Goblin Squad Member
|
Getting back to discussions concerning UNC policies, I would like to bring up the issue and possible response to 3rd party reaction to criminal flags.
* A Criminal Flag is earned when an action is taken within a PC or NPC settlement hex is declared illegal by the laws of that settlement.
* Unlike Hostility, Criminal Flags can be seen by everyone, with possible exception of members of the criminal's own player group, company, settlement, or kingdom.
* Criminal Flags are not attached to actions in the absence of settlement laws.
These three points are based on my understanding of the criminal flagging system. I welcome any correction if it differs from a Dev response.
My policy, and I hope to present it as UNC policy, towards 3rd party interlopers into our criminal activities.
1. I (We) will be prepared for such a possibility before we trigger a criminal flag.
2. We may trigger criminal flags for the sole purpose of baiting 3rd party interlopers into responding.
3. We will almost always travel in a force meant to give us a variety of advantages.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Considering the recent debacle with the other thread to discuss UNC policy issues that others may have, I personally, will only discuss UNC policy in this thread.
If UNC policy is brought up in another thread, it will be a statement of what our policy is, based on the available information that we have at that time. In other threads I will not debate policy, only state it.
If forum goers want a better understanding or want to discuss our policies, this is the place I will direct you to.
@Being
You may consider this a proprietary thread of the UNC to advance our brand. Although that is not our intent with this thread, I see nothing wrong if some wish to perceive it or treat it that way.
As a policy the UNC will be participating in the Guide Program. We will be attempting to bring as many would-be bandits under our tutelage. I have little doubt that this goal will prove itself as a program that is for the good of the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a policy the UNC will be participating in the Guide Program. We will be attempting to bring as many would-be bandits under our tutelage. I have little doubt that this goal will prove itself as a program that is for the good of the game.
As long as banditry is a GW accepted role, teaching new players how to be a bandit is every bit as acceptable as teaching any other role. Given the game mechanics of SAD, hideouts, etc., I think it's safe to say that banditry is a "sanctioned" role or play style. My only request would be to teach new player how to be bandits within the accepted parameters of the game rules...but again...that would be the expectation for any Guide and for any role they are teaching.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a policy the UNC will be participating in the Guide Program. We will be attempting to bring as many would-be bandits under our tutelage. I have little doubt that this goal will prove itself as a program that is for the good of the game.As long as banditry is a GW accepted role, teaching new players how to be a bandit is every bit as acceptable as teaching any other role. Given the game mechanics of SAD, hideouts, etc., I think it's safe to say that banditry is a "sanctioned" role or play style. My only request would be to teach new player how to be bandits within the accepted parameters of the game rules...but again...that would be the expectation for any Guide and for any role they are teaching.
The guidance that we offer will focus on:
Ambush
Raids ( Outposts, POIs)
Caravans
Feuds
SADs
Gaining Influence
Contracting: Banditry, Assassinations, and Mercenary.
Inflicting Economic or Corruption Damage to a Settlement
How to avoid becoming Low Reputation + Chaotic Evil
When to accept Reputation Loss as part of Risk vs. Reward calculations
How not to "over fish the pond"
Database of Actions that GW has warned against
Creating a support network for bandit operations
Knowing Local / Regional Markets
There will likely be additions to this list, as well as potential removals.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My only request would be to teach new player how to be bandits within the accepted parameters of the game rules.
Any rules that Goblin Works sets as the parameters of player behavior will be encouraged, and personally followed by me.
If an action of mine receives a warning from a GM or other GW employee, that action will be added to our own database of actions to be avoided.
If an action is made general knowledge as being prohibited by GW, that information will be reiterated to our members and trainees.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Here is the recent post that I believe gave rise to the misconceptions being presented in the other thread:
"We will just SAD for max, forcing people to fight (good) or declining, so we can kill them without concequences. Even if they accept, we will just kill them with low rep alts"This last part to my best recollection has never been said as something we would do. It may be possible to do and that may have been discussed, but not something in our best interests.
We have also stated that we would not "over fish the same pond". We will not single out any particular settlement or group of players (company), unless we are in an active feud or they have been placed in our hostile status. We plan to move around and be somewhat unpredictable.
I have said it before, a SAD is not our preferred activity. We give up ambush to use it. We also have to train it and slot it. We also have to "set up" future SADs with a meta game reputation that the traveler is better off accepting the SAD than rejecting it. That will take effort and time, and low demand SADs to establish that, and quite frankly, ambush and slaughter would be easier.
SADs I believe may turn out to be the tactic of a fledgling bandit. They might also be used as a means of transferring payment between a mercenary bandit company and their employer. They could also be the mechanic used as part of a pre arranged extortion racketeering ring. SADs may also be used as an interdiction tool to search cargo passing through an area, by forces that feel they have the ability or right to do so.
We intend to use ganking as our primary PvP method. Our use of that term is in the context of using overwhelming force to achieve our objectives. We are not looking for fair fights, we are looking for lower risk vs. higher rewards. If you don't want to fall prey to us or others like the UNC, then don't present that profile.
None of this is anything new. We in the UNC have been saying this for over a year.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@hobs You mentioned bandits as if you were unsure that is an a "GW sanctioned role" and I am willing to bet that it is. It would be almost like the "Basic" bad guy. I mean like the main threat from PC's outside of a feud/war. They would be the main reason for hiring caravan guards. Sure the random monster from an escalation could happen by, but IMHO I think bandits would be a more likely threat. With the introduction of raiding, I feel bandits would also be Raiders when not SADing caravans. I know we at the UNC will be both, in addition to a few other "skills."
To get back more specifically to the OP of this thread, and as bludd had said recently, UNC policy should and will only be discussed here. This thread was created with the intend to display and discuss UNC policy. As should always be understood on these forums, any and all of the info posted here is subject to change as the game evolves into the MVP ready for EE, as well as how the UNC evolves upon gaining the information from blogs and posts from devs.
Nothing is set in stone, except the core concepts of UNC being a bandit/raider company that generally houses the "bad guys" of PFO. That is 100% not going to change, unless they play style is removed from PFO. Since I do not believe that to be a possibly, I am not concerned that it would ever need to change. This is our chosen role in PFO and we welcome the freedoms and challenged that come with it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bandits are a sanctioned role.
I'm just not sure if the current system allows for them to be a viable long-term goal.
I'm eager to see how this turns out.
The same has always been thought about low sec pirates and through good planning and the use of support alts, they have been viable for over 10 years.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@hobs You mentioned bandits as if you were unsure that is an a "GW sanctioned role" and I am willing to bet that it is.
I'm not unsure. If you look back at my post, I even list game provided mechanics that promote banditry. I was making the case that it is as acceptable a role as any other in the game, and therefore acceptable to have Guides teaching new players how to be bandits.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Cirolle
I have never said I would SAD a traveler and then after he accepts it, attack him with alts. That is counter productive to everything the UNC has said as our policy. It is not good business.
In order for SADs to work, that means being accepted, the following must be established:
1. The SAD must be a good option for us to use in that encounter.
2. The SAD offer must be reasonable. What us "Reasonable" will eventually become known through experience.
3. The UNC must have already established our reputation for being a formidable opponent and reliable in honoring a SAD when it has been agreed to.
If those three things are not done, the SAD system will be largely useless.
The second point I'd like to make is the theory that you might be confusing making a SAD offer that is designed to be declined and attacking after a SAD offer has been accepted.
There will be certain circumstances where a SAD offer will be made in the hopes that it woukd be turned down. This is very different than attacking after an offer has been accepted.
What has possibly confused your interpretation of our policy is one of our members (perhaps even myself) was speaking to what is possible given our understanding of the proposed mechanics of the game. That is not the same thing as saying that will be a practice of ours, common or even rarely.
Disclaimer: if you are asking, would we never, ever, ever do it..... Like not in a million encounters? In that case I would have to say, it depends on the circumstances of that very, very, very rare situation.
Making the choice to lose reputation, on any character, is working within the reputation system as it is designed. When losing reputation the aggressor has apparently has calculated the risk of losing rep was outweighed by the reward hoped to be gained.
As you pointed out, Ryan Dancey has acknowledged that having low rep alts will be common place. The UNC has not created that possibility, but we do see the potential value of using them in limited occasions and for limited situations. Those limitations do not include following an accepted SAD.
I also don't believe that when Ryan said "common place" he was referring to just organizations such as UNC. Low Rep alts actually have more value to high reputation, good aligned settlements than they do for cutthroats such as the UNC.
I hope that clears up some of your misconceptions. I also hope that your group does intend to give PFO a try. EE has not even begun yet, and it will be more than a year (prediction) before settlement vs, settlement conflict finds its implementation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Now, now. No reason to drag out the nukes.Are you some kind of politician or something?
A lawyer?
In some small measure, I'm actually both. Or all three, if I include Being's mentioning of nukes. I'm an elected official in my union. I've been trained as a defense advocate and in arbitrations and contract negotiations. In my training I specialize in looking at a case and finding the holes in it or creating those holes. So in a way I don't focus on making a case, but destroying one.
I've had 13 cases that have gone to hearings, and I have won all of them. I have a perfect record because I'm very selective in the cases I take. I also get a majority of my cases reconciled in pre hearing procedures (Step One), and a number of those I get settled before step one, with a private conversation with the school administrator (Principal). I usually do that by painting a doomsday picture of how the administrator's own mistakes contributed to the circumstances and that the hearing would make those public. I also frequently point out how the system itself is broken and the effort is futile on the part of the administrator. Both of those ploys usually work because they are both at least partially accurate.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Let us just say, the way [Bluddwolf] and Xeen have presented how UNC will do certain things, have taken a few people away from the game.
For now at least.
I sincerely hope that you keep an eye on PFO. It's a Herculean task trying to paint an accurate picture of PFO for folks who come here uncertain of what to expect and resolved not to play a murder simulator.
If you are one of those people who doesn't like the idea of PvP we ask for you to keep an open mind. We're well aware of the kind of non-fun experiences that PvP has created in some games, and we think we have lots of ideas on ways to keep misbehavior under control in Pathfinder Online. We think that you'll find that the heightened sense of meaning that comes from knowing that you're up against not just scripted AI monsters but wily, creative, motivated human opponents will deliver some of the most exciting and memorable gaming you've ever experienced.
Despite what Some Folks(TM) say, I'm actually very interested in PvP. I think it's awesome that it will be possible for other players to destroy my Settlement. I think it's fantastic that it will be possible for Bandits to ambush me from their Hideouts. I think it's brilliant that Assassins will be able to stack Observed counters on me in my own Settlement, and I long for the sense of urgency and fear that's going to give me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Let us just say, the way [Bluddwolf] and Xeen have presented how UNC will do certain things, have taken a few people away from the game.
For now at least.I sincerely hope that you keep an eye on PFO. It's a Herculean task trying to paint an accurate picture of PFO for folks who come here uncertain of what to expect and resolved not to play a murder simulator.
If you are one of those people who doesn't like the idea of PvP we ask for you to keep an open mind. We're well aware of the kind of non-fun experiences that PvP has created in some games, and we think we have lots of ideas on ways to keep misbehavior under control in Pathfinder Online. We think that you'll find that the heightened sense of meaning that comes from knowing that you're up against not just scripted AI monsters but wily, creative, motivated human opponents will deliver some of the most exciting and memorable gaming you've ever experienced.Despite what Some Folks(TM) say, I'm actually very interested in PvP. I think it's awesome that it will be possible for other players to destroy my Settlement. I think it's fantastic that it will be possible for Bandits to ambush me from their Hideouts. I think it's brilliant that Assassins will be able to stack Observed counters on me in my own Settlement, and I long for the sense of urgency and fear that's going to give me.
The Herculean task seems to be to address the actual concern of the poster. Cirolle specifically wrote about the use of low rep alts, not PvP in the general sense.
There is zero chance of PFO becoming a murder simulator according to Ryan's definition of what that looks like, so I'm left wondering why you keep bringing that up.
Do you disagree with Ryan's definition?
I suspect it probably stunned some of you that Ryan said that EvE was absolutely not a murder sim.
@ Cirolle,
I will meet with the council of the UNC and see if we can draft an official policy on our use of low rep alts, which I referred to as "Monsters in the Basement".
I think you might actually see that their use might be more limited than you believe, although still pretty common place as Ryan also seems to expect.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cirolle,
"Monsters in the Basement" are not needed in a SAD. I actually explained elsewhere why they would actually be less desired to use in a SAD situation, but I'll reiterate it here. It maybe more detailed here than previously stated, but I think it should be 95% the same.
A "Monster in the Basement" is used when the player does not wish to be connected to the activity through his main character.
A "Monster in the Basement" is not used where the main character has the ability to be used, or is better suited to be used.
A "Monster in the Basement" is not used in a situation that is not going to generate negative reputation,
If I am issuing a SAD offer, that I am hopeful will be rejected (for whatever reasons)the last thing I want is to be facing combat with my less skilled and equipped "Monster in the Basement". Remember, in the SAD, I have already given up the tactical advantage of surprise / ambush.
I could see using a "Monster in the Basement" if I have been contracted (secretly) to reap as much havoc in someone's settlement without the influence cost or the cost of negative reputation for my main character.
This I do not believe is working outside of the Reputation System, because the "Monster in the Basement" is suffering the consequences of the actions.
Ryan Dancey I believe came down on the side that they would be commonly used (and I'm taking your word for it that he did), based on two possibilities:
1. It can not be mechanically stopped. Players will have alts, and there is no way to prevent them from playing them to be low reputation.
2. It does not violate the system, but actually works within it. Not everyone can or has the desire to multibox. So if such a person is using his or her "Monster in the Basement", they will not be playing their more highly skilled, and equipped "Main" toon. That is the trade off.
However, as I stated earlier, the UNC is currently discussing the use of "Monster in the Basement" and our policy for their use will eventually be presented here.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@hobs You mentioned bandits as if you were unsure that is an a "GW sanctioned role" and I am willing to bet that it is.I'm not unsure. If you look back at my post, I even list game provided mechanics that promote banditry. I was making the case that it is as acceptable a role as any other in the game, and therefore acceptable to have Guides teaching new players how to be bandits.
I misread then. I retract my statement. Glad to see I can open my "Earn money by killing people" tent your "the newbie guide area." :-)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just my personal views on the "Monsters in the basement" concept (as posted in the UNC forums) are that I will most likely NOT use them. I try to be particular with how my time is spent, especially when I am paying to use it. As such, Why would I bother putting time and effort, even just a little, into a character that is basically a throw away? 1 example of an alt for me would be if we can play middleman with assassin contracts and I don't want people to know IG that Goodfellow is ACTAULLY 'The Goodfellow' and so I use an alt (not low rep, but average or just 0 what ever I start out as) to gain the contract and mail or otherwise leave for my main.
As bludd stated, this is still being discussed as a whole for a company policy, but I wanted to show that not everyone intends to use "Low rep alts" even if they are "Allowed" by GW. I don't believe (or maybe just don't WANT to believe) that I am alone in this view.
@Cirolle, I apologize if it is true that bludd and/or xeen (or any member of UNC for that matter) is the cause/reason that your group isn't even considering PFO. I still have high hopes that this will in fact be the game that DDO never was and that us D&D/PF players have been seeking in a MMO format. I do ask that you, or possibly others from your group, keep an eye on PFO and see how it evolves of the next 2 years (Roughly when OE occurs) and see if you still feel the same then. Your perception might change between now and then.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just my personal views on the "Monsters in the basement" concept (as posted in the UNC forums) are that I will most likely NOT use them. I try to be particular with how my time is spent, especially when I am paying to use it. As such, Why would I bother putting time and effort, even just a little, into a character that is basically a throw away? 1 example of an alt for me would be if we can play middleman with assassin contracts and I don't want people to know IG that Goodfellow is ACTAULLY 'The Goodfellow' and so I use an alt (not low rep, but average or just 0 what ever I start out as) to gain the contract and mail or otherwise leave for my main.
As bludd stated, this is still being discussed as a whole for a company policy, but I wanted to show that not everyone intends to use "Low rep alts" even if they are "Allowed" by GW. I don't believe (or maybe just don't WANT to believe) that I am alone in this view.
@Cirolle, I apologize if it is true that bludd and/or xeen (or any member of UNC for that matter) is the cause/reason that your group isn't even considering PFO. I still have high hopes that this will in fact be the game that DDO never was and that us D&D/PF players have been seeking in a MMO format. I do ask that you, or possibly others from your group, keep an eye on PFO and see how it evolves of the next 2 years (Roughly when OE occurs) and see if you still feel the same then. Your perception might change between now and then.
It may be that the UNC can operate quite well, totally as it intends to, without the need for such Alts. You would be a great example of a Company that can play the game without the need for such.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It may be that the UNC can operate quite well, totally as it intends to, without the need for such Alts. You would be a great example of a Company that can play the game without the need for such.Just my personal views on the "Monsters in the basement" concept (as posted in the UNC forums) are that I will most likely NOT use them. I try to be particular with how my time is spent, especially when I am paying to use it. As such, Why would I bother putting time and effort, even just a little, into a character that is basically a throw away? 1 example of an alt for me would be if we can play middleman with assassin contracts and I don't want people to know IG that Goodfellow is ACTAULLY 'The Goodfellow' and so I use an alt (not low rep, but average or just 0 what ever I start out as) to gain the contract and mail or otherwise leave for my main.
As bludd stated, this is still being discussed as a whole for a company policy, but I wanted to show that not everyone intends to use "Low rep alts" even if they are "Allowed" by GW. I don't believe (or maybe just don't WANT to believe) that I am alone in this view.
@Cirolle, I apologize if it is true that bludd and/or xeen (or any member of UNC for that matter) is the cause/reason that your group isn't even considering PFO. I still have high hopes that this will in fact be the game that DDO never was and that us D&D/PF players have been seeking in a MMO format. I do ask that you, or possibly others from your group, keep an eye on PFO and see how it evolves of the next 2 years (Roughly when OE occurs) and see if you still feel the same then. Your perception might change between now and then.
As I explained above, the "Monster in the Basement" is not of use to us in the use of SADs. As a matter of fact, they are counter productive.
We also don't need them for Outpost or POI raids, because the Raid System will typically avoid the loss of reputation.
The UNC does not plan to play our bandits / raiders / assassins as our alts, but rather as our main characters. So using alts will only take away time from playing our mains.
I could envision some value in using low rep alts for a settlement, and I have always described the MinB for the purpose. The likelihood that the UNC has its own settlement is not very high. We are much more interested in having our own POI, not a full fledged settlement.
Just because I or Xeen bring up various loopholes that we see the potential for, doesn't mean that we would necessarily use them, or use them often.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It may be that the UNC can operate quite well, totally as it intends to, without the need for such Alts. You would be a great example of a Company that can play the game without the need for such.Just my personal views on the "Monsters in the basement" concept (as posted in the UNC forums) are that I will most likely NOT use them. I try to be particular with how my time is spent, especially when I am paying to use it. As such, Why would I bother putting time and effort, even just a little, into a character that is basically a throw away? 1 example of an alt for me would be if we can play middleman with assassin contracts and I don't want people to know IG that Goodfellow is ACTAULLY 'The Goodfellow' and so I use an alt (not low rep, but average or just 0 what ever I start out as) to gain the contract and mail or otherwise leave for my main.
As bludd stated, this is still being discussed as a whole for a company policy, but I wanted to show that not everyone intends to use "Low rep alts" even if they are "Allowed" by GW. I don't believe (or maybe just don't WANT to believe) that I am alone in this view.
@Cirolle, I apologize if it is true that bludd and/or xeen (or any member of UNC for that matter) is the cause/reason that your group isn't even considering PFO. I still have high hopes that this will in fact be the game that DDO never was and that us D&D/PF players have been seeking in a MMO format. I do ask that you, or possibly others from your group, keep an eye on PFO and see how it evolves of the next 2 years (Roughly when OE occurs) and see if you still feel the same then. Your perception might change between now and then.
What Bludd and I were trying to say, is that those things will present themselves into the game with the mechanics that GW is building for PFO. Not that we will use them. We have seen these things done in other games, and there is no way PFO will get out of it not being here as well. We do not want people to put spit polish a turd and call it a shinny.
I will have a character that I do not care what his rep or align is because he will be the character that is played in that role. Merc, Bandit, whatever.
Having the penalties will be fun.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I appreciate both the responses of The Goodfellow and Xeen thus far. Interestingly enough, they have come to very different approaches, and mine would make a third.
The Goodfellow = Won't use because it would take away from time using main character.
Xeen = Wants to play his main character without much concern for reputation, because he believes he can still play his character that way and remain viable.
Bluddwolf = I see little practical use in having a Low Rep Alt, for our purposes. Raiding, Feuds, and SADS are all fairly reputation impact neutral in my estimation (based on Dev Blogs). I'm also looking forward to playing a CN(E) Bandit / Raider and having a High Reputation while doing so.
This is not yet a policy statement, as the discussion thread on our forums has only been up for a few hours. However, 3 out of our four Council members have already chimed in with our apparent leaning on the subject.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am still very interested in PFO.
I hope this thread will turn some of my group around
I'm glad you've reconsidered, and found this thread. Although the UNC is mentioned all over the place, on and off of these forums, there are only two or three threads or places where you can really get an understanding of what we are all about.
Please be mindful: Changes in PFO will often take some time to be reflected in our plans.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Based on our internal discussions, and the viewpoints discussed here, the Official UNC Policy concerning the use of low reputation Alts.
1. Beyond the earliest testing of the systems during EE, the UNC does not see any practical reason to use low reputation Alts.
2. Although we have various individual goals, none of those are capable with the UNC goal of raiding, committing acts of banditry or assassination in a way that would lose reputation in any frequency short of rarity.
In short, if we need to lose reputation for the greater good of the company, we will do it with our main characters and accept the consequences that come along with that choice.
I believe we gain far more respect for standing up for what we believed to be a meaningful choice that matters most for our main characters. To resort to the use of Alts to do our dirty work is not what the UnNamed Company is about. If there is dirty work to be done, we don't have a problem doing it with our main characters.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In short, if we need to lose reputation for the greater good of the company, we will do it with our main characters and accept the consequences that come along with that choice.
Bravo!
I believe we gain far more respect for standing up for what we believed to be a meaningful choice that matters most for our main characters.
Indeed, you do!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
2. Although we have various individual goals, none of those arecapablecompatible with the UNC goals of raiding, committing acts of banditry or assassination in a way that would lose reputation in any frequency short of rarity.
Edit.... And a Disclaimer....
I would love to unleash a horde of naked, noob, "Monsters in the Basement" upon the programer who came up with autocorrect at Apple!!!!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am still very interested in PFO.
I hope this thread will turn some of my group around
I'm glad you've reconsidered, and found this thread. Although the UNC is mentioned all over the place, on and off of these forums, there are only two or three threads or places where you can really get an understanding of what we are all about.
Please be mindful: Changes in PFO will often take some time to be reflected in our plans.
I have not lost interest at any point.
But, I doubt I will play without my group, while they are playing other games.Your next post have gone out in email hehe.
Now we just need Steelwing to come around :)
I would however like systems to be in place that discourage MBs, it just seems such a waste to make a game with "meaningfull" PvP and have an easy way around it.
If there is easy ways around it, then the systems might as well not be put in place to begin with.Don't get me wrong, I can (and I believe my group can too) play a fantasy open world FFA PvP without any "meaningfull" systems in place.
That is, and have never been the problem.But it got to be one or the other.
Rules that works, or none at all.
Two points, and I apologize if this is passive-aggressive, but well... that is just my way sometimes...
I don't want you to get the idea that your concerns influenced our decision. If our internal discussion went the other way, and we had seen more value for "Monsters in the Basement", we would sure as s@@t be using them.
Second, you produce an impossible standard in your final point. Not every system GW envisions will work, that is a simple fact. They may work partially, and there will be players that find ways around them, and the cost benefit of plugging those holes may lead to those holes being left open.
Compromises, even in Ryan's vision, will be made. We as players will also have to make compromises and ultimately either play the game that we are given or find elsewhere what we were hoping to play.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even if Steelwing and his group choose (for some reason) to not use alts that way, they also are a drop in the bucket alone.
The key is to design the game so that such play is not needed to achieve your goals. How that can be done, and keep it lively with all of the nuances of features, I know not. I think that one way is to not overcomplicate everything.
I seem to be on a crusade about complicated systems. :(
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Bringslite
The thing is, is that there is no way to get rid of alts completely. Someone can just make a new account with a dif. address. The solution then is to make alts as costly as possible... somehow.
I am for that. I know that it will not stop anyone willing to spend the money/effort, but it will slow the majority down. Sometimes that is all that you can do.
In absence of that, low rep alts should really suck, but with a shallow power curve (and numbers in their favor) I am not sure it is possible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
They will suck. Low-Rep aren't allowed in certain settlements, which means they don't have access to the best training facilities/trainers. they will be stuck with base-low-barely middling skills at best (with the current setup, to my knowledge)
Goonswarm dominated their opponents with T1 Frigates and Noob characters. Everything about them individually sucked with three exceptions....
1. Communication
2. Cohesion
3. Numbers
There is nothing that GW can do to prevent this from happening, and I doubt they would want to.
They would have to make the power curve steeper in order to shift the balance of power away from numbers and sharply in favor of long term skill training.
I have estimated, looking at some of the numbers, that an 8 to 1 mismatch will provide an alpha strike capability to one-shot a fairly new character.
That does not mean you need 8x the number of your opponent. It just means that all 8 of your attacks one target at a time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
They would have to make the power curve steeper in order to shift the balance of power away from numbers and sharply in favor of long term skill training.
I have estimated, looking at some of the numbers, that an 8 to 1 mismatch will provide an alpha strike capability to one-shot a fairly new character.
That does not mean you need 8x the number of your opponent. It just means that all 8 of your attacks one target at a time.
This is a good point, perhaps make formations a high skill mechanic...and make them that increased power curve.
So, units in formations get massive bonuses, in formations versus formations that effect essentially cancels itself out, but against even masses of naked noobs, no matter how coordinated, it makes for a huge differential. The noobs, again no matter how coordinated, simply do not have access to the skills (even passive) that make formation combat possible.
EDIT: I would try to find a way to allow noobs to strengthen or support a formation though, just to give the non-undesirable ones ways to contribute.
EDIT2: Were there formations that could be useful to bandits and skirmishers too...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
They would have to make the power curve steeper in order to shift the balance of power away from numbers and sharply in favor of long term skill training.
I have estimated, looking at some of the numbers, that an 8 to 1 mismatch will provide an alpha strike capability to one-shot a fairly new character.
That does not mean you need 8x the number of your opponent. It just means that all 8 of your attacks one target at a time.
This is a good point, perhaps make formations a high skill mechanic...and make them that increased power curve.
So, units in formations get massive bonuses, in formations versus formations that effect essentially cancels itself out, but against even masses of naked noobs, no matter how coordinated, it makes for a huge differential. The noobs, again no matter how coordinated, simply do not have access to the skills (even passive) that make formation combat possible.
EDIT: I would try to find a way to allow noobs to strengthen or support a formation though, just to give the non-undesirable ones ways to contribute.
EDIT2: Were there formations that could be useful to bandits and skirmishers too...
Precision, ranged combat defeats formation combat almost every time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Precision, ranged combat defeats formation combat almost every time.
Well, we would assume those with actual formation training, depending upon the actual formation chosen and the synergy among members creates magical effects. These effects could be the bonuses that make actual formations utilizing mechanics a significant benefit over pseudo-formations created from good organization and communication.
But also relevant...How about ranged formations.
But anyways, sorry, did not mean to waylay your thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, them turtle formations. They may be a bit trickier to do in a world with fireballs, but they still protect against most forms of attacks.
Wasn't there a thread where we brainstormed ideas for fantasy formations? Or was that a different subforum?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Precision, ranged combat defeats formation combat almost every time.Well, we would assume those with actual formation training, depending upon the actual formation chosen and the synergy among members creates magical effects. These effects could be the bonuses that make actual formations utilizing mechanics a significant benefit over pseudo-formations created from good organization and communication.
But also relevant...How about ranged formations.
But anyways, sorry, did not mean to waylay your thread.
What might of been impervious to certain types of attacks in real life, won't be or can't be in a game.
There are some who believe, because there are no burst damage critical strikes, there will be no one shot situations. Eventually the mathematics dictates the possibility of a one shot kill.
Although not a policy, the UNC will test and discover the numbers and skill / keyword combinations needed to execute this tactic as often as possible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
EDIT: I would try to find a way to allow noobs to strengthen or support a formation though, just to give the non-undesirable ones ways to contribute.
Precision, ranged combat defeats formation combat almost every time.
A lot of these topics was discussed in Goblinworks Blog: You're in the Army Now!.
On Armies vs. Disorganized Opponents and Magic Resistance of Formations
And on Ten Thousand Years of History where Formations were effective in the world of Golarion.
PS - I hope I'm not coming across as being argumentative with Bluddwolf. I feel like I've gotten some closure on that little feud. These links and quotes are provided to give forum readers - especially the newer folks who don't have firsthand memory of it all - a sense of how Ryan has been describing this game to us for the last couple of years.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
PS - I hope I'm not coming across as being argumentative with Bluddwolf. I feel like I've gotten some closure on that little feud. These links and quotes are provided to give forum readers - especially the newer folks who don't have firsthand memory of it all - a sense of how Ryan has been describing this game to us for the last couple of years.
I appreciate the new tone, and I will make all efforts on my part to continue it.
I will point out that what Ryan is expressing is based on the differential of power curve between formation / veterans and new / disorganized units, fighting each other.
I am speaking of highly trained (skilled) and organized skirmishers using ranged, alpha strikes to hit opponent groups (both in formations or not in formations).
* Communication
* Cohesion
* Coordinated: (Precise)Attacks, and Movement
* Combination of Skill, Keywords and Versatility
* Numerical Advantage
My theory:
1. You have an 8 on 8 battle.
2. Average Player has 400 HP
3. Base Weapon Damage is 40 DMG
4. Critical Bonus Potential = 20%
5. 8 vs 1 target at a time (focus fire) = 8x 40 = 320 + 80 = 400
Even if first strike only generates minimum 320, ranged combat will usually provide 2nd strike opportunity. This would generate 640 HP DMG vs. 400 HP AVE = Dead!!
Yes I'm aware I'm making projections, based on assumptions, and this will require experimentation in EE. However, I believe the theory is sound.
Alpha Strike + Focus Fire will always produce an instant kill, as long as you adjust the ratio of attacker vs. target to produce the outcome.
If the battle is 8 vs. 8, you don't need 64 vs. 8 to get an 8:1 advantage. You just need one group to focus fire, and the other not to use that tactic.
I have written it before, if Goblin Works tries to eliminate the advantage of numbers it would have to seriously alter their plans on there being a slight power curve.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf, considering only targets in Formation, the key point I got from Ryan, and that I wanted to convey here, is that Golarion has a 10,000 year history where Formations have effectively defended themselves from attacks by Skirmishers, therefore that is the way PFO will operate.
In essence, even if a non-Formation group of Characters would do enough damage to Bob to normally kill him, the mere fact that Bob is in a Formation might radically reduce that damage, based on the Leadership skills of the Formation Leader.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The word for bandit in danish, is røver,which is also the same as robber.
There is a great Swedish childrens story calles Ronja Røverdatter (written by Astrid Lindgren).
The last name means robberdaughter.
It is not common for scandinavian names to be desciptive of what profession they have.
However, surnames was commonly being son or daughter.The above name is a play on this, since her dad is a røver.
For older names, we commonly used a word that descriped a trait.
Harald Blåtand, Jens Langkniv, Gorm den Gamle etc.
Useless trivia
More like 'fascinating'!!