Goblin Squad Member
|
Just asking the question -- isn't some form of Bounty system a way the players are working to keep the bandits down? Or is it implied that players who get ambushed and lose to bandits should always take care of it themselves (or if they need to proxy-fight they should do it with some other form of contract)?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
At this point, I see no feasible way to play a bandit. Crappy towns, crappy gear, crappy respawn, endless bounties, unable to trade with anyone, risk of getting wiped out by Good Companies...
Can anyone tell me how there could reasonably be enough bandits to even justify guards in this game? I think we need to tone down the automatic clobbering of bandits to an insane degree, and make the players work to keep the bandits down. Because by removing bandits we remove the content for the rest of us.
Location? A coveted prize requires Good aligned players to travel through a well known 'lawless' region that has no problems trading with CE. There may not be as many regions as Good aligned settlements/towns, but they might be very well placed, either by the game or by a league of bandit players.
Could be a lot of these kinds of areas. Could even be merit badges that indirectly force interactions in these regions.
"Where's the crown?" "On the other side of the Bandit Woods." "Crap...."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@JakBlitz - no, but they may not want that sort of riff-raff in their communities.
Well if you start pissing off people in your own community who provide you with services that supports your lifestyle thats plain stupid in-game and out. No matter what alignment you are.
Just saying they might have to make themselves worth keeping around rather than being a burden.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
At this point, I see no feasible way to play a bandit.
Then you're not looking hard enough.
I've said before that being a bandit is more than being a ganker. A big part of being a bandit is putting people in a place where you make them an offer they can't refuse.
Bandit: We will kill you, loot your husks, take all that valuable cargo that you're transporting, and wipe hours of hard work out in the next 30 seconds unless you give us a huge pile of Coin to leave you alone. I think you'll see that losing some coin to us is better than losing the huge value of coin if we torch you.
Bandit: We have scouted you with our harmless-seeming alts, tracked you with our harmless-seeming alts, and equipped our hidden, nearby lair with effective PvP gear with our harmless-seeming alts. Now when you're in the most vulnerable part of your journey, we switch to our PvP-equipped bandit alts and blitz you 3 or 4 to 1. We take your stuff, and vanish into the mists before your friends can arrive and help you. Later on we'll run our ill-gotten gains through a series of alts who are fences and get the money transferred to our Settlement coffers where we can use it to continue to advance our nefarious plans. Sure, our bandit alts are persona non-grata pretty much everywhere, but we are willing to accept that problem and engage in the huge logistics and coordination effort required to minimize it.
Bandit: We're at war with your Settlement. We're targeting everything you are shipping out of your Settlement, and we're declaring war against Settlements that are consistently delivering stuff to your Settlement. Anyone coming within a few hexes of where you live who is a war target is running in fear because of our effectiveness at taking out your logistics.
Bandit: Turns out, there's one class of folks we can gank without concern. Other bandits. When you take down a rich target, we're watching. When you manage to accumulate enough stuff to be worth our time and attention, we'll swoop out of the woods and crush you, take your stuff, and make rude gestures in your general direction. Don't like it? Pay up, sucker. "Protection" has a cost. The Don needs his taste.
RyanD
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Ryan
I don't see the logic behind tying the ALIGNMENT system to the anti-griefing measures. I mean we actualy WANT Evil characters in the game don't we...just as we want GOOD characters in the game and conflict between the two to create content? Isn't that PART of the point behind the game?
It's perfectly possible to player an "EVIL" character that NEVER attacks anyone that doesn't WANT to be attacked. Why should that character be stuck with some of the same negatives (e.g. Evil has crapier towns and worse access to training)that you are using to discourage griefers?
Don't you actualy want to ENCOURAGE rather then DISCOURAGE that type of player in the game because they are creating FUN interaction for the rest of us?
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
The alignment system is about making banditry choices significant to everybody, including the bandits. I suspect that the magnitude of the penalties is something that will be adjusted over time in order to keep things interesting and meaningful.
The anti-griefing measures are entirely metagame, because griefing is a metagame behavior.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The anti-griefing measures are entirely metagame, because griefing is a metagame behavior.
The intentions of the bounty system, as Ryan himself explained in the blogs, are to handle griefing - not to control acceptable PvP interaction. And yet that's where most of it will end up going.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
All of those are also possible for bandits without regard to political concerns (FFA banditry) if bounties are restricted to a small area, potentially settlements and adjacent hexes and any hexes adjacent those in which a Lawful group builds a watchtower (except the war example, obviously).
In my mind, bounties and choose-what-you-loot changes the banditry dynamic in a few ways:
Random loot
means that the bandit in the first example has no way of knowing if killing the merchant will give him a meaningful reward. He does know there is a risk of dying and there is a cost in alignment and rep if he chooses to attack. He can likely reach a much better outcome by negotiating.
On a larger scale, a bandit may be able to get a pretty good average return for repeatedly killing merchants and randomly getting loot of value. Over time, though, the alignment and reputation mechanics will segregate such bandits to the wretched hives of scum and villiany. The bandits that are left are the ones that are willing to negotiate.
From the merchant's point of view, he also knows the bandit likely won't get a huge payoff for killing him. He knows that if the bandit is successful in killing him, he will lose his goods regardless (via destruction or being looted). He definitely wants to negotiate rather than risk losing the fight.
With a choice of loot
there is less uncertainty in the situation , which means players have a much easier time weighing their cost vs reward. The risk factor is diminished.
The bandit knows he is getting a payday whether or not he negotiates, assuming he wins the fight. If he is confident that he will win due to numbers or whatever, there is little risk besides how much the merchant might spend putting bounties on his head.
The merchant knows that the bandit is going to get either all of his goods or the goods he will give up in exchange for safe passage. In this case, he has the option for retribution through bounties.
I'd rather have uncertainty be a key feature of the bandit's calculations of his immediate payoff rather than in how much more difficult that particular individual will make his future life. I believe that the alignment and reputation systems are appropriate long-term costs; the bandit must already consider these.
This be keeping bounties out of it, it also allows players to kill a random player (for being annoying, griefing, etc) occasionally, while alignment and reputation still dooms a Random Player Killer.
@Ryan
One question, does your last example indicate that bandits will not be able to put bounties on other bandits, even in lawful areas? This may be a stretch, but 'gank without concern' leads me to believe this. I'm not suggesting that I disagree if that is the case, just curious.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Ryan
The settlement that will have poor options for training etc? The chain of alts that will be CE after trading with the bandits, and thus unable to trade? The chain of alts that will be taken out by other bandits?
I *sincerely* hope you are right. And I have a feeling that in Early Enrollment it will take awhile to find the balance. I just think that at this moment, from what I've heard, it stacks the deck a bit too much against the bandits.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
@GrumpyMel - The natural opposition to Lawful Good Settlements will be Lawful Evil Settlements. There are always people who enjoy the escapism of playing villains. That doesn't mean they have to be gankers.
@Kakflika - I honestly hadn't thought much about it. If you're a CE thug and you prey on other CE thugs, who cares if you get a bounty from your prey? You're probably loaded with bounties from all sorts of sources.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Kakflika - I honestly hadn't thought much about it. If you're a CE thug and you prey on other CE thugs, who cares if you get a bounty from your prey? You're probably loaded with bounties from all sorts of sources.
Furthermore, we expect that some players will form bounty-hunting organizations, and those organizations will also need to maintain scrupulous reputations as agents of vengeance rather than agents of collaboration. Knowing that these experienced and deadly foes may be lawfully unleashed to hunt down and kill murderers
If the bandits shouldn't care, then why should the griefers?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the bandits shouldn't care, then why should the griefers?
I tried to answer that here.
Basically, Griefers are after low-cost "lulz" by randomly killing, and generally don't want to have to pay any costs. Bandits will have embraced the hardships of playing Chaotic Evil with constant Bounties on their heads.
Well, bandits and griefers are functionally very similar. Both are people don't abide by the law and attack anyone they think is too weak to defend themselves. I like what Ryan said, being a bandit should be hard, uncomfortable, lifestyle.
I like the thread ideas, especially as the limit for levels. Let the higher level characters give powerful items to lower level characters, but make it difficult to keep them.
I can see the various systems working together like this. Guild leadership equip some new members with powerful, for new characters, items and send them on a scouting mission. The group passes by a bandit hideout. Bandit on watch looks at them and realizes that they have items worth decent money, but don't look very tough. Best target they've seen in weeks. Bandits attack and kill scout party, taking the items not threaded. Stolen goods then transferred to fences who can see in multiple cites. Guild retaliates by posting a large bounty on the bandits. Can't let people disrespect you after all. Now the area starts to crawl with bounty hunters, bandits move on to better pastures.
The selling of stolen goods has some really interesting hooks. If items can be customized with names or symbols, fencing becomes a much more interesting proposition. In the above situation, the scouting party all had equipment marked with the Eagle Knights symbol. Only members of the guild, or those who don't care about offending them, use such equipment. Now, do you sell in the lawful city, better market, and risk someone noticing and reporting you, or do you sell in the hive of scum and villainy were profits are lower?
You're a member of the Eagle Knights, newly initiated. Scouting the markets for items, you come across this shifty guy selling discounted Eagle Knight gear. What do you do?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like what Ryan said, being a bandit should be hard, uncomfortable, lifestyle.
Fair enough. But Ryan has also said they don't view banditry as griefing, and that the bounty system is meant to be a "powerful deterrent to griefers".
You may view it as griefing, but that's a whole other can of worms.
If you don't, and you see banditry as viable (under the current bounty system, aka "powerful deterrent"), then a little griefing now and then by the same argument becomes just as viable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bandit towns? Are you serious?
Players who get all the many disadvantages listed are going to further disadvantage themselves by advertising where they are with a big red "kick me" flag for every crazed crusader within a hundred miles?
No, that's not gonna happen.
The settlements don't have to be permanent. Why can't it be like minded evil-doers setting up camp in spot, taking what they want for a while, and moving on before the armies of Good come to say hello? I'll retract including evil kingdoms here because that would be a completely different kind of feat to accomplish.
It's obvious they are stacking the deck against bandits, but just like for good aligned players it means you need to work together to achieve something greater. The objectives are different and you don't have the luxury of game mechanics allowing you to trust your allies, but it's not impossible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Beilian settlements will take time and resources to build and will need to be carefully defended. It would be very wasteful and expensive to treat proper settlements as temporary.
It will make plenty sense for bandits to have hideouts, but hideouts will lack many of the facilities of settlements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Beilian settlements will take time and resources to build and will need to be carefully defended. It would be very wasteful and expensive to treat proper settlements as temporary.
It will make plenty sense for bandits to have hideouts, but hideouts will lack many of the facilities of settlements.
I see, I was thinking of settlements as something more like a camp. I wonder if there might be some way to provide these facilities to 'hideouts' or whatever they are termed. I'm lacking in knowledge about the kinds of facilities you are referring to, so I can't think of possible suggestions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just read a quick history of Tortuga, and I have to say, I'm not at all convinced that a "Bandit town" is a ridiculous idea...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Beilian Task, you might be interested to read Player-Created Buildings and Structures.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Question: If I am in a Alliance that is at odds with the alliance you are in, are we flagged or what ever to kill each other on sight?
What about if my company is at war with your company/settlement?
In either of those situations what am I subject to, bounties, or flags?
So being a privateer for warring factions is a real possibility.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Carlos Cabrera - I would say "no". The player took the risk of losing those items when he decided not to Thread them. The mechanism of that loss isn't griefing.
That's a fair point, but I am also curious as to why items left on a corpse are even destroyed at all, particularly in a persistent world.
It's of course standard practice for mobs (kill it, leave what you don't want, it respawns), but what purpose does it serve when applied to players? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know this is unprecedented in an MMO. Items have always been left on player corpses for you to recover unless they're taken, with the exception of games that do not have a player-to-player loot system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's a fair point, but I am also curious as to why items left on a corpse are even destroyed at all, particularly in a persistent world.
It's just part of the drain that keeps the economy from inflating as much.
A faucet->drain economy is one where you spawn new stuff, let it pool in the "sink" that is the game, and then have a concomitant drain. Players will hate having this drain, but if you do not enforce ongoing expenditures, you will have Monty Haul syndrome, infinite accumulation of wealth, overall rise in the "standard of living" and capabilities of the average player, and thus unbalance in the game design and poor game longevity.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Carlos Cabrera - I would say "no". The player took the risk of losing those items when he decided not to Thread them. The mechanism of that loss isn't griefing.That's a fair point, but I am also curious as to why items left on a corpse are even destroyed at all, particularly in a persistent world.
It's of course standard practice for mobs (kill it, leave what you don't want, it respawns), but what purpose does it serve when applied to players? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know this is unprecedented in an MMO. Items have always been left on player corpses for you to recover unless they're taken, with the exception of games that do not have a player-to-player loot system.
What Keovar said above me.
Also, I wouldn't say it was totally unprecedented. Asheron's Call 1 had a system in which when you died you left anywhere from 3 to 5 of the most expensive items on your corpse. If you did not make it back to your corpse to retrieve them in time, the corpse decayed and so with it those items. This brought about a demand for so-called "death items" which were mundane loot that do to the RNG was assigned a very high pyreal (the currency) value and as such would be likely to drop on your corpse rather than some other piece of gear you actually needed.
Like I said, not exactly the same but close in that items left on corpse went away permently if precautions (death items [AC], Threading[PFO]) were taken.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's a fair point, but I am also curious as to why items left on a corpse are even destroyed at all, particularly in a persistent world.It's just part of the drain that keeps the economy from inflating as much.
Actually, item decay prevents deflation. Inflation is too much money denominating too little, deflation the reverse.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Carlos Cabrera - I would say "no". The player took the risk of losing those items when he decided not to Thread them. The mechanism of that loss isn't griefing.That's a fair point, but I am also curious as to why items left on a corpse are even destroyed at all, particularly in a persistent world.
It's of course standard practice for mobs (kill it, leave what you don't want, it respawns), but what purpose does it serve when applied to players? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know this is unprecedented in an MMO. Items have always been left on player corpses for you to recover unless they're taken, with the exception of games that do not have a player-to-player loot system.
Other NPCs could've absconded with the items, which is perfectly reasonable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Actually, item decay prevents deflation. Inflation is too much money denominating too little, deflation the reverse.
If you continually add value to a system through harvesting (whether from nodes or mobs) without anything draining value at the other end, then each unit of value would become less significant.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My secondary question has nothing to do with the economy, because a persistent world requires unlimited resources. Why are unmolested items destroyed, if a deliberate action is not taken to destroy it? It's arbitrary, as far as I can tell.
So ganking is not a big economic motivation is also a consideration, I think is another aspect to this? Hence items if not recovered by the victim reclaiming their corpse, then the items that are only available to be looted and decided on being looted, are taken and the rest are removed. That also means there's a cost for the player who lost the combat and did not recover the body in time (assuming friends were unable to guard it).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My secondary question has nothing to do with the economy, because a persistent world requires unlimited resources. Why are unmolested items destroyed, if a deliberate action is not taken to destroy it? It's arbitrary, as far as I can tell.
Computers don't have unlimited resources. It might be realistic to have things slowly decay, but the system can't track the location and erosion of every object for the amount of time it would realistically take for it to decay. The world will spawn more resources in the form of nodes and mobs. Players will harvest and use them, and eventually things will break, being removed from the system.
If the faucet runs faster than the drain, it's not just the economy that overflows, it's also the tracking capacity of the systems running the game. Is it really important that the system track the location of a rusty old dagger that was dropped in the woods a couple years ago? I'm all for items having some permanence outside of a player's inventory or buildings, but the system shouldn't waste it's resources on something dropped more than a day or two ago.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thugs kill anyone that they think they can get away with. They exist to have PvP.
Bandits will try and kill only the targets that seem worth it and may try to exort money before the killig. They exist to make money/power.
The price that both pay is the same on a per case basis but the way they experience this game will be radically different.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
My secondary question has nothing to do with the economy, because a persistent world requires unlimited resources. Why are unmolested items destroyed, if a deliberate action is not taken to destroy it? It's arbitrary, as far as I can tell.
Some resources must be finite. Time, for example, serves as a good bottleneck.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Actually, item decay prevents deflation. Inflation is too much money denominating too little, deflation the reverse.If you continually add value to a system through harvesting (whether from nodes or mobs) without anything draining value at the other end, then each unit of value would become less significant.
Additional goods and services do loose marginal utility and thus value, but that has nothing to do with inflation or deflation, which are "always and everywhere a purely monetary phenomenon." Inflation and deflation is never an issue of value, but of denomination.
I'm not pointing out the difference to tweak/correct you, but to point to the other dynamic of pricing. The devs do need to be attentive to how goods and services enter, exist, exchange within, and then leave the economy. But they also need to be attentive to the relationship between that pool, and the unit of measure used to denominate them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@GrumpyMel - The natural opposition to Lawful Good Settlements will be Lawful Evil Settlements. There are always people who enjoy the escapism of playing villains. That doesn't mean they have to be gankers.
@Kakflika - I honestly hadn't thought much about it. If you're a CE thug and you prey on other CE thugs, who cares if you get a bounty from your prey? You're probably loaded with bounties from all sorts of sources.
@Ryan, Ok but from what I've read so far, you guys are tying the mechanical disadvantages used to deter "gankers" to the "Evil" scale of the alignment whether LE, NE or CE. Even if we accept the premise that CE characters are functionaly identical to "gankers" which I think is skating on pretty thin ice (as I can imagine CE characters that never actualy attack anyone) why are LE and NE getting swept up with the same broom you use to push the "gankers" out?
I don't understand the logic of that, can't you simply punish the act of "ganking" rather then playing a certain alignment. So the guy that plays a CE character and attacks 1 or 2 people a month, who have agreed ahead of time that they WANT to be attacked, after a well role-played out scene suffers from the same mechanical penalties applied to "gankers" simply because his character sheet says "CE", even though he's NOT GANKING and he's creating a fun experience for other players?
You are effectively detering the existance of those characters in the game?
I urge you guys to rethink this strategy a little bit. GANKING/GRIEFING is really an OOC activity, it's annoying other players. Alignment is an IC activity and actualy can add significantly to the enjoyment of other players. There is no logical tie between the two other then the fact you guys are deciding to create a tie.
"Evil" shouldn't enjoy the same mechanical advantages as "Good" but it should not be mechanicaly disadvantaged, it should just enjoy a different set of advantages.... and this is coming from a guy that intends to play a LG character.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Additional goods and services do loose marginal utility and thus value, but that has nothing to do with inflation or deflation, which are "always and everywhere a purely monetary phenomenon." Inflation and deflation is never an issue of value, but of denomination.
I'm not pointing out the difference to tweak/correct you, but to point to the other dynamic of pricing. The devs do need to be attentive to how goods and services enter, exist, exchange within, and then leave the economy. But they also need to be attentive to the relationship between that pool, and the unit of measure used to denominate them.
Ah okay... guess I was using a colloquial idea of what the term 'inflation' means, but getting it backwards. I'll blame dyscalculia. ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@GrumpyMel
Actually, everything I recall seeing says most of the downsides for ganking are tied to Chaotic, not Evil. I coulda sworn they said it will give mostly chaotic points.
Of course, that brings up the trouble of how Chaotic Good characters would play, so your point may be the same regardless.
The reputation system they have may work out to be better in regards to gankers.
I'm looking forward to this game! I'm so tired of these games where death holds no consequence and you just pop back in a GY a short run from where you were. Earlier games like Drakkar, UO and EQ1 were a LOT more fun because you had to pay attention to your surroundings or risk loosing stuff it takes time to replace! Lots of other features attract me as we'll, no wipe between beta and release, rockin! Building villages that can turn into towns then cities if population grows? Wicked!!
|
I was very into the game until I read this post. Pathfinder seemed like an adventure MMO in the descriptions and podcasts/interviews I have seen/heard, one that encourages exploration, etc. And now I see that I am vulnerable to losing my possessions if someone decides to camp out and kill me. The penalties for doing such seem light at best--do you really think that a person who kills for fun will have a problem with being branded a thief/death-cursed killer, etc.
Example--I sit in hiding while a character (or party) fights a difficult set of creatures, and while they have low health during or after the encounter, I jump out and kill, and grab what I can from the husk. Then I simply teleport/ride/run home and avoid PVP areas until the curse wears off. If there is an auction house, sell the gear, lather, rinse, repeat.
While some of us care about reputation, etc, all it takes is a single prick to ruin a gaming experience that I am paying real money for.
Yes, the designers think there should be consequences for PVP death, but make it something intangible; maybe experience loss, res sickness, durability loss? Maybe even simply the ability to opt-out of the 'threading'/husk mechanic at a detriment, e.g. maybe you have no change to your faction/pvp rep if you leave the threading mechanic turned off.
I realize (and read on this forum post) that some players are excited about the opportunity to lose their gear after a gank, but please keep in mind those of us that don't care for that aggressive type of 'reward' system.
Imagine farming an item forever and finally seeing it drop, picking it up and being killed and losing that item before being able to "thread" it.
Please reconsider this mechanic, I was very into this game and was reading/researching today to consider backing the project after the $100 stretch goal PDF bonanza announcement today, but this made it a no-buyin for me.
You're punishing people who are giving you money every month with this mechanic, it's a very Everquest-like thing to have in the game, but everquest died out a while ago.
And, for the record, I played wow (from launch) and ran a top-rated very competitive guild, with a personal very high level of competence (undead netherdrake mount, et al--I had ALL the 10-man achievement goodies before they got patched into oblivion) on a PVP server with a HUGE amount of DBags, I hate/d care-bear servers. I have been looking for a good WoW replacement and this was my ace-in-the-hole after 2 years of playing every ridiculous, bad-mechanics, buggy, crappy, MMO made since I left that game. But I simply won't play a game where I kill things and take their stuff, and then some little s*+~ can surprise me and take MY hard-earned stuff.
That's not the game I EVER want to give my money for.
Thanks for listening.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@71gamer -
Not sure you are seeing the same picture of how this "threading " is intended to work as I am? I replied to a similar concern here, if you wish to read that very brief summary of how I see it: PvP and Gear
Also related is: To Live and Die in the River Kingdoms in particular sub-heading: "Many Shades Of Grief"
Sure UO and other ffa-pvp mmorpgs have shown organised hordes of griefers but the design and let's hope community can rise to the challenge on these issues.