I like the idea of penalizing bandits who fail to 'protect' their merchants, though it may be a bit harsh.
If it's used, both bandits should be aware of who the other is.
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it's used, both bandits should be aware of who the other is.
Assuming the second bandit isn't penalized (and I'm not thinking they would be by the game mechanics, it's just that someone might be angry at them), then they don't necessarily need to know. In fact, having it be invisible could be an interesting interplay with the victims.
Like saying "C'mon, KoboldCleaver robbed us like a minute ago!" and hoping the second bandit doesn't want to risk poaching someone else's mark and getting killed.
But I agree the one whose mark got poached should definitely find out. Losing reputation and not being able to take reasonable action would suck.
Cheers!
Landon
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How about:
When a traveler accepts a Stand and Deliver, the Outlaw starts gaining Reputation over time.During that time, if someone else issues a Stand and Deliver to the target, the original Outlaw starts losing Reputation instead... until the new Outlaw is dead.
This is great thinking!
Simplified idea: when your SAD is accepted you gain a certain amount of rep. If the caravan is later robbed or fleeced again, the rep gain turns into rep loss.
Why: my main concern is not '1 cp bandits' preventing banditry, but '1cp banditry' as reputation laundering business! If a bandit guild can build free rep by transfering money back and forth with SAD...
(sure there will be a daily limit, but i want a mechanism where this kind of behaviour at least carries _some_ risk).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really like the idea of the "fleeced" flag be also a "under the protection of _____" flag. Suddenly, SAD and its immunity to rep loss makes sense. A bandit isn't just taking something from someone, they are also providing a service. Its still meaningful, and if I'm guarding a caravan I'll still be annoyed we have to pay, but I also know the bandit has some skin in the game.
If it's used, both bandits should be aware of who the other is.Assuming the second bandit isn't penalized (and I'm not thinking they would be by the game mechanics, it's just that someone might be angry at them), then they don't necessarily need to know. In fact, having it be invisible could be an interesting interplay with the victims.
Like saying "C'mon, KoboldCleaver robbed us like a minute ago!" and hoping the second bandit doesn't want to risk poaching someone else's mark and getting killed.
But I agree the one whose mark got poached should definitely find out. Losing reputation and not being able to take reasonable action would suck.
Cheers!
Landon
Oh, I think you're right, but it should be impossible to blame poor, innocent kobolds. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There is a general problem of having your friends rob you and give the money (or most of it) back to you.
I think a better solution would be to require the bandits to offer safe passageout of the hex. In essence, draft them as additional guards for the caravan. The bandits should not get any money until the caravan gets free of the hex without being robbed again.
I believe this solves the problem of having your friends rob you because there's essentially no difference between having your friends rob you and paying your friends to guard you.
That gets to the heart of what is actually going on. Calling it "S.A.D." is just trying to make it sound 'cute' while slipping in a bit of griefer schadenfreude: making fun of the trader's 'sadness' about getting robbed.
Call it what it is, people: Extortion. You may as well say "nice caravan, be a shame if somethin' happened to it..." as you're walking up.
And if there's any criminal who would actually want to roleplay a little: Sczarni.
Is the trader S.A.D.der if he gets robbed, or if he gets killed? :)
Complaining about the use of an acronym is like complaining about the use of the term pet (and I know that got explained and resolved). It's not really a moral issue.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Is the trader S.A.D.der if he gets robbed, or if he gets killed? :)
Complaining about the use of an acronym is like complaining about the use of the term pet (and I know that got explained and resolved). It's not really a moral issue.
It's not just an acronym, it's taunting the victim. If it were just there to make the phrase shorter, S&D would work as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As I understand it the SAD mechanic will generally only be in play when a bandit group has a hideout in a hex (or as I have suggested a local lord having a tower or keep) this will mean that the number of times a merchant can be pulled out of fast travel will be limited to the number of hideouts and/or towers actively seeking tolls.
The protection offered is the ability of the people owning these structures to eliminiate other such structures in the hex. It may well be that it is cheaper to pay the amounts requested via the SAD mechanic than to hire gaurds. If I were a local authority I would want to toll passing merchants but would also work to keep the area free of hideouts.
Similarly bandit groups would have a vested interest in keeping the merchants using 'their' roads, motivation to clear out rival hideouts or come to a reasonable understanding with other groups. Everyones got to make a living you know :)
No need to minimum/maximum tolls, not need for fleeced flags, no need for escourt duty (unless you want to, its an option).
The way I see it, less is often more. Don't over think the mechanics, it makes things complicated and opens them up for exploitation!
It's not just an acronym, it's taunting the victim.
No, it's not.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Requiring the bandits to have some sort of lair in a hex where they are doing SAD would fix quite afew of the mentioned exploits. The lair could also spawn NPC bandits to stop the locals from just setting up their own lair and using it to SAD for 1 copper.
In part that is a good idea and solves somes issues, however it creates another : People will know the existence of a hideout there and would have a better chance to find it. A thing that the bandits don't want at all.
It can be done but needs some work to keep balance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
An outlaw should never be turned into a guard.
An outlaw should never be punished for something outside of their control.
People who want to guarantee safe passage through their territory will have am outlaw that SADs everyone that comes in, and tells them they will be protected all the way through. If they don't live up to their promise, word will spread, and that hex won't be used for transportation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think the "fleeced" flag makes any sense. As I understand it, the point of these flags is not to shield you from meaningful interactions, but rather to open up options for interactions. The point of the SAD mechanic isn't to make sure you only get robbed X times per Y period--the point is to open up options for a robbery. If the target is really rich, then one option is to try and gut them and steal everything. Another option is to extort--under the right conditions, both sides see a marginal gain in a SAD exchange vice a kill 'n rob.
The bandits-as-guards mechanism makes no sense--why in the world would you want to get rid of banditry in and replace it with protection rackets? That's already in there in a guard contract--you give me money, and I got to guard you. Instead of adding options, this proposal would take away options.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Mbando
But still we have a expolitable gap in the "traveler" flag, as stated before by several players. A player could have his friends to "robb" him to just get the 20 min immunity.
Suggestions of how to deal with that?
The suggestion is to get rid of the idea of that immunity.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think Mbando and others including myself see scrapping the fleeced flag as the answer to that metagaming.
As I said earlier I don't really see much difference between toll and a 'SAD', local lord or bandit.
With regards to 'bandits' as guards I think that is fine if the bandits are ok with it but its not ok to punish them as part of the mechanic if anything befalls the merchant after having being subject to a SAD, the characters can deal with that in game.
On the whole the less game mechanics restrict interaction the better as long as what is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
OMG can people move away from the bandits becoming the guards after a successful SAD.
Why on Earth would I as a bandit, give up surprise and loot, to offer a SAD in exchange for Reputation boost and then..... For free and at complete risk, offer to escort my victim to safety, while being under a PvP flag the whole time?? So that the merchant's company mates can come and take back what I just stole?
This is how banditry works:
1. Bandits are in a hideout and see a traveler coming by. We can see the travelers strength and equipment. We are fairly sure he is an easy mark.
2. Out of the graciousness of our hearts, we decide to forego surprise and 100% of the loot, in exchange for keeping a positive reputation.
3. We negotiate a 20 % SAD, and we get Rep and an Outlaw (pvp) Flag.
4. We let the traveler go, on his own again.
5. We return to our hideout, drop off the loot and wait out the flag. Or we wait for the next merchant to come along.
This is what I think bandits do. I have been playing bandits or pirates for years. They never escort their victims to safety.
Well, except for Robin Hood, but he did that for the "skirt" and he was Chaotic Good.
Bottom line, the fleeced flag is good as it is. Bandit #1 should not be punished because Bandit #2 comes along.
The best solution is to work at preventing merchants from gaming the system by taking low value SADs with their own member or alts. The problem is not bandits being bandits.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think a percentage is the way to go, people won't be transporting money, and what people are carrying will probably vary, a bandit may only want a certain thing. I want to see the bandit demand a coin value and/or items from the target's inventory. Merchants could also carry some exquisite items to trade to bandits, an in return keep their main cargo.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think a percentage is the way to go, people won't be transporting money, and what people are carrying will probably vary, a bandit may only want a certain thing. I want to see the bandit demand a coin value and/or items from the target's inventory. Merchants could also carry some exquisite items to trade to bandits, an in return keep their main cargo.
I addressed this issue in my earlier post. The bandit would get to choose the loot up to the value agreed upon and up to the weight that he can carry, which ever comes first.
If the bandit sees an item that he so separately wants, but can't carry off in one exchange, than he can violate the SAD and take the Rep hit.
I personally would likely never do that, because I view a SAD as an agreement, and I stand by my words.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf
For myself I was really saying if a bandit wants to (for whatever reason) escort a merchant out of the hex that is their concern. Personally if I were a bandit I wouldn't.
You don't need a fleeced flag because there will be a limited number of hideouts in a hex (maybe only one?). Merchants take your chances.
If a local lord (which some might consider bandits) choose to levy a toll rather than getting paid off then that is similar if not exactly the same as the SAD mechanism.
If you were a local lord you may well be included to offer safe escort off your lands. The 'levy' goes towards maintaining the roads, clearing hideouts and providing some surety of safe passage. Travellers may be happy to pay such tolls to remain otherwise unmolested.
I agree there should be no in game mechanic pressuring people to do escort anyone off the hex or penalising Group A if the mark subsequently meets and get ruffed up by Group B. If people don't like getting extorted multiple times they can group together, pay guards and or demand protection from local authorities.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is what I think bandits do. I have been playing bandits or pirates for years. They never escort their victims to safety.
That may not be how you've played them, but protection rackets (and that's what we're talking about here, a protection racket) depend entirely on the assurance of safety for the people who pay into the racket. It is neither uncommon for rival organizations to target those under each other's protection nor for that to come to blows.
And that applied just as much to old pickpockets and bandits and landless knights as it does with modern criminals.
Now, if you want to kill someone and take their stuff, you can clearly just do that and take the Reputation hit. But Stand and Deliver is obviously intended to create a framework for semi-consensual PvP, which what you're describing does not.
If you want people to play victims and robbers with you, you need to be prepared to put something other than "oh, I'll only rob you" on the table. Otherwise the only winning move is not to play.
Cheers!
Landon
I really do think that the idea to tax reputation if your victims are robbed soon after is a good one. If a bandit doesn't want to have to escort his targets, he needs to make sure he's the only bandit in the forest--or at least the last one to strike, if he's willing to risk the ire of his fellows.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I really do think that the idea to tax reputation if your victims are robbed soon after is a good one. If a bandit doesn't want to have to escort his targets, he needs to make sure he's the only bandit in the forest--or at least the last one to strike, if he's willing to risk the ire of his fellows.
Thanks :)
I don't think it's necessarily the best solution, but Stand and Deliver needs some positive element to it. Otherwise it's every bit non-consensual PvP. Choosing how you're PvPed (whether you have a fight or just lose items right away, skipping the combat and the corpse run to save some time) doesn't change that or make it feel any better.
Cheers!
Landon
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'll say what I said in the other thread. The system should not be able to effect other bandits.
There should be no limit to how many times or how often a caravan can be targeted.
Social evolution will spread out bandits, and make them fight over territory. If a hex is full of bandit hideouts, word will get out not to use that road, and new ones will be found. The smart bandits will clear out the area, to make sure they aren't creating too high of cost to travel through their stomping grounds. Or the demand for guards will skyrocket and banditry will have no profit.
There should also be no game mechanics dictating the amount bandits can request. If a bandit wants to raid a caravan, they can offer a unreasonable high cost. The bandit flag takes away my worry that caravans will not see enough threat. The smart and successful bandits will be ones that can determine a reasonable cost when they know the fight is un-winnable, they will be able to figure out a cost that players would rather pay, rather than fight.
This is where I am at as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think it's necessarily the best solution, but Stand and Deliver needs some positive element to it.
SAD does have a positive element to it--there more options available then just get ganked and lose all your cargo. Sometimes one side will decide their optimal response to a robbery is to fight back and protect their cargo. Sometimes robbers will decide it's optimal to jump the caravan, slaughter them and take their stuff. Sometimes both sides will realize there is a marginal benefit to negotiating a partial/non-violent robbery. And in those latter cases, it will be exactly because there was "some positive element to it" for each side (not dying, reputation, etc.).
Otherwise it's every bit non-consensual PvP. Choosing how you're PvPed (whether you have a fight or just lose items right away, skipping the combat and the corpse run to save some time) doesn't change that or make it feel any better.Cheers!
Landon
It's supposed to be non-consensual PvP. So if SAD is every bit non-consensual PvP, then the design goal is being met. Choosing how to solve a social problem like robbery, both in the immediate tactical sense of a stick-up, and in the larger, strategic sense of making a hex safe for passage, is a big part of the content of the game.
Basically, suggestions that destroy game content aren't useful.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think it's necessarily the best solution, but Stand and Deliver needs some positive element to it.
SAD does have a positive element to it--there more options available then just get ganked and lose all your cargo. Sometimes one side will decide their optimal response to a robbery is to fight back and protect their cargo. Sometimes robbers will decide it's optimal to jump the caravan, slaughter them and take their stuff. Sometimes both sides will realize there is a marginal benefit to negotiating a partial/non-violent robbery. And in those latter cases, it will be exactly because there was "some positive element to it" for each side (not dying, reputation, etc.).
Otherwise it's every bit non-consensual PvP. Choosing how you're PvPed (whether you have a fight or just lose items right away, skipping the combat and the corpse run to save some time) doesn't change that or make it feel any better.Cheers!
LandonIt's supposed to be non-consensual PvP. So if SAD is every bit non-consensual PvP, then the design goal is being met. Choosing how to solve a social problem like robbery, both in the immediate tactical sense of a stick-up, and in the larger, strategic sense of making a hex safe for passage, is a big part of the content of the game.
Basically, suggestions that destroy game content aren't useful.
Well said Mbando!
Here we finally have the view of someone who plans on being a "guardian" who actually sees and understands the bigger picture. Or at least almost completely.
Bandits are the balance to the harvesting resources / trade / player crafting and controlled economy running into seriously high supplies, and little demand in a short period of time.
If we are not stealing 20% (just to throw a number out there) of the resources and or loot, then these items will hit the markets unhindered. We are how the Devs are planning on controlling that.
In another unrelated thread, Ryan Dancy mentioned that PFO is all about hex control. Hex control is the result of competition and conflict. I propose that banditry should also be about competition and conflict, as we would hire ourselves out to disrupt the trade of one company, at the behest of another.
Pathfinder Online is shaping up to primarily a PVP focused game, with some controls built into it.
Now all we need for them to do is define how the War declaration system will work?
Title of that Blog is too freak'n obvious: "War!.. What is it Good For?" Absolutely... Everything.. say it again!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's supposed to be non-consensual PvP. So if SAD is every bit non-consensual PvP, then the design goal is being met. Choosing how to solve a social problem like robbery, both in the immediate tactical sense of a stick-up, and in the larger, strategic sense of making a hex safe for passage, is a big part of the content of the game.
Well, one of us is deeply misunderstanding what Goblinworks wants to do with this system.
Goblinworks has put a lot of time and effort into gently encouraging people to open themselves to PvP precisely because they don't want a lot of non-consensual PvP going on. I don't know why they'd go through all that effort, then let thieves run rampant.
On a deeper level, getting bullied and shaken down might actually be less fun than getting ganked. Much of the reason people quit after ganking, particularly repeated ganking, is the feeling of powerlessness.
And after you've been shaken down a couple times in a row and admitted you can't do anything about it, why bother logging back in?
Bending people to your will by making them admit their own powerlessness might be "content," but I can't see how it fits into the vision of a game with limited PvP.
Basically, suggestions that destroy game content aren't useful.
That's a good catch phrase but, like most catch phrases, misses the point. Content can and does have negative consequences on the game, far beyond the value it adds.
I'm probably going to end up being a harvester in game, the sort of person you want to be robbing. I could advocate for a system that let me get rare resources in safe areas. That's content and I'd play the hell out of it, but I'd enjoy the game less because there's no risk and you'd enjoy the game less because you couldn't steal my stuff.
Similarly, you're asking for the Goblinworks-sanctioned ability to rob or attack me without consequences. The content there is me. I'd enjoy the game less because their idea of limited PvP was a complicated sham and I don't need games to experience the feeling of powerlessness. And you'd enjoy the game less because you couldn't steal my stuff.
The actual way for you to maximize PvP content is to do exactly what Goblinworks is doing: discourage non-consensual PvP and encourage people consenting. It's better for your non-consensual PvP to come at a cost than to not have victims.
Cheers!
Landon
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Landon Winkler,
If you were a harvester, you would be in the open PVP zones, unless you forgo harvesting rare resources. By your entering that zone, you are consenting to PVP.
Now you have your resources, and you are using the Traveler flag, so that you travel faster and carry more. You are now a target for a bandit gang, with a hideout in the hex, as you pass by. You have consented to PVP with your traveler flag. But even without the flag, by your own words, you consent or at least desire there to be some risk for you to get your resources to the market.
The Devs have said, Bandits are the game mechanic to attach risk vs. reward for a healthy player-driven economy. The fact that you don't consent to it, per say, is irrelevant. Your action of harvesting is an open invitation to incur risk.
Likewise, when bandits enable their "Outlaw" flag, we are taking on the risk of PVP. When we travel to the same PVP zone, you do to harvest, we incur the same risk of being attacked as you do.
We really are the same! You are harvesting the PVE content, and we are looking to harvest you. There are risk and rewards attached to both.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
Goblinworks has put a lot of time and effort into gently encouraging people to open themselves to PvP precisely because they don't want a lot of non-consensual PvP going on. I don't know why they'd go through all that effort, then let thieves run rampant.On a deeper level, getting bullied and shaken down might actually be less fun than getting ganked. Much of the reason people quit after ganking, particularly repeated ganking, is the feeling of powerlessness.
...
That 'feeling of powerlessness', and I do know exactly how that feels, should be heavily ameliorated by the very shallow powercurve coupled with the abiity to hire other players to guard your interests.
This isn't a case of six level 80 thugs beating up on a level 10 victim, it is a fight between characters fairly equal in power.
Now, granted, if you elect to be a pacifist that is your privilege, but it is also your responsibility.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Title of that Blog is too freak'n obvious: "War!.. What is it Good For?"
That is a v good choice, but you may have changed the future by suggesting it?! ;)
Concerning the bandits, they could suggest a low offer if they feel the risk of repeated attacks on a trade route would stir up a hornet's nest; it's a nice dilemma for both sides. Conversely, a higher premium rate for a bandit group that has the most influence in an area and does not tolerate rival bandit groups working 'their turf'. And agree, being an agent of war ie taking bandit business towards a target "for the right price" sounds very profitable indeed. That is when SAD will likely be exhorbitant (we'll let you go, just keep it quiet for the right price) or only "for show"?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you were a harvester, you would be in the open PVP zones, unless you forgo harvesting rare resources. By your entering that zone, you are consenting to PVP.
Maybe I could have been clearer somehow. Obviously, I expect to be open to PvP when I leave town. That's not a problem. It's actually a feature, as far as I'm concerned.
But unless I flag Traveler or trespass and get flagged Criminal or whatever, the game discourages attacking me. It doesn't prevent me from being attacked in those areas, but it tries to keep PvP down to a low roar.
To put it another way, if I was consenting just by being outside town, why have all these flags? We wouldn't need Stand and Deliver, because I'd already consented.
Because even with the implicit consent you give by leaving town, Goblinworks feels (and I agree) that the game wouldn't be fun as a no-holds-barred free-for-all after that implicit consent. So there's a second level of explicit consent, which is to say flagging, where the floodgates open.
We really are the same! You are harvesting the PVE content, and we are looking to harvest you. There are risk and rewards attached to both.
Yeah, absolutely. And I'm glad you'll be out there, I just think people are overreaching.
I fully expect to be dragged into PvP while I'm not flagged, sometimes by people with the Outlaw flag set. But the Outlaw flag is obviously not intended to declare open season on unflagged people.
Now, if I've flagged myself Traveler, that's a completely different story. Shake me down or just freaking attack me and get it over with. I'm literally asking for it.
But if I'm not flagged and you want to force me into PvP, the game has certain discouragements in place. People are asking those be waved if they offer to downgrade the type of PvP to robbing.
At best that's still non-consensual PvP and needs to be handled by the system as such. A reduction in reputation loss wouldn't be out of line, but a reputation gain on one side and no reputation loss on the other is way too much for what's being offered.
It's not that I object to Stand and Deliver anymore than I object to other forms of non-consensual PvP. It's a fine mechanic to represent Outlawry, but its proponents are asking to get something completely out of line with what they're paying for. That I object to.
That 'feeling of powerlessness', and I do know exactly how that feels, should be heavily ameliorated by the very shallow powercurve coupled with the abiity to hire other players to guard your interests.
I hope so. Goblinworks seems very cognizant of the issue, between the skill design and all their measures to discourage non-consensual PvP.
On the other hand, shallow powercurves always have to be weighed against character progression. Goblinworks has a good plan, but that's the sort of thing that can get broken wide open with any new content. I'd rather not bet the farm on it.
Now, granted, if you elect to be a pacifist that is your privilege, but it is also your responsibility.
Heh, yeah, not my plan.
Cheers!
Landon
The reason I think the reputation loss is an interesting idea is because I think it would really motivate bandits to go after others in their territory, and that's what they should be doing.
I also see appeal in just scrapping the Fleeced flag (or making it strictly for show, so other bandits know they've got competition) but I think the reputation loss idea has a lot of merit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, one of us is deeply misunderstanding what Goblinworks wants to do with this system.
Goblinworks has put a lot of time and effort into gently encouraging people to open themselves to PvP precisely because they don't want a lot of non-consensual PvP going on. I don't know why they'd go through all that effort, then let thieves run rampant.
On a deeper level, getting bullied and shaken down might actually be less fun than getting ganked. Much of the reason people quit after ganking, particularly repeated ganking, is the feeling of powerlessness.
And after you've been shaken down a couple times in a row and admitted you can't do anything about it, why bother logging back in?
Bending people to your will by making them admit their own powerlessness might be "content," but I can't see how it fits into the vision of a game with limited PvP.
Yes, you deeply misunderstand the intent of the game design :)
Non-consensual PvP outside of the safe starter areas is an important part of the game, something GW has made very clear like 8 billion times. The goal isn't to prevent non-consensual PvP--it's to make PvP meaningful. So:
Scenario A: You find a really rare resource, and chortlingly try and get back to your settlement, only to be jumped by PC Bluudwolf and his gang. They have decided that they'll risk the repercussions for the profit, and cut you down and take your super-rare resource. This non-consensual PvP is very good, is part of the current design philosophy, and is essential game content.
Scenario B: You leave safe areas and explore the wild, when PC UMadBro and his gang cut you down for no other reason than it's funny. And when you go back for your corpse, they come out of hiding and do it again. And one more time, before you ragequit. This griefing is very bad, GW is putting in mechanics to make that a non-tenable playstyle, and adds no content to the game.
Non-consensual PvP=Good and by design
Griefing=Bad and designed against
Maybe that bums you out. Maybe you can't see how this design philosophy would be fun or makes sense. If that's the case, you're not thinking through where scenario A takes you.
- Maybe Bluudwolf and his gang of hoods are highly reputable, and the best solution is to negotiate a flat flee in an extortion racket. You've solved a social problem, and can get back to business.
- But maybe you're like "F--- this" and decide you need to talk to Peace Through Vigilance and Pax Aeternum, and work with people like me to bring people like Bluudwolf to justice
- And maybe that means our Company and Pax increase patrolling activities in that hex, which pisses off a LE settlement in the adjoining hex
- And maybe that leads to a confrontation where a large force of Asmodeus-worpshipping bastards decides to take the first swing and winds up killing half my squad
- And maybe that leads to an immediate declaration of war, and the River Alliance fulfills their obligation and sends armies to war against the Dark Forged
- And maybe when we ask the Empyrean Order to help tilt the scales in favor of the forces of good, Andius buffs his fingernails on his coat is all like "Yeaaaaaa, well, we'd love to help. Really. Too bad you didn't sign our treaty. Hands are tied--sorry..."
- And so on
That's the point of this game in large part.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But unless I flag Traveler or trespass and get flagged Criminal or whatever, the game discourages attacking me. It doesn't prevent me from being attacked in those areas, but it tries to keep PvP down to a low roar.
Thanks--that's exactly what you're missing. The system is NOT meant to make PvP infrequent. It's for PvP to make sense.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think one point that is being overlooked is the "Wardens" that can be called for to assist if you find yourself overwhelmed in a settled or semi settled hex. This is yet another layer of protection meant to drive bandits further out to the fringes.
Does this mean that y band won't test out those wardens, just for sh*ts and jiggles? No way!! We want to have our fun too!
Ultimately what I would like PFO to feel like, is exactly what EvE feels like.... When you leave the safety of you settlement "You are Not Safe". Once my bandits have you at that point, we can offer you contracts to protect you when you venture out. Who better to protect you from bandits, than bandits?
The UnNamd Company wants to make money at both ends of the transaction spectrum.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Mbando
This right here is awesome:
Maybe that bums you out. Maybe you can't see how this design philosophy would be fun or makes sense. If that's the case, you're not thinking through where scenario A takes you.
•Maybe Bluudwolf and his gang of hoods are highly reputable, and the best solution is to negotiate a flat flee in an extortion racket. You've solved a social problem, and can get back to business.
•But maybe you're like "F--- this" and decide you need to talk to Peace Through Vigilance and Pax Aeternum, and work with people like me to bring people like Bluudwolf to justice
•And maybe that means our Company and Pax increase patrolling activities in that hex, which pisses off a LE settlement in the adjoining hex
•And maybe that leads to a confrontation where a large force of Asmodeus-worpshipping bastards decides to take the first swing and winds up killing half my squad
•And maybe that leads to an immediate declaration of war, and the River Alliance fulfills their obligation and sends armies to war against the Dark Forged
•And maybe when we ask the Empyrean Order to help tilt the scales in favor of the forces of good, Andius buffs his fingernails on his coat is all like "Yeaaaaaa, well, we'd love to help. Really. Too bad you didn't sign our treaty. Hands are tied--sorry..."
•And so on
That's the point of this game in large part.
I like you, I dont care what alignment you are. Remind me to have a sit down, and buy you some ale once we get in game. That scenario is exactly the sort of thing I think about, and it sounds fun as hell.
Oh, and then the druids get angry because the war/resource gathering is doing a lot of damage, so they start taking swipes at both sides. When their targets retaliate, the druids' merchant friends (since druids will probably have to have those to moderate logging and the like) decide to stop supporting those involved in the war. The merchants who're friendly to the warring factions then start lashing out by trying to drive the druids' friends out of business.
Sorry, this probably doesn't say much that Mbando didn't already say. I got a bit carried away. I'm still not sure I fully agree with him, but he's right, non-consensual PVP is a risk of resource gathering.
That being said, the point of Stand and Deliver is to cut back on non-consensual PVP. So that's worth keeping in mind.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Greedalox: Be happy to take you up on that ale. I think what's tripping up a lot of folks is that they don't see the connection between small-scale interactions and larger social emergence. It is precisely from thousands of contested, temporal interactions that whatever culture and social structure PFO will emerge. So ya, there will be thrill of victory sometimes, and the agony of defeat other times (along with tons of other kinds of interactions) that will go in directions no one could predict. And as Miley Cyrus reminds us, "that's pretty cool!"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That being said, the point of Stand and Deliver is to cut back on non-consensual PVP. So that's worth keeping in mind.
No, it is meant to maintain market stability and to give bandits a means to get a benefit for not killing everyone they cross paths with. SAD is optional and the option is squarely the bandit's to initiate.
Chaotic Evil Bandits gain nothing they want from the SAD system. I hope there are CE bandits out there. They will be good for my business, so long as they stay out of our territory. But then again, I would welcome them into the ranks of the UnNamed as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That being said, the point of Stand and Deliver is to cut back on non-consensual PVP. So that's worth keeping in mind.
No, you've got that backwards--it's meant to increase non-consensual PvP, by increasing the incentives for non-consensual PvP. Go back and read the blog--the Outlaw Flag increases monetary rewards for non-consensual PvP, and the SAD mechanism further incentivizes non-consensual PvP. If they pay up, the robber gets reputation, if they don't pay up, the robber gets to kill and max loot without rep loss. GW is adding incentives for non-consensual PvP because it's something they expressly want to encourage ("Players to attack each other over resources, money, territory, etc.").
SAD encourages non-consensual PvP, and does so by adding more options and complexity to non-consensual PvP for Outlaws.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The reason I think the reputation loss is an interesting idea is because I think it would really motivate bandits to go after others in their territory, and that's what they should be doing.
Yeah, it's kind of funny being accused of trying to destroy PvP when I want to open up the conflict to more parties. Encouraging outlaws to claim territory (outside of the settlement system) can be done in a number of ways, but is really something that should be done somehow.
I also see appeal in just scrapping the Fleeced flag (or making it strictly for show, so other bandits know they've got competition) but I think the reputation loss idea has a lot of merit.
Yeah, I'm not a big fan of Fleeced. But, if the alternative is letting people get stand and delivered over and over, I'll take it.
Thanks--that's exactly what you're missing. The system is NOT meant to make PvP infrequent. It's for PvP to make sense.
I absolutely agree that it's a goal to create a structured PvP environment.
But why do they want structured PvP? It's not so it's internally consistent. It's nice if it makes sense, but it's structured to drive certain player behaviors.
That's probably not news to you. I mean, they say it at the top of the blog, so I don't feel I'm showering you with ancient wisdom or anything. But they're trying to discourage behaviors that make PvP victims hate the game.
Near the top of that list is getting ganked over and over while they're trying to do something else. If people didn't hate that and Goblinworks weren't trying to discourage it, we wouldn't have all these flags and timers and reputation hits. If you were expected to be unprotected in the wilderness, no one would lose Reputation outside of town and flags like Traveler wouldn't exist to reward dropping your protection.
So the point of the robbery system is to create a framework victims can enjoy more than getting ganked. Then the game rewards outlaws for using Stand and Deliver rather than just attacking, making PvP more enjoyable overall.
Which means if someone's suggestion for Stand and Deliver is as bad as getting ganked or allows people to be gank with impunity, that's completely relevant. The system can make all the sense in the world, but still fail at it's primary goal of encouraging positive behavior.
Cheers!
Landon
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Which means if someone's suggestion for Stand and Deliver is as bad as getting ganked or allows people to be gank with impunity, that's completely relevant. The system can make all the sense in the world, but still fail at it's primary goal of encouraging positive behavior.
Just wondering, what positive behavior are you referring to?
According to the Developers, positive behavior is banditry. The only behavior that the Devs have identified as not being positive is griefing.
When it comes to banditry, the primary goal of positive behavior is for it to take place. Banditry is an integral part of the player economy, it is clearly stated as such in the Dev Blog.
There seems to be a trend, and I'm not necessarily saying you are a part of it, of trying to move PFO into a morally good vs. evil game world, where good has all of the advantages and through mechanics and pressure the evil will change their ways or leave.
This hyper vigilance against RPking, Non Consensual PvP and Theft are all making it sound like some want to be "safe" at all times and only to be at risk when they choose to. Then some of these same voices, or at least one main voice, wants to be able to attack those that he feels have committed acts that were morally wrong, even if not flagged at that moment, without any major consequences. This is clearly a double standard, do as I say not as I do.
So I come back to the question of, what positive behavior is not being encouraged?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hiring outlaws to protect should give a merchant a substantial reputation hit.
Look what happened to the Stones rep. after Altamont.
Well the "outlaw" flag is not permanent and you are assuming that bandits are only involved with banditry. We actually intend on being involved in all aspects of this game.
Secondly, The Rolling Stones have done just fine after hiring the Hells Angels to protect their concert. Unless several hundred million dollars in sales doesn't count?