Goblin Squad Member
|
If the penalty is to the leader's passive bonuses to the settlement, the logging out is not a loophole. You just apply the penalty to the passive bonuses anyway. Presumably they're still being granted when the player is logged out (otherwise leadership would have to be logged in 24/7, and that's silly.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I actually like the idea of leaders having to log in to perform some level of "settlement maintenence" every couple of days or suffer some reduction in effectiveness, but it still doesn't solve that problem. They log in just long enough to do whatever is required to reset the timer, then log back out. Unless the assassin is there waiting for them, they're not going to get hit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Dario,
You're right. It's too early. :) But the issue remains in part...if you can log your leaders out before a war to avoid assassination and thus the settlement loss, it still creates a more OOC means of circumventing an IC strategy (like assassination).
I would suggest the Leader should have to be online in order to apply his bonuses to the Settlement. It would make sense to me to have a fairly quick ramp-up, so that within 15 minutes of logging in, the Leader's buffs are being fully applied. This should keep the Leader from logging in and out quickly to try to apply his buffs for some time during an encounter while also minimizing his exposure.
It also makes sense for there to be several characters who can serve as this Leader. The bonuses should be based on the best Leader around, rather than being additive.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm a firm believer that a settlement's effectiveness should be tied to the activities taken within: Gathering, Processing, Crafting, and Trading should all be primary ways to increase a settlement's influence and effectiveness. The activities of those in a leadership role should be secondary influences to most of the indices (minor leadership boost), but primary to Morale. Having an absentee government should be seriously detrimental to a settlement's morale. Likewise, having a settlement's leader assassinated should deal a serious, if temporary, blow to the settlement's morale. Same with gathering camps or war bands; if the leader is assassinated, that camp's morale is going to be shattered and they will be less effective.
The point of assassinating someone isn't necessarily to just get rid of them, it's to disrupt the influence they have on things around them. Since death itself is just an inconvenience in PFO, the consequences of being assassinated should be less personal and more global.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the death of a leader type had a negative effect on the whole settlement or faction, then surely that would be incentive for regular folks to rally round each other, and protect their popular leaders, the ones who are focused on exploration and settlement building.
As a crafter, you may not have the strength of arms to hunt down an annoying griefer bandit, but you can certainly contribute to his demise, by helping to inform on him to the whole Bounty Hunter community.
Update the town notice board, let everyone know he's been in town trying to buy supplies.
Send your apprentice to fetch the Watch, while you keep him talking.
Assassins will not be playable without a "one shot" or "quick kill" mechanic. They plan to make assassins a part of the game. Seems that they will have to give them some kind of mechanic like that or assassins will be pointless. So, if the assassin does have a "one shot" or "quick kill" mechanic, and death is just a minor inconvenience, then assassins will have no prob just doing suicide hits.
They already have mechanics for griefers. I really do believe that the bandits that last will be the bandits that offer SAD. Certainly a victim should do everything they can to help hunters track down thier killers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Assassins will not be playable without a "one shot" or "quick kill" mechanic.
There are a number of people, myself included, who are not convinced this is the case. It's certainly one way of handling assassins, but not the only one. Particularly given that the devs have already expressed a desire to avoid one-shots in the rest of the game.
I hate to say this but you guys are making me feel like character death should somehow be more painful.
Not fun when it is a matter of being ganked but perhaps neccesary to make PVP, bounties, assassinations, PVE, everything meaningful.
It would certainly give you that adrenalin burst when you found yourself in conflict.
As it stands now, it does seem like a minor inconvenience.
One of the biggest recurring arguments of late has been "How to make Bounties/Assassinations matter?" Most people appear to agree they need more to them.
I do, however, agree with Dario--a one-shot kill is not the "only" way to make assassins work, and anybody saying it is is just drawing a line in the sand that doesn't need to be drawn.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is gonna be unpopular and anyone reading this will, I am sure, let me know...Deal!
As a base line example:
1. Your typical character, with a fairly good or better reputation, would lose 1 hour of exp pts when killed in PVE or consentual PVP or when he is attacked and killed just minding his own business.
Ugh. Just triple-blegh. So punish people for enjoying your game by taking away the skill they just learned. Eww, eww, eww. Or if you go the other direction and take it off the next hour of learning, then you're punishing people for subscribing. Those without a current skill time purchase don't get a hit while you steal from those who've paid you real money. Just disgusting business practice.
2. That loss would scale up for killed with any short term flag except "killed" or "involved".
3. Even more with advanced versions of the naughty flags i.e. "brigand, villian, or murderer".
4.Finally scaled up more, the lower the rep of the killed.
This, or something similar, plus most of the things already planned (rep loss, alignment shift, etc...). The idea is to make death sting only a little for people playing the system the way GW wants, and worse (scaling up) for those that are playing naughty (outside the scope of GW intensions).
You misunderstand the game design. Those "naughty" flags are encouraged. They are absolutely inside the scope of the game design. Otherwise they wouldn't get flags, they'd get banned. The game is designed for PvP conflict. It's designed around it. If you dole out steeper punishments for the players that cause conflict, they'll leave. Then you have no conflict and the rest of the players leave because they're now just playing a fantasy version of the Sims but paying a lot more for it.
Death should be meaningful, but not necessarily painful.
Agreed that the exp penalty was not thought out well as it would apply to innocent victims. Still even innocents should see death as more than an inconvenience. There should be something that is not so situational (programing difficulties) and makes death more than trivial. Something that is more punitive for death after bad behavior.
As for people that get those flags,
But demons, supernatural evil, and people with the Heinous flag are totally evil and you should kill them.
and other things in the post "I Shot a Man in Reno Just to Watch Him Die" make it appear that those flags are increasing warnings that are for discouraging the activities that garner those flags. The flags get more punitive as you continue the behavior and the penalties get more consequential for being killed with the flags active. That seems like a warning system to discourage those behaviors.
Doesn't seem like that mechanic is to encourage that style of play. Seems like GW wants you to be able to play that way but punishes you if you do.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I hate to say this but you guys are making me feel like character death should somehow be more painful.
Not fun when it is a matter of being ganked but perhaps neccesary to make PVP, bounties, assassinations, PVE, everything meaningful.
It would certainly give you that adrenalin burst when you found yourself in conflict.
As it stands now, it does seem like a minor inconvenience.
One of the biggest recurring arguments of late has been "How to make Bounties/Assassinations matter?" Most people appear to agree they need more to them.
I do, however, agree with Dario--a one-shot kill is not the "only" way to make assassins work, and anybody saying it is is just drawing a line in the sand that doesn't need to be drawn.
Well, yes, I am sure that there are other ways to make assassins work. Let's hear your ideas on that.
Not trying to draw a line in the sand. At the same time, I have not seen ideas on alternatives that a) Are fun for assassin and target. b) Not too nerfed as to make them seem ridiculous.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, yes, I am sure that there are other ways to make assassins work. Let's hear your ideas on that.
Not trying to draw a line in the sand. At the same time, I have not seen ideas on alternatives that a) Are fun for assassin and target. b) Not too nerfed as to make them seem ridiculous.
I suggest you check out the following thread. I'd rather not see the arguments on assassination take over the bounty hunting thread.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
KarlBob,
24 hours, certainly. A week...as others have said, that seems too punitive to others players in that leader's settlement.
A week, a day, whatever GW decides. The core of the idea is that you can instantly re-spawn, but it takes a little while to return to full effectiveness.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There should be something that is not so situational (programing difficulties) and makes death more than trivial. Something that is more punitive for death after bad behavior.
You really want to punish people for playing a game as intended? I'm glad you're not in charge.
As for people that get those flags,
Ryan Dancey wrote:
But demons, supernatural evil, and people with the Heinous flag are totally evil and you should kill them.
and other things in the post "I Shot a Man in Reno Just to Watch Him Die" make it appear that those flags are increasing warnings that are for discouraging the activities that garner those flags. The flags get more punitive as you continue the behavior and the penalties get more consequential for being killed with the flags active. That seems like a warning system to discourage those behaviors.Doesn't seem like that mechanic is to encourage that style of play. Seems like GW wants you to be able to play that way but punishes you if you do.
They aren't punishing evil. They're encouraging good to fight evil. They're giving evil the risk of being hunted by good in exchange for the reward of doing what they please (such as raising undead for cheap labour). You make it sound like good is the easy road. You've kinda got it backwards.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In regards to the problem with assassination/bounty hunting being effectively a silly triviality - all you need to do is increase the problems that death grants you.
I see a few ways that I personally think would make sense, without being ridiculously crippling and taking the fun out of it all.
1) You don't respawn where you 'normally' would, when killed by contract. Perhaps you end up on the other side of the map, and have to spend time getting back to where you can get back to work.
2) There are going to be situations where it would be far less convenient to be killed, even for a seasoned warrior or mercenary who goes around with his armor and weapons threaded will have times that he is carrying other items that he would really rather not lose. (Obviously this is more of a gameplay tactic than an actual mechanical change, but it makes sense.)
3) Increase the rate of item loss - perhaps make the corpse entirely unlootable, with all items dropped automatically gone. That would be punishment enough for most people, while also explaining why the killer needs to be paid so much - he can't loot them, either. (Not to mention the whole life-and-limb risk.)
4) Temporary 'negative-levels' - effectively losing the ability to use you most powerful abilities for a time.
Instead of making such mechanical changes the norm, however, perhaps an assassin/bounty hunter needs to unlock them as abilities, and trigger them when killing the target. That way one must specialize to some extent, instead of just anybody without compunctions being able to kill you 'even harder' than normal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would rather see a death penalty that's enough of a pain so that players don't want to die, but not so harsh that they whine incessantly about it.
Death in MMOs has become so trivial that its meaningless. I don't believe this is the right way to go.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Death in MMOs has become so trivial that its meaningless. I don't believe this is the right way to go.
It works in the Secret World, but in all other games I agree with you.
There are certain quests in TSW that you cannot complete unless you die. In death, you're able to access the spirit world to talk to ghosts or see spirit guides. It would be cool if there was a similar option in death in PFO, perhaps tied to Twice-Marked of Pharasma.
Of course, if they give that option in PFO, you still need to worry about equipment being looted/destroyed even if you are running around as a spirit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There are certain quests in TSW that you cannot complete unless you die.Just because people like to pile on WoW, I'd like to point out that WoW did the same thing with the Molten Core access quest (and others, I think) well before TSW had its first line of code written.
And in UO I can remember running around looking for spirit healers. They wouldn't heal you at one point in the UO (version whatever) if you were a murderer or criminal. That was a long while even before WOW.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There are certain quests in TSW that you cannot complete unless you die.Just because people like to pile on WoW, I'd like to point out that WoW did the same thing with the Molten Core access quest (and others, I think) well before TSW had its first line of code written.
I just used TSW as an example because of the seamless way they made dying into the lore. I've never played WoW, and I don't really want to. I got bored enough with ToR and I am a huge Star Wars fan.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In regards to the problem with assassination/bounty hunting being effectively a silly triviality - all you need to do is increase the problems that death grants you.
I see a few ways that I personally think would make sense, without being ridiculously crippling and taking the fun out of it all.
1) You don't respawn where you 'normally' would, when killed by contract. Perhaps you end up on the other side of the map, and have to spend time getting back to where you can get back to work.
2) There are going to be situations where it would be far less convenient to be killed, even for a seasoned warrior or mercenary who goes around with his armor and weapons threaded will have times that he is carrying other items that he would really rather not lose. (Obviously this is more of a gameplay tactic than an actual mechanical change, but it makes sense.)
3) Increase the rate of item loss - perhaps make the corpse entirely unlootable, with all items dropped automatically gone. That would be punishment enough for most people, while also explaining why the killer needs to be paid so much - he can't loot them, either. (Not to mention the whole life-and-limb risk.)
4) Temporary 'negative-levels' - effectively losing the ability to use you most powerful abilities for a time.
Instead of making such mechanical changes the norm, however, perhaps an assassin/bounty hunter needs to unlock them as abilities, and trigger them when killing the target. That way one must specialize to some extent, instead of just anybody without compunctions being able to kill you 'even harder' than normal.
I like the idea that a hired kill has different consequences than a random combat death. It doesn't have to be a huge difference. The fact that it wasn't a routine death will stick in the target's mind. Whether the target takes that as discouragement or validation is another matter, of course.
Bringing a post over from another thread that illustrates why I want death to be something players shouldn't want to do..
Finally got around to reading the blog I like it. I think that the refreash system also bring some tactical choices to larger forces.
If i read it correctly spells on refreash are big spells that will make large impacts. The down side is that during any given period of combat they are a limited resource.
This brings something interesting for larger scale battles and thats effective control of casters. In a larger scale battle a caster might be able to go into combat, cast their spells quickly, leave the immediate battle area, go out of combat, refreash, then go back in to alpha again. Honestly I dont see the issue with this. However for the other side this brings up a point of having scouts/skirmishers whose main purpose could be preventing those casters from leaving combat. A caster who is leaving to refreash probably has cast most if not all of their spells, leaving them open to attack. Not only that but if a caster does that you can take out a heavy hitter by not allowing them to get their spells back.
The caster's side has a couple of options, accept the caster as a lose and have him die and run back, or use some resources (other people) protect them while they run out of combat to refreash.
Looks fun. Im glad that GW is thinking about the balance issues between casters and non casters.
I left the whole post in for context, but the part I bolded is the important part. When death is just a quick run back to the battle, that seems to be taking a lot away from the whole aspect of players should want to live. Maybe I'm just sick of "those" games where death has no meaning, but I hope PFO is different.
I'm NOT wanting some harsh penalty, or something that takes a lot of time to recover from. Just something that players would rather not have to do unless there's no choice. Obviously we will all be dining a lot, so no one wants to have some drawn out penalty to deal with. I'm sure there's a balance here that can be worked out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I know Ryan wants us to accept that we will die, and die often, and to not think of it as a big deal. Obviously, it's better if we prefer to survive, and I think that's what you're getting at.
Perhaps something like a 15-30 minute cooldown on using a particular Bind Point to resurrect at, so that repeated deaths in short order require you to resurrect somewhere less optimal? Just brainstorming...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really think that if you are in a war, when you die you should Rez at your home city unless you are assassinated. It gives defenders a home field advantage and makes suicidal tactics from the attacking side in a siege battles doomed to failure. Attackers should have to make good use of smart tactics, siege engines, terrain and superior numbers to take out an enemy settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know the devs have made references to wanting some sort of attrition mechanic in warfare, so that we don't end up with eternal conflicts of people running back from bind points. Though I think it was in the line of a reduced effectiveness, rather than time padding.
Strategically it is much more significant than 'time padding'. If I have an army twice the size of yours in siege of your settlement, yet my army's nearest bind point is twice as far away as yours, then during the battle perhaps half my army is en route back to the battle, making my effective strength versus you at any given time in the enighborhood of 1:1 rather than 2:1.
If you are entrenched I would be losing that scenario. Especially since my army offended the druids and they are now cutting my supply lines...
I know the devs have made references to wanting some sort of attrition mechanic in warfare, so that we don't end up with eternal conflicts of people running back from bind points. Though I think it was in the line of a reduced effectiveness, rather than time padding.
Are you talking about the fatigue system Ryan mentioned? All I really remember from that was that troops engaged in prolonged battle would, over time, become fatigued and need to rest in order to maintain full fighting strength.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, since it appears we have merged the two issues pertaining to Bounty Hunters and Aassassins, I'd like to suggest the two best ideas I have seen (neither of which were entirely my own, which is even better).
Bounty Hunters:
When a Bounty Hunter kills his/her target, that target can not enable any type of long term PVP flag, for one full cycle (10 hours).
What does this do? It effecively punishes the target in a way that is associated with his or her activities. It gives the original victim so reassurance that, at least the person who harmed them, can not for a brief time do the same to someone else.
If a Bandit kills, he can not reflag himself with the Outlaw flag for 10 hours. Without that flag he can not issue a SAD; and he may not even be able to use a hideout.
It won't mean he can't just use the attacker flag, or certainly the involved flag. These two can still be initiated.
Note: a 10 hour ban, amounts to 20 hours without that flag's full benefits being reached.
I like this idea, because the punishment actually matches the crime.
Assassins:
When an assassin kills a leader of a raid group; charter company; settlelemt; kingdom etc...
The victim can not enact any leadership buffs to their repective grouping for 10 hours. This debuff is placed against all leadership based skills associated with any mass activity (governance or even leadership of merchant, gathering, or crafting operations).
This would give the act of assassination the preemptive value that I think many hope for. It would be a valuable precursor for a war (military or trade). It would also become an activitiy almost exclusively directed at the leadership structure of any player grouping.
Exclusionary Example: Joe the cup cake merchant, will likley not be the target of an assassination. If Johnny the breadmaker up the block wants him dead, he can just kill him with any normal PVP flag.
In this way I think both professions become what they are desiogned to do. Bounty Hunters punish criminals, and Assassins take out the leaders of men. If you are not a criminal or a leader, you should have little fear of either.
Thanks, Bluddwolf. I think both those ideas are quite good, and they actually give Bounty Hunters and Assassins distinct powers. They've got my support.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thanks, Bluddwolf. I think both those ideas are quite good, and they actually give Bounty Hunters and Assassins distinct powers. They've got my support.Thanks, hopefully others will feel the same and maybe the Devs might see some merit in the idea (or at least parts of it).
Sounds good to me, too. Having different death effects after a bounty kill or an assassination will help to differentiate the two professions, and maintain separate markets for their services.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When a Bounty Hunter kills his/her target, that target can not enable any type of long term PVP flag, for one full cycle (10 hours).
I'm not sure this is really as targeted as you might think. It's quite possible that the person that got the Bounty on them has no intention of using any long-term flags anyway, so there would be no penalty.
I would prefer to see a significant Reputation hit, instead. In essence, it's comparable to a "perp walk" where everyone sees the criminal in handcuffs.
Well, since it appears we have merged the two issues pertaining to Bounty Hunters and Aassassins, I'd like to suggest the two best ideas I have seen (neither of which were entirely my own, which is even better).
Bounty Hunters:
When a Bounty Hunter kills his/her target, that target can not enable any type of long term PVP flag, for one full cycle (10 hours).
What does this do? It effecively punishes the target in a way that is associated with his or her activities. It gives the original victim so reassurance that, at least the person who harmed them, can not for a brief time do the same to someone else.
If a Bandit kills, he can not reflag himself with the Outlaw flag for 10 hours. Without that flag he can not issue a SAD; and he may not even be able to use a hideout.
It won't mean he can't just use the attacker flag, or certainly the involved flag. These two can still be initiated.
Note: a 10 hour ban, amounts to 20 hours without that flag's full benefits being reached.
I like this idea, because the punishment actually matches the crime.
Assassins:
When an assassin kills a leader of a raid group; charter company; settlelemt; kingdom etc...
The victim can not enact any leadership buffs to their repective grouping for 10 hours. This debuff is placed against all leadership based skills associated with any mass activity (governance or even leadership of merchant, gathering, or crafting operations).
This would give the act of assassination the preemptive value that I think many hope for. It would be a valuable precursor for a war (military or trade). It would also become an activitiy almost exclusively directed at the leadership structure of any player grouping.
Exclusionary Example: Joe the cup cake merchant, will likley not be the target of an assassination. If Johnny the breadmaker up the block wants him dead, he can just kill him with any normal PVP flag.
In this way I think both professions become what they are desiogned to do. Bounty Hunters punish...
I like these ideas. I think your definitely onto something here. One thing though, both the bounty hunter and the bandit get 10 hour penalties for making a kill, but where the assassin is concerned you have the victim receiving a penalty. Should the assassin also get one?
I would like to suggest that the 10 hour penalties be in game time, and that the players need not remain logged in while they are in effect.
I would prefer to see a significant Reputation hit, instead. In essence, it's comparable to a "perp walk" where everyone sees the criminal in handcuffs.
This is a good idea. High Reputation is meant to show that the character is just as tough or friendly as they claim to be, so getting caught would show that they aren't.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not fond of the significant reputation hit idea. That is, unless they make bounties more uncommon and allow for them for real cases of wrong doing. As it stands now, you can place a bounty on someone for simply "injuring" them, whatever that means.
The assassin would not have a flag limitation for completing an assassination, he is not the one being punished. It is his target that is getting the limitation on settlement or leadership buffs.
With my suggestion, Bounty Hunters punish criminals and Assassins punish men in leadership positions, ie politicians.... Oh wait, they are criminals as well...lol.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not fond of the significant reputation hit idea. That is, unless they make bounties more uncommon and allow for them for real cases of wrong doing. As it stands now, you can place a bounty on someone for simply "injuring" them, whatever that means.
If you kill me, I can immediately Rebuke you to cause you to lose Reputation. A "significant Reputation hit" from a successful Bounty might only be two or three times the Reputation you lose when I Rebuked you. It doesn't have to be earth-shattering.
ie politicians.... Oh wait, they are criminals as well...lol.
A subject everyone agrees on! :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As it stands now, you can place a bounty on someone for simply "injuring" them...
I just read that again. That doesn't sound right...
If you want to get even, you can establish a bounty on anyone listed as a killer on your enemies list.
You have to be involved in killing another player before you can have a Bounty placed on you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As it stands now, you can place a bounty on someone for simply "injuring" them...I just read that again. That doesn't sound right...
If you want to get even, you can establish a bounty on anyone listed as a killer on your enemies list.You have to be involved in killing another player before you can have a Bounty placed on you.
I suspect the confusion comes from that same blog post. There was some imprecise wording in it.
Any player that hurts you shows up on your enemies list. This list allows you to salute or rebuke the enemy (granting or reducing reputation, at the cost of your own). The entry disappears if you aren't hurt by that enemy again within several days (exact time frame to be determined). If you died within a certain window (also TBD) after someone's entry was refreshed on your enemies list, that person is noted on the list as one of your killers (those who injured you right before you died may be a bigger factor in your death than whoever made the final blow). If you want to get even, you can establish a bounty on anyone listed as a killer on your enemies list.
A bounty is effectively a player-generated kill quest. You go to a local mailbox/post office, select your target from your enemies List, deposit your payment, and set minimums or maximums for alignment and reputation to take the bounty.
There is potentially an unclear distinction between being on an enemy list (which happens when you injure them) and being marked as a killer on the list (which allows a bounty to be placed, and presumably requires that the victim was actually killed). What's also unclear is if you still show up on the enemies list or get marked as killer if the deceased has some sort of flag (such as one of the voluntary PVP flags, or attacker/trespasser/criminal/heinous).
I'm not fond of the significant reputation hit idea. That is, unless they make bounties more uncommon and allow for them for real cases of wrong doing. As it stands now, you can place a bounty on someone for simply "injuring" them, whatever that means.
As you've already been Nihimon'd, I'll not split hairs over "injury" vs. "death". I feel the reputation hit is perfectly reasonable. Bounties are hard enough to enforce that they're "uncommon" already, and this gives the target a perfect reason to avoid the bounty hunter. I don't see the downside. It penalizes all targets--not just people using flags--without crippling them or blocking them from play.