Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here we go! Our own thread to bash and get bashed on!
Seriously though, keep it PG rated, and keep it polite. It seems a lot of people have difficulties with the UNC and people like the UNC, so here is a dedicated thread for it (as per request). I do not want this to be name-calling, nor do I want this to turn hateful, and if it does I or a dev/mod will close it down.
Thank you
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But...it has our name in the title, so it is brand marketing and therefore the "Issue" being was talking about with us using our own thread for this discussion. Therefore, you have solved nothing!!! :-)
Yes I am poking fun and I am doing it light-heartedly so please take it as such.
@being, what I was saying when I said "I was done with this here" (paraphrased cause I'm too lazy to look it up properly) and suggested bringing it to the UNC policy thread was that since we are discussing UNC policies and intents, I felt that was the proper place for it. Since that post, I have noticed the topic has shifted to a more "general" discussion and as such, no longer belongs in the UNC policy thread. Thank you to BrotherZael for starting this thread so that we can discuss this in a more appropriate thread.
@being, please, feel free to discuss further here.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Opportunity: We need a strong in-game presence to play the foil to the goodie-goods (provide a contrast) so that everyone (good, bad and ugly) has a place to play the way they want to without being griefed, abused and harrassed.
Current issues:
- some of the wording and comments around the "necessary evil" have been inflammatory, insensitive and outright hostile
- exploits, hacking, griefing and superficial emotion get rational people fired up
- this is meant to be a game, not real life
- GW have made their stance clear on many of these points and do not want a free-for-all grief-fest
...so...
How can we better present the reality of conflict within PFO to the wider community so that everyone understands the range of outcomes for in-game actions allowing them to make choices around how they play when confronted by potential conflict?
One option: Under specify, observe and take action where required
Benefit: Allows for organic growth and the establishment of balanced user-led guides that are self-policing and self-imposed (little administrative maintenance required)
Drawbacks: Can deteriorate into FFA-grief-fests and requires some level of oversight (moderate level of administrative overhead required)
Outcomes:
Benefits - happy world with an empowered happy community; minimal input needed from GW
Drawbacks - more rules imposed across the entire user-base by the administration to remove or disincentives negative actions
+1 grain of salt
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Moved here per request:
SADs were created to provide "good aligned" characters the ability to interdict without always having to kill.The SAD mechanic as originally stated allowed chaotic-aligned Outlaw characters to steal from others without reputation penalties, whether their victims surrendered goods or the Outlaw killed the victim. It's in the PFO blog, "I Shot a Man in Reno Just To Watch Him Die," Feb 6, 2013. It says nothing whatsoever about giving "good aligned" characters the ability to interdict without always having to kill.
editted to remove comment about UNC credibility. Second edit to change paragraph order.
We had a discussion about the origin of the concept behind the SAD, and I be
Ie e it came from a discussion Andius and I were having.Andius at the time was suggesting that if he and his group of enforcers saw a group of known criminals, but who were not currently flagged, he was powerless to doing anything about it without risk of losing reputation. I agreed with his situation. At the same time the issue of non lethal combat was also being brought up, probably in another thread.
The gist of the discussion was that how could both outlaw and enforcer do what they hoped to do as pRt of their roles, without being forced to both become CE and Low Rep.
To the best of my recollection, the SAD mechanic was revealed not long thereafter. This was close to or over a year ago, so some of my sequence may be wrong. But, regardless of how it came about, the SAD does allow for what I represented.
And the SAD originally required the user to be flagged, with the implication that all criminal activity would require or create a long-term flag on the criminal. Enforcers would then always have mutual hostility with criminals, and everybody would be happy with their meaningful choice to join the Law or Chaos-themed 'faction'.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to point out the answer to my problem given at the same time as the outlaw flag was the champion flag.
At the time, and still to date, a good aligned character carries the highest penalty to kill in terms of drift toward evil, and a high reputation carries the highest penalty to kill in terms of drift toward low reputation.
The champion flag removed both of those penalties for killing the flags wearer, and in exchange gave us higher reputation gains, higher good alignment gains, and added protection against critical attacks, but would remove itself if we attacked good or neutral targets with no flags.
I still believe there should be a way for good/high rep characters to sacrifice the protection of their status to gain more ability to fight for the common good either through faster rep/alignment gains or access to additional targets. Protection is not a good reward for PvPers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Summation of current points:
If you are going to be a bandit, use the Outlaw Flag. Otherwise, major rep lose.
If you are going to be a hunter or a guard use the "Champion" Flag (or whatever equivalent).
This does two things:
1) Focuses fighting on the PVPers. Rarely is somebody going to attack a non-flagged person in the background when a PVP enabled person (or persons) are coming at them right away.
2) Allows the use of SAD/Hunting without grief. You can SAD and hit those back-line members if they refuse, but you have to go through the front-line Flagged members. When Hunting you don't have to worry about major loss for chasing down Outlaws who have "gotten away with it" (Flag lowered successfully).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
At the time, and still to date, a good aligned character carries the highest penalty to kill in terms of drift toward evil, and a high reputation carries the highest penalty to kill in terms of drift toward low reputation.
I do not think that is true, if you mean that killing a high-good character will reduce Good/Evil more than killing a low-good will.
From the Blog: Alignment and Reputation, Dec 18, 2013.
Attacking players who are not Hostile reduces your Good vs. Evil by a small but fixed amount...
Bolding added in both quotes for emphasis. I believe Reputation loss for killing a high-Rep character works the original way, and as you describe it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We could also wait and see what the Marshal System will bring. If it needs to be tweaked, expanded or brought up to be on par with what the SAD and other outlaw type activities, then I would be one of the first, if not the first voice to do so.
There is an assumption being made that SADs are not something that a settlement can make a crime. So whether the Outlaw Flag is in place before it or not, makes no difference. Same gives for raiding outposts. If a settlement makes them illegal, then the perpetrators will be flagged as criminals.
Goblin Works needs to make a Marshal a character who has trained and slotted the appropriate skills. Not tie it to a title, where only one or few can hold that title. Anyone who trains it, slots it, should be able to use it.
In my original idea following Stephen Cheney's post on the subject was that if there could only be one Marshal per settlement, then let his or her skill level allow for additional Deputies. The Marshal's skills and their levels would also buff the abilities of those Deputies.
A Marshal or Deputies would be shielded against reputation loss while exercising their duties, and they could actually gain bonuses to rep and alignment shifts by successfully thwarting criminal activity.
I want Marshals to be powerful adversaries, if they are competent in their duties. Just as I want criminals to be powerful adversaries, provided they too are competent in playing their roles.
This is nothing new, I have said this before.
And the SAD originally required the user to be flagged, with the implication that all criminal activity would require or create a long-term flag on the criminal. Enforcers would then always have mutual hostility with criminals, and everybody would be happy with their meaningful choice to join the Law or Chaos-themed 'faction'.
When was this changed?
I'd like to point out the answer to my problem given at the same time as the outlaw flag was the champion flag.
At the time, and still to date, a good aligned character carries the highest penalty to kill in terms of drift toward evil, and a high reputation carries the highest penalty to kill in terms of drift toward low reputation.
The champion flag removed both of those penalties for killing the flags wearer, and in exchange gave us higher reputation gains, higher good alignment gains, and added protection against critical attacks, but would remove itself if we attacked good or neutral targets with no flags.
I still believe there should be a way for good/high rep characters to sacrifice the protection of their status to gain more ability to fight for the common good either through faster rep/alignment gains or access to additional targets. Protection is not a good reward for PvPers.
I am hoping there are two systems. One for lawful characters tackling criminals, and another for good characters tackling evil characters. Sure, be lawful good and get the best of both worlds but travel a hard road while doing it.
I honestly think some flags will make their way back into the game unless the marshal system gives us the answers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Kobold Cleaver Sep 25, 2013 blog entry - The Man in the Back Said "Everyone Attack!":
The alignment-based flags have been removed in favor of the "for the cause" flags of factional combat. Benefits associated with the Enforcer and Champion flags are now tied to alignment score and to factional membership, and the Assassin and Stand and Deliver special abilities have been moved to skill-based functionality, rather than flag-based functionality. The Criminal and Heinous flags remain, however, so that individuals who wish to police the game-world and punish evil or lawless characters can do so...
Thanks, Urman. So doesn't that mean that the SAD stuff will work exactly the same?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think we know what 'SAD is now a skill-based special ability' really means. It used to be that I had to be chaotic *and* already flagged for PvP before I could make a SAD demand. I wouldn't assume that either of those restrictions still applies; I also wouldn't assume that there aren't some restrictions on SADs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it was mentioned before, I must have missed it, but the marshal system described in Bludd's post sounds cool. Even from the bad guy perspective, that would allow for "Good/lawful" players to be like a roving police force. One big thing though, I would argue it can only be active (the protections from rep/alignment losses I mean) inside their settlement/kingdom's controlled hexes. I say that because it would (IMHO) be overpowered and unbalanced if it was a title that gave free roam anywhere in the game. As a defender of their lands and properties, it would be well suited to give Anduis what he wants, the ability to intervene if he stumbles across a SAD or raid on his lands without fear of penalties normally included with he intended actions. It would give the "good guys" an ability to "attack on site" similar to a bandit's ability to do the same. Difference is, a bandit/raider can attack anyone anywhere at the cost of rep/alignment, where the marshall can only do so within his lands, but at no cost.
Play testing (EE) will allow us to tweak it as needed once we see it in action, but the ground work (IMHO) is there and should lead to some fun times and meaningful interactions. Also, the idea of a single "Marshall" within a settlement/kingdom which then allows for, and buffs his deputies, allows for a target of assassins to weaken the police force prior to a raid on settlement lands. This (As a player not an assassin) is exactly the type of thing I would expect in PFO.
Maybe a thread on this particular topic should be started so people can discuss pro/cons for it? I say another thread because this isn't 100% what this thread is about. atleast not specifically.
Anyway, concerning SADs, my take on the "is now a skill based ability" means that as long as you meet the requirements to train and slot it, you can use it without and alignment/flag requirement. This means that (Unless they make it a chaotic skill or something) anyone anywhere can use it, if they train and slot it. Bludd has brought other uses of the skill for nearly all alignments. The idea of Interdiction as well as for bandits to rob without ambushing and killing the targets. It can also be used as a "secure" means for payment for services that are not "worthy of bringing to light" such as paying bandits to raid your competitors and such. As with any other, I feel it is a mechanic that will be tested and tweaked as EE goes into OE and beyond. If everyone continues to discuss it, and use it, and give thoughts and opinions on it, then GW will have succeeded in properly crowdforging the mechanic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ The Goodfellow..
Yes, my assumption was that the Marshal would wield his power within his own settlement. This was made somewhat understood in Tork's mentioning of the Marshal system.
Although I could see Marshals being required to have certain Lawful based skills, there should be the three variants on the Good - Neutral - Evil axis.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The problem I have with this is that you are not taking into account caravans. What about the guards for caravans in foreign territory? Are they not allowed to take the first strike back against bandits?
Caravan guards are just that, Guards! They defend against bandit attack, not initiate attacks on suspected bandits. Their mere presence may deter a bandit from SADing them or ambushing them, and that is the actual goal.
But, if the "guards" want to initiate attacks on suspected bandits, they have to either accept the hostility flag or use SADs themselves.
They can also accept bounty contracts against known bandits, and then hunt them down using the bounty system.
There is a popular misconception that bandits have abilities that are only available to bandits. That just does not seem to be the case, no specific details have stated any exclusions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"initiating attacks on unsuspecting bandits"
:I
can we just take a moment and appreciate that.
"unsuspecting bandits"
"Guards"
"initiate attacks"
"on unsuspecting bandits"
"unsuspecting"
"bandits"
Let us all just take a moment please
...
...
...
...
ok continue
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"initiating attacks on unsuspecting bandits"
:I
can we just take a moment and appreciate that.
"unsuspecting bandits"
"Guards"
"initiate attacks"
"on unsuspecting bandits"
"unsuspecting"
"bandits"
Let us all just take a moment please
...
......
...
ok continue
I feel bad for them poor bandits... :(
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"initiating attacks on unsuspecting bandits"
:I
can we just take a moment and appreciate that.
"unsuspecting bandits"
"Guards"
"initiate attacks"
"on unsuspecting bandits"
"unsuspecting"
"bandits"
Let us all just take a moment please
...
......
...
ok continue
Just to be fair here, you are actually misquoting Bludd.
true but I chuckled at it. It was funny and worth the effort.
But Bludd is right, guards should be guarding, not actively assaulting possible bandits. I say "possible" because, if I am not mistaken, (and if I am, let me be the first to lobby for it) bandits will be flagged from the moment of issuing the SAD. Issuing the SAD should be the first "act" of the robbery, and as such, invoke the flags associated with such actions.
Here is how I figure the situation would be handled:
UNC jumps out surrounding a caravan and causes it to halt as they issue a SAD. Not being flagged before (assuming it is our first SAD of the day or it has been a while since our last one) if the guards attacked prior to the issuing of the SAD, they suffer all penalties of attacking unflagged people like everyone else, and the UNC can defend themselves as anyone else could do.
If the guards wait until the SAD is issued, then the UNC are flagged and could attack them. If they do they suffer no penalties as if they were attacked first. The difference between them attacking after the SAD is issued and the UNC outright ambushing without SAD being involved is that the UNC (during the ambush) would get the jump on them and the guards are less likely to be organized and ready for the attack.
If combat is too happen, that is how I see it going. regardless of who wins the fight, the penalties go to the first to attack, and the issuing of the SAD would be considered the attack, in that it would flag the UNC to be attacked without penalties.
I hope I explained my view clearly, but if not feel free to ask and I will try again.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I still think Bandits shouldn't gain any benefits to their SAD unless they've already been flagged for some time before they issue it.Agreed, and the longer they have been flagged, the more bonus they get. Respawning should restart the timer.
All depends on exactly how the flag system works. The original flag system (like a year+ ago) had the outlaw flag which was required to use the SAD mechanic, and did give a growing bonus the longer it was flown. Since they announced those flags, the Devs have changed their thinking and removed those flags, moving SAD to a slotable skill instead of something tied to a flag. As far as I am aware, they flag most likely to be aligned with SAD will be criminal, and that is a temporary flag, meaning it runs out and cant be flown on a whim. Therefore we can't fly it for hours on end to get the bonus as you suggest.
If they brought back the outlaw flag, I would be in support of this idea, if they remain without it, then I am against it because it isn't feasible unless we go around SADing everything that moves (Which isn't UNC's desire FYI)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"initiating attacks on unsuspecting bandits"
:I
can we just take a moment and appreciate that.
"unsuspecting bandits"
"Guards"
"initiate attacks"
"on unsuspecting bandits"
"unsuspecting"
"bandits"
Let us all just take a moment please
...
......
...
ok continue
I have to assume you don't know the difference between being suspected of something and being unsuspecting of an event.
And to think you got a few favorites for this.....
Maybe you could get some favorites for saying 2 + 2 = The Gettysburg Address, if I said 2 + 2 = 4.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But Bludd is right, guards should be guarding, not actively assaulting possible bandits.
Depends on what kind of guards we're talking about here. Caravan guards? No, probably not actively assaulting. City guards? If they know where they can find the bandits (and are not corrupt and paid off) you bet they'd be going on the offensive.
I don't know how well-versed you are in fantasy realms, but guards are frequently the same thing as police and do actively hunt criminals in most of them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Bludd
Oh I was totally taking it out of context as a joke, don't worry. I understand your point it was just too good an opportunity to pass up. I said to continue with the discussion didn't I, so clearly I didn't mean this to be the subject of debate or anything xD
That aside, I am with and against Lifedragn, as I am with an against you folks.
I feel that a guard has the right to initiate a fight if he feels threatened, or if he is dutied with finding all areas of corruption and eradicating it. However, I feel at the same time that is a job for the "Champion" Flag, and there are already in-game systems set to deter guards from randomly attack bandits. This is a two-way road.
Nothing is to stop a guard from randomly attacking someone else, in terms of RP, other than his sense of duty and alignment. It has happened plenty of times where guards start becoming corrupt and attacking random people to take their possessions etc. using the "law" as a shield for their banditry.
That said, should it be done? no not really. Will it? probably, but not nearly often enough to be a problem. Do I think the system should change? Not until we see it in practice.
In addition, if a guard is flying the champion flag, and a bandit is flying the outlaw flag, then the bandit should expect to be attacked on sight by caravan guards, and vice versa. That is the point of the flags after all, in addition to the benefits.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But Bludd is right, guards should be guarding, not actively assaulting possible bandits.Depends on what kind of guards we're talking about here. Caravan guards? No, probably not actively assaulting. City guards? If they know where they can find the bandits (and are not corrupt and paid off) you bet they'd be going on the offensive.
I don't know how well-versed you are in fantasy realms, but guards are frequently the same thing as police and do actively hunt criminals in most of them.
The specific guards being discussed were caravan guards. Guards that go out and seek outlaws in the wilds are more like bounty hunters or a posse, which is where the Marshal perhaps comes into play.
I'd imaging a Ranger - Marshal would be a serious threat to bandits.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Brother Zael,
The flags are gone and those functions have been replaced with slotted skills and hostility triggers.
There doesn't seem to be a criminal flag, until you actually commit a crime. Then you are flagged hostile in the eyes of those you actually harmed and those that share agency with the crime victim.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I thought they kept some flags and dropped some. this is why I need to finish reading through the dev blogs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I thought they kept some flags and dropped some. this is why I need to finish reading through the dev blogs.
They kept the "involuntary flags", which happen as a result of your actions (Heinous flag, Criminal flag, Attacker flag, etc) and removed the "voluntary flags" which you could toggle on or off to gain benefits and restrictions (Enforcer flag, Outlaw flag, Champion flag, etc).
They're two separate ideas put under the same name "flag", which is why it's a little confusing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There doesn't seem to be a criminal flag, until you actually commit a crime. Then you are flagged hostile in the eyes of those you actually harmed and those that share agency with the crime victim.
Unless they've changed it since:
But the answer is that getting flagged for trespassing will almost certainly work like Criminal normally works (and the same as most other PvP flags). That is, while you've got it, you have a non-reciprocal hostile state to pretty much everyone: they'll see you as hostile, you'll see them as neutral (unless they have some other reason that you'd see them as hostile without the flag, like they're in an enemy faction or have a flag themselves). Like all of those, once someone actually attacks you, they become hostile to you as well so you can defend yourself.
Non-settlement members will still see the flag and be able to attack you (except probably members of your settlement and certain other classes of allies, who will still see you as an ally).
Obviously this might need more nuance once we start implementing it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I thought they kept some flags and dropped some. this is why I need to finish reading through the dev blogs.They kept the "involuntary flags", which happen as a result of your actions (Heinous flag, Criminal flag, Attacker flag, etc) and removed the "voluntary flags" which you could toggle on or off to gain benefits and restrictions (Enforcer flag, Outlaw flag, Champion flag, etc).
They're two separate ideas put under the same name "flag", which is why it's a little confusing.
Ok.
I was just fairly certain they still had at least the "assassin flag" because of the special mechanics involved.|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But Bludd is right, guards should be guarding, not actively assaulting possible bandits.Depends on what kind of guards we're talking about here. Caravan guards? No, probably not actively assaulting. City guards? If they know where they can find the bandits (and are not corrupt and paid off) you bet they'd be going on the offensive.
I don't know how well-versed you are in fantasy realms, but guards are frequently the same thing as police and do actively hunt criminals in most of them.
I was referring to caravan guards as we won't be SADing inside a city (atleast I don't think so... unless SAD is used to extort or something) but yes I know the difference. I appreciate the tone used. It didn't come off to me as mean or talking down to me so thank you.
Cities guards, as part of their rounds and as per their job description, would be actively hunting bandits and other unwanted persons on their lands.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There doesn't seem to be a criminal flag, until you actually commit a crime. Then you are flagged hostile in the eyes of those you actually harmed and those that share agency with the crime victim.Unless they've changed it since:
But the answer is that getting flagged for trespassing will almost certainly work like Criminal normally works (and the same as most other PvP flags). That is, while you've got it, you have a non-reciprocal hostile state to pretty much everyone: they'll see you as hostile, you'll see them as neutral (unless they have some other reason that you'd see them as hostile without the flag, like they're in an enemy faction or have a flag themselves). Like all of those, once someone actually attacks you, they become hostile to you as well so you can defend yourself.
Non-settlement members will still see the flag and be able to attack you (except probably members of your settlement and certain other classes of allies, who will still see you as an ally).
Obviously this might need more nuance once we start implementing it.
The point being made is, if you commit a crime, you gain the criminal flag and are listed as "hostile" to nearly everyone without you (the person flagged) being able to attack first without penalties. They removed those flags that you log in and /outlaw to turn on, now you have to DO something to get flagged and then YOU are the target to any and all (with few exceptions) to attack without fear of penalties. Just remember that if you do take advantage of a flagged opponent, once you attack them, they may defend themselves WITHOUT loss of rep/alignment because they are now the "victim" in this encounter.
To be clear, my understanding is that if UNC ambushes a caravan and kills guards and merchant and loot their bodies, the UNC will then fly the Criminal flag for x amount of time. During that time, if Andius and party stumble upon the UNC while they are still flagged, they may attack without loss of rep/alignment. However, once Andius and party attack the UNC, the UNC may defend themselves without fear of losing more rep/alignment then was already lost due to the act that got them flagged (namely the raid on the caravan.)
Again, that is my understanding of how the system, as described, is intended to work. It is subject to change before EE and even during EE if play testing shows it isn't working as intended.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree. However, Bluddwolf makes it sound as though it is more limited and third parties would be unable to intervene on criminals.
When the question of 3rd party intervention came up, in the case of outpost raiding, it was clear that only those connected to the outpost would see you as hostile.
If the Criminal Flag is seen by 3rd parties as hostile, and can freely attack, I can see a devious plot being used to attack anyone in a particular circumstance, without consequences. Once it is done enough times I'd imagine it will be changed.
I think there is a danger in making things just too hard for bandits. I tend to come on Bluddwolf's side in this debate, despite my better judgement. Heck, if the Unnameds are the only evil company on these forums by the time I enter, my druid (who gets more and more malicious in my head as time goes on) will probably end up joining them. That's gonna be mighty weird.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And so if you are a criminal, in hostile lands "pretty much everyone" will have you marked as hostile yes?
No, everyone may see you market as criminal, in lands where your act was a criminal act. But don't be fooled in thinking this will lead to 3rd parties jumping in frequently.
Experience has shown in EvE Online, that most 3rd parties do not. I ran around for months, on a very young toon, criminal flagged in high security. In the 6 - 8 months, I was locked on (target locked) 3 times and only attacked once.
Disinterested 3rd parties will be wary that a criminal flagged toon is bait. They wisely mind their own business for the most part. Once the criminal is attacked, the 3rd party becomes a hostile target for the criminal, AND ALL of those in his player grouping.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And so if you are a criminal, in hostile lands "pretty much everyone" will have you marked as hostile yes?No, everyone may see you market as criminal, in lands where your act was a criminal act. But don't be fooled in thinking this will lead to 3rd parties jumping in frequently.
Experience has shown in EvE Online, that most 3rd parties do not. I ran around for months, on a very young toon, criminal flagged in high security. In the 6 - 8 months, I was locked on (target locked) 3 times and only attacked once.
Disinterested 3rd parties will be wary that a criminal flagged toon is bait. They wisely mind their own business for the most part. Once the criminal is attacked, the 3rd party becomes a hostile target for the criminal, AND ALL of those in his player grouping.
To paint you a picture, say the UNC takes 5 guys and SAD a caravan. Caravan choose poorly and decided it was cheaper to not hire guards, and decides to pay us instead of loosing everything. Just as our transaction is complete, here comes Andius and his merry band of 5 "helpful people." Seeing the 5 of us flagged, he likes his odds and attacks. Just then, the other 10 UNC members that were hiding in the woods nearby (also flagged as being part of the same group that SADed even though they sat back) and with 15-5 odds, the UNC slaughters Andius and suffers no penalties to rep/alignment for the kills as they were defending themselves from a hostile enemy.
This is just an example but the idea is what people were mentioning. How do you know that the guy (or group) that is flagged is all that is there? How do you know there isn't more of them nearby that are waiting for someone to play hero and attack them. Such is the dangers for being good LOL. Reminder, the same could feasibly be done by "Good" guys, just not flagged. Merchant travels alone, but isn't really alone..... you get the idea.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ The Goodfellow
In our more proprietary thread, I suggested a policy for the UNC to do just as you and I have pointed out here. Cohesion of thought is a great advantage and one that will serve the UNC well in PFO.
Not only is all of what you wrote, possible, it is what is desired in my mind.
We have always said it, "We are not looking for fair fights", we are looking for encounters where we will have the advantage and with the probability that the reward will be greater than the risk.
If the "Good Guys" want reputation and alignment consequence free PVP, then I would support the cause to make all PVP reputation and alignment consequence free (with the exception of GW declared griefing actions).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Once the criminal is attacked, the 3rd party becomes a hostile target for the criminal, AND ALL of those in his player grouping.
Has GW said that hostility will work that way? Does it work the same way for characters flagged in feuds or wars? Flagged for faction PvP? Flagged as a raider attacking a outpost?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Urman, yes. Attackers gain the attacker flag and can be attacked, and they didn't make any exceptions there so I would expect it to carry through.
I don't see why, if someone is acting as a raider and thus seeking out PvP in the ways GW wants him to, you should be able to wail on him without him attacking back. In fact there's no place in the game where you can wail on him without him having the chance to counterattack.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the "Good Guys" want reputation and alignment consequence free PVP, then I would support the cause to make all PVP reputation and alignment consequence free (with the exception of GW declared griefing actions).
That's funny, and I think it displays a profound misunderstanding about why Reputation and Alignment are important.
I have observed many times the syndrome of people acting badly then being surprised with negative consequences because they think that everything that is not forbidden is permitted. Ensuring that people know that becoming Chaotic and Evil will seriously degrade their character's powers is a way of communicating that arriving at that alignment indicates you've been bad.. This should help transparently communicate that things which are bad are not always forbidden, and give the player some feedback to moderate their behavior.
(emphasis in original)