Goblin Squad Member
|
Also, the merchant has the ability to reject the offer and attack without consequence already. Why do you keep on going back to that?I did not realize that had been confirmed. I am not sure that it has, but if so, then I am glad.
I have not written much on this subject for some time. Not sure how I "keep going back to that" but whatevers. ;)
The rest is in my last post (above) and deals with both "on property" and "off property" situations.
A SAD has several possible outcomes:
1. SAD is issued and accepted. No crime, no attack, both parties depart on agreed upon terms.
You might not like this idea, but a SAD will usually be offered in a circumstance where the bandit could easily kill and take all. The merchant benefits even though he has to give up a portion of what he has. The Devs do not want unlimited resources to make it to market, or they will have to step in and adjust the market, the resource nodes and other economic systems to counter over saturation of supply. You don't want your 1000 units of iron ore to sell for 1 copper, as a regional average price.
2. The SAD is rejected and the bandits attack. Neither the bandit nor the merchant bear any consequences for this PvP.
3. The SAD is rejected and the bandits don't attack and let the merchant go on his way. This option I think you fail to see. What the bandits might have seen worth their while to intimidate out of the merchant, they might not see killing him for it to be worthwhile.
Thus was also the basis for my idea of the Interdiction policy for Pax. Allowing their security forces to "inspect" cargo passing through their settlement hex, without having to attack everyone passing through.
Overall the SAD mechanic benefits both bandit and merchant who choose to use it. If it were not available, do you really believe bandits would not exists, or that merchants would never leave their settlement hexes?
Interesting. You seem to know a lot about SAD that has not been confirmed by anyone designing the game. Kudos for that.
One possible outcome that you overlooked: SAD offered, SAD rejected, potential victim attacks aggressor.
How penalties or lack of for any given situation work out have not really been clarified yet. You are running on assumptions. Assumptions that favor your playstyle. I can't blame you for that. It is a natural approach.
Your assumptions could be correct, or not. Whatever the final result, I am fairly confident that it will all be "balanced" (as much as it can be) in some way.
I do appreciate your take on how SADs will work out. Thank you.
Your questions: I think that if it is possible to play bandits in PfO that they will exist with or without the SAD mechanic. I think that if more profit can be made by moving goods, then a merchant will move goods, with or without the SAD mechanic.
I don't see any disagreement there. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting. You...Also, the merchant has the ability to reject the offer and attack without consequence already. Why do you keep on going back to that?I did not realize that had been confirmed. I am not sure that it has, but if so, then I am glad.
I have not written much on this subject for some time. Not sure how I "keep going back to that" but whatevers. ;)
The rest is in my last post (above) and deals with both "on property" and "off property" situations.
A SAD has several possible outcomes:
1. SAD is issued and accepted. No crime, no attack, both parties depart on agreed upon terms.
You might not like this idea, but a SAD will usually be offered in a circumstance where the bandit could easily kill and take all. The merchant benefits even though he has to give up a portion of what he has. The Devs do not want unlimited resources to make it to market, or they will have to step in and adjust the market, the resource nodes and other economic systems to counter over saturation of supply. You don't want your 1000 units of iron ore to sell for 1 copper, as a regional average price.
2. The SAD is rejected and the bandits attack. Neither the bandit nor the merchant bear any consequences for this PvP.
3. The SAD is rejected and the bandits don't attack and let the merchant go on his way. This option I think you fail to see. What the bandits might have seen worth their while to intimidate out of the merchant, they might not see killing him for it to be worthwhile.
Thus was also the basis for my idea of the Interdiction policy for Pax. Allowing their security forces to "inspect" cargo passing through their settlement hex, without having to attack everyone passing through.
Overall the SAD mechanic benefits both bandit and merchant who choose to use it. If it were not available, do you really believe bandits would not exists, or that merchants would never leave their settlement hexes?
I don't see anything in Bludd's post that hasn't been confirmed, except for: "1. SAD is issued and accepted. No crime, no attack, both parties depart on agreed upon terms."
I assume an accepted and agreed upon SAD will still be a crime for the SAD'er in most places (aside from Evil and/or Chaotic-controlled Settlement/Wilderness hexes, where it's not a crime, or Monster hexes).
Everything else he said has been confirmed at one point or another, though I doubt option 3 will happen too often (though it will happen). Once the SAD is rejected, both parties will be Red to one another, and then all bets are off. Unless both parties truly feel it's an even fight, and don't want to risk it, usually a SAD will end in either a completion or a fight.
Of course, people will own or hire "Victimized Bots" to go around and SAD people and then give them their money back, and since that flag lasts for 20 minutes, I don't see staying Victimized for long journeys as being too much of a problem, so SAD's will probably be a rare occurrence anyways.
I think people will either be Opt-In PvP, or they won't be, and if they're not, there won't be anything anyone can do to attack them without digging their out of a Rep-hole for the next 3-4 months, on account of enjoying one rep-draining kill.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The SAD mechanic has been explained, in Dev Blog(s) and in Dev posts, particularly by Stephen Cheney.
The SAD has never been described as an attack. It opens a trade window. If the trade is not accepted, it has the Option of resulting in an attack but an attack is not required.
Now to Bringslite's fourth option:
If the merchant rejects, the bandit does not attack, but the merchant does. Should the merchant be able to attack without consequence?
Depends in the laws of the land, the bandit could be flagged criminal just for issuing the SAD. Setting that debate aside......
1. The merchant is going to attack a bandit, who is likely able to kill the merchant?
2. The merchant lost nothing in rejecting the SAD, so wouldn't that be unprovoked? Maybe no reputation loss, but definitely a chaotic response I would think.
3. The merchant would then appears hostile to the bandit, his company and perhaps be in violation of the laws.
I would say, if you get SADed and you reject it, and for whatever reasons the bandit does not attack you.... Count your blessing, and your gold and get the hell out of there.
Again I'm all for all the PvP we can have. The only consequence for PvP, in an open world PvP game is losing, in my opinion. Don't want to lose often, learn to not leave yourself in a position to lose. Train your skills, hire people to protect you or stay in the relative safety of your settlement walls.
If your not up for that, remember this:
1. You are not safe
2. Only carry what you are willing to lose
3. It is only loot / it's only about the loot ( no big loss, it's not personal).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hopefully there will be so many options for going about PVP that there will be no chance to totally opt out of "penalty free" PVP. Hopefully the factions will be designed so well and so attractively that you will be missing out if you are not involved.
The danger of going "outside" is what makes the game exciting, for me. I am not the type to go looking for people to attack or victimize. I will enjoy the thrill of chasing down criminals with my friends or getting that pack full of adamantine back safe and banked though.
The possible/probable threat adds to the accomplishment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The SAD mechanic has never been described as a hostile action. True
The SAD mechanic has never been described as a non hostile action. True.
Saying that it won't be, is an assumption.
Saying that it will be, is an assumption.
I am saying that I hope it will be, because (to me) it is hostile.
The SAD mechanic has never been described as a hostile action. True
The SAD mechanic has never been described as a non hostile action. True.
Saying that it won't be, is an assumption.
Saying that it will be, is an assumption.
I am saying that I hope it will be, because (to me) it is hostile.
What do you mean by "hostile"? Ryan did say that when someone rejects a SAD, all bets are off, and both parties can attack eachother consequence-free. I'd show you the quote, but it was in the forums somewhere. So, if that's what you mean by "hostile action", then SAD'ing HAS been confirmed as a "hostile action".
Btw, loved your previous post. I think you and I might be able to get along afterall (when I'm not killing you in-game, that is).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The SAD mechanic has never been described as a hostile action. True
The SAD mechanic has never been described as a non hostile action. True.
Saying that it won't be, is an assumption.
Saying that it will be, is an assumption.
I am saying that I hope it will be, because (to me) it is hostile.
If you want it to become hostile, reject it, most of the time it will become hostile. But, there are some, perhaps even many merchants out there that would rather have a system that gives bandits the option not to just ambush and take what they can.
You also have the option of hiring many guards and being well escorted, warding off all but the largest or most daring of bandit groups. Under those circumstances, most bandits won't bother with a SAD offer, but would rather use the element of surprise and ambush your group.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The SAD mechanic has never been described as a hostile action. True
The SAD mechanic has never been described as a non hostile action. True.
Saying that it won't be, is an assumption.
Saying that it will be, is an assumption.
I am saying that I hope it will be, because (to me) it is hostile.
What do you mean by "hostile"? Ryan did say that when someone rejects a SAD, all bets are off, and both parties can attack eachother consequence-free. I'd show you the quote, but it was in the forums somewhere. So, if that's what you mean by "hostile action", then SAD'ing HAS been confirmed as a "hostile action".
Btw, loved your previous post. I think you and I might be able to get along afterall (when I'm not killing you in-game, that is).
I am referring to the state described in the blog. "Hostile"
edit:
What do you mean by "hostile"? Ryan did say that when someone rejects a SAD, all bets are off, and both parties can attack eachother consequence-free.
If that is the case, it is a step in the right direction. I would not mind if the robber where immediately "Hostile" for anyone in the area as soon as they issue the SAD. Good icing on the cake makes it better.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The SAD mechanic has never been described as a hostile action. True
The SAD mechanic has never been described as a non hostile action. True.
Saying that it won't be, is an assumption.
Saying that it will be, is an assumption.
I am saying that I hope it will be, because (to me) it is hostile.
If you want it to become hostile, reject it, most of the time it will become hostile. But, there are some, perhaps even many merchants out there that would rather have a system that gives bandits the option not to just ambush and take what they can.
You also have the option of hiring many guards and being well escorted, warding off all but the largest or most daring of bandit groups. Under those circumstances, most bandits won't bother with a SAD offer, but would rather use the element of surprise and ambush your group.
Becoming "hostile" for issuing a SAD does not negate any of that. The merchant still has to attack the bandit, or not, for it to even matter. Passerby should suffer for interfering in legitimate faction, feud, war situations but not straight up robbery against pure innocents.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Bringslite
Hostility
A lot of PvP complexity we were previously storing in flags is now summarized in the Hostile state. There are a variety of cases that can make a player appear hostile to another player (e.g., faction membership, being at war, criminal flags, etc.). If you see a player that is hostile to you, there is no alignment or reputation penalty for attacking or killing that player. Often, hostility will be reciprocal (i.e., both players appear hostile to one another because their settlements are at war or their factions are enemies) but this is not required. If hostility is not reciprocal (a player sees you as hostile but you see them as friendly or neutral), once you are attacked, your attacker now appears hostile to you as well. That is, you don't take reputation or alignment penalties for defending yourself, even if you were a sanctioned target for your attacker.
Attacking an outpost will make you and your group hostile to the members of that outpost's managing company (as well as the owners of the controlling PoI if that company has subcontracted outpost management). That means that they can attempt to stop you without penalties. Raiding does not automatically make you hostile to every member of the settlement that owns that territory, however.
To enable the whole membership to come to the aid of its outposts, a settlement might choose to make raiding a crime in its territory. In that case, initiating a raid will give all raiders the Criminal flag (making them more chaotic and making them sanctioned targets for anyone). However, like all crimes, Criminal flags from raiding may have a detrimental effect on the settlement; even lawful settlements may have to consider whether making raiding a crime risks that their enemies will steal their resources and increase their corruption from frequent raiding. Additionally, the criminal flag is always overcome by active feuds or wars, so raiding will be a legitimate action if you first declare a feud or war on the settlement, PoI, or management company associated with your target outpost.
Although this potentially seems complicated, the hostility system is designed and presented in game to simplify on-the-spot combat decision making. We will cover hostility (and related changes to PvP) in more detail in a later blog post.
When I had asked about the relationship between raiding outpost, caravans and the consequences thereof, the response that I had gotten was that "the details were being discussed and worked out, but why should caravans not be treated as part of that same system?" (paraphrased).
Outpost harvests bulk goods (can be raided without rep loss, it creates hostile state) ----> Caravan takes bulk goods to settlement ----> Settlement receives bulk goods.
If non rep losing raids can be conducted at the point of entry for the bulk goods, why not during the transportation of those same bulk goods?
NOW... back to giving Justice its Tools!!
The SAD and Hostility systems aside... what universal tools (not just for those of good or lawful alignments) do you propose?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I propose that the "Good Guys" have to suffer the difficult road that is laid out for them by the mechanics that are already in the works. That those mechanics be as fair as possible to all points of view but that they also support GW's vision for a non toxic environment to play in.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Passerby should suffer for interfering in legitimate faction, feud, war situations but not straight up robbery against pure innocents.
The passerby that is not in the company of the merchant, or the bandit is not viewed as criminal or hostile to the passerby, the passerby should mind his own business or attack unprovoked and suffer the same consequences that any would suffer for an unprovoked attack.
If someone wants their character to be able to interject themselves into neutral (to them) events, they can also train and slot the SAD feat and use that mechanic to SAD one of the involved parties. You must make the trade off in trained and slotted abilities.
SADing isn't free, is not without risk and only grants benefits if the other party agrees.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I propose that the "Good Guys" have to suffer the difficult road that is laid out for them by the mechanics that are already in the works. That those mechanics be as fair as possible to all points of view but that they also support GW's vision for a non toxic environment to play in.
You are not separating non consensual interactions (PVP or SADs) from there being a toxic environment. YOu are hung up on the "Mine is mine, and if you take it from me, you have harmed me and that is toxic."
That is the PVE server only or Opt Out PVP view that GW is also trying to break players out of.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I could see that as a possible solution. It is just a stickler that a "Good Guy" can't jump in to help in a situation that is nothing but robbery or murder (outside of "sanctioned" PVP).
That is what Good Guys do.
Have you read the title of this thread?
Understand its purpose?
What you can't have is a "free kill" system, just because you are good or lawful aligned.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I could see that as a possible solution. It is just a stickler that a "Good Guy" can't jump in to help in a situation that is nothing but robbery or murder (outside of "sanctioned" PVP).
That is what Good Guys do.
Have you read the title of this thread?
Understand its purpose?
What you can't have is a "free kill" system, just because you are good or lawful aligned.
Sorry if I have derailed your thread Bluddwolf, or have misunderstood it.
I think that the system being designed is fine as long as hostile actions flag you as hostile. It is not a "free kill" to help someone that is being robbed and/or murdered. The aggressor started the whole thing. That is the role they have chosen ATM, and that should be part of the risk that they take.
What we don't need are more complicated systems to code in than we already have. We just need those that are currently envisioned to work right.
@ Papaver
My exact point.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If merchants have the risk of getting jumped by bandits then it's only fair for the bandits to have the risk of being jumped by "Good Guys" mid SAD.
You can do that, just take the consequences for it.
If both groups were actually conducting legitimate business, I'd hope that the trade window being interrupted makes you "Hostile" to both parties if they so choose.
Wouldn't that be delicious?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that it would be totally fair to suffer consequences for interfering in PVP action, SAD or otherwise, that is part of "non rep penalty" or "encouraged" PVP.
I think that regardless, if you butt into a bandit's SAD, you should be Hostile to him also.
Hostile is a state that applies in cases of "rep penalty PVP" and non penalty PVP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Becoming "hostile" for issuing a SAD does not negate any of that. The merchant still has to attack the bandit, or not, for it to even matter. Passerby should suffer for interfering in legitimate faction, feud, war situations but not straight up robbery against pure innocents....The SAD mechanic has never been described as a hostile action. True
The SAD mechanic has never been described as a non hostile action. True.
Saying that it won't be, is an assumption.
Saying that it will be, is an assumption.
I am saying that I hope it will be, because (to me) it is hostile.
Under the original explanation of the SAD mechanic, the SAD could only be issued by a character flagged for PVP as an Outlaw. The flagged Outlaw was a fair target for anyone. To remain consistent with the risk/reward of that original mechanism, it would make perfect sense that the SAD issuer is flagged as hostile upon issuing the SAD demand. I think the simplest method is through a Criminal flag (and chaos hit) that is applied anywhere, not just in settlement hexes. The bandit can then be engaged by anyone until the Criminal flag expires.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Under the original explanation of the SAD mechanic, the SAD could only be issued by a character flagged for PVP as an Outlaw. The flagged Outlaw was a fair target for anyone. To remain consistent with the risk/reward of that original mechanism, it would make perfect sense that the SAD issuer is flagged as hostile upon issuing the SAD demand. I think the simplest method is through a Criminal flag (and chaos hit) that is applied anywhere, not just in settlement hexes. The bandit can then be engaged by anyone until the Criminal flag expires.Becoming "hostile" for issuing a SAD does not negate any of that. The merchant still has to attack the bandit, or not, for it to even matter. Passerby should suffer for interfering in legitimate faction, feud, war situations but not straight up robbery against pure innocents....The SAD mechanic has never been described as a hostile action. True
The SAD mechanic has never been described as a non hostile action. True.
Saying that it won't be, is an assumption.
Saying that it will be, is an assumption.
I am saying that I hope it will be, because (to me) it is hostile.
I like that. The only problem that I see with it is: Whose laws are being broken in lawless territory? I would be happy with it, but I don't plan on being a random murderer or SADing anyone.
I do get your point though, Bluddwolf, at it's base. An equal skill to purchase to allow more freedom for Good Guys to pursue Bad Guys.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only problem that I see with it is: Whose laws are being broken in lawless territory?
I don't think there needs to be a law behind it. In theory, there could be an "Outlaw" flag that is applied when issuing a SAD demand. In practice, GW seems to want to reduce the number of flags. Using the Criminal flag in this manner is just re-using a mechanism that already exists. Assigning a chaos hit for the crime... well, it is an assault and attempted theft, which is chaotic. If done by someone who is already chaotic it doesn't matter, but if someone is neutral or trying to get to neutral they might not want to SAD travelers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The only problem that I see with it is: Whose laws are being broken in lawless territory?I don't think there needs to be a law behind it. In theory, there could be an "Outlaw" flag that is applied when issuing a SAD demand. In practice, GW seems to want to reduce the number of flags. Using the Criminal flag in this manner is just re-using a mechanism that already exists. Assigning a chaos hit for the crime... well, it is an assault and attempted theft, which is chaotic. If done by someone who is already chaotic it doesn't matter, but if someone is neutral or trying to get to neutral they might not want to SAD travelers.
It makes sense in a mechanical perspective.
I liked your deleted tongue-in-cheek answer too. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Under the original explanation of the SAD mechanic, the SAD could only be issued by a character flagged for PVP as an Outlaw. The flagged Outlaw was a fair target for anyone. To remain consistent with the risk/reward of that original mechanism, it would make perfect sense that the SAD issuer is flagged as hostile upon issuing the SAD demand. I think the simplest method is through a Criminal flag (and chaos hit) that is applied anywhere, not just in settlement hexes. The bandit can then be engaged by anyone until the Criminal flag expires.Becoming "hostile" for issuing a SAD does not negate any of that. The merchant still has to attack the bandit, or not, for it to even matter. Passerby should suffer for interfering in legitimate faction, feud, war situations but not straight up robbery against pure innocents....The SAD mechanic has never been described as a hostile action. True
The SAD mechanic has never been described as a non hostile action. True.
Saying that it won't be, is an assumption.
Saying that it will be, is an assumption.
I am saying that I hope it will be, because (to me) it is hostile.
Not really true, they could not be engaged by anyone, only those that were themselves flagged for PvP. Anyone else would have incurred the Attacker Flag, alignment shift and Reputation loss.
If a SAD attempt made the bandit flagged for everyone, I personally would never give up the advantages of the surprise attack. If I'm going to take on as much risk as if I did attack, I might as well take that risk for a larger reward.
SADs I would use in pre-arranged situations where my company and the merchant company have agreed to a contractual based relationship of protection in exchange for reputation bonus.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Under the original explanation of the SAD mechanic, the SAD could only be issued by a character flagged for PVP as an Outlaw. The flagged Outlaw was a fair target for anyone. To remain consistent with the risk/reward of that original mechanism, it would make perfect sense that the SAD issuer is flagged as hostile upon issuing the SAD demand. I think the simplest method is through a Criminal flag (and chaos hit) that is applied anywhere, not just in settlement hexes. The bandit can then be engaged by anyone until the Criminal flag expires.Not really true, they could not be engaged by anyone, only those that were themselves flagged for PvP. Anyone else would have incurred the Attacker Flag, alignment shift and Reputation loss.
Say what?!? I've no idea where you came up with that. From the blog entry, I Shot a Man in Reno, regarding the long-term alignment flags:
These flags work like other PvP flags: A person targeting the character unprovoked gains the Involved flag and does not lose any reputation or alignment upon fighting/killing the target.|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The SAD is the equivalent of pulling a gun on someone and saying "Give me all your money!" You haven't done any violence yet but as anyone familiar with firearm usage will tell you, you never pull a gun on someone unless you are prepared to use it. Based on the experience you've claimed, I shouldn't have to tell you that. The same was true for bows, swords, and daggers in their day.
What Bluddwolf is advocating is that he should be able to pull his weapon on anyone of his choosing in the middle of a crowded street, and if you don't have a direct relationship with the person who he's mugging, you shouldn't be able to get involved.
It's these kind of statements that make me believe he wants EZ mode banditry. If there are other people around to get involved when you mug someone, then you are a terrible bandit, and you deserve the sure death that's coming for you. You need to stop crying about interlopers and remember why most robberies take place on remote roads and in back alleyways.
----------------
As to Being's statement I'm guessing its a reference that there is no neutral "enforcer of balance" type role.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In no way should it EVER be consequence free to chase characters into player controlled hexes and administer justice there, without Sovereign permission. Justice is not a universally defined concept for all Sovereignties. This is a territory control game, not a "Crusaders and Vigilantes without borders" game.
As you will note, what I've been advocating for a very long time now is not consequence free. It's rep penalty free, and evil alignment free just like it would be outside their territory, but if vigilantism is against the laws of the settlement controlling the area you get criminal flagged. Perhaps even a vigilante flag that lets other vigilantes know you more than a common criminal.
At that point those other nations can come and deal with you as they would any other criminal within their borders.
Also in the Pathfinder universal justice is a universal concept like good and evil. Punishing a Chelaxian slaver for his crimes against humanity is always justice even if it takes place in Cheliax. That's why it specifically says:
If you are a vigilante, you:
• Value the justice delivered by your own hand.
• Are motivated to punish evildoers.
• Disregard laws to bring about your own justice, and are, therefore, often a wanted individual.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The SAD is the equivalent of pulling a gun on someone and saying "Give me all your money!" You haven't done any violence yet but as anyone familiar with firearm usage will tell you, you never pull a gun on someone unless you are prepared to use it. Based on the experience you've claimed, I shouldn't have to tell you that. The same was true for bows, swords, and daggers in their day.
What Bluddwolf is advocating is that he should be able to pull his weapon on anyone of his choosing in the middle of a crowded street, and if you don't have a direct relationship with the person who he's mugging, you shouldn't be able to get involved.
It's these kind of statements that make me believe he wants EZ mode banditry. If there are other people around to get involved when you mug someone, then you are a terrible bandit, and you deserve the sure death that's coming for you. You need to stop crying about interlopers and remember why most robberies take place on remote roads and in back alleyways.
----------------
As to Being's statement I'm guessing its a reference that there is no neutral "enforcer of balance" type role.
Andius,
You tend to miss parts of my post which blow gaping holes in your accusations.
If a SAD attempt made the bandit flagged for everyone, I personally would never give up the advantages of the surprise attack. If I'm going to take on as much risk as if I did attack, I might as well take that risk for a larger reward.
If I don't use SADs, I will get the criminal flag, and if that happens in a settlement with laws against banditry, then any citizen of that settlement can attack me. I'm not sure how that us banditry EZ Mode.
You of course are welcome to be an interloper all you like, but I know you won't unless you get your way, and have you consequence free "I should be able to attack, anyone, anywhere and any time, because I am a Neutral Good, Messenger of Death". Oh and we can see how worried you are about killing innocents, you know, if they do anything that causes them to use rep, you get a bonus!
I'm going to select my Brandt's core alignment to be Neutral Good, it sounds like that alignment lets you do all the fun stuff!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Andius,
You tend to miss parts of my post which blow gaping holes in your accusations.
If a SAD attempt made the bandit flagged for everyone, I personally would never give up the advantages of the surprise attack. If I'm going to take on as much risk as if I did attack, I might as well take that risk for a larger reward.If I don't use SADs, I will get the criminal flag, and if that happens in a settlement with laws against banditry, then any citizen of that settlement can attack me. I'm not sure how that us banditry EZ Mode.
You of course are welcome to be an interloper all you like, but I know you won't unless you get your way, and have you consequence free "I should be able to attack, anyone, anywhere and any time, because I am a Neutral Good, Messenger of Death". Oh and we can see how worried you are about killing innocents, you know, if they do anything that causes them to use rep, you get a bonus!
I'm going to select my Brandt's core alignment to be Neutral Good, it sounds like that alignment lets you do all the fun stuff!
That doesn't blow a gaping hole in anything. You just said that if the SAD flags you to everyone you will do an unsanctioned attack and take the associated rep loss. Have fun living in a crappy settlement but that changes literally nothing about what I said.
So if the police are standing there when you make the attack then they can get involved. That's cool, but that still means if you attack someone in a crowded street with half a dozen trade caravans and a handful of adventuring parties, and a few dozen random individuals outside a settlement, or inside a settlement where there aren't any of that settlement's soldiers nearby, you can go around from caravan to caravan robbing them, and they can't do anything unless they are the specific caravan/individual getting robbed at that moment.
The armed adventurers passing by... well if you're smart you won't even bother with them.
In real life, if you attack someone in the middle of an armed crowd you will have a couple dozen guns on you and likely be swiss cheese before you can finish saying "Stand and Deliv...."
But this is Pathfinder, so let's talk about Pathfinder for a second. How many of you have played good aligned characters in tabletops? How many of you have been in scenarios such as "You come across a caravan of merchants being attacked by bandits" or "A brutish looking thug comes into the tavern, lifts the barkeeper up by his neck and threatens to snap it in two if he doesn't pay."
How many of you stood by and did nothing on a good aligned character?
If you want to play a bloodthirsty bandit learn to stick to the shadows, run from both the law and justice, and strike when the opportunity is right. That's the bandit role. Not swaggering up to people in the middle of a crowded street and expecting that they be penalized if they get involved.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You of course are welcome to be an interloper all you like, but I know you won't unless you get your way, and have you consequence free "I should be able to attack, anyone, anywhere and any time, because I am a Neutral Good, Messenger of Death". Oh and we can see how worried you are about killing innocents, you know, if they do anything that causes them to use rep, you get a bonus!
I'm going to select my Brandt's core alignment to be Neutral Good, it sounds like that alignment lets you do all the fun stuff!
You're welcome to try. The entire gist of your role which is walk up to anyone that looks profitable, demand their money, and kill them if they refuse to comply would not be doable as a Neutral Good player.
Regardless of your ridiculous assertions I want to be able to kill anyone anywhere any time by my suggestions Neutral Good players:
1. Will lose reputation for killing unflagged of any alignment players.
2. Will get evil points for killing non-heinous flagged players proportional to their status on the good-evil axis even if they are sanctioned by other means such as criminal flags and outstanding bounties.
3. Will get evil points for killing refused SAD's proportional to the status of the player they kill on the good-evil axis.
The only real freedom we get to kill anyone we want is the ability to go out and declare wars/feuds on anyone we want, and I've always suggested it should be harder for good factions to maintain as many wars as evil factions can. Especially against other good/neutral factions.
But listening to you talk you don't seem prepared to accept any of the consequences of your own playstyle anyway, so perhaps Neutral Good really would be best for you.
-----------
PS. You've read this before. I don't see how you can say something like this:
...but I know you won't unless you get your way, and have you consequence free "I should be able to attack, anyone, anywhere and any time, because I am a Neutral Good, Messenger of Death".
Without recognizing what you are saying is false.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion it is currently fairly pointless to base any discussion regarding how SAD is going to work on earlier information regarding this mechanic due to couple of fairly major re-alignments in design concepts:
- SAD is no longer tied to the "Outlaw" flag. Being forced to make a meaningful choice to flag yourself for consequence free PvP not only made a lot of sense as a trade off for being able to force consequence free PvP onto others but also took care of many of the collateral issues which have been discussed lately (for example the right of bystanders to intervene).
- Reputation has since changed meaning. If reputation (as told by Ryan as of late) is supposed to reflect the "altruism" of a character as compared to "selfishness" (which should be indicated by a low reputation score), it would make little sense to allow someone who SADs everyone they meet (and kills a significant portion of those) to retain high reputation scores.
This does not mean that SAD cannot make the game better. It just has to be adjusted in a manner which makes some sense (for example flag the SADer as a criminal, if the local laws prohibit armed robbery, and lower the reputation hit instead of removing it entirely in case of unsuccessful SADs resulting in killing the victim).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Care to elaborate or was that /sarcasm?Extremist.I would propose the following flags:
Outlaw (Chaotic)
Enforcer (Lawful)
Heinous (Evil)
Guardian (Good)
Merchant (Any)
Mercenary (Any)
Trespasser (Any)- can only be enforced by citizens of settlement.
Where are the true neutrals? You only list extreme polarities for militant agents.
Where are the true neutrals? You only list extreme polarities for militant agents.Care to elaborate or was that /sarcasm?Extremist.I would propose the following flags:
Outlaw (Chaotic)
Enforcer (Lawful)
Heinous (Evil)
Guardian (Good)
Merchant (Any)
Mercenary (Any)
Trespasser (Any)- can only be enforced by citizens of settlement.
Outlaw (Chaotic)
Enforcer (Lawful)Heinous (Evil)
Guardian (Good)
Merchant (Any)
Mercenary (Any)
Trespasser (Any)- can only be enforced by citizens of settlement.
Fairy - (True Neutral)
Tree Hugging Hippie (True Neutral).
You're welcome. :D
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The other purpose if this thread is to create a workable non lethal PvP system, for the sake of the good and neutral aligned, so that they do not always have to meet out death for every crime.
I don't see how longswords sharpened to split hairs and disintegration rays can be used "non-lethally".
We don't have to come up with a way to use those weapons non-lethally, that's a programming burden, unrealistic, and the Dancey has already posted GWs intention to not do it. There would need to be special weapons whose affects resulted in a Clobbered or Unconscious state, there's still the complication of what if lethal weapons are combined in that attack; and mostly what's the point of having it? We don't have a court/jailing system to take them to.
I think the Criminal flag can be adjusted to last as long as reasonably needed for enforcers and vigilantes to mete out justice on the dastardly and wicked.
--------------
Reminder: Bluddwolf doesn't control how the SAD system works I see a lot of misplaced aggrivation at SADing in this thread.
From a meatspace perspective yes it's mugging. As a game mechanic it protects merchants from being surprise attacked and automatically killed and everything lost every time they encounter a superior bandit force. There's already a chaos shift for it and no rep penalty only means they didn't gank you like jerks.
You can't depend on GW to game mechanically insure every cargo delivery for you too.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Now to Bringslite's fourth option:
If the merchant rejects, the bandit does not attack, but the merchant does. Should the merchant be able to attack without consequence?
I would say, if you get SADed and you reject it, and for whatever reasons the bandit does not attack you.... Count your blessing, and your gold and get the hell out of there.
You bet your scootie patootie the merchant's party can still attack the bandits consequence-free. The bandits started it. The result of a rejected SAD needs to be equal among the parties, mutual hostile states. Not just victim flagged for the SADer.
Like you said in the same post
Again I'm all for all the PvP we can have.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Going to reply to this here:
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).
I don't think you understand. The SAD is not just minding your buisiness and playing the game. It's a mechanic that allows you to go out and take one of two aggressive actions (robbing or killing) against anyone in the game, regardless of whether or not you are in a feud/war against them, you have an outstanding contract, or they are flagged to you in any manner whatsoever.
It is the only system in the game that does so without attaching reputation loss. It is the only system that allows you to play a high reputation character (and therefore a character with access to more skills and better settlements) that can take aggressive action against against anyone they meet.
I'm fine with the existence of such a system as long as you are fine being everyone else's content.
If you are not ok with that trade-off, and you dont think that robbing people and killing those who refuse to comply should flag you to everyone around you, clearly you are neither interested in playing the role of a true outlaw, nor have a strong enough commitment to such a role to justify giving you a tool like the SAD.
Should you lack such commitment you should stop your whining about our ability to interfere, and pick a role more suited to your desire to not be exposed to the constant consequence free PvP you wish to subject others to.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Andius,
I gave you right ways you can intervene, and another poster gave the idea of Cease and Desist, you have ignored all nine. I gave you an example of how the SAD could be used in a prearranged manner, desired by both parties, and you ignored that as well.
Your only desire is to attack and kill. But, you don't want to rely on your own resources to do it, you want everyone and anyone to be able to assist you while trying to do your role.
I have clearly stated if the SAD in itself is made a hostile act, it opens me up to PvP to the person, their company and possible the citizens of a settlement where that is illegal. That would put it on par with raiding an outpost or poi, and I'm ok with that. I would also be less likely to use SADs and more likely to just ambush, unless the SAD was prearranged via a meta game contract.
Do you also believe that if you attack some evil doer, that should allow anyone in the vicinity to freely attack you? How about your idea of attacking the supposed griefers?
Hostility is owned solely by the participants involved. Anyone else who wishes to get involved has to use one of the 8 or 9 ways that I and others have suggested.
There is some light at the end if the tunnel you are in Andius. There is a better than good chance that the alignment and reputation systems will be unworkable, or be largely ignored if they do get put in, and we will all have the freedom of action we crave.
But don't expect the Devs to admit this now, or perhaps ever, that would send too many of their loyal followers packing. They will keep on saying, it's on its way, even after OE, meanwhile keep on focusing on eliminating true griefers, and poof they will say "we have a handle on griefing, so no other systems are needed".
I will admit my prediction was wrong when I see the alignment and reputations presented as they are now.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Do you also believe that if you attack some evil doer, that should allow anyone in the vicinity to freely attack you?Just so we are on the same page. If the answer to that question in yes, would it make it a sufficient drawback of attacking the evildoer in your opinion?
The answer "yes" to that question would imply that we then have an equally balanced system, and PFO would be a true Open World PvP MMO. Anyone should be able to attack anyone, anywhere and for any reason. The way you protect yourself is to present a higher risk than you present the image of a reward.
Do not travel alone, unless you present little or no reward for killing you.
Travel in numbers and hire guards if you are in fact a "reward".
Be cautious about his, when and where you travel and in what activities you participate in.
Let or trust in GW to take care of griefing.
The only protected area is the NPC starter zones. Everywhere else is ether unprotected or has the level of protection the settlement community can provide.
I believe a balance will eventually be struck. Players will learn the survival skills they need to play in this challenging environment. If they don't they will do what we expect some will anyway, they will go to a game more suited to their risk taking threshold.
All GW has to do is take care of griefers and provide an area safe for the NPE. Beyond the starter zones and outside of griefing, develop no system that the players can do for themselves.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ok for real, we DO have a system where anyone can attack anyone at any time or place. Starter towns and nonVulnerable settlements should have enough NPC wardens to stop the attack before death.
Isn't this what Bludd just said?
The reputation system is to measure the jerkieness of a player while they play their character. If you're naughty as whole you get low rep and lose access to key game features as a consequence.
The alignment system is for the D&D world aspect and some class abilities.
Still, nothing is physically stopping any attack anywhere. Am I being over Polyannish about the open pvp sandbox part of this?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do not travel alone, unless you present little or no reward for killing you.
The problem is we aren't talking about lone travelers getting robbed on backroads and dark alleyways. In those circumstances there is nobody around to get involved.
What we are talking about is a mugger walking up to someone in the middle of a crowded street, picking the easiest looking target, and mugging them right there in broad daylight.
Then for all the crap on your list what it's boils down to is you do not believe any of them should be able to intercede without consequence unless they have other justifications to kill you.
It's advocation of these kind of mechanics that make me believe you don't have what it takes to play an actual bandit, and that you want EZ mode bandit online.
My plan is simple. You get this flag identical to this one:
Criminal
The character has broken the law of a settlement while inside its boundaries.• Each time a character gets the Criminal flag they lose law vs. chaos.
• Anyone may kill a Criminal character without fearing reputation or alignment loss.
• Criminal is removed once the character has been killed.
• The Criminal flag lasts ten minutes unless the character does something to get it again before the duration runs out.
• If the character gets the Criminal flag again within the duration of its existing Criminal buff, the count of Criminal increases by 1 and the duration resets and adds ten minutes, up to a maximum of 100 minutes.
• If the character gets to Criminal 10 they get a new flag, Brigand, which lasts for 24 hours, and does not disappear on death. It acts the same as Criminal, allowing repeat offenders to be hunted down for longer periods of time.
If you don't want to get shot down by a horde of interlopers every time you issue a SAD, play the game like a real bandit and don't go plying your trade in broad freaking daylight on a crowded street. Seriously!
As far as the CAD mechanic I don't feels it's nessecary. Anyone witnessing a SAD should be able to attack the aggressor. Bandits should take this information and do what they've done everywhere else for centuries. Don't attack with witnesses nearby! No further mechanics needed.