Goblin Squad Member
|
He said that ''people can buy more (hit points) if they want'' so is this for real money or what?How do you get 1,000 hit points?
A level 20 Barbarian could have 300+ but a thousand seems a bit too much.
Not sure if you're talking about PFO, but here's where Lee talks about HPs.
From Goblinworks Blog: I Can See for Miles:
1) Characters ramp up in power very quickly initially, and slow down over time. Also a starting character probably has 500-600 hit points, meaning while a max level Barbarian (the hit point leaders) will have around 1800 (a max level fighter 1600, rogue/cleric 1400, mage/sorcerer 1200 though this varies as it is an open system and people can buy more if they want) it's not a vast increase. So the level differential you see in many MMOs is not going to be such a thing; a team of starter characters can kill much more experienced characters. NOTE: These numbers are likely to change, but the proportions will remain roughly the same.
I believe it is not real money he was speaking about. We are able to improve our CON for example and there are some feats in D20 system that can add to your hp as well. Maybe he was justtalking about buying it with your investment in skills/stats. I would't like to see this game accepting real money to improve people's HP as it affects directly PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I believe it is not real money he was speaking about. We are able to improve our CON for example and there are some feats in D20 system that can add to your hp as well. Maybe he was justtalking about buying it with your investment in skills/stats. I would't like to see this game accepting real money to improve people's HP as it affects directly PvP.He said that ''people can buy more (hit points) if they want'' so is this for real money or what?How do you get 1,000 hit points?
A level 20 Barbarian could have 300+ but a thousand seems a bit too much.
Not sure if you're talking about PFO, but here's where Lee talks about HPs.
From Goblinworks Blog: I Can See for Miles:
1) Characters ramp up in power very quickly initially, and slow down over time. Also a starting character probably has 500-600 hit points, meaning while a max level Barbarian (the hit point leaders) will have around 1800 (a max level fighter 1600, rogue/cleric 1400, mage/sorcerer 1200 though this varies as it is an open system and people can buy more if they want) it's not a vast increase. So the level differential you see in many MMOs is not going to be such a thing; a team of starter characters can kill much more experienced characters. NOTE: These numbers are likely to change, but the proportions will remain roughly the same.
Neither would I but with this increase in hit points... will melee weapons do more damage or can you whack on someone from here until tuesday without them dieing?
I believe it is not real money he was speaking about. We are able to improve our CON for example and there are some feats in D20 system that can add to your hp as well. Maybe he was justtalking about buying it with your investment in skills/stats. I would't like to see this game accepting real money to improve people's HP as it affects directly PvP.He said that ''people can buy more (hit points) if they want'' so is this for real money or what?How do you get 1,000 hit points?
A level 20 Barbarian could have 300+ but a thousand seems a bit too much.
Not sure if you're talking about PFO, but here's where Lee talks about HPs.
From Goblinworks Blog: I Can See for Miles:
1) Characters ramp up in power very quickly initially, and slow down over time. Also a starting character probably has 500-600 hit points, meaning while a max level Barbarian (the hit point leaders) will have around 1800 (a max level fighter 1600, rogue/cleric 1400, mage/sorcerer 1200 though this varies as it is an open system and people can buy more if they want) it's not a vast increase. So the level differential you see in many MMOs is not going to be such a thing; a team of starter characters can kill much more experienced characters. NOTE: These numbers are likely to change, but the proportions will remain roughly the same.
That won't happen. No need to worry about that. It's been stated that the MTX store won't have 'pay to win' stuff available for purchase.
Shameless One, where did you hear that?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Neither would I but with this increase in hit points... will melee weapons do more damage or can you whack on someone from here until tuesday without them dieing?I believe it is not real money he was speaking about. We are able to improve our CON for example and there are some feats in D20 system that can add to your hp as well. Maybe he was justtalking about buying it with your investment in skills/stats. I would't like to see this game accepting real money to improve people's HP as it affects directly PvP.He said that ''people can buy more (hit points) if they want'' so is this for real money or what?How do you get 1,000 hit points?
A level 20 Barbarian could have 300+ but a thousand seems a bit too much.
Not sure if you're talking about PFO, but here's where Lee talks about HPs.
From Goblinworks Blog: I Can See for Miles:
1) Characters ramp up in power very quickly initially, and slow down over time. Also a starting character probably has 500-600 hit points, meaning while a max level Barbarian (the hit point leaders) will have around 1800 (a max level fighter 1600, rogue/cleric 1400, mage/sorcerer 1200 though this varies as it is an open system and people can buy more if they want) it's not a vast increase. So the level differential you see in many MMOs is not going to be such a thing; a team of starter characters can kill much more experienced characters. NOTE: These numbers are likely to change, but the proportions will remain roughly the same.
Remeber a "round" in PvP can take several minutes to work through whereas in a MMO it takes a few seconds.
Onishi: Not quite.
What I am still missing, is an explanation other than "this makes roleplaying a character of type X not quite have the alignment I want it to have".
On paper, everything I am seeing, being incapacitated is as bad or worse for the recepiant than dying. It is just as much of a hastle, if not more than actually dying, and essentially is setting the character up to waste their time before they inevitably do die. (If not from you, then from some other threat they will likely hit in their half stripped extremely weakened state). Essentially they are forced all of the dangers and drawbacks of a corpse run, minus... actually having their corpse at the destination.
...snip...
Instead of creating a mechanic that essentially does everything that death does, but is miraculously less evil because it doesn't have the word death attached to it, a more reasonable route to go by, would be to lessen the alignment penalty for death (of course such is somewhat imposible currently, because we have no clue of solid numbers, the scale could be anywhere from one kill shifts you into deep CE that you would have to attune for a year to get back to NN, to 400 PKs gets you evil, one kind act will switch you back to LG.
There is a definite consequence of killing someone. The penalty taken to Reputation and WHat it does to your morality axis gives incentive to not kill someone. If someone wants to play a Highwayman but wants to get into town on occasion, it makes sense for him to be a Robber as opposed to a Murderer.
If you were attacked, either way you can place a bounty on your attacker, so it's not like robbers act with impunity, there's a decreased consequence for decreased reward.
As a victim of a Bandit, depending on the situation i might rather get to keep a larger chunk of my items and get to continue on my way if i loose to bandits. I'd also rather my party members be able to heal me after I get KO'd if i don't die. Chance of recovery is always useful.
If I'm coming from a dungeon with stuff to sell, and a robber decided not to kill me, I can make it to my settelment without loosing all my goods. What is bad about that?
You clearly don't care for it, Onishi, but other players do. as a bandit, you can just make the kill, and suffer penalties to reap the full rewards, no change there.
- As a victim, you either get killed as normal by a bandit that will take the full penalties for killing you or you get KO'ed and robbed. you keep most of your gear, loosing what was robbed and maybe a few more items to prevent to Robbed Flag abuse you were concerned about. perhaps you can get the option to let yourself bleed-out and die.
...snip...
* as far as I can tell the potential negatives relating to the downed/incapacitated state could be mitigated by giving the downed/incapacitated player the option to immediately release to the respawn point
What do people think of a way to let yourself die? How should that be implamented?
- leave you a lootable husk that you can return to?- Does your killer get the consequences of murdering you?
- Do you get your loot when you return to your husk, or do you get to keep it anyway?
Maybe if you can let yourself die, leaving a husk that's been partially looted after having been robbed.
- That way, you can go to a town, re-gear up, and run to your corpse to get what's left after having been robbed.
If someone loots your dead husk, then it's exactly like you've been murdered and had your body looted.
- There's the consequences of having been murdered,
- Since your robber contributed to damage that killed you they take the consequences of being involved in your death but not dealing the killing blow.
- If your robber loots your husk they get all the consequences of murdering you, cause they get the full rewards for it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The most significant effect of this will be in large combats with several characters fighting for each side.
If a channeling or mass cure can have several "downed" combatants on your side bounce back into the fight that is a very large difference from you needing to resurrect them individually.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I believe it is not real money he was speaking about. We are able to improve our CON for example and there are some feats in D20 system that can add to your hp as well. Maybe he was justtalking about buying it with your investment in skills/stats. I would't like to see this game accepting real money to improve people's HP as it affects directly PvP.He said that ''people can buy more (hit points) if they want'' so is this for real money or what?How do you get 1,000 hit points?
A level 20 Barbarian could have 300+ but a thousand seems a bit too much.
Not sure if you're talking about PFO, but here's where Lee talks about HPs.
From Goblinworks Blog: I Can See for Miles:
1) Characters ramp up in power very quickly initially, and slow down over time. Also a starting character probably has 500-600 hit points, meaning while a max level Barbarian (the hit point leaders) will have around 1800 (a max level fighter 1600, rogue/cleric 1400, mage/sorcerer 1200 though this varies as it is an open system and people can buy more if they want) it's not a vast increase. So the level differential you see in many MMOs is not going to be such a thing; a team of starter characters can kill much more experienced characters. NOTE: These numbers are likely to change, but the proportions will remain roughly the same.That won't happen. No need to worry about that. It's been stated that the MTX store won't have 'pay to win' stuff available for purchase.
Shameless One, where did you hear that?
Lee Hammock said it in his quote.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Guess I forgot to explain that part...
You kill someone and get X amount of loot, get attack and murder flag and drop on the rep, good, and Law axes.
OR
you KO someone, get 40% of the lootable gear, attacker and thief flag, and a smaller ding to rep/good/law cause you didn't murder someone
- They can get up later don't loose their gear and get a "robbed" flag.If someone kills them, even you, all penalties of murder apply in full, but you only get 60% of the gear you coyld have gotten.
The only reason you would Rob, then murder someone is to get even more Evil and Chaos and loose more Rep.
The "robbed" flag should last long enough for a player to get to a town and get back to 100%
So there's no incentive to commit both crimes, and there's a way to get healed from unconciousness, not be too evil a bandit, keep items.
So with that in mind what other problems are there?
Could work, but the number might need to be changed a bit. The fact that your gear doesn't get destroyed if they only rob you, could be interesting for both parties.
I'm convinced that there is a need for a KO state prior to death.
I'm unsure how it should be implemented, but initially I feel the attacker should somehow indicate that they wish to disable, not kill their opponent.
I think the player that has been disabled should have the option to bleed out/respawn. If the player chooses this option, the attacker should not suffer penalties for killing the player. IMO.
The KO mechanism can, and should, factor into many encounters with NPC mobs. Like a bear might attack a character that's trespassing near its lair, but stop short of killing the character and just leave (assuming the bear isn't hungry <g>) .
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm convinced that there is a need for a KO state prior to death.
I'm unsure how it should be implemented, but initially I feel the attacker should somehow indicate that they wish to disable, not kill their opponent.
I think the player that has been disabled should have the option to bleed out/respawn. If the player chooses this option, the attacker should not suffer penalties for killing the player. IMO.
I'm iffy about the whole prospect. I'm concerned that having an easy-to-use method of disabling someone will mean being a bandit or robber becomes nearly penalty-free if you never actually have to kill anyone.
The KO mechanism can, and should, factor into many encounters with NPC mobs. Like a bear might attack a character that's trespassing near its lair, but stop short of killing the character and just leave (assuming the bear isn't hungry <g>) .
While it's true that animals generally don't fight to the death (aside from predator-prey encounters of course), that's because the loser retreats or surrenders, not because the victor decides to only knock the loser unconscious. The bear isn't going to stop attacking as long the character is there - it's the trespasser's responsibility to RUN AWAY from the bear's lair to avoid getting killed, in which case the bear is probably not interested in giving chase.
The suggestion isn't to have a character be robbable once "incapicated" but unconcious and bleeding out. The character has been brought below 0hp but has not died yet. So there's no easy way to incapacitate someone, since it's exactly what killing someone is currently.
Nobody's suggested being able to rob someone after something like grapple > pin > tie-up or some similar method outside knocking a character to 0 HP
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The suggestion isn't to have a character be robbable once "incapicated" but unconcious and bleeding out. The character has been brought below 0hp but has not died yet. So there's no easy way to incapacitate someone, since it's exactly what killing someone is currently.
Nobody's suggested being able to rob someone after something like grapple > pin > tie-up or some similar method outside knocking a character to 0 HP
The fight isn't the hard part (you don't really think that robbers are going to pick fights they aren't sure they can win, do you?), it's dealing with the consequences of killing someone. Letting bandits easily subdue someone after an easy fight lets them avoid most of the consequences of banditry, because it seems those consequences are mostly tied to the killing, not the robbing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There is a definite consequence of killing someone. The penalty taken to Reputation and WHat it does to your morality axis gives incentive to not kill someone. If someone wants to play a Highwayman but wants to get into town on occasion, it makes sense for him to be a Robber as opposed to a Murderer.If you were attacked, either way you can place a bounty on your attacker, so it's not like robbers act with impunity, there's a decreased consequence for decreased reward.
As a victim of a Bandit, depending on the situation i might rather get to keep a larger chunk of my items and get to continue on my way if i loose to bandits. I'd also rather my party members be able to heal me after I get KO'd if i don't die. Chance of recovery is...
There's clearly 2 different points I am arguing against here. One is agreeing that the removal of the item destruction portion is bad one that wants this to be a workaround.
First off I need to point out, wear and tear gear destruction has not been confirmed, Some have vouched in favor of it, the dev's have implied they are strongly considering it, but I have yet to hear a single statement confirming this as a mostly chosen feature.
If the key difference betwene robbery and murder is gear destroyed, then yes murder will become extremely rare, in fact exclusively viewed as a mechanic to show absolute anger, similar to pod-killing in eve online.
The difference of course, is that murder is drastically kinder than ship destruction in eve is, we are starting from a point where the "Cruelest" we can be to someone, is drastically lighter than the polite means to remove someone from an area in eve. then attempting to figure out a way to make it obscure, and ot add a lighter form on top of it.
I fully intend to lightly dabble in banditry, and my preffered alignment would be LN. Maybe that will be imposible (again we have no idea of any mechanical levels of how much in any task will drift your alignment), if it is imposible, I don't think that means the game is wrong, and needs to be adjusted.
let me summerize and put together the main key points, namely because there's about 4 variations of what people are asking for, and when I bring up a point on one I get a response from one of a different form that has a seperate weakness.
1. Item destruction is not a factor because players want to be destroying items, it is a factor for the role of removing items from the game with the frequency necessary for a healthy economy, lessening this is bad for the economy. The fact that gear is lost and removed from the world is the entire point, not a side effect.
2. If the system does agree with 1. and keep it's destructive portion, then the inconvenience to the player is equal to or greater than death. The rep isn't there entirely for role-play purposes, it is there to ensure the risk factor for bandits etc... when the player is dealing the same harm to someone else, he should get the same rep/alignment etc... hit, the term "sparing someones life" is meaningless in a world in which people come back to life within a minute anyway.
The key point is the death penalty is already light, what little harm it does is necessary for the game as a whole, the purpose of a lesser form of death, lacks a need.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The suggestion isn't to have a character be robbable once "incapicated" but unconcious and bleeding out. The character has been brought below 0hp but has not died yet. So there's no easy way to incapacitate someone, since it's exactly what killing someone is currently.
Nobody's suggested being able to rob someone after something like grapple > pin > tie-up or some similar method outside knocking a character to 0 HP
The fight isn't the hard part (you don't really think that robbers are going to pick fights they aren't sure they can win, do you?), it's dealing with the consequences of killing someone. Letting bandits easily subdue someone after an easy fight lets them avoid most of the consequences of banditry, because it seems those consequences are mostly tied to the killing, not the robbing.
They still get flagged as robber and attacker, just won't have alignment shift to evil side of the scale. Still have to chaotic side though. The real point is: How are chaotic good rogues going to make a profit if they always need to kill someone to get the loot? If one want to play a CG thief who loots only evil players, for exemple, (a very interesting and logical RP course) how are they supposed to do that if they are always doomed to change the alignment to evil ? We definitelly need an alternative mechanism...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think we really know what death penalty there will be, neither whether there will be one, nor how severe it will be if there is.
Incorrect there, we know the normal death penalty, the items lost/destroyed is the full extent, or technically none at all if say with a group who protects your husk, or you manage to reach your corpse before it is looted.
To live and die in the river kingdoms was in my opinion pretty clearly laying out that the losses from death, are entirely what you are carrying. At the time of the blog it was believed everything but equiped weapons and armor, (Which was later clarified to mean specifically the weapon and armor slot, which was not boots/hats/wonderous items etc...), and then that was modified when the threading system was explained and changed this to you pick what is protected.
statements like explaining that if you are resurected, you get right back up with no further drawbacks etc... seem to make it pretty clear to me, as currently planned, we are looking at the full extent of death "penalties", with the exception of assasinations.
Assasinations will be MUCH more evil, carry with them some significant worse than death drawback to the victim, but will require quite a bit of work and setup to be arranged. Assasinations are of course, not relevant to the current discussion.
To try to summerize the arguments against an intermitant step, primarily has to do with Banditry.
1. Repeat non-lethal robbery: there is no reason not to do so and steal all items.
- Proposed Solution: creating a status that indicates the player has been robbed, preventing them from being robbed without being killed
1a. There is no reason not to rob then murder a player for more gear
- Proposed solution: there is a set amount of gear that can be looted. A portion is claimed during robbery, the rest if a player is killed.
1b. Robbery flag abuse by allys
- P.S. : some item destruction after player is robbed
2. Player is more inconvenienced by robbery than death
- there is a bleed out option so you can go to a re-spawn point and reclaim your husk if it lasts that long
---This is debatable wether or not this is actually a problem. Some people would rather get to wake up with some gear in tact or be healable, others dislike it.
2a. How exactly does the Bleed out option function?
- whole question that needs discussion.
3. Reduced consequences for banditry (hard part about banditry is not the fight, but the consequences)
- Heavy hit to the Chaos axis for banditry, decrease in rep (non-trivial, but less significant than murder) and small pust to evil, attacker, thief flags and open to bounties.
Other Points
-Changes how large fights work, healing characters that are not killed allows them to get back into the fight en-masse via Channeling or Cure Mass spells.
I think that about covers what's been said. So first, what am I missing here?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I still think we should have two kinds of reputation effects.
If you are a very known thief, among the good you should have bad reputation and penalties, but among the evil to have a bad reputation should be a bonus not a penalty in many cases!
Like what already exists in the current system. (IE killing an evil character is already less harmful on all effects than killing a good one, a character with good reputation has more ability to death curse harm your rep than an evil one).
- Proposed Solution: creating a status that indicates the player has been robbed, preventing them from being robbed without being killed
1a. There is no reason not to rob then murder a player for more gear
- Proposed solution: there is a set amount of gear that can be looted. A portion is claimed during robbery, the rest if a player is killed.
So essentially 1 is just moving the burden of abuse to 2... OK.
overall ok with 1b, we are doing death light. IE the exact same consequences as death, just slightly lightened up, essentially we are changing taking $100 from one person, to taking $50 from 2, to the rep hit etc... (because the rep hit still needs to remain proportional). So essentially we are making half killing for half consequence... what exactly is the purpose or need for this system?
2. Player is more inconvenienced by robbery than death
- there is a bleed out option so you can go to a re-spawn point and reclaim your husk if it lasts that long
---This is debatable wether or not this is actually a problem. Some people would rather get to wake up with some gear in tact or be healable, others dislike it.
Well as you mention, this opens it's own can of worms to the fullest extent. Namely if done, should it be treated as bad as murder for the person etc... Why should how evil the actions of person A, be dependant on how person B chose to react... etc...
We've essentially opened up a huge long elaborate can of worms, and still lack one key detail... a compelling reason WHY this mechanic is beneficial to the game to begin with.3. Reduced consequences for banditry (hard part about banditry is not the fight, but the consequences)
- Heavy hit to the Chaos axis for banditry, decrease in rep (non-trivial, but less significant than murder) and small pust to evil, attacker, thief flags and open to bounties.
OK so lets not call it robbing, lets call it "Murder Lite", unless you are trying to argue that the ratio should be changed. IE robbing 10 people with 25% of the loot one would get via killing = 1 kill. If so though why? The rep/alignment hits from killing, isn't in play from the meaningless tag of killing. The consequence should be proportional to the inconvenience it does cause.
Other Points
-Changes how large fights work, healing characters that are not killed allows them to get back into the fight en-masse via Channeling or Cure Mass spells.
You mean sort of like the already existing ability to resurect a character.
again, I'm seeing nothing being added, and lots of headaches in balancing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why is every discussion on this forum end up focused on what happens when you kill/rob someone?
Fair enough the River Kingdoms are renowned for inland piratry on the rivers and lawless bandit bands but if your whole time online is going to focus on setting up bandit raids or avoiding them the game is going to get boring pretty quick.
Soooo ... aside from the banditry issue that everyone is obsessed with how does it effect other comabt?
I think it is clear there are significant differences with a KO option when fighting mass battles especially during war. Mass cures and channeling in war will bring huge numbers of combatants back into the battle in a way that running around wasting large amount of cash on the material comp for individual resurrections will not.
Now these changes may NOT be a good thing. It may be better in battle if the combatants do not keep standing up again, but there is definitely a difference.
Reasons to exist
I just got through a dungeon, got some gear I want to sell and I am attacked by bandits. I'd rather be knocked out and not loose all my hard earned gear than be killed and re-spawn and have nothing left to shoe for my work.
My buddy went down in a fight and I don't want to have to wait for his corpse-run. If he was unconcious I wouldn't have to.
I'm traveling through an area, and I'm robbed. I'd rather get knocked out than re-spawn and need to make the whole trip again and deal with even more bandits.
I want to be a bandit, but I don't want the only way to engage in my profession be Murdering Players. I'd rather knock them out, take their carts and some gear, but not be a murderous PKer destroying all their hard-earned wealth. I don't mind that it's less profitable and takes much longer to get the same amount of cash, I don't want to kill people and be brabded a murderer with no rep. Makes being an antagosist less fun and removes motivation to add that aspect of this rich game.
And of course, people want it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Onishi that is not what I'm talking about. I want to see reputation having oposite effects depending on the alignment people have. To be a tyrant is a bad reputation among good people but would be like some powerful position among the evil ones. So having a lower reputation would be bad in some way but good in other ways. To train certain skills you could need having low reputation, for example.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why is every discussion on this forum end up focused on what happens when you kill/rob someone?
Fair enough the River Kingdoms are renowned for inland piratry on the rivers and lawless bandit bands but if your whole time online is going to focus on setting up bandit raids or avoiding them the game is going to get boring pretty quick.
In this topic, I believe the reasons for such are the intent of the idea... it is specifically looking for a less rep/alignment-hurting method of taking things. Now of course as for why those topics are so common, I think actually there aren't as many, they are just always at the top, because the topics themselves are controversial, and both sides have strong opinions on the topic. (thus they stay alive longer and are more active then the less heated topics)
Soooo ... aside from the banditry issue that everyone is obsessed with how does it effect other comabt?I think it is clear there are significant differences with a KO option when fighting mass battles especially during war. Mass cures and channeling in war will bring huge numbers of combatants back into the battle in a way that running around wasting large amount of cash on the material comp for individual resurrections will not.
Now these changes may NOT be a good thing. It may be better in battle if the combatants do not keep standing up again, but there is definitely a difference.
Well the general topic of the idea was intentionally knocking out instead of killing to lessen hits to rep/alignment. In war when those are non-factors, no person would chose not to kill, and would just always take the extra shot to kill, and yeah if not a critical role of war would be someone casting aoes etc... on "unconcious" people if such a mechanic were added regularly for the reasons you stated.
Why is every discussion on this forum end up focused on what happens when you kill/rob someone?
Fair enough the River Kingdoms are renowned for inland piratry on the rivers and lawless bandit bands but if your whole time online is going to focus on setting up bandit raids or avoiding them the game is going to get boring pretty quick.
Soooo ... aside from the banditry issue that everyone is obsessed with how does it effect other comabt?
I think it is clear there are significant differences with a KO option when fighting mass battles especially during war. Mass cures and channeling in war will bring huge numbers of combatants back into the battle in a way that running around wasting large amount of cash on the material comp for individual resurrections will not.
Now these changes may NOT be a good thing. It may be better in battle if the combatants do not keep standing up again, but there is definitely a difference.
Seems like that'xs the biggest point of contension, and what people like to argue about and where there is the greatest potential for abuse and need for balance.
But as far as PVE, beibg able to have a chance to recover and keep adventuring, it seems ideal. You get KO'ed and either stabalize or get a heal it could make things a lot easier and more convenient.
I like the effects in war, needing to make sure yout target is down or else he can come back. But if damage scales, there's good chances that trying to deal a fatal blow is likely unless a player actually tries not to kill the target
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Would it help to avoid abuse if you could choose to die when knocked out?
Opens up a whole new can of worms if we are talking about for the purpose of banditry etc...
Bandit knocks someone out, to have the lesser alignment hit, person suicides. Did the bandit commit murder or does he get the lesser penalty for knocking out?
If murder: well pretty clear, people will use that as a griefing mechanism for people who are clearly attempting to keep a decent reputation and attempt to force them out of their goal.
If knock out: Clear abuse there as well, people will specifically line up their victims in places they know it would be better to die than to get back up.
But as far as PVE, beibg able to have a chance to recover and keep adventuring, it seems ideal. You get KO'ed and either stabalize or get a heal it could make things a lot easier and more convenient.I like the effects in war, needing to make sure yout target is down or else he can come back. But if damage scales, there's good chances that trying to deal a fatal blow is likely unless a player actually tries not to kill the target
Actually this brings us to a reasonable situation. The 2 places it works in, have a common thread. They don't involve looting, and the added complication from such, Now we are onto something
Bandit incapacitates joe. gives joe the offer to pay 100 coin to not be killed.
A general equivelant of the -'s in P&P, maybe stretching it so that it means 10% of HP, instead of a set 10 HP etc... This sort actually makes sense. But while incapacitated, you may, talk, look and trade.
You may not be looted, but as mentioned you can volunterally give things to others. This has full potential IMO, keeps the flavor, keeps the roleplay, as far as I can see fairly abuse tolerant.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bandit knocks someone out, to have the lesser alignment hit, person suicides. Did the bandit commit murder or does he get the lesser penalty for knocking out?
If murder: well pretty clear, people will use that as a griefing mechanism for people who are clearly attempting to keep a decent reputation and attempt to force them out of their goal.
If knock out: Clear abuse there as well, people will specifically line up their victims in places they know it would be better to die than to get back up.
To me it should be clear that you would only take a rep/alignment/whatever hit for your own actions, so the decision of the victim to suicide should not impose any (additional) ill effects on the attacker compared to what the attacker would face, would he just let the victim on his/her own devices. Giving the coup de grace should (IMO) impose an additional rep/alignment hit as should robbing the victim.
As far as the latter (forced release to lower penalties) concern, while I am with you on the potential metagame aspect, which may raise its ugly head in case you would not be allowed to rob (with all the applicable rep/alignment hits) an incapacitated but not yet dead opponent, I really do not see this as a major issue. If someone has decided to rob me, they are going to do it regardless so I really do not care if they give me the coup de grace (and thereby force me to release) or force me to release by e.g. threatening to camp me, if I do not release.
I think the key (with regard to the rep/alignment hit aspect) would be to properly assess the rep/alignment hit (if any) for:
* attacking someone
* beating them within the inch of their life (=incapacitated)
* giving them the coup de grace
* robbing them
There are of course many other valid considerations relating to such a mechanic. From the pure roleplaying/immersion point of view though I would see anything that reduces the need for people to port back to a generic spawn point as a big positive. I am also all for the ability for the incapacitated victim and the victor being able to agree the terms of surrender -another possibility for meaningful player interaction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To me it should be clear that you would only take a rep/alignment/whatever hit for your own actions, so the decision of the victim to suicide should not impose any (additional) ill effects on the attacker compared to what the attacker would face, would he just let the victim on his/her own devices. Giving the coup de grace should (IMO) impose an additional rep/alignment hit as should robbing the victim.
Partly agreed, but IMO the key point is, robbing them, can be worse than killing, in not just a few but MANY situations. Catch someone out in the boonies, take something critical to the entire purpose of them being out in the middle of the boonies, and death is worse. The fact that in a sandbox world the sane rule of thumb is "Don't take more than you need for the job".
The result of that is pretty obvious, 50% of the time, robbing someone, voids their goals. Which quite frankly is equal to death on it's own, worse than death in that instead of appearing at their home point, they then have to walk home in shame and defeat for 10-15 minutes. So, we are looking at roughly 50% of the time, robbing is WORSE than death. Which means, it needs an equal to or worse rep penalty for such an action, Outside of a permadeath world, there is nothing unique to killing that makes it worse than any other form of crime.
With that though, I do see merit in incapacitating being different. I would be absolutely fine with
Incapacitate (light penalty)
Request ransom from incapacitated victim in exchange for his life (no official penalty, as this can't really be distinguished from say paying a passing cleric by an automated system).
Killing incapacitated victim (Noteworthy penalty)
This gives the incapacitated, the option to chose being robbed or death, also gives the robber the opprotunity to actually decide if getting goods from the person is worth the rep/alignment hit, if the person opts not to pay up. No one is unjustly penalized for something they did not have a choice in, but it is also not treating robbery as nicer than killing in situations that it is clearly worse.