Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... we would be happy to issue a sad for no money or goods if the options we could give were "Leave this hex immediately by the shortest route" or "die".
Would people be happier with that than us issuing maximum value sads in order to ensure they are refused so we kill you. (We do not want the sad accepted because it then leaves you free to act in the hex and the only way to force you out is to kill you)
I would still prefer that there be some way to declare, enforce, and contest (temporary?) control of the area. For example, someone who puts a gathering camp down might gain the ability to declare 'no trespassing' within a radius of that camp, granting a Good Reason to kill anyone who loitered within that area.
That differs from the other proposals in that the cost is lower for the intended use case (prospectors defending a claim do so basically at combat costs), and higher for the most likely abuse cases (putting down a prospecting camp is a very expensive way of messing with a lone traveler).
I do feel like when one character makes the implicit announcement "This currently uncontested resource node is mine, and I will defend my claim with lethal force!" and another one makes the counter "I dispute your claim!", then the reputation system needs to leave those two alone, regardless of the outcome. That concept does not generalize to carried items, nor to all held territory.
(( Decius, for what it's worth it's very hard to trim your quotes down because you express your ideas so compactly, and so little of what you say is fluff ))
This was exactly the intent behind my proposal for a Challenge Mechanic.
I completely agree with all of the points Decius makes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Is there a third option to "Ignore" or "Report" abusive chat?Yes. Instill a sense of general civility and respect for others in the community. Part of that involves censuring those who violate those principles.
Isn't "censuring" a function of both ignoring or reporting more severe instances of abusive chat?
Or are you talking about opening a dialogue with the offender and trying to instruct them on desired chat behaviors?
I have seen attempts to do the latter and it usually was met with even worse chat, and that is where "Don't feed the Trolls" comes from.
It is a very powerful tool, the /ignore function. If enough of the population puts a single character on /ignore, the abusive player can't communicate to achieve legitimate needs either.
That function is paramount to having a chat system that players will use, it is a major feature of a MVP in my opinion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... we would be happy to issue a sad for no money or goods if the options we could give were "Leave this hex immediately by the shortest route" or "die".
Would people be happier with that than us issuing maximum value sads in order to ensure they are refused so we kill you. (We do not want the sad accepted because it then leaves you free to act in the hex and the only way to force you out is to kill you)
I would still prefer that there be some way to declare, enforce, and contest (temporary?) control of the area. For example, someone who puts a gathering camp down might gain the ability to declare 'no trespassing' within a radius of that camp, granting a Good Reason to kill anyone who loitered within that area.
That differs from the other proposals in that the cost is lower for the intended use case (prospectors defending a claim do so basically at combat costs), and higher for the most likely abuse cases (putting down a prospecting camp is a very expensive way of messing with a lone traveler).
I do feel like when one character makes the implicit announcement "This currently uncontested resource node is mine, and I will defend my claim with lethal force!" and another one makes the counter "I dispute your claim!", then the reputation system needs to leave those two alone, regardless of the outcome. That concept does not generalize to carried items, nor to all held territory.
(( Decius, for what it's worth it's very hard to trim your quotes down because you express your ideas so compactly, and so little of what you say is fluff ))
This was exactly the intent behind my proposal for a Challenge Mechanic.
I completely agree with all of the points Decius makes.
Doesn't that work against what Ryan said about the harvesting outposts being common meeting areas for trade in the outlying areas?
I guess you could set an NBSI policy to your outpost, but then you would gimp some of your trading potential.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't "censuring" a function of both ignoring or reporting more severe instances of abusive chat?Is there a third option to "Ignore" or "Report" abusive chat?Yes. Instill a sense of general civility and respect for others in the community. Part of that involves censuring those who violate those principles.
Censuring means expressing disapproval. I think it's important that the offending player be made aware that his behavior was offensive so that he can correct it. If the most common response is to simply /ignore it, then there's no incentive to correct it.
Obviously, it's not a perfect system, but I don't think it's fair to place the burden entirely on the moderators. A lot can be accomplished if the community uses peer pressure to encourage rude or offensive players to moderate themselves.
Or are you talking about opening a dialogue with the offender and trying to instruct them on desired chat behaviors?
I have seen attempts to do the latter and it usually was met with even worse chat, and that is where "Don't feed the Trolls" comes from.
I was thinking more along the lines of multiple players in chat responding with a simple "Hey man, that's not cool". You're absolutely right about not feeding trolls, but I think a lot of "offending players" will be guys who are used to treating MMOs like a locker-room atmosphere, and will quickly change their behavior if several people speak up. If they go on a rant from there, that's when /ignore and /report kick in. At least, that's the way I'd like to see it work.
Isn't "censuring" a function of both ignoring or reporting more severe instances of abusive chat?Is there a third option to "Ignore" or "Report" abusive chat?Yes. Instill a sense of general civility and respect for others in the community. Part of that involves censuring those who violate those principles.Censuring means expressing disapproval. I think it's important that the offending player be made aware that his behavior was offensive so that he can correct it. If the most common response is to simply /ignore it, then there's no incentive to correct it.
Obviously, it's not a perfect system, but I don't think it's fair to place the burden entirely on the moderators. A lot can be accomplished if the community uses peer pressure to encourage rude or offensive players to moderate themselves.
Or are you talking about opening a dialogue with the offender and trying to instruct them on desired chat behaviors?
I have seen attempts to do the latter and it usually was met with even worse chat, and that is where "Don't feed the Trolls" comes from.
I was thinking more along the lines of multiple players in chat responding with a simple "Hey man, that's not cool". You're absolutely right about not feeding trolls, but I think a lot of "offending players" will be guys who are used to treating MMOs like a locker-room atmosphere, and will quickly change their behavior if several people speak up. If they go on a rant from there, that's when /ignore and /report kick in. At least, that's the way I'd like to see it work.
You haven't dealt with chat trolls much have you? The best way to make them worse is to let them know it bothers you. Go ahead and try it if you like but all you will do is make them worse
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Doesn't that work against what Ryan said about the harvesting outposts being common meeting areas for trade in the outlying areas?
Only if you make a habit of Challenging everyone who comes by. I expect most players would only issue a Challenge if they got a "hinky feeling" about someone else who was hanging around but not interacting in any kind of positive way. Characters who strolled up, introduced themselves, and began interacting in a positive way probably wouldn't be asked to leave very often.
Naturally, bandits would probably attempt to appear to be that latter type, but the interaction itself will give players an opportunity to use their discernment to pick up on that "hinky feeling".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You haven't dealt with chat trolls much have you? The best way to make them worse is to let them know it bothers you. Go ahead and try it if you like but all you will do is make them worse
I've dealt with them more than I care to, certainly.
As I said, I think most of the folks who end up offending will have done so unwittingly, and will welcome the correction. If the offending player proves to be a Troll, then Bluddwolf's suggestions kick in. I'm just suggesting that we give the former type an opportunity to self-moderate.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right: it is all about you and your world view. Forget I said a thing.Well if you choose to silence yourself, I can't stop you. I really don't see what your issue was?
Is there a third option to "Ignore" or "Report" abusive chat?
It was apparently your "world view" that that was insensitive. I simply asked the question, why you considered it to be so?
I try to learn from experience. I also don't bother trying to explain color to the blind and I don't ask the tone-deaf to sing. If you have a social disability it serves no purpose to try and convince you that others are sensitive differently than you are because it isn't something you have cognitive control over. You did not understand the point that some people evaluate part of their their self-worth factoring the opinions of others, and rely on verbal communication for that.
It would do no good to spend more time trying to explain a symphony to someone who cannot distinguish harmonies. So I retired for the night.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I did not respond to the "others have differences", of course they do. That is not relevant to what can be done about abusive chat. There is no need to have an intellectual and academic discussion over something as simple as, "If you don't like, it ignore it or report it."
Somethings are actually simple, and their solutions are simple. They are best explained in simple terms, rather then trying to make them sound more lofty then they actually are.
It doesn't matter what upset the person, how sensitive they are or how empathetic or apathetic we are to their sensitivity. The solution remains that same, ignore or report.
This is not necessarily directed at you Being but....
I think Paizo / Goblin Works might have been better off for some of its fan base to produce a Pathfinder Skinned version of Skyrim, because many here are not equipped for or not well enough informed of what an MMO actually is. This is even more so true for one with as much focus on PvP as PFO seems to have.
Instead what it appears we are getting is a thinly veiled Pathfinder Skinned Eve with Swords and some are not ready for that possibility.
Before you or others think they have me figured out. I can play a Pathfinder skinned Skyrim, but I doubt they will stick with a Pathfinder skinned EvE Online.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Instead what it appears we are getting is a thinly veiled Pathfinder Skinned Eve with Swords...*sigh*
Man... That is the most informed response I have read on the forums in years.
Anyway, Its an Open World Sandbox PVP game... No matter what they do it will be compared to Eve. GW doesnt have much they can do to avoid it. At least its not being compared to Darkfall... I sure as hell dont want to hammer on a piece of rock for hours on end to get Skill Points, or hit a totem pole with a hammer to take over a settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Instead what it appears we are getting is a thinly veiled Pathfinder Skinned Eve with Swords...*sigh*
Nihimon, if they prove me wrong I'll be the first to admit it. Your problem is that you see Ryan's vision as a done deal, and it is not. You are gobbling up the message of "Hope and Change".... Hmm, where have I heard that before?
I'd rather be doubtful and proven wrong, than it have blind faith and be proven wrong. This first leaves me in a better place, than the second.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You haven't dealt with chat trolls much have you? The best way to make them worse is to let them know it bothers you. Go ahead and try it if you like but all you will do is make them worseI've dealt with them more than I care to, certainly.
As I said, I think most of the folks who end up offending will have done so unwittingly, and will welcome the correction. If the offending player proves to be a Troll, then Bluddwolf's suggestions kick in. I'm just suggesting that we give the former type an opportunity to self-moderate.
I'll add that if they do escalate, it makes it that much easier to separate the trolls who deserve sanctions from the players who require only a little bit of guidance to adhere to a polite community norm.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We all agree on the big picture of what we want to end up with.
Some goblin squad (of the most prolific no EVE players I notice) are happy to interpret the forum posts and blogs in the most hopeful, positive possible light and keep the public side of the development process upbeat. Other goblin squad (all multi-year EVE players) pour over the cogs and gears looking for everything that can go wrong in an effort to find the best possible way to build PO to end up with that grand vision because faith doesn't get us there, concepts and code does.
Lawfuls and chaotics in action, y'all.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Instead what it appears we are getting is a thinly veiled Pathfinder Skinned Eve with Swords...*sigh*
Nihimon, if they prove me wrong I'll be the first to admit it. Your problem is that you see Ryan's vision as a done deal, and it is not. You are gobbling up the message of "Hope and Change".... Hmm, where have I heard that before?
I'd rather be doubtful and proven wrong, than it have blind faith and be proven wrong. This first leaves me in a better place, than the second.
But it isn't a given that you will be proven wrong. I would rather be correct than proven wrong, even if I'm correct about something I don't want to happen.
And my prediction is that Goblinworks will make changes that correct many of the worst dynamics in the field, but create at least one major negative emergent behavior that nobody predicted specifically.
In other words, most of what they say they will do, they will do right, but at least one thing will blindside them and force some kind of recovery. CCP was blindsided by hisec gankers, but adapted by calling it 'as intended'. They were also blindsided by fleets capable of tanking Concord, and adapted by fixing that loophole declaring that any successful attempt to evade Concord was a punishable exploit.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We all agree on the big picture of what we want to end up with.
I am not sure this is true. I can fairly certainly say the ideal game for me would differ from the ideal game for someone like Nihimon
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We all agree on the big picture of what we want to end up with.
Some goblin squad (of the most prolific no EVE players I notice) are happy to interpret the forum posts and blogs in the most hopeful, positive possible light and keep the public side of the development process upbeat. Other goblin squad (all multi-year EVE players) pour over the cogs and gears looking for everything that can go wrong in an effort to find the best possible way to build PO to end up with that grand vision because faith doesn't get us there, concepts and code does.
Lawfuls and chaotics in action, y'all.
It is quite strange that those that might consider themselves "Lawfuls" are more chaotic (emotional) and cleaning to hopes, than those that are typically thought of as being "Chaotic", and are looking at systems in more concrete ways.
I'm not saying you are mislabeling, perhaps I am.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Lawful and chaotic relative to GoblinWorks as the authority. I've always thought "chaotic" was a bad word choice because it's largely associated with "random" which is also hugely misunderstood by the majority (try it at home: tell people to stand randomly around the room, they'll be roughly evenly spaced, rarely standing right next to each other). Likewise my and Steelwing's definition of "big picture" probably differs.
On topic, related to PvE:
My hope is PO pve isn't running missions and Sansha incursions "with swords" (solo repeat questing, hundreds of players-vE similar to Rifts same parts with different stickers on top). I haven't even read if there will be an equivalent of missions post-tutorial and escalations are said to be decently varied so let's stay on this track.
EVE Exploration can get grindy but I still did it for hours so I don't know how strong my objection to it is. That said, different actions for different types of PO exploration sites would be awesome. I.e. ruins are combat, altars are puzzles, tombs are both, a buried book requires knowledge from PO lore, catacombs and shrines are party-level tombs and altars, etc. Also some kind of adjective system that indicates different types of rewards- shining means wealth, ancient means lore, mysterious means mystical etc. So explorers can decide if they want it or pass it off to others.
Yes that was including an idea that you explore out materials (lore) whose purpose is to be used at later sites to gain the (relatively a touch better like high tier craft materials?) rewards from those. Just a little treat for pro explorers and change things up.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is quite strange that those that might consider themselves "Lawfuls" are more chaotic (emotional) and cleaning to hopes, than those that are typically thought of as being "Chaotic", and are looking at systems in more concrete ways.
That's not a very broad way of looking at our discussions. I would say you act very emotional too, always doom and gloom and assuming everything will be expressly designed to be the worst possible iteration of what they've said. I try to offer counterpoints to show that it's entirely possible that the developers know what they're doing, and will design good systems. I'm not saying that everything will turn out awesome, but that the possibility for awesome is still there.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
as simple as, "If you don't like, it ignore it or report it."
And herein lies the problem. What you profess doesn't work for many people: The Experience of Being Trolled | Idea Channel
Also, I expect Ryan et al to be studying the hell out of the profound impact League of Legends' Tribunal has had on player behavior: Has League of Legends Tamed the Trolls Forever? | Game/Show
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
as simple as, "If you don't like, it ignore it or report it."And herein lies the problem. What you profess doesn't work for many people: The Experience of Being Trolled | Idea Channel
Also, I expect Ryan et al to be studying the hell out of the profound impact League of Legends' Tribunal has had on player behavior: Has League of Legends Tamed the Trolls Forever? | Game/Show
And how exactly is abusive chat reported, without reporting it?
You seem to be missing my statement that you can and should report abusive chat. How does the Tribunal get their information without it being reported?
If ignoring it doesn't work for you then report it. If reporting it does not work for you then report it again. If still nothing occurs, then maybe what you're reporting is less serious than you thought.
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.
I never understood how banditry would be anything but chaotic neutral at the very most. It certainly should bring your good alignment down. SAD is not chaotic by itself. SAD is evil. It's exploitation of others with the implied threat of force should they resist, this is evil. SAD in a land where theft is illegal is both chaotic and evil.
Robin Hood wasn't good for stealing, he was good for what he did with said money. What he did was for the greater good. He took money from oppressors, and gave to the oppressed. What player bandits will do is for themselves, and entirely selfish. I'm not saying SAD shouldn't be in the game, but it should not be associated with chaotic good, because it's not.
You should be required to give your spoils (or a portion) away to npcs to maintain chaotic good, otherwise you should shift slowly to chaotic evil. This would also allow you to play a high reputation chaotic evil character for those people who want that.
I agree, there's no real way to justify that stealing from people is "good" unless you can be certain that the person you are taking from is evil and planning to do evil with those resources unless you take them. But to me, banditry for personal gain using the SAD mechanic definitely falls right into the neutral category and I don't think it should make you evil either. Being selfish is a completely neutral action, and as long as you aren't trying to kill people for the loot it shouldn't pull down your alignment. Given that, a chaotic good bandit is viable so long as the banditry itself is the most evil action they perform, but they are otherwise good.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It certainly should bring your good alignment down. SAD is not chaotic by itself. SAD is evil. It's exploitation of others with the implied threat of force should they resist, this is evil.
Maybe in the real world, but in PFO it's not. The use of force that results in death can be evil unless there are mitigating circumstances.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Under the former flagging system, SADs required flying the Outlaw Flag (Chaotic). The act of a SAD is not considered "Evil" because the Devs felt that by issuing a SAD the bandit is at least not intending to kill (Evil act). Because it is assumed that the bandits are confident that, even if the SAD is rejected, they could easily kill their target it makes the issuing of a SAD even less so "Evil".
Under the current SAD system, you will not drift towards "Good" even if your SADs are reasonable and accepted. However, if you are already "Good" you will not shift away from that either.
I do agree that most bandits will be Chaotic Neutral. Some will slip into Chaotic Evil, if they are not selective of their targets or act within certain circumstances (Outpost raids, feuds, wars faction, etc.).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Under the current SAD system, you will not drift towards "Good" even if your SADs are reasonable and accepted. However, if you are already "Good" you will not shift away from that either.
Could you link a source? I was under the impression that SAD does affect reputation ( in a positive way ) but never actually saw any statement on how it affects the Good - Evil alignment axis.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Under the current SAD system, you will not drift towards "Good" even if your SADs are reasonable and accepted. However, if you are already "Good" you will not shift away from that either.Could you link a source? I was under the impression that SAD does affect reputation ( in a positive way ) but never actually saw any statement on how it affects the Good - Evil alignment axis.
You're correct, it doesn't say anything about G v E alignment drift, which is why I said you would not drift (towards Good or Evil), for a SAD.
It is presently unclear if you would shift Chaotic, unless you attempt a SAD where it has been made illegal. But a SAD in the wilderness should not raise a criminal flag and therefore no Chaotic shift, in my opinion.
It stands to reason that SADs are not evil, because a SAD is used to avoid killing, which has been declared to be an evil act.
At most SADs are Chaotic Neutral, and at least True Neutral. When the SAD was removed from the alignment based flag (Outlaw) I believe it opened up the SAD feat to anyone wishing to train and slot it.
This last bit was why I kept on asking, Why not just use the SAD if you want to enforce some kind of vigilante justice outside of your own lands? SAD does everything that the proposed Apprehend Mechanic was supposed to do.
I believe part of the problem is that most people associate SADs with just banditry, and that is partly my doing. Although I have described its use by legitimate forces as part of an Interdiction Policy, some may still view it as banditry.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Under the current SAD system, you will not drift towards "Good" even if your SADs are reasonable and accepted. However, if you are already "Good" you will not shift away from that either.Could you link a source? I was under the impression that SAD does affect reputation ( in a positive way ) but never actually saw any statement on how it affects the Good - Evil alignment axis.You're correct, it doesn't say anything about G v E alignment drift, which is why I said you would not drift (towards Good or Evil), for a SAD.
It is presently unclear if you would shift Chaotic, unless you attempt a SAD where it has been made illegal. But a SAD in the wilderness should not raise a criminal flag and therefore no Chaotic shift, in my opinion.
It stands to reason that SADs are not evil, because a SAD is used to avoid killing, which has been declared to be an evil act.
At most SADs are Chaotic Neutral, and at least True Neutral. When the SAD was removed from the alignment based flag (Outlaw) I believe it opened up the SAD feat to anyone wishing to train and slot it.
This last bit was why I kept on asking, Why not just use the SAD if you want to enforce some kind of vigilante justice outside of your own lands? SAD does everything that the proposed Apprehend Mechanic was supposed to do.
I believe part of the problem is that most people associate SADs with just banditry, and that is partly my doing. Although I have described its use by legitimate forces as part of an Interdiction Policy, some may still view it as banditry.
I don't think that is a bad point or opinion Bluddwolf. As far as I can tell vigilantism is pretty chaotic. I am not sure if that is true in Golarion lore though.
SAD has to be a better option for all parties than ambush and killing, for whatever reason. It can be as long as it can not be used to force PVP without consequences. Unless it has a cost that other methods that force PVP without consequences have, it might not work out well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... you would not drift (towards Good or Evil), for a SAD.That might be true. However, I'm fairly certain you will still shift towards Evil for killing someone who rejects your SAD.
What have you read that makes you certain? In any description so far for SAD, it has had no alignment shift attached.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What have you read that makes you certain? In any description so far for SAD, it has had no alignment shift attached.... you would not drift (towards Good or Evil), for a SAD.That might be true. However, I'm fairly certain you will still shift towards Evil for killing someone who rejects your SAD.
Because every single time I've asked the devs to clarify a question of whether or you lose take an Evil hit for killing someone who's unflagged - whether it's in the wilderness, or whatever - they've verified that yeah, you do.
Attacking players who are not Hostile reduces your Good vs. Evil by a small but fixed amount (essentially, if you lose Rep, you also become more Evil).
I think it would be a mistake to read that as saying that if you don't lose Rep then you don't lose Good/Evil, too. There are documented cases where actions didn't cause Rep Loss but did still cause loss of Good/Evil.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The concept of SAD was so bandits don't immediately go for the bloodbath when they want your stuff. If you're given the option to pay them off and stay alive it's purpose has been fulfilled.
After a rejection comes the question, Should bandits be able to kill their target consequence free because they TRIED to take their stuff nicely? I think that's a concept that everyone but bandits objects to.
Personally I think, since they gave up the surprise of ambush and didn't go for the immediate deathblow which makes the game feel a little less hostile, upon being rejected and attacking the merchants they shouldn't lose *reputation*. They are still trying to hurt people for personal gain which is pretty dang Evil so there should still be an Evil shift. That's just the structural logic of the situation to me.
I realize potential Evil shifts cause problems for agents that don't want to be Evil to use SAD as an interdiction tool, which is why in one of these threads I suggested a way to broaden the scope of ultra small scale conflict resolution beyond just SADs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I realize potential Evil shifts cause problems for agents that don't want to be Evil to use SAD as an interdiction tool, which is why in one of these threads I suggested a way to broaden the scope of ultra small scale conflict resolution beyond just SADs.
It is not uncommon for people to make demands at the threat of force without any intent on carrying through with the force. They move in on targets quickly, and flee quickly when targets refuse. The initial scare is their friend and they use it to quickly hit a quantity of targets hoping that their volume will pay off without actually having to get their hands dirty. This would probably represent the Neutral Bandit. It works best in high population areas or areas with lots of visitors and travelers. Your efficacy drops in areas where you are likely to encounter the same person more than once, as you develop a reputation for not following through on your threats.
As such, I see the two-tiered system of Reputation Consequence (removed with SAD) / Alignment Consequence (for actually killing) as very reasonable and logical.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bluddwolf, we know what you have asked for, so think of additions instead of making the "world" safe for banditry. Likewise to others who have already expressed ideas over and over, don't repeat in this thread, or, if you can not resist, provide short statement and link to the thread(s0 discussing it.
To all, if someone is again presenting what has been said over and over, ignore it, or follow in the linked threads. (How long will this go before it degenerates into SAD vs DAS.)
With respect to the OP. Well we did make it to the top of the second page before SAD came up. I really just want to learn more from this post.
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.
I am by in large guessing with each statement however this is what I have gathered with my current reading. Please do fill me in if I am mistaken on any point that is common knowledge. I have read all the blogs but don't have total recall, and only some of the message boards.
Although the SAD mechanics are not 100% fleshed out and there will likely be tweaks in any case. At present we don't know if it will be goods, coin, or both? We don't know if the SADer will set a % or an amount, or if it is a set "fill in the blank". We don't know if it can be used on any player, in any location, or specific players doing specific tasks. We don't know how much positive reputation if involved with the daily max, but I hardly think it will off set a weekly gank of some newbie in any case.
I believe Bluddwolf is correct.
We are talking about giving up one of your 5 slotted skills in order to use the SAD. I don't have the reference to hand but having all 5 slots dedicated to one class has marked advantage compared to multi-class mix and match. I believe the advantage of having all 5 slots as one class is meant to off set people trying to min/max skills to make the alpha strike if not the ultimate melee combo cherry picker. If that is all true giving up a slot for SAD is not minor.
SAD will have a training tree associated with getting the skill that others will (hopefully) use for something more important to them than SAD. The time to change out a feat for a more optimal one has not been spelled out but I read something to the effect of it not being effective to change feats mid-combat.
Perhaps not exploit free but the example of: when the LE player sees the Paladin walking along minding his own business he will have to take into consideration if the lost power to equip SAD will be worth his while to attack that paladin. The feat tree from TT has pre-reqs and maybe some players will only use 2 or 3 feat in a fight but we don't know that at this point.
My final point, perhaps for a group of bandits to SAD a caravan they all need to have SAD equipped to endorse Bludd's point about giving up a slot. This would allow the person receiving the SAD to see exactly what he is up against in the form of the SAD group members in the SAD window, so he can make an informed decision about facing one bandit in front of him or a dozen in the shadows, that I guess should be at a minimum distance from the caravan not just in the same hex. Also once the SAD has started adding additional members to the bandit group should be barred, or is this all to far fetched?
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
TBH, we're getting really focused on Early Enrollment and what that feature set will look like, and things like caravans and SADs are a long way off, and will almost certainly be greatly affected by how the game evolves with Crowdforging as Early Enrollment begins. I don't think we'll probably write much more about those topics in the near future. They're out of scope for the work we need to be focused on.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
TBH, we're getting really focused on Early Enrollment and what that feature set will look like, and things like caravans and SADs are a long way off, and will almost certainly be greatly affected by how the game evolves with Crowdforging as Early Enrollment begins. I don't think we'll probably write much more about those topics in the near future. They're out of scope for the work we need to be focused on.
Browsing the FAQ recently:
Q:What classes will I be able to play?
Pathfinder Online's innovative archetype system includes specific paths of development that reflect the classes in the tabletop game, so if you want to play a character that mirrors a classic tabletop class, you'll be able to do it. However, Pathfinder Online is driven by more diverse player activity than the classic adventurer-focused tabletop experience; Pathfinder Online players will be able to act as merchants, farmers, miners, teamsters, caravan guards, spies, and explorers, and in any other role the players choose to create. Characters will have a wide variety of skills to develop, allowing them to be highly customized to the player's preference.
I think this is a big selling point and attractive feature of PFO. I'm wondering how many roles will be possible even if not fully formed in EE?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You guys need an Alpha Prep PM. We ALL need an EE prep blog. ;PYeah, I'm really anxious for an Alpha-prep blog :)
LOL, you want an Alpha Prep PM too. They will want enough people in Alpha to seriously test everything. There really arent that many here on the forums posting and participating in discussions. You will likely be in Alpha at some point.