|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Well, interestingly, many pole arms in PF TT have [reach], meaning they can be used at 10ft, but not in close range. Would you accept that consequence in PFO? Especially with no collision? I suppose that however does not preclude collision-based effects or attacks such as "kick" to knockback an opponent that gets too close.
It generally sounds that you are not missing anything. I don't think that Bluddwolf is either. He seems aware that some actions will penalize rep and is planning a balanced approach to managing that as a bandit.
Exactly, I think the difference is just that you, Nevy, look at Bluddwolf's plans and see an at least average gradual decline to the dark side...Bluddwolf on the other hand, thinks he will be able to toe the line and play as he wants within the mechanics of the game, maintianing whatever Rep and alignment he wants...and as Bringslite suggests, balance declines with any available sources of increase (even if only the base - overtime).
I do not think even GW knows where they will need to draw the line yet.
That's exactly what I keep thinking...all of these actions have a cost, either you pay with DI or Rep. Bluddwolf keeps offering a hypothetical in which the "bad guys" seem to have an unlimited supply of both.
But...I am not adverse to heeding a warning offered; I can plan for worst and expect the best (or vice versa, as required).
This might be replicated by making some/many/most attacks against a formation hit a random individual rather than a targeted individual. (That would substantially increase the survivability of individuals in a formation compared to those in a mob. I think it would apply more to range effects and less to melee effects, but any formation would have drills for moving injured from the edges into the center.)
Or, as a magic effect, distributed evenly.
I thought his response was very telling though. PvP might be the reason for every mechanic in a game; PvP is always the core of player interaction.
Yeah, sorry...I still don't get it. I mean, I understand the player conflict is necessary for the game, incentives have to be there, GW has already embraced supporting what appears to me to be parasitic roles. I am glad they will be supported for their possible effect on the "Game of Settlements", but this justification I keeps seeing about how they will be good for the economy and such...I don't buy it.
Even in your example quoted above, I see little difference between the guy up top we are suppose to hate, and your intent. In fact, the reason you give as to why I am suppose to hate the top guy, that he found a way to harvest lots of materials in less than 10 minutes, pales in comparison to the result of what you want to be able to do...essentially harvest 75% of what he did, in seconds. In your model no gold farmer would bother with harvesting...they would just take up banditry.
Returning to a debate about how it is good for the economy, if we sink every 5th or 10th cargo ship traveling between China and the US, who does that benefit? Does making product more expensive benefit customers? Does selling less product benefit the manufacturer? You keep talking about how merchants will be able to sell their stuff for a higher price due to banditry making all items more rare...if you weren't taking their stuff, they would not have to. They are not able, they are forced to to make up for their losses. If they cannot find a buyer at the higher price, they loose.
So, again, I am not arguing against bandits being in game, I am glad they will be there. I am glad mechanics are being developed to support them. What I do not agree with is this silly idea that their existence financially benefits merchants and customers overall.
I actually hope they set it up like a matrix, guilds and factions (although for most mechanics they are treated the same):
Player 1 might be a member of the "Traders Guild" and the "Green faction"
Player 2 might be a member of the "Traders Guild" and the "Purple faction"
Both player 1 and 2 will have access to the perks of the Traders Guild...which will never be at war with itself, but the Green and Purple factions might. In that case, Player 1 and Player 2 would be at war with each other as disciples of the opposing factions.
Since the Traders Guild is found in an NPC town, it is safe to mingle even with people of the opposing faction (NPC Marshall policed).
This same setup can be used for the Assassins Guild (Poisoners and Assassins Guilds combined), and Thieves Guild (bandits/outlaws)...and perhaps even yet unexplored guilds like the Crafters Guild, Harvesters Guild, Warden Guild, etc.
I would have guilds as essentially neutral factions...but have slotting skills from certain guilds mutually exclusive.
Player 1 might be trained as both a bandit (Thieves Guild) and a teamster (Traders Guild), but would not be able to slot skills for both at the same time. Similarly, I would make assassins (Assassins Guild) and PC Marshals (Warden Guilds) mutually exclusive...or maybe even make all 4 mutually exclusive!
I would not see a reason to restrict Crafting and Harvesting Guild skills unless there is just a need to make decisions even more meaningful.
Ah, good call with the merchants and guards being one faction. I assume then that merchant is not anyone with a player run shop...since any crafter can hark their wares, but more the traveling merchant type? Increased cargo, speed, decreased guard contract costs, ability to drive a wagon, etc? And, I assume due to the skill set, these people will also be used for moving goods from PoIs and harvesting camps to Settlements...which makes sense if we want to keep them target-able by outlaws.
It sounds like the "merchant faction" will be quite diverse and have several avenues and mechanics (such as teamster and guard) for characters to specialize in. I just hope there are just as many options, choices, and diversity within the "outlaw faction".
Concerning the destruction of inventory/cargo as a way to prevent pre-fleecing, is the fleeced buff tied to the cargo or the character? If the character, what is to stop a setup in which your pre-fleecer SADs a merchant with a cargo full of rocks in order to give the fleeced buff, then the merchant switches out to the valuable cargo? All that solution does is add a step in the work around.
Concerning the faction system, the factions should actually be teamsters, (not merchants), bandits, and marshals. This then covers anyone who can drive a wagon...which should be necessary for moving cargo such as goods to market, freshly harvested materials in bulk, etc. This also removes the incentive to "be a merchant" without being part of the faction, since the skills required to be a teamster would only be available through the faction, and only slottable by those currently in the faction (but you cannot stop people from trading or crafting).
What I do not understand is why anyone would bother with SAD'ing, if simply killing cross factions is also zero Rep-loss.
Finally, some other notes on the interaction of these three factions, teamsters, bandits, and marshals. We can assume marshals will be given anti-bandit skills and bandits will be given anti-teamster skills, but unless teamsters are given skills which directly influence marshals it does not seem to be a complete system...and I have few ideas about what form such influence could take. Alternately, we could argue they should not be an intertwined system and instead separate systems. Bandits and marshals should be given skills that counter each other...and similarly (but separately) teamsters and bandits should be given skills that counter each other. Given the game setting, The River Kingdoms, I can understand an argument for bandits/outlaws being the crux, or axle, of the interaction mechanics...even if I think their influence overall will be negligible in the game of Kingdoms and Nations.
For the record, I am fairly certain no one from GW has suggested making any role faction based. I proposed it as a way to solve some of the other questions mentioned earlier.
Please correct me if GW has since suggested it as a possibility.
Agreed that it might not seem a huge deterrent, Forencith. But if the Fleeced flag last long enough for the traveler to get from one hex to the next, then the traveler need to pre-position all of those characters all along the route of march - instead of doing something useful.
Or just log them out after SAD'ing. Since you only logged them in to SAD to begin with..and if some bystander kills them? So what, the intent was to log them out anyways. Also, we know there will only be specific locations at which fast travel can be initiated...so deciding where to post your SAD'ing alt is not a difficult choice.
As for their location being an inconvenience, you cannot tell me spawn bind points and fast travel points will not be near each other...probably conveniently just outside town. Probably a town owned by the social group in question...who have in fact made killing anyone a criminal offense in their town (so anyone who jumps in as a vigilante is also branded criminal). The social group kills the interloper, runs their alt back over to the fast travel initiation point, and SADs. The caravan is now fleeced, decreasing the likelihood that other bandits will find them worth stopping...or, if this becomes common, does not effect a bandits choice because everyone is doing it...hence nullifying the desired emergent system that the SAD is suppose to create to begin with.
In fact, lets simplify this, why even have an alt. Why not be a 'bandit' that sits at the fast travel initiation points and offers in chat to SAD for 10g? Merchant accepts, gets the fleeced BUFF, bandit looses nothing...even though flagged criminal...because everyone knows he is really just sitting there offering a service. If it is possible, it will be common. Besides, we all know how much non-PvPers enjoy initiating PvP on some near naked guy sitting there AFK, criminal flag or not.
I do not see anything mentioned yet as a deterrent for a merchant (or any) association to have dedicated characters, alts or mains, who can log on to pre-fleece a caravan. Especially...if the cost savings to that social group over a month is more than enough to cover a Goblin Ball or two (sorry, I am not aware of the selection of "better" name for those), essentially paying for itself.
We already know some people intend to have 'low rep alts' if necessary for carrying out what they feel to be advantageous yet less than 'desirable' deeds. This use will just be added to the list of advantages.
Their concern was that players would just grind reputation. If players are grinding reputation through activities and through methods that are good for the game, the net result is, you have more players playing in a desired way.
I did not get that at all. I understood that their concern was how to avoid an easily gamed...and hence pointless system. Perhaps you are convinced it is a pointless system because you think it will still be easily gamed?
Moving reputation to just recovery over time is a mistake. GW has spent these many months getting individuals to desire a high reputation, to the point that they would be willing to participate in desired behaviors just to gain it. Only to now say, nope it won't matter your actions, just the passage of time.
Many of the arguments made in this thread suggest to me that they have made a wise decision.
For the record, I see serious issues with using the faction system in this way. There is no reason why all bandits, or assassins for that matter, should be part of a united faction. I proposed it to solve one problem, it creates others.
Of course, we do not yet know anything about whether one can be members of multiple factions or how that will work. Maybe factions like a Bandit or Assassin guild can be "neutral" or even unaligned and so membership in it does not preclude membership in other factions...and in fact alignment of other factions always overrides that of these. That solution then allows good bandits and evil bandits to be at odds. But again...what issues does it raise? I...we just do not yet know.
Mark Moreland wrote:
I see you've signed up for an account on PFWiki, Nihimon. Looking forward to working with you and other editors on your project. As we get closer and closer to Early Enrollment, the time to get info up is ever approaching, and while we may not have all the details on the mechanics of the game yet, laying a foundation upon which to add that information would benefit both our projects.
So, the reason I personally pushed for us (TSV) to create our own Wiki versus join you in your effort was because I feared bleeding over. Joe the Dragonslayer, a player of Pathfinder RPG (Tabletop), might not be able to distinguish between canon Paizo lore and what will surely be the ever chaotic influence from PFO as we keep kingdoms, politics, geographical references, etc for PFO updated.
For instance, PFO will have to flesh out geography to a much finer degree than PFTT does. TSV has members (professional geologists) who joined us specifically because they want to explore, name, and explain (with modern geological theory...and magic when necessary) the geological features we find in PFO, that are not necessarily in PFTT. Will Joe, when he utilizes PFWiki, know which is which?
I agree with all the rationales you gave, but will you have a way to distinguish PFO lore from PFTT...and note them as inclusive when they overlap?
I do not agree, like every permanent faction in the game, it should be NPC controlled and based upon lore. However, since no such thing exists in The River Kingdoms lore, I would suggest something as simple as a Bandit's Guild and give it equal standing to the Assassin's and Poisoner's guilds of Daggermark. That also provides a logical precedence, making Assassins a faction for training and "role development" purposes. The amount of influence GW wants to give PCs in the NPC factions is up to them.
Because some of us intend to utilize banditry as we see fit...and already have our own communities just as legitimate as the UNC.
I agree, Forencith, unless a member of your own faction took goods from them in exchange for safe passage. In which case, all of the dishonor of attacking them should fall on your shoulders.
In which case it would be an escort contract and I would take the Rep hit for killing members of my own faction who were conducting the escort. I do not think there is anything intrinsic to SAD that signifies safe passage from anyone except the bandit (and crew) who SAD'd you. That is how it was originally set up, I really do not see how they will get past the potential for abuse, the 2 pence SAD prior to traveling...so I expect it to either return or become something new.
If some character/party from an enemy faction was robbed 15 minutes before they run into me and mine, I should be able to attack them with the faction/feud system. We are afterall, at war and their previous engagements, intentional or not, are no concern of mine.
The key operand was "double rep loss"...since the normal rep loss for such an encounter was zero, due to us being in a legitimate war...zero times two is still zero.
So, in a sense, since the outcomes are indistinguishable, feud and faction conflict does trump being fleeced.
I think you overestimate your ability to gain access to the resources belonging to the residents of the settlements you intend to "hop into". Even with TSV's open-minded recruitment policy, our members and residents will always get priority for training resources before visitors.
It has been stated several times that training will be a limited resource. In my opinion, those who do not form long term relationships with those with the resources (settlements), will suffer from the lack. This is by design since GW wants people to join a settlement and participate in the "settlement game".
Good points all, that's why I wanted to discuss it. I think it makes an interesting dynamic.
If a "band" of 11 wanted to get universal inheritance, they just need to link the tails of the parties.
Party of 11 (variant #2): like the original, but insure the top level leader is also a member of the lowest level party. This creates a circular structure (assuming no branches) and exhaustive inheritance.
Top leader would only see their party, including themselves and 5 other members who each may or may not be the leaders of their own parties.
Typical use case:
Party of 6: Standard party dynamics. Everyone can see their team mates.
Party of 11: Leader can see their team of 6, one of those 6 (say member 3) is a team leader of 5. Those 5 are invisible to the top level team, but are visible to each other. I would suggest member 3 is either locked into the team he/she captains, or has a toggle. Any effect (such as flag) on the top party in inherited by the lower, an effect on the lower does not necessarily affect the top.
Cool feature, a group can have some measure of control on the effects of their party utilizing interesting data structures (read trees, graphs, linked list, circular linked lists...etc.). Then consider how effects are inherited.
Exactly. Inherited down, whereas a leaf level party (with no nested parties) it only responsible for itself.
Also wondering about flags... if the top-level group smacked down an innocent, that could have serious negative impacts on the nested parties.
Exactly, as above.
Well, currently there has been no "raid-type" group announced. As far as I have seen, the largest non-persistent social group is the "party of 6". As for communication, I would suggest the following communication channels:
Raid (or I like someone else's idea for a Band)
So actually, the only people who would have more than Party and Band are the few members who are heading a nested party.
Just tossing out an idea for consideration, the ability to "nest" parties. The idea is intended to address the desire for larger non-persistent groups.
To clarify how this would work, parties can be composed of 1 party leader and 5 members which can in turn be either parties or individuals. If a party leader invites the leader of another party, the whole party gets appended under that party leader.
Dynamically, flags would get inherited down, but not up.
But GW wants us to police ourselves through social structures. If a member of TSV was being a jerk to others, the "victims" larger social unit can come to TSV and threaten us for not policing our own. We would then have incentive to take corrective actions. I think that responsibility is integral to what it means to be a social entity.
Your suggestion essentially removes that whole dynamic, once individuals and their associated social structures can simply claim "oh, he/she/they do not represent us". I cannot see that what you propose adds more to the dynamic of social interaction than the inherent threat and responsibility created by knowing you always represent your social group.
Not if bandits target enemies.
In fact, if bandits are their own faction, that solves many issues. It solves Bluddwolf's objection to bandits feeding on other bandits as well as the concern others have about the inability to step in and assist those being attacked by bandits.
Or you can just flag as Bandit Hunter and go out and hunt bandits.
So you are suggesting GW develop special mechanics (realized as special skills) for every "role" separate from archetypes, that they feel is important to the game? And, would you suggest the selection and ordering of which roles are "important" should be done via crowdforging?
Why do you feel this is a better solution than developing generic mechanics/skills that can then be used by those who define their own role by simply doing? For instance, bandits would be bandits not because of their slotted skills but because of their actions alone.
I am still confused about the difference between a bandit character and a non-bandit character. What about them will be different without flags?
Exactly, roles were removed with flags...so every mechanic proposed has to be universal. What then defines a Marshal?
Why not have a bandit settlement in which everything is contraband?...And they can charge bandits for Jurisdiction Letters?
And then bandits can really be marshals?...err...Marshals can be bandits...
I would add a social/PvP skill called frisk that allows the frisker (if allowed by the victim) to view (not take) the entire unthreaded inventory. That, in combination with standard PvP mechanics, would give me everything I would want as a bandit or guard.
Easy to implement, since it is voluntary on both sides there is no question of Rep gain/loss, no loot exchange, and very versatile in use. What happens at that point is up to the parties involved.
I don't get why some of you feel so helpless? There is a whole lot of things that you can do to prevent, defend and retaliate against a measly little SAD.
Who feels helpless? I have not seen anyone suggest such.
EDIT: Personally, I am becoming convinced that what SAD adds is so "measly little" that it is not worth the bother. There is nothing here that cannot be done with the standard PvP mechanics and a chat box.
I intended my reference to "faction warfare" to include both NPC and Player factions/settlements, so I personally think so...otherwise it is just like RPK, but RPSAD (which I agree should have less of a Rep hit than RPKing...but is still random PvP).
Nuances aside, either Random PvP, including RPK, is a good thing or it is not.
So assuming everyone was doing something:
Would it be good for the game if x (a large percentage of the population) participated in faction PvP?
If so, it should increase Rep...if successful or not.
Would it be good for the game if x (a large percentage of the population) participated in thievery?
If so, it should increase Rep...if successful or not.
I personally would say yes to the first, no to the second. On the other hand, I can see nuances. For instance, I would condone x (a large percentage of the population) practicing faction warfare through thievery.
As such, why not just make thievery a standard PvP action with the standard PvP repercussions? Costs rep when used outside faction warfare (or other encouraged forms of PvP), awards Rep when used as part of encouraged PvP.
That is exactly the point I was trying to make with the generic system. How does one define a role in a classless system? What if I want to go be a bandit in TEOs area...and a bandit hunter in my own...and a merchant tomorrow? How is my Rep suppose to reflect how well I play three opposing roles?
To me, the only way we are going to design a system that is logical is to simply define the behaviours that are less than desirable, have those decrease Rep appropriately. If a theft mechanic is included in the game, anyone (who has trained it) can use it in any "role", but it should never be a positive thing. I think there are outcomes that should be less negative. Stealing a random 25% of someones stuff is less negative than stealing 75%, destroying the other 25% and killing them. Therefore, it should be less of a Rep hit. A "pure bandit" will then never be high Rep, but they can be "not low Rep" by balancing their theft use against their Rep gain (however it is gained).
EDIT: To clarify, Rep can only measure the success of a person in a role if they have set - prechosen roles.
I agree that is a ridiculous scenario and is purely gaming the system to max out reputation. From memory, there is a flag of sorts that gets set once a character (or group) is SADed that last for some time (20 minutes?) during which nobody can issue them with a SAD again. This would make it pretty unusual for two characters to take advantage of, as they would have to spend hours at it. Of course, this does not preclude ten characters doing the same thing.
Just to clarify, I am fairly certain the original system only prevented the same person(/party) from SAD'ing within x amount of time, not any person.
I don't think SAD is supposed to be a zero sum game, nor I assume will be the other archetypes reputation gaining mechanics. GW want people to play a certain way, and when people do, they are 'rewarded' with reputation. Thus, I don't think GW would be too concerned with players grinding reputation, as that effectively means they are performing the roles they want them too, more often.
I have to disagree with you...or the Reputation system makes no sense to bother with. I do not think it is working as intended if two bandits (or any role doing their thing) can increase their Rep by repeatedly SAD'ing each other for 1g (Or even just their 10 times daily to get their daily max).
But, I do agree with you, that would also have to hold true for any other roles mechanics. I accept this.
By your argument, I am not sure feuds and wars should not only not cost, but in fact give us rewards...because they are "encouraged" forms of play.
On the other hand, maybe I am getting stuck in the traditional definition of Rep...something I am sure I will have to fight as long as I play PFO.
Precision, ranged combat defeats formation combat almost every time.
Well, we would assume those with actual formation training, depending upon the actual formation chosen and the synergy among members creates magical effects. These effects could be the bonuses that make actual formations utilizing mechanics a significant benefit over pseudo-formations created from good organization and communication.
But also relevant...How about ranged formations.
But anyways, sorry, did not mean to waylay your thread.