Pax JayBrand's page

Vic Wertz wrote:

Distances in the Pathfinder RPG and campaign setting are in feet and miles. The developers would have to make a very compelling case to us to allow that to change for Pathfinder Online.

This sounds reasonable and easy to remember. We already have a lot of new things to learn to play this game, why add more?

Please think of math-challenged players....

And how exactly is it easier for math-challenged individuals to learn the US-system as opposed to learning the Metric-system?

*editing out following bile-like comment for more sense*

As suggested by Hark above; having the measurements on HUD and maps etc be either metric or US, really shouldn't be very hard for the programmers to fix.

The issue that does bring up though is when someone using the US system interacts with someone using the EU system. When he refers to some distance or weight you'd have to know the conversion rate anyway or take the bother and change your settings to match his etc. But then what do you do in a mixed group?

They should probably keep things fair and create their own PfO system based around Hexes/6 and then pick whatever they want from the other systems. They should probably avoid using any of the common names from either system to avoid confusion, but can based them on the most beneficient solutions from the Eu and/or US system.

If one side is going to suffer from them going with either the US or EU system....then might as well everyone suffer :)

Either way...it won't be long before we have an in-game base of comparison for whatever system they go for and our minds will adapt.

I just jumped over into a new category it seems.

Turned 30 11 days ago :)
(ps: don't think i was in the old statistic)

Just wanted to say that seeing the age groups represented here gives me hope for the future and a good statistic against the wife's "You're too old for games" ;)

Pax JayBrand wrote:

I do hope that some mechanics and counter-mechanics can be introduced to allow experienced merchants hide the true value of their load, and experienced bandits will have a higher rate of success at estimating value or discovering hidden goods.

This would make it beneficial for experienced merchants to accept a SAD if they suspect the bandit to not be up to par, and thus limit their loss.

A question if I may asked without prejudice here

Is it better to give merchants a mechanic to limit there loss?

or to encourage merchants to limit their loss by interacting with others in order to pool resources and hire guards so the bandits feel it is no longer safe to attack?

Sorry I didn't get back you on this...work got might busy a while :)

Well, my initial thinking when playing with the thought was to offer merchants something to spice up the otherwise dreadful life of Travel - SAD - Travel - Death - Travel - SAD (i'm no merchant player though...they might enjoy it for all I know).

And for people saying it has to be fast...well it can be. And a SAD should take longer than a smash and grab. A few more seconds won't matter, but with a certain degree of uncertainty to the outcome of a SAD it at least becomes a bit more interesting for the merchant as well.

I'm not proposing something ground-breaking or complicated.
I'm not saying merchants shouldn't arm themselves, but what about those that can't/won't ally with others...shouldn't they also get to have options?
A Hide-Value mechanic that is not a guarantee, but if successful you keep a little more of your hard earned value from being taken by a bandit who is armed with a mechanic that is a 100% guarantee of success.

Don't see how that is very game altering...compared to something like SAD. It's just...spice.

I do hope that some mechanics and counter-mechanics can be introduced to allow experienced merchants hide the true value of their load, and experienced bandits will have a higher rate of success at estimating value or discovering hidden goods.

This would make it beneficial for experienced merchants to accept a SAD if they suspect the bandit to not be up to par, and thus limit their loss.

@Pax JayBrand, would you mind editing your post to throw that into a "spoiler" tag to save us unnecessary scrolling? I learned that lesson the hard way after I posted a long transcript for something or another a while back... :)

Sorry, been busy at work and I can't edit the post anymore :(

Disclaimer: This excerpt is taken from what I assume is a illegal upload of the book. So I won't link to the section directly. I own the book myself, but not electronically. So writing the whole section down was too time-taking. I'm sorry, Patrick. If this in any way violates some forum rule please delete the thread.

I assume many of us enjoy a good book and, with all the discussion regarding SAD these days past, this section of Patrick Rothfuss' book 'The Name of the Wind' came to mind. It displays a perfect example of how a SAD should go and why banditry doesn't have to be a horrible experience for it's targets. At least not always hehe.
It also gave me the idea of a "Conceal Merchandise" mechanism for PfO's merchants.

Without further ado...

Redacted.

Stealth as currently defined (in the blog) would not allow you to sneak through people; the best you can get is 10% normal view distance, so you would be detected by the guards before you got into collision territory.

Bah, true true. I remember reading that as well now. Where were you when I was writing the post?

I think the lone harvester scenario is what a lot of people may be afraid of. I guess the answer would be that these players adapt and only harvest in groups, taking PC-guards along. This way, when jumped, they not only have a chance but they are also more mentally prepared to be forced into PvP.

Can't blame a wolf for gobbling up a lone and tasty lamb.

But you can make it harder for him by hiring stout and brave sheepherders to accompany you.

Man I got to stop making silly analogies today...

I think when some people use the term 'Consensual PvP' they imagine having to walk up to a player and ask nicely if they could kill them...but the thing is that the second you as a character venture in to lands that open you up for attacks or wear a flag that does the same you by definition are consenting to any PvP that might occur.

Non-consensual PvP would mean someone attacking someone in a place such as a Non-PvP zone (not that they would be able to prolly, but its just an example).

Take a sillier example:

You are a pacifist visiting New York.
The first day you find a Free For All Fight Club. Curious about the concept you wander in and watch the mad brawl with interest. Suddenly some dude punches you in the face. You can't really claim that was entirely non-consensual since you knew what kind of place it was from it's title.

The second day you visit a church and sit there in silent contemplation when a man suddenly punches you in the face. Time to press charges.

That is non-consensual PvP vs PFO :)

My conclusion: Melee types should have some kind of 'unbalancing' effect that can cause an enemy offering Opportunity to lose mobility, and Wizard types should have some kind of Daze-like effect suitable for gaining a small but significant advantage and allowing a well-prepared group to time a multiple-player combo that involves one character opening themselves up to an attack during the time that another character puts Crowd Control on the character who could take advantage of that opening.

Melee> "Shield Bash" (Shield wearer), "Body Slam" (warrior), "Sweeping Kick" (rogue/monk) and "Tackle" (slightly ranged effect) spring to mind as different skills that could perform something of that desired effect. Different skills for different classes.

Caster> "Slow, "Root", "Quake", "Daze", "Stagger", "Fluctuate", and "Shift Equilibrium" could be Caster alternatives.

Ranged> "Hamstring", "Pin", and various poisons that cause hyperkinetic movement etc.

A 'Wild' Shrine may not have a player-limit, but a time-limit, meaning you can only be 'bound' to that Shrine for a number of real-time hours, necessitating continuous trips back to the Wild Shrine to ensure your spirit doesn't leave the world for good if you die.

A better solution for that would be to send the character to the Shrine bound to before the Wild Shrine. A player losing his char, because a RL timer ran out over the night and he got ganked shortly after logging in, is not going to be a feature. That much I feel pretty sure about.

But I am intrigued by the concept of having to expand the Settlement to accommodate more citizens. If anything it would severely hamper the defensive capability of any "placeholder Settlements" *. The Settlement would become more expensive for the owners if they want many of their players bound to it as a defensive location. I.E. either invest in it or have it taken over much more easily.

* Settlements set up to lay claim to a border (or further away) Hex. I do not know if this is in any way a viable tactic to begin with, but the thought just struck me.

Having certain Wild Shrines doesn't sound too bad an idea. They should be very limited in number though.

I do think that some kind of way to obstruct passage is needed.
Take a case of VIP target and an Assassin...

Scenario 1: Perhaps the VIP knows that someone is after him and has stationed guards in the doorway to his room. The assassin, in disguise, walks up near the guards looking all innocent. He then suddenly springs into action through the guards and kill the target inside.

Scenario 2: The assassin, in disguise, walks up near the guards looking all innocent. He then suddenly springs into action into the guards and is staved off. VIP lives to breath another day.

Scenario 3: The assassin, in disguise, walks up near the guards looking all innocent. He then uses stealth to sneak through the guards and silently kill the target inside.

In scenario 3 a stealth check would be made as the assassin tries to sneak through the guards...if failed he would be shunted away from them and made visible.

I know which of those three sounds like the least fun gameplay ;)

It takes a great man...

to step down and to step up.

Huzzahs are in order I presume :)

On these boards purple names show that you're using an alias to post, rather than the base profile.

Maybe the forum knows we're Pax and purple runs in our blood:)

So split! I want a little bit of everything :P

I do think that making healing items (bandages, potions, herbs, food) a much traded and player created merchandise. This would, as previously mentioned, create more to do for gatherers, crafters, and merchants.

And it would make losing health either a cost to either your wallet or your watch. Any auto heal in the game should be slow and not present in fights. Making people think twice about which fights they pick on account of their power, inventory, or distance from civilization, would probably put a much needed damper on the attack first - ask questions never mind set that often exists within PvP worlds.

A CAMP solution would be great and something that I think needs to be brought back to MMO's...new and improved. The /camp command always felt nice to use in Everquest :)

First, thanks for the warm welcome to the boards. :)

Proxima Sin wrote:

What is it you wanted to do in PO that motivated you to back the KS?

Good question! I was looking for that feeling of discovery and exploration that comes with being in the first wave of players. I'm motivated by PvE content on an individual, group and raid scale ("us against the world!").

Being wrote:

There was likely not a thought in their conception of the game that other players would purposefully form organizations whose whole focus was on murdering other players because that is so contra-intuitive, even preposterous.

Pretty spot-on. The aspect of PvP that makes me avoid it is that it removes my ability to control what I spend my time on in game. My play time is limited, and it is important to me that while I am playing I am doing something that I find enjoyable that I *choose* to do. PvP can remove that element of choice - potentially embroiling me in conflicts not of my choosing, and of no interest to me.

Proxima Sin wrote:

As malicious and scary as it can seem on the forums, in practice it works out a lot like pve with really good AI.

If this outcome occurs, I'd likely find that enjoyable. For me it is all about whether I can spend my limited play time doing something productive and enjoyable.

Yeah, I am in a similar position where I am no able to dedicate massive amounts of time to one game. And thus some of the systems PfO will have in regards to progress sounded very interesting to me.

In a open-pvp-setting that this is "suddenly" looking like; my ability to complete the things I want to complete seem to be in the hands of other players. If they are well behaved human beings that share my values of fair and entertaining gameplay; then things will not be a problem...more of a welcomed challenge, but on the other hand the world has shown me many times that the best case scenarios rarely come to pass.

This is what has me slightly concerned.

Question 1: How come there isn't a thread called 'Alignment Discussion' stickied here? Would be easier if there was one place to talk about that system instead of 10 different threads that are about other aspects of the game. I'm starting to lose track of which discussion is going on where since each thread starts to look the same a few pages in :/

Question 2: Why care so much about the alignment system?
I am a player that likes to spread myself out across a game like butter on toast...I don't dedicate myself to one aspect 100%. So I like to RP, but not ALL the time. So I like to go on adventures, but not ALL the time. So I like to crush your face just because you looked at my mineral deposit the wrong way, but not ALL the time. And the same goes for the RP side of my characters. I am not one-sided, and neither are my characters.

The thing that I don't understand is the way that some RPers treat alignment. They set CE on a character and play that character like a A4 with a bad guy scribbled on it. They make it seem like an evil character could never do anything good. Why not set your character as L/CN and play him/her in many different ways. At some point you might have feasted a bit too freely on your neighbors, or "forgot" to uphold a deal. The next month you spend your days being a productive Goblin-stew maker/harvester. Your alignment would sway back and forth all this time.

Any Character Investigation spells/mechanisms could return one or both of two things>
1. Core alignment (which would claim you are a Neutral person...a joker or a wildcard)
2. Current alignment (which would claim you are either the Hannibal of PfO or a great cook and goblin killer...depending on the month)

This would give the other player plenty enough info on your character to make a judgement on whether or not to trust you at that given time.

If you plan on being a one-sided evil character that does nothing except eat people, then accept the mechanical disadvantage that comes with or find a settlement that will work hard towards keeping their DI high enough to cater to your needs.

Choose between being 100% evil or 100% powerful. I don't see that as a VERY big sacrifice for evil RPers.

-----------

Note> I do think all chars could start with a Neutral/Neutral alignment and let their play style show them what kind of person the character is. Then bind a Core Alignment depending on that.

Pax JayBrand wrote:

2. Have a trainable skill that allows a player to gain information about another character.

I've spent a lot of time thinking about Knowledge skills, and the one thing I keep coming back to is that the knowledge/information gained should only be actionable to the character who received it. In other words, I think it's important that this information not be the kind that can be shared over TeamSpeak with the rest of your group to give them all an advantage against the inspected character.

I think that the use of TS sharing etc, will not be avoidable without removing useful features of the game from most players.

That sounds like what Jaybrand was suggesting in point 5.

You are spot on ;)

Such a skill would become almost mandatory for PVP. I remain arguing for extremely limited information. I would like to only see

a) flagged state (hostile,attacker) etc
b) Status to your organization (red,grey,blue)
c) Armor and weapons types
d) A general impression of the quality of the equipment but not the keywords. This needs only be conveyed by visual style.

Absolutely no information about keywords, skills trained or slotted.

Once combat is joined being able to check out things in the combat log is nice to have but it is information that you get too late to make a decision. You could certainly argue you will know next time you meet that character but they may well be wearing different equipment with different keywords and have different skills slotted.

I agree with you on your sentiment. There is no good reason why a character would be able to know the keywords on your equipment.

I also think that a combat log should describe the attacks used...I would think of it in terms of my character actually paying attention during the fight and learning from it. So that he could be more prepared the next time.

I just had a tiny visual idea that could be good...could be utter horse manure. But when has that stopped me from letting anything escape my mind? Never!

1. Give us the option to decide what info we want hovering over people.

2. Have a trainable skill that allows a player to gain information about another character. Such as Tier etc. Higher skill...more info.

3. Have a popup-ui-thing that contains any info you have access to about the targeted character. This window could contain knowledge gained by above mentioned skill among standard information such as Name, Settlement, REP etc. Would look great if it could be combined with a banner of said settlement\company in the same window.

4. Have a trainable skill that allows a player to hide information about their character from others for a period of time. More skill...more info hidden.

5. Disguise would of course also hide these things and show false info instead. Preferably something you could edit yourself if you don't like what the game has suggested.

I think this would give the players that don't ALWAYS want to know everything about players, either for RP or personal challenge, a option for when they DO want to gain more info. And it doesn't need to be in your face cluttering up everything with different icons, titles, colors, flags etc on each character you meet. And a decent graphical UI is much faster analyzed than a bunch of text.

Yeah, I do guess this is something that should be re-evaluated once the feared situation actually starts showing signs of happening.

All we can do until then is try to make this game as good as we can. If the community is solid and united (in fashion that we like to kill each other and would like to keep doing that), any obstacles to that goal will be faced with great opposition This I have no fear of.

Truck on.

I think people need to remeber what this thread really was about (as mentioned earlier).

This is not some proposed alliance to protect all the little guys from everyone, or some alliance to keep the big boys in power. This is not some tool against anyone who would seek power.

This is simply a proposed last measure against any kind of group seeking to exploit or abuse the game in ways that GW has expressed a dislike for. Any group seeking to ruin the game and the game world simply because they can. That is at least what I seek to discuss.
Many people seem to have misunderstood the intent here.

For all the other cases there are and will be normal alliances. This is no Good vs Evil. This is PFO vs Malicious-Goons.

Groups like Steelwing's will only serve as game content in my eyes, and they are more than welcome to this game. All I can hope for is that they at least roll an alignment that fits their playstyle (if GW makes it viable to actually be evil). Not much point to the alignments at all if they are going to force everyone to pretend to be good. But enough derailment.

Neither am I saying that everyone joining the game past-EE or past-OE will automatically belong to this THEM group, but perhaps...just perhaps one group will come. Perhaps one group comes along to ruin this game because they hate it for crushing EVE*, Darkfall, Mortal Online out of business (*fictional scenario). Just maybe they do nothing but suicide run on every small settlement around (or some other dispicable tactic). Maybe they are cheating. Maybe they use hacking as a tool. I have no idea.

We should at least have someone willing to stand up against such a malicious force in-game as well as out. As long as some of us can agree on that we should be fine.

And as for the discussion about leaders...well lets look at it like a PfO United Nations.
If the need should arise for them...let them each attack separately.
If they take turns attacking they should not each have to spend the cost of war for a long time. But in return the enemy would in this case be in war the entire duration. Effectively stripping them bare.
This is of course if each force alone is enough to oppose them.

This way you eliminate the need for one joint commander. Just decide who takes what turn in crushing them to dust. After a while they woul hopefully grow tired and look for another game to plague.

This is all a large pile of perhaps' and maybe's, but I don't see the harm in talking about it and perhaps at least taking note of who at this time would be interested in showing support for this kind of idea.

~edit~ I saw your suggestion in the other thread of an /SOS channel: seems like a good idea to me, but I suspect most of the traffic there would not really be about the level of problem that would prompt formation of emergency alliance. Still for a settlement to try and establish some degree of safety nearby for travelers, harvesters, refugees and similar it seems a very useful tool. It would help greatly if an SOS included understandable coordinates or nearby landmarks any first responders could recognize.

Lost a long post I had written so gonna keep this short:

/SOS was mainly meant to be a source of aid for small events like bandits, monsters, and others. This was suggested because I don't want a General Chat. How to get a /SOS accepted Lore-wise? Hmmm...messenger pigeons/ravens/sparrows? The inert SpiderSense of anyone flagged as Enforcer?

If the leaders of the top Nations and any Independents interested could sit down and agree up what sort of behavior that would directly contradict GW's intention and vision of a healthy player environment, then all that would be required of them was

1. Write a proclamation detailing this.
2. Ensure that each leader has a way of contacting the others (Custom Chat Channel, group-PMs etc)
3. Upon leadership change the new leader of a group would have to be introduced and sign the proclamation.
4. Wait for the Bat-Signal 5 years from now.
5. Oh, and decide on a snazzy name for them.

I vote for Joint Effort For Future.....or JEFF for short.

But you CAN hamper the griefers, scammers, and crudes themselves so they have less ability to be a detriment to other players in the game. That is the ONLY function of the Karma mechanic. It's not a punishment. Any behavior modification apps or punishments can be applied by GW as they decide. Karma as a game concept overviews the totality of negative player behavior so character reputation and Alignment don't have to be twisted up to partially do that job.

Aye, i have to agree that REP alone might not be sufficient for measuring Bad Player Behavior [u]and[/u] Bad Character behavior. But perhaps GW could just have a "karma" system of their own that gets added to by REPORTS/COMPLAINS.

Cause as far as I can tell they should let Alignment handle Bad Character Behavior and Reputation handle Bad Player Behavior. How they decide to handle Player Reports is up to them.

Establishing a common place for communication between the "Forces of Good" isn't a bad idea though, Being. Even if it might take more than that before one huge Alliance is made, at least it is a place to discuss the world and it's troubles.

This would of course rely on the fact that "evil" organizations actually roll L/N/C Evil settlements. If not then who would be responsible for deciding who gains access to it or not.

Steelwings suggestions are good though. Start with smaller groups and look at the possibility of joining your settlement to an Alliance.
Smaller groups like the Blockade removers etc would provide good training and testing of such a system.

Either way...getting all the Good Settlements to work together if a rising Evil force is brewing would demand that a place for communication was already in place.

And that is why I am supportive of your suggestion.

- If I wanted to play EvE, I would play EvE. I don't want PFO to be EvE with Elf Skins.

and more...

I would think that the 3 AM problem would not be around with the fact that a Settlement etc. can set it's "PvP Window". If the group has players from different timezones and has a NPC faction guarding it, I think it is highly unlikely that a War on a Settlement could be done so fast that they would be powerless to defend themselves in their waking hours.

Got few hours that the Settlement is active? Lower your DI capabilities.
Want better security? Absorb/Hire Companies that work at different hours than you.

In terms of Hardcore vs Casual i see it this way:
The NPC areas will be perfect for early Casuals.
The Good and/or Wild Hex's will be perfect for experienced Casuals.
The Wild and/or Evil Hex's will be perfect for Hardcores.

Adventure for Casuals.
Feuds for Casuals/Hardcores.
Wars for Hardcores.

From the blogs I got the distinct feeling that they know about the issue and are taking the steps to create reasonably safe areas for the Casuals to play in.

- 10 - 20 hours of ACTIVE play before a new character can PvP or be targeted by PvP (i.e. leave a "starter area") This ensures that there is a significant "cost" involved in making "throw-away" Alts just for doing low rep activities. This "tutorial" could be skipped for Alts on the same account but not for any new accounts.

Yes, I agree that this would infer more of a Time-Cost for those that want to use Alt-Account-Chars to before low rep actions...noob bombing, etc. I would set it to 20hrs just to be more of a pain to them.

- An account that spends at least 20 hours ACTIVE play in a month gets ONE reputation downvote to use that month. A certain, relatively high number of reputation downvotes equals 1 rank of reputation debuff. Yes, this would mean that it would be possible for a large guild to get together and "reputation bomb" a single player of an opposing guild....but this would be relatively ineffective in shifting the overall balance of PvP significantly since territorial warfare PvP in PFO is more about 100's of players fighting 100's of other players, any one player being out of the mix SHOULD be a negligible effect on the overall game.

Yes, but perhaps one point per week with 5 hrs would be better, and all REP hits you receive should be open for "objection your honor!" to counter repeated malevolent REP downvotes. More but still limited votes would keep you from encountering players that you think deserve a downvote, but can't since you only have 1.

- Reputation hits can be worked off through ACTIVE play. They can also be worked off by GM awards for recognition of a player doing good and helpful things for the community....this can even be applied to out of game activities such as writing up player help guides, wiki's volunteering to assist orientation of newbies, etc. Players can even earn reputation "credits" by this manual awards system to help offset future potential reputation hits. All such awards are subject to spot checked supervisory review.

I think GMs should be able to award REP+ for active participation in helping newbies (see my suggestion of a /HELP channel above) and other community positive behavior as you mention.

One thing that Eve does that might be worth considering. New players are put into a help channel for the first month they are in game. This help channel consists of only new players and some CCP approved player volunteers (ISD) who have only two functions. That of answering newbie questions and the other of moderating the chat.

A official, dedicated, and optional HELP channel populated by MODS and GOOD SAMARITANS would be better in terms that it never goes away no matter your level. I for one tend to forget stuff I don't use much, or after extended breaks, and new stuff will always pop up. Also if you are a lone wolf you won't have a Settlement/Company to talk to and if the Settlement/Company is heavy on the RP they probably won't appreciate your questions about macros, chat commands, or the like.

The /HELP channel would be a place only populated with people that want to help you and if someone is rude to noob questions there...well we got Assassins that need work ;)

I do agree that a /GENERAL CHAT is a bad idea in that it negates the need to seek out social interaction between characters. A wider range of /TALK and a long ranged /SHOUT is a better solution.

For those cases that you need to send for help from a Outpost/Settlement they could introduce a /SOS command. This simple command could notify any NPC Guards in the vicinity (if NPC controlled area) or any ENFORCERS (in PC controlled areas) with a chat notification.
The notification could either contain basic "%Character is in need!" etc or a custom one set by what you type after /SOS "Bandits by the Outpost!" f.eks.

The ENFORCERS could then /SOS RESPOND to get a SOS marker on their map...much like a quest marker. More than one SOS from the immediate vicinity of another would not stack. More than one Enforcer can /RESPOND as well as reap the rewards for showing up.

If they arrive at the location within a certain time they would get a REP and XP reward or such. Even if they are too late to save the victim. At least they played their role and made an effort.

On the OP subject or Bad Player Behavior
I think a REPORT system with good logging and disputing capabilities will be the only way to go in terms of bad Player behavior. That is the non-rp solution. Pair that with in-game solutions like IGNORE & BOUNTY and you at least got some options. Nothing we do will ever remove the scammers, crudes etc completely without seriously hampering the game itself or leave it open to exploitation by Players with the intent to harm enemies (be them good or bad).

If the trade system is robust enough then only in-character scams will be possible as far as I can tell. And those should not be REPORTED but the target of BOUNTY and/or DEATH CURSE.

Spammers can be IGNORED and REPORTED.
Racial and sexual slur etc can be REPORTED and IGNORED.
Cursing can be IGNORED.

I am of the belief though that if you belong to or visiting any kind of C/E or N/E settlement that you should expect to see more crude behaviour, be the target of robbery and scams. But that doesn't mean that slurs or cursing need to be in its Real World state.
I don't think RP racial slur or RP cursing should be frowned up unless done within areas that would have frowned upon it in-game.

As long as GW's mods do a good job in looking into REPORTS then we shouldn't need to look at other options. At least not until that system is proven inefficient.

People that use separate accounts to spread bad player behavior like slurs, spam etc are hard to combat. GW should charge full price for each account and a price for each character bought for that account, thus earn more money on the sad and lonely a$$holes.
People that use separate accounts to circumvent game mechanics set in place to limit bad player behaviour such as ganking, camping, and REP loss avoiding are hard to combat. If you got your suspicions as to who the Player behind the char is...REPORT it and hope they can find out who it is and ban all their accounts. And REP should be account wide since it is not a measurement of your character's behavior, but the player's ability to act within the game's set rules. If you can't mellow out your exploitative, abusive, and cowardly nature to fit within these fairly relaxed rules...well then you probably should go see somebody about that. And leave us well adapted people alone.

Bluddwolf wrote:

If a group does not have the influence to feud with the merchant company and their numbers are nearly equal to the bandits, even SADs are off the table. The only reasonable option is to let them pass without being engaged.

We would typically not SAD a well guarded caravan, but instead attack it, to have that advantage. If we SAD them and they reject, yes we avoid reputation loss but we also lose advantage in the fight as well. The end result would be, if we can not feud with an NPC company sponsored caravan, then it takes ambush off the table. Our rep hit would be too high. If they reject the SAD on a regular basis. We would just let them pass, and search for another caravan, not being protected by NPC shield or High Repuation.

Disclaimer> While I won't be banditing or be a evil character I do feel that the River Kingdom needs them to be a enjoyable place that offers the gaming diversity I want.

On the topic of SAD and Caravans:

Situation: Bandits got a Hideout and considerable strength. Caravans travel the road quite often, some with many guards...some with none.

Suggestions:
1. All contracted Caravan Guards are automatically flagged for PvP. The Merchant is not. Part payment on departure, part payment if alive at delivery? (Will look into contract system of them later.)
Results: Bandits can either A Let the caravan pass, B SAD the caravan, C Ambush and kill the entire caravan, D Ambush the caravan then SAD the merchant, or E SAD then kill.

Option A: Merchant > Bandits This is in favor of the merchant. Bandits either lost loot or avoided loss because of a tough fight.
Option B: Merchant = Bandits This results in a equal loss/gain situation where the Merchant will lose a % of merchandise and Bandits will receive a % (10-35 depending on skills etc? Will discuss after) of said merchandise. REP was not lost and potentially expensive fight was avoided.
Option C: Merchant < Bandits This will result in a potentially lower or higher % of merchandise gain due to merchandise being harmed in the fight (0-45?) and REP loss for killing the merchant (if unarmed), but not the guards (occupational hazard).
Option D: Merchant = Bandits This results in Combat Costs for the Bandits, less salaries to pay for Merchant (if payment option as above is implemented), better bargaining grounds for Bandits resulting in a higher % of merchandise gain (25-55?) depending on skills, no REP loss for Bandits.
Option E: Merchant = Bandits Same as above but with a higher REP loss packed on it. Heinous flag should also be applied. I also would assume the Merchant would issue a Bounty and or Death Curse.

For other discussions, so as to not derail this entirely: Caravan Guard Contracts, Situational Ambush/Stealth mechanic for Bandits, SAD mechanics in regards to % gain of valuables for Bandits and % Hidden Valuables in regards to Merchants (experienced and sneaky merchants would hide parts of their wealth from inexperienced Bandits). I got a good quote from a book about SADs...but I'll find a SAD related thread to post it in unless requested (kinda long).

On the topic of Good & Evil:

Just wanted to briefly (yeah yeah i know!) touch upon this subject, since I am not 100% sure I agree with the way EVIL is being handled by GW at this point. If they make the benefits of being a GOOD settlement too high compared to an EVIL settlement they only run the risk of creating more multi accounters reaping the benefits of GOOD settlements and the "benefit" of being able to act evil through alt-account-chars.

If they instead gave GOOD and EVIL settlements different rewards and requirements for staying true to their alignment then it would open up for a more diverse River Kingdoms.
Instead of limiting the gear (perhaps only one Tier...) they could instead limit them in regards to how much "Influence" and "DI" they can accumulate, thus limiting their war capabilities. Because while evil should be around...we wouldn't want them dominating the game. I think even the reasonable EVIL players will realise that (if they don't have a severe case of egotism). This would keep them from starting wars all the time and rather stick to feuds, ambushes, and general in-wilderness-murdering etc to get their evil fix on.

Their Hexes should be customizable to allow some to all crimes, and all players that enter their Hex can be flagged for PvP. This would create areas that Merchants would avoid, and all adventurers that ventured there would instantly be aware that this is a dangerous land...only to be ventured in if you aren't afraid of death.

The beneficial effect of this is that more far travelling Merchants would travel through GOOD lands and create more custom, and GOOD characters would have a place of constantly available FFA PvP.

All PLAYER related rules should still apply since that has nothing to do with RP.

TL:DR ...who am I kidding...even the TL:DR would be TL:DR to sum this up...
If you DID read it all...thank you. I hope you will share your thoughts with me in return :)

Hey, I am pretty fresh to the game mechanics being discussed here atm, but it has been an interesting read to say the least. I am here on my quest to learn more about where PFo is and where it is heading...possibly. So please bear with me if I use terms wrong etc. I appreciate polite correction of all mistakes made.

---------------

What I think is causing much of the discussion here is not necessarily the game mechanics themselves, but the rather how differently players approach the game. I for one would play the game viewing the game from the inside...using the tools at hand presented by the game (not necessarily in a RP way), but some look outside the game to find ways to exploit. Such as multiple accounts to harass etc.

For me it would be unheard of to buy another account just to be able to circumvent a game mechanic or it's repercussions. As long as you have enough character slots to cover your in-game needs it should be avoided.
If things are being done for your benefit in-game you should be man enough to face the consequences dictated by the game, or create game content by hiring outsiders to do it for you. By having multi-accounts to achieve this instead of using other player's characters or your own account's alts, that could be used to inflict account wide repercussions, is on the same level of using hacks or cheats to me.

And if a group wants to be evil megalomaniacs then great! The rest of the server will just have to band together to fight them then. This will create exciting events etc. It will create a vivid game world that offers diversity. But the problem would occur if the forces of good are not strong enough. For those instances there would have to be some level of limitation (and this goes the other way as well) on how much of the game world could be controlled by a certain alignment of something.

I would enjoy a game world where a strong evil group could be rule the land...only to be toppled by a rebellion or something like that, but in all practicality such a game world would also alienate so many players with a different playstyle than PvP. I think that the game would suffer for it.

In the end a game can't regulate all the loopholes etc without creating a game that already is out there and we don't want to play.
It is up to us to be good "players" and not step around the obvious intent of the game. Why play the game if you are only going to circumvent the rules the majority is playing by?
Evil characters are fine...evil players are not.

TL:DR
Sorry I got long winded! I prolly lost my train of thought a couple of times in there...

It comes down to player moral. Not character moral.
What should be regulated are player's ability to exploit the game.
Not a character's ability to exploit the world.

I would just like to give thanks for all the great new members that this forum has thrown our way :)

I look forward to playing the game with you as soon as possible!