Goblin Squad Member
|
It's because I don't want to HAVE TO ASK permission to start a fight every time I want to engage in PvP.
I'm pretty sure no one will ever ask for permission to pvp. That would be a duel and Ryan said we can't have those even when we asked for them.
What we have is a situation where pvp doesn't happen arbitrarily. If everyone is refraining from losing Rep, everyone knows basically when pvp can and probably won't be happening, which is a lot less discouraging to many players GW wants to appeal to.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I'm trying to add my voice in with over 15 years of MUD/MOO/MMO/TT/Videogame player experience. I have a background in software development (though I work as a Network Admin now because money), so I'm not talking out my ass with respect to what can be implemented.
You ARE aware, aren't you, that :
Nobody cares about your 15 years player experience here since the age average is around 35, and everybody has at least as much experience.
And :
Your experience in software development and Network Administration is utterly useless as an argument to explain that your will to change the PvP aspect of the game is educated.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Edit : And that wouldn't be random PvP, You have pickaxes in hand, so i assume your a miner, and may have valuables. I make money by not only accepting assassination contracts, but killing silly gatherers who decided not to have...
Well it's the wrong game. That's exactly what this game is supposed to fight against.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Edit : And that wouldn't be random PvP, You have pickaxes in hand, so i assume your a miner, and may have valuables. I make money by not only accepting assassination contracts, but killing silly gatherers who decided not to have...Well it's the wrong game. That's exactly what this game is supposed to fight against.
And yet here they are, invested in the game. Ready, willing, able, and interested in playing. Giving input and discussing ideas.
Quick, shout them down with authority you don't have because you don't agree. For someone who wants no grief in game you sure like griefing discussions.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Yeah, because I'm the one trying to make this game just like every other SandBox because hey ! This time, maybe it will work !!!
I don't have any authority, you're right ! GW does, and they have a clear politic regarding PvP ! Why do you want to change it ?
Don't try to make it a debate, when it's just two very different ways to see the game.
I don't need any kind of authority, to say that if you want to change the core game design, you're in the wrong game.
And I won't shut up, or enter in your game of fake commonground, and let you bully your way into the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Quick, shout them down with authority you don't have because you don't agree.
It seems to me that BurnHavoc is trying to shout down those who disagree with him in just about equal proportion.
We've gone through a lot of these conversations before. We've heard Ryan's and the devs' reasoning over and over. We are trying to share those reasons - some more gently than others, but that's the nature of life.
If it makes any difference, I probably have about as good an understanding of this game as anyone not directly involved in the development. I intend to do lots and lots of PvP, and I intend to be High Reputation - at least high enough to get all the training I could possibly want, and to send a very clear signal to new players that I'm not the kind of player that's going to lead them out into the wilderness and then turn around and kill them for the lulz.
The last part I have a problem with. I will almost NEVER fight a fair fight, it's not the assassin play style. if you chose to be out with one or two of your friends, and and Myself and band of assassins cross your path, with pick axes in your hand, and not swords, that's your fault. That was a MEANINGFUL decision you made. To travel without a permanently armed guard.
Edit : And that wouldn't be random PvP, You have pickaxes in hand, so i assume your a miner, and may have valuables. I make money by not only accepting assassination contracts, but killing silly gatherers who decided not to have...
This idea makes sense if and only if you can purchase protection from NPC guards. There's no way most gatherers would be able to convince other players to shadow them for hours just in case someone attacks them. If that's what it requires to be a gatherer, no one will play that way. You are suggesting no one is ever caught with a pickaxe in their hand. That would mean no one is gathering.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think there will be players who attempt to go out and solo harvest in unprotected hexes fairly close to the starter cities. I think they'll probably get killed a lot.
But I think most of the harvesting will eventually be done around a player's Settlement. There won't be guards following the harvesters around, but there will be players ready to spring into action if there's an incursion into their lands that seeks to target their harvesters.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If harvesting without guards is too dangerous that no one can harvest, then the price of harvested resources should rise. Higher priced resources means guards can be hired or PvP characters will be harvesting when there's a lull in the action.
Or like Jazzlvraz says, settlements/companies will organize gathering parties and descend en masse on a hex to harvest a week's worth of raw material. That might be PFO raid-level activity.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The big problem I have with the idea of always having to travel in a pack is that you're indirectly telling me my time isn't valuable and that the game and others should be allowed to waste it.
Time waste #1 have to find people to travel in said pack.
Time waste #2 actually getting the pack organizing and moving.
Time waste #3 pack only works if we do it for several hours, which means I must dedicate large blocks of time to it.
Time waste #4 inevitable counter argument that I should join a community or group and only play/work with them which often requires a ridiculous amount of social and sometimes in-game upkeep.
I think player interaction should maybe make my mining more difficult some days than others, but it shouldn't stop it dead for that time period. And yes a group should be more efficient and safer, but not a requirement.
Someone used to tell me 'don't tell me why it doesn't work, tell me how to make it work', while it was still possible to conclude that it doesn't work you had to empirically prove it by failing to make it work. It's more about the mentality and process of coming to a conclusion than relying on the assumption.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Look at how harvesting (mining) in Eve turned out: Some players mine in high sec, and accept the lower yields and less valuable minerals as the price of safety. Some players try to stealth mine in low sec, using smaller/less expensive mining ships, and hope for the best. Most 0.0 corps (guilds) will organize regular mining trips with guards, support, etc. in order to gather the ice they need.
One of the beauties of a sandbox game is that we don't have to plan out how everything will work in advance. We will see the development of emergent strategies and patterns of play which allow players to overcome the challenges they find themselves confronting.
Markets work. Player self-organization works. Resources will be gathered.
Guurzak say DIG MORE, HUMIES! So me can get more tribute when you take rocks back to town!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah, because I'm the one trying to make this game just like every other SandBox because hey ! This time, maybe it will work !!!
I don't have any authority, you're right ! GW does, and they have a clear politic regarding PvP ! Why do you want to change it ?
Don't try to make it a debate, when it's just two very different ways to see the game.
I don't need any kind of authority, to say that if you want to change the core game design, you're in the wrong game.
And I won't shut up, or enter in your game of fake commonground, and let you bully your way into the game.
I hear you loud and clear. Abusive behavior in game is not acceptable. Abusive behavior out of game is acceptable. Thank you for clearing that up. Sorry you don't see fit to allow me into your game.
@Nihimon - BurnHavoc moved the discussion to this thread to have a discussion. Some 'louder than other' forum warriors are abusing the attempt to have a discussion about it. Except for the people who can justify griefing in text but not in game, I see this discussion as hashing through thoughts and ideas to further meaningful experiences - PvP and otherwise - while not devolving into a murder simulator. I know BurnHavoc well enough to know that on a base level - I think you and he want the same thing. People can't lose their temper and at the same time insist they are not being abusive and shouting down others.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The big problem I have with the idea of always having to travel in a pack...
As Nihimon said, there are also groups planning to protect their gatherers by protecting large swaths of their territory, allowing their gatherers to travel freely within that territory. Vigilance'll still be needed, of course, but it'll be a blend of risk and reward, exactly as Ryan brings up so often.
EDIT: Guurzak expands the list yet further, with a fuller suite of options.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Time waste #1 have to find people to travel in said pack.
Time waste #2 actually getting the pack organizing and moving.
Time waste #3 pack only works if we do it for several hours, which means I must dedicate large blocks of time to it.
Time waste #4 inevitable counter argument that I should join a community or group and only play/work with them which often requires a ridiculous amount of social and sometimes in-game upkeep.
PFO will NOT be a solo-friendly game. If you feel that traveling in numbers for safety is an unreasonable burden on your time and playstyle, you've never played in an open PVP sandbox and this may not be the game you want to play. In this sort of game, your allies are your life.
Guurzak say, you no waste time getting guards, dat good idea. Easy make friends with Guurzak when him come collect tribute.
Consider this though. Combat classes can join other groups of players engaging in PvP or PvE content, which will be happening all the time. Experts and Aristocrats can stay in their settlements doing their thing. But Commoners have to wait for a once-per-week event to use their skills with any expectation of actually gaining from it? If random ganking is too comfortable for the aggressor, this is exactly what will happen. The reason I joined TEO is because they are trying to enforce a better way, but not all settlements will have the resources to do that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon - BurnHavoc moved the discussion to this thread to have a discussion.
I welcome that discussion, and always encourage folks to speak what's actually on their minds - civilly if they can, and with a bit of forgiveness if someone else can't.
I just despair when the discussion devolves to "you're not listening!" The best way to handle folks trying to shout you down is to ignore them - don't let them change the subject.
If you're interested in brainstorming ideas for PvP cases that don't involve Reputation loss, only respond to posts that present those kinds of ideas.
If you're interested in convincing folks that Reputation loss for PvP against unflagged targets is a bad idea, use History, Facts, and Evidence - don't rely on assertions. And again, don't respond to posts that change the subject.
It's easy to get frustrated when it feels like someone's ignoring what you're saying... almost as easy as it is to ignore what someone's saying when you're frustrated. I'm still learning to recognize that in myself.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I hear you loud and clear. Abusive behavior in game is not acceptable. Abusive behavior out of game is acceptable. Thank you for clearing that up. Sorry you don't see fit to allow me into your game.
@Nihimon - BurnHavoc moved the discussion to this thread to have a discussion. Some 'louder than other' forum warriors are abusing the attempt to have a discussion about it. Except for the people who can justify griefing in text but not in game, I see this discussion as hashing through thoughts and ideas to further meaningful experiences - PvP and otherwise - while not devolving into a murder simulator. I know BurnHavoc well enough to know that on a base level - I think you and he want the same thing. People can't lose their temper and at the same time insist they are not being abusive and shouting down others.
"I don't want to play this game, change it now, I am a software developer and I played WoW, I know better than you what you want" <= Victimise all you want, that's no discussion, that's water-hammering the forums until one have what one wants, with for only argument "But I want it !".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"I don't want to play this game, change it now, I am a software developer and I played WoW, I know better than you what you want" <= Victimise all you want, that's no discussion, that's water-hammering the forums until one have what one wants, with for only argument "But I want it !".I hear you loud and clear. Abusive behavior in game is not acceptable. Abusive behavior out of game is acceptable. Thank you for clearing that up. Sorry you don't see fit to allow me into your game.
@Nihimon - BurnHavoc moved the discussion to this thread to have a discussion. Some 'louder than other' forum warriors are abusing the attempt to have a discussion about it. Except for the people who can justify griefing in text but not in game, I see this discussion as hashing through thoughts and ideas to further meaningful experiences - PvP and otherwise - while not devolving into a murder simulator. I know BurnHavoc well enough to know that on a base level - I think you and he want the same thing. People can't lose their temper and at the same time insist they are not being abusive and shouting down others.
And that is not what has been said or how it has been presented. Can you please stop griefing an otherwise productive discussion? Or is the calmer, gentler demeanor thing not working out this night either?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"I don't want to play this game, change it now, I am a software developer and I played WoW, I know better than you what you want" <= Victimise all you want, that's no discussion, that's water-hammering the forums until one have what one wants, with for only argument "But I want it !".
You have a nasty habit of putting words in people's mouths and building straw-men.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Straw-men, I didn't know this expression before I came on this forum. It seems to me that it's used when people don't know what to answer.
You can say whatever you want, that's exactly what BurnHavoc is advocating on every thread about PvP, and particularly here : http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2r2er&page=3?Lack-of-evil
Gpunk, accusing me of griefing a so-called discussion won't work. I won't shut up and let people like BurnHavoc ruin this game without a fight.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't have to convince 90% of anyone...I apologise, I'd forgotten this wasn't one of the threads where the following has become part of today's conversation:
If they act badly as defined by the desires of 90% of the community their bad actions will hurt their in-game power level.Emphasis in the original.
The whole post is very interesting as well, but I've already put the whole thing over in the Lack of Evil thread, so I won't waste duplicate-reading time.
Thanks so much for this Jazz. I had not seen this post from Ryan before.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A Crafter that has never left the settlement, purchasing all his supplies by those that go out and gather could possibly have max reputation. The Crafter could still be vital to the settlement by producing needed material and repairing stuff around the settlement. This does not make the person more concern about their reputation then their community....I did not get that at all. The "thing" is the situation of doing x for y points of Rep. It was disclaimer-ed because the manner of accruing Rep has/had not been decided with over-time being an option...obviously at odds with the situation presented above. And...Ryan probably knows if GW go some path that makes doing x for y impossible, someone here will claim he contradicted himself...again.
That said, the situation described by Ryan was a subset of possible cases. Are you seriously going to suggest that there is no way a person could be a positive contribution to a community/settlement...
But he is of less use then someone who is a crafter and willing to PVP
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A Crafter that has never left the settlement, purchasing all his supplies by those that go out and gather could possibly have max reputation. The Crafter could still be vital to the settlement by producing needed material and repairing stuff around the settlement. This does not make the person more concern about their reputation then their community.But he is of less use then someone who is a crafter and willing to PVP
Guurzak say one good clomper orc and one good maker orc better than two orcs dat do everyting bad.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I am content to get in game and see how it plays out. The devs don't want meaningless PvP and I am very cool with that. The different perspectives on what defines meaningless are just that - perspectives. How that is intended to play out on paper (in theory?) might be different to how it is actually executed with mechanics once we are in game. I fully expect the devs to bring it in line with their vision if there is too much disconnect or too much meaningless interaction. I would like to think the developers would consider the reverse as well. Tweaking restrictions if there are no / not enough bad guys. Please note, bad guys - not griefers. No one likes griefers no matter how hard they fight while going down.
That's what I see these discussions and crowdforging in general as representing. The opportunity to have our voices heard should it not go exactly according to their (the devs) plan. Presenting ideas was never a demand, just a discussion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I welcome that discussion, and always encourage folks to speak what's actually on their minds - civilly if they can, and with a bit of forgiveness if someone else can't.
I just despair when the discussion devolves to "you're not listening!" The best way to handle folks trying to shout you down is to ignore them - don't let them change the subject.
If you're interested in brainstorming ideas for PvP cases that don't involve Reputation loss, only respond to posts that present those kinds of ideas.
If you're interested in convincing folks that Reputation loss for PvP against unflagged targets is a bad idea, use History, Facts, and Evidence - don't rely on assertions. And again, don't respond to posts that change the subject.
It's easy to get frustrated when it feels like someone's ignoring what you're saying... almost as easy as it is to ignore what someone's saying when you're frustrated. I'm still learning to recognize that in myself.
You are quite right, I keep getting drawn in by the forum trolls like Audoucet, Jazzlvraz, and Malvius012. I apologize, because you and others have been extremely civil and getting entwined in shouting matches with the same few people out to derail every open PvP thread is disrespectful to those who WANT to foster a meaningful discussion.
I've had a night to sleep on it, and I might have a few more ideas bouncing around there.
One of the ideas a few of us threw around is resource/location control for static game elements. Something like locking down a Skymetal node or entrance to a particular dungeon/area to prevent unauthorized players from using it. It'll mean players will have to come in force to break the blockade. So in this case, you have the reverse of "running around killing everything in sight", but rather "monopolizing something people want". I think this is a perfect play example of meaningful PvP that would otherwise be punished by reputation loss. The action of blockading something is decidedly evil AND lawbreaking (Chaotic) in the Riverlands, so here is a valid and meaningful game action that would also bring together groups of Lawful Good players to break the blockade. I believe that NEITHER SIDE should lose reputation for engaging or attempting to break a blockade.
This also prevents certain tactics I've seen in other games that can be viewed as extremely annoying in this case. I've seen large groups monopolize resources from small groups/solo players, but scramble when a large group comes to break the blockade to prevent getting a mass equivalent of rep loss for engaging in that large-scale fight. Then they just reform when the larger blockade-breaking group gets bored of having no targets of fight and leaves. Rinse and repeat until players basically give up on that resource for the day.
NOW, I think in this case we want to encourage the blocking group to stand their ground so that eventually the blockade breaking group prevails with persistence (plus the upper hand of being able to reinforce and not basically being under siege). At the moment, you're basically going to see the scramble method become standard, and I think thats a frustrating situation where no actual PvP occurs except killing of the small groups/solo players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One of the ideas a few of us threw around is resource/location control for static game elements. Something like locking down a Skymetal node or entrance to a particular dungeon/area to prevent unauthorized players from using it. It'll mean players will have to come in force to break the blockade. So in this case, you have the reverse of "running around killing everything in sight", but rather "monopolizing something people want". I think this is a perfect play example of meaningful PvP that would otherwise be punished by reputation loss.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One of the ideas a few of us threw around is resource/location control for static game elements. Something like locking down a Skymetal node or entrance to a particular dungeon/area to prevent unauthorized players from using it. It'll mean players will have to come in force to break the blockade. So in this case, you have the reverse of "running around killing everything in sight", but rather "monopolizing something people want". I think this is a perfect play example of meaningful PvP that would otherwise be punished by reputation loss.
Ohhh, I like that one!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...One of the ideas a few of us threw around is resource/location control for static game elements. Something like locking down a Skymetal node or entrance to a particular dungeon/area to prevent unauthorized players from using it. It'll mean players will have to come in force to break the blockade. So in this case, you have the reverse of "running around killing everything in sight", but rather "monopolizing something people want".
This is something that certainly will be done in PFO and should be very do-able without reputaiton loss. I think between companies this can and will be accomplished with feuds, and between settlements with wars.
I'm not sure if there is a gap here or an issue here with regard to reputation that can't be resolved using the feud or war mechanics that will exist.
@BurnHavoc, Perhaps you can present a scenario where the fued or war mechanics could not be used?
Hah! As I typed this Nihimon posted that "Challenge" link! Excellent!
EDIT: Spelling
Straw-men, I didn't know this expression before I came on this forum. It seems to me that it's used when people don't know what to answer.
So, if making quotes and saying someone's saying something they don't think they're saying isn't strawmanning, what is?
I won't shut up and let people like BurnHavoc ruin this game without a fight.
God, at least the Pax thread had some excuse for the melodrama—it was a thread of personal dislikes mixing with a very serious case of alleged rulebreaking. That's a real issue with real consequences. Of course it got dramatic.
This is just melodrama for the sake of melodramatics. It's like a rogue thread or something, except with fewer logical numbers.
BurnHavoc is not going to "ruin this game". I think his approach is a bit confused, but the core is a good point we always need to keep in mind: Solo play is not intended as a primary gameplay strategy. If you go into dangerous areas alone, you deserve to get jumped.
Hey, maybe you'll be badass. Maybe you'll become famous for being the only son-of-a-b%$!$ tough enough to roam the wilderness on your own. Maybe you'll get renown for being impossible to catch. Or maybe you'll just die a lot. It's up to you.
I'm still not sure Reputation is going to do the trick, though. It's hard to find a middle ground that allows the bandits to execute the occasional surprise attack without just nerfing the mechanic. But. Here's the fact that I think a lot of people are forgetting. If the mechanic doesn't work, Goblinworks will change it. There is no way this issue can lead to Goblinworks's downfall.
Hell, I volunteer to experiment with the reputation mechanic during EE. If it's too harsh, or too easy to overcome, I'll make a post about it. Regardless, if the mechanic is crap, GW will notice and GW will have it modified.
So enough melodrama. The worst-case scenario here is just, "Goblinworks has to make an alteration early on."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm still not sure Reputation is going to do the trick, though. It's hard to find a middle ground that allows the bandits to execute the occasional surprise attack without just nerfing the mechanic. But. Here's the fact that I think a lot of people are forgetting. If the mechanic doesn't work, Goblinworks will change it. There is no way this issue can lead to Goblinworks's downfall.Hell, I volunteer to experiment with the reputation mechanic during EE. If it's too harsh, or too easy to overcome, I'll make a post about it. Regardless, if the mechanic is crap, GW will notice and GW will have it modified.
So enough melodrama. The worst-case scenario here is just, "Goblinworks has to make an alteration early on."
Ok, I admit to being melodramatic about that case in the last day or two. I got excited. I think there will be plenty of groups in EE pushing the boundaries of the rep mechanic and making GW rethink it. I'm of the opinion that we'll see it either become negligible or gone altogether by the time the game has wider release, but I think that's a wait and see situation at this point.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Straw-men, I didn't know this expression before I came on this forum. It seems to me that it's used when people don't know what to answer.So, if making quotes and saying someone's saying something they don't think they're saying isn't strawmanning, what is?
I think he's saying that he wasn't familiar with the term "straw man" before coming to these forums. He isn't challenging the definition, though he may be saying that people throw it around a lot.
If saying someone's saying something they don't think they're saying isn't strawmanning, what is it? Back in the olden days, before strawmen were invented, they probably called it "making up stuff." Or less delicate things.
I think he's saying that he wasn't familiar with the term "straw man" before coming to these forums. He isn't challenging the definition...
He's making the oft-stated case that people are using strawman wrongly, TEO, by saying that his post wasn't strawmanning. "If that isn't challenging the definition..."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Saying that people use a term wrongly isn't the same as challenging its definition. Let me take an example from up-thread:
I keep getting drawn in by the forum trolls like Audoucet, Jazzlvraz, and Malvius012. I apologize, because you and others have been extremely civil and getting entwined in shouting matches with the same few people out to derail every open PvP thread
I don't know Jazzlvraz except through what he's said in these forums; I'm not in a company with him - but he's written a lot of well thought out posts in these forums over the last year or two. I think calling Jazzlvraz a forum troll borders on the ludicrous. If I say that, I'm not challenging that there are forum trolls or "the" definition of forum troll, I'm simply saying it's being used wrongly to describe Jazzlvraz.
"I don't want to play this game, change it now, I am a software developer and I played WoW, I know better than you what you want" <= Victimise all you want, that's no discussion, that's water-hammering the forums until one have what one wants, with for only argument "But I want it !".
You have a nasty habit of putting words in people's mouths and building straw-men.
Straw-men, I didn't know this expression before I came on this forum. It seems to me that it's used when people don't know what to answer.
So, if making quotes and saying someone's saying something they don't think they're saying isn't strawmanning, what is?
I am challenging his definition by stating what I believe to be the actual definition. That's all that's going on here.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
He's making the oft-stated case that people are using strawman wrongly, TEO, by saying that his post wasn't strawmanning. "If that isn't challenging the definition..."
I don't change the definition, I just say that it's used wrongly, because yes, BurnHavoc does exactly say that he doesn't want the reputation system, that he doesn't want to have any discouragement in unsanctioned PvP. And yes, he actually used as an argument that he has 15 years I've experienced as a MMO player, and is a software developper.
You can say I'm making straw-men as much as you want eh, but it doesn't make it so.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
One of the ideas a few of us threw around is resource/location control for static game elements. Something like locking down a Skymetal node or entrance to a particular dungeon/area to prevent unauthorized players from using it. It'll mean players will have to come in force to break the blockade. So in this case, you have the reverse of "running around killing everything in sight", but rather "monopolizing something people want". I think this is a perfect play example of meaningful PvP that would otherwise be punished by reputation loss. The action of blockading something is decidedly evil AND...
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qxcy?Stand-your-Ground#1
What you are proposing is not going against the reputation system, it's adding a sanctioned PvP type. I don't see anything wrong, with this idea.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One of the ideas a few of us threw around is resource/location control for static game elements. Something like locking down a Skymetal node or entrance to a particular dungeon/area to prevent unauthorized players from using it. It'll mean players will have to come in force to break the blockade. So in this case, you have the reverse of "running around killing everything in sight", but rather "monopolizing something people want". I think this is a perfect play example of meaningful PvP that would otherwise be punished by reputation loss. The action of blockading something is decidedly evil AND...http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qxcy?Stand-your-Ground#1
What you are proposing is not going against the reputation system, it's adding a sanctioned PvP type. I don't see anything wrong, with this idea.
Thats what I'm looking to do with this thread :) Try to find the specifics of what people want to do wrt meaningful PvP so we can make sure it's not discouraged.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
BurnHavoc, you seem to be operating under the assumption that all losses of reputation are bad. Think about reputation less like a penal system and more like a currency: you spend reputation to engage in nonconsensual PvP.
To keep PFO from becoming a 'murder simulator', nonconsensual PvP needs to be restricted. Timeouts, hard caps, cool-downs, etc. are all various restrictions that would work, but would also reduce player agency and decision making. Having a renewable resource that one spends is another form, but one that gives players much more freedom. To better facilitate meaningful group play, this cost can be deferred from an individual to a group through the feud and war mechanics (each or which have a different resource cost associated with them).
If you spend too much of any of these resources on non-con PvP, you or your group will suffer diminished performance because of it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
BurnHavoc, you seem to be operating under the assumption that all losses of reputation are bad.
While I do not like the currency metaphor because of semantic baggage, I think you hit the stake on the head with the above statement...driving the stake fully home I think you could change it to:
Some seem to be operating under the false assumption that all losses of reputation are bad.
The truth is that being at the low end of the Rep scale is bad. Any instance of Rep loss is bad only in where it leaves you such on the Rep scale.
EDIT: And, as you point out...since Rep is a "renewable resource"...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Where did any of us say locking up a resource node would be bad or unfair? My concerns with PvP are don't attack me because I'm a random guy walking down the road but because I'm a member if TEO and your feuding with TEO and I was alone running to a group who were getting ready to assault one of your POIs when you caught me. They will not be able to eliminate random killings but the system should move most PvP into this kind of scenario which is content.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Straw-men, I didn't know this expression before I came on this forum. It seems to me that it's used when people don't know what to answer.So, if making quotes and saying someone's saying something they don't think they're saying isn't strawmanning, what is?
In a debate where the opinions of the audience is the criterion of victory (as opposed to, say, truth), a 'strawman' argument, like an 'ad hominem', is used to reduced your opponent's credibility with the audience rather than argue with the substance of what he is saying.
If I'm debating someone and they speak a Truth that knocks the pins out from under my basic premise then I'm in trouble, because I will not be able to refute the truth even to recover my supporting premise.
But where the objective is to win the argument, rather than discover the facts, then what matters is whether the listener or reader believes the truth my opponent has used. In molding popular opinion, packaging is often more important than content.
So, if I can lead the audience to a belief that my opponent cannot be believed (ad hominem) or that what he said was not what he really said, but instead something else that I CAN refute, then I can still win the argument and convince the audience that my argument is 'better' than his. And where 'better' is what is merely more popular I am right.
It doesn't matter so much what he or I think either of us said, what matters in a strawman attack is what the audience thinks he said. He spoke a truth that destroyed my argument. I have to convince them that he said something he didn't say so they won't notice or believe that he destroyed my argument.
Honestly, the strawmanning was pretty minor—it's the "boiling down someone's argument to focus on the negatives so they look foolish" strawmanning, rather than the more oft-criticized "outright lying" strawmanning. I was more reacting to the laziness of a "This is what you sound like:" quote. Clearly, I should have used more levity.