A Few Simple Ways to Make NRDS Viable


Pathfinder Online

1,101 to 1,127 of 1,127 << first < prev | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
Xeen wrote:

I know they havent said it officially, but do you really think someone at -7500 rep will not be perma flagged?

If they didnt do that it would shock the hell out of me.

Yes. Mostly because that's an unfounded assumption. If it turns out to be something the developers deem beneficial, they'll implement it. And as you've been pointing out, they may decide that lack of high level training is enough punishment.
? Are you kidding?

No. Why should I be? It's easier not to code in an exception, especially when it's possible it won't be an issue.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
I'm pretty sure "breaking the laws to enforce them" is a type of corruption.
And Im sure not enforcing the laws till they are broke is as well.

But we don't know how the system works yet, so there's really no way to speculate on it yet. It may be (as some has suggested) that you reverse the mechanical corruption by catching the criminal.

For clarity, I was not referring to the mechanic of Corruption. I was referring to a definition of corruption: "the process by which something, typically a word or expression, is changed from its original use or meaning to one that is regarded as erroneous or debased."

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What I struggle to understand is how someone can on the one hand argue FOR the existance of SAD which allows one to engage in banditry without negative reputation or alignment consequences BY ANYWHERE in the game allowing the BANDIT to extort money from the target or force the target into PvP with no negative consequences for the bandit...

AND At the same time...

Argue against allowing law enforcment a similarly effective tool which ONLY in Law Enforcments OWN territory, allows Law Enforcment demand the target exit said territory or be forced into PvP without negative Alignment or Reputation consequences for Law Enforcment.

It boggles the mind how anyone can support the former and in the same breath argue against the latter.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's because the SAD has the cost of training, whereas maintaining a settlement and its territory is a free activity bereft of any costs.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
"Xeen wrote:
3) Why are we still trying to nerf play styles? I do not understand it one bit.

I don't think we are trying to nerf playstyles. Not unless you feel that swarming unaffiliated alts in order to deny access to or through un-ownable hexes to anyone not blue to the invested Main characters is a 'play-style'.

I'd really like to have some freedom in the game and I believe if high rep mains can lock down everyone else' ability to move through unowned hexes using unaffiliated alts it will be very bad for the game. If the mains are patrolling that would be different because they have something to lose.

That is exactly why I came up with whatever small contribution I have recently made to this thread. That is 'why' for me.

Goblin Squad Member

Drakhan Valane wrote:
That's because the SAD has the cost of training, whereas maintaining a settlement and its territory is a free activity bereft of any costs.

LOL...lets say just for the sake of arguement that we stipulated that the exact same costs as SAD be neccesary... what then?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drakhan Valane wrote:
That's because the SAD has the cost of training, whereas maintaining a settlement and its territory is a free activity bereft of any costs.

You make joke! :)

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
Xeen wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
Xeen wrote:
It is what it is at this point. We cannot just plan out ways to nerf unaffiliated characters due to fears that they may be used to PVP.
Right. There should be no plan to deal with scenarios that people are already actively planning.
What exactly is there to deal with?
Have you honestly missed this entire thread? The one you're posting in here?

1) Ryan stated that throw away alts will not be effective.

2) THEY WILL NOT BE CIRCUMVENTING THE REP SYSTEM, THEY WILL BE SUFFERING CONSEQUENCES
3) Why are we still trying to nerf play styles? I do not understand it one bit.
4) People will be PVPing in a PVP centered game. Get used to it.
5) You will be required to sink XP into those characters
6) Sure you can put them on the side and rebuild rep... but does anyone remember how long that takes? I figured almost a year if they are -7500 from passive gain.

Bro, I think it is a wrong assumption that characters who are earmarked to do the dirty work will be low rep. I believe that smart organizations will have high-perhaps perfect-reputation alts who then spend their rep killing one or two high-rep enemies at a propitious moment or offing, say, a dozen moderate rep opponents or just laying waste to a bunch of low rep bozos. You don't have to go negative; spend 5-6,000 and then withdraw to reputation repair mode at +1500 or whatever. This will be especially prevalent if peeps can gift reputation to other characters. It seems to be in the plans and has a lot of unintended usage potential, imho.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
That's because the SAD has the cost of training, whereas maintaining a settlement and its territory is a free activity bereft of any costs.
LOL...lets say just for the sake of arguement that we stipulated that the exact same costs as SAD be neccesary... what then?

Why don't we wait and see the further fleshing out of the Marshal system?

But, if you want all of the mechanics of the SAD, then let go of your hang-up over the name, and use it. That is the only argument some people have against it. They don't like gage fact that it can be used for both chaotic and lawful means. Or the real problem is, it does have a skill and slot cost, and some want a freebie.

You can't use the argument that you have a settlement with its costs. Your settlement also gives you every advantage in power as well.

It's like you are writing a letter using the most advanced word processing program, complaining that someone else is writing a letter using crayons.

A pretty weak argument.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

But, if you want all of the mechanics of the SAD, then let go of your hang-up over the name, and use it. That is the only argument some people have against it. They don't like gage fact that it can be used for both chaotic and lawful means. Or the real problem is, it does have a skill and slot cost, and some want a freebie.

You can't use the argument that you have a settlement with its costs. Your settlement also gives you every advantage in power as well.

It's like you are writing a letter using the most advanced word processing program, complaining that someone else is writing a letter using crayons.

A pretty weak argument.

Nobody who isn't a bandit wants all of the mechanics of SAD. Mainly because it's been told to us that it will give chaotic hits when you use it. It is absolutely unfit for law enforcement, especially when the law enforcers don't want money (and it'd basically be accepting a bribe to use SAD as law enforcement).

You keep insisting that SAD is perfect for everything it isn't. I do, however, agree that we should see where the marshal system goes. It sounds promising.

Goblin Squad Member

Drakhan Valane wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

But, if you want all of the mechanics of the SAD, then let go of your hang-up over the name, and use it. That is the only argument some people have against it. They don't like gage fact that it can be used for both chaotic and lawful means. Or the real problem is, it does have a skill and slot cost, and some want a freebie.

You can't use the argument that you have a settlement with its costs. Your settlement also gives you every advantage in power as well.

It's like you are writing a letter using the most advanced word processing program, complaining that someone else is writing a letter using crayons.

A pretty weak argument.

Nobody who isn't a bandit wants all of the mechanics of SAD. Mainly because it's been told to us that it will give chaotic hits when you use it. It is absolutely unfit for law enforcement, especially when the law enforcers don't want money (and it'd basically be accepting a bribe to use SAD as law enforcement).

You keep insisting that SAD is perfect for everything it isn't. I do, however, agree that we should see where the marshal system goes. It sounds promising.

There is no confirmation that using a SAD will lead to a chaotic shift, that is an assumption.

Secondly, law enforcement won't be using it all the time ( I assume) so even if it does have a chaotic shift, it would be easily recoverable for law enforcement.

Alignment shifts a a trivial concern. It's not even known if active alignment will have any real impact or if core alignment is really what is important.

Unless you are a Paladin or some other class that has a very strict alignment requirement, alignment is largely a "set it, and forget it" for most characters.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
That's because the SAD has the cost of training, whereas maintaining a settlement and its territory is a free activity bereft of any costs.
LOL...lets say just for the sake of arguement that we stipulated that the exact same costs as SAD be neccesary... what then?

LOL you guys are truly amusing. It is intended that when you set laws in a settlement, breaking those laws will likely cause a criminal flag. We do not know what they are coding for that yet.

Also, SAD is not a guarantee yet either.

Also, again, you guys are forgetting that there was an enforcer flag, and a champion flag. If SAD is still on the table, wouldnt you think those will be as well??

Or would you rather continue with the argument?

Goblin Squad Member

Seriously, you guys were even talking about having unaffiliated characters as consequence free targets.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:
If your purpose building ALTS to prey on merchants/crafters and non-PvP characters then any advanced combat training would be completely superflous if not entirely wasted. Why would you need advanced PvP skills to engage characters who had no PvP skills slotted and little to no experience using them if they did?

If you run with a group of PC guards who aren't in low rep sucksville this shouldn't be any issue; your strong guys beat their weak guys. Unless they have an enormous numbers advantage, in which case they're kinda shooting themselves in the foot by using low rep guys when they could be fielding the same number of high rep guys and be much more effective in combat, and thus much more profitable.

But that's only when the merchant or crafter is proactively putting themselves in danger; I don't think we need a full team of armed bodyguards to be watching every noncombatant 24/7. The part I've been arguing is that when these people are not proactively putting themselves in danger (for example, staying in their own settlement) guardspeople should be able to give them better protection by way of a proactive defense rather than a reactive one. Because reactive defenses don't work so well when you have so much space to cover.

Goblin Squad Member

Much could be accomplished without FTP. If the toon is not subscribed or burning "goblin balls", it couldn't be logged in. Good money for GW and not any different than many other non FTP games.

Of course there are always some people willing to pay for multiple toons and get all of the advantages for doing that. There has never been anyway to stop that, which can't be gotten around.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:

Much could be accomplished without FTP. If the toon is not subscribed or burning "goblin balls", it couldn't be logged in. Good money for GW and not any different than many other non FTP games.

Of course there are always some people willing to pay for multiple toons and get all of the advantages for doing that. There has never been anyway to stop that, which can't be gotten around.

The first part of your post, is answered by the second. No matter what, players will be willing to do whatever it takes to do what they want. If that includes paying for six accounts, they will, I personally know at least one person who has six EvE accounts and actually plays all 18 characters.

By excluding the first part of your argument, you give more power and incentive to the pay-to-win crowd.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Bringslite wrote:

Much could be accomplished without FTP. If the toon is not subscribed or burning "goblin balls", it couldn't be logged in. Good money for GW and not any different than many other non FTP games.

Of course there are always some people willing to pay for multiple toons and get all of the advantages for doing that. There has never been anyway to stop that, which can't be gotten around.

The first part of your post, is answered by the second. No matter what, players will be willing to do whatever it takes to do what they want. If that includes paying for six accounts, they will, I personally know at least one person who has six EvE accounts and actually plays all 18 characters.

By excluding the first part of your argument, you give more power and incentive to the pay-to-win crowd.

Disagree. That is the case for a very small percentage of players. Of those that really want to spend that much, they will anyway. You can't stop them, but you can stop the casual, immature person with little to invest and nothing to lose because it is FTP.

Goblin Squad Member

This is the reason that I keep advocating for Goblinworks to officially sanction the use of attended botting. It's going to happen anyway, and I'd rather the "good guys" (the guys who want to follow the rules) have access to it as well.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
This is the reason that I keep advocating for Goblinworks to officially sanction the use of attended botting. It's going to happen anyway, and I'd rather the "good guys" (the guys who want to follow the rules) have access to it as well.

Are you talking about macros that someone has to click here and there?

My opinion on anything botting... Just say NO!!

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
This is the reason that I keep advocating for Goblinworks to officially sanction the use of attended botting. It's going to happen anyway, and I'd rather the "good guys" (the guys who want to follow the rules) have access to it as well.

A few questions:

1. How is "attended botting" different then botting? Or, what is "attended botting"?

2. Unless GW has stated that attended botting is restricted, why would a request be necessary to officially sanction it?

3. If I come across a bot and I issue a SAD, that is not responded to (it's a bot), do I get the "declined SAD" benefits and ability to attack within the 5 minute timer?

If there is wide spread use of Bots, the SAD mechanic will have to have a timer attached to trigger an automatic decline when the timer runs out. This should actually be done, even with an active player, to prevent prolonged delaying tactics.

Goblin Squad Member

There will need to be a timer, and it sure as hell better be less then 5 minutes, more like 30 seconds. If we gave someone 5 minutes, the would take that every time just to hold a SAD issuer there.

It would end up being a mechanic that is not even used.

(Im sure you were just throwing a number out there Bludd)

Goblin Squad Member

That is something that I will go along with for the mystical SAD. There is no sense in allowing too much stall time in the SAD (assuming the rest is fairly designed). It should be quick and business like, for the bandit's safety and convenience (what there is for the target). No waiting around too long to find out if the target is AFK or calling in cavalry.

30 seconds seems fair to respond to the demand. The notice should be pretty impossible to miss too.

Goblin Squad Member

Yeah, and it gives enough time to call for help, and the bandit has a chance to get away... but also enough time for the cavalry to show up before any aggro timers may be up.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
That's because the SAD has the cost of training, whereas maintaining a settlement and its territory is a free activity bereft of any costs.
LOL...lets say just for the sake of arguement that we stipulated that the exact same costs as SAD be neccesary... what then?

Why don't we wait and see the further fleshing out of the Marshal system?

But, if you want all of the mechanics of the SAD, then let go of your hang-up over the name, and use it. That is the only argument some people have against it. They don't like gage fact that it can be used for both chaotic and lawful means. Or the real problem is, it does have a skill and slot cost, and some want a freebie.

You can't use the argument that you have a settlement with its costs. Your settlement also gives you every advantage in power as well.

It's like you are writing a letter using the most advanced word processing program, complaining that someone else is writing a letter using crayons.

A pretty weak argument.

There are multiple reasons why SAD itself can't be used...as I've illustrated perhaps 3 times now Bludd.

- If a settlement wants to make banditry illegal then it needs to make one of banditries prime mechanisms.. SAD illegal as well or it's got a huge gaping hole in it's laws to be exploited. If it makes SAD illegal then it's law enforcment can't use it as a mechanism to stop banditry as that would make thier use of it a CRIME.... catch-22.

- The goal of SAD is to extort wealth from people to enrich yourself. The goal of something like tresspass would be to get people to leave your territory so they don't attack innocents doing business in your territory. The two goals are not remotely the same.

- It would be very easy for a bandit to bypass SAD being used on them by simply having no material wealth or coin on them and letting a handler character hold it all for them. It would be completely exploitive to allow SAD demand more wealth then a character possibly has or can pay. Thus all a bandit need do is pay the 1 copper the character has to his name when SAD'd by law enforcment, nullifying the ability to use it as a tool to keep him away from his prey.

- SAD likely involves CHAOTIC shifts. Law Enforcement is, by it's nature, a LAWFULL activity.

All these, as I've explained several times already, render SAD unsuitable for this function. A mechanism that works along similar general lines to SAD would be functional but not SAD itself. It is not simply the name that is unsuitable but the nature of exactly what the mechanism is designed to do.

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Shane Gifford wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:
If your purpose building ALTS to prey on merchants/crafters and non-PvP characters then any advanced combat training would be completely superflous if not entirely wasted. Why would you need advanced PvP skills to engage characters who had no PvP skills slotted and little to no experience using them if they did?

If you run with a group of PC guards who aren't in low rep sucksville this shouldn't be any issue; your strong guys beat their weak guys. Unless they have an enormous numbers advantage, in which case they're kinda shooting themselves in the foot by using low rep guys when they could be fielding the same number of high rep guys and be much more effective in combat, and thus much more profitable.

But that's only when the merchant or crafter is proactively putting themselves in danger; I don't think we need a full team of armed bodyguards to be watching every noncombatant 24/7. The part I've been arguing is that when these people are not proactively putting themselves in danger (for example, staying in their own settlement) guardspeople should be able to give them better protection by way of a proactive defense rather than a reactive one. Because reactive defenses don't work so well when you have so much space to cover.

This is precisely the point. There is no possibility to provide a proactive defense when the patrols assigned to do so can't legaly engage intruders into ones territory.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
This is the reason that I keep advocating for Goblinworks to officially sanction the use of attended botting. It's going to happen anyway, and I'd rather the "good guys" (the guys who want to follow the rules) have access to it as well.
A few questions:

Sure...

Quote:
1. How is "attended botting" different then botting? Or, what is "attended botting"?

"Attended" means there's a person at the keyboard able to respond to tells in real time. "Unattended" botting would be the "headless clients" Ryan has talked about expecting.

Quote:
2. Unless GW has stated that attended botting is restricted, why would a request be necessary to officially sanction it?

Botting is usually against the rules, attended or not. I'm asking for sanction because I will follow the rules, and yet I want to be able to bot, although I'd probably be content with Alts as Henchmen.

Quote:

3. If I come across a bot and I issue a SAD, that is not responded to (it's a bot), do I get the "declined SAD" benefits and ability to attack within the 5 minute timer?

If there is wide spread use of Bots, the SAD mechanic will have to have a timer attached to trigger an automatic decline when the timer runs out. This should actually be done, even with an active player, to prevent prolonged delaying tactics.

Does the explanation of "attended" above obviate this question? Attended/Unattended bots should be treated exactly like Attended/Unattended Characters of any kind.

[Edit] Oops - if you noticed something strange, please disregard :)

1,101 to 1,127 of 1,127 << first < prev | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 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.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Online