Goblin Squad Member
|
There must be some kind of plans for whitelists or something for merchants moving goods to settlements with alignment restrictions.
RIGHT?
I'm hoping that the combination of:
Merchant + banned alignment + disguise = smuggler
Come to think of it, anyone else find it odd that Trespassing is punishable by death? Seems to be kind of excessive.
But, back to your premise that merchants might be banned, based on alignment...
I recall reading a dev post somewhere, were he discusses the benefits of having a more open settlement. Settlements will be selling training, they will have transaction fees in their markets, they will have taxes or fees placed on various things. They will need revenue to maintain and expand their settlement, both structurally and with expanded services.
Banning based on alignment, except for possibly the exact opposite alignment of the community, is counter productive. A settlement is like a store, it wants as many customers through its doors as possible.
Player-Character Reputation is more of a factor for potential banning, than alignment in my opinion. Someone with a -5000 is someone who has broken the rules of the game (griefer, gold farmer, RPKer). I can see a settlement, perhaps even most settlements, banning this person or their ilk.
Also remember, a settlement is not impacted in its alignment or reputation by those that visit it, just by those that are allowed to join it. That is unless I missed that comment somewhere, that visitors affect settlement alignment / reputation?
On a slight side issue and without taking views on what settlements can ban and not ban one thing I think we should be lobbying for very strongly is that any new bans do not take effect immediately but there is a reasonable period and warning before they take effect.
For instance I control the settlement as dictator. I keep a pretty open settlement but I notice Bluddwolf's marauders are visiting and I know they are all chaotic neutral. I shouldn't be able to send out a shout in private chat get people in place, then flip the ban switch on chaotic neutral so they can be ganked.
I would suggest a period of at least 24 hours before the new law takes effect in which time an npc town crier trundles around the town proclaiming the new edict and when it will come into effect
@Bringslite I was referring to a situation where you had entered and while you were in the settlement the law was changed. I was merely suggesting that it shouldn't be possible to change laws so fast that you can catch people like that. I thought the 24 hour notice wouldn't be too onerous if you weren't specifically trying to catch someone already there. The towncrier idea I just thought was a way of giving people prior notice so they can leave the settlement whilst adding some authentic colour
@DeciusBrutus
Yes I wasn't arguing that I was merely suggesting there may be cases whereby, either deliberately or accidentally people inside a settlement might suddenly find themselves marked as trespassers if instant law changes were in effect.
I have come lawfully into your settlement, I am standing in the market browsing the goods on offer, you change the law and suddenly I have a trespasser flag and can be killed by npc guards or players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would think it will be easier to economically choke off a settlement with very limited access to it by visitors. It is kind of like putting a target on themselves as well.
Example:
Settlement "A": Has an open market place, with few if any alignment limitations.
Settlement "B": Has many alignment restrictions as to who has access to its markets.
As a bandit, I would concentrate my banditry against the merchants and gatherers of Settlement "B", and sell their loot off (cheaply) in Settlement "A".
Not to mention the fact that Settlement "A" might even contract my company to do this, but it would be mutually beneficial for both bandits and settlements to have this kind of relationship.
Settlement "B" may eventually wither on the vine. They would become vengeful against my bandits, and hunt us down. We will approach Settlement "A" and offer our assistance in taking out Settlement "B". We send in our assassins to take out Settlement "B"'s leadership. Settlement "A" goes to war with Settlement "B".
Settlement "B" is toppled, and Settlement "A" expands. All of this happens because Settlement "B" had made itself useless to a broader community (namely my company of bandits).
"If it is "Blue", it may pass through... If it is "Red", it is dead" ~ EVE reference.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bringslite I was referring to a situation where you had entered and while you were in the settlement the law was changed. I was merely suggesting that it shouldn't be possible to change laws so fast that you can catch people like that. I thought the 24 hour notice wouldn't be too onerous if you weren't specifically trying to catch someone already there. The towncrier idea I just thought was a way of giving people prior notice so they can leave the settlement whilst adding some authentic colour
Okay. I agree with some kind of chance to get out (crier, auto eject, warning with timer, etc...) if the setting is suddenly changed.
@DeciusBrutus
Yes I wasn't arguing that I was merely suggesting there may be cases whereby, either deliberately or accidentally people inside a settlement might suddenly find themselves marked as trespassers if instant law changes were in effect.
I have come lawfully into your settlement, I am standing in the market browsing the goods on offer, you change the law and suddenly I have a trespasser flag and can be killed by npc guards or players.
I don't think he was replying to you.
@Bringslite I wasn't 100% sure on whether he was or wasnt tbh. I do agree with bludd though there will hopefully be sufficient incentive to have fairly open settlements. One of Eve's huge problems imo is the proliferation of "Not blue shoot it" over "not red dont shoot". The colours referring to the status markers guilds generally set in relation to each other
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
On a slight side issue and without taking views on what settlements can ban and not ban one thing I think we should be lobbying for very strongly is that any new bans do not take effect immediately but there is a reasonable period and warning before they take effect.
For instance I control the settlement as dictator. I keep a pretty open settlement but I notice Bluddwolf's marauders are visiting and I know they are all chaotic neutral. I shouldn't be able to send out a shout in private chat get people in place, then flip the ban switch on chaotic neutral so they can be ganked.
I would suggest a period of at least 24 hours before the new law takes effect in which time an npc town crier trundles around the town proclaiming the new edict and when it will come into effect
I dunno that sounds like fun to me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Come to think of it, anyone else find it odd that Trespassing is punishable by death? Seems to be kind of excessive.
well in the context of an MMO with light death penalties, death is about as minor as a punishment as possible, short of a minor fine, Incarceration for even 15-30 minutes takes players out of having fun far longer than a simple decapitation.
Minor fine is a light penalty, but it also fails the criteria of ensuring the tresspaser is not going to complete whatever he entered to do on his way out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Come to think of it, anyone else find it odd that Trespassing is punishable by death? Seems to be kind of excessive.
well in the context of an MMO with light death penalties, death is about as minor as a punishment as possible, short of a minor fine, Incarceration for even 15-30 minutes takes players out of having fun far longer than a simple decapitation.
Minor fine is a light penalty, but it also fails the criteria of ensuring the tresspaser is not going to complete whatever he entered to do on his way out.
I'd prefer incarceration over death, not because it may or may not be more sever, but because it makes more sense.
I also wish the death penalty was more than it is. Only thing community members seem to fear is the alignment shift and reputation loss of various actions.
"I prefer that you kill me, rather than rebuke me" just seems to be a bit silly to me.
I am with you on the death penalty being lenient although for different reasons. As I plan to craft trade a considerable amount I fear that is most people never lose their armour or weapons it will restrict the crafting as a viable living to a small handful of consumables.
Though I would be the first to acknowledge I am probably in a minority on the "You should lose everything on death unless you can return to loot" camp
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am with you on the death penalty being lenient although for different reasons. As I plan to craft trade a considerable amount I fear that is most people never lose their armour or weapons it will restrict the crafting as a viable living to a small handful of consumables.
Though I would be the first to acknowledge I am probably in a minority on the "You should lose everything on death unless you can return to loot" camp
You aren't entirely alone in that camp, I also wish for a more severe death penalty, or natural degredation of even the protected gear. Though I also think many are underestimating what is lost. unless you are wearing absolute garbage gear, it sounds like you still lose 80% of it as there aren't intended to be enough threads to get much more than that.
Of course we will need to see more to know on that.
Even at that though, lets say they went full blown every bit as harsh as eve. I do believe I'd still take a ship destruction in eve, over a 1 hour incarceration period.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...sell their loot off (cheaply) in Settlement "A".
Do remember Ryan's told us that as settlements establish themselves with alignments further from Lawful Good, their taxes will go up. I believe, but I'm not going hunting for the direct reference right now, that taxes will also apply to buying and selling in the settlement.
Selling stolen goods on the cheap will, of course, get even cheaper after paying the tax-ogre.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Wasn't it that the settlement's maintenance costs would go up, thus making it likely the taxes would follow suit?
This is how I recall. Last we heard, Chaotic (not evil, that I know of) settlements would have higher maintenance costs. Of course, being chaotic, they may not be the kind for higher taxes, and so would need additional ways to make income.
This may change, depending on how much they want people to keep staying away from Chaotic.
Taxes are fully controllable by the settlement, last I heard, from 0-100%.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wasn't it that the settlement's maintenance costs would go up, thus making it likely the taxes would follow suit?
Correct, following the logic that chaos equals disorganization and organization and efficiency correlate. The more organized a settlement is, the easier it is to maintain.
I am curious to see if settlements will have any income besides taxes.
To the original question:
I don't see merchants being whitelisted. If I am running a settlement, I don't want opposing alignments in my AO. That's giving away my infrastructure and my battlefield potential.
Banning based on alignment, except for possibly the exact opposite alignment of the community, is counter productive. A settlement is like a store, it wants as many customers through its doors as possible.
Player-Character Reputation is more of a factor for potential banning, than alignment in my opinion. Someone with a -5000 is someone who has broken the rules of the game (griefer, gold farmer, RPKer). I can see a settlement, perhaps even most settlements, banning this person or their ilk.
While that may be true, I see a higher standard for reputation of those further away from the settlement alignment. Those of the same alignment may only need 0 while those two or more steps away may need 3000, and polar opposites may need 7000 or even 7500. Hopefully we will get this level of detail when controlling access to our settlements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Do remember Ryan's told us that as settlements establish themselves with alignments further from Lawful Good, their taxes will go up.
Their settlement costs will go up. The taxes are set by the players in charge of the settlement. Of course, those players in charge of dubiously-aligned settlements may choose to raise taxes to cover their increased costs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There must be some kind of plans for whitelists or something for merchants moving goods to settlements with alignment restrictions.
RIGHT?
What alignment restrictions are you referring to? Merchants don't care about the membership restrictions of a settlement. If a settlement chooses to outlaw non-members, then that's a pretty clear sign they aren't interested in wandering merchants anyway. I'm not sure it's possible to outlaw only some non-members based on alignment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There must be some kind of plans for whitelists or something for merchants moving goods to settlements with alignment restrictions.
RIGHT?
What alignment restrictions are you referring to? Merchants don't care about the membership restrictions of a settlement. If a settlement chooses to outlaw non-members, then that's a pretty clear sign they aren't interested in wandering merchants anyway. I'm not sure it's possible to outlaw only some non-members based on alignment.
Anything is possible from a short blacklisr to a short whitelist to any variation therein. If it can be defined, any list of any length can be programmed to be applicable in-game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Anything is possible from a short blacklisr to a short whitelist to any variation therein. If it can be defined, any list of any length can be programmed to be applicable in-game.There must be some kind of plans for whitelists or something for merchants moving goods to settlements with alignment restrictions.
RIGHT?
What alignment restrictions are you referring to? Merchants don't care about the membership restrictions of a settlement. If a settlement chooses to outlaw non-members, then that's a pretty clear sign they aren't interested in wandering merchants anyway. I'm not sure it's possible to outlaw only some non-members based on alignment.
Oh I'm sure it's technically possible program it, I don't know if it will be implemented in the game. I haven't been following the forums too closely lately; do you have a reference that whitelists and blacklists will be part of settlement controls?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Anything is possible from a short blacklisr to a short whitelist to any variation therein. If it can be defined, any list of any length can be programmed to be applicable in-game.There must be some kind of plans for whitelists or something for merchants moving goods to settlements with alignment restrictions.
RIGHT?
What alignment restrictions are you referring to? Merchants don't care about the membership restrictions of a settlement. If a settlement chooses to outlaw non-members, then that's a pretty clear sign they aren't interested in wandering merchants anyway. I'm not sure it's possible to outlaw only some non-members based on alignment.
Oh I'm sure it's technically possible program it, I don't know if it will be implemented in the game. I haven't been following the forums too closely lately; do you have a reference that whitelists and blacklists will be part of settlement controls?
Absolutely.
Not.
Just offering a possibility to the generally held belief that settlements can ban certain alignments. If they can and do without a whitelist or something, they could be cutting off some potential trade.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
... In Eve you can, in the appropriate areas, set turrets which automatically fire on anyone you tell them to. It's possible to configure them in such a way as to make them attack everyone including you.
I see no reason why the leader of a settlement couldn't set up arbitrarily complicated rules, including rules which prohibit even settlement members from entering.