Goblin Squad Member
|
Elsewhere there are discussions of whether some wilderness hexes might be open for FFA PvP. This turns it around: settlements might actually want their own hexes to be FFA PvP so they can engage interlopers without alignment or reputation shifts.
Under normal engagement rules, an unaligned character belonging to no settlement or company can enter a settlement's hex or its claimed hexes for any purpose. The unaligned character might be there to spy, or to harvest from the settlement's nodes, or to otherwise cause problems. The members of the settlement face alignment or reputation losses in driving such interlopers off.
If settlements were able to set their entire territory as FFA, there could be limitations. The FFA status would not be switchable on and off, so it can't be used to catch the unaware and bypass the Alignment and Reputation system that way. It would be active full time, 24/7. It would also be usable by anyone; the settlement members would be free of alignment and reputation consequences in attacking, but so would any interlopers, for balance. And it would only apply to the settlement and those PoI hexes it held though sponsored companies.
Would this be a reasonable exception to the normal alignment and reputation system?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not sure that has quite the same effect. My understanding was that the primary effect of the PVP window (in the full settlement structure, not the Tower War system) was to remove most or all of the NPC guards for your settlement, not to open it up to FFA PvP.
I suspect that what will happen is that when a Settlement's PvP window is open, there won't be reputation effects within some diameter of the Settlement walls. Not only will that remove the fear of naked noob meat shields but it also represents a reduced load on the database during times which may generate a huge spike in rep calculations otherwise.
I'm pretty sure there are other places where Ryan has talked about the necessity of being able to freely kill folks gathering outside your walls during your PvP window.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems to me that if the settlements are sovereign, they should be able to determine what constitutes acceptable behavior within their own walls, and within a reasonable distance (bowshot?) of their holdings. I am entirely against FFA in the wilderness, but this is a different issue entirely. Why lose reputation for doing something in an area where that thing would not cause any alarm or scandal? Alignment, on the other hand, should remain in effect. That is based on the judgment of the gods, so location is unimportant.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think it could be a dangerous trend if there a lot of FFA hexes. Even if the Settlement wants it that way. I thank I better option would be to allow members of a Settlement or POI to mark a person as Trespassing if they are in their controlled hexes. If that person doesn't leave with the warning (a certain amount of time) then they can be attacked without rep loss.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd prefer the option to make a "no trespassing" law which would make greys Criminals and thus generally attackable, without exposing blues and greens (welcome guests) to danger.
All these "danger zone" proposals require useful and accurate notification systems; you should be able to check the map and see any place where you'd be at risk, as well as getting warnings when approaching a relevant hex boundary.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It seems to me that if the settlements are sovereign, they should be able to determine what constitutes acceptable behavior within their own walls, and within a reasonable distance (bowshot?) of their holdings. I am entirely against FFA in the wilderness, but this is a different issue entirely. Why lose reputation for doing something in an area where that thing would not cause any alarm or scandal? Alignment, on the other hand, should remain in effect. That is based on the judgment of the gods, so location is unimportant.
No law of man should trump that of the gods...Alignment is a measure of man's adherence to the domains of gods.
Reputation on the other hand is a meta-gaming measure, again not bound by in-game laws.
If a town wants to make itself FFA, the correct way to do that is to allow unrestricted access. This will attract the type who do not care about their Rep and Alignment (who do not have access elsewhere), in effect creating a FFA zone.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But then if I go there to gather things someone might be able to kill me without loosing all their reputations. That doesn't seem very meaningful to me. I disapprove.
Not sure if your comment was supposed to be sarcasm. But, if it wasn't here are two responses:
1. Don't go there
2. It is of course a meaningful choice. By entering you made a meaningful choice.
Too often the "meaningful choice" mantra is directed only at the attacker and not at the defender who is also supposedly making meaningful choices.
Again, if sarcasm was meant in your comment, the above statement does not apply.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I see no issues with this request. I am thinking maybe alignment consequences should still exist in a settlement that declares itself an FFA zone, though. Reputation is an abstracted mechanic meant to nudge play along certain lines. Killing a lot of people is probably still evil, regardless of reputation consequences or lack thereof. It makes more sense to me for Evil groups to have this than for Good groups.