Stand and Deliver Discussion


Pathfinder Online

1,101 to 1,150 of 1,727 << first < prev | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | next > last >>
Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:
Bringslite wrote:

@ Xeen & Bluddwolf

You guys seem like you are somewhat in support of the system they have described. You at least seem willing to play within it, if everyone else does. The people that we have to watch for are the ones that you have described. Those that don't give a "rat's ass" about the health of the complete game. The ones that don't want any challenge to their PVP. They just want to kill anything they think is weaker. The system described is for people that want challenging PVP with a purpose.

And yes, that leaves room for ganking (at opportunity) for a "game play" goal. Just not ganking "becooze lolz".

I can't speak for Xeen, although I think we are on the same page. What I am saying is that those players exist and they will be in PFO.

People need to stop believing that the rep or alignment system will be some kind of a panacea. No amount of suck will mean a thing to a player who will just reroll a character, or even start a new account.

I'm not going to speak for anyone else, but what I understood Xeen to have explicitly said in this thread is that he was going to be one of those players.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:


I'm not going to speak for anyone else, but what I understood Xeen to have explicitly said in this thread is that he was going to be one of those players.

Then you misunderstood him. There is a difference between accepting rep loss in exchange for a desired outcome and playing low rep throw away characters to achieve a desired outcome.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Bringslite wrote:

@ Xeen & Bluddwolf

You guys seem like you are somewhat in support of the system they have described. You at least seem willing to play within it, if everyone else does. The people that we have to watch for are the ones that you have described. Those that don't give a "rat's ass" about the health of the complete game. The ones that don't want any challenge to their PVP. They just want to kill anything they think is weaker. The system described is for people that want challenging PVP with a purpose.

And yes, that leaves room for ganking (at opportunity) for a "game play" goal. Just not ganking "becooze lolz".

I can't speak for Xeen, although I think we are on the same page. What I am saying is that those players exist and they will be in PFO.

People need to stop believing that the rep or alignment system will be some kind of a panacea. No amount of suck will mean a thing to a player who will just reroll a character, or even start a new account.

I'm not going to speak for anyone else, but what I understood Xeen to have explicitly said in this thread is that he was going to be one of those players.

You know.... if you want, we can play that game until the End of Days. It is a neat exchange that moves real discussion backwards or completely obscures it.

I have also seen Xeen write that he would prefer to play a workable reputation and use S&D if it will work for him (by his own future judgment).

Who else do you think will be the "Naughty Players" that we should watch for?

Edit: Let's discuss the "Thick as Thieves" idea. How should it work, look, etc...?

Goblin Squad Member

@ Decius

The above (my post) was knee jerk reaction. I will leave it there as a good example of one of the problems with our forum.

The system either will or won't discourage certain types of behavior. I think that until we get details and actually play the game with the systems, we have "0" idea if they will work or not. I agree that it would be best to function on a level of assumption that they will work. Certainly that they will need to be tweaked to work good enough. So, I agree with you there.

There is some concern/anxiety being expressed about things. It is from the point of view of those that care about them. When they detail information (that I don't like) about my favorite things, I will argue furiously against them too. :)

Goblin Squad Member

Thick as Thieves

Any 3rd party entering the SAD radius and supporting one side or the other will adopt their status and become hostile to the other and those affiliated with them, with the appropriate timer for that status.

Affiliation is minimally Group, basically Company, and in settlement controlled hexes, at most Settlement based.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

S&D has never been a griefer stick. It's always been a bandit carrot.

Goblin Squad Member

@Bringslight, regarding the Thick as Thieves concept, here's the relevant bit from Cheney:

Stephen Cheney wrote:

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 think Thick as Thieves is too specific of a patch, and while we sort of don't know enough about the nuances of hostility, I'll try to explain why.

First, it only deals with the Criminal flag. Any large group of flagged characters (Criminal, Attacker, Heinous) is going to have situations where more than 6 characters share a flag, share a goal, and should be able to defend themselves from multiple parties of enemies.

example: 18 slavers (Heinous) moving "merchandise" down the road in 3 parties of 6 slavers each. The lead party of slavers is attacked by multiple parties. The other two parties of slavers can't jump in without gaining Attacker flags and taking rep hits.

Second, the Thick as Thieves is based on a spot of terrain. There are likely more situations where a multi-party group is moving or stationary without having a blind set. The slavers in the example above are also an example of a moving multi-party group.

I think the fix has to be some grouping systems above party, where the grouped parties share flags and hostility to some degree. If there is a party of 6 slavers with "merchandise" grouped with 2 parties of guards, they likely all have the Heinous flag as long as they are grouped and someone has slaves.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:


I'm not going to speak for anyone else, but what I understood Xeen to have explicitly said in this thread is that he was going to be one of those players.

Then you misunderstood him. There is a difference between accepting rep loss in exchange for a desired outcome and playing low rep throw away characters to achieve a desired outcome.

Xeen wrote:


Your assumption is wrong. Ganking strangers will always be profitable. Unless you die in the fight. Even if the stranger only has 5GP to his name.

That's what led me to believe that Xeen believes that Reputation will never be valuable or important; his claim that ganking a stranger would be profitable regardless of anything about reputation and even if he loots nothing.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:


I'm not going to speak for anyone else, but what I understood Xeen to have explicitly said in this thread is that he was going to be one of those players.

Then you misunderstood him. There is a difference between accepting rep loss in exchange for a desired outcome and playing low rep throw away characters to achieve a desired outcome.

Xeen wrote:


Your assumption is wrong. Ganking strangers will always be profitable. Unless you die in the fight. Even if the stranger only has 5GP to his name.

That's what led me to believe that Xeen believes that Reputation will never be valuable or important; his claim that ganking a stranger would be profitable regardless of anything about reputation and even if he loots nothing.

That still does not clear up your misunderstanding. Some players will place profit ahead of reputation, just as others will place settlement needs above personal reputation.

Quite a number of months ago I wrote a hypothetical of the "One Copper Piece Bandit". This character would kill and steal just one copper piece, leaving other wealth untouched. For that character the profit is not what it means to the victim or to the outside observer but to his player's character concept.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:


I'm not going to speak for anyone else, but what I understood Xeen to have explicitly said in this thread is that he was going to be one of those players.

Then you misunderstood him. There is a difference between accepting rep loss in exchange for a desired outcome and playing low rep throw away characters to achieve a desired outcome.

Xeen wrote:


Your assumption is wrong. Ganking strangers will always be profitable. Unless you die in the fight. Even if the stranger only has 5GP to his name.

That's what led me to believe that Xeen believes that Reputation will never be valuable or important; his claim that ganking a stranger would be profitable regardless of anything about reputation and even if he loots nothing.

That still does not clear up your misunderstanding. Some players will place profit ahead of reputation, just as others will place settlement needs above personal reputation.

Quite a number of months ago I wrote a hypothetical of the "One Copper Piece Bandit". This character would kill and steal just one copper piece, leaving other wealth untouched. For that character the profit is not what it means to the victim or to the outside observer but to his player's character concept.

The example of the "one copper bandit" is one of the reasons for the reputation system. No computer can judge motives and role play, yet that is one type that falls under "undesirable" if played too often.

All that is left is making mid rep playable and low rep very frustrating. Just because others have tried something and failed, is not a good reason to assume that other attempts will also. You just need to improve or change the angle of attack at the problem.

Goblin Squad Member

Drakhan Valane wrote:
S&D has never been a griefer stick. It's always been a bandit carrot.

According to which Developer?

The SAD is not a griefer stick or a carrot for bandits. The SAD was meant to give bandits a reason not to just kill the merchant / harvester / traders they come across. If anything the "carrot" is for the merchant / harvester / trader to accept the SAD demand.

As both Xeen and I have said, if the reward is the right amount, reputation will be an accepted trade off. That is not breaking the rules, it is not avoiding the reputation system, it is functioning within the system and making a meaningful choice.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

So giving bandits a way to not lose rep isn't a carrot now?

Goblin Squad Member

I actually see SAD as a necessary mechanic to allow trained characters to engage non-flagged characters, usually merchants or gatherers, primarily as a means to control raw materials and goods in the game. While feuds and wars can achieve the same result, a cheaper, more agile mechanic is needed to help keep the PvP aspects of the game across all character types.

It should be a tough and dangerous road for those using it (bandits), dangerous for the unguarded and unwary on the receiving end, but it should also be a stimuli for gatherers and merchants to use the social aspects of the game and generate content (guards, trade based companies etc).

Goblin Squad Member

Drakhan Valane wrote:
So giving bandits a way to not lose rep isn't a carrot now?

Or is it a carrot to merchants and gatherers to get them to be more social?

Goblin Squad Member

Drakhan Valane wrote:
So giving bandits a way to not lose rep isn't a carrot now?

Reputation is not really a part of the risk vs. reward calculation. That means that it is not a significant carrot when compared to the opportunity to loot with lower risk.

I believe the GW understands that if they did not provide bandits the ability to not kill merchants in exchange for taking less loot, the bandits would just kill more for more loot.

You can talk all you like about reputation systems and "sucking", what that will likely do is just push bandits the other direction. They will forego the SAD, and avoid the moderate risk and prey upon the weak, the noob and the smaller groups.

The other side effect, not yet mentioned, with the criminal flag applying to the SAD in the wilderness areas: I mention this for Stephen Cheney

If the goal is to push bandit based PVP out into the wilderness areas, where travelers are expected to be more wary, I'm afraid you might accomplish just the opposite.

If I'm going to get the criminal flag no matter where I use the SAD, then I might as well use it in a settlement hex. At least a PC settlement is a place I can observe for some time and get a sense of its usual activity pattern.

The wilderness is far more unpredictable, and most encounters will be expecting trouble and thus better prepared for it.

There is also the added benefit of creating corruption in a PC settlement which helps to level things out as far as reputation differential is concerned.

One approach that low rep character will be is to drag others down, rather than build their own reputation up. The narrower the gap between low and high, the less "suck" the low will actually suffer. The "suck" isn't where you are at, it is in the difference between sucking and not sucking.

This theory won't be tested until we can actually see it in game. It will likely not be played out initially between low rep vs high rep either. I believe it will first be seen between the competition between medium rep and high rep. I expect that the first settlement that reaches the pinnacle of training, will be beset by several middle tiered settlements looking to take it down to their level.

In my view, that is ideal for the game to prosper. It will certainly do wonders for my play style as well. Plenty of mercenary work will be had.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
So giving bandits a way to not lose rep isn't a carrot now?

Reputation is not really a part of the risk vs. reward calculation. That means that it is not a significant carrot when compared to the opportunity to loot with lower risk.

So, why do you believe that Reputation will not be effective at deterring the actions which it is intended to deter? Can you imagine any change that you could make to Reputation which would make Reputation an addend in your risk/reward calculation?

Goblin Squad Member

@DeciusBrutus, My guess is that Reputation will effectively deter the common use of the Attacker flag (against mid- to high-rep targets). It won't be direct, but will work something like this:

- Bandits will operate and may want to go back and forth between S&D and simple attacks. When either type of robbery occurs in or near a settlement, settlement intelligencers will take down names.
- There will be characters willing to take an Attacker flag for the settlement, especially when it's a cheap rep hit. We've been told that there will be achievement rewards tied to PvP, for example, and those achievers need to get kills somewhere.
- Bandits who get to lower rep values will be attacked, repeatedly, if they stay in the vicinity of the settlement. They may have some protection by moving in groups, but risk logging-on when their buddies aren't present. Being a known bandit will get one killed again and again until the bandit avoids sections of the map, but settlements will have to do that to avoid corruption. Clearing one's name after running with bandits might be a challenge.
- To keep from being cheap-rep-kill targets, many bandits will use SAD almost exclusively. Any simple Attacks will flat-line rep gains, so even doing as little as 10% simple attacks might put a bandit on a downward spiral.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
So, why do you believe that Reputation will not be effective at deterring the actions which it is intended to deter? Can you imagine any change that you could make to Reputation which would make Reputation an addend in your risk/reward calculation?

First off, lets make sure we are talking about the same thing.

I will start by stating a few personal absolutes:

1. If there were no way for me to be a bandit without losing reputation, I would be a low reputation bandit.

Reputation does not trump by desired game play with this particular character. This is why it is not added into my risk vs. reward calculation, because my goals to play a certain type of character are the most important reward.

2. I have a very long view for PFO. What are a few months of suck, compared to a decade's worth of a character's life?

I would expect that GW is encouraged that I and probably (hopefully) many have this view of their game.

So, as a deterrent, reputation holds less sway when placed within this long view of the game. Even if it takes weeks or even months to recover, if lost in support of the character concept and desired play style, it's worth it.

3. I will seek every way possible to adapt and or cope with any system that makes achieving my goals difficult.

I will have to get back to this later for suggestions on how to make reputation part of the calculation.

Goblin Squad Member

Moving reputation to just recovery over time is a mistake. GW has spent these many months getting individuals to desire a high reputation, to the point that they would be willing to participate in desired behaviors just to gain it. Only to now say, nope it won't matter your actions, just the passage of time.

Their concern was that players would just grind reputation. If players are grinding reputation through activities and through methods that are good for the game, the net result is, you have more players playing in a desired way.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Their concern was that players would just grind reputation. If players are grinding reputation through activities and through methods that are good for the game, the net result is, you have more players playing in a desired way.

I did not get that at all. I understood that their concern was how to avoid an easily gamed...and hence pointless system. Perhaps you are convinced it is a pointless system because you think it will still be easily gamed?

Bluddwolf wrote:
Moving reputation to just recovery over time is a mistake. GW has spent these many months getting individuals to desire a high reputation, to the point that they would be willing to participate in desired behaviors just to gain it. Only to now say, nope it won't matter your actions, just the passage of time.

Many of the arguments made in this thread suggest to me that they have made a wise decision.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Urman wrote:

@DeciusBrutus, My guess is that Reputation will effectively deter the common use of the Attacker flag (against mid- to high-rep targets). It won't be direct, but will work something like this:

- Bandits will operate and may want to go back and forth between S&D and simple attacks. When either type of robbery occurs in or near a settlement, settlement intelligencers will take down names.
- There will be characters willing to take an Attacker flag for the settlement, especially when it's a cheap rep hit. We've been told that there will be achievement rewards tied to PvP, for example, and those achievers need to get kills somewhere.
- Bandits who get to lower rep values will be attacked, repeatedly, if they stay in the vicinity of the settlement. They may have some protection by moving in groups, but risk logging-on when their buddies aren't present. Being a known bandit will get one killed again and again until the bandit avoids sections of the map, but settlements will have to do that to avoid corruption. Clearing one's name after running with bandits might be a challenge.
- To keep from being cheap-rep-kill targets, many bandits will use SAD almost exclusively. Any simple Attacks will flat-line rep gains, so even doing as little as 10% simple attacks might put a bandit on a downward spiral.

None of those are effects of the Reputation mechanic. That scenario begs the question of why anybody cares about Reputation.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
Urman wrote:

@DeciusBrutus, My guess is that Reputation will effectively deter the common use of the Attacker flag (against mid- to high-rep targets). It won't be direct, but will work something like this:

- Bandits will operate and may want to go back and forth between S&D and simple attacks. When either type of robbery occurs in or near a settlement, settlement intelligencers will take down names.
- There will be characters willing to take an Attacker flag for the settlement, especially when it's a cheap rep hit. We've been told that there will be achievement rewards tied to PvP, for example, and those achievers need to get kills somewhere.
- Bandits who get to lower rep values will be attacked, repeatedly, if they stay in the vicinity of the settlement. They may have some protection by moving in groups, but risk logging-on when their buddies aren't present. Being a known bandit will get one killed again and again until the bandit avoids sections of the map, but settlements will have to do that to avoid corruption. Clearing one's name after running with bandits might be a challenge.
- To keep from being cheap-rep-kill targets, many bandits will use SAD almost exclusively. Any simple Attacks will flat-line rep gains, so even doing as little as 10% simple attacks might put a bandit on a downward spiral.

None of those are effects of the Reputation mechanic. That scenario begs the question of why anybody cares about Reputation.

@ Urman

A known bandit is not freely attack able unless he is criminal flagged. Same goes for low rep, not freely attack able.

I also don't believe that most targets of banditry will be SADed. I believe that most victims of banditry will be the result of feuds, factions and wars. These types of targets can be freely attacked (no sad needed) and will not trigger the criminal flag.

What I like about your post is that you are showing how a bandit can function within the reputation system in a thoughtful manner. That is the point that DeciousBrutus is missing.

@ DeciousBrutus

The fact that some players are thinking of ways to mitigate the impact of the reputation system is proof that they care about it.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Urman wrote:

@DeciusBrutus, My guess is that Reputation will effectively deter the common use of the Attacker flag (against mid- to high-rep targets). It won't be direct, but will work something like this:

- Bandits will operate and may want to go back and forth between S&D and simple attacks. When either type of robbery occurs in or near a settlement, settlement intelligencers will take down names.
- There will be characters willing to take an Attacker flag for the settlement, especially when it's a cheap rep hit. We've been told that there will be achievement rewards tied to PvP, for example, and those achievers need to get kills somewhere.
- Bandits who get to lower rep values will be attacked, repeatedly, if they stay in the vicinity of the settlement. They may have some protection by moving in groups, but risk logging-on when their buddies aren't present. Being a known bandit will get one killed again and again until the bandit avoids sections of the map, but settlements will have to do that to avoid corruption. Clearing one's name after running with bandits might be a challenge.
- To keep from being cheap-rep-kill targets, many bandits will use SAD almost exclusively. Any simple Attacks will flat-line rep gains, so even doing as little as 10% simple attacks might put a bandit on a downward spiral.

None of those are effects of the Reputation mechanic. That scenario begs the question of why anybody cares about Reputation.

@ Urman

A known bandit is not freely attack able unless he is criminal flagged. Same goes for low rep, not freely attack able.

I also don't believe that most targets of banditry will be SADed. I believe that most victims of banditry will be the result of feuds, factions and wars. These types of targets can be freely attacked (no sad needed) and will not trigger the criminal flag.

What I like about your post is that you are showing how a bandit can function within the reputation system in a thoughtful manner....

We have been saying this to you all along, hello? There are things implemented by Goblinworks that will allow the killing of others without reputation loss. However, if you diverge from these venues and start killing people simply because, in your mind, these options aren't enough then you will definitely suffer reputation loss and your character will suffer also.

What am I missing here?

Goblin Squad Member

Forencith wrote:
I understood that their concern was how to avoid an easily gamed...and hence pointless system. Perhaps you are convinced it is a pointless system because you think it will still be easily gamed?

Gaming the system implies that someone has found a way around it, or found a way to use it against itself.

Accepting the reputation hits based on your own personal cost benefit analysis is not gaming the system, it is supporting it.

Performing desired activities or using desired methods to gain reputation is not gaming the system, it is being rewarded for working within it.

Honestly I think reputation gain over time rewards sedentary behavior, no negative interaction and no need for positive interaction results in reputation gain.

The highest reputation characters will be those that have the most limited interactions. Is that really the ideal?

Goblin Squad Member

Nevy wrote:
What am I missing here?

Apparently everything that I have been saying.

But I just reiterated my points in this:

Bluddwolf wrote:

Accepting the reputation hits based on your own personal cost benefit analysis is not gaming the system, it is supporting it.

Performing desired activities or using desired methods to gain reputation is not gaming the system, it is being rewarded for working within it.

The last point is why I think GW should reconsider having reputation gain tied to various activities. It could be a very small gain, the amount is not the point, the encouragement is.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
Urman wrote:
...
None of those are effects of the Reputation mechanic. That scenario begs the question of why anybody cares about Reputation.

The game gives us the ability to attack unflagged characters, with a loss of reputation, for whatever reasons we may have. The loss of reputation we suffer in attacking an unflagged target is exponentially higher for a high-rep target than for a low rep target. That, I think, is the core of the Reputation mechanic.

A character who gives people enough reason will be attacked, if the reputation cost is right. As an example, a bandit - stealing goods from people, taking key resources that are needed for settlement growth, causing corruption - will be giving people ample reason. A high rep bandit might require the expenditure of Influence to deal with (to clarify: people won't want to spend the high amount of Rep it would take to attack this bandit when he's unflagged). But a low rep bandit will be killable with a minimal cost of Reputation. A very low rep bandit will be killed often, and for good reason. People will be trying to drive them away from the settlement.

Will the attacker be at risk? Sure - but they'll probably inform the local constabulary, who will watch and warn off anyone who wants to protect the bandit.

I'd bet that the bandits who use S&D, who maintain high rep, who attack targets outside settlement areas and don't cause corruption - they'll be attacked less often and with less persistence than bandits who have low rep, attack without S&D, or cause corruption effects.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Forencith wrote:
I understood that their concern was how to avoid an easily gamed...and hence pointless system. Perhaps you are convinced it is a pointless system because you think it will still be easily gamed?

...

Honestly I think reputation gain over time rewards sedentary behavior, no negative interaction and no need for positive interaction results in reputation gain.

The highest reputation characters will be those that have the most limited interactions. Is that really the ideal?

I think as far as we've been told so far, there's only two ways to lose rep (and reduce one's rep gain over time): killing characters that don't appear hostile to you, and being rude and abusive to other players.

That allows for quite a range of activity; it hardly forces us to be sedentary and it doesn't discourage us from a huge range of interactions.

Interactions can be their own rewards. Trades, deal making between companies and settlements, wars, working as a group in harvesting, and a hundred other things. None of these need to have reputation gains to make them worthwhile.

Goblin Squad Member

Maybe an implementation of a murder count is in order. For example, if you kill five unflagged-players, of any reputation, you receive the murderer flag. The murderer flag lasts until your "unflagged kill-count" goes below five. Every "unflagged kill" has a ten hour, in game duration.

If you receive the "murderer flag" you cannot enter good-aligned player settlements, cannot buy or sell to NPCs and can be attacked by anyone without fear of reputation loss.

What do we think?

EDIT: By the way, I took this idea from Ultima Online. Kudos to Lord British.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

You mean like this, Nevy?

Attacker

The character has attacked another character outside of a war situation, and the target character did not have a PvP flag. It denotes which character is the aggressor in PvP combat.

* Anyone killing a character with Attacker does not suffer reputation or alignment loss.
* Attacker is removed if the character is killed.
* The Attacker flag lasts for one minute after combat ends.
* If the character gets the Attacker flag he gets an Aggressor buff that lasts for 24 hours that has no effect besides being a counter. Each time he gets Attacker increases the stack of Aggressor by one.
* * If the character gets a high enough stack of Aggressor, determined by his Reputation, he gets the status Murderer, which lasts 24 hours and does not disappear on death. It acts the same as Attacker, allowing repeat offenders to be hunted down for longer periods of time.

Granted, they've revamped the Flags system, and I do not know if they've kept this portion.

Goblin Squad Member

Nevy wrote:

Maybe an implementation of a murder count is in order. For example, if you kill five unflagged-players, of any reputation, you receive the murderer flag. The murderer flag lasts until your "unflagged kill-count" goes below five. Every "unflagged kill" has a ten hour, in game duration.

If you receive the "murderer flag" you cannot enter good-aligned player settlements, cannot buy or sell to NPCs and can be attacked by anyone without fear of reputation loss.

What do we think?

EDIT: By the way, I took this idea from Ultima Online. Kudos to Lord British.

They have this already or at least they used to. It was once your stdk reached 10', you got the Murderer flag that lasted an unspecified but long timer ( 24 hours or less).

Goblin Squad Member

@Drakahn Valane, I think there's still something like the Murderer flag. Upthread, within the last two weeks, we had this bit (I added the bold):

Stephen Cheney wrote:
... 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. ...

I don't remember them ever specifying how many kills it takes to get Murderer or Killer. It might be tied to rep, or it might be one of those things they will dial up and down through EE as required, or it might be both tied to rep and subject to being changed.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Drakhan Valane wrote:

You mean like this, Nevy?

Attacker

The character has attacked another character outside of a war situation, and the target character did not have a PvP flag. It denotes which character is the aggressor in PvP combat.

* Anyone killing a character with Attacker does not suffer reputation or alignment loss.
* Attacker is removed if the character is killed.
* The Attacker flag lasts for one minute after combat ends.
* If the character gets the Attacker flag he gets an Aggressor buff that lasts for 24 hours that has no effect besides being a counter. Each time he gets Attacker increases the stack of Aggressor by one.
* * If the character gets a high enough stack of Aggressor, determined by his Reputation, he gets the status Murderer, which lasts 24 hours and does not disappear on death. It acts the same as Attacker, allowing repeat offenders to be hunted down for longer periods of time.

Granted, they've revamped the Flags system, and I do not know if they've kept this portion.

Well, color me awesome. Thank you for the link Drakhan!

So...I'm still unsure what all the debate is about as I keep reading the same things over and over. If you don't want low reputation in regards to player versus player either:

1.) Use a SAD
2.) Attack flagged players / hunt murderers
3.) Feud enemy organizations/settlements/companies/etc

Or kill as you wish and become the level of "suck" that Goblinworks finds fitting?

Those options seem pretty fair to me. In fact, I would think players attracted to the murderer play-style would be content that Gobinlinworks allows you to be divergent. Are these options still not good enough?

Goblin Squad Member

Nevy wrote:

So...I'm still unsure what all the debate is about as I keep reading the same things over and over. If you don't want low reputation in regards to player versus player either:

1.) Use a SAD
2.) Attack flagged players / hunt murderers
3.) Feud enemy organizations/settlements/companies/etc

Or kill as you wish and become the level of "suck" that Goblinworks finds fitting?

Those options seem pretty fair to me. In fact, I would think players attracted to the murderer play-style would be content that Gobinlinworks allows you to be divergent. Are these options still not good enough?

There is no issue or debate with the SAD as Stephen Cheney has written here in this thread, as long as his "Thick as Thieves" or similar feature is also included.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Nevy wrote:

So...I'm still unsure what all the debate is about as I keep reading the same things over and over. If you don't want low reputation in regards to player versus player either:

1.) Use a SAD
2.) Attack flagged players / hunt murderers
3.) Feud enemy organizations/settlements/companies/etc

Or kill as you wish and become the level of "suck" that Goblinworks finds fitting?

Those options seem pretty fair to me. In fact, I would think players attracted to the murderer play-style would be content that Gobinlinworks allows you to be divergent. Are these options still not good enough?

There is no issue or debate with the SAD as Stephen Cheney has written here in this thread, as long as his "Thick as Thieves" or similar feature is also included.

Oh, because I thought this thought by you seemingly radiates issue with the system:

Bluddwolf wrote:


Reputation is not really a part of the risk vs. reward calculation. That means that it is not a significant carrot when compared to the opportunity to loot with lower risk.

I believe the GW understands that if they did not provide bandits the ability to not kill merchants in exchange for taking less loot, the bandits would just kill more for more loot.

You can talk all you like about reputation systems and "sucking", what that will likely do is just push bandits the other direction. They will forego the SAD, and avoid the moderate risk and prey upon the weak, the noob and the smaller groups.

The other side effect, not yet mentioned, with the criminal flag applying to the SAD in the wilderness areas: I mention this for Stephen Cheney

If the goal is to push bandit based PVP out into the wilderness areas, where travelers are expected to be more wary, I'm afraid you might accomplish just the opposite.

If I'm going to get the criminal flag no matter where I use the SAD, then I might as well use it in a settlement hex. At least a PC settlement is a place I can observe for some time and get a sense of its usual activity pattern.

The wilderness is far more unpredictable, and most encounters will be expecting trouble and thus better prepared for it.

There is also the added benefit of creating corruption in a PC settlement which helps to level things out as far as reputation differential is concerned.

One approach that low rep character will be is to drag others down, rather than build their own reputation up. The narrower the gap between low and high, the less "suck" the low will actually suffer. The "suck" isn't where you are at, it is in the difference between sucking and not sucking.

This theory won't be tested until we can actually see it in game. It will likely not be played out initially between low rep vs high rep either. I believe it will first be seen between the...

I'm trying to understand where you are going with all this Bluddwolf. It seems to be Xeen and yourself have some kind of agenda or thought process that isn't coming through to the rest of us. So, instead of me commenting and you replying (business as usual) how about you simply state how you'd like Goblinworks to define banditry and what would make you content.

If you look back at your prior posts, where you and I have had dialogue, your thought process constantly changed and you've consistently presented information that was inaccurate as canon. Because of this it is hard for me to take your opinions and/or words seriously although I really don't think you mean to be deceptive, you're just passionate and sometimes mistaken.

So, let's start over, I'm interested to hear what you want out of this system.

Goblin Squad Member

What I want out of the system is what Stephen Cheney has already said.

If I SAD a caravan, I am criminal flagged. I get to view the items through the use of the Perception roll vs. the Caravan's ability to obscure my view. A demand is made, and if the caravan agrees, the trade is made and my criminal flag will time out shortly after. I will be on a SAD cool down for a period, to avoid spamming SADs. The caravan will be "fleeced" and will hit any attacker with a double reputation hit.

While I and my party of 6 are engaged in the SAD, we are criminal flagged. We are open to be attacked by anyone. However, we are also able to defend ourselves without reputation loss.

If we are attacked by a third party, and we have other members of our company in the area, our own company members can join in to defend us, seeing the 3rd party as we do (hostile). Our own 2nd party would also gain the criminal flag for coming to our defense. This I believe is why it is called "Thick as Thieves".

As long as we can defend our own company mates against hostile parties, we have no issue with using the SAD and being Criminal Flagged. Caravans or simply travelers, have the benefit of having 3rd parties come to their aid, without reputation penalties as well.

This is what Stephen Cheney basically described (SAD + Thick as Thieves). I'm good with it. Xeen is good with it. The rest of my company is good with it.

Goblin Squad Member

Do you believe innocent persons should have any kind of advantage versus an unprovoked attack or SAD by a bandit?

Goblin Squad Member

@ Bluddwolf

Are you ok that your 3rd party (of friends) will have to be involved from the start? I am guessing that they will, as part of "Thick as Thieves". So basically they will be pre-criminal when they sign up and you inspect your target.

Just a guess there, yet it makes sense to me.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:

@ Bluddwolf

Are you ok that your 3rd party (of friends) will have to be involved from the start? I am guessing that they will, as part of "Thick as Thieves". So basically they will be pre-criminal when they sign up and you inspect your target.

Just a guess there, yet it makes sense to me.

If they are some how linked with the group (similar to EVE's fleet system, or a raid group) I'd say yes.

If they are in the vicinity and accept (either actively or toggled passively) to be auto tagged Criminal and part of SAD / Ambush group, I'm fine with that.

If they are in some distant hex and or they decline getting included (busy doing other company or personal business) than no.

This is why I originally asked Stephen Cheney what if 6 characters, each attached to a different group of 6, stood in the SAD radius. Could we then have a true raiding party of 36, or would we still be limited to just 6?

Goblin Squad Member

Nevy wrote:
Do you believe innocent persons should have any kind of advantage versus an unprovoked attack or SAD by a bandit?

That depends on what you mean by advantage. It also depends on what you mean by innocent and unprovoked. It also matters where in the world (hex type) you are talking about. It also depends on the activity that the traveler is engaged in.

In many hexes, NPC controlled and PC Sertlement hexes, there will be NPC wardens that respond to crimes. That is an inherent advantage.

Outside of controlled hexes you are responsible to provide your own form and level of protection.

What advantages are you hoping for or would expect?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am curious how GW intends to get around pre-fleecing by friendlies for 20 minutes of safety. That is what I see as the weakness in the "plan".

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nevy wrote:
Do you believe innocent persons should have any kind of advantage versus an unprovoked attack or SAD by a bandit?

Once the fight starts and all applicable Reputation and/or Alignment changes happen, no. I think that making the Reputation and Alignment effects correct is sufficient to cover every major case.

Goblin Squad Member

Forencith wrote:
I am curious how GW intends to get around pre-fleecing by friendlies for 20 minutes of safety. That is what I see as the weakness in the "plan".

Anyone pre-fleecing friendlies gets the Criminal flag and can be freely attacked. I imagine bandits will do it if only to send the pre-fleecer back to his spawn point.

The duration of the fleecing might not be 20 minutes - it might just be long enough to get out of the hex. So the Criminal flag might linger on the pre-fleecer longer than the Fleeced flag itself.

edit to add: pre-fleecing within settlement areas might also raise corruption, encouraging the local guard to punch the pre-fleecer's ticket as well.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
Forencith wrote:
I am curious how GW intends to get around pre-fleecing by friendlies for 20 minutes of safety. That is what I see as the weakness in the "plan".

Anyone pre-fleecing friendlies gets the Criminal flag and can be freely attacked. I imagine bandits will do it if only to send the pre-fleecer back to his spawn point.

The duration of the fleecing might not be 20 minutes - it might just be long enough to get out of the hex. So the Criminal flag might linger on the pre-fleecer longer than the Fleeced flag itself.

edit to add: pre-fleecing within settlement areas might also raise corruption, encouraging the local guard to punch the pre-fleecer's ticket as well.

That is how I am seeing the discouragement for the pre-fleece. You have to put yourself into danger, the same as the bandit. Other than that, I am thinking only "The Mighty Hand" catching you at it, will work. That seems weak and unlikely, admittedly.

Goblin Squad Member

Also - If the pre-fleecer can be attacked as soon as he issues his S&D, it can be canceled, but he's still has a Criminal flag. So pre-fleecer issues S&D and flags Criminal; is engaged by bandit party 1 which cancels S&D process; bandit party 2 now S&Ds traveler.

I expect bandits will track known pre-fleecers with as much care as travelers track known bandits.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I know that people are way too intrigued and fascinated by S&D now to turn back. I do still wish that there were enough ways for bandits to get what they want without breaking the regular rules of engagement (consequences vs. the unflagged). Enough targets that the entire complicated system wouldn't be needed.

Dream on!

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bringslite wrote:

I know that people are way too intrigued and fascinated by S&D now to turn back. I do still wish that there were enough ways for bandits to get what they want without breaking the regular rules of engagement (consequences vs. the unflagged). Enough targets that the entire complicated system wouldn't be needed.

Dream on!

It would be nice if you could rely on the players to be 'friendly' toward each other. I'm not meaning PvP-free and stuff, but looking to enjoy the game without ruining it for others. But history has shown us and with human nature on the internet that players cannot be trusted to be 'friendly'. If there is not some system put into place to curtail those players that only strive to ruin other player's experience, then that small few will ruin the game for the majority.

Goblin Squad Member

Banesama wrote:
Bringslite wrote:

I know that people are way too intrigued and fascinated by S&D now to turn back. I do still wish that there were enough ways for bandits to get what they want without breaking the regular rules of engagement (consequences vs. the unflagged). Enough targets that the entire complicated system wouldn't be needed.

Dream on!

It would be nice if you could rely on the players to be 'friendly' toward each other. I'm not meaning PvP-free and stuff, but looking to enjoy the game without ruining it for others. But history has shown us and with human nature on the internet that players cannot be trusted to be 'friendly'. If there is not some system put into place to curtail those players that only strive to ruin other player's experience, then that small few will ruin the game for the majority.

There was no griefing in Pirates of the Burning Sea. You knew, if you traveled into the red zone, you were open season. If you wanted to be fairly safe, you sailed in a fleet of ships (3+ would be enough mist of the time). If you were smart and actually thought about how to sail your ship, you could escape most engagements. There were even times when mire than 90% of the map was red! no where safe to sail and those server-wide battles were awesome.

In some ways it's too bad GW won't just make a simple system. You enter a zone, you're flagged. Zones expand or contract based on player interaction. Build up unrest, and the area goes FFA.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Banesama wrote:
Bringslite wrote:

I know that people are way too intrigued and fascinated by S&D now to turn back. I do still wish that there were enough ways for bandits to get what they want without breaking the regular rules of engagement (consequences vs. the unflagged). Enough targets that the entire complicated system wouldn't be needed.

Dream on!

It would be nice if you could rely on the players to be 'friendly' toward each other. I'm not meaning PvP-free and stuff, but looking to enjoy the game without ruining it for others. But history has shown us and with human nature on the internet that players cannot be trusted to be 'friendly'. If there is not some system put into place to curtail those players that only strive to ruin other player's experience, then that small few will ruin the game for the majority.

There was no griefing in Pirates of the Burning Sea. You knew, if you traveled into the red zone, you were open season. If you wanted to be fairly safe, you sailed in a fleet of ships (3+ would be enough mist of the time). If you were smart and actually thought about how to sail your ship, you could escape most engagements. There were even times when mire than 90% of the map was red! no where safe to sail and those server-wide battles were awesome.

In some ways it's too bad GW won't just make a simple system. You enter a zone, you're flagged. Zones expand or contract based on player interaction. Build up unrest, and the area goes FFA.

That's actually why many games fail, because of FFA craziness like that. I mean there are plenty of games that offer this (like Darkfall). I think we should be optimistic and see what happens as the game develops.

I've got to disagree with your statement saying "in some ways it's too bad GW won't just make a simple system." I actually feel the complete opposite.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:

Also - If the pre-fleecer can be attacked as soon as he issues his S&D, it can be canceled, but he's still has a Criminal flag. So pre-fleecer issues S&D and flags Criminal; is engaged by bandit party 1 which cancels S&D process; bandit party 2 now S&Ds traveler.

I expect bandits will track known pre-fleecers with as much care as travelers track known bandits.

I do not see anything mentioned yet as a deterrent for a merchant (or any) association to have dedicated characters, alts or mains, who can log on to pre-fleece a caravan. Especially...if the cost savings to that social group over a month is more than enough to cover a Goblin Ball or two (sorry, I am not aware of the selection of "better" name for those), essentially paying for itself.

We already know some people intend to have 'low rep alts' if necessary for carrying out what they feel to be advantageous yet less than 'desirable' deeds. This use will just be added to the list of advantages.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:

I know that people are way too intrigued and fascinated by S&D now to turn back. I do still wish that there were enough ways for bandits to get what they want without breaking the regular rules of engagement (consequences vs. the unflagged). Enough targets that the entire complicated system wouldn't be needed.

Dream on!

I've said it in other posts in this thread, but I see SAD as a necessary PvP mechanic similar to feuds and wars, just at a smaller social group level.

Basically, in increasing social group size:

SAD allows for party level PvP
Feuds allow for company level PvP
Wars allows for settlement level PvP

SAD is needed in the game to allow for the small scale PvP interaction, and 'banditry' is the most logical way to introduce that mechanic into the game.

1,101 to 1,150 of 1,727 << first < prev | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Stand and Deliver Discussion All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.