Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes, back to the assassin question. My whole point for this thread was that I feel the increased chance of severing a respawn thread does not seem significant when compared to the training that involves becoming a highly skilled assassin.
If your target only has one respawn point, what then? What I suspect is, nothing.
I had suggested that instead of the severing of respawn threads, make it item threads, exactly the same way a Death Curse works. What is the real issue against this?
Bear in mind, this game is not supposed to be as gear centric as your typical theme park MMO. Where most gear will be crafted and its enhancements will be consumable and crafted as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I still like DeciusBrutus' idea best so far - that assassination cancels a character's effects on their settlement. For that to work, it requires that characters have that direct influence on a settlement (e.g. a settlement's NPC guard effectiveness are tied to the skill of an appointed captain of the guards character, a settlement's forge effectiveness is tied to its resident master smith character, etc.).
I think tying aspects of your settlement to member character's skills is a neat idea - in real life, someone runs the show in each part of a town or city's effectiveness (chief of police, fire chief, superintendent, mayor, etc.) and those branches of the town/city then are only as effective as those executives. Why not in settlements? It also makes people with the appropriate skills very valuable, one could even say marketable, if they choose to take their skills on the road.
Back to assassins...
To me, there's a difference between a hired thug and a well trained Assassin. I've outlined elsewhere that unless the bounty hunter is someone of good alignment working to round up criminals, the current system's bounty hunter seems more like a hired hit-man who could be of any skill set as long as they can kill the target of the bounty.
The term assassination, on the other hand, seems typically reserved for the murder of people of power and position - you assassinate a head of state. These are people who are usually well protected and require special skills to reach. Being people of importance, this style of killing isn't done simply to kill an individual, like a bounty, but to weaken the system that the individual is head the of. DeciusBrutus' idea seems to get at the heart of this difference.
I mentioned this to a friend who said that if this were the case, that everyone would use assassins prior to attacking another settlement...as if there were something wrong with that situation. To me, that's the point - an assassin should be for espionage, for creating civil instability, for breaking the chain of command just at the key moment before invasion. It's been used that way in history, so why not in a game where settlement-vs-settlement interaction is one of the main points of player interaction?
If an Assassin's main use is thus political - to neutralize specific functionings of a settlement - then this won't be the skill set of choice that others fear that Assassins (especially one-shot killing Assassins) will become. I doubt the PvPers who typically want the best battlefield skill set will want to put all the training time necessary into creating an Assassin if it isn't giving them the battlefield uber-class like tank-mages in early UO.
Instead, this would be a player who is willing to put a great deal of time into training skills that will be difficult to pull off, and quite specialized in their effect. I see them as the type who don't mind spending hours/days/weeks scouting their way into a settlement (maybe with an alt), even getting to know the locals, then spend hours on the day of the hit working their way past guards, waiting for their target to appear, and then trying to get out alive. Perhaps (I know this will set off some hopeful Assassin players), but to simulate real life a bit, you might even have to make it out alive to collect your pay for the contract. After all, the suicide-bomber style Assassins don't get to enjoy the spoils of their work after the fact. Only an Assassin who makes it out would do so. In a game where we all resurrect, it seems the only way to stress the need to not only succeed in the hit, but escape capture.
So no, this wouldn't be the skill set for the immediate gratification seeking, "kill everything in sight" player. This would be someone with patience, who likes to plot and plan, who enjoys the full arc of their task, even if it takes weeks from hire to hit. And given that their success might provide the open door for invasion and the fall of a settlement, they would be extremely well paid. More likely, though, their selective hits would weaken enemy settlements, causing key functions to work less efficiently, lose customers for that inefficiency, have less effective NPC guards just before your people stir up that mob escalation next door and cost them in repairs to their settlement structures, etc.
Strategic, perfectly timed, surgical hits...that's what assassins are to me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What is it with all the "pro-evil" threads? Every game has a bunch of pro-evil complainers whining about how evil is at a disadvantage, while everyone realizes when the game(s) start 60% of the players want to create chaos and murder everyone. I'm tired of these pro-evil threads.
I hope when PFO starts there is enough balance in the game mechanics so evil has to struggle as much as good....and good can not only survive, but thrive. I want to crush evil like a bug.
EVE enev has an ad campaign using "Be the Villian" as their catch phrase, like there aren't enough pirates in space already.
Honestly IMO in general that is under 20% that want to create chaos and destruction. I don't believe anyone is calling for evil to be MORE powerful than good. I would consider myself borderline in the pro-evil category (though leaning more towards CN of a character whenever I can get into the game), I do greatly oppose any instakill, or single opposed skill check etc... for assassination.
The reason there was quite a surgance of "pro-evil" as you call it, was from the point a while back, where Ryan had essentially refered to CE settlements as the worse possible settlement mechanically to be a member of. Now since then quite a bit has changed, the reputation system was fleshed out more, flagging has been explained etc... They've basically went out and explained that they are differentiating, general PVP, being evil as a role and meaningless griefing as entirely separate entities.
That being said your own comment sounds of the oposite "I want to squish evil like a bug", if I were jumping to conclusions, I'd assume you would want good to win 99.9% of time and evil to be at a huge disadvantage, Which I consider just as bad as evil taking over. Personally I don't want good or evil to crush the other like a bug, I want them to be encoraged to have regular conflict (however not constant conflict, huge difference there, Nothing I hate more than faction VS faction "you hate them... just because, always kill them no reason or motive needed, but no this war will never end"). I would like to see good and evil come into conflict because their current goals that the characters/players chose come into conflict, rather than some chosen by the game/Devs.
___________________
But back to the topic, actually I thought of something that could make even more sense than just "influence on settlement" which we aren't sure of. We know formations will be a key part of warfare...
Formations will require the soldier to train them, but also someone to train the skills to lead them most probably.... Temporarally disabling the ability to lead formations, would be a pretty logical use for assassinations.
Rumors abound that general bob is about to lead an attack the city of thisaplace, Thisaplace hires an assasain to take out general bob. Now bob has to either delay his attack for a few days, have someone else lead the attack, etc... as well Thisaplace could take advantage of the forced rushed re-organization and launch a pre-emptive strike.
In addition of course attackers could do very similar.
For my two cents .. I think it is very important that once a player is assissinated he be two far away to rejoin the battle, even if a contract is fulfilled. Dead is dead. IF a target is killed.. he should not be able to jump back in with help and kill his killer in revenge... HIs revenge should be later after a great deal of effort to recover from his death. Assassination.. should be a very different death..from a normal kill. Just the fact.. a target is a special interrest target, should carry bonus negitive hits to his death. He is more than likely.. a target with more than one intrested party.. wanting him gone.
He knows this an his risk should increase the hire the boughty goes.
If you are going to put yourself in that position.. to be wanted.. then your risk should be much more than just a simple death...and right back in the fight.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I always think of Assassins in their political role. As Hobs said, to kill people of power. I also like the Idea of settlement leaders losing their settlement buffing skills during the duration of the effects of the assassination.
A few things to consider:
1. Those settlement buffs must only be in affect when the leader is physically in the settlement. This would avoid the leader from hiding out in the NPC settlements.
2. Assassin Contracts can be used anywhere. Even if my first point is not implemented, this would eliminate the hiding place for the target.
These ideas would also add all aspects of what I was hoping for the Assassin. They would have the specielized skill of debuffing settlement based skills of leader, they would be a good first strike to set up for open warfare, they would be able to hunt ther target down anywhere, and they would be feared.
Feared, but not only on a personal level but also a fear that would be felt by an entire settlement.
I still like DeciusBrutus' idea best so far - that assassination cancels a character's effects on their settlement. For that to work, it requires that characters have that direct influence on a settlement (e.g. a settlement's NPC guard effectiveness are tied to the skill of an appointed captain of the guards character, a settlement's forge effectiveness is tied to its resident master smith character, etc.).
I think tying aspects of your settlement to member character's skills is a neat idea - in real life, someone runs the show in each part of a town or city's effectiveness (chief of police, fire chief, superintendent, mayor, etc.) and those branches of the town/city then are only as effective as those executives. Why not in settlements? It also makes people with the appropriate skills very valuable, one could even say marketable, if they choose to take their skills on the road.
...
I like this idea, but... What would you (all) think if the scores were a compilation of more then one settlement leader in the event that several leaders all possess the same skills? I doesn't have to preclude one member holding an office, but I'm Leary to place all of a settlements score on one character when in some cases a settlement might be ruled by a counsel of equals, does that make sense? I can see a settlement that wouldn't want to elect a single person to an office, but might want two people to handle the job.
I guess I'm feeling around for how flexible such a system would be given the different types of ruling bodies a settlement can have.
*Ok, Ready on the leeeeeefffft" <g>
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Valundur,
There aren't many government offices (short of city councils), especially in medieval style societies, where positions of power and specialization are held by several people at once. As I replied to you in the settlement thread, for game mechanics purposes in establishing buffs to your settlement's effectiveness/productivity in these various settlement branches (e.g. defense, crafting, etc.), I think you would want your highest skilled member to be in charge, since their skill is the thing providing that particular settlement buff.
For practicality, would you want a second in command in case Mr. Number-One got assassinated - sure - but if we're trying to make what Assassins do meaningful, I don't think an automatic transfer of power to Mr. Number-Two would be very beneficial.
To avoid having people simply play shuffle with assassinated members to minimalize the effects of assassination, I would say that a successful assassination begins a settlement debuff timer. For that set period of time, the assassinated member's settlement buff is neutralized and his position cannot be filled until the timer runs out.
To avoid having people simply play shuffle with assassinated members to minimalize the effects of assassination, I would say that a successful assassination begins a settlement debuff timer. For that set period of time, the assassinated member's settlement buff is neutralized and his position cannot be filled until the timer runs out.
This makes sense, hopefully the loss of that characters skill will effect settlements in a noticeable way.
@Dario your right, the initial setup would be the place to lay all that out. Hopefully the charter system will be in depth enough to cover stuff that will inevitably come up.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I never claimed that is was a strong rationalization, and I don't think it is a weak one either. It is a rationalization, and one I'm sure many in my field (Rogues / Assassins) hold as a belief system.That's sociopathic.
You've got a whole lot of generalizations and assumptions propping up a very weak rationalization.
I'll grant that the word 'weak' was unnecessary, but that's because it was redundant. Rationalizations in general are weak; they're what you get when you put the conclusion before the data.
I see it more as Chaotic Neutral, not sure if that is the same as Sociopathic or not?
I put sociopathic because I meant it's like unto the thinking of a sociopath. I suppose psychopath is the more commonly-used term these days, though.
I don't care to get drawn into the Batman debate with you. The Goblinworks dev team is the GM of the PFO campaign, and they've already indicated murder will get you evil points. Further, 'assassin' is the flag for evil, just as 'outlaw' is chaos, 'champion' is good, and 'enforcer' is lawful.|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One effect of limiting assassin targets to settlement leaders, yet not limiting the number of assassins, is to dissuade people from leading settlements, and I doubt that is in line with performance goals.
Will bodyguards be an adequately effective counter?
Should the bodyguards have to be neutralized first?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Being,
Heavy is the head that bears the crown, right? In a world where settlement competition is a prime function of the game, leading settlements should be a tough job - a very select job.
However, as always, you make good points. Let's play with them.
I think many of a settlement's defenses should add to the difficulty of the assassination. The height of the walls vs climbing skills, the Assassin's stealth vs NPC and player guard perception, the Assassin's lock picking skills (I know there's a different PF name for it, but I really don't feel like looking it up) vs the difficulty of any locked doors leading to the target, the Assassin's anti-magic spells against any magical wards, the Assassin's disarm traps vs any traps laid, etc.
With all this stacked against you, plus the time it would take to seriously stake out your target, case the settlement, etc., I don't see tons of players wanting to be assassins. Again, if we take away the uber killer PvP "class" appeal that some imagine when picturing Assassins, I think you will drastically reduce the number of players who want to be Assassins. Given all the skills a good Assassin will need to train and the time invested in setting up a hit, plus the chance for any one of the things I listed above botching the hit, it's a pretty small chance for return on your investment of game-time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To add on what both Being and Hobs have suggested..... Both settlement rulers and the elite assassins will be few and at the pinnacle of human endevours.
Yes, the pinnacle, but there will be lesser achievements for both to partake in as they hone their respective skills.
To be a king will be a great feat in an MMO. To be skilled and lucky enough to kill a king while he sleeps in his bed, will be a feat that legends are made of. This would be an epic battle of preparation and planning, for both king and assassin.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree Hobs. I'm really hoping not many want to follow me down the path of assassins. And I hope they don't make assassins a killer pvp "class". in most 1v1 cases, a fighter would beat a assassin in open combat. unless the assassin highly out skills the fighter, but that holds true for any character. It should take a long time to be able to become a fully functional and highly successful assassin. They say it should take 2.5 years to fully train into a given "class" correct? So why not that long for assassins also, if not a little longer? Assassins should have training in multiple paths, not just "rogu"e or "fighter".( Im aware they wont have "classes" but I also don't know how they will label the different paths for training, hence why I used the terms Fighter and Rogue)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The notification of contract...is what can serve as your "GAME ON", if you like. Are you still going to be wondering "what the heck just happened?" If you are told "Mr. Smith there will be an attempt on your life within the next 24 hours."Me? I'd be logging off for 24 hours...
Well then you'd be taking onto yourself a worse penalty then you would had you just laid down and said "Assassinate Me".
I don't get this utter fear of being killed in a game where death is supposed to be frequent and has very light penalties.
Remember, the things we've talked about Assassination doing is a debuff on some things like fast travel that help you improve your situation economicaly and politicaly...by voluntarly taking yourself out of the game for 24 hours your imposing a greater penalty on yourself, probably by an order of magnitude of 10, then the assassin ever could...since you are completely nullifying your ability to have ANY positive effect on your situation in game. Does that make sense?
It's kinda the equivalent of...I'm worried about getting a bruised arm, so I'll avoid it by cutting it off completely...there, I'm safe now.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well then you'd be taking onto yourself a worse penalty then you would had you just laid down and said "Assassinate Me".
What penalty is this? Keep in mind I probably have a fair number of alts, with some duplication of any skills that I consider critical.
I don't get this utter fear of being killed in a game where death is supposed to be frequent and has very light penalties.
It's not an "utter fear of being killed". It's a simple preference for winning over losing.
I don't like the gameplay that results from having a notification and having to play always looking over my back. I prefer a system where my character trains skills so that he can always be looking over his back.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@grumpy Mel,
I don't get this utter fear of being killed in a game where death is supposed to be frequent and has very light penalties.
I completely agree, but this fear can be seen in almost very thread even remotely related to PvP. There seems to be a vocal few who want no parts of non consensual PvP, in an Open World PvP MMO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
- Clearly in ANY conflict, for it to work well in a game system there must be skills and strategy availble on both sides of the conflict in order for it to be a reasonably fun system. I am contending, however, that not all conflicts need be resolved by a system of "who can drain who's hit points first by a series of to hit roles and spells". That's fine for representing a particular axis of gameplay...but it is rather simplistic and limiting to resolve ALL conflict via that axis. By allowing more axes in which conflict can be resolved, we create greater diversity of gameplay and character development...and make the game deeper and more interesting (IMO).
- The axis of gameplay that makes sense to me for resolving assassination is that of intelligence and deception. The target wins by acting PROACTIVELY to find out who the assassin is, so they can easly defend against them AND by limiting the assassins OPPORTUNITIES to carry out successfull assassinations by exerting control over the conditions under which the target performs thier game-play functions. There are ways to do that both through active play and through skill training. The assassin wants to act PROACTIVELY to learn that targets routienes and to use stealth and deception to create an opportunity where the assassination can be successfully carried out. That gameplay substitutes for all the "to hit rolls" and "spell castings" that would occur in a regular combat situation, but is no less a contest then it. The actual "kill" is simply a resolution of it....as would the assassin being uncovered/caught on the other side.
- The "assassin" having skill along this axis of gameplay NEED NOT (and probably should not)translate into any advantage or greater power along the axis of gameplay in which regular combat is resolved (just as being able to craft does not translate into being more powerfull in melee). You can achieve this very simply by making "assassinations" in eligable against characters that are in "combat mode" and ready to fight. Most games DO have mechanisms for the player to indicate they are in "combat mode" and thus prepaired to do damage to other characters....or in non-combat mode and thus only prepaired to perform non-combat actions (like trading with people)....they do this so that a single errant keystroke by the player does not initiate hostile actions ACCIDENTLY against targets they did not intened to attack....and they usualy impliment some limitations, such as slower movement, or the inability to initiate certain non-combat actions (like trading) so that players do not constantly walk around in combat mode. If PFO doesn't impliment this specific mechanism, I'm sure an appropriate substitute can be found to indicate that the character is "prepaired for battle" and thus not subject to "assassination".
- Assassination CAN and should be self-balancing, in that while there is a reward for a successfull "assassination" there is also a risk/consequence to an unsuccessfull one. I would further propose that since there is a basic paradigm of using consumables within the game for regular combat...that assassination attempts require them as well. The consumables can act as an initial barrier to entry to ensure that assassination attempts aren't performed for trivial reasons against any poor schlub...since there would be a COST to the assassin for performing the....and also as a further consequence for the "Assassin" loosing the contest, as they would BURN thier consumables for no positive effect. This should be fairly to impliment....and (IMO) is a more effective limiting factor then difficulty in training or access to organizations for "assassins"....as even when an assassin has gained access to the skills they need...there is still some base cost (in consumables) for him to carry out an operation, so it at least has to be minimaly "worth it" to invest in that equipment cost.
- Also it is important to understand that PFO by definition is a game where character death occurs with regular frequency. That is, as far as I understand, it's regular design. Likewise, even though "assassination" should carry more weight then a regular death (due to it's greater investment in time and difficulty to achieve)...in no way should the penalties approach anything so significant as the target would be better off not playing the game for fear of them. If they did, then (IMO) it would be a broken mechanism. Simply put "assassination" should just make you less effective at certain, appropriate gameplay mechanisms for some ammount of time....logging off so that you avoid assassination is making you COMPLETELY INEFFECTIVE at all game-play mechanisms probably for a significantly longer time. Thus, in terms of rational game-play, there should be no reason for it to cause a player to stay logged off for fear of being subjected to it.
YMMV
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well then you'd be taking onto yourself a worse penalty then you would had you just laid down and said "Assassinate Me".What penalty is this? Keep in mind I probably have a fair number of alts, with some duplication of any skills that I consider critical.
I don't get this utter fear of being killed in a game where death is supposed to be frequent and has very light penalties.It's not an "utter fear of being killed". It's a simple preference for winning over losing.
I don't like the gameplay that results from having a notification and having to play always looking over my back. I prefer a system where my character trains skills so that he can always be looking over his back.
Nihimon,
Respectfully, not excersizing some control over your surroundings and willingness to be aware of them is EXACTLY how you will get killed repeatedly in ANY activity in PFO outside of any settlement.
If you are a Merchant/Resource Gatherer or Trader and you don't excersize awareness and control over your surroundings, you are repeatedly going to get jumped by bands of bandits who WILL kill you...probably regardless of your skills..because 10 vs 1, chance of survival is pretty much a pipe dream.
Same for adventurer going out into the wilds to do PVE adventures.
Same for playing the territory control game...
In games like PFO, excersizing situational awareness, traveling in groups and being prepaired for an encounter is pretty much the recipie for NOT DYING.
Skills are great....and they certainly will assist you in ANY form of gameplay...whether it is regular combat, crafting or the sort of assassination game-play I've talked about....but skills are an entirely PASSIVE form of gameplay...the other half of almost any game, the real gameplay for the player is ACTIVE gameplay. Without that you get EXACTLY the type of forgone conclusion of LvL 80 vs LvL 10 that PFO is intended to avoid.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't get this utter fear of being killed in a game where death is supposed to be frequent and has very light penalties.I don't think you get to use "very light penalties" as a defense in the middle of the thread explicitly calling for those penalties to be made harsher.
I am talking about penalties that justify greater expense, difficulty and cost of the attacker to perform the operation. Those penalties are and should be still extremely light in the absolute...and far lighter that not playing at all.
I anticipate that in PFO, a "regular death" will cost you maybe a maximum of 30 minutes worth of play-time in economic loss and getting back to where you need to be.
I'm thinking an assassination, MAYBE, costs 1 hours worth of economic activity in building a business/settlement, MAX.
Are you really going to stay logged off for 24 hours over that?
You guys are conceptualizing character death (from a game-play standpoint) on a completely different scale then I am. I see it from a game-play standpoint more as loosing a unit in a RTS game...maybe a little bit more costly then getting killed in an FPS game.
You guys seem to see it as loosing 50 hours worth of grinding for an EPIC weapon in a Themepark. I think it would be really, really difficult for a player to suffer that kind of harm unless they purposefully wanted to do so... I just don't see PFO as that kind of game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@GrumpyMel, my objection is to the meta-game nature of what you're proposing. It's like having a player at a Tabletop game and not allowing his character to develop linguistic skills unless the player can demonstrate significant understanding of real-world linguistics. I don't think that's a good paradigm.
Yes, I understand that you could play the game where you, the player constantly employ countermeasures. I just think it would suck :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Mel
My problem has never been with getting killed, but the method. Your description of defense boils down to "Don't be where the assassin is". While at the same time the assassin is either already given, or people are advocating for, all the tools they need to infiltrate just about anywhere. At least one suggestion has been made for them to be able to kill you in supposedly PVP safe zones. Players of assassins are, at least in my reading of most of the discussions, not primarily interested in getting people outside the town. They want to sneak inside the keep and murder you while you sit in your office. To be able to get to, and kill, you where ever you are. Something you, yourself, have suggested with examples like poisoning someone's drink or killing them in bed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@GrumpyMel, my objection is to the meta-game nature of what you're proposing. It's like having a player at a Tabletop game and now allowing his character to develop linguistic skills unless the player can demonstrate significant understanding of real-world linguistics. I don't think that's a good paradigm.
Yes, I understand that you could play the game where you, the player constantly employ countermeasures. I just think it would suck :)
So how do you propose to go out and adventure, transport goods, gather resources, establish or maintain territory control without employing countermeasures and without getting killed by hostiles?
Bluddwolf can correct me on this, but I seriously don't think the guys planning on playing bandits are going to inform you ahead of time precisely where the encounter with them is going to occur......
... and I'm pretty sure that they aren't going to set things up so that it's a "fair fight".
If you aren't ACTIVELY employing countermeasures, you are going to lose those situations before they've even begun.....because the countermeasures are a big part of the gameplay.
It's not like "doing a pull" in LOTRO where what you are fighting will have been designed to be a "reasonable challenge" for your group and it's all about executing the combat. The hostiles are going to be actively designing any encounter with you to be pretty much over before it's begun, save for counting the bodies and the coin. It's only through active countermeasures that you've got a chance to change those odds.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So how do you propose to go out and adventure, transport goods, gather resources, establish or maintain territory control without employing countermeasures and without getting killed by hostiles?
The difference is, in none of those situations does failing your preventative measures leave you with no ability to defend yourself. If you're out transporting goods or gathering materials and bandits jump you, you still have the opportunity to attempt to fight them off. Sure, they might have the advantage of surprise, or they might give that up to give you a chance to pay them off with SAD, but at the end of it, you still have the opportunity to defend yourself. With your depiction of assassination, if you fail the preliminary work, you don't have a chance to defend yourself. You flat out lose.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Mel
My problem has never been with getting killed, but the method. Your description of defense boils down to "Don't be where the assassin is". While at the same time the assassin is either already given, or people are advocating for, all the tools they need to infiltrate just about anywhere. At least one suggestion has been made for them to be able to kill you in supposedly PVP safe zones. Players of assassins are, at least in my reading of most of the discussions, not primarily interested in getting people outside the town. They want to sneak inside the keep and murder you while you sit in your office. To be able to get to, and kill, you where ever you are. Something you, yourself, have suggested with examples like poisoning someone's drink or killing them in bed.
@Dario,
It is my understanding that the ONLY "PvP safe zones" in PFO will be the NPC starter towns (or at least portions of them). I have no problem with making "assassination" not possible within them as well. Not only are PC Settlements NOT SAFE from regular PvP, but they aren't even likely to be represented as 3D buildings in the early part of the game....so there isn't much of a way to "be in" them in the manner we are talking about.
They are as "safe" from assassination as they are from regular PvP....in that they have guards and other freindlies that may come to assist you if you are attacked...or revenge themselves against your killer after you are killed (making husk looting impossible). The same dynamic applies here. The guards and other PC's MAY prevent you from getting killed...they WON'T prevent you from being a target of PvP. The only difference is under "assassination" the assistance takes place BEFORE you've actualy taken damage. The (NPC) guards and other PC's have a chance to notice the Assassin during his 30 second PREPERATION MOVE...this stops the Assassin and flags him...saving you. Obviously the more EYES around you, the better the chances are....and we also assume that settlements are able to invest in more effective and less effective Guards. Just like regular PvP WITHIN A SETTLEMENT, there is no assurance that PC settlement guards or other PC's will get there in time to save you from being killed. Your OWN skill training, along with your ACTIVE play...along with things like the quality of your (NPC)guards and the quality of the PC's around you...and whether they actualy care enough to intervene are what effect the odds......anywhere from making it functionaly impossible to making it a cakewalk....it's just that DIFFERENT skills and DIFFERENT active play components are involved.
In short, the idea that you are somehow safe from regular PvP within a PC settlement, I think is very much a misapprehension. You are "safer" but definately NOT safe....and that's even NOT considering the settlement itself coming under attack.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The difference is, in none of those situations does failing your preventative measures leave you with no ability to defend yourself. If you're out transporting goods or gathering materials and bandits jump you, you still have the opportunity to attempt to fight them off. Sure, they might have the advantage of surprise, or they might give that up to give you a chance to pay them off with SAD, but at the end of it, you still have the opportunity to defend yourself. With your depiction of assassination, if you fail the preliminary work, you don't have a chance to defend yourself. You flat out lose.So how do you propose to go out and adventure, transport goods, gather resources, establish or maintain territory control without employing countermeasures and without getting killed by hostiles?
I respectfully submit that said "opportunity to fight them off" is largely an illusion if you fail your preventative measures. Hostiles are very much going to attempt to setup "no win" situations for you. It will be only your preventitive measures that will allow those equations to change....
You may think you can win a 10:1 situation, where you are taken completely unprepaired...but in the reality of PFO (as opposed to a book or novel) I don't expect that to happen. That being said it's not unreasonable to request a finer gradation in results for "assassination attempts" so you can have "partial successes" where the assassin doesn't kill you but merely injurs you and he doesn't suffer the normal strong debuff that he would from a regular failure...and presumably normal combat ensues.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Dario,It is my understanding that the ONLY "PvP safe zones" in PFO will be the NPC starter towns (or at least portions of them). I have no problem with making "assassination" not possible within them as well. Not only are PC Settlements NOT SAFE from regular PvP, but they aren't even likely to be represented as 3D buildings in the early part of the game....so there isn't much of a way to "be in" them in the manner we are talking about.
Yes, the NPC starter towns are what I was referring to. People have actually suggested that assassins should be able to get people there.
They are as "safe" from assassination as they are from regular PvP....in that they have guards and other freindlies that may come to assist you if you are attacked...or revenge themselves against your killer after you are killed (making husk looting impossible). The same dynamic applies here. The guards and other PC's MAY prevent you from getting killed...they WON'T prevent you from being a target of PvP. The only difference is under "assassination" the assistance takes place BEFORE you've actualy taken damage. The (NPC) guards and other PC's have a chance to notice the Assassin during his 30 second PREPERATION MOVE...this stops the Assassin and flags him...saving you. Obviously the more EYES around you, the better the chances are....and we also assume that settlements are able...
No, they are not as safe from assassination as regular PVP. Because until they actually commit the assassination, they are playing against the server. They are checking their skills agaisnt the server's RNG. And if their assassination is a one-shot, then nobody can respond to the assassination in a manner that prevents the assassin from achieving their win condition. They already have.
Look at it this way. In every other encounter, you have the following phases:
Pre-encounter: Take actions to grant yourself an advantage in any conflict that occurs. Ex. Hiring guards. Planning your travel route to avoid known bandit areas. Keeping your route secret as not to tip off hostiles.
Encounter: Both sides take part in a back and forth interaction to determine resolution. Ex. SAD. Combat. Economic price war.
Resolution: One side achieves it's win condition. EX. Slaying your opponent. Negotiating passage. Pricing your opponent out of the market.
Under the suggestion you've put forth for assasination, you have the Pre-encounter (Guards and defenses, recon for the assassin), then unless the assassin messes up, we go straight to resolution. The only time we experience the actual Encounter phase is when the assassin has already failed to achieve his win condition, and is now trying to make an escape.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just fantasizing, but what if really powerful monarchs could hire 'body doubles', players who would, in exchange for a consideration, invent King look-alikes that could then make public appearances in the King's stead, travel by alternate routes, and conceivably the game could randomly choose one of the body-doubles for the assassin to strike, or more likely present a chance for the assassin to strike instead of the King?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes, the NPC starter towns are what I was referring to. People have actually suggested that assassins should be able to get people
@Dario,It is my understanding that the ONLY "PvP safe zones" in PFO will be the NPC starter towns (or at least portions of them). I have no problem with making "assassination" not possible within them as well. Not only are PC Settlements NOT SAFE from regular PvP, but they aren't even likely to be represented as 3D buildings in the early part of the game....so there isn't much of a way to "be in" them in the manner we are talking about.
I will own up to that suggestion, and it was in response to the question about leaders or people with assassination contracts on their heads, hiding out in the NPC settlements.
My argument was that if the assassination contract worked exactly as the "at war" mechanic, just at an individual level, it would work well. From my understanding, the NPC settlements do not eliminate all PVP, war declaration being the primary example. If that were true, then the leaders of any settlement at war would escape to the NPC settlements to avoid the risk.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Dario,
I submit the same is true for economic conflicts. Most times you won't know someone has priced you out of the market until AFTER it has occured. Due to the asynchonous nature of economics, it can even happen while you are offline and sleeping. You wake up the next morning and find your goods are worthless because someone has flooded the market with similar items at a cheaper price then you can produce them.
However, in the "Assassination" gameplay. You are overlooking the ACTIVE gameplay that the target can engage in. Not only to deploy active countermeasures to reduce the "assassins" opportunity for an attempt...not only to lay a trap for them where they THINK the conditions are good for the attempt (e.g. They think you are alone, but you've got 10 high perception body guards hidden and waiting for them to make the attempt...so they can finger them and jump them).....but you can also go out identify the assassin and FIND them...thus precluding thier ability to make the attempt in the first place.
You GETTING THEM BEFORE THEY GET YOU would be a valid counter-measure. It just would require a different skill set on your part....or for you to hire someone with that skill set. There are a number of ways you could go about implimenting this....the most straightforward of which would be to place a hidden PvP flag on the "Assassin" and make the "contract" a lootable, non-threadable inventory object. You loot the "contract" and destroy it...it burns whatever expense went into making it....and no PvP consequences for attacking the Assassin, but you have PvP consequences for attacking people who aren't...so you can't just go about willy-nilly attacking everyone around you on the off chance they are the ones. I'd also suggest some sort of "streetwise" skill (again with consumables) that if used IN THE SETTLEMENT WHERE THE CONTRACT WAS TAKEN OUT could give you details about it..
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you aren't ACTIVELY employing countermeasures, you are going to lose those situations before they've even begun.....because the countermeasures are a big part of the gameplay.
You're skipping over the meat of my point, and latching onto a triviality.
I sincerely hope that the countermeasures that would help me avoid an Assassination are not the same countermeasures I would use to avoid getting ganked while harvesting.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes, the NPC starter towns are what I was referring to. People have actually suggested that assassins should be able to get people there.
People like Ryan Dancey...
From Goblinworks Blog: Signed... in Blood:
Assassinations
It should be possible for someone to go virtually anywhere they can manage to gain admittance and target virtually any character for an assassination. This implies, obviously, that there should be ways to avoid alignment (and other) restrictions on access to various NPC areas.
For additional perspective...
From Goblinworks Blog: Signed... in Blood:
You're not supposed to be constantly running around worried that an assassin is going to pop out of the woodwork and stab you in the back.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Mel
Economic conflict is about as far from this as it's possible to get. Short of staging a raid and completely destroying your competitions supplies and inventory, there's almost nothing you can do in a matter of minutes or hours to destroy someone's business. Walmart didn't put mom & pop shops out of business overnight. Amazon didn't dismantle Borders in a day. Market warfare is, in general, the extreme long game. An opponent appears who prices things closer to or below your marginal cost. You have time to find other suppliers who can get you the materials cheaper, lower your profit margins, or even leverage your existing funds to sell below cost and hope they run out of cash before you do.
@Nihimon
Those are from a fairly old conversation. I suspect the idea has changed somewhat since then.
NPC-controlled territory is limited to a few major cities and other starter areas. In the heart of these territories, PvP may be completely disabled.
While I fully support assassins having the skill to get into those places, if PVP is disabled, they should not be able to assassinate someone there.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon,
Those 2 points strike me as a bit contradictory to one another in nature. I assume that the best possibility of reconciling them is that the "assassination" contest occurs within a set time frame and that the target is aware of that time-frame.
Without doing so, there is no way to reconcile the 1st point with the second. If there is no "safe place" to avoid assassination then there must be a safe time-frame and the target must be aware of said time-frame or at least aware of whether they are currently a target or not.
I believe that would argue in favor of notification of contract (which I do support).....even if "assassination" was implimented as some sort of mini-game or instanced combat, that wouldn't eliminate constant worry of an assassin popping out of the woodwork to stab you...it would simply be fear of a 45 second event vs fear of a 3 second event.
I would still argue that in order for it to be MEANINGFULL gameplay then there MUST be ways for the target through action or inaction to be more or less vulnerable to the assassin....and probably ways for the victem through active gameplay to prevent, catch or turn the tables on the assassin. Skills should play a role...but skill without some Active gameplay decisions on the basis of the player doesn't realy foster interesting gameplay nor does it model contests in any of PFO's other systems which all involve active gameplay decisions in helping to determine the players level of success against other players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon
Those are from a fairly old conversation. I suspect the idea has changed somewhat since then.
NPC-controlled territory is limited to a few major cities and other starter areas. In the heart of these territories, PvP may be completely disabled.While I fully support assassins having the skill to get into those places, if PVP is disabled, they should not be able to assassinate someone there.
Yes, it's an old quote, but I don't see any reason to believe anything's changed. The idea that PvP may be completely disabled in these safe NPC Settlements predates the idea that Assassins should by able to bypass those restrictions. So, a reiteration of this idea afterwards doesn't really change anything.
While I fully support assassins having the skill to get into those places, if PVP is disabled, they should not be able to assassinate someone there.
Well that is unless assassinations are not classified as PvP <g> just saying... I've no clue how it will be handled, nor am I advocating anything. But until we know how the Devs are thinking in this regard, anything is possible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon,
Those 2 points strike me as a bit contradictory to one another in nature.
Which 2 points? The idea that Assassins can reach you anywhere, coupled with the idea you shouldn't be constantly worried?
I think they're only contradictory if your vision of Assassinations is that they will play out like regular combat.
My vision of Assassinations is that they should play out in a specialized encounter, so that the only time I have to worry about them is when I'm in that encounter. In my vision, those points are not at all contradictory.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
While I fully support assassins having the skill to get into those places, if PVP is disabled, they should not be able to assassinate someone there.
I would add that characters who are "at war" will still be vulnerable to PvP even in these PvP-free zones.
I think the key is that the NPC Settlements are only intended to be refuges from PvP for new players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Characters who are at war are free from the warden response as wardens are triggered by the Attacker flag that you don't get in war. Unless I'm totally misreading the blog, there are areas where PVP is disabled by "magical effect" and then outside that, areas where warden response may prevent successful PVP. I'm referring specifically to the area that is magically PVP free.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have no problem with NPC starter areas being immune from assassination for the same reason that they are immune from PvP.
You can't engage in high yield economic activities or territorial control in them. So if you want to be "safe" but have low rewards, NPC starter areas are the place to do that.
In no way would I envision would I envision the penalties for being assassinated or killed in any other way in PFO to be WORSE then simply not playing the game at all. Currently being killed in PFO has a very mild penalty, unless a character is purposefully carrying thier entire life savings unthreaded ON THIER BACK as inventory items (note you can't loot coin). I'm assuming any character who had any familiarty with the game whatsoever wouldn't do that.
The only thing I would envision penalties for assassination doing beyond that was a debuff on relevant abilities that contribute to the characters economic or political abilities for a period of time ....maybe 25 percent decreased fast travel rate, 25 percent decreased command bonus leading formations and 25 percent debuff to crafting/resource gathering skills for a couple hours.
If players are choosing to NOT play altogether...or hiding out in low yield NPC starter areas for the duration of the assassination contest, they are already self-imposing a far greater penalty on themselves then had they played the contest and lost (IMO).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon,
Those 2 points strike me as a bit contradictory to one another in nature.
Which 2 points? The idea that Assassins can reach you anywhere, coupled with the idea you shouldn't be constantly worried?
I think they're only contradictory if your vision of Assassinations is that they will play out like regular combat.
My vision of Assassinations is that they should play out in a specialized encounter, so that the only time I have to worry about them is when I'm in that encounter. In my vision, those points are not at all contradictory.
Why would you not be, if you can involuntarly be brought into the encounter and the consequences of failing the encounter is the same?
So instead of being "stabbed in the back"...I'm forced to play checkers for 45 seconds. If the consequences of loosing each is X, why would a rational player, from a gameplay perspective, worry about one more then the other?
You MUST undergo the encounter and the consequences of loosing the encounter are the same.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have no problem with NPC starter areas being immune from assassination for the same reason that they are immune from PvP.
You can't engage in high yield economic activities or territorial control in them. So if you want to be "safe" but have low rewards, NPC starter areas are the place to do that.
If players are choosing to NOT play altogether...or hiding out in low yield NPC starter areas for the duration of the assassination contest, they are already self-imposing a far greater penalty on themselves then had they played the contest and lost (IMO).
I don't have an issue with the starter NPC settlements being closed to all pvp, as long as no character that is actively at war, or has a bounty or assassination contract on them, can enter settlement. Furthermore, if a new war or contract begins, they may not remain in that settlement and will find themsleves spwawning outside its walls or beset by its wardens as a trespasser.
NPC Settlements can not be allowed to become safe havens for those trying to escape the consequences of flags or contracts. Otherwise they will become like a drug dealer or mob boss, running his operations from behind bars, almost completely safe from consequences of his plots.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon,
Those 2 points strike me as a bit contradictory to one another in nature.
Which 2 points? The idea that Assassins can reach you anywhere, coupled with the idea you shouldn't be constantly worried?
I think they're only contradictory if your vision of Assassinations is that they will play out like regular combat.
My vision of Assassinations is that they should play out in a specialized encounter, so that the only time I have to worry about them is when I'm in that encounter. In my vision, those points are not at all contradictory.
I think the main reason why they weren't contradictary, is we are greatly missing the context of the second.
You're not supposed to be constantly running around worried that an assassin is going to pop out of the woodwork and stab you in the back.
At least in my view that one had absolutely nothing to do with how/where an assasain could get you, but rather, how often. IE if someone could cheaply and easily keep you perma marked for death, for very little cost, that would be bad, Most likely this will involve making it prohibitively expensive to frequently assasinate someone, as a cooldown would have abuses the other way around. (IE intentionally having a hit made on yourself to be on cooldown at the time it would be optimal to really assasinate you)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the main reason why they weren't contradictary, is we are greatly missing the context of the second.
You're right, and I haven't done a good job of explaining it. It's difficult to describe without coming up with a number of skills that might be used, and experience tells me that if I start throwing skills out there then people will fixate on those instead of using them as a way to understand the concept.
The point is not exactly how that encounter would play out, but that it would play out. I would trust the devs to give us skills that make sense, the same way I trust them to give us combat skills that make sense.
Essentially, the idea is to have an opposed encounter using skills that make sense, rather than requiring the player to use meta-game knowledge and tactics combined with passive skill checks.