Goblin Squad Member
|
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?
Well city mayors who on the mafia payroll do well financially as well. But they don't always have a good "rep" :D
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well city mayors who on the mafia payroll do well financially as well. But they don't always have a good "rep" :D
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?
That is another aspect of PFO I'm hoping the UnNamed Company will explore. I'm sure we will find many settlements willing to use our services, discreetly of course.
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.
Actually that's not quite accurate. Unless by "griefing" you mean "making people not enjoy the game."
The quotes I'd pull out is "that produce an overall negative amount of fun for the game" and "very very few people like being the sheep without rest or respite," but I don't like quoting things out of context, so they're here:
--------
Behaviors we don't want:
* PvP conflicts where the death of the target means no gain for the attacker, i.e. randomly killing people for no reason.
* Abuse of new players.
* Players cooperating to game reputation and alignment systems to their advantage.
* Players willfully committing crimes or evil acts under the shield of reputation or alignment penalties so onerous no one would try and stop them.
There are other behaviors aside from these, but this hopefully gets you the idea.
So I come back to the question of, what positive behavior is not being encouraged?
I think there are two arguments here and I'm probably not doing a very good job of separating them in my giant walls of text.
One argument is that the Stand and Deliver system as a whole should be examined to see if it's actually worth encouraging, by the standards above.
In my opinion, there's a very real chance that people will hate S&D more than getting ganked. If so, it's probably not worth including as an official feature, much less encouraging.
Which doesn't mean "No banditry!" It might be that they can freely PvP within a certain range of their hideout. Or it might mean making inventory too small for harvesting purposes without the Traveler flag, providing bandits with plentiful targets. Or it could be any one of a hundred other things.
But, regardless of how important banditry is, we have to consider whether Stand and Deliver is actually positive.
The other argument is that a lot of suggestions in this thread don't discourage ganking or griefing, they just roll it in with banditry.
The easy example is any S&D system that allows Outlaws to request arbitrary amounts of gold. Some Outlaws would actually use it for banditry, while gankers would just have to ask an absurd fee to get carte blanche to gank.
Likewise, any system that doesn't discourage repeated S&Ds is a grief magnet. That has to be dealt with carefully because the victim's location is already known.
If all that's changed is removing Fleeced, there is every reason for bandits to work together S&Ding a mark until they finally give in (or can't pay) and are killed. And the more times they can S&D the mark, stringing them along, the better their collective payoff is, in Reputation and coin. That not only allows harassment, it makes it optimal.
Now, there are ways to deal with all of that, but it requires a bit of give and take. The system with Fleeced rewards harvesters (hi!) for making bandits' lives miserable by tossing a couple gold to FleeceBot. That sucks. But the solution is not to reward Outlaws for making harvesters' lives miserable by coordinating to S&D them over and over.
Cheers!
Landon
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
* PvP conflicts where the death of the target means no gain for the attacker, i.e. randomly killing people for no reason.
* Abuse of new players.
* Players cooperating to game reputation and alignment systems to their advantage.
* Players willfully committing crimes or evil acts under the shield of reputation or alignment penalties so onerous no one would try and stop them.There are other behaviors aside from these, but this hopefully gets you the idea.
None of these apply to banditry, unless it is repeatedly used against the same person, by the same person, which the devs have already described the punishment for that.
The "Conga Line" issue you bring up has been dealt with. Bandits will get a double rep hit for attacking a merchant after the merchant has already given into a SAD. The way the bandits will know that the merchant has given into a SAD is that the merchant would have the "fleeced flag".
My question in this tread is addressing the potential exploit of merchants using their own alts, to generate a "Fleeced Flag", without actually being fleeced. There is still no answer to that issue.
It has already been explained what tools the merchant will have to protect himself from bandits.
They already have safe zones.
They already have settled zones with laws.
They already have Traveler Flag (fast travel and extra loot capacity)
They already have the ability to hire guards and or PCs to protect
They already have "wardens" that can be summoned
Against all of this the Bandit has: Extra Rep Boost if we decide to give up surprise and take less loot than we would get for killing them all, and flag ourselves for open pvp by any passer by.
Wow!! You really are at a huge disadvantage... I wouldn't even try to harvest and bring to market resources with a deck stacked against me like that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
None of these apply to banditry, unless it is repeatedly used against the same person, by the same person, which the devs have already described the punishment for that.
**in situations where the bandit is actively seeking out the target and ignoring others without a contract behind their actions.**
If someone is stupid enough to keep going into the same territory and getting killed by the same person, the bandit is not at fault.
And I'm guessing the above situation will be the trigger for 95% of the 'griefing' reports.
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.
SAD offers an alternative to PVP, so no, it doesn't encourage PVP. Nor is it designed to sabotage it. It just gives bandits the option of a nonviolent approach, should they wish for it.
Also, I want to make it clear that I am not opposed to non-consensual PVP. If a merchant wants to enter a dangerzone to get high profits, they've effectively already "consented". I'm just saying that the SAD mechanic is very clearly designed as an option to avoid PvP, and I don't see how one can argue otherwise.
Of course non-consensual PVP is part of the game, and it should be. But it's not the only way.
Ah, sorry. I'll admit, my sole real MMO experience comes from a certain free-to-play game that nobody takes seriously, so I'm not very hip on the latest lingo. I take "PvP" to mean "players fighting players" not "players arguing with/threatening players".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
* PvP conflicts where the death of the target means no gain for the attacker, i.e. randomly killing people for no reason.None of these apply to banditry, unless it is repeatedly used against the same person, by the same person, which the devs have already described the punishment for that.
It's not a problem in actual banditry. If the tools you're using to encourage banditry also reward "randomly killing people for no reason," then you have a problem.
The "Conga Line" issue you bring up has been dealt with. Bandits will get a double rep hit for attacking a merchant after the merchant has already given into a SAD. The way the bandits will know that the merchant has given into a SAD is that the merchant would have the "fleeced flag".
My question in this tread is addressing the potential exploit of merchants using their own alts, to generate a "Fleeced Flag", without actually being fleeced. There is still no answer to that issue.
I'm sorry if it wasn't clear I was talking about the Conga Line in regards to other people who want Fleeced removed. If you want to keep Fleeced, that's obviously not a problem.
I also did read your first post and understood the problem you're pointing out. That's actually why I suggested penalizing the people who S&D'd someone first than the person who did so last, because the Fleecer in town would be the one taking the hit and the actual bandits would be in the clear.
Even if you hate the idea, it's not me trying to undercut your bandit mojo. I'm just seeing if we can find a better fix than the Fleeced tag.
Wow!! You really are at a huge disadvantage... I wouldn't even try to harvest and bring to market resources with a deck stacked against me like that.
Yeah, I know, it's hard being me :P
In-game, I'll obviously be struggling to avoid bandits as much as possible. It doesn't mean I want that to be made easy. I just don't want the experience when I do get caught to be miserable. I don't think that's much to ask.
In all seriousness, I think a system where Outlaws gain (instead of lose) reputation for killing people near their hideouts would be more fun for me, the non-Outlaw, than Stand and Deliver. That would make life way harder, but certainly more interesting.
Which is to say: I really don't think Stand and Deliver is too hard. I'm just not seeing how it'd actually be fun yet.
Anyway, we seem to be talking past each other, but I hope you get an answer to your question about Fleeced. You did raise a good concern
Cheers!
Landon
PvP is player versus player.
It's anytime two or more players or contesting against each other, really. Outright combat is simply the most common form.
Yeah, I guess. The community I'm from regards it differently, but they aren't the most knowledgeable. :P
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
* PvP conflicts where the death of the target means no gain for the attacker, i.e. randomly killing people for no reason.
* Abuse of new players.
* Players cooperating to game reputation and alignment systems to their advantage.
* Players willfully committing crimes or evil acts under the shield of reputation or alignment penalties so onerous no one would try and stop them.There are other behaviors aside from these, but this hopefully gets you the idea.
None of these apply to banditry, unless it is repeatedly used against the same person, by the same person, which the devs have already described the punishment for that.
The "Conga Line" issue you bring up has been dealt with. Bandits will get a double rep hit for attacking a merchant after the merchant has already given into a SAD. The way the bandits will know that the merchant has given into a SAD is that the merchant would have the "fleeced flag".
My question in this tread is addressing the potential exploit of merchants using their own alts, to generate a "Fleeced Flag", without actually being fleeced. There is still no answer to that issue.
It has already been explained what tools the merchant will have to protect himself from bandits.
They already have safe zones.
They already have settled zones with laws.
They already have Traveler Flag (fast travel and extra loot capacity)
They already have the ability to hire guards and or PCs to protect
They already have "wardens" that can be summonedAgainst all of this the Bandit has: Extra Rep Boost if we decide to give up surprise and take less loot than we would get for killing them all, and flag ourselves for open pvp by any passer by.
Wow!! You really are at a huge disadvantage... I wouldn't even try to harvest and bring to market resources with a deck stacked against me like that.
Simply allowing Outlaws to attack other Outlaws without consequence should handle that. If someone else is horining in on your marks, whether they are real or fake bandits...I would think you would want to take them out to eliminate the competition?
EDIT: Also I would think that anyone flagged as "Outlaw" would automaticaly be considered hostile to the town guard, unless the town effectively had no laws....which should solve the SAD in town/safe area issue..
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Grumpy Mel,
I'm not concerned with bandits beating us to a mark, that is going to happen. This thread is about merchants exploiting to SAD system by attaching. Fleeced Flag to their own caravans, through the use of an alt.
I have given some solutions to this potential, and I'm sure there will be others. Once we have s better idea of how the system will actually work in the game, we will know.
What would be helpful to know is how many bandit hideouts can occupy one hex at a time?
Of the answer to that is just one, then that does solve at least one part of the problem.
Then it would be a good idea that only a SAD can be offered by the owner of a hideout in that hex.
Finally, the construction of a hideout could be tied to an advanced banditry skill. This way only the most dedicated bandits could actually construct a hideout and offer a SAD.
All other, beginner bandits will have to resort to other means of banditry, until they have trained the prerequisite skills.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Grumpy Mel,
I'm not concerned with bandits beating us to a mark, that is going to happen. This thread is about merchants exploiting to SAD system by attaching. Fleeced Flag to their own caravans, through the use of an alt.
I have given some solutions to this potential, and I'm sure there will be others. Once we have s better idea of how the system will actually work in the game, we will know.
What would be helpful to know is how many bandit hideouts can occupy one hex at a time?
Of the answer to that is just one, then that does solve at least one part of the problem.
Then it would be a good idea that only a SAD can be offered by the owner of a hideout in that hex.
Finally, the construction of a hideout could be tied to an advanced banditry skill. This way only the most dedicated bandits could actually construct a hideout and offer a SAD.
All other, beginner bandits will have to resort to other means of banditry, until they have trained the prerequisite skills.
Couldn't you attack and knock out said alts in the same manner that you would legitimate competition? What would be the stumbling block there?
If it's logout timers, then that would be an exploit accross a very broad range of PvE and PvP activities that I assume would/should be tuned appropriately to prevent said exploits. Is there some other exploit that would be specific to this activity through the use of Alts? Perhaps you can map it out for me so that I understand it?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Grumpy Mel
Im a little confused. Im not understanding what you dont understand. Could you clarify your point/question?
@Bluddwolf
I like the idea of attaching things to training. I have a slightly different idea though.
What if we added some other buff to Outlaw (like caravan value assessment, or something useful) This could make the outlaw flag useable by any Chaotic alignment, but still be somewhat useful without SAD.
Then offer the SAD ability to work in conjunction with Outlaw Flag, but have it require a certain level of Banditry (rougue) training. The idea being one would have to be a dedicated Bandit in order to even use the ability. (Though I suppose someone could be dedicated to exploiting the system? lol)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Couldn't you attack and knock out said alts in the same manner that you would legitimate competition? What would be the stumbling block there?
Well by alts it sounds like he's talking about characters that sign on just to fleece Company Z, Company Y has it's own, company J has it's own etc...
So, company Z has it's outlaw alt sign on to fleece them, run through legit criminal's territory, The outlaws doing something about Z's alts, is kind of closing the barn door after the cows have left.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Here is the issue again:
A merchant is about to leave a location where he has loaded up his caravan with resources.
He know that if his caravan has a "Fleeced Flag" that bandits are less likely to attack him because the merchant may have lost all of what he could give, and the bandits would also risk a double Rep loss for attacking him.
So the merchant has an alt toon of someone in his own company, demand a SAD. The amount could be as little as one copper piece, but now the merchant is "Fleeced".
Any other bandit will risk double rep loss and potentially get nothing in return. The problem is the merchant is gaming or exploiting the system by self SADing his own caravan.
Now it would be less of an issue if SAD required some of the skill suggestions made above. Or is there was no "Fleeced Flag" at all. Or if the "Fleeced Flag" only applied to the bandit and his company that accepted the initial SAD.
Other possibilities, if there can only be one hideout per hex, and the fleeced only lasted while the caravan is in that hex or for 15 minutes, which ever happens first.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
From Screaming for Vengeance:
Our immediate development objective is to create the first of what will eventually be hundreds of hexes. A hex is the basic unit of territory in the game design. The team has decided that they wish to sub-divide the original hex into 7 "subhexes"—that's a central hex surrounded by 6 identically sized satellites. After making this change, we're now working on 7 hexes for our initial objective.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
From Screaming for Vengeance:
Our immediate development objective is to create the first of what will eventually be hundreds of hexes. A hex is the basic unit of territory in the game design. The team has decided that they wish to sub-divide the original hex into 7 "subhexes"—that's a central hex surrounded by 6 identically sized satellites. After making this change, we're now working on 7 hexes for our initial objective.
Thanks.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Here is the issue again:
A merchant is about to leave a location where he has loaded up his caravan with resources.
He know that if his caravan has a "Fleeced Flag" that bandits are less likely to attack him because the merchant may have lost all of what he could give, and the bandits would also risk a double Rep loss for attacking him.
So the merchant has an alt toon of someone in his own company, demand a SAD. The amount could be as little as one copper piece, but now the merchant is "Fleeced".
Any other bandit will risk double rep loss and potentially get nothing in return. The problem is the merchant is gaming or exploiting the system by self SADing his own caravan.
Now it would be less of an issue if SAD required some of the skill suggestions made above. Or is there was no "Fleeced Flag" at all. Or if the "Fleeced Flag" only applied to the bandit and his company that accepted the initial SAD.
Other possibilities, if there can only be one hideout per hex, and the fleeced only lasted while the caravan is in that hex or for 15 minutes, which ever happens first.
Yeah I get that. I'm just not sure how that is functionaly different from your bandit group having to deal with any other bandit group (real or fake) from getting to your marks first?
You see another bandit group or a single bandit (alt) operating in your area...you knock them off so they can't get to SAD a merchant before you do.
If the merchants alt bandit is dead...they can't very well offer an SAD to anyone.
Even if the merchant was "fleeced" it doesn't actualy stop you from killing and robbing them....just makes it more expensive rep-wise to do.
If that's not good enough, you could also argueably justify dropping the rep of a merchant each time they ACCEPT an SAD offer. Really most law abiding, upstanding people are not going to be real comfortable dealing with a guy who continualy is having to pay protection money to stay in business. Doesn't tend to inspire alot of confidence.
Being "fleeced" should be a lesser of 2 Evils situation where the merchant balances the costs of paying vs other harm to his business.
Even with a "real" bandit...if they are only asking a small amount of coin...it becomes a "no brainer" for the merchant. It should never be that. Put in a rep cost for the merchant accepting...he'll balance the loss of coin by paying against the loss to his reputation....and it should pretty well disuade the practice of pro-actively doing it...it'll make it hurtfull for him to do on a regular basis.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Even if the merchant was "fleeced" it doesn't actualy stop you from killing and robbing them....just makes it more expensive rep-wise to do.
Rep in PFO will just be another trade-able commodity like gold or ore. I have no idea why you guys are so worried about.
Its simple ... here is how you do it:
"Stand and Deliver 500 gold to go your way. Or you can make that just 200 gold if you also give me 1000 rep for being a decent bandit and dropping the SAD amount" .
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Is that actually confirmed, or pretty much conjecture?
Well Ryan has clearly stated they are trying to avoid people grinding reputation but it has definitely been stated that reputation is controlled by other players and an example given was during trade. Whether the opportunity to effect others reputations arises in SAD or not is mainly conjecture.
I am also concerned SAD may be exploited as a way to avoid the following issue brought up by Ryan:
Ryan Darcy:
Trading directly with CE characters could be considered a chaotic and evil act. So doing a direct character-to-character transfer could rapidly degrade the alignment of your non-CE character.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@bluddwolf
honestly something like this should be banhammer. Such things are clearly exploits, anyone caught doing so should face harsh treatment. By harsh i mean take away 6-12 months worth of training, on all characters on all accounts associated with the people doing it. if they do it again ban them.
Once you put in a good system people will try to break that system for an unfair advantage. No mechanical system is perfect so if people exploit banhammer them and dont look back.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Harad
Yeah I get that. I'm just not sure how that is functionaly different from your bandit group having to deal with any other bandit group (real or fake) from getting to your marks first?
It has noting to do with someone legitimately getting there first. Let me explain it this way.
The double Reputation hit should not apply for a new bandit to attack a "Fleeced Merchant". The reason being, that there is no system that can prevent a merchant placing a "Fleeced Flag" on himself, through the use of an alt.
Bandits should not take a double Rep hit for PvP, when we already have to give up so many advantages just to offer a SAD to begin with. What this exploit of the "fleeced flag" is going to lead to bandits just attacking the "fleeced flagged" merchants because they would assume that the flag is the result of a scam, and that the merchant is actually full with cargo.
The best solution is that the "Fleeced Flag" should only apply to the original bandit. When a new bandit encounters the same merchant, they should also be able to offer a SAD if a certain limit has not been met against the merchant's total cargo.
Does this mean that Merchants can get repeatedly hit from different bandits, along the way to market? Yes, but they can always hire guards as well.
Or, anyone of the other suggestions I made above. I'd prefer the skill based restrictions and prerequisites that both Greedalox and I had made. At least then, a merchant would have to spend some time training an alt to do the false SAD. They would then have to construct their own hideout, which would likely cost more than what they might save from a false SAD.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A rambling thought on the situation
Exploiting cheap SAD for caravan safe travel could be reduced by tying the amount paid to the duration of the “fleeced flag.” For this to work though, the payoff would most likely have to be in goods instead of coin, since moving the goods would be the point of the caravan. In order for coin to be viable, something would have to be lost in the transition - if the bandit is the merchant’s alt it does not matter how much the merchant pays him since the money changes characters, but not players.
As an example, this means that if someone wants to move adamantine ore between settlements and theoretically needing to pay 50% SAD charge to insure a “fleeced flag” for the entire journey, they would need to leave half of it behind with a fake bandit should they desire to game the system. Since the merchant now reached his destination with only half of his original ore I think this would fall under the lower risk, lower reward.
Granted you could keep reusing the same ore to stay behind (if they could insure they could continuously move that same amount of that specific good through one settlement), but eventually you are sitting on a lot of expensive material that has not done you much good for quite some time. It also is not a viable tactic when you are trying to transports it from the original harvesting node since you would not want to leave half of it out in the middle of the wilderness.
This would also present a meaningful choice for the bandits engaged in a normal SAD. Do you ask for a lower percentage and be able to carry the spoils on your person? Or do you demand so much that you need your own cart(s) or caravan to transport it, with all the logistics and risk associated?
This would probably also mean that the effect of a SAD on a caravan would have to be handled mechanically different from one on a character not linked to a caravan - and may require separate flags "robbed" vs "fleeced" or the like. At some point the number of flags gets excessive though.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, a girl makes one little suggestion, leaves for a few days and comes back to see the whole thing has blown up... Sorry, I didn't think "Fleeced" would be so... controversial! It was just a suggestion to combat an issue others had brought up: namely, the dreaded "conga line".
I definitely see where immunity to further SADs would be easily exploited and I support finding an amicable solution... But, honestly, I really like Landon's suggestion...
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.
I don't know about needing to lose rep, though. What if the "Fleeced" flag held a short timer (time to travel at average speed across one hex?) and granted rep over time to the bandit(s) that placed it, slowly at first, then more as the timer runs out? BUT, as the "Fleeced" stacks grow, the amount of total rep granted fades. This way, bandits would be encouraged to either a.) protect their fleeced "clients" ie. racketeering, or b.) make certain there are no other bandits trespassing in their territory and snaking their marks. Of course, they can take the gamble that no one else would pick up their mark, also, but their rep gain wouldn't be as substantial--everyone has something to gain (merchant: protection; bandits: rep/loot) and something to lose (merchant: $/loot; bandits: rep). This also discourages conga lines because eventually the rep bonus is, while still there, just not terribly impressive.
I would consider this another way of encouraging interaction. Bandits can still have their SAD fun and can further that experience by guarding, if they want to, or they can simply protect their territory, thus making guarding their marks a worthless pursuit. Or, they can go play spoons or whatever exactly it is that bandits do when they're not stealing things...
Happy medium? No? If you disagree, I'd like to hear a point-by-point of what concerns everybody so maybe we can address each piece to come to a solution. I think I tried to hit on everything that I have read in the thread, so far, but I may have missed things!
What I foresee happening is people paying for the rep while in town and basically just buying rep without actually using SAD/Fleeced for its intended purpose. Maybe the stacks fall off automatically in "civilized" lands, thus no use in towns?
What do you think? I think Fleeced could have its place as a useful mechanic, but I think it's a matter of finding exactly where that place is.
Well if bandits can SAD for more money then the merchant possesses, then (to me) the Fleeced flag is mandatory. It would at least give the merchant some sort of chance to travel some distance before getting SAD'd again.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I dont think that coin should be able to be the target of a SAD. What dumb arse merchant (SADee???) carries their life savings around so someone can screw them over? If a bandit (SADer??) succeeds in a SAD then they can take goods to the value of the SAD. If they can't carry it.... tough luck.
"Sure you can take 10% of the 100 metric tons of stone I'm transporting, good luck avoiding the law on the way back to your hideout."
If a merchant wants to carry a 'Strongbox' or some other container in which they can carry coin to pay SADs or any other reason then they could move coin into or out of the container anytime they had access to a 'bank'/'stash' with coin in it.
If the 'Strongbox' idea is too complicated then just give the merchant (SADee???) the option to pay a SAD out of an bank account to which they have access but make it unlootable in general. It would be harder in this instance to plead poverty though.
Perhaps the level of a SAD could have a coin value cap on it. This would mean that SADers could SAD (interact) more often and be satisfied with the result while SADees could be SADed more often without devistating results.
I dont think that money should be able to be the target of a SAD. What dumb arse merchant (SADee???) carries their life savings around so someone can screw them over? If a bandit (SADer??) succeeds in a SAD then they can take goods to the value of the SAD. If they can't carry it.... tough luck.
"Sure you can take 10% of the 100 metric tons of stone I'm transporting, good luck avoiding the law on the way back to your hideout."
If a merchant wants to carry a 'Strongbox' or some other container in which they can carry coin to pay SADs or any other reason then they could move coin into or out of the 'Strongbox' anytime they had access to a 'bank'/'stash' with coin in it.
If the strongbox idea is too complicated then just give the merchant (SADee???) the option to pay a SAD out of an bank account to which they have access but make it unlootable in general. It would be harder in this instance to plead poverty though.
The screwed up part is in PFO they are going to make all your coin available at all times, even if your not carrying it all. :/. I would love to say this is just rumor and we don't know, But I believe it's been mentioned. I really disagree, but my 1 vote doesn't change much.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
[ The screwed up part is in PFO they are going to make all your coin available at all times, even if your not carrying it all. :/. I would love to say this is just rumor and we don't know, But I believe it's been mentioned. I really disagree, but my 1 vote doesn't change much.
It would be easy enough to make an exception I'm sure. I don't think coin is lootable, if it is there should be a cap to the lootable amount, much the same as my proposed cap to the SAD amount.
It's not fun losing everything you own. It's OK to take a couple of hits once and a while. Perhaps those limits could be tied to your total skill level, or maximum merit badge attainment or something.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If coin is unlootable elsewhere in the game, why would a merchant ever accept a SAD when it can so clearly do more financial damage than just dying? The sensible answer would seem to be to give the bandits access to the goods only. Either that or a smart merchant will mail his coin to an alt before the trip so the goods are the only thing they can take anyway.
I'm in favour of this, it means another layer of logistics and decision making for the bandits as to whether a caravan is worth attacking/SADing and perhaps encourages the establishment of spy networks in towns to find out which the juicy targets are and which are just not worth the time. It also means that that fence the bandits use to push their stolen goods becomes more important to them than if they were just getting cash (I'll give 30% of its value and not a copper more), so more interaction all round there. For the merchant it means not being in the unfair position of losing coin just because of complying with a SAD when you can't lose it in any other way (if that's true) and also means the more risk averse among them will carry low value high weight cargo in the hope of being ignored.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Harad
Yeah I get that. I'm just not sure how that is functionaly different from your bandit group having to deal with any other bandit group (real or fake) from getting to your marks first?It has noting to do with someone legitimately getting there first. Let me explain it this way.
The double Reputation hit should not apply for a new bandit to attack a "Fleeced Merchant". The reason being, that there is no system that can prevent a merchant placing a "Fleeced Flag" on himself, through the use of an alt.
Bandits should not take a double Rep hit for PvP, when we already have to give up so many advantages just to offer a SAD to begin with. What this exploit of the "fleeced flag" is going to lead to bandits just attacking the "fleeced flagged" merchants because they would assume that the flag is the result of a scam, and that the merchant is actually full with cargo.
The best solution is that the "Fleeced Flag" should only apply to the original bandit. When a new bandit encounters the same merchant, they should also be able to offer a SAD if a certain limit has not been met against the merchant's total cargo.
Does this mean that Merchants can get repeatedly hit from different bandits, along the way to market? Yes, but they can always hire guards as well.
Or, anyone of the other suggestions I made above. I'd prefer the skill based restrictions and prerequisites that both Greedalox and I had made. At least then, a merchant would have to spend some time training an alt to do the false SAD. They would then have to construct their own hideout, which would likely cost more than what they might save from a false SAD.
That kinda leads to an exploit the other way where the origional bandit SAD's the merchant and then has thier buddy or ALT SAD again and get away with killing them and robbing them for no hit.
At the very least the origional bandit should take a rep hit if a merchant they "fleeced" was murdered/SAD'ed while still in thier TERRITORY... the SAD to me implies an offer of "safe passage" through certain territory....or at the very least, that should be one of the enforceable options in the negotiation. Otherwise it's just a tool for reputation free murder for Outlaws.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't see anything about safe passage inherent in 'Stand and Deliver'. To me it seems that once the traveller pays up the bandits should just vanish without further ado. If the traveller gets hit the very next subhex that is part of the risk they would have to take in order to make a good profit when they arrive at their destination. The only counter to teh SAD mechanism should be armed guards whose pay is a percentage of the net profit when the merchant makes delivery. It is in their interest to get the merchant there intact.
If the non-Outlaw flagged bandits gain 10% of the merchant's transported value with a SAD, and Outlaw flagged bandit should get 15%.
So a merchant with his guards is hit with a SAD ambush and the merchant's transported value is 10,000 coins. The guards want their full 10% share on delivery, or 1000 coins between them leaving 9000 for the merchant.
At the first SAD they decide to fight. They win but they are wounded. The merchant helps them by selling them (at a discount hopefully) healing potions from his stock. Nevertheless the number of guards is down by two if they move on. They have to make a decision whether to wait for the other two guards to return from the temple and loot their husks or move on.
Maybe there should be a way for them to load the husks onto the wagon.
They load the husks and the two returning from rez are able to move faster unlimbered and might catch up.
Before they can rejoin anothr Outlaw flagged-bandits make anothe SAD. The reduced number of guards means the Outlaws have a big advantage and the merchant and guards agree to the Outlaws' terms, losing 15% of their profits.
Total value now is down to 7500 coins, still a hefty sum.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't see anything about safe passage inherent in 'Stand and Deliver'. To me it seems that once the traveller pays up the bandits should just vanish without further ado. If the traveller gets hit the very next subhex that is part of the risk they would have to take in order to make a good profit when they arrive at their destination. The only counter to teh SAD mechanism should be armed guards whose pay is a percentage of the net profit when the merchant makes delivery. It is in their interest to get the merchant there intact.
If the non-Outlaw flagged bandits gain 10% of the merchant's transported value with a SAD, and Outlaw flagged bandit should get 15%.
So a merchant with his guards is hit with a SAD ambush and the merchant's transported value is 10,000 coins. The guards want their full 10% share on delivery, or 1000 coins between them leaving 9000 for the merchant.
At the first SAD they decide to fight. They win but they are wounded. The merchant helps them by selling them (at a discount hopefully) healing potions from his stock. Nevertheless the number of guards is down by two if they move on. They have to make a decision whether to wait for the other two guards to return from the temple and loot their husks or move on.
Maybe there should be a way for them to load the husks onto the wagon.
They load the husks and the two returning from rez are able to move faster unlimbered and might catch up.
Before they can rejoin anothr Outlaw flagged-bandits make anothe SAD. The reduced number of guards means the Outlaws have a big advantage and the merchant and guards agree to the Outlaws' terms, losing 15% of their profits.
Total value now is down to 7500 coins, still a hefty sum.
Next subhex might be fine. How about litteraly 5ft from the first SAD, is that fine too or is it exploitive? Even if that's not exploitive, then it probably means that it's a mechanic that GW is going to pour resorces into building that never gets used.
Note that the 5ft thing could already be done with no SAD mechanic designed into the game. The bandit demands money or thier life from the merchant...the merchant can refuse or accept then trust the bandit to keep thier word or not.
The SAD represents a way to play a somewhat "honorable" bandit/outlaw and reinforces those with reputation based rewards/penalties.
Bandits/Brigands who can exact a certain toll but at least are able to insure that a caravan make it through thier territory unmolested might not be regarded as the most lawfull or kind hearted individual but at least would gain a reputation as someone that could be dealt with in a somewhat reasonable manner and provided some sort of service in exchange for thier extortion.
Two questions...
- Why would a bandit/brigand who robbed a caravan and provided no service in exchange but took no lives be deserving of any better reptutation then a pick-pocket, burglar or any other common Criminal?
- Why wouldn't a bandit who couldn't effectively exert control over a piece of territory gain a reputation of at the very least weak if not outright duplicitous by the populous/merchants, if merchants were routienely murdered 5 steps away after robbing them by some "other" group of bandits?
What's the purpose of providing an actual mechanic rather then simply let players work it out on the "honor" system themselves if not to provide some repurcussion for the merchant getting slaughtered by someone associated with the bandit, right after he paid the bandit for not getting slaughtered. If there isn't a "fleeced" flag...then all the bandits have to do is be ungrouped...or have an accomplice waiting 5ft away so that they can extort money from the merchant and then rob and loot him anyway. That's as much an exploit as the merchant having a freindly bandit "fleece" him so he can gain the flag and then pass along free of SAD attempts.
So allow bandits to offer SAD on someone who is "fleeced" but create repurcusions for the bandit who put the origional flag on the individual if it happens. Mechanicaly that (I believe) solves both exploits.
Allowing an SAD on a "fleeced" character nullifies the effect of the merchant "alt" proactively placing fleeced on them as a means of immunity...since it no longer provides immunity. However that would open up the exploit of 2 or 3 bandits working together being able to place consecutive SAD's on a merchant that already paid and getting a consequence free way of extorting that merchant and THEN killing him. We can't place the Rep hit on the 2nd or 3rd bandit, as that just opens up the Merchant Alt exploit again....so we place the rep hit on the origional bandit....it eliminates the merchant Alt exploit...and it eliminates the exploit where Bob and Jim are really working together and Bob SAD's the merchant and gets him to pay...and then Jim SAD's the merchant again 5 steps away and gets to kill and loot him without any rep hit by circumventing the mechanics that are supposed to assure that bandits who reneg on thier deals suffer penalties.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Grumpymel so you would rather the sandbox had more regulations now instead of fewer? That is quite a turnaround.
I've been hearing that the players are supposed to find solutions to player-generated problems. So where are the good guys in all this, all the champions?
'Two or Three bandits' should be something the guards can handle.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You guys are struggling to come up with a solution to a self-created problem. The proposed mechanic that you're trying to fix isn't needed in the first place.
Actualy I do tend to agree with that. Bandits can offer merchants the opportunity to pay without any mechanic behind it....and if merchants refuse they can kill them as is.
The only thing that is different is the mechanical effects on reputation.... A Bandit who reneg's on his deal (e.g Oathbreaking) is no worse reputation wise then one who didn't make any offer....and a bandit who offered a merchant a way to pay a financial penalty instead of death is no better then one who simply resorted to murder in the first place.
None of this really has an effect on how players view each other...as I'm pretty sure actual reputation among other players is going to be entirely divorced from the mechanical reputation system. However the mechanical reputation system is supposed to do something in the game...as far as I understand it effects the quality of ones settlements and access to training facilities.... to that extent the SAD mechanism does do something different then just players handling it on thier own.
I agree with Mbando. The conga line is an artificial danger. The actual problem is a out-of-control bandits--if they can't make you SAD, they'll just kill you. Logically, the solution is to make some friends and butcher the bandits.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Grumpymel so you would rather the sandbox had more regulations now instead of fewer? That is quite a turnaround.
I've been hearing that the players are supposed to find solutions to player-generated problems. So where are the good guys in all this, all the champions?
'Two or Three bandits' should be something the guards can handle.
Hey, I'm just trying to find a way to make the mechanic work without exploit.
Frankly, IMO, the real "sandboxy" way to deal with this would to be remove the SAD mechanism entirely. Remove the mechanical "reputation" system as players will come to know other players reputations.
While they are at it, they could remove automated "Alignment" adjucations and not make some Alignments mechancaly worse or better off then others...just different. Then just let people chose the Alignment they wanted to follow and what God(s) they wanted to worship.
That would be the most "sandboxy" alternative.... as it would place the most power and creativity and ability to shape the world directly in the hands of the players.
If they aren't going that way....which they seem to have decided not to do.....I'm trying to suggest refinements to thier proposed mechanisms that less likely to result in circumvention for the intent behind those mechanisms and seem to represent the IP well and the expectations of likely players.
PFO doesn't remotely resemble the ideal game I would make if I were given the opportunity to make one.....but I am trying to help the designers make the game they want to make more functional and a bit more intuitive to what I (subjectively, of course) feel will be players expectations of it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@GrumpyMel
It seems to me allowing the player to artifically set his alignment but behaving any which way they feel without consequence to their alignment is very much an artifice that has no place in sandbox environment. Your alignment should be defined by the things you do, and that is exactly why a metering system should be in place. Otherwise, unless you accurately predicted how your character will actually play, his very existence as one avowed alignment would be an outright lie where the character consistently behaves like a different alignment.
Seems to me we've visited this topic before. You know, you disagree that killing people your character thinks are evil is itself an evil act because they are evil if you think they are. And I point out you're wrong. Do you feel we need to go back there?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Possible solution: SAD requires a minimum reputation in order to use. If a caravan has already been hit with a Stand and Deliver, they can still be hit. All groups that had applied a Stand and Deliver previously take a reputation hit, and a message about who horned in on their territory. Using SAD on a caravan that has already been "fleeced" does not provide a double reputation hit. This means that a character used to False SAD a caravan quickly gets his rep dropped to the point where they can't use SAD anymore. Bandits don't need to guard a caravan, but they do have a reason to go stomp on anyone infringing on their territory. Bandits now have a shadow war over territory, you can't false flag a caravan, and caravans still have to worry about being attacked, unless they know the bandits would not tolerate competition.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@GrumpyMel
It seems to me allowing the player to artifically set his alignment but behaving any which way they feel without consequence to their alignment is very much an artifice that has no place in sandbox environment. Your alignment should be defined by the things you do, and that is exactly why a metering system should be in place. Otherwise, unless you accurately predicted how your character will actually play, his very existence as one avowed alignment would be an outright lie where the character consistently behaves like a different alignment.Seems to me we've visited this topic before. You know, you disagree that killing people your character thinks are evil is itself an evil act because they are evil if you think they are. And I point out you're wrong. Do you feel we need to go back there?
No but "sandbox" is about player creativity and the players shaping/influencing the world and the outcome of other players actions.
If you want you want something that is more "sandbox" then that involves less Developer adjucation of the morality of your actions and more player adjucation of the morality of your actions.
You seem to be indicating that I am being inconsistant in my positions and now am arguing for greater regulation of the environment.
- My position here is not one of arguing for or against regulation. I am simply trying to address what others have recognized (and I concur) as exploits that mechanicaly circumvent the design intent of the SAD mechanism and thereby render it largely purposeless. I am trying to find ways to eliminate those specific exploits.
- I haven't even weighed in on whether I think the SAD mechanic itself is a good or bad idea. I just recognize that the Dev's seem to want it and am trying to see if I can find ways to make it better represent the expressed design intent behind it without being easly circumvented.
- My objections to the Alignment mechanic in the other topic were not to the concept of regulation or deregulation in general. They were to a specific regulation that I didn't believe was capable of being implimented well and that I, subjectively, would result in counter-intuitive results for a large proportion of the players (myself included). Frankly if they could build a system that approached the capacity of judgement of a good quality GM, I'd have probably not bothered to object.
- It may help you to understand that I don't actualy bother to use Alignments in most of the Campaigns that I have run. Characters are who they are, have the personalities that they have, believe what they believe and behave the way they behave. People will certainly judge them based on thier actions and how those actions mesh with thier own personalties and interests and Dieties will as well, if they have any reason to take notice of such mundane matters. However I don't attempt to reduce said behavior to a mathematical point on 2 axes and place a label on it. A God of Valor probably doesn't view someone who constantly runs away from battle in a particularly favorable light, even if both theoreticaly would share the same "Alignment" but a God of Peace might and he theoriticaly might share that "Alignment" as well. YMMV.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
At the first SAD they decide to fight. They win but they are wounded. The merchant helps them by selling them (at a discount hopefully) healing potions from his stock. Nevertheless the number of guards is down by two if they move on. They have to make a decision whether to wait for the other two guards to return from the temple and loot their husks or move on.
Maybe there should be a way for them to load the husks onto the wagon.
They load the husks and the two returning from rez are able to move faster unlimbered and might catch up.
The ability to move husks around might be a source of grieving in itself.
"No, do not loot it, lets move it to the LE city over there and hide it, we can all stand around and snicker when he comes back."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
At the first SAD they decide to fight. They win but they are wounded. The merchant helps them by selling them (at a discount hopefully) healing potions from his stock. Nevertheless the number of guards is down by two if they move on. They have to make a decision whether to wait for the other two guards to return from the temple and loot their husks or move on.
Maybe there should be a way for them to load the husks onto the wagon.
They load the husks and the two returning from rez are able to move faster unlimbered and might catch up.
The ability to move husks around might be a source of grieving in itself.
"No, do not loot it, lets move it to the LE city over there and hide it, we can all stand around and snicker when he comes back."
There would clearly have to be some sort of acceptance system built around moving of husks such as "X is trying to drag your husk, do you ACCEPT (y/n)" but it's a mechanic that can be usefull for a number of purposes, if done correctly.