Goblin Squad Member
|
Being,
My question was getting at how we interpret the black and white, quantitative measurement of reputation. No matter the system used, it still falls to the players to decide how to interpret that metric.
There are some who have stated that they see no reason for any low reputation at all and will treat all such players the same, even attacking and killing them. My question gets at the reason for the low reputation. If "meaningfulness" of action matters at all, then what was black and white just got a little gray.
I suspect interpretation of such character's reputation scores will fall to observation of their actions, patterns of their behavior, and other community judged factors. The game mechanic may provide a number, but it is still up to us to give the number meaning and perspective. Personally, though it may cause some angst, I would rather that human judgement were at least partly present for so complex a subject rather than having it entirely boiled down to a black and white, quantitative "decision" (especially when it's likely that white = good, black = they must be toxic...ban them).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So, basically exactly the same thing as EvE's nul-sec/high-sec, except you are even more in danger than in EvE, because well, high-sec is more of a low-sec ?
What the suggestion in the Op is is to make the star metal hex the equivalent of EvEs null sec. Nothing more or less than that. That has no bearing on the High Sec areas of PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that the idea of matching risk to reward has a lot of merit, and I think that increasing the risk in the highest-reward hexes should not be a purely PVE function; by design, other players are the greatest challenges in this game. Whether emergent player behavior under the standard ruleset is enough to increase the PVP risk of those hexes commensurately with their rewards is something we're going to have to wait and see.
Well reasoned. My feedback is that if starmetal is valuable, and it will be, then there is no need for increasing that incentive to make mining it more dangerous. Those who want the commodity will assuredly do their utmost to gain control over it, and maintain their control over it, and it will be exceedingly dangerous to obtain therefore without any mediation of reputation considerations.
If my prediction proves wrong THEN FFA may be one adjustment to consider. I don't think building it into the hex from the git go is well advised. It would be good, however, to build in the mechanisms that would be needed were it found later that rep adjustment needs implementation.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
So, basically exactly the same thing as EvE's nul-sec/high-sec, except you are even more in danger than in EvE, because well, high-sec is more of a low-sec ?What the suggestion in the Op is is to make the star metal hex the equivalent of EvEs null sec. Nothing more or less than that. That has no bearing on the High Sec areas of PFO.
Yeah. My point exactly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Being,
My question was getting at how we interpret the black and white, quantitative measurement of reputation. No matter the system used, it still falls to the players to decide how to interpret that metric.
There are some who have stated that they see no reason for any low reputation at all and will treat all such players the same, even attacking and killing them. My question gets at the reason for the low reputation. If "meaningfulness" of action matters at all, then what was black and white just got a little gray.
I suspect interpretation of such character's reputation scores will fall to observation of their actions, patterns of their behavior, and other community judged factors. The game mechanic may provide a number, but it is still up to us to give the number meaning and perspective. Personally, though it may cause some angst, I would rather that human judgement were at least partly present for so complex a subject rather than having it entirely boiled down to a black and white, quantitative "decision" (especially when it's likely that white = good, black = they must be toxic...ban them).
I'm trying to grasp how player interpretation of the reputation values factor. My understanding is that player evaluation is irrelevant in terms of in-game environmental consequences. If the character has low rep it will matter little whether the player is proud of what the character did: what will matter is that there is no where left for that character to train.
~edit~ in consideration, I'm not concerned whether the community evaluates someone's activity as good bad or indifferent. The community will think what they will and in cases it will have little to do with what a given character did or did not do.
That is something where human judgment will find domain.
But reputation as a part of the mechanics of the computerized environment is exactly what is described in the OP: The proposition that starmetal hexes should offer FFA PvP without rep impact is a mechanical thing rather than a humanly evaluated judgmental thing. My position is that the rules should either be in place everywhere or the rule is of questionable merit in the first place.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think it is, correct me if I am wrong. Only high rep settlements will be able to offer top training.
I'd caveat this - high rep is relative. To offer top tier training might only require that the settlement's reputation threshold be 1000 or 0. Requiring reputation of 2500 or 5000 for certain training would mean such settlements could never allow in brand-new characters. New characters start at 1000 and would need to be played for some time before they'd reach 2500.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lots of conversation about newbies in high rep towns here.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bringslite FFA PvP will make starmetal more rare because those who can most efficiently mine it will have to form armies and use serious logistics to go get it unless they want to simply mine it only to be ganked and have only 25% of what is mined brought to market.
I assume that this is already the case, even without any FFA rules. To efficiently get star metal, groups will form armies and use serious logistics. Some will include gathering teams, some will use kill teams, some will use both.
Yes there will be a few small harvesters that hope to strike it rich, and they'll bring out some metal. But they're already going to be targets for feuds or simple killings.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bringslite FFA PvP will make starmetal more rare because those who can most efficiently mine it will have to form armies and use serious logistics to go get it unless they want to simply mine it only to be ganked and have only 25% of what is mined brought to market.I assume that this is already the case, even without any FFA rules. To efficiently get star metal, groups will form armies and use serious logistics. Some will include gathering teams, some will use kill teams, some will use both.
Yes there will be a few small harvesters that hope to strike it rich, and they'll bring out some metal. But they're already going to be targets for feuds or simple killings.
Agree. Anything that is valuable and scarce will be farmed. Perhaps not as much by singles or small groups, but if there is money and power, they will come.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Probably so, Urman. So what benefit does the proposed FFA characteristic really bring to the table?
Among other things, it permits PvP-centric characters/groups to focus more tightly on combat skills by eliminating the need for them to build the capacity to harvest rare resources. If a group can get as many rare resources by theft with no consequences as harvesters can by taking skills and building groups to overcome the environment, why would anyone bother to harvest them?
It seems to me that rather than making rare items more rare, it would actually make the rare items less rare for skilled PvPers (by reducing the risk they face in taking it) and more rare for unskilled PvPers
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Probably so, Urman. So what benefit does the proposed FFA characteristic really bring to the table?
I don't think making star metal hexes special FFA zones brings much to the table.
There's a part of gathering star metal that hasn't been discussed, and that's resource depletion.
If settlement/nation A is descending on a crater for harvesting on Friday night, settlement/nation B may not have the option of just waiting a day for their own harvesting foray. Group A might be planning on a 4-8 hour sweep, where they hoover the area up and leave little metal for anyone else. Group B has to decide: do they try to harvest in parallel; do they just work to drive Group A's harvesters away; or do they end up paying top coin for Group A's star metal for the next month?
There will be wars fought over the stuff, and other hexes as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Areks: point taken.
*tips his hat*
Thank you sir.
To you statement that,
" My position is that the rules should either be in place everywhere or the rule is of questionable merit in the first place."
I would only ask that instead of seeing no reputation hit as an absence of the mechanic, instead you look at it as the far end of that rule's spectrum.
I fully believe that my intended result, whether meritorious or not, would also be achieved in some capacity by simply reducing the penalties of PvP in said Hexes. The result would be proportionately reduced and yet still achieving the desired result in some capacity.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Probably so, Urman. So what benefit does the proposed FFA characteristic really bring to the table?Among other things, it permits PvP-centric characters/groups to focus more tightly on combat skills by eliminating the need for them to build the capacity to harvest rare resources. If a group can get as many rare resources by theft with no consequences as harvesters can by taking skills and building groups to overcome the environment, why would anyone bother to harvest them?
It seems to me that rather than making rare items more rare, it would actually make the rare items less rare for skilled PvPers (by reducing the risk they face in taking it) and more rare for unskilled PvPers
I really don't get this logic. Harvesters will always be needed regardless of reputation. You might be able to kill me and get 75% of what I had on me that one time you caught me. But you will not catch me every time and maybe when you did you caught me 10 minuets into my gathering spree.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I really don't get this logic. Harvesters will always be needed regardless of reputation. You might be able to kill me and get 75% of what I had on me that one time you caught me. But you will not catch me every time and maybe when you did you caught me 10 minuets into my gathering spree.
That implies pretty poorly organized and badly planned raids that didn't bother to place any scouts to make sure the harvesting had been going on for a while before descending, or just wait until they start gathering to leave the hex. That's already assuming that they haven't just placed someone in the harvesting group so that they know exactly what the planned schedule and status of the harvest is. I imagine that's what I would do if I had any interest in it.
PvP players happen to like a play style that some of us don't, and that we happen to resent. The fact that we don't like PvP doesn't mean we believe that the people who do are stupid.
My "logic" is that the bandits who have infiltrated my settlement will allow me to get home with just enough to avoid me giving up. No more, no less, and that allowing them to do it consequence free will just make their "job" easier.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Areks: point taken.*tips his hat*
Thank you sir.
To you statement that,
" My position is that the rules should either be in place everywhere or the rule is of questionable merit in the first place."I would only ask that instead of seeing no reputation hit as an absence of the mechanic, instead you look at it as the far end of that rule's spectrum.
I fully believe that my intended result, whether meritorious or not, would also be achieved in some capacity by simply reducing the penalties of PvP in said Hexes. The result would be proportionately reduced and yet still achieving the desired result in some capacity.
If the reputation change formula is to found using multiple dynamic variables, each of which is set by one or another context and that same formula is in place universally, however complex, then I'm for it in principle.
One of the variables informing its value easily could be the nature of the place the event occurred.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some of you Pro-FFA-PvP-crater-hexes folks should really vote the idea up. Otherwise paranoid Cal is likely to try to figure out exactly what it is that you're really after while using this as a distraction for the whiny folk.
Ideascale: Should Starfall/Starmetal/Crater hexes be 24 hour PvP?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I wouldn't really complain if Starfall Hexes were considered dangerous enough to be FFA, I don't think it's necessary at all. I think there are valid points on both sides of the debate, and am quite content to trust the devs to figure out the right balance.
My intuitive solution is to have infrequent, temporary events that turn a small number of Starfall Hexes (maybe just 1 at a time) into FFA PvP zones while also significantly increasing their output of Starmetal.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My intuitive solution is to have infrequent, temporary events that turn a small number of Starfall Hexes (maybe just 1 at a time) into FFA PvP zones while also significantly increasing their output of Starmetal.
I think I like that idea. I worry that we'd end up crashing that hex's server.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My intuitive solution is to have infrequent, temporary events that turn a small number of Starfall Hexes (maybe just 1 at a time) into FFA PvP zones while also significantly increasing their output of Starmetal.I think I like that idea. I worry that we'd end up crashing that hex's server.
I think a lot of folks would take the opportunity to hit the other Starfall Hexes :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is more I think I'd support the idea that starmetal hexes should be dynamic and limited. What if...
1: Random event generator determines the amount of harvestable starmetal to be placed.
2: Random event generator determines which uncontrolled hex is hit by starmetal, deposits the starmetal, alters the hex terrain appropriately and generates in-game reports of the meteor strike to all settlements.
3: Player settlements (and others) respond: there is a (reasonable period) 'starmetal rush' period in which normal rep rules are modified as per 'Arek's Factor' reducing PvP penalties for a period of time determined by the amount of starmetal in the lode.
4: Once the starmetal has been harvested (however much actually enters the economy rather than being destroyed by pillaging) the 'starmetal rush' rules gradually return to normal along with (more gradually) the normal terrain.
The impacted hexes are always these we see already so designated, but usually only happens to one or two at a time. Everyone knows 'where', nobody knows 'how much' until prospecting actually takes place.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that if there was a process that might randomly re-seed the crater hexes with starmetal, then there is already an impetus to get out there and harvest (and kill harvesters) before the hex is depleted again.
I just don't see the need for FFA hexes where the rules do not apply or the rules apply at 25% normal values. Set global rules (rep, warfare, feuds) and let the players figure out how much they value Rep and Influence when coin is at stake.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I said earlier in the thread:
Killing someone on their way out, because you think they may have enough of a rare resource to justify the align/rep hit you'll take is an interesting PvP choice. It is these types of choices that the base game principles are based around.
Killing someone on their way in, because "lol" isn't an interesting choice. It is simply an excuse to have a "griefing allowed" zone. As I pointed out, a group of Paladins could run in and murder-fest. Something like that not only goes against the PFO ideals, it also goes against Pathfinder.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Killing someone on their way in, because "lol" isn't an interesting choice.
On the other hand, killing someone on their way in, because resources are depletable and I don't want anyone competing with my commoners for the nodes, is completely valid.
And if I don't have any commoners here, then killing someone on their way in is just idiotic; I'm going to wait until they've got something worth harvesting from their bodies.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What is more I think I'd support the idea that starmetal hexes should be dynamic and limited. What if...
1: Random event generator determines the amount of harvestable starmetal to be placed.
2: Random event generator determines which uncontrolled hex is hit by starmetal, deposits the starmetal, alters the hex terrain appropriately and generates in-game reports of the meteor strike to all settlements.
3: Player settlements (and others) respond: there is a (reasonable period) 'starmetal rush' period in which normal rep rules are modified as per 'Arek's Factor' reducing PvP penalties for a period of time determined by the amount of starmetal in the lode.
4: Once the starmetal has been harvested (however much actually enters the economy rather than being destroyed by pillaging) the 'starmetal rush' rules gradually return to normal along with (more gradually) the normal terrain.
The impacted hexes are always these we see already so designated, but usually only happens to one or two at a time. Everyone knows 'where', nobody knows 'how much' until prospecting actually takes place.
Although more complex, I like this idea and would support it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The amount of skymetal in the marketplace will be determined solely by how much faucet of it there is.
How can anything else change how rare it is?
If you deny someone access to the faucet and cannot pull valuable materials from the faucet, would that not be less resources introduced into the economy vs if someone who has access to the faucet and pulls resources from it? If there are less resources in the economy does that not mean that those resources are more scarce?
Faucet isn't the resource. Utilized Faucet is. You have to be there to turn the faucet on to get resource. If you make someone not there, directly or indirectly, you have affected resource and thus rarity.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The amount of skymetal in the marketplace will be determined solely by how much faucet of it there is.
How can anything else change how rare it is?
If you deny someone access to the faucet and cannot pull valuable materials from the faucet, would that not be less resources introduced into the economy vs if someone who has access to the faucet and pulls resources from it? If there are less resources in the economy does that not mean that those resources are more scarce?
Faucet isn't the resource. Utilized Faucet is. You have to be there to turn the faucet on to get resource. If you make someone not there, directly or indirectly, you have affected resource and thus rarity.
I'm not convinced less resource overall would be harvested, it'd more likely be redistributed. Instead of me, you, him, and her each getting 1 unit, all 4 might go to whomever of us brought more people today.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
On the other hand, killing someone on their way in, because resources are depletable and I don't want anyone competing with my commoners for the nodes, is completely valid.
Not commenting on whether this is a good idea or not, but for the above statement wouldn't having the zone be FFA reduce the meaninfulness of this choice? If it was FFA why not just kill anyone you can coming in so you can have free reign to harvest? Where as if it is not FFA you will need to balance the financial gain with the potential rep lose for killing someone to keep it all to yourself.
On a tangent, it has been so long, are bounties/a bounty system still something GW is planning?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Those people can be killed in combat. With PvP being more likely, you will have folks focusing on not dying as well as harvesting. Harvesting is more likely to get interrupted.
While yes, you do have a point that whoever devotes more resources to the venture will likely win out, with PvP being more likely, I think it less likely that all 4 would be harvested in either instance.
Personally I would far prefer that rather than making starmetal hexes FFA that they actually increase the rep and alignment penalties for PVP my at least 2 or 3 fold maybe even more
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Those people can be killed in combat. With PvP being more likely, you will have folks focusing on not dying as well as harvesting. Harvesting is more likely to get interrupted.
While yes, you do have a point that whoever devotes more resources to the venture will likely win out, with PvP being more likely, I think it less likely that all 4 would be harvested in either instance.
Why would someone who wants that resource leave some ungathered but still devote effort to chasing somebody else off of the ungathered resource?
The only reason I see is that they value killing other characters more than gathering the skymetal.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Personally I would far prefer that rather than making starmetal hexes FFA that they actually increase the rep and alignment penalties for PVP my at least 2 or 3 fold maybe even moreFascinating. What would that look like, and have you thought of a rationale?
The more harvesters you kill the higher your rep gains become. That actually increases ten fold if you kill folks trying to avoid PvP and 20 fold if you do it while they are quelling an escalation.
That way if you crash your rep by PKing everywhere else, you can go to a skymetal hex and fix it real fast so you can get back to training all the skills needed to ruin the game for other people since they all think that is your intent anyway.
/sarcasm
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why would someone who wants that resource leave some ungathered but still devote effort to chasing somebody else off of the ungathered resource?
They leave it ungathered because while they were trying to gather it, you stabbed them in the face and if they didn't do something about they would die and not be able to gather it.
After that is done, they go back to gathering it.
What has been lost?
Time.
What could you have done in that time?
Gather.
What did you do instead?
Defended yourself.
1 hour of gathering nets less resources that 30 minutes of gathering and 30 minutes of defending yourself.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You cannot gather if you are not alive. If you do not gather, you cannot contribute what you intended to gather to the economy. The time spent not gathering and engaging in PvP to gain control of the area or defend it is time that is spent not gathering. Unless you have guards.... that are good. But even good guards can die. And then they have to rearm and come back to your location. In the mean time, you are vulnerable and have to defend yourself instead of harvesting if engaged... which means you harvest less.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There are only about five Brokenlands hexes in the entire world—if you hate PvP, you'll avoid them and trade with PvPers for the precious resource.
First off, there are certainly more than just 5 Brokenlands hexes on the map, there are 9 alone on the the settlement map.
I think what many of the posters are saying is that these lands are going to be heavily traveled and feuded over, why should there be no consequence to alignment or reputation when jumping a group who was recently successful in killing the monster and gathering the resource, taking it from their corpses and skipping off to immediately trade it away for whatever...
If they are willing to do this kind of dubious action, it should be at the price of their alignment and reputation!
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
You cannot gather if you are not alive. If you do not gather, you cannot contribute what you intended to gather to the economy. The time spent not gathering and engaging in PvP to gain control of the area or defend it is time that is spent not gathering. Unless you have guards.... that are good. But even good guards can die. And then they have to rearm and come back to your location. In the mean time, you are vulnerable and have to defend yourself instead of harvesting if engaged... which means you harvest less.
Time spent looking/waiting for nodes is also not spent gathering. I suspect that the actual dynamic might be "find a node, then the group who presents the strongest force at the moment mines it, while any others go to a different node."
If three similar groups arrive at an open node, it is the one that enters last that wins. That provides a powerful incentive to get along.
All of that applies regardless of Reputation or Alignment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That is incredibly unlikely. Whoever is most successful in the hex is going to get those resources, or at least 75% of those resources. There is no other purpose for the PvP to occur.
No one is going to go to a high resource hex and PvP "to keep resources rare." They're going to go PvP in a high resource hex to prevent others from getting the resources. Only an idiot would then leave the resources there when they leave.
What would actually happen, assuming logically minded people are involved, would be a group moving in an denying access to the faucet "to other people" and filling their own canteens.
It doesn't make the resource rarer than it was. It makes the resource rarer to other people.
This will all happen without making a zone FFA. It will just happen less frequently. People will have to actually make meaningful decisions over which groups they attack to get control of the faucet rather than just "gank everyone coming in."
Meaningful decisions are supposed to be a part of the game. Randomly gank everyone situations are not supposed to part of the game.
How does that work, you know filling your canteen while being stabbed repeated in the back with a bastard sword? Oh, that's right. You die, unless you stop filling your canteen long enough to defend yourself. But then you aren't harvesting.
I'm not saying any resources are going to get left. That's absurd. I am saying that time spent defending yourself leads to less time harvesting. 75% of a rare resource is less than 100% thus making it resource rarer.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You cannot gather if you are not alive. If you do not gather, you cannot contribute what you intended to gather to the economy. The time spent not gathering and engaging in PvP to gain control of the area or defend it is time that is spent not gathering. Unless you have guards.... that are good. But even good guards can die. And then they have to rearm and come back to your location. In the mean time, you are vulnerable and have to defend yourself instead of harvesting if engaged... which means you harvest less.Time spent looking/waiting for nodes is also not spent gathering. I suspect that the actual dynamic might be "find a node, then the group who presents the strongest force at the moment mines it, while any others go to a different node."
If three similar groups arrive at an open node, it is the one that enters last that wins. That provides a powerful incentive to get along.
All of that applies regardless of Reputation or Alignment.
In a perfect world maybe. Still, your point is as valid as mine.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A few months ago, Valkenr proposed a "stand your ground" option. It would be a good idea : SYG if you want to keep the ressources for yourself, or accept that some people will mine too.
I really don't see why you should be a free target when you are mining 30 pounds of sky metal, but not if you are transporting 10 000 pounds from settlement A, to settlement B.