Goblin Squad Member
|
Anyone that is led to believe that their "sundae" will have certain perfect toppings, is unlikely to enjoy being told later that it won't. ;)
Which is why the Devs have told us so little and also why they are using the MVP approach. Promise nothing but bare bones, and develop more complexity along the way. That may prove to be the right way to go, then again, maybe it won't.
The only bare bones game I have played recently was Rust.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Anyone that is led to believe that their "sundae" will have certain perfect toppings, is unlikely to enjoy being told later that it won't. ;)Which is why the Devs have told us so little and also why they are using the MVP approach. Promise nothing but bare bones, and develop more complexity along the way. That may prove to be the right way to go, then again, maybe it won't.
The only bare bones game I have played recently was Rust.
I can agree with that. They are being pretty cautious and I can't blame them. Even if it is frustrating, it will be less disappointing.
Possibly.
Edit: As a contrast, there is this. There are lots of features detailed and maybe 1/10th the working capital that GW has. It looks interesting and I hope that they are successful, but it is a real stretch to see how they can get all of what they promise as fact in.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
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.
Which of those do you not have a plan to eliminate or drastically reduce the risk? 1 and 3 imply that you agree that while looking for targets, bandits should be a valid target for at least some other characters. 2 implies that anyone hired by a merchant should be able to engage any bandit that has the ability to offer a SAD. Was it your intention that the SAD should have to occur after defeating the guards in some manner?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.
In the I shot a man in Reno blog the devs state that the flags associated with outlaw, champion, assassin etc are for playing roles. Interestingly the also state they want other players to see the flags so they can be proactive in their defense. I wonder what that will translate to now that the long term flags have changed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is an interesting list of Bluddwolf's. Reading through, it's pretty clear that the bandit gets a huge advantage if they always have the initiative. Most options listed requires the potential target to spend coin, Influence, or DI to attack, and in many cases the player can only act after the bandit has attacked. Note that the bandit never needs to spend coin, Influence or DI for his attacks, so one wonders how balanced this could be.
The bandit's advantage in having the initiative in his attacks will likely dominate the early game if it remains in place. The design might need the bandit to be flagged as hostile well before using the SAD.
If it is desired for the bandit to have the initiative before attacking, it might be best tempered with a long flag after the attack, and no ability to log-out while the flag remains active.
|
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.)
I actually disagree with the part of your statement about now being able to SAD those already hostile to you. The reason being, SAD is the perfect tool to use as a blockade or interdiction during a siege/war. If you cannot use it against your enemy, you would have to use privateers, of which the enemy would soon just declare a feud against so they then in turn cannot SAD them.
I've no issue with anything else you said. Happy that there a bunch of time based flags/debuffs around SAD.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is an interesting list of Bluddwolf's. Reading through, it's pretty clear that the bandit gets a huge advantage if they always have the initiative. Most options listed requires the potential target to spend coin, Influence, or DI to attack, and in many cases the player can only act after the bandit has attacked. Note that the bandit never needs to spend coin, Influence or DI for his attacks, so one wonders how balanced this could be.
The bandit's advantage in having the initiative in his attacks will likely dominate the early game if it remains in place. The design might need the bandit to be flagged as hostile well before using the SAD.
If it is desired for the bandit to have the initiative before attacking, it might be best tempered with a long flag after the attack, and no ability to log-out while the flag remains active.
I think that many of us have been concerned about that all along. The agency is with the bandit. They issue the SAD and the possible resolutions are almost all in favor of the Bandido. No requirement of any warning signs. No agency of faction, feud or war. Paranoia preeminent. At least so far.
I have to doubt that such will prevail very long in practice.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.
How is reputation supposed to work in this instance, as any attack by bandits will result in reputation loss? Is that what you thinking should happen?
As I've stated before, because of the 'millions for defense and not a single copper for tribute' stance (which is perfectly legitimate) this will quite often mean bandits will use alpha strikes (sneak attacks) and not give up the advantage of surprise simply to use a chat window. If they're highly likely to get a reputation hit, then they may as well use superior PvP tactics to do it.
|
In early play, most of the areas will be NPC controlled settlements guarded by powerful NPC guards. We will be travelling on foot along many miles of woodland, rolling hills, etc. For bandits to be successful in finding a group of traveling individuals will be rare; rather, they will be making their own successes. It sounds like a hard role to me, so why should it be overly restricted instead of being rewarded for being played right?
If bandits are only hindered in their play, they will indeed be a ruthless lot, relying on ambush tactics and using multiple small groups to hit and run on large caravans instead of just taking a small portion from the merchants or being made to guard caravans through their territory.
I am worried about going too far on either side of this, but something more advanced than kill and we won't like you does need to be in place.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is an interesting list of Bluddwolf's. Reading through, it's pretty clear that the bandit gets a huge advantage if they always have the initiative. Most options listed requires the potential target to spend coin, Influence, or DI to attack, and in many cases the player can only act after the bandit has attacked. Note that the bandit never needs to spend coin, Influence or DI for his attacks, so one wonders how balanced this could be.
The bandit's advantage in having the initiative in his attacks will likely dominate the early game if it remains in place. The design might need the bandit to be flagged as hostile well before using the SAD.
If it is desired for the bandit to have the initiative before attacking, it might be best tempered with a long flag after the attack, and no ability to log-out while the flag remains active.
Interestingly, from the I shot a man in Reno blog there is this comment about long term flags (outlaw, enforcer etc...):
The point of these is to encourage players to announce their intent, such as Outlaws intending to rob people, so other players can act accordingly rather than players being unable to be proactive in their own defense.
This would strongly indicate to me that GW want bandits (and SADs) but also wants people to be able to react to them PRIOR to them issuing a SAD.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that if a character slots the SAD skill, they will be flagged as hostile.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In early play, most of the areas will be NPC controlled settlements guarded by powerful NPC guards. We will be travelling on foot along many miles of woodland, rolling hills, etc. For bandits to be successful in finding a group of traveling individuals will be rare; rather, they will be making their own successes. It sounds like a hard role to me, so why should it be overly restricted instead of being rewarded for being played right?
If bandits are only hindered in their play, they will indeed be a ruthless lot, relying on ambush tactics and using multiple small groups to hit and run on large caravans instead of just taking a small portion from the merchants or being made to guard caravans through their territory.
I am worried about going too far on either side of this, but something more advanced than kill and we won't like you does need to be in place.
Most of the information that we have seen indicates that the play area will be small and we will feel crowded for some time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That is an interesting list of Bluddwolf's. Reading through, it's pretty clear that the bandit gets a huge advantage if they always have the initiative. Most options listed requires the potential target to spend coin, Influence, or DI to attack, and in many cases the player can only act after the bandit has attacked. Note that the bandit never needs to spend coin, Influence or DI for his attacks, so one wonders how balanced this could be.
The bandit's advantage in having the initiative in his attacks will likely dominate the early game if it remains in place. The design might need the bandit to be flagged as hostile well before using the SAD.
If it is desired for the bandit to have the initiative before attacking, it might be best tempered with a long flag after the attack, and no ability to log-out while the flag remains active.
Interestingly, from the I shot a man in Reno blog there is this comment about long term flags (outlaw, enforcer etc...):
The point of these is to encourage players to announce their intent, such as Outlaws intending to rob people, so other players can act accordingly rather than players being unable to be proactive in their own defense.
This would strongly indicate to me that GW want bandits (and SADs) but also wants people to be able to react to them PRIOR to them issuing a SAD.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that if a character slots the SAD skill, they will be flagged as hostile.
Excellent find Mr. Jiminy!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.
How does "not losing rep" turn into "bandits are victims"?? I don't think I have ever heard anyone call bandits victims. This whole victim thing is baffleing me to no end. Bandits are the aggressors, this everyone agrees on. The issue that Bludd, myself, and a few others are trying to put out there is that if the SAD system results in Rep loss, even a lower amount, for the bandit, then why SAD when you could ambush and not deal with wasting time SADing? Using the "Carrot vs stick" concept, you want to use a smaller stick, and no carrot. The removal of the Rep loss for using SAD regardless of the outcome is very much a "Carrot" in my eyes, one that is needed to outweigh the pros of just ambushing and killing every target we see.
It seams to me like no matter who says it or how they say it, some of the posters here are just not seeing from the bandit perspective. Incentive (known as carrot) is needed for a mechanic to be desirable and used. Without an incentive, why bother? The incentive to use SAD is the negation of the Rep loss.
If you always loss rep, unless they accept the SAD, then I won't use it. Id rather take the hit and farm the rep elsewhere. at least that way I can use ambush tactics to their full strength. Just like if assassinating a target always resulted in loss of rep, then I won't be an assassin. It should be positive rep gain for fulfilling a contract. Banditry is the same thing, just a different role.
As a merchant, why would you play that role, if you don't make money? If you lost rep for selling goods, would you do it? If moving goods cost rep, but using a caravan cost less rep, would you even be a merchant? I wouldn't be. Bandits rob and kill people. we accept that killing is bad and to do so without flag/fued/ect incurs and rep hit, SAD allows us to rob from you, kill you if you decline, and not take the hit either way.
I really don't know how else to say it. I word it differently, I use other examples. Let me try this. Besides using the "Bandits are not victims" excuse (still don't know where that comes from) what is your argument for why SAD SHOULD lose rep if SAD is declined? And once you answer that, also answer why anyone would use it over just ambushing you? I find it easier to assume the role that you talking about. pretend to be a bandit and explain why you would SAD vs Ambushing using the SAD system you desire to be implemented. Everyone should do that. Bludd and I already have. Let me see if I can see it the way you do. Then maybe I will understand and we can move forward.
|
|
This seems to suggest a starting area of 134 square miles, with people traveling at normal walking speeds and 256 hexes, most of which will not be occupied. To you, that may seem small, but to me it seems a big place to have only the early edition players in.
Edit: Actually, much more mileage added to the initial estimate as you read further down.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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).
This would be where the bounty system comes into play. A bounty contract would allow anyway anywhere to attack and kill the person they have the bounty on. Like assassination contract except this is cheaper to the person putting it up and will be more frequent.
Bandit hunters would be better off working as guards for caravans and patrols wondering around well traveled roads and such. The reason I say this is because there is a big push to have the issuing of a SAD trigger the hostile flag, or even criminal flag, and that would allow bandit hunters to engage the bandits penalty free. But it is limited to a "right place right time" kinda of scenario. Since the flag will be up for a few mins after the deed, you could also just be close by and as long as our fast enough, you can engage them before the flag runs out.
They should not be able to just run around and attack bandits when ever they feel the need, only at or near the time of them performing their criminal acts. Otherwise they would be like any other person and rep/alignment hits apply.
What if a bandit is reformed, or trying to change his ways? Just because he WAS a bandit, doesn't mean he should be hunted for the rest of his life. The only way to tell the difference is to attack while they are flagged. If he is flagged, then he did something deserving of being attacked.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This seems to suggest a starting area of 134 square miles, with people traveling at normal walking speeds and 256 hexes, most of which will not be occupied. To you, that may seem small, but to me it seems a big place to have only the early edition players in.
There are a few things that make me think that it will be a sorta small starting area. Here is one:
In the beginning the world will be crowded. Especially at peak times. As we add more territory that crowding will slowly ease, but as we begin its more important that people are clustered and interacting often rather than walking for hours through empty spaces.
From here Not much context around it admittedly. There are more, such as hex size (slightly confused about that actual measurement) and others but I am lazy....
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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).
This would be where the bounty system comes into play. A bounty contract would allow anyway anywhere to attack and kill the person they have the bounty on. Like assassination contract except this is cheaper to the person putting it up and will be more frequent.
Bandit hunters would be better off working as guards for caravans and patrols wondering around well traveled roads and such. The reason I say this is because there is a big push to have the issuing of a SAD trigger the hostile flag, or even criminal flag, and that would allow bandit hunters to engage the bandits penalty free. But it is limited to a "right place right time" kinda of scenario. Since the flag will be up for a few mins after the deed, you could also just be close by and as long as our fast enough, you can engage them before the flag runs out.
They should not be able to just run around and attack bandits when ever they feel the need, only at or near the time of them performing their criminal acts. Otherwise they would be like any other person and...
This goes hand in hand with my post above. If a bandit has SAD slotted and they receive a flag, other characters that have trained appropriate skills (lets call them enforcers) should be able to engage them and get reputation bonuses.
If the bandits de-slot the SAD skill (after appropriate cooldowns), then they just become normal characters and not available for attack (without the usual penalties.
Like the old flagging system, bandits might need to slot the SAD skill for an hour prior to actually issuing a SAD and the cooldown might be until any criminal or hostile flags wear off.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
why SAD when you could ambush and not deal with wasting time SADing?
SAD will be most interesting when the Bandit group and Merchant group are within the same range of combat power.
So far we've only been considering the case when the Bandit is 95% or more sure that it is within his capabilities to defeat the Merchant in combat. In these cases, there is little incentive for the Bandit to use a SAD instead of just ambush and full loot.
However, once the Bandits and Merchants start engaging in the arms race of Merchants hiring guards vs Bandits roaming in larger groups, the scenario where neither side is confident in the outcome of a battle will be more common.
Consider: Group of 10 Bandits sees a caravan of 5 Merchants plus 8 Guards.
Are 5 more guards riding behind out of sight? Can the bandits quickly call in another raiding party of 10 more bandits? How well trained / equipped is each side? Are the 5 merchants completely lacking combat skills, or are 4 of them disguised mages?
Lets say Bandit leader evaluates the situation, and decides "I think we could take them out from ambush, but 5 out of the 10 of us would die, and if they have any hidden suprises, we might lose".
In this case, offering a 10% SAD with no other incentive might be perfectly reasonable. Now its up to the Merchants to make the same evaluation the Bandits did... is it worth giving up some coin to avoid a fight that could go either way?
I think SAD is more likely to be used when the disparity in combat power is not readily apparent, than it is in the 30 bandits vs lone merchant situation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
On a related note, I was thinking of ideas on how the Marshal or other Enforcer type can play a role in this Bandit - Merchant interaction.
Marshals need to have a skill that is trained, slotted and possibly toggled on.
This ability will have two functions and be applicable (separately) everywhere.
First a Marshal is issued a Jurisdiction Letter from the settlement where he received his training. It is assumed that that is also the settlement that he is also a citizen, but that may not be required. This Jurisdiction Letter will allow the Marshal to "Stop and Frisk" any suspicious character within the precincts of the settlement hex.
If the character stopped has any contraband (illegal to have in that settlement). The Marshal can confiscate 100% of it. If this is refused the Marshal can attack without consequence, because the character would be criminal flagged anyway. The Marshal would gain Lawful shift and Reputation for this activity in any case where contraband is found, and perhaps more so if handled non violently.
The Jurisdiction Letter can also be sold to Marshals that are not citizens of the settlement. It is up to the settlement management if they need or even want outsiders upholding their laws.
Jurisdiction Letters can be revoked by the issuing settlement if they choose to. Or they can be a contract with a set time limit, and may need to be reissued periodically (perhaps with exception to citizen Marshals).
The goal here is to allow the Marshal to have consequence free power to serve and protect his jurisdiction.
I will return later with a piece on my idea for outside of PC settlement hexes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On a related note, I was thinking of ideas on how the Marshal or other Enforcer type can play a role in this Bandit - Merchant interaction.
Marshals need to have a skill that is trained, slotted and possibly toggled on.
This ability will have two functions and be applicable (separately) everywhere.
First a Marshal is issued a Jurisdiction Letter from the settlement where he received his training. It is assumed that that is also the settlement that he is also a citizen, but that may not be required. This Jurisdiction Letter will allow the Marshal to "Stop and Frisk" any suspicious character within the precincts of the settlement hex.
If the character stopped has any contraband (illegal to have in that settlement). The Marshal can confiscate 100% of it. If this is refused the Marshal can attack without consequence, because the character would be criminal flagged anyway. The Marshal would gain Lawful shift and Reputation for this activity in any case where contraband is found, and perhaps more so if handled non violently.
The Jurisdiction Letter can also be sold to Marshals that are not citizens of the settlement. It is up to the settlement management if they need or even want outsiders upholding their laws.
Jurisdiction Letters can be revoked by the issuing settlement if they choose to. Or they can be a contract with a set time limit, and may need to be reissued periodically (perhaps with exception to citizen Marshals).
The goal here is to allow the Marshal to have consequence free power to serve and protect his jurisdiction.
I will return later with a piece on my idea for outside of PC settlement hexes.
Interesting but I see no need for it. Technically anyone can be a Marshall by attacking murderers, bandits and criminals that are flagged, no?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Exactly, roles were removed with flags...so every mechanic proposed has to be universal. What then defines a Marshal?
Why not have a bandit settlement in which everything is contraband?...And they can charge bandits for Jurisdiction Letters?
And then bandits can really be marshals?...err...Marshals can be bandits...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting but I see no need for it. Technically anyone can be a Marshall by attacking murderers, bandits and criminals that are flagged, no?On a related note, I was thinking of ideas on how the Marshal or other Enforcer type can play a role in this Bandit - Merchant interaction.
Marshals need to have a skill that is trained, slotted and possibly toggled on.
This ability will have two functions and be applicable (separately) everywhere.
First a Marshal is issued a Jurisdiction Letter from the settlement where he received his training. It is assumed that that is also the settlement that he is also a citizen, but that may not be required. This Jurisdiction Letter will allow the Marshal to "Stop and Frisk" any suspicious character within the precincts of the settlement hex.
If the character stopped has any contraband (illegal to have in that settlement). The Marshal can confiscate 100% of it. If this is refused the Marshal can attack without consequence, because the character would be criminal flagged anyway. The Marshal would gain Lawful shift and Reputation for this activity in any case where contraband is found, and perhaps more so if handled non violently.
The Jurisdiction Letter can also be sold to Marshals that are not citizens of the settlement. It is up to the settlement management if they need or even want outsiders upholding their laws.
Jurisdiction Letters can be revoked by the issuing settlement if they choose to. Or they can be a contract with a set time limit, and may need to be reissued periodically (perhaps with exception to citizen Marshals).
The goal here is to allow the Marshal to have consequence free power to serve and protect his jurisdiction.
I will return later with a piece on my idea for outside of PC settlement hexes.
Getting off topic here, but some where asking (myself included) for at least the power to exile/trespass/banish people from their settlement on sight because of suspicion and before they did any self flagging activity.
Some were asking (myself included) for the ability to "jump in" to a fight and help victims in the wilds where they have no agency due to flagging.
None of it will matter if slotting SAD and/or attacking unflagged makes the aggressor universally hostile. Except maybe the ability to kick people off of your lands in a preemptive fashion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I didn't bother reading most of this, but anyway
Bandits are supposed to have the initiative in a SAD. That is the point of ambushing. If they get spotted before the ambush occurs then the merchants have the initiative. No merchant is going to want to stay and fight. Sure you see a party of five and you have six guards and two drovers with you, but who knows if there is another party or three waiting nearby to surround you.
The "victim" doesn't need an initiative over the bandit, the victim needs retaliation abilities able to cope with the bandit's actions whilst keeping the SAD a viable option for the bandit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bandits are supposed to have the initiative in a SAD. That is the point of ambushing. If they get spotted before the ambush occurs then the merchants have the initiative. No merchant is going to want to stay and fight. Sure you see a party of five and you have six guards and two drovers with you, but who knows if there is another party or three waiting nearby to surround you.
Bolded that to highlight a question. Are you saying that if the target spots the character with SAD capabilities enabled before SAD is demanded, the target should be able to attack and kill the SAD user (without Rep loss)?
It's not a game where Bandit and Merchant and Guard are fixed character classes. When you say no merchant is going to stand and fight, you're implying that SAD can only be used against merchants, and that's hardly the case.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Bringslite
I have less of an issue with Marshals having skill based, slotted and activated abilities than I did with the exile mechanic that had no associated costs.
I am open to ideas on how they might also protect people outside of settlement control, however that may not be a lawful but rather a chaotic act.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
no. initiative is used here not in the technical game-mechanic sense but rather in the real life sense of you acting before another.
I'm saying if the person spots the other before the other spots the person then the person gets to choose first what course of action he/she takes. this is not to say X course is available to that person (killing without rep loss), just that the physical ability to choose a course of action before the "opponent" does is given to the person.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Bringslite
I have less of an issue with Marshals having skill based, slotted and activated abilities than I did with the exile mechanic that had no associated costs.
I am open to ideas on how they might also protect people outside of settlement control, however that may not be a lawful but rather a chaotic act.
That seems reasonable. I agree that the chaotic and lawful aspects would be up for debate in the wilds. I am not sure if GW is approaching alignment/reputation issues in a "universal" (fiat of the Gods/cosmos), rules of Man, or a mix of both.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bolded that to highlight a question. Are you saying that if the target spots the character with SAD capabilities enabled before SAD is demanded, the target should be able to attack and kill the SAD user (without Rep loss)?
Expanding on this thought:
Perhaps having SAD capability slotted does flag the robber and her party for attack, but they can use stealth (and available terrain) to remain hidden until a suitable target comes within range.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If someone with a Marshal skill slotted and toggled is traveling in the wilds, what should be their use of that skill?
I would say that if they stumble upon an active SAD, and they are not in anyway associated with the target of the SAD, once the SAD negotiation is over they can intervene.
I do not believe the Marshal should be able to interfere during the time that the negotiation window is actually open.
I don't believe that the outcome of the Marshal's action should have any impact on whether or not the SAD offer was accepted.
The bandits will obviously have the right to defend themselves without consequence against the Marshal.
If the original SAD target gets involved in the attack on the bandit, he would lose double reputation, the same if the bandit makes any attempt on him. The original SAD target can not aid the Marshal in anyway, if the SAD was accepted.
The toggled Marshal Ability is an Opt In PVP status. The longer it is toggled on, the greater its buffs are. It has different functions within a settlement hex where the Marshal has "Jurisdiction" as opposed to the wilds, where there are no PC or NPC settlement based laws.
AS I stated earlier, I think all three roles need to have supports that allow for those roles to be carried out without risk of reputation loss if conducted properly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If someone with a Marshal skill slotted and toggled is traveling in the wilds, what should be their use of that skill?
I would say that if they stumble upon an active SAD, and they are not in anyway associated with the target of the SAD, once the SAD negotiation is over they can intervene.
I do not believe the Marshal should be able to interfere during the time that the negotiation window is actually open.
I don't believe that the outcome of the Marshal's action should have any impact on whether or not the SAD offer was accepted.
The bandits will obviously have the right to defend themselves without consequence against the Marshal.
If the original SAD target gets involved in the attack on the bandit, he would lose double reputation, the same if the bandit makes any attempt on him. The original SAD target can not aid the Marshal in anyway, if the SAD was accepted.
The toggled Marshal Ability is an Opt In PVP status. The longer it is toggled on, the greater its buffs are. It has different functions within a settlement hex where the Marshal has "Jurisdiction" as opposed to the wilds, where there are no PC or NPC settlement based laws.
AS I stated earlier, I think all three roles need to have supports that allow for those roles to be carried out without risk of reputation loss if conducted properly.
I'm not sure that I agree that the bandit should expect any immunity from retaliation before, during, or after a SAD (by the target). The bandit did start the whole thing and I can see the target having the right to change their mind if/when help arrives.
We do need to see how "hostility" works best (according to GW) and I will "role" with what they decide.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not sure that I agree that the bandit should expect any immunity from retaliation before, during, or after a SAD (by the target). The bandit did start the whole thing and I can see the target having the right to change their mind if/when help arrives.
We do need to see how "hostility" works best (according to GW) and I will "role" with what they decide.
If we can not be reasonably sure that the merchant will honor his acceptance, SADs will be very rare indeed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the original SAD target gets involved in the attack on the bandit, he would lose double reputation, the same if the bandit makes any attempt on him. The original SAD target can not aid the Marshal in anyway, if the SAD was accepted.
That's brand spanking new. Are PFO bandits such fragile creatures they should be immune to attacks by their victims?
Here's one: If any character attacks a character that has SAD active, the attacker immediately dies of a brain hemorrhage and the SAD-wearer gets to loot their corpse.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we can not be reasonably sure that the merchant will honor his acceptance, SADs will be very rare indeed.
That may just be the result if the entire system is designed too far in favor of the victim. The same applies in the other direction.
I feel like you want the system to work well, but that you do not put much stock in it being fair or more would agree with you. It will not be the merchants that protect their cargo with guards that are the main targets. It will be those that take risks and lone toons. You are not the only character/Company that will use SAD.
There is just a difference in opinion about what would be fair. What is enough advantage for the bandit. What is too much advantage for the bandit. What the target should have as options, etc...
I won't say that I blame you for advocating for any advantage you can get. I am glad that you probably will not have the final say in the workings of the SAD, though. ;)
|
|
Slotting a skill in any PvP game is a huge cost. It means one less place an optimized attack ability could be.
I'm curious about how many would feel if we look at this from another perspective. Let's say a Lawful Evil settlement using slave labor to run their settlement is moving goods to another Evil settlement. A Neutral Good settlement that neighbors decides to intercept the caravan.
The "bandits" or what some in this case may call freedom fighters have the option to ambush or SAD this caravan. Which is easier and more beneficial to the cause?
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If someone with a Marshal skill slotted and toggled is traveling in the wilds, what should be their use of that skill?
I would say that if they stumble upon an active SAD, and they are not in anyway associated with the target of the SAD, once the SAD negotiation is over they can intervene.
I do not believe the Marshal should be able to interfere during the time that the negotiation window is actually open.
I don't believe that the outcome of the Marshal's action should have any impact on whether or not the SAD offer was accepted.
The bandits will obviously have the right to defend themselves without consequence against the Marshal.
If the original SAD target gets involved in the attack on the bandit, he would lose double reputation, the same if the bandit makes any attempt on him. The original SAD target can not aid the Marshal in anyway, if the SAD was accepted.
The toggled Marshal Ability is an Opt In PVP status. The longer it is toggled on, the greater its buffs are. It has different functions within a settlement hex where the Marshal has "Jurisdiction" as opposed to the wilds, where there are no PC or NPC settlement based laws.
AS I stated earlier, I think all three roles need to have supports that allow for those roles to be carried out without risk of reputation loss if conducted properly.
I don't think the bandit-hunting role should be limited to reactive actions at all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Slotting a skill in any PvP game is a huge cost. It means one less place an optimized attack ability could be.
We don't know what type of slot will be taken. I could see it taking an "utility" slot. It won't be taking a weapon slot, that's for sure. And perhaps only one character in a bandit party will need to slot the skill. In a game where groups are intended to be the standard, the optimization of a single character can be outweighed by group tactics. After all, piloting a Logistics ship in EVE means that you're giving up a lot of DPS potential. They're still piloted to great effect in larger fleets.
There's a lot of uncertainty in the system as it is currently in development. Arguing that slotting a skill is a huge cost (or arguing that it won't be) is a large assumption.