| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The latest blog, "Thief Theory" by Mr. Davis is a Stand and Deliver special!!
Check it out here on Gobbocast!!
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nice to have another Blog up. Well written, but nothing new for me to be honest. I have written much about the "Reasonable SAD", 'Banditry Done Right", the "One Copper Piece SAD" and the "Green Hat, as a NON RPK Motivation for Murder".
A SAD should be less than 75% which is what the bandit could loot if he/she kills the target.
The Goodfellow and I have spoken at length and stated our SOP on these forums, that the UNC will not SAD or Ambush our prey into poverty, driving off potential targets.
A short windfall is less profitable than a smaller but steady flow of income.
I'd put a reasonable SAD offer at between 20 - 25%, or roughly 1/3 that of the 75% we could expect to gain from an ambush / kill everyone approach. I'm also assuming that a SAD would typically take 1/3 the time of an ambush and subsequent combat. In the long run, we will probably make the same if not more using SADs most of the time.
But, a SAD only works when it is backed by a threat that is perceived as credible. There are only a few ways to pose a credible threat:
1. Have overwhelming numbers
2. Have a few Assassins within your band of Bandits, actively "Observing" the merchant while the negotiation of the SAD is taking place. Merchants will become aware what damage an Assassin can do with a built of stack of "Observing" ready to be put to use.
3. Making an occasional example of some poor soul, preferably one with a few guards. Nothing will boost future SADs like the word of mouth advertisements that Bandit Group "So-and-So" are very capable combatants and willing to slaughter regardless of the consequences.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An extra complication is that the SAD scenario is not zero-sum. The exchange of the demanded SAD value is, but the possibility of combat removes that due to loss of unthreaded gear and damage to threaded gear on death.
(Zero sum games are much easier to analyze than non-zero sum.)
There's also the issue of determining how much is fair. While it's all well and good to give scenarios, you need a way of actually quantifying that SAD value. This is highly dependent upon whether or not we can get some information on what players (and caravans) are carrying. If it's just a blind guess as to what your target is carrying then it becomes harder to quantify. What I mean is that if you have no idea whether the target is carrying 10 gp of gear or 100,000 gp of gear then it's pointless to say "I'll SAD for X% of that value".
I imagine a feat may be implemented to determine their goods? (Cargo scanners?) Trusting a merchant as to what goods they are carrying doesn't strike me as likely to be a reliable source of information. "Ya, this really nice necklace. It's only worth 5gp. Honest!" Without reliable information the bandits will just be SADing for what are effectively random values (relative to what is being carried). So hopefully we'll see such a feat.
I'd pm'ed Bluddwolf a while back about this and one thing he pointed out was the traveller flag. With the flag up, the target can carry more and hence can be SAD'ed for more. With the changes to flags it's unclear to me if this is now a feat or what.
Time to go dig out some old calculations...
Edit: sorry if it's rambling. I'm tired.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am still confused by the relevance of the "ability to carry more". Assuming something like flags will be there, how is the bandit taking 75% of my increased load due to being flagged better for me the merchant than the bandit taking 75% of my normal load?
Some numbers to illustrate, I carry 100g of good x when unflagged, 150g of x when flagged. I do not magically just get 50g more, I have to buy it/grind for it with the hope of more profit. When unflagged I loose 75g, when flagged I loose 107g worth of x. How is the later scenario better...or were we only suggesting it is better for the bandits who feel they can take a flat percentage?
I would welcome any explanation of this, because I really did not understand the points made in earlier threads.
It is my prediction that a more reasonable SAD will be closer to 5%.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am still confused by the relevance of the "ability to carry more". Assuming something like flags will be there, how is the bandit taking 75% of my increased load due to being flagged better for me the merchant than the bandit taking 75% of my normal load?
I agree it's not better for the merchant. That doesn't mean it won't play into SAD demands though.
Edit: the flag makes things higher risk/higher reward for the merchant. He makes more gold by using the flag to carry more, but also risks losing more.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree it's not better for the merchant. That doesn't mean it won't play into SAD demands though.I am still confused by the relevance of the "ability to carry more". Assuming something like flags will be there, how is the bandit taking 75% of my increased load due to being flagged better for me the merchant than the bandit taking 75% of my normal load?
Ah, okay...then it is irrelevant in the big scheme of things. One should just know that the current belief among those who intend to bandit, is that the more value you carry, the more value you will be expected to hand over when SAD'd. Sorry, I thought there was an active effort to placate the prospective merchants who were not pleased with the idea of bandits intending to take 75% by using the fact they would be able to carry more if flagged. My misunderstanding...thanks for clarifying.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Soooooo... This might be just me but somehow it appears that the Gobbocast has become the platform to be on when justifying bad behavior needs to be done. This is just an observation. This statements has no right to be seen as objectively true, it just looks that way from where I stand.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Meh. I think that both the bandit and traveler will try to signal to the other that they are stronger than they are (more likely to win a fight), both will expect as such from the other, and the effect will offset.
Parties A and B meet; either party can choose to force a fight, or can credibly commit to not forcing a fight in exchange for a payment.
Further, If A wins the fight, A will gain J units value from their fallen enemies, who will lose M units of value. If B wins said fight, B will gain K, and A loses L.
(J is the about A gains if they win, K is the amount B gains if B wins, and L and M are the amount A and B lose if they fight and lose; all amounts are to be compared to the status quo of no engagment) Assume both parties have similar beliefs about all of those values, and that J<M and K<L. (That is to say, there is a loss of value as a result of the fight.)
The expected outcome for A if a fight breaks out is X(J)-(1-X)(L). (The chance of winning times the outcome of winning, plus the chance of losing times the outcome of losing) Likewise B expects (1-X)(K)-(X)(M). The sum of their expected outcomes is X(J-M)+(1-X)(K-L), a negative amount.
The above is sufficient to guarantee some range of SAD offers that should be accepted between perfectly rational agents with similar information. It does NOT generalize to situations in which inadequate information exists (I'll work on putting something out on Bayesian integration and expected outcomes with unknown uncertainty if there's interest). It is also side-agnostic: If it is almost certain that party A will win, it might be fair for B to pay A not to fight, even if A has more to lose and B has more to gain.
Well, what we're going over here is single SAD consequences, which is great... but what about long term consequences. While Decius's math holds true, we need to keep in mind the LONG TERM consequences and meta-game reputation of various guilds.
Here's one scenario I would hold in mind...
You have a group of 20 people in some lesser guild, and they come across a group of 5 people in a stronger guild.
Now, the person in the lesser guild of 20, might SAD the person in the stronger guild but with only 5 guys. NOW, if this person turns DOWN the SAD, a losing fight is likely to ensue, since he's outnumbered 4/1.
So, what's the superior guild to do if they have only 5 players around? Complete the SAD transaction... and deal with it later.
This is a good time for me to point out another type of SAD, for the sake of argument, we'll call it a UnOfficial SAD (UOSAD).
Now, if I'm the leader of a powerful guild, and a lesser guild comes along and does a regular SAD while my men are outnumbered 4 to 1, it might be wise for them to hand it over, so long as the SAD is reasonable.
So let's say the 20 newb guildies get 100 gp from the 5 elite people (who have a larger guild, just not in the area).
Now, let's say the person in the elite guild goes and tells the GM of the elite guild what happened... and he's pissed. How dare this weaksauce little guild do a SAD on his members?
So, he contacts the GM of the weaker guild, (who we'll say wasn't present at the time) he explains the situation, and then demands an UOSAD of 400 gp.. FOUR TIMES what the original SAD was. The GM, being part of a much weaker guild, might want to accept to avoid further conflict with a more powerful guild.
So, even though the 20 people who were present in the weaker guild won the battle, in the end, it ended up costing them big time... That's one scenario.
Another scenario to take into account is a person or groups "willingness to fight" meta-game reputation.
Now, as we all know (since we're all nerds here) bullies like to pick on the weaker targets. The targets who are less willing to fight.
So, if a guild CONSTANTLY has a reputation of turning down SAD's, bandits might think twice before taking their resources.
A guild could even walk around with empty caravans, just turning down SAD's, with a powerful stealther guild they hired in the area, so that they'd gain the rep of "that guild that rolls around with powerful stealther mercenaries and NEVER accepts an SAD offer".
While they might lose out sometimes, the long-term reputation of that guild being one which you don't F with, could act as a red herring for when they really don't have enough protection to guard their resources. Bandits who typically roam that area might just waltz on by, not wanting to tangle with that crew.
This reminds of a character in GoT: Tywin Lannister. There's enough fantasy geeks here that most people probably know who he is, so I'll use him as a reference (note: I watch the show, haven't read the books).
Tywin might not always make the most practical decisions, like a man like Varys would, BUT, even though he's super hardcore, and uses overkill... he does it in a very practical way.
E.g: He takes short-term losses for long term reputation... E.G The Rains of Castamere = People don't think twice before f~##ing with Tywin Lannister, they think it over about 10 times... unless they're green boys who don't know any better (we could call this a "newb" in PFO, lol).
Now, going back to my stealthers example, stealthers will play a huge roll in this long-term reputation, both on the Bandit's side, AND on the Guardian side, because they're something of a "wildcard".
On the bandit side... someone from a stealther guild, (or a large guild that has known stealther groups) could PM someone running a caravan, and negotiate the terms of an SAD BEFORE the caravan leader even sees anyone... how scary is that? Theoretically, the stealther could be by himself, up against a caravan with 15 PC guards, BUT, still complete a very successful SAD base on a perceived thread (even if it isn't actually there).
Now, on the other hand, like I said before, a guild that gains the rep of having powerful stealthers guarding their caravan will terrify potential bandits, because they just won't know who's in the area.
So, in Conclusion, in a sandbox game where people are playing long-term, I think that long term reputation for how people handle guarding caravans, attacking caravans, and how they handle SAD's in general, will play a big role in how players interact with each other.
A group of 30 bandits might SAD a caravan with 20 PC guards, and leave one alone that looks like it only has 10 PC guards, based on the 10-guard caravan's reputation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see some assumptions popping up here that I've seen in other threads as well. Might be good to concider "what if", in case the assumptions are not true.
- What if an SAD demand is not for a percentage? Unless the bandit can inspect (and feel sure that the inspection gives correct info) what the target is carrying, how to get that certain percentage that many people keep talking about?
- What if an SAD demand is not for loot, but for coin? This would mean bandits can keep on robbing indefinitely and never have to return to base (unless they are killed) because coin is weightless and auto-transferred to your "magical bank account". It might also affect how much people will be willing to depart with in an SAD.
- Concerning assassins (since Bluddwolf mentioned them): AFAIK, there is no indication that assassins will be able to observe anyone, any time. It might just as well be that they need to pick up a contract for a specific individual at a settlement to unlock the ability to "observe" and "assassinate" that person.
Soooooo... This might be just me but somehow it appears that the Gobbocast has become the platform to be on when justifying bad behavior needs to be done. This is just an observation. This statements has no right to be seen as objectively true, it just looks that way from where I stand.
This is definitely not the case,
Gobbocast have repeatedly called for bloggers and are willing to publish anyones contribution (assuming sufficient quality naturally). Currently the only people who have submitted articles have focussed on the evil side. I am sure there are many good aligned people out there with interesting things to say. All they need to do is write it up and submit it.
The subject doesnt need necessarily to be even directly game related, perhaps a blog on your software project for PfO...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I imagine a feat may be implemented to determine their goods? (Cargo scanners?)
This purpose is served by advanced Hideouts.
Advancing a hideout can make it harder to locate, increase its local storage, increase its threat radius, and allow the hideout's occupants to determine the nature of passing characters and their gear before triggering an ambush.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Soooooo... This might be just me but somehow it appears that the Gobbocast has become the platform to be on when justifying bad behavior needs to be done. This is just an observation. This statements has no right to be seen as objectively true, it just looks that way from where I stand.
I'm sorry I forgot the disclaimer.
**The opinions expressed are that of K. Joseph Davis and do not necessarily reflect that of Gobbocast or its staff.**
Again... and like you Papaver, this is just an observation, we've asked multiple times for people to submit blogs, ideas, anything that they want on Gobbocast. Mr. Davis, Bludd, and Khas are the only ones that have responded.
I would love to put stuff up about good aligned topics. We want to hear about to good side of things... but no one is coming to us about them. When they do, it'll get published the same way we publish everything else.
I am very much open to any ideas you may have, Papaver, as to how to get the "good behaving" community involved in Gobbocast. We at Gobbocast want to be a sounding board for the ENTIRE community and we've said this multiple times. We cannot help that evil is the only one responding.
Also, I should note that I have no idea who Mr. Davis is on the boards. He simply emailed us and requested to write a blog. We agreed. We review his posts before hand to make sure nothing is out of line.... ie offensive, slanderous, etc, then we publish it. It REALLY is that easy.
-Areks
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think it's very simple, and a result of the same phenomena that make Open World PvP Games "a race to the bottom, Lord of the Flies style, if you don't put in mechanics to try to incentivize better behavior". In the absence of some countervailing peer pressure to keep people behaving within certain accepted norms, things will necessarily deteriorate.
Perhaps that's a blog-worthy subject in itself...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Soooooo... This might be just me but somehow it appears that the Gobbocast has become the platform to be on when justifying bad behavior needs to be done. This is just an observation. This statements has no right to be seen as objectively true, it just looks that way from where I stand.
I'm not associated with Gobbocast, but part of the reason for the focus on the dark side could be that there hasn't been much detail provided about the light side of the game; light seems to merely be the absence of dark here. Or it could be that good is less complex than bad, or it could be that lawful and/or good people see less need to get buy-in on their game choices from the community.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... or it could be that lawful and/or good people see less need to get buy-in on their game choices from the community.
This really struck me. I think you're right that those who want to effectively prey on other players might feel a need to explain why their preferred play style should be supported, or even sanctioned.
... or it could be that lawful and/or good people see less need to get buy-in on their game choices from the community.This really struck me. I think you're right that those who want to effectively prey on other players might feel a need to explain why their preferred play style should be supported, or even sanctioned.
Ah, but without Evil, there can be no Good. We must allow for contrast.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, but without Evil, there can be no Good.
We measure Good by the Evil we know, and vice versa. In a paradise where every living thing feels great empathy for every other living thing, and takes every effort to do no harm, the height of Evil might be a smile that is only half-hearted.
The truth is not that one can't exist without the other; the truth is that they both will always exist, and that our understanding of one is always in relation to the other.
Ah, but without Evil, there can be no Good.We measure Good by the Evil we know, and vice versa. In a paradise where every living thing feels great empathy for every other living thing, and takes every effort to do no harm, the height of Evil might be a smile that is only half-hearted.
The truth is not that one can't exist without the other; the truth is that they both will always exist, and that our understanding of one is always in relation to the other.
Well, no worries here, my character will be a good guy: I'll kill people for fun and/or profit, but never for the simple sake of doing Evil. So, you could say I'm sort of the "Mother Teresa" of the River Kingdoms... except I'm a guy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Qallz
The response to the 4 x SAD by the bigger company is not to pay it, but to make the bigger company expend their time trying to track down the much smaller group of bandits. The game of "Cat and Mouse" will last only so long before the big company realizes they are losing more money in missed opportunity then they hope to gain when they catch the bandits.
When I was more active in EVE, my small corporation's main members kept 4 jump clones, one in each empire. Whenever we were war decc'd, once we saw that the enemy moved assets to our location, we would jump away between 35 - 45 jumps away. This would give us about 48 - 72 hours of time to resume operations (pirating, ore theft, mission running), before we might have to jump away again.
In all we never won or lost a war dec, unless you consider costing the enemy more ISK than we spent a win. Even when we were engaged in combat, we usually had enough skill (both character and player) to slip away without taking losses.
@ Qallz
The response to the 4 x SAD by the bigger company is not to pay it, but to make the bigger company expend their time trying to track down the much smaller group of bandits. The game of "Cat and Mouse" will last only so long before the big company realizes they are losing more money in missed opportunity then they hope to gain when they catch the bandits.
The group that had 4x the players present when the original SAD took place in my hypothetical situation was the overall SMALLER guild, they just happen to come across 5 people who are part of a much larger guild, but, by themselves (out of sheer luck).
So the bigger guild got SAD'd by the smaller ones, simply because the smaller guild had more people present at the time than the bigger one.
So the bigger guild (who had 5 people present) goes to the GM of the smaller guild (who had 20 people present) and demands tribute (as Nihimon says) of 4x what the original SAD was, or risks a feud or war.
If the smaller guild refuses, The Rains of Castamere likely ensues...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bludd was saying that, when such a big group demanded tribute, he would take his small group into hiding and avoid the big group, thus avoiding the tribute and preventing the Rains of Castamere scenario (in other words, total domination or destruction of his little group). That will likely work well in PfO, because if you hide your little group inside your settlement the enemies would have to risk the wrath of the much larger organization (the settlement) in order to attack its smaller part.
It will be interesting to see how the political squabbles between companies (or between individuals and companies) are resolved; will the settlements largely ignore such minor issues and let the companies sort it out themselves? Will the settlements as a whole get involved and settle the score through negotiation and reparations? Will such small scenarios lead to inter-settlement bickering and propagandism that leads to a large war? I suspsect all these answers will occur at some point. :)
Sorry for going off on a tangent here.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When settlements start holding the sponsoring settlement responsible for the actions of chartered companies, the dynamic might change. Settlements don't have the luxury of moving around in order to be hard to hit, and can be leveraged into revoking the charter with enough pressure.
When settlements start holding the sponsoring settlement responsible for the actions of chartered companies, the dynamic might change. Settlements don't have the luxury of moving around in order to be hard to hit, and can be leveraged into revoking the charter with enough pressure.
Yea, this is what I meant... I was assuming that the smaller guild either had a settlement, or was being sponsored by one (which sounds like it's basically mandatory in PFO).
I wonder... will it be possible to hide which settlement is sponsoring your company reasonably well?
Also, can companies be sponsored by more than 1 settlement?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I wonder... will it be possible to hide which settlement is sponsoring your company reasonably well?
I seriously doubt it. The dynamic where the sponsoring Settlement is held accountable for the actions of the sponsored Company has been proclaimed to be a major force for incentivizing better behavior.
Also, can companies be sponsored by more than 1 settlement?
I don't think so, although it sounds like it will be possible to live in one Settlement while being a member of a Company sponsored by another Settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's very simple, and a result of the same phenomena that make Open World PvP Games "a race to the bottom, Lord of the Flies style, if you don't put in mechanics to try to incentivize better behavior". In the absence of some countervailing peer pressure to keep people behaving within certain accepted norms, things will necessarily deteriorate.
Perhaps that's a blog-worthy subject in itself...
Do it!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I did not suggest hiding, that would take me and my bandits out of action. I would move to a new local and keep on the move, squeezing in a raid or SAD from time-to-time. The big company will expend time and effort trying to track us down and or corner us. When or if the finally do catch us, they'll find us "naked" and up for a fight.
I can see some people are kidding themselves in not realizing that almost every settlement will be employing "bandits" or whatever you wish to call them. The outpost raid system basically makes it essential for all settlements to raid someone, just to compete. Add to that factions, feuds and wars, there will be tons of opportunities for all settlements to employ bandits and without any of those pesky reputations hits for the bandits or their supportive settlements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not saying there won't be bandits, I'm saying that you shouldn't expect people to roll over for the bandits. And I'm not just talking about preparing for them with guards and such before an attack, I'm also talking about pursuing reparations after it.
I think that, if your bandit group attacks me and takes a seriously big amount of money/stuff from me, I'll probably appeal to my settlement to do something about it; I'm not just gonna shrug, say "oh well, bandits are a part of the game" and leave it at that. This is what I was talking about. I suspect many cases of banditry will just be glossed over by the settlements, or at the most taken as a whole and turned into a case against another settlement ("your guys are constantly inside our lands, get them to move out"). However, in high profile cases of banditry I'm sure that people won't just take it in stride or gloss over it; they'll submit bounties, demands for concessions, maybe even go to feuds or war for such an affront.
This is what I was talking about; not whether or not there will be bandits, but what settlements are going to do about the bandits. Sorry if your "some people" wasn't directed at me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not saying there won't be bandits, I'm saying that you shouldn't expect people to roll over for the bandits. And I'm not just talking about preparing for them with guards and such before an attack, I'm also talking about pursuing reparations after it.
I think that, if your bandit group attacks me and takes a seriously big amount of money/stuff from me, I'll probably appeal to my settlement to do something about it; I'm not just gonna shrug, say "oh well, bandits are a part of the game" and leave it at that. This is what I was talking about. I suspect many cases of banditry will just be glossed over by the settlements, or at the most taken as a whole and turned into a case against another settlement ("your guys are constantly inside our lands, get them to move out"). However, in high profile cases of banditry I'm sure that people won't just take it in stride or gloss over it; they'll submit bounties, demands for concessions, maybe even go to feuds or war for such an affront.
This is what I was talking about; not whether or not there will be bandits, but what settlements are going to do about the bandits. Sorry if your "some people" wasn't directed at me.
I could not agree more.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not saying there won't be bandits, I'm saying that you shouldn't expect people to roll over for the bandits. And I'm not just talking about preparing for them with guards and such before an attack, I'm also talking about pursuing reparations after it.
I think that, if your bandit group attacks me and takes a seriously big amount of money/stuff from me, I'll probably appeal to my settlement to do something about it; I'm not just gonna shrug, say "oh well, bandits are a part of the game" and leave it at that. This is what I was talking about. I suspect many cases of banditry will just be glossed over by the settlements, or at the most taken as a whole and turned into a case against another settlement ("your guys are constantly inside our lands, get them to move out"). However, in high profile cases of banditry I'm sure that people won't just take it in stride or gloss over it; they'll submit bounties, demands for concessions, maybe even go to feuds or war for such an affront.
This is what I was talking about; not whether or not there will be bandits, but what settlements are going to do about the bandits. Sorry if your "some people" wasn't directed at me.
No, it wasn't directed at you and your point, while an understandable position was not related to what I said.
My statement said that it is my belief that all settlements will employ "bandits" by one name or another.
You of course have every right to retaliate to banditry in anyway you see fit. Hire Bounty Hunters or Assassins, Guards or whatever you wish to your hearts content or to your last coin in your pouch.
I welcome any interaction that adds a sense of danger to the game. I steal and PVP for the thrill of it, as much as I do it for the loot.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd offer that SAD rate might often be set in response to actions elsewhere in the gamespace:
Merchant from Middleton buying stuff in Smallville rolls 10 feet outside the gates and is greeted by a scruffy looking character.
"Ho, Mr. Merchant. You might not know it, 'cause you were busy in the market, but Bertram's Bums just held up a caravan from this town, 'bout 8 miles thataway, not 3 minutes ago. Demanded 50% SAD and killed some lads. Just heard that from the town guard standing over there."
Merchant looks at guard. Guard smiles and waves.
"Anyhoo, Bertram's Bums are sponsored by Middleton, I've heard. And I do believe this is a standy-delivery, and I do believe that that friendly guard ain't going to stop me. Hell, he promised me a drink. Oh, and it will be 50% of yer cargo. Let's call it a Bertram Tax."
edit/add: If that seems too much like overt robbery, replace the scruffy dude with an officious looking character with a heavily armed group of customs inspectors. Since Outlaw no longer exists as a separate flag and stand and deliver is a trainable skill, that might mean it can be easily converted to collect tolls.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, it wasn't directed at you and your point, while an understandable position was not related to what I said.
It was directe at me I believe, but my point was a simple one. UNC can move around. PAX can't...
Edit: Actually that was Decius's point really, I'm just concurring.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, it wasn't directed at you and your point, while an understandable position was not related to what I said.
It was directe at me I believe, but my point was a simple one. UNC can move around. PAX can't...
Edit: Actually that was Decius's point really, I'm just concurring.
That is in fact a solid point
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I wasn't referencing UNC or Pax; those two organizations have repeatedly said that they won't be engaging in behavior that harms Pax, and if a chartered company produces enough negative externalities (by whatever means) for their settlement to feel heat, it could become a net negative.
I wasn't referencing UNC or Pax; those two organizations have repeatedly said that they won't be engaging in behavior that harms Pax, and if a chartered company produces enough negative externalities (by whatever means) for their settlement to feel heat, it could become a net negative.
Yea, I know, you made the general point, I applied it to Bluddwolf specifically, to make the point clear... I thought it would be helpful to have an example of what I was talkin about.
Will there be a way around this Decius? Like a way to make it so your company has no real stationary "target" to hit?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Been playing with a simple model for determining how much of a SAD can be demanded while still having a merchant remain profitable. As has been stated before (by Bluddwolf I think), the bandits don't want to drive the merchants out of business. So that means that while a merchant need not make a profit on every trip, he should make profit on average.
A quick thank you to Nihimon for pointing out that hideouts make it possible for bandits to determine what the merchant has (this was a big wildcard for me until it was pointed out). For now I've been playing with the bandits having perfect info, but imperfect info can also be added.
Variables in the model are how often the merchant runs into bandits, how much he is SADed for, how often the bandits SAD vs how often they just attack to maintain their reputation as a threat, how much the merchant has to pay for guards to prevent bandit attacks*, whether the SAD is paid in cargo or coin, and (last but definitely not least) how much profit he makes per unit of cargo.
*for simplicity I assume the merchant has no chance in a fight without guards and when he does hire guards he is smart enough to hire enough muscle that bandits will simply ignore him. Hiring too few guards strikes me as a pointless expense. Obviously this depends upon the merchant having traveled the area and knowing the approximate strength of the local bandits. So again perfect knowledge is assumed for now.
(The model is relatively simple and purely analytic. The profit is easy to calculate for the above input, but varying over many parameters means it's just easier to let a computer do it a bajillion times.)
The last variable (profit per unit of cargo) is something bandits will really need to keep in mind IMO. In high population areas where a 10% profit is about as good as it gets, constantly hitting a merchant for a 25% SAD will quickly drive them out of business. Out in the boonies where profit margins are large (eg. doubling your money) then a 75% SAD is actually viable if the merchant isn't hit every time.
If there's variables not mentioned in the above let me know. I'll put up some plots and analyses at some point (no promises when), though the number of variables makes it difficult to pick the plots with the most useful information.
Will there be a way around this Decius? Like a way to make it so your company has no real stationary "target" to hit?Be sponsored by the NPC settlements.
Will that actually be a viable option?
Will that actually be a viable option?Absolutely. In fact, for the first part of Early Enrollment, it will be the only option.
Yea, but as characters advance, will NPC settlements offer the high-level "advanced" training they require? I doubt it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yea, but as characters advance, will NPC settlements offer the high-level "advanced" training they require? I doubt it.Will that actually be a viable option?Absolutely. In fact, for the first part of Early Enrollment, it will be the only option.
Apologies. I didn't pay enough attention to "viable" in your initial question. It won't really be a viable long-term option unless you really don't care about reaching the pinnacle of your role.
Being a Chartered Company sponsored by an NPC will become the equivalent of being a Nigerian email scammer - nobody will trust you. (This will not be true in the beginning because until Settlements are added to the game, all Chartered Companies will be NPC sponsored, but once Settlements come in, I expect them to re-sponsor most Chartered Companies very quickly).
I expect the same will be true of characters who reside in NPC Settlements, but you're absolutely right about NPC Settlements not offering advanced training.
The NPC Settlements exist to form some structure for the game independent of the player Settlements. Thats good for new players. its good for players who loose/are kicked out of a PC Settlement. Its a way to ensure there's "neutral ground". NPC Settlements won't offer the highest levels of training, the most sophisticated crafting, or engage in Escalations. There should be more than enough stuff a character can train in an NPC Settlement so that they never "run out of things to do", but those characters will find themselves reaching the depth limit of training chains potentially earlier than characters in PC Settlements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have some results on a basic model (bear in mind no model is perfect and I had to make some basic assumptions) of what the maximum SAD a bandit can demand from a merchant is. It's based on the idea that bandits don't want to drive merchants out of business and that bandits don't want to demand so much that it becomes more profitable for merchants to hire guards to accompany them.
There is a bit of math (just basic algebraic manipulations). For those who don't like math, just read slides 2, 9, 11 and 12.
-bandits must be aware of the markets to ensure they don't drive merchant profits into the red
-bandits must know how often they are hitting up the merchant (b in the model)
-bandits who periodically flex their muscles to show that they are a threat must realize that to the merchant this is effectively increasing the average SAD that is demanded
-bandits must have some idea of how much merchants can carry and how much it would cost to hire guards to deter banditry (if it's more profitable to just hire guards, then bandits are out of business).
• c = the value of the cargo (based on the price the merchant bought it for).
• r = the ratio of what the merchant can sell for over what he bought it for.
• b = the odds of running into bandits on any given trip.
• S = the SAD demand.
• g = the cost of hiring enough guards to deter a bandit attack.
• s = how often bandits offer a SAD. The rest of the time they just attack to
maintain their credibility as a threat.
Then:
bS' < min[1 − r^(−1) , g/rc ]
where S' = sS + (1 − s) is the effective SAD the merchant sees
This is the 'SAD inequality'.