Goblin Squad Member
|
Does this idea have merit?
Limit new Characters to only being able to carry Tier 1 Resources and Gear, and limit their inventory space such that they can't carry a large quantity of either. While these limitations are in effect, color-code the Character's name in cyan or light green or something as a true signal to other players that they aren't carrying valuable resources. Have the process that removes these limitations come with a severe warning that they will now be much more likely to be killed by bandits who will reasonably conclude they might have valuable resources on them. Do not allow free accounts to remove these limitations. Otherwise, the game systems would treat them exactly the same as other Characters.
I think this would go a long way towards realizing Ryan's goal:
I'm especially concerned with ensuring that new players are able to learn how to play the game, gain some mastery of basic gameplay features, have some fun, and have a great experience without having to worry about someone intentionally ruining it for them by scamming them, killing them, taunting them, or otherwise disrupting their attention which should be focused on dealing with the sensory overload of going into a new virtual world.
I'm secondarily concerned with ensuring that people who choose a low risk / low reward course of play are able to do so without regular interruption by those seeking to gain enjoyment from interfering with them as they go about their business.
I think that new players coming to PFO will be much more likely to take death in stride if it isn't repeatedly thrust upon them as they first begin to move away from the "secure areas". I think that having a true signal to other players that they aren't carrying valuable resources will further discourage what will otherwise feel like "random killing" to them. And I think they'll feel more in control by actively choosing to forego that pseudo-protection by accepting a severe warning that what they're doing is going to make them much more likely to be killed by bandits.
This seems like a very simple thing to implement, especially if it's agreed that no other systems would need to reference this status. And I think it's a natural and acceptable way to limit free accounts with a minimal level of development effort.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sounds interesting. I have two questions: what do you mean with free account? Or do you mean free character who is currently not accumulating xp?
Also, at what point should a player not be able to use this mechanic anymore? I.E. would cross a treshold of power that he can not hide behind a cyan nametag.
I think it is important to talk about restrictions for free characters, since they could pose a huge problem imo. Your proposal could tie into this very well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like the idea of mechanics designed to limit or prevent pvp on newbies, but I'm not sure I'm behind hard coding inventory limitations as the way to do it. Just seems a little ad hoc and artificial to me.
Besides, if the goal is to protect new players there's not much reason to think that a lowbie is going to have anything valuable on him anyway. Lowbie alts may be more likely to carry valuables, but alts are less likely to be attached to new players.
Just my 2c. I like the spirit of the proposal I'm just not quite behind the mechanism.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... what do you mean with free account?
Intentionally left that vague :)
I mean whatever Ryan ends up deciding to do with the "Free Trial" accounts/characters.
... at what point should a player not be able to use this mechanic anymore?
Unintentionally left that vague :(
I had intended to say something about Characters being capped in how much XP they can accrue while this status is in effect. I would also add that the status change should be irrevocable.
... hide behind a cyan nametag.
Just riffing off that wording, I wanted it to be very clear that it's not something you can "hide" behind, because there would be no mechanical effects for keeping the cyan nametag. No one would take extra Rep Loss for killing you. It's simply a true signal that you're not carrying valuable resources, and that you're not very powerful. Other players would be perfectly free to kill you just like any other character.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like the idea of mechanics designed to limit or prevent pvp on newbies, but I'm not sure I'm behind hard coding inventory limitations as the way to do it.
I want to be very clear that this is not meant to "prevent" PvP at all. It's simply a true signal to other players. Those players can heed or ignore that signal at will. I'd like to think that most other players would generally ignore players like this, but I wouldn't want any game systems to force them to do so, or to punish them for not doing so.
My reasons for limiting inventory space are to ensure that the "true signal" is actually true - that they're actually not carrying valuable resources. If "new players" can carry large quantities of Tier 1 resources, then they're legitimately valuable targets and reasonable bandits would have good cause to attack them.
I also believe it's valuable to give players a strong incentive to actively accept more risk in order to receive better rewards. By making it something the player actively chooses, I believe there's a much greater chance that they'll be more understanding when they're attacked in the future. People like to feel like they're in control, and I think this very simple process would give new players that feeling.
Thanks for your feedback :)
[Edit] This is meant to reduce what will feel like "random PvP" to new players who might not understand that they're legitimate targets because they might be transporting valuable resources.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd recommend considering the proposal for merit with something completely different as my objective.
Most in-game gold spam is performed by either disposable characters or customer-victim characters being power-levelled by these shady 'service' organizations. We won't have to worry about power-leveling in PFO due to the time-based advancement system.
Color coding alsoby account net worth (in-game) might remove any artificial camouflage for these criminals.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nihimon / Tyncale
... what do you mean with free account ... Also, at what point should a player not be able to use this mechanic anymore? I.E. would cross a threshold of power that he can not hide behind a cyan nametag
Free account: I know EVE has a 14 (21 for refer a friend) trial account that likely best represents comparable system for PFO to possibly implement. Should PFO decide to offer some sort of free account, although I don't think free is what Ryan envisions from reading about micro transactions, it likely won't be until a few months after Open Enrollment. Trial accounts are a proven method to increase player base.
New player: determining a "new player" is highly subjective. Some people pickup gameplay quicker than others. Since there are no levels (like in WoW) and Skill Points are gained while offline, metrics are a bit harder to quantify. I believe the Early Enrollment players would have to be the measuring stick. I also recall something about a "Guide program" mentioned somewhere on this message board. Having Alpha and Beta players assist Goblin Works in creating an in-game / out-of-game tutorial will also allow new players to increase their rate of proficiency. A notification could be tied to the "new player", so they realize when they are leaving safer areas. A "WARNING" when leaving NPC settlements, but still on NPC roads, and "DANGER" when going into the wilds.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Color coding alsoby account net worth (in-game) might remove any artificial camouflage for these criminals.
I would be strongly opposed to any system which limited one character based on the status of other characters on the same account. All this will do is cause ne'er-do-wells to use different accounts, thereby further reducing their accountability.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes, I like the fact that your proposal does not give real immunity to PvP. But I think that once the cyan nametag is being associated firmly with a newbie, that some may keep using it maybe as a sort of aggressive mimicry: predators mimicking their prey in order to lull them into a false sense of safety. :)
Or just hide behind it hoping a potential attacker will be conditioned enough to not give cyan names a second glance.
I think the moment a player becomes a member of a player-settlement, and starts to harvest in hexes other then the ones surrounding the NPC towns, his Cyan name should be dropped. Else player settlements may start to use Cyan Alts to do the low level harvesting in relative safety. Though I guess seeing a Cyan name far away from the NPC cities may already rise a few eyebrows anyway. And possibly a weapon. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... predators mimicking their prey...
I would hope GW would factor this into their analysis of individual cases of alleged griefing.
... I guess seeing a Cyan name far away from the NPC cities may already rise a few eyebrows...
That's why it's important there not be any mechanical benefits or protections associated with this status. It's simply a signal to other players, who can heed or ignore it at will, with no additional consequences.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
As I understand it, this proposal would provide additional information to predatory characters and make it easier for them to ignore low-value targets, but would not apply any additional penalties to the attacker (other than potential social repercussions).
I think that explorer-style players would be the biggest beneficiaries, able to signal their low value despite being distant from core areas.
The next big beneficiary would be players of characters who wish to selectively target higher-value characters. Being able to exclude a significant number of characters from "high value" allows them to focus on the smaller number and improve their ROI.
I'm not sure how to quantify the cost of making the UI more complicated and harder to understand.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Color coding alsoby account net worth (in-game) might remove any artificial camouflage for these criminals.I would be strongly opposed to any system which limited one character based on the status of other characters on the same account. All this will do is cause ne'er-do-wells to use different accounts, thereby further reducing their accountability.
If the account net worth is high they aren't newbs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This sort of thing has been used to good effect in other games. When you begin a character in Final Fantasy XI Online, your character has a question mark (?) beside their nameplate, denoting that they are a newb. This mark drops off at a certain level (can't recall what, probably 5 or 10) OR can be manually turned off by the player.
I think it has additional benefits besides potentially countering 'newb-ganking': it would also allow benefactors, mentors, and guild recruiters to more easily identify new players.
I don't have any ideas for work-arounds to the raised problems with the system, I just wanted to mention that it is done and can be beneficial to a game.
Daz
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just want to point out that while the cyan name would signal a character fresh off the boat that may not have much value, it also signals them as an easy kill. Some people just like to kill others and this is a big arrow saying "come get me!"
Without this cyan name flag the newbie may be attacked more often but the attacker also won't have a beacon to draw toward.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's easy to limit trial accounts.
In EVE you have a 14 day trial, but you must have a pilot license(subscription) to train anything outside of the basic abilities.
I wouldn't identify low value targets, I would identify high value targets. No special UI things like name color, but a person with a large backpack, or cart of some sort would be considered value to rob.
I can't see, and would prefer, that individual player will be able to carry substantial quantities of anything without special containers or transportation that are obviously identifiable.
There should be no real benefit to leaving 'Marshall' protected territory, until you character has been training for a while. Everything you can do for the first month or so should be found there.
It would be interesting to have a 'treasure sniffer' type of magic ability, that gives a player some sort of indication of the value of a target based on local markets.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the account net worth is high they aren't newbs.Color coding alsoby account net worth (in-game) might remove any artificial camouflage for these criminals.I would be strongly opposed to any system which limited one character based on the status of other characters on the same account. All this will do is cause ne'er-do-wells to use different accounts, thereby further reducing their accountability.
Your goal seems to be to identify players who "aren't newbs". However, this test will only identify players who "aren't newbs" and "aren't pretending to be newbs". It will not identify players who "aren't newbs" but "are pretending to be newbs". The latter seems to be the ones you're actually concerned about, so the test is largely useless in identifying the folks you're concerned with identifying.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't know about the account part of this idea..... As for the labeling the valueless target, maybe some bandit skill or hideout ability might do that.
I'd rather have to train a skill than to rely on a game mechanic. If I am not consistent in this, then I fall into hypocrisy myself.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't know about the account part of this idea..... As for the labeling the valueless target, maybe some bandit skill or hideout ability might do that.
I'd rather have to train a skill than to rely on a game mechanic. If I am not consistent in this, then I fall into hypocrisy myself.
I agree with this...
It would also have the side effect of keeping griefers from having a quick and easy way of picking out who is least capable of defending themselves (not that I think Bludd would use it for this purpose), provided it required a few prereqs to learn.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Your goal seems to be to identify players who "aren't newbs". However, this test will only identify players who "aren't newbs" and "aren't pretending to be newbs". It will not identify players who "aren't newbs" but "are pretending to be newbs". The latter seems to be the ones you're actually concerned about, so the test is largely useless in identifying the folks you're concerned with identifying.If the account net worth is high they aren't newbs.Color coding alsoby account net worth (in-game) might remove any artificial camouflage for these criminals.I would be strongly opposed to any system which limited one character based on the status of other characters on the same account. All this will do is cause ne'er-do-wells to use different accounts, thereby further reducing their accountability.
Not really. My goal is to inhibit whatever will be the equivalent of gold spammers from simply starting up new accounts to sell X for RL money or what have you and simply create a new account/new characters to continue swamping players with their advertisements when the old account/characters are purged by the mods.
Will there be gold spam? I bet there will be something like it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
New characters will be vulnerable paupers no bandit would look twice at. A new character with oodles of <valuables> is fair game. The account may be new but the entity operating that character is not. A bandit should rightly prefer to exact a profitable vengeance for the rest of us with as few repercussions as possible within the limits of the rules.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm all for making the life of goldsellers as difficult as possible, but this doesn't seem to be the best way to do it. I'd rather let GMs in starting areas flag them as criminals and let the players finish them off. In player settlements, the players could flag a spammer as a criminal. If GM support is an issue, they could always implement something like the Warden program in Star Wars Galaxies, where SOE-appointed players could silence any spammer until a GM could review the chat logs and ban as appropriate.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Gold sellers are often-shady organizations which go about making as much gold in-game as they can (usually through the use of bots) and then selling that gold for cash. Most times this behavior is not sanctioned by the developing company, which results in it being a sort of "black market" where the deals are cut to trade the cash outside of the game. This is a bad thing because it leads to a greater potential for scam artists and identity thieves to do their business. A more minor problem caused is that gold farming can often mess up the in-game economy and bloat the prices of all items.
The system of Goblin Balls will help reduce the issues associated with gold farming, because someone who wants to spend real money for gold can buy Goblin Balls to sell other people. This means they won't have to go to some shady third party to buy gold.
What this means for us is this: if you get rich in-game, you can play for free by buying all your Goblin Balls for in-game money. However, you shouldn't expect to convert in-game money into cash (or at least your average player shouldn't. I'm not an expert on these things so I dunno if people will still find a way to make money here).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I find myself rather fond of this idea.
I would emphasize the limitations of being part of such a valueless group. Not being able to train past a certain point, not being able to accumulate wealth or belongings beyond a minimal amount. Other things could be applied as well, such as reduction in alignment recovery towards base and/or longer flag durations.
It could accomplish the goal of making a character simply less (less valuable, less effective, less likely to commit crime), while still being of low value to those attempting to clothe themselves in sheep.
I don't see any reason why a player should be forced out of this valueless state until they choose to leave it, but inside of that state they could play a rather low yield character for as long as they wanted.
Naturally, whenever they wanted to step out into the real world they could, but I agree that they should never be able to go back.
Good thinking Nihimon!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The best way for players to learn how to play a game and the dangers involved, is not to give them special treatment. Especially not special treatment that announces to everyone else how weak and easy to kill they are.
What makes a player a newb is ignorance, not gear or levels. Provide easy access to pertinent information and they will be able to make informed decisions. For example have players start with a journal of some local Pathfinder in their inventory. In it will be information about surviving in the River Kingdoms.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The best way for players to learn how to play a game and the dangers involved, is not to give them special treatment.
If that were universally true, then there wouldn't be such a strong negative reaction by so many players against "open PvP" games. The goal is to make players feel more in control of their risk-exposure.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This game won't be for everyone and that is ok. If someone can't handle playing a game with Open PvP then coloring their name for a bit won't change that. There are already consequences such as alignment and bounties to not kill other players without good reason. The kind of people that are going to ignore the consequences and kill others for no reason other than they get off on it, will love a mechanic to tell them who the easy to grief newbs are.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If someone can't handle playing a game with Open PvP then coloring their name for a bit won't change that.
That seems to imply that liking or not liking Open PvP is an inherent, and not a learned, characteristic. It feels as if some temporary "protection" could aid people in discovering whether it's an acquired taste for them, possibly mitigating a knee-jerk reaction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If someone can't handle playing a game with Open PvP then coloring their name for a bit won't change that.That seems to imply that liking or not liking Open PvP is an inherent, and not a learned, characteristic.
This! My goal is to increase the likelihood of new players learning to accept and enjoy the meaningful PvP in PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This! My goal is to increase the likelihood of new players learning to accept and enjoy the meaningful PvP in PFO.If someone can't handle playing a game with Open PvP then coloring their name for a bit won't change that.That seems to imply that liking or not liking Open PvP is an inherent, and not a learned, characteristic.
An admirable goal, but how does hanging a "kill me" sign on them help that? We can live in Fantasyland and believe that players will see the cyan name and move on to more valuable targets, but I think we all know that a certain percentage of players will see that cyan name and take it as a license to provide a beat down on someone who is unlikely to effectively fight back. That is neither enjoyable to the victim or meaningful to both parties.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And those certain percentage of players are easily identified as griefers, if they have a consistent history of targeting people labelled with "newbie" signs.
I think without the newbie flag, you'll have both griefers (a very small subset of the population) and regular players killing newbs, as the regular players have no way of knowing this guy's worth. With the flag you'll only have griefers killing newbs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And those certain percentage of players are easily identified as griefers, if they have a consistent history of targeting people labelled with "newbie" signs.
I think without the newbie flag, you'll have both griefers (a very small subset of the population) and regular players killing newbs, as the regular players have no way of knowing this guy's worth. With the flag you'll only have griefers killing newbs.
That implies that there ARE additional consequences (beyond alignment and reputation) for "open PVP". It doesn't seem like part of "the model" for that to be so.
Can you allow open PVP, install consequences for some of it, and then apply those consequences AND identify it as griefing?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That seems to imply that liking or not liking Open PvP is an inherent, and not a learned, characteristic.
That is a valid point. People can certainly change their opinions about such things. I think that presenting the game as is will be the best way to get new players to learn what the game is about. Like I said though, make information readily available. Don't coddle them, make them work for it and they will be better players. I don't know about you, but I don't really want to play this game with players that don't want to put in effort.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And those certain percentage of players are easily identified as griefers, if they have a consistent history of targeting people labelled with "newbie" signs.
I think without the newbie flag, you'll have both griefers (a very small subset of the population) and regular players killing newbs, as the regular players have no way of knowing this guy's worth. With the flag you'll only have griefers killing newbs.
That implies that there ARE additional consequences (beyond alignment and reputation) for "open PVP". It doesn't seem like part of "the model" for that to be so.
Can you allow open PVP, install consequences for some of it, and then apply those consequences AND identify it as griefing?
The model didn't suggest there wouldn't be "consequences". The model advised that there didn't need to be "mechanics".
It seems perfectly reasonable to me that mods investigating claims of "griefing" would weigh this status along with all the other factors they weigh when making their decision.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As a factor in the measure of whether a player is a griefer or not, I am all for reputation weighing in. Always have been. That does not dismiss the reality that there are plenty of ways to have high reputation and grief also.
To be clear, I have no objection or good to reason fight against your proposal. It could help more experienced players avoid unknowingly killing newer players. That is good for those that care. I believe that (overall) it would reduce that happening. Players that do not care (hopefully a small percentage) will be targeting anyone that they think they can beat. It won't make much difference if you are tagged "new" or not to them. So, it would probably work out to "the good", in the finale count.
Using your proposal as a tool to identify greifers was not part of the original post. Unless I missed something?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Using your proposal as a tool to identify greifers was not part of the original post.That wasn't its purpose, but it seems reasonable to think the mods would use all the information they had, and it seems unreasonable to think they would ignore this status completely.
Fair enough. I feel like I am about in the same park that you are concerning the issues inherent in an "open PVP" game. That it be attractive to those not thrilled with PVP. That it allow PVP, yet make it meaningful and "matter" more to those that usually don't like it. That tentative players realize: if you want a different experience HERE, there will be some built in, but you might also need to approach the game a bit differently.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Correct me if I am mistaken.
You're exploring the borders of the arbitrary-and-capricious GMing we'll have. I, for one, choose to trust that GW will recognise their incentives to very carefully watch their community...and to listen to us.
One polite person may not be enough to offset other voices, activity logs, personal observation by a GM...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Correct me if I am mistaken.You're exploring the borders of the arbitrary-and-capricious GMing we'll have. I, for one, choose to trust that GW will recognise their incentives to very carefully watch their community...and to listen to us.
One polite person may not be enough to offset other voices, activity logs, personal observation by a GM...
Hehe. You got me before I deleted. There are plenty of reasons/cases where what I had written will (hopefully) be so hard a "Digital Life" that it will be exceedingly rare.
In short: It was not a worthy post/pout.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Another point that has been nagging and finally gelled: I certainly don't want casual readers to get any wrong impression about the PVP. As far as I have seen, there is no reason to believe that a character that runs around and kills everything he can, for the lootz, and has a -10,000 reputation will get banned. Especially if he is always polite in chat.
Correct me if I am mistaken. I will feel better if you do...
I think we owe it to the community to be clear to new players that they will be killed a lot by other players. I think Goblinworks wants to reduce random player-killing, but I think it would be catastrophic if they tried to eliminate it.
I also think there will be lots of players who embrace being Chaotic and Evil and Low Reputation. As Ryan has said, they'll cope. And they won't be ineffective, either.
The difference in PFO, I think, is that players won't be forced to adopt that kind of play style in order to be effective. That leaves more room for "the good guys" and (hopefully, eventually) room for folks who want to focus their characters on PvE content.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hehe. You got me before I deleted.Apparently, I did too.
In short: It was not a worthy post/pout.I disagree, and hope you don't mind if it lives on, even if it's only a quote in my response.
Let it live on. Let it be a springboard for responses that offer reasons/examples showing WHY that will be a manageable condition of the game world. If players decide to use the tools provided AND their own effort to MAKE it manageable, that is.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Something worth considering is that adding a newb flag with restrictions as discussed above is not coddling anyone. It's the even playing field that everyone would start with and only when players feel comfortable taking things to an advanced level of play would they discard this starting status to join a more dynamic level of gameplay.
The only way you'd have people disguising themselves as newbs is by literally never taking off the training wheels and holding themselves back.
While not strictly necessary, players would figure out the metagame for this one way or another, it would be an incredibly useful tool to have in place for easing new players into a comparatively chaotic (read: unsheltered) experience. Us backers more or less know what we're getting into, we're looking forward to it for the most part.. but that's not to say that fresh blood isn't going to be daunted by their first few steps out of their favorite theme park and into the wilds.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Put a time/skill/?? limit on newbie means that at some point they move on. I believe it was also proposed there was material/arms/areas that could not be carried with the newbies flag. Carry it ant newbie no more. It should also include go into certain areas/zone. "advance into ##.## and lose newbie protections." In no way should carry on if entering into "combat in progress" zones.