They cannot log offYou cannot restrict a player from logging off. Firstly, it's unenforceable (the player can always alt-F4 or turn off their computer), and secondly, there are legitimate RL reasons why someone may need to log off unexpectedly.
If you do certain things, like break laws, in Eve, your given a flag that prevents you from logging out until the flag has run out. Players are warned about this and even if they log off, their character will remain in the game world. I see no reason PFO couldn't do the same.
@Hobs. I like your idea of the bounty hunter having to get the target back to the town where the bounty was issued. There are some issues with it as Dario pointed out, but if they could be solved, it sounds like the best idea I've heard for the situation so far. Jail time won't fly and IMO there needs to be some type of penalty.
Goblin Squad Member
|
They cannot log offYou cannot restrict a player from logging off. Firstly, it's unenforceable (the player can always alt-F4 or turn off their computer), and secondly, there are legitimate RL reasons why someone may need to log off unexpectedly.
Many games, when you execute whatever command or click starts your logoff will pop up a timer with an "Exit now" button. IF you click exit now, your client disconnects, but your character remains in the game world for the duration of the timer. My impression was that "Cannot logout" was referring to something like this. Your game client can disconnect, but your character is still brainlessly following the bounty hunter.
Edit to add: Most games will not allow you to log in another character while the first is still in the world. This will likely not be the case in PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you do certain things, like break laws, in Eve, your given a flag that prevents you from logging out until the flag has run out. Players are warned about this and even if they log off, their character will remain in the game world.
I'm fully aware of that. However, "your character stays in the world" is not the same as "you cannot log out".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What about losing all accrued benefits of the outlaw flag, and/or losing the ability to accrue those benefits for a time? People who decide to 'go honest' suffer no effect at all (intended behavior) while dedicated outlaws simply lose a buff.
Decius, you're on a roll :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you do certain things, like break laws, in Eve, your given a flag that prevents you from logging out until the flag has run out. Players are warned about this and even if they log off, their character will remain in the game world.I'm fully aware of that. However, "your character stays in the world" is not the same as "you cannot log out".
If you read a bit further on you would see:
Upon surrender/defeat, the target is captured and put in a sort of "follow" mode. They cannot log off nor take any action - from a RP stand point, they're bound/chained/etc. In this state, they accompany the bounty hunter to the destination where he/she will collect their bounty and the target will endure whatever penalties the system will level upon them (debuffs, loss of unthreaded items, etc.). Not only have they been penalized but they have lost game time. They can't play an alt...they're not logged out. Technically, the player could log out, but their character would not.
Emphasis mine.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thanks, Dario - that is what I meant. You can log out of the game, but your character would still be in the world. I was not aware of the plan to allow multiple characters from the same account to be active at the same time. The way I was figuring things, if the player of the criminal character had two accounts, he might go play another character, but at least GW would be making that extra coin if bad guys all had multiple accounts to keep themselves occupied while their criminal characters were being dragged around by bounty hunters.
My comment about losing reputation was if the bounty hunter set his target free after capture. That is, while in tow, if the criminal managed to convince the bounty hunter to let him go (sympathy, offered more than the contract was worth to let him go, etc.), the bounty hunter should take a rep hit for not following through on his contract. This reputation hit would be triggered by potentially hitting something like a "set him free" button. I certainly wouldn't drop a bounty hunter's rep just because he died before delivering his target.
As for the target dying, I would think while the target is in "captured/follow" mode, he would be invulnerable. If the bounty hunter is killed before delivering the target, the target would go free. This would be another incentive for the target player not to go play another character, but play along and be present in case an opportunity presents itself.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What about losing all accrued benefits of the outlaw flag, and/or losing the ability to accrue those benefits for a time? People who decide to 'go honest' suffer no effect at all (intended behavior) while dedicated outlaws simply lose a buff.Decius, you're on a roll :)
I'm not in favor of this. If I commit an act that gains a bounty against me, and a bounty hunter tracks me down and kills me..... I'm dead, he gets to loot my unthreaded gear and gets paid bounty. I respawn and have whatever death penalty there may be, probably a debuff.
I should not be prevented from re setting my flag to begin to recharge it. Just because I have a outlaw flag charging up, does not mean my next crime is soon.
Come to think of it, if there is some kind of jail time mechanic, that should be a part of a capture mechanic, not above and beyond the death mechanic. Dead men don't go to jail.
Another thing I wonder about is how broad or narrow will the definition of what is a crime be?
Settlements will be able to establish their own laws, so just being Lawful Good could be a crime and that could garner you a bounty. Would some of you hold the same beliefs a out the bounty system and its penalties if the shoe were on the other foot?
Remember, Paladins will be he most wanted criminals in a Chaotic Evil settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bluddwolf, that you can say that after all the suggestions you've made to empower assassination amuses me.
On topic, he has a point. If getting bounty hunted is going to shut off a flag, it should probably apply to all the voluntary PvP flags. Any of the others can do something to get a bounty on them as well, not just Outlaw. Bounty Hunting isn't just a counter-outlaw mechanic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If getting bounty hunted is going to shut off a flag...
It's important to point out the distinction that it's not shutting off the flag itself, it's only shutting off the buffs associated with the flag.
These bonuses reset to the minimum upon gaining the Attacker flag unless the target was offered and rejected a stand-and-deliver trade within five minutes of the attack.
In essence, being defeated by a Bounty Hunter is conceptually modeled on "being captured and sent to jail", but instead of placing the character in jail, the game simply resets their bonuses to the minimum for some period of time.
I wouldn't have a problem with letting the timer tick up, so that when that "Jailed" debuff ends, you immediately get credit for however long you've had the flag active.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My point was that it should apply to all the voluntary flags equally. (You could make an argument to exclude traveller, because it's not combat related.)
Champions can jump someone who isn't as evil as they thought, assassins can kill guards on the way to/from their target, and enforcers can get trigger happy. They can all do things to get bounties put on them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bluddwolf, that you can say that after all the suggestions you've made to empower assassination amuses me.
On topic, he has a point. If getting bounty hunted is going to shut off a flag, it should probably apply to all the voluntary PvP flags. Any of the others can do something to get a bounty on them as well, not just Outlaw. Bounty Hunting isn't just a counter-outlaw mechanic.
My objection is not the being killed resets your flag counter, that should be the case. My objection is to the idea if a timer preventing you from restarting a new flag and generated buff.
Maybe if it would coincide with any death caused debuff, which are usually short, or if there was a separate "Apprehend / Prison" mechanic, in lieu of killing than I'd accept it to be longer.
That brings me back to the argument that PFO really could use a subduing damage system. This would allow for variations of the systems that ours make more sense, and allow for additional play styles.
Heck, I have said it for myself, I would much rather leave a merchant unconscious then dead. I may be a greedy bandit, but I'm not a cold blooded killer.
I agree, we could really use a subdue system instead of just having death being the only option. It would allow for so many more options, not only for RP, but just as Bluddwolf says, why kill if its not necessary?
The problem with nonlethal damage is that it creates a middle ground between "dead" and "healthy". This is a game where death isn't supposed to be anything approaching a big deal.
As for the flags, is there any requirement for bounties other than "must have killed the target"?
Assassin - Surely the assassin's victim can decide he wants a little payback.
Enforcer - Kills a Champion who decides to get help from a relatively friendly LG bounty hunter.
Champion - Kills an Enforcer who decides to get help from his organization. ;P
Traveler - Maybe some bandits are tired of a merchant they just can't catch. After he even manages to kill one of their number (in self defense, obviously), they've had enough.
There's also "slightly dead", but the patient slipped down to "mostly dead" while we were bickering about terminology.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As for the flags, is there any requirement for bounties other than "must have killed the target"?
The Screaming for Vengeance blog is not internally consistant (suggesting both that anyone who injures you goes on your enemy list AND that anyone who kills you while you're not fair game, ie without a flag or some other justification, goes on). I'm inclined to follow the second reading as it is more consistant with what was posted elsewhere. Effectively, you would need to a) get the Attacker flag and b) kill your opponent for them to place a bounty on you.
So an assassin would not be vulnerable to a bounty from a target he killed with a valid assassination contract. A champion would not be vulnerable to someone evil he killed. An enforcer would not be vulnerable to a bounty from a criminal.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
'Manacled' - Character receives a debuff on stealth, survival, sleight of hand, and disguise skills. Attacks from a manacled character likewise receive a debuff.
24 hour duration
requires a consumable 'manacle' item to be used
victim must be subdued (pinned, knocked unconscious, helpless, charmed etc) to apply.
The attacker must have a bounty contract for the victim to apply the manacles, and the victim may not have the manacled flag. If the victim is killed to collect on a bounty while 'manacled', the condition is removed upon revival. Otherwise it persists through death.
Something like this could open up a whole new aspect of the bounty hunting profession. Contract offers 100 gold dead, 500 gold alive... I'd want that 500 gold! Given that the Manacled effects last much longer than the Death effects, it would be more detrimental to the victim as well. In such a case, though subdual combat would need to be a. available and b. balanced to be more difficult/dangerous for the attacker.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have been a Lurker, reading the PFO threads and the Blog for some time now. This looks like it is shaping up to be a revolutionary game design as far as MMO's go. It has so many of the elements that I have always wished for in a Fantasy MMO.
This thread has me wanting to ask a couple of questions and pose a couple of ideas.
These questions may have already been addressed and, if so, I apologize for missing the answers ahead of time. :)
Questions: 1. What is there to keep a Murderer from simply remaining logged out until the 24 hour bounty limit expires and doing it every so often as the bounty gets renewed?
2. What is to keep me from doing dastardly murder, hiding and remaining logged in, logging in my LG bounty hunter (on a different account), and going to my murderer's location to kill my Murderer toon, and collect the bounty, wash-rince-repeat?
As for the ideas I would like to put forth, I think that these could possibly give justice to the victim AND prevent some abuses against Murderers (reverse griefing). Not that I like or condone murder. I hate murder, but I also see it as a viable roleplaying element for some players, as long as "griefing" problems are addressed.
Ideas: 1. This may be a solution to my 1st question. When a Bounty is active (i.e. picked up by a Hunter), the Player can log out if He likes, but the Murdering Toon stays persistant until the Bounty expires, is completed, or is satisfied (see #2 below). The Murderer can run, the Murderer can hide, but the Murderer can not escape justice if the Hunter is a good tracker.
2. Every bounty posted can include a "Wergild". The Wergild can be any amount of coin up to the amount of the bounty reward. I (the Murderer), or (if necesary) a "Town Friendly" Buddy can pay the Wergild and end the Bounty if we can get the Wergild paid before the Hunters find me. Paying the Wergild ends the Bounty (which refunds the Victim), penalizes me (The Nasty Murderer), and gives the Victim some restitution (the price of the Wergild). If the Murderer pays the Wergild then the Victim may not repeat the Bounty, unless the Murderer does him again.
Now, Knowledgable Posters, please answer these questions and tear my ideas a new one. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
2. What is to keep me from doing dastardly murder, hiding and remaining logged in, logging in my LG bounty hunter (on a different account), and going to my murderer's location to kill my Murderer toon, and collect the bounty, wash-rince-repeat?
The player which places the Bounty will have the ability to specify who can collect it. Unless your alt Bounty Hunter has a sterling reputation with that particular victim, you're unlikely to be permitted to collect that bounty.
Ideas: 1. This may be a solution to my 1st question. When a Bounty is active (i.e. picked up by a Hunter), the Player can log out if He likes, but the Murdering Toon stays persistant until the Bounty expires, is completed, or is satisfied (see #2 below). The Murderer can run, the Murderer can hide, but the Murderer can not escape justice if the Hunter is a good tracker.
I am particularly fond of this idea. I have been advocating for quite some time that all characters should remain in the game at all times, even when the player is logged out. I think this will solve a number of problems related to social interaction and general "sportsmanship".
2. Every bounty posted can include a "Wergild". The Wergild can be any amount of coin up to the amount of the bounty reward. I (the Murderer), or (if necesary) a "Town Friendly" Buddy can pay the Wergild and end the Bounty if we can get the Wergild paid before the Hunters find me. Paying the Wergild ends the Bounty (which refunds the Victim), penalizes me (The Nasty Murderer), and gives the Victim some restitution (the price of the Wergild). If the Murderer pays the Wergild then the Victim may not repeat the Bounty, unless the Murderer does him again.
I like the idea of a Weregild, and proposed something similar before. I'm not sure, but I think there are some subtle nuances to the Bounty System that I don't understand that make this not a very attractive option.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Sintaqx,
Like the manacled idea, just not the duration... 24 hours is a long time. It should also not remain in effect after death. What would prevent the BH from manacling you, then killing you?
Also, manacle would be an "unwanted affect" and the perpetrator would just use the add-on, forget the name of it, to have it removed. Acts as an additional time sink though, so it is an additional punishment.
@Bringslite,
I am a proponent of bounty contracts being issued by a settlement, rather than an individual. This way, if the bounty is collected by someone, the victim is not punished again personally. The settlement would probably issue the bounty in a way that only its citizens can collect it. Thereby cutting down on the target's friends collecting it, but that is never going to be impossible.
Love the idea of the Wirgild. Not that I would ever pay it myself, but I do love it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
[quote Nihimon] I am particularly fond of this idea. I have been advocating for quite some time that all characters should remain in the game at all times, even when the player is logged out. I think this will solve a number of problems related to social interaction and general "sportsmanship".
The "sportsmanship" issue seems like a good argument for that. Perhaps characters with certain flags active should not be allowed to log out at-will and avoid the consequences of thier actions. Is that what you meant by: "I think this will solve a number of problems related to social interaction"?
[quote Bluddwolf] @Bringslite,
I am a proponent of bounty contracts being issued by a settlement, rather than an individual. This way, if the bounty is collected by someone, the victim is not punished again personally. The settlement would probably issue the bounty in a way that only its citizens can collect it. Thereby cutting down on the target's friends collecting it, but that is never going to be impossible.
I like that idea. It shows a community "tightness", gets poor victims some justice, and demonstrates that the settlement protects It's environs and the players that frequent the area. I would like to see both my idea and your's. Bounty hunters would be enriched with a double payout also.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bringslite, how long have u been lurking and withholding such good ideas, definitely like both of your suggestions, especially the 'Wergild' (cool name)
The only downside is that there will be less work for my ranger, who i was thinking would like to pick up the occasional bounty :p
The Wergild idea is amazing. It basically means 'blood price' or something like that. The only thing I'd add in is the option for the victim(the person offering the bounty) to decline the wergild.
If this were added in, I think it would be something GW should DEFINITELY consider putting in. By allowing the victim to deny the wergild, it keeps wealthy bad guys from just buying off bounties. Most especially in the case of veteran on n00b ganking, I feel that someone being able to just pay a few gold is not a good way to go.
Otherwise, I can literally think of no good reason why this wouldn't be an amazing addition to the bounty system.
In addition, I think that the idea of a settlement issuing bounties is a great idea. Perhaps even changing it, to give people even more of a reason to join settlements, into a 'Most Wanted' list. It would essentially be the same as a bounty, but this would make the idea of only citizens of the settlement collecting it make more sense.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Wiseman of the Wilds
I have been lurking for a few months, but I missed the last Kickstarter as I went to the hospital for 25 days and so missed my chance to get in on it. Now I have to hang around and hope to get into EE as early as I can. :(
According to TheFreeDictionary, a wergild is defined as: In Anglo-Saxon and Germanic law, a price set upon a person's life on the basis of rank and paid as compensation by the family of a slayer to the kindred or lord of a slain person to free the culprit of further punishment or obligation and to prevent a blood feud.
My idea is that a wergild would be an option that the victim could add to the bounty when he filled it out. The victim could not make the wergild price any more gold than the bounty reward. The Murderer might have to get notice that he can end the bounty with a wergild payment via in game messaging or something. Also, payment of the wergild ends the bounty and prevents the victim from repeating it, unless the murderer gets him again. That would give the murderer a chance to get out of a rich victim's endless repeat-bounty vengeance, i.e. reverse griefing.
P.S. Don't worry, there will be plenty of murderers that can't or won't pay the wergild. Your Ranger will have lots of work. :)
@Zanathos
Yes, the wergild would be an option that the victim could use or not. He decides if he can forgive the murderer for cash. If you only value your life as worth a few gold then I don't know what to say. :)
As to the settlement putting up the bounty and the victim putting up a personal bounty, I like that idea too. The only problem I see is when the victim offers a wergild and it gets paid, does that cancel the settlement's bounty also?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf:
If the Hunter manacles their target, they can collect the 'alive' reward value. It also allows them to loot their target as though they were killed. Killing their target afterword would give them a rep hit and the 'Murderer' flag. As I was thinking on this further, it might make more sense to send the manacled person to their bind point, as though they had been killed.
The 'Manacled' condition would be a representation of incarceration while allowing the player to continue playing. Don't punish the player, punish the character. 24 hours might be too long, but the condition does need to be long enough to be a deterrent, not just a slap on the wrist.
It could be that there is a 'Bail' option. Pay the (rather hefty) fine, remove the manacled condition.
I love the wergild concept, I'd forgotten completely about it. The person with the bounty on their head may indeed have multiple. Each of these would need to be paid separately to be appeased. If Fred killed Bob and Dan, and Dan put a personal bounty while Bob's settlement placed his bounty, Bob will not be appeased by Fred paying off Dan.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Sintaqx
Yes, I see different bounties as separate. What if Bob has a bounty and wergild out on Fred and Bob's settlement has a bounty on Fred for killing Bob? Would payment of Bob's wergild cancle both bounties or is a settlement's bounty a seperate issue and only satisfied when the settlement says?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would think the settlement bounty would be separate. Even if the guy you carjack gets his car back and is content, the government is still going to prosecute you.
Yes and No... If we are going to use real world, present day, then there are some issues with the bounty system as proposed:
1. Bounties are issued by the individual victim. Not so in the real world.
2. Bounties can be reissued against the same person, for the same act. Can not be done in the real world.
3. Bounties can only be collected after the character is killed. Not so in modern, real world.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes, but I'd also suggest that settlement bounties be totally separate from personal ones. Such that if you murder Bob in the tavern, both Bob and the Settlement can seperate pursue you. Bob for murdering him, and the settlement for your criminal action. Settlements should only be able to issue bounties against people who commit criminal acts in their sphere of influence. If you murder Bob in the middle of nowhere, five hexes from anything that his settlement controls, then Bob should be able to bounty you as normal, but his settlement can't pursue you for it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes, but I'd also suggest that settlement bounties be totally separate from personal ones. Such that if you murder Bob in the tavern, both Bob and the Settlement can seperate pursue you. Bob for murdering him, and the settlement for your criminal action. Settlements should only be able to issue bounties against people who commit criminal acts in their sphere of influence. If you murder Bob in the middle of nowhere, five hexes from anything that his settlement controls, then Bob should be able to bounty you as normal, but his settlement can't pursue you for it.
Double jeopardy...
If Bob is not affiliated with a settlement , then that is one thing.
If Bob is affilitated with a settlement, then Bob should be able to approach his settlement with a request to issue the bounty.
I detailed this elsewhere, or perhaps earlier in this thread, but here is my idea of why a settlement should issue all bounties requested by its citizens:
1. When the citizen / victim issues a bounty on his own, he suffers the cost of the bounty when it is collected. The murderer may just mockingly laugh at such foolishness.
2. When the settlement issues a bounty, it not only takes on the cost of the bounty, but it exchanges that cost for the impression that it is the protector of its citizens. The victim may even choose to repay the settlement for the bounty price as a thanks for that support.
3. The settlement can better control who accepts the bounties, by limiting them to their own citizens.
4. The settlement would not likley reissue the same bounty repeatedly, because it has other decisions and things to do.
5. The settlement will gain reputation throughout the land, that it supports and protects its citizens, no matter where they are harmed.
Bounties, if locally issued, could become a source of revenue for the settlement. Bounty Hunters need to be issued a letter of marque (or similar document) granting them permission to hunt within their terrirtory. These will probably cost a fee, and will off set some of the bounty price.
Bounty Hunters who are making a living from this, and moving around often, will likley have to purchase several of these. He / she may not know where the criminal is, and so may have to operate in other jurisdictions.
Because bounties are locally issued but not locally completed, the settlement where the criminal was captured will have collected a fee from the BH for the license. With every settlement doing this, it is likely they will collect more fees than pay out in bounties, or the cost vs fee will come close to balancing out.
This system helps the Bounty Hunter keep busy and traveling, interacting with a number of settlements or just exclusively with his or her own.
This system helps the victim because he or she does not bear the brunt of the cost and feels that his / her settlement is supporting them
The settlement gains mostly repsect from its citizenry that it support them and is a defender of its laws.
The Criminal gains in that he or she will likley not face an infinite bounty, by the same person for the same crime. Not that that can't be punishing, but it is incredibly boring and the criminal will have a better chance of exploitng a repeated bounty, by having a friend or alt collect it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1, 2, and 5 are non-points. They could just as easily be handled by the settlement providing funds for the personal bounty. 3 is a valid point that I'll come back to. 4 is a baseless assertion. A settlement is no more or less likely to reissue bounties by virtue of being a settlement. In individual cases, the settlement may be inclined not to pursue it multiple times, whereas another may be inclined to spend more than an individual character would be willing to by virtue of having a greater resource pool.
As for 3, yes, it allows the settlement to control the list, but I'm not sure that's a good thing. James is a LN member of a LG settlement. The settlement only deals with LG bounty hunters. James knows the man who killed him is hiding out in a CE hive of scum and villany, and is willing to hire a LE bounty hunter to go in there and drag the murderer out kicking and screaming.
Not to mention leaving characters without settlements, or whose settlements don't contract with bounty hunters completely SOL.
I haven't seen anything about these licenses mentioned, unless that's something you're suggesting being created for this? Why would the settlements where criminals hide out ever issue these?
Either way, why does any of this preclude two separate kinds of bounties? The settlement is able to seek redress for you committing a crime in their settlement, and the character is allowed to independantly pursue vengeance. Now, a LG settlement may not want players issuing individual vendettas, and so may make it impossible/unlawful for an individual character to issue a bounty within that settlement, but there's no reason why a LE settlement wouldn't both a) want to punish criminals itself, and b) permit wronged parties to seek their own restitution.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I haven't seen anything about these licenses mentioned, unless that's something you're suggesting being created for this?
I got that idea from this:
In case you're wondering how independent, authority-defying types like adventurers might get by in Fort Inevitable, the answer is "reasonably well." The Hellknights aren't big fans of individuals riding out to kill villains and take their stuff—after all, that looks an awful lot like common banditry. But individuals or companies can obtain "letters of warrant" that grant the Lady Commander's permission to deal with outlaws and monsters, and confiscate their goods. The adventuring party based in Fort Inevitable has to surrender a cut of their profits to the authorities, but in return they gain a very secure base of operations and access to all the services available in the town.[
Yes I know it is not exactly a Bounty license, or maybe it is? Not all information in the Dev Blogs is fully fleshed out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hmm, that's an interesting idea. It seems to be more from the RP fluff of Fort Inevitable, but it will be interesting to see if it makes it in game. Though that still leaves the question of why a criminal haven would issue those sorts of licenses. They'd basically just be trading extra income from bounty hunters in return for revenue lost from the criminal element. And I suspect driving out the criminal element would thereby cut down on the amount of revenue from bounty hunters. They're not going to set up a deal with your town if they know all the criminals are two miles east in Slumville2.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Is that what you meant by: "I think this will solve a number of problems related to social interaction"?
One of them, sure.
There is an on-going problem that gets brought up on the boards over and over again, where a player does something and then logs off to hide from any retribution. That would never be a problem if characters were always in-game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nihimon,
I see where keeping your character always in-game helps to better the chance that wrong-doers get penalized, since players can't log out their character to escape justice.
However, what about the flip side? I'm a good aligned character who an evil character doesn't want doing good things. He takes an assassination contract out on me, and because my character is never logged out, I become a far easier target when I'm not logged into the game.
I'm not asking for special treatment - I'm not turning this into a good and bad alignment issue. Given that most of the call for keeping characters always logged in was to allow the better chance for punishment, it seemed like a legitimate question.
The wergild is an awesome idea. Now we just need to make sure the target will have a motivation to pay up. ;D
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The wergild is an awesome idea. Now we just need to make sure the target will have a motivation to pay up. ;D
I would just strip down to nothing but threaded gear, and let the bounty hunter kill me, rather than pay. Who gets hurt from the patment, the original victim. I would lose nothing.
I might even contact the Bounty Hunter and ask him/her, how can we make an arraingment to make you search easier, and give me a bit of a kickback as well?
The victim would never know, all he would see is that the bounty was collected.
If the systme makes bounties even worse than death, than death will be the choice. As it stands now, death is barely a minor inconvenience.
Isn't that what I just said? We need to make sure he'll have a reason to avoid getting killed. As is stated in the title, one of the core ideas for the game is that death means nothing--and we're gonna pay money over a single, hard-to-achieve death?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Isn't that what I just said? We need to make sure he'll have a reason to avoid getting killed. As is stated in the title, one of the core ideas for the game is that death means nothing--and we're gonna pay money over a single, hard-to-achieve death?
Kobold, I agree.... the death penality is lower than all other penalties. Players will just accept death and move on.
Look in some of the other threads, there are players more worried about alignment shifts and reputation, than actually dieing.
In GW's efforts to curb griefing, that has not taken place yet, they have put in place anti griefing penalties that are worse than the death penalty.
Then they added the infinite bounty (also an anti griefing device) and that in itself can be exploited and used to grief.
Griefing should not be handled with game mechanics, it should be handled at the GM / account level.
Uh, I think we'll need a balance to the two to practically combat griefing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Simply put, if you are logging out for fear of getting killed then you are imposing a FAR WORSE penalty on yourself then either the Bounty Hunter or the Assassin could ever do.
One has to put a single death into context in PFO....it's really not that big a deal...so why worry about it so much. Now if you have 150 seperate bounties on your head a day...then that starts to make it a bit more significant because it's not 1 death but 150 seperate deaths....but one presumes you've run a little amok to earn all those bounties.
Now I absolutely believe that settlements need the ability to control whether they consider killing under the context of a bounty murder (and thus a criminal act) or legal....and bounty hunters need to be able to be informed of a settlements laws in this regard. This gives criminals the ability to hang-out in towns that are considered "safe-havens" for them. However one assumes that such towns come with thier own set of costs/downsides...like maybe charging the criminal a small fee for the priviledge of such safety, etc.
It's all about costs. The cost of a bounty to the target is it reduces the number of areas the target feels "safe" to operate in. Death coming at a time and place of the targets choosing significantly reduces the impact of that individual death. One assumes that a SMART individual will only deal with Bounty Hunters that they know or have a good reputation for not making arrangements with thier targets (just as with any other provider of goods).
For the person taking out the bounty, from a gameplay standpoint the device is simple. Aside from RP or emotional aspects...the Bounty is a device for increasing the COST to the subject for harming you in future. If the subject knows that harming you may result in thier own death at a time inconvenient to them. They may be less likely to target you in future or may consider it as a bargaining chip in whatever dispute you are involved in with them. The cost of the Bounty to you has to be less than the value of that.
Example: Merchant is killed and looted by a Bandit, no SAD offered or involved. Merchant hires a trustworthy Bounty Hunter and makes a private arrangement with the Bounty Hunter (outside of game mechanics) to make sure to get the Bandit just after he's performed another robbery and has some goods on him, thus destroying those goods. This has an economic cost to the Bandit. Afterwards Merchant goes to the Bandit and says "Look, I've got to pass by that little spot of woods you've staked out on a regular basis....rather then you killing and looting me each time I pass and them me hiring a Bounty Hunter to get you when you rob the next guy...How bout I give you 5 gold each time I pass through and you let me go without any further harm and we both end up better off?"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Uh, I think we'll need a balance to the two to practically combat griefing.
What griefing? Hasn't happened yet. No substantiated proof that it will happen. No eveidence that even if it did, it would not be a minor inconvenience. Not even giving the GMs or the player base the chance to correct any griefing on its own.
Instead we are seeing the topic of "OMG it could lead to griefing" prop up in every thread.
I won't list the specific issues because you are not one of those, seemingly frozen in fear by the potential of griefing. But the cries have been raised in both combat, and non combat realted activities.
I get the feeling that some have seen PFO: Open World PVP, they don't like that type of MMO and have decided, let us go there and work hard at turning into a PVE Open World, where the only PVP will be consensual and battlegrounds alla vanilla WOW.
I have been up front... I want PFO to be EVE Online in a fantasy setting. With a few innovations thrown in to make it unique.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What griefing? Hasn't happened yet. No substantiated proof that it will happen. No eveidence that even if it did, it would not be a minor inconvenience. Not even giving the GMs or the player base the chance to correct any griefing on its own.
I'm a software designer. I look at it from a systems engineering perspective. Part of designing a system is stopping to ask "How will this system break? What happens if it's used in a manner other than intended? What happens in the hands of a malicious user?" It's much easier to fix flaws in a system in the design phase than it is after it's built. Yes, sometimes you will identify a risk and decide that the measures already in place are sufficient, but risks should still be identified. You don't just assume everything will work the way you want it to. That's poor engineering.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf,
Clearly if you can control the time, place and exact circumstances of your death then you could minimize the costs/impact to you of it.
One would assume that a valueable Bounty Hunter, Assassin or vendor of similar services who was worth hiring would try to insure that was not the case and try to get you at a time which was most inconvenient or expensive to you.
As a millitary patrol dealing with Bandits in territory I am responsible for, doing my job effectively has a similar dynamic. If the Bandit can always dictate the circumstances under which they engage in combat, then they will always be successfull. My job is to ensure the Bandit is forced into combat under circumstances unfavorable to them (like fighting a heavly armed patrol rather then a lightly armed merchant)....or in absence of that imposing a significant enough OPPORTUNITY COST in the territory I am responsible for (because that Bandits have to sit around twiddling thier thumbs due to the road being to heavly patroled) that it becomes unattractive for them to operate there.
It's no different for the Bounty Hunter/Assassin, they have to make sure it's expensive and inconvenient enough for thier targets to not repeat whatever activity they were hired to revenge...at least not to the same target....otherwise there is not much value to hiring them.
What griefing? Hasn't happened yet. No substantiated proof that it will happen.
Uh, actually, we do have evidence. Look up. You see that area to type in the url?
Welcome to the internet.No eveidence that even if it did, it would not be a minor inconvenience.
How about the fact that griefing is a massive problem in basically every multiplayer game? Heck, it's a problem on my Minecraft server.
Not even giving the GMs or the player base the chance to correct any griefing on its own.
I'm confused as to how the bounties aren't the chance you speak of. A guy's griefing? Send in a bounty hunter.
Instead we are seeing the topic of "OMG it could lead to griefing" prop up in every thread.
Maybe because griefing is very common and very hard to easily prevent if you only rely on moderators banning people after the fact?
I won't list the specific issues because you are not one of those, seemingly frozen in fear by the potential of griefing.
It's my opinion that every mechanic put in the game should be considered for griefing possibilities. If that means I'm one of those "frozen in fear", then I'll take my frostbite proudly.
I get the feeling that some have seen PFO: Open World PVP, they don't like that type of MMO and have decided, let us go there and work hard at turning into a PVE Open World, where the only PVP will be consensual and battlegrounds alla vanilla WOW.
This is the closest to ad hominem I've heard from you yet. Saying "I get the feeling..." or "It seems like..." does not shield you from that fact that you're implying the people concerned about griefing are simply anti-PvP.
I have been up front... I want PFO to be EVE Online in a fantasy setting. With a few innovations thrown in to make it unique.
EVE Online is very nice, and I'd like PFO to imitate it, but I'd also like it to avoid having the community of sociopaths EVE managed to acquire.