Does killing another player in the wilderness give me the Criminal Flag?

[GrumpyMel]

Blaeringr wrote:

I have noticed that morphing too. Clean crisp answers are nice. And brevity would be a virtue in such answers.

Yeah and that's totaly understandable in a game that's under development. It just helps to know what's "authoritative of the moment" or if it's something we're not understanding correctly.

It's also helpful (for me at least) to understand the design intent behind the proposed mechanics so we have a better understanding of WHY things are shaking out the way they are. That can help us understand if we've stumbled on a scernario that maybe the designers haven't taken into account and help them refine thier mechanics or we are simply looking at something that is supposed to work that way because it helps achieve what the designers want. YMMV.

[Kakafika]

Now that there is a full development team and work is started, I expect to see many more things change as ideas are put into practice. That is their qualifier on every blogpost, after all :)

@Grumpy, If you haven't seen already, Lee posted in Nihimon's thread answering your question.

[Nihimon]

Blaeringr wrote:

Can you have a bounty placed on your head if you have received the "attacker" flag, but have not received the "criminal" flag?"

Yes. Clearly.

From Question on Murder and "lawful territory":

Stephen Cheney wrote:

You can Bounty and/or Death Curse anyone who kills you* unless you had one of the mitigating flags when you died (Attacker, Criminal, At War, etc.).

There are caveats, but none of them revolve around whether or not the attack happened "inside lawful territory" (that being one of the requirements for getting the Criminal flag).

[JakBlitz]

GrumpyMel wrote:

@Lee

Question will a 3rd party be able to attack someone who has a "criminal/attacker" tag without taking alignment/reputation hits or gaining a tag themselves?

Example: I'm walking along in the woods. I encounter someone that has just murdered 3 people. They have an attacker/criminal tag on them. I'm not grouped with or associated with the victems. I'm not a bounty hunter, I have no bounty against the murderer. I just want to stop this guy from murdering more people in the woods. The murderer hasn't attacked me, because they know I'm not an easy target. Am I safe to attack them without suffering an alignment reputation hit. If not, could you explain the reasoning behind that? Thanks.

I would like to know the ruling on this. Also if the situation changes based on which flag the PC has.

[Blaeringr]

This does indeed change things. Very reminiscent of this recent post by me:to summarize it all, according to Stephen Cheney, they have changed their stance.

And that brings me back to this post I made:

Blaeringr wrote:

So any attacker in a wilderness area that is not controlled by any settlement at all will be flagged as a criminal. Someone who can, as the early blogs put it, have bounties re-issued on them forever more so long as the victim can still pay.

That is a very vivid change in the early descriptions of the game concept of one of open PvP where adventure is only for the brave. From what you're saying here, Goblinworks have changed their direction on that big time. To me you're no longer talking about the same game anymore, and that's giving me a lot to think about. But I'm glad to get this information now, rather than after you've taken more of my money.

The issue I brought up there was not so much on the criminal flag, but what I saw as the consequences - the bounty system.

So if, as Stephen and Nihimon claim, the system is changing, that very much changes things for people who, based off of a clear explanation in the earlier blogs had a particular play system in mind, this game is no longer viable for them.
I find it very frustrating that it has to be like pulling teeth to get clear answers about these kinds of critical policy changes from Goblinworks. For someone like me, who had been planning on mostly operating outside of civilized areas and attacking people who may or may not have any of those mitigating flags on them, having someone who did something bad but didn't get tagged as a criminal, but I can't hunt them down because they can put bounties on me as long as they have money, this completely ruins that option. Said target of mine could have had a bounty placed on his head, but instead his victim chose to go with an assassination contract. With the change Stephen has just explained, what kind of flaming idiot would take a contract like that?

It's not just an issue for assassins, but anyone seeking any kind of informal revenge, unless their target is currently tagged as a criminal then forget any PvP in the wilderness unless you want to be hounded by perpetual bounties.

[Kryzbyn]

This is concerning.

[Nihimon]

Blaeringr wrote:

I find it very frustrating...

I'm sorry you're frustrated. I've been trying to point out to you for some time now that you were operating under a misconception.

Have you considered that what you were planning might actually be the kind of anti-social behavior that Goblinworks is trying to discourage?

[Blaeringr]

Nihimon wrote:

I'm sorry you're frustrated. I've been trying to point out to you for some time now that you were operating under a misconception.

And yet the only quote from GW you have to back that up comes after you began trying to point that out to me. And I gave you several that contradict it from earlier. They have clearly changed their stance.

[Kryzbyn]

Assassinations aren't anti-social behavior. Anti-social behavior usually leads to assassination.
Being a member of an assassin's guild should be an option in a sandbox MMO. Ryan's original vision accounted for them. What changed?

[Blaeringr]

Don't get me wrong, Nihimon, my frustration is not towards you. In fact I am grateful to you for finally twisting and pulling this answer out of a development crew that has consistently told us otherwise.

I know of several other specific players who have just begun reconsidering whether this is the "Open PvP" experience goblinworks bragged about in the earlier blogs, and whether to continue to support the kickstarter.

On the otherhand, the people who were holding back their money because of the open PvP, no longer have anything really serious to worry about. Open PvP, outside of wars, sounds stupidly risky now.

[Nihimon]

Kryzbyn wrote:

Assassinations aren't anti-social behavior. Anti-social behavior usually leads to assassination.

I never said that Assassination might be anti-social. I implied that "attacking people who may or may not have any of those mitigating flags on them" might be anti-social.

I don't think that Stephen's clarification about Bounties will have any impact whatsoever on Assassinations.

Blaeringr wrote:

And yet the only quote from GW you have to back that up comes after you began trying to point that out to me.

Perhaps it wasn't as clear as you'd've liked, or perhaps your personal interest was strong enough that you refused to see it, but unless you're going to suggest that I read their minds, then there was clearly something in their previous explanations that did actually indicate this was the case.

[Blaeringr]

You said you'd proven me wrong twice. That's pretty clear. Your only reference comes after making that claim. Pretty clear that at the time of your claim that you had proven nothing.

[Nihimon]

I also said I wasn't interested in trying to get you to acknowledge that I had proven you wrong before - I'm not the type to hold a grudge :)

I was only interested in getting you to acknowledge that I had proven you wrong this time if the devs responded as I predicted they would.

[Blaeringr]

And I said that my stance was that the devs had said otherwise. You have not proven that wrong. You have proven that they have very recently changed their minds. You're the one struggling to acknowledge you were wrong. In all fairness you have had the satisfaction of bringing to light a very recent change in policy though. But you've been failing to prove me wrong going all the way back to your silly physics thread.

[Kryzbyn]

Counter-productive, gentlemen.

[Caean]

I think they are attempting to appeal to both kinds of players. Ie if you kill someone who is into the pvp. They most likely wont put a bounty on you. If you go after that guy who doesn't like pvp and tries to run away then begs for his life and you kill him anyway his recourse is bounty. If you go after the leader of. Teamster guild or the monarch of a settlement you have gone against the mafia and will have a price on your head till you make amends.

Now speaking of bounties it is a contract open to a certain guild or charter so you will be having a group of people on your tail not sure if they get any hint of your location besides word of mouth. If you are into pvp isn't that what you are looking for anyway. Now you will have pvp with people who are also looking for pvp as opposed to targeting people who were maybe working on harvesting or moving there goods.

[Blaeringr]

If you're against PvP, don't leave town. That's the risk that goes with the rewards out there. Or at least don't go alone. There will be plenty of players willing to bring back fine baubles to trade in the towns.

[Caean]

From what I understand the game is engaging possibly players who may not level there adventuring class at all. If a person levels up as a diplomat or someone who wants to just harvests a resource. He hires some adventurers with medium reputation to protect him and his wares as he transports them or to escort him to another town. As they get out of range of the town the temptation is to high they turn on him and take his stuff. Being a non adventurer will still require you to move from settlement to settlement hiring people to protect you lowers the risk the more willing you are to pay. If a character has made the trip multiple times with no occurrence he may choose to try the run on his own. Why not give a recourse for these players. Killing them will be no challenge since there is no lvl or system preventing a skilled adventurer from killing a non adventurer class. I would say maybe fix the bounty system to a set price. So I can not set a bounty on a group of people at 1 copper each.

[Blaeringr]

Nah, all the issues with the bounty system have been worked out. Take a look at Tony's Blog.