Goblin Squad Member
|
We have to remember that Ryan came from CCP and is following the Eve model on most things.
The biggest part of Eve's sandbox with player driven content is 0.0 space. (He wants player driven content) Which is a FFA zone where the players get to create their own empires and fight each other for that territory. (Open World PVP Sandbox anyone)
Why does anyone expect the wilderness to be much different then that?
That is a truly epic misunderstanding.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A war zone shouldn't be free-for-all; only combatants should have free reign to kill anybody in the area. Outsiders should have to sign on to one faction or the other in order to perform commerce raiding and the like on other third parties, and suffer normal alignment penalties for initiating attacks on combatants if they aren't in the war.
Deep wilderness shouldn't be free-for-all; randomly murdering people in the wilderness should have consequences, or else some of the biggest problems with UO come out in full force.
Monster areas shouldn't be free-for-all; while there will probably be huge gains from hitting a group at their weakest point right as they finish a PvE fight, it's pretty much the dickest move you could make, and is probably the ur-example of how to get a death curse placed on you.
Developed hexes shouldn't be free-for all; you're on someone's lawn- that doesn't give you the right to mess with them, even if it gives them the right to mess with you.
Settlements aren't free-for-all.
I think I covered all the types of areas that could possibly be considered free-for-all; where was it that someone said there should be the ability to and kill anyone with no alignment or reputation penalty?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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,
We know that some players would like to have the ability to opt out of PvP altogether. We are not going to enable that kind of functionality, because we feel that PvP is an intrinsic, critical part of "meaningful human interaction".
We can go on and on.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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,We know that some players would like to have the ability to opt out of PvP altogether. We are not going to enable that kind of functionality, because we feel that PvP is an intrinsic, critical part of "meaningful human interaction".We can go on and on.
Um, If DeciusBrutus is not flagged for PvP, there is not a wilderness area that he doesn't need to be on his guard. If he were the sort of wuss (can I say that?) who wanted to opt out of PvP - GW isn't going to engage that functionality. Running around unflagged isn't opting out - you're still subject to PvP.
With everything we know now, I can attack Decius if he is unflagged: I can attack him in a war zone, a wilderness hex, monster areas, developed hexes, settlements. He's *never* perfectly safe.
edited: So why do you think that quote of Ryan's has anything to do with free-for-all areas? It describes the game world as it already is without any FFA areas added.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A war zone shouldn't be free-for-all; only combatants should have free reign to kill anybody in the area. Outsiders should have to sign on to one faction or the other in order to perform commerce raiding and the like on other third parties, and suffer normal alignment penalties for initiating attacks on combatants if they aren't in the war.
Deep wilderness shouldn't be free-for-all; randomly murdering people in the wilderness should have consequences, or else some of the biggest problems with UO come out in full force.
Monster areas shouldn't be free-for-all; while there will probably be huge gains from hitting a group at their weakest point right as they finish a PvE fight, it's pretty much the dickest move you could make, and is probably the ur-example of how to get a death curse placed on you.
Developed hexes shouldn't be free-for all; you're on someone's lawn- that doesn't give you the right to mess with them, even if it gives them the right to mess with you.
Settlements aren't free-for-all.
I think I covered all the types of areas that could possibly be considered free-for-all; where was it that someone said there should be the ability to and kill anyone with no alignment or reputation penalty?
The area your describing will be the PVE area, Where settlements will be limited. This will not be a PVP free area, but it will have the full consequences.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There seem to be two camps here: those who want the game to be all about the PvP, and those who want the PvP to be all about the game. I fall heavily into the latter group.
It does appear that there will be some areas of total anarchy, as Xeen has posted above, but whether these are large, fixed or even permanent remains to be seen. That has nothing to do with FFA though. FFA just means I can (and probably will, in my case) get hit anywhere, and at any time - there are no safe havens (I'm sure there will be the equivalent of the EvE Hi-Sec suicide gank in PFO too - I just hope that it is so prohibitively expensive in terms of rep etc. as well as finances that it doesn't happen often.) I for one don't think that FFA should mean FFC (free from consequences) except in the most exceptional circumstances.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Two quotes above states that the FFA area will be FFC as you say.
From what I know, The NPC settlement area and some highways will work similar to Eve Hi-Sec. You will be smashed quickly by the NPC guards if you attack someone. They will more then likely save you... Granted, that is up for debate if you have a very large number of people hit one person.
They also said in other parts of one of those quotes that they do not know how large or complex FFA areas will be yet. My guess though to start with it will be limited and expand as the map does later in EE.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There seem to be two camps here: those who want the game to be all about the PvP, and those who want the PvP to be all about the game. I fall heavily into the latter group.
It does appear that there will be some areas of total anarchy, as Xeen has posted above, but whether these are large, fixed or even permanent remains to be seen. That has nothing to do with FFA though. FFA just means I can (and probably will, in my case) get hit anywhere, and at any time - there are no safe havens (I'm sure there will be the equivalent of the EvE Hi-Sec suicide gank in PFO too - I just hope that it is so prohibitively expensive in terms of rep etc. as well as finances that it doesn't happen often.) I for one don't think that FFA should mean FFC (free from consequences) except in the most exceptional circumstances.
The Suicide Gank will not exists in PFO and if you are not aware it has been virtually been made ridiculously costly and difficult in EVE.
I disagree with you on your other assessment about the camps, with all due respect.
There are those of us who want three things:
1. A balance of skills, counter skills, PVP flags, PVP actions, and a balance between the relationship of PVP vs. Non PVP flagged players in certain circumstances.
2. To be zones that clearly define different levels of PVE / PVP activities. Running the range from Virtually No PVP to FFA PVP.
* There can not be a total prohibition of PVP, even in the NPC Starter cities, because War, Bounties and Assassinations have no boundaries.
3. We want there to be true disadvantages or consequences for opting out of PVP, which Ryan Dancey's post had clearly stated GW "would not enable that functionality."
I will let the other side of this argument respond to these specific three points I've made, and hopefully they can point out their issues with them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The "other side" is comprised of a wide range of outlooks on those issues Bluddwolf, but I will take a crack:
1. I think that in one of those issues we agree what is the definition of "balance" (skills). The others, not so much. PARTIAL AGREEMENT.
2. I can agree with some of that. No rep gain/loss or alignment adjustment in some areas (auto flag-what would be the use with no repercussions?)EDIT:if that turns out to be what GW and most players want., PARTIAL AGREEMENT.
3. Ryan stated that we would not be able to escape non consensual PVP regardless of flagging. That was his point. Since we can't agree that there are already disadvantages and consequences to enter wild areas with bandits or PVP, NO AGREEMENT.
Now, since it is apparent that your "side" of this argument (your choice of terminology) has less than 5 proponents, I don't see the value in going on with it. If you are right, it will be made clear when they reveal the update to the flag system.
To paraphrase another poster "It has been milked dry"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thanks for your response, Bluddwolf.
The only fundamental problem I have with your position is that not flying a PvP flag is somehow opting out of PvP; it isn't, it's engaging in PvP on your own terms. I have no illusions that I will be got, maybe not so often by you because of time differences, butby ssomeone nonetheless. I intend to travel the River Kingdoms gaining information - I will have little of value on me to be relieved of. Why should I make an attack on me be totally without consequences by flying a flag that doesn't help me?
I personally don't see that as opting out of PvP, ymmv.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Since it is a little quieter now (low activity), here are my main issues:
You are being too greedy in your statements of what your SAD demands will be. It will only drive your opposition to resistance.
You are making ridiculous threats of "off the hook" violence to counter defenses or strategy play against bandits. It makes bandits look like idiot animals. It has been pointed out that a lesser balanced approach to banditry will make most of these defenses more expensive to implement than just paying you off. Only a few are in the crowd of "millions for defense, not one copper for tribute"
I don't think we can agree on what "balance" means on certain issues.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Lhan
If you travel alone and without skills to protect yourself any NPC mob can kill you without consequences. Why should the bandits be more limited then the monsters?
From the other hand if you are prepared you could avoid both PC and NPC danger.
Sorry but that is a pretty weak argument. Equating NPC mobs with living players and with consequences....
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The result is the same- the unprepared player dies.
Lhan will have to invest in skills/equipment/guards to survive the NPCs
Why not use the same means to avoid/drive off the bandits?
If you read his post, he his clear that he knows he will be attacked regardless. Why should should there be zero consequences to kill an un flagged person?
What flag should a non combatant fly if he is not neutral? Why should he have to fly any, whatever his alignment is? You have the freedom to attack or not. We will keep the choice to fly flags or not.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Vailla
First, I don't think it's reasonable to equate NPCs with PCs. For a start, mobs won't have hideouts and mechanics to pull you out of fast travel AFAIK.
Second, I didn't say I would be completely helpless. Mobs will attack whenever they are triggered and I may be able to deal with them. But bandits will probably attack when they are fairly sure they have an overwhelming advantage - and therefore I would have no chance. Not being able to survive a bandit attack does not equate to not surviving other dangers in the "wilderness".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I will begin this response by putting out an important definition, that is my working definition and that of my company's.
A "Reasonable SAD" = The same amount that a Traveler gets as a bonus for using the Traveler Flag.
* It does not matter if the person can use the flag or not, the amount of our definition is static.
The reason that we choose this amount is that the merchant caravan will only be requested to pay what it gained as a bonus. In return for accepting that amount, they will receive the additional protection of the 20 minute timer "I've Paid Already flag" that hits anyone hard for attacking them.
Originally, I had thought of charging a higher SAD for unflagged merchant caravans, but I have amended that. I have instead decided on a different response. So their SAD offer would be the same as that of any traveler,unflagged or flagged.
The Merchant Caravan in the Wilderness Hex:
The UnNamed Company's goals in banditry are to function withing the rules of the flagging, reputation, and the alignment systems.
We fully accept the consequences for our actions, but still ask of GW a for more balanced approach in one circumstance (I will describe that later).
When we see a merchant caravan, flagged or unflagged, we will decide if that target is best handled through: Ambush, SAD or Pass.
Ambush of a flagged target will grant us our Outlaw bonuses, minimize our alignment / reputation penalties, and increase our looting potential (flagging bonus + 75%). The target can still issue a Bounty.
Ambush of unflagged target will grant us all of our bonuses, but also increase our alignment and reputation penalties. The target can also issue a Bounty or a Death Curse.
SAD is the same for both flagged or unflagged. Same amount from our end. Same mechanics if it is accepted or rejected by flagged or unflagged. If they accept, we get a Reputation bonus up to the daily maximum. If they reject it....
Rejecting a SAD:
Flagged Target: If we choose to enter combat (we almost always will), and we win, we will loot what we can and leave. The target can still issue a Bounty if we end up on his/her enemies list (this is unclear, flagging revamp may clear it up).
We will accept this as a nature of doing business, and hold no ill will.
Unflagged Target: Same as above, but with one difference.
If we feel the target could have been using a traveler flag, or has frequently not used the flag, and rejects reasonable SAD offers, this we consider to be an attempt to opt out of PVP. If that target then places a bounty on us, we will respond by placing an Assassination contract on the target.
Does the target have the right to go unflagged, yes. Does the target have the right to place a bounty, yes. But we also have the right to counter that specific behavior with our own tools.
I can not control if this makes some FEEL that they are being forced to flag. I can not make someone hit that toggle. If they can not accept the consequences that are attached to their actions, they should rethink how they are doing things.
We are in the same circumstances. We have already made changes to adjust to the proposed game mechanics to ensure that we work within the flagging, reputation and alignment systems and still maintain our Chaotic Neutral / Evil beliefs and our high standards for Reputation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf, your "camp" is basically arguing that Chaotic Evil adds value to the game and should be just as effective as any other alignment, and doing so in the face of the direct contradiction from Ryan Dancey that Chaotic Evil is for a+~##@%s, and will suck.
As long as you keep utterly ignoring that, and clinging to the belief that "Ryan used to be at CCP, so this will be like Eve", it's basically impossible to find any kind of common ground with you.
@Bluddwolf
One thing you neglect of course is that the merchant isn't actually protected after you SAD them. I full expect this to be a common scenario.
Merchant meets bandit group 1 ....gets sadded...accepts
2 hexes further on
Merchant meets bandit group 2....cant be sadded so they kill and loot him instead
bandit group 1 and group 2 may even be both part of the same grouping in some cases. The 20 minutes protection you keep banging on about is actually a deathwarrant when you meet the second bandit group
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
You are of course free to engage in whatever behavior you want to. I look forward to making your choices unsustainable, using all of the methods available to me, including collusion with the assassins you hire to revenge yourself on people who post bounties and death curses on you.
Free-for-all means that nobody suffers any consequence for attacking somebody else. That's only possible in areas where reputation and alignment don't change, which will be theme park areas outside the sandbox.
NPCs suffer the same consequences as players for random killing: they lose reputation, change alignment, and if they are determined to be griefing they are removed. No problems there.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I will not factor in this, but I want to ask anyway. How will you determine a SAD demand for a trader that can't or won't flag traveler? Just based from what it would be?
Same price for all, type of flag does not matter. We probably won't have a "Know Alignment Spell" handy, so we make no distinction for alignment or type of flag.
Besides, there is a benefit to having a set rate for both us and for our merchant targets. They we know exactly what to expect when they realize it is the UnNamed Company SADing them and will be able to set their price points accordingly.
The only question any will have is, when will we decide that we would rather have a fight?
SADS only work under two conditions:
1. They are set so low, that the merchant would be an idiot to reject
2. That there are some victims, that can speak to the combat abilities of my company.
Don't plan on #1...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf
One thing you neglect of course is that the merchant isn't actually protected after you SAD them. I full expect this to be a common scenario.
Merchant meets bandit group 1 ....gets sadded...accepts
2 hexes further on
Merchant meets bandit group 2....cant be sadded so they kill and loot him instead
bandit group 1 and group 2 may even be both part of the same grouping in some cases. The 20 minutes protection you keep banging on about is actually a deathwarrant when you meet the second bandit group
The second bandit group in your scenario would get a double reputation loss, and be subject to both Bounties and Death Curses.
The timer, I believe, is set at 20 minutes because that is a calculation of how far any settlement could possibly be. Conjecture on my part I admit, but it makes sense to me.
We will have to see what impact the PVP Flag revamp will bring.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You are of course free to engage in whatever behavior you want to. I look forward to making your choices unsustainable, using all of the methods available to me, including collusion with the assassins you hire to revenge yourself on people who post bounties and death curses on you.
Free-for-all means that nobody suffers any consequence for attacking somebody else. That's only possible in areas where reputation and alignment don't change, which will be theme park areas outside of the sandbox.
You are welcome and entitled to use whatever methods you wish.
Our assassination contracts will be internally drawn up.
An FFA area in a sandbox does not make it a theme park area outside of the sandbox. Eve Online is a sandbox and yet it has a vast region that is 0.0 FFA space.
The types of zones are all connected to the sandbox. Do you consider the NPC Starter Cities to be a Theme Park outside of the sandbox?
You shouldn't, it is the entry way for all new characters into the sandbox. It will have different rules, but it is still part of the sandbox. This is all an FFA zone would be, different rules but still connected.
@Bluddwolf
One thing you neglect of course is that the merchant isn't actually protected after you SAD them. I full expect this to be a common scenario.
Merchant meets bandit group 1 ....gets sadded...accepts
2 hexes further on
Merchant meets bandit group 2....cant be sadded so they kill and loot him instead
bandit group 1 and group 2 may even be both part of the same grouping in some cases. The 20 minutes protection you keep banging on about is actually a deathwarrant when you meet the second bandit group
The second bandit group in your scenario would get a double reputation loss, and be subject to both Bounties and Death Curses.
The timer, I believe, is set at 20 minutes because that is a calculation of how far any settlement could possibly be. Conjecture on my part I admit, but it makes sense to me.
We will have to see what impact the PVP Flag revamp will bring.
Except of course that is not what the blog says
The blog clearly states
"If the victim and Outlaw completed a stand-and-deliver trade, the Outlaw loses double reputation for killing the target within 20 minutes. (If they pay, you should let them go.)
When an Outlaw receives a ransom from stand and deliver, they get reputation up to a daily max."
There is no way you can read that as any subsequent bandit group get a double reputation hit whatsoever.
In addition I went looking in the blog for this 20 minute protection for further SAD's. It is not mentioned anywhere I can see can you therefore provide a link to where this claim is supported. I wonder if you have at sometime misremembered the 20 minutes killing penalty as the time is the same
@Bluddwolf
Never mind found the SAD protection quote for you
All the times are placeholders until we get a more accurate idea of how long travel actually takes. The original estimated time to cross a hex and speed of fast travel probably can't be relied on as a hard number at this point, since it's all getting tweaked for feel as we get more world built and animations done.
In the case of the "Fleeced" timer, "20 minutes" is a placeholder for "enough time that you can probably finish a reasonably long trip after you've been robbed somewhere in between." If it turns out that's long enough for most trips to keep you covered from your start to your end, if you exploit it, then it's probably too long.
In general, I think we're way more worried about "a half dozen guys work together to stop a single player and SAD him in sequence until he's bankrupt or cancels a trade and is therefore freely attackable" than we are organized groups of merchants moving from settlement to settlement and conspiring to get the Fleeced flag cheaply. The people most in danger from bandits are solo or small group explorers and resource gatherers out in the wilds trying to return home with full pockets, and they'll have a harder time arranging for their own bandit quisling when they need one. A "caravan" already implies a big enough group that they'll have other ways to deal with bandits other than exploiting the Fleeced flag.
That said, obviously we want to come up with something that's not super easy to exploit in the way this thread is talking about, as well. So please keep the ideas coming :) .
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I thought that what EVE has are areas of variable security. That the consequences were the same for PVP anywhere depending on the security level. Am I wrong? I admit that I know little about EVE.
Yes you are wrong,but that is understandable not being that familiar wit the game.
High Sec = Security Status Loss and near instant CONCORD (NPC Warden) Gank, of which there is no defense, for attacking anyone or thing outside of a War Target or an Pirate Faction NPC.
If you attack an NPC structure or ship that is not of a pirate faction, you are killed just as quickly as if you attacked a PC.
The Suicide Gank was a tactic used for about 3 or 4 cruisers to alpha strike and destroy an industrial ship. Concord would respond and destroy all 3 - 4 ships, and the attackers would return and loot the destroyed ships.
With the changes that came to EVE, about 6 - 8 months ago, the hulls of industrial ships practically doubled, now requiring 6 - 8 cruisers and perhaps even Battle cruisers to do the needed alpha strike. This is too costly a trade off, so it has stopped!!
Low Sec = Still incur some security loss, but no Concord response.
0.0 Space (Null Sec): No security Loss, No Concord, FFA
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I thought that what EVE has are areas of variable security. That the consequences were the same for PVP anywhere depending on the security level. Am I wrong? I admit that I know little about EVE.Yes you are wrong,but that is understandable not being that familiar wit the game.
High Sec = Security Status Loss and near instant CONCORD (NPC Warden) Gank, of which there is no defense, for attacking anyone or thing outside of a War Target or an Pirate Faction NPC.
If you attack an NPC structure or ship that is not of a pirate faction, you are killed just as quickly as if you attacked a PC.
The Suicide Gank was a tactic used for about 3 or 4 cruisers to alpha strike and destroy an industrial ship. Concord would respond and destroy all 3 - 4 ships, and the attackers would return and loot the destroyed ships.
With the changes that came to EVE, about 6 - 8 months ago, the hulls of industrial ships practically doubled, now requiring 6 - 8 cruisers and perhaps even Battle cruisers to do the needed alpha strike. This is too costly a trade off, so it has stopped!!
Low Sec = Still incur some security loss, but no Concord response.
0.0 Space (Null Sec): No security Loss, No Concord, FFA
Is this Security Status equivalent to reputation or something? Isn't it more equivalent to Wardens?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Never mind found the SAD protection quote for youYeah, was going to guess it was Cheney who said that. It might be addressed further in the forthcoming iteration of flagging mechanisms.
It still doesn't change the fact that the sucessful sad is only a protection from another sad. It is not a protection from being killed and looted by subsequent bandits
If I wanted to set up a bandit operation it would actually make life easy for me. Have two groups the first SAD's for say 25% of your cargo value in coin....the second down the road the kills and loots you for 75% of your cargo. Net result bandits 100% value merchant 0%.
It even has the added advantage that the original SAD group can tell the kill and loot group which caravans will be worth killing because they have had a prior look at the cargo and can ignore the bulk low value ones.
I am not anti bandit....I just believe that bandits already have all the advantage so it annoys me when they keep asking for more. The merchant meanwhile has no way at all short of not transporting goods to avoid the cost of banditry, whether that cost is paying off sads and being looted or hiring armed guards it is unavoidable.
The bandit on the other hand gets to pick their target and the only time they should face any consequence in the transaction is if they are stupid and bite off more than they can chew.
For people who have the upper hand in a situation to be moaning its not enough and then have the audacity to go on about carebears is frankly hypocrisy
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Is this Security Status equivalent to reputation or something? Isn't it more equivalent to Wardens?
The Security Status is the equivalent of the Reputation system, right down to the fact that the lower the sec. status, the fewer types of star systems you can enter, without getting shot at.
CONCORD = PFO Wardens (NPC that Attack Law Breakers). Only differences are that Wardens do not get to you in less than 3 - 5 seconds and instantly kill you. Or at least that is not how they were described early on.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If I wanted to set up a bandit operation it would actually make life easy for me. Have two groups the first SAD's for say 25% of your cargo value in coin....the second down the road the kills and loots you for 75% of your cargo. Net result bandits 100% value merchant 0%.
Oh, I like the twist with the coin demand up front in the SAD.
And splitting the operation allows you to put your high-rep guys in the SAD group, and your low-rep killers in the second group. The thugs could even be close enough to reinforce a SAD-refused attack.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The merchant meanwhile has no way at all short of not transporting goods to avoid the cost of banditry, whether that cost is paying off sads and being looted or hiring armed guards it is unavoidable.
The Dev Blog said this is by design. They do not want unlimited, no risk, importation of raw materials to come into the towns for sale or crafting.
There needs to be risk and that is in the primary form of PC Bandits. Read the Dev Blog section:
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.
I did not "bold" any passage, not crop any of the sections.. included in its entirety to preserve a non bias look.
@Bluddwolf
And its not the merchants here arguing they should be immune. It is you constantly asking for bandit buffs. If you read what I said I was pointing out merely that merchants paid the price either way. No where did I claim it was unjust or ask for any means to escape it.
Whereas you have been here in thread after thread asking for more and more advantage and less and less consequence for bandits.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think what ZenPagan is alluding to - though I don't want to put words in his mouth - is that that risk is carried almost exclusively by the merchant - the bandit gets to set the time, place and most of the terms of the interaction between them. It is therefore churlish to complain that you (bandits in general - not you personally) do not have even more advantages within the SAD system or with regard to the flag system.
I don't think anyone wants a free pass - but I don't think we want to let you have one either...
EDIT: He beat me to it...