Goblin Squad Member
|
The thread on SAD is dealing with the pros/cons of the concept. Granted it is a long way from testing out combat and knowing the actual cost/risk of harvesting, but I would like the opinion from those (I almost used y'all) that have much more MMO experience than I on what would be some possible make-ups of both a bandit group for attacking caravans and a guard group that was hired to defend the caravan?
It seems to me that a small company may want to hire on as a caravan guard disguised as traders just so the merchant can decline the SAD request with a reasonable chance of coming out on top. Presuming no massive one-sided discrepancy in numbers when it comes to toe-to-toe time:
- How would you structure a bandit group to win when SAD is declined?
- Likewise, how would you structure a guard company to win?
- What tactics would be best for either group?
- What tactics would you avoid?
What do you think?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The thread on SAD is dealing with the pros/cons of the concept. Granted it is a long way from testing out combat and knowing the actual cost/risk of harvesting, but I would like the opinion from those (I almost used y'all) that have much more MMO experience than I on what would be some possible make-ups of both a bandit group for attacking caravans and a guard group that was hired to defend the caravan?
It seems to me that a small company may want to hire on as a caravan guard disguised as traders just so the merchant can decline the SAD request with a reasonable chance of coming out on top. Presuming no massive one-sided discrepancy in numbers when it comes to toe-to-toe time:
- How would you structure a bandit group to win when SAD is declined?
- Likewise, how would you structure a guard company to win?
- What tactics would be best for either group?
- What tactics would you avoid?
What do you think?
Most of the "PvP is awesome and we are going to slaughter you merchant types" seem to be American so I was thinking just avoid times of day when the US time-zones are online :D
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The thread on SAD is dealing with the pros/cons of the concept. Granted it is a long way from testing out combat and knowing the actual cost/risk of harvesting, but I would like the opinion from those (I almost used y'all) that have much more MMO experience than I on what would be some possible make-ups of both a bandit group for attacking caravans and a guard group that was hired to defend the caravan?
It seems to me that a small company may want to hire on as a caravan guard disguised as traders just so the merchant can decline the SAD request with a reasonable chance of coming out on top. Presuming no massive one-sided discrepancy in numbers when it comes to toe-to-toe time:
- How would you structure a bandit group to win when SAD is declined?
- Likewise, how would you structure a guard company to win?
- What tactics would be best for either group?
- What tactics would you avoid?
What do you think?
First, you answered your own question.... We know nothing about the combat system, so no intelligent answer can be given at this time.
Secondly, I certainly wont describe in detail what my tactics, force make up or other operational details are or might be.
However, you can rest assured, bandits in my company will be highly trained, drilled, tested, and then led with military like precision and effectiveness. This does not mean that we will always win, but when we do lose it won't be the result of faulty tactics.
The current majority of the membership of The UnNamed Company are active and former military, combat veterans. We are also gaming veterans of many PvP based games, with excellent game based PvP communication practices. We might be morally chaotic, but that is where our chaos ends.
That's an interesting idea.
Between bandits not able to conduct their business within hexes that have settlements and a strong CC.
And the groups of CCs that will end up hunting bandits because of the ease in finding them.
The PvP will be fast strikes, ambushes and assaults. With the escalation mechanic, PvE will be pretty common. Especially if the mobs are attracted to sound, negotiations between bandits and caravans will get interrupted by curious mobs, that'll add to the confusion and provide for all sorts of reactions.
Without knowing more about the numbers it's hard to say how the groups would look. If you need 1 pc driver per wagon, and maybe an operation chief and guards. For two wagons... Well that depends on how far from the settlement, the value of the material. If I didn't want to loose the material I would get 20 guildies of mixed skills and just move on, with scouts and a strong caravan formation.
I don't get why they are limiting CCs to 20 members though..
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Valandur,
Bandits, in their hideouts, are very difficult to find. With advanced hideout skills, they are virtually impossible to find.
As for distances between two settlements, I'm thinking or hoping they will be greater than we might expect. First, even if of the same ligament, two settlements would want to be far enough apart to avoid direct competition for resources. They will naturally want to have at least a moderate buffer between them.
@Valandur,
Bandits, in their hideouts, are very difficult to find. With advanced hideout skills, they are virtually impossible to find.
As for distances between two settlements, I'm thinking or hoping they will be greater than we might expect. First, even if of the same ligament, two settlements would want to be far enough apart to avoid direct competition for resources. They will naturally want to have at least a moderate buffer between them.
Have they given any details on the levels of hideouts? I've not seen anything specific. I hope there are open hexes between settlement hexes, but I just don't know what sort of model GW is aiming at.
A good money making opportunity for a strong CC would be to build themselves a bunch of wagons, and make regular runs between settlements with scheduled times, departure and arrival. Allowing merchants to ship their goods between points. Most bandit companies wouldn't be able to deal with a caravan with that many guards, but for a strong bandit company, such caravans would be like the black ships of Spain during Feudal Japan..
Bandits will have the chance of kicking caravans out of fast travel, allowing for the bandits to stop the caravan. Have they said if the bandit company will have to signal that they do want to ambush the caravan? Or have they mentioned how that process would work?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Valandur,
Bandits, in their hideouts, are very difficult to find. With advanced hideout skills, they are virtually impossible to find.
As for distances between two settlements, I'm thinking or hoping they will be greater than we might expect. First, even if of the same ligament, two settlements would want to be far enough apart to avoid direct competition for resources. They will naturally want to have at least a moderate buffer between them.
Have they given any details on the levels of hideouts? I've not seen anything specific. I hope there are open hexes between settlement hexes, but I just don't know what sort of model GW is aiming at.
A good money making opportunity for a strong CC would be to build themselves a bunch of wagons, and make regular runs between settlements with scheduled times, departure and arrival. Allowing merchants to ship their goods between points. Most bandit companies wouldn't be able to deal with a caravan with that many guards, but for a strong bandit company, such caravans would be like the black ships of Spain during Feudal Japan..
A CC that does regular runs and guarantees delivery or compensation may be worth hiring.
The idea of hiring guards is ridiculous, they would almost certainly all actually work for Bluddwolf's lot and scarper as soon as their bandit friends appeared.
.
The idea of hiring guards is ridiculous, they would almost certainly all actually work for Bluddwolf's lot and scarper as soon as their bandit friends appeared.
If you hire guards from a real CC, one that you can check out, then I doubt you'll have a problem with them selling you out. I certainly wouldn't hire some yahoo that wandered up right before my caravan departed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Have they given any details on the levels of hideouts? I've not seen anything specific. I hope there are open hexes between settlement hexes, but I just don't know what sort of model GW is aiming at.
A good money making opportunity for a strong CC would be to build themselves a bunch of wagons, and make regular runs between settlements with scheduled times, departure and arrival. Allowing merchants to ship their goods between points. Most bandit companies wouldn't be able to deal with a caravan with that many guards, but for a strong bandit company, such caravans would be like the black ships of Spain during Feudal Japan..
It is also unknown what exactly is meant by PC merchant caravans and guards.
A caravan could be PC owned, but the PC is not actually with it. He or she sends it on its way and remains behind and continues to harvest the next load of resources. The PC might "hire" a number of NPC guards or even the greater expense of hiring PC guards.
NPC guards would likely not pose any real threat to an organized group of PC bandits.
PC guards might actually cost the merchant more money, than risking the cargo getting stopped for a SAD. Those PCs will want to get paid, at least partially up front. They might also fail, getting themselves killed and the merchant loses everything.
So many variables, and possibilities.
A caravan could be PC owned, but the PC is not actually with it. He or she sends it on its way and remains behind and continues to harvest the next load of resources. The PC might "hire" a number of NPC guards or even the greater expense of hiring PC guards.
I would hope that an individual could build a wagon and load it up with stuff and drive it wherever they wish. If they only have weird automated wagons that'll totally suck. For a CC that's got it's own settlement, harvesting operations would be like mining ops. We used to have between 10-20 people on mining ops, I expect to see fairly large caravans with lots of guards when it's being done for a CC or their settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The thread on SAD is dealing with the pros/cons of the concept. Granted it is a long way from testing out combat and knowing the actual cost/risk of harvesting, but I would like the opinion from those (I almost used y'all) that have much more MMO experience than I on what would be some possible make-ups of both a bandit group for attacking caravans and a guard group that was hired to defend the caravan?
It seems to me that a small company may want to hire on as a caravan guard disguised as traders just so the merchant can decline the SAD request with a reasonable chance of coming out on top. Presuming no massive one-sided discrepancy in numbers when it comes to toe-to-toe time:
- How would you structure a bandit group to win when SAD is declined?
- Likewise, how would you structure a guard company to win?
- What tactics would be best for either group?
- What tactics would you avoid?
What do you think?
Well for a pure merchant he would actualy want to DISCOURAGE the possibility of attack rather then ENCOURAGE one. So he would really want the reverse of what you were describing...he'd want as many of the people he was traveling with to look big, tough and dangerous...even the ones that weren't. So that the bandits would decide he was too risky to pick on and find someone else.
What you are describing is essentialy a Q-ship operation. It'd be something that nations or powers seeking to knock out banditry in a certain area would certainly be interested in employing as a tactic. However a pure merchant doesn't really have much interest in that...all he cares about is that HE isn't the target.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The real counter to banditry will be large and well equiped political entities seeking to make it attractive for merchants and other economic endevours to operate within thier sphere of influence. They'll do so because it boosts thier economy by having it attractive to commerce. So they may put together routiene patrols with individuals specificaly trained toward rooting out bandit lairs. The above named Q ships. Even free escorts.
Those entities don't even need to have that great a percentage of finding/hunting down bandits....just make it more expensive for them to operate there then setup shop elsewhere.
The upside of that is that it likely means that fairly routiene commerce will be reasonably safe for merchants there. The downside is that with a pure player-driven economy, such routes won't be particularly profitable.
The real windfall for a merchant would be getting some commodity that is only availble from a far distance that is difficult and risky to transport and therefore rare (hence yielding a high proffit margine) in the destination it is being transported to....and of course, that's exactly the sort of cargo the bandits most want to intercept and are most able to intercept.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The real counter to banditry will be large and well equiped political entities seeking to make it attractive for merchants and other economic endevours to operate within thier sphere of influence. They'll do so because it boosts thier economy by having it attractive to commerce. So they may put together routiene patrols with individuals specificaly trained toward rooting out bandit lairs. The above named Q ships. Even free escorts.
Those entities don't even need to have that great a percentage of finding/hunting down bandits....just make it more expensive for them to operate there then setup shop elsewhere.
The upside of that is that it likely means that fairly routiene commerce will be reasonably safe for merchants there. The downside is that with a pure player-driven economy, such routes won't be particularly profitable.
The real windfall for a merchant would be getting some commodity that is only availble from a far distance that is difficult and risky to transport and therefore rare (hence yielding a high proffit margine) in the destination it is being transported to....and of course, that's exactly the sort of cargo the bandits most want to intercept and are most able to intercept.
Permanently manned outposts on the roads between major settlements?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The real counter to banditry will be large and well equiped political entities
You know what I'll call those "week equipped political entities"?
Clients! I fully expect that The UnNamed Company will be contracted by these same political entities to attack the caravans of their rivals.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The real counter to banditry will be large and well equiped political entitiesYou know what I'll call those "week equipped political entities"?
Clients! I fully expect that The UnNamed Company will be contracted by these same political entities to attack the caravans of their rivals.
Of course, but you guys probably aren't a representation of the average bandit. On average bandits are opportunity predators. Directed attacks are a style of economic warfare, not simple banditry. They are carried out by people with political cause or those funded by entities with political cause. Often in those cases making money off of those you are robbing isn't even really much of a concern since the primary source of income comes from the funding source.
It is a risky gambit for the "week equipped political entities". If they don't have some means of capitalizing on the instability that you will create, they are essentialy burning thier own coin for no benefit to themselves. If they are targeting a much stronger rival, they also face a very serious risk if thier activities are found out..or even suspected...that of direct confrontation (e.g. War) which isn't likely to end well for them. I suspect that most of your prefered targets for "weak" clients will be other "weak" clients where there is a serious chance for the client to capitalize on the instability created by your activities. The entities most likely to hire you (or similar organizations) to go after strong targets will be other strong entites.... which is where things get really interesting.
However, I suspect (could be wrong) that the average bandit is not going to invest nearly as much work, planning or organization into what they do. It'll probably be just a few guys unaffiliated with anyone, plunking down in what they think is a good spot and hoping to make some "easy scores". Those guys don't really want to see guards or patrols....they want to see an unarmed merchant walking down the road with his cart that they can pick off without much effort or risk.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bandits:
Don't give them forever to haggle and accept, 30 seconds or so to decide is important. If time runs out or the SAD is declined, you can leave or attack. Arrows from the woods should begin the attack, whilst the bandits who made the SAD request run in amongst the defenders without attacking, yet. There's good chance there will be some 'trigger happy' guards who jump the nearest bandit, flagging themselves. Fight, Loot and Scoot; before a reactive force can get to the site from the nearest town.
If the guards are all too well-disciplined, just surround the healer(s) and drop them first.
Guards:
Immediately 'call' the nearest towns and report the bandits. Either way it goes, they can look around the vicinity for hideouts, and you'll give any potential reactive force a headstart. Caravan masters who intend to refuse should stall/haggle until troops are close. Also, remember that good guys can make hideouts too. Logging in to 'alt' characters hidden midway along that long caravan route could be the fast track to revenge if the route goes through a long remote stretch of territory with no towns.
Both:
No matter how combat works, you'll want to drop casters first. Entangle, windwall, haste and slow, mass heals; all make for a bad ambush. Or a good one ; )
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... I suspect that most of your preferred targets for "weak" clients will be other "weak" clients where there is a serious chance for the client to capitalize on the instability created by your activities...
Strong Client A, Weak Client B: B hires The UnNamed Company to pester A with bandit attacks, then through their spy network feeds A the rumor that the attacks are backed by B. A attacks B based on rumor, B invokes treaty with Strong (but neutral) C to come to B's defense claiming that A attacked without proof of B's involvement. B uses UnNamed Company to harass both A and C to keep them engaged while B harvests resources near all three under the distraction of the ABC War.
EDIT: Treaty with C is a secret treaty of mutual support. This keeps A from having second thoughts in attacking B.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... I suspect that most of your preferred targets for "weak" clients will be other "weak" clients where there is a serious chance for the client to capitalize on the instability created by your activities...Strong Client A, Weak Client B: B hires The UnNamed Company to pester A with bandit attacks, then through their spy network feeds A the rumor that the attacks are backed by B. A attacks B based on rumor, B invokes treaty with Strong (but neutral) C to come to B's defense claiming that A attacked without proof of B's involvement. B uses UnNamed Company to harass both A and C to keep them engaged while B harvests resources near all three under the distraction of the ABC War.
EDIT: Treaty with C is a secret treaty of mutual support. This keeps A from having second thoughts in attacking B.
Yup, political entanglements can get pretty crazy...look at how WWI started...but it's a pretty bad deal for B because it means the War is initialy going to be fought on thier territory...meaning HUGE economic damage for them....You never want to invite a War to be fought on your own territry....that's on top of the real risk that C will just reneg on it's Treaty obligations because that kind of War looks too costly for them.
The real politic way a scenario like that goes down...is that Powerfull Enitity C hires Unnamed Company to harrass powerfull entity A and frames powerfull Entity B for it. A & B goto War. C stays out of it..cheers on the casualties and destruction that A & B are wrecking upon one another and sells weaponry and War supplies to BOTH sides at inflated prices.
Of course, this all assumes rational actors are hiring said Unnamed Company. We all know human beings aren't always rational actors.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Pinosaur
Just a point of clarification. In order to offer SAD you have to be flagged "Outlaw" which means you are "fair game" to anyone...no one gets flagged for attacking you. It's the trade-off for the advantages Outlaw offers.
One guy has to flag, at least.
"Flag outlaw and SAD this caravan newbie, we'll be right there beside ya..."
good times ; )
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Pinosaur
Just a point of clarification. In order to offer SAD you have to be flagged "Outlaw" which means you are "fair game" to anyone...no one gets flagged for attacking you. It's the trade-off for the advantages Outlaw offers.
One guy has to flag, at least.
"Flag outlaw and SAD this caravan newbie, we'll be right there beside ya..."
good times ; )
Will only work if you don't care if the rest of your guys get the <Attacker> flag because the guards fighting the <Outlaw> guy are only flagged <Involved with> not <Attacker>. In order to avoid the Rep penalties associated with <ATTACKER> your guys need to be <Outlaw> themselves.
Now if you don't care about Rep penalties then you are better off just staying unflagged and asking for money outside of SAD...with that, it's whoever attacks first gets flagged.
P.S. I also expect they'll do something to address the "Alpha Strike" issue to some degree....for example if the put in collision detection then you won't get to "surround the healer". They've also talked about options that allow one character to mechanicaly protect or shield another from attack.... The example Stephan gave is that if an attacker targeted a healer who was standing next to a fighter...they would give the fighter a huge situational bonus to attack...such that the fighter could just drop the attacker.
In other words...it's hard to comment on actual tactics at this point...as the combat system hasn't been developed. Sounds like they are aiming to make it quite different tacticaly then the typical MMO combat. Even the flag stuff could change...although at least we have a base set of rules to go on with those.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... I suspect that most of your preferred targets for "weak" clients will be other "weak" clients where there is a serious chance for the client to capitalize on the instability created by your activities...Strong Client A, Weak Client B: B hires The UnNamed Company to pester A with bandit attacks, then through their spy network feeds A the rumor that the attacks are backed by B. A attacks B based on rumor, B invokes treaty with Strong (but neutral) C to come to B's defense claiming that A attacked without proof of B's involvement. B uses UnNamed Company to harass both A and C to keep them engaged while B harvests resources near all three under the distraction of the ABC War.
EDIT: Treaty with C is a secret treaty of mutual support. This keeps A from having second thoughts in attacking B.
Yup, political entanglements can get pretty crazy...look at how WWI started...but it's a pretty bad deal for B because it means the War is initialy going to be fought on thier territory...meaning HUGE economic damage for them....You never want to invite a War to be fought on your own territry....that's on top of the real risk that C will just reneg on it's Treaty obligations because that kind of War looks too costly for them.
The real politic way a scenario like that goes down...is that Powerfull Enitity C hires Unnamed Company to harrass powerfull entity A and frames powerfull Entity B for it. A & B goto War. C stays out of it..cheers on the casualties and destruction that A & B are wrecking upon one another and sells weaponry and War supplies to BOTH sides at inflated prices.
Of course, this all assumes rational actors are hiring said Unnamed Company. We all know human beings aren't always rational actors.
Generally from my experience the bigger organizations on a server tend to avoid war conflict until much later in the game when end-game boredom takes over, the rank and file b+!~+ about "when do we get a war" and often quite suicidal behavior erupts with major server power groups self destructing.
Meanwhile earlier in the game, the next echelon down of mid sized and smaller groups fight and squabble and let their petty local rivalries evolve into ongoing warfare that ensures that none of these smaller groups ever get above ghetto or local power status.