Cookies Disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.

The fallacy of entitlement in an open sandbox

Edam
Bringslite
That sounds like something that the Devs need to fix. A disgruntled Settlement Leader can kick a whole company out very easily and yeah, everything in Company and Company Secure becomes inaccessible. A Sett Leader can't kick any individual player out who is not a member of the Parent or Boss or Founding Company. He could threaten that player's company leader, I suppose…

You have to have "kick" controls in a game with "guilds" or organized groups. Games without them are probably the real nightmare and the worse design.

It would not be a bad idea to have all company inventory revert to an accessible place when a company gets kicked. That comes with a lot of caveats about teleportation and stuff, but those things could be worked out. At the single player level, don't put stuff you feel is YOURS in the vaults that you won't have access to if you are kicked.

Just like anything else, any Settlement that does things like that too casually will get a BAD rep and hopefully see their numbers decline. It is a bit of a stretch to assume that anything so nasty that could be done, will be done. Especially if it is terrible and social suicide.

You could make it so smallholdings in a settlement hex access that companies vaults for withdraw only even if that company is no longer attached.
Midnight
Bringslite
Thanks for taking the time to explain what you mean. My opinion is that you either have a strange and incorrect notion of what goes on within settlements in this game or that you are maybe exaggerating a tiny pile of requirements into a mountain of demands for submission and obedience.

The new players that I have dealt with seem to be alright with the mechanics forced on them by the game design. I can't recall any leaving because they had to join a settlement or they could not progress rank wise.

On another forum I saw someone quote and praise me on "there may be a limited number of players willing to pay to be bossed around". Then I noticed who it was offering that praise and I remembered good old AGC.

Do you remember AGC, Bringslite?

AGC had a very contentious time with being bossed around and with the game mechanics that enable the control freaks who'd try to boss them. Their acceptance of any settlement life always seemed coerced by game mechanics. I think you'd hear some really bitter language if some of them were asked about this issue somewhere they couldn't be censored and banned.

Is AGC typical? Not in the current population that is heavily weighted towards PF tabletop players due to the very generous TT kickstarter rewards. The real question will be whether AGC is typical or atypical in the overall audience of MMO players who would come to a sandbox.

Players might feel the sandbox isn't really a sandbox because things are RIGGED ahead of time to create certain outcomes like settlement membership. Some (like me) may still join just to see if rigging the game makes for better conflict. I'm still undecided on that and I really can't progress on my decision process while the game is micro-populated (and while there are a myriad of other reasons contributing to micro-population).
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Bringslite
Midnight
Bringslite
Thanks for taking the time to explain what you mean. My opinion is that you either have a strange and incorrect notion of what goes on within settlements in this game or that you are maybe exaggerating a tiny pile of requirements into a mountain of demands for submission and obedience.

The new players that I have dealt with seem to be alright with the mechanics forced on them by the game design. I can't recall any leaving because they had to join a settlement or they could not progress rank wise.

On another forum I saw someone quote and praise me on "there may be a limited number of players willing to pay to be bossed around". Then I noticed who it was offering that praise and I remembered good old AGC.

Do you remember AGC, Bringslite?

AGC had a very contentious time with being bossed around and with the game mechanics that enable the control freaks who'd try to boss them. Their acceptance of any settlement life always seemed coerced by game mechanics. I think you'd hear some really bitter language if some of them were asked about this issue somewhere they couldn't be censored and banned.

Is AGC typical? Not in the current population that is heavily weighted towards PF tabletop players due to the very generous TT kickstarter rewards. The real question will be whether AGC is typical or atypical in the overall audience of MMO players who would come to a sandbox.

Players might feel the sandbox isn't really a sandbox because things are RIGGED ahead of time to create certain outcomes like settlement membership. Some (like me) may still join just to see if rigging the game makes for better conflict. I'm still undecided on that and I really can't progress on my decision process while the game is micro-populated (and while there are a myriad of other reasons contributing to micro-population).

I do remember AGC. I remember clan magrimor. I remember Freevale. I remember the bandit king that never materialized(honestly can't blame him). I remember lots of things. None of those players were really "brand new" except perhaps clan M.

Now look at EoX. Despite all the animosity on gen channel, in the forums, and sometimes fighting on two fronts; EoX prosecuted their war. None of the places AGC, clan M., and Freevale lived were burnt down. Not sure about clan M. but AGC and Freevale had setbacks and were never the same afterwards. If you want to be "Bad Guys" you should expect not to be popular with a crowd like this, but don't just give up and fold your flag due to forum pressure. I do know that AGC wanted their own settlement and was blocked at many tries to get one. but I wonder how many they were really kicked out of for their actions or left because they felt pressure from Outside.

Edit: Also keep in mind that attitudes have evolved a great deal. Mine own have for sure. If Paddy Fitzpatrick were up North robbing our players, I would still try to hunt him down, BUT I also occasionally do escalations with him and his guys. We kinda even get along.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Midnight
Bringslite
Now look at EoX. …. If you want to be "Bad Guys" you should expect not to be popular with a crowd like this.

Part of my point is "a crowd like this" isn't representative of the MMO sandbox universe. EoX or AGC would be entirely unremarkable in Eve-Online, for instance.

EoX enjoys PvP combat. Not that rare. Except in PFO.

EoX picked (actually just mentioned since no one can actually pick one yet) a L.E. alignment. Not that controversial. Except in PFO.

I don't want to be "bad guys". I just want plentiful combat. Plentiful sanctioned combat is even better. If factions provide plentiful sanctioned combat among willing participants without requiring PvE grinding …even better. It is possible (and I feel likely) that when the MMO sandbox universe descends on PFO that such thinking will be the new normal.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
You are a Troll
OR we can carve out an entirely new niche, like Eve did and others did before. That's what I would like to see happen smile
Midnight
You are a Troll
OR we can carve out an entirely new niche, like Eve did and others did before. That's what I would like to see happen smile

As long as settlement ownership and age of characters offer the early enrollers immense advantages over new characters, you may very well be able to preserve the nature of this otherwise unrepresentative niche. But the developers and the community still have to find a way to get people to try it and get people to remain (and those immense advantages to early enrollers mentioned earlier may serve as an impediment to getting people to play, even as it allows you to firmly retain the community's nature). So far this niche is a massive failure, and was even unimpressive in player attraction/retention before the layoffs.

I'm not saying that to be mean, I want the game to succeed. I still have an embarrassingly large number of accounts.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Duffy Swiftshadow
Eh, I think people overestimate how big a deal our advantage is. Unless veterans can outnumber new players by a significant margin the advantage should quickly disappear as the population grows. Plus it only takes about 6ish months for a new character to get close to max T2 capabilities and with the veterans around to help efficient paths should be widely known. Start adding in the systems that are supposed to limit how much of the stronger gear is being used and the T3 advantage turns into little better than a few percent rounding error.

The possible niche PFO may fill cannot be determine to succeed or fail quite yet. Far too much content has not been completed to even qualify as a game really entering the niche. The biggest complaint I've seen by far is not the philosophy of the game's mechanics but the lack of things to do. Sure, PFO has not succeeded to date, but that's not to say the Niche can't.
Bringslite
@ Midnight & @ Duffy

Valid points and something that we(people already here) will have to adjust to. Weight of numbers will not allow us to dictate anything about overall atmosphere past a certain amount of months. Yet we still haven't seen what GW or NewCorp will try to do to keep random slaughterfests from being the norm. IF they decide that they CAN do anything.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Midnight
@Duffy
The "advantage" is that Ryan Dancey may be right about players wanting to be as powerful as possible. If Thornkeep life allows T2 gear use and keyword matching (does it currently? does it allow tier2 +2?) you and I know that a sufficiently large blob needn't join a settlement. But each individual player probably wants to be all she can be, especially in PvE hunting/gathering, which is where the immense advantage of settlement ownership comes in under Ryan Dancey's theory.

That we've seen so many existing settlements expand into the latest settlements that became available is another sign of the advantage I'm talking about. I think EVERY group that took over a settlement was a group that didn't leave their old settlement first. I cannot think of a single settlement taken over by an unaffiliated company (and thus fighting under Thornkeep level power), and I think it was a mistake for GW to let companies take over settlements while flying another settlement's flag. I also think they should have waited for the population to pick up again, rather than doing it during the layoffs. Doing it under the current micro-population only serves to further the current cultural group-think.

…and I agree with you that the jury's still out on whether the niche can succeed. There are so many things working against PFO right now that some other game could steal the niche by making a good game with a normal retail launch.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post