| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mmmh... Nop.That's the wrong language to use--if you're using quantity as a measure here, you have a fundamental misconception of the game. There can't be too much or too little PvP conflict in a kingdom game--rather, it can be of right or wrong kind. As Ryan has pointed out, oh like a thousand times, player A and player B will experience willy varying amounts of PvP interactions, by design. The question is only whether the design and development of the sandbox leads to meaningful, interesting, and engaging interactions.
Personally, I don't really care. I intend to play the game anyway. But is there with too much PvP, I will not listen to players whining because nobody wants to play with them, I would just go play something better.
Surely, if you're only gonna give him two words, you could at least check for typos before posting.
It's spelled "Mmh". No third "m"!
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's the French spelling, KC. They have a different word for everything. :)
The spelling I'm wondering about is this one (bolded):
As Ryan has pointed out, oh like a thousand times, player A and player B will experience willy varying amounts of PvP interactions, by design.
Did Mbando mean wildly, or was he channeling his inner Elmer Fudd and mean really? :D
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
KC, I only respond this way when people use to make imperative and bold, as an argument.
Actually, I think that there with no such thing as "non-meaningful" PvP. It is always meaningful to kill your concurence, in a competitive game.
Whatever anybody says now, in the beginning of this game, the target was EvE's disappointed players looking for a Sandbox with less psychopathic behaviour, so they don't die every time they try to play. But scratching the "psychopath" word and calling it "meaningful non-consensual interaction", in French, we call it "cache-misère".
The point is that the player base in question doesn't want to be "killed for good reasons", they want to be "killed less often".
It's not a fear of losing, actually, it's more a fear of always fighting. I will take my example : I have absolutely no problem with PvP, I am used to it. I could have very well tried to join UNC, I don't think that I would have had any difficulty to be on the level. Why didn't I join them ? Because they are meaaaaaan ? of course not. It's just because I don't want to PvP as much as they do, in quantity. It bores me. Sandbox doesn't mean PvP, it means creating your own content. That is what I want. Fighting is a part of it. But when it become the point of it, there is for me a major design problem.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I will take my example : I have absolutely no problem with PvP, I am used to it. I could have very well tried to join UNC, I don't think that I would have had any difficulty to be on the level. Why didn't I join them ? Because they are meaaaaaan ? of course not. It's just because I don't want to PvP as much as they do, in quantity. It bores me. Sandbox doesn't mean PvP, it means creating your own content. That is what I want. Fighting is a part of it. But when it become the point of it, there is for me a major design problem.
Oddly enough, I don't expect that our squads will be fighting more than one engagement every half hour. That may in fact be even more frequent then the reality will pan out.
EE will really tell us a lot about targeting, combat, travel, the advantages of planing, logistics, looting, logistics again, etc....
I believer there might be a misconception, being brought over from theme parks, that PvP is a simple matter of walking up to so done and whacking them over the head. Sure, that is one form of PvP, but not the kind we are looking to do.
Bold text is a valid arguing technique. When a post gets long, bolding your key points makes it easier for you to be understood.
From now on, I'll be bolding everything I say. I think everything I say is important, after all.
and i will post really really small because nothing i say is important
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, I guess the Silent, disappointed or not, have been driven from this thread. Sort of sad that every thread eventually gets hijacked, but scrolling up, I see I'm not blameless.
I disagree, this thread was not hijacked, the thread and the OP has been answered by Ryan Dancey:
I thought this might be interesting. This is the description of the game that I wrote in June of 2012 which summarized the design doc that by that juncture had been accepted by everyone as the basis of the game.
While you might say that we did not manage to communicate this design clearly (communication success is of course judged by the recipient not the sender), I would hope that the majority of our customers would have gotten something close to this idealized view of what it is we're trying to do.
...This is the Game We Are Making
Explore, Develop, Adventure, Dominate
Player group A has moved into an area. Some members are exploring and patrolling to keep tabs on the changes in the local flora & fauna and detect signs of hostile incursion. Some of them are harvesting resources and dealing with the logistics of transporting raw materials to a location where they can be processed. Others are suppressing NPC opponents, locating and clearing lairs, ruins, caverns and encampments. Some are busy building and improving structures, and worrying about the needs of the Common Folk and Vassals who inhabit the area. Some are processing resources into intermediate and finished goods. Others are shipping out the things the area provides to a market where they can earn a good price, and bringing in materials not available in the local area.
This is "the Kingdom game". Each player is a part in a large machine. The output is a growing kingdom which achieves more and more access to cooler and cooler stuff as it develops. The area of the Kingdom develops in response as well changing the nature and danger of the environment in response to the actions taken by the players.
Player group B wants that space. They marshal military forces to besiege the area. Player group A puts its defense on the field and tries to break the siege. It becomes a contest of economics, diplomacy, espionage, propaganda, and military force.
If A wins, they keep what they've
What this post answered was the question of whether or not the direction of the game had changed, and it clearly has not.
So the thread has not been hijacked, it was concluded on the last page.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What this post answered was the question of whether or not the direction of the game had changed, and it clearly has not.
The problem that you will never acknowledge is that to a lot of us, it feels like that entire quote from Ryan now boils down to the two sentences.
Player group B wants that space. They marshal military forces to besiege the area.
And that, in fact, the game that is about to begin is nothing like the game we saw described in the entire quote. We saw four equal words Explore, Develop, Adventure, Dominate and from the rhetoric on here, it appears the only word that will have any significance is Dominate.
We might be wrong about how the game will play out. Maybe there really will be enough Explore, Develop, and Adventure to keep us happy, or maybe Ryan always intended that the entire thing would be about stronger players getting what they want while the rest of us huddle in our huts like sheep.
There are two perfectly valid, and enormously different interpretations of what Ryan wrote two years ago. Regular, and curt dismissal of how some interpreted it is making the problem worse for them every day.
Some of the people here have an idea of how the world is going to look when it goes live. A lot of us really don't. But the constant barrage of recruiters looking for assassins and bandits to flesh out their ranks paints a picture of a world that starts to make some of us feel sick to our stomachs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Player group B wants that space. They marshal military forces to besiege the area.And that, in fact, the game that is about to begin is nothing like the game we saw described in the entire quote. We saw four equal words Explore, Develop, Adventure, Dominate and from the rhetoric on here, it appears the only word that will have any significance is Dominate.
Because you are focusing on settlements and in terms of managing settlements develop and dominate are the only terms that apply.
Explore and adventure are something you do as a player, and something far more people will be doing than running settlements.
You have chosen a role catered to PvP oriented players. Who's fault is that?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Player group B wants that space. They marshal military forces to besiege the area.And that, in fact, the game that is about to begin is nothing like the game we saw described in the entire quote. We saw four equal words Explore, Develop, Adventure, Dominate and from the rhetoric on here, it appears the only word that will have any significance is Dominate.Because you are focusing on settlements and in terms of managing settlements develop and dominate are the only terms that apply.
Explore and adventure are something you do as a player, and something far more people will be doing than running settlements.
You have chosen a role catered to PvP oriented players. Who's fault is that?
I don't know why you think this is about me, or settlements. The original poster (and the silent group of which she spoke) is not running settlements, and I am not, you know, very silent.
I have made peace with my investment. That I chose to advocate for the people who have not is my choice. Your point is entirely mistaken.
Some people are afraid that every time they step outside (whether to visit another town, or to harvest, or to seek out a little PvE) they will be subjected to banditry and violence. That fear is being reinforced with every passing minute on these boards.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't know why you think this is about me, or settlements. The original poster (and the silent group of which she spoke) is not running settlements, and I am not, you know, very silent.
Although, to be fare, it is about me and settlement to the extent that of my 19 companions in Elkhaven, 13 of them are pretty much ready to throw in the towel without even using their free game time now.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We saw four equal words Explore, Develop, Adventure, Dominate and from the rhetoric on here, it appears the only word that will have any significance is Dominate.
Some of the people here have an idea of how the world is going to look when it goes live. A lot of us really don't. But the constant barrage of recruiters looking for assassins and bandits to flesh out their ranks paints a picture of a world that starts to make some of us feel sick to our stomachs.
Explore: to find resources needed to....
Develop: your settlement so that you have the skills and equipment to...
Adventure: so that you can gather vast wealth and influence so that your settlement can then...
Dominate!
Are they all important roles? Yes I believe they are all pillars like the legs of a stool, and the seat is the Dominate part of the relationship.
As for this quote: "recruiters looking for assassins and bandits to flesh out their ranks paints a picture of a world that starts to make some of us feel sick to our stomachs."
I must say we in the UNC are also looking to RECRUIT
But wait
/joking
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some people are afraid that every time they step outside (whether to visit another town, or to harvest, or to seek out a little PvE) they will be subjected to banditry and violence. That fear is being reinforced with every passing minute on these boards.
Why?!
Where has there been even one post from anyone that said they will be attacking anyone they see for no meaningful reason?
If people are afraid of this, it is because they are giving into their baseless fears instead of facing them with rational deduction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Some of the people here have an idea of how the world is going to look when it goes live. A lot of us really don't. But the constant barrage of recruiters looking for assassins and bandits to flesh out their ranks paints a picture of a world that starts to make some of us feel sick to our stomachs.
Some people are afraid that every time they step outside (whether to visit another town, or to harvest, or to seek out a little PvE) they will be subjected to banditry and violence. That fear is being reinforced with every passing minute on these boards.
Sorry that I'm on the opposite side of the argument from you so often recently, but I disagree. Of the recruiting groups most do not have PvP as their main focus; of the non-recruit threads there are a significant number of threads discussing PvP, but there are plenty of threads not doing so. Don't let a noisy minority seem like the whole boards are focused on bringing others down; I suspect more are concerned with keeping a comfortable medium than taking over as much as possible, and most groups would rather resort to diplomacy than "Gorumite negotiations". :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Some people are afraid that every time they step outside (whether to visit another town, or to harvest, or to seek out a little PvE) they will be subjected to banditry and violence. That fear is being reinforced with every passing minute on these boards.Why?!
Where has there been even one post from anyone that said they will be attacking anyone they see for no meaningful reason?
The reason doesn't have to be meaningless to be frustrating. Person B wanting the herbs and minerals that person A just spent their only available playing time this week harvesting is perfectly meaningful, and still makes person A fear they're about to waste their time and money.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The reason doesn't have to be meaningless to be frustrating. Person B wanting the herbs and minerals that person A just spent their only available playing time this week harvesting is perfectly meaningful, and still makes person A fear they're about to waste their time and money.Some people are afraid that every time they step outside (whether to visit another town, or to harvest, or to seek out a little PvE) they will be subjected to banditry and violence. That fear is being reinforced with every passing minute on these boards.Why?!
Where has there been even one post from anyone that said they will be attacking anyone they see for no meaningful reason?
To be crippled by a fear of what "could" happen is not a valid reason to not at least try the game. A comet could come out of no where and hit planet Earth killing most of us, but I am not going to lose sleep over it.
If you want to go out gathering resources, do it with a friend or two. If you get attacked by overwhelming forces, run away. It isn't that crazy of a concept. A few hundred years ago it would have been common sense for survival. With the tower system in place other players are going to have way better things to do with their time than wait hours for some lone gatherer to walk by.
Like I said, these fears are baseless, irrational, and I should know better than to try to argue against such nonsense.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sorry that I'm on the opposite side of the argument from you so often recently, but I disagree.
I'm sorry too, Shane, but you don't get to disagree with how people feel. You can think they're wrong all you want, but you don't have any right to disagree with how they feel. Here are some quotes from every single email I've received from any of my 18 companions this week: I'm not claiming they are right, or that they shouldn't have known better about PvP, only reporting what they said.
- "when the tower is in unclaimed state, it's free PvP permanently, which sucks"
- "then I would abandon hope for the game supporting anything but PvP appeasement"
- "well that just sucks a lot :/"
- "I certainly hope there is enough backlash about the stupid tower idea that they scrap it. I haven't been up on the forums much but it is just the worst idea ever"
- "Turning it too much into something like all the other pvp based mmos coming out recently"
- "I do not like the direction this points to or that once people get used to random PvP"
- "I for one will not play long it that is the case, not likely are most of my group. We are trying to move away from a game that is all about PvP. HATE PvP!"
- "Planning on my gatherer with some future ranger aspirations has just died"
- "Even before this I could have been regularly ganked while peacefully gathering resources, but would still have been able to progress up my skills and helped to build up a company / settlement. Now it sounds like a suck fest at launch"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A few hundred years ago it would have been common sense for survival.
A few hundred years ago the average person would not have faced 20 or so percent of their neighbours declaring themselves as openly evil. Even then, most people could go years at a time without encountering a bandit who wanted what they have.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I should have been more specific; I was disagreeing with the parts where you said the boards are reinforcing fears of the game being only about PvP. I personally think that it does not, unless you are specifically looking at the PvP-focused threads and ignoring the others.
People see what they want to see. People who are afraid of PvP focus on the negative posts. They watch companies make plans to gather as many bandits as they can. They see communities and individuals screeaching at each other. They see the sudden introduction of a game mechanic that means if they are no good at PvP they'll be disadvantage on day one, instead of a few months in.
They could be wrong about all these things, but that doesn't change that they see them and feel that way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
They could be wrong about all these things, but that doesn't change that they see them and feel that way.
Those feelings are real and should not be discounted. I agree, and I was too quick to dismiss the fears as illogical and thus without merit.
But what can we as a community even do to sooth those fears if these silent people do not voice their fears?
You are doing a great and brave thing by taking it upon yourself to champion these people and their fears, Caldeathe Baequiannia.
I just don't see anything we can do if there is no actual discussion to address all these silent fears.
Even then, most people could go years at a time without encountering a bandit who wanted what they have.
I genuinely think this will effectively be the case in PFO as well. Maybe not years, but certainly not all the time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
(IMO) These are deep rooted feelings closer to the far end of the anti-PVP spectrum. I am not labeling anyone or categorizing people here just posting an opinion. These feelings are tied up in people that A). Have never done much PVP because they don't think that they will like it, they have heard terrible stories, or a combo. B). People that have tried it (to some degree) and had un fun or unpleasant experiences.
I came to this forum very anti PVP. Very anti bandit. It took time and playing a really strong example of (to me) a murder fest MMO and much discussion, to get past the things that I dislike most about open PVP. I saw that I could actually do well in such a game even without becoming stellar at PVP. It took time, though. I learned that it is all part of such games and that there is much that I can do to control my level of involvement. Yes that means compromise in the way that I play, but I found that I was still having fun despite those compromises.
For this kind of game, there isn't any "fixing of feelings" except time and better experiences, changing of approaches and attitudes, OR a complete change in the game. I have my doubts that the latter is on the table.
People see what they want to see.
Glad to hear you fully support all this talk of banditry and open war.
*Ba-dum-tsh*
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For whatever reason, the folks who are most interested in PvP seem to want it to be FFA in as much of the map as possible. I remember going back and forth with one person who was so convinced that all Wilderness Hexes would be FFA PvP that it took two threads in as many weeks with clarifications from the developers before he grudgingly (and with lots of doomsaying about how such a game couldn't help but fail) accepted it. Those same people seem to really love to brag about how much they're going to dominate. It's hard not to see it as an attempt to sow despair, and it's hard not to believe it's working to some degree.
I always believed Ryan when he said he'd "rather shut down the game and quit than run a simplistic murder simulator for the enjoyment of a tiny fraction of sociopaths". I always believed him when he said he would "repeatedly and powerfully shock the system" until folks recognized that random killing would gimp their character development. At the same time, I've seen folks try to define "random killing" out of existence entirely, and insist that Ryan would eat crow if it was a profitable murder simulator.
I won't presume to offer reasons why folks shouldn't feel the way they feel, but I will try to offer some hope. Ryan is a very smart man, with a clear vision to make Pathfinder Online into something he and Paizo can be proud of. In my heart of hearts, I believe he'll succeed. For the sake of others who may feel the same way as the "silent disappointed", I would ask you to hold true to the belief that made you support Pathfinder Online to begin with, to Stand Tall in the Dark, and help us make Pathfinder Online into a game that you will enjoy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I should have been more specific; I was disagreeing with the parts where you said the boards are reinforcing fears of the game being only about PvP. I personally think that it does not, unless you are specifically looking at the PvP-focused threads and ignoring the others.People see what they want to see. People who are afraid of PvP focus on the negative posts. They watch companies make plans to gather as many bandits as they can. They see communities and individuals screeaching at each other. They see the sudden introduction of a game mechanic that means if they are no good at PvP they'll be disadvantage on day one, instead of a few months in.
They could be wrong about all these things, but that doesn't change that they see them and feel that way.
See, because you are afraid of PvP targeted at you, you see that as threatening.
What you should actually be seeing is enough drama in the major communities that they are too focused on killing eachother to care about you.
When the big groups go to war it's a great situation for the little groups. Just keep your head down and watch the titans duke it out.
When the big groups stop fighting eachother, and perhaps even start banding together, then you should be very afraid.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For whatever reason, the folks who are most interested in PvP seem to want it to be FFA in as much of the map as possible. I remember going back and forth with one person who was so convinced that all Wilderness Hexes would be FFA PvP that it took two threads in as many weeks with clarifications from the developers before he grudgingly (and with lots of doomsaying about how such a game couldn't help but fail) accepted it. Those same people seem to really love to brag about how much they're going to dominate. It's hard not to see it as an attempt to sow despair, and it's hard not to believe it's working to some degree.
I always believed Ryan when he said he'd "rather shut down the game and quit than run a simplistic murder simulator for the enjoyment of a tiny fraction of sociopaths". I always believed him when he said he would "repeatedly and powerfully shock the system" until folks recognized that random killing would gimp their character development. At the same time, I've seen folks try to define "random killing" out of existence entirely, and insist that Ryan would eat crow if it was a profitable murder simulator.
I won't presume to offer reasons why folks shouldn't feel the way they feel, but I will try to offer some hope. Ryan is a very smart man, with a clear vision to make Pathfinder Online into something he and Paizo can be proud of. In my heart of hearts, I believe he'll succeed. For the sake of others who may feel the same way as the "silent disappointed", I would ask you to hold true to the belief that made you support Pathfinder Online to begin with, to Stand Tall in the Dark, and help us make Pathfinder Online into a game that you will enjoy.
The random slaughter issue is one which has long since been resolved. Most of the people wanting PvP now days are talking about wars, feuds, and outpost raids. That is the system working as intended and far from a simplistic murder simulator. Some of your and Forencith's posts almost make it seem to me like you believe if a group drops a feud or war dec on you and pursues a very aggressive/bloodthirsty (but not at all random) war through the proper channels that they are going to bet banned for greifing.
I would be beyond shocked if that was the case.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The random slaughter issue is one which has long since been resolved. Most of the people wanting PvP now days are talking about wars, feuds, and outpost raids. That is the system working as intended and far from a simplistic murder simulator. Some of your and Forencith's posts almost make it seem to me like you believe if a group drops a feud or war dec on you and pursues a very aggressive/bloodthirsty (but not at all random) war through the proper channels that they are going to bet banned for greifing.I would be beyond shocked if that was the case.
Not sure on how reading Nihimon's post would lead you to reply in this way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For whatever reason, the folks who are most interested in PvP seem to want it to be FFA in as much of the map as possible.
I think you lumped all PvP enthusiast into the same category. Golgotha is a fairly large PvP group (The largest I believe) and we do not want a FFA throughout the River Kingdoms. In fact, part of our mission statement is to bring law and order to the River Kingdoms, not chaos. We will wage war, and we will compete competitively. But this is to bring peace and protection to those within our territory. If someone wanders into Golgothan territory and starts making a fuss, we will react decisively in ending that disruption to our players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For whatever reason, the folks who are most interested in PvP seem to want it to be FFA in as much of the map as possible. I remember going back and forth with one person who was so convinced that all Wilderness Hexes would be FFA PvP that it took two threads in as many weeks with clarifications from the developers before he grudgingly (and with lots of doomsaying about how such a game couldn't help but fail) accepted it. Those same people seem to really love to brag about how much they're going to dominate. It's hard not to see it as an attempt to sow despair, and it's hard not to believe it's working to some degree.
There are no statements that support any if this.
The assumption was that wilderness hexes would not produce criminal flags, that is not the same thing as FFA PvP. Your statement is misleading if not outright intentionally false.
I don't recall anyone stating that they will "Dominate". What aspect of the game are you speaking of? Because dominance can fall within several aspects, you need to be more specific. I can see there being economic, geographic and or military dominance.
I think the only sowing of despair is the clinging onto the notion that PFO can devolve into a Murder Simulator, despite the fact that PFO can in no way meet Ryan's definition of one.
"I find your lack of faith disturbing" ~ Darth Vader
This reminds me of when the English Parliament offered Benjamin Franklin representation for the Colonies, in the House of Commons, and Franklin quickly left without giving a response. Franklin's fear was that to lose "No Taxation Without Representation" would be a worse condition than gaining representation, because the colonies would always be out voted. The rallying cry was far more important to maintain.
This "Murder Sim" bugaboo seems to be the same thing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For whatever reason, the folks who are most interested in PvP seem to want it to be FFA in as much of the map as possible. I remember going back and forth with one person who was so convinced that all Wilderness Hexes would be FFA PvP that it took two threads in as many weeks with clarifications from the developers before he grudgingly (and with lots of doomsaying about how such a game couldn't help but fail) accepted it. Those same people seem to really love to brag about how much they're going to dominate. It's hard not to see it as an attempt to sow despair, and it's hard not to believe it's working to some degree.
I always believed Ryan when he said he'd "rather shut down the game and quit than run a simplistic murder simulator for the enjoyment of a tiny fraction of sociopaths". I always believed him when he said he would "repeatedly and powerfully shock the system" until folks recognized that random killing would gimp their character development. At the same time, I've seen folks try to define "random killing" out of existence entirely, and insist that Ryan would eat crow if it was a profitable murder simulator.
I won't presume to offer reasons why folks shouldn't feel the way they feel, but I will try to offer some hope. Ryan is a very smart man, with a clear vision to make Pathfinder Online into something he and Paizo can be proud of. In my heart of hearts, I believe he'll succeed. For the sake of others who may feel the same way as the "silent disappointed", I would ask you to hold true to the belief that made you support Pathfinder Online to begin with, to Stand Tall in the Dark, and help us make Pathfinder Online into a game that you will enjoy.
While I agree with you, I can see how some people concerned about the murderfest could be bothered by the recent announcements. We were told that there would be consequences for random PK, and that the game would not be a FFA, only to now be told that at least some of the time, large sections of the map would be consequence free open fire zones. And it's not an unreasonable assumption those times will be during peak hours when settlements have people on to defend their towers during the PVP window.
Whether or not these prove to be the problems that some think they will be, there is an understandable reason for people worried about this to be moreso now than they were a week ago.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For whatever reason, the folks who are most interested in PvP seem to want it to be FFA in as much of the map as possible. I remember going back and forth with one person who was so convinced that all Wilderness Hexes would be FFA PvP that it took two threads in as many weeks with clarifications from the developers before he grudgingly (and with lots of doomsaying about how such a game couldn't help but fail) accepted it. Those same people seem to really love to brag about how much they're going to dominate. It's hard not to see it as an attempt to sow despair, and it's hard not to believe it's working to some degree.There are no statements that support any if this.
The assumption was that wilderness hexes would not produce criminal flags, that is not the same thing as FFA PvP. Your statement is misleading if not outright intentionally false.
I don't recall anyone stating that they will "Dominate". What aspect of the game are you speaking of? Because dominance can fall within several aspects, you need to be more specific. I can see there being economic, geographic and or military dominance.
I think the only sowing of despair is the clinging onto the notion that PFO can devolve into a Murder Simulator, despite the fact that PFO can in no way meet Ryan's definition of one.
"I find your lack of faith disturbing" ~ Darth Vader
This reminds me of when the English Parliament offered Benjamin Franklin representation for the Colonies, in the House of Commons, and Franklin quickly left without giving a response. Franklin's fear was that to lose "No Taxation Without Representation" would be a worse condition than gaining representation, because the colonies would always be out voted. The rallying cry was far more important to maintain.
This "Murder Sim" bugaboo seems to be the same thing.
To be fair Bludd, I have stated several times that Golgotha will dominate its enemies.... and we will.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The reason doesn't have to be meaningless to be frustrating. Person B wanting the herbs and minerals that person A just spent their only available playing time this week harvesting is perfectly meaningful, and still makes person A fear they're about to waste their time and money.
Person A gathering herbs and minerals without risk or caution is not a "meaningful human interaction". It's PVE in the most negative sense of the word: it's a single-player game, and not even a very good one since there's no challenge.
Person A going out to gather herbs and minerals, with full knowledge that Person B might meet him on the way back to town to solicit a nonconsensual donation, has many options at his disposal for managing risk:reward ratios: he can choose closer or farther harvesting spots, he can solicit info from settlement chat on known bandit patterns, he can deliberately set up shop near where some allies are fighting back a goblin incursion, he can hire scouts or guards, etc. The game of "click the button to put the herbs in the basket" has gotten a lot more complex, and probably involves a lot more interaction with other people.
If Person A wanders out into the woods without taking any of those precautions and just hopes for the best, then he may very well Learn A Valuable Lesson Today but that's as it should be: when playing any game with insufficient preparation for the challenges that will confront you, you will be strongly encouraged by the game systems to improve your play.