A Few Simple Ways to Make NRDS Viable


Pathfinder Online

1 to 50 of 1,127 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

9 people marked this as a favorite.

Carrots

The following are a list of positive things that should inspire settlements to consider going NRDS, and help push players out into player controlled territory.

NPC Town Markets

They Should:

A. Not exist.
B. Have incredibly high tax rates if they do exist.
C. Only offer extremely low level items if they do exist.

The reason is simple. If one of A, B, or C is not true everyone will go to NPC towns for the majority of their trading needs hurting traffic to player settlements.

Player Settlement Markets

Players settlements should be able to put a tax rate between 0 and 100% on their town's market. All revenue generated by this tax goes to the settlement.

Again, simple reason. This gives MAJOR incentive for settlements to open up their roads to traders.

Development Indexes

Legally harvesting resources, killing NPCs, crafting, and completing quests in a hex should raise the development indexes or the organizations who control the hex, even if they do not belong to that organization.

The purpose of this is that it incentivizes less populated player settlements to let outsiders come in and make use of what they aren't using.

Resource Rights

Settlements and POI's should be able to sell the rights to extract resources in their territory in the form of an item. This would allow players to harvest normally restricted resources until they either harvest the max amount the contract allows or the contract expires.

This ties in with the Development Indexes to incentivize settlements to grant access to the resources they aren't using.

Sticks

Not penalties for running NBSI policies as I'm sure some of you must be thinking, but actually things NRDS policies can use to fight off some of the typical downsides associated with being NRDS.

Exile

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

The great point to this is that this allows NRDS settlements to pick and choose who is considered "red", allowing them to effectively remove sources of trouble from their settlement without implementing a blanket NBSI policy. There is no penalty for exiling players or even adopting a NBSI policy. You just miss on the potential benefits the additional traffic could offer your settlement.

Crime Reports

When players are the victims of actions that generate corruption/unrest in your settlement, officials with the appropriate rights can read the reports on what caused it.

The point of this is if you noticed the same player is routinely being victimized in your territory you can talk to them to help determine the cause. Allowing you to better protect them, or exile them depending on your patience and findings. Creating less incentive to go NBSI due to alt abuse or "careless idiots who don't follow proper precautions."

Resource Restrictions

The right to set what resources can and can't be harvested by whom within your territory. This isn't a 100% blocking mechanic but instead criminal flags anyone who violates these laws.

This allows NRDS settlements to have a bit more control over what people can and can't do within their territory. Especially when it comes to the extraction of scarce resources.

TL:DR- Some mechanics that cause settlements to benefit from additional player traffic, and control the damage the traffic can cause a bit better. No proposed penalties for running a NBSI policy.

Goblin Squad Member

For anyone not familiar:

NRDS = Not Red Don't Shoot

This is a policy of not killing players unless provided a reason to do so. In this instance it is in reference to players within your settlement's territory.

NBSI = Not Blue Shoot It

This is a policy of killing players unless provided a reason not to do so. In this instance it is in reference to players within your settlement's territory.

Goblin Squad Member

what if...
..killing neutrals in your own settlement territory increases unrest even if it is legal?

..exiling people/companies/settlements/nations costs influence/DI?

the LE settlement could legally kill anyone they wanted, but either the NPCs would be scared s%!@less they are next or the government would need to spend considerable resources on propaganda.

Goblin Squad Member

I think there is more to be gained by incentivizing than penalizing. If you penalize, people are going to be trying as hard as they can to skirt past the penalties. If you incentivize, people are going to be trying as hard as they can to claim the incentives. In this case claiming the incentives means maximizing the traffic flow and exiling the minimum amount of players needed to maintain order.

In this system I think the incentives are strong enough the entire system can work without penalties.


Hmmm call me totally amazed here. Contrast the two groups that have announced they intend to be NRDS Brighthaven and Aeternum

Aeternum said a while back they were going to be NRDS and announced their intention of becoming one of the primary market hubs of the river kingdom. They have announced one initiative already (unless I missed some which is possible) their parcel service and hinted they have others as yet unannounced ones. In other words they are taking positive steps to make it happen. They obviously feel that their goal is achievable otherwise I assume they would not be pursuing it

Andius on the other hand wants new mechanics otherwise he implies it won't be possible. Hell even the title of the thread announces that "A few simple ways to make NRDS viable" that definitely says to me its not viable without changes in his opinion.

How about instead of asking for changes you instead think about what you as players can do to make what you want happen. This is what a sandbox is all about not bleating for special privileges for your chosen play style.

If we come in we will play NBSI. If we can't set laws that make NBSI a reality we will find ways to enforce NBSI not sit here and tell goblinworks they have to put in extra mechanics for us.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
I think there is more to be gained by incentivizing than penalizing.

I don't think of it as penalizing, but as having a cost.

Whenever there's a (predictable) cost, people will try hard to find the most cost-effective sweet spot, which will be somewhere between the extremes (and GW can nudge).

The bottom line in any case is that we agree NBSI/NRDS should be a risk/reward consideration where the low-risk option of NBSI should be complemented by (appropriately) higher reward for NRDS.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
If we can't set laws that make NBSI a reality we will find ways to enforce NBSI not sit here and tell goblinworks they have to put in extra mechanics for us.

Well, as at that point Crowdforging of the basics would have ended I think no one will "sit here and tell goblinworks they have to put in extra mechanics".

Goblin Squad Member

These are pretty good succestion. I think there should be a lot of laws for settelement to choose from according to it's alignment, but not as much that it nullifies war as a resource drain and a prime pvp mechanic.

Obviously people feel Andius' opinions are meaningful, it has been shown here time and time again.

Goblin Squad Member

randomwalker wrote:
Andius wrote:
I think there is more to be gained by incentivizing than penalizing.

I don't think of it as penalizing, but as having a cost.

Whenever there's a (predictable) cost, people will try hard to find the most cost-effective sweet spot, which will be somewhere between the extremes (and GW can nudge).

The bottom line in any case is that we agree NBSI/NRDS should be a risk/reward consideration where the low-risk option of NBSI should be complemented by (appropriately) higher reward for NRDS.

Is that going to tie into Hex-Laws?

Increase the so-called legislative laws burden (aka NBSI aka "trespassing upon pain of death"):

i. Clustered laws that come as a package
ii. More procedures for trade to pass through
iii. More specified behavior of patrons/visitors (aka visors and permits issued: Such as "stick to roads only", stay on the main street of the settlement only etc.
iv. Probably want a checkpoint for customs at the hex's main road entry etc.
v. Affect of breaking laws on the index?
vi. More of the settlement requiring Aristocrats (aka bureaurocratic administrator roles)?

Burden = time and/or fee and/or administrative infrastructure

That might be for Lawful/High Rep settlements.

For Chaotic/Low Rep settlements, more of a free-for-all such a pay into the settlement "free dibs" box and you get yourself 5 in-game days of NBSI and help yourself to the loot while you're at it, as a tax on any "game you bring down", in our territorial borders.


Papaver wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
If we can't set laws that make NBSI a reality we will find ways to enforce NBSI not sit here and tell goblinworks they have to put in extra mechanics for us.
Well, as at that point Crowdforging of the basics would have ended I think no one will "sit here and tell goblinworks they have to put in extra mechanics".

The point I am making Papaver is the response of some is "we want to do this lets design a mechanic for it" instead of we want to do this how do we as players achieve it. Adding mechanics for things like this should be the last resort.

In addition this sort of mechanic isn't going to help brighthaven at all.

You have two groups in my example. One is trying to work out ways they can incentivize players to come to their settlement to trade. The other is advocating a mechanic to disincentivize trading at npc settlements.

If they were to implement the mechanic Brighthaven is still going to lose out because Aeternum are providing players with reasons to want to go to their settlement to trade.

As to the gathering and PVE portions all I can say is it is absolute madness. It is unlikely you will have enough resources (pve or gathering) to satisfy the desires of your own members let alone allowing all and sundry use them.

The theme I have running through most of my posts is consistent. Adding mechanics should be a last resort. First look at how players can achieve it on their own. Only then if the activity is highly desirable and cannot be done without mechanical intervention should there be mechanics thought about. NRDS is definitely a case of something that can be done without mechanics. Hell people managed NRDS in Eve for years. The fact it has gone out of favor is more because the alliances implementing it were on the losing end of a sov battle. I am not convinced that you can point at NRDS as the sole reason they fell.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Steelwing I think you are dismissing wholly on principle and not paying attention to a few pretty good suggestions by Andius. For example the taxation suggestions for NPC and player settlements is something GW has already considered to some extent and the crime report is an answer to the settlement alignment mechanic that EVE doesn't need because EVE doesn't have.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
The theme I have running through most of my posts is consistent. Adding mechanics should be a last resort. First look at how players can achieve it on their own.

Definitely a good thought exercise I need to run through my mind in addition to the castle of concepts floating on clouds I so enjoy!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
T7V Avari wrote:
Steelwing I think you are dismissing wholly on principle and not paying attention to a few pretty good suggestions by Andius. For example the taxation suggestions for NPC and player settlements is something GW has already considered to some extent and the crime report is an answer to the settlement alignment mechanic that EVE doesn't need because EVE doesn't have.

Markets will have individual tax rates. This we know already. GW has however said nothing to indicate that NPC tax rates would be aimed at forcing trade out to player settlements. Nor do I consider punitive tax rates in NPC settlements a good idea, you will want reasonable active markets in these towns for the newer players and in addition you will want reasonably active safe markets for when your favorite market hub is shut down temporarily because of war.

Crime reports have nothing to do with alignment as crime in a settlement does not cause alignment change. Indeed according to the dev's (and Nihimon created a thread purely to clarify this subject) the only way to change a settlements alignment is by voluntary action on the part of the settlement leader.

Crime reports are again something that can be handled by player action. A settlement should be running regular patrols in its territory for several reasons. One of these reasons is to work out who is committing crimes. I do not agree a settlement leader should be able to just pull up a report that automatically tells him the names of everyone committing a crime in his settlements control area. That frankly is just a little overpowered. If a group of raiders can sneak in raid an outpost and sneak out again then all power to them. You shouldn't then be discovered by a name appearing on a report. The settlement should have to mount extra patrols to try and catch them at it and deal with it. The whole player interaction thing

Goblin Squad Member

There is no need for mechanics to do either NRDS or NBSI. That is a player driven part of the game.

Set the standings and play the way you want it.

NRDS is viable with no mechanic.

Goblin Squad Member

I had always assumed that npc settlements would have sub standard facilities and gear. Their role is pretty much as starter areas so they won't offer much competition to player settlements.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
The point I am making Papaver is the response of some is "we want to do this lets design a mechanic for it" instead of we want to do this how do we as players achieve it. Adding mechanics for things like this should be the last resort.

I understood your point. the last time players wanted a mechanic for a thing like that was SAD. I think It worked out quite well so far.

Goblin Squad Member

NBSI and NRDS are more mission statements. SAD is completely different.

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Steelwing wrote:
How about instead of asking for changes you instead think about what you as players can do to make what you want happen. This is what a sandbox is all about not bleating for special privileges for your chosen play style.

GW will open with the minimal viable product whether those crowdforging want an entertainment railroad or not.

Your desired (I take it) sandbox with as few extraneous mechanics as possible will happen.

Once that has happened there will be a development process that will factor player input. The developer has mission goals but within that framework we get to think, suggest, and lobby.

Is it somehow out-of-line for Andius to propose ideas? Is it constructive to attempt to stifle his thinking and our argumentation over it? It isn't as if our thinking about things and trying to figure out how it could be done optimally were altering the game directly.

I believe we all understand your point of view that anything not absolutely necessary should be forbidden, but that is also an artifice you are attempting to impose on the sandbox of our conversation.


Papaver wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
The point I am making Papaver is the response of some is "we want to do this lets design a mechanic for it" instead of we want to do this how do we as players achieve it. Adding mechanics for things like this should be the last resort.
I understood your point. the last time players wanted a mechanic for a thing like that was SAD. I think It worked out quite well so far.

Considering the amount of arguments about SAD's on these boards and the lack of information about who can SAD, what they can SAD for, what are the consequences of SAD etc. I think proclaiming SAD a huge success is looking a little premature. Once we know enough about SAD's then we can make a judgement.

From what I have seen there may well be people (on either side) wholly dissatisfied with the implementation when we finally get told what it is

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Papaver wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
The point I am making Papaver is the response of some is "we want to do this lets design a mechanic for it" instead of we want to do this how do we as players achieve it. Adding mechanics for things like this should be the last resort.
I understood your point. the last time players wanted a mechanic for a thing like that was SAD. I think It worked out quite well so far.

Considering the amount of arguments about SAD's on these boards and the lack of information about who can SAD, what they can SAD for, what are the consequences of SAD etc. I think proclaiming SAD a huge success is looking a little premature. Once we know enough about SAD's then we can make a judgement.

From what I have seen there may well be people (on either side) wholly dissatisfied with the implementation when we finally get told what it is

Especially since Ryan now says it may need to be crowdforged... Which takes it off the table as a mechanic that will be implemented.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
I think proclaiming SAD a huge success is looking a little premature.

Please do not put words in my mouth. No where did I proclaim it to be a huge success.

What I mean is that people expressed the wish to do a thing. And the devs reacted with a mechanic to represent that thing.


Being wrote:


Is it somehow out-of-line for Andius to propose ideas? Is it constructive to attempt to stifle his thinking and our argumentation over it?

Is it out of line to propose that we don't need the mechanics he is suggesting. A debate needs two sides. How is Andius saying we need this, and me saying we don't need this stifling debate?

I have given reasons why I do not think they are needed. It is providing the alternative viewpoint to Andius's idea. By your argument it is only constructive to propose extra mechanics which is patently ridiculous.

Unnecessary mechanics are a blight because every mechanic you add in some ways constrain player interaction to a narrower path. Sometimes that can be needed and where it is I will be the first to support it. NRDS/NBSI are patently one of those area's that do not need it.

Opposing bad idea's (in my opinion) is not non constructive

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Taken outside of the the context of encouraging NRDS settlements, these suggestions are largely good ideas that I would actively encourage. They give players finer control over their settlements and overall encourage player cooperation.

What I would like to add, is that I like the exile mechanic, and have suggested it myself in the context of Law Enforcement as a method of discouraging shooting as the primary way of dealing with crime. I would like to add that Fines would also work nicely too. Not only do they provide a solid source of income for a settlement, but could make a player feel slightly more comfortable with going in a settlement where they might accidentally break some law. Instead of getting killed the player would just pay the fine and be on their merry way.


Papaver wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
I think proclaiming SAD a huge success is looking a little premature.

Please do not put words in my mouth. No where did I proclaim it to be a huge success.

What I mean is that people expressed the wish to do a thing. And the devs reacted with a mechanic to represent that thing.

You said that the players wanted a mechanic and your exact words were "it has worked out quite well so far". If that were true we wouldn't be having all the arguments over it still.

Goblin Squad Member

Opposition to expressed ideas is the substance of debate. I believe we all agree on that.

Narrowing player interaction is the nature of behavior-based funneling, however, and in-line with the developer's guidelines, even if it evaluates to 'bad' in your view.

Yet if player behavior funneling is 'bad' for you, isn't your effort to funnel the conversation also bad in your view?


Being wrote:

Opposition to expressed ideas is the substance of debate. I believe we all agree on that.

Narrowing player interaction is the nature of behavior-based funneling, however, and in-line with the developer's guidelines, even if it evaluates to 'bad' in your view.

Behavior based funneling from the dev point of view is to get rid of toxic game play. This has nothing to do with toxic game play but has more to do with getting the system to do something that players should be doing themselves. The constraints it imposes therefore have nothing to do with behavior based funneling in my view.

Being wrote:


Yet if player behavior funneling is 'bad' for you, isn't your effort to funnel the conversation also bad in your view?

Would you care to show me where I am "funneling conversation" by which I assume you me constraining it. Did I post that people shouldn't express their opinions? No I didn't the only person that has implied that in this conversation is you when you posted "Is it constructive to attempt to stifle his thinking and our argumentation over it?" which has the clear implication that I should not post my opinion that these mechanics aren't needed.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:


I have given reasons why I do not think they are needed. It is providing the alternative viewpoint to Andius's idea.

Huh? My limited memory recalls only something like this:

Andius: these things will make NRDS more rewarding
Steelwing: I will go NBSI, so I don't need more rewarding NRDS

What did I miss?

Is your alternative viewpoint
* that NRDS is viable without any of Andius' proposed mechanics?
* that his ideas will make NRDS less viable?
* that "I want NBSI instead of NRDS" (meaning that NRDS isn't rewarding enough for you)
* or that the game would be better if all/most settlements went NBSI (ie that NRDS is bad for the game) ?

sorry, whenever forumites start attacking each others ideas I tend to only see what they are fighting against and not what they are fighting for.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
my opinion that these mechanics aren't needed.

ah, ninjaed. nice.

so: mechanics aren't needed because the intention is wrong (trying to solve the wrong problem), or aren't needed because the execution is wrong (failing to solve the right problem) ??

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steelwing wrote:
Would you care to show me where I am "funneling conversation" by which I assume you me constraining it. Did I post that people shouldn't express their opinions?
Not only are you openly against others expressing an alternative opinion but even having an alternative opinion:
Steelwing wrote:
How about instead of asking for changes you instead think about what you as players can do to make what you want happen.

This is attempting to impose artificial constraints on the sandbox of the conversation while arguing against artificial constraints in the game the conversation is about.

Arguing against an idea differs from arguing against people having a different opinion.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
You said that the players wanted a mechanic and your exact words were "it has worked out quite well so far". If that were true we wouldn't be having all the arguments over it still.

I mean the process of Crowdforging regarding a thing that players want to do and the implementation of it as a mechanic. Having discussions over it that are everything but streight up rejection of the mechanic are a positive sign. I never said that SAD is done and perfect. So again, please do not put words into my mouth.


randomwalker wrote:
Steelwing wrote:


I have given reasons why I do not think they are needed. It is providing the alternative viewpoint to Andius's idea.

Huh? My limited memory recalls only something like this:

Andius: these things will make NRDS more rewarding
Steelwing: I will go NBSI, so I don't need more rewarding NRDS

What did I miss?

Is your alternative viewpoint
* that NRDS is viable without any of Andius' proposed mechanics?
* that his ideas will make NRDS less viable?
* that "I want NBSI instead of NRDS" (meaning that NRDS isn't rewarding enough for you)
* or that the game would be better if all/most settlements went NBSI (ie that NRDS is bad for the game) ?

sorry, whenever forumites start attacking each others ideas I tend to only see what they are fighting against and not what they are fighting for.

Then you ought to go back and read all my posts in this thread

The very first one I pointed out that NRDS is perfectly viable without these mechanics. In later posts I also explained why I thought a) these mechanics wouldn't help his settlement in any case. I also point out how players acting on their own behalf can accomplish what he wants to in any case.

Indeed some of his suggestions are actually attempts to make game mechanics not apply to his settlement and avoid the consequences of game mechanics

Goblin Squad Member

In concept I think the exile mechanic could work.Just nit picking but I would rename it to outlaw. Outlaw literally means one who is outside the protection of the law. On the down side I see this being used to target and kill visitors to a settlement or hex with little repercussion. Bart the merchant is suddenly flaged as an outlaw. The thugs waiting in the wings swoop in and do him a nasty.

A possible solution could be that the declaration of outlaw takes a significant amount of time to come into effect. In my mind it should be an hour or more.

Goblin Squad Member

Players will trade in person, not in markets and avoid the taxes and the lack of access.

Even if GW makes players pay for alts, they will still trade in person and avoid the taxes and lack of access.

If they need to have separate accounts,they will still trade in person and avoid the taxes and lack of access.

If they are barred from trading from same account, same IP, etc... They will just find another group of un-associated players and they will provide the service for each other, they will still trade in person and avoid the taxes and lack of access.

Players will go to any lengths, including but not limited to having 6 or more accounts just so they can circumvent those systems.

Goblin Works probably can't do anything about it, and won't admit that they won't, because bottom line is... More Accounts = $$$

Goblin Squad Member

Arguing about arguing... must be a slow day.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Notmyrealname wrote:
Arguing about arguing... must be a slow day.

Heh :). Not really slow here, but when I work long, complicated but well-practiced processes on large error rate spreadsheets for a large organization such things help me stay awake and alert anyway.

Goblin Squad Member

Notmyrealname wrote:
Arguing about arguing... must be a slow day.

Unfortunately not. Typical day around here lately...*sigh*

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:

Even if GW makes players pay for alts, they will still trade in person and avoid the taxes and lack of access.

Players will go to any lengths, including but not limited to having 6 or more accounts just so they can circumvent those systems.

Goblin Works probably can't do anything about it, and won't admit that they won't, because bottom line is... More Accounts = $$$

Instead of focusing on how we can force people to use markets, here's a series of questions we can all consider about player markets...

What are the benefits of using player markets which could outweigh the tax rates? The first one I see is protection; the second one I see is the ability to trade with someone who is not online. The third one is the security in trading with someone at another location via a buy or sell order (no need to leave the settlement with your valuables to go meet a guy who is probably going to rob you). Do you think these benefits are enough for most player merchants to use settlement markets?

And to go more directly, do you think that players using settlement markets instead of direct trade is desirable for the majority of merchants in-game? In other words, why do we want merchants to use markets instead of direct trade; alternatively why do we want them to use direct trade instead of markets? Are our desires for this matching up with what we expect players to do? If not, what could be done to get the players to behave in the way we desire?

Goblin Squad Member

Escrow. Similarly for contracts and bounties offered and accepted, escrow would be an assurance that the transaction is on the up-and-up.

Goblin Squad Member

When the Sharks and Jets start dancing at each other it's easy to lose the original meaning in all the innovative choreography. No one believes that all mechanics or all player responsibility will result in the best version of PO. The following does not necessarily reflect my personal opinions, here I will attempt to accurately as possible summarize the devil's advocate position of the OP; WITH what alternate design principles are being prioritized and WITHOUT the sniping and quote parsing that goes on when multiple individuals do this.

Andius wrote:

NPC Town Markets

They Should:
A. Not exist.
B. Have incredibly high tax rates if they do exist.
C. Only offer extremely low level items if they do exist.

If there are no markets how will newbies sell their adventuring gains and buy the slightly improved gear (via players or NPCs) that helps them strike out on their own? The NPC towns need markets, but an incredibly high tax rate will further impede newbie transactions thereby the primary purpose to get them out of town.

There is also the immediate question of the first 6-10 months of EE when players won't have our own settlements. Are NPC markets going to be robust trade powerhouses to facilitate economic crowdforging then instantly change to a rundown storefront the day FutureBigTown is founded?

One solution is found in an already accepted design principle: NPC towns are developmentally limited in the training and services they offer, so it stands to reason their consignment shops also lack the ability to work with greater than Tier 1 items and consumables. All of us pre-settlement and then ongoing newbies would be able to trade locally sourced scrap loot and harvested materials for coin and craft/buy Tier 1 material in preparation to move on to broader horizons, but journeys to player settlements will be necessary to move into Tier 2 and 3 adventures.

Andius wrote:

Development Indexes

Legally harvesting resources, killing NPCs, crafting, and completing quests in a hex should raise the development indexes or the organizations who control the hex, even if they do not belong to that organization.

The purpose of this is that it incentivizes less populated player settlements to let outsiders come in and make use of what they aren't using.

Resource Rights

Settlements and POI's should be able to sell the rights to extract resources in their territory in the form of an item. This would allow players to harvest normally restricted resources until they either harvest the max amount the contract allows or the contract expires.

This ties in with the Development Indexes to incentivize settlements to grant access to the resources they aren't using.

At what point are the members of any settlement NOT going to be gobbling up any and all available resources especially when they're small and primarily focused on growing? This seems like dev time put into a feature with a good chance of hardly ever being used.

Secondly, GW has to decide if bias in favor of NRDS policy over NBSI is an official design goal rather than preferred play style before we start talking about mechanical DI advantages.

Andius wrote:
Exiling a player or group allows you to kill them without consequence within your territory.

The same as law that says non-members are trespassing and hostile. No need for extra code or switches in the settlement control panel.

Andius wrote:
Also any crime committed to an exiled player in your territory does not generate corruption / unrest.

Probably also the same as a No Trespassing law.

Andius wrote:
The great point to this is that this allows NRDS settlements to pick and choose who is considered "red", allowing them to effectively remove sources of trouble from their settlement without implementing a blanket NBSI policy.

Assuming the security force has access to the settlement control panel on the fly (What members of security? Can any resident change settings if they see trouble?). That's the only way this system allows for a nonred-turned-problem to be expelled from their territory. Many settlement managers will consider the need to maintain basically an up-to-the minute trespasser list too burdensome and unresponsive to keep secure with open policies.

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.

Andius wrote:
Resource Restrictions

Nearly every forum goer has been assuming this exact circumstance will be the case for several months now so the consensus is with Andius on one of his wishes.

Goblin Squad Member

Based on what we know I doubt a settlement that makes a law that all trespassing flags you as hostile will be a good option. The more laws broken the higher your unrest will become , if high unrest is too painful they wont make laws that keep being broken and they cant stop it. You could go to any settlement with a closed border step across the line, breaking a law , and then leave and if enough people do that the unrest will rise to max pretty soon. It would be self defeating to try to close your borders , just like in real life where that type of thing causes huge problems for the country that tries it.

Lots of laws might be needed to tell players what they cant do in your land but that runs the risk of unrest too if you cant stop it, I don't see how a closed border law will work ,due to unrest , if other settlements can easily drive up your unrest by breaking the trespassing law . Of course it all depends on how bad high unrest hurts. It would be easy to send large numbers of players to step over the line and run away so they don't get caught and wreck the unrest level.

Realistically a police state with a closed border should have high unrest, The people of The River Kingdoms being freedom lovers.

http://pathfinder.wikia.com/wiki/River_Freedoms

Walk Any Road, Float Any River


@Proxima

A fair summary with one exception

Andius suggested when you exile someone that any crimes they then commit in your territory do not increase your corruption. This is the part I mentioned that is designed to completely flout the game mechanics.

The laws/corruption is designed to be a trade off where you have to set your laws according to what you can enforce to keep your corruption level manageable. To suggest that simply adding people to a list of exiled should then mean you don't need to enforce the law against these people runs directly contrary to the point of the system

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steelwing wrote:

@Proxima

A fair summary with one exception

Andius suggested when you exile someone that any crimes they then commit in your territory do not increase your corruption. This is the part I mentioned that is designed to completely flout the game mechanics.

The laws/corruption is designed to be a trade off where you have to set your laws according to what you can enforce to keep your corruption level manageable. To suggest that simply adding people to a list of exiled should then mean you don't need to enforce the law against these people runs directly contrary to the point of the system

Actually, he said, "Also any crime committed to an exiled player in your territory does not generate corruption / unrest." I interpret that as being crimes AGAINST the trespasser, not crimes BY the trespasser.


Drakhan Valane wrote:
Steelwing wrote:

@Proxima

A fair summary with one exception

Andius suggested when you exile someone that any crimes they then commit in your territory do not increase your corruption. This is the part I mentioned that is designed to completely flout the game mechanics.

The laws/corruption is designed to be a trade off where you have to set your laws according to what you can enforce to keep your corruption level manageable. To suggest that simply adding people to a list of exiled should then mean you don't need to enforce the law against these people runs directly contrary to the point of the system

Actually, he said, "Also any crime committed to an exiled player in your territory does not generate corruption / unrest." I interpret that as being crimes AGAINST the trespasser, not crimes BY the trespasser.

A crime in your area is a crime in your area. If the act gets someone a criminal flag then it is a crime and adds to your corruption unless you police that crime. The identity of the victim should not matter.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
Actually, he said, "Also any crime committed to an exiled player in your territory does not generate corruption / unrest." I interpret that as being crimes AGAINST the trespasser, not crimes BY the trespasser.
A crime in your area is a crime in your area. If the act gets someone a criminal flag then it is a crime and adds to your corruption unless you police that crime. The identity of the victim should not matter.

If someone is trespassing, but murder is illegal, how do you enforce trespassing laws?

Goblin Squad Member

The much bigger concern than unrest, is allowing not-red (the NR in NRDS) into your territory and then they start acting very Red. Protecting against that highly possible circumstance is the entire perceived necessity behind NBSI.

Logically that settlement needs the quickest and most efficient possible way to expel the offending party; not a process loaded with relaying messages, finding someone with status permissions, clarifying all the names of who to be exiled, fiddling in management panels... look three newbies just died while I was even typing it out.

[Again the statements in the above post do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Proxima Sin or any other multiple personalities. It's just an impersonal statement demonstrating the reasons behind having an alternate point of view.]

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
A crime in your area is a crime in your area. If the act gets someone a criminal flag then it is a crime and adds to your corruption unless you police that crime. The identity of the victim should not matter

Just to be clear. You are not suggesting that (if possible) to exile/ban certain players or groups from your settlement and follow that up with enforcement, should be a crime are you?

Edit: I get it. Andius used the phrase: "Any crime committed" A crime is a crime.


Drakhan Valane wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
Actually, he said, "Also any crime committed to an exiled player in your territory does not generate corruption / unrest." I interpret that as being crimes AGAINST the trespasser, not crimes BY the trespasser.
A crime in your area is a crime in your area. If the act gets someone a criminal flag then it is a crime and adds to your corruption unless you police that crime. The identity of the victim should not matter.
If someone is trespassing, but murder is illegal, how do you enforce trespassing laws?

If they are trespassing they will have a criminal flag to you the settlement member and will be a legal kill for you. However to me the visitor to your lands they will not have a criminal flag because I am not a member of your settlement and if I kill them it will be a crime and impact on your corruption. I however will now have a criminal flag and killing me will not only be legal but bring your corruption back down

Goblin Squad Member

I am too slow with the edit. :)


Bringslite wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
A crime in your area is a crime in your area. If the act gets someone a criminal flag then it is a crime and adds to your corruption unless you police that crime. The identity of the victim should not matter

Just to be clear. You are not suggesting that (if possible) to exile/ban certain players or groups from your settlement and follow that up with enforcement, should be a crime are you?

Edit: I get it. Andius used the phrase: "Any crime committed" A crime is a crime.

See my response to Drakhan.

Just to add it should also not be possible to exile someone then immediately kill them. That seems a little to easy to abuse to me

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Steelwing's Advocated Scenario wrote:

Xeen has left UNC

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

Xeen has left UNC

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

1 to 50 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.