A Few Simple Ways to Make NRDS Viable


Pathfinder Online

151 to 200 of 1,127 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

We'll probably see your misinterpretations and assumptions about the SAD mechanic make it into the game about the same time we get that "clear statement" from Ryan that can flipping and decimal scamming aren't griefing.

I'm really not concerned enough to take it up with the devs.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree that a bandit should be flagged the second they issue a SAD. However i think they should be flagged for everyone, not just the merchant.

more so i think that bandits should have to flag themselves and keep themselves flagged to use SAD, to increase the risk to the bandits while they are laying in wait, not just when they actively use it. Since the targets will always be at risk, the bandits must accept just as much risk.

Goblin Squad Member

leperkhaun wrote:

I agree that a bandit should be flagged the second they issue a SAD. However i think they should be flagged for everyone, not just the merchant.

more so i think that bandits should have to flag themselves and keep themselves flagged to use SAD, to increase the risk to the bandits while they are laying in wait, not just when they actively use it. Since the targets will always be at risk, the bandits must accept just as much risk.

I don't plan to play a bandit, so YMMV but I agree with the first and disagree with the second. Intent is criminal in the real world, but in a computer moderated one, is it not a slippery slope to include?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

How about scaling the efficacy of the SAD to the level of risk the bandits are prepared to accept? Self identifying as predators should increase their risk, so it should increase their potential reward. If they are unwilling to accept that increased risk then they should be willing to accept a lower return on their SAD. Sound better?

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

@bringslite

Well the reason why for the second one is simply so that bandits are not able to be immune to risk until the second the SAD someone.

If a merchant/gatherer is traveling they are vulnerable at all times. I feel that bandits NEED to have additional risk other than a single merchant possibly attacking them. This risk can be added by requiring them to be flagged in order to use the ability. This means that bandits are now at risk due to merchant guards (before the SAD happens), other unsavory types who dont mind attacking people like them, and coordinated patrols to keep areas safe for merchant travel.

I think that they should be required to have the flag active for 5-10 minutes before they can use the ability to prevent situations where they have an alt on look out and only log in their SAD bandit when a merchant arrives to reduce the amount of time the character spends in game.

So basically if you want to SAD you should have to accept additional risk.

Goblin Squad Member

@ Being

As I don't have a dog in that race it is all opinion, but that sounds fair to me. :)

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
How about scaling the efficacy of the SAD to the level of risk the bandits are prepared to accept? Self identifying as predators should increase their risk, so it should increase their potential reward. If they are unwilling to accept that increased risk then they should be willing to accept a lower return on their SAD. Sound better?

i think that could work and there is precedence for increased rewards for increased risk in settlements open for pvp. I would also like to see SAD be a skill tree and less a single skill, so it would require investment to be able to get to the point where you can SAD for greater amounts.

Goblin Squad Member

leperkhaun wrote:

@bringslite

Well the reason why for the second one is simply so that bandits are not able to be immune to risk until the second the SAD someone.

If a merchant/gatherer is traveling they are vulnerable at all times. I feel that bandits NEED to have additional risk other than a single merchant possibly attacking them. This risk can be added by requiring them to be flagged in order to use the ability. This means that bandits are now at risk due to merchant guards (before the SAD happens), other unsavory types who dont mind attacking people like them, and coordinated patrols to keep areas safe for merchant travel.

I think that they should be required to have the flag active for 5-10 minutes before they can use the ability to prevent situations where they have an alt on look out and only log in their SAD bandit when a merchant arrives to reduce the amount of time the character spends in game.

So basically if you want to SAD you should have to accept additional risk.

Not bad points. I am trying to look at it from the point of view of keeping it fair for all parties. Also what is fair for the intentions of one endeavor is fair for the intentions of another.

Now we are back to the original flag system which was probably dropped for good reasons.

Goblin Squad Member

I didn't have a problem with the former Outlaw Flag, which granted beneficial buffs for keeping that flag active. Those benefits were not for the SAD, but for the ambush. The flag was just what enabled the SAD.

When the SAD was moved to a slotted ability, no mention was made about the stacked buffs or any other details. What was said was...

Stephen Cheney wrote:


Not much has changed conceptually about Stand and Deliver other than moving it to a feat. Honestly, even without the flag changes, we would have probably had to move it to a feat just to make it easier to give you a button to press to initiate it. But moving it to a trained element allows us to maybe expand it into a whole set of cool outlawy things like Bluddwolf and a couple others have asked for ;) .

The question is, does it still enable some kind of a PVP flag? Does an agreed to SAD, trigger a Hostility Flag or is simply issuing a SAD a Hostile act?

All of these questions remain unanswered, and they will remain that way for some time I imagine. SADs are not part of the initial stage(s) of EE, as I believe Ryan had said, it is a long way off.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Those benefits were not for the SAD, but for the ambush. The flag was just what enabled the SAD.
GW Blog wrote:

- The player gets more loot when searching PvP kills that goes up each hour up to ten hours.

- The player gets a bonus to Stealth that goes up each hour up to ten hours.
- These bonuses reset to the minimum upon gaining the Attacker flag unless the target was offered and rejected a stand-and-deliver trade within five minutes of the attack.

Actually it's for any PvP kill you make but if you ambushed someone without issuing an SAD it would get set back to the minimum at the start of the attack (because that's when you would have gained the attacker flag) meaning you wouldn't even get the bonus for that kill.

Ambushing unflagged players has never been meant to be a viable tactic. It's a tactic for people who wan't crappy low rep CE characters. Always has been, and always will be.

Goblin Squad Member

leperkhaun wrote:

I agree that a bandit should be flagged the second they issue a SAD. However i think they should be flagged for everyone, not just the merchant.

more so i think that bandits should have to flag themselves and keep themselves flagged to use SAD, to increase the risk to the bandits while they are laying in wait, not just when they actively use it. Since the targets will always be at risk, the bandits must accept just as much risk.

Would you apply this to war decs and feuds also?

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
DeciusBrutus wrote:


SNIP
.
.
.
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
...

Maybe the answer to this exploit is even easier that we think. Would it not make sense to only increase corruption on a settlement if the crime occurred against a member of that settlement? Bludd SADing Xeen and his many minions would be pointless unless Xeen was part of the settlement, and in that case he just needs to be ejected from the settlement.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think it's unreasonable to give a higher corruption rating to settlements for not protecting the people they allow in, there's just absolutely no reason to penalize them for crimes committed against the people they don't allow in. Seems like a really obvious position for anyone not pushing an agenda.

With the incentives to bring people in on a NRDS basis offered in this topic, I think a lot of settlements would still view it as very much worth their while to let neutrals in and try to protect them well enough to keep the corruption rating down.

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin wrote:
Andius wrote:
Crime Reports
That's a lot of coding, server load, and player review for something that can be found out nearly as well by asking. A settlement forum thread called "Report recent crimes here" for example, and GW can put their resources into aspects of the game that players can't reproduce.

http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/

I'm sure you're familiar with this, as well as the in-game reports it's based off of. No reason to make it any more fancy than that. Much less fancy in fact. There was even a kill tracker in the original Darkfall which was a pretty darn low budget game so this isn't as big of a deal as you're saying.

All that is needed is the name of the victim (if there was one), the crime they were a victim of, and the timestamp. The name of the criminal probably should be in there as well but if they were disguised it should say *disguised* in place of their name.

Not all this information will be volunteered. Especially not in a NRDS settlement, and definitely not in cases where people are using alts and intentionally being victimized to generate corruption and unrest.

Goblin Squad Member

And give murder hooligans a ruler with which to measure their e-peens? A one-stop shop so their competition to see who the biggest murder hooligan is can begin in earnest? No thank you.

I agree with settlements looking out for their residents and educating everyone in reducing opportunity for bad guys; but not at the cost of using two seconds of dev time to create any tool for them to preen over instead of something new for positive characters to play with.

If a genuine member doesn't volunteer the information that speaks to the psychology and desires of the player, and handing out an involuntary list to find out where everyone messed up (in this context where victim of a crime insinuates you could have done something better) is just as ostracizing as constructive. Those who don't volunteer information can learn just as well from reading about similar cases volunteered by other community members. 100% omniscience is unnecessary to achieve the educational goal.

As for the hypothetical crime spree on the border, a report after the fact does no good to stop the corruptive affect at that time or in the new-alt future.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Those benefits were not for the SAD, but for the ambush. The flag was just what enabled the SAD.
GW Blog wrote:

- The player gets more loot when searching PvP kills that goes up each hour up to ten hours.

- The player gets a bonus to Stealth that goes up each hour up to ten hours.
- These bonuses reset to the minimum upon gaining the Attacker flag unless the target was offered and rejected a stand-and-deliver trade within five minutes of the attack.

Actually it's for any PvP kill you make but if you ambushed someone without issuing an SAD it would get set back to the minimum at the start of the attack (because that's when you would have gained the attacker flag) meaning you wouldn't even get the bonus for that kill.

Ambushing unflagged players has never been meant to be a viable tactic. It's a tactic for people who wan't crappy low rep CE characters. Always has been, and always will be.

Ambush is primarily used versus a sanctioned target ( feud, war, faction, etc). SADs are used against unflagged targets. We are in agreement.

It is unnecessary to SAD a sanctioned target. The attacker will get less loot through the SAD in most cases. An ambush would only be used against an unflagged target if the reward was enough to compensate for the reputation loss. This tactic has to be used sparingly or you will end up CE and Low Rep. Ambushing unflagged targets can be mitigated through the use of getting accepted SAD offers. We do not know the ratio of the offset yet.

This is how the system is designed. It us a balanced system and as Stephen suggested, it hasn't changed much in concept.

Goblin Squad Member

Also I'm completely familiar with Battleclinic, I'm in it.

That jerk smartbombing the gate from his Rokh I still remember it. I don't remember ever losing a Prowler but I was empty and all they got was a salvager so lawl.

Goblin Squad Member

I hope you are not suggesting that battle clinic would be good for the game. It incentivizes all killing, especially suicide ganking because Concord kills don't count against your record of wins vs, losses.

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin wrote:
And give murder hooligans a ruler with which to measure their e-peens? A one-stop shop so their competition to see who the biggest murder hooligan is can begin in earnest? No thank you.

Not at all. The reports go to the settlement owners, not the players committing the crimes or any public source. Settlements would have no reason to publish these outside leadership and those who investigated the crimes unless they were committing crimes in their own lands, which would be stupid given that generates corruption/unrest and they get to set the laws.

Goblin Squad Member

@steelwing: thanks for a thotough reply. Sorry for beign away from the boards so this response comes late.

Steelwing wrote:
randomwalker wrote:
...Murder would still raise unrest, but killing trespassers would not be murder.

Once more I repeat. It is legal for a settlement member to kill a trespasser because they have the criminal flag to them. It is not legal for outsiders to do it as the trespasser is not criminally flagged to them. An outsider killing the trespasser therefore is still a crime

We agree on the interpretation. Trespassers killing each other is still murder and would increase unrest no matter what the law/policy is

Quote:

NRDS is perfectly viable with no mechanics at all can you explain why you think it is not. My point about other groups is they seem perfectly happy they can do NRDS without asking for any new...

This is the key point, aye. It is technically viable, but without added information it seems to me that NRDS is less competitive/optimal for a large/powerful settlement, and that the world will therefore evolve into NBSI with just a few exceptions.

I simply don't believe the drawbacks of NBSI / beenfits of NRDS are very meaningful once the game evolves into 'warring settlements' stage with most of the economic and military power being affilated with large alliances.

If the economy is balanced so that there are significant advantages to letting newbs/strangers visit your settlement, it may change. For now I expect NRDS settlements to be more like 'storefronts' for mostly NBSI alliances, and that major traders are 'bluelisted'.

Your have a good argument that a formal NBSI law would lead to everyone being trespassing and thus there will be higher unrest. My response is
1) that if this cost may not be large enough to be meaningful in the first place, and that
2) it might be avoided alltogether (at least in a chaotic settlement) by legalizing murder instead of restricting access. (More of a "kill all and let God sort them out" policy)

My point in my first point is that if the cost for exiling people (or of maintaining NBSI laws) is right, then this becomes a cost/risk consideration and I'm perfectly fine with it. I want a balance, not a all-NRDS world.


randomwalker wrote:


This is the key point, aye. It is technically viable, but without added information it seems to me that NRDS is less competitive/optimal for a large/powerful settlement, and that the world will therefore evolve into NBSI with just a few exceptions.

As you point out we do not have a lot of information about laws and penalties as yet. However there are things we do know and can speculate on.

One of the first things is this feeling that NRDS is non competitive. This seems to stem from the fact that the couple of NRDS alliances are no longer extant in Eve. Assuming for the moment that NRDS is the reason they failed (which I don't necessarily agree with but we will assume for the sake of argument) then it should be pointed out that NBSI in Eve has advantages that it won't have in PfO. We can compare the two by looking at what security NBSI gives you over NRDS

In Eve NBSI allows you to shoot on sight anyone coming through your perimiter gates who is not allied with you. This allows you to stop raiders from disrupting your gatherers and pve'ers. The other security it gives you is the ability to prevent spies to sneak in or people using a Cyno alt (A cyno alt is a small frigate usually that can light what is called a Cynosural beacon. This serves as a jump gate exit for ships capable of generating a jump gate on their own. In PfO terms it would be the equivalent of being able to teleport an army to your city gates without crossing the terrain between and with no warning).

In PfO NBSI allows you to kill on sight anyone crossing your borders. However unlike Eve there are no perimeter gates which is their only entrance they can cross at they can cross your borders anywhere so you cannot sit in one place and just catch them coming in like you can in Eve. You have to actually try and find them. In PfO NBSI allows you to protect your gatherers and Pve'rs from the raiders you manage to locate. In PfO there are (as far as we know) no plans to have mechanisms whereby they can land an army on your doorstep by sneaking in a single character. Set against this we take a corruption hit for every one crossing our border.

NBSI still sounding overpowered to you as some would have you believe?

randomwalker wrote:


I simply don't believe the drawbacks of NBSI / beenfits of NRDS are very meaningful once the game evolves into 'warring settlements' stage with most of the economic and military power being affilated with large alliances.

NBSI or NRDS becomes irrelevant in times of war as neither philosophy has any impact on armies. It is however quite possible that nations may decide to NBSI some cities and NRDS others.

randomwalker wrote:


If the economy is balanced so that there are significant advantages to letting newbs/strangers visit your settlement, it may change. For now I expect NRDS settlements to be more like 'storefronts' for mostly NBSI alliances, and that major traders are 'bluelisted'.

There will be significant monetary gains to be had by being a trade hub. To be a trade hub you will have to be NRDS because it is not just a case of letting merchants in you also need to let the customers in too. Would an NBSI settlement have some traders blue listed? Of course they would. I would expect most stores though to be bought at trade hubs and transported by that settlement itself back home

randomwalker wrote:


Your have a good argument that a formal NBSI law would lead to everyone being trespassing and thus there will be higher unrest. My response is
1) that if this cost may not be large enough to be meaningful in the first place, and that
2) it might be avoided alltogether (at least in a chaotic settlement) by legalizing murder instead of restricting access. (More of a "kill all and let God...

1) We do not currently know the cost it will no doubt however be tweaked by Goblin works as necessary.

2) Yes legalizing murder could get around this potentially however I believe killing an unflagged character while you may not get the criminal flag in your territory would still inflict the reputation and alignment hit for doing so. The reason trespassing allows you to kill freely is that they acquire the criminal flag or trespasser flag(not quite clear if they have still got the trespasser flag or whether it has been folded into criminal). Even without those penalties however it would require setting your alignment to chaotic and I believe that has an impact on your DI in any case.

Still believe NRDS is non viable and NBSI is overpowered?
(If I have been less than clear anywhere apologies never at my best before I have finished the first coffee of the morning :) )

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:

I don't think it's unreasonable to give a higher corruption rating to settlements for not protecting the people they allow in, there's just absolutely no reason to penalize them for crimes committed against the people they don't allow in. Seems like a really obvious position for anyone not pushing an agenda.

With the incentives to bring people in on a NRDS basis offered in this topic, I think a lot of settlements would still view it as very much worth their while to let neutrals in and try to protect them well enough to keep the corruption rating down.

My issue is the exile mechanic you proposed in the OP. It effectively makes any group or individual of your choosing red, lets you attack them with no cost and removes their impacts (unrest, corruption etc) from your hex/settlement. Basically, a consequence free PvP mechanic in your own territory issued at the settlement level. War deccing without the costs basically.

While I agree defending your own hex/settlement should be easier than fighting elsewhere, a mechanic that allows you to pick and choose individuals or groups to make red that costs nothing and removes consequences from PVP is just too powerful.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
Proxima Sin wrote:
And give murder hooligans a ruler with which to measure their e-peens? A one-stop shop so their competition to see who the biggest murder hooligan is can begin in earnest? No thank you.
Not at all. The reports go to the settlement owners, not the players committing the crimes or any public source. Settlements would have no reason to publish these outside leadership and those who investigated the crimes unless they were committing crimes in their own lands, which would be stupid given that generates corruption/unrest and they get to set the laws.

The question remains why settlement managers need an omniscient list of every crime committed in the hex (even if they had that powerful divination magic in place). Are they going to PM every resident on the list and interrogate them about their security precautions? Give them demerits for being victims of a crime that added corruption resulting in possible expulsion and the list needs to be complete for that policy to be fair? I don't see how it prevents or deters throwaway alts being used to purposefully add corruption.

Managers can still educate the entire population on safety with anecdotes from volunteers (e.g. I already volunteered my battleclinic). Alt crimes are a hypothetical but a border patrol is the only way to mitigate that.

I feel strongly that all dev resources should be put into deeply engrained systems that are used every second of the game (which will keep them busy for years) and a major way players can help is doing everything for ourselves that we're able to... being a sandbox and all. Crime reporting and border security are two of those things.

Goblin Squad Member

Jiminy wrote:
While I agree defending your own hex/settlement should be easier than fighting elsewhere, a mechanic that allows you to pick and choose individuals or groups to make red that costs nothing and removes consequences from PVP is just too powerful.

Still, enemies or twerps shouldn't be able to use the potential of alignment shifts or rep bombs as a meta shield against a settlement's enforcement of an amicable environment within the open PvP world (a GW design goal) or make the settlement and its residents wait to be attacked at a disadvantage.

Removal of those consequences for domestic defense is a necessity because if a NRDS settlement runs into penalties meant for griefers when trying to remove a threat from their own hex they'll just go NBSI to survive.

The other side of the equation remains, what should it cost?

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin wrote:
Jiminy wrote:
While I agree defending your own hex/settlement should be easier than fighting elsewhere, a mechanic that allows you to pick and choose individuals or groups to make red that costs nothing and removes consequences from PVP is just too powerful.

Still, enemies or twerps shouldn't be able to use the potential of alignment shifts or rep bombs as a meta shield against a settlement's enforcement of an amicable environment within the open PvP world or make the settlement and its residents wait to be attacked at a disadvantage.

Removal of those consequences when defending your home is a necessity because if a NRDS settlement can't effectively remove any threat immediately after it's identified they'll just go NBSI to survive.

The other side of the equation remains, what should it cost?

Enemies are by definition red, and twerps can be moved into that category via several existing mechanics. Why invent a completely new mechanic to do it for free?

If it had an associated cost, it would move it into the same category as feuds or war deccing, which would be fine in my opinion. DI and coin costs or the like.


Proxima Sin wrote:
Jiminy wrote:
While I agree defending your own hex/settlement should be easier than fighting elsewhere, a mechanic that allows you to pick and choose individuals or groups to make red that costs nothing and removes consequences from PVP is just too powerful.

Still, enemies or twerps shouldn't be able to use the potential of alignment shifts or rep bombs as a meta shield against a settlement's enforcement of an amicable environment within the open PvP world (a GW design goal) or make the settlement and its residents wait to be attacked at a disadvantage.

Removal of those consequences for domestic defense is a necessity because if a NRDS settlement runs into penalties meant for griefers when trying to remove a threat from their own hex they'll just go NBSI to survive.

The other side of the equation remains, what should it cost?

The exile mechanic which removes the consequences is however not needed for defense. Someone causes trouble simply set them red. They are now trespassers and can be dealt with. Making them effectively consequence free kills for absolutely everyone is the part Jiminy is objecting to and quite rightly.

Nor is NRDS at the disadvantages that the fear mongers on here claim. See my response to Randomwalker and tell me where you think I have got it wrong

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:
You really have no sense of humor do you?

Trying to engage forum PvP with humour is toxic catebear behavior!

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I see mostly a big argument over levels of this ethereal concept called Corruption talked about one time in a blog and not so much discussion about things that harm residents or can lose a settlement for them.

Very quickly I want to define stakeholders - The character members of a settlement in a settlement hex and members of the controlling company in a POI hex. Those who hold the capital stake in that particular hex. Many hexes have no stakeholders.

The foundational principle of whether or not NRDS is a viable settlement policy rests in whether or not that settlement can remain open to most while being able to effectively expel the few that might be a threat to their people or property. Does everyone agree on that principle?

@Steelwing if you're asserting NRDS is completely viable with current information I disagree.

As current knowledge stands, if there are non-hostile but shady characters you're 98% sure are casing the gates for rich-looking caravans, you CANNOT walk up and tell them to leave the hex or else and have it mean anything. It's either an empty threat or you expose yourself to alignment and reputation shifts meant for those that engage in meaningless pvp that make your character and settlement suck a little more (the defense of your own home/POI is not meaningless). The settlement currently has no effective option to expel that perceived threat and exposure to that level of danger very long will cease their NRDS policy.

Heck for all we know right now 100 people from OtherBigTown could march all their warcamp supplies right up to your wall and start setting up for the war they're about to declare but being non-hostile it would be a HUGE rep bomb to kill them all and likely shift some townies out of their current alignment. No one thinks it's right to either take that much of a griefer hit or let them get a 100% complete siege camp constructed before officially declaring war.

We don't need a whole suite of NRDS tools, menu options, special mechanics, and the like. Just one simple universal way that allows stakeholders (no one else inside that hex just those with the official stake in it) to avoid the consequences meant for toxic gameplay when they are defending their own hex (no other places) from percieved player threats.

Goblin Squad Member

Sidebar - For anyone actually more worried about corruption than how to prevent the crimes that caused it, all these extravagant ideas aren't necessary. Computers are great at math just index the corruption amount according to proximity to anything meaningful.

Crimes inside the settlement plot, a diameter of POI or harvesting ops carry a high corruption value for violations committed there. Any exile/trespasser list is useless against a series of disposable alts murdering each other on the border but that indexes as miniscule. In the case of SADs the amount of coin is the meaningful point of reference wherever it happens geographically. A SAD for one coin is exponentially miniscule compared to 1,000 coin. "But then we just get rich alts doing the same thing" Yeah go kill them and see how long it keeps up. OH WAIT you'll take the same hits a newbie-griefer would get no matter what.

I now direct your attention to the above post ^.


Proxima Sin wrote:

As current knowledge stands, if there are non-hostile but shady characters you're 98% sure are casing the gates for rich-looking caravans, you CANNOT walk up and tell them to leave the hex or else and have it mean anything. It's either an empty threat or you expose yourself to alignment and reputation shifts meant for those that engage in meaningless pvp that make your character and settlement suck a little more (the defense of your own home/POI is not meaningless). The settlement currently has no effective option to expel that perceived threat and exposure to that level of danger very long will cease their NRDS policy.

Bolded the part to talk about here. Yes you absolutely can do this. You set them to red. They then become trespassers if in your hex. I would argue that they get sufficient warning that they move out of your hex but there is nothing to stop you doing so.You are 98% sure they are up to no good so why wouldnt you.

The concept of black listing someone has been around for ages and has been assumed that it was within a settlements rights to do so and I have not seen anyone objecting to the idea. The only new thing that this "exile" mechanic brings to the table is the concept of removing consequences from the settlement of crimes committed against these blacklisted people. This is the part both myself and Jiminy have tagged as "making these people free kills for absolutely everybody" rather than just those entitled to take actions against them (the settlement members).

As this consequence free part is the only thing that this exile mechanic adds to what people have already widely assumed to be available and have not objected to then I can only conclude it was the whole point of suggesting this "new" mechanic.

If you feel I am wrong I would be interested in what you think are the other differences between "exile" and the blacklist/set to red that people have assumed to be possible.


Proxima Sin wrote:

Sidebar - For anyone actually more worried about corruption than how to prevent the crimes that caused it, all these extravagant ideas aren't necessary. Computers are great at math just index the corruption amount according to proximity to anything meaningful.

Crimes inside the settlement plot, a diameter of POI or harvesting ops carry a high corruption value for violations committed there. Any exile/trespasser list is useless against a series of disposable alts murdering each other on the border but that indexes as miniscule. In the case of SADs the amount of coin is the meaningful point of reference wherever it happens geographically. A SAD for one coin is exponentially miniscule compared to 1,000 coin. "But then we just get rich alts doing the same thing" Yeah go kill them and see how long it keeps up. OH WAIT you'll take the same hits a newbie-griefer would get no matter what.

I now direct your attention to the above post ^.

You have to bear in mind the point of corruption. The whole point is to provide the risk portion of setting laws. If you wish to exclude people from your lands then it is incumbent on you to uphold that law.

The reward is keeping the undesirables out and making them a free kill to your members if they enter.

The risk is if you do not kill them then you suffer corruption.

It should be noted this is not actually an NRDS/NBSI issue either it is a generic thing to both strategies. I accept as part of the cost of going NBSI that we will have many more trespassers and if we do not deal with them that our corruption will rocket that is our risk. NRDS should presumably have a lot less problems with this I see no lack of balance here

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Proxima Sin wrote:

As current knowledge stands, if there are non-hostile but shady characters you're 98% sure are casing the gates for rich-looking caravans, you CANNOT walk up and tell them to leave the hex or else and have it mean anything.

Bolded the part to talk about here. Yes you absolutely can do this. You set them to red.

My stated context was within what has already been announced to be a part of the game, and it is accurate that way. Something has to be added to change that condition.

You/the conversation is talking about adding a hypothetical trespasser/exile label to turn the shady characters red. So, everyone just walks around with a button that can declare others trespassers and exiled? Or do you have to start messaging to find someone with permissions, explain the situation to them, give the proper spelling of lliil1li1lii's name and all his comrades, wait for the trespassing flag to go into affect (if it's instant it's ABUSE!!)...

By the time all that red tape is done with the shady characters could be three hexes away and 10,000 coin richer. Hard to convince anyone your territory is open but also safe that way. Including your own soon-to-be-former residents.

The principle from my post is that NRDS is enabled by an effective way for stakeholders to immediately deal with potential threats to their hex without taking the mechanical shifts intended for meaningless pvp. (all of the words in that definition are important)

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Still believe NRDS is non viable and NBSI is overpowered?

I believe that there are many parameters to be weighed, and depending on GW choices it can fall either way. (Evasive answer, but also true).

You have however convinced me that NBSI is not going to be as powerful as in Eve, and that some of the reasons to go NBSI in Eve are non-issues in PFO. Shedding some light on things make them look less dark.

I hope for a robust design that allows GW to tune the cost/reward balance as game develops without using excessive force.


Proxima Sin wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Proxima Sin wrote:

As current knowledge stands, if there are non-hostile but shady characters you're 98% sure are casing the gates for rich-looking caravans, you CANNOT walk up and tell them to leave the hex or else and have it mean anything.

Bolded the part to talk about here. Yes you absolutely can do this. You set them to red.

My stated context was within what has already been announced to be a part of the game, and it is accurate that way. Something has to be added to change that condition.

You/the conversation is talking about adding a hypothetical trespasser/exile label to turn the shady characters red. So, everyone just walks around with a button that can declare others trespassers and exiled? Or do you have to start messaging to find someone with permissions, explain the situation to them, give the proper spelling of lliil1li1lii's name and all his comrades, wait for the trespassing flag to go into affect (if it's instant it's ABUSE!!)...

By the time all that red tape is done with the shady characters could be three hexes away and 10,000 coin richer. Hard to convince anyone your territory is open but also safe that way. Including your own soon-to-be-former residents.

The principle from my post is that NRDS is enabled by an effective way for stakeholders to immediately deal with potential threats to their hex.

Even with the exile system I would expect it not to be only certain members have permissions to exile people it certainly wouldnt be just anyone in the settlement so you would still need all the red tape part.

Settlement laws enabling you to declare people trespassing have already been announced. In what way do you think exile differs from that except for the removal of consequences part? Again I submit that last is the only difference and therefore the only reason this idea has been suggested


randomwalker wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Still believe NRDS is non viable and NBSI is overpowered?

I believe that there are many parameters to be weighed, and depending on GW choices it can fall either way. (Evasive answer, but also true).

You have however convinced me that NBSI is not going to be as powerful as in Eve, and that some of the reasons to go NBSI in Eve are non-issues in PFO. Shedding some light on things make them look less dark.

I hope for a robust design that allows GW to tune the cost/reward balance as game develops without using excessive force.

I think we can all agree that there are things that can change as the devs continue to work. I tend to form opinions purely on what we know and take the view that when what we know changes then I revise my opinion if it is no longer valid. I stand by my statement that with what we know currently there is no reason to believe NRDS is either non viable or even unbalanced compared to NBSI. Should the facts change in the future I will change my opinion as needed.

The original post however proclaimed that NRDS was non viable and there is absolutely no reason to consider it so from what we currently know. Nor is there anything that I can see that we believe is in the pipeline likely to make it so.

If you are interested..

The reason we would go NBSI (given current knowledge) is not that we believe it gives us an advantage mechanically but out of concern for providing our players with content. When they patrol our territories they like to be able to engage in pvp when they find someone who shouldn't be there. By going NBSI we provide them more opportunities to find people who shouldn't be there. (It also provides more content for others as they will know if they want some small gang pvp they just need to enter our area of control but I can't honestly claim we are doing it for their benefit :)

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Being wrote:
How about scaling the efficacy of the SAD to the level of risk the bandits are prepared to accept? Self identifying as predators should increase their risk, so it should increase their potential reward. If they are unwilling to accept that increased risk then they should be willing to accept a lower return on their SAD. Sound better?

I really like this idea. By taking measures to appear harmless until they spring the SAD, the bandits are foregoing measures that might increase their chance of success or their ability to project overwhelming force. Allowing un-flagged bandits to issue SADs is fine, but I think it makes a lot of sense to limit their effectiveness, and allow them to fly their Outlaw Flag (the proverbial one, not the mechanical one that no longer exists) proudly to maximize that effectiveness.

Goblin Squad Member

A blanket "every non-member is a trespassing criminal" law that flags everyone criminal (trespassing) to be a free kill to anyone and causes corruption hits to the settlements DI seems much more suited to NBSI.

I'm not going to engage in speculation on the motivation behind any suggestions because that's what gets threads locked and makes Chris Lambertz need to grab another coffee. Be nice to Chris. I'm only concerned how well the ideas hold to PO and D&D principles and achieve defined goals.

My contention remains:

You can't do NRDS and have automatic criminals traipsing all over your land 24/7, characters will remain unmarked until decided on by a human intelligence. Any character coming into a hex to harm the settlement won't associate with any blanket exiled/trespasser groups so their trespasser/exile status will have to be set by hand on a moment-to-moment awareness of their existence through whatever layers of bureaucracy exist and that makes both systems unacceptable to an effective NRDS policy.


Proxima Sin wrote:

A blanket "every non-member is a trespassing criminal" law that flags everyone criminal (trespassing) to be a free kill to anyone and causes corruption hits to the settlements DI seems much more suited to NBSI.

I'm not going to engage in speculation on the motivation behind any suggestions because that's what gets threads locked and makes Chris Lambertz need to grab another coffee. Be nice to Chris. I'm only concerned how well the ideas hold to PO and D&D principles and achieve defined goals.

My contention remains:

You can't do NRDS and have automatic criminals traipsing all over your land 24/7, characters will remain unmarked until decided on by a human intelligence. Any character coming into a hex to harm the settlement won't associate with any blanket exiled/trespasser groups so their trespasser/exile status will have to be set by hand on a moment-to-moment awareness of their existence through whatever layers of bureaucracy exist and that makes both systems unacceptable to an effective NRDS policy.

Yes I agree that criminals have to be marked by humans. No one has suggested otherwise. However no settlement is ever going to grant the right to mark people as criminals to all of their members for the simple reason it is a logistical nightmare.

You as the settlement manager goto bed, goto work, log on and find in the 16 hours you have been away there have been 250 people marked as such. You now have to sift through them working out which were falsely flagged and which are legitimate.

A settlement that does not severely limit marking rights will end up as defacto NBSI as people run riot marking people for all sorts of reasons such as he killed me over a mining node the other day, thats an alt of player x, that merchant keeps undercutting me etc.

I repeat no settlement is going to give that power to any but a small handful of people it would be a nightmare.


Proxima Sin wrote:

A blanket "every non-member is a trespassing criminal" law that flags everyone criminal (trespassing) to be a free kill to anyone and causes corruption hits to the settlements DI seems much more suited to NBSI.

Decided to respond to this separately. I never asserted anywhere that you should make every non member a trespassing criminal if you want to be NRDS could you point out where you think I did?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If a Character is involved in an activity that causes Corruption, then the Settlement has some amount of time to "bring them to justice" in order to reverse the Corruption. It seems to me that logging out of the game should count as being brought to justice, and reverse the Corruption.


Nihimon wrote:
If a Character is involved in an activity that causes Corruption, then the Settlement has some amount of time to "bring them to justice" in order to reverse the Corruption. It seems to me that logging out of the game should count as being brought to justice, and reverse the Corruption.

In eve the way they handle it is if you get a flag such as the criminal flag you can log out but your ship remains in space and killable for the duration of the flag (15 minutes if memory serves). I would advocate the same thing in PfO.

To reverse the corruption you still have to find and kill them but they cannot escape this by logging off and are an easy kill if you do find them

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Proxima Sin wrote:

A blanket "every non-member is a trespassing criminal" law that flags everyone criminal (trespassing) to be a free kill to anyone and causes corruption hits to the settlements DI seems much more suited to NBSI.

Decided to respond to this separately. I never asserted anywhere that you should make every non member a trespassing criminal if you want to be NRDS could you point out where you think I did?

There are two ways to approach trespass/exile: All are allowed until unwelcomed or all are unwelcome until allowed.

Without referencing anyone's beliefs about either, that passage explains why default unwelcome wouldn't work to promote NRDS.

Steelwing wrote:

A settlement that does not severely limit marking rights will end up as defacto NBSI as people run riot marking people for all sorts of reasons such as he killed me over a mining node the other day, thats an alt of player x, that merchant keeps undercutting me etc.

I repeat no settlement is going to give that power to any but a small handful of people it would be a nightmare.

Which is why any trespass/exile system that defaults allowed until manually marked unwelcome is either a nightmare of individual whims or so bogged down in red tape it's rendered unworkable in enabling a secure NRDS settlement policy.


Proxima Sin wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Proxima Sin wrote:

A blanket "every non-member is a trespassing criminal" law that flags everyone criminal (trespassing) to be a free kill to anyone and causes corruption hits to the settlements DI seems much more suited to NBSI.

Decided to respond to this separately. I never asserted anywhere that you should make every non member a trespassing criminal if you want to be NRDS could you point out where you think I did?

There are two ways to approach trespass/exile: All are allowed until unwelcomed or all are unwelcome until allowed.

Without referencing anyone's beliefs about either, I explained why I think both fall short of enabling NRDS policy.

If you believe neither way enables NRDS then there is no system at all that can allow NRDS.

To me NRDS is the former state. Every one is welcome until disbarred. That is the very core of what NRDS is.

Perhaps you would care to tell us what your definition of NRDS is as you seem to disagree with the standard definition.

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin wrote:
The foundational principle of whether or not NRDS is a viable settlement policy rests in whether or not that settlement can remain open to most while being able to effectively expel the few that might be a threat to their people or property. Does everyone agree on that principle?

and also

Proxima Sin wrote:
The principle from my post is that NRDS is enabled by an effective way for stakeholders to immediately deal with potential threats to their hex without taking the mechanical shifts intended for meaningless pvp. (all of the words in that definition are important)

What will enable that?

Proxima Sin wrote:
We don't need a whole suite of NRDS tools, menu options, special mechanics, and the like. Just one simple universal way that allows stakeholders (no one else inside that hex just those with the official stake in it) to avoid the consequences meant for toxic gameplay when they are defending their own hex (no other places) from percieved player threats.

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin wrote:
Which is why any trespass/exile system that defaults allowed until manually marked unwelcome is either a nightmare of individual whims or so bogged down in red tape it's rendered unworkable in enabling a secure NRDS settlement policy.

I respectfully disagree with the second part. I think it is entirely possible to simply have all of your patrol captains and guard captains (not throwing in numbers, but one person for every group of defenders you have) enabled for flagging people, with specific instructions for who they are allowed to flag (or less specific instructions, and you put the responsibility on them to use the powers appropriately). That would mean that an ordinary citizen who sees a potential bad guy would have to get a patrol to flag the bad guy as trespasser; seems like a non-issue to me with the advent of chat channels, as long as your patrols aren't spread way too thinly ([Settlement]Shane: Hey, there's a group of guys near the southern copper hexes, I think they're about to do some ore poaching.).

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin wrote:
Which is why any trespass/exile system that defaults allowed until manually marked unwelcome is either a nightmare of individual whims or so bogged down in red tape it's rendered unworkable in enabling a secure NRDS settlement policy.

I respectfully disagree with the second part. I think it is entirely possible to simply have all of your patrol captains and guard captains (not throwing in numbers, but one person for every group of defenders you have) enabled for flagging people, with specific instructions for who they are allowed to flag (or less specific instructions, and you put the responsibility on them to use the powers appropriately). That would mean that an ordinary citizen who sees a potential bad guy would have to get a patrol to flag the bad guy as trespasser; seems like a non-issue to me with the advent of chat channels, as long as your patrols aren't spread way too thinly ([Settlement]Shane: Hey, there's a group of guys near the southern copper hexes, I think they're about to do some ore poaching.).

@Prozima, are you suggesting all settlement members should get free reign on kills in their territory, or something else? Because if this is what you had in mind it would seem to act as a deterrent to going into other people's territory, in my opinion.


Proxima Sin wrote:
Proxima Sin wrote:
The foundational principle of whether or not NRDS is a viable settlement policy rests in whether or not that settlement can remain open to most while being able to effectively expel the few that might be a threat to their people or property. Does everyone agree on that principle?

and also

Proxima Sin wrote:
The principle from my post is that NRDS is enabled by an effective way for stakeholders to immediately deal with potential threats to their hex without taking the mechanical shifts intended for meaningless pvp. (all of the words in that definition are important)

What will enable that?

What enables it is moving those people who are no longer welcome to the list of those not welcome at which point they become trespassers and settlement members may kill them consequence free. This is how NRDS by its very nature has to work. They are welcome until you say they are not.

You however seem to have objections (due either to red tape or a nightmare of individual whims) to that so I am at a loss as to what you would find acceptable.

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin wrote:
Proxima Sin wrote:
The foundational principle of whether or not NRDS is a viable settlement policy rests in whether or not that settlement can remain open to most while being able to effectively expel the few that might be a threat to their people or property. Does everyone agree on that principle?

and also

Proxima Sin wrote:
The principle from my post is that NRDS is enabled by an effective way for stakeholders to immediately deal with potential threats to their hex without taking the mechanical shifts intended for meaningless pvp. (all of the words in that definition are important)

What will enable that?

Proxima Sin wrote:
We don't need a whole suite of NRDS tools, menu options, special mechanics, and the like. Just one simple universal way that allows stakeholders (no one else inside that hex just those with the official stake in it) to avoid the consequences meant for toxic gameplay when they are defending their own hex (no other places) from percieved player threats.

NRDS can trespass troublemakers when they have the time to do it. NRDS can enact laws that flag blue or grey for criminal mischief. They will have a harder time of it, but that is the trade off for the increased traffic and probably trade. Whether that is worth it or not will have to depend on the settlement's viewpoint.

It can be as simple as that. There is a terrible tendency to want to over complicate this game beyond programmability.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
In what way do you think exile differs from that except for the removal of consequences part? Again I submit that last is the only difference and therefore the only reason this idea has been suggested

Just for the sake of clarity the two should remain distinct, not only for RP reasons but mechanically: the exiled former member would also have to endure being stripped of the use of accessibility for tier 2 and above skills that depend on his former settlement, according to the currently held understanding of the relationship between skills and host settlements.


Being wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
In what way do you think exile differs from that except for the removal of consequences part? Again I submit that last is the only difference and therefore the only reason this idea has been suggested
Just for the sake of clarity the two should remain distinct, not only for RP reasons but mechanically: the exiled former member would also have to endure being stripped of the use of accessibility for tier 2 and above skills that depend on his former settlement, according to the currently held understanding of the relationship between skills and host settlements.

If you are referring to the name of the system "exile" then yes I agree its not the best name as it would apply it is being made to a settlement member.

If you are referring to the proposed mechanic then I believe it wasn't aimed so much at settlement members as visitors

151 to 200 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.