Goblin Squad Member
|
The bottom line for the people still arguing for this is to stoke their own egos.That is an extremely unfair assumption to lay on anyone that supported the premise of the OP or the comments thereafter.
Guurzak's OP might be a terrible idea for the game, or it could be helpful.
Cyneric's assessment of reputation consequences in relation to high value items is either true or not on its own merits.
Taking everyone that supported the OP and stamping them narcissists cheapens the discussion. It is untrue, and is a Superman level logical leap.
And this is why, Malvius, it's not useful to make personal attacks like calling someone ignorant or to state that people that continue arguing one side of an issue are stoking their egos. Because then you can be called out for personally attacking other posters, and whoever calls you out will be right. (And your salient point, that perhaps nothing new has been said, will be lost).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The bottom line for the people still arguing for either side is below. It'd be nice if we could leave it there.
;)
___________________________________
audoceeeeet stawwwwp
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Urman I would hope everyone could recognize that I responded like that to highlight his attitudes which is why I tried to make the rest of my post non personal. To those arguing I'm making massive leaps lumping people together I respond in part true however as you are arguing a point to change the game without ANY evidence to support a need you let yourselves be lumped in so don't expect sympathy. People want to talk like they are experience at leading people yet the first obstacle to their way of doing things they cry for change. A military truth is to succeed you fight with the force you have not the one you wish.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Urman I would hope everyone could recognize that I responded like that to highlight his attitudes which is why I tried to make the rest of my post non personal. To those arguing I'm making massive leaps lumping people together I respond in part true however as you are arguing a point to change the game without ANY evidence to support a need you let yourselves be lumped in so don't expect sympathy. People want to talk like they are experience at leading people yet the first obstacle to their way of doing things they cry for change. A military truth is to succeed you fight with the force you have not the one you wish.
Respect my authoritaaaaaa
That's true, Crash, but not really relevant, since the whole idea here is to make all PvP in Starfall Hexes sanctioned.
Know what is relevant?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Urman I would hope everyone could recognize that I responded like that to highlight his attitudes which is why I tried to make the rest of my post non personal. To those arguing I'm making massive leaps lumping people together I respond in part true however as you are arguing a point to change the game without ANY evidence to support a need you let yourselves be lumped in so don't expect sympathy. People want to talk like they are experience at leading people yet the first obstacle to their way of doing things they cry for change. A military truth is to succeed you fight with the force you have not the one you wish.
Lumping those that adopt a viewpoint into one negative category is not only in this case untrue, it is also a logical fallacy. (see Ad Hominem - Abusive Type)
Urman is right, it hurts your later points because it reads like it is contingent on the opposing viewpoints being held by egomaniacs. Where I might normally see your point on its own merits I instead dismiss it out of hand because it does not stand on its own.
I saw merit in the OP and I know everyone that supported the premise is not doing so to boost their ego.
I will say again, there are a hundred unknown factors that could change the end result of alignment hits in starmetal hexes. Even if nothing remains adjusted, there could be a better alternative to FFA starmetal hexes.
Consequence free pvp hexes is not a topic that the developers have stated is off the table. There is nothing toxic about the OP itself, and I do not understand why it is being interpreted as that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
From the blog If I Had a Hammer:
Ryan Dancey wrote:Gathering kits are crafted by players and generally include peasant levies provided by a settlement (this represents you supervising a large number of unseen NPCs doing most of the work). This is one of the ways a player can get the Heinous flag: levies of enslaved peasants produce a slave labor gathering kit that can mark you Heinous while the operation is in progress.
From the blog I Shot a Man in Reno Just to Watch Him Die, dicussing Flags:
Ryan Dancey wrote:Heinous
The character has committed an act that is universally viewed as evil, such as raising and controlling undead, using slaves to build structures or gather resources, etc.Each time the character gets the Heinous flag they lose good vs. evil.
Anyone may kill a Heinous character without fearing reputation or alignment loss.
Heinous is removed once the character has been killed.
The Heinous flag lasts one minute beyond the duration of the deed unless the character does something to get it again before the duration runs out. Characters using undead for example will have the Heinous flag the entire time they are using undead.
If the character gets the Heinous flag again within the duration of its existing Heinous buff, the count of Heinous increases by 1 and the duration resets ten minutes longer, up to a maximum of 100 minutes.
If the character gets to Heinous 10 they get a new flag, Villain, which lasts for 24 hours and does not disappear on death. It acts the same as Heinous, allowing repeat offenders to be hunted down for longer periods of time.
From the blog Blood on the Tracks, again about Flags:
Ryan Dancey wrote:Heinous: Certain incredibly evil actions (like raising undead or using slaves in a construction project) may briefly flag a character with the Heinous flag. These actions are universally considered wrong, and other players are not punished for attempting to stop another player from doing these things.
While I don't know how accurate this information still is...
It seems to me, playing evil will result in being flagged for consequence-less PvP. All the benefits of being evil come with being able to be attacked by anyone. Evil cannot initiate aggressions without taking a rep hit.
Maybe LG will be able to march around and try to kill evil unopposed after all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Aet Charlie if we want to talk about argument types and such first stop conflating my points to dismiss the entirety of my post and realize that this entire thread is based on a pathos argument which is a poor basis for a business to conduct itself on and you do accept this as an appeal to GW to change the way they do business without any proof of its necessity do you not?
Only certain evil actions invoke the Heinous flag. Slavery, Raising Dead, etc. Being an evil dick isn't enough. You have to do the kind of evil things that even many evil people find heinous.
Like stealing a loaf of bread. An act that everyone finds horrific! Meanwhile, burning a settlement to the ground, killing anyone inside that settlement or those that dare defend their hearth is fine and dandy.
I'm interested to see if the same people in this thread that tell us PvP is so bad, fight as hard to lessen the impacts of the criminal and heinous flags.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Aet Charlie if we want to talk about argument types and such first stop conflating my points to dismiss the entirety of my post and realize that this entire thread is based on a pathos argument which is a poor basis for a business to conduct itself on and you do accept this as an appeal to GW to change the way they do business without any proof of its necessity do you not?
I can't, because your points are contingent on me accepting that opposing points are irrelevant because of the characters of those presenting those views.
I don't accept that premise, because it is untrue.
I have already stated that there is a gap in information. To add to clarity I also see validity in Caldeathe's counterpoints.
Honestly, I am at a middle ground on the subject. I am most certainly not sold on FFA pvp hexes.
This thread is not a call for GW to change anything as a demand. It was a discussion topic at first that turned into an assessment by later posters. No one I take seriously has stated "GW do this or it is broken"
The title of the thread is even framed as a question. This thread is not asking GW to change how they do business. GW has clearly stated FFA pvp zones are not off the table.
You are asking me to accept an untrue version of reality. I can not.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This thread is not a call for GW to change anything as a demand. It was a discussion topic at first that turned into an assessment by later posters. No one I take seriously has stated "GW do this or it is broken"
You may have us at a disadvantage, then, because some of us don't know who to take seriously and who not. And at least one person has definitely said that harvesting is broken and will be too easy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This thread is not a call for GW to change anything as a demand. It was a discussion topic at first that turned into an assessment by later posters. No one I take seriously has stated "GW do this or it is broken"You may have us at a disadvantage, then, because some of us don't know who to take seriously and who not. And at least one person has definitely said that harvesting is broken and will be too easy.
If you are referencing Cyneric, he qualified his statement by saying that harvesters will be the safest path in the game if:
1. Reputation is not adjusted from alpha levels
2. Reputation is not dependent on what hex you are in.
etc
He qualified his statement. He still might be wrong, but he was certainly not being irrational.
If you talking about someone else then sure, I might not take them seriously.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Aet Charlie I have not argued that they are irrelevant I have argued that this thread is not even a thinly veiled attempt to derail the intended purpose of the reputation system. You further insinuate that I am failing to discern between the types of people arguing for FFA and you are again incorrect. Since you want to put words in my mouth let me clear up any misunderstandings. Without the slightest proof that there will be a problem with the game mechanics we have a persistent cry not just in this thread but across the forum for the game mechanics to be pulled back. This is a fact. I have given credence to some of the points raised that allow a deepening of PvP such as feuding hexes. Now actually singling people out to fight because they are the champions of these requests and defaming them would be an ad hominem attack and I will further go so far as to point out they consistently use argumentum ab auctoritate arguments which you do not call them out on.
There are people arguing for FFA for the sole purpose of enabling their murderhobo lifestyle. If you deny this then you are naïve. And that is not an attack though I am sure you would like to portray it as such. Since you support letting the arguments for this stand answer me this: to what purpose is it in a game that hasn't been tested yet to request changes to the game mechanics?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
FFA starfall hexes might end up being a good idea. It's the "why" that some of you are flying way off the handle with.
Harvesters will not be invincible. Even if they start that way on day 1 because of lack of mechanics, there is no reason to believe that is the game design of PFO. I see lots of whining and crying, yet the milk is still in the bottle.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In that particular scenario, it's actually the bear I'm more worried about, but yes. Killing you for your herbs is quite a bit less offensive to me than making you fight a bear for someone's entertainment, let alone until one of you is dead.I realize this is Goblinwork's call. But I would hope this game doesn't cave to political extremists trying to cram their warped values down our throats.If you think that is a politically extreme viewpoint, then I feel sorry for your friends and relatives. I'm pretty sure that most people in civilized nations think it's wrong to stick captured enemies in arenas with wild animals and force them to fight to the death for the entertainment of other people. Even the U.S. at the height of it's persecution of "enemy non-combatants" wouldn't have tried that one.
Can you proved a single example of a nation that is not controlled by despots where such activity would be an open, encouraged, part of the system?
[edit: and by the way, thanks for the ego boost in taking me sufficiently seriously about being more worried about the bear to launch a screed at the notion. You may wish to note that I have, throughout the boards, used "wildlife" (i.e. bears) as a placeholder for referring to an assortment of NPCs, be it guards or goblins]
Most people understand the difference between real life and a video game. Hell half the MMOs in existence start you off with "Go kill 10 bears/boars/wolves" as your early type of quest.
LOTRO has achievements based on number of kills of certain enemy types. Kill 100 bears in a certain zone, get an achievement.How offensive?
Guurzak my question then goes to you too. To what purpose is it in a game that hasn't been tested yet to request changes to the game mechanics?
This question goes to everyone continuing to support this idea.
It's called crowdforging. Some companies even support it.
If you have issues with people suggesting ideas to GW, you best raise a suggestion on ideascale for them to stop raising suggestions and ideas.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Most people understand the difference between real life and a video game. Hell half the MMOs in existence start you off with "Go kill 10 bears/boars/wolves" as your early type of quest.
LOTRO has achievements based on number of kills of certain enemy types. Kill 100 bears in a certain zone, get an achievement.How offensive?
There's a case to be made that everything we do here is for entertainment in the real world, and there are plenty of people who don't like it for that reason.
I'm concerned with the difference between a character fighting someone or something to the death because it is something the character must do to succeed, and a character forcing two other entities to fight to the death for their entertainment.
I'm not offended when a wolf kills another wolf for mastery of its den. That doesn't mean I'm okay with people fighting dogs so they can gamble and be entertained. If two people try to kill each other because they both want the same piece of rock, it disappoints me, but I understand it. If a wealthy despot puts two people in a ring and tells them to try to kill each other because one or both of them are going to be dead before they leave the ring, so that other people can clap and laugh and bet on the outcome, I don't understand, or accept that there is a valid reason.
I don't want to be part of a game where it is possible to force NPCs to try to kill each other for entertainment. I find it worrisome that there are people who can't see that distinction.
There are people arguing for FFA for the sole purpose of enabling their murderhobo lifestyle.
And there are people arguing against it for the sole purpose of making PvP as impractical as possible.
Good thing we aren't either of those people, eh? Let's all chill out and stop trying to make this personal.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Very clever Monty Wolf one problem though we are not setting priorities for further development of the game here we are asking a rewrite of the code before we even get to EE with no indication that it's needed. You want to crowd forge a more dangerous environment ask then to work on the monster AI. Or focus on bringing settlements fully into the game sooner not keep rewriting the same thing.
I think it's long past time we heard from a dev on this matter as to whether they are going to rewrite code before it even sees the light of day.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In further interest in hearing from a dev on the actual mechanics is the influence a company expends on a POI a one time thing or does it gradually as you improve a POI eat into the potential pool of influence you could use on other objectives? Knowing how these costs are balanced would greatly affect how we plan ANY operations.
|
"Let's make a game where there will be meaningful PvP, not simply a murderhobo simulator"
"Let me suggest a Free-Consequences PvP in <Insert an Ocasion Here>"
----
Seriously, do only me around here sense a little of inconsistence of this idea from the PvP Idea?
I was more satisfied when I undertood that alignement will antagonize their oposite in game (where good could fight the evil, and lawful fight the chaotic), they still remove that because the "meaningful choices" and then there is flag/oposite faction/reputation, where both sides have oportunity to choice where and how to oposite or not in PvP around the world.
Freeing a hexes for PvP without consequences entirely circunvent this system, imho.
But what do you consider "meaning choices", "meaningful PvP", "meaningful interactions"?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regulation is normally imposed on any system that fails to regulate itself in a way that is either neutral or beneficial to that system.
Historically, unregulated PvP has tended to harm multiplayer games that fail to self-regulate. When a game fails to self-regulate PvP, player share invariably plummets and the game ultimately fails.
The objective of PvP regulation is not to eliminate PvP, but to mitigate the harm of unregulated PvP.
We don't want to eliminate PvP, we want to nurture and structure PvP to benefit the system in a way more players can enjoy. If we are successful the PvP game will more likely succeed than if we do not self-regulate.
Unregulated PvP is known to damage player retention and enjoyment, and therefore is known to be harmful to the game. Consequently, the game design intends to remove the harmful effects of gank behavior while preserving the beneficial expressions of PvP. It intends to do so not by eliminating the ability of the player to PvP, but to reward self-regulation and discourage failure to self-regulate.
Removing those regulations in specific geographic areas of great value may damage the game if players fail to self-regulate. Players tend to not self-regulate unless they have adequate reason to do so.
Providing incentive for self-regulation argues for avoiding FFA in star metal hexes.
Okay, let's just remind people of something. You're free to dislike the idea, but people are really going after Guurzak for supposedly going against the devs' intentions, so I think this should be brought up again.
Quote:
[Responding to someone posting about their band of marauders:]
Probably chaotic evil. I say probably because there's a debate to be had in Crowdforging about the presence of anything-goes territory. If we decided to have that kind of territory, then in that territory, your actions would have no mechanical effect on your character.
Contextually, the play you describe could run the gamut from "awesome" to "banned for griefing".
That play style becomes socially harmless and mechanically beneficial if it is done in the context of territorial control.
Guurzak read this post and decided to do what Ryan suggested and discuss the matter.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I believe the point people are making is that it should be a much bigger issue that we are killing things for entertainment. On a meta-level we log onto the game and kill each other or various NPCs for sheer entertainment value. That's the entire purpose of the game.
Most big games are like this. Thousands of people log onto Call of Duty every day and shoot each other in the face for entertainment. People log into WoW and kill each other in Battlegrounds and slaughter boars by the thousands for entertainment.
That player motivation should be more worrisome than the character motivation if you're going to take that standpoint.
The player's motivation is to "win" or "succeed" (come as close to winning as the game allows).
I already said that that there is an argument to be made that everyone involved is killing for entertainment. Nothing can be done about the people who feel that way. They will agitate against Gaming, against hunting, against fishing, against sealing. We will not win them over to thinking that PFO is okay. Ever.
When you introduce "making other people kill for your entertainment" that's a different line, and pushes more of us toward believing that the above people are right.
On one side, killing in an effort to simulate a real world, where factions compete for limited resources (for entertainment). On the other side forcing other beings to kill each other for your entertainment. The latter is a significant negative for me. It's possible I'm completely out of touch with the average person, but I don't think so. I think that the majority of the population (if they had reason to think about it) would be negatively motivated by the notion of forcing other beings to fight for entertainment
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I 100% agree with Cal B about not forcing folks to go into an FFA PvP zone to get certain valuable resources, in the exact same way I don't think the game should force you to buy a particular dungeon module to get certain valuable resources.
I think any design solution which forces folks to play "Sheep" to your "Wolf" is broken, and will end up driving players away from PFO. If your PvP fun depends on preying upon unwilling Sheep, you're probably going to be unhappy with PFO.
This is why I support a design solution that makes some meteor hexes FFA some of the time.
Y'know, it might be kinda fun if meteor hexes just kinda randomly went FFA sometimes. It would set something like a 5-10 minute timer, giving you plenty of time to leave. As such, the only people who would die are people who choose to stick around, people who enter only during the window so there's less competition, and the few who think, "Okay, just one more minute of mining, then..."
It'd be like a game of chicken.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Y'know, it might be kinda fun if meteor hexes just kinda randomly went FFA sometimes. It would set something like a 5-10 minute timer, giving you plenty of time to leave. As such, the only people who would die are people who choose to stick around, people who enter only during the window so there's less competition, and the few who think, "Okay, just one more minute of mining, then..."
It'd be like a game of chicken.
I think it'd be interesting if that were one of a number of possible random effects. Hey, it's a starmetal hex, weird **** can happen, right? Maybe sometimes it turns FFA pvp, maybe sometimes the whole area becomes radioactive and does passive damage, maybe sometimes the nodes produce double yield, maybe sometimes rare monsters spawn and go berserk. Hell, maybe sometimes the opposite of FFA PVP happens and every time someone attacks another player a bolt of lightning blasts them 30 feet away and puts a massive stun on them.
Make the hexes real wild cards.|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I 100% agree with Cal B about not forcing folks to go into an FFA PvP zone to get certain valuable resources, in the exact same way I don't think the game should force you to buy a particular dungeon module to get certain valuable resources.
I think any design solution which forces folks to play "Sheep" to your "Wolf" is broken, and will end up driving players away from PFO. If your PvP fun depends on preying upon unwilling Sheep, you're probably going to be unhappy with PFO.
This is why I support a design solution that makes some meteor hexes FFA some of the time.
Hrm....I might like that idea.
I could get behind random effects including temp FFA status, but while we are arguing for changes what about allowing people to make items that act as a retributive strike on death destroying all items not threaded. This kind of scorched earth action is meaningful is it not?
Boooooooo
BOOOOOOOOOO
Maybe he has no one who wuvs him, Pop-Pop?
I mean, uh, it's 'cause I play a graverobber and it seems like the "Scorched Inventory Policy" would become standard procedure during wartime. Makes things an awful pain for would-be war profiteers.
I'm not totally against it, but I'm a bit too biased to really contribute much here. :P
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I suppose destroying everything is extreme, as extreme as FFA! But seriously Retributive strikes are part of the lore I believe and you could balance the system, maybe allowing the defeated their choice of what is destroyed rather than at random or perhaps blasting finished items into constituent parts minus a few to represent damage it would have taken?
The thing is, it's a bit of an imbalance—no matter what, the merchant is fully capable of fighting to protect his wares, and, with the SAD, often given a choice. Plus, the merchant is fully free to just go work somewhere else. FFA as described thus makes things more dangerous, but still gives him a lot of say in the matter, and ultimately, it comes down to him being able to fight his way out.
There's no way to "fight" the "retributive strikes"—if it's there, you fought for nothing. That's the difference.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think you inadvertently stumbled across one of the issues I have with this Kobold. In my experience merchants typically do very well for themselves but the resource gatherers are not always those merchants. It is not uncommon to see the resource gathers being among the most impoverished members of a group though games with a true player economy balance it a bit better. It is still a fairly low margin activity that most people who engage in do because they want to be part if a community. It is their efforts the merchants then move around for the big money.
As I've stated before a PvPer really doesn't need to be skilled at much PvE and PvP will use exactly the same basic skills. A harvester on the other hand HAS to focus on another skill set and the more they focus on being "fully capable of fighting to protect" their wares the less capable of fulfilling their role they are.
I've pvped and I've been a resource gatherer and crafter and honestly I prefer the latter because I like to see the organizations I belong too have things. Whether we are talking the medium and small Calderi POSs I operated for my corp in EVE or the half the exterior wall and being a major contributor to several other buildings in AoC. I like seeing people use the stuff I create because that is where I get the most satisfaction in game. And I've fought to protect my creations and i don't mind losing them in a fight but giving the low man in the totem pole the ability to zero his antagonists gains is not imbalanced. In fact if the goal is to increase rarity which was one of the points being argued for FFA this fulfills that objective.
I can't respond to that because I lack MMO experience and do not know how gatherers will fare. If someone else can tackle this, it'd be nice.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I can't respond to that because I lack MMO experience and do not know how gatherers will fare. If someone else can tackle this, it'd be nice.
Two types of games I have played, I have.
Themepark: Rich if you use the market. No brainer.
Sandbox/Open (unrestricted) PVP: Rich if you use your brain and the market.
There are still many factors unrevealed. It does look like it will be about the same from the alpha. That is a pretty broad conclusion that does not account for local marketing.
I see little to discourage me yet though.
Anyways, a merchant should be perfectly capable of fighting back if he's smart and hires guards. I don't get why people are always bringing up merchants like that's not an option and they're these poor helpless lambs.