Goblin Squad Member
|
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?
I feel that divorcing the actual mechanics of caravans away from the hot topic of banditry might be a good idea. Less likely to raise heckles that way. Though the mechanics of caravans must also take into mind how they are attacked, so perhaps not.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@blud
I was talking about making the influence cost be high enough, that you couldn't afford to pay for an ambush more than once every couple of days. But I like the idea of a timer better. A cool down that is for every one in the ambush. Some one in the group targets the caravan and uses the ambush option, group members get a pop-up asking if they are ambushing also. Saying yes starts your cool down. Saying no(or your ambush on CD) means you are taking full penalties.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to dislike cool downs unless there is a realistic need for them. If it takes you "X" amount of time to regenerate your energy to cast another spell, for that wand to build up another charge, to reload that catapult, etc., then I don't mind. If it's a game enforced means of stopping you from doing something your character should be able to do, like attacking another group, it seems like an artificially imposed restriction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@blud
I was talking about making the influence cost be high enough, that you couldn't afford to pay for an ambush more than once every couple of days. But I like the idea of a timer better. A cool down that is for every one in the ambush. Some one in the group targets the caravan and uses the ambush option, group members get a pop-up asking if they are ambushing also. Saying yes starts your cool down. Saying no(or your ambush on CD) means you are taking full penalties.
I'm glad you saw that your first idea (bold) was not workable. I was about to respond, "Why would only bandits or thieves be allowed to steal, just once every few days?" No such restriction of action or game play was being suggested for any other group or class in your argument.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was about to respond, "Why would only bandits or thieves be allowed to steal, just once every few days?" No such restriction of action or game play was being suggested for any other group or class in your argument.
Mercenaries have limits on how many feuds they can declare.
Gatherers have limits on how many resources they can drain from a hex.Builders have limits on how quickly they can construct structures.
I feel as though the more and more built in mechanisms, skill requirements, UI panels, et cetera, the less organic the entire act of doing something becomes. Ambushing a caravan should be as simple as seeing a caravan and attacking it rather than needing to utilize and manage influence and training skills to reap the benefits without penalties.
If I want to ambush a caravan, I should be able to do so through my own actions alone without going through systems in the game for it to tell me that I am.
I do like the idea you present; how accomplishing praisworthy acts of banditry and the like will reward you in such a way. However, I'm always a bit skeptical of the implementations of ideas that involve more systems for the player to navigate through when they cover things that players can already "do". I believe the idea has merit but I believe that such a mechanism should be automatic when you attack a caravan.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Alarox, I'm actually on the complete other end of the spectrum. I believe the real growth in these kinds of games will be an ever-increasing ability for the game systems to understand what we're doing - and more specifically what our motivations and goals are - and responds in ways that make sense to people. I'm especially hopeful that these kinds of systems (even if they're not in PFO) will make Divination magic meaningful because it will actually be able to reveal other players' true motivations and goals since those players won't be able to accomplish those goals without explicitly defining them.
@Alarox, I'm actually on the complete other end of the spectrum. I believe the real growth in these kinds of games will be an ever-increasing ability for the game systems to understand what we're doing - and more specifically what our motivations and goals are - and responds in ways that make sense to people. I'm especially hopeful that these kinds of systems (even if they're not in PFO) will make Divination magic meaningful because it will actually be able to reveal other players' true motivations and goals since those players won't be able to accomplish those goals without explicitly defining them.
That certainly is a valid point, and I understand your stance. I actually do agree to a certain extent, but I think a solid middle-ground can be achieved where neither are compromised.
My main concern is that the simple act of doing 'X' will no longer be an organic action and will instead consist of trying to objectify your action to the game. In particular cases such a system really breaks my suspension of disbelief.
I find the capacity of a game to represent something so clearly that you don't have to imagine it, or explain it, and instead simply DO it, to be of extremely high value. It feels like adding more and more complications to certain actions to be a step backwards in progress rather than forward.
I'm no so much as against this particular idea or the systems you are fond of as I am against the tendency to break the game down from a simulation into a series of command prompts (the implementation, not the idea itself).
For example, instead of using keybindings to activiate an ability, and/or going through a window to indicate that you're going to "ambush" this caravan, it should be possible for the game to determine the meaning behind your actions from behind the scenes, and accept that you're ambushing and take the appropriate actions necessary.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My main concern is that the simple act of doing 'X' will no longer be an organic action and will instead consist of trying to objectify your action to the game. In particular cases such a system really breaks my suspension of disbelief.
That's a really valid concern. Given that I really can't even figure out how to convey that kind of context - goals and motivation - to the system in the first place, I'm really at a loss on how to do so in an organic, immersive way.
For example, instead of using keybindings to activiate an ability, and/or going through a window to indicate that you're going to "ambush" this caravan, it should be possible for the game to determine the meaning behind your actions from behind the scenes, and accept that you're ambushing and take the appropriate actions necessary.
This is exactly the compromise - I'm sure Being would call it a synthesis - that I could get behind. The trick is how to empower the game to determine the meaning behind your actions from behind the scenes.
I'm really glad you made that follow-up post. I feel like we're both actually looking for the same experience.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Scarlette wrote:
@bludI was talking about making the influence cost be high enough, that you couldn't afford to pay for an ambush more than once every couple of days. But I like the idea of a timer better. A cool down that is for every one in the ambush. Some one in the group targets the caravan and uses the ambush option, group members get a pop-up asking if they are ambushing also. Saying yes starts your cool down.
I'm glad you saw that your first idea (bold) was not workable. I was about to respond, "Why would only bandits or thieves be allowed to steal, just once every few days?" No such restriction of action or game play was being suggested for any other group or class in your argument.
@Blud
I didn't say you couldn't ambush, just that you take the normal penalties (rep and alignment hits).
@Urman
I didn't suggest this be limited to thieves or bandits only. Just as an option to SAD. Being that it gets you out of a penalty, I think it should be trained.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Or it not trained, at least cost influence.
As for the pop-up, there is probably better way to implement it.
I hate pop ups!
On the other matter of ambushing, it seems that there is a good chance that operating an outpost / or certain POIs, forming a caravan, may convert a player to "Sanctioned" status anyway..... Or at least I hope they do.
I do find Ryan Dancey's definition of what constitutes the first iteration if a caravan to be a bit ridiculous. A caravan does not equal "One Character with his pockets full." Maybe...... At least a PC with one Pack Mule should be the first iteration of a caravan.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My main concern is that the simple act of doing 'X' will no longer be an organic action and will instead consist of trying to objectify your action to the game. In particular cases such a system really breaks my suspension of disbelief.That's a really valid concern. Given that I really can't even figure out how to convey that kind of context - goals and motivation - to the system in the first place, I'm really at a loss on how to do so in an organic, immersive way.
For example, instead of using keybindings to activiate an ability, and/or going through a window to indicate that you're going to "ambush" this caravan, it should be possible for the game to determine the meaning behind your actions from behind the scenes, and accept that you're ambushing and take the appropriate actions necessary.This is exactly the compromise - I'm sure Being would call it a synthesis - that I could get behind. The trick is how to empower the game to determine the meaning behind your actions from behind the scenes.
I'm really glad you made that follow-up post. I feel like we're both actually looking for the same experience.
I think calling it a synthesis is appropriate: we have one side upholding a thesis, another upholding an antithesis, and by building more complete understanding of the object or process by seeing it from both perspectives behold a 'stereoscopic' synthesis. Even better where there are more than two theses, as is possible.
It would be a non-trivial but possible exercise to code-in the synthetic resolution. I would approach it by letting the game identify what a caravan is, so that when a self-identifying Bandit initiates an attack on a self-identifying caravan a dialog between the two is initiated rather than a simple attack. If it is the case that the caravan is a bot (as could be a feature)the caravan owner would have pre-set limitation of what tribute the caravan would afford so that if the SAD demands less than or equal to the set amount the bot would pay and become untargetable by the bandit, else enter hostile mode, freeing any attendant guards and the SAD bandits to attack without penalty.
If there is no such thing as a bot caravan then the teamster/merchant character would engage in the dialog and negotiate. Or not.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being
I'm not so sure that I agree with allowing a bot to be anything but "sanctioned" for ambush. A bot as you describe is an NPC based system, and should therefore be PvE content (exempt from all PvP based consequences).
As a bandit I would like to be able to tell if a caravan is run by a bot or a PC. I'm not even asking for a mechanic, just the ability to observe the caravan and determine that on my own. If I believe it is a bot, I would not even bother with a SAD.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I doubt Ryan would build caravans as bots anyway as they said they wouldn't put effort in doing something the players can do. I was only sketching how I would approach the problem and allowed for the potential of an object that could not interact in dialog. And in fact we've seen in Shroud of the Avatar that bots (NPCs) can actually interact in dialogs, it is just more complicated.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would be ok with something similar to having a CD on ambushes where you don't lose rep/alignment the first ambush each 3 hours or something, but the rest your able to ambush, but take full penalties. This still gives players the ability to ambush and raid as often as desired, but still retains penalties so it isn't something that SHOULD be done constantly. It (IMHO) would promote the idea that SAD is main tactic with caravans, but if you suspect (or have intel) that a particular one is juicy and vulnerable, then use the ambush to grab it all (75%).
About ryan's post, if GW is "starting" caravans as "a PC with full pockets" then they already have that. Time to move on to either a pack mule, or some sort of wagon or something. I would think it could be something (at least to start) as simple as a mount with extra carrying ability. Even a cart pulled by a PC, instead of a mule/ox/horse, could be a good "stage 1" of caravans. Eventually, I hope that caravans move into larger collections of wagons, moving massive amounts of cargo and bringing a small detachment of PC/NPC guards.