Could PFO Thrive with No Unsanctioned PvP?


Pathfinder Online

551 to 600 of 2,166 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Areks wrote:
KitNyx wrote:
So, some settlements might want to recognize the victim's ownership of stolen items, others might not. This plays on the "corruption" rating, if a settlement recognizes original ownership, those who support it will move to the area and they can try to enforce it...and retrieve "stolen goods". However, settlement corruption will increase whenever something is stolen. Alternately, those settlements who follow the laws of the river kingdoms will not get the corruption penalties...nor will they have access to tracking of stolen goods or the ability to avenge victims of theft.
I would just add that some corruption could be recouped if the goods are recovered. Not all, but some, because in the end if you keep getting robbed you are enforcing your laws very well. Other than that, it seems like a viable trade off.

Agreed, I like it. If you are going to call it illegal, you need to enforce it or suffer the consequences. Make the do-gooders reap the consequences of their do-goodedness.

Goblin Squad Member

Proficiency in Full plate should result in no hindrance to their normal movement rate. They've dealt with the armor for a long time, they know how it works, their body has developed the necessary muscle groups to support the added weight.

A rogue archetype in leather would be carrying less based on encumbrance, as opposed to a full plate fighter. Maybe link speed to the current encumbrance / maximum encumbrance ratio?

A rogue that just has basic gear runs at 90% speed, while a rogue with a full inventory runs as slow, if not slower, than a full plate fighter with a bare bones inventory?

The bad guys should have some loot to weigh them down right?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
It will be interesting to see how the interplay of evil vs. good plays out in the wilderness. My instinct is that the evil characters will be built to move very quickly so they can strike and withdraw. And that implies that the opposing forces have to be built to move quickly too so they can follow and try to block or slow a retreat. Being built for high speed seems counter to the idea of knights in full plate. On the other hand, I had a long talk with the designers about not asking players to be "bored" as a way of controlling their use of their gear, and putting a really slow movement rate on characters in full plate is essentially asking them to be bored. So consider this a really good area for a lot of future discussion and brainstorming.

Or movement in formations. Personally, I am all for massive defense bonuses (such as layers of metal protection) having consequences...including slow movement. But, in history, people in plate did not walk far. They were mounted or in the case of infantry, traveled/walked unarmoured until the battle horns sounded.

EDIT: (Responding to Areks) and per Ryan's prediction...the two sides draw their battle-lines *grin*.

Goblin Squad Member

KitNyx wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
It will be interesting to see how the interplay of evil vs. good plays out in the wilderness. My instinct is that the evil characters will be built to move very quickly so they can strike and withdraw. And that implies that the opposing forces have to be built to move quickly too so they can follow and try to block or slow a retreat. Being built for high speed seems counter to the idea of knights in full plate. On the other hand, I had a long talk with the designers about not asking players to be "bored" as a way of controlling their use of their gear, and putting a really slow movement rate on characters in full plate is essentially asking them to be bored. So consider this a really good area for a lot of future discussion and brainstorming.
Or movement in formations. Personally, I am all for massive defense bonuses (such as layers of metal protection) having consequences...including slow movement. But, in history, people in plate did not walk far. They were mounted or in the case of infantry, traveled/walked unarmoured until the battle horns sounded.

That's a little too realism > fun IMO. Don't get me wrong, full plate should never be out running leather, but I'd be OK with a full inventory leather wearer being just as slow as FP.

Goblin Squad Member

KitNyx wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
It will be interesting to see how the interplay of evil vs. good plays out in the wilderness. My instinct is that the evil characters will be built to move very quickly so they can strike and withdraw. And that implies that the opposing forces have to be built to move quickly too so they can follow and try to block or slow a retreat. Being built for high speed seems counter to the idea of knights in full plate. On the other hand, I had a long talk with the designers about not asking players to be "bored" as a way of controlling their use of their gear, and putting a really slow movement rate on characters in full plate is essentially asking them to be bored. So consider this a really good area for a lot of future discussion and brainstorming.

Or movement in formations. Personally, I am all for massive defense bonuses (such as layers of metal protection) having consequences...including slow movement. But, in history, people in plate did not walk far. They were mounted or in the case of infantry, traveled/walked unarmoured until the battle horns sounded.

EDIT: (Responding to Areks) and per Ryan's prediction...the two sides draw their battle-lines *grin*.

LOL.

Goblin Squad Member

KitNyx wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
It will be interesting to see how the interplay of evil vs. good plays out in the wilderness. My instinct is that the evil characters will be built to move very quickly so they can strike and withdraw. And that implies that the opposing forces have to be built to move quickly too so they can follow and try to block or slow a retreat. Being built for high speed seems counter to the idea of knights in full plate. On the other hand, I had a long talk with the designers about not asking players to be "bored" as a way of controlling their use of their gear, and putting a really slow movement rate on characters in full plate is essentially asking them to be bored. So consider this a really good area for a lot of future discussion and brainstorming.

Or movement in formations. Personally, I am all for massive defense bonuses (such as layers of metal protection) having consequences...including slow movement. But, in history, people in plate did not walk far. They were mounted or in the case of infantry, traveled/walked unarmoured until the battle horns sounded.

EDIT: (Responding to Areks) and per Ryan's prediction...the two sides draw their battle-lines *grin*.

And to support Areks position:

wikipedia wrote:
A complete suit of plate armour made from well-tempered steel would weigh around 15-20 kg(33-44 pounds).[2] The wearer remained highly agile and could jump, run and otherwise move freely as the weight of the armor was spread evenly throughout the body. The armour was articulated and covered a man's entire body completely from neck to toe. In the 15th and 16th centuries, large bodies of men-at-arms numbering thousands or even more than ten thousand men (as many as 60% of an army) were fighting on foot wearing full plate next to archers and crossbowmen. This was commonly seen in the Western European armies especially of France and England during the Hundred Years War, the Wars of the Roses or the Italian Wars.

But I draw the line at swimming. Perhaps a compromise would be having plate wearers move at encumbrance based speed, but also have encumbrance greater than light slowly use stamina. The "slower movement" would be an average from plate wearers having to occasionally rest to regen stamina. This would push plate wearers into relying more heavily on their mounts as history suggests was the case.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Xeen wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
Xeen wrote:


SAD's for 75%+
Raids to the extent of the rules
Factions against any faction a large number of YOU will be in
Warfare by joining other settlements engaged in war
Gaming my reputation and alignment within the rules

You will be PVP'd and I will not suffer for it.

And you know what? If you really do PVP in only those circumstances, you are playing the game we all want played and you will be a meaningful contributor to the game. Problem solved.
LOL, something tells me that isnt what people will want once they have experienced it.

Well, I want to win. But more than I want to win, I want to play. If the only opponents I have are better than me, I can improve; if there exist no opponents at all, I cannot even play.

It would be like playing Unreal Tournament with neither bots nor other players - the box, without the sand.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
It will be interesting to see how the interplay of evil vs. good plays out in the wilderness. My instinct is that the evil characters will be built to move very quickly so they can strike and withdraw. And that implies that the opposing forces have to be built to move quickly too so they can follow and try to block or slow a retreat. Being built for high speed seems counter to the idea of knights in full plate. On the other hand, I had a long talk with the designers about not asking players to be "bored" as a way of controlling their use of their gear, and putting a really slow movement rate on characters in full plate is essentially asking them to be bored. So consider this a really good area for a lot of future discussion and brainstorming.

Simple idea: Have some limited-use ability which improves speed for a short time, and the time and magnitude of that ability is higher for lighter armor.

The basic unbuffed overland speed could then be the same for all armor types, while tactical speed would be significantly different.

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:
Auto-correct is a pox on this world.

It's the first thing I turn off whenever I get a new device or a new installation of Word (Office, whatever).

Areks wrote:
Ehh... I have a problem with global knowledge.

Sounds like a job for Divination Magic!

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
It will be interesting to see how the interplay of evil vs. good plays out in the wilderness. My instinct is that the evil characters will be built to move very quickly so they can strike and withdraw. And that implies that the opposing forces have to be built to move quickly too so they can follow and try to block or slow a retreat. Being built for high speed seems counter to the idea of knights in full plate. On the other hand, I had a long talk with the designers about not asking players to be "bored" as a way of controlling their use of their gear, and putting a really slow movement rate on characters in full plate is essentially asking them to be bored. So consider this a really good area for a lot of future discussion and brainstorming.

That's why you need to give us mounted combat before you give us paladins. Full plate isn't so slow when it's lowering a lance from the back of a charging mount. It might not be good in swamps or thick forests but woe to those who screw with paladins on an open field.

And woe to those who screw with halfling paladins on riding dogs anywhere. Especially if you let people ride Druids when they're playing as a rideable animal.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Please Goblinworks, I know this is the wrong thread, but give us some sweet sweet news about how Divine Magic is coming. We're begging for it! You got two weeks...

Goblin Squad Member

Sepherum wrote:
We're begging for it! You got two weeks...

begging or threatening?

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:

That's why you need to give us mounted combat before you give us paladins. Full plate isn't so slow when it's lowering a lance from the back of a charging mount. It might not be good in swamps or thick forests but woe to those who screw with paladins on an open field.

And woe to those who screw with halfling paladins on riding dogs anywhere. Especially if you let people ride Druids when they're playing as a rideable animal.

I call Being if we can ride druids!

Goblin Squad Member

Some of my thoughts on some of the topics discussed on this thread.

Only chaotic aligned characters could use SAD.

In hexes where SADing is illegal: it should move the user towards chaotic and the victim should be able to issue a bounty afterwards on the user of SAD whether he dies or not. Using the SAD should immediately give it's user the criminal flag. Successful use of the SAD should raise the corruption of the settlement in said hex.

I really hope armor hinders movement. Maybe there could be passive armor specialization feats that would decrease that movement penalty.

Something I've been thinking are the passive feats and slotted passive feats. I'd really like to see everything as meaningful as possible. It would mean choice after choice after choice. It would be really cool if everything your character is would be a choice. That would mean there would be no passive feats only slotted passive feats...

If you would have nothing slotted, it would be just like when you began playing on day one(except for the gear ofc).

Goblin Squad Member

Aeioun Plainsweed wrote:
In hexes where SADing is illegal: it should move the user towards chaotic and the victim should be able to issue a bounty afterwards on the user of SAD whether he dies or not. Using the SAD should immediately give it's user the criminal flag. Successful use of the SAD should raise the corruption of the settlement in said hex.

That sounds very right to me.

Aeioun Plainsweed wrote:
That would mean there would be no passive feats only slotted passive feats...

It was my understanding that this is the way it works. I don't think there are going to be any Passive Feats that you don't have to slot, unless they simply piggy-back on something else that has to be slotted in order to be used.

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:
I don't know. This might be a little too close to how REAL societies might work. ;)

Somebody once said 'Madness is the exception in individuals but the rule in groups." I think that says a truckload right there.

Goblin Squad Member

Areks wrote:
Andius wrote:

That's why you need to give us mounted combat before you give us paladins. Full plate isn't so slow when it's lowering a lance from the back of a charging mount. It might not be good in swamps or thick forests but woe to those who screw with paladins on an open field.

And woe to those who screw with halfling paladins on riding dogs anywhere. Especially if you let people ride Druids when they're playing as a rideable animal.

I call Being if we can ride druids!

<casts FormOfGrizzly>

Goblin Squad Member

Aeioun Plainsweed wrote:

Some of my thoughts on some of the topics discussed on this thread.

Only chaotic aligned characters could use SAD.

In hexes where SADing is illegal: it should move the user towards chaotic and the victim should be able to issue a bounty afterwards on the user of SAD whether he dies or not. Using the SAD should immediately give it's user the criminal flag. Successful use of the SAD should raise the corruption of the settlement in said hex.

A few comments on this...

1. SADs can be used by Lawful settlements to act as toll collection. Being lawful, they would probably have a preset and advertised (well known) rate. Abuses of that rate could be treated by the settlement as a chaotic act or even illegal (price gouging).

2. A SAD is at least of equal benefit to the merchant as it is to the party issuing the SAD. SADs will typically be issued by the issuing party when it feels it has the overwhelming upper hand. The SAD allows for the merchant to have the choice to agree to the SAD or lose everything.

3. If SADS (which are not attacks, but negotiations in the trade window) are made illegal, then bandits have no incentive to issue SAD offers in the settlement's territory. You will convert your hex into an NBSI, not even an NBRI (Not Blue Rob It). The SAD offers will be for 100%, just to avoid the reputation hit, and the merchant would only save the degradation of his threaded equipment.

4. This might also encourage raids, feuds or even wars against your settlement's outposts, POIs, companies, and possibly the settlement itself.

It is not that some of these wouldn't happen anyway, but they would be far more exclusive and aggressive.

TL;DR... Strip us of being more pleasant robbers, and we will be more savage robbers. We will take the CE shift, but still use the game systems to not take hits to reputation.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
A SAD is at least of equal benefit to the merchant as it is to the party issuing the SAD.
As I have said frequently, if I see an unflagged target with superior wealth and little protection, we would likely SAD for maximum and hope it is accepted. If it is rejected, we will still get our 75%.

Clearly, the ability to let you take 75% of their stuff and keep 25% for themselves is at least of equal benefit to them as it is to you.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
3. If SADS (which are not attacks, but negotiations in the trade window) are made illegal, then bandits have no incentive to issue SAD offers in the settlement's territory. You will convert your hex into an NBSI, not even an NBRI (Not Blue Rob It). The SAD offers will be for 100%, just to avoid the reputation hit, and the merchant would only save the degradation of his threaded equipment.

Bolding added for emphasis. That sounds like an exploit of the SAD system. What mechanism might GW build into the system to counter it?

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
3. If SADS (which are not attacks, but negotiations in the trade window) are made illegal, then bandits have no incentive to issue SAD offers in the settlement's territory. You will convert your hex into an NBSI, not even an NBRI (Not Blue Rob It). The SAD offers will be for 100%, just to avoid the reputation hit, and the merchant would only save the degradation of his threaded equipment.
Bolding added for emphasis. That sounds like an exploit of the SAD system. What mechanism might GW build into the system to counter it?

Make the SAD slier max out at a certain percentage, or treat any SAD demand over a certain percentage also trigger a rep loss slightly less severe than just attack the victim in the first place.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Urman wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
3. If SADS (which are not attacks, but negotiations in the trade window) are made illegal, then bandits have no incentive to issue SAD offers in the settlement's territory. You will convert your hex into an NBSI, not even an NBRI (Not Blue Rob It). The SAD offers will be for 100%, just to avoid the reputation hit, and the merchant would only save the degradation of his threaded equipment.
Bolding added for emphasis. That sounds like an exploit of the SAD system. What mechanism might GW build into the system to counter it?

The original SAD called for giving the Bandit a Rep gain only if their offer was accepted. Perhaps they should only allow the Bandit to avoid or mitigate the Rep loss if the offer is accepted.

Goblin Squad Member

There is no evil shift or reputation hit inherent in making a SAD in a hex where it's illegal, per Aeioun's system. That latter piece seems a pretty good incentive to SAD to me.

Bludd, do you think a bandit making 100% SAD demands every time he attacks a merchant is a loophole that needs closing, or something that should be kept? Personally it seems to me like that's just freely killing without rep hits by another name, and something should be done so that you can't demand 100% every time. We might as well just remove the SAD system if 100% demands became the norm, and bring the game that much closer to a free-for-all PvP (which, though some people want that, is not the direction PFO is trying to go in).

Goblin Squad Member

Imbicatus wrote:
Make the SAD slier max out at a certain percentage, or treat any SAD demand over a certain percentage also trigger a rep loss slightly less severe than just attack the victim in the first place.

SAD should always punish the victim less harshly than dieing and bring less consequences to each party involved than taking each other head on. Good call.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Urman wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
3. If SADS (which are not attacks, but negotiations in the trade window) are made illegal, then bandits have no incentive to issue SAD offers in the settlement's territory. You will convert your hex into an NBSI, not even an NBRI (Not Blue Rob It). The SAD offers will be for 100%, just to avoid the reputation hit, and the merchant would only save the degradation of his threaded equipment.
Bolding added for emphasis. That sounds like an exploit of the SAD system. What mechanism might GW build into the system to counter it?
The original SAD called for giving the Bandit a Rep gain only if their offer was accepted. Perhaps they should only allow the Bandit to avoid or mitigate the Rep loss if the offer is accepted.

I would support this idea.

Goblin Squad Member

The point I was making was that if SADs are made illegal, and therefore subject to the same consequences as an ambush, then what would be the bandit's incentive to issue the SAD in the first place.

A SAD is supposed to be a means for the merchant to take less of a loss than death, and for the bandit to be compensated for less blood thirsty action and less reward for making an offer that is likely to be accepted.

The way the Devs have framed the system's intentions is that not only do both parties gain from it, but the interaction is meaningful. It requires two components to work: A reasonable demand and an acceptance of the demand.

If however, there is no real benefit for the bandit to make the offer, we won't. We won't give up the advantage of a surprise attack, and if being directed at consequence free targets, we would only have more reward to be gained by it.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

The point I was making was that if SADs are made illegal, and therefore subject to the same consequences as an ambush, then what would be the bandit's incentive to issue the SAD in the first place.

A SAD is supposed to be a means for the merchant to take less of a loss than death, and for the bandit to be compensated for less blood thirsty action and less reward for making an offer that is likely to be accepted.

The way the Devs have framed the system's intentions is that not only do both parties gain from it, but the interaction is meaningful. It requires two components to work: A reasonable demand and an acceptance of the demand.

If however, there is no real benefit for the bandit to make the offer, we won't. We won't give up the advantage of a surprise attack, and if being directed at consequence free targets, we would only have more reward to be gained by it.

Reputation and Evil alignment loss is still mitigated by a successful SAD. Breaking a law is Chaotic, not Evil, by nature.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
The point I was making was that if SADs are made illegal, and therefore subject to the same consequences as an ambush, then what would be the bandit's incentive to issue the SAD in the first place.

The point I was making was that a SAD that is not accepted by the Merchant should be subject to the same (possibly somewhat reduced) consequences as an ambush. This is the only way to keep unreasonable SADs from being used solely to protect the Bandits from the consequences. This, coupled with actual Rep gains when their SADs are accepted, would create very strong incentives for Bandits to offer reasonable SADs.

Bluddwolf wrote:
It requires two components to work: A reasonable demand and an acceptance of the demand.

I think this is right, and there should probably be some consequence for the Merchant refusing the SAD, even if it's "unreasonable". I do not for a second think it should be comparable to the consequences for the Bandits, though.

If a SAD is rejected, it might be appropriate for the Bandits to take 3/4 the hit they would have suffered for just ambushing, and the Merchant to take 1/8. If the SAD is accepted, I would think the Bandits might deserve to gain that 1/8 (but only up to a fairly small total per month).

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:
Reputation and Evil alignment loss is still mitigated by a successful SAD. Breaking a law is Chaotic, not Evil, by nature.

So the bandit could do a SAD, then take his loot and run. If he stays away from pursuers long enough for the Criminal flag to expire, he's golden. He took a chaos hit (no big deal) but avoided the rep and evil hit he would have taken for killing.

Frankly that sounds like it might work. It might make robbers hit and run types rather than armed gangs demanding SAD as a formality before killing.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
Lifedragn wrote:
...hit and run types...

That certainly would tie with the environment--whether historical or fictional--in which stand-and-deliver originated: jump the target, collect, and get away before a patrol or other observers arrived. Leaving bodies behind would've encouraged investigation and response.

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:

Reputation and Evil alignment loss is still mitigated by a successful SAD. Breaking a law is Chaotic, not Evil, by nature.

I understand that. It is not about alignment, it never is. Chaotic is preferred alignment. Whether good, neutral or evil, quite honestly, makes no difference.

The point is, if you disincentivize the issuing of SADs, you are welcoming the only other alternative.... the ambush. You will also drive up the costs for the merchants, because where SADs are routinely not offered, guards will be in higher demand. Where guards are in higher demand, their prices will go up. In the long run, merchants will suffer greater losses and higher costs for protection.

These are all of the things that GW will have to strike a balance with, in order to have a healthy economy.

My hope is that bandits will self regulate and have the long view or big picture in mind. I also hope the merchants have the same in their minds. If properly balanced, both bandit and merchant will be each other's content and still make a boat load of gold in the long term. Every once in a while we both might also hit the mother load / heist, and it would be the thing that stories are made of.

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:


I think this is right, and there should probably be some consequence for the Merchant refusing the SAD, even if it's "unreasonable".

I vehemently disagree with this. The consequence for refusing a SAD is that they are free to be attacked without further rep loss from the bandit. Any rep loss from refusing a SAD is blaming the victim of extortion. And that's what a SAD is really, extortion. It's a good idea for it to be in the game, but a victim of it shouldn't be punished for deciding to defend their property instead of giving it up without a fight.

You don't give someone who is attacked a rep hit for fighting back instead of running away. Likewise don't give a rep hit for refusing a SAD.

Goblin Squad Member

I think players should be able to make SAD's illegal, just as they can make many other things illegal. The penalties for SAD at that point are not the same as for ambushing; the most notable difference is you don't lose any rep for a SAD, even if your price is rejected.

Though it would be nice if every person who wanted to play a bandit simply understood that 75-100% SAD's are harmful to himself in the long run if performed on his "regular clients", unfortunately I don't think that will be the case. I think that many people will just come up to others and say "Gimme all your money!" I would like some type of mechanic in place which reinforces that such high SAD's should not be the norm, otherwise many bandits will just be using SAD's as a formality to freely ambush, as was pointed out earlier. What in particular I don't know; maybe some type of cost when your SAD offer gets up in that range, so that it's still possible for those legitimate use cases but not an everyday thing?

I think the small rep bonus for completing a successful SAD would be enough of an incentive without an added penalty for a rejected SAD, especially given that bandits will likely be needing rep boosts where they can get them. Some merchants are just going to reject SAD's on principle, or because they think they have a good enough shot at escaping, or for many other reasons, no matter what price the bandit puts in. I don't think the bandit should be punished for using the SAD mechanic if the merchant has some harebrained scheme hatching in his head.

Goblin Squad Member

I think using SAD as a toll mechanism should be very clearly labeled as a misuse of is and treated as such.

Goblin Squad Member

I think this is hilarious!!!

The majority of you wanted to come down on me for being a PVPer and asking for clarifications... Then saying its ok when using SAD and other mechanics that the game is designing for PVP... Then a large number of you want to nerf SAD into the ground...

That is as funny as it gets!!

Thank you for showing who you are.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:


I think this is right, and there should probably be some consequence for the Merchant refusing the SAD, even if it's "unreasonable". I do not for a second think it should be comparable to the consequences for the Bandits, though.

No, no, no, no, NO!

A merchant should NEVER EVER be penalized extra for refusing the SAD - reasonable or not. Their penalty is that the bandits will likely attack and that they will likely lose, because an intelligent bandit would not have approached for a SAD in the first place if they did not have reasonable confidence they could win a battle.

If a man is robbed at gunpoint, and he refuses to give anything to the robber and then gets pistol whipped and knocked out, you don't make him spend a night in jail because he refused to give up his stuff.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:

I think this is hilarious!!!

The majority of you wanted to come down on me for being a PVPer and asking for clarifications... Then saying its ok when using SAD and other mechanics that the game is designing for PVP... Then a large number of you want to nerf SAD into the ground...

That is as funny as it gets!!

Thank you for showing who you are.

In a few cases it is just an expression of greed and hand-wringing at the realization that much of the activities of PVP'ers can be conducted in (reputation) consequence free circumstances.

The greed comes from those that believe, "what mine is mine and no amount of logic about this being a PVP centric game with partial looting, will convince me otherwise."

This comes from the single player PC or Theme Park MMO's where PVP is either consensual or it can be easily avoided.

The other aspect is the, visibly growing concern that the game is going in a direction they had not expected based on earlier.

Then there are those, and hopefully in a growing camp, that have either hoped for it or are becoming accustomed to the idea, that most of the PVP will be sanctioned or consequence free PVP.

If you consider what was said and suspected about PFO last December (when I first arrived)the only forms of PVP that were discussed and assumed to be sanctioned were:

Wars
Assassinations
Bounties
Death Curses

Since then we have seen added:

SADs
Factions
POIs
Raids (Outposts)

The trend is that the PVP activities, that will not incur negative consequences to reputation, are growing. There is no denying that. That is making some nervous, and it is up to GW to make use that they are given tools to choose to use (if they wish) to help insulate themselves in some measure from the ravages of the Open World PVP sandbox MMO.

I'll be very interested to see how caravans and guard contracts will work in a future blog.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Lifedragn wrote:

Reputation and Evil alignment loss is still mitigated by a successful SAD. Breaking a law is Chaotic, not Evil, by nature.

I understand that. It is not about alignment, it never is. Chaotic is preferred alignment. Whether good, neutral or evil, quite honestly, makes no difference.

The point is, if you disincentivize the issuing of SADs, you are welcoming the only other alternative.... the ambush. You will also drive up the costs for the merchants, because where SADs are routinely not offered, guards will be in higher demand. Where guards are in higher demand, their prices will go up. In the long run, merchants will suffer greater losses and higher costs for protection.

These are all of the things that GW will have to strike a balance with, in order to have a healthy economy.

My hope is that bandits will self regulate and have the long view or big picture in mind. I also hope the merchants have the same in their minds. If properly balanced, both bandit and merchant will be each other's content and still make a boat load of gold in the long term. Every once in a while we both might also hit the mother load / heist, and it would be the thing that stories are made of.

Any place that will make SAD illegal will probably also make murder (and thus ambushes) illegal as well. Consequences for SAD would still be less than ambush.

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:

If a man is robbed at gunpoint, and he refuses to give anything to the robber and then gets pistol whipped and knocked out, you don't make him spend a night in jail because he refused to give up his stuff.

A capricious and arbitrary judge might!!!

LOL.... I could not resist, and I was KIDDING!!

I agree with LifeDragn, the merchant will already suffer death and the loss of 100% of his cargo (75% stolen, 25% destroyed) + the degradation of any threaded gear and a fast trip to the respawn point.

There should be some way for merchants to lose reputation, but refusing a SAD is not one of them.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
... there should probably be some consequence for the Merchant refusing the SAD...
Imbicatus wrote:
I vehemently disagree with this.
Lifedragn wrote:
A merchant should NEVER EVER be penalized extra for refusing the SAD - reasonable or not.

I very much think it's appropriate to give Bandits a Rep Hit if their offer is refused. My suggestion occurred to me as a way to balance that. Maybe it's not necessary.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
... there should probably be some consequence for the Merchant refusing the SAD...
Imbicatus wrote:
I vehemently disagree with this.
Lifedragn wrote:
A merchant should NEVER EVER be penalized extra for refusing the SAD - reasonable or not.

I very much think it's appropriate to give Bandits a Rep Hit if their offer is refused. My suggestion occurred to me as a way to balance that. Maybe it's not necessary.

It may still be prudent to grant Bandits a Rep Hit, but perhaps it is a minimal hit, such that it serves more to reset their rep gain timer as opposed to actually hurting them a lot.

This of course assumes that the Rep System still operates such that you regain rep over time so long as you haven't recently lost any.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
... there should probably be some consequence for the Merchant refusing the SAD...
Imbicatus wrote:
I vehemently disagree with this.
Lifedragn wrote:
A merchant should NEVER EVER be penalized extra for refusing the SAD - reasonable or not.

I very much think it's appropriate to give Bandits a Rep Hit if their offer is refused. My suggestion occurred to me as a way to balance that. Maybe it's not necessary.

Really, what could a merchant get a rep hit for?

I agree with Life and Imbicatus, they shouldn't get one for refusing a SAD.

Maybe completing a transaction with someone that their organization/settlement has a trade sanction/embargo against? Fencing goods on the black market?

I don't think a rep hit for over-pricing is really feasible.

Anyone else got ideas?

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Urman wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
3. If SADS (which are not attacks, but negotiations in the trade window) are made illegal, then bandits have no incentive to issue SAD offers in the settlement's territory. You will convert your hex into an NBSI, not even an NBRI (Not Blue Rob It). The SAD offers will be for 100%, just to avoid the reputation hit, and the merchant would only save the degradation of his threaded equipment.
Bolding added for emphasis. That sounds like an exploit of the SAD system. What mechanism might GW build into the system to counter it?
The original SAD called for giving the Bandit a Rep gain only if their offer was accepted. Perhaps they should only allow the Bandit to avoid or mitigate the Rep loss if the offer is accepted.
I would support this idea.

I wouldn't. If a bandit offers a 10% SAD and it's refused, then they end up killing their target, they shouldn't take a rep hit for that. It's definitely chaotic. Depending on the target it may also be evil, but if you refuse a 10% SAD then you're kind of spitting in their face and saying "Come and see if you can take it!" And at that point any ensuing PvP is very meaningful.

Once the SAD becomes over 50%, I could see where a rep hit might be in order if you aren't at war/feuding with them. Past 50% it starts approaching the "You might as well have just killed them" point.

Perhaps the amount of evil points you get if they reject and you kill them slides based on how many you would normally get for killing them reduced based on what % over 10% was demanded (with 10% or less incurring no evil points) and rep loss is scaled based on how much you would have normally lost reduced based on what % over 50% was demanded (with 50% or less incurring no loss.)

I don't think outlawing SAD's should be necessary. If you don't own the territory / are not an authorized agent of the owners or are using anything other than an established tax then it is a chaotic act always and every time.

For instance if Pax taxes 10% of cargo value to move stuff through their territory and UNC is authorized to collect thats not chaotic. If they extort people into paying 20% that's chaotic. If they go outside Pax territory and charge that, it's chaotic. Bandits are chaotic, and bandits are criminals. It doesn't matter how nice they are or how much of a favor they are doing you by not killing you. Robin Hood was a chaotic criminal. Boba Fett had lawful grounds to hunt Han Solo. That's why chaos and evil are not on the same axis.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:


I wouldn't. If a bandit offers a 10% SAD and it's refused, then they end up killing their target, they shouldn't take a rep hit for that. It's definitely chaotic. Depending on the target it may also be evil, but if you refuse a 10% SAD then you're kind of spitting in their face and saying "Come and see if you can take it!" And at that point any ensuing PvP is very meaningful.

Once the SAD becomes over 50%, I could see where a rep hit might be in order if you aren't at war/feuding with them. Past 50% it starts approaching the "You might as well have just killed them" point.

Perhaps the amount of evil points you get if they reject and you kill them slides based on how many you would normally get for killing them reduced based on what % over 10% was demanded (with 10% or less incurring no evil points) and rep loss is scaled based on how much you would have normally lost reduced based on what % over 50% was demanded (with 50% or less incurring no loss.)

I don't think outlawing SAD's should be necessary. If you don't own the territory / are not an authorized agent of the owners or are using anything other than an established tax then it is a chaotic act always and every time.

For instance if Pax taxes 10% of cargo value to move stuff through their territory and UNC is authorized to collect thats not chaotic. If they extort people into paying 20% that's chaotic. If they go outside Pax territory and charge that, it's chaotic. Bandits are chaotic, and bandits are criminals. It doesn't matter how nice they are or how much of a favor they are doing you by not killing you. Robin Hood was a chaotic criminal. Boba Fett had lawful grounds to hunt Han Solo. That's why chaos and evil are not on the same axis.

The purpose to make SAD an illegal type of action is more for settlement enforcers to react than anything else.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
There should be some way for merchants to lose reputation, but refusing a SAD is not one of them.

Bilking a customer comes to mind...

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
I wouldn't. If a bandit offers a 10% SAD and it's refused, then they end up killing their target, they shouldn't take a rep hit for that. It's definitely chaotic. Depending on the target it may also be evil, but if you refuse a 10% SAD then you're kind of spitting in their face and saying "Come and see if you can take it!" And at that point any ensuing PvP is very meaningful.

I honestly can't say whether or not I agree with this until we see how the economy is. If something costs 25gp to craft and the market is only supporting a 35gp price point, that's barely a profit and I think it's the merchant's right to want to keep every bit of that without being penalized.

If the economy supports an item crafted for 25gp being sold for 50gp then 5gp wouldn't be that bad and could see an argument being made for a chaotic shift. Even still, we run into the issue of "what is a fair SAD?"

I don't think a bandit's target would play into what hit they take, good or evil. Killing is still a static evil act. So even if a CG bandit SADs a LE merchant and the merchant refuses, killing the merchant is still and evil act.

What could happen is your hit for a refused SAD is equal to the percentage you asked for the SAD. 10% SAD refused, you only take 10% of a normal "killing is evil" hit to your alignment. This would crest at 75% obviously, as when you kill your target you only get 75% of their loot, so maybe it accelerates at 60-75% to where asking for a 75% SAD results in a full 100% "killing is evil" alignment hit.

Goblin Squad Member

Areks wrote:
Andius wrote:
I wouldn't. If a bandit offers a 10% SAD and it's refused, then they end up killing their target, they shouldn't take a rep hit for that. It's definitely chaotic. Depending on the target it may also be evil, but if you refuse a 10% SAD then you're kind of spitting in their face and saying "Come and see if you can take it!" And at that point any ensuing PvP is very meaningful.

I honestly can't say whether or not I agree with this until we see how the economy is. If something costs 25gp to craft and the market is only supporting a 35gp price point, that's barely a profit and I think it's the merchant's right to want to keep every bit of that without being penalized.

If the economy supports an item crafted for 25gp being sold for 50gp then 5gp wouldn't be that bad and could see an argument being made for a chaotic shift. Even still, we run into the issue of "what is a fair SAD?"

I don't think a bandit's target would play into what hit they take, good or evil. Killing is still a static evil act. So even if a CG bandit SADs a LE merchant and the merchant refuses, killing the merchant is still and evil act.

What could happen is your hit for a refused SAD is equal to the percentage you asked for the SAD. 10% SAD refused, you only take 10% of a normal "killing is evil" hit to your alignment. This would crest at 75% obviously, as when you kill your target you only get 75% of their loot, so maybe it accelerates at 60-75% to where asking for a 75% SAD results in a full 100% "killing is evil" alignment hit.

I do not think SAD should change anything about the Good/Evil shift of killing targets on either acceptance or refusal. The Good/Evil shift is taken care of through other factors.

However, applying that percentage of hit to Reputation could make sense. People hate the copper piece bandit, but not as much as they hate the gold piece bandit.

Though, we keep talking about %s which is a good guideline for estimated values, but how would you program in an estimated value. If a guy is carrying 7 swords to market, what does a 10% SAD look like? Is it paid in gold? Which market price determines the value? The nearest one? Or is it paid in items? Do you round up to one sword? I picture a SAD being more of a "Give me two of them swords and I won't take all of them off your dead body." type of deal, not a "20% or I kill you and take it all."

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:
we keep talking about %s which is a good guideline for estimated values, but how would you program in an estimated value. If a guy is carrying 7 swords to market, what does a 10% SAD look like? Is it paid in gold? Which market price determines the value? The nearest one? Or is it paid in items? Do you round up to one sword? I picture a SAD being more of a "Give me two of them swords and I won't take all of them off your dead body." type of deal, not a "20% or I kill you and take it all."

Also, we are assuming that the bandit can see your whole inventory on demand. What, if anything in your inventory space would be visible on inspection? Being able to see the full contents of what you are carrying isn't realistic, especially if you are using a hidden pouch in a boot, money belt, or something tucked under your hat to hide something of small size but high value.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
Once the SAD becomes over 50%, I could see where a rep hit might be in order if you aren't at war/feuding with them. Past 50% it starts approaching the "You might as well have just killed them" point.
Lifedragn" wrote:
Though, we keep talking about %s which is a good guideline for estimated values, but how would you program in an estimated value. If a guy is carrying 7 swords to market, what does a 10% SAD look like? Is it paid in gold? Which market price determines the value? The nearest one? Or is it paid in items? Do you round up to one sword? I picture a SAD being more of a "Give me two of them swords and I won't take all of them off your dead body." type of deal, not a "20% or I kill you and take it all."

Maybe the only way to determine what the fair % is is to put it in the merchant's hands. I'm not a big fan of the ability to gift reputation, because it's prone to abuse when used to increase others' rep. A limited ability to burn my rep to hurt someone else is somewhat more balanced.

Maybe the victim gets another pop-up after the SAD is complete. "Was that a fair SAD? Would you talk up or talk down that bandit in your travels?" The victim (and only the victim) gets a one-time chance to burn his own rep to put the bandit down some amount. Or he can not debuff the bandit and it costs him no rep. The rep loss occurs 20 minutes after the SAD to ensure the merchant isn't subsequently killed by the bandit.

If the SAD was fair, the merchant has every reason not to deRep the bandit, because he will meet the bandit again. If the SAD was abusive, he has every reason to deRep the bandit. If the SAD was borderline, the merchant gets to decide how much he wants to anger the bandit.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Life- SADs don't change the static fact that killing is evil on the alignment axis.

@Imbicatus- I would tie what can be seen to the SAD skill proficiency. If they are SAD 30, a minimal portion, SAD 175, a moderate portion, SAD 300 all of it.

SAD on the individual would be "stop and frisk". That hidden boot pouch might get overlooked by SAD 30, but SAD 200 and up would probably catch it.

SAD on a caravan or a group of players would take longer than an individual. This time would decrease as the player's SAD skill increases.

551 to 600 of 2,166 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Could PFO Thrive with No Unsanctioned PvP? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.