Goblin Squad Member
|
Starfall hexes are the hexes in grey.
And so far, they are pretty rare, but not hard to get to.
Until the map is opened fully up, they are less rare than Marsh, and also easier to get to.
Changing the rules because of a perception that one day some things might be too easy (in someone's opinion) to get so "let me kill freely people in those areas in order to make sure that doesn't happen" is self-serving and unnecessary.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not sure the Gods would suspend their consideration of murdering unflagged innocents as an evil act just because of "ooh! shiny!" metal.Its not just shiny, its radioactive and has bizarre properties. Each metal was also associated to one of the 7 schools of Thassilonian magic, so it wouldn't be much of a stretch for it to affect your behavior.
Also, the gods don't have a say in your alignment. Alignment is a law of physics, just like Universal Gravitation.
Wow.
*tips hat*
That's the best damn RP centered argument that supports FFA PvP in skymetal hexes yet.
Even if you are against the idea, I commend you sir.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't see any clear indication of starfall hexes on that map...
It's the grey hexes listed in the legend as "brokenlands (crater)."
You're acting like this map is hard to read and leaves a lot of guesswork but it's actually pretty clearly laid out with a nice little legend telling you what all these things mean.
Starfall hexes, settlement hexes, marsh hexes etc. They are all there and ready to count if you take the time. No guesswork or crystal balls needed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not sure the Gods would suspend their consideration of murdering unflagged innocents as an evil act just because of "ooh! shiny!" metal.Its not just shiny, its radioactive and has bizarre properties. Each metal was also associated to one of the 7 schools of Thassilonian magic, so it wouldn't be much of a stretch for it to affect your behavior.
Also, the gods don't have a say in your alignment. Alignment is a law of physics, just like Universal Gravitation.
Wow.
*tips hat*
That's the best damn RP centered argument that supports FFA PvP in skymetal hexes yet.
Even if you are against the idea, I commend you sir.
Thank you!
I actually think that something to encourage PvP in Starfall hexes is worth considering, but I don't think it should be implemented out of the gate.
If it seems that competition in Starfall hexes isn't strong enough, incentives should be laid down. The various star metals are some of the rarest and most valuable substances on Golarion, competition for these should be intense and violent.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When we created the Stardelvers Union it was under the assumption that mining skymetal is going to be different from other resource gathering operations. We are kind of expecting them to be FFA PvP zones or at least hotly contested, which is why you would need a highly skilled mining operation to get the most out of your ventures there.
I agree with the general premise in here. If there isn't enough PvP going on in those hexes, GW might play with the rules for them so there is.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't see any clear indication of starfall hexes on that map...It's the grey hexes listed in the legend as "brokenlands (crater)."
You're acting like this map is hard to read and leaves a lot of guesswork but it's actually pretty clearly laid out with a nice little legend telling you what all these things mean.
Starfall hexes, settlement hexes, marsh hexes etc. They are all there and ready to count if you take the time. No guesswork or crystal balls needed.
I was wrong about that. Freely acknowledged.
But, again, that map does not exist yet, and won't for an undetermined period of time, with no guarantee the developers won't change their minds in the meantime.
Did you miss the rest of my points?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If it seems that competition in Starfall hexes isn't strong enough, incentives should be laid down. The various star metals are some of the rarest and most valuable substances on Golarion, competition for these should be intense and violent.
That is my point, although some seem to miss it or think there are ulterior motives behind it.
While FFA may not be the way to go, your explanation from an RP perspective is quite enlightening.
Again, thank you.
|
If these FFA PvP occur, is it motivated only by greed? Killing rivals for powerful metal?
May I sit outside looking while Paladins lost their powers while trying to do that?
~Going to buy some Atonement Scrolls~
----
Seriously:
I´m against that idea. All the game is projected to offer only meaningfull PvP without Rep hit, why do create a zone of free meaningless PvP? This will create a behavior of some people are being there only for pewpew, for ambush randoms.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I was wrong about that. Freely acknowledged.
But, again, that map does not exist yet, and won't for an undetermined period of time, with no guarantee the developers won't change their minds in the meantime.
Did you miss the rest of my points?
That's the Open Enrollment map. It will all be implemented within about two years and it would make no sense to do it all at once. It's largely based off already existing maps in the books so I wouldn't count on it changing much at all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not really sure that Starfall hex's need to be an exception to the games PvP mechanics.
- We are not even sure that Skymetal CAN be extracted by an unaffiliated noob ALT. It may be that the abilities to extract Skymetal or really any other high value resource require affiliation with a PC settlement and company, thus opening up the possability of War/Feud type conflicts.
- It is not safe to assume that engagement by NRDS players are the only dangers a harvester in such hex's face. I would assume that most high value resource areas also involve high level NPC threats that are beyond the capacity of any non-affiliated non-combat character to deal with. Likely that would require guards with significant combat abilities slotted in order to protect the harvester. That means significant resource investment in order to successfully harvest such resources. No one really need risk reputation loss to kill off the annoying level 1 harvester when one can simply watch the 12th level Owl-Bear do it instead.
- Any high value resource hex is going to draw the attention of bandits and brigands. I would not assume that any organization, at the very least in OE, is going to have a monopoly on all bandits and brigands in the game. I believe SAD is still a tool available to bandits and brigands in the game without reputation loss. I would also expect that a low level, non-affiliated, non-combat player is likely in some danger from even a minimal reputation combat oriented player.
Ultimately even if the harvester of such resources is not vulnerable to War/Feud PvP himself...SOMEONE who is will likely have to be present to insure the harvester can operate safe from other hazards within the hex. YMMV.
P.S. I'm not antagonistic to the idea of a few FFA hex's being on the map, as long as they are generaly avoidable by those not interested in such and don't break other game systems/dynamics. They may even help funnel the more agressive players away from those not interested in such activity. However, I also don't see a particularly pressing need for Starfall hex's to be made an exception to the games PvP mechanics either.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a repeated trope in this thread that consequenceless PVP is synonymous with meaningless PVP. I would argue that depending on the specific context this is possibly true but not necessarily true, and is not true in this particular case.
People who go into FFA grey hexes with the intention of harvesting skymetal are making the very meaningful decision to accept very high risk in return for the possibility of very great reward. Any PVP they encounter as a result of that meaningful decision is not meaningless.
People who go into FFA grey hexes with the intention of harvesting harvesters are making the very meaningful decision to become content for the first group.
None of this is relevant to the question of whether this is a good idea; just because a PVP dynamic is meaningful does not mean it is desirable. But I wanted to make the point that when we're talking about conflict over very valuable resources, "meaningless" is not a relevant condemnation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If these FFA PvP occur, is it motivated only by greed? Killing rivals for powerful metal?
May I sit outside looking while Paladins lost their powers while trying to do that?
~Going to buy some Atonement Scrolls~
----
Seriously:I´m against that idea. All the game is projected to offer only meaningfull PvP without Rep hit, why do create a zone of free meaningless PvP? This will create a behavior of some people are being there only for pewpew, for ambush randoms.
It's not that odd really since the game design is already for PVP rules changing pretty much from hex to hex. Setllements get to set rules in their claimed hexes, NPC cities have non-pvp zones, Dungeon hexes might have limited PvP in some areas and unclaimable hexes like starmetal and badlands could be FFA.
We don't know the specs on each case but we do know that things change from hex to hex.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That would be my guess as well. Commoner is a role, just like Fighter or Rogue. There will be long series of feats to be learned. Dealing with the PvE hazards of a crater hex might also be well beyond the capabilities of Tier 1 feats.The first part may be true, the 2nd certainly is not. Strength increase from newb to vet is linear while training time (and likely gear value) are exponential. If you're a bit under par to deal with the PVE threats throwing more bodies at it is always a solution.
Thats kind of irrelevent. Player labor is a resource just like any other resource in the game. If you spend 100 man/hours worth of labor to net something that you can sell for 100 gold and I spend 1 man/hour to net something I can sell for 20 gold, who is better off?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There's a repeated trope in this thread that consequenceless PVP is synonymous with meaningless PVP. I would argue that depending on the specific context this is possibly true but not necessarily true, and is not true in this particular case.
People who go into FFA grey hexes with the intention of harvesting skymetal are making the very meaningful decision to accept very high risk in return for the possibility of very great reward. Any PVP they encounter as a result of that meaningful decision is not meaningless.
People who go into FFA grey hexes with the intention of harvesting harvesters are making the very meaningful decision to become content for the first group.
None of this is relevant to the question of whether this is a good idea; just because a PVP dynamic is meaningful does not mean it is desirable. But I wanted to make the point that when we're talking about conflict over very valuable resources, "meaningless" is not a relevant condemnation.
Well said. Unfortunately "meaningless PvP" is a buzz word people feel they can apply to any and every form of PvP they don't like.
Equating competition over scarce resources to killing someone for the "lulz" is ridiculous though, and I would hope anyone who can step back and look at the situation objectively is smart enough to realize that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So, does anyone have any opinion that hadn't already been voiced by them?
Sure.
Towers have a PvP window. When the window is open, the Hex the Tower is in does not inflict Reputation penalties for PvP.
How do people claiming that FFA areas are meaningless and that any exception to the Reputation system undermines the whole system not already recognize that this game won't be catered to their squeamishness?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, does anyone have any opinion that hadn't already been voiced by them?
Actually yes: having thought about this at great length, I think that while there's a strong case to be made for reducing or eliminating reputation penalties in the grey hexes, your actions should still impinge on your alignment. Paladins who take good seriously should not be attacking innocents even when the stakes are high and the consequences are low.
I argued earlier in the thread that I thought this option would be a bad idea because it unfairly favors evil. Having thought about it further I still believe it favors evil but not unfairly so. The temptation for good players to do evil should be meaningful, and the purity of good should require dedication and sacrifice to maintain.
So, my new proposal is that PVP in grey hexes should have little or no reputation impact- since anyone can understand the temptation to slip when the stakes are so high- but that attacking non-hostiles should still be considered evil.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There's a repeated trope in this thread that consequenceless PVP is synonymous with meaningless PVP.Well said. Unfortunately "meaningless PvP" is a buzz word people feel they can apply to any and every form of PvP they don't like.
Equating competition over scarce resources to killing someone for the "lulz" is ridiculous though, and I would hope anyone who can step back and look at the situation objectively is smart enough to realize that.
No. We expect lots of meaningful PvP in skyfall hexes. We think that the reputation and alignment mechanisms are part of what makes it meaningful. We think that removing those mechanisms makes the PvP slightly less meaningful, without offering any compensatory meaning and without demonstrating that there is any need to do so yet.
One group has expressed a concern that skymetal won't be rare enough, and that removing the reputation/alignment mechanic in those areas is the best answer. Another group feels there is not reason to presume insufficient scarcity and that the developers can be trusted to adjust the scarcity without resorting to removing a core mechanic.
Equating not wanting to lessen the mechanic that makes the PvP meaningful to not wanting any competition is the ridiculous claim.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So, does anyone have any opinion that hadn't already been voiced by them?Sure.
Towers have a PvP window. When the window is open, the Hex the Tower is in does not inflict Reputation penalties for PvP.How do people claiming that FFA areas are meaningless and that any exception to the Reputation system undermines the whole system not already recognize that this game won't be catered to their squeamishness?
The tower wars is not "this Game" It is a stop-gap to keep people interested.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
So, does anyone have any opinion that hadn't already been voiced by them?Sure.
Towers have a PvP window. When the window is open, the Hex the Tower is in does not inflict Reputation penalties for PvP.How do people claiming that FFA areas are meaningless and that any exception to the Reputation system undermines the whole system not already recognize that this game won't be catered to their squeamishness?
Are you saying that star metal hexes and tower hexes in dispute are equivalent?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Guurzak, So evil characters would have free rein to kill other characters in grey hexes, with little or no reputation impact. Good character would still have alignment impacts, so if they wish to compete for Tier 3 gear, they will burn through Influence and DI at significantly higher rates than evil characters. Or they will slowly and inevitably sink to evil through alignment shifts.
What does the game look like long term, under that rule set? Evil has the majority of starmetal/Tier 3 gear? Or the entire map is evil because those are the alignments that can survive the crater hex competition?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So, my new proposal is that PVP in grey hexes should have little or no reputation impact- since anyone can understand the temptation to slip when the stakes are so high- but that attacking non-hostiles should still be considered evil.
So only good characters should take any penalty for killing people in a skyfall hex. Cute.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Morbis has opinion!
Morbis isn't sure if this is immediately necessary. I personally hope that the Fued/War/SAD systems will allow Settlements to claim effective ownership of Starmetal hexes without actually officially owning them. If that isn't the case, I think that the addition of FFA zones for high reward hexes might be a good idea.
Whenever you have FFA you invariably end up with lots of ganking. I understand the excitement and all, but I just don't want it.
I had enough of that in UO where I watched players that ganked other players have houses full of goodies while I and others like me who didn't practice the fine art of scouting-for-advantaged-ganks struggled to achieve.
I like PvP, but it becomes unbalanced in the PKer's favor. That's just not worth it to most others.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am not averse to FFA PvP in the Starmetal hexes because they are unclaimable. But if the Feud/war/SAD mechanics are working as intended it shouldn't be necessary. A company that wants to mine in Starmetal hexes (like the one I will be playing in) should be making meaningful decisions by having to use up our influence on fighting off other miners without losing rep.
If the Hexes really do have such valuable stuff, they will probably look like FFA zones without actually being FFA zones.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I just don't think making the area FFA is necessary. I don't like the idea of having this reputation system and then, when it matters most (at the most valuable hexes), saying "Oh, except not here." To me that's the mark of a poorly designed system.
The incentive to kill or rob someone carrying the most valuable resources in the game is already higher than in other situations - why should we remove the question of "Is this worth a reputation hit" on top of it? If I have to ask myself that question to take some wood or herbs off someone in a swamp hex, why shouldn't I have to ask myself that question in a hex where they're far more likely to be carrying far more valuable materials?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So, does anyone have any opinion that hadn't already been voiced by them?Actually yes: having thought about this at great length, I think that while there's a strong case to be made for reducing or eliminating reputation penalties in the grey hexes, your actions should still impinge on your alignment. Paladins who take good seriously should not be attacking innocents even when the stakes are high and the consequences are low.
I argued earlier in the thread that I thought this option would be a bad idea because it unfairly favors evil. Having thought about it further I still believe it favors evil but not unfairly so. The temptation for good players to do evil should be meaningful, and the purity of good should require dedication and sacrifice to maintain.
So, my new proposal is that PVP in grey hexes should have little or no reputation impact- since anyone can understand the temptation to slip when the stakes are so high- but that attacking non-hostiles should still be considered evil.
So what's the downside of playing "Evil"? From a purely flavor standpoint, I get your arguement. "Good" clearly entails a certain amount of selflessness and resistance of temptation that "Evil" does not. If there isn't some advantage that you are denying yourself, then there really isn't any temptation.
However, looking at it from a purely game Development standpoint. Any meaningfull choice that the player makes in the game should have upsides and downsides. If it's all upside and no downside then it's not meaningfull, not really a "choice" and probably a poor design implimentation. So if "Evil" has better access to resources that "Good" does not (we could label these "A" and "B" rather then "Good" and "Evil" from a mechanical standpoint it's irrelevent) what does "Good" get that "Evil" does not?
If this were a novel or single-player game then I think the flavor consideration has alot of weight. However in a multi-player game where competition and conflict is a central tennent of the game then I think the mechanical aspect starts holding alot of weight. If "A" is clearly the better choice then "B" in all aspects, then what is the point of supporting a choice "B"?
P.S. I'm not really convinced that Starfall hex's need be an exception to the games PvP dynamics but I don't think it's the end of the world if they are either. My understanding of the "Tower" system is that it exists as a temporary placeholder to spur PvP in Early Enrollment because other systems that otherwise would simply haven't been implimented yet.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So what's the downside of playing "Evil"?
Very good points and a reasonable question. The answer is: Evil has a mechanical disadvantage in the "unrest" system, we have to pay much more attention to keeping our reputations high (except possibly on 9 hexes scattered widely on the map), we're operating at a social handicap when trying to establish relationships with our neighbors, and we have a great big target on our backs whenever Good gets bored and wants a feud or war.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Guurzak, So evil characters would have free rein to kill other characters in grey hexes, with little or no reputation impact. Good character would still have alignment impacts, so if they wish to compete for Tier 3 gear, they will burn through Influence and DI at significantly higher rates than evil characters. Or they will slowly and inevitably sink to evil through alignment shifts.
Or they will simply refrain from initiating combat with others in meteor hexes. Nothing says they have to lose when someone Evil attacks them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Guurzak, So evil characters would have free rein to kill other characters in grey hexes, with little or no reputation impact. Good character would still have alignment impacts, so if they wish to compete for Tier 3 gear, they will burn through Influence and DI at significantly higher rates than evil characters. Or they will slowly and inevitably sink to evil through alignment shifts.Or they will simply refrain from initiating combat with others in meteor hexes. Nothing says they have to lose when someone Evil attacks them.
That's certainly a massive advantage to concede to someone. Letting them choose the time and place of engagements is not generally a winning proposition.
Alignment penalties without the reputation costs is a bad idea. It's too blatantly stacked in favor of evil.|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't like the idea of having this reputation system and then, when it matters most (at the most valuable hexes), saying "Oh, except not here."
I think there's a good argument that "where it matters most" is away from the most valuable hexes. The way I see it, the Reputation system does the most good when it constrains PvP against those who are actively minimizing their exposure to it. Ryan has said all along that you'll have to expose yourself to the risk of PvP in order to get the most reward out of the game. Increasing the PvP risk in meteor hexes seems quite in-line with that.
It's important to understand that traveling to any Trading Hub during that Settlement's PvP Window means you will be a consequence-free kill for those who live there. It's also important to keep in mind that any Company can unilaterally declare a Feud against you and get consequence-free kills on you pretty much anywhere in the game.
Personally, I kind of like Guurzak's suggestion, but I keep coming back to the fact that I'm quite content to let the devs sort it out. I'm sure they've been giving this kind of stuff a lot of thought for a very long time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Guurzak, So evil characters would have free rein to kill other characters in grey hexes, with little or no reputation impact. Good character would still have alignment impacts, so if they wish to compete for Tier 3 gear, they will burn through Influence and DI at significantly higher rates than evil characters. Or they will slowly and inevitably sink to evil through alignment shifts.Or they will simply refrain from initiating combat with others in meteor hexes. Nothing says they have to lose when someone Evil attacks them.
Which is fine for the people who want to do it, but does nothing at all for those who don't. There's a mechanism for attacking people. It means taking a hit on reputation. You can do it anywhere you want on the board. There are even ways to do it without taking that penalty.
Where is the compelling reason to allow people to attack others without that penalty in areas in which everyone has a legitimate reason to be?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...Where is the compelling reason to allow people to attack others without that penalty in areas in which everyone has a legitimate reason to be?
I've tried to be clear that I don't see any compelling reason for that at all; I just won't be upset if the devs decide to go in that direction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...why should we remove the question of "Is this worth a reputation hit" on top of it?
Based on everything learned about the reputation system so far there is never an instance where the answer to that question is yes unless the fate of a settlement or something is riding on it. The hits are huge, they take forever to go away, and the penalties are enormous.
That's less a meaningful choice and more one step short of an outright ban. Alignment penalties present a meaningful choice while rep penalties present the obvious choice of "don't do it."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, my new proposal is that PVP in grey hexes should have little or no reputation impact- since anyone can understand the temptation to slip when the stakes are so high- but that attacking non-hostiles should still be considered evil.So only good characters should take any penalty for killing people in a skyfall hex. Cute.
Gods forbid evil have some advantage to compensate for the DI hit we take for being evil.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where is the compelling reason to allow people to attack others without that penalty in areas in which everyone has a legitimate reason to be?
I think this question is inverted. Where is the compelling reason to penalize people for attacking others in areas where such attacks would be very understandable given the size of the stakes?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Are you saying that star metal hexes and tower hexes in dispute are equivalent?
To me the star metal hexes are actually more meaningful unless someone challenges the owner for control of the tower. I personally thought the War of Towers mechanic took it a step too far in making it automatic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Where is the compelling reason to allow people to attack others without that penalty in areas in which everyone has a legitimate reason to be?I think this question is inverted. Where is the compelling reason to penalize people for attacking others in areas where such attacks would be very understandable given the size of the stakes?
The compelling reason as given by the developers is to force meaningful choices. "Is what I will get from attacking this person worth the reputation hit?"
The penalty is everywhere for a reason, with specific, generally time limited, exceptions. Being greedy about a scarce resource is not a compelling reason to eliminate a mechanic that is designed to force meaningful choices around killing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thinking on Guurzak's suggestion a bit more, I think it's important to remind everyone that the amount of Evil hit you take is scaled according to your target's Evil rating. If Good initiates combat against Evil in a meteor hex, they're not really sliding that much towards Evil.
I think that bit I've bolded is no longer true. That was the way it was explained in the I Shot a Man in Reno blog post, but the much more recent Alignment and Reputation blog post states:
Attacking players who are not Hostile reduces your Good vs. Evil by a small but fixed amount (essentially, if you lose Rep, you also become more Evil).
Note that in the Alignment and Reputation blog, Reputation hits are scaled based on the target's Reputation, but Evil hits are not scaled to the target's Evil/Good placement.
(Of course, if it works differently in Alpha, I won't be surprised.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Where is the compelling reason to allow people to attack others without that penalty in areas in which everyone has a legitimate reason to be?I think this question is inverted. Where is the compelling reason to penalize people for attacking others in areas where such attacks would be very understandable given the size of the stakes?The compelling reason as given by the developers is to force meaningful choices. "Is what I will get from attacking this person worth the reputation hit?"
The penalty is everywhere for a reason, with specific, generally time limited, exceptions. Being greedy about a scarce resource is not a compelling reason to eliminate a mechanic that is designed to force meaningful choices around killing.
Based on everything learned about the reputation system so far there is never an instance where the answer to that question is yes unless the fate of a settlement or something is riding on it. The hits are huge, they take forever to go away, and the penalties are enormous.
That's less a meaningful choice and more one step short of an outright ban. Alignment penalties present a meaningful choice while rep penalties present the obvious choice of "don't do it."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The compelling reason as given by the developers is to force meaningful choices. "Is what I will get from attacking this person worth the reputation hit?"
You propose that the only meaningful choice is whether or not to attack. By doing so, you deprive defenders of meaningful choices.
"Is what I will get from entering this very dangerous area worth the risk of being attacked?" is also a meaningful choice.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still don't think full FFA, all the time is the answer. The towers example that Andius brought up if applied I think could work. Maybe something along the lines of there being a recent shower or whatever and for that window when resources are more easily mined or you get more from mining then it is FFA to up the risk-v-reward factor but the rest of the time it is normal PvP and you have to balance losing rep, losing money, losing time.
However, I think these *events* should be limited and random. I still do not see how FFA all the time in specific hexes does anything when those hexes are already going to be heavy PvP areas. The only thing I see coming out of it is allowing people to go there to do killing for the lulz because there is no downside to killing people at random or in a targeted fashion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So what's the downside of playing "Evil"?Very good points and a reasonable question. The answer is: Evil has a mechanical disadvantage in the "unrest" system, we have to pay much more attention to keeping our reputations high (except possibly on 9 hexes scattered widely on the map), we're operating at a social handicap when trying to establish relationships with our neighbors, and we have a great big target on our backs whenever Good gets bored and wants a feud or war.
The "social handicap" aspect of play doesn't really apply much in these sorts of games. You can set your alignment to "Evil" without having to behave in an Evil fashion towards any of your fellow players or organizations, etc. So the social handicap is pretty limited. Especialy true if "Evil" is an otherwise mechanicaly advantage and therefore popular choice for players.
In the real world or in a narrative style game such as tabletop campaign because being "Evil" means acting Evil, means the clear perception about how people view interaction with you is likely to occur.
In PFO, you can set your alignment as "Evil" and PvP in Starfall hex's but be the nicest, most trustworthy, most cooperative player to other affiliated organizations. Peoples perception of how interactions with you are likely to happen is entirely divorced from your mechanical alignment. Furthermore, the more people who actual choose "Evil" the less risk of social impact there is.
In a narrative, the vast majority of civilized society aren't Evil and they don't trust or want to cooperate with Evil and even Evil doesn't trust or like to cooperate with other Evil. That's where social impact works. That just doesn't apply to MMO's, where Sally wears black and raises undead but goes around sending unicorn emblazoned virtual hugs to everyone she meets.
Edit: Not real familiar with the "unrest" mechanic but if you are paying a significant penalty for that, then certainly that is a point in favor of your proposition. One would have to look at the full set of mechanical penalties and advantages to get a good feel to see if they are appropriate
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thinking on Guurzak's suggestion a bit more, I think it's important to remind everyone that the amount of Evil hit you take is scaled according to your target's Evil rating. If Good initiates combat against Evil in a meteor hex, they're not really sliding that much towards Evil.I think that bit I've bolded is no longer true. That was the way it was explained in the I Shot a Man in Reno blog post, but the much more recent Alignment and Reputation blog post states:
Attacking players who are not Hostile reduces your Good vs. Evil by a small but fixed amount (essentially, if you lose Rep, you also become more Evil).
Thanks for pointing that out. My ability to operate from memory is gradually declining as more things change over time :(
