Goblin Squad Member
|
Following from the Lack of Evil thread because I think between myself and others we've killed constructive conversation in favour of a yelling match.
-----
The question is: How CAN reputation account for instances legitimate non-consensual PvP, ie how can we allow for/track (mechanically) meaningful non-consensual PvP WITHOUT reputation loss.
We understand there has to be risk involved in this game, and with trade, settlements, PoIs/Outposts, and other resource control it's going to come down to PvP-based risk. Otherwise there is no danger and things become quite boring very quickly. This means there WILL be unprovoked attacks from running a caravan from A to B. There will be unprovoked raids on your POIs and Outposts, and you SHOULD have SOME danger of being attacked when exploring out in the wild. I don't think you should expect to be cut down for leaving a protected town, bit
So I propose we try to brainstorm to the best of our abilities all the non-consensual and meaningful PvP scenarios we can come up with and find solutions to make them mechanically trackable so we can find ways to except it from the reputation mechanic, as well as thresholds to prevent abuse. I'll try to update this top post with the scenarios and the best solutions for them.
-----
Initial brainstorming:
- banditry of Trade Caravans, especially well guarded ones, will probably pretty much require the element of surprise in order to make it a reasonable risk. Part of the inherent risk of doing a trade run is banditry, so SAD really doesn't factor in much here because of that, therefore I don't believe attacking someone who is within x distance of the caravan should count for rep loss as it can be assumed they are either running it, guarding it, or attacking it. Bystanders be ware.
- Assassination contracts shouldn't lose you reputation. It's a legitimate neutral evil contract to take well in character and in flavour of the game. It means that the person offering up the contract KNOWS the target, and has some reason to kill them. Even if that reason is "I don't like them", that's still a personal feud. The bonus, A GOOD assassin is never seen nor caught. Should GAIN rep for that, but that's hard to implement mechanically. Either way, easy to except from rep loss.
- Active combat in the wild. If you stumble upon an active fight, I see no reason why you can't get a bit blood thirsty and jump in. You should be able to take one side or the other... or neither and just kill em all! Active combat is always an invite to fight, besides issuing/responding to a SAD while someone is actively fighting is kinda silly. Easy to track and not cause rep loss.
- Attacking POIs, Outposts and Settlements. I think this one is self explanatory and easy to implement. If you don't guard yo s!!!, someone gonna come along and sack it. Obvious in how meaningful it is, and it's pretty much dead on easy to implement for no rep loss. Hell, doing it to someone your not at war with could be a de facto act of declaring war if you want to program it that way. Either way, I don't believe rep loss should be anywhere near here.
Brainstorm away!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If bandits lose nothing for random blitz attacks, then they have little/no reason to use SAD at all. SAD promotes a meaningful choice: give up the blitz and remain a high rep bandit, or go blitz and hope you get it all.
Assassins, I'm fine with not losing rep. As long as an assassination contract costs something like influence or some such to prevent them from being spammed at everyone for 1gp.
Active combat, you have to have a reason to get involved. You want to jump in every fight you see? That's not the vision for PFO.
POIs etc, no. Just no. You can always attack it, but you'd better have a *reason* to do so other than "because its there". Otherwise, no POI will be able to reasonable produce because of the non-stop hordes waiting to loot it. One player acting as you describe, annoying. Tens of thousands? We've already got that game on the market. GW doesn't want to make that game and won't make money doing so.
The whole difference for PFO is to ask a player for more than "what do you do?", they ask "Why?". "Because I can" is a short road to CE and low rep. "Because we're in a declared feud and I'm stealing everything that isn't nailed down" is a good reason. "Because they're in a different faction" is a good reason.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's hard to guesstimate how much work would be necessary to repair a reputation hit without having a client to play with, so we'll just have to wait mainly.
I mean, if it turns out that the only ways to bump up rep come when the stars align, then avoiding a rep hit is huge and necessary, and you'll have to store up a rep buffer every chance you get.
On the other hand, if it's possible to repair 50 rep in thirty minutes, you'll probably see players going to town on their own rep because it's not that big a deal to fix it.
I'm thinking perhaps that a character should have to do 2-3 30 minute jobs across a couple days to repair the reputation hit that they might take for an unprovoked kill.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
OK, call me clueless. What is the value of an assassin over a bounty hunter?
And yes the rep loss of the bandit is the key to SAD. But remember the bandit has little risk. Under current discussed concepts in the forum, the bandit knows what is in the caravan, knows what the defenders are and can choose to only attack cheap target. Late arriving cavalry take alignment hits and rep hits for defending the caravan (there goes honey pot).
The only bandits at risk are those who can add 1 + 1 but find 2 + 2 challenging.
Really, Bluddwolf, are you going to attack when you think you might lose?
Only reason not to SAD is that the cool down is too long.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The broad answer to your broad question is: you can't. Reputation, functionally, is the metric of whether or not the pvp you engaged in was meaningful or not, that's its designed purpose. The meaningfulness of pvp therefore is definitionaly inseparable from the mechanics of Reputation.
All that's to be done is refine the specific guts of how Reputation is processed so it more accurately reflects the consensus view of what is meaningful or not. In the era of trying to convince the world population that EVE isn't a murder simulator where you get ganked every four steps outside the town walls, that's not likely to include non-consensual pvp.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...more accurately reflects the consensus view...
Ryan's thinking the same way:
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.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
OK, call me clueless. What is the value of an assassin over a bounty hunter?
With an Assassination, you loose your Bind point (so you wont res nearby).
And you won't know who assassinated you.(if i remember right)
A thing some assassins get (after a certain amount of training) is an "assassins Mask" that when worn, your name is "assassin" (I think you can also use a disguise over this).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have seen this argument for basically a free for all system travel through 3 threads now and my question to those wanting it is simple. With all the options for PvP available to you that wouldn't destroy your rep why do you persist in raging for this one aspect? PvP WILL be integral to the game but the sticking point for the design is that it is based on group conflict and empire building. The devs have told you your gank style play is not their desired flavor of PvP from day ONE. Feud a company if they are merchants and you want their stuff or if you want to smash and grab their resources and infrastructure. What the devs keep telling you is that the random lulz play style is not the purpose of the game. Stop trying to make a case for it not being fair when there has been 100% transparency on this issue.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The question is: How CAN reputation account for instances legitimate non-consensual PvP, ie how can we allow for/track (mechanically) meaningful non-consensual PvP WITHOUT reputation loss.
Virtually all the PvP in PFO will be non-consensual. Most of it won't involve Reputation Loss.
Perhaps the question you're asking not the right question.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Whelp, everyone missed the point once again. I've got a Star Citizen Arena Commander module to play around with so I'll be back to address this thread later, but for now:
What the devs keep telling you is that the random lulz play style is not the purpose of the game.
It's not random lulz. It's because I don't want to HAVE TO ASK permission to start a fight every time I want to engage in PvP. Everyone rails at the fact that there is no risk inherent in dying which motivates gankers (which I've suggested an alternative to in the previous thread), but at the same time keep promoting a system whose goal is to reduce or eliminate any idea of risk FOR THEMSELVES in any other action within the game (trading, settlements, POIs, unsafe territory). If there is little to no danger or risk if you don't consent to it, then what's the point?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have seen this argument for basically a free for all system travel through 3 threads now...
Three? Rookie :) (j/k)
I've seen it pop up so many times over the last almost two-and-a-half years it's not funny. I've gone through various stages of participation - constructive and otherwise - as well.
I think the most important thing to understand at this point is that "Crowdforging" isn't going to fundamentally alter the vision for PFO. Rather, it's going to prioritize the scheduling of the various elements in the vision, and probably discover some new elements that are compatible with the vision.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One of the benefits of Crowdforging is that Goblinworks, essentially first among all game developers, both wants to, and will be able to, know what 90% of their community wants, within the scope of their master design. It'll be up to us, then, to watch what they're delivering in response, and give them feedback on that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just want to point out.
PfO is more faction v faction, not person v person.
you need to be in a group in some way to fully experience this game the way GW intends it. And if we want to fight someone randomly without consequence, there has to be a faction ties or reasons somewhere.
Usually.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's not random lulz. It's because I don't want to HAVE TO ASK permission to start a fight every time I want to engage in PvP.
Maybe there is some misunderstanding here? Can you elaborate on the above? Why do you think that you have to ask permission of someone to engage them in PVP?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One of the benefits of Crowdforging is that Goblinworks, essentially first among all game developers, both wants to, and will be able to, know what 90% of their community wants, within the scope of their master design. It'll be up to us, then, to watch what they're delivering in response, and give them feedback on that.
This is why I get frustrated when people (in the other thread) basically try to say "NOPE THIS IS THE GAME NOW, DECISION IS MADE AND FINAL, IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT MAYBE THIS GAME ISN'T FOR YOU." There is a LOT of flexibility on what this game will be and where it's going.
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.
I started posting on these forums less than a week ago and I've already been called a griefer and a wanna be mass-murderer, i've been talked over to and around, I've been called out as being a shill from unrelated groups/guilds I have nothing to do with, and generally been treated like crap simply because I have a differing opinion. I understand this is a heated topic, but ffs people I'm trying to work with you here not out of ignorance or because I want the right be an a&%%%~@ in-game, but because I want the best for this game and I'm positive from experience that what is being put forth will kill it in it's infancy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
...with respect to what can be implemented.
You're not talking to a vacuum; you're beginning the discussion intended to bring 90% of the players of the game--not just the people on the boards--over to your way of thinking. You're starting behind the eight-ball, though, because a lot of folks currently hearing you--only on these boards, because you have no game in which to talk to anyone except us--are here *because* we don't like PVP as implemented elsewhere, and we like that PFO, as we understand it so far, will bear *little to no resemblance* to that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We hear your point but are not sure if YOU understand it. For feuds, wars, s&d your not asking permission, it's not consensual and if I don't want it don't do it. It's about making the PvP focused. Not random ganker 374 has killed you but company xyz has feuded company abc so all members beware. Now you can still give that company a bad day and loot their caravans and destroy their POIs for lulz under this system just not with zero warning. It's not fun to be minding your own business and have a group jump you for no cause. It is fun to see your in a feud and form hunter killer teams to clash with the enemy or full on armies if the parties can field them. The only thing you don't get is the ability to ruin someone's day with zero warning without penalty. One of the hang ups here is you associate fair warning with consensual which it isn't. Bottom line is if you can't play well with others you will take a hit to your ability to max out your character because that's the way this game has been structured from day one because it's all about everyone having fun. My mining all day and forging swords for market doesn't ruin your day while your jumping me murdering my character and stealing all my stuff ruins mine. GW wants to make it so we can all have fun because instead of taking my mining all day I might equip myself for the field and go toe to toe with your because we are feuding... Oh wait you don't want to fight now that it's fair? That's how I understand GWs logic to work and if I am not correct in that assessment I will let them tell me otherwise.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...with respect to what can be implemented.You're not talking to a vacuum, you're beginning the discussion intended to bring 90% of the players of the game--not just the people on the boards--over to your way of thinking. You're starting behind the eight-ball, though, because a lot of folks currently hearing you--only on these boards, because you have no game in which to talk to anyone except us--are here *because* we don't like PVP as implemented elsewhere, and we like that PFO, as we understand it so far, will bear *little to no resemblance* to that.
I don't have to convince 90% of anyone, I just need 51% on my side, which judging by these forums I'm close to having anyway. Just because you're vocal does not make you the majority.
The alignment system may be something new, but reputation is an age old hacked-together excuse for a PvP disincentive system. Ideas like this stretch back into the age of MUDs, where they generally weren't popular in favour of alignment systems and *gasp* roleplaying incentives.
I don't know how many ways I can say that not only has this been done before, it's generally NOT a workable method of punishing the red=dead mentality.
YOu know what, I've explained this before. How about I just run a bunch of my quotes, and you can stop derailing this thread and get back to what it's supposed to be: finding ways to make PvP work for everyone in this game.
And I REALLY think you confuse reputation with risk. A punishment system isn't a RISK. It's an obstacle to get around. It won't prevent anyone from doing what they want. Hell, it'll just give people the feeling of reward and success for finding ways around it. And the reputation system won't PREVENT you from attacking someone tomorrow. It'll just *tisk*tisk* at you for being a naughty boy the next time you get your sabre stuck in someones ribcage.
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!
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating REWARDING meaningless combat. I'm advocating NOT PUNISHING it because PUNISHMENT DOESN'T WORK. If you get NO MATERIAL REWARDS from meaningless killing, it's a boring thing eventually. If other players take it upon themselves to enact justice, then you're no longer indiscriminately killing but engaging in meaningful PvP. If you get punished, it's a CHALLENGE to beat the system. You'll literally have players seeing how negative they can go or how many kills they can get by finding ways to circumvent the system before it catches on.
I know it sounds counterintuitive, but a punishment based system is a net NEGATIVE for the actual gameplay.
ANYWAY,
Lets get back to good PvP-based discussions on how we can avoid mechanically crippling players for participating in meaningful PvP experiences.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just wanted to make one point, before sleep. It was said that reputation loss was a sign that the PvP was meaningless, this is in fact not correct according to Ryan Dancey. There may very well be meaningful reasons for taking the reputation hit, especially if your action is for the benefit of something larger than yourself (company, settlement, kingdom). I would argue that in rare instances these actions might be some of the most meaningful you actually engage in.
Please notice I said "Rare". That really is the key. If you are frequently engaging in low rep behavior, it will lose its meaning and you will suffer the consequences of that in both a meta sense and mechanically.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have to convince 90% of anyone, I just need 51% on my side...
I think you may have the wrong impression.
Let me start by saying I'm not trying to shut you up, or make you quit advocating for what you want. I'm only trying to share with you the information Ryan has already given us.
Crowdforging is all about the votes in the end , isn't it?No. It would very dangerous to assume Crowdforging will just be a series of votes. That won't work. We can't have a game designed by majority rule.
|
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.
Hey, its a good thing then that there isnt 90% for your side of the discussion either.
|
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.
Sorry, you're correct. My math is off. I'd just need 56% of the population to agree with me. That way even if you ignore 10%, 46% (a majority of the 90% remaining) agree that wanting to openly PvP in and open PvP game shouldn't be a punishable offense.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just wanted to make one point, before sleep. It was said that reputation loss was a sign that the PvP was meaningless, this is in fact not correct according to Ryan Dancey.
Ryan's own words, just a few months ago:
Reputation is a vector orthogonal to the good/evil law/chaos matrix and it reflects the degree to which your character (initially) engages in meaningless PvP. I expect over time it will reflect other behavior as well. The objective is to quantify to some degree how your character conforms to the goal of maximizing meaningful human interaction. To begin, we are focusing that down to "how meaningful is your character's PvP history".
(emphasis mine)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know full well that he said that if you have max rep, then you are not participating and helping your company/settlement/nation.
Again, in Ryan's own words:
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that at the top end of rep, there's a thing you have to do every day at a certain time to gain a point or two of rep unattainable any other way. The is just hypothetical so don't read anything more into it.
Now imagine that there is something really important that the Settlement needs done that conflicts with fulfilling that rep gaining activity.
Doing the necessary thing implies you don't maximize your rep. Maximizing your rep implies you put that number ahead of your collective obligation to your Settlement.
That is the kind of meaningful choice that I'd be interested in when vetting a potential recruit: do they play "for a number" or for the team?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lol Nihimon I guess I should have been more specific, TODAY this issue seems to have flared up again though I have seen it in the past. And I have started commenting now that we are in the final stages before and getting an actual game even if it's only a MVP. But I really believe that this system has a good chance of working if the gank style players are drowned out. With so many options for PvP the crying of the people wanting a FFA environment seems completely selfish. Though there are a few here who I think would play great CE villains most who want to play such are in the class the HALO teabagger. If I wanted that experience that's want I will play.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have to convince 90% of anyone, I just need 51% on my side...I think you may have the wrong impression.
Let me start by saying I'm not trying to shut you up, or make you quit advocating for what you want. I'm only trying to share with you the information Ryan has already given us.
Crowdforging is all about the votes in the end , isn't it?No. It would very dangerous to assume Crowdforging will just be a series of votes. That won't work. We can't have a game designed by majority rule.
I totally agree with Ryan there. That's part of why I'm so strongly advocating my position on this. I'm trying to be the voice of reason.
I sincerely believe, in my experience, that trying to draw players into an "open PvP sandbox game" game and then heavily regulating how, where and when they can PvP is akin to the battlegrounds in a lot of themepark games and will drive your players right back to them, or to more openly implemented systems.
I also sincerely believe that any deterrent to open PvP will be seen as a challenge to abusers/griefers as well as turn into a metagame of avoidance and exploitation by the regular kos players. It'll also give players and CSRs/devs a false sense of "fixing the problem" of red=dead players when in fact they've only found a way to satisfy a vocal minority of people who are afraid that their play experience will be ruined by other players.
What I'm saying is by putting an obstacle in the path rather than actually DEALING with the problem, you're inviting challengers to best your obstacle, not deterring them from coming up against it.
NOW, I also do realize that we're ALL more or less talking out our asses until we actually get some screen-time playing the game. It doesn't mean I don't appreciate a good solid discussion to kill the time in-between ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uh, actually, you only need 11% to block a 90% majority from taking place. Technically. ;D
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that at the top end of rep, there's a thing you have to do every day at a certain time to gain a point or two of rep unattainable any other way. The is just hypothetical so don't read anything more into it.
Now imagine that there is something really important that the Settlement needs done that conflicts with fulfilling that rep gaining activity.
Doing the necessary thing implies you don't maximize your rep. Maximizing your rep implies you put that number ahead of your collective obligation to your Settlement.
That is the kind of meaningful choice that I'd be interested in when vetting a potential recruit: do they play "for a number" or for the team?
Yeah so... There is a player that is more concerned about his reputation then his company/settlement/nation.
When Ryan said do not read into it, he was saying do not read into the "thing" that this player has to do daily to gain rep.
When looking to recruit a guy like that, who is overly concerned about his reputation, its a big NO!!!
He plays for the number over his team, and there is no need for him to be on the team.
Ryan was saying that in his words. So yeah, thanks for posting it for new players to see.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Uh, actually, you only need 11% to block a 90% majority from taking place. Technically. ;D
Sorry, let me clarify.
Say you have a population of 100
90% of your population is 90.
Therefore, a majority of 90% of your population is 46 (50% * 90% = 45%, or 0.5 * 0.9 = 0.45, so one above that to be the majority)
If you want to insure that you get a majority no matter WHAT 90% of the population is chosen, you require 56 (1.0-0.9=0.1, 0.9*0.5=0.45, so one above that to be the majority = 0.46, 0.46+0.1=0.56)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Here is where I think you fail to see the difference between a fair number of us and wow style battleground 'PvP'ers, for a fair number of us the ability to build a world is AWESOME and the politicking, city building, poi claiming/upgrading, caravan moving is the bread and butter of our interests. Now note bread and butter leaves plenty of room for other things but these are the shining baubles that we went out and supported PFO for. I don't mind PvP in a game but don't like looking over my shoulder every second I'm in the game. If we are feuding then I know my play style has to adapt to that circumstance, this is not consensual PvP but I'm not asking for that. What the builders, tinkerers and want to be statesmen are looking for is a game that let's them do their thing and gives them a clear signal when to scuttle aside or hang up their robes and strap on a breastplate. We want a chance to meet a foe with a sword in our hands and fight for all we are worth- which might not be much we are craftsmen darn it- but being surprised with a Pickaxe in our hands without warning is not fun it's downright traumatic. And to be honest complaining about needing to declare hostilities before slaughtering those of us of more constructive inclinations is really no betting than flat out saying your a bully who never looks for a fair fight but instead takes the fights they 'know' they can win.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is where I think you fail to see the difference between a fair number of us and wow style battleground 'PvP'ers, for a fair number of us the ability to build a world is AWESOME and the politicking, city building, poi claiming/upgrading, caravan moving is the bread and butter of our interests. Now note bread and butter leaves plenty of room for other things but these are the shining baubles that we went out and supported PFO for. I don't mind PvP in a game but don't like looking over my shoulder every second I'm in the game. If we are feuding then I know my play style has to adapt to that circumstance, this is not consensual PvP but I'm not asking for that. What the builders, tinkerers and want to be statesmen are looking for is a game that let's them do their thing and gives them a clear signal when to scuttle aside or hang up their robes and strap on a breastplate. We want a chance to meet a foe with a sword in our hands and fight for all we are worth- which might not be much we are craftsmen darn it- but being surprised with a Pickaxe in our hands without warning is not fun it's downright traumatic. And to be honest complaining about needing to declare hostilities before slaughtering those of us of more constructive inclinations is really no betting than flat out saying your a bully who never looks for a fair fight but instead takes the fights they 'know' they can win.
I think you just accurately described an antagonist, which is precisely what I'm advocating for the ability to be. Have your politicking, city building, poi claiming/upgrading, caravan moving. Have your builders, tinkerers and statesmen. I'm here wanting to play the thing you're scared of, that your building your arms and armour to safeguard yourself from. The reason you post guards and hire caravan guards. I want my character to be the reason you've learned to keep one eye open when you sleep. Why certain parts of the map are just... well, just don't go there if you want to come out alive.
Without people like me, there is no risk, no tension, no flavour to your conflict. And the only way for that to exist is if that archetype can BE viable and BE strong.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is where I think you fail to see the difference between a fair number of us and wow style battleground 'PvP'ers, for a fair number of us the ability to build a world is AWESOME and the politicking, city building, poi claiming/upgrading, caravan moving is the bread and butter of our interests. Now note bread and butter leaves plenty of room for other things but these are the shining baubles that we went out and supported PFO for. I don't mind PvP in a game but don't like looking over my shoulder every second I'm in the game. If we are feuding then I know my play style has to adapt to that circumstance, this is not consensual PvP but I'm not asking for that. What the builders, tinkerers and want to be statesmen are looking for is a game that let's them do their thing and gives them a clear signal when to scuttle aside or hang up their robes and strap on a breastplate. We want a chance to meet a foe with a sword in our hands and fight for all we are worth- which might not be much we are craftsmen darn it- but being surprised with a Pickaxe in our hands without warning is not fun it's downright traumatic. And to be honest complaining about needing to declare hostilities before slaughtering those of us of more constructive inclinations is really no betting than flat out saying your a bully who never looks for a fair fight but instead takes the fights they 'know' they can win.
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 an armed guard.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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...
+1
That's an excellent way of putting it, thank you :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Malvius
This is part of why, in my opinion, there is such focus on the settlement and the PoI. These are defensible areas where the noncoms can do their thing. I also say, hey that is why you (the TEO) exist in the first place right? ;)
@All
PfO is based on "focuses" in the world, settlements, PoIs, outposts, SAD stations, important landmarks (mountain passes and important trade routes) and so very few people will just be hanging around the wilderness (excluding bandits and explorers). Everyone will be going from destination to destination (even harvesters).
It is an obvious understanding that we all will be at our most vulnerable in-transit between destinations, so what really protects us from the possible gank-fest? Is it mechanics, or morals, or even danegeld?
No, it is (in this game at least) the politics, the threads of policy that hold up the world. People shouldn't disproportionately fear during the transit periods because, much like real world, they have their entire people on their side. Attacking X nation caravan will so many repercussions to your nation that it will only happen because your leadership decided upon it as a political maneuver (and war/conflict is politics). This invisible net is what will keep us up, so it is our duty to create it as soon as we can (GW is trying to put out land and social content to make this fully-fledged mechanics wise. we gotta just be patient) and not bicker over how the mechanics should do it for us. We must do, and then when we show the way it should be done, GW steps in and fill the mechanics in to fit.
This is the whole process of crowdforging, the cornerstone of GW's EE experience.
So people shouldn't worry about anything other than national war or bandits, and bandits are protected from by patrols, laws, and guards. If the settlements, nations, and companies are lax about that then it is their fault and they need to take measures. If it is war, then sorry but a lone peace-time caravan with some guards is going to likely die, it is a war after all.
So our focus needs to be creating this "higher-level" global political makeup where everyone feels invested. As much crap as I shovel onto the RA, NG-Plains, NC and others, that is all IC concerns; it makes me happy these exist as it is building up that needed organized, coherent political lattice which on top of which peace can reside. What we need to guard against more than anything is anarchy and lawlessness (Chaotic people still have codes and politics which they live by, don't you lie).
With our existent ~5 nations + city-states we should be able to form what is required. People should fear EEs and Bandits, not other players (ho-ho-ho). The most important thing for us to do is be invested in our communities and the game. Strained relations between TEO and TSV should concern, interest, or amuse everyone for socio-politic agendas, not for OOC reasons. I'm not saying we all need to RP always, but we need to make our interactions meaningful to everyone, not just the parties signing the contract.
dig?
just my opinion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To carify: The tension created by the threat of war, not with some guys who think they go bump in the night, but with other nations, settlements, etc. is what should truly be the pinnacle of fear. War savages lands unlike anything bandits or the odd necromancer or two can do. Two entirely "good" nations marching their tens of thousands of men armies at each other all because you attacked a ripe target while out and about should stay your hand more than any immediate threat.
I mean sure, bandits and killers are bad, but not altogether degenerate because they are easily policed if the politics are in place. If a person has to work to get their land, and work to maintain it, they are going to want to keep track and keep care of it. Bandits and griefers will not be as much of a problem in this system then, because nobody wants to be known as the territory griefers hang out. It is bad business and bad for morale. Keeping them down is a natural by-product and result of a political landscape.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@BurnHavoc
The fact is you can look at reputation in two ways. As punishing or as allowing to bend the rules created by the devs(because they feel the simple group mechanic pvp rules are too restrictive). You choose to look at reputation only in one way and that's why your opinion is highly speculative and opinionated(probably based on your past experiences). This is an mmo. You choose to come in and play with other people, not you choose to come in and do what ever you want(as you have probably gotten used to in other mmos).
edit. I hope this makes sense.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
BurnHavoc, the playstyle that you have stated you want, you will be able to have. That playstyle is absolutely going to be supported. So yea! You get to have the kind of fun you are looking for.
And at the same time, there are in-game consequences to the actions that make up your playstyle, just as there are consequences for everyone's actions. You seem like a bright fellow so I'm sure you understand that it would be unreasonable to expect that you would be allowed to prey upon others, putting fear into their hearts, all without negative consequences.
You want to be a criminal and a murderer and that's cool; the game needs those kinds of people. But there must be a heavy consequence to being such to keep the world from becoming nothing but criminals and murderers. That way, you get to engage in your playstyle and at the same time I get to engage in mine knowing that the consequences for your playstyle is significant enough that I'm not constantly surrounded by criminals and murderers, which would prevent me from being able to engage in my playstyle.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
While we will need to get into the game itself to see just how restrictive the penalties are I will say I think you still fail to see the difference in play styles. Those miners you attack, they are your content, you are not content to them you are a nightmare. I agree wandering around an MMO in you undergarments and even a relatively harmless guy like me might swat you but let me put it this way: for those miners who might be like low teens lvl WOW characters to your 60ish characters it's not fun to be COMPLETELY outclassed. Now the fact that escalations can really ramp up might make me more forgiving of your play style. If I'm not worried about you because there is an ENTIRE tribe of ogres bearing down on us then we are good or in other words if you want to play the villain let it be at the power level of the content. Actually a fun mechanism to put in might be YOUR banditry escalates monster activity in a hex making life difficult for everyone. I would lose a lot of my discontent over being killed by a PC if I saw a bigger badder being come along and pulp them. Actually I really like this idea now that it's come up where is a dev when you need one...
Uh, actually, you only need 11% to block a 90% majority from taking place. Technically. ;DSorry, let me clarify.
Say you have a population of 100
90% of your population is 90.
Therefore, a majority of 90% of your population is 46 (50% * 90% = 45%, or 0.5 * 0.9 = 0.45, so one above that to be the majority)
If you want to insure that you get a majority no matter WHAT 90% of the population is chosen, you require 56 (1.0-0.9=0.1, 0.9*0.5=0.45, so one above that to be the majority = 0.46, 0.46+0.1=0.56)
That's taking it a bit too literally. "A majority of 90%" means the same as a "two-thirds majority". It's just telling you how big the majority is.
EDIT: Either that, or I'm the one being too literal. Can we get a third say here?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that at the top end of rep, there's a thing you have to do every day at a certain time to gain a point or two of rep unattainable any other way. The is just hypothetical so don't read anything more into it.
Now imagine that there is something really important that the Settlement needs done that conflicts with fulfilling that rep gaining activity.
Doing the necessary thing implies you don't maximize your rep. Maximizing your rep implies you put that number ahead of your collective obligation to your Settlement.
That is the kind of meaningful choice that I'd be interested in when vetting a potential recruit: do they play "for a number" or for the team?
Yeah so... There is a player that is more concerned about his reputation then his company/settlement/nation.
When Ryan said do not read into it, he was saying do not read into the "thing" that this player has to do daily to gain rep.
When looking to recruit a guy like that, who is overly concerned about his reputation, its a big NO!!!
He plays for the number over his team, and there is no need for him to be on the team.
Ryan was saying that in his words. So yeah, thanks for posting it for new players to see.
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 and have max Rep? What Ryan was suggesting was that if someone have max Rep, then their lack of contribution in relevant areas should be weighed against their resource consumption. They might contribute in other ways that balance their choices. It would be up to the relevant community...so that community should take note of such things.
Anyways, I think the issue is how Reputation is being looked at. It is a sum, not addends or subtrahends. The level of that sum is either in the "red", "white", or "green". Either you are in the red because you partake in too much meaningless PvP, or you are in the white because you enjoy a balanced amount of meaningless PvP, or you are in the green because you partake in little to no meaningless PvP. The question will be where we (or GW) set the boarders of those color coded regions.
Addressing the OP, instead of caring about difficult to program specific situations...why not just discuss having a wide "white" band?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Principles to convert into mechanics:-
1. Link individual motivation to social repercussions. Networks are the future. Eg Treaty structures at the Settlement level to scale up.
2. Inform the world with an arbitrary deus ex machina force superior to the players' gameplay rules.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...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...
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.
|
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...
Exactly. A player who spends all their time developing community could earn their resources through recruiting and developing non-PvP content for the rest of their community. The point is, there can be other, equally legitimate ways to earn the resource one consumes being part of a settlement than PvP. Ryan's example was a case that can be viewed as not...it does not mean all are not. Again, each community will need to weigh the pros and cons of their variety of play-styles to ensure they are all worth supporting.