Goblin Squad Member
|
Wait! Wait! Stop your arguing! I have a compromise!
Max times a bounty can be set when killed in......
Guarded areas near starter towns: Unlimited
Lawful-Good Player Territory: 10
Neutral-Good / Lawful Neutral: 7
True Neutral: 5
Chaotic Good / Lawful Evil: 3
Neutral Evil / Chaotic Neutral / Unclaimed: 1
Chaotic Evil: 0Numbers are debatable, but thoughts on the general system?
I have a problem with set numbers, because then they just strip, run around and get killed until they're out of bounties while having nothing to loot, clearing all their bounties at once.
The other thing is that these are BOUNTIES. It doesn't MATTER where it happens. If you kill a prince or a merchant they can put a price on your head, it doesn't matter WHERE it happened, they will have you hunted down and killed, and then they can do it again. That's why I think the solution is to make bountied become more expensive on repeats, but reduce how much they become expensive at higher levels. Damatic leaps at first, then much smaller ones once you're already paying big chunks of money, so you can't just putting 1gp on, soon you'll be putting 2000 per bounty, so if someone wants to keep putting a bounty on you, they can, but not if they're just putting a "free to kill flag" on you (which, as a bandit you would basically have anyway most likely if you're killing people that often)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
evil not having access to the things needed to continue to exist.
Evil Settlements can be just as efficient as their good Counterparts along the law-chaos axis. CE people can be part of CN and NE settlements as well. So basically if you want to prey on everyone expect everyone to be against you. If you can rationalize that your character might not want to murder/kill people who live in the settlement he trains and buys/sells stuff in you could still be CE. LE cities might allow CE characters to use their facilities as well if they take their destructive actions somewhere else, maybe a rival’s kingdom?
There is plenty of ways for evil to survive if they are smart about it and that’s always the most dangerous kind of evil. If people go about expecting to kill and rob everyone they see then they should expect to be hated by all. The game will most likely reflect that.
Right, but I could set 1 GP bounties for The Empyrean Legion to collect, and do it over and over and over *forever*, and whoever mugged me will get continuously slaughtered, over them playing a bandit. I'm fine with having bounties work in some areas but not other. Shoot, have it be that plunking down a watch tower creates a radius where it works, suddenly you've got a good reason/method to guard a road. But bounties working everywhere every time, well, that gets rid of a lot of bandits, which reduces the gameplay a good bit.
depending on how exactly currency works in pfo, i doubt a 1gp bounty will ever get collected. the bounty system in SWG worked almost exactly like this, anything under 10 million just was not worth the effort or time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Right, but I could set 1 GP bounties for The Empyrean Legion to collect, and do it over and over and over *forever*, and whoever mugged me will get continuously slaughtered, over them playing a bandit. I'm fine with having bounties work in some areas but not other. Shoot, have it be that plunking down a watch tower creates a radius where it works, suddenly you've got a good reason/method to guard a road. But bounties working everywhere every time, well, that gets rid of a lot of bandits, which reduces the gameplay a good bit.depending on how exactly currency works in pfo, i doubt a 1gp bounty will ever get collected. the bounty system in SWG worked almost exactly like this, anything under 10 million just was not worth the effort or time.
A 1gp bounty also gives rights to hunt, kill, and loot a target.
Bounty hunting for profit was endgame behavior for SWG. PFO will not have an endgame, so the comparison is not valid.
There never was an endgame in SWG until they changed the game into a wow clone. back in its beginnings it was completely sand boxed, so the comparison is valid since player bounties were available before the nge hit.
A 1gp bounty also gives rights to hunt, kill, and loot a target.Right, but I could set 1 GP bounties for The Empyrean Legion to collect, and do it over and over and over *forever*, and whoever mugged me will get continuously slaughtered, over them playing a bandit. I'm fine with having bounties work in some areas but not other. Shoot, have it be that plunking down a watch tower creates a radius where it works, suddenly you've got a good reason/method to guard a road. But bounties working everywhere every time, well, that gets rid of a lot of bandits, which reduces the gameplay a good bit.depending on how exactly currency works in pfo, i doubt a 1gp bounty will ever get collected. the bounty system in SWG worked almost exactly like this, anything under 10 million just was not worth the effort or time.
true, but you risk dieing and losing all of your stuff if you can't kill your bounty target. which just makes it even less worth doing imo.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
true, but you risk dieing and losing all of your stuff if you can't kill your bounty target. which just makes it even less worth doing imo.
Bounties give you the right to start a fight with your target where they can't easily start a fight with you, like in towns.
If bounty hunters operate in groups, and choose the terms of the engagement, they'll take whatever contract makes sense. If the target happens to be standing in front of you in town, and you have a bunch of friends with you, there's no reason not to take the contract and get an easy kill and loot.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
They are aware of the problem of "contracts with friends" and as they addressed one side of the coin:
There have been attempts at bounty systems in many MMOs in the past, and they tend to have the same problem: If I put a reward on your character's head, you can arrange for one of your friends to kill your character, and you then split the reward with your friend. You're not deterred from doing whatever it was that caused me to place the bounty, and I've ended up giving you and your friend even more of my scarce resources.
I assume there will be protection against 1gp infinite contracts. Ideally I would like to see a minimum cost to it, but I also like the freedom of price.
1gp is not worth my time, but if I am an "honorable assassin" and this person makes a habit of random killing. I might well accept it just to make a point. If you cover costs I am more likely, but you take contracts to profit not to break even.
I enjoy the idea of the darker side, I will not be rampantly killing people. However, mercenary work, assassinations, escorts, guarding, and such are all within reason.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
true, but you risk dieing and losing all of your stuff if you can't kill your bounty target. which just makes it even less worth doing imo.Bounties give you the right to start a fight with your target where they can't easily start a fight with you, like in towns.
If bounty hunters operate in groups, and choose the terms of the engagement, they'll take whatever contract makes sense. If the target happens to be standing in front of you in town, and you have a bunch of friends with you, there's no reason not to take the contract and get an easy kill and loot.
I would assume that certain towns have laws against starting a fight, PERIOD. Regardless of whether a bounty exists or not. In fact, I would think logicaly that the bounty only has any weight for the jurrisdiction that it was issued under. It wouldn't make any logical (ingame) sense otherwise.
To give an example of what I mean, why would Cheliax recognize a bounty issued by Andor? When the 2 are kinda mortal enemies? It would be kinda like the US and North Korea extending criminal jurrisdiction to each other. If that's not the way it works, then I agree, there could be a problem.
Edit: On the other hand, the criminals (bandits) always get the opportunity to engage on thier terms, so this seems to me like a bit of payback.....but I definately think there should be jurrisdictional issues (i.e. criminal is "safe" in xyz territories, not safe when they enter abc territories)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Honestly there needs to be a good amount of lawless area, with resources that are worth the risk of going into those areas.
The bounty system needs to be very robust. For a bandit there needs to be risk for going into a lawful area and banditing people. In a lawful area the risk is that they get a death curse and have bounties placed on them. In a lawless area the risk is that others are going to take out the bandit right after they mug someone, other just randomly killing people, or the victim comes back with a posse to deal with the bandits.
Alignment shifts and such for bandits. Well for the most part this wont matter, people who want to do this probably dont mind evil alignments. Also there is a very real possibility that the bandits could be throw away alts whose reputations do not matter. So perhaps something like, anyone can kill an undisguised evil character in lawful lands, if thats too much how about knocking them out (non lethal damage) and giving them to the authorities. So while the mechanics of item loss and such are the same there is a difference between killing that bandit and knocking them out alignment wise (it would also be more difficult).
Now one thing i do think that will help prevent throw away alts a bit is the skill system, at least until way way down the line since folks will not be able to bandit well with a character that cannot compete combat wise.
For bounty costs i think the first bounty shouldnt cost too much. The second more, but not stupidly so. The third bounty and above should start costing serious gold. Also Bounty money needs to be placed in escrow. For example rich merchant gets killed. He chooses to place a bounty on his killer. He decides you know what, iv had a good month im going to make this guy pay. So he opens the bounty window and goes "place bounty on bandit". From that window he immediately picks how many bounties he wants on that guy. The TOTAL sum of that money is placed from his person and his band accounts into the bounty escrow account. The money stays there for a minimum of say....a week (even if the bounty is canceled) or until all the bounties are fulfilled. Also a person can decide to place a higher bounty to encourage people. Bounties should stack. So lets say bandit kills 100 people. If all of those 100 people place a bounty on that bandit of say 100 gold, the person who kills that bounty would get the bounty from all 100 people.
The bounty system should be open. So basically when in a hex you can pull up the bounty window and see who has bounties in that hex (doesn’t tell you where they are just that someone with a bounty on their head is there). First person to kill that person gets a bounty, you should also be able to see the amount on their head and how many people have bounties against that person.
To discourage the bandits from being sly (say having 9 people beat down someone, then one person kill them when low hp to decide who gets the bounty) anyone who attacks the victim gets a bounty placed on them, or the become free to kill once for each bounty placed on the primary killer.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
much how about knocking them out (non lethal damage) and giving them to the authorities.
I like the idea of having characters locked up, rather than killed, looted and respawned.
Capture, and lock them up
it's a bit like a suspension from a forum for breaking the FUA
Regaining the equipment is done in time during which you play and advance.
Watching playing/advancing time go past might be more of a punishment for players than loosing some loot.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
much how about knocking them out (non lethal damage) and giving them to the authorities.I like the idea of having characters locked up, rather than killed, looted and respawned.
Capture, and lock them up
it's a bit like a suspension from a forum for breaking the FUARegaining the equipment is done in time during which you play and advance.
Watching playing/advancing time go past might be more of a punishment for players than loosing some loot.
I would say the exact oposite. First off jailing/time away from the game, always bad, people don't like paying for games they can't play.
As far as gear I have the oposite view as well, one way advancement is why so many games
A. Have an endpoint
B. Have a dominating group of players
IE the scenerio where you hit a certain point where you've gained all you can.
These effects are delayed and even sometimes eliminated when progression is 2 ways... IE you have the best stuff in the game, now you are a target for other groups etc... to actually be able to set you back, drop you from the top. Rather than only having the possibility of catching up to tie.
One way progression also leads to of course larger amounts of the "OK well too many people have the best thing in the game, so we need to add a better thing for them to go after", which results in a increasing power curve, making new players less and less significant, raising the "try and drop out" rate drastically, as it feels hopeless to reach the top tier.
My thoughts are that there need to be groups of PC bandits roaming the wilderness either robbing you or killing you if they can. Why? Because it gives the multiple 'good' companies something meaningful and exciting to do.
To allow this, there needs to be mechanics that inhibit griefing and random PKing, but still allow PKs to happen. I'm a little concerned that everyone will now shy away from playing the bad guy bandit, as each and every time they make a hit, they get various flags on them and a bounty and a death curse on them. Will this be too oppressive for bandits to operate under? Not sure yet.
Gotta have bad guys for the good guys to shine.
You are so right with this post, I'm all for pvp, I'm all for pve, and im all for consensual or non consensual pvp, my big issue has always been griefing. I'm confident PFO will be able to keep griefing to a minimum, So long as things are not insanely prohibitive. I would very much like some pc evil to slay from time to time. kinda hard to role play a Paladin protecting the innocent when there is nothing to protect them from :)
much how about knocking them out (non lethal damage) and giving them to the authorities.I like the idea of having characters locked up, rather than killed, looted and respawned.
Capture, and lock them up
it's a bit like a suspension from a forum for breaking the FUARegaining the equipment is done in time during which you play and advance.
Watching playing/advancing time go past might be more of a punishment for players than loosing some loot.I would say the exact oposite. First off jailing/time away from the game, always bad, people don't like paying for games they can't play.
As far as gear I have the oposite view as well, one way advancement is why so many games
A. Have an endpoint
B. Have a dominating group of playersIE the scenerio where you hit a certain point where you've gained all you can.
These effects are delayed and even sometimes eliminated when progression is 2 ways... IE you have the best stuff in the game, now you are a target for other groups etc... to actually be able to set you back, drop you from the top. Rather than only having the possibility of catching up to tie.
One way progression also leads to of course larger amounts of the "OK well too many people have the best thing in the game, so we need to add a better thing for them to go after", which results in a increasing power curve, making new players less and less significant, raising the "try and drop out" rate drastically, as it feels hopeless to reach the top tier.
very good point. i think a robust crafting system where no two items crafted are ever identical could help solve this issue of obtaining the best gear and the power curve. I do not want to see someone who has been playing for 2 years regularly wind up being out geared and out performed by a person who has only 25 percent of the time under their belt, but i would not be opposed to someone who has been playing for 1 year 8 months being almost as effective as the person that played 2 years.
I actually ended my subscription to FFXI because my character was thrown in a GM dungeon while they investigated reports of my character abusing the /yell function ( i used the /yell we are all going to die!, playing around with some friends when all of a sudden we had a huge train of skeletons chasing us into a capital city, not realizing my /yell was zone wide. go figure >.>) so yes most people wont put up with not being able to play a game they are paying for, violations of eula and tos excluded of course.
This indirectly hurts Lawful Evil characters as well. My own character, Kastarr, is a Lawful Evil trader. He eliminates competition through attacking his competitor's supply lines. He doesn't do this himself as that's going to be an overtly evil act so he would employ bandits to do it for him. Except that now, there won't be any bandits. Not realistically. His competitors will have money. This means that they will be capable of substantial, and probably indefinite, bounties. This means that in order to achieve the same results I would need to use mercenaries. Which means contracts. And a paper trail, as well as them having to openly declare war on the chartered company of the competitor. This is completely against the grain of my character.
Like Blaeringr, I agree that a bounty system is required. I even agree with the Death Curses. I do not see why the bounty system should permit unlimited bounties. I'm interested in the thinking behind it. For example, this could become another form of griefing. What would there be to stop a griefer with a rich alt from goading someone into killing him, then using funds from his alt to place an unlimited number of bounties?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
From what I understand of the bounty system is fine unless players make it unstable.
You can place as many bounties on someone who kills you anywhere and I will never go after them if the price is not worth it. If the price is low then it will be overlooked, if its high then buddy you should be more careful who you kill.
Keep in mind that unless its very easy to amass alot of coin that their is a limit to the bounties that can be placed. Sooner or later you will run out of coin. Also their is always the chance that the killer is a higher level, unless you have a way to tell you could be the next victim. Kinda funny to see the bounty hunter get murdered in turn.
Their is also the problem of finding said bounty target. Unless you have an ability or alot of friends its not easy to find someone even in a game world. The fact that their are certain buildings/locations that actively hide you means that you can "go into hiding" after having a bounty placed on you. These hiding places also tend to have storage so you can store anything you are scared of losing until the heat dies down or you get taken down.
I really dont see the problem. But feel free to correct me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you see the Bounty system as a way for non-PvP'ers to have a way that they can exact revenge using their wealth instead, then it's a lot easier to see why unlimited bounties make sense.
The problem in a lot of other games is that people who tried to enjoy the game as something other than a "PvP gank-fest" were at a real disadvantage. This Bounty system levels the field.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Never ending bounty issounding less and less cool. One bounty per occurance per player offended, would be ok.
My biggest issue with the ever re-occouring bounty falls into one main area.
Experienced vets, people with the most, IMO should have the least security, they are beyond the point of not knowing the risks, they know how to re-earn what they lost, they aren't going to quit the game over one little gank, A vet's greatest risk of quiting, comes from them having too much to get, too little to earn to continue playing. For a vet, losses actually increase how long they will continue to play.
Newbies on the other hand, don't know what they are doing, getting ganked too often early in their career, could ruin their opinion of the game forever.
The bounty system, and the curse system, are based on your current reputation, and your current money. Now who will have rep and money to spare to ruin someones career for a long time? A veteran who has dozens of other ways to handle being ganked, attacked etc... (IE hiring mercenaries/guards, equiping themselves better, knowing the paths that are safest etc...) While the newbies, might be able to slightly inconvenience the bandits once or twice, before running out of money.
TLDR:
The bounty system as listed, encourages bandits to put their efforts onto attacking new players who have not had time to earn enough to place bounties, and makes them fear attacking people who actually could defend themselves.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Experienced vets, people with the most, IMO should have the least security...
While I agree with that principle, I'm not sure there are any changes you could make to the system that would accomplish that goal without creating other, potentially worse, problems.
It became obvious to me very early on that I would want to make sure I did the majority of my Exploration and Harvesting in the company of friends. By nature, I'm generally more the type who just solos or duos with my wife. In PFO, I believe I will be (or already have been) pushed out of my shell enough to really become part of a larger community. That's why I joined The Seventh Veil, and why I am going to be dedicating my time and effort to make sure there are plenty of opportunities to go out and accomplish these kinds of things in large groups as part of organized events.
Ultimately, the best solution to any of the problems with the Bounty System is to never feel like your only recourse is to place a Bounty :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Experienced vets, people with the most, IMO should have the least security...While I agree with that principle, I'm not sure there are any changes you could make to the system that would accomplish that goal without creating other, potentially worse, problems.
Well for starts, scrapping the infinitely replacable portion of it. Infinite replacement does not help the weak, and excessively helps the strong.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Never ending bounty issounding less and less cool. One bounty per occurance per player offended, would be ok.My biggest issue with the ever re-occouring bounty falls into one main area.
Experienced vets, people with the most, IMO should have the least security, they are beyond the point of not knowing the risks, they know how to re-earn what they lost, they aren't going to quit the game over one little gank, A vet's greatest risk of quiting, comes from them having too much to get, too little to earn to continue playing. For a vet, losses actually increase how long they will continue to play.
Newbies on the other hand, don't know what they are doing, getting ganked too often early in their career, could ruin their opinion of the game forever.
The bounty system, and the curse system, are based on your current reputation, and your current money. Now who will have rep and money to spare to ruin someones career for a long time? A veteran who has dozens of other ways to handle being ganked, attacked etc... (IE hiring mercenaries/guards, equiping themselves better, knowing the paths that are safest etc...) While the newbies, might be able to slightly inconvenience the bandits once or twice, before running out of money.
TLDR:
The bounty system as listed, encourages bandits to put their efforts onto attacking new players who have not had time to earn enough to place bounties, and makes them fear attacking people who actually could defend themselves.
This. If bounties were instead restricted to areas where new players were likely to be, they would be an effective means to discourage randomly killing new players.
Veterans far from town, adventuring and harvesting in wilderness areas, are better equipped with knowledge and gear to deal with banditry. They accept more difficult challenges and more risk in exchange for more profitable opportunities. They should not be covered under the umbrella of the bounty system.
By expanding the bounty system, bandits don't have a clear line to show what behavior is socially acceptable. If bounties were restricted to hexes adjacent to settlements, players could quickly pick up that killing players there is a degree farther than typical banditry, and it will be punished accordingly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Its seems my last post was ignored or dismissed. Anyways I think the issue of PFO being classless is not being considered. You can have a master merchant or master crafter with little to nonexistent battle abilities, this does not mean you are new to the game. It means you chose not to join that aspect of the game, still you will need to gather and transport resources to play your chosen role. In that case the bounty system is your only resort against bandits or assassins.
If you do not make an impression then what is there to stop them from targeting such non combatants in the future. Oh you placed a bounty on me for each time I kill you, but your an easy target with high class items. Seems worth it to me. Now if you place 10 bounties on me in a row for killing you once then regardless of being a easy target its not worth the fallout.
In other games its common that a guild will go after someone who killed one of their members, that sounds alot worse to me. Sense you make an enemy of a group rather then a person and it can last alot longer then a bounty. Plus its free and depending on the group they may enjoy hunting you. I will take the bounty hunter over the guild coming after me.
Sidenote- There is no gainful reason to target the weak (new players). That is griefing and will be taken care of in game or out of it.
I think we can all agree that a bounty system is a requirement of this game. We don't want jerks to overrun the game and I say that as a player who fully intends to roleplay an evil character.
What we don't want to have is a situation where 'meaningful evil' is relegated to a plot device of good-aligned guilds. I want to be able to have my evil trader character match wits with the best the good guys have to offer. Some I will win, and some I will lose. However, I don't want to be afraid to kill someone if it's in keeping with my character just because the bounty system (which currently has unlimited bounties for OOC reasons) could then effectively see that character sidelined.
I agree that it is a fine line and I hope it is something that we can hammer out in beta but I'd hope that most of us can agree that the only constraint on bounties being the speed at which someone can gather coin isn't the right way to go about it.
Ah yes, the ubiquitous Tony. Tell me, Master Blaeringr, shall Tony be opening an establishment within the walls of Shadow Haven? I am most eager to discuss with him a rental agreement, should that be the case.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Its seems my last post was ignored or dismissed. Anyways I think the issue of PFO being classless is not being considered. You can have a master merchant or master crafter with little to nonexistent battle abilities, this does not mean you are new to the game. It means you chose not to join that aspect of the game, still you will need to gather and transport resources to play your chosen role. In that case the bounty system is your only resort against bandits or assassins.
and this rich person could still use his money and knowledge to protect himself. He can hire players to guard him, he knows the routes least likely to be attacked, almost certainly is a member of a settlement that will offer protection services at a huge discount if not free in exchange for his crafting services etc... As well he is wealthy, just like everyone else, he already knows the rule do not risk what you cannot afford to lose, a ritch powerful guy with lots of money, isn't going to be hurt terribly when he gets killed and looted, he can use his stored wealth to recreate the losses rather quickly. In many a game, I have lost half of what I have had while being filthy ritch, reclaimed it in a week via clever purchases and resells when I knew the market like the back of my hand, A poor newbie loosing half of his possesions, will not have the market expertise, or the capital to do anything anyway.
Again this guy IMO right off the bat deserves drastically less protection, than the new guy, who hasn't learned all the lessons, isn't prepared for attacks, can't afford to hire bodyguards etc.... Yet under the current system, the guy who has dozens of options for safeguards, also is suicide to attack, because he will make the rest of your life hell. Once you protect the rich merchants who WOULD be the targets for bandits... well then the bandits are redirected to focus on the beginners.
I've played many sandbox games, and yes the ritch money makers with poor combat skills, are regularly the targets of bandits etc... Are they defenseless, HECK NO, they hire the meanest combatants money can buy to protect them.
With the information available of most of the anti-griefing systems GW has described, I have huge fear, because many of them follow the same trends, they redirect the would be griefers away from the powerful characters, and towards the least powerful characters.
Training limitations, lets say their power level is capped at 5, while normal characters are capped at 9. Well who are these capped at 5 killers supposed to target... obviously only the 5 and under groups.
Bounty system as written. Well it makes them afraid to attack the rich, so obviously that forces them to focus on the poor.
What I would really like to know, why are most the safeguards I'm seeing, protecting the people that should be fair game, and ignoring the less capable players that killing SHOULD be considered griefing?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We're also assuming that Bounties will apply over the whole game.
Bounties might only apply to Hexes held by specific Guilds and/or NPC Factions.
Gank a player in the Grey Knights-held region, yeah, they'll be pissed and gladly let the other players beat you like a delicious gold-giving pinata, but do it outside their borders ... would they 'accept' the bounty?
Suddenly Bounties aren't some all-powerful "OH GOD" anti-griefing tool. If you have to put up a bounty in each hex, and the gold is taken from you, plus a broker's fee .... that's gonna get expensive.
Let's say there's four Bandit PCs harrassing a small PC-Made Village. The Guild making the village isn't exactly combat master, they are mostly crafters with a handful of 'gatherer' friends. They've got the ability to fight, yes, but most of their funds and skills have been directed into building, crafting and gathering.
So, after the third raid where the villagers are stampeded and the cattle [redacted], the Villagers decide that they are not going to be able to handle this on their own, and put up a 200 gold bounty on each Bandit, with an additional 200 gold in material items as a sweetener.
Lo and behold, Sir Roustabout and Friends show up, pick up the bounty and stick around to hunt down the Bandit PCs, engage in a meaningful running battle with the Bandits, kill them, and come back for their bounties.
JUST TO BE SURE, the Villagers renew the Bounties, and the Bandits after several days of cat and mouse with the Villagers, 'Hero' PCs and the like either eat dirt again or decide it's time to get the heck outta dodge.
The survivors make it to the next Hex .... no Bounties on their heads in this Hex. Any attempt to kill them now will allow them to, in turn, put a bounty on their killers.
Now we get meaningful PvP as the Bandits recover their strength, start to rebuild a new base in their new Hex and then use their old 'Hideout' in the original Hex as a staging base for future raids.
The villagers get a chance to recover from the raids in the mean-time, possibly training up their own people to be better combatants, and the 'Hero' PCs got their gold and their items, and they're happy.
Now, when the Bandits come back, depending upon if Bounties have a time-limit of some kind (three months, real time, seems to be fair) and have a minimum amount of funds required (and 'stacking' bounties on a player actually increases the amount of gold required, making it more useful for players out for revenge to pool their bounties into a single bounty with a slightly larger pool of gold, than a dozen bounties that is costing all of them ever-increasing amounts of coinage.) they are coming in with vengeance on their minds, the Villagers are a lot more interested in getting the Bandits to get out and stay out, due to the 'stacking' nature of the bounties, and the Hero PCs are rubbing their hands with glee at future PvP and stockpiles of funds.
We're also assuming that Bounties will apply over the whole game.
Bounties might only apply to Hexes held by specific Guilds and/or NPC Factions.
Gank a player in the Grey Knights-held region, yeah, they'll be pissed and gladly let the other players beat you like a delicious gold-giving pinata, but do it outside their borders ... would they 'accept' the bounty?
Suddenly Bounties aren't some all-powerful "OH GOD" anti-griefing tool. If you have to put up a bounty in each hex, and the gold is taken from you, plus a broker's fee .... that's gonna get expensive.
Let's say there's four Bandit PCs harrassing a small PC-Made Village. The Guild making the village isn't exactly combat master, they are mostly crafters with a handful of 'gatherer' friends. They've got the ability to fight, yes, but most of their funds and skills have been directed into building, crafting and gathering.
So, after the third raid where the villagers are stampeded and the cattle [redacted], the Villagers decide that they are not going to be able to handle this on their own, and put up a 200 gold bounty on each Bandit, with an additional 200 gold in material items as a sweetener.
Lo and behold, Sir Roustabout and Friends show up, pick up the bounty and stick around to hunt down the Bandit PCs, engage in a meaningful running battle with the Bandits, kill them, and come back for their bounties.
JUST TO BE SURE, the Villagers renew the Bounties, and the Bandits after several days of cat and mouse with the Villagers, 'Hero' PCs and the like either eat dirt again or decide it's time to get the heck outta dodge.
The survivors make it to the next Hex .... no Bounties on their heads in this Hex. Any attempt to kill them now will allow them to, in turn, put a bounty on their killers.
Now we get meaningful PvP as the Bandits recover their strength, start to rebuild a new base in their new Hex and then use their old 'Hideout' in the original Hex as a staging base for future raids.
The villagers get a chance to...
I hate the ever increasing boutny, but it is a great way to balance it, and this system of certain areas allowing bounties certain areas not is what i am expecting to be in place, you can place the bounty anywhere you can only collect in certain areas seems fair.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As 'Tony' mentioned, it allows people to take steps against other players who are attempting to attack them without stifling world PvP.
Furthermore, if the people who are enforcing the Bounty in that Hex lose control of said Hex ... the Bounties are likely going to be null and void anyways! That adds a further level of meaning to the Player vs Player aspect.
Be a Bandit ... and through shenanigans, you end up winning a pitched battle for control of the Hex merely to erase a staggeringly high bounty on your head that is seeing scores of Bandit-Hunting Groups scouring the Hex for your head ... now you control the Hex. Do you just shrug, go 'meh' and wander away to continue being a Bandit, or do you take this great victory/reward and run with it, becoming the Bandit-King?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hmmm.
What to do about the situation where a ganking cooperative singles out a wealthy target and sends a weak, low experience character with little to lose to incessantly harass and annoy the travelling merchant and his wagon filled with goods, inciting distraction, upset, and chaos to the point where for the sake of a respite he is ultimately put out of everyone else' misery? Then the decoy character might place a bounty on the victim/guards for his cooperative and the merchant can be sacked with impunity for the following days and months, ruining the game for that once wealthy, now impoverished merchant?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the Mods would step in long before that point came to pass.
Also, in a 'Sandbox' game, a continuous drain on the economy by harrassing merchants will inevitably draw the ire of the rest of the players, as the merchants who keep getting attacked, they lose their stock, the bandits sit on the items to try and artifically inflate the prices.
This is a game where we CAN go out and rip the lower intestines out of the bastards who try to turn our MMO's into another sweatshop.
Still, it does raise a valid point. Maybe there can be some form of 'limit' to how often a player can have a bounty put upon them?
Also, if you 'start' the PvP by attacking somebody, you should not be able to put a bounty on them. If you actively flag for PvP by attacking somebody, then perhaps anyone who attacks you for a small time-limit cannot be targeted by your account for Bounties? But that, again, opens up the whole 'tag team tea-bagging bounty' scenario.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hmmm.
What to do about the situation where a ganking cooperative singles out a wealthy target and sends a weak, low experience character with little to lose to incessantly harass and annoy the travelling merchant and his wagon filled with goods, inciting distraction, upset, and chaos to the point where for the sake of a respite he is ultimately put out of everyone else' misery? Then the decoy character might place a bounty on the victim/guards for his cooperative and the merchant can be sacked with impunity for the following days and months, ruining the game for that once wealthy, now impoverished merchant?
Character with little to lose (IE not equiped in good gear), Assuming the merchant has a single bodyguard in which he did equip, than the character with no gear and nothing to lose, will be roughly as dangerous as a kid throwing pebbles at a tank.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Character with little to lose (IE not equiped in good gear), Assuming the merchant has a single bodyguard in which he did equip, than the character with no gear and nothing to lose, will be roughly as dangerous as a kid throwing pebbles at a tank.
Thats not really true. If I was "building" a bandit one of the basic skills I would pick up is poison. Or make use of cheap but effective items, alchy fire anyone. You do not have to have good gear to be effective in certain goals, not to mention the bodyguard would be taking a hit in that case. If its not worth the pay then the bodyguard will quit or ask for more and the merchant is still left holding the bag. Not to mention if a certain merchant is being targeted then why would anyone work for them "knowing" that it would be a pain. Only if he was offering alot of coin I would think. In which case the merchant gets the short end of teh stick again.
I suggest everyone try creating a bandit with the information about PFO given so far and PF. You will find out real quick why the bounty system is fine and the bandits will have no problem avoiding it. At least at lower levels I would think. At most I would suggest a time limit on bounties if one is not already in place, in which case I would make that time limit days (real time). That should keep griefing down but let those who choose the profession to work their trade.
Sidenote-Has any information on how your going to find one person among all those in the game world been given? Much less tell if they are even online?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Because you can loot the bandits. And because if too many Merchants go "F this" and walk away, you lose. No merchants, no economy, nobody is able to forge or build or enchant anything as the supply lines dry up, and the Bandits either move on to the villages and towns to start to raid them, or people abandon the Hex to go to a place where there are players/Guilds who are actually defending the merchants.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thats not really true. If I was "building" a bandit one of the basic skills I would pick up is poison. Or make use of cheap but effective items, alchy fire anyone. You do not have to have good gear to be effective in certain goals, not to mention the bodyguard would be taking a hit in that case. If its not worth the pay then the bodyguard will quit or ask for more and the merchant is still left holding the bag. Not to mention if a certain merchant is being targeted then why would anyone work for them "knowing" that it would be a pain. Only if he was offering alot of coin I would think. In which case the merchant gets the short end of teh stick again.
You are making assumptions that the mechanics of the game will permit this. If the idea of gankers with nothing to lose have a high probability of killing players who do lose things is common, than that is a flaw in the mechanics.
I am attempting to find it, I am almost certain I remember Ryan making a statement to the regard that ungeared characters with nothing to lose would not be very effective against geared characters.
and yes the bodyguard does need a fair compensation to work for the merchant, the merchant obviously has to pay his guards based on how dangerous of an area he is going into, of which it is worth it to him, because higher risk areas = higher gain, the crafting merchant can certainly get better deals considering his crafting labor etc... is also useful to these bodyguards. Not to mention, he also can bring members from his own settlement, that would chose to protect him for the sole value of boosting their settlements armory as this crafter is the one making their weapons/armor etc...
Assuming P&P mechanics of say, a batch of level 1 characters firing magic missiles etc... isn't neceseraly a solid comparison, just as a batch of 5 wizards randomly throwing fireballs at a formation, are not expected to be effective.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.).This is a very big leap from earlier blogs that very explicitly stated that kills in the wilderness would not trigger the bounty system.Wrong. Full stop. Period.
We have never said that there were no penalties to killing a character in the wilderness. You have read that into statements we've made, but we have never said that (or if we have it was not in a blog, so I don't feel particularly bound by that level of nuance).
The idea of the bounty has been, and always will be that it's a way to make it very dangerous and painful to kill another character. You can easily be stuck with a "whack me" sticker for the rest of your character's life if you pick on someone who can afford to keep the bounty running. Kill with caution.
This is what we said:
Pathfinder Online's bounty system is a lot more selective. When you are murdered—that is, killed unlawfully—you will have the option to place a bounty on your killer's head.And we said this:
Bounties can only be issued when a character unlawfully kills another. Killing an opponent as a part of a declared war, or in an area that does not have laws against murder, will not trigger the bounty system.There may be large swathes of the game world that have laws against murder. We have not defined what that is or how that will work. We may declare that a substantial area territory has a "law against murder", and we might change that over time to reflect how the community is playing the game and how much problem we're having with griefers.
And we have said this (or something quite close to this), each and every time we've discussed game mechanics:
The ideas described in...
You.....I like you :)
Seriously, though, good for you on not taking the bait. I see to many developers who feel bound by their first iterations on design, and I think most people here apprecaite your feedback on this matter. As long as you are clear on both your Intent and your methods, I don't think issues like this confusion will be large.
And personally, I think the current set up is great - I expect no shortage of griefers and pvpers; for those who want 'consensual' pvp - it's called a WAR, try that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I can easily see some folks decide that if they have to endure endless bounties from a person they will damn well earn them. So instead of a 'caught you once unawares' situation, now I might as well keep stalking this same guy over and over again if I'm gonna be paying or punished for it anyway. Not much of a griefing deterent.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@zetesofos if you're hoping war will be the only PvP they envision, then you should read Ryan's posts that outright encourage players to attempt banditry.
Don't worry though, just read Tony's blog and you'll see we've got this all straightened out with a player made solution that requires no changes from GW that will allow people attacked in non-consensual PvP to place bounties, but not let them overdo it if the attacker wasn't legitimately griefing them (and to reiterate: plain banditry is not considered by goblinworks to be griefing).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What to do about the situation where a ganking cooperative singles out a wealthy target and sends a weak, low experience character with little to lose to incessantly harass and annoy the travelling merchant...
harass and annoy how? stand in the way?
The moment he attacks in any way the merchant or his bodyguard can kill the bugger in self defense, no bounty allowed to retaliate.|
Goblin Squad Member
|
much how about knocking them out (non lethal damage) and giving them to the authorities.I like the idea of having characters locked up, rather than killed, looted and respawned.
Capture, and lock them up
it's a bit like a suspension from a forum for breaking the FUARegaining the equipment is done in time during which you play and advance.
Watching playing/advancing time go past might be more of a punishment for players than loosing some loot.I would say the exact oposite. First off jailing/time away from the game, always bad, people don't like paying for games they can't play.
boo hoo
People also don't like their characters killed and robbed by other players.The fraction of "but I want to play a villan" players appears like a bunch of kids who want all the reward of free loot with no risk attached.
They want their fun at the expanse of everyone else.
I think it's been put quite clear by the developers that this won't happen, going as far as kicking players out entirely for randomly ruining other peoples gaming experience. The character doing some jailtime as a warning might be a mild alternative to not playing at all in the future.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@DropBearHunter they've made it clear they want to see banditry and won't consider it griefing.. Nobody is asking for consequence free banditry, but it also doesn't make sense to lump it together with actual griefing.
If you've got issues with that level of PvP, then "boo hoo" yourself.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have been fine with the system from the start and agree with Zetesofos. You want to play the bad guy, then you will have to be smart and strong. Otherwise you would not last as a bad guy anyways and would be a griefer instead, which is the whole point of the system. Their are a number of ways around and with in the current system to be a villian. Thats part of the game I think, you have to figure it out. ;)