KitNyx's page

It's interesting, but I don't think any of the above posters fully understood what Ryan's Design Document was actually designed to do:-

...
2. Needed a lean Game-Design too = Sandbox PvP (because that's what a whole host of crowdfunding etc games are doing too!).
...

The game was touted as having PvP and being a sandbox. I have no particular feeling about the first, but needed the second. A sandbox signifies the existence of tools necessary to interact with the sand. I guess I have just gotten too spoiled playing games like Minecraft and Landmark.

What if you shift the application around a little and one can take their commodity sword to a smith to be customized?

Or that...*laugh*

@Ryan, Thanks for that explanation. I was with Lifedragn in that I would not have seen swords as stackable. I think the difference for me is in the word Crafter as opposed to Manufacturer. I guess I just like the idea of the Crafter taking pride in their efforts and also being an artist in some sense.

Of course, with your explanation, there is a happy middle ground...make these customization kits craftable (perhaps each requiring a small amount of sky metal)...in addition to the current plan that commodities (such as +1 swords) should be manufacturable.

Trust me T7V is different.

I can be dense, so this is an honest question...out of curiosity, was this sarcasm?

What is more likely is that the Settlement members will look askance a the requests of their LG paladin wanna-be brethren to allocate limited high-level facilities on support for a very exotic and fairly limited Role when there are other mutually exclusive purposes with a wider and likely more useful remit to which those facility slots could be put.

At the same time, if it is such and skill training can be "sold". That might be a financial boon to the few settlements who did make the sacrifice...of course, assuming the above were true and that would be at the cost of other more broad opportunities.

Southraven wrote:

Materials should have a construction process that should be discoverable but not known by anyone to start with. The process should be guarded by players, because it has value and allows people to corner markets (and the ensuing raiding and spying that goes on as people try to reverse enginner discoveries).

If the discovery process can be repeated by following instructions from the internet, then there will very quickly be no more mystery.

This is not necessarily true. My wife and I spent several years playing Saga of Ryzom. In that game you craft with broad categories of items. A sword handle for example can be created from cloth or leather. There was such a range of diversity in the options, each with particular strengths and weaknesses, that the combinations were awesome. Additionally, there was an "organic" modifier that was consistent, but not necessarily strictly numerical that kept even low quality materials as options in the best items.

My wife was a "master Axe crafter" who learned recipes from a guy who spent 2 years playing before we joined. She essentially apprenticed to him. While they played together they continued to refine his recipes. When we quit playing, she had her own secret recipe, people would come to her and ask for axes...specifically because she had a recipe no one else had figured out.

And she still insisted she did not believe her recipe was totally optimized for a the specific focus she was aiming for...3-4 years later.

And, that is an important point, she spent all that time trying to perfect a recipe for a specific build. She would not necessarily know where to start with another build requirement (same weapon) because she would have to learn the optimal combinations, and which created that organic effect, positive or negative. So there was not an optimal high everything...every positive came with some negative. It all came down to the users play style as to which build(s) they liked and would pay for. Recipes become not a matter of simply buying a better BP, but taking the simple BP available to everyone and experimenting with resources to optimize against your needs.

I do not disagree that you can find some good recipes on the internet for items made in Saga of Ryzom, but the nature of the game made good crafters guard their awesome recipes jealously...and more importantly made the nature of awesome subjective, leaving lots of room for variation....and lots of room for many people to be the "best" at what they do.

This is what I hope to see. eventually.

And, Saga of Ryzom's harvesting was without a doubt, the most interesting and engrossing harvesting I have ever seen in a game. Harvesting and Crafting are a few of the areas that game actually got it right...all without minigames.

I'd prefer to steer away from NPC use. Would prefer PC's interaction and their calculations on the souls collected of invisible "Common Folk", by which I mean their spiritual energy or "manna" is harvested as a measurement of religious power or boon etc for a temple etc etc.

Oh...a divine casters power multiplier could be based upon the current spread of their deity. This power would be relevant to heals and damage. This would give divine characters a real interest in spreading their "gods message".

Players probably wouldn't feel nearly as bad about burning evil NPC cultists at the stake either.

What if the players are playing evil cultists...or worse, what if the players are evil cultists? They need content too...

Bah, apologies to the community for letting myself get pulled into and dragging on another...of the same, alignment debate.

Bringslite wrote:

@ Bluddwolf

No, I would not like that! :)

I am not sold that GW's system is the only way to do it and I would be fine if CE were not hampered JUST for being CE. I want some interesting CE villains.

There is this problem though, that many actions that are CE are actions that (while they want possible) they want to be uncommon. I also think that even though PfO is NOT PFRPG, they want to keep enough of it's core principles to make it related.

They want us to take our alignments seriously and play them sorta the way that they are defined. Even if most MMO players do normally disregard alignments in games, maybe GW wants to try and change that.

Again these are guesses and opinions. We will see what is what eventually.

You won't have interesting CE villains if they will be punished whether they are interesting or just RPKing Griefers. GW can't have it both ways.

They are not taking alignments seriously, if they are using them as a mechanic to segregate and funnel, nor are they if they are looking at alignment as a hierarchy (LG at the top and CE at the bottom).

Instead of encouraging good play by everyone, they are encouraging a gaming of the alignment system by many.

No player will set their core alignment to CE, but they will certainly play that way frequently enough to get their jollies, and then they will rubber band back to their core in time before they actually incur the suck of CE.

Even with a spell to see what someone's alignment is, you won't be able to trust they actually play that will on any consistent basis.

The only mechanical problem I see with what you have said above is the ability to "rubberband". I agree, if someone can go CE through a days acts...log off, and return via quick "drift" back out of CE by the time they log back on...ready for another day's CE acts...then the system does not seem to be working as intended.

I hope alignment remains a sum of all your acts...meaningful consequences. The longer your character is around, the more difficult it should be to change alignment, simply from moral momentum.

If I save puppies for 1 day, a single murder should have a large effect.
If I murder for 1 day, a single puppy saved should have a large effect.

If I save puppies for 10 years, a single murder should have little effect.
If I murder for 10 years, a single puppy saved should have little effect.

If I alternate saving puppies and murder, my alignment should end up balanced in the middle...eventually moving very little from either act.

You always remain all the people you have ever been - in a persistent world.

It is as if they are arguing that we are breaking the system if we try to play within the system, because we also want to role play Chaotic Evil characters.

I do not see anyone saying that. I am not sure how much more clearly it can be expressed than Blingslite has tried.

The actions that create low reputation are also the actions that push alignment to CE. How do you expect to be one without the other...especially if you are RPing?

It is as if you are ignoring how the system is intended to work...and more importantly, what being CE is really like...in order to force some illogical situation (I assume so you can use that to argue the system broken).

Chaotic evil is all about self aggrandizement and fulfilling the individuals desires no matter the cost to anyone else. This ranges from the mad monk, who seeks to return insane outer gods so he may rule what is left of the world, to the armored bully, who enforces his will through brute force and intimidation.

Chaotic evil can be charming and urbane, but brooks no resistance to its goals except those imposed by a stronger force. Even then, it schemes to remove the obstruction without any personal sacrifice.

You think people who behave in the manner described above contribute positively to the general community...which is what reputation measures? Granted, they will be others content...but they do not contribute as part of community.

The hardest thing I have reconciling is that elves make great cities and have great training...and they are Chaotic at heart.

Drow, create wonders and are some of the most feared warriors...meaning they have great training, and they are CE.

This is what I see as the most obvious rejections of the premise...CE sucks.

(Although this is just a lore incongruity that makes me occasionally feel cognitive dissonance, I am not arguing against GW designing a meaningful system that ends up like that. The point of their system after all is to encourage people to be social, and discourage antisocial...without outright denying someone the ability. I support that goal, even if it means I have to reevaluate and/or adjust my view of alignment in the in-game universe.)

Players behave very differently when they are sitting across the table, rather than sitting on the othe side of the planet.

Are you really claiming this is a truism?

I will not deny that SOME "players behave very differently when they are sitting across the table, rather than sitting on the other side of the planet." But, I 100% disagree with your blanket claim that as stated reads ALL "players behave very differently when they are sitting across the table, rather than sitting on the other side of the planet." I for one do not play differently. I have played distance TT games...and I play as I would a TT...and I play/make decisions/treat others in MMOs as I do both the distant TT and physical TT. My presentation of a single contradiction denies your blanket claim...and as the core of your argument, invalidates the conclusion.

Bluddwolf wrote:

If I set my core alignment to CE and I use feuds, wars and faction to only kill LG characters are you saying I will not eventually have high reputation? Won't I remain chaotic evil, because my actions and who I'm directing them at would be chaotic evil?

You know... Role playing, but within the behaviors you have supported for all others and within the systems you have been putting in place.

I'd offer that if you rigorously use feuds, wars and factions for all of your PvP needs, obeying those rules that society dictates, you might not really be acting like a chaotic. Or especially not like a CE.

edit: re-reading your bit about only attacking LG - that suggests an inner discipline as well. Again, not very chaotic.

I was trying to figure out how to say this too without sounding like I am saying Bluddwolf is "doing it wrong". I 100% agree he and the UN sound LE or at worse NE, (adherence to an internal or personal code is Lawful too, as is remeining true to contracts) but then there is the question of whether non-Chaotic will be able to use SAD and other bandit-type mechanics.

It smacks of City of Villains, Evil-Lite. Lets set up the system and encourage evil to kill evil so that good can be left alone in peace.

If CE has this so called freedom of action, and have no reason to maintain a high reputation than they might as well Zerg across the country side and randomly kill the weakest targets they can find.... Just for the lulz. Is that really the message that Ryan is putting out there?

Does he think he is going to sucker LE into this myth that their role is to crush CE?

I'd say to LE settlements, supply CE hordes with the best gear we can use and unleash us onto your enemies. Meta game our associations so none of that negative reputation bounces back at you. Use middle men, throw away alts to do the trade between both parties, if there will be rep hits associated with trading with low rep.

Except the war between Chaos and Order has always been most vicious when illustrated by the ongoing wars between devils and demons (aka Blood War)...in fact, I would say they are more constantly violent than those between good and evil. They respectively represent order and chaos is their most pure form, untempered by any goodness.

And this is in addition to the fact that demons are essentially always at war with themselves as well. The personification of CE:

All demon lords are technically — if not actively — at war with one another almost all the time.

I really don't understand why you all think LE will be buddies with CE and vice versa, evil is not a team (hells, as illustrated by the quote above, CE is not even a team), it is the lack of good...leaving only the order vs chaos...which is also at war.

The difference between this and the Good alignments is that LG, NG, and CG at least share that Goodness, the lack of Good is not really something that can be shared. This exact same situation exists mirrored, CG and CE should be at similar odds with the battle between Good and Evil being paramount in the absence of a shared need for Order. LE, LN, and LG can at least temper their differences with that shared belief in Order.

A group of bandits could buff and sit for hours waiting for passers by hit them run off get buffed again and pick another ambush spot.

I actually like the way that sounds.

Or they could make the buffs be consumed by actions...this would have the TT feel in that if I buff you, you can still table talk and plan between "rounds".

An example of how this would work, your buffs each act like an endurance bar, doing things which expend endurance (or whatever is relevant for the buff in question, +CHA buffs would be expended by +CHA acts, etc.) also expend the buff. Standing idly while making plans or waiting for people, etc...either do not expend anything, or have a relatively slow buff countdown.

But, I have never played with a DM who was strict on table talk except when it was relevant to gameplay (such as deliberate separation of teams or trying to be stealthy).

It will be quite some time before any of this is of relevance anyway, so it is all just a speculative exercise.

...

I have my doubts that the first real working version of SAD will be quite what we think that it will be.

I totally agree with you (and I never thought you were attacking Steelwing personally, nor did I intend to defend him, only the relevant points of discussion.)

@ Steelwing

Ok. Dinner is down and processing is complete.

The whole idea of using maximum SADs and/or CE alts to do your work for you bothered me because it does not seem to be in the spirit of the game.

In the use of the SAD, it is a way around the intended use for SAD and the reputation penalties for attacking (in essence) free of consequences. I don't think that GW wants the SAD mechanic to be used in that way. The same as I don't believe that GW wants me to fix all of my caravans with a convenient 1gp SAD for the timer. I hope that I turn out to be right about that.

With the use of the rep-less alts, it bothers me because they really have nothing to lose anyway. It also seems like an abuse of intention if they can be used effectively. This case is a bit different though, now that I have thought about it a bit. It occurs to me, the more that I debate this back and forth, just HOW terribly hampered GW intends to make low reputation toons. They will really have to be useless, otherwise how will the activities that get them there really be consequential? Some of our resident Brains (Nightdrifter comes to mind) have crunched the numbers for us. The difference in the power of the tiers of weapons and gear are looking to be quite significant, even if the power curve of raw ability is pretty flat. In a nutshell: those low rep toons will be pretty useless anyway.

So what is the difference? The SAD should not be abused that way or it will not work as a system. Low rep throwaway toons will be ineffective vs. well geared and trained opponents because if they were effective, the whole system would be basically useless.

I think SAD is intended to be used anyway it is useful. I never got the impression otherwise. There has even been talk of SADding SADders as the way to halt them etc...no one ever claimed that was outside the spirit of SAD. I have to agree with Steelwing on this one, SAD is a tool to be wielded by anyone who is capable of doing so.

I do agree with you Bringslite concerning the low-Rep characters. But, as long as Steelwing's people stay above the bad-Rep line dictated by GW, who are we to say they are playing outside "as intended"?

I expect GW to both place limits on both SAD and the use of low Rep toons (as you already pointed out) so I do not think it will be an issue. In fact, although Steelwing said they might be CE low-Rep characters, he has also already stated his people will play the mechanics, insuring their characters are able to utilize the best/most of the system. This means they will need to be high-Rep and high-Rep is gained through playing as intended...and contributing content to the community.

Some people want to explore, some want to craft, some want to pve, some want to pvp. They fall in the last category. Sometimes we may well go a couple of months without a war and at that point they will wish to pursue their preferred game style

To offer another opinion (not TSV official policy), I am actually kind of confused about why what Steelwing is suggesting is rubbing people the wrong way.

As a past leader of a guild, I see two primary purpose for guilds in a sandbox...and as such, I see two facts that to me are irrefutable. One, it is the job of a guild to protect the lives and interests of its members (within reason). If my guild decides that hiring anyone in-game to perform a role that will increase the strength of our position or my ability to insure the well-being of our members, I will have no qualms with supporting it (with the caveat that TSV is dedicated to high-Rep)...even if this means we hire a CC to act counter to our alignment (not Rep). This includes doing our utmost to block strategic roadways...if we feel it is tactically required to insure our well-being.

Two, and this is the most important...sandboxes are community driven, most of the content will come from the community. The second primary purpose of a guild is to support the development of content for its members. TSVs structure was even created specifically to fulfill this goal. TSV will have members who want to PvP...I fully expect to get members who want to do nothing but PvP. Our ROE and our internal rules will place a lower limit on what we allow for Rep, but that is our choice. As long as a CC/Settlement stays within the bounds created by GW, who are we to say they are "doing it wrong"? I fully expect TSV will not suffer for enemies, so I am not particularly concerned about being able to provide enough PvP content to those members who want it. Answer me this though, imagine a group no one wanted to mess with, who tried to maintain a LG-ish, high Rep settlement. How would you suggest their PvP hungry members sate their appetite? Alts in merc CCs sound like exactly the correct and GW sanctioned path. Returning to my point one, why not have that settlement hire those mercs to keep the money in-house?

Steelwing has done nothing but state that he and his intend to do the two things I just said a guild must do. He will defend his interests and provide content for his people. The only difference is my insistence for high Rep, but again, as long as Steelwing stays above the line drawn by GW, who are we to say he is wrong?

I guess I just read Steelwing's posts and see someone who wants to give me and mine content...not just take our stuff. Someone who wants to test himself against the best I can field and vice versa - A breath of fresh air.

To return to the topic, I do not think the OP was asking or suggesting alliances or "Big Town". I think he was asking for mechanics and design consideration. PaP is the opposite side of PvP...both are player interactions, the OP just does not think all interactions need be hostile, combative, or even competitive. I agree with the OP, I hope there are mechanics that allow me to assist and cooperate with another who might not necessarily have asked for it (or even mechanics for doing this on a larger scale). I hope the net gain from such a situation would be greater than that of doing the act solo.

We will certainly be open to making useful groups blue. We are not unapproachable and if a merchant came to us and said I can supply this every week and it is a good deal we would agree a mutual price and put him on the blue list.

Blues are not necessarily just people in our nation by any means. We just don't intend letting unknown randoms into our lands on a regular basis

And for those who do not want to make friends, NBSI territory is also easily passable if no one can see you, catch you, or...beat you. Make it too expensive financially/resource-wise to stop you and they will not try.

@Wexel, very true...we will just have to see how it all balances out (and sorry for the semi-off-topic waylay)

I don't understand why Reputation needs any association with crafting (aside from maybe frequent contract breaking)

I could see certain keywords having an alignment to them. Perhaps crafting an "Assassin's Shiv [of Vampirism], [of Necrotic Undying], [of Evil], [of Chaos]", should give a few alignment hits when crafted.

KitNyx wrote:

Steelwing wrote:

Hell I don't even logon to this website from the same ip two nights running

I bet you are fun to have a beer with!

Not quite sure I see the connection there but I have been known to quaff and sing and sometimes even dance (but only when I can embarrass a teenage daughter by insisting she joins me in the mosh pit)

Sorry posted quickly without my usual self edit, I have a garden path type of humor that few get, I should not have even tried. My intent was a compliment and a bit of taunt for the paranoid. Cheers.

Well, there are recursive acronyms like GNU (GNU's Not Unix), but I guess it'd be something like a "layered acronym."

Oh...recrusive is good...I am going to have to go with nested though. "Nested Acronym"

KitNyx wrote:

I look forward to at minimum pushing a policy of reciprocity with a INSI (If NBSI, Shoot It) policy.

(Seems there should be a term/name/word for making acronyms of/with acronyms?)

That is the attitude to take. This is a sandbox game. If you do not like the way we are playing the solution is in your hands. Band together and kick our butts back to the NPC settlements. This is something I fully endorse.

*laugh* thanks!

Well, actually, I have seen you say very little I disagree with, I just have a different playstyle. Simply, if you intend to be killing my people as they pass in or near your land (as in the example of the claimed road), I do not intend to keep them from killing you in/near ours.

But, just so everyone knows, there is lots of talk of NBSI, but any such system will include ways to become Blue. Want to pass through someones land? Pay them for the right and promise (upon penalty of death and Blue revocation) that you will not touch their resources. Make a friend, have him broker a deal...forget friends, just give someone a good deal a few times then repeat. Social interaction, the options are limitless. No peoples in The River Kingdoms are an island.

Hell I don't even logon to this website from the same ip two nights running

I bet you are fun to have a beer with!

I look forward to at minimum pushing a policy of reciprocity with a INSI (If NBSI, Shoot It) policy.

(Seems there should be a term/name/word for making acronyms of/with acronyms?)

I think that maybe he is advocating NRDS as opposed to NBSI - which is something being promoted by the developers already from what I read.

I do not think he is talking about PvP at all. He is asking for other tools/features/aspects that promote and empower cooperation and community...without consideration to PvP.

Wexel, please correct me if I misunderstood.

EDIT: To clarify, consider this...for every PvP interaction we have discussed, what if you also had the option to assist the other player(s)? Why not altruistically help someone defeat an escalation, defend a mine, harvest a node, etc...none of which necessarily has anything to do with PvP (although it could). Why not a DAS (Defend And Support) mechanic?

Vwoom wrote:

No settlement will have everything it needs, agreements will be the bread and butter of growth from everything I have read. Overly aggressive settlements just might fine it harder to trade for what there hex lacks.

No one is saying settlements won't have agreements. I am just trying to fathom what this call for player assisting player is as it seems to me it is just a sort of weak and limited alliance type.

Most aggressive settlements btw will be looking to form multisettlement nations to ensure they can supply their own needs btw but that is irrelevant to this particular discussion

I took it as a call for a design focus. Wexel (and others such as myself), hope that at the design level, ways we the community can assist and cooperate with each other is a large consideration; This, in opposition to ways we can impede and kill each other.

I think the reason why Wexel felt the need to mention it was because 98.72% of our posts here are PvP related. He wanted to mention his desire that PvP be balanced by the tools that actual create a community, as opposed to those that just require a community.

Make sense?

Agreed, thanks Wexel.

KitNyx wrote:

I actually wish "core alignment" (as currently described mechanically) was locked to the default racial alignment.

I disagree. the reason for it is because there are radicals in every race.

I agree, how would having an elfs core alignment be CG as described prevent someone from playing an elf of any alignment? I agree radicals exist everywhere...but they are called radical for a reason, were everyone one, it would not be very radical. Being able to create and sustain the uniqueness of a Good Drow should be a daily effort.

But, if I cannot win with the above argument, I agree, I do not really see the point of the Core Alignment (other than ones natural instincts and societies view of you...as I suggest).

The more I think about it, The more I want to suggest removing the idea of core alignment and just base everything on active alignment. Kinda like in TT, there is no core vs active, you have your alignment and then decisions you make in game. Make too many contrary decisions and your alignment changes. This can be done in PFO through the proposed 7500 through -7500 point system. when you shift alignment based on your actions, you lose access to the skills and access to the training needed for those skills. If you fall out of alignment with your settlement, you give a debuff, or corruption or something, to your settlement until you fix it or are kicked out.

Do away with the passive slide back to core alignment and base all alignment movement on actions. After all, that is the best way to gage intent. If I intend to kill you, I will do so and shift toward evil. If I don't intend to kill you then I don't shift. If I intend to pay taxes, I shift towards lawful. If I choose to give less then requested or none at all, I am acting chaotic and shift towards chaotic. Do we really need a passive slide? Yes I know the discussions on other threads concerning "Anything that requires active participation can/will be gamed" but I have always believed is if it is designed "properly" then that is working as intended when it is being gamed. Go on a murderous rampage and find yourself evil (and possibly chaotic as well) then "repent" by doing good things. I never understood the "just log off for a week and your be right back to (insert not evil alignment)"

Just my thoughts. I argue for this because it makes sense and promotes the meaningful interactions the devs desire. To be honest, I also desire meaningful interactions.

I actually wish "core alignment" (as currently described mechanically) was locked to the default racial alignment.

I choose to view all who are not in league with those who are in opposition with me as friends. Partially because I honestly believe seeing the economy, and more importantly this game succeed are indeed good for me. Partially because I view it as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

And this, even with all the things we do not agree upon (and there have been many), is the reason Phaeros will friends, if not allies, with Brighthaven.

Steelwing wrote:

The whole reason people are arguing for a coded system can be spelt out in one sentence

I do not want to have to enforce treaties I want the system to do it for me.

That argument is just as valid against an in-game Contract system, and yet the devs feel an in-game Contract system is important, perhaps even vital.

Perhaps there's something to be learned from that fact.

Or...

Friends lists (what? you cannot keep track of your friends out of game? must not be real friends then...your friendship will fail)...

Chat functions (Voice chat is better anyways, anyone who uses the in-game system will be laughed at)...

Character sheets (you could after all just utilize a meta-game spreadsheet to figure out your stats, why do you need an in-game mechanic to do your work for you?)...

Personally, I am arguing for a coded system for three primary reasons, one, that coded system represents the uncoded population of the game, the multitudes of unmarked/unheroic NPCs who live and work in The River Kingdoms. They, for instance, will not like war being brought by an ally...leading to general unrest and decreased production. Unheroic they might be, but masses still have momentum. Two, as mentioned by Nihimon and many others, the purpose of many of these systems are to entice us players into being a "better community" (as dictated by GW). Since most people will pursue the roles that provide the most mechanical advantage, it is logical to offer more mechanical advantage to roles that contribute more positively to the well-being of the community, or at least more to the continued function of the system as desired. Finally, I am a semi-casual player, if the tools to play the game are not what I would consider user-friendly, I will go find one that is.

It sounds to me like the same problem that pervades PvP also infects the political player organization in raid systems of PvE games.

Agreed, personally I have no interest in raiding, never have...for the reasons mentioned here. I have always been too casual a player to care about grinding up to the perfect gear/spec. Good thing GW is not wasting their time focusing on raid mechanics.

My question then, is GW "griefing" raiders by totally excluding that gaming option from the game? Should they take a rep or alignment hit? Or be outright banned?

How dare GW spend so much time building a "better" PvP system instead of focusing of raiding...oh wait, that was not the point...

You don't choose to be bandit and then do bandit stuff, you do bandit stuff and then become a bandit.

Cheers, thank you. Although I would say it is more accurately, "You don't choose to be X and then do X stuff, you do X stuff which makes you a X." X can be any imaginable role, or derivation thereof.

Was the Alignment system the selling point of D&D? Is it the selling point of PF RPG? Is it a major system in any TT or PC game, where it's removal will irreparably damage the product?

Ah, but the difference is with <=6 people sitting at the TT with me, I can choose to not play with people who will stab me in the back and take my lutz for the lulz and giggles...just because the game mechanics allow it. In an MMO I do not have that option.

I am thankful for the alignment and reputation system (because intertwined they might be, they do measure different things) to help me avoid people I have no interest in playing with - without which my interest would be...questionable.

@Being

Technical points aside there is no reason a like minded group of Druids, Rangers, Gypsies etc could not form a company. As a Neutral force interested in balance in all things. Every member would be free to do there thing all day everyday, short of mass-murder. That company could be loosely allied with a settlement they saw as the underdog and when the time was right join the settlement.

Or, be part of establishing a settlement with such a belief...

Do their part in the defense from outside the besieged settlement thus earning the good will of the settlement, and in turn the training they desire.

Agreed, I think Druid Groves (and other places relevant to training other classes) will end up a POI or building site, when druids (and other respective classes) are introduced.

Bluddwolf wrote:

Wow, that is stronger than I would have said, but then again you are probably correct in that opinion.

Well, look clearly at it.

My consideration, expressed in the harshest language I would select, is that in order to gain any advanced training we will be required to become obedient codependents in a structured, militaristic state.

There are some announced groups who do not intend to be militaristic states requiring subservience of members nor sponsored CCs. Hopefully that plan does not preclude the existence of a strong defensive militia/military.

As far as answering the OP, an obvious benefit would be the ability to create formations together and share other built-in means of communication. Similarly, one should be able to limit availability of created contracts and sales of goods and services to "allies".

A few changes I would like to see with SAD:

1. The "Fleeced Flag" should not allow any other to SAD or Ambush the merchant for the duration of the flag.

2. Whomever violates the flag gets the double reputation hit.

3. The amount the merchant was fleeced for should be visible upon inspection.

4. SADs can not be issued against members of same company, settlement or kingdom.

4. faction? Facebook friend? Just kidding...about the second one.

KitNyx wrote:

And a failed SAD has a Rep hit. What does a failed Halt look like? And, since you are proposing Halt as the foundation of SADing...can one Halt a Halt to come to aid of those being abused with Halts?

Halt should inherit the cooldown on the victim that SAD is supposed to get. What was it? For 20 minutes after a SAD you can't be reSADed?

Except again maybe I misread it, but to me what was said about the cooldown, it does not keep everyone from re-SADing you, only the bandit that just SADed you.

If the victim and Outlaw completed a stand-and-deliver trade, the Outlaw loses double reputation for killing the target within 20 minutes. (If they pay, you should let them go.)

The above quote is the foundation of this cooldown. It only applies to the specific bandit. To the best of my knowledge GW has never suggested an sort of global cooldown (correction quote welcomed).

@Andius, you are right about not loosing Rep, they just do not gain any.

And a failed SAD has a Rep hit. What does a failed Halt look like? And, since you are proposing Halt as the foundation of SADing...can one Halt a Halt to come to aid of those being abused with Halts?

Yeah, what I do not like about it is that there is no recourse for those being halted, and no penalty for falsely/failing to halt someone...or even just an outright cost for using the ability (such as rep or influence, I know halting me is goign to cost you both in metagame).

So what is to keep someone from using Halt mechanic on random noobs, killing them if they do not comply, without rep hits?

It is ironic, and probably disturbing to some, that Nihimon and the UnNamed Company share this date in a way as a birth date.

We of the UnNamed Company call it "The Day of Lost Coins" a day when we will not rob, steal or kill anyone.

It is fitting that the day we have set aside to be on our best behavior, is coincidently Nihimon's anniversary date as well.

The idea for this was first created:

Quote:

re: Sercret: Day of Lost Coins

Postby Bluddworth on Wed Jul 03, 2013 5:31 pm

First...Ironic

Then, there is an easy explanation, Nihimon is Bluddwolf...

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!'.

To be fair, the SAD mechanic is a threat of murder. While it might be true that not every SAD results in murder, all of them are conducted with the threat of.

It is also true that not every attempted murder ends up in murder.

Thanks and congrats to UNC!

I guess my issue with the direction this discussion is going is the level of import that seems to be placed on it. Banditry is one role within the game and SAD is simply one mechanic of banditry GW had discussed. I hope bandits have many more mechanics they can use, some probably more relevant to everyone else than SADs. And I definitely hope there are many, many more roles than banditry...each at least as developed.

I realize I am not contributing much here, but it really does feel like trying arguing about balance based on SAD and anti-SAD mechanics is kind of like trying to balance the entire combat system based entirely upon the knowledge solely and exclusively on a set of ever-changing stats/requirements for using trip with a whip.

But maybe I am wrong or missing something...does anyone really think SADs will be of central import to the game? Do we really want suggest piecemeal counter mechanic/flags for every mechanic as it is presented?

KitNyx wrote:

Yeah, I do not like this magical place Vigilantes is getting.

I'm now envisioning a place filled with clouds, rainbows, demon/bandit heads on pikes, and a bunch of guys armed to the teeth drinking ale together.

Valhalla?

KitNyx wrote:

Bandits can already kill each other when they have the bandit flag flying.

Everyone could kill outlaws back when we had an outlaw flag but there is unfortunately no confirmed outlaw or bandit flag at this point.

Yeah, I think I will wait for more details.

Now, you're adding jackals and lambs? How many animal metaphors are we going to have? lol

OK, how about this:

- Bandits need to flag themselves as Bandits in order to do SAD's.

- Viligantes can attack Bandits consequence-free.

- Bandits can attack Viligantes consequence-free.

Other than that, SAD system remains the same. How would would you like that, fair?

Yeah, I do not like this magical place Vigilantes is getting. Bandits can already kill each other when they have the bandit flag flying. Why do we need another flag that does the exact same thing?

Also, I fear this direction is starting to cut out the meaningful interactions with the antelope, gazelle, and yaks.