Request: Please get this stuff cleared up before the Kickstarter expires


Pathfinder Online

301 to 350 of 356 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

I think one of the other things that is spurring me on with this expanded legal system, is that currently a criminal flag does not differentiate between someone stealing a loaf of bread and someone mass murdering an entire orphange. Both get flagged as criminals and openeed up to PK without consequences.

Sure one may have a larger bounty than the other, but mechanically there is no difference and they both potentially end up dead (which I see as the ultimate sentence) for vastly different crimes.

Goblin Squad Member

Jiminy wrote:
I'm not sure how you class an alternate to walking up to a ciminal and killing them, as shallow.

Because serving someone and running away as fast as you can, while yes it is an alternative, doesn't seem to have much of a point? The guy is already Criminal with bounties on his head, but now he's being fined additional money or debuffs, because he doesn't care to become somehow more Criminal by attacking and killing yet another person and possibly incurring more endless bounties?

It's not a bad sentiment, but it does not seem to add much in the way of depth to the system, which if something like this were suggested that did add more than roleplaying opportunities I would at least be happy to see the expanded depth to the world, even if I didn't plan on making use of it myself.

To avoid confusion, I want to define what I see as adding depth, and it starts with asking the simple questions of "Why? What does this add to the game as a whole?" In this case, why do we need subpoenas or warrants? A very simple and direct punishment has already been meted; there's no good reason that I can see to further penalize them and the motivation behind it seems to stem from the desire to have game mechanics that make an otherwise RP scenario more real somehow.

So when I say you'd need to add a host of other mechanics to cover such a process from end to end, that also includes replacing the current system of Criminal acts and consequences thereof with a much more complicated legal system. Barring all of this, by not achieving depth in the mechanic, it is then the opposite of that, shallow. Not all shallow things are bad, as in this case it would likely provide some fun for a few, though at the added annoyance of Criminals who don't really have legal rights to begin with (save to be executed repeatedly) but still deserve to have what fun they can within the rules of the game and the path they have chosen.

Having snowball fights is an incredibly shallow game mechanic, but fun nonetheless.

I'm suggesting that ideas like this need to expand their scope a bit, ask these questions and offer a complete alternative to the current PFO Criminal Act of 2012. =)

Goblin Squad Member

In an aggregious case, take the matter to the court.

1. At an agreed moment when the criminal, the plaintiffs, and judges are online (the judges being GW employees I would assume) a powerful NPC summons the criminal by force of magic into a cage before the court witnessed by player characters.
2. He is invited to argue his case. He has one chance to convince the aggrieved parties and the court that he should be allowed to continue.
3. If the charge is dismissed by the court he is either sentenced to community service if his infraction is slight or set free if found not guilty: his record will be preserved.
4. If found guilty the account is banned, for a period of time or permenently, at the judge's discretion.

The criminal would surely try again from a different email account, but at least all his progress would be lost to him.

Goblin Squad Member

Darcnes wrote:
Jiminy wrote:
I'm not sure how you class an alternate to walking up to a ciminal and killing them, as shallow.
A very simple and direct punishment has already been meted; there's no good reason that I can see to further penalize them and the motivation behind it seems to stem from the desire to have game mechanics that make an otherwise RP scenario more real somehow.

Except I'm advocating a substitute punishment. Not more. If the criminal is served with a warrant and the warrant validated, then all bounties are removed and no other punishments are meted out.

Darcnes wrote:
So when I say you'd need to add a host of other mechanics to cover such a process from end to end, that also includes replacing the current system of Criminal acts and consequences thereof with a much more complicated legal system. Barring all of this, by not achieving depth in the mechanic, it is then the opposite of that, shallow. Not all shallow things are bad, as in this case it would likely provide some fun for a few, though at the added annoyance of Criminals who don't really have legal rights to begin with (save to be executed repeatedly) but still deserve to have what fun they can within the rules of the game and the path they have chosen.

You are correct here. I am suggesting more/other mechanics being created for an additional process. Is this not what crowdforging is about? I don't think I have seen an exhaustive list of criminal acts from the devs thus far, so I'm not sure anything would actually be replaced rather than built upon or explanded.

I think you're also under the assumption that any crime, ranging from trespass and theft all the way to heresy and murder, should carry the sentence of execution (repeatedly?). I am advocating various sentences to fit the crime, with trespass and theft having the warrant system used to bring them to justice and heresy and murder having te execution/bounty system used.

I see this as depth and flavour being added to the game. Criminals can tred a line without having the threat of their heads being placed on a pike, and justice has more layers than just 'criminal = death'. I also understand this would involve many more game mechanics and work on the part of devs, but I would rather see the system appraised by players before being killed off due to time development reasons. In any case, this thread goes some of the way to exploring that.

Goblin Squad Member

@Being I'm confused, is this supposed to stop characters doing things that may be unlawful, but a fair part of the game, or to stop griefers? In the former case, it seems like insane overkill banning players. In the latter, why have a mock trial, if GW finds them to be griefing, just ban them...

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
4. If found guilty the account is banned, for a period of time or permenently, at the judge's discretion.

I will never advocate an account being locked out for normal day to day play/roleplay.

If you mean for griefing, I would hope GW bypasses all in character mechanics and just locks/ban/deletes the offenders account.

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
In an aggregious case, take the matter to the court.

That kind of account-banning process would certainly be an impressive display, offer a bit of metagame transparency and satisfy a fair degree of theatrics that RP'ers tend to crave. But ultimately unnecessary, as fun as it would be to see.

Something player run like this for Criminals that broke a loan contract would be neat as a way for the Criminal to appeal the judgement, but it could get quickly overrun by people wishing to contest their own transgression with flimsy arguments.

One thing that comes to mind though, should lands have their own judges that can pronounce guilt on people for actions a cold system of logic can't detect?

Another thread includes a suggestion towards an exile mechanic, which leads to discussion about what power a settlement has over its hex. If settlements can make their own laws, it would be incredibly useful if they are able to impose those laws in meaningful easily recognizable ways, such as a Criminal flag while that offending individual remains in that hex. This would become all the more important where kindgoms come into play so that pronouncements can be made on a kingdom level. Local deputies versus kingdom sheriffs kind of thing. They would of course need to be held accountable to the players running the respective region, and by extension the rest of the world.


Jiminy wrote:


You are correct here. I am suggesting more/other mechanics being created for an additional process. Is this not what crowdforging is about? I don't think I have seen an exhaustive list of criminal acts from the devs thus far, so I'm not sure anything would actually be replaced rather than built upon or explanded.

I think you're also under the assumption that any crime, ranging from trespass and theft all the way to heresy and murder, should carry the sentence of execution (repeatedly?). I am advocating various sentences to fit the crime, with trespass and theft having the warrant system used to bring them to justice and heresy and murder having te execution/bounty system used.

I see this as depth and flavour being added to the game....

I see your point here. Yes it would add another layer of complication to the whole criminal/bounty situation, but I can get behind this idea. Should the broke thief suffer 5 deaths because he stole a pie from a vendor and that player, having a bad day renewed the bounty 5 times? What your proposing, the idea of putting levels to crime and having higher levels carry more severe penalties makes sense and is more realistic really.

The idea may need some tweaking, but I like the concept.

Goblin Squad Member

@Valandur

That is the premise of the concept, yes. I raised the idea here to get some feedback. If enough people express interest, I will create a new thread to expand upon and tweak the idea. I am under no illusion that this is the finished product :)

For example, I imagine some people will freak out at the idea of being fined for something like theft, and would actually rather die. Things like the punishments from this system need to be explored in depth.

Goblin Squad Member

I know I'm late to this discussion, and the thread is tldr, but to address the issue with my opinion:

First the OP is arguing that a game mechanic described a year ago (not even in alpha beta) has been changed. That is an impossible standard to hold a dev team to, and you should have expected that.

Second, the OPs assumption is that no one in their right mind would risk a bounty to engage in any pvp. All I have to say to that is, play EVE for a free trial period. Commit a crime and even place a bounty on yourself, using an alt. You will find that it is difficult for anyone outside of the person you actually attacked or his corp members to act upon it.

I have been stealing stuff like crazy, almost constantly under a suspect flag and with a bounty on my head. No one cares or they suspect that the risk vs reward is not worth their effort.

I have a feeling the same will happen with PFO. I fully intend to steal, loot, raid, and kill whatever I have to and wherever I need to, regardless of bounties or criminal flags. Of that makes me insane, point the way to the asylum! I bet there are some valuables there I could steal also.

Goblin Squad Member

@Bluddwolf First the OP is talking about a mechanic that although described a year ago, did not include in its description the point that was later cleared up. The OP also acknowledges their right to change things and makes it clear that isn't the issue.

Second the OP does not assume that no one in their right mind would risk a bounty to engage in PvP. That would be you assuming I said that. The OP is based on Ryan's own statement that their bounty system was intended to be a very strong deterent. If it's not, then it's not, but then that means the system is a failure for other reasons. But that's Ryan's assumption I was working from there.

But it's not something anyone really needs to worry about anymore - we've come up with a player made solution that will make it work.

So if you want to wax sanctimonious about assumptions then this conversation is going to take a very different turn that what you envisioned.

Goblin Squad Member

Dario wrote:
@Being I'm confused, is this supposed to stop characters doing things that may be unlawful, but a fair part of the game, or to stop griefers? In the former case, it seems like insane overkill banning players. In the latter, why have a mock trial, if GW finds them to be griefing, just ban them...

The latter was the intent. The purpose is to give the aggrieved parties some closure, to give the defendent a chance to explain himself, and for some depth of story. If it is public it should serve as a cautionary tale to those who do not know how to practice the finer points of role play and behave as monsters.

Those who are only playing their role in a manner intended by the devs for their alignments of course are not aggregious criminals against the game, but rather only according to their appropriate opponents.

If you have people really ruining the game by really and seriously griefing their fellow players, then gain the maximum return for the game while solving the problem.

Just a thought. If they are embarrassed they might not return.

Goblin Squad Member

You might have noticed from some few other posts I am very leery of vigilantism. That is why I think it should be formalized. Second, if the banning is public and open, if the reasons why are known and the defendent has an opportunity to defend his or her actions, then several purposes are served rather than only the most expedient.

I do suspect in many cases the defendent would simply log out, which should be taken as an admission unless an email arrives from the account explaining a mishap or embarassment.


Being wrote:
Dario wrote:
@Being I'm confused, is this supposed to stop characters doing things that may be unlawful, but a fair part of the game, or to stop griefers? In the former case, it seems like insane overkill banning players. In the latter, why have a mock trial, if GW finds them to be griefing, just ban them...

The latter was the intent. The purpose is to give the aggrieved parties some closure, to give the defendent a chance to explain himself, and for some depth of story. If it is public it should serve as a cautionary tale to those who do not know how to practice the finer points of role play and behave as monsters.

Those who are only playing their role in a manner intended by the devs for their alignments of course are not aggregious criminals against the game, but rather only according to their appropriate opponents.

If you have people really ruining the game by really and seriously griefing their fellow players, then gain the maximum return for the game while solving the problem.

Just a thought. If they are embarrassed they might not return.

Likely it would be more work then a GM would want, but the idea that between x time and y time, that you could go watch scammers and griefers get banned in a public trial is kinda a cool idea. :)

Goblin Squad Member

Blaeringr wrote:

@Bluddwolf

Second the OP does not assume that no one in their right mind would risk a bounty to engage in PvP. That would be you assuming I said that.

So if you want to wax sanctimonious about assumptions then this conversation is going to take a very different turn that what you envisioned.

Perhaps I misunderstood or you forgot but here is the quote I based my comment on

Quote:
now we have a situation where someone would have to be insane to bother you outside of town.

I assumed you meant to incur a bounty when you wrote not wanting to bother with someone outside of a town. Not being sanctimonious on my part, just wondering if your opinion could have been more specific?

As for this conversation taking a turn that I did not envision.... Really? The Internet makes people write the silliest things.

Goblin Squad Member

You read that correctly. What I did not make clear in that post, and I should have quoted from the blog, as I have many times in discussing this very topic, that in Ryan's opinion the bounty system was designed as "a powerful deterrent" to griefing.

So either it is, or it isn't. If there is a difference between the motivations of casual griefers and bandits, then this just encourages bandits to become griefers.

Goblin Squad Member

Valandur wrote:

...

Likely it would be more work then a GM would want, but the idea that between x time and y time, that you could go watch scammers and griefers get banned in a public trial is kinda a cool idea. :)

Probably more work than a GM would want, but if the case has been a headache perhaps it would not be so objectionable to them.

Consider too that when the accused explains his or her side of the story it might be they had a different idea of what was expected. The trial might provide an opportunity to educate the miscreant in acceptible role play, explain where they stepped over the line, and they might just have a chance to redeem themselves by improving their play and thus enhancing the game.

It does not always have to be execution. I have a nephew just coming of age and he worries his mother terribly because he is pushing his boundries and testing the waters of life. I advised her to be grateful that he is doing so openly and in ways that are relatively safe (though a pain in the neck for her). So too can young people push the limits to see what is and is not acceptible.

Such a system might serve as an instrument by which a problem can become an asset.

Then again, I may in part still be that unquenchable, adamant idealist I was when I pushed (and found) my limits.

Goblin Squad Member

randomwalker wrote:
...Death curse won't be everyday fare among active pvp'ers. Low reps cannot afford the rep and high reps don't want to.

Interesting. Deathcurse is unavailable to anyone who has one on himself already, right?

I wonder whether you have to have high reputation to deathcurse, and whether that reputation is metered? Such that when you deathcurse someone you have to allocate some of your reputation to it to make it work. Spend your rep on vengeance. When you run out you can still fast travel but would have to rebuild your rep stocks in order to curse the next bandit who kills you.

Such a system might serve to partly balance out the potential for reverse-griefing, where the miscreant goads the ignorant into killing him so he can curse them.

Goblin Squad Member

Blaeringr wrote:

You read that correctly. What I did not make clear in that post, and I should have quoted from the blog, as I have many times in discussing this very topic, that in Ryan's opinion the bounty system was designed as "a powerful deterrent" to griefing.

So either it is, or it isn't. If there is a difference between the motivations of casual griefers and bandits, then this just encourages bandits to become griefers.

Player bandits are not griefers, in my opinion. They may be gankers, using superior numbers, tactics or force to kill for the purpose of theft, but that is not griefing. Bandits might also accept a "toll" for safe passage, the historical highwaymen. Again, still not griefing

But if the blogger you quote beloved that a bounty system will dissuade this activity, I again point to its in effectiveness in EvE Online.

You were right in your earlier post when you said it discouraged people from getting involved outside of the safety of the towns. That is particularly true when it comes to getting involved in someone else's loss. They typically assume that the person with the bounty on his head, has friends in the area waiting to pounce when you try to collect the bounty. I have tried this lure in EvE and no one had taken the bait.

Goblin Squad Member

I'm not claiming that bandits=griefers, but what I am saying is that if you are a bandit, and some guy is infinitely re-issuing the same bounty against you, then what do you have to lose by griefing that same guy a little now and then?

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Goblin Squad Member

Blaeringr wrote:

I'm not claiming that bandits=griefers, but what I am saying is that if you are a bandit, and some guy is infinitely re-issuing the same bounty against you, then what do you have to lose by griefing that same guy a little now and then?

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Yeah, that would be bad, but the repeated issuing of a bounty might constitute griefing in itself. I would certainly report it as such. That is basically my definition of griefing. Anytime "repeatedly" can be attached to an action that negatively effects another's game play.

If I'm a bandit and I kill and rob you, or just rob from you, by all means take your revenge. But, once your bounty has been collected, our business is done..... Unless there is a next time.

Goblin Squad Member

Which is what this thread is all about. As far as they have explained to us, bounty grief to your heart's content.

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

Does this also relate to whether murder is against the law? From Ryan's clarification post on page 1, it almost sounded like settlements/kingdoms could set their own rules. Are there any plans to allow player-created laws? Would you be able to select which laws your settlement/kingdom had in place? Would these laws be posted somewhere when you went into a town? Also, if nobody controls the wilderness, does that mean the same as not having a law against murder?

So many wonderful questions.

Goblin Squad Member

Blaeringr wrote:
Which is what this thread is all about. As far as they have explained to us, bounty grief to your heart's content.

Well, they will learn that griefing begets griefing and bounties can be farmed. This being a sandbox MMO, will attract many current and former EVE players. One thing that years of playing EvE teaches you is to think of every possibility, every deceitful ploy, and to trust no one. EvE teaches you to never fly what your not willing to lose and that you are never safe when you undock.

Those of us who plan on following a dark path, expect that we will have bounties on our heads. We expect to have bad reputations. We expect to not only be hunters, but to also be hunted.

Anyone placing a bounty on me can expect that I will be collecting that bounty, indirectly if necessary. Anyone else who does manage to collect a bounty and loot my corpse can expect to get very little value from the loot I'll be carrying.

This is why I would never place a bounty on anyone, it's a suckers bet.


Luxor wrote:

Also, if nobody controls the wilderness, does that mean the same as not having a law against murder?

So many wonderful questions.

If I read it correctly, in a wilderness area with no laws, murder would result in a alignment hit, and perhaps even trigger the bounty system. But would not flag the attacker as a criminal.

It's quite possible that I'm wrong here though. Need to go find the page where I read this to be sure. And even that's subject to change.

Goblin Squad Member

Blaeringr wrote:
Which is what this thread is all about. As far as they have explained to us, bounty grief to your heart's content.

I'm surprised given the mixed feelings towards bounty griefing, something like this got lost in the mix. It definitely embodies more of an eye-for-an-eye approach than the eye-for-ten-thousand-eyes you made reference to previously.

Luxor wrote:
Does this also relate to whether murder is against the law? From Ryan's clarification post on page 1, it almost sounded like settlements/kingdoms could set their own rules. Are there any plans to allow player-created laws? Would you be able to select which laws your settlement/kingdom had in place? Would these laws be posted somewhere when you went into a town? Also, if nobody controls the wilderness, does that mean the same as not having a law against murder?

All great questions that I am very interested in seeing solutions for. Regarding player-created laws and finding out what they are before you've run afoul of them.. this seems like it would be a reasonable place to start from.

And I previously wrote about ways of enforcing these laws:

Darcnes wrote:
If settlements can make their own laws, it would be incredibly useful if they are able to impose those laws in meaningful easily recognizable ways, such as a Criminal flag while that offending individual remains in that hex. This would become all the more important where kindgoms come into play so that pronouncements can be made on a kingdom level. Local deputies versus kingdom sheriffs kind of thing. They would of course need to be held accountable to the players running the respective region, and by extension the rest of the world.

These are fairly important matters where meaningful player conflict is concerned. The players will certainly require a well developed system to be in place to able to enforce any kind of lawfulness in their domains.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Blaeringr wrote:
Which is what this thread is all about. As far as they have explained to us, bounty grief to your heart's content.

Well, they will learn that griefing begets griefing and bounties can be farmed. This being a sandbox MMO, will attract many current and former EVE players. One thing that years of playing EvE teaches you is to think of every possibility, every deceitful ploy, and to trust no one. EvE teaches you to never fly what your not willing to lose and that you are never safe when you undock.

Those of us who plan on following a dark path, expect that we will have bounties on our heads. We expect to have bad reputations. We expect to not only be hunters, but to also be hunted.

Anyone placing a bounty on me can expect that I will be collecting that bounty, indirectly if necessary. Anyone else who does manage to collect a bounty and loot my corpse can expect to get very little value from the loot I'll be carrying.

This is why I would never place a bounty on anyone, it's a suckers bet.

I encourage you to take a look at this thread.

If bounties get out of hand, some player coordination will be important to make sure the responses also don't get out of hand.

@Darcnes it depends how much you'll be able to carry on your husk. Given the intent for there to be wagons to transport harvested materials, bandits won't merely be targeting lootable corpses-to-be. My suspicions are that there will be far more value in the huge amount of resources that will be needed to build and maintain settlements than there will be in easily replaceable adventuring gear.

In fact, there will be many circumstances where bandits will be able to drive away the owners of the wagons without actually killing them.

Goblin Squad Member

Tetrix wrote:

@Summersnow

The game has not even started yet as you well know, so players giving their honest reaction and plans to planned mechanics is a good thing. This allows GW to see how players will react to whats planned and they can stay the course or change things. This plan with how to deal with the bounty system would be a bad thing if it was not posted here for discussion and instead only lived on a small corner away of the internet away from GW eyes.

Rubbish!

I second Summersnow's vote to ban the moron who started this thread.

Goblin Squad Member

Blaeringr wrote:
In fact, there will be many circumstances where bandits will be able to drive away the owners of the wagons without actually killing them.

This is great though, as it completely removes the need for a grief-bounty in the first place. My suggestions have more to do with what happens when lives are taken.

On the topic of raiding caravans.. will wagons be destroyable? If so, will a grief-bounty be allowed on the destroyer(s)? Will any one person be considered the owner of a particular wagon, and thus be able to take out a grief-bounty? I would think threatening to destroy massive amounts of cargo would be a far more effective means of persuasion than "or I'll kill you".

Seems like a grief-bounty could/should apply at the point of goods being lost, regardless if its your inventory or your wagon's.

.. if an non-consensual takeover of your settlement is accomplished.. can you grief bounty the invaders?

Goblin Squad Member

Darcnes wrote:
Blaeringr wrote:
In fact, there will be many circumstances where bandits will be able to drive away the owners of the wagons without actually killing them.
This is great though, as it completely removes the need for a grief-bounty in the first place. My suggestions have more to do with what happens when lives are taken.

But your suggestion focuses on punishment tied to amount taken from husk. When bandits are getting more from wagons than husks, it doesn't make much sense.


Blaeringr wrote:
Darcnes wrote:
Blaeringr wrote:
In fact, there will be many circumstances where bandits will be able to drive away the owners of the wagons without actually killing them.
This is great though, as it completely removes the need for a grief-bounty in the first place. My suggestions have more to do with what happens when lives are taken.
But your suggestion focuses on punishment tied to amount taken from husk. When bandits are getting more from wagons than husks, it doesn't make much sense.

How would you suggest it should work?

Goblin Squad Member

I'm not fond of the use of the word "grief" when griefing doesn't seem to apply. Bandits attacking a wagon is not griefing, it is what they do. A merchant sending out a wagon to travel in an open pvp world is a risk they assume.

I certainly hope the Devs limit grief bounties to actual instances of griefing and not to pvp actions that are permissible by the game mechanics. They should not have non consensual pvp and then punish those who participate in it. Don't allow for husk looting and then punish us for doing it.

Goblin Squad Member

Blaeringr wrote:
But your suggestion focuses on punishment tied to amount taken from husk. When bandits are getting more from wagons than husks, it doesn't make much sense.

The second to last sentence from that post addresses this.

I think it's a short step from husk punishments to grand-theft wagon punishments. Between loss of life and loss of goods, the latter seems to be more painful. Where stages of grief-bounty may only go so far when husk-looting, based on the value of the husk.. the value of the wagon, as you said, is likely to be drastically higher.. probably greater than all of the caravan's guards and leader combined and many times even that, so stealing or destroying the wagon would truly warrant the most harsh punishment. Given that the wagon is the focal point of related contracts, and likely the robbery itself, it makes sense that punishment be tied to that to begin with.

The concept of graduating bounty severity can apply equally well to both scenarios.

I think this is worth trying to poke holes in: in what situation does loss of goods not outweigh the loss of life, and does that situation warrant a grief-bounty (above and beyond the bounty options you'd receive from the loss of life).

Off-hand I would think dungeon crawling, but while definitely more irritating, is it grief-bounty irritating? Or just death-bounty irritating. Provided the goods are left intact of course.

Any other scenarios people can come up with where life is more important than husk that also provokes enough of an irritation to warrant a grief-bounty?

One other thing, if players are taking a contract out for guarding goods from Point A to Point B.. their job is LITERALLY to be in the way of death. Getting killed is a freaking occupational hazard at that point, and not something that should be rewarded with grief-bounty-ability.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
I'm not fond of the use of the word "grief" when griefing doesn't seem to apply.

Grief-bounty is not referring to the action warranting the bounty, but rather the action the bounty issuer is going to be invoking, by repeating the bounty ad infinitum they are essentially griefing the person who wronged them. Once, and probably not even that badly (as things stand now).

Goblin Squad Member

Valandur wrote:
Blaeringr wrote:
Darcnes wrote:
Blaeringr wrote:
In fact, there will be many circumstances where bandits will be able to drive away the owners of the wagons without actually killing them.
This is great though, as it completely removes the need for a grief-bounty in the first place. My suggestions have more to do with what happens when lives are taken.
But your suggestion focuses on punishment tied to amount taken from husk. When bandits are getting more from wagons than husks, it doesn't make much sense.
How would you suggest it should work?

I suggest you leave it as is. Let players re-issue bounties as often as they like. If it gets out of hand, let players respond in an organized and methodical way to intimidate the person using bounties to grief. Read my thread called "Tony's Blog"

Goblin Squad Member

Blaeringr wrote:
]I suggest you leave it as is. Let players re-issue bounties as often as they like. If it gets out of hand, let players respond in an organized and methodical way to intimidate the person using bounties to grief. Read my thread called "Tony's Blog"

I tend to agree with Blaeringr. I also suspect that this will be one of the areas that will be closely looked at during the early crowdforging process.

Goblin Squad Member

Blaeringr wrote:
I suggest you leave it as is.

Chances are this is what will happen. It does not change the fact that bounties currently hinge on what is notably the least harmful of actions, but not even making an appearance on what seems like the most harmful of actions.

As a bandit, I would think it is distasteful that I could wind up with a handful of grief from meatsticks whose payment depends on the very conflict the bandits provide.

As a merchant, the possibility that I could lose my goods and not my life, without any legal recourse at all is even worse than the bandit's lot. At least the guard would probably forget about the bounty after being ambushed so many times by other bandits.

If the system doesn't adjust to the more painful point of loss, at least add it to the equation. It'll be a whisker's difference to the bandits who already have grief-bounties on their head anyhow, and a world of difference to the merchant. Unless caravaning at all is deemed a willingly risky venture and no bounties at all are issuable.

Something should change, it has many directions it could go in. Some more preferable than others, but it is ... incomplete, as it stands.

Still, chances are it will be left as is.

For the record, I applaud your casual acceptance and we'll figure out how to handle whatever comes at us outlook. Ultimately that's where I fall back to. This is the place and time to bring ideas and concerns to bear though.

Goblin Squad Member

Bandits who take too much will incur the wrath of settlements.

So again, it's a player made solution to fix it.

Settlements will send out stealthy scouts to find the bandit's hideout, call in the army, and raze the place to the ground and take everything back.

Goblin Squad Member

for player bounties i hope that bounties have an escalating cost to place. The first two or three might not cost much but after that you will need to invest some serious cash to keep it going. If you killed enough people that a couple dozen people can keep bounties on you, well thats a consequence of your actions. but i do think that bounty griefing is something that the devs need to look at and is a good point.

i hope that the devs put something in place so that if someone has a bounty placed on them they cannot just get a friend or another account to hop onto an alt and collect the bounty. people doing that should get banned as its an exploit to get out of the bounty system.

I like a controlled bounty system, as long as you cant bounty someone a dozen times without spending a stupid amount of gold. If bandits in an area get too much, i agree with baleringr that a good solution is for the other PCs to band together and hunt them down.

As to not having enough gear on your bandit or it being an alt, i think that initially that will be a concern. Down the road though as people's characters get more powerful and use better gear that bandit alts (unless someone paid for extra training time to train them) will have a hard time keeping up without investing in training and gear.

Also one thing i think would be interesting is companies who make it a job to guard caravans. In one of the blogs it describes a solider career path that is basically having a group of people act as a unit with people deeper in that path having more unit options. a company who dedicates themselves to that kind of teamwork might work well against the "mob" of bandits. Unless those bandits are professionals themselves and train in that, in which case it should be some very epic battles.

in general my views are this. bandits and pvp is good for a sandbox game. However there needs to be systems in place to discourage griefing (not the same as non-consensual pvp, which is say bandits). No system is perfect, so in that case GW needs to make the rules very clear on what is griefing and hand out bans to those who grief, but not those to just pvp/bandit. Banning such people in this game will be powerful as characters require time to gain power, and having your level 20 bandit banned....its not something where you can start a new account grind for a week and start over again.

I also think that having a War system would be good. if your company/settlement/kingdom is at war with someone else then it should basically be a FFA between the two. to encourage people to make war make it so that you have to declare war to take over a settlement. Have settlements should have benefits to joining as would having settlements joining a kingdom. So someone who maybe doesnt want to pvp much might still risk it in order gain those benefits. Maybe a rep with that settlement/kingdom that gets wiped if you leave when they go to war, and has to be grinded out again when you rejoin. Maybe the grind lengthens the more times you quit and join.

Goblin Squad Member

@leperkhaun increasing costs undermines the functionality for new players trying to deter griefers, which is supposed to be the main goal of the bounty system. In fact it will make new players even more appealing as targets.

Goblin Squad Member

well thats why i think there needs to be a threshold. So the first say 3-4 bounties you place on someone dont cost you much. But after that they do.

Have the bounties tied to a kill. So you got killed on 31 dec at 1200. The first 4 bounties are rather cheap...then the price starts jumping BIG time after that. So you place the 3 bounties on the guy the guy gets killed 3 times done and done. If he kills you again, well now your bounty price resets, and you can place another 4 bounties for cheap.

So you pay almost nothing for those 4 bounties and the guy gets killed 4 times, done and done. well if you now wanted to place more bounties you need to pay say 1000 gold, then the next is 10000 gold, then 50000 gold. As long as the guy doesnt kill you again the cost just goes up and up and up. but if he kills you again, price reset, you can issue 4 more without much cost.

that would allow new players to bounty someone, make it prohibitive to do so enough to grief someone, UNLESS that person keeps going around killing people and reseting those folks bounty prices. in which case they are just asking for it.


leperkhaun wrote:

for player bounties i hope that bounties have an escalating cost to place. The first two or three might not cost much but after that you will need to invest some serious cash to keep it going. If you killed enough people that a couple dozen people can keep bounties on you, well thats a consequence of your actions. but i do think that bounty griefing is something that the devs need to look at and is a good point.

I like a controlled bounty system, as long as you cant bounty someone a dozen times without spending a stupid amount of gold..

You know, I was concerned that the endless bounty idea could turn into a mechanism that causes griefing. But this idea is at least a nod to trying to keep that from happening. Sure a group, or a guild could pool their gold to keep a bounty going. But after a few bounties it would get too expensive for all but the really wealthy to persue.

Goblin Squad Member

another thing is this. consider griefing someone with bounties the same as other griefing. Put systems in place to prevent it. then ban anyone to abuses the system.

One example could be this for the bounty system.

You have a bounty window. it brings up who killed you (unless you were at war with them or you were in lawless lands or you were red), it would include all who attacked you and helped kill you. From here you decide right then to place a bounty on the person, funds can come from whats in all your banks and such. YOu decide to to place 10 bounties on the bandit, the total cost of this would be say 100000 gold. That gold is taken from your account and placed in escrow ( you cannot access or use it). After each time the bandit the cost of that bounty is taken from the escrow account. Lets say you go...hmm ok he got killed 5 times im done with that. You open your bounty window and forgive him. The money from the escrow account takes say...24 hours to get back into your bank account (to prevent people from placing 20 bounties then canceling if they change their mind).

Add to the system that a bounty must be placed within x amount of time of dying (say you loot your husk and secure your items but before you actually respawn) and once you forgive or cancel a bounty you placed on them, you cannot place another bounty on that bandit until they kill you again.

If that bandit kills you while you still have a bounty out on them, your money is still in escrow but the price of the bounties reset automatically.

ohh bounty cost should be on a per kill per character basis. So if the bandit killed 10 people, each of those people's cost for bounties would be calculated separately, so the bandit could have 30-40 bounties on them without the people getting killed paying much silver at all.

However i think the strongest thing that GW can do is to take action against griefers quickly and harshly. Let people know whats acceptable and what isnt. Setting up a toll road and charging people or killing them if they dont pay the toll, acceptable. following that merchant for hours killing them over and over and over is not. If someone griefs give them a temp ban, remove the last 2 skills they trained, and randomly destroy x items they had on a character linked to that account or that they pay for. Ohh look that bandit is barely trained, we are going to hit your main up. Ohh look you griefed on this account this and your main account are banned.

Goblin Squad Member

leperkhaun wrote:

well thats why i think there needs to be a threshold. So the first say 3-4 bounties you place on someone dont cost you much. But after that they do.

Have the bounties tied to a kill. So you got killed on 31 dec at 1200. The first 4 bounties are rather cheap...then the price starts jumping BIG time after that. So you place the 3 bounties on the guy the guy gets killed 3 times done and done. If he kills you again, well now your bounty price resets, and you can place another 4 bounties for cheap.

So you pay almost nothing for those 4 bounties and the guy gets killed 4 times, done and done. well if you now wanted to place more bounties you need to pay say 1000 gold, then the next is 10000 gold, then 50000 gold. As long as the guy doesnt kill you again the cost just goes up and up and up. but if he kills you again, price reset, you can issue 4 more without much cost.

that would allow new players to bounty someone, make it prohibitive to do so enough to grief someone, UNLESS that person keeps going around killing people and reseting those folks bounty prices. in which case they are just asking for it.

But the expressed foundation upon which the whole bounty system was initially conceived was to make it easy to make life miserable for people who grief weaker players. Your suggestion is dulling the teeth of that system.

Yes, there are benefits to what you are suggesting, but they are weaker than the benefits of being able to perpetually grief a griefer.

That is why it is better to leave control of such a cap in the hands of players, as Tony is doing. That way we get all the benefits you are seeking, without gimping newer players.

Goblin Squad Member

i suppose. I just dont think that the bounty system should be used to grief another player. If you get killed once by someone, a couple of bounties is more than enough. if you get killed again you can just continue to add on bounties for cheap.

So how much the griefer gets griefed is based totally on how much killing he does, which is the way the system should work. He killed 20 people, well he is going to have 60 or more bounties out on him where the people didnt have to pay much. Thats a lot of time to allow anyone just to kill you. if he kills the same player a bunch he gets a bunch of bounties, if he presses too much then its time for the GM to see if its griefing or pvp.

A person shouldnt be allowed to use the bounty system to grief someone, as the bounty system is to be used to limit griefing not allow it.

Goblin Squad Member

It was designed to target players who target and kill new players just for giggles, as well as players who stalk and kill the same player over and over.

So unless you have a good solid alternative that makes life for griefers just as hard, you're going to need to keep that above assumption in mind.

Goblin Squad Member

I understand, i just think that in addition to the players taking part and hunting down griefers or hirering an artisan bread maker, there needs to be some mechanics to try to prevent bounty griefing.

then if someone is trying to get around that, ban them or go buy some sourdough.


The situation that concerns me is this.. A briefer somehow gets a player to hit him, the briefer lets the player kill him, then begins a endless bounty series against the player. Maybe the griefer had 3 hit points due to having a buddy beat him down to 3 making the players hit do fatal damage, yea the player should have seem that, but what about if it was a AoE and the griefer was stealthed. That's why I'm hesitant to just drop it. But perhaps it's best to wait till we can see how it plays out in the game.

I do however feel that only 1 bounty should be allowed to be placed on someone at a time. If someone wants to take out 20 bounties, they should have to wait for the first to be served, then go in and renew it. That would take the emotion out of how many bounties you ultimately give someone, I believe it would prevent someone issuing 30 bounties against someone when it was their fault they got themselves killed and are just pissed about it.

Edit: after giving what I said above a little more thought, I realized that even trying to make that call is more of a theme park mentality then is needed in PFO. So please ignore what I said about limiting the number of bounties that can be placed on a character at one time.

Goblin Squad Member

Blaeringr wrote:
It was designed to target players who target and kill new players just for giggles, as well as players who stalk and kill the same player over and over.

A griefer is already going to be Criminal, if anything killing the same person again is going to be safer because it's one less person issuing grief-bounties. What does this accomplish besides transferring pennies from one pocket to another and making sure that person can be hunted long after they cease their Criminal ways?

Do away with this revenge based bounty system, it's unnecessary. Players should be able to draw up a bounty on anyone, Criminal or otherwise. Players accepting the contract should be able to see Criminal status, and non-criminal hit contracts should probably be chaotic at the least.

Make being a Criminal last a long time, a week or month of actual playtime, and make you a very attractive target, above being one of the few sources of Lawful bumps. Or don't and let us incentivize the process.

There's no need for the mechanic as it currently stands.

Goblin Squad Member

Just so we're clear, when I say that's how it was designed, I'm not saying I designed it that way.

301 to 350 of 356 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Request: Please get this stuff cleared up before the Kickstarter expires All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.