Goblin Squad Member
|
Does any part of that sound "Chaotic"?
Yes the entire premise of banditry is chaotic. You are going out into territory you don't own and demanding people hand over goods you have no right to.
A lawful group would establish themselves as the legitimate authority of an area then lay down a tax code for those passing through.
Does that difference sound shallow to you?
<in-character>
That is because the entire idea of law and chaos is shallow. Both can be used to protect, and both can be used to oppress. Law can fool itself into thinking honor means something in the face of it's atrocities and chaos can stubbornly refuse to be guided by law even when the laws are just and good. Morality is all that matters. In the end the fight of good to overcome evil is the only struggle that means anything.
</in-character>
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Here is a suggestion for the Traveler Flag revamp and the upcoming Caravan System:
In order to operate a caravan, the player must activate a Caravan Flag (PvP) which will allow for the affects of the current Traveler Flag.
This way caravans would work very much the same way that the SAD mechanic, it being attached to a PVP flag that must be toggled first, to unlock the ability.
The benefit of doing this is that it will direct PVP flagged Outlaws to focus their attention towards PVP flagged caravans, more risk but greater rewards.
The solo traveler / gatherer that is not PVP flagged, would become less of a target of even SADs, but would be sacrificing the benefits of the traveler flag, and would not be able to operate a caravan.
The same kind of mechanics could be attached to operating a larger scale, harvesting site. You need s gatekeeper PVP flag to open up the access to the more efficient harvesting buffs. While not being PVP flagged only grants you access to small resource nodes. Again, this will allow PVE players to still gather, but not be as tempting a target for bandits.
In both cases of the solo traveler / gatherer whom really wishes to be left out of PVP, the best way to prevent unwanted PVP is to incentivize PVP for others willing to take on more risk for greater rewards.
This also supports GW's purpose of not allowing players to completely opt out of PVP, when they are performing activities or in areas that are designed for PVP interaction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This also supports GW's purpose of not allowing players to completely opt out of PVP, when they are performing activities or in areas that are designed for PVP interaction.
This is my problem with most of what you are saying: that it is all based on the fallacy that you can "opt out" of PvP. You can't. You can just make it less attractive for someone to attack you as and when you want to.
You yourself have already stated that you would remove the PvP flag after a bandit attack yourself in order to escape the consequences of people arriving to fight you when flagged for it:
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".
How do you feel you should be "punished" by GW for trying to "opt out" of PvP in these cases? (I know your position on this may have changed - but the principle remains the same.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that the Heinous Flag should not be a long term flag, but a PVP flag that allows:
1. Necromancers to raise and command the Undead in PVP combat
2. Settlement Leaders to use slaves in PVP warfare
This way you take the Reputation loses out of the PVE activities and place it within the PVP activities.
What is this reputation lose that you are talking about? Can you give an example of this heinous flag related reputation lose in pve activities?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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".How do you feel you should be "punished" by GW for trying to "opt out" of PvP in these cases? (I know your position on this may have changed - but the principle remains the same.)
It takes 30 seconds to reflag up. Chaotic Neutrals, which I intend to be, will have the ability to reflag as Travelers, not outlaws. It actually makes sense for us to do so, allowing for us to carry more of the loot we just stole; giving us fast travel; and we will recover some of the rep loss from the attack.
I did not mention this before, but to avoid sounding hypocritical I decided to reveal a tactic that we would use. We intend to multi flag, before, during and after combat. Some of us may even flag as Enforcers, to protect th caravan of stolen goods on its way to our hideout.
So if and when a posse arrives they won't see a bunch of Outlaws standing there there. They may see a group of travelers and "guards".
We are also not going to flag up, just in time to get wiped out by an overwhelming force either. We are not in the business of taking on more risk than reward. Just as we will not attack you if you present too high a risk vs reward, we will not present ourselves as a high reward for a low risk.
I'm hoping for a FFA PvP zone, where flagged or unflagged makes no difference. If such a zone will exist, that is where I hope to spend most of my time when I'm committing banditry.
Finally, if I recall that quote, it was after several exchanges and I was being sarcastic and trying to annoy those that were complaining about banditry taking their stuff. Pinging out that they may come on the scene and have to violate the flagging system themselves was a counter arguement I wanted to present them with.
I have never said that I would be flagged pvp 100% of the time in the wilderness. Only that I would flag up when actively committing acts of banditry, which won't always be the case. I plan to do ther activities as well, like escalations or dungeons. I won't be pvp flagged for those.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What is this reputation lose that you are talking about? Can you give an example of this heinous flag related reputation lose in pve activities?I think that the Heinous Flag should not be a long term flag, but a PVP flag that allows:
1. Necromancers to raise and command the Undead in PVP combat
2. Settlement Leaders to use slaves in PVP warfare
This way you take the Reputation loses out of the PVE activities and place it within the PVP activities.
Heinous
The character has committed an act that is universally viewed as evil, such as raising and controlling undead, using slaves to build structures or gather resources, etc.Each time the character gets the Heinous flag they lose good vs. evil.
Anyone may kill a Heinous character without fearing reputation or alignment loss.
Heinous is removed once the character has been killed.
The Heinous flag lasts one minute beyond the duration of the deed unless the character does something to get it again before the duration runs out. Characters using undead for example will have the Heinous flag the entire time they are using undead.
If the character gets the Heinous flag again within the duration of its existing Heinous buff, the count of Heinous increases by 1 and the duration resets ten minutes longer, up to a maximum of 100 minutes.
If the character gets to Heinous 10 they get a new flag, Villain, which lasts for 24 hours and does not disappear on death. It acts the same as Heinous, allowing repeat offenders to be hunted down for longer periods of time.
So it can become long duration (as villain), but Villain is not listed in Long Term Flags. It could be missing something (not the first time) but I don't see rep penalties for Heinous, only non for killing them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Bluddwolf
That's a reasonable position to take - deciding when and where you will flag up. I'd just rather it was extended to everyone equally, without accusing those who don't flag when you think they should to be in breach of "the spirit of the game". If flags are to work then surely they are for each individual player to decide when and where to fly them, rather than answering to a limited (in that it is not everybody's) interpretation of when they should be flown.
Of course, if there are FFC (Free from consequences) PvP zones, all of this becomes moot. As far as I am concerned, everywhere in PfO will be FFA - if I can get killed at any time it's FFA to me.
Lastly - I realise that I have taken your quote slightly out of context (hence the disclaimer after it). As a Brit, I appreciate sarcasm :). I just wanted to show that any position can be twisted with very little effort if we want to be self serving about it - and that while having these debates it's better to think about what will be better for us than better for me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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".How do you feel you should be "punished" by GW for trying to "opt out" of PvP in these cases? (I know your position on this may have changed - but the principle remains the same.)It takes 30 seconds to reflag up. Chaotic Neutrals, which I intend to be, will have the ability to reflag as Travelers, not outlaws. It actually makes sense for us to do so, allowing for us to carry more of the loot we just stole; giving us fast travel; and we will recover some of the rep loss from the attack.
I did not mention this before, but to avoid sounding hypocritical I decided to reveal a tactic that we would use. We intend to multi flag, before, during and after combat. Some of us may even flag as Enforcers, to protect th caravan of stolen goods on its way to our hideout.
So if and when a posse arrives they won't see a bunch of Outlaws standing there there. They may see a group of travelers and "guards".
We are also not going to flag up, just in time to get wiped out by an overwhelming force either. We are not in the business of taking on more risk than reward. Just as we will not attack you if you present too high a risk vs reward, we will not present ourselves as a high reward for a low risk.
I'm hoping for a FFA PvP zone, where flagged or unflagged makes no difference. If such a zone will exist, that is where I hope to spend most of my time when I'm committing banditry.
Finally, if I recall that quote, it was after several exchanges and I was being sarcastic and trying to annoy those that were complaining about banditry taking their...
Well, Gee Bluddwolf, using the flag system to your advantage, huh? Given the things that you have been writing, I don't see it as hypocritical at all - at all. No Sireee, not at all...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Bluddwolf
That's a reasonable position to take - deciding when and where you will flag up. I'd just rather it was extended to everyone equally, without accusing those who don't flag when you think they should to be in breach of "the spirit of the game". If flags are to work then surely they are for each individual player to decide when and where to fly them, rather than answering to a limited (in that it is not everybody's) interpretation of when they should be flown.
Of course, if there are FFC (Free from consequences) PvP zones, all of this becomes moot. As far as I am concerned, everywhere in PfO will be FFA - if I can get killed at any time it's FFA to me.
Lastly - I realise that I have taken your quote slightly out of context (hence the disclaimer after it). As a Brit, I appreciate sarcasm :). I just wanted to show that any position can be twisted with very little effort if we want to be self serving about it - and that while having these debates it's better to think about what will be better for us than better for me.
I agree, which is why I was specific that a merchant caravan traveling without a Traveler Flag, I deem to be such a breach.
I was addressing ZenPagan at some point when I told him,"if you are a solo traveler with very little in the form of reward, we would not even bother with you."
I don't expect everyone to be flagged in the wilderness. I have no choice but to flag when I'm doing banditry, need the outlaw flag. A merchant hauling a caravan full of iron ore, should not be able to do that without being flagged.
I've actually suggested this for a Caravan Flag in this thread:
Here is a suggestion for the Traveler Flag revamp and the upcoming Caravan System:
In order to operate a caravan, the player must activate a Caravan Flag (PvP) which will allow for the affects of the current Traveler Flag.
This way caravans would work very much the same way that the SAD mechanic, it being attached to a PVP flag that must be toggled first, to unlock the ability.
The benefit of doing this is that it will direct PVP flagged Outlaws to focus their attention towards PVP flagged caravans, more risk but greater rewards.
The solo traveler / gatherer that is not PVP flagged, would become less of a target of even SADs, but would be sacrificing the benefits of the traveler flag, and would not be able to operate a caravan.
Is there any issues you can see with this idea of a Caravan Flag?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There goes my 74 IQ again, or I would have noticed it too. Thanks Lhan. :)
Did you only read a portion of what I wrote?
You do understand that using the flagging system to one's advantage, is not avoiding the flagging system, it is what it is designed for?
You do understand that every alignment has available to it at least two flagging options, under the old system?
You do understand that players will use the flag that works best for what they are doing or planning to do?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf
Your post was before mine. I did see it, but it changed little. You seem, like many herein, to have real issues with admitting that all you can see is your side of an issue and fighting at all costs to defend it.
1. If it is not to my advantage to use a Traveler Flag, I will not. Under the "old/current" system, I can't unless I have "neutral" in my make up somewhere.
2. I consider anything, legal, that I can do to disadvantage you, to be to my advantage if you are an adversary. Just as you do. You represent a group of players that wants it one sided. I wish you luck with it.
Okay, get your parting shot. I will not fire back, and in fact, apologize for getting sucked back into this so easily. It really is a hopeless, endless argument.
@Bluddwolf
No flag is also a flag
Just the same as you reflagging traveller so you cannot be attacked by enforcers without them incurring an attacker flag.
Not flagging is the merchant equivalent against bandits.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I just stumbled on this today and thought of the PFO forums. Unfortunately, I could only find a 9 minute snippet of the entire thing.
Ted Talks - For Argument's Sake
After discussing (I suppose some would call it arguing) with fellow posters like Pagan (though usually on PFO Fan TS), I now try to enter into such exchanges with the mindset of, "I have my views, but he's usually got really good counter points, so let's see what I learn," rather than just trying to win the debate.
And this wasn't aimed at anyone in particular...so stop being offended. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf
No flag is also a flag
Just the same as you reflagging traveller so you cannot be attacked by enforcers without them incurring an attacker flag.
Not flagging is the merchant equivalent against bandits.
We will have to wait and see what the Flag Revamp will bring. I have made my suggestion of the "Caravan Flag".
I have acknowledged that you may not be the appropriate alignment to use the flag. I'm not seeking to have one standard for me and another for others, with this suggestion.
I can not engage in banditry without the Outlaw Flag (PVP). You should not be able to operate a caravan without a Caravan Flag (PVP). The Caravan Flag should be open to all alignments, not just Neutrals.
I have a similar idea for large harvesting operations. Once you decide you want to receive greater reward, that should come with greater risk.
Hell, if they give us an FFA PVP zone, you would barely see us outside of that zone doing any PVP. You would have your almost exclusive PVE zones and we would have our PVP playground.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bludd,
But without making nearly all the unsettled territories FFA PVP, wouldn't most people just avoid your PvP playground and thereby deny you victims? Wouldn't that likely result in PvP playground enthusiasts asking GW to incentivize travel into the playground to increase their PvP? Didn't this same scenario already play out in a particular zone of space in EVE?
I do agree that I see no reason why the Traveler flag is only for neutral characters. Wouldn't other alignment merchants be interested in the perks of the flag and be willing to risk PvP for it?
I don't expect to see an FFA zone despite the quote from Ryan
1) There doesnt appear to be any deep wilderness for it to be in either in the EE map or the final map
2) It appears to run contrary to the purpose of some of the main systems
if however I turn out to be wrong I expect one of the following scenarios
there is nothing there that can't be got from non ffa zones and no one goes there except the bandits (think Eve low sec)
there is something there that cannot be got anywhere else and the two or three biggest organisations decide between themselves to divide up the spoils and maintain a large prescence there for harvesting purposes and they will not be welcoming of bandits in the area so you will find survival as a PK'er in the ffa zone quite difficult (think Eve null sec held by strong groups where it is often safer to mine than high sec)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ ZenPagan,
I believe the later is the more probable, and it has been supported in a few sources, albeit briefly.
These FFA zones could be what was originally described as "Uncontrolled Hexes, where alignment and reputation consequences don't apply, where murder is not acknowledged and where the rarest and most valuable resources can be found.
This does not say those same resources can't be found elsewhere, but they might be very rare in different zones.
That would be the lure, high reward for high risk. It would be the 0.0 of PFO. I hope they do it, because that is a compromise that has worked very well in EvE, and GW has stated they would be perfectly happy with that kind of success.
I expect that you might say the PvP in EvE is not what has made it a success, or that the high death oenalty is too much for most to handle, but that would be wrong. It is precisely due to those to reasons that EvE has filled a niche that no other Open World PvP Sandbox MMO has filled.
The point though bludd is null sec isnt inherently unsafe. When you are living in sov held space frankly it is safer than high sec. If the ffa zone contains riches it will be controlled by the big organisations with an NBSI protocol in place and there won't be toleration of freelancers.
If it has nothing special it will be exactly like Eve lowsec which is mainly full of people whining at CCP to force targets into it.
Personally I won't care either way, I just don't think it will be the nirvana you hope for though. I certainly do not see an ffa zone being the PfO null sec. Null sec (with the exception of npc null sec) is anything but lawless. It is just the law is upheld by big organisations and they unlike concord don't have to wait for you to do something before killing you and they don't.
PfO version of Null sec will be the settlements and the surrounding hexes in my view
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
PfO version of Null sec will be the settlements and the surrounding hexes in my view
Although I find some of your conclusions to be potentially accurate, others I do not, this being the most. The Settlement Hexes and their immediate surrounding hexes will still have the equivalent of a Concord response in the way of NPC wardens.
Now back to the topic of Flag Revamp, what are your suggestions for the revamp?
Frankly I fully expect npc wardens to be pretty ineffectual outside the actual settlement hex and most enforcement to be from players.
However as to flag revamps
The only change I would make is have all of the flags be non restricted by alignment so anyone can fly any flag. However if using a flag it gives an small alignment shift over time when flying it and a larger alignment shift when using its powers.
So for example as its the one you are most familiar with
Anyone can fly the outlaw flag and issue sads but every hour they fly the outlaw flag they will get a small shift to chaotic and everytime they sad they will get a larger shift.
Enforcer would shift towards lawful
Champion towards good
Assassin towards evil
Why do I suggest this?
Simple really there are good in game reasons for anyone of any alignment to want to use these flags at times
A lawful good band may want to restrict trade flow to an enemy state to bring diplomatic pressure to bear as a more peaceful alternative to war so wish to sad merchants heading to the enemy
A chaotic evil man may wish to use the champion flag if he is establishing domination over his rivals in a chaotic evil settlement to establish his power base
A Chaotic may wish to fly the enforcer flag because he has been employed as a mercenary to help clear out those pesky bandits
A lawful good player may wish to fly the assassin flag in order to kill the despotic tyrant of an enemy town.
None of this by the way is a suggestion that any skills that are alignment restricted become unrestricted. The lawful good assassin still wouldn't have access to an assassins mask for instance, but he could use any non alignment restricted rogue or assassins skills that he has learnt that are not restricted to evil only (should there be any)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree with you completely with that idea ZenPagan, and exactly for the reasons that you stated as well.
You will however be presented with two arguments against it:
1. It would make alignment meaningless. Granting access to all of the various alignment shifts, would lead most to become a neutral.
2. It would hamper contracts for specific activities: Mercenaries, Guards, Assassins, Bounty Hunters or even Bandits.
PS. you failed to mention the Traveler Flag, I'm guessing an oversight.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I can not engage in banditry without the Outlaw Flag (PVP). You should not be able to operate a caravan without a Caravan Flag (PVP).
This is just not true. Of course you can operate as a bandit without the Outlaw flag, you just don't get all the benefits of reputation and offering SADs if you do.
I agree that there is room for a Caravan flag but I'm not sure that your version of it really benefits the merchant:
The benefit of doing this is that it will direct PVP flagged Outlaws to focus their attention towards PVP flagged caravans, more risk but greater rewards.
So in return for operating a caravan the merchant has the right to be further singled out and targeted? Sounds like a win to me!
In your version, the merchant would have no choice - flag up or no caravan. I'd rather give caravan drivers a better choice - flag up and have greater carrying capacity, or move faster, along with rep gain or something similar; or refrain from flying it and lose those benefits. Under your version of the flag, the only real result is to concentrate the targets exactly where the bandits want them, under a nice shiny "please come and PvP me" flag. The "benefit" for the merchants is just to increase the risk to their cargo.
I agree with you completely with that idea ZenPagan, and exactly for the reasons that you stated as well.
You will however be presented with two arguments against it:
1. It would make alignment meaningless. Granting access to all of the various alignment shifts, would lead most to become a neutral.
2. It would hamper contracts for specific activities: Mercenaries, Guards, Assassins, Bounty Hunters or even Bandits.
PS. you failed to mention the Traveler Flag, I'm guessing an oversight.
1 Alignment still serves as the gateway into class archetypes and skills further flying a flag whose core alignment doesnt match your own still gives you an alignment shift so I would argue if anything it has kept the meaning of alignment without artificially hampering players from courses of action. A lawful character that can't act as a bandit when skint is not facing any temptation to depart from his nature and start the long fall from piety.
2 I don't see it hampers contracts people will still employ bounty hunters and mercenaries, now all of them will be able to fly an appropriate pvp flag. The current situation is a chaotic bounty hunter would be flying an outlaw flag when hunting his quarry so as not to get all of the drawbacks of non flagged pvp.
I didn't mention the traveller flag deliberately. While any alignment should be able to fly the traveller flag I don't think it should give an alignment shift. The traveller flag unlike the others does not imply intent to do unto others which the other flags do.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I can not engage in banditry without the Outlaw Flag (PVP). You should not be able to operate a caravan without a Caravan Flag (PVP).This is just not true. Of course you can operate as a bandit without the Outlaw flag, you just don't get all the benefits of reputation and offering SADs if you do.
I agree that there is room for a Caravan flag but I'm not sure that your version of it really benefits the merchant:
The benefit of doing this is that it will direct PVP flagged Outlaws to focus their attention towards PVP flagged caravans, more risk but greater rewards.So in return for operating a caravan the merchant has the right to be further singled out and targeted? Sounds like a win to me!
In your version, the merchant would have no choice - flag up or no caravan. I'd rather give caravan drivers a better choice - flag up and have greater carrying capacity, or move faster, along with rep gain or something similar; or refrain from flying it and lose those benefits. Under your version of the flag, the only real result is to concentrate the targets exactly where the bandits want them, under a nice shiny "please come and PvP me" flag. The "benefit" for the merchants is just to increase the risk to their cargo.
A "Bandit" who does not use the Outlaw Flag loses, not just the ability to SAD, but the added stealth ability to to assist in the ambush, if that is what they choose to do.
The devs have also said that they had not decided yet if the hideout would be connected in some way to the outlaw flag or to the SAD or anything really concrete about how banditry even works.
Second point, all flags are designed to give some benefit. The choice not to use a flag denies you those benefits.
My suggestion was to tie what was the Traveler Flag benefits to operating a caravan. The merchant has the same choice as before, PVP flag for benefits or don't and have no access to those benefits. How is it different?
By having larger caravans PVP enabled, by the choice of the merchant, the bandits will have their attention attracted towards them, moreso than the non PVP interested merchant who does not want the added attention and risk.
Outlaw (PVP) vs. Caravan (PVP) a potential equal pairing of opposed forces.
I would even suggest that based on the stacked time of a Caravan Flag the caravan would have access to greater defensive abilities, or the ability to hide what image they present the Outlaws with. There should be benefits for have=ing that flag active for a longer period of time, just like all other flags.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the key purposes of Alignment & Reputation is to create an automated system where the more you abuse other players, the less protection you receive from the system. I think it's important to keep this overarching principle in mind whenever considering changes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In your version, the merchant would have no choice - flag up or no caravan. I'd rather give caravan drivers a better choice - flag up and have greater carrying capacity, or move faster, along with rep gain or something similar; or refrain from flying it and lose those benefits.
Lhan's version is pretty close to the existing Traveler flag.
I think it was Andius who pointed out that the existing Traveler flag might not be a huge advantage to a small merchant, trying to move solo. The flag is useful to the large merchant, traveling with a substantial party and a significant number of player guards.
The big, organized merchant adds to interaction with all of the organizing arrangements: hiring guards, getting everyone to agree on a caravan run at 6:30 pm Friday, etc. In return they gets faster movement, more cargo, and a rep bonus (a reward for a group effort if nothing else).
As for only Neutrals being able to use Traveler: if mule trains, caravans, even the single merchant actually have helpers, common folk we ignore because they don't matter to the story - well, the common folk who are adept at moving cargos, handling beasts of burden, and who just love traveling - they're the neutrals and you either can get their full support, or you can't. You have to share at least some alignment.
I'll even take this one step further. NN characters only have one long-term flag available: Traveler. Maybe they should get larger bonuses than the NX and XN Travelers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One of the key purposes of Alignment & Reputation is to create an automated system where the more you abuse other players, the less protection you receive from the system. I think it's important to keep this overarching principle in mind whenever considering changes.
We have already seen a few "overarching principles" waver in the light of what can and can not be done.
The SAD was just one of those. The shift in settlement alignment being tied to a single core (and the benefits thereof attached solely to that alignment) is yet another.
We may discover that there are some circumstances where the "overarching principles" create unforeseen problems that require solutions that change those principles in small or even major ways.
The Flag Revamp is the result of the previous flags not addressing certain issues, otherwise they would not be revamped.
The purpose of this thread is to discuss the revamp and some of us have chosen to make suggestions. If we hold onto what may not have been working as both a start and an end point, change (positive or negative) can not happen.
So my opinion on this: "I think it's important to keep this overarching principle in mind whenever considering changes."
It can be a part of the discussion, but it can not be the "end all" of the discussion, otherwise there is no discussion at all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My suggestion was to tie what was the Traveler Flag benefits to operating a caravan. The merchant has the same choice as before, PVP flag for benefits or don't and have no access to those benefits. How is it different?
The difference being that even without the flag you can still operate as a bandit, albeit not as effectively, whereas without the flag a merchant cannot operate a caravan at all in your scenario.
To be fair, we are arguing intagibles until we find out what a caravan really is, and how its formation will affect the gameplay. I understand what you are saying and agree with the underlying premise that flying PvP flags will make the game more interesting (for most people). I just don't think that any part of the game should be denied to someone if they don't fly a flag; it should be a bonus for such behaviour, not an on/off switch that allows it in the first place. If you don't want to fly the flag, there should be other consequences (reduced capacity and speed, for example), making choosing whether to fly it or not a player choice, not a mechanical one, and it is to be hoped a difficult choice at that. That, surely, makes for better gameplay?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That would be the lure, high reward for high risk. It would be the 0.0 of PFO. I hope they do it, because that is a compromise that has worked very well in EvE, and GW has stated they would be perfectly happy with that kind of success.
I think a lot of the potential player base of PFO will consist of those people for whom EVE hasn't worked very well. Making PFO too much like EVE will cut down the potential playerbase to those who already like EVE - and they already have years' of gaming invested in EVE.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
have all of the flags be non restricted by alignment so anyone can fly any flag. However if using a flag it gives an small alignment shift over time when flying it and a larger alignment shift when using its powers.
So for example as its the one you are most familiar with
Anyone can fly the outlaw flag and issue sads but every hour they fly the outlaw flag they will get a small shift to chaotic and everytime they sad they will get a larger shift.
Enforcer would shift towards lawful
Champion towards good
Assassin towards evil
Why do I suggest this?
Simple really there are good in game reasons for anyone of any alignment to want to use these flags at times
A lawful good band may want to restrict trade flow to an enemy state to bring diplomatic pressure to bear as a more peaceful alternative to war so wish to sad merchants heading to the enemy
A chaotic evil man may wish to use the champion flag if he is establishing domination over his rivals in a chaotic evil settlement to establish his power base
A Chaotic may wish to fly the enforcer flag because he has been employed as a mercenary to help clear out those pesky bandits
A lawful good player may wish to fly the assassin flag in order to kill the despotic tyrant of an enemy town.
None of this by the way is a suggestion that any skills that are alignment restricted become unrestricted. The lawful good assassin still wouldn't have access to an assassins mask for instance, but he could use any non alignment restricted rogue or assassins skills that he has learnt that are not restricted to evil only (should there be any)
I like this suggestion.
1. It would make alignment meaningless. Granting access to all of the various alignment shifts, would lead most to become a neutral.
2. It would hamper contracts for specific activities: Mercenaries, Guards, Assassins, Bounty Hunters or even Bandits.
It would only lead those who regularly use a wide variety of flags to become Neutral. Guess what, they ARE Neutral! Those who want to keep a particular alignment will use the flags more judiciously.
I'm not sure I understand your point about the contracts. Wouldn't it actually widen the availability of those contracts to more people, rather than hamper them?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My suggestion was to tie what was the Traveler Flag benefits to operating a caravan. The merchant has the same choice as before, PVP flag for benefits or don't and have no access to those benefits. How is it different?The difference being that even without the flag you can still operate as a bandit, albeit not as effectively, whereas without the flag a merchant cannot operate a caravan at all in your scenario.
A bandit not using the flagging system, and attacking an unflagged target would be breaking the rules of the game and be subject to (rightfully so) very steep reputation hits and possible banning.
The bandit would also incur the attacker flag, and aggressor stake, which would quickly lead to the 24 hour flag that allows the bandit to be killed, repeatedly and without consequence, without the flag being dispelled by death.
Conclusion: Players can not operate as bandits, outside of the PVP flagging system.... Period!! They will get banned.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Conclusion: Players can not operate as bandits, outside of the PVP flagging system.... Period!! They will get banned.
This is not an accurate depiction of the system as it currently exists.
It is perfectly acceptable for an unflagged character to attack a caravan, kill all the guards, and steal all the merchandise. This is not even remotely "breaking the rules of the game". This is meaningful PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
ZenPagan's suggestion about allowing anyone to use any Flag is attractive, but I worry there may be a non-obvious problem with it in that it allows players to get the benefits of using a Flag without being subject to the consequences of having an Alignment that permits the Flag.
Hmmm good point. If one looks at the available flags as inherent benefits of being a particular alignment, that would seem to be making the alignments somewhat less distinct. (And really, can an Evil character ever be a "Champion" of Good, regardless of how many other Evil characters they kill?)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A bandit not using the flagging system, and attacking an unflagged target would be breaking the rules of the game and be subject to (rightfully so) very steep reputation hits and possible banning.
The bandit would also incur the attacker flag, and aggressor stake, which would quickly lead to the 24 hour flag that allows the bandit to be killed, repeatedly and without consequence, without the flag being dispelled by death.
Your doomsday scenario would only happen if the bandit is repeatedly attacking unflagged people in quick succession. I think I'm starting to see your point of view: that Bandits should be, will be, attacking many people over the course of a couple hours, like an EVE gate camp.
I believe the reputation hits for killing unflagged players are to prevent exactly that. Champions will have to limit their attacks on unflagged evil characters. Enforcers will need to stick to flagged Criminals most of the time. Unflagged bandits will have to pick and choose their targets carefully, striking infrequently.
Obviously this is not a restriction unique to bandits, its purpose is to protect those who are unflagged from constant aggression. In fact, those flying the Outlaw flag are the ONLY ONES who will be able to engage in unrestricted aggression against unflagged characters, as long as they SAD first.
Saying that unflagged banditry would be unviable is laughable - the truth is, unflagged bandits would be on even terms with everyone else, including those flying other PvP flags, regarding attacking unflagged characters.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
ZenPagan's suggestion about allowing anyone to use any Flag is attractive, but I worry there may be a non-obvious problem with it in that it allows players to get the benefits of using a Flag without being subject to the consequences of having an Alignment that permits the Flag.Hmmm good point. If one looks at the available flags as inherent benefits of being a particular alignment, that would seem to be making the alignments somewhat less distinct. (And really, can an Evil character ever be a "Champion" of Good, regardless of how many other Evil characters they kill?)
Without getting into a long explanation, that's my problem with the current system - that it mixes alignment with reputation. The current flags are provided to encourage meaningful PvP by providing positive reputation rewards (a measure of appropriate player behavior), but to use each flag in the current system, it requires a particular alignment (a measure of character behavior). By mixing the two, I think it causes many of the problems we keep arguing about.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Conclusion: Players can not operate as bandits, outside of the PVP flagging system.... Period!! They will get banned.This is not an accurate depiction of the system as it currently exists.
It is perfectly acceptable for an unflagged character to attack a caravan, kill all the guards, and steal all the merchandise. This is not even remotely "breaking the rules of the game". This is meaningful PvP.
They will end up with all of the penalties I listed. Those penalties are designed to discourage that behavior. They may not say specifically, 'It is breaking rules", but when you can get a flag that lasts for 24 hours and amounts to a "Anyone can kill me for free", and eventually lead to you getting banned... I call that rule breaking.
Why not just have a flagging system that incentivizes using flags, while increasing your potential risks, and gaining greater potential rewards?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In fact, those flying the Outlaw flag are the ONLY ONES who will be able to engage in unrestricted aggression against unflagged characters, as long as they SAD first.
That's subject to debate. There's a case to be made that the Outlaw attacking an unflagged target after a refused SAD still gets an Attacker flag and accumulates Aggressor buffs (which turn into a Murderer flag if you get enough buffs).
Since GW has made every other long-term flag subject to consequences and restraints on its use, I really doubt they left a huge loophole for Outlaws to have carte blanche to attack unflagged characters at will (after the formality of a SAD for a million coin). And if they inadvertently left such a loophole, I have faith they'll close it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The truth is, unflagged bandits would be on even terms with everyone else, including those flying other PvP flags, regarding attacking unflagged characters.
I personally would never attack someone, flagged or unflagged, from an unflagged starting position. That strikes me as being somewhat dishonorable.
A pirate flies the Jolly Roger, when he is on the hunt. I will fly the Outlaw Flag when I am actively searching for and engaging targets.
That maybe just me, but there you have it.
I remain unconvinced that widening flag usage to all alignments will cause problems compared to what we have currently.
Currently people will do exactly the same actions but use an inappropriate flag to do so for instance as I mentioned the chaotic bounty hunter will flag outlaw the neutral bounty hunter will flag traveller.
When killing another flagged character it doesn't make any difference to the penalties you get if you are also flying a flag currently
see below from the blog
"Long-Term Flags
We've also added a number of voluntary PvP flags players can activate on themselves so they can engage in PvP within a specific alignment-defined role. The point of these is to encourage players to announce their intent, such as Outlaws intending to rob people, so other players can act accordingly rather than players being unable to be proactive in their own defense.
Long-term PvP flags will be activated through UI on the character window.
They put an icon next to the character's name that denotes they are PvP active and what flag they have.
Each of these flags has an alignment requirement to activate.
Only one of these flags can be active at any time.
Characters may only activate one of these flags when out of combat. Flagging is a thirty second process, during which there is some manner of visual signifier that they are activating the flag (flashing name, icon, etc.).
These flags work like other PvP flags: A person targeting the character unprovoked gains the Involved flag and does not lose any reputation or alignment upon fighting/killing the target.
All of these flags have bonuses that increase (up to a maximum) over time logged in while flagged. Certain actions can reset this bonus without removing the flag (as detailed within the entry). If the player loses/deliberately disables and reactivates the flag, it resets the bonuses to the minimum."
Note the bolded part
The only thing therefore widening the flags to all alignments do therefore is to allow
1) people to fly an appropriate flag for the situation and pay a small alignment shift for the privilege
2) People to use some of the special abilities of a flag such as SAD while paying a larger alignment shift penalty. It should be remembered here the lawful good player doing a little banditry typically won't have or won't be able to use a lot of the normal bandit skills such as stealth due to alignment
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Conclusion: Players can not operate as bandits, outside of the PVP flagging system.... Period!! They will get banned.
Banned for what, exactly? Unless they are targeting the same merchants over and over again the moment they respawn and constantly relieving them of a further 75% of their dwindling cargo, how are you engaging in anything other than meaningful PvP, even when attacking the unflagged? You do want to be a bandit, right? Doesn't that mean robbing people, i.e. taking stuff from people who don't actually want to give it to you?
As Tuoweit pointed out above, every other character flying a flag will have to ponder over whether attacking an unflagged target is a good idea or not. Why should bandits be any different? Should they be allowed to flag all their targets up beforehand? That doesn't seem very evenhanded to me.
The PvP in this game is supposed to be meaningful. For it to be meaningful, it must have consequences. If you force people to flag, just so that you can attack them, you are removing those consequences, and a lot of the meaning, from the interaction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
(And really, can an Evil character ever be a "Champion" of Good, regardless of how many other Evil characters they kill?)
That was my problem with the suggestion. I think of the long-term flags being like feats. If your active alignment doesn't match the alignment to use a given feat, you can't slot the feat. Likewise you shouldn't be able to fly the flag. If you're evil, the concept of being a champion of good doesn't compute.
Having said that - I think we need other long-term flags. So the evil warriors can advertise that they're looking for trouble just before they fall on their neighbors, for example.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you force people to flag, just so that you can attack them, you are removing those consequences, and a lot of the meaning, from the interaction.
I fail to see where my actions can force someone to flag? What mechanic of the Outlaw Flag is forcing that?
Everyone has a choice, if I flag I engage in higher risk behavior, by my potential reward is increased. Only I can choose to flag for PVP, with only three exceptions: War, Bounty and Assassination (and even then, I'm not really flagging for PVP, they just get all of the benefits and none of the consequences for attacking me).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Having said that - I think we need other long-term flags. So the evil warriors can advertise that they're looking for trouble just before they fall on their neighbors, for example.
I had mentioned this earlier, there should be a chaotic version of the of the Enforcer. There also needs to be an Evil version of the Champion Flag.
BTW, the evil version of the Enforcer Flag is not the Outlaw Flag.
There should also be combat oriented Neutral flags as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The truth is, unflagged bandits would be on even terms with everyone else, including those flying other PvP flags, regarding attacking unflagged characters.I personally would never attack someone, flagged or unflagged, from an unflagged starting position. That strikes me as being somewhat dishonorable.
A pirate flies the Jolly Roger, when he is on the hunt. I will fly the Outlaw Flag when I am actively searching for and engaging targets.
That maybe just me, but there you have it.
The design needs to account for what's possible, not merely that which certain players are going to (or say they are going to) voluntarily restrict themselves.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
My suggestion was to tie what was the Traveler Flag benefits to operating a caravan. The merchant has the same choice as before, PVP flag for benefits or don't and have no access to those benefits. How is it different?The difference being that even without the flag you can still operate as a bandit, albeit not as effectively, whereas without the flag a merchant cannot operate a caravan at all in your scenario.
A bandit not using the flagging system, and attacking an unflagged target would be breaking the rules of the game and be subject to (rightfully so) very steep reputation hits and possible banning.
The bandit would also incur the attacker flag, and aggressor stake, which would quickly lead to the 24 hour flag that allows the bandit to be killed, repeatedly and without consequence, without the flag being dispelled by death.
Conclusion: Players can not operate as bandits, outside of the PVP flagging system.... Period!! They will get banned.
Wait, what? Banning is reserved for griefing, not having low reputation. Reputation is orthogonal to both alignment and customer service.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bluddwolf wrote:
"I fail to see where my actions can force someone to flag? What mechanic of the Outlaw Flag is forcing that?"
By requiring merchants to fly a flag in order to run a caravan that's just what you are doing. It has nothing to do with the Outlaw Flag.
(Sorry - on my phone and can't format properly)