Goblin Squad Member
|
@Kios, he's referring to the different types of slots on our ability bar.
See A Three-Headed Hydra.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A Three-Headed Hydra explains action slots in the second half of the blog entry under "Actions and How You Take Them."
Edit: Nihimon'd!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ah, missed that one. Thanks Nihimon!
And...wow, that looks really complex. It's going to take a while to get used to using F keys for potions and utility skills. Not to mention reaching to the right side of the keyboard for a refresh (sounds like an ability that I'd normally slot 1 for myself)
Personally I use a programmable keypad to get around the awkward placement of ability slots. Plus even if GW doesn't have re-bindable keys in EE, eventually they will. It's practically required for MMOs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And still Bluddwolf claims that training and slotting a skill is a HUGE cost whereas running a settlement is free of ANY cost. Colour me unsurprised.
If the advantages of running a settlement are not enough for you, don't bother with it. It is actually very likely that the Marshal system will require a skill that is slotted.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But caravans (at least the ones I think we are talking about) aren't bandit hunting, and thus should be not able to "preemptively" engage the bandits before something even happens, if that makes sense. Now it could be that the "caravan" is actually under-cover marshals, which is fine, but that is not the case I have been speaking of.
I agree that people should actively hunt for bandits, but I feel like that should be based on specific abilities. Maybe a kind of in-depth flag system where bandits have a bandit flag, but are not immediately hostile-on-sight to merchants (until the SAD or attack or whatever) and their guards and others et al. but ARE hostile to people with the "Bandit-hunter" flag?
But this seems to be taking us on a tangent to the SAD, and I would suggest bringing it up in its own thread, "Bandit-Hunting" This is a thread for SAD mechanics, not "hunting" mechanics after all...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think the bandit-hunting role should be limited to reactive actions at all.Exactly.
It isn't limited to reactive actions. You can feud known bandit companies. You can actively search for their hideouts and loot and or destroy them.
I listed 8 or more actions you could take, and not all were reactive. Some were preventative, some reactive and a few proactive. The one thing they all were, was that they all required player action and or interaction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think the bandit-hunting role should be limited to reactive actions at all.Exactly.It isn't limited to reactive actions. You can feud known bandit companies. You can actively search for their hideouts and loot and or destroy them.
I listed 8 or more actions you could take, and not all were reactive. Some were preventative, some reactive and a few proactive. The one thing they all were, was that they all required player action and or interaction.
Most of that I can do just by playing a non-bandit character.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Most of that I can do just by playing a non-bandit character.I don't think the bandit-hunting role should be limited to reactive actions at all.Exactly.It isn't limited to reactive actions. You can feud known bandit companies. You can actively search for their hideouts and loot and or destroy them.
I listed 8 or more actions you could take, and not all were reactive. Some were preventative, some reactive and a few proactive. The one thing they all were, was that they all required player action and or interaction.
I am still confused about the difference between a bandit character and a non-bandit character. What about them will be different without flags?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am still confused about the difference between a bandit character and a non-bandit character. What about them will be different without flags?Most of that I can do just by playing a non-bandit character.I don't think the bandit-hunting role should be limited to reactive actions at all.Exactly.It isn't limited to reactive actions. You can feud known bandit companies. You can actively search for their hideouts and loot and or destroy them.
I listed 8 or more actions you could take, and not all were reactive. Some were preventative, some reactive and a few proactive. The one thing they all were, was that they all required player action and or interaction.
You guys make this too complicated and confuse yourselves. What I'm saying is I can hunt a bandit without being a "Marshall" because bandits get flagged when they do criminal behavior. When I said "non-bandit" I was trying to simply state: as an innocent (blue, unflagged) player I can hunt criminals (flagged players committing crimes, murders or SADs) without having to be a Marshall.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In hexes not "owned" there is no criminal behavior. If there is only a company owned POI, it may not be criminal (because having things as criminal but not being able to enforce will lead to increase of corruption index. This is not exactly part of GW concept, but a community (settlement or POI may start out neutral and move to lawful as it gains power and control to enforce its concept. If a new LG community must defend all of its precepts with minimal resources, corruption will destroy it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In hex is not "owned" there is no criminal behavior.
If there is only a company owned POI, it may not be criminal (because having things as criminal but not being able to enforce will lead to increase of corruption index.
This is not exactly part of GW concept, but a community (settlement or POI) may start out neutral and move to lawful as it gains power and control to enforce its concept.
If a new LG community must defend all of its precepts with minimal resources, corruption will destroy it.
EDIT] Massive changes
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You guys make this too complicated and confuse yourselves. What I'm saying is I can hunt a bandit without being a "Marshall" because bandits get flagged when they do criminal behavior. When I said "non-bandit" I was trying to simply state: as an innocent (blue, unflagged) player I can hunt criminals (flagged players committing crimes, murders or SADs) without having to be a Marshall.I am still confused about the difference between a bandit character and a non-bandit character. What about them will be different without flags?Most of that I can do just by playing a non-bandit character.I don't think the bandit-hunting role should be limited to reactive actions at all.Exactly.It isn't limited to reactive actions. You can feud known bandit companies. You can actively search for their hideouts and loot and or destroy them.
I listed 8 or more actions you could take, and not all were reactive. Some were preventative, some reactive and a few proactive. The one thing they all were, was that they all required player action and or interaction.
There seems to be so much confusion on the flagging system and what is really means to be "innocent." The first thing to consider is game designs are only so smart and just because a player is blue, or "innocent" in the game world doesn't mean the person behind that avatar is an angel; they just have yet to commit a crime. For example, Bluddwolf will enter the game as blue and be considered innocent by game standards until he decides to commit a crime (which we all know will be quite soon...naughty boy).
It is easier to understand when using colors (these are not official colors or flags used by Goblinworks, just another way to visualize the flagging system):
Blue - this is for an "innocent" or unflagged player. Attacking an unflagged, blue player will flag you as a criminal and cause reputation loss if you kill them.
Grey - This is a player who has recently committed a criminal act of some kind (murder, SAD, stealing, whatever). This player can be attacked freely (you will not get flagged as a "criminal") and without fear of reputation loss.
Red - This is an outlaw. He has killed many innocent, "blue" players and is permanently flagged (it is not yet known how long this "outlaw" or "murderer" flag lasts).
Rant off...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And still Bluddwolf claims that training and slotting a skill is a HUGE cost whereas running a settlement is free of ANY cost. Colour me unsurprised.If the advantages of running a settlement are not enough for you, don't bother with it. It is actually very likely that the Marshal system will require a skill that is slotted.
If the advantages of SADing aren't enough for you, don't train and slot it.
|
Which would bring us back to giving advantages to the SAD and Marshal skills (assuming Marshal has a skill)
Are the advantages and disadvantages proposed enough to make ambushing and killing a bad decision and SADing a good one? If it will be slotted as a skill, will it be a used skill, or a passive one that allows that bonus? If used, how will it work, and what are the positives and negatives of it being used from the merchants', bandits', and marshals' point of view?
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I don't think the bandit-hunting role should be limited to reactive actions at all.Exactly.It isn't limited to reactive actions. You can feud known bandit companies. You can actively search for their hideouts and loot and or destroy them.
I listed 8 or more actions you could take, and not all were reactive. Some were preventative, some reactive and a few proactive. The one thing they all were, was that they all required player action and or interaction.
Or you can just flag as Bandit Hunter and go out and hunt bandits. It's not like they will have even the minimal protection provided by the reputation system during the time when they are looking for targets that aren't a threat to them.
|
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.
What I would like to see is the bandit slotting SAD and being flagged as criminal. Other characters can have other skills slotted (marshal, enforcer...) that allows them to engage criminals anywhere (even the wilderness). Additionally, anyone can engage criminals in areas that specifically create laws that allow such attacks (that is, settlements).
In this way, bandits that slot SAD are at risk from other characters that specialize in such roles, and everyone in more populate and lawful areas. Bandits will have to get smarter in how the operate in some areas. They will have to keep outriders alert, use stealth, use force of numbers to discourage attacks etc...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or you can just flag as Bandit Hunter and go out and hunt bandits.
So you are suggesting GW develop special mechanics (realized as special skills) for every "role" separate from archetypes, that they feel is important to the game? And, would you suggest the selection and ordering of which roles are "important" should be done via crowdforging?
Why do you feel this is a better solution than developing generic mechanics/skills that can then be used by those who define their own role by simply doing? For instance, bandits would be bandits not because of their slotted skills but because of their actions alone.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Or you can just flag as Bandit Hunter and go out and hunt bandits.So you are suggesting GW develop special mechanics (realized as special skills) for every "role" separate from archetypes, that they feel is important to the game? And, would you suggest the selection and ordering of which roles are "important" should be done via crowdforging?
Why do you feel this is a better solution than developing generic mechanics/skills that can then be used by those who define their own role by simply doing? For instance, bandits would be bandits not because of their slotted skills but because of their actions alone.
The problem with just doing and not having specific mechanics in place (for SAD anyway) is that the use of chat windows in lieu of a SAD trade window will quite likely just lead to the victim rejecting the attempt. The reason being, they know that any attacks by the bandits will lead to reputation loss, and over time, this will destroy the bandit character by potentially opening them up to attacks and likely not allowing them into settlements to train other skills.
It will also mean 'bandits' are not flagged as such (until their reputation plummets) and other characters will not be able to take a proactive approach to countering them. They need to wait until the bandit attacks someone and gets the hostile flag. Conversely though, if some merchant actually accepts the 'chat window' offer of trade, the anti-bandits have no recourse either, as no criminal or hostile flags will be issued.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or you can just flag as Bandit Hunter and go out and hunt bandits.So you are suggesting GW develop special mechanics (realized as special skills) for every "role" separate from archetypes, that they feel is important to the game? And, would you suggest the selection and ordering of which roles are "important" should be done via crowdforging?
Why do you feel this is a better solution than developing generic mechanics/skills that can then be used by those who define their own role by simply doing? For instance, bandits would be bandits not because of their slotted skills but because of their actions alone.
Every time it comes to light that a desired niche is opposed by an existing mechanic, some correction should come into existence.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The problem with just doing and not having specific mechanics in place (for SAD anyway) is that the use of chat windows in lieu of a SAD trade window will quite likely just lead to the victim rejecting the attempt. The reason being, they know that any attacks by the bandits will lead to reputation loss, and over time, this will destroy the bandit character by potentially opening them up to attacks and likely not allowing them into settlements to train other skills.
It will also mean 'bandits' are not flagged as such (until their reputation plummets) and other characters will not be able to take a proactive approach to countering them. They need to wait until the bandit attacks someone and gets the hostile flag. Conversely though, if some merchant actually accepts the 'chat window' offer of trade, the anti-bandits have no recourse either, as no criminal or hostile flags will be issued.
Not if bandits target enemies.
In fact, if bandits are their own faction, that solves many issues. It solves Bluddwolf's objection to bandits feeding on other bandits as well as the concern others have about the inability to step in and assist those being attacked by bandits.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In fact, if bandits are their own faction, that solves many issues. It solves Bluddwolf's objection to bandits feeding on other bandits as well as the concern others have about the inability to step in and assist those being attacked by bandits.
I agree, making all three roles faction based and creating enough incentive for them to rise up in level, does solve many of the issues. It would essentially PvP flag the natural conflict between Bandit, Merchant and Enforcer.
I would bet my last dollar that the merchant players would not level themselves to the point of opening themselves up for faction based PvP.
Btw, I never said I had a problem with bandit vs. bandit predation. I fully expect that to happen, and it would probably lead to territorial disputes in so e cases and in others mergers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure factions are another solution. You could have SAD being a skill or ability available through faction. You could have the skill or ability to spot "SAD bandits" in an opposing faction.
When the SAD ability is "active" the opposing faction could be able to recognize or spot it if their ability is slotted and active. A whole class/role of guards for hire that are preferred or first choice.
I don't know about anyone else, but if I were to choose to role as a guard for people in the wilds, I would want the option to be active rather than have my only choice be always reactive. I would be willing to have to faction, train, and slot/activate the skill. That could extend to settlement patrol and "stranger management" as well.
People that plan to protect others against aggression should have the chance to be proactive without having to attack or chase off every stranger that they see. The only way that they can do that is if they can recognize people of hostile intent some of the time, before the hostiles can close.
This starts to get messy when you consider different factions amongst different adhoc caravans/parties/companies. Who is "hostile" to whom? Under what conditions, etc...
Can't wait to see that sorted out. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not sold on faction based PvP. Is it always on, or only when slotting some skill or flying some flag? If always on, it very well could just turn into red v blue v green. I would prefer a more nuanced interaction where you're not sure who is what or who you can trust with absolute certainty.
It would solve the problems people are raising, but I honestly think it would give a more shallow character/player interaction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Bringslite
My understanding is that once you rise to the faction level of 4+, you can freely attack your faction rivals that are also level 4+.
If there are factions for Enforcers, Bandits and Merchants, that will clear up all of these issues. I would suggest that significant advantages be attached to joining these factions, and that the level that opens up PvP be reduced to a lower level.
Merchants can not use caravans unless in faction.
Bandits can not use SAD unless in faction.
Enforcers can not have Marshal skills unless in faction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Bringslite
My understanding is that once you rise to the faction level of 4+, you can freely attack your faction rivals that are also level 4+.
If there are factions for Enforcers, Bandits and Merchants, that will clear up all of these issues. I would suggest that significant advantages be attached to joining these factions, and that the level that opens up PvP be reduced to a lower level.
Merchants can not use caravans unless in faction.
Bandits can not use SAD unless in faction.
Enforcers can not have Marshal skills unless in faction.
The only group gaining anything from the faction system you proposed is bandits (surprise). Bandits can already be hunted when they perform a criminal act and become flagged; merchants can already use a caravan and I can assure you they don't want to opt-in to allow bandits to attack them freely. They are merchants for a reason.
There is no need for factions in my opinion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Bringslite
My understanding is that once you rise to the faction level of 4+, you can freely attack your faction rivals that are also level 4+.
If there are factions for Enforcers, Bandits and Merchants, that will clear up all of these issues. I would suggest that significant advantages be attached to joining these factions, and that the level that opens up PvP be reduced to a lower level.
Merchants can not use caravans unless in faction.
Bandits can not use SAD unless in faction.
Enforcers can not have Marshal skills unless in faction.
The only group gaining anything from the faction system you proposed is bandits (surprise). Bandits can already be hunted when they perform a criminal act and become flagged; merchants can already use a caravan and I can assure you they don't want to opt-in to allow bandits to attack them freely. They are merchants for a reason.
There is no need for factions in my opinion.
The Caravan System has not been detailed in a post or Dev Blog yet. We don't know what its requirements are, nor if the use of a caravan makes you a automatic sanctioned target, as a bandit is to everyone when the bandit gets criminal flagged or marked hostile.
Merchants may "opt in" if the benefits are high enough to outweigh the risks. That is the whole point, making meaningful choices based on risk vs. reward.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Bringslite
My understanding is that once you rise to the faction level of 4+, you can freely attack your faction rivals that are also level 4+.
If there are factions for Enforcers, Bandits and Merchants, that will clear up all of these issues. I would suggest that significant advantages be attached to joining these factions, and that the level that opens up PvP be reduced to a lower level.
Merchants can not use caravans unless in faction.
Bandits can not use SAD unless in faction.
Enforcers can not have Marshal skills unless in faction.
The only group gaining anything from the faction system you proposed is bandits (surprise). Bandits can already be hunted when they perform a criminal act and become flagged; merchants can already use a caravan and I can assure you they don't want to opt-in to allow bandits to attack them freely. They are merchants for a reason.
There is no need for factions in my opinion.
The Caravan System has not been detailed in a post or Dev Blog yet. We don't know what its requirements are, nor if the use of a caravan makes you a automatic sanctioned target, as a bandit is to everyone when the bandit gets criminal flagged or marked hostile.
Merchants may "opt in" if the benefits are high enough to outweigh the risks. That is the whole point, making meaningful choices based on risk vs. reward.
That's true, although I don't understand why they would make caravans a sanctioned target unless at war or feuded...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's true, although I don't understand why they would make caravans a sanctioned target unless at war or feuded...
Or Faction target.... Faction targets are equally sanctioned as war or feud targets.
Keeping this on OP topic, these types of targets would likely not receive the mercy of a SAD demand. They would be ambushed, everyone killed, and looted for 75% of their unthreaded / inventory items.
Maybe a succesful haul of a Caravan without being ambushed could result in reputation-gain for the merchant?
Or was this proposed yet?
It is assumed that the fulfillment of a contract will result in reputation gain and alignment shift to lawful (if desired).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's true, although I don't understand why they would make caravans a sanctioned target unless at war or feuded...Or Faction target.... Faction targets are equally sanctioned as war or feud targets.
Keeping this on OP topic, these types of targets would likely not receive the mercy of a SAD demand. They would be ambushed, everyone killed, and looted for 75% of their unthreaded / inventory items.
Maybe a succesful haul of a Caravan without being ambushed could result in reputation-gain for the merchant?
Or was this proposed yet?
It is assumed that the fulfillment of a contract will result in reputation gain and alignment shift to lawful (if desired).
Again, I see no point in adding factions. What your asking for only benefits bandits/murderers and makes absolutely zero logical sense to include (at least how you've defined it).
I especially love how you said "Keeping this on OP topic, these types of targets would likely not receive the mercy of a SAD demand. They would be ambushed, everyone killed, and looted for 75% of their unthreaded / inventory items."
Lol... Yes, I'm sure you'd love that to be included.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's true, although I don't understand why they would make caravans a sanctioned target unless at war or feuded...Or Faction target.... Faction targets are equally sanctioned as war or feud targets.
Keeping this on OP topic, these types of targets would likely not receive the mercy of a SAD demand. They would be ambushed, everyone killed, and looted for 75% of their unthreaded / inventory items.
Maybe a succesful haul of a Caravan without being ambushed could result in reputation-gain for the merchant?
Or was this proposed yet?
It is assumed that the fulfillment of a contract will result in reputation gain and alignment shift to lawful (if desired).
Again, I see no point in adding factions. What your asking for only benefits bandits/murderers and makes absolutely zero logical sense to include (at least how you've defined it).
I especially love how you said "Keeping this on OP topic, these types of targets would likely not receive the mercy of a SAD demand. They would be ambushed, everyone killed, and looted for 75% of their unthreaded / inventory items."
Lol... Yes, I'm sure you'd love that to be included.
Nevy,
You don't seem to be aware, there will be factions and faction conflict in PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's true, although I don't understand why they would make caravans a sanctioned target unless at war or feuded...Or Faction target.... Faction targets are equally sanctioned as war or feud targets.
Keeping this on OP topic, these types of targets would likely not receive the mercy of a SAD demand. They would be ambushed, everyone killed, and looted for 75% of their unthreaded / inventory items.
Maybe a succesful haul of a Caravan without being ambushed could result in reputation-gain for the merchant?
Or was this proposed yet?
It is assumed that the fulfillment of a contract will result in reputation gain and alignment shift to lawful (if desired).
Again, I see no point in adding factions. What your asking for only benefits bandits/murderers and makes absolutely zero logical sense to include (at least how you've defined it).
I especially love how you said "Keeping this on OP topic, these types of targets would likely not receive the mercy of a SAD demand. They would be ambushed, everyone killed, and looted for 75% of their unthreaded / inventory items."
Lol... Yes, I'm sure you'd love that to be included.
Nevy,
You don't seem to be aware, there will be factions and faction conflict in PFO.
I'm aware of this, what I'm not aware of is Goblinworks turning faction warfare into a way for "would-be bandits or murderers" to instead go the faction route so they can loot and pillage without reputation loss or flagging. I've been clear, there will be wars between settlements that should (and will) allow the killing and looting of enemy merchants (via warfare). You're seemingly asking for an entire new faction system between bandits and merchants. What sensible person (with the intent of being a player killer) wouldn't sign up for that? After all, they could do everything a murderer could do without fear of reputation loss or flagging. I just don't understand this thought process.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The more I read this thread, the more glad I am that SAD will not be a part of the initial EE. I honestly think that the entire idea should be scrapped.
If you think about it, bandit's already CAN rob someone, albeit with a reputation hit. Now, we already know that reputation regenerates and increases on a steady basis (Ryan has stated this).
Therefore, a bandit CAN rob people, he must just be careful to only do it a certain amount of times per day/hour or whatever.
If robbing and killing a merchant gives the robber a -2 hit to reputation, and his reputation is above the threshold that gives him +1 reputation an hour, then he can rob and kill someone once every 2 hours (I don't think these numbers are accurate, I'm just using them for example purposes).
If the robber does not want to have a low reputation (which is the whole purpose of this thread, and the SAD itself), then the onus is on the robber to monitor his/her reputation level and actions.
What is wrong with that?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is wrong with that?
I think it would be too restrictive.
In order for the Alignment & Reputation consequences for killing unflagged opponents to be meaningful, they need to be large enough that most players will only engage in such behavior infrequently. Banditry should happen much more frequently because of it's overall contribution to the atmosphere and to secondary effects like making it consistently worthwhile to hire guards when transporting goods. If Banditry and Murder have the same consequences, the whole game will likely degenerate.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One possible way to have factional involvement is to have some skills trained from factions as well as other means. To encourage factional membership, members (especially high-ranked members) might get good discounts on the coin and xp required for some given training. I could also see some factions (say, Denizens of the Echo Wood) offering the high and/or peak tiers of some skills (say, SAD) for their higher ranked members.
Hell-knights might have some of the best slave-taking abilities; Knights of Iomedae might have some serious PvE capabilities against escalations. I don't think the various factional skill sets need to be designed specifically to counter each other; the skills should be appropriate to the faction, and appropriate to the lore. Players will find ways to use their factional abilities in conflict and competition with other players.
Requiring high-tier craftsmen and traders to be rank 4+ in a faction to get their top skills might be problematic. They are generally non-combatant roles and will almost always be at a major disadvantage in PvP. One way it might work is if the factions that support harvesting, trading, and crafting have relatively few factional enemies - and those factional enemies have many factional enemies besides the weak crafter factions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree that banditry might have contributing factors on other aspects of the game; however, will those other factors be worth the risk of implementing a system (SAD) that is unlikely to be perfect and therefore likely to result in abuse?
Is dealing with gankings and repeated SADs, while ALSO having to deal with NPC mobs and escalations in wilderness hexes, worth giving a few players a mechanic that they want?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Both Ryan and Stephen have written similar things. They did leave the impression that SAD was a hoped for (future) mechanic. I would neither expect it soon, nor expect that they won't try to get it in eventually.
They are probably as concerned about all of the base systems(rep, alignment, hostility, etc...) coming online and working in harmony as we are. They are fully aware that we are going to stretch them to the limits...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It isn't necessary that all of these proposed skills be faction based. It is a possibility that they could be more useful or less costly. An advantage for faction membership. I am not sure that GW intends factions to be all that meaningful or needed once other PVP avenues get rolling. Because of that, I don't know how much work they intend to focus on factions at all.
I am wondering how much PVP GW really wants outside of faction, feud, war. I know that they intend it to be possible, but do not believe that they want it to be as common as it is in other games.
What is important is that there is some kind of counter. Not everyone will train and use SAD. Not everyone will train and use a counter. They are both good in certain situations and not so good in others, just like all skills.
What would be good is if there were SAD skill for bandits that widens their target range, but is not too powerful. Used by the bandit in the situations where they don't want to lose reputation.
A counter skill would be good for those people that want to help against bandits. Something as easy as being able to spot SAD equipped bandits before they SAD might work. It might be too limited. I know I would prefer that EVERYONE could spot them before the SAD is used, but I am not sure that is fair...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I urge everyone to try and reread this thread-okay, maybe a portion of it-with fresh eyes. The SAD mechanic is overly complex, clunky, and ripe for spoofs and abuse. Why wouldn't everyone work on a SAD feat/ability? Then the 'merchant' (or his guards) SADs the 'bandit'; which one goes off, whoever pushes the button first? Why wouldn't SADs be used between allies instead of trade? You SAD your ally, he accepts. You choose the stuff you wanted (obviously this exchange is set up beforehand) and he pays you later in a separate transaction. He also gets rep and perhaps influence. Wash, rinse, repeat. I don't see the point in introducing a mechanic that will result in endlessly chasing unintended uses in a game that's trying to avoid such abuse.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I urge everyone to try and reread this thread-okay, maybe a portion of it-with fresh eyes. The SAD mechanic is overly complex, clunky, and ripe for spoofs and abuse. Why wouldn't everyone work on a SAD feat/ability? Then the 'merchant' (or his guards) SADs the 'bandit'; which one goes off, whoever pushes the button first? Why wouldn't SADs be used between allies instead of trade? You SAD your ally, he accepts. You choose the stuff you wanted (obviously this exchange is set up beforehand) and he pays you later in a separate transaction. He also gets rep and perhaps influence. Wash, rinse, repeat. I don't see the point in introducing a mechanic that will result in endlessly chasing unintended uses in a game that's trying to avoid such abuse.
That is another way to look at it. We know so little about whether bandits will actually need it at all.
Will there possibly be enough targets available, through the same regular channels, for bandits? Maybe there will. Maybe it is the bandit's choice to occasionally take a rep hit for an "unflagged" target. Maybe it will be rare enough that they can still function in their profession just fine.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I really think that overloading the Faction system is a Bad Idea.
And the simplest implementation if SAD would be "if you or your group have accepted a gift from someone in the last thirty minutes, reputation penalties for murdering them are trebled."
Everything else is ease if use and edge cases.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know I would prefer that EVERYONE could spot them before the SAD is used, but I am not sure that is fair...
If robbers can use stealth skills (and terrain) to surprise SAD targets at close range, the spotting could just be taken care of with other game mechanisms - no special redesign is needed for SAD. Robbers without stealth can still use terrain to hide from direct observation while the stealthiest members of the band are close to the target when the SAD is made.
There could likely be some robber bands that use speed rather than stealth to get close to their enemies, or magical abilities to allow them to close. The high-perception defense that is useful against stealth bandits might not work against a speed bandit who is atop the merchant party before they can hardly react.
I think that GW should deliberately not design the game around actions and counter-actions. Give us basic capabilities and the players will figure out how to use them.