A Few Simple Ways to Make NRDS Viable


Pathfinder Online

401 to 450 of 1,127 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
The discussion wasn't how often you would take the hit, but whether or not your were altruistic enough to take the hit if needed.

For the record, I'm perfectly happy to take the occasional Rep Loss to accomplish some short-term goal. I don't expect I'll ever end up Low Reputation because of it, though. And I expect the folks who are Low Reputation aren't just taking the occasional Rep hit for the team.

Goblin Squad Member

I did not suggest that low rep equals hostile. At least I did not mean it that way. If you decide that one of the ways you play is to hunt really low rep players, that are also in a state of hostility to you, is that wrong?

If a person ends up low rep and wants to "come back from that", I see not much value to hunting them if they do not appear "hostile" to me. Unless it is needed for some reason that I take a "hit" occasionally, to keep those people away from my interests. I will try and find a way to legitimately catch them hostile or make them hostile first, if I can.

The key here is whether they are "hostile" first. Aside from that, I see no reason to tolerate really low reputation (obviously repetitiously bad actors). I see little difference in choosing a target for it's likely wealth or it's level of difficulty. Really low rep (as far as I know) is designed to be discouraged every way possible.

Goblin Squad Member

Low Rep strikes me as somebody I won't want to trust with something important, but for a Company or Settlement who is asking people to do things that will lower their Rep, I can fully see them turning around and offering big, high-risk jobs to 'their' Low Rep people purely to help bump them up the Rep-Ladder as a thank you for 'taking one for the team'.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
If I see someone Flagged, the most important thing to me is going to be their Reputation. If it's Low, I'll almost certainly try to kill them if I think I can. I would hope this becomes a common stance for most "positive game play" folks to take.

That position does seem to be lacking in context. Then the extra step of advocating game-wide blind vigilantism as long as it "feels" right.

What is the source of the actual hostility flag? That seems like it should be the major factor in a decision to consider engagement. But that's being replaced by Rep level.

If that was a game-wide habit, there would be a lot more pre-emptive self defense attacks upon initial contact between characters by anyone afraid of being perceived as too low Rep. It seems like a policy that results in the opposite situation of something you were hoping for in another thread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Proxima Sin wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
If I see someone Flagged, the most important thing to me is going to be their Reputation. If it's Low, I'll almost certainly try to kill them if I think I can. I would hope this becomes a common stance for most "positive game play" folks to take.

That position does seem to be lacking in context. Then the extra step of advocating game-wide blind vigilantism as long as it "feels" right.

What is the source of the actual hostility flag? That seems like it should be the major factor in a decision to consider engagement. But that's being replaced by Rep level.

If that was a game-wide habit, there would be a lot more pre-emptive self defense attacks upon initial contact between characters by anyone afraid of being perceived as too low Rep. It seems like a policy that results in the opposite situation of something you were hoping for in another thread.

I suspect for many it won't even be low rep that triggers the attack but merely a matter of the company or settlement colors you are flying. Part of company xyz? must be a griefer or a jerk sort of thing

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Even with the criminal flag, you'll find most people won't shoot you on sight, unless you have directly harmed that individual or someone in their social group.

If I see someone Flagged, the most important thing to me is going to be their Reputation. If it's Low, I'll almost certainly try to kill them if I think I can. I would hope this becomes a common stance for most "positive game play" folks to take.

I think you're right that folks who are trying to specialize as Resource Gatherers probably won't attack in this situation, but I think the differences between EVE and PFO will mean that there are a lot more jerk-hunters nearby.

A bit immersion breaking to think that with thousands of people running around, each will have a rep meter over their head to tell you what to expect of them.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Proxima Sin wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
If I see someone Flagged, the most important thing to me is going to be their Reputation. If it's Low, I'll almost certainly try to kill them if I think I can. I would hope this becomes a common stance for most "positive game play" folks to take.
What is the source of the actual hostility flag? That seems like it should be the major factor in a decision to consider engagement.

I would actually prefer if their Low Reputation in itself made them Hostile to me. Please Let Us Make Low Reputation Characters Our Content

Proxima Sin wrote:
If that was a game-wide habit, there would be a lot more pre-emptive self defense attacks upon initial contact between characters by anyone afraid of being perceived as too low Rep. It seems like a policy that results in the opposite situation of something you were hoping for in another thread.

I'm not sure what you think I was advocating in another thread, but I have been very consistent in wanting Low Reputation folks to suffer for it. If that means they're paranoid and think everyone's going to kill them, that's fantastic! If they choose to further trash their Reputation by "preemptively" attacking everyone they meet, they're going to be stuck in the jerk funnel until the end of time. This is all based on my current understanding of the designers' intent. If I'm wrong about that, I'll reevaluate.

Goblin Squad Member

Blaeringr wrote:
A bit immersion breaking to think that with thousands of people running around, each will have a rep meter over their head to tell you what to expect of them.

I'm just going on what we've been told.

Each player has three axes of personality: law vs. chaos, good vs. evil, and reputation. A player's reputation is clearly visible to others, while alignment is harder to determine at a glance.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
I suspect for many it won't even be low rep that triggers the attack but merely a matter of the company or settlement colors you are flying. Part of company xyz? must be a griefer or a jerk sort of thing

Bolded for emphasis.

Companies that make a name for being a@*~!@#s and going out of their way to trip up people for 'teh lulz' might have the highest rep in the game through mechanics manipulation, but they'll still be NBSI to everyone else, and had best hope they can find loopholes to keep themselves from being flagged up as a Trespasser or At-War when they enter Hexes they don't control.

Goblin Squad Member

HalfOrc with a Hat of Disguise wrote:
Companies that make a name for being a!%*!!@s and going out of their way to trip up people for 'teh lulz' might have the highest rep in the game through mechanics manipulation, but they'll still be NBSI to everyone else, and had best hope they can find loopholes to keep themselves from being flagged up as a Trespasser or At-War when they enter Hexes they don't control.

Why do you think the exile mechanic terrifies UNC so much?

You're exactly right. Even in Darkfall the lowest of the lowest in terms of griefers (Fallen Lords and Welcome to Darkfall) were nearly universally despised by every alliance except The Gentlemen's Club. Such factions will find themselves turned out of almost every hex.

Goblin Squad Member

HalfOrc with a Hat of Disguise wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
I suspect for many it won't even be low rep that triggers the attack but merely a matter of the company or settlement colors you are flying. Part of company xyz? must be a griefer or a jerk sort of thing

Bolded for emphasis.

Companies that make a name for being a&%!*%#s and going out of their way to trip up people for 'teh lulz' might have the highest rep in the game through mechanics manipulation, but they'll still be NBSI to everyone else, and had best hope they can find loopholes to keep themselves from being flagged up as a Trespasser or At-War when they enter Hexes they don't control.

That would mean the reputation mechanic has failed horribly then.

Andius wrote:


Why do you think the exile mechanic terrifies UNC so much?

You're exactly right. Even in Darkfall the lowest of the lowest in terms of griefers (Fallen Lords and Welcome to Darkfall) were nearly universally despised by every alliance except The Gentlemen's Club. Such factions will find themselves turned out of almost every hex.

Yet if UNC play their role as they should in game, and have a high reputation, it's pretty lazy being able to use a mechanic (exile) to 'deal with them'.

I would rather see proper consequences ensue. They're flagged as criminals, and settlements/companies have to hunt them down and kill them, feud them, or declare war on their home settlement(s).

Goblin Squad Member

Jiminy wrote:
Andius wrote:


Why do you think the exile mechanic terrifies UNC so much?

You're exactly right. Even in Darkfall the lowest of the lowest in terms of griefers (Fallen Lords and Welcome to Darkfall) were nearly universally despised by every alliance except The Gentlemen's Club. Such factions will find themselves turned out of almost every hex.

Yet if UNC play their role as they should in game, and have a high reputation, it's pretty lazy being able to use a mechanic (exile) to 'deal with them'.

I would rather see proper consequences ensue. They're flagged as criminals, and settlements/companies have to hunt them down and kill them, feud them, or declare war on their home settlement(s).

The exile mechanic doesn't put up some magical wall that blocks them from entering the hex. Just means if they come into your territory afterward you get to kill them free of charge.

It's the most basic part of holding sovereignty over territory. The right to determine it's laws including who is and isn't legally allowed to come and go.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
Jiminy wrote:
Andius wrote:


Why do you think the exile mechanic terrifies UNC so much?

You're exactly right. Even in Darkfall the lowest of the lowest in terms of griefers (Fallen Lords and Welcome to Darkfall) were nearly universally despised by every alliance except The Gentlemen's Club. Such factions will find themselves turned out of almost every hex.

Yet if UNC play their role as they should in game, and have a high reputation, it's pretty lazy being able to use a mechanic (exile) to 'deal with them'.

I would rather see proper consequences ensue. They're flagged as criminals, and settlements/companies have to hunt them down and kill them, feud them, or declare war on their home settlement(s).

The exile mechanic doesn't put up some magical wall that blocks them from entering the hex. Just means if they come into your territory afterward you get to kill them free of charge.

It's the most basic part of holding sovereignty over territory. The right to determine it's laws including who is and isn't legally allowed to come and go.

The problem with that is it circumvents the influence cost and the feud mechanic. Your Exile mechanic also removes the negative effects of crimes committed in your settlement hex by those exiles, making DI shielded from that mechanic as well.

Why don't we just make all of PFO, open world PvP FFA with no rep or alignment and everyone can play with the same rules? This is what you are asking for, but you just want the rule set for yourself.

Why should you be allowed to play Chaotic Evil and run your settlement NBSI, and have none of the negative consequences of that and all of the advantages of being a Lawful and or Good settlement?

You do realize that if GW put your exile mechanic in, almost every settlement would use it and set everyone else to exiled, just to have the option to kill without negative consequence. Do you think only Brighthaven would use it?

Any settlement that does not use it would be weakened for not doing so, exposing their DI to corruption.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
The problem with that is it circumvents the influence cost and the feud mechanic. Your Exile mechanic also removes the negative effects of crimes committed in your settlement hex by those exiles, making DI shielded from that mechanic as well.

This is my issue with the proposed mechanic as it is - no costs or consequences. I agree that there should be a way for hex owners to enforce laws or rules on outsiders (as well as their own inhabitants), but there needs to be costs and consequences associated with it.

Feuds and wars are the current offensive mechanics, which can be used in defense, so perhaps the exile mechanic could be aligned with them with similar costs?

Goblin Squad Member

Perhaps the 'Exile' and 'Trespasser' flags only have a negative effect on your character if you're spotted by one of the Controlling Players/Companies of the Hex?

Literally, you're only able to be attacked by these Companies unless they are willing to pony up the gold-cost to have a permanent bounty put on your head.

Think of the 'Exile' Flag as a 'At War' flag that only applies within a specific Hex or cluster of Hexes.

Think of the 'Trespasser' Flag as a Flag that notifies people that the Controlling Faction doesn't want 'your kind' in their settlement, which might make them leery of trading with you for fear of being tarred with the same brush. It also makes it easier for the Controlling Faction to identify you and then either ask you to move along, or S.A.D. you for the 'privilege' of coming into their territory without a rep-loss to themselves.

Goblin Squad Member

Jiminy wrote:
Feuds and wars are the current offensive mechanics, which can be used in defense, so perhaps the exile mechanic could be aligned with them with similar costs?

Andius does not want similar costs, he wants no costs. If he wanted similar costs, he would just use the Feud system. If he wanted to protect his settlement hex against those that are currently doing harm to it, that is what the Criminal Flag allows for and the Trespasser Flag allows for. If he wanted to interdict characters that he finds suspicious, that is what the SAD mechanic allows for.

I'm sure you can see the pattern. Everything that Andius wants is already a proposed system. His problem is, all of those systems come with a cost or a trade off.

@ Andius

Why don't you just declare a perpetual state of feud with the UnNamed Company?

Since I'm certain we will not be the only bandit company in PFO, you should set the others to feud status as well.

Through the use of feuds you can avoid the negative impact of alignment, reputation and DI for your settlement, and you will have that freedom of action everywhere on the map.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Andius does not want similar costs, he wants no costs. If he wanted similar costs, he would just use the Feud system. If he wanted to protect his settlement hex against those that are currently doing harm to it, that is what the Criminal Flag allows for and the Trespasser Flag allows for. If he wanted to interdict characters that he finds suspicious, that is what the SAD mechanic allows for.

Yet 'Stand And Deliver' is not what he is trying to do. The SAD mechanism is inappropriate for his behavior.

I don't believe we are limited to the SAD mechanic, declaring feud, or investing in a declaration of war. In fact, to my mind Feuds and declared Wars shouldn't even be comparable and do not belong in the same paragraph as the SAD mechanic.

Let's call what Andius wants to do "Interdict Criminals" (IC), just for the sake of the conversation, even if that isn't precisely what he means.

It looks to me that everything involved in SAD should be broken down into constituent actions. Part of SAD can certainly apply to IC, but parts of IC is not constituent in a SAD. Parts of SAD are not part of IC. Therefore they are distinct entities.

SAD is not an end-all, be-all function. Andius' point, in my view, is that there are actions that players and player organizations will need a way to do that are not SAD events, but which are in some ways like SAD events. If the bandit's SAD is to be afforded a complex code module to accomplish well in the game then there is reason to believe some non-bandit activities will also need their own complex code modules.

I'd say if there is going to be a SAD function, then it should be subdivided into 'shared' and 'characteristic' subfunctions so they can form a library of action-parts. A dynamic link library of sorts. Those events that SAD and other player functions will share would be callable routines, and subfunctions which will be peculiar and characteristic of specialized functions like SaD, as distinct from IC, for example.

Goblin Squad Member

HalfOrc with a Hat of Disguise wrote:
Think of the 'Trespasser' Flag as a Flag that notifies people that the Controlling Faction doesn't want 'your kind' in their settlement, which might make them leery of trading with you for fear of being tarred with the same brush. It also makes it easier for the Controlling Faction to identify you and then either ask you to move along, or S.A.D. you for the 'privilege' of coming into their territory without a rep-loss to themselves.

I like that, a Trespasser flag that isn't a Criminal flag (ie, not a free kill). It could be more of warning to citizens that this party should be watched closely or driven out depending on circumstances.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Why should you be allowed to play Chaotic Evil and run your settlement NBSI...?

Yeah, Andius. What's up with you? You want to be able to kill Reds and let Blues and Greys have free rein of your territory. That's such a totally Not-Blue-Shoot-It policy, OMG you're such a hypocrite!

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

@ Andius

Why don't you just declare a perpetual state of feud with the UnNamed Company?

Since I'm certain we will not be the only bandit company in PFO, you should set the others to feud status as well.

Through the use of feuds you can avoid the negative impact of alignment, reputation and DI for your settlement, and you will have that freedom of action everywhere on the map.

Bludd, we've been told that you can only keep up a steady feud on a couple companies at a time, typically only one or two. So hopefully there's only one other bandit company around or Andius is just gonna be SOL right? How exactly is feud supposed to deal with policing your own territory if a number of enemies come into it who belong to greater than two companies (say, for example, a mixed group of twenty companies)?

I just really don't want a situation where the defenders have to avoid PvP with the attacking group simply to avoid negative consequences. If a big force of my enemies is moving around in my territory, the game mechanics should not prevent me from fighting them.

Goblin Squad Member

All he proposed was a NRDS system that can be changed on the fly. While I do agree there should be a time delay its not that much to ask for. I Wish he would have left out that particular bullet at this point but it did not say "Crimes committed by exiles" it say "crimes committed to exiles" which was really unnecessary.

I digress, forget the word exile and call it a red list. If you are on the list and are in the hex that controls the list/hex you are FFA to the members of that settlement. Settlements will have a way to flag criminals they don't want in there house. We are arguing about something that is going to be in game, without a cost to maintain. I expect there will be no direct cost to NBSI why would there be one to NRDS? Sure those policies will have costs to the settlement but not a "to add a member to this list will cost one DI" cost.

SAD can be done anywhere in the world you want to break it out, their red list will be confined to their hex(s).

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Shane Gifford wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

@ Andius

Why don't you just declare a perpetual state of feud with the UnNamed Company?

Since I'm certain we will not be the only bandit company in PFO, you should set the others to feud status as well.

Through the use of feuds you can avoid the negative impact of alignment, reputation and DI for your settlement, and you will have that freedom of action everywhere on the map.

Bludd, we've been told that you can only keep up a steady feud on a couple companies at a time, typically only one or two. So hopefully there's only one other bandit company around or Andius is just gonna be SOL right? How exactly is feud supposed to deal with policing your own territory if a number of enemies come into it who belong to greater than two companies (say, for example, a mixed group of twenty companies)?

I just really don't want a situation where the defenders have to avoid PvP with the attacking group simply to avoid negative consequences. If a big force of my enemies is moving around in my territory, the game mechanics should not prevent me from fighting them.

Any "attacker" would have a hostile flag, and so the settlement would be exempt from all consequences. Defenders are always exempt from the consequences. So the issue is not defense. The settlement and it's members can attack without consequences Criminal and Heinous flagged individuals. So the issue is not the enforcement of laws.

@ Being

You only raise the issue of semantics, what an ability is called. Whether it is called a SAD or Apprehend or Trespass versus Exile is not important. The issue you avoided is the issue of cost and or trade offs.

The cost of having a lot if laws is, if you can't enforce them, your settlement gains corruption rating (negative).

The cost of having the use of SAD is that you have to train it, slot it and then forego the advantages of ambush.

The cost of a feud is that you must expend influence, and you make yourself equally vulnerable to the company that you are feuding.

What are the costs or trade offs for any of Andius' ideas?

It appears to me in each case, he gets to do what he wants, where he wants, against whom ever he wants, without consequences or costs.

Is that by definition Neutral Good? Is that by definition NRDS? Yet, these are two things Andius firmly declares that his play style is.

Since there is little or no chance of this exile mechanic or any of those other ideas of seeing the light if day in-game. Why don't we just see how the mechanics and systems that do the same things but with different names, and have costs and consequences, will work out.

Everyone can use a SAD, wage a feud, attack criminals in their territory, attack low rep with minimal consequences, wage wars, collect bounties, etc, etc, etc,

Come up with a system that does something different, adds to human interaction, has a cost or trade off, and then there is something to talk about.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

It seems clear to me that the jerks need the good guys to lose Reputation at every turn so that no one will be able to easily identify the jerks.

Goblin Squad Member

Vwoom wrote:

All he proposed was a NRDS system that can be changed on the fly. While I do agree there should be a time delay its not that much to ask for. I Wish he would have left out that particular bullet at this point but it did not say "Crimes committed by exiles" it say "crimes committed to exiles" which was really unnecessary.

I digress, forget the word exile and call it a red list. If you are on the list and are in the hex that controls the list/hex you are FFA to the members of that settlement. Settlements will have a way to flag criminals they don't want in there house. We are arguing about something that is going to be in game, without a cost to maintain. I expect there will be no direct cost to NBSI why would there be one to NRDS? Sure those policies will have costs to the settlement but not a "to add a member to this list will cost one DI" cost.

SAD can be done anywhere in the world you want to break it out, their red list will be confined to their hex(s).

Vroom,

If my company is on this red list, can we act without consequence within that territory, the same as if we were involved in a feud or at war?

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
It seems clear to me that the jerks need the good guys to lose Reputation at every turn so that no one will be able to easily identify the jerks.

It seems to me the jerks are the supposed good guys who want their own set of rules, and everyone else has to navigate the systems as designed or face negative consequences.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
It seems clear to me that the jerks need the good guys to lose Reputation at every turn so that no one will be able to easily identify the jerks.

The "good guys" are wanting to be jerks. So yeah, they should be as easily identifiable.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In every previous title that I have played, with open PVP, the advantage has been heavily skewed toward the random and frequent killer. The consequences have always been absent or so low that it discourages nothing.

It will really be nice to see an open PVP game where the balance is shifted in the other direction for a change.

If you play the way that the Dev's build systems to encourage, you will find all the PVP that you could want and not really suffer for it. It certainly won't be as easy as it has been in the past, but I like that.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Vwoom wrote:

All he proposed was a NRDS system that can be changed on the fly. While I do agree there should be a time delay its not that much to ask for. I Wish he would have left out that particular bullet at this point but it did not say "Crimes committed by exiles" it say "crimes committed to exiles" which was really unnecessary.

I digress, forget the word exile and call it a red list. If you are on the list and are in the hex that controls the list/hex you are FFA to the members of that settlement. Settlements will have a way to flag criminals they don't want in there house. We are arguing about something that is going to be in game, without a cost to maintain. I expect there will be no direct cost to NBSI why would there be one to NRDS? Sure those policies will have costs to the settlement but not a "to add a member to this list will cost one DI" cost.

SAD can be done anywhere in the world you want to break it out, their red list will be confined to their hex(s).

Vwoom,

If my company is on this red list, can we act without consequence within that territory, the same as if we were involved in a feud or at war?

It really does feel like you are pushing for your own desired play style here. I have been ignoring others assursions of that, you seem like a good guy but you already know the answer to that question.

The thing you want is to be a criminal with a 10 min flag and then be free and clear of the actions. You want settlements to have to take rep hits to hunt you down. If people do that within a hex that is controlled by a settlement the settlement is not going to sit back and say oh well we did not get to them within the timer I guess they are a good guy again now that the time is lapsed. They are going to create criminal lists. None of this back and forth is going to change that. Ryan said he expects NBSI, the OP is talking about a way to be NDRS. Which you seem to be opposed to because among other reasons he is the poster. You don't like each other we get it. He wants a way to flag criminals, you don't want a system that lets people hunt criminals in their own hex. You plan to be a criminal, he plans to hunt criminals. He wants a tool that would make your acting like a criminal harder, you don't. I don't even know why I am responding to be sure.

Here I go anyway...

Will you be able to act without consequences? Of course not but the reason to put someone on the list is because they are acting as if there are none in the first place, ie. raiding and robbing without a feud. The settlement leadership will find a way to enforce some consequences on those who are harassing their people, caravans, traders, outposts, POI, etc without the war / feud systems. The statute of limitations for a crimes are 10 mins (unless that changes) but if you operate in a area long enough that will have less and less meaning to those people you are exercising your chosen play style on. That is not unreasonable, if you were to establish a settlement you would do the same.

NDRS is the kinder genteel posture if the game does not allow for that then it will be NBSI and you will still be flagged for stepping over the border. So what possible difference can it make to your play style if there is a way to pick and choose who gets those flags vs. flagging everybody?

The Devs are going to do whatever they have planned for this aspect of the game. Hell they might make the criminal flag 10 mins for all, and 3 hours for the members of the same CC who knows. Not that I am making suggestions, but if you want to be a pirate then expect to be treated like a pirate, are pirates hard to find and punish yes, but the red list will make things harder for pirates. You want easy pickings, then the settlements are going to be looking to find you when it is also easy pickings as turn about.

That is all I have to say about that...

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
If I see someone Flagged, the most important thing to me is going to be their Reputation. If it's Low, I'll almost certainly try to kill them if I think I can. I would hope this becomes a common stance for most "positive game play" folks to take.

That position does seem to be lacking in context. Then the extra step of advocating game-wide blind vigilantism as long as it "feels" right.

What is the source of the actual hostility flag? That seems like it should be the major factor in a decision to consider engagement. But that's being replaced by Rep level.

If that was a game-wide habit, there would be a lot more pre-emptive self defense attacks upon initial contact between characters by anyone afraid of being perceived as too low Rep. It seems like a policy that results in the opposite situation of something you were hoping for in another thread.

Proxima, one must assume if the "Hostile" flag system is working correctly, the individual carrying it would already, by definition, have engaged in hostile action against you, your company or your settlement. They would not be so flagged otherwise. The only exception would be members of companies/settlements your settlement is in an official state of war with. I believe the ability to engage people who have already commited hostile actions against is axiomaticly within the concept that the designers consider acceptable PvP. I would not consider it "vigilantism" but "self-defense"

In RP terms, I at least, might consider offering an otherwise High Rep some Terms or the opportunity to explain themselves and thier flag. Pirates and Scallywags on the other hand, deserve no quarter (no offense Bludd).

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:


Proxima, one must assume if the "Hostile" flag system is working correctly, the individual carrying it would already, by definition, have engaged in hostile action against you, your company or your settlement. They would not be so flagged otherwise. The only exception would be members of companies/settlements your settlement is in an official state of war with. I believe the ability to engage people who have already commited hostile actions against is axiomaticly within the concept that the designers consider acceptable PvP. I would not consider it "vigilantism" but "self-defense"

In RP terms, I at least, might consider offering an otherwise High Rep some Terms or the opportunity to explain themselves and thier flag. Pirates and Scallywags on the other hand, deserve no quarter (no offense Bludd).

The Hostile flag does not specifically mean someone has engaged you, your company, or your settlement. A Hostile Flag means engagement with a non flagged player, a feud, or of opposing faction.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf. You say Andius' mechanic would make crimes by exiles have no effect. This is wrong. His system has crimes AGAINST exiles have no effect. Also, the difference between exile and a feud or war is the exile ONLY applies in your own territory. With feuds you can go hunt them down where ever.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Any "attacker" would have a hostile flag, and so the settlement would be exempt from all consequences. Defenders are always exempt from the consequences. So the issue is not defense. The settlement and it's members can attack without consequences Criminal and Heinous flagged individuals. So the issue is not the enforcement of laws.

Surprising to hear this coming from Bluddwolf, of all people. Are you saying you're confident that, whenever there is someone I perceive as a meta-game or in-game enemy, there will always be a timely and none-too-expensive (not just coin, but resources in general) way to attack them inside my own territory, without including any special exiling or "setting-red" mechanics besides feud/war?

An attacker would have the attacker flag during or after the attack, but not before. So that would mean that defending from attackers would necessitate letting them take the first swing so that you don't take penalties; letting them stand outside your PoI and buff up before they make any attacks; etc. Maybe this seems reasonable to you; I'd prefer that a settlement can clear out people who they know are mounting an attack before that attack actually hits. This would of course only be in their own territory; I have no problem with people buffing up outside someone's territory and then marching in to attack. It just seems wrong that people who are clearly your enemies, and are clearly preparing for an attack against you, can't be touched until they start attacking you.

The bit about the enforcement of laws is only as good as the developers can program settlement laws; especially at first I expect the settlement laws system to be very broad strokes with a lot of room in-between for corner cases or a lack of ability to make a law in your area (for example, maybe you want to restrict non-citizens to only gathering at specific low-grade nodes and reserve quality ones for your settlement, but the UI doesn't allow you to make a distinction like that). It seems to me that instead of putting the ball in the developer's court to fix all the holes in the laws which allow people to mess with your settlement without becoming criminal, it makes more sense for the settlement to simply be able to tell people who are being a bother but not technically criminal to get out. This might even be a chaotic action for a settlement, as it's being capricious about its enforcement instead of sticking to the letter of the law; that's fine by me. But it should be an option for settlements to be able to kick out bothersome people without being NBSI.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

In order to have NRDS or NBSI policies, you have to be able to set people as blue and red. Why is there such a backlash against setting this?

Goblin Squad Member

Drakhan Valane wrote:
In order to have NRDS or NBSI policies, you have to be able to set people as blue and red. Why is there such a backlash against setting this?

Bludd, do you perhaps think an NRDS policy is too powerful? You say that declaring people as hostile with no cost is imbalanced compared to the methods for setting people as hostile we already know about; does this mean you think NBSI should be an impossibility for a settlement, as that means setting an infinite number of people hostile?

Edit: With all these questions, I'm just trying to understand why it is you are fighting so hard against people being able to flag others as hostile inside their own territory. What about it bothers you? As a corollary, how do you envision NRDS and NBSI being done in PFO with only the mechanics described (hell, just feud and war without SAD, as we've now been told SAD isn't part of MVP and thus we'll be playing without it for a while)?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Bludd,

What Andius is advocating for is simply the right for a Hex's legal owner to excersize control over which individuals have a legal right to enter thier territory. It makes entry into that hex without permission a CRIME and therefore the individual in question becomes a valid target for law enforcment and millitary forces of the owner to engage WITHIN THE OWNERS TERRITORY without suffering alignment or reputation hits themselves.

It is one of the most basic aspects of Soveriegnty...the right to determine who is allowed legal access to territory one controls.... without it the Kingdom building aspect of PFO would be pretty much broken.

It is ENTIRELY different and far more limited then WARS, FEUDS or SADS. WARS, FEUDS and SAD'S can be applied to targets ANYWHERE within the game, regardless of the targets actions or attempts to avoid them. EXILE is applied only to the target WITHIN THE BORDERS of the OWNERS HEX. The target can easly avoid it, at ZERO cost to themselves by simply not entering that one HEX.

What this means in practical terms is that if you have an ALT who is a member of an NPC settlement and has a KNOWN past criminal history or KNOWN but unofficial association with the owners enemies, you don't get to waltz into thier territory and be untouchable. At the same time, the OWNER can allow genuine newbies or other peacefull members of that NPC settlement into thier territory if they choose.

You can still hang around outside the OWNERS territory waiting to pounce on anyone you like. You can still enter the territory to commit your ill deeds, just that you'll be a valid target to the settlement owner for doing so. You can still use ALTS that are unknown to the OWNER and therefore not exiled. You just can't be a NOTORIOUS individual who is affiliated with and NPC settlement and says "I haven't commited a crime in the last 20 minutes.....so you have to wait till I am ready to start raiding here before you who OWN this hex is allowed to take any action".

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:
Proxima, one must assume if the "Hostile" flag system is working correctly, the individual carrying it would already, by definition, have engaged in hostile action against you, your company or your settlement. They would not be so flagged otherwise. The only exception would be members of companies/settlements your settlement is in an official state of war with. I believe the ability to engage people who have already commited hostile actions against is axiomaticly within the concept that the designers consider acceptable PvP. I would not consider it "vigilantism" but "self-defense"

What you're talking about is the reason that other guy is hostile. That should be exactly the reason you think about attacking or not in a given moment.

Nihimon's idea is to quickly mark that off the checklist to know the conditions are good to KILL ALL THE LOW REPS!!! He didn't speak about giving a moment of consideration of why the hostility flag was up, any of the context or repercussions there, or any sort of context to understanding the low Rep status. Just green light green light kill kill kill.

In that sense Nihimon is becoming a vigilante to persecute anyone he thinks must be a lowlife scum newbie killer because they profiled that way to him. No thoughts about how that's going to affect the hostility relationship or political tone going forward or other calculations found in "meaningful" pvp. He intends it to be labeled healthy pvp because of the perceived crimes derived from profiling*. My read of the Nihimon Doctrine is that it uses a quote to select a target population and makes someone into that bloodthirsty instant attacker that so many people say we don't want to see in the game.

* - There's a whole discussion about ways to reform initially misguided players into the PO culture we'd like to see that's blasted to smithereens if they're just constantly attacked; which I skipped to stay more concise.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:


Proxima, one must assume if the "Hostile" flag system is working correctly, the individual carrying it would already, by definition, have engaged in hostile action against you, your company or your settlement. They would not be so flagged otherwise. The only exception would be members of companies/settlements your settlement is in an official state of war with. I believe the ability to engage people who have already commited hostile actions against is axiomaticly within the concept that the designers consider acceptable PvP. I would not consider it "vigilantism" but "self-defense"

In RP terms, I at least, might consider offering an otherwise High Rep some Terms or the opportunity to explain themselves and thier flag. Pirates and Scallywags on the other hand, deserve no quarter (no offense Bludd).

The Hostile flag does not specifically mean someone has engaged you, your company, or your settlement. A Hostile Flag means engagement with a non flagged player, a feud, or of opposing faction.

As far as I understand, your interpretation does not accurately represent the proposed mechanic. If you attack a member of Company A and I am a member of Company B, you are NOT flagged hostile to me ONLY to members of Company A. In order for you to be flagged as HOSTILE to me, I must have some standing (Company, Settlement, Kingdom) to the attacked individual or resource or you must have done it in territory that my settlement OWNS and where doing so is a CRIME.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drakhan Valane wrote:
In order to have NRDS or NBSI policies, you have to be able to set people as blue and red. Why is there such a backlash against setting this?

Because it came out of my mouth, and it's Bluddwolf we are talking about.

The obvious consequence is that if you own territory you have to defend it from siege. I also remember that controlling territory itself costs influence. What would justify that cost to influence and the effort to defend your structures if you do not even have the right to turn out those who cause problems from your borders?

"Just pay for the feud" is an absolute horse crap proposal. The point of feuds is it allows you to attack members of the opposing company consequence free wherever you encounter them. It's not about controlling your borders. It never has been about controlling your borders. It's about waging all out conflict.

There will be hundreds of settlements and thousands of companies as this game expands. A system that would allow you to feud more than a small handful of those at a time would be absolutely broken. Yet NBSI organizations will be turning out every single one that isn't allied to them, and even the most dedicated NRDS will probably have at least two dozen companies on their exile list at all times.

Drakhan wrote:
Bluddwolf. You say Andius' mechanic would make crimes by exiles have no effect. This is wrong. His system has crimes AGAINST exiles have no effect.

I do not believe that even Bluddwolf is so dense as to continue to miss that point. It's been spelled out many times. He's just willfully misrepresenting my position as usual.

Goblin Squad Member

Vwoom wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Vwoom wrote:

All he proposed was a NRDS system that can be changed on the fly. While I do agree there should be a time delay its not that much to ask for. I Wish he would have left out that particular bullet at this point but it did not say "Crimes committed by exiles" it say "crimes committed to exiles" which was really unnecessary.

I digress, forget the word exile and call it a red list. If you are on the list and are in the hex that controls the list/hex you are FFA to the members of that settlement. Settlements will have a way to flag criminals they don't want in there house. We are arguing about something that is going to be in game, without a cost to maintain. I expect there will be no direct cost to NBSI why would there be one to NRDS? Sure those policies will have costs to the settlement but not a "to add a member to this list will cost one DI" cost.

SAD can be done anywhere in the world you want to break it out, their red list will be confined to their hex(s).

Vwoom,

If my company is on this red list, can we act without consequence within that territory, the same as if we were involved in a feud or at war?

It really does feel like you are pushing for your own desired play style here. I have been ignoring others assursions of that, you seem like a good guy but you already know the answer to that question.

The thing you want is to be a criminal with a 10 min flag and then be free and clear of the actions. You want settlements to have to take rep hits to hunt you down.

Of course I know that answer to the question, I knew the response. What I see the exile mechanic doing is giving the power to feud for the settlement, but with none of the costs associated with the feud.

This is why I suggested to just feud my company. Now they will be able to hunt us down, without consequence, and we would not be able to hide behind not being inactive of any criminality or hostile action.

I suspect that Andius and others like him won't feud my company, for one simple reason. Feuds work both ways. We would become consequence free targets for them, but they would become consequence free targets for us as well. Since he can not or refuses to protect all of his flock, he would rather not play on an even playing field.

His settlement will grant him certain advantages, while our freedom will grant us our own advantages. GW will twist and turn the various knobs to make sure there is somewhat of a balance.

Let us see how the systems work, I seriously doubt GW is going to allow us bandits to wield too much power. It is not Pirate Fraternities Online.... Although... well I'll just leave it at, "It's not".

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

The point of the exile is to NOT hunt people down. You do not exile someone to hunt people down. You exile them to keep them out of your territory. It's a "leave us alone" strategy, not a "we're coming to kill you!" strategy. But you don't want people to be able to form settlements because you don't want be part of them. At least that's the angle you seen to be pushing, Bluddwolf.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

3 people marked this as a favorite.

There is a world of difference between a feud state that applies everywhere, even "neutral" settlements, and an "exiled" state that only has an effect within specified borders.

Obviously an exiled character would be able to proactively countercounterattack anybody with the appropriate settlement role; any condition where a group can stand and buff themselves in front of a character that they can attack but who cannot attack them first without a Rep penalty seems to make a mockery of the intent of Reputation.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:

@Bludd,

What Andius is advocating for is simply the right for a Hex's legal owner to excersize control over which individuals have a legal right to enter thier territory. It makes entry into that hex without permission a CRIME and therefore the individual in question becomes a valid target for law enforcment and millitary forces of the owner to engage WITHIN THE OWNERS TERRITORY without suffering alignment or reputation hits themselves.

A few questions...

1. If I enter as an "Exile" I am flagged as criminal to just the owners of the settlement hex?

2. If I am then "hostile" to their members, do their members also appear hostile to me? Or do I have to wait for them to attack me?

3. How is this different then the Trespasser Flag?

4. How is this different than my just having the "Hostile Flag" and potentially the "Criminal Flag" caused by my own actions?

5. What is the cost for setting individuals or companies to "Exile"?

* Trespasser and Criminal Flags do not have a cost for the settlement because they require a negative action on the part of the character to "earn" those flags.

The Exile Flag differs in that it does not require a negative action to trigger its use.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Proxima Sin wrote:
Nihimon's idea is to quickly mark that off the checklist to know the conditions are good to KILL ALL THE LOW REPS!!! He didn't speak about giving a moment of consideration of why the hostility flag was up, any of the context or repercussions there, or any sort of context to understanding the low Rep status. Just green light green light kill kill kill.

Nihimon's idea is that being Low Reputation is a clear signal that you've had a generally negative impact on the community.

We're going to manage the game mechanics in such a way that things that you do which are positive contributions to the community tend to enhance your character's reputation and things which are negative to the community tend to reduce your character's reputation.

It's impossible for me to be able to quickly make a decision based on all the context of your actions; often, I'll have no way of knowing what you did. I understand there are folks who want me to freeze into inaction based on that lack of knowledge, but that ain't gonna happen.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Exile is a slightly modified hypthetical of the small amount already announced for a trespass mechanic and given a new name for no readily apparent reason.

Does anyone really think settlements shouldn't be able to set a criminal trespass status that applies just within their own hex or controlled territory?

Goblin Squad Member

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

Exile is a slightly modified hypthetical of the small amount already announced for a trespass mechanic and given a new name for no readily apparent reason.

Does anyone really think settlements shouldn't be able to set a criminal trespass status that applies just within their own hex or controlled territory?

Bludd, apparently. Which is why I'm trying to understand why it is that he doesn't like it.

Goblin Squad Member

Has an official trespass mechanic ever been announced? I think all talk of trespass mechanics and exile and the like have been between players in the forums, not from GW.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

A few questions...

1. If I enter as an "Exile" I am flagged as criminal to just the owners of the settlement hex?

2. If I am then "hostile" to their members, do their members also appear hostile to me? Or do I have to wait for them to attack me?

3. How is this different then the Trespasser Flag?

4. How is this different than my just having the "Hostile Flag" and potentially the "Criminal Flag" caused by my own actions?

5. What is the cost for setting individuals or companies to "Exile"?

* Trespasser and Criminal Flags do not have a cost for the settlement because they require a negative action on the part of the character to "earn" those flags.

The Exile Flag differs in that it does not require a negative action to trigger its use.

My preferences:

1) I'm ambivalent, but I'd lean to just the members until you break another law. But that brings to question who should be able to attack a criminal in general.

2) I'd require you to wait. They've done nothing wrong in setting you a trespasser.

3) It sets a trespasser flag on you. It's a superset of trespasser.

4) I don't see it as different.

5) The cost is maintaining the settlement.

The exile mechanic basically defines you as a trespasser. The exile mechanic would be HOW you earn the trespasser flag. It's super easy to not be affected by the exile: Just stay out of the hexes the owners don't want you in.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
Has an official trespass mechanic ever been announced? I think all talk of trespass mechanics and exile and the like have been between players in the forums, not from GW.

Nope! Hence the crowdforging.

Goblin Squad Member

I don't think NDRS is too powerful, I think it is a farce to say, "We are NDRS, but we have 20,000 people on our Exile / Red List, and we can kill them on sight without consequences."

Yes I know 20,000 is an exaggeration, but is it really? Wouldn't an NBSI settlement use this mechanic to great effect and still legitimately claim it too is NRDS?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drakhan Valane wrote:
The exile mechanic basically defines you as a trespasser. The exile mechanic would be HOW you earn the trespasser flag. It's super easy to not be affected by the exile: Just stay out of the hexes the owners don't want you in.

Or, even better: stay outside your enemies territory until you are ready to fight and do some damage.

401 to 450 of 1,127 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 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.