Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm game. What things?Doing things that lower your Reputation also slide you toward Evil.
That's fine.
Doing Evil things shouldn't always lower your Reputation.
Things like creating Undead or Slavery are perfectly fine for gaining Evil points without causing a lower Rep because it, in no way, is griefing.
We just need more Evil things in the game that don't relate to griefing and everything would be cool.
A few things off the top of my head;
- Evil Shrines: Building shrines to Evil deities or creatures, praying or worshiping at these shrines and sacrificing NPC townspeople or creatures at the shrines.
- Evil Magic: Performing rituals or spells that are Evil in nature, summoning Evil creatures or experimenting on NPC's.
- Lures: Placing an Evil Totem or other lure that draws an escalation cycle into a certain hex.
- Poison: Putting poison in a settlement or POI's water/food supply or croplands.
Some of these you might see occur in a wartime situation but that doesn't mean they aren't Evil acts. None of these directly affect another player character (just like creating undead or using slaves) and are all PvE actions so no Reputation has to come into play. They aren't just for show either, each one can have a reason for existing in the game by giving the Evil character something in exchange whether it is improved faction standing, a new spell or crafting component, creating Unrest in an enemy settlement or even causing that settlement to be attacked by monsters.
I like those.
How about desecrating a shrine?
Special faction/alignment evil gain for killing good clerics or paladins?
Burning crop POIs to force starvation -> lower DI.
Casting long term debuff disease/poison/ spells?I wonder if jumping characters engaged in PVE could be considered evil?
Yup, there could be plenty of great ways to show your Evil side in-game that doesn't involved lowering your Reputation.
(Jumping someone in PvE would still be an attack on someone and follow all rules already set for attacking someone)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You want real risk? How about another idea. Leave reputation in but remove all current planned punishments involved with it. Instead have a negative value give you a percent chance at permadeath for your character. At 0 there's no chance of permadeath. At -100, there's a 0.1% chance of permadeath. at -1000, a 1.0%, at the max of -7500, a 7.5% chance of permadeath.
You should build that game. Let us know how it goes.
You have a belief. PFO has a system. Your and Xeen's beliefs conflict with the game's system. Guess which has domain in PFO?
A game, to be a game, has rules. Whether you believe a bishop can only move diagonally or not, the bishop moves only diagonally. In this game your alignment and reputation carry consequences. Either deal with that or don't, but your faith-based science may be unreliable.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree as well, harassing people is pretty lame... but a fight in the forest should not cause serious issues.
No, A fight in the forest, shouldn't cause serious issues, and it won't cause serious issues.
Yes, A LOT of fight in the forest, should cause serious issues, and it will cause serious issues.
I don't understand why some people are trying to recreate here the same game as all the games they already have. It's the same with Dragon Age. The first was supposed to be a old school RPG, and the second is designed to satisfy Call of Duty fans. Couldn't they stay with CoD ?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, everyone wanting to play Chaotic and/or Evil has it within their power to make their vision of how that should work a reality. Goblinworks is worried about a situation developing where most characters in the game are looking to kill most other characters (i.e. non-allies) all of the time. Prevent that from happening in-game and there needn't be any restrictions on C/E play.
Goblinworks will continue tweaking things to be more/less restrictive until they achieve the balance they are looking for between 'sometimes characters kill each other' and 'characters kill each other constantly'. Thus, the play style you adopt / promote will have an impact on the eventual built in restrictions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You want real risk? How about another idea. Leave reputation in but remove all current planned punishments involved with it. Instead have a negative value give you a percent chance at permadeath for your character. At 0 there's no chance of permadeath. At -100, there's a 0.1% chance of permadeath. at -1000, a 1.0%, at the max of -7500, a 7.5% chance of permadeath.You should build that game. Let us know how it goes.
You have a belief. PFO has a system. Your and Xeen's beliefs conflict with the game's system. Guess which has domain in PFO?
A game, to be a game, has rules. Whether you believe a bishop can only move diagonally or not, the bishop moves only diagonally. In this game your alignment and reputation carry consequences. Either deal with that or don't, but your faith-based science may be unreliable.
There is no game system at the moment other than the Land Rush. There are ideas. The community has been asked to help forge this game. Part of that process is provided via discussion of ideas from the community. People have a right to discuss their opinions and ideas.
There is an overabundance of 'Stop the bad guys!' companies out there. Unfortunately, there are much fewer people willing to be those bad guys.
A discussion has varied opinions. Whether you believe those opinions should goose step in line with your views or not, opinions will vary. In this thread, people are discussing the lack of evil and ways to resolve it. Either deal with it or don't, but your carebear rhetoric may be unreliable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is an overabundance of 'Stop the bad guys!' companies out there. Unfortunately, there are much fewer people willing to be those bad guys.
Overabundance is a value judgement. I happen to think that when the inherent monster base is considered in the equation, the balance is already plenty strong. It's important to remember that not all evil is "evil" Some evil is just people who are on opposite sides of an argument.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree as well, harassing people is pretty lame... but a fight in the forest should not cause serious issues.No, A fight in the forest, shouldn't cause serious issues, and it won't cause serious issues.
Yes, A LOT of fight in the forest, should cause serious issues, and it will cause serious issues.
I don't understand why some people are trying to recreate here the same game as all the games they already have. It's the same with Dragon Age. The first was supposed to be a old school RPG, and the second is designed to satisfy Call of Duty fans. Couldn't they stay with CoD ?
Origin or whomever makes Dragon Age, didn't want them to stay with Call of Duty, which is why they emulated COD.
GW is going to try to tap into some of that market, they'd be foolish not to. If GW was given a guarantee that PFO would have 400,000 subs for 10 years is it were nothing more than Eve with Swords, they'd do it in a heart beat.
Vision be damned in the face of the all mighty! The TT RPG market is minuscule in comparison to the combined Open World PvP MMO and FPS markets.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No, A fight in the forest, shouldn't cause serious issues, and it won't cause serious issues.
Yes, A LOT of fight in the forest, should cause serious issues, and it will cause serious issues.
This is very important to understand, and also explains why Goblinworks doesn't just forbid PvP against unflagged targets. It's not that any particular instance of PvP against unflagged targets is bad or wrong, it's bad or wrong when that becomes the majority of PvP your Character experiences.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is an overabundance of 'Stop the bad guys!' companies out there. Unfortunately, there are much fewer people willing to be those bad guys.
I've made this same point a number of times - we need bad guys. That doesn't mean we need sociopathic murder hobos. I expect there will be lots of players come to PFO in very organized groups who simply roll over a lot of us. There are a lot of us who don't come from that kind of background. When we're looking to pick up the pieces, I think the friends we've made here on these forums may be the only chance we have to rebuild somewhere else - hopefully stronger, wiser, and simply more experienced.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Origin or whomever makes Dragon Age, didn't want them to stay with Call of Duty, which is why they emulated COD.
GW is going to try to tap into some of that market, they'd be foolish not to. If GW was given a guarantee that PFO would have 400,000 subs for 10 years is it were nothing more than Eve with Swords, they'd do it in a heart beat.
Vision be damned in the face of the all mighty! The TT RPG market is minuscule in comparison to the combined Open World PvP MMO and FPS markets.
I don't understand your point about DA/CoD, I think the language barrier must trouble me here.
Let's not exaggerate EvE's population : you know damn well that everybody had like three accounts. Maybe not the Low-Sec pirate population, I don't know, but everybody else did. And when I say three, I think I'm underestimating.
The point of PFO was, from what I understand, to be interesting to all that population who liked EvE's concepts and gameplay, but didn't like that it was too much hardcore.
Seriously, I think that's your problem, you don't want to accept that everybody doesn't want a hardcore experience. Call it pussyfication of the society if you want, but it's reality.
"Vision be damned in the face of the all mighty! The TT RPG market is minuscule in comparison to the combined Open World PvP MMO and FPS markets."
Every attempt at combining both was an utter failure. The only successful "Open World PvP MMO" is 0% action.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There is an overabundance of 'Stop the bad guys!' companies out there. Unfortunately, there are much fewer people willing to be those bad guys.I've made this same point a number of times - we need bad guys. That doesn't mean we need sociopathic murder hobos. I expect there will be lots of players come to PFO in very organized groups who simply roll over a lot of us. There are a lot of us who don't come from that kind of background. When we're looking to pick up the pieces, I think the friends we've made here on these forums may be the only chance we have to rebuild somewhere else - hopefully stronger, wiser, and simply more experienced.
I don't think anyone in this thread calling for sociopathic murder hobos. I do think there is a perception that people who want to play evil mostly want to be murder hobos. I definitely agree that the biggest and baddest have not arrived yet and the community we have now will have to work together to endure and overcome that.
@Cald - I do not disagree. Game mechanics, settlement location, actually being in game and playing - all these fine lines currently drawn will be blurred.
What I do disagree with is someone attempting express authority over a subject they do not have. Attempting to shut down a conversation that way is weak. There are mechanics and suggestions in this thread being hashed through in order to suggest evil acts that aren't grief. I kind of thought that is what the community wanted but I am still new to these forums.
I still think this place is awesome. I look forward to playing PFO with each and every one here. I think having discussions on how to add to all alignments and have those additions be meaningful is great. We're not always going to agree and that is ok. I just don't think telling people what their problem is or shouting down productive discussions is helpful.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do think there is a perception that people who want to play evil mostly want to be murder hobos.
I think the vast majority of that perception is generated by folks who consistently mischaracterize others' positions. For example, I have been a very vocal and long-time supporter of Evil. I've also been a very vocal and long-time supporter of non-consensual PvP, but there are folks on these forums who will go out of their way to try to tell you otherwise.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...perception that people who want to play evil mostly want to be murder hobos.
I don't believe that the folks on these boards who want to play Evil want to be murder hobos at all. I do believe that they'll be *massively* out-numbered by the murder hobos who show up and never touch these boards.
Because of that, we need systemic controls on those murder hobos, or they'll quickly remove any differentiation this game might earn in the eyes of a sceptical gaming public. Unfortunately, that means the "loyal" Evil players are going to be affected by at least some of those controls.
I still hope to see those players finding appropriate ways to pursue their desires, while perhaps also assisting the effort to convince murder hobos this isn't a game for them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There is an overabundance of 'Stop the bad guys!' companies out there. Unfortunately, there are much fewer people willing to be those bad guys.
Overabundance is a value judgement. I happen to think that when the inherent monster base is considered in the equation, the balance is already plenty strong. It's important to remember that not all evil is "evil" Some evil is just people who are on opposite sides of an argument.
Caldeathe makes a good point; do we know how populous the monstrous races are going to be? Or how far they will roam from their designated lairs?
Saying that there is a lack of bad guys, based purely on the number of players currently signed up to the Land Rush, is only part of the picture.
A ratio of 7:1 Good:Evil has been quoted, but that doesn't necessarily follow; it only shows how many are signing up to join explicitly evil settlements.
There will inevitably be members of the neutral or unspecified settlements, who reveal themselves to be playing Evil PCs, when the game begins. And they are likely to be far more numerous than the players who reveal themselves to be Neutral PCs, living in an evil settlement.
So that 7:1 ratio is likely to shrink, to 6:1, 5:1, could it go as low as 4:1? Wait and see.
And even if it stays at 7:1, that's still one person in eight, likely to stab you in the back, with no in-game warrant or declaration of hostilities. Even if (like me) you don't oppose the principle of evil PCs, to create 'opposing content', getting done over by every eighth person you pass is high frequency, like 'Somalia high', or 'gritty prison drama high', and for most people would become very, very annoying, very, very quickly.
How much more annoying will it be, if you're dealing with this, at the same time as fighting off a pack of goblins? Or a hillbilly ogre?
I don't believe a lack of CE PCs in EE is going to be seen as a negative, by the GW staff, given their statements to date.
Far better, from their POV, that they err on the side of discouraging such PCs, than encouraging, since if it ever came to a point where there were too few CE PCs, to maintain the ideal quota of mayhem, they can simply turn up the breeding rate of the local goblin population.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This morning's count, per Caldeathe's amazing spreadsheet is:
Votes
Good: 478
Evil: 73
Ratio: 6.5:1
Guilds
Good: 16
Evil: 5
Ratio: 3.2:1
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree a bit, Alignment should be a consequence of your actions. Play your character how you want to play them and in an ideal system the alignment will reflect the actions you choose. It drives me nuts in TT when people try to use their alignment as a justification for an action that goes against the way they've been otherwise playing their character because it nets them loot or avoid having to actually roleplay. It's the bad kinda metagaming right there.
I think your actions should define your alignment, and your alignment (with some well earned fame/infamy) should define how different people react to you.
That's an interesting difference in our views. I see alignment as the guiding philosophy behind a character, it is their justification for their actions. What's important as a player is being consistent. As someone participating in a role-playing game my choices are based around the role I'm playing, whether I choose an alignment and use that as my behavior base or I picked a behavior pattern and look up the matching alignment.
The case you describe of acting differently is definitely incorrect alignment play, but it's incorrect play under both of our interpretations. (Unless they are trying to shift their alignment) That aside you seem to treat alignment as something you earn, when to me alignment is your guiding philosophy it's a base part of the character.
@Audoucet
I think the problem with games like EVE is that the rules of the game do not encourage interesting game play. They make it essentially necessary to play the way you describe or play a certain way that just doesn't create interesting interactions. For every grand war, market manipulation, or carefully orchestrated coup there are thousands of random ganks and destruction to no real purpose besides temporary gain. That is uninteresting game play.
@Nihimon,Gpunk
I definitely notice that trend and hope to surprise those people. I personally plan on trying to be LE with a high reputation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I disagree a bit, Alignment should be a consequence of your actions. Play your character how you want to play them and in an ideal system the alignment will reflect the actions you choose. It drives me nuts in TT when people try to use their alignment as a justification for an action that goes against the way they've been otherwise playing their character because it nets them loot or avoid having to actually roleplay. It's the bad kinda metagaming right there.
I think your actions should define your alignment, and your alignment (with some well earned fame/infamy) should define how different people react to you.
That's an interesting difference in our views. I see alignment as the guiding philosophy behind a character, it is their justification for their actions. What's important as a player is being consistent. As someone participating in a role-playing game my choices are based around the role I'm playing, whether I choose an alignment and use that as my behavior base or I picked a behavior pattern and look up the matching alignment.
The case you describe of acting differently is definitely incorrect alignment play, but it's incorrect play under both of our interpretations. (Unless they are trying to shift their alignment) That aside you seem to treat alignment as something you earn, when to me alignment is your guiding philosophy it's a base part of the character.
@Audoucet
I think the problem with games like EVE is that the rules of the game do not encourage interesting game play. They make it essentially necessary to play the way you describe or play a certain way that just doesn't create interesting interactions. For every grand war, market manipulation, or carefully orchestrated coup there are thousands of random ganks and destruction to no real purpose besides temporary gain. That is uninteresting game play.@Nihimon,Gpunk
I definitely notice that trend and hope to surprise those people. I personally plan on trying to be LE with a high reputation.
This is a large disconnect between a lot of people. Some see alignment as a mechanical effect of the game and some as a consequence of role-playing actions.
Those who see if from a purely mechanical point of view will use it to gain the things they want. If they want to be able to be paladins or assassins, they'll work the system to achieve the alignment they want with the least consequences for themselves as a player. Alignment is just a mechanical means to an end.
Others view it as an organic outcome from role-playing their character and acting as they believe their character would in a given situation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do think there is a perception that people who want to play evil mostly want to be murder hobos.I think the vast majority of that perception is generated by folks who consistently mischaracterize others' positions. For example, I have been a very vocal and long-time supporter of Evil. I've also been a very vocal and long-time supporter of non-consensual PvP, but there are folks on these forums who will go out of their way to try to tell you otherwise.
Perhaps your messaging is at fault. Yes, you often say that you support evil, banditry and PvP, but at the same time you support any suggested mechanic that limits them or punishes them through the reputation / alignment mechanics.
Mixed Messaging or Mischaracterization, which is truly to blame?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do think there is a perception that people who want to play evil mostly want to be murder hobos.I think the vast majority of that perception is generated by folks who consistently mischaracterize others' positions. For example, I have been a very vocal and long-time supporter of Evil. I've also been a very vocal and long-time supporter of non-consensual PvP, but there are folks on these forums who will go out of their way to try to tell you otherwise.Perhaps your messaging is at fault. Yes, you often say that you support evil, banditry and PvP, but at the same time you support any suggested mechanic that limits them or punishes them through the reputation / alignment mechanics.
Mixed Messaging or Mischaracterization, which is truly to blame?
I support both and once again when full blooded Orcs are in Im going to pick one, but that's because I'm that awesome and know that I can play CE quite easily without being an ass (and trust me the character will be pretty nasty and absolutely will be going for the role of playing other peoples content). I don't see why one can't be a supporter of both. My personal thoughts are if you are that awesome then the system should not get in your way at all. And for me it won't.
Again nobody here is worried about anyone here. But would I be just as concerned about those who will never touch these forums and wouldn't know the difference of CE from CES and will try to come in as if they are playing an ArcheAge dock camper because they hear open world pvp?, yeah I would because those idiots when I'm playing a CE character (full blooded orcs - remember it!) will affect my experience too.
Lets not act like those people don't exist, by saying "Oh but I won't do that" just shows limited scope and a denial of who crawls out the woodwork when the dinner bell of "open world pvp" is rung. I salute the efforts of all those that are going a darker path and I wish total success. But to deny or ignore or simply not acknowledge that there will be scores more "murder hobos" than great CE players is lying to ourselves. Especially in that first six months.
Yeah "I won't do that stuff either" and those rules don't scare me or annoy me because I can play CE and play by the rules and trust me you best believe I will figure out a way to not be gimped much. Personally I welcome the challenge.
Mmmm let me try being limited minded
Instead of me saying "Oh why can't I do this because I won't do that"
I'll say "I"m that damn awesome and that rule won't affect me at all, so I don't see why anyone who is that awesome would care about it either"
And I have faith that everyone going CE on these forums will be that awesome that the rules in place will only affect those non awesome CE players.
Don't let me be more awesome than you *winks* lol Becase I am simply too awesome to be crying over something like this. I am going to fully enjoy showing how big my grapefruits are by getting around this system. And I hope those who are playing CE will too, evil is supposed to be badass not whiny you know.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...which is truly to blame?
That's a false dilemma, because those are not the only two possible choices. One potential third choice: honest belief that there will be a truly staggering number of murder hobos that require mechanical control, because no company could possibly afford enough staff to control them to the extent Goblinworks is making it clear they wish to control murder hobos.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree with Amaziah.
From my perspective, there are plenty of “legal” ways an evil player can play the game the way they want to, within the mechanics of the game as described, and not suffer reputation loss.
Let me use the Clint Eastwood movie Pale Rider to illustrate some examples of these types of evil characters that are playable in PFO with no reputation loss.
First of all, if you are not familiar with the movie, there are the Tin Pan Miners (led by Hull Barret), Lahood and His Mining Company, The Preacher (Clint Eastwood), and Stockburn and His Deputies. Hull Barret is the protagonist, Lahood and his mining company are the Antagonists, and The Preacher and Stockburn and His Deputies play out their conflict over the disagreement between Lahood’s Mining Company and the Tin Pan Miners.
I’m going to split this post up into several for easier digestion (sorry for the lengthy-ness).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
LaHood and his mining operation are either Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil in a PFO alignment sense, depending upon how you look at it. They generally outwardly obey the written laws and they have a strong internal organizational hierarchy, but they are willing to break certain written laws that do not conform with their method of obtaining what they want, they are ruthless, and the methods they use to obtaining what they want are Evil.
This is playable in PFO without reputation loss (via bounties and contracts).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Clint Eastwood’s character The Preacher is Chaotic Evil. In this movie, he is fighting on the side of the Tin Pan Miners, but only for the selfish purpose of exacting revenge upon Stockburn and His Deputies (as far as we can tell). He does what he needs to in order to meet his own goals and objectives, he is calculating, and he can be ruthless if need be. He has no true allies, he does what he needs to for his own purposes.
This is playable in PFO without reputation loss (via bounties and contracts).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Stockburn and His Deputies are Chaotic Evil. They are hired enforcers, they are in it for the money and/or for their own gain. They have a blatant disregard for written law, and as The Preacher says “they uphold whatever law pays them the most.” They are Chaotic because they don’t abide by any specific laws, they enforce any laws their clients desire to impose, and today they may enforce one set of laws and tomorrow another opposing set of laws if it benefits them. They are Evil because they are ruthless in enforcing those laws.
This is playable in PFO without reputation loss (via bounties and contracts).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A potential reputation loss situation could be a group of bandits out in the wilderness who come across a group of unflagged characters that have some goodies the bandits want. If the bandits attack them, they suffer reputation loss (and should). But that is why (in my opinion) there is a Stand and Deliver option. The bandits can SAD this group, which is completely within the mechanics and they will suffer no reputation loss (unless they attack the group after the group has antied up).
So, this is playable in PFO without reputation loss (via SAD).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So the only situation left, as I see it, is a group of bandits out in the wilderness who come across another group of unflagged characters that have some goodies those bandits want, but the bandits don’t want to SAD them. They just want to ambush them. Maybe the bandits want all of their stuff, maybe the group is too risky or too strong for the bandits to take on in a “fair” fight, so the bandits want an unfair advantage. Ambush gives that unfair advantage. I think this is the type of thing GW is trying to curtail, and I think it is right to curtail it. Bandits can still do this in PFO, but they will suffer reputation loss and they should suffer reputation loss.
Are people here suggesting that this, too, should be do-able in PFO without reputation loss? If so, why? There are already “legal” ways to accomplish this without reputation loss.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sounds as if you're describing the group Jake Spoon falls in with in Lonesome Dove. They attacked, shot, and set on fire farmers settling the territory for no other reason than the innocents were there.
Seems like precisely the group Goblinworks wants to control, but it's difficult for us players to take the role of retired Texas Rangers and hang them, as the hangings won't stick, and we can't talk to Pharasma about that. GW can, however, have quite the chat with her, and make sure those man-burners are never seen in the River Kingdoms again.
Now I really really want full blooded Orcs in so I can do this, crap
Bloodrazor fen
Bloodbath Syndicate
Rovagugs Roughers
Arrowblade Vale
If this happens understand that outside this Orc camp will be the signs
"Welcome to the Terrordrome, the only rule of Arrowblade Vale?"
"Don't become our lunch"
Our unspoken rule:
"Evil is supposed to be badass, whining gets you a place on our plates and your tears will be a nice palate cleanser"
lol
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I find the idea of being a bad guy very intriguing at times, short times :). It always comes back to the fact that I just don't dig being an aggressor towards people minding their own business or going about purposefully looking for people to kill or rob. It just does not process as "fun" in this "computer". I would much rather be looking for and Face-smashing those aggressive types with my play time, away from trade skills.
On the flip side, I think that I am going to really enjoy "riding" toward conflict (within the system) alongside my Righteous Bunch (Ozem's Vigil).
Each to his own, though, as I certainly don't mind those types being in the game. They will make it exciting and full of content. I fully believe that they will have plenty of opportunities to play the way they like "within" GW's described system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sounds as if you're describing the group Jake Spoon falls in with in Lonesome Dove. They attacked, shot, and set on fire farmers settling the territory for no other reason than the innocents were there.
Seems like precisely the group Goblinworks wants to control, but it's difficult for us players to take the role of retired Texas Rangers and hang them, as the hangings won't stick, and we can't talk to Pharasma about that. GW can, however, have quite the chat with her, and make sure those man-burners are never seen in the River Kingdoms again.
This is why I had put forward the suggestion on Page 3 about having a negative rep only means you have a chance at perma-character-death. It provides a REAL risk onto the character. It won't prevent them from being crazy evil, but at some point the good guys will get revenge.
I'm not opposed to things being lopsided in favour of good/lawful. It makes being evil a challenge. What I'm opposed to is using reputation as a method of punishment assuming it will deter griefers or sociopathic murder hobos. It gives both the players and the devs a false sense of security that REAL griefers will exploit to piss everyone off. The only real way I've ever seen an MMO handle people who fall under the category of malicious player, is to deal with them on an account level.
I've seen several companies think they can save money on customer support by implementing mechanics that deter players from doing things that would end up with customer support being called. It really, REALLY doesn't work.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Not completely. What it's apparently designed to do is to deter the "casual" crazy--possibly also educating them on what's acceptable--while the lovely "arbitrary and capricious" human-staff deal with the REAL griefers you mention.
Everyone seems to agree no control at the account level can succeed, as it's too easy to generate a new untraceable account immediately upon discovery of the last. Ryan's discussed a multi-layered approach, and I'll enjoy watching and assisting it.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Perhaps your messaging is at fault. Yes, you often say that you support evil, banditry and PvP, but at the same time you support any suggested mechanic that limits them or punishes them through the reputation / alignment mechanics.
Mixed Messaging or Mischaracterization, which is truly to blame?
And you pretend that you want "positive gameplay" "meaningful interaction" and "no griefing", meanwhile, you fight tooth and nail for the right to do exactly all that, without any control at all.
So. Either are you just train to have your way by manipulating the developers into making them believe that they don't need any control, so you can in the end grief all you want, OR, you are a very kind and trusting person who thinks that everybody is nice, trusting and fair-play, and that everything will be great.
Since I don't want to be rude, I won't accuse you of being lying and manipulating, and so I would consider the second possibility.
Well, I think you're being naive. You know, people like you with good intentions and a true and sincere desire to play with people without bullying are not the majority. A lot of people on the Internet are very different, they are not at all like you. They will always abuse the system in any way they can, and they will take pleasure in ruining the game experience of other players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Perhaps your messaging is at fault. Yes, you often say that you support evil, banditry and PvP, but at the same time you support any suggested mechanic that limits them or punishes them through the reputation / alignment mechanics.
Mixed Messaging or Mischaracterization, which is truly to blame?
And you pretend that you want "positive gameplay" "meaningful interaction" and "no griefing", meanwhile, you fight tooth and nail for the right to do exactly all that, without any control at all.
So. Either are you just train to have your way by manipulating the developers into making them believe that they don't need any control, so you can in the end grief all you want, OR, you are a very kind and trusting person who thinks that everybody is nice, trusting and fair-play, and that everything will be great.
Since I don't want to be rude, I won't accuse you of being lying and manipulating, and so I would consider the second possibility.
Well, I think you're being naive. You know, people like you with good intentions and a true and sincere desire to play with people without bullying are not the majority. A lot of people on the Internet are very different, they are not at all like you. They will always abuse the system in any way they can, and they will take pleasure in ruining the game experience of other players.
You're presenting a false dilemma here, that Bluddwolf is either malicious or naive, when he is neither. Try less putting words into peoples mouths, it'll make you look less of an ass.
You're also once again mistaking "Griefing" for "roleplaying an antagonist". And rehashing that argument is not really conducive to this discussion as it seems you're just wielding them as a method of avoiding Bludd's arguments instead of actually being constructive.
Part of the crowdforging stage is trying to find ways to compromise play styles and make a more inclusive game. A more inclusive game means more subs, means a richer community. I've seen arguments above about 1000s or upwards of 10,000 players who will start off essentially "playing the game wrong" and attacking on sight because of the IDEA of open PvP. How about we find a way to include those 1000-10000 players rather than punish and run them off.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
You're presenting a false dilemma here, that Bluddwolf is either malicious or naive, when he is neither. Try less putting words into peoples mouths, it'll make you look less of an ass.
You're also once again mistaking "Griefing" for "roleplaying an antagonist". And rehashing that argument is not really conducive to this discussion as it seems you're just wielding them as a method of avoiding Bludd's arguments instead of actually being constructive.
Part of the crowdforging stage is trying to find ways to compromise play styles and make a more inclusive game. A more inclusive game means more subs, means a richer community. I've...
And what exactly did I put in Bludd's mouth ?
Don't try, again, to derail and manipulate the subject.
This is a game with consequences for playing a psychopath, and you try to argue for having no consequences.
You don't want to play an antagonist, this is just excuses, as always.
And seriously, stop talking about compromise, that's laughable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And what exactly did I put in Bludd's mouth ?
Don't try, again, to derail and manipulate the subject.
This is a game with consequences for playing a psychopath, and you try to argue for having no consequences.
You don't want to play an antagonist, this is just excuses, as always.
And seriously, stop talking about compromise, that's laughable.
The main point of contention seems to be that you view it as 'consequences for being a psychopath' while others are viewing the handling of reputation (and by extension alignment) as 'consequences for non-consensual PvP' -- which they see as providing a chilling effect on certain styles of play necessary to keep to the stated goal of meaningful PvP and emergent gameplay. Consensual PvP is not the same as meaningful PvP, it's just a subset of it.
Too Whom it may concern...
I'd just like to point out to that paizo does have a wonderful Private Message System.
You know the thingy you should be using when you feel the need to be a douche and make a post just so you can make a personal attack against a specific person and trash them?
I also know one of you knows how to use the PM system cause I've gotten a PM from you before :-)
LOL, as you could have instead of making this post.
Sorry, had to say it.
Dude, have you tried mass-sending PMs?
Pain in the ass.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And what exactly did I put in Bludd's mouth ?
*AHEM* So. Either are you just train to have your way by manipulating the developers into making them believe that they don't need any control, so you can in the end grief all you want, OR, you are a very kind and trusting person who thinks that everybody is nice, trusting and fair-play, and that everything will be great.
That. Right there, that is putting words in his mouth. Building a straw man argument, Literately THE DEFINITION OF THE PHRASE "putting words in [someones] mouth".
This is a game with consequences for playing a psychopath, and you try to argue for having no consequences.
No, I'm arguing that:
- punishment just hurts legitimate players looking for a meaningful play experience- people whose intent is to be malicious will do it no matter what punishment system is put in place
- they will find a way of circumventing or exploiting it in such a way that it is worse for those involved than if the punishment system didn't exist
- IT NEVER WORKS. The history of PvP MMOs show you that it just creates a metagame around it and drives people off in droves anyway!
You don't want to play an antagonist, this is just excuses, as always.
Yes. I'm a griefer in disguise looking to ruin the game for everyone. I'm willing to spend hundreds of dollars and hours of my time NOT to try to make Pathfinder Online the MMO I've always wanted to play, but rather to insure I can be a griefing a*~!!%! once it comes out and run everyone away so my money is wasted, GoblingWorks fails, and I can consider my life complete.
Was that tone dry enough? I though about not responding to this one like the other one above about derailing the subject (ironic statement, no?) but I think there was plenty of room for a good sarcastic take on this one.
And seriously, stop talking about compromise, that's laughable.
Your attitude is poisonous to the entire concept of crowdforging. Try to help us find a middle ground. I've offered several suggestions, adjustments, and ideas in this thread. You've offered... lets see... "my way or the highway" aaaand... vitriolic bile! Awesome.
Its ok, Ryan did say that in the beginning... Reputation will mean nothing. He expects it to be a murder fest and will not hinder it. Since they will have very little else for us to do.Yeah, whatever makes you sleep at night.
"Makes" you sleep? Are we dealing with nocturnal pseudodragonns or something?
God, I want dragons in PFO. Especially tiny adorable ones.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Its ok, Ryan did say that in the beginning... Reputation will mean nothing. He expects it to be a murder fest and will not hinder it. Since they will have very little else for us to do.Yeah, whatever makes you sleep at night."Makes" you sleep? Are we dealing with nocturnal pseudodragonns or something?
God, I want dragons in PFO. Especially tiny adorable ones.
KC with trained dragons...May be gods have mercy on all our souls!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You guys seem to be forgetting a major factor in the argument of good vs. evil. Historically speaking, evil has much better players per capita. Having 60 evil players against 515 good players is usually an easy fight for evil.
Personally, I think that's an aberration due to poor game design. If the surest route to success involves "killing early and often", the game has kind of stacked the deck to make Evil more successful.
I will say this: As someone playing a character who's meant to be regarded, in-character, as the most revolting, obnoxious war criminal ever to curse these deathless lands, I'm a little wary of Reputation. However, it doesn't seem like it'll f$!% my shit up—I'm just a corpsegrabber.
The main thing I'm unhappy about is how harsh it's gonna be on surprise attacks. UNC can afford that easy, but in some small groups, their wits are the only edge they've got. They can't afford to be polite and honorable about battle.
*AHEM*
And what exactly did I put in Bludd's mouth ?
O BurnHavoc, you cad ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What we should do is ask the Devs to make a game mechanic to automatically kill characters that do too much PvP or are 'psychopaths'. That will fix the problem of having other characters actually having to deal with them (a ratio of 6:1 is just not enough to deal with that) and will mitigate the potential of these hordes of murderhobos arriving.
Problem solved!
/sarcasm
Why stop there? Why not kill everyone? It's the only way to be sure.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What we should do is ask the Devs to make a game mechanic to automatically kill characters that do too much PvP or are 'psychopaths'. That will fix the problem of having other characters actually having to deal with them (a ratio of 6:1 is just not enough to deal with that) and will mitigate the potential of these hordes of murderhobos arriving.
Problem solved!
/sarcasm
I like my solution better :)
The main thing I'm unhappy about is how harsh it's gonna be on surprise attacks.
I need to clarify this. "Gonna" is the wrong word. I am concerned it might be harsh. I don't know that it will be yet, and would like to discuss the matter.