Goblin Squad Member
|
Eh... not really. While I'm not opposed to a merchant skill for smuggling, SAD should be its opposing skill check. Having to train two skills to SAD players seems excessive. Also, large items should probably be restricted from smuggling. Kinda hard to hide great axes and full plate in a wagon. Maybe unlocked once your smuggling reaches 200?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.
Even when that merchant is transporting supplies that will be used to kill, oppress, and enslave?
Not all good aligned characters are pacifists. There-are-many-examples-of-violence-for-the-sake-of-good. I would argue robbing evil merchants falls within the realm of vigilantism and should those trigger a much smaller slide toward evil, even if that doesn't affect reputation loss.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The hideout hidden POI was also supposed to be meant as a tool for determining which targets in the area might be good payloads, if I recall.
I feel the term 'fair SAD' is an oxymoron. Fair robbery, fair theft, it doesn't work. It boils down to Acceptable to both sides or not. I think a simple approach is in order.
Bandit offers a SAD. Victim(s) determine if the cost is worth avoiding battle. If they accept, no Rep loss (or potential Rep gain) from bandit and no shift on Good/Evil (no one was killed, but robbing them isn't really benevolent either). If they refuse, Reduced rep loss from bandit for one kill per SAD target within one hour (so they don't come back 3 hours later for that hit, but they might dip back into the shadows to join an ambush team down the road, which may also introduce the notion that the bandit's threat of force could be utter bull - do you risk it?!) - maybe it is half or maybe a quarter, enough that someone using it to game the system will still be hurt through excessive SADs but that someone moderating their demands are not suffering as much as straight out ambushers. Puts some extra focus on getting bandits to figure out what demands might be more likely to be accepted as well. Good/Evil shift for kills after a SAD is independent of being SADed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I made the same argument for good or neutral aligned assassins over a year and a half ago. It got shot down. If that still stands, if a good aligned assassin has to take an evil hit when assassinating an evil character, then so should good bandits when SADing evil merchants.
I whole heartily agree with you that not all good aligned characters are pacifists nor was I implying that they were.
I'm not trying to be confrontational, but it seems like you want to be able to use the same mechanic as Bluddwolf, but if he isn't good, he should take an evil hit for killing a good or neutral. If you are good, and you kill evil, you shouldn't take that same evil hit for committing an evil act.
If the alignment system were dynamic, you would be correct. Dynamic alignment allows for evil acts to be considered good if done against evil. Unfortunately for the both of us, static alignment is what we have to deal with. The alignment hit is based on the action, regardless of mitigating factors. Killing is killing. Killing is evil.
Trust me, I long to play the vigilante assassin, but with this alignment system its not possible because "killing is evil". If "killing is evil" for me, it should be "killing is evil" for everyone, regardless of their play style.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.Even when that merchant is transporting supplies that will be used to kill, oppress, and enslave?
Not all good aligned characters are pacifists. There-are-many-examples-of-violence-for-the-sake-of-good. I would argue robbing evil merchants falls within the realm of vigilantism and should those trigger a much smaller slide toward evil, even if that doesn't affect reputation loss.
You need to rely on another mechanic outside of SAD to determine evil alignment shifts. Additionally, it is nearly impossible to code in 'I killed this guy for totally legitimate Good-aligned reasons'. Being evil does not make killing them a good act if it was done for a selfish reason. And most Falls From Grace come from good folk trying to justify their evil acts through the lens of good.
Perhaps a certain Good Faction fighting an Evil Faction would avoid an evil shift. But that would be independent of the presence of a SAD.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I feel the term 'fair SAD' is an oxymoron. Fair robbery, fair theft, it doesn't work.
How about fair toll? Stand and Deliver is a skill mechanic. It has more possible uses besides banditry.
Interdiction and Tolls are two excellent examples of ways to use SAD in a lawful function. It's not robbery or theft if it is done within the confines of a territory owned by a settlement whose laws allow for it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I made the same argument for good or neutral aligned assassins over a year and a half ago. It got shot down. If that still stands, if a good aligned assassin has to take an evil hit when assassinating an evil character, then so should good bandits when SADing evil merchants.
I whole heartily agree with you that not all good aligned characters are pacifists nor was I implying that they were.
I'm not trying to be confrontational, but it seems like you want to be able to use the same mechanic as Bluddwolf, but if he isn't good, he should take an evil hit for killing a good or neutral. If you are good, and you kill evil, you shouldn't take that same evil hit for committing an evil act.
If the alignment system were dynamic, you would be correct. Dynamic alignment allows for evil acts to be considered good if done against evil. Unfortunately for the both of us, static alignment is what we have to deal with. The alignment hit is based on the action, regardless of mitigating factors. Killing is killing. Killing is evil.
Trust me, I long to play the vigilante assassin, but with this alignment system its not possible because "killing is evil". If "killing is evil" for me, it should be "killing is evil" for everyone, regardless of their play style.
This is going to be an area where folks have to agree to disagree and go with what GW decides. We had this same discussion a long while back (when Keovar was still TEO, as it was largely he and I on the Killing is Evil even if the target is evil stance) and simply went back and forth.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You need to rely on another mechanic outside of SAD to determine evil alignment shifts. Additionally, it is nearly impossible to code in 'I killed this guy for totally legitimate Good-aligned reasons'. Being evil does not make killing them a good act if it was done for a selfish reason. And most Falls From Grace come from good folk trying to justify their evil acts through the lens of good.
Perhaps a certain Good Faction fighting an Evil Faction would avoid an evil shift. But that would be independent of the presence of a SAD.
I agree. The evil shift isn't from the SAD. SAD is either lawful or chaotic. What comes after a SAD is completely up to you... Even in a hostile state.
If Good initiates the SAD and the SAD is refused, Good precipitated that hostile state. Good is the aggressor. Evil has a right to defend itself. It is the same as if you walked up and attacked them. You did the action that led to the hostile state being initiated.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I feel the term 'fair SAD' is an oxymoron. Fair robbery, fair theft, it doesn't work.How about fair toll? Stand and Deliver is a skill mechanic. It has more possible uses besides banditry.
Interdiction and Tolls are two excellent examples of ways to use SAD in a lawful function. It's not robbery or theft if it is done within the confines of a territory owned by a settlement whose laws allow for it.
I 100% agree with Areks. The decision to SAD is completely different than that to kill a merchant who refused a SAD. The bandit does not have to kill anyone. Granted, if the bandit does not keep up his fearsome reputation, s/he will get an increase in SAD refusals. I would actually like to see bandits be able to place a bounty on merchants that refuse their SAD or some similar mechanic that allows bandits to non-violently threaten those they have SAD'ed (this does not "penalize" the victim, only offers the bandit another route for threat...just costs the bandit money as opposed to rep).
Consider this, what would CG Robin Hood and crew do if the non-evil rich people refused to pay? I cannot believe they would kill them...but some threat has to exist of no one would pay. What mechanic would they use?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I feel the term 'fair SAD' is an oxymoron. Fair robbery, fair theft, it doesn't work.How about fair toll? Stand and Deliver is a skill mechanic. It has more possible uses besides banditry.
Interdiction and Tolls are two excellent examples of ways to use SAD in a lawful function. It's not robbery or theft if it is done within the confines of a territory owned by a settlement whose laws allow for it.
I 100% agree with Areks. The decision to SAD is completely different than that to kill a merchant who refused a SAD. The bandit does not have to kill anyone. Granted, if the bandit does not keep up his fearsome reputation, s/he will get an increase in SAD refusals. I would actually like to see bandits be able to place a bounty on merchants that refuse their SAD or some similar mechanic that allows bandits to non-violently threaten those they have SAD'ed (this does not "penalize" the victim, only offers the bandit another route for threat...just costs the bandit money as opposed to rep).
Consider this, what would CG Robin Hood and crew do if the non-evil rich people refused to pay? I cannot believe they would kill them...but some threat has to exist of no one would pay. What mechanic would they use?
The use of SAD for tolls is a good question. I still rarely think about SAD as for being anything other than robbery. It would be my hope that settlements have a different way to enforce tolls, such that SAD can remain a simple mechanic.
As for the CG Robin Hood - that was thrown out the window when non-lethal combat was straight out refused. I believe the idea would be to shoot them in feet and non-vital locations and/or otherwise clobber them into still-living submission. Options we will not have in game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Since they will be determining losses from death with a percentage metric, there is no reason that it could not be applied to the SAD mechanic as well. Just for simplicity.
I was under the impression that it was the hideout POI that would reveal something about what a person or merchant is carrying. Does it really have to be more specific than "and allow the hideout's occupants to determine the nature of passing characters and their gear before triggering an ambush". I don't recall anything about SAD doing that. Correct me if I am wrong here, please. :)
As for Reputation gain or loss, how about simplifying that as well? These numbers are just examples and certainly not advocated as desirable by myself.
The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly SAD:
Good: This SAD is for 25% of a merchant's goodies. It is the most reasonable SAD. If it is successful and honored the Bandit goes off with a small reward to his Reputation.
Bad: This SAD is for 50%. If it is successful and honored the Bandit goes off with no reward to his Reputation.
Ugly: This SAD is for 75%. Least desirable, but the merchant lives and leaves with 25% of his goodies and no damaged gear. If it is successful and honored the Bandit goes off with a small penalty to his Reputation.
Keeping things simple, transactions quick (safer for the Bandit, less annoying for the victim), and rewarding for reasonable SAD's.
The merchant should never take a hit (in any measure) for refusing a SAD and being ready to defend his goods, except the potential loss of all the goodies and damaged gear.
Now all of this would be dependent on GW finding a way to insure that SADs are not a wash-rinse-repeat tool for building Rep or gaming the 20 min timer, but that is the case anyway.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The use of SAD for tolls is a good question. I still rarely think about SAD as for being anything other than robbery. It would be my hope that settlements have a different way to enforce tolls, such that SAD can remain a simple mechanic.
As for the CG Robin Hood - that was thrown out the window when non-lethal combat was straight out refused. I believe the idea would be to shoot them in feet and non-vital locations and/or otherwise clobber them into still-living submission. Options we will not have in game.
I am not sure what you mean by tolls versus robbery. Whats the difference if done via threat?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.Even when that merchant is transporting supplies that will be used to kill, oppress, and enslave?
Not all good aligned characters are pacifists. There-are-many-examples-of-violence-for-the-sake-of-good. I would argue robbing evil merchants falls within the realm of vigilantism and should those trigger a much smaller slide toward evil, even if that doesn't affect reputation loss.
@Andius - You don't have to indulge me, but I would appreciate it if you would.
How is "accepting a SAD and allowing goods meant to kill, oppress, and enslave" different from "accepting a bribe to look the other way"?
Three scenarios come to mind.
1. You SAD an evil caravan with "evil intended goods" and they accept. A good aligned person has looked the other way, while hard to quantify in mechanics, this is clearly an ethically questionable action.
2. You SAD said caravan with an high SAD with the expectation they will reject and you can kill them. Not in the spirit of the mechanic and just another way to suffer less than full penalties for killing evil.
3. You SAD said caravan with an acceptable SAD. They accept the SAD and you kill them anyway. Less ethically questionable than option 1 but you get more loot.
Which of these, if any, is most accurate in regards to your intent and which is most accurate in regards to your statement about not wanting an evil hit because the goods are meant for evil?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Consider this, what would CG Robin Hood and crew do if the non-evil rich people refused to pay? I cannot believe they would kill them...but some threat has to exist of no one would pay. What mechanic would they use?
Sleight of Hand and if attacked, defend and once feasible disengage. Don't know if Sleight of Hand will be in-game, but I hope so.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"Killing is always 100% evil" is an impossible stance to take in a PvP game. If that's a hard line stance then all non-pacifists will eventually end up evil. It would render the good alignment nearly non-playable. Evil slide should be relative to how evil the target killed was, because it can and should be assumed evil characters have done evil things that make attacking them less evil in terms of game mechanics.
That puts me in a very different playstyle than Bluddwolf. He can target anyone he wants because he's evil. I can only target evil players without becoming evil myself, and I still could eventually it's just a much slower slide. Doesn't matter if the neutral good merchant insults me, or is undercutting my market prices, or trading with an organization I don't like. If you're good, I can't attack or rob you.
And as I said in no way does this affect reputation slide, which is where I advocate the big time penalties should be. So if I demand your evil merchant hand over 100% of his goods, I take the same hit I'm advocating Bluddwolf should take unless it's part of a feud.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Consider this, what would CG Robin Hood and crew do if the non-evil rich people refused to pay? I cannot believe they would kill them...but some threat has to exist of no one would pay. What mechanic would they use?Sleight of Hand and if attacked, defend and once feasible disengage. Don't know if Sleight of Hand will be in-game, but I hope so.
Agreed...I think there needs to be a variety of ways to threaten anyone. What if a bandit could spend influence or something similar to "corrupt" a merchant's sponsoring settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am not sure what you mean by tolls versus robbery. Whats the difference if done via threat?The use of SAD for tolls is a good question. I still rarely think about SAD as for being anything other than robbery. It would be my hope that settlements have a different way to enforce tolls, such that SAD can remain a simple mechanic.
As for the CG Robin Hood - that was thrown out the window when non-lethal combat was straight out refused. I believe the idea would be to shoot them in feet and non-vital locations and/or otherwise clobber them into still-living submission. Options we will not have in game.
Legal legitimacy. The Toll attack is punishment for the Criminal Action of refusing to pay. Toll roads in real life also operate on threat of force. If you rack up hundreds of dollars in unpaid tolls, the police are likely to come and haul you to jail. However, we do not believe PFO will have jails to send people to, and thus lethal force becomes the only way to enforce the law.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As as I side note I do think SAD's can be measured by the value of what a person is carrying. We will have EVE style markets so we should have EVE style estimates of cargo value. Take the average buying/selling price on the public markets and base the value of an item off that.
50% of the value of your inventory is the value of 50% of all your unthreaded items combine.
Sure, prices may vary depending on region and circumstance but overall it's a pretty good indicator of the value of what you're carrying.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Legal legitimacy. The Toll attack is punishment for the Criminal Action of refusing to pay. Toll roads in real life also operate on threat of force. If you rack up hundreds of dollars in unpaid tolls, the police are likely to come and haul you to jail. However, we do not believe PFO will have jails to send people to, and thus lethal force becomes the only way to enforce the law.I am not sure what you mean by tolls versus robbery. Whats the difference if done via threat?The use of SAD for tolls is a good question. I still rarely think about SAD as for being anything other than robbery. It would be my hope that settlements have a different way to enforce tolls, such that SAD can remain a simple mechanic.
As for the CG Robin Hood - that was thrown out the window when non-lethal combat was straight out refused. I believe the idea would be to shoot them in feet and non-vital locations and/or otherwise clobber them into still-living submission. Options we will not have in game.
Except in RL those who run toll roads usually belong to a government or organization that has legitimate claim to "ownership" of the road. No one in the river kingdoms can claim the road in such a way to justify a toll...that is even a river kingdom law. As such, any toll is illegitimate, hence banditry.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Except in RL those who run toll roads usually belong to a government or organization that has legitimate claim to "ownership" of the road. No one in the river kingdoms can claim the road in such a way to justify a toll...that is even a river kingdom law. As such, any toll is illegitimate, hence banditry.Legal legitimacy. The Toll attack is punishment for the Criminal Action of refusing to pay. Toll roads in real life also operate on threat of force. If you rack up hundreds of dollars in unpaid tolls, the police are likely to come and haul you to jail. However, we do not believe PFO will have jails to send people to, and thus lethal force becomes the only way to enforce the law.I am not sure what you mean by tolls versus robbery. Whats the difference if done via threat?The use of SAD for tolls is a good question. I still rarely think about SAD as for being anything other than robbery. It would be my hope that settlements have a different way to enforce tolls, such that SAD can remain a simple mechanic.
As for the CG Robin Hood - that was thrown out the window when non-lethal combat was straight out refused. I believe the idea would be to shoot them in feet and non-vital locations and/or otherwise clobber them into still-living submission. Options we will not have in game.
River Kingdoms are not beholden to the River Freedoms. There is no enforcement bureau. Whereas most kingdoms will respect them, not all of them do. If you go and try to tell an area of the RK run by the Hellknights that their little toll road stop is illegitimate, or that it is illegal in the River Kingdoms to engage in slavery, what do you think their reaction is going to be? The lack of actual government authority in the region means that no law is actually being broken. They are guidelines at best.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My statement is based off of...
Yet regardless of each specific
kingdom’s creed or goal, they all share one rough code of
justice called the Six River Freedoms. Not all honor the code,
but enough do that it serves as a sort of shorthand for the
independence that all people of the River Kingdoms hold
dear, the closest thing this region has to a common ground
and shared legacy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Except, that being the case...the Hellknight's feeling that they have the right to take my stuff is functionally no different than that of Bluddwolf's. Both feel they are not beholden to the River Freedoms...and should be treated identically.
But the Hellknights may, and probably do, have a legitimate government ruling over their claimed territory. As a Lawful group, that tends to be their Modus Operandi.
The question is how does one define Legitimacy?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My statement is based off of...
Yet regardless of each specific
kingdom’s creed or goal, they all share one rough code of
justice called the Six River Freedoms. Not all honor the code,
but enough do that it serves as a sort of shorthand for the
independence that all people of the River Kingdoms hold
dear, the closest thing this region has to a common ground
and shared legacy.
Right, I agree with you...it is each faction and "settlement's" choice to uphold them or not.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly SAD:
Good: This SAD is for 25% of a merchant's goodies. It is the most reasonable SAD. If it is successful and honored the Bandit goes off with a small reward to his Reputation.
Bad: This SAD is for 50%. If it is successful and honored the Bandit goes off with no reward to his Reputation.
Ugly: This SAD is for 75%. Least desirable, but the merchant lives and leaves with 25% of his goodies and no damaged gear. If it is successful and honored the Bandit goes off with a small penalty to his Reputation.
Keeping things simple, transactions quick (safer for the Bandit, less annoying for the victim), and rewarding for reasonable SAD's.
Honestly, like I told Andius, it is my belief that this won't be something that can be judged until we see what the economy is like.
If a merchant is carrying 25gp worth of items and his profit is only 10gp, SADing for 25% will leave him with less than 5gp profit. Is that more or less than the cost of crafting the item? We don't know.
Let's say a SAD with rep boost is 10% not 25%, since you were just throwing numbers out there.
With 25gp worth of items, a rep boosting SAD would be 3gp. If 3gp isn't viewed as a reasonably acceptable profit, they are going to ask for higher. This is going to make SAD a non-viable way to increase REP while being productive for something other than REP grinding. You will have to choose profit or REP. Most of the people doing the SADs will choose profit all day and increase the pool of low REP characters.
You've got to give the bad guys that play by the rules ways to stay high rep. Providing meaningful PvP interaction should result in a non-grindable type of REP gain.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Except, that being the case...the Hellknight's feeling that they have the right to take my stuff is functionally no different than that of Bluddwolf's. Both feel they are not beholden to the River Freedoms...and should be treated identically.But the Hellknights may, and probably do, have a legitimate government ruling over their claimed territory. As a Lawful group, that tends to be their Modus Operandi.
The question is how does one define Legitimacy?
Ah, but they only own that piece of land through threat of force...they have what they hold. As such, just as it is their right to recognize or not the River Freedoms, I have a right to recognize or not their threat of force. Hence, even that toll is done a knife point, even if the threat is not immediate.
The difference between this and a legitimate toll (such as in RL), were I a member of the Hell Knights, my requirement to pay the toll is more about duty or social contract (that I implicitly or explicitly agreed to when joining the Hellknights and perpetuate through continued association).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You've got to give the bad guys that play by the rules ways to stay high rep. Providing meaningful PvP interaction should result in a non-grindable type of REP gain.
I think the easy way to stay high rep is to bring enough force that the merchant knows he's going to die and lose everything if he fights, but pitch the SAD low enough that he accepts and you don't lose rep. Smart and careful keeps the rep up; greedy and prone to violence loses it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As far as rep gains from SADs, I've hit on this in another topic but they are too gameable to be of any value to this game.
I just deliver SAD's to friends, alts, alts of friends, rich players with tons of alts that hire them out for SAD rep grinds, my alliance does a SAD rep swap with another alliance where we both SAD each-other, accept, and reap tons of rep.
There are many, many, many ways to game it to the point that it renders reputation is meaningless like alignment was in Darkfall when you could gain it for killing reds.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except, that being the case...the Hellknight's feeling that they have the right to take my stuff is functionally no different than that of Bluddwolf's. Both feel they are not beholden to the River Freedoms...and should be treated identically.But the Hellknights may, and probably do, have a legitimate government ruling over their claimed territory. As a Lawful group, that tends to be their Modus Operandi.
The question is how does one define Legitimacy?
Ah, but they only own that piece of land through threat of force...they have what they hold. As such, just as it is their right to recognize or not the River Freedoms, I have a right to recognize or not their threat of force. Hence, even that toll is done a knife point, even if the threat is not immediate.
The difference between this and a legitimate toll (such as in RL), were I a member of the Hell Knights, my requirement to pay the toll is more about duty or social contract (that I implicitly or explicitly agreed to when joining the Hellknights and perpetuate through continued association).
You implicitly agree to follow their laws when passing through their region as well. If a foreigner were to enter the USA and try to use a toll road and then refuse to pay because "his homeland does not recognize the right to charge for use of roads", he would be considered to be enacting a crime. He cannot rightfully claim "Your threat of imprisonment is illegitimate!"
If Arek's settlement decides to lay a toll for their regions (which I doubt as they wish to encourage trade from my understanding) then that will be a legitimate toll so long as their Settlement laws are applicable to the hex. Otherwise, breaking settlement laws should never be a chaotic act because you could say that the settlements are not legitimate governments and lack the rights to do so.
The difference between a toll and robbery at this point would be that a toll would give the option to turn back without harm as well. The threat of force would come from refusing to pay AND continuing to advance on the toll road.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Except in RL those who run toll roads usually belong to a government or organization that has legitimate claim to "ownership" of the road. No one in the river kingdoms can claim the road in such a way to justify a toll...that is even a river kingdom law. As such, any toll is illegitimate, hence banditry.
But we can exert legitimate control over hexes. If that road passes through a hex someone controls, they are subject to their laws. While contrary to the River Kingdom laws, according to game mechanics, tolls could be completely legal, thus lawful.
Also, it's worth pointing out that killing someone and taking their stuff is also allowed under River Kingdom law, as long as you don't ambush them, however game mechanics will likely quantify that as chaotic, not lawful.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You implicitly agree to follow their laws when passing through their region as well.
Conceded. Well argued, thank you for helping me see your perspective.
So a toll can only exist when those who are known to legitimately control an area demand it. Without that control, it can never be more than banditry.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Before people start wondering what TEO and Brighthaven will tax to use roads under our influence, I'm strongly opposed to any taxation of public roads and waterways, and will fight any proposal to do so tooth and nail, and flat out refuse to enforce any such measure if it is passed. I don't give a damn about the River Freedoms but on this point I agree with them. I will never stoop to the role of toll collector. Our roads should belong to all who are not our enemies.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You implicitly agree to follow their laws when passing through their region as well.Conceded. Well argued, thank you for helping me see your perspective.
So a toll can only exist when those who are known to legitimately control an area demand it. Without that control, it can never be more than banditry.
Not really a point I desired arguing, to be honest. I tend to be fairly pro-liberty and dislike the notion of including toll roads in the game. But I felt it was important to advocate for what I felt was the most realistic perspective, even if I do not fully appreciate that reality. Though I have enjoyed the mental exercise of the back and forth discussion!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As far as rep gains from SADs, I've hit on this in another topic but they are too gameable to be of any value to this game.
I just deliver SAD's to friends, alts, alts of friends, rich players with tons of alts that hire them out for SAD rep grinds, my alliance does a SAD rep swap with another alliance where we both SAD each-other, accept, and reap tons of rep.
There are many, many, many ways to game it to the point that it renders reputation is meaningless like alignment was in Darkfall when you could gain it for killing reds.
Daily diminishing returns are the way to combat this. You could also cap the amount of REP you can regain in a 24 hour period.
People that want to be boarder line are always going to be boarder line, no matter if that boarder is -5000 or 0. If they care about REP, they'll stay close to the boarder.
I don't think that making REP un-grindable is the answer. It's to make that grind painfully proportionate to the number and severity of the actions that made them fall.
Going on a slaughter fest prior to vacation is significantly different than ganking a few newbie players once or twice a month.
I think REP hits should take into account frequency. If I kill someone outside of the "meaningful PvP" arena, I will take a REP hit. The significance of that REP hit should take into account my previous REP hits for this same action.
Was it last month? Last week? Yesterday? A few hours ago? A few minutes ago? A few seconds ago?
Just my opinion, but after I "force PvP" two to three people, my REP gets a REP hit multiplier. Another "force PvP" I take the normal REP hit x 1.25. Then 1.50, 2.0, 3.0. The REP decline is tied to the frequency of the action.
Once you break low REP, -2500, you REP regeneration rate gets a modifier as well. From -2500 to -3500 you recover rate is reduced to 80%. -5000 could be 50%. -7500 would be something as low as 10%.
Here is the caveat. If you are logged in and playing, your REP regeneration penalty is decreased by 20%. You are in the game, dealing with the consequences of your actions, not vacationing for a month, letting your REP rebuild.
Going from -7500 to -5000 should take 6 months. From -5000 to -2500, 3 months. -2500 to 0, a month.
With a REP hit modifier in place, you can go from +7500 to -7500 in a day.
My only concern is that all alignments and archetypes have equal opportunity to gain REP. Likewise, all alignments and archetypes should have equal advancement opportunities.
Ways to gain REP should be meaningful and fun, and everyone should have equal opportunity to play the game in a meaningful, fun, and mechanical rewarding way. It doesn't matter if its a merchant, a crafter, a paladin, an archer, a necromancer, a tyrant, or a death knight.
Personally, I would like to see all training facilities closed to anyone with REP below -5000. Only Basic training allowed for characters with REP above -2500. If you want to advance your character, you can't be a jerk. If you want to earn a merit badge at all, you've got to have REP above 0. This renders a low-REP settlement completely useless for training and character advancement. At least this would give those wishing to play CE by the rules a chance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Though I have enjoyed the mental exercise of the back and forth discussion!It's a staple of The Seventh Veil :)
Glad to see some things have changed =) I'm sure it would have helped if I hadn't been so "aggressively vocal" in arguing my points back then, but it is what it is I guess.
And yes, I got off early today ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
*looks at the pace of the posts*
Is everyone off work today or something?
As the holidays approach, the communal slacking at the office tends to grow in intensity. I would imagine that holds true for most folks not in retail (who sees the opposite effect). And most retail folks don't get much internet access during the work-day.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Killing is always 100% evil" is an impossible stance to take in a PvP game. If that's a hard line stance then all non-pacifists will eventually end up evil. It would render the good alignment nearly non-playable. Evil slide should be relative to how evil the target killed was, because it can and should be assumed evil characters have done evil things that make attacking them less evil in terms of game mechanics.
I agree for the most part. GW has given us some exclusions, such as war, the right to defend yourself from an aggressor, factions, feuds etc.
Still, if Good initiates an activity that leads to a hostile state with evil, such as a rejected SAD, Good has to take an evil hit for killing the target regardless of what alignment they were. Your action precipitated the hostile state. In Good's defense, if the Evil alignment hit were proportionate to the percentage requested for SAD, the evil hit would likely be minimal.
Again, this is marginalizing one instance where Good would possibly take a partial alignment hit for killing. If you just run out and kill an evil character because they are evil, that doesn't change the fact that you just killed someone.
My point is you didn't have to stop and confront the evil character. You chose to. If you do it through SAD, and you don't offer something acceptable to them and you kill them, you initiated that conflict and killed them. Your consequence for that action should be modified based on how acceptable your offer was.
If they belong to a rival faction, no penalty. If you are at war, no penalty. But if Bluddwolf is going to take an evil hit for killing someone that doesn't accept a SAD, which currently is the case, then so should Andius.
Again, it is very unfortunate that the alignment system cannot accommodate intentions and see the merit of "violence for the sake of Good" outside of what GW has establish as "consequence free" PvP, cause I'm seriously itching to role my vigilante assassin.
For the record, Bludd is neutral, so he will take an evil hit if he targets good and they don't accept.
My previous statement of "Killing is killing. Killing is evil." was meant in the context alignment in the game. Of course, that stance as you said would indeed make playing Good impossible if every time you killed someone you took an evil hit.
What I am saying is the devs have stated that if you initiate a hostile state with someone and kill them, outside of "meaningful PvP", you will take an evil hit to your alignment. Right now, the conflict that results from a rejected SAD is not exempt from alignment penalty. If you are able kill someone after a rejected SAD without an alignment hit, so should Bluddwolf.
To further accentuate my point, if CN Bluddwolf SADs another Neutral, and they reject and Bluddwolf kills them, what direction should his alignment go and why? If I follow the logic of "basing consequences off of how evil the target is" the following happens.
Bluddwolf kills a Good Rejected SAD = Evil Shift.
Bluddwolf kills an Evil Rejected SAD = No Shift.
By that logic, correct me if I am wrong, but if Bluddwolf kills a Neutral Rejected SAD, there should be a moderate evil shift, as he and his target are equally away from evil.
You might argue that he should take a full evil shift because the neutral target was not evil.
Now if we use that logic what kind of shift does evil take when it kills evil? If there is no shift, then how does evil become good? We have established a path for good and neutral to become evil by killing those not evil. Why can evil not move back to good by killing evil?
I would argue that evil killing evil doesn't result in a good shift, because the act of killing is evil. What do you think about evil killing evil to become good?
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the subject of loopholes: Expect any loophole which allows behavior which is undesired (by Goblinworks) to be closed; expect any loophole which allows intended or retrospectively desirable behavior to remain open. That may mean massive changes, overhauls, or removal of entire mechanics if necessary.
And I think the best cost of a SAD offer would be influence: A group must have a certain minimum influence to offer a SAD; if it is refused, they lose that influence and the group that refused it gains that much- also, they become valid targets to the issuing group with regards to at least the reputation mechanics, and probably the alignment mechanics. If the targets are killed by the issuing group within a short timeframe, the influence involved reverts back to the bandits. I'm uncertain if the net effect should be zero, positive, or negative-sum for each of those cases, but the net effect should be small even when lots of influence changes hands as the result of a successful sting operation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As SAD is a trainable ability, there should be no cost. This will lead to play types using the SAD being deficient in influence. We've yet to hear a great deal about what influence faucets there will be. Having play styles revolve around it's possible expenditure seems a bit premature.
I agree with the general idea that the outcome of a SAD could impact influence, I just think we need to hear more about the scale of influence's use in general before we start tagging abilities that can be used multiple times a day with an influence cost.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Areks
There has to be a certain level of disconnect between the tabletop's alignment and PFO's alignment.
To summarize the alignments in the tabletop.
Good- Benevolent. Acts selflessly in the interest of others. Generally believes the innocent must be sheltered and assisted.
Neutral- Act's in one's or self interest without harming others balances the harm they do with benevolence. Generally believes the welfare of those outside their social circles is none of their concern.
Evil- Selfish. Acts in one's own self interest at the expense of others. Generally believes the weak deserve to be dominated or weeded out.
If an agent of evil kills an agent of evil in that system, whether it is a good or evil act depends on whether the intent was selfish or benevolent. If a devil kills a demon because he's a challenge to his power then that's evil. If a devil kills a demon because he's seeking redemption and attempting to prevent that demon from doing more harm, that's good.
The game can't measure this for two reasons:
- The game doesn't know your motivations.
- There are no methods for measuring benevolence that aren't easily abused.
So in PFO alignments need to look like this instead.
Good- Very seldomly commits actions that the game considers evil.
Neutral- Occasionally commits actions that the game considers evil.
Evil- Frequently commits actions that the game considers evil.
Because there is likely to be no good method for gaining good alignment through benevolent acts, if good is to be allowed to engage in meaningful conflict, killing and robbing players should affect your good-evil axis in this manner.
Good- Gives lots of evil points when killed.
Neutral- Gives moderate evil points when killed.
Evil- Gives few evil points when killed.
Certain circumstances should negate or reduce that effect, such as wars, feuds, and refused SADs. As to refusing an SAD giving evil points, I would disagree. The person delivering the SAD is driving the entire conflict. However I would be open to the idea that whoever shoots first after the SAD is refused takes the hit.
Good- Selfish. Acts out of their own self-interest and thereby gives the most to the world and moves it forward.
Evil - Altruistic. Drags down the world and pulls it backwards by punishing those who produce for the sake of those too weak or lazy to provide any real value.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good- Selfish. Acts out of their own self-interest and thereby gives the most to the world and moves it forward.
Evil - Altruistic. Drags down the world and pulls it backwards by punishing those who produce for the sake of those too weak or lazy to provide any real value.
Evil: Selectively reinterprets so as to associate positive connotations with themselves, rather than making choices so as to associate themselves with positive actions.
Evil: Selectively reinterprets so as to associate positive connotations with themselves, rather than making choices so as to associate themselves with positive actions.Good- Selfish. Acts out of their own self-interest and thereby gives the most to the world and moves it forward.
Evil - Altruistic. Drags down the world and pulls it backwards by punishing those who produce for the sake of those too weak or lazy to provide any real value.
*Shrugs*
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Good- Selfish. Acts out of their own self-interest and thereby gives the most to the world and moves it forward.
Evil - Altruistic. Drags down the world and pulls it backwards by punishing those who produce for the sake of those too weak or lazy to provide any real value.
Moral relativism - Not applicable to the PFO universe. ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Still, if Good initiates an activity that leads to a hostile state with evil, such as a rejected SAD, Good has to take an evil hit for killing the target regardless of what alignment they were. Your action precipitated the hostile state. In Good's defense, if the Evil alignment hit were proportionate to the percentage requested for SAD, the evil hit would likely be minimal.
As to refusing an SAD giving evil points, I would disagree. The person delivering the SAD is driving the entire conflict.
We are arguing the same point there.
I don't recall saying that "refusing a SAD gives evil points". The person who stops the target to SAD them should take the evil hit if a refusal results in conflict.
As you said, the person delivering the SAD is driving the entire conflict, thus they take the hit.
The only thing a SAD should do alignment wise is work the Law vs Chaos axis. SAD is either Legal or Illegal.
The potential conflict after the SAD is either evil or it's not.
Again, what I see missing here, is how does evil become good in the game?