Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Ilquis

Forencith's page

686 posts. Alias of KitNyx.


RSS

1 to 50 of 686 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

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.

Thoughts?

Goblin Squad Member

Because people have thoughts they want to share or want feedback on.

Goblin Squad Member

I will probably pay respects to the whole pantheon as needed...but look upon Sivanah as my personal patron.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
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.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

There will be no "shocking the system" if the domination centered organizations operate as I previously suggested. They won't be breaking any rules to do so, nor avoiding any system (well perhaps indirectly they will), and so there will be no behavior for GW to shock.

Through the use of feuds, faction, war, SADs, spies, low rep alts, assassination, meta game tactics, etc a company or settlement will be targeted and for no other reason than they are not part of the evil empire. No level of diplomacy, short of accepted subjugation, will meet their demands.

If none of those methods have a prohibitively high cost when collectively used against everybody, then something's wrong.

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).

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Urman wrote:
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.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

If Wow was a PvP improvement over EQ (which I never played) then EQs PvP must have really sucked. Wows PvP was nothing more than meaningless arena care bear PvP, no player looting and the most you suffered was a repair bill.

I certainly hope PFO has a better PvP system than Eve, but that is a pretty tall order. The key will be to have as low an entry level or lower and I think that is certainly doable. The combat itself should be more dynamic, not just tab targeting + auto facing. The use of keywords and other enhancers should also add greater diversity and skill combinations that should really advance the system beyond other PvP based MMOs.

I think you missed my point.

WoW was an improvement over EQ not because it had better PvP, but because it did all the little things that surround a Theme Park core much better.

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.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Bringslite wrote:

@ Bluddwolf

No, bandits are stewards of a healthy economy and will "victimize" other players far less than merchants in the player economy.

You have written this (in various ways) since well before I first posted here. I have to believe that it is a deeply seated feeling or philosophy (if you will). If you should ever be so inclined, I would love to read more detail about why you think that someone that buys or sells things is more of a victimizer than someone that just takes things from everyone they see, when they think they can.

[...]

In that video you could see the most economically detrimental behavior ( the front end of gold farming) to the player economy. There you see a player farming hundreds of good pieces worth of pork chops in less than 10 minutes.

That is the kind of character I would love to gank, instantly killing him in a one shot, and take his 10 minutes worth of fortune in less than 3 seconds! But games like WOW don't allow for non consensual PvP in that way, and so this guy gets to gain vast wealth from little effort and in complete safety.

[...]

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.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Banesama wrote:

Since it seems PFO will go the faction route with Merchants/Bandits. I hope they have several different factions. One Merchant faction might be at odds with another Merchant factions. The same with Bandits.

I can see one Bandit faction working along side a Merchant factions to disrupt a rival Bandit factions. And many other types of scenarios.

I hate to requote myself:

Bluddwolf wrote:
I would expect that most if not all factions will have merchants and guards, and a few will have bandits, etc. etc.
Merchants, Bandits (Outlaws) and Guards are roles and they should be found in just about any organized faction or settlement.

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.

Goblin Squad Member

True, I was more concerned with the caravan guards, but Stephen has solved my concern by rolling them into the "Traders Guild".

Goblin Squad Member

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".

Goblin Squad Member

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.

Goblin Squad Member

@Bluddwolf, thanks for the quote.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Bringslite wrote:

Small scale PVP is faction PVP. You can't expect S&D to be the "go to" for party lvl PVP.

If merchant / caravans are required to be in a merchant faction as Stephen previously suggested, and bandits are in our own faction, then that would seem to solve a lot of it.

I have suggested it earlier, make the use of caravans a faction skill that requires the PVP level (4+) of that faction. The same for the SAD. Then make Marshals / Guards a third faction dependent role.

With that all of this complexity and worry about gaming and loopholes, etc... goes away. Bandits hunt Caravans. Caravans hire Marshal / Guards. Marshal / Guards protect or hunt bandits. Caravans evade bandits.

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.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
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.

Urman wrote:

Oh - can't they just travel with the caravan? Well, up to the point that they do their first S&D. Then the pre-fleece alt is flagged Criminal and dies to the watching bandits that "rescue" the caravan. He respawns somewhere else and is no longer available to S&D the caravan when needed - nor is anyone he was partying with, because the bandits killed them as well during the rescue.

oh - I'll just travel with 1 alt for every hex of my journey... At some point, you may as well hire guards.

And if you're travelling with something really valuable, so it's worthwhile to spend a lot of effort to do this pre-fleecing? This is the fun part: the bandits attack you anyway, perhaps with alts, and they suck up the double reputation hit, and they kill you and your party mates, and ride off with that valuable treasure.

Pre-fleecing doesn't make the traveler 100% safe.

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.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:

Also - If the pre-fleecer can be attacked as soon as he issues his S&D, it can be canceled, but he's still has a Criminal flag. So pre-fleecer issues S&D and flags Criminal; is engaged by bandit party 1 which cancels S&D process; bandit party 2 now S&Ds traveler.

I expect bandits will track known pre-fleecers with as much care as travelers track known bandits.

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.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am curious how GW intends to get around pre-fleecing by friendlies for 20 minutes of safety. That is what I see as the weakness in the "plan".

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
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?

Bluddwolf wrote:
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.

Goblin Squad Member

BrotherZael wrote:

@Forencith

I was looking at this as a sort of grand company, but if it is a "faction" then I totally understand what you are saying. I was thinking that you'd have to quit your company and join this group if you wished to caravan or SAD. but if it is the background factioning system already in place then I admit my wrong with joy.

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.

Goblin Squad Member

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?

Goblin Squad Member

BrotherZael wrote:

Oops there we go with the name dropping everywhere. Because clearly the "UNC" was the pivitol part of my plan.

I'm not suggesting we do this, I am suggesting that if it does get done (as was mentioned by Stephen Cheney where there is "one giant bandit faction") it should be controlled by PCs not NPCs.

throws hands in the air

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.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BrotherZael wrote:

This is probably a bad solution but...

Why not make [UNC] the only bandit faction rather than make a NPC faction?

That way there is still PC-interaction on all levels in regards to that aspect, there will be an effective learning-teaching experience. Also the people don't feel like they are joining some automaton in order to get their kicks, but are rather a part of a large, breathing, viable organization?

Actually, why not make two, to give sort of options (so everyone doesn't have to be vikings and there is some contention and thus pc-content there).

Lets call them "The Black Sun" and "The Zann Consortium"
(Too much infringement on the names?)

Because some of us intend to utilize banditry as we see fit...and already have our own communities just as legitimate as the UNC.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
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.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

Goblin Squad Member

BrotherZael wrote:

I understand your viewpoint on the matter, I just disagree about the capabilities of the individual and their ability to cause mischief.

If i became a pure diplomat I could not be company affiliated, but hop city to city. Each city I can train up at before moving on. In this manner I could train up, not be linked to one specific place, and then go into an escalation cycle and agitate them to super expansion vs. a settlement by whatever means that get added.

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".

Goblin Squad Member

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.

For instance:

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.

Goblin Squad Member

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.

Goblin Squad Member

Oh, and I would propose that the normal UI only support the status display of your immediate "party of 6".

Goblin Squad Member

Aarontendo wrote:
It's a sandbox game where players are supposed to be a lot of the content.

No, its a sandbox where whatever you want to do within the dynamics of the game is the content.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:


The top "party" must make the move and those below inherit the "state" and the options/consequences of that "state"?

Am I reading your idea right?

Exactly. Inherited down, whereas a leaf level party (with no nested parties) it only responsible for itself.

Jascolich wrote:
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.

Jascolich wrote:

What would the benefits be? (wider raid-like groups or some such)

- in-game communications could potentially be super confusing

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)
Party (which is the Party you are currently part but not leader of..."party up" in the hierarchy)
Party Leader (which is the Party you are the leader of..."party down" in the hierarchy)

So actually, the only people who would have more than Party and Band are the few members who are heading a nested party.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

Goblin Squad Member

BrotherZael wrote:

The reason for feuding one individual not the whole organization is because of organizations such as the Viridian Circle and others which are not a unanimous body but are rather comprised of various individuals who share a common goal. In other words, my actions are not the actions that Gedichtewicht enacts, nor will they be the actions Grickin uses, nor will we all agree with each others' methods. In addition I will be doing undesirable things now and again that have nothing to do with the Viridian Circle.

I am saying that some people might have a problem with the individual and the individual's actions, not the whole organization. If I attack TEO because I think they have become tyrants and are strong arming the masses of newbs into joining the "good" guild (purely from an RP standpoint), that has nothing to do with the Viridian Circle, nor should the Viridian Circle have to be held responsible for our actions. I see similar things happening in many places and with many guilds.

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.

Goblin Squad Member

Jiminy wrote:

The problem with just doing and not having specific mechanics in place (for SAD anyway) is that the use of chat windows in lieu of a SAD trade window will quite likely just lead to the victim rejecting the attempt. The reason being, they know that any attacks by the bandits will lead to reputation loss, and over time, this will destroy the bandit character by potentially opening them up to attacks and likely not allowing them into settlements to train other skills.

It will also mean 'bandits' are not flagged as such (until their reputation plummets) and other characters will not be able to take a proactive approach to countering them. They need to wait until the bandit attacks someone and gets the hostile flag. Conversely though, if some merchant actually accepts the 'chat window' offer of trade, the anti-bandits have no recourse either, as no criminal or hostile flags will be issued.

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.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DeciusBrutus wrote:
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.

Goblin Squad Member

Nevy wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Nevy wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
I don't think the bandit-hunting role should be limited to reactive actions at all.
Exactly.

It isn't limited to reactive actions. You can feud known bandit companies. You can actively search for their hideouts and loot and or destroy them.

I listed 8 or more actions you could take, and not all were reactive. Some were preventative, some reactive and a few proactive. The one thing they all were, was that they all required player action and or interaction.

Most of that I can do just by playing a non-bandit character.

I am still confused about the difference between a bandit character and a non-bandit character. What about them will be different without flags?

Goblin Squad Member

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...

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
One that is an incentive, not just "you will get punished if you do it that other way".

You need further incentive to play the way you want? Fun is not enough?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would prefer Alignment and Reputation before anything.

I have no interest in a game with no consequences for my actions.

Goblin Squad Member

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.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
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.

Goblin Squad Member

Kios wrote:

Or, perhaps, its a measure of how much that undesirable behavior would have an affect on the society you are a part of.

Should being a bandit in an enemy settlement's territory be better for rep than in your own or neutral territory?

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.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.
If not, it should decrease 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.
If not, it should decrease 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.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

Goblin Squad Member

Maybe we need another clarification on the definition and proper intent of "Reputation".

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiminy wrote:
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.

Goblin Squad Member

Jiminy wrote:
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.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

One thing to be careful of, if SAD'ing is not a zero sum interaction, it will be abused to grind Rep. In fact, considering there will also be diachronic Rep gain, it might be a valid position that SAD should be a slightly less than zero sum interaction.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
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.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drakhan Valane wrote:
NWN did Bards' performance with just a couple notes popping up off their head. Animations beyond that aren't required at all. They're already going to have buffing implements with the aristocrat.

Especially for an MVP...they can expand later.

Goblin Squad Member

*hangs head in abject foolishness*

1 to 50 of 686 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.