I'm assuming Enruel is referring to the size of a company/settlement contributing to Influence and DI accumulation - thus leading to recruitment of 'anyone with a pulse' mentality. I don't think we've heard anything about how DI and Influence are gained over time. I'm hoping it is based on member activity and not just on pure numbers of members.
So you want a system in which Golgotha can imprison those that wander into our territory? Yep. Fair is fair. If you can throw criminals into prison, there needs to also be a balancing 'hostage' mechanic where you can truss up victims until sold for ransom or until they get sick of them and throw them into a pit with a bear and a wooden sword.
It seems clear to me that Ryan was expressing his opinion that Settlement Leaders would be wise not to judge a recruit based solely on his Reputation score because a High Reputation might indicate the player is more concerned with having a High Reputation than supporting the Settlement. It's a significant stretch to take that and say Ryan is suggesting we'll have to actively lower our Reputation in support of our Settlement, and Ryan very explicitly refused to endorse that reading. Case in point. A delivery rider goes tearing past you and you note they have a powerful artifact on their person that would benefit your settlement immensely. They are however not flagged to you. Do you 'take one for the team' and kill the rider and loot the artifact to bolster you settlement? Or...you're out wandering the meadows, picking flowers and making daisy chains with your friends, when suddenly you come across a lightly guarded siege engine headed towards your settlement. The siege engine is manned by the infamous Shadowclan Orcs, who you know are determined to raze all flower picking settlement in the immediate area. They however have not declared war yet and are not flagged to you. Do you 'take one for the team' and either destroy the engine or impede their progress to give your settlement defenders time to marshal? Reputation is not the be all and end all metric. There are always going to be reasons individuals might take a reputation hit. The above 'cases' are also why I don't like calling non-sanctioned PvP toxic or meaningless. That may not always be the case.
We are still pretty interested in seeing how the community views Pax - as one Guild or several Guilds. We think that's the only meaningful question open in this thread.Well to that specific question my answer would be if they share the same name (in this case the are both PAX) and they share the same forums or other communication medium(in this case both PAX forums) then they are the same guild. Which of course leads to the question of, "What does this means for PFO?". Guilds do not exist within PFO, so should we be asking this about companies using the same forums, or settlements, or factions, or kingdoms?
My opinion is that Pax is an umbrella organisation and that Aeternum and Golgotha are separate entities for the purposes of PFO. They are starting settlements that are vastly different concepts with differing alignments, plus Golgotha was planned prior to joining the Pax community. More than happy to see Golgotha continue on in the landrush. Aside from that, a few observations. Removing Golgotha from the landrush will only annoy people prior to the game even starting. Is that really wanted or needed?
It's no longer a capstone ability, but rather a dedication bonus when using skills from one archetype or similar archetypes (such as cleric & paladin). Discussed a little more in this thread here. Effectively, take all the 'fighter' skills early in the game, build up your hitpoints, weapons skills, fortitude save etc, then when the 'barbarian' comes out, slot the skills you learn from that archetype and viola! You're a shiny, happy barbarian!
Just to throw more fuel on the fire, there are also the ever present PvP consequences of bounties, assassination contracts and manual reputation hits. We probably need more information on these, but from memory, some of the ideas around them (or some of them) were the recipient of these mechanics had to be on your enemies list - meaning they had to have either attacked you or killed you. I'm not sure where this all stands right now, but they are definitely consequences of PvP that players deem not to their liking.
I see S&D helping here also. A likely target is approached and offered a S&D, after which it is discovered they don't have anything valuable. Either drop the S&D or ask for 1 berry and move one. Far preferable to approaching a likely target and killing them, only to find all they had was a single berry.
I have to agree with Broken Sextant though, unconsensual PvP should be heavily penalized so that anyone has to weigh the reprecussions of his actions if you don't want a toxic community. There is no such thing. Logging into the game implies consent.
Some bandits will not be combat oriented, but they will be PvP oriented. That is, they may hold extensive skills in creating and maintaining blinds, issuing SADs, have high appraise, stealth, sleight of hand, perception and survival skills but only rudimentary combat related skills. Effectively, they're the 'face' of the bandit party and contribute the majority of skills to hiding and springing the SAD on victims. Being able to issue a SAD during wars or feuds is vital to these types of characters - otherwise their input to the effort is minimised. Taking goods from the enemy is just as vital as killing the enemy. Wars are often won via economics and/or logistics. This is where bandits come into the mix.
From the alignment and reputation dev blog Committing acts that are crimes in territory controlled by a settlement gets you the Criminal flag and decreases your Law vs. Chaos rating. Settlements can set a number of laws based on their Settlement Alignment.I would assume it is not a huge stretch to say that the criminal flag is not received in hexes not controlled by a settlement (where effectively there are no laws set).
Interestingly, from the I shot a man in Reno blog there is this comment about long term flags (outlaw, enforcer etc...): The point of these is to encourage players to announce their intent, such as Outlaws intending to rob people, so other players can act accordingly rather than players being unable to be proactive in their own defense. This would strongly indicate to me that GW want bandits (and SADs) but also wants people to be able to react to them PRIOR to them issuing a SAD. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that if a character slots the SAD skill, they will be flagged as hostile.
I don't think SAD is supposed to be a zero sum game, nor I assume will be the other archetypes reputation gaining mechanics. GW want people to play a certain way, and when people do, they are 'rewarded' with reputation. Thus, I don't think GW would be too concerned with players grinding reputation, as that effectively means they are performing the roles they want them too, more often.
REFUSAL: If the target refuses and the bandit kills, the bandit loses reputation (the SAD is failed), but gains full regular loot rights. That is the bandit's choice. Exactly the same as if they had ambushed and attacked. Risk and failure of the intent. The issue I see with this part of your proposal, is that those characters that use the mantra "millions for defense and not one copper for tribute" have now just become impossible to SAD without a resulting reputation loss. In those cases, using an alpha strike (sneak attack) would be a more prudent action to take than even trying a SAD. As I stated previously in this thread, I think the issue everyone has is the ability of SAD to potentially initiate combat with non-flagged characters. GW wants bandits and wants bandits to use SAD to perform this role, so I feel that the use of reputation as an additional cost is not the right mechanic. I'm still not sure what that additional cost should be however (beyond flagging and alignment shifts) or if there even needs to be one.
The problem I see with CC, Nevy, is that if there are stuns, dazes etc, then each character HAS to take a stun/daze removal and an character (cleric?) usually takes group stun/daze removals. Great ideas in theory, but it just becomes a matter of everyone has to have one or be seen as subpar. I like the system that was discussed previously, where CCs such as stun, hold person etc, removed stamina from the target for a period of time which allowed them to undertake less actions while the spell was in effect. In this way, a CC is powerful if used against the right enemy character, but not so powerful that everyone has to take a stun removal.
It seems most of the ire comes from the fact that bandits are able to initiate a SAD (and possibly combat) against unflagged characters. Would giving them a longer than normal flag afterwards (criminal or hostile) serve to remove some of this ire? If the normal flag length is 10 minutes, make the SAD criminal flags 20 mins for example.A SAD is in a way unilateral. The bandit has this power to initiate a transaction and the traveler has to be a passive victim or get the hostile flag. This is the unbalanced nature of the system, and it will not be enjoyable to be a victim held helpless by the system any more than imprisonment would be enjoyed by the criminal. Rejecting a SAD should give a Lawful boost and enhance reputation. I actually think this is the intent of the SAD system. It is there as a means to involve those that are not flagged for PvP (via whatever means) into that realm. It is passive at the beginning, yes, but there are several choices the victim (and indeed the bandit) can take once the SAD has begun. I see it also a mechanic that will entice merchants to use guards and also maybe use other social mechanics to ensure their safety. Bribes spring to mind. I would also make a leap in logic, that if the victim refused the SAD and immediately attacked the bandit, they will not receive a reputation hit as the bandits will have a hostile flag up. This is the role guards need to perform for merchants. You may be right in that they could receive a lawful alignment shift, but I'm not so sure about a reputation increase. Is not paying a SAD (a bribe or toll of sorts) a legitimate playstyle for merchants and therefore also within the spirit and rules of the game?
I don't actually see issuing a SAD as a consequence free action in that there is an alignment shift associated with it, a criminal flag issued and possibly a hostile flag if the victim does not agree to the SAD. My assumptions are (and they used to be based on the dev blogs, but I'm not as au fait with them at the moment) that using a SAD gives you the criminal flag which is inherently chaotic. This would therefore shift your alignment along the chaotic axis to some degree. Killing the victim also does the same along the evil axis. This raises an interesting issue in that if people use them for 'lawful' purposes such as customs checks, then the 'customs officers' are going to have their alignment moved along the chaotic axis inadvertently. Maybe the alignment shifts have changes but the devs have not kept us informed of that, or maybe they just haven't given the issue that much thought as yet.
There seems to be a lot of talk about 'consequence free' actions by bandits (that is, a SAD) which seems to irk some people. I don't actually see issuing a SAD as a consequence free action in that there is an alignment shift associated with it, a criminal flag issued and possibly a hostile flag if the victim does not agree to the SAD. If the bandits then attack and kill the victim (not a given mind you) then there is yet another alignment shift. These are all consequences. The only thing different to anyone else initiating an action against an unflagged character is a reputation shift. Since bandits are a crucial role to the game that is fully sanctioned by GW, then reputation loss cannot and should not enter into the equation (unless the bandits break their agreement after completing the SAD). It seems most of the ire comes from the fact that bandits are able to initiate a SAD (and possibly combat) against unflagged characters. Would giving them a longer than normal flag afterwards (criminal or hostile) serve to remove some of this ire? If the normal flag length is 10 minutes, make the SAD criminal flags 20 mins for example.
None of us have NDAs and that good old freedom of speech. Not necessarily true of the NDA part, and freedom of speech (which is not universal) is not a protections against consequences of being able to freely express yourself. In any case, I didn't want to turn this into a political or policy debate. Just simply pointing out that links to stolen documents can have far reaching ramifications (for some people). A spoiler of indication of where th link went might have been appropriate.
Not sure linking to (stolen?) top secret documents is the best idea. Especially for people in the five eyes countries where GCHQ probably now has us flagged :)
When each of your settlements' leaders gets a nicely phrased message saying "Your citizen NotBluddwolf was out murdering yesterday. Do you allow your citizens to do that kind of thing?" and they must provide some answer (Failing to respond or take any action IS an answer), what do you think they will say? I had assumed DeciusBrutus had meant this from a political pressure point of view. Bob is a member of a large settlement that is 'good' but aggressive, and witnesses Gnnh the half orc kill a bunch of innocent merchants. Bob approaches Gnnh's settlement and uses subtle threats as a means of social pressure for that settlement to take action against Gnnh. I really hope this type of social interaction happens! I also hope that it is player initiated and that there is no automated message/killboard type of system that tracks this sort of stuff.
Oh lord, imagine the 12 year olds screaming at you as you smash their character faces in with a greatsword.
What would be your vision of playing a bandit/thief in PFO? Are you saying they should not gain reputation for performing their roles (viz. theft)? I would hope a company that tried to enforce their will on others via simulated rape would be smashed by other groups in PFO, and then banned by GW...BUT I damn well hope and demand that the role of a bandit is a viable one and that as it stands, they gain reputation for performing their role. Reputation is an OOC measuring stick of how they follow game rules, not a measure of how 'nice' they are.
... Maybe the answer to this exploit is even easier that we think. Would it not make sense to only increase corruption on a settlement if the crime occurred against a member of that settlement? Bludd SADing Xeen and his many minions would be pointless unless Xeen was part of the settlement, and in that case he just needs to be ejected from the settlement.
Give it a rest. My comment was actually aimed at everyone throwing crap back and forth at each other in this thread. It really is a pointless exercise for them, as the game is not even playable as yet, and from memory all the participants have stated several times they plan to honor the rules of the game and not participate in 'griefing'. Come EE or OE, if things change, I'll most likely be one of the posters throwing crap around also - but seriously, we're all getting worked up over nothing at this stage.
You now, for the player created shrines. it would be nice that bind points that are not tied to PoIs or settlements can be destroyed by other players.Then the choice becomes whether you destroy it or use it yourself. Desecrating holy shrines. Makes for some nice alignment mechanics.
Isn't it a good idea to move NPC AI more towards that of players? Namely, have them loot corpses (potentially with a small time window after death) and equip any gear they can? Other players can still retrieve the gear, they just have to find and defeat the NPCs in question first. Sure, each time gear quality/quantity will be reduced, but this isn't a bad thing for crafters etc. Would be neat to see a dragon NPC with a huge hoard of player gear :)
@deisum Does this rep loss for participating in non-consensual PvP also extend to areas outside of combat? Does it extend to the economic sphere - trading, crafting, gathering etc? Does is extend to the social sphere, such as politics or even roleplaying? I'm actually of the opinion that you give consent to PvP simply by logging into the game. If you want to 'play' the game, you need to be prepared to have someone attack you physically, someone attack you politically or economically and even have someone roleplay the antithesis of your character concept. There are a plethora of ways to mitigate the risks of these, and people need to be prepared and willing to undertake them at all times.
In '73 we were playing the Fantasy supplement of Chainmail. Nice! I started with the basic set in 80 with my halfling - Keep on the Borderlands is still one of my favourite adventures. Graduated to AD&D in 82 when I started high school and still manage to catch up with four of our original group (of about 8) every month or two. We've moved on to Pathfinder as of about two years ago, and so far I have three of that group interested in PFO :)
For the vey reason that Goblinworks can't control the use of cell phones, smart phones, email, PMing, Ventrilo, TeamSpeak, etc. out of game why shouldn't they offer their own metagame communication? As a game feature? You know, like a business. So let me get this straight, peeps are saying "Well, if you think metagame communication is an unfair advantage get it yourself"; but if PFO offers it it's immersion breaking? Gimme a break. Global chat is different from the other modes of communication you listed above. Every single player has access to that. The other modes are usually linked to specific groups (companies, settlements, kingdoms...) which make the chatter more selective. If GW could provide comms that is limited to a group of sorts, that would be great. Global comms is not so great imho.
The thing is Drakhan, you're the one advocating 'murder' in this scenario. A SAD is a criminal act, and does not necessarily end up in an attack or in murder. It seems you (or at least the position you're advocating) want to wade in and kill the 'dirty rotten scoundrels' for something that may very well be legal in the hex it occurs in. Why would that not make you hostile also? As I've stated previously, I would really love to see consequences for crimes (or chaotic acts if they're not illegal) that extend beyond 'kill them!'.
A successful SAD, while good for an individual merchant on that one occasion is not good for merchants on the whole! Surprised? You shouldn't be it is simple economics. The obvious exception being when a merchant guild hires a company of bandits to harry other merchants or gatherers to keep a specific set of items or mats off the market. It could even be more targeted at a specific merchant group to try to negatively impact their profits in the hope it drives their prices up. Though, it might be easier (and more expensive?) to just hire a mercenary company to kill the opposition over and over until they have no profits left.
Great idea! Now all we need is a way of doing this other than in a thread specifically created to crowdforge roleplaying support ideas. Hopefully if we figure out a way to do that, people will not come in and tell you all what crap ideas they are and how getting devs to work on them will just take away from other things. Sarcasm aside, it is a great idea :)
Nobody seems to be thinking, for example, about the opportunity cost of taking that crafter away from spending XP on crafting in order to spend it on combat skills (as was suggested by Bludd). I tried to make this point in a previous post, Lhan (possibly badly). I had asked people to look at it from the other side of things, being would people frown on PvPers when they had no skills to harvest/gather mats for crafting or building settlement structures. Effectively, would people consider a pure Fighter a second class citizen if they spent zero XP some sort of crafting skill? Crafters will be needed to make weapons and armor, build settlement structures, gather and refine materials...and who knows what else. The settlement that integrates the pure PvPer with the pure crafter (and everything in between) and doesn't consider either second class citizen will be an incredibly effective one.
I don't believe TSV is so much attacking your right to draft all Pax members into your defensive force as defending their right to use a volunteer based military. As long as settlements don't see the non PvPers as 'red' and to be killed as others have suggested, I suspect you have the right of it, Bludd. I would hope and expect everyone to participate in defense, but there will be that one guy or gal that has zero offensive skills, but has probably forged the whole militia quality 300 swords and has maybe also built the towers the PvPers are using in the defense of the settlement. Should they been seen as red to the settlement, especially if the PvPers don't have the skills to produce what he/she has and some of them probably cannot even contribute to basic harvesting/gathering/building?
I'm also offended by the phrases "Loss in a game" and "Loss of money", can we not use those terms? Also, I find the word "unacceptable" to be unacceptable. Thank You. How about stop being so juvenile, Qallz? Making light of such things is just silly, and trying to get Pazio to introduce 'house rules' about terms like loss and unacceptable when Jessica used them to iterate the terms of use for this site borders on what people term as a toxic community. EVE will be much more forgiving of such behavior if it is something you must do. Sorry to derail your thread even more, Bludd. |
