Goblin Squad Member
|
“Outlaws, Influence, and Ambushes”
This is a suggestion and acknowledged to be based on what vague information we have now concerning the three aspects of the game mentioned in the title. Desired game play, balance, the setting, and the reputation and alignment systems were all considered in developing this suggestion.
Basic Premise: Outlaws are individuals who choose to work outside of the laws and sometimes the social norms of a society in order to fulfill their goals, usually at the expense of others. This life that they choose is at the same time difficult and thrilling. Sometimes the rewards do not outweigh the risks, but these individuals know no other way and continue in spite of that. Other times, and more rarely, an outlaw can pull off the “crime of the century” and regardless of the consequences the notoriety for achieving such a feat was worth it.
In the River Kingdoms, outlaws are barely a sub culture and in some cases individuals have risen to prominence and leadership of Kingdoms. The Outlaw Council is a major, ruling faction in the regional politics of the River Kingdoms. It is through these social and political realities that some of the River Freedoms actually support what would typically be considered criminal activity, as being praiseworthy.
Criminal activity that is considered “praiseworthy” in the River Kingdoms should build up influence for the individuals successfully participating in those activities. The activities that are being suggested to generate this influence are: Raids of Outposts and POIs, Ambushes of Caravans, SAD offers being accepted, Assassinations and highly skill requiring and daring acts of thievery (a type of raid).
The act of ambushing a caravan is “Sanctioned PVP” in my view. Currently there is a debate on the forums about the differences between "Sanctioned” and "Unsanctioned” PVP. It is generally accepted that a bandit converts an encounter from “Unsanctioned” to “Sanctioned” through the offer of a SAD. The River Freedom of “You Have What You Hold” does not limit the praiseworthiness of banditry to negotiated robberies, but to all robberies that give the victim the opportunity to defend themselves. Therefore the act of ambushing a caravan is equally supported, and should be considered “Sanctioned” PVP.
The act of Ambushing should come at a cost, for the sake of balance. First, it must be trained and should be a slotted action (much like the SAD is now). In order to initiate an ambush, the bandits must expend influence. A failed ambush (bandits lose the battle) will cost the bandits additional influence. All alignment shifts associated with attacking unprovoked and killing apply (A shift towards Chaotic and Evil will still occur). However, as in all "Sanctioned" PVP reputation will not be lost.
The act of ambushing caravans or the raiding of outposts and POIs has been expressly supported by GW in numerous Dev Blogs and posts. So it is not a contortion of their vision that this application of banditry should be considered “Sanctioned PVP”.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sick of this reputation bull s*~+ and all these punishments for trying to enjoy PvP. How about we let people have the freedom to do what they please, and if there's a few whiners who don't like PvP, we chalk it up to "that's the cost of doing business'.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm sick of this reputation bull s#*& and all these punishments for trying to enjoy PvP. How about we let people have the freedom to do what they please, and if there's a few whiners who don't like PvP, we chalk it up to "that's the cost of doing business'.
But how do you really feel?
Kidding aside, what is your impression of my idea?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I -suspect- that creating a caravan will not be as simple as loading up cargo in a wagon and start running. I think it might be something you -toggle- using the UI, alerting the server that you are actually starting a proper caravan. This will prompt bandits who have active hideouts in the relevant areas that a caravan has been created and allow the bandits to attempt some form of ambush.
I think it would work well if caravans, once created, will move at a set pace along a set path (roads only!) towards the destination set when the caravan was created (the way that public transport systems in WoW, SWTOR, LotRO move on "rails"). The exact path may be chosen through the UI by the creator of the caravan (in case there is more than one path to the goal).
This is the system I envision for how caravans work, a future blog may prove me wrong but I think this could work and I can't think of a better way.
The intent for bandits to "properly" ambush a caravan (if it works the way I have speculated) should be possible to communicate to the server, allowing reputation consequences from the ensuing PvP to be altered compared to the standard rules. "Guarding" the caravan should also be possible to communicate to the server in this system, and automated payouts/salaries to the guards could be run through the server as well.
I'm sick of this reputation bull s#*& and all these punishments for trying to enjoy PvP. How about we let people have the freedom to do what they please, and if there's a few whiners who don't like PvP, we chalk it up to "that's the cost of doing business'.But how do you really feel?
Kidding aside, what is your impression of my idea?
Yea, of course ambushes on caravans with lootz should be considered sanctioned PvP. If we can't attack caravans whats the whole point of the caravanning concept? Just a slow way to transport a lot of goods? Is that all there is to it?
If that's the case don't even bother with caravans, just have NPC's magically transport the goods and they'll show up after a given amount of time. lol Guaranteed.
And no, I don't like the idea of having ambushing be a skill, I think a caravan should always be open to sanctioned PvP... that's what hired PC & NPC guards are for.
I -suspect- that creating a caravan will not be as simple as loading up cargo in a wagon and start running.
I hope it will be exactly like this frankly and certainly shouldn't be on rails or controlled to the extent by mechanics as you suggest.
Picking routes to avoid ambush points due to intelligence reports is something the caravan should be able to do.
Stopping the caravan to send scouts ahead to have a look at potential ambush points should be something a caravan is able to do
Bandits should have to do scout work to find when a caravan is leaving such as having someone watching in a settlement not be automatically alerted
People should be able to sign on as guards then be the ones to rob the caravan
All of these are good player interactions that are largely cut out by an automated on rails system such as you propose
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ZenPagan,
Some of your points could still work within the system I described:
Stopping the caravan could be allowed by the caravan 'owner'. So could returning to base or possibly changing paths while on the go.
By "moving on rails" I meant the caravan goes where it is told to, rather than having a player pilot actually controlling the movement. This is for simplicity rather than anything else, moving it yourself could work as well but I think it should be limited to roads which would mean that manually controlling it wouldn't provide much fun or challenge but merely the possibility of frustration (train stops when caravan owner crashes, train is run into a dead end and gets stuck etc. these situations are avoidable if the caravan is on rails).
About the info to bandits, I believe one of the selling points of hideouts have been stated to be that they will allow you to (at least get a chance of) detecting caravans in the area and ambush them. How much info, the chance of getting (correct) info etc. I will not attempt to speculate on.
About the guards, what I meant was that a contract could be set up so that if the guards stay within range of the caravan during the transport, don't run away if attacked, don't themselves attack the caravan etc. they get a guaranteed pay on arrival. Nothing saying they can't break the contract...
The main point being that if there is a definitive toggle that is signalled to the server when a caravan is set up, that will allow for the possibility of a regulated (and possibly "sanctioned") ambush that sets the fight over the caravan contents apart from 'random' PvP from the server's point of view.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Wurner the guards thing is already an intrinsic part of the contract system
Hideouts will signal when a caravan enters the area not when one sets off and will have limited range
The point of SAD being sanctioned and ambush not as under the current plans is they want to encourage SAD rather than ambush. I disagree with Bludds suggestion that ambush be equally sanctioned. (I have no objection to unsanctioned PVP and I fully expect it to be as prevalent as sanctioned PVP, and unsanctioned PVP in many cases will be more meaningful than sanctioned PVP such as faction warfare). If ambush becomes sanctioned PVP then SAD becomes largely redundant and I would see little reason for anyone to bother with it.
As to Caravans need to go on roads...why exactly? A wagon can be driven anywhere where there is space for it to pass. I would see this as being the main point of teamster style skills. Example teamster level 1 allows you to safely drive a wagon down a paved road. Teamster 2 a well packed dirt road, teamster 3 across grasslands etc
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Wurner the guards thing is already an intrinsic part of the contract system
Hideouts will signal when a caravan enters the area not when one sets off and will have limited range
Both those things require that the server (="GW", the servers pulling the strings behind the curtain, not all the players on the server)is alerted that a caravan exists, which would imply that there is a discrete difference between a caravan and a non-caravan which is what I suggested.
When I read my first post I see how it can be read that hideouts all along the planned route could be alerted as soon as the caravan is created, I do not mean that it will necessarily be so. The point is that the server needs to know that a caravan exists and that it is a caravan, it will probably be best if hideouts are alerted once a caravan enters its radius of operation.The point of SAD being sanctioned and ambush not as under the current plans is they want to encourage SAD rather than ambush. I disagree with Bludds suggestion that ambush be equally sanctioned. (I have no objection to unsanctioned PVP and I fully expect it to be as prevalent as sanctioned PVP, and unsanctioned PVP in many cases will be more meaningful than sanctioned PVP such as faction warfare). If ambush becomes sanctioned PVP then SAD becomes largely redundant and I would see little reason for anyone to bother with it.
I sort of agree, would just like to add that there should be an option to SAD the entire caravan (which, again, would require that the server is able to treat caravans as distinct objects). Rejection of the SAD -> everyone tagged as belonging to the caravan better get ready to defend themselves.
As to Caravans need to go on roads...why exactly? A wagon can be driven anywhere where there is space for it to pass. I would see this as being the main point of teamster style skills. Example teamster level 1 allows you to safely drive a wagon down a paved road. Teamster 2 a well packed dirt road, teamster 3 across grasslands etc
We may think of different things when picturing a "caravan". I think of heavy wagons pulled by animals (likely oxen) that won't be able to traverse soft or uneven terrain. Certainly flat plains with hard packed soil could be traversable with such a caravan under the right weather conditions but to separate that terrain from other types could be more hassle than it's worth. I wouldn't want to encounter a heavy cart travelling offroad through a swamp, it wouldn't make sense.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ ZenPagan,
No where does it say that the ambushing or raiding of caravans or outposts are "Unsanctioned PvP". It is actually well supported by my examples above that it is in fact within the vision of the Devs thar it should be sanctioned. When I'm on my computer I'll supply the citations to Dev Blogs, Posts and the River Kingdom Guide Source Book.
As for Caravan movement, Security and Control, I'll also make a few suggestions as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As to Caravans need to go on roads...why exactly? A wagon can be driven anywhere where there is space for it to pass. I would see this as being the main point of teamster style skills. Example teamster level 1 allows you to safely drive a wagon down a paved road. Teamster 2 a well packed dirt road, teamster 3 across grasslands etc.
I was thinking that terrain can be passable if there's 4-5' of space for the wagon, but there's still a risk of breaking axles or overturning the wagon. Your use of teamster level as the gate to permitted terrain solves that nicely.
I'd think that terrain would still slow the wagons, so roads might still be the preferred terrain if at all possible. This would serve to get caravans on roads more often, which sets up banditry and counter banditry.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The River Freedom of “You Have What You Hold” does not limit the praiseworthiness of banditry to negotiated robberies, but to all robberies that give the victim the opportunity to defend themselves.
That's a great quote - but it's no basis for a game mechanic, or even game balance. So sorry, Bluddwolf, I can't agree. (That shocked you, didn't it?)
That's not to say that I can't agree, if some conditions come into play, but as things stand at the moment, we simply don't know enough about caravans to make that call.
If there is a caravan mechanic, as ZenPagan points out, depending on the mechanic, all sorts of interesting player interactions could be removed by automation. If there is a mechanic, but a minimal one, then your idea might work - but said mechanic would have to give a serious bonus to the merchant or nobody would use it. And an increase in carrying capacity alone won't cut it - all that does is allow the bandits to take a greater amount of spoils, the merchant still having had to pay for them or use time in extracting them himself. Why use a caravan to carry 200kg of goods instead of 100kg without a caravan, if it means not only are you now exposed to losing twice as much (150 kg instead of 75kg) but the bandits actually gain an advantage? It doesn't make much sense to me.
If there isn't a game mechanic, then what's to stop bandits declaring every attack an ambush, even if it's just on one poor guy in a green hat, who's minding his own business? It completely circumvents the whole idea of unsanctioned PvP, since for bandits, all PvP would instantly become sanctioned. But I'm guessing you'd already thought things through this far ...
@Wurner
Eve has the equivalent of caravans that do all you suggest they consist of one or more industrial transports and guards.
It has the equivalent of hideouts that can pull these convoys to a halt called bubbles
It does not however need to have a concept of caravan to achieve this neither does PfO.
A hideout gets a notification 7 wagons containing silk cloth has entered your area. They can then choose to sad or ambush.
The individual wagons in this convoy will all need to be individually driven and when ambusged they may choose to run and all run in different directions. This implies a caravan isn't a single unit it is lots of discrete units travelling together, a bit like real life. Having a single entity called a caravan implies it is an all or nothing affair when it shouldnt be.
Bandits springing an ambush may if the wagons choose to run only be able to waylay half of them and this should be an allowed tactic.
In additions some caravans may indeed be heavy wagons pulled by oxen, many however will not be. You fit the transport to the job and one choice people running a convoy should be able to make is do I want to run three heavy wagons and restrict my movement to well paved roads or shall I use seven or 8 lighter wagons pulled by horses that are more flexible terrain wise.
I think part of the problem here is that you are thinking of a caravan as an entity in its own right rather than just a meta concept applied to a group of individual units. I really see no need for the meta concept to be an in game entity that becomes a single unit. Indeed you may well find ad hoc caravans form because individual wagons meet on the road travel together part of the way then split off to different destinations.
In short having a unit described as a caravan actually closes off opportunities rather than opens them
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ZenPagan So a caravan is a similar to a party, a temporary group of characters. Like a party, the caravan would travel at the speed of its slowest member under normal conditions. Once a fight broke out, all members can travel at their max speed and pick their own route, choose combat options, etc.
@Urman
Indeed that is how I see it. It offers the most options for both forming them and for response to such things as bandit attacks etc. I see no need for anything else.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The River Freedom of “You Have What You Hold” does not limit the praiseworthiness of banditry to negotiated robberies, but to all robberies that give the victim the opportunity to defend themselves.That's a great quote - but it's no basis for a game mechanic, or even game balance. So sorry, Bluddwolf, I can't agree. (That shocked you, didn't it?)
If there isn't a game mechanic, then what's to stop bandits declaring every attack an ambush, even if it's just on one poor guy in a green hat, who's minding his own business? It completely circumvents the whole idea of unsanctioned PvP, since for bandits, all PvP would instantly become sanctioned. But I'm guessing you'd already thought things through this far ...
1. That is not my quote, it is paraphrased directly from the River Kingdoms' Source Book. It is as legitimate a game feature as "There will be Elves". Tork Shaw had recently stated that he is using the River Freedoms as part of his development ideas. Stephen Cheney has also referred to them, as did Rich Baker, in their Gobbocast interview.
2. I accounted for your concern by specifying that the OP is concerned with caravans and outposts / POIs.
I also added that it would cost influence in order to utilize an ambush. This cost would make it silly to be spent on ambushing Hobs for wearing his
Again, the carrot not the stick. Give players meaningful reasons to PvP, and you can focus the consequences on those that are truly violating the "social contract" of reasonably fair game play.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Bludd
I am only disagreeing with you in part. Yes, the quotation is oft used - but it will fall by the wayside fast if it clashes with game balance. It is pointless to take this bit of the conversation further though - there is nothing to be gained from it.
I appreciate you are concerned solely with caravans and outposts. My concern is what will qualify as a caravan. If it is a game mechanic, it needs to do something for the merchant, and as I pointed out above, having a larger carrying capacity is just not enough - it simply exposes you to a greater loss with the additional danger of being ambush-able. Not having a mechanic and instituting what you ask for is wide open to abuse, influence costs or not. Just because you won't abuse it doesn't mean others won't.
I agree totally with the carrot but I am also in favour of the stick - you need both. I'd actually like to see something like a PvP caravan flag that provides you with some mid-level NPC guards (or something similar - this is just off the top of my head). You can have a caravan unflagged - but no NPC guards. Or you can have a flagged guarded caravan, perhaps with a larger carrying capacity as well. Bandits will then have the choice of ambushing a sanctioned target that may be better protected (or may not be - all depending on whether the caravan leader has brought extra protection) and taking a greater share of the spoils, or attacking a less well guarded caravan that will give a smaller reward and a rep hit. That sounds like a meaningful choice for a bandit to make.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My concern is what will qualify as a caravan. If it is a game mechanic, it needs to do something for the merchant, and as I pointed out above, having a larger carrying capacity is just not enough...
There will certainly be more to it than capacity.
Getting a wagonload of resources out of the wilderness and back to a civilized area will be a challenge. It would be useful therefore to think about becoming an effective teamster able to drive fast, move quietly, detect threats, and use cover and camouflage to hide.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I hope sanctioned PVP will be more than just ambushing caravans.
I would like to see sanctioned PVP also be something like this: A Settlement gets reports from scouts that an enemy army is approaching from the south. That Settlement then sends out 'raiding' parties to harass (ambush) the army. Hit and run tactics. Maybe even cutting off the supply chain temporarily.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My concern is what will qualify as a caravan. If it is a game mechanic, it needs to do something for the merchant, and as I pointed out above, having a larger carrying capacity is just not enough...There will certainly be more to it than capacity.
Getting a wagonload of resources out of the wilderness and back to a civilized area will be a challenge. It would be useful therefore to think about becoming an effective teamster able to drive fast, move quietly, detect threats, and use cover and camouflage to hide.
Great point. That's the major other side of the coin I'd like to see given equal attention to is the ability of "attacked" to have an exhaustive set of means and methods to evade contact with bandits when employed.
Merchants have much invested in their caravans and to only have hiring NPC guards or PC guards as an option seems a bit wanting. Indeed all of the options listed in bold should reflect an available tactic for merchants to use in addition to hiring npc and/or pc guards.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bludd
I agree totally with the carrot but I am also in favour of the stick - you need both.
I do also, I just prefer that the stick comes from the players and not the game mechanics.
Hire guards (NPCs)
Hire Mercenaries (PCs)
If victimized:
Hire a Bounty Hunter to avenge your loses
Hire an Assassin to punish the Bandit that robbed you
Convince your company to wage a feud
Convince your settlement to wage a war
Pray to Pharasma and place a Death Curse
To be honest, that is a forest full of sticks!!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am in favor of the idea that a caravan is more then 1 entity. The meta game concept of a group of wagons = a caravan makes more sense. The idea of "if attacked, all wagons run in different directions ect." is a viable tactic, just as is bringing and setting up enough bandits to surround all wagons, or maybe just the ones determined to be "the target".
Concerning terrain wagons can traverse, I am also with the idea that they can go basically anywhere, but swamps and such are more likely to cause damage, or get stuck and otherwise halt/destroy the wagons and strand the teamster and guards. Leveling the skill to lower the damage or remove it entirely, maybe add something like upgraded wagons or something could help. While I understand the idea presented with "rails" for caravan's to run on, I agree that it wouldn't be needed. Unless you hire NPC teamster to run the caravan, then I would agree rails from one city to another. Speaking of which, I think hireing NPC teemsters and NPC guards would be ok. Maybe cheaper then PCs and safer (unless you add a chance that they will attack the caravan mid way through) but less effective. Maybe make them "level 1" or something. Maybe add levels at increased cost or something. I know this will possibly remove or lessen PC guards, but I think that it will help those who want more guards, or during "off hours" when not a lot of players on online.
Over all, I like the discussion. the concept of ambushes costing influence I am not sure about. Depends on how the end result happens. How easy is influence gained? How many options to spend it are there? things like this.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The important thing is that the "victims" of outlaws shouldn't become just playtoys for agressors. I didn't like the way in EvE, roaming in your own territory was more dangerous than sailing somalia's coast.
I hope the world is big enough for ambush to be a casual thing, not a "100% chance to be ganked when you move 'cause you're surrounded by legions of outlaws" thing.
(I ain't asking for SECURITY, just not post-apocalyptic WoD armageddon)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The important thing is that the "victims" of outlaws shouldn't become just playtoys for agressors. I didn't like the way in EvE, roaming in your own territory was more dangerous than sailing somalia's coast.
I hope the world is big enough for ambush to be a casual thing, not a "100% chance to be ganked when you move 'cause you're surrounded by legions of outlaws" thing.
(I ain't asking for SECURITY, just not post-apocalyptic WoD armageddon)
Agreed. I know personally Bluddwolf understands the pitfalls of banditry over-saturation. Along with our own security, he'll be insuring Callambeans are safe.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Bludd
Unfortunately, your forest full of sticks are all reactive. I'd prefer some proactive sticks as well, to encourage the avoidance of some behaviour in the first place, and to force the bandits to make some choices too. All of the sticks you point to are also dependent on the victim actually knowing how to find you. But you have already pointed out in another thread (Qallz's comments on metagame SADs) how easy it will be for you and your company to go to ground and avoid retribution as a way to escape metagame punishment.
You can't have it both ways. Either you will be held responsible, or those sticks are not really sticks at all (and my money is on the latter).
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, if the influence cost was similar to the cost to declare a feud, I've got no objection to the ambush idea.
Important to my position here is that the influence cost will prevent any group from spamming these ambushes, while still allowing a smart group to hit select high-value targets.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Honestly, if the influence cost was similar to the cost to declare a feud, I've got no objection to the ambush idea.
Important to my position here is that the influence cost will prevent any group from spamming these ambushes, while still allowing a smart group to hit select high-value targets.
Actually I was not only thinking of it being less than a feud, but almost self perpetuating as well. Perhaps as much as two successful ambushes will grant you enough influence to pay for a third, plus covering the initial cost of each one.
Bandits use ambush just as a Warrior swings a sword. I couldn't imagine anyone would want to limit a warriors ability to fight as often as they wish. There should be no limits placed on how often someone can play their class or its primary functions.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Then your position is that you should be able to ambush all the time, and GAIN influence for doing so. That's the opposite of the reasonable proposal you opened with, where there was an influence cost for an ambush.
My estimate would be that a group of 10 or so should have to spend about an hour working on influence (10 man-hours) to earn enough to offset one ambush. I'm not sure how to scale that up, but I would imagine that it should scale with the number of attackers in the ambush but not to the number of guards in the caravan.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bludd, to the best of my understanding, you're arguing for a mechanic that will dramatically leverage your play-style: instead of having to balance your play (banditry) costs out against gain, or even a no-cost effort (ambush without rep loss), you want to double gains for your playstyle--you get the loot and gain rep rather than possibly lose it.
I think that's pretty much the exact opposite of the whole philosophy behind PVP design in PFO, so it doesn't really make any sense.
Also:
Bandits use ambush just as a Warrior swings a sword. I couldn't imagine anyone would want to limit a warriors ability to fight as often as they wish. There should be no limits placed on how often someone can play their class or its primary functions.
That's quite an analogical reasoning error you've made :) Your confusing tools with the targets of the tools. So to correct it:
Bandits use weapons just as Warriors use weapons.
Bandits have consequences for their targets just as Warriors have consequences for their targets. There should be no exception for one kind of player to be able to circumvent the reputation system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Then your position is that you should be able to ambush all the time, and GAIN influence for doing so. That's the opposite of the reasonable proposal you opened with, where there was an influence cost for an ambush.
My estimate would be that a group of 10 or so should have to spend about an hour working on influence (10 man-hours) to earn enough to offset one ambush. I'm not sure how to scale that up, but I would imagine that it should scale with the number of attackers in the ambush but not to the number of guards in the caravan.
Well of course the numbers could be tweaked, but my original idea was that they would cost influence to initiate. You only gain influence from successful ambushes, and you potentially lose double for losses. In the instance that an ambush is successful you gain influence at 1.5 times the cost.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's quite an analogical reasoning error you've made :) Your confusing tools with the targets of the tools. So to correct it:
Bandits use weapons just as Warriors use weapons.
Bandits have consequences for their targets just as Warriors have consequences for their targets. There should be no exception for one kind of player to be able to circumvent the reputation system.
No, "ambush" is to "swinging", not "ambush" is to "sword".
A sword is a tool. Ambush is a method, just as swinging is a method.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, maybe in crazyland, Bluud :)
But here in Golarion, warriors and rogues both swing swords. And shoot bows. And <verb> <nouns>. And it all of them, when they <verb> <nouns> at someone else, it has social effects, abstracted through systems like reputation.
Bro, I totally get that you are jonesing for special exceptions for your playstyle, but that's it. It's always a special pleading.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bandits use ambush just as a Warrior swings a sword. I couldn't imagine anyone would want to limit a warriors ability to fight as often as they wish.
Merchants use caravans just as a bandit uses an ambush. I couldn't imagine anyone would want to limit a bandit's ability to ambush as often as they wish. So the same should be true for merchants - make them invulnerable to PvP when in a caravan.
See, we can all draw false analogies and make specious statements. The fact is that the freedom of bandits to ambush is not a freedom in a vacuum, and nor is it any more intrinsic to PfO than the freedom of merchants to transport their goods. It's all a balancing act - and claiming "but this is an intrinsic part of the role I wish to play" may very well be true - but it's irrelevant.
"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
This applies just as much to play styles in PfO as it does in the supreme court.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would even be comfortable with there being some influence investment in creating a caravan, which is lost if the caravan is lost. Whether there is no change, a small loss, or a small gain in net influence for a caravan arriving is a matter for balance discussion.
But unless ALL of the sanctioned methods of of a pure bandit company (discounting faction, feud, war, and other independent way of sanctioning) engaging a caravan require a kind of influence cost that is only refunded if the caravan is successfully hit, I don't see why it would be fair to allow for even a small gain in influence for raiding.
What might make a whole lot of sense is to have bandit companies expend influence not on individual raids or ambushes, but on declaring the entire company 'raiders', granting them the ability to attack any company identified as 'caravaneers' as though they were feuding- and also allow any company which identified as 'enforcers' to engage them likewise. But now we're back to the opt-in system of flagging that was discussed and dropped earlier.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would even be comfortable with there being some influence investment in creating a caravan, which is lost if the caravan is lost. Whether there is no change, a small loss, or a small gain in net influence for a caravan arriving is a matter for balance discussion.
That's certainly in the flavor of what I understand Influence to be. One company may decide to spend/invest their Influence in holding a POI and a hex. Another will use their Influence in setting up and running an Outpost. A third company invests some amount of Influence to create a caravan, with the reward of increased gains from larger cargo cap and faster movement, but with the risk of a loss of the invested Influence if the caravan is lost...
So even if the caravan is an unsanctioned target, any bandit *knows* that the owning company will lose Influence should the caravan be totally lost, and the caravan master will be torn when offered a SAD, balancing cargo, his cut of the profits, and a loss of company Influence.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What might make a whole lot of sense is to have bandit companies expend influence not on individual raids or ambushes, but on declaring the entire company 'raiders', granting them the ability to attack any company identified as 'caravaneers' as though they were feuding- and also allow any company which identified as 'enforcers' to engage them likewise. But now we're back to the opt-in system of flagging that was discussed and dropped earlier.
You've broken it away from alignment. Your raiders aren't required to be chaotics. The caravaneers aren't required to be neutrals. And neither raiders nor caravaneers are receiving bonus Rep-over-time, which I think was a very problematic part of those alignment-based flags.
I'd note that being able to attack any caravan is potentially much more powerful than being able to attack one company in a feud. I'd expect it to cost more influence/day than a "simple" feud.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Caravans are rarely just one merchant, and thus shouldn't be considered one unit. Merchant A may want to try and run while merchant B would rather stay and defend his goods. The cost of a caravan should only be materialistic in the form of wagons, guards, and drivers. Caravan routes shouldn't be restricted to road only, but to terrain that can support the weight of loaded wagons. A caravan going off road takes more time to reach their destination and thus are vulnerable for a longer time.
SAD also shouldn't be the only way to confront a caravan as PvP sanctioned. Ambush should also be included, but with a high enough influence cost to keep it from becoming an everyday thing. But if you are willing to pay it, you only take the alignment hit, not the rep hit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Caravans are rarely just one merchant, and thus shouldn't be considered one unit. Merchant A may want to try and run while merchant B would rather stay and defend his goods. The cost of a caravan should only be materialistic in the form of wagons, guards, and drivers. Caravan routes shouldn't be restricted to road only, but to terrain that can support the weight of loaded wagons. A caravan going off road takes more time to reach their destination and thus are vulnerable for a longer time.
SAD also shouldn't be the only way to confront a caravan as PvP sanctioned. Ambush should also be included, but with a high enough influence cost to keep it from becoming an everyday thing. But if you are willing to pay it, you only take the alignment hit, not the rep hit.
What would limit a group of bandits springing an ambush on multiple targets in one day?
I'm not talking game mechanics wise, I'm talking logically. An ambush could be nothing more complex than a group of bandits hiding in the bushes and jumping out to attack. It could also be something far more elaborate, possibly even involving siege engines or excavating the area to create "traps" to stop a caravan.
I'll concede that the later may be a once in a long time period event (hours?). Like many skills I'd expect that there will likely be a cooldown before another ambush could be utilized.
But not somthing like, you get three ambush attempts a day and your done.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm sick of this reputation bull s%%# and all these punishments for trying to enjoy PvP. How about we let people have the freedom to do what they please, and if there's a few whiners who don't like PvP, we chalk it up to "that's the cost of doing business'.
Sounds to me like it is only the "outlaws" who are whining.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One aspect I see missing here, because we have so little information on how it will work in game as of yet, is the ability of players to scout and detect hidden players/locations (such as hideouts). I agree that caravan masters should be able to change their course as need dictates, but that will be most influenced by the intelligence they gain from their scouts. I can see (and believe it is a realistic expectation) that this could easily become a game of skill-based hide and seek...the skill and investment needed for building a more obfuscated hideout or personal stealth skills vs. the scouts' detect and tracking skills vs. the teamster's driving skills to get the most speed and terrain maneuverability out of his animals/wagon.
As much as I agree with creating more ways for PvP enthusiasts to be able to enjoy sanctioned PvP, I'm having a difficult time coming up with a mechanic for providing a caravan any carrots for forming a caravan besides the natural benefit of strength in numbers. Certainly it might be safer for individual wagon drivers to hook up with a train of others, but only because either that train has more guards than the individual wagoneer can afford, or to better his chance at slipping away in the ensuing chaos when the caravan gets attacked. Moving as slow as its slowest unit, I don't see speed being a realistic carrot...I believe terrain should dictate speed (roads being the fastest method).
The natural danger of getting your load through seems inherent with the profession and the real carrot is waiting on the other side of the journey - the pay off from the grateful merchant for getting his goods to market, or if you're the merchant, the profits you'll make in the sale itself. Perhaps that's where the balancing carrot should be added, as one other poster suggested - something like each wagon registered as being in the caravan that reaches its destination earns the merchant a set amount of extra influence. Perhaps the influence earns the merchant the ability to buy more NPC guards. Certainly, the contracted drivers who got their goods through should earn more reputation for doing so.
Here's a twist (good or bad...not sure)...could caravan operators become a pet class, with their pets being the soldiers that protect them and they spend gained influence on upgrading their pets' skills.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Caravans will start as ad hoc collections of characters, and iterate to ad hoc collections of characters and vehicles hauling stuff. Crowdforging will determine if and how more resources are allocated to systems related to caravans. But the initial design is one character with pockets full of stuff running through the wilderness trying to get from A to B often enough to show a profit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Caravans will start as ad hoc collections of characters, and iterate to ad hoc collections of characters and vehicles hauling stuff. Crowdforging will determine if and how more resources are allocated to systems related to caravans. But the initial design is one character with pockets full of stuff running through the wilderness trying to get from A to B often enough to show a profit.
It sounds like the caravan "system" isn't really a system at all, or am I misunderstanding it?
If I have been gathering some ore in the hills and am on my way back to town, do I constitute a caravan?
Or can I "set up" a caravan in the hills that will somehow lead to a situation that isn't identical to if I would have just started legging it back home?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Caravans will start as ad hoc collections of characters, and iterate to ad hoc collections of characters and vehicles hauling stuff. Crowdforging will determine if and how more resources are allocated to systems related to caravans. But the initial design is one character with pockets full of stuff running through the wilderness trying to get from A to B often enough to show a profit.
Sign me down for crowdforging caravans first.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pack mules, for a substantial encumbrance gain and a low max speed, that's the first thing characters need for caravaning.
They tend to fall down and die when bandits shoot them, but your speed goes up to normal and you might escape, leaving Mulie and his share of the cargo.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It sounds like the caravan "system" isn't really a system at all, or am I misunderstanding it?
If I have been gathering some ore in the hills and am on my way back to town, do I constitute a caravan?
Or can I "set up" a caravan in the hills that will somehow lead to a situation that isn't identical to if I would have just started legging it back home?
I don't think that any GW blog has addressed caravans as a system. The alignment-based flags included the neutral Traveler, who gained carry capacity and speed for flagging, but I think that might be it.
Everything else out caravan systems has been player-driven ideas. So yeah, it isn't really a system at all.
Still, if GW isn't actively working on it, there's no reason players can't discuss it and throw out ideas that can be included (or not) in a balanced design down the road.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Pack mules, for a substantial encumbrance gain and a low max speed, that's the first thing characters need for caravaning.
They tend to fall down and die when bandits shoot them, but your speed goes up to normal and you might escape, leaving Mulie and his share of the cargo.
That is a GREAT idea. They already having horses (mounts) down for MVP:
Guards, multiple NPC variations, and basic horses
I'd suggest being able to carry much more; though at the speed of the pack mule and probably a bit more restricted to flatter terrain, too.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Caravans will start as ad hoc collections of characters, and iterate to ad hoc collections of characters and vehicles hauling stuff. Crowdforging will determine if and how more resources are allocated to systems related to caravans. But the initial design is one character with pockets full of stuff running through the wilderness trying to get from A to B often enough to show a profit.Sign me down for crowdforging caravans first.
Should it be done here, or are the mechanics of caravans a separate topic that can mostly be divorced form the morality of robbing caravans?