Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
The good, neutral, evil alignment system.
Neanderthal
Member RarePosts: 1,861
Before I say anything else I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to bash the game. It's just in my nature to pick things apart. I thought this particular feature might warrant a little discussion.
Ok, so from the info thread here is the relevant explaination of the system:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When tribes are formed an overall tribe alignment is chosen. Players in a good or neutral tribe will automatically become outcasts if they ‘gank’ a good or neutral player of a non enemy tribe.
Players from an evil tribe are free to loot and pillage and will gain reputation within their own tribe for doing so, but they will also be vulnerable to attacks from all players who will be able to attack evil players without negative consequences. Players in good or neutral tribes will be allowed to put bounty quests on known evil players. In essence, if a tribe chooses to be evil they become the ‘monsters’ of the world.
Tribes can choose different levels of diplomacy with each other.
Players from friendly or allied tribes can fight each other, but only to unconsciousness and without looting capability.
Players from rival tribes can fight each other to unconsciousness with partial loot to the victor. Potentially the amount of looting can be agreed upon by rival tribes. (Setting the amount of looting is not currently implemented, but it’s something I am considering).
Players from enemy tribes at war can fight to the death with full looting (Potentially tribe leaders can come to a looting agreement for this as well).
Tribal leaders can set what actions are acceptable by their tribe members, in effect determining the laws within each tribe. Even an evil tribe may have a set of lows for its members to follow in order to maintain civil trade and exchange with other tribes.
Two good tribes can not become enemies, they can become rivals at worst.
Breaking the rules agreed upon by your tribes is possible but will result in a warning. If you proceed to act after the warning, your character is set to full evil mode and your reputation, alignment and karma consequences will be severe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now obviously this is intended to give some structure to the PvP side of the game and cut down on random PKing. The random murderer types will get shuffled off into evil tribes and be the "monsters" of the world, right? The reason I wanted to discuss it is that I'm having trouble seeing what the drawback is to being evil.
I see that good and neutral tribes will have restrictions and penalties for ganking. But people in evil tribes are free to do whatever they please with no penalties. Now maybe I'm misunderstanding things but it seems to me that this would actually encourage people to join evil tribes. You get more freedom and no penalties by going evil. In fact, if you are evil and you murder someone you will actually be rewarded with reputation gain in your own tribe.
Ok, so good and neutral have restrictions and penalties. Evil has no restrictions and rewards.
And then there is another thing: If a good or neutral player is in a bad mood one day and goes on a killing spree he loses reputation with his tribe (penalty) and if he does it enough he becomes an outcast from his tribe and has his alignment set to evil. Ok so what does this mean? It means that over time the game will progressively set more and more people to evil alignment but will never shift people from evil to good or neutral.
So I look at this and I see that evil has the most freedom, the fewest penalties, and there is a game system to change people's alignment to evil. I ask myself why wouldn't people choose to be evil? And if a person's alignment gets shifted to evil would there be any reason for her to want to shift it back?
It seems to me that the developers are making the assumption that most people will want to be good or neutral simply for the sake of being good or neutral. You know, out of the goodness of their hearts. Human nature being what it is I can't help being a bit skeptical that this will pan out the way they expect.
If I had to bet on it I would bet that the split between good, neutral, and evil would be roughly even at first with evil having a modest numbers advantage but over time the numbers of evil players would increase while the numbers of good and neutral decline.
Am I wrong? If so, why?
Comments
I'm pretty sure the dev said that there would be further penalties towards being evil to keep this in check, the devs do understand that there is a strength to being evil in the freedom you get. It has been stated that if the good evil balance gets out of whack then the will introduce things to rebalance the world (after all if the world goes 80% evil then any good/neutral clans will become quickly unviable. I think the intention is that evil players will be the minority, albeit still imposing a real threat on the world.
How sucessful they get this balance will determine how successful the game ultimately will be.
I think the original poster is correct that the evil alignment will have the upper hand until better territory control mechanics are added to the game and those will only be added later although much about that sort of control for the prelude part of the game is not really known.
For me the interesting experiment with this alignment scheme after territorial control is added will be whether the economic power and the greater propensity of guild cooperation among the good alignment will balance out the more numerous leaches who want to live by loot or extortion on the evil side.
Until territorial control is added the good and neutral alignments will be hard pressed to survive.... but then that could be quite a challenge.
We want a vid!!
Will good and neutral tribes have some game mechanic advantage in territorial control? Will evil not be allowed to control territory or will they have fewer tools in that regard or some restrictions?
If territorial control works the same for all alignments I don't see how it would have any adverse effect on evil tribes. You can say that good tribes will cooperate better with each other and that's probably true but it will still come down to a numbers game. If the numbers of evil players far outstip the numbers of good/neutral players then the fact that a few puny sized good guilds cooperate with each other won't be enough to stave off the ravening hordes of evil players.
To the other poster: I also read that thing about them adjusting the system if needed but I'm just talking about the information available to us at the moment.
It's just that, right now in terms of the game mechanics we're aware of, I don't see anything that would make a player think, "Hmm, I don't want to be evil."
PS: Perhaps I should have posted this in the other thread but when I signed in this morning it was in my mind to post about this and I just sort of automatically started a new thread without thinking.
I believe there are some game mechanics that are currently not being listed because they are not at a stage where he would like to list them. This does not mean that they will not be in at release, just not ready to be mentioned as of yet.
As for evil having the upper hand I apply my previous statement. There are some things Xsyon is not telling us. This game has been on paper for 10 years, I am sure in that time he has realized the misalignment and thought of a counter for it. Though I do not know what it is.
As for Good and neutral having an advantage in some way, I'm sure there will be. I know one advantage is that if you are in good standing with another tribe you will be allowed to use their totem to get quests and trade, and crafting tools.
I suggest taking a wait and see approach if you are unsure.
Yeah, I'm not bitching I just like hashing things out. Even if I'm absolutely correct about the way this will play out it isn't a deal breaker for me. Though I think the game would fare better if there were some real deterant to endless random killing. Also, I always take a wait and see approach as far as purchasing mmo's. But I still like to yak about this stuff.
Anyway, I was reading about this on the official forums and people kept saying that there would be punishments and penalties for being evil but so far I have yet to sort out exactly what those will be. There is the thing about being able to go to other tribe's towns but that doesn't seem like much of a hardship. Why would you need to go to their town anyway? I mean for any reason other than killing them.
And there was the thing about non-evils being able to put bounties on evil players but that seems irrelevant when good and evil will all be gunning for each other all the time anyway.
Anyway, I was reading about this on the official forums and people kept saying that there would be punishments and penalties for being evil but so far I have yet to sort out exactly what those will be. There is the thing about being able to go to other tribe's towns but that doesn't seem like much of a hardship. Why would you need to go to their town anyway? I mean for any reason other than killing them.
And there was the thing about non-evils being able to put bounties on evil players but that seems irrelevant when good and evil will all be gunning for each other all the time anyway.
Yes, they have not been mentioned yet, Xsyon seems to be keeping them low..maybe waiting for us the figure them out the hard way? Or just not at his 80% complete point to post about them.
Well posting on other towns totems allows you another way to sell items you have or to buy items you nor your tribe have. Also you will be able to post about any upcoming events you may be holding. The totems are going to be powerful in game communication devices, the more you have access to the better off you will be.
as for bounties, maybe someone stole an item off you, say your crafter is a master and made something using a rare material you happened to fine while scavenging you would want that item back so you send out a bounty for the return of this item.
Will good and neutral tribes have some game mechanic advantage in territorial control? Will evil not be allowed to control territory or will they have fewer tools in that regard or some restrictions?
If territorial control works the same for all alignments I don't see how it would have any adverse effect on evil tribes. You can say that good tribes will cooperate better with each other and that's probably true but it will still come down to a numbers game. If the numbers of evil players far outstip the numbers of good/neutral players then the fact that a few puny sized good guilds cooperate with each other won't be enough to stave off the ravening hordes of evil players.
To the other poster: I also read that thing about them adjusting the system if needed but I'm just talking about the information available to us at the moment.
It's just that, right now in terms of the game mechanics we're aware of, I don't see anything that would make a player think, "Hmm, I don't want to be evil."
PS: Perhaps I should have posted this in the other thread but when I signed in this morning it was in my mind to post about this and I just sort of automatically started a new thread without thinking.
Territorial control will involve some sort of economic activity. Even the fundamentals would include making buildings and walls and this is the sort of thing at which the good alignment will excel. So the greater the influence of the economic game the more balanced will be the two sides.
The numbers game will be interesting. The closest thing to this was the Light and Dark alignments in the game Dark and Light (may it rest in peace). Close to launch I estimated the Dark guilds had twice the numbers of the Light guilds with most of the increase coming just a month or two before launch. (I was a Light guild leader)
You said:
"Even the fundamentals would include making buildings and walls and this is the sort of thing at which the good alignment will excel."
Ok, but wait a minute. Why will the good alignment be better at this than evil? Understand that I haven't read every little thing there is to read about the game at this point so I'm not saying you're wrong, I really am asking the question sincerely. What advantage will good have in this regard?
And on the economy in general; evil players and evil tribes can still trade with each other can't they? Assuming they have any reason to do it. So I still don't quite get why good/neutral would have any advantage in terms of crafting/economy.
Ah great, another game with FFA PvP where 90% will kill/loot/gank/grief you on site and 10% will be the other noobs running around being the sheep for the wolves to pray on.
There should be SERIOUS consequences and negative for playing an "evil" character.
With the ONLY reward being.... you are playing an evil character.
Being evil HAS to be really difficult.
No trade with good or neutral players or npc's, even "evil" Npc's likely to kill you instead of let you use simple services like banking or rezzing etc.
It should be an extremely difficult life style, not one of easy pickings and no-real consequence noob ganking.
You people never learn....
Rewind 10 years and go play UO and please, for the love of god, give us some new ideas?
k thanks
You said:
"Even the fundamentals would include making buildings and walls and this is the sort of thing at which the good alignment will excel."
Ok, but wait a minute. Why will the good alignment be better at this than evil? Understand that I haven't read every little thing there is to read about the game at this point so I'm not saying you're wrong, I really am asking the question sincerely. What advantage will good have in this regard?
And on the economy in general; evil players and evil tribes can still trade with each other can't they? Assuming they have any reason to do it. So I still don't quite get why good/neutral would have any advantage in terms of crafting/economy.
My personal experience is that those who love ambush (ganking) type PvP have little interest in the more peaceful aspects of the game. So player interest is what will drive the difference.
Xsyon wrote:
I will pay special attention to the actual player community once the Prelude is launched.
There should be enough in place for the game to not turn into a gankfest. The intention of Xsyon is to be a fun, open, sandbox game with possibilities for all kinds of players. If the game starts to get thrown off balance by gankers, the balance will shift. Simple as that.
www.xsyon.com/forums/6-general-discussion/196-ffa-pvp
There will be downsides to being Evil, and Xsyon doesnt want it to be the main style of play in the game. Its going to be allowed but not allowed to the point where you can just do whatever and nothing will be done about it. Its an FFA PVP game but being EVIL will have its downsides.
-MrDDT
Yes, I know they say they will adjust things if needed but it's hard to discuss unrevealed game mechanics. Have they ever given any indication of just exactly how they would change things?
I also know that people keep saying there will be downsides to being evil but, again, nobody seems to know what the downside will be so it's hard to discuss it.
Look, unless I'm completely misunderstanding the intent behind this system it seems to me that the whole thing is based on the premise that most people will see "EVIL" as an undesirable condition they would prefer to avoid with their character. But so far I can't see anything which would make it unattractive to people. If they really do want the majority of people to see evil as undesirable then I hope they have a well thought out contingency plan because I honestly can't see the current rule set having the desired result.
Again, I feel I need to point out that I'm not complaining and I could live with this myself. I'm just saying I don't think it will acheive the desired result.
To Oakstead: It seems you have more faith in the destiny of Good to prevail over Evil than I do. I would say you are engaging in romanticised, wishfull thinking when visualizing the beleagered, stalwart defenders of justice and decency prevailing against overwhelming odds. I would say you are underestimating Evil. But then I've always been a glass half empty kind of guy.
Anyway, it's been fun discussing this but unless they reveal their secret back-up plan I'm not sure if there is much more to say.
Xsyon AKA Jooky said, "Then god will smite them lol" when asked once what if tons of people are going Evil?
=P Hope that clears that up a bit.
Skill / stat loss has been talked about. So I think thats not just saying "People dont want to do evil things because they are bad" Thats pretty harsh.
-MrDDT
As for reading the intentions of hardcore PK players, they don't like to follow rules and thrive on chaos. So wouldn't it stand to think that evil tribes would be more likely to war amongst themselves, and betray each other within their own tribes over not wanting to be held down by rules and alliances? Just a thought...
New information from Xsyon indicates that in Prelude the tribal built towns can be set to prevent PvP:
www.xsyon.com/forums/28-features/232-conflict-death-consequences-and-decisions
Ok, so there is this:
------------------------------------------------------
Xsyon:
Here's the current set up for the early Prelude:
Tribes can set the level of PVP in their town. It can be set to
protected and not allow PVP at all within the village, so villages will
likely be safe zones until they have time to build walls and we
implement more safe guards that players can control.
Evil tribes can't be set to protected, so evil players are open to being
attacked at all times.
------------------------------------------------------
Alright, so that gives goods/neutrals safe havens within their towns. That helps. It will make good and neutral more attractive to certain potential players.
Evil won't have that and that helps too.
Of course you could still end up with a scenerio in which the non-evils can barely step foot outside their walls without being murdered. I guess we'll see.
FFA PvP is in the game but it isn't the primary focus of the game. World development is the way the devs want the game to go. So in the prelude they have it so tribes can not be taken over but once chapter one comes out they can be. Prelude is to set up the world for war and to develop knowledge which is going to be a big differnece in the game since it isn't shared once discovered.
If FFA PvP is in the game, the FFA PvP'ers will force it to be the focus.
If FFA PvP is in the game, the FFA PvP'ers will force it to be the focus.
http://www.xsyon.com/forums/6-general-discussion/196-ffa-pvp?limit=10&start=40#2337
If FFA PvP is in the game, the FFA PvP'ers will force it to be the focus.
Unless the ffa PvE'rs force the game to be the focus.
Striving for Silver Stars since Gold is so effeminate.
Ok, so there is this:
------------------------------------------------------
Xsyon:
Here's the current set up for the early Prelude:
Tribes can set the level of PVP in their town. It can be set to
protected and not allow PVP at all within the village, so villages will
likely be safe zones until they have time to build walls and we
implement more safe guards that players can control.
Evil tribes can't be set to protected, so evil players are open to being
attacked at all times.
------------------------------------------------------
Alright, so that gives goods/neutrals safe havens within their towns. That helps. It will make good and neutral more attractive to certain potential players.
Evil won't have that and that helps too.
Of course you could still end up with a scenerio in which the non-evils can barely step foot outside their walls without being murdered. I guess we'll see.
That rule setting is ONLY for prelude.
After prelude (sometime this summer) it will open up all towns for attack. This gives people a chance to build up defenses in the world.
-MrDDT