Goblin Squad Member
|
Robin Hood was a socialist. Deal with it!I see him more as a Low Taxes, Small Government crusader.
I can see him now stealing the $444 million Detroit is spending building an Ice Hockey Rink and giving that money to the people who are going to lose their pensions when Detroit goes bankrupt.
He STEALS from the rich and GIVES to the poor. It's a fairy tale, for crying out loud, don't twist it around like that!
I am an atheist, I have no problem cheering for Joan of Arc. I am not racist but I love Conan.
Why do people build such artificial walls so they can root for a mythical character just because he doesn't adhere to you 21st century economic theory?
Good Gawd man! Show a little open mindedness!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... there'll be little if any incentive for either side to stop fighting before they're all dead...
That's possible, but I actually think it'll turn out the other way.
Because we won't be able to count on some lucky hits turning the combat in our favor, it should be relatively obvious fairly early on how the fight is going to end. That 25% item loss on death is a fairly strong incentive to avoid it if you can.
I imagine it will be more common for one side to break and run than for both sides to fight to the death.
We'll see, though :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As settlements close their doors,others will open their's up, to receive the money. Bandits not be driven away from stealing, they will be driven to becoming Privateers for a time, and then moving on to their next area to hunt.
When your settlements start fighting each other, and they will frequently, there will be plenty of sanctioned targets for us to mark.
If you through the balance off to far in one direction, the Devs will recalculate and throw it back to the center. Remember, banditry is a major element of their economic system. It is also a major part of the content for PvP.
In the end it will be balanced, and we will all figure out ways to make it all work out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
He STEALS from the rich and GIVES to the poor.
Funny, he doesn't steal from Maid Marion's wealthy family...
Regardless, as should be evident to everyone, the things we say on these forums are our opinions. We use the opportunity to express ourselves. Don't be surprised when I express myself in modern terms - these are the times in which I live.
Someone wants to frame Robin Hood as a Socialist, because they personally have a high opinion of Socialism and want to take a little bit of the high opinion many people have for Robin Hood and have that rub off on Socialism. That's fine, I'm not going to tell them they can't, but I'm going to take the opportunity to remind everyone (or in some cases, reveal for the first time) the real-world truth about Socialism and the 100 million deaths it wrought in the 20th century.
You can either allow me to say what I want to say and let it go, or you can keep challenging me on it until we get into very heavy, very political stuff that doesn't really belong on these forums.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In the end it will be balanced, and we will all figure out ways to make it all work out.
Quoted for truth.
However, my point was that some may, through effort, perserverence and personal sacrifice, try to make sure it happens in someone else's back yard.
I mean if a large group of people really abhor the idea of having bandits in the nearby woods, they could probably drive them away. For time being. At high cost (including spending time time chasing bandits rather than improving their settlement).
It would be content for everyone involved though, so win-win.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
they also want players running around killing or driving off Bandits.
what are you talking about? GW wants bandits and victims. the bandits get the booty and the victims provide them. That's the extent of the game. No one said anything about the victims defending themselves. That would totally detract from the bandits fun!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For those interested in such things, this just became the second-longest thread in PFO-board history :-).Which is the first? :)
Goblinworks Blog: Screaming for Vengeance has 934 posts.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
on a tangent but on task topic, I hope any social group, can declare war on any other. Previously I had only considered settlement vs settlement warfare, but if the UnNamed (as an example) are hiding in our wood line and stealing from our merchants...I want to be able to use the benefits of our organization and size to declare war on their company...getting the benefits of tactics and formation use to counter their flag bonuses.
I doubt you need a formal state of war to engage in formation warfare - how else would militaries practice? Dealing with the pvp penalties, on the other hand, is another matter. A known bandit group operating in an area for weeks on end can suddenly turn off their Outlaw flags and thumb their noses if a large force shows up to root them out, without the means of declaring war or similar. Maybe a group would need to build up some kind of casus belli before being able to declare war on arbitrary non-settlement groups? Though that would probably just encourage bandits to eschew companies entirely and use meta-game social groupings instead.
As settlements close their doors,others will open their's up, to receive the money. Bandits not be driven away from stealing, they will be driven to becoming Privateers for a time, and then moving on to their next area to hunt.
When your settlements start fighting each other, and they will frequently, there will be plenty of sanctioned targets for us to mark.
I look forward to this application of the banditry mechanics a lot more than independent "for lulz" banditry. Tools used for a purpose, not for the sake of waving some tools around.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I look forward to this application of the banditry mechanics a lot more than independent "for lulz" banditry. Tools used for a purpose, not for the sake of waving some tools around.
Well, I won't turn this into a plug for my company, but we do have many things in mind. Banditry, Assassinations, Smuggling, Privateering are just a few of them.
From what I have heard (although possible rumor), the escalation bosses drop an item that can be used to spawn new escalations or advance current ones?
I can definitely see using that kind power to effectively SAD an entire settlement. Or it can be used to trade with another settlement in exchange for gold and training.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Someone wants to frame Robin Hood as a Socialist, because they personally have a high opinion of Socialism and want to take a little bit of the high opinion many people have for Robin Hood and have that rub off on Socialism. That's fine, I'm not going to tell them they can't, but I'm going to take the opportunity to remind everyone (or in some cases, reveal for the first time) the real-world truth about Socialism and the 100 million deaths it wrought in the 20th century.
I'm not a socialist. Robin Hood is. It's a fable about a hero that redistributes wealth to the poor. I'm not saying it's right or wrong. It's a fable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not a socialist. Robin Hood is. It's a fable about a hero that redistributes wealth to the poor. I'm not saying it's right or wrong. It's a fable.
Your insistence notwithstanding...
Although such behaviour was not part of his original character, since the beginning of the 19th century he has become known for "robbing from the rich and giving to the poor"...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the other thread, this question came up, but here its more appropriate:
Does a rejected SAD followed by an attack (within the 5 minutes) still result in the bandit triggering the Attacker Flag?
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.
I realize you read this differently, but it seems clear as day to me.
Attacker
The character has attacked another character outside of a war situation, and the target character did not have a PvP flag.
You gain Attacker when you attack an unflagged character outside of a war situation. Unless you can find an explicit statement to the contrary, attacking someone who refuses your SAD will give you Attacker.
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.
I read this very clearly as:
These bonuses reset to minimum upon gaining the Attacker flag, unless the Attacker flag was gained for attacking a target who was offered and rejected a stand-and-deliver trade within five minutes of the attack.
I would also like to point out:
If the character gets the Attacker flag he gets an Aggressor buff that lasts for 24 hours that has no effect besides being a counter. Each time he gets Attacker increases the stack of Aggressor by one.
If the character gets a high enough stack of Aggressor, determined by his Reputation, he gets the status Murderer, which lasts 24 hours and does not disappear on death. It acts the same as Attacker, allowing repeat offenders to be hunted down for longer periods of time.
I'm very pleased that Low Reputation characters will easily acquire these 24 hour flags, making them that much easier to hunt down and kill.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm guessing that the Aggressor Stack resets each day, if it does not lead to a Murderer Flag?
If the character gets the Attacker flag he gets an Aggressor buff that lasts for 24 hours that has no effect besides being a counter. Each time he gets Attacker increases the stack of Aggressor by one.
It isn't stated outright, but it seems a safe assumption that the 24-hour timer on Aggressor starts over every time they increase the stack.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"Unless you can find an explicit statement to the contrary, attacking someone who refuses your SAD will give you Attacker."
I can not find a Dev post that explicitly contradicts or supports either side. This question needs to be directly asked and answered.
When a SAD is rejected and the bandit decides to attack, does the bandit receive the attacker flag?
A simple yes or no is all of the clarification needed for this question. I'll send it in a PM directly to Stephen Cheney in a hope to get it responded to.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Good question. Does it expire 24 hours after the last aggressor buff, or does the game track the expiry of each aggressor buff in the stack? That's a pretty significant counter.
Would there be any reason to track the expiry of each? It seems you would either track the first or the last...
I can not find a Dev post that explicitly contradicts or supports either side.
Those are some pretty significant blinders you have on, then. It's stated outright in the blog that attacking an unflagged character outside of a war situation gives the Attacker flag.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Last night in the Little Black Backpack thread there was this exchange:
If I have the flagging and timing correct. From the last attack, the 1 minute timer begins and the Attacker Flag will then be dropped. With that attack, the Outlaw flag had been spent as well. Even if the 3 seconds of looting counts as "attack time", which it should not, the Enforcers will still only have 1:03 minutes to arrive before all they find are unflagged characters standing around saying, "It wasn't me".
It will take time to take things off of your corpse and then destroy them. The Bandits would probably be better-served to spend that time getting away from the scene of the crime before any Enforcers show up...
Which sort of suggests that yesterday Bluddworth believed that the Outlaw did gain the Attacker flag in an attack after a SAD was refused, since he can't drop the Outlaw flag while the Attacker is still active. What changed?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Last night in the Little Black Backpack thread there was this exchange:
Which sort of suggests that yesterday Bluddworth believed that the Outlaw did gain the Attacker flag in an attack after a SAD was refused, since he can't drop the Outlaw flag while the Attacker is still active. What changed?If I have the flagging and timing correct. From the last attack, the 1 minute timer begins and the Attacker Flag will then be dropped. With that attack, the Outlaw flag had been spent as well. Even if the 3 seconds of looting counts as "attack time", which it should not, the Enforcers will still only have 1:03 minutes to arrive before all they find are unflagged characters standing around saying, "It wasn't me".
It will take time to take things off of your corpse and then destroy them. The Bandits would probably be better-served to spend that time getting away from the scene of the crime before any Enforcers show up...
What made me question it was a re read of the SAD mechanic language. I can't cut and paste it on IPad, but it is in Nihimons post quote "These bonuses reset......unless offered a SAD that was rejected"
What does the rejection prevent, the Outlaw Flag bonuses from resetting or the Attacker Flag? I can read that sentence and see either being the possibility.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We're sorting out some other recent, interesting PvP ideas internally that will likely have an impact on the PvP flags, so we're not ready to talk about Outlaw right now in case we said something misleading without the whole picture. But stay tuned.
This may apply to some if the questions we are having here as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thinking about the possibilities for CG rangers/irregulars, I think that any such company might need to be willing to use either Outlaw or Champion, depending on the situation. The good/evil penalty for attacking evil characters is pretty small; small enough the Aggressor buff counter would limit the Outlawry more than the slide towards evil. But when 'collecting tolls' they'd really need to keep the SAD demands low because they couldn't kill too many neutrals and goods. Unless attacking from a hideout or stealth, the CGs might be better off flagged as Champions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I kind of hope that as time goes on the list of flags expands or they create ways of doing a double flag.
I'd personally really like to see some CG Champion/Outlaw type flags and LG Champion/Enforcers. And I think evil needs more flags than just assassin.
I think that the currently outlined flags are a good starting point that can get us through EE though.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
***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.***
That looks pretty clear to me. If you offer a SAD, and it was rejected you can attack without gaining the attacker flag.
***This flag cannot be disabled while Attacker, Criminal, or Heinous (or their 24-hour versions) are active.***
This one on the other hand is kinda confusing. It cannot be disabled but you lose all the benefits of?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
***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.***
That looks pretty clear to me. If you offer a SAD, and it was rejected you can attack without gaining the attacker flag.
Maybe it's just the scientist in me, but I cannot figure out how you can arrive at that interpretation through a logical analysis of the sentence.
"These bonuses reset to the minimum" is the part that is conditional, and the condition is "unless the target was offered and rejected a SAD within 5 minutes of the attack."
"[U]pon gaining the Attacker flag" is the point at which the condition is checked; it always happens when you initiate combat.
In any case, according to Bluddwolf's quote, it may all be moot ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
***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.***
That looks pretty clear to me. If you offer a SAD, and it was rejected you can attack without gaining the attacker flag.
Maybe it's just the scientist in me, but I cannot figure out how you can arrive at that interpretation through a logical analysis of the sentence.
"These bonuses reset to the minimum" is the part that is conditional, and the condition is "unless the target was offered and rejected a SAD within 5 minutes of the attack."
"[U]pon gaining the Attacker flag" is the point at which the condition is checked; it always happens when you initiate combat.
In any case, according to Bluddwolf's quote, it may all be moot ;)
I arrive at it with a simple read of the sentence. Attacker does not always happen when you initiate combat. There is the involved flag as well that you can gain for attacking a flagged opponent.
You also gain the involved flag for attacking someone who falls in with the idea of that flag, Champion attacking a Evil guy for example. Which to me means an Outlaw attacking a SAD refuser.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Attacker: A player that attacks another player character that is not fair game gains the Attacker flag. You can also gain this flag by assisting (buffing or healing) a character with the flag. This flag disappears shortly after leaving combat, but allows the victim and his or her allies to fight back without themselves suffering penalties. This flag is applied anywhere in the world, unless the target has one of these flags or is at war with your settlement.
I would argue that rejecting the SAD, makes the traveler "fair game"?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would argue that rejecting the SAD, makes the traveler "fair game"?No, because that leads to "anyone to whom I offer a SAD is then potentially fair game" - that is, the attacker, not the victim, deciding whether they're fair game or not.
The attacker will be PVP flagged already. So the attacker is fair game from the start. And if the Attacker is smart enough, he has already sized you up long before offering a SAD. Which means he knows you are fair game.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good question. Does it expire 24 hours after the last aggressor buff, or does the game track the expiry of each aggressor buff in the stack? That's a pretty significant counter.Would there be any reason to track the expiry of each? It seems you would either track the first or the last...
Yes: Tracking the number of Aggressor actions taken in the last 24 hours. For example, someone who performed one Aggressive action every six hours should have an Aggressor count of about 4 all of the time; compare someone who took one at hour 1, three in hours 21-23, and three in hours 25-26 (If we expire the entire stack when the first one times out) or the person who takes four aggressive actions in a cluster with just over 24 hours between them (if we track only the most recent).
Personally, I think a good solution would be to have Aggressor wear off at some rate; every X hours you lose one stack of Aggressor, if present. Either X is Reputation-dependent (which is weird in terms of incentives) or higher-Reputation characters require more Aggressor to trigger Murderer.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's fine, I'm not going to tell them they can't, but I'm going to take the opportunity to remind everyone (or in some cases, reveal for the first time) the real-world truth about Socialism and the 100 million deaths it wrought in the 20th century.
You mean like all the people dying to democracy in Iraq since 2003.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@All - There will be bandits.
There won't be bandits on every trail, every 10 feet, comprised of newbie players and newbie characters in it for the lulz.
Bandits will be careful. They'll pick their targets well. They'll often ransom the cargos rather than kill the teamsters.
A lot of Bandits will be chaotic evil. They'll cope. They'll find ways to make that work for them. It's not an easy road - but it is a road. I doubt there will be any wilderness areas in the game where you will not constantly have to be on your guard, ready to fight or flee, should someone come at you with bad intent.
Being a highwayman is hard freakin' work. That's why there's not a lot of them. Always on the run, hunted by those who seek rewards, dealing with a crappy reputation; this is the life you choose.
There's a fractal space of "characters who attack other characters" and being a simple bandit is one very small portion of that fractal space.
When you go to war, having teams disrupt logistics and supply lines will be a critical tactic. Some characters will do that.
When someone transport very valuable items they create a juicy target, a single act of highway robbery won't destroy your alignment. Some characters will specialize in the high-reward, low-impact strike.
We'll likely declare some areas free-for-all zones where conditions are so bad that nobody gets any penalty for whacking anyone. Where, how, why, how large, etc. all to be determined, but that is the kind of thing I'd expect in a land like the River Kingdoms. Of course, you'd have to be mad to go into such an area without being able to hold your own.... no easy targets.
As I said earlier on TS, Ryan when speaking of griefing in EVE Online, was not referring to 0.0 space, and according to this post, he clearly supports the creation of FFA zone{s}.
This is what I have been advocating all of this time. Give us a zone that requires PVP flagging or at least does not punish those that have the minerals to fly the PVP flags.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@All - There will be bandits.
There won't be bandits on every trail, every 10 feet, comprised of newbie players and newbie characters in it for the lulz.
Bandits will be careful. They'll pick their targets well. They'll often ransom the cargos rather than kill the teamsters.
A lot of Bandits will be chaotic evil. They'll cope. They'll find ways to make that work for them. It's not an easy road - but it is a road. I doubt there will be any wilderness areas in the game where you will not constantly have to be on your guard, ready to fight or flee, should someone come at you with bad intent.
Being a highwayman is hard freakin' work. That's why there's not a lot of them. Always on the run, hunted by those who seek rewards, dealing with a crappy reputation; this is the life you choose.
There's a fractal space of "characters who attack other characters" and being a simple bandit is one very small portion of that fractal space.
When you go to war, having teams disrupt logistics and supply lines will be a critical tactic. Some characters will do that.
When someone transport very valuable items they create a juicy target, a single act of highway robbery won't destroy your alignment. Some characters will specialize in the high-reward, low-impact strike.
We'll likely declare some areas free-for-all zones where conditions are so bad that nobody gets any penalty for whacking anyone. Where, how, why, how large, etc. all to be determined, but that is the kind of thing I'd expect in a land like the River Kingdoms. Of course, you'd have to be mad to go into such an area without being able to hold your own.... no easy targets.
As I said earlier on TS, Ryan when speaking of griefing in EVE Online, was not referring to 0.0 space, and according to this post, he clearly supports the creation of FFA zone{s}.
This is what I have been advocating all of this time. Give us a zone that requires PVP flagging or at least does not punish...
The sad part is, it will probably be shoved in the corner and have no real value... Unlike Eve, where the real wealth is in the FFA areas.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The attacker will be PVP flagged already. So the attacker is fair game from the start. And if the Attacker is smart enough, he has already sized you up long before offering a SAD. Which means he knows you are fair game.I would argue that rejecting the SAD, makes the traveler "fair game"?No, because that leads to "anyone to whom I offer a SAD is then potentially fair game" - that is, the attacker, not the victim, deciding whether they're fair game or not.
You're clearly not using the correct definition of "fair game". Compare and correlate these two descriptions of the Attacker flag:
Attacker: A player that attacks another player character that is not fair game gains the Attacker flag.
Attacker
The character has attacked another character outside of a war situation, and the target character did not have a PvP flag
"Fair game" obviously means "has a PvP flag". There is no way for someone to unilaterally inflict a PvP flag on someone else, thus there is no way to make someone else "fair game".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If we have the FFA zones as Ryan Dancey described in the quote I posted earlier, I couldn't care less any more.
We will have our play ground, and all will know to enter at their own risk!
Don't want to PVP, stay the Hell out!! Unfortunately, this post of Ryan's predated my arrival on the forums, by about a few weeks.
It is somewhat surprising that when I brought up FFA zones, no one pulled this quote out of the archives... selective, maybe?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If we have the FFA zones as Ryan Dancey described in the quote I posted earlier, I couldn't care less any more.
We will have our play ground, and all will know to enter at their own risk!
Don't want to PVP, stay the Hell out!! Unfortunately, this post of Ryan's predated my arrival on the forums, by about a few weeks.
It is somewhat surprising that when I brought up FFA zones, no one pulled this quote out of the archives... selective, maybe?
of course