Again, someone isn't paying attention.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.
I thought I was. Care to explain?
Goblin Squad Member
|
Low Rep CE will certainly be rich off this as the only ones able to actually fight whenever they like.
Well... actually, a high Rep LE (or NE, or CE) from a place like Golgotha can prey on those low Rep CE with something approaching impunity. Murdering a low Rep CE causes an Evil hit (so no effect for a XE character) and killing low Rep (~ -5000R) characters is only a low Rep hit, like -16 Rep iirc. So as long as those low Rep CE have star metal on them, you might be set to get rich.
|
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.
No, the harvester died as a result of meaningful choices that you either aren't aware of, or think were bad. And maybe they are. That person decided whether or not to employ guards and/or how many and when to harvest and for how long. That person might be from a very small group who chose to take stealth but not enough. That person might have had 18 guards who got wiped out five minutes ago as they cleared the last critter in the hex and they are currently running back here at high speed, so he decided to cross his finger and harvest (a meaningful choice). Maybe there were two harvesters and 20 gaurds and his ten just made the choice to run across teh hex because an unrelated group of bandits is over there trying to kill the other half of the team. Added to that, your assumption that the harvester was alone when they died is not stipulated anywhere. perhaps a group of 18 bandits overcame the harvester's 12 guards.
Someone in a small group has to make harder choices. Dying because you didn't do any of those things might have been a choice or might have been careless. Regardless of which it is, the act of dying may or may not be meaningful.
Harvesters will make many meaningful choices every time they go out. Just not the same ones you do. The pretense that their life is easy because they won't ever decide to start a fight with another player is laughable at best.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.
I don't buy that. A new person picking up the game and diving right in getting killed because they were confused about what Stand and Deliver meant or they couldn't pay it or because they were harvesting some where without guards is not meaningful. That same player a year later, still going out without guards, still getting killed, not meaningful.
Honestly, this is kind of left to center mass. Choices have consequences, in a game where there is meaningful human interaction. "Choices are meaningful" is nebulous. Meaningful human interaction is not. That has been defined for us by the devs.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
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.
That is NOT, my quote.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, so this has been a thread.
To the point: I think the argument for reputation free pvp zones for skymetal hexes has merit. It is the highest reward, it would make sense for it to have the highest risk as well.
It inherently already has the highest risk associated with it- you are carrying the most valuable resource in the game. That makes you a bigger target. You don't need to add any other incentive to try to kill the character.
Just because the resource is valuable, and you want it doesn't mean the normal rules should be jettisoned.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are there any companies out so far that explicitly focus on merchant guarding? I'm guessing T7V has some emphasis on it.
I personally think I will find guarding Caravans to be extremely fun.
As for T7V as a whole, one of the benefits of choosing Neutral is that we can engage in all sorts of interesting facets of the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Low Rep CE will certainly be rich off this as the only ones able to actually fight whenever they like.Well... actually, a high Rep LE (or NE, or CE) from a place like Golgotha can prey on those low Rep CE with something approaching impunity. Murdering a low Rep CE causes an Evil hit (so no effect for a XE character) and killing low Rep (~ -5000R) characters is only a low Rep hit, like -16 Rep iirc. So as long as those low Rep CE have star metal on them, you might be set to get rich.
Why would we do that thing? That wouldn't be very efficient for us to do that? Instead, I would pay the low rep ce to kill any targets that I wished at no cost to me and no cost to them. So if I see a harvester or group I don't like wandering into the sky metal hex, rather then risking my rep by attacking them, I'll just pay my hired low rep CE goons to do it for me! Then I can have a monopoly on the hex.
Low rep CE can't use tier 3 goods so they have no use for the mats as they can't wear whatever they make with it. Everyone always has a use for money though, low rep CE will make the absolute best guards to have, because they can be offensive and prevent disaster rather then defensive and reactionary.
The thing is, even reputation won't stop many players from killing and taking the riches with one of their characters. As an organized group they can pass along those riches (to themselves) even if it means having half their numbers jump on good characters and letting them kill the the bad half. Or simply dropping the loot off, if that's allowed (and I wouldn't like to see a Sandbox game not allow dropping stuff).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I thought I was. Care to explain?Again, someone isn't paying attention.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.
My apologies for being so short.
I am not trying to say FFA is "fair".
That is a blanket and vague statement that does not summarize the points I promote.
I am saying the reputation system should account for variables.
Where the most valuable materials are concerned, I think penalties should be lessened. That does not equal to FFA.
One can say, "Yeah, well almost." Almost isn't FFA.
I'd also like to point out that I am in favor of it working in the opposite direction.
If you need random root and T1 hex and you get killed while harvesting it, those penalties should be stiffer because the act was even more senseless.
Considering all this, I hardly think that quantifies as me saying "FFA is fair", hence me saying you aren't paying attention.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...simply dropping the loot off...
Ryan's said
Trading directly with CE characters could be considered a chaotic and evil act. So doing a direct character-to-character transfer could rapidly degrade the alignment of your non-CE character.
It's hard to believe he'd allow us to avoid that effect through something as straight-forward as dropping items and having them picked up.
I thought I was. Care to explain?Again, someone isn't paying attention.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.My apologies for being so short.
I am not trying to say FFA is "fair".
That is a blanket and vague statement that does not summarize the points I promote.
I am saying the reputation system should account for variables.
Where the most valuable materials are concerned, I think penalties should be lessened. That does not equal to FFA.
One can say, "Yeah, well almost." Almost isn't FFA.
I'd also like to point out that I am in favor of it working in the opposite direction.
If you need random root and T1 hex and you get killed while harvesting it, those penalties should be stiffer because the act was even more senseless.
Considering all this, I hardly think that quantifies as me saying "FFA is fair", hence me saying you aren't paying attention.
Ok, but I have to disagree with your opinion here. In both cases of the value of what's in possession of a character, the game should not want to make it any less "antisocial" to kill and rob them. It's bad to allow such actions without consequence in any case, because by doing so the game tells players to go ahead and do it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Honestly with the way rep is right now, I doubt few if any harvesters will be killed out in the wild, unless said harvester is in a feud with a company. It makes no sense to kill a harvester, the rep hit is far too high to make it even worthwhile for a lulz kill, harvesters will be the safest people there are most of the time.
A harvester that is worth a damn will be max rep always, someone hits you and takes your t1 goods, the attack just lost enough rep to maybe boot them out of their own settlement. Effectively 2 harvester kills in a 1 month span is enough to make your character utterly useless unless you are in a low rep settlement, and as far as I'm aware no one on these boards is planning on going low rep CE currently. Therefor harvesters will generally be the safest people in this game.
Of course if it's a feud or war state then you're free game, but that's more abnormal play as that costs a resource to initiate.
...simply dropping the loot off...Ryan's said
Trading directly with CE characters could be considered a chaotic and evil act. So doing a direct character-to-character transfer could rapidly degrade the alignment of your non-CE character.It's hard to believe he'd allow us to avoid that effect through something as straight-forward as dropping items and having them picked up.
Hence my comment on getting your good characters out to kill the bad ones as a workaround to pass the loot along.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In any event, life isn't fair, and hasn't been since the day there were two mobile organisms that wanted the same bit of organic material for breakfast.
What you are saying is that it is a reasonable modification to apply to high value hexes. And that may be true.
But we don't know it yet.
There is no reason, yet, to think there is anything to gain from lessening something that is put place to control a real problem that bothers a lot of people. Until we see evidence that the scarce resources are not scarce enough and the developers are unable to manage it, it is not a reasonable thing to ask to make changes to a balance mechanism hat has been carefully though out.
It doesn't actually help anything to propose that it be balanced by a corresponding increase in the mechanism elsewhere. Why change something that offends so many people without evidence it needs changing? You've got to make a case for it on it's own merits, because every other argument appears to boil down to making it easier for people who have large groups of skilled players that like PvP to get an even larger share of the scarce resources at the expense of those who don't have those things. They already have that advantage. You have to convince us that this isn't about giving them an even bigger advantage.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Honestly with the way rep is right now, I doubt few if any harvesters will be killed out in the wild, unless said harvester is in a feud with a company. It makes no sense to kill a harvester, the rep hit is far too high to make it even worthwhile for a lulz kill, harvesters will be the safest people there are most of the time.
A harvester that is worth a damn will be max rep always, someone hits you and takes your t1 goods, the attack just lost enough rep to maybe boot them out of their own settlement. Effectively 2 harvester kills in a 1 month span is enough to make your character utterly useless unless you are in a low rep settlement, and as far as I'm aware no one on these boards is planning on going low rep CE currently. Therefor harvesters will generally be the safest people in this game.
Of course if it's a feud or war state then you're free game, but that's more abnormal play as that costs a resource to initiate.
That is why the Stand and Deliver mechanic exists. Utilizing that will prevent any rep loss unless you're a psychopath and kill a harvester that has handed over their resources anyway.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Wow, so this has been a thread.
To the point: I think the argument for reputation free pvp zones for skymetal hexes has merit. It is the highest reward, it would make sense for it to have the highest risk as well.
It inherently already has the highest risk associated with it- you are carrying the most valuable resource in the game. That makes you a bigger target. You don't need to add any other incentive to try to kill the character.
Just because the resource is valuable, and you want it doesn't mean the normal rules should be jettisoned.
Actually, I would be fine if it meant exactly that.
If you are carrying the most valuable item in game, then you are a bigger target specifically to a small type of player base (bandits as well as Cyneric's CE/Low Rep scenario).
You should take the current maximum reputation hit for initiating combat on a harvester collecting flowers or mining bulk ore. I see merit in raising the stakes by lowering the mechanical penalties. I especially see the merit because it destabilizes what seems like might be a pvp monopoly.
|
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.
No but there are currently combat oriented roles and non combat oriented roles.
Both should have to make choices that affect alignment and reputation, when performing their desired play style.
I'm not saying all choices have to be tied to those axises.
I'm not saying choices that aren't tied to those axises are meaningless.
I am saying if alignment and reputation is tied to character development, which it is, then when playing your play style, it only makes sense that you have to make choices BASED on playstyle / role that affect it.
All characters development is tied to their alignment and reputation, why is it ok that only some characters performing their roles have to make choices that can infringe on their ability to develop?
I'm not saying that those choices have to suck.
I think a great example is the varying harvesting techniques. You can strip-mine fast and dirty which could be evil or chaotic, or you could replant saplings to replenish resources, which could lead to an increased index of resources for the hex over the long term.
Hell, that opens up a world of possibilities. What if harvesters actions, overtime, impact the quality and abundance of resources?
You would sacrifice time harvesting to cultivate. After two or three years, your forests would be lush and green producing 25% more resources and instead of 30 nodes, you have 45?
In cultivating your region, you gain more benefit, but it makes you a target for those that chose the fast and dirty route.
Stripmining over time has reduced your resource output by 25% and now only 15 nodes spawn instead of 30.
So again, this is completely off topic, but I think it provides some depth for harvesters and meets my second intent.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That is why the Stand and Deliver mechanic exists. Utilizing that will prevent any rep loss unless you're a psychopath and kill a harvester that has handed over their resources anyway.Honestly with the way rep is right now, I doubt few if any harvesters will be killed out in the wild, unless said harvester is in a feud with a company. It makes no sense to kill a harvester, the rep hit is far too high to make it even worthwhile for a lulz kill, harvesters will be the safest people there are most of the time.
A harvester that is worth a damn will be max rep always, someone hits you and takes your t1 goods, the attack just lost enough rep to maybe boot them out of their own settlement. Effectively 2 harvester kills in a 1 month span is enough to make your character utterly useless unless you are in a low rep settlement, and as far as I'm aware no one on these boards is planning on going low rep CE currently. Therefor harvesters will generally be the safest people in this game.
Of course if it's a feud or war state then you're free game, but that's more abnormal play as that costs a resource to initiate.
And harvesters then only have to worry about bandits, and with SAD being currently discussed as a faction mechanic and not an anyone can use it, that is a very small group of people that can impose risk on said harvester.
There is very little risk in being a harvester if that is the case as opposed to a necromancer who by the simple fact of them being a necromancer incurs more risk of consequence free attacks then a person who is taking resources super valuable or not.
So as I said, a harvester in this game currently is the safest play style, so all this talk of risk and danger for a harvester is silly.
...good characters out to kill the bad ones...Oh lord, I'd missed your implication. You mean using an Evil alt as a temp-mule to transfer 75% of whatever it's carrying to its Good counterpart?
That's frighteningly inspired, if a lot of work and a hefty overhead.
It wouldn't be hard at all, just some basic "be here and do this". The rewards for top end resources will make it very enticing. Especially to gamers who sell game items for real money.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ok, but I have to disagree with your opinion here. In both cases of the value of what's in possession of a character, the game should not want to make it any less "antisocial" to kill and rob them. It's bad to allow such actions without consequence in any case, because by doing so the game tells players to go ahead and do it.My apologies for being so short.
I am not trying to say FFA is "fair".
That is a blanket and vague statement that does not summarize the points I promote.
I am saying the reputation system should account for variables.
Where the most valuable materials are concerned, I think penalties should be lessened. That does not equal to FFA.
One can say, "Yeah, well almost." Almost isn't FFA.
I'd also like to point out that I am in favor of it working in the opposite direction.
If you need random root and T1 hex and you get killed while harvesting it, those penalties should be stiffer because the act was even more senseless.
Considering all this, I hardly think that quantifies as me saying "FFA is fair", hence me saying you aren't paying attention.
If that is your stance, why does the game make it less detrimental to kill a player with lower rep?
Regardless of what someone possesses killing them should have the same impact right? So if value doesn't matter, why does it matter when it comes to reputation? Why does it inflict more detrement on you if you kill a +2500 rep character than a -250 rep character?
The design of the game has already told us that values do matter. Low rep characters' lives are worth less than high rep characters. That's already been established.
Ok, but I have to disagree with your opinion here. In both cases of the value of what's in possession of a character, the game should not want to make it any less "antisocial" to kill and rob them. It's bad to allow such actions without consequence in any case, because by doing so the game tells players to go ahead and do it.My apologies for being so short.
I am not trying to say FFA is "fair".
That is a blanket and vague statement that does not summarize the points I promote.
I am saying the reputation system should account for variables.
Where the most valuable materials are concerned, I think penalties should be lessened. That does not equal to FFA.
One can say, "Yeah, well almost." Almost isn't FFA.
I'd also like to point out that I am in favor of it working in the opposite direction.
If you need random root and T1 hex and you get killed while harvesting it, those penalties should be stiffer because the act was even more senseless.
Considering all this, I hardly think that quantifies as me saying "FFA is fair", hence me saying you aren't paying attention.
If that is your stance, why does the game make it less detrimental to kill a player with lower rep?
Regardless of what someone possesses killing them should have the same impact right? So if value doesn't matter, why does it matter when it comes to reputation? Why does it inflict more detrement on you if you kill a +2500 rep character than a -250 rep character?
The design of the game has already told us that values do matter. Low rep characters' lives are worth less than high rep characters. That's already been established.
And I see a problem with that. Just as with "Newbie Ganking".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's one way of doing it for trading another way is just to simply trade the items and pay the person an agreed upon fee for their services of killing dudes. Unless the alignment and rep shift from doing that is so great as to make it impossible then that is the simplest way of doing it.
Otherwise Low Rep CE settlement makes a new character that is just CE but not low rep, you give them the money, and they put it into their guild's bank. Unless the bank itself acts as a rep mechanic as well, that is an easy transfer of payment and goods, using the settlements bank as a way of trading.
Given that people in Eve have 3+ accounts and that you can buy game time with money, people making new accounts if the pay is lucrative enough is just something that will happen even if all of the above have penalties, which is good for Goblin Works.
@Jazzlvraz, Amaranthar, Losing 25% of the star metal with each such transfer makes me a little queasy.
As opposed to not having any? What would the takers have to lose?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And I see a problem with that. Just as with "Newbie Ganking".Ok, but I have to disagree with your opinion here. In both cases of the value of what's in possession of a character, the game should not want to make it any less "antisocial" to kill and rob them. It's bad to allow such actions without consequence in any case, because by doing so the game tells players to go ahead and do it.My apologies for being so short.
I am not trying to say FFA is "fair".
That is a blanket and vague statement that does not summarize the points I promote.
I am saying the reputation system should account for variables.
Where the most valuable materials are concerned, I think penalties should be lessened. That does not equal to FFA.
One can say, "Yeah, well almost." Almost isn't FFA.
I'd also like to point out that I am in favor of it working in the opposite direction.
If you need random root and T1 hex and you get killed while harvesting it, those penalties should be stiffer because the act was even more senseless.
Considering all this, I hardly think that quantifies as me saying "FFA is fair", hence me saying you aren't paying attention.
If that is your stance, why does the game make it less detrimental to kill a player with lower rep?
Regardless of what someone possesses killing them should have the same impact right? So if value doesn't matter, why does it matter when it comes to reputation? Why does it inflict more detrement on you if you kill a +2500 rep character than a -250 rep character?
The design of the game has already told us that values do matter. Low rep characters' lives are worth less than high rep characters. That's already been established.
What exactly do you see a problem with? Cause reading that, it seems like you want killing players to be a static REP hit no matter who it is, regardless of their and your reputation.... which kind of defeats the purpose of the system in the first place.
It wouldn't be hard at all, just some basic "be here and do this". The rewards for top end resources will make it very enticing. Especially to gamers who sell game items for real money....good characters out to kill the bad ones...Oh lord, I'd missed your implication. You mean using an Evil alt as a temp-mule to transfer 75% of whatever it's carrying to its Good counterpart?
That's frighteningly inspired, if a lot of work and a hefty overhead.
Replying here for the background...
One way to make this much less likely would be to have an instant stat/skill penalty to attackers who die in the attempt (edit: permanent but recoverable). That would allow the "crime" (for realism's sake) but give risk to the "criminals". Warfare is another matter, of course. They have already stated they will have flags, so it wouldn't be too much added coding to attach to the flags.
What exactly do you see a problem with? Cause reading that, it seems like you want killing players to be a static REP hit no matter who it is, regardless of their and your reputation.......And I see a problem with that. Just as with "Newbie Ganking".Ok, but I have to disagree with your opinion here. In both cases of the value of what's in possession of a character, the game should not want to make it any less "antisocial" to kill and rob them. It's bad to allow such actions without consequence in any case, because by doing so the game tells players to go ahead and do it.My apologies for being so short.
I am not trying to say FFA is "fair".
That is a blanket and vague statement that does not summarize the points I promote.
I am saying the reputation system should account for variables.
Where the most valuable materials are concerned, I think penalties should be lessened. That does not equal to FFA.
One can say, "Yeah, well almost." Almost isn't FFA.
I'd also like to point out that I am in favor of it working in the opposite direction.
If you need random root and T1 hex and you get killed while harvesting it, those penalties should be stiffer because the act was even more senseless.
Considering all this, I hardly think that quantifies as me saying "FFA is fair", hence me saying you aren't paying attention.
If that is your stance, why does the game make it less detrimental to kill a player with lower rep?
Regardless of what someone possesses killing them should have the same impact right? So if value doesn't matter, why does it matter when it comes to reputation? Why does it inflict more detrement on you if you kill a +2500 rep character than a -250 rep character?
The design of the game has already told us that values do matter. Low rep characters' lives are worth less than high rep characters. That's already been established.
I don't see any way around having having the same hit in this part of it regardless of rep. However, the reputation system still seems valuable in the social penalties for the...what would it be? Faction/guild/city/you know what I mean to say.
@Guurzak Long thread. Just for argument's sake why is it you don't just harvest the star ore the same way that everyone does? Just go and harvest it? If you are not near the ore why is that? The land rush is not over is it? Were the spots clear on the map when you choose your favorite spot? No one can keep you from the ore spot without the same methods that all will have to work with now. Why be so deceptive about it?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Don't know how people got the idea that this idea was posted because Golgotha is worried we won't have Starmetal. News flash, we are right next to a node. We are up hill from it. Through the miracle of cliff jumping we have direct access. The trip back takes a little bit. Good thing we are the largest PvP focused settlement on the map, so we can guard those harvesters ezpz, right?
Or we can just wander a joint Golgotha/Aragon raiding party right up to your door and steal yours.
@Gol Tink Yes deflection is clever. Proceed then.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Guurzak Long thread. Just for argument's sake why is it you don't just harvest the star ore the same way that everyone does? Just go and harvest it? If you are not near the ore why is that? The land rush is not over is it? Were the spots clear on the map when you choose your favorite spot? No one can keep you from the ore spot without the same methods that all will have to work with now. Why be so deceptive about it?
Glad to see you back.
You too should lay off the kool-aid.
Why don't you ask the guy that actually had this idea as a possibility back in the day... referring to a time which is now upon us.
Probably chaotic evil. I say probably because there's a debate to be had in Crowdforging about the presence of anything-goes territory. If we decided to have that kind of territory, then in that territory, your actions would have no mechanical effect on your character.
That's what we are doing right now... and you can edit your post all you want, Golgotha is anything but "deceptive" or whatever you change that phrase to next.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is not known to be a problem. Pushing you interest as a solution is overthinking.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's pretty much moved over to the Feuding a Hex Which is getting more traction (or, at least, less opposition).
Frankly, even if Ideascale was a flawless way of voting for this stuff, the Idea in question was posted by someone who's made it plain he wants nothing to do with the idea. It was not exactly phrased in an enticing manner to someone who hasn't read the thread and doesn't know what Guurzak was arguing for, and an idea posted (and phrased) by someone more interested in seeing it succeed might have garnered a more split vote.
Regardless, I think it's clear that this discussion's run its course.
|
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...
First rule of loot drop MMOs. Always bank what you can't afford to lose. Quite frankly if you've been doing three hours of anything that generates loot without banking you're being a complete fool.
People harvesting mithril and addy should be above such basic mistakes.
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...
First rule of loot drop MMOs. Always bank what you can't afford to lose. Quite frankly if you've been doing three hours of anything that generates loot without banking you're being a complete fool.
People harvesting mithril and addy should be above such basic mistakes.
That's not much of an answer though. Everybody tried that in another game in the early days of MMOs and the PKers, who are nothing if not quite adaptable, would let others do all the gathering they wanted and then waylay them on the way to the bank. More efficient that way.
|
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...
First rule of loot drop MMOs. Always bank what you can't afford to lose. Quite frankly if you've been doing three hours of anything that generates loot without banking you're being a complete fool.
People harvesting mithril and addy should be above such basic mistakes.
As it stands that isn't very meaningful, there isn't a hard decision to be made there, only a lesson to be learned on the individual attacking you. The dude who attacked you made a fairly poor life choice, unless said material was in such high amounts in your inventory and worth such an exponential amount as to win the game, you did more damage to him then he did to you.
As a harvester you should be max rep, because of that, him killing you is a -2500 rep penalty, if he kills one additional harvester in the next two months, he will almost assuredly be kicked out of his settlement due to rep mechanics, you have in actuality just made his character nearly 100% useless for days if not weeks or months.
Fact is killing a harvester isn't a meaningful choice, it's just plain dumb. The only time it's not dumb is if said attacker is low rep CE, other then that one exception said surprise attacker is silly and should be mocked for making his character useless.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree 100% Cyneric though I thought you could kill 3 (almost assuredly max rep) harvesters and only go from +7500 to 0, and due to starting rep being +1000 I can't see any group setting it's allowance higher than that.
Still. Each of those kills takes 10+ days to wear off. If that's offline time it's still too long to use over anything as casual as robbery or forcing people off your starmetal hex since you won't have enough kills to reliably do so, and if it's online time well... I don't expect much of anyone to take any action that costs any rep if that's online time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's not much of an answer though. Everybody tried that in another game in the early days of MMOs and the PKers, who are nothing if not quite adaptable, would let others do all the gathering they wanted and then waylay them on the way to the bank. More efficient that way.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...
First rule of loot drop MMOs. Always bank what you can't afford to lose. Quite frankly if you've been doing three hours of anything that generates loot without banking you're being a complete fool.
People harvesting mithril and addy should be above such basic mistakes.
Funny. I've played such games and I easily made it back to the bank/station 95%+ of the time. And in those games the consequences for killing you were zilch.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree 100% Cyneric though I thought you could kill 3 (almost assuredly max rep) harvesters and only go from +7500 to 0, and due to starting rep being +1000 I can't see any group setting it's allowance higher than that.
Still. Each of those kills takes 10+ days to wear off. If that's offline time it's still too long to use over anything as casual as robbery or forcing people off your starmetal hex since you won't have enough kills to reliably do so, and if it's online time well... I don't expect much of anyone to take any action that costs any rep if that's online time.
That's only at the start, everyone in EE given time will be capable of achieving max rep. If a higher rep settlement as has been said will give more DI points, then you can bet that Golgotha will go for a squeaky clean rep to maximize our DI as much as possible, we'll just use back channel methods of dealing with conflicts.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's pretty much moved over to the Feuding a Hex Which is getting more traction (or, at least, less opposition).
That's actually an interesting take on it. Hrm, I need to think on it and read some discussion. At the very least, it works within the themes of company feuds and combat.