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!
Be fair Bluddwolf, why should any innocent merchant going about their way suffer a negative outcome from an SAD they reject if they didn't want any part of in the first place? The bandit initiated it, it was the bandit's choice; if the merchant decides he'd like to keep hard earned booty, that's his prerogative. Why are people trying to paint the bandit as the victim? Let's remember, he's the victimizer.
I've played a murderer in the past, and I'm glad to know the option of murdering innocents will be allowed in Pathfinder Online as it adds an authenticity to the world; bona fide if you would. But, I'm also very glad that (as far as we know) not just any loony-toon out there will be able to successfully play one. It will (hopefully) be the "road less traveled" due to difficulty which I'm sure that's what Goblinworks is aiming at.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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'.
As to archetypes: stealing from other characters is a career choice, I believe. GWs has never listed Bandit or Robber or the like as an archetype or class/role.
As to how GW frames reputation: 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.
Stealing from other players is a shortcut to riches. It might be its own reward. It might have rep gain comparable to other PvP, it might have less. There's likely arguments for all of those.
|
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!
Be fair Bluddwolf, why should any innocent merchant going about their way suffer a negative outcome from an SAD they reject if they didn't want any part of in the first place? The bandit initiated it, it was the bandit's choice; if the merchant decides he'd like to keep hard earned booty, that's his prerogative. Why are people trying to paint the bandit as the victim? Let's remember, he's the victimizer.
I've played a murderer in the past, and I'm glad to know the option of...
Nevy,
You seem to be missing the point that GW is making. They are trying to steer players away from murder, by giving them other options such as SAD and the newer Delayed Death state.
They have not made the argument that they want banditry or combat to be the activities of a select few.
|
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.
One thing that could make round-robin SAD sessions a little more risky is if that Criminal flag were applied during a SAD.
Looking back at the Criminal flag - it stacks. So a basic criminal act applies one flag for 10 minutes. Another criminal act within that time applies a second flag and adds 10 minutes, etc. So a bandit declaring a serial SADs against his 5 alts might gain multiple criminal flags.
(I'd prefer that a SAD couldn't be used against someone who sees the SADer as hostile already. So you couldn't SAD a feud enemy, or a faction enemy. And if you're flagged as a criminal from one SAD you'd need to wait until it expires before issuing another SAD.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
(I'd prefer that a SAD couldn't be used against someone who sees the SADer as hostile already. So you couldn't SAD a feud enemy, or a faction enemy. And if you're flagged as a criminal from one SAD you'd need to wait until it expires before issuing another SAD.)
As a bandit I don't think I should be denied the ability to show mercy, even to a feud, faction or war target. I'm just hard pressed against my greedy nature to choose that option, other than to argue I should still have it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm mostly thinking that if someone already has a reason to attack my character, any SAD demand I open (but never complete) will be deliberate spam to mess with their UI or their ability to maneuver as my side closes for combat.
This is why I wouldn't bother issuing a SAD demand to a target I can freely ambush and presumably defeat. I don't need to haggle 75% loot guaranteed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Nevy
You keep on bringing up "innocents". In my view there are no innocents in an Open World PvP Sandbox MMO. Everyone plays a role in the overall rivalry / conflict.
Different definitions of "innocent". That is simply:
in·no·cent adjective \ˈi-nə-sənt\
: not guilty of a crime or other wrong act
: not deserving to be harmed
: lacking experience with the world and the bad things that happen in life
The bold is probably what Nevy means. The italicized is a matter of perspective. The third probably will not apply (for long) in a MMO like this.
I do agree that no one should expect "immunity" from aggression.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ Nevy
You keep on bringing up "innocents". In my view there are no innocents in an Open World PvP Sandbox MMO. Everyone plays a role in the overall rivalry / conflict.
We can agree to disagree then. However, how you can say that a "blue" merchant that gets attacked (or SADed) by a bandit and/or murderer whilst moving his caravan (that he spent hours of his time gathering resources for) towards town to deposit his booty is not considered innocent is definitely beyond me. In fact, I think it's your thought process that's flawed and keeps you coming back with these illogical request. A bandit (like a murderer) is not a victim, he is a victimizer. He's going the easy route by taking someone else's items without doing the work - if you're going to go the way of less work, it absolutely should not be easy.
There doesn't need to be semantics involved when I say the word "innocent" as my meaning is clear to the average person. You decided to voluntarily interact with the merchant in a hostile way so you should be treated as a hostile, this isn't some highly complicated equation.
|
I just wanted to bring this forward for discussion's sake, but the definition of innocent as stated above (not guilty of a crime or other wrong act and lacking experience with the world and the bad things that happen in life) can only seem to apply to a newborn baby, and not any of the people we are playing with.
Also, as reputation has been defined many times, bandits attacking large groups or that form their own settlement should be on the high side of reputation, whereas those that attack single enemies, harass the same player multiple times, or detract from others' gameplay should be on the low.
In other words, if a bandit wants a high rep, they should need to form a larger party and start feuds with nearby settlements that notify them that their members may be attacked on the roads. This only involves a minor loss of the element of surprise. Bandits acting on their own or attacking groups without these feuds would lose reputation.
So, then the point of a SAD is? To make solo bandits less capable of losing reputation? To offer bandits not working with the settlement/feud structure a chance to attempt a similar act without worrying as much about their reputation?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Kios, one function a SAD mechanism does provide is that people who might opt out of feuds and wars by not belonging to a company or player-controlled settlement are still vulnerable to SADs. People shouldn't be allowed to opt totally out of PvP, so having something less costly to the attacker (in Rep) than simple murder is probably a good thing.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 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.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.
That's impressive. My estimate of what would be fair is 75%- the amount of stuff that the bandit would get for taking their other main course of action, attacking and killing. That's the breakpoint that makes the SAD strictly better than attacking outright.
Although allowing the bandit to set that amount lower prior to making the demand is probably a good idea- it's possible that enough merchants will outright refuse and subsequently escape from a maximum demand to make a lower demand more profitable.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
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 gainThe 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.
That's a degenerate condition, and a loophole that needs closing. My suggestion would be to cancel the rep gain and maybe apply a rep loss to the person who took 'protection payments' and then failed to protect the target, as well as apply the double reputation penalty to the second group of bandits.
That is also manipulable, but less so. Further patches can cover situations as they start to exist.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are those bold parts contradictory on purpose?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.
It was a typo, I didn't proof read well enough, my fault. the 2nd part should read "I stop you/(r) caravan and issue a SAD. I am flagged as hostile and an open target to everyone nearby." Again, just a typo, but thanx for the catch.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's impressive. My estimate of what would be fair is 75%- the amount of stuff that the bandit would get for taking their other main course of action, attacking and killing. That's the breakpoint that makes the SAD strictly better than attacking outright.
Although allowing the bandit to set that amount lower prior to making the demand is probably a good idea- it's possible that enough merchants will outright refuse and subsequently escape from a maximum demand to make a lower demand more profitable.
This is what the UNC, including myself, have been saying for months. Although we recognize that a SAD demand found also be used to encourage it being declined, by far our more common practice would be to made sad offers palatable enough that they woukd be accepted more often than not.
I have always operated under the assumption that a SAD interaction woukd take less time than an actual ambush and combat. If this proves to be correct, we could rely more so on SADs than on killing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It was a typo, I didn't proof read well enough, my fault. the 2nd part should read "I stop you/(r) caravan and issue a SAD. I am flagged as hostile and an open target to everyone nearby." Again, just a typo, but thanx for the catch.Are those bold parts contradictory on purpose?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.
As far as I understand it a SAD gives the bandit an option to "try" and not get a reputation hit. If someone refuses your SAD you then have to make the choice if you want to risk a rep hit, the merchant should not be hostile to you if they reject your SAD. This gives a bandit the option to get loot without a reputation hit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Another rewording of at least 2 of bludd's post into 1 clear idea, which is UNC policy BTW, why SAD if we want the full 75% (plus the rep and alignment hit, but there will be times it is worth it) but if we go through the trouble of SADing, our goal is for it to be accepted, so max of 25% is our policy. 10-15% is more likely.
We don't speak for anyone else out there who wishes to use SAD as they see fit, bludd and I (and any other UNC that post here) only speak for ourselves and the UNC. If we SAD you, it is because
1) we are trying to gain and maintain a positive and higher rep,
2) we want to show mercy instead of just out right killing and looting all that we want from you, and
3) We want to ensure merchants and other travelers continue to transport their goods from town to town and make profits, as it provides us with a continual source of content and goods for ourselves.
When people use the term "innocent" above, I want to believe that they are referring to the "has not commited a crime" version as that is most likely the case in the target of a UNC SAD. After all, if your already flagged, we won't lose rep and might decide to ambush and take all 75% anyway. However, if you are "Innocent" and just coming back from working the harvest node and just carrying your day's work back to town, SAD will be a primary go to ability.
Yes we are taking the "short cut" and not putting in the "work" needed to harvest the goods ourselves, however consider this. There is still work on our part. We have to find you, we have to provide incentive for you to accept the SAD (usually in the form of having a large group confront you.) And we have to haul it back to our hideout or settlement. That means our own wagons, unless we steal one of yours as part of the SAD (No word on this yet, but an idea) and having more people online and organized than you have. The finding you part, sure we could sit around in our hide out and wait for someone to happen by, and we will do that from time to time, but if we do it in the same place too often, we attract attention and travelers will avoid it, lowering our inflow of "customers." (Couldn't help it, sorry) So we will have to move, and often.
The point is, there will be work on the side of the bandit that is required to remain successful, where a good solid setup for a harvester or merchant can potentially use the same roads and the same guards all the time. People seam to not think about this. Or at least not mention it here.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As far as I understand it a SAD gives the bandit an option to "try" and not get a reputation hit. If someone refuses your SAD you then have to make the choice if you want to risk a rep hit, the merchant should not be hostile to you if they reject your SAD. This gives a bandit the option to get loot without a reputation hit.It was a typo, I didn't proof read well enough, my fault. the 2nd part should read "I stop you/(r) caravan and issue a SAD. I am flagged as hostile and an open target to everyone nearby." Again, just a typo, but thanx for the catch.Are those bold parts contradictory on purpose?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.
The issue I have with this is that if you know your choices are this.
A) you accept the SAD and the bandit gains rep, or
B) you decline and the Bandit might attack you, but at a loss of rep
Then why on earth would you accept and willing give rep to bandits and why would the bandit not just ambush since they will lose rep anyway? The ambush gives them surprise, which COULD mean the difference between winning and losing in a battle.
Bandit point of view:
A) SAD and have a chance at x% of loot and rep IF the merchant accepts, or
B) Ambush and take the rep hit (that you would have gotten anyway if they declined) and guarantee (If you win) 75% of the loot?
Which would you choose as a bandit? Try putting yourself in our shoes. Pretend for a moment that you want to live as a highway robber and SAD people. Honestly, look at it. Which would you choose?
My counter offer is to keep the rep gain on a successful SAD, but make it no penalty to rep at all if declined, weather the bandits attack or not. This way, you have 3 options. (Bandit POV)
A) SAD accepted and we gain %loot and rep
B) SAD rejected and we fight, no rep change, but potentially (If we win) gain 75% loot
C) we ambush, take the rep hit and (if we win) gain 75% loot.
Now each choice is unique and carries it's own perks and downsides.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Just to clarify, I am fairly certain the original system only prevented the same person(/party) from SAD'ing within x amount of time, not any person.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you kill a unflagged, blue (innocent) player the consequence should be a severely-high reputation hit and of course a flag of some kind (murderer, attacker, hostile, whatever). If you SAD a person and they refuse the bandit should still be flagged but his/her reputation hit much less severe, hence the reason of giving the SAD a try before simply attacking the merchant. Someone said above (I'm too lazy to go back and find the exact quote) that if there were no consequences to issuing a SAD players would probably keep spamming the merchant over and over with SAD requests. This could be rectified by putting a refresh timer on the SAD request (and not hitting the SAD issuer with a rep hit, but still giving him the hostile flag). Is that something that you'd find acceptable?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My counter offer is to keep the rep gain on a successful SAD, but make it no penalty to rep at all if declined, weather the bandits attack or not. This way, you have 3 options. (Bandit POV)
A) SAD accepted and we gain %loot and rep
B) SAD rejected and we fight, no rep change, but potentially (If we win) gain 75% loot
C) we ambush, take the rep hit and (if we win) gain 75% loot.
Now each choice is unique and carries it's own perks and downsides.
Let's be honest. The bandit always is the one that chooses whether or not there is an encounter. The vast, vast majority of SADs are going to take place when the bandits will dominate the encounter:
A) SAD accepted and we gain %loot and rep
B1) 95+% of the time: SAD rejected and we fight, easily killing our target, no rep change, gain 75% loot
B2) ~5% of the time: SAD rejected and we fight, no rep change, but target escapes or kills bandit
C) we ambush, take the rep hit and (if we win) gain 75% loot.
What's the difference between B1 and C? By using the SAD, the bandit kills his target with no rep loss and gets the same loot. He picked a target he could beat, either way.
---
Now... If we want to really consider the risk the bandit faces, maybe the total XP of the bandit party and the target party should be compared. If the bandit party has twice the target party's XP total, they get some outcome for success, some outcome for failure. Another set of outcomes when the bandits have 4x the XP, 8x the XP, etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
At the very least, reputation should never be lost by playing a desired role properly.
I agree with that, certainly.
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.
I don't think the Merchant should ever be in a position to lose Reputation. If the Merchant refuses a "reasonable" SAD, then the Bandit gains the ability to attack and kill him without losing Reputation. That seems like enough.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
At the very least, reputation should never be lost by playing a desired role properly.I agree with that, certainly.
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.I don't think the Merchant should ever be in a position to lose Reputation. If the Merchant refuses a "reasonable" SAD, then the Bandit gains the ability to attack and kill him without losing Reputation. That seems like enough.
I don't think that should be the case. There is no "reasonable" amount of thievery and the bandit definitely shouldn't be able to kill a merchant without any reputation loss if a SAD is refused. That's just my opinion. Again, bandits are not victims they are victimizers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think that should be the case. There is no "reasonable" amount of thievery and the bandit definitely shouldn't be able to kill a merchant without any reputation loss if a SAD is refused. That's just my opinion. Again, bandits are not victims they are victimizers.At the very least, reputation should never be lost by playing a desired role properly.I agree with that, certainly.
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.I don't think the Merchant should ever be in a position to lose Reputation. If the Merchant refuses a "reasonable" SAD, then the Bandit gains the ability to attack and kill him without losing Reputation. That seems like enough.
I think that is the nature of the system we believe will be "the SAD" that bothers me. If you think about it, through faction, feud or war, you can kill and loot people without reputation loss. No one is grumbling about that. At least it is more generally accepted now. ;)
We seem to all believe that SAD will be a skill that must be earned and trained, then slotted to use. None of our community's avowed bandits seem to have any problem with a "Marshal mechanic" with some similar costs and different yet roughly equal powers. That is fair, I suppose.
I just don't believe, even despite different opinions among us here, that GW will design a SAD skill that is ridiculous in either direction. They are not going to wreck their game if they can help it. They have many smart and careful people on their team.
|
|
Again, just advocating for the other side (I have no intention of being a bandit or a merchant very often) but merchant trade between large settlements and their outlying small settlements will mean that merchants control price point of items, where they are available, and when they are available. Intentionally withholding large amounts of certain valuable commodities to raise the price in various locations will be the norm. Since the nodes to obtain these commodities will be owned, this will drive normal players who are not good at playing the market towards banditry.
In this light, bandits are the victims or even freedom fighters if they release the withheld valuable commodities back into the market at a lower rate.
It's all about your point of view.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Again, just advocating for the other side (I have no intention of being a bandit or a merchant very often) but merchant trade between large settlements and their outlying small settlements will mean that merchants control price point of items, where they are available, and when they are available. Intentionally withholding large amounts of certain valuable commodities to raise the price in various locations will be the norm. Since the nodes to obtain these commodities will be owned, this will drive normal players who are not good at playing the market towards banditry.
In this light, bandits are the victims or even freedom fighters if they release the withheld valuable commodities back into the market at a lower rate.
It's all about your point of view.
I would agree with your point if there were few merchants and they always worked together. Competition for coin is always the great market equalizer.
|
|
I would agree with your point if there were few merchants and they always worked together. Competition for coin is always the great market equalizer.Again, just advocating for the other side (I have no intention of being a bandit or a merchant very often) but merchant trade between large settlements and their outlying small settlements will mean that merchants control price point of items, where they are available, and when they are available. Intentionally withholding large amounts of certain valuable commodities to raise the price in various locations will be the norm. Since the nodes to obtain these commodities will be owned, this will drive normal players who are not good at playing the market towards banditry.
In this light, bandits are the victims or even freedom fighters if they release the withheld valuable commodities back into the market at a lower rate.
It's all about your point of view.
Well, yes, I suppose in reality. I mean, the current global economy certainly shows all countries and peoples and having an equal footing when it comes to availability and prices of goods and services. That's why there is never any conflict.
Edit: I apologize, that was hostile. I'm also a guy that thinks Monks should not only not have to be lawful, but that they should not be, and be forced to be along the NG and NE line. Chaos breeds ideas and knowledge in times where order leads to stagnation. A monk has a structured way of life, but also seeks out adventure and new experiences. Enlightenment, then, would seem to spring from their balance of the two. To me, this does not sound like a lawful character.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would agree with your point if there were few merchants and they always worked together. Competition for coin is always the great market equalizer.Again, just advocating for the other side (I have no intention of being a bandit or a merchant very often) but merchant trade between large settlements and their outlying small settlements will mean that merchants control price point of items, where they are available, and when they are available. Intentionally withholding large amounts of certain valuable commodities to raise the price in various locations will be the norm. Since the nodes to obtain these commodities will be owned, this will drive normal players who are not good at playing the market towards banditry.
In this light, bandits are the victims or even freedom fighters if they release the withheld valuable commodities back into the market at a lower rate.
It's all about your point of view.
Well, yes, I suppose in reality. I mean, the current global economy certainly shows all countries and peoples and having an equal footing when it comes to availability and prices of goods and services. That's why there is never any conflict.
Edit: I apologize, that was hostile. I'm also a guy that thinks Monks should not only not have to be lawful, but that they should not be, and be forced to be along the NG and NE line. Chaos breeds ideas and knowledge in times where order leads to stagnation. A monk has a structured way of life, but also seeks out adventure and new experiences. Enlightenment, then, would seem to spring from their balance of the two. To me, this does not sound like a lawful character.
I took no offence. I just did not want to help derail the thread further.
This time. ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I thought they changed the 75% loot drop/destruction to 25% a while ago. Did they change it back to 75%?
No that is still the same as far as we have been told.
Death = 25 % of unthreaded gear and inventory destroyed; 75 % is loot able; and Threaded gear will take durability damage.
Interestingly enough, and I think I'm the only one to have brought it up, there us the possibility that the damage done to the threaded gear could cost more than the value of the unthreaded and inventory items combined.
I brought this up when discussing an instance where a player might be willing to pay a 100% SAD.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the same thoughts from a different angle: Consider that the bandit as currently discussed has a large amount of authority to decide which fights he enters and which he does not. The result of that is that when a group trying to engage bandits happens across them, the bandits will not choose to engage. I feel that making the bandit hunters have to take a Reputation hit to engage the bandits is inappropriate (for exactly the same reasons as making the bandits take a Reputation hit to engage the merchants).
I think this issue was the one that the Outlaw flag was intended to combat; bandits while expecting to engage in banditry would be fair game for characters who declared themselves to be hunting Outlaws (and thus fair game for Outlaws in turn).
In short, when a bandit has the ability to issue a SAD, there should be some way for a character who wants to hunt bandits to engage them without reputation penalty (and possibly with a bonus).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd prefer the Criminal flag after a SAD, perhaps 2x Criminal flag for a SAD that ends in a death, maybe 3x Criminal flag for a non-SAD killing of unflagged. But maybe just slotting the SAD skill makes one hostile to others, and maybe (whatever enforcers are called) get a bonus against them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is exactly the point I was trying to make with the generic system. How does one define a role in a classless system? What if I want to go be a bandit in TEOs area...and a bandit hunter in my own...and a merchant tomorrow? How is my Rep suppose to reflect how well I play three opposing roles?
To me, the only way we are going to design a system that is logical is to simply define the behaviours that are less than desirable, have those decrease Rep appropriately. If a theft mechanic is included in the game, anyone (who has trained it) can use it in any "role", but it should never be a positive thing. I think there are outcomes that should be less negative. Stealing a random 25% of someones stuff is less negative than stealing 75%, destroying the other 25% and killing them. Therefore, it should be less of a Rep hit. A "pure bandit" will then never be high Rep, but they can be "not low Rep" by balancing their theft use against their Rep gain (however it is gained).
EDIT: To clarify, Rep can only measure the success of a person in a role if they have set - prechosen roles.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So assuming everyone was doing something:
Would it be good for the game if x (a large percentage of the population) participated in faction PvP?
If so, it should increase Rep...if successful or not.
If not, it should decrease Rep...if successful or not.
Would it be good for the game if x (a large percentage of the population) participated in thievery?
If so, it should increase Rep...if successful or not.
If not, it should decrease Rep...if successful or not.
I personally would say yes to the first, no to the second. On the other hand, I can see nuances. For instance, I would condone x (a large percentage of the population) practicing faction warfare through thievery.
As such, why not just make thievery a standard PvP action with the standard PvP repercussions? Costs rep when used outside faction warfare (or other encouraged forms of PvP), awards Rep when used as part of encouraged PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Or, perhaps, its a measure of how much that undesirable behavior would have an affect on the society you are a part of.
Should being a bandit in an enemy settlement's territory be better for rep than in your own or neutral territory?
I intended my reference to "faction warfare" to include both NPC and Player factions/settlements, so I personally think so...otherwise it is just like RPK, but RPSAD (which I agree should have less of a Rep hit than RPKing...but is still random PvP).
Nuances aside, either Random PvP, including RPK, is a good thing or it is not.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Or, perhaps, its a measure of how much that undesirable behavior would have an affect on the society you are a part of.
Should being a bandit in an enemy settlement's territory be better for rep than in your own or neutral territory?
I don't think you'd SAD an enemy of war as you could just kill him without fear of reputation loss. But if the "enemy settlement" isn't seen that way by the game (IE you don't have an active feud or war) then it would be treated the same way as normal banditry, obviously.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Very good point, Decius. Bandit-Hunter should be just as viable a Role in PFO as is Bandit.
Agreed... This I believe will be where the Marshal will come in. There is also Bounty hunting, which can be conducted anywhere and at any time, without reputation loss.
Methods of Protection and Retaliation to be used against bandits:
1. Train Combat Skills yourself and fight back
2. Hire Guards (PCs) to protect you
3. Hire a Bounty Hunter to punish those that victimized you
4. Hire an Assassin to punish those that victimized you
5. Take out a Death Curse to punish those that victimized you
6. Wage a Feud against the company of the bandit
7. Wage a war against the settlement that harbors the bandits
8. Hire a Mercenary Company to Feud or Harass the Bandits
9. Seek out and destroy the bandit's hideouts, outposts or POIs.
Then there is the Marshal System which we don't have any details on yet.
I don't get why some of you feel so helpless? There is a whole lot of things that you can do to prevent, defend and retaliate against a measly little SAD.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Very good point, Decius. Bandit-Hunter should be just as viable a Role in PFO as is Bandit.Agreed... This I believe will be where the Marshal will come in. There is also Bounty hunting, which can be conducted anywhere and at any time, without reputation loss.
Methods of Protection and Retaliation to be used against bandits:
1. Train Combat Skills yourself and fight back
2. Hire Guards (PCs) to protect you
3. Hire a Bounty Hunter to punish those that victimized you
4. Hire an Assassin to punish those that victimized you
5. Take out a Death Curse to punish those that victimized you
6. Wage a Feud against the company of the bandit
7. Wage a war against the settlement that harbors the bandits
8. Hire a Mercenary Company to Feud or Harass the Bandits
9. Seek out and destroy the bandit's hideouts, outposts or POIs.
Then there is the Marshal System which we don't have any details on yet.
I don't get why some of you feel so helpless? There is a whole lot of things that you can do to prevent, defend and retaliate against a measly little SAD.
You mistake our presentation of facts as being helpless. This is just how the game works (so far - but obviously could change at anytime). I'm a PvP player so I look forward to people trying and failing to successfully SAD me. It is players not as experienced in MMOs as I that these rules were established for, and rightly so.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't get why some of you feel so helpless? There is a whole lot of things that you can do to prevent, defend and retaliate against a measly little SAD.
Who feels helpless? I have not seen anyone suggest such.
EDIT: Personally, I am becoming convinced that what SAD adds is so "measly little" that it is not worth the bother. There is nothing here that cannot be done with the standard PvP mechanics and a chat box.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would add a social/PvP skill called frisk that allows the frisker (if allowed by the victim) to view (not take) the entire unthreaded inventory. That, in combination with standard PvP mechanics, would give me everything I would want as a bandit or guard.
Easy to implement, since it is voluntary on both sides there is no question of Rep gain/loss, no loot exchange, and very versatile in use. What happens at that point is up to the parties involved.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You mistake our presentation of facts
No one has "facts", not even the Devs. That is what this whole thread is about. Stephen Cheney has asked us to brain storm some ideas.
It has been stated previously by the Devs that issuing a SAD and it being accepted will lead to reputation gains for the bandits. That was the incentive.
Do you have a different idea for an incentive for the bandit to not just attack and kill?
One that is an incentive, not just "you will get punished if you do it that other way".
You also have to take into account, we are discussing a system based on the possibility that the reputation system will actually work the way they envision it. That is yet to be proven as well.