Goblin Squad Member
|
What we are talking about is a mugger walking up to someone in the middle of a crowded street, picking the easiest looking target, and mugging them right there in broad daylight.
I'm sorry, but where did I ever suggest that this would be done? Besides, there are NPC wardens to deal with this if it was attempted. It would be exceptionally brutal if outside of the settlement's PVP window.
If this is your concern, then quite frankly, you're just making stuff up.
Banditry will be directed at caravans, in the wilderness, not mugging someone for their wallet at knife point, surrounded by an invincible army of NPC wardens.
Did you forget about the NPC wardens? The level of security, outside of the PVP windows?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just trying to get my head around all the various aspects of this thread, so I'm not actually proposing anything. Your comments and observations will be helpful.
Scenario
My character comes along and sees two other characters engaged in combat. They both show to my character as hostile. Character 1 is hostile because it has attacked Character 2. Character 2 shows as hostile because it belongs to a company, settlement, or faction to which my character is hostile. Even if there is no difference in rep/alignment gain or loss, my character may have a RP motivation to attack one over the other.
Questions
1) Can my character distinguish the reason why another character shows as hostile?
2) Does Character 1 show as an ally to me?
3) If my character attacks Character 2, does my character show as an ally of Character 2?
4) If my character shows me as an ally of Character 1 against Character 2 (to which my character is hostile), what is the impact on my alignment/reputation scores?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't believe a pre-arranged SAD for 1 Coin in exchange for services is the intended use of the system.
Agreed. Urman was right to post it in the ways to game reputation thread. If the system wants to allow free gifts of reputation in exchange for a service that should be it's own mechanic. Not attached to a chaotic action that must be trained.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Harad Navar,
Those are excellent questions and unfortunately I believe the answering of them could only be done through an extremely complex hostility / reputation system that will likely never see the light of day in PFO.
In its simplest form the hostility system works this way:
Character 1 attacks character 2. Both are Hostile to each other.
Character 3 is in the same company as character 1, so 3 sees 2 as hostile as well.
Character 3 has no connection to either character 1 or 2, and so sees neither as hostile.
Character 2 committed a crime in character 1 and 3's settlement, so 3 will see 2 as hostile.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One group is protecting a caravan, the other is attacking it? Clear cut. PFO should include in their flagging who initiated the conflict (SAD should grant this flag even before combat is joined). I'd say "before swords are drawn", but that's included in a SAD (hence the flagging).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What we are talking about is a mugger walking up to someone in the middle of a crowded street, picking the easiest looking target, and mugging them right there in broad daylight.I'm sorry, but where did I ever suggest that this would be done? Besides, there are NPC wardens to deal with this if it was attempted. It would be exceptionally brutal if outside of the settlement's PVP window.
If this is your concern, then quite frankly, you're just making stuff up.
Banditry will be directed at caravans, in the wilderness, not mugging someone for their wallet at knife point, surrounded by an invincible army of NPC wardens.
Did you forget about the NPC wardens? The level of security, outside of the PVP windows?
I'm not making anything up. By the fact we are talking about interlopers it should be obvious that we are talking about situations where there are outside groups around to witness the mugging. Otherwise who is going to intercede?
As a bandit it is your job to make sure there are no witnesses. If you fail to do that, and the witness takes it upon themselves to be noble and rescue the merchant in distress that is your failure, and you deserve the defeat coming to you.
If the only crowded streets are where wardens are found then whether you are flagged or not shouldn't be an issue, and there's no point to oppose getting a flag that makes you fair game to interlopers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see anything that I don't like about that, at a quick glance.If a 3rd party interferes in a fight, both parties 1 and 2 should have the option to set party 3 to hostile.
If either party was glad that you joined in, they won't set you to hostile.
My main issues with it:
1. How is hostility declared? Are you going to get a pop up as soon as the fight starts asking "Are you angry at ______ for saving you?"
2. Why bother programming this? The single purpose if a SAD is to extort money under threat of death. What target of a legitimate SAD would ever be angry at someone for attacking the person mugging them?
3. The main use I can see for this is fake SADs designed to bait people into interceding and then letting the bandit and their ally who they SADed kill everyone who joined in consequence free.
Overall I'm not greatly opposed to it's implementation if there's a wide demand for it. It just seems like a completely pointless system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't see anything that I don't like about that, at a quick glance.If a 3rd party interferes in a fight, both parties 1 and 2 should have the option to set party 3 to hostile.
If either party was glad that you joined in, they won't set you to hostile.
My main issues with it:
1. How is hostility declared? Are you going to get a pop up as soon as the fight starts asking "Are you angry at ______ for saving you?"
2. Why bother programming this? The single purpose if a SAD is to extort money under threat of death. What target of a legitimate SAD would ever be angry at someone for attacking the person mugging them?
3. The main use I cad see for this is fake SADs designed to bait people into interceding and then letting the bandit and their ally who they SADed kill everyone who joined in consequence free.Overall I'm not greatly opposed to it's implementation if there's a wide demand for it. It just seems like a completely pointless system.
No one can have everything completely the way that they would prefer. Remember that SAD has to somehow also remain attractive enough to be of use or it will not be used at all.
Unfortunately, there will be merchants, haulers, harvesters, etc.... that do not take precautions and get caught for it. Some will fight regardless, but some may want an option that is less than "death and complete loss".
Your example trick is not much different then the good guys "bait caravan" tactic. The game will be much more interesting if such things are possible.
There is also the possibility of interfering in a fight where the two parties do not want you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No one can have everything completely the way that they would prefer. Remember that SAD has to somehow also remain attractive enough to be of use or it will not be used at all.
It allows you to steal resources without reputation penalty. The only people who won't use that are people who have moral objections with robbing people. A flag that makes you a sanctioned target to people witnessing the act won't change that, it will just cause people to be sneakier about it.
Also, it's important to remember the primary content in this game is settlement warfare. SAD has only ever been, and will only ever be side content.
PS. For those of you who may have forgotten , the SAD is a mechanic I fully intend to use myself against any hostile target I don't have an outstanding war/feud against if it doesn't give too many evil points.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No one can have everything completely the way that they would prefer. Remember that SAD has to somehow also remain attractive enough to be of use or it will not be used at all.It allows you to steal resources without reputation penalty. The only people who won't use that are people who have moral objections with robbing people. A flag that makes you a sanctioned target to people witnessing the act won't change that, it will just cause people to be sneakier about it.
And because you don't take a reputation hit, your reputation gain doesn't get reset back down to 1 point/hour (or less). That is not a small deal.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed. I brought up the "instant hostile to passerby" state for issuing a SAD back in this thread or another. I think that it should apply to ambushes or attacks too. (I am sure I am not the first to do so)
What I don't think would be good is if it butts into faction, feud, war, or other pre existing states. (before hostilities or SAD ensues)
That would make it more complex, and I am not a programmer. I am not sure that it would be too much trouble or not.
I am sure that some of the spirit of adventure will die if it is penalizing to aid victims (not "legit" targets) on the road, in the wilderness.
Edit: I hope everyone understands wjat I mean by the loose term "legit". Any target is legit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed. You don't get the Flag until the SAD is issued. I'm in no way condoning pre-emptive strikes against targets that haven't even declared hostile intentions. Only things within the bounds of what the regular criminal flag allows.
Also any target you can attack without getting an attacker flag (such as war/feud targets) you should be able to SAD without getting flagged. I suppose I should have stated that earlier.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Agreed. You don't get the Flag until the SAD is issued. I'm in no way condoning pre-emptive strikes against targets that haven't even declared hostile intentions. Only things within the bounds of what the regular criminal flag allows.
Also any target you can attack without getting an attacker flag (such as war/feud targets) you should be able to SAD without getting flagged. I suppose I should have stated that earlier.
Kind of amusing (and frustrating) that written statements can be misinterpreted and taken the wrong way without a lot of explanatory foundation included.
It happens to the Developers constantly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Shane, yes, I have dropped back from the SAD considerations to the basic hostile/ally mechanic. I think that the "forces of justice" (refereed to in the thread OP) should not be taking the right actions for the wrong reasons. The aspect of hostile/ally is important to that. One should know exactly why one is trying to inact "justice".
Character 1 attacks character 2. Both are Hostile to each other.
I don't believe that is universally true.
Often, hostility will be reciprocal (i.e., both players appear hostile to one another because their settlements are at war or their factions are enemies) but this is not required. If hostility is not reciprocal (a player sees you as hostile but you see them as friendly or neutral), once you are attacked, your attacker now appears hostile to you as well. That is, you don't take reputation or alignment penalties for defending yourself, even if you were a sanctioned target for your attacker.
I think this means if hostility does not already exist between 1 and 2, Character 2 is not hostile to the Character 1, just defending itself.
Character 3 is in the same company as character 1, so 3 sees 2 as hostile as well.As above, I do not think Character 2 is alway hostile to Character 1. Character 3 can not be hostile to Character 2 if Character 2 is not hostile to Character 1.
There is a hierarchy to Hostility, so if you are in the same group with someone from a company you are feuding with, that party member is treated as an ally as long as you are in the group together.
Character 3 has no connection to either character 1 or 2, and so sees neither as hostile.
If this were true then, since you could not determine who is hostile to whom, you could not justly attack either, even if they are in combat and at least one of them must be Hostile to the other.
Character 2 committed a crime in character 1 and 3's settlement, so 3 will see 2 as hostile.
I believe that this is correct.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The devs had said raiding does not make you hostile to everyone so why should SAD , all the same arguments can be used . Your out of game concept of your character can not become a game mechanic, unless it is consistent with what we do know and we know you don't become hostile to everyone for material based hostility.
from the dev blog, Hostility
". Raiding does not automatically make you hostile to every member of the settlement that owns that territory, however."
I am 'good' so you become hostile (for SAD) to me, is not a game mechanic it is a personal view on role playing. Why would you become hostile for SAD to all the evil and neutral characters?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The devs had said raiding does not make you hostile to everyone so why should SAD , all the same arguments can be used . Your out of game concept of your character can not become a game mechanic, unless it is consistent with what we do know and we know you don't become hostile to everyone for material based hostility.
from the dev blog, Hostility
". Raiding does not automatically make you hostile to every member of the settlement that owns that territory, however."I am 'good' so you become hostile (for SAD) to me, is not a game mechanic it is a personal view on role playing. Why would you become hostile for SAD to all the evil and neutral characters?
Perhaps throwing viewpoints of alignment into the mix is not the best way to advocate or approach the issue.
The SAD mechanic (so far) allows you to shake down ANYONE, regardless of "non penalty" PVP markers, without reputation consequence. To balance, it would seem fair that by using it you are also opening yourself to the same risks.
Anyone passing by should have the choice of aiding such victims without being penalized for it. It is classic "random encounter" stuff, and I would argue: Essential to a believable world.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Raiding also means you're limited to attacking an Outpost location, potentially seizing some bulk materials. The owning company can choose to engage you or not; the items in their inventories aren't at risk unless they opt-in to combat. So raiding and SAD might not be that similar.
I thought the outpost raids would work better as a subset of the feud mechanic, but it will be what it will be.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The devs had said raiding does not make you hostile to everyone so why should SAD , all the same arguments can be used.
Attacking an outpost will make you and your group hostile to the members of that outpost's managing company (as well as the owners of the controlling PoI if that company has subcontracted outpost management).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The devs had said raiding does not make you hostile to everyone so why should SAD , all the same arguments can be used . Your out of game concept of your character can not become a game mechanic, unless it is consistent with what we do know and we know you don't become hostile to everyone for material based hostility.
from the dev blog, Hostility
". Raiding does not automatically make you hostile to every member of the settlement that owns that territory, however."I am 'good' so you become hostile (for SAD) to me, is not a game mechanic it is a personal view on role playing. Why would you become hostile for SAD to all the evil and neutral characters?
Perhaps throwing viewpoints of alignment into the mix is not the best way to advocate or approach the issue.
The SAD mechanic (so far) allows you to shake down ANYONE, regardless of "non penalty" PVP markers, without reputation consequence. To balance, it would seem fair that by using it you are also opening yourself to the same risks.
Anyone passing by should have the choice of aiding such victims without being penalized for it. It is classic "random encounter" stuff, and I would argue: Essential to a believable world.
So a bandit group robs a merchant , another group gets to interfere and kill the bandits with no rep penalty , the second group turns out to be a rival bandit gang and now they get to rob the victim they just saved as well as kill their competition without any rep loss. Merchants will need to form CCs and hire guards or make a deal with a bandit group .
You might interfere because it is the 'right' thing to do , but others players can attack just for loot without rep loss, so the intent makes the game mechanic not a mirror of a believable game world.
In a civilized area of a fantasy game world of course you could attack bandits on sight, but this a wild frontier and bandits make their own code of justice . Interfering and killing bandits doing a shakedown would mark you as a free kill to all the bandits in the area, it would be justice to them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Notmyrealname
Yes it is a complicated issue. There is even the possibility of 3rd and 4th parties stumbling along that have rep free reasons to attack any or all of the original or additional parties.
I think it is going to be fun.
The issue of whether the 3rd (interfering) party should become universally "hostile" when they jump in has not been raised.
Good point for discussion.
Edit: At first, when play space is limited, I think that it will be more of an issue. Later, when the lands are expanded (hopefully greatly) I think it will become more of a corner case or rare occurrence.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Notmyrealname
Yes it is a complicated issue. There is even the possibility of 3rd and 4th parties stumbling along that have rep free reasons to attack any or all of the original or additional parties.
I think it is going to be fun.
The issue of whether the 3rd (interfering) party should become universally "hostile" when they jump in has not been raised.
Good point for discussion.
Edit: At first, when play space is limited, I think that it will be more of an issue. Later, when the lands are expanded (hopefully greatly) I think it will become more of a corner case or rare occurrence.
It has been raised, I stated it. What you will end up with is the potential of a chain reaction of expanding hostility. I can foresee the following.....
The "Naked Noob Hostility Bomb"! An ever expanding shock wave emanating from the single, naked noob performing a SAD, and then dragging in everyone in the "vicinity". As hostility reaches the fringes of the vicinity, newcomers help expand that vicinity to a new vicinity.
There may even be the possibility of kiting the hostility by the original group into a new direction for each member of the original hostile party. Imaging the glorious hostility, carnage and chaos if a bandit group of 20+ run, in 20 different directions!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Notmyrealname
Yes it is a complicated issue. There is even the possibility of 3rd and 4th parties stumbling along that have rep free reasons to attack any or all of the original or additional parties.
I think it is going to be fun.
The issue of whether the 3rd (interfering) party should become universally "hostile" when they jump in has not been raised.
Good point for discussion.
Edit: At first, when play space is limited, I think that it will be more of an issue. Later, when the lands are expanded (hopefully greatly) I think it will become more of a corner case or rare occurrence.
It has been raised, I stated it. What you will end up with is the potential of a chain reaction of expanding hostility. I can foresee the following.....
The "Naked Noob Hostility Bomb"! An ever expanding shock wave emanating from the single, naked noob performing a SAD, and then dragging in everyone in the "vicinity". As hostility reaches the fringes of the vicinity, newcomers help expand that vicinity to a new vicinity.
There may even be the possibility of kiting the hostility by the original group into a new direction for each member of the original hostile party. Imaging the glorious hostility, carnage and chaos if a bandit group of 20+ run, in 20 different directions!
I was talking of more realistic and possibly more common occurrences. While I suppose your scenario is possible, it seems that it would be far more effort than the net gain to be worth it to orchestrate.
Then again, determined mischief makers will do all kinds of things to cause havoc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So a bandit group robs a merchant , another group gets to interfere and kill the bandits with no rep penalty , the second group turns out to be a rival bandit gang and now they get to rob the victim they just saved as well as kill their competition without any rep loss.
Reputation isn't meant to penalize PvP oriented players engaging in meaningful PvP. That's why you don't take a rep penalty for a SAD despite it being a hostile action. There would be no reason to exempt wars/feuds if that was the case either.
What it really penalizes is killing players who are not hostile to your so have not gotten themselves flagged somehow for no reason.
If one bandit gang slaughters another bandit gang and steals the right to rob the merchant then that is the very essence of meaningful PvP. It's also the best case I've seen for the right to attack vigilantes as the merchant may want to support whichever bandit crew they feel is more likely to deliver a reasonable SAD.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's why you don't take a rep penalty for a SAD despite it being a hostile action.
Or, based on what the Devs have developed, the SAD doesn't get a reputation hit, because it is not a hostile act.
So far it is only a hostile act in your mind, not based on any statement from the developers. If I'm wrong, please link the quote or Dev Blog.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's why you don't take a rep penalty for a SAD despite it being a hostile action.Or, based on what the Devs have developed, the SAD doesn't get a reputation hit, because it is not a hostile act.
So far it is only a hostile act in your mind, not based on any statement from the developers. If I'm wrong, please link the quote or Dev Blog.
I trust that some things that are disappointing for most points of view but good decisions for the health of the game, will be forthcoming.
Edited for clarity
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
That's why you don't take a rep penalty for a SAD despite it being a hostile action.Or, based on what the Devs have developed, the SAD doesn't get a reputation hit, because it is not a hostile act.
So far it is only a hostile act in your mind, not based on any statement from the developers. If I'm wrong, please link the quote or Dev Blog.
What do you think the necessary and sufficient conditions are for an act to be a "hostile act"?
Because I see a lot of actions which I consider one character being hostile to another character that specifically don't have reputation hits.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's why you don't take a rep penalty for a SAD despite it being a hostile action.Or, based on what the Devs have developed, the SAD doesn't get a reputation hit, because it is not a hostile act.
So far it is only a hostile act in your mind, not based on any statement from the developers. If I'm wrong, please link the quote or Dev Blog.
I meant that is hostile not that I gives the hostility flag.
Don't need a dev blog to confirm that. Anyone with a brain can tell you mugging people is considered hostile.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's why you don't take a rep penalty for a SAD despite it being a hostile action.Or, based on what the Devs have developed, the SAD doesn't get a reputation hit, because it is not a hostile act.
So far it is only a hostile act in your mind, not based on any statement from the developers. If I'm wrong, please link the quote or Dev Blog.
I meant that is hostile not that I gives the hostility flag.
Don't need a dev blog to confirm that. Anyone with a brain can tell you mugging people is considered hostile.
In the River Kingdoms it is considered praiseworthy, you know "When in Rome.....". I believe that we should at least make some effort in incorporating the settling of the game into our thinking when it comes to culture and our own moral judgements. This is a game after all, and we are role playing characters in a fantasy setting.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That doesn't mean it isn't hostile, and it doesn't mean you aren't allowed to help them defend themselves.
Also there was a big sometimes before that praiseworthy. There are some acts of banditry I consider praiseworthy myself. There are some I will commit myself.
Taking something by force is considered acceptable, even begrudgingly
praiseworthy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It ought to be clear that the devs consider bandits who SAD healthy gameplay, so making them hostile to everyone is like turning them into griefers. There have to be specific conditions for them to be hostile during an SAD, like if you are in a CC hired by the merchants CC to guard them. Making a bandit hostile to everyone is the same condition of a griefer killer and that just doesn't fit. There are lots of roleplaying ways to get involved without taking it to an extreme ,just so it is easy to jump in.
Yea, for people who want to be "bandit-hunters" the SAD system goes both ways. Just offer massive SAD's to the bandits, and on the off-chance they comply, return some of that money from the people they stole it from (if you have a giving nature).
They should appear hostile to the person they just SAD'd a short while after though, so that they know to watch their backs... robbing should have similar consequences in-game as in real life. They shouldn't be able to take it on faith that the person who they just stole from won't attack them the moment they turn around. lol
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would think that it would be considered praiseworthy if a small band of bandits managed to successfully sack a well guarded transport, wherein the overcame great numbers through stealth, subterfuge, magic, and or some high-flying acrobatics. Even then mostly by other bandit types.
I also do not see how making them hostile to all is the same as marking them as a griefer.
I agree with Andius' point that choosing a location for the ambush is the responsibility of the aggressor
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That doesn't mean it isn't hostile, and it doesn't mean you aren't allowed to help them defend themselves.
Also there was a big sometimes before that praiseworthy. There are some acts of banditry I consider praiseworthy myself. There are some I will commit myself.
Taking something by force is considered acceptable, even begrudgingly
praiseworthy.
Source?
This freedom draws the moral distinction between stealing and robbery. In the River Kingdoms, it is more preferable to face your robber, to be allowed the opportunity to resist (and perhaps to repossess!). It is acceptable (and perhaps worthy of praise) to take what you want by force.
I guess my wording was a bit off. I don't have a naked picture of this freedom posted above my bed after all. But same gist.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That doesn't mean it isn't hostile, and it doesn't mean you aren't allowed to help them defend themselves.
Also there was a big sometimes before that praiseworthy. There are some acts of banditry I consider praiseworthy myself. There are some I will commit myself.
Taking something by force is considered acceptable, even begrudgingly
praiseworthy.Source?
This freedom draws the moral distinction between stealing and robbery. In the River Kingdoms, it is more preferable to face your robber, to be allowed the opportunity to resist (and perhaps to repossess!). It is acceptable (and perhaps worthy of praise) to take what you want by force.I guess my wording was a bit off. I don't have a naked picture of this freedom posted above my bed after all. But same gist.
My source is from the official, Pathfinder Chronicles Guide to the River Kingdoms. I'd prefer not to use wiki as a source. All of the Goblin Squad members received the free PDF.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And killing a tyrant is a praiseworthy act. Do you think that means the tyrant does not see the assault as hostile, and does not try to fight it? I know, the example is not a parallel, but it serves to show that praiseworthy is not the opposite of hostile, and just because the people of the River Kingdoms appreciate a robbery over a thievery, that does not mean that robbery is not a hostile act. It's noted that the reason robbery is preferable is the victim gets a chance to resist; why would they resist if it were not a hostile action?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't believe a pre-arranged SAD for 1 Coin in exchange for services is the intended use of the system.
Can be sorted if there is a sink placed in the system. E.g. 10% of the goods/coin extorted/in cargo are destroyed. Can be thought of in terms of damage to the goods due to careless rummaging.
10% of 1 coin would obviously be ridiculous but in combination with a minimum SAD value of, say, 100 coins there will be a loss of at least 10 coin each SAD. Alternatively, if a caravan loses 10% of items carried that might be prohibitive too.
Another way might be to scale the rep bonuses, SAD immunity and other consequences of a successful SAD to both bandit and victim based on the value (either in absolute value or relative to wealth of victim/value of goods transported). An SAD for a small value might have NO effect in terms of rep & buffs etc except for a criminal/attacker flag. A larger SAD might provide some rep gain to the bandit and a period of immunity to new SADs for the victim.
There are many possibilities in the implementation of the systems, maybe GW have something quite different in mind from the way SADs are discussed on these forums.
I don't believe a pre-arranged SAD for 1 Coin in exchange for services is the intended use of the system.Can be sorted if there is a sink placed in the system. E.g. 10% of the goods/coin extorted/in cargo are destroyed. Can be thought of in terms of damage to the goods due to careless rummaging.
10% of 1 coin would obviously be ridiculous but in combination with a minimum SAD value of, say, 100 coins there will be a loss of at least 10 coin each SAD. Alternatively, if a caravan loses 10% of items carried that might be prohibitive too.
Another way might be to scale the rep bonuses, SAD immunity and other consequences of a successful SAD to both bandit and victim based on the value (either in absolute value or relative to wealth of victim/value of goods transported). An SAD for a small value might have NO effect in terms of rep & buffs etc except for a criminal/attacker flag. A larger SAD might provide some rep gain to the bandit and a period of immunity to new SADs for the victim.
There are many possibilities in the implementation of the systems, maybe GW have something quite different in mind from the way SADs are discussed on these forums.
10% of all goods destroyed just inflates what bandits demand, as a hint I expect the vast majority of goods on the market to have less than a 5% profit margin in a free market. Inflating the value of goods asked for just ends up driving more merchants under the threshold of profitablility.
As to the other part it is no solution and can be easily gained instead I just pay a sad of the size the bandit wants to get his rep gain, say 20000 coins and he immediately turns around and gives me the coin back because of our meta arrangement. Result as far as the system is concerned is a high value SAD
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
10% of all goods destroyed just inflates what bandits demand, as a hint I expect the vast majority of goods on the market to have less than a 5% profit margin in a free market. Inflating the value of goods asked for just ends up driving more merchants under the threshold of profitablility.
As to the other part it is no solution and can be easily gained instead I just pay a sad of the size the bandit wants to get his rep gain, say 20000 coins and he immediately turns around and gives me the coin back because of our meta arrangement. Result as far as the system is concerned is a high value SAD
The second idea does nothing on its own but in conjunction with the first idea, SADs can't be traded "for free" for reputation. I should have written that in my previous post.
A sink placed here need not reduce the margins of profit for crafters/merchants. Since all goods of any importance are player crafted they will always be in demand and can always be sold until the market is saturated. The merchant need not take the hit from such a sink but buyers will have to pay more. However, imported goods will be more expensive than locally produced due to time, effort, caravan costs such as guards and SAD losses for the merchants.
The crafters will get their profits, how great or small is decided by supply and demand. They are not competing against loot drops or vendor items but only against each other. The people who don't craft have no alternative but to buy from the crafters or am I missing something?
Anyone who doesn't build shrinkage and transportation losses into their costs and prices will go bankrupt.
What your costs are is largely irrelevant. It is a free market and while you can certainly try to sell for more than the lowest price for that good I don't expect many purchasers taking merchants whining about shrinkage and transport costs into account when making their purchase. Feel free to take the stance that you want more because it cost you that to make it but dont expect many buyers to do much more than go "sorry your point is....him over there is selling for half your price so keep your overpriced junk"
Where shrinkage and transport costs comes into effect is when making the decision on what to make and where to transport it. Not on what you are going to charge for it.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If your competition can satisfy the market below your cost, you will go bankrupt regardless of your pricing. "Market value" is simply the price at which the supply and demand are equal (in the vastly simplified model that can be applied to hypothetical situations without details)
If your competition can satisfy the market below your cost, you will go bankrupt regardless of your pricing. "Market value" is simply the price at which the supply and demand are equal (in the vastly simplified model that can be applied to hypothetical situations without details)
No arguments I was merely disputing that shrinkage and transportation is part of deciding what to sell at whereas it is patently a decider for what to make and where to sell it.
Exactly in fact how it works in Eve, my industrialist avoids making certain goods in the region they are based because there is nowhere I can make a decent profit on it. Some goods I make only get sold in certain places due to I can only sell for a profit there.
As I said these factors determine what to make and where to sell not what price to charge. Anyone just going on what it cost me and thats what I will sell at plus 5% will undoubtedly go bust.