A Few Simple Ways to Make NRDS Viable


Pathfinder Online

101 to 150 of 1,127 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

We aren't able to crowdforge one another here before the gods, but the game.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Steelwing by the same logic you have provided here one could argue that PFO should not have a combat system as the players can just work it out themselves.

PFO is currently in the design stage, with a great deal of it's mechanical systems not designed at all yet, let alone set in stone. So what Andius has proposed is not a change to anything but a specific set of mechanisms for something that has not been implimented or fully designed yet.

Developers create mechanisms for the sort of play they want to see happen in thier games and adjust those mechanisms when it's not achieving what is intended. That's why the pass interference rule exists in football.

In this case, the Developers may (or may not - we don't know yet) for settlements to welcome travelers who are not members into thier territory since that promotes a greater degree of meaningfull human interaction.

I likely expect setting the trespasser flag on a fairly granular level, down to the individual, is an important aspect of doing that. It could easly be done with a timer so that when people were flagged as tresspassers/exiles they were allowed sufficient time to get out of the territory. There is absolutely no reason why a settlements law enforcement should take reputation or alignment hits for ejecting suspected spies, sabotours or criminals who are not their own citizens from thier territory while allowing peacefull merchants and traders to access it. In fact this is what real countries do all the time with thier passport and visa systems as well as diplomatic visa's. It is a rather gimmicky, gamey and unnatural system to not allow for that.

Again, this should only be valid for territory that your settlement officialy and formaly controls and therefore your law enforcement has jurrisdiction.

As for markets, I think it goes without saying that low level equipment/resources need be readly availble in the NPC towns but high level or specialized equipment likely should only be available in player settlements. I think you could potential achieve this by assuring that the cost to transport anything in bulk be non trivial thus producing a significant price advantage for specialized items in local markets. Also NPC markets could impliment a TARRIF on importation of such items, if neccesary.....

And yes, I would like to see the significance of escalations, production of raw materials and actual expansion of the settlement sufficiently involved that having extra labor (and/or imported materials) beyond what the settlements own members provide often becomes a boon rather then a bane.

It should be rather difficult for a settlement to be entirely self-sufficient within it's own membership. Once again furthering the goal of meaningfull human interaction that GW wants to encourage within it's game.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

AS a follow up, I think you should be able to INVITE other individuals/groups to assist you in combat providing those individuals take the same Alignment/Reputation consequences that you did when you engaged in that combat.

This happens all the time in the real world as well with nations that have difficulty patroling thier own territory and invite other nations or mercenaries to send thier forces to assist in Peacekeeping duties.

There is no way the US Navy would be flagged as "Chaotic" for coming to the assistance of a French freighter that had requested assistance in international waters when it was being attacked by pirates....that's just absurd, gamey and gimmicky.... Nor would a nations forces lose reputation or be considered "Chaotic" if coming in to help another nations forces provide law enforcement and security in another nations territory when REQUESTED by that nation to do so....the notion is completely counter to basic logic.

Goblin Squad Member

From the start the OP was unproductive. It has no intention of making NRDS more viable, it is another call to allow for supposed vigilantes to have a free pass to attack anyone they want without consequences.

Ryan said that NRDS is not wise to extend to NPC settlement newbs, how do we change that perspective?

I would suggest that a settlement receives a DI bonus for positive, unique, daily traffic.

Further bonuses can be granted for using markets, taverns, religious shrines or other services by non citizens.

This would give an adjustable advantage (tweaking if needed) to an NRDS settlement versus an NBSI. However, the advantage is not based on a pre set mechanic, it is based on unique, daily traffic and accommodation of visitors.

But wait, I said "Positive".... That's correct..... The bonus is likely to get wiped out if you open your doors to low reputation characters. Not only might their low reputation score affect the bonus, but their actions woukd probably not either.

"Positive" also does not include anyone entering the settlement hex for purposes of raiding, feuds, wars, assassinations, bounties, etc....


@Grumpymel

A combat system is plainly something that is needed and nothing like NRDS/NBSI systems which are player driven philosophies. It is patently clear that without a combat system players couldn't do it for themselves because there would be no way to fight. Where players obviously cannot do things themselves I have no objection to the introduction of mechanics. For example I voice no objection to the religion mechanic for converting NPC's. It is blatantly clear that it is not something players can do for themselves.

There is nothing he proposed that is needed for NRDS however it can already all be done. It is nothing but asking for bonuses for playing the way he wants to play or in other cases having the system remove the need for player interaction or player consequence.

Example 1 (mechanism rather than player interaction)

NPC markets prohibitively taxed so players don't use them removes player interaction when compared to players create incentives like Pax's parcel service to attract people to their settlement

Example 2 (mechanism rather than player interaction)

You can patrol your territory and find out who is committing crimes in your territory which is meaningful player interaction or you can have the slacker solution of the system giving you a report of who is committing crimes in your territory

Example 3 ( asking for removal of consequences)

He wants people to be able to freely kill non flagged people in his territory because he has exiled them without that registering as a crime even though it is.

Example 4( asking for bonuses for playing the way he wants to)

If he wants people to be able to gather resources or do Pve in his territory all he has to do is not kill them there is no need to have a mechanism to "license" it. Just a waste of dev time. Why he feels others gathering in his hex and taking the materials home with them should provide DI I really have no idea on how he justifies this. On the subject of self sufficiency you mention what the devs have said on the subject was a settlement should not be able to get all its resources from its own sphere of control. EG Silver may not be in your hex and you have to trade for it with a settlement that has silver but is missing a resource you have.

The exile system is not needed as it is already widely assumed that there would be a white list/system in place or at the worst a standing system. Don't like someone mark them red.

As I have pointed out there are currently advantages and disadvantages to both NBSI and NRDS. NBSI is likely to suffer from more corruption but provide more security. NRDS is the other way around. They seem pretty well balanced on the whole.

If there was a shortage of groups thinking they could make a go of NRDS then you might have a point about encouraging it. However currently the people who have come out one way or the other currently are falling 2 to 1 in favor of NRDS. It obviously doesn't need the encouragement.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Or, we could argue for no red, blue, or grey designation.

Recommend thorough consideration about what player information should be easily available in-game, which should be challenging to gain, and which should require great effort to gain. Think it all the way through from multiple perspectives.(If I am not mistaken this 'considering' is already underway). I don't think we should presume to know the system the developer will settle on.

I believe the time to bear standards is full-throated war. For soldiery in a lull of 'peace' our arms should display. But otherwise, anonymity should be the rule.


Being wrote:

Or, we could argue for no red, blue, or grey designation.

Recommend thorough consideration about what player information should be easily available in-game, which should be challenging to gain, and which should require great effort to gain. Think it all the way through from multiple perspectives.(If I am not mistaken this 'considering' is already underway). I don't think we should presume to know the system the developer will settle on.

Red blue and grey are all designations set by players. Regardless of the system implemented there will be a way for player organisations to designate these settings or their equivalents. If necessary players will use out of game methods to do so. This is not a judgement on the final mechanics of how just a judgement on what in general will be. It might be as simple as a friends/ignore list where friends = blue, ignore = red and everyone else is grey

Goblin Squad Member

Hence my preference for non-friends being anonymous, with only the apparent armor and weaponry visible and no other way to know anyone you have not befriended. Other than the damned, who can be Red unless adequately disguised.

Consider your character in the Open RP thread. Well used but well maintained armor and primary weapon. Can read and write, knows how to use a map. Clearly a veteran who understands why he should reveal as little as is practical.


Being wrote:

Hence my preference for non-friends being anonymous, with only the apparent armor and weaponry visible and no other way to know anyone you have not befriended. Other than the damned, who can be Red unless adequately disguised.

Consider your character in the Open RP thread. Well used but well maintained armor and primary weapon. Can read and write, knows how to use a map. Clearly a veteran who understands why he should reveal as little as is practical.

You will find I have also argued for minimal information being available. We do however disagree on minimal information.

Where we disagree I believe is that name and affiliation should be visible. The reason I think this is because frankly like all games of this sort I do not expect the character creator to be sufficiently customisable that you will be able to recognise a character on sight. You will often bump into your twin. This is why name I think should be shown.

Affiliation I think also has to be shown because else how will you ever know who anyone is affiliated with? What happens when a player you know (ie one that is not anonymous) has changed affiliation since you last met them.

a) Does it show you the affiliation you knew about even though it is wrong now?

b)Does it show you the affiliation that is the new one which theoretically you don't know about?

c)Or does it show you no affiliation which still gives you information that you should not have because as far you know the character is still a member of their old outfit?

I suspect we would both agree that if hiding things your character does not know is the point that option a) is the correct one. That however means that the system will have to keep track about who knows what about each character.

Given the problems I see with names and affiliations I personally think that the lesser of two evils is to show both. I am fully with you and have argued such about only seeing the visible aspects of gear however

Digital Products Assistant

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed some posts and their replies. Leave the personal attacks out of the conversation or this thread will be locked.

Goblin Squad Member

I have to wonder who it is that makes attacks. Chris is simply too quick for me.

@Steelwing: the tendency for characters, especially in the beginning, was the reason I felt it would be sufficient to see the name and affiliation of characters on your friends list. It provides incentive to become acquainted with others in-game I think. Easier to recognize when someone I do not know enters proximity to either introduce myself or be wary of.

Goblin Squad Member

@Steelwing, I think you are missing some important implications. Firstly, it's not at all clear that one can simply "mark" an individual as "red" whenever one wants within ones own territory. GW has said no such thing so far, that I am aware of. One can always attack them and take negative alignment hits and reputation but that is not the same thing. One can certainly be at war or at feud with organizations and those will be open to consequence free hostilities. However it's not clear, at this point, how one can legitimately bar a non-aligned or neutraly aligned intruder from ones territory.

Exile or something similar would be a form of border control. It lets the individual know that their presence within a particular settlement owned hex is considered illegal by the settlement and allows such settlements law enforcement or millitary forces to take action to evict them, forcibly if neccesary without suffering reputation or alignment loss. Secondly it informs the individual that they are violating the settlements border control laws. That is a good thing, GW wants the player to be reasonably informed when they may in danger of being the target of consequence free PvP. Finaly Lawfull and Good settlements simply don't go around offing visitors at the drop of a hat. This is the warning... "You are not welcome here, leave or don't enter or you may be subject to attack". It's giving people a chance to comply with that warning BEFORE they get attacked.

It prevents the instant transition from welcome visitor to sudden target for no reason. It creates a set of rules of engagement by which Lawfull and Good and High Reputation settlements can operate and still maintain a reasonable expectation of border control over thier own territory. It assures visitors to settlement X that at least they can expect fair warning to leave before they are subject to hostile action....and if not then there are mechanical penalties in place.

Remember you are coming from a system that has no Alignment or Reputation systems. PFO will....and as long as it does they should operate in a somewhat intuitive and coherent fashion.

P.S. I've played in MUSH'S that had no combat system whatsoever. Players did indeed work it out themselves. Guess you are not used to those sort of environments or types of players, but they do exist. All in all I'd generaly prefer some mechanics behind resolution of major game themes then none. YMMV.


Being wrote:

I have to wonder who it is that makes attacks. Chris is simply too quick for me.

@Steelwing: the tendency for characters, especially in the beginning, was the reason I felt it would be sufficient to see the name and affiliation of characters on your friends list. It provides incentive to become acquainted with others in-game I think. Easier to recognize when someone I do not know enters proximity to either introduce myself or be wary of.

If it was a game full of nothing but roleplayers I would be inclined more to your suggestion. The sad fact is though that roleplayers will make up a small percentage of players.

Goblin Squad Member

I am a bit torn. I do enjoy some mystery and some logic about what I automatically know and what I should have to figure out. On the other hand, I enjoy a little bit of convenience when I am immersed in a hostile world. The kinds of convenience that are some of the usually "hand waved" things like PC names, minor affiliation information, mini maps, etc...

I am not sure, but I suspect that a good portion of the MMO population enjoy them as well. Whether that is just because they are used to them or not is irrelevant if they do not want to get unused to them and go to another game because of frustration.


GrumpyMel wrote:

AS a follow up, I think you should be able to INVITE other individuals/groups to assist you in combat providing those individuals take the same Alignment/Reputation consequences that you did when you engaged in that combat.

This happens all the time in the real world as well with nations that have difficulty patroling thier own territory and invite other nations or mercenaries to send thier forces to assist in Peacekeeping duties.

There is no way the US Navy would be flagged as "Chaotic" for coming to the assistance of a French freighter that had requested assistance in international waters when it was being attacked by pirates....that's just absurd, gamey and gimmicky.... Nor would a nations forces lose reputation or be considered "Chaotic" if coming in to help another nations forces provide law enforcement and security in another nations territory when REQUESTED by that nation to do so....the notion is completely counter to basic logic.

Missed this post. Yup totally agree with you that you should be able to get other groups in on your side whether they be mercenaries, or merely a company or settlement that offers assistance.

Where it becomes murkier is you come across a wagon being attacked by some warriors. You jump in and help without being asked by either side. At that point I think the dev's intent is you get the flags and alignment and rep hits you would normally for just attacking the group you attack.

Consider the example I gave then ask yourself

Is the situation

a) A merchant being waylayed for his goods

or

b) A group of caravan guards who have caught up with the wagon stolen from their employer and intent on getting it back

or

c) A legitimate action by settlement enforcers due to a merchant supplying the enemy/evading tolls/smuggling poisons into a lawful good settlement where its outlawed/trying to escape with illegally gathered materials

Now there is nothing to say that one side or the other could not toss you a group invite and you can get involved, I am sure we have all invited to group while in combat before. It would however mean you inherit whatever flags the group has so if you allied with the wrong side you may well end up with the criminal flag for example. Being invited to partake is not the issue.

Goblin Squad Member

@ Steelwing

I suppose that those situations are arguably just as likely as a straight up "bandit situation" and that solution may be the best in the end.

There is certainly no reason that a group interested in protecting a "lawless hex", for those passing through, could not broadcast that they are there and group while the traveler is passing through or harvesting therein. Unless GW makes it impossible.

Goblin Squad Member

@Being,

I don't think anonyminity generaly works well in such games as there generaly has to be some definite way to indicate another player without targeting them....example /whisper so and so You dropped your pack, /Report So and So just used an exploit, /tell be wary of so and so, he's robbing people in this hex.

Limited Customization Options as well Screen Resolutions tend to make using simple descriptions alot less practical then would otherwise be the case.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
Steelwing's Advocated Scenario wrote:

Xeen has left UNC

Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
My Advocated Scenario wrote:

Xeen has left UNC

Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
Andius exiles Xeen.

This is, in the very simplest of forms, why the current settlement corruption rules will not work and why there needs to be some kind of answer to it. I think it's much more fair to have settlement suffer for actions of its members than for action of random people in the hex, but if not then something like this might be needed, probably at DI cost.


T7V Avari wrote:
Andius wrote:
Steelwing's Advocated Scenario wrote:

Xeen has left UNC

Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
My Advocated Scenario wrote:

Xeen has left UNC

Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
Andius exiles Xeen.
This is, in the very simplest of forms, why the current settlement corruption rules will not work and why there needs to be some kind of answer to it. I think it's much more fair to have settlement suffer for actions of its members than for action of random people in the hex, but if not then something like this might be needed, probably at DI cost.

And we keep being told that Goblinworks is going to be cracking down on exploits. This is an exploit and easily verified by automated log checking. The solution to this is not to open up another exploit which is to make enforcing your laws unnecessary. If you think someone is doing this report them.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Steelwing wrote:


And we keep being told that Goblinworks is going to be cracking down on exploits. This is an exploit and easily verified by automated log checking. The solution to this is not to open up another exploit which is to make enforcing your laws unnecessary. If you think someone is doing this report them.

Bluddwolf SADs's Xeen's alt then. Intent becomes impossible to prove.

For a guy who has been so vocal about pointing out the ease of exploiting GW's game designs, you can do a pretty nifty 180 when it suits you.

Goblin Squad Member

Sounds like the issue with that is SPAM-ABILITY. If Bludd or anyone else has to spend 30 minutes or so running around someones territory with a CRIMINAL/OUTLAW flag on before corruption takes a bit, not that big a deal.

If the person can step one foot over the territory line, rapid fire alot of activities to raise corruption and then step out....that's a problem.

"Corruption" in the sense that most people understand the word really isn't about whether any crime occurs or not....it's that authorities don't do anything about the crime that occurs.

So perhaps it should be measured by A) The strength of the settlements laws and B) How many criminals/outlaws are allowed to remain within the settlements borders for a significant time without being struck down.

Say every criminal/outlaw is a tick every 30 minutes but the timer resets whenever that criminal is killed?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Steelwing wrote:
T7V Avari wrote:
Andius wrote:
Steelwing's Advocated Scenario wrote:

Xeen has left UNC

Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
My Advocated Scenario wrote:

Xeen has left UNC

Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
Andius exiles Xeen.
This is, in the very simplest of forms, why the current settlement corruption rules will not work and why there needs to be some kind of answer to it. I think it's much more fair to have settlement suffer for actions of its members than for action of random people in the hex, but if not then something like this might be needed, probably at DI cost.
And we keep being told that Goblinworks is going to be cracking down on exploits. This is an exploit and easily verified by automated log checking. The solution to this is not to open up another exploit which is to make enforcing your laws unnecessary. If you think someone is doing this report them.
Quote:


Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xen - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xena - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xnie - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xeenie - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xeenio - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xeeny - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Zeen - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Zeno - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xeno - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xenomorph - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Zen - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Motercycle maintenance - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Tao - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Tze - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Zenie - Your corruption has increased.

Care to describe how to differentiate the case where one bandit gets lots of 'legitimate merchants' from the case where one bandits gets lots of meaningless alts? It seems important that no actions of two characters, neither of which have any kind of recognition from the settlement, while distant from a controlled area, should have any impact on the settlement DI or corruption level.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:


Bluddwolf SADs Xeen - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xen - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xena - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xnie - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xeenie - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xeenio - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xeeny - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Zeen - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Zeno - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xeno - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Xenomorph - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Zen - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Motercycle maintenance - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Tao - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Tze - Your corruption has increased.
Bluddwolf SADs Zenie - Your corruption has increased.

Care to describe how to differentiate the case where one bandit gets lots of 'legitimate merchants' from the case where one bandits gets lots of meaningless alts? It seems important that no actions of two characters, neither of which have any kind of recognition from the settlement, while distant from a controlled area, should have any impact on the settlement DI or corruption level.

Solution: don't make SADs or raiding outposts illegal in your settlement hex. Instead, patrol your area and respond to the hostility flags that are caused by raiding or rejected SADs.

The trade off for having very efficient lawful communities, is that it is harder to maintain your corruption levels.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Solution: don't make SADs or raiding outposts illegal in your settlement hex.

Better Solution: Make bandits instantly explode with permadeath whenever they attempt to issue a SAD.

Goblin Squad Member

Why don't we make it so SADs just automatically cause the target to hand over all their gold, goods, account password, and credit card information without breaking stealth?

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Solution: don't make SADs or raiding outposts illegal in your settlement hex.
Better Solution: Make bandits instantly explode with permadeath whenever they attempt to issue a SAD.

You really have no confidence in your security forces do you?

I have seen that before, in EvE. The last alliance I was in spread itself so thin and continuously incited trade wars, that it was impossible to defend them on all fronts. It became a self fulfilling prophecy. Instead of scaling back their reach, and having a tighter hold on what they had, they instead decided to "turtle" (refuse to undock) and they eventually lost access to their prime mining locations and the alliance eventually fell apart.

PFO will likely see the same dynamic take place. Some settlements will maintain a manageable size and be self reliant for its security (a tough nut to crack). Others will over extend but rely too heavily on mechanics to defend themselves (a much softer target).

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
You really have no confidence in your security forces do you?

Not when the objective is to completely lock down access to an entire hex with no local list 24/7. I've been on the opposing side of that battle way too many times. One of the two of us here has actually fought in a lot of Open World PvP wars.

If the objective is sneak in and pick off soft targets it's a fairly easy mission. And I'm usually facing NBSI opponents who only have to protect themselves and their allies.

If the objective is sneak in and find a place to hide, you would have to be incredibly incompetent to fail. Especially given we're dealing with massive hex borders as points of access rather than jumpgates.

I'm sorry but you seem to want to be able to have an impact on your opponents without accomplishing anything at all meaningful or challenging if you can't at least get your s$&~ together enough to pick off some soft targets that haven't been exiled by the controlling settlement.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:

Solution: don't make SADs or raiding outposts illegal in your settlement hex. Instead, patrol your area and respond to the hostility flags that are caused by raiding or rejected SADs.

The trade off for having very efficient lawful communities, is that it is harder to maintain your corruption levels.

Ho ho ho. I'm going to want to perform what would be criminal acts in any town, so I'd like to lobby for it to not be illegal. Wonderful logic there. But if you do then I'll just spread the word that your cops aren't good enough...

Great big brass ones also clang loudly.

Goblin Squad Member

Posting this here for anyone who missed it.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:


Solution: don't make SADs or raiding outposts illegal in your settlement hex. Instead, patrol your area and respond to the hostility flags that are caused by raiding or rejected SADs.

The trade off for having very efficient lawful communities, is that it is harder to maintain your corruption levels.

And the trade of for having a SAD rejected or accepted is that everyone can engage you afterwards with no penalty, even if it isn't illegal to SAD in the area?

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:


Solution: don't make SADs or raiding outposts illegal in your settlement hex. Instead, patrol your area and respond to the hostility flags that are caused by raiding or rejected SADs.

The trade off for having very efficient lawful communities, is that it is harder to maintain your corruption levels.

And the trade of for having a SAD rejected or accepted is that everyone can engage you afterwards with no penalty, even if it isn't illegal to SAD in the area?

When a SAD is rejected and the bandit decides to attack, the bandit will appear hostile to the traveler, the traveler's immediate group and or the traveler's company.

If the settlement chooses to make SADs illegal, then the criminal flag will be applied. If however the SAD goes unstopped, the settlement takes the hit to its corruption level.

This is my understanding of the systems in place. There are both risks and trade offs for all three: bandit , traveler, and settlement.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Solution: don't make SADs or raiding outposts illegal in your settlement hex.
Better Solution: Make bandits instantly explode with permadeath whenever they attempt to issue a SAD.
You really have no confidence in your security forces do you?

You really have no sense of humor do you?

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
When a SAD is rejected and the bandit decides to attack, the bandit will appear hostile to the traveler...

The Bandit damn-well better appear hostile to the merchant the instant he demands a SAD. Your sense of fair play is incredibly warped if you think the bandit should only appear hostile once he actually attacks after a rejected SAD.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
When a SAD is rejected and the bandit decides to attack, the bandit will appear hostile to the traveler...
The Bandit damn-well better appear hostile to the merchant the instant he demands a SAD. Your sense of fair play is incredibly warped if you think the bandit should only appear hostile once he actually attacks after a rejected SAD.

It is unknown if that is the case. Maybe some Dev Blog will finally lay the whole system out, along with caravans and the ultimate question.... What exactly is exchanged in a SAD or player looting.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:
Your sense of fair play is incredibly warped if...

What sense of fair play?

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Your sense of fair play is incredibly warped if...
What sense of fair play?

You speak as though I'm a developer and I made the system. I assume the SAD mechanic is fair, because the developers have made it. If it is proven to not work as they intended, I'm sure they will tweak it, just like every other system.

Don't like the system, take it up with the Devs. Need more info about it, ask them to clarify.

You also avoid the fact, for whatever unknown reason, that you can also use SADs for your own purposes.

I'm just as vulnerable to being SAD'd as anyone, give it a whirl, you may find it allows you to stop all of us bad guys from harassing your merchants.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Of course. SAD is the answer to everything.

Goblin Squad Member

Drakhan Valane wrote:
Of course. SAD is the answer to everything.

SAD, the gift that keeps on giving!

101 to 150 of 1,127 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 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.