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.
There should be a combination of experience, structure and skills to increase a bandit's chance of accurately judging a caravan's relative strength and potential reward.
One of the most interesting bit of info I picked out of the Dev Blogs, weeks ago, was the need for bandits to actually observe the harvest cycle of an outpost.
This really sparked my interest because it tells me that the Devs are looking at banditry being more tactical and professional than just a smash and grab gang of street thugs.
In my view, the more skill and character skills it takes to be an effective bandit, the better.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
On the OP subject or Bad Player Behavior
I think a REPORT system with good logging and disputing capabilities will be the only way to go in terms of bad Player behavior. That is the non-rp solution. Pair that with in-game solutions like IGNORE & BOUNTY and you at least got some options. Nothing we do will ever remove the scammers, crudes etc completely without seriously hampering the game itself or leave it open to exploitation by Players with the intent to harm enemies (be them good or bad).
If the trade system is robust enough then only in-character scams will be possible as far as I can tell. And those should not be REPORTED but the target of BOUNTY and/or DEATH CURSE.
Spammers can be IGNORED and REPORTED.
Racial and sexual slur etc can be REPORTED and IGNORED.
Cursing can be IGNORED.
I am of the belief though that if you belong to or visiting any kind of C/E or N/E settlement that you should expect to see more crude behaviour, be the target of robbery and scams. But that doesn't mean that slurs or cursing need to be in its Real World state.
I don't think RP racial slur or RP cursing should be frowned up unless done within areas that would have frowned upon it in-game.
As long as GW's mods do a good job in looking into REPORTS then we shouldn't need to look at other options. At least not until that system is proven inefficient.
People that use separate accounts to spread bad player behavior like slurs, spam etc are hard to combat. GW should charge full price for each account and a price for each character bought for that account, thus earn more money on the sad and lonely a$$holes.
People that use separate accounts to circumvent game mechanics set in place to limit bad player behaviour such as ganking, camping, and REP loss avoiding are hard to combat. If you got your suspicions as to who the Player behind the char is...REPORT it and hope they can find out who it is and ban all their accounts. And REP should be account wide since it is not a measurement of your character's behavior, but the player's ability to act within the game's set rules. If you can't mellow out your exploitative, abusive, and cowardly nature to fit within these fairly relaxed rules...well then you probably should go see somebody about that. And leave us well adapted people alone.
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.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.
Disclaimer> While I won't be banditing or be a evil character I do feel that the River Kingdom needs them to be a enjoyable place that offers the gaming diversity I want.
On the topic of SAD and Caravans:
Situation: Bandits got a Hideout and considerable strength. Caravans travel the road quite often, some with many guards...some with none.
Suggestions:
1. All contracted Caravan Guards are automatically flagged for PvP. The Merchant is not. Part payment on departure, part payment if alive at delivery? (Will look into contract system of them later.)
Results: Bandits can either A Let the caravan pass, B SAD the caravan, C Ambush and kill the entire caravan, D Ambush the caravan then SAD the merchant, or E SAD then kill.
Option A: Merchant > Bandits This is in favor of the merchant. Bandits either lost loot or avoided loss because of a tough fight.
Option B: Merchant = Bandits This results in a equal loss/gain situation where the Merchant will lose a % of merchandise and Bandits will receive a % (10-35 depending on skills etc? Will discuss after) of said merchandise. REP was not lost and potentially expensive fight was avoided.
Option C: Merchant < Bandits This will result in a potentially lower or higher % of merchandise gain due to merchandise being harmed in the fight (0-45?) and REP loss for killing the merchant (if unarmed), but not the guards (occupational hazard).
Option D: Merchant = Bandits This results in Combat Costs for the Bandits, less salaries to pay for Merchant (if payment option as above is implemented), better bargaining grounds for Bandits resulting in a higher % of merchandise gain (25-55?) depending on skills, no REP loss for Bandits.
Option E: Merchant = Bandits Same as above but with a higher REP loss packed on it. Heinous flag should also be applied. I also would assume the Merchant would issue a Bounty and or Death Curse.
For other discussions, so as to not derail this entirely: Caravan Guard Contracts, Situational Ambush/Stealth mechanic for Bandits, SAD mechanics in regards to % gain of valuables for Bandits and % Hidden Valuables in regards to Merchants (experienced and sneaky merchants would hide parts of their wealth from inexperienced Bandits). I got a good quote from a book about SADs...but I'll find a SAD related thread to post it in unless requested (kinda long).
On the topic of Good & Evil:
Just wanted to briefly (yeah yeah i know!) touch upon this subject, since I am not 100% sure I agree with the way EVIL is being handled by GW at this point. If they make the benefits of being a GOOD settlement too high compared to an EVIL settlement they only run the risk of creating more multi accounters reaping the benefits of GOOD settlements and the "benefit" of being able to act evil through alt-account-chars.
If they instead gave GOOD and EVIL settlements different rewards and requirements for staying true to their alignment then it would open up for a more diverse River Kingdoms.
Instead of limiting the gear (perhaps only one Tier...) they could instead limit them in regards to how much "Influence" and "DI" they can accumulate, thus limiting their war capabilities. Because while evil should be around...we wouldn't want them dominating the game. I think even the reasonable EVIL players will realise that (if they don't have a severe case of egotism). This would keep them from starting wars all the time and rather stick to feuds, ambushes, and general in-wilderness-murdering etc to get their evil fix on.
Their Hexes should be customizable to allow some to all crimes, and all players that enter their Hex can be flagged for PvP. This would create areas that Merchants would avoid, and all adventurers that ventured there would instantly be aware that this is a dangerous land...only to be ventured in if you aren't afraid of death.
The beneficial effect of this is that more far travelling Merchants would travel through GOOD lands and create more custom, and GOOD characters would have a place of constantly available FFA PvP.
All PLAYER related rules should still apply since that has nothing to do with RP.
TL:DR ...who am I kidding...even the TL:DR would be TL:DR to sum this up...
If you DID read it all...thank you. I hope you will share your thoughts with me in return :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.
A official, dedicated, and optional HELP channel populated by MODS and GOOD SAMARITANS would be better in terms that it never goes away no matter your level. I for one tend to forget stuff I don't use much, or after extended breaks, and new stuff will always pop up. Also if you are a lone wolf you won't have a Settlement/Company to talk to and if the Settlement/Company is heavy on the RP they probably won't appreciate your questions about macros, chat commands, or the like.
The /HELP channel would be a place only populated with people that want to help you and if someone is rude to noob questions there...well we got Assassins that need work ;)
I do agree that a /GENERAL CHAT is a bad idea in that it negates the need to seek out social interaction between characters. A wider range of /TALK and a long ranged /SHOUT is a better solution.
For those cases that you need to send for help from a Outpost/Settlement they could introduce a /SOS command. This simple command could notify any NPC Guards in the vicinity (if NPC controlled area) or any ENFORCERS (in PC controlled areas) with a chat notification.
The notification could either contain basic "%Character is in need!" etc or a custom one set by what you type after /SOS "Bandits by the Outpost!" f.eks.
The ENFORCERS could then /SOS RESPOND to get a SOS marker on their map...much like a quest marker. More than one SOS from the immediate vicinity of another would not stack. More than one Enforcer can /RESPOND as well as reap the rewards for showing up.
If they arrive at the location within a certain time they would get a REP and XP reward or such. Even if they are too late to save the victim. At least they played their role and made an effort.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
- 10 - 20 hours of ACTIVE play before a new character can PvP or be targeted by PvP (i.e. leave a "starter area") This ensures 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.
Yes, I agree that this would infer more of a Time-Cost for those that want to use Alt-Account-Chars to before low rep actions...noob bombing, etc. I would set it to 20hrs just to be more of a pain to them.
- 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 overall 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 negligible effect on the overall game.
Yes, but perhaps one point per week with 5 hrs would be better, and all REP hits you receive should be open for "objection your honor!" to counter repeated malevolent REP downvotes. More but still limited votes would keep you from encountering players that you think deserve a downvote, but can't since you only have 1.
Massive downvoting without proper evidence that each one was a target of the bad behavior should result in REP- on the intial voters since abusing the system is just as bad.- 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 helpful 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.
I think GMs should be able to award REP+ for active participation in helping newbies (see my suggestion of a /HELP channel above) and other community positive behavior as you mention.
Small amounts of REP+ could also be awarded if doing the opposite of what would give you REP-. Such as 'Not Killing Recent SAD Target' and other game intended behavior. Not enough to easily dig yourself out of a REP- ditch, but...|
Goblin Squad Member
|
On the OP subject or Bad Player Behavior
I think a REPORT system with good logging and disputing capabilities will be the only way to go in terms of bad Player behavior. That is the non-rp solution. Pair that with in-game solutions like IGNORE & BOUNTY and you at least got some options.
Reporting would be a major means of determining when and how much Karma loss occurs, but that's a step 2 discussion.
Nothing we do will ever remove the scammers, crudes etc completely without seriously hampering the game itself
But you CAN hamper the griefers, scammers, and crudes themselves so they have less ability to be a detriment to other players in the game. That is the ONLY function of the Karma mechanic. It's not a punishment. Any behavior modification apps or punishments can be applied by GW as they decide. Karma as a game concept overviews the totality of negative player behavior so character reputation and Alignment don't have to be twisted up to partially do that job.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But you CAN hamper the griefers, scammers, and crudes themselves so they have less ability to be a detriment to other players in the game. That is the ONLY function of the Karma mechanic. It's not a punishment. Any behavior modification apps or punishments can be applied by GW as they decide. Karma as a game concept overviews the totality of negative player behavior so character reputation and Alignment don't have to be twisted up to partially do that job.
Aye, i have to agree that REP alone might not be sufficient for measuring Bad Player Behavior [u]and[/u] Bad Character behavior. But perhaps GW could just have a "karma" system of their own that gets added to by REPORTS/COMPLAINS.
Cause as far as I can tell they should let Alignment handle Bad Character Behavior and Reputation handle Bad Player Behavior. How they decide to handle Player Reports is up to them.