Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not asking for them to prevent friendly fire, I just want things treated equally, and that could be as simple as having invisible/stealthed targets not apply flags.
That is an interesting definition of "equal", so what free attack does everyone else get?
Ahh.. I have one, for sniping. If I am stealthed and you can not see me, I can get one shot off without triggering the attacker flag.
Here is how the arguement appears to me:
1. No one has really argued that friendly fire is a terrible idea.
2. Some, including me, think that the AOE should have a very good chance of exposing the stealthed character. I don't mind depth charging, it is a good tactic.
3. Some don't want the attacker flag for Attacking a stealthed character.
#3 is the real issue here, and I have not read a good argument for it. It is an attack. It is a calculated risk. It is taking responsibility for your choice to use AOE.
There should be NO free attacks, period! Every action has a consequence, intentional or not intentional. No one suggested that AOE use should shift you to Evil. What was said was that the use of AOE is a chaotic act by the very nature of their use or potential uninteded consequences.
If you are an AOE using magic user, you will welcome the chaotic shift for the use of AOE. In many cases, it will be the fist attack and not produce deaths, which would result in Evil shift (if used against neutral or good). But the Devs have already said, they do not inted for AOE to be a massive alpha strike type attack anyway.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bottom line, don't drop the nuke if your not sure you can handle the consequences. Traditionally in PnP RPGs, the use of fire balls was always a dicey business. They are incredibly powerful and do freindly fire damage. Typically used as a first strike and a last ditch strike attack.
AOE attacks require communication, coordination and care in their deployment or use.
If it is applied to steathy characters you will be always risking to suffer the penalties, so most people that don't want shift alignment will rarelly or probably never use AoE. Does not sound fair to me. Hidden chars hitting should not cause penalties in a fair and balanced system, or we will end up with evil and/or chaotic player characters havin a clear advantage as they will not care about reputation losses.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If it is applied to steathy characters you will be always risking to suffer the penalties, so most people that don't want shift alignment will rarelly or probably never use AoE. Does not sound fair to me. Hidden chars hitting should not cause penalties in a fair and balanced system, or we will end up with evil and/or chaotic player characters havin a clear advantage as they will not care about reputation losses.
But, Chaotic Evil characters with low reputation are punished by the game mechanics, so there is the trade off.
You kind of answered your own question. Lawful or Lawful Good would not likley use or often use such a chaotic spell as an area of effect spell.
I have stated a number of times, this whole debate is resolved if the Devs make a majority or even all of the AOE spells chaoitc based. They are by their very nature, chaotic, because they carry with them the potential for unintended consequences.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
3. Some don't want the attacker flag for Attacking a stealthed character.
First, I've already publicly announced my acceptance of the current design.
However, this is a serious mischaracterization of the actual argument. It's not surprising, though, that you phrase it that way since your main counter-argument relies on this false equivalency.
The key factors you're ignoring are:
1. The Caster may not know he's attacking anyone, and may actually be intending not to attack anyone;
2. The "victim" of the attack may have intentionally placed himself in harm's way in the hopes of tricking the Caster and gaming the system.
When those factors come into play, your counterexample about a "stealthed sniper getting a free shot" is clearly not equivalent.
Lastly, for emphasis, I've already publicly announced my acceptance of the current design.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Lastly, for emphasis, I've already publicly announced my acceptance of the current design.
As have I, repeatedly. I actually think it is a balanced system and never bought into the arguments that anyone would actually go through all of those silly steps, just to trick someone into getting an attacker flag.
However, I disagree that my counter argument was a false equivelent. If you can not see the stealthed character and therefore are not responsibile for hitting him. Then it stands to reason that when a stealthed character hits you, you can not certify that he was the one that attacked you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think one thing most posters have agreed on is that no game mechanic can interpret intent. How then can we expect the game to be able to know whether you were aware of a stealthed character or not, and whether you meant to still cast the spell and damage the stealthed character?
If we take out intent, we seem to be left with (what I see as) pretty straight forward facts. If the caster had used a targeted spell, there would be no problem. AoE spells come with added risk. If the caster's spell hits someone, the caster was the responsible party - they cast the spell. If the mistakenly struck party had some sort of pardoning mechanic, the whole reputation hit could be avoided. If the caster genuinely conveys their regret, I would expect most targeted stealthers to blow off the attack and pardon the mistake.
Yes, I agree that looking at all the possibilities when developing a system is worthwhile, but we also need to look at the likelihood of the possible exploit. The fear that stealthed people will be roaming around just waiting to jump into AoE spells seems a bit overblown.
To me, it's back to a matter of risk vs reward. AoE spells have definite rewards, but they should come with increased risk as well. That risk is the possibility of hitting people in the spell zone.
If it is applied to steathy characters you will be always risking to suffer the penalties, so most people that don't want shift alignment will rarelly or probably never use AoE. Does not sound fair to me. Hidden chars hitting should not cause penalties in a fair and balanced system, or we will end up with evil and/or chaotic player characters havin a clear advantage as they will not care about reputation losses.But, Chaotic Evil characters with low reputation are punished by the game mechanics, so there is the trade off.
You kind of answered your own question. Lawful or Lawful Good would not likley use or often use such a chaotic spell as an area of effect spell.
I have stated a number of times, this whole debate is resolved if the Devs make a majority or even all of the AOE spells chaoitc based. They are by their very nature, chaotic, because they carry with them the potential for unintended consequences.
Its not the spells that are chaotic its the way that they are used, Ie: dropping fireballs just for kicks is chaotic, dropping a fireball on a mob of goblins charging at you is not.
Spells are tools just like swords are a tool, so if i stab people at random iam acting in a chaotic way(but the sword is not), when i am defending myself from someone who is stabbing me, iam acting in a lawful manner(still not the sword).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... Then it stands to reason that when a stealthed character hits you, you can not certify that he was the one that attacked you.I see no way that could ever possibly be abused.
Just like a mage dropping AoEs everywhere and anywhere could never be abused?
Everyone seems to be worried about the stealthed character abusing the mechanics and tricking another character into getting a flag. What exactly would be the benefit to this? Being able to kill someone and not slide a little towards evil? Seems like a lot of work to go through to stop a minor alignment change. Especially given the stealth characters will be a quarter dead (or more?) after the free AoE attack. They better hope the mage doesn't follow up with another fireball, a lightning bolt and a cone of cold in quick succession.
It would make more sense for the stealth character to get in for a backstab/surprise hit on the mage and launch a series of quick strikes while they were mid-cast, and hope they can seriously damage them before they know what is going on and retaliate. Sure, the stealth character may get a flag (depends on the mages flags), but they have a way high chance of winning the battle.
IF the stealth character invites his buddies in to help beat the mage down, it is most likely griefing and should be reported.
Bottom line though, the mage launched an attack spell and hit someone. He wasn't toasting marshmellows, he was trying to blow stuff up and there was some collateral damage. Accept the consequences and prepare for unexpected outcomes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Its not the spells that are chaotic its the way that they are used, Ie: dropping fireballs just for kicks is chaotic, dropping a fireball on a mob of goblins charging at you is not.
Spells are tools just like swords are a tool, so if i stab people at random iam acting in a chaotic way(but the sword is not), when i am defending myself from someone who is stabbing me, iam acting in a lawful manner(still not the sword).
Nope. You are confusing chaotic intent with a chaotic attack. Taking a sword and randomly stabbing people would be chaotic intent and not a chaotic attack. Its equal would be randomly firing off lightning at people. These are both deliberate and fairly accurate attacks. The only thing that makes them chaotic is the intent of the weilder.
Now if you want to compare apples and apples, then dropping a fireball would be more equivalent to a dual wielder doing a whirling attack or a mace and chain being whirled repeatedly around the wielder. And its the fact that anyone could get caught in the blast of a fireball, or wander to close to a whirling melee attack that makes these attacks so dangerous and chaotic. In this case, the user is not focusing on making an accurate and deliberate attack at a single foe. These are attack styles that will hurt, maim, and kill anything that is near them, and therefore they are chaotic.
Sometimes you need to throw a fireball. Its a good tactic to take out a group of foes. But lets not fool ourselves fellas, its a reckless and potentially dangerous act. Like a grenade, once you pull the pen and throw it, there is no turning back. Whatever happens its out of your hands.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
-I have also already stated that I can see good reasons for blame to be placed on either the caster or the stealther-
I thought I made a decent explanation of why it could go either way there, too.
I actually think it is a balanced system and never bought into the arguments that anyone would actually go through all of those silly steps, just to trick someone into getting an attacker flag.
Huh, I thought you said you've played MMOs before...
-Again, I've already stated that I can see good reasons for blame to be placed on either the caster or the stealther-
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
-Again, I've already stated that I can see good reasons for blame to be placed on either the caster or the stealther-
As a military veteran, and having spent thousands of hours on rifle / pistol ranges... There is always, "You are responsible for what you hit, not what you fired at."
But, this arguement should have concluded a while ago. Many of us have accepted the Dev Blog as it stands, and I don't see them changing it until trial and error during EE.
Its not the spells that are chaotic its the way that they are used, Ie: dropping fireballs just for kicks is chaotic, dropping a fireball on a mob of goblins charging at you is not.
Spells are tools just like swords are a tool, so if i stab people at random iam acting in a chaotic way(but the sword is not), when i am defending myself from someone who is stabbing me, iam acting in a lawful manner(still not the sword).Nope. You are confusing chaotic intent with a chaotic attack. Taking a sword and randomly stabbing people would be chaotic intent and not a chaotic attack. Its equal would be randomly firing off lightning at people. These are both deliberate and fairly accurate attacks. The only thing that makes them chaotic is the intent of the weilder.
Now if you want to compare apples and apples, then dropping a fireball would be more equivalent to a dual wielder doing a whirling attack or a mace and chain being whirled repeatedly around the wielder. And its the fact that anyone could get caught in the blast of a fireball, or wander to close to a whirling melee attack that makes these attacks so dangerous and chaotic. In this case, the user is not focusing on making an accurate and deliberate attack at a single foe. These are attack styles that will hurt, maim, and kill anything that is near them, and therefore they are chaotic.
Sometimes you need to throw a fireball. Its a good tactic to take out a group of foes. But lets not fool ourselves fellas, its a reckless and potentially dangerous act. Like a grenade, once you pull the pen and throw it, there is no turning back. Whatever happens its out of your hands.
I can see what you are getting at. "a dual wielder doing a whirling attack" its the DOING that is chaotic not the weapon.Its still all about how the spell/weapon is used, not the spell or weapon.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nine Moons,
It is my guise that because there are no actual classes in PFO, certain skills and or spells would have alignment requirements. AOE spells, because if their potential of unintended consequences, are chaotic in nature. It is not a matter of how they are used, it is simply using them, that is chaotic. Using AOE is always a gamble.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The argument that the caster should take responsibility for using an attack that could potentially hit somebody they are not aware of is valid, I think.
But drawing a RL parallel here doesn't work so well. I don't think many people would intentionally run in front of gunfire or explosives in order to get hit in order to legally harm the firer; I think most people believe being maimed or killed isn't worth it... this is not the case in PFO. The only instance I can think of is Gandhi's marches, but the British were intentionally firing on him, so it's not all that close.
On the other hand, I think you can find many instances of this behavior if you look to non-mortal effects. McDonald's used to make their coffee hot and let you expect that. Stella Liebeck AoE'd it all over herself in the car. Now it says 'CAUTION: HOT!' all over the cup... and McDonald's paid for the unintended consequences.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's be reasonable about the military comparisons. When you're throwing a grenade, you have the chance to look for people in the area.
When you're throwing a fireball, if you don't already see the target, you will not see the target. Unless you cast invisibility purge or "take 20" on Perception (and we don't even know that such a mechanic exists), he's effectively invisible (or actually invisible, obviously). No amount of "caution" is going to save you from hitting him, so how is it your fault for not being sufficiently "cautious"?
The comparison is invalid. I've accepted the rules as they are, but the argument that it's the caster's own fault bugs me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Let's be reasonable about the military comparisons. When you're throwing a grenade, you have the chance to look for people in the area.
Not accurate, but I won't go into detail.
Firing Range is perfect example, "You are not responsible for what you shoot at, you are responsible for what you hit".
You fire and hit someone that was down range, even if you did not see them and they were not supposed to be there, you are in a world of sh*t and the range officer is going to jail!
Happened to a fire team after my squad was done with our live fire training. Soldier went to take a piss in woods, came out on side of range, got hit with .50 cal machine gun fire. Range Officers 1LT and SSGT, brought up on charges.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I've been skeptical of the entire flagging system from the start. It's bloated and easy exploitable.Please, explain what exploit you can foresee.
You see 100 players forming up outside your settlement. You see them rolling up seige engines. You can't do anything about it until they attack or you're the attacker and probably get the murderer flag.
The catapults start firing. The battering ram is knocking. Yet only the handful of players operating that equipment are flagged as attackers.
You have little choice but to attack them. If your settlement has laws against murder and you win, how many players just took an alignment hit? Your settlement alignment could shift towards evil just for defending your town.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I've been skeptical of the entire flagging system from the start. It's bloated and easy exploitable.Please, explain what exploit you can foresee.You see 100 players forming up outside your settlement. You see them rolling up seige engines. You can't do anything about it until they attack or you're the attacker and probably get the murderer flag.
The catapults start firing. The battering ram is knocking. Yet only the handful of players operating that equipment are flagged as attackers.
You have little choice but to attack them. If your settlement has laws against murder and you win, how many players just took an alignment hit? Your settlement alignment could shift towards evil just for defending your town.
Which is more important to you, your settlement or your alignment?
First of all, the attacker flag with its chaotic shift is very minor. When you log off you automatically shift towards lawful anyway.
Secondly, if such an army is using that tactic, they are likely not "good" aligned, so your killing them will not carry much of a reputation hit. If they are actually evil, and you have flagged yourself as guardian or enforcer, you might even gain some reputation even with having the attacker flag first.
Thirdly, such a force would be more inclined to be a part of a war party, and so would have active war flags. But, even if not, your consequences will not be that severe.
Finally, that scenario is not an exploit, it is PvP. The Dev Blogs don't require that attackers flag themselves for PvP. What the system does do is reward those that do flag up first, and even full charge those flags for 10 hours before actually using them.
Again, not an exploit, working as intended.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You see 100 players forming up outside your settlement. You see them rolling up seige engines. You can't do anything about it until they attack or you're the attacker and probably get the murderer flag.
I think there are two false assumptions there.
1: declaration of war. They can line up their siege engines, but I don't expect them to be allowed to attack the settlemnt without a DOW. Which probably means everyone belonging to their settlement is fair game to attack, and that murder laws take a back seat.
(Anyway, in your example, why would you repel the guys without attacker flags? If you go for the catapult operators, it's the 'spectators' that would get flagged for trying to stop you and get the alignment shift).
2: the time needed to siege. Even if you don't respond until the catapults start firing - or even half an hour later - that may still be well in time to repel the attack.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I haven't seen anything that suggest a war declaration is required to attack a settlement.
I wasn't worried about repeling the attack. My concern is that attackers can force you to take alignment and reputation hits just for defending your town.
This raises an issue that I have mentioned previously. When there is more fear of alignment and reputation shifts than character death, the system is flawed.
That or players really need to break away from the Theme Park PvE mindset that playing a game should have no consequences for the choices you make.
As Randomwalker eluded to, there is no saying if siege engines can even be deployed without a War Flag being active first. Last I read, if one side has the war flag, than the other does as well, war is consensual (which I don't agree with).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Let's be reasonable about the military comparisons. When you're throwing a grenade, you have the chance to look for people in the area.
When you're throwing a fireball, if you don't already see the target, you will not see the target. Unless you cast invisibility purge or "take 20" on Perception (and we don't even know that such a mechanic exists), he's effectively invisible (or actually invisible, obviously). No amount of "caution" is going to save you from hitting him, so how is it your fault for not being sufficiently "cautious"?
The comparison is invalid. I've accepted the rules as they are, but the argument that it's the caster's own fault bugs me.
Right, and in the real world, random people don't go hide in the middle of a bunch of enemy troops so your grenade will hit them too and then they can pop out and claim that they're attacking you in 'self-defense'.
If you're stealthing around, you get benefits for not being seen, but you also take responsibility for sneaking into someone's line of fire.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
McDonald's used to make their coffee hot and let you expect that. Stella Liebeck AoE'd it all over herself in the car. Now it says 'CAUTION: HOT!' all over the cup... and McDonald's paid for the unintended consequences.
I wish people would educate themselves before using that example. The coffee was being kept at 180+ degrees Fahrenheit, which can cause 3rd degree burns in 2-7 seconds. Difficulty opening the cup to add sugar and creamer spilled it in her lap, where it did cause those burns. If you buy something that you expect to be relatively safe (you drink coffee hot, but not at a temp capable of cooking your skin off) and you end up needing skin grafts to your genitals, aren't you right to be angry and seek legal redress?
Sneaking into the middle of a monster camp so someone throwing a fireball is going to hit you is an entirely different situation. The party presenting the danger wasn't the one hiding anything, you were. The consequences are also entirely different, since the game will have fire resistance and healing magic, both of which could let you put yourself in just enough danger to flag the other party without serious, life-long consequences.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have pointed out at least a half dozen reasons why hiding in a group of mobs is just not a practical tactic, but some of you can't see passed your hysterical fear of the possibility of even a minor shift of alignment or loss of reputation. There are only a few solutions for you.
1. Don't kill the person you unintentionally flagged and place yourself at their mercy. Beg for forgiveness or just stand there and let them kill you. This way you will not lose your precious alignment or reputation.
2. Run away as fast as you can, and hope you escape.
3. Never use AOE.
4. Never leave the safety of the NPC towns.
To summarize why it is a useless tactic to hide in middle of mobs, just to trick you:
1. Too many perception rolls have to be made to hide in middle of mobs.
2. How long will the wait for someone to show up be? Minutes? Hours? Never?
3. How do we know you even have an AOE?
4. Why take an AOE, when we don't have to?
5. Why not just sit back, stealthed, and wait for one side to win, then roll in under Outlaw flag and wipe you out and loot both sides?
6. This kind of scenario probably won't be taking place anywhere within settled hexes anyway. It will likely be happening in open PvP zones, where there is little or no concern for reputation loss because everyone will be PvP flagged anyway.
The exploit / griefing scenario some of you propose will happen is less likely than getting struck by lightning on a sunny day.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have pointed out at least a half dozen reasons why hiding in a group of mobs is just not a practical tactic, but some of you can't see passed your hysterical fear of the possibility of even a minor shift of alignment or loss of reputation....
Oh yes, Bludd, hysteria is all it is and you have absolutely no need to understand anyone else' reasoned perspective because if it disagrees with yours it can only be hysteria. So it is the caster's fault that you snuck into range of his AoE, and you have no responsibility for where you sneak whatsoever.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Oh yes, Bludd, hysteria is all it is and you have absolutely no need to understand anyone else' reasoned perspective because if it disagrees with yours it can only be hysteria. So it is the caster's fault that you snuck into range of his AoE, and you have no responsibility for where you sneak whatsoever.
Why are you assuming the stealthed character knows the magic user with an AOE spell at the ready, is even there?
I have seen far more circumstances where two parties, not even aware of each other, begin to attack the same group of mobs. Maybe one party has sent in a scout to get a surprise attack on the most dangerous of the bunch?
That is why I call it hysterical, because there is no acknowledgment that there can be any other reason for a character to be stealthed, other than to cause this "I tricked you into this attacker flag" purpose.
Why is it that you avoid any of the other possible reasons to use stealth? Or why do you avoid any of the reasons why tha tactic is not even practical?
5. Why not just sit back, stealthed, and wait for one side to win, then roll in under Outlaw flag and wipe you out and loot both sides?
6. This kind of scenario probably won't be taking place anywhere within settled hexes anyway. It will likely be happening in open PvP zones, where there is little or no concern for reputation loss because everyone will be PvP flagged anyway.
If any would be bandit out there, or a griefer out there is so stupid as to try to hide among a group of mobs, in the hopes of getting someone to unintentionally AOE you.... Please for the love of GOD!!! Grow a brain cell and do #5!!! You will get more loot, have less risk and your alignment / rep cost will be minimal or none.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think I agree with Bludd,although calling hysterics isnt going to convince people.
Sure it might happen once in a blue moon, that there is an invisible character freely lolly-gagging about in the middle of a mob for no particular reason. But I would add to Bludd's list that you would HAVE to know that there was a party with a mage heading in 'x' direction with 'y' intentions to even bother, otherwise you are just wasting a bunch of time on a situation that might not even arise.
And if they somehow have this information, and they pass all their checks, successfully infiltrating a mob, and the mage decides to not take the marginal hit to his rep for killing the already-damaged evil bandit, and he manages to kill the mage, he can have the unthreaded items as far as I'm concerned.
Looking at it from a different perspective, if there was an invisible Mob Boss from an escalation that had wandered over into that same creep mob, and he killed you, would you cry foul, or be more 'Well turns out there is invisible/hard to see things floating around, guess I'll try and go back and get my non-threaded gear with a glitterdust/potion of seeing'. From the caster's perspective there is no real difference, they threw an AOE and got killed by something that they could not see.
Furthermore sneak is not infallible. It has opposing checks. Monsters get these checks. The caster gets these checks. Many spells render stealth redundant. It seems like such a MASSIVE risk just to be able to push the attacker flag onto someone.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
McDonald's used to make their coffee hot and let you expect that. Stella Liebeck AoE'd it all over herself in the car. Now it says 'CAUTION: HOT!' all over the cup... and McDonald's paid for the unintended consequences.I wish people would educate themselves before using that example. The coffee was being kept at 180+ degrees Fahrenheit, which can cause 3rd degree burns in 2-7 seconds. Difficulty opening the cup to add sugar and creamer spilled it in her lap, where it did cause those burns. If you buy something that you expect to be relatively safe (you drink coffee hot, but not at a temp capable of cooking your skin off) and you end up needing skin grafts to your genitals, aren't you right to be angry and seek legal redress?
I wish you wouldn't make assumptions about me.
I am familiar with the specifics of the case. I would not sue somebody for spilling a hot beverage I bought from them on myself... I try to be careful with potentially dangerous purchases and tend not to handle them in ways that would cause me physical harm should an accident occur.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In EQ, I would stalk targets (in stealth, or simply behind a tree/over a hill) for 5-30 minutes until an opportunity presented itself where I knew I would win (I wouldn't bother spending much time unless it was somebody that I had a history with). I would say over 50% of players felt that attacking somebody while they were fighting NPCs was in bad form, so I would usually wait until after they finished their mobs, let them loot the corpses (corpse loot would open up to anybody after awhile if I didn't let them get it), and then I would strike.
I would give everybody this courtesy at first, but there were a lot of people that didn't follow that code, and after a few times of making it clear that I did and if they continued not to, I would forget it for that person too.
There were plenty of people that don't follow the norms of PvP in EQ. There were people that used exploits to PvP in EQ. There will be those people in PFO, too.
In PFO, those people will find a popular area where the common strategy is to AoE down a group of NPCs at once. They will stalk their targets for 5-30 minutes, they will watch the caster walk up to be in range of a group of mobs, one of them will place themselves on the outskirts of the AoE, and they will intentionally get hit by it. They and their nearby stealthed buddies will get an alignment- and rep- free kill on the caster and his buddies, since the caster will have unintentionally gotten the Attacker flag. They will get to loot gear and inventory from the targets; the most we could hope for in EQ was some pocket change.
It might not be a huge problem for a couple reasons, which is why I don't mind it going either way:
-GW might design stealth in a way that I'm not familiar with in any of the MMOs that I have played... maybe you can only be invisible if you are also a certain distance from any PC/NPC. I'm not sure I would like that, but I suppose it makes more sense than being invisible right behind somebody.
-I also expect some people to aggressively pursue bounties against these high-rep individuals, either by financing bounties for the victims or pursuing the bounties themselves.
It has happened before. It WILL happen.
It will also happen that the stealthed character won't know the caster is there, either. But, in that case, the stealthed character could know the caster is there, by being aware of his/her surroundings. That is the difference, and that is one of the many reasons brought up in this thread for why it makes sense to have it the other way, too.
Making the caster choose not to use one of his spells is different than making the stealthed character be aware of his surroundings, but I don't really think either way will end up being all that terrible, in the end.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm a little slow tonight so let me see if I have the basics right. I guess that I'm confused about the difference between getting an attacker flag from the mob (or party) you just fireballed, and getting an attacker flag because you fireballed someone hiding (either by stealth or spell) in said party or mob when you are getting an attacker flag from attacking the mob or party anyway?
Why you are just wasting fireballs trying to find stealthed/invisible characters that you think might be in an empty area with not targets when Stephen has indicated in this thread that there almost certainly will be cantrips available to do that instead that cost less to use? Stephen also said that depth charging for stealthed characters is intentional. I take that to mean that the caster would get an attacker flag in that case.
If a single character is taking on a mob (or party) what difference does it make? The character still has 3 or 4 or 10 characters/NPCs/monsters going after them, does one more matter?
If the caster is in Party A and attacks Party B (wither they are a mob or not) with AoE spells, doesn't the whole of Party A get the attacker flag? Again what difference does it make if there is one more character in the mix mad at Party A?
Like I said, I'm a little slow tonight.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Kakafika
I personally would rather do as you suggested as well. Wait until both sides have fought, and then move in and SAD the winner under the Outlaw Flag. Or if the BPCs won, we would just swoop on and wipe them out and loot everyone. We'd end up with the Thief Flag, but we would be flagged for PVP anyway so no big deal. Even if we take a small to moderate reputation hit, still not a big desk. We are thieves and that is what we do and the consequences for that go with the rewards.
That is all that I have been saying. Everyone had to accept the consequences of their choices. I'm sure there will be instances when bandits will use AOE. We will have to suffer the same unintended consequences as anyone else.
As a matter of fact, one prominent forum member had actually suggested using corpses to use as loot bait, to be able to then attack characters that picked up the Thief Flag. I have no objections to this form of entrapment. When a player chooses to partake in a criminal act, the potential for pvp should always be there. Sometimes we will get caught with our hand in the wrong cookie jar, and we will get killed for it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think one thing most posters have agreed on is that no game mechanic can interpret intent. How then can we expect the game to be able to know whether you were aware of a stealthed character or not, and whether you meant to still cast the spell and damage the stealthed character?
If we take out intent, we seem to be left with (what I see as) pretty straight forward facts. If the caster had used a targeted spell, there would be no problem. AoE spells come with added risk. If the caster's spell hits someone, the caster was the responsible party - they cast the spell. If the mistakenly struck party had some sort of pardoning mechanic, the whole reputation hit could be avoided. If the caster genuinely conveys their regret, I would expect most targeted stealthers to blow off the attack and pardon the mistake.
Yes, I agree that looking at all the possibilities when developing a system is worthwhile, but we also need to look at the likelihood of the possible exploit. The fear that stealthed people will be roaming around just waiting to jump into AoE spells seems a bit overblown.
To me, it's back to a matter of risk vs reward. AoE spells have definite rewards, but they should come with increased risk as well. That risk is the possibility of hitting people in the spell zone.
100% agree with this post.... It is what I have said, but I'll admit it was done with more tact.
Put in bold the main points, and I would add one question.
If it were truly an accident, and the victim of the AOE accepts the attack was unintentional, and the victim was not killed, then there would be no loss of reputation, correct?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Harad Navar I think the Attacker Flag is only gained from PvP action. This is why there is some issue with a non-PvP action unintentionally flagging the caster.
@Bluddwolf I think we're all quite convinced that you will be the noblest of bandits. I certainly think that's the smart way of going about it; not attracting too much ill will. But we are wondering what MMO players will do. If it can be exploited, it will be.
-I'm not sure you will be able to SAD anybody and everybody; I'm thinking it's more of something that we will use to waylay a caravan or a group in fast travel (via hideout).
-Yes, but as bandits you're AoEing people, not NPCs. The attacker flag is not an unintended consequence.
-The issue is that AoEing a group of NPCs is not a criminal act. The criminal act occurs when another character that the caster-player could not have hoped to see snuck into the group.
The issue becomes moot as soon as everybody begins to think of AoEs as potentially criminal acts. Personally, I feel that outcome is a little bit less desirable, but I don't think everybody is going to bump into this situation every week. Meh.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Kakafika
If my understanding is correct, criminal flags can be avoided by flagging as Champions and Outlaws.
Law vs. chaos is a measure of obedience to the social groups of the game through the settlements they control. Lawful alignment means you tend to follow the rules in settlements, while chaotic means you do not. Thus a lawful good paladin may have trouble peacefully visiting a lawful evil town and not wanting to smack all the evildoers, thus getting the Criminal flag, while a chaotic good ranger can deal with them as he sees fit. If you want to just ignore a settlement's laws, get your settlement to declare war on them, or flag yourself as an Outlaw or Champion (see below).
So it depends on what "ignoring" means?
Then I just have one point of to make:
but as bandits you're AoEing people, not NPCs. The attacker flag is not an unintended consequence.
This assumes that bandits don't have to clear a hex of mobs, before placing their hideout. Or they might just be traveling and see a group of mobs, and say... "Thar be loot in them thar goblins".
Perhaps this question can be answered by everyone here:
Would we like to see an AOE attack become a free attack on stealthed characters?
If the answer to that is "Yes", than everyone will begin every fight with an AOE. They would be a fools not to, because there is no negative consequence for doing so. So, my answer would be "No" based on this belief.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Harad Navar I think the Attacker Flag is only gained from PvP action. This is why there is some issue with a non-PvP action unintentionally flagging the caster.
Ah! I said I was a little slow. Please correct me if I have missed the point again, but if the wild is PvP land, wouldn't you expect that any action in the wild, PvE or no, has the potential of being PvP? Isn't that just the was it is?
The only practical way I see someone being stealthed in a mob successfully is if they had control of the mob. In that case, wouldn't they be out to do PvP and you are the target, just as if you were ambushed by another party?
This may be for another thread, but if you attack a mob, does that make the mob focus on you, or does it turn on a offensive mob-mode to attack all non-mob creatures? This would make hiding in a mob as a tactic mote.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not assuming anything...
-In the case where the bandits have used SAD on every character they intend to AoE, but they missed one sneaky stealther, then yes, they would also suffer this undesirable outcome.
-If bandits are AoEing NPC groups down, then yes, they would also suffer this undesirable outcome.
In these cases, the 'bandit' is the caster, and of course is subject to the same issues. What is the point of bringing this up? The 'occupation' of the caster has no bearing... Nobody is trying to nerf bandits, they are trying to adjust how a game system assigns blame.
but as bandits you're AoEing people, not NPCs. The attacker flag is not an unintended consequence.This assumes that bandits don't have to clear a hex of mobs, before placing their hideout. Or they might just be traveling and see a group of mobs, and say... "Thar be loot in them thar goblins".
Perhaps this question can be answered by everyone here:
Would we like to see an AOE attack become a free attack on stealthed characters?
If the answer to that is "Yes", than everyone will begin every fight with an AOE. They would be a fools not to, because there is no negative consequence for doing so. So, my answer would be "No" based on this belief.
Explain to me how this is a free attack, please? Because you keep saying this, but I don't think it is in almost every case:
The only time when this is a disadvantage to the stealther is when the caster takes him out of stealth AND then begins a long cast timer AND the stealther has no ability to avoid the cast (leave Line Of Sight, leave cast distance, defensive ability), forcing the stealther to attack the caster and gain the attacker flag.
This is in contrast to the current situation, in which the stealther is getting an alignment and rep -penalty free kill every time, if he chooses and is able.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------
The system cannot detect intent, but if a person is AoEing in a place where there are no visible PCs the intent is either:
1. To reveal a stealther.
2. To PvE.
If the intent is to reveal a stealther, then the player already has an idea that there is a stealther in the area. If the intent is to reveal a stealther, then the player will want to attack the stealther more, no? The caster will still get the Attacker Flag as he follows up his initial AoE.
If the intent is to PvE, the system will know this because he will not attack the stealther a second time. If he does, it can safely assume the caster is hostile, and he will get the Attacker Flag. There will probably be some casters that don't realize that they revealed a stealther and will unintentionally attack a second time, but the fault will rightly be on them for their lack of awareness.
It comes down to who can be aware of what is happening. The caster cannot know that the stealther is there. The stealther can know that the caster is there. As you said, "everyone has to accept the consequences of their actions." In the current case, the caster of an AoE cannot know the consequences of their actions, the bandit can know that they are in range of a caster's AoE.
But, again, it's not a big deal which way it goes. I just took issue with your characterization of the argument that you dislike and those that are making it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What I dislike is the assumption that a stealthed character is only stealthed as a means to trick someone into getting the attacker flag.
I am not saying you made this assumption, just that the assumption has been made. Or more accurately that the alternative has been ignored.
As I wrote earlier, you could have two groups, unaware of each other, who end up attacking the same group of mobs. These groups might be unaware of each other because we do not have a 360 degree view of our environment. I have often approached a mob to engage in melee combat, only to have an unseen ranged PC engage the target before I got there. I did not see the archer because I was focused on the target.
If I were stealthed, then the potential is that neither of us so each other. If the archer was a magic used and used an AOE instead of a direct attack, I could get hit.
The arguement has been made that the magic user should not pick up the attacker flag for hitting me, because he had no idea I was there. This is what I term as a free attack, because it is consequence free. I could take damage, could get knocked out if stealth or even killed and for the magic user, no harm no foul.
As Stephen has written, the use of AOE bears with the the consequences of an attacker flag when hitting unintended targets.
Being stealthed is not an attack, it bears no responsibility for using his skills in the way that I described. Now of the magic user feels that the stealthed character was setting him up, he can always take action against the offender, report the action, rebuke if he gets killed, bounty or death curse if he gets killed.
The stealthed character is not likely to use this method of trickery because it is far too complicated and completely unneccessary for the reasons I stated above, in previous posts.
One final note: it has not been confirmed or denied that attacker flags only apply to pvp actions. This information is very important to this discussion, because it could render every concern moot.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Attacker
The character has attacked another character outside of a war situation, and the target character did not have a PvP flag. It denotes which character is the aggressor in PvP combat.
Attacker flag would not be applied to a character using a PvP flag, against a character using a PvP flag.
So the probability of bandits, not using their Outlaw flag in this "tricked you not attacker flag" would have to be considered. So for steal there to use this, they would have to sacrifice the benefits of their Outlaw Flag, just to do it.
Outlaw (Chaotic)
The Outlaw flag is for players who want to rob other players, commit acts of banditry, etc. It can be used by chaotic evil players to be brigands, or by chaotic good players to be Robin Hood–style robbers. Outlaws use a new mechanic we are working on developing called stand and deliver, which allows the Outlaw to demand money from their victim through a trade window. If the victim refuses, the Outlaw gets to carry out his threats of force without losing reputation.This flag cannot be disabled while Attacker, Criminal, or Heinous (or their 24-hour versions) are active.
While Outlaw is active:
The player gets more loot when searching PvP kills that goes up each hour up to ten hours.
The player gets a bonus to Stealth that goes up each hour up to ten hours.
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.
If the victim was offered and rejected stand and deliver, the Outlaw loses no reputation for killing the target within five minutes of the rejection.
If the victim and Outlaw completed a stand-and-deliver trade, the Outlaw loses double reputation for killing the target within 20 minutes. (If they pay, you should let them go.)
When an Outlaw receives a ransom from stand and deliver, they get reputation up to a daily max.
This is an a lot of benefits to give up, just to trick an AOE using magic user, who may never show up, or who may not even have an AOE spell readied, to just get the benefit of no reputation loss for attacking someone with an attacker flag.
This is why I say it will rarely happen, and it really a quite foolish tactic. It gains the bandit less than what he would gain from just using the Outlaw Flag and the SAD system.
So what would be its purpose? How does it benefit the stealthed character? There are more benefits to not doing this trick?
The only thing I can think of is in the circumstance of a player group, merchant or gathering operation, not using a PvP flag and drawing them into PVP. Again, how likely will this be in a lawless zone?
The group, merchant, gatherers, would be foregoing the benefits of the Guardian, Enforcer, and or Traveler flags to pass through a lawless hex.
Why would bandits even look to attack a non traveler flagged merchant? They have less loot to steal, and that is the main objective of bandits.
Just too much wasted time and down side to the whole scenario. A lot of nervous energy being spent on a very rare, ill advised tactic and or a potentially imaginary threat.
Let's be reasonable about the military comparisons. When you're throwing a grenade, you have the chance to look for people in the area.Not accurate, but I won't go into detail.
Firing Range is perfect example, "You are not responsible for what you shoot at, you are responsible for what you hit".
You fire and hit someone that was down range, even if you did not see them and they were not supposed to be there, you are in a world of sh*t and the range officer is going to jail!
Happened to a fire team after my squad was done with our live fire training. Soldier went to take a piss in woods, came out on side of range, got hit with .50 cal machine gun fire. Range Officers 1LT and SSGT, brought up on charges.
What you're missing here is my point: Reality is a world with much more complex rules.
If you don't notice a sneaking guy in real life, it's because you didn't look hard enough.
If you don't notice a sneaking guy in-game, that's it. Nothing you can do. There's no way to be 'more careful'. So why should it be your responsibility? You have done everything you can to avoid hitting the Stealth'd character.
Do you have a suggestion for how to be more careful? Because I don't think there is a way. This is not reality. These are not firing ranges. This is Golarion, these are the River Kingdoms, and any idiot running around a combat area when an adventuring party approaches is going to be responsible for his own demise.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why would bandits even look to attack a non traveler flagged merchant? They have less loot to steal, and that is the main objective of bandits.
Now that sounds good for merchants. I hope that other bandits roll with that attitude. The map is only, what 9 miles long? Makes added Traveller speed not so important. As for carrying capacity, I would rather get through with something than nothing.
Of course that attitude will have to be adjusted if bandits start starving, the map size increases, or the whole bandit/merchant dynamic changes in other ways. ;)