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. ;)
This is the whole point of what the Dev Blogs have set up. A system where both bandit and merchant can still profit, by using the mechanics of the Flags, SAD and Unsettled (Lawless) Hexes.
If bandits steal just the extra that the merchants gain from the Traveler Flag, than the merchants have not really lost anything. If the bandits miss a merchant, the merchant gets to market with more because of the traveler flag. If the bandits wipe out the merchant, this time, taking all, then next time the merchant might be luckier. If the bandits over farm the merchants, and drive the merchants away, the bandit is harmed as well. If the merchants never contend with bandits, they bring too much to market and they lose profit.
The Most Dangerous Game
When players harvest resources far from civilization and then transport them home, they will be at an elevated risk of being engaged by hostile forces. They'll have to worry about monstrous creatures from the surrounding area, and they'll need to be especially worried about other players seeking to profit from their hard labor.
This creates a powerful game dynamic. Going out to get those resources is a pathway to wealth. But to succeed, you'll need help to protect your harvesting crew and your logistics and transport system. Folks who try to extract wealth without effective protection will likely find themselves beset on all sides by those who would forcefully take what they've harvested.
Ultimately, we feel that it should be pretty likely for players transporting valuable goods to be attacked by other players, with an increasingly likelihood as the value and distance they're transporting goods increases. The game economy will make getting into town with a big haul valuable precisely because there are people out there who want to take it from you: if you can get it to market, you get to charge a premium because of all the people that couldn't.
Deciding how much to carry, how many guards to bring, and whether to fight or try to flee when you see a bandit should be significant choices as a traveler. Conversely, player bandits should have to decide whether attacking just anyone is worth it, and whether it's better to make a surprise attack or actually try to extort goods from the traveler first (if they stand and deliver, it triggers none of the consequences).
If you're interested in PvP, this will be a way for you to constructively pursue that style of play without worrying about being condemned by the community for being a jerk, or facing significant mechanical penalties imposed by the game systems.
At the end of the day, if you're killing other players that are uninterested in PvP for no benefit, we want to make the costs significant enough to convince you to do something else, as that's the kind of thing that drives players away. However, if they know they have something valuable and fighting or fleeing from you is the price of profit, suddenly it's worthwhile for everyone. And those opportunities should be worth risking the consequences.
The one thing this Dev Blog does not explain: How us what the bandits steal, consumed?
If the answer to thy is, the bandit brings what they steal to market, well that does not create the scarcity needed by the economic system to increase profits fir the merchant. It also turns the bandit into a merchant himself, which I would loath to do.
What I would hope for is bandit consumption:
1. Materials are needed to build and maintain hideouts.
2. Items are disassembled to get crafting materials, so that bandit crafters can then replace or upgrade the bandits' gear.
3. Loot (coin) is needed to pay for training of higher or new skills.
4. Profit is hoarded by the company or individuals for community or personal wealth.
All if these effectively removes what was stolen and is consumed or finds its way as coin into the market ( supporting other industries).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why are you assuming the stealthed character knows the magic user with an AOE spell at the ready, is even there?
The caster can be seen if the stealther looks. The stealther cannot be seen whether the caster looks for him or not.
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.
I understand the stealther is hidden to gain the advantage on the mobs, and have not avoided that scenario whatsoever. It is irrelevant to my point what the stealther intends. What is relevant is that you cannot attack what you don't know is there. Attacking is intrinsicly different from accidentally dealing collateral damage. The rule you are promoting would deny the caster use of his AoE unless he really doesn't care a bit that someone might be stalking the mob closely setting up for a strong backstab, but gives the stealther, the only one in control of his hidden status immunity from responsibility for consequences. If I know there is a stealther around I am suddenly gimped, because I know that stealther might be hidden close to any potential target.
My opinion is that if the stealther takes damage while stealthed it should not put an attacker flag on the caster.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My opinion is that if the stealther takes damage while stealthed it should not put an attacker flag on the caster.
So the magic user will get his free attack, whether he suspects the stealthed character is there or he is completely unaware. The stealthed character's intent is always in question and bares the sole responsibility, and the magic user's intent is immaterial and bares no responsibility...... I got it. Now I guess you will have to convince the Devs, to change what they have planned for AOE.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bluufwolf sez "I want these rules for me. The rest of you, good luck!"
(Stealthers will use this scam often. It is a sure thing.)
What scam is that?
A stealthed character putting their own life at risk by hiding amongst NPCs so that a random wandering mage may get the attacker flag. A flag that lasts for one minute, has a minor alignment shift associated with it, pulls the stealther out of hiding and inflicts massive damage on them. Great scam!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...So the magic user will get his free attack...
No, the caster can cast his AoE on the monsters without fear that he might accidentally hit the thief. He doesn't control the thief's ability to stealth, why should the thief be given control over whether the caster can safely use his spell?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have to agree with Bluddwolf on this one. The caster threw out the AOE, he gets the attacker flag from those he hits. It makes sense (it is not an intentional attacker flag), it is easier on sys resources, and the Devs have made this one clear. It is just the way it is.
Edit: I hope that we don't lose any potential players over this, there are a lot of opposed people. Remember, if there turns out to be a problem in-game, the Devs will change it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...So the magic user will get his free attack...No, the caster can cast his AoE on the monsters without fear that he might accidentally hit the thief. He doesn't control the thief's ability to stealth, why should the thief be given control over whether the caster can safely use his spell?
Well, in your "solution", stealth is even less safe to freely use. I can actually get fire balled with no recourse. How is that balanced?
Magic User bears no responsibility and avoids getting a 1 minute attack flag and slight shift to chaotic.
Bandit bears all responsibility and gets a fire ball dropped on his head, just because he freely used his class skill.
Result: Everyone better equip a fire ball or other AOE spell to open up every combat engagement, because it is a consequence free attack if used against stealthed characters.
I wonder what other skills will allow for free attacks? Well, Invisibility is for certain, use that and probably everyone with every type of attack gets a free one. How about the use of cover? Maybe the magic user could throw the spell over his shoulder, "Oh sorry, didn't see you there... glad that didn't count as an attack." A blind magic user would be a blast at parties!
Yes I know, my sarcasm is over the top. I'm sure that will be the focus by someone, and not the questions I pose, I'm growing used to that.
I stand by the Dev Blog, as it is written. I stand by Stephen Cheney's post, that the magic user will get teh attacker flag because he is responsible for using the attack.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It makes no sense to call it an attack if the caster had no clue the thief was there.
The caster only cast a spell. He did not attack the thief.
The same could be said for the thief, so what would you suggest is a fare system that would compensate the thief for being injured or potentially killed by the magic user?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What is the consequence of this attack? Why does it matter that the bandit got fireballed?
If you look at the full picture, which I tried to outline in my posts, there really isn't a big issue. Or, at least, not as big an issue as a stealther and his buddies getting a 'free kill'.
This phrase 'free attack' is meaningless.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf Well, I feel like your sarcasm is a little strong. Not that my 2 cents is all that important. Your point is valid as things stand though.
@Being No, it does not really make sense. Your point is valid also. It could be called something else besides an attacker flag and dealt with differently. I am not sure what or that the Devs would want to program a whole routine to adjudicate it though. If it gets abused they will deal with it.
I know that I will just look for another game if they do not diligently work on griefers, gankers, and exploiting.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What is the consequence of this attack? Why does it matter that the bandit got fireballed?
First, he potentially could be killed by it.
Second, he could be injured by it, delaying what he may have been looking to do, and potentially costing him the use of healing potions, salves, or spells himself.
Third, he could get knocked out of stealth, making him vulnerable to the Mobs, that may aggro the closest target to them.
Fourth, he may have been stalking that group of mobs, moving in on their leader for a sneak attack, and now the magic user dealth the first strike and made those targets his.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What is the consequence of this attack? Why does it matter that the bandit got fireballed?
If you look at the full picture, which I tried to outline in my posts, there really isn't a big issue. Or, at least, not as big an issue as a stealther and his buddies getting a 'free kill'.
This phrase 'free attack' is meaningless.
The assumption being that the stealthed character was baiting the mage and he has allies. How exactly is it a free kill? All the gankers/griefers would get in your example is a kill without a reputation hit.
While some kids might try this, it really would be griefing and end up being reported. But really, is it worth going to all that trouble and use of random luck, to get a single kill for a single item and no rep loss?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah, they are getting around the system that is put in place to discourage that behavior. That's the issue.
@Bludd If they are killed by it, I believe the caster should get flagged. He actually caused harm to the stealther, as opposed to a no-harm no-foul mistake.
2. What does that have to do with whether or not the caster has the attacker flag?
3. I would be disappointed if NPC AI were designed such that they would defer aggroing their attacker and instead attacked a PC that was attacked with them.
4. What does that have to do with whether or not the caster has the attacker flag?
EDIT: Even if all of these were true, none of them approaches the current situation, in which the stealther and his buddies can freely pursue a consequence-less PC kill, sidestepping the game's systems and looting & destroying the caster's inventory.
And this is not even considering that the stealther could know the caster is there, while the caster could not know the stealther is there.
The range of options available to each party is different, and the range of outcomes moves further from each party's ability to avoid the situation.
But, I've wasted too much time in here already on a topic I'm not all that concerned about.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First, he potentially could be killed by it.
No, he couldn't. It goes back to that whole "no one-shots" goal the devs have.
Second, he could be injured by it, delaying what he may have been looking to do, and potentially costing him the use of healing potions, salves, or spells himself.
A valid point.
Third, he could get knocked out of stealth, making him vulnerable to the Mobs, that may aggro the closest target to them.
I find it extremely hard to believe the mobs will target line-of-sight aggro over damage aggro.
Fourth, he may have been stalking that group of mobs, moving in on their leader for a sneak attack, and now the magic user dealth the first strike and made those targets his.
That's a risk whether the stealther was hit or not. I fail to see how it's relevant.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No, he couldn't. It goes back to that whole "no one-shots" goal the devs have.First, he potentially could be killed by it.
Unless the stealther was already injured and hiding from someone or something and trying to heal up.
I find it extremely hard to believe the mobs will target line-of-sight aggro over damage aggro.
Third, he could get knocked out of stealth, making him vulnerable to the Mobs, that may aggro the closest target to them.
Unless the mobs can't attack/see the AoEer - such as with the use of greater invisibility or the like.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Unless the mobs can't attack/see the AoEer - such as with the use of greater invisibility or the like.I find it extremely hard to believe the mobs will target line-of-sight aggro over damage aggro.
Third, he could get knocked out of stealth, making him vulnerable to the Mobs, that may aggro the closest target to them.
That would open a whole box of ways to grief train mobs on unsuspecting people totally independent of AoEs. I'm pretty sure the devs have said that's not desirable, but I can't find the post at the moment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The assumption being that the stealthed character was baiting the mage and he has allies.
The part about the stealther attempting to flag the caster by stealthing into the fireball's blast radius only clouds the issue in my opinion. Whatever the steather's intent is to me beside the point. The point I am stuck on is the idea that if I have no way to know you are there and cast a fireball completely unaware of the danger to you I will be up on charges of attempted murder (my equivalent of 'attacker flag') just as much as if I did know you were there and purposfully cast the fireball at you.
There is a difference recognized in courts of law that manslaughter is a much lesser offense than even attempted murder.
Second, maritime law assigns the responsibility to avoid collision on the more nimble vessel. A yacht is more able to get out of the way of a bulk carrier, so at sea it is on the yacht to avoid collision if it and a really huge ship intersect course. It seems similar to me where a character is stealthed. The only one with a chance at controlling the situation is the stealthed character. Therefore I would assign responsibility for exercising due diligence to the stealthed character. What thief would not 'case the joint' before infiltrating a dangerous area?
Now, if the thief /whispers or /snickers the caster or his party or uses other means to advise them of his presence it would be a whole different ball game. But it does not seem to me reasonable to hold a character responsible when he had no choice present because the presence of the stealther was withheld from his awareness because of a choice the stealther made.
The caster chose to cast an AoE on the monsters, but he did not choose to cast on somebody he could not know was there.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would propose that in the described scenario if a character is stealthed the caster will not suffer the attacker flag and alignment shift for casting on legitimate monster targets even if the stealther suffers damage unless that stealther uses something like a /snicker emote first which tells everyone within range there is a stealthy character present. /snicker would not reveal the stealther, just give everyone a heads's up that there is someone downrange.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would propose that in the described scenario if a character is stealthed the caster will not suffer the attacker flag and alignment shift for casting on legitimate monster targets even if the stealther suffers damage unless that stealther uses something like a /snicker emote first which tells everyone within range there is a stealthy character present. /snicker would not reveal the stealther, just give everyone a heads's up that there is someone downrange.
This is a very good solution, but I suggest one further step.
There could be two types of stealth, one for PvE and the other for PvP.
When the character uses the PvE stealth, he is visible or has a flag that can be seen by other PCs. With this flag the magic user would still bear the responsibility for hitting with an AOE. The stealthed character is clearly projecting that his intent is to engage in a PvE action, and do bears no responsibility.
Then there could be PvP stealth. This stealth leaves the character undetected by PCs, unless they make appropriate PER roll, of course. If struck by an AOE, the stealthed character bears the responsibility. The magic user would not get the attacker flag.
Mechanics wise I suspect two types of flags are doable. I have played MMOs that have PvP specific gear and skills, so PvP and PvE can be mechanically separated. This would not be a waste of resources, because it could have other applications than just this AOE circumstance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is a very good solution, but I suggest one further step.
There could be two types of stealth, one for PvE and the other for PvP.
When the character uses the PvE stealth, he is visible or has a flag that can be seen by other PCs. With this flag the magic user would still bear the responsibility for hitting with an AOE. The stealthed character is clearly projecting that his intent is to engage in a PvE action, and do bears no responsibility.
Then there could be PvP stealth. This stealth leaves the character undetected by PCs, unless they make appropriate PER roll, of course. If struck by an AOE, the stealthed character bears the responsibility. The magic user would not get the attacker flag.
Mechanics wise I suspect two types of flags are doable. I have played MMOs that have PvP specific gear and skills, so PvP and PvE can be mechanically separated. This would not be a waste of resources, because it could have other applications than just this AOE circumstance.
Feels a little rough, but this is an idea I could get behind. Maybe instead, if you have one of the voluntary PVP flag enabled, your stealth applies vs PCs, if you don't have it enabled, then it only applies vs NPCs. Not sure that's a good solution, just trying to think of something that means a stealther doesn't have to devote two slots to stealth ability.
Edit to add: You could also set it so that activating stealth takes you to PvE stealth, and activating it again while in PvE stealth takes you to PvP stealth.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, and AoE are spells not cantrips, btw. Dear my would-be enemies, use depth charging at your leisure! Dear my would-be allies, save your spells for serious fights, not for random mob farming.
Sorry for my sarcasm - rough day and long thread :(
Actually, there will likely be AoE cantrips in PFO. Of course, in PFO, "cantrip" means something slightly different than it does in PFRPG. Cantrip(PFO) is a term being used to describe simpler spells than those found in a spellbook, but not to the same degree you see in PFRPG. They are the normal attacks of casters in PFO, so that casters can continue to be casters (pew pew), vice turning into naked fighters with no HP or BAB when they're not casting their giant world-shaping spells.
There will almost certainly be cantrip AoEs that do less damage than Spells, but can be used far more often. So it might be possible to depth charge for Stealthed characters (e.g., "I think there's a Rogue over there, but his Stealth is way too high, someone drop a few AoEs over there"), which would totally be intentional on the part of the caster.
I like the solution of using two types of stealth. That seems like it would work well. But won't Invisibility and the like still be an issue?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like the solution of using two types of stealth. That seems like it would work well. But won't Invisibility and the like still be an issue?
It depends on how invisibility is set up to work in the game. In tabletop it gives you total concealment (allowing you to make a stealth check) and an insane bonus to the stealth checks. You can still be targetted with a high enough perception check, even with magical invisibility, though you still benefit from the concealment 50% miss chance. Not to mention feats like Blind-Fight and Blind-sense that work as well against magical invisiblity as mundane stealth. I've seen more than a few characters mistake "invisible" for "undetectable".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There could be two types of stealth, one for PvE and the other for PvP.
When the character uses the PvE stealth, he is visible or has a flag that can be seen by other PCs. With this flag the magic user would still bear the responsibility for hitting with an AOE. The stealthed character is clearly projecting that his intent is to engage in a PvE action, and do bears no responsibility.
Then there could be PvP stealth. This stealth leaves the character undetected by PCs, unless they make appropriate PER roll, of course. If struck by an AOE, the stealthed character bears the responsibility. The magic user would not get the attacker flag.
This is a great simple solution. Having 2 types of stealth/invisibility which are easily toggleable seems like it might not be too difficult to implement, too.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, after 382 posts, if we can finally put our blades and fire balls away...... This is a good thing. I am most gratified by whom has said my most recent solution is a good idea. I may argue with you all, and I know I can be an ass about it to the enth degree, but your endorsements do mean a great deal.
Now if only it will mean anything in the crowd forging process?
Ohh... BTW, please don't expect that my quasi apology will men that I will be any less of a tenacious ass in the future.... That is just the way I play my forum warrior role!
|
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
I don't read much of your posts because once I get to stuff like that, I TL;DR the rest.
I would not sue somebody for spilling a hot beverage I bought from them on myself...
180-190° F isn't "hot" it's damn near boiling. There is no good reason to be selling it at a temperature that is likely to cause serious damage. As I pointed out, the analogy fails.
|
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 fearI don't read much of your posts because once I get to stuff like that, I TL;DR the rest.
I would not sue somebody for spilling a hot beverage I bought from them on myself...180-190° F isn't "hot" it's damn near boiling. There is no good reason to be selling it at a temperature that is likely to cause serious damage. As I pointed out, the analogy fails.
Just because you can't think of a good reason, doesn't mean there isn't one.
One reason many places sell coffee extra-hot (especially places with drive-thrus) is that people want their coffee to be hot when they bring it to their boss, not just in their car.
EDIT: I had more stuff about this written, but this is wildly off-topic. It shouldn't surprise you that somebody has a different opinion than you on this, considering that it has been hotly debated across the nation since it happened. Can we agree to disagree and leave it at that? =)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There is no good reason to be selling it at a temperature that is likely to cause serious damage.
BS.
They had a very good reason to sell it at that temperature: that's the temperature most of their customers wanted it at.
Can we agree to disagree and leave it at that? =)
*long, drawn-out sigh*
I guess so. It just really chaps me... Just because you don't understand why someone did something some way doesn't mean they didn't have a reason to do it that way.
Well, after 382 posts, if we can finally put our blades and fire balls away......
Wait. Wait wait wait. Guys.
Fire balls are one thing. But you're mentioning blades. Will I risk hitting my colleagues with those blades? Otherwise it breaks immersion and yadda yadda yadda...
I was joking. I don't have much of an opinion on melee FF, though I generally agree with GW's stance.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Let's assume that silly example isn't real (because it isn't). The game system won't be that transparently stupid. While we haven't written much about territorial control, the systems will be rich, deep, strategic, and not about rolling up siege engines to a hostile Settlement without risk of death.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would think that something like a siege engine, that only has one purpose, moving into a settlement hex that you're not a member of would initiate some sort of "invader" flag, thus rendering the engine and the people transporting it attackable. In the tiny chance that you're a siege engine manufacturer and you're just delivering commissioned goods, I'm certain there would be a way for members of that settlement to pardon your "invader" flag. However, I would think if I were running a settlement, and didn't have my own siege engine craftsmen, that I would invite said siege engine craftsmen to my settlement to make the thing, rather than take the chance that such an item (I'm guessing a very expensive item at that) could be destroyed or stolen in transit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Most often a siege engine was transported in pieces to the site of the battle, then assembled for use. Ongers were small enough to be drawn like a wagon, but catapults, trebuchets, and ballistas were simply too large to haul in assembled, and often required a team of specialists to even assemble. The components for these massive machines were brought in on wagons and had to be protected while they were assembled.
As far as ritual magic used during a siege, the location the casters will be assembled would need to be secured and prepared, circles drawn, tents assembled, artifacts and esoteric focusing agents positioned, etc. It would be an affair as time consuming and costly as any other siege engine, and as easily disrupted. While the casters are involved in their work, they would be completely vulnerable to harassment. The bonus to using magical siege assault would be fewer wagonloads of material to transport.
Formation magic would be a lovely thing to see. Archers and infantry would have their own formations for enhanced effect, so to should casters. I know that a caster could also be an infantryman or even an archer, it's not a class-based system, but if there are multiple casters in a group they should have a formation available to enhance their effects.
I would imagine that even being able to deploy siege weapons would require a war flag, rendering you free to attack by the opposition. I could even see such a flag being placed on a settlement and anyone within the hex gets the flag. I am rather liberal with my flags, but if a settlement is at war, non-combatants don't really have a place in the area.
The whole wartime, siege, and formation aspect is something that I am looking forward to seeing fleshed out more in future blogs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The dynamic Stephen outlined here is pretty simple guys. You don't use certain forms of attack in times of "peace" because of the chance of unintended injury.
- You don't use a grenade launcher when hunting deer in the woods.
- Law enforcement officers don't use 105 MM Howitzers when performing arrests.
In PFO terms that means you don't use attacks where you have no definite control over the targets struck. If you do, that becomes a "chaotic" act due to the reckless nature of said attacks.
In times of War, those rules get suspended, because it's well understood that walking into an active war zone is an inherently dangerous act. Thus you really can't complain about getting hurt by a catapult shot if you are standing on the walls of a settlement that is actively under attack in War.
As long as those rules are clearly understood in advance, people should be able to work with them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Have we forgotten about metamagics and sculpt spell? Could a good person not toggle on "only hit targets I can perceive in the AOE" while applying a sculpt spell metamagic, thereby only hitting perceived targets and keeping one's reputation intact, but sacrificing a metamagic slot in order to do so?
And as for 3D and how to carry out the actual casting, I would go for something like once a caster starts casting a spell, they have to stand still and target the spell during that time (which should give a semi-transparent, 3D idea of where the spell is going to go) and subjects them to attacks of opportunity.
Edit: And I might add Hostile targets, not friendly targets of course
The only such feat I'm aware of in Pathfinder is Selective Spell, which lets you exclude a small number of targets. This would prevent you from hitting some of the people you knew about, but doesn't do much good against a creature you're unaware of (since you can't target them to exclude them).