Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm making this my pre-EE project. The goal is for a final product before EE is playable.
This is completely separate from The Roseblood Accord.
There is no proposed text of it yet, but this post is a summary of the idea and place to collaborate on it.
This is going to be an agreement, based on good will between fellow gamers rather than parsing semantics, that acknowledges there are certain actions that players can make their characters do outside the intended game design and expectations of a territory and resource based RPG that unduly inhibit the ability of other players to have fun, and those actions don't have a place in our gaming time.
Our characters can be Good or Evil, paladin or assassin, raid, plot, rob, vanquish, rescue, and war as characters in fantasy games do.
We, as actual people behind keyboards playing a game with our recreational time, recognize that there are boundaries to a sandbox and some actions as players are going too far which inhibit the recreational enjoyment of other real people.
Signatories of the accord would agree that 98% of the time we collectively know throwing the sand in other people's eyes when we see it, and agree that shouldn't be a part of our gaming time. Leadership players who act as agents of their companys and settlements to bring those groups of players into the accord agree to promote that mindset of good gamesmanship and staying within the intended bounds of the sandbox in their groups, have some sort of official code of game conduct along those lines for their members, and enact disciplinary measures on their member players if they make their characters act outside the spirit of the accord too often.
If it is the consensus among members that a particular signatory is not doing enough to uphold the spirit of the accord from the in-game actions of the group's members, it may be removed as an active participant of the accord until there is a consensus those issues are resolved. This may become important in the meta game aspect of playing.
------------------
A few points to work out:
1. The Name In my first hashing out of the concept in another thread I called it the Pathfinder Accord as a placeholder name. I don't know if Paizo would want me using THAT name willy nilly. If there is another name in Golarion lore that applies well or something that just sounds cool I'm all for hearing it.
2. Version 2.0 The game itself will go through an evolution of patching, features, player fads, and things to do. I want the accord to be broad and open enough to apply to all the game's incarnations without having to change itself.
3. The Controversial Cases Standing outside of Noobtown ganking day-old characters as they try to walk somewhere for the first time is obviously outside the boundaries of good gamesmanship.
What about 3am calls to siege an in-character-enemies' settlement while most of the players are asleep or otherwise logged out and not present to defend?
Are there times when it's acceptable to kill the same character over and over again? During official feud/war in general? During a specific operation when you need that enemy removed from the target?
The accord is going to avoid specific enumeration of allowable things vs. disallowed for reason 2 above (I actually plan on having it shorter than this post). But I thought it will be constructive to have a few examples of how the spirit of the agreement is applied in grey areas for players considering its merits or potential players worried about a toxic, anything-goes game environment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This sounds like the type of accord that the UNC can stand behind. As I am sure it is well known, at least to those who frequent these forums, the UNC (while bad/evil IC) have every intention of minimizing our negative impact on the community, while still having fun in our chosen role. As a meta accord, we pledge our support and wish to sign up as members. Hopefully there isn't any "hidden requirements" that we are unaware of, and if it turns out to have some, and we find ourselves unable to meet them, we will simply remove our application.
That being said, as members or not, I would like to put our 2 coppers into the pot concerning promoting a happy and overall positive gameplay experience for all. I hope that everyone will take our eagerness to join both this and, formerly, the roseblood accord as a sign of our dedication to the PFO gaming community and our absolute desire to provide meaningful and exciting and positive gameplay for all who play it. We will be bad guys IC, but OOC we are still gamers like everyone else and that is what is important, at least to us at the UNC.
As for a name, I will do some research but as of now I have no submissions.
I also agree that keeping this accord broad and open will allow it to remain valid throughout the years to come without needing constant "revisiting" as the game evolves.
As for controversial cases, this is always a "touchy" subject due to the varied ranged of situations that fall into this category. For now, I will post what is the general opinion of the UNC for those you listed and just in general.
standing outside noobtown ganking day old characters, our view is if you are also day old, it is ok, however, standing there "farming" noobees for fun is not cool. This applies to anyone anywhere, though it varies a lot based on how we can tell each other's "level." If all we can see if gear worn, or the "size" of your pack, then it will have to be assumed that the better gear and bigger pack, the less "noob" the character is. This will have to be a "learned" instance as the game develops and how GW determines what, if anything, we can know by seeing our opponents.
The 3am call to siege a settlement, in the UNC opinion and mine as a player, is a 100% valid tactic. Either those attackers will have to deal with the NPC guards (closed pvp window time frame) or the settlement has an open PVP window and it is there responsibility to defend it. after all, in RL, if you can convince the army to leave the town, by means of a distraction attack or something, then attack the town while it is less defended, that is called tactics. I would expect such tactics to be used regularly.
Killing the same character over and over, most cases, no this is bad. However, there are times when this WILL happen. Such as a battle/war at a settlement, defenders and attackers are both dying over and over and that is to be expected and perfectly fine. Corpse camping in the middle of the woods somewhere, that is bad. If you are harvesting a sky metal hex and the same "solo bandit" is determined to stop you, and you keep killing him, that is fine, he is the one instigating it, not the harvester. flip side of same coin, if a bandit is "patrolling" a sky metal hex and you (harvester) go in there, die, and go back and die again, it is your fault and that is fine. Bring friends or train some better combat skills and better gear, then come back. Same for the bandit.
I hope I have added to this thread with this post. It was a bit longer than I meant to but that happens. Great concept and I hope others see that and join up as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, from everything said on these boards by Bluddwolf and friends, I believe UNC will probably define the edge between 'open pvp sandbox' and negative gameplay.
Anyone taking things 'further' than UNC is likely being a dick, anyone not going as far probably has room to 'improve'.
Yes, I am saying this accord could be called 'The Unnamed Accord'.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am failing to see the point, honestly. There's already one "don't be a dick" agreement. Why is there really a need for another one?
The Roseblood Accord carries a term of working together for mutual benefit. Obviously not every player in the game can be a member or nothing interesting would ever happen. It's effect is more as an in-game alliance. Groups like UNC who want to express their support for good gamesmanship can't join Roseblood because their desired in-character gameplay may frequently be the opposite of benefit to Roseblood members.
This is a purely meta agreement between players that no matter how much our characters and gameplay cooperate or get bored or embroiled in intrigue and conflict, we commit to adhering to the intended game design and expectations that come with a resource and territory based open world pvp sandbox WITHOUT engaging in the kinds of actions that most people credit with making game environments toxic or inhibiting players' ability to have fun by playing as intended.
And to work against those actions in our social groups. Because granting invisibility to others being destructive has about the same final affect on a community as doing those things yourself.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am failing to see the point, honestly. There's already one "don't be a dick" agreement. Why is there really a need for another one?
The other accord calls on characters to play nice together. This one calls on players to do so even if their characters are killing each other.
The difference between character and player in MMOs is huge but seems to be overlooked/misunderstood more often than not. In this case it is the difference between people on a basketball team working together (RA) and players on two opposing teams obeying the principles of good sportsmanship (D'Baja).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the difference between this accord and what the Roseblood Accord is attempting is in what is understood as benefit. It is a difference in values. If 'benefit' is mutually fun gameplay then there is no significant difference between the accords. If 'benefit' is 'advantage' then they're different.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, I am saying this accord could be called 'The Unnamed Accord'.
Yeah? Well I'm saying this should be called the Proxima Sin Is the Most Beautiful, Intelligent, Gracious, Insightful, and Humble Person To Ever Walk the Earth In All History Accord. The good ol' PSITMBIGIAHPTEWTEIAHA.
One thing we can't name it: Honda.
P.S. I have 20 coins for the best recording of someone pronouncing PSITMBIGIAHPTEWTEIAHA.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the interesting opportunity this brings is to unite even warring guilds against those who try to ruin the game.
Let's say some guild joins with the express purpose of making the game un-fun for others by being purposeful jerks (as defined by this). I think it would be cool for us founders to band together against them no matter if they are role-playing LG, N, CE or whatever.
Ruining the game is an attack against us all, and this should be how we set the expectations on behavior in the game (from fellow players.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the interesting opportunity this brings is to unite even warring guilds against those who try to ruin the game.
Let's say some guild joins with the express purpose of making the game un-fun for others by being purposeful jerks (as defined by this). I think it would be cool for us founders to band together against them no matter if they are role-playing LG, N, CE or whatever.
Ruining the game is an attack against us all, and this should be how we set the expectations on behavior in the game (from fellow players.)
That is an interesting metagame consideration and why I threw in something about a consensus being able to exclude a group for not walking the walk.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A discussion appetizer: What to do about a company that joins the accord but the settlement that charters them has not joined. Feuding, warring the settlement as a whole?
A meaty bone discussion: Is it within the boundaries of good gamesmanship in a territorial based game to send a sleeper character into a target group with the explicit intention of gaining the ability to rob or cause harm to the target at a time deemed opportune by the initiating group?
----
My personal take on the other points.
3am attacks - We have to be allowed to attack enemies when we deem them most vulnerable. Each settlement is subject to reciprocal action so it's fair. The presence of vulnerability windows and ability to manage them in relation to growth removes all gray from the issue for me personally.
Repeatedly killing the same character - Arbitrarily chosen, of course not okay. In war or feud in general still not okay with me; you made the point you can consistently kill them there's no need to keep doing it just because the alignment/reputation consequences are removed. If there is a specific action of game design going on (ex. a siege or skymetal mining op) and you need to keep characters away from the target and they keep trying to get to the target, that's about controlling territory and who can be there.
Member company in a non-member settlement - In a meta sense on the company level they are sympatico. But they are choosing to remain sponsored by a non-member settlement so on settlement level meta issues that company loses consideration by association to the larger group.
Spies and sabotage - Need specific info on player structures for a final answer but I'm leaning towards "yes, if you really think it's necessary". It's sneaky to be sure, but if groups are given the mechanics to limit the damage any one character can do it's up to them to organize well and mitigate that risk. Like banditry, spying is something you don't want to happen to you personally but it's understandable in the context of the game as long as players don't go overboard damaging other players' ability to have fun in the aftermath; and that's subjective but 90% of us will agree we know it when we see it.
The way I think of is is how I would play against my friends sitting around a table on game night, certain things would make them not want to be friends anymore and those things should be out of bounds playing with real people online too. Something like that might make it into the final language of the accord, actually.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's always 3am somewhere. There is no question of this being fair or not, it just is. It shouldn't even be part of the discussion.
Somebody is always going to be dealing with attacks in the middle of their night as attacks ARE going to come at all times. This is a worldwide server - if you want to be able to deal with that threat you'll have to recruit worldwide. Otherwise, when that French or Russian or Kiwi or US company attacks, you're going to be in trouble.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
With this being meta, it would make a lot of sense to keep most of the concepts meta as well.
As in,
I will refrain from acting in a way that singles you, another player, out from the pack to engage in actions that will harm your enjoyment of the game. I will also refrain from actions that are widely considered damaging to the enjoyment of players of this game as a whole.
There will need to be a sort of universal understanding of the differences in actively hurting other players, passively hurting other players and refraining from interfering with the hurting of other players.
1) Actively hurting other players: Making the choice to, and carrying out the process of ruining the enjoyment of others. In-game examples: corpse camping, continuously heckling another player
2) Passively hurting other players: Carrying out a process that may or may not hurt another player depending on their own circumstances. In-game examples: fulfilling all 20 bounties from various sources to kill the same player, banditing everyone coming down a particular road for a week
3) Seeing these things happening and not doing anything about it.
Where 1 is simply deplorable, and 3 exceedingly distasteful for one engaged in efforts to stop this sort of behavior...
Number 2 is really going to be straddling the line of grey, and where we cross from purely meta into circumstantial gameplay.
Where the target of the first example may very well deserve to die 20 times, is it considered to socially acceptable to be the one to do all 20 killings? They obviously killed 20 people to have it coming, but will it matter if you return the favor repeatedly, or should you really be spreading it to other company members, or perhaps just refraining from taking part in killing the same person so often in a rather short time period. The bandits can easily be viewed as setting up their turf, players can easily just go around the dangerous location or bring more guards, but it's back to the consistently killing the same group of people and whether it should be happening, even if you have a good in game reason to do so. (Paid contract and territory control are imo good reasons to do something.)
Corpse camping could get ugly if one person is still looting a corpse when the other gets back and the owner attacks the looter, or brings friends that could easily wipe out the looter. The original looter(s) have a good reason to be there still at that point, and so does the owner of the husk. Where does this line get drawn? After the owner has died to the looter x times? Should the owner simply stop being aggressive to the looter at this point and let them go ahead and finish taking their remaining valuables if they are so inclined?
I think, ultimately, that it is simply going to be best practice to curb your participation in the harming of any one player's known characters, and otherwise respect when enough people that you are being a dick and to go ahead and knock that behavior off.
---
"Mercy is the mark of a great man."
stab
"Guess I'm just a good man."
stab
"Well, I'm all right."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Possible name: The Leaf Compact
First, making it a compact so people don't confuse it with all the in-game accords which are bound to spring up; we've only seen the first so far.
Inspired by Walt Whitman's long boring poem The Leaves of Grass which is about how at first glance grass appears to be a lot of separate things but really when you look at the entire picture, every leaf of grass is connected and heavily intertwined with every other leaf by an underlying root system making every blade of grass part of a single bigger entity; the health and well being of each leaf rising or falling with the circumstances of the whole greater organism.
Characters may appear wildly separated in interests and goals, but really when you look at the whole picture, we're all just people sitting at keyboards during our leisure time and having fun in the game comes from a healthy foundation of player choices that chooses growth over poison.
Silly side benefit - A concrete reason to go around wearing green hats.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I strongly support this discussion and wish it to succeed, but I feel that because of politics my direct involvement would be unwelcome.
To that end, I will take an observational role, as well as an advisory role to those who would consider me an adviser.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
What about 3am calls to siege an in-character-enemies' settlement while most of the players are asleep or otherwise logged out and not present to defend?
Honestly, I think that something like that is absolutely impossible to enforce or promote, even for the nicest guy. I mean, if my company is attacked by a superior enemy, I will not delibaratly throw my counter when they are the strongest.
I would totally agree with this specific idea on localised servers, but with one international server, this kind of stance is impossible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For those wondering why so many exclamation points, 8,000 pages ago on the forums a question was posed on the debate between meaningful gameplay and random ganking that had to do with killing anyone who wore a green hat on Tuesdays. Green Hats became, in the forum discussions, the symbol of the line that distinguishes healthy, competitive, meaningful actions in the River Kingdoms that create rich ongoing stories and what a few might try to justify as meaningful but most gamers identify as some level of toxic or destructive to the community.
The main group of players who wouldn't like this kind of agreement are the ones who want to stroll in and be the kid killing anyone wearing a green hat on Tuesdays. It strikes me as the perfect name for a meta agreement between players to actively promote good gamesmanship and discourage the former playstyle.
It's also fitting that this new twist on the social community element of MMOs is named after an icon that same community invented while talking about how to improve the social aspects of their MMO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For those wondering why so many exclamation points, 8,000 pages ago on the forums a question was posed on the debate between meaningful gameplay and random ganking that had to do with killing anyone who wore a green hat on Tuesdays. Green Hats became, in the forum discussions, the symbol of the line that distinguishes healthy, competitive, meaningful actions in the River Kingdoms that create rich ongoing stories and what a few might try to justify as meaningful but most gamers identify as some level of toxic or destructive to the community.
The main group of players who wouldn't like this kind of agreement are the ones who want to stroll in and be the kid killing anyone wearing a green hat on Tuesdays. It strikes me as the perfect name for a meta agreement between players to actively promote good gamesmanship and discourage the former playstyle.
It's also fitting that this new twist on the social community element of MMOs is named after an icon that same community invented while talking about how to improve the social aspects of their MMO.
Nooooo.... We can't lose Green Hat Tuesday!! Besides, Green Hat Tuesday is not a CE Holiday, just a chaotic one. You can do random acts of kindness as well and stab a stranger in the face, as long as one of you was wearing a green hat.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's all good and well to say that you won't be a bad player and that you will encourage good behavior but what will this accord accomplish that can't be done individually or as a company?
When you come across a person or a group of people who behave in a way that is deemed poor, what will you do about it?
I see this as a good network that can be used to let each other know the actions of certain others which could lead to in-game trade embargos, denial of services and grouping, blacklisting, Kill on Sight, etc. Is that the desired goal when dealing with such offenders? How else would you deal with them?
What actual power and use would this accord hold?
(I know folks can get a bit hot on these forums so I'm letting you know right now that this is not an attack on the idea. It's important things to think about and discuss.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes, I am saying this accord could be called 'The Unnamed Accord'.Yeah? Well I'm saying this should be called the Proxima Sin Is the Most Beautiful, Intelligent, Gracious, Insightful, and Humble Person To Ever Walk the Earth In All History Accord. The good ol' PSITMBIGIAHPTEWTEIAHA.
This is essentially the good ol' Social Contract between gamers. All meta, only pertains to humans and not the characters. The goal is mutual out-of-game enjoyment, not in-game benefit. I'm all for it, though I would prefer GW to help set the bar at the right height.
Like the chemical weapons convention, the goal is not necessarily peace and happiness, but to make conflicts less toxic and reduce civilian casualties.
Proxima Sin: How about we shorten your title to Proxima Sin Your Completely Heroic Overlord?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the queen wishes it, it must come to be. All hail!
(just trying to be funny, not trying to make any point or express any opinion on the topic)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Most of us seem to agree there shouldn't be a list enumerating do and don'ts of behaviors; so it can't be exploited and it can apply to every new incarnation of the game over its changing forms. That leaves the question of what the guide should be that separates being competitive or a d-baj (don't be a jerk).
Since we're playing with other real people, I favor thinking if you would do that action to your friends sitting around the table on game night. If you wouldn't do it to them while playing a game, maybe it shouldn't be done to anybody in the community.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me, the most universal "jerk" act, is to kill someone "For the lulz". Pretty much anything can be rationalised, but when you kill someone just for the sake off the kill, there is no excuse.
By the way, I really hope that there is no "kill-mail", like in EvE.
In my opinion, it is the most utterly toxic behaviour, whatever what people use as excuses.
"He could be a threat one day" is in my opinion just an excuse.
"It was for training" is in my opinion just an excuse.
Let's get this straight : this post is not meant to argue. You can always answer to give a different opinion if you don't agree, but anyway, my opinion on the subject will not change.
And no, I am not accusing banditry, or a gameplay style, I am just condemning a thought process.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When a telescope first opens to receive starlight, when a forge or kiln is fired for the first time, that first moment when you move from star/moon light to the dawn, these are examples of First Light. This accord is pregame, trying to shine a light upon our humanity as gamers.
As Abbot Moraphis has said, "Knowledge can explain the darkness, but it is not a light."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For me, the most universal "jerk" act, is to kill someone "For the lulz". Pretty much anything can be rationalised, but when you kill someone just for the sake off the kill, there is no excuse.
By the way, I really hope that there is no "kill-mail", like in EvE.
In my opinion, it is the most utterly toxic behaviour, whatever what people use as excuses.
"He could be a threat one day" is in my opinion just an excuse.
"It was for training" is in my opinion just an excuse.
Let's get this straight : this post is not meant to argue. You can always answer to give a different opinion if you don't agree, but anyway, my opinion on the subject will not change.
And no, I am not accusing banditry, or a gameplay style, I am just condemning a thought process.
Do you mean a kill mail or a kill board?
I believe a kill mail would be needed for the bounty hunting system. I was initially against a kill board like in EvE, because I saw that it might encourage high, meaningless kill counts. However, I have seen now that most serious PvP focused corps don't use the kill to loss ratio as a measure they use the isk destroyed vs isk lost ratio.
The difference between the two measures is the first gives you the same credit for killing anyone, no matter how weak. The second gives you more credit for destroying more challenging (expensive) ships, while making sure not to lose an equal or greater amount yourself.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Apparently "kill mail" is a negative thing in Eve and means a mail that is sent by the victor to the victim? Ryan used the same phrase in answer to my suggestion that players who get killed in PFO should immediately get some kind of automated feedback from the game (NOT the victor) as to the possible "why" you were killed.
Like this:
"You just got killed by a player who is member of an Enemy Faction(Hellknights)"
"You just got killed by a player whose settlement is at War with your Settlement"
"You just got killed by a player, You attacked first."
"You just got killed by a player/NPC because you broke local settlement-law"
"You just got killed by a player, while you were wearing the Criminal flag"
Etcetera.
This could avoid confusion, bewilderment and most importantly frustration by (new) players as to why that nice looking lady avatar suddenly ran towards them and started whacking away. To take the "random" out of the killing.
Ryan conferred to this as killmail, hence my current confusion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I both like the idea of "system mail" to inform players of the probable "whys" and would like the option to turn it off or "mass delete" such messages, if I like. There would be a real sense of being spammed, as I expect to be a casualty (my fair share of times) during a war.
That said, it would be a great option because the game is looking to be complex. The reasons for getting "sent to respawn" may be obscure until you have some goodly time and experience in-game.
It could also be a nice chance to "data mine" under what circumstances players are getting attacked and "killed".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Apparently "kill mail" is a negative thing in Eve and means a mail that is sent by the victor to the victim? Ryan used the same phrase in answer to my suggestion that players who get killed in PFO should immediately get some kind of automated feedback from the game (NOT the victor) as to the possible "why" you were killed.
It is automated in Eve, goes to both parties.
Kill mails are a helpful tool. It tells you what you were killed with, who was all involved, and it tells your leaders that you may have been running equipment through the wrong area. *Looks at Bringslite*
"Maybe you should have picked up some guards before running that caravan full of Tier 3 equipment through the middle of nowhere."
lol
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Do you mean a kill mail or a kill board?
I believe a kill mail would be needed for the bounty hunting system. I was initially against a kill board like in EvE, because I saw that it might encourage high, meaningless kill counts. However, I have seen now that most serious PvP focused corps don't use the kill to loss ratio as a measure they use the isk destroyed vs isk lost ratio.
The difference between the two measures is the first gives you the same credit for killing anyone, no matter how weak. The second gives you more credit for destroying more challenging (expensive) ships, while making sure not to lose an equal or greater amount yourself.
Kill mail. At least to the killing party.
Because honestly, there is way too much people on EvE, making useless kills just for the mail. I don't think that because a guy is strong, we should kill him for sport.
A kill mail with the name and location to prove a Bounty kill, I can understand that and accept, but honestly, "junk" contest has no place in this game in my opinion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Do you mean a kill mail or a kill board?
I believe a kill mail would be needed for the bounty hunting system. I was initially against a kill board like in EvE, because I saw that it might encourage high, meaningless kill counts. However, I have seen now that most serious PvP focused corps don't use the kill to loss ratio as a measure they use the isk destroyed vs isk lost ratio.
The difference between the two measures is the first gives you the same credit for killing anyone, no matter how weak. The second gives you more credit for destroying more challenging (expensive) ships, while making sure not to lose an equal or greater amount yourself.
Kill mail. At least to the killing party.
Because honestly, there is way too much people on EvE, making useless kills just for the mail. I don't think that because a guy is strong, we should kill him for sport.
A kill mail with the name and location to prove a Bounty kill, I can understand that and accept, but honestly, "junk" contest has no place in this game in my opinion.
It will be interesting to see how PvP and influence gain is tied together. Killing feud, faction and war targets should gain the individual influence. Successfully raiding outposts, POIs or caravans, should lead to influence gains. Combat kills in war, should gain influence. Successful SADs, should also grant influence. Successful bounties and assassinations, same for them as well.
I'd imagine that various PVE activities will also increase influence, so that no segment of the play style of players is left out.
The only types of activities that should not gain influence are, those activities that cost reputation; failed activities, such as those previously listed; and activities that have little or no interactive value ( harvesting, "no", but bringing harvested resources to market would be "yes".
Now tying this up with the intent of the accord. Positive game play can not involve reputation loss. Even if a certain action is needed for the greater good of your own cause, overall it is not positive. Not only can positive game play be identifiable by the lack of reputation loss tied to it, but it can also be identified if it includes influence gain.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@bludd, while I agree with those action gaining influence, we don't yet have solid "yes/no" answers as to what gains and losses what. There might be things that cost rep that most of us agree is positive game play, and there might be things that cost influence that aren't. Without this knowledge, I recommend treading carefully. Granted, your statement will be fine IF it later is proven true with those actions, but until then, I suggest being mindful or wording, which has caused issues in the past LOL
Chiming in again since I have been busy, Looks like there is good support for this and people are understanding the purpose and intent of this. I am glad to see this, but honestly not surprised.
As for kill mail, if GW can and will do it, I would love for that "you were killed cause..." mail to be issued out. As stated, it would be useful in informing new players to a likely reason for their demise, as well as helping even veteran players keep aware of their situations.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is going to be an agreement, based on good will between fellow gamers rather than parsing semantics, that acknowledges there are certain actions that players can make their characters do outside the intended game design and expectations of a territory and resource based RPG that unduly inhibit the ability of other players to have fun, and those actions don't have a place in our gaming time.
Does this extend in any way to players' actions on the official forums (i.e. "forum warrioring") and otherwise outside the game?