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

GrumpyMel's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Society Member. 1,417 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,417 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Ok that server rack is just way, way too neat and organized for a real server room. You guys staged that right?

Goblin Squad Member

Excuse me for joining this late, but I think what this calls for is a more simple and workable mechanic of an INVITE function, which would basicaly allow 1 party to INVITE another party into a conflict, giving the invited party if it accepts, all the flags and status (and rep hits) that the inviting party had toward anyone else.

This allows for both merchant and caravan guards as well as bandits to add groups to a conflict as desired. Afterall 6 is an arbitrary number imposed by the technical limitations of the system. I see no logical reason to limit such temporary conflicts to an arbitrary number.

It also handles nicely the ability of a group to control which 3rd parties intervene in a conflict on thier behalf without the need to arbitrarly assume who is on who's side....which the system can't really know.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:
If they gambled and lost...
I'm considering the case where letting the WarDec lapse at their earliest opportunity was part of their plan from the very beginning.

How is that qualitatevly different from simply spreading rumors that they were about to DoW to get the Defender to start spending on preperations?

Other then the fact that they've cost themselves more to try to achieve the same effect?

Bluffs, Ruses, Intelligence are all part and parcel of the Game of Kingdoms that Player Organizations are going to play. How does that not fall within the bounds of fair (but dirty) play?

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not going to argue about EvE. I haven't played it but more succinctly EvE has a particular set of behavior involving scams that it defines as "fair play". Ryan has made it clear that PFO will not be following EvE's definition of that. Heck, maybe it even makes some sense being that EvE is supposed to be a dystopian sci-fi game.

In Pathfinder, a players character would logicaly know perfectly well whether they are handing over 1 gold coin or 1000 because they are physicaly handling each coin paid. If the interface doesn't make that information perfectly clear to the player, then that's the game's fault not the players. Taking advantage of a flaw in the games code or UI to do something your character would not logicaly be able to do in the game world is an exploit as far as I'm concerned. I believe GW is taking a similarly disapproving stance of it.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:
Whats to stop the Defender from simply issuing thier own War Dec back at the attacker in that case?
Nothing is stopping that. My objection is to the real advantage gained by the Attacker in that scenario. Either the War is over and they've completely disrupted their enemies production infrastructure, or the Defenders are forced to bear the costs of continuing the War.

You forget that the Agressor bore the costs for the initial DoW in the first place. If they gambled and lost, they already hosed themselves for that cost. Worse yet, they've just made an enemy who very well may turn around to beat the snot out of them.

For the Defender it's a calculatuon cost....is it better to let the War end or to go on the offensive themselves in hopes of gaining something.

Millitary preperations for War, even when not in a State of War are always going to be a percentage of the economy that is essentialy "wasted" if not actualy needed. It goes into the overhead of running a Kingdom. States that make good calculations about how much they really need are going to be doing better then States that don't. It's part of the Kingdom building game. Even in the absence of an official DoW...there will be posturing and rumors designed to get a State to spend more on it's millitary then it needs or really can afford......heck that's pretty much what happaned during the Cold War.

I also have a feeling that a State that thinks it's going to be able to turn a "peacetime" economy into what it really needs to defend itself in the time between an official DoW and when the fighting really starts is going to be in for a rude surprise.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Again not seeing the problem here guys. War isn't a structured badmitten match....it's a state where one side is throwing out the rules of Diplomacy because it thinks they aren't going to serve it's goals anymore.

The Agressor pays a cost for going to and maintaining a State of War, if they aren't gaining something valuable by doing so then they are just hurting themselves.

The Defender has the option of determining how much of thier economy they are going to devote to thier war effort. If they think the Agressor isn't a credible threat then they don't need to devote much of thier economy to the effort.

If the Defender thinks that turtling up and trying to avoid provoking an engagement is the best Strategic option for them, then that's a perfectlty viable approach that should be allowed.

If the Attacker drops thier DoW and the Defender wants reperations then they are free to demand them and can use threat of thier own DoW against the Agressor as a goad.

I hate to say this, but I think in this case you are trying to introduce mechanics for things that aren't needed.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Nihimon,

Whats to stop the Defender from simply issuing thier own War Dec back at the attacker in that case?

Ruses are legitimate millitary strategy, IMO, as are cutting ones losses after encountering stiffer then expected resistance.

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I have no problems with scams and knavery in general but they should not take advantage of mechanical deficiencies or shortcomings in the UI to do thier work. GW does have a responability to correct these when uncovered but players also bear a responability to not use them while GW is working on those corrections.

Example of fair play scam "Hey listen, you can save on contract fee's, escrows and all that rot. Just give me your load of furs, I'll take them to market for you, sell them and give you the money minus a comission" <takes off never to be seen again>
- The players loss is entirely due to his excersize of poor judgement

Example of unfair play scam. Player knows that in a certain interface, the font used makes a comma seem nearly identical to a decimal so he uses that interface to sell a dagger to a player for 10,000 gp rather then the 10.000 gp the player thought he was paying.

- The players loss is due mostly to a flaw in the game interface that should never have been allowed to exist in the first place.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think it's much of an issue. If the Defender wants to continue a conflict that the Agressor does not (presumably because the Defender is winning and counter-attacking), they can simply DoW the Agressor in return to renew the conflict. I'm not sure any special mechanics would be neccesary to handle such usage cases.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actualy, I think wars/feuds SHOULD be relatively expensive precisely because you don't want them used frivolously to circumvent the other PvP systems GW has put in place.

A company/settlement should have to consider whether there is actualy something worth justifying the costs of going to war before declaring war.

You don't want small or new companies routienely and automaticaly curb-stomped simply because they are small and new. That's bad for the game. If they have something valuable or are doing something directly threatening....sure....but every single time an organization should consider whether it's really worth the cost to Feud/DoW them.

The Kingdom system is really where you can have much larger scale wars....as these are larger scale political entities.

Perhaps you could even have a system where there is a declared War (or Feud) which is an object itself and where player organizations can pay a single cost to join that conflict as a belligerent as one side rather then having to individualy declare war against every belligerent on the opposite side.

What you don't want, IMO, is where War/Feud is cheap enough that an organization can trivialy DoW a ton of neutral organizations that have no interest in becoming belligerents. That kinda defeats much of the core design of PFO, IMO.

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Shane Gifford wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:
If your purpose building ALTS to prey on merchants/crafters and non-PvP characters then any advanced combat training would be completely superflous if not entirely wasted. Why would you need advanced PvP skills to engage characters who had no PvP skills slotted and little to no experience using them if they did?

If you run with a group of PC guards who aren't in low rep sucksville this shouldn't be any issue; your strong guys beat their weak guys. Unless they have an enormous numbers advantage, in which case they're kinda shooting themselves in the foot by using low rep guys when they could be fielding the same number of high rep guys and be much more effective in combat, and thus much more profitable.

But that's only when the merchant or crafter is proactively putting themselves in danger; I don't think we need a full team of armed bodyguards to be watching every noncombatant 24/7. The part I've been arguing is that when these people are not proactively putting themselves in danger (for example, staying in their own settlement) guardspeople should be able to give them better protection by way of a proactive defense rather than a reactive one. Because reactive defenses don't work so well when you have so much space to cover.

This is precisely the point. There is no possibility to provide a proactive defense when the patrols assigned to do so can't legaly engage intruders into ones territory.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
That's because the SAD has the cost of training, whereas maintaining a settlement and its territory is a free activity bereft of any costs.
LOL...lets say just for the sake of arguement that we stipulated that the exact same costs as SAD be neccesary... what then?

Why don't we wait and see the further fleshing out of the Marshal system?

But, if you want all of the mechanics of the SAD, then let go of your hang-up over the name, and use it. That is the only argument some people have against it. They don't like gage fact that it can be used for both chaotic and lawful means. Or the real problem is, it does have a skill and slot cost, and some want a freebie.

You can't use the argument that you have a settlement with its costs. Your settlement also gives you every advantage in power as well.

It's like you are writing a letter using the most advanced word processing program, complaining that someone else is writing a letter using crayons.

A pretty weak argument.

There are multiple reasons why SAD itself can't be used...as I've illustrated perhaps 3 times now Bludd.

- If a settlement wants to make banditry illegal then it needs to make one of banditries prime mechanisms.. SAD illegal as well or it's got a huge gaping hole in it's laws to be exploited. If it makes SAD illegal then it's law enforcment can't use it as a mechanism to stop banditry as that would make thier use of it a CRIME.... catch-22.

- The goal of SAD is to extort wealth from people to enrich yourself. The goal of something like tresspass would be to get people to leave your territory so they don't attack innocents doing business in your territory. The two goals are not remotely the same.

- It would be very easy for a bandit to bypass SAD being used on them by simply having no material wealth or coin on them and letting a handler character hold it all for them. It would be completely exploitive to allow SAD demand more wealth then a character possibly has or can pay. Thus all a bandit need do is pay the 1 copper the character has to his name when SAD'd by law enforcment, nullifying the ability to use it as a tool to keep him away from his prey.

- SAD likely involves CHAOTIC shifts. Law Enforcement is, by it's nature, a LAWFULL activity.

All these, as I've explained several times already, render SAD unsuitable for this function. A mechanism that works along similar general lines to SAD would be functional but not SAD itself. It is not simply the name that is unsuitable but the nature of exactly what the mechanism is designed to do.

Goblin Squad Member

Drakhan Valane wrote:
That's because the SAD has the cost of training, whereas maintaining a settlement and its territory is a free activity bereft of any costs.

LOL...lets say just for the sake of arguement that we stipulated that the exact same costs as SAD be neccesary... what then?

Goblin Squad Member

Bludd,

Obviously having the mercenary company declare it's own Feud would work within the existing proposed mechanics. Although I don't neccesarly see any unintended consequences that would come from allowing a Letter of Marque, sort of contract where the organization offering the contract also included the payment of Influence as part of the contract. As long as the Influence was paid I'm not certain as to why it would be overly important who paid it.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What I struggle to understand is how someone can on the one hand argue FOR the existance of SAD which allows one to engage in banditry without negative reputation or alignment consequences BY ANYWHERE in the game allowing the BANDIT to extort money from the target or force the target into PvP with no negative consequences for the bandit...

AND At the same time...

Argue against allowing law enforcment a similarly effective tool which ONLY in Law Enforcments OWN territory, allows Law Enforcment demand the target exit said territory or be forced into PvP without negative Alignment or Reputation consequences for Law Enforcment.

It boggles the mind how anyone can support the former and in the same breath argue against the latter.

Goblin Squad Member

Drakhan Valane wrote:
I'm pretty sure "breaking the laws to enforce them" is a type of corruption.

Yeah, I haven't even touched on the implications with corruption yet. Mostly because my impression is they haven't fully fleshed out those ideas. But that is a seperate point.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:

How exactly will they be perma-flagged for PvP?

We are talking about throw away low rep alts right?

GrumpyMel wrote:


...and under what logic is a Soveriegn entity not legaly allowed to enforce who is allowed into it's territory?
Im kinda missing this point... I said if you have people in your settlement who will not proactively enforce the laws, then fire them and find someone else who will.

No your arguement is that Law Enforcment must resort to continualy breaking the laws in order to enforce them, which will result in thier inability to enforce the law within thier own settlement. You are arguing for a catch-22 situation which is unresolvable and I'm rather suspecting you know it at this point.

The only effective recourse a settlement will be left at enforcing it's laws under this paradigm is to utilize UnAligned Criminal Alts to do so.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Xeen wrote:
If someone embraces their low reputation, they will be flagged.
They'll be often flagged, but only at times of their own choosing. I would be perfectly content if they were actually flagged at all times.

If someone embraces their low rep...

Then they will be low rep right? Probably not spending any time to increase their rep since they have embraced it correct?

At some magic number, you will be perma flagged as hostile.

Citation Please?

Furthermore....we've seen Bludd argue correctly that bandits using SAD and/or RAIDING need suffer no reputation losses....so that kinda kills the idea that an unaffiliated character engaging in hostilities will end up with low reputation in the first place.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:

Xeen,

If your purpose building ALTS to prey on merchants/crafters and non-PvP characters then any advanced combat training would be completely superflous if not entirely wasted. Why would you need advanced PvP skills to engage characters who had no PvP skills slotted and little to no experience using them if they did?

I believe this notion is even fully supported by Bludd's comments about running around in EvE flagged Red and never getting engaged by non-PvPers.

Under this paradigm....the only characters that advanced PvP training would be usefull against (Law Enforcement/Millitary) can't legaly force a combat engagement.

You dont need the high end skills in that situation, but when you run into someone who does you will die.

The thing is, with your arguments, the characters that are built for this very subject will be perma flagged for PVP. So Law Enforcement will be fully capable of engaging them consequence free.

If you cannot engage consequence free... Then engage with consequences, If Law Enforcement will not enforce the law, no matter what... Then I suggest finding someone else to enforce the laws.

How exactly will they be perma-flagged for PvP?

...and under what logic is a Soveriegn entity not legaly allowed to enforce who is allowed into it's territory?

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:

The method of implementing the penalty for low-Rep characters with a settlement is to make their settlement kick them out (or "suck").

The penalty for not being in a PC settlement is identical to the penalty for getting kicked out of a PC settlement. If the way to evade the consequences of low Reputation is to embrace them proactively, then I don't see the problem.

Keep in mind that there's no reason for even the worst PC settlement to be a step down from the NPC settlements. That would remove the factor that drives low Rep characters to those settlements.

It's not a REP issue...and with SAD and the way RAIDING is setup, bandits won't need to suffer REP loss in order to engage in banditry.

The issue is that part of what is built into the game is that if an organization engaged in repeated hostilities against another organization through methods such as banditry it COULD be lawfully subject to hostilties in return. This means that the agressor can't ALWAYS dictate the time and circumstances of any engagement. If the agressor sent a raiding force or a bandit force into the territory of the defender that force COULD be intercepted and engaged by the defenders forces before they do any damage. This no longer holds once the agressors force is made up of unaffiliated ALTS.

That is where Ryan talked about... You will have to take a hit for the good of your settlement. If you want you can use an alt for this right?

Although other then feuds, im not sure how your example only holds true for unaffiliated alts.

So instead of doing economic damage to a settlement due to banditry you knock out thier millitary by forcing them to Alignment/Rep bomb themselves into oblivion. You are presenting a no win situation for a settlement. In no way does that represent any sense of game balance.

The only alternative would be for a settlement to resort to using thier own set of unaligned criminal ALT's to enforce law in thier own territory. Which while it may end up being functional is patently absurd from a world logic standpoint.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen,

If your purpose building ALTS to prey on merchants/crafters and non-PvP characters then any advanced combat training would be completely superflous if not entirely wasted. Why would you need advanced PvP skills to engage characters who had no PvP skills slotted and little to no experience using them if they did?

I believe this notion is even fully supported by Bludd's comments about running around in EvE flagged Red and never getting engaged by non-PvPers.

Under this paradigm....the only characters that advanced PvP training would be usefull against (Law Enforcement/Millitary) can't legaly force a combat engagement.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:

The method of implementing the penalty for low-Rep characters with a settlement is to make their settlement kick them out (or "suck").

The penalty for not being in a PC settlement is identical to the penalty for getting kicked out of a PC settlement. If the way to evade the consequences of low Reputation is to embrace them proactively, then I don't see the problem.

Keep in mind that there's no reason for even the worst PC settlement to be a step down from the NPC settlements. That would remove the factor that drives low Rep characters to those settlements.

It's not a REP issue...and with SAD and the way RAIDING is setup, bandits won't need to suffer REP loss in order to engage in banditry.

The issue is that part of what is built into the game is that if an organization engaged in repeated hostilities against another organization through methods such as banditry it COULD be lawfully subject to hostilties in return. This means that the agressor can't ALWAYS dictate the time and circumstances of any engagement. If the agressor sent a raiding force or a bandit force into the territory of the defender that force COULD be intercepted and engaged by the defenders forces before they do any damage. This no longer holds once the agressors force is made up of unaffiliated ALTS.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:

You are not getting around the system, you will take rep and alignment hits and you will not have high end training.

@Grumpy Mel - Sure, they can not be feuded. Im not sure that matters anyway... Those will be the guys you do not want to feud anyway... as it will just cost you.

The point is Xeen, they won't be ENGAGE-ABLE by Law Enforcement while operating in Law Enforcement's territory no matter how many past crimes they've commited in that territory.

What I want to prevent is this scenario...

Day 1 - Bandit SAD's non-PvP merchant in owners territory. Escapes before Law Enforcment can respond.

Day 2 - Bandit SAD's non-PvP merchant in owners territory. Escapes before Law Enforcment can respond.

Day 3 - Bandit SAD's non-PvP merchant in owners territory. Escapes before Law Enforcment can respond.

(All of the above perfectly fine so far....the problem comes the next day)

Day 4 - Law Enforcement intercepts bandit skulking in thier territory.

- Law Eforcer "Get out. If you've commited banditry in this territory every day this week. You aren't welcome here"

- Bandit "You can't make me. I haven't commited a crime in the last 20 minutes in this territory so as far as the system is concerned I'm completely innocent...and I'm unaffiliated with any settlement or company so you can't lawfully target me...hence you have nothing you can do to PROTECT your merchants from me. I'll hang out until you logoff then attack a merchant when I feel like it...and the only way you can stop it is become a criminal in your own territory"

What I want to stop is the above scenario. It's patently absurd that a settlement owner has no ability to exersize soveriegnty over who is allowed into thier territory without being subject to hostile action by thier millitary/law enforcment. They have that ability if the intruder is affiliated with a company or settlement (through War or Feud).....they lose it once the intruder is not. It's patently absurd that they can't effectively enforce the law in thier own territory without becoming a criminal there themselves.

If we really wanted to make this realistic....once a person commited a crime in a territory they'd remain a criminal there forever after...unless absolved by the settlements own justice system or laws. While not advocating to do so....as banditry should be a viable path within the game.....law enforcment/millitary should not become automaticaly handcuffed simply because a character chose to remain unaffiliated.

Finally the bandit really doesn't suffer much due to lack of high level training because thier desired prey will usualy be merchants/crafters with no PvP training or experienced....once they run into people with serious combat capacity, most of them will not want to engage in the first place or run if they are already engaged.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:

Doubling rep loss and disabling pvp for unaffiliated characters is well... Lets just go with a bad idea.

No disabling PVP for anyone, period. GW said it wont be done, and lets not make an exception for it.

Doubling rep loss is for things like breaking a SAD or other type deals.

Here it is, Unaffiliated characters will have no access to high end training. That is their gimp. Lets not add to it.

Unaffiliated alts do not get around consequence PVP. The training they have will be training that is taken away from another character, or training someone paid extra for. It really doesnt need to be more complicated then this.

Edit: You want no consequences for killing unaffiliated PC's? Thats fine, so long as they have no consequences for killing affiliated PC's.

One of the problem with "unaffiliated's", Xeen, is that one of the big consequences that the PFO designs in for engaging in hostile activities like robbing merchants and raiding is that your company/settlement can in turn be feuded or declared war against allowing for lawfull targeting in PvP as a consequence of those actions. "Unaffiliated's" circumvent that because there is no target to DoW or Feud in return.

Now if the target was truely "unaffiliated" then suffering all the negatives of not having any supporting settlement/company might help counter-balance that. However, as I currently understand the proposed mechanics...a player can circumvent all that by simply being officialy "unaffiliated" as far as the game system can understand but largely circumvent the mechanical drawbacks by having a supporting organization provide him most of the benefits of affiliation without formerly declaring such...in fact the unaffiliated could simply be an ALT of an affiliated character and working in collusion.

So, IMO, either way have to have some way of lawfully targeting the unaffiliated character in a way that actualy has consequence to them or we have to have some way of ensuring they can't be provided with ANY of the benefits of affiliation while still remaining officialy unaffiliated.

The problem I see with the latter approach is I think it would likely be really difficult to do mechanicaly and might end up too much of a gimp to characters legitimately starting out unaffiliated or trying to recover from loss of settlement organization. The former approach I would argue is better.....but I would want to see some controls placed around it that limit the circumstances under which it is applied to keep it from being an open hunting season on unaffiliated's. Which is why I've argued that settlement owners be given the ability to manualy mark such characters as "tresspassers"....giving the character sufficient time to leave the settlements territory or become hostile.

If SAD is seen as a legitimate mechanism for responsible banditry (which I think a solid arguement can be made for) then surely something like this which is far more limited in scope and application should be considered a legitimate mechanism for law enforcement within a settlement.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:

@ Grumpy Mel,

Your assumption that these tactics are solely "bandit modus operandi" is actually limiting the the scope of the usage.

Many settlements, particularly the more aggressive ones will use these "Monsters in the Basement."

A Bandit Company, made up of main characters, will use feuds and or faction to create their pool of consequence free targets. Raiding outposts will also be another source, where reputation loss is still unlikely and the alignment shifts if any are not undesirable as long as not paired with low reputation.

My usage of "bandits" here is simply descriptive of the type of activity the character/alt was engaged in rather then the type of organization they are supporting.

I'm sure there will be some bandits and bandit companies that operate differently then described. They are not as problematic as those I describe since (at least in theory) they can be held accountable for thier actions...as they will pay a price for feuding and they can (theoriticaly) be held accountable for thier activities by being marked as targets of feud in return. There is some mechanism within the system as we currently understand it to make things work there.

What I infer, is that absent any other compensating control, there will be a very strong motivation for unaffiliated bandits precisely because they would circumvent some of the controls that would ordinarly be in place to help make them accountable for thier activities and allow settlement owners to counter-act said activities.

If your company starts raiding or engaging in banditry against a settlement then at least theoriticaly that settlement could feud or declare War upon you....and thus not have to wait until your company members initiate a first strike while raiding to engage them in battle. Then it's all about, IMO, whether the cost of Feuds is reasonable enough to give the average settlement some chance at counter-acting such tactics.

With no company affiliation and and an NPC settlement membership.... there is nothing one can target for feud or war.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:

So after a quick huddle with Lee, I think it is time to nip this particular thread in the bud because it's way past the point where anything useful is coming from the discussion.

The plan as it stands now is that companies can be created and joined by anyone regardless of their membership or lack thereof in a PC Settlement.

I would challenge the community however, to reflect that the core problem at the root of this long digression into madness is the presentation of assumptions as facts, followed by the outline of how those assumptions then lead inexorably towards a conclusion which supports or denies various factions' desires with regard to the game design.

That's a problem.

The core of the Crowdforging idea is that we are going to work in conjunction with the community to define how significant parts of the game system works. If people begin to believe that they can alter the trajectory of that debate by convincing a sizable component of the community that their opinion on how something will be developed is a fact when it is not, we will lose our ability to have effective and wide-ranging discussions about those features.

Every day this project gets exposed to more people. Every day some of those people come here and encounter the discussion in media res. We want those people to hear the message loud and clear that this is a project where many many aspects of the design are undetermined at this time and will be worked on via a process where the community will have a deep and meaningful ability to shape those features including the ability to introduce new ideas and new variations on existing ideas.

@Ryan,

Clearly everything discussed here is based on assumption. Even you as Dev's can only be certain of what mechanisms you wish to create within the game, not neccesarly how the player base will react according to those mechanisms once they go live.

However, I do not think it is out of bounds to try to draw inferences about what we view as likely player behavior based on what we know so far of the mechanics GW has presented....and offer discussion about how (in our view) such behavior would negatively effect our enjoyment of the game and that of other like minded players.... along with offering potential mechanisms to address such issues? Is that not within the boundaries of what Crowdforging is supposed to be about? If not then perhaps I don't understand the term at all?

What I was attempting to INFER here is that there are very strong intrinsic advantages to bandits operating within a certain set of Modus Operandi.....absent any mechanisms dissuading such.

I would offer that there is an intrinsic advantage to the bandit operating without any official affiliation since that helps obscure the identity of the organization (if any) the bandit is working to support and makes it more difficult to hold that organization accountable.

Further, I would offer that if settlement owners are unable in some fashion to mark the individual unaffiliated bandit as hostile within thier own territory then it offers unaffiliated bandits another powerfull advantage, namely to only engage in hostilities only at a time and place of thier own choosing.

If the settlement suffers further economic harm (through corruption) from said activities beyond the direct harm already caused and bandits are able to avoid negative reputation consequences (through the use of SAD) of thier activities...then this would seem to start to become an untennable positions for settlements seeking to maintain law and order within thier own territory without resorting to using bandit/criminal ALTS for said law enforcement themselves.

I do believe, in the absence of other over-riding controls these are avenues that players will definately seek to persue and I for one, would see rampant use of this as a strong negative for the type of game I would be interested in playing, without some compensating control in place.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:
Unless I'm missing something, you would pretty much create a catch-22 here Ryan for new organizations seeking to enter the game and establish a settlement or existing organizations seeking to recover from a lost settlement. In order to be effective in the things that are needed to begin to create a PC settlement you need to be a member of a company but if you are not already a member of a PC settlement you can't be a member of a company. See the problem?

I see that people who want to form a Settlement might do the required things while being a member of a PC Settlement.

So essentialy the PC settlements who exist at the start of the game have a virtual monopoly on who may/may not attempt to create any future settlement in the game, ever? Since they can exclude or remove from membership any members who might wish to work on forming thier own settlement without approval....thereby eliminating any possability for those people to attempt to establish thier own settlement?

That doesn't sound very welcoming/enticing to new players, guilds or groups who might wish to join after Early Enrollment.

I know I certainly wouldn't join such a game, if I hadn't joined by Early Enrollment....and I certainly wouldn't bring any gaming group or guild I was involved with into it.

What would be the appeal? Having to ask existing player organizations to even attempt to achieve something in the game? Being assured no possability of independence, ever?

P.S. No disrespect....just trying to play Devils Advocate and point out what seem to me to be some pretty serious drawbacks with those approaches.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DeciusBrutus wrote:

What reputation and alignment shifts would be ideal for a known false-flag operation, and how could those be easily exploited?

Please, don't give an answer to the effect of "I want false-flag operations to be Easy Mode." the intended goal is that it is unclear if the costs and risks exceed the value, which will result in some people doing false-flag operations and others not.

Decius,

What's shifts or other mechanical ramifications that might be desired doesn't really matter in this case. The game has no way of understanding that the thugs used to conduct the "false-flag" operation are in any way associated with the characters it's being conducted to benefit. In other words "false-flag" operations are impossible for the game systems to detect....even if they are patently obvious to the players.

As such the only type of mechanical penalties that the game system can allocate are to the thugs conducting them. However there is a very decent chance that those Thugs are simply "throw-away" Alts...so penalties don't matter much. Even if they aren't....I think the people using them are pretty much expecting that they are going to suffer from the same sort of mechanical penalties that "thugs" not innvolved in Flase-Flags are.

Heck, since the goal in such operations isn't really to do alot of effective material damage just incite tensions and shift political allegiances...the actual effectiveness of the "thugs" is kinda incidental.

This is one area where there are no mechanical controls the system CAN impliment, even if it was desired. The real control was if the target or any of the other powers in the area found out that it WAS actualy a False-Flag and who was responsible for it. THAT would be the only really effective cost toward the power running the False-Flag, the ramifications that might result from discovery of the operation.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:
Edit: Making it manualy applied should give folks like Bludd who want to play bandits have the opportunity to do so even in a controled hex. They just have to avoid the PC patrols that can manualy apply the condition to them. You could even make it a trained/slotted ability...so it really does become law enforcment/millitary that can apply it, not neccesarly his merchant targets.

This may in fact be the way that the Marshal position Tork was talking about works.

As long as it has costs, requiring training and or slotted skills, I would welcome it. It would be a reasonable counter to the SAD, and or any person you "suspected" to be of criminal intent before they actually committed a crime.

It would also create reciprocal hostility states and allow both sides to square off without reputation consequences, should the "criminals" choose not to accept the demand to leave.

Or... You could train and slot the SAD mechanic and do the same thing, just that you won't be limited to your own lands or tie up a settlement title to do it.

You see it keeps on coming back to the SAD. People on these forums want to use the mechanics of it, but not the name of it. I have to wonder, is it really the name or is it the cost?

You Grumpy Mel, at least mention that there needs to be a cost with your idea.

I've explained elsewhere the reasons why SAD can't be utilized. It could be an ability SIMILAR in function to SAD but not SAD itself. In brief...

- If SAD is utilized as a method of commiting banditry, which it will be and you outlaw banditry, then law enforcment can't use SAD to stop banditry as they'd have to make SAD (and by extension banditry) LEGAL to use and thus eliminate any just cause they had to use it in the first place. Creating a catch-22 situation.

- SAD involves CHAOTIC alignment shifts. If anything law enforcment acting to enforce law and order in thier own territory should be a LAWFULL not CHAOTIC activity.

- The goal of SAD is to extract money. That is not the goal here, the goal is to get the target to leave the territory.

- Bandits typical modus operandi would be to not carry much money or items of value but leave that to handlers. It would be exploitative to allow an SAD'er to demand more from a target then they owned....thus it would be rendered ineffective for the purposes desired here.

Note, I don't believe it would be of much/any real practical value if such an ability was limited to a single character per settlement. That simply creates an impossible situation since the game is live 24/7/365. You would need multiple characters within a settlement that had such power. I'm willing to accept that it be a trainable/slottable ability.... I wouldn't accept any cost in DI or anything like that per application of it's use. Unless there is some sort of cost in Influence, etc to engage in banditry (or SAD) then there shouldn't be any costs of that nature for PLAYER CHARACTERS to be able to engage/combat bandits.....now if you want to talk NPC guards or Guard Towers, etc sure...but not PC's....the only cost that would be reasonable there would be to require some training or slotting to have access to the ability.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:

@ GrumpyMel

If it is non persistent, I don't see the use. You would still need to be ALL over your hex 24/7. If you are, then you don't need it at all. As soon as they flag, you attack.

The non-persistance would be a way to address the resource issue. Essentialy it allows the game to focus on only those threats that are likely to be relevant at the time rather then every suspect character ever made in the history of the game.... some sort of expiration is neccesary if you want to get away from being resource intensive.

You would still need a local force present, in any event, to deal with the situation.....marking them hostile and not having anyone availble to engage is no better then not marking them hostile. The system really shouldn't remove the need for player involvment in protecting thier own hex's.

What it does is not allow the agressors to perfectly dictate the timing and circumstances of any hostile engagement. By putting a timer on them similar to the one I describe... you force them to leave your territory (and away from your resource gatherers) or be engaged at a time NOT of thier choosing.

Without a system of some sort to address this aspect....I suspect that law enforcment/millitary would end resorting to thier own CE, Criminal, Low Rep unaffiliated ALTS just so that they could engage such intruders to keep them out of thier territory. Functional...although probably a significant cost in combat effectiveness and a pretty absurd situation to need to do that.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:

You can party with anyone. If not, then the game gets a whole lot more limited for everyone....not just those who want to be bandits.

My assumption is that the bandits are partied together. Not members of any company and members of an NPC settlement. Who do you declare feud against...there is no company game object to set as target for a feud. Who do you declare War against? The entire NPC settlement?

Heck lets say the bandits even are members of companies and spread there companies out. Each feud costs you something to declare. You declare Feud on a company to kill one of thier members who isn't carrying something once? Want to engage the entire bandit group...pay the cost to feud 20 companies? Congratulations you've just spent more then it would have cost you to let the bandits rob you blind?

These are the kind of design decisions that have to be taken into account when trying to impliment such systems because players WILL game the heck out of them to gain the best mechanical advantage from them in conflicts.

Yeah. That was the point of the question. There are a goodly number of problems associated with every feature. Some that can be addressed and some that can't.

I would really like to see a mechanic list for "trespassing" individuals from sovereign territory. It is possibly bulky and resource intensive, but it solves so many problems of these work arounds. I don't think that it needs to be as complicated as Andius' "Exile" idea, just a simple list.

*You are on it and enter the hex, you go "hostile" flagged.
*You want off of it, talk to the boss.
*Those that proclaim it unfair, are likely those with an unfriendly agenda in any case.
*Make it an option when the target is already criminal and you spot them in the hex.
*Solve the problem of "corruption" scammers with a personal 1/day per account marker.

A way that the resource issue is simply to make it a non-persistant manualy applied timer. A settlement member with the authority to use it targets the individual. A timer starts that says "You have X number of minutes to leave this settlement hex before you get marked as Hostile". The individual leaves within the time-frame....no harm/no foul, the timer goes away. If they are still within the hex when the timer expires they get marked as hostile. That should eliminate the resource issue....it really becomes no more resource intensive then any buff/debuff that can be put on another player within the game.

Edit: Making it manualy applied should give folks like Bludd who want to play bandits have the opportunity to do so even in a controled hex. They just have to avoid the PC patrols that can manualy apply the condition to them. You could even make it a trained/slotted ability...so it really does become law enforcment/millitary that can apply it, not neccesarly his merchant targets.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:

I also think the idea that ad hoc'ing a social graph external to the game design and managing to remain effective is also a pretty big assumption.

For short-term limited-area operations it would work ok, I guess (depends on how cohesive those people are at coordination out of game) but I don't think it would work well to achieve longer-term objectives or campaigns over a wide area.

There's a virtual internal lines of communication problem that the ad hoc'ers will confront that degrades their effectiveness over time & distance.

The idea behind the unaffiliated in this case, Ryan, is that they aren't really unaffiliated. They are ALTS of some player organization that likely does have a formal in game orginizational representation. They are purpose built for thier job of doing the dirty work for the player organization while allowing that organization to circumvent all the mechanical repurcussions of those actions.

That's ok, we know that's going to happen. It's probably unavoidable.

We just need (I feel) some way for an ingame player organization to say...yeah I know you guys are upto no good even if the game mechanicaly can't discern this.... and flag them as hostile if they enter territory that player organization owns....while allowing people who's affiliations look identitical to them as far as the game systems are concerned but ARE legitimately neutral players to remain unflagged.

Respectfully, I think you guys are trying to over-engineer this. A simple manual fingering of an individual as unwanted/hostile within a settlements owned territory, even if it's temporary and on a timer works. It's something a settlement or any soveriegn power SHOULD be able to do in thier own territory....and if you require it to be manualy applied and timer based it shouldn't have any greater resource impact on your systems then any buff/debuff that would also be applied to characters.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
Urman wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
So how does a character avoid being either a member of a PC or an NPC Settlement?
They don't, a bandit company could be a Ad Hoc made up of characters from other companies and more than one PC settlement. The actual "Bandit Company" operates outside of the knowledge of the system, by organizing outside of the GW/ Paizo forums and using TS / VOIP to communicate while in game.

So the bandit group isn't really/officially a company. It earns no Influence (so cannot declare feuds). Its members belong to a number of different companies and more than one settlement.

A counter-bandit company encounters them. Couldn't the counter-bandits open a feud against one of the (not-present) companies (maybe the most-distant), then attack the 1 bandit that belongs to that company? Do the rest of the bandits have no right to defend their party member when he's attacked in a feud? Just wargaming this out.

Good question. How is all of this affected in a mixed group of affiliated (but separately) and non affiliated, that are "partied"? Is it basically like a mutual defense pact for individual characters?

The did write that they are working out a hierarchy of hostility.

You can party with anyone. If not, then the game gets a whole lot more limited for everyone....not just those who want to be bandits.

My assumption is that the bandits are partied together. Not members of any company and members of an NPC settlement. Who do you declare feud against...there is no company game object to set as target for a feud. Who do you declare War against? The entire NPC settlement?

Heck lets say the bandits even are members of companies and spread there companies out. Each feud costs you something to declare. You declare Feud on a company to kill one of thier members who isn't carrying something once? Want to engage the entire bandit group...pay the cost to feud 20 companies? Congratulations you've just spent more then it would have cost you to let the bandits rob you blind?

These are the kind of design decisions that have to be taken into account when trying to impliment such systems because players WILL game the heck out of them to gain the best mechanical advantage from them in conflicts.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:
Lets be perfectly clear about how MOST Bandits/Brigands will operate.

There's a continent's worth of assumptions in this post, many of which are unlikely to prove true.

Quote:

- Most bandits/brigands WILL be members of the NPC Starter Settlements so no way to declare WAR upon them (at any expense) and so that they will be able to use legitimate newbies as cover for thier operations.

- Most bandits/brigands will NOT be members of any company so there will be no way to feud them (at any expense) and no way to hold them accountable for thier actions.

Assumptions:

Members of NPC Settlements can be members of Companies

Members of NPC Settlements will be able to soulbind to points other than the NPC Settlement for resurrection. Dying halfway across the map from where you soulbind will be a pretty big limitation on how effective a bandit can be.

Members of NPC Settlements will be able to make Hideouts.

Members of NPC Settlements will be able to train and use exotic character abilities linked to maximizing banditry operations.

Respectfully,

- Company Membership.... not really relavent unless it presents an unignorable mechanical advantage in combat/banditry. It also begs the question of how one creates the precursors (cleared territory, watchtowers, etc) to establish a settlement in the first place. Unless I'm missing something, you would pretty much create a catch-22 here Ryan for new organizations seeking to enter the game and establish a settlement or existing organizations seeking to recover from a lost settlement. In order to be effective in the things that are needed to begin to create a PC settlement you need to be a member of a company but if you are not already a member of a PC settlement you can't be a member of a company. See the problem?

- Soulbind: That could be some detterent depending how big the map is and how difficult travel is from an NPC settlement. However, the assumption is (and I think you'll find this to proove true in practice)that once bandits do encounter armed resistance sufficient to kill some of thier members there will be no desire or utility to stick around and fight anyway. The operation is blown at that point, they WANT to be far away from the scene because they don't want to be around anyone that is likely to kill them. They only want to fight non-combat characters who have little ability or skill in PvP. Since they won't be carrying much of value anyway...they'll have no interest in returning to the corpse. Frankly, you'll probably be doing them a favor by setting a bind point far away from the scene.

- Hideouts: Again depends on utility but most bandits, I think, won't want to be holding any structure or piece of territory...even a temporary one that can be attacked. They'll leave that to handlers who they are Alts for.

- Training: Possible deterent...but again thier focus won't be on engaging combat trained characters, they'll want to avoid contact with those at all costs. They'll want to fight the merchant/crafter who has never lifted a blade in anger in thier life. They just need to be able to defeat those. The armed patrol, they'll run from.....or play innocent around until they get bored and leave.

Goblin Squad Member

Valtorious wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:
Nihimon wrote:

@GrumpyMel, did you see this?

Remaining in an NPC Settlement is an indication that you don't want to be bound by the social norms of the rest of the game world. Maybe they shouldn't be bound to you either.

Yes, and it's possible that may be the way they end up addressing it, but it makes the game very unwelcoming to legitimate newbies or companies starting out/recovering from loss in the Settlement game...especialy if some predictions about the difficulty in finding settlements willing to accept non-hardcore players prove true.

Overall, I think it's a bad approach. Much better to allow Settlement Owners to flag individuals as tresspassers within thier territory. If that's a strain on system resources, which is the only reason I can imagine GW objecting to it from a practical standpoint, they could simply require law enforcment to see and target the individual and put it on a timer. That should dramaticaly reduce the number of legacy names they need to store and it makes it more of a "I'm the sheriff here, I see you hanging around upto no good. You have 15 minutes to get out of Dodge." type thing.

If I am hearing you correctly, you are advocating that local law enforcement has an "get out of dodge option" with a 15 minute time. Everyone jumped me for a similar idea, only mine was only restricted to "good" communities. I have no problem for Evil communities to be NBSI.

You are hearing me correctly...and I don't see why anyone would jump on you for it, it addresses a significant mechanical and practical need. My only point of difference is that I don't see why it should be restricted on the Good-Evil Alignment Axis....maybe Law-Chaos but I wouldn't even argue there. Law Enforcment of pretty much any Alignment would have a viable usage case for it while fitting within what the Alignments generaly are supposed to mean.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:

So like I said, two exiles could commit crimes against each other and there woukd be no effect on the settlement corruption / unrest scale.

Since company members can defend other company members, without penalty, once a company ends up in thus exile list they can head to that settlement zone. They hunt down other exiles, or even arrange to meet there and now they have a consequence free mosh pit.

Now that may not have a mechanical effect on the settlement DI, but the reputation of the settlement hex would be that the place runs red in rivers of blood.

Except that Exile/Tresspasser wouldn't neccesarly make them HOSTILE to ANY individual....it could simply make them HOSTILE to settlement MEMBERS/LAW Enforcment/Millitary. You'd also run into the same exact issue with CRIMINALS.

Exile/Tresspasser really needs to work consistantly with the same rules of engagement for any other criminal.

The whole corruption thing needs a little more baking, since it becomes pretty easy to exploit.

My suggestion is that rather then having someone engage in criminal activity (which could include tresspassing/exile) fire off corruption. It starts a TIMER on the character which when it counts down to 0 will kick off a corruption tick but that the TIMER gets DELETED whenever the individual leaves the territory, logs off or gets killed.

This methodology eliminates a whole host of exploits such as SPAMMING, BORDER HOPPING, LOGGING, etc and better represents what "corruption" generaly is understood to be...which is not that crime happens but that the authorties are unwilling or unable to respond to crime.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:

@GrumpyMel, did you see this?

Remaining in an NPC Settlement is an indication that you don't want to be bound by the social norms of the rest of the game world. Maybe they shouldn't be bound to you either.

Yes, and it's possible that may be the way they end up addressing it, but it makes the game very unwelcoming to legitimate newbies or companies starting out/recovering from loss in the Settlement game...especialy if some predictions about the difficulty in finding settlements willing to accept non-hardcore players prove true.

Overall, I think it's a bad approach. Much better to allow Settlement Owners to flag individuals as tresspassers within thier territory. If that's a strain on system resources, which is the only reason I can imagine GW objecting to it from a practical standpoint, they could simply require law enforcment to see and target the individual and put it on a timer. That should dramaticaly reduce the number of legacy names they need to store and it makes it more of a "I'm the sheriff here, I see you hanging around upto no good. You have 15 minutes to get out of Dodge." type thing.

Goblin Squad Member

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

1) One cannot make the same mechanism to fight banditry as is used to commit banditry.... that would make it impossible to make banditry a crime or require that the only people who can enforce the laws of a territory be criminals in thier own territory.

2) The goal of law enforcement is NOT to rob the criminals, it's to prevent the criminals from preying on lawfull citizens in ones territory.

3) We know full well that Bandits will be Alts who have no monetary assets or material wealth in thier own name. It will all be held by handlers. It would be entirely EXPLOITAVE and against the purpose of why SAD is allowed in the first place to allow the SAD'er to demand a sum of wealth greater then the target actualy has or could possibly pay. That circumvents the INTENT of PFO's PvP systems.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Lets be perfectly clear about how MOST Bandits/Brigands will operate.

- Most bandits/brigands will be ALTS specificaly designed for the purpose of banditry.

- Most bandits/brigands will NOT be members of any company so there will be no way to feud them (at any expense) and no way to hold them accountable for thier actions.

- Most bandits/brigands WILL be members of the NPC Starter Settlements so no way to declare WAR upon them (at any expense) and so that they will be able to use legitimate newbies as cover for thier operations.

- Most bandits/brigands will NOT have a copper to thier names nor any material goods and the minimal equipment required to do the job. All wealth they aquire will immediately be transfered to HANDLER characters who have no official association with them so the bandit/brigand has little of material value to lose if any does take action to hold them acountable for thier activities.

- Most bandits/brigands will NOT flag themselves for PvP while anyone is around that is capable of fighting them. They will wait till they can engage a soft target at minimal risk with little possability of armed reaction against them.

- Bandits/Brigands WILL take advantage of SAD in order to enjoy PvP against other characters with little mechanical penalty against themselves.

Note, no one here is expressing that banditry or brigandry (sans griefing) should NOT be a legitimate play style within the game. But lobbying that it should enjoy the advantage of engaging anywhere/any time completely at it's liesure without any risk of proactive measures from law enforcment is simply arguing for too huge an advantage for it.

If Outlaws want to engage in Outlaw behavior then they should run the risk of PvP from law enforcment every time they enter a territory with strongly enforced laws. They still have the ability to use stealth and mobility to avoid law enforcment patrols when entering said territory and to enjoy the advantage of engaging at thier liesure in any unclaimed or lawless hex.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:

You are conflating ABILITY with RIGHT. You have the ABILITY to enter any territory in the game. No one is proposing that the game restrict you from doing so. You do not have the Legal Right to enter property that someone else ones within thier own Soveriegn jurisidiction. Those are part of the very definitions of Soveriegnty and Property Rights.

The fact that you would insist that a Soveriegn Realms own Law Enforcment should be flagged as Criminals, Chaotic and of Low Reputation for thier OWN Laws in thier OWN Soveriegn Territory is beyond absurd. Yes, I must physical force you out...but there is no way in heck I must be CRIMINAL or CHAOTIC or LOW REPUITATION in order to do so in my OWN Settlements Territory, If my settlement desires it be illegal for you, XEEN, to enter.

I am conflating nothing.

In the River freedoms, You Have What You Hold. If you cannot keep me out then I have the right to be there. If you cannot keep me out, then you no longer have the right to own the territory. Im not paying lip service to this, I am planning to play this way. If you cannot keep it then it is mine.

This is a sandbox game, you want laws in your territory, then you enforce them. No mechanic is needed for that.

And I have insisted nothing other then the above.

Nothing proposed here removes or lessens my need to physicaly enforce the laws my settlement sets in it's own territory. It simply does not place an absurd mechanical penalty on me for doing so.

To wit, If I'm try to enforce my settlements Laws, I am acting LAWFULLY not CHAOTICALY. I am acting as a LAW ENFORCER not a CRIMINAL....and by enforcing my settlements OWN Laws, I am upholding my reputation...not SULLYING IT.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Proxima Sin wrote:

@Nihimon The burden is on the low rep character and you expect them to faithfully execute this responsibility because... they're such upstanding citizens?

As I originally said, problematic.

I want to put my part of the bickering to rest.

Nihimon and like-minded are so lawful they trust GoblinWork's (still unwritten?) computer code to be an infallible judge of moral fiber* and trust their victims will want to know specifically why they were attacked.

I don't hold either of those faiths. I'm going to catch dipwads in the act and smash their faces when possible whether or not they're flagged hostile to me so they feel an instinctive causal connection between acting like a jerk and getting beat up and losing their stuff.

Neither of us are bad people.

*GW's CEO doesn't think it will be an infallible indicator of toxic behavior. He mentioned multiple nuances in a recent interview and posted about squads of low-rep alts having a legitimate game use for settlements.

Proxima, from what I've read, there are only a very narrow set of circumstances under which a person CAN be flagged "Hostile" to you. Such action must have happaned immediately prior to the Flagging and the person so Flagged would recieve a WARNING that they were about to be Flagged before being allowed to continue the action which would Flagg them.

Frankly GW's proposed mechanisms err's VERY MUCH on the cautious side of NOT Flagging people HOSTILE outside of a very narrow scope of actions. Nihimon, IMO, is actualy being rather generous in affording High Rep "Hostile" flagged characters the opportunity to try to explain why they were so Flagged...and I support that.

Low Rep and Hostile Flag to you is almost an assurance of a character upto no good, IF GW's mechanics are working even partialy as intended. If not and they are completely off the wall (a possibility I'm sure), then I'm sure folks like Nihimon will make allowances for that until such time (if any) as GW can get them working reasonably as intended.

No one here wants to go around attacking people without just provocation. If "Hostile" isn't a very, very strong indication that the person is actualy "Hostile" toward you, then the game has very fundamental, game breaking, mechanical issues...because GW's entire game design premise kinda rests on that.

Goblin Squad Member

Valtorious wrote:

And yet, for all these hilarious comments, no one has explained to me how this NBSI system will not be completely abused. Speaking for myself...I have no problem with low-rep characters being targeted by high rep characters (although I do not think low-rep characters should get another rep hit for simply defending himself since it will lead to no one ever being able to fix their rep.)

But a system where players/communities, at no cost to themselves, can designate whole other guilds to "kill on sight" in their lands is, as I said before...repetitious at best when dealing with low-rep characters and counter alignment base role-playing. To my understanding...a known dishonorable criminal is already flagged. Adding this NBSI or exile system isn't really for dealing with low-lifes and evil characters...it sounds like a way for Lawful Good characters who want to play counter to their alignment to abuse a rule set and allow them to act in Chaotic Evil ways.

So, let me repeat it again...it sounds to me like with an NBSI system LG settlements can declare other LG guilds that they are competitive with and engage in complete consequence free slaughter....which sounds to me like the very thing that most of the people arguing the merits of this system have been whining against since he beginning of these forums.

Unless we want the developers to waste more time developing more rule sets to deal with the brand new rule sets that were just proposed. Maybe an NBSI monitor to make sure it is being used properly. Then we can have a monitor monitor the monitor to make sure Lawful settlements are not exiling other similarly aligned guilds for no reason.

I think your understanding is a bit off. A criminal is flagged TO members of a settlement while they remain within that settlements territory after commiting a crime and for a SHORT while afterwards. So commit a crime, step outside the territory for 20 minutes. Step back inside, you are no longer flagged.

Outside of criminals within a settlements territory, heinous, war or feud. The ONLY way you get flagged as hostile toward an individual is by attacking someone that individual has STANDING TOWARD (Same Company, Same Settlement or Same Player Kingdom) and that hostile flag wears off a SHORT while after the attack ends.

So in order to be flagged as HOSTILE you had to have JUST attacked someone who was associated with me....or just commited a crime in territory I own or be an enemy in a declared state of war.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:
Xeen wrote:

Now that Ive posted, let me rephrase it...

No

At least in my case, if you exile me and make me consequence free to kill... then you should be consequence free to kill as well.

Why do you assume that you have some inherent right to enter territory that you don't own? and that the owners of the territory should have no right to expel you from that territory...or should be considered criminals, chaotic and evil for enforcing millitary control over thier own territory?

The very definition of Ownership implies the right to exclude others from access or use of the Property Owned. By seeking entry when you have been prohibited, you are engaging in a criminal act.

They pay lip service to the river freedoms, but as soon as someone tries to hold what they have, they get upset. Defending your territory is wrong, didn't you know?

I have the right to enter any territory I wish. You must force me out.

Lip service, lol.

You are conflating ABILITY with RIGHT. You have the ABILITY to enter any territory in the game. No one is proposing that the game restrict you from doing so. You do not have the Legal Right to enter property that someone else ones within thier own Soveriegn jurisidiction. Those are part of the very definitions of Soveriegnty and Property Rights.

The fact that you would insist that a Soveriegn Realms own Law Enforcment should be flagged as Criminals, Chaotic and of Low Reputation for thier OWN Laws in thier OWN Soveriegn Territory is beyond absurd. Yes, I must physical force you out...but there is no way in heck I must be CRIMINAL or CHAOTIC or LOW REPUITATION in order to do so in my OWN Settlements Territory, If my settlement desires it be illegal for you, XEEN, to enter.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Drakhan,

I believe they see it as a threat to thier prefered modus operandi. They know that most prosperous settlements will see members of thier company as generaly undesirable due to thier prefered vocations. That means they'll be exiled/tresspassed from most such hexs. That takes away the huge advantage they have to engage defenseless targets entirely at thier own leisure. They now have to deal with the fact that local Law Enforcement or Millitary patrols can engage them at a time not entirely of thier own choosing.

Essentialy they want to live the Outlaw lifestyle but not have to deal with the natural consequence of being Outlaws.

The thing is they are still perfectly free to engage in thier prefered behavior with the full advantage of engaging at thier liesure in every other hex on the board aside from the settlement hex's that people OWN. Sorry guys, seems perfectly balanced to me.

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:

Now that Ive posted, let me rephrase it...

No

At least in my case, if you exile me and make me consequence free to kill... then you should be consequence free to kill as well.

Why do you assume that you have some inherent right to enter territory that you don't own? and that the owners of the territory should have no right to expel you from that territory...or should be considered criminals, chaotic and evil for enforcing millitary control over thier own territory?

The very definition of Ownership implies the right to exclude others from access or use of the Property Owned. By seeking entry when you have been prohibited, you are engaging in a criminal act.

Edit: Since the game has no mechaism for ARRESTING or DETAINING individuals....that leaves attacking.

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin wrote:

If you're walking through a wilderness hex and some swarthy looking gentleman pulls his sword and charges at you screaming, that's all the moment you need to assess your situation.

If that swarthy gentleman who has a hostility flag (will we know why?) and low Reputation just walks past you with a "How do y'do?", is the appropriate response to automatically fireball him to death because he must have been newbie hunting? That's what Nihimon's plan was arguing.

I'm not trying to tell GW or the EE playerbase what the "right way" to deal with low Reps is because I haven't even made up my mind on details. I'm just attempting to survey the opinions of anyone who cares enough to post in the forums about it.

Proxima,

Unless they changed the mechanic since I last read about it, if he's flagged as "Hostile" to you, by definition he's just commited a hostile act against you or someone you have standing with. That's how one gets the "Hostile" flag.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:

@Bludd,

What Andius is advocating for is simply the right for a Hex's legal owner to excersize control over which individuals have a legal right to enter thier territory. It makes entry into that hex without permission a CRIME and therefore the individual in question becomes a valid target for law enforcment and millitary forces of the owner to engage WITHIN THE OWNERS TERRITORY without suffering alignment or reputation hits themselves.

A few questions...

1. If I enter as an "Exile" I am flagged as criminal to just the owners of the settlement hex?

2. If I am then "hostile" to their members, do their members also appear hostile to me? Or do I have to wait for them to attack me?

3. How is this different then the Trespasser Flag?

4. How is this different than my just having the "Hostile Flag" and potentially the "Criminal Flag" caused by my own actions?

5. What is the cost for setting individuals or companies to "Exile"?

* Trespasser and Criminal Flags do not have a cost for the settlement because they require a negative action on the part of the character to "earn" those flags.

The Exile Flag differs in that it does not require a negative action to trigger its use.

1) It would have to work consistantly with any other criminal action. Entering a hex you are prohibited by the owners is a criminal act. I have no idea if GW has stated there intent for that flag to be specific to hex owners or everyone in the Hex. I would assume just hex owners since visitors wouldn't have any proper jurrisdiction to enforce local laws....although perhaps they would be given a purely informative flag.

2) It would work consistantly with how any other CRIMINAL flag currently is proposed to work.

3) It really isn't, which is why Andius had not used a different term which seems to be creating some level of confusion rather then simply proposing a rifenment of the little we currently no about Tresspass in light of other mechanics that have been instituted since Tresspass was proposed by GW. Possibly the only difference is the method by which the Tresspass flag is set, since previously it was set by the settlement applying blanket filter rules (e.g. if Alignment = Chaotic and Reputation > 1000 then apply Tresspass). This would allow an authorized officer/member of the settlement to apply it manualy to an individual outside of those course rules. Possibly it could be done on a timer (e.g. tresspass for 24 hours) since dropping it down to an individual level might pose a resource issue for GW's systems.

4) It would make your entry into a Hex that the owner prohibited you entry a crime. That's it, after that it functionaly becomes identical to a CRIMINAL flag. About the only difference I can imagine would be that if you were ALREADY within the OWNERS hex when flagged with EXILE, you would be given a sufficient amount of time to EXIT that hex before the CRIMINAL flag kicked in. That would be to protect people from the HEX Owners abusing the mechanic.

5) The mechanical cost would be none. Since a hex owner should be able to excersize SOVERIEGNTY in thier own hex without cost. The practical cost would be that an owner who exercised it too recklessly would end up barring individuals who's presence might otherwise be a benefit to the Hex (e.g. traders, customers, adveturers coming to help with escalations, etc)

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:


Proxima, one must assume if the "Hostile" flag system is working correctly, the individual carrying it would already, by definition, have engaged in hostile action against you, your company or your settlement. They would not be so flagged otherwise. The only exception would be members of companies/settlements your settlement is in an official state of war with. I believe the ability to engage people who have already commited hostile actions against is axiomaticly within the concept that the designers consider acceptable PvP. I would not consider it "vigilantism" but "self-defense"

In RP terms, I at least, might consider offering an otherwise High Rep some Terms or the opportunity to explain themselves and thier flag. Pirates and Scallywags on the other hand, deserve no quarter (no offense Bludd).

The Hostile flag does not specifically mean someone has engaged you, your company, or your settlement. A Hostile Flag means engagement with a non flagged player, a feud, or of opposing faction.

As far as I understand, your interpretation does not accurately represent the proposed mechanic. If you attack a member of Company A and I am a member of Company B, you are NOT flagged hostile to me ONLY to members of Company A. In order for you to be flagged as HOSTILE to me, I must have some standing (Company, Settlement, Kingdom) to the attacked individual or resource or you must have done it in territory that my settlement OWNS and where doing so is a CRIME.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Bludd,

What Andius is advocating for is simply the right for a Hex's legal owner to excersize control over which individuals have a legal right to enter thier territory. It makes entry into that hex without permission a CRIME and therefore the individual in question becomes a valid target for law enforcment and millitary forces of the owner to engage WITHIN THE OWNERS TERRITORY without suffering alignment or reputation hits themselves.

It is one of the most basic aspects of Soveriegnty...the right to determine who is allowed legal access to territory one controls.... without it the Kingdom building aspect of PFO would be pretty much broken.

It is ENTIRELY different and far more limited then WARS, FEUDS or SADS. WARS, FEUDS and SAD'S can be applied to targets ANYWHERE within the game, regardless of the targets actions or attempts to avoid them. EXILE is applied only to the target WITHIN THE BORDERS of the OWNERS HEX. The target can easly avoid it, at ZERO cost to themselves by simply not entering that one HEX.

What this means in practical terms is that if you have an ALT who is a member of an NPC settlement and has a KNOWN past criminal history or KNOWN but unofficial association with the owners enemies, you don't get to waltz into thier territory and be untouchable. At the same time, the OWNER can allow genuine newbies or other peacefull members of that NPC settlement into thier territory if they choose.

You can still hang around outside the OWNERS territory waiting to pounce on anyone you like. You can still enter the territory to commit your ill deeds, just that you'll be a valid target to the settlement owner for doing so. You can still use ALTS that are unknown to the OWNER and therefore not exiled. You just can't be a NOTORIOUS individual who is affiliated with and NPC settlement and says "I haven't commited a crime in the last 20 minutes.....so you have to wait till I am ready to start raiding here before you who OWN this hex is allowed to take any action".

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
If I see someone Flagged, the most important thing to me is going to be their Reputation. If it's Low, I'll almost certainly try to kill them if I think I can. I would hope this becomes a common stance for most "positive game play" folks to take.

That position does seem to be lacking in context. Then the extra step of advocating game-wide blind vigilantism as long as it "feels" right.

What is the source of the actual hostility flag? That seems like it should be the major factor in a decision to consider engagement. But that's being replaced by Rep level.

If that was a game-wide habit, there would be a lot more pre-emptive self defense attacks upon initial contact between characters by anyone afraid of being perceived as too low Rep. It seems like a policy that results in the opposite situation of something you were hoping for in another thread.

Proxima, one must assume if the "Hostile" flag system is working correctly, the individual carrying it would already, by definition, have engaged in hostile action against you, your company or your settlement. They would not be so flagged otherwise. The only exception would be members of companies/settlements your settlement is in an official state of war with. I believe the ability to engage people who have already commited hostile actions against is axiomaticly within the concept that the designers consider acceptable PvP. I would not consider it "vigilantism" but "self-defense"

In RP terms, I at least, might consider offering an otherwise High Rep some Terms or the opportunity to explain themselves and thier flag. Pirates and Scallywags on the other hand, deserve no quarter (no offense Bludd).

1 to 50 of 1,417 << 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.