Goblin Squad Member
|
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.
Your right Banesama, we need and want crafter types, and if they just sit in their towns and craft while others gather materials (through trade or harvesting themselves) for them to use, they will be mostly immune to bandit activities. I say this because, while we may be involved in a war from time to time, bandits live on the road, attacking POIs and caravans and lone/small groups of travelers, not bother people living and staying within the walls of their settlement.
@aarontendo the first part you are correct. most of the content in a sandbox game is players being content for other players. While I think I understand where your coming from with the 2nd half of your post, I disagree for the reason Banesama listed.
It is expected that there will be those that are exclusive in their roles. Some will exclusively craft, never leaving their settlement. Some will exclusively travel, either as a merchant constantly trading city to city, or just a wondering player with a green hat. Some will be exclusive bandits, or bandit hunters.
It is the blend of these types that will make this game function and enjoyable. Take out any of these roles and it all collapse. With out bandits, there is less threat (only wild escalations) when traveling city to city, without crafters, nothing to sell or buy to gear up, without merchants there is no one for bandits to rob and no one for the hunter types to hunt. It is finding the balance between each role that the Devs are working on. Making sure that each role is feasible and enjoyable without overpowering the others.
That being said, each person is allowed their opinions and views. While they may be at odds with others, it allows "both sides" to be brought to the table. This way the devs, as well as the rest of us, can see what the "other side" thinks and how they view something. In these discussions is where the balance and enjoyment factors are found.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.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.
Your right it is, however there will be factors we can't control that makes the actual risk greater than the perceived risk. As a bandit, everything we do is a risk vs reward calculation. Think of it like poker. I hve my 2 cards, you have yours. Depending on what is on the table already, I can calculate the risk, or chance, I have of winning. but without knowing what you have, or what the next draw will be, I run the risk of losing.
In PFO, this will be for the bandits to figure out unknown information. Is there anyone wandering near by? Does the caravan have stealthed guards? Are their guards traveling 30 secs behind the merchants? These things we can't control and therefor, increase the risk we incur to play our role. We accept this added risk, as long as we are able to call in nearby backup should we need it.
Think about it in real life, like the old medieval times. Watch a robin hood movie, they do it in there too. A few guys stand in the road and SAD the wagon. If guards pop out, then more bandits pop out. I proposed a mechanic that is already used quite often in other MMO's, granted they are themeparks, but the tech should be similar, I think. (Not a tech guy so I am guessing)
While it is a powerful tool, to control when and where to fight someone, if travelers and merchants are smart about their defenses, it is quite easy to out wit bandits. The other thing to remember, we are pushing this as a viable alternative to ambushing every time. If you would rather get attacked and risk losing everything each time to encounter bandits, then so be it. If we are taking the rep hit, you can bet we won't limit ourselves to a party of 6. Help us build a usable and balanced SAD mechanic that promotes robbing for a portion, and not killing for full 75% + damages.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
While it is a powerful tool, to control when and where to fight someone, if travelers and merchants are smart about their defenses, it is quite easy to out wit bandits. The other thing to remember, we are pushing this as a viable alternative to ambushing every time. If you would rather get attacked and risk losing everything each time to encounter bandits, then so be it. If we are taking the rep hit, you can bet we won't limit ourselves to a party of 6. Help us build a usable and balanced SAD mechanic that promotes robbing for a portion, and not killing for full 75% + damages.
Your logic is interesting. Goblinwork's actually implemented SADs so players like you could have an option to criminalize other players without your character sucking, they didn't say it would be fair. It's your choice to go off murdering people without SADing them, sooner or later it will catch up to you though.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
GW hopes to create a subscriber graph like Eve Online has, which is starting with low numbers and gradually going up, up!
If they can not get these systems fair, you will get a huge dropoff in numbers.
Like so: They will tweak it so they will get the upper graph.
Sometimes I need to simplify things for myself, so I can keep the faith. :)
|
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.
The game designers do not want unhindered resource gathering and trade. So rather than arbitrarily and artificially turning resource nodes on and off, they want there to be a human interaction to help regulate the player economy.
You will not just have bandits to contend with, but rival settlements who will likely not bother SADing you, but just killing you.
Your outposts and POIs will be raided. Your caravans will be attacked. Your harvesters will be attacked in the fields where they attempt to gather.
It will be fine by us to just feud your company and kill, or attempt to, in order to take what will no longer be rightfully yours.
You keep on saying, "our hard work" or "what we earned". In the River Kingdoms, you have what you hold. You have no right to anything you can't defend.
Welcome to non consensual, open world PvP, where logging in is opting in.
You are never safe
Don't carry what you can't afford to lose
It's nothing personal, it's all about the coin
|
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.
The game designers do not want unhindered resource gathering and trade. So rather than arbitrarily and artificially turning resource nodes on and off, they want there to be a human interaction to help regulate the player economy.
You will not just have bandits to contend with, but rival settlements who will Lilly not bother SADing you, but just killing you.
Your outposts and POIs will be raided. Your caravans will be attacked. Your harvesters will be attacked in the fields where they attempt to gather.
It will be fine by us to just feud your company and kill, or attempt to, in order to take what will no longer be rightfully yours.
You keep on saying, "our hard work" or "what we earned". In the River Kingdoms, you have what you hold. You have no right to anything you can't defend.
Welcome to non consensual, open world PvP, where logging in is opting in.
You are never safe
Don't carry what you can't afford to lose
It's nothing personal, it's all about the coin
Never wanted to be completely safe, that doesn't mean the life of a bandit should be easy though. Bandits are not victims, they are a victimizers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Never wanted to be completely safe, that doesn't mean the life of a bandit should be easy though. Bandits are not victims, they are a victimizers.
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.
The game designers do not want unhindered resource gathering and trade. So rather than arbitrarily and artificially turning resource nodes on and off, they want there to be a human interaction to help regulate the player economy.
You will not just have bandits to contend with, but rival settlements who will Lilly not bother SADing you, but just killing you.
Your outposts and POIs will be raided. Your caravans will be attacked. Your harvesters will be attacked in the fields where they attempt to gather.
It will be fine by us to just feud your company and kill, or attempt to, in order to take what will no longer be rightfully yours.
You keep on saying, "our hard work" or "what we earned". In the River Kingdoms, you have what you hold. You have no right to anything you can't defend.
Welcome to non consensual, open world PvP, where logging in is opting in.
You are never safe
Don't carry what you can't afford to lose
It's nothing personal, it's all about the coin
No, bandits are stewards of a healthy economy and will "victimize" other players far less than merchants in the player economy.
Merchants won't be victims, they will be the richest players in the game. They are no less greedy than bandits, and probably much more so.
I'm sure when you have been feuded a few dozen times, you'll start wishing that more players used SADs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Never wanted to be completely safe, that doesn't mean the life of a bandit should be easy though. Bandits are not victims, they are a victimizers.
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.
The game designers do not want unhindered resource gathering and trade. So rather than arbitrarily and artificially turning resource nodes on and off, they want there to be a human interaction to help regulate the player economy.
You will not just have bandits to contend with, but rival settlements who will Lilly not bother SADing you, but just killing you.
Your outposts and POIs will be raided. Your caravans will be attacked. Your harvesters will be attacked in the fields where they attempt to gather.
It will be fine by us to just feud your company and kill, or attempt to, in order to take what will no longer be rightfully yours.
You keep on saying, "our hard work" or "what we earned". In the River Kingdoms, you have what you hold. You have no right to anything you can't defend.
Welcome to non consensual, open world PvP, where logging in is opting in.
You are never safe
Don't carry what you can't afford to lose
It's nothing personal, it's all about the coinNo, bandits are stewards of a healthy economy and will "victimize" other players far less than merchants in the player economy.
Merchants won't be victims, they will be the richest players in the game. They are no less greedy than bandits, and probably much more so.
I'm sure when you have been feuded a few dozen times, you'll start wishing that more players used SADs.
Bandits will be the richest people in the game if their lives are made too easy my friend. Meditate on it.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Never wanted to be completely safe, that doesn't mean the life of a bandit should be easy though. Bandits are not victims, they are a victimizers.
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.
The game designers do not want unhindered resource gathering and trade. So rather than arbitrarily and artificially turning resource nodes on and off, they want there to be a human interaction to help regulate the player economy.
You will not just have bandits to contend with, but rival settlements who will Lilly not bother SADing you, but just killing you.
Your outposts and POIs will be raided. Your caravans will be attacked. Your harvesters will be attacked in the fields where they attempt to gather.
It will be fine by us to just feud your company and kill, or attempt to, in order to take what will no longer be rightfully yours.
You keep on saying, "our hard work" or "what we earned". In the River Kingdoms, you have what you hold. You have no right to anything you can't defend.
Welcome to non consensual, open world PvP, where logging in is opting in.
You are never safe
Don't carry what you can't afford to lose
It's nothing personal, it's all about the coin
It's not useful to simply make as hominem statements. What is bad about victimizing and how do bandits embody the specific aspect that is harmful?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's not useful to simply make as hominem statements. What is bad about victimizing and how do bandits embody the specific aspect that is harmful?Never wanted to be completely safe, that doesn't mean the life of a bandit should be easy though. Bandits are not victims, they are a victimizers.
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.
The game designers do not want unhindered resource gathering and trade. So rather than arbitrarily and artificially turning resource nodes on and off, they want there to be a human interaction to help regulate the player economy.
You will not just have bandits to contend with, but rival settlements who will Lilly not bother SADing you, but just killing you.
Your outposts and POIs will be raided. Your caravans will be attacked. Your harvesters will be attacked in the fields where they attempt to gather.
It will be fine by us to just feud your company and kill, or attempt to, in order to take what will no longer be rightfully yours.
You keep on saying, "our hard work" or "what we earned". In the River Kingdoms, you have what you hold. You have no right to anything you can't defend.
Welcome to non consensual, open world PvP, where logging in is opting in.
You are never safe
Don't carry what you can't afford to lose
It's nothing personal, it's all about the coin
No offense to you Decius, but if you look at my many prior posts I explain my reasoning pretty well. I've just got lazy and haven't wanted to continue typing lengthy paragraphs over and over. To voice it for the last time in a paraphrased manner: In my opinion, bandits should be treated harsher than merchants for having the luxury of inserting themselves in another player's experience, getting merchandise without work and frankly being criminal in general. I'm not saying they should be worthless, but I feel like the requests by Goodfellow and Bluddwolf are trying to transform the bandit into a victim by letting them go about criminal activity far too easily.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
What would be the exact right amount of difficulty a bandit should experience? Isn't it sufficient that they have to figure out which "merchants" are vigilantes pretending to be merchants, which are merchants pretending to be vigilantes pretending to be merchants, and which are adequately defended? Keep in mind that every one of those types has a very vested interest in appearing to be one of the others, and there is a very large cost of attacking and losing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What would be the exact right amount of difficulty a bandit should experience? Isn't it sufficient that they have to figure out which "merchants" are vigilantes pretending to be merchants, which are merchants pretending to be vigilantes pretending to be merchants, and which are adequately defended? Keep in mind that every one of those types has a very vested interest in appearing to be one of the others, and there is a very large cost of attacking and losing.
Perhaps you should look back at some of their requests and make a decision for yourself if they are indeed worthy of implementation. I daresay you would come to the same conclusion as I about (at least) some of them, or maybe you will consider me a bias lunatic, doubtful but entirely possible. It will be trial by error certainly.
|
Every day it is a struggle to keep up with the S&D discussion.
Why are bandits seen by so many as evil, predatory, narcissistic gangs roaming the countryside?
In the River Kingdoms bandits vs. merchants should be a regular thing, just as if we were in Osirian lands and this discussion was about protecting knowledge and ancient treasures vs. desecration of the tombs of ancient kings (or since players are most often the tomb raiders, bringing old magic, items of value, and knowledge back into the world).
In the River Kingdoms bandits aren't evil. They are a teaching tool.
Why only have the ability to amass students and not teachers? This doesn't seem to work well for the American education system (if you are a parent, go private schooling)
I don't really plan on playing either bandit or merchant much. I'm one of those Osiriani folk. But it does seem interesting that those planning to amass wealth and property are the ones most opposed to there being even numbers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Every day it is a struggle to keep up with the S&D discussion.
Why are bandits seen by so many as evil, predatory, narcissistic gangs roaming the countryside?
In the River Kingdoms bandits vs. merchants should be a regular thing, just as if we were in Osirian lands and this discussion was about protecting knowledge and ancient treasures vs. desecration of the tombs of ancient kings (or since players are most often the tomb raiders, bringing old magic, items of value, and knowledge back into the world).
In the River Kingdoms bandits aren't evil. They are a teaching tool.
Why only have the ability to amass students and not teachers? This doesn't seem to work well for the American education system (if you are a parent, go private schooling)
I don't really plan on playing either bandit or merchant much. I'm one of those Osiriani folk. But it does seem interesting that those planning to amass wealth and property are the ones most opposed to there being even numbers.
That is not really true. It is a mixed bag of who is "ok" with some things and not. It is further mixed in the main roles that these "mixed opinions" plan to play.
Bandits are going to prey on a very wide spectrum of players. They have to or 95% of the time they will have to be skulking about doing nothing.
It is only natural to see any players that are vocal about taking your Goodies as: ADVERSARY. Some are going to be ok with it, some not and some in between. It is only natural that some will argue to make it more difficult and some to make it more easy. It is even natural for some to wonder why the two sides go back and forth... :)
I don't see anyone writing that bandits should not be there. Just differing on how it should work and what is "fair" or balanced. Each side is certainly going to post and repost their points, hoping that they gain traction with the development team.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Bluddwolf
No, bandits are stewards of a healthy economy and will "victimize" other players far less than merchants in the player economy.
You have written this (in various ways) since well before I first posted here. I have to believe that it is a deeply seated feeling or philosophy (if you will). If you should ever be so inclined, I would love to read more detail about why you think that someone that buys or sells things is more of a victimizer than someone that just takes things from everyone they see, when they think they can.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're right, Bringslite, that there is no one saying bandits should not be there.
The two sides I have seen so far are bandits trying to make the numbers even and merchants trying to make bandit interference not mean much. Since the merchants plan the route they take (being able to avoid roads/trails entirely, if they so choose) and the blinds only work over a relatively small area to stop merchants in fast travel on the roads, it seems to me that the merchants have most of the choices and advantages in this type of warfare. If the numbers of the bandits aren't enough to combat the merchants then the SAD becomes useless, causing bandits instead to form large raiding parties and attack at random, knowing they will always give up a little rep, but will also be able to get more loot more often and not have to stick to certain areas.
Merchants should want the SAD mechanic to be the main thing that bandits aim for. Otherwise, the merchants are just prey to kill as the bandits see fit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You're right, Bringslite, that there is no one saying bandits should not be there.
The two sides I have seen so far are bandits trying to make the numbers even and merchants trying to make bandit interference not mean much. Since the merchants plan the route they take (being able to avoid roads/trails entirely, if they so choose) and the blinds only work over a relatively small area to stop merchants in fast travel on the roads, it seems to me that the merchants have most of the choices and advantages in this type of warfare. If the numbers of the bandits aren't enough to combat the merchants then the SAD becomes useless, causing bandits instead to form large raiding parties and attack at random, knowing they will always give up a little rep, but will also be able to get more loot more often and not have to stick to certain areas.
Merchants should want the SAD mechanic to be the main thing that bandits aim for. Otherwise, the merchants are just prey to kill as the bandits see fit.
I plan to play a merchant. I am fine with either side being able to bring and involve as many as they can muster. The more the bandits bring, the more my friends/allies/hired guards have to do (content) and the more plunder for them. Even though I expect bandits to typically run with little valuable gear. ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Also, I feel strange about Marshals exercising law in "the wilds" unless all of that is a fiat of The Gods/The Cosmos (otherwise known as GW).It seems to me that natural balance holds domain in the wilds. Any excess should answer to nature, and by extension, guardians thereof.
Well it has been confirmed now that Law is a fiat of "The Gods" in the wilds. I do like your idea though, as it adds to, expands and legitimizes the role of NN. Gives it some more utility.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the numbers of the bandits aren't enough to combat the merchants then the SAD becomes useless...
I've been a strong proponent up-thread for allowing more bandits into the fight.
Here though, I must say: if the threat of SAD drives merchants and gatherers and others to group up into parties of 10 or 20(edit to replace with: parties of 6 and groups of parties working together), then maybe it has already served its primary function. Maybe the primary function of SAD is to get those gatherers to form up into groups and invest in some bare amount of armor and weaponry, rather than gathering solo and nekkid as a newborn. Grouping builds social connections; social connections keep players in games. A demand for even the minimal weapons and armor helps move the economy along.
Maybe the game they're designing is PFO, not Bobo the Bandit Online (BBO). Maybe there is some upper limit to how many bandits get to pile in on one fight. Maybe it's 6. Maybe it's 24 or 72. Maybe just getting gatherers to not solo might be the key design goal.
|
|
@Urman - please quote the full sentence if you are going to quote it, as it gives your argument the opposite impression. Also why I prefer not to quote often.
If you make the SAD useful only against small groups, people will stop training SAD. If people stop training SAD, people will stop having to defend against it, meaning they will stop grouping to do so. This would make people more likely to form large groups of bandits to kill anything they come across, sure, but then the merchants would have more of an advantage if they ran through an area individually hoping the others would attract the attention of the bandits so a larger percentage could get through.
The only ones grouping in this case are the bandits as staying separate and individual would serve non-bandits better.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Urman - please quote the full sentence if you are going to quote it, as it gives your argument the opposite impression. Also why I prefer not to quote often.
If you make the SAD useful only against small groups, people will stop training SAD. If people stop training SAD.
What makes you think this?
After all, I don't think the intention is for bandits to be able to
SAD entire groups of merchants? I see it being used on a much smaller scale. I think a person attracted to the life of a "player killer" should be okay with still having the option to SAD a lone-merchant than no merchant at all? After all the consequences to randomly killing innocent players is said to be severe.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is interesting to consider all of the dynamics that will play out in the newest official version of S&D. Having to inspect each single target and wagon as an individual really encourages more of the bandits to train and slot S&D. They are also encouraged to be a bit organized to be efficient.
Those bandits that don't start and operate that way will leave all kinds of opportunities for large groups of travelers.
|
|
First of all, Nevy, I'd like to thank you for also cutting off your quote in the middle of a sentence, as it shows great respect.
What makes me think this is my experiences in other MMOs combining with my various independent studies of random psychology topics. Also, I've seen this in the traffic patterns of various countries by looking at the backgrounds of various documentaries. (think cars vs. pedestrians and the rules pertaining to them)
Randomly killing people will not seem to have much consequence for those that play that way as they will be able to do so regardless of their alignment and reputation. The consequence falls on those that want to SAD but don't find it useful.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You're right, Bringslite, that there is no one saying bandits should not be there.
The two sides I have seen so far are bandits trying to make the numbers even and merchants trying to make bandit interference not mean much. Since the merchants plan the route they take (being able to avoid roads/trails entirely, if they so choose) and the blinds only work over a relatively small area to stop merchants in fast travel on the roads, it seems to me that the merchants have most of the choices and advantages in this type of warfare. If the numbers of the bandits aren't enough to combat the merchants then the SAD becomes useless, causing bandits instead to form large raiding parties and attack at random, knowing they will always give up a little rep, but will also be able to get more loot more often and not have to stick to certain areas.
Merchants should want the SAD mechanic to be the main thing that bandits aim for. Otherwise, the merchants are just prey to kill as the bandits see fit.
I must say, this is a rewording of the idea bludd and I have been trying to get across. Glad to see someone NOT UNC and prolly not even a bandit be able to see our point of view and what we are trying to accomplish.
@nevy. I totally understand how you feel with not wanting to type large walls of text (something I can't help but do most the time LOL) explaining the same thing and the same POV over and over. I do understand you think we have this big advantage, and to a point we do. However, as Kios wrote above, you as a merchant have a lot of choice as well. What path to take, how much protection to bring, travel alone or with a caravan. Until traveling merchants become a very common thing, we bandits will likely be sitting on a road counting blades of grass while we wait for a merchant to happen down our road. Or be wondering around until we happen across one. The only way we wouldn't be doing that is if we had an "inside guy" who tells us what is being hauled, how many guards, and down what road. Only then can we truly be prepared. the rest of the time will be a crap shoot.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You're right, Bringslite, that there is no one saying bandits should not be there.
The two sides I have seen so far are bandits trying to make the numbers even and merchants trying to make bandit interference not mean much. Since the merchants plan the route they take (being able to avoid roads/trails entirely, if they so choose) and the blinds only work over a relatively small area to stop merchants in fast travel on the roads, it seems to me that the merchants have most of the choices and advantages in this type of warfare. If the numbers of the bandits aren't enough to combat the merchants then the SAD becomes useless, causing bandits instead to form large raiding parties and attack at random, knowing they will always give up a little rep, but will also be able to get more loot more often and not have to stick to certain areas.
Merchants should want the SAD mechanic to be the main thing that bandits aim for. Otherwise, the merchants are just prey to kill as the bandits see fit.
I must say, this is a rewording of the idea bludd and I have been trying to get across. Glad to see someone NOT UNC and prolly not even a bandit be able to see our point of view and what we are trying to accomplish.
@nevy. I totally understand how you feel with not wanting to type large walls of text (something I can't help but do most the time LOL) explaining the same thing and the same POV over and over. I do understand you think we have this big advantage, and to a point we do. However, as Kios wrote above, you as a merchant have a lot of choice as well. What path to take, how much protection to bring, travel alone or with a caravan. Until traveling merchants become a very common thing, we bandits will likely be sitting on a road counting blades of grass while we wait for a merchant to happen down our road. Or be wondering around until we happen across one. The only way we wouldn't be doing that is if we had an "inside guy" who tells us what is being hauled, how many guards, and down...
What makes you think I'm a merchant? I'm far from the merchant type, in fact I'm quite the opposite. I just don't want to run all the merchants off because everyone keeps SADing them with little to no consequences.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the numbers of the bandits aren't enough to combat the merchants then the SAD becomes useless, causing bandits instead to form large raiding parties and attack at random, knowing they will always give up a little rep, but will also be able to get more loot more often and not have to stick to certain areas.
If the numbers of the bandits aren't enough to combat the merchants then the SAD becomes useless...
It's a long sentence. I used the ellipses (...) to show I omitted something, but the part I removed wasn't relevant to my point: SAD doesn't become useless to the game as long as the threat of SAD encourage people to group with others. My point wasn't about what bandits might do, so I left that out. My point was that maybe, just maybe, the purpose and usefulness of the SAD is how it affects the non-bandits. Maybe how useful it is for the bandits is completely secondary.
But talking about what bandits might do. If SAD is only useful against small groups, maybe people only use it against small groups. Maybe bandits are forced to use feuds against larger groups (just like every other non-bandit group has to). Maybe, just maybe, bandits move their operations to other areas when groups in one locale get too big (horrors - players having to react to other players' actions!).
Forming large groups to avoid bandit activity isn't free of costs; it takes time to group and grouping limits members' actions. Absent real bandit attacks, I think you'll see people reverting to forming smaller groups or soloing. And then the bandits return.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
First of all, Nevy, I'd like to thank you for also cutting off your quote in the middle of a sentence, as it shows great respect.
What makes me think this is my experiences in other MMOs combining with my various independent studies of random psychology topics. Also, I've seen this in the traffic patterns of various countries by looking at the backgrounds of various documentaries. (think cars vs. pedestrians and the rules pertaining to them)
Randomly killing people will not seem to have much consequence for those that play that way as they will be able to do so regardless of their alignment and reputation. The consequence falls on those that want to SAD but don't find it useful.
I apologize about the quoting I'm on a phone and it's rather difficult, I don't think it manipulated the meaning of your words, however.
|
|
I apologize, Nevy, I thought it was intentional.
Urman, I feel that the SAD becoming useless and the effect of the SAD becoming useless are tied together and just saying that the SAD becomes useless creates an opposite impression of the one I was trying to create with the full sentence.
However, I do agree with you that the opposite could happen and bandits could split their attention between SADing and feuding. They could also diminish and return as you've stated.
I'd be cool with that result.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Urman - please quote the full sentence if you are going to quote it, as it gives your argument the opposite impression. Also why I prefer not to quote often.
If you make the SAD useful only against small groups, people will stop training SAD. If people stop training SAD.
What makes you think this?
After all, I don't think the intention is for bandits to be able to
SAD entire groups of merchants? I see it being used on a much smaller scale. I think a person attracted to the life of a "player killer" should be okay with still having the option to SAD a lone-merchant than no merchant at all? After all the consequences to randomly killing innocent players is said to be severe.
Yes the consequences for RPK is meant to be severe. It is designed that way as an attempt to discourage that type of behavior. But the only way it will truly work and be successful, is if there is a viable and useful alternative. SAD is that option.
Keep in mind, not all players that are attracted to the life of a bandit are player killers. You can be a bandit and never draw your sword. It is rare but if you intimidate enough, have enough people behind you, and find people who value their life over possessions, then they will pay a reasonable SAD vs risking it all by fighting. In PFO we have the issue that death isn't permanent. This means that people might take the chance to fight because they will just respawn. Granted there is the loss of 75% of non threaded gear, and the damage to threaded gear, but some might be willing to risk that if they feel the bandits can't back up their threat of force.
Also, if we were all player killers, why would we care and fight for an option that doesn't result in us killing you? Granted we can if you decline, but the idea is to make it so you accept it. the UNC has the intent to only issue SADs solely for the purpose of having them be accepted. Weather it is used as a sign of mercy to a solo character that would easily be slaughtered otherwise, or if it is to prevent what we believe to be a "balanced fight." We don't intend to use SAD as an excuse to get rep free kills by only asking for everything and forcing combat where there is not a need. These are not actions of cold hearted player killers.
Personally, I feel the use of "player killer" in this context to be negative, like being called a griefer, and that is completely opposite of what we believe. We will kill players, sure, through feuds and wars and failed SADs, but that isn't our purpose. I hope that you can see that and understand the difference.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I apologize, Nevy, I thought it was intentional.
Urman, I feel that the SAD becoming useless and the effect of the SAD becoming useless are tied together and just saying that the SAD becomes useless creates an opposite impression of the one I was trying to create with the full sentence.
However, I do agree with you that the opposite could happen and bandits could split their attention between SADing and feuding. They could also diminish and return as you've stated.
I'd be cool with that result.
I'd also be happy with those results and something tells me that's what might just occur.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes the consequences for RPK is meant to be severe. It is designed that way as an attempt to discourage that type of behavior. But the only way it will truly work and be successful, is if there is a viable and useful alternative.
What do you mean "the only way it will work?"
I feel you aren't following. SAD will hopefully be an option for you to do criminal activity without your character being sub-par, if you choose to just kill random players, however, you are choosing the road of sub-par, so it seems to be working? In other words, you can SAD or feud or your character(s) will suck?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@urman, bandits always have been wandering groups of highway men. They follow the money. If they just camped 1 road between 2 cities, people would learn to avoid that road. The UNC expects this as will move as the need arises. I think all bandits will. Using feuds vs the "big towns" of merchants will likely happen. If SAD is only used against the smaller groups of merchants then so be it. I didn't think of it that way, but it is all part of the "risk vs reward" calculation that we, as bandits, must do to be successful. Bigger groups mean higher risk, and not always at higher reward.
Later, like definitely after OE, I am hoping that a spy or information broker role becomes available and makes their living "selling" information about caravans and movements of armies and such to those willing to pay for it. Then Bandits would be better prepared and know the risk vs reward better than happening upon them on the road. There is also the chance for betrayal and "bad info" so there is always risk. I think that would be fun and interesting for all parties involved. Merchants have to worry if their travel plans have been sold to bandits, bandits need to worry that their info is good. Again, well after OE happens, but it would be fun.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"The only way it will work" was referring to the act of RPKing being frowned upon. If it is truly an undesired action, then the only way it stays an undesired action, is to provide a useful and meaningful alternative.
If GW does not want bandits to run around and slaughter anyone they come across, they need to give bandits another means of being bandits and not killing their targets all the time. That is where the SAD comes in. That is what I was trying to say.
Not being sab-par is the "carrot" that incentivizes bandits to use SAD vs Ambushing. We always have the option, and at times it will be used, to ambush and slaughter everyone in a caravan. The point of the carrot of not being sub-par is to make it a rarer occurrence then SADing. We still get gear and coin, but less then ambushing, which is what keeps ambushing on the table as an "option." Less desirable because of the rep loss, but still an option.
Does that explain it better?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"The only way it will work" was referring to the act of RPKing being frowned upon. If it is truly an undesired action, then the only way it stays an undesired action, is to provide a useful and meaningful alternative.
If GW does not want bandits to run around and slaughter anyone they come across, they need to give bandits another means of being bandits and not killing their targets all the time. That is where the SAD comes in. That is what I was trying to say.
Not being sab-par is the "carrot" that incentivizes bandits to use SAD vs Ambushing. We always have the option, and at times it will be used, to ambush and slaughter everyone in a caravan. The point of the carrot of not being sub-par is to make it a rarer occurrence then SADing. We still get gear and coin, but less then ambushing, which is what keeps ambushing on the table as an "option." Less desirable because of the rep loss, but still an option.
Does that explain it better?
A bit but we still don't know just how sub-par your characters might become - a good-aligned character might be able to take ten horribly-aligned murderers by himself? Which would make the slaughtering of innocents over and over pretty difficult.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"The only way it will work" was referring to the act of RPKing being frowned upon. If it is truly an undesired action, then the only way it stays an undesired action, is to provide a useful and meaningful alternative.
I disagree. Frequent RPKing will be harshly punished via the rep system. S&D is an options the developers are providing so they can encourage bandits to exist. The devs WANT bandits to exist to create some risk for merchants. But if it's balanced so far in the bandits' favour that a merchant is guaranteed to get jumped every time because it's impossible for things NOT to be in the bandits' favour, they've created a broken system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"The only way it will work" was referring to the act of RPKing being frowned upon. If it is truly an undesired action, then the only way it stays an undesired action, is to provide a useful and meaningful alternative.I disagree. Frequent RPKing will be harshly punished via the rep system. S&D is an options the developers are providing so they can encourage bandits to exist. The devs WANT bandits to exist to create some risk for merchants. But if it's balanced so far in the bandits' favour that a merchant is guaranteed to get jumped every time because it's impossible for things NOT to be in the bandits' favour, they've created a broken system.
I have to agree with Drakhan. Pretty much.
It is also obvious that if it is not worth it, bandits will not use S&D. Some of us think that the ability to have the entire player base as a target pool is "plenty dern good" incentive. No one else gets that luxury, so far.
Is there a question that bandits should not have ways to utilize groups larger than six? Even if there are no mechanics for larger groups, people will find ways to make them. Without such mechanics, bandits will be more free to abuse the system and force fights on the unflagged with S&D. It would be best if bandits could use larger groups to S&D, IMO. Groups that are linked in shared states (hostility, criminal, etc..). Not that it will solve the issue of abuse, but it might make it less common.
A few things are key here (again IMO):
1. S&D should not be easy to abuse.
2. Bandits have to prefer to use it.
3. Low reputation needs to suck so bad that no serious player will want it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
On a further note, something I just "thunk up" marked my thoughts colored.
Say a big group of bandits set up shop on a road and literally no merchants can get through with any wares intact. Eventually someone sends out a guard squad to get rid of them. It succeeds... but the bandits spawn in the nearby tavern PoI and come right back. And again. And again.
Do you devs see this as actually going to be a problem (personally I don't, nobody is going to stick around when found out esp. if they lose a lot of stuff on death. But the fact that it is a possibility should be made known.
Again, not certain as to how much of a problem this will even be, but the fact that it exists should be mentioned
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Part of it depends on whether Criminal and Attacker flags expire on death.
To some degree, I expect once the local guard types arrive, they'll sweep the area while merchant traffic passes through. The guards can kill anyone who flags Criminal by placing a blind (if within a settlement area) or anyone who participates in an S&D. And while they're doing their sweeps, they record names, companies, and settlement names of all of the likely-bandits.
I frankly don't expect most bandits to stay around once the guard is called out. No point in using a blind when there's half a company watching you.
Never wanted to be completely safe, that doesn't mean the life of a bandit should be easy though. Bandits are not victims, they are a victimizers.
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.
The game designers do not want unhindered resource gathering and trade. So rather than arbitrarily and artificially turning resource nodes on and off, they want there to be a human interaction to help regulate the player economy.
You will not just have bandits to contend with, but rival settlements who will Lilly not bother SADing you, but just killing you.
Your outposts and POIs will be raided. Your caravans will be attacked. Your harvesters will be attacked in the fields where they attempt to gather.
It will be fine by us to just feud your company and kill, or attempt to, in order to take what will no longer be rightfully yours.
You keep on saying, "our hard work" or "what we earned". In the River Kingdoms, you have what you hold. You have no right to anything you can't defend.
Welcome to non consensual, open world PvP, where logging in is opting in.
You are never safe
Don't carry what you can't afford to lose
It's nothing personal, it's all about the coin
So? Same can be said for war decs or feud decs. The game has to have antagonists.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So? Same can be said for war decs or feud decs. The game has to have antagonists.Never wanted to be completely safe, that doesn't mean the life of a bandit should be easy though. Bandits are not victims, they are a victimizers.
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.
The game designers do not want unhindered resource gathering and trade. So rather than arbitrarily and artificially turning resource nodes on and off, they want there to be a human interaction to help regulate the player economy.
You will not just have bandits to contend with, but rival settlements who will Lilly not bother SADing you, but just killing you.
Your outposts and POIs will be raided. Your caravans will be attacked. Your harvesters will be attacked in the fields where they attempt to gather.
It will be fine by us to just feud your company and kill, or attempt to, in order to take what will no longer be rightfully yours.
You keep on saying, "our hard work" or "what we earned". In the River Kingdoms, you have what you hold. You have no right to anything you can't defend.
Welcome to non consensual, open world PvP, where logging in is opting in.
You are never safe
Don't carry what you can't afford to lose
It's nothing personal, it's all about the coin
Where in what I said describes the elimination of bandits as a whole? Where in any of that did I say I don't believe in the presence of antagonists? You guessed it, nowhere-town.
Anyhow, my pretty clear point (I mean, I really do think it's pretty clear) is that bandits should indeed exist however they should have a more difficult time criminalizing innocent players than innocent players have being criminalized. It's honestly a simple concept and I'm starting to believe that you all understand but you rather just not accept the fine-tuned logic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Nevy,
Where was it said that the merchant would be criminalized? Yep, you got it... Nowhere.
The point has been made clear, if the bandits come under attack by a third party the bandit's company membership should see that third party as hostile.
What is the point of having companies of a size of 50, if they can only protect one another in groups of 6?
That is all that is being asked for. The ability to operate as a company. To attack and defend as a company.
I don't mind if as each group of the company comes to the aid of the original 6 criminal flagged bandits, likewise become criminal flagged. The criminal flag is not the issue and it never has been.
Aiding a character with an active criminal flag, should make you a criminal.
What you seem to be arguing for is that bandits should be exposed to 6 v the world in every case. You can't then say at the same time you want banditry to exist when the deck is so obviously stacked. No caravan worth SADing or ambushing would ever travel with less than 12 guards + the original 6 merchants. Minimally creating an 18:6, and that does not include and passersby who don't want to jump in on the free kills.
SADs would never be used outside of a feud, and they are unnecessary in feuds. SADs would never be used in the wilderness, but rather in a settlement zone where the likelihood of third party roving bands are less.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Nevy,
Where was it said that the merchant would be criminalized? Yep, you got it... Nowhere.
The point has been made clear, if the bandits come under attack by a third party the bandit's company membership should see that third party as hostile.
What is the point of having companies of a size of 50, if they can only protect one another in groups of 6?
That is all that is being asked for. The ability to operate as a company. To attack and defend as a company.
I don't mind if as each group of the company comes to the aid of the original 6 criminal flagged bandits, likewise become criminal flagged. The criminal flag is not the issue and it never has been.
Aiding a character with an active criminal flag, should make you a criminal.
What you seem to be arguing for is that bandits should be exposed to 6 v the world in every case. You can't then say at the same time you want banditry to exist when the deck is so obviously stacked. No caravan worth SADing or ambushing would ever travel with less than 12 guards + the original 6 merchants. Minimally creating an 18:6, and that does not include and passersby who don't want to jump in on the free kills.
SADs would never be used outside of a feud, and they are unnecessary in feuds. SADs would never be used in the wilderness, but rather in a settlement zone where the likelihood of third party roving bands are less.
You assume too much that is unknown and make those unknown assumptions fact in order to try and make a point. Yes, bandits will have to pick and choose using risk or reward which innocent caravans or merchants they will attack. If there were no risk, or perhaps a completely even amount of risk, merchants will be constantly SAD whenever and wherever they go. This is unacceptable, I'm sure in your mind all of that sounds wonderful but in a healthy gaming world it just wouldn't work.
You also stated "aiding a criminal with an active criminal flag, should make you a criminal."
I couldn't agree more, but somehow in your head your still under the assumption that If a merchant's allies come to aid him against a criminally flagged bandit they will be flagged as a criminal. That is incorrect, you see, they aren't coming to aid the criminal, rather they are aiding the innocent.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Nevy
You are taking out of context what I wrote, or misunderstood what I wrote. I am advocating for the 3rd party to appear "hostile" towards the associated members of the bandit's company.
I did mention in the context of the world setting of the River Kingdoms that interfering with banditry or the excessive application of lawful action might be considered "criminal", but that was not the primary thrust of my argument.
I do however feel that many of the posters here do not think of the context in its proper place. The River Kingdoms are predominantly ruled by and governed by principles of both Chaos and Neutrality. It is a place that is ruled, from not so behind the scenes, by the Outlaw Council. It is a place where banditry is not only accepted, but praised and this is supported in the River Freedoms.
There are no property rights, only what you are able to hold.
I recommend that you read the Guide to the River Kingdoms and get a better sense of what the setting is like. It was a free PDF which comes with your pledge.
You also keep on using the term "innocent", and I know you mean for that to represent "blue" status, but that does not exist unless the viewer has set it. Most characters will be set to "grey" or neutral. Fewer will be set to "Red" or openly hostile. About the same r maybe a bit more or less than "Red", will be set to "Blue".
Your "Blues" will not necessarily be my "Blues". There is no universal condition known as "Innocent" amongst the immortals that are the characters that we play.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't mind if as each group of the company comes to the aid of the original 6 criminal flagged bandits, likewise become criminal flagged. The criminal flag is not the issue and it never has been.
I am advocating for the 3rd party to appear "hostile" towards the associated members of the bandit's company.
I'm confused. What is it that you hope to accomplish? Your second quote makes it sound like you want the Bandit's company to be able to attack those who defend the Traveler without losing Reputation or Alignment. But your first quote makes it clear you're willing to accept those consequences.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do however feel that many of the posters here do not think of the context in its proper place. The River Kingdoms are predominantly ruled by and governed by principles of both Chaos and Neutrality. It is a place that is ruled, from not so behind the scenes, by the Outlaw Council. It is a place where banditry is not only accepted, but praised and this is supported in the River Freedoms.
There are no property rights, only what you are able to hold.
I recommend that you read the Guide to the River Kingdoms and get a better sense of what the setting is like. It was a free PDF which comes with your pledge.
We've been told by the developers that in their version of the River Kingdoms, PFO, robbing people with the Stand and Deliver mechanism will flag the robber as Criminal. We've also been told that looting someone else's kill will flag the robber as Criminal. It seems that the developers have their interpretation of how things will operate in this section of the River Kingdoms - and it's the one we're going to play in.
I'm not sure it's particularly useful for everyone to be reading more sourcebooks and then coming up with their own interpretation of how PFO will operate. I'd offer that it's more useful to read what the devs are telling us about the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Nihimon, Consider the case of 3 Criminal flagged parties facing 3 unflagged parties. All three of the unflagged parties can attack one of the Criminal flagged parties, but will not appear hostile to the other two parties of criminals. If the 3 Criminal parties are operating independently, that might work. If the Criminals are operating together they should be able to aid each other.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Nevy
You are taking out of context what I wrote, or misunderstood what I wrote. I am advocating for the 3rd party to appear "hostile" towards the associated members of the bandit's company.
I did mention in the context of the world setting of the River Kingdoms that interfering with banditry or the excessive application of lawful action might be considered "criminal", but that was not the primary thrust of my argument.
I do however feel that many of the posters here do not think of the context in its proper place. The River Kingdoms are predominantly ruled by and governed by principles of both Chaos and Neutrality. It is a place that is ruled, from not so behind the scenes, by the Outlaw Council. It is a place where banditry is not only accepted, but praised and this is supported in the River Freedoms.
There are no property rights, only what you are able to hold.
I recommend that you read the Guide to the River Kingdoms and get a better sense of what the setting is like. It was a free PDF which comes with your pledge.
You also keep on using the term "innocent", and I know you mean for that to represent "blue" status, but that does not exist unless the viewer has set it. Most characters will be set to "grey" or neutral. Fewer will be set to "Red" or openly hostile. About the same r maybe a bit more or less than "Red", will be set to "Blue".
Your "Blues" will not necessarily be my "Blues". There is no universal condition known as "Innocent" amongst the immortals that are the characters that we play.
Okay, I'm throwing in the towel. I feel like I'm in the twilight zone man. I just cannot understand where you're coming from :(