Goblin Squad Member
|
And perhaps what GW gives us in the end will be neither overpowered nor worthless. But it has been 3 whole days since Stephen gave us any tidbits... :)
S&D seems like an excellent tool to harass (non-resident) small gatherers on settlement or company's land, to either drive them out or encourage them to pay protection. I could see using S&D to demonstrate the usefulness of settlement/company membership. And I could certainly see it being pretty common in uncontrolled/ lightly populated hexes, including monster hexes. I'm not ready to abandon it as unusable yet.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting how SAD is simultaneously useless to those who want to use it and overpowered to those who don't even plan on playing characters that would be frequently SAD'ed... I suppose that's the internet, however.
I planned to use it when the benefits were in balance with the drawbacks. Without a rep bonus, the drawbacks outweigh the benefits.
There is more benefit to just ganking a merchant then using the SAD system.
No additional skills to train
No time for the merchants friends to respond
75% loot
Better chance at the best loot
Without a rep bonus, I do not see the need to train the skill for it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Interesting how SAD is simultaneously useless to those who want to use it and overpowered to those who don't even plan on playing characters that would be frequently SAD'ed... I suppose that's the internet, however.I planned to use it when the benefits were in balance with the drawbacks. Without a rep bonus, the drawbacks outweigh the benefits.
There is more benefit to just ganking a merchant then using the SAD system.
No additional skills to train
No time for the merchants friends to respond
75% loot
Better chance at the best lootWithout a rep bonus, I do not see the need to train the skill for it.
I would add to this that the SAD was most effective if multiple members trained and slotted it. This not only makes one character of six, less effective in a fight if it breaks out but multiple characters in the group.
The questions will be, how much reputation will be lost? Will that lose if reputation be worth the loot gained? What will be the real effect of low reputation? How quickly can that reputation be recovered? How frequently will we come by an Unsanctioned target hauling enough reward to outweigh the downsides?
The other downside to this whole debate is that it will be more likely that targets attacked outside of sanctions will be less experienced, lower reputation, weaker, smaller numbered, targets.
If there is a drought of sanctioned, or juicy targets out there, boredom will set in and the solo or small group harvesters beware!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You have no clue how badly it is going to be low rep or how hard it is to gain rep.
It very well could be worth it to S&D to keep rep.If rep is easy to get back and it doesnt effect you much to loose it, then it really isnt doing its job.
We all have no clue either way. It will be the best kept secret for quite some time, while the Devs try to make a system that is going to work.
I'm sure that CCP really believed that by giving industrial barges greater hit points and more mid / low slots for shielding and armor, which should have made it too costly to suicide gank barges, would have worked. Little did the suspect that the miners would take those additional slots and choose to weaken their protection in lieu of increasing cargo capacity, making them even weaker and more profitable targets for suicide ganking after the patch. Then theses very same miners started crying that the patch did nothing to stop suicide ganking.
Lesson Learned: Never underestimate the greed and capacity of care bear whining of the high sec merchant / miner.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Cirolle - Yes, I know there are questions left to be answered... But with the information we have, I have my opinion. Once we have more information, I will change my opinion based on these new facts. As of right now, we know how rep gain will work. It is a passive regen based on your current score.
Also, noted from countless discussions in other threads. You could be playing the game completely as intended and lose rep. GW cannot destroy your game play for being low rep. That is, if they want people playing their game. Ryan has told us many times, that if you are max rep, then you are not doing your settlement or friends any good.
Bludd - I agree
Also to everyone, Reputation is not some new invention. It is a tweaked (slightly) version of security status from Eve.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I believe this is the most current information:
For each hour of play time during which the character does not lose Reputation, he gains Reputation. The exact amount of Reputation is likely to change multiple times in testing, but currently we're shooting for 1 Reputation per hour (minus .25 Reputation for every 2500 points below 0). So a character with -5000 Reputation would only get .5 Reputation per hour during which he did not lose Reputation. This means it can be pretty hard to dig yourself out of a Reputation hole. Every four straight hours the character earns Reputation, the amount earned increases slightly (currently by .25), up to a limit of something like 10 points per hour. So if a character behaves for four hours, he'll start earning 1.25 Reputation per hour instead of 1.
Reputation regain will vary between 0.25 to 10 points per hour.
Your current rep will affect up to 0.75 points per hour. The rest of rep regain (90% of the total?) will be based on how long you've gone without losing rep.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It feels as though some folks are not happy with the system because they were hoping for a mechanic that would allow them to mend their reputation faster than normal time allows. It was already stated that rep gain has moved away from being actions in game and has shifted to something you gain overtime.
Think a few post ago, Bludd was wondering how people would react to him putting bounties on people and then their friends having to take rep hits to defend them…. The answer is ill take a rep hit for defending a friend, you can take a rep hit for attacking at will . We will gain rep at the same rate.
Why should they create a system for low rep players to gain rep faster?
Soap box a moment.. Bludd, you have your opinions on things, you also have stated you plan to play within the rules GW lays out… That being said, I know folks were asked to not use certain terms to describe other players. You instead decided it was a description of a play style and continue to use it because it is not attacking a person….
Given the only thing I can go on is behavior, why should I believe you guys when you say you plan on following GW rules in game, when you won’t even follow GW suggestions on these boards..
Will leave it at, I just wanted you to know it really bugs me and makes me wonder how you will actually react to GW decisions that happen in game..
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because if we do not follow the rules, they will kick us from the game. Im not sure exactly how that is questionable.
A suggestion is their personal view on a subject, that has no impact on the game itself. Care Bear is a term, used towards people that take care to not get into a fight. We are PVPers who are constantly called griefers and etc... but no one has said a thing about that. So why should anyone stop using Care Bear?
The idea of a rep gain for SAD was to give incentive to people so they do not just kill someone for their loot. Now that incentive has been removed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Xeen
You are right. What will really matter and make the advantages of using SAD worth it are:
1: How much it sucks to have low reputation. That is why you don't lose it for SADing the unflagged and killing them. Even if they refuse.
2: How hard it is to get reputation back. Which is why they have moved away from "action" rep gain. Otherwise (with SAD rep reward) it would be very easy to yoyo up and down.
I am not sure why you deserve more advantages then they have spelled out and are trying to balance...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You have no clue how badly it is going to be low rep or how hard it is to gain rep.We all have no clue either way.
Actually, I think we can draw one clear conclusion about how much it will suck to be Low Rep & Chaotic Evil - it will suck enough to "powerfully shock" players out of random killing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, I think we can draw one clear conclusion about how much it will suck to be Low Rep & Chaotic Evil - it will suck enough to "powerfully shock" players out of random killing.You have no clue how badly it is going to be low rep or how hard it is to gain rep.We all have no clue either way.
Our difference is simply, you place blind faith in intentions and I remain skeptical, nothing more or less than that.
We will not know who is right until it is actually proven in the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It feels as though some folks are not happy with the system because they were hoping for a mechanic that would allow them to mend their reputation faster than normal time allows. It was already stated that rep gain has moved away from being actions in game and has shifted to something you gain overtime.
Think a few post ago, Bludd was wondering how people would react to him putting bounties on people and then their friends having to take rep hits to defend them…. The answer is ill take a rep hit for defending a friend, you can take a rep hit for attacking at will . We will gain rep at the same rate.
Why should they create a system for low rep players to gain rep faster?
Soap box a moment.. Bludd, you have your opinions on things, you also have stated you plan to play within the rules GW lays out… That being said, I know folks were asked to not use certain terms to describe other players. You instead decided it was a description of a play style and continue to use it because it is not attacking a person….
Given the only thing I can go on is behavior, why should I believe you guys when you say you plan on following GW rules in game, when you won’t even follow GW suggestions on these boards..
Will leave it at, I just wanted you to know it really bugs me and makes me wonder how you will actually react to GW decisions that happen in game..
What rules of the game am I suggesting I would not follow? Are you suggesting that I must use SADs even if I don't see the benefit of it?
You do understand that choosing to accept reputation loss in exchange for a greater reward is the kind of meaningful choices that GW wants us to make? Also, accepting reputation loss is working within the reputation system and the game rules.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am not sure why you deserve more advantages then they have spelled out and are trying to balance...Because there are disadvantages to using it as well, and I dont think they balance out with what is proposed now.
Fair enough. I think that you are entitled to feel how you like about it. When you see the first working (in game) version you can decide if you want to spend exp to buy it, the slot to ready it and the time to use it. Nothing wrong with that. If no one uses it they will adjust it, just as they will if it is too good. :)
Edit: Since there is nothing to measure it against yet, we have no idea how it will compare to other abilities.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@all
The fact is, no matter what there is going to be abuse of the system. By not including the "rep bonus" or some other incentive you are just taking away from those people (UNC et al) who do want to follow this system, and are actually going to follow it. The "yo-yo" effect is completely meta-game driven and as such I would define it as a griefing, not of an individual(s) but of the system itself. If the only reason to not include it is because these jerks are going to use it then I say that argument is flawed. Jerks are always going to find ways to be jerks, and if they are using this to be jerks and we know that this is being used by jerks, then it makes it easy to find those people and kick them from the server.
What it boils down to is people. UNC and it's ilk are going to take in new bandits and teach them the "proper" ways of doing things. It shouldn't be right to withhold from them when they are doing exactly the sort of thing reputation was implemented to support. It is ultimately up to the players to keep track of who is being good and who is being bad. If we teach all the people coming in, and they teach the people after, and so on the problem will be fixed except for a few select individuals which can be handily dealt with if we are proactive.
I would rather have a system which gives the right incentive it should that causes people to SAD 50% and Gank 50% rather than a system that has people SADing 10% and Ganking 90%. The ultimate goal is to make this game a meaningful PC-interaction world, not a MurderSim. If that means I have a ton of bandits using the "rollercoaster effect" then fine. Rather that than just pure killing.
So while I understand and agree that the "rollercoaster" is not the desired effect, the alternative is worse. Because let us not lie, people are lazy and greedy and for the most part aren't going to do something that gives them little reward and moderate risk when they can get large reward (and large risk).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@all
The fact is, no matter what there is going to be abuse of the system. By not including the "rep bonus" or some other incentive you are just taking away from those people (UNC et al) who do want to follow this system, and are actually going to follow it. The "yo-yo" effect is completely meta-game driven and as such I would define it as a griefing, not of an individual(s) but of the system itself. If the only reason to not include it is because these jerks are going to use it then I say that argument is flawed. Jerks are always going to find ways to be jerks, and if they are using this to be jerks and we know that this is being used by jerks, then it makes it easy to find those people and kick them from the server.
What it boils down to is people. UNC and it's ilk are going to take in new bandits and teach them the "proper" ways of doing things. It shouldn't be right to withhold from them when they are doing exactly the sort of thing reputation was implemented to support. It is ultimately up to the players to keep track of who is being good and who is being bad. If we teach all the people coming in, and they teach the people after, and so on the problem will be fixed except for a few select individuals which can be handily dealt with if we are proactive.
I would rather have a system which gives the right incentive it should that causes people to SAD 50% and Gank 50% rather than a system that has people SADing 10% and Ganking 90%. The ultimate goal is to make this game a meaningful PC-interaction world, not a MurderSim. If that means I have a ton of bandits using the "rollercoaster effect" then fine. Rather that than just pure killing.
So while I understand and agree that the "rollercoaster" is not the desired effect, the alternative is worse. Because let us not lie, people are lazy and greedy and for the most part aren't going to do something that gives them little reward and moderate risk when they can get large reward (and large risk).
I am not sure how many times I can ask: Why is the power to "shake down" and possibly kill unflagged characters, without the penalties, not good enough?
That is so far a complete exception to the basis of consequential PVP being designed here. It is basically going to happen (most often) to lone gatherers and small adventuring parties, as well as just people trying to move from town to town or explore the world built by GW.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And I am going to reiterate:
Reputation is not a resource, it is a metagame. Rep means you did the thing the role is designed for. SAD is designed for bandits. You don't buy things with Reputation, it doesn't give a stat bonus. It says "this person is doing what he is supposed to, and not being a jerk". Bandits who SAD a whole bunch should have high rep, because they are supposed to SAD a whole bunch, and every SAD they commit is one less gank/pk.
People are greedy. Without incentives people are not as likely going to want to take the option with less rewards. That said this "incentive" is not something like money, or influence, or anything but simply showing that they are doing the correct thing in terms of what GW wants.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I am going to reiterate:
Reputation is not a resource, it is a metagame. Rep means you did the thing the role is designed for. SAD is designed for bandits. You don't buy things with Reputation, it doesn't give a stat bonus. It says "this person is doing what he is supposed to, and not being a jerk". Bandits who SAD a whole bunch should have high rep, because they are supposed to SAD a whole bunch, and every SAD they commit is one less gank/pk.
People are greedy. Without incentives people are not as likely going to want to take the option with less rewards. That said this "incentive" is not something like money, or influence, or anything but simply showing that they are doing the correct thing in terms of what GW wants.
If no one gains reputation from anything besides "time" then it is not unfair in, any way, to bandits is it? If bandits use SAD instead of ganking the unflagged, their reputations will not fall more than anyone else.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If, indeed, GW sticks with a rep-over-time system (and that is the only method) then yes what you say is the correct option. I'm not sure GW will, however, stick with that however. but as I've said many times, we will have to wait and see, debating it before the fact is not going to get us anywhere. So I'd recommend moving on to other topics for now with the knowledge that if GW stays with a sole rep-over-time then the current method is fine.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If, indeed, GW sticks with a rep-over-time system (and that is the only method) then yes what you say is the correct option. I'm not sure GW will, however, stick with that however. but as I've said many times, we will have to wait and see, debating it before the fact is not going to get us anywhere. So I'd recommend moving on to other topics for now with the knowledge that if GW stays with a sole rep-over-time then the current method is fine.
BrotherZael, of course it has to be that way! Stephen Cheney just replied to Bluddwolf about it in this very thread.
Bluddwolf wrote:
1. I noticed that there is no mention of the reputation bonus for an accepted SAD. Has that been changed or just not mentioned?
Stephen Cheney wrote:
Since we added the rep recovery over time we've moved away from rep-on-action, as those would be much easier to game, and would require more complicated systems to try to prevent gaming rep with them. We may find out that the rep-over-time system isn't enough, and make the leap to trying to add them in to other systems, but they aren't on the table for anyone right now.
You can argue that he wrote: they aren't on the table for anyone right now., but I think if they come back, SAD for rep gain will too.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am not sure how many times I can ask: Why is the power to "shake down" and possibly kill unflagged characters, without the penalties, not good enough?
That is so far a complete exception to the basis of consequential PVP being designed here. It is basically going to happen (most often) to lone gatherers and small adventuring parties, as well as just people trying to move from town to town or explore the world built by GW.
Because unless the "Thick as Thieves" idea is implemented, the risks inherent in the criminal flag with the proposed limitation on the bandits of having 6 v the world, are nit outweighed by the potential of the rewards.
That is quite simply the deal breaker for using the SAD in most circumstances. This thread produced the first notion that members of the same company could not aid their own, without reputation loss if their own members were under the criminal flag.
If the SAD is going to isolate the original 6, and force all others to take rep hits to defend them, then we will choose to all take the rep hit and not use the SAD. By this we avoid the criminal flag and do not invite the world to jump in.
Finally,
If merchants or harvesters have no counter to their unrestricted harvesting and trade the economy will be over run with inflationary prices. Why is the power of unlimited and uncontested wealth something you don't see the value in limiting?
GW seems to believe it does need to be limited. I'd rather see it done through player interactions than them shutting off the nodes to artificially manipulate the economy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Bringslite - Why is the power to "shake down" and possibly kill unflagged characters, without the penalties, not good enough?
You can do that without a mechanic. I can walk up to you, convo you, tell you give me x gold and you go free. If you refuse or take to long to send it over I just kill you and take everything you have.
The point of the mechanic was to make it meaningful. Allow a bonus for playing within the box. Now, yes, you do not lose rep for using the mechanic. We will just have to weigh the risk vs reward and decide whether to use it or not.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If merchants or harvesters have no counter to their unrestricted harvesting and trade the economy will be over run with inflationary prices. Why is the power of unlimited and uncontested wealth something you don't see the value in limiting?
You mean deflationary prices, right? More ore gets to town because less are killed. No risk, so everyone does it. Too much easy supply.
Yet actually, the only product leaving the economy is that which is ruined when the gatherer gets killed. Accepted SAD's don't really help unless the robber destroys what he takes. I will concede that SAD effects the local market that the goods were meant for. Unless they end up there "after" anyway.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Bringslite - Why is the power to "shake down" and possibly kill unflagged characters, without the penalties, not good enough?
You can do that without a mechanic. I can walk up to you, convo you, tell you give me x gold and you go free. If you refuse or take to long to send it over I just kill you and take everything you have.
The point of the mechanic was to make it meaningful. Allow a bonus for playing within the box. Now, yes, you do not lose rep for using the mechanic. We will just have to weigh the risk vs reward and decide whether to use it or not.
You can do it without a mechanic. Except there is no insurance that the robber won't kill you after, or his friends rob you a little at a time until 100% unthreaded is gone. That is not covered by "chat" robbery.
|
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."
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...
I have put in bold the two solutions I feel would clear up any reservations I have over the proposed SAD system.
The Faction solution would probably be even easier if the systems tied the training of the use of caravans and SADs to the actual factions, and factional warfare was opened up at a lower level than 4 or if level 4 is actually fairly easy to achieve.
Then the advantages for both merchant and bandit would be built in. We both could either choose not to SAD or choose to not use caravans. Forgoing those advantages should not be an easy choice.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like the "thick as thieves". At least the name and the possibility that it will allow you the opportunity to have at least as many bandits as there are protectors. Nothing wrong with that.
The faction thing is fine too. As long as it does not leave small groups (gatherers, lone travelers, PVE players) swinging in the wind.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If merchants or harvesters have no counter to their unrestricted harvesting and trade the economy will be over run with inflationary prices. Why is the power of unlimited and uncontested wealth something you don't see the value in limiting?You mean deflationary prices, right? More ore gets to town because less are killed. No risk, so everyone does it. Too much easy supply.
Yet actually, the only product leaving the economy is that which is ruined when the gatherer gets killed. Accepted SAD's don't really help unless the robber destroys what he takes. I will concede that SAD effects the local market that the goods were meant for. Unless they end up there "after" anyway.
Yes, inflated supply (surplus) and low demand = deflation (you can buy far more for less), which leads to lower profits or even loss as the merchant might be forced to destroy product just to manipulate the markets.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like the "thick as thieves". At least the name and the possibility that it will allow you the opportunity to have at least as many bandits as there are protectors. Nothing wrong with that.
The faction thing is fine too. As long as it does not leave small groups (gatherers, lone travelers, PVE players) swinging in the wind.
Actually it would do just the opposite. It will focus the bandits back at larger, more rewarding targets.
The classes you mention are not supposed to be protected classes. Bulk harvesters are a target. Lone travelers, if you recall, were openly mocked by the Devs (unfortunately). PvE players could mean anyone from adventurers returning with vast treasure to Explorers. While explorers probably have little to loot, the treasure burdened adventurers certainly do.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
By the way, thanks you guys for addressing this:
Why is the power to "shake down" and possibly kill unflagged characters, without the penalties, not good enough?
I may not agree with your answers, but that is not the issue. I have doubts that you would ever agree that less than the "original" is acceptable. ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like the "thick as thieves". At least the name and the possibility that it will allow you the opportunity to have at least as many bandits as there are protectors. Nothing wrong with that.
The faction thing is fine too. As long as it does not leave small groups (gatherers, lone travelers, PVE players) swinging in the wind.
Actually it would do just the opposite. It will focus the bandits back at larger, more rewarding targets.
The classes you mention are not supposed to be protected classes. Bulk harvesters are a target. Lone travelers, if you recall, were openly mocked by the Devs (unfortunately). PvE players could mean anyone from adventurers returning with vast treasure to Explorers. While explorers probably have little to loot, the treasure burdened adventurers certainly do.
I am not certain that GW is unconcerned about lone or small groups of prospectors. I have seen/read what you mean, though. If they are unconcerned, that is fine.
The way that I look at risky business is that it is me taking the risk. If I take precautions and get nicked 10% of the time, that is ok. If I take precautions and get nicked 50% of the time, I will probably quit or take up a new profession.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Again.. sounds made up.During times of war and feud, many characters who are not specialized in PvP-combat will be challenged to fully use their skills and abilities. Do we need to have special rules for how crafters and gatherers and street musicians can still make use of their skills?
The difference is, bandits are PvP oriented - but not necessarily skilled in combat. Removing the ability for them to SAD their 'enemy' removes their ability to participate in non-combat PvP and it will also mean the easy solution to pesky bandits is to feud them. Their SAD skills are no longer able to be applied to the feuding company.
I also suspect some merchants will be PvP oriented (market/economic warfare), as will some roleplaying types/politicians/settlement managers, all who will likely not be combat trained. Would anyone advocate that they cannot ply their trade during feuds or wars?
Indeed - it is a made up! That's why it's a scenario and not real life. Feel free to give us your real life examples of how you rob and murder people though. That will help a hypothetical discussion about a virtual game immensely.
If you are doing a S&D (it stands for Stand and Deliver btw), you are telling someone, give us your stuff OR we will kill you (money or your life)
You have to have a force to back this up with, if you dont, then there is no reason to accept a S&D.
SAD has always stood for stand and deliver. I also think you have played too many solo games, as what you're missing is that one character in a party of six can be an expert at using all the mechanics associated with SAD, and then point to his five hulking barbarian party members as the threat behind the extortion. That one character is PvP oriented, but not combat oriented.
Now, to your (made up) scenario, you are suggesting that people that have S&D as a skill should be able to use it in wartime.
Fine, go ahead.But there is no point to this, since you can just kill the merchant and take the stuff instead, no rep hit or anything.
Plus you get more.UNLESS, you are suggesting that the person doing the S&D, doesnt bring back up... and then the S&D is pointless anyways.
Why exactly is the SAD pointless during times of war?
It has associated mechanics that allow for party wide stealth. It pulls caravans out of fast travel. It allows characters trained in a specific tradecraft to practice that trade. It allows for a potential non-violent interaction with the enemy. It also removes the ability for large trade consortiums to simply feud a bandit company to forever remove the threat of SAD between the two entities.
But, keep making things up.
Keep on advocating for a red v blue war game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Interesting how SAD is simultaneously useless to those who want to use it and overpowered to those who don't even plan on playing characters that would be frequently SAD'ed... I suppose that's the internet, however.
I'm interested to see the player reactions when bounties, assassination contracts, wars and feuds also get detailed more. Effectively you can be non-flagged or a completely non-PvP character and get killed with those same mechanics with no penalties to the killer - although there will be some costs associated with them all (details pending).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is probably a bad solution but...
Why not make [UNC] the only bandit faction rather than make a NPC faction?
That way there is still PC-interaction on all levels in regards to that aspect, there will be an effective learning-teaching experience. Also the people don't feel like they are joining some automaton in order to get their kicks, but are rather a part of a large, breathing, viable organization?
Actually, why not make two, to give sort of options (so everyone doesn't have to be vikings and there is some contention and thus pc-content there).
Lets call them "The Black Sun" and "The Zann Consortium"
(Too much infringement on the names?)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, I would like to play and see 'Robin Hood and his merry men' or 'Brotherhood without banners' style companies in play. I don't want to force everyone that wants to dip into bandit life to have to join the UNC or any other bandit specific company. For all I know, I might be the only character willing (and wanting) to train in stealth and bandit skills in my company.
More choice means more decisions which means more interesting character interaction in my opinion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is probably a bad solution but...
Why not make [UNC] the only bandit faction rather than make a NPC faction?
That way there is still PC-interaction on all levels in regards to that aspect, there will be an effective learning-teaching experience. Also the people don't feel like they are joining some automaton in order to get their kicks, but are rather a part of a large, breathing, viable organization?
Actually, why not make two, to give sort of options (so everyone doesn't have to be vikings and there is some contention and thus pc-content there).
Lets call them "The Black Sun" and "The Zann Consortium"
(Too much infringement on the names?)
Lol... It is not good enough or bad enough for some, that the names The UnNamed Company or "Bluddwolf" are on the lips, minds and posts here and on other forums far beyond our wildest thoughts. You would have us immortalized as a Faction all onto ourselves?
Nay, my modesty would not desire such an accolade. At least not unless we prove ourselves deserving of such, many many years down the road.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is probably a bad solution but...
Why not make [UNC] the only bandit faction rather than make a NPC faction?
That way there is still PC-interaction on all levels in regards to that aspect, there will be an effective learning-teaching experience. Also the people don't feel like they are joining some automaton in order to get their kicks, but are rather a part of a large, breathing, viable organization?
Actually, why not make two, to give sort of options (so everyone doesn't have to be vikings and there is some contention and thus pc-content there).
Lets call them "The Black Sun" and "The Zann Consortium"
(Too much infringement on the names?)
Because some of us intend to utilize banditry as we see fit...and already have our own communities just as legitimate as the UNC.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Oops there we go with the name dropping everywhere. Because clearly the "UNC" was the pivitol part of my plan.
I'm not suggesting we do this, I am suggesting that if it does get done (as was mentioned by Stephen Cheney where there is "one giant bandit faction") it should be controlled by PCs not NPCs.
throws hands in the air
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Oops there we go with the name dropping everywhere. Because clearly the "UNC" was the pivitol part of my plan.
I'm not suggesting we do this, I am suggesting that if it does get done (as was mentioned by Stephen Cheney where there is "one giant bandit faction") it should be controlled by PCs not NPCs.
throws hands in the air
I do not agree, like every permanent faction in the game, it should be NPC controlled and based upon lore. However, since no such thing exists in The River Kingdoms lore, I would suggest something as simple as a Bandit's Guild and give it equal standing to the Assassin's and Poisoner's guilds of Daggermark. That also provides a logical precedence, making Assassins a faction for training and "role development" purposes. The amount of influence GW wants to give PCs in the NPC factions is up to them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You can do it without a mechanic. Except there is no insurance that the robber won't kill you after, or his friends rob you a little at a time until 100% unthreaded is gone. That is not covered by "chat" robbery.@ Bringslite - Why is the power to "shake down" and possibly kill unflagged characters, without the penalties, not good enough?
You can do that without a mechanic. I can walk up to you, convo you, tell you give me x gold and you go free. If you refuse or take to long to send it over I just kill you and take everything you have.
The point of the mechanic was to make it meaningful. Allow a bonus for playing within the box. Now, yes, you do not lose rep for using the mechanic. We will just have to weigh the risk vs reward and decide whether to use it or not.
That is true, but then again... That is still true with SAD. If someone decides they really do not care about Rep at all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Without a rep bonus, I do not see the need to train the skill for it.
I'm beginning to question whether it should be a feature at all. Pull the function and simplify the model. If the bandit would just-as-soon accept a payoff then let the bandit simply confront the merchant, simply pose the choice 'your money or your life', and let the chips fall where they may. I don't think the SAD mechanic will increase content. I don't think it will mitigate the tendency to gank any more than the reputation system will. At this point it seems an unnecessary complication gumming up the works.
Compare the cost with the returns.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Cirrole
It is not your "Blind Faith" I was addressing it is Nihimon's. He tends to quite Ryan Dancey's intentions as if they are a "given", when obviously, intentions are often anything other than fully achieved.
It is like when Nihimon will post Ryan Dancey's boast that he would rather shut the servers down than let the game devolve into a murder sim. If PFO has 500,000 subs as a Murder Sim, Paizo / GW would throw him a parade through the streets of Seattle, and there will be no thoughts of shutting anything down.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think the SAD mechanic will increase content. I don't think it will mitigate the tendency to gank any more than the reputation system will. At this point it seems an unnecessary complication gumming up the works.
Compare the cost with the returns.
I'm agreeing with Nihimon. S&D allows theft without killing, so tempers the mayhem. It also may encourage players to group more; grouping makes social ties and social ties keep people in games.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm agreeing with Nihimon. S&D allows theft without killing, so tempers the mayhem. It also may encourage players to group more; grouping makes social ties and social ties keep people in games.I don't think the SAD mechanic will increase content. I don't think it will mitigate the tendency to gank any more than the reputation system will. At this point it seems an unnecessary complication gumming up the works.
Compare the cost with the returns.
Without the two fixes that Stephen Cheney suggested, the grouping only benefits others, not the bandits.
I have to believe glossing over this point is intentional.
A merchant group of 6, labeled "A" travels the road. Traveling behind it are traveling two other groups, made up of guards.
The Bandit group of 6, labeled "B", spots "A" and pulls it out of fast travel. "A" accepts the SAD and is given the fleeced flag. Meanwhile the guards 12 in all attack the criminal flagged bandits.
Even if the bandits have there own second a third groups in the area, they can not defend group "B" without losing reputation.
I argue that if 2/3 of my company is going to lose reputation, than 1/1 might as well lose reputation and have our 18 attack the 6 merchants with an ambush.
Our "social ties" are no less valued than anyone else's. If one of our company is attacked, we all are.