Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a group does not have the influence to feud with the merchant company and their numbers are nearly equal to the bandits, even SADs are off the table. The only reasonable option is to let them pass without being engaged.You keep saying this, but it seems completely wrong. Did something about how SAD works change?
From what I remember: Bandit offers SAD. If Merchant accepts, they pay and the Bandit walks away with more clink in his purse. If the Bandit attacks after SAD is accepted, they lose rep. If the Merchant denies, the Bandit can attack with minimal/no rep loss.
Again, has something about that changed?
You are not picking up on the "nearly equal". I'm assuming that the advantage gained by ambush is pretty significant. It is what would allow a group of bandits to challenge a well guarded caravan.
We would typically not SAD a well guarded caravan, but instead attack it, to have that advantage. If we SAD them and they reject, yes we avoid reputation loss but we also lose advantage in the fight as well. The end result would be, if we can not feud with an NPC company sponsored caravan, then it takes ambush off the table. Our rep hit would be too high. If they reject the SAD on a regular basis. We would just let them pass, and search for another caravan, not being protected by NPC shield or High Repuation.
Ryan may say that is working as intended, I'm only guessing. He might also say that an NPC sponsored company is not immune to feuds. I seriously doubt that, or he will hear the cries of those that will claim that that will lead to griefing noobs.
This is the merchant opting out scenario I described in my thread. Caravans hiding behind NPC sponsorship and High Reputation to act as a shield.
I know that Ryan claimed that they would not be able to train upper tier traing while still attached to an NPC settlement. I ask, how much upper tier training does a Caravan crew need?
Even if a Wagon had tiers, and...
But moving in large numbers is pretty much the only defense against bandits that merchants have. Unless your company is pitifully small (and I've seen no indications that it is), most merchant caravans will probably not be able to withstand you.
And if you cannot maintain some element of surprise while issuing a SAD, then you need to think harder about your tactics.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The OP mentions a few problem players:
Scammers and those that use poisonous language are players that GW wants to keep out of PO.
I agree that the current Alignment system is not the best way of handling them. But I'm not sure if changing the system is the best way to handle these problem players.
Those who use abusive or poisonous language are best dealt with an "ignore" feature. If you cannot hear them the problem goes away.
Fewer central hubs also reduces the chances of a "Barrens chat". You shouldn't be able to "downvote" a player just because you disagree with them.
Scammers are twofold. There are those who are abusing the system and trying to make money off the game. They should just be banned. We don't need a reputation system for them.
Then there are con men exploiting the naive and unaware.
This is tricky as they might not technically be doing anything wrong. Selling something at an inflated price or tricking people into wasting funds isn't wrong, just a dick move.
Elaborate in world scams shouldn't be mechanically discouraged. If you manage to swindle someone, their entire alliance shouldn't be able to give you negative rep and allow you to be Killed on Sight.
There should be in world ways of dealing people who offend you. Like bounties. Or just warning people on message boards.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But moving in large numbers is pretty much the only defense against bandits that merchants have. Unless your company is pitifully small (and I've seen no indications that it is), most merchant caravans will probably not be able to withstand you.
And if you cannot maintain some element of surprise while issuing a SAD, then you need to think harder about your tactics.
Not "think harder of our tactics", but choose more wisely our targets.
Here are a few certainties about banditry:
1. If the bandits ambush or SAD, they believe they can beat you.
2. If you are a soft target (easy to beat) the bandit is more inclined to SAD you rather than ambush you.
3. If you pose a moderate strength target (even to that of the bandits) they will likely not SAD you, but either ambush you or let you pass.
4. If you pose a hard target (more powerful) the bandits will only consider an ambush if the reward is great, or they will let you pass.
5. If you pose more risk than reward, the bandits will let you pass.
So your assessment that the only defense, I would say "iron clad" defense, is to present a greater amount of risk than you do reward.
I think that presenting weakness (and I don't mean this in a derogatory way) may be more likely to get a SAD, rather than an ambush.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The OP mentions a few problem players:
Scammers and those that use poisonous language are players that GW wants to keep out of PO.I agree that the current Alignment system is not the best way of handling them. But I'm not sure if changing the system is the best way to handle these problem players.
Those who use abusive or poisonous language are best dealt with an "ignore" feature. If you cannot hear them the problem goes away.
Fewer central hubs also reduces the chances of a "Barrens chat". You shouldn't be able to "downvote" a player just because you disagree with them.Scammers are twofold. There are those who are abusing the system and trying to make money off the game. They should just be banned. We don't need a reputation system for them.
Then there are con men exploiting the naive and unaware.
This is tricky as they might not technically be doing anything wrong. Selling something at an inflated price or tricking people into wasting funds isn't wrong, just a dick move.
Elaborate in world scams shouldn't be mechanically discouraged. If you manage to swindle someone, their entire alliance shouldn't be able to give you negative rep and allow you to be Killed on Sight.
There should be in world ways of dealing people who offend you. Like bounties. Or just warning people on message boards.
Jester David, I hate to be cynical but your idea has too much individual responsibility and not enough supposed "toxic" behavior must be crushed by game mechanics and GW employees.
The /ignore feature protects you from the offensive language, but what about the new player that is so upset about seeing it that they rage quit and run back to My Little Pony Online?
There is very hopefully not going to be Global Chat in PFO. That will at the very least help control some of the language, because both you and the person making the comment are in the same area.
If you are that offended, grab a buddy or two, hunt the guy down and kill him.
Or place them on the /ignore list and be done with them forever.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I forsee merc companies of low rep CE folks, but high non mechanical rep, being chosen as escorts for merchants. merchant orders, if any bandit shows up kill them on sight no questions asked. They SAD me, kill them, they dont SAD me, kill them, They approach me kill them, they follow me, kill them, they dont go away when i say, kill them. reward would be monthly payments to keep them in good gear and the chance to engage in pvp.
as for scamming and toxic behavior (also known as BM in mobas). Thats something that GW needs to handle and not be linked to a mechanic. The mechanic should be this. Report player, reason as such, system takes a snap shot of all conversations that person has had for the past x amount of time, GW evaluations and warns/bans as appropriate or sets up a tribunal system ala LoL. For scammers, ban them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I forsee merc companies of low rep CE folks, but high non mechanical rep, being chosen as escorts for merchants. merchant orders, if any bandit shows up kill them on sight no questions asked. They SAD me, kill them, they dont SAD me, kill them, They approach me kill them, they follow me, kill them, they dont go away when i say, kill them. reward would be monthly payments to keep them in good gear and the chance to engage in pvp.
I see this being an early win, but a long-term loss. When training values are low, this brute force method would be great for security. But eventually you will reach a point where a small squad of well-trained soldiers (requiring high rep) will be cheaper and more effective than a mass of poorly-trained ones.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@lifedragon
Perhaps, But remember you can just hire more of them. The goal isnt to have those guys all the time, but to make it so that they have to move to other areas. Sure they will check back every once in a while, but the thing is that those guys dont care if they die. If they have good teamwork they can focus the bandits, the result is that it makes it so that bandits no longer want to target those people.
Not only that but there is nothing that says the CE folks wont have better teamwork and be able to take on others. So its more about convincing the bandits that its not worth the engagement rather than being able to beat them down everytime.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@vwoom
thats the thing, lets say the have invested in a hideout. This means that they probably will operate within a certain group of hexes. The result is that you probably know about where they are going to be. if they operate beyond that, set a trap for them or their fence and make transporting those goods a heavy risk.
If you make sure that when you are in those danger zones you make it prohibitive for them to make you a target then you did your job. If you can do it enough they just might decide that its not worth it to stay there. heck you could just pay those CE mercs to hang around those areas and harass those bandits to make them leave.
Hand the mercs your list of the characters known to be bandits in that area and tell them to kill them all on sight.
Sure the bandits might win over all, but how many of those bandits will want to deal with it? Remember their goal is to rob merchants for a profit. Even if they kill those mercs 3 times for every one of their loses, the mercs wont really care that much. They will run around in a group and pick up bandits that are alone or in much smaller groups. You force the bandits to always run in a big pack or risk getting killed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The OP mentions a few problem players:
Scammers and those that use poisonous language are players that GW wants to keep out of PO.I agree that the current Alignment system is not the best way of handling them. But I'm not sure if changing the system is the best way to handle these problem players.
Those who use abusive or poisonous language are best dealt with an "ignore" feature. If you cannot hear them the problem goes away.
Fewer central hubs also reduces the chances of a "Barrens chat". You shouldn't be able to "downvote" a player just because you disagree with them.Scammers are twofold. There are those who are abusing the system and trying to make money off the game. They should just be banned. We don't need a reputation system for them.
Then there are con men exploiting the naive and unaware.
This is tricky as they might not technically be doing anything wrong. Selling something at an inflated price or tricking people into wasting funds isn't wrong, just a dick move.
Elaborate in world scams shouldn't be mechanically discouraged. If you manage to swindle someone, their entire alliance shouldn't be able to give you negative rep and allow you to be Killed on Sight.
There should be in world ways of dealing people who offend you. Like bounties. Or just warning people on message boards.Jester David, I hate to be cynical but your idea has too much individual responsibility and not enough supposed "toxic" behavior must be crushed by game mechanics and GW employees.
The /ignore feature protects you from the offensive language, but what about the new player that is so upset about seeing it that they rage quit and run back to My Little Pony Online?
There is very hopefully not going to be Global Chat in PFO. That will at the very least help control some of the language, because both you and the person making the comment are in the same area.
If you are that offended, grab a buddy or two, hunt the guy down and kill...
And these hypothetical new players have never experienced Global Chat on any other MMO ever? Or Xbox Live? Or Message Board?
Really, there has to be a General Chat. Where else do people ask general questions? If there isn't, the chat and questions will just fill a Selling or LFG chat. General Chat serves the necessary function of leaving all other chat channels clear.
There's no way to prevent people being dicks save having a huge staff of moderators paid to censor people. No reputation system will change that. No matter how bad your rep is, you'll still be able to chat or send PMs. The alternative (blocking those features) would prevent anyone who does want to engage in PvP from being able to communicate.
There are other solutions, such as limiting PMs to non-friends and the like until people have played for a certain length of time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And these hypothetical new players have never experienced Global Chat on any other MMO ever? Or Xbox Live? Or Message Board?
Really, there has to be a General Chat. Where else do people ask general questions? If there isn't, the chat and questions will just fill a Selling or LFG chat. General Chat serves the necessary function of leaving all other chat channels clear.
Eve has no general chat nor does it have such a thing as trade chat. The closest it comes is custom made channels. There is local chat for each individual system. It is certainly therefore quite possible to have an mmo without any of these
One thing that Eve does that might be worth considering. New players are put into a help channel for the first month they are in game. This help channel consists of only new players and some CCP approved player volunteers (ISD) who have only two functions. That of answering newbie questions and the other of moderating the chat.
After the first month the new players lose access to this channel but that should be more than enough time to get them off to a good start and on their way to a player organization which can then take over the task of mentoring them.
It seems to work well for Eve and gives new players a good reliable source of information without the trolling you sometimes get when someone asks a newbie question
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
[shameless plug]
That would be a nice feature. Some of us also plan on contributing to a player-run Guide Program for new players. Here's a link for anyone interested in helping new players.
[/shameless plug]
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I hope there is a newbie channel with mentors on it. As to the BM in chat, its very simple. have a report system, have it auto log chats for GM review. Once there is a review appropriate action is taken. I would prefer a tribunal like LoL.
I also prefer non world chat. Perhaps the chat could be limited to hexes controlled by a settlement? So a settlement and the hexes it controls via PoIs you have one local chat channel linking them all. In the wilderness you have one channel per hex.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I for one hope there is no 'world' chat. Only local chats. If a player has a question or such. Let them come to the forum and post.
I actually hope there's a separate Advice channel that's global.
I generally turn off all global chat channels, but would like to be able to help folks out when they have questions - assuming I have anything useful to offer.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
-- snipped for brevity --
Again, you are only making surface considerations.
1) Not all merchants can afford to have the kind of protection that would scare off a skilled/determined bandit group. I would wager that the majority will not.
2) You can use bluffs/deception to trick merchants into accepting/denying SADs to your benefit either with bold SADs or hiding your true strength. You can spread rumors in the community of your mastery of ambush tactics to discourage SAD denials (think Dread Pirate Roberts of Princess Bride fame).
These are things that I've only spent 30 seconds thinking up. Admittedly, the first is mere consolation, and the second is a gamble. However, I don't think that is a bad thing, and you can surely come up with better if you really apply yourself. Especially when we have more concrete information on game mechanics and abilities. Achieving strong synergy in your company's abilities (good tactics) will surely afford you a strong advantage against less prepared foes.
Again, reducing the penalties as we know them will make being a merchant completely pointless. We would have no protection and no recourse. Bandits would be able to operate with impunity, until everyone realized that being a dedicated merchant is pointless, and then Bandits would have no more targets, other than very large military groups that doubled as very inefficient caravans.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Again, reducing the penalties as we know them will make being a merchant completely pointless. We would have no protection and no recourse. Bandits would be able to operate with impunity, until everyone realized that being a dedicated merchant is pointless, and then Bandits would have no more targets, other than very large military groups that doubled as very inefficient caravans.
I'm not clear what penalties you are speaking of. I was just making the point that using SADs does have a related cost for the bandits.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still feel like bandits should be viable. Trade/caravans should also be viable. If it is too skewed in favor of any one endeavor, it won't work well.
Two things seem certain: 1. Your average merchant needs to be able to succeed enough to be profitable if he plays smart. 2. There need to be fewer successful bandits than merchants/haulers/harvesters, but those few that play smart also need to be successful and be a concern.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I still feel like bandits should be viable. Trade/caravans should also be viable. If it is too skewed in favor of any one endeavor, it won't work well.
Two things seem certain: 1. Your average merchant needs to be able to succeed enough to be profitable if he plays smart. 2. There need to be fewer successful bandits than merchants/haulers/harvesters, but those few that play smart also need to be successful and be a concern.
Both of these are certain....
There will be fewer bandits than caravans. There will be 2000 POIs, each with up to two outposts. Outposts will produce resources at an hourly rate. That is about 4000 caravans, although we don't know how often they travel from Outpost to Settlement.
Even if we think of minimal group size of 5, that would take 20,000 bandits to attack every caravan.
I just don't see that many players choosing the life of banditry.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Raw materials will likely be the lowest return for a bandits time.Unless they've been hired to disrupt supply lines.
And that is our real meal ticket!
The UNC has always been based on the belief that settlements, regardless of their public image, will look to hire "unnamed" agents to do their dirty work.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Raw materials will likely be the lowest return for a bandits time.Unless they've been hired to disrupt supply lines.
Sure that is a goal to use for it. I know if Im hired to disrupt supply lines, I can do that and make a profit off the supplies.
If the group that recruits me to do the job wants the supplies, then that will be part of the contract.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My ideal system would be something along the lines of the following....
- 10 to 20 hours of ACTIVE play before a new character can PvP or be targeted by PvP (i.e. leave a "starter area") This insure's that there is a significant cost involved in making "throw-away" Alts just for doing low rep activities. This "tutorial" could be skipped for Alts on the same account but not for any new accounts.
- Reputation is Account Wide and applies to all characters on that account.
- Reputation features an increasing debuff to PvP combat skills and at the extreme disallows PvP combat entirely.
- An account that spends at least 20 hours ACTIVE play in a month gets ONE reputation downvote to use that month. A certain, relatively high number of reputation downvotes equals 1 rank of reputation debuff. Yes, this would mean that it would be possible for a large guild to get together and "reputation bomb" a single player of an opposing guild....but this would be relatively ineffective in shifting the overal balance of PvP significantly since territorial warfare PvP in PFO is more about 100's of players fighting 100's of other players, any one player being out of the mix SHOULD be a negligable effect on the overall game.
- Reputation hits can be worked off through ACTIVE play. They can also be worked off by GM awards for recognition of a player doing good and helpfull things for the community....this can even be applied to out of game activities such as writing up player help guides, wiki's volunteering to assist orientation of newbies, etc. Players can even earn reputation "credits" by this manual awards system to help offset future potential reputation hits. All such awards are subject to spot checked supervisory review.
- Reputation debuffs would not prevent a player from participating in PvE or crafting, etc....but a sufficient number would flag the player for GM observation.
I have no idea if such a system would work optimaly in a game designed to be as competitive as PFO.
Edit: Almost forgot and every important. Players could optionaly FORGIVE any attack, kill or other action that would cause another player to get tagged for reputation loss by the system. Example - Bluddwolf slits my throat in a way that the system technicaly considers unjustified. However, I as a player reckognize that Bluddwolf was just RPing, not being a jerk as a player and the kill was within the spirit of what the game should allow even if technicaly out of bounds, I can FORGIVE Bluddwolf and the system nullifies that reputation hit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One major possibility that would make SAD useless for disrupting supply lines would be if you couldn't SAD for 75%+. If you can only SAD for small amounts, then you will only be penalizing yourself further if you SAD then attack. Not saying this is definitely going to happen, but I for one wouldn't be surprised if GW announced more concrete SAD mechanics with this as a part of it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Also far cheaper than the expensive act of war.Losing 25% of your supplies is going to hurt unless you're greatly out producing your needs.Fair point; SAD wouldn't be useless, but it would be much less effective than simply warring or feuding and attacking for all their cargo.
The cost of war is already spent on making war. Looting caravans of your enemy are just icing on the cake.
Settlements won't declare war to allow them to raid their enemy's outposts or caravans. They would just have one of their member companies use the Feud System to do that.
Even better, they would hire another unaffiliated company to wage a feud against their enemy. That way they keep their own hands clean.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bludd, I don't see why you couldn't (or shouldn't) do both if you were able; that is, both declare war and hire mercenaries to harass them. I understand there are times when you wouldn't want to let them know you are their enemy, but for the other times going with both seems prudent.
Also, if you are already planning on declaring war you can use some of your people to harass their economy in the same way hired mercs would. Not declaring war to harass, but harassing because you already declared war.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
You understand that SAD will be useless for those types of operation, of course you do. Not sure why I asked?Nope, I dont understand that SAD will be useless for supply line disruption. Please explain it to me.
The target pays, and proceeds unmolested.
If the target isn't going to pay, don't make the demand.
What it looks like you want to do is use SAD to engage everybody crossing an area without having to interact with the reputation system. I think that if that behavior is appropriate, then some kind of 'interdiction' action should allow the interdicting company to declare the road closed to traffic. (Basically, declaring the equivalent of a feud on everyone in a specified neutral area)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sorry was at work could not follow up. I said that as a smart teamster / settlement would rather get some supplies than none. The more consistent you are at disrupting the supply line the more they will a. Be willing to give up to get some materials thru, b. Beef up the guards per shipment. C. Split up shipments to lessen the risk per attack? I think the last would be a mistake depending on the max % for the SAD.
I Suspect to be truly effective you would just attack and destroy, steal the entire shippment. I suppose the terms of you contract could vary.
Of course both sides will evolve there tactics depending on man power, and avalible equipment, fast travel option within the hex.
It will be interesting if you can tell what is in the wagon, how full it is, will it carry people? All factors that will effect tactics. The old shell game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The OP mentions a few problem players:
Scammers and those that use poisonous language are players that GW wants to keep out of PO.I agree that the current Alignment system is not the best way of handling them. But I'm not sure if changing the system is the best way to handle these problem players.
Those who use abusive or poisonous language are best dealt with an "ignore" feature. If you cannot hear them the problem goes away.
Fewer central hubs also reduces the chances of a "Barrens chat". You shouldn't be able to "downvote" a player just because you disagree with them.Scammers are twofold. There are those who are abusing the system and trying to make money off the game. They should just be banned. We don't need a reputation system for them.
Then there are con men exploiting the naive and unaware.
This is tricky as they might not technically be doing anything wrong. Selling something at an inflated price or tricking people into wasting funds isn't wrong, just a dick move.
Elaborate in world scams shouldn't be mechanically discouraged. If you manage to swindle someone, their entire alliance shouldn't be able to give you negative rep and allow you to be Killed on Sight.
There should be in world ways of dealing people who offend you. Like bounties. Or just warning people on message boards.
Thank you for saying something related to the OP :)
What I'm hoping for is something we've had a thread or two on before where we discussed having more options than either letting a toxically negative player simmer and goop up the game or finally permabanning them.
The first step which I listed in OP is a mechanic which has a uniform result when applied from a variety of causes so it can be used throughout the process. This obviously shouldn't smash onto the toes of mechanics for playing the game properly, like Alignment.
Second is determining when to apply it and to what degree; which players have very little control over, there is no "downvoting" chat only reporting it for review etc. This is mostly the realm of GMs but leaves open the possibility for responsibly limited player-peer actions to help the game community feel like a real community (see below).
A third step is giving a clear, measurable understanding to the player of why action is being taken, community-responsible alternatives, etc. in case they are reformable to be a contributing player. The policy of "ignore or ban" limits both content available to players and GWs monetary stream. League of Legends was an example we talked about in forums and GW has studied. And if a ban comes you can hold an explicit record up and no one is surprised.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1. If the bandits ambush or SAD, they believe they can beat you.
2. If you are a soft target (easy to beat) the bandit is more inclined to SAD you rather than ambush you.
3. If you pose a moderate strength target (even to that of the bandits) they will likely not SAD you, but either ambush you or let you pass.
4. If you pose a hard target (more powerful) the bandits will only consider an ambush if the reward is great, or they will let you pass.
5. If you pose more risk than reward, the bandits will let you pass.
Should there be a reliable way for the bandit to judge the risk and reward before the engagement?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Should there be a reliable way for the bandit to judge the risk and reward before the engagement?1. If the bandits ambush or SAD, they believe they can beat you.
2. If you are a soft target (easy to beat) the bandit is more inclined to SAD you rather than ambush you.
3. If you pose a moderate strength target (even to that of the bandits) they will likely not SAD you, but either ambush you or let you pass.
4. If you pose a hard target (more powerful) the bandits will only consider an ambush if the reward is great, or they will let you pass.
5. If you pose more risk than reward, the bandits will let you pass.
Wouldn't that reduce the 'risk' and therefore the reward?