Goblin Squad Member
|
First off to eliminate confusion right off the bat, this isn't a mechanic that has you leading prisoners around in shackles or staring at prison walls for hours of in-game time. It's a kill mechanic with a different flavor for all intensive purposes.
Rather than attacking people good and lawful characters can use a "You're under arrest!" mechanic much like "Stand and deliver!" on people who are evil (if they are good) and chaotic (if they are lawful) or who have the criminal/heinous tags.
At that point the player can choose to come peacefully or resist. If they resist and are killed in the ensuing combat then the player who invoked the arrest loses no alignment unless they are killed by a coup de grace while incapacitated.
If the target chooses to come peacefully or is captured while incapacitated then they are transported to the nearest prison, all stolen goods in their possession are returned to their original owners, the player who apprehended them is able to collect any outstanding bounties they have contracts on, and they are assessed a penalty similar but different and likely less harsh than a death penalty. They also gain some alignment if they come peacefully and pay their outstanding fines.
After their penalties are given and fines paid, they are immediately set free and have a condition that allows them to leave town peacefully even if they are banned from that town.
Finally apprehending people in a player owned hex you do not have permission to do so in is vigilantism and considered a chaotic act.
The point of this mechanic is allowing good to combat evil and law to combat chaos without alignment loss. The person who apprehended them only gets the satisfaction of justice done and bounties collected. Not loot.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So you're saying they should be able to impose a gank on anyone evil or chaotic they run across?
Either come with me and give up half your stuff and some money and a death penalty, or I'll kill you, and either way I don't shift evil or lose rep?
If they have criminal/heinous tags, you can already attack them without worrying about anything but local laws.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So you're saying they should be able to impose a gank on anyone evil or chaotic they run across?
Yes. Except with much lighter penalties for the person getting ganked.
Either come with me and give up half your stuff and some money and a death penalty, or I'll kill you, and either way I don't shift evil or lose rep?
Only if half your stuff is stolen, it's not a full death penalty, and fines will only be assessed if they have the money on them or choose to pay their outstanding fines for the rep boost.
The alternative is having it so the only people who can deal with bandits laying in wait and RPKers are chaotic evil players. Not really an acceptable solution.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Dancy keeps on saying that you will not be flagged as a criminal if there is a reason for your attack. To me this means, if I attack because I'm a bandit, an assassin (on a contract) that is a reason.
In your other post, where you mention you riding by and want to attack a group of bandits ( your assumption), what is your reason?
If the "bandits" are just sitting there, they are not attacking or flagged as criminals, why would you attack them? That does not sound like the anti griefing pledge you wanted people to sign.
I wonder if you would agree to have your proposed system in reverse. If we as bandits ask for stand and deliver, and the merchant does not comply, then we get no flag for attacking them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Dancy keeps on saying that you will not be flagged as a criminal if there is a reason for your attack. To me this means, if I attack because I'm a bandit, an assassin (on a contract) that is a reason.
In your other post, where you mention you riding by and want to attack a group of bandits ( your assumption), what is your reason?
If the "bandits" are just sitting there, they are not attacking or flagged as criminals, why would you attack them? That does not sound like the anti griefing pledge you wanted people to sign.
I wonder if you would agree to have your proposed system in reverse. If we as bandits ask for stand and deliver, and the merchant does not comply, then we get no flag for attacking them.
This has nothing to do with griefing or treaties. This is purely about letting people play their alignment.
If you want to rob people that's fine, but you should have to suffer the fact that good aligned characters will try to arrest you. Your alignment is a reflection of the fact you've been sitting there robbing caravans for the past week and the only reason you aren't flagged is because you haven't robbed a caravan in the last 30 minutes.
A real life cop would arrest you under those circumstances, and if you whipped out a gun and tried to resist they would shoot you. And it wouldn't be an evil act.
They are turning you over to the authorities who then determine your penalty, and only doing violence if you resist. That is entirely lawful-good.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But Dancy had said that a bandit will not incur a criminal flag if the act is commited in an unsettled hex, or in a settled hex where stealing is not a crime. We would also not be flagged if the merchant accepts the stand and deliver offer.
It is reasonably possible for bandits to be and remain chaotic neutral. Just as you would like apprehend to allow you to attack suspected criminals without risk of slipping into evil, I would like to attack those that do not stand and deliver without slipping into evil.
It is opposite sides of the same coin.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But Dancy had said that a bandit will not incur a criminal flag if the act is commited in an unsettled hex, or in a settled hex where stealing is not a crime. We would also not be flagged if the merchant accepts the stand and deliver offer.
It is reasonably possible for bandits to be and remain chaotic neutral. Just as you would like apprehend to allow you to attack suspected criminals without risk of slipping into evil, I would like to attack those that do not stand and deliver without slipping into evil.
It is opposite sides of the same coin.
Except you get benefit from robbing people. Their money. Their goods. You are getting a direct and undebateable benefit.
If I send a suspected criminal off to face a fair trial all I get is the knowledge the road is now clear.
If you want to rob people that's fine, but if you want to rob people without them being able to have anyone they can turn to in order to get justice have fun playing this game by yourself.
The good guys hunting down the bandits while bandits fight back, evade, and rob whoever they can in the process is the very essence of meaningful player interaction. This blog goes against everything this game supposedly stands for.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Your apprehend mechanism sounds like a good way to grief bandits, disrupting their play style every time you pass by them.
There are already mechanisms in place to counter banditry. You either declare a war on recurrent bandits so they all become fair game. Or you set laws in the hex you control to kill them on sight.
If you are not in your own hex and you are not at war with them and still persist at attacking them unprovoked, then your are acting as judge, jury and executioner. It might be lawful but it's certainly not good.
Sure bandits will steal wealth, but they also close doors to many settlements, that's a harsh punishment already. And sure caravans will get robbed but why were they not sufficiently escorted in the first place?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your apprehend mechanism sounds like a good way to grief bandits, disrupting their play style every time you pass by them.
Outlaws are meant to be outlaws. They live in hideouts and run when the law comes. Any true bandit should be drawn to that style of gameplay, not turned off that their actions might actually carry consequences.
They don't sit there on the road with complete immunity and stick their tongues out when people come to disperse them. How is that meaningful interaction?
I think you are going to find that a game where bandits can't be dealt with by peacekeeper forces but can instead sit there in broad daylight in the middle of a major road for hours at a time right outside good aligned hexes is not a game many people will be interested in continuing to play.
I would be happy to declare war but we don't know how the war mechanic works. What if they just don't join a company or settlement?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Anduis
You still seem to be operating under the assumption that banditry will lead to an evil alignment. You are also assuming that bandits, such as myself, ate thinking small.
We will be taking contracts from any who want our services. We may be hired to fight your enemy, interrupting their supplies. We may attack one of your caravans the next day. We may clear a hex of pesky goblins on the weekend, making it safe for the farmers to plant their crops.
I have a strong belief that we will s+#~ to Chaotic Neutral. So where will your stance be on attacking non evil "bandits" unprovoked? Isn't this the very thing that you stood so strongly against.
I'm of the opinion that all of this anti griefing hysteria has led some ( including the Devs) down a slippery slope, where the impact is no longer focused on just potential griefers, but all will feel this pain.
They should just stick to the 4 zones and a more simplified flagging system. Leave alignment as a RP feature and remove game mechanics from it. If they want to say that a lawful community can expand more efficiently, well that is fine. But, that should not be extended down to the individual player.
On a final note, I'll be thrilled to carry the criminal flag or the thief flag, often. In EvE I have it almost continuously, and no one does a thing about it. Reason why is simple, they don't know how many have my back.
The same will hold true here in PFO. It is the I intended consequence of a flagging system. It chills everyone's actions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the target chooses to come peacefully or is captured while incapacitated then they are transported to the nearest prison, all stolen goods in their possession are returned to their original owners, the player who apprehended them is able to collect any outstanding bounties they have contracts on, and they are assessed a penalty similar but different and likely less harsh than a death penalty. They also gain some alignment if they come peacefully and pay their outstanding fines.After their penalties are given and fines paid, they are immediately set free and have a condition that allows them to leave town peacefully even if they are banned from that town.
I could get behind a mechanic that would allow a stand and deliver, in asking for stolen goods to be returned, and a fine on top of it if so desired.
Additional penalties, timesinks of prison etc... on the other hand I would vehemently oppose. Quite frankly adding in any mechanic of wasting someones time, is a bad idea. The timesinks would quite frankly just make it never accepted. Were I playing a bandit, I would equip what I was prepared to lose, I would still probably run or fight assuming I calculated a 25% or greater chance of not dying, adding a timesink... well yeah I'd have my character slit his own throat before bothering with that.
IMO the justice squad should be able to demand the stolen goods, and if they so chose, return them to their rightful owners, sending the bandits running off.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Quite frankly adding in any mechanic of wasting someones time, is a bad idea. The timesinks would quite frankly just make it never accepted.
What about a limited time-sink, for example skill progression is suspended for 6 hours but character is otherwise free to craft, be a bandit again etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Quite frankly adding in any mechanic of wasting someones time, is a bad idea. The timesinks would quite frankly just make it never accepted.What about a limited time-sink, for example skill progression is suspended for 6 hours but character is otherwise free to craft, be a bandit again etc.
Only if you give up 6 hours of skill progression for playing your character the way you want.... That idea is pure and simple a non starter, a deal breaker.
No game action, allowed by the mechanics of the game, should carry with it such a severe penalty. 6 hours of skill progression is real world money, and you want to give that power to other players to use against players for playing their characters as bandits, thieves, or merchants and crafters?
Merchants and Crafters will "steal" far more of your coin on the AH, than my bandits ever will.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Quite frankly adding in any mechanic of wasting someones time, is a bad idea. The timesinks would quite frankly just make it never accepted.What about a limited time-sink, for example skill progression is suspended for 6 hours but character is otherwise free to craft, be a bandit again etc.Only if you give up 6 hours of skill progression for playing your character the way you want.... That idea is pure and simple a non starter, a deal breaker.
No game action, allowed by the mechanics of the game, should carry with it such a severe penalty. 6 hours of skill progression is real world money, and you want to give that power to other players to use against players for playing their characters as bandits, thieves, or merchants and crafters?
Merchants and Crafters will "steal" far more of your coin on the AH, than my bandits ever will.
Well stealing resources is also stealing time in a sense. So is making a dead character walk all the way back to his mine or gathering area to start again.
The 6 hours figure is arbitrary. It could just as easily be 15 minutes and only invoked in specific circumstances such as collecting a bounty.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well stealing resources is also stealing time in a sense. So is making a dead character walk all the way back to his mine or gathering area to start again.
The 6 hours figure is arbitrary. It could just as easily be 15 minutes and only invoked in specific circumstances such as collecting a bounty.
First off we need to seperate the times here.
1. Skill progression time, is drastically different then playing time. Skill progression time should not be on the table for anything at all.
A. It is what you are paying real world money for, B. It is seperate from what is on the line in any other set of life/death scenerios.
Skill training time works in a way that, say your fighting training (or whatever you want ot train) should still be going up, regardless of whether you are out harvesting materials, slaying dragons, or sitting in wait to catch someone.
Second yes time working etc... is something on the line, but there is a key of beauty behind the loose everything on death. You may have a high chance of success, via gearing yourself up with the absolute best gear you can come up with, but of course at the consequence that if you fail, you set yourself back ages.
Or you can go out in cheap way below your ability gear, sets you have 30 spares laying around of. You are almost certainly going to fail, probably so many times that you will run out of these cheap sets, and if you do succeed, it's probably going to be to someone with even less than that.
and many tiers in-between the 2 extremes. But the key is, that time is determined by both attackers and defenders before they take the risks.
A set forced time on the other hand, is just meaningless, worthless and unfun. Idealy this game should be set up so that making money/gathering resources etc... should be fun. It's a game, what you spend the bulk of your time doing, should be enjoyable to you, if it isn't... you must be playing the wrong game.
So in either case (as a victim, or an attacker), the choice between A. Losing my gear that I obtained doing what I like and thus needing to repeat what I enjoy to re-earn it, and B. staring at a prison wall for 15 minutes. I would chose A.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Additional penalties, timesinks of prison etc... on the other hand I would vehemently oppose.
Great we are in agreement then.
First off to eliminate confusion right off the bat, this isn't a mechanic that has you leading prisoners around in shackles or staring at prison walls for hours of in-game time. It's a kill mechanic with a different flavor for all intensive purposes.
The prison isn't a timesink nor did I ever suggest it should be. I only clearly said that it isn't in the first paragraph of my post.
The prison is a respawn point for all intensive purposes. It's purely flavor, you spend no time staring through bars unless perhaps there is an optional jailbreak mini-game to lower your penalties even further.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For anyone who hasn't played APB, the Enforcers (cops) have an option to using a stunning weapon instead of a lethal one when attacking the bad guys. After enough stun damage the target becomes temporarily incapacitated. At that point the Enforcer can go over and slap some cuffs on them, arresting them. The arrested player sits there for a moment, giving their team members a chance to break them free before respawning at a spawn point. If an Enforcer deals lethal damage to an arrested baddie and kills them, the Enforcer gets a penalty.
I could see something like this working as well in PFO. There's no reason we can't choose to do nonlethal damage and knock someone out to get capture credit instead of killing them. This would be a tool that, while a little more difficult than outright killing someone, a Paladin or bounty hunter could use against a flagged player without taking an alignment hit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For anyone who hasn't played APB, the Enforcers (cops) have an option to using a stunning weapon instead of a lethal one when attacking the bad guys. After enough stun damage the target becomes temporarily incapacitated. At that point the Enforcer can go over and slap some cuffs on them, arresting them. The arrested player sits there for a moment, giving their team members a chance to break them free before respawning at a spawn point. If an Enforcer deals lethal damage to an arrested baddie and kills them, the Enforcer gets a penalty.
I could see something like this working as well in PFO. There's no reason we can't choose to do nonlethal damage and knock someone out to get capture credit instead of killing them. This would be a tool that, while a little more difficult than outright killing someone, a Paladin or bounty hunter could use against a flagged player without taking an alignment hit.
I like this idea.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I disagree with the penalties of Apprehend as Andius points them out.
I would propose that a 'knock-out' removes the ability of a character to become the aggressor in PvP for a pre-determined time limit. They would just physically be unable to attack another player. Exceptions would be made to where they could defend themselves if another player attacked them during this time. This would provide a penalty to the evil character that grants the good character their goal "a period of safety". However, it would not feed into selfish motivations such as looting.
As soon you earn selfish gain, the act immediately becomes Neutral. Collecting a bounty on an evil character, bringing them in alive - so to speak, is a neutral action. You gain neither good nor evil. You are not doing so for the Good of the action, you are doing so for the Reward of the action. Bringing them in dead would tick you towards evil, but also grant you looting options in addition to your reward.
This would create a tiered system
Good: Minimal reward - temporary safety
Neutral: Bounty reward
Evil: Bounty reward + PvP Loot
It would also give more granularity to contracts.
Wanted: Alive - costs less surcharge on top of bounty to enact and allows for lesser punishment.
Wanted: Dead - specifies that you really demand blood.
Wanted: Dead or Alive - Puts the decision to the bounty hunter as to how he wishes to apprehend the mark.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Would this likewise apply to give evil characters a no-flag attack on good characters?
Only if they are lawful evil and their opponent is chaotic good. The balance of good vs. evil is that someone who is evil can kill whomever they choose on the good-evil scale, loot their corpse, and it only moves them further into their chosen alignment. Good people can only apprehend evil people. They get no loot. It's freedom vs. alignment benefits so there is no need of further balance.
On a personal note I would be entirely willing to flag myself as open to attack for evil players without penalty if it allowed me the freedom I need to protect innocent players. Just not in a way that bans me from staying in my neutral good settlement or minimizes my altruistic sacrifice as "evil."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You either declare a war on recurrent bandits so they all become fair game.I am not aware of any game systems that allow you to declare war on individuals. In addition, war declarations must be mutual in order to allow you to freely kill the other side.
Just declare war on terror *cough* BANDITRY, then you can attack anyone you deem to be a bandit. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I believe an Apprehend mechanic would provide an attacker flag. There is still an initial attack, just not a death blow. It is the death blow that leads to evil alignment shifts. Apprehend would be an alternative to death blow.
Well not necesarally, at least my interpretation of the "stand and deliver" option of banditry, was specifically mentioned to sacrifice the element of supprise in order to attempt a non-violent robbery.
IE the victims, instead of the first knowledge of the attacker being a volley of arrows hitting them, they will see a guy, or a group standing in the road (There haven't been details on whether you can have one guy out and the rest hidden, particuarly as the hide mechanics etc... are also currently unknown). This person will shout out, "Surrender or we shall attack". Once the swords and arrows start swinging, casualties are pretty much inevitable IMO. Expecting one side to effectively communicate an agreement to surrender mid-combat, will likely not have much effect.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Interesting idea. This could be piggy-back on the "stand and deliver" design.
Though honestly, I have this sneaking suspicion that the ultra-minor alignment hit you would take for pre-emptively killing an evil character/group (with no flag involved) would basically not even be noticeable if one is truly a good-leaning character.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't get the point behind a Stand and Deliver option for good players. Refusal to Stand and Deliver would still net Evil points if the Good player attacked when bandits refused.
Stand and Deliver should be an RP-option that allows avoidance of conflict. I do not see a point to having a mechanical system to support it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Interesting idea. This could be piggy-back on the "stand and deliver" design.
Though honestly, I have this sneaking suspicion that the ultra-minor alignment hit you would take for pre-emptively killing an evil character/group (with no flag involved) would basically not even be noticeable if one is truly a good-leaning character.
Well I would say that depends on the timing etc... If one is working as a guard, regularly putting himself out as a caravan guard, city guard, harvesting crew guard etc... he would be hitting this situation on a regular basis. If it were insignificant enough that this person could always kill evil that threatens on sight, then what is to prevent equal insignificance from the LG guy who roams around looking for evil characters minding their own business, and killing them on sight.
(now admitted, this should be greatly lowered by the flags, killing someone who has already gotten the murderer/thief flag, should be negligable, as well as tresspasser etc... to help with that).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Additional penalties, timesinks of prison etc... on the other hand I would vehemently oppose.Great we are in agreement then.
Yeah your ideas rarely rub me the wrong way, I just have to respond to the direct wording of the "OMG PVPers always bad, torture them into oblivion to make sure that nobody who ever attacks unconsentually could ever possibly want to play more than a day" sorts of folks (Which again you aren't, but I've seen many times your reasonable ideas attempt to be hijacked into those forms).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like the idea of "good aligned" characters having an Apprehend feature, which could work exactly as the Stand and Deliver feature. However the mechanics have to be done differently from what is described for SAD and then applied to both.
Explanation:
Stand and Deliver allows bandits to give up surprise and offer the merchant the option to surrender a portion of his loot. If he takes the offer, I get his loot and suffer no flags at all. The merchant is then able to go on his merry way. I do the same.
Apprehend could work in the same way. Offer the bandit to pay a fine or suffer the consequences. If he pays the fine, he goes and you get no negative flags
In both cases, if either the merchant or the bandit refuses to comply, you have to either attack or leave the area. According to the current Dev Blogs, on e you attack you will get the attacker flag. In the case of the bandit, he will not get the criminal flag, because a SAD was offered first. This is the same exemption that Apprehend needs to have.
Or what you could do is just attempt to apprehend people you want to inhibit, in the open PVP zone, where no flagging takes place.
What you can't do, without consequence, is attack in an unprovoked manner anyone who is not currently flagged, in a settled hex.
I really don't see this as a problem?
@ Anduis. You have always claimed that you don't want people to feel that ever character they see is a potential threat. But if you Apprehend idea is put into place, that is exactly what it will do, IMO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like the idea of "good aligned" characters having an Apprehend feature, which could work exactly as the Stand and Deliver feature. However the mechanics have to be done differently from what is described for SAD and then applied to both.
Explanation:
Stand and Deliver allows bandits to give up surprise and offer the merchant the option to surrender a portion of his loot. If he takes the offer, I get his loot and suffer no flags at all. The merchant is then able to go on his merry way. I do the same.
Apprehend could work in the same way. Offer the bandit to pay a fine or suffer the consequences. If he pays the fine, he goes and you get no negative flags
In both cases, if either the merchant or the bandit refuses to comply, you have to either attack or leave the area. According to the current Dev Blogs, on e you attack you will get the attacker flag. In the case of the bandit, he will not get the criminal flag, because a SAD was offered first. This is the same exemption that Apprehend needs to have.
Or what you could do is just attempt to apprehend people you want to inhibit, in the open PVP zone, where no flagging takes place.
What you can't do, without consequence, is attack in an unprovoked manner anyone who is not currently flagged, in a settled hex.
I really don't see this as a problem?
I like it this way.
I like the idea of "good aligned" characters having an Apprehend feature...
Pretty sound feature, but how does one determine who is or isn't a bandit, or does this mechanism apply to anyone with evil their alignment (NE, LE, CE) Also, what about folks that are slipping/could slip over (LN,NN, CN) - they may have done some acts of banditry, even murder, but just not gotten the "evil" tag yet. I'd hate to go out and extort money from some poor necro that never stole or hurt any PC, and had to be "evil" just because it was the class he picked.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The Apprehend could be conducted against a character who is under a criminal or thief flag.
What Anduis was concerned about is that with a way to apprehend criminals, then good characters would have to attack them instead. By attacking and possibly killing these criminals, a good character would slowly drift towards CE.
The alternatives are to 1. Ignore criminals unless they attack first; 2. Only engage criminals in open pvp zones; 3. Declare war vs criminal company, and hope they accept the war as well.
This is exactly how the system became in EvE Online. In most cases, minor criminal activities are simply ignored. If pirates successfully tackle a ship and ask for ransom, they tend to get it. The only difference is that EvE does not require consensual warfare.
Maybe that is something GW should reconsider for PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The Apprehend could be conducted against a character who is under a criminal or thief flag.Or someone you have a bounty for, gives you a way to collect the bounty without more murder.
I mentioned in another thread, a while back, that there should be subduing damage. This would allow you to loot, collect a bounty or apprehend without having to kill the target.
Problem is, Ryan Dancy has already posted that there will not be Non Lethal pvp, so in that case subduing damage is currently off the table.
Since it maybe something we can all see a benefit of having, perhaps we can push the issue a bit more and do that together?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The Apprehend could be conducted against a character who is under a criminal or thief flag.Or someone you have a bounty for, gives you a way to collect the bounty without more murder.I mentioned in another thread, a while back, that there should be subduing damage. This would allow you to loot, collect a bounty or apprehend without having to kill the target.
Problem is, Ryan Dancy has already posted that there will not be Non Lethal pvp, so in that case subduing damage is currently off the table.
Since it maybe something we can all see a benefit of having, perhaps we can push the issue a bit more and do that together?
Totally agree it should be in the game, I mean I mentioned in the non lethal duels thread that there are a multitude of methods for doing non lethal damage in the PnP game, feats spells etc that it shouldn't be too hard to include it as an option
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The Apprehend could be conducted against a character who is under a criminal or thief flag.Or someone you have a bounty for, gives you a way to collect the bounty without more murder.
Even less logical. When a player, puts up his money to put a bounty on someone. The player is putting his money up, specifically to inconvenience and make things worse for the person who killed him. This already borders on petty, with risks of the target losing less from his death than the bounty is worth, with no actual gain to the placer, but then adding in an option to collect the payment for the bounty, while inconveniencing the person who the placer wants revenge on even less?
This would essentially make the bounty system entirely worthless, and move all business of this nature to assasinations, which will have greater penalties then normal kills to the target.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The Apprehend could be conducted against a character who is under a criminal or thief flag.Or someone you have a bounty for, gives you a way to collect the bounty without more murder.Even less logical. When a player, puts up his money to put a bounty on someone. The player is putting his money up, specifically to inconvenience and make things worse for the person who killed him. This already borders on petty, with risks of the target losing less from his death than the bounty is worth, with no actual gain to the placer, but then adding in an option to collect the payment for the bounty, while inconveniencing the person who the placer wants revenge on even less?
This would essentially make the bounty system entirely worthless, and move all business of this nature to assasinations, which will have greater penalties then normal kills to the target.
If by apprehending them you are causing them to respawn, much as they would if they had fought and died, but at a jail/guardpost, losing all stolen equipment, with the possibility that it would be returned to the victim, or at least some sort of fine how is this incoveniencing the bounty target less? It is essentially the same result as killing them without the associated murder and mayhem
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If by apprehending them you are causing them to respawn, much as they would if they had fought and died, but at a jail/guardpost, losing all stolen equipment, with the possibility that it would be returned to the victim, or at least some sort of fine how is this incoveniencing the bounty target less? It is essentially the same result as killing them without the associated murder and mayhem
Question is how and why would the stolen goods get returned. The bounty will exist for days, a rational thief would have the goods stored somewhere else within 2 hours, or minutes if the attack came from his hideout. The concept of a bandit, attacking near the gates of a town makes little sense, (with response time, he should have no chance of survival), attacking from a hideout, he should be loading stuff up into it, meaning the hideout should have to be taken out to recover.
Attacking just generally in the woods. He should still have a less known accomplice, hiding in the shadows, not participating in the attack, but on standby to deliver the goods to the black market. In pretty much all worlds, one of the key details of being a thief is finding ways to unload things ASAP. Whether that is a pawn shop that asks few questions, a major blackmarket dealer etc...
Now if we are going to glue the goods to the bandit's hands or whatever for a while, then it is effectively restricting theifs to only strike once every "however long it takes to unglue" periods of time, durring which they will not leave the holed up security of an evil settlement etc...
All characters follow the rules of don't carry what you aren't willing to lose, I can't see a sane reason for thief to be forced to be an exception.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the key thing to focus on is the ability to subdue a target with nonetheless means.
As a bandit, I would like this ability because I'm greedy, not blood thirsty.
As good characters, you want a means to apprehend criminals, without killing them.
Even if a "stand and deliver" or an "apprehend" offer us not taken, subduing attacks can still be employed.
All I would ask is that a husk can still be looted while a target is unconscious or otherwise immobilized.
What you will want is that items that were recently stolen, be tagged as such, and those can be removed.
What the anti griefing Devs will want is a severe penalty for killing an immobilized PC. I would say an automatic shift to CE would be appropriate and a huge reputation hit as well.
All of these ideas are based on a few premises.
First, this only applies to PVP targets.
Second, these do not apply to PVP in the lawless wilderness.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf, in your view of incapacitating, in what way is it more limited than killing, since killing will carry a greater penalty. Would you loot less (while still getting some)? Would non-lethal attacks have lower accuracy (and thus do less damage) making it harder to incapacitate without killing?
If there is no additional limitation, why would you kill over incapacitate?
I like the idea of being able to incapacitate people, but I don't want to see it become "Oh, well, all griefers just incap and steal rather than kill and steal because it means it doesn't hit them as hard."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf, in your view of incapacitating, in what way is it more limited than killing, since killing will carry a greater penalty. Would you loot less (while still getting some)? Would non-lethal attacks have lower accuracy (and thus do less damage) making it harder to incapacitate without killing?
If there is no additional limitation, why would you kill over incapacitate?
I like the idea of being able to incapacitate people, but I don't want to see it become "Oh, well, all griefers just incap and steal rather than kill and steal because it means it doesn't hit them as hard."
Additional point to add. lets say the answer is, you steal half as much, for half the alignment hit. Now the person is free to rob twice as many people.
And again for the victim, why should this be better? IE being unconcious implies some amount of lost time, staying in territory that is indeed still unfriendly to you (as evidenced by the fact you got killed there), and again a total lack of regard for, how you are supposed to ensure you are not going to get killed (presuming somehow while unconcious you are not killable, or lootable again if you are killed). what prevents you from being killed or knocked out the second you get up?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Dario
@Onishu
The loot has to be at least the same if you settle on subduing the target. If it is less, than why would a bandit not just kill the person? - maybe reputation is the answer, read below.
As I stated earlier, all bandits will be chaotic, because that comes from the attacker flag. If in the wilderness, there is no criminal flag or murder, so no alignment change.
The only benefit to not killing is that the bandit could get a positive reputation shift. That maybe valuable enough to give up some of the loot.