Looks like the Goons are Arriving....


Pathfinder Online

1 to 50 of 112 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Is what someone would write if they wanted to stir the feces. But ask yourself, what will you do when they arrive? What will you do when there are ravening hordes at your doorstep who's only goal is to succeed at all cost; who look forward to killing you and taking your stuff? What will you do when all your friends are offline and you feel the need to get a little of your own back?

The Named Company may be just the place for your next alt.

Ask not what the River kingdoms can do for you, but what you can do for the River Kingdoms.

Does the thought of teaching brigands a lesson make you wet yourself?

Do your hands tremble at the thought of secretly giving the bad guys a little of their own back?

Would you enjoy settling in at the local tavern to laugh with your friends and tell stories of looting the looter?

Maybe you're not as PvP averse as you think you are! Join us in your off time. We dont want you to join our settlement. We don't want you to live in our city. We want you to be a force for good, cutting through the forest in the day to bring the wrath of the River Kingdoms down on those who would make their way through force and trickery.

Are you just looking to slip a little coin or used equipment to a group that will give you a little vicarious satisfaction as they slay the ne'er-do-wells on your behalf? We'd be happy to cover that for you, too.

Unrepentant, unaligned, unsponsored.
Be all you can be
Join The Named Company

Goblin Squad Member

Yes, Greg, you're frightening.

Shadow Lodge Goblin Squad Member

I think when and if the Goons arrive, they will have more than one member and their goal will not be to fight banditry or evil, but to conquer everyone that stands in their path.

They will of course take significant joy in bringing grief to the Care Bears, leaving them nothing but their tears!

I will of course sit back with my bag of popcorn, reclined in my Layz Boy and enjoy the chaos that will ensue.

Sovereign Court Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Maybe this is what Greg means:

Be all you can be


named Greg wrote:

Is what someone would write if they wanted to stir the feces. But ask yourself, what will you do when they arrive?

The same as we do in Eve probably.


T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:
Yes, Greg, you're frightening.

That's unfortunate. I was going for over the top and funny.

Goblin Squad Member

For realsies, the chances of the EvE goons jumping ship are slim. Anyone that has fought the goons in games outside of EvE know exactly what to expect. They aren't really that scary, I don't see why people continue to envoke them like the boogieman.


Gol Tink wrote:
For realsies, the chances of the EvE goons jumping ship are slim. Anyone that has fought the goons in games outside of EvE know exactly what to expect. They aren't really that scary, I don't see why people continue to envoke them like the boogieman.

To be fair there is a slightly higher chance now that Dancey has given them a target by telling them that if they can turn the game into a murder sim he will shut it down. They would certainly enjoy the thought of that

You are correct though they are not the bogeyman people make them out to be and perfectly fightable

Goblin Squad Member

LOL


I honestly thought this was a giveaway:

named Greg wrote:
Does the thought of teaching brigands a lesson make you wet yourself?

Goblin Squad Member

named Greg wrote:
T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:
Yes, Greg, you're frightening.
That's unfortunate. I was going for over the top and funny.

It's been done before... The Goons Are Here

Goblinworks Executive Founder

From where I stand, "Goons" is more of a generic adjective than a name. It represents a big meta-guild, entirely focused on just messing up the game.

With Lisa & Ryan's objective of making a game a little more open to the large audience, I think that they will have to, from time to time, stepping to balance the world.

For example, if 90% of the game becomes of a specific alignment, LG/LE/LN whatever, then I think that they should step in.

Goblin Squad Member

So Steelwing, are you and your corp coming to PFO? Was wondering about that.


Tyncale wrote:

So Steelwing, are you and your corp coming to PFO? Was wondering about that.

Nothing has changed in that we will make a decision shortly before OE can't see any point deciding any earlier

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Goonswarm have evolved into just another large bloated Alliance in EVE.

They are key members of CFC which has about 40,000 members and occasionally when they get tired of scooping in ISK from moon mining and the thousands of carebear renter types that "hire" asteroid and ice mining systems from them they fight a "big space battle" which makes the news.

Once a year they have a "Burn Jita" event where they take over the main trade hub for a day in remembrance of the good old days when they were a bunch of crazy Rifter pilots taking on Band of Brothers who at that stage dominated EVE.

They are no longer a bunch of crazy anarchists running around trying to destroy everything - Goonswarm in 2014 is about making ISK and controlling large portions of the game through various in-game and out-of-game political shenanigans and the occasional display of force.

That said, given that CFC have some 40,000 members it seems certain quite a few will already be involved in pathfinder.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

When the game stops being fun, I stop playing. Problem solved.

Goblin Squad Member

Audoucet wrote:

From where I stand, "Goons" is more of a generic adjective than a name. It represents a big meta-guild, entirely focused on just messing up the game.

With Lisa & Ryan's objective of making a game a little more open to the large audience, I think that they will have to, from time to time, stepping to balance the world.

For example, if 90% of the game becomes of a specific alignment, LG/LE/LN whatever, then I think that they should step in.

If their intent is to destroy PFO, they will do just that. Players like to follow the rules and over time gain expertise and power. What you're suggesting is that if they become to powerful and or are too successful due to their hard work and effort, that a "balancing" should take place to re level the playing field.

Socialism doesn't work in real life, it will be even more unpopular in a sand box MMO.

Goblin Squad Member

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Socialism doesn't work in real life, it will be even more unpopular in a sand box MMO.

This line seemed like a good idea and is sure not to cause any controversy whatsoever.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
<Magistry> Toombstone wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Socialism doesn't work in real life, it will be even more unpopular in a sand box MMO.
This line seemed like a good idea and is sure not to cause any controversy whatsoever.

Not meant to be controversial, just an opinion that taking away the product of high producers to give to low producers is basically punishing success.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

All politics aside, it's an interesting take to state that those intent on destroying the game, be they the Goons or whoever, are "high producers".

Goblin Squad Member

Lhan wrote:
All politics aside, it's an interesting take to state that those intent on destroying the game, be they the Goons or whoever, are "high producers".

Err, who said that?

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Not meant to be controversial, just an opinion that taking away the product of high producers to give to low producers is basically punishing success.

What about diminishing returns?

We already know that there are mechanics in PFO, such as DI, effective company size and territory control that are subject to diminishing returns.

The idea that the bigger you are, the harder it is to grow is an indirect form of punishing success.

(and to be clear, I think those mechanics are good for the game. We need to be protective and encouraging towards small organizations.)

Goblin Squad Member

Jiminy wrote:
Lhan wrote:
All politics aside, it's an interesting take to state that those intent on destroying the game, be they the Goons or whoever, are "high producers".
Err, who said that?

No one did.

What is an interesting take is that to have the desire to expand power and influence in a competitive, open world sandbox MMO is equated to destroying the game.

I personally would see it as a challenge for those settlements outside of this "Dark Empire" to band together are slowly bring about the demise of that empire.

If the empire is faced with a thousand small "insurgencies' per day, even if those insurgencies are crushed 99% of the time, the expenditure of resources would be crippling to the empire.

FACT: Naked Noobs are still respawning immortals, and can only be stopped by the limitations of their own resolve.

Goblin Squad Member

Gaskon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Not meant to be controversial, just an opinion that taking away the product of high producers to give to low producers is basically punishing success.

What about diminishing returns?

We already know that there are mechanics in PFO, such as DI, effective company size and territory control that are subject to diminishing returns.

The idea that the bigger you are, the harder it is to grow is an indirect form of punishing success.

(and to be clear, I think those mechanics are good for the game. We need to be protective and encouraging towards small organizations.)

I agree with some of what you say, which is why I wrote:

"These should happen organically, within the sandbox."

Larger organizations tend to become, organically, unwieldy and they eventually collapse (usually from within). What I objected to was the idea that GW should step in and basically say, "You have built yourself up to be too dominant, so we are cutting you down to size."

As for your last point, that is in many ways the exact opposite of what the Developers have been saying. They have been doing and saying everything they can to encourage the consolidation and creation of larger player organizations, not smaller ones.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:


As for your last point, that is in many ways the exact opposite of what the Developers have been saying. They have been doing and saying everything they can to encourage the consolidation and creation of larger player organizations, not smaller ones.

I think there is a sweet spot of 100 to 1000 members that will work best in the game.

Yes, the devs have been saying we need to consolidate to survive, but at the same time they are announcing game mechanics that provide strong protections for groups on the smaller end.
Shorter PVP windows, soft caps on company size, limits on the building plots per settlement, all these things are encouraging groups to reach a maximum effective size, instead of infinite expansion.

A 10 person settlement is going to be ineffective, but at the same time, a 10,000 person settlement will hit those soft caps and be incentivized to split up.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Players like to follow the rules and over time gain expertise and power. What you're suggesting is that if they become to powerful and or are too successful due to their hard work and effort, that a "balancing" should take place to re level the playing field.

It would seem to me that Rule #1 is to ensure that PFO remains a fun game for the players Ryan wants as customers.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Players like to follow the rules and over time gain expertise and power. What you're suggesting is that if they become to powerful and or are too successful due to their hard work and effort, that a "balancing" should take place to re level the playing field.
It would seem to me that Rule #1 is to ensure that PFO remains a fun game for the players Ryan wants as customers.

Not that it may make much of a difference, but I had reworded that earlier statement to read as:

"When players follow the rules and over time gain expertise and power, they like to know that what they achieved, built, and or acquired will be secure from artificial controls (limitations) or roll backs (penalties) on how successful they can be."

To me this can be boiled down to a concept of "reasonable expectations". Ryan may want to have a certain type of customer, but even they will want to be secure in their reasonable expectations. For a game that prides itself on supporting meaningful interactions and a persistent game world, where player choices mean something, that does not lend itself to being interpreted as including what amounts to map wipes (political landscape).

I'm not going to get into an argument over what Ryan wants. I'm sure he can speak for himself and even then his own "wants" may change due to realities outside of his control.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Jiminy wrote:
Lhan wrote:
All politics aside, it's an interesting take to state that those intent on destroying the game, be they the Goons or whoever, are "high producers".
Err, who said that?

No one did.

Err, yes you did Bludd.

Bluddwolf wrote:
Audoucet wrote:

From where I stand, "Goons" is more of a generic adjective than a name. It represents a big meta-guild, entirely focused on just messing up the game.

With Lisa & Ryan's objective of making a game a little more open to the large audience, I think that they will have to, from time to time, stepping to balance the world.

For example, if 90% of the game becomes of a specific alignment, LG/LE/LN whatever, then I think that they should step in.

If their intent is to destroy PFO, they will do just that. Players like to follow the rules and over time gain expertise and power. What you're suggesting is that if they become to powerful and or are too successful due to their hard work and effort, that a "balancing" should take place to re level the playing field.

Socialism doesn't work in real life, it will be even more unpopular in a sand box MMO.

You've managed to tidily conflate Lisa and Ryan rebalancing things to stop people who are actively trying to destroy PFO with rebalancing in general, though, so I can see where Jiminy was confused.

So, just to clear things up - is your objection to levelling the playing field "just because" (in which case I'm with you), or are you also saying that the owners of a commercial enterprise should not take steps to prevent a group that is, to use your words, intent on destroying PFO? I submit that this would be the wrong course of action, however "hard" the Goons - or whoever it may be, work to achieve that end.

Goblin Squad Member

I guess it is a question of do you balance the world (by expanding the map) or do you balance the alliance (by artificially limiting them) that might be the confusion.

Then there is the case where a large entity is deliberately trying to break the game in an attempt to "win it".

I don't want to presume a solution, but it seems like those issues don't necessarily have to be joined.

Goblin Squad Member

Agreed, Charlie, which is why I agree with Bludd if his objection is to an arbitrary decision to reset the game because one group / alliance is seen as being too powerful.

If on the other hand he is saying that nothing should be done to stop a group working hard simply to break the game, then I think he's being naive if he thinks GW or Paizo will simply sit back and let that happen. This is a commercial enterprise, and I doubt greatly that it will just be allowed to fail so as not to ruffle a few feathers. And for all those players who may feel disgruntled and leave after such an action (and I suspect it might not be a few), it could be equally argued that there will be others who will be encouraged by it and try PFO out, knowing that it is not a game where ar$ehattery (to use Ryan's lovely word) will be tolerated.

Goblin Squad Member

I can tell you right now, games have and will re-balance if one faction gets too strong that it is costing them money, driving off the player base, or both.

Every development teams' vision can be different, but everyone's bottom line is the same, survival. That usually means making a profit, as well as staying relevant. To do this I have seen plenty of games re-balance and redo plenty of things. In the Sandbox world, EVE has done it a few times, as well as Darkfall (they redid the entire game), Moral had to do a few things, Vanguard was constantly in a state of doing re-balancing.

Now, personally, I have seen some earlier re-balancing in EVE on Titans when one faction had too many, and the doomsday device was too powerful. In Darkfall, they failed to re-balance the game properly until 7-8 months in, by that time over half the player base had left, and those of us still playing hated the Lighting Towers, Carebear Zones, and other tweaks they did, so we left as well.

My point, when things start effecting the bottom line, companies will do something, whether they are successful or not isn't going to stop it from happening.

Lhan, I prefer to use the term Douchebaggery myself. LOL

Goblin Squad Member

Can't cut and paste just your last paragraph Lhan.....

My objection would be if the leveling of the playing field was just because one entity, through their legitimately playing of the game, managed to dominate. That leveling of the playing field would "destroy the game". In my opinion it would send the message that you can be successful, but not too much.

That is not sandbox, nor is it meaningful interactions and consequences for your choices. I think that if one entity should become that dominant, it will begin to collapse naturally. The only time the Devs should come in and do wipes or roll backs is if they dicover a system was broken, exploited or hacked.

Remember, dominance is one of the pillars of PFO's game design. It would be counter to that pillar to have a conquering group to hesitate before taking another settlement, because they fear that will bring about the plagues of locusts, frogs and fire storms from the Heavens!

Goblin Squad Member

There is a difference between trying to dominate as a Militaristic, Economic, or Sociopolitical entity, and out right dominating to destroy the game.

Goblin Squad Member

TEO Cheatle wrote:
There is a difference between trying to dominate as a Militaristic, Economic, or Sociopolitical entity, and out right dominating to destroy the game.

I never created that equivalency. The first should be possible, the second one not possible.

Goblin Squad Member

Yeah I think this is a case of both sides arguing different cases. If I am reading right it looks like you guys are on the same page.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
... through their legitimately playing of the game...

It seems to me this is the crux of it. It may well be that some of the things you consider "legitimate" aren't actually legitimate. Or perhaps you're just not talking about the illegitimate things everyone else is talking about.

Goblin Squad Member

Sorry, Bludd, I obviously misread you - I think you needed a paragraph break after "do just that".

It seems, as Charlie says, that we are on the same page. This game will fail just as surely if there is not enough competition as it will if one group hellbent on destroying PFO manages to dominate it, through whatever means.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Socialism doesn't work in real life, it will be even more unpopular in a sand box MMO.

Yo, half my immediate family is socialist or left of socialist. This is a new low when it comes to "terrible real-life comparisons".

Goblin Squad Member

The game world might be more interesting if the devs blow it up once a year , making everyone a lot weaker until you rebuild. Bigger kingdoms get a bigger kaboom to challenge them in their success. It isn't like this is a sport simulator , it is a fantasy world with gods that intervene.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
... through their legitimately playing of the game...
It seems to me this is the crux of it. It may well be that some of the things you consider "legitimate" aren't actually legitimate. Or perhaps you're just not talking about the illegitimate things everyone else is talking about.

My definition of legitimate is whatever legitimate means according to the design of the game, no different. If a player group is large, patient and organized enough to conquer every one of the 33 settlements through the use of feud, faction and warfare, no matter how far fetched that may be it is still legitimate.

That is not to say that the same game design that allows for such a far fetched scenario should not also have an equally difficult task set up to maintain that dominance. What I feel we should all hope for is those unlikely possibilities not being artificially capped.

Let the game mechanics (or Dev manipulation) do nothing that the players can not do for themselves. This I recall a similar statement was made as a design goal.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
... through their legitimately playing of the game...
It seems to me this is the crux of it. It may well be that some of the things you consider "legitimate" aren't actually legitimate. Or perhaps you're just not talking about the illegitimate things everyone else is talking about.
My definition of legitimate is whatever legitimate means according to the design of the game, no different. If a player group is large, patient and organized enough to conquer every one of the 33 settlements through the use of feud, faction and warfare, no matter how far fetched that may be it is still legitimate.

What if the use of feud, faction,and warfare to conquer all of the settlements isn't legitimate according to the design of the game?

Goblin Squad Member

Then in my opinion it should be discouraged by the rest of the player base, as well as hindered by the developers.

-The cost of holding massive swaths of hexes should be costly. That cost should increase as it moves ever past a certain mark (that doesn't have to be a once and forever milestone)

-The player base should avoid the line between participating in dominance and participating in global dominance.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
... through their legitimately playing of the game...
It seems to me this is the crux of it. It may well be that some of the things you consider "legitimate" aren't actually legitimate. Or perhaps you're just not talking about the illegitimate things everyone else is talking about.
My definition of legitimate is whatever legitimate means according to the design of the game, no different.

From reading some of your other posts, I think you see the "design of the game" as only that which is implemented. In other words, if the game systems allow you to do something, then that is legitimate because it's part of the "design of the game".

Bluddwolf wrote:
If a player group is large, patient and organized enough to conquer every one of the 33 settlements through the use of feud, faction and warfare, no matter how far fetched that may be it is still legitimate.

The fact remains that not every aspect of the "design of the game" is implemented in software.

Bluddwolf wrote:
Let the game mechanics (or Dev manipulation) do nothing that the players can not do for themselves. This I recall a similar statement was made as a design goal.

I don't remember any such design goal. I find it extremely unlikely that Ryan or any of the devs ever suggested they would only intervene in a way the players themselves could have intervened. I'd love to see a link if you have one.

1 to 50 of 112 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Looks like the Goons are Arriving.... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.