Stand and Deliver Discussion


Pathfinder Online

801 to 850 of 1,727 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

What bludd is trying to say, is that while we accept the criminal flag as bandits, we don't think it is fair that only 6 of us are fair game to the server if there are more than 6 of us there. if we have another 6, or 49 members near by, probably working together anyway, then Why wouldn't they be able to jump in.

The merchants already have that ability with the criminal flag on us, but with a group max of 6, that means that the merchants can travel in groups larger than 6, just not "partied together" and just walking in the same direction, and SAD would never work.

Again, we accept the criminal flag and being fair game for the whole server to attack, but if the whole server jumps into a SAD, why can't we defend our company mates? At least that way you can kill all of us right?

I hope that I am explaining it a bit clearer so that people understand our (UNC) point of view. It isn't that we want free kills or anything like that, we want fair. If the SAD stayed between 6 v 6 then we can work that, but being flagged criminal (Which we accept) opens us to anyone nearby, then why travel alone when you know the moment it is issued, your friends can hop in while you stand there and laugh?

Goblin Squad Member

I thought Stephen Cheney's solution wasn't too bad: cancel the S&D; bandit is still criminal so he's a legitimate target for the third party. But the bandit has no cooldown before he can do an S&D again and the traveler has no fleeced flag, so that merchant is fair game for a second S&D once the bandit gets away from the third party. Or the second bandit party in the woodline drops a new S&D on the traveler while the first bandits deal with whoever interfered.

Goblin Squad Member

"The Goodfellow" wrote:

What bludd is trying to say, is that while we accept the criminal flag as bandits, we don't think it is fair that only 6 of us are fair game to the server if there are more than 6 of us there. if we have another 6, or 49 members near by, probably working together anyway, then Why wouldn't they be able to jump in.

The merchants already have that ability with the criminal flag on us, but with a group max of 6, that means that the merchants can travel in groups larger than 6, just not "partied together" and just walking in the same direction, and SAD would never work.

Again, we accept the criminal flag and being fair game for the whole server to attack, but if the whole server jumps into a SAD, why can't we defend our company mates? At least that way you can kill all of us right?

I hope that I am explaining it a bit clearer so that people understand our (UNC) point of view. It isn't that we want free kills or anything like that, we want fair. If the SAD stayed between 6 v 6 then we can work that, but being flagged criminal (Which we accept) opens us to anyone nearby, then why travel alone when you know the moment it is issued, your friends can hop in while you stand there and laugh?

Life shouldn't be fair for bandits or murderers, if you want fair go the feud or warfare route, no?

Goblin Squad Member

@ "The Goodfellow"

Let's see how earning "hostility" works out. I think that what you are describing is fair. There could be a raid size grouping (probably preferred) that shares states like a smaller party, or perhaps it will be a matter of a goodly part of your Company being present and sharing states.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
I thought Stephen Cheney's solution wasn't too bad: cancel the S&D; bandit is still criminal so he's a legitimate target for the third party. But the bandit has no cooldown before he can do an S&D again and the traveler has no fleeced flag, so that merchant is fair game for a second S&D once the bandit gets away from the third party. Or the second bandit party in the woodline drops a new S&D on the traveler while the first bandits deal with whoever interfered.

Did Stephen indicate that the cancelled S&D would not make the original target free game?

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
I thought Stephen Cheney's solution wasn't too bad: cancel the S&D; bandit is still criminal so he's a legitimate target for the third party. But the bandit has no cooldown before he can do an S&D again and the traveler has no fleeced flag, so that merchant is fair game for a second S&D once the bandit gets away from the third party. Or the second bandit party in the woodline drops a new S&D on the traveler while the first bandits deal with whoever interfered.

Again, the issue isn't with the CD being reset or not. That is nice, but the situation I see is this:

Travelers in a group of 6, carrying a big load of gems from their mine to the city to sell. UNC group of 6 jumps out and SADs, gets flagged as criminal. Travelers whistle and just stand there, while 2 groups of 6 (12 total) of either hired guards, or fellow company mates, come out and attack the freshly flagged party of 6 UNC. This cancels the SAD and resets the CD, nice, cool, but now it is 6 vs 12 and there is nothing that the bandits can do except try to run, or hope they are better skilled then the 12.

But say in the background, there is a 2nd UNC group of 6. They step out seeing the 6v12 going on, what do they do? They can't attack the guards without taking full rep/alignment hits as they are not flagged at all. They COULD SAD the travelers again, but once the 12 are done slaughtering the first 6 UNC, they just wonder over and attack the 2nd group, still 12 (or what's left) v6.

While this would be perfectly acceptable if the 1st group was acting alone and got jumped by the 12, it happens, poor planning on UNC Part. But if there IS a 2nd group, why can't they help their company mates without the RPK penalties? That is the issue we have.

Flag the 2nd group as criminals when the first SAD is issued, we are fine with that, really. But when the 12 hop out to attack the 1st group, that should make them hostile to the 2nd UNC party as well. Use a Raid or Band or whatever you wanna call it, but a group of groups. Limit the buffs, and no adding skills to SAD outside your 6 player group, but flag and hostile across the board, please.

Does this clarify it better?

Goblin Squad Member

I was under the impression you're only fleeced if you actually accepted a SAD.

In regards to not letting your whole company in to defend your criminals, I'd suggest you feud those you feel wronged you. That's been the UNC stance on people wanting to defend themselves against unwanted intrusions thus far (see trespassing).

Goblin Squad Member

Oh we intend to use feuds and such, but if we are feuding you, we won't use SAD because you are already a fair target to us so why not kill you for all 75% instead of SADing for less?

All depends on how much influence it costs, and how it is earned, as to how often we can feud. But the other issue with that is the SAD system is designed to prevent killing everything we see. If you want the only robbing to be done through us killing you, then that is fine, scrap the SAD system and we will only use war and feuds and just kill people carrying stuff we want.

The purpose of SAD is to allow us bandits to take some without killing you. It you make SAD unusable and unbalanced, then it won't be used and it will either be a feud/war rep free kill for 75%, or we take the hit and kill you for the 75%. Either way, we will have more the 6, I promise you.

I am attempting to provide feedback to ensure this system is fair and usable so that that doesn't get turned into a murder sim. We at the UNC DO NOT WANT A MURDER SIM, just to be clear. Yes we will kill from time to time, but not 100% of the time. Unless we don't have a means of robbing without murder.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

@The Goodfellow: I definitely agree. If companies are going to be running around 10-30 on average, there's got to be a way for hostility to spread further than a party of 6. Your point about 12 merchants being able to attack 6 bandits while another 6 bandits have to stand by is a pretty straight-forward example of why hostility should spread further than a companyparty.
---
In the case where one of your parties is committing a crime, I think you need to go criminal to jump in. Likewise, if one of your parties is simply attacking someone (and taking rep losses), if you want to jump in you get to take rep losses as well.

If one of your party members is in a company that's in a feud, and the other party members aren't... Well, that's a private affair and not the business of those other party members. That's sort of how I expect nuanced hostility to play out, anyway.

Goblin Squad Member

"The Goodfellow" wrote:

Oh we intend to use feuds and such, but if we are feuding you, we won't use SAD because you are already a fair target to us so why not kill you for all 75% instead of SADing for less?

All depends on how much influence it costs, and how it is earned, as to how often we can feud. But the other issue with that is the SAD system is designed to prevent killing everything we see. If you want the only robbing to be done through us killing you, then that is fine, scrap the SAD system and we will only use war and feuds and just kill people carrying stuff we want.

The purpose of SAD is to allow us bandits to take some without killing you. It you make SAD unusable and unbalanced, then it won't be used and it will either be a feud/war rep free kill for 75%, or we take the hit and kill you for the 75%. Either way, we will have more the 6, I promise you.

I am attempting to provide feedback to ensure this system is fair and usable so that that doesn't get turned into a murder sim. We at the UNC DO NOT WANT A MURDER SIM, just to be clear. Yes we will kill from time to time, but not 100% of the time. Unless we don't have a means of robbing without murder.

It won't be a murder sim whether you like it or not, sadly. And I doubt Golarion will ever be completely fair to evil. They seem to be giving you a lot of options.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:

@The Goodfellow: I definitely agree. If companies are going to be running around 10-30 on average, there's got to be a way for hostility to spread further than a party of 6. Your point about 12 merchants being able to attack 6 bandits while another 6 bandits have to stand by is a pretty straight-forward example of why hostility should spread further than a company.

---
In the case where one of your parties is committing a crime, I think you need to go criminal to jump in. Likewise, if one of your parties is simply attacking someone (and taking rep losses), if you want to jump in you get to take rep losses as well.

If one of your party members is in a company that's in a feud, and the other party members aren't... Well, that's a private affair and not the business of those other party members. That's sort of how I expect nuanced hostility to play out, anyway.

Me too, considering one of the examples was that it is possible to be in a party with a player that you are at feud, etc.. with and just play together, ignoring it.

Goblin Squad Member

I wonder how often you'll see a full party of 6 (or more) PvP focused characters hauling goods. If the answer is not "usually," then the bandits already have an advantage.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:

@The Goodfellow: I definitely agree. If companies are going to be running around 10-30 on average, there's got to be a way for hostility to spread further than a party of 6. Your point about 12 merchants being able to attack 6 bandits while another 6 bandits have to stand by is a pretty straight-forward example of why hostility should spread further than a companyparty.

---
In the case where one of your parties is committing a crime, I think you need to go criminal to jump in. Likewise, if one of your parties is simply attacking someone (and taking rep losses), if you want to jump in you get to take rep losses as well.

If one of your party members is in a company that's in a feud, and the other party members aren't... Well, that's a private affair and not the business of those other party members. That's sort of how I expect nuanced hostility to play out, anyway.

I agree the "aiding groups" would be flagged criminal as the first one is to jump in, like I said in my post about when the first issues the SAD, they all flag criminal. I really think it will spread through (the hostile state) but I wanted to make sure it was voiced and addressed.

The feud issue, I am not sure how often UNC will be parting with non-UNC members, but I agree. A feud, or a war even, is a separate matter. Same could be said about contracts, bounty and assassination. If I have a contract to kill you, my group can't help unless they take the penalties. Your group COULD defend you because I would be attacking you and normal hostility applies, but MY group wouldn't because it is a contract, not a normal attack.

Goblin Squad Member

Drakhan Valane wrote:
I wonder how often you'll see a full party of 6 (or more) PvP focused characters hauling goods. If the answer is not "usually," then the bandits already have an advantage.

I don't expect the party of 6 being SADed to be the ones we fight. It is their accompanying guards that will be the "3rd party" to the SAD and get to attack us without rep/alignment loss due to our flag, even though they are not partied, or even related in any sense really, to the SAD.

Again, read my post. The merchants stand there and laugh at our SAD while they whistle for their guards/buddies to come out and attack us now that we are flagged criminal. That is fine, as long as my buddies can also tag in because they are in the same raid (for lack of better term) that issued the SAD, also flagged criminals, but you are hostile to because you attacked a member of the raid.

This limits how many people we can bring in, as they have to be near by (I support a range limit to this concept) and in the same raid, where as anyone attacking us for being flagged does not need to be involved in any way to any party, we are criminals and fair game to the server. Using a raid system that spreads all flags gained by 1 to all, will give us the fighting chance we ask for.

Merchants can have anyone happen by, paid guards, and the settlement's patrol (if in the area and hear the call), and any other joe smoe come to their aid, we are asking that any aid we can muster be preemptive and predefined.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Again, do you fully expect that every single time (or a significant percentage) you will face large groups waiting in the wings just waiting to pounce on you?

Goblin Squad Member

Nevy wrote:
"The Goodfellow" wrote:

Oh we intend to use feuds and such, but if we are feuding you, we won't use SAD because you are already a fair target to us so why not kill you for all 75% instead of SADing for less?

All depends on how much influence it costs, and how it is earned, as to how often we can feud. But the other issue with that is the SAD system is designed to prevent killing everything we see. If you want the only robbing to be done through us killing you, then that is fine, scrap the SAD system and we will only use war and feuds and just kill people carrying stuff we want.

The purpose of SAD is to allow us bandits to take some without killing you. It you make SAD unusable and unbalanced, then it won't be used and it will either be a feud/war rep free kill for 75%, or we take the hit and kill you for the 75%. Either way, we will have more the 6, I promise you.

I am attempting to provide feedback to ensure this system is fair and usable so that that doesn't get turned into a murder sim. We at the UNC DO NOT WANT A MURDER SIM, just to be clear. Yes we will kill from time to time, but not 100% of the time. Unless we don't have a means of robbing without murder.

It won't be a murder sim whether you like it or not, sadly. And I doubt Golarion will ever be completely fair to evil. They seem to be giving you a lot of options.

Not meaning to nit pick but is this (Bold part above)implying that you wish it to be a murder sim? We don't want that. I personally have no interest in a murder sim. We at the UNC DO NOT want a murder sim. We want to challenge people to keep what they hold. If they fail, we take it. If they succeed, then good for them. There is no need to kill everyone we see.

I am not asking for all the world to be completely "Fair to evil" but we would ask for some balance. At least an attempt at it. In a recent post, I brought up the "Raid" system in which bandits could group up into groups of groups. (calling them raids until a better name is decided, though I do like Bands.) If there was a hard cap, so 5 groups (for round numbers) that means no bandit grouping of any kind can hold more than 30 players. If you know this, then any merchant who is concerned about being robbed, need bring more manpower, say 50 people, that don't even need to be grouped at all. just a wandering mob of 50 players moving in the same direction. The moment the SAD is issued, all 50 attack and it is a 30v50 battle of epic proportions, which actually sounds cool.

But anyway, point is, it gives us more flexibility, but is still limiting, where the Criminal flag literately makes the server able to assist you. Not fair (especially in example above) but still balanced. I don't suspect every merchant will want, or would be able, to field an "escort" of 50 people, but then again, not every SAD will have 30 bandits waiting for you. It could, on either side, but that is more risk vs reward. How many are there? You know the max, but what are you willing to bet there really are?

Does this clear it up some? Make our stance more understandable?

Goblin Squad Member

Drakhan Valane wrote:
Again, do you fully expect that every single time (or a significant percentage) you will face large groups waiting in the wings just waiting to pounce on you?

Depends on the haul. If you got a few tons of iron and it is plentiful in these parts, prolly not. If you are carrying a wagon full of epic quality swords for the front line fighters in the war your about to wage, I would expect that.

That would be part of the risk vs reward. But if we are limited to 6 max, and no assistance without losing rep/alignment on those assisting, then you wouldn't need many people to protect even a valuable shipment. SAD would rarely, if ever, be used and Ambush would be the bulk of our activities. Resulting in low rep characters that eventually get board and stop playing and then no bandits.

I am not saying that is the UNC left there would be no bandits, but the idea of playing a bandit means everyone kills you and you can't even rob someone without just ambushing them and taking the penalties, people will get board of the murder sim and leave.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Merchants have the risk of having no clue if they'll be attacked on their route. Why should bandits always be certain that the fight will be fair for them? After all, you can always not attack if you expect backup (or move to an area where the merchants are less protected). Sometimes you'll get surprised by overwhelming force, but isn't that a risk you take? Like the merchants do when they head out in the first place?

If the merchants frequently have overwhelming numbers, they should revisit it, but I doubt it'll be all that common except on extremely valuable goods. In which case it may be worth it for you to take the rep hit for the high value rewards.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bringslite wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
Again, do you fully expect that every single time (or a significant percentage) you will face large groups waiting in the wings just waiting to pounce on you?
Indeed. I am scratching my head, wondering how a merchant will be able to afford enough guards and still sell goods at competitive prices.

He doesn't need to pay everyone. They could be company mates that are doing it as part of they job in the company. It could be Andius and his wandering band of anti-bandit people. It could be a friendly passer-byer that felt it was right to help you fight the bandits robbing you. You could be nice and pay them after the fact, but you didn't hire them. You would hire a group or 2. at the least, that gives you a 6v6 (if you hired 1 group, 12v6 if you hired 2) that you pay for, then some unknown number of "others."

Without a raid system or other means for bandits to support one another, they are limited to 6 MAX and that is unacceptable for the risk we are accepting to perform the SAD.

Goblin Squad Member

"The Goodfellow" wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
Again, do you fully expect that every single time (or a significant percentage) you will face large groups waiting in the wings just waiting to pounce on you?
Indeed. I am scratching my head, wondering how a merchant will be able to afford enough guards and still sell goods at competitive prices.

He doesn't need to pay everyone. They could be company mates that are doing it as part of they job in the company. It could be Andius and his wandering band of anti-bandit people. It could be a friendly passer-byer that felt it was right to help you fight the bandits robbing you. You could be nice and pay them after the fact, but you didn't hire them. You would hire a group or 2. at the least, that gives you a 6v6 (if you hired 1 group, 12v6 if you hired 2) that you pay for, then some unknown number of "others."

Without a raid system or other means for bandits to support one another, they are limited to 6 MAX and that is unacceptable for the risk we are accepting to perform the SAD.

Crud. You got me before I deleted my little joke post. :)

Goblin Squad Member

Drakhan Valane wrote:

Merchants have the risk of having no clue if they'll be attacked on their route. Why should bandits always be certain that the fight will be fair for them? After all, you can always not attack if you expect backup (or move to an area where the merchants are less protected). Sometimes you'll get surprised by overwhelming force, but isn't that a risk you take? Like the merchants do when they head out in the first place?

If the merchants frequently have overwhelming numbers, they should revisit it, but I doubt it'll be all that common except on extremely valuable goods. In which case it may be worth it for you to take the rep hit for the high value rewards.

I think it will be more frequent then you think. I know if I play a merchant (I am considering it for my DT) I won't leave unless I have "toll money" or protection. The amount of protection would be based on what I'm hauling, what my intended profits are, and how active bandit raidng/SADing is in the area. If I have friends or company mates willing to help me out, then awesome, but will prolly still hire a few extra swords just incase. If the swords I hire prove their worth and are reliable, then I would enter some agreement with them for a permanent arrangement. But that is another topic for another day. ( yes I am really thinking both sides of this and will likely have 2 exp gaining characters on either side of this mechanic.)

Goblin Squad Member

"The Goodfellow" wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
Again, do you fully expect that every single time (or a significant percentage) you will face large groups waiting in the wings just waiting to pounce on you?
Indeed. I am scratching my head, wondering how a merchant will be able to afford enough guards and still sell goods at competitive prices.

He doesn't need to pay everyone. They could be company mates that are doing it as part of they job in the company. It could be Andius and his wandering band of anti-bandit people. It could be a friendly passer-byer that felt it was right to help you fight the bandits robbing you. You could be nice and pay them after the fact, but you didn't hire them. You would hire a group or 2. at the least, that gives you a 6v6 (if you hired 1 group, 12v6 if you hired 2) that you pay for, then some unknown number of "others."

Without a raid system or other means for bandits to support one another, they are limited to 6 MAX and that is unacceptable for the risk we are accepting to perform the SAD.

Also you are preaching to the choir. I feel like bandits should be as able to have numbers as merchants are. As long as the bandits all share the same "state" somehow. As long as no crap is pulled to force the S&D to fail for consequence free kills against unflagged.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
"The Goodfellow" wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
Again, do you fully expect that every single time (or a significant percentage) you will face large groups waiting in the wings just waiting to pounce on you?
Indeed. I am scratching my head, wondering how a merchant will be able to afford enough guards and still sell goods at competitive prices.

He doesn't need to pay everyone. They could be company mates that are doing it as part of they job in the company. It could be Andius and his wandering band of anti-bandit people. It could be a friendly passer-byer that felt it was right to help you fight the bandits robbing you. You could be nice and pay them after the fact, but you didn't hire them. You would hire a group or 2. at the least, that gives you a 6v6 (if you hired 1 group, 12v6 if you hired 2) that you pay for, then some unknown number of "others."

Without a raid system or other means for bandits to support one another, they are limited to 6 MAX and that is unacceptable for the risk we are accepting to perform the SAD.

Crud. You got me before I deleted my little joke post. :)

Joke or not, some people really seam to feel this way. It is up to the merchant to ultimately decide how much is "enough" but I am trying to get my point across. And I happen to be in the mood to set this point straight to those who question it. (Though I am rapidly getting board and about to head out for the night LOL) I just really want a balanced mechanic in place. I feel there are those who want bandits but only if they are not a threat. And if they aren't a threat, what is the point?

Goblin Squad Member

see the post above. :)

Goblin Squad Member

I get the feeling that bandits want people guarding travelers, but only if they aren't a threat (Bandit's will always be +1 unless the merchant is equally competent at PvP).

Goblin Squad Member

"The Goodfellow" wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
"The Goodfellow" wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
Again, do you fully expect that every single time (or a significant percentage) you will face large groups waiting in the wings just waiting to pounce on you?
Indeed. I am scratching my head, wondering how a merchant will be able to afford enough guards and still sell goods at competitive prices.

He doesn't need to pay everyone. They could be company mates that are doing it as part of they job in the company. It could be Andius and his wandering band of anti-bandit people. It could be a friendly passer-byer that felt it was right to help you fight the bandits robbing you. You could be nice and pay them after the fact, but you didn't hire them. You would hire a group or 2. at the least, that gives you a 6v6 (if you hired 1 group, 12v6 if you hired 2) that you pay for, then some unknown number of "others."

Without a raid system or other means for bandits to support one another, they are limited to 6 MAX and that is unacceptable for the risk we are accepting to perform the SAD.

Crud. You got me before I deleted my little joke post. :)
Joke or not, some people really seam to feel this way. It is up to the merchant to ultimately decide how much is "enough" but I am trying to get my point across. And I happen to be in the mood to set this point straight to those who question it. (Though I am rapidly getting board and about to head out for the night LOL) I just really want a balanced mechanic in place. I feel there are those who want bandits but only if they are not a threat. And if they aren't a threat, what is the point?

You chose to rob someone. You chose the shortcut. You didn't want to earn your own stuff, you wanted to take someone else's earned goods.

And now you want the game to treat you completely fair. Interesting. Is this a troll, I really can't figure these UNC people out?

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
"The Goodfellow" wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
Again, do you fully expect that every single time (or a significant percentage) you will face large groups waiting in the wings just waiting to pounce on you?
Indeed. I am scratching my head, wondering how a merchant will be able to afford enough guards and still sell goods at competitive prices.

He doesn't need to pay everyone. They could be company mates that are doing it as part of they job in the company. It could be Andius and his wandering band of anti-bandit people. It could be a friendly passer-byer that felt it was right to help you fight the bandits robbing you. You could be nice and pay them after the fact, but you didn't hire them. You would hire a group or 2. at the least, that gives you a 6v6 (if you hired 1 group, 12v6 if you hired 2) that you pay for, then some unknown number of "others."

Without a raid system or other means for bandits to support one another, they are limited to 6 MAX and that is unacceptable for the risk we are accepting to perform the SAD.

Also you are preaching to the choir. I feel like bandits should be as able to have numbers as merchants are. As long as the bandits all share the same "state" somehow. As long as no crap is pulled to force the S&D to fail for consequence free kills against unflagged.

I agree, there should be safe guards in place so that bandits can't abuse this to get rep free kills.

Honestly, I see UNC doing something like this. We decide "today, we rob this road. it is our road and there needs to be a tax for using it." So we have 3 groups of 6, 1 active, 2 waiting stealthed. Active group steps out, issues SAD, if SAD accepted, they "rotate in" with group 2, who SAD's the next, and if accepted rotates and so on. Depending on the traffic, and the CD for SAD, this could work.

If any merchants decline the SAD, we all come out and help. If the SAD is declined and only the SADing group can attack the merchant (Possible way to "prevent abuse"), then we let that group handle them and we attack any others attacking that group because of the criminal flag.

Now this won't be EVERY UNC setup, but will likely be a commonly used one. numbers are just thrown out there so don't count on only 18 as our "tops" numbers. Could be lower or higher depending on the day/time and membership at the time.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drakhan Valane wrote:
I get the feeling that bandits want people guarding travelers, but only if they aren't a threat (Bandit's will always be +1 unless the merchant is equally competent at PvP).

The way it was laid out, there is an advantage for the merchant that pays for the guards. The guards do not all have to be in the same party of six. The bandits are flagged to all.

I am not saying it is fair or unfair. The merchant must spend something, unless the guards will work for free (PM me please if so inclined). That may be enough of an equalizer. Might not.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And since the bandit can avoid combat when he chooses, he might just need to wait long enough that the guards tire of guarding caravans with their sparse gaming time, *then* the bandits strike.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
And since the bandit can avoid combat when he chooses, he might just need to wait long enough that the guards tire of guarding caravans with their sparse gaming time, *then* the bandits strike.

Too true. It is a shame there is no starvation possible... :)

Goblin Squad Member

Nevy wrote:
"The Goodfellow" wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
"The Goodfellow" wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
Again, do you fully expect that every single time (or a significant percentage) you will face large groups waiting in the wings just waiting to pounce on you?
Indeed. I am scratching my head, wondering how a merchant will be able to afford enough guards and still sell goods at competitive prices.

He doesn't need to pay everyone. They could be company mates that are doing it as part of they job in the company. It could be Andius and his wandering band of anti-bandit people. It could be a friendly passer-byer that felt it was right to help you fight the bandits robbing you. You could be nice and pay them after the fact, but you didn't hire them. You would hire a group or 2. at the least, that gives you a 6v6 (if you hired 1 group, 12v6 if you hired 2) that you pay for, then some unknown number of "others."

Without a raid system or other means for bandits to support one another, they are limited to 6 MAX and that is unacceptable for the risk we are accepting to perform the SAD.

Crud. You got me before I deleted my little joke post. :)
Joke or not, some people really seam to feel this way. It is up to the merchant to ultimately decide how much is "enough" but I am trying to get my point across. And I happen to be in the mood to set this point straight to those who question it. (Though I am rapidly getting board and about to head out for the night LOL) I just really want a balanced mechanic in place. I feel there are those who want bandits but only if they are not a threat. And if they aren't a threat, what is the point?

You chose to rob someone. You chose the shortcut. You didn't want to earn your own stuff, you wanted to take someone else's earned goods.

And now you want the game to treat you completely fair. Interesting. Is this a troll, I really can't figure these UNC people out?

Keep in mind, we are "earning" our stuff. Unless you have no items equipped and no combat oriented skills at all (cause you craft everything you make and sell) we are likely to fight you or your guards. 9 times out of 10, Player Characters (PCs) are more geared and more skilled then any NPC element in any game. They don't always function in predictable patterns, and while some panic and just stand there when surprised, others are skilled and well prepared and react to the shifting battlefield. 9 times out of 10, it is more challenging to take on a PC target then to gather and craft, or to take on a NPC target.

This means we work harder to get our gear and cash and items. Yeah I agree, we don't craft it, and we don't farm escalations to gather it. We have to hunt down, or happen across a traveling character, who may or may not have combat skills himself, and may or may not have guards nearby that are very combat focused gear and skilled. Then there is the issue of being flagged during and after for a bit, which means we might encounter others who try to take our stuff (to give back or just for them selves).

Yes it is a short cut, no argument there. But not worked for, I strongly disagree. Unless you don't protect your shipments, unless your unlucky enough to not have those who hunt us (like andius and I think Nihimon) happen upon us, unless you don't have ANYONE ELSE willing to jump in and defend you, THEN and only THEN is it easy for us. We don't want easy. We want balanced.

If you happen to either bring, or get lucky to have them wonder by, 20 guys pop out the woodwork to either protect you or take advantage of some rep free kills, we want our 20 guys to be able to join too. that is all.

Goblin Squad Member

You had the choice to involve yourself in the merchants life, he didn't. That's an advantage to you, his advantage is his friends can defend him against your unwanted attacks. The war system should be fair, the bandit system should not be completely fair to bandits. I'm done repeating the same thing - meditate on it.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As usual, just differences in opinion as to what is fair, too advantageous, and what is unfair. It will get worked out somewhere in between.

Goblin Squad Member

Did Nevy post? I just see quotes....and not even all of them LOL

Though now that I read though the quotes, I think I see his post, just got lost in the quotes LOL

As Bringslite said, we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I see this system as presented currently (Where group of 6 is max, no "raid" groupings) as being unfair and diminishes the use of the SAD, and you don't. How about we both take a break and let others chime in and see their thoughts.

I honestly thank you for this exchange. Nice to disagree without name calling or hostilities.

Goblin Squad Member

Nevy wrote:


You had the choice to involve yourself in the merchants life, he didn't. That's an advantage to you, his advantage is his friends can defend him against your unwanted attacks. The war system should be fair, the bandit system should not be completely fair to bandits. I'm done repeating the same thing - meditate on it.

Did you edit out all the quotes? Cause when I replied (a min ago) I saw a bunch of quotes and your post was in there at the bottom. just curious LOL

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Urman wrote:
Unless your company members all get flagged as Criminal when the S&D is triggered, it makes no sense for them to be able to come to the aid of the Criminal elements of the company that are in a separate party together. (edit to add: I say it doesn't make sense because it's so obviously exploited. One bandit triggers an S&D on 4 merchants and gets the Criminal flag. 49 members of his company can attack anyone who attack the flagged Criminal, but otherwise aren't unaffected?

I also see it the other way. The bandits SAD a merchant group of 6, and then 49 members if the merchants company can then freely join in. Meanwhile the bandit's other 49 members can not come to their company members' defense.

Seems fair, if the bandits could have not issued the SAD and not be fair game for anyone. Control of when a fight doesn't happen is a pretty powerful tool.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

In any case, I doubt that "the number of people that it is fair to have come to as-hoc mutual defense" is the same as "the number of people that we can easily provide interface space to keep their status in sight".

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here is a possible answer

Blanket hex crime.

If your company commits a crime in a hex, all members are counted as taking part of the crime/aiding it wherever they are in the hex.

Not the perfect solution people want, but it should be easier to do and it results in the desired effect, if it can be a bit meh for the bandit clan.

The server already has to keep track of who is in what hex and if they are in what company (for feud purposes if nothing else) and all sorts of other things. It should be able to just flag all people in that hex who belong to the company as assisting the crime.

What if you are in Y place (e.g. settlement)? Tough. Communicate with your company mates and get er done.

This works for the victim side as well. Eventually when caravans are added it can flag the whole caravan members instead of the company, but that is all heresay to be added anyway.

Easy, simple, and it works.

Goblin Squad Member

I hope*

Goblin Squad Member

BrotherZael wrote:

Here is a possible answer

Blanket hex crime.

If your company commits a crime in a hex, all members are counted as taking part of the crime/aiding it wherever they are in the hex.

Not the perfect solution people want, but it should be easier to do and it results in the desired effect, if it can be a bit meh for the bandit clan.

The server already has to keep track of who is in what hex and if they are in what company (for feud purposes if nothing else) and all sorts of other things. It should be able to just flag all people in that hex who belong to the company as assisting the crime.

What if you are in Y place (e.g. settlement)? Tough. Communicate with your company mates and get er done.

This works for the victim side as well. Eventually when caravans are added it can flag the whole caravan members instead of the company, but that is all heresay to be added anyway.

Easy, simple, and it works.

I have to admit that I kind of like this. I also have to admit that I am biased. I plan to be flagged "criminal" very, very few times in my career. Certainly, I would have to be choosy about what Company I kept. ;)

Dark Archive

Nevy wrote:


You had the choice to involve yourself in the merchants life, he didn't. That's an advantage to you, his advantage is his friends can defend him against your unwanted attacks. The war system should be fair, the bandit system should not be completely fair to bandits. I'm done repeating the same thing - meditate on it.

It's a sandbox game where players are supposed to be a lot of the content. If you want to just sit around building crap all day I suggest Simcity, or if that game having natural disasters is too PvP then perhaps Microsoft Rail Simulator?

Goblin Squad Member

Aarontendo wrote:
It's a sandbox game where players are supposed to be a lot of the content.

No, its a sandbox where whatever you want to do within the dynamics of the game is the content.

Goblin Squad Member

Nevy wrote:
You had the choice to involve yourself in the merchants life, he didn't. That's an advantage to you, his advantage is his friends can defend him against your unwanted attacks. The war system should be fair, the bandit system should not be completely fair to bandits. I'm done repeating the same thing - meditate on it.

Does this same theory apply to the other PvP aspects of the game?

If an aggressor engages a company via a feud, can that companies friends help them out (assuming friends in other companies)?

If an aggressor engages a city in war, can that cities friends help them out (assuming friend in other cities)?

In both these cases, the aggressor decided upon the timing and method of attack, potentially an unwanted attack, yet the defenders cannot bring in extra defenders outside their immediate social circle.

I guess at the city level, they could make warfare illegal which would make attackers criminals which would in turn allow anyone to attack them. I do find it odd however, that the criminal flag is global but the hostility flag is not. Doubly strange given the setting that PFO is being made in.

Goblin Squad Member

Feuds and wars have real costs as far as Influence and DI are concerned. As far as we've seen, SADs only take training and slotting. It's a cost, but not really on the same level (unless I'm really overestimating the value of Influence and DI). Also, you can remove yourself from a feuded company or a war dec'd settlement if you like.

Goblin Squad Member

@ The Goodfellow

We don't have to convince these posters of the inequity that we see. As long as Stephen can see the flaw, and the fact that SAD would never be used, if it produces 6 v the world.

I'm growing tired of us trying to come up with ways where we kill less and still play our role. If this's looking to play the merchant role want to discourage the use of SADs, we can oblige them in that.

Feuds, faction and wars will give us a target rich environment. We pick our targets based on numbers, the bigger the better and the least prepared for PvP. If we are going to be 6 v the world, we might as well make it 50+ vs the least prepared among the world.

Goblin Squad Member

Drakhan Valane wrote:
Feuds and wars have real costs as far as Influence and DI are concerned. As far as we've seen, SADs only take training and slotting. It's a cost, but not really on the same level (unless I'm really overestimating the value of Influence and DI). Also, you can remove yourself from a feuded company or a war dec'd settlement if you like.

Agreed. However I was pointing out the discrepancy with defences. There is no word on defending companies or settlements needing to spend DI or Influence in wars or feuds, yet they cannot get friends not in their immediate social circle to help them.

Likewise, merchants do not need to spend any currency, yet they can call in friends outside their social circle.

I'm not particularly concerned either way, as I can see other ways around this issue. I'm simply pointing out a discrepancy I can see.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

@ The Goodfellow

We don't have to convince these posters of the inequity that we see. As long as Stephen can see the flaw, and the fact that SAD would never be used, if it produces 6 v the world.

I'm growing tired of us trying to come up with ways where we kill less and still play our role. If this's looking to play the merchant role want to discourage the use of SADs, we can oblige them in that.

Feuds, faction and wars will give us a target rich environment. We pick our targets based on numbers, the bigger the better and the least prepared for PvP. If we are going to be 6 v the world, we might as well make it 50+ vs the least prepared among the world.

I'm actually interested to see what other in character actions (globally and also hex/law based) will give the criminal flag and how long that flag will last.

It is not just SAD that will cause a party being flagged red to the entire server, but a multitude of things.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aarontendo wrote:
Nevy wrote:


You had the choice to involve yourself in the merchants life, he didn't. That's an advantage to you, his advantage is his friends can defend him against your unwanted attacks. The war system should be fair, the bandit system should not be completely fair to bandits. I'm done repeating the same thing - meditate on it.

It's a sandbox game where players are supposed to be a lot of the content. If you want to just sit around building crap all day I suggest Simcity, or if that game having natural disasters is too PvP then perhaps Microsoft Rail Simulator?

What? I have no idea how your thought process led you to this response, sorry.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aarontendo wrote:
It's a sandbox game where players are supposed to be a lot of the content. If you want to just sit around building crap all day I suggest Simcity, or if that game having natural disasters is too PvP then perhaps Microsoft Rail Simulator?

Those people that like to sit around and build 'crap' all day are going to be the driving force behind the economy. And without a robust economy, PVP roles like Banditry will be mostly meaningless then.

801 to 850 of 1,727 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Stand and Deliver Discussion All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.