UNC Policy Discussion Thread


Pathfinder Online

201 to 250 of 687 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
That Blog you linked is more than a year old and has at last been changed in the naming of the hexes.
Mind pointing me to where they changed the names of the hex types?

I'm still quite curious to know where they renamed the Hex Types, if you could provide a link...

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Nihimon wrote:

Yeah, I normally wouldn't pick nits about not explicitly mentioning every possibility. But I have a strong personal interest in giving new forum readers reliable information, and the phrasing Bluddwolf used gave a very strong impression that wasn't true.

Bluddwolf wrote:
No Warden Patrols; No PvP Limitations; No Criminal Flagging.
That might make some folks think he's trying to say there are "No PvP Limitations". That would be unfortunate.

But the phrasing that I used was true. I can't control what some people may insert or remove from my comment. I was specific when I said "Criminal Flag".

You are free to mention the Reputation System in every post, but don't expect others to bring it up when the post has nothing to do with it.

To my knowledge, Reputation System is not tied to hexes it is universal.

I'll worry about "what I'm trying to say", and you are welcome to point out (with proof) what I said was inaccurate. You are welcome to express a hope or an opinion that is counter to what I say.

Trying to counter what I didn't say does come off as nit picking or shopping for controversy.

He wasn't nitpicking you. What you said was misleading and you've said it that exact way before which misled people and you apologized for it. But here you are again doing the exact same thing in the exact same fashion. It's frustrating to say the least. It's honestly no big, your post put off a different message then you intended, it happens. You should be glad that people noticed and tried to clear it up. What's wrong with that?

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
This place will look a little different when we get some committed information to play with.

I totally agree with this. I have been saying that about the SAD discussion for a while, we are arguing over a mechanic we have no set details for. Same can be said about a lot of things. Glad to see im not the only one seeing it and posting about it.

Goblin Squad Member

Nevy wrote:
What you said was misleading and you've said it that exact way before which misled people and you apologized for it. But here you are again doing the exact same thing in the exact same fashion. It's frustrating to say the least. It's honestly no big, your post put off a different message then you intended, it happens. You should be glad that people noticed and tried to clear it up. What's wrong with that?

I can not help it if my posting of the information we have on hand made some read what they wanted to read into it.

Jiminy provided the link that produced the message:

Quote:
Committing acts that are crimes in territory controlled by a settlement gets you the Criminal flag and decreases your Law vs. Chaos rating. Settlements can set a number of laws based on their Settlement Alignment.

Criminal Flags can only be acquired in settlement hexes with laws. They are not applied in the wild lands where there are no laws.

This has nothing to do with the Reputation System, and to argue that it does, might be misleading.

It has been so long since I have spoken about Hex types, I doubt I retracted a statement concerning their misrepresentation.

@ Nihimion,

The use of the term "Uncontrolled" hex was not previously used in the Dev Blog, but it has been brought up by Devs in at least a few posts.

Ryan Dancey wrote:
We'll likely declare some areas free-for-all zones where conditions are so bad that nobody gets any penalty for whacking anyone. Where, how, why, how large, etc. all to be determined, but that is the kind of thing I'd expect in a land like the River Kingdoms. Of course, you'd have to be mad to go into such an area without being able to hold your own.... no easy targets.

Goblin Squad Member

Yes, you've made it clear that the Criminal Flag is a special case that only applies in places where Laws are enforced.

There's also the Attacker Flag that applies whenever you attack someone who is not Hostile, even in Wilderness Hexes.

And don't worry about the Hex Type names. I thought you were saying they had officially withdrawn those names, but that's clearly not the case.

Goblin Squad Member

For the record, Stephen Cheney just clarified in another thread that Bluddwolf's statements above about the Criminal Flag are not accurate.

The Criminal flag is the Criminal flag is the Criminal flag. Just like with looting rights, sometimes we'll give you Criminal even though you're in a lawless area, rather than inventing a special flag that's basically "Criminal... except even where there are no laws."

Again, I'm not accusing Bluddwolf of being intentionally deceptive. I just want folks to be getting accurate information.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:

For the record, Stephen Cheney just clarified in another thread that Bluddwolf's statements above about the Criminal Flag are not accurate.

The Criminal flag is the Criminal flag is the Criminal flag. Just like with looting rights, sometimes we'll give you Criminal even though you're in a lawless area, rather than inventing a special flag that's basically "Criminal... except even where there are no laws."
Again, I'm not accusing Bluddwolf of being intentionally deceptive. I just want folks to be getting accurate information.

Nice try Nihimon...

Just to clarify, my statements above are No Longer Accurate, based on new information provided by Stephen Cheney's latest post. That latest post made some clarifications and admittedly made some changes in what was previously stated or legitimately believed to be plausible and or rational.

I just want folks to be getting contextually accurate information, and not slanted by anyone's possible agenda to discredit other's opinions based on information that was known at the time, but then altered by game design.

Goblin Squad Member

I'd also note that Stephen Cheney's latest post also contradicts Ryan Dancy's post quoted above.

Again, I'm not accusing Ryan of being intentionally deceptive. I just want folks to be getting accurate information.

Hmm.... See how that works?

We can do this all day, anytime something has been changed by the Devs.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:

For the record, Stephen Cheney just clarified in another thread that Bluddwolf's statements above about the Criminal Flag are not accurate.

The Criminal flag is the Criminal flag is the Criminal flag. Just like with looting rights, sometimes we'll give you Criminal even though you're in a lawless area, rather than inventing a special flag that's basically "Criminal... except even where there are no laws."
Again, I'm not accusing Bluddwolf of being intentionally deceptive. I just want folks to be getting accurate information.

To be fair, more than Bluddwolf argued a different assumption and some (though not arguing for it) at least accepted it.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

I read that as "there are some things that are Criminal acts even outside of controlled territory". I'm going to guess that ninja looting a stranger's kill is probably a good candidate for that list, but I can't imagine much else.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DeciusBrutus wrote:
I read that as "there are some things that are Criminal acts even outside of controlled territory". I'm going to guess that ninja looting a stranger's kill is probably a good candidate for that list, but I can't imagine much else.

Yeah, I was my racking my head over what else might give the Criminal flag. Then I found this quote from back in February:

Stephen Cheney wrote:
We simplified Trespasser down into Criminal (at the same time we simplified Thief and Traitor/Betrayer). ...

Trespasser is likely tied to a settlement or some boundary, but Thief and Traitor/Betrayer are likely global criminal acts.

Goblin Squad Member

It seams there will be "criminal" acts that are global, so far confirmed is only the use of SAD, but I am sure it will grow well into EE and beyond.

This is fine, just was not what was expected by Bludd and I and us here at UNC. But, as with all things PFO, we will adapt to the ever changing rules and mechanics of the game. Such is the life in a sandbox MMO.

Goblin Squad Member

Especially one that isn't out yet. Can't get attached to anything here.

Goblin Squad Member

As part of our ongoing internal and Paizo forum discussions move forward, we have adopted the following policy concerning Ad Hocs or Individual characters encountered in the wilderness hexes.

Ad Hocs Invites:

Bluddwolf wrote:

The UnNamed Company... "Lets No Bandit Raid Alone"

Whether you just need a sixth man, or an entire company, the UnNamed Company can fill your ranks and allow you to raid: POIs, Outposts, Caravans, Multiple Targets at once, or to lend a hand sacking that settlement.

If we should need a sixth man, to fill out one of our raiding parties, we welcome fresh faces with greedy, tainted hearts.

Joining the UNC for a temporary Ad hoc or joining to become a full member, makes little difference in the bigger picture. We are living the life of freedom, plundering, adventure, and camaraderie.

Individual (solo or pairs) Characters Encountered

When lone or paired characters are encountered by UNC raiding parties, they will likely receive two offers. The first will be a SAD and during the course of that negotiation they will be offered the opportunity to join our current band of raiders. Obviously this would not be likely for someone is strictly a merchant or harvester, but an adventurer /w combat skills is more likely to be offered to join.

1.. If the lone or paired traveler(s) choose to join up as part of a UNC Ad Hoc raiding party, and both that party and those particular individuals are successful, they will have their original SAD loot returned and receive an equal cut of the loot gained.

If those individuals wish to continue to join our Ad Hocs, they are welcome to do so and if they choose, that could begin their probationary period for full UNC membership.

2. If they choose not to join, they will obviously be slowed to depart, having accepted the SAD demand.

"On Coin, Blade and Pain of Blood"

Goblin Squad Member

Audoucet wrote:

My main problem with your argumentation is that you only take into account your intention. What I understand from your posts is that if you don't perceive your own actions as being random, then it's not. But from where I'm standing, it seems more like a dogma to justify your actions.

I am utterly convinced that from you chaotic evil point of view, killing an unknown John Doe with no company is a legitimate course of action because there is no risk but there is a potential reward. I totally get that. But I think that you lack a little in er, I don't really have a perfect word here... Let's say compression, not as a character, but as a player.

If I get your meaning, you feel I am not considering the feelings of the player behind the character that I rob or kill.

com·pe·ti·tion [kom-pi-tish-uhn] Show IPA
noun

1. the act of competing; rivalry for supremacy, a prize, etc.: The competition between the two teams was bitter.
2. a contest for some prize, honor, or advantage: Both girls entered the competition.
3. the rivalry offered by a competitor: The small merchant gets powerful competition from the chain stores.
4. a competitor or competitors: What is your competition offering?
5. Sociology . rivalry between two or more persons or groups for an object desired in common, usually resulting in a victor and a loser but not necessarily involving the destruction of the latter.

I see the relationship as nothing more or less than competition. I can only know my own intentions, and I can't control how my victim feels about them. Honestly, they probably couldn't care less what my intentions or motivations were, only that they were victimized.

I doubt anyone will say, "Well, gee, I can't blame you for killing and robbing me, I really did have too much gold in my pockets."

Goblin Squad Member

Audoucet wrote:
My main problem with your argumentation is that you only take into account your intention. What I understand from your posts is that if you don't perceive your own actions as being random, then it's not. But from where I'm standing, it seems more like a dogma to justify your actions.

We do not need to justify our actions.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Xeen wrote:
We do not need to justify our actions.

Well, of course you don't, but it doesn't mean I can't criticise them.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:

I am not the boss of anyone, I don't pay their subscription costs. I am the Master of the UnNamed Company, not a Master of my company's members.

As for Xeen's post, he is correct in directing you to our policy thread. Not to be mean, but it is the best place to understand our policies. Some have evolved over time, so if you want clarification we can talk to it.

As for Goons, I was nut so much saying that they should come to PFO, more so that they likely will come to PFO. I don't see their in-game play style as really being a problem, but in EvE I'm a low sec pirate so that is from my perspective. I'm actually falling more into the low sec pirate mindset once again, and both High Sec and 0.0 are looking kind of weak sauce to me.

I'll gladly continue this discussion in our other thread.

Well, I don't have anything against low-sec pirating, low-sec is mainly a "commerce road", it was a limited but necessary part of space used mainly to transport big stack of merchandise, which is and must be dangerous.

My problem was only with the roaming fleet looking for kills in 0.0. That was just 24/7 sometimes, and just boring. They certainly had perfectly good reasons in their mind, like weakening a potential rival, or sharpening their skills on easy targets, but whatever, the result is the same, a boring experience.

Goblin Squad Member

I always had fun bashing Providence. They would form up some defense fleet... that were either a bunch of PVE ships waiting to die or a well organized fleet with proper PVP fits. Either way, we charged right at them and had a blast.

The problem Providence had, and it seems you had as well... They had full intel channels, and the PVEers would not pay attention to shouts about our fleets coming through. "Hey look guys, its a Tengu jumping in system." It took a few to kill, being tank fit and all... "Um, this guy has 2 billion ISK in his wrech." Then we would escort that loot snatcher back to high sec. Those kind of guys paid for our next several outings.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:
Audoucet wrote:

My main problem with your argumentation is that you only take into account your intention. What I understand from your posts is that if you don't perceive your own actions as being random, then it's not. But from where I'm standing, it seems more like a dogma to justify your actions.

I am utterly convinced that from you chaotic evil point of view, killing an unknown John Doe with no company is a legitimate course of action because there is no risk but there is a potential reward. I totally get that. But I think that you lack a little in er, I don't really have a perfect word here... Let's say compression, not as a character, but as a player.

If I get your meaning, you feel I am not considering the feelings of the player behind the character that I rob or kill.

When I see someone defending an action based on their intention, it appears to me that they are deflecting from the results of their actions by appealing to their intentions.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
When I see someone defending an action based on their intention, it appears to me that they are deflecting from the results of their actions by appealing to their intentions.

I'm not deflecting anything. I don't give a rat's ass what my victim's feelings are about being victimized. They are never going to be positive anyway, so why bother worrying about them.

No Quarter Given, None Ask For!

Why is it that some of you are thinking that your attackers are supposed to empathize with you for your loss?

You have agreed to enter a PVP game. You are going to lose sometimes. You will not know or care about the motivations of your attacker. Your attacker is not going to know or care about your feelings.

It is part of the game.... Risk vs. Reward. Winners and Losers.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My thoughts on the idea of the "feelings" of the players behind the characters that are robbed and killed by anyone, UNC included, is this:

Using the analogy that was used in the forums a few times by at least 1 of the devs, though I forget which one.

"Saying PFO is all about PVP or a PVP game is like saying football is a game about tackling. Basically:

PVP -> PFO as Tackling -> Football

Using that idea I see it as follows:

To allow people to complain about dying or being robed as result of a PVP experience in PFO is the same as saying players can cry and complain about being tackled in football.

No matter the intentions or causes of ANY PVP action, the result is the same. The winner of the event is happy and gets loot (unless they choose not to loot) and the loser is upset and loses gear/durability. Regardless of if it was a warranted PVP (like war targets or opposing factions) or a RPK, if the attacker wins the defender is upset, if the defender wins the attacker is upset.

Moral of the story: weather this is a PVP game, or a game with PVP, the fact that PVP exists, no matter in what capacity, means that logging in and creating a character and playing said character implies that you accept the FACT that you MAY (though very likely depending on your playstyle) die on a fairly regular basis. If you don't want to die, don't play. Even a character that never leaves an NPC settlement COULD be the target of a bounty or Assassination contract, and therefore hunted and killed. (most likely at the expense of the killer dying as well to NPC guards)

Playing the game means you accept the risk that you could be killed at any moment for any reason and lose any non-threaded gear/loot you are carrying. You don't want the risk, don't play.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Xeen wrote:

I always had fun bashing Providence. They would form up some defense fleet... that were either a bunch of PVE ships waiting to die or a well organized fleet with proper PVP fits. Either way, we charged right at them and had a blast.

The problem Providence had, and it seems you had as well... They had full intel channels, and the PVEers would not pay attention to shouts about our fleets coming through. "Hey look guys, its a Tengu jumping in system." It took a few to kill, being tank fit and all... "Um, this guy has 2 billion ISK in his wrech." Then we would escort that loot snatcher back to high sec. Those kind of guys paid for our next several outings.

Well most of the time, we would just disconnect and go play something else. Or camp the pirates at a low-sec station while they disconnected to play something else. Good time.

@GoodFellow/Bluddwolf : Yeah, PvP is an important part of the game. But as much as you always talk about Risk/Reward, it'll be the same for everyone else. If my playing time become more risk than reward, well it's boring and I won't continue playing. You obviously don't care and that's fine, but I won't let you the exclusivity to express your expectations from the game. :)

Like I already said, I don't want to play a PvP game, I want to play a game which happen to have PvP.

Anyway, I won't add anything on the subject of NBSI, because GW had enough already. So if you want to have the last word I'll read you, but I won't respond anymore, in order to let this subject alone. :)

Goblin Squad Member

As I stated in the other (inappropriate) thread.... The UNC is not an NBSI company, we are NBRI.

Our usual goal is to separate loot from those that can not hold it. We prefer to do that through intimidation, SADs (mechanically) or pre arranged extortion (Protection Contracts).

If we have to resort to more violent means, because some factor makes that the better course of action, we will use those violent means.

We have really gone over this, many times.

Low Reward and Low Risk, still carries with it the deterrent of inefficient use of time.

Low Reward and Moderate, is not a situation that favors our efforts.

Low Reward and High Risk, will never be entertained.

Moderate Reward and Moderate Risk, is acceptable and assumed to be common.

Moderate Reward and Low Risk, is preferred and we will seek it often.

Moderate Reward and High Risk, is not a situation that favors our efforts.

High Reward and Low Risk, "Yes Please!" But doubtful it will occur often

High Reward and Medium Risk, is preferred and hopefully common.

High Reward and High Risk, sure once in a while

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Why is it that some of you are thinking that your attackers are supposed to empathize with you for your loss?

Perhaps because one of the characteristics of a non-sociopathic human is the ability to empathise? I'm sure I'm not the only one who expects UNC not to demand surrendering that core characteristic as a condition of membership :-).

There's a difference between "supposed to" and "able to".

Goblin Squad Member

T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Why is it that some of you are thinking that your attackers are supposed to empathize with you for your loss?

Perhaps because one of the characteristics of a non-sociopathic human is the ability to empathise? I'm sure I'm not the only one who expects UNC not to demand surrendering that core characteristic as a condition of membership :-).

There's a difference between "supposed to" and "able to".

Since football analogies are so popular. This is like expecting a Cornerback to feel for the wider receiver, when the CB intercepts the ball and returns it for a touch down.

If we intercept your cargo and bring it back to our settlement, the fault is all on the quarter back and the wide receiver for not protecting the ball. No one on the defensive teams side is going to feel sorry for the defensive touch down. They are going to cheer and hope it happens again.

Imagine what the response would be if the losing side complained that they got intercepted too often.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
When I see someone defending an action based on their intention, it appears to me that they are deflecting from the results of their actions by appealing to their intentions.

I'm not deflecting anything. I don't give a rat's ass what my victim's feelings are about being victimized. They are never going to be positive anyway, so why bother worrying about them.

No Quarter Given, None Ask For!

Why is it that some of you are thinking that your attackers are supposed to empathize with you for your loss?

You have agreed to enter a PVP game. You are going to lose sometimes. You will not know or care about the motivations of your attacker. Your attacker is not going to know or care about your feelings.

It is part of the game.... Risk vs. Reward. Winners and Losers.

I'm not talking about feelings when I discuss outcomes. If your intention was to win, and your primary effect was to make the player population smaller, you would be a negative factor overall.

I'm not accusing anyone of having that outcome. Yet. I'm only saying that I see a pattern of behavior that seems more consistent with driving players off than with bringing them in.

Goblin Squad Member

T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Why is it that some of you are thinking that your attackers are supposed to empathize with you for your loss?

Perhaps because one of the characteristics of a non-sociopathic human is the ability to empathise? I'm sure I'm not the only one who expects UNC not to demand surrendering that core characteristic as a condition of membership :-).

There's a difference between "supposed to" and "able to".

You do realize you are talking about a video game right? There is a massive difference between me burying an axe in your face in game and in real life.

Empathy is for life. Games are to win.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:

I'm not talking about feelings when I discuss outcomes. If your intention was to win, and your primary effect was to make the player population smaller, you would be a negative factor overall.

I'm not accusing anyone of having that outcome. Yet. I'm only saying that I see a pattern of behavior that seems more consistent with driving players off than with bringing them in.

Ahh, ok now I see what you mean....

Here is how I see it:

If a pattern of behavior is consistent with what is permissible within the game's design, and it drives off some players, than the logical conclusion is that those players made the wrong choice in games.

If so many players leave that the game's population can not sustain the profitability of the game, then the Developers chose the wrong design.

If a small or large population of players, play outside of the permissible game design, and that leads to players leaving, then the Developers have to police the player base better. Or they may have to make changes to what they have designed.

Everyone bears some responsibility for a game nit being an enjoyable experience. Because no game can appeal to everyone, than we have to accept that no matter what, some people are going to leave.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

I won't argue more about your vision of the game, because everything has been said on the subject.

But you can't reject the responsibility to the developers : human relations can't be scripted, and in the end, everyone must accept his responsibility.

About your last comment, I agree with you, and there is already a dozen of games supporting your wishes, which is why it need this time to go the other way around. So yes, some categories of players won't like the game. But which ones remain to be seen, and I shall do what I can for the game to go the way I want, just like you will.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:
Games are to win.

Here's where we disagree. Games are to have fun with. If you can set yourself win conditions in alignment with that, so much the better. I, however, cannot see how you can "win" PFO (presumably by taking over the whole map with your company/settlement/empire) without actually losing.

FWIW, I have absolutely no problem with the UNC's stated intent in game, and I don't think your "win" conditions are "wrong" or "bad for the game". In fact, I wish you the best of luck with them - unless you are robbing me, of course!. I just think it's worth mentioning that they are not the only "win" conditions, and for the game itself to win (i.e. keep and grow its player base), they all have to be viable

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If your having fun, then you will be winning PFO.

Yep we agree.

Goblin Squad Member

I'll take that. Agreed.

Goblin Squad Member

I think things are being said and not taken in the manner they are meant to. Since I seam to be the diplomatic one and clarifier of bludd's text (considering my intended in game role, that is just funny to say) allow me to try and reword to get our meaning across.

As the UNC, since we talk about it all the time, (here, on our forums, and on TS) our stance is NOT to drive players away. That is 100% counter productive to our desired playstyle. More people leave, the less people there will be to rob. Plain and simple.

That being said, we intend to rob and, on occasion, kill everyone not UNC in game. You could "buy" protection for a time, or learn to better protect yourself and your assets, but if you don't we will be there.

We have said before and I will say it again, we don't intend to rob everyone blind. Throughout the SAD discussions, it was said over and over that the UNC wanted SAD because we felt it was better to at least offer to rob you of a small portion (small because we didn't want to discourage trade and unprotected travel) than it was to always kill our targets. That is still our intent if there is a way to functionally put that in game. If we can metagame it, or maybe use trade/chat to work it then fine.

Again, the point of it was to keep people playing traders and merchants. Without them, we don't have any targets to attack. Even is SAD doesn't make it into the game, we at the UNC intend to use trade/chat to figure out a way to rob people instead of just killing.

Don't misunderstand me. There will be times when we just ambush and take all we can carry. The risk vs reward will dictate that mostly, but it will happen.

Concerning the "being empathetic to our victims" debate going on the last few posts, it isn't that we aren't being sympathetic or that we are intentionally bathing in tears cried by our victims. It is the idea that we, being a PVP oriented organization, embrace and fully accept the good and bad that comes from playing a game with a PVP element. When we kill, we celebrate. When we lose (and we will lose mind you) we will stand back up, congratulate you, and try again. We respect power and the ability to "have what you hold." Defeating us when we attack you, will prove you are able to hold what is yours and are able to take from us what we were not.

Yes this can be seen as a "cold hearted" view and it truth it is. As Xeen said, this is a game. "Winning" in a game is defined by the game. In a game such as PFO, "winning" is enjoying the time you spend logged in and creating memories that you cherish and share with others. Similar to the TT game, if you enjoy it and have an epic moment (good and bad) you smile and want to share it with others. That is the "win" of a game with no pre-defined end. That is how I play TT and intend to play PFO, and I hope that others share this sort of view.

Anything that you lose, weather to an NPC goblin killing you, or being robbed by the UNC, or dying in a war and losing your gear, all incur a loss and they all suck. If you get upset and leave the game, then this isn't the sort of game for you. All those things will happen. Learn from them and adapt and it will happen less. Bring friends (this is a MMO after all. Not a solo game) and/or (if able) hire NPC friends. Train up more combat skills and/or purchase/create better gear. These are all ways to lower your chances of suffering loss in any of the above instances.

Sometimes, you will die, even with friends and with the best skills and gear you can acquire. As I said, death will happen. If you can accept that and have the mentality of "that sucked but I can recover", the game can be fun and enjoyable by all.

Mind you and I not telling people how to think or what to feel, but in a game with PVP in it, if you can expect the worst (you die) and prepare for it as best you can (travel with friends, buy gear, train skills, ect.) you should be good to go.

I hope I explained it a bit better and didn't repeat the same phrase too much. I couldn't help it. I think it is a key phrase to ensuring the least amount of feelings are hurt and the most fun is gained from PFO.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
"The Goodfellow" wrote:


Concerning the "being empathetic to our victims" debate going on the last few posts, it isn't that we aren't being sympathetic or that we are intentionally bathing in tears cried by our victims.

You can really only speak for yourself on this point. Groups such as yours are unavoidably going to attract players who do, in fact, get lulz from screwing with other players. At best, UNC to this point demonstrates indifference. A couple posts above even your leader is basically saying hey if we make people quit, it's their fault for choosing this game.

That said, we DO want bandits and "evil" characters in the game and the ultimate responsibility on making sure this kind of behavior doesn't reach toxic levels falls on the devs and the rest of the player community.
The devs have a vision in mind for how much of this kind of behavior they want in their game, and game mechanics need to be designed to discourage it enough to where the actual level is close to that desired level.
The players have a responsibility to be part of that equation, though. I will lose respect for good aligned groups (and probably some neutral ones) who tolerate groups such as UNC as long as UNC's activities aren't directed at them. In my eyes it's hypocritical to put things in your guild charter about helping the weak, fostering a positive community, stamping out evil and so on, while at the same time looking the other way at UNC's activities or even hiring them.

Goblin Squad Member

Broken_Sextant wrote:
I will lose respect for good aligned groups (and probably some neutral ones) who tolerate groups such as UNC as long as UNC's activities aren't directed at them. In my eyes it's hypocritical to put things in your guild charter about helping the weak, fostering a positive community, stamping out evil and so on, while at the same time looking the other way at UNC's activities or even hiring them.

I think a lot of folks feel the same way.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Broken_Sextant wrote:
I will lose respect for good aligned groups (and probably some neutral ones) who tolerate groups such as UNC as long as UNC's activities aren't directed at them. In my eyes it's hypocritical to put things in your guild charter about helping the weak, fostering a positive community, stamping out evil and so on, while at the same time looking the other way at UNC's activities or even hiring them.
I think a lot of folks feel the same way.

Some people are going to quit the game for a variety of reasons. Some may quit because they don't like PvP. Others may quit because there is not enough opportunity for solo play. Still others because PFO doesn't adhere enough to their TT experience.

To say that PFO will not be all things for all players is a simple truth.

I wonder how you are going to feel about a group that takes your settlement from you, and those that assist them?

Goblin Squad Member

@Bluddwolf, did any of your statements actually have anything to do with what you quoted me saying?

Bluddwolf wrote:
I wonder how you are going to feel about a group that takes your settlement from you...

I wonder how you are going to feel about a group that sends you running every time you try to attack their caravans... Do such ruminations serve any purpose?

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:

@Bluddwolf, did any of your statements actually have anything to do with what you quoted me saying?

Bluddwolf wrote:
I wonder how you are going to feel about a group that takes your settlement from you...
I wonder how you are going to feel about a group that sends you running every time you try to attack their caravans... Do such ruminations serve any purpose?

Oh there will certainly be times that we lose to a caravan and its guards + any others who happen along and interfere. But, "every time" isn't going to happen.

When we lose, we will look upon it as a learning experience. We will glean from it what we did right, what we did wrong and what we can do better.

We will not do anything but praise those for their winning effort. What they loot from us, we had no claim to hold.

The only combat loss that is regrettable is one that you stumble into foolishly. This I have learned from many PvP oriented MMOS, but primarily MechWarrior Online and EvE.

Goblin Squad Member

I'm really keen to see what happens within the community when the first settlement is razed to the group and hundreds of characters find themselves homeless (or sent back to NPC town). I'm even more interested to see what the reaction is if the invading force is primary of good alignment.

It will make a few caravan raids pale into insignificance and will really test the impacted characters mettle and desire to stay.

Goblin Squad Member

Jiminy wrote:

I'm really keen to see what happens within the community when the first settlement is razed to the group and hundreds of characters find themselves homeless (or sent back to NPC town). I'm even more interested to see what the reaction is if the invading force is primary of good alignment.

It will make a few caravan raids pale into insignificance and will really test the impacted characters mettle and desire to stay.

I think it will be much worse than anyone has described as of now. Here is how I envision a war playing out:

First there will be a few raids against the settlement's outposts and caravans. This will probably be done by a company that has little or no direct connection to the aggressive settlement.

As the frequency of these attacks increases, the focus will then shift to small groups crossing into the settlement hex and committing any crime easy to pull off.

An assassination or perhaps a few will take place.

Feuds are now lodged against the merchant / harvester heavy company(ies) and they are killed on sight, using Gank squads of whatever size needed to create the sense if slaughter.

New members ( particularly new players) of the settlement will be targeted, repreatedly. This is meant to do two things: First, it is meant to have a psychological effect of saying "you can not defend the weakest among you." The second is that it will cut off recruitment.

* Most companies will warn potential recruits that they are currently in a state if feud or war, and they may want to wait.

This may go on for a few weeks! Meanwhile the real aggressor is secretly moving their assets closer to the target settlement.

War is declared and all of the above activities are ramped up. Goal here is to get the besieged companies of the settlement to feel they can't set foot outside their own walls. This phase will last for a few weeks.

The assault begins and the settlement, it's DI in the toilet, it's corruption through the roof, and it's leadership targeted continuously by assassins, finally falls.

Try to imagine what it will feel like to go through two or three months of this and then to lose your settlement in the end.

I'm not saying this will be easy, but it will happen.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

I don't really see the point of this last post, everyone is aware that war will happen. And honestly, from my time In Providence, war wasn't a particularly annoying experience, even though we couldn't do a lot to resist, since most of the time it was totally asymmetric warfare with no specific goal except destruction, for the lulz. In the end, I just stopped playing because there wasn't any more players to play with outside of the US prime-time window, since it was impossible to play without at least 10 other players full pvp.

About our case : what I know for sure, is that PF is a manichean universe where good and evil, law and chaos, must always be in a state of balance, and if lawful good players tend to be pushed away, or less thriving, then the game will be a failure, even if it is because lawful good players are not on par with the rest. Mainly because this is normal that lawful good is weaker because of its less aggressive nature.

Goblin Squad Member

@Audoucet

You made part of my point. A war can very easily keep you feeling helpless for a lengthy period of time, and then reach its height of demoralizing the victim with the take over or destruction of their settlement.

If our robbery of an hour's worth of harvesting is going to cause some people to quit, what impact will losing months or even years of work have?

That is the disconnect that we see. Some of you are worried about losing pennies, and not concerned at all about losing millions.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
...not concerned at all about losing millions.

I've a friend who's famous in our circle for complaining incessantly about tiny things, but when something truly bad happens, we never hear a word from him and he's the one working hardest to put things right. "Not concerned at all" seems a too-broad wording choice, perhaps focussed more on what's visible here on the boards.

The commentary I hear elsewhere, where "real" plans are being made, seems less concerned with banditry and caravan-security than with larger-scale issues of settlement and leader security. I'm sure the discussions will continue to percolate down toward the smaller, more everyday, duties settlements have to each of their citizens, but all things seem to be, at present, proceeding in their due course.

Goblin Squad Member

@ Bluddwolf. Yes, losing your settlement is a serious setback. Therefore even mercenary companies should somehow have ties with them. I think I am starting to understand your so called "free agent" story a bit better now though.

Goblin Squad Member

Audoucet wrote:
I don't really see the point of this last post...

It would seem Bluddwolf wants to bluster about how tough and experienced he is while pretending that others are naive fools who will curl up and cry and maybe even quit when their Settlement is destroyed.

Groups that have a strong sense of purpose, and are resilient and able to admit mistakes and move forward without tearing themselves apart at the seams can recover from losses.

That's how we'll respond when we lose our Settlement.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

I wonder how UNC will react if/when their settlement is taken or expels them. Will they salute their enemies and try to do better next time, or will they rage out that the skills they payed for are unavailable?

Goblin Squad Member

Uh-oh. Poking the dragon...that's always an effective ploy :-).

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
I wonder how UNC will react if/when their settlement is taken or expels them. Will they salute their enemies and try to do better next time, or will they rage out that the skills they payed for are unavailable?

I've answered this. We will fall back, assess our situation, try to understand our mistakes and move forward.

I've been on the receiving end of losing a settlement in Darkfall. We spent the next few weeks after the loss, in an insurgency type conflict, making their victory as costly as we could. It was actually great fun in doing so.

To this day, Sinister Tyrants is still formed, but they broke up and either joined Tyrants in DF or moved onto ESO. I know some also went to Rust.

@ Nihimon

I never said all would curl up and cry, or rage quit, both we both know some will. That really is the point I'm making.

Some players, hopefully very few, will not cope well with any level of set backs. This us simply a reality, and it should not be a driving force in molding the game or even the community.

The argument that if too much of "X" happens, then "Y" number may quit is not necessarily a major concern.

201 to 250 of 687 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / UNC Policy Discussion Thread All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.