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.
If the bandit's will almost always either face 6 v the world or risk having their company mates lose reputation to defend them, then what is the point of the SAD?
We are willing to accept the criminal flag, but that is not reputation loss. If we see a group attacking our company mates as hostile, there is no reputation loss for helping them defend themselves. If however, the company mates are forced to either stand there and do nothing or to attack and lose reputation, than the original 6 should have just attacked and taken the rep hit and then there would not be a 6 v world situation.
What should happen is, anyone entering the radius of the SAD is marked as hostile. If they aid the criminals, they get criminal flagged. If they aid the merchant / traveler or attack the bandits directly they get flagged hostile. Hostile parties can attack each other without reputation consequences.
This is similar to what happens with raiding an outpost or poi. The bandits are not limited to just 6.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
... the original 6 should have just attacked and taken the rep hit and then there would not be a 6 v world situation.
That's not accurate. If the original six simply attacked, they'd still be flagged Hostile to the world, and the rest of your Company would still not be able to assist without also getting flagged.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If they are operating together, they are already sharing the consequences for doing criminal acts, no? Unless they also share hostility states, they can be defeated in detail. If they don't share hostility states, then they must suffer the consequences of the Attacker flag, which their opponent do not face.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If they are operating together, they are already sharing the consequences for doing criminal acts, no? Unless they also share hostility states, they can be defeated in detail. If they don't share hostility states, then they must suffer the consequences of the Attacker flag, which their opponent do not face.
There is a counter to this, of course:
"There is a line between being a bandit, even one who shakes down people with threat of violence, and one who attacks others outright. It is the line between the Criminal and the Attacker.
"The Criminal may face retribution, as others will be hostile to his acts. But when his friends attack those hostiles in return, it has gone beyond a somewhat polite "Stand and Deliver" to open predation. And that is why additional parties who rise in defense of the Criminal will gain the Attacker flag."
Bits in quotes are my supposition of a reasonable counter-argument, but I'm not sold on it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If they are operating together, they are already sharing the consequences for doing criminal acts, no? Unless they also share hostility states, they can be defeated in detail. If they don't share hostility states, then they must suffer the consequences of the Attacker flag, which their opponent do not face.
Perhaps I'm assuming this is already the case. I think Bluddwolf may be getting hung up on the word "party" in Stephen's description. Your "party" (everyone you're working with) isn't necessarily your "Party" (group of 6).
I absolutely agree that Bandits should be able to work in large raiding parties where everyone gets flagged Criminal as soon as any of them use S&D.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.
Hmmm. Maybe... just maybe... you should actually form a company? <preen> See: That's why I pull down the big bucks.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly, I could also see the Criminal flag being reserved just for small-time crimes. Looting a corpse that you didn't kill. Holding up 3 travelers in the woods. Maybe when a group gets bigger than that - when they're powerful to ride out 30 strong - they're held to different rules, the rules of companies and settlements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Frankly, I could also see the Criminal flag being reserved just for small-time crimes. Looting a corpse that you didn't kill. Holding up 3 travelers in the woods. Maybe when a group gets bigger than that - when they're powerful to ride out 30 strong - they're held to different rules, the rules of companies and settlements.
I actually like that. For ALL concerned. I wonder if that is what the Devs have assumed we should do?
In any case, I think the idea is worth playing with.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Urman is basically saying what we are saying. @nihimon, the flagging of criminal shouldn't be the issue. The whole company will likely be criminal flagged anyway, in fact if you read my post about using the "raid group" they all would be flagged criminal when the first SAD is issued. The issue is when the 3rd party, be they random passer-byers or hired guards in their own group separate from the SADed party, attacks the SAD issuers, they become hostile (able to be attacked rep free) by the party they are attacking. Both parties involved are rep free, 3rd party because bandits are criminal flaged, and the bandits because the 3rd party attacked them so they are defending themselves.
The concern that has sparked the last few pages of the thread isn't anything to do with the above interaction. All posters on this thread agree the above is correct, or I believe we all agree.
The concern is that when the bandit company mates (Who I think should also be flagged criminal) want to engage and assist their mates, then the 3rd party group should ALSO be hostile to them. Hostile, not criminal flagged. Criminal flag = you vs world, hostile flag = you vs me.
If bludd SAD's a target, and Andius walks by and sees bludd criminal flagged and attacks him to defend the merchant, why can't I attack Andius without rep loss? I would be defending Bludd. Now I can't attack the merchant, unless he refuses the SAD offer and becomes hostile to Bludd. But anyone attacking bludd should be hostile to me as well.
This could even apply outside of SAD. If Bludd is walking down the street without any flags on him and is just minding his own business, then say he gets attacked because Andius has a bounty on him, can I not help defend Bludd rep free? Andius would only be flagged hostile to bludd cause he attacked him. (Unless they change bounty hunting to include a flag similar to criminal but less "bad")
I don't see why fellow company mates can't defend their membership without rep loss, weather it is SAD, bounty, RPK, or any other issue. If you attack Bludd, you attack all of UNC. Same goes to all. If I attack Nihimon, I attack all of T7V. (I think that is right, right?)
Is this a more acceptable and understandable explanation of what we want and why?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just FYI, I would LOVE if bounties and assassinations worked the opposite of what I explained above. If I attack a target I have an assassination contract on, and his buddies can't attack me to help him without rep loss, then I see a lot of 1v1 battles because some people don't want to lose the rep.
Again, NOT the way I see it working, nor would I want it that way, but just giving the "flip side" if you will.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If bludd SAD's a target, and Andius walks by and sees bludd criminal flagged and attacks him to defend the merchant, why can't I attack Andius without rep loss? I would be defending Bludd. Now I can't attack the merchant, unless he refuses the SAD offer and becomes hostile to Bludd. But anyone attacking bludd should be hostile to me as well.
If I attack Nihimon, I attack all of T7V.
I agree in the specific instance, but not in the general case.
If you're a party to Bluddwolf's initial S&D, then absolutely you should be able to join in the fight if Bluddwolf gets attacked by anyone.
However, if you're not flagged Criminal at the same time Bluddwolf is, you should not be able to come in after that fact and defend him without consequence. That would inevitably lead to a very degenerate condition where most of the Bandits would stay out of line of sight, remain unflagged at the initial S&D, and then swoop in for the consequence-free kill when the Travelers Reject the S&D and attack the small party of Bandits.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hmmm. Maybe... just maybe... you should actually form a company? <preen> See: That's why I pull down the big bucks.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.
Lol, I think someone deserves a refund.... I'm talking about a company being able to function as a company, as part of one party if the situation calls for it.
Nihimon is partly correct in that someone is confusing what party actually means. There can be or should be the allowance for multiple parties working in concert with each other and sharing the appropriate status earned by the one of the party elements.
This is why I asked Stephen for clarification on how many individuals, from different 6man, could stand in the SAD / Blind radius.
In my thought I was thinking you should be able to have 6 members of 6 different groups, in order to have up to 36 involved members of the initial action.
6 members initiate the SAD, but all 36 are flagged as criminal. If anyone attacks the original 6, they enter a hostile state to all 36, and not just to the original 6.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Excuse me for joining this late, but I think what this calls for is a more simple and workable mechanic of an INVITE function, which would basicaly allow 1 party to INVITE another party into a conflict, giving the invited party if it accepts, all the flags and status (and rep hits) that the inviting party had toward anyone else.
This allows for both merchant and caravan guards as well as bandits to add groups to a conflict as desired. Afterall 6 is an arbitrary number imposed by the technical limitations of the system. I see no logical reason to limit such temporary conflicts to an arbitrary number.
It also handles nicely the ability of a group to control which 3rd parties intervene in a conflict on thier behalf without the need to arbitrarly assume who is on who's side....which the system can't really know.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think we're pretty ambivalent about the justice inherent in whether a big group of criminals can defend their buddies without rep consequence from people trying to punish them for their crimes. But I am worried about a degenerate condition where it becomes common practice to organize groups moving goods in a way that results in bandits either having to take a rep hit or stand there and watch a friend get dogpiled by guards... because that naturally leads to "well we're probably going to take a rep hit anyway, let's not even bother with S&D and just eat the hit."
So a potential simple solution is to add the "Thick as Thieves" effect to the Blind, such that attacking any Criminal in the radius of the Blind's fast-travel interdiction automatically marks you Hostile (Temporary) to any other Criminals in the radius. That makes jumping in risky (there could be more than you can see involved in the S&D stealthed/behind a tree), without triggering "I start a fight with six bandits to save the merchants, and then 100 of their friends boil in from around the area."
But that might be a too-specific patch that doesn't manage to address all the permutations, so we're not set on that. Since this is a bigger problem with bigger merchant groups (a couple of gatherers in the woods are unlikely to have an elite guard squadron), it may be something we can account for in the base design of caravans, once we have more idea about how they'll work. It may also be something we can handle by creating a merchant faction with desirable high-rank faction rewards for moving goods (similar to the Traveler flag of old) and an opposed bandit faction.
In general, this discussion has uncovered how complex the system interactions are likely to be, so we're unlikely to say much more until we have more of the company and faction systems online. That way, we can see how much utilization those get in the primeval struggle between those that have stuff and those that want stuff, and use that as a guide for what needs to be added.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand the desire to want to respond to your friends getting attacked….
But just because you are friends with them doesn’t mean you should get a free pass for protecting them. Your friends using the SAD system are trying to interact with others without out rep hits, but they are not interacting with them in a mutual beneficial way, they are in essence robbing them. The S&D mechanic is allowing them to rob them in a way they may not loose rep for doing it.
They are your friends and you can do what you want to protect them but don’t ask for a free pass. The event they are attempting is meant to rob people and just because you are friends with them doesn’t mean you should be able to jump in on their side without taking a rep loss. You are basically standing up on the side of the conflict that says Yes I like it when people get robbed.. beyond the point that your friends are doing the robbing why should you not take a rep hit for this action?
I do agree anyone in the blind that initiates a SAD should have the status handed down to the rest of the group( but I also feel there should be a range on this because 30 people hidden 200’ away behind a hill should not gain the same benefits as the 12 or so folks all hanging around the blind).
Blinds to me indicate small areas, an area that lets 50 people into the event is not a blind , it is a fort.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This could even apply outside of SAD. If Bludd is walking down the street without any flags on him and is just minding his own business, then say he gets attacked because Andius has a bounty on him, can I not help defend Bludd rep free? Andius would only be flagged hostile to bludd cause he attacked him. (Unless they change bounty hunting to include a flag similar to criminal but less "bad")
I don't see why fellow company mates can't defend their membership without rep loss, weather it is SAD, bounty, RPK, or any other issue. If you attack Bludd, you attack all of UNC. ...
If Andius has a bounty on Bludd, that means Bludd has some unfinished business with someone out there. The rest of your company could be left out of it.
If you are rank 5 in the Red Mantis faction, and Nihimon attacks you because the Red Mantis is his factional enemy, the rest of your company (and his company) should be left out it.
If UNC has one of their alt characters attack someone, the alt gains the Attacker flag and now can be targeted by anyone. The rest of the UNC should not be able to jump in to the defense of the alt without consequence.
That last case is where the slippery slope ends up. Some group lets one throw-away member take the Rep hit (or Criminal flag) to allow the rest of the group a consequence-free fight.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If UNC has one of their alt characters attack someone, the alt gains the Attacker flag and now can be targeted by anyone. The rest of the UNC should not be able to jump in to the defense of the alt without consequence.
That last case is where the slippery slope ends up. Some group lets one throw-away member take the Rep hit (or Criminal flag) to allow the rest of the group a consequence-free fight.
This.
Our difficulty in setting up a straightforward S&D system is in making sure we don't open up exploits. It's going to be hard for us to tell the difference between "a company engaging in an economically healthy bit of banditry in a way that shouldn't ruin their reps" and "a company trying to kill a bunch of people without consequences by leading off with a false flag of the S&D system" so our compromise is more likely to fall on making banditry more complicated to pull off without a rep hit to avoid the potential false flag situation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If UNC has one of their alt characters attack someone, the alt gains the Attacker flag and now can be targeted by anyone. The rest of the UNC should not be able to jump in to the defense of the alt without consequence.
That last case is where the slippery slope ends up. Some group lets one throw-away member take the Rep hit (or Criminal flag) to allow the rest of the group a consequence-free fight.
This.
Our difficulty in setting up a straightforward S&D system is in making sure we don't open up exploits. It's going to be hard for us to tell the difference between "a company engaging in an economically healthy bit of banditry in a way that shouldn't ruin their reps" and "a company trying to kill a bunch of people without consequences by leading off with a false flag of the S&D system" so our compromise is more likely to fall on making banditry more complicated to pull off without a rep hit to avoid the potential false flag situation.
If that is what it takes, I say your words are sweet music.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Urman is basically saying what we are saying. @nihimon, the flagging of criminal shouldn't be the issue. The whole company will likely be criminal flagged anyway, in fact if you read my post about using the "raid group" they all would be flagged criminal when the first SAD is issued. The issue is when the 3rd party, be they random passer-byers or hired guards in their own group separate from the SADed party, attacks the SAD issuers, they become hostile (able to be attacked rep free) by the party they are attacking. Both parties involved are rep free, 3rd party because bandits are criminal flaged, and the bandits because the 3rd party attacked them so they are defending themselves.
The concern that has sparked the last few pages of the thread isn't anything to do with the above interaction. All posters on this thread agree the above is correct, or I believe we all agree.
The concern is that when the bandit company mates (Who I think should also be flagged criminal) want to engage and assist their mates, then the 3rd party group should ALSO be hostile to them. Hostile, not criminal flagged. Criminal flag = you vs world, hostile flag = you vs me.
If bludd SAD's a target, and Andius walks by and sees bludd criminal flagged and attacks him to defend the merchant, why can't I attack Andius without rep loss? I would be defending Bludd. Now I can't attack the merchant, unless he refuses the SAD offer and becomes hostile to Bludd. But anyone attacking bludd should be hostile to me as well.
This could even apply outside of SAD. If Bludd is walking down the street without any flags on him and is just minding his own business, then say he gets attacked because Andius has a bounty on him, can I not help defend Bludd rep free? Andius would only be flagged hostile to bludd cause he attacked him. (Unless they change bounty hunting to include a flag similar to criminal but less "bad")
I don't see why fellow company mates can't defend their membership without rep loss, weather it is SAD, bounty,...
So, I've been paying some attention to all the SAD threads, but not a whole lot, -if I repeat some thoughts please let me know.
That said, looking at this issue, I think I've deduced the exact problem with the 3rd party issue in the SAD situation. Namely that the 3rd party ends up defeating the power/legal balance created at the interaction between bandits (agressors) and merchants (defendants).
Let's summarize if we can - in a basic SAD situation, an aggressor captures a defendant in a compromising position and offers an exchange - an expensive but affordable loss of goods and no reputation loss - and the merchant 'gains' the remainder of their goods, and the reasonable assumption that they can continue without any further inconveinence.
What the 3rd party does, even if a truly 3rd party, is disrupt that exchange for either side at no downside to THEM. Implicit is that the 3rd party will likely be an agent of either side, and can tip the exchange in their favor without suffering a consequence.
From here, it is clear that what really needs to happen is that any SAD situation that occurs must always be considered between THREE groups: aggressor, defendant, and interlopers.
From this point of view, I see several types of flags being needed in a SAD situation, as follows
Aggressor
Defendant
Negotiating
Interloper
The first two are obvious - your typical bandit and merchant. In a SAD situation, both groups would also receive the negotiating flag - indicating to passerbys what individuals are involved in the process (I imagine all aggressors in a party would be flagged as negotiating).
The idea here is that while under SAD, all participants enter a sort of semi-protected status in which 3rd party candidates should not enter WITHOUT first declaring themselves.
In a properly run SAD rescue, a helpful 3rd party should first have to select any negotating party, and activate a flag that desginates which side they are on - in that way are their intentions known and that all subsequent flags, and reputations are adjusted accordingly. In this way to you create meaningful human interaction, with 3rd parties coming to investigate prior to attacking.
3rd parties that do NOT flag themselves to one side, and then attack any negotiating party would be flagged as interlopers - which should be considered an undesirable flag. In short, interlopers would be considered hostile by all parties and could be attacked/killed with out any fear of rep loss, as least when compared with normal ganking prevention rules (prior crimes, feuds, war status not withstanding).
With this, 3rd parties can still involve themselves, but they dare not do so without first: a) likely asking what's going on, what the situation is and b) declaring themselves to a party of one group or another - and in that case sharing in total the results of the original SAD.
If anyone can think of a way to game this, let me know.
ALSO - I would also recommend two more flags - accosted/victimized. These flags would be keyed to the individuals that were involved in the SAD. The accosted flag would likely be a trigger for the criminal flag as an easy programming setup, but also show directly WHO they had SADed. The victim flag would likewise who had SADed them. If an accoster further attacks/kills/or SAD's their victim again before the timer runs out, they are hit with a severe rep loss, alignment change, and other penalties. This would help mitigate Bandits who seek to gain excess loot beyond the SAD system without the rep loss compensation.
Beyond that, being SAD'd by a completely new group after finishing one before - well, that's just bad luck then.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As a follow up to my previous post, I also wanted to mention the potential options for coding - while I'm not sure how many flags and status GW wants to put in front of player - I think the SAD flags of: Negotiating, Aggressor, Defendant, and Interloper will be needed.
The options for this, however, allow more actions to be codified within the system which can then be recorded. For example, a 3rd party person that after seeing, sides with the defendant could be given extra good alignment - in recognition of their deed. Conversely, a 3rd party individual who switches sides over the course of a negotiation, or attacks as an interloper would receive chaotic alignment.
Also, the victim flag could be linked to an item that would be placed in the victims inventory simply named Evidence. A future enforcer or guardian could potential use some service or skill to analyze the evidence item - if successful, it would reveal the attackers name (codified in the game world), and allow a bounty to be created on the target without the normal evil alignment/rep loss penalties (as the evidence serves to demonstrate in the game that the bounty is in response to previous crimes).
I imagine bandits could take skills to make evidence harder to obtain on them - creating another dimension of conflict between good and evil.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If UNC has one of their alt characters attack someone, the alt gains the Attacker flag and now can be targeted by anyone. The rest of the UNC should not be able to jump in to the defense of the alt without consequence.
That last case is where the slippery slope ends up. Some group lets one throw-away member take the Rep hit (or Criminal flag) to allow the rest of the group a consequence-free fight.
This.
Our difficulty in setting up a straightforward S&D system is in making sure we don't open up exploits. It's going to be hard for us to tell the difference between "a company engaging in an economically healthy bit of banditry in a way that shouldn't ruin their reps" and "a company trying to kill a bunch of people without consequences by leading off with a false flag of the S&D system" so our compromise is more likely to fall on making banditry more complicated to pull off without a rep hit to avoid the potential false flag situation.
Fabulous. Thanks for helping us clear the air.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If UNC has one of their alt characters attack someone, the alt gains the Attacker flag and now can be targeted by anyone. The rest of the UNC should not be able to jump in to the defense of the alt without consequence.
That last case is where the slippery slope ends up. Some group lets one throw-away member take the Rep hit (or Criminal flag) to allow the rest of the group a consequence-free fight.
This.
Our difficulty in setting up a straightforward S&D system is in making sure we don't open up exploits. It's going to be hard for us to tell the difference between "a company engaging in an economically healthy bit of banditry in a way that shouldn't ruin their reps" and "a company trying to kill a bunch of people without consequences by leading off with a false flag of the S&D system" so our compromise is more likely to fall on making banditry more complicated to pull off without a rep hit to avoid the potential false flag situation.
This doesn't make the SAD more desirable, only less so. Banditry will fall into two categories, possibly three:
1. Only in conjunction with an active feud or war, where SAD is unnecessary.
2. With characters that are not concerned with reputation, where the SAD is unnecessary.
3. The third I will reserve for possible use and is dependent on what alterations are developed.
Under the current design, if the bandits are always faced with 6 v the world and they get a reputation hit for defending the 6 from third parties, it will not be used by my company. I'd rather us all lose reputation and defend our brethren, than have 6 be exempt from rep loss but probably get slaughtered.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Keep in mind, when I talked about me coming to aid bludd if he is attacked, I would suffer all flags and penalties that he did. If I didn't say that, I apologize as that was my intent when I wrote it. If bludd SADed Andius and is a criminal, I would be flagged criminal as well if I came in to help him. If Bludd RPK Andius and suffered the normal rep/alignment hits, then I would suffer the same when I come to assist him.
The idea of 1 alt taking the hit, then 50 guys pop out to defend him rep free was not my intent and completely NOT what I desire. I just wanted to make sure that was clear.
I know we want to close up any potential exploits and I want to be a part of that as well. We at the UNC all want to.
Replying to what Stephen had said, I don't mind a bit of complication to banditry, I fully intend to use logic and strategy when we run our SADs and Ambush tactics. We want to make a name for ourselves and be feared. Being efficient, deadly, and honorable (as in respecting an accepted SAD) are how we intend to do it. We hope that by gaining this (meta) reputation in game, travelers will take us seriously.
If you want restrictions, such as a radius to be included in a SAD or Ambush, that is fine and we accept that. I guess it makes more sense that way anyhow. All UNC in the same hex, or within 50 meters or whatever "rule" you use, we are fine with.
We desire to play "within the rules" set by GW. We don't want a murder sim and we don't want to be low rep thugs. We believe that there will be a way to be an effective bandit while maintaining a good to high rep.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Keep in mind, when I talked about me coming to aid bludd if he is attacked, I would suffer all flags and penalties that he did. If I didn't say that, I apologize as that was my intent when I wrote it. If bludd SADed Andius and is a criminal, I would be flagged criminal as well if I came in to help him. If Bludd RPK Andius and suffered the normal rep/alignment hits, then I would suffer the same when I come to assist him.
The idea of 1 alt taking the hit, then 50 guys pop out to defend him rep free was not my intent and completely NOT what I desire. I just wanted to make sure that was clear.
Ayup, no worries.
I sort of envy GW - it's a series of complicated problems, but still interesting. It sometimes seems straight-forward - like if one of my mates attacks someone then the situation can ends up a certain way.
But there's at least five ways to be seen as Hostile. Say me and my mates do an S&D, so we all have Criminal flags now. And then some third party arrives on the scene and attacks me. But what if it's a faction enemy who can legitimately attack me because I'm rank 4 in the Echo Woods faction? I have a Criminal flag as well. Can my Criminal-flagged party members get involved?
That's what GW has to figure out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Keep in mind, when I talked about me coming to aid bludd if he is attacked, I would suffer all flags and penalties that he did. If I didn't say that, I apologize as that was my intent when I wrote it. If bludd SADed Andius and is a criminal, I would be flagged criminal as well if I came in to help him. If Bludd RPK Andius and suffered the normal rep/alignment hits, then I would suffer the same when I come to assist him.
The idea of 1 alt taking the hit, then 50 guys pop out to defend him rep free was not my intent and completely NOT what I desire. I just wanted to make sure that was clear.
Ayup, no worries.
I sort of envy GW - it's a series of complicated problems, but still interesting. It sometimes seems straight-forward - like if one of my mates attacks someone then the situation can ends up a certain way.
But there's at least five ways to be seen as Hostile. Say me and my mates do an S&D, so we all have Criminal flags now. And then some third party arrives on the scene and attacks me. But what if it's a faction enemy who can legitimately attack me because I'm rank 4 in the Echo Woods faction? I have a Criminal flag as well. Can my Criminal-flagged party members get involved?
That's what GW has to figure out.
I would imagine that Feud, War and Faction (+4 or higher) trump Criminal and Hostility.
This is why I have said, Feud, War and Faction targets would likely not be offered the choice of a SAD. These already sanctioned targets woukd be ambushed and assaulted outright.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think we're pretty ambivalent about the justice inherent in whether a big group of criminals can defend their buddies without rep consequence from people trying to punish them for their crimes. But I am worried about a degenerate condition where it becomes common practice to organize groups moving goods in a way that results in bandits either having to take a rep hit or stand there and watch a friend get dogpiled by guards... because that naturally leads to "well we're probably going to take a rep hit anyway, let's not even bother with S&D and just eat the hit."
So a potential simple solution is to add the "Thick as Thieves" effect to the Blind, such that attacking any Criminal in the radius of the Blind's fast-travel interdiction automatically marks you Hostile (Temporary) to any other Criminals in the radius. That makes jumping in risky (there could be more than you can see involved in the S&D stealthed/behind a tree), without triggering "I start a fight with six bandits to save the merchants, and then 100 of their friends boil in from around the area."
I agree with what is written here and I believe your Thick as Thieves is an excellent compromise.
The last condition you describe [bolded] works both ways. I SAD what it see as six merchants with my six bandits, and 100 interlopers jump in to get a free kill on us.
Why a free kill? We do not get the SAD ability for free. I believe that this might be where the Marshal ability could come into play.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think we're pretty ambivalent about the justice inherent in whether a big group of criminals can defend their buddies without rep consequence from people trying to punish them for their crimes. But I am worried about a degenerate condition where it becomes common practice to organize groups moving goods in a way that results in bandits either having to take a rep hit or stand there and watch a friend get dogpiled by guards... because that naturally leads to "well we're probably going to take a rep hit anyway, let's not even bother with S&D and just eat the hit."
So a potential simple solution is to add the "Thick as Thieves" effect to the Blind, such that attacking any Criminal in the radius of the Blind's fast-travel interdiction automatically marks you Hostile (Temporary) to any other Criminals in the radius. That makes jumping in risky (there could be more than you can see involved in the S&D stealthed/behind a tree), without triggering "I start a fight with six bandits to save the merchants, and then 100 of their friends boil in from around the area."
I agree with what is written here and I believe your Thick as Thieves is an excellent compromise.
The last condition you describe [bolded] works both ways. I SAD what I see as six merchants with my six bandits, and 100 interlopers jump in to get a free kill on us.
Why a free kill? We do not get the SAD ability for free. I believe that this might be where the Marshal ability could come into play.
Nah, too complicated, plus you're committing a crime and should receive the criminal flag.
The last condition you describe [bolded] works both ways. I SAD what I see as six merchants with my six bandits, and 100 interlopers jump in to get a free kill on us.
I'm sure that scenario you described above will happen sometimes, by the way. That's why in Pathfinder Online I believe attacking a flagged player will be an intense decision-making process for any type of player (criminal, murderer, non-flagged). If I'm an unflagged (blue) player who just happens to be holding a lot of valuable goods and I see a criminally-flagged bandit, I'm probably not going to attack him due to the risk involved. I could give a millions examples of this but I'm really just trying to simply state: just because a character receives a criminal flag, doesn't guarantee he will be attacked by other players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nah, too complicated, plus you're committing a crime and should receive the criminal flag..
Intentional trolling or you insert words into what others have written as some part of a delusion.
Did I ever say bandits should not get the criminal flag, since Stephen said that they would?
Does Stephen Cheney suggest decriminalizing the SAD in "Thick of Thieves"?
Where are you getting this from?
The criminal flag has never been the issue. Company members being able to defend each other is the issue.
I'm wondering if this is isolated to just criminal acts now? Is all PvP tied to 6 v 6 and hostility is isolated to just those groups?
If we just attack in the wilderness, we won't be criminal flagged. Does that mean that your own company members, outside of your 6, won't be able to come to your aid (without them losing reputation)?
One way to mitigate low reputation is to put everyone in the situation of losing reputation. If everyone is low rep, no one is low rep.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It certainly seems like every encounter will be different. Most times I think that the bandit will come out on top, as they get to pick and choose the time, the place and the target.
Traps by potential victims will of course be set, but I doubt that it will be common except where the bandits have been hanging out too long anyway. No one will be able to profit and operate with too many guards, for long either.
The times of false security and the times that players take risks will be plentiful enough for the clever type bandits that do the footwork.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If we just attack in the wilderness, we won't be criminal flagged.
Do you mean that as your ideal situation or as written by the Devs? I have seen nothing by the Devs to support this. Attacking unflagged seems like RPK without a S&D. I don't believe that it will be free of the criminal flag.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If we just attack in the wilderness, we won't be criminal flagged.Do you mean that as your ideal situation or as written by the Devs? I have seen nothing by the Devs to support this. Attacking unflagged seems like RPK without a S&D. I don't believe that it will be free of the criminal flag.
No, it is not free of reputation loss, but the Criminal Flag has not been declared for attacks in the lawless wilderness.
At what point will a settlement actually have to set up laws, if so many actions are automatically criminal?
If they are going to limited all PvP action to just feuds, wars and faction than they really need to say so. They will also need to make influence fairly easy to build up or it will certainly be a boring place.
But in short, no they have not said that attacking unflagged in the wilderness is a crime and woukd bestoy the criminal flag.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Activating it, even if you don't ultimately issue the S&D, is always a Crime (i.e., no "he was just lookin'"; assessing a target as to whether he's worth robbing isn't fair just because you decided he didn't have anything you wanted to steal).
Does that mean a criminal flag (in uncontrolled hexes) or just "hostility"? Does it make any difference?
The Criminal flag is the Criminal flag is the Criminal flag. Just like with looting rights, sometimes we'll give you Criminal even though you're in a lawless area, rather than inventing a special flag that's basically "Criminal... except even where there are no laws."
I suppose that you can read that differently than I do. We will just have to see.
Edit:
At what point will a settlement actually have to set up laws, if so many actions are automatically criminal?
That is a good point, though. I am may be having trouble understanding how "inspecting" someone would qualify as more of a crime than murdering them...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Activating it, even if you don't ultimately issue the S&D, is always a Crime (i.e., no "he was just lookin'"; assessing a target as to whether he's worth robbing isn't fair just because you decided he didn't have anything you wanted to steal).Does that mean a criminal flag (in uncontrolled hexes) or just "hostility"? Does it make any difference?The Criminal flag is the Criminal flag is the Criminal flag. Just like with looting rights, sometimes we'll give you Criminal even though you're in a lawless area, rather than inventing a special flag that's basically "Criminal... except even where there are no laws."I suppose that you can read that differently than I do. We will just have to see.
There is nothing to read into it, there are no specifics. The SAD and Corpse Looting ( w/o permission) have been declared criminal acts in all hexes. As of now, attacking unflagged has been said to cost reputation but not the criminal flag. If it will cost the criminal flag, I'd imagine Stephen or Lee will come here and say so.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
We are planning to give you the Criminal flag without any player-established laws in certain circumstances where we always want people to be able to fight you for a while after you do it, and it's more straightforward to use the existing Criminal flag than to invent a new flag that's basically the same but a different name. Those circumstances are currently ninja looting and S&D.
To the best of my knowledge*, we don't plan to give you Criminal when you get Attacker unless the hex you're in is controlled by someone that's made a law against getting the Attacker flag. That is, in an uncontrolled hex, attacking unprovoked will get you the Attacker flag, and cost you rep and alignment, but will probably not get you the Criminal flag. Attacker doesn't last nearly as long as the Criminal flag, but if you get it enough times in a short period, you get the Killer flag which does last for a long time.
So if you're willing to absorb the rep and alignment hits, you can absolutely murder a few people in the uncontrolled wilderness and potentially be unflagged by the time their friends show up to deal with you. But if you do that regularly, you'll probably be pretty low rep so it's not a big deal to kill you unflagged anyway, and you're probably also vulnerable to bounties and death curses.
* I'll check with Tork and Lee on Monday to be sure.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We are planning to give you the Criminal flag without any player-established laws in certain circumstances where we always want people to be able to fight you for a while after you do it, and it's more straightforward to use the existing Criminal flag than to invent a new flag that's basically the same but a different name. Those circumstances are currently ninja looting and S&D.
To the best of my knowledge*, we don't plan to give you Criminal when you get Attacker unless the hex you're in is controlled by someone that's made a law against getting the Attacker flag. That is, in an uncontrolled hex, attacking unprovoked will get you the Attacker flag, and cost you rep and alignment, but will probably not get you the Criminal flag. Attacker doesn't last nearly as long as the Criminal flag, but if you get it enough times in a short period, you get the Killer flag which does last for a long time.
So if you're willing to absorb the rep and alignment hits, you can absolutely murder a few people in the uncontrolled wilderness and potentially be unflagged by the time their friends show up to deal with you. But if you do that regularly, you'll probably be pretty low rep so it's not a big deal to kill you unflagged anyway, and you're probably also vulnerable to bounties and death curses.
* I'll check with Tork and Lee on Monday to be sure.
Thanks Stephen. Good enough for me. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Attacker flag
Criminal flag
Killer flag
and
"Hostile"
I am getting confused here.
Am I right in thinking that the first three flags indicate a general *state* that a certain player is in, while "hostile" is a relational indicator (towards the person that someone is hostile to)?
So someone with the Attacker flag could appear hostile to one person but friendly/neutral to another?
Same for Criminal and Killer?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Someone with (Attacker/Criminal/or Killer flag) could appear friendly to people he's grouped with and Hostile to everyone else.
Someone that is in a feud doesn't have a flag, perhaps, but might appear Hostile to feud enemies, friendly to allies and people he's grouped with, and neutral to everyone else.
Hostility is a state rather than a flag, and it's based on flags and other social connections, as I understand it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think there is an entire matrix of what action gets you which flag to whom, for how long, resulting yes/no in rep-loss. Also, where. :)
Learning this matrix will certainly matter to me and I think most players. I realize that the components of this matrix are in a huge flux right now and will be for quit some time (like all the way up to OE and most likely after).
Edit: You ninja-edited! :)
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not to spoiler the hostility blog that's sure to turn up pretty soon, but I think we've covered this previously in various places so I'll summarize.
"Hostile" is the catchall state for "if you attack this target, you won't lose rep or alignment." You'll see the target's name as red when Hostile.
Lots of things can make you see someone as Hostile. There are three major groups of ways:
- You have reciprocal hostility, where you see them as Hostile and they see you as Hostile. This is most common if your settlements are at war, your companies are feuding, or you're both "For the Cause" in opposing factions.
- You have non-reciprocal hostility, where one of you appears Hostile but the other appears neutral. This is most common from flags like Criminal, Attacker, etc. In these cases, when you've picked up the flag, most players (other than certain allies) will see you as Hostile, but you'll still see them as neutral unless they have their own triggers for hostility. You're a "free" kill, but they are not.
- A special class of non-reciprocal hostility is the Hostile (Temporary) state, which is usually person-to-person; only certain players will see the target as Hostile. This is most common when someone has been "tagged-in" to a fight; they were originally neutral, but either they attacked a flagged target or an Attacker has already taken the rep and alignment hit for fighting them, so now the fight is free to continue without further hits. This is the most nuanced situation, and the eventual blog will probably spend the most time covering this state. Generally, Hostile (Temporary) expires very quickly once you're out of combat.
These situations are on a priority system with alliances. If you're in a the same faction as someone, you'll generally see them as an Ally (rather than neutral), but most types of hostility will override that. If you're in the same Company or Settlement as someone, you'll see them as an Ally and very few hostility types will override that (e.g., if they specifically attack you they'll turn red, but if you're in opposing factions you'll still see them as allies). If you're in a party with someone, that level of alliance pretty much overrides all Hostile states; if your party member attacks you, you need to drop the party if you don't think it was an accident, but that also means you can clip party members with AoEs and not lose rep or alignment (you'll still hurt them, though).