Wouldn't Stand and Deliver work better amongst rival Merchant Factions?


Pathfinder Online

1 to 50 of 79 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

It seems the factional dichotomy of Bandits/Merchants creates a lot of discussion, mostly about the "unfairness" of the mechanism.

I think this has partly to do with the fact that the motives of the two factions seem so unreconcilable. Now this seems par for the course for a dichotomous faction like Bandits and Merchants but in this case we are talking two entirely different groups of players, I think.

I think most would agree that trading goods must have a risk in PFO. I was thinking a rival (evil?)merchant faction would create a more even playing-field, where both could dole out the hurt. This means those that want to Stand and Deliver to earn easy money will need to be part of one of the Merchant factions themselves.

This means that players who want to be a "dedicated" bandit, would likely still train up mostly combatskills, and probably never transport a single item, but at least the opposing merchant-faction will have as much right and reason to SAD these merchant-bandits themselves, with their own merchant-thugs. I expect both Factions to have a mix of both(true merchants and their thug buddies that skill up mostly combat) and hopefully they will manage to work together. Faction-perks could be an incentive for cooperation: i.e. every succesfull haul earns perks for the entire faction(thugs and merchants), so does any succesfull SAD-ing of the rival merchant faction.

I realize that this still locks the SAD mechanic into a faction-feature and I am not sure if GW wants to keep it that way, or still wants there to be bandits who can also SAD lone harvesters, that do not belong to any merchant faction.

It would also do away with Bandits as a possible Role, which will not be popular with some. Basically a bandit becomes a merchant-thug. Not sure how hide-outs and such can still come into play here.

Personally I think most of the fear from other players will (and should) come from the political threat of the region someone plays in (Wars and Feuds). So I could do without separate Banditry to add to it. But that is personal.

Goblin Squad Member

I suspect if you limit merchants/bandits to two factions (I'll label them Red and Blue) all you achieve is to set up a permanent war scenario and S&D is rendered next to useless. If you only have one opposition all the time, you may as well train up your 'split skull' greataxe skill rather than any S&D skills. You can't use those S&D skills against anyone else, and you're at war with the one faction you can use them against. May as well kill them and be done with it.

Goblin Squad Member

Jiminy has that right. If it is only faction based then you remove the whole point of SAD.

The point of SAD was to give options other than skull splitting Great Axes.

If I am out looking to make some coin, I have 4 options... Gather, PVE, SAD, or PVP. Since I have no desire to Gather, and will only PVE when needed... that leaves me with two choices. Now if you make SAD faction only, and I only run across non enemy faction players... guess what happens... I kill them instead of just SAD them.

Goblin Squad Member

@Tyncale

What your saying is semantics matters to some of those opposed to losing their stuff in non consensual PvP. Because we call ourselves "Bandits" that brings up all kinds of negative thoughts in the victim's head. If we call ourselves "Privateers" it is now somehow a bit more legitimate, because we are attaching ourselves to a settlement. If we call ourselves "Rivals", now that is really ok because rivals are supposed to attack you.

The result is exactly the same, the victim is being killed and having their stuff taken. Once it happens a few times, no matter what the attackers are called, some of these victims will leave the game. They will troll the game as being a murder sim and rage quit.

PFO is being developed as an Open World PvP Sandbox MMO , with non consensual PvP, tempered by consequences in an effort to create meaningful interactions while PvPing.

Some people won't get passed the "Non Consensual" part. PFO will prove to not be a game for them. That is really no different than how WoW is not a game for many others. It is not fortunate or unfortunate, it is a reality.

Goblin Squad Member

The best way to approach PfO as a player for the first few years (IMO) will be to expect conflict when you leave the areas that are controlled by NPCs or your own/allies settlements. Be ready for conflict in some of those places too, but expect and plan for it everywhere else.

Admittedly, that is not attractive game play to many. I have a feeling that if GW does not grow "slow and steady" like they seem to want, they will tweak things to make the game attractive to a wider audience. It is going to be rough for some time as "the balance" that they intend is strived for.

The only real question is: Do you have the guts and fortitude to be there from the chaos of Beginning and help it grow into a great game? Do you have faith?

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

PFO is being developed as an Open World PvP Sandbox MMO , with non consensual PvP, tempered by consequences in an effort to create meaningful interactions while PvPing.

Some people won't get passed the "Non Consensual" part. PFO will prove to not be a game for them. That is really no different than how WoW is not a game for many others. It is not fortunate or unfortunate, it is a reality.

From the PFO Homepage - "Pathfinder Online is a fantasy sandbox MMO by Goblinworks based on the Pathfinder tabletop game."

Funny that lack of PvP in the descriptor. I think we all recognize that PvP will be a major component of the game, and a good deal of it will be non-consensual. But adding your own labels is still a bit disingenuous. The lack of PvP in the description is possibly purposeful in order to avoid setting expectations for or against it, allowing them to tweak systems as desired.

I am not saying that banditry should be a removed element, but I do not think banditry is intrinsic enough to the product that discussions about how much value it adds and what situations are reasonable for it to pop up should be discouraged.

Goblin Squad Member

Look at the kickstarter page we backed Lifedragn. It has it right there for you.

Open World PVP Game

In fact, Andius wrote it.

Goblin Squad Member

As to SAD being locked into factions: I thought this was currently the plan? I agree it is restrictive.

@Bluddwolf: I agree that there will still be "victims", which will be the merchants that are specialized in merchant-skills and did not bring anyone(or enough people) to defend their wares. But since they are in liege with their own "thug-faction" who may be able to get back at these rival thugs, some sort of "merchant-war" may happen, with retaliation and goods being re-confiscated. Or at least the opposing faction gets the same hassle from your own thugs.

Since they are in the same faction, a group mixed of pure merchants(carry capacity and such) and merchant-thugs(protection) could reap the benefits of a succesfull haul.

Also, a retaliation or succesfull SAD by your thug-faction would result in perks for both Merchant as thugs: this may create some relief. You could even switch roles within your faction(from specialized merchant skills to thug-skills), if you are fed up with being on the receiving end. It would take some time to get there, off course.

I agree with your basic take on the psychology that is operating here though: I think I am looking for ways to change the perception of the SAD mechanic.

EDit: I am also very glad we are back to: "Did you know this is a PvP game?" and "Yes, but..."

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Another, IMO. Since S&D is still the major topic. S&D is a waste of time and money if things can be done with bandit vs. merchant factions or feuds or wars. S&D would have to somehow be a limited skill or everyone that wants to be an RPK bully will use it just as every acceptable bandit will. With a fixed way to get the skill, I don't see any way to make it limited.

Interesting idea on paper. Probably disaster to implement, for a game that has a reputation system and wants to have consequences for some actions.

Who among you that want absolute freedom to "attack/accost" anyone they choose, will not train and use S&D?

Only those that find enough "legit" non penalty targets elsewhere. The real "bad boys" will use it for everything.

Goblin Squad Member

@Bringlight, agreed. If someone is willing to run flagged for PvP with the Criminal flag for a while, there are few downsides. It doesn't cost DI like war or Influence like feuds or Reputation like a simple killing. The downsides might be that you can only kill someone with S&D every 15 minutes or so, unless they can be tricked into attacking you as a Criminal. And using it on your own settlement soil might cause Corruption. Those aren't huge downsides.

Goblin Squad Member

The concept of SAD maybe be tricky to implement but it is interesting because it stops the encounter being only a zero-sum game, right?

If we "win-win" from the encounter eg bribe the bandit with some cash and they likewise don't have a rep/alignment hit then it's a chance for a more interesting and complex encounter, in theory and if possible to implement in some form (social contract and/or game system flag).

Goblin Squad Member

AvenaOats wrote:

The concept of SAD maybe be tricky to implement but it is interesting because it stops the encounter being only a zero-sum game, right?

If we "win-win" from the encounter eg bribe the bandit with some cash and they likewise don't have a rep/alignment hit then it's a chance for a more interesting and complex encounter, in theory and if possible to implement in some form (social contract and/or game system flag).

Question. Do you see any reason that this could not be done with a basic /tell, or even some kind of "special" tell command in your UI? Is there any reason to not make killing for a refused S&D penalizing? It is still accosting, demanding, and killing (if refused) without the agency of faction/feud/war, isn't it?

How can we get past the idea that a target will care more about hurting the bandit's reputation than losing all of his stuff, his travel/gathering time, and wear on his threaded gear?

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
@Bringlight, agreed. If someone is willing to run flagged for PvP with the Criminal flag for a while, there are few downsides. It doesn't cost DI like war or Influence like feuds or Reputation like a simple killing. The downsides might be that you can only kill someone with S&D every 15 minutes or so, unless they can be tricked into attacking you as a Criminal. And using it on your own settlement soil might cause Corruption. Those aren't huge downsides.

Yes, and those types of player run almost constantly "flagged" in all of the games where they act the way that they do.

They enjoy it or simply do not care...

Goblin Squad Member

I don't know about implementation. But I do think the interaction is worth seeing if it's possible to induce.

I think the Bandit ideally takes a big rep hit if they take on that mask and break the bandit code or something! The trader knowing that, then has it easier to bribe 'em off for a small amount in a simple scenario. I think you want to encourage the interaction to a win-win high frequency of bandit SAD's... the point that these mosquito bites into the merchant's purse start to irritate at a higher volume only!

Goblin Squad Member

@Bringslite, I think the logical conclusion of the current S&D would allow for large groups of (high-rep) flagged players roaming the map like outlaw biker gangs in Mad Max. Cool game you've got here, GW. Wouldn't want anything bad to happen to it. ;)

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think there will be opportunistic bandits that knock off a lazy or reckless Merchant traveling with too much value and too little protection. They'll only do it occasionally, and they'll weigh the benefit against the cost in Reputation.

There will also be dedicated, full-time Bandits, who specialize in extorting Merchants unlucky enough to cross their paths. The key to ensuring these types of Bandits don't get out of hand is making sure they face a comparable risk from Bandit Hunters. To me, it's critical that these full-time Bandits be flagged (faction works just fine) to the Bandit Hunters even when they're not actively engaged in Banditry.

Goblin Squad Member

AvenaOats wrote:
I don't know about implementation. But I do think the interaction is worth seeing if it's possible to induce.

I agree. I think there is merit in the concept of S&D. There's also risk. If S&D is 'cheaper' than feud or war, and accesses a wider range of targets than feud, war, and faction conflict, it may be the dominant mechanism for PvP, rendering meaningful PvP like feuds and war much less relevant.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:

I think there will be opportunistic bandits that knock off a lazy or reckless Merchant traveling with too much value and too little protection. They'll only do it occasionally, and they'll weigh the benefit against the cost in Reputation.

There will also be dedicated, full-time Bandits, who specialize in extorting Merchants unlucky enough to cross their paths. The key to ensuring these types of Bandits don't get out of hand is making sure they face a comparable risk from Bandit Hunters. To me, it's critical that these full-time Bandits be flagged (faction works just fine) to the Bandit Hunters even when they're not actively engaged in Banditry.

It is certainly true that all of GW's layered plan could somehow balance itself into playable equilibrium. It is going to take a good deal of dedicated work from Non typically aggressive players to "push" back against aggressors. Not what is typically seen in sandboxes, but that does not mean it can't happen.

Much of my stuff here could be alarmist rhetoric. I would rather plan for the toughest environment and find it more pleasant than expected. :)

Goblin Squad Member

@Bringslite, I don't think you're being alarmist. You're describing a worst-case scenario (or maybe only a bad-case scenario) and GW has to be considering those in their design.

I've been consistently impressed with the level of insight that the devs have displayed when they unveil new ideas. I wouldn't be surprised if S&D is delayed from implementation on day 1 of EE partially due to its complexity, but partially due to its potential to seriously skew the game.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
It is going to take a good deal of dedicated work from Non typically aggressive players to "push" back against aggressors. Not what is typically seen in sandboxes...

I submit that the kind of "good" players who would push back against this kind of thing typically quit most Open PvP Sandboxes in disgust once they encounter the toxicity and the random, meaningless PvP that many such games either ignore or embrace.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
It is going to take a good deal of dedicated work from Non typically aggressive players to "push" back against aggressors. Not what is typically seen in sandboxes...
I submit that the kind of "good" players who would push back against this kind of thing typically quit most Open PvP Sandboxes in disgust once they encounter the toxicity and the random, meaningless PvP that many such games either ignore or embrace.

Not sure, but I think that there is an easy common reason that you see PVP sandboxes played "lottery of doom style" by those less interested in combat.

You are right that those disgusted enough leave. Why do they leave those other games instead of getting proactive? Is it because there are not enough of them that want to exercise the effort? I know that some do, but it seems they make little difference to the average player. I admit that my observations are limited to a few PVP games, so YMMV.

I am wondering if S&D is IN, trainable by any that jump the hoops, and excuses you from rep penalties, why everyone will not use it (especially the worst case players)?

I agree, if S&D is in, and the "bad guys" are flagged, it will help. But that is already true in these other games for crimes/murders. These guys are flagged and it makes little difference. It will be a miracle and a testament if players take advantage of "bad guys" being flagged in PfO.

It can happen.

Goblin Squad Member

There is plenty of that in Eve. Pirate Hunters and etc. The organized groups do quite well at it. The rag tag fugitive fleet usually dies horribly. Usually, the Pirate Hunters stay out of areas that are highly active with Pirates and try to pick off the littler groups.

Goblin Squad Member

@ bringslite

I think you will be amazed by the amount of players that will be quit happy, bottomfeeding in the NPC starter towns for a while.

After that, I think it is the patchwork of "safe-havens" that will be the settlements, that will make a large difference for the average PvE-conditioned player. I can not think of any open PvP game that has this.

There will be many settlements that are relatively safe; and settlements provide you with meaningfull things to do, like crafting and some basic harvesting. We already can see how the world will be littered with settlements: every 2-4 hexes(2-minute run per hex) there is one. There has to be because tens of thousands of players will play in the same world. This world-setup is unique.

Exposing yourself to PvP in PFO almost seems to mimick a consensual toggle: if I leave town, I put on my PvP toggle. If I want to travel to another settlement, I put on my PvP toggle. If I go harvesting, I put on my PvP toggle. If I go crafting, or socializing, or work the Auctionhouse I put off my PvP toggle and go slumming it in a Settlement.

Off course this perceived safety in settlements goes out the window with a siege, but a siege is a drawn out proces, something that you see coming. It will not be perceived as griefing or unsanctioned(well, maybe a bit). Players that truly want nothing to do with PvP I can even see skip town, and try to reach a settlement that is at peace and become a member there. Or they have grown so attached to their settlement, that they step up, and join the fray....I think that will happen too, which is great!

There will be settlements with strict laws, where even factional PvP is not allowed, where NPC guards are strict. Because there is this patchwork of settlements, I feel that PvE players have a place, and will see any venturing outside the walls of their city as a choice they can make.

So, choice, provided by the patchwork of settlements that is the river kingdoms, which is unique to any game I know. I do not think you can make killers out of explorers and socializers: but I can see how PFO could be a game for all those Bartletypes.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
There is plenty of that in Eve. Pirate Hunters and etc. The organized groups do quite well at it. The rag tag fugitive fleet usually dies horribly. Usually, the Pirate Hunters stay out of areas that are highly active with Pirates and try to pick off the littler groups.

Exactly. You get to pick and choose and move if it is "hot". Not that I begrudge you that slim advantage in any way. I would play the same if it were my style.

Guards/patrols have to be constantly vigilant to the possible. That is tiring and onerous. I think that was mentioned by someone in another thread. That is why I think that while it is done, it is not maintained. Killing you once or a few times is not going to convince you to quit banditry. ;)

Still, it is what it is. Certainly not one of the possible problems. If we reshape our outlooks and the way that we play PfO, it could be a solution. Accept the game for it's PVP and dangers. Plan accordingly when you go into risky business. Get over death as more than an inconvenience if it is not too common.

Don't have any idea if it will be too common for me to get enjoyment. I do know that some have a lower tolerance. Maybe they can be convinced/educated to look at things differently and find a way to play that is fun and works.

I want PfO to be THE GAME.

Goblin Squad Member

Tyncale wrote:

@ bringslite

I think you will be amazed by the amount of players that will be quit happy, bottomfeeding in the NPC starter towns for a while.

After that, I think it is the patchwork of "safe-havens" that will be the settlements, that will make a large difference for the average PvE-conditioned player. I can not think of any open PvP game that has this.

There will be many settlements that are relatively safe; and settlements provide you with meaningfull things to do, like crafting and some basic harvesting. We already can see how the world will be littered with settlements: every 2-4 hexes(2-minute run per hex) there is one. There has to be because tens of thousands of players will play in the same world. This world-setup is unique.

Exposing yourself to PvP in PFO almost seems to mimick a consensual toggle: if I leave town, I put on my PvP toggle. If I want to travel to another settlement, I put on my PvP toggle. If I go harvesting, I put on my PvP toggle. If I go crafting, or socializing, or work the Auctionhouse I put off my PvP toggle and go slumming it in a Settlement.

Off course this perceived safety in settlements goes out the window with a siege, but a siege is a drawn out proces, something that you see coming. It will not be perceived as griefing or unsanctioned(well, maybe a bit). Players that truly want nothing to do with PvP I can even see skip town, and try to reach a settlement that is at peace and become a member there. Or they have grown so attached to their settlement, that they step up, and join the fray....I think that will happen too, which is great!

There will be settlements with strict laws, where even factional PvP is not allowed, where NPC guards are strict. Because there is this patchwork of settlements, I feel that PvE players have a place, and will see any venturing outside the walls of their city as a choice they can make.

So, choice, provided by the patchwork of settlements that is the river kingdoms, which is unique to any game I know. I do not think you...

Yes Sir! I have to admit that the shorter travel times (than I had assumed) takes a bit of the concern out of my sails! :)

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:


Guards/patrols have to be constantly vigilant to the possible. That is tiring and onerous. I think that was mentioned by someone in another thread. That is why I think that while it is done, it is not maintained. Killing you once or a few times is not going to convince you to quit banditry. ;)

I have to say that this is the number one point that leads most games into the Lord of the Flies spiral Ryan mentioned wanting to avoid. Because the flip side is not as true. Being robbed and/or killed a few times might convince guards and merchants to stop being guards and merchants.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
Why do they leave those other games instead of getting proactive?

A sense of futility, and that the deck is stacked against them. I daresay that even if Goblinworks didn't implement any systems to curtail toxicity and random, meaningless player-killing, the simple fact that they talk about those things as being bad for the game would go a long way towards ameliorating that sense of futility.

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:
I have to say that this is the number one point that leads most games into the Lord of the Flies spiral Ryan mentioned wanting to avoid. Because the flip side is not as true.

Which is why "career Bandits" need to be "often at risk" even when they're not actively plying their trade.

Goblin Squad Member

Just a thought...

I don't think that being proactive in the way of constantly making it your job to garrison guard or patrol or even hunt "bad guys" is going to work or be attractive enough to maintain. Fine for a few, but not fun for the majority.

Instead I will bet that being armed and dangerous when you go about risky business will be the best solution. It will cost you more (than the old ways), but if it means that you "bank" far more often, it is a smart strategy. It is still a great deal different than most PVP shy people will be used to doing...

I mean, who is going to be willing to "sit" at an outpost in case it gets raided? Only (for me) if there is something else to do while I wait.

@ Nihimon

I like the idea of a constant flag. I wonder if that would go over well with our "legit" bandit culture here?

Goblin Squad Member

Why wouldn't bandits be seen as a subset of merchant? How the merchant acquires its goods is not relevant to the fact that they later sell them. Bandits and merchants would need many of the same skill set...in fact, I think the only difference in the subset would be the proposed SAD mechanic. Bandits need to be able to drive wagons, sell goods, etc.

I think adding SAD and Halt to the merchant skills, giving them a small Rep penalty for use (smaller than outright murder) is the way to go.

This means, looking at a merchant, if they have low Rep, one can assume (perhaps not with 100% accuracy) they are also a bandit.

Goblin Squad Member

Forencith wrote:

Why wouldn't bandits be seen as a subset of merchant? How the merchant acquires its goods is not relevant to the fact that they later sell them. Bandits and merchants would need many of the same skill set...in fact, I think the only difference in the subset would be the proposed SAD mechanic. Bandits need to be able to drive wagons, sell goods, etc.

I think adding SAD and Halt to the merchant skills, giving them a small Rep penalty for use (smaller than outright murder) is the way to go.

This means, looking at a merchant, if they have low Rep, one can assume (perhaps not with 100% accuracy) they are also a bandit.

I think that it is probably too attractive to bill them as opposites and enemies. You need something for bandits to focus on instead of gatherers/travelers. Not that your idea would block that, except how would that work? Two separate factions, each with merchant and bandit skills and each at odds?

Not an impossible scenario, I suppose.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:

@ Nihimon

I like the idea of a constant flag. I wonder if that would go over well with our "legit" bandit culture here?

Well, it hasn't before... But I'm an optimist at heart :)

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Bringslite wrote:

@ Nihimon

I like the idea of a constant flag. I wonder if that would go over well with our "legit" bandit culture here?

Well, it hasn't before... But I'm an optimist at heart :)

Realistically, would you settle for "flagged when S&D is slotted?"

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
Realistically, would you settle for "flagged when S&D is slotted?"

Intuitively, yes. When I sit back and analyze it rationally, I'm not sure; I would be a little worried that the balance would tip too far in the other direction.

Ideally, I would want the Bandits to be "at risk" similarly to the way they put Merchants "at risk".

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
Realistically, would you settle for "flagged when S&D is slotted?"

Intuitively, yes. When I sit back and analyze it rationally, I'm not sure; I would be a little worried that the balance would tip too far in the other direction.

Ideally, I would want the Bandits to be "at risk" similarly to the way they put Merchants "at risk".

That would mean that they would have to be "at risk" whenever they had the capability to issue a SAD, because that's when the merchants are in danger.

Faction (or self-flagging) might be the right choice, because I don't think it makes sense for exactly one ability to change reputation consequences for others who attack you; transparency would require that they be able to see if you had that ability slotted, and providing metagame knowledge of what an enemy has slotted is a Slightly Bad Thing.

Goblin Squad Member

Well let's see... Some more dang speculation here. IF there has to be an S&D mechanic, and it could be only available through the "bandit faction", they would be flagged up vs. (at least) the "merchant faction" at all times and all others when S&D is slotted.

To me, that seems like a fair compromise of "risk".


Bringslite wrote:

Well let's see... Some more dang speculation here. IF there has to be an S&D mechanic, and it could be only available through the "bandit faction", they would be flagged up vs. (at least) the "merchant faction" at all times and all others when S&D is slotted.

To me, that seems like a fair compromise of "risk".

I could see this working if some hexes like badlands were exempted. If the bandits get a criminal flag they're open to attack, but it doesn't make much sense to me to allow everyone to attack them in the lawless hexes just for being there. They would still obviously be at risk from other factions though.

Goblin Squad Member

If they're attacking them in the lawless hexes, it'll be because they are sending a group after the bandits. I think it would be silly for the bandits to be able sit at the border of the badlands hex and wag their rumps at the bandit-hunting party, who apparently can't attack them there because there are less restrictions/laws there.

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Shane Gifford wrote:
If they're attacking them in the lawless hexes, it'll be because they are sending a group after the bandits. I think it would be silly for the bandits to be able sit at the border of the badlands hex and wag their rumps at the bandit-hunting party, who apparently can't attack them there because there are less restrictions/laws there.

Ahh yet enemy factions can attack faction bandits anywhere. It would just not be "ok" for EVERYONE to attack bandits (who have S&D slotted) where it is not against the law. Anyone could still chase them after a S&D...


They can still attack them if they are in an opposite faction or they take a reputation hit. I'm just not sure having 90% of the server population being able to attack you anywhere is going to be very positive. I'm fine if they are criminals, but slotting the skill means they haven't broken any laws yet and may never have in their lives.

Its an interesting idea though. Do we do this with factions or with skills? Can all evil characters attack a paladin that has their smite good skill slotted or should it only be a faction? We already know necomancers will be fair game to everyone for using their skills. Why not the lawful or good characters?

Goblin Squad Member

There will be times when we are called upon to hand an escalation or assist in a war. We could not do this if flagged to the world. Besides, banditry is an activity. It is not an alignment that can be detected, it is not a racial group that can be seen, and it is not a character class, that can be discerned from appearance.

I'm assuming that Faction rank is worn in order to identify the character as a member of that faction. Members of the Faction of Bandits, who are level 4 or higher will always be fair game targets to the opposing faction.

To be an open target to the world 24/7 would be placing bandits in a category all of its own, but with what advantages to offset that would you be willing to accept?

If I were to be flagged to the world all of the time I would want to be able to loot all items, including threaded.

But we all know nether of these would happen.

Goblin Squad Member

I'm pretty happy with the opposed Merchant and Bandit Factions. But Bandits aren't going to just target Merchants who are their Faction enemies; they're going to target other travelers, too. If Bandits have the ability to attack non-Faction Merchants without losing Reputation, then Bandit Hunters need to be have the similar ability to attack non-Faction Bandits without losing Reputation.

Or we could just keep the Reputation loss for non-Faction-based attacks and I think everything would sort itself out just fine. In fact, I think this would probably be both the simplest and the best solution.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Perhaps there is only a Bandit faction and no Merchant faction. Having the Stand and Deliver skill slotted requires representing the Bandit faction. You gain standing with the Bandit faction through successful use of the Stand and Deliver skill, potentially unlocking faction benefits similar to what other factions may receive.

Then you make the Bandit faction able to be selected as a Feud/War target for companies and settlements. Your bandit-hunters form a company and dedicate their influence to maintaining a feud with the Bandit faction. If a settlement is being hard-hit by bandits, they can turn resources towards fighting to bandit threat through the War mechanic, allowing any of their settlement members to fight bandits without personal Reputation shifts.

It has been hinted that not all factions will be subject to automatically opposed factions, and I do not think we need to make Bandits into one. But you can set up systems to allow groups and settlements to declare opposition - I would actually support that ability for most factions.

Edit: apologies if this has been proposed already - I only sort of skimmed as there were a lot of posts here.

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:
Perhaps there is only a Bandit faction and no Merchant faction.

If Stand & Deliver is a skill/ability, this kind of makes sense. However, if there is a Merchant Faction, then you don't really need the S&D skill/ability. Career Bandits attack Career Merchants. Opportunistic Bandits (and Bandit-Hunters) take Reputation loss normally.

That's a lot less work for the devs since they don't have to develop a special-case system, they can just develop the Factions within the framework that already exists.

Goblin Squad Member

Thinking more deeply on this, I think the system would really work. It provides incentives for bandits to use S&D instead of just attacking. And it promotes making reasonable S&Ds in order to raise faction standing and gain other bandit-friendly boons.

By having no natural opposing factions it makes it less suicidal to sign up with the faction. This is done to offset the higher likelihood of companies and settlements using feuds/wars to target bandits than would be apt to do to other factions. This means there is a cost to hunting bandits, making them a more viable playstyle, but does not let them target other players with impunity. Non-dedicated (no feud) bandit hunters have to catch them in the act of using S&D. But dedicated bandit hunters are spending influence, representing an abstract cost of information about identities and other details to explain how the group would "know" who bandits are without witnessing an act themselves.

I think it provides advantages all around. To the bandits and to those who wish to hunt them.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Lifedragn wrote:
Perhaps there is only a Bandit faction and no Merchant faction.

If Stand & Deliver is a skill/ability, this kind of makes sense. However, if there is a Merchant Faction, then you don't really need the S&D skill/ability. Career Bandits attack Career Merchants. Opportunistic Bandits (and Bandit-Hunters) take Reputation loss normally.

That's a lot less work for the devs since they don't have to develop a special-case system, they can just develop the Factions within the framework that already exists.

I do not think it has to be a special case system. I would actually support the ability for faction-based skills/abilities for other factions as well as the ability for companies and settlements to target other factions for a cost.

Every mechanic I propose in my system makes sense to be applicable to the entire faction system.

Personally, Career Bandit vs. Career Merchant breaks immersion for me a little bit. A bandit is likely to attack any target they think has enough valuables worth their risk and time.

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:
... using feuds/wars to target bandits...

It sounds like you're suggesting we'll be able to declare feuds/wards on Factions. I don't recall ever seeing anything like this, and I would be surprised if it's included. I expect there will be some Factions that don't have any enemies that become homes to folks who are otherwise minimizing their exposure to PvP. It seems perverse to allow them to become free targets to another group based on that Faction membership.

Goblin Squad Member

What I was shooting for, was something that would provide benefits to both sides that are attractive. None of them are required, just you kind of suck if you "opt out". You can still ply your trade (whatever it is), yet the benefits of "the faction" make it silly not to join.

The most important thing that I was shooting for was a workable system that takes a good deal of pressure off of Development and does the job. Certainly, whatever they do will break immersion, for someone, over something...

Goblin Squad Member

I am saying that I would find it acceptable to be included, not that it was already there. If we are talking about making the environment more rich, that includes proposing changes to systems over time.

They are not "Free Targets" because influence/DI has been allocated to make them able to be targeted. I suppose this does open the system up to abuse. But no more so than for players who tried to seek out a settlement like Brighthaven only to have Brighthaven warred against. Perhaps there is room for making different factions more or less costly to declare against.

But I do not like the idea of Merchants being free targets to Bandits either. You would have to offer enough incentive to join the Merchant company or else nobody would. And if the incentives are that great, then nobody can be serious merchants without making themselves zero-rep targets for bandits.

Goblin Squad Member

I'd think that rather than making factions targetable by companies, a similar anti-whatever campaign can be mounted by other factions.

So if the factions are arranged something like this:

Hellknights enemies: Knights of Iomedae, Bandits, Denizens of Echo Wood
Knights of Iomedae enemies: Hellknights, Bandits
Denizens of Echo Wood enemies: Hellknights
Bandit enemies: Knights of Iomedae, Hellknights
Merchant enemies: (none of the above)

The Bandits can still use their faction power, S&D, on the Merchant.
The Merchants can still use their convoy powers.
The real faction vs. faction fight here is between the bandits and the big new factions pushing into the River Kingdoms, while Iomedae and Hellknights are also in direct competition.

1 to 50 of 79 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Wouldn't Stand and Deliver work better amongst rival Merchant Factions? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.