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.

All posts created by Flari-Merchant

Flari-Merchant
default avatar
I have to wonder if we are "too much time-no fulfillment" speculating The Faction System into something that it was never intended to be. If we are doing so in a realistically possible and favorable(to the planned design) way. If we are setting ourselves up for a mighty disappointing end product that is far less deep and powerful and complex a set of mechanics than we are "crowdforging" up here..

Pathfinder(especially Pathfinder Society) seems to thrive on factions and their interplay for story line and arcs, but realistically how many can there be in an MMO? Why do "divine" feats get described as "Faction" attacks in their descriptions, leading some to think that factions are intended to be religion based/parsed? That leaves lots of really great Factions like the above Aspis Consortium at loose ends or is it just unfortunate wordage that needs a pass over?
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Quote
Flari-Merchant
default avatar
There are tons of possibly bad results from "safe zones" in such a sandbox including gathering risk free and generating coin risk free from whatever mobs might be available. Not arguing that or that safe zones is part of the answer. Not going to argue that free and wide open PVP is a good idea either.

Just in the example of having to possibly personally(with players) defend your settlement 23/7 if you don't want gankers running through it is an example of doomed(or at least player base limiting) design IMO. It just isn't realistic in any reasonable population level scenario with so many settlements to work from.
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Quote
Flari-Merchant
default avatar
Paddy pulled a most clever silent abscondance with the mule named Pers… Perse something something right after my shot at that tactic had failed. It was a great move and deserved the win that he got for it.
Well done Sirrah!
My Teammate Dermin is a newish player and pretty much got us our two points and was VERY good at the PVP.
I really had much fun. I can see this catching on and getting competitive.
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Quote
Flari-Merchant
default avatar
Midnight
Bringslite of Oz
Part of the thing that was originally aimed for was "open" PVP from which there was no total escape. We have seen enough negative comments about that to know that it is a major deal breaker for a significant % of possible players.

If you have safe havens, you will give people who deserve to be killed a place to retreat to after committing whatever "atrocities" their opponents want to punish them for. This removes the consequences of "meaningful choices".

Note, the things someone might want to kill me for could be as simple as harvesting in (or even setting foot in) their claimed territory. If I can disregard your rules or claims until you finally notice me, and THEN play in a safe haven until things cool down, you are going to feel quite frustrated. Especially as I rotate through each of my characters to repeat the same behavior.

Not going to argue that would be pretty frustrating and all those things would likely be hard to code against. Isn't that kind of like how things really work anyway? Those particular named character can find sanctuary in non PVP zones. but they have to stay there or take risks to leave them. The people that turn "the heat" onto someone are also the people that decide when the heat abates and if it ever does. Leaving the "safe" zones into other polities and how that plays out between those groups is also content. Besides, you will eventually run out of alts that you are willing to put on that list, but the list can be as long as is needed.

What I am saying here is that like many things that could be fun or perhaps useful working systems often get shot down "because they may cause frustrations" or "there may be ways to work them to advantage". As long as the advantages are not game breakers and the frustrations are normal universal frustrations, I really see no sense in dismissing them. It has crippled ideas and discussion around here for years now and I know that I have probably helped with that many times.
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Quote
Flari-Merchant
default avatar
I'm with you (Yer preachin to the choir) on all but 1.5 points. Not real comfortable with just going about to find someone to kill over and over when I'm bored and I am not sure about dueling. At least not dueling in the sense of having it be resolution to larger conflicts OR to being annoyed by repeated offers to duel that I have to click "accept" or "refuse" to in my HUD every few seconds if a guy/gal is being annoying.

Mitigation of PVP for the unwilling could be partially resolved by zones as well. Zones with lower amounts of available basic resources and mobs. A combo of zones and a Rep to skill penalty system? Part of the thing that was originally aimed for was "open" PVP from which there was no total escape. We have seen enough negative comments about that to know that it is a major deal breaker for a significant % of possible players.
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Quote
Flari-Merchant
default avatar
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Well I would imagine someone who suddenly went from T3 to T2 level even if only temporarily would have enough of a deterrent, as would going from T2 to T1. With enough non anti social outlets for fighting the ones who still wanna go that route could get away with it for bit but you get depowered AND to actually do real harm you go through the rules for whatever system you are using.

A rep system like this would have teeth because it would literally take the teeth out of psychopathic manchildren. Usually most newbie griefers for example can get to a high enough level to make themselves demigods (or ay least that is the goal). A direct depowering of their feats would be the worst nightmare for a such a player because then they are taken down to newbie level support. Having that shiny T3 stuff dont mean much if your rep tanks your support enough to knock ya back to T1 feats. That dont even go in to the problem of fighting at T1 level in T2 or T3 gear and thus losing said gear faster due to being more killable.
You make it sound attractive. Downside being (possibly a downside) that you end up coding a system SO strong that you have no such characters as "Bloody Bill" at all in your MMO or you make Rep recovery so quick that there are hundreds such players. As much as I hate being ganked by surprise by someone for NO REASON, I do feel like we need that kind of possibility to add a little spice to everything we do. You just have to decide at what degree that you want things to be possible and stick to your Dev Guns and code it in…

Edit: I guess what I am saying is: If you do not want that kind of play at all in your MMO then just make it impossible. Don't waste coding dollars on discouraging feedback that completely kills the behavior. That way you don't have to spend 6 months balancing the mechanics.
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Quote
Flari-Merchant
default avatar
These are good ideas and do open things a bit to a wider audience. My concern is that support based on mechanical "reputation" has never shown itself to work well. I am unsure if that is because it has always been toothless in other games or because it just is not a strong enough negative feedback loop.

It is worth exploring, I suppose. Between feuds and factions there should be ample opportunity for PVP to satisfy all but the very most determined anti social behavior.
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Quote
Flari-Merchant
default avatar
Thanks for the update Lisa.
I'll be on "good behavior" setting. smile
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Quote
Flari-Merchant
default avatar
Factions as a method of rank/level support? Implications need to be thought through.

I like the idea of factions being great definers of character alignment, though there are interesting issues there as well. Things like… there could be a faction for each alignment(like listed in feats according to the available God's right now), making a tidy 9 total and perfect for a faction wheel, but then that makes things like a faction for "Banditry" or "Merchants" or "Greenpeace" or "Whatever More Specific" lose some distinction.
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Quote
Flari-Merchant
default avatar
Many 100s of T1 and T2 materials for sale at 2c and 5c respectively. Save me excessive baggage issues. Grab them and turn a profit. Get them while they are there…. !
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Quote