Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bringslight Those penalties for a SAD resulting in a kill? That's more than the old SAD inflicted. The original Outlaw/SAD didn't even apply a Criminal flag - the Outlaws could deflag from PvP as soon as the Attacker flag wore off (30 seconds1 minute). The Killer debuff and the Evil shift for a SAD resulting in a killed were contested long ago and never clarified by GW.
Small wonder many saw SAD as something that would often be used to justify murder.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Despite what some may think, I believe that getting some of your goods through and not losing your physical time (to respawn empty) is far more valuable than inflicting a rep loss on a random bandit. Sure some few might do it, but I doubt it will serve their purses well for very long.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think there's a really good argument to be made that there shouldn't be any penalties for a Bandit that kills a Merchant after the Merchant refuses the SAD. There should be penalties (probably only a Chaotic shift) for issuing the SAD in the first place.
I think that only really makes sense when the offer is known to be "fair", though. And since it's impossible for the system to determine if the offer is "fair" when the Bandit or the Merchant makes the initial offer, I think it makes a lot of sense for that initial offer to be system-determined.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also really like Bluddwolf's idea that Merchants should have access to Sills that let them "hide" certain items, making them less likely to end up in that initial Trade. Ideally, I'd like to see the Merchant's Skill be used to either reduce the portion of items that might appear in the Trade Window, or to lessen the likelihood of specific items from appearing there, or a balanced mix of the two, but each specific item protected means that a greater portion of the remaining items might be offered up to the initial SAD.
[Edit] And correspondingly for the Bandit to be able to use his Skill to either have a greater chance of revealing hidden items, or to force a greater portion of the items to appear in the Trade Window. Meaningful choices!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It almost seems like a catch 22. The more complicated it gets the more work to program, implement and balance. You need enough bandits to make it worthwhile to invest the effort in. If there are too many bandits and merchants can't make bank, merchants will either find ways around it or different ways to trade.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
okay got some rest..
The more I think about how to exchange items from a SAD, the more I like the idea that caravans and characters have high difficulty items they can hide on their person.
This stand and deliver, or stop and Frisk, is not a Stop and instant body cavity search. I still get the sense that these encounters should last no more than a couple minutes, searching the entire contents of a wagon could take 10 minutes itself. Doing that for 4 wagons would mean 40 minutes.
I really like the idea that groups can hide items in wagons and on their person that are hard to find with searches. Players and Caravan masters can pick out what those items are and place them in the inventory slots they want, basically they are hiding the best stuff they have making it hard to discover in a quick search of things.
If you set these values beforehand either manually or by the default order of how were placed in inventories/wagons. Then in order to make a quick streamlined search of items you can use a wagon masters hiding skill (or characters Int,Wis or Dex score) versus a bandits search skill to determine what items are found.
Think of the SAD as having 2 skill trees, the first is the ability to demand a % of goods. The second tree is the ability to find high valued items quickly.
Think of the inventory as a numbered list with the high valued items on top of the list and the low valued items on the bottom of the list.
When the SAD is initiated, a random skill roll versus merchants/ characters hiding skill can be completed to form a list of items that the bandit found, those items can appear in the window and the character/merchant can barter with the bandit if the bandit found too much good stuff or if he missed the real stuff. edit**
The skill roll determines at what inventory value the bandit starts listing items, his % SAD skill will determine how large the list is (compared to the total % of...
Think my idea earlier today was thinking along the same lines of making only certain % of items show up on a SAD interface, edited some of the thread in this post, but a lot of what you guys are saying looks to be like what i posted this morning..
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If movement rates are a factor at all, I have my doubts that fleeing with cargo will be much of an option. That is assumption, of course.Looks like a very much more detailed explanation of what I was saying. In light of this discussion though you need another page for completeness which is the fleeing success graph which I did not see mentioned as an option in your otherwise excellent dissection. My assumption is that the higher the chance of fleeing is the lower the sad needs to be to compensate and make in worthwhile for the sad to be accepted rather than refused. I suspect the reason it is missing is that at the time you drew that up the prospect of fleeing from combat had not been brought up.Reposting this older model of understanding conditions on how much of a SAD can be demanded such that merchants are still profitable. (It's older and based on the model of SADs at the time.)
Steelwing is right that fleeing is not explicitly included. However, adding chance to flee is actually really simple. The variable b is your chance of running into bandits. If you can flee safely, then that's effectively the same thing as not running into them (as far as your profits are concerned). So just reduce b to compensate, or just define b as your odds of being stopped by bandits such that escape is impossible.
Whether or not you can easily flee is another matter. There's also the possibility of a partial fleeing by a group of merchants working together where some get away and some don't that complicates matters. Think I'll wait until the dust has settled on SADs before tweaking the analysis. ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Looking down into the just opened tomb ... "Numbers, why must it always be Numbers!"
1) Everyone wants to get ahead in life. Some by making (crafting), some by selling what is made (trading), some by taking stuff from monsters (PvE), and some by taking from others (PvP).
2) It can be argued that taking things from someone where no one is physically hurt is robbery, but taking things from someone by killing them is murder (as some may unkindly characterize PvP looting).
3) I believe that at the beginning of EE there will not be carts or pack animals. If that is true then robbery will essentially be some form of PvP looting that may or may not involve attempted murder.
4) If robbery is a way of life (a role) then it is a trainable skill. Since every character must be attached to a settlement (see Ryan's post), a character who wishes to be a bandit must find a settlement that allows training in "banditry".
5) There may or may not be a distinction between the "bandit" role and the "rouge" role. If they are distinct, then rouge training may be available in lawful settlements, but not bandit training.
6) If banditry is an official role within PFO, then it seems logical that there must exist game mechanics where an individual character who follows this role can gain both reputation and influence in-game.
7) Is there a difference (in game mechanics) between a lone bandit and a group of bandits?.
8) Bandit groups could be ad hoc groups (adventuring parties), or formal groups (chartered companies). If ad hoc, what game mechanics are in place to have a group as a whole be seen as "bandit"? Can ad hoc bandit groups acquire the influence and reputation to build hideouts?
9) If bandit groups are chartered companies then they will have to be chartered by a settlement (see Ryan's post), presumably a settlement that sanctions banditry.
10) Will groups of bandits be required to be identifiable as "bandits"?
It is my opinion that the banditry game mechanic, whatever it is called:
- be applicable at both the individual character and the chartered company/ad hoc group level,
- be something that can be defended against on both the individual character level and the group level,
- be most effective for a character when banditry is the slotted role for that character,
- be required to apply to an entire group/company as a whole (no stork among crows allowed), and
- must not suck.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
If movement rates are a factor at all, I have my doubts that fleeing with cargo will be much of an option. That is assumption, of course.Looks like a very much more detailed explanation of what I was saying. In light of this discussion though you need another page for completeness which is the fleeing success graph which I did not see mentioned as an option in your otherwise excellent dissection. My assumption is that the higher the chance of fleeing is the lower the sad needs to be to compensate and make in worthwhile for the sad to be accepted rather than refused. I suspect the reason it is missing is that at the time you drew that up the prospect of fleeing from combat had not been brought up.Reposting this older model of understanding conditions on how much of a SAD can be demanded such that merchants are still profitable. (It's older and based on the model of SADs at the time.)
Steelwing is right that fleeing is not explicitly included. However, adding chance to flee is actually really simple. The variable b is your chance of running into bandits. If you can flee safely, then that's effectively the same thing as not running into them (as far as your profits are concerned). So just reduce b to compensate, or just define b as your odds of being stopped by bandits such that escape is impossible.
Whether or not you can easily flee is another matter. There's also the possibility of a partial fleeing by a group of merchants working together where some get away and some don't that complicates matters. Think I'll wait until the dust has settled on SADs before tweaking the analysis. ;)
Excessively simplified: Fleeing is a choice made instead of accepting the SAD, so it's a third outcome (Pay, Fight, Flee).
There, it has the effect of making the 'refuse' options more attractive to the target, meaning that the price of the SAD must be lower than if fleeing was impossible. Good bandits will therefore signal that they will win the fight and will win the pursuit. How that will be done remains to be seen.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If movement rates are a factor at all, I have my doubts that fleeing with cargo will be much of an option. That is assumption, of course.Looks like a very much more detailed explanation of what I was saying. In light of this discussion though you need another page for completeness which is the fleeing success graph which I did not see mentioned as an option in your otherwise excellent dissection. My assumption is that the higher the chance of fleeing is the lower the sad needs to be to compensate and make in worthwhile for the sad to be accepted rather than refused. I suspect the reason it is missing is that at the time you drew that up the prospect of fleeing from combat had not been brought up.Reposting this older model of understanding conditions on how much of a SAD can be demanded such that merchants are still profitable. (It's older and based on the model of SADs at the time.)
Steelwing is right that fleeing is not explicitly included. However, adding chance to flee is actually really simple. The variable b is your chance of running into bandits. If you can flee safely, then that's effectively the same thing as not running into them (as far as your profits are concerned). So just reduce b to compensate, or just define b as your odds of being stopped by bandits such that escape is impossible.
Whether or not you can easily flee is another matter. There's also the possibility of a partial fleeing by a group of merchants working together where some get away and some don't that complicates matters. Think I'll wait until the dust has settled on SADs before tweaking the analysis. ;)
Excessively simplified: Fleeing is a choice made instead of accepting the SAD, so it's a third outcome (Pay, Fight, Flee).
There, it has the effect of making the...
It will be interesting to see if freighters (mules/wagons) can warp into light speed (fast travel) from a standstill between settlements. I have my doubts that their ground speed will be as fast as bandits afoot normally.
Edit: Fleeing but having to leave your cargo is the same (basically) as accepting a SAD.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... I also wonder if the fast travel will be instantaneous...It won't be. It will simply be accelerated travel, as I understand it.
Will it never be instantaneous or just for EE? Perhaps they will design ways for instantaneous fast-travel to impact the game in a positive way whilst still making caravans and traveling important.
I wouldn't mind high-level (quite high) wizards or clerics to have a gating ability that can only travel to limited places, whilst carrying limited goods, for example. Just something to think on.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You can't leave your cargo. There is no item dropping planned. Even corpses will disappear pretty quickly.
You might not be able to abandon wagons or mules at first, but I would hope that you could have the option eventually. Heck, it might just be a massive encumbrance boost or something similar to start with.
You might be right. If you are, I see little use in fleeing a SAD unless you are 10+ non combat toons. All in different directions. ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Will it never be instantaneous or just for EE?
To my understanding, BrotherZael is correct and there are no plans to ever implement instantaneous Fast Travel like Teleports. That could change, but it would introduce serious complexities to the economy if folks were able to instantly transport trade goods without risk.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
4) If robbery is a way of life (a role) then it is a trainable skill. Since every character must be attached to a settlement (see Ryan's post), a character who wishes to be a bandit must find a settlement that allows training in "banditry".
5) There may or may not be a distinction between the "bandit" role and the "rouge" role. If they are distinct, then rouge training may be available in lawful settlements, but not bandit training.
4&5. I don't think the bandit is a role in the same way a rogue is a role. In a group of bandits, there will likely be characters from all classes/roles - or at least the ones who don't have alignment restrictions. Some will be rogues, others will be barbarians, fighters, wizards, etc. Bandit is more of a job or profession, sort of like guard.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
4&5. I don't think the bandit is a role in the same way a rogue is a role. In a group of bandits, there will likely be characters from all classes/roles - or at least the ones who don't have alignment restrictions. Some will be rogues, others will be barbarians, fighters, wizards, etc. Bandit is more of a job or profession, sort of like guard.
How would you propose that the robbery mechanic (just can seem to say the acronym) buffs/debuffs/etc can apply to characters within the group who are not trained in the skill "robbery mechanic"? Is the robbery mechanic expected to be a General Skill not tied to a role?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the robbery mechanic might include a number of different capabilities; they might be trained separately. These capabilities could include: ambushing, searching for hidden goods, intimidation, etc. They might be General Skills, not tied to a role, or they might be Underworld Skills, available only in low rep places. Or they might be Rogue skills, and any fighters, wizards, etc. that run with bandits might have to lose out on the dedication bonuses for non-Rogue roles.
I expect the robbery mechanic will be used either individually or in an ad hoc party; more rarely with a company. When a Stand and Delivery is executed, its success might depend on how many members of the party have a skill slotted, or might depend on the average skill of the group. It could be hard to pull off a crime when half your people have no clue as to what they're doing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It could be hard to pull off a crime when half your people have no clue as to what they're doing.Agreed.
"Hello, good sir! We're here for the road toll. It'll be 5% of your iron."
"Yeah. We're robbing you."
"Shut up! You're blowing the cover!"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A SAD might restrict the movement of the targeted party - maybe no character can move more than 20ft/6m without triggering some effect (like allowing the bandits to attack without rep loss). But maybe, with a bunch of untrained scrub-bandits, the targeted party can move up to 40ft/12m, and that puts the bandit chief within range of a trio of fighters...
|
Is it just me, or does anyone else find ironic and sad that the acronym for Stand and Deliver, a system for thugs to rob victims, is the same as that of Social Anxiety Disorder, an affliction often caused by such situations, as well as forming the word for the emotion people such afflicted most feel?
I feel a lot of these arguments could be solved by simply renaming the mechanic Negotiate, allowing any player to invest in the skill, and having the results of a break-down in negotiations be similar to that of real life - that either both sides take nothing or the winning side takes what they wanted to begin with by force.
This mechanic could then be used by all players for functions such as trading, setting up protection for their caravans, selecting a price point for a rare sword, or even banditry.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Excessively simplified: Fleeing is a choice made instead of accepting the SAD, so it's a third outcome (Pay, Fight, Flee).
There, it has the effect of making the...
Q: As far as a merchant's profits are concerned, what's the difference between the following:
1) the merchant encounters no bandits along his route
2) the merchant sees bandits, but they ignore him (busy with other merchants, AFK, are distracted by kids at home, etc)
3) the bandits see him, but he outruns them
4) the bandits catch him, but then have mercy and let him go without taking anything (not sure why they'd do this ...)
5) the bandits catch him, but while demanding/negotiating a SAD they're stupid enough to let the cargo laden merchant sneak away and he manages to outrun them when they notice
6) he accepts a SAD for 0 cp (or some minimum value that is so low as to be not noticeable in his ledgers), but any immunity from this SAD only lasts until he gets to his next destination
A: Nothing. (Unless you want to count the few cp in #6). There might be some other possibilities as well.
So why include extra variables for situations that are all effectively the same (as far as profits go)? Depending upon how you wrote the model, you'd end up with some combination of variables for each of the above that in the final determination of profits would all be lumped together in some way. Anything that doesn't fall into paying a SAD or getting killed will naturally get lumped together when you do that final calculation. Take that combination and call it a single variable: "my odds of being stopped by bandits where I can't flee and either accept a SAD or die".
|
|
Sorry, perhaps I should expand.
Such a mechanic could bring up a chat and inventory screen for each player, giving them a timer of like 30 seconds or 1 minute or something. Each player's sense motive vs. the other player's highest of bluff, intimidate, and diplomacy could determine the percentage of the other player or caravan's inventory that they see and approximate values of the items based on said skills. This could mean very shrewd merchants getting better deals, hiding more of their inventory from bandits and selling at better prices.
The chat can be used to convey threats and offers. If it's obvious that negotiations will not work because no one is coming to an agreement, merchants being attacked can use the extra time to alert nearby guards or caravan members, whereas bandits could try to set up a perimeter and cut off any escape or attack.
In such a system, reputation would be lost if no negotiations were attempted and someone attacked but otherwise would not be lost (bandits or guards might have skills that cause rep gain)
Also, if you run out of time or are not feeling like a good deal can be made, you can just walk away or re-initiate the negotiations.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It does not make sense that an aggressive action that can reward reputation does not include a possiblity to lose reputation if it is not performed as intended.
...
...
Theses suggestions will not solve all of the problems of the SAD and certainly not the fine details. They are a "base" to build on. They are simple risk vs. reward or failure vs. success ideals. Keep these things in mind if you choose to read and consider this:
1. I believe that the intent of the SAD should be to allow the bandit to rob players without having to kill them.
2. SAD is an opportunity for the bandit to make their pool of targets unlimited and beyond the regular "consequence" rules of PVP.
3. The primary targets of SAD will be those that the bandit has a pretty good idea that he can beat in PVP.
4. This does not address most of the details of the mechanic. Only the basics.
5. It does address the issue of "consequence free" PVP raised by the SAD.
USE: On issuing a SAD, the bandit is flagged "hostile" to the target/s alone or to all (depending on regular rules). *Forget bystanders "aiding" for free.*(see below)
ACCEPT: If the SAD is accepted, the bandit gets his demand and a reputation reward. The target gets to keep some of his goods and carry on from there. This is the incentive/reward for the SAD to be reasonable (bandit and target) and to go smoothly. The most important thing is that the bandit does not lose reputation (he gains rep and loot), yet still gets to mess with an "unflagged" target. (increased opportunity)
HOSTILE TARGET: If the target attacks the bandit, the target becomes "hostile" (all regular rules apply). No one loses reputation. No one gains reputation. The SAD is a failure. Full regular loot rights go to the victor. This would require a special condition existing for the SAD. No different (correct me if wrong) than the need for the original special condition.
REFUSAL: If the target refuses and the bandit kills, the bandit loses reputation (the SAD is failed), but gains full regular loot rights. That is the bandit's choice. Exactly the same as if they had ambushed and attacked. Risk and failure of the intent.
FLIGHT: If the target flees a certain radius, the SAD fails and the bandit kills, the bandit loses reputation (the SAD is failed), but gains full loot rights. Risk and failure of the intent.
Optional: If the bandit can demonstrate that fleeing can not succeed after the target leaves the radius, (trap and reapply the SAD) the process can begin again. No one has struck a physical blow yet.
Optional: Fleeing the radius gives the target the "hostile" flag. They are free to attack.
*The ability to do that should be a new and seperate skill. Call it "Patrol And Defend" (lump it together for controlled AND wild territory), call it "Cease And Depart" ( I do not care. It is not the focus of this post).
I would love a little debate for this (in favor or rejection), but it is mostly (hopefully) directed at the DEVs. I can understand if most of the forum is weary of this topic with so little information to build on it available. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
HOSTILE TARGET: If the target attacks the bandit, the target becomes "hostile".To everyone!?
That would be the tricky part. I suppose that it could just be the regular rules for the bandit and the target. Either anyone or only those with a skill to "jump in" if they use it.
Fixed Hostile Target thanks Nihimon. :)
Edit: And now I can't edit it further to fix things that probably should be. I only hope that it gives the Devs the general idea, in part and not necessarily the whole.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the Bandit needs to be flagged as if he made an Attack as soon as he issues the SAD. It should be possible to ambush Bandits just like the Bandits can ambush Merchants.
I think the key incentive for Bandits to use SADs is to bypass Reputation Loss. I think making the system determine the initial offer is the only way to guarantee a "fair" demand. I think double Reputation Loss for attacking a Merchant who has accepted the SAD is appropriate.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's pretty good. You almost make a failed SAD the same as just a regular attack against an unflagged person.
My only objection is this point:
USE: On issuing a SAD, the bandit is flagged "hostile" to the target/s alone. Forget bystanders "aiding" for free.*(see below)
If the robber merely attacks the traveler, he has an attacker flag and can be attacked by anyone. I think the SAD should work the same way; the robber should gain at least an short term attacker flag so others close by can respond. SAD should be (mostly) used in places where there aren't a lot of people; lonely stretches of road, dark woods, that sort of thing. It might also be used in places where the 'robber' is in control, an agent of the local settlement, and even with the attacker flag no one will respond.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the Bandit needs to be flagged as if he made an Attack as soon as he issues the SAD. It should be possible to ambush Bandits just like the Bandits can ambush Merchants.
I think the key incentive for Bandits to use SADs is to bypass Reputation Loss. I think making the system determine the initial offer is the only way to guarantee a "fair" demand. I think double Reputation Loss for attacking a Merchant who has accepted the SAD is appropriate.
I know that you feel that way. I feel that we need to simplify the thing and make some trade offs of our old ideals to make it work.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's pretty good. You almost make a failed SAD the same as just a regular attack against an unflagged person.
My only objection is this point:
USE: On issuing a SAD, the bandit is flagged "hostile" to the target/s alone. Forget bystanders "aiding" for free.*(see below)If the robber merely attacks the traveler, he has an attacker flag and can be attacked by anyone. I think the SAD should work the same way; the robber should gain at least an short term attacker flag so others close by can respond. SAD should be (mostly) used in places where there aren't a lot of people; lonely stretches of road, dark woods, that sort of thing. It might also be used in places where the 'robber' is in control, an agent of the local settlement, and even with the attacker flag no one will respond.
If that is the case, concerning "hostility", that would be fine. The regular rules (whatever they turn out to be) should probably apply. Except the bandit does have the power to accost "unflagged" and "force" some situations outside of the regular rules. They need to give up the rep free kill power. That is all I am suggesting.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bringlight: I agree in removing (or reducing) the rep free kill power. If a rejected SAD that results in a kill is similar to a simple attack against an unflagged target, I don't think there's any need for GW to determine a 'fair' demand. Players can do that. I'd expect a players to yield less inside a populated area and yield more in a monster hex where there's no chance of aid.
One other thing - the bandit who makes a successful SAD needs to get some sort of debuff so he can't get a rep gain and immediately turn around and reSAD the target or just kill it outright (having the rep gain and rep loss cancel out). I'd prefer a simpler general debuff - if the bandit kills *any* unflagged character for the next (20?) minutes, including in failed SADs, he takes the double rep hit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the Bandit needs to be flagged as if he made an Attack as soon as he issues the SAD. It should be possible to ambush Bandits just like the Bandits can ambush Merchants.
I think the key incentive for Bandits to use SADs is to bypass Reputation Loss. I think making the system determine the initial offer is the only way to guarantee a "fair" demand. I think double Reputation Loss for attacking a Merchant who has accepted the SAD is appropriate.
I agree with that. Successful SAD will bypass rep loss with this idea. Failed SAD would only penalize if the bandit takes it to the next step. There is really no way to prevent the SAD mechanic from being used outside of it's design. It will be abused if it functions as a way to attack "unflagged" consequence free.
If GW can devise a way (that is within their budget) to make abuse impossible or very, very rare then I will be happy as I can be. :)
I love the idea of double rep penalties for completing a SAD and killing afterwards. My post did not address that. Only some basic ideas.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bringlight: I agree in removing (or reducing) the rep free kill power. If a rejected SAD that results in a kill is similar to a simple attack against an unflagged target, I don't think there's any need for GW to determine a 'fair' demand. Players can do that. I'd expect a players to yield less inside a populated area and yield more in a monster hex where there's no chance of aid.
One other thing - the bandit who makes a successful SAD needs to get some sort of debuff so he can't get a rep gain and immediately turn around and reSAD the target or just kill it outright (having the rep gain and rep loss cancel out). I'd prefer a simpler general debuff - if the bandit kills *any* unflagged character for the next (20?) minutes, including in failed SADs, he takes the double rep hit.
That is fine by me. It is just further detail that I did not want to complicate my post with.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's pretty good. You almost make a failed SAD the same as just a regular attack against an unflagged person.
My only objection is this point:
USE: On issuing a SAD, the bandit is flagged "hostile" to the target/s alone. Forget bystanders "aiding" for free.*(see below)If the robber merely attacks the traveler, he has an attacker flag and can be attacked by anyone. I think the SAD should work the same way; the robber should gain at least an short term attacker flag so others close by can respond. SAD should be (mostly) used in places where there aren't a lot of people; lonely stretches of road, dark woods, that sort of thing. It might also be used in places where the 'robber' is in control, an agent of the local settlement, and even with the attacker flag no one will respond.
I agree with Urman, the issuer of the SAD should be flagged as "hostile" or "attacker" when issuing a SAD. If not, skilled PvP bandits will SAD merchants (who are usually not learned "PvP" players) knowing that there is a possibility they could trick the merchants into attacking them all alone which will usually result in a dead merchant and a bandit getting off with the loot and no reputation loss; I just don't approve of that. Now, if every merchant was like me, and I was confident that they were prepared to kick the "SAD Issuer's" ass or. at least considered the possible negative outcome of attacking him, I'd be fine with it. From experience, however, I know a lot of innocent (innocently ignorant) players would get duped by the more learned and thoughtful bandit into making a poor decision that would result in a negative and frustrating outcome.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the expectation side; I'd expect some robber-types to make SAD demands, and if they fail, merely withdraw... then their low-Rep buddies (not allied or partied with the bandit) just attack the target.
Of course, one might be attacked by the low-Rep types anyway, even if the high-rep robber wasn't there, or even after the SAD is accepted, so I'm not sure it changes anything. I'd guess some high-Rep robbers might get a meta-reputation if they use low-Rep thugs for their dirty work.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's pretty good. You almost make a failed SAD the same as just a regular attack against an unflagged person.
My only objection is this point:
USE: On issuing a SAD, the bandit is flagged "hostile" to the target/s alone. Forget bystanders "aiding" for free.*(see below)If the robber merely attacks the traveler, he has an attacker flag and can be attacked by anyone. I think the SAD should work the same way; the robber should gain at least an short term attacker flag so others close by can respond. SAD should be (mostly) used in places where there aren't a lot of people; lonely stretches of road, dark woods, that sort of thing. It might also be used in places where the 'robber' is in control, an agent of the local settlement, and even with the attacker flag no one will respond.
I agree with Urman, the issuer of the SAD should be flagged as "hostile" or "attacker" when issuing a SAD. If not, skilled PvP bandits will SAD merchants (who are usually not learned "PvP" players) knowing that there is a possibility they could trick the merchants into attacking them all alone which will usually result in a dead merchant and a bandit getting off with the loot and no reputation loss; I just don't approve of that. Now, if every merchant was like me, and I was confident that they were prepared to kick the "SAD Issuer's" ass or. at least considered the possible negative outcome of attacking him, I'd be fine with it. From experience, however, I know a lot of innocent (innocently ignorant) players would get duped by the more learned and thoughtful provocative bandit into making a poor decision that would result in a negative and frustrating outcome.
It is possible that you are right. I was attempting to write it out with a bit of fairness so that bandits have as much incentive to use SAD as possible, without them having a mechanic that bypasses all the consequences.
If bandits must buy and slot SAD as a skill, then perhaps those that wish to intervene in fights (where they have no legit "hostility") should also have to.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
On the expectation side; I'd expect some robber-types to make SAD demands, and if they fail, merely withdraw... then their low-Rep buddies (not allied or partied with the bandit) just attack the target.
Of course, one might be attacked by the low-Rep types anyway, even if the high-rep robber wasn't there, or even after the SAD is accepted, so I'm not sure it changes anything. I'd guess some high-Rep robbers might get a meta-reputation if they use low-Rep thugs for their dirty work.
I will be waiting to see how GW programs around every possibility and corner case. Until then, let's not make it too easy. ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My problem with this:
REFUSAL: If the target refuses and the bandit kills, the bandit loses reputation (the SAD is failed), but gains full regular loot rights. That is the bandit's choice. Exactly the same as if they had ambushed and attacked. Risk and failure of the intent.
The merchant loses nothing he would not already had by being ambushed, but the bandit has lost ambush, having gained nothing by making the attempt to rob the target non violently.
The refusal must include no impact on reputation, otherwise the role of bandit is limited to low reputation which is not desired by GW.
I have a similar issue with Hostility being triggered by issuing a SAD, to everyone. If anything it is hostile to just a target and his or her associated group. If I have to prepare for everyone than I will go in "all guns blazing" and not screwing around with negotiating / haggling. Any bystander will be seen as a potential target and a back-up gank squad will be ready to pounce if he tries to interfere.
Yes I know, the parade will chime is "well than you will all be low rep and suck". We shall have to wait and see, the proof will be in the pudding. There is either a slight power curve or there is suck, there can't be both at the same time. Or at least it hadn't been proven yet. This goes to the same arguement that somehow numbers won't matter or alpha strike one shots can't happen. Proof is needed, not intentions or wishful thinking.
If I have 30 archers shoot at one target and that target does not instantly die, the mathematics behind the combat system is broken and we are all Gods walking Galorian.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My problem with this:
REFUSAL: If the target refuses and the bandit kills, the bandit loses reputation (the SAD is failed), but gains full regular loot rights. That is the bandit's choice. Exactly the same as if they had ambushed and attacked. Risk and failure of the intent.
The merchant loses nothing he would not already had by being ambushed, but the bandit has lost ambush, having gained nothing by making the attempt to rob the target non violently.
The refusal must include no impact on reputation, otherwise the role of bandit is limited to low reputation which is not desired by GW.
I have a similar issue with Hostility being triggered by issuing a SAD, to everyone. If anything it is hostile to just a target and his or her associated group. If I have to prepare for everyone than I will go in "all guns blazing" and not screwing around with negotiating / haggling. Any bystander will be seen as a potential target and a back-up gank squad will be ready to pounce if he tries to interfere.
Yes I know, the parade will chime is "well than you will all be low rep and suck". We shall have to wait and see, the proof will be in the pudding. There is either a slight power curve or there is suck, there can't be both at the same time. Or at least it hadn't been proven yet. This goes to the same arguement that somehow numbers won't matter or alpha strike one shots can't happen. Proof is needed, not intentions or wishful thinking.
If I have 30 archers shoot at one target and that target does not instantly die, the mathematics behind the combat system is broken and we are all Gods walking Galorian.
I had no doubts that you would not like some or all of that. I could hardly blame you for not wanting to give up anything from the original ideas about SAD. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I had no doubts that you would not like some or all of that. I could hardly blame you for not wanting to give up anything from the original ideas about SAD. :)My problem with this:
REFUSAL: If the target refuses and the bandit kills, the bandit loses reputation (the SAD is failed), but gains full regular loot rights. That is the bandit's choice. Exactly the same as if they had ambushed and attacked. Risk and failure of the intent.
The merchant loses nothing he would not already had by being ambushed, but the bandit has lost ambush, having gained nothing by making the attempt to rob the target non violently.
The refusal must include no impact on reputation, otherwise the role of bandit is limited to low reputation which is not desired by GW.
I have a similar issue with Hostility being triggered by issuing a SAD, to everyone. If anything it is hostile to just a target and his or her associated group. If I have to prepare for everyone than I will go in "all guns blazing" and not screwing around with negotiating / haggling. Any bystander will be seen as a potential target and a back-up gank squad will be ready to pounce if he tries to interfere.
Yes I know, the parade will chime is "well than you will all be low rep and suck". We shall have to wait and see, the proof will be in the pudding. There is either a slight power curve or there is suck, there can't be both at the same time. Or at least it hadn't been proven yet. This goes to the same arguement that somehow numbers won't matter or alpha strike one shots can't happen. Proof is needed, not intentions or wishful thinking.
If I have 30 archers shoot at one target and that target does not instantly die, the mathematics behind the combat system is broken and we are all Gods walking Galorian.
I'm sorry but I feel no pity for you Bluddwolf. You can't have your cake and eat it too and you can't kill merchants who spent hours of their time gathering stuff with little risk or consequence.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My problem with this:
REFUSAL: If the target refuses and the bandit kills, the bandit loses reputation (the SAD is failed), but gains full regular loot rights. That is the bandit's choice. Exactly the same as if they had ambushed and attacked. Risk and failure of the intent.
The merchant loses nothing he would not already had by being ambushed, but the bandit has lost ambush, having gained nothing by making the attempt to rob the target non violently.
The refusal must include no impact on reputation, otherwise the role of bandit is limited to low reputation which is not desired by GW.
I have a similar issue with Hostility being triggered by issuing a SAD, to everyone. If anything it is hostile to just a target and his or her associated group. If I have to prepare for everyone than I will go in "all guns blazing" and not screwing around with negotiating / haggling. Any bystander will be seen as a potential target and a back-up gank squad will be ready to pounce if he tries to interfere.
Yes I know, the parade will chime is "well than you will all be low rep and suck". We shall have to wait and see, the proof will be in the pudding. There is either a slight power curve or there is suck, there can't be both at the same time. Or at least it hadn't been proven yet. This goes to the same arguement that somehow numbers won't matter or alpha strike one shots can't happen. Proof is needed, not intentions or wishful thinking.
If I have 30 archers shoot at one target and that target does not instantly die, the mathematics behind the combat system is broken and we are all Gods walking Galorian.
What I don't understand is why you would feel that the following is not sufficient to be attractive:
1. The ability to stop and demand some sort of payment from any target regardless of whether they are flagged for PVP with you or not.
2. With a successful demand and payment, you get loot and a bit of reputation. A few minutes work to take something that may have taken hours to accumulate/craft.
3. Whatever happens, if you do not kill the unflagged, you lose nothing. The same as anyone else.