Goblin Squad Member
|
My question then is, with more stacks of Observe, will you be able to get to the One-shot point faster? If so, you will just see Large groups of assassins going out on a mission, finding their target, observing in mass, then rushing in stealth/disguise for the death blow asap.. I mean, who is going to assume the WHOLE GROUP of people walking towards you are all assassins?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My question then is, with more stacks of Observe, will you be able to get to the One-shot point faster? If so, you will just see Large groups of assassins going out on a mission, finding their target, observing in mass, then rushing in stealth/disguise for the death blow asap.. I mean, who is going to assume the WHOLE GROUP of people walking towards you are all assassins?
Sure, why shouldn't assassins benefit from teaming up?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How many of us are planning to be Assassins? I know Tigari, Goodfellow, Master of Shadows and myself but don't know who else is planning specifically to be. Gurrzak and Duffy too maybe (uncertain there). Do we have a running list?
If we are going to have to be full teams we are going to have to get a lot more people interested in being Assassins. I know The Veiled in Phaeros will have a few but not al of us are. If we have to have a team of 6 or more for a single hit that may be hard to come by for a while after EE starts or whenever the Assassin role will be available.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Oh, I'm certain of that but I'm not worried about people knowing I'm an Assassin, that is what disguise is for anyway and if they don't build that in or some other way for us to both be known when we need to and be hidden when we need that Assassins will have trouble finding work and completing jobs in the first place. Hopefully we can crowd forge it further than what is planned and see how the implement it and go from there.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If it is possible to apply Observed without being detectable, why have it?I think this statement misses the point. The proposal is to have 'Being Observed' be detectable rather than being detected.
The difference is requiring a successful Perception vs. Stealth vs. No requirement at all. Anything other than the above is a colossal breach of realism. So bad in fact as to make the assassin character archetype that a great many of us want to play impossible.I think it also needs to be understood that At no point am I saying the 'Being Observed' debuff should be undetectable that would be just as breaking as the reverse.
If there's a check as you suggest, then those who don't have much Perception (or bodyguards using Perception on their behalf) high levels of Disguise might make the Observed state undetectable. That's why the Perception check should provide more information if it is high enough, relative to the Disguise. If you want the target's information to be limited to seeing an icon or not, then it is fair to have that show up without a Perception check. If you want there to be a skill contest in which the target could fail to get the icon at all, then it is fair to make the assassin fail just as significantly when their check is lower. Giving away your position with a highlight is one way to do that; the target is not only uneasy, they've noticed you acting suspiciously in particular, and can go confront you if they wish.
To counter the desensitization thing, there should also be a chance of getting criminal-flagged when stacking Observation. You are communicating a nonverbal threat, after all, even if you only do it to mess with someone's mind and you never actually strike.
As to multiple assassins, I think they should each have their own stack that affects their own damage. There is still an advantage to being in a group because the target doesn't necessarily know who the greater threat is and could be spooked into a trap, but if Observation from multiple assassins is allowed to stack together, then you'd simply have an entourage of expendable observation-dummies following every real assassin to give him easy one-shots.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah, it has been said many times by GW that one hit kills are out. I don't know how assassins will work in PFO but GW probably has something in discussion. An odd idea I had was that an assassin could put up an effect close to an invisibility sphere for the length of the assassination. Not sure how that would play into PF mechanics....eh(shrugs shoulders)One thing that i find interesting is all this focus on the one-hit-kill. While I have said that in my opinion a one hit kill should be allowed as part of the assassination mechanics, the proposed change to the mechanic currently under discussion in no way allows for a one-hit-kill. It simply prevents a target from being notified of the presence of an assassin without a perception check. somthing they would need anyway if we were to opt not to use observation.I'd suggest you go back and read up a bit more.
So, yes, stacks of observation currently are planned to allow one-shotting. Which is why the target gets to know how many he has.Will the target know how many stacks of observation he has?Yes, part of being a skilled assassin group is varying up your observations to keep the target from deduction. Being able to see the stack totals is part of the target's agency, in basically being able to figure out how close he's getting to being able to be one-shotted (e.g., a high-HP heavy armor wearer may be in the mood of "Bring It!" at one stack, but may start to get a little antsy as the number rises and he realizes he's not going to get to fight back unless he can figure out where the assassin is).
Oh I had missed that, its somewhat heartening, but at the same time, I still feel that with its current functionality No assassin will ever land enough stacks for there to be a one shot, they will never get beyond the first stack because the target will simply log out.
I think my proposal is still a verry workable solution especially if you play around with the bonus values both for each stack of the debuff as well as the cumulative perception chance. According to the Idea when I use Observation you get a stack of debuff and a perception check, each subsequent stack grants a further debuff, and another perception check with a cumulative bonus. There fore if you keep the amount of the debuff low and the bonus to perception reasonable, there is a strong chance the target will perceive you before you get to lethal levels of the debuff. A strong chance is not an absolute certainty, and its the absolute certainty of the current version of Observation that I find abhorrent.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your proposal does nothing to address logouts, and enables the possibility of totally unaware one-shots. If logouts are the problem, do something to penalize logging out while being observed, as other proposals have done. I strongly suspect the devs don't plan to allow logging out to be a free pass to avoid assassination, given their plans to prevent other methods of going into hiding:
Observation is a utility feat that you can use from Stealth up to a certain range, and which takes a few seconds to activate. You must be flying the Assassin flag (even if it is hidden by your Disguise) to use this feat. Using it puts a stack of the "Being Observed" debuff on your target. This is the target's warning that he is being targeted by an assassin (possibly his first and only warning). Further successful uses of the feat add more stacks of the debuff and reset the decay of the existing stacks. This debuff slowly decays over a minute or so if not refreshed. If the target hides somewhere an assassin couldn't get to start a fight (like inside the settlement keep), the debuff does not decay and may actually get worse (to keep targets from easily waiting out an assassination attempt).
Emphasis mine.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hopefully we can crowd forge it further than what is planned and see how the implement it and go from there.
That fairly depends on the full scope and depth of 'what is planned'. I doubt we have a complete grasp. Still, it would seem a beneficial thing for the designers to see our insights, even if those are already covered.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Your proposal does nothing to address logouts, and enables the possibility of totally unaware one-shots. If logouts are the problem, do something to penalize logging out while being observed, as other proposals have done. I strongly suspect the devs don't plan to allow logging out to be a free pass to avoid assassination.
I hope your right, but log outs are only part of the problem. The other part is that If I am under stealth there is NO REASON EVER that a target who has already failed a perception check to notice me should just be made aware of my presence (if not my actual location). Frankly 'Being Observed' should never ever ever ever allow a target to detect the assassins presence for any reason, and allowing perception with a cumulative bonus is way more generous than anyone deserves.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, assassination is going to involve more than slapping on a hooded cloak and grabbing a dagger. Like rituals to some assassination god or whatnot if I remember correctly. An assassination also goes beyond a normal kill, interfering with your bond with Pharasma.
Knowing you're observed could be something quite supernatural that has more to it than spotting something suspicious in the corner of your eye. Like, you feel an impending sense of doom rising in your soul due to your ties to Pharasma weakening.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the easy fix for log-outs is giving a countdown based on your stacks of "Being Observed." Every stack adding a few seconds so you won't make progress logging out unless the observation ends.
(if anything you become an easier target because you're holding still to log out)
As long as there's prep work to setting up an assassination I don't think this will be abused.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, assassination is going to involve more than slapping on a hooded cloak and grabbing a dagger. Like rituals to some assassination god or whatnot if I remember correctly. An assassination also goes beyond a normal kill, interfering with your bond with Pharasma.
Knowing you're observed could be something quite supernatural that has more to it than spotting something suspicious in the corner of your eye. Like, you feel an impending sense of doom rising in your soul due to your ties to Pharasma weakening.
This sounds like a very weak afterthought justification for a terrible flaw in what would be an otherwise good mechanic.
I think the easy fix for log-outs is giving a countdown based on your stacks of "Being Observed." Every stack adding a few seconds so you won't make progress logging out unless the observation ends.
(if anything you become an easier target because you're holding still to log out)As long as there's prep work to setting up an assassination I don't think this will be abused.
I agree, this would solve the logging out issue, now if we can fix Observe so that stealth stays stealthy and Observe doesn't become and automatic "Engarde", then the world will be a happy place again, A dark and sinister sort off happy, but happy none the less.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The point if observation is that it provides a mechanism for starting the fight without giving away your location and identity. The target has the ability to react (and not by going to a trainer and buying "not auto killed by assassins"), but he might not be able to identify who to attack. He might try sprinting away and looking for who follows (which might mean he starts the fight fatigued), or guessing and attacking a potential assassin, or gathering friendlies to protect, or any number of emergent tactics- but the engagement has started, and if it lasts a minute before the assassin finally engages, the assassin can fairly receive the benefits appropriate for having fought for a minute on that first attack. That can mean that the target dies on the first attack, having had a chance to defend themselves- giving the assassin their major cool thing while not destroying g a major gameplay requirement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do not believe that to be the case, I'm fairly certain it is a combination of the assassination contract and a deathblow delivered by someone flying the assassin flag that actually causes the severing of threads.
Unless I've missed an update, it's just the assassin flag that causes the thread severing. It's the contract that enables the DI hit.
Nonetheless, I think it's extremely unlikely the devs will allow you to engineer a situation in which another player has no agency. Even in a completely outmatched fight, the weaker player still has the opportunity to try to run. Even in a SAD, the merchant has the opportunity to refuse to pay and fight back. These are not based on character XP or trained skills, but on player choice. You are advocating for an encounter in which the opposing player may have no choice to act whatsoever, and I just don't think that's going to fly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nonetheless, I think it's extremely unlikely the devs will allow you to engineer a situation in which another player has no agency.
In the proposed solution the player does have agency in the form of a perception check granted in addition to the perception check they already get to defeat the assassins stealth ability he's using to remain hidden. In fact this agency is granted every time a new stack of observed is added and with a cumulative bonus. So the more I watch you to build that bonus, the greater your agency of avoidance becomes. I even wrote in that multiple consecutive successes breaks stealth entirely thereby eliminating the debuff. I think that's far more generous than should be allowed under the circumstances.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the player target has no awareness that his perception check was rolled against then it isn't an act of agency at all. At least in my lexicon agency is active, not passive.Active is the players decision to spend experience points raising his perception skill.
Then it appears you are arguing that all of the enjoyment involved in an assassination attempt is only for the assassin. Everyone else only gets to be a victim unless they previously preferred to train a self-preservation skill rather than something that would better benefit their settlement's DI. Had they done that then they more likely wouldn't have needed it, since they wouldn't be seneschal.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Then it appears you are arguing that all of the enjoyment involved in an assassination attempt is only for the assassin. Everyone else only gets to be a victim unless they previously preferred to train a self-preservation skill rather than something that would better benefit their settlement's DI. Had they done that then they more likely wouldn't have needed it, since they wouldn't be seneschal.
I'm not sure I understand your point, No one anywhere has ever enjoyed being a victim, otherwise they're not a victim.
I don't think training perception is necessarily going to take away from skills you would use to improve DI, and if it is, Hire body guards or institute a home guard and make perception a requirement to join. There will be plenty of players eager to take that kind of roll. Enough body guards with max perception values should prevent an assassin from sneaking up on you and using observation in the first place. All such transactions are another source of meaningful player interaction. Seneschals should be able to rely on their settlements to provide them with a modicum of protection.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Will the target know how many stacks of observation he has?Yes, part of being a skilled assassin group is varying up your observations to keep the target from deduction. Being able to see the stack totals is part of the target's agency, in basically being able to figure out how close he's getting to being able to be one-shotted (e.g., a high-HP heavy armor wearer may be in the mood of "Bring It!" at one stack, but may start to get a little antsy as the number rises and he realizes he's not going to get to fight back unless he can figure out where the assassin is).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Will the target know how many stacks of observation he has?Yes, part of being a skilled assassin group is varying up your observations to keep the target from deduction. Being able to see the stack totals is part of the target's agency, in basically being able to figure out how close he's getting to being able to be one-shotted (e.g., a high-HP heavy armor wearer may be in the mood of "Bring It!" at one stack, but may start to get a little antsy as the number rises and he realizes he's not going to get to fight back unless he can figure out where the assassin is).
This is even worse than the original description for Observation. If the target fails to perceive the threat he should never know what hit him.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the target fails to perceive the threat he should never know what hit him.
It is clear that you feel that would be best. It is also clear the developers disagree with you. In essence, the developers have determined that the result of an encounter should not depend solely on the result of a passive random roll, yet you're insisting they do just that in this case. How can you reconcile your vision to the design intent that both sides in any encounter have agency?
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
This is even worse than the original description for Observation. If the target fails to perceive the threat he should never know what hit him.Will the target know how many stacks of observation he has?Yes, part of being a skilled assassin group is varying up your observations to keep the target from deduction. Being able to see the stack totals is part of the target's agency, in basically being able to figure out how close he's getting to being able to be one-shotted (e.g., a high-HP heavy armor wearer may be in the mood of "Bring It!" at one stack, but may start to get a little antsy as the number rises and he realizes he's not going to get to fight back unless he can figure out where the assassin is).
Suppose that the defending forces set a magical trap, but the assassin failed to train magical trapfinding. Would it be fair for that trap to automatically kill the assassin, because he didn't detect it?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Suppose that the defending forces set a magical trap, but the assassin failed to train magical trapfinding. Would it be fair for that trap to automatically kill the assassin, because he didn't detect it?This is even worse than the original description for Observation. If the target fails to perceive the threat he should never know what hit him.Will the target know how many stacks of observation he has?Yes, part of being a skilled assassin group is varying up your observations to keep the target from deduction. Being able to see the stack totals is part of the target's agency, in basically being able to figure out how close he's getting to being able to be one-shotted (e.g., a high-HP heavy armor wearer may be in the mood of "Bring It!" at one stack, but may start to get a little antsy as the number rises and he realizes he's not going to get to fight back unless he can figure out where the assassin is).
And also reduce the influence/DI of his entire company/settlement.
My proposal, which would address the logout issue, was:
For aristocrats logging in: Perhaps they could simply be required to be logged in for, say, one hour per day/two days/week. If they log out in the middle of it, it resets the clock—meaning it's not quite so easy to avoid the assassin.
This keeps things challenging—the assassin might have as little as an hour to reach the aristocrat (he should already be lurking nearby, of course), stack the Observations, and kill him—but also ensures the assassin will have ample opportunity.
The exact amount of time required was unsure, but I was thinking this might be what the devs already intend. It ensures the aristocrat logs in regularly, and he can choose—stay in town and be bored, stray out and be in more danger...normal death probably wouldn't affect the counter, but logging out before the clock's wound down, or worse, getting killed by an assassin, probably would.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Suppose that the defending forces set a magical trap, but the assassin failed to train magical trapfinding. Would it be fair for that trap to automatically kill the assassin, because he didn't detect it?
No, that would not be fair, I would expect that the trap would still have to succeed on a successful attack roll vs. the appropriate defense exactly as My assassination attack would have to defeat the targets defenses.
Unless of course the trap maker had expended the time and expense necessary to create something as expensive as a "Power Word Kill" type effect that does not require an attack and allows no saves or spell resistance. Then I would be fine with it.
There aren't any attack rolls in PFO, and therefore no misses. It comes solely down to damage.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the conversation has veered away from the truly problematic questions. The system as outlined by GW only works if the target cannot quickly avoid the assassination 'engagement' attempt through some means.
If they are not required to stay engaged with the encounter then the fairness of it begins to breakdown. No one will use the mechanic outside of a couple very fringe cases at best.
If such a state was fact I would side more towards a system like what has been outlined by Master of Shadows as being ultimately 'fairer', though I would still favor giving the target some sort of momentary warning at the last moment, just so it's not a total surprise.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No one is required to stay engaged in a standup fight either. They can always make an attempt to run. If they can successfully evade the enemy, why shouldn't that be a valid win condition? The devs have already stated the intent to prevent people from hiding out somewhere the assassin is mechanically prevented from getting (possibly worsening the Being Observed penalty if they try), and no one disagrees that logging out should not be a safe tactice to try against an assassin, so what exactly are you concerned about them doing to avoid the engagement? Rather than trying to break a core principle of the game (player agency) out of fear of some nebulous hypothetical, why don't you start pointing out things. Are you concerned about them calling guards? Guards have a transit time to arrive. The assassin will need to make sure they pick somewhere help isn't ten feet away when they try. Or they'll need to bring friends to deal with the target's friends.
There seems to be some perception that a lone assassin should be able to defeat a concerted effort by a group of players to protect someone, and that I just don't understand.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No one is required to stay engaged in a standup fight either. They can always make an attempt to run. If they can successfully evade the enemy, why shouldn't that be a valid win condition? The devs have already stated the intent to prevent people from hiding out somewhere the assassin is mechanically prevented from getting (possibly worsening the Being Observed penalty if they try), and no one disagrees that logging out should not be a safe tactice to try against an assassin, so what exactly are you concerned about them doing to avoid the engagement? Rather than trying to break a core principle of the game (player agency) out of fear of some nebulous hypothetical, why don't you start pointing out things. Are you concerned about them calling guards? Guards have a transit time to arrive. The assassin will need to make sure they pick somewhere help isn't ten feet away when they try. Or they'll need to bring friends to deal with the target's friends.
There seems to be some perception that a lone assassin should be able to defeat a concerted effort by a group of players to protect someone, and that I just don't understand.
Because the mechanic is built differently. Running from a stand-up fight is inherently risky but the engagement has already been committed to.
If a target can risk free disengage from the cat and mouse engagement of an assassination attempt, then the mechanic is unbalanced. If the interest of keeping such a mechanic fair requires it to be prolonged, then the ability to simply leave the engagement with no risk is the inherently superior default strategy in favor of the target. If the solution is bring 10 assassins and everyone observes him once and then you insta-kill him together you are still circumventing the intended cat and mouse mechanic not to mention making the concept of using disguise and stealth kind of moot if 10 random unrecognized people just show up.
If a lone or few assassins cannot kill a target, then it's not an assassination it's just a brawl/regular battle. Which is fine, but then you should get rid of the assassination mechanics as they are unnecessary.
Our biggest fear is that something along the lines of just logging out to hide will become the counter. Like most DI attached characters will end up being alts that probably spend 99% of their lifetime logged out of the game and thus the settlement is invulnerable to the assassination mechanics. I don't have a lot of specific concerns because we don't know enough information about the game yet, I can only offer abstract theories and general philosophy on the matter.
I'm personally of the wait and see mentality, but I would be disappointed if it was a gutted and useless mechanic.
There aren't any attack rolls in PFO, and therefore no misses. It comes solely down to damage.There are attack rolls. Unlike tabletop it's not hit (and then roll damage) or miss (and do 0 damage). It's full hit (max damage) or partial hit (less damage).
Those aren't Pathfinder's idea of an attack roll, though. :P
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Our biggest fear is that something along the lines of just logging out to hide will become the counter. Like most DI attached characters will end up being alts that probably spend 99% of their lifetime logged out of the game and thus the settlement is invulnerable to the assassination mechanics.
These are both very valid concerns, but this proposal doesn't actually fix either of them.
I don't think logging out should be an escape tactic from any combat encounter, whether a face to face fight, or an assassination. I also don't think any character should be effective if logged off 99% of the time, but we need to address those problems, not try to throw on a slapdash band aid that causes more problems than it fixes.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Suppose that the defending forces set a magical trap, but the assassin failed to train magical trapfinding. Would it be fair for that trap to automatically kill the assassin, because he didn't detect it?No, that would not be fair, I would expect that the trap would still have to succeed on a successful attack roll vs. the appropriate defense exactly as My assassination attack would have to defeat the targets defenses.
Unless of course the trap maker had expended the time and expense necessary to create something as expensive as a "Power Word Kill" type effect that does not require an attack and allows no saves or spell resistance. Then I would be fine with it.
Empasis added.
That's a "no, I wouldn't have a problem with it."
There is a design goal that no player should encounter an outcome that they had no way of knowing was coming. "Gotcha!" moments are poor game design.
The 'Observed' state is there to combine the signature ability of the assassin, the one-shot kill and reconcile it with the good game design that a player should have some ability to anticipate and prepare for significant events.
The specific possibility of a target logging out in response to an attack is a complication of logging out in general, not of assassination in particular. Solving the general problem is the best way to resolve that issue.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
No one is required to stay engaged in a standup fight either. They can always make an attempt to run. If they can successfully evade the enemy, why shouldn't that be a valid win condition? The devs have already stated the intent to prevent people from hiding out somewhere the assassin is mechanically prevented from getting (possibly worsening the Being Observed penalty if they try), and no one disagrees that logging out should not be a safe tactice to try against an assassin, so what exactly are you concerned about them doing to avoid the engagement? Rather than trying to break a core principle of the game (player agency) out of fear of some nebulous hypothetical, why don't you start pointing out things. Are you concerned about them calling guards? Guards have a transit time to arrive. The assassin will need to make sure they pick somewhere help isn't ten feet away when they try. Or they'll need to bring friends to deal with the target's friends.
There seems to be some perception that a lone assassin should be able to defeat a concerted effort by a group of players to protect someone, and that I just don't understand.
Because the mechanic is built differently. Running from a stand-up fight is inherently risky but the engagement has already been committed to.
If a target can risk free disengage from the cat and mouse engagement of an assassination attempt, then the mechanic is unbalanced. If the interest of keeping such a mechanic fair requires it to be prolonged, then the ability to simply leave the engagement with no risk is the inherently superior default strategy in favor of the target.
Do you think that the time elapsed from observation to final outcome is likely to be more than slightly longer than the time that a straight-up fight would have lasted?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Do you think that the time elapsed from observation to final outcome is likely to be more than slightly longer than the time that a straight-up fight would have lasted?
Currently, based on what few details have been stated, yes. If it's too quick it runs the danger of being too easy a kill. On the flip side the actual attack cannot last very long or it will probably be impossible to accomplish without a completely boneheaded decision by the target. Therefore the ideal outcome should be the target and his guards spending a few mins trying to find the assassin while he positions for his attack, either they succeed in locating and killing him or he get's his attack off followed by dying or escapes.
That's something else to remember, it is very likely even a successful assassination will result in the death of the assassin more often than not. The assassin mask mechanics exist because of this probably commonly occurring outcome. Most likely only the luckiest assassins will manage to get away from a kill.
As per numbers involved if it requires you to bring large numbers to facilitate the kill (something like 1:1 attacker (or more) to guard ratio) then the disguise and stealth mechanics will probably be severely diminished.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There seems to be some perception that a lone assassin should be able to defeat a concerted effort by a group of players to protect someone, and that I just don't understand.
The Assassin shouldn't be able to obviate the benefit of bodyguards. Why would a player hire others for protection if there is no defense?
How does the OP envision the role of bodyguards in the assassination use-case?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Body Guards should not guarantee the players safety, just GREATLY increase it. And a lone assassin should be able to do little, I for one am hoping that assassinations DO require small groups (at least a couple supports, plus 1-2 actual assassins, but everyone trained in stealth and/or camouflage). I also think that this small group (lets say 5 total) should be able able to pull off an assassination of a target surrounded by lets say...10guards (so double), as long as it was well thought out, well planned, and executed amazingly.
I don't want assassinations to be easy, but I don't think they should require larges groups to pull off. If I wanted to do large scale pvp, I'd join Maelstrom in Golgothas army.
EDIT: and to answers Beings question. The use of body guards should be to increase the perception roles of finding the assassin before he can pull off the assassination AND to deter him from just trying to bullrush a lone target, or even trying to do an assassination. An assassin loses gear if hes when he dies (if hes wearing the assassins mask). And if I expect to find a lone target, and an easy kill, so i equip some better gear to make it go faster, then come to find my target not so alone, I may wait for a better time to attack. In that manner, the guards served their purpose. They stopped me from even trying to assassinate the target on that trip.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Do you think that the time elapsed from observation to final outcome is likely to be more than slightly longer than the time that a straight-up fight would have lasted?
I don't know how long a straight-up fight will normally last, but I expect the time elapsed from observation to final outcome will be significantly longer than the time it takes me to clear a camp of bandits, perhaps even significantly longer than the time it would take me to solo 4 ogres.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Tigari that still essentially disables the agency of your opposition. Agency is active, not passive.
Everything he said has already been stated by GW for the mechanic under discussion.
Are you referring to the guards perception and natural deterrent? That is inline with current thoughts. The guards provide physical defense which may discourage the actual attack and they are extra players making perception checks against the assassin's disguise. How does that remove agency? The current example is still based on the original mechanics where the target knows someone is hunting them via the observed buff.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As I said: agency is active. Passive defense is an inadequate game element. It is radically different choosing perception at the trainer four months ago from actively stalking your quarry. The 'agency' of the former is less than nothing, no benefit. The agency involved in the latter is great, and the challenge should be greater if the defense is actively working to counter and mitigate the assassin's efforts. To urge elimination of the active agency in defense is to urge a win button for the assassin.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To expand, perhaps provide you an opportunity to alter my perception or point out a flaw in my understanding: Trial case is the seneschal of Phaeros. Your team has been awarded a contract to take him out on a given date with a window of four hours, which coincides with the PvP window for Phaeros. The contracting Settlement will have forces positioned to capitalize on the assassination. Your mission is to ensure the seneschal will rez far out of position, so his primary and secondary rez point threads have to be cut prior to his death. You determine that you must have four accomplices to achieve this end.
Your team moves into position and you observe the seneschal. He is informed he is under observation, and as a result the bodyguards seek out your team. There is a chance their perception will penetrate your disguise.
If the notice of observation isn't triggered because of the requirement for a skill check governing whether the senescal's team even gets the opportunity to take some sort of defensive action, then a large chunk of the defender's game has been removed by your wanting a random roll chance for an 'I win' button.