Goblin Squad Member
|
You can not have an active defense, that defies logic.Not really. It's fairly easy for me to envision a system that makes sense, and actually sounds kind of fun (at least to me).
A Pickpocket engages a Mark, initiating a Pickpocket Encounter. Before the Mark knows anything is happening, either the System or the Pickpocket determine which items/coin are vulnerable. Once the "pot" is established, the two players are presented with the Pickpocket Encounter mini-game, where they can each use the Skills and Abilities they've trained. If either player flees, logs off, or otherwise terminates the encounter early, they lose.
The Encounter resolves along two distinct result axes:
1. How much of the goods did the Pickpocket acquire? This could range from nothing to everything, and anything in between.
2. How cleanly did the Pickpocket escape? This could range from a clean getaway to actually being captured by the Mark. There could be a variety of outcomes along this axis, including things like whether or not a Criminal Flag gets applied.
Skills and Abilities would generally improve one of these axes at the cost of worsening the other. The Pickpocket would be balancing how much of the goods he was trying to get with how cleanly he escapes. The Mark would be balancing how well he protects his goods against how well he identifies the Pickpocket.
No offense Nihimon,
But how do you wipe the victim's memory of who just stole from him, if the thief was successful?
In the case of pvp pick pocketing, the stealth aspect is just not that the character is unaware, the player must be unaware as well. Otherwise it just doesn't make sense.
We don't need to jump through logical hoops to try to appease those who are opposed to any form of pvp theft. They will always want their right to kill the thief.
Which leads me back to my ascertain that all pvp will have to be combat based, and all theft will have to be after the victim is killed. If we want to play a rogue / thief, we have to be a chaotic evil RPKer.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But all pvp SHOULD allow both sides to participate, rather than one side rolling against a stat on someone's character sheet.
What you are failing to grasp is that if the victim
Us provided the means to actively prevent pick pocketing, it is no longer a successful pick pocket attempt.It is a stealth based activity. If you know it is happening, the thief failed. You can not have an active defense, that defies logic.
I'm not "failing to grasp" it, I'm concluding that pickpocketing MAKES FOR POOR PVP. Hence, why I think we shouldn't have pickpocketing.
But all pvp SHOULD allow both sides to participate, rather than one side rolling against a stat on someone's character sheet.
What you are failing to grasp is that if the victim
Us provided the means to actively prevent pick pocketing, it is no longer a successful pick pocket attempt.It is a stealth based activity. If you know it is happening, the thief failed. You can not have an active defense, that defies logic.
I'm not "failing to grasp" it, I'm concluding that pickpocketing MAKES FOR POOR PVP. Hence, why I think we shouldn't have pickpocketing.
Now your pulling out the Tinman! Much better then the strawman. Now I'm concluding that pick pocketing makes for good PvP! So there! :p
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Now your pulling out the Tinman! Much better then the strawman. Now I'm concluding that pick pocketing makes for good PvP! So there! :pBut all pvp SHOULD allow both sides to participate, rather than one side rolling against a stat on someone's character sheet.
What you are failing to grasp is that if the victim
Us provided the means to actively prevent pick pocketing, it is no longer a successful pick pocket attempt.It is a stealth based activity. If you know it is happening, the thief failed. You can not have an active defense, that defies logic.
I'm not "failing to grasp" it, I'm concluding that pickpocketing MAKES FOR POOR PVP. Hence, why I think we shouldn't have pickpocketing.
Do you disagree that "good pvp" should allow both of the p's to participate?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... the player must be unaware as well.Why?
Because the player and the character can not be separated. If the player knows who stole from him, than the theft was not stealthily successful. The whole purpose of stealth is to be unseen, unheard and unknown, when successful.
But a question, what exactly do you have in mind for an active defense of a pick pocket attempt?
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
But how do you wipe the victim's memory of who just stole from him, if the thief was successful?
You don't tell him; it's up to the player to figure out which of the players near him picked his pocket. If you don't have a large number of other suspects nearby, don't steal.
In the case of pvp pick pocketing, the stealth aspect is just not that the character is unaware, the player must be unaware as well. Otherwise it just doesn't make sense.
Why is it important to your vision of pickpocketing that only players who are paying active attention to their inventory (or are running a simple script that sounds a bell when they get pickpocketed) notice when something is stolen?
Which leads me back to my ascertain that all pvp will have to be combat based, and all theft will have to be after the victim is killed. If we want to play a rogue / thief, we have to be a chaotic evil RPKer.
I made a suggestion about stealing in combat a ways back; what's wrong with limiting PvP stealing to the same domain that we limit other PvP combat to?
The big issue is that if character that focuses on stealing will typically succeed against a character that does not focus on not being stolen from, then the thief typically wins until max perception becomes a required skill for everyone. Sorry new player, you need to spend two months training to not get robbed blind before you get anything shiny.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But all pvp SHOULD allow both sides to participate, rather than one side rolling against a stat on someone's character sheet.
What you are failing to grasp is that if the victim
Us provided the means to actively prevent pick pocketing, it is no longer a successful pick pocket attempt.It is a stealth based activity. If you know it is happening, the thief failed. You can not have an active defense, that defies logic.
I'm not "failing to grasp" it, I'm concluding that pickpocketing MAKES FOR POOR PVP. Hence, why I think we shouldn't have pickpocketing.
Your stance that for it to be "good PvP" both sides must be actively participating leads to a system where any stealth is "bad".
Putting pickpocketing aside for a moment, how do you apply that sense of reasoning to somebody trying to sneak past another player for illicit reasons?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... what exactly do you have in mind for an active defense of a pick pocket attempt?
I must not have been very clear, because you actually quoted it in your prior post.
If the player knows who stole from him...
The player won't, unless they are successful enough along the Identification axis to get that result.
The way I envision the UI for the Pickpocket Encounter, the Pickpocket would see the Mark, but the Mark would only see a blank silhouette or a question mark for the Pickpocket. There would be two bars, one representing Goods, and the other Identification. The Pickpocket would be trying to raise the Goods bar and keep the Identification bar low. The Mark would be trying to raise the Identification bar and keep the Goods bar low. Each player would select an ability to play, and once both sides played (or a 6-second counter expired), the other player's ability would be revealed. Each ability might have a direct impact on one or both bars as well as having some effect based on what the other player's ability was.
The only way the Mark would ever know who the Pickpocket was is if they moved the Identification bar past a threshold.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What's really going on at this point is a form of the discussion whether a DM should privately roll perception checks or announce to the players that they need to make perception checks.
I am of the position that DMs who do private rolls are not universally creating "bad" NPC vs PC interaction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Putting pickpocketing aside for a moment, how do you apply that sense of reasoning to somebody trying to sneak past another player for illicit reasons?
Sneaking in and of itself doesn't result in a win/loss for either party, it's merely a potential prelude to a PvP encounter (or not, if the sneaker is merely passing by). Pickpocketing has an inherent win/loss state which is resolved before any detection/reaction (and subsequent pvp encounter) is even possible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Do you disagree that "good pvp" should allow both of the p's to participate?Just curious, but what did you think of my suggestion about a system that would allow both players to actively participate?
It sounds ok to me, for a rough napkin sketch, I don't have any fundamental objections to it. My biggest concern with it would be potential areas for abuse, like the auto-loss conditions, but I don't have time to go into detail now. :(
Now your pulling out the Tinman! Much better then the strawman. Now I'm concluding that pick pocketing makes for good PvP! So there! :pBut all pvp SHOULD allow both sides to participate, rather than one side rolling against a stat on someone's character sheet.
What you are failing to grasp is that if the victim
Us provided the means to actively prevent pick pocketing, it is no longer a successful pick pocket attempt.It is a stealth based activity. If you know it is happening, the thief failed. You can not have an active defense, that defies logic.
I'm not "failing to grasp" it, I'm concluding that pickpocketing MAKES FOR POOR PVP. Hence, why I think we shouldn't have pickpocketing.
Do you disagree that "good pvp" should allow both of the p's to participate?
Actually up until Nihimon posted about the mini-game idea I would have said that pick pocketing didn't stand a chance in hell of making it into PFO. Not only were the Devs Leary of the idea, but many many players were against it. They still might not go for it even with a mini-game giving them the chance to react. But I figure if a majority of players reached an agreement on something that they Luke accept, the Devs would at least consider it.
So I'm not holding my breath. ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... what exactly do you have in mind for an active defense of a pick pocket attempt?I must not have been very clear, because you actually quoted it in your prior post.
If the player knows who stole from him...The player won't, unless they are successful enough along the Identification axis to get that result.
The way I envision the UI for the Pickpocket Encounter, the Pickpocket would see the Mark, but the Mark would only see a blank silhouette or a question mark for the Pickpocket. There would be two bars, one representing Goods, and the other Identification. The Pickpocket would be trying to raise the Goods bar and keep the Identification bar low. The Mark would be trying to raise the Identification bar and keep the Goods bar low. Each player would select an ability to play, and once both sides played (or a 6-second counter expired), the other player's ability would be revealed. Each ability might have a direct impact on one or both bars as well as having some effect based on what the other player's ability was.
The only way the Mark would ever know who the Pickpocket was is if they moved the Identification bar past a threshold.
Yes, this system would work, but it is incredibly complex. You are essentially suggesting a mini game, and I doubt GW would ever consider that. So why must this be overly complicated?
I have a pick pocketing skill of 124. You have a Perception skill of 100. Your coin pouch has a modifier of - 30 to pick pocketing rolls.
The system rolls my check. I have a combined - 6 to that roll, essentially making it more difficult for me to steal, and more likely that I would get caught in the act as well.
If both characters have max 300 skill and no modifiers for victim's passive defenses, then the chance works out to 50/50.
Your stance that for it to be "good PvP" both sides must be actively participating leads to a system where any stealth is "bad".
Putting pickpocketing aside for a moment, how do you apply that sense of reasoning to somebody trying to sneak past another player for illicit reasons?
TBH if you start applying many of the players objections to pick pocketing, they would equally apply to bandits SAD'ing someone, or even many types of PvP combat encounters.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Putting pickpocketing aside for a moment, how do you apply that sense of reasoning to somebody trying to sneak past another player for illicit reasons?Sneaking in and of itself doesn't result in a win/loss for either party, it's merely a potential prelude to a PvP encounter (or not, if the sneaker is merely passing by). Pickpocketing has an inherent win/loss state which is resolved before any detection/reaction (and subsequent pvp encounter) is even possible.
Intelligence gathering, looting stockpiles of valuables, gathering from valuable resource nodes inside guarded territory, better strategic positioning for sneak attacks, etc.
Sneaking doesn't always result in a win/loss for either party, but to say that it just doesn't ever result in a win/loss is so very very false.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
TBH if you start applying many of the players objections to pick pocketing, they would equally apply to bandits SAD'ing someone, or even many types of PvP combat encounters.
In a few cases, these players are or we're vocal against non consensual PvP, the SAD system, not being allowed to freely attack unflagged characters they knew had committed crimes in the past, player looting, pick pocketing, critical strikes, alpha strikes, ganking, griefing, and the list will continue.
Some, a few, will not be satisfied until PFO is a PVE game only and they are never at any risk, especially not at risk of losing their phat lootz.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But all pvp SHOULD allow both sides to participate, rather than one side rolling against a stat on someone's character sheet.
Does this also apply to all other save mechanics such as crowd control spells, AoE attacks, unavoidable attacks such as magic missile etc...? Or is the imposition that the two (or more) characters involved are already in a PvP scenario and thus anything goes?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
Do you disagree that "good pvp" should allow both of the p's to participate?
Even without requiring that you define 'good' PvP, I disagree that every instance of 'good' PvP allows both P's to actively participate.
If there are some instances of good PvP in which one of the P's is active and the other passive then if some instances of pickpocketing involve both P's then pickpocketing can be 'good' PvP.
So your most likely challenge to my position is to name an instance of 'good' PvP where only one player is active and the other is passive or even unaware.
One is called 'crowd control'. Ever been mezzed? DAoC. Another is a rogue's backstab. In some games that can be a one shot, or a one combo out of stealth, as happened quite a bit in Age of Conan.
So especially you might now want a case where the victim is unaware. If I am not mistaken the brilliant machinations among corporations being infiltrated and betrayed in Eve come to mind.
The point is that Good, even Brilliant PvP is filled with instances where one player or side took the other by complete and utter surprise and the surprised never had a chance at putting up any credible defense.
Thieves need pickpocket, lockpicking, disarm traps, stealth, and backstab for the game to be done well.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
The way I envision the UI for the Pickpocket Encounter, the Pickpocket would see the Mark, but the Mark would only see a blank silhouette or a question mark for the Pickpocket. There would be two bars, one representing Goods, and the other Identification. The Pickpocket would be trying to raise the Goods bar and keep the Identification bar low. The Mark would be trying to raise the Identification bar and keep the Goods bar low. Each player would select an ability to play, and once both sides played (or a 6-second counter expired), the other player's ability would be revealed. Each ability might have a direct impact on one or both bars as well as having some effect based on what the other player's ability was.The only way the Mark would ever know who the Pickpocket was is if they moved the Identification bar past a threshold.
It's an interesting approach. I think it has potential if (and probably only if) the rest of the game features similar minigames so that there is some design consistency. If the rest of the time you are always 'in person' seeing what your character sees, and pickpockets are the only time that you drop into a minigame, then that's very disruptive of immersion. If crafting, opening chests in dungeons, music, harvesting, pet training, etc all have their own mini-games then it becomes much more part of the general flow. Design is a holistic thing.
Though, if you could design the pickpocket minigame to be in the general UI as a sort of 6-second bullet time doohicky, that might be cool.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
I think it has potential if (and probably only if) the rest of the game features similar minigames so that there is some design consistency.I would really like them to do something similar for Crowd Control effects, as well.
Yeah, I remember you talking about that. It would certainly be more interesting than the typical 'wait until a little symbol goes away so I can do stuff again' concept.
Couple more thoughts about pickpocketing and minigames, now that I'm considering the overlap with violent PVP.
- should you be able to pickpocket someone who's actively fighting?
- if you can, and if there is a minigame that pops up, then pickpocketing becomes effectively an unintended means of crowd control, because the victim, for the duration of the minigame, can't heal or attack or run away or whatever
- though that depends on the visual and command aspects of the minigame I guess
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a pick pocketing skill of 124. You have a Perception skill of 100. Your coin pouch has a modifier of - 30 to pick pocketing rolls.The system rolls my check. I have a combined - 6 to that roll, essentially making it more difficult for me to steal, and more likely that I would get caught in the act as well.
If both characters have max 300 skill and no modifiers for victim's passive defenses, then the chance works out to 50/50.
Next I roll my "kill" skill versus your "not die" skill, and there's a 50/50 chance that you die. (assuming that you haven't done anything except train "not die")
Does that sound like fun for either person? The combat system is several orders of magnitude more complicated than that without even getting into the gameplay.
Why is it any different from any other system where there is only two decisions made in the entire process: The decision of the thief to steal, and of the victim to be in a location where PvP is permitted?
There is an interesting multiplayer game concept where some players play a pickpocket and other play police; I just don't think that PFO is that game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
TBH if you start applying many of the players objections to pick pocketing, they would equally apply to bandits SAD'ing someone, or even many types of PvP combat encounters.In a few cases, these players are or we're vocal against non consensual PvP, the SAD system, not being allowed to freely attack unflagged characters they knew had committed crimes in the past, player looting, pick pocketing, critical strikes, alpha strikes, ganking, griefing, and the list will continue.
Some, a few, will not be satisfied until PFO is a PVE game only and they are never at any risk, especially not at risk of losing their phat lootz.
I would still say the similarities are negligable in concept.
There is a significant difference between being informed at a game of horse is started, and because of his positioning and strategy he is starting at H-O... which would be the case in the event of a blindsided critical leaving you debuffed and hit once at the start of the fight, maybe H-O-R if it is by a superior party/character in that scenerio.Being informed there was a low stakes game of horse, and you lost 5 minutes ago, on the other hand... that is less fun. One thing also people seem to leave out. I don't suppose people are vying for the thief to die automatically on a failure. So if we are to assume a max level of perception, and if so a max level thief loses 75% of the time, the theif still gets a good chance to defend himself and/or run.
SaD I really don't even see the start of a parallel. SaD by definition is the oposite of blindsiding, GW has specifically described it as sacrificing the element of supprise for the chance of getting goods without a fight. Pickpocketing is like SaD, but with a chance of giving up the goods outside of your control
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Next I roll my "kill" skill versus your "not die" skill, and there's a 50/50 chance that you die. (assuming that you haven't done anything except train "not die")
It seems that you are comparing a major disruption in play (getting killed) with a nuisance (loosing a single item of small value, as threaded items most likely can not be pickpocketed).
There is an interesting multiplayer game concept where some players play a pickpocket and other play police; I just don't think that PFO is that game.
I think that PFO is that game through the Enforcer flag.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Next I roll my "kill" skill versus your "not die" skill, and there's a 50/50 chance that you die. (assuming that you haven't done anything except train "not die")It seems that you are comparing a major disruption in play (getting killed) with a nuisance (loosing a single item of small value, as threaded items most likely can not be pickpocketed).
It's versus losing all items eligible for being stolen; if nothing worthwhile can be stolen, why would anyone spend the time to train the skill?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Some, a few, will not be satisfied until PFO is a PVE game only and they are never at any risk, especially not at risk of losing their phat lootz.
And you won't be satisfied until it's a griefer's paradise where everyone logs in for the chance to be victimized. You're so deep into the griefer-apologist mindset that you can't even imagine what it will be like when you're on the receiving end of someone else's glorious anarchy. Open PVP needn't be a mosh pit with no room for those who can empathize with the 'P' on the other side of the 'V'.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It seems that you are comparing a major disruption in play (getting killed) with a nuisance (loosing a single item of small value, as threaded items most likely can not be pickpocketed).
Getting killed is also just a minor inconvenience. You lose what you gambled to leave town with and/or what you left to battle for. I would say the annoyance is on comperable level if the item happens to be one that you just worked hard for.
Imagine the following scenerio. to get item X that you want, you need a gryphon's beak. You grab a group and go out looking for one, find it and are victorious against the griffon. en-route home you hit a SAD ambush, offer a high amount of money so that you can prevent losing what you just worked hard from.
You continue home, run into another ambush, this time a blindsided strike, shot by an arrow bringing you down to 80% health. Your groups wizard casts haste and everybody takes off, you get hit by another arrow on the run away, but survive with 60% health.
You make it back to town, your blacksmith friend is a bit busy so you are in town for 5 minutes waiting on him.
Finally you talk to him. open up your inventory.. and discover you wasted your time on that trip, as while you were waiting in line the gryphon's beak was taken.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Some, a few, will not be satisfied until PFO is a PVE game only and they are never at any risk, especially not at risk of losing their phat lootz.And you won't be satisfied until it's a griefer's paradise where everyone logs in for the chance to be victimized. You're so deep into the griefer-apologist mindset that you can't even imagine what it will be like when you're on the receiving end of someone else's glorious anarchy. Open PVP needn't be a mosh pit with no room for those who can empathize with the 'P' on the other side of the 'V'.
No, I won't be satisfied until the PVE crowd lets rogues be rogues, with the thieving skills and activities that we are supposed to have.
I can only imagine what the uproar will be when details on assassination comes out. That will be yet another stealth based attack, where the victim will have no active defense, but will be left dead and fully looted of all non threaded items. There may also be an assassin's ability to unthread items, which will bring about even more tears.
Come to think of it, if we can't nonviolently pick pocket, thieves and bandits should just train up as assassins as well and go for the kill.
It seems that you are comparing a major disruption in play (getting killed) with a nuisance (loosing a single item of small value, as threaded items most likely can not be pickpocketed).
Getting killed is also just a minor inconvenience. You lose what you gambled to leave town with and/or what you left to battle for. I would say the annoyance is on comperable level if the item happens to be one that you just worked hard for.
Imagine the following scenerio. to get item X that you want, you need a gryphon's beak. You grab a group and go out looking for one, find it and are victorious against the griffon. en-route home you hit a SAD ambush, offer a high amount of money so that you can prevent losing what you just worked hard from.
You continue home, run into another ambush, this time a blindsided strike, shot by an arrow bringing you down to 80% health. Your groups wizard casts haste and everybody takes off, you get hit by another arrow on the run away, but survive with 60% health.
You make it back to town, your blacksmith friend is a bit busy so you are in town for 5 minutes waiting on him.
Finally you talk to him. open up your inventory.. and discover you wasted your time on that trip, as while you were waiting in line the gryphon's beak was taken.
Moral of the story: don't leave anything unthreaded that you want to hang onto.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I can only imagine what the uproar will be when details on assassination comes out. That will be yet another stealth based attack, where the victim will have no active defense, but will be left dead and fully looted of all non threaded items. There may also be an assassin's ability to unthread items, which will bring about even more tears.
Sure, and they might even make an ability to delete other player's characters or ban their accounts! Wouldn't that be fun?
Yeah, calm down there, Voldemort.The assassin flag doesn't say anything about one-shot killing, it says a bonus to criticals. 'Murder by Numbers' indicates that criticals are likely to be represented by debuff conditions rather than burst damage. You'd be fighting for your supper like anyone, not killing people in their sleep. The assassin write up also doesn't say you get to fully loot anyone, and the thread-cutting mentions breaking bind point connections to take someone out of the action for longer.
Assassin (Evil)
Assassin is for players who want to kill specific other players, or more generally kill other players (as who doesn't like a critical hit bonus?). Assassins do have a signifier of their assassin flag, so their intent may be detected, but they also have a Stealth bonus so they can remain out of sight. Some folks have voiced concern that assassins will not be able to escape since they will be marked as an assassin, but that's what Stealth is for (and if you could hide the assassin flag after completing your kill, the guy you just killed could use chat, a vent server, etc., to tell everyone who killed him anyway).This flag cannot be disabled while Attacker, Criminal, or Heinous (or their 24-hour versions) are active.
While Assassin is active:
The player gets a bonus to Stealth and critical chance that scales up each hour they remain flagged, up to ten hours.
These bonuses reset to the minimum upon gaining the Attacker flag unless the target was the subject of a bounty or assassination contract held by the Assassin. (Remember: you don't get Attacker in wars, if the target already has a PvP flag, etc.)
If an Assassin has had his flag active for at least an hour and kills a character with an active bounty or assassination contract, the Assassin gains bonus reputation up to a daily max. (Any other kills made by the Assassin suffer the normal reputation and alignment losses, so keep collateral damage to a minimum!)
Attacks by an Assassin have a chance to sever a link to one of the target's respawn bind spots, meaning they may have not have access to their preferred respawn point if killed. Targets killed by an Assassin have a dramatically higher chance of this happening. So assassinating someone may take them out of the action for a while as they work their way back to their original location over a longer distance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Keovar
You are still worrying about a moderate risk - low reward activity ( pick pocketing). The thief if caught in the act can be killed and you can loot them without any evil consequence.
If it is moderate risk for low reward as I describe, than why do thieves want it?
Because that is what we do. That is the fin in playing a thief. We already know the odds are stacked against us, and we would not have it any other way.
Pick pocketing is also, not just a PvP activity. But, what they PVP does do is raise both the risk and the reward. Dies this mean that the PC victim will have potential grief, yes. But that is what all PVP is, there is always a loser.
If you want to avoid all PVP that is not of your choosing, there are the NPC stater settlements. You can also make sure you always travel in a group. Finally, you can train in those passive skills that will help to defend you, when you are traveling solo.
If there is no crime and or no evil in PFO, all you will leave your lawful, good settlements to do is make war on each other, and fight common mobs in the wilderness.
As I mentioned repeatedly, to others: the absence of non violent means of theft will only lead to violent means of theft. Your way will turn petite thieves into assassins and assassins into death squads. A "Clockwork Orange" scenario of sorts.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The conversation appears to be as polarized as Congress. Reason seems generally to be taking a backseat to belief.
One faction seems adamantly averse to theft. The other seems to want to roleplay thieves. So long as the conversation is focused on each side's preference there is no common ground to stand on. There is no real conversation, only the two sides shouting at one another across a chasm.
You will find it comes down to a vote, unless one side or both decide to continue this fruitless filibuster as if either can change the preferences of the other. You are wasting your own time.
Yet I believe there is common ground available if we can suspend our preferences for the sake of a greater good.
I believe both sides in the issue desire PFO to be an overall great game more than they desire their position must be in the game pure and unalloyed. It is reasonable to think that a compromise or even a synthesis is possible.
Nihimon proposed one potential synthesis that would allow the owner of the picked pocket to contend with the pocket picker as an anonymous threat. The only downside to his proposition is the time it would take to play the minigame.
That minigame could be automated but doing so would remove the subjective 'defending one's self' experience, and in fact is already expressed in the perception -versus- pickpocketing skill already implied in the mechanics.
However my point here is to try and shift the 'my way or the highway' status of the two factional positions toward a conversation about what will be best for the game overall.
I propose that what has to be decided is whether there should be thieves in the game. Will it be better overall if thieves are in the game or will it be better to eliminate criminality altogether?
I might be mistaken. I might have biases I am unaware of. If you see the conversation should be more productive focusing on something else please correct the conversation to be about the better constructive ground.
But if I am right then my thought is IF the game will be better (where 'better' is 'more interesting') with criminality and thieves THEN we have to allow thieves to thieve.
IF the game will be better (where 'better' is 'more interesting') without thieves and criminality then:
These lead to a consequence where it should be plain that we should either include thief skills or we should include and regulate thief skills.
If we prefer criminality to be regulated then we need to get past the polarization currently paralyzing our conversation and figure out how to best regulate what we will never be able to eliminate.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As I mentioned repeatedly, to others: the absence of non violent means of theft will only lead to violent means of theft. Your way will turn petite thieves into assassins and assassins into death squads. A "Clockwork Orange" scenario of sorts.
and what I'm lacking is an understanding of why violence is worse than violence in a world where death is only a form of item loss, and why we are wanting to move the loss into towns.
Moral of the story: don't leave anything unthreaded that you want to hang onto.
Threading is not intended to protect everything you want to hang onto, it's specifically designed NOT to be able to protect everything unless you have nothing of worth. Currently the games intentions are, when you leave town, you accept all risks and expect high losses.
Currently under proposed systems of theft, only the thief has a chance to defend himself if he fails, as I haven't seen anyone proposing that if a thief is caught, he dies instantly no chance to escape or defend himself.
Secondly this is most likely going to result in extreme bias against chaos within settlements. I know myself I would feel safer in a LE town where murder is legal, and any character showing as chaotic, or wearing any gear that could be defined as sneaky is to be labeled as Kill on sight, In such a town, odds are the members would watch out for eachother, thus a murderer from out of the area, would go down before he could make a kill, as the settlements natives would almost certainly down an out of town attacker immediately after he fires his first shot.
I suppose if that failed to protect the people at home, the next rule that would be posted (even if the games mechanics didn't support it, murder being legal would be enough for it to be an unsupported rule). Anyone approaching within 4' of another, can be assumed to be a thief and killed immediately.
Meanwhile in the CG settlement, you couldn't feel safe as a native within your own city walls.
when you take away the ability for active defenses, you can expect the world to morph into draconian levels of law. Players do not enjoy feeling helpless, very few people enjoy losing things in ways that they have no active response to.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If thieves can't be thieves they will be assassins. If they can't be assassins they will be another form of evil class.
Maybe failed pickpocket attempts, or being killed under the thief flag could cause a reputation loss. This means that if thieves fail a lot then they can get attacked by the paladins/goodie two shoes of the world after repeat failures.
This would:
a) Make PCs less likely to be robbed in a good aligned area
b) Riskier for the thief
With this and if they are restricted to looting minor items, I REALLY can't see what the big deal is.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... should you be able to pickpocket someone who's actively fighting?
I would think not.
There needs to be a crowd, not just for the Pickpocket to hide in, but also to desensitize the Mark to people bumping into him. I would think it's something that could only be done in Settlements, or maybe at large Fairs if we can get those...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Will pathfinder Online be a better game if there are no thieves?
Rather, will Pathfinder Online be a better game if the thieves become indistinguishable among all manner of other class architypes?
For one example, disguised as Bankers who charge their customers inexplicable fees for using their deposits to make banking more profitable?
You will not be rid of criminal behaviors. Better to channel those behaviors with forsight.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Being
I'm willing to accept Nihimon's idea of the mini game, which maintains the stealth aspects when the thief is successful and gives the victim some active participation to prevent it. It did seem like a button mashing contest the way it was described, but I guess even button mashing can be modified by skill levels in various skills.
Your idea of duplicating the stolen items would be rife with exploitation, not that I would do it, I'm an honest thief looking for a challenge.
The idea that some only take into account an assumed risk when the leave a settlement is not what I believe GW intends. You assume risk whenever you leave the NPC starter settlements. The PC settlements must have crime and risk. This will benefit both those that are trying to maintain order and those that are trying to take what they can.
So to say, I don't want to assume risk (not saying you said this) just because I logged into that game, well that is just strange to me for someone looking to play a game. If there is no risk, there is no reward. If you control the risk completely, there is no reward. If there is no reward, there is no game. Don't log on.
Threading is not intended to protect everything you want to hang onto, it's specifically designed NOT to be able to protect everything unless you have nothing of worth. Currently the games intentions are, when you leave town, you accept all risks and expect high losses..
Threading is designed to protect items from being stolen. I never implied that it protects everything, just those items you wish to keep.
Nowhere in the blogs does it say that settlements are supposed to be free of crime. The whole reason they have Concord like guards that show up when a crime has been committed is because there WILL be crime in settlements. Whether its an assassination, a confidence game type swindle, a mugging, or (if its included) a pickpocket plying their trade, crimes will happen in player run settlements.
Something everyone needs to consider. If a pickpocket is noticed and flagged, guards will appear and kill the thief, allowing the victim to reclaim their (sarc) wood file, or iron ration or other valued item. (/sarc)
If thieves can't be thieves they will be assassins. If they can't be assassins they will be another form of evil class.
Maybe failed pickpocket attempts, or being killed under the thief flag could cause a reputation loss. This means that if thieves fail a lot then they can get attacked by the paladins/goodie two shoes of the world after repeat failures.
This would:
a) Make PCs less likely to be robbed in a good aligned area
b) Riskier for the thief
With this and if they are restricted to looting minor items, I REALLY can't see what the big deal is.
Definitely if a PP is noticed and flagged there should be a reputation loss. I advocate that the victim should be able to note that the player picked his pocket on the thief's reputation screen. This would forewarn others that the player is a pick pocket.
Your right, the various mechanics will punish the thief either resulting in their being banished from the settlement, or teaching them not to practice their trade in the hex where the settlement exists.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If thieves can't be thieves they will be assassins. If they can't be assassins they will be another form of evil class.
Maybe failed pickpocket attempts, or being killed under the thief flag could cause a reputation loss. This means that if thieves fail a lot then they can get attacked by the paladins/goodie two shoes of the world after repeat failures.
This would:
a) Make PCs less likely to be robbed in a good aligned area
b) Riskier for the thief
With this and if they are restricted to looting minor items, I REALLY can't see what the big deal is.
Definitely if a PP is noticed and flagged there should be a reputation loss. I advocate that the victim should be able to note that the player picked his pocket on the thief's reputation screen. This would forewarn others that the player is a pick pocket.
Your right, the various mechanics will punish the thief either resulting in their being banished...
I'm still completely at a loss to why people seem to be responding as if the majority of people opposed to theft, are also opposed to PK, banditry, etc... I know myself I have 0 problem with assasains, bandits, murderers, etc... and consider them all beneficial and necessary to the games stability, well being and value. They provide the only known form of item destruction, which should be top priority, etc...
The idea of a mechanic that provides reputation loss in all of it's uses IMO is the definition of a bad mechanic. Rep loss is specifically in GW's current system, what is used to represent undesirable borderline griefing actions. That is why many PVP actions such as Banditry, Assasination, killing criminals, flagging yourself traveler making yourself free to attack etc... Gain reputation. Adding a mechanic to the game, that's only possible application falls into the undesirable category, is the very definition of the oposite of the goal.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
I'm still completely at a loss to why people seem to be responding as if the majority of people opposed to theft, are also opposed to PK, banditry, etc..
Possibly because the only rational argument for finding theft unacceptible also finds PK unacceptible. To be okay with murder but balk at theft seems irrational.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Possibly because the only rational argument for finding theft unacceptible also finds PK unacceptible. To be okay with murder but balk at theft is not rational....
I'm still completely at a loss to why people seem to be responding as if the majority of people opposed to theft, are also opposed to PK, banditry, etc..
No, the argument finding this version of theft unacceptible finds One-shot PK unacceptable. Actual PvP fighting is not a problem. But the notice that a person is now involved in a PvP encounter should not *also* be the one informing them that they have already lost it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No, the argument finding this version of theft unacceptable finds One-shot PK unacceptable. Actual PvP fighting is not a problem. But the notice that a person is now involved in a PvP encounter should not *also* be the one informing them that they have already lost it.Possibly because the only rational argument for finding theft unacceptible also finds PK unacceptible. To be okay with murder but balk at theft is not rational....
I'm still completely at a loss to why people seem to be responding as if the majority of people opposed to theft, are also opposed to PK, banditry, etc..
Exactly, 1 hit kills in PVP, save or dies etc... are things I am opposed to. Eliminating those also puts a huge dent in the "suicide ganking" that some have suggested that is the alternative that thiefs would use.
Stealth has it's place and it's purpose. Getting the first hit, starting in favorable positioning etc... are all very logical and valuable uses of stealth. However equating starting a fight with an advantage, and gaining a result without a response, are nowhere close to equivalent.
I would like to see one specific arguement made by me that could be applied to a fight which is not expected to end in 1 round.
Is the solution to eliminate all the functions and roles of a whole class then to be considered the whole community's measured and rational response?I don't think so.
Really? what class are we talking about when you say "all functions and roles".
Because last I checked the rogues abilities did not say
"class abilites Sleight of hand" "other abilities none"
Sleight of hand is 1 skill, from the list of 21 that a rogue has access to.
I was thinking it had, sneak attack, trapfinding, evasion, lockpicking, as class abilities,
rogue talents that give bonuses to the black market deals, bleading damage, gain bonuses to stealth, dirty tricks, jump, runaway, constitution saves, trap making etc...
a grand total of 3 rogue talents apply to stealing, on a list of 91 options
Lets see the rogue class description
Role: Rogues excel at moving about unseen and catching foes unaware, and tend to avoid head-to-head combat. Their varied skills and abilities allow them to be highly versatile, with great variations in expertise existing between different rogues. Most, however, excel in overcoming hindrances of all types, from unlocking doors and disarming traps to outwitting magical hazards and conning dull-witted opponents.
Hmm... the word pickpocket isn't even present here. Then over to the rest of the page
The entire mention of sleight of hand at all, is in the list of 21 class skills. Claiming a rogue is only about sleight of hand, is equivalent to claiming it is only about perform, which is also in the list of 21 abilities.
Sure you can play rogue as a petty pickpocket, but claiming that is the entire purpose of the class... is illogical.