I'd rather be a comedian than an idiot.
-
Hail Guest! We're looking for Community Content Contribuitors to Stratics. If you would like to write articles, fan fiction, do guild or shard event recaps, it's simple. Find out how in this thread: Community Contributions
-
Greetings Guest, Having Login Issues? Check this thread!
-
Hail Guest!, Please take a moment to read this post reminding you all of the importance of Account Security.
-
Hail Guest! Please read the new announcement concerning the upcoming addition to Stratics. You can find the announcement Here!
qft
L
Lord Strahd
Guest
Getting back on the subject...
I dont see any reason for murderers to be in factions..... The system is ment as an alternative PvP system from the open murder count pvp. Murderers and Brigands should be excluded from faction play because faction pvp is supposed to be more plot driven than just random killings or revenge killings.
Past that ....I realy dont think faction should be able to kill other faction members or steal for that matter. If you look at it from a story stand point a faction high archy wouldnt allow in fighting like that, it would bring down swift action, and try to maintain a unity.
Exploiting the system is something that will always have to be delt with. People will try to test the fences always and get that unfair advantage. The best thing we can do for now is try and give them as much feedback about factions as possible, and hopefuly after some time things will change and griefing will be lessened and fun will increase.
I dont see any reason for murderers to be in factions..... The system is ment as an alternative PvP system from the open murder count pvp. Murderers and Brigands should be excluded from faction play because faction pvp is supposed to be more plot driven than just random killings or revenge killings.
Past that ....I realy dont think faction should be able to kill other faction members or steal for that matter. If you look at it from a story stand point a faction high archy wouldnt allow in fighting like that, it would bring down swift action, and try to maintain a unity.
Exploiting the system is something that will always have to be delt with. People will try to test the fences always and get that unfair advantage. The best thing we can do for now is try and give them as much feedback about factions as possible, and hopefuly after some time things will change and griefing will be lessened and fun will increase.
Again... wait until you have a blue in your base fielding you in, or harm spamming someone you are trying to para, or poisoning ur mount every time you try and dismount someone else. Blues can grief other blues WORSE than a red ever could.. Because if you want to fight back you cannot attack them with out taking a penalty. You should ensure that every faction member should be able to fight back as long as they are willing to go red to do so..
It is as simple as that. With out reds the factions will be griefed even worse.
L
Lord Strahd
Guest
1. I dont see how reds being in the same faction as you help these situations without causing problems and loop holes themselves. Fixing a problem with another problem is not a solution. A better solution is acknowledging that the system is broke and then fixing those imbalances.
... u dont see how going red to kill griefers will help?
Maybe u should play a bit in feluccia.. Eventually u will realize that not all reds are bad...
L
Lord Strahd
Guest
Your talking about the system as is... I'm talking about the system as how it should be. Its two completely different things.
And how it should be is that you dont have a Red Murderer in your back pocket to play factions.
And how it should be is that you dont have a Red Murderer in your back pocket to play factions.
Ok dood. What I'm getting at is there is no way they can code the system to have no griefing... If they don't allow reds,, they will have blue griefers. Not only that,, but normal players will have no way of defending themselves other than logging off.. **** that.. Sorry your dream world will never be reality. Code is always exploitable.. I AM talking how it is, and how it WILL be if they don't allow reds in factions. What I'm saying is sometimes you need a red to defend yourself from griefers.. If you don't want reds, stay in Tram.. thats why they made it..
Same thing, you actually need reds to prevent griefing, It doesn't matter how far back or forward you look.
This ^
L
Lord Strahd
Guest
So the logic here is that we cant play factions without a red murderer following us around taking care of all the griefers that your blue innoccent cant do anything about?
That sounds like a broke system to me.
A red murderer is in completly separate PvP system of itself and it dont need blues innocents following them around making sure they can play the game the way they want to.
It makes no sence that these factions would have murderers in them anyways. They want loyal followers, not bandits that can change loyalty on a whim.
I guess my point when it comes down to it is if you CANT possibly code a game with a solid PvP system, one that cuts down on griefing and exploiting to get unfair advantages to the point that they will make little difference. And a system that can provide an alternative to the other existing game play Ie: the murder killer / innocent. Then....
WHATS THE POINT OF HAVING FACTIONS IN THE FIRST PLACE. JUST LEAVE IT OUT.
And we can then move on to other things that can be fixed.
That sounds like a broke system to me.
A red murderer is in completly separate PvP system of itself and it dont need blues innocents following them around making sure they can play the game the way they want to.
It makes no sence that these factions would have murderers in them anyways. They want loyal followers, not bandits that can change loyalty on a whim.
I guess my point when it comes down to it is if you CANT possibly code a game with a solid PvP system, one that cuts down on griefing and exploiting to get unfair advantages to the point that they will make little difference. And a system that can provide an alternative to the other existing game play Ie: the murder killer / innocent. Then....
WHATS THE POINT OF HAVING FACTIONS IN THE FIRST PLACE. JUST LEAVE IT OUT.
And we can then move on to other things that can be fixed.
G
Gowron
Guest
Are you speaking of a "blue" non faction player, or blue faction player? If it's a non faction player, how did it get into the base? If it's a blue faction player, why do you need a red to kill it?
No but eventually they'll go red too if you keep doing it. Why do that when you can just have a red do it?
I ment a character that is in ur faction (blue) and working against you (griefing).
Z
Zyon Rockler
Guest
There is only one solution. You create a system that when there is crime, there is punishment. This is very simple to understand. If you are using crime, you are using a form of cheating because a criminal act such as stealing someone's bandages or weapon gives the thief an unfair advantage.
Reds are the same way, they have an unfair advantage because they can kill without penalty.
The way the system has to work is that when someone kills somebody or steals a gump comes up asking would you like to report this person for their crime? If you click yes, then that person faces the consequences and thus stopping chaos or giving individuals the power to manipulate.
In factions if you go red you should be banned from the faction, just as if your in Trammel and you kill a guildmate you should turn red and be bumped into Fel. There should be no ways around these rulesets.
Now, what your talking about is a different kind of griefing that needs to be handled in a different way. They are 2 seperate things and all the talking in the world isn't going to confuse anyone into believing that being a murderer is a good thing.
It is only a small minority of players who can play a thief or a murderer because it takes a particular type of person to do those types of things to other people.
Reds are the same way, they have an unfair advantage because they can kill without penalty.
The way the system has to work is that when someone kills somebody or steals a gump comes up asking would you like to report this person for their crime? If you click yes, then that person faces the consequences and thus stopping chaos or giving individuals the power to manipulate.
In factions if you go red you should be banned from the faction, just as if your in Trammel and you kill a guildmate you should turn red and be bumped into Fel. There should be no ways around these rulesets.
Now, what your talking about is a different kind of griefing that needs to be handled in a different way. They are 2 seperate things and all the talking in the world isn't going to confuse anyone into believing that being a murderer is a good thing.
It is only a small minority of players who can play a thief or a murderer because it takes a particular type of person to do those types of things to other people.
I don't think this griefer problem could be solved no matter how well you implement. Because if there is always some guys who are willing to take 1 extra account to mess you up, there's nothing you could do about it.
Moreover, if you think deeply, the number of enemies you are facing actually is still the same. In fact, if you're willing to take count to kick his butt, you are actually in more of a advantage than loss because even you got pwned by that griefer, you wont end up into a stat loss.
The disadvantage he got is:-
1. griefer got no one to heal him (unless there is more than 1 grifer together)
2. having 2 grifers on the same faction = less 2 opposing faction enemies
3. opposing faction and griefer can fire each others by accident
advantage he got is:-
he could ruin up the defense set up pretty much if no ppl willing to take count by your side
EA by limiting 1 account to 1 faction can already reduce this type of griefing act. The rest lies upon our own players hand and mind to handle... which is use a red to kill or use extra account join in another oppose faction to kill off.
The system currently is fine on this part I believe.
Moreover, if you think deeply, the number of enemies you are facing actually is still the same. In fact, if you're willing to take count to kick his butt, you are actually in more of a advantage than loss because even you got pwned by that griefer, you wont end up into a stat loss.
The disadvantage he got is:-
1. griefer got no one to heal him (unless there is more than 1 grifer together)
2. having 2 grifers on the same faction = less 2 opposing faction enemies
3. opposing faction and griefer can fire each others by accident
advantage he got is:-
he could ruin up the defense set up pretty much if no ppl willing to take count by your side
EA by limiting 1 account to 1 faction can already reduce this type of griefing act. The rest lies upon our own players hand and mind to handle... which is use a red to kill or use extra account join in another oppose faction to kill off.
The system currently is fine on this part I believe.
I'm curious if you really feel that SL and Minax shouldn't be open to murderers? If so, what's your rationale? I can kind of understand from a role playing point of view why you might think that for TB and maybe COM, but I'm not so sure about SL and Minax.
Also, have you read the descriptions of the three new factions yet? Do you really think none of them have room for some rough characters who might not be above murdering any who dare to infiltrate their ranks as spies and troublemakers?
The Guardian's Legion
The right to rule is earned by conquest, not by paying lip service to an archaic system of virtues or by paying bribes. There is little hope in praying for the return of a long-departed king and yearning for the return of a golden age long past. Power lies not with the common man but with the warlords who will rise up and seize it. These are the truths the Guardian teaches.
Free Tradesmen
Clear vision and accountability are the keys to bringing about a new age of prosperity for all Sosaria. Prosperity does not reward those who pine for the glories of past ages and dead kings, nor does it brook oppression. We are an alliance of regular, hard working people who have united our resources and experience to take back Felucca from those who would place their zealotry or vanity above our freedom. Beware, ye would be oppressors, the Free Tradesmen protect their own.
Crusaders of Virtue
Only by living by the Three Principles and the Eight Virtues may we as a society bring about a return to our former glory. We must walk strong and not be set astray by those who would put the individual above the community or who mask their greed and lust for power behind a facade of open dealings. Our bravery, our passion, and our pursuit of truth will deliver us from chaos!
L
Lord Strahd
Guest
Thats a very good question, but I have an answer for it.
Murder is murder, technicaly you can slap the tag war on it or call it execution, or what ever its still murder and in some ways its excepted. However murder within ones own society is not excepted in any fashion, at least not openly.
If your a red in game, you are considered that kind of person. A person that could kill your own people.
Now I might agree with you if it was a small cult or something. There are always some realy crazy folks that could act about any way you could think of and it would be ok. However for a Faction, that has the means to take control of towns, has a large strongholds, people in those factions would look to their leaders to at least be in control of their own folks. You would never have enough loyalty among your followers if you couldnt provide this. People would desert left and right when they got the chance.
Thats not to say that Factions couldnt have secret organizations that were basicaly assassins that could very well kill their own people as power plays. However they would never be openly endorsed.
I could give real life examples of such things, but I'd rather this didnt get into a political debate and stay on focus.
There is a place for reds in the game, I just dont feel that this place is factions.
But lets look at it from another angle, your a new player in factions and you notice a red in your base and he is also in your faction. Your not at least initialy going to have much faith that he will have your back, more than likely you would just go ahead and assume he is an enemy until proven.
This isnt helping the situation if your trying to entice folks to join factions either. Some people would rather not have to deal with that head ache.
You could argue that its not fair to reds, however I think that thats more a choice in their ball park, and a door they have decided to close more than its anyone taking something away from them.
Murder is murder, technicaly you can slap the tag war on it or call it execution, or what ever its still murder and in some ways its excepted. However murder within ones own society is not excepted in any fashion, at least not openly.
If your a red in game, you are considered that kind of person. A person that could kill your own people.
Now I might agree with you if it was a small cult or something. There are always some realy crazy folks that could act about any way you could think of and it would be ok. However for a Faction, that has the means to take control of towns, has a large strongholds, people in those factions would look to their leaders to at least be in control of their own folks. You would never have enough loyalty among your followers if you couldnt provide this. People would desert left and right when they got the chance.
Thats not to say that Factions couldnt have secret organizations that were basicaly assassins that could very well kill their own people as power plays. However they would never be openly endorsed.
I could give real life examples of such things, but I'd rather this didnt get into a political debate and stay on focus.
There is a place for reds in the game, I just dont feel that this place is factions.
But lets look at it from another angle, your a new player in factions and you notice a red in your base and he is also in your faction. Your not at least initialy going to have much faith that he will have your back, more than likely you would just go ahead and assume he is an enemy until proven.
This isnt helping the situation if your trying to entice folks to join factions either. Some people would rather not have to deal with that head ache.
You could argue that its not fair to reds, however I think that thats more a choice in their ball park, and a door they have decided to close more than its anyone taking something away from them.
L
Lord Strahd
Guest
Actualy now that I think of it I can give a real life example, without getting political.
Take for instance the Pirate...veiwed by the majory as murderers. However they usualy had a Letter of Marque and Apprisal with their said faction/ country, especialy if they wanted a friendly port.
And attacking their own faction ships would strip them from that marque. So technicaly, they were not reds, unless they had no loyalties whatso ever in wich case they would be considered killable by anyone. And as long as they was in that faction, that faction wouldnt attack them.
Why was it like this? Well because countries in those time, sometimes didnt want to wage war with a country overtly. So piracy was a means for them to do it covertly.
Take for instance the Pirate...veiwed by the majory as murderers. However they usualy had a Letter of Marque and Apprisal with their said faction/ country, especialy if they wanted a friendly port.
And attacking their own faction ships would strip them from that marque. So technicaly, they were not reds, unless they had no loyalties whatso ever in wich case they would be considered killable by anyone. And as long as they was in that faction, that faction wouldnt attack them.
Why was it like this? Well because countries in those time, sometimes didnt want to wage war with a country overtly. So piracy was a means for them to do it covertly.
How does having reds in factions really have any bearing on anything? They used to give a reprieve for murderers to join factions. If they're on your side, they're fighting with you, if they're in an opposing side they're orange to you anyways. Who really cares if they're in it?
L
Lord Strahd
Guest
Wanted to also specificaly adress this....
The way this would be taken care of in a roleplaying way would be to black ball them. They would be delt with in a covert manner. If the system wouldnt allow reprisal then you would go outside the system without having your name attached to said dealings, because you end up making martyrs or get bad PR. Basicaly murderers outside said faction would take care of them, without being officialy in factions. They might be loyalists obviously, or mercenaries, or just hit men. But if they get caught then its one of those " Well I have no idea who that guy is" kinda thing.
L
Lord Strahd
Guest
Its refering to the fact that if your a red, during a base defence you could kill your own folks, and with little reprieve. So basicaly saying that they are in the faction but work for the other side in a very overt way. It doesnt make any since in continuity.
Generally, it's only thing theyre killing are griefers. This is a good thing.
L
Lord Strahd
Guest
I can see your point.
However, why isnt there a way in the game to take care of the griefer problems without having reds in a faction said faction taking care of those problems.
It bascialy boils down that the system is broken, because the faction cant police itself, and has to rely on things that dont make since as a quick fix jurry rig it together
Its at the bare bones "We for (insert what ever excuse here) cant make up a system that works in a logical way, so we will do whatever (insert illogical method) to make this work.
Its whats called in the movie industry a plot hole, and it comes from poor design, bad writing, or lazyness, or lack of funding I guess. Its what ever we can put in there to keep the plot working.
However, when you go to the store do you buy immitation meat instead of real meat? Just what will you buy from them, what would you spend your money or your time on?
However, why isnt there a way in the game to take care of the griefer problems without having reds in a faction said faction taking care of those problems.
It bascialy boils down that the system is broken, because the faction cant police itself, and has to rely on things that dont make since as a quick fix jurry rig it together
Its at the bare bones "We for (insert what ever excuse here) cant make up a system that works in a logical way, so we will do whatever (insert illogical method) to make this work.
Its whats called in the movie industry a plot hole, and it comes from poor design, bad writing, or lazyness, or lack of funding I guess. Its what ever we can put in there to keep the plot working.
However, when you go to the store do you buy immitation meat instead of real meat? Just what will you buy from them, what would you spend your money or your time on?
Because there's no other way to prevent it.
L
Lord Strahd
Guest
So here we go...Im complaining but not realy giving any ideas as to what might fix this issue.
How about take all the flags away, make everyone grey when they go to felucca. No such thing as reds anymore, no such thing as blues. When you go there its open PvP with no counts. Keep the factions, and keep the faction perks in tact. This system has alot of plot holes, but if we are gonna have them, why not just realy bust it wide open.
Or maybe just make it mandatory that everyone that goes to felucca joins a faction, and people in your own faction are not attackable, and come up with some code that keeps traitors a non factor. Maybe you have to be so high a rank just to be in the main stronghold.
Its definately a tough nut to crack....but there are plenty of people around here and I'm sure we can come up with something that would work. Even if it would mean major systems reform.
How about take all the flags away, make everyone grey when they go to felucca. No such thing as reds anymore, no such thing as blues. When you go there its open PvP with no counts. Keep the factions, and keep the faction perks in tact. This system has alot of plot holes, but if we are gonna have them, why not just realy bust it wide open.
Or maybe just make it mandatory that everyone that goes to felucca joins a faction, and people in your own faction are not attackable, and come up with some code that keeps traitors a non factor. Maybe you have to be so high a rank just to be in the main stronghold.
Its definately a tough nut to crack....but there are plenty of people around here and I'm sure we can come up with something that would work. Even if it would mean major systems reform.
I thought of this but as Nonel pointed out, it'd give griefers a free ride to destroy base defenses etc.
Z
Zyon Rockler
Guest
The problem that I have with this debate is that it doesn't directly look at how this can affect people in so many ways. We are debating murder as a tactic to remove griefers, doesn't anyone see a problem?
This is the greater evil, so you need to start by removing it, so you can focus on the other griefing tactics. There is a solution for every one of them.
Just give me a list and if we can't fix the problem then it can be a valid concern but if there seems to be an easy solution then we're just stalling.
Like, if I cast an ev and the griefers dispels it then this grief turns them grey, now you don't have to worry about being penalized and griefers can no longer dispel your summon.
Fields make it so same team can run through. These rules might sound completely idiotic but they become necessary when people become idiotic.
From a roleplay point, I think Tina asked, why can't you have reds in roleplay? Well you can, but you can't roleplay good and bad on the same team unless your roleplaying a skitso/split personality type of group.
I say this because the good guy has good intentions and wants to roleplay to see that dream come true, where the evil guy wants to see not only evil but he also wants to be able to pull the rug out at the last second on his own team mate, so by putting them together, I think it becomes to complicated.
So, you can put your red murderers in a faction and you can call them evil but there's another problem here, How does the evil get punished? To me, it is their own undoing.
With good, losing doesn't matter as much as long as your given a fair chance.
As long as you have a system that allows for internal corruption, it will eventually break down, like wolves eating rabbits, once the rabbits are gone the wolves starve unless somebody makes it so that for every rabbit that is eaten, another is born.
This is the greater evil, so you need to start by removing it, so you can focus on the other griefing tactics. There is a solution for every one of them.
Just give me a list and if we can't fix the problem then it can be a valid concern but if there seems to be an easy solution then we're just stalling.
Like, if I cast an ev and the griefers dispels it then this grief turns them grey, now you don't have to worry about being penalized and griefers can no longer dispel your summon.
Fields make it so same team can run through. These rules might sound completely idiotic but they become necessary when people become idiotic.
From a roleplay point, I think Tina asked, why can't you have reds in roleplay? Well you can, but you can't roleplay good and bad on the same team unless your roleplaying a skitso/split personality type of group.
I say this because the good guy has good intentions and wants to roleplay to see that dream come true, where the evil guy wants to see not only evil but he also wants to be able to pull the rug out at the last second on his own team mate, so by putting them together, I think it becomes to complicated.
So, you can put your red murderers in a faction and you can call them evil but there's another problem here, How does the evil get punished? To me, it is their own undoing.
With good, losing doesn't matter as much as long as your given a fair chance.
As long as you have a system that allows for internal corruption, it will eventually break down, like wolves eating rabbits, once the rabbits are gone the wolves starve unless somebody makes it so that for every rabbit that is eaten, another is born.
Strahd and Zyon, I'm still waiting for you two to come up with solid solutions to the situations that several of us previously described in this thread that I believe would probably be difficult for anyone to program as hostile acts against your own faction because sometimes performing these actions is beneficial to your faction.
I would really like to know exactly how you would efffectively deal with a blue nonguilded/nonallied faction mate who started doing any of the following to your crew while you're defending or raiding a stronghold, transporting sigils, or attempting to recapture sigils that are in transit (in other words, activities that most everyone would consider truly faction-related):
The Blue Faction Mate Who Wants To Hurt/Kill Your Character
Infiltrator uses a stronghold rune to recall to the sigil room while you're running a defense. Said infiltrator proceeds to cause havoc by attacking everyone he can reach and then going into hiding. While he may not have killed anyone, he perhaps disabled or distracted someone long enough to allow the enemy to get past your defenses.
If your solution is to not allow faction mates to attack each other, you're overlooking all the problems below, which can often be immediately resolved on a temporary basis by putting the troublemaker out of action (i.e., killing his character).
You would also be eliminating the ability for faction mates to spar with each other for practice, a fairly common activity while you're defending and waiting for someone to come and raid you. Not all guilds that are able to peacefully coexist and yes, even support each other, within the same faction want to be allied with each other. They may trust each other enough to participate in factions together in Fel (including friendly sparring while hanging out in a stronghold) but not enough to worry about thievery and AFK-killing while outside of Fel.
I think this situation could also become more common if the new strongholds are left as big as they are and we only have three factions to choose from. More guilds will want to join factions but won't necessarily want to create alliances with other guilds in the same faction. Eliminating the ability to spar/practice on each other just because you're not allied will make life very dull for some.
The Blue Faction Mate Who Dispels Your Fields
Infiltrator dispels your fields at a critical moment. Sometimes dispelling your own fields is a good or necessary thing, so how do you prevent it from happening at a bad time?
The Blue Faction Mate Who Blocks Your Path
Infiltrator casts wall of stone in front of you while you're chasing or fighting someone. In some cases, casting wall of stone in front of you could be considered a good or necessary thing, so how do you prevent it from happening at a bad time?
Or how do you stop an infiltrator from continually stepping in front of you or putting his pets around you or blocking your access to the sigil posts?
What do you do about an infiltrator who uses a stronghold rune to get into the stronghold during a defense and immediately starts dropping blocking items all over the stronghold. How do you prevent this from happening? Better yet, how do you prevent it from happening while you're not in the stronghold? It's perfectly legal to drop items around/behind characters outside of a stronghold as long as they are "easily moved," but that still doesn't stop them from being enough of a nuisance to get you killed or slow you down. So how do you prevent a faction mate from doing something like this to you while you're not in the stronghold? (See this 7/3/2008 FoF for more details on the rules about using block items: http://www.uoherald.com/fof/index.php?fofId=116.)
The Blue Faction Mate Who Loots Your Corpses
Infiltrator loots a faction mate's corpse that the enemy shouldn't have been able to reach before the deceased character has a chance to rez and retrieve his stuff. Infiltrator immediately goes into stealth mode until he's no longer flagged. How do you prevent this?
The Blue Faction Mate Who Wastes or Makes Your Defenses Useless
Immediately after removing one or more of your faction's traps on a character that the infiltrator has in another faction, said infiltrator places an equal number of your traps in a totally useless location that is not easily found or while you are engaged in defending sigils. Please don't say the solution to this problem is for only the Commanding Lord to place traps. Don't even go there because it's a terrible solution. Real life happens and the CL is sometimes the person you see in-game the least often. It is also sometimes very necessary to have a stealther place the traps and I believe in the majority of cases the CL is not a stealther.
You're defending the TB stronghold and using the portcullis as part of your defense. Infiltrator stands under the arch and clicks on the portcullis every time you get it lowered. Or, if you're not using the portcullis, infiltrator lurks on the wall above it and lowers it at inopportune times. The suggestion to require two or more people to simultaneously do something in the arch where the portcullis descends or on top of the wall in order to raise or lower the portcullis is a totally unworkable solution. It's not like you can just jump on top of the wall from the grass or sidewalk below. It does take at least 5-10 seconds to get up there and definitely pulls you out of the action by the bridge.
I'm guessing that the new very large strongholds will have similar items that you can build or place, so while we may no longer have the TB stronghold's portcullis as an example, a similar situation could come up with new items used for defensive or offensive purposes. How do you propose keeping an infiltrator or group of infiltrators from using such items (especially if the quantity you can use at any one time is limited or on a timer) against you by placing them in useless locations or where they hinder your ability to carry out a good defense?
A character with no detection capabilities is guarding a door. Infiltrator keeps opening the door, possibly letting an enemy stealther through. Infiltrator has simply and effectively hampered the other character's ability to guard against stealthers. How do you prevent something like this?
The Blue Faction Mate Who Reveals Your Stealthers
Infiltrator uses a stronghold rune to get in the stronghold and proceeds to reveal your stealthers, exposing them to enemy fire. Please don't say the solution is to not be able to detect faction mates, because then you really will make dealing with infiltrators impossible.
The Blue Faction Mate Who Steals Your Stuff
Infiltrator snoops and steals your stuff. What do you do if you can't kill him to get it back?
The Blue Faction Mate Who Passes Along Intelligence
This one probably should have been at the top of the list because the stronghold runes have made it so gosh darn easy, but would also include the infiltrator who listens and passes along to the enemy messages from the CL.
I could go on and on, but I hope you get the idea, i.e., some people can be very very creative about making nuisances of themselves while they have the appearance of being on your side in a battle. How do you deal with them without completely ruining everyone's game experience and without handing someone who is not a GM too much power (e.g., giving the CL the ability to expel other characters or guilds from a faction)?
I would really like to know exactly how you would efffectively deal with a blue nonguilded/nonallied faction mate who started doing any of the following to your crew while you're defending or raiding a stronghold, transporting sigils, or attempting to recapture sigils that are in transit (in other words, activities that most everyone would consider truly faction-related):
The Blue Faction Mate Who Wants To Hurt/Kill Your Character
Infiltrator uses a stronghold rune to recall to the sigil room while you're running a defense. Said infiltrator proceeds to cause havoc by attacking everyone he can reach and then going into hiding. While he may not have killed anyone, he perhaps disabled or distracted someone long enough to allow the enemy to get past your defenses.
If your solution is to not allow faction mates to attack each other, you're overlooking all the problems below, which can often be immediately resolved on a temporary basis by putting the troublemaker out of action (i.e., killing his character).
You would also be eliminating the ability for faction mates to spar with each other for practice, a fairly common activity while you're defending and waiting for someone to come and raid you. Not all guilds that are able to peacefully coexist and yes, even support each other, within the same faction want to be allied with each other. They may trust each other enough to participate in factions together in Fel (including friendly sparring while hanging out in a stronghold) but not enough to worry about thievery and AFK-killing while outside of Fel.
I think this situation could also become more common if the new strongholds are left as big as they are and we only have three factions to choose from. More guilds will want to join factions but won't necessarily want to create alliances with other guilds in the same faction. Eliminating the ability to spar/practice on each other just because you're not allied will make life very dull for some.
The Blue Faction Mate Who Dispels Your Fields
Infiltrator dispels your fields at a critical moment. Sometimes dispelling your own fields is a good or necessary thing, so how do you prevent it from happening at a bad time?
The Blue Faction Mate Who Blocks Your Path
Infiltrator casts wall of stone in front of you while you're chasing or fighting someone. In some cases, casting wall of stone in front of you could be considered a good or necessary thing, so how do you prevent it from happening at a bad time?
Or how do you stop an infiltrator from continually stepping in front of you or putting his pets around you or blocking your access to the sigil posts?
What do you do about an infiltrator who uses a stronghold rune to get into the stronghold during a defense and immediately starts dropping blocking items all over the stronghold. How do you prevent this from happening? Better yet, how do you prevent it from happening while you're not in the stronghold? It's perfectly legal to drop items around/behind characters outside of a stronghold as long as they are "easily moved," but that still doesn't stop them from being enough of a nuisance to get you killed or slow you down. So how do you prevent a faction mate from doing something like this to you while you're not in the stronghold? (See this 7/3/2008 FoF for more details on the rules about using block items: http://www.uoherald.com/fof/index.php?fofId=116.)
The Blue Faction Mate Who Loots Your Corpses
Infiltrator loots a faction mate's corpse that the enemy shouldn't have been able to reach before the deceased character has a chance to rez and retrieve his stuff. Infiltrator immediately goes into stealth mode until he's no longer flagged. How do you prevent this?
The Blue Faction Mate Who Wastes or Makes Your Defenses Useless
Immediately after removing one or more of your faction's traps on a character that the infiltrator has in another faction, said infiltrator places an equal number of your traps in a totally useless location that is not easily found or while you are engaged in defending sigils. Please don't say the solution to this problem is for only the Commanding Lord to place traps. Don't even go there because it's a terrible solution. Real life happens and the CL is sometimes the person you see in-game the least often. It is also sometimes very necessary to have a stealther place the traps and I believe in the majority of cases the CL is not a stealther.
You're defending the TB stronghold and using the portcullis as part of your defense. Infiltrator stands under the arch and clicks on the portcullis every time you get it lowered. Or, if you're not using the portcullis, infiltrator lurks on the wall above it and lowers it at inopportune times. The suggestion to require two or more people to simultaneously do something in the arch where the portcullis descends or on top of the wall in order to raise or lower the portcullis is a totally unworkable solution. It's not like you can just jump on top of the wall from the grass or sidewalk below. It does take at least 5-10 seconds to get up there and definitely pulls you out of the action by the bridge.
I'm guessing that the new very large strongholds will have similar items that you can build or place, so while we may no longer have the TB stronghold's portcullis as an example, a similar situation could come up with new items used for defensive or offensive purposes. How do you propose keeping an infiltrator or group of infiltrators from using such items (especially if the quantity you can use at any one time is limited or on a timer) against you by placing them in useless locations or where they hinder your ability to carry out a good defense?
A character with no detection capabilities is guarding a door. Infiltrator keeps opening the door, possibly letting an enemy stealther through. Infiltrator has simply and effectively hampered the other character's ability to guard against stealthers. How do you prevent something like this?
The Blue Faction Mate Who Reveals Your Stealthers
Infiltrator uses a stronghold rune to get in the stronghold and proceeds to reveal your stealthers, exposing them to enemy fire. Please don't say the solution is to not be able to detect faction mates, because then you really will make dealing with infiltrators impossible.
The Blue Faction Mate Who Steals Your Stuff
Infiltrator snoops and steals your stuff. What do you do if you can't kill him to get it back?
The Blue Faction Mate Who Passes Along Intelligence
This one probably should have been at the top of the list because the stronghold runes have made it so gosh darn easy, but would also include the infiltrator who listens and passes along to the enemy messages from the CL.
I could go on and on, but I hope you get the idea, i.e., some people can be very very creative about making nuisances of themselves while they have the appearance of being on your side in a battle. How do you deal with them without completely ruining everyone's game experience and without handing someone who is not a GM too much power (e.g., giving the CL the ability to expel other characters or guilds from a faction)?
This would be nice sometimes.
Z
Zyon Rockler
Guest
This is what I have been saying. That's why you base your ruleset on one main rule and then break it down so there are exceptions depending on, Tram, Fel, with only minor differences. So, when the rules are broken it doesn't matter what color you are, what guild you're in, the only thing that matters, you broke the rule.
So, if a blue, non-faction breaks any rules to any of the rules, they turn grey because all of the rules underline what you can and can not do.
So, now no one can say, but i'm a blue, so I can do anything and if we're going to add technical balance, look up association by another poster.
So, if you're in Fel, top of the rule chain, being different because in Tram you can't kill each other and you dispel a field, tree ruleset #46 Fel, they turn grey. If it were me, this would be one rule everywhere and greys could be killed without flag, so essentially you could have thieves in Trammel, but that's another story.
So, once they turn grey, you can kill them. It's a switch they hit, so you don't worry why they're grey, you just kill them.
PVP, anywhere, Tram, Fel, if you kill, you get a yes or no. Same with stealing, so again they would have to be reported. So, you can still PvP without penalty. You could even set the gump to off if you didn't ever need to report anyone.
What if people started dropping stuff on the ground. This is easy, turn up decay rate to 0 within Stronghold and stuff is all gone, like magic.
Then, make some creative barriers and real gates that I can bash in. Give me strongholds that I can burn and give me mountains so I can move them.
So, if a blue, non-faction breaks any rules to any of the rules, they turn grey because all of the rules underline what you can and can not do.
So, now no one can say, but i'm a blue, so I can do anything and if we're going to add technical balance, look up association by another poster.
So, if you're in Fel, top of the rule chain, being different because in Tram you can't kill each other and you dispel a field, tree ruleset #46 Fel, they turn grey. If it were me, this would be one rule everywhere and greys could be killed without flag, so essentially you could have thieves in Trammel, but that's another story.
So, once they turn grey, you can kill them. It's a switch they hit, so you don't worry why they're grey, you just kill them.
PVP, anywhere, Tram, Fel, if you kill, you get a yes or no. Same with stealing, so again they would have to be reported. So, you can still PvP without penalty. You could even set the gump to off if you didn't ever need to report anyone.
What if people started dropping stuff on the ground. This is easy, turn up decay rate to 0 within Stronghold and stuff is all gone, like magic.
Then, make some creative barriers and real gates that I can bash in. Give me strongholds that I can burn and give me mountains so I can move them.
You can't flag someone a criminal because they use detect hidden inside a base or cast a wall in front of you. You didnt even address Tina's post. Think about it and then get back to that with specific examples to address it.
Otherwise quit wasting everyones time.
Z
Zyon Rockler
Guest
Yes you can you turn them grey for using detect hidden within a faction base, why could you not do that? This is obviously a blue that is using detect hidden to reveal someone. It is the same as an attack.
If your hiding behind a bush, saying, oh god, i'm so scared because there's a guy with an oozy whose looking for you and I say, here he is, over here, behind the bush, then I am just as guilty as the murderer. Is this true or not true? So, reveal would turn them grey because they are attacking you.
It doesn't even make sense. You're saying your own team mate might reveal you and this is the type of arguement I need to figure out? You're just wrong.
They would be flagged and then you could kill them because you remove the tool that they are using which is to be blue. Is that so difficult to understand and if Tina has any direct questions then I would like to hear them from her not some BS that i'm not trying to respond to anything.
If a blue is in a stronghold and they cast a field, this is also a criminal act. It's like another country dropping the F bomb right on your head. It's declaring war. Ask yourself this question, What business is it for any non faction member to be in your base. This is trespassing, it breaks a rule. You can't just walk on an army base. They take all your clothes off, they scan your brain, you used to be able to but I dare you to try today.
If it were me, just simply having a blue near a faction base would put a big title on them, kill me now, cause i'm only here to cause problems and my system would turn them grey, simple. Now, I don't have to worry about them putting up walls, I don't have to worry about them calling me names. I see them as grey and I kill them, simply for being in my territory.
Because you would be flagged a criminal everytime you indirectly revealed someone while trying to reveal an opposing thief. Thats why. You obviously either don't play or dont understand the mechanics of it. You're on this good and bad kick without any real reasoning behind it. You're solution? Turn them grey? You don't care about the rest, if he does something we dont like, turn them grey. Yes that'll solve the problem.....
L
Lord Strahd
Guest
You cant stop those problems with the current system, I never made the claim that you could actualy do that.
What I was saying is that the code is broken, it needs things in it where it adjusts to different states, within the game. Meaning when you become faction the freestyle play is gone, you have made at the least a roleplaying commitment to fight for a faction. Things that went against logic would be stopped.
Sure I could go out to the road and jump infront of a car, I have that choice in real life, and Im sure a few of you actualy want me to do that. However the odds are high that I wont behave like this, its irrational. So my point being is that the designers can assume a few things just out of level headed logic and work with it. There is no need to give people the options to do dumb things that break the fun for others, by doing stupidity.
With the example above, detecting hidden, it shouldnt affect your own faction, but it does. You wouldnt from a continuity stand point, reveal your own teammate, intentionaly. So the code has to match this, by not letting people have the option, you just dont get to do it.
It all goes back to good solid product, and what is worth buying and what is worth your time. If you want to put up with junk that dont work half the time, or that isnt fun, and is a waste of time. Then by all means knock yourself out.
But If I have to I'll be the first to stand up and say, just because your loving it or are making due or are happy with it, doesnt mean that it actualy is the case.
A wise man once said : Abraham Lincoln
You can fool most of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you wont fool all of the people all of the time.
If you look at how low the activity in factions are, you can see that not many folks out there are getting fooled anymore.
SO do we have a broke system, Ill let you decide. BUT THE ANSWER IS YES.
What I was saying is that the code is broken, it needs things in it where it adjusts to different states, within the game. Meaning when you become faction the freestyle play is gone, you have made at the least a roleplaying commitment to fight for a faction. Things that went against logic would be stopped.
Sure I could go out to the road and jump infront of a car, I have that choice in real life, and Im sure a few of you actualy want me to do that. However the odds are high that I wont behave like this, its irrational. So my point being is that the designers can assume a few things just out of level headed logic and work with it. There is no need to give people the options to do dumb things that break the fun for others, by doing stupidity.
With the example above, detecting hidden, it shouldnt affect your own faction, but it does. You wouldnt from a continuity stand point, reveal your own teammate, intentionaly. So the code has to match this, by not letting people have the option, you just dont get to do it.
It all goes back to good solid product, and what is worth buying and what is worth your time. If you want to put up with junk that dont work half the time, or that isnt fun, and is a waste of time. Then by all means knock yourself out.
But If I have to I'll be the first to stand up and say, just because your loving it or are making due or are happy with it, doesnt mean that it actualy is the case.
A wise man once said : Abraham Lincoln
You can fool most of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you wont fool all of the people all of the time.
If you look at how low the activity in factions are, you can see that not many folks out there are getting fooled anymore.
SO do we have a broke system, Ill let you decide. BUT THE ANSWER IS YES.
L
Lord Strahd
Guest
What to give a good example of a broke system and how they went about solving the problem, this actualy happend and I was there, however I'm not going to name the game and im going to be pretty vague on the unimportant parts of the example.
I played a game where there was 2 factions if you will that fought over keeps. Side A was defending from Side B and some of the folks from Side A would log out and flip over to Side B just so they could reap the rewards of taking the keep. They wouldnt even help Side B when they did flip...just stand around and watch everyone else do the work, or in the opposite scenario, just stop defending / log out / flip over / and then start killing you.
Now that I've said all that, and I hope you dont have to read it to many times before understanding it, I will now go over how this problem was handled.
The people went to the forums and cried out to the developers to change this, it was veiwed as broken code. Eventualy the developers came in and put a 2 hour switch over timer to cut down on the last second flipping.
If things like this dont get fixed then you as a player realy dont have a choice. You put up with it, or jurry rig a way to counter it, or you just dont play.
I played a game where there was 2 factions if you will that fought over keeps. Side A was defending from Side B and some of the folks from Side A would log out and flip over to Side B just so they could reap the rewards of taking the keep. They wouldnt even help Side B when they did flip...just stand around and watch everyone else do the work, or in the opposite scenario, just stop defending / log out / flip over / and then start killing you.
Now that I've said all that, and I hope you dont have to read it to many times before understanding it, I will now go over how this problem was handled.
The people went to the forums and cried out to the developers to change this, it was veiwed as broken code. Eventualy the developers came in and put a 2 hour switch over timer to cut down on the last second flipping.
If things like this dont get fixed then you as a player realy dont have a choice. You put up with it, or jurry rig a way to counter it, or you just dont play.
Come on guys! I spent quite a bit of time making up that list and you can't take the same list and respond to each item, point by point?
What happened to, "Just give me a list and if we can't fix the problem then it can be a valid concern but if there seems to be an easy solution then we're just stalling"??
What happened to, "Just give me a list and if we can't fix the problem then it can be a valid concern but if there seems to be an easy solution then we're just stalling"??
Did you overlook the part about this "blue" being in the same faction as your characters?? He's in the base because he's trying to cause problems for you!
L
Lord Strahd
Guest
OK Tina, I'll give it a shot...however I'm going to need some time. I have to go do the joby job thing in a few. However when I get back, I'll try to specificaly pick through your debating points and offer a solution if thats what you want.
However I dont claim to be an all knowing genius, and some of my ideas probly still wouldnt work.
I think what I was shooting for mostly was not to discount peoples points, but to try to get us thinking about change.
Maybe if I can offer up some fresh ideas we can come up with something, but its more of a team effort than a one man show here.
Ill catch you folks in abit.
However I dont claim to be an all knowing genius, and some of my ideas probly still wouldnt work.
I think what I was shooting for mostly was not to discount peoples points, but to try to get us thinking about change.
Maybe if I can offer up some fresh ideas we can come up with something, but its more of a team effort than a one man show here.
Ill catch you folks in abit.
Z
Zyon Rockler
Guest
That's what I said, "It doesn't even make sense." Your own team mate might reveal you and that's your arguement.
I mean give me a break. I guess it depends on how the spell works. If it makes you run around yelling and screaming with your arms waving, blah blah blah, I guess everyone is going to see you.
The system is broken. It's like your telling me you can't reach the 2nd floor because your ladder is to short, well, get a longer ladder or find another way.
See what I said, your own team mate.
Why would the system reveal your own team? So, if you take everyone in the game, stack them up, and have everyone hide, now have someone cast reveal or detect hidden, it should not reveal same team.
Here's a story, you're in the army and you track the enemy so you can pinpoint their location, once you find them, do you then radio the enemy and say, "We found you, here is our position?" No, you do not. So, the system could not work in a way that makes no sense or has no logic.
How can you have a logical system, such as, good vs. evil placed in another system that allows good to be more evil than the bad?
Z
Zyon Rockler
Guest
Tina, I will continue to think about answering your questions but I can't just answer because they deal with different systems and for the exact solution you would need to have an understanding on how to better mesh the system.
It's like we are looking at this huge picture and your pointing to different places and asking me questions about those areas but if I answer you it would distort the picture. Try asking one at a time and don't be surprised if I say a gump should come up asking you yes or no and if yes, turn grey and kill em 'cause to me this is the easiest way to eliminate the barriers that have been placed between the players.
If any player is using an object or a system and is being affected negatively, the system should then change to show positive.
You said about gates and the same team your on putting the gate up and down. My solution, make it so you can destroy the gate. Have it automatically go down and stay down. The system as a whole would have to be changed so it could support other systems, rather than working against each other.
To me, these are just bugs. This is what I see as a bug because it crawls around, it gets on people and it bothers you, kind of like me rolleyes:
I'm not saying the system could not work with bugs, i'm just saying they affect the other systems in a negative way.
Think about it, you're sitting in front of a computer and the screen is black and there is a cursor flashing, the blackness is like looking into space. You need only to imagine and you can create.
It's like we are looking at this huge picture and your pointing to different places and asking me questions about those areas but if I answer you it would distort the picture. Try asking one at a time and don't be surprised if I say a gump should come up asking you yes or no and if yes, turn grey and kill em 'cause to me this is the easiest way to eliminate the barriers that have been placed between the players.
If any player is using an object or a system and is being affected negatively, the system should then change to show positive.
You said about gates and the same team your on putting the gate up and down. My solution, make it so you can destroy the gate. Have it automatically go down and stay down. The system as a whole would have to be changed so it could support other systems, rather than working against each other.
To me, these are just bugs. This is what I see as a bug because it crawls around, it gets on people and it bothers you, kind of like me rolleyes:
I'm not saying the system could not work with bugs, i'm just saying they affect the other systems in a negative way.
Think about it, you're sitting in front of a computer and the screen is black and there is a cursor flashing, the blackness is like looking into space. You need only to imagine and you can create.
It's because it happens.........that is my argument. I dont even want to give you examples, you just ignore them. I'd rather beat my head into a wall.
There is a skill called "detect hidden" feel free to check it out.
Not everything is black and white. It's a video game that has magic and dragons etc. You can't turn everything into logic. For ****s sake, I'm going to play freecell. At least there if I have to put up with stupid **** like this it'll be my own fault.
L
Lord Strahd
Guest
I would ask that you point out which situation you want me to answer then. I don’t get paid to sort through everything, and input is on a voluntary basis, when I get time or feel that I have something worth saying. I will start by giving you my take on the things in this post, its going to be long winded, you have a considerable amount to go through and if you want more then we will cross that bridge later.
I'll give it a shot, nothing here will say though that my ideas would work without considerable play testing, debugging, so on and so forth, development is a process, its like Rome, it don’t get built over night. The best thing we can try to do is shoot holes in the weak ideas until we get something good to go with, and then go try it out. Obviously, this won’t even happen unless we can also get the Developers on board with our Ideas as a community. We would probably get a lot more done if we as a community could agree on trying a direction, even if we didn’t agree on everything proposed to try. At least that’s something instead of perpetual debate.
In other games they have an option called /duel it allows you to fight or spar around with your own faction mates on a consensual basis.
I stated this in an earlier post and explained the logic behind it...and it’s also been solved in other games. They solved it by not allowing factions members to dispel the other faction member’s spells.
This is usually considered bad code in a faction style environment. Most other games don’t let you affect your own teammates with spells like these. Meaning if your in the same faction then the wall doesn’t work against them, you would walk right through it. However something like this would be better if it was replaced with another spell. Maybe a different crowd control spell that actually makes more since.
Same as previous answer, this is called non- collision. Basically if its your own team there is no hindrance (pet or otherwise) and if its the opposite team then it is a hindrance.
Other games either won’t allow items to be thrown down in bases at all or if they can be then they have no collision. It’s kind of funny you hear about players changing the collision code their selves so that they won’t collide with items now. Again its just dumb broke coding because (insert lame reason).
One game I played had a /consent option that let some people drag your corpse or gave them the ability to loot it.
However, this isn’t the norm usually. In most game they don’t let anyone loot a corpse, only the owner of the corpse.
-------------------------
OK thats the first half...I'll get to the next half soon.
Tina and Ber how do you like this proposal its an excerpt from the Comprehensive Faction System I have been compiling and I updated it from the previous 4 factions to Three New Factions before posting. The mention of the Sub Commander is defined on another section in more detail but its basically someone the Commanding Lord can assign to act as the Commanding Lord if he/she isn't on at the time.
Comprehensive Faction System (excerpt)
The Commanding Lord is the democratically elected leader of a Faction by its membership and granted the authority to command and provide direction to the army by the Faction's ruling authority (The Guardian [GL], Queen Dawn [V] and Free Traders [FT]. Specific functions include setting the tithe rate, transferring silver, finding and removing misplaced traps, appointing a Sub Commander, and assigning Town Financial Ministers and Sheriffs.
As the elected Faction Leader, the Commanding Lord can enforce his authority upon faction members within the Faction Stronghold by saying “You are exiled”.
Exiled Faction members are immediately removed from the Faction Stronghold and may not enter for the rest of the day or until The Commanding Lord removes their name from the Faction exiled list using the Commanding Lord options on the Faction stone. Only 5 faction members can be exiled at a time.
The Commanding Lord can extend his authority by appointing a Sub Commander. A Sub Commander has all the rights and privileges of the Commanding Lord and is usually a trusted faction member who is available when the Commanding Lord is not present. Neither the Commanding Lord nor the Sub Commander can be exiled from the Stronghold although the Commanding Lord may remove the Sub Commander from office using the Commanding Lord’s options on the Faction stone.
The Faction members are responsible for selecting the leader and they are ultimately responsible for the consequences of that choice.
**Note: Exiling works the same as house banning, so characters on the same account would also be exiled for the day. Theoretically a person who has a character in an opposing faction (which is not suppose to be able to happen) would be banned with from entering the faction base with that character as well)
L
Lord Strahd
Guest
In other games these are called stronghold hooks, its predetermined advantageous places that are in locations that make the most since from a tactical point of view. Basically keep upgrades that anyone would be able to buy or upgrade if they had the money or the skill to do such. This makes them more predictable but also makes them less exploitable.
Otherwise its more of a less permanent skill that the user would have that could be placed and not affected by anyone other than the placer and there wouldn’t be a limit on how many could be placed other than a limit on how many that a single person could place. Usually these types of traps only work for a limited amount of time and require the person to be somewhat present.
Usually in other games static barricades like this work like the collision I described earlier. Defenders pass without restriction, and attackers have to destroy the obstacle or other specific task to gain entry.
I’ve already answered this in one of your other examples, and Infiltrators are a moot point if their ability to grief has been taken away by other forms of code. The system wouldn’t be fixed by any one single piece of code, and would take a all the code working together and not having lots of major loop holes. There will always be some loop holes, it’s the nature of testing the parameters, not all people but some people will use any advantage they can get. The point is to lessens the impact that these loop holes damage the overall system.
Stealing from your own faction is the same as murdering your own faction member. Realistically it wouldn't or shouldn't happen overtly; they would get kicked out of the faction by the leaders.
In a game system that wanted to support this logic. Stealing from your faction wouldn’t even be an option. The option would be taken out of your hands under that assumption of logic. Most other games don’t allow you to take any hostile actions toward your own factions.
This is a good loop hole and its hard to keep a handle on it. In other games we never used the open chats as the main form of communication. It was used as a way to rally point or to make a last second command to the general militia; such as push! or charge! or pull back!
All other intelligence went through private channels...IE Alliance / guild / or a VOIP.
As far as numbers and location there are two different scenarios
In a stronghold this intelligence means less people are going to attack the stronghold or not, and numbers might give a sense of victory or defeat, however the location means very little, the attackers already know of the location to begin with. The main reasoning for attacking a stronghold is because there is usually something that one side wants to acquire that’s protected in that stronghold.
The second is in the open field, and the best defense for this is to stay moving and discrete. If you pick up a tail that doesn’t seem trustworthy, then recall to another rally point.
As a closing statement, that’s the thing about PvP, it’s a constant adaptation of your surroundings. People will test the fence for weak spots, its part of trial and error problem solving. If they can get an advantage they will.
Have you ever heard the saying "alls fair in love and war". Well its true, honor goes straight out the window and all they care about is that you loose and they win.
That’s not to say that there aren’t people out there that will give you a fair shake. However, consider those folks the exception to the rule and not the rule itself.
The system, in its current state is riddled with so many flaws and everyone is throwing water on the fire. However, throwing water on the fire isn’t actually fixing the problem, it’s only giving people time to get out of the building, its not rebuilding the building into something that’s fire proof.
And if you read all that here is a broccoli
Lore, I do not like the idea of a CL or his designees being able to exile other players from faction-related locations. I think it's way too much power for any player or group of players to have and far too easy for it to end up being abused by someone using alternate accounts to rig an election. I think it could easily end up driving people out of factions.
I would far rather deal with infiltrators the way we already deal with them than have the developers invent new tools for griefing people. I'm fine with people playing the part of infiltrators, spies, and troublemakers. Although it can at times be a bit of a nuisance, it makes things more interesting and keeps people on their toes and working as a group. It can also be quite funny. (Bere and his antics when we were, well we still are, in opposing factions definitely come to mind and put a big smile on my face because he's not an obnoxious jerk who acts and talks like he's 12 years old.)
The only reason I've been posting in this thread is to respond to people who are trying to remove the ability to "kill" the infiltrator/spy/troublemaker characters and who are also trying to argue that there's no place for red characters in factions.
The way I look at it, anyone who decides to play an infiltrator/spy/troublemaker type of character of course realizes he's running the risk of getting clobbered. However, all he's going to lose is a little bit of gold. Some won't even lose that because they run around in nothing more than a death robe. The character won't even go into skill loss. Why should I ever have the ability to keep someone from engaging in this kind of activity when they pay the same subscription fees to play as I do? If they want to be a pest and risk getting clobbered, fine with me. Just make sure I still have the ability to try to clobber them if they become too annoying. And make sure I can still use a red character for that purpose, if desired, since one of the main reasons some people play that type of character is to make others' blue characters go red. That's all I want. I don't want to prevent anyone from having their fun in Fel, where it's pretty much "anything goes," which is what I think your suggestion would definitely do.
As far as I'm concerned, just leave things more or less the way they are, other than (1) restore the ability to use pets and mage summons to defend yourself against a murderous faction mate (why that limitation crept in on the production shards when the developers fixed an exploit situation that was unique to Siege is beyond me); (2) get rid of stronghold runes; and (3) let necro characters use the Exorcism spell to exorcise ghosts who have no corpse in the stronghold.
Edited to add: My reply doesn't mean there isn't any merit in looking at some of the suggestions Strahd made because they might take care of some of the stuff that is not easily and quickly addressed by just temporarily taking the troublemaker out of action by clobbering him, e.g., placing your traps in the boonies.
I would far rather deal with infiltrators the way we already deal with them than have the developers invent new tools for griefing people. I'm fine with people playing the part of infiltrators, spies, and troublemakers. Although it can at times be a bit of a nuisance, it makes things more interesting and keeps people on their toes and working as a group. It can also be quite funny. (Bere and his antics when we were, well we still are, in opposing factions definitely come to mind and put a big smile on my face because he's not an obnoxious jerk who acts and talks like he's 12 years old.)
The only reason I've been posting in this thread is to respond to people who are trying to remove the ability to "kill" the infiltrator/spy/troublemaker characters and who are also trying to argue that there's no place for red characters in factions.
The way I look at it, anyone who decides to play an infiltrator/spy/troublemaker type of character of course realizes he's running the risk of getting clobbered. However, all he's going to lose is a little bit of gold. Some won't even lose that because they run around in nothing more than a death robe. The character won't even go into skill loss. Why should I ever have the ability to keep someone from engaging in this kind of activity when they pay the same subscription fees to play as I do? If they want to be a pest and risk getting clobbered, fine with me. Just make sure I still have the ability to try to clobber them if they become too annoying. And make sure I can still use a red character for that purpose, if desired, since one of the main reasons some people play that type of character is to make others' blue characters go red. That's all I want. I don't want to prevent anyone from having their fun in Fel, where it's pretty much "anything goes," which is what I think your suggestion would definitely do.
As far as I'm concerned, just leave things more or less the way they are, other than (1) restore the ability to use pets and mage summons to defend yourself against a murderous faction mate (why that limitation crept in on the production shards when the developers fixed an exploit situation that was unique to Siege is beyond me); (2) get rid of stronghold runes; and (3) let necro characters use the Exorcism spell to exorcise ghosts who have no corpse in the stronghold.
Edited to add: My reply doesn't mean there isn't any merit in looking at some of the suggestions Strahd made because they might take care of some of the stuff that is not easily and quickly addressed by just temporarily taking the troublemaker out of action by clobbering him, e.g., placing your traps in the boonies.
Thank you for the replies, and yes I did read them and will read them again tomorrow. I need to give them some more thought!And if you read all that here is a broccoli
Z
Zyon Rockler
Guest
I don't see how leaving things the way they are is going to help People find factions new or interesting. Anytime we go over one system that has a problem we find the same result. It needs to be changed. For example, with traps, in Battle Field, I play a mechanic, you get to have 5 mines, you throw the mines out and then you hide. When a tank comes by the mines go up in the air and become active. If the tank then moves the mines collide with the tank and explode.
If you die before the mines are used, they disappear. If you lay down more than 5, then it takes the first one away. To me this is a sound system. Their mechanics can also pick the mines up. They can't come pick them up and hide them but they can remove them, so you'll have to put down more.
The question is how do you prevent someone from taking all your faction traps and hiding them. To me, it's change the code. Implement a system that works, don't allow people to hide the traps.
And this thing with the gates, it's all based on the design of the stronghold. The gate might not be necessary for people coming in and out. The gate might be to protect something within the stronghold. Everyone pictures that same gate, that same stronghold, that same last time this happened to me. You have to take into consideration it would all be different and you would have to test the idea and change it until it works.
It is the solution because it works in real life, so obviously it could be made to work in the game. The question is, how fun can you make something like that? To be able to destroy the gate or to scale the wall, to me adds realism and fun. I mean, look at what your saying the problem is, you say if somebody, so you have to remove the equation, somebody. So, there's alot of ways you can do this.
Say enemy faction gets close to the gate, the gate closes, so each step could be done in 10 different ways. So, gate closes is step 1. How does it close? Why does it close? Is something that would have to be tested but we can assume the outcome would be a closed gate. Then, we need to figure out how to open the gate so that people can pass through. Well if your enemy, have them break it down. So, now the question, how does the good guy get through the gate? Well, they don't, they use a different way. Again this can be done in many ways.
You could have ladders where you are able to run up the wall and simply jump off the other side or go down like a broken stair, where you can get down but not up. Teleporters could be used, tunnels could be used, side doors could be used. You could even stick people on catapults and fling them over the wall, although they would have to take some kind of damage.
My point is, is to answer the question is just ridiculous because you have to design a system that actually allows for everything to work. So, if we don't decide to start testing it, we're just saying or assuming, it's not a good idea.
What you have to understand about any kind of griefing, if your going to allow it, then you have to have the gumps come up asking if you want to report the person because then it doesn't matter, it's up to the person. You've given them a way to communicate to the system. They can say, Hey system this guy attacked me again, Hey system this guy keeps an orting my fields.
There also has be hardcore system designs that just simply stop certain things from happening. Again, it would have to be tested but if you have a blue in your stronghold or any where near a faction base, the system should be able to recognize it.
But again you have to build it and then as it grows, make the changes and build systems. It's just my strong opinion without these basic systems working there will be no way for the player to communicate to the system and any system that is implemented will have that major flaw, unless it is so hardcore program, kinda like a wall. You can't walk through a wall.
So, i'm guessing any other system that is implemented or any other approach would need a sub-system to manage it.
If you die before the mines are used, they disappear. If you lay down more than 5, then it takes the first one away. To me this is a sound system. Their mechanics can also pick the mines up. They can't come pick them up and hide them but they can remove them, so you'll have to put down more.
The question is how do you prevent someone from taking all your faction traps and hiding them. To me, it's change the code. Implement a system that works, don't allow people to hide the traps.
And this thing with the gates, it's all based on the design of the stronghold. The gate might not be necessary for people coming in and out. The gate might be to protect something within the stronghold. Everyone pictures that same gate, that same stronghold, that same last time this happened to me. You have to take into consideration it would all be different and you would have to test the idea and change it until it works.
It is the solution because it works in real life, so obviously it could be made to work in the game. The question is, how fun can you make something like that? To be able to destroy the gate or to scale the wall, to me adds realism and fun. I mean, look at what your saying the problem is, you say if somebody, so you have to remove the equation, somebody. So, there's alot of ways you can do this.
Say enemy faction gets close to the gate, the gate closes, so each step could be done in 10 different ways. So, gate closes is step 1. How does it close? Why does it close? Is something that would have to be tested but we can assume the outcome would be a closed gate. Then, we need to figure out how to open the gate so that people can pass through. Well if your enemy, have them break it down. So, now the question, how does the good guy get through the gate? Well, they don't, they use a different way. Again this can be done in many ways.
You could have ladders where you are able to run up the wall and simply jump off the other side or go down like a broken stair, where you can get down but not up. Teleporters could be used, tunnels could be used, side doors could be used. You could even stick people on catapults and fling them over the wall, although they would have to take some kind of damage.
My point is, is to answer the question is just ridiculous because you have to design a system that actually allows for everything to work. So, if we don't decide to start testing it, we're just saying or assuming, it's not a good idea.
What you have to understand about any kind of griefing, if your going to allow it, then you have to have the gumps come up asking if you want to report the person because then it doesn't matter, it's up to the person. You've given them a way to communicate to the system. They can say, Hey system this guy attacked me again, Hey system this guy keeps an orting my fields.
There also has be hardcore system designs that just simply stop certain things from happening. Again, it would have to be tested but if you have a blue in your stronghold or any where near a faction base, the system should be able to recognize it.
But again you have to build it and then as it grows, make the changes and build systems. It's just my strong opinion without these basic systems working there will be no way for the player to communicate to the system and any system that is implemented will have that major flaw, unless it is so hardcore program, kinda like a wall. You can't walk through a wall.
So, i'm guessing any other system that is implemented or any other approach would need a sub-system to manage it.
L
Lord Strahd
Guest
ROFLMAO I want to see that!
