Being a new thread to discuss problems with UNC and Other controversial Problems


Pathfinder Online

201 to 250 of 259 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

I enjoy this. If I might wade back in,

I agree with the devs about removing the permanent flags. It takes the PvP focus from faction v faction and politics to alignment v. alignment and social. Neither are "bad" it is just the latter is not the focus of the game, and would detract heavily from the former.

Good choices.

Can't wait to see SAD and Caravans as implemented in-game. It is going to be fun.

Goblin Squad Member

Drakhan Valane wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
Honestly there'd be a lot less meta conflict if the rest of UNC were to take page from the Goodfellow's book on forum posting.

/ hands mirror to Drakhan and suggests some of T7V and TEO use it as well.

I look good.

You look as bad as anyone else.

Pretty amusing... Everyone notice the lack of Andius in this thread? We had a discussion to drop everything. We have followed through. (that includes him Bludd and I)

Nihimon publicly apologized to the UNC and we in turn apologized back to drop the nonsense. Nihimon has since went for backstab x2.

I would suggest taking a breather from the PFO forums. That is why you do not see me here anymore.

Any of you that go after the UNC, need to look in the mirror. You ALL are as bad as anything you accuse us of. Dont like it? Thats normal for arrogant people that cannot see what they do.

end thread, I will not return

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
Honestly there'd be a lot less meta conflict if the rest of UNC were to take page from the Goodfellow's book on forum posting.

/ hands mirror to Drakhan and suggests some of T7V and TEO use it as well.

I look good.
You look as bad as anyone else.

You must have missed the sweet haircut I just got. It's good, let me tell you.

Goblin Squad Member

Stephen Cheney wrote:

You count as attacking everyone who will be able to attack you back for purposes of hostility, crime, and losing alignment and rep. If you just got linked to the one person you attacked, his party members wouldn't be able to help without losing rep themselves (unless what you did was also a crime). If you didn't get a hit for everyone but they all got tagged in, it'd be pretty easy to kick off the fight against the target for whom you'd get the least penalties. Thus, the solution we landed on after a lot of discussion was just treating the whole group as being attacked when you attacked one individual (in most cases), necessitating telling you you're about to get a hit for more than one target. I'll try to get them to point the video camera at a whiteboard so they can draw the diagrams for you :) .

Caravans still have a lot of tech dependencies as to how we'll be able to get them working so we can't really tell you anything yet.

Why not have the attacker become flagged? If I'm out in the woods and I attack a good-aligned, non-flagged (a blue) person in the woods, I should become flagged (maybe my name turns red for a certain amount of time to show my negative action) and people should be allowed to attack me without fear of reputation loss. That seems like a much easier way to manage this, no? Or perhaps if I kill a certain amount of innocents, let's go with seven, I'm permanently flagged red and free game for anyone to kill me without reputation loss until my "murderer timer" expires (maybe a day, or perhaps a week game time).

I see too many problems, such as an alt reputation bomb, happening if you go about making an attacker attack the whole group. Or maybe you're saying that if the members of the innocent's group attack the criminal he will be able to kill them without reputation loss because they attacked him? This obviously will be changing a lot as there are so many methods to choose from. However, I think you should look at the Ultima Online flagging system as I really think something similar implemented in Pathfinder Online would be the perfect fit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drakhan Valane wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
Honestly there'd be a lot less meta conflict if the rest of UNC were to take page from the Goodfellow's book on forum posting.

/ hands mirror to Drakhan and suggests some of T7V and TEO use it as well.

I look good.

Well played, Drakhan. But you're obviously looking at my reflection.

Goblinworks Game Designer

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I just went back through my emails because it was bugging me all day. I'd misremembered how it works: there's still an Attacker flag for attacks against non-hostile targets that temporarily makes you hostile to everyone. You just don't get it while your target is hostile, and the nuanced hostility means we no longer needed the involved flag.

See, this is why I need diagrams :) .

Goblin Squad Member

Stephen Cheney wrote:

I just went back through my emails because it was bugging me all day. I'd misremembered how it works: there's still an Attacker flag for attacks against non-hostile targets that temporarily makes you hostile to everyone. You just don't get it while your target is hostile, and the nuanced hostility means we no longer needed the involved flag.

See, this is why I need diagrams :) .

Considering you're posting on your day off you're allowed a lot of latitude.

Thanks for your time and faulty memory. :)

Goblin Squad Member

At least you went and checked! AND THEN CAME BACK! (band of brothers reference, anyone?) That shows dedication.

Goblin Squad Member

Stephen Cheney wrote:

I just went back through my emails because it was bugging me all day. I'd misremembered how it works: there's still an Attacker flag for attacks against non-hostile targets that temporarily makes you hostile to everyone. You just don't get it while your target is hostile, and the nuanced hostility means we no longer needed the involved flag.

See, this is why I need diagrams :) .

Thank you Stephen!

Goblin Squad Member

Stephen Cheney wrote:

I just went back through my emails because it was bugging me all day. I'd misremembered how it works: there's still an Attacker flag for attacks against non-hostile targets that temporarily makes you hostile to everyone. You just don't get it while your target is hostile, and the nuanced hostility means we no longer needed the involved flag.

See, this is why I need diagrams :) .

In the Dev Blog (which I can't link from work) Goin-A-Viking and Hostility combined to create the following scenario AS FAR AS I UNDERSTOOD IT:

1. Outpost owned by Company "A"

2. Bandit Company "UNC" begins to raid.

3. Bandit Company UNC is now seen as Hostile in the eyes of Company "A".

Nuance #1:

1. Outpost of Company "A" is sponsored by Company "B"

2. Both Company "A" and "B" see Bandit Company "UNC" as Hostile.

Nuance #1:

1. It is a crime to raid in Settlement "TEO", so Bandit Company "UNC" would have the Criminal Flag viewed by all.

Nuance #3:

If any member of Company "A" attacks Bandit Company "UNC" the Hostility will become reciprocal.

If the Outpost was sponsored by POI belonging to "B", then "B" can also attack, and once they have the Hostility will be reciprocal with them as well.

Same if it is a crime for all settlement citizens, while the Criminal Flag is active.

Reputation and Alignment Implications:

The Bandits will get a chaotic shift for raiding the outpost, this is especially true if it is also a crime to raid.

The Bandits will not lose reputation for raiding as long as the only response to their raid was the NPC guards.

If PCs respond, the bandits will lose reputation if the bandits manage to kill anyone of the PCs responding before that PC earns the reciprocal Hostility state. This is unlikely because the bandits would have to kill the PC responding before that PC could hit the bandits twice. Unlikely because there is no Alpha Strike with Critical Burst Damage in PFO.

At no time and in none of the nuances does the responding PC receive alignment shifts or reputation hits as long as that character has some form of agency to the Outpost and its Owning Company.

Third Parties can respond if they choose during the Criminal Flag.

This is my understanding of the Dev Blogs. Have I gone wrong in their interpretation?

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

The Bandits will not lose reputation for raiding as long as the only response to their raid was the NPC guards.

If PCs respond, the bandits will lose reputation if the bandits manage to kill anyone of the PCs responding before that PC earns the reciprocal Hostility state. This is unlikely because the bandits would have to kill the PC responding before that PC could hit the bandits twice. Unlikely because there is no Alpha Strike with Critical Burst Damage in PFO.

As I understood it, you don't lose reputation when you kill some unflagged person, you lose it when you hit them twice within 30 seconds.*

Based on this Dec 18 blog bit: When a character attacks a character who was not Hostile, the character making the attack gets flagged as an Attacker. If the character with Attacker hits their target again in the next thirty seconds, they become Hostile, and lose Reputation. Note that Reputation is lost on striking a target twice rather than on death; this means Reputation is lost when your intention to kill someone is made clear rather than if you are successful.

So the bandits might lose rep if they hit a responder twice - but a lot might depend on when the responder gains a hostile state in the view of the bandits. And would one hit by two different members of the bandit party count? (ie, does the entire bandit party get flagged as attackers when one of them strikes someone?) Mmm, nuance.

* (edit to add - you can also lose rep if you have the attacker flag and that target dies before the 30-sec timer on your attacker flag runs out.)

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

The Bandits will not lose reputation for raiding as long as the only response to their raid was the NPC guards.

If PCs respond, the bandits will lose reputation if the bandits manage to kill anyone of the PCs responding before that PC earns the reciprocal Hostility state. This is unlikely because the bandits would have to kill the PC responding before that PC could hit the bandits twice. Unlikely because there is no Alpha Strike with Critical Burst Damage in PFO.

As I understood it, you don't lose reputation when you kill some unflagged person, you lose it when you hit them twice within 30 seconds.*

Based on this Dec 18 blog bit: When a character attacks a character who was not Hostile, the character making the attack gets flagged as an Attacker. If the character with Attacker hits their target again in the next thirty seconds, they become Hostile, and lose Reputation. Note that Reputation is lost on striking a target twice rather than on death; this means Reputation is lost when your intention to kill someone is made clear rather than if you are successful.

So the bandits might lose rep if they hit a responder twice - but a lot might depend on when the responder gains a hostile state in the view of the bandits. And would one hit by two different members of the bandit party count? (ie, does the entire bandit party get flagged as attackers when one of them strikes someone?) Mmm, nuance.

* (edit to add - you can also lose rep if you have the attacker flag and that target dies before the 30-sec timer on your attacker flag runs out.)

The Bandit / Raiders would then just wait for themselves to be attacked and then defend themselves.

However, one hit does not constitute the reputation loss, it has to be two or more hits. This was done to avoid AOE hitting friendly targets lumping on negative reputation upon a friendly attacker.

Is the Dec 18 Blog you used the Going-A-Viking / Hostility Blog? I can't access Dev Blogs from work.

Goblin Squad Member

My understanding from what Stephen just posted, is that (using Bludd's big post) UNC is flagged hostile and likely criminals, this allows anyone to attack UNC without rep or alignment loss. However, once ANYONE hits the UNC (either once or twice still alittle confused on this) the UNC can then attack back (defending themselves) without any further loss in rep or alignment.

Though I wonder if anyone that is killed causes the evil shift? I remember somewhere that chaotic shift was when you attacked, evil shift was when you killed. Is that still accurate?

But anyway, I was attempting to apply my own understanding and clarify a bit. UNC gains chaotic rep (loses Lawful) when they raid the outpost. They also flagged as hostile and possibly criminal. Hostile means only owning company/kingdom may attack UNC without loss, criminal means anyone may attack UNC without loss. ONCE YOU ATTACK is when UNC can attack you without loss. If the UNC attack you before you attack us, we take additional loss than was lost when we started the raid.

Concerning the "Rep bomb" caravans, I would assume the SAD mechanic would be the counter. If we decide to ambush the caravan, then yes we potentially lose a lot of rep and alignment. Using a flag, like the old traveler flag, I think would take away from people wanting to caravan. Unless the perks of the flag were big enough to make the loss of the "rep bomb" protection worth it.

Goblin Squad Member

@ Goodfellow,

There is also the likelihood that the raid on the outpost does not cause any initial reputation because they are usually protected only by NPCs.

An Outpost raid is initially PVE, but can become PVP based on the response of the owners of the Outpost.

Outpost Raiding = Ninja Looting in EvE Online.

Now if there is a PC on hand at the Outpost, and that character is of the owning company, then their response is likely to be immediate. So we walk up in numbers, one person triggers the bank while the rest are prepared for the reaction.

Once the owner gains the hostile state, we defend out comrade. Neither side ends up losing reputation in this scenario, which makes sense to me since the Dev Blog described this the most common form of PVP.

It would not make sense to me that the most common form of PVP will also include one side taking a reputation loss, nor either side taking rep loss for defending themselves.

What I like most about this system is that it encourages and rewards observing the comings and goings of an outpost, before you raid it. It makes it feel more like a heist than a smash and grab.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Tangent edge case: if A and B start with no history or flags, then A hits B once, then B hits A twice or more, then a fight begins and one or both are killed, should either lose Rep?

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
Tangent edge case: if A and B start with no history or flags, then A hits B once, then B hits A twice or more, then a fight begins and one or both are killed, should either lose Rep?

In that scenario I believe "A" would lose reputation because he attacked "B" when "B" was not in a hostile state.

If "A" wants to attack "B" and not lose reputation, than I believe "A" is forced to use a SAD first.

I don't believe this will be an edge case at all. It is the whole reason for having the SAD mechanic.

Goblin Squad Member

Bludd, you got a point. If raiding POI's is the "most common form of PVP" then it would make sense that it either removes penalties (As long as a "proper form" is followed such as not attacking PC's until the raid starts) or might even reward one side or another. I can see defenders being rewarded with rep based on the amount of raiders killed. Would give an incentive for people to care and want to defend their property. Otherwise it is just protecting a source of income or resources and that might not be enough to risk dying and possible gear loss. I believe this would be a "carrot" approach. :-)

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Is the Dec 18 Blog you used the Going-A-Viking / Hostility Blog? I can't access Dev Blogs from...

Alignment and Reputation

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
Tangent edge case: if A and B start with no history or flags, then A hits B once, then B hits A twice or more, then a fight begins and one or both are killed, should either lose Rep?

It is my understanding that B will never lose Reputation in this scenario.

A would lose Reputation immediately if they hit B a second time within 30 seconds of gaining the Attacker flag for hitting B the first time. Even if this didn't happen, A would still lose Reputation if B died while A still had the Attacker flag for hitting B the first time.

When a character attacks a character who was not Hostile, the character making the attack gets flagged as an Attacker....

However, if you have the Attacker flag and your target dies by another means before it expires, you still lose Reputation.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
If "A" wants to attack "B" and not lose reputation, than I believe "A" is forced to use a SAD first.

I would really appreciate it if one of the devs could address this directly, and let us know whether the purpose of SAD is to allow A to attack B without losing Reputation.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
Tangent edge case: if A and B start with no history or flags, then A hits B once, then B hits A twice or more, then a fight begins and one or both are killed, should either lose Rep?

My first guess would be that B gets the rep loss on his second attack. A gains the attacker flag after the first hit, but shouldn't show as hostile or lose rep until his second attack.

I'd agree with Bludd that it's likely not an edge case.

Edit: there's another bit further along in that blog entry: Characters with the Attacker flag (or that are otherwise rendered Hostile) can be attacked by other players without suffering Reputation loss. So if you accidentally hit someone, you'd best apologize quickly: they can hit you, or even kill you, if they can manage it in thirty seconds.

So no, B wouldn't take the rep loss in any case. It sounds like A remains a legitimate target until his Attacker flag times out.


Bluddwolf wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Tangent edge case: if A and B start with no history or flags, then A hits B once, then B hits A twice or more, then a fight begins and one or both are killed, should either lose Rep?

In that scenario I believe "A" would lose reputation because he attacked "B" when "B" was not in a hostile state.

If "A" wants to attack "B" and not lose reputation, than I believe "A" is forced to use a SAD first.

I don't believe this will be an edge case at all. It is the whole reason for having the SAD mechanic.

Not convinced this is the case bludd due to the two hit rule

example

A accidentally does friendly fire on B, B then turns round and kills A for it while A does not defend but instead tries to explain it was an accident. I am not convinced that A loses reputation for the first strike which is what you seem to be implying I get the impression that the two strikes rule has since replaced the idea of initial attacker getting the rep hit.

The whole situation is frankly quite confused at the moment

For example if someone attacks me do I have to wait till he hits me a second time to ensure he gets the rep hit before fighting back?

If I fight back after the first hit (which may have been accidental) he surely has the right to defend himself (in my opinion) however doing so gives that crucial second hit which gives the rep hit.

Currently the two strike rule seems to me to give those hit accidentally a consequence free kill in which the original hitter has to make a decision on whether to defend and take a rep hit or to meekly die without defending. That can't be intended I would hope

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Currently the two strike rule seems to me to give those hit accidentally a consequence free kill in which the original hitter has to make a decision on whether to defend and take a rep hit or to meekly die without defending. That can't be intended I would hope

Or the accidental attacker might go into a full defense/run mode, assuming there's some moves/options besides attacks; things that don't count as attacks.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
For example if someone attacks me do I have to wait till he hits me a second time to ensure he gets the rep hit before fighting back?

No, you do not. See Urman's post above.

Steelwing wrote:
Currently the two strike rule seems to me to give those hit accidentally a consequence free kill in which the original hitter has to make a decision on whether to defend and take a rep hit or to meekly die without defending. That can't be intended I would hope

It might not be "intended", but I'm pretty sure it's accepted. If you're using abilities that can hit unintended targets, the onus is on you to be careful.

Goblin Squad Member

And if the accidental attacker is facing the rep loss for attacking not just one character, but rep losses for attacking all members of Steelwing's posse party... Meekly dying might be less painful than the stack of rep losses.

Goblin Squad Member

I think you are blurring things together. Players attacking an entire settlement WITHOUT being at war with said settlement will, I think, be highly unlikely due to the severity of reputation loss. I mean, you would probably end up killing or "hitting twice" multiple innocent players and you'd be flagged as an attacker (I'm sure) until the end of the settlement raid which most likely will take quite a while. Also, if they do end up implementing a permanent murderer flag (for killing a certain number of innocent players) all the attackers would surely end up murderers.

"Bandits" are more akin to people who kill solo or grouped players out in the open, I highly doubt there will be an army of bandits attacking an entire innocent settlement. But maybe I'm wrong?


Nihimon wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
For example if someone attacks me do I have to wait till he hits me a second time to ensure he gets the rep hit before fighting back?

No, you do not. See Urman's post above.

Urmans post supports my position. That is to say you cannot defend yourself. Running away is not defending yourself which is basically what his suggestion comes down to.

Nihimon wrote:


Steelwing wrote:
Currently the two strike rule seems to me to give those hit accidentally a consequence free kill in which the original hitter has to make a decision on whether to defend and take a rep hit or to meekly die without defending. That can't be intended I would hope
It might not be "intended", but I'm pretty sure it's accepted. If you're using abilities that can hit unintended targets, the onus is on you to be careful.

It may very well be accepted but that is because the double tap rule came around after friendly fire was discussed. I suspect it to be totally unintended whereby if you tag me with friendly fire I can turn around and kill you consequence free with your only option being to take a rep hit or not fight back and try to flee.

When the friendly fire was discussed people were I believe assuming that the rep hit was acquired on the the kill not on the hit.

Goblin Squad Member

I know in MechWarrior if someone on my team shoots me, I wait until he fires on me again (assuming I can tell who dunnit). If he does and I manage to identify which of them did it I will open up.

This would be like I already knew which one hit me. I could then hit him back once and learn thereby whether he was serious. Faster and more effective than wasting hot air. If he shoots back (second hit) the fault is on him. If it was an accident and he does not return my warning shot then I can +/- safely turn back to my course and worry no further about it.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
For example if someone attacks me do I have to wait till he hits me a second time to ensure he gets the rep hit before fighting back?
No, you do not. See Urman's post above.
Urmans post supports my position. That is to say you cannot defend yourself. Running away is not defending yourself which is basically what his suggestion comes down to.

I believe Urman was talking about the initial attacker running away, not the one who was initially attacked. Hopefully he'll pop in to clarify.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Currently the two strike rule seems to me to give those hit accidentally a consequence free kill in which the original hitter has to make a decision on whether to defend and take a rep hit or to meekly die without defending. That can't be intended I would hope
It might not be "intended", but I'm pretty sure it's accepted. If you're using abilities that can hit unintended targets, the onus is on you to be careful.

It may very well be accepted but that is because the double tap rule came around after friendly fire was discussed. I suspect it to be totally unintended whereby if you tag me with friendly fire I can turn around and kill you consequence free with your only option being to take a rep hit or not fight back and try to flee.

When the friendly fire was discussed people were I believe assuming that the rep hit was acquired on the the kill not on the hit.

It's possible I'm wrong, but it sounds like the devs were aware of this possibility and accepted it.

Characters with the Attacker flag (or that are otherwise rendered Hostile) can be attacked by other players without suffering Reputation loss. So if you accidentally hit someone, you'd best apologize quickly: they can hit you, or even kill you, if they can manage it in thirty seconds.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is why you don't ally with people you don't trust. If they think they can kill you, they just might.

Goblin Squad Member

Nevy wrote:

"Bandits" are more akin to people who kill solo or grouped players out in the open, I highly doubt there will be an army of bandits attacking an entire innocent settlement. But maybe I'm wrong?

For the UnNamed Company the Dev Blog that contains "Going-A-Viking" and "Hostility" brought about a significant change in our organization.

We have become less "banditry" focused and adopted a greater focus on Outpost / POI raiding. This change has even shifted our RP, in that our company theme has moved towards being influenced by the Ulfen culture of the Linnorm Kingdoms. I'm not saying every member of UNC is doing this, but a good number are, and they will be the RP core of the company.

That leads me to your assumption that bandits would not attack an entire settlement. In a traditional sense you may be correct. But, raiders, especially Viking inspired raiders most certainly would.

However, in PFO, the settlement proper is not the prey of raider companies. The settlement's Outposts and POIs would be our preferred target, outside of wars, but potentially part of a feud versus the owning company of the Outpost or POI.

Now I'm not saying a merchant / caravan would not be a fine target of opportunity. But it is likely not what we set out to find for the day's worth of pillaging and burning!

If you would like to get a sense of the sources for my inspiration I'm currently watching two TV series: Vikings on History Channel and Black Sails on Starz. Then there are of course, the Guide to the River Kingdoms and the Guide to the Linnorm Kingdoms.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
For example if someone attacks me do I have to wait till he hits me a second time to ensure he gets the rep hit before fighting back?
No, you do not. See Urman's post above.
Urmans post supports my position. That is to say you cannot defend yourself. Running away is not defending yourself which is basically what his suggestion comes down to.

I believe Urman was talking about the initial attacker running away, not the one who was initially attacked. Hopefully he'll pop in to clarify.

So was I

A accidentally hits B

B attacks A

A now cannot fight back without doing that second hit causing rep loss so his only option is to suck it up or run which will only be successful occasionally.

There was a lot of concern in the discussion on friendly fire about people getting deliberately hit by it so they could turn around and kill the careless firer.

This consequence of run or take the rep hit makes that scenario more likely. When the original discussion was held the assumption was you got a rep hit only if you tagged someone and then killed them if they attacked you.

You are also going to get lots of knock on effects such as in PVE hey I can save us from defeat in this escalation with a fireball which kill the wave overwhelming us...but if I do that I am going to get a rep hit for hitting the 7 other members of the party a second time. Sod it I will just let us die else I will get kicked out of my settlement. (From figures we have, though they may well change by launch that rep hit for the other members of the party could easily be significant. When the rep hit for one player can be as high as 2500 the it is no hard thing to imagine a rep hit of 1000 being fairly average therefore for the whole party a 7000 rep hit being incurred)


Nihimon wrote:


It's possible I'm wrong, but it sounds like the devs were aware of this possibility and accepted it.

Characters with the Attacker flag (or that are otherwise rendered Hostile) can be attacked by other players without suffering Reputation loss. So if you accidentally hit someone, you'd best apologize quickly: they can hit you, or even kill you, if they can manage it in thirty seconds.

You had better hope they change that part that is just prone to griefing. It seems to suggest that if I hit you once and you try and kill me that if I can stand there for 30 seconds and survive you suddenly become the attacker after 30 seconds and end up doing the rep loss for the double hit.

This is exactly the can flipper situation from Eve provoke someone into doing something stupid and flagging themselves so they can be killed consequence free

Goblin Squad Member

@ Steelwing

"A" accidentally hits "B" once

"B" then hits "A" intentionally twice.

"B" is now hostile to "A" and "A" can now defend itself without any loss to reputation or alignment shift, other than the original shift to alignment for the initial attack.

If "A" hits once, and "B" hits once, than no one loses rep and "A" will shift a bit chaotic.

I believe this is the way it works

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
This is exactly the can flipper situation from Eve provoke someone into doing something stupid and flagging themselves so they can be killed consequence free

I heartily disagree. Canflippers rely on a person's ignorance and manipulating the ownership of a can. If someone is attacking you for 30 seconds and see the "attacker" debuff wearing off, to continue attacking is to do so at your own risk. A risk that will be quite obvious to the player.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

@ Steelwing

"A" accidentally hits "B" once

"B" then hits "A" intentionally twice.

"B" is now hostile to "A" and "A" can now defend itself without any loss to reputation or alignment shift, other than the original shift to alignment for the initial attack.

If "A" hits once, and "B" hits once, than no one loses rep and "A" will shift a bit chaotic.

I believe this is the way it works

I don't think that's how it works. B would not trigger anything until after 30 seconds. If A hit B again at all within the 30 seconds, they'd immediately lose the Rep as the attacker.

The bottom example sounds right, though.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:

@ Steelwing

"A" accidentally hits "B" once

"B" then hits "A" intentionally twice.

"B" is now hostile to "A" and "A" can now defend itself without any loss to reputation or alignment shift, other than the original shift to alignment for the initial attack.

If "A" hits once, and "B" hits once, than no one loses rep and "A" will shift a bit chaotic.

I believe this is the way it works

That's pretty much the way I think it should be- you risk accidentally hitting someone and giving them cause to fight, but if they choose to take you up, you don't lose too much.

If they don't take up the gauntlet and you don't hit them again, there shouldn't be any shift.


Drakhan Valane wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
This is exactly the can flipper situation from Eve provoke someone into doing something stupid and flagging themselves so they can be killed consequence free
I heartily disagree. Canflippers rely on a person's ignorance and manipulating the ownership of a can. If someone is attacking you for 30 seconds and see the "attacker" debuff wearing off, to continue attacking is to do so at your own risk. A risk that will be quite obvious to the player.

Yes because it will be so obvious to someone new that attacking someone who attacked you first will suddenly halfway through flip you into the aggressor state

Goblin Squad Member

If there is not an obvious debuff icon and there is no explanation at all in the tutorial, you're right. In that case, GW has failed the new player.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

@Steelwing: By that logic, the reputation system itself will confuse them too much to have any impact, and they won't care about the loss.

I'm not sure, but I don't think the reputation loss for a single kill is all that severe. Even if you do recklessly lash out, one moment of weakness is going to hurt your victim more than it hurts you. It's only if you make a habit of it that it should really cause you much grief.

Goblin Squad Member

I think again we are not giving credit where credit is due.

GW is going to have a "tutorial hall" like any game. This is going to be open-world centered on NPC settlements sure, but it will still be a "tutorial hall"

Remember that the NPC settlements are pretty PvP absent except in the most ridiculous cases. GW already has a system in place to protect the newbs while they learn what is up and down in the game. So I think the issue Steelwing brings up is already taken into account.

Further we have PC groups dedicated to teaching and protecting the "innocent".

rellaaaaaaaax guys

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
It seems to suggest that if I hit you once and you try and kill me that if I can stand there for 30 seconds and survive you suddenly become the attacker after 30 seconds and end up doing the rep loss for the double hit.

I don't see any reason at all to expect that would happen. Seems rather bizarre to me.

Since the Attacker Flag is based on first hit, and the Reputation Loss is based on second hit, it seems obvious to me that they're tracking hits. The idea that they'd assign a Flag or Reputation Loss on anything other than the first or second hit seems odd.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
For example if someone attacks me do I have to wait till he hits me a second time to ensure he gets the rep hit before fighting back?
No, you do not. See Urman's post above.
Urmans post supports my position. That is to say you cannot defend yourself. Running away is not defending yourself which is basically what his suggestion comes down to.

I believe Urman was talking about the initial attacker running away, not the one who was initially attacked. Hopefully he'll pop in to clarify.

So was I

A accidentally hits B

B attacks A

A now cannot fight back without doing that second hit causing rep loss so his only option is to suck it up or run which will only be successful occasionally.

There was a lot of concern in the discussion on friendly fire about people getting deliberately hit by it so they could turn around and kill the careless firer.

This consequence of run or take the rep hit makes that scenario more likely. When the original discussion was held the assumption was you got a rep hit only if you tagged someone and then killed them if they attacked you.

You are also going to get lots of knock on effects such as in PVE hey I can save us from defeat in this escalation with a fireball which kill the wave overwhelming us...but if I do that I am going to get a rep hit for hitting the 7 other members of the party a second time. Sod it I will just let us die else I will get kicked out of my settlement. (From figures we have, though they may well change by launch that rep hit for the other members of the party could easily be significant. When the rep hit for one player can be as high as 2500 the it is no hard thing to imagine a rep hit of 1000 being fairly average therefore for the whole party a 7000 rep hit being incurred)

I'm really having trouble following you here.

You originally said "if someone attacks me". That sounded very much like you were B in the running example. If that was not what you meant, then I simply don't understand what those words mean to you.

Goblinworks Game Designer

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Big discussion this morning, mostly about the UI but there are a lot of flag/hostility details influenced by the UI. The takeaway being A) we may not actually show you group status (since that'd be another piece of information cluttering your target UI) so the method by which a group is "tagged in" has shifted a little and B) I suggested Tork and Lee do a video blog explaining it all and they thought that was a good idea, so hopefully you'll see that really soon.

So I'll try to hold off on further incomplete and potentially wrong answers on flagging/hostility until after that's available :) .

I will reiterate that we can't tell you anything definite about Stand and Deliver at this point, as it sits on top of all the other flagging and hostility systems and they're mid-implementation. It might be helpful if those of you that are most interested in and/or worried about the mechanic could give us a short summary of how you expect the system to work, what you think is good about that, and what you think is still a problem so we have that as a reference of the desirability and pitfalls surrounding the mechanic. Maybe in its own thread so it doesn't get buried in here?

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
It seems to suggest that if I hit you once and you try and kill me that if I can stand there for 30 seconds and survive you suddenly become the attacker after 30 seconds and end up doing the rep loss for the double hit.

I don't see any reason at all to expect that would happen. Seems rather bizarre to me.

Since the Attacker Flag is based on first hit, and the Reputation Loss is based on second hit, it seems obvious to me that they're tracking hits. The idea that they'd assign a Flag or Reputation Loss on anything other than the first or second hit seems odd.

I don't think that Steelwing's hypothethical is that far-fetched. Consider:

- Two unflagged characters A(ttacker) and D(efender)
- A attacks D one time. A now is flagged as the Attacker. A appears Hostile in D's view. D still doesn't appear Hostile to A.
- D attacks A in return. It is a legitimate attack against a Hostile target, so D does not get flagged. A still appears hostile to D. D still doesn't appear hostile to A (?)(I don't know this to be true).
- D continues to attack A, their hostility states do not change. The timer ticks.
- At the 30 second mark, A's Attacker flag times out and vanishes. A no longer appears hostile to D. If D attacks at or after this point, he will gain an attacker flag and appear Hostile to A. (If D attacks a second time after A's Attacker flag wore off, then D would take the rep loss.)

^ that's my guess of how it might/could work.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:

I don't think that Steelwing's hypothethical is that far-fetched. Consider:

- Two unflagged characters A(ttacker) and D(efender)
- A attacks D one time. A now is flagged as the Attacker. A appears Hostile in D's view. D still doesn't appear Hostile to A.
- D attacks A in return. It is a legitimate attack against a Hostile target, so D does not get flagged. A still appears hostile to D. D still doesn't appear hostile to A (?)(I don't know this to be true).
- D continues to attack A, their hostility states do not change. The timer ticks.
- At the 30 second mark, A's Attacker flag times out and vanishes. A no longer appears hostile to D. If D attacks at or after this point, he will gain an attacker flag and appear Hostile to A. (If D attacks a second time after A's Attacker flag wore off, then D would take the rep loss.)

^ that's my guess of how it might/could work.

To me, that scenario presupposes that each hit checks for the Hostile flag on your target. We already know they're tracking something to tell them you've already hit someone, so it makes sense to me that they'd only check Hostile states on the first hit.

Also, I'm pretty sure that the highlighted portion isn't correct. If D hits A, I'm pretty sure A will see D as Hostile, but by that time it doesn't matter because A's first hit was when D was not Hostile.


Nihimon wrote:

To me, that scenario presupposes that each hit checks for the Hostile flag on your target. We already know they're tracking something to tell them you've already hit someone, so it makes sense to me that they'd only check Hostile states on the first hit.

Also, I'm pretty sure that the highlighted portion isn't correct. If D hits A, I'm pretty sure A will see D as Hostile, but by that time it doesn't matter because A's first hit was when D was not Hostile.

See this you quoted

Nihimon wrote:


Characters with the Attacker flag (or that are otherwise rendered Hostile) can be attacked by other players without suffering Reputation loss. So if you accidentally hit someone, you'd best apologize quickly: they can hit you, or even kill you, if they can manage it in thirty seconds.

The bit you bolded where it talks about you have to kill them in 30 seconds is the bit which makes me think that the attacker flag for the accidental flag lapses and that after that you become the attacker

Goblin Squad Member

That part made me think only that A can't attack for 30 seconds unless they're willing to take the Rep hit.

Goblin Squad Member

Nah, D has to *finish* killing A in 30 seconds if they're going to manage it, because at that time something changes - and what would that be? Easiest answer is that after 30 seconds, like Steelwing says, the attacker flag for A lapses and D no longer sees A as hostile. Just my guess at the dev logic.

201 to 250 of 259 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Being a new thread to discuss problems with UNC and Other controversial Problems All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.