Stand and Deliver Discussion


Pathfinder Online

1,301 to 1,350 of 1,727 << first < prev | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:

When the more organized and aggressive organizations come to PFO, they will be focused on just one thing... Dominance. They will find settlements with misconceptions about the nature of PvP, ripe for the picking, because some people lack a basic understanding of what type of game play Settlement vs Settlement PvP will bring.

They will have every reason to kill anyone not in their own player grouping...

Meh. They don't worry me; they're going to learn hard lessons about PFO.

... a lot of people will come to Pathfinder Online with two incorrect preconceptions about the way the game is played. Those two preconceptions are:

1: Open World PvP implies a murder simulator

2: Killing early, often, and without discrimination is the route to long-term success

We are going to break this pattern and we are going to redefine those preconceptions. In order to do that we must repeatedly and powerfully shock the system. One of those shocks is a negative feedback loop that links random killing to gimping character development.

(emphasis in original)

I'm actually looking forward to seeing the folks who think they have "every reason to kill anyone not in their own player grouping" when they start feeling Ryan "repeatedly and powerfully shock the system".

Goblin Squad Member

I've been looking for that quote, thank you!

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

When the more organized and aggressive organizations come to PFO, they will be focused on just one thing... Dominance. They will find settlements with misconceptions about the nature of PvP, ripe for the picking, because some people lack a basic understanding of what type of game play Settlement vs Settlement PvP will bring.

They will have every reason to kill anyone not in their own player grouping...

Meh. They don't worry me; they're going to learn hard lessons about PFO.

... a lot of people will come to Pathfinder Online with two incorrect preconceptions about the way the game is played. Those two preconceptions are:

1: Open World PvP implies a murder simulator

2: Killing early, often, and without discrimination is the route to long-term success

We are going to break this pattern and we are going to redefine those preconceptions. In order to do that we must repeatedly and powerfully shock the system. One of those shocks is a negative feedback loop that links random killing to gimping character development.

(emphasis in original)

I'm actually looking forward to seeing the folks who think they have "every reason to kill anyone not in their own player grouping" when they start feeling Ryan "repeatedly and powerfully shock the system".

You have misconstrued my meaning to imply that these groups would indiscriminately kill anyone. That is not what I said or implied. They will methodically use the system, within its parameters to pursue their objective of dominance.

They will use feuds, faction and wars (all sanctioned) against all that do not fold within their dominion. When they do not wish to cross any lines, they will hire those that have an active disregard for those lines.

It will not be murder, it will be war. I want to be clear, it will not be groups such as my own, we have no designs for dominance. We are just simple bandits, raiders and perhaps cutthroats. We are far too chaotic or free spirited to have the dedication required for the dominance play.

In EVE Online terms, the UNC is more akin to Low sec Pirates. The groups I'm talking about are the NULL Sec SOV Alliance types. The big difference is, you won't have 7000+ star systems to find your little safe haven in. There won't be Worm Hole space to shut yourself off in. The High Sec hexes are designed to encourage you to leave them (limited advancement opportunities). Individual settlements will be there, out in the open and easily accessible.

The push in PFO is towards large scale, organized PVP. The only funnel is the suck funnel, it is the settlement vs. settlement conflict funnel or perhaps more accurately, the kingdom vs. kingdom conflict funnel.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

When the more organized and aggressive organizations come to PFO, they will be focused on just one thing... Dominance. They will find settlements with misconceptions about the nature of PvP, ripe for the picking, because some people lack a basic understanding of what type of game play Settlement vs Settlement PvP will bring.

They will have every reason to kill anyone not in their own player grouping...

Meh. They don't worry me; they're going to learn hard lessons about PFO.

... a lot of people will come to Pathfinder Online with two incorrect preconceptions about the way the game is played. Those two preconceptions are:

1: Open World PvP implies a murder simulator

2: Killing early, often, and without discrimination is the route to long-term success

We are going to break this pattern and we are going to redefine those preconceptions. In order to do that we must repeatedly and powerfully shock the system. One of those shocks is a negative feedback loop that links random killing to gimping character development.

(emphasis in original)

I'm actually looking forward to seeing the folks who think they have "every reason to kill anyone not in their own player grouping" when they start feeling Ryan "repeatedly and powerfully shock the system".

You have misconstrued my meaning to imply that these groups would indiscriminately kill anyone. That is not what I said or implied. They will methodically use the system, within its parameters to pursue their objective of dominance.

They will use feuds, faction and wars (all sanctioned) against all that do not fold within their dominion. When they do not wish to cross any lines, they will hire those that have an active disregard for those lines.

Working as intended. I trust that there will be sufficient room for all the other group playstyles, just like there is in Eve.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
They will methodically use the system, within its parameters to pursue their objective of dominance.

I look forward to hearing from the folks who're attempting methodically to use the system within its parameters, only to discover they don't fully understand those parameters, or they lack patience, or any of the other myriad things that may cause whining and moaning in the search for short-cuts, instant or near-instant success, or what they hope will be exploitable advantages somehow denied to their "victims". Those sounds will be joyful to my ears, and I expect the number of failures may asymptotically approach the number of attempts.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
Working as intended. I trust that there will be sufficient room for all the other group playstyles, just like there is in Eve.

Here's the thing Decious, the map is thousands of times smaller in PFO as compared to EVE.

So why do I bring the specter of the "Evil Empire" into this conversation of Factionalization and SADS?

I bring it up because I see Faction / SADS as a step towards creating more PVP at the small gang level. I see that as a positive step, and it will bring the entry level of PVP down a bit as well.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
...
You have misconstrued my meaning to imply that these groups would indiscriminately kill anyone. That is not what I said or implied.

I guess I'll have to take your word for it. It sounded like you were saying those groups would have every reason to kill anyone not in their own player grouping and that it wouldn't matter what those victims were doing at the time. Even that every merchant, gatherer, explorer, bandit, or warrior would be seen as someone to be killed unless they were actively supporting the group in question.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Working as intended. I trust that there will be sufficient room for all the other group playstyles, just like there is in Eve.

Here's the thing Decious, the map is thousands of times smaller in PFO as compared to EVE.

So why do I bring the specter of the "Evil Empire" into this conversation of Factionalization and SADS?

I bring it up because I see Faction / SADS as a step towards creating more PVP at the small gang level. I see that as a positive step, and it will bring the entry level of PVP down a bit as well.

Oddly enough, the number of players will also be thousands of times smaller. I can't figure out where to research how many sectors existed when sovereignty first became possible, but I doubt that it was so many that there was good territory that went unclaimed for long.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
...
You have misconstrued my meaning to imply that these groups would indiscriminately kill anyone. That is not what I said or implied.

I guess I'll have to take your word for it. It sounded like you were saying those groups would have every reason to kill anyone not in their own player grouping and that it wouldn't matter what those victims were doing at the time. Even that every merchant, gatherer, explorer, bandit, or warrior would be seen as someone to be killed unless they were actively supporting the group in question.

You are forgetting the "methodical" part of my statement. The aggressive "evil empire" types won't take on the whole world at once.

Let me ask you, do you believe that a settlement will only become aggressive towards another settlement based on some negative interaction that took place between them?

I predict there will be a few settlements that wage war, just because they think they can win. They will conquer another, not necessarily to control or gain resources, but because they love PvP combat. They will attempt to be a "Server First" in many things war related. That "Server First" mentality is prevalent in Open World PvP MMOs, especially single server MMOs.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
You are forgetting the "methodical" part of my statement.

That word wasn't in that statement.

Bluddwolf wrote:
Let me ask you, do you believe that a settlement will only become aggressive towards another settlement based on some negative interaction that took place between them?

Why on earth would you even begin to think I would have such a misconception about the nature of a PvP game, or such a lack of basic understanding of what type of game play Settlement vs Settlement PvP will bring?

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Let me ask you, do you believe that a settlement will only become aggressive towards another settlement based on some negative interaction that took place between them?

Why on earth would you even begin to think I would have such a misconception about the nature of a PvP game, or such a lack of basic understanding of what type of game play Settlement vs Settlement PvP will bring?

Because of this:

Nihimon wrote:
I'm actually looking forward to seeing the folks who think they have "every reason to kill anyone not in their own player grouping" when they start feeling Ryan "repeatedly and powerfully shock the system".

There will be no "shocking the system" if the domination centered organizations operate as I previously suggested. They won't be breaking any rules to do so, nor avoiding any system (well perhaps indirectly they will), and so there will be no behavior for GW to shock.

Through the use of feuds, faction, war, SADs, spies, low rep alts, assassination, meta game tactics, etc a company or settlement will be targeted and for no other reason than they are not part of the evil empire. No level of diplomacy, short of accepted subjugation, will meet their demands.

Goblin Squad Member

Stephen Cheney wrote:

The idea about creating a merchant and bandit faction set was a winner around here. It should be easy enough to implement that we won't be using any major programming time that could be used to get other features online, which means that we can get it earlier than we'd get the whole S&D system. So it seems likely that what will happen is:

  • We get a bandit and merchant faction working around the same time as the other factions become available. (My gut is that we set up the merchant faction in such as way as it makes sense for both merchants and guards to join, rather than inventing a third faction to guard the merchants.)
  • We may not have all the high-rank perks yet, so we wait until we have enough attractive high-rank merchant perks before ruling on how well it's working out. (That is, we expect merchant adoption to be gradual as more "carrots" come online, so expectations shouldn't be for many merchants to be members as soon as it's available.)
  • We use feedback from how the faction system is working to revise our goals for what the S&D system needs to accomplish, and figure out where that fits into the schedule.

Are these necessarily going to just be 2 factions? If so that really takes a lot of depth out of the system IMO.

I'd like to see a few of each faction type.

For instance there would be a merchant faction that deals in strictly legal goods. A merchant faction that has skills related to smuggling. A merchant faction with skills related to the transportation of slaves.

Then there might be a bandit faction that preys on any merchants. One that will only prey on slave traders. A lawful one that only goes after smugglers.

So for for me I might join the regular merchant faction or maybe even the smuggler faction. Maybe both. But also belong to the bandit faction the exclusively targets slave traders.

A lot less cookie cutter, a lot more depth.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:

Are these necessarily going to just be 2 factions? If so that really takes a lot of depth out of the system IMO.

I'd like to see a few of each faction type.

For instance there would be a merchant faction that deals in strictly legal goods. A merchant faction that has skills related to smuggling. A merchant faction with skills related to the transportation of slaves.

Then there might be a bandit faction that preys on any merchants. One that will only prey on slave traders. A lawful one that only goes after smugglers.

So for for me I might join the regular merchant faction or maybe even the smuggler faction. Maybe both. But also belong to the bandit faction the exclusively targets slave traders.

A lot less cookie cutter, a lot more depth.

You can do all or one of honest suggestions of yours without there being sub-factions of the two main factions.

If I were a Chaotic Good bandit, I could just target slavers or smugglers, but still have available other targets who may be valuable or enemies of my company or settlement.

Players will put the depth in the system through their target selection.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wouldn't count on players adding much depth to a red vs. blue bandit vs. merchant system.

In 90% of cases all merchant faction members will attack any bandits, and bandits will rob any merchant. These RvB systems tend to encourage that kind of mentality whether they mean to or not.

Beyond that it sounds as though they are being set up as opposing factions. I don't think players should be forced to make an either or choice when it comes to this.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:

There will be no "shocking the system" if the domination centered organizations operate as I previously suggested. They won't be breaking any rules to do so, nor avoiding any system (well perhaps indirectly they will), and so there will be no behavior for GW to shock.

Through the use of feuds, faction, war, SADs, spies, low rep alts, assassination, meta game tactics, etc a company or settlement will be targeted and for no other reason than they are not part of the evil empire. No level of diplomacy, short of accepted subjugation, will meet their demands.

If none of those methods have a prohibitively high cost when collectively used against everybody, then something's wrong.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

There will be no "shocking the system" if the domination centered organizations operate as I previously suggested. They won't be breaking any rules to do so, nor avoiding any system (well perhaps indirectly they will), and so there will be no behavior for GW to shock.

Through the use of feuds, faction, war, SADs, spies, low rep alts, assassination, meta game tactics, etc a company or settlement will be targeted and for no other reason than they are not part of the evil empire. No level of diplomacy, short of accepted subjugation, will meet their demands.

If none of those methods have a prohibitively high cost when collectively used against everybody, then something's wrong.

That's exactly what I keep thinking...all of these actions have a cost, either you pay with DI or Rep. Bluddwolf keeps offering a hypothetical in which the "bad guys" seem to have an unlimited supply of both.

But...I am not adverse to heeding a warning offered; I can plan for worst and expect the best (or vice versa, as required).

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

There will be no "shocking the system" if the domination centered organizations operate as I previously suggested. They won't be breaking any rules to do so, nor avoiding any system (well perhaps indirectly they will), and so there will be no behavior for GW to shock.

Through the use of feuds, faction, war, SADs, spies, low rep alts, assassination, meta game tactics, etc a company or settlement will be targeted and for no other reason than they are not part of the evil empire. No level of diplomacy, short of accepted subjugation, will meet their demands.

If none of those methods have a prohibitively high cost when collectively used against everybody, then something's wrong.

I specifically said, not against the world (everybody). A large enough settlement, with multiple companies, can rotate the cost and thus maintain continuous aggressive action against a specific targeted settlement.

I also don't expect there to be "prohibitively high costs" to do many of those activities I mentioned. I don't expect it because it makes little sense for GW to set the cost so high as to prohibit playing the game using the systems they created. They want feuds, SADs, wars, assassinations, raids of outposts and POIs, etc. they can't stop the use of spies and meta game tactics.

There would be something wrong if we couldn't participate often in those activities.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:

I wouldn't count on players adding much depth to a red vs. blue bandit vs. merchant system.

In 90% of cases all merchant faction members will attack any bandits, and bandits will rob any merchant. These RvB systems tend to encourage that kind of mentality whether they mean to or not.

Beyond that it sounds as though they are being set up as opposing factions. I don't think players should be forced to make an either or choice when it comes to this.

But in your suggestion the bandits would have the option to choose to have any target or one if the sub factions that limits their targets. Since even you recognize that 90% of bandits would choose to have any target, why have the other sub factions?

In what way would your proposal limit merchants? If a guard was in sub faction, woukd he only be able to freely defend those members if his sub faction? I have zero expectation that you have that in mind.

I see the idea of having sub factions as a means of limiting banditry, and no equal limitation on merchants and their guards. I see little probability in GW developing sub factions to force target selection, when players can do that for themselves.

Goblin Squad Member

Factions should not be an avenue for bandits to kill merchants without fear of reputation loss. And don't respond with "well merchants can kill bandits too!"; how many merchants do you think will actively attack bandits? Not many, so the advantage goes to the bandit. Focus on the big picture rather than just the bandit's perspective.

Playing a bandit and/or murderer should absolutely be more difficult than playing a merchant.

Goblin Squad Member

Bandits should fall prey to Bandit-Hunters in roughly the same proportion (or higher) as Merchants fall prey to Bandits.

Goblin Squad Member

Just taking a step back and looking at the problems again: Is the primary reason for doing the bandit faction and the merchant faction to solve/allow the many-on-many fights between bandits and merchants? I'm assuming both bandits and merchants needs to be "flagged for the cause" or permanently flagged by being rank 4+ in the faction to make use faction-trained skills.

Goblin Squad Member

Nevy wrote:

Factions should not be an avenue for bandits to kill merchants without fear of reputation loss. And don't respond with "well merchants can kill bandits too!"; how many merchants do you think will actively attack bandits? Not many, so the advantage goes to the bandit. Focus on the big picture rather than just the bandit's perspective.

Playing a bandit and/or murderer should absolutely be more difficult than playing a merchant.

Its not and wont be. The majority of the time, merchants will have no difficulty taking their product to the markets for profits.

Goblin Squad Member

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

I wouldn't count on players adding much depth to a red vs. blue bandit vs. merchant system.

In 90% of cases all merchant faction members will attack any bandits, and bandits will rob any merchant. These RvB systems tend to encourage that kind of mentality whether they mean to or not.

Beyond that it sounds as though they are being set up as opposing factions. I don't think players should be forced to make an either or choice when it comes to this.

But in your suggestion the bandits would have the option to choose to have any target or one if the sub factions that limits their targets. Since even you recognize that 90% of bandits would choose to have any target, why have the other sub factions?

I acknowledged that in a Red vs. Blue system where you are forced to pick between one merchant faction and one bandit faction 90% of bandits will attack all of the merchants they come across. The opposite is also true.

That is not to say that 90% of players would continue to behave the same way outside a RvB system. To give a glimpse into my own thinking:

In a RvB system where my choice is protect merchants or rob them, the clear choice to me is to join the merchant faction. Beyond that, once I have done that, I have great reason to assume anyone flying a bandit flag is a threat to regular, decent, non-slave trading merchants. As a product of that I'm going to switch from an innocent until proven guilty mentality to a guilty until proven innocent mentality for anyone flying a bandit flag. So I'll kill them unless I have a good reason NOT to. That's the RvB mentality that the system really kind of pushes me into adopting.

In the system I described, that mentality would only really apply to people flying the general bandit flag for me.

Quote:
In what way would your proposal limit merchants? If a guard was in sub faction, woukd he only be able to freely defend those members if his sub faction? I have zero expectation that you have that in mind.

To answer your question. Yes. I'm not sure why you wouldn't expect that answer. If a guard wants to guard shipments from all 3 factions he should join all 3 factions.

Beyond that I would say that any caravan running goods restricted to a sub-faction of merchants should be forced to adopt the flag of that sub-faction. The smuggler faction should come with a skill that allows them to turn those flags into hidden flags (They show as general merchant faction flags unless you uncover their hidden status with the appropriate checks.)

I mean really. Why would anyone assume general merchant's guards would defend slave and contraband shipments?

Also it gives purpose to chaotic evil traders, as they would be the main ones who could join the slave and smuggler factions at the same time, allowing them to flag slave shipments as general merchant shipments with their smuggle ability. They would also be the only players who could run any type of cargo regardless of legality or morality.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:
Nevy wrote:

Factions should not be an avenue for bandits to kill merchants without fear of reputation loss. And don't respond with "well merchants can kill bandits too!"; how many merchants do you think will actively attack bandits? Not many, so the advantage goes to the bandit. Focus on the big picture rather than just the bandit's perspective.

Playing a bandit and/or murderer should absolutely be more difficult than playing a merchant.

Its not and wont be. The majority of the time, merchants will have no difficulty taking their product to the markets for profits.

My issue is not with merchants being able to deposit their goods on a regular basis. What I have a problem with is taking risk vs. reward out of the bandit equation by the game recognizing bandits and merchants as enemies. Bandits should be flagged as a criminal when attacking or robbing a merchant, or anyone, for that matter.

Goblin Squad Member

Nevy wrote:
My issue is not with merchants being able to deposit their goods on a regular basis. What I have a problem with is taking risk vs. reward out of the bandit equation by the game recognizing bandits and merchants as enemies. Bandits should be flagged as a criminal when attacking or robbing a merchant, or anyone, for that matter.

By factionalizing the roles GW creates both risk and reward for both bandit and merchant.

Merchants who opt into the faction system, will have access to higher faction based skills that will presumably lead to great efficiency or profit.

Bandits who opt into the faction system, will have access to a greater pool of potential targets, without risk of reputation loss.

Merchants who opt in will have greater access to PC guards that are also members of the faction. These guards would likely be a lot cheaper because the guards will gain faction benefits for defending faction members. Otherwise the merchant would have to hire mercenaries, who are only loyal to the coin and their own self interest.

There will always be more merchants than bandits, and so your shear numbers is also your greatest protection.

Goblin Squad Member

Nevy wrote:
What I have a problem with is taking risk vs. reward out of the bandit equation by the game recognizing bandits and merchants as enemies.

I think this is sort of key to the concept.

If two factions are enemies, can the flagged member of one faction attack the flagged member of another faction in any hex in the game? As an example, assuming the Hellknights and the Denizens of the Echo Wood are enemies, can their rank 4+ members attack each other in a NPC hex controlled by the Knights of Imodae?

Likewise, does a party of rank 4+ Bandits have free reign to step forward in a hex controlled by the Hellknights and fall upon a rank 4+ Merchant with hearty cries of "Die, Merchant scum!", without fear of retribution?

If that is indeed the case... well, it sounds like the animosity between bandits and merchants might be a little bit over the top.

Goblin Squad Member

If I understand you right, Urman, I am not sure that actual "factions" will have control of hexes. Unless they make NPC territory faction territory for simplicity. If they don't, then wouldn't it be simpler to have "local Hex law" predominant? It would make little sense to have laws in hexes if factions could overlook them with impunity. IMO

Goblin Squad Member

Yeah, it depends very much if hex law is predominant. My understanding was that war and feuds likely superseded hex law; I expected that faction conflict would as well.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Nevy wrote:
My issue is not with merchants being able to deposit their goods on a regular basis. What I have a problem with is taking risk vs. reward out of the bandit equation by the game recognizing bandits and merchants as enemies. Bandits should be flagged as a criminal when attacking or robbing a merchant, or anyone, for that matter.

By factionalizing the roles GW creates both risk and reward for both bandit and merchant.

Merchants who opt into the faction system, will have access to higher faction based skills that will presumably lead to great efficiency or profit.

Bandits who opt into the faction system, will have access to a greater pool of potential targets, without risk of reputation loss.

Merchants who opt in will have greater access to PC guards that are also members of the faction. These guards would likely be a lot cheaper because the guards will gain faction benefits for defending faction members. Otherwise the merchant would have to hire mercenaries, who are only loyal to the coin and their own self interest.

There will always be more merchants than bandits, and so your shear numbers is also your greatest protection.

Why would merchants need more risk? And why do you think bandits will always have a population disadvantage? Heck, if I can kill merchants who spent hours of their time working for their goods, in less than half the time, I'll become a bandit also! And guess what? So will my mom, and yours too!

It is imperative, I repeat, imperative that bandits have a harder time victimizing merchants than merchants have being victimized by bandits. Goblinworks shares this same sentiment I believe...

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
Yeah, it depends very much if hex law is predominant. My understanding was that war and feuds likely superseded hex law; I expected that faction conflict would as well.

My expectation is that a settlement can choose a faction for itself, and then the actions of its enemy faction would also be a crime (trespass). They would not only be faction targets, but criminal flagged as well.

However in the absence of criminalizing factions, their actions alone would not be criminal.

I could freely SAD a faction target without triggering the criminal flag, unless SAD itself is a crime in that player controlled hex.

To address Nevy's issue with the faction system being applied to merchants and bandits. Bandits are supposed to rob merchants, that is their role. Merchants are supposed to hire guards, that is the responsible thing to do. Guards are supposed to protect caravans, that is what they are hired to do.

By factionalizing the three roles, it allows for all three parties to operate within their roles without fear of losing reputation. No player's character should lose reputation for playing a role in the prescribed manner.

I expect that GW will make the joining of the faction worth the risk for the merchant to do so. The same will hold for the bandit and the guard.

We in the UNC will of course support this system and we will encourage those who choose to opt out, to reconsider. What we don't get from faction targets, we will get through the SAD, feud, or assassination systems.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Urman wrote:
Yeah, it depends very much if hex law is predominant. My understanding was that war and feuds likely superseded hex law; I expected that faction conflict would as well.

My expectation is that a settlement can choose a faction for itself, and then the actions of its enemy faction would also be a crime (trespass). They would not only be faction targets, but criminal flagged as well.

However in the absence of criminalizing factions, their actions alone would not be criminal.

I could freely SAD a faction target without triggering the criminal flag, unless SAD itself is a crime in that player controlled hex.

To address Nevy's issue with the faction system being applied to merchants and bandits. Bandits are supposed to rob merchants, that is their role. Merchants are supposed to hire guards, that is the responsible thing to do. Guards are supposed to protect caravans, that is what they are hired to do.

By factionalizing the three roles, it allows for all three parties to operate within their roles without fear of losing reputation. No player's character should lose reputation for playing a role in the prescribed manner.

I expect that GW will make the joining of the faction worth the risk for the merchant to do so. The same will hold for the bandit and the guard.

We in the UNC will of course support this system and we will encourage those who choose to opt out, to reconsider. What we don't get from faction targets, we will get through the SAD, feud, or assassination systems.

Sorry, I just don't buy it my friend.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

I agree with those that say Stand And Deliver/ banditry should be a skill.

It should probably transfer a percentage of gold, to prevent people asking for outrageous sums (and inevitable death-by-typo or banditry fails with too many/few 0s).
Initiating hostility after using the SaD skill should carry a greater penalty than just attacking.

At low training you should only be able to ask for 10% of someone's carried wealth. Over time, as you train, this increases to 70% or so, to keep in as efficient as killing someone.
As you gain levels you can begin to ask for items, starting with crafting resources, to crafted resources, and finally items. Bound items likely shouldn't be options.
High skill bandits should be able to look through bags and cherry pick what they take.

As a counter, there might be a rival skill that allows people to hide goods, treating some resources as bound for purposes of SaD.

Goblin Squad Member

Nevy wrote:

Why would merchants need more risk? And why do you think bandits will always have a population disadvantage? Heck, if I can kill merchants who spent hours of their time working for their goods, in less than half the time, I'll become a bandit also! And guess what? So will my mom, and yours too!

It is imperative, I repeat, imperative that bandits have a harder time victimizing merchants than merchants have being victimized by bandits. Goblinworks shares this same sentiment I believe...

So what your saying is, its ok if merchants make large profits risk free, but it is not ok for bandits to go after them.

Just want to be clear here.

NO, GW does not share your sentiment. If they did, there would be no PVP in the game.

Goblin Squad Member

Nevy wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Nevy wrote:
My issue is not with merchants being able to deposit their goods on a regular basis. What I have a problem with is taking risk vs. reward out of the bandit equation by the game recognizing bandits and merchants as enemies. Bandits should be flagged as a criminal when attacking or robbing a merchant, or anyone, for that matter.

By factionalizing the roles GW creates both risk and reward for both bandit and merchant.

Merchants who opt into the faction system, will have access to higher faction based skills that will presumably lead to great efficiency or profit.

Bandits who opt into the faction system, will have access to a greater pool of potential targets, without risk of reputation loss.

Merchants who opt in will have greater access to PC guards that are also members of the faction. These guards would likely be a lot cheaper because the guards will gain faction benefits for defending faction members. Otherwise the merchant would have to hire mercenaries, who are only loyal to the coin and their own self interest.

There will always be more merchants than bandits, and so your shear numbers is also your greatest protection.

Why would merchants need more risk? And why do you think bandits will always have a population disadvantage? Heck, if I can kill merchants who spent hours of their time working for their goods, in less than half the time, I'll become a bandit also! And guess what? So will my mom, and yours too!

It is imperative, I repeat, imperative that bandits have a harder time victimizing merchants than merchants have being victimized by bandits. Goblinworks shares this same sentiment I believe...

Without bandits, merchants have no risk. Even if the bandits are war enemies, they will still use the tactics of banditry. Even if under feud, the same. If faction, same tactics and skills.

Bandits will have all of the same risks, plus a few extra. We can be feud, faction or war targets. We can be flagged as criminals as well. If we are high enough within the bandit faction to be a target of the merchant / guard faction, we can be hunted down.

What ever happened to the "Millions for defense, not one copper for tribute"?

Well here is how your spend on your defense. You hire guards, either mercenary or through faction.

What is sounds like is that you and others don't want to have to rely on guards or pay for guards. You want game mechanics to protect you, and then we are labeled griefers if we act out and accept the reputation hits for saying "the system be damned, we are still robbing you."

You can't have it both ways. You can't say, "I want there to be bandits, but they have to suck so no one will play them."

Goblin Squad Member

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

Why would merchants need more risk? And why do you think bandits will always have a population disadvantage? Heck, if I can kill merchants who spent hours of their time working for their goods, in less than half the time, I'll become a bandit also! And guess what? So will my mom, and yours too!

It is imperative, I repeat, imperative that bandits have a harder time victimizing merchants than merchants have being victimized by bandits. Goblinworks shares this same sentiment I believe...

So what your saying is, its ok if merchants make large profits risk free, but it is not ok for bandits to go after them.

Just want to be clear here.

NO, GW does not share your sentiment. If they did, there would be no PVP in the game.

What? I have no idea how your thought process led you to respond in this way, sorry. I never said merchants should have zero risk, silly guy. What I said is bandits should have more.

Goblin Squad Member

Nevy wrote:
Xeen wrote:
Nevy wrote:

Why would merchants need more risk? And why do you think bandits will always have a population disadvantage? Heck, if I can kill merchants who spent hours of their time working for their goods, in less than half the time, I'll become a bandit also! And guess what? So will my mom, and yours too!

It is imperative, I repeat, imperative that bandits have a harder time victimizing merchants than merchants have being victimized by bandits. Goblinworks shares this same sentiment I believe...

So what your saying is, its ok if merchants make large profits risk free, but it is not ok for bandits to go after them.

Just want to be clear here.

NO, GW does not share your sentiment. If they did, there would be no PVP in the game.

What? I have no idea how your thought process led you to respond in this way, sorry. I never said merchants should have zero risk, silly guy. What I said it bandits should have more.

Okay, I'm talking about risk vs. reward and you're talking about spaceships. We're never going to get anywhere.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
You can't have it both ways. You can't say, "I want there to be bandits, but they have to suck so no one will play them."

It's not binary.

Goblin Squad Member

You are correct, we will never agree on it.

Merchants and bandits should have the same risk. Both are in it for the profits. Merchants need to recruit protection and lose profits. Bandits may face those guards and lose profits. Sometimes one will win and some times the other.

Done and done

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:
Merchants and bandits should have the same risk.

Nah. Bandits should have greater risk for greater reward. Part of their reward is not having to "waste" time doing the actual harvesting and protecting their harvest operations.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:

You are correct, we will never agree on it.

Merchants and bandits should have the same risk. Both are in it for the profits. Merchants need to recruit protection and lose profits. Bandits may face those guards and lose profits. Sometimes one will win and some times the other.

Done and done

I'm not asking you to agree with me, not at all. What I'm asking is for you to at least acknowledge my points, as they are logical, rather than hammering that bandits and merchants should have the same risks.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drakhan Valane wrote:
Xeen wrote:
Merchants and bandits should have the same risk.
Nah. Bandits should have greater risk for greater reward. Part of their reward is not having to "waste" time doing the actual harvesting and protecting their harvest operations.

I'd be okay with the same level of risk if they also had the same cost, in either time or money. This is one of the reasons I kept pushing for Bandits to have to declare their intent significantly prior to their Banditry, because that was the simplest way I could think of to impose some costs on them.

I'm not really sure I understand the implications of making it faction-based. One of the main things I like about PFO - and what I think is going to set it apart from other PvP games - is that it's actually giving players a reason not to kill everyone they see. I'm a little worried that making it faction-based is going to remove that in significant ways. I think this is what Andius was getting at, too.

Also, once it's faction-based, wouldn't that remove the need for S&D entirely? Wouldn't Bandits be able to simply attack the Merchants directly without losing Reputation?

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Also, once it's faction-based, wouldn't that remove the need for S&D entirely? Wouldn't Bandits be able to simply attack the Merchants directly without losing Reputation?

I'm not sure why it would remove the need for S&D at all.

Merchants rank 1-3 who have not flagged 'for the cause' would not be attackable as faction enemies. Small time haulers and gatherers could decide it wasn't worth the risk to join the Merchants and therefore are not attackable as faction enemies. Other random people could carry small cargos and not be attackable as faction enemies.

Now, maybe there will be large scale Merchants who go flagged with large numbers of guards, but I think the Bandits will see very few small, easy, faction targets with this "fix". I think GW will still need to figure out S&D and the many-on-many problem in S&D. (And the many-on-many problem when attacking Heinous, Attackers, etc.)

Goblin Squad Member

The thing that can keep bandit population down is that it can never be a highly profitable profession no matter how hard this game tries to make it one. Preying off the players not sneaky/strong enough to make it past you does not generate money nearly as fast as trading in highly profitable forms of cargo because the merchants not sneaky/strong enough will learn from their mistakes, seek a new profession, or leave the game. Nobody will play the role of easy prey long term.

Here's the kicker though. What's stopping people of any profession of robbing people when the opportunity arises? Like you are out adventuring / exploring / gathering and you see someone who looks weak so you SAD them and take their stuff. Full time banditry will never be viable for players looking to compete on a serious level but part time banditry is something everyone can benefit from. So why wouldn't they all do it?

Factions do answer that. Because if you join a bandit faction you are a constant target for members of opposing factions. Plus you give up the bonuses you could get from following the opposing faction.

That part I like. I just think grouping all bandits and all merchants together is overly simplistic, and leads to a less authentic/interesting world.

Why would a slave liberating freedom fighter be an automatic enemy to a good aligned merchant but a slaver's strong arm is an automatic ally?

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

@Urman, thanks. You're right that S&D would still be useful against those who weren't flagged for the cause, etc. I was thinking only of the situation where both sides were already flagged due to faction. I'm having trouble envisioning incentives strong enough to make a Merchant permanently flag themselves to all Bandits...

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
Nobody will play the role of easy prey long term.

Amen, brother :)

Andius wrote:

Full time banditry will never be viable for players looking to compete on a serious level but part time banditry is something everyone can benefit from. So why wouldn't they all do it?

Factions do answer that.

That's a very compelling reason, and I appreciate you bringing my mind back 'round to it.

Although, I'm also having trouble envisioning incentives strong enough to make a Bandit permanently flag themselves to all (or even a subset of) Bandit Hunters (Merchant Guards).

Goblin Squad Member

There is scant to go on yet concerning faction benefits, drawbacks for not joining, etc... What if the lower faction bandits (1-3) could flag up and "opt in" vs. lower faction merchants (1-3)? What if S&D was a feature for faction lvl 4 bandits, giving them a much larger range of targets? They would have to show commitment by taking risk to get those advantages. Like merchants that do not "faction up", they would suck a little in options and in operation.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:

That's a very compelling reason, and I appreciate you bringing my mind back 'round to it.

Although, I'm also having trouble envisioning incentives strong enough to make a Bandit permanently flag themselves to all (or even a subset of) Bandit Hunters (Merchant Guards).

Well we know once you reach a certain faction rank you can't ever remove that flag. If banditry raises your ranks fast enough and the perks of high banditry faction are good enough, a lot of people will do it.

Though you're right in seeing the potential for people to intentionally lower their rank to avoid that. How often that happens will be a factor of the ease of lowering your rank, and the level of perks lost by doing so.

I'd really like to see most bandit/bandit hunter skills under these factions require meaningful training time and require you to be flagged "for the cause" to use. That way you are either flagged or giving up a set of skills you've invested meaningful time into. Or if you haven't invested meaningful time you're a really crappy bandit/bandit hunter.

Beyond that all members of a caravan or anyone issuing a SAD should be required to flag themselves.

Personally for me, being open to PvP by opposing faction members is actually a perk in itself if I feel like the conflict with that opposing faction is meaningful.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

There will be no "shocking the system" if the domination centered organizations operate as I previously suggested. They won't be breaking any rules to do so, nor avoiding any system (well perhaps indirectly they will), and so there will be no behavior for GW to shock.

Through the use of feuds, faction, war, SADs, spies, low rep alts, assassination, meta game tactics, etc a company or settlement will be targeted and for no other reason than they are not part of the evil empire. No level of diplomacy, short of accepted subjugation, will meet their demands.

If none of those methods have a prohibitively high cost when collectively used against everybody, then something's wrong.

I specifically said, not against the world (everybody). A large enough settlement, with multiple companies, can rotate the cost and thus maintain continuous aggressive action against a specific targeted settlement.

I also don't expect there to be "prohibitively high costs" to do many of those activities I mentioned. I don't expect it because it makes little sense for GW to set the cost so high as to prohibit playing the game using the systems they created. They want feuds, SADs, wars, assassinations, raids of outposts and POIs, etc. they can't stop the use of spies and meta game tactics.

There would be something wrong if we couldn't participate often in those activities.

So, if every company and settlement not in the dominating empire has an equal chance of being the 'enemy of the week' of that empire (if some companies and settlements have a different chance, then there's a reason for that), and only a small number of them are selected each week as the feud target, there's still lots of room outside of that conflict.

The more successful domination groups will select their targets much more carefully- rather than "for no other reason than they are not part of the empire", their targets will be based on the ratio of how much resources can be taken from the target compared to the resources expended in taking them. ("Resource" in this sense could mean anything from coin to player time to building sites to territory)

Goblin Squad Member

Nevy wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Nevy wrote:
My issue is not with merchants being able to deposit their goods on a regular basis. What I have a problem with is taking risk vs. reward out of the bandit equation by the game recognizing bandits and merchants as enemies. Bandits should be flagged as a criminal when attacking or robbing a merchant, or anyone, for that matter.

By factionalizing the roles GW creates both risk and reward for both bandit and merchant.

Merchants who opt into the faction system, will have access to higher faction based skills that will presumably lead to great efficiency or profit.

Bandits who opt into the faction system, will have access to a greater pool of potential targets, without risk of reputation loss.

Merchants who opt in will have greater access to PC guards that are also members of the faction. These guards would likely be a lot cheaper because the guards will gain faction benefits for defending faction members. Otherwise the merchant would have to hire mercenaries, who are only loyal to the coin and their own self interest.

There will always be more merchants than bandits, and so your shear numbers is also your greatest protection.

Why would merchants need more risk? And why do you think bandits will always have a population disadvantage? Heck, if I can kill merchants who spent hours of their time working for their goods, in less than half the time, I'll become a bandit also! And guess what? So will my mom, and yours too!

It is imperative, I repeat, imperative that bandits have a harder time victimizing merchants than merchants have being victimized by bandits. Goblinworks shares this same sentiment I believe...

You keep saying bandits are the 'victimizers' and that merchants are the 'victims'. When a group of merchants corners a lucrative section of the market and they price gouge and restrict the trade of others (maybe even via bandits) with their massive profits, are they then 'victimizers'? What is their risk in those cases, and what is the reward of those trying to enter that market? Should merchants lose reputation when competing in this aspect of the game?

You're limiting your view of PvP to combat only. The economic and social aspects of the game will be just as important and need to be balanced just as much as combat does.

Goblin Squad Member

Drakhan Valane wrote:
Xeen wrote:
Merchants and bandits should have the same risk.
Nah. Bandits should have greater risk for greater reward. Part of their reward is not having to "waste" time doing the actual harvesting and protecting their harvest operations.

Assuming of course, that merchants act in several roles as gatherers, crafters and trader of the items and assuming all bandits do is steal from merchants.

1,301 to 1,350 of 1,727 << first < prev | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Stand and Deliver Discussion All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.