Goblin Squad Member
|
For me this is a social engineering and nation building game, I want full PvP for the "verisimilitude" of it...but I will never partake if I can help it (necessary defense of my harvested building supplies I will never SAD (FYI) from the high reputation bandits aside). Just sayin'...that's what this sandbox is to me.
A few points about the flags, the Sads and Contracts...
Scenario One:
Traveler Flag gives you fast travel and higher carrying capacity. It is also an open PVP flag.
A bandit (flagged as Outlaw) has two options: SAD or Attack
Because you have higher capacity due to flag, you should be inclined to give into a reasonable SAD offer. But if you do not, which is your choice, you risk losing all.
Scenario Two:
You are not flagged as Traveler (Not PVP enabled.
A Bandit (flagged as Outlaw) has two options: SAD or Attack
The SAD offer vs. an unflagged opponent is what the Devs hope will happen. They would rather have bandits do this, than to have unwanted PVP kills against unflagged travelers.
The Bandits second option is to just attack, violating the unflagged status and taking on both the Attacker Flag and the negative hit to Reputation and shifts in alignment. As I wrote, this is not the option the Devs would like to see often, so they attach the negatives to this type of activity.
Scenario Three:
You are a contracted hauler. You have choices as well:
You can give into the SAD and deliver what was remaining after the negotiated payment. (Partial Contract complete)
You decline the SAD and win, delivering your cargo safe and sound. (Contract complete)
You decline the SAD and lose everything. (Contract fail)
You decide, because you don't want to give anything to filthy bandits, you dump and destroy your own cargo. Yes, I have seen at least one post suggest this would be his/her course of action. (Total Contract Fail, and massive reputation loss).
How would there be massive reputation loss? The bandits would put the word out, you can't be trusted with cargo. Try to get future contracts with a track record like that. The employer won't have to believe the bandit's word for it ether, they'd the lack of their cargo to know it was true.
It took me a while to figure out in my own head, the SAD / Flag or No Flag dynamic. It finally became clear to me the genius of the system the devs devised.
PVP Flag Enabled: Attack or SAD, bandits discretion
No PVP Flag: SAD or bandit suffers the consequences
Traveler, flagged or not, if the bandits make you a SAD offer, in most cases you're better off taking it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I read the blog(s). Thank you for the recap. I see what GW is attempting to do, and I see why. It will be "content". Again, the only thing I see missing from it is a way to vote down the bandit behavior in the name of social engineering. I understand why they don't, I cannot offer a way to do it that cannot be gamed. I do know however, that what they are implementing is not "reputation".
Perhaps as a solution they can borrow from EVE, members of a corp can set reputation of another person/party/corp in regards to their corp only. So, when the UNnamed Bandits show up to take my stuff, I tell them where they can stick their SAD...we fight. No matter the outcome, I and my party can elect to vote their rep down...and it impacts the reputation of UNnamed as it relates only to our Company, Settlement, and Nation. The higher rank a person in a given association, the more impact their vote has. Finally, not only can settlement owners fix access based upon the metagaming pseudo-reputation mechanic currently proposed, but they could also set access against their member driven fame system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You are free to play the game how you want to play it Xeen. So am I.
You apparently believe this game should be Lord of The Flies Online, where it's acceptable to kill anyone, anywhere, for any reason.
Mechanically I agree with you. The lack of restrictions inherent in an Open World PVP game leads to a far more authentic, engaging, and fulfilling than the general horde vs. alliance junk.
But just because you can kill without reason doesn't mean you should. I play open world PVP games so that I get to determine the reasons I kill people instead of the game mechanics.
Turning open world PVP into free for all Halo matches kills their potential to be something much, much, deeper. You rob yourself and everyone around you of that experience with your meaningless slaughter. I'm not going to ask Goblinworks to stop you though.
As you said, this is a PVP game, and PVP will be the instrument of my vengeance. See you in PFO.
I dont know Lord of the Flies, the only MMO's I have played for more then 5 minutes was MWO, Eve, and SWTOR. MWO was disappointing at the highest level, especially and a Battletech/Mechwarrior lover. SWTOR, well a mindless themepark, and Eve which I played for 6-7 years.
I see what you mean Andius. I have done all of the gaming concepts in Eve. Mining, Empire Building, Anti-Pirating, Pirating, Missions, Roaming Combat, Wars, name it.
I will have a much much deeper game play. I will not be robbing myself of anything, nor will I rob anyone of anything besides loot. The wilds are rough... and thats where the good money will be. So if you want to make it rich then you have to take the risk. Or honestly where is the fun?
Risk vs Reward is the name of the game. Anything else is just a themepark.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Lord of The Flies is a classic book about a group of British choir boys stranded on an island, and how they try to form a society, watch it break down, and then start slaughtering each other. What I mean by Lord of The Flies Online is complete and utter meaningless chaos.
If all you are taking is people's loot that's fine, but you were talking earlier as if you want to kill anyone you see just because. So we are clear let me define my view of RPKing, and it's polar opposite called Meaningful Player Interaction.
Meaningful Player Interaction- When your interaction with someone, I'm this case killing, is driven by motives and reasons such as:
- They belong to an enemy organization
- You have a grudge against them
- You are competing for resources
- You have opposing ideologies
- You are defending someone/something from them
- They have loot, and refused to comply with your SAD
Random Player Killing- When you will kill anyone and everyone unless you have reasons not to, such as:
- They are your bro
- You're busy killing some other newb
- It looks like it might be a fair fight
Here is a scenario that I've posted before on these forums. The incident that really brought home to me why RPKing is such a problem:
I was playing Mortal Online on my alchemist character, a crazy old guy who gathers various agents and mixes them together in an attempt to find new potion recipes. He's out running around in rags gathering fruit on a road far away from any player city.
3-5 mounted soldiers ride up to them.
How The Story Would Probably End If They Were TEO
Soldier: Seen any trouble makers around?
Alchemist: No.
Soldier: Ok, let us know if you see any, or you have need someone to answer any questions.
How The Story Would Probably End If They Were TSV
Soldier: What are you doing out here?
Alchemist: Gathering alchemical agents.
Soldier: Cool! I'm an alchemist too! Want to trade recipes?!
How The Story Would Probably End If They Were UNC
Soldier: Stand and deliver!!!
Alchemist: I have nothing of value to you! Don't hurt me!
*Soldier 2 Snoops his pockets*
Soldier 2: He's telling the truth, it's just a bunch of fruit.
Soldier: Does he have apples?
Soldier 2: Yes
Soldier: I freaking love apples! Hand over your apples and be on you way!
How The Story Actually Ended And Usually Does
*Gank*
10 minutes later
*Recovers body to find nothing taken*
Moral of the Story
There is plenty of room for danger and excitement within the confines of meaningful player interaction, but RPKing is meaningless player interaction.
For players who play the game in a similar fashion to what I described in the UNC scenario, I'll probably fight them when I see them, but bear no particular ill will against them as player.
For player who play the game the way the actual story played out. I will kill them every time I see them. I will hunt them down. I will burn their homes to the ground and I will piss on the ashes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Would be nice if you could fire a warning shot at someone coming into claimed territory, without alerting them to your actual location.
On that note, it would be nice if targeted spells/ranged attacks let you use them from very long distances, beyond effective range as it were. You are going to miss, it is almost guaranteed, but it would be a very succinct way of letting someone know they are not welcome.
Also, can we please light our arrows on fire?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Im not saying I wont attack just because I want to attack. I will of course SAD them first for the loot. Granted it all depends on the flags.
You miss the point that... Random is not what we will have here. When out in the wilds, if you are not a friend then your an enemy. You are out trying to either...
1 - build up your settlement
2 - make it rich
3 - pvp
4 - find crafting stuff
5 - whatever
You will be taking a risk.
Ahh the bad guy.
________________________________________________________________________
By the looks of it, if we do it TEO way then it will be like this.
Soldier: Seen any trouble makers around?
Alchemist: Nope
Soldier: Ok, let us know if you see any, or you have need someone to answer any questions.
Alchemist: I have a question for you... Why is it your a soldier?
Soldier: To defend the weak and help people
Alchemist: Umm... No one bothers me ever, they just ask the same questions you do. There is nothing to fight.
Soldier: I know, Im so bored I think Im going to find another game
Alchemist: Ok, Good Luck, Ill keep crafting stuff for your unsubbed character
________________________________________________________________________
So in the end, if you dont have people like me, then what is it TEO will do besides PVE? Sure, you could build settlements, craft items, explore, etc etc etc. Sounds like a theme park at that rate.
Cant have one without the other. Ill be the other.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So all bandits have to be RPKers?
We can't fight lawful evil expansionists?
We can't support chaotic good rebels against lawful neutral xenophobes?
Nobody but RPKer will cause trouble for us and our allies?
There will never be misunderstandings and clashes of personality?
Let me give you a hint. I played an open world PVP game on a server in which the RPKer population was nearly exterminated (And I proudly helped lead that extermination.)
It did not bring about peace. It happened during and in-between the two most intense wars the server ever saw.
There were still some pirates, there was still taxation, there was still danger and suspense. It was the just Wild West, not the post apocalyptic feeding frenzy most of these titles offer. And it was the most fun I've ever had in online gaming.
I'm completely comfortable mostly stamping out RPKing because I've been down that road before and I know it leads to healthier community for everyone.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And just because you define it as Random does not make it Random.
I will give you a hint. You did not exterminate them, they just moved and became your enemies. The high and mighty settlements will have a problem thriving without the help of a more powerful not so high and mighty settlement.
There will be only one server, one persistent game. You can try to remove me from it and will fail.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually there was a small outflow of players as most of them left the server, and then a large in-flow as new organizations filled their place because we had one of the best communities in the game. Within a year our sever was filled to capacity during peak hours.
I don't need to remove you. We never entirely removed them. Just every major organization that recruited their kind. Their shattered remnant never reformed into a real threat or reclaimed any of their territory until we left the game.
Our primary enemy before, during, and after their utter defeat would be best classified as lawful neutral, and they were anti-RPK as well.
PS. There may only be one server but there are similar games that cater well to players seeking meaningless player interaction. If we prevent the spread of the disease they are to this game, we will end up with a larger and better community in the end.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Andius
I have a slight modification to your UNC scenario. Yours, although close, missed my flare for the sociopathic CN in me.
How The Story Would Probably End If They Were UNC
Soldier: Stand and deliver!!!
Alchemist: I have nothing of value to you! Don't hurt me!
*Soldier 2 Snoops his pockets*
Soldier 2: He's telling the truth, it's just a bunch of fruit.
Soldier: Does he have apples?
Soldier 2: Yes
Soldier: I freaking love apples! Hand over your apples and be on you way!
Bandit: Hello friend, what brings you to these wild lands?
Alchemist: I'm an alchemist and I'm here collecting apples for my concoctions
Bandit: I like apples, how many you have?
Alchemist: I have 5 apples.
Bandit: Hand over 2 and we will be on our way.
Alchemist: Perhaps 1 apple will do?
Bandit: Perhaps I'll cut your f'ing head off and leave you and your five apples to rot with with each other.
Alchemist: Two apples will be fine...
Bandit: it is now four, and I'll take a bite from the one you have left.
The moral of this story:
If I'm offering you a SAD, I'm already confident I can kill you. Don't get uppity or too prideful, or my generosity will instantly turn to a strong desire to kill and humiliate you. Then I will make your interaction with us the poster child of what not to do.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You forgot the part where the alchemist destroys all of his inventory and just leaves.
Once a SAD is initiated, there is no "Destroy all and just walk away". There is only pay or decline. Once declined, the bandits can attack without incurring the negative affects of the attacker flag, nor those for killing.
There is no "just leave"..... Even if you destroy all of your items, before the SAD is issued, and we inspect your inventory and see you are naked. We will assume you cheated us out of our SAD and accept the Attacker Flag; the CE alignment shift; and the Reputation hit when we kill you! Then take screen shots or Fraps of ourselves tea bagging your corpse and post them on our forums for the Lolz!!
If push comes to shove, we will be chaotic evil and low rep for that specific event and thank you for the meaningful interaction. You may not see the meaning through your tears, but we will.
Oh and before you say that is griefing or RPKing, it's not! It is well within the behaviors we want to see, that the Devs have laid out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You forgot the part where the alchemist destroys all of his inventory and just leaves.Once a SAD is initiated, there is no "Destroy all and just walk away".
No, but there's still the emotional satisfaction of depriving bandits of spoils. Quick chat with Pharasma, and back on the job :-).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Or the alchemist thinks you taking the fruits of their 5 hours of labor is more griefing than just RPKing them...and starts tossing about alchemical Molotov cocktails.
You keep on bringing up "labor" as if the time you spend gathering is more valuable than the time we spend searching for targets and engaging in either negotiations (SaDs) or combat. You are not entitled to a risk free environment in an Open World PvP MMO.
I see both functions as equally important to the game. You may try to argue that you have the right to have 100% of the fruits of your labor. I would counter argue that in an Open World PvP MMO, you are only allowed to 100% of the fruits of your labor, if you can keep them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You may try to argue that you have the right to have 100% of the fruits of your labor.
Not at all. The argument seems to be that you're entitled to 0% of them, and folks'll deprive themselves if, by doing so, they can deprive you.
Somewhere someone said that he wanted the ability to create one macro in PFO: "Destroy all not threaded". Pretty extreme, but some folks get a bit irrational about your line of work.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Bluddwolf
For the most part your views seem ok. This though:
"Then take screen shots or Fraps of ourselves tea bagging your corpse and post them on our forums for the Lolz!!"
Is just a little over the top and unnecessary. Denying bandits much in loot is pretty much in the spirit, if it makes it feel better then definitely kill them. "Teabagging" and recording it, nothing but poor sportsmanship.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No, but there's still the emotional satisfaction of depriving bandits of spoils. Quick chat with Pharasma, and back on the job :-).
So, lets see how this possible scenario plays out:
Merchant Employer: I would like for you Mr. Traveler to accept this contract to deliver 1000 units of Ash lumber to Settlement Acheron.
Traveler: Yes I will take that contract for 100 gold.
Out in the wilderness, the Traveler sees Bluddwolf and his company of bandits.
Traveler: I refuse to give these bandits the satisfaction, destroys everything, gets killed naked and respawns.
Returns to Employer.....
Employer: Why didn't my cargo get to Acheron
Traveler: I saw bandits, so I destroyed it rather than give them the satisfaction.
Employer: I have had cargos taken by Bluddwolf and his band before. They usually take a portion and send you on your way. I build in that anticipated loss into my prices. What I don't build into my cost is a spiteful, coward that would destroy my entire load and violate my contracts.
Traveler's reputation is lost, both in game for failing the contract, and meta gamed because he is not trustworthy.
How's that emotional satisfaction working out for the traveler?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf
For the most part your views seem ok. This though:
"Then take screen shots or Fraps of ourselves tea bagging your corpse and post them on our forums for the Lolz!!"
Is just a little over the top and unnecessary. Denying bandits much in loot is pretty much in the spirit, if it makes it feel better then definitely kill them. "Teabagging" and recording it, nothing but poor sportsmanship.
Spiteful actions will beget similar actions in response. Is not destroying all, rather than participate in the meaningful player interaction, also "poor sportsmanship"?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@KitNyx- At last we spoke, you said that your intentions were still to remain with Pax in PfO. Is this not the case?
@Bluddwolf- Again, as long as SADs are reasonable and not counter productive to gameplay, I think they will prove to be an intregal part of gameplay and the economy. If bandits are allowed to recieve goods as part of the SAD, that very well could be used to mainpulate the economy.
Imagine being contracted to focus SADs on healing potions for instance. If they are outrageously over priced, bandits start stiffening their SADs on those merchants or crafters transporting the potions focusing on the acquisition of the over priced good. Then they could be placed on the markets by the Bandits at a lower price to drive the market down to a more reasonable medium.
-Areks
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Heh, I knew that would be your response. I could have prewritten this.
All of these "situational" scenarios seem to fit into the Devs "Behaviors we want to see" accept the teabagging thing. If that is not clear, to you, then I suppose that it just never will be. I will play this game at a certain maturity level for others, as well as my own, enjoyment.
It really seemed like Andius and Yourself, were finally making some sense. Then you both just had to keep writing. You are both "backslipping" into your old attitudes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just curious as to why the person dumping everything to spite the bandits is always under contract to deliver their items. I can't imagine that people actually under contract would do so. The ones that dump will be working for themselves more likely.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It really seemed like Andius and Yourself, were finally making some sense. Then you both just had to keep writing. You are both "backslipping" into your old attitudes.
Although I won't speak for Andius, I think that he and I have made some movement forward in defining some behaviors that we can both agree upon.
The current exchange has been between Kitnyx and I, concerning the concept of destroying all, rather than interact through a SAD.
The idea of having a macro of "destroy all non threaded" would never see the light of day. GW would likely consider it, outside of the spirit of the game.
As for the "Tea Bagging" promise, in response to spiteful behavior, I suggest that because I know it will have an impact. Someone so concerned over the loss of a portion of their loot, would not be able to accept the fact that someone is mocking them (even on a completely separate website than one associated with Paizo / GW).
If they want to engage in unsportsmanlike conduct, they will get the same in return. You may claim, two wrongs don't make a right, and I'll say an eye for an eye.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm just curious as to why the person dumping everything to spite the bandits is always under contract to deliver their items. I can't imagine that people actually under contract would do so. The ones that dump will be working for themselves more likely.
I said that was a possible scenario, not a frequent one. I would also ask, why does it seem that many people seem to believe that bandits won't be selective of their targets?
We are not looking to SAD the lone wanderer, with five apples and a walking stick. We're looking for a lightly guarded caravan, hauling a sizable cargo of items of some value.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
OOC
I honestly have to agree with Bluddwolf. Though I admit I didn't when I first read that. It sounds like an aye for an eye to me as well.
Its open world PvP. If Kitnyx wants to enguage in unsportsman like behavior, then in my opinion he is more of a "bad guy" then Bludd.
If Kitnyx is so against it, then there are multiple ways to fight back. There are death curses, bounties, and do-gooders a plenty to seek retribution on your behalf. Or better yet fight to the death. Us bandits might win in the end, but it would have been an honorable fight and a worthy attempt. Now if you want to hide a few poisoned apples in your load for the "just in case scenario", then I don't have much of a problem with that. Im sure we could figure out what is poisoned and what isn't.
IC
@ Drakhan
Cant wait!!!! Goblins love killin filthy do-gooders! Then I can takes all the shinies, and have your innards in my stew. YAY!!!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have had cargos taken by Bluddwolf and his band before. They usually take a portion and send you on your way. I build in that anticipated loss into my prices.
Not all travellers will want to take merchant contracts, and some will ask "why didn't you just contract with Bluddwolf to carry or safeguard your merchandise in the first place?"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Not at all. The argument seems to be that you're entitled to 0% of them, and folks'll deprive themselves if, by doing so, they can deprive you.
Somewhere someone said that he wanted the ability to create one macro in PFO: "Destroy all not threaded". Pretty extreme, but some folks get a bit irrational about your line of work.
Pretty much this. If someone wishes to have the ability to deprive the bandit of their price by loosing all the stuff in their inventory by all means they should have it.
AKA being able to kill the bandit should not be the only way to "win" the SAD.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Areks, I did not know anything had changed...
@Bluddwolf, again, my only concern is my inability to lower a thieves reputation with my faction...and as of yet be unable to utilize that metric to promote what we feel is acceptable behaviour.
Also, I never asked for nor promoted the ability to destroy inventory. I am all for full loot PvP and I welcome you to take my goods over my dead body.
And no, I will never see setting out to take others stuff as "acceptable behaviour"...but I acknowledge you are all free to participate and condone whatever behaviour you want. Hence my issue with the lack of social engineering tools.
@Greedalox, where have I advocated "unsportsmanlike behaviour"? You think you have a right to my goods, I think I always have a right to fight to keep them...similarly, open PvP has been approved as another "desired behaviour", why go looking for people to fight when they will come to you? My right to PvP is at least equal to your right to "bandit me". Sounds like I am playing as intended when I say I will fight anyone who tries to rob me...both by mechanics and RP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We are not looking to SAD the lone wanderer...I wish you spoke for all of you. Unfortunately, too many of your "colleagues" won't even bother with SAD; you might find it hard to avoid being tarred with their brush.
What tar?
I see no moral issue in either offering a SAD or not offering one. I see no issue in either choosing to attack a solo target or not.
The members of my company are free to believe in and act in the ways of their choosing. The only rules that I hold them to are to never attack a fellow member and to honor a contract that we have chosen to accept.
The UnNamed Company is open to all play styles, alignments, and reputation levels. I'm the Master of the UnNamed Company, not a master of its members. I practice what I call "Receptive Leadership", which means, I listen to their voices. They are free to Lead, Follow or Leave as they see fit.
So, they can speak for themselves and do so regularly. They can lead their troupes of bandits as they wish. When I'm in the lead of a troupe, what I say goes.
So, if you are looking for predictability from the UNC on a broad scale, you may be barking up the wrong tree. We are mostly Chaotic Neutral, with a mix of Chaotic Evil thrown in for special circumstances and events.
Lol... this last line made me chuckle...
"Have that children's party coming up in a few weeks? You can hire the UnNamed Company for all of your children's entertainment needs!"
We have:
Jingoistic Jugglers
Maniac Magicians
Suicidal Cyclists
Schedule your party before August 1 and we will throw in one bottle of Carebear Tears for each of the party goers, Parents Included!!
This message was brought to you either In Character or Out of Character, I just can't tell?... I'm in that kind of a mood.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Areks, I did not know anything had changed...
@Bluddwolf, again, my only concern is my inability to lower a thieves reputation with my faction...and as of yet be unable to utilize that metric to promote what we feel is acceptable behaviour.
Also, I never asked for nor promoted the ability to destroy inventory. I am all for full loot PvP and I welcome you to take my goods over my dead body.
And no, I will never see setting out to take others stuff as "acceptable behaviour"...but I acknowledge you are all free to participate and condone whatever behaviour you want. Hence my issue with the lack of social engineering tools.
@Greedalox, where have I advocated "unsportsmanlike behaviour"? You think you have a right to my goods, I think I always have a right to fight to keep them...similarly, open PvP has been approved as another "desired behaviour", why go looking for people to fight when they will come to you? My right to PvP is at least equal to your right to "bandit me". Sounds like I am playing as intended when I say I will fight anyone who tries to rob me...both by mechanics and RP.
Sorry Kit, I made an assumption based off the current postings. I went back through the thread and didn't see you advocating destroying all your goods. If you want to fight rather than accept SAD then that is actually in my opinion quite awesome and I would probably respect you for doing so.
But I will still stand by what I said about a person wanting to destroy their goods rather than loose them. That is unsportsmanlike and doesn't suit the spirit of PvP Looting. Its just a temper tantrum. There are multiple ways to get back at bandits that are in place, and that is not one of them nor should it be.
As for a lowering rep per faction, Im not sure that is needed. However Im also not really understanding you either. Are you talking about something like a separate CC or Settlement rep? Or do you mean then NPC factions?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As far as I can tell, my goods are mine to do with as I please. There isn't a guarantee you will get squat for robbing me. It is mine until I give it to you or you loot it. Until you hold it, I have it.
You guys are very witty. I am not sure if "You mad Bro?" behavior will be frowned upon or not. Can't wait to see what happens if you illustrate your guild site with it, though. Just can hardly wait.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Bringslite
I actually saw a guy walk onto my job site with a T-shirt that said that LOL.
Im not necessarily advocating that kind of behavior so much as I am against the other.
Also lets say this was a legitimate game mechanic. What would stop everyone not under a delivery contract or under heavy protection from destroying their haul? At this point you are kind of destroying my reason to engauge in a meaningful way. Which if happens often enough Ill probably start to get a little pissed. This would only lead to unmeaningful interaction in the form of RPKing.
I mean now Im a bored bandit with seemingly no or very few options. Guess Ill just go kill anybody and everybody I meet? Or better yet anyone that would do this to spite me as a bandit would likely make my KoS list.
I really don't want it to be this way. So either GWs needs to ensure destroying you haul is not possible, or there would need to be restrictions on it. Such as only during war. Or better yet anyone or group that does this takes a very very severe reputation hit (like to zero)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So either GWs needs to ensure destroying you haul is not possible, or there would need to be restrictions on it. Such as only during war. Or better yet anyone or group that does this takes a very very severe reputation hit (like to zero)
You know how MMORPGs have 'buyback' options in the stores?
They could similarly track destroyed items for say a minute or two. If the owner is killed before the timer is up, the item returns to the list of what can be looted from the corpse.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The whole argument about dumping everything to prevent bandits from getting it versus giving into a SAD is very telling of problems in the real world as well.
A concerted effort to undermine the ill-gotten gains of bandits would help reduce bandit population as it would not be as rewarding. This would be a significant short-term loss due to heavy amounts of resources being dumped, though in the long term fewer people would turn to banditry as the rewards would not be as lucrative. The long-term efficiency savings would be immense.
But getting folks to sacrifice personally in the short-term for a communal long-term net gain is a very difficult task. If we could get a coalition to support that long-term pro-good guy mindset, I would find it awesome! But I doubt we will get there.
I will personally applaud those that derive bandits the rewards of their efforts. Banditry is not a productive effort, it is a parasitic one. And whereas I abhor the concept of not owning the fruits of one's labors unless you can hold it with combat might, I can respect that this game would have a much smaller community without that aspect. (Though I doubt I would be bored - I would love a purely cooperative open world sandbox nation-building PvE game. But I am going to have to settle for a competitive pvp game as the closest thing I'll see anytime soon. At least one with good quality behind it.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You said pretty much what I was going to bring up.
If I destroy my goods when bandits hove into view then I'll probably get killed anyway. Meh.
By denying the bandits my gear as loot, I am not gaining anything at all short-term, except to annoy the people who have chosen to rob me anyway. Personally I would chalk that one up as a small win, but still....
If I am a regular traveller, however, the bandits will soon start to recognise me as a spoilsport who destroys gear before it can be looted. They may attack anyway, just for S&G or out of spite, but it will be in the knowledge that they are unlikely to come away ahead of the game.
Eventually, I will be known as a poor target, not worth targeting.
As an individual that is great, as a large-scale haulier it is a fabulous result. As the boss of a transport firm, I would positively encourage my hauliers to destroy everything if they could. For a small short-term loss (which would probably have been stolen anyhow), I am able to transport future goods in relative safety.
Yes, bandits may still attack to try to make a point, but how is that different from being attacked anyway? Any bandit group targeting unprofitable caravans is likely to go out of business anyhow, so I doubt that the vengeance attacks will be as regular as 'standard' bandit activity. I could even run Q-ship caravans, where the aim is to draw the bandits into attacking me.
As an anti-bandit tactic, destroying your goods before they are looted is okay by me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I could even run Q-ship caravans, where the aim is to draw the bandits into attacking me.
It really depends on all the mechanical pieces. Whatever the cost of the wagons, there will be some cargos that make it worthwhile to send out five junk wagons for each real caravan. Flood the area with decoys and chaff and some valuable targets will get through.
It promises to make for a nice strategic game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
On the subject of destroying loot being unsportsmanlike - I would argue that sportsmanship is secondary to social progress in my mind. Playing fair to reward what I view as immoral behavior just seems counter-intuitive. In fact, I feel this fits very well on an alignment spectrum.
Sacrifice goods to prevent thieves from obtaining them: Good.
Giving into a SAD or Fight in Self-Defense: Neutral
Devote yourself to a long-term campaign to continuously kill the bandits who assaulted you: Evil
In terms of Contract carrying, it would go by terms of contract. If the contract is written to deliver 1000 units of wood, and bandits demand 200 through SAD which you give and proceed to deliver 800 units - that is a Chaotic Action (unless you expend personal effort/resources to replace those 200 missing units).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As an anti-bandit tactic, destroying your goods before they are looted is okay by me.Sadurian, somehow your new avatar has made your posts more approachable. I never realised that I had been discounting chef-bunny-words :-p.
Quake before the insane wisdom of the psychopath bunny chef!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Let me put it another way.
If I am unable to pick and choose "healthy" targets. And am unable to be successful in SADs. Then it would create a problem. Because if I am able to successfully do these things then I can promise it would happen far less in the first place, and the community would be better for it: Content, Taking materials off the market, driving up prices, fewer PvP deaths, etc.
On the other hand. If I cant make it work the way GWs intends as a Bandit. Then just to make some gold ill end up killing more people and not even offering SAD for fear of giving the victim time to destroy the haul. I guess it makes Content as well. But its definitely a ot more unsafe and worse off on the victims, and doesn't help regulate the economy nearly as well.