Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another reason to put an Attacker flag on the Robber: without that flag, SAD would just be used as an annoying "Hey dude, wanna duel?" "wanna duel?" "wanna duel?". It will only be used when the SADer is pretty sure (almost positive) he can easily kill the SADee - and only the SADee can respond.
Contrast that to putting the Attacker flag on the SADer. "Wanna duelthis is a hold-up" immediately lights up the SADer as hostile to everyone in eyesight except his party members - not to be done casually, annoyingly, or just to pester weak people. Done on lonely stretches of road or after scouting the area for responders. Net gain for the game, imho.
|
I may be a bit confused about reputation. I thought a person's reputation would correspond to how well they fulfill their role. Therefore, a bandit that is bad at being a bandit should have a low rep compared to a bandit good at their job. Same with a quality merchant or guard.
Based on the conversations...what is it really?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From the blogs: Reputation is our system for measuring how a player behaves in game. We want to provide a means by which a player can judge the aggressiveness of other players at a glance, get some idea how likely they are to attack, and get an idea as to their social behavior. Reputation only affects your interactions with other players; it has no bearing on your interactions with NPCs, quests, escalation cycles, or other PvE content. A character with a high Reputation is likely someone who only engages in PvP via feuds, wars, or factional combat (if he engages in PvP at all), while a character with low Reputation likely attacks people regardless of those PvP structures or is rude or abusive to other players. Reputation has no direct effect on combat, crafting, or skills, but does limit availability of training, facilities, and social interactions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Another reason to put an Attacker flag on the Robber: without that flag, SAD would just be used as an annoying "Hey dude, wanna duel?" "wanna duel?" "wanna duel?". It will only be used when the SADer is pretty sure (almost positive) he can easily kill the SADee - and only the SADee can respond.
Contrast that to putting the Attacker flag on the SADer. "
Wanna duelthis is a hold-up" immediately lights up the SADer as hostile to everyone in eyesight except his party members - not to be done casually, annoyingly, or just to pester weak people. Done on lonely stretches of rode or after scouting the area for responders. Net gain for the game, imho.
I agree totally. I don't think that there should be zero risk for going about and demanding goods from anyone. Especially because I doubt that such targets will be chosen with "fair fight" in mind and no one else has the power (so far) to bother the unflagged.
Yes the bandit gives up "ambush" to SAD, but that seems like it is the point. He wants to use SAD on unflagged targets that he could probably beat, when he does not also want to lose reputation.
Killing consequence free is either a thing that IS part of the game, or isn't. As long as there is a cost associated with the ability to make your opponents "flagged", that could work too, I suppose. That makes it a bit more complicated though.
IMO, if a mechanic creates the need for more and more sub mechanics then it had better be one of the most important aspects of the game. YMMV as to whether SAD makes that cut.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
The SAD as unintended is one in which the bandit kills the victim after being paid not to.
The degenerate condition that you want to avoid is the ability to demand more than the victim's life is worth. I think that giving the target of the SAD the option to give away what the bandit could have looted from their corpse OR some amount of coins and items mutually agreeable is sufficient to avoid the degenerate condition. That does mean that SAD is useless for forcing PvP against someone who isn't carrying anything lootable, and can't be used meaningfully against naked spies (75% of nothing is nothing!).
The behaviors that we want to encourage is giving the target a chance to make a deal rather than die in an ambush, and honoring the deal after it is paid. I think that allowing the bandit to attack with reduced or no reputation penalty if the target jut refused a SAD demand is a meaningful way to encourage people to have the option of accepting such demands. The relatively high default offer might be adjusted if warranted; I picked the position where nobody should prefer the loot from killing to the amount that can be unilaterally declared by the opposing party.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ DeciusBrutus
I am completely certain that unless carefully designed, the SAD will be used as a tool beyond it's purpose. Most likely not by serious bandits, but in many of the ways that have been described by people.
It seems to me that it would be foolish to assume that whatever way that it could be used outside of it's intentions, would not be done. It might be necessary to design and implement it so that those things are not possible, or are so costly that they are not worth using so.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just a side offer/observation here. I think that the potentially bigger hit than the rep loss is the fact that rep regain drops to its floor value. Maybe that is up for discussion?
Successful SAD: loot + whatever rep gain
Failed SAD w/o kill: nothing
Failed SAD w/killing: loot + rep loss
Non-SAD Kill of unflagged character: loot + rep loss + rep-regain drops to floor
edit to add: while there is something there, I think the problem remains. Those with the ability to SAD have no reason not to use it for casual murder.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
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 can design a non-broken system that has a specific penalty for large groups all doing exactly the same thing. I would call it anti-optimization, since the primary effect it would have would be to dissuade large groups from doing exactly the same thing.
If 1 archer using a particular tactic has alpha strike damage of 100, 4 arches using that tactic at the same time have alpha strike damage of 300, 16 archers do 600, 64 do 900, and so forth, that's a game system working as intended, by having an exponential increase in characters doing the same thing result in a linear increase in total damage output. (In this particular example, the system is intended to promote combined arms tactics and actively discourage flavor-of-the-month results by adjusting the incentives for every tactic in an inverse relationship with how popular they are.)
Oh, and I agree totally with you. I want you to have a decent carrot for making a demand, even if you are certain that it won't be accepted. (And especially if you are certain that it will!).
I also strongly believe that the Reputation effect of an action should very rarely hinge on the decisions of another player. The rebuke mechanic is one exception to this general rule, but I can't think of many others that should come up regularly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just a side offer/observation here. I think that the potentially bigger hit than the rep loss is the fact that rep regain drops to its floor value. Maybe that is up for discussion?
Successful SAD: loot + whatever rep gain
Failed SAD w/o kill: nothing
Failed SAD w/killing: loot + rep loss
Non-SAD Kill of unflagged character: loot + rep loss + rep-regain drops to floor
Absolutely. That looks like pretty much what I suggested in a nutshell. The difference being that I did not include the slowed auto rep gain. I am all for anything except such an easy way to kill outside of consequences. I may still play despite that, until the game resembles a murder simulator with too many ways around consequences so as to be a great joke.
edit to add: while there is something there - I think the problem remains - those with the ability to SAD have no reason not to use it for casual murder.
Unless it does not offer rep free kills as easy as that. If they chose to kill, they chose to kill. Just give them the same penalty (or more in some cases) that everyone else would suffer.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Just a side offer/observation here. I think that the potentially bigger hit than the rep loss is the fact that rep regain drops to its floor value. Maybe that is up for discussion?
Successful SAD: loot + whatever rep gain
Failed SAD w/o kill: nothing
Failed SAD w/killing: loot + rep loss
Non-SAD Kill of unflagged character: loot + rep loss + rep-regain drops to floor
edit to add: while there is something there, I think the problem remains. Those with the ability to SAD have no reason not to use it for casual murder.
I'm confused about why you are trying to solve the perceived problem "SAD can be used for casual murder" by weakening the core function of SAD (Encourage bandits to offer and honor ransoms rather than always kill) rather than correcting the perceived loophole that enables the degenerate condition.
I might be persuaded that the reputation gain associated with SAD should be based on a mutually agreed transfer, either on the amount of coin offered or the amount of goods not taken; if the merchant forces the default through, the bandit may very well not have earned a reputation bonus.
The absolute most important part of the SAD mechanic is also the least discussed: A paid SAD followed by murder results in the highest Reputation loss yet discussed. That aspect, of severely punishing characters who renege on the deal, is one of the things that make having a low reputation harmful to bandits (Their victims, on seeing their low reputation, are less likely to believe that their SAD will be honored, and therefore more likely to refuse to negotiate.) If we make it uncertain whether a particular bandit has been reneging a little bit or simply robbing merchants who belong to the "Not One Copper" group, then we reduce the information that merchants-in-general have when they respond to a SAD.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm confused about why you are trying to solve the perceived problem "SAD can be used for casual murder" by weakening the core function of SAD (Encourage bandits to offer and honor ransoms rather than always kill) rather than correcting the perceived loophole that enables the degenerate condition.
Do bandits need more incentive than: A. Unlimited ability to aggress vs. unflagged targets, B. Some agreed upon loot exchange, C. Some Reputation gain, rather than loss?
That seems plenty to encourage SAD in whatever percentage of parading targets are not faction, feuded, or war decced.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What other roles do you suggest should lose reputation from their proper use?
How does a merchant lose reputation? Perhaps if they put something on the market and no one buys it at that price?
Without banditry, GW is not developing any other limitation on harvesting and trade.
Now if influence was earned cheaply and feuds could be instantly sparked, I'd be happy with that. I guarantee you one thing, a feud or war target would never receive a SAD offer from me.
If that is our only way of conducting banditry without rep loss, we will spam feuds against the largest merchant companies or prey upon the lowest rep merchants we can find. That will undoubtedly end up focusing our attention away from more experienced merchants (because they will have maximum rep) and towards less experienced merchants.
Is that really the outcome you're looking for?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What other roles do you suggest should lose reputation from their proper use?
How does a merchant lose reputation? Perhaps if they put something on the market and no one buys it at that price?
Without banditry, GW is not developing any other limitation on harvesting and trade.
Now if influence was earned cheaply and feuds could be instantly sparked, I'd be happy with that. I guarantee you one thing, a feud or war target would never receive a SAD offer from me.
If that is our only way of conducting banditry without rep loss, we will spam feuds against the largest merchant companies or prey upon the lowest rep merchants we can find. That will undoubtedly end up focusing our attention away from more experienced merchants (because they will have maximum rep) and towards less experienced merchants.
Is that really the outcome you're looking for?
I suppose that depends on what the proper role of a bandit is. I had thought that it was to rob people. I am not sure whether it is to kill and rob unflagged, or to give them the power to do so for target's refusing to be robbed. They do have that power. I just don't agree that it should be consequence free. It is not free for anyone else.
A merchant should lose reputation if he kills unflagged characters or attacks one, twice within 30 seconds. That is not to say that there should not be other ways to lose as well. Such as failed contracts or things that we have not heard of yet.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What other roles do you suggest should lose reputation from their proper use?
How does a merchant lose reputation? Perhaps if they put something on the market and no one buys it at that price?
Without banditry, GW is not developing any other limitation on harvesting and trade.
Now if influence was earned cheaply and feuds could be instantly sparked, I'd be happy with that. I guarantee you one thing, a feud or war target would never receive a SAD offer from me.
If that is our only way of conducting banditry without rep loss, we will spam feuds against the largest merchant companies or prey upon the lowest rep merchants we can find. That will undoubtedly end up focusing our attention away from more experienced merchants (because they will have maximum rep) and towards less experienced merchants.
Is that really the outcome you're looking for?
You keep giving ultimatums that lack merit. You can't just war any company you want (as far as I know). The company/settlement would have to accept your declaration of war before you are free from reputation loss. I highly doubt a merchant company will do that. Let me also add, when combining arguments with blanket statements and deciding your opinions or reactions to this particular game-design are canon make it difficult to have a discussion. Research before you start making assumptions on "what you will do if you don't get your way" so at least those threats can be a possibility.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You keep giving ultimatums that lack merit. You can't just war any company you want (as far as I know). The company/settlement would have to accept your declaration of war before you are free from reputation loss. I highly doubt a merchant company will do that. Let me also add, when combining arguments with blanket statements and deciding your opinions or reactions to this particular game-design are canon make it difficult to have a discussion. Research before you start making assumptions on "what you will do if you don't get your way" so at least those threats can be a possibility.What other roles do you suggest should lose reputation from their proper use?
How does a merchant lose reputation? Perhaps if they put something on the market and no one buys it at that price?
Without banditry, GW is not developing any other limitation on harvesting and trade.
Now if influence was earned cheaply and feuds could be instantly sparked, I'd be happy with that. I guarantee you one thing, a feud or war target would never receive a SAD offer from me.
If that is our only way of conducting banditry without rep loss, we will spam feuds against the largest merchant companies or prey upon the lowest rep merchants we can find. That will undoubtedly end up focusing our attention away from more experienced merchants (because they will have maximum rep) and towards less experienced merchants.
Is that really the outcome you're looking for?
So far as described, if you can pay the Influence or DI cost, feuds and/or war do not need to be agreeable to all parties.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So far as described, if you can pay the Influence or DI cost, feuds and/or war do not need to be agreeable to all parties.You keep giving ultimatums that lack merit. You can't just war any company you want (as far as I know). The company/settlement would have to accept your declaration of war before you are free from reputation loss. I highly doubt a merchant company will do that. Let me also add, when combining arguments with blanket statements and deciding your opinions or reactions to this particular game-design are canon make it difficult to have a discussion. Research before you start making assumptions on "what you will do if you don't get your way" so at least those threats can be a possibility.What other roles do you suggest should lose reputation from their proper use?
How does a merchant lose reputation? Perhaps if they put something on the market and no one buys it at that price?
Without banditry, GW is not developing any other limitation on harvesting and trade.
Now if influence was earned cheaply and feuds could be instantly sparked, I'd be happy with that. I guarantee you one thing, a feud or war target would never receive a SAD offer from me.
If that is our only way of conducting banditry without rep loss, we will spam feuds against the largest merchant companies or prey upon the lowest rep merchants we can find. That will undoubtedly end up focusing our attention away from more experienced merchants (because they will have maximum rep) and towards less experienced merchants.
Is that really the outcome you're looking for?
What are the chances at Chaotic Evil settlement will have the influence or DI to pay?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The absolute most important part of the SAD mechanic is also the least discussed: A paid SAD followed by murder results in the highest Reputation loss yet discussed. That aspect, of severely punishing characters who renege on the deal, is one of the things that make having a low reputation harmful to bandits...
I don't discuss it much because I think it will be trivial for some group of bandits to use one high rep party to make a SAD demand and gain some loot and then follow up with a second possibly low rep party to kill the victims for the remainder of the loot.
Use of low rep part alone: 75% of loot
Use of high rep party: say 20% of loot + rep gain
Followed up by low rep: 75% of remaining 80% = 60%
Total loot with high+low: 80% + rep gain
The high rep party may be acting as an observer (for the low rep party which is off-line much of the time) as well as a fence.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You keep giving ultimatums that lack merit. You can't just war any company you want (as far as I know). The company/settlement would have to accept your declaration of war before you are free from reputation loss. I highly doubt a merchant company will do that.Let me also add, when combining arguments with blanket statements and deciding your opinions or reactions to this particular game-design are canon make it difficult to have a discussion. Research before you start making assumptions on "what you will do if you don't get your way" so at least those threats can be a possibility.
Which is precisely why feuds can not be consensual and why they cost influence for the company that initiates them.
How is my stating an opinion or discussing an action I intend to do, shut down discussion? You did post in response, didn't you?
Research what? Where is the declarative statement by the Devs that feuds are consensual?
I also did not say we would start that war. I have no intentions of running a settlement. However, that does not mean I won't have war targets.
Finally, settlements will have a period open for PvP (PvP Window) in which a settlement can be freely sieged in open warfare. This would indicate to me that wars are not consensual. They maybe mutual, but don't require consent, unless GW has no clue of what they are doing. I certainly believe that they do on this matter.
No opt out from PvP means that consent is not required.
|
|
As someone likely to play a monk and having played with thug types before, I'm curious how non-lethal combat may affect SADs.
For example, if a group of bandits tend to knock out opponents instead of killing them, this would have the results be:
Successful SAD = Loot + Rep gain
Failed SAD w/o knockout = Nothing
Failed SAD w/ knockout = Loot
Non-SAD knockout of unflagged character = Loot
If there is no killing, is there a chance for Rep Loss in the systems above? If not, then there is no reason for bandits to kill unless they feel the nonlethal options would result in their loss. Therefore, the decisions of the bandits become: barter, mug, or kill, with kill being the easiest but least rewarding.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Nevy
It depends on what generates influence. If it takes done PvE grinding (ie kill an escalation cycle) to earn enough influence to feud one company, then we will grind the minimum amount of escalation needed. Stop PvE grind and switch over to PvP ops and feud large, less prepared merchant company.
@ Urman
How long you figure it will take before the meta game reputation catches up on the bandit company using that tactic?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I suppose that depends on what the proper role of a bandit is. I had thought that it was to rob people. I am not sure whether it is to kill and rob unflagged, or to give them the power to do so for target's refusing to be robbed.
I think the game has to have enough threat of PvP that we don't run around unguarded and without weapons and armor - because hiring guards and buying gear might be a good part of the economy.
I would think that absent any SAD mechanism people would still kill under-defended travelers; there's always some person who will fill that niche. SAD makes hold-up more likely, as it also brings in some additional people to serve as robber-threats when they would not likely kill. It also gives more of an official veneer - GW wants to have some people willing to be the robbers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf I doubt the technique would be used by a single company; I'd offer that it would be done by two companies or a company + alts. I'd think it would be impossible to prove that the two were connected, so the high-rep company would have a bit of leeway. If someone gets SADed by Urman&Sons and shortly afterwards gets SADed by another group, who can say that it was Urman's alts or some other random group of thugs who is also hiding in the woods?
And if Urman&Sons develops an iffy (meta-)rep among players, then what? The travellers refuse the SADs up front? Under current rules Urman&Sons just kills them then, for 75% loot and no rep gain or loss.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally disagree with bludd's thoughts that SAD issuer should not be flagged as attacker/hostile. I think they should be. If your walking down the street, glance over into an alley way and see someone getting mugged, or held at gun/knife point while demands are made, you should be able to tell he/she is being hostile to the SADee and, in PFO, that translates to being flagged. Yes that does increase the risk of being caught performing a SAD, but that is part of the gig. Also, I think there should be some sort of a timer so the SADee can't just stall for time while his buddies come to assist him.
I stop you/(r) caravan and issue a SAD. I am not flagged as hostile and open target to everyone nearby. You have 60 secs to give into my demands or you "refuse" and become a rep-free target to me. Time is just an example, but I think it is reasonable. In that 60 secs, if you flee (or try to) it is a refusal and become a rep free target to me. If you give in to my demands, you trade me the goods and go about your day. I gain a small amount of rep and run off to sell my illgotten loot. Flagged for some time, maybe normal hostile time, or double, whatever.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I personally disagree with bludd's thoughts that SAD issuer should not be flagged as attacker/hostile. I think they should be. If your walking down the street, glance over into an alley way and see someone getting mugged, or held at gun/knife point while demands are made, you should be able to tell he/she is being hostile to the SADee and, in PFO, that translates to being flagged. Yes that does increase the risk of being caught performing a SAD, but that is part of the gig. Also, I think there should be some sort of a timer so the SADee can't just stall for time while his buddies come to assist him.
I stop you/(r) caravan and issue a SAD. I am not flagged as hostile and open target to everyone nearby. You have 60 secs to give into my demands or you "refuse" and become a rep-free target to me. Time is just an example, but I think it is reasonable. In that 60 secs, if you flee (or try to) it is a refusal and become a rep free target to me. If you give in to my demands, you trade me the goods and go about your day. I gain a small amount of rep and run off to sell my illgotten loot. Flagged for some time, maybe normal hostile time, or double, whatever.
Are those bold parts contradictory on purpose?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
edit to add: while there is something there, I think the problem remains. Those with the ability to SAD have no reason not to use it for casual murder.
It seems to me that having the system determine the initial trade means those who use it will do so when they want loot without losing Reputation. If their goal is to kill without losing Reputation, then a SAD is a really bad option for them since the victim can accept the initial trade at which point the killer would lose double the Reputation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You keep giving ultimatums that lack merit. You can't just war any company you want (as far as I know). The company/settlement would have to accept your declaration of war before you are free from reputation loss. I highly doubt a merchant company will do that.Let me also add, when combining arguments with blanket statements and deciding your opinions or reactions to this particular game-design are canon make it difficult to have a discussion. Research before you start making assumptions on "what you will do if you don't get your way" so at least those threats can be a possibility.Which is precisely why feuds can not be consensual and why they cost influence for the company that initiates them.
How is my stating an opinion or discussing an action I intend to do, shut down discussion? You did post in response, didn't you?
Research what? Where is the declarative statement by the Devs that feuds are consensual?
I also did not say we would start that war. I have no intentions of running a settlement. However, that does not mean I won't have war targets.
Finally, settlements will have a period open for PvP (PvP Window) in which a settlement can be freely sieged in open warfare. This would indicate to me that wars are not consensual. They maybe mutual, but don't require consent, unless GW has no clue of what they are doing. I certainly believe that they do on this matter.
No opt out from PvP means that consent is not required.
Sorry about that, I was wrong in that regard and I apologize. I still think you're suffering from the "victim complex" though! ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You might be right, Nihimon.
Say a basic SAD generates randomly a list of loot that will be gained; let's say for argument 10% of the total unthreaded items.
The SADer sees what he might get, the SADee sees what she might lose. I'd think that at that point the SADer has spent his option; he can't cancel and re-SAD in hopes of a better mix. The SADee can accept (or not), or maybe offer to swap out something (?).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You might be right, Nihimon.
Say a basic SAD generates randomly a list of loot that will be gained; let's say for argument 10% of the total unthreaded items.
The SADer sees what he might get, the SADee sees what she might lose. I'd think that at that point the SADer has spent his option; he can't cancel and re-SAD in hopes of a better mix. The SADee can accept (or not), or maybe offer to swap out something (?).
Yep. And 10% to 25% based on relative skills feels about right to me, though I'd definitely defer to the devs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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 issue I see with this part of your proposal, is that those characters that use the mantra "millions for defense and not one copper for tribute" have now just become impossible to SAD without a resulting reputation loss. In those cases, using an alpha strike (sneak attack) would be a more prudent action to take than even trying a SAD.
As I stated previously in this thread, I think the issue everyone has is the ability of SAD to potentially initiate combat with non-flagged characters. GW wants bandits and wants bandits to use SAD to perform this role, so I feel that the use of reputation as an additional cost is not the right mechanic. I'm still not sure what that additional cost should be however (beyond flagging and alignment shifts) or if there even needs to be one.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I might agree with that IF there was a fixed amount of loot possible, like 10-15%. The problem isn't the ability to potentially initiate combat with unflagged characters. It's the ability to force an encounter for the purpose of just killing the unflagged character while still avoiding the rep hits. As long as 50-125% demands are even possible they will be used.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I might agree with that IF there was a fixed amount of loot possible, like 10-15%. The problem isn't the ability to potentially initiate combat with unflagged characters. It's the ability to force an encounter for the purpose of just killing the unflagged character while still avoiding the rep hits. As long as 50-125% demands are even possible they will be used.
Actually I believe that a demand of 25% or less is reasonable. The reason I say 25% is that that amount matches what would be destroyed upon death, and that does not include the damage done to threaded gear. It seems very reasonable to me, but I admit my bias up front.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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 issue I see with this part of your proposal, is that those characters that use the mantra "millions for defense and not one copper for tribute" have now just become impossible to SAD without a resulting reputation loss. In those cases, using an alpha strike (sneak attack) would be a more prudent action to take than even trying a SAD.
As I stated previously in this thread, I think the issue everyone has is the ability of SAD to potentially initiate combat with non-flagged characters. GW wants bandits and wants bandits to use SAD to perform this role, so I feel that the use of reputation as an additional cost is not the right mechanic. I'm still not sure what that additional cost should be however (beyond flagging and alignment shifts) or if there even needs to be one.
I have used that quote. A SAD will never succeed with me. It's not that I feel that there should not be bandits. There should. I will just have to die if I do not bring enough swords with me. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I might agree with that IF there was a fixed amount of loot possible, like 10-15%. The problem isn't the ability to potentially initiate combat with unflagged characters. It's the ability to force an encounter for the purpose of just killing the unflagged character while still avoiding the rep hits. As long as 50-125% demands are even possible they will be used.
Agreed. Perhaps the answer is to make training for SADs a 5 tier tree (like EvE), with the top tier allowing a character to SAD for 5-10%. That way, bandits will have to get trained up to tier 5 (several months of training?) and group together to get anywhere near a good SAD percentage. Perhaps even cap it out at 50% of current market value of carried good.
I am also glad you picked up on my use of the word potentially. In this thread it has been stated that 'SAD is a free kill', which is not the case. It is a mechanic that created the ability (upon rejection) to launch an attack against the victim, reputation free. There are several controls or mitigants that can be used to stop it getting to that stage or actually winning combat against bandits. That is one of the major upsides of SAD. It opens up an avenue that allows people to interact and give them roles such as guards or scouts and even spies in such organisations.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing to be careful of, if SAD'ing is not a zero sum interaction, it will be abused to grind Rep. In fact, considering there will also be diachronic Rep gain, it might be a valid position that SAD should be a slightly less than zero sum interaction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think SAD is supposed to be a zero sum game, nor I assume will be the other archetypes reputation gaining mechanics. GW want people to play a certain way, and when people do, they are 'rewarded' with reputation. Thus, I don't think GW would be too concerned with players grinding reputation, as that effectively means they are performing the roles they want them too, more often.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think SAD is supposed to be a zero sum game, nor I assume will be the other archetypes reputation gaining mechanics. GW want people to play a certain way, and when people do, they are 'rewarded' with reputation. Thus, I don't think GW would be too concerned with players grinding reputation, as that effectively means they are performing the roles they want them too, more often.
I have to disagree with you...or the Reputation system makes no sense to bother with. I do not think it is working as intended if two bandits (or any role doing their thing) can increase their Rep by repeatedly SAD'ing each other for 1g (Or even just their 10 times daily to get their daily max).
But, I do agree with you, that would also have to hold true for any other roles mechanics. I accept this.
By your argument, I am not sure feuds and wars should not only not cost, but in fact give us rewards...because they are "encouraged" forms of play.
On the other hand, maybe I am getting stuck in the traditional definition of Rep...something I am sure I will have to fight as long as I play PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree that is a ridiculous scenario and is purely gaming the system to max out reputation. From memory, there is a flag of sorts that gets set once a character (or group) is SADed that last for some time (20 minutes?) during which nobody can issue them with a SAD again. This would make it pretty unusual for two characters to take advantage of, as they would have to spend hours at it. Of course, this does not preclude ten characters doing the same thing.
As I've stated before, SAD potentially needs some other costs associated with it. I just think limiting or inhibiting reputation is not the right cost.
There will be ways to game any system so not matter what the devs come up with for each of the archetypes, someone is going to work out how to max it out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I really think Reputation should only ever increase over time at a constant rate, just like XP gains. And I think there's a very good argument to be made that it should only increase while XP is increasing.
Yes, I've been having similar thoughts also. It's a shame though, because by the way GW are currently framing reputation, it really should increase with the archetypes 'playing their role'.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
At the very least, reputation should never be lost by playing a desired role properly.
For the bandit this means, through the use of issuing SAD demands and having them accepted. GW has never said that a merchant has any negative effect, he might otherwise suffered, by rejecting a reasonable SAD. Yet, the bandit gains nothing if that is the case. In my mind there is equal power in this exchange. Both parties can effect the outcome equally.
The merchant or harvester will gain reputation by completing contracts, or at least that is the most common suggestion. Also suggested, they can only lose reputation by failing to fulfill a contract. Obviously, a merchant is only going to take contracts that he is fairly certain he can fill.
This sounds awe fully familiar to me..... Bandits will only accost merchants they know they can beat
Merchants who lose reputation because if an unwise choice, may then skim through the list of contracts that they can fulfill instantly (already have materials needed), and thus grind their reputation.
That is a heck of a lot easier than finding a bunch of merchants a bandit can SAD, and ones that will accept the SAD offer.
The bottom line is this: There will be ways to work around every system. There will be grinding. If all that us accomplished is that the reputation system requires players to grind positive behaviors, than what exactly is the downside to that for GW?
They end up with players grinding positive behaviors!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I'd really appreciate it if anyone can point to an official statement where Ryan or one of the devs talks about Reputation measuring "how well you play your Role" that's not in the sense of "how much of a jerk you are".
It's in the same place where losing reputation equals being a jerk.
I think is is fair to say:
Not all reputation loss is the result of being a jerk, but most jerks will have low reputation.
Not all high reputation characters are played by non jerks, but most high reputation players are there because they don't play like jerks.
You can be low rep and not a jerk. You can be high rep and be a total jerk.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And I'd really appreciate it if anyone can point to an official statement where Ryan or one of the devs talks about Reputation measuring "how well you play your Role" that's not in the sense of "how much of a jerk you are".
Not sure if there is anything recently, but the old flag system definitely had characters gaining reputation when flying their associated role flags (and thus performing their role).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
On the other hand, maybe I am getting stuck in the traditional definition of Rep...something I am sure I will have to fight as long as I play PFO.
I've said it before that what the developers are currently calling 'reputation' should be renamed. I don't have a suggestion to hand what it should be called, but 'reputation' as is will lead to this confusion you feel in many, arguably most, players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And I'd really appreciate it if anyone can point to an official statement where Ryan or one of the devs talks about Reputation measuring "how well you play your Role" that's not in the sense of "how much of a jerk you are".Not sure if there is anything recently, but the old flag system definitely had characters gaining reputation when flying their associated role flags (and thus performing their role).
Didn't the flag system get scrapped?
And, wasn't the "price" of being flagged, that you were actually also flagged for PvP yourself?
And, as far as I remember, you would only get rep after having these flags up for a bit (1 hour or so)
Not scrapped, but their functionality has been, will be or may be moved to slotted skills.
Stephen Cheney had said that the SAD was moved to a skill and takes up a slot, which will allow them to do likewise with other Outlawry activities as well.
GW could very well do the same for Enforcing Laws ( Marshal) and for operating Caravans ( Bulk harvesting and Trade).
These roles can be supported with "carrots" and their proper use regulated with the "stick".
This is ultimately how I hope the three roles play out. Each has an associated skill to be trained. Those skills must be slotted for use. Those slotted skills must be toggled on. The toggled on skill acts as an opt in for PvP. The longer the toggled skill is in effect, the greater the skill buffs the characters gain, up to a maximum.
If you don't have the skill, you can't play the role. If you don't have it slotted, you can't play the role. If it is not toggled on, you can't play the role. If you have done all three, you are the role and take all risks and rewards associated with it.
All of the concerns over reputation gain or loss are eliminated in such a system, in my opinion. All three roles are a coequal part of the overall player generated economic system. Each has its benefits and restrictions, and checks and balances.
I will return later with some ideas that are more specific for each role.