Goblin Squad Member
|
Also - If the pre-fleecer can be attacked as soon as he issues his S&D, it can be canceled, but he's still has a Criminal flag. So pre-fleecer issues S&D and flags Criminal; is engaged by bandit party 1 which cancels S&D process; bandit party 2 now S&Ds traveler.
I expect bandits will track known pre-fleecers with as much care as travelers track known bandits.
Enter the 'good' bandits!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Agreed that it might not seem a huge deterrent, Forencith. But if the Fleeced flag last long enough for the traveler to get from one hex to the next, then the traveler need to pre-position all of those characters all along the route of march - instead of doing something useful.
Oh - can't they just travel with the caravan? Well, up to the point that they do their first S&D. Then the pre-fleece alt is flagged Criminal and dies to the watching bandits that "rescue" the caravan. He respawns somewhere else and is no longer available to S&D the caravan when needed - nor is anyone he was partying with, because the bandits killed them as well during the rescue.
oh - I'll just travel with 1 alt for every hex of my journey... At some point, you may as well hire guards.
And if you're travelling with something really valuable, so it's worthwhile to spend a lot of effort to do this pre-fleecing? This is the fun part: the bandits attack you anyway, perhaps with alts, and they suck up the double reputation hit, and they kill you and your party mates, and ride off with that valuable treasure.
Pre-fleecing doesn't make the traveler 100% safe.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Agreed that it might not seem a huge deterrent, Forencith. But if the Fleeced flag last long enough for the traveler to get from one hex to the next, then the traveler need to pre-position all of those characters all along the route of march - instead of doing something useful.
Or just log them out after SAD'ing. Since you only logged them in to SAD to begin with..and if some bystander kills them? So what, the intent was to log them out anyways. Also, we know there will only be specific locations at which fast travel can be initiated...so deciding where to post your SAD'ing alt is not a difficult choice.
As for their location being an inconvenience, you cannot tell me spawn bind points and fast travel points will not be near each other...probably conveniently just outside town. Probably a town owned by the social group in question...who have in fact made killing anyone a criminal offense in their town (so anyone who jumps in as a vigilante is also branded criminal). The social group kills the interloper, runs their alt back over to the fast travel initiation point, and SADs. The caravan is now fleeced, decreasing the likelihood that other bandits will find them worth stopping...or, if this becomes common, does not effect a bandits choice because everyone is doing it...hence nullifying the desired emergent system that the SAD is suppose to create to begin with.
Oh - can't they just travel with the caravan? Well, up to the point that they do their first S&D. Then the pre-fleece alt is flagged Criminal and dies to the watching bandits that "rescue" the caravan. He respawns somewhere else and is no longer available to S&D the caravan when needed - nor is anyone he was partying with, because the bandits killed them as well during the rescue.
oh - I'll just travel with 1 alt for every hex of my journey... At some point, you may as well hire guards.
And if you're travelling with something really valuable, so it's worthwhile to spend a lot of effort to do this pre-fleecing? This is the fun part: the bandits attack you anyway, perhaps with alts, and they suck up the double reputation hit, and they kill you and your party mates, and ride off with that valuable treasure.
Pre-fleecing doesn't make the traveler 100% safe.
In fact, lets simplify this, why even have an alt. Why not be a 'bandit' that sits at the fast travel initiation points and offers in chat to SAD for 10g? Merchant accepts, gets the fleeced BUFF, bandit looses nothing...even though flagged criminal...because everyone knows he is really just sitting there offering a service. If it is possible, it will be common. Besides, we all know how much non-PvPers enjoy initiating PvP on some near naked guy sitting there AFK, criminal flag or not.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know that people are way too intrigued and fascinated by S&D now to turn back. I do still wish that there were enough ways for bandits to get what they want without breaking the regular rules of engagement (consequences vs. the unflagged). Enough targets that the entire complicated system wouldn't be needed.
Dream on!
I've said it in other posts in this thread, but I see SAD as a necessary PvP mechanic similar to feuds and wars, just at a smaller social group level.
Basically, in increasing social group size:
SAD allows for party level PvP
Feuds allow for company level PvP
Wars allows for settlement level PvPSAD is needed in the game to allow for the small scale PvP interaction, and 'banditry' is the most logical way to introduce that mechanic into the game.
I do a lot of disagreeing on this particular thread, I'm starting to think it's me. But alas, I just don't agree that SADs are needed in PO specifically for small-scale PvP. What is preventing small groups of enemy guilds from having skirmishes? How about adventuring parties running into a group of feuded enemies?
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all for S&D and I hope to see it implemented yet I don't think it is necessary for the survival of small-scale PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do a lot of disagreeing on this particular thread, I'm starting to think it's me. But alas, I just don't agree that SADs are needed in PO specifically for small-scale PvP. What is preventing small groups of enemy guilds from having skirmishes? How about adventuring parties running into a group of feuded enemies?
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all for S&D and I hope to see it implemented yet I don't think it is necessary for the survival of small-scale PvP.
Because faction conflict, feuds and wars are about killing your enemy. SAD is not necessarily that.
I see it as adding a level of decision making to merchants and gatherers. That is, do they pay, do they run or do they fight? If you're character is not combat oriented, the first two options at least offer you some hope. Even the third can if you bring some friends along.
Open war removes that decision process and turns the game (for those characters involved) into a simple red v blue.
This is also why, upthread, I advocate for SAD to still work during wars/feuds etc. Adding more decisions and options into PvP gameplay (or any gameplay) is far more exciting and flavorsome.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Small scale PVP is faction PVP. You can't expect S&D to be the "go to" for party lvl PVP.
If merchant / caravans are required to be in a merchant faction as Stephen previously suggested, and bandits are in our own faction, then that would seem to solve a lot of it.
I have suggested it earlier, make the use of caravans a faction skill that requires the PVP level (4+) of that faction. The same for the SAD. Then make Marshals / Guards a third faction dependent role.
With that all of this complexity and worry about gaming and loopholes, etc... goes away. Bandits hunt Caravans. Caravans hire Marshal / Guards. Marshal / Guards protect or hunt bandits. Caravans evade bandits.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Small scale PVP is faction PVP. You can't expect S&D to be the "go to" for party lvl PVP.
If merchant / caravans are required to be in a merchant faction as Stephen previously suggested, and bandits are in our own faction, then that would seem to solve a lot of it.
I have suggested it earlier, make the use of caravans a faction skill that requires the PVP level (4+) of that faction. The same for the SAD. Then make Marshals / Guards a third faction dependent role.
With that all of this complexity and worry about gaming and loopholes, etc... goes away. Bandits hunt Caravans. Caravans hire Marshal / Guards. Marshal / Guards protect or hunt bandits. Caravans evade bandits.
Let's be honest here, the only reason you want this is so you can kill merchants freely with no consequence. Lol, c'mon Bluddwolf, let's not be so transparent my friend. :P
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Let's be honest here, the only reason you want this is so you can kill merchants freely with no consequence. Lol, c'mon Bluddwolf, let's not be so transparent my friend. :PSmall scale PVP is faction PVP. You can't expect S&D to be the "go to" for party lvl PVP.
If merchant / caravans are required to be in a merchant faction as Stephen previously suggested, and bandits are in our own faction, then that would seem to solve a lot of it.
I have suggested it earlier, make the use of caravans a faction skill that requires the PVP level (4+) of that faction. The same for the SAD. Then make Marshals / Guards a third faction dependent role.
With that all of this complexity and worry about gaming and loopholes, etc... goes away. Bandits hunt Caravans. Caravans hire Marshal / Guards. Marshal / Guards protect or hunt bandits. Caravans evade bandits.
Marshals / Guards can kill bandits freely as well, or you just don't see the balance in that?
Nothing says a merchant has to train up to use caravans or join the faction. It's a choice that they make to remain less risky for less reward.
There is only no consequence if the merchant does not hire guards, and we are not at risk.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Small scale PVP is faction PVP. You can't expect S&D to be the "go to" for party lvl PVP.
If merchant / caravans are required to be in a merchant faction as Stephen previously suggested, and bandits are in our own faction, then that would seem to solve a lot of it.
I have suggested it earlier, make the use of caravans a faction skill that requires the PVP level (4+) of that faction. The same for the SAD. Then make Marshals / Guards a third faction dependent role.
With that all of this complexity and worry about gaming and loopholes, etc... goes away. Bandits hunt Caravans. Caravans hire Marshal / Guards. Marshal / Guards protect or hunt bandits. Caravans evade bandits.
That bolded bit - are you saying that SAD would only be usable on factional enemies? So some merchants could just opt out - not join that faction and there-by be immune to SAD?
I think that your hypothetical case probably just makes one set of gaming and loopholes vanish, to be replaced by another set of gaming and loopholes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Small scale PVP is faction PVP. You can't expect S&D to be the "go to" for party lvl PVP.
If merchant / caravans are required to be in a merchant faction as Stephen previously suggested, and bandits are in our own faction, then that would seem to solve a lot of it.
I have suggested it earlier, make the use of caravans a faction skill that requires the PVP level (4+) of that faction. The same for the SAD. Then make Marshals / Guards a third faction dependent role.
With that all of this complexity and worry about gaming and loopholes, etc... goes away. Bandits hunt Caravans. Caravans hire Marshal / Guards. Marshal / Guards protect or hunt bandits. Caravans evade bandits.
For the record, I am fairly certain no one from GW has suggested making any role faction based. I proposed it as a way to solve some of the other questions mentioned earlier.
Please correct me if GW has since suggested it as a possibility.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Small scale PVP is faction PVP. You can't expect S&D to be the "go to" for party lvl PVP.
If merchant / caravans are required to be in a merchant faction as Stephen previously suggested, and bandits are in our own faction, then that would seem to solve a lot of it.
I have suggested it earlier, make the use of caravans a faction skill that requires the PVP level (4+) of that faction. The same for the SAD. Then make Marshals / Guards a third faction dependent role.
With that all of this complexity and worry about gaming and loopholes, etc... goes away. Bandits hunt Caravans. Caravans hire Marshal / Guards. Marshal / Guards protect or hunt bandits. Caravans evade bandits.
For the record, I am fairly certain no one from GW has suggested making any role faction based. I proposed it as a way to solve some of the other questions mentioned earlier.
Please correct me if GW has since suggested it as a possibility.
What I meant by it, is that it is the final avenue (below war and feud) for "sanctioned" (<---bad word) PVP. It is good for smaller groups wandering about that don't have wars or feuds. Unlike those, "faction" is always on past level four affiliation.
I am not so sure that S&D should be considered that way. It is pretty involuntary on one side of the equation. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
About pre-fleecing:
How about during an accepted S&D, not only does the merchant lose the agreed upon merchandise/coin but there is also destruction of cargo/loss of money?
Like, through careless rummaging through the goods, some containers are broken, items destroyed or coin simply "lost".
This could provide some disincentive to pre-fleecing your caravan.
---
If the probability of being S&D-d is very high then it would still make sense to pre-fleece but it seems unlikely that there will be a bandit behind every bush and there are better ways of securing your caravan than a pre-fleece: guards.
So, a coin/item sink connected to a successful S&D as a way of making pre-fleeces less attractive. What do you think?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Forencith,
Here is the Dev quote that brings up the possibility of faction basing the roles or at least some of their more advanced abilities.
I think we're pretty ambivalent about the justice inherent in whether a big group of criminals can defend their buddies without rep consequence from people trying to punish them for their crimes. But I am worried about a degenerate condition where it becomes common practice to organize groups moving goods in a way that results in bandits either having to take a rep hit or stand there and watch a friend get dogpiled by guards... because that naturally leads to "well we're probably going to take a rep hit anyway, let's not even bother with S&D and just eat the hit."
So a potential simple solution is to add the "Thick as Thieves" effect to the Blind, such that attacking any Criminal in the radius of the Blind's fast-travel interdiction automatically marks you Hostile (Temporary) to any other Criminals in the radius. That makes jumping in risky (there could be more than you can see involved in the S&D stealthed/behind a tree), without triggering "I start a fight with six bandits to save the merchants, and then 100 of their friends boil in from around the area."
But that might be a too-specific patch that doesn't manage to address all the permutations, so we're not set on that. Since this is a bigger problem with bigger merchant groups (a couple of gatherers in the woods are unlikely to have an elite guard squadron), it may be something we can account for in the base design of caravans, once we have more idea about how they'll work. It may also be something we can handle by creating a merchant faction with desirable high-rank faction rewards for moving goods (similar to the Traveler flag of old) and an opposed bandit faction.
.
I am not favoring my own post, but rather what Stephen Cheney has proposed here. I am reassured that he sees the picture clearly enough to create a balanced system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Let's be honest here, the only reason you want this is so you can kill merchants freely with no consequence. Lol, c'mon Bluddwolf, let's not be so transparent my friend. :PSmall scale PVP is faction PVP. You can't expect S&D to be the "go to" for party lvl PVP.
If merchant / caravans are required to be in a merchant faction as Stephen previously suggested, and bandits are in our own faction, then that would seem to solve a lot of it.
I have suggested it earlier, make the use of caravans a faction skill that requires the PVP level (4+) of that faction. The same for the SAD. Then make Marshals / Guards a third faction dependent role.
With that all of this complexity and worry about gaming and loopholes, etc... goes away. Bandits hunt Caravans. Caravans hire Marshal / Guards. Marshal / Guards protect or hunt bandits. Caravans evade bandits.
Marshals / Guards can kill bandits freely as well, or you just don't see the balance in that?
Nothing says a merchant has to train up to use caravans or join the faction. It's a choice that they make to remain less risky for less reward.
There is only no consequence if the merchant does not hire guards, and we are not at risk.
Players can kill bandits freely without reputation loss when they commit a crime, and only then. Let's not get it confused and I think that's how it is intended, and in my opinion, should be.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Players can kill bandits freely without reputation loss when they commit a crime, and only then. Let's not get it confused and I think that's how it is, and should be.
Lets also not get it confused and recognize, that Stephen Cheney suggested, a possible solution is to factionalize the roles, in a way going back to the old "Outlaw", "Traveler" and "Enforcer" flags. In the old system all three roles could engage each other without reputation loss while flying those flags.
The players in those roles were encouraged to fly those flags through the use of time based, stacked buffs.
Attaching the use of SADs and Caravans to factions would be a simple way of handling the issues. Yes some may choose to opt out (both travelers and bandits), but they would be trading that safety off for higher abilities.
GW has always said that factions would play a big part in PFO, and I see none more important than those that are directly involved with trade and the player economy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Congratulations, folks, this's now solidly the third-most-posted thread. I honestly can't figure out whether we've learned much or settled anything, and I'm not entirely certain we've advanced the discussion; I can no longer tell what it'd take to accomplish that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm all for debating with you Bluddwolf but I wont continue replying if you don't stay on topic and/or try to twist my words or paint your prior words in different light. Look back at how this conversation began:
If merchant / caravans are required to be in a merchant faction as Stephen previously suggested, and bandits are in our own faction, then that would seem to solve a lot of it.I have suggested it earlier, make the use of caravans a faction skill that requires the PVP level (4+) of that faction. The same for the SAD. Then make Marshals / Guards a third faction dependent role.
With that all of this complexity and worry about gaming and loopholes, etc... goes away. Bandits hunt Caravans. Caravans hire Marshal / Guards. Marshal / Guards protect or hunt bandits. Caravans evade bandits.
Let's be honest here, the only reason you want this is so you can kill merchants freely with no consequence. Lol, c'mon Bluddwolf, let's not be so transparent my friend. :P
Marshals / Guards can kill bandits freely as well, or you just don't see the balance in that?
Nothing says a merchant has to train up to use caravans or join the faction. It's a choice that they make to remain less risky for less reward.
There is only no consequence if the merchant does not hire guards, and we are not at risk.
Players can kill bandits freely without reputation loss when they commit a crime, and only then. Let's not get it confused and I think that's how it is intended, and in my opinion, should be.
This is where it gets weird:
Lets also not get it confused and recognize, that Stephen Cheney suggested, a possible solution is to factionalize the roles, in a way going back to the old "Outlaw", "Traveler" and "Enforcer" flags. In the old system all three roles could engage each other without reputation loss while flying those flags.The players in those roles were encouraged to fly those flags through the use of time based, stacked buffs.
Attaching the use of SADs and Caravans to factions would be a simple way of handling the issues. Yes some may choose to opt out (both travelers and bandits), but they would be trading that safety off for higher abilities.
GW has always said that factions would play a big part in PFO, and I see none more important than those that are directly involved with trade and the player economy.
I was stating how the game has been described to work as of now - not what has been possibly proposed in the faction system. You knew what I was responding to you and yet you chose to then change the subject, I don't approve. You also said Lets also not get it confused and recognize, that Stephen Cheney suggested, a possible solution is to factionalize the roles ... a solution to what? I've said it all along and I will say it again: If you are going to S&D an unflagged, "blue" player you entering into a risk vs. reward situation. I don't think this warrants a solution because it isn't a problem? In fact, it is working as intended.
Now, let's be clear, "Marshals" (as you name it) cannot attack bandits unless they are flagged from committing a criminal action. So can we agree that this quote:
Marshals / Guards can kill bandits freely as well, or you just don't see the balance in that?
is inaccurate and deceptive to onlookers?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Nevy,
If rank 4 in bandit faction makes you a "bandit" and rank 4 in marshal faction makes you a "marshal",
it could be possible for "marshals" to attack "bandits" on sight, no matter if the bandits have a criminal flag or not.
I believe that what Bluddwolf is suggesting is that if S&D and caravans are skills that require faction rank 4 in enemy factions, you don't have to bother with messy flags and special cases since rank 4 in a faction opens up reputation-consequence-free PvP against members of an enemy faction.
Edit: I wouldn't really like to see this system come into effect since I wouldn't want to limit either S&D or caravans to members of particular factions. I do however think that it could "work".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nevy,
If rank 4 in bandit faction makes you a "bandit" and rank 4 in marshal faction makes you a "marshal",
it could be possible for "marshals" to attack "bandits" on sight, no matter if the bandits have a criminal flag or not.I believe that what Bluddwolf is suggesting is that if S&D and caravans are skills that require faction rank 4 in enemy factions, you don't have to bother with messy flags and special cases since rank 4 in a faction opens up reputation-consequence-free PvP against members of an enemy faction.
Edit: I wouldn't really like to see this system come into effect since I wouldn't want to limit either S&D or caravans to members of particular factions. I do however think that it could "work".
Maybe we are getting lost in translation, my use of the term Marshal was intended to mean "a blue, unflagged player that attacks a criminally flagged person." I wasn't referencing a faction system. My point was, bandits cannot be attacked freely and without reputation loss by an attacker unless they are flagged from doing a criminal action.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If rank 4 in bandit faction makes one a "bandit" capable of using S&D, then:
A rank 4 in merchant faction can be attacked by a rank 4 bandit without S&D, with faction warfare. No S&D, no demand, just kill and loot *and* no rep loss.
Oh, but part the way faction warfare works is that someone rank 1-3 can voluntarily flag 'for the cause'. So not only could a rank 4 bandit freely attack and kill a rank 4 merchant, so could a rank 1 bandit.
The rank 1 bandit is *not* freely targetable by faction enemies unless he is flagged 'for the cause'.
And the rank 4 bandit is likewise freely targetable by rank 1-3 rank factional enemies who flag 'for the cause'. I wonder how many bandits would get to rank 4 for the S&D power, and how many will stay rank 1-3 to prey on rich merchants.
I don't see the factional system for banditry as substantially better than the system as currently outlined. S&D has its purpose; limiting S&D to rank 4 bandits (who are permanently flagged to their factional enemies) might almost totally remove it from the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Congratulations, folks, this's now solidly the third-most-posted thread. I honestly can't figure out whether we've learned much or settled anything, and I'm not entirely certain we've advanced the discussion; I can no longer tell what it'd take to accomplish that.
While there is some silliness in this thread, I think it's got a lot of meat in it. A lot of points were raised, chewed up, mulled over, etc., before Cheney came in on page 15 or 16. And his points were mulled up, chewed over, etc. It's a good solid thread; mostly on topic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Congratulations, folks, this's now solidly the third-most-posted thread. I honestly can't figure out whether we've learned much or settled anything, and I'm not entirely certain we've advanced the discussion; I can no longer tell what it'd take to accomplish that.While there is some silliness in this thread, I think it's got a lot of meat in it. A lot of points were raised, chewed up, mulled over, etc., before Cheney came in on page 15 or 16. And his points were mulled up, chewed over, etc. It's a good solid thread; mostly on topic.
Compared to the others of greater length, I would have agree that is true!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Heh, The more that I consider "factioning" things, the more that they start to look like they would need to be nearly as complex as the plain S&D system. The idea starts to intrude into the area of "trainable skills". Whether that would be good or bad, is up for debate. It is an idea that is worthy of chewing on though. IMO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nevy,
If rank 4 in bandit faction makes you a "bandit" and rank 4 in marshal faction makes you a "marshal",
it could be possible for "marshals" to attack "bandits" on sight, no matter if the bandits have a criminal flag or not.I believe that what Bluddwolf is suggesting is that if S&D and caravans are skills that require faction rank 4 in enemy factions, you don't have to bother with messy flags and special cases since rank 4 in a faction opens up reputation-consequence-free PvP against members of an enemy faction.
Edit: I wouldn't really like to see this system come into effect since I wouldn't want to limit either S&D or caravans to members of particular factions. I do however think that it could "work".
Maybe we are getting lost in translation, my use of the term Marshal was intended to mean "a blue, unflagged player that attacks a criminally flagged person." I wasn't referencing a faction system. My point was, bandits cannot be attacked freely and without reputation loss by an attacker unless they are flagged from doing a criminal action.
Yes you are getting lost in translation. The use of "Marshal" first came from Stephen Cheney, although he did not detail the role. What I suggested above is to modifying the old flagging system, and incorporate "Marshals" into that. I was not the first to suggest factionalizing the roles, that too was Stephen Cheney. I do believe that that would be one possible solution.
Now you asked the question, a solution to what?
I personally believe that no one should lose reputation for playing their role. That means that bandits should be able to rob caravans (including ambush), it means enforcers can hunt down bandits and kill them, and it means caravans can haul merchandise or raw materials using any means (slaves as guards, or smuggling) and selling whatever prices the market will bear.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nevy,
If rank 4 in bandit faction makes you a "bandit" and rank 4 in marshal faction makes you a "marshal",
it could be possible for "marshals" to attack "bandits" on sight, no matter if the bandits have a criminal flag or not.I believe that what Bluddwolf is suggesting is that if S&D and caravans are skills that require faction rank 4 in enemy factions, you don't have to bother with messy flags and special cases since rank 4 in a faction opens up reputation-consequence-free PvP against members of an enemy faction.
Edit: I wouldn't really like to see this system come into effect since I wouldn't want to limit either S&D or caravans to members of particular factions. I do however think that it could "work".
Maybe we are getting lost in translation, my use of the term Marshal was intended to mean "a blue, unflagged player that attacks a criminally flagged person." I wasn't referencing a faction system. My point was, bandits cannot be attacked freely and without reputation loss by an attacker unless they are flagged from doing a criminal action.
Yes you are getting lost in translation. The use of "Marshal" first came from Stephen Cheney, although he did not detail the role. What I suggested above is to modifying the old flagging system, and incorporate "Marshals" into that. I was not the first to suggest factionalizing the roles, that too was Stephen Cheney. I do believe that that would be one possible solution.
Now you asked the question, a solution to what?
I personally believe that no one should lose reputation for playing their role. That means that bandits should be able to rob caravans (including ambush), it means enforcers can hunt down bandits and kill them, and it means caravans can haul merchandise or raw materials using any means (slaves as guards, or smuggling) and selling whatever prices the market will bear.
So you're not going to own that your quote was incorrect stating anyone can attack bandits without reputation loss?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So you're not going to own that your quote was incorrect stating anyone can...
"No", because if factionalized as suggested, my statement would not be incorrect based on what we know of factions and based on the old flagging system as Stephen Cheney had suggested.
You have a bit of reading to do, you are coming into this question of SADs a few months late. You also need to read my posts and others in better context because you are confusing various aspects of several systems as they are being brought together as new suggestions (ie Crowd forging).
You also need to trim down some of the quotations because it makes it difficult to respond back to your post with all of those previous quotes imbedded.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So you're not going to own that your quote was incorrect stating anyone can..."No", because if factionalized as suggested, my statement would not be incorrect based on what we know of factions and based on the old flagging system as Stephen Cheney had suggested.
You have a bit of reading to do, you are coming into this question of SADs a few months late. You also need to read my posts and others in better context because you are confusing various aspects of several systems as they are being brought together as new suggestions (ie Crowd forging).
You also need to trim down some of the quotations because it makes it difficult to respond back to your post with all of those previous quotes imbedded.
I'm not confused, you're just delusional. Btw, I purposely listed the quotes like that so you wouldn't get confused and misquote incorrect information as you have done many (many many) times in the past. :-)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If rank 4 in bandit faction makes one a "bandit" capable of using S&D, then:
A rank 4 in merchant faction can be attacked by a rank 4 bandit without S&D, with faction warfare. No S&D, no demand, just kill and loot *and* no rep loss.
Oh, but part the way faction warfare works is that someone rank 1-3 can voluntarily flag 'for the cause'. So not only could a rank 4 bandit freely attack and kill a rank 4 merchant, so could a rank 1 bandit.
The rank 1 bandit is *not* freely targetable by faction enemies unless he is flagged 'for the cause'.
And the rank 4 bandit is likewise freely targetable by rank 1-3
rankfactional enemies who flag 'for the cause'. I wonder how many bandits would get to rank 4 for the S&D power, and how many will stay rank 1-3 to prey on rich merchants.I don't see the factional system for banditry as substantially better than the system as currently outlined. S&D has its purpose; limiting S&D to rank 4 bandits (who are permanently flagged to their factional enemies) might almost totally remove it from the game.
Or it might be used by bandits who for whatever reason (RP or alignment) may not wish to be bloodthirsty b*stards. ;)
But, I would say that it should be more likely to be ambushed by bandits than sad'd by them. Now the only way that will happen, without reputation loss, is to frequently feud with more populated merchant companies or perhaps training companies (which have large populations, although temporary) in order to maximize a target rich population. The other way to add large populations to potential target list is to join the cause of factions, as you suggest.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think one thing that has been overlooked here is the definition of "suck". No matter what Ryan or GW believes will constitute "suck", there will be a group of players who will still perfectly enjoy the game at that level of "suck". Bottom line, it won't suck for them.
The game's design is a mathematic model. Behavior will have consequences in that model. If a player wishes to create character after character and march each of them into rust, dust, and self-destruction then that will be their meaningful decision.
The developers are advising the player that fire is hot. You are cleverly replying 'I like hot!' and reaching for the flame.
You may believe some players will like fire hot. Flame is very attractive to the eye flickering like that. So their characters burn. They'll make another, you protest, and like the true scientist will test your hypothesis.
The third time...or eventually... somebody learns.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So you're not going to own that your quote was incorrect stating anyone can..."No", because if factionalized as suggested, my statement would not be incorrect based on what we know of factions and based on the old flagging system as Stephen Cheney had suggested.
You have a bit of reading to do, you are coming into this question of SADs a few months late. You also need to read my posts and others in better context because you are confusing various aspects of several systems as they are being brought together as new suggestions (ie Crowd forging).
You also need to trim down some of the quotations because it makes it difficult to respond back to your post with all of those previous quotes imbedded.
I'm not confused, you're just delusional. Btw, I purposely listed the quotes like that so you wouldn't get confused and misquote incorrect information as you have done many (many many) times in the past. :-)
Meh! Believe what you like, or what you're listening to by your new buddies whispering in your ear.
I stand by the statements I made, and direct you to read the Dev posts that I based them on. If you don't want to read my posts, then direct your questions directly to Stephen Cheney. Ask him why he feels factions might be a solution.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
On the "faction up" aspect. It might be workable because (with incentives) it creates more legitimate targets. If bandits choose to go outside of those infrequently (or a lot) to expand their choices, that is meaningful.
Those Unaffiliated targets should also suffer (a bit or a lot), from lack of benefit, as a meaningful choice.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One concern I would have with factions is that it requires GW to make a different faction for each role. If PFO is supposed to be skill-based, not class based, why build back in classes?
A second concern would be that people could work outside their roles. A guardsman could carry cargo. Maybe not as effectively as a merchant, but if immune to attacks by bandits, it might make sense.
My third and biggest concern about designing the game to focus on factions PvP, with merchants, bandits, and guards: It sounds a lot like pirates of the burning seas, with a focus on FFA PvP as the mainstay of the game. My understanding is that PoTBS lasted something like 3 years and had something like 10k subscribers max. That isn't a template for success.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Marshals / Guards can kill bandits freely as well, or you just don't see the balance in that?
Nothing says a merchant has to train up to use caravans or join the faction. It's a choice that they make to remain less risky for less reward.
There is only no consequence if the merchant does not hire guards, and we are not at risk.
Players can kill bandits freely without reputation loss when they commit a crime, and only then. Let's not get it confused and I think that's how it is intended, and in my opinion, should be.
This is where the confusion stems from. When you said "Marshals / Guards can kill bandits freely as well, or you just don't see the balance in that?" I didn't know you referring to the "faction system" because my statement of:
Players can kill bandits freely without reputation loss when they commit a crime, and only then. Let's not get it confused and I think that's how it is intended, and in my opinion, should be.
Obviously had nothing to do with this proposed "faction system." So, I thought your reply came off as inaccurate and misleading. I'll blame semantics on that specific situation and I'll blame my waking up on the wrong side of the bed for calling you delusional. I apologize for that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well it was a nice enough thread (comparatively) for awhile.....
"I don't usually draw first blood, but when I draw blood in response, I take it in gallons"
Lol, I could not resist, but to Nevy's credit he apologized and that is accepted. I accept that my argument style is coarse, at times crass, occasionally meandering, almost always sarcastic, and on rare occasions (hopefully) even abusive.
But for the most part, this thread has remained on topic remarkably well and free of any real nastiness, and "delusional" doesn't even register close to nasty.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One concern I would have with factions is that it requires GW to make a different faction for each role. If PFO is supposed to be skill-based, not class based, why build back in classes?
A second concern would be that people could work outside their roles. A guardsman could carry cargo. Maybe not as effectively as a merchant, but if immune to attacks by bandits, it might make sense.
My third and biggest concern about designing the game to focus on factions PvP, with merchants, bandits, and guards: It sounds a lot like pirates of the burning seas, with a focus on FFA PvP as the mainstay of the game. My understanding is that PoTBS lasted something like 3 years and had something like 10k subscribers max. That isn't a template for success.
Actually POTBS had the longest open beta I have ever seen, almost 2 years then the 3+ years that followed. Also, the world PvP was not persistent enough to hold longer term interest. The board would get wiped every couple of weeks (when one faction won), and the "war" would start all over again. The other issue was that on some severs the same faction would win 90% of the time! When new players found out which server was weighed heavier in the faction, they would roll that faction there..... Proof positive of Min-Maxer ruining of a game.
In general the open world PvP and the ship combat was excellent in PotBS, and there is much that PFO would benefit from it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If this becomes faction based, then there is no need for a SAD skill. The Bandit faction can freely attack the Merchant and Marshal factions and vice versa.
Bonuses for each faction...
Bandits can pillage Merchant Caravans
Marshals can protect Merchants
Merchants can haul more supplies
Done and Done.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One concern I would have with factions is that it requires GW to make a different faction for each role. If PFO is supposed to be skill-based, not class based, why build back in classes?
A second concern would be that people could work outside their roles. A guardsman could carry cargo. Maybe not as effectively as a merchant, but if immune to attacks by bandits, it might make sense.
My third and biggest concern about designing the game to focus on factions PvP, with merchants, bandits, and guards: It sounds a lot like pirates of the burning seas, with a focus on FFA PvP as the mainstay of the game. My understanding is that PoTBS lasted something like 3 years and had something like 10k subscribers max. That isn't a template for success.
As I wrote somewhere back there, it also would pretty much guarantee one kind of banditry: Kill/loot. S&D would not be needed. That, before your valid concerns, makes it a passing fancy only. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If this becomes faction based, then there is no need for a SAD skill. The Bandit faction can freely attack the Merchant and Marshal factions and vice versa.
Bonuses for each faction...
Bandits can pillage Merchant Caravans
Marshals can protect Merchants
Merchants can haul more suppliesDone and Done.
You also have to remember that the Marshal (Enforcer) can attack Bandits even without the criminal flag.
I can envision Rangers being very competent and dangerous Marshals, with their ability to track and potential advantage in discovering hideouts.
At least I hope that we will have highly trained and skilled adversaries. Just as I envision us not just being smash and grab bandits, but more professional in our execution. Not just simple robberies like thugs, but genuine heists that require skill and planning and military like execution.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One concern I would have with factions is that it requires GW to make a different faction for each role. If PFO is supposed to be skill-based, not class based, why build back in classes?
A second concern would be that people could work outside their roles. A guardsman could carry cargo. Maybe not as effectively as a merchant, but if immune to attacks by bandits, it might make sense.
My third and biggest concern about designing the game to focus on factions PvP, with merchants, bandits, and guards: It sounds a lot like pirates of the burning seas, with a focus on FFA PvP as the mainstay of the game. My understanding is that PoTBS lasted something like 3 years and had something like 10k subscribers max. That isn't a template for success.
Following the faction role does not add in classes. It just adds factions.
Anyone could just not join the merchant faction, and still carry cargo. You will find that a large majority of players will not use the faction system at all just to avoid the possibility of PVP. Factions have been part of the design for what? A year now? I never really cared for it, because its just a way to make the PVP of the game less flexable.
FFA PVP worked quite well in Eve. Maybe PoTBS was just a lousy game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If this becomes faction based, then there is no need for a SAD skill. The Bandit faction can freely attack the Merchant and Marshal factions and vice versa.
Bonuses for each faction...
Bandits can pillage Merchant Caravans
Marshals can protect Merchants
Merchants can haul more suppliesDone and Done.
That works perfectly fine with me, because I am a (likely) merchant that will fight. I am not sure that enough others feel that way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
About pre-fleecing:
How about during an accepted S&D, not only does the merchant lose the agreed upon merchandise/coin but there is also destruction of cargo/loss of money?
I think that's a good idea. I tried to address the same problem by changing the Fleeced Flag from an outright immunity to S&D to a way to force subsequent Bandits to make meaningful decisions. I'd really love to see the Traveler and any Bandits in a Poker situation where they're bluffing and calling bluffs.
To me, the Pre-Fleecing problem is the incentive to have a friendly Bandit S&D to provide the protections of the Fleeced Flag but with the full intention of returning all Goods to the Traveler at the end of the journey. The first step in avoiding this is to put the Goods of the initial S&D "at risk", in the sense that they might be lost if subsequent Bandits effectively call that bluff. This would need to scale if there were several S&D events on the same journey.
Perhaps it makes sense to have a concept of [i}Contested[/i] Goods. These would be Goods obtained via S&D while the target was Fleeced as well as the Goods from the initial S&D that spawned the Fleeced Flag.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That works perfectly fine with me, because I am a (likely) merchant that will fight. I am not sure that enough others feel that way.If this becomes faction based, then there is no need for a SAD skill. The Bandit faction can freely attack the Merchant and Marshal factions and vice versa.
Bonuses for each faction...
Bandits can pillage Merchant Caravans
Marshals can protect Merchants
Merchants can haul more suppliesDone and Done.
The whole idea just seems cumbersome, what merchant would want to actually join a faction that willingly puts them in harms way anyhow? Not a very cunning one that's for sure. The key is throwing them into the fray unwillingly, as evil as that sounds.
I say stay with the SAD mechanic. That way every merchant has to be wary when traveling... I think that adds to the general fear of the world which, in my opinion, is good thing. And not only do they have to fear the chance of getting SADelivered but also just getting murdered or jumped by a feuded/warred enemy. Crafty (no pun intended) merchants will surely always travel with guards when they unwillingly travel the dangerous roads of Golarion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That works perfectly fine with me, because I am a (likely) merchant that will fight. I am not sure that enough others feel that way.If this becomes faction based, then there is no need for a SAD skill. The Bandit faction can freely attack the Merchant and Marshal factions and vice versa.
Bonuses for each faction...
Bandits can pillage Merchant Caravans
Marshals can protect Merchants
Merchants can haul more suppliesDone and Done.
The whole idea just seems cumbersome, what merchant would want to actually join a faction that willingly puts them in harms way anyhow? Not a very cunning one that's for sure. The key is throwing them into the fray unwillingly, as evil as that sounds.
I say stay with the SAD mechanic. That way every merchant has to be wary when traveling... I think that adds to the general fear of the world which, in my opinion, is good thing. And not only do they have to fear the chance of getting SADelivered but also just getting murdered or jumped by a feuded/warred enemy. Crafty (no pun intended) merchants will surely always travel with guards when they unwillingly travel the dangerous roads of Golarion.
I can agree with that as I plan to protect myself and fight regardless.
There is just something that bothers me about the mechanic being built for one role and being used by many others (beyond its real purpose)and that it gets around consequences, without a counter skill set. That is based on speculation though, and I can wait and see what develops.
There is still no reason that any traveler would get to feel safe with or without faction banditry. It is all really the same, except maybe unaffiliated would be a bit sucky without some faction benefits. I mean to the point that they suffer for not joining up. The benefits for joining could "enhance" many roles. Factions would not need to be designed for any single role at all, but have something for many. I also disagree that S&D could not simply be done through "chat" for the unaffiliated, if bandits wanted to avoid rep hits.
That is the last that I will write on it as I know the S&D is popular, already heavily "theory crafted" and probably no more complicated than anything else. Besides my heart isn't really in it, either way. ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I say stay with the SAD mechanic. That way every merchant has to be wary when traveling... I think that adds to the general fear of the world which, in my opinion, is good thing. And not only do they have to fear the chance of getting SADelivered but also just getting murdered or jumped by a feuded/warred enemy. Crafty (no pun intended) merchants will surely always travel with guards when they unwillingly travel the dangerous roads of Golarion.
THIS!!!
But not just merchants, I hope everyone feels a bit wary when they travel outside the relative safety of the settlement controlled hex.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Concerning the destruction of inventory/cargo as a way to prevent pre-fleecing, is the fleeced buff tied to the cargo or the character? If the character, what is to stop a setup in which your pre-fleecer SADs a merchant with a cargo full of rocks in order to give the fleeced buff, then the merchant switches out to the valuable cargo? All that solution does is add a step in the work around.
__________
Concerning the faction system, the factions should actually be teamsters, (not merchants), bandits, and marshals. This then covers anyone who can drive a wagon...which should be necessary for moving cargo such as goods to market, freshly harvested materials in bulk, etc. This also removes the incentive to "be a merchant" without being part of the faction, since the skills required to be a teamster would only be available through the faction, and only slottable by those currently in the faction (but you cannot stop people from trading or crafting).
What I do not understand is why anyone would bother with SAD'ing, if simply killing cross factions is also zero Rep-loss.
Finally, some other notes on the interaction of these three factions, teamsters, bandits, and marshals. We can assume marshals will be given anti-bandit skills and bandits will be given anti-teamster skills, but unless teamsters are given skills which directly influence marshals it does not seem to be a complete system...and I have few ideas about what form such influence could take. Alternately, we could argue they should not be an intertwined system and instead separate systems. Bandits and marshals should be given skills that counter each other...and similarly (but separately) teamsters and bandits should be given skills that counter each other. Given the game setting, The River Kingdoms, I can understand an argument for bandits/outlaws being the crux, or axle, of the interaction mechanics...even if I think their influence overall will be negligible in the game of Kingdoms and Nations.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The idea about creating a merchant and bandit faction set was a winner around here. It should be easy enough to implement that we won't be using any major programming time that could be used to get other features online, which means that we can get it earlier than we'd get the whole S&D system. So it seems likely that what will happen is:
- We get a bandit and merchant faction working around the same time as the other factions become available. (My gut is that we set up the merchant faction in such as way as it makes sense for both merchants and guards to join, rather than inventing a third faction to guard the merchants.)
- We may not have all the high-rank perks yet, so we wait until we have enough attractive high-rank merchant perks before ruling on how well it's working out. (That is, we expect merchant adoption to be gradual as more "carrots" come online, so expectations shouldn't be for many merchants to be members as soon as it's available.)
- We use feedback from how the faction system is working to revise our goals for what the S&D system needs to accomplish, and figure out where that fits into the schedule.