Goblin Squad Member
|
To combat the concern about bandits abusing S.A.D. by asking for too much lootWe're debating internally some more details for this, as formalizing Stand and Deliver as an actual mechanic is brand new this week. You're staring at something prototyped straight out of the design workshop here :) .
But do note that even if we didn't put any limits on it, a guy hitting you up for "One MEEEEELION Gold Pieces!" still might leave you in a better off state than if he'd blindsided you from total surprise. Sure, if it's that imbalanced that he can just kill you in either case, it sucks that he loses no Rep for exploiting the intent of the system, but if he does so he's at least giving you a chance to play for time and call in friends or plan your escape route.
We'll almost certainly have some limits on it, though.
Also regarding S.A.D., to combat the "conga line", perhaps, like the "killed" flag, there could be a "protected" or "fleeced" flag for traders that pay their toll.Almost certainly the case. If you've paid already, within that window other bandits won't get to hit you up again. If the first guy asked for too little, they can go take it up with the guy undercutting them.
Stephen's last response is exploitable, and there is no way to "take it up with him" to stop the undercutting.
Example:
Caravan owned by company "A" is getting ready to leave its settlement.
Company "A" has one of its alts to issue a S.A.D. against their own company, and accepts 1 copper piece.
Now Company "A"s caravan is protected, under penalty of double reputation loss, from any other bandit attack for the next 20 minutes.
Why would any other Bandit risk double Reputation loss, for possibly nothing in return?
How would bandit know who undercut the price? What mechanic would there be against and individual character that did this exploit (undercut)?
Solution:
A caravan that has the "Fleeced Flag" can be stopped for a SAD attempt.
If it still has room for additional toll, then the normal SAD rules apply. The bandits can take up to the amount that the system allows. If the caravan declines, the bandits do not lose reputation, if they choose to attack. If the caravan accepts the SAD, then the Bandits get the maximum reputation boost for the day.
If the caravan in fact does not have the additional toll to pay, then the bandits should let it go, or receive a Heinous flag.
I believe this solution prevents the potential exploit of merchants using SAD by their alts, to protect their own caravans. It also punishes bandits who still choose to violate the legitimate "Fleeced" flag, by initiating the Heinous flag on the bandit(s)
Solution for the Undercut:
If a caravan is marked as "Fleeced" it should also indicate whom the bandit was. Other bandits could then begin to take note of frequent "under cutters" or exploiters (ie. 1 copper piece for caravan toll), and the bandit company(ies) could then place a bounty on the exploiter.
I'm not talking about punishing the bandit that takes a little less, due to honest negotiation. I'm talking about a chronic under cutter, or an obvious exploiter.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There is a general problem of having your friends rob you and give the money (or most of it) back to you.
I think a better solution would be to require the bandits to offer safe passageout of the hex. In essence, draft them as additional guards for the caravan. The bandits should not get any money until the caravan gets free of the hex without being robbed again.
I believe this solves the problem of having your friends rob you because there's essentially no difference between having your friends rob you and paying your friends to guard you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Perhaps establish a fair market valued fleece that is tied to reputation?
Asking too little or too much will lessen the bandit's rep accordingly, based off of the total average fleece amount.
This prevents both the over-charging and under-charging issue. Also, institute a mechanic in the contract system that does not allow the same bandit to SAD the same merchant more than once.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Areks, what's to stop a half-dozen caravans heading out along the same route at the same time anyway? Even if the bandits don't have to escort the first caravan out of the hex, they still won't likely be able to intercept another caravan.
From Time is the Fire in which We Burn:
... characters that are using fast travel are assumed to be moving at a rate of up to five times normal speed (that is, 20 times real time). Traversing a hex at this rate requires less than a minute.
Since this "drafting" will be possible even if the bandits are not required to actually provide safe passage through the hex, I don't see how it gets worse if they are.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Multiple bandit factions in the same hex probably won't be an issue. Bluddwolf can probably speak on this better than I can, but I see bandit groups being very territorial.
The 1st bandits have no reason to follow the caravan... and if they are tied to it in order to guard via SAD, then whats to stop them from going through to the next hex and SADing again? Now the merchant doesn't have to contend with the possibility of running into merchants in a hex, he will have one by his side, SADing in every hex and possibly killing him right before the delivery.
The 2nd bandits would have to SAD the merchant and factor in the 1st bandits in their risk reward ratio. Again, I don't see two bandit factions operating within the same territory.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'll say what I said in the other thread. The system should not be able to effect other bandits.
There should be no limit to how many times or how often a caravan can be targeted.
Social evolution will spread out bandits, and make them fight over territory. If a hex is full of bandit hideouts, word will get out not to use that road, and new ones will be found. The smart bandits will clear out the area, to make sure they aren't creating too high of cost to travel through their stomping grounds. Or the demand for guards will skyrocket and banditry will have no profit.
There should also be no game mechanics dictating the amount bandits can request. If a bandit wants to raid a caravan, they can offer a unreasonable high cost. The bandit flag takes away my worry that caravans will not see enough threat. The smart and successful bandits will be ones that can determine a reasonable cost when they know the fight is un-winnable, they will be able to figure out a cost that players would rather pay, rather than fight.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How would bandit know who undercut the price? What mechanic would there be against and individual character that did this exploit (undercut)?
He could ask? He could search the area? As for what mechanic you could use - someone who can issue a SAD is by definition flagged as an Outlaw and open to PvP by anyone, there's your mechanic. Or if you didn't want to kill them, you could SAD them.
I'd suggest that anyone who has concluded a SAD should be unable to disable their Outlaw flag for 20 minutes (or whatever the duration for the "robbed" flag ends up being) from their last SAD.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... whats to stop them from going through to the next hex and SADing again?
I see fast travel dropping to normal speed once they enter a hex with an OUTLAW flagged character. It only makes sense, otherwise the bandits won't catch anyone anyway.
I believe bandits will have to be present in one of their Hideouts in order to trigger an ambush.
From Player-Created Buildings and Structures
Hideouts—These are the simplest constructs. Hideouts are used by bandits to waylay explorers and others who impinge on their areas of operation. Hideouts normally cannot be found once constructed, although the potential exists for certain types of characters to learn how to find them. Hideouts have limited storage, and they allow characters to be logged out of the game safely. Hideouts have a "threat radius" that determines how they interact with their surroundings: when a character using fast travel enters the threat radius of a hideout, the characters in the hideout can trigger an ambush—the targets drop out of fast travel in the vicinity of the hideout, and the bandits may be able to overtake them and engage them in melee combat before they can exit the area and re-enter fast travel. Advancing a hideout can make it harder to locate, increase its local storage, increase its threat radius, and allow the hideout's occupants to determine the nature of passing characters and their gear before triggering an ambush.
I completely agree with the principle Valkenr advocates, that the actions of one bandit should not interfere at all with the actions of another bandit.
It's definitely a complex problem.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The fair market value fleece would be something if there was no way to discern who the under-cutting party is.
@Valkenr - While social evolution may take care of some problems, social evolution has also taught us that people will try and game the systems the must operate in.
People are going to try and manipulate the mechanic and while nothing is full proof, there should definately be a limit to the frequency a merchant must SAD otherwise the economy will never get off the ground.
After routes have been established and commerce is somewhat plateaued then yes, by all means revisit the limitations that have been put in place and if feasible, remove them all. Not having any limitations on the system is asking for it to be gamed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Completely didn't factor in hideouts... good point. That makes the chance of territoriality all that more possible.
With that being said, if a bandit has no hideout in the hex, does that PREVENT them from SADing?
No, SAD works on any individual or group. You don't have to be in fast travel, and valuable targets will probably be caravans, and they will not most likely not be able to fast travel.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All the times are placeholders until we get a more accurate idea of how long travel actually takes. The original estimated time to cross a hex and speed of fast travel probably can't be relied on as a hard number at this point, since it's all getting tweaked for feel as we get more world built and animations done.
In the case of the "Fleeced" timer, "20 minutes" is a placeholder for "enough time that you can probably finish a reasonably long trip after you've been robbed somewhere in between." If it turns out that's long enough for most trips to keep you covered from your start to your end, if you exploit it, then it's probably too long.
In general, I think we're way more worried about "a half dozen guys work together to stop a single player and SAD him in sequence until he's bankrupt or cancels a trade and is therefore freely attackable" than we are organized groups of merchants moving from settlement to settlement and conspiring to get the Fleeced flag cheaply. The people most in danger from bandits are solo or small group explorers and resource gatherers out in the wilds trying to return home with full pockets, and they'll have a harder time arranging for their own bandit quisling when they need one. A "caravan" already implies a big enough group that they'll have other ways to deal with bandits other than exploiting the Fleeced flag.
That said, obviously we want to come up with something that's not super easy to exploit in the way this thread is talking about, as well. So please keep the ideas coming :) .
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Tuoweit
Thank you for your response, but I really don't want to search the area for the caravan's alt toon (who probably logged off), and to what end?
If I were a merchant, I would use another member's alt to SAD my caravan. I'd pay the 1 copper piece, then gain the 20 minutes nearly complete safe passage. That alt would then sit out eh 20 minutes in the hideout or juts log off.
@Nihimon, you are truly the lore master, and thanks for the hideout information. However, the idea of escorting the caravan that we just SAD'd would take away valuable plundering time from my bandit company. It may also take us to the border of a hex where we may not want to go to, and it would expose us to the full 20 minutes of our outlaw flag as well.
I have to be honest, I want to steal, stash the loot, wait out the PVP flag and then hunt for another caravan. If I'm forced to pvp when trying to capture a caravan, that is an acceptable risk. But PVP after the theft is done, especially PVP not of my choosing, is higher risk for less reward.
I agree with all who say that player interaction should dictate the amount of the SAD offer, no preset limits. But, even if there is a preset, that can be exploited.
Primary Company Merchants / Secondary Company Bandits both owned by the same players, can just mail each other back the loot "stolen". meanwhile gaining all of the benefits of Traveler Flag. and Accepting a SAD for maximum Rep boost for bandit company. There is no risk for either.
I would actually use this exploit myself, but I have integrity as an honest bandit. I enjoy the thrill of the potential for PVP, while stealing another player's loot.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In general, I think we're way more worried about "a half dozen guys work together to stop a single player and SAD him in sequence until he's bankrupt or cancels a trade and is therefore freely attackable" than we are organized groups of merchants moving from settlement to settlement and conspiring to get the Fleeced flag cheaply.That said, obviously we want to come up with something that's not super easy to exploit in the way this thread is talking about, as well. So please keep the ideas coming :) .
I can appreciate both of these points Stephen, thank you.
I'm just glad that you are keeping an open mind for ideas that will protect us honest thieves from exploits.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All the times are placeholders... The original estimated time to cross a hex and speed of fast travel probably can't be relied on as a hard number at this point...
I assume this is generally true for everything you tell us :)
In general, I think we're way more worried about "a half dozen guys work together to stop a single player and SAD him in sequence until he's bankrupt or cancels a trade and is therefore freely attackable" than we are organized groups of merchants moving from settlement to settlement and conspiring to get the Fleeced flag cheaply.
Very good point. It sounds like you're generally expecting most bandits to operate in relatively small groups, preying on relatively small-time traders. I suppose this would mean that larger raids on well-guarded caravans would be the more likely between Settlements that are at war or something.
@Everyone, I agree that requiring the bandits to serve as guards to the edge of the hex is probably not a very good idea, even if it did sound great in my head when I first thought of it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In general, I think we're way more worried about "a half dozen guys work together to stop a single player and SAD him in sequence until he's bankrupt or cancels a trade and is therefore freely attackable" than we are organized groups of merchants moving from settlement to settlement and conspiring to get the Fleeced flag cheaply. The people most in danger from bandits are solo or small group explorers and resource gatherers out in the wilds trying to return home with full pockets, and they'll have a harder time arranging for their own bandit quisling when they need one. A "caravan" already implies a big enough group that they'll have other ways to deal with bandits other than exploiting the Fleeced flag.
The only way I can think of dealing with this is to make currency a physical object that is always included in the husk loot. If a person can only give up as much as they are carrying, there is no reason to chain SAD a single target [b]then[b] loot their husk.
Part of a SAD should be a pat down, tied to two(or more) skills, generally: investigation and concealment. a check between the two skills determines what the SAD'er can see in the target's inventory and wallet.
The first step of a SAD should be an opportunity for a non-shifting counter attack from the target against the outlaw.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just going to throw this out there. If I got wind of a very large (read: packed with loot) caravan heading along a route, dont worry, the SAD mechanic will never come into play. Come to think of it, if I ever saw an actual guarded caravan, chances are the guards would be killed before I even consider asking the caravan leader for ransom. Why lose the element of suprise over a game mechanic?
If it's a lone merchant, sure, we'll do the whole Stand and Deliver thing, he can pay his toll and go on down the road. But if someone actually took the time to guard their caravan, there must be some pretty good loot inside. Time to make with the murder and find out what it is.
Sorry if this doesnt contribute at all to the conversation, just me thinking out loud.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just going to throw this out there. If I got wind of a very large (read: packed with loot) caravan heading along a route, dont worry, the SAD mechanic will never come into play. Come to think of it, if I ever saw an actual guarded caravan, chances are the guards would be killed before I even consider asking the caravan leader for ransom. Why lose the element of suprise over a game mechanic?
If it's a lone merchant, sure, we'll do the whole Stand and Deliver thing, he can pay his toll and go on down the road. But if someone actually took the time to guard their caravan, there must be some pretty good loot inside. Time to make with the murder and find out what it is.
Sorry if this doesnt contribute at all to the conversation, just me thinking out loud.
All contributions are welcome, and yours is valuable coming from an Assassin Company's point of view.
As a Bandit Company, we are more interested in loot over risk (killing). However, once we have reached our max reputation for accepted SADS, then there is no reason not to sack the caravan for maximum loot.
I used the figure of 80 / 20 on my interview when discussing SAD vs full PVP looting. I'm thinking the UnNamed Company will try to hold to that.
Yeah, I think the biggest flaw with the SAD mechanic is the ease at which it can be avoided.
Here's a thought: Have a minimum percentage of coin a bandit must request in a SAD. Sure, that doesn't stop the merchant's friendbandit from just giving it back afterwards, but it does create a bit of risk: what if the friend just decides to run off with his coin?
I don't think that would resolve things, and it kind of makes the SAD mechanic much more inflexible, but nobody's brought it up yet, and I figure somebody should.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ill add that haggling over the SAD offer sounds goood. One way to prevent exploting from asking for more than merchant has and so that a bandit doesnt need to "see" what the merchant is carrying, is to use percentage instead of monetary amount. So I offer SAD of 20%, merchant offers 15%, I say deal and trade completed. Has to be more than 0 cant be more than 100%.
As far as the merchants and "bandits" using a buddy system to game the mechanic, cant this kind of activity be monitored or prevented. Like having logs that check for "too frequent" activity between "bandit" and merchant"? Or prevention in the form of the "Bandit" not being able to trade those goods back to the merchant (flag the items/materials) for a week/month? I mean if you have stolen from the merchant I doubt you'd need to do business wwith him other than robbing him again. Youd probably sell the goods to a fence or black market right?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ill add that haggling over the SAD offer sounds goood. One way to prevent exploting from asking for more than merchant has and so that a bandit doesnt need to "see" what the merchant is carrying, is to use percentage instead of monetary amount. So I offer SAD of 20%, merchant offers 15%, I say deal and trade completed. Has to be more than 0 cant be more than 100%.
As far as the merchants and "bandits" using a buddy system to game the mechanic, cant this kind of activity be monitored or prevented. Like having logs that check for "too frequent" activity between "bandit" and merchant"? Or prevention in the form of the "Bandit" not being able to trade those goods back to the merchant (flag the items/materials) for a week/month? I mean if you have stolen from the merchant I doubt you'd need to do business with him other than robbing him again. You'd probably sell the goods to a fence or black market right?
It is one thing to have a bug that is exploited, and punish people that exploit it before it is fixed.
It is an entirely other thing, and unacceptable, to have a game mechanic that is exploitable, and punish people for it.
Any limitations should have ZERO impact on honest people.
If you flag the inventory, all you need is a middle-man, or another alt.
I'll say it again, lets leave this system as described in the blog, not try and impose limitations on it. Limitations will either hurt other honest players, or create the need to create workarounds.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
All contributions are welcome, and yours is valuable coming from an Assassin Company's point of view.
As a Bandit Company, we are more interested in loot over risk (killing). However, once we have reached our max reputation for accepted SADS, then there is no reason not to sack the caravan for maximum loot.
I used the figure of 80 / 20 on my interview when discussing SAD vs full PVP looting. I'm thinking the UnNamed Company will try to hold to that.
I appreciate the sentement. Don't get me wrong, I'll encourage the use of SAD amoungst my Cohorts, its simply a better way of maintaining a steady income and ensuring that merchant caravans will still be inclined to use the routes we're camping.
But, at the end of the day, using carvan guards is basically putting a sign up that says "Hey bandits! I got real good loot here! Bet you can't get it!"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I appreciate the sentement. Don't get me wrong, I'll encourage the use of SAD amoungst my Cohorts, its simply a better way of maintaining a steady income and ensuring that merchant caravans will still be inclined to use the routes we're camping.
But, at the end of the day, using carvan guards is basically putting a sign up that says "Hey bandits! I got real good loot here! Bet you can't get it!"
I have one assumption, I'm thinking it might pan out. I think merchants, being driven by greed themselves, will try to move their cargo as cheaply as possible. If I understand the various posts, not all PC owned caravans will be defended by PCs, some will hire just NPCS guards. But, even if that is not the case, the hideout mechanics will give us enough information to know which merchants to SAD and which to attack.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Tuoweit
Thank you for your response, but I really don't want to search the area for the caravan's alt toon (who probably logged off), and to what end?
If I were a merchant, I would use another member's alt to SAD my caravan. I'd pay the 1 copper piece, then gain the 20 minutes nearly complete safe passage. That alt would then sit out eh 20 minutes in the hideout or juts log off.
Excellent points.
I have to be honest, I want to steal, stash the loot, wait out the PVP flag and then hunt for another caravan. If I'm forced to pvp when trying to capture a caravan, that is an acceptable risk. But PVP after the theft is done, especially PVP not of my choosing, is higher risk for less reward.
Well at least I see you understand the concept of how PvP can be highly undesirable for some, that gives us some common ground at least :D
Primary Company Merchants / Secondary Company Bandits both owned by the same players, can just mail each other back the loot "stolen". meanwhile gaining all of the benefits of Traveler Flag. and Accepting a SAD for maximum Rep boost for bandit company. There is no risk for either.
I'm not sure there will be an "item mailing" feature in the game, that seems to violate the whole economic foundation of requiring players to travel to move goods from one place to another, not to mention being immersion-breaking. I think you'd have to manually trade the goods to the merchants in question (regular markets could refuse to list stolen goods). As for logging off, I assume that any PvP-related flag will ensure that you can't "safely" log off for its duration (i.e. your character will remain available for interaction until the timer wears off), although of course you could "unsafely" log off in a safe area. Maybe not allowing Bandits to enter their hideouts until the SAD wears off would help? I think that would be appropriate even for "legitimate" bandits as well, honestly - otherwise it would be too easy to jump out of a hideout, strike, and hide again in an unfindable safe location without any chance of retaliation.
Could we say that a player only acquires the "Fleeced" flag if they have actually been Fleeced by a certain minimum proportion of their coin/merchandise? (If their inventory/coin purse then changes, the flag is re-evaluated.) Unfortunately it might be difficult to determine what an acceptable amount is, but it would eliminate the "1 cp tax" exploit.
Flagging merchandise acquired through SAD as "stolen" and applying a Criminal flag to anyone dealing in stolen merchandise could deter the "pay now, recover later" to some extent, although it's certainly not perfect (but it also opens up for law enforcement the possibility of setting up stings to catch bandits and fences). However I don't think it would really be a significant deterrent.
It seems to be quite a tough problem, how to make a single instance of SAD enough of a problem (that can't be circumvented) such that travellers won't do it to themselves, while also ensuring that travellers remain somehow protected from being bled dry by multiple SADs. I'll give it some more thought....
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But, at the end of the day, using carvan guards is basically putting a sign up that says "Hey bandits! I got real good loot here! Bet you can't get it!"
Or, the guards are too strong for the bandits to attack. Or, the guards are a honey pot to lure bandits into attacking so another group can engage them.
The "conga line" fear has gotten a lot of attention for a concern that doesn't actually make much sense.
I would rather deal with ten bandits working together to get money out of a merchant than let the "Copper Piece Bandit" nerf the otherwise interesting Stand and Deliver mechanic.
The thing is, how is the "conga line" different from ten separate bandits independently extorting the same merchant as he travels through the same area? It's not. The merchant loses the same amount whether or not his enemies are in cahoots. And how is either situation different from a bandit organization killing any merchant who tries to pass? It's not, really. The merchant is in a lot of trouble no matter what. The route becomes impossible to properly complete.
Ergo, the solution is simple. Reduce the number of bandits. How? Plenty of ways. Since we are of course most definitely 100% discussing a My Little Pony FPS, we're going to handle this the Pony Way.
Make some friends. Hire guards. Bring in your crazy necromancer buddy and let him get out all that rage over not being able to summon undead nearby the city.
BOTTOM LINE: There is no way to insert the Fleeced flag that can keep it from being somehow abused. Bandits swarming a route, on the other hand, are an established game element that players can handle on their own.
A better idea would be to tell them to look in the portable hole, then push them in. ;D
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that there should be no limits on the number of times a SAD can be used on a particular caravan. That mechanic would be too open to abuse. Any number of petty bandits, err I mean local lords can and did historically shake down passers by for tolls.
If there is a limit it should be related to the length of the journey and not be limited to one time per trip. Once or twice per hex perhaps and the name of the CC(s) or individual(s) which took the toll noted via hover over on the fleeced (or perhaps tolled) flag. This way bandits, err local lords can fight it out with one another if they end up treading one another's toes.
I think the flag would be useful by itself with no mechanical limits on frequency. As I intend to be a local lord myself I may alter the level of toll I would accept (possibly to zero) if someone had been tolled already and then head off to deal with the interlopers.
If the tolls were too high then either trade stops, the toll is lowered or the merchant hires guards in order to bargain tolls from a stronger position.
In keeping with this line of thought I would suggest that it should be a valid game mechanic to 'ambush' from not only hideouts but also towers and keeps.
If this is not possible then it should be possible for local authorities to levy tolls and those who refuse should be marked as criminals.
Just my 2 pence.
I like the idea of the flag just as a way to know they've already been fleeced, yeah.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I see fast travel dropping to normal speed once they enter a hex with an OUTLAW flagged character. It only makes sense, otherwise the bandits won't catch anyone anyway.
Even though I not going to play a bandit, seeing this statement, I see a big problem with the Traveller flag. Suddenly having a speed change from faster to normal automatically warns the player there is danger ahead. So there goes the surprise ability of bandits, assassins, etc. I say drop the increased speed for something else, maybe better perception, other survival abilities/skills. Greater endurance is fine, taking on the risk of being marked with the flag. The faster speed counters the risk of having the flag.
Actually I believe the flags should not result in any visible difference (animations, speed) from those not having flags.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ DarkOne the Drow
Fast travel is being mooted as a core mechanic of the game. The traveller flag provides faster movement (I'm not sure is this relates to both fast travel and/or 'normal' movement).
I don't believe the traveller flag a special case with regard to fast travel and if and when you drop out of it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Also remember, the 'copper piece bandit' is going to have the enmity of those ten other bandits. He's not going to live for very long.
If I was in an organised bandit brigade, I would be also be using a scout to find and track the best caravans. IF this scout was any good, he would soon be able to tell the other bandits where to hit caravans prior to the 'copper piece bandit' striking and be also able to inform them roughly where the bandit is loitering - all bundled up for some face stabbing time.
there is no special copper piece bandit.
either anybody can make use of the SAD window, or anybody who is chaotic and can use the Bandit PVP flag can do so.
anybody with a Chaotic alt can play this role, and not do much else with the character aside from when this is needed.
nothing about the SAD system as announced prevents anybody from attacking or requesting ransom from a passing caravan.
it just means that you are doing so outside of the SAD system, so if you DO attack them, there may be a Rep hit.
(unless the travellers have a PVP flag, such as those with the Traveller flag)
if they agree to your chat request and give you money (knowing there is no 2x Reputation penalty if you later attack them anyways) then AFAIK there is ZERO alignment/reputation hit at all.
good characters with the Champion flag don't take Reputation or Evil Alignment hits from attacking Evil characters,
so they are free to engage in banditry and even ask for ransom (outside of SAD system) without penalty,
just against Evil targets only.
it hasn't been discussed yet, but it seems entirely plausible for 'legal settlements' to establish laws of trespass, that require payment of fee to avoid being hit with the Criminal flag... that may well end up re-using the SAD code in slightly modified form, if GW decides to make that type of law more automated/integrated into the game.
skills are training 24/7 AFAIK... (but you could mean class abilities?)
sure, nothing i've seen from GW re: the "SAD" system associated it with Rogue class though.
Rogues are hardly Chaotic-only, while Barbarian is for example (Bandit PVP Flag is Chaos-only)
personally, "SAD" is not really that powerful of an ability, it's just about evading Reputation hits fundamentally,
and there are other ways to do that without using the "SAD" system,
never mind that you can do the same thing (ransom money) with no limitations if you don't care about the Rep hit.
so making it a specific class ability, when it's supposed to be used by any Chaotic person with the Bandit Flag, seems dubious.
there's plenty of other variations on it that would seem to deal with 'exploits' like this.
looking forward to see how it evolves...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah, interested also.
I guess I see the classic bandit as a rogue variant, which the SAD fits into. If any other chaotic aligned class was to do the same thing via local chat, I would just call that a mugging - for which you get a reputation hit. If those others want to become better at the banditry, then learn one of the skills from that tree then. Similar to how most everyone can use a sword, but fighters have access to abilities that make the sword do fancier things. If my rogue wants to do the same, he trains an ability from the combat tree.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A couple of thoughts on how the SAD mechanic could work with (hopefully) limited exploit potential (core ideas borrowed from other posters):
Amount demanded
* the default could be "Gimme all your money!" which, if accepted, would result in patting down the victim and based on the applicable skills (spot etc.), the wealth carried by the victim would be transferred to the bandit
* if the original demand would be refused, haggling could result with first the victim making a counter proposal (as a fixed amount of coin), to which the bandit could make a counter proposal etc.
* this would continue, until one of the parties would state "And that is my final offer!", after which the other party would have a certain time window to accept the best and final offer (BAFO)
* if the BAFO is accepted, a deal is struck
* if the BAFO is refused and the BAFO was less than what the victim could have paid (i.e. less than what the victim was carrying), the bandit may attack without loss of reputation
* if the BAFO is refused and the BAFO was more than what the victim could have paid and the bandit chooses to attack the victim, the bandit would get a (possibly reduced) reputation hit
* if the agreed amount would be more than the victim actually can pay, this would result in a reputation hit on the victim
Immunity bought
* in addition to agreeing the amount of payment, the parties to the SAD could agree on what kind of immunity to further SADs / bodily harm the payment would grant
* this could consist of two variables: duration and scope
* the duration would simply mean time and could have certain minimum duration and then options at increasing intervals up to a certain maximum (e.g. 10 min, 30 min, 1 h, 3 h, 6 h, 12 h, 24 h)
* the scope would mean in relation to whom the immunity would be granted, with the options being
- Option A: from that bandit only (including players in bandit's party)
- Option B: from every member of the bandit's CC
* if the terms of the SAD would be violated
- Option A & B: By the same bandit -> Double reputation hit
- Option B: By another member of the bandit's CC: -> Double reputation hit on the original bandit and normal reputation hit on bandit breaching the terms of the earlier SAD
Of course granting CC wide immunity would not work without:
Bluddwolf's Big Board
* a quintessential enhancement to every self respecting bandit's hideout
* allows the members of the CC to keep track of all currently active SAD immunities granted by the member's of the CC
The only obvious possibility for "exploiting" I can see with this would be someone infiltrating the bandit CC and granting immunities on their behalf, but depending on your point of view this could also be considered meaningful player interaction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Fruben,
Thanks for the many ideas, you have put some thought into it.
A few tweaks, is what I would suggest:
1. Rather than having the demand / offer units being in a number of coins, it would be easier to use percentage %, as Greedalox had suggested.
A percentage is best because you avoid demanding more than the merchant / traveler has. The bandit will be sure to get that percentage, and not feel that he or she might have demanded too low.
2. Cargo View:
Once a caravan or traveler is stopped and engaged in a SAD, the bandit will be able to view their cargo. Once a percentage is established, the bandit can then select which items he will take, up to the percentage value of what was decided on AND up to what the bandit can carry away. Which ever comes first. The Traveler might benefit from a bandit not having enough room to carry off as much loot as was agreed upon.
3. Your idea of having a "Fleeced" tracking board in the hideout is an interesting one. I would require that this be an advanced hideout ability, and one that requires it being set up via magical means or a magic item.
You and others are correct about the SAD system, only benefiting the bandit in the area of reputation. For this reputation protection or boost, the bandit is sacrificing nearly 100% of the loot.
It is still unclear if the Reputation boost of "Max for the Day" is stacked, replaced or just once?
For example: Once I get a max for day rep boost, and then I take several rep hits, can I then take another SAD and return back to max?
If the answer is "No", then we might as well only accept one SAD per day.
4. Final note:
None of this applies to the lawless wilderness. Bandits do not gain a reputation hit, or shift chaotic or evil for attacking and killing, or for stealing. There are no flags in 0.0 (EVE reference) FFA Open World PVP zone.
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even as someone far more likely to be targeted by bandits than engage in banditry, I'm not sure I can get behind the Fleeced flag.
How about:
When a traveler accepts a Stand and Deliver, the Outlaw starts gaining Reputation over time.
During that time, if someone else issues a Stand and Deliver to the target, the original Outlaw starts losing Reputation instead... until the new Outlaw is dead.
Why:
So, basically, the Outlaw is staking his Reputation on being able to protect people that pay up.
This should discourage the conga line while also not giving travelers exploitable immunity. Being able to kill the new Outlaw prevents some other exploits, like friendly Outlaws being able to deny other Outlaws their ill-gotten reputation.
It also gives Outlaws a good reason to claim territories and keep other Outlaws out, which I think is a plus.
Cheers!
Landon