Stand and Deliver Discussion

[Bluddwolf]

Stephen Cheney wrote:

Not to spoiler the hostility blog that's sure to turn up pretty soon, but I think we've covered this previously in various places so I'll summarize.

"Hostile" is the catchall state for "if you attack this target, you won't lose rep or alignment." You'll see the target's name as red when Hostile.

Lots of things can make you see someone as Hostile. There are three major groups of ways:
[list]

You have reciprocal hostility, where you see them as Hostile and they see you as Hostile. This is most common if your settlements are at war, your companies are feuding, or you're both "For the Cause" in opposing factions.

Stephen,

Is it possible to gain other flags (ie Criminal) versus Feud, War or Faction targets?

[Urman]

Valid question, maybe for the hostility blog. If you attack a feud target outright, you shouldn't expect to gain the Attacker flag because it's a hostile target. But if you use a blind and S&D to scan your feud target for loot - is that's a criminal act by itself? Or it not even possible to S&D a feud target? Likewise, if you steal loot from a factional enemy's kill (not your own husk, but someone else's), is that just globally criminal as well?

[Nevy]

Bluddwolf wrote:

Stephen Cheney wrote:

Not to spoiler the hostility blog that's sure to turn up pretty soon, but I think we've covered this previously in various places so I'll summarize.

"Hostile" is the catchall state for "if you attack this target, you won't lose rep or alignment." You'll see the target's name as red when Hostile.

Lots of things can make you see someone as Hostile. There are three major groups of ways:
[list]

You have reciprocal hostility, where you see them as Hostile and they see you as Hostile. This is most common if your settlements are at war, your companies are feuding, or you're both "For the Cause" in opposing factions.

Stephen,

Is it possible to gain other flags (ie Criminal) versus Feud, War or Faction targets?

Let's compare the flagging system of Pathfinder Online to that of an older sandbox MMO: Ultima Online. In Ultima Online the "criminal" flag trumped the "feud/at war" flag. So, if my guild was at war with another, they would normally see the name above my head colored orange (orange represented an enemy of war), but if I had committed a crime my name would be appear gray instead (criminally flagged). I'm assuming that's how it will work in Pathfinder Online but of course I'm not certain.

[Bluddwolf]

@ Nevy,

If I understand your meaning, then if a SAD were committed versus a war or feud target, the criminal flag should still apply?

If that were the case the SAD would never be used against a war or feud target, even as a gesture of mercy. It would only invite 3rd party attacks against the user, who could not otherwise attack freely either side of a feud or war.

You keep on making the case for the use of low rep alts, whether you understand that or not.

[Bringslite]

A and B are at feud. For some reason A S&Ds B. C comes along and is neutral to both. Does C perceive A as criminal?

I wonder if the corner case that A would S&D B, and not appear criminal, is worth the programming?

[Nevy]

Bluddwolf wrote:

@ Nevy,

If I understand your meaning, then if a SAD were committed versus a war or feud target, the criminal flag should still apply?

If that were the case the SAD would never be used against a war or feud target, even as a gesture of mercy. It would only invite 3rd party attacks against the user, who could not otherwise attack freely either side of a feud or war.

You keep on making the case for the use of low rep alts, whether you understand that or not.

No, that's not at all what I was trying to convey, I apologize for the confusion. If you are at war with someone you should be able to kill and/or steal from them freely without worry of reputation loss or becoming criminally flagged; they are an enemy.

The point of my post you replied to was: If you and I are at war, but I go and loot an innocent player's body, I don't think I'd appear to you as "an enemy of war" rather I would appear as a "criminal" to not only you, but to any onlooker until my criminal flag expired. After the criminal flag expired, you would again see me as an enemy of war. Thus the criminal flag trumps the feuded (at war) flag. Does that make more sense?

[Nevy]

Bringslite wrote:

A and B are at feud. For some reason A S&Ds B. C comes along and is neutral to both. Does C perceive A as criminal?

I wonder if the corner case that A would S&D B, and not appear criminal, is worth the programming?

I don't see why A would ever S&D B (I see what you did there, hehe) because A could kill B without any reputation loss or criminal flag + get more loot. But for conversations sake, if A did S&D B, A should definitely not (in my opinion) become criminally flagged.

[Cirolle]

Bluddwolf wrote:

@ Nevy,

If I understand your meaning, then if a SAD were committed versus a war or feud target, the criminal flag should still apply?

If that were the case the SAD would never be used against a war or feud target, even as a gesture of mercy. It would only invite 3rd party attacks against the user, who could not otherwise attack freely either side of a feud or war.

You keep on making the case for the use of low rep alts, whether you understand that or not.

In war there is no mercy.

But seriously, why would you S&D someone you are in a feud or at war with?
The only reason you would S&D to begin with, is to keep your rep.

[Nevy]

Cirolle wrote:

Bluddwolf wrote:

@ Nevy,

If I understand your meaning, then if a SAD were committed versus a war or feud target, the criminal flag should still apply?

If that were the case the SAD would never be used against a war or feud target, even as a gesture of mercy. It would only invite 3rd party attacks against the user, who could not otherwise attack freely either side of a feud or war.

You keep on making the case for the use of low rep alts, whether you understand that or not.

In war there is no mercy.

But seriously, why would you S&D someone you are in a feud or at war with?
The only reason you would S&D to begin with, is to keep your rep.

I beat you to this. ;)

[Bringslite]

Nevy wrote:

Bringslite wrote:

A and B are at feud. For some reason A S&Ds B. C comes along and is neutral to both. Does C perceive A as criminal?

I wonder if the corner case that A would S&D B, and not appear criminal, is worth the programming?

I don't see why A would ever S&D B (I see what you did there, hehe) because A could kill B without any reputation loss or criminal flag + get more loot. But for conversations sake, if A did S&D B, A should definitely not (in my opinion) become criminally flagged.

I think that I agree that it should not spring "criminal" in that case. It is a mutually "hostile" state to begin with. If one could S&D the other, it leaves more room for interesting levels of interaction.

I hope that they have the time for such things. ;)

Edit: Ninja, ninja!

[Urman]

Cirolle wrote:

In war there is no mercy.

But seriously, why would you S&D someone you are in a feud or at war with?
The only reason you would S&D to begin with, is to keep your rep.

But in war there are crimes.

One might use S&D to spam a target's UI, or to confuse them. The follow-up question might be - if you S&D a feud target, and they pay you off, and then you attack them, do you take a rep hit?

[Bluddwolf]

@ Nevy,

So, unlike in Ultima Online, the Feud, War Faction target status would trump the criminal flag. I believe you stated it the other way around, or that is how I took it.

I also agree, and I have said it before, there is very little or no reason to SAD a sanctioned target (for mechanical reasons)but that is not to say it won't happen.

There is of course the risk that it could be abused, but then again, every system can be abused in some way.

On some of the other comments and issue that have been brought up, I can see the universal criminal flag not becoming the beacon of invited interference that some of us might think it will be (including myself). But, that will take some meta game reputation and actions by a collection of criminal entities to help shape the culture.

[Bringslite]

Urman wrote:

Cirolle wrote:

In war there is no mercy.

But seriously, why would you S&D someone you are in a feud or at war with?
The only reason you would S&D to begin with, is to keep your rep.

But in war there are crimes.

One might use S&D to spam a target's UI, or to confuse them. The follow-up question might be - if you S&D a feud target, and they pay you off, and then you attack them, do you take a rep hit?

Good question. As is the concept of using the "blind" for war instead of S&D.

[Bluddwolf]

Urman wrote:

Cirolle wrote:

In war there is no mercy.

But seriously, why would you S&D someone you are in a feud or at war with?
The only reason you would S&D to begin with, is to keep your rep.

But in war there are crimes.

One might use S&D to spam a target's UI, or to confuse them. The follow-up question might be - if you S&D a feud target, and they pay you off, and then you attack them, do you take a rep hit?

I would say that if the first group of bandits SAD'd the traveler, and the traveler paid, then yes... if the bandits attack, they should lose double rep.

However, another group of the same company is also in the same feud / war and would be free to either attack or SAD again, without reputation loss.

If the two groups of bandits, in the same company, are unlinked for mutual defense, they are unlinked for SADs and Attacks.

@ Bringslite,

I did not get the impression that "Blinds" would only be useful for SADs, but ambushes as well.

[Tuffon]

So if I am in a group with someone that is feuding with another character. I dont think I would actually see that character as hostile. If a fight breaks out I guess I would see the hostile flag then but just looking at it from first contact I wouldn't think my group status lets all flags from all the other members transfer to me.

Just thinking of a situation where you could S&D a character involed in faction or feud hostile states. Not everyone in a group has to have the same fueds or factions. Which I think is why the S&D mechanism is going to sit on top of the feud and faction flags..

[Bringslite]

Bluddwolf wrote:

@ Bringslite,

I did not get the impression that "Blinds" would only be useful for SADs, but ambushes as well.

As did I. Even if "blind" only works vs. fast travel and on roads, it is still a considerable power. The ability to hamper, halt or affect your opponent's movement is pretty significant.

[Bluddwolf]

Bringslite wrote:

Bluddwolf wrote:

@ Bringslite,

I did not get the impression that "Blinds" would only be useful for SADs, but ambushes as well.

As did I. Even if "blind" only works vs. fast travel and on roads, it is still a considerable power. The ability to hamper, halt or affect your opponent's movement is pretty significant.

Yes it is powerful, but no more so than fast travel, and possibly even less so than fast travel.

[Urman]

Bringslite wrote:

As did I. Even if "blind" only works vs. fast travel and on roads, it is still a considerable power. The ability to hamper, halt or affect your opponent's movement is pretty significant.

I'm thinking that once we have stables and fast travel, my juvenile delinquent character might be placing blinds just to de-horse people, while my dude sits back and laughs. Yeah, I might get killed for it sometimes, but you should see the looks on their faces when they hit the blind.

[Gedichtewicht]

For everyones amusement, whenever i read S&D i have to think of this fine example, Enjoy

[Bluddwolf]

Gedichtewicht wrote:

For everyones amusement, whenever i read S&D i have to think of this fine example, Enjoy

That us a fine contribution, thanks!

[Bluddwolf]

Here is a pretty professional SAD in action:

DayZ Highway Robbery

[Harneloot]

Did not read the whole thread, but did read the whole first page...i am going to suggest something that may not be plausible with my limited understanding of MMOs but here goes...

Maybe this was suggested before, and if so, I apologize for the repetition. bit what if a target of SAD for 100k gp got to reply with a counter offer of say 10K? Then the bandit could agree to the lesser sum, ignore and attack or ignore and leave? Admittedly i do no have a full understanding of how this game will work, or of MMOs in general but this might allow a merchant who did not want to fund mercenaries to protect his caravan, or a single group secretly carrying something very valuable, to escape a possibly dangerous situation while at the same time making banditry a viable option?

[Bringslite]

@ Harneloot

There will be something like what you describe. From the first page of the thread, search "Stephen Cheney" for some great Developer posts in there about SAD.

[Urman]

@Harneloot, echoing Bringslight: if you have time to read just one more post, read this one by developer Stephen Cheney.

It's got a system where the target can propose a new deal, but the bandit can insist on the old demand.

[Harneloot]

Excellent - thanks for the redirection and not blasting the newbie :)

[Bringslite]

Harneloot wrote:

Excellent - thanks for the redirection and not blasting the newbie :)

Most welcome! We like new faces around here and discussion. We are not always patient or friendly, but we try hard in general and are more friendly than some forums. :)

[Jiminy]

Cirolle wrote:

Bluddwolf wrote:

@ Nevy,

If I understand your meaning, then if a SAD were committed versus a war or feud target, the criminal flag should still apply?

If that were the case the SAD would never be used against a war or feud target, even as a gesture of mercy. It would only invite 3rd party attacks against the user, who could not otherwise attack freely either side of a feud or war.

You keep on making the case for the use of low rep alts, whether you understand that or not.

In war there is no mercy.

But seriously, why would you S&D someone you are in a feud or at war with?
The only reason you would S&D to begin with, is to keep your rep.

Some bandits will not be combat oriented, but they will be PvP oriented. That is, they may hold extensive skills in creating and maintaining blinds, issuing SADs, have high appraise, stealth, sleight of hand, perception and survival skills but only rudimentary combat related skills. Effectively, they're the 'face' of the bandit party and contribute the majority of skills to hiding and springing the SAD on victims.

Being able to issue a SAD during wars or feuds is vital to these types of characters - otherwise their input to the effort is minimised. Taking goods from the enemy is just as vital as killing the enemy. Wars are often won via economics and/or logistics. This is where bandits come into the mix.

[Cirolle]

Jiminy wrote:

Cirolle wrote:

Bluddwolf wrote:

@ Nevy,

If I understand your meaning, then if a SAD were committed versus a war or feud target, the criminal flag should still apply?

If that were the case the SAD would never be used against a war or feud target, even as a gesture of mercy. It would only invite 3rd party attacks against the user, who could not otherwise attack freely either side of a feud or war.

You keep on making the case for the use of low rep alts, whether you understand that or not.

In war there is no mercy.

But seriously, why would you S&D someone you are in a feud or at war with?
The only reason you would S&D to begin with, is to keep your rep.

Some bandits will not be combat oriented, but they will be PvP oriented. That is, they may hold extensive skills in creating and maintaining blinds, issuing SADs, have high appraise, stealth, sleight of hand, perception and survival skills but only rudimentary combat related skills. Effectively, they're the 'face' of the bandit party and contribute the majority of skills to hiding and springing the SAD on victims.

Being able to issue a SAD during wars or feuds is vital to these types of characters - otherwise their input to the effort is minimised. Taking goods from the enemy is just as vital as killing the enemy. Wars are often won via economics and/or logistics. This is where bandits come into the mix.

Sounds made up

[Urman]

During times of war and feud, many characters who are not specialized in PvP-combat will be challenged to fully use their skills and abilities. Do we need to have special rules for how crafters and gatherers and street musicians can still make use of their skills?

In his explanation of how S&D would work, Stephen Cheney said: The target gets the Fleeced flag for the next X minutes (20 might be too long; basically just needs to be long enough to get out of the hex in most cases). While this flag is going, he's immune to further S&D inspection and ANY Attackers take double rep loss.

It doesn't matter whether or not the next robber is connected to the first robber: once the target has the Fleeced flag he is immune to further S&D inspection (and inspection precedes the actual demand, so immune from S&D). I haven't seen any compelling reasoning why this should change during a feud.

I think the target should be attackable by others who see him as hostile; if he gets a Criminal flag or is in a feud, etc., the Fleeced flag shouldn't immunize him from all PvP. But if one member of a feuding company does S&D him, the target should be protected from all members of that company for the duration of the Fleeced flag. If the leadership of the feuding company has a problem with it, they can take it up with the people who did the S&D and gave the traveler immunity.

[Being]

Zetesofos wrote:

As a follow up to my previous post, I also wanted to mention the potential options for coding - while I'm not sure how many flags and status GW wants to put in front of player - I think the SAD flags of: Negotiating, Aggressor, Defendant, and Interloper will be needed.

I'm not following why you believe that the 'interloper' flag should give negative values. If You mug an old lady of her purse and I trip you, you want to argue my tripping you was bad because I interfered in your 'benefiting' the little old lady?

[Bluddwolf]

Urman wrote:

But if one member of a feuding company does S&D him, the target should be protected from all members of that company for the duration of the Fleeced flag. If the leadership of the feuding company has a problem with it, they can take it up with the people who did the S&D and gave the traveler immunity.

The SAD or attack ammunity of the Fleeced status only applies to the original group of 6 or fewer bandits that issued the SAD demand, and not to their entire company.

Either the 6 original are connected to their entire company or they are not. When I argued that, if attacked by a third party the entire bandit company should see them as hostile, that idea was shot down, on the grounds that only the original 6 were attacked as criminals.

However here you would have the original 6 connected to their entire company, when it comes to the Fleeced status.

Which should it be, connected or not connected?

[Being]

I thought your bandits were going to be unaffiliated??

[Urman]

Bluddwolf wrote:

The SAD or attack ammunity of the Fleeced status only applies to the original group of 6 or fewer bandits that issued the SAD demand, and not to their entire company.

Either the 6 original are connected to their entire company or they are not. When I argued that, if attacked by a third party the entire bandit company should see them as hostile, that idea was shot down, on the grounds that only the original 6 were attacked as criminals.

However here you would have the original 6 connected to their entire company, when it comes to the Fleeced status.

Which should it be, connected or not connected?

Regarding the bolded part: I don't know if you missed this section of Cheney's piece. For the record:

Stephen Cheney wrote:

If the target accepts at any point, the currently selected items are traded to the bandit (might want to set a max range on this). The target gets the Fleeced flag for the next X minutes (20 might be too long; basically just needs to be long enough to get out of the hex in most cases). While this flag is going, he's immune to further S&D inspection and ANY Attackers take double rep loss.

Fleeced isn't based on connections. It has nothing to do with connections. If a bandit from Company A S&Ds the target, a bandit from Company B cannot attack or S&D the target while the target is Fleeced. Neither can a bandit from Company A. Nor can the Queen of Sheba, nor can anyone else. The target, while Fleeced, is immune to further S&D inspection and ANY Attackers take double rep loss.

I think there should be some compromise on the attacker part. I think Fleeced targets should still be exposed to attacks from feud/war/faction enemies. I don't particularly think they should be exposed to S&D from feud/war/faction enemies, but if they are, then they should also gain immunity from further attacks and S&Ds once they are Fleeced.

[Bringslite]

Urman wrote:

Bluddwolf wrote:

The SAD or attack ammunity of the Fleeced status only applies to the original group of 6 or fewer bandits that issued the SAD demand, and not to their entire company.

Either the 6 original are connected to their entire company or they are not. When I argued that, if attacked by a third party the entire bandit company should see them as hostile, that idea was shot down, on the grounds that only the original 6 were attacked as criminals.

However here you would have the original 6 connected to their entire company, when it comes to the Fleeced status.

Which should it be, connected or not connected?

Regarding the bolded part: I don't know if you missed this section of Cheney's piece. For the record:

Stephen Cheney wrote:

If the target accepts at any point, the currently selected items are traded to the bandit (might want to set a max range on this). The target gets the Fleeced flag for the next X minutes (20 might be too long; basically just needs to be long enough to get out of the hex in most cases). While this flag is going, he's immune to further S&D inspection and ANY Attackers take double rep loss.

Fleeced isn't based on connections. It has nothing to do with connections. If a bandit from Company A S&Ds the target, a bandit from Company B cannot attack or S&D the target while the target is Fleeced. Neither can a bandit from Company A. Nor can the Queen of Sheba, nor can anyone else. The target, while Fleeced, is immune to further S&D inspection and ANY Attackers take double rep loss.

I think there should be some compromise on the attacker part. I think Fleeced targets should still be exposed to attacks from feud/war/faction enemies. I don't particularly think they should be exposed to S&D from feud/war/faction enemies, but if they are, then they should also gain immunity from further attacks and S&Ds once they are Fleeced.

Adding to Urman's ninja post...

I don't think that a 3rd party "jumping in" vs. criminal flagged should appear "hostile" to any save the original criminals. I think that any 4th party (jumping in to aid the criminals) should earn a criminal flag.

If you want to be there and have agency, be involved from the start. The less ways around consequences, the better...

Call me crazy, but don't call me late for EE.

[Zetesofos]

Being wrote:

Zetesofos wrote:

As a follow up to my previous post, I also wanted to mention the potential options for coding - while I'm not sure how many flags and status GW wants to put in front of player - I think the SAD flags of: Negotiating, Aggressor, Defendant, and Interloper will be needed.

I'm not following why you believe that the 'interloper' flag should give negative values. If You mug an old lady of her purse and I trip you, you want to argue my tripping you was bad because I interfered in your 'benefiting' the little old lady?

A misunderstanding. In your example, we have quite a clear idea of who is right and wrong. However, in the game world - it will not be immediately obvious who is the bandit and who is not. More importantly, your example precludes the idea of someone else technically unaffiliated with either side just 'happening' on the scene when in reality they are coordinating with each other beyond the scope the game recognizes (external voice chat).

If you wish to help those in need, there should be no issue declaring that you are on someone's side (preferably through an easy mechanism to declare and flag yourself a defendant).

Having the interloper flag is designed to prevent 3rd parties from either intentionally or unintentionally letting one party of a SAD from gaining the benefits without the downsides.

[DeciusBrutus]

Consider a "assist" function, which allows a character to gain all of the PvP flags of a target, along with all of the penalties that the target got as a result of getting those flags (but none of the penalty reductions that might have applied before the assistance was offered).

Would that be sufficient for every case in discussion? The edge case where a lone bandit issues a SAD with the intention if it being rejected so that the ones waiting in the wings could Assist him for free would be covered by not giving the Assisting characters the Rep loss reduction that the rejected SAD applies toward the lone character, unless they were Assisting when the SAD was issued (giving them all the Criminal flag and Reputation change at the time the SAD is issued. )

You shouldn't be able to help for free in all cases, but you should be able to help for no more than the base cost that the person or group you are helping paid.

[Forencith]

If some character/party from an enemy faction was robbed 15 minutes before they run into me and mine, I should be able to attack them with the faction/feud system. We are afterall, at war and their previous engagements, intentional or not, are no concern of mine.

The key operand was "double rep loss"...since the normal rep loss for such an encounter was zero, due to us being in a legitimate war...zero times two is still zero.

So, in a sense, since the outcomes are indistinguishable, feud and faction conflict does trump being fleeced.

[Urman]

I agree, Forencith, unless a member of your own faction took goods from them in exchange for safe passage. In which case, all of the dishonor of attacking them should fall on your shoulders.

If S&Ding enemies is a one-sided transaction, where one side gives up goods and the other side or his close allies on teamspeak can then just fall on the target... might as well leave it out; it adds nothing good to the game.

[Bluddwolf]

Bringslite wrote:

I don't think that a 3rd party "jumping in" vs. criminal flagged should appear "hostile" to any save the original criminals. I think that any 4th party (jumping in to aid the criminals) should earn a criminal flag.

If you want to be there and have agency, be involved from the start. The less ways around consequences, the better...

Call me crazy, but don't call me late for EE.

The problem is, they can't be involved from the start. I am waiting to see the response when I place a bounty or an assassination contract on a member of a company, and none of that character's company mates can jump to his aid without taking a reputation hit.

[Harneloot]

I kind of like the idea of the fleeced flag trumping the feuding flag so that the group that got fleeced is protected from being attacked by everyone (with the double rep hit) including other members of the company that fleeced them. Being part of a larger faction means you should be connected to the larger faction and see the appropriate *flag* when someone attacks any member of the faction or someone in the faction attacks someone else. I think this would help make groups more accountable to the larger faction. Or maybe this should only apply to lawful factions?

(not entirely sure what flags are, but it seems like a graphical marker that you see above people in game that gives you info about them?)

[Bringslite]

Bluddwolf wrote:

Bringslite wrote:

I don't think that a 3rd party "jumping in" vs. criminal flagged should appear "hostile" to any save the original criminals. I think that any 4th party (jumping in to aid the criminals) should earn a criminal flag.

If you want to be there and have agency, be involved from the start. The less ways around consequences, the better...

Call me crazy, but don't call me late for EE.

The problem is, they can't be involved from the start. I am waiting to see the response when I place a bounty or an assassination contract on a member of a company, and none of that character's company mates can jump to his aid without taking a reputation hit.

I believe that Stephen remarked that they were looking into that and a few other things. Let's have some faith. "Thick as Thieves" came from a day or so of consideration. You must know that they will make it fair and fun. Hang in there. :)

[Jiminy]

Urman wrote:

During times of war and feud, many characters who are not specialized in PvP-combat will be challenged to fully use their skills and abilities. Do we need to have special rules for how crafters and gatherers and street musicians can still make use of their skills?

The difference is, bandits are PvP oriented - but not necessarily skilled in combat. Removing the ability for them to SAD their 'enemy' removes their ability to participate in non-combat PvP and it will also mean the easy solution to pesky bandits is to feud them. Their SAD skills are no longer able to be applied to the feuding company.

I also suspect some merchants will be PvP oriented (market/economic warfare), as will some roleplaying types/politicians/settlement managers, all who will likely not be combat trained. Would anyone advocate that they cannot ply their trade during feuds or wars?

[DeciusBrutus]

Jiminy wrote:

Urman wrote:

During times of war and feud, many characters who are not specialized in PvP-combat will be challenged to fully use their skills and abilities. Do we need to have special rules for how crafters and gatherers and street musicians can still make use of their skills?

The difference is, bandits are PvP oriented - but not necessarily skilled in combat. Removing the ability for them to SAD their 'enemy' removes their ability to participate in non-combat PvP and it will also mean the easy solution to pesky bandits is to feud them. Their SAD skills are no longer able to be applied to the feuding company.

I also suspect some merchants will be PvP oriented (market/economic warfare), as will some roleplaying types/politicians/settlement managers, all who will likely not be combat trained. Would anyone advocate that they cannot ply their trade during feuds or wars?

...

Yes. I would argue that during a time of war, a settlement should be able to seize any goods stored within their control if they are owned by a member of a belligerent state, and they should be able to prohibit merchants who are members of the enemy settlement from using their market, even if they don't have to be physically present to do so.

That said, the bandits can continue to bandit just like they did before, even if they no longer suffer a Reputation penalty for double-dipping.

[Lam]

DeciusBrutus wrote:

Consider a "assist" function, which allows a character to gain all of the PvP flags of a target, along with all of the penalties that the target got as a result of getting those flags (but none of the penalty reductions that might have applied before the assistance was offered).

Would that be sufficient for every case in discussion? The edge case where a lone bandit issues a SAD with the intention if it being rejected so that the ones waiting in the wings could Assist him for free would be covered by not giving the Assisting characters the Rep loss reduction that the rejected SAD applies toward the lone character, unless they were Assisting when the SAD was issued (giving them all the Criminal flag and Reputation change at the time the SAD is issued. )

You shouldn't be able to help for free in all cases, but you should be able to help for no more than the base cost that the person or group you are helping paid.

This seems so easy to abuse. SIngle character performs SAD for huge pay off; is turned down; combat ensues; and 24 "friends' step out of shadows for rep-less ganking.

[Forencith]

Urman wrote:

I agree, Forencith, unless a member of your own faction took goods from them in exchange for safe passage. In which case, all of the dishonor of attacking them should fall on your shoulders.

In which case it would be an escort contract and I would take the Rep hit for killing members of my own faction who were conducting the escort. I do not think there is anything intrinsic to SAD that signifies safe passage from anyone except the bandit (and crew) who SAD'd you. That is how it was originally set up, I really do not see how they will get past the potential for abuse, the 2 pence SAD prior to traveling...so I expect it to either return or become something new.

[DeciusBrutus]

Lam wrote:

DeciusBrutus wrote:

Consider a "assist" function, which allows a character to gain all of the PvP flags of a target, along with all of the penalties that the target got as a result of getting those flags (but none of the penalty reductions that might have applied before the assistance was offered).

Would that be sufficient for every case in discussion? The edge case where a lone bandit issues a SAD with the intention if it being rejected so that the ones waiting in the wings could Assist him for free would be covered by not giving the Assisting characters the Rep loss reduction that the rejected SAD applies toward the lone character, unless they were Assisting when the SAD was issued (giving them all the Criminal flag and Reputation change at the time the SAD is issued. )

You shouldn't be able to help for free in all cases, but you should be able to help for no more than the base cost that the person or group you are helping paid.

This seems so easy to abuse. SIngle character performs SAD for huge pay off; is turned down; combat ensues; and 24 "friends' step out of shadows for rep-less ganking.

The rep-less part is one of the reductions that I was specifically including. In fact, it's the single case that that line was intended to cover.

[Xeen]

I see no real benefit to using SAD (now). The only real incentive for using this mechanic was a Rep bonus... With the drawback of a criminal flag, giving the victim time to alert others, and for a smaller profit.

Now there is only the drawbacks with no rep bonus. You just dont lose rep.

May as well just gank for 75%, and take the hit.

We lose rep for being known as a killer. We should also gain rep for letting someone go after robbing them... Sure we will be known as a bandit, but a bandit who stands by his word. That is something that gains you reputation. That is something that is talked about by the commoners.

[Nihimon]

Bluddwolf wrote:

Urman wrote:

... if you S&D a feud target, and they pay you off, and then you attack them, do you take a rep hit?

I would say that if the first group of bandits SAD'd the traveler, and the traveler paid, then yes... if the bandits attack, they should lose double rep.

You don't lose Reputation for attacking a target you have a Feud with. Nothing doubled is still nothing. It seems reasonable to me that attacking a Feud target, even after a successful S&D, would still result in no Rep loss.

Still, a good question.

[Bluddwolf]

@ Xeen

I agree, there is very limited usefulness in the SAD as it is currently described.

It is all dependent on other factors that we don't have detail on.

1. How will the Feud System work, and all of its sub questions?

2. How much reputation will actually be lost, on average?

3. What will be the real impact of low reputation?

4. How quickly can one recover reputation?

I'm sure there will be dozens if not more tweaks made to every one of these systems to try to strike a balance.

Bandits will not be an unstoppable force preying upon everything that walks or crawls. Merchants won't be safe with any amount of regularity to the point that there is an over abundance of raw materials or finished goods flooding the markets.

I fully expect that banditry will be a very popular form of mercenary work.

Which leads to the other system we have very little to no information on , the Contract System.

[Pax Shane Gifford]

Interesting how SAD is simultaneously useless to those who want to use it and overpowered to those who don't even plan on playing characters that would be frequently SAD'ed... I suppose that's the internet, however.