Goblin Squad Member
|
@Blaeringr, first, I'm not a guild leader, I'm just one of the founders.
It's hard to understand what you're issue is with my statement that you've quoted. If you're genuinely interested in understanding my point of view, I'm more than happy to clarify or answer any questions you have.
I've noticed that you tend to take a statement like "I don't support X" and turn it around and assume I must be fully in support of any bizarre construction of "Not X" that you can imagine. This leads me to believe that you're probably reading too much into what I'm saying, and taking me way too seriously.
I promise I'll make every effort not to be a jerk :)
I removed a handful of posts. Be nice. Also, flag it and move on.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For what it's worth, the reason I support it being fairly easy to Flee is because I think it's more important to be able to control territory than to kill the people who are fighting you for it.
That, and there was a text MUD I used to play (mud.arctic.org) that had a Flee command that would send you into an adjacent room at random. I always thought that was kind of cool.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There should be some way to escape a fight and it should have a high success chance unless the player has invested heavily into skills that counter escape mechanics.
One mechanic other mmo's use is break-on-damage holds, so you can hold a player to escape, but not hold a player to attack.
One thing that is key to having a frustrating pvp system is the ability to get stunlocked and destroyed. Mechanics should be in place to prevent players from being held in place or slowed excessively. The better portion of the beta should go into balancing combat.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Escaping a fight should have the same chance of success as the chance of pursuing and re-initiating the fight again.
One thing that is key to having a frustrating PvP system is the inability to actually accomplish anything because everybody is always running away when things look bad.
The better portion of beta should go into making combat that means something, not a passing annoyance that you can just prance away from.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Escaping a fight should have the same chance of success as the chance of pursuing and re-initiating the fight again.
One thing that is key to having a frustrating PvP system is the inability to actually accomplish anything because everybody is always running away when things look bad.
The better portion of beta should go into making combat that means something, not a passing annoyance that you can just prance away from.
Personally I mostly agree with blaeringr on the topic of battle, at least in the escape portion, though I mostly disagree with it in the execution. Personally I completely agree that escape should be difficult, that there should be counters for escape measures, and that many cases once combat begins, 7 out of 10 times it should result in one or the other dying or surrendering. (actually a surrender mechanic could be interesting, IE a mode to go into that sheathes a sword and holds hands in the air, granting the attacker to chose to negotiate, and say trade for resources instead of killing the victim). Note I do think it still should be possible that if someone is a jerk, they might accept the surrender sacrifice, and then kill the victim anyway, he might obtain a reputation for doing so, and recieve less mercy on himself in similar situations.
What I strongly disagree with, is that the only way to make escape difficult, is only possible by either stunlocks or matches that are over quickly. I would say there are better ways to handle it, say major bonuses to attacks made to someones back, that make it often more dangerous to turn and run, then to face and fight, potential endurance penalties, limited slow/control abilities (note I say limited on the slow and control because I do not like the idea of kiting becoming a super I win button).
It is a huge ballancing act, but I also don't think a long deep battle should be equated with "all battles should be easilly avoidable", and even if one quote, or even one person who does want it for that reason, it is no reason to throw the concept out of the water. Ideas need to be discussed on their own merits, not on the assumed motives of one or more of the people arguing them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Blaeringr
Then you just need a system that increases the difficulty of escape the longer the fight goes on.
If you trade initial blows with a player and see you are outmatched, escape should be relatively easy, but if you are trying to escape because you are on the verge of death, it will be exceptionally difficult.
A fatigue or wounds system like SWG had would fit this situation nicely. It opens up doors for meaningful combat. If you use a large burst of strength, you better hope it finishes the job, or you will find your self at a disadvantage. If you flee and get caught, you will be in an even worse state than you started in. If you moderate your actions you will not finish something quickly, but you will also not be in horrible shape when it ends.
Personally I completely agree that escape should be difficult, that there should be counters for escape measures, and that many cases once combat begins, 7 out of 10 times it should result in one or the other dying or surrendering. (actually a surrender mechanic could be interesting, IE a mode to go into that sheathes a sword and holds hands in the air, granting the attacker to chose to negotiate, and say trade for resources instead of killing the victim). Note I do think it still should be possible that if someone is a jerk, they might accept the surrender sacrifice, and then kill the victim anyway, he might obtain a reputation for doing so, and recieve less mercy on himself in similar situations.
Actually I agree with your whole post, and quote this only to say that a surrender mechanics would actually make a lot of sense with the announced PvP loot system. In many cases it can actually be better for both parties to resolve the matter without fighting.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Blaeringr, I agree that an attacker who is committed to pursuing his victim should be able to do so, and have a decent chance of re-engaging.
I tend to think more in terms of accomplishing objectives other than killing other characters, so I'm more concerned with holding territory, or securing the goods in the caravan that was just ambushed.
The Flee mechanic I am hoping for would be something like Expeditious Retreat.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No one is asking for it to be extremely hard to kill other playersReally? You sure about that?
I totally agree about being able to escape...even PvP matches should not be over so quickly, or leave you stun-locked for so much of it, that you never have an opportunity to flee.
In fact, I'd really like there to be a Flee ability that has a very high chance to disengage you from your current encounter (even PvP)
Emphasis added. That's EXACTLY what he's asking for. Add to that he's asking in another thread for a game that plays itself for him.
Some players clearly haven't honestly accepted that this is going to be a game with risk in it.
Actually, I'm not asking for it to be "extremely hard to kill other players".
I see why you misunderstood me. I don't see why you didn't bother trying to.
What I want is for it to be possible to escape. I tried to be clear about that by saying that I didn't like that you never have an opportunity to flee.
I also said I think you should only die (PvE or PvP) if you make several bad decisions or ignore several warning signs that you're in over your head. Again, I can see how someone who was inclined to think poorly of me might read that the way you did. However, it's important to understand that 1) deciding to go into unsafe territory, 2) by yourself, 3) with relatively low skills all adds up to "several bad decisions".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Escaping a fight should have the same chance of success as the chance of pursuing and re-initiating the fight again.
One thing that is key to having a frustrating PvP system is the inability to actually accomplish anything because everybody is always running away when things look bad.
The better portion of beta should go into making combat that means something, not a passing annoyance that you can just prance away from.
Personally I mostly agree with blaeringr on the topic of battle, at least in the escape portion, though I mostly disagree with it in the execution. Personally I completely agree that escape should be difficult, that there should be counters for escape measures, and that many cases once combat begins, 7 out of 10 times it should result in one or the other dying or surrendering. (actually a surrender mechanic could be interesting, IE a mode to go into that sheathes a sword and holds hands in the air, granting the attacker to chose to negotiate, and say trade for resources instead of killing the victim). Note I do think it still should be possible that if someone is a jerk, they might accept the surrender sacrifice, and then kill the victim anyway, he might obtain a reputation for doing so, and recieve less mercy on himself in similar situations.
What I strongly disagree with, is that the only way to make escape difficult, is only possible by either stunlocks or matches that are over quickly. I would say there are better ways to handle it, say major bonuses to attacks made to someones back, that make it often more dangerous to turn and run, then to face and fight, potential endurance penalties, limited slow/control abilities (note I say limited on the slow and control because I do not like the idea of kiting becoming a super I win button).
It is a huge ballancing act, but I also don't think a long deep battle should be equated with "all battles should be easilly avoidable", and even if one quote, or even one person who does want it for that reason, it is no...
I very much agree with Onishi here as well. Stunlocks are a bad mechanic that tends to make combat unsatisfying for the target since they completely remove thier ability to act. For MMO's, short stuns that are followed up with a period of stun immunity are the way to go if you are implimenting stuns.
Things that make you more vulnerable to attack, like turning your back too an opponent and trying to run rather then actively defending are much better. You could also do some partial speed debuffs if you kept the durations short as well.
In those sort of situations, you will need to balance the risk of running vs the risk of standing and fighting. Remember it's a multi-player game too....so alot of times you won't be on the field by yourself.
That's the devils bargain that ended up being the undoing of alot of ancient armies. The soldiers were well aware that routing was likely to result in the collective slaughter of a large portion of thier army. However, for the individual soldier that broke and ran...if they could get past that initial second or two where thier back was exposed to an enemy combatant...if they were the FIRST or ONLY one to run then thier chances of survival went way up, even over standing and fighting...as the enemy wouldn't worry or bother about one fleeing soldier while the rest of the army was still fighting...however if the rest of the army followed suit most of them would get slaughtered. Thus stand and fight and most of us will live, but you individualy have a chance of dieing... run before anyone else can and you live, but you may doom everyone if your comrades if make the same calculation.
It's the old adage..."I don't need to outrun the bear, I just need to outrun YOU."
Historicaly it's why the Roman Legions collectively punished units that broke and ran so harshly. It's where the term "decimate" came from...the traditional Roman punishment for a unit that routed was to execute every 10th man of the survivors, because they knew the temptation individual soldiers had to run...and they wanted to insure that soldiers knew even if they were the first to run, they still risked death.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I also like Onishi's surrender idea too...
Am I the only one that gets a sudden vision of some-one throwing up thier hands in the middle of combat and screaming in a bad english accents "Parlay... Parlay dammit! I said Parlay...according to the Brethren Code that means you have to cease hostilities and take me to your Captain so we can negotiate." , while a guy on the other side dressed in a big flouncy hat with a feather in it looks down at his cutless and grins evily while saying "..... you know it's really more of just a Guideline..."
Ahh, the RP goodness!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have two thoughts on the way this thread had gone in terms of escaping combat. For starters:
Life During WartimeCharacters will die in Pathfinder Online, and die with regularity.
This and other blog posts tells me that the penalty for death is being very carefully considered. Personally, I sort of relish the idea that combat will have meaning, that sometimes if I just bolt for the tree line that I might get away, and that if I die... well so be it. I can imagine very little down side to actually losing a fight, in either PvP or PvE. I'm quite certain I'll die to both, frequently.
Also, the concept of "holding and controlling territory" doesn't seem to have any applicable underlying mechanic. In the context of the real world, yes, when you get someone to run off, you "hold" that ground, but even then, its an abstract term more related to the consequences of death being sort of severe. In a gamespace where those consequences are vastly diminished, you really will just have to off people to "hold" ground.
While I can certainly appreciate the desire to go through the game unimpeded by death and defeat, I have no desire to play that game. When one asks for what is essentially a "I get away token" then the actual consequences become lessened even more, and you shift the game further away from Players as Content, and towards Developer Provides Content.
--edit-- when I say I have no desire to play that game, I really mean, that game already exists and I have no desire to see GW or Paizo attempt to implement such a themepark style game.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Suppose one group can disengage from a battle and abandon whatever the battle is for (which is the same thing as losing or leaving the objective undefended), and the other group can pursue, also abandoning the objective (using the exact same 'sprint' ability, or whatever).
That provides a 'flee' option that has a very high chance of success when fleeing=defeat, and also allows for meaningful pursuit when escape=success.
In cases where you have to control the territory AND kill the target, you need a team anyway. One person to attack and make the target flee, and another person set up along the most likely escape path; if the target takes a different path, the first one pursues and the second one moves in to secure the goods.
RUN: MOVE ACTION
Speed + 2: Move up to your speed + 2. For example, if your speed is normally 6, you can move up to 8 squares when you run.
–5 Penalty to Attack Rolls: You have a –5 penalty to attack rolls until the start of your next turn.
Grant Combat Advantage: As soon as you begin running, you grant combat advantage to all enemies until the start of your next turn.
Provoke Opportunity Attacks: If you leave a square adjacent to an enemy, that enemy can make an opportunity attack against you.
That sounds exactly like what everyone wants- A way that any individual can remove themselves from a fight over a resource without dying, and anyone can pursue by also abandoning the current field of battle.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I can imagine very little down side to actually losing a fight, in either PvP or PvE...
Also, the concept of "holding and controlling territory" doesn't seem to have any applicable underlying mechanic...
Imagine a scenario where you and your friends are trying to transport goods to a distant hex. You have several wagons filled with valuable merchandise, and a coterie of guards to protect you. Suddenly, you're ambushed by a force that is obviously larger than anything you could possibly deal with.
Or imagine a scenario where you're trying to destroy an enemy-held Watchtower in your territory so that you can build your Settlement there.
I see many scenarios where fleeing and leaving the attackers free to do as they will in that territory can not only have significant down sides, but is in fact very applicable to already-described game mechanics.
While I can certainly appreciate the desire to go through the game unimpeded by death and defeat...
Really? I find it hard to understand or appreciate that desire. It's certainly not my desire, and I don't imagine there's anyone in this thread who's actually sought that (though I didn't go back and re-read all the posts to make sure).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Aside from the lack of comparison between tabletop mechanics and any proposed MMO, I can see how that might work to fulfill the desire to get away, but I really think this is a solution in search of a problem.
Dying is going to be something that happens. I agree that there should be some hope to disengage from a fight gone bad, but I really don't like the idea of getting away automatically. There's nothing quite as frustrating as a un-slowable, un-stoppable player that can engage and disengage at will. Like I said, that shifts the game farther from Players As Content (a direct relation to a sandbox game).
When I read between the lines in this thread, what I'm sensing is a struggle between the risk-oriented and the risk adverse. In the blog posts, podcasts, and posts by Mr Dancey, I get a broad picture that there will be plenty of options and places for each of those two types of players to accommodate their desired play-style. There is a direct relation between the amount of risk you're willing to engage in and the amount of reward, but that's seems a reasonable trade off.
I removed some posts and the replies to them. Remember where I said to be nice? I meant that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Actually, I'm not asking for it to be "extremely hard to kill other players".
So long as they don't run.
I see why you misunderstood me. I don't see why you didn't bother trying to.Where was the misunderstanding? I quoted you, and you're not denying that you want combat to be very easy to leave. In the context of 1 on 1 combat that is precisely what happens.
What I want is for it to be possible to escape. I tried to be clear about that by saying that I didn't like that you never have an opportunity to flee.
Your words were actually "very high chance", not just a chance. You were quite emphatic on that point. You also elaborated that being outmatched was not reason enough in your mind to be killed, because that's only one mistake, and you are specifically asking that it only be possible after several. Do you deny this? The quotes are there if we need to reference them...oh wait, here's one already:
I also said I think you should only die (PvE or PvP) if you make several bad decisions or ignore several warning signs that you're in over your head. Again, I can see how someone who was inclined to think poorly of me might read that the way you did. However, it's important to understand that 1) deciding to go into unsafe territory, 2) by yourself, 3) with relatively low skills all adds up to "several bad decisions".
Perhaps you can quote where I ever said I think poorly of you? You are the only one so far to have started calling names. Remember the post you apologized for? The one where you said you felt especially bad because I had just helped you in another thread? Why would someone help you if they think poorly of you?
Perhaps Nietzsche can clarify why you are projecting your angst on to me: "The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
I do not agree with what you want.
It does not mean I don't understand it. I understand what you have said, and disagree.
It doesn't mean I don't like you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not making this up out of whole cloth.
It should be possible to use mobility to counter strength in numbers, as long as you're not trying to hold territory.
@Gruffling, there's been far too much "reading between the lines". Maybe it would be better if you addressed what people are telling you directly, rather than trying to address what you "think" they really mean underneath it all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I can imagine very little down side to actually losing a fight, in either PvP or PvE...
Also, the concept of "holding and controlling territory" doesn't seem to have any applicable underlying mechanic...
Imagine a scenario where you and your friends are trying to transport goods to a distant hex. You have several wagons filled with valuable merchandise, and a coterie of guards to protect you. Suddenly, you're ambushed by a force that is obviously larger than anything you could possibly deal with.
Well then I imagine you get all your stuff destroyed or taken. The losses there are in time and efforts, which while can be demoralizing shouldn't be the end of your enjoyment. Now you've got a enemy faction, and a goal to wage war perhaps? If this scenario plays out exactly as you've described, then perhaps its actually a whole new avenue of gameplay presenting itself. Sure, you could make it all the way from the ends of the hexes with a huge pile of highly valuable commodities and only a few people to guard you, but that relates more to the risk/reward spectrum I was talking about.
In this scenario, I imagine there will be considerable efforts on both sides of the conflict, where repeated and frequent death are quote likely. No "Auto" escape mechanic would be desirable unless you wish to continually harass said Watchtower. Alas, this is a specific scenario that really requires more detailed info about the conditions to really analyze as anything other than a strawman.Or imagine a scenario where you're trying to destroy an enemy-held Watchtower in your territory so that you can build your Settlement there.
Perhaps yet again Nihimon you've done a fine job of dissecting my comment, and perhaps I should be more thoughtful when presenting ideas. When I say "little down side" I mean, from my perspective, that although defeat and the consequences of such are technically a downside, It won't inhibit my enjoyment. Defeat can and will happen in this game. Just like for every victory you enjoy, its very likely that there will be a defeat to someone else.I see many scenarios where fleeing and leaving the attackers free to do as they will in that territory can not only have significant down sides, but is in fact very applicable to already-described game mechanics.
While I can certainly appreciate the desire to go through the game unimpeded by death and defeat...Really? I find it hard to understand or appreciate that desire. It's certainly not my desire, and I don't imagine there's anyone in this thread who's actually sought that (though I didn't go back and re-read all the posts to make sure).
In my readings of this thread and the topic of escapes, there have been several ideas presented as a high likelihood of success for that escape. Now, there's also been a spectrum of ideas presented, and so its very possible that in a moment of informality I presented an exaggeration of sorts. I'd recommend you take the whole context of the statement with a grain of salt.
I believe a balance should be struck on this issue. It shouldn't be much easier to escape than to end a fight decisively. Allowing one option to be dramatically more powerful over the other can lend itself to all manner of balance issues. Not just on the defender's front, but also attackers will engage in tactics surrounding any sort of undue mechanical advantage.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I suspect that death, per se, isn't going to be all that risky.
As Gruffling quoted...in a PvP focused game...characters are going to be dieing ALOT. That means that an individual death can't have THAT much impact on your ability to continue to play.
You'll loose (or have damaged) some equipment....but unless you are purposefully careless....the equipment shouldn't cost that much in terms of resources/effort to replace.... you probably loose your position and have to go back to a spawn point, maybe even you'll have some conditions (like wounds) that you need to get taken care of in order to be functioning at optimum capacity again.
All that would seem in-line with the type of design they have described for PFO. In other words, what you are really loosing by death is probably an opportunity cost. While you are dead or recovering from death in whatever fashion that might take (i.e. getting "healed", re-equiping, etc) you are out of action and therefore loosing the opportunity to take some action that has an effect on the overall situation.
Now maybe if the actions you would have OTHERWISE taken would have had a significant effect on the overall situation....that COULD potentialy have a significant lasting effect for your company/community/kingdom or you as an individual, etc.
So for example, if you were THE guy holding the passageway to the room that lowers a drawbridge over the moat in a castle your kingdom is defending and you get taken out during an assault....then yeah THAT really could be a big deal.... but I suspect the individual isolated death, probably not so much. Probably in most cases, it's going to be a number of deaths/defeats by a number of different individuals in a number of different situations over time that end up making big differences in the world.
In that case, what players are really looking at is the cost/risk of running which has it's own set of circumstances vs the cost/risk of standing and fighting. I like those sort of dynamics because it really calls upon the player to make some interesting decisions.
For example, looking at 2 different ends of the decision spectrum.....
1) I'm the guard holding the narrow passageway to the above mentioned draw-bridge control in the above mentioned castle. I'm engaged in melee with an assault group that scaled the walls and is trying to breach the castle defences....
- I turn my back on an active opponent to run while engaged in melee, I probably am going to be dead alot more quickly/surely then standing and fighting.
- Even if I'm loosing the melee, if I can hold/fight long enough for reinforcements to arrive we can maybe fend off the assault team. If I run, even if I survive... I've surrendered the position, our defences are breached anyway and the castle may fall...my individual survival counts for very little against that.
2) I'm standing picket on a good vantage point along the approaches to the above mentioned Castle. A hostile force's lead troops just enter into maximum bowshot range of my position (maybe I'm even ontop of a steep hill that is a tough scramble to get up on thier approach). In that case the optimol decision may be to fire off 1 or 2 shots and then hoof it back to the castle to sound the alarm.
- The attacking force may not even be organized enough to return fire on me by the time I hoof it off the crest of the hill and out of thier LOS. I'm actualy improving my chances of survival by withdrawing...as standing and fighting just gives them time to come into range and hose me down with superior volume of fire.
- The consequences of me standing and fighting are far WORSE for my side. If I stand and fight MAYBE I delay the enemy by 10 more seconds, maybe I take 1 or 2 of them with me....but it also means the Castles defences probably have no advanced warning of the attack and far less time to prepare. I'm actualy hurting my side more by not withdrawing, regardless of individual risk to me.
A game where both of the above situations can happen would be my idea of an awesome combat dynamic. YMMV.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nihimon, If I hadn't presented my impression as "between the lines" would my statement have made more of an impact on you? I'm genuinely not trying to debate or fight people on these topics, nor do I think anyone is inherently wrong for the way they present their ideas.
We're all working in an imperfect medium (the internet), with people we have no accurate ideas about. I don't expect people to be exactingly specific, as there just isn't the space for it. I try to engage in each of these threads with a healthy expectation of confusion.
what I'm sensing is a struggle between the risk-oriented and the risk adverse. In the blog posts, podcasts, and posts by Mr Dancey, I get a broad picture that there will be plenty of options and places for each of those two types of players to accommodate their desired play-style. There is a direct relation between the amount of risk you're willing to engage in and the amount of reward, but that's seems a reasonable trade off.
I stand by that statement, regardless of how I came by the inspiration of it.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Just because a party has disengaged doesn't mean they can't be engaged again rather quickly.
Just like an attack can have a 'very high' chance to hit (what percentage 'very high' is will vary from person to person), an attempt to disengage can have a very high chance to disengage without having a similar chance of avoiding immediate re-engagement.
It might just be me, but I imagine that most players will have immediate goals other than "I want to not die." Retreating is intended to be an acknowledgement that those goals have already failed, and remaining in the fight would be going after the sunk cost.
At the very most, simply prohibiting attacking while moving at full speed, combined with a fatigue mechanic which prevents running forever, will have the desired effect. That means that bounty hunters and griefers can simply be better runners than their prey, or they can choose to use abilities which reduce mobility, or have allies set up along the escape route, or any number of ways of negating the 'run away' tactic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... although defeat and the consequences of such are technically a downside, It won't inhibit my enjoyment...
Sorry, I thought we were discussing the relative value of "holding ground" in-game. I didn't realize we were discussing whether or not these game mechanics would hurt our feelings enough to make us want to stop playing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Gruffling,
I pretty much agree with you. Although I think it should be highly situational. A character who sets themselves up well for it (terrain, obsticals, training & encumbrance/gear, engagement at range, etc) should be able to create situations where they have a high possibility of retreating...... just as characters who set themselves up well for it (constricted approach, defensive position, good armor, health potions, spare weapons, training, etc) should have a high likelihood of success when standing and fighting even against superior numbers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I believe a balance should be struck on this issue. It shouldn't be much easier to escape than to end a fight decisively. Allowing one option to be dramatically more powerful over the other can lend itself to all manner of balance issues. Not just on the defender's front, but also attackers will engage in tactics surrounding any sort of undue mechanical advantage.
I think the combat mechanisms might make some things possible and other things impossible, so we'll need to wait until we see more. Here are some scenarios in which I'd like players to have options besides fight and win or die (and be kicked to some spawn point).
Scenario 1. Player Group A represent 3 guards and 1 merchant. Player Group B represents 3 bandits. Assuming relatively matched combatants, if the guards engage the bandits in melee, does the merchant have a chance to escape? (I think in the most realistic combat, the bandits would expose *their* backs if they pursued before eliminating at least one guard.)
Scenario 2. Player Group C represents a paladin and 4 fighters patrolling the border of their settlement. Player Group D represents 2 adventures claiming to be new-to-the-game and trying to make their way to the wilderness. Assuming good language skills, role-playing, etc, Group C persuades Group D to go back the way they came. Assuming poor language skills, immature players, etc, could there be ways to vanquish an intruder without killing and looting them? Maybe ending with the loser fast-traveling to the last settlement they entered?
Scenario 3. Player Group E is 3 fighters. Player F is some explorer with nothing except equipped gear that will not be lost on death, and 3 days worth of food. Assume bad language skills. Can Player F just hit a surrender key, submit to a search of his loot, the fighters decide if they need the food and if they let him continue on his way?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What I want to see for encounters
1. Meeting,
-size your opponent up and decide to fight or flee
2a. Flee: You have a high chance of escaping at the start of the fight, assuming you are not too close or overly encumbered. The longer you fight, the harder it become to flee.
2b. Fight: You fight
- Someone wins the fight they choose:
--a. Let person go with ego scarred
--b. View their held inventory and determine what you want, if the defeated player decides this is better than death, the trade occurs. If the winning party kills the defeated player before the defeated player moves to a pre-determined distance, they get a serious chaotic/evil shift.
--c. Kill the player, you get to loot the husk.
If you are transporting mobile inventory(caravan) a flee would abandon that inventory.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Scenario 1: I see no need for the merchant to have a special sprint mechanic (not that i'm against that, i just like to see non-essential parts left off, as they cost nothing an never break :D ). If an even fight exists between the guards and the bandits, I would expect the merchant could just escape, or (if i'm a guard) actually contribute to the combat in a low risk way, tipping the tide.
S2: The Paladin and etc can simply stop attacking before the opponent dies. Allow them the chance to run, without pushing the lethality. I see that as a corner case, but certainly an option. If dialog is an option between the parties, this could go a dozen different ways.
S3: A surrender key to me is very problematic. What stops the fighters from taking what they want, then nuking the other player. If there is a mechanic to prevent that (limited invulnerability, etc) this opens another avenue for abuse I think. If instead of a mechanical surrender button, the player attempts to communicate such intentions, then you have the same results without adding a layer of code between the players. As mentioned in the UI thread, this sort of "oh noes No Kill I" button can/should be an option in the context of macros, etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd also like to point out that the idea of allowing someone a view into your inventory will only further add to the complication, as well as the potential for backstabbing. I think this is why the intended mechanics are to allow only a random and limited selection as loot when killing another player. It effectively lessens the rewards of such behavior.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
When I read between the lines in this thread, what I'm sensing is a struggle between the risk-oriented and the risk adverse.
I think that characterizing it as "risk averse" is where you're trying to assign motives to other people rather than engaging their statements directly. It also makes it very difficult to respond, because you're not being direct about which statements make you think the speaker is risk averse, and therefore you're not giving the speaker a fair opportunity to clarify those statements.
A lot has been made of my statement that I want to be able to flee PvP combat, and have a high chance of disengaging from the encounter. I never intended that to mean it would be impossible to pursue me and re-engage. And I was most certainly not asking for that mechanic so that I could never be killed. I was asking for that mechanic because I think it models rational action well, and creates interesting dynamics such as withdrawing from action to attempt to try to draw ambushers into a counter-ambush.
On a personal note, this is the first time I've ever been anywhere near this active on any forums. I've tried to learn lessons about being thick-skinned and addressing people's points directly, rather than addressing the subtext that I've read into their posts. I hope that, in sum, I've handled myself fairly well. It's been a challenge at times. But it's important to me to that I hold myself to a high standard, and try not to give myself, my friends, or my Company a bad name.
I removed another post. Seriously. Stop it with the condescending attitudes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
S3: A surrender key to me is very problematic. What stops the fighters from taking what they want, then nuking the other player. If there is a mechanic to prevent that (limited invulnerability, etc) this opens another avenue for abuse I think. If instead of a mechanical surrender button, the player attempts to communicate such intentions, then you have the same results without adding a layer of code between the players. As mentioned in the UI thread, this sort of "oh noes No Kill I" button can/should be an option in the context of macros, etc.
Actually no I pretty much covered that part myself in the first post I brought up that topic.
IE a mode to go into that sheathes a sword and holds hands in the air, granting the attacker to chose to negotiate, and say trade for resources instead of killing the victim). Note I do think it still should be possible that if someone is a jerk, they might accept the surrender sacrifice, and then kill the victim anyway, he might obtain a reputation for doing so, and recieve less mercy on himself in similar situations.
The best parallel I can come up with is eve. In eve when you destroy someones ship, they escape in an escape pod. They've already lost everything you can steal, but it hurts them far worse if you destroy their escape pod. In general pod killing is exremely rare but possible, mainly due to most all corps greatly condeming such, and it is also a surefire way to greatly ruin your in game reputation in any territory with lawful NPC presense.
So for the most part I would say this would be largely handled by the community. No it isn't a bullet proof I won't be killed mechanic and shouldn't be. It should make it hard for the surrendered person to switch back to attacking, but just like IRL, throwing yourself at someones mercy... well puts you at their mercy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not making this up out of whole cloth.
It should be possible to use mobility to counter strength in numbers, as long as you're not trying to hold territory.
@Gruffling, there's been far too much "reading between the lines". Maybe it would be better if you addressed what people are telling you directly, rather than trying to address what you "think" they really mean underneath it all.
Nobody said you made it up. You're reading between the lines.
Guerrilla warfare is a situational tactic. It works when you know the terrain better and have the element of surprise and/or enough control of the situation and better mobility than your opponent. It is not a blanket argument for being able to flee.
That last point is good advice ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I never intended that to mean it would be impossible to pursue me and re-engage. And I was most certainly not asking for that mechanic so that I could never be killed. I was asking for that mechanic because I think it models rational action well, and creates interesting dynamics such as withdrawing from action to attempt to try to draw ambushers into a counter-ambush.
Perhaps this is a good starting point. I made a post earlier, which I didn't think was being rude, but got deleted, which was essentially trying to get a response like this where you address what was misunderstood. So this is good. We can progress from a point like this.
So I ask that you elaborate by what you mean in choosing the word "disengage" when referring to combat. Does it mean end combat altogether? or just that you alone stop fighting? How do you differentiate between your vision of this concept and simply turning around and running while the other guy runs along behind you and continues to attack?
Additionally, you've given some clarification on what you meant by "several bad choices" in saying that simply leaving town amounts to this. So what about combat in town? Murder happens, sure, but that's not the only scenario where this is possible. What about if your town gets invaded? invaded by other players? invade by monsters? or what if you yourself are a criminal and may be legally slain in town? What about non lawful settlements where murder is not a crime?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like the idea of a Yield mechanic.
If I Yielded:
There would be a 60 second debuff on me. When this debuff first goes on, all my buffs are stripped and all of my existing debuffs on other characters are stripped. While this debuff is active, I am locked out of all of my abilities. I can speak normally and move at 10% normal speed.
There would be a 15 second effect on each character attacking me. When this effect first goes on, all of their damaging effects on me are suspended. While this effect is active, they may not use abilities on me. They can remove this effect by either Accepting, in which case all their effects on me are immediately eliminated, or Rejecting, in which case all of their effects on me are unsuspended and I immediately take any damage that has been saved up during the suspension. If this effect wears off over time, then that should be treated the same as a Reject.
If any character Rejects my Yield, or if any character attacks me, my debuff would immediately go away.
This mechanic could also be used to support Duels, which have been requested elsewhere.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Regarding point b - what about bounty hunters? Do you suggest a bounty can be collected on a technical defeat? or does is still have to be a kill, shifting alignment every time they do their job (contrary to the proposed chaos shift)? or is bounty hunting an exception?
The alignment shift is for deceiving the defeated player into thinking they bought their way out, then backstabbing them. So it would only shift a bounty hunter who lies and says they fulfilled the contract after trade then kills the target.
Bounties would be handled differently, and we need more information on the options for what bounty actions you can take. Like a dead/alive, dead, alive, beat them up and bring them to me so i can take their entire inventory and publicly castrate them, etc...