Goblinworks Blog: I Shot a Man in Reno Just To Watch Him Die


Pathfinder Online

301 to 336 of 336 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

This is awesome. Really liking the ideas GW is coming up with for PvP. I think I might get to finally play an assassin for hire

Goblin Squad Member

Keovar wrote:
Valkenr wrote:

Maybe an outlaw doesn't want items, but coin.

It doesn't really matter what they want, if they're asking for something the victim doesn't have. Naked guy goes by, bandits throw a trade window in his face and demand millions of gold. The victim obviously can't pay so they murder him.

I think that's the idea, an outlaw can attack anyone they want, but if they see a stronger party or don't feel like fighting, they can pick a deal that is likely to get accepted.

Valandur wrote:
Valkenr wrote:
Chimo wrote:
I didn't see if anyone posted this but SAD should just be a % of value carried. Say 10%. Would be more difficult to exploit

How do you gauge 10% when someone only has two items in their inventory? Maybe an outlaw doesn't want items, but coin.

So merchants maybe should not carry coin when they travel, just items. The largest and heaviest possible?

Coin is not a physical object that you can transport. All money is virtual in the virtual environment, and you always have access to it.

Goblin Squad Member

Valandur wrote:
So merchants maybe should not carry coin when they travel, just items. The largest and heaviest possible?

From the Goblinworks development blog:

Quote:
Coin is a unit of account. Coin can be infinitely divided and combined. It is virtual and does not appear as an in–game object. When your character walks around, you're not lugging around a huge bag full of money. Coin has no weight and can be moved from place to place instantly. We may decide at some point to generate some in–game rationale for all of this using mystic hand–waving and such to "explain" the curious properties of coin, but for the sake of this dev blog we'll keep it relatively simple.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Valkenr wrote:
Keovar wrote:
It doesn't really matter what they want, if they're asking for something the victim doesn't have. Naked guy goes by, bandits throw a trade window in his face and demand millions of gold. The victim obviously can't pay so they murder him.
I think that's the idea, an outlaw can attack anyone they want, but if they see a stronger party or don't feel like fighting, they can pick a deal that is likely to get accepted.

The idea is to provide a consequence-free griefing tool?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Keovar wrote:
Valkenr wrote:
Keovar wrote:
It doesn't really matter what they want, if they're asking for something the victim doesn't have. Naked guy goes by, bandits throw a trade window in his face and demand millions of gold. The victim obviously can't pay so they murder him.
I think that's the idea, an outlaw can attack anyone they want, but if they see a stronger party or don't feel like fighting, they can pick a deal that is likely to get accepted.
The idea is to provide a consequence-free griefing tool?

The idea is to provide a threat in the wild. CE needs to be able to build reputation, they get the short end of the stick settlement wise. If they are giving reasonable SAD's that get fulfilled, they can keep their reputation up. If they don't want to gain reputation, they can rob travelers.

You can still put out a bounty or death curse them.

Bottom line, the moment you step into 'unprotected' territory, you are in danger.

Goblin Squad Member

Keovar wrote:

...

The idea is to provide a consequence-free griefing tool?

I think the idea is to promote inter-reliance between players. If I need to transport goods from point A to Point B and I know the path between termini has a high probability for interdiction I will want to hire other players to help guard my goods. High value goods, high expense involved in keeping it safe.

Hiring guards puts coin into circulation and increases emphasis on the community, makes reputation a more significant character attribute, and gives those who are more into playing than accumulating wealth a way to gain the coin it takes to progress.

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
Keovar wrote:

...

The idea is to provide a consequence-free griefing tool?

I think the idea is to promote inter-reliance between players. If I need to transport goods from point A to Point B and I know the path between termini has a high probability for interdiction I will want to hire other players to help guard my goods. High value goods, high expense involved in keeping it safe.

Hiring guards puts coin into circulation and increases emphasis on the community, makes reputation a more significant character attribute, and gives those who are more into playing than accumulating wealth a way to gain the coin it takes to progress.

This.


Valkenr wrote:


The idea is to provide a threat in the wild. CE needs to be able to build reputation, they get the short end of the stick settlement wise. If they are giving reasonable SAD's that get fulfilled, they can keep their reputation up. If they don't want to gain reputation, they can rob travelers.

You can still put out a bounty or death curse them.

Bottom line, the moment you step into 'unprotected' territory, you are in danger.

I don't think anybody has a problem with the SAD mechanic as intended, but as people have said, allowing the bandit to ask for more than the merchant possesses just so he can attack them for free is not how Stand and Deliver is supposed to work. It's not supposed to be a loophole so you can attack whoever you want, it's supposed to be an option to avoid fighting.

I think the best way to handle it would be either to go with a percentage, or go with the idea some people had of using opposed Bluff and Sense Motive for the bandit to "estimate" how much the merchant has, and give him a max amount of gold or goods to request. If the merchant's a good liar, he gets to keep more (and if the bandit's certain he's getting stiffed, he can always just lose his temper and kill the guy).

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:


I think the idea is to promote inter-reliance between players. If I need to transport goods from point A to Point B and I know the path between termini has a high probability for interdiction I will want to hire other players to help guard my goods. High value goods, high expense involved in keeping it safe.

Hiring guards puts coin into circulation and increases emphasis on the community, makes reputation a more significant character attribute, and gives those who are more into playing than accumulating wealth a way to gain the coin it takes to progress.

True, but ... nobody likes guard duty. If you bring enough guards to ensure your safety, then nothing happens. The guards are bored, the bandits are bored, nobody enjoys it except the people being guarded - and even then, it's not like they actually ENJOY being guarded... the enjoyment is simply relative compared to the complete suckage of being ganked.

Boredom is a crappy solution.

Goblin Squad Member

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I don't think anybody has a problem with the SAD mechanic as intended, but as people have said, allowing the bandit to ask for more than the merchant possesses just so he can attack them for free is not how Stand and Deliver is supposed to work. It's not supposed to be a loophole so you can attack whoever you want, it's supposed to be an option to avoid fighting.

I think the best way to handle it would be either to go with a percentage, or go with the idea some people had of using opposed Bluff and Sense Motive for the bandit to "estimate" how much the merchant has, and give him a max amount of gold or goods to request. If the merchant's a good liar, he gets to keep more (and if the bandit's certain he's getting stiffed, he can always just lose his temper and kill the guy).

So, a group of bandits set up a 2000 coin standard right-of-passage for their road. By your reasoning, if someone can't pay the 2,000 they shouldn't be able to get a SAD, and the bandits have to let them through at a lower cost or take reputation loss.

Goblin Squad Member

Valandur wrote:
Valkenr wrote:
Chimo wrote:
I didn't see if anyone posted this but SAD should just be a % of value carried. Say 10%. Would be more difficult to exploit

How do you gauge 10% when someone only has two items in their inventory? Maybe an outlaw doesn't want items, but coin.

So merchants maybe should not carry coin when they travel, just items. The largest and heaviest possible?

I had the impression your "coin" was always available.

I suppose you could give all your gold to an alt or trusted friend and reclaim it after the journey end. That way there is no gold available for SAD.

Goblin Squad Member

Tuoweit wrote:


True, but ... nobody likes guard duty. If you bring enough guards to ensure your safety, then nothing happens. The guards are bored, the bandits are bored, nobody enjoys it except the people being guarded - and even then, it's not like they actually ENJOY being guarded... the enjoyment is simply relative compared to the complete suckage of being ganked.

Boredom is a crappy solution.

Yep, what also often gets missed in these discussions is the merchant/crafter players often really really really find combat dull and boring (they are often math focused types who could if they wanted min/max combat monsters with ease but are bored by the whole thing) and rather than finding SAD etc challenging are more likely to just not bother trading or even not play at all if it becomes too regular a thing.

This creates a problem:

If the merchant gets killed regularly (even every second time) he gets bored and quits, he will NOT see it as a fun challenge.

If the merchant gives SAD every-time his guards get bored and quit (unlike real life where guards hope they never have to fight).

If the merchant gives SAD every-time the bandits also will get bored and will start trying to force a fight.

Goblin Squad Member

Neadenil Edam wrote:

This creates a problem:

If the merchant gets killed regularly (even every second time) he gets bored and quits, he will NOT see it as a fun challenge.

If the merchant gives SAD every-time his guards get bored and quit (unlike real life where guards hope they never have to fight).

If the merchant gives SAD every-time the bandits also will get bored and will start trying to force a fight.

If a merchant is getting killed regularly, they need to re-think their strategy. If they aren't willing to, PFO probably isn't the game for them.

If a merchant knows his guards can beat the outlaw, or the cost of fighting is lower than the SAD, he should never give SAD

SAD is a mechanic to give outlaws reputation so they aren't gimped in the settlements, and CG characters can stay good while making money. If you are using the outlaw flag, you should want them to accept the SAD. IF you want to fight them, give them a SAD they can't pay for.


Valkenr wrote:


So, a group of bandits set up a 2000 coin standard right-of-passage for their road. By your reasoning, if someone can't pay the 2,000 they shouldn't be able to get a SAD, and the bandits have to let them through at a lower cost or take reputation loss.

Bingo.

If a merchant doesn't have the gold, the bandits can either be reasonable and accept a lower amount or kill the merchant and accept the fairly standard penalty.

If they can't be flexible and understand the merchant simply doesn't have the money, they're going to get a reputation for being unreasonable. As they should, because that's exactly what they are.

Goblin Squad Member

Tuoweit wrote:
Being wrote:


I think the idea is to promote inter-reliance between players. If I need to transport goods from point A to Point B and I know the path between termini has a high probability for interdiction I will want to hire other players to help guard my goods. High value goods, high expense involved in keeping it safe.

Hiring guards puts coin into circulation and increases emphasis on the community, makes reputation a more significant character attribute, and gives those who are more into playing than accumulating wealth a way to gain the coin it takes to progress.

True, but ... nobody likes guard duty. If you bring enough guards to ensure your safety, then nothing happens. The guards are bored, the bandits are bored, nobody enjoys it except the people being guarded - and even then, it's not like they actually ENJOY being guarded... the enjoyment is simply relative compared to the complete suckage of being ganked.

Boredom is a crappy solution.

Boredom as a guard is one enemy, but you would surely rather face boredom than a real enemy. If you have ever been in the positon of shooter in an escort mission, you don't want to fight anyone, but you will if necessary. It is hiring guards that acts as a deterrent, and the bad guy being certain that guards are on duty that also acts as a deterrent. If the bad guy attacks and there are no guards, there was clearly no deterrent (as there should have been). Being a guard is a heart pumping experience in a voilent area even when there is no action. But paying the guards does raise the cost to transport the item (people, goods, whatever).

I am going to be a good guy here, so could care less if the bandits are bored. Something tells me if I am vigilent, they will get bored and terrorize someone else, which is fine by me.

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
Keovar wrote:
Keovar wrote:
Naked guy goes by, bandits throw a trade window in his face and demand millions of gold. The victim obviously can't pay so they murder him.
The idea is to provide a consequence-free griefing tool?

I think the idea is to promote inter-reliance between players. If I need to transport goods from point A to Point B and I know the path between termini has a high probability for interdiction I will want to hire other players to help guard my goods. High value goods, high expense involved in keeping it safe.

Hiring guards puts coin into circulation and increases emphasis on the community, makes reputation a more significant character attribute, and gives those who are more into playing than accumulating wealth a way to gain the coin it takes to progress.

You clipped the line that led to the conclusion, so I pasted it back in.

'Naked Guy' was intended to mean that the guy has nothing; no money to pay the extortion, no money to hire guards. He can still have so-called bandits shoving their trade windows in his face, making demands and then murdering him. The game is essentially over for that player, and if the bandits are accused of griefing, they'll just say he could have took his equipment off just to appear poor. If they let everyone who appeared poor go by, 'naked' would become the standard uniform for traders.


Hardin Steele wrote:
Boredom as a guard is one enemy, but you would surely rather face boredom than a real enemy. If you have ever been in the positon of shooter in an escort mission, you don't want to fight anyone, but you will if necessary.

That's true. But this is a game. Without conflict and challenge, the game is no fun. I'd rather be stuck in a rout than stuck in a rut.

Quote:
Being a guard is a heart pumping experience in a voilent area even when there is no action. But paying the guards does raise the cost to transport the item (people, goods, whatever).

I don't totally disagree here, guarding in a bandit-filled area can be intense. You've always got to be on-edge. Actually, that reminds me of--wait, I can't mention the MMO I've played or I'll be laughed out. ;D

Quote:
I am going to be a good guy here, so could care less if the bandits are bored. Something tells me if I am vigilent, they will get bored and terrorize someone else, which is fine by me.

Okay, see, I'm going to play a do-gooder of sorts as well, and I plan on guarding plenty of caravans if things work out. Maybe even pro-bono, or even without the merchants' permission/knowledge. Just for fun.

Point is, bandits are a crucial part of this game and I do care if they get bored. If they get bored, there's no challenge and no conflict, and therefore no reason for them to keep robbing merchants. Puts me out of work, takes away the merchants' key source of excitement, and generally makes things dull.

Goblin Squad Member

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Valkenr wrote:


So, a group of bandits set up a 2000 coin standard right-of-passage for their road. By your reasoning, if someone can't pay the 2,000 they shouldn't be able to get a SAD, and the bandits have to let them through at a lower cost or take reputation loss.

Bingo.

If a merchant doesn't have the gold, the bandits can either be reasonable and accept a lower amount or kill the merchant and accept the fairly standard penalty.

If they can't be flexible and understand the merchant simply doesn't have the money, they're going to get a reputation for being unreasonable. As they should, because that's exactly what they are.

They will get a reputation that you don't go through their territory without 2000 coin. It's no unreasonable to have a toll instead of a tax. It doesn't matter if the merchant doesn't have the money, if they can't pay the toll, and they enter the territory, the outlaw will gut them for all they can get.


Hopefully any company that starts something like that will draw enough attention to themselves that they will get wiped regularly!

Goblin Squad Member

I expect if a flock of ten bandits discover the strength of guards has them regularly overmatched they will simply start recruiting more brethren into the fold so they will not be overmatched so easily.

Better to have a pot to split between twenty than no pot at all.

Paizo Employee Goblin Squad Member

Keovar wrote:
The idea is to provide a consequence-free griefing tool?

Yeah, I don't think this conversation is going anywhere until everyone can get on the same page here.

I think it's pretty obvious that's not Goblinworks' intent. If they just wanted to make the wilderness consequence-free PvP, Outlaws wouldn't be explicitly punished (losing bonuses) for getting the Attacker flag and could just attack people in the wild without Reputation loss.

Instead we get layer after layer of consequences and exceptions to consequences. Seems like a pretty weird design choice if you don't want consequences :)

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Point is, bandits are a crucial part of this game and I do care if they get bored. If they get bored, there's no challenge and no conflict, and therefore no reason for them to keep robbing merchants. Puts me out of work, takes away the merchants' key source of excitement, and generally makes things dull.

Well said.

Cheers!
Landon

Goblin Squad Member

Right, I think the design intent is to allow bandits who WANT to offer an SAD alternative the opportunity to do so and the merchant has some assurance that if he does pay the SAD, the bandits can't turn around and reneg on thier deal without consequences. So that opens up 2 potential exploits that I can see...

1) If there is an "immunity" flag for the merchant. The merchant sets up a freindly group that offers a token SAD, so he can be immune to future SAD offers from real bandits.

2) If there is no "immunity" flag for the mercant. A bandit group offers him another SAD offer after he moves 5 feet, effectively bilking him dry.

The answer is pretty simply to me. I think there should be an "immunity" flag for the merchant AND I think Outlaws should be free to attack other Outlaws with no loss of reputation. That essentialy solves #1, as the Outlaws have the ability to clear out any "competition" both real and fake in the area without any harm to themselves. The "immunity" tag simply represents that once someone has paid protection, it WOULD be rather notorius to ask him to pay again (hence reputation loss for doing so). NOTE, the "immunity" flag does NOT prevent the 2nd bandit group from attacking the merchant normaly and grabbing his goods...nor does it even prevent them from threatening the merchant outside the SAD... it's not a "free pass" for the merchant....it just means there is a reputation hit for robbing someone who just agreed to pay for passage through an area even if he didn't agree to pay YOUR group. But you do/should have the ability to muscle out your competition without any reputation hit to yourself. No one would logicaly expect you to stand passively by while another group of bandits horns in on your marks for themselves.

Edit: So what I would add to the Outlaw flag is that you don't gain the Attacker Flag for attacking anyone else that is Flagged as Outlaw.

Goblin Squad Member

Tuoweit wrote:
If you bring enough guards to ensure your safety, then nothing happens.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility of being attacked by NPCs while transporting goods, in the same way you might be attacked by NPCs while harvesting.


Valkenr wrote:


They will get a reputation that you don't go through their territory without 2000 coin. It's no unreasonable to have a toll instead of a tax. It doesn't matter if the merchant doesn't have the money, if they can't pay the toll, and they enter the territory, the outlaw will gut them for all they can get.

Fair enough. I'd probably do the same. However, there are downsides to that technique--you will take the occasional reputation penalty. I don't see much wrong with that. It's not like it's a legal toll, after all.

The reason you don't lose reputation for killing merchants who wouldn't Stand and Deliver is that there's the idea that they had the chance to give the money and didn't. Stand and Deliver is not supposed to give you an excuse to kill anybody you like. If you want to kill a poor innocent beggar, you have to take the penalty.

Of course, if this is your territory, I think there might be some rules regarding trespassing which could apply to those who won't/can't pay.

Goblin Squad Member

Landon Winkler wrote:
Keovar wrote:
The idea is to provide a consequence-free griefing tool?
Yeah, I don't think this conversation is going anywhere until everyone can get on the same page here.

Obviously I know that is not the goal, the question was rhetorical, intended to show the use to which the mechanic would be put by those who are just interested in killing without losing rep. You can't assume people will use the game mechanics as intended, they will use them in every way possible.

Goblin Squad Member

I just finished reading this. I'm liking the direction the game is going in regards to their PvP flags. It's more elaborate while not being overly complicated, and I think it will allow different types of PvP relationships.

One thing I'm wondering, and maybe this was answered elsewhere, is if there will be other way of increasing GvE and LvC aside from getting the Champion and Enforcer flags respectively and killing valid targets? Stuff like quests or actions?

Goblin Squad Member

I suggest reading this section of the latest blog

Goblin Squad Member

I have posted this in other spots but the SAD mech is going to cause prices to go up across the board. A crafter or merchant is not going to be the one who takes it on the chin his customers are. Sure the bandit makes a bit of cash in the short run but this will be a player based economy. So every time a merchant is mugged or killed they will increase prices to compensate.

Just something to keep in mind. Personally I don't mind. If I decided to go from simple stealth solo gatherer to merchant mogul I will make my money off the backs of the working folk. Bandits in the end hurt them and not the merchant they mug.


No, no, I think the bandits' arrows hurt the merchant a lot more. ;)

Goblin Squad Member

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
No, no, I think the bandits' arrows hurt the merchant a lot more. ;)

I do not see how. The game seems to have zero consequences for dieing, no XP to lose, no skill or training loss. You do not even have to walk back to the husk if it is robbed its gone.

My impression is if you wander around with only threaded gear there is absolutely no downside whatsoever to dieing.

Goblin Squad Member

Well, except time, like most other games. Maybe a debuff.

That said, I don't expect wandering around with only threaded gear to be viable.

@Ludy

Exactly! Regional market economies are going to be fun. Transporting goods from place to place with the threat of losing them has been a design point from day 1.


Neadenil Edam wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
No, no, I think the bandits' arrows hurt the merchant a lot more. ;)
I do not see how.

Then you have obviously never been shot with an arrow.

Goblin Squad Member

Skwiziks wrote:

Let me see if I understand this properly...

1.) If you do not break any laws, you will start to become more Lawful-aligned.

2.) The longer you avoid criminal activity, the faster you become more Lawful-aligned.

Then if one were to stand around in a safe zone doing nothing, they would eventually become completely Lawful-aligned?

To maintain a Chaotic alignment, the character must also be a criminal?

Yeah, this made my eyebrows go up till they became close-cousins with my hair-line.

Uhm ... sure glad this is just in the planning stage, because that sounds ... retarded.

Chaotic means not being beholden to rules and laws. So ... obviously somebody who smuggles contraband across the border is breaking the law, but if said contraband is actually healing supplies that the leaders of that Hex have banned so they can price-gouge their own people with their own supplies, is he evil?

I question the wisdom of railroading players with their alignment, in that they must active work to harm other players either physically or financially, even if that is not their intent or else they all become Lawful and possibly lose access to abilities or badge-trees they are working towards. Where does that leave players like Druids and Barbarian-type characters, where a Chaotic or at least one Neutral component is a necessity?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HalfOrc with a Hat of Disguise wrote:
Uhm ... sure glad this is just in the planning stage, because that sounds ... retarded.

I'm pretty sure the devs aren't retarded.

Skwiziks wrote:
To maintain a Chaotic alignment, the character must also be a criminal?
The positive drift is in there to provide a way for people to recover over time if they want to be Lawful and/or Good. It'll probably be really slow, but still useful for those who are filled with regret at their choices and want to be LG again. And there will be an option to say "Nope, I'm happy where I am, thanks, you can keep your points" for people that want to stay Chaotic, Evil, or some shade of Neutral.

Goblin Squad Member

Valkenr wrote:
I suggest reading this section of the latest blog

Hey! I didn't know you were annotating the blogs that way in our wiki! Cool :)

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
HalfOrc with a Hat of Disguise wrote:
Uhm ... sure glad this is just in the planning stage, because that sounds ... retarded.

I'm pretty sure the devs aren't retarded.

Skwiziks wrote:
To maintain a Chaotic alignment, the character must also be a criminal?
The positive drift is in there to provide a way for people to recover over time if they want to be Lawful and/or Good. It'll probably be really slow, but still useful for those who are filled with regret at their choices and want to be LG again. And there will be an option to say "Nope, I'm happy where I am, thanks, you can keep your points" for people that want to stay Chaotic, Evil, or some shade of Neutral.

AAAAAAAH! I missed that post! So there is a way to 'lock' your character to a certain alignment. Nice. I take it all back, I'm going back into my corner now, very sorry!

301 to 336 of 336 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Goblinworks Blog: I Shot a Man in Reno Just To Watch Him Die All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Online