Ludy's page

Ludy wrote:

I have yet to see anyone poke a stick at the UnNamed but I guess you couldn't resist the opportunity to poke the stick at someone else. In true honorable bandit fashion.

In fact I am pretty certain that Andius is against everything you just said about him. Glad to see your still working on your meta game.

It is indeed just that... But it is also my belief that large guilds excert control, and emass wealth, under the guise of looking out for the "community".

Andius wrote:

The more who join with our cause the farther we can spread our influence and the more powerful we will be. Of course it will not be free just like any country, city, and citizen pays taxes for a military to keep them safe. We will not demand more than is reasonable for the level of protection we offer though.

As for stick poking, I did not start the stick poking and I usually only use one's own words to point out hypocrisy.

I have at least learned to spell (type) Andius' name properly.

Remember also, every hero needs his villain and if TEO and the UnNamed Company will be in opposition to one another, at least we can try to have some fun with it.

You got a ways to go mate, but at least you are putting the effort...

Andius wrote:

Summersnow wrote:

Please don't be discouraged by people who want to force you into a pvp group.

Some of them are good intentioned, some are mearly looking for mindless drones they consider 2nd class citizens to keep them supplied with gear so they can go out and play the "real" game. (Andius...)

I'll be sure to remember that when I'm the one saving your butt from bandits after you realize how limited the world inside the safe areas will be. ;)

Summersnow would do well to remember we are offering you the chance to join us and will do nothing against you should you refuse. It is not uncommon for military organizations to simply decide you'll pay their tax or they'll wipe out your operations. We will do no such thing but we will protect you from those who would.

@ Summersnow

The UnNamed Company will take less from you, as bandits, than Andius will take from you in "taxes". That is a fact, but not just for Andius' government, but for all governments.

They tax you for every transaction, for every passage through their realm, for every mob that you kill, and in some cases for every month that you remain in their "protection".

I have yet to see anyone poke a stick at the UnNamed but I guess you couldn't resist the opportunity to poke the stick at someone else. In true honorable bandit fashion.

In fact I am pretty certain that Andius is against everything you just said about him. Glad to see your still working on your meta game.

"Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics."

I think that if you are looking to be a crafting or economic player there will be opportunity under every alignment to practice pure pacifism. It looks as if CC's are going to be limited to 20 people but settlements will be able to have around 1000 in population. So some of the population will not be a members of the governing community but folks that decided to live in a settlement. They would be at the leave of the government of that city but still could be afforded the protection of it.

So if I was the benevolent LE Dictator of Ludyopolis I would want some hard core crafters in the city. I would charge them rent or sure charges on the crafting stations. This would be part of the tax base allowing my members more freedom of action and less taxation. I would also have an agreement that the CC could provide a set amount of material help if war was declared against my settlement. This could be say crafting 100 potions of cure light wounds. The settlement would provide the raw materials but your CC would provide the man hours.

This means that while my army of bloodthirsty subjects would love to go to war they know that messing with you is a no-no. You would get to maintain your non-PvP stance and still be a highly regarded player. If you made good items at a reasonable price the people in the settlement would want you to stay. If you left prices might go up or they would have to pay more in taxes. The alignment of these settlements doesn't matter. You need to think more in the meta than in game. Some CC's and settlements will claim to be CG but are truly a den of cut throat bandits, same as they could claim LE but never attack unflagged people.

Oh side note I will not be playing either LE or a be in any settlement governing body. I will be more a solo player because of my time zone but I am not worried. PvP will happen GW has pointed out that it's part of the game from the get go. At least it will be exciting. I also don't think it will be much better than Eve. Thing is there is years of game play just in Hi-Sec in Eve. You just need to figure out if that playstyle is what you want.

So does this mean as an evil guy I might want to keep my goblin servants roaming my hex in hordes as a first line of defense against do-gooders, as they are "firendly" towards me? But I would have to kill off Do-gooder NPCs so they dont escalate into a kill-th-bad-guys war party? O.O

Also, Im curious to know what all a bandit hideout can do?

Are hideouts the bandit equivalent of a settlement or are they just a base?

I agree with Hobs on the goblins attacking you.

I wonder on the hidout myself. If it's a type of settlement then war can be declared. The "do-gooders" or maybe the LE settlement that is sick of bandits cutting their profits can declare war and destroy the hideout.

In Eve it is possible to force wars on Corps even if they are passive. I don't see it being any different here. Remember that while in a war the PvP flags get turned on for everyone and no alignment shifts or loss of reputation.

To me Neutral Evil is by far the most dangerous.

CE tends to in fight and not really have lasting power. They do make these big splashes that make people gasp but they are dead soon after.

LE has the longevity to actually accomplish empire building but if they take law as seriously as evil they leave ways for people to work within the system.

NE on the other hand is pure greed. They are the long thinkers and would be just as willing to show fealty to a settlement one minute and sell it out for a better position later. They lack the "code" of the LE character and self destructive nature of CE.

If they can accomplish this feeling in PFO I will be shocked. Not in the meta-game portion because, there will be some ruthless bastards that think only of themselves, but in game. To me it seems that NE will be those who are able to balance criminal and lawful acts and like to PvP. It also looks as if atoning for your sins won't be too bad if you alternate your gains fairly regularly. Go kill merchants for a day or 2 then go PvE or play your twin for a day or 2. Not really a big deal.

I thought it was more...

1.Bandit builds hideout and turns on ambush mode.
2.Merchant comes in range (no word if whole hex or part of hex) and gets pulled out of fast travel. Oh doesn't have to be merchant can be 20 pissed off Hellknights.
3.The merchants or Hell knights then know that a bandit camp is up and can try to get away or find bandits. Bandits don't know the exact location and will need skills like tracking to find quicker.
4.Bandits need to get within I bet bow range to deliver the SAD.

Did I read the earlier blogs wrong? The SAD mech doesn't seem like it's part of a hideout as Bandits should be able to to it even if they don't have one. It seems more tied to the Outlaw flag.

Well, if you never want to fall under the Heinous flag, then yes, animating the dead is a bad idea. Heck, being evil at all is a bad idea in that playstyle. But some people enjoy the risk. Nobody's getting crippled except those who don't have the sense to not summon undead whenever they feel like it.

No those that want it as a pet class are. You keep saying do it in secret but why would you want to when summon natures ally or summon monster would never be hit by the flag for simply using a spell. You could still be "evil" and be a druid or a wizard with those spells.

Might be hard to get NPCs to do the SAD mech. If possible I think it would be great and add to the game. As Bluddwolf said they would be an enemy of the PC bandits and merchants.

Likely they would just be bandits of the "your dead thanks for the loot" variety. Still I think these would be a enemy to the PC Bandits. I'd go after the guys taking my easy meal ticket away.

Ludy, can you stop acting like necromancers are going to be constantly crippled? It just isn't true. They are endangered for the duration of their undead's existence. I have played many necromancers who never animated so much as a dead housefly.

If you want to animate undead, do it where you're safe. But you otherwise have nothing to worry about.

And can you stop putting words in my mouth?

I was making a statement on the use of a Necromancer as a DISPOSABLE PET CLASS. I did not mention any of the other aspects of the class on purpose and also specifically laid out in my post that I was making statements that called out this aspect of game play.

If you are looking at the pet class aspects or disposable pets you might want to look towards Druid.

I still hold that if someone is looking to play a necromancer as a PET CLASS then they may want to look at other options. The flag system, as it stands, will make the creation of undead a strong disadvantage to the class in this play style. While people MAY not attack you sight they also might. Why? Because you can get loot and not worry about getting flagged for doing it most of the time. A druid can summon natures ally all fricken day and not once get flagged. So in the play style I listed, more than once, the Druid will be at an advantage in general play.

People have been playing Necromancers as a pet class in MMO's longer than Pathfinder RPG has been around. It seems to reason that many would want to continue in roles they have established since like 1999 when EQ came out. Not me be the way. I just don't like the whole idea that a person that never attacks another and stays in the "safe" areas can be hunted for their actions in PvE.

Now if you're playing the Necro as a Harm Touch/Symbol of Death/Inflict Wounds no you wouldn't be hit by it much. Thing is people are not talking about that play style. At least I wasn't. I was giving an option to those that want to be a pet class without the negatives of ever falling under the Heinous flag.

I can think of reasons why creating or using undead would not be "evil". I also don't think that a killing an evil creature is evil so I am out of fashion (shrug). I am against the idea that alignment should be used for PvP. Every single flag and anti-griefing mech could be done with reputation. It's cleaner that way and everyone can play the class they want.

Since it does not appear to be changing I think that those wanting to be Necromancers are going to have to rethink their class just like I think Paladins might want to think long and hard on theirs. I feel bad for both of these groups.

If you are looking at the pet class aspects or disposable pets you might want to look towards Druid. They will have many of the same play styles as "pet class" Necromancer. You can even play a fairly evil Druid if you wanted that aspect, but didn't want the 24/7 come kill me flag. I know it's a bitter pill but it might end up to be the best option.

The only things you don't get is the criminal flag and reputation hits IF you are using SAD in a lawless area.

You still get attacker, not that it matters much because of the time limits. I think even putting a SAD up is an aggressive act so you should get flagged if you physically attack or not.

You still get hit with good/evil ups and downs if you kill. Karma is not going to care if your in the lawless lands same as it won't care if a paladin kills you.

The benefit of stand and deliver is providing you ways to prevent loss of reputation. I like that aspect of it. I think that if a brigand is honorable and follows his side of the agreement than they should not get hit by reputation loss.

Just because you are in a lawless area and use SAD does not mean you are going to be safe. If you kill you started it and you will be on the victims killer list. Bounties and Death Curse are the option of the victim. If they have money and or reputation to burn accept it as the price of your actions. Your victim needs to accept the risks of being attacked why should the bandit not have risks?

Ludy wrote:

Kobold I think you get it. Lately I see far to much "protect the bandit" or "protect evil". Seems that many who want these play styles are unwilling to take any risks. They want to the ability to gank but don't want anything in game that might be a negative to them.

How about the idea that GW wants to make the game fun for both sides? If bandits can force payment, not take reputation hits, not have bounties, not have any flags, always get the first attack, and can go into any city they want... WTF play anything else?

Bring some realism in expectations back to the argument. I like SAD. I just think that some are trying to grab for far to much in this argument and it will negatively effect the game if one side gets everything.

+1

To some extent the demands of SOME of the evil/chaotic/bandit side are getting ridiculous. For example complaining because they cannot parade down the main street of town trailing a posse of undead with immunity or wanting to be able to automatically stop every target they meet on the road without the target having the option to try and run.

Not all would be bandits are unreasonable of course.

Also some of the more self righteous Good players are just as ludicrous demanding the right to kill any Evil aligned PC on sight for no reason other than being evil.

Hopefully reason and balance will prevail.

Fully agree. I have nothing against bandits as they will drive up prices on material making it easier to make more money.

I have nothing against the goody-goody as they are needed to have interesting wars.

It's just going a bit far in the demands that different groups are making.

Kobold I think you get it. Lately I see far to much "protect the bandit" or "protect evil". Seems that many who want these play styles are unwilling to take any risks. They want to the ability to gank but don't want anything in game that might be a negative to them.

How about the idea that GW wants to make the game fun for both sides? If bandits can force payment, not take reputation hits, not have bounties, not have any flags, always get the first attack, and can go into any city they want... WTF play anything else?

Bring some realism in expectations back to the argument. I like SAD. I just think that some are trying to grab for far to much in this argument and it will negatively effect the game if one side gets everything.

Attacker

The character has attacked another character outside of a war situation, and the target character did not have a PvP flag. It denotes which character is the aggressor in PvP combat.

Anyone killing a character with Attacker does not suffer reputation or alignment loss.
Attacker is removed if the character is killed.
The Attacker flag lasts for one minute after combat ends.
If the character gets the Attacker flag he gets an Aggressor buff that lasts for 24 hours that has no effect besides being a counter. Each time he gets Attacker increases the stack of Aggressor by one.
If the character gets a high enough stack of Aggressor, determined by his Reputation, he gets the status Murderer, which lasts 24 hours and does not disappear on death. It acts the same as Attacker, allowing repeat offenders to be hunted down for longer periods of time.

Nothing about lawless area.

Outlaw (Chaotic)
The Outlaw flag is for players who want to rob other players, commit acts of banditry, etc. It can be used by chaotic evil players to be brigands, or by chaotic good players to be Robin Hood–style robbers. Outlaws use a new mechanic we are working on developing called stand and deliver, which allows the Outlaw to demand money from their victim through a trade window. If the victim refuses, the Outlaw gets to carry out his threats of force without losing reputation.

This flag cannot be disabled while Attacker, Criminal, or Heinous (or their 24-hour versions) are active.
While Outlaw is active:
The player gets more loot when searching PvP kills that goes up each hour up to ten hours.
The player gets a bonus to Stealth that goes up each hour up to ten hours.
These bonuses reset to the minimum upon gaining the Attacker flag unless the target was offered and rejected a stand-and-deliver trade within five minutes of the attack.
If the victim was offered and rejected stand and deliver, the Outlaw loses no reputation for killing the target within five minutes of the rejection.
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.)
When an Outlaw receives a ransom from stand and deliver, they get reputation up to a daily max.

Yep you are going to get flagged. True your bonuses won't drop after a SAD but you are still a killer and still an attacker.

Any player that hurts you shows up on your enemies list. This list allows you to salute or rebuke the enemy (granting or reducing reputation, at the cost of your own). The entry disappears if you aren't hurt by that enemy again within several days (exact time frame to be determined). If you died within a certain window (also TBD) after someone's entry was refreshed on your enemies list, that person is noted on the list as one of your killers (those who injured you right before you died may be a bigger factor in your death than whoever made the final blow). If you want to get even, you can establish a bounty on anyone listed as a killer on your enemies list.

Hmm seems like I can put a bounty on anyone who kills me. Even if I am the aggressor so bandits can put it on guards that kill them. Or a rish merchant can give cash to his guards to have multiple bounties out.

Whenever you're killed and that killer shows up in your enemies list (you were attacked and weren't fair game), upon resurrecting, you are immediately able to pray to Calistria, goddess of vengeance, to bring a death curse upon your murderer. You can only have one active death curse at a time; it only lasts 24 hours unless renewed, and it costs you reputation to enact and renew. The reputation cost is proportional to the reputation of your killer, and increases over time. The target will not know when the curse is placed, but will be able to tell when someone is about to carry out the curse (likely with a very threatening death's head icon over any player involved).

Death curse is expensive but unless your target is a wimp it is likely that you can get it done. Even more so since you can trade reputation like a currency. If your rich you can get your revenge on the bandit even in lawless areas. Hmm maybe sheep will have teeth.

Valkenr wrote:

It's the 'fair game' line I'm pointing out. To me, declining a SAD makes you 'fair game', and your killer doesn't get put on the enemies list, therefore you can't put out a bounty or death curse.

We don't have a solid answer on if a outlaw can have bounties put against their SAD refusals. I'm just speculating based on what has been said.

I believe you are correct, but I can't pull up the quotes with this damned iPhone.

@ Ludy,

You seem to be taking it personally, but no matter. The bounty system has already received enough backlash to make the original idea of limitless bounties ruled out. On top of that, there is also something like a 24 hour timer set on that bounty.

However your more obvious misconception is that bandits will be operating within settled hexes with laws. As long bandits keep there activities to lawless hexes, you will not get bounty rights or death curse opportunities.

But even with bounties and death curses, it will be pretty easy to avoid the collection of such things. Destiny's Twins is a beautiful thing, and so is real time training. Then even if you manage to kill a bandit like me or any in my company, it will cost you in both gold and reputation, probably much more than you would have lost in a SAD to begin with.

Let me get this right you think you should b able to force others to pay you money, not lose rep, not get death curse, not get bounties and be on your marry way? I agree that if the merchant agrees and pays you should not get any, but if they decline your generous offer than you need to attack. They did not start the conflict you did. Therefore you get all the negatives except the lose of reputation.

Also the bit of "But even with bounties and death curses, it will be pretty easy to avoid the collection of such things. Destiny's Twins is a beautiful thing, and so is real time training. Then even if you manage to kill a bandit like me or any in my company, it will cost you in both gold and reputation, probably much more than you would have lost in a SAD to begin with." you are basically admitting attempting to circumvent repercussions of your actions. For such a stand up guy you really seem to be trying to prevent anything bad happening to bandits. I will be willing to lose the gold and reputation but you seem to really want to avoid anything even close to a fair fight or repercussions.

Ludy wrote:

Speaking for myself and not anyone else. I look forward to turning down every SAD. I don't see why I should pay. I will take the loss in material as the cost of doing business. I will get death curse and bounty rights on anyone involved in an attack on my gatherer twin and I will take advantage of it. Just another cost of doing business. In Eve bounties were worthless here with a death curse and the ability to offer the bounty to whom I choose I will get my vengeance. Tony is gonna love me.

blog wrote:

Whenever you're killed and that killer shows up in your enemies list (you were attacked and weren't fair game)

I wouldn't expect to be able to bounty or death curse if you turn down an SAD.

Turning on the Bandit flag does not mean you get to kill at will. You still get the criminal and attacker flag. This makes you eligible for my vengeance. To me that means death curse and bounties for as many times as I have money or reputation to spend on it. They let me do it more than once and I will.

"Don't take is personal. It's only business."

I have posted this in other spots but the SAD mech is going to cause prices to go up across the board. A crafter or merchant is not going to be the one who takes it on the chin his customers are. Sure the bandit makes a bit of cash in the short run but this will be a player based economy. So every time a merchant is mugged or killed they will increase prices to compensate.

Just something to keep in mind. Personally I don't mind. If I decided to go from simple stealth solo gatherer to merchant mogul I will make my money off the backs of the working folk. Bandits in the end hurt them and not the merchant they mug.

Speaking for myself and not anyone else. I look forward to turning down every SAD. I don't see why I should pay. I will take the loss in material as the cost of doing business. I will get death curse and bounty rights on anyone involved in an attack on my gatherer twin and I will take advantage of it. Just another cost of doing business. In Eve bounties were worthless here with a death curse and the ability to offer the bounty to whom I choose I will get my vengeance. Tony is gonna love me.

I'd say NPC guards should be unwilling to go too far from settlements. So in the more dangerous areas, you either go with pals or go alone.

That's cool with me. Solo gatherers will make a ton of money as the price of stuff skyrockets. If the raw material is high than the end product will be high.

I really do hope the current trend on forums continues in regards to "protecting the bandits". Every bit of difficulty you provide to my competition the better I say! My twin was going to be a crafter but I am leaning towards a full stealth gatherer that is always under the "Traveler" flag. Sure I'll get popped every now and then by a bandit but when they go to market to buy potions I get to put them over the barrel on the raw materials. Oh and they will need to go to market at some point everyone will.

So I say keep making it harder for harvesters and crafters. Make it so hard no one wants to do it. This will mean prices for simple items are sky high and people like me can "win" at the true PvP...your wallet.

A 15th level Wizard in PFRPG has access to 8th level spells. Sure they don't get many per day but some of them should be able to turn the tide of battle. When your opponent is the same level. The problem is some of the spells will be hard to translate into a MMO enviroment.

Even spells that appear be easy to bring across will be difficult. Take "Temporal Stasis" for example.

You must succeed on a melee touch attack. You place the subject into a state of suspended animation. For the creature, time ceases to flow, and its condition becomes fixed. The creature does not grow older. Its body functions virtually cease, and no force or effect can harm it. This state persists until the magic is removed (such as by a successful dispel magic spell or a freedom spell).

So if you touch them and they fail their saving throw you can effectively lock that character down permanently. Either that or you are trying to get a group of your friends to come and do a rescue and cast dispel magic or freedom. Now I know you are going to say make it a duration effect. Thing is then in power it is much lower than an 8th level spell. So now you need to balance that out.

I have faith that wizards will be damn powerful after they have some time in training. I just don't know how they are going to bring the more interesting spells across. Sure the do "10d10 damage" stuff is easy but the "save or die" will be hard to bring in.

Diella wrote:

Imbicatus wrote:

The Stand and Deliver amount could be decided by the game system. Say 10 to 50% of the value of the merchant train, with bonuses to the merchant if they have a good bluff/diplomacy/slight of hand skill to simulate haggling, lying about the value of goods or having a holdout box, and bonuses to the outlaw for a good appraise/intimidation/perception skill to know the value of the goods, squeeze out more money, and find the holdout box.

I have never been a fan of pvp to me it always meant someone blind siding me as I try to find out where the shot came from. In most I would just do a dance emote rather then fight back cause I KNEW I would lose. Now reading this I have reason to hope.

If the bluff/diplomacy/slight of hand skill to trick the bandit actually makes it into the game I may actually look forward to a pvp encounter for the first time in my life. For the first time there may be a way for me to come out of a pvp encounter feeling like a winner, even if it only the fact that I paid 10 gold instead of the 100 gold he could have gotten from me.

For the first time I may actually look forward to a pvp encounter rather then try to hide from it.

Way to go GW!

I really like the idea of bluff/diplomacy affecting the SAD. That should be one thing worth to work in GW team!

I like it also. I really hope they can implement something with this intent.

@ Ludy I don't think that flags are created for war, on the contrary they are created to allow PvP without war. IMO those flags should not work with someone you are at war with.

No clarification on that yet. I do not want any of these flags to be active. There is some big balance issues if you allow them. Still if they are allowed I wanted to point out that the traveler is not as bad as people think. It would also be good for hunting flagged people. The ability to kite when done right is pretty damn good.

I have seen a few posts saying that the Traveler flag is not useful in war. There are uses to it just not apparent at first glance.

This is for war not open world PvP. You do not need to worry about flags in war. Anyway here is the Traveler. I highlighted a couple of items that I want to talk about.

Traveler (Neutral)
This flag is for people who are primarily crafters or merchants, but want to be involved in PvP and get some extra speed and carrying capacity for the extra risk.

This flag can be activated if the player is neutral in regards to either axis (i.e., as long is the player is not LG, LE, CG, or CE).

This flag is automatically disabled by gaining the Attacker, Criminal, or Heinous flag.
This flag cannot be activated while the Attacker, Criminal, or Heinous flag (or any of their 24-hour versions) is active.
While Traveler is active:
The player gets a bonus to Encumbrance so he can carry more items. This increases each hour the flag is active up to ten hours.
The player gets a bonus to Move Speed. This increases each hour the flag is active up to ten hours.
The player gets a bonus to all Profession skill totals, improving his ability to harvest resources. This increases each hour the flag is active up to ten hours.
The player earns reputation at the end of the first hour this flag is active. This award increases each hour up to a set maximum. This count resets whenever the bonuses from the flag reset.

So in war they will likely not lose much of the bonuses given. This is a main point that I think the "War" flag should replace and of these flags during war.

What can you do with more speed and weight limits? Well depending on rules
Carry more items for the creation of siege equipment
Kite, kite, kite
Respond to enemy movements quicker
Get to phalanx formations quicker

So basically in war the "Traveler" will be roaming gank squads, rapid response, and combat engineers. Not all of the flags are even close to equal in war. The Enforcer and Champion get a counter to Assassins stealth and crit, but nothing even comes close to the Assassin ability to have you spawn further away.

Depending on the amount of spawn points this could remove you from battle for 10+minutes. Kind of like in some game PvP battlegrounds when one side has a close spawn. Who normally wins those fights? Now granted there could be plenty of spawn points or maybe anyone getting killed once might remove them from any real influence on the fight.

I really am looking forward to more info on this. Still compared to last week I really think this blog has given most something to be happy about.

Sent to ya mate.

@Stephen Cheney - Thank you very much for some more detail. I am sure that more things will come up but I am glad that the S.A.D. is something that is still brewing. I think the direction you guys are going seems to be pretty damn good with it. I really like the S.A.D mech and want it to work almost as much as our "good" bandit Bluddwolf :P

Being able to lock yourself to a max alignment is nice not only for druidy types but merchants that didn't want to take a side in the wars that will happen.

I am still worried about the "Assassin" flag if it can be used in a war situation. I feel it's more powerful than the options good players have. Are these flags going to effect war targets or be active if you are in a war?

I would preffer if I do nothing my alignment changes nothing. Does that make sense? LOL

Yes it does.

I also like heading to Neutral. This makes a lot more sense than moving to LG. Even thought that I might be Lawful is bad enough but LG (shivers).

Ludy wrote:

It seems to reason that only those with the associated alignment can flag it corresponds to. Think assassin and champion.

Does this mean Evil will have an advantage at bounty hunting and war? They will not be attacker flagged in war so they will never lose their max bonus to stealth and crit. Is this right? While the Champion does get perception and defense to themselves only.

I am wondering if this will cause a war time imbalance. We all know the good vs' evil war will start once we can destroy each others settlements.

Besides that any bounty hunter not evil might be gimping themselves.

Are you sure those flags will apply to who you are at war with? IMO there is no use to a flag if you already can attack who you are at war anyway. I'm pretty sure must if any of those flags work against war enemies.

It reads that way to me. In fact if my settlement is at war with another would be likely the only time I use most of the flags. Take a look at the assassin flag....

This flag cannot be disabled while Attacker, Criminal, or Heinous (or their 24-hour versions) are active.
While Assassin is active:
The player gets a bonus to Stealth and critical chance that scales up each hour they remain flagged, up to ten hours.
These bonuses reset to the minimum upon gaining the Attacker flag unless the target was the subject of a bounty or assassination contract held by the Assassin. (Remember: you don't get Attacker in wars, if the target already has a PvP flag, etc.)
If an Assassin has had his flag active for at least an hour and kills a character with an active bounty or assassination contract, the Assassin gains bonus reputation up to a daily max. (Any other kills made by the Assassin suffer the normal reputation and alignment losses, so keep collateral damage to a minimum!)
Attacks by an Assassin have a chance to sever a link to one of the target's respawn bind spots, meaning they may have not have access to their preferred respawn point if killed. Targets killed by an Assassin have a dramatically higher chance of this happening. So assassinating someone may take them out of the action for a while as they work their way back to their original location over a longer distance.

Those stats are damn nice if you are attacking a settlement and can not be hit by Attacker or Criminal flags while active against that settlement.

Think of "Attacks by an Assassin have a chance to sever a link to one of the target's respawn bind spots, meaning they may have not have access to their preferred respawn point if killed. Targets killed by an Assassin have a dramatically higher chance of this happening. So assassinating someone may take them out of the action for a while as they work their way back to their original location over a longer distance." in war. So you kill them and they can't spawn back in there settlement or a spot nearby? That is really really powerful. While the evil forces could spawn close the good guys are spawning 30min away. If I can flag in wars and have it effect my enemy I think I might need to be evil.

Tigari wrote:

Rafkin wrote:

Bandits can just demand 1,000 gold with Stand/Deliver and reduce their penalties for kiling you when you decline. AND get more loot!

It's possible instead of doing a set amount, you demand a % of their cargo, and maybe a max of 60-75%. Or maybe GW says no mercy, and allows demands of 100%

or just let the "market" decide...

The bandit will have to have some ability to appraise the value of the cargo on hand. Skill level or lack thereof would grant a +/- % accuracy.

The caravan leader will have to have some ability to evaluate the strength of the bandit force, so that he can appraise his situation.

Next step is the demand. This is done in a trade window, Bandit puts in a demand. The Merchant counter offers. Bandit puts in either the same demand, or lowers it. The merchant accepts it or rejects it. This can go back a forth for some time, I would guess.

Finally, the demand is rejected....

Bandit then has a choice, attack within the next 5 minutes or move on to another target.

The problem with having a preset % is that that takes out the human interaction the Devs are looking for.

The idea I could as a bandit go "1million gold....1million gold...1million gold", kill them get more loot and no reputation hit also goes against wolves and sheep having fun.

I understand that for you and your company that might be fine. You don't seem to be out to grief people. Unfortunately you are not speaking for all bandits. I know plenty of them that would act in this fashion.

It seems to reason that only those with the associated alignment can flag it corresponds to. Think assassin and champion.

Does this mean Evil will have an advantage at bounty hunting and war? They will not be attacker flagged in war so they will never lose their max bonus to stealth and crit. Is this right? While the Champion does get perception and defense to themselves only.

I am wondering if this will cause a war time imbalance. We all know the good vs' evil war will start once we can destroy each others settlements.

Besides that any bounty hunter not evil might be gimping themselves.

Ludy wrote:

None of that changes the fact someone could ask for unreasonable amount and force the merchant into non-compliance. Gaining the right to attack with no reputation loss.

Yes that is true, but banditry is a player interaction that the Devs want to encourage. The economic system is counting on it.

Greedy merchants will learn it is a better business decision to pay the "tax / toll" than to risk it all.

Bandits will see the benefit of not taking a reputation hit, potentially still allowing them access into a larger number of settlements.

It will also give every incentive for bandits to operate outside of the settled hexes. Which also benefits intra-settled hex trade, which will virtually go untouched by bandits, unless a state of war exists.

If it can be used to bypass the Reputation mechanism and still kill folks something is wrong.

I do agree that a set value based on a percentage of his goods would be fine. I also feel that if the merchant is forced into the "congo line" I explained above all bandits should be hit with a reputation loss that he paid in last 20min. Think of it more as an incentive for the wolves to protect their easy meal ticket.

This way all the positive points of your posts still hold but someone could not game the system.

Oh and Bluddwolf I do like the idea of S.A.D.. This opens up a few more possibilities. It's just if in 10 seconds I figured out that if I could ask for more than the merchant had I get to attack with no rep loss, then more intelligent people might come up with even more interesting ways to game it.

Ludy wrote:

Question on "Stand and Deliver". Who decides the amount? If I was a bandit and wanted to force combat could I ask for 1mil gold. When they don't give it do I then get to "If the victim refuses, the Outlaw gets to carry out his threats of force without losing reputation."? If there is a set amount could a bandit company set a congo line up with every member doing "Stand and Deliver"? Eventually the merchant runs out of gold that bandit kills him and splits loot with rest in congo line.

I like the mechanic but feel it needs to be fleshed out.

It is a trade window mechanic. The Bandit starts with a figure, and the merchant tries to haggle it down.

A bandit may value the double bonus to reputation for accepting a SAD, thus keeping his/her demand reasonable.

The merchant, who is probably already getting the Traveler's Bonus for encumberance, is weighing his or her chance of surviving the attack and losing even more.

It is in fact a negotiation by both parties.

The congo line, may fall within the GMs definition of griefing. There is also the 20 minute timer, where the caravan should be left alone.

Quote:

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.)

None of that changes the fact someone could ask for unreasonable amount and force the merchant into non-compliance. Gaining the right to attack with no reputation loss.

Question on "Stand and Deliver". Who decides the amount? If I was a bandit and wanted to force combat could I ask for 1mil gold. When they don't give it do I then get to "If the victim refuses, the Outlaw gets to carry out his threats of force without losing reputation."? If there is a set amount could a bandit company set a congo line up with every member doing "Stand and Deliver"? Eventually the merchant runs out of gold that bandit kills him and splits loot with rest in congo line.

I like the mechanic but feel it needs to be fleshed out.

Ludy wrote:

...

Thing is this is an MMO. Balance needs to be king.
...

I don't believe balance should be king. Imbalance is necessary to gain a dynamic system.

Balance gives you stasis, where nothing is happening.

I am going to disagree with you Being. Balance allows tactics, politics, stratagy, and recruitment be more important. Without balance the side that has an advantage will have more people on top of whatever makes them more powerful or easier.

You see this in multiple games with FOTM classes, factions, and servers. This is even more true in sandbox games that have strong PvP elements. I do not believe that PFO will be different and coming out of the gate accepting imbalance I don't think will work.

Guys you keep thinking of this as a PnP game or real life. I do agree in many ways that intent and actions drive what I would judge someone in either of those situations.

Thing is this is an MMO. Balance needs to be king. If not the masses will take the easiest way to power. As I understand the rules so far I believe there will be an imbalance. People will go towards evil if they like to PvP. This means that most of the settlements will be evil.

The red vs' blue faction stuff may never happen but not for a worthwhile reason. If there is only red, blue never will have a chance.

I was going to go druid and crafter. Now it is going to depend on more of the PvP rules. I will not play a class with any alignment restrictions. This way I can play the way I want and not be forced into any actions.

Likely a Ranger that scouts for PvE lairs in the woods and rare crafting mats. I will also shoot first ask questions later in any situation I feel threatening. I won't go out of my way to hunt bandits or merchants and with current rules I would be hard pressed to help in either situation. Now settlement defense is a different story and hopefully track will be nice for finding our enemies.

My other character might just be a neutral merchant or crafter depending how they handle auction houses. He will likely never leave a safe zone and just build skills to play the AH.

It's going to be an interesting day on the forums that's for sure. I am sure quite a few of us will be posting our thoughts. Hopefully we can read these and at least try to understand each others point of view.

The main thing that I'm worried in the alignment system is that, it may be subject to players gamming or exploiting it. Lets see an example:

"Player A" is CG but eventually (like once a day or less) he has the habit of killing someone w/o reason or for robbery. But he knows that if he engage in some NPC quest, or donate stuff to a npc orphanage or something like that, he can reset his alignment to the way it was before he random killed or robbed someone. So Player A keeps doing it frequently, Randon kill and quest, robbery and quest, over and over.

By the end of an entire year he got around 100 randon killings,and same number acts of robbery, but still CG. As he doesn't do it more than once a day or even less, and always does the "attonement mechanism(s)" provided by the game, he will never become CN or CE, but behaves like one.

DEVs must create a system that is able to identify this kind of behavior somehow and deals with it accordingly.

And that is just an example I created form the top of my head just now. Many other may exist.

Are the DEVs taking this kind of exploiting behaviour in consideration?

I hope so...

This is one of the reasons I want alignment completely removed from the anti-griefing mechanisms. Make it alignment for RP only but reputation the anti-griefing mechanism.

1. Your settlement upgrade costs and availability is tied to reputation. If you are a bunch of ganking jerks thats fine but you will not have access to things or be able to upgrade as far. Doesn't matter if you are LG or not.
2. Your alignment doesn't hide what type of player you are like being good or evil could. I am sure there will be some LE characters with very reputable players, just as there will be LG players that game the system.
3. Make gaining reputation tied to some serious time sinks. So if you let it dip to far you need to spend hours and hours repairing your sec-status err.. reputation. You can be a pirate err bandit but there is a price to pay. You have the ability to start combat/kill/steal from folks but your settlements will not be better than people who refrain from this. Then again you get PvP on demand and relatively easy loots from fat merchants.

Doing this allows people to RP their "vengeful god" paladin and still have a crappy reputation meaning their settlements and access to towns will be limited. Why would an upstanding settlement want the unforgiving judgment of an inquisition or the murder and stealing of a drug cartel?

I agree with you on this Bluddwolf, but I actually would like it to go a step further. Make reputation the anti-griefing mechanism. Leave alignment a RP tool. That way if the LG Paladin wants to go around smiting evil he can stay LG. Now his reputation may drop to the point where he can't even go to his own city.

Make cities go off a reputation scale. Any alignment can have a high reputation and get all the goodies. Now if you are a bunch of ganking LG that only wish to cause people problems your city will likely be crap. A group of CE players that only kill folks during war or that are flagged could still be evil, but have a high reputation. This CE group with high reputation could have all the perks in their settlement and it would rock.

"Chaotic Evil will be at a substantial mechanical disadvantage. (Their Settlements will suck)

Lawful Good will be at a substantial mechanical disadvantage. (Keeping that alignment in the face of temptation to use force to solve problems will be hard)

Lawful Evil will get all the upside of being able to use force to solve problems, and will have awesome Settlements." - RyanD

When the CEO of a company comes out and admits he feels that there should be an imbalance between alignments and it seems to favor LE, I don't think you need to worry about LE. I think you do need to worry about LG and CE by the above statements.

We all know that many gamers want the easy path. Give them that and a mechanical advantage for being evil and I will bet you will have plenty of villains.

Death curse will allow some of what I think you are attempting. If they kill you put a death curse on them and a bounty. Then even their threaded items will be dropped when they are killed.

If I was a bounty hunter these are the contracts I would be looking most forward to.

With over 659 posts they definitely need to come out with clarification. Polar opposites are both saying this is not good and for different reasons.

I think I am going to pull back and let them come out with the blog. I'm willing to see how they are going to tie this all together. As it stands now my concerns are pretty simple.

1) I don't think any settlement should have a advantage based on alignment. If that happens than all you will see is the same settlement everywhere.

2) I don't see why they need to use alignment to prevent griefing. I think they can use reputation alone and use that completely. Let alignment be a RP tool. I AM NOT SAYING GOOD SHOULD HAVE FREE REIGN TO ATTACK EVIL. Keep all the mechanics for flagging, death curse,and bounties and let the victims, good or evil, use them for vengeance.

My hope is that they can ease my honest disappointment with the direction this is going.

@Andius

Lee Hammock wrote:

Hey guys,

.

A few points I wanted to clarify:

*Next week we'll have a new blog post about long term alignment-oriented PvP flags players can set on themselves that let players better be assassins, champions of good, etc, but the price is being bigger PvP targets. Basically if you want to be a Champion, an Outlaw, an Assassin, etc you can flag yourself as one, announcing your intentions but giving yourself some bonuses to your chosen role and opening up your PvP options.

Sounds like they may have a solution to present us next week, don't you think? A champion flag (if i'm imagining it right) looks like the mechanism people want, to have a way to fight evil proactivelly.

Sounds to me like good will need to flag but the evil or bandit will not need to do a thing. So once again evil would get more cover while good need to take risks.

Violence is never good. This is a direct statement from Pathfinder description of good alignment.

Just because you take a small evil hit for killing someone who is evil doesn't stop you from doing it. All it does is make it so if you are always killing evil people without doing anything else then you eventually shift to CN and then maybe eventually CE.

I'm not sure why everyone is so hung up on you get evil alignment for killing someone? It's not saying you are evil it's saying you commited an evil act, if you keep killing people you become more evil.

Without something like this, what is going to stop all the griefers simply picking LG and simply griefing all the evil players who are trying to provide meaningful content for the good players?

My main is going to likely be LN, but I plan to also have a LE or NE character I play just as much for the sole intent to be opposition and make some meaningful RP for all of the (large amount) of good companies/players out there. It's not going to be very fulfilling being a meaningful evil player (I'm not even talking about PvP) if anytime I go anywhere I get griefed with no real consequences to the LG griefers who run around PKing evil people.

As a counter what is to stop a CE from killing LG whenever they feel like it? I see this as a way to give people playing evil even more cover from the repercussions of their actions.

You want to stop evil good. Just don't attack first and don't kill them. Oh ya CE can attack you at anytime and kill you when they want with no alignment shifts.

If you remove the good vs' evil shifts you still have death curse, bounties, and flags. People are just free to RP their good vs' evil parts out.

Quandary wrote:

I get the impression that neutral settlements may miss out on some of the 'peak' benefits of the alignment extremes, but they would also not have the 'peak' penalties of either end, and they would have more flexibility in having types of buildings, etc, albeit perhaps not the 'highest level/rank' of those types...???

I really hope there is some balance applied to give neutral settlements an advantage somewhere.

A true neutral settlement should have access to nearly everything. With very few negatives. Healing and death magic can both be cast by a true neutral caster I believe. Rouge skills and even the "law" domain both in same spot.

Didn't mean to be pointing it at you personally Ludy.

I understand you want CE settlements to have equal training facilities with LG settlements. I don't think it will happen and I think it is for good reasons. However there may be something that has not been said.

It is possible if you get that advanced that other opportunities may open up for the veteren CE player that are not dependent on your poor settlement. For example the gates of hell have just opened up fairly near the region we will be inhabiting and it is conceivable that certain 'other' training opportunities could become available to the CEs. I don't know if that is in the cards or not. Just recommending to not limit your horizons.

But currently last word I heard is that there is little reason to play CE unless that is what you enjoy, because you will be the game content for other alignment players.

My worry is even deeper than that what happens when it is found out that being N gives your settlement access to rogue skills and to healing magic skills. Everyone should have access to standard fighter skills anyway. Does this mean that the smart settlements will all be N to take advantage of this. So instead of having a diverse section of settlements we have 100 copies of the optimum build.

I am not saying get rid of the anti griefing mechanisms. In fact I like most of what I have seen. If I start combat with a "bandit" and kill them I should get all flags, death curse, and bounties that the bandit wanted impose. Just make alignment a RP tool instead of something that will effect game play. Give all alignments full access to everything or limit it to reputation.

The way some people want the alignment mechanism to be is just good players having a free-pass to kill evil ones.

So if I was a griefer I would just do a good aligned char and start to kill EVERY player I met that is evil, over, and over, and over and over as I would get no alignment shif and no flag.

/It won't be a long way to evil be the oppressed side, so evil players would face two logical choices: quit the game or move to a good or neutral aligned char to be safe.

You cannot give any alignment a free-pass to kill anybody of an opposite alignment without consequences, or people will just abuse your system, period.

I don't think I have read anyone saying no flag. I might have missed it. I am fully against the idea of sliding to evil for killing evil. I do however support bounties, death curse, and criminal flags for killing.

These mechanisms are on the Law vs' Chaos axis and I believe I stated to leave them in place. Then again I am not all of the people against this. So if you wanted to play a LG character you would not have to worry about sliding to evil for doing as you say but every other mechanic is in place.

@Being I don't multi quote but I'd like to address one of the items you bring up. This is not about good and evil in the real world. I am actually quite the pacifist in RL. Well now I am but that because of age and experience.

This is about a mechanic in a game were sides will be drawn. The war between 2 settlements needs to be balanced. I see strong problems if one side has access to some forms of training, crafts, or NPCs and the other doesn't.

I also see balance issues when the people with the most PvP combat experience will likely be neutral or worse. Limiting their personal training tree's, roles they can choose, and gear they can buy.

I think a high reputation CE (I hope it's possible for some)character should have the same access as a LG character.

Ludy wrote:

I think it would be much simpler and cleaner if they used the following rules.

1. You kill good you move towards evil.
2. You kill evil you move towards good.
3. Leave the rules in place for law and chaos. They still need to be flushed out more but I agree with much of what I have seen.
4. Remove the in game mechanical effects on alignment.

You just mentioned a bunch of mechanical effects on alignenment that you want in the game, and then say you don't want mechanical effects on alignment in the game. OK.

No I list tools for role players and saying the rep system can be used like security status in Eve.

I am not a roleplayer. I look at the mechanics and balance. This Good gets this, evil gets that, chaos get this, law gets that is not going to work. People will min max and figure out what is the perfect one for their settlement and use it.

If the act of killing is evil, why is it less evil to kill evil and more evil to kill good? Should they not all be the same value? That is if we are talking about the act itself.

With the logic that killing some is not so bad, then why is the idea that killing some might be good not taken into account?

I think it would be much simpler and cleaner if they used the following rules.
1. You kill good you move towards evil.
2. You kill evil you move towards good.
3. Leave the rules in place for law and chaos. They still need to be flushed out more but I agree with much of what I have seen.
4. Remove the in game mechanical effects on alignment.
5. Leave the in game effects for reputation.

Basically this turns alignment into a pure RP thing where it belongs. Reputation I can see as a mechanic to limit some of the RPK alone.