Goblin Squad Member
|
Why even think of solo gathering and harvesting as dangerous PVP activities, those are supposed to be the safest things you can do. People that want PVP don't want to go search the woods and chase after solo runners who are just harvesting, if a gatherer wanted PVP they would be doing it. This is a straw dog considering that this is the MVP and we are a long way from real settlement warfare and the territory control that goes with it, the territory control will make solo gathering dangerous .
I'm not sure, but I wonder if thinking that solo gathering and harvesting are safe is just setting someone up for disappointment.
I'm not a pro-bandit type, but I think that even if SAD is never implemented, there will still be those who prey on those solo gatherers. If a gatherer is carrying more than 30 minutes worth of work, he starts to be at risk for someone willing to take the Rep hit to get rich quick.
I don't think we'll see a lot of banditry early on (I might be wrong), but once people get up some reserve Rep, they'll be able to take a one-time hit to their Rep to kill a solo gatherer foolish enough to farm for a hour or two without banking.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are two kinds of harvesting.
Easy: You walk up to a harvesting node, and extract the resource it contains. Right now, if you are not threatened by a PvE mob, you won't be interrupted by a PvE feature while you do the extraction.
Hard: You walk up to a harvesting node, start to extract the resource it contains, and it gushers. To get the full value out of a gusher you have to deploy a harvesting kit. Once that kit is deployed, it begins to attract monsters. There's no mechanical reason we couldn't spawn particularly challenging monsters in the area to be attracted to the harvesting kit. This is a "dial" we can adjust to ramp up or down the challenge level of the experience.
Most resources in the economy will come from Hard Mode gushers not Easy Mode harvesting. Easy Mode will give you a trickle of usable assets to sell. Hard Mode will give you a resource stream that you can leverage into a meaningful amount of commercial activity at scale.
"Serious Harvesters" are going to be focused on Hard Mode because that is where the real "money" will be. Easy Mode harvesting will be something you do as you train up to be able to engage in serious Hard Mode harvesting, or something you do as a distraction to something else - a convenient way to add value to being in the wild pursuing some other goal.
What you are seeing in Alpha right now is all Easy Mode.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"Serious Harvesters" are going to be focused on Hard Mode because that is where the real "money" will be. Easy Mode harvesting will be something you do as you train up to be able to engage in serious Hard Mode harvesting, or something you do as a distraction to something else - a convenient way to add value to being in the wild pursuing some other goal.
What you are seeing in Alpha right now is all Easy Mode.
When will these harvesting kits find their way into use?
These kits sound like outposts, are they the prototype of outposts?
Can their storage capacity be looted?
Will there be a thief flag for looting?
Will there be player storage in the towns, during alpha?
Hopefully these will come on line in some form, in order to test them out.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
As a side note, I see the misconception that the color codes are relative to the player- "red to me"
The monsters are color-coded on an absolute scale indicating their approximate power. A monster that is red is red, regardless of the player viewing it.
This is different from MMO standard practice.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just a side note guys, when it comes to AI the devs aren't incompetent at making it dangerous, they are struggling to make it not impossible to beat. You talk about the ease of beating the AI but ignore that it's because they had to build in restrictions and behaviors to prevent the AI from being too strong. Making unbeatable AIs is easy, making fair and balanced ones is really hard.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"Serious Harvesters" are going to be focused on Hard Mode because that is where the real "money" will be. Easy Mode harvesting will be something you do as you train up to be able to engage in serious Hard Mode harvesting, or something you do as a distraction to something else - a convenient way to add value to being in the wild pursuing some other goal.
What you are seeing in Alpha right now is all Easy Mode.
When will these harvesting kits find their way into use?
These kits sound like outposts, are they the prototype of outposts?
Can their storage capacity be looted?
Will there be a thief flag for looting?
Will there be player storage in the towns, during alpha?
Hopefully these will come on line in some form, in order to test them out.
In a recent Gobbocast, Cheney spoke to the bolded part. Outposts are used to gather bulk resources for settlement construction and upkeep. The harvesting kits are used for gushers/mother lodes, which are large quantities of normal resources for individual gear. I think we've been generally told that Outposts are semi-permanent; harvesting kits are more temporary.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Actually Outposts were described as cheap, easy to replace and designed to be not too costly if they were destroyed.
They were also described as leading to the most common form of PvP being generated by looting and establishing a hostile state / criminal flag and potentially a reciprocal hostile state once the defenders hit the looters twice.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Actually Outposts were described as cheap, easy to replace and designed to be not too costly if they were destroyed.
They were also described as leading to the most common form of PvP being generated by looting and establishing a hostile state / criminal flag and potentially a reciprocal hostile state once the defenders hit the looters twice.
Indeed, Outposts are likely cheap and easy to replace, especially in comparison to PoIs and other structures. Outposts are semi-permanent in that they will continue to exist as long as upkeep is paid and someone doesn't destroy them through PvP.
Harvesting kits, on the other hand, will be used for a relatively short period of time (less than 1 day) before the gusher ends.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Great attitude for this kind of game Pino, way to miss the point.
Encourage the creation of 'Bottomton' a town for bottomed out reputation players who can zerg lone crafters until they get banned.
I found that part particularly amusing. If everything TEO/TSV members keep claiming is griefing / will get you banned really was then this game wouldn't have non-consensual PvP at all.
It reminds me of an old cheesy WoW trailer.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
But to this, I hope this is not true. Solo gathering should be one of the most dangerous things... Your a GATHERER (not trained for combat), and an open world where their ARE people who are trained for combat, and may want your things.
I don't think that taking the most boring thing, and making it the most dangerous thing, is a good idea.
It should depend in great part of the quality and rarity of the gathered resources. A player who doesn't want PvP, should be able to choose a low-risk low-reward path.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Great attitude for this kind of game Pino, way to miss the point.Encourage the creation of 'Bottomton' a town for bottomed out reputation players who can zerg lone crafters until they get banned.I found that part particularly amusing. If everything TEO/TSV members keep claiming is griefing / will get you banned really was then this game wouldn't have non-consensual PvP at all.
It reminds me of an old cheesy WoW trailer.
I would not be so sure of that. Everything that I have read and now heard strongly supports stiff limiters on non consensual pvp as an intentional design goal.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
[You're] a GATHERER (not trained for combat), [in] an open world where [there] ARE people who are trained for combat, and [who] may want your things.
*Not an intentional dig on your editing, I make plenty of mistakes myself. I just wanted to make sure the quote would be understood by those reading it.
I actually hope gatherers aren't quite so helpless as that. Gatherers have two huge disadvantages going for them.
1. In order to train gathering you have to take time away from combat training.
2. Gathering will likely leave you immobile and generate noise making you an easy target to pick out and leaving you super open for ambushes.
I think those are enough disadvantage. I would hope a gatherer that does invest in PvP skills is fully or damn near fully effective in combat for the level of combat training they take. If they have to fully outfit themselves with gatherer gear that makes them useless in combat that will make things a bit TOO easy on PvPers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just a side note guys, when it comes to AI the devs aren't incompetent at making it dangerous, they are struggling to make it not impossible to beat. You talk about the ease of beating the AI but ignore that it's because they had to build in restrictions and behaviors to prevent the AI from being too strong. Making unbeatable AIs is easy, making fair and balanced ones is really hard.
I do not disagree. Yes, the dials can be tweaked as Ryan would say. Whatever it is they choose to go with will be overcome.
AI does not make games interesting, People do.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would not be so sure of that. Everything that I have read and now heard strongly supports stiff limiters on non consensual pvp as an intentional design goal.
Oh for sure. And I could go dig up the old Ryan Dancey quote about this game not being a murder sim.
But this game is a war sim. If you are feuding with a faction you get unlimited consequence free PvP on all of their players. Reputation already nerfs the hell out of anyone attacking non-flagged targets on a regular basis. I find it extremely unlikely they will then go ban the players who have already been nerfed to hell for attacking crafters (AKA economic targets).
I think the behaviors that GW are going to be banning for are the PFO equivalents of blue-blocking and can-flipping. Not taking aggressive actions that are both fully allowed and completely non-exploitative within the limitations they've already created.
That seems more like wishful thinking by those who really never wanted non-consensual PvP in this game to begin with.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But to this, I hope this is not true. Solo gathering should be one of the most dangerous things... Your a GATHERER (not trained for combat), and an open world where their ARE people who are trained for combat, and may want your things.I don't think that taking the most boring thing, and making it the most dangerous thing, is a good idea.
It should depend in great part of the quality and rarity of the gathered resources. A player who doesn't want PvP, should be able to choose a low-risk low-reward path.
I think this post nails it. If you want to collect dirt just outside the gates of an NPC starter town you should be able to do so with pretty much no fear (PvP or PvE).... If you are collecting black diamonds on Mount Doom..... then it should be relatively impossible to do without a well organized expedition.... even absent PvP.... and with PvP, you should have a big fat target on your back. Risk vs Reward.
One of the major functions of PC settlements should be to create a RELATIVELY safe zone for resource gathering activities (absent a major settlement vs settlement conflict).... the further away you get from these, the sketchier it should get for both PvE and PvP.... and the more organized effort it requires to do succesfully.
I think this is kinda, the general direction that PFO wants to take.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One of the major functions of PC settlements should be to create a RELATIVELY safe zone for resource gathering activities (absent a major settlement vs settlement conflict).... the further away you get from these, the sketchier it should get for both PvE and PvP.... and the more organized effort it requires to do succesfully.
I believe that was the intent of making starfall hexes FFA PvP zones. An idea which saw an unprecedented amount of whining and fear-mongering from the PvE community.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would not be so sure of that. Everything that I have read and now heard strongly supports stiff limiters on non consensual pvp as an intentional design goal.Oh for sure. And I could go dig up the old Ryan Dancey quote about this game not being a murder sim.
But this game is a war sim. If you are feuding with a faction you get unlimited consequence free PvP on all of their players. Reputation already nerfs the hell out of anyone attacking non-flagged targets on a regular basis. I find it extremely unlikely they will then go ban the players who have already been nerfed to hell for attacking crafters (AKA economic targets).
I think the behaviors that GW are going to be banning for are the PFO equivalents of blue-blocking and can-flipping. Not taking aggressive actions that are both fully allowed and completely non-exploitative within the limitations they've already created.
That seems more like wishful thinking by those who really never wanted non-consensual PvP in this game to begin with.
Unless they have decided to accelerate the release of the SAD mechanic there are no reputation neutral ways to participate in non consensual pvp. War declarations, feuds, and factions are consensual. Players chose to participate in those systems.
With that in mind, "TSV/TEO" likely has a clear picture of what the short to mid game will look like.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Wars and Feuds will not always be consensual.
There is where we get into semantics. I work under the assumption that being in a settlement or a company comes with that consent. Hopefully players will know that is a possible and likely consequence for participating in the political game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Unless they have decided to accelerate the release of the SAD mechanic there are no reputation neutral ways to participate in non consensual pvp. War declarations, feuds, and factions are consensual.
We aren't talking rep neutral here. Pino is inferring that those who use take rep hits to get economic kills will be banned. I think that's a pretty ridiculous and baseless assertion.
I've also seen it inferred by multiple members within TEO/TSV that gratuitous killing of all members of feuding factions will be considered griefing and earn the players responsible bans. I believe this flies in the face of all evidence we have seen so far.
Also how do you define consensual? I would define it as both parties consent. Wars/feuds as I've seen outline involve one faction paying an influence cost to declare war on another. The other sides consent is not required making it nonconsensual PvP in my mind.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
We aren't talking rep neutral here. Pino is inferring that those who use take rep hits to get economic kills will be banned. I think that's a pretty ridiculous and baseless assertion.
I imagine he's talking about people exaggerating.
Whatever you say, GW repeatedly said that they will not trap themselves with rules, but that they will act, against people acting as griefers.
Maybe Pino is wrong about what he assumes being considered griefing. What do you, consider griefing ?
(I will not argue with your definition, but if you tell me "nothing that is not forbidden by the rules", I will say that you are clearly wrong, since GW and only GW can decide, and they already decided that something not forbidden can be punished anyway.)
One of the major functions of PC settlements should be to create a RELATIVELY safe zone for resource gathering activities (absent a major settlement vs settlement conflict).... the further away you get from these, the sketchier it should get for both PvE and PvP.... and the more organized effort it requires to do succesfully.
I think this is kinda, the general direction that PFO wants to take.
This is EXACTLY what I'm hoping for out of PFO. The ability to create a zone of relative safety around a town. Giving the newer and/or PvE focused players an area to do their thing and giving the PvP-focused players something to attack and defend. The chance to be the knights/calvary protecting the peasants, who, in dire circumstances run inside the walls and pick up bows and pitchforks! :D
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am a little leery that there is a way to measure intent in that regard. How useful is a discussion of whether GW can measure a hundred kills for economic benefit and a hundred kills for the lulz?
I prefer to play the game being described. We have been told that griefers will be removed from the game if they become a problem for a number of the player base. One subscription is not worth losing two, five, or ten. We have been told that such judgement will be arbitrary and capricious.
All that in mind I have a hard time in disregarding Pino's assertion out of hand.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I believe that was the intent of making starfall hexes FFA PvP zones. An idea which saw an unprecedented amount of whining and fear-mongering from the PvE community.
It wasn't whining and fear mongering. It was stating the PvP areas are for PvP, and the non-PvP areas are not. the starfall hexes are normal PvP areas. So not a big deal. Get found gathering and you follow the same rules. It sounds like what you want is a place to gank gatherers all day. Best go to where you are entertained.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Andius,
I mostly didn't see the utility for negating PFO's mechanics just for 1 specific hex. Those hex's contain the most valuable resources, therefore they should naturaly draw the greatest attention for bandits or others interested in conflict.
I think there is a more general issue that PFO is struggling with in terms of banditry and related PvP. They are having trouble differentiating between...
1) Player A purposefully chooses to engage in high risk activity and as a result is targeted by another player...
and
2) Player B is purposefully avoiding high risk activites because they don't want to be targeted but is getting targeted anyway....
In case 1, the player targeting Player A is actualy playing the game the way the Dev's intend it to be played and should be encouraged in thier activity. In case 2, the person targeting Player B is engaged in the sort of RPK that the Dev's generaly want to discourage.
GW needs a good solution to differentiate between the 2. I think that's what the goal behind the reputation system and the feud/war systems generaly are. However, it sounds like they are not quite doing what they are intended to do at this point.
For Feud/War there is an influence (or DI) cost and influence is a limited resource so it's actualy counter-productive to waste it on targets that don't (potentialy) gain the agressor something significant.
The same theory applied to reputation (from what I understand)..... however from what I'm hearing from you guys in Alpha that the system scales such that there is no point at which it's worthwhile for a bandit to take a reputation hit in order to gain an economic reward. That needs to be addressed on a more general level, IMO, rather then simply make an exception for 1 terrain type.
There should be some point at which it's worth it for a bandit to say "It's worth it to take a rep hit to obtain the goods that player has, even if I'm not specificaly hostile to thier organization".
There are two kinds of harvesting.
Easy: You walk up to a harvesting node, and extract the resource it contains. Right now, if you are not threatened by a PvE mob, you won't be interrupted by a PvE feature while you do the extraction.
I was really hoping that ALL harvesting would attract some sort of attention from local PvE mobs and add a bit of interest to harvesting so that it's not just something done while AFK or eating.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ GrumpyMel
Isn't that where the factions can come in to the equation? Why should I join a faction? If I opt out, will I be so pitiful as to be useless to bandits?
Additionally, how hard is it to earn Influence for feuds? How much does it cost to start a feud? Can a feud be declared and begun in 15 or 30 minutes?
These unanswered questions will make a big difference.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We aren't talking rep neutral here. Pino is inferring that those who use take rep hits to get economic kills will be banned. I think that's a pretty ridiculous and baseless assertion.I imagine he's talking about people exaggerating.
Whatever you say, GW repeatedly said that they will not trap themselves with rules, but that they will act, against people acting as griefers.
Maybe Pino is wrong about what he assumes being considered griefing. What do you, consider griefing ?
(I will not argue with your definition, but if you tell me "nothing that is not forbidden by the rules", I will say that you are clearly wrong, since GW and only GW can decide, and they already decided that something not forbidden can be punished anyway.)
I'm not sure who the other "TEO/TSV people" Andius is talking about here and I really don't want to drag this thread in this direct. However this is directly what I expressed on the issue....
Seeking to weaken an organization by attempting to purposefully driving thier players from the game because you are purposefully trying to make thier play time miserable is greifing. Period, full stop.
Sekking to weaken an organization by attempting to disrupt thier economic or security operations in order to reduce thier material resources using the allowed rules of the game, is not. Even if the players on the loosing side take things too seriously and happen to get upset about losing.
It's the difference in football between putting a hard hit on somebody because they are catching a pass in the end zone and you want to prevent them from scoring and putting a hard hit on somebody because you want to injure them and take them out of the game, and maybe the season. Even if the 2 look the same from the outside, they aren't.... and inevitabley, no matter how carefull you think you are...if you set out with that sort of intent you WILL end up breaking the allowed rules of play because there will be just too much temptation to do so.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you want more danger:
Join companies with active feuds,
Join an NPC faction and raise it above 2,
Gather on lands with trespassing laws,
Gather near POI's, they should attract monsters IIRC
Shout about how quickly you filled your bags and how surprised you are at the slowness of your travel back to town.Encourage the creation of 'Bottomton' a town for bottomed out reputation players who can zerg lone crafters until they get banned.
Re-reading Pino's post, I think he's merely providing a (snarky) list of things the OP might do to increase the danger in his game. I don't think he's implying (or inferring) all low rep people will be banned; I think he's suggesting that establishing a half-way house for people on the road to being banned would be one way to increase the danger levels in your area. But I might be reading him too charitably.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... The same theory applied to reputation (from what I understand)..... however from what I'm hearing from you guys in Alpha that the system scales such that there is no point at which it's worthwhile for a bandit to take a reputation hit in order to gain an economic reward. That needs to be addressed on a more general level, IMO, rather then simply make an exception for 1 terrain type.
There should be some point at which it's worth it for a bandit to say "It's worth it to take a rep hit to obtain the goods that player has, even if I'm not specificaly hostile to thier organization".
I'd offer that perhaps Alpha hasn't really put it to the test, yet.
1) In the beginning stages of Alpha, people were mostly getting low grade resources. At the same time, people were at lowish rep. It might not have been worth it to take the rep hit for the bits and pieces their target had collected.
2) Bandits need support structures, too, but Alpha has a small population. Taking a rep hit takes time to recover and any loot you take is only useful if you can use it or pass it to someone who can. Bandits in EE will have more supporting players to feed them equipment and consumables, and to take loot off their hands.
3) In the very early stages of the game (a character's first 2-4 weeks), training needs to be bought early and often to advance the character. It might actually be more critical that a character avoid Rep hits in the early character development period. I wonder if that is deliberate on GW's part or just a happenstance that will limit some playstyles.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I believe that was the intent of making starfall hexes FFA PvP zones. An idea which saw an unprecedented amount of whining and fear-mongering from the PvE community.
Labeling people who disagrees with you as whiny fear-mongers is hardly the best way to get them to accept your position.
You supported a position that there won't be enough PvP in the game and that making those hexes more available to player combat is needed. Some of us think we can afford to wait to see what GW has planned. It's just as easy to say that in a game we can't even play properly yet incessant complaints that PvP is too hard is whiny fear-mongering.
Most FFA PvP sandboxes end up as a murder simulator because there's little to no consequence for non-consentual PvP. From my experience with these games and the significant time I've spent analyzing them, I'd like to post what these other games do wrong and why I think PFO will have corrected these issues and may have even over-corrected.
Here are the reasons that being an RPK full-time murderer is an easy choice in most FFA PvP sandboxes:
1) Mechanic: Murderer flag makes you attack-able by everyone else.
Not a problem because: If you want to fight everyone all the time, then being attack-able by everyone all the time isn't that big of a deal.
2) Mechanic: Can't enter most towns if you have murder flag.
Not a problem because: If you are in a decent-sized, powerful guild that has their own town you can do everything you need to do there. Further, the NPC towns do not have any extension of protection outside the walls, so you can kill people just outside of town.
3) Mechanic: Non-murderers can't attack you in town.
Not a problem because: Wars are cheap to declare and most of these games and let you attack enemies in NPC towns, so no where is safe for these guilds. This is how a bored population drives the last of the rest of the population out of these games.
4) Problem: Most RPKs are players that play a LOT and are therefore the most powerful players.
5) Mechanic: Player-owned cities to develop and build.
Problems: Community with mostly destruction-orientated players where the biggest and most powerful guilds are hardcore PvP/RPK, kill-everyone-on-sight guilds. With no in-game systems for multiple small guilds or communities to come together to develop a settlement for non-PKers, the "sandbox" is actually just a "clanbox" where guilds vie for control in constant warfare.
Things PFO is doing to correct above issues:
1&2) "Murderer flag" (very low rep) not only causes you to be attack-able by others, but you will also not be able to enter most settlements and settlements you are able to enter will restrict training so low-rep characters will be less powerful (and lose access to some already-trained feats). This will discourage this play-style and make it so that those who want to do it anyway are at a combat disadvantage to those that do not engage in lots of non-consensual killing.
2) Settlements extend guard protection at decreasing levels outside of the walls.
3) I'm not sure on this, but I'm suspecting that PFO's systems won't let warfare occur in NPC towns. Guards should react to combat in their area by 2 external groups, or combat against members of that NPC settlement. Similarly, friendly/allied settlements should offer some respite in the event that a player's own settlement is overrun.
4) Since experience is based on time-subscribed, binge-playing and "power-leveling" won't be able to be used to give RPK players a level-advantage on other, more casual players.
5) The settlement feature where new players can easily join an established player community for content and protection is exactly what this genre has needed. It's something I've spent a lot of time thinking about how to implement prior to PFOs announcement and PFO is implementing it almost exactly as I had envisioned it should work, so I'm extremely pleased with this critical core feature of the game. This feature is what GrumpyMel spoke about in terms of players being able to create extended safe-zones around towns. This should be the entire focus of a good settlement. Providing a zone of relative safety for your new/non-PvP members so your community can thrive. However, if there's nothing attacking you (and I don't think wars and feuds will be a daily occurrence), than this great challenge and goal is neutered.
Finally, if the forums are any indication of the community, then the player-base during EE should be much more build- and community-focused than the communities of the previous FFA PvP sandboxes. (Have you ever been to the un-moderated and un-filtered Darkfall forums? Usernames there are usually something like EyeBeatWomen or worse and common comments usually involve being defecated upon.) Allowing a better community to establish itself during EE will be a big buttress against a possible invasion of griefers in Open Enrollment.
For all of these reasons, I do not foresee helpless players outnumbered, outgunned, and at the mercy of roving bands of player-killing jerks. Anyone worried about being ganked over and over needs to relax. At this point, I'm worried that there will be no bandits or highwaymen to add a sense of adventure, and if alliances are strong, the game will be exceedingly boring in between wars between neighboring settlements. Settlements far from the front-lines of kingdoms could end up being absolutely dull.
I fully support banning (and quickly) anyone who exploits mechanics, whether in PvP or otherwise, but I think the systems GV has outlined will sufficiently curtail the PK population such that the ratio of murderers to "citizens" will create a relatively safe environment. I just hope it's not so safe as to be boring and to remove the role of "good-aligned" PvPers in protecting everyone else.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer to play the game being described. We have been told that griefers will be removed from the game if they become a problem for a number of the player base. One subscription is not worth losing two, five, or ten. We have been told that such judgement will be arbitrary and capricious.
All that in mind I have a hard time in disregarding Pino's assertion out of hand.
The case you see in most games is the there are light to no consequences for any act of non-consensual PvP anywhere, anytime, for any reason.
In contrast in PFO we see heavy penalties and restrictions for PvP outside a limited list of conditions.
Allowing mooks unlimited ability to kill whomever they choose without consequence will result in the loss of many subscriptions. It creates too many mooks per people protecting others from the mooks and people who are content for the mooks. The over-saturation (as opposed to the mere existence) of mooks is what will drive away the subscriptions.
Banning all conflict creators and antagonists will create a situation where players are not generating content for each other and sink the entire premise of the game unless the developers can start putting out massive quantities of scripted content like every other non-player driven game. They can't afford to do that. They've already let us know they can't afford to do that.
Violent bloody wars that get people passionate and logging in is what drives prompts the PvPers. Gear loss and need for items to fuel the PvPers crusades is what gets the crafters logging in. Orders to fill and the need for materials to fill them is what gets gatherers logging in. PvP drives EVERYTHING. PvP is the lifeblood of Pathfinder Online.
This game simply cannot succeed if all the groups do is hold peace talks and flower picking conventions. There's no content in that, and we'll eventually be left with just Nihimon and Lifedragon skipping hand and hand through the ruins of all the abandoned settlements with flowers in their hair because everyone got bored and left as they sing songs about how great peace is.
So yes I think anyone who doesn't dismiss Pino's assertion out of hand doesn't really understand what this game is and how it's supposed to operate.
Banning the few antagonists willing to work through the heavy restrictions PFO is going to slap on them makes zero sense.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Violent bloody wars are not heavily penalized. Along with factions and feuds it is a lane in which pvp focused players are being steered.
I never said wars of any type would be bannable behavior. Now that would have been a silly statement to dismiss out of hand.
Good thing I never said it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well I'm not going to to get into the waste of time that debating definition of griefing is and isn't.
I'm just going to say one thing. I am 100% certain that if you believe zerging economic targets for their resources with low rep characters is griefing, your definition does not match Goblinwork's definition.
100% certain.
I'm not sure how to interpret this:
Encourage the creation of 'Bottomton' a town for bottomed out reputation players who can zerg lone crafters until they get banned.
Other than that Pino is saying just that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Every action has to be tied to meaningful interaction. I can agree that the banning of low reputation characters hitting economic targets and identifiable by a legitimate settlement and/or company will very likely not result in a ban. To say that would be ridiculous.
That same scenario done by disposable companies or unaffiliated characters might not be considered legitimate.
I think it likely we will see some CE/Low Rep characters banned. I don't think we will see all CE/Low Rep characters banned.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If locust harvesting with unaffiliated characters is considered skirting the accountability system I am not sure how mass killing using unaffiliated characters is somehow different.
Quote found:
...it may require the Settlement to have a small cadre of unaffiliated characters on standby to do the dirty deeds when required. These might be characters of players unaffiliated with the Settlement who serve as a fast-reaction force that the Settlement can call on when necessary in exchange for some in-game benefit like mercenaries, or they might be alt characters of Settlement members that are kept idle to be switched to when needed.
The link gives full context.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Right, I did not refute there was never a stance to the contrary. It still doesn't add up with what has been posted or said lately.
Maybe developers can clear the air. If locust harvesting via skirting the accountability system is negative behavior how is doing the same different when it comes to player combat?
Additionally the context is reading to me like the unaffiliated low rep characters might be necessary for defending your own holdings. Does doing the same against someone else's holdings change anything?
Is the unaffiliated condition in that post specifically to remove the penalty for your settlement from removing trespassers, or to hide from retaliation from a target settlement?