Goblin Squad Member
|
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.
I propose no such thing, because harvesters face that decision every time they enter any hex. That risk is already many times greater in the skyfall hex than in most other hexes. All the OP proposal does is make the risk greater for them. It is still exactly the same decision, perhaps scaled from 1/6 of dying to 1/5 of dying for the particular crew they've managed to assemble this day.
There is no evidence yet presented that removing the intended mechanic in these particular spots is necessary or beneficial to the system.
|
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.
Just wanted to make the point that Feuds aren't "consequence free" since they cost the declaring company a resource, Influence, to engage (unless that's changed).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just wanted to make the point that Feuds aren't "consequence free" since they cost the declaring company a resource, Influence, to engage (unless that's changed).
Well, nothing is truly consequence-free in the general sense.
I think, though, that it's pretty well accepted in the community that "consequence-free kill" is shorthand for being free of Reputation and Alignment consequences.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Oh, just one more, Decius.
It seems basically an arena request using different words.
Right. That whole part where we divide up into set teams of even numbers and then fight until X kills or flag captures...
Wait... that wasn't part of the idea? Oh yeah that's right this is nothing even remotely close to arena PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.
I think that is a valid point only if the reverse holds true. Why should harvesters not be in more danger when going after more valuable resources?
And for the record, its not eliminating a mechanic... its turning it all the way down. Also, for the record I have no problem with it being turned all the way up in areas that are supposed to be completely safe, IE starter towns.
If someone focuses on PvP and they have to make meaningful choices, so should the harvester who focuses on harvesting.
So how else would you make harvesting more difficult and riskier in these hexes, Cal?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.
I think that is a valid point only if the reverse holds true. Why should harvesters not be in more danger when going after more valuable resources?
And for the record, its not eliminating a mechanic... its turning it all the way down. Also, for the record I have no problem with it being turned all the way up in areas that are supposed to be completely safe, IE starter towns.
If someone focuses on PvP and they have to make meaningful choices, so should the harvester who focuses on harvesting.
So how else would you make harvesting more difficult and riskier in these hexes, Cal?
The developers can make it exactly as difficult as they want, and can flow the resources at exactly the rate they want. We don't know how much they will put into making it difficult, but we have a notion that other players will be putting in plenty. Why is it the privilege and responsibility of other players to decide how difficult it should be? And why should the developers lessen the mechanic so that other players can make that decision without facing the intended consequence of their own? The end result that appears most likely to me is that those not eager to engage in PvP will eventually abandon the hexes and those eager to so engage will have unlimited access to the resource. This results in exactly the point I made earlier. It does not lessen the flow into the world at all (after time*) it only selects for who will have access to the resource.
* In point of fact, if the developers desire a set amount flowing into the world, then all the killing in the universe won't have any effect on how much flows, since the tap will simply be open longer until the desired spawn of resources has completed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Also, for the record I have no problem with it being turned all the way up in areas that are supposed to be completely safe, IE starter towns.
Ah, so things you want to do may have a high penalty in places you don't care to go, as long as they have the minimum possible penalty where all the good stuff is?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The developers can make it exactly as difficult as they want, and can flow the resources at exactly the rate they want. We don't know how much they will put into making it difficult, but we have a notion that other players will be putting in plenty. Why is it the privilege and responsibility of other players to decide how difficult it should be? And why should the developers lessen the mechanic so that other players can make that decision without facing the intended consequence of their own? The end result that appears most likely to me is that those not eager to engage in PvP will eventually abandon the hexes and those eager to so engage will have unlimited access to the resource. This results in exactly the point I made earlier. It does not lessen the flow into the world at all (after time*) it only selects for who will have access to the resource.
* In point of fact, if the developers desire a set amount flowing into the world, then all the...
Please tell me how the developers can moderate the time players utilize, besides shutting the server down that is.
I'm not talking about instances where folks get banned.
I'm talking about what you do with your character in game over a period of time. That is a resource they cannot regulate and only guide.
Players are the only ones that can regulate that through direct interaction. When you engage in PvP there are consequences. Alignment and Reputation hits. What consequences are there for harvesting?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I propose no such thing, because harvesters face that decision every time they enter any hex. That risk is already many times greater in the skyfall hex than in most other hexes.What evidence do you have to support either of these statements?
The fact that escalation cycles can infect virtually any spot on the board, making virtually every spot a place where dangerous "wildlife" may be encountered
The fact that many people, including several in this thread, have already indicated it's going to happen whether or not the proposed mechanic change is implemented. The game is based around scarcity of resources. Settlements can-not get enough of anything to function well without growing enough that they will inevitably run into conflicts. If we take sevearl of the Chartered Companies at face value, it is their expressed intention to make certain that harvesters will always feel a threat of danger.
The fact that the lead developer has indicated that if they are doing their job right every settlement will be the target of spies and will have to maintain a high level of security to have any hope of not being crushed and discarded by opposition.
The fact that people can at any time declare feud or war or curse or other mechanisms as long as they are prepared to pay the price to do so.
The fact that many people have already indicated that these will be some of the most valuable things in the world and highly contested regardless of this mechanic change.
The fact that all of the indicated hexes are monster escalation sites that can not be depleted more than temporarily.
There is plenty of evidence to support both statements. Some of it stronger than other.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You can harvest all you want and no matter where you harvest or what you harvest, you will not have to make a decision that affects your alignment and reputation.
So, point 1: You cannot harvest "all you want". You can harvest only as much as is available. Which leads to point 2: If a harvester comes across someone else harvesting something valuable, they then have to consider if it's worth trying to drive that person off (with the attendant impacts to alignment and reputation, not to mention resource costs) to get at whatever the resource being harvested is. So, yes, harvesters will *also* have to make decisions like that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The developers can make it exactly as difficult as they want, and can flow the resources at exactly the rate they want. We don't know how much they will put into making it difficult, but we have a notion that other players will be putting in plenty. Why is it the privilege and responsibility of other players to decide how difficult it should be? And why should the developers lessen the mechanic so that other players can make that decision without facing the intended consequence of their own? The end result that appears most likely to me is that those not eager to engage in PvP will eventually abandon the hexes and those eager to so engage will have unlimited access to the resource. This results in exactly the point I made earlier. It does not lessen the flow into the world at all (after time*) it only selects for who will have access to the resource.
* In point of fact, if the developers desire a set amount flowing into the world, then all the...
Please tell me how the developers can moderate the time players utilize, besides shutting the server down that is.
I'm not talking about instances where folks get banned.
I'm talking about what you do with your character in game over a period of time. That is a resource they cannot regulate and only guide.
Players are the only ones that can regulate that through direct interaction. When you engage in PvP there are consequences. Alignment and Reputation hits. What consequences are there for harvesting?
Either we are having one conversation, or we aren't. This proposal was to control the flow of rare starmetals into the game. The developers have absolute control over the variables that allow harvesting of skymetal, and can make as much or as little available as the want, regardless of how much time players spend in the game. If they only want ten pounds available today, then that's all that's going to flow.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You can harvest all you want and no matter where you harvest or what you harvest, you will not have to make a decision that affects your alignment and reputation.
All they are doing is harvesting the limited resources needed to equip their forces with the most powerful combat equipment in the game. Come on. Cut these poor little harmless little harvesters a break.
It's not like this game is built around combat and human interaction. It's actually just a Golarion based version of The Sims Online. Didn't you know?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You can harvest all you want and no matter where you harvest or what you harvest, you will not have to make a decision that affects your alignment and reputation.
This seems a really bizarre comparison. Are you suggesting everything should have Alignment and Reputation consequences? Or are you suggesting the lack of Alignment and Reputation consequences (even if there are other consequences) equates to a lack of meaningful choices?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You can harvest all you want and no matter where you harvest or what you harvest, you will not have to make a decision that affects your alignment and reputation.So, point 1: You cannot harvest "all you want". You can harvest only as much as is available. Which leads to point 2: If a harvester comes across someone else harvesting something valuable, they then have to consider if it's worth trying to drive that person off (with the attendant impacts to alignment and reputation, not to mention resource costs) to get at whatever the resource being harvested is. So, yes, harvesters will *also* have to make decisions like that.
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
|
You can harvest all you want and no matter where you harvest or what you harvest, you will not have to make a decision that affects your alignment and reputation.All they are doing is harvesting the limited resources needed to equip their forces with the most powerful combat equipment in the game. Come on. Cut these poor little harmless little harvesters a break.
It's not like this game is built around combat and human interaction. It's actually just a Golarion based version of The Sims Online. Didn't you know?
Your sarcasm is a flawed attempt to pretend something is true that isn't. harvesters have no control over how much to he product is available. That is entirely in the hands of the developers. Harvesters also have no control over who SADs them or kills them except in so far as they are prepared to fight back. No-one in this thread has asked to have PvP turned off. Only said that there's no evidence to support making it easier than it already is.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Also, for the record I have no problem with it being turned all the way up in areas that are supposed to be completely safe, IE starter towns.Ah, so things you want to do may have a high penalty in places you don't care to go, as long as they have the minimum possible penalty where all the good stuff is?
Actually no, there was a whole movement about defending those that are new to the game from pointless slaughter. That is PART of the reason the system of Reputation was created. To deter bad player behavior. In a game where PvP is a primary element, it makes sense that the system caters to the defense of the inexperienced. Where will most inexperienced players start the game? The starter towns.
I believe in the intent behind the reputation system. I also believe the more you reach for, the more you should have to risk. Harvesters risk the same thing gathering a T1 node in a starter town than they do in a skymetal hex. Their life and their gear. T1 - T3.
That isn't a meaningful choice, its the same choice over and over again.
The game needs harvesters, but PvPers shouldn't be the only ones that suffer alignment and rep hits for their choices.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Andius, basing your argument on the way reputation works in Alpha is pointless. There's no reason to suggest that what we're seeing right now is the final incarnation of the system. Also, the penalty is more severe right now because we're all at starting rep. It's entirely possible that a sufficiently high rep character can afford the hit every now and again.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.
Since you're intent on repeating this, I'll go ahead and call BS. The idea that no one will ever willingly lose Reputation unless their Settlement (or something?) is on the line is utterly ridiculous. I have no doubt I'll personally do it for fairly trivial reasons on occasion, especially when it's just not worth starting a Feud.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The game needs harvesters, but PvPers shouldn't be the only ones that suffer alignment and rep hits for their choices.
PVPer isn't a role, it's a play style. A play style the developers have set a cost for induling. Everyone in the game is a PvPer whether they like it or not. No one but the individual can decide how much of that they want to instigate and when the price is too high. The mechanism is there to discourage anyone from instigating too much of it. Every person in the game has to make a choice around how expensive it is to instigate as much PvP conflict as you want.
That's your choice.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Actually no, there was a whole movement about defending those that are new to the game from pointless slaughter. That is PART of the reason the system of Reputation was created. To deter bad player behavior. In a game where PvP is a primary element, it makes sense that the system caters to the defense of the inexperienced. Where will most inexperienced players start the game? The starter towns.
I believe in the intent behind the reputation system. I also believe the more you reach for, the more you should have to risk. Harvesters risk the same thing gathering a T1 node in a starter town than they do in a skymetal hex. Their life and their gear. T1 - T3.
That isn't a meaningful choice, its the same choice over and over again.
The game needs harvesters, but PvPers shouldn't be the only ones that suffer alignment and rep hits for their choices.
The reputation system was never meant to protect the noobs, it was meant to not play a murder simulator because Ryan comes from EvE, where 75% of the characters never put a foot outside high security, because it sucks to die too much.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, for the record I have no problem with it being turned all the way up in areas that are supposed to be completely safe, IE starter towns.Ah, so things you want to do may have a high penalty in places you don't care to go, as long as they have the minimum possible penalty where all the good stuff is?
I wouldn't paint Aet Areks with that brush at this point, but I have known many PVPers in a lot of different games and that was a very common attitude among them.
As I see it, we don't need to change the PVP model for these hexes. If the resource is valuable enough, you have these choices:
1) harvest it yourself, and bring adequate protection in order to do so
2) issue SADs to harvesters loaded down with the resource
3) kill harvesters to take their resources or eliminate competition, incurring a rep penalty for doing so.
Since the best gear requires that resource, there will be plenty of people doing all three of the above. All three options work within the PVP system as it is currently envisioned. You have the choice in how you gain the resource, and all three have costs (guards and time for harvesters, influence for SADs, and rep for murder and pillage.) Therefore, I'm not convinced anything needs to be done to those hexes to "encourage" PVP. The value of the resource is the only encouragement required.
Let me educate you because clearly you folks over at TEO and TSV need it.
We seem to've entered a dangerous game of cat and mouse.
But the question remains, Andius...who is the cat, and who is the—
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You can harvest all you want and no matter where you harvest or what you harvest, you will not have to make a decision that affects your alignment and reputation.This seems a really bizarre comparison. Are you suggesting everything should have Alignment and Reputation consequences? Or are you suggesting the lack of Alignment and Reputation consequences (even if there are other consequences) equates to a lack of meaningful choices?
No, not everything and no, there are meaningful choices that do not affect alignment and rep and they are plentiful. I do think every ROLE should have SOME meaningful choice to make that affects their alignment and reputation.
Maybe the answer lies in contracts or harvesting in others territory or over-harvesting. There could be different harvesting techniques that provide different quantities and qualities of goods.
Much like when you raid an outpost and strip mine it. Give that option to harvesters and attach reputation and alignment mechanics to it.
Hoggish Greedly is an example of a harvester that made decisions that affected his alignment and reputation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No, not everything and no, there are meaningful choices that do not affect alignment and rep and they are plentiful. I do think every ROLE should have SOME meaningful choice to make that affects their alignment and reputation.Maybe the answer lies in contracts or harvesting in others territory or over-harvesting. There could be different harvesting techniques that provide different quantities and qualities of goods.
Much like when you raid an outpost and strip mine it. Give that option to harvesters and attach reputation and alignment mechanics to it.
Hoggish Greedly is an example of a harvester that made decisions that affected his alignment and reputation.
I think these are great suggestions. Also, thumbs up for a Captain Planet reference. =P
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The reputation system was never meant to protect the noobs, it was meant to not play a murder simulator because Ryan comes from EvE, where 75% of the characters never put a foot outside high security, because it sucks to die too much.Actually no, there was a whole movement about defending those that are new to the game from pointless slaughter. That is PART of the reason the system of Reputation was created. To deter bad player behavior. In a game where PvP is a primary element, it makes sense that the system caters to the defense of the inexperienced. Where will most inexperienced players start the game? The starter towns.
I believe in the intent behind the reputation system. I also believe the more you reach for, the more you should have to risk. Harvesters risk the same thing gathering a T1 node in a starter town than they do in a skymetal hex. Their life and their gear. T1 - T3.
That isn't a meaningful choice, its the same choice over and over again.
The game needs harvesters, but PvPers shouldn't be the only ones that suffer alignment and rep hits for their choices.
I never said it was nor am I ignorant if that is your implication. I said that it makes sense in that application as to not drive new players away, which if you recall was an initial concern in the early stages of this community.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Since you're intent on repeating this, I'll go ahead and call BS. The idea that no one will ever willingly lose Reputation unless their Settlement (or something?) is on the line is utterly ridiculous. I have no doubt I'll personally do it for fairly trivial reasons on occasion, especially when it's just not worth starting a Feud.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.
Reputation ranges from -7,500 to 7,500, with starting characters having a Reputation of 1,000. For each hour of play time during which the character does not lose Reputation, he gains Reputation. The exact amount of Reputation is likely to change multiple times in testing, but currently we're shooting for 1 Reputation per hour (minus .25 Reputation for every 2500 points below 0). So a character with -5000 Reputation would only get .5 Reputation per hour during which he did not lose Reputation. This means it can be pretty hard to dig yourself out of a Reputation hole. Every four straight hours the character earns Reputation, the amount earned increases slightly (currently by .25), up to a limit of something like 10 points per hour. So if a character behaves for four hours, he'll start earning 1.25 Reputation per hour instead of 1.
Sooooo.... If you kill a high rep character (-2500) it will take 10+ days to recover. That's doing super rough math that assumes you are gaining 10 points a day from the very start (which you aren't) and then rounding down a bit.
Yeah... Like I said it's less a meaningful choice and more one step short of an outright ban. Rep losses are a "in case of extreme emergencies" kind of thing and if you will be using them over trivial matters I look forward to the day you have a real emergency and take the huge ass penalties.
I think I'll try to keep mine at +7500 to make sure my adoring fans take the full penalty if they don't go through the proper methods. ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do think every ROLE should have SOME meaningful choice to make that affects their alignment and reputation.Do you not accept that every PLAYER already has meaningful choices to make that affects their Alignment and Reputation?
In relation to the advancement and maintenance of their character, no I do not. Feel free to enlighten me. A few already have in this thread... Stormweaver being one of them.
I will say I've noticed an extremely harsh Reputation system in the demo—a single surprise attack basically takes your character out of commission for a good long while.
On the other hand, you're only unable to interact with settlements. You can still just stay out of town and PvE with your buddies while your Rep slowly recharges.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I'll try to keep mine at +7500 to make sure my adoring fans take the full penalty if they don't go through the proper methods. ;)
Mate, if every day, you travel back and forth from Aragon to mine with an unaffiliated noob alt, I promise you, I'll leave you alone just for the sake of seeing you putting so much effort just to make a point. I will even help you by doing it the other way around, we will have so much fun.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Three hours harvesting, and then, a guy comes out from nowhere, and kill you. You just played three hours for nothing.
Seems pretty meaningful to me...
Indeed. The guy that killed the harvester made a very meaningful choice. I completely agree.
The harvester should have ran. Or had guards. Read the beginning of this thread where I used this same example.
The harvester dying is a result of not making meaningful choices. Hiring guards, having a pick up schedule, not going out alone, scouting the area... all meaningful choices. Dying because you failed to coordinate, plan, and execute is not meaningful. Dying after doing those things, because you failed in some but not all, is not meaningless. Its a learning experience. Dying because you didn't do any of those is not meaningful, its ignorance and the event hopefully will enlightn you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think these are great suggestions. Also, thumbs up for a Captain Planet reference. =P
No, not everything and no, there are meaningful choices that do not affect alignment and rep and they are plentiful. I do think every ROLE should have SOME meaningful choice to make that affects their alignment and reputation.Maybe the answer lies in contracts or harvesting in others territory or over-harvesting. There could be different harvesting techniques that provide different quantities and qualities of goods.
Much like when you raid an outpost and strip mine it. Give that option to harvesters and attach reputation and alignment mechanics to it.
Hoggish Greedly is an example of a harvester that made decisions that affected his alignment and reputation.
Thank you sir.
*tips hat*
Three hours harvesting, and then, a guy comes out from nowhere, and kill you. You just played three hours for nothing.
Seems pretty meaningful to me...
Indeed. The guy that killed the harvester made a very meaningful choice. I completely agree.
The harvester should have ran. Or had guards. Read the beginning of this thread where I used this same example.
The harvester dying is a result of not making meaningful choices. Hiring guards, having a pick up schedule, not going out alone, scouting the area... all meaningful choices. Dying because you failed to coordinate, plan, and execute is not meaningful. Dying after doing those things, because you failed in some but not all, is not meaningless. Its a learning experience. Dying because you didn't do any of those is not meaningful, its ignorance and the event hopefully will enlightn you.
That's not how it works.
First of all, it's hard to get players to stand around playing guard on a consistent basis.
Secondly, players looking to run off with the work of other players just adapt to whatever the situation is. They organize, scout the situation, and show up with the advantage needed. Otherwise they don't attack.
It's a formula that's played out since the early days of MMOs.
And so is this conversation in which you attempt to say how "fair" FFA is.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
All I can say is that anyone who decides to play low rep CE will be super rich, from the large guilds that will back said groups to fight in the sky metal hexes on their behalf.
Influence sounds like it will be too limited to always take advantage of and rep is too much of penalty such that 3 kills effectively reduces your character to useless. Gold however is only limited by the economy and not a mechanic like influence is. Low Rep CE will certainly be rich off this as the only ones able to actually fight whenever they like.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sooooo.... If you kill a high rep character (-2500) it will take 10+ days to recover.
Yep. And I can kill 150 Low Reputation characters for about the same Reputation loss. I must've missed the part where you limited your statement to High Reputation characters.
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.
Hrm, maybe I didn't miss it after all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The harvester dying is a result of not making meaningful choices. Hiring guards, having a pick up schedule, not going out alone, scouting the area... all meaningful choices. Dying because you failed to coordinate, plan, and execute is not meaningful. Dying after doing those things, because you failed in some but not all, is not meaningless. Its a learning experience. Dying because you didn't do any of those is not meaningful, its ignorance and the event hopefully will enlightn you.
This is incorrect, they made a meaningful choice to *not* take those precautions. Or they made the meaningful choice to *not* become acquainted with harvester best practices (taking precautions). At some level, that player who was killed and robbed made a choice that prevented them from being prepared.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You really haven't been paying attention have you, mon ami?
The reputation system should be scaled based on variables.
Talk to Being, he got it yesterday.
Reputation loss over rare resources should be lessened. I am fine with reputation loss over mundance resources being increased. Reading the OP, this was the originally considered by GW as a possibility.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's not how it works.
First of all, it's hard to get players to stand around playing guard on a consistent basis.
Secondly, players looking to run off with the work of other players just adapt to whatever the situation is. They organize, scout the situation, and show up with the advantage needed. Otherwise they don't attack.
It's a formula that's played out since the early days of MMOs.
And so is this conversation in which you attempt to say how "fair" FFA is.
Again, someone isn't paying attention.
I actually very much like to play around people, and would be happy to hire myself out as a guard as long as they don't object to me standing on their heads sometimes while they mine.
Are there any companies out so far that explicitly focus on merchant guarding? I'm guessing T7V has some emphasis on it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I actually very much like to play around people, and would be happy to hire myself out as a guard as long as they don't object to me standing on their heads sometimes while they mine.
Are there any companies out so far that explicitly focus on merchant guarding? I'm guessing T7V has some emphasis on it.
It is one of the focus's of the Hounds in Callambea. Pretty sure there are plenty of other mercenary corps out there as well.