Stand And Deliver, A merchants perspective


Pathfinder Online

151 to 200 of 389 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

So you're saying that as a viligante, you'd be OK with EVERYONE in the game being able to attack you at any time without any consequences, whereas you would only be able to attack certain people without consequences, is that it?

Goblin Squad Member

Qallz wrote:
So you're saying that as a viligante, you'd be OK with EVERYONE in the game being able to attack you at any time without any consequences, whereas you would only be able to attack certain people without consequences, is that it?

Yes.

I am a PvPer, and I wear that title proudly.


Andius wrote:
Qallz wrote:
So you're saying that as a viligante, you'd be OK with EVERYONE in the game being able to attack you at any time without any consequences, whereas you would only be able to attack certain people without consequences, is that it?

Yes.

I am a PvPer, and I wield that title proudly.

And what games have you wielded that title proudly in, again? Remind me. For years at a time in a single game, that is.

Goblin Squad Member

Qallz, I thing you're attaching a false equivalence to Risk and Punishment. It would be a Punishment if it was guaranteed that if you SADed someone you would get hunted down and killed causing you to lose something. It's a RISK because you're doing something YOU KNOW IS WRONG and are doing it anyway because you have a decent chance of getting away scott-free if you just lay low or pose enough of a threat that no one gets you while you're flagged.

If someone doesn't like the risks, they shouldn't do the action. No one is being forced to take actions they deem too risky.


Drakhan Valane wrote:

Qallz, I thing you're attaching a false equivalence to Risk and Punishment. It would be a Punishment if it was guaranteed that if you SADed someone you would get hunted down and killed causing you to lose something. It's a RISK because you're doing something YOU KNOW IS WRONG and are doing it anyway because you have a decent chance of getting away scott-free if you just lay low or pose enough of a threat that no one gets you while you're flagged.

If someone doesn't like the risks, they shouldn't do the action. No one is being forced to take actions they deem too risky.

Which is why I suggested the system I suggested above. Go read that if you haven't already. I'm not a full-time Bandit, nor am I an official member of UNC, I'm NOT biased towards making SAD's beneficial to the SAD'er, at all. I was surprised when Andius turned down my idea, because it was a middle-ground, and then realized (as usual), he only turned it down because he's being unreasonable, and wants to punish SAD'ers for "taking people's lunch money" as he called it.


And @ Andius, I'd be happy if they made the whole game FFA PvP, that's called being a PvP'er. Making it so PvE'ers have a huge unfair advantage over me all the time, isn't "being a PvP'er", it's "being an idiot".

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm curious what this huge advantage PvEers have over you is.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Qallz wrote:
Andius wrote:
Qallz wrote:
So you're saying that as a viligante, you'd be OK with EVERYONE in the game being able to attack you at any time without any consequences, whereas you would only be able to attack certain people without consequences, is that it?

Yes.

I am a PvPer, and I wield that title proudly.

And what games have you wielded that title proudly in, again? Remind me. For years at a time in a single game, that is.

5 years in Freelancer. You can sit there and attack Freelancer and say it isn't an Open World PvP MMO despite the fact it was an open world game with persistent characters and servers that could hold anywhere from dozens to hundreds of players. Despite the fact that our server allowed you to kill anyone, anywhere, anytime. Despite the fact they implemented mods that made you drop all your carried ammo and cargo on death and then mods that made you lose credits when you died and forced you to respawn on a backwater planet in the starter system if you went bankrupt. I hold that to be an ignorant position but people are entitled to their opinions no matter how ignorant.

I haven't done it for years at a time but I did live in null sec for several months before I got bored of it. I have gone red in Darkfall when I ran into situations that required me to kill blues and I was never hesitant to spend time in the areas that marked everyone grey.

And regardless, it doesn't really matter. This is a discussion on PFO and the mechanics I support in PFO. I am an advocate that if am running around killing people who already have PvP flags and would normally be free kills in settlements that don't allow it I should be a consequence free kill, or that if I'm running around stealing money and resources from our enemies I should be a consequence free kill.

As long as the other PvPers all get similar flags, I'm cool with that. If anybody doesn't want to play with the big guys and gals then feel free not to do things that get you flagged.


Andius wrote:
Qallz wrote:
Andius wrote:
Qallz wrote:
So you're saying that as a viligante, you'd be OK with EVERYONE in the game being able to attack you at any time without any consequences, whereas you would only be able to attack certain people without consequences, is that it?

Yes.

I am a PvPer, and I wield that title proudly.

And what games have you wielded that title proudly in, again? Remind me. For years at a time in a single game, that is.
5 years in Freelancer. You can sit there and attack Freelancer and say it isn't an Open World PvP MMO despite the fact it was an open world game with persistent characters and servers that could hold anywhere from dozens to hundreds of players.

Actually I wouldn't attack Freelancer. Merely point out that I've never even heard of it.

Edit: And after looking at some screen-shots, it looks to be a Sci-Fi spaceship game. I promise you that experience won't help you even a tad in a fantasy MMO. EVE might help on a large-scale because you'd understand the overarching systems, but not in actual combat. The truth is, I'm going to steamroll you in PvP, as I think that most people will Mr. PvP'er.

Goblin Squad Member

Qallz wrote:
Actually I wouldn't attack Freelancer. Merely point out that I've never even heard of it.

It was the last game made my Chris Roberts. Star Citizen is basically Freelancer 2.

Basically the best game ever made to date. I'd still be playing it if I hadn't literally done everything there is to do hundreds of times over.

Sorry for the assertion. But there are some on these forums *cough* Bluddwolf *cough* that dispute it's status as an Open World PvP MMO.

Goblin Squad Member

I loved Wing Commander.


Andius wrote:
Qallz wrote:
Actually I wouldn't attack Freelancer. Merely point out that I've never even heard of it.

It was the last game made my Chris Roberts. Star Citizen is basically Freelancer 2.

Basically the best game ever made to date. I'd still be playing it if I hadn't literally done everything there is to do hundreds of times over.

Sorry for the assertion. But there are some on these forums *cough* Bluddwolf *cough* that dispute it's status as an Open World PvP MMO.

Cough Bluddwolf, is probably cough correct, as if it were a real MMO, it would be listed on MMORPG.com. It's not.

Goblin Squad Member

You can call it a banana if you wish. Regardless it's a game where there where a large number of players inhabiting a persistent universe with persistent characters and everyone could kill anyone else at any time.

Also I would note that Microsoft shut down multiplayer for it a long time ago. The only way to play it now is to manually connect with the servers still running. This is the main server still up. It's heavily modded and has a ton more admin enforced rules than the server I played on (Our rules were 1. No Modding 2. No Cheating 3. No Swearing the "Don't be an a*~~@~# or pick on newbs" part was enforced entirely via our nomad cannons) but it will give anyone who tries it a good idea of what Freelancer was actually like.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Qallz wrote:
Andius wrote:
Qallz wrote:
A 24 hour flag on banditry? The 24-hour flags are there as another means of discouraging PvP which GW deems "undesirable". Would you not agree with that?
No. Not at all. That's why I think vigilantism deserves equal treatment. Both SADs and vigilantism are forms of behavior I intend to engage in.

You're denying the simple fact that the "Attacker" and "Mass Murderer" flags are there to discourage undesirable gameplay? Gimme a break man.

If that's true, then why do these flags only apply to people who killed/attacked "Unsanctioned" targets, and not people who kill/attack anyone, exactly?

An hour+ long "anyone can attack" flag for Bandits is a way of punishing people for engaging in that form of gameplay. Period.

Edit: That is to say it IS too punishing, regarldess of whether someone intends to be a punishment.

The flags aren't there to shape gameplay, they're there to make the choices meaningful. You can be a bandit rarely, and never get the long-term flag, or you can be a full-time bandit, and be hunted even when it's been more than an minute since you last robbed someone.

There's no good reason to believe that someone will be low Reputation just because they have a long-term flag.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DeciusBrutus wrote:
The flags aren't there to shape gameplay, they're there to make the choices meaningful.

You could paint the reputation system with the same brush, couldn't you? Are you saying the Rep system isn't there to influence gameplay, but only to "make choices more meaningful"?

Goblin Squad Member

Drakhan Valane wrote:
I'm curious what this huge advantage PvEers have over you is.

I'm curious about this too. In general a PvEer can't do anything other than mind their own business and go about doing their adventuring/crafting/trading etc. They get to defend themselves when you attack them. Otherwise they start getting flagged with PvP flags.

Where is the huge advantage in that???


Andius wrote:

You can call it a banana if you wish. Regardless it's a game where there where a large number of players inhabiting a persistent universe with persistent characters and everyone could kill anyone else at any time.

Also I would note that Microsoft shut down multiplayer for it a long time ago. The only way to play it now is to manually connect with the servers still running. This is the main server still up. It's heavily modded and has a ton more admin enforced rules than the server I played on (Our rules were 1. No Modding 2. No Cheating 3. No Swearing the "Don't be an a#~$%~& or pick on newbs" part was enforced entirely via our nomad cannons) but it will give anyone who tries it a good idea of what Freelancer was actually like.

It's a Sci-Fi spaceship game that's not even listed on MMORPG.com (and they have pretty loose standards of what they call an MMO anyways). You have no real experience in a Fantasy, single-avatar PvP-focused MMO (at least your honest though). So PFO will be your first venture into this world, no biggie. Maybe if you and I get along a bit better, I'll take you under my wing.


Andius wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
I'm curious what this huge advantage PvEers have over you is.

I'm curious about this too. In general a PvEer can't do anything other than mind their own business and go about doing their adventuring/crafting/trading etc. They get to defend themselves when you attack them. Otherwise they start getting flagged with PvP flags.

Where is the huge advantage in that???

A PvE'er sees me. I can't attack them (without consequences, though I'm not going to keep saying without consequences just to prevent people from twisting my words around) but they can attack me.

They follow me. I still can't attack. They call 2 of their Carebearey frieends. I still can't attack. They all follow me... Still, I can't attack. 7 more of their friends join in, still I can' attack.

Then I get rooted, stunned, and attacked by 10 carebears all at once?

Still, that's not a disadvantage, right?

Goblin Squad Member

As far as I promote it if you go to a settlement that's ok with whatever flag you have (Criminal / Heinous / Murderer etc.) or is allied with you, they get the vigilante flag for attacking you.

If the fact you're fair game in territory that's not friendly to your flags or the wilds isn't cool with you just declare war on the groups you want to fight. Then you are constantly flagged to eachother and won't be racking up any additional flags.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

lol The Egos around here are so huge, it is mind boggling!

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Qallz wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
The flags aren't there to shape gameplay, they're there to make the choices meaningful.
You could paint the reputation system with the same brush, couldn't you? Are you saying the Rep system isn't there to influence gameplay, but only to "make choices more meaningful"?

No. The reputation system is there to discourage certain choices while still allowing them. Low-reputation characters will have mechanical penalties that give them a significant (but probably not completely crippling) disadvantage in some areas.

The long-term flagging prevents the case where someone is a bandit for only one minute every 20, and that minute only happens when there's a juicy target that is poorly defended.

You can be an occasional bandit (roughly once every 2.5 hours of playing) and never get the long-term flag, or you be a full-time bandit, and be opposed by both part-time and full-time vigilantes. You are each others content.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Qallz wrote:
Andius wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
I'm curious what this huge advantage PvEers have over you is.

I'm curious about this too. In general a PvEer can't do anything other than mind their own business and go about doing their adventuring/crafting/trading etc. They get to defend themselves when you attack them. Otherwise they start getting flagged with PvP flags.

Where is the huge advantage in that???

A PvE'er sees me. I can't attack them (without consequences, though I'm not going to keep saying without consequences just to prevent people from twisting my words around) but they can attack me.

They follow me. I still can't attack. They call 2 of their Carebearey frieends. I still can't attack. They all follow me... Still, I can't attack. 7 more of their friends join in, still I can' attack.

Then I get rooted, stunned, and attacked by 10 carebears all at once?

Still, that's not a disadvantage, right?

Why don't they have consequences for murdering you in this scenario?

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
Qallz wrote:
Andius wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
I'm curious what this huge advantage PvEers have over you is.

I'm curious about this too. In general a PvEer can't do anything other than mind their own business and go about doing their adventuring/crafting/trading etc. They get to defend themselves when you attack them. Otherwise they start getting flagged with PvP flags.

Where is the huge advantage in that???

A PvE'er sees me. I can't attack them (without consequences, though I'm not going to keep saying without consequences just to prevent people from twisting my words around) but they can attack me.

They follow me. I still can't attack. They call 2 of their Carebearey frieends. I still can't attack. They all follow me... Still, I can't attack. 7 more of their friends join in, still I can' attack.

Then I get rooted, stunned, and attacked by 10 carebears all at once?

Still, that's not a disadvantage, right?

Why don't they have consequences for murdering you in this scenario?

He's flagged as a Bandit.

Edit: That scenario sounds a lot like a Wild West movie, honestly.


Viligante was NEVER mentioned by any DEV, ever, as far as I know. Am I wrong about that?

And @Decius:

DeciusBrutus wrote:
No. The reputation system is there to discourage certain choices while still allowing them

I view the ability for anyone to attack this person without consequences, whereas THEY can't attack people without consequences, as a punishment, because it's a clear disadvantage (one person can decide if they want to engage in the fight or not, and the other can't without losing Rep).

If everyone views the Bandit as hostile, and can attack them consequence-free, then why shouldn't the Bandit view all of them as hostile, and be able to attack THEM consequence-free?


Drakhan Valane wrote:


Edit: That scenario sounds a lot like a Wild West movie, honestly.

Oh, wow, that's a GREAT point.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
lol The Egos around here are so huge, it is mind boggling!

I won't deny that for a second. We had several "biggest ego" polls on our Freelancer server forums. I won them all and bragged about it. ;)

This is just how our kind interacts.

Goblin Squad Member

Qallz wrote:
Viligante was NEVER mentioned by any DEV, ever, as far as I know. Am I wrong about that?

No. It never has been.

Honestly the attacker flag is already in existence and I'll be quite shocked if SADs aren't already attached to a criminal flag. Everything I advocate is historically a bit more pro PvP than the system that actually show up in the blogs.

The vigilante flag is just a consequence to my own playstyle I advocate despite the relative certainty I'm already going to see solutions to all the problems I perceive in the system.


Andius wrote:
Everything I advocate is historically a bit more pro PvP than the system that actually show up in the blogs.

Pro "sheep-dog" PvP, anti "wolf" PvP, as usual. The day you realize that we're on the same side, will be a good day indeed.

Goblin Squad Member

Qallz wrote:
Andius wrote:
Everything I advocate is historically a bit more pro PvP than the system that actually show up in the blogs.
Pro "sheep-dog" PvP, anti "wolf" PvP, as usual. The day you realize that we're on the same side, will be a good day indeed.

Wolves are packhunters and fearsome. The wolves are going to form settlements, build armies, and wage all out war. Nothing I advocate hurts the true wolves.

Jackals are going to go up against the wolves and sheepdogs and realize both are out of their league. Then they're going to do easier things like SADing newbs and small parties of PVEers in areas the wolves and sheepdogs don't frequent as much.

I don't really care if this game has jackals or not as long as there aren't so many that they drive off all the lambs.


Now, you're adding jackals and lambs? How many animal metaphors are we going to have? lol

OK, how about this:

- Bandits need to flag themselves as Bandits in order to do SAD's.

- Viligantes can attack Bandits consequence-free.

- Bandits can attack Viligantes consequence-free.

Other than that, SAD system remains the same. How would would you like that, fair?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

....................................... Actually that's not a bad proposal. I could work with that.

Goblin Squad Member

Qallz wrote:
If everyone views the Bandit as hostile, and can attack them consequence-free, then why shouldn't the Bandit view all of them as hostile, and be able to attack THEM consequence-free?

This sounds more like a faction issue. The bandit should just ply their trade in a place with people from the opposing faction.

I think it is important to also remember that were these 3 people stalking you - PvPers, they would have a PvP flag as a consequence to their prior gameplay choices...then they would be free for you to reap. If they are fulltime PvE players, they will most likely do everything they can to simply avoid you as a flagged player. At least that is my experience of strictly PvE players - as sheep to wolves.

I must admit, Qallz originally had me sold a page ago because I was looking at the flags and reputation as he does, as punishment/stick for "undesirable behaviour". I have used the argument myself...repeatedly. However, I think I am being won over by the "consequence" crowd. I have had difficulty in the past reconciling my belief that certain actions should not be done, hence cause Rep damage, and the fact that they could be done.

I think this small but significant twist in how the problem is being considered is really important. I need to sit and rethink through how I have envisioned the game in my mind to really know what and if it changes other opinions. Anyways, Thanks Andius, Drakhan, and Decius for offering a counter to my previous expectations.


Andius wrote:
....................................... Actually that's not a bad proposal. I could work with that.

OK, I'm leaving now, I have to at least pretend that I have a life.

Goblin Squad Member

Qallz wrote:

Now, you're adding jackals and lambs? How many animal metaphors are we going to have? lol

OK, how about this:

- Bandits need to flag themselves as Bandits in order to do SAD's.

- Viligantes can attack Bandits consequence-free.

- Bandits can attack Viligantes consequence-free.

Other than that, SAD system remains the same. How would would you like that, fair?

Yeah, I do not like this magical place Vigilantes is getting. Bandits can already kill each other when they have the bandit flag flying. Why do we need another flag that does the exact same thing?

Also, I fear this direction is starting to cut out the meaningful interactions with the antelope, gazelle, and yaks.

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.

The whole thread is already off of the original topic, in any case. Apologies to Pax Pagan. ;)

I am looking forward to refusing offers of SAD. I will travel with valuables protected to the point that is profitable. I will have to make sure that I also have some trained skills that I can use to back up my bravado.

I look forward to fighting for my goods rather than meekly surrendering them. I will do everything that I can to up my chances of success at this approach.

I would rather pay friends to guard my caravans than pay bandits to leave it alone.

I will sit Tavern side and buy drinks for the brave souls that ride the trade routes and smash the faces of the wicked.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
KitNyx wrote:
Yeah, I do not like this magical place Vigilantes is getting.

I'm now envisioning a place filled with clouds, rainbows, demon/bandit heads on pikes, and a bunch of guys armed to the teeth drinking ale together.

KitNyx wrote:
Bandits can already kill each other when they have the bandit flag flying.

Everyone could kill outlaws back when we had an outlaw flag but there is unfortunately no confirmed outlaw or bandit flag at this point.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
KitNyx wrote:
Yeah, I do not like this magical place Vigilantes is getting.
I'm now envisioning a place filled with clouds, rainbows, demon/bandit heads on pikes, and a bunch of guys armed to the teeth drinking ale together.

Valhalla?

Andius wrote:
KitNyx wrote:
Bandits can already kill each other when they have the bandit flag flying.

Everyone could kill outlaws back when we had an outlaw flag but there is unfortunately no confirmed outlaw or bandit flag at this point.

Yeah, I think I will wait for more details.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:

The whole thread is already off of the original topic, in any case. Apologies to Pax Pagan. ;)

I am looking forward to refusing offers of SAD. I will travel with valuables protected to the point that is profitable. I will have to make sure that I also have some trained skills that I can use to back up my bravado.

I look forward to fighting for my goods rather than meekly surrendering them. I will do everything that I can to up my chances of success at this approach.

I would rather pay friends to guard my caravans than pay bandits to leave it alone.

I will sit Tavern side and buy drinks for the brave souls that ride the trade routes and smash the faces of the wicked.

This is working as intended Bringslite. Bandits will look at your caravans and may say, "risk vs. reward too equal" and let you pass unchallenged.

There is always that cheap ass, greedy merchant who will refuse to pay for guards and take his chances, and that is the merchant that will get nailed. That is also the merchant who will cry the most and take no responsibility for his own lack of precautions. This is the epitome of a "Care Bear".

Recently in EVE, the entire class of mining barges were overhauled and all were given additional hitpoints and fitting slots to allow for them to beef up their defenses. This would have prevented them from falling prey to the suicide gank of a group of cruisers and pushed the suicide gank squads to have to use at least a few battlecruisers (much more expensive). Many of the miners rejoiced!! Then the care bears decided instead of fitting more defenses, they could add more cargo capacity (which reduces hull strength) and instead of shield or armor boosters and plating, they would go with fittings that mined faster or more efficiently.

Suicide Gank Squads can still alpha strike these guys with cruisers, and they whine on the forums that the new beefed up barges are useless.

Pax Pagan, made a very valid point, and SADs are not all that beneficial for either the merchants of the bandits.

As another has said, not on this thread, a SAD can be arranged meta game. Without the slotted ability, without the criminal flag, without any of the downsides... Just in private chat window, "Give me your stuff or die".

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Bringslite wrote:

The whole thread is already off of the original topic, in any case. Apologies to Pax Pagan. ;)

I am looking forward to refusing offers of SAD. I will travel with valuables protected to the point that is profitable. I will have to make sure that I also have some trained skills that I can use to back up my bravado.

I look forward to fighting for my goods rather than meekly surrendering them. I will do everything that I can to up my chances of success at this approach.

I would rather pay friends to guard my caravans than pay bandits to leave it alone.

I will sit Tavern side and buy drinks for the brave souls that ride the trade routes and smash the faces of the wicked.

This is working as intended Bringslite. Bandits will look at your caravans and may say, "risk vs. reward too equal" and let you pass unchallenged.

There is always that cheap ass, greedy merchant who will refuse to pay for guards and take his chances, and that is the merchant that will get nailed. That is also the merchant who will cry the most and take no responsibility for his own lack of precautions. This is the epitome of a "Care Bear".

Recently in EVE, the entire class of mining barges were overhauled and all were given additional hitpoints and fitting slots to allow for them to beef up their defenses. This would have prevented them from falling prey to the suicide gank of a group of cruisers and pushed the suicide gank squads to have to use at least a few battlecruisers (much more expensive). Many of the miners rejoiced!! Then the care bears decided instead of fitting more defenses, they could add more cargo capacity (which reduces hull strength) and instead of shield or armor boosters and plating, they would go with fittings that mined faster or more efficiently.

Suicide Gank Squads can still alpha strike these guys with cruisers, and they whine on the forums that the new beefed up barges are useless.

Pax Pagan, made a very valid point, and SADs are not all that...

Yeah they could be offered that way. I think that we could lose something that might be a "fun interaction" if they were though.

There are some benefits, possibly, that could make it interesting and "measurable" with the mechanic in place. I don't begrudge that bandits could do it without rep and alignment loss. I know that you are not so concerned about the alignment issues.

I also don't mind that it is the "catch all" beyond consequence free PVP. I believe that there will be at least as many targets already penalty free than not. Those that work the system, uncommitted to anything, need a real sense of possible danger when moving goods whether gathering or moving to market.

Of course I know that there will be times that I come out the loser for my stance. It wouldn't be any fun if it weren't that way.

I just hope that there is a little bit of risk added to the SAD to balance out it's awesome power (as it now stands). I am confident that there will be. I am pretty sure that GW trying to work that out is why it is already not more detailed for us.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
I just hope that there is a little bit of risk added to the SAD to balance out it's awesome power (as it now stands).

You know, if the SAD has awesome power (which I don't think it does), then the converse is true. Not being flagged for PVP is an awesome power, that needs to be balanced.

Goblin Squad Member

It is if everyone cares about their reputation scores. Am I mistaken if I say that you have pointed out that you intend to work around any such difficulties?

You may have changed your stance on that, so I am asking honestly.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:

It is if everyone cares about their reputation scores. Am I mistaken if I say that you have pointed out that you intend to work around any such difficulties?

You may have changed your stance on that, so I am asking honestly.

I am going to reserve any comments on loopholes or work arounds I may see or believe may exist. I don't want to end up debating issues that never get implemented or reveal something that would be very useful for us to use in game.

There is an influx of EvE players coming to the game, and they are picking through the Dev Blogs and comments, looking for flaws and weaknesses. They will certainly exploit those and my group will be ready to join with them when the time comes.

Remember, PFO is shaping up to be a large alliance based PvP game.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

What I've gotten from this thread is that SADing should absolutely be directly derived from an operational hideout in the same hex or closer. hideouts require feats to operate so SAD is still indirectly gained from feats like devs currently want, but having the fixed weak spot increases the risk part of high risk high reward and helps merchants by making bandits more selective.

Stolen Goods was a good idea but I don't see it working out mechanically yet. Unless the goods can't be used or resold until taken to the hideout to be laundered, or deconstructed into baser materials.

I like the bandit-vigilante thing. It's like two decentralized factions and keeps both groups happy. SAD can only be used while flagged Bandit (merchants know if there's the possibility of a SAD approaching).

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Bringslite wrote:

It is if everyone cares about their reputation scores. Am I mistaken if I say that you have pointed out that you intend to work around any such difficulties?

You may have changed your stance on that, so I am asking honestly.

I am going to reserve any comments on loopholes or work arounds I may see or believe may exist. I don't want to end up debating issues that never get implemented or reveal something that would be very useful for us to use in game.

There is an influx of EvE players coming to the game, and they are picking through the Dev Blogs and comments, looking for flaws and weaknesses. They will certainly exploit those and my group will be ready to join with them when the time comes.

Remember, PFO is shaping up to be a large alliance based PvP game.

Fair enough, but you equated the power of the SAD (if it is powerful) with the power of being unflagged to anyone. I did not ask you what the details are of how you plan to get around the reputation system.

Equating the two in power is not a very valid point if there is a way around one (or consequences for it have no meaning for you) but not the other.

To me, the SAD is one of the equalizers vs. those that manage to run completely unflagged. So is the lack of a CC, settlement, or any TBD benefits of a faction standing.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
To me, the SAD is one of the equalizers vs. those that manage to run completely unflagged.

That's the way I view it as well. Goblinworks doesn't want people randomly running up to everyone they see and killing them so they've put in reputation that really just destroys your character if you do those kind of things.

They didn't want to remove the sense of danger entirely though, so they added SADs that allow you to run up and rob anyone you see. It's option meant to hurt less and be used by less people than the randomly kill everyone option so prevalent in similar titles.

Random slaughter drives off newbs and players that primarily enjoy PvE content though. Once a character reaches a competitive level and starts to get a taste for blood they no longer care about or even welcome random attacks.

I'd like to see reputation penalties for killing you removed at that point. Once you start engaging in behaviors that show you have the taste for blood it's time to take the training wheels off. That goes for everyone across the entire alignment spectrum.

At that point it should be the good/evil system indicating whether you like to engage in engage in a role where you oppress and abuse others for your own benefit or defend the innocent and punish wrongdoers. And the law/chaos system showing whether you fight with honor and respect authority or disregard things such as laws and borders and fight with underhanded tactics.

151 to 200 of 389 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Stand And Deliver, A merchants perspective All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.