A Few Simple Ways to Make NRDS Viable


Pathfinder Online

701 to 750 of 1,127 << first < prev | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

I wonder if I did it enough, leaving out the part that I might PM and tell them why, if word would get around concerning "why" I did it?

Goblin Squad Member

PVP will be a part of this game. I want to play this game (so far). I have never been stellar at PVP, mostly because I have not done it much. I think that it is great that there is finally, possibly an environment that there will be consequences and part of those are that "bad actors" will be obvious and weakened by their own actions.

I will have to deal with plenty of equally powerful (to myself) actors that are not of detrimentally low reputation and that is just fine too. Not that I like the idea of ruining any regular actor's evening or having mine set back when I lose. Just that I will have reasons to do what I do that are beyond: I see you and I want your stuff.

There is a certain perceived satisfaction in knowing, by sight, that some of the players I fight and kill will be players that have done a good deal of naughty stuff.

Goblin Squad Member

bringslite wrote:
I wonder if I did it enough, leaving out the part that I might PM and tell them why, if word would get around concerning "why" I did it?

Anything like that defines and reinforces a wedge between the "us" and the "them". It's one way to go, but it's never been very effective at absorbing "them" into the greater whole (of well-behaved players).

They definitely have to be put down in the moment of committing a jerk-in-progress; for protecting the general population and the principles of classical conditioning where they associate being a jerk = getting killed and losing their stuff = no fun.

If they're killed outside the moments of hooliganism they won't associate the two things i.e. no feedback loop from the unwanted behavior.

Instead at those times they need to be demonstrated examples of why they will be more prosperous and have more fun playing inside the structures than being a jerk, and have a safe path that doesn't make their egos get defensive to play as an upstanding member of the PO community (even if that's a by-the-rules bandit).

I disagree with Nihimon that a kill kill kill anytime anywhere any chance policy either connects a feedback loop or gives them that demonstration of a better alternative or the path to get there.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Proxima Sin wrote:

Anything like that defines and reinforces a wedge between the "us" and the "them". It's one way to go, but it's never been very effective at absorbing "them" into the greater whole (of well-behaved players).

They definitely have to be put down in the moment of committing a jerk-in-progress; for protecting the general population and the principles of classical conditioning where they associate being a jerk = getting killed and losing their stuff = no fun.

If they're killed outside the moments of hooliganism they won't associate the two things i.e. no feedback loop from the behavior. Instead at those times they need to be demonstrated examples of why they will be more prosperous and have more fun playing inside the structures than being a jerk and have a safe path that doesn't make their egos get defensive to play as an upstanding member of the PO community (even if that's a by-the-rules bandit).

I disagree with Nihimon that a kill kill kill anytime anywhere any chance policy gives them that demonstration of a better alternative or the path to get there.

I can't speak for everyone, but I have no intention of targeting players with -1 reputation. When I say "low reputation" I mean the kind wherein the player will know exactly why he is where he is.

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin wrote:

Anything like that defines and reinforces a wedge between the "us" and the "them". It's one way to go, but it's never been very effective at absorbing "them" into the greater whole (of well-behaved players).

They definitely have to be put down in the moment of committing a jerk-in-progress; for protecting the general population and the principles of classical conditioning where they associate being a jerk = getting killed and losing their stuff = no fun.

If they're killed outside the moments of hooliganism they won't associate the two things i.e. no feedback loop from the behavior. Instead at those times they need to be demonstrated examples of why they will be more prosperous and have more fun playing inside the structures than being a jerk and have a safe path that doesn't make their egos get defensive to play as an upstanding member of the PO community (even if that's a by-the-rules bandit).

I disagree with Nihimon that a kill kill kill anytime anywhere any chance policy gives them that demonstration of a better alternative or the path to get there.

You can give cookies, milk, and counseling to the Cave Bears that eat the villagers all you like. Go for it. :)

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Proxima Sin wrote:
I disagree with Nihimon that a kill kill kill anytime anywhere any chance policy either connects a feedback loop or gives them that demonstration of a better alternative or the path to get there.

This seems like to me, smacking a hornets nest with a stick. It sounds like a great idea at the time, until the hornets get the idea that you are griefing not just them, but all of their kind.

Best way to handle this type of player is to give them more opportunities to behave in the desired ways and then greater benefits for doing so.

In this thread Tork described an idea that a title (Marshal or Sheriff) could have linked to it various abilities. I would imaging that by performing that role effectively, the PC could even gain reputation. It may also be a way to gain positive Lawful alignment shifts. I could imagine that there could even be a device, with key words,to further advance the Marshal's abilities.

What if there were many titles and roles like this. Ones from different perspectives or alignments. They would not be classes, but more professional roles. A Rogue would be best suited for Burglar, Bandit, Scout, etc. Fighters could be Marshals, Mercenaries, etc.. Clerics... Magic Users...

Now how would this direct the pattern of behavior?

Bandits only get the bonuses when used against caravans.

Marshals only get the bonuses when used against Criminals, Trespassers, etc.

Mercenaries only get the bonuses while under contract and engaged in fued or war.

By creating reasons to perform the various roles that GW wants to see, you eliminate the allure to operate outside of any of those roles.

Players that are still using their characters to grief others, will find that their characters are being left behind. But, not because they will have something taken away from them, but by everyone else getting better at what they do.

How does this potentially relate back to NRDS. Settlements will be more open to characters who's roles are understood. Reputation could be a measure of how the player plays within the role, and since the role is defined by GW the viewer would know, "Yeah he is a High Rep thief,which tells me he at least conducted his thievery in a positive manner in GW's eyes."

Just an idea and maybe if it were this way, there would be a bit less animosity and distrust looking at different roles.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
When I say "low reputation" I mean the kind wherein the player will know exactly why he is where he is.

But he also doesn't care what you think about where he is. It isn't a thing that you explain logically and suddenly they go, "Oh indubitably sir! You have bested me at a game of wits. Good show, good show old boy."

However when they feel differently about it, something they attribute to being generated within them rather than bowing to pressure from the outside (ego remember?), then they make the change we want.

Characterizing what I said as giving them cookies and milk is blatantly misconstruing and also an inaccurate metaphor. It would be more like flaunting all our cookies where they can see them so they start to feel envious and want to copy what we did that got all those cookies. Nihimon's approach is more like stabbing them in the face and screaming into their face hole "You don't deserve cookies you piece of filth!" i.e. low recruitment ratio.

Goblin Squad Member

@ Proxima Sin

You have ignored some questions, so I will repeat one and add one.

Do you think it is an improper choice for a player (if they so choose for whatever reason) to go after ANY other player that they see as hostile flagged?

If they are flagged hostile and happen to be low rep, what is the difference?

Goblin Squad Member

No and none.

Both of those questions are moot to the context I and Nihimon were talking about of killing low reps whenever and wherever with the specific intent to put them through a feedback loop that makes them want to stop doing rep-lowering shenanigans.

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima wrote:
But he also doesn't care what you think about where he is. It isn't a thing that you explain logically and suddenly they go, "Oh indubitably sir! You have bested me at a game of wits. Good show, good show old boy."

I think that you are right in that most cases will not care much about "talking about changing their ways" whether it is before or after another character kills them. I think that when I PM the ones that I defeat, I will include something like: "Good fight. You would have done even better if you got your reputation up so you could get some training."

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin wrote:

No and none.

Both of those questions are moot to the context I and Nihimon were talking about of killing low reps whenever and wherever with the specific intent to put them through a feedback loop that makes them want to stop doing rep-lowering shenanigans.

OK. :)

We know why it sucks to have low reputation, and quite a few ways how to get there. Why do you think that the rep penalty is so decreased for killing lower rep characters even when they are not flagged hostile?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Nihimon wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
Unfortunately, that appears as if it will be the case for awhile.

I really hope the devs latch onto Urman's idea from another thread.

Maybe the game should take a lesson from the good people of the New Guinea: people (alts or mains) that have no company can be presumed to have no friends, and can be moved into the category of enemy or prey if they move outside NPC controlled areas. (editted: I'm halfway serious. I think alts in general are a blight; a way to bypass meaningful interaction and avoid consequences.)
@Urman that's not a halfway bad idea. Remaining in an NPC Settlement is an indication that you don't want to be bound by the social norms of the rest of the game world. Maybe they shouldn't be bound to you either.

I missed that the first time I read it. If there was a company available for each normal player to join (and possibly end up getting kicked out of later, if they start being a jerk), it would be a positive change. If, however, there is no such company, it simply adds a bar to entry that I think is negative.

The Influence system rewarding Companies that take in new characters seems like it would shift things towards the former case; anything that disincentivised Companies from accepting new members (like a max size, or upkeeep that scales with size) would push things towards the latter case.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Steelwing wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
So you would like all new players to be flagged as enemies and prey?

I had a feeling that idea might scare some folks...

Not you, obviously. You're much too tough and capable and well-connected to an elite group to be scared...

The only players of ours it would affect is the gatherers and we have a back up plan in the event that such a move comes about we will just get them to join one of the NRDS settlements.

I was merely pointing out the ramifications of the suggestion as people have been keen to promote the protection of new players

Interesting technique. Do you have your EvE industrialists join renter corporations of major alliances for the same reason?


DeciusBrutus wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
So you would like all new players to be flagged as enemies and prey?

I had a feeling that idea might scare some folks...

Not you, obviously. You're much too tough and capable and well-connected to an elite group to be scared...

The only players of ours it would affect is the gatherers and we have a back up plan in the event that such a move comes about we will just get them to join one of the NRDS settlements.

I was merely pointing out the ramifications of the suggestion as people have been keen to promote the protection of new players

Interesting technique. Do you have your EvE industrialists join renter corporations of major alliances for the same reason?

Our industrialists remain in the high sec npc corps where they cannot be war decced which is roughly the same. If being npc affiliated in PfO means you are flagged hostile the next best thing is stick them in an NRDS settlement where they have access to your resources as well as ours.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Proxima Sin wrote:

No and none.

Both of those questions are moot to the context I and Nihimon were talking about of killing low reps whenever and wherever with the specific intent to put them through a feedback loop that makes them want to stop doing rep-lowering shenanigans.

So, when Nihimon said "If you are hostile-flagged to me and not low-Rep, I will consider factors other than whether or not I would win the fight before deciding to engage, but if you are low-Rep, I probably will not.", you didn't object to the latter half, nor did you object to the first, but when those two are put together you do?

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
The Influence system rewarding Companies that take in new characters seems like it would shift things towards the former case; anything that disincentivised Companies from accepting new members (like a max size, or upkeeep that scales with size) would push things towards the latter case.

My prediction is that settlements will want to recruit new players early, for that sweet, sweet Influence. I think very few characters in settlements *won't* be slotted into a company. Somebody will be tagged as Human Resource Manager in the more active settlements.

I think they've said that there's a soft cap (50) on company size, and there are diminishing returns/increased costs for large (larger?) companies. But I'd bet companies will be kept at different strengths depending on their role/position. For example, Outpost-holding companies might be kept small, to keep the cost of feuding them high. POI-holding companies, which can respond to an attack on an Outpost, might be kept larger, like in the 40+ range, or maybe even over-strength.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Proxima Sin wrote:
If you kill all the low reps you can find all day erry day but they don't know or care why...

I'm sorry, but I think that's a disingenuous load of crap. The idea that players will become Low Reputation in PFO without understanding it's because they're indiscriminately PvP'ing, and then that they would be upset that they're getting PvP'ed a lot... horse hockey.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:
Proxima Sin wrote:
If you kill all the low reps you can find all day erry day but they don't know or care why...
I'm sorry, but I think that's a disingenuous load of crap. The idea that players will become Low Reputation in PFO without understanding it's because they're indiscriminately PvP'ing, and then that they would be upset that they're getting PvP'ed a lot... horse hockey.

I have seen horses trying to play hockey. It is no hay day. Neigh, in fact, it is a nightmare.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:

Exile

Exiling a player or group allows you to kill them without consequence within your territory. Also any crime committed to an exiled player in your territory does not generate corruption / unrest. Setting it so that all neutral players are automatically exiled is how a settlement effectively runs a NBSI policy.

So if two neutrals from different companies / settlements enter an NBSI settlement, they both become exiles and then they both can kill each other or any other neutral they see, consequence free. This will not result in the settlement becoming more corrupt? This will not negatively impact reputation, alignment of the settlement's DI.

So a settlement could actually be completely Chaotic and Evil and not suffer any of the consequences.

Just how does this advance the viability of NRDS? If anything it gives a monumental advantage to an NBSI settlement.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
We know why it sucks to have low reputation, and quite a few ways how to get there. Why do you think that the rep penalty is so decreased for killing lower rep characters even when they are not flagged hostile?

If they somehow knew they weren't flagged hostile to you in any way (sizeable if at this point), then being a low rep nearly free kill might be the reason that comes to their mind for why you attacked them.

BUT, that is also outside of Nihimon's postulate that I was talking about. He specified the formula for low reps (IF hostile AND can win = always attack).

Edit: Heavily edited. I am a serial editor. Never denied it.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Proxima Sin wrote:
If you kill all the low reps you can find all day erry day but they don't know or care why...
I'm sorry, but I think that's a disingenuous load of crap. The idea that players will become Low Reputation in PFO without understanding it's because they're indiscriminately PvP'ing, and then that they would be upset that they're getting PvP'ed a lot... horse hockey.

That's... not what my sentence that you quoted even says. Not even remotely.

You attack them, they don't know your reason why (since they're hostile flagged to you they're almost certain to think it's that but low rep purge hunt never occurs to them), and they don't care why you pvp them,

There's nothing in the quote or the entire post about them not knowing why they're low rep or being upset that you attacked them; where do you even find that stuff in so few words?

MAIN THESIS

If you attack a hostile flagged character while they are not doing the low rep behavior you want to purge, they most likely won't know why you're attacking them or associate the attack with low rep behavior in any way, therefore your attack is not creating the feedback loop you want.

Corollary: Some people are bound to associate your no evidence punishment-without-crime attacks as an echo of the meaningless attacks you're claiming to avenge, on a subset of the population you can more easily get away with that, Dexter-style.

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Proxima Sin wrote:
If you kill all the low reps you can find all day erry day but they don't know or care why...
I'm sorry, but I think that's a disingenuous load of crap. The idea that players will become Low Reputation in PFO without understanding it's because they're indiscriminately PvP'ing, and then that they would be upset that they're getting PvP'ed a lot... horse hockey.

That's... not what my sentence that you quoted even says.

You attack them, they don't know your reason why (because they're hostile flagged to you they're almost certainly to think it's that and low rep purge hunt never occur to them), and they don't care why you pvp them,

There's nothing in the quote or the entire post about them not knowing why they're low rep or being upset that you attacked them; where do you even get these ideas?

MAIN THESIS

If you attack a hostile flagged character while they are not doing the low rep behavior you want to purge, they most likely won't know why you're attacking them or associate the attack with low rep behavior in any way, therefore your attack is not creating the feedback loop you want.

Corollary: Some people are bound to associate your no evidence punishment-without-crime attacks as an echo of the meaningless attacks you're claiming to avenge, on a subset of the population you can more easily get away with that, Dexter-style.

I still can't speak for Nihimon, but for me if their rep is low enough, I will assume that they know why it is low and willfully want it that way. I guess that I won't much care whether they care why I went after them. Most likely I will try and let them know why, but won't mind if they tell me to "f" off.

The feedback loop is self indicating. They will lose more often vs. players with equivalent subscription time. They will know why they get beat all the time.


Bringslite wrote:
Proxima Sin wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Proxima Sin wrote:
If you kill all the low reps you can find all day erry day but they don't know or care why...
I'm sorry, but I think that's a disingenuous load of crap. The idea that players will become Low Reputation in PFO without understanding it's because they're indiscriminately PvP'ing, and then that they would be upset that they're getting PvP'ed a lot... horse hockey.

That's... not what my sentence that you quoted even says.

You attack them, they don't know your reason why (because they're hostile flagged to you they're almost certainly to think it's that and low rep purge hunt never occur to them), and they don't care why you pvp them,

There's nothing in the quote or the entire post about them not knowing why they're low rep or being upset that you attacked them; where do you even get these ideas?

MAIN THESIS

If you attack a hostile flagged character while they are not doing the low rep behavior you want to purge, they most likely won't know why you're attacking them or associate the attack with low rep behavior in any way, therefore your attack is not creating the feedback loop you want.

Corollary: Some people are bound to associate your no evidence punishment-without-crime attacks as an echo of the meaningless attacks you're claiming to avenge, on a subset of the population you can more easily get away with that, Dexter-style.

I still can't speak for Nihimon, but for me if their rep is low enough, I will assume that they know why it is low and willfully want it that way. I guess that I won't much care whether they care why I went after them. Most likely I will try and let them know why, but won't mind if they tell me to "f" off.

The feedback loop is self indicating. They will lose more often vs. players with equivalent subscription time. They will know why they get beat all the time.

Most people you want to purge won't be low rep.

The people who are low rep will mainly be the unaffiliated alts and vigilantes. Griefers and jerks have no need to be low rep they can get their fun perfectly adequately with Goblinworks Approved PVP

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
The feedback loop is self indicating. They will lose more often vs. players with equivalent subscription time. They will know why they get beat all the time.

Now you're assuming you get uninterrupted 1 on 1 duels for a stable comparison. You have honorable intentions but... good luck with that. :)

And Steelwing's completely valid point that characters with a low Reputation score are only a limited subsection of who you want to be in the feedback loop in the first place.

It's almost as if... you can't have full and complete faith in what the computer code tells you about characters.

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
The feedback loop is self indicating. They will lose more often vs. players with equivalent subscription time. They will know why they get beat all the time.
Now you're assuming you get uninterrupted 1 on 1 duels for a stable comparison. You have honorable intentions but... good luck with that. :)

I am assuming nothing. Not even that I will always win 1 on 1. I am dealing with average probable results because... Well why do you think that those might be better for abstract discussion without a real proving ground?

Nuh, uh! Cause if your big brother and my big brother fight, my Dad will help, so we will win!

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima wrote:

And Steelwing's completely valid point that characters with a low Reputation score are only a limited subsection of who you want to be in the feedback loop in the first place.

It's almost as if... you can't have full and complete faith in what the computer code tells you about characters.

That is great! The only low rep characters that I have to contend with will be the ones that are flagged hostile for some reason!

Edit: Why do you think that I have confidence that I alone can control a "feedback loop", or that is my interest at all?

Goblin Squad Member

If you get a really good obvious feedback loop situation, it's probably going to look like:

3-5 dinkleberrys are ganging up on people walking just close enough to a major crossroads but too far for reliable enforcement, laughing and swaging it up.

5-9 good guys hear reports and quietly head out, approach as 2-3 small groups maybe even disguised with carts to look as small a threat as possible, then in unison start controlling and focus firing the dinkleberrys into juicy berry oblivion.

At no point should a fair fight ever be engaged :o).

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
Edit: Why do you think that I have confidence that I alone can control a "feedback loop", or that is my interest at all?

Because this whole derailment is about the effectiveness and perception of Nihimon's doctrine he wanted all of us to take up of Low Rep + Hostile + can win fight = always attack -> feedback loop to remove toxic play GW mentioned.

If you're not talking about that same thing, then we're like a squirrel and an otter arguing over bowling balls.

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin wrote:
If you're not talking about that same thing, then we're like a squirrel and an otter arguing over bowling balls.

Never let me say that you are not very funny! :)

Did Nihimon say that he would like everyone to do what he said he would likely do? I missed that. Or did he write more along the lines of what his personal outlook was?

Goblin Squad Member

He did in his very first or second post about the idea before I started my examination of it, kind of far back in this 730 post thread.

I'm the otter. Otters are badass and cute.


Proxima Sin wrote:


I'm the otter. Otters are badass and cute.

And very tasty Fried river otter stew

Goblin Squad Member

Wouldn't most new players be 'Low Rep' to begin with, in addition to be nominally allied with NPC Factions?

I'd argue that setting a 'Low Rep' Player to a 'Trespasser' status, with the Trespasser Status or Flag allowing you to be S.A.D.'d once by the controlling faction without a Rep Penalty, would be an excellent method to encourage people to join an 'allied' Company or Guild, at least at the start, and work their way from there.

If there's a 'Criminal' Flag (*Don't lose rep for killing them) and a 'Heinous' Flag(*actually gain rep for killing them), why not the 'Trespasser' Flag as a 'not a K.O.S. target, but not trusted either' flag that the other players can look at and go "hmmmmm...."

Do you risk trading with this Vagabond and possibly earn yourself a place on the local S#$* List, or do you instead shun them? Or do you offer them a place in a 'Place Holder' Company to help them intergrate into the game and give them a chance to understand the local Hex/Controlling Faction's Laws and social customs?

*As I understand these two flags working at this stage/phase.

Goblin Squad Member

Most new players are going to have a rep score of near 0. The discussion of 'low' rep refers to those with rep in the negative thousand range, with the particular place in the range being different for each individual.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lightpagoda wrote:
Most new players are going to have a rep score of near 0. The discussion of 'low' rep refers to those with rep in the negative thousand range, with the particular place in the range being different for each individual.

I believe the plan is to start players with 1000 rep

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lightpagoda wrote:
Most new players are going to have a rep score of near 0. The discussion of 'low' rep refers to those with rep in the negative thousand range, with the particular place in the range being different for each individual.

Actually I believe the number Ryan Dancey put out was that a new character would start with a +1000 Reputation.


HalfOrc with a Hat of Disguise wrote:

Wouldn't most new players be 'Low Rep' to begin with, in addition to be nominally allied with NPC Factions?

I'd argue that setting a 'Low Rep' Player to a 'Trespasser' status, with the Trespasser Status or Flag allowing you to be S.A.D.'d once by the controlling faction without a Rep Penalty, would be an excellent method to encourage people to join an 'allied' Company or Guild, at least at the start, and work their way from there.

If there's a 'Criminal' Flag (*Don't lose rep for killing them) and a 'Heinous' Flag(*actually gain rep for killing them), why not the 'Trespasser' Flag as a 'not a K.O.S. target, but not trusted either' flag that the other players can look at and go "hmmmmm...."

Do you risk trading with this Vagabond and possibly earn yourself a place on the local S&#~ List, or do you instead shun them? Or do you offer them a place in a 'Place Holder' Company to help them intergrate into the game and give them a chance to understand the local Hex/Controlling Faction's Laws and social customs?

*As I understand these two flags working at this stage/phase.

The trespasser flag has been merged into the criminal flag from my understanding meaning anyone flying it is fair game for the kill

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Proxima Sin wrote:


I'm the otter. Otters are badass and cute.
And very tasty Fried river otter stew

It was an animal metaphor. That seems delicious man, because I am a lava otter. And lava otters are the honey badgers of ottering.

I'm also an actual honey badger.

Silver Crusade Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Andius wrote:

Exile

Exiling a player or group allows you to kill them without consequence within your territory. Also any crime committed to an exiled player in your territory does not generate corruption / unrest. Setting it so that all neutral players are automatically exiled is how a settlement effectively runs a NBSI policy.

So if two neutrals from different companies / settlements enter an NBSI settlement, they both become exiles and then they both can kill each other or any other neutral they see, consequence free. This will not result in the settlement becoming more corrupt? This will not negatively impact reputation, alignment of the settlement's DI.

So a settlement could actually be completely Chaotic and Evil and not suffer any of the consequences.

Just how does this advance the viability of NRDS? If anything it gives a monumental advantage to an NBSI settlement.

Not so. Please read the quote again. It says crimes committed *to* an exiled character doesn't cause crime or corruption etc. Anything the exiled character does will still affect the various ratings.

Goblin Squad Member

Not going to debate for or against this anymore, but why does the ability to commit consequence free crimes against these "trespassers" have anything to do with it? "Crimes" of any sort, committed against citizens or visitors, should cause corruption to rise, shouldn't they? Why is it necessary to be able to commit more crimes against exiles?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bringslite wrote:
Not going to debate for or against this anymore, but why does the ability to commit consequence free crimes against these "trespassers" have anything to do with it? "Crimes" of any sort, committed against citizens or visitors, should cause corruption to rise, shouldn't they? Why is it necessary to be able to commit more crimes against exiles?

To prevent two people, unaffiliated with the settlement, sneaking across the border and spamming crimes on one another, and running off whenever the authorities came around, repeat until settlement has max corruption. That was Andius's original intention, I believe.

Goblin Squad Member

Ah. Thanks Shane.

Goblin Squad Member

So like I said, two exiles could commit crimes against each other and there woukd be no effect on the settlement corruption / unrest scale.

Since company members can defend other company members, without penalty, once a company ends up in thus exile list they can head to that settlement zone. They hunt down other exiles, or even arrange to meet there and now they have a consequence free mosh pit.

Now that may not have a mechanical effect on the settlement DI, but the reputation of the settlement hex would be that the place runs red in rivers of blood.

Goblin Squad Member

I suppose that, someday, it should be exponentially more costly (somehow) to these "crime traders" than it is effective in raising a settlement's corruption level.

In other words, the cost should exceed the benefit.

Edit: Or the benefit should have a finite daily maximum. I would not mind seeing it a 1 time/day per toon. It would soon get tedious.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:

So like I said, two exiles could commit crimes against each other and there woukd be no effect on the settlement corruption / unrest scale.

Since company members can defend other company members, without penalty, once a company ends up in thus exile list they can head to that settlement zone. They hunt down other exiles, or even arrange to meet there and now they have a consequence free mosh pit.

Now that may not have a mechanical effect on the settlement DI, but the reputation of the settlement hex would be that the place runs red in rivers of blood.

That's a complicated way of working around the suspected lack of a way for two characters or groups to agree to fight outside of the alignment and reputation system.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Lets be perfectly clear about how MOST Bandits/Brigands will operate.

- Most bandits/brigands will be ALTS specificaly designed for the purpose of banditry.

- Most bandits/brigands will NOT be members of any company so there will be no way to feud them (at any expense) and no way to hold them accountable for thier actions.

- Most bandits/brigands WILL be members of the NPC Starter Settlements so no way to declare WAR upon them (at any expense) and so that they will be able to use legitimate newbies as cover for thier operations.

- Most bandits/brigands will NOT have a copper to thier names nor any material goods and the minimal equipment required to do the job. All wealth they aquire will immediately be transfered to HANDLER characters who have no official association with them so the bandit/brigand has little of material value to lose if any does take action to hold them acountable for thier activities.

- Most bandits/brigands will NOT flag themselves for PvP while anyone is around that is capable of fighting them. They will wait till they can engage a soft target at minimal risk with little possability of armed reaction against them.

- Bandits/Brigands WILL take advantage of SAD in order to enjoy PvP against other characters with little mechanical penalty against themselves.

Note, no one here is expressing that banditry or brigandry (sans griefing) should NOT be a legitimate play style within the game. But lobbying that it should enjoy the advantage of engaging anywhere/any time completely at it's liesure without any risk of proactive measures from law enforcment is simply arguing for too huge an advantage for it.

If Outlaws want to engage in Outlaw behavior then they should run the risk of PvP from law enforcment every time they enter a territory with strongly enforced laws. They still have the ability to use stealth and mobility to avoid law enforcment patrols when entering said territory and to enjoy the advantage of engaging at thier liesure in any unclaimed or lawless hex.

Goblin Squad Member

@GrumpyMel, did you see this?

Remaining in an NPC Settlement is an indication that you don't want to be bound by the social norms of the rest of the game world. Maybe they shouldn't be bound to you either.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
...

1) One cannot make the same mechanism to fight banditry as is used to commit banditry.... that would make it impossible to make banditry a crime or require that the only people who can enforce the laws of a territory be criminals in thier own territory.

2) The goal of law enforcement is NOT to rob the criminals, it's to prevent the criminals from preying on lawfull citizens in ones territory.

3) We know full well that Bandits will be Alts who have no monetary assets or material wealth in thier own name. It will all be held by handlers. It would be entirely EXPLOITAVE and against the purpose of why SAD is allowed in the first place to allow the SAD'er to demand a sum of wealth greater then the target actualy has or could possibly pay. That circumvents the INTENT of PFO's PvP systems.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GrumpyMel wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
...
... It would be entirely EXPLOITAVE and against the purpose of why SAD is allowed in the first place to allow the SAD'er to demand a sum of wealth greater then the target actualy has or could possibly pay. That circumvents the INTENT of PFO's PvP systems.

It does display a rather breath-taking misunderstanding of SADs, doesn't it?

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
...
3) We know full well that Bandits will be Alts who have no monetary assets or material wealth in thier own name. It will all be held by handlers. It would be entirely EXPLOITAVE and against the purpose of why SAD is allowed in the first place to allow the SAD'er to demand a sum of wealth greater then the target actualy has or could possibly pay. That circumvents the INTENT of PFO's PvP systems.

I agree with you that bandits will be alts....except for our entire guild. Other than that, you are right on.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:

@GrumpyMel, did you see this?

Remaining in an NPC Settlement is an indication that you don't want to be bound by the social norms of the rest of the game world. Maybe they shouldn't be bound to you either.

Yes, and it's possible that may be the way they end up addressing it, but it makes the game very unwelcoming to legitimate newbies or companies starting out/recovering from loss in the Settlement game...especialy if some predictions about the difficulty in finding settlements willing to accept non-hardcore players prove true.

Overall, I think it's a bad approach. Much better to allow Settlement Owners to flag individuals as tresspassers within thier territory. If that's a strain on system resources, which is the only reason I can imagine GW objecting to it from a practical standpoint, they could simply require law enforcment to see and target the individual and put it on a timer. That should dramaticaly reduce the number of legacy names they need to store and it makes it more of a "I'm the sheriff here, I see you hanging around upto no good. You have 15 minutes to get out of Dodge." type thing.

701 to 750 of 1,127 << first < prev | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / A Few Simple Ways to Make NRDS Viable All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.