Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Since Ryan said that there will not be enough threads to cover all your equipment. I would disagree there... That is if we take into account that our inventory will be empty. Which will not always be the case. We will be risking our equipment, our lives, and our reputation to be bandits.
To be fair, the defenders will have the same problem with equipment loss, so it can't be considered in the equation I think, since as much as you will need to use some quality equipment to be efficient, your victims will have the same inconvenient, beside the possible loss of merchandise. And they will risk their lives and reputation as merchants as well.
(I'm just responding about this precise argument about equipment, I am not expressing an opinion about fairness in banditry.)
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
If I were to summarize how to play a bandit effectively, I'd emphasize maximizing net expected return per hour. I think that the highest NERPH will be in whatever region of "banditry" is least fun. That will probably be in low-moderate volume areas with almost no windfalls. Within that area, provide protection from other predators in exchange for payment.
I, personally, wouldn't play on that scale. If I wanted to take what belongs to others, I'd do it as a LE landlord, which is the same concept writ much larger in scope.
We may very well do both of these. Granted I would be looking for the more fun approach personally. Which means I will die more often lol.
Being a land lord works as well, but you have to be a group that is capable of destroying several settlement groups without breaking a sweat. I dont see that happening for a few years after OE, but it will come to PFO sometime.
It's hard work, remembering that it's all about the coin.
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am just not sure if it is risky enough for the bandits though.
Since Ryan said that there will not be enough threads to cover all your equipment. I would disagree there... That is if we take into account that our inventory will be empty. Which will not always be the case. We will be risking our equipment, our lives, and our reputation to be bandits.
I also disagree in that, I would expect that we are actively hunted.
I would think, and yes its my opinion, that you are correct in that we will be on the receiving end of the nerf stick for quite a while. Granted I think its for different reasons. Usually the nerf stick is used when there is excessive complaining about something, or when something is used excessively. If there is an army of bandits running around in every corner of the river kingdoms, it will get nerfed. I dont think that will be the case. I do think that no matter how successful we are, very or poorly, there will be excessive complaining on the boards. Hell, the game isnt even out and there is talk about how in favor the game is towards bandits.
I do not think we will be as successful as you do.
Won't you guys need to address the lack of a settlement and training higher end tiers as well? Of course perhaps in game design there will be the possibility of a moving settlement like a caravan of sorts in the future, but having a base of operations seems to be of vital importance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For the majority, they will have access to slightly less potent abilities than those they will be coming into conflict with.
It seems like hideouts will offer some degree of relief in that area. The general skills though, that everyone else has, they will still be able to train through at least neutral evil settlements, maybe going up to true neutral settlements just for the purpose of training.
The trick is having a chaotic hideout that is well developed enough to support T3. If they are able to run this hideout off of a neutral evil settlement, it might be possible for them to benefit from T3 over the long run.
Xeen briefly touched on a point that is well worth remembering: bandits are likely to have bounties on them, constantly. Finding them will be tricky, but not impossible.
The odds will swing against them for sure, but it is a cycle of players reacting to what is and is not happening. What level of danger they are in. When the heat rises and bandits lay low, players are naturally inclined to relax their guard.
Also, this will be a balance between available bandits and available guards.
Not to mention merchants the bandits have paid off to bring them too few guards to hurt them, and thus have another form of income in the form of guard loot.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...there will not be enough threads to cover all your equipment.
Last we heard, if I remember, we should be able to cover essentially everything at Tier 1, a solid selection of things at Tier 2, and possibly only an item or two at Tier 3. If you're not planning to avail yourselves of significant amounts of Tier 3 training, you'll not need to worry about Tier 3 equipment and its limitations, which increases your flexibility notably.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We shall have to wait and see, there may be several avenues open to gaining access to upper tier training.
Then there is the fact that it may be two years before tier 3 skills are either available or needed. The differentiation between tier 2 and tier 3 will probably not be as steep as we might think. Goblin Works have said that there will not be as steep a power curve as found in most other MMOs.
One way to compensate for power difference is numbers. Another is tactics. In longer term engagements, you need to add logistics. Achieving superiority of all three is of course a goal, that will sometimes come true.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Won't you guys need to address the lack of a settlement and training higher end tiers as well? Of course perhaps in game design there will be the possibility of a moving settlement like a caravan of sorts in the future, but having a base of operations seems to be of vital importance.
Last we heard, if I remember, we should be able to cover essentially everything at Tier 1, a solid selection of things at Tier 2, and possibly only an item or two at Tier 3. If you're not planning to avail yourselves of significant amounts of Tier 3 training, you'll not need to worry about Tier 3 equipment and its limitations, which increases your flexibility notably.
Possibly. A base of operations could be as simple as an NPC settlement. We have the option of running a settlement, although I do not really want to deal with that. If we must then we must. We may also find a group to ally with that want to run the settlement while we do the rest.
Bludd just jogged my memory of something from Eve. The highest tier of items you can use on ships, are not used. They cost so much money that they are not worth equipping on anything except Super Capitals. Tier 3 stuff may fall into that category. It may have such a high value that it is not worth using it. We shall see.
So yes, you are correct Jazz. I guess past that the only limiting factor I see is that characters are only able to slot one class of abilities. So once you reach a point that you are slotted in a class you enjoy then there is no need to train anything else. I do remember Nihimon saying somewhere that you had to return to a settlement before you could reslot. Not sure if true, but that would compound the situation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Access to training could also be a form of payment for services rendered, and then we would not have to refresh those skills for a month.That certainly brings up interesting possibilities.
Yes it does. It will be a good way for us to pick up high end skills and not be hassled by running a settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why do people become bandits in the first place? They can't survive otherwise, either because there are no jobs for them or they are just too darned ugly for society *cough* points at Bluddwolf *cough*.
Since UNC is also willing to be Mercenaries, all people need to do to prevent them banditing up your faces is keep them so busy with Merc contracts they don't have time to be bandits.
BOOM!
Truth Bomb!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why do people become bandits in the first place? They can't survive otherwise, either because there are no jobs for them or they are just too darned ugly for society *cough* points at Bluddwolf *cough*.
Since UNC is also willing to be Mercenaries, all people need to do to prevent them banditing up your faces is keep them so busy with Merc contracts they don't have time to be bandits.
BOOM!
Truth Bomb!
The difference between mercenary soldiers and mercenary bandits is that bandits are used against the commerce of a rival.
We would of course prefer being under contract than free lancing
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Tyncale
Strangely, if you think about it, our "pockets" will only be empty, when your's are full. Your pockets will only be empty when bandits are able to empty them. I don't think the comparison is as lopsided as you might think, nor are the advantages.
I honestly believe the conflict between merchant and bandit will balance out naturally.
Very poetic, but no. :) Your pockets may be empty, but the untouchable hoard of Gold that you have accumulated by emptying our pockets every time will sure still be there, and grow. And be untouchable, just to mention it for second time.
It all needs to be balanced out: your risk, our risk, time spent doing your thing, our thing. If the balance is out of whack, people will stop doing what they are doing(leave?)and less fun is to be had. I do not believe that these mechanics will easily balance out by themselves: it is a game where behaviour of a few can quickly cause things to be lopsided. We are not talking real-life economics here.
So for instance, I do not think that "Bandits running out of targets, will create less bandits" will work at all.
These mechanics need serious considering, and probably a HUGE amount of tweaking, for years to come. My guess is, is that the Bandits will be on the receiving end of this nerf-stick for quit a while.
If you think otherwise, read the perks section of the GW job-positions:
"Substantial stock options – we are a small studio and want to make sure everyone has a stake in the company";)
Mind you, I totally believe Transporting goods should be risky: else they may as well do away with the entire feature of local markets and transporting goods right away. I am just not sure if it is risky enough for the bandits though.
I just wanted to point out to this particularly, and again we speak only for UNC and will not account for actions and decisions of other bandit type companies. The UNC intend to follow the coin wherever it may lead them. If that means moving to a different "hunting ground" on the map, or changing professions. If there are too many bandits and not enough merchants or guards for said merchants, then we will be guards. If guarding earns more money than robbing, then we will be guards. Since we fully intend to be more PVP based than crafting/harvesting based, I find it very unlikely that we would ever change to a crafting/merchant style company. Not saying we won't have alts or such that do that, or even members that do that (especially if we run our own settlement) but for the bulk of the UNC, we will be bandits.
@the comment about "keeping us busy with merc contracts" that could work, but only if we are making enough money in it, at least compared to what we assum we could or would make committing banditry. This will likely only be the case if there turns out to be too many bandits in the river kingdoms.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Concerning the discussion on time with full pockets vs time with empty pockets, I think it will depend on "business." If there are merchants a plenty, then we will likely always have goods on us, and if we don't then you caught us just after we "dropped them off." Vs merchants/harvesters, remember they only have full pockets when they have comes from a POI/harvesting trip and are on their way back. If we catch them just leaving, they will be empty as well. Timing is the key for both parties.
Also, if your a merchant/harvester, even with full pockets, if you come across the UNC, we might not attack....because we might have full pockets from the guy just up the road which now has empty pockets...again, timing will be the biggest factor for all involved.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Will have wording similar to "Should either party no longer benefit from this contract, either part may void this contract."That's a doozy of a contract clause. Few real contract would ever include something like that without far more precise language because it's basically a catch-all that lets you void at whim. Now it might be fine to give the non-UNC member power to void at will but if i'm hiring UNC for a job, I'm not agreeing up front to let them void it THAT easily.
Bludd is correct and so I have brought it here.
I was being overly simple in the example I gave and I apologize for that. It does change the context of what I was saying in this part. As bludd said and I will echo here (in the proper thread) while it will never be that simple, there will always be a "void" clause so that a "bad" contract isn't binding when it doesn't need to be.
Let me sum up contracts with the UNC by saying this. "Every detail can and WILL be discussed and agreed upon prior to acceptance by BOTH PARTIES." This means everything from the "major" stuff like payment and terms, to the "less thought of" things such as, what if we get a better offer, or what if there is competition for our employ, or anything.
Bludd said earlier that we will have a 2 day gap between contracts. This means that once a contract has been completed, or voided, we will not accept another contract for 2 days. This is for several reasons, mainly so that we don't get conflicting contracts (such as escort a caravan to a settlement, then rob that same caravan on the way back) as well as to give us time to reassess the ever changing situation of the world.
So, if for no other reason, you can be assured that IF there was a clause as simple as "if no longer beneficial to either party, it can be voided by either party." The UNC will not void a contract simply because someone is paying more for the same or an opposing job. They would have to wait 2 days after we void for us to accept and perform the job, assuming that was the reason for the voiding of the first.
I hope I didn't over complicate it or make it more confusing. If I did, just say so I one of us will try again LOL.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What do you mean by "if a contract isn't binding?" I am confused where you interpret it as being so. Contracts ARE binding, atleast to us they are. The "exit clause" is not something that is intended to be used, however is there in case there is ever a need.
Take for example, there was an exit clause in the PAX/UNC contract, and it was executed before the contract ever hit the game. Since every aspect of a contract with the UNC is and will be discussed and negotiated, if someone entering in a contract with the UNC wishes there to not be any sort of exit clause, but instead just wishes the contract to have a start, duty to perform, and end, then so be it. If the contract is acceptable without the exit clause, then we would accept. If not, we would negotiate and if not agreement is reached, the contract will be denied.
The exit clause is designed to be a "perk" to both the UNC and the contracting party. The situation could change at any time and it would allow both parties to dissolve the contract is it is their best interests to do so.
However, and I believe this will address the main concern, executing the exit clause could be the cause of a lowered desire to do business in the future. I am sure this will work both ways, but I speak only for the UNC. Using the exit clause is not, by itself, cause for immediate "black listing" and auto denial of future contracts in the eyes of the UNC. However, it will be a black mark and if such actions continue, could lead to no longer being considered for contractual work.
Again, I would expect the same from a party that has their contract ended by the UNC in such a fashion, and that is why it will be used only if deemed necessary.
Does this clarify it better?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Unless GW manages to implement a contract system that is orders of magnitude more robust than I am imagining they will, any such exit clause agreed upon between parties is probably going to be meta, and as such will more than likely incur reputation loss.
I believe that the more detailed contracts that are not one-time affairs will need to be handled in the meta and also will end up being partially rewarded/penalized through things like repeat business as opposed to a simple lack of payment or reputation hit.
I would love to get more info on what they are planning for this.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I thought the only contracts they were going to implement in game were bounty and assassination contracts. I have a feeling that a lot of UNC's contracts are going to stay meta.
I always got the impression that they wanted to make it easy to make, for example, Transport Contracts. Signed... in Blood has a lot of information about the tools they intend to use, and the variety that hope to support.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I thought the only contracts they were going to implement in game were bounty and assassination contracts. I have a feeling that a lot of UNC's contracts are going to stay meta.
The contracts that the UNC are usually talking about are meta game, but may include several game mechanic components.
For instance: If a company or settlement want to hire the UNC to feud another company. We determine the amount in influence that would cost. Negotiate a price in gold for that expenditure of influence. Negotiate the other terms of the contract. Then once all of the numbers are settled on, we receive some up front coin, some coin when feud is initiated, and any bonus dependent upon the success of the feud.
We may also accept contracts in exchange for access to training, in lieu of coin or there could be a mixture of payment methods.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I thought the only contracts they were going to implement in game were bounty and assassination contracts. I have a feeling that a lot of UNC's contracts are going to stay meta.I always got the impression that they wanted to make it easy to make, for example, Transport Contracts. Signed... in Blood has a lot of information about the tools they intend to use, and the variety that hope to support.
This was also my understanding as well. Using eve as a basis, I could easily see, though maybe not till later EE, transport contracts, guard contracts, and such. In the future, as the contract system evolves and refines, I could see merc contracts, such as hiring a company during a time of war to "join" your side or even some sort of trade contracts to set prices of trade goods and "quotas" to be exchanged. these are just some ideas and definitely more "advanced" but I could see them making it in at some point if GW feels they add value.
But, until such time that contracts, whatever form they take, make it into game and are used, they will stay meta. If all UNC contracts end up being meta due to this, then so be it.
Any other policy questions? Feel free to ask about anything policy related here. If we find the question inappropriate or not open for public discussion, we will simply say so. So please, ask away.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I thought the only contracts they were going to implement in game were bounty and assassination contracts. I have a feeling that a lot of UNC's contracts are going to stay meta.I always got the impression that they wanted to make it easy to make, for example, Transport Contracts. Signed... in Blood has a lot of information about the tools they intend to use, and the variety that hope to support.
I have read all the Blogs, but I didn't remember this information properly. Maybe I need to go read all the blogs again.
Thanks Nihimon!
Having a robust contract system will be amazing. Kind of makes me want to be a mercenary...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I thought the only contracts they were going to implement in game were bounty and assassination contracts. I have a feeling that a lot of UNC's contracts are going to stay meta.I always got the impression that they wanted to make it easy to make, for example, Transport Contracts. Signed... in Blood has a lot of information about the tools they intend to use, and the variety that hope to support.I have read all the Blogs, but I didn't remember this information properly. Maybe I need to go read all the blogs again.
Thanks Nihimon!
Having a robust contract system will be amazing. Kind of makes me want to be a mercenary...
The UNC has a mercenary division..... <wink wink>
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Kind of makes me want to be a mercenary...The UNC has a mercenary division..... <wink wink>
HAHAHA You wish!
Bluddwolf is too hideous, I don't want to catch whatever terrible disease afflicts him. I am staying as far away from you bandits as possible.
I really do need to get around to joining a Company though, so I can help vote in the Land Rush Part 2.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it UNC Policy to support its members explicitly targeting players (not Characters) for what happens outside of the game, for example on these forums?
Is it UNC Policy to support Wars and Feuds against other meta-game organizations? If so, are there any meta-game organizations that you already consider yourself at War or Feuding with?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Is it UNC Policy to support its members explicitly targeting players (not Characters) for what happens outside of the game, for example on these forums?
I am not sure why you would ask. We have no control of what people do outside of the game. Nor do we know what they do outside of the game. If you are referring to arguments on these forums... We all have done plenty of that.
If you have dealings with someone outside of the game. That is your concern not ours.
Is it UNC Policy to support Wars and Feuds against other meta-game organizations?
Is someone paying us? And yes.
If so, are there any meta-game organizations that you already consider yourself at War or Feuding with?
Nope, we are not playing the game yet.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Is it UNC Policy to support its members explicitly targeting players (not Characters) for what happens outside of the game, for example on these forums?
Is it UNC Policy to support Wars and Feuds against other meta-game organizations? If so, are there any meta-game organizations that you already consider yourself at War or Feuding with?
The five points I submitted to the Accord would have covered these questions, but as we all know, they were rejected.... Doh!!
Riddle me this, who was the jerk first, and how is that working out?
Now if you would like to return to these questions and others, I'm willing to have a conversation. But the next time I offer an olive branch and I get slapped in the face for it, your city will know no sleep, your caravans no safe road, your outposts no full yield, and your POIs will burn.
You may think Andius has turned to the dark side, he is not even close to what we are capable of, at least not yet.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But the next time I offer an olive branch and I get slapped in the face for it, your city will know no sleep, your caravans no safe road, your outposts no full yield, and your POIs will burn.
I think I have my answer. I thought I remembered you saying something before about how you wouldn't be targeting folks in-game for things that happened out-of-game, but maybe I'm mistaken.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But the next time I offer an olive branch and I get slapped in the face for it, your city will know no sleep, your caravans no safe road, your outposts no full yield, and your POIs will burn.I think I have my answer. I thought I remembered you saying something before about how you wouldn't be targeting folks in-game for things that happened out-of-game, but maybe I'm mistaken.
LOL, and the BloodRose Accord is not for in game purposes?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Is it UNC Policy to support its members explicitly targeting players (not Characters) for what happens outside of the game, for example on these forums?
Is it UNC Policy to support Wars and Feuds against other meta-game organizations? If so, are there any meta-game organizations that you already consider yourself at War or Feuding with?
Asking us if we support Andius in his vengeance? You might as well come out and ask, though I guess it is ok to generalize it in case we pick up any others in similar states of mind. UNC has not changed at all in our stances, policies, leadership, or in any other way, save our membership numbers. Our gaining of new members is the only thing that has changed. It is understood by all who carry the UNC banner what our policies are and what is expected of them. If it is later deemed that individuals are not living up to the standards we have set forth for the UNC, or they feel we don't offer them what they desire, then our membership will shrink.
More specifically, if any issue arises in game that violates any of our standards and/or policies, the violating member will be reviewed and, if found "guilty", punishment, up to and including removal, will be issued.
As for these forums, while each of us are responsible only for ourselves, anything said by Xeen, Bludd, or myself should be the only ones taken as "official." If there does become an issue with a member, the 3 of us included, then it will be dealt with internally, similar to the in game method as above. I ask that if ANYONE feels one of our members have crossed "the line" with anything said by the 3 of us, please PM us and bring it to our attention.
Concerning the 2nd question concerning meta-game organizations, besides the "obvious" RBA being "good guys" and us being "Bad guys" making us at odds, we don't have any "Offical" enemies, meta or otherwise, at this time. However, as mercenaries and "followers of the coin" that could change at a moments notice as soon as a contract is "signed" and out into effect.
Being very specific, Andius is allowed, and encouraged, to speak his mind and vent his feelings as he sees fit. If we feel he has gone too far, it will be addressed. In the eyes of the UNC, he is responsible for himself and has the freedom to do as he pleases. If anyone has an issue with what and how he says things, PM one of us and we will discuss it further. IF, in game, Andius violates our policies by going "above and beyond" in aggressions versus any 1 person/settlement/ect to the point that it violates any of our policies, it will be dealt with internally.
Moral of the story, if anyone has any issue with ANY member of UNC and feels that that person(s) of the UNC have crossed a line in game or out, then message one of us 3, and we will take it from there. If you wish to continue to "feed the troll" (I heard someone say) or argue with any of our members, we ask that both parties take it to an appropriate place for it, it's own thread or PM or whatever depending on the issue and persons involved.
This thread is our policy discussion thread and while questions concerning our policies are welcome, anything NOT PERTAINING TO OUR POLICIES is asked to be placed elsewhere.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is our policy discussion thread and while questions concerning our policies are welcome...
Thanks, that's why I came to this thread to ask the questions. And I specifically asked the questions generally because I was interested in the general policy, and not particularly interested in any specific occurrence.
It's a little difficult to parse, since you don't answer the question directly. From Bluddwolf's post, it sounded like he would be more than happy to target a Settlement or Company for something that happens on these forums, but he also makes reference to his post in the Roseblood Accord thread - and you echo that reference - that seems to say something else.
We will try our best that no company or settlement feels that it has been "singled out" for our predation, without our having declared them a feud or war target.
I will also point out that this language is what prompted me to ask about declaring Wars or Feuds against meta-game organizations.
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We will try our best that no company or settlement feels that it has been "singled out" for our predation, without our having declared them a feud or war target.I will also point out that this language is what prompted me to ask about declaring Wars or Feuds against meta-game organizations.
Purely meta-game organizations, no. Meta-game organizations that are used for in game effects, like the Roseblood Accord, then that makes it more then just a meta-game organization.
Roseblood is for the betterment of the group. In many ways. Granted only parts of said organization would be picked out for feuds if we were to declare such.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now if you would like to return to these questions and others, I'm willing to have a conversation. But the next time I offer an olive branch and I get slapped in the face for it, your city will know no sleep, your caravans no safe road, your outposts no full yield, and your POIs will burn.You may think Andius has turned to the dark side, he is not even close to what we are capable of, at least not yet.
I have always thought that it will be the POIs and outposts vulnerability that most closely equate to "asset damaging" as a comparison to what I saw in DFUW. Player cities that were not protected were pretty much useless if they had enemies. In some cases, the owners just gave up trying to keep things repaired. Too expensive.
It doesn't take more than a few player enemies there (doing that) to really hurt you if you aren't tending to your "vulnerable spots".
Edit: Perhaps I had better qualify my statement so that it better fits in a UNC policy thread. From what I have read, it will be the policy of the UNC to do these kinds of things. They are in the game's spirit of conflict. They are legitimate and effective tactics. I hope that if they do execute them, the UNC will do it more in the spirit of the game and even some of this (and future backstory) here so that it can be more fun for all. I think that they will, after people cool down a bit.