otherwise creates a false impression of what the game will be like that will potentially cause a huge problem as we launch.

Our goal, as developers, and our goal, as a community, needs to be to work to make those conflicts meaningful rather than random, and we need to work to identify, and remove, players who only want to inflict meaningless deaths on other players "just for the lulz". But we owe it to ourselves and to the game to be upfront and honest when people ask us if they're going to face character death at the hands of other players. Because they will.

I think it would be really helpful if you, Bluddwolf, would stop pretending that not wanting to get killed randomly all the time is the same thing as not wanting to ever get killed.

There are a lot of folks who are willing to embrace a game with non-consensual PvP, but they're very concerned about it degenerating into a random gank-fest. I'd like to engage those folks, try to present as honest and realistic picture of PFO as I can, and encourage them to give Goblinworks their money.

Telling them how you found happiness in a random gank-fest, and how they can find happiness in random gank-fests too, isn't going to do much good.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:
Being wrote:
Banditry is not as essential to good gameplay as you seem to think. Yes, having to hire guards should benefit the economy. At the same time making it a punishing experience to even try is not going to play out well for you bandits either. If you fish a hole dry then where will you find more fish?

We move to a new hole before the fishing spot runs dry. This point has been made by The Goodfellow and I on several occasions.

I have witnessed, several High Sec Wars in EvE due to the over mining of nearby low sec asteroid fields. Never did the Indy corporations take responsibility for starting the wars, as if resource exploitation was their right. But they certainly whined a lot after their 4th consecutive week of War Dec'ing. They usually end up abandoning the low sec systems in question, at least that is what I had seen on several occasions.

The point is, both parties (harvesters and bandits) can over "mine" or over "fish" their local pond.

So, if they fight in the court of public opinion and lose, they don't understand what's happening?

The ones that didn't abandon the contested territory presumably won the war, or came to a negotiated peace.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
We move to a new hole before the fishing spot runs dry. This point has been made by The Goodfellow and I on several occasions.

If you think your outfit will be the only fishermen you are kidding yourselves. There will be many. Many.

And if you disbelieve and do not work to moderate the end result you will discover that carelessness loves to cook geese golden.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
I think in most cases, contrary to Ryan's believe, solo explorers or even harvesters will be fairly safe from professional banditry.

I do agree with this. I still do think there will be groups out there that will gank folks, though. And I think, unfortunately (and likely in other games), people can't necessarily tell the difference between being taken by professionals vs. being ganked, which is something we as a community (all of us, "good", "evil", "lawful", "chaotic") need to be diligent at policing our own ranks in order to make PFO the different MMO experience that the devs (and me, as well as I am sure a lot of us) want it to be.

Bluddwolf wrote:

If you are solo and are ganked by bandits in a territory that the UNC is operating in, feel free to drop us the name of the person(s). We will shoo them off, train them, absorb them or kill them. I'd of course prefer to absorb or at least train them.

I appreciate that offer, Bluddwolf. In my opinion, that is exactly the type of thing we need to be doing collectively as a community in order to make PFO different. I want you and your like minded mates out there doing what you do. It makes the game challenging, it makes it fun. It makes me better at what I do, it makes me think, I like that. It is invigorating for the game. I don't want griefers out there. If folks like you help take these folks in an train them how to be "good" bad guys (hopefully you know what I mean), PFO will be successful at its goal.


Nihimon wrote:


I think it would be really helpful if you, Bluddwolf, would stop pretending that not wanting to get killed randomly all the time is the same thing as not wanting to ever get killed.

There are a lot of folks who are willing to embrace a game with non-consensual PvP, but they're very concerned about it degenerating into a random gank-fest. I'd like to engage those folks, try to present as honest and realistic picture of PFO as I can, and encourage them to give Goblinworks their money.

Telling them how you found happiness in a random gank-fest, and how they can find happiness in random gank-fests too, isn't going to do much good.

So from this page of the thread alone: No random killing. No commonplace killing. Nothing that isn't fun. Nothing that isn't bothersome. Nothing that isn't gruelling. Nothing that isn't meaningful. Nothing that isn't interesting. Nothing that isn't significant.

Anything else?

Goblin Squad Member

Nice avatar, Monty! ;-)

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
..Telling them how you found happiness in a random gank-fest, and how they can find happiness in random gank-fests too, isn't going to do much good..

Not sure what you definition of "random" is. Targets are almost never selected randomly, as a matter of fact, "selection" removes all randomness.

51 to 100 of 164 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Alignment and Reputation in PvP All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.