Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe the devs already plan to implement something along these lines, but I'd like to start a discussion about how it should work.
The problem is that other players can come into your area and basically make a pest of themselves in a way that the game can't possibly detect, until your only recourse is to: 1) ignore them (which can be extremely difficult); 2) kill them and get flagged as a Criminal or an Attacker; 3) leave the area, thus rewarding them for being sufficiently obnoxious.
None of those options feels "right".
So, I propose a "Challenge" mechanic. At its simplest, it's simply a way to warn another player to leave the area. If they don't leave the area within a suitable time frame, they could be attacked without the Challenger suffering any penalties such as Criminal or Attacker flags.
The hardest part about this will be making it in such a way that it doesn't become another tool for griefing, so we need to come up with the constraints on it.
1. It should not be possible to Challenge another player who has any inherent "right" to be in that Hex. For example, it should not be possible to Challenge a Member of a Settlement or a Member of a Chartered Company sponsored by a Settlement in the Hex that contains the Settlement. Likewise, it should not be possible to Challenge a character who already has a Harvesting Camp set up, or who is part of a Caravan guard.
2. It should not be possible to Challenge a person in more than one Hex during a single real-time day (or other suitable time frame). This will stop one player from following another around Challenging them over and over.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hm. I think that if this were implemented the challenging player would have to have local rep above a certain level: there should be gating values determined by your reputation in that hex. If your reputation were high enough, and the challenged low enough, you might not even have to challenge.
My understanding is that players posting bounties have to put the reward in escrow. What if the area/hex/settlement refused to accept a bounty on you given your rep was high enough there?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Let me open by saying I love this idea and endorse it.
It should not be possible to Challenge a person in more than one Hex during a single real-time day (or other suitable time frame). This will stop one player from following another around Challenging them over and over.
Clarification: I can challenge 20 people in one hex but not 2 people in 2 hexes, or I can't challenge one person in 2 hexes, or I can challenge one person in one hex once per day?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hm. I think that if this were implemented the challenging player would have to have local rep above a certain level: there should be gating values determined by your reputation in that hex. If your reputation were high enough, and the challenged low enough, you might not even have to challenge.
Strongly endorse using Reputation for this - if someone is being a serious nuisance, chances are their local reputation in that zone is dropping fast. But there's potential for abuse, so it should be coupled with local area ownership. Otherwise I can walk into your house with twenty of my best friends and drive you out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
#1 seems the most important, and most complex.
Perhaps a simpler way to deal with it would be that you only have the right to Challenge someone if you're on your home turf (your Settlement's Hex), or if you're in a Hex that you have already Claimed.
Claim Mechanic:
- Not usable in any Settled Hex;
- Not usable where other non-Friendly characters are already present;
- Only applies to your immediate vicinity (50 yards or so);
- Automatically applied when you place a Harvesting Camp, or wherever your Trade Caravan is.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Claim Mechanic:
Not usable in any Settled Hex;
Not usable where other non-Friendly characters are already present;
Only applies to your immediate vicinity (50 yards or so);
Automatically applied when you place a Harvesting Camp, or wherever your Trade Caravan is.
Does the claim still apply if you end up outnumbered? Will there be a way to differentiate if I show up into a hex to harvest with my buddies (ie, we claim the hex together)? I'd like that to be a thing. I'm still fuzzy on the law mechanics out in the wilds, but if I'm busy harvesting stuff and you come to muscle me out, can you do that without grabbing the criminal tag?
Potential for abuse: Send out 25 guys to different hexes ahead of everyone else, claim them, wait for people to come harvesting, and challenge them. effectively lock down a hex for people who don't want the criminal tag/bounty on their head.
Potential fix: If you claim a wild hex but don't DO anything with it (you're sitting there not gathering resources - AKA homesteading), someone who comes in and starts homesteading supercedes your claim. The downside is that this more heavily favors organizations over smaller groups.
When it comes to Trade Caravans, maybe the caravan itself counts as property so a challenge can be issued to prevent you from closing within X meters?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Does the claim still apply if you end up outnumbered?
I don't see why not. The Challenge is only there to allow you to attack someone without getting flags. If you can't defeat them, that's irrelevant :)
Will there be a way to differentiate if I show up into a hex to harvest with my buddies...?
I would think only the character who issued the Claim should be able to Challenge (or any Character in their Home Hex). But I also think any Friendly characters should be able to assist them... on both sides. So that, if I Challenge you, and you don't leave, and I attack you, then all your buddies should be able to jump in without getting flags.
... if I'm busy harvesting stuff and you come to muscle me out...
This is why I wanted the Claim to automatically be applied when I set up a Harvesting Camp. If it's just a simple node, then I leave the area and find another node. If I'm already there harvesting when you come in, you can't Challenge me because you can't Claim the area because I'm already there.
Potential for abuse: Send out 25 guys to different hexes ahead of everyone else, claim them, wait for people to come harvesting, and challenge them. effectively lock down a hex...
Again, you'd only be able to Claim your immediate area, not an entire Hex. If a Hex is approximately one square kilometer, then that's roughly 1,000 yards x 1,000 yards. If I can only claim roughly 50 yards x 50 yards, then I would need about 400 players to Claim an entire Hex. If you can muster that many people to shut down the Hex, then go for it :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't see why not. The Challenge is only there to allow you to attack someone without getting flags. If you can't defeat them, that's irrelevant :)
My concern with the number swap is that it's entirely possible for the claimant to be the problem causer. If he's annoying fifty people, but has claim on the place he's standing, then that could be an issue. But, after reading the rest of your response...
Again, you'd only be able to Claim your immediate area, not an entire Hex. If a Hex is approximately one square kilometer, then that's roughly 1,000 yards x 1,000 yards. If I can only claim roughly 50 yards x 50 yards, then I would need about 400 players to Claim an entire Hex.
I realize I had misunderstood. you're not claiming the hex, you're claiming the area immediately around you right? So I can't run around, plant my flag and start being a pain to everyone, they've only got to move fifty feet away. And I get set up right next to people homesteading (harvesting/building) and challenge them away, because they've got the better claim. I like this idea, and it's how some real world legal systems handled property claims in the wilderness. Sorry for the misunderstanding. :P
On the other hand, the more we question this, the more problems we'll find (and resolve) sooner.
Definitely favor the "back up your buddy" provision, even though I can see where it could backfire (a bunch of bruisers are antagonizing me, I stab the ringleader, get demolished by his buddies who aren't getting the criminal flag thrown because I attacked first) - but in real life, even if it's your store, it's not advisable to pick a fight you can't win when thugs show up with baseball bats and machetes. Smarter is to get out of the situation alive and then seek retribution - which could provide for some really interesting in-character development and drama.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Hroderich Gottfrei, I very much appreciate the questions and feedback.
... they've only got to move fifty feet away.
I hadn't really considered this, but I think there should probably be a difference between the area you can claim and the area the other player would have to leave to avoid the Challenge.
I think both ranges should be a function of how far away you would notice someone's emotes. Let's assume that's 30 yards. I could Claim a 60 yard radius area, centered on where I was standing when I issued the Claim. However, I would have to be within 30 yards of that center-point, and within 30 yards of the person I'm Challenging in order to issue a Challenge. They would then have to move more than 90 yards from that center-point in order to avoid being freely attacked. That means I could roam to the very edge of my 60-yard Claim and still not be bothered by them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think both ranges should be a function of how far away you would notice someone's emotes. Let's assume that's 30 yards. I could Claim a 60 yard radius area, centered on where I was standing when I issued the Claim. However, I would have to be within 30 yards of that center-point, and within 30 yards of the person I'm Challenging in order to issue a Challenge. They would then have to move more than 90 yards from that center-point in order to avoid being freely attacked. That means I could roam to the very edge of my 60-yard Claim and still not be bothered by them.
I don't (currently) see any problems with this approach. It's a lot of distance, but when we're talking about over a hundred square miles of game world, it's tiny. I think this is pretty reasonable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Only thing I'm confused on here is what would be defined as "pest-like" behavior.
That's entirely up to the player who wants to issue the Challenge.
On my Paladin, I would probably consider the mere presence of an Evil character on the steps of my Temple to be profane and "pest-like".
The point is to give players a tool to use whenever they feel it is appropriate, rather than trying to codify the behavior that might cause them to feel that way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
i like the ideas here. A few comments as always:
-"thou shalt not pass" vs. "thou shalt not linger". Pests should have to violate the area for a certain time before effect triggers, so that travellers can safely cross claimed areas. I don't want to see bandits attacking me without consequence because I used "their" road.
-"restraining order" vs claimed area. Requiring the challenger to name all (non-enemy) targets would still be ok against pest, but could potentially reduce abuse. (would it work?). If I as a harvester use this mechanic I probably know exactly who I want to go away.
-"symmetric" vs "asymmetric". The ideas discussed seem to be of type "i was here first, go away" and seems asymmetric (it is still murder if the intruder attacks, but not if he is attacked). A symmetric "come get me" challenge has very different uses but could also be interesting. However it opens questions like whether you can openly challenge someone elses gathering operation, etc etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
-"thou shalt not pass" vs. "thou shalt not linger".
Yeah, I was definitely thinking in terms of "thou shalt not linger".
-"restraining order" vs claimed area.
Would you mind going into more detail about what you mean with that?
-"symmetric" vs "asymmetric".
The devs have already as much as confirmed that there will be a way for you to flag yourself as fair game to anyone who wants to attack you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd like to see a symmetric challenge (legalized dueling, I guess?) implemented. And/or options for non-lethal engagements for in-character development. Actually, what about being able to launch a non-lethal attack in your claimed area rather than lethal? It's the equivalent of bouncing someone out of your bar instead of shooting them and throwing the body out the back door.
Agreed on the minimum time for a challenge to be issued.
Restraining order: You mean being able to place a "Stop Following Me!" command on another player? Maybe that too could be handled by a challenge followed by non-lethal attack if they fail to comply.
For either case, the first person to go lethal is probably (in the eyes of the law) considered to be in the wrong. There's potential for abuse there too, I think.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I must say that this is an interesting idea. But I think it could only be implemented in areas that you control. Say your guild owns a town and a non guild member comes into the town and makes a problem but is not doing anything that would flag him to the guards. Well it is your guilds town so you run them out of town. You flag them and they have so much time to leave town otherise the guards will "escort" him out. But make it so the ban only lasts a limited time. Whether that is 1 hour or 24 hours it would be something interesting to implement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Stealth?
What if you're trying to claim land where someone already has a hideout? or they were already there before you made the claim and then challenge?
Also, I'm curious what you mean by being a pest in ways the game can't detect. When left that vague, it closes that aspect to any discussion of better alternatives.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Stealth?
What if you're trying to claim land where someone already has a hideout? or they were already there before you made the claim and then challenge?
That's a really good point. Thanks for the feedback.
- Not usable where other non-Friendly characters are already present;
I think it's perfectly reasonable if the Claim silently fails if there are Stealthy players nearby.
I also think it makes perfect sense for characters who have access to a nearby Hideout to be able to ignore the Challenge regardless of whether or not they were present when the Claim was made. I would even go so far as to say having a Hideout within 100 yards or more should give you "home turf" advantage.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm curious what you mean by being a pest in ways the game can't detect.
Well, the Challenge mechanic is meant as a general solution. Personally, I believe it's impossible to define all the behaviors that might qualify, so I never even tried.
And to be clear, I think you should be able to issue a Challenge for any reason at all - even simply because someone is standing too close to you while you're Harvesting. So the question of "pesky behavior" isn't at all controlling.
However, I'll try to indulge the question.
In general, I would find it "pesky" if:
- Someone was following me around without talking or responding to me;
- Someone was spamming emotes in my presence;
- Someone was making rude gestures or spamming obnoxious animations in my presence;
- Someone was threatening me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The reputation system already allows us to deal with people who repeatedly cause problems for other players. So it sounds like this is meant to be aimed at first time offenders, or trivial offenses that shouldn't really bother people.
I see this system as conflicting with good alignment since the whole system is based on a presumption of guilt with absolutely no evidence. It also seems to conflict with neutral alignments which tend to be all about being thick skinned enough not to see violence as a reasonable solution to "spamming emotes in my presence".
Even with a challenge system implemented, for a paladin to say "ya, I killed them because they wouldn't leave when I told them to" is very much more like the behavior of an evil tyrant.
You're suggesting a system where a conversation with a judge would go something like this:
"I plead innocent, your honor. After all, he followed me around and wouldn't answer my questions! So I put a flag down and told him to leave, and he didn't obey me?!"
I can see that making plenty sense for evil characters, maybe even lawful evil, but not so much for other alignments.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, even in your OP you list ignoring them as a valid option, albeit difficult. Maybe we simply need a player made system called "try harder".
We've already got a system that allows us to defend against attackers, so you're not suggesting adding anything from that point of view.
So far the devs haven't accepted the suggestions made for friendly fire AoE combat, so that's not an issue either.
If they're going to attack you, challenging them would merely allow them to send in one guy (part of a larger party) as bait to avoid the criminal flag for defending that guy.
If gathering from large setups takes any amount of time at all, then you will see bandits using such a system to wait while explorers set up in the bandits' area, let them waste their time and resources to set up a gathering camp near a bandit hideout, wait for them to begin gathering, then issue a challenge. Any players AFK (which will happen if any of this takes any reasonable amount of time) will ignore the challenge and get ganked with no consequences to the bandits.
Very much what Hroderich was talking about. But of course if they go with his idea of turning a challenge into a duel, then bandits will use that to contest areas where they haven't set down stakes.
The reputation system and bounty system will already allow you to set up controls over your territory for people who regularly play in a harassing way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
-"restraining order" vs claimed area.Would you mind going into more detail about what you mean with that?
What I was thinking about was mostly specific targets vs general challenge. Evicting the specific people you find 'annoying' (ie that you suspect are lookouts for nearby bandits, waiting for you to get more wealth and/or awake some nasty that weakens you) in the first case versus putting up "trespassers will be shot" signs in the second case.
In either case, an asymmetric challenge should require some sort of claim to the area - having a gathering operation or building there (including hideouts?) or similar. (This may have implications for claiming land for settlements, but i dont have enough information to speculate yet).
re: symmetric challenge. Yes, there will be a way to say "come get me", but that (fortunately) doesn't allow you to attack people. They could link the two though so that issuing an eviction challenge makes you fair game as long as you maintain the challenge. But of course then that could be another griefing mechanic etc etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I like the novelty of the idea, I can't think of a good reason why we should let an LG player get away with attacking another player. If they can't resolve their differences without violence, then let them realize the consequences for being violent.
We have these great systems of incremental changes towards long-term benefits or costs. Let them work.
Griefers should be reported in any case. GW assures us they will be dealt with.
@Randomwalker I like that idea. It seems they already have ideas for a 'reputation salute' system where a character can spend some of his rep to change another character's reputation. If that system is made to be generally available, I think that could serve as a way to resolve these issues without violence and without a specifically designed game system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What Kakafika said. If it really is "extremely difficult" for you to cope with "obnoxious" behavior in a calm and civil way, then is there really any question left as to whether you are cut out to be playing either a lawful or a good character? We don't need systems that bend over backwards to cover up the alignment you're actually playing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Maybe I'm misreading this in which case please correct me. But if I understand this correctly I'm DEFINATLY not a fan of this system.
This system as I understand it means anyone, for any reason can go up and challenge someone unless they are affiliated with the hex owners. Then that person must leave the hex or risk being attacked without penalty.
That places WAY too little emphasis on hex ownership and seems highly subject to abuse.
Here is my suggestion:
Players with suffient permissions can exile someone from their hex. That player is given 5-10 minutes warning. After those 5-10 minutes expire the are criminal flagged whenever they enter that hex allowing players to attack them and making NPC guards to attack them.
So if someone is causing problems in your hex, you exile them. If you are in someone else's hex and someone is giving you trouble, you ask the authorities there to exile them.
If you are in someone else's hex and you don't like someone, but the authorities choose not to exile them... You deal with it. Or declare war and conquer that hex. It's their hex so they make the rules.
I would say there should be slight penalties if you exile too many organizations or people. Not huge ones, there should be lawful evil organizations that exile all but their own, or lawful good/neutral "Area-51" type hexes. But it should hurt the economy of those hexes as well as increasing the upkeep for guards.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This sort of feels like a solution in search of a problem. Most of the things identified as challenge behavior are either ignorable or are reportable.
Oh blue griefing AKA lawful good players being twerps is a very real concern as are legitimate conflicts between good and/or lawful factions.
I think the ability to deal with it is great, but I don't want other players enforcing THEIR rules in OUR territory without coming to us about it first. That's a good way to start a war.
Let each settlement govern their own territory. And let wars sort out what is within a companies rights to impose or ignore within it's own hex.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry, this thread is ridiculous.
You have a mechanic for getting rid of annoying people in your hex, its FUNDAMENTAL TO THE GAME.
Its called PVP.
What you REALLY want is a way to engage in PVP that doesn't get you flagged for engaging in PVP when YOU want to engage in PVP but DOES flag anyone else that engages in PVP against you.
Thats just lame.
I wil quote something many of you have posted in other threads to harass pnp players looking for a non pvp game.
If you can't handle the pvp (and the flagging/bounties/death curse that entails) this isn't the game for you, get lost & good riddance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
While I like the novelty of the idea, I can't think of a good reason why we should let an LG player get away with attacking another player.
That would be great if everyone in the game were actually role-playing. This system is meant to deal with players who are basically thumbing their nose at you, taunting you, while you're powerless to do anything about it without taking an Alignment/Reputation hit and possibly being flagged a Criminal. That guy isn't Role-Playing, so binding me to RP consequences means I'm at a disadvantage.
That places WAY too little emphasis on hex ownership...
Not sure if you saw where I said the Claim Mechanic was "Not usable in any Settled Hex". In Settled Hexes, only players affiliated with the Settlement can Challenge. In Wilderness Hexes, you'd still have to have been there first.
It's not ideal, but I was hoping people would chip in some ideas to make it better. That seemed to be happening for a while, then something changed...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That would be great if everyone in the game were actually role-playing. This system is meant to deal with players who are basically thumbing their nose at you, taunting you, while you're powerless to do anything about it without taking an Alignment/Reputation hit and possibly being flagged a Criminal. That guy isn't Role-Playing, so binding me to RP consequences means I'm at a disadvantage.
Please explain in great elaboration the disadvantage you find yourself at when somebody else is "thumbing their nose at you" or "taunting you".
Is it not part of the philosophy of a "good" alignment to persevere through things far worse than a thorough nose thumbing?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Lol, if your tolerance of the evil of "nose thumbing" is so low - non-existant, really - I shudder to see the forum rants that will ensue any real acts of evil.
Did I say "shudder", I meant "squeal in anticipation".
In any case, what's important is not my opinion of the disturbingly weak willed portrait of morality you wish to paint, but whether or not you can convince the game developpers, or the rest of the community, that you truly need such protection from the great horrors of "nose thumbing".
Good luck with that ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nose thumbing in public or neutral territory is all well and good. That is just something people will have to deal with.
But when you OWN the territory, that's another story. That's why wars are fought and fortresses are built. So you can control the territory. Part of controlling the territory is the right to tell people to get the hell off your lawn for ANY reason. Because it's your damn lawn! You shouldn't lose alignment for killing someone who was warned to get off your property.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Unless you're good and they don't have a history of anything more than nose thumbing.
Sure it's your lawn, but if you're going to let person A wander around, but not person B simply because of nose thumbing, then that's an alignment of convenience, not of truth.
It has nothing to do with alignment really. It's your property. If people are there then:
A. They are there because you allow them to be.
B. They are trespassing.
You don't need a reason to kick someone out any more than you need a reason to let them be there. Would it be chaotic or evil to kick an unwanted guest out of your home? Would it be chaotic or evil for people to declare their homes and property off limits?
Choosing to not allow someone in your territory is no more evil than telling someone they can't have your money.
As a good aligned character if I don't think someone needs/will make good use of my money then I won't give it. I don't want my money to go to fund addictions or people who are already wealthy. If I don't think people are making good use of my territory I will not allow them to use it either. I don't keep it safe so they can disrupt order and insult people.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would think that a well-defined method for determining who is persona non grata in a location is Lawful, and that a policy of allowing personas non grata to exit and not return to the territory on pain of death is Good. (As opposed to a system of killing them outright).
Good is not a doormat.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Good is not a doormat, agreed. But we're talking about mockery here and nothing more. Whatever good is, it can tolerate trivial nonsense like that.
We're talking about settlements and surrounding areas, and even more remote areas where you sort of have a project going on. It makes sense to limit what goes on in your own private home this strictly, but not in larger communities.
This is closed minded oppression being suggested, no matter how stubbornly you try to sugar coat it. I would know, as that's the way I do business.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There needs to be a mechanic to ban people from your territory for a lot of reason, not just jeering.
1. If Justice Knights(LG) and Freedom Fighters(CG) have a war going on I will tell them to stay their blades in The Empyrean Order(NG) territory. If Justice Knights tries to ignore me I will exile them. Our territory is a place of peace and refuge and I will exile anyone who starts trouble with those I allow to dwell there.
2. If someone is feeding info to bandits outside our territory about the movement of traders, or feeding our enemies info about our forces and defenses, and I find out who they are, I want to exile them. I'm fine with spies but I should be able to deal with them when I catch them. Not have to deal with crappy spies who operate in the open with complete immunity.
3. I want to enforce some RP laws. Mainly I want to keep "50-shades" RP confined to a specific tavern, and people's private homes. (After we vote on the issue of course.) So if you stay out of that tavern you won't have to worry about creepy come-ons or half the population sitting there making out in the middle of the street where carts and wagons are trying to drive. This is just as reasonable as any city with ordinances about not being too loud or drunk in public.
How do we enforce these kind of laws without an exile mechanic? What the heck is the point of owning a hex if we can't enforce them???
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good is not a doormat, agreed. But we're talking about mockery here and nothing more. Whatever good is, it can tolerate trivial nonsense like that.
We're talking about settlements and surrounding areas, and even more remote areas where you sort of have a project going on. It makes sense to limit what goes on in your own private home this strictly, but not in larger communities.
This is closed minded oppression being suggested, no matter how stubbornly you try to sugar coat it. I would know, as that's the way I do business.
Good does not have to be tolerant. Good does not have to tolerate public indecency, or harassment. If I spend the afternoon walking up and down main street screaming obscenities at the men, women, and children I walk past, someone is going to contact law enforcement and I'm going to be told to cease or be removed. Good is just about a measured and appropriate response. Walking up to a group in the middle of the road and kicking them all in the teeth is not a Good response, but telling them to vacate because they're blocking traffic is. You're not expected to tolerate their obnoxious behavior just because you can drive a different street.
Edit to add: There's also neutral settlements to consider, where there may still be laws against murder, but nothing says we have to play nice in any respect short of that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But we're talking about mockery here and nothing more.
No. You're talking about "nothing more". That you cherry-picked a few of the examples and proudly display those as the "only" reason I would want this mechanic is utterly unsurprising. That's not to say you're too slow-witted to know better, but rather that you delight in attempting torment.
I shudder to indulge you yet again - because I know you "squeal in anticipation" at the opportunity to attempt to twist my words again - but I console myself that I am writing for the silent reader, rather than for Your Vileness.
...
On second though, I'll refrain. Decius has - characteristically - given a perfect response. It needs no further embellishment.