Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How do you expect bandits to ignore the supposed "random player", trying to "mind his own business", and has "no desire to PVP", when at the same time this very same person can pose a threat at the drop of a (green) hat?That right there is the most important part. The merchant already has to always be on the lookout for potential threats to him while transporting goods. Why should the bandit not be subject to the same need of risk assessment while doing his thing.
I'd like to add in the the merchant will take penalties if they kill every perceived risk they come across. A merchant behaving in this manner would be almost indistinguishable from a bandit behaving in a similar fashion to everyone around them.
Both of you will end up flagged to everyone around you, both of you will end up as chaotic evil low reps, and both of you will have characters that suck and live in settlements that suck. You'll be nextdoor neighbors. ;)
I have stated numerous times, I wish there was still the Outlaw Flag (a PVP flag). I wish there was still the Enforcer Flag (a PVP flag).
So have I, though I remembered you wanted to be able to flip your flag on and off at a whim where I wanted mine to be constant. And I remember Xeen going on about how they are a "throwback from themeparks." Those flags don't exist anymore. So it doesn't matter.
I couldn't do that with your proposal. I always have to assume, there is al least equal my groups number ready to interfere. Would I give up surprise for even odds? "No way".
Smart bandits will do what smart bandits have always done. Stick the the shadows and strike easy targets while they are alone. I'm sorry if this rules you out, but there are other roles you can play.
How will Brighthaven stop slave traders from running across your path? That slave trader won't be marked a criminal in the wilderness. You will ignore slavery but not banditry?
I speak as a member of Brighthaven who is prone to vigilantism. Brighthaven is a home to all forms of good aligned players, many of whom will be much less prone to violence and dealing out justice than I.
From a meta-game perspective the enslavement of NPCs doesn't bother me at all, and so if I am to take a stance where I attack other players for hauling slaves, Goblinworks will need to provide me a reason to care. That means making slavery somehow impact other players in a negative faction. I'm guessing slaves will have to be stolen from other hexes and create unrest there when they are stolen so that's probably our reason to care.
However, I'm pretty sure the tools to attack those characters have already been provided to me.
Heinous
The character has committed an act that is universally viewed as evil, such as raising and controlling undead, using slaves to build structures or gather resources, etc.• Each time the character gets the Heinous flag they lose good vs. evil.
• Anyone may kill a Heinous character without fearing reputation or alignment loss.
• Heinous is removed once the character has been killed.
• The Heinous flag lasts one minute beyond the duration of the deed unless the character does something to get it again before the duration runs out. Characters using undead for example will have the Heinous flag the entire time they are using undead.
• If the character gets the Heinous flag again within the duration of its existing Heinous buff, the count of Heinous increases by 1 and the duration resets ten minutes longer, up to a maximum of 100 minutes.
If the character gets to Heinous 10 they get a new flag, Villain, which lasts for 24 hours and does not disappear on death. It acts the same as Heinous, allowing repeat offenders to be hunted down for longer periods of time.
Something tells me that transporting slaves will likely keep you flagged as heinous.
The problem with many of you is that you believe the only PVP in PFO is banditry and anti banditry. For me it is, because I'm a bandit. But for you, you are protectors of a settlement. You will have many other threats than just my small band of bandits.
I'm under no such illusion. I fully expect that bandits will generally make up minor distractions in-between major engagements with more evenly matched opponents.
The reason banditry is such a constant subject is because you're so constantly trying to fight to make it obscenely overpowered in terms of what you can get away with and make sure that as few of people as possible can try to stop you.
Barring the right to walk up to and kill anyone free of consequence which you fought so hard to get and lost, your SAD system is the next best thing for someone wanting to randomly slaughter everyone they see.
If you get the right to run up to anyone demand up to 100% of their loot if they don't want to become your next rep free kill, and bystanders don't even have the right to try to stop you if you do it in broad daylight surrounded by people who could, you might not make up the majority of my content but people abusing SAD's will be the reason the majority of new players will give when leaving the game.
Your version of SADs is one of the most incredibly broken mechanics I've ever seen advocated by anyone. And I was the first person on these boards to suggest a SAD type system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bludd
Would a Cease and Desist(CAD) flag to stop your SAD action be a worthwhile mechanic if it gave the options of either ceasing your SAD or to continue with the SAD action with the one initiating the CAD flag as a viable target? (CAD being restricted to the lawful alignment)
not sure if that helps or just makes it too complicated
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bludd
Would a Cease and Desist(CAD) flag to stop your SAD action be a worthwhile mechanic if it gave the options of either ceasing your SAD or to continue with the SAD action with the one initiating the CAD flag as a viable target? (CAD being restricted to the lawful alignment)
not sure if that helps or just makes it too complicated
I kinda like that actually. Would settlements be able to make vigilante CADs illegal under this proposal?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bludd
Would a Cease and Desist(CAD) flag to stop your SAD action be a worthwhile mechanic if it gave the options of either ceasing your SAD or to continue with the SAD action with the one initiating the CAD flag as a viable target? (CAD being restricted to the lawful alignment)
not sure if that helps or just makes it too complicated
Also I replied as if the bold portion read "good" instead of "lawful". If it is a lawful system, I assume it could be a chaotic action if used in other settlements (that outlaw non citizen CADs)?
Is a CAD something that could only be introduced post SAD? Could it account for ambushes as well?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
oh i just wrote in lawful as an afterthought when writing it. I guess good is more likely a better requirement as opposed to lawful since it would play upon the individuals morality
As to being made legal or illegal i would figure that it is subject to the same rules and regulations as any of the other actions
mainly just putting an idea out there for considerations and as sort of a middleground the the discussion of a 3rd party coming across a SAD in action
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't see any reason to bar that kind of action to a specific alignment. I could see making it slide alignment in a certain direction or grant flags such as criminal if used in certain circumstances, but I can't see a reason why a character of any alignment couldn't try to stop a SAD if it was in their interest to do so.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Andius,
Final comment, I have others to respond to....
"Bluddwolf wrote:
I have stated numerous times, I wish there was still the Outlaw Flag (a PVP flag). I wish there was still the Enforcer Flag (a PVP flag)."
You wrote". So have I, though I remembered you wanted to be able to flip your flag on and off at a whim where I wanted mine to be constant. And I remember Xeen going on about how they are a "throwback from themeparks." Those flags don't exist anymore. So it doesn't matter."
What I suggested as right after using the Outlaw flag we switch to the Traveler Flag. This had two benefits. First, it would have allowed us to haul off what we just looted, and regain rep. Second, it would act as a disguise. The Traveler Flag was still a PvP flag, so you could still attack if you wanted to.
But those flags are gone. We will see if any kind of PvP flags make it back.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"Cease and Desist" may have some interesting applications.
Enforcer A sees what he suspects is a SAD taking place. He approaches and interrupts the Trade Window. Asks both parties "What's all this then?" (Monty Python reference). If both parties were engaged in an arranged SAD or just a trade (I'm guessing they might be hard to tell apart), the two parties can restart the trade.
I like that... It has the feel of investigating before you shoot.
It does not require a mechanic other than interrupting a trade window.
Question: Would it count as hostile? Leaving it up to the parties to decided (probably based on citizenship, alignment) how to address the interruption.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But if I'm engaged in PVP and some neutral passerby is not involved with our dispute, and he interjects, he should have to take the same consequences as I do if I attack someone though ambush.
If someone is LG and doesn't intervene, they'd better lose alignment! You seem to think SADing someone is doing them a favour and makes you a saint. You're still robbing someone. Butting in on things like this is the bread and butter of Pathfinder. It's what good aligned adventurers do.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But if I'm engaged in PVP and some neutral passerby is not involved with our dispute, and he interjects, he should have to take the same consequences as I do if I attack someone though ambush.If someone is LG and doesn't intervene, they'd better lose alignment! You seem to think SADing someone is doing them a favour and makes you a saint. You're still robbing someone. Butting in on things like this is the bread and butter of Pathfinder. It's what good aligned adventurers do.
It is if mutual benefit to both merchant and bandit, as designed by GW. But see the post above yours, the Cease and Desist could be a possible solution., with more detail and possible tweaking.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is if mutual benefit to both merchant and bandit, as designed by GW. But see the post above yours, the Cease and Desist could be a possible solution., with more detail and possible tweaking.
As designed by GW, SAD can only be used by a character flagged for PvP. If they remove that risk from any new SAD mechanism, will they also remove the rewards?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is if mutual benefit to both merchant and bandit, as designed by GW.
If you actually believe what's coming out of your own mouth, that's scary.
The only benefit the merchant is getting is a chance to not get attacked by you. Something they wouldn't have to worry about, if you weren't out robbing and killing people in the first place.
Only through the most perverse kind of logic is it possible to say you are benefiting them. What the SAD actually does is reduce the negative impact you have on them. That's very different from benefiting them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is if mutual benefit to both merchant and bandit, as designed by GW. But see the post above yours, the Cease and Desist could be a possible solution., with more detail and possible tweaking.As designed by GW, SAD can only be used by a character flagged for PvP. If they remove that risk from any new SAD mechanism, will they also remove the rewards?
Not likely. Still nice to have fresh or old ideas cooked with different spices pop up as conversation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is if mutual benefit to both merchant and bandit, as designed by GW.If you actually believe what's coming out of your own mouth, that's scary.
The only benefit the merchant is getting is a chance to not get attacked by you. Something they wouldn't have to worry about, if you weren't out robbing and killing people in the first place.
Only through the most perverse kind of logic is it possible to say you are benefiting them. What the SAD actually does is reduce the negative impact you have on them. That's very different from benefiting them.
While the merchant doesn't benefit from the act of robbery, the game benefits from the risk of robberies occurring.
Likewise, the game probably benefits from robbers being targetable by people other than the victim, because it encourages people to work together or at least in closer proximity. If players can't come to each others defense, then they are effectively playing solo or in smaller groups.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Keep in mind that GW is trying to prevent the game from going the EVE route. Why would they want to overly reward ganking and Banditry to such an extreme that Bluddwolf desires?
Actually I have one fear of GW going towards the EVE route, and it appears they are. They are obviously turning the core of PFO into a 0.0 (Null sec) Settlement vs. Settlement (Eve's Alliance vs. Alliance) game.
I'm more of a low sec, small gang pirate type. The small, unattached to a kingdom, settlement may not last for very long on its own without allying itself to a Bigtown. The same will hold true for small to mid sized companies trying to do their own thing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not arguing it's bad for the game, as I linked earlier I was the first person to argue in favor of a robbery mechanic. The problem is Bluddwolf actually seems to want the mechanic balanced around the idea he's doing them a favor.
What we actually need to be balancing is how much negative impact he's allowed to have on them, with how much impunity from reprisal, before it's nearly as toxic as just letting him kill them because "lulz".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is if mutual benefit to both merchant and bandit, as designed by GW.If you actually believe what's coming out of your own mouth, that's scary.
The only benefit the merchant is getting is a chance to not get attacked by you. Something they wouldn't have to worry about, if you weren't out robbing and killing people in the first place.
Only through the most perverse kind of logic is it possible to say you are benefiting them. What the SAD actually does is reduce the negative impact you have on them. That's very different from benefiting them.
You don't understand the economics of the market place, but I suggest you read the Dev Blog:
The Most Dangerous Game
When players harvest resources far from civilization and then transport them home, they will be at an elevated risk of being engaged by hostile forces. They'll have to worry about monstrous creatures from the surrounding area, and they'll need to be especially worried about other players seeking to profit from their hard labor.
This creates a powerful game dynamic. Going out to get those resources is a pathway to wealth. But to succeed, you'll need help to protect your harvesting crew and your logistics and transport system. Folks who try to extract wealth without effective protection will likely find themselves beset on all sides by those who would forcefully take what they've harvested.
Ultimately, we feel that it should be pretty likely for players transporting valuable goods to be attacked by other players, with an increasingly likelihood as the value and distance they're transporting goods increases. The game economy will make getting into town with a big haul valuable precisely because there are people out there who want to take it from you: if you can get it to market, you get to charge a premium because of all the people that couldn't.
Deciding how much to carry, how many guards to bring, and whether to fight or try to flee when you see a bandit should be significant choices as a traveler. Conversely, player bandits should have to decide whether attacking just anyone is worth it, and whether it's better to make a surprise attack or actually try to extort goods from the traveler first (if they stand and deliver, it triggers none of the consequences).
If you're interested in PvP, this will be a way for you to constructively pursue that style of play without worrying about being condemned by the community for being a jerk, or facing significant mechanical penalties imposed by the game systems.
At the end of the day, if you're killing other players that are uninterested in PvP for no benefit, we want to make the costs significant enough to convince you to do something else, as that's the kind of thing that drives players away. However, if they know they have something valuable and fighting or fleeing from you is the price of profit, suddenly it's worthwhile for everyone. And those opportunities should be worth risking the consequences.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only things really wrong with the reputation and alignment systems are:
1: They have not been laid out fully for us to examine and compare situations to, accurately.
2: They have not been extensively play tested and tweeked to work at their best yet.
We can have real belief that GW wants to make a game that is fun to play for more than just the straight up PVP combat crowd.
We can trust that they understand a great deal more about how all of their systems/mechanics will interact with each other than we do.
We can assume that they are trying to look at all of theses angles, possible synergies and interactions and trying to balance them before they release too many details.
I am also sure that some of our feedback, here, helps them (a bit). Also, I trust that they can recognize self serving or personally preferential suggestions and take them with a grain of salt.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't understand the economics
I believe the idea isn't matter of economics, Bluud, but of your fellow players. If I come up to you in our favorite bar and repeatedly knock over your drink it is economically beneficial to the barkeep, but your visceral reaction to my doing so is not economic in nature. It is hostile.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You just don't think before you speak do you?
The game economy will make getting into town with a big haul valuable precisely because there are people out there who want to take it from you: if you can get it to market, you get to charge a premium because of all the people that couldn't.
This is not a net positive outcome. Certainly not for the people you are SADing.
It is only positive for the traders evading SADs, or more likely the alt accounts you're using to run the cargo you rob into town yourself.
You are operating under the presumption you are doing the person being SADed a favor, to the extent of describing it as a situation of mutual benefit and not feeling people should be able to interfere in your "business transaction."
You're delusional if you think people won't be happy 100% of the time when I impede on your "transaction".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Bludd: Ahhhhh now I get it. Because The devs have described banditry as a mechanism to balance out the reward of merchants with risk you think that you, an individual bandit, should not suffer the same consequences and face the same risks as other players do.
Smooth :D
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As two people today, wisely pointed out in both UO and EvE, there is a Stand-and-Deliver system that has been around as long as those games have been.
You surround the target with superior numbers or perceived force, opened a chat window and demanded a ransom. No special skills to train or slot, just the threat of death. The system won't see it as an attack, it is a chat window followed by a trade.
In Eve my group never tried this, we just tackled a target, brought them to hull strength and then demanded a ransom. We rarely bothered with T1 ships because they could be insured and the the pilot would just as soon lose it then. But, T2 ships could not be insured and they cost a bundle, could easily get a ransom between 10 million and hundreds of millions of isk.
But in that system we were getting monetary payment, not taking loot. In PFO, it has not been made clear what is actually taken, particularly when a SAD is issued. Is is coin or cargo?
That really is a big question, an essential question in fact. If it is cargo, then how is that having an impact on the market economy? If it is coin, then the merchant is still bringing the same amount if goods to market, but he may up the price due to his recent loss. If is is cargo, what do the bandits do with it? Fence it? Sell it ourselves? Does it get consumed by our hideout maintenance? Can it be put towards building a new or additional hideouts?
One thing is clear, killing the merchant destroys 25% of his cargo. That us cargo that will never make it to market, and thus increase the value of what does get there.
Maybe there has to be more destruction or consumption, post robbery, but I'm sure these numbers will be adjusted.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So, Bludd, what does this have to do with killing griefers?
Nothing, three threads melded into one..... Anti Griefing is dorky the responsibility of GW. The only role that players have in it is to report it when they feel,they have been a victim of it.
GW will take the ticket, investigate, determine innocence or guilt and then punish. The victim will likely never know what the disposition was, but the alleged perpetrator will if found guilty.
I don't see what more there is to discuss on the topic of griefing or anti griefing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You surround the target with superior numbers or perceived force, opened a chat window and demanded a ransom. No special skills to train or slot, just the threat of death.
You forgot the part where you scram their warp and possibly web/jam them as well. I would hope that of there are slowdowns in PFO they would be considered aggressive actions and flag you already.
I remember early on mention of a fast travel you'll have to knock them out of to either rob or attack them, so they'll probably need to be "tackled" in PFO as well.
If you can game the system and get a few traders to stop without using those abilities then great. If I'm nearby I'll let them know to keep going and I'll just kill you if you try anything. I'll probably even invite them to my group to avoid getting a criminal flag if it happens in a hex that doesn't allow me to do that kind of stuff. Two can play at this game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You surround the target with superior numbers or perceived force, opened a chat window and demanded a ransom. No special skills to train or slot, just the threat of death.You forgot the part where you scram their warp and possibly web/jam them as well. I would hope that of there are slowdowns in PFO they would be considered aggressive actions and flag you already.
I remember early on mention of a fast travel you'll have to knock them out of to either rob or attack them, so they'll probably need to be "tackled" in PFO as well.
If you can game the system and get a few traders to stop without using those abilities then great. If I'm nearby I'll let them know to keep going and I'll just kill you if you try anything. I'll probably even invite them to my group to avoid getting a criminal flag if it happens in a hex that doesn't allow me to do that kind of stuff. Two can play at this game.
At least you can assume that you will be a busy fellow. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You forgot the part where you scram their warp and possibly web/jam them as well. I would hope that of there are slowdowns in PFO they would be considered aggressive actions and flag you already.
In Eve my group never tried this, we just tackled a target
Yeah, I forgot that......
You are forgetting, everyone is "flagged" for PvP in low sec. No one is seen as a non threat, and there is no (real) penalty for killing anyone in low sec, unless the members of that corporation decide to give you a consequence. That consequence tended to be far more severe than if there were any mechanical system.
That is the real problem with trying to craft a system to add consequences for PvP, they fall far short of what a group of players can do as a consequence.
It remains to be seen if GW can actually pull off a working alignment / reputation system. Right now all we have is an expressed intention, not even a promise.
All of this back and forth could easily be moot, if there are no systems designed to limit PvP, and Goblin Works could then just focus on true griefers and upgrading beyond MVP.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
It is if mutual benefit to both merchant and bandit, as designed by GW.If you actually believe what's coming out of your own mouth, that's scary.
The only benefit the merchant is getting is a chance to not get attacked by you. Something they wouldn't have to worry about, if you weren't out robbing and killing people in the first place.
Only through the most perverse kind of logic is it possible to say you are benefiting them. What the SAD actually does is reduce the negative impact you have on them. That's very different from benefiting them.
Close- the benefit the traveler is getting is an increased rep penalty to the extortionist for killing them in the near future. If they believe that change will shift them from 'worthwhile target' to 'not a worthwhile target', it has a net benefit. It is a net detriment if they were already not worth the rep loss for killing them, because:
The principle benefit to the extortionist is that it shifts virtually everyone who refuses into the category of 'worth the reputation hit to kill and rob', by eliminating the reputation penalty.
Paying off the SAD demand is better for the merchant and worse for the extortionist, which is a major reason why some people want to be able to make demands that are excessively high.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's still not providing them a benefit. My issue is that SADs are being portrayed like a transaction where someone comes up to you on the street, offers you something of value, if you want it you accept and you both walk away happy.
In that situation you come away better off for having done buisiness with that person, or if a deal isn't struck you're at least no worse off.
That's not how it happens at all. It's a straight up mugging. You are paying to not have something negative happen. You can choose to lose a lesser ammount, or to gamble a greater ammount on a chance to get out of the situation.
If someone comes along and intercedes on your behalf it increases your chance at the best possible outcome. No losses, and the attacker rendered unable to harm you because of a condition called death. It's instead being portrayed to us as though we are interrupting a mutually beneficial transaction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's still not providing them a benefit. My issue is that SADs are being portrayed like a transaction where someone comes up to you on the street, offers you something of value, if you want it you accept and you both walk away happy.
In that situation you come away better off for having done buisiness with that person, or if a deal isn't struck you're at least no worse off.
That's not how it happens at all. It's a straight up mugging. You are paying to not have something negative happen. You can choose to lose a lesser ammount, or to gamble a greater ammount on a chance to get out of the situation.
If someone comes along and intercedes on your behalf it increases your chance at the best possible outcome. No losses, and the attacker rendered unable to harm you because of a condition called death. It's instead being portrayed to us as though we are interrupting a mutually beneficial transaction.
So, Andius, what does this have to do with killing griefers?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The dev blog was about pvp and how things like SAD will give us more meaningful pvp content. It wasn't about the in-game economy benefiting from lots of bandits. It was the increase in pvp content that was the benefit for everyone, so the benefit is (of course ) not material , it is in generating pvp content.
An SAD event could escalate, another group of bandits can SAD the first group after they get the loot. Or the merchant could /invite some players and attack the bandits while the still appear hostile from the SAD.
It seems like there will have to be some sort of game mechanic that roots everyone in place while an SAD is going on, or the merchant will just ride away while the bandit is talking, to be fair the bandits will have to be rooted too or the merchants will be at a tactical disadvantage while they decide if they will fight or not.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It seems like there will have to be some sort of game mechanic that roots everyone in place while an SAD is going on, or the merchant will just ride away while the bandit is talking, to be fair the bandits will have to be rooted too or the merchants will be at a tactical disadvantage while they decide if they will fight or not.
Agreed, but I was also just thinking earlier if the SAD is interrupted by I third party (such as me putting an arrow between Bludd's eyes) the target should be free to run or join in the attack consequence free. If they join in, obviously they get flagged, if they run then they should need to be SADed again. I mean it could be TEO vigilantes coming to their rescue but it could also be a horde of murderers intent on killing both parties from whom they have every reason to run. Either way, nobody stands still once blood starts spilling.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Back to the OP , so you decide player X is a griefer and kill him , then in the next hour, 50 others kill him too for the same alleged event. The GM decides that he wasn't griefing but the players who killed him 50 times ( or 10 or whatever) fits the definition of griefing and you all get banned . Cops arrest vigilantes they don't give them a reward.
If GW wants our help punishing them they could flag them as a free kill for the next 24 hrs of gameplay. But the whole method seems like out griefing the griefer to me. Anyway if you want a rep boost they could have a special flag that gives you a boost for killing the convicted griefer.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why not just be a Good aligned Bounty Hunter. You can hand pick your targets based on their alignment or based on the offenses they had committed. As a Bounty Hunter, you will be able to hunt them down, anytime, anywhere and kill them without consequences and perhaps even rewards other than coin, for doing so.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Third party intrusion should be allowed.
It seems to me that the perfect settlement response to SAD threaded is a Honey Pot shortly followed by cavalry. Bandit stop merchant for SAD. Discussion starts. Cavalry arrives and joins discussion.
But then I grew up with the westerns of the 50;s and 60's. 8-)
I like that those initiating SAD are marked for PvP, but caravan is not until they attack (run away is not a PvP action). Flagged as PvP, the SAD team is eligible for rep-less attack (evil and chaos may still apply -- they are PvP but not hostile to others).
How does cavalry gain ally situation wrt the caravan?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why not just be a Good aligned Bounty Hunter. You can hand pick your targets based on their alignment or based on the offenses they had committed. As a Bounty Hunter, you will be able to hunt them down, anytime, anywhere and kill them without consequences and perhaps even rewards other than coin, for doing so.
I play sandbox MMOs so I can be a part of a virtual worlds and interact with the world around me in a fun and meaningful way. Not so I can walk by armed thugs robbing simple merchants at sword point and do nothing about it because they aren't my contract.
I'll take bounty contracts for sure. That won't stop me from interacting with the world as I make my way to my target.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I play sandbox MMOs so I can be a part of a virtual worlds and interact with the world around me in a fun and meaningful way. Not so I can walk by armed thugs robbing simple merchants at sword point and do nothing about it because they aren't my contract.
I'll take bounty contracts for sure. That won't stop me from interacting with the world as I make my way to my target.
You have many options to play the way you want Andius.
1. Attack whomever you wish and accept the consequences.
2. Take a Bounty contract against known bandits or raiders.
3. Build up Faction standing with whatever faction would be the opposition to the likely choice of most bandits. My guess would be whomever is opposed to the Outlaw Council.
4. Build up your bank of influence and feud as many or as few of the known bandit companies as you can handle.
5. Make sure your settlement has laws against banditry and raiding and then you can enforce those laws in your own lands, to your heart's content.
6. If you see suspected bandits, and they are currently not flagged, and you have trained and slotted the skill, you can SAD them. If they refuse to pay, you can attack them without consequences.
7. Train the necessary skills and slot them, to search for and then destroy bandit hideouts. Not sure exactly what the mechanics will be for that, but it should be the same as raiding an outpost or POI.
8. Wage a war against a settlement that is harboring raiders / bandits.
Really, what is stopping you from doing any of those eight things? You are acting like your hands are tied.
But, as I stated above, I would probably reserve the SAD for pre arranged SADs. Where my group agrees to escort a merchant, but instead of receiving coin for payment of our services, we will accept the reputation bonus for our payment.
Now there is a benefit for the merchant. All the protection would cost is 1 copper piece and reputation bonus that they themselves do not pay (it comes from the system).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But, as I stated above, I would probably reserve the SAD for pre arranged SADs. Where my group agrees to escort a merchant, but instead of receiving coin for payment of our services, we will accept the reputation bonus for our payment.
Now there is a benefit for the merchant. All the protection would cost is 1 copper piece and reputation bonus that they themselves do not pay (it comes from the system).
Thanks, I hadn't thought of that one yet.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thanks, I hadn't thought of that one yet.But, as I stated above, I would probably reserve the SAD for pre arranged SADs. Where my group agrees to escort a merchant, but instead of receiving coin for payment of our services, we will accept the reputation bonus for our payment.
Now there is a benefit for the merchant. All the protection would cost is 1 copper piece and reputation bonus that they themselves do not pay (it comes from the system).
This use if the SAD is precisely why it could be an agreed upon transaction between both parties. If someone comes barging into that transaction, swords swinging, I'd think that both parties have had a hostile action perpetrated against them.
That kind of yahoo, unbridled random assaults may bring discomfort back to one's settlement. At the very least it would be a political issue if taking place in someone else's settled lands.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually *really* like the option to use a Cease And Desist order. The way I see it, such an action would put you on the side of the party that was SAD'ed, allow you to aid them as if you were a part of their group. Bandits have a reason to keep an eye out for wandering do-gooders, and do-gooders can actually help keep the roads safe.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would probably reserve the SAD for pre arranged SADs. Where my group agrees to escort a merchant, but instead of receiving coin for payment of our services, we will accept the reputation bonus for our payment.
Now there is a benefit for the merchant. All the protection would cost is 1 copper piece and reputation bonus that they themselves do not pay (it comes from the system).
+1 for the SAD party to become universally hostile to everyone (can be attacked by anyone for no rep/alignment penalty) when the SAD is initiated and a duration after it's conclusion, probably the same length as Criminal. With mechanics aside, it's each players decision if they're going to attack the bandits based on their rp and circumstances.
Andius gets to be happy not standing by and merchants can defend themselves. There's a disadvantage to the above use of SAD which I don't give 3 toots about because that seems like working the system to me.
Also, retroactive reputation adjustments for psychic mandated bloodshed seems pretty wonkers. Having preemptive murder as a game mechanic just introduces extra programming, GM oversight needs, and a ton of chaos to the game. Every pvp mechanic in the game serves an explicit purpose and there are already multiple systems for dealing with players being jerks (different than characters doing things you don't like).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3. Build up Faction standing with whatever faction would be the opposition to the likely choice of most bandits. My guess would be whomever is opposed to the Outlaw Council.
I think three were mentioned in one of the add-ons from KS update 21:
Alliance Package (included at $100 Crowdforger Pioneer or higher)
This pack gives the character an increase in Alliance ranking with one of Pathfinder Online's Alliances (Hellknights, Pathfinder Society, Knights of Iomedae, Denizens of the Echo Wood, and others yet to be announced) of compatible alignment with the character. The character automatically becomes a member of that Alliance, though opposing Alliances will now be hostile to him. The player also receives a small selection of consumable items unique to the Alliance, and a piece of armor, wondrous item, or weapon associated with the Alliance, such as a Pathfinder Society wayfinder.
Apparently they renamed the idea to factions, probably to keep it separate from player-org alliances. I figure the Iomedaens and Hellknights are opposed and the Echo Woods Denizens may be a local branch of the Outlaw Council operating out of Thornkeep (maybe opposed to the LG and LE factions alike) If the Pathfinder Society is in, I'd assume the Aspis Consortium will be around as well, since those are basically the Indiana Jones & René Belloq of the setting.