How to make PfO better than Eve


Pathfinder Online

51 to 100 of 270 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
deisum wrote:

As for the contentious issue of PvP, I'd like to see non-consensual PvP (of which banditry is, 100%) be allowed and be a supported play-style. However, outside of combat, I'd like to pose substantially more risk to, or require more resources from those who partake in it.

Characters partaking in non-con PvP will almost certainly be carefully choosing their victims so as to minimize the risk or effort required in combat. To balance that, there should be significant effort or risk required in accomplishing more mundane acts like character advancement or economic development. This contrasts with those whom bandits pray on, who face far more risk or require more effort to protect themselves from bandits, but aren't restricted in other areas of character growth.

Of course, this is all predicated on ample opportunities for consensual PvP where everyone involved is deliberately exposing themselves to similar levels of risk. But I'm confident PfO will have plenty of opportunity for consensual PvP.

A rare enough balance that both Nihimon and I favorited this post!!

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
deisum wrote:

As for the contentious issue of PvP, I'd like to see non-consensual PvP (of which banditry is, 100%) be allowed and be a supported play-style. However, outside of combat, I'd like to pose substantially more risk to, or require more resources from those who partake in it.

Characters partaking in non-con PvP will almost certainly be carefully choosing their victims so as to minimize the risk or effort required in combat. To balance that, there should be significant effort or risk required in accomplishing more mundane acts like character advancement or economic development. This contrasts with those whom bandits pray on, who face far more risk or require more effort to protect themselves from bandits, but aren't restricted in other areas of character growth.

Of course, this is all predicated on ample opportunities for consensual PvP where everyone involved is deliberately exposing themselves to similar levels of risk. But I'm confident PfO will have plenty of opportunity for consensual PvP.

A rare enough balance that both Nihimon and I favorited this post!!

But, actually... this already exists, he is just asking to add banditry, including the SAD mechanic to the same consequences that exist for low reputation.

Low rep will cause (my guess) increase cost in XP for skills, if you can access them. Right now, you can go out and kill whomever you want... its just going to cost you.

So now we are trying to add "sanctioned" PVP to the "unsanctioned" list? Of course, Nihimon would favor that, but Bludd?

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
deisum wrote:

As for the contentious issue of PvP, I'd like to see non-consensual PvP (of which banditry is, 100%) be allowed and be a supported play-style. However, outside of combat, I'd like to pose substantially more risk to, or require more resources from those who partake in it.

Characters partaking in non-con PvP will almost certainly be carefully choosing their victims so as to minimize the risk or effort required in combat. To balance that, there should be significant effort or risk required in accomplishing more mundane acts like character advancement or economic development. This contrasts with those whom bandits pray on, who face far more risk or require more effort to protect themselves from bandits, but aren't restricted in other areas of character growth.

Of course, this is all predicated on ample opportunities for consensual PvP where everyone involved is deliberately exposing themselves to similar levels of risk. But I'm confident PfO will have plenty of opportunity for consensual PvP.

A rare enough balance that both Nihimon and I favorited this post!!

But, actually... this already exists, he is just asking to add banditry, including the SAD mechanic to the same consequences that exist for low reputation.

Low rep will cause (my guess) increase cost in XP for skills, if you can access them. Right now, you can go out and kill whomever you want... its just going to cost you.

So now we are trying to add "sanctioned" PVP to the "unsanctioned" list? Of course, Nihimon would favor that, but Bludd?

That is not how I read it. I read it that there is already a built in bias towards character advancement based in player choices.

Bandits will be more advanced in combat, stealth, etc.

Non combatants (ie Merchants) will be less skilled in combat but more skilled in travel or other associated skills.

If however Desium is asking for mechanical negative impacts, then I'm opposed.

I'd also like to point out to Desium, there is no such thing as consensual PvP. Unless of course you believe that two parties simultaneously decided to fight each other without any underlying cause initiated by one of the two.

If PFO added toggle PvP flags, then that would be consensual. But at his time there are none. I also don't see PFO having the right community for consensual PvP. There are too many that would never consent and we would be left with lame arena PvP.

Goblin Squad Member

Hmmm ok, I didnt read it that way... Got it, I looks as if he was saying what you read. If thats the case I can agree with that.

Goblin Squad Member

Yes I would need desium to clarify what he meant specifically by "character advancement and economic advancement".

The economic advancement is usually, merchants do make more money in the long run that pirates / bandits. But the merchant's life is a lot more boring.

If Character Advancement means that same kind of treatment that low Rep gets, then I'm completely against it.

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.

It's interesting to me how responses shift from "wow, that's a great theory" to "no that's bad because it would negatively impact my preferred play-style".

Unrestricted non-consensual PvP creates cultural problems, as Ryan has discussed at length elsewhere. On the other hand, a sand-box without non-consensual PvP isn't much of a sandbox. This is a video game where most of us want to be able to resort to violence in ways we wouldn't ever consider in our own lives. I unequivocally want non-consensual PvP to be an integral part of the game.

Because of the aforementioned cultural problems, non-con PvP needs limitations. The best way to do that while still maintaining the freedom of the sand-box is by associating some increasing cost. In PfO, this exists, mechanically, in the form of wars, feuds, and reputation. Wars and feuds shift the cost from an individual resource to a collective one.

Meaningful decisions are those where one has to balance between cost, risk, & reward. The aggressor in non-con PvP is assumed to be engaging in a low-risk activity, since they are the ones to choose the terms of engagement. Thus, if there is a high reward activity they can partake in, such as killing people to take their stuff, it needs to have a meaningful cost. That cost is reputation, and no feat or skill should mitigate it.

That said, I'm all for feats or skills that enhance ones ability to gain reputation. In fact, that's precisely what I would like to see Stand and Deliver offer: a significant reputation gain if the aggressed party agrees to pay, but no other benefit. Such an ability would be of little cost, but would offer high reward along with substantive risk.

Goblin Squad Member

SAD will provide the bandits with MAX daily rep gain for performing it as well as providing the merchant with increased penalties to people looking to kill him.

Goblin Squad Member

leperkhaun, with emphasis added wrote:
SAD will provide the bandits with MAX daily rep gain for performing it as well as providing the merchant with increased penalties to people looking to kill him.

How very prescient of you. Or perhaps just speculative. Or wishful.

On the other hand, much has changed, and will continue to change.

My wish is that there will be no mechanism that allows folks engaging in non-consensual PvP to avoid reputation loss, and that there will be (less grindy) mechanism to regain it.

Goblin Squad Member

deisum wrote:
leperkhaun, with emphasis added wrote:
SAD will provide the bandits with MAX daily rep gain for performing it as well as providing the merchant with increased penalties to people looking to kill him.

How very prescient of you. Or perhaps just speculative. Or wishful.

On the other hand, much has changed, and will continue to change.

My wish is that there will be no mechanism that allows folks engaging in non-consensual PvP to avoid reputation loss, and that there will be (less grindy) mechanism to regain it.

Consensual PvP ends up being lame, it is only good for training purposes and even with that it's value is somewhat limited.

PFO is being presented as a competitive, settlement vs. settlement PvP MMO where competing interests over limited resources will lead to conflict. While PvP may be inevitable, or even predictable between certain parties, it will rarely be consensual. There will almost always be one who initiates PvP and the other forced into it.

The Devs, do not want to include a dueling system for a few reasons. Consensual PvP will lead to grinding for PvP accolades (merit badges), I recall is one of them. The other is that it takes away from the sense of competition, danger and intrigue.

Finally, the mood has changed about your idea because it was initially unclear as to what you were proposing.

I definitely misinterpreted it, and Xeen was correct. @ Xeen, that was a sharp eye pick up! Always feel free to question my thoughts and opinions and encourage me to take a second look.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

@deisum

Does this rep loss for participating in non-consensual PvP also extend to areas outside of combat? Does it extend to the economic sphere - trading, crafting, gathering etc? Does is extend to the social sphere, such as politics or even roleplaying?

I'm actually of the opinion that you give consent to PvP simply by logging into the game. If you want to 'play' the game, you need to be prepared to have someone attack you physically, someone attack you politically or economically and even have someone roleplay the antithesis of your character concept. There are a plethora of ways to mitigate the risks of these, and people need to be prepared and willing to undertake them at all times.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:


While PvP may be inevitable, or even predictable between certain parties, it will rarely be consensual. There will almost always be one who initiates PvP and the other forced into it.

This is true in essence, however I think the circumstance in which the other party is forced into PvP makes a lot of difference as to how the "non-consensual" is perceived.

A person who is harvesting and then gets jumped by a group of bandits will most likely feel more frustration (and a feeling of it being non-consensual) then when an enemy-settlement decides to raid one of your PoI's and you round up a crew to go into battle with them and protect your PoI.

Even though your group was forced into PvP by the enemies decision to raid your PoI I think nobody from your group will feel anything close to the frustration that the lone harvester may feel.

I think the lone harvester scenario is what a lot of people may be afraid of. I guess the answer would be that these players adapt and only harvest in groups, taking PC-guards along. This way, when jumped, they not only have a chance but they are also more mentally prepared to be forced into PvP.

Goblin Squad Member

I think when some people use the term 'Consensual PvP' they imagine having to walk up to a player and ask nicely if they could kill them...but the thing is that the second you as a character venture in to lands that open you up for attacks or wear a flag that does the same you by definition are consenting to any PvP that might occur.

Non-consensual PvP would mean someone attacking someone in a place such as a Non-PvP zone (not that they would be able to prolly, but its just an example).

Take a sillier example:

You are a pacifist visiting New York.
The first day you find a Free For All Fight Club. Curious about the concept you wander in and watch the mad brawl with interest. Suddenly some dude punches you in the face. You can't really claim that was entirely non-consensual since you knew what kind of place it was from it's title.

The second day you visit a church and sit there in silent contemplation when a man suddenly punches you in the face. Time to press charges.

That is non-consensual PvP vs PFO :)

Goblin Squad Member

Tyncale wrote:
I think the lone harvester scenario is what a lot of people may be afraid of. I guess the answer would be that these players adapt and only harvest in groups, taking PC-guards along. This way, when jumped, they not only have a chance but they are also more mentally prepared to be forced into PvP.

Can't blame a wolf for gobbling up a lone and tasty lamb.

Can't complain if you, the lamb, wander in something called 'The Wolf Forest' all by yourself.

But you can make it harder for him by hiring stout and brave sheepherders to accompany you.

Man I got to stop making silly analogies today...

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pax JayBrand wrote:
Tyncale wrote:
I think the lone harvester scenario is what a lot of people may be afraid of. I guess the answer would be that these players adapt and only harvest in groups, taking PC-guards along. This way, when jumped, they not only have a chance but they are also more mentally prepared to be forced into PvP.

Can't blame a wolf for gobbling up a lone and tasty lamb.

Can't complain if you, the lamb, wander in something called 'The Wolf Forest' all by yourself.

But you can make it harder for him by hiring stout and brave sheepherders to accompany you.

Man I got to stop making silly analogies today...

You are making me crave for Lambchops with a good Stout!

/drool

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Puts 'Shepherd Pie' in a whole new light, doesn't it?

Goblin Squad Member

deisum wrote:
leperkhaun, with emphasis added wrote:
SAD will provide the bandits with MAX daily rep gain for performing it as well as providing the merchant with increased penalties to people looking to kill him.

How very prescient of you. Or perhaps just speculative. Or wishful.

On the other hand, much has changed, and will continue to change.

My wish is that there will be no mechanism that allows folks engaging in non-consensual PvP to avoid reputation loss, and that there will be (less grindy) mechanism to regain it.

Not really. Unless GW has changed their plan, the information about SAD provided by their blog has SAD providing max daily rep for using it, as a means of encouraging people to use it instead of just killing everyone.

non-consensual pvp needs to be allowed, if its not you end up with a pve wow server with integrated battlegrounds.


leperkhaun wrote:


non-consensual pvp needs to be allowed, if its not you end up with a pve wow server with integrated battlegrounds.

War's and feuds are also non consensual pvp in the sense that the recipient of the war or feud may well not welcome it.

Goblin Squad Member

leperkhaun wrote:
... the information about SAD provided by their blog has SAD providing max daily rep for using it...

I'm not sure if it was intentional, but that's worded in a way that might be misleading.

SAD offers Reputation gains up to a daily max. That max can be met in other ways, too.

Goblin Squad Member

@nihimon

I had worded it poorly.

SAD allows you to gain rep up to whatever the daily max is. So bandits are being encouraged to use SAD instead of just killing the merchant since they get not only loot but other bonuses.

@steelwing

I understand however thats not the same as being in danger when transporting goods. if there was only declared pvp, then i would make an alt, not affiliate him with anyone, no settlement, no company, no faction, and use him as a mule to keep everything i have 100% safe without any issues. My gatherer would do the exact same thing once he was trained up, i would leave my settlement and be immune to any danger presented by an organization.

imagine if i did that, and i started mining in your settlement, ohhh well, you cant prevent me from doing that because you cant kill me since i will do nothing to flag myself. Before long all merchants/gatherers will be unaffiliated folks with only dedicated pvp toons in settlements.


leperkhaun wrote:

@nihimon

I had worded it poorly.

SAD allows you to gain rep up to whatever the daily max is. So bandits are being encouraged to use SAD instead of just killing the merchant since they get not only loot but other bonuses.

@steelwing

I understand however thats not the same as being in danger when transporting goods. if there was only declared pvp, then i would make an alt, not affiliate him with anyone, no settlement, no company, no faction, and use him as a mule to keep everything i have 100% safe without any issues. My gatherer would do the exact same thing once he was trained up, i would leave my settlement and be immune to any danger presented by an organization.

imagine if i did that, and i started mining in your settlement, ohhh well, you cant prevent me from doing that because you cant kill me since i will do nothing to flag myself. Before long all merchants/gatherers will be unaffiliated folks with only dedicated pvp toons in settlements.

I wasn't actually querying you merely pointing out that war and feuds were also forms of non consensual pvp.

SAD is the mechanic you use for the unaffiliated or alternatively CE mercs

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

IMO, from the bit that we currently know, SAD is a Super Trump card. It is a little bit unbalanced as there are not any "mechanical" checks to mitigate it. Things may change before day 1 or be adjusted later, but right now (as it appears) it is too powerful.

It trumps the meaningful choice to either not affiliate or affiliate with minimal organizations. Those that do so, would already be hampering themselves yet the SAD makes those self hampering choices meaningless. You still have to further hamper your profit by ensuring adequate (probably paid) protection. That is fine for merchants as they can more easily offset those things.

Again, IMO, I would not mind seeing SAD a little more costly when used against lone harvesters or PVE enthusiasts when they are not pre flagged hostile to the aggressor.

I realize that this is probably a radical and unpopular position, so I did qualify it with "IMO". ;)


Bringslite wrote:

IMO, from the bit that we currently know, SAD is a Super Trump card. It is a little bit unbalanced as there are not any "mechanical" checks to mitigate it. Things may change before day 1 or be adjusted later, but right now (as it appears) it is too powerful.

It trumps the meaningful choice to either not affiliate or affiliate with minimal organizations. Those that do so, would already be hampering themselves yet the SAD makes those self hampering choices meaningless. You still have to further hamper your profit by ensuring adequate (probably paid) protection. That is fine for merchants as they can more easily offset those things.

Again, IMO, I would not mind seeing SAD a little more costly when used against lone harvesters or PVE enthusiasts when they are not pre flagged hostile to the aggressor.

I realize that this is probably a radical and unpopular position, so I did qualify it with "IMO". ;)

While you may not like me saying this it in no way removes the advantage of being unaffiliated.

Compare the cases
------------------------ War decced---------Feuded----------Sadded
Affiliated------------------Yes--------------Yes-------------Yes
Unaffiliated-----------------No--------------No--------------Yes

The unaffiliated still get wide ranging protection from interference with only the SAD standing between them and total immunity from rep free pvp.

SAD we believe will be a skill that you slot. There is nothing to say most people will be spending a slot on this and without that they cannot SAD

*Grr so much for laying out tables

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

that is something to think about, having SAD as a free pvp button than you can press anywhere isnt a good thing, it will be interesting to see how they balance the intended use vs me being able to steal or attack anyone i want to.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Bringslite wrote:

IMO, from the bit that we currently know, SAD is a Super Trump card. It is a little bit unbalanced as there are not any "mechanical" checks to mitigate it. Things may change before day 1 or be adjusted later, but right now (as it appears) it is too powerful.

It trumps the meaningful choice to either not affiliate or affiliate with minimal organizations. Those that do so, would already be hampering themselves yet the SAD makes those self hampering choices meaningless. You still have to further hamper your profit by ensuring adequate (probably paid) protection. That is fine for merchants as they can more easily offset those things.

Again, IMO, I would not mind seeing SAD a little more costly when used against lone harvesters or PVE enthusiasts when they are not pre flagged hostile to the aggressor.

I realize that this is probably a radical and unpopular position, so I did qualify it with "IMO". ;)

While you may not like me saying this it in no way removes the advantage of being unaffiliated.

Compare the cases
------------------------ War decced---------Feuded----------Sadded
Affiliated------------------Yes--------------Yes-------------Yes
Unaffiliated-----------------No--------------No--------------Yes

The unaffiliated still get wide ranging protection from interference with only the SAD standing between them and total immunity from rep free pvp.

SAD we believe will be a skill that you slot. There is nothing to say most people will be spending a slot on this and without that they cannot SAD

*Grr so much for laying out tables

I don't mind you pointing out an opposing point at all, Steelwing.

It may come to that and be less commonly used than I assume. That would work out alright. I am certainly not advocating immunity to PVP. I think that I am advocating less reputation reward for SAD in the circumstances that I described. I did word it poorly though.

Yes. This thing is not friendly to layouts after you hit "submit". :)

Goblin Squad Member

I will stand by my point that SAD is a completely consequence free "button" for PVP and so seems a bit over the top.

Thanks to leperkhaun for the word "button"

Goblin Squad Member

@Bringslight Upthread, deisum had this bit:

deisum wrote:
That said, I'm all for feats or skills that enhance ones ability to gain reputation. In fact, that's precisely what I would like to see Stand and Deliver offer: a significant reputation gain if the aggressed party agrees to pay, but no other benefit. Such an ability would be of little cost, but would offer high reward along with substantive risk.

This struck me as slightly off: the idea the SAD offers a high reward along with substantive risk.

Does the bandit get the same Rep reward for successfully mugging a lone herb-gatherer as holding up a caravan train? How is risk calculated? Or will most SADs happen when there is actually minimal risk (in which case, minimal rewards might be appropriate).

Perhaps the Rep gains from SAD should be dependent on the ratio of the two parties involved (I'm picturing SAD being triggered by an individual, but his party is now hostile to the target's party). A big strong party attacking a much weaker party gets small Rep rewards. A SAD party with parity gets medium/normal rewards. A SAD party that successfully bluffs a ransom from a larger stronger party gains the most.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:

@Bringslight Upthread, deisum had this bit:

deisum wrote:
That said, I'm all for feats or skills that enhance ones ability to gain reputation. In fact, that's precisely what I would like to see Stand and Deliver offer: a significant reputation gain if the aggressed party agrees to pay, but no other benefit. Such an ability would be of little cost, but would offer high reward along with substantive risk.

This struck me as slightly off: the idea the SAD offers a high reward along with substantive risk.

Does the bandit get the same Rep reward for successfully mugging a lone herb-gatherer as holding up a caravan train? How is risk calculated? Or will most SADs happen when there is actually minimal risk (in which case, minimal rewards might be appropriate).

Perhaps the Rep gains from SAD should be dependent on the ratio of the two parties involved (I'm picturing SAD being triggered by an individual, but his party is now hostile to the target's party). A big strong party attacking a much weaker party gets small Rep rewards. A SAD party with parity gets medium/normal rewards. A SAD party that successfully bluffs a ransom from a larger stronger party gains the most.

That would be something of a step toward what is cooking in my tiny mind. :)

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have grave misgivings about Bandits gaining Reputation via SADs, but I trust the devs to sort it out.

Goblin Squad Member

Perhaps something like this.

SAD requires training. The amount of rep and the amount/quality of loot you need requires you to train a skill tree, so its not just train one skill then you are good. So the object would make it so that it would require investment to be good at it, as well as costing you a good number of skill slots. so you cannot be a combat machine with SAD.

If you SAD a target you get flagged as a criminal the instant you initiate it and it lasts a while. This means that if a group sees you do it they can help the merchant without fear of losing rep/alignment OR the merchant can call his friends to take out the bandits and get his gear back. the flag would last as in game time and would only decrease outside of a safe area/settlement. However at a bandit hideout PoI it would decrease as normal.

The target of the SAD has two choices, they can accept the deal OR they can fight. If the target fights they get NO penalties for killing the bandits and they can loot the bandits and take their items without getting flagged for it. in addition if the merchant fights or accepts it, anyone other than the SADing person (not their group the actual person) takes extra penalties for killing the merchant for a set time. To prevent abuse this should be one of those, if you do a crappy SAD by another account/friend thats abuse and you will get punishment from GW type of thing.

Goblin Squad Member

I think there should be a huge penalty to rep for a bandit that tries to issue a SAD, gets turned down and then gets pummeled.

As for merchants it should go the same way, I think they should have a huge rep hit for accepting SADs and never defending the shipments.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tuffon wrote:

I think there should be a huge penalty to rep for a bandit that tries to issue a SAD, gets turned down and then gets pummeled.

As for merchants it should go the same way, I think they should have a huge rep hit for accepting SADs and never defending the shipments.

That may turn out being covered by failed contracts. Otherwise, I see little value in further punishing the victim. A possible way to prevent exploits, but I hope a better solution can be found than that. :)

Goblin Squad Member

If SAD ever gets tweaked it will be because it is not doing enough to keep markets local, the competition is needed between localized markets to generate settlement and player conflict. The economy is why SAD works the way it does. The big picture is going to override any 'fairness' concerns about bandits having it too easy. SAD is not broken, when did the devs ask for a fix to what they designed? I know people want to make the game better but you could make it worse changing something that has a major impact on the games economy.

Goblin Squad Member

leperkhaun wrote:
If you SAD a target you get flagged as a criminal the instant you initiate it and it lasts a while.

I like that that thinking, but would actually prefer if the ability to issue a SAD was tied to already having a Criminal or similar Flag flying for a significant (15 minutes or more?) period of time.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Tuffon wrote:

I think there should be a huge penalty to rep for a bandit that tries to issue a SAD, gets turned down and then gets pummeled.

As for merchants it should go the same way, I think they should have a huge rep hit for accepting SADs and never defending the shipments.

If anything, that should be an Influence cost to the bandit company.

I could also see SAD being limited to groups with members who have high enough rankings in a faction that anyone declared for an opposing faction has a valid reason to start a fight.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
I like that that thinking, but would actually prefer if the ability to issue a SAD was tied to already having a Criminal or similar Flag flying for a significant (15 minutes or more?) period of time.

I'd actually prefer that issuing a SAD could be done without having a prior flag. That's the surprise part - like the ambush where the wagon with the broken axle in the road turns out to be a deliberate obstacle, but you don't know that until the guys with crossbows jump up and yell "Surprise!".

Otoh, I think the party issuing the SAD *should* be flagged as hostile to everyone in the vicinity after the SAD is issued. (edit: IF the target refuses the SAD.)

Goblin Squad Member

I'm always a bit saddened when folks who seem to want to have a constructive discussion resort to fear-mongering, seemingly deliberate omissions, and general inferred misrepresentation. It's like some of you want to run for Congress or something. Intellectual dishonesty sucks, so please try to avoid it.

With that out of the way...

@leperkhaun: I'm quite certain that everyone in this discussion, as well as the vast majority of folks on this board, all agrees that non-consensual PvP is integral to the PfO sandbox. I've yet to see anyone suggest otherwise. And if they did, I don't think anyone would take them seriously.

@Jiminy: Your false conflation between conflict and combat is something I already addressed 3 months ago. While there will surely be plenty of overlap, not all conflict is combat and not all combat is conflict.

@Urman: My assertion that SAD is high-risk rests on the assumption that banditry will be illegal in most place and will, thus, earn you the criminal flag and the threat of retribution. Places where it is legal will likely see far less traffic and economic development, which imposes its own costs.

@Nihimon: My suggestion that SAD gives reputation is in conjunction with SAD giving the aggressor no special protection from reputation losses should the target refuse the generous offer.

@Bluddwolf: Duels aren't the only mechanic for consensual PvP; that's what NPC factions are for. Volunteering to fight a war is anything but non-consensual.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Attempting (however futilely) to bring this discussion back to the original topic...

EVE attempts to limit non-consensual PvP via security status, but, as I'm sure many of you know, that system is full of exploits emergent gameplay opportunities that render it rather ineffectual and actually serves to discourage consensual PvP among folks who are generally the most active in seeking it out (low-sec roams). And restoring it is a grind-y snore-fest with almost no risk. I'm confident Ryan knows these faults through-and-through and will actively work on ensuring the reputation system is markedly better.

The larger point, and one I really wanted to express in this thread, is that terrain in EVE is basically non-existent. There are a whole three location-based components to combat in EVE (ignoring grid exploits emergent gameplay opportunities): distance from your target (whether that be a destination or an opposing ship), transversal velocity, and jump gates. I hope terrain will be the single most significant improvement over EVE. It definitely has the potential to make PfO stand-out as an MMO.

The land you occupy has always been of monumental importance in reality, and I'd love to see this reflected in a PfO.

Goblin Squad Member

Notmyrealname wrote:
If SAD ever gets tweaked it will be because it is not doing enough to keep markets local, the competition is needed between localized markets to generate settlement and player conflict. The economy is why SAD works the way it does. The big picture is going to override any 'fairness' concerns about bandits having it too easy. SAD is not broken, when did the devs ask for a fix to what they designed? I know people want to make the game better but you could make it worse changing something that has a major impact on the games economy.

I like SAD, it provides a group of people (bandits) with a mechanic to do what they want without just murdering characters left and right.

However someone brought up a good point. If you SAD someone you get one of two results 1) the person accepts and you get loot plus rep or 2) the person declines and you get to kill them without penalty.

The second thing is a recent concern that was brought up. Lets say I am a LE character with high rep. I see some paladin walking about and I decide i want to kill them, However because i know who they are if i kill them i would take a massive hit to my rep. As a result, I SAD the paladin. The paladin can either give me their loot or fight me, which is what I want to begin with and allows me to do so while avoiding the normal negative consequences of my actions.

So i think talking about it is more of "hey devs here is something else to think about" rather than hate on SAD, personally i think SAD is a great mechanic.

Nihimon wrote:
I like that that thinking, but would actually prefer if the ability to issue a SAD was tied to already having a Criminal or similar Flag flying for a significant (15 minutes or more?) period of time.

I wouldnt mind that, you have to flag yourself to be able to SAD and have to fly the flag for period of time before you could. That would provide risk to the bandits, so they couldnt be perfectly safe while waiting around for a victim. in fact i really like that idea.

Goblin Squad Member

leperkhaun wrote:
If you SAD someone you get one of two results 1) the person accepts and you get loot plus rep or 2) the person declines and you get to kill them without penalty.

That's an excellent way to clarify the distinction!

I'm strongly in favor of #1 and entirely opposed to #2, which just screams 'exploit' to me.

Goblin Squad Member

deisum wrote:
leperkhaun wrote:
If you SAD someone you get one of two results 1) the person accepts and you get loot plus rep or 2) the person declines and you get to kill them without penalty.

That's an excellent way to clarify the distinction!

I'm strongly in favor of #1 and entirely opposed to #2, which just screams 'exploit' to me.

#2 screams exploit to you because you don't know or understand the Dev's reasoning behind it.

1. The Devs do not want unlimited / unrestricted harvesting of resources making it to the market without risk. Bandits are being used to not only add risk, but to also limit that harvesting productivity.

The one valid concern is that the Devs have never adequately explained what is actually looted and how that actually affects the economy.

Example: if I loot 50 lumber from you, end then sell it in the market, that has no economic impact other than changing who the seller is.

2. The Devs do not want PFO to be a murder simulator. The SAD incentivizes two behaviors. First, the bandit must have trained the use of the SAD and must have it slotted; Second, the bandit must give up ambush (surprise attack) in order to SAD; Third, the SAD may or may not be agreed to by the traveler.

If the traveler accepts the offer, he exchanges a portion of his loot for safe passage for a time period (20 minutes). The bandit gains (in theory) less loot, but gains reputation for not having killed the traveler outright.

3. The Devs needed to accommodate Chaotic Good bandits, so they could ply their skills without slipping into Chaotic Evil. The SAD mechanic accomplishes that.

Finally, there are a two ways that SADs can be exploited, but the balance out because one favors the bandit and the other the traveler. The Devs have been made aware of these but have not yet given more detail on the SAD mechanic or the Caravan System.

Your #2 is therefore not an exploit but a design decision made by the Devs. It is very much, "Working as intended".

Goblin Squad Member

@Notmyrealname, if the SAD is used by non-bandits, and the intent in using it is not to take someone's goods but to force them into PvP with no rep loss, you don't think SAD will get changed? SAD hasn't been detailed enough to say it can or cannot happen this way (many people think it can).

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Shane Gifford wrote:
@Notmyrealname, if the SAD is used by non-bandits, and the intent in using it is not to take someone's goods but to force them into PvP with no rep loss, you don't think SAD will get changed? SAD hasn't been detailed enough to say it can or cannot happen this way.

It could actually be used that way, by consent, to allow for duels which are not possible otherwise.

It could be used in a pre arranged manner to pay an escort to guard your caravan to its destination, on the fly, without using the contract system.

You are assuming that SADs will only be used by bandits, and that they are always non consensual. I have pointed this out many times and I'm certain to you more specifically.

Anyone who have trained and slotted the SAD feat can use it. It is no longer attached to Chaotic based alignment flag. It is no longer attached to the Outlaw Flag. This does not mean that SADs can't be made illegal, but then that might limit a settlements own armed forces from using it for interdiction purposes.

Previously, that is what I envisioned for Pax when we were both allied and I wrote Pax's interdiction policy. I'm not sure if that has changed since Golgotha was brought in, but I know they intended to use interdiction themselves, it is common sense.

Goblin Squad Member

@Bluddwolf: If something is readily exploitable by the players, such as using a mechanic to avoid reputation loss, it will be exploited, and that's a problem, no matter what the magical intent may have been. What you're hoping for is also shoddy design, and based on information that very likely has changed since it was first presented. So, while you're certainly welcome to keep advocating for your idealized system (that puts you at next to 0 risk...), don't cry to hard when it doesn't come to fruition.

Goblin Squad Member

deisum wrote:
@Bluddwolf: If something is readily exploitable by the players, such as using a mechanic to avoid reputation loss, it will be exploited, and that's a problem, no matter what the magical intent may have been. What you're hoping for is also shoddy design, and based on information that very likely has changed since it was first presented. So, while you're certainly welcome to keep advocating for your idealized system (that puts you at next to 0 risk...), don't cry to hard when it doesn't come to fruition.

Take it up with the Devs, it's their system.

Let me ask you,what role are you looking to play in PFO?

It might help me understand where you are coming from if I know where your interests lie.

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Shane Gifford wrote:
@Notmyrealname, if the SAD is used by non-bandits, and the intent in using it is not to take someone's goods but to force them into PvP with no rep loss, you don't think SAD will get changed? SAD hasn't been detailed enough to say it can or cannot happen this way (many people think it can).

The logical solution to that problem is provide a way to start pvp with someone else (in the same way feuds and wars are likely non-consensual from the recipients) but draw from limited resources and come with opportunity costs just like feuds and wars; which is a principle that's already approved by the community.

Then the three options are:

  • Make a meaningful decision to use up limited valuable resources and incur opportunity cost to initiate pvp.
  • Don't initiate pvp.
  • Start pvp in the way that incurs rep loss and the penalties that go with it. (With a full array of valid alternatives, we can make those penalties as tough as we like since rep loss comes from actions that lead to toxicity and ideally would never happen)

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
deisum wrote:
@Bluddwolf: If something is readily exploitable by the players, such as using a mechanic to avoid reputation loss, it will be exploited, and that's a problem, no matter what the magical intent may have been. What you're hoping for is also shoddy design, and based on information that very likely has changed since it was first presented. So, while you're certainly welcome to keep advocating for your idealized system (that puts you at next to 0 risk...), don't cry to hard when it doesn't come to fruition.
Take it up with the Devs, it's their system.
Actually I believe you were the one who proposed it, in conversation with Andius
Bluddwolf wrote:

Let me ask you,what role are you looking to play in PFO?

It might help me understand where you are coming from if I know where your interests lie.

I doubt it will enhance or degrade the reasoning to know who pronounced it. The reasoning is sound or it isn't. Providing personality only opens the gate for ad hominems and erroneous inference. It isn't a crime to think differently, so nobody should need to provide you with their motives.

Goblin Squad Member

deisum wrote:
@Bluddwolf: If something is readily exploitable by the players, such as using a mechanic to avoid reputation loss, it will be exploited, and that's a problem, no matter what the magical intent may have been. What you're hoping for is also shoddy design, and based on information that very likely has changed since it was first presented. So, while you're certainly welcome to keep advocating for your idealized system (that puts you at next to 0 risk...), don't cry to hard when it doesn't come to fruition.

I think at root it is a good system to increase meaningful player interaction while also providing setting and conflict for potentially excellent RP. The problem I think is not with the SAD in principle but with its ability to reduce risk to nearly nil while also providing a work-around to the 'no dueling' sentiment that I think is a guideline for the devs. If my grasp of it is right, then what is needed (unless the developer is waaay ahead of us)is a discussion to mitigate the reduced risk/high gain and potential duellist exploit.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

War spikes in the Eve Online universe: A political economist’s account

Quote:

The fact that the physical damage was of the digital variety, and confined within Eve Online, a multi-player game, does not mean that it was not real. The destroyed starships, outposts and mines cost real dollars and took months and months of dedicated, skilled labour to put together. Make no mistake dear reader: these were real losses.

Conclusion: What does a flourish of destructive war mean for this economy?

If a spike in destructive violence, like the recent incident, puts players off, Eve Online’s economy will suffer, as participants shall invest less in it. Only this is highly unlikely. Judging by what the victims of the latest episode in the Eve Online saga say in various message boards, their resolve seems to be holding. Indeed, they “shall be back”, they tell us. They shall invest fresh time, energy and real world money to re-build their starships, to re-furbish their mining outposts, to re-jig their uncertain alliances, to give themselves a chance to take revenge upon those that sought heinously to eliminate them. After all, this is what they signed up for: a game that transports them to a world where no one can be trusted and where dangers lurks behind every smile, every handshake, every seemingly lucrative deal. The only real similarity with the offline world is that their macroeconomy, just like ours, benefits from destruction. As for the main difference, Eve Online’s economy, unlike ours, does not suffer from a tendency toward permanent crisis. But that’s another story...

Captain Obvious: "The Economy obviously has an important role to play."

Goblin Squad Member

deisum wrote:
@Jiminy: Your false conflation between conflict and combat is something I already addressed 3 months ago. While there will surely be plenty of overlap, not all conflict is combat and not all combat is conflict.

The post you made contained the line:

Because of the aforementioned cultural problems [Unrestricted non-consensual PvP creates cultural problems], non-con PvP needs limitations.

I simply asked if you thought non-combat PvP should fall into the same category (and thus suffer a reputation loss). In my opinion, I was not conflating conflict and combat, I was asking you to clarify your statement and what you exactly meant by PvP. Unfortunately I had decided not to read all yours posts from three months prior to determine that your opinion is that non-combat conflict is not PvP. I guess our opinions differ.

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
deisum wrote:
@Bluddwolf: If something is readily exploitable by the players, such as using a mechanic to avoid reputation loss, it will be exploited, and that's a problem, no matter what the magical intent may have been. What you're hoping for is also shoddy design, and based on information that very likely has changed since it was first presented. So, while you're certainly welcome to keep advocating for your idealized system (that puts you at next to 0 risk...), don't cry to hard when it doesn't come to fruition.
Take it up with the Devs, it's their system.
Actually I believe you were the one who proposed it, in conversation with Andius

I (we) may have influenced it, but we did not develop its mechanics.

I believe it is a balanced system and to say that there is no risk involved for the bandit is false in that the risk could be involved with having trained for it and slotted it (at the expense of another ability) and then not finding a suitable target to use it against. The risk is also that the bandit misjudges the traveler's strength or willingness to fight, and now the bandit has given up the advantage of surprise attack, and has a slot dedicated to a useless feat in combat.

Risk is not always involved with the "in the moment" of the event. It can be experienced before or much after the event. Just like in all PVP, the risk has to be provided by the potential victim or his/her player group.

That is the traveler's cost for participation in the open world PVP environment.

51 to 100 of 270 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / How to make PfO better than Eve All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.