Gobbo-blog: Ganking is Good (Part 1) by K. Joseph Davis


Pathfinder Online

101 to 141 of 141 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:

If three characters are killed trying to defend a Fort against an onslaught of 60 characters, I don't consider that a gank.

If three characters are walking around minding their own business and get jumped by 60 characters, that's probably a gank. If that group of 60 doesn't continue on to do something meaningful, like attack a POI or something, then it was a meaningless gank.

My expectation is that players will have better things to do in PFO than meaninglessly gank others. I also have an expectation that the most frequent types of ganking seen in other Open World PvP games will be largely absent from PFO because of the cost in Reputation.

At worse it is an inefficient use of force, but potentially still meaningful.

In Fallen Earth, the Outlaw Motor Cycle Club, I was a member of rolled in groups no smaller than 10 - 15 and many times at full online strength of about 40. We would always flag for PVP, anytime and anywhere. It was actually cause to lose your colors if you were seen, not flagged.

We used to roll into a town, 40 strong, flagged and sending the message loud a clear "This is our MF'ng town." Even other PVP flagged players complained and asked "Why do you guys always roll in such a strong group?"

The answer to that question is the same one that I would use in PFO. You roll in a strong group, ready to fight, to send a message. That message is meaningful, even if our victims are not.

"This is our MF'ng town, hex, space, etc...." It is intimidation, and intimidation is at the heart of SADS and all banditry in a broader sense.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
...Besides, it is impossible for an MMO Developer to eliminate 100% of the griefing anyway, so players need to learn how to tolerate it in small amounts to build up a resistance for it.

Rather, players need to learn to NOT tolerate it whatsoever and why, so that they will know full well to resist it wherever it shows its ugly head.

Goblin Squad Member

Morbis wrote:

...Now double the number of attackers up to 8. We have a TTK of ~30 seconds. Almost certainly less. Are we approaching numbers that make you uncomfortable yet? Double it again up to 16. Our TTK is now ~15 seconds. That is fast enough that you can almost certainly not react sufficient to do any reasonable damage to your attackers. Double it again to 32. Our TTK is now low enough that it doesn't really bare measuring.

Note that 32 attackers is not an outrageous number for someone to bring to bear. In my time playing MMOs I have very regularly been...

Except in the case of ranged fire it should be very difficult for 32 players to melee a single character. 24 players should have to field 16 of their number with pole arms to do it, and the number of mid-range pole arms used should increase the likelihood of friendly fire on their short-range melee characters.

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
Except in the case of ranged fire it should be very difficult for 32 players to melee a single character. 24 players should have to field 16 of their number with pole arms to do it, and the number of mid-range pole arms used should increase the likelihood of friendly fire on their short-range melee characters.

Hence my long time assertion that line of sight and friendly fire are necessities to reduce extreme ganking. Many games not built with such mechanics use HP and damage mitigation to counter the gank, but this just means the gankers bring more bodies to the fight. Limiting the effectiveness of the mass of inhumanity is far and away a superior way to combat the problem of overwhelming force.

On the ganker's side, it means you use longer range, lower damage weapons, or magic, to better leverage your superior numbers. Making these longer range weapons loadouts more susceptible to shorter range, higher damage weapons means, again as a ganker, that you need to use tactics and terrain more than brute force to take down a target and make a clean getaway.

Goblin Squad Member

Sintaqx wrote:
Limiting the effectiveness of the mass of inhumanity is far and away a superior way to combat the problem of overwhelming force.

I would love to see something done so that larger groups are easily detected at a much greater distance. It should be very difficult for a group of 60 to sneak up on anyone.

That's not to say it should be difficult for a group of 60 to lie in wait, ready to ambush. But that the noise caused by any of them moving around should be increased in proportion to the number of them moving around.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:
That's not to say it should be difficult for a group of 60 to lie in wait, ready to ambush. But that the noise caused by any of them moving around should be increased in proportion to the number of them moving around.

Noise, dust trails, flocks of birds rising, etc, etc.

I'd also suggest that 60 people lying in ambush have a better chance of being detected than 5 people lying in ambush, even with similar skills, just on the odds that an observer sees something amiss.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Sintaqx wrote:
Limiting the effectiveness of the mass of inhumanity is far and away a superior way to combat the problem of overwhelming force.

I would love to see something done so that larger groups are easily detected at a much greater distance. It should be very difficult for a group of 60 to sneak up on anyone.

That's not to say it should be difficult for a group of 60 to lie in wait, ready to ambush. But that the noise caused by any of them moving around should be increased in proportion to the number of them moving around.

Why? That makes no sense... 60 people lie in wait, and if 1 moves its 60 times greater in sound?

Larger numbers can be detected at a greater distance sure, if they are being loud... but if they are not, then there is not much difference.

Seriously think about the massive ambushes that took place in any war before modern times... Damn even tanks in WWII were ambushing armies.

Goblin Squad Member

Shane Gifford wrote:

Just putting this out here, I don't think that merchants should be free from PvP. However, I will work in game, and in game politics, to reduce as much as possible the amount of PvP I myself as a merchant am subjected to. To do otherwise doesn't make any sense. Why would I not try to protect myself and my goods from people who want to take them away? Why would I work toward losing more of my goods unwillingly?

It's obvious at this point in the design that PvP is not something you can easily be exempt from, so anybody who has said they want a free ride if they don't want to participate in PvP isn't looking at the right game. I'm not sure which people you are seeing who expect a free ride. Perhaps you are mischaracterizing?

The first paragraph is exactly why the PVP crowd is loud and clear. No Risk No Reward.

I applause the second paragraph. (minus the last two sentences since they are questions) There are people, regardless of what they say out of the side of their mouths, that are trying to punish pvp to the point of being a waste of time.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
That's not to say it should be difficult for a group of 60 to lie in wait, ready to ambush. But that the noise caused by any of them moving around should be increased in proportion to the number of them moving around.

Noise, dust trails, flocks of birds rising, etc, etc.

I'd also suggest that 60 people lying in ambush have a better chance of being detected than 5 people lying in ambush, even with similar skills, just on the odds that an observer sees something amiss.

Tell that to the 100's of Indians that would ambush British Armies in the French and Indian war. No sound, no nothing.

And dont try to say... "Well thats because the british would beat a drum wherever they went." Sure they did... But what about their scouts? No army moved without a decent number of scouts. They were either killed or just walked right by the Indians.

Read some history guys, when a large group is trying to be stealthy, they can be just as successful as a small group.

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
Except in the case of ranged fire it should be very difficult for 32 players to melee a single character. 24 players should have to field 16 of their number with pole arms to do it, and the number of mid-range pole arms used should increase the likelihood of friendly fire on their short-range melee characters.

32:1 is absurdly high for melee, even with polearms. I can see flanking bonuses for increased odds from 2:1 to 4:1. 4:1 should be heavily weighted towards the larger group. After 4:1, the attackers would/should be getting in each others way more often, and effectiveness and chance of friendly hits should rise. By 32:1 you'll probably kill 5 of your own guys as well as the target.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Sintaqx wrote:
Limiting the effectiveness of the mass of inhumanity is far and away a superior way to combat the problem of overwhelming force.

I would love to see something done so that larger groups are easily detected at a much greater distance. It should be very difficult for a group of 60 to sneak up on anyone.

That's not to say it should be difficult for a group of 60 to lie in wait, ready to ambush. But that the noise caused by any of them moving around should be increased in proportion to the number of them moving around.

Why? That makes no sense... 60 people lie in wait, and if 1 moves its 60 times greater in sound?

I've highlighted the relevant part of my quote. That should make it clear that I didn't say what you said.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Xeen wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Sintaqx wrote:
Limiting the effectiveness of the mass of inhumanity is far and away a superior way to combat the problem of overwhelming force.

I would love to see something done so that larger groups are easily detected at a much greater distance. It should be very difficult for a group of 60 to sneak up on anyone.

That's not to say it should be difficult for a group of 60 to lie in wait, ready to ambush. But that the noise caused by any of them moving around should be increased in proportion to the number of them moving around.

Why? That makes no sense... 60 people lie in wait, and if 1 moves its 60 times greater in sound?
I've highlighted the relevant part of my quote. That should make it clear that I didn't say what you said.

Try quoting the rest of my post for a reference, and of course you are only highlighting part of your post when the whole thing is relevant to my response.

Context, try it

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Let me see if I get this.

Xeen wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
That's not to say it should be difficult for a group of 60 to lie in wait, ready to ambush. But that the noise caused by any of them moving around should be increased in proportion to the number of them moving around.

Why? That makes no sense... 60 people lie in wait, and if 1 moves its 60 times greater in sound?

Larger numbers can be detected at a greater distance sure, if they are being loud... but if they are not, then there is not much difference.

Seriously think about the massive ambushes that took place in any war before modern times... Damn even tanks in WWII were ambushing armies.

Why? That makes no sense... 60 people lie in wait, and if 1 moves its 60 times greater in sound? No, he said it's in proportion to the number who break stealth, not the entire force.

Larger numbers can be detected at a greater distance sure, if they are being loud... but if they are not, then there is not much difference. Exactly what Nihimon was saying. The larger force doesn't make more noise - only the small proportion of those who break stealth make the noise.

I wonder if you just get reflexively upset when Nihimon posts, even when he agrees with you... Does that get the context of your post?

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:

I wonder if you just get reflexively upset when Nihimon posts, even when he agrees with you... Does that get the context of your post?

I get exactly the same thing, so I understand it. For example: If I ever suggested being able to SAD and entire settlement at once, I think some people on this forum would set themselves on fire in protest.

Someone else says it, and it is analyzed and in some cases even agreed with with certain stipulations.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
I wonder if you just get reflexively upset when Nihimon posts, even when he agrees with you...

I make a sincere effort not to fall into that trap...

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:

Let me see if I get this.

Xeen wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
That's not to say it should be difficult for a group of 60 to lie in wait, ready to ambush. But that the noise caused by any of them moving around should be increased in proportion to the number of them moving around.

Why? That makes no sense... 60 people lie in wait, and if 1 moves its 60 times greater in sound?

Larger numbers can be detected at a greater distance sure, if they are being loud... but if they are not, then there is not much difference.

Seriously think about the massive ambushes that took place in any war before modern times... Damn even tanks in WWII were ambushing armies.

Why? That makes no sense... 60 people lie in wait, and if 1 moves its 60 times greater in sound? No, he said it's in proportion to the number who break stealth, not the entire force.

Larger numbers can be detected at a greater distance sure, if they are being loud... but if they are not, then there is not much difference. Exactly what Nihimon was saying. The larger force doesn't make more noise - only the small proportion of those who break stealth make the noise.

I wonder if you just get reflexively upset when Nihimon posts, even when he agrees with you... Does that get the context of your post?

There is still no reason for the proportion to increase, unless they are making no attempt to be stealthy.

Also, No, I have told Nihimon he was right in an argument.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

The chance of every character remaining undetected is equal to the product of the chance of each character being detected, if each has an independent chance.

However, the total noise and sign produced is equal to the sum of the individual noises and signs. While the trail of one person might be hard to find, the trail left by a party of three is more easier to find than multiplication would indicate. Likewise, 60 people hiding cannot all independently find the one place an observer is least likely to look.

Goblin Squad Member

Part 2 should be getting done some time this weekend... Mr. Davis appreciates the attention his work has garnered and is eager to work!!

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Urman wrote:

I wonder if you just get reflexively upset when Nihimon posts, even when he agrees with you... Does that get the context of your post?

I get exactly the same thing, so I understand it. For example: If I ever suggested being able to SAD and entire settlement at once, I think some people on this forum would set themselves on fire in protest.

Someone else says it, and it is analyzed and in some cases even agreed with with certain stipulations.

Couldn't you just take 100 guys and SAD anyone trying to go in or out of the gates? As long as the SAD force is strong enough to not get run off.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
In Fallen Earth, the Outlaw Motor Cycle Club, I was a member of rolled in groups no smaller than 10 - 15 and many times at full online strength of about 40....

Now I'm curious. Invicta or Iron Sights?

Either way, I agree that a show of force was not only impressive and intimidating but a good way to recruit new Prospects. It portrays a confidence that people either run from or are drawn to. Combating such a group requires an equally confident group or just stupidity.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:

The chance of every character remaining undetected is equal to the product of the chance of each character being detected, if each has an independent chance.

However, the total noise and sign produced is equal to the sum of the individual noises and signs. While the trail of one person might be hard to find, the trail left by a party of three is more easier to find than multiplication would indicate. Likewise, 60 people hiding cannot all independently find the one place an observer is least likely to look.

Maybe for a skilled tracker... Not everyone will be, and I am sure GW is going to take tracking into account.

That still does not take into account the realities involved. Like I said above, read some history.

Goblin Squad Member

Ravenlute wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
In Fallen Earth, the Outlaw Motor Cycle Club, I was a member of rolled in groups no smaller than 10 - 15 and many times at full online strength of about 40....

Now I'm curious. Invicta or Iron Sights?

Either way, I agree that a show of force was not only impressive and intimidating but a good way to recruit new Prospects. It portrays a confidence that people either run from or are drawn to. Combating such a group requires an equally confident group or just stupidity.

I was in Iron Sights, but Invicta was an ally at times.

I was Bludd Cleaver, a Sargeant of Arms, and I wrote their revised charter which can still be read on their forms today.

If I could find my old log in info I would fire that game up again and look for any if my old contacts.

Who did you run with? Now I'm curious.

Goblin Squad Member

Ravenlute wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
In Fallen Earth, the Outlaw Motor Cycle Club, I was a member of rolled in groups no smaller than 10 - 15 and many times at full online strength of about 40....
Now I'm curious. Invicta or Iron Sights?

Bludd Cleaver of Iron Sights MC

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
That still does not take into account the realities involved. Like I said above, read some history.

You mean history like this?

Xeen wrote:
Tell that to the 100's of Indians that would ambush British Armies in the French and Indian war. No sound, no nothing.

That's not history, it's Hollywood. The prowess of the super silent Indian backwoods killer has been greatly exaggerated (as has that of the American frontiersman) in the totally understandable process of national myth making. But if you want to make claims of 100s of people hiding totally silently in ambush without detection you'll have to do better than that. Read some contemporary histories and you'll soon see that the contemporary view doesn't tally with your own. A couple of good examples are:

Through So Many Dangers - The Memoirs and Adventures of Robert Kirk, Late of the Royal Highland Regiment
Military memoirs of Great Britain: or, A history of the war, 1755-1763 (1779)

Even when concealment was supposedly good, the ambush wasn't perfect - just look at the battle of Oriskany during the AWI. Something set the ambush off too soon, whether it was over eagerness or early detection is now impossible to tell.

I'm not saying that groups of people cannot lie in ambush undetected; I know, as I almost walked right through the middle of a Gurkha ambush before we spotted them at a distance of less than 10' (thankfully they were not there for my platoon of cadets!), but that was only a single squad, and the Gurkha are very good at what they do. I really do not believe it is as easy to hide as you seem to think, and it's hard enough when there's just one of you - just ask anyone who has had SERE training.

Goblin Squad Member

I normally don't voice this, but historical references are silly when using them to compare to MMO tactics.

I am not saying this in response to Lhan, Xeen, or anyone in particular. This is just a general comment in reply to the many times historical references are used by all different viewpoints.

I will take a Native American, Red Baron, or Pearl Harbor analogy seriously the day a country gets invaded by Fizbang the wizard and his army of animated teddy bears.

Goblin Squad Member

Agreed, Mr. George.

It's just that I also find using Hollywood as history rather silly, too. Your point, however, is rather more pertinent.


well this was a real world invasion of teddy bears that caused a diplomatic incident

teddy bear invasion

Goblin Squad Member

ZenPagan wrote:

well this was a real world invasion of teddy bears that caused a diplomatic incident

teddy bear invasion

I said it over our TS, but I call not good enough. They were not animated :P

Goblin Squad Member

Lhan wrote:
Xeen wrote:
That still does not take into account the realities involved. Like I said above, read some history.

You mean history like this?

Xeen wrote:
Tell that to the 100's of Indians that would ambush British Armies in the French and Indian war. No sound, no nothing.

That's not history, it's Hollywood. The prowess of the super silent Indian backwoods killer has been greatly exaggerated (as has that of the American frontiersman) in the totally understandable process of national myth making. But if you want to make claims of 100s of people hiding totally silently in ambush without detection you'll have to do better than that. Read some contemporary histories and you'll soon see that the contemporary view doesn't tally with your own. A couple of good examples are:

Through So Many Dangers - The Memoirs and Adventures of Robert Kirk, Late of the Royal Highland Regiment
Military memoirs of Great Britain: or, A history of the war, 1755-1763 (1779)

Even when concealment was supposedly good, the ambush wasn't perfect - just look at the battle of Oriskany during the AWI. Something set the ambush off too soon, whether it was over eagerness or early detection is now impossible to tell.

I'm not saying that groups of people cannot lie in ambush undetected; I know, as I almost walked right through the middle of a Gurkha ambush before we spotted them at a distance of less than 10' (thankfully they were not there for my platoon of cadets!), but that was only a single squad, and the Gurkha are very good at what they do. I really do not believe it is as easy to hide as you seem to think, and it's hard enough when there's just one of you - just ask anyone who has had SERE training.

Everything is hyped by hollywood. I never said hiding was easy, I said it was not worth having some massive multiplier or even making game mechanics for a large group.

No, I mean history like this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_in_the_French_and_Indian_War

Or this
http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675056350_German-military-invasion_Germ an-military-on-eastern-front_arrested-American-soldiers_World-War-II

OOOH navy ambush
http://www.worldwar2history.info/Midway/ambush.html

Or this, which will cause you to research more
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/ambush.html

Goblin Squad Member

Lhan wrote:

Agreed, Mr. George.

It's just that I also find using Hollywood as history rather silly, too. Your point, however, is rather more pertinent.

Where did I say anything about Hollywood?

Tell me!!

Where?

Yes, saying I think history is hollywood kinda pissed me off.

Goblin Squad Member

Lhan wrote:

Agreed, Mr. George.

It's just that I also find using Hollywood as history rather silly, too. Your point, however, is rather more pertinent.

I would agree that Hollywood revisionist history is silly (and even dangerous) in day to day real life. In the end though it is historical analogies themselves that are silly when looking at the MMO space.

I like to trim the fat. When you have wizards, druids, mystical monks, and over the top wonders real world analogies seem to fall short.

The only way to discuss game mechanics and tactics in my opinion is in light of those same topics. I think it is safe to say that the most altruistic of organizations on these boards are not all immune to the occasional come apart in real life. Likewise I am sure there are hard core bandits pushing for their gaming style on these boards that are contributing law abiding citizens in the real world.

Comparing historical or current events with the digital world does no one side any good. In game customers will be looking for their preferred win condition, in light of the conditions the game is likely to impose. That is the meaningful conversation.

Goblin Squad Member

It is worth doing the comparison when someone brings up a mechanic that will make ambushes completely useless.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
It is worth doing the comparison when someone brings up a mechanic that will make ambushes completely useless.

I disagree. It is more fruitful to defend your stance in light of other MMO's or mechanics.

Historical references are most often used to challenge the "realism" of a proposed system. Challenging realism in a fantasy MMO (or really any MMO) is silly in itself.

Goblin Squad Member

@ Xeen

I have no intention of being drawn into a debate on the worth or not of historical sources, but when you quote Wikipedia, you are not exactly mining rich seams of historical accuracy. The sources I gave you are primary, yours are secondary (at best). Quoting them proves nothing at all. That's what I mean by Hollywood history.

I do not, by the way, have any problem with most of what you have to say about ambushes in PfO - just the notion that it should be as easy for a large group to lay an ambush as a small one. Ambush is a key weapon in the armoury of the bandit, and I would much rather see it as a sharp-bladed instrument than dulled and blunted to the point where it is no longer usable. It's not your underlying argument, it's your illustration of it that I was taking exception to.

I strongly suspect that one of our first interactions in game will include an ambush of some sort. I hope for both our sakes (and for the sake of general fun in game) that some kind of stealth or ambush mechanic works, or if it is not mechanical, that there are no nameplates etc to spoil proper use of terrain in setting one up.

Goblin Squad Member

Charlie George wrote:
Xeen wrote:
It is worth doing the comparison when someone brings up a mechanic that will make ambushes completely useless.

I disagree. It is more fruitful to defend your stance in light of other MMO's or mechanics.

Historical references are most often used to challenge the "realism" of a proposed system. Challenging realism in a fantasy MMO (or really any MMO) is silly in itself.

No other MMO deals with large scale ambushes that involve stealth where the opponent gets an opposed roll that I am aware of.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
Charlie George wrote:
Xeen wrote:
It is worth doing the comparison when someone brings up a mechanic that will make ambushes completely useless.

I disagree. It is more fruitful to defend your stance in light of other MMO's or mechanics.

Historical references are most often used to challenge the "realism" of a proposed system. Challenging realism in a fantasy MMO (or really any MMO) is silly in itself.

No other MMO deals with large scale ambushes that involve stealth where the opponent gets an opposed roll that I am aware of.

Then defending it on the balanced / unbalanced mechanical scale is more fruitful.

Goblin Squad Member

Lhan wrote:

@ Xeen

I have no intention of being drawn into a debate on the worth or not of historical sources, but when you quote Wikipedia, you are not exactly mining rich seams of historical accuracy. The sources I gave you are primary, yours are secondary (at best). Quoting them proves nothing at all. That's what I mean by Hollywood history.

Cmon, are you going to call anything related to 1755-1763 a primary source of information? If you do not have the book in your hand written by the person who was there, it is a secondary source at best.

And yes, I know what university professors consider for sources. To them what you linked is primary, to me its is not. It is intellectual dishonesty to consider it primary unless it is from their mouth or hand. Everything else is a writers interpretation... because we do not know what they copied completely or changed.

BTW, there was one wiki link, with source information.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen,

You seem to have a misunderstanding as to what the term primary source means. Those books were written by people who were there - that's why I recommended them, and that's what makes them primary sources.

If you think the History Channel or Wikipedia trumps that, fair enough. We'll just have to disagree, and I'll respect your position. But I think we should also respect Areks' position too, and leave this thread to debate what he started it to debate.

Goblin Squad Member

Appreciated Lhan!!

Also, Ganking is Good Part 2 is out!!

Goblin Squad Member

I did not pick up the book and read it, I looked at the link you provided.

Did I say anywhere that the history channel or Wikipedia is a better source then a book written by the man himself?

Is the book hand written by Robert Kirk? Oh, it was edited in 2004.

Areks position? You mean Charlie George?

Thats fine, we can drop it now that we both got our final words in.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:


I was in Iron Sights, but Invicta was an ally at times.

I was Bludd Cleaver, a Sargeant of Arms, and I wrote their revised charter which can still be read on their forms today.

If I could find my old log in info I would fire that game up again and look for any if my old contacts.

Who did you run with? Now I'm curious.

I didn't run with anyone, was a lone wolf, but I went to Invicta's parties and saw Iron Sights out on the road or rolling into town. Worked some jobs with each group. Good group of folks, just glad I wasn't on their hit list.

I think a guild with a similar charter might work well in PFO.

101 to 141 of 141 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Gobbo-blog: Ganking is Good (Part 1) by K. Joseph Davis All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Online