Goblin Squad Member
|
Remember a couple of weeks ago I made a post talking about how game mechanics and code can't do everything for us and there are some areas where players have to decide in aggregate how things are going to be (whether they're cognizant of that decision or not) and make it that way?
This is one of those times!!!
We have a lot of crowdforgers that are worried the War of Towers is going to have the affect of turning our game into Every Other Murder Hooligan Game Online; specifically if they put one toe past the town gate a horde of murderbros will swoop by aiming for their death so they can't manage to do anything fun in game. Yet we have a bunch of people looking forward to a quick start of the pvp excitement that are really looking forward to the WoT.
This is a summit to help both those groups of players enjoy gaming in digital Golarion with a meta experience that doesn't offend their sensibilities about what is fun. Some quick definitions:
Alpha Tower - one of the six towers surrounding a protosettlement
Beta Tower - every other tower
So here is my bright idea: a meta agreement between players to leave alpha towers off the table and do our fighting, empire building, and settlement scoring with beta towers for most of the War of Towers. When we're getting signals from devs that the WoT is coming to a close, roughly the last two or three weeks of it, and we're heading to the Great Catastrophe then every tower, alpha and beta, meta goes up for grabs.
There is a significant segment of players that has paid a significant amount of money to be here and don't want their good time wrecked by the perception of never being able to go anywhere or do anything without being interrupted by death, no matter how much meaning is attached to it. So while nothing is mechanically protecting their alpha towers we could, as a community, decide to give those players a little bit of space for a short time to help them experience the game in degrees and transition from wherever their outlook is now into the seams of Pathfinder Online as fellow players.
It's not asking for a total concession from the pvp'ers (I am one, by the way) who will still get to fight as much as they want at any beta towers. And still grab as many foreign alpha towers as they can muster the will and ability to achieve during the last period of the WoT; that is a concession the currently-murder-sim-worried make to the pvp'ers in exchange for the alpha tower buffer at the opening of EE.
--------
I think the main rebuttal to this will go something like
Well, we can't do anything 18 months from now, right now. We can only do right-now-things right now. Russians and goons and shadowy murderbros are not an extant factor right now. It's those voices calling for immediate maximum viciousness in the name of potential future characters that are the source of 80% of the total amount of current viciousness. If they would shove some fruits and vegetables into their pie holes, a large majority of the theoretical viciousness evaporates freeing up lots of energy to deal with things that actually currently exist. What DOES exist this very day are the perceptions of exaggerated doom and aggravation that I think nearly everyone wants to squelch.
OE is a hypothesis, nothing more than a very fluid concept; it is just us for about the next 18 months. So if you want to make the case for being a complete d-nozzle right from the get go, that never lifts a finger at any time to integrate anyone into the game community if they're not giving you everything you want your way, then stand firm on that platform of being an inconsiderate self-serving twerp from Day One of EE and make your case in this thread. But DO NOT dress it up as "preparing" our tabletopers for a hypothetical condition in 2016.
Brought to you by the Golarion Non Offending Meta Experience Summit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The towers are needed to develop your settlement, right?
So when you're at the point where your alpha towers and nearby beta towers don't cut it anymore, and your weak neighbor -whom you don't like much anyway- holds the key to your continued development, I say go for it and take some of that settlement's towers.
I'm not saying that my group will do this - we will have some powerful neighbors by the look of it - but I don't want to see a game where both development, politics and conflict are hamstrung by an agreement that settlements made before getting into the game.
I do think that taking someone elses alpha towers just because you can is bullying and not something I would support but IF you have good use for those towers and think you can take them - do it!
(These are my personal ideas and not in any way (as far as I know) policy of any player organization I am affiliated with)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Here is the policy of Aragon:
Aragon Policy: War of Towers
As a policy the settlement of Aragon will secure the six hexes immediately adjacent to its settlement hex, plus any unattended hexes immediately next to those.
During our open PvP window, Aragon welcomes its fellow Northern Coalition members to freely hunt any uninvited trespassers in our lands.
During our closed PvP window, the sponsored companies will reciprocate with our Northern Coalition partners, and hunt down interlopers in their lands.
The settlement of Aragon nor its member charter companies will make no claim to the loot taken from intruders in our lands, and we likewise expect to have what we hold of the loot we gain while patrolling another settlement's lands.
For non Northern Coalition settlements, we will offer the same service for a nominal fee (TBD in game). Obviously if another Northern Coalition member are the intruders, they will be informed of our contract. They may chose to accept that or proceed with their assault. We will fulfill our contract as previously discussed. This is not a violation of the NAP, as long as the winner buys the ale!
On the point of Alpha Towers, I have actually considered the same thing, but since the UNC has no desire of capturing other settlements that really becomes a moot point.
On the other hand, we will as a mercenary group help our employers capture any tower(s) they wish. Later in EE when settlement conflict is enabled, we will hire ourselves out to do the same, even though we have no desire to capture additional settlements, we certainly won't pass up an opportunity to pillage one.
As for the general concern that the War of the Towers turns the game into something like every other murder hooligan game out there, it really doesn't. Ryan has been abundantly clear, this is temporary until other systems are put in place.
The system as devised right now, makes the controlled tower's hex PvP enabled, only during your settlement's open PvP window. If you don't want to PvP, stay that Hell out of that hex, during that time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So far this is a rehashing of mechanics and platitudes that have not worked to resolve the issue in the OP.
The question is are the players willing to do something for ourselves that is noteable to accomplish the agreed upon goal of standing out and being different that lasts beyond the WoT, or just completely support and live out the game-ruining "mechanics allowed it so it can't be helped" status quo while simultaneously railing against that exact status quo in online forums.
We've started the threads and had the discussions about what made those other games so bad to so many and what it takes to make Pathfinder Online better and more fun to be in. Now it's time to do it. There are no uninitiated outsiders poised to swarm in and kick over our sand castles, it is just us for the next 18 months. If we're going to ascend past the stage of whiny emo kids having strong principles in post #742, and actually create that game we've been talking about for the last two years, the time is fast approaching for the community as a whole to shut the pie holes and DO SOMETHING IMPRESSIVE.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There is a settlement based benefit for controlling towers. To use a football analogy, you are asking a team to give up potentially easy touchdowns but to instead settle for field goals.
Why must we ignore the game's intent, to supposedly make it better?
There is also an underlying assumption that EE is an exclusive club of just a few thousand. There is nothing that says that in the last 3 months of EE GW doesn't give each of us 5 x Beta Keys which may push the server pop to between 50 and 80k?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For a temporary filler activity there sure is a lot of sudden passion to defend training levels we won't have the xp to get until (reasonable guess) sometime around the end of WoT when everything happens to go fair game, and some small structures that add a little DI that we could get soon anyway (so a few loads of bulk resources).
That is a no vote from Bluddwolf. He wants this to be completely the same as any hypothetical game would expect and not attempt even little things to try to stand out or be different and noticeable in a cool way.
(Not counting Wurner's qualified statements) The tally stands at 1-1 for doing more than passively posting criticism at developers and actually making an effort to be a really obviously different MMO and something other than the same old fantasy game with different graphics.
I await the other 5,998 decisions :O).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
He wants this to be completely the same as any hypothetical game would expect and not attempt even little things to try to stand out or be different and noticeable in a cool way.
This was not at all necessary. The purpose of these threads is to get all points of view on a topic, don't start taking cheap shots at those who have a different opinion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is nonsense. Proxima, a lot of what you write is good, but this is completely off the track.
Here's what we should do: just play the damn game.
There's a huge difference between agreeing as a community to play the game as designed and intended and not seek every possible mechanical advantage at cost of our culture and souls, and agreeing as a community NOT to play the game as designed and intended because we think we're smarter than Ryan and the GW team.
In every gaming community, there are 3 populations. One, a minority, will ignore culture for the sake of advantage. Their impact on the game culture is disproportionately large.
Their counterparts, also a minority, will ignore advantage for the sake of culture. Their impact on the game culture is disproportionately small.
The majority of players strike a middle ground. They don't seek out the loopholes nor go out of their way to be a!@~@!$s, but if the game gives them a clear and natural path to success they're not going to second guess it. This is called just playing the damn game.
We as the players are not the ones sliding the rock down the ice. We're the ones frantically waving silly little brooms in front it hoping to improve its course by a fraction an inch. We can, hopefully, provide a counterweight to the goon population, and prevent some people from sliding from neutral to evil. But if you think the game is doomed to failure unless we have a server wide pact to not just play the damn game, then you are doubly deluded: once that you have any chance of dragging the entire future population of players along with you, and twice that you're better at game design and game culture analysis than Ryan is.
The culture will develop organically. Some areas of the map will be relatively peaceful. Others, much less so. If there are major emergent problems, they'll be discovered, discussed, and fixed one way or another. It'll all be ok.
Taking the stance that the game mechanics will lead inevitably to a degenerate culture unless we collectively pledge not to just play damn game, before we've even logged in once, is a little premature.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right now I suspect that a majority of the 'guilds' on the land rush leaderboard are trying to figure out how to get enough members to hold even the six alpha towers. Not to mention the 100+ 'guilds' that aren't even ON the leaderboard. Maybe they're hoping to get big enough to eventually be able to take some beta towers, but going after the alpha towers of other settlements is way beyond their reach ATM.
That leaves maybe ten large 'guilds' that might (depending on how fast the PVP window expands) currently be in a position to be thinking about taking alpha towers from other settlements.
The problem with asking people to go along with your idea is that some will inevitably say no. Thus, I'd suggest looking for ways to make your idea happen even w/o universal agreement. For example, you could try to get the small guilds to agree to a 'mutual alpha defense' pact... each helping to cover their neighbors during vulnerable periods. OR you could lobby some of the largest 'do gooder guilds' to 'protect the innocent' by helping to defend smaller settlements. Et cetera.
Yes, 'we have the choice' to set the tone for the game... but in my experience that happens because people figure out a way to make it happen rather than everyone just agreeing to go along with a particular vision.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Proxima Sin of Brighthaven, while I appreciate your concerns and largely agree with the values that motivate them, I think you're missing a crucial element in your analysis. It's not possible to rally the entire community. The key is identifying the groups that share your values so that you can work together with them. There are groups I'm aware of right now that I wouldn't even consider taking their Omega Towers; there are other groups I wouldn't think twice about taking their Alpha Towers if the opportunity presented itself.
Identify your friends and help them succeed. And if you choose not to identify your enemies, at least don't kid yourself that they haven't identified you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Proxima
I like your initiative, but I think it sort of defeats part of the purpose of the WOT to train, educate and inform the general player base of many aspect of the EE game.
The silent and pvp-adverse can be reached by other means to inform, educate, assure their fears, and find a way to participate in the game as is, to speak up for their views, and have fun (Cal B, looking at you!)
@Nihimon,
I like the names of "Alpha" and "Omega" towers, I hope it catches on. :)
@PVP supporters
I am glad you have an outlet for positive participation in the early part of the game, for bring a "realist" viewpoint of the competition aspect and for preparing people like me (anti-PVP, pro-PVE) to take another look at what this part of the game has to offer.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See, I am confused. I plan on planning on reading more information about the War of Towers once the devs finally flesh everything out. Until then, I really don't plan on signing anything. We don't have all that much info right now.
Besides, if people kill you for walking out your town gate, then they aren't playing The War of Towers event. They are just griefing (wars, fueds, and skirmishes not withstanding) and we can start enforcing some lovely anti-griefing policies of our own.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
As a compromise position, I suggest that companies might enter an agreement to remain clear of tower areas open for capture unless they are engaged in the battle, and also agree not to attack certain towers held by certain other companies.
I don't think it reasonable to expect any company that wants to take a particular tower to refrain from doing so out of respect for an agreement with third parties.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
to speak up for their views, and have fun (Cal B, looking at you!)
I'm having fun! Even when I'm arguing passionately about being screwed over, I'm having fun.
If you asked my wife, me arguing passionately about being screwed over is a sign that I'm having the most fun.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Sentinel's policy on whether of not we'll target Alpha towers depends 100% on our relation with the group who owns the towers and how much we're getting paid.
Our general opinion is if a group can't hold it's own alpha towers it doesn't deserve them. Why should we coddle our opponents when the post OE groups will not? We're just wasting the advantage of those towers on groups who clearly can't survive anyway.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Our general opinion is if a group can't hold it's own alpha towers it doesn't deserve them. Why should we coddle our opponents when the post OE groups will not? We're just wasting the advantage of those towers on groups who clearly can't survive anyway.
More or less agreed. I see the War of the Towers as a great "practice round". If you get all your core towers taken, you'd likely have lost the settlement. So, either make new friends, or fight a war to get your towers back. Its a good way to learn the ropes, without any real long term losses.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Andius is right. It's a survival of the fittest game. I still think fun is pretty fit, though.
There will be 33 settlements. There are something like 6000 (I can never remember the number) people going to be playing in EE. For a long time, those 6000 people will be stuck with only 33 settlements to choose from.
Everyone is going to get bigger. Some will get much, much bigger. It's just a matter who draws in the players and who can support their players.
There are 1400ish players currently involved in the land rush. Of those, 1142 are in settlements. The remaining 260ish currently in there could cause all sorts of havoc to the rankings if even a tenth of them decided on the same underdog. The top 10 currently hold over 50% of all players currently involved in the land rush. A full third of all players are in the top 5 settlements. (for those checking my numbers, I'm counting those from the first land rush in these numbers)
We haven't seen in-game drama split settlements yet. We haven't seen how politics or hastily formed alliances will spark wars and shatter kingdoms.
There will be some settlements that will disappear under the shadows of the larger foes. Once you and a couple dozen of your friends are able to build a settlement from scratch, I imagine there will be new groups appearing out of nowhere to start new kingdoms.
Thus, there will be a never ending cycle of growth, division, and decay.
War of Towers isn't just some cool, fun event like a holiday in WoW. You're fighting for the survival of your team. You're fighting, not to be part of a popularity contest (which the land rush technically is), but to make sure that your people have the resources they need. They're trained to be able to capture or defend land they need to expand your territory as you need it.
Will there be treaties to stop the raiding of each other's alpha towers? Sure. Should we be making those when we technically have no idea where everyone will end up? Maybe not. Talk to me once the sites are all locked in and I actually know who my neighbors are really going to be. Until then, things like the Northern Alliance might as well be the "Where Ever We Happen To End Up" Alliance (no offense guys, but it helped make my point).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a compromise position, I suggest that companies might enter an agreement to remain clear of tower areas open for capture unless they are engaged in the battle, and also agree not to attack certain towers held by certain other companies.
I don't think it reasonable to expect any company that wants to take a particular tower to refrain from doing so out of respect for an agreement with third parties.
I don't think it's reasonable to ask any outside party, save alliance members, to steer clear of tower areas open for capture. Make what allies you can. But expect PvP to happen in PvP focused areas.
Sorry but not sorry, Proxima. Meta safety agreements be damned.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
the gist of Proxima's post is:
-capturing Beta/Gamma/Omega towers is playing the tower war. Your motivation is interpreted as simply seeking legitimate benefit for yourself.
-capturing Alpha towers is/feels personal. Your motivation is interpreted as aiming to inflict harm on that specific group.
Hamstringing a smaller settlement simply because they have fewer EE members online than you is ...ungentlemanly. Doing so when there are Beta towers ripe for plucking is a clear sign that you don't care and respect them enough to make even a small sacrifice. Doing it when you already have enough towers for all your training needs is a neutral-lose scenario which seems motivated by the joy of making others suffer (aka sadism).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like the idea, as an idea. In practice, it isn't feasible. Even if you get buyin from the majority, you can't enforce it, unless the majority is willing to collectively do so (and I'd wager that on the whole, they aren't). Co-operation at an entire community scale is infeasible.
This is where inter-settlement diplomacy shines. Make friends with your neighbours. Enter into non-aggression pacts with them. Enter into mutual defence pacts with them.
What the War of Tower does is that it adds real, meaningful diplomacy from day eight, and that is what I love about it. Politics makes the world go round. Let's not worry about trying to define a community standard now - this will develop organically in time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a huge difference between agreeing as a community to play the game as designed and intended and not seek every possible mechanical advantage at cost of our culture and souls, and agreeing as a community NOT to play the game as designed and intended because we think we're smarter than Ryan and the GW team.
That difference may be the key to understanding the polarity in the community's understanding of the game.
One side thinks that what GW has designed and intends is an environment where the players can invent our game and the other thinks that since so much time and effort has focused on the most difficult facets of that environment then those certain difficult facets are exactly what the design intends as the game.
I think the thing to focus on for each side is that it is designed to be a sandbox where PvP is possible.
There have been efforts to form the environment to regulate our expression of PvP because all of human history has shown that we are slaves of desire and humanity is murderous in its fear of murderers. Yet that is an estate humanity has been trying to overcome for the last several thousand years, to evolve culturally to a state where we cooperate and build instead of murder and destroy.
One side says we have always been murderers so we have to prepare for that and be better at murdering one another and even learn to enjoy that as 'fun'. The other side says ok, it is possible to murder one another but what we want to do is to figure out how to cooperate to build and even learn to enjoy that as 'fun'.
GW isn't designing a murder arena, GW is designing and building an environment that features everything we need to build and everything we need to destroy one another.
How the players 'express' human nature is what the game really is.
Well, the Zergies gonna Zerg, if it's 18 months from now with a Russian accent, or immediately. Only time will tell how much, and if the structure of PFO can funnel that horde into something more interesting than it has turned out to be in most games of this type.
No matter what is *said* in these Forums there will be hundreds and hundreds of players who have never even heard of these discusssions, not being active Forum readers/participants. They will log onto the game when available and do what they feel like doing, according to whatever game mechanics are available. It will be THEN that some kind of actions can be taken to curb excesses or at least educate them as to why a different kind of game is intended here.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cooperation at the community scale is what a community IS.Co-operation at an entire community scale is infeasible.
It's not even about the whole community, it's about only 33 settlement leaderships only the handful of settlements who are actually in a position to dominate their neighbours early on.
(politically totally uncorrect comparison: it's like the european great powers in 1600-1700s competing for colonies overseas instead of trying to conquer others homelands).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Cooperation at the community scale is what a community IS.Co-operation at an entire community scale is infeasible.
I'll grant you the point on sheer semantics. What I referred to was not so much a community as 'a set of people whom will be participating in the EE'.
The rest of my post stands - this won't be a thing unless a critical mass of people get on-board with it. I suspect that what is suggested here is the balance that we would find anyway. If enough people have Omega-tower NAPs with their neighbours, then not attacking Omega towers becomes the norm. It is sensible, and more importantly it 'feels right' that your adjacent towers are yours.
I suppose what I am really trying to say is that there is no sense in trying to prescribe this and trying to gain consensus now is not particularly effective. It'll either develop, or it won't.
Of course, this thread will influence where that balance falls, so maybe I'm just making noise for the sake of it :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Being,
Personally, I would rather not keep expressing this as a camp A and camp B argument/discussion. It tends to do little but reinforce the mindset that we are already living in a two faction system before the game has even started. We've seen the affect that can have on these boards, but thankfully, it seems we're growing past it.
I would much rather look at the game as a whole, where it has been designed to offer many different ways to engage the game world and where there are many different ways to play. None of them are wrong as long as they don't involve actual griefing and as long as proponents of any particular playstyle don't attempt to tell everyone else how to play. If someone's chosen playstyle is incompatible (or at the very least, less successful) for PFO, I think the game itself will teach them that lesson.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You're right about that, Archetype. I do find humanity and civilization interesting. But we do read these forums and consider the ideas presented. We will have influence on how the play pans out. Ideas like those expressed by Proxima may seem futile or even foolish, but if we give up on doing what we can to encourage an evolution in human culture then we give up on the whole point of civilization itself. It is a large weighty ball that we've been contributing impetus to and it has been rolling for thousands if not millions of years, but every bit of energy expended to guide its path, as opposed to just accepting our murderhobo past as our future, is energy that contributes to the ultimate outcome.
What gamers do online will help form what humanity expresses in the future. Among our number are the leaders of tomorrow's world in RL.
What is that worth?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Hobbs I agree it is a whole. But at every turn we have a choice and choice by nature means more than one possible path. I set it up as bipolar. There are more than two possible outcomes to be sure, but just accepting that the past will be the future is surrendering to victimhood.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, the Zergies gonna Zerg, if it's 18 months from now with a Russian accent, or immediately. Only time will tell how much, and if the structure of PFO can funnel that horde into something more interesting than it has turned out to be in most games of this type.
No matter what is *said* in these Forums there will be hundreds and hundreds of players who have never even heard of these discusssions, not being active Forum readers/participants. They will log onto the game when available and do what they feel like doing, according to whatever game mechanics are available. It will be THEN that some kind of actions can be taken to curb excesses or at least educate them as to why a different kind of game is intended here.
Those hundreds of players cannot build or conquer their own settlement while the tower wars are on. All settlements will be owned by groups with at least some forum activity. All new players wanting to join a settlement in this period can be educated by the respective settlement leaderships about acceptable and undesirable behaviour.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Polarity is the constant context of decisions. There is a predictable 'better' outcome and a predictable 'worse' outcome. Ignoring that, even in our shared play, is still an influence in real life.
One of the recurrent memes involved is 'right' and 'wrong'. There is ambiguity to which is better and which is worse at almost every decision-point. But the natures of right and wrong are nevertheless fairly constant. Right and wrong don't seem to be as arbitrary or relative as sophists argue.The general intent of 'good' and 'bad' are also pretty well understood, even if philosophers will quibble over semantics until the final curtain falls. There is a condition humanity consistently tries to pull itself out of. It is the condition imposed by the 'law of the jungle'.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The real problem is - the game hasn't started !!
A lot of these discussions here boil down to a question of balance. This game would lose a lot without meaningful PvP. This game could lose even more if PvP becomes non-meaningful and just a way to opress (or kick out) the ones who are not as organized.
The issue is - we don't know where the balance will be. I'm not keen to have my alpha towers to be attacked - but did I say - the game hasn't started yet? Maybe this won't be an issue. Maybe by the time it has started I have done something to rile up an alliance so much that I deserve them to be taken. Maybe I'm not even active any longer one month into the game (don't count on this one).
As laudable as the ideas of Proxima are - I'm unable to say I support or I disagree with them.
The question is - where will the balance be in the game. And we just don't know until it has started.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The real problem is - the game hasn't started !!
A lot of these discussions here boil down to a question of balance. This game would lose a lot without meaningful PvP. This game could lose even more if PvP becomes non-meaningful and just a way to opress (or kick out) the ones who are not as organized.
The issue is - we don't know where the balance will be. I'm not keen to have my alpha towers to be attacked - but did I say - the game hasn't started yet? Maybe this won't be an issue. Maybe by the time it has started I have done something to rile up an alliance so much that I deserve them to be taken. Maybe I'm not even active any longer one month into the game (don't count on this one).
As laudable as the ideas of Proxima are - I'm unable to say I support or I disagree with them.
The question is - where will the balance be in the game. And we just don't know until it has started.
True. But the time to talk is now. Later it will be only time to do. What we (and others) will do can be partly guided by the things we discuss and converse over now, whether any of us openly agrees or disagrees. We have still said what has been said. We each already think what we do. And our thoughts will certainly influence the realization and expression of our game.
For better or worse.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Honestly, and I only speak for myself, I'd rather know whether the group I'm in is up to the task of holding what we "own". I'm a firm believer that if this game is good then the mongols are coming. Without groups trying to take our towers we won't learn critical lessons in organization and logistics that will cement the systems we put into place to safeguard our settlement. While I like the heart of what went into the idea, being a team and cooperative player, I think it's best to go forward with the War of Taverns as it is laid out by GW.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being,
You know me better than that (I hope).I am always hopeful that differing groups can find ways to work together, or at the very least, keep open lines of communication so as to establish the first steps necessary for cooperation. There will always be a few individuals that people just can't deal with, but hopefully, that does not impede the efforts of larger groups to find common ground.
I've been involved in games where, even when characters/guilds were at war with one another, the players of those characters worked together to make certain that the in-game fun didn't sour. Getting players to remove themselves from the heated emotion of what just happened to their character isn't easy, but it is possible, especially if they keep forefront in their mind that how they react as players - not characters - is what will shape the community they play in. When individuals take all this far too seriously is often when things start to go awry, lines are drawn, they say or do things they never should, and we find the player community breaking into separate camps, even if the majority of people on either side would rather not.
So do I think we can strive to make a better society within the game - absolutely. Does that mean the game world will be a peaceful and placid place - no. As Tork Shaw said:
"...settlement warfare and land control is the central system to drive PvP in PFO."
Does that mean territorial competition is the only system - of course not. But being a major system, perhaps even the central system, the world is bound to be a competitive, often unsafe place. But so were the early days of UO, where stepping out of town meant you might be killed and totally looted (no threads back then). Yet we managed to build whole player-run economies (plenty of harvesting and crafting), took part in all sorts of PvE content, built whole player-made towns/communities, and crafted marvelous player-generated story-arcs/plots/quests/etc...all of it in the middle of that dangerous world.
We can do it again, as players, even if our characters are pitted against one another from time to time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the rhetoric about "right and wrong" and that we as a community need to "do something impressive" is partisan, disingenuous, and overblown. It assumes the conclusion that a war simulator- not a murder simulator, but a war simulator- is inherently and intrinsically bad.
When I play a game, I play to win. I'm not going to take it easy on my opponent out of courtesy to their feelings, and I'd be furious if they did so to me. Play your best game, and challenge me to improve mine if mine isn't good enough. If you take it easy on me then I'm even less prepared for the next, even harder challenge.
I'd like to see this as a good-hearted, kind, civil society where everyone respects each others' personhood and does their very best to take and hold any territory they think would be a strategic benefit.
You don't deserve your A-ring as a natural right. You deserve your A-ring if you can hold it. If you can't hold a hex adjacent to your own settlement which is no better than a B-ring hex for anyone else, then that's a sharp indicator that you are not meeting the game's challenges and you need to change your behavior.
Now, there are many different ways you could change your behavior. Maybe you get more allies. Maybe you get more members. Maybe you convince a potential aggressor that there are other targets that would be more convenient for him. Maybe you infiltrate and sabotage his efforts. Maybe you offer vassalage, sincerely. Maybe you offer vassalage, with every intention of stabbing them in the back as soon as possible. Maybe you convince your neighbors to form a "respect the A ring" pact. All of that is playing the game. This thread is not about playing the game, it's about changing the rules of the game, and I think for the worse.
If I'm in P, there are 3 non-A towers in my B ring. 1 of those, to my SSE, is an easy target. 1 of them, to my SSW, is in O's B-ring. The last, to my NNE, is triple contested, in both Q's and R's B-rings. Once I have my A-ring and my SSE B-ring tower secured, it may very well be that my next best expansion point is due North in Q's A-ring. If I'm able to take both of the contested B towers and I really need a 10th tower, somebody's A-ring is looking really tempting.
Now maybe the dynamics of power in the local region are such that it would be impolitic to go after that hex 2 to my north. But that's a practical decision, not one reflective of my morality as a player. If I'm an outside observer and I see P going after hex -14.07, I'm not thinking "what bungholes those players in P are!", I'm thinking "wow, I wonder how that's going to play out?"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
... at every turn we have a choice and choice by nature means more than one possible path.
These are tough times. A man can get a job. He might not look too close at what that job is. But a man learns all the details of a situation like ours... well... then he has a choice.
I don't believe he does.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
When I play a game, I play to win. I'm not going to take it easy on my opponent out of courtesy to their feelings, and I'd be furious if they did so to me. Play your best game, and challenge me to improve mine if mine isn't good enough. If you take it easy on me then I'm even less prepared for the next, even harder challenge.
That's a very commendable perspective, and one I largely share.
But that's only part of the equation. There will be many things that are possible in PFO that we should not do. Some have proudly declared they'll take whatever advantage they can get, and will only stop if Goblinworks makes it impossible. I think that's clearly the wrong attitude.
And as righteous as your quote above is, it has no bearing on the topic at hand when we're talking about going out of your way to take something away from those who are just starting to try to learn how to PvP, even when there's no real benefit to you. That sounds remarkably like killing someone "just for the lulz", which is the definition of griefing.
Please don't read too much into this. I don't have any problem with taking someone's A-Ring towers if they actually benefit you, regardless of how inexperienced or "nice" your victims are. That is, I don't see it as griefing in any way. However, it should be clear you're making enemies if they have friends who are willing to fight on their behalf.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... at every turn we have a choice and choice by nature means more than one possible path.These are tough times. A man can get a job. He might not look too close at what that job is. But a man learns all the details of a situation like ours... well... then he has a choice.
I don't believe he does.
Then you don't believe in ingenuity and the entrepreneurial spirit? The self-employed are foolish, and only the corporation can make things happen? That you have to already have money to make money?
I believe independently.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
> Some have proudly declared they'll take whatever advantage they can get, and will only stop if Goblinworks makes it impossible. I think that's clearly the wrong attitude.
I agree. "playing to win" does not mean "win at any price".
>going out of your way to take something away from those who are just starting to try to learn how to PvP, even when there's no real benefit to you.
I would argue that even if there is mechanical advantage to be had by taking a tower, it might be outweighed by the intangible benefits to the community of letting your weak neighbor grow stronger. "Don't eat your seed corn" and "teach a man to fish" both apply. But I think that decision has to be made case by case, not as an abstract universal principle.
> However, it should be clear you're making enemies if they have friends who are willing to fight on their behalf.
Of course, as it should be!
> Then you don't believe in ingenuity and the entrepreneurial spirit?
Being, you missed the reference; this is a Firefly quote. (Go put Firefly at the top of your queue!)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... at every turn we have a choice and choice by nature means more than one possible path.These are tough times. A man can get a job. He might not look too close at what that job is. But a man learns all the details of a situation like ours... well... then he has a choice.
I don't believe he does.
Then you don't believe in ingenuity and the entrepreneurial spirit? The self-employed are foolish, and only the corporation can make things happen? That you have to already have money to make money?
I believe independently.
Sorry, perhaps I was being too subtle. It's a Firefly quote. For me, it's the Firefly quote - the one that, more than anything else, define's Mal's character.
[Sheriff Bourne has caught Mal returning stolen medicine to a plague-stricken town]
Sheriff Bourne: You were truthful back in town. These are tough times. A man can get a job. He might not look too close at what that job is. But a man learns all the details of a situation like ours... well... then he has a choice.
Mal: I don't believe he does.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that decision has to be made case by case, not as an abstract universal principle.
I completely agree, and said as much in my first post in this thread.
Being, you missed the reference; this is a Firefly quote. (Go put Firefly at the top of your queue!)
Good, I wasn't being too subtle after all :)
