Stand and Deliver Discussion


Pathfinder Online

1,401 to 1,450 of 1,727 << first < prev | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
I see the SAD and Factionalization as steering the banditry away from the solo harvester and small time merchant, and towards more valuable targets.
I see it the same way.

I think factionalization steers banditry towards more valuable targets (merchants that are confident enough to travel flagged for PvP, either rank 4+ or flagged 'for the cause'). S&D steers banditry towards weaker targets.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Urman wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
I see the SAD and Factionalization as steering the banditry away from the solo harvester and small time merchant, and towards more valuable targets.
I see it the same way.
I think factionalization steers banditry towards more valuable targets (merchants that are confident enough to travel flagged for PvP, either rank 4+ or flagged 'for the cause'). S&D steers banditry towards weaker targets.

That's a good point, actually. I think you're right that Bandits are likely to raise faction to get access to S&D and then use it on weaker prey. I'm okay with that because it almost certainly means they'll be flagged for Bandit Hunters while they're out hunting that weaker prey, which is what I've always wanted :)

I'm really looking forward to being a Caravan Guard / Bandit Hunter :)

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
I see the SAD and Factionalization as steering the banditry away from the solo harvester and small time merchant, and towards more valuable targets.
I see it the same way.
I think factionalization steers banditry towards more valuable targets (merchants that are confident enough to travel flagged for PvP, either rank 4+ or flagged 'for the cause'). S&D steers banditry towards weaker targets.

That is one concern that I have about it. Makes me wonder if the S&D couldn't be done with chat. Hard to give up the "blind" and the "thick as thieves". They are useful in many ways and seem pretty cool conceptually...

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Xeen wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
What 'rest of the market'?

I am not quite sure why I have to explain part of your own argument. Read some of your previous posts.

What does yellow taste like? I can tell you its not sunshine flavored.

I'm trying to keep things down to a WP-level understand of both economics and philosophy. Am I failing to keep things that simple, or is that level of simplicity still unclear?

I was expecting you to oppose my position that if buying out the market and reselling for massive profit was possible, then the suppliers are selling below market clearing price. They are the only agents that could possibly be being victimized in this scenario, because they are the only ones with any stake.

If anything, the first player to put a commodity up for sale significantly below market price is the most disruptive to the market. The proper response by the other sellers to such an action would be to buy it at the asked price and immediately resell it at fair value. I think that it the dynamic which exists in the WoW auction house that has been referenced: someone puts something up for below value (for whatever reason) and someone who pays attention snaps it up and resells it for what the market will bear.

And of course yellow doesn't taste like sunshine! Taste and photoreceptor excitation are completely uncorrelated. Yellow has ᎡᏆᏯ where sunshine has a hint of ᎭᎦΣᏍ.

Goblin Squad Member

I'm curious why Xeen seems so obsessed with Ideasthesia.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
I'm curious why Xeen seems so obsessed with Ideasthesia.

I have no idea what those two (Xeen & Decius) are talking about. I just want to rob sh!t.

Call me simple, my motivation is pretty clear. My methods are subject to change, but still have a central guiding principle. That principle being, we will push the envelop to the point just short of breaking it. As long as it is profitable and fun.

I have recently encountered a low sec pirate cultural nuance that I did not realize existed before, and it is something I'd like to foster in PFO. I unfortunately don't have time to explain it now.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
DeciusBrutus wrote:
I'm trying to keep things down to a WP-level understand of both economics and philosophy. Am I failing to keep things that simple, or is that level of simplicity still unclear?

Your explanation has been understandable; it's simple enough. Your mistake might be that you're expecting a rational argument from a disinterested party. As someone once said, "You can't expect a hog to butcher itself."

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I love the way Decius writes. As I've said before, I often while reading him have the urge to say "that boy's got a purty mouth".

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:
When you say combat PVP is bad because it affects people and market pvp is fine because it does not affect people. That is either being naive or hypocritical.

Thankfully I never said that.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:

I have recently encountered a low sec pirate cultural nuance that I did not realize existed before, and it is something I'd like to foster in PFO. I unfortunately don't have time to explain it now.

I'd be interested in hearing about it and how you think it can be adapted for PFO when you have time.

Goblin Squad Member

Is it hot in here, or is it just me?

^.^

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

I have recently encountered a low sec pirate cultural nuance that I did not realize existed before, and it is something I'd like to foster in PFO. I unfortunately don't have time to explain it now.

I'd be interested in hearing about it and how you think it can be adapted for PFO when you have time.

As some of you may know, the low sec pirate corporation of EvE, are not what they used to be in the days of old. There was a time, before official sovereignty, that pirate corporations held de facto sovereignty over certain system. Amamake and Arziah are the two I was most familiar with. But, those days are long gone, or at least I believed they were.

Yesterday I was reading through my new corporation's kill board messages, and I made a strange discovery. Some of our members had teamed up in an ad hoc fleet with a group of pilots we had killed last week. I inquired about the standings and was told....

"The Pirate's Life, Before Corporation"...... Or I would explain it as "Our Play Style or Role Comes First".

Ad hocs are formed frequently, and the prey is any "outsider" not in a corporation of any of a corporation in the current ad hoc.

What also struck me as new, was the number of 1 v 1 engagements that take place in low sec. 1 v 1 takes place more often because there is no stigma or animosity attached to losing amongst pirates. Again, it is all about "The Pirate's Life".

However, unlike what some of you might think, it is not mice cannibalizing themselves. If another passerby appears through the gate, especially an industrial ship, the pirates break off their present fight and swarm to kill the new "outsider".

The spoils are divided among all who participated, in a fairly equitable way, and the former conflict is not picked up again. The bond of brotherhood holds while in that system, and in some cases new ad hoc fleets are formed and they go off and hunt together.

This is the kind of culture I would love to bring to PFO. A true (pirate) bandit brotherhood. Yes, having a persistent company or even sponsored companies, but when necessary and probably often, hunting in ad hocs. Open to any who wish to join in on these free roams.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

I have recently encountered a low sec pirate cultural nuance that I did not realize existed before, and it is something I'd like to foster in PFO. I unfortunately don't have time to explain it now.

I'd be interested in hearing about it and how you think it can be adapted for PFO when you have time.

As some of you may know, the low sec pirate corporation of EvE, are not what they used to be in the days of old. There was a time, before official sovereignty, that pirate corporations held de facto sovereignty over certain system. Amamake and Arziah are the two I was most familiar with. But, those days are long gone, or at least I believed they were.

Yesterday I was reading through my new corporation's kill board messages, and I made a strange discovery. Some of our members had teamed up in an ad hoc fleet with a group of pilots we had killed last week. I inquired about the standings and was told....

"The Pirate's Life, Before Corporation"...... Or I would explain it as "Our Play Style or Role Comes First".

Ad hocs are formed frequently, and the prey is any "outsider" not in a corporation of any of a corporation in the current ad hoc.

What also struck me as new, was the number of 1 v 1 engagements that take place in low sec. 1 v 1 takes place more often because there is no stigma or animosity attached to losing amongst pirates. Again, it is all about "The Pirate's Life".

However, unlike what some of you might think, it is not mice cannibalizing themselves. If another passerby appears through the gate, especially an industrial ship, the pirates break off their present fight and swarm to kill the new "outsider".

The spoils are divided among all who participated, in a fairly equitable way, and the former conflict is not picked up again. The bond of brotherhood holds while in that system, and in some cases new ad hoc fleets are formed and they go off and hunt together.
...

That's new to you? I always assumed that 'pirate' corps didn't recruit openly or through standard channels, and got new members when they saw someone being a pirate and were suitably impressed by the quality of their performance to offer them memmbership.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:


That's new to...

The recruitment aspect was not the topic. Living within the role of the pirate supersedes corporate affiliation. It supersedes what would have been past grudges. It supersedes personal pride in wins vs. loses.

It is all about being -10.0 standing, and living among other outcasts and cutthroats. It's about the hunt for prey.

Goblin Squad Member

Many months ago I proposed a protection racket to Bluddwolf for one of my alts. It needed some tuning. It might have had flow of material and wealth with reduced risk. Bluddwolf was not interested -- not even worth exploring. Too interested in the actual Bandit encounter.

It is not about SAD (that came later). It is about the robbing and dominating the victims.

Xeen has said as much. They will overpower and ravage the weak, not because of any philosophical reason, but because they can wreak havoc on the weak.

That is one game style. Don't expect more.

Welcome the bandits but realize they are not about gain, but about pain.

Goblin Squad Member

Lam wrote:

Many months ago I proposed a protection racket to Bluddwolf for one of my alts. It needed some tuning. It might have had flow of material and wealth with reduced risk. Bluddwolf was not interested -- not even worth exploring. Too interested in the actual Bandit encounter.

It is not about SAD (that came later). It is about the robbing and dominating the victims.

Xeen has said as much. They will overpower and ravage the weak, not because of any philosophical reason, but because they can wreak havoc on the weak.

That is one game style. Don't expect more.

Welcome the bandits but realize they are not about gain, but about pain.

It is (also) about freedom, adventure, a life style, a social network of like minded individuals, role playing, etc.

It is actually philosophical, almost completely so in my opinion. It is the "Bandit's Life for Me".

When I have said "it's all about the coin" I should have been more clear. It isn't about making an honest coin. It is about getting coin more easily, but probably less of it over all than if we harvested and sold for ourselves.

As for your idea / proposal, first let me say.... I typically do not post PMs on the forum, so I believe you are being a bit unfair to the reader. In a nutshell, you wanted me and UNC to agree to acknowledge safe passage to anyone stopping in at one of your roadside shrines.

That would require that I do two things. First, I would no longer be a bandit, but a toll collector (with a set fee). Second, I would be acknowledging the beliefs and principles of your Deity. I reject both based on philosophical differences.

Goblin Squad Member

Jiminy wrote:
I played UO, and while it had some incredible ideas, some of the mechanics and other ideas were horrible - for example, creating Trammel was effectively a death sentence for the game.

Interestingly though pronounced dead UO seems to think it was a mere flesh wound to this day.

What drew down the numbers was the competition of EQ and the like.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:
Lam wrote:

Many months ago I proposed a protection racket to Bluddwolf for one of my alts. It needed some tuning. It might have had flow of material and wealth with reduced risk. Bluddwolf was not interested -- not even worth exploring. Too interested in the actual Bandit encounter.

It is not about SAD (that came later). It is about the robbing and dominating the victims.

Xeen has said as much. They will overpower and ravage the weak, not because of any philosophical reason, but because they can wreak havoc on the weak.

That is one game style. Don't expect more.

Welcome the bandits but realize they are not about gain, but about pain.

It is (also) about freedom, adventure, a life style, a social network of like minded individuals, role playing, etc.

It is actually philosophical, almost completely so in my opinion. It is the "Bandit's Life for Me".

When I have said "it's all about the coin" I should have been more clear. It isn't about making an honest coin. It is about getting coin more easily, but probably less of it over all than if we harvested and sold for ourselves.

As for your idea / proposal, first let me say.... I typically do not post PMs on the forum, so I believe you are being a bit unfair to the reader. In a nutshell, you wanted me and UNC to agree to acknowledge safe passage to anyone stopping in at one of your roadside shrines.

That would require that I do two things. First, I would no longer be a bandit, but a toll collector (with a set fee). Second, I would be acknowledging the beliefs and principles of your Deity. I reject both based on philosophical differences.

What does it mean to get coin more easily but spend more time getting it (or get less for the same amount of time)?

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
What does it mean to get coin more easily but spend more time getting it (or get less for the same amount of time)?

To me, it is easier to take it then to harvest it. It is easier on the brain. Harvesting is the most boring of activities to me, crafting is a close second (except for crafting the first of a new item or new tier of item).

When you try to take it from someone else, there is always the possibility of a fight. That "unknown" factor is what makes it interesting or even thrilling for me.

So "easier' might not be the best word to use, "not boring" would be better. It doesn't matter how much or how little time is spent, just how the time is spent.

No one (that I run around with) is going to sit in a tavern, drinking an ale and retelling the story of harvesting 2000 units of silk in an hour. He or she may retell the story of hunting for an hour, finding a caravan, killing a PC guard or two and stealing 200 units of silk.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So then, it's all about the experience. The coin is incidental.

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
Jiminy wrote:
I played UO, and while it had some incredible ideas, some of the mechanics and other ideas were horrible - for example, creating Trammel was effectively a death sentence for the game.

Interestingly though pronounced dead UO seems to think it was a mere flesh wound to this day.

What drew down the numbers was the competition of EQ and the like.

I think it was a combination of the two. Coming from MUDs were PvP was the norm, UO was 'the next phase' of games. A few years later, creating different shards with different rules simply divided the playerbase. Sure, you could still PvP, but anyone actually gathering or crafting moved to Trammel were they didn't have to participate in PvP. Feluccas economy shrivelled and became stagnant, while that on Trammel exploded.

So still a functional game if you wanted to do nothing but PvP with no meaning, or if you wanted to craft/gather and play PvE, but not really a great example of a sandbox game.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
So then, it's all about the experience. The coin is incidental.

Probably like the difference between playing a paladin or a fighter. Same end result (hacking things to bits with a sword) but a different experience doing it.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
By what actions are the merchants cornering the market, price gouging, and driving their competitors out of business? I see only two ways- one is buying all of the supply of a given input, which requires that they pay more per unit than anyone else can. The other is to target competitors with frank banditry.

I can think of a few other methods, but the point I was making was, that if they even attempt it, they're participating in PvP. Conflict is at the root of combat, as it is at the root of several other mechanics in the game. I am concerned everyone seems to worry about the band of roving bandits and creating rules or regulations to ensure they don't run rampant, but completely ignore they other 'PvP' aspects of the game - most likely in a deliberate manner as banditry is not their preferred gameplay style, whereas other styles are, and bandits will potentially impinge on their styles.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jiminy wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
By what actions are the merchants cornering the market, price gouging, and driving their competitors out of business? I see only two ways- one is buying all of the supply of a given input, which requires that they pay more per unit than anyone else can. The other is to target competitors with frank banditry.
I can think of a few other methods, but the point I was making was, that if they even attempt it, they're participating in PvP. Conflict is at the root of combat, as it is at the root of several other mechanics in the game. I am concerned everyone seems to worry about the band of roving bandits and creating rules or regulations to ensure they don't run rampant, but completely ignore they other 'PvP' aspects of the game - most likely in a deliberate manner as banditry is not their preferred gameplay style, whereas other styles are, and bandits will potentially impinge on their styles.

Start a thread on economic PvP, list some behaviors that you think might result in players getting frustrated and quitting, and discuss ways that those behaviors might be discouraged.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The best way to discourage market PvP and manipulation on the level of having a near monopoly is through player interaction.

Hire a group of bandits to raid his source outpost or caravans.

Hire an assassin to kill him.

Hire mercenaries to feud his company.

All along make him aware why and that the pressure won't stop until he either releases his hold on the market or cuts you in on a piece of the action.

There is no need for GW to try to regulate economic PvP, the players can handle it on our own.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
Start a thread on economic PvP, list some behaviors that you think might result in players getting frustrated and quitting, and discuss ways that those behaviors might be discouraged.

The reason I haven't started a separate thread is...

Bluddwolf wrote:
There is no need for GW to try to regulate economic PvP, the players can handle it on our own.

The thing is though, players can do this with combat oriented PvP also, but everyone seems too worried about the solo gatherer or merchant not being able to participate in combat that they want all manner of restrictions and regulations put in place. Yet, look at it from the other side of the coin - a solo hedge knight wandering the countryside not being able to buy any good gear, because some enterprising company has cornered the market for a particular metal and hiked prices through the roof which in turn forced crafters to raise their prices.

The hedge knight has zero ability (solo) to do anything about the economic situation going on, just the same as a gatherer can do little (solo) about roving bandits. Yet, these bandits can get alignment shifts, reputation losses, death curses and all manner of mechanics levered against them (the stick). What do the people playing the market get for interfering with the ability of the hedge knight to play solo?

In any case, I'm not too worried about economic or social PvP - and definitely not worried enough to start an entire thread on the topic. I am more trying to bring into the picture the fact that PvP is about conflict, and conflict is more than just simple combat. Hopefully people will think of that when calling for mechanics such as reputation loss simply for being a bandit and playing a role within the game.

Goblin Squad Member

Sorry, but :eyeroll:. The levels of conflict and competition found in economic and social gaming in PFO will be different, but still similar to that found in theme park PvE games like Wow and even games like A Tale in the Desert that have no combat what so ever. Is the economic warfare in WoW PvP? Nope.

It isn't PvP combat. No one is really worried about social and economic conflict and competition; it doesn't effect games the same way PvP combat does. I'd offer that it's a distraction, nothing more.

My heart goes out for that hedge knight though. All torn up inside because someone wants to harvest and craft stuff and might sell him a sword. Seriously?

Goblin Squad Member

Jiminy wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Start a thread on economic PvP, list some behaviors that you think might result in players getting frustrated and quitting, and discuss ways that those behaviors might be discouraged.

The reason I haven't started a separate thread is...

Bluddwolf wrote:
There is no need for GW to try to regulate economic PvP, the players can handle it on our own.

The thing is though, players can do this with combat oriented PvP also, but everyone seems too worried about the solo gatherer or merchant not being able to participate in combat that they want all manner of restrictions and regulations put in place. Yet, look at it from the other side of the coin - a solo hedge knight wandering the countryside not being able to buy any good gear, because some enterprising company has cornered the market for a particular metal and hiked prices through the roof which in turn forced crafters to raise their prices.

The hedge knight has zero ability (solo) to do anything about the economic situation going on, just the same as a gatherer can do little (solo) about roving bandits. Yet, these bandits can get alignment shifts, reputation losses, death curses and all manner of mechanics levered against them (the stick). What do the people playing the market get for interfering with the ability of the hedge knight to play solo?

In any case, I'm not too worried about economic or social PvP - and definitely not worried enough to start an entire thread on the topic. I am more trying to bring into the picture the fact that PvP is about conflict, and conflict is more than just simple combat. Hopefully people will think of that when calling for mechanics such as reputation loss simply for being a bandit and playing a role within the game.

They are both bad things, it's unfortunate. Does this unfortunate reality somehow translate into "bandits should be able to kill unflagged players without reputation loss or becoming criminally flagged?" Absolutely not.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:

Sorry, but :eyeroll:. The levels of conflict and competition found in economic and social gaming in PFO will be different, but still similar to that found in theme park PvE games like Wow and even games like A Tale in the Desert that have no combat what so ever. Is the economic warfare in WoW PvP? Nope.

It isn't PvP combat. No one is really worried about social and economic conflict and competition; it doesn't effect games the same way PvP combat does. I'd offer that it's a distraction, nothing more.

My heart goes out for that hedge knight though. All torn up inside because someone wants to harvest and craft stuff and might sell him a sword. Seriously?

Thank you for the condescending eyeroll. We obviously have a differing opinion of what PvP is. Thus, my thoughts are wasted if you consider the other aspects of the game a distraction.

Goblin Squad Member

Nevy wrote:
They are both bad things, it's unfortunate. Does this unfortunate reality somehow translate into "bandits should be able to kill unflagged players without reputation loss or becoming criminally flagged?" Absolutely not.

Luckily I never said they shouldn't have the criminal flag.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jiminy wrote:
Urman wrote:

Sorry, but :eyeroll:. The levels of conflict and competition found in economic and social gaming in PFO will be different, but still similar to that found in theme park PvE games like Wow and even games like A Tale in the Desert that have no combat what so ever. Is the economic warfare in WoW PvP? Nope.

It isn't PvP combat. No one is really worried about social and economic conflict and competition; it doesn't effect games the same way PvP combat does. I'd offer that it's a distraction, nothing more...

Thank you for the condescending eyeroll. We obviously have a differing opinion of what PvP is. Thus, my thoughts are wasted if you consider the other aspects of the game a distraction.

Social and economic conflict and competition aren't the distraction. It's the suggestion that they are on the same level as PvP combat - as far as driving people away from games - that's the distraction.

There undoubtedly some economic/social behaviors that GW should reasonably curb. That's the entire point behind any contract scheme, for example. Elsewhere others have raised reasonable issue with the trade UI to help prevent scams. As Decius asks - are there any social/economic behaviors that you think might result in players getting frustrated and quitting?

Goblin Squad Member

Jiminy wrote:
Nevy wrote:
They are both bad things, it's unfortunate. Does this unfortunate reality somehow translate into "bandits should be able to kill unflagged players without reputation loss or becoming criminally flagged?" Absolutely not.
Luckily I never said they shouldn't have the criminal flag.

Oh I see, so you were just replying to my prior posts (that clearly stated criminals should receive the criminal flag and reputation loss) with comments obviously used to discredit my opinions because we were in agreement. Interesting.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Jiminy wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Start a thread on economic PvP, list some behaviors that you think might result in players getting frustrated and quitting, and discuss ways that those behaviors might be discouraged.

The reason I haven't started a separate thread is...

Bluddwolf wrote:
There is no need for GW to try to regulate economic PvP, the players can handle it on our own.

The thing is though, players can do this with combat oriented PvP also, but everyone seems too worried about the solo gatherer or merchant not being able to participate in combat that they want all manner of restrictions and regulations put in place. Yet, look at it from the other side of the coin - a solo hedge knight wandering the countryside not being able to buy any good gear, because some enterprising company has cornered the market for a particular metal and hiked prices through the roof which in turn forced crafters to raise their prices.

The hedge knight has zero ability (solo) to do anything about the economic situation going on, just the same as a gatherer can do little (solo) about roving bandits. Yet, these bandits can get alignment shifts, reputation losses, death curses and all manner of mechanics levered against them (the stick). What do the people playing the market get for interfering with the ability of the hedge knight to play solo?

In any case, I'm not too worried about economic or social PvP - and definitely not worried enough to start an entire thread on the topic. I am more trying to bring into the picture the fact that PvP is about conflict, and conflict is more than just simple combat. Hopefully people will think of that when calling for mechanics such as reputation loss simply for being a bandit and playing a role within the game.

Considering that their methods would have to include ganking the reference case hedge knight consistently (or else he simply harvests enough of the metal in question himself), I think that additional controls regarding for-profit warfare aren't particularly needed.

Goblin Squad Member

Nevy wrote:
Jiminy wrote:
Nevy wrote:
They are both bad things, it's unfortunate. Does this unfortunate reality somehow translate into "bandits should be able to kill unflagged players without reputation loss or becoming criminally flagged?" Absolutely not.
Luckily I never said they shouldn't have the criminal flag.
Oh I see, so you were just replying to my prior posts (that clearly stated criminals should receive the criminal flag and reputation loss) with comments obviously used to discredit my opinions because we were in agreement. Interesting.

Not all criminal flagging events will cause reputation loss. So far we know of two universal / global crimes; Issuing a SAD and ninja looting a corpse. Neither of these result in reputation loss.

Crimes result in a chaotic shift in a alignment and if in a settlement, and left unchecked, will result in increased corruption in state settlement.

I would also note, Jiminy simply said that "Luckily I never said they shouldn't have the criminal flag". If it is a fact that he did not, but you feel that pointing out that truth discredited your opinion, then perhaps you need to modify your opinion?

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
So then, it's all about the experience. The coin is incidental.

Of course, the experience of the game play style and the banditry role is more important.

In a sandbox MMO RPG that has a classless system, a long term view of "character" is required. There is no achievement that is needed now, or even soon. So if it takes longer to amass wealth, fine.... Longer to get better gear, no problem.

It's all about having fun and experiencing the character concept. My character concept for Bluddwolf is to be PvP combat focused, and to rob others of their wealth. Will he be liked by most, nope.... Will he be hunted by do gooders, I hope so! Will he prey on the weak, sure sometimes. Will he hope to pull of the heist that goes down in PFO history, absolutely!!!

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
It's all about having fun and experiencing the character concept. My character concept for Bluddwolf is to be PvP combat focused, and to rob others of their wealth. Will he be liked by most, nope.... Will he be hunted by do gooders, I hope so! Will he prey on the weak, sure sometimes. Will he hope to pull of the heist that goes down in PFO history, absolutely!!!

And will he receive a criminal flag followed by reputation loss for preying on the week? Surely.

That's the whole point, I hope you have the ability to partake in criminal activity, murder and banditry, live out your dream of being the most sinister villain in Golarion! After all, what's a world without darkness? Yet be prepared for the game to recognize your behavior and punish you, rightly so.

Bandits/Criminals/Murderers should have a harder time victimizing Unflagged/Innocents than Unflagged/Innocents have being victimized by Bandits/Criminals/Murderers.

There is really nothing else to say on this topic, it's pretty self-explanatory.

Goblin Squad Member

@ Nevy

You still don't get what reputation loss is meant for, or how it is to either be suffered or avoided.

Gaining the criminal flag in and of itself does not imply reputation loss. Banditry and even murder can be conducted without reputation loss, even against whom you call "innocent".

Goblin Squad Member

Nevy, the Criminal flag for using S&D doesn't come with a Rep loss. The Attacker flag for attacking unflagged comes with a Rep loss, but not a Criminal flag (this may depend on the hex). Even people preying on the weak have decisions to make.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

@ Nevy

You still don't get what reputation loss is meant for, or how it is to either be suffered or avoided.

Gaining the criminal flag in and of itself does not imply reputation loss. Banditry and even murder can be conducted without reputation loss, even against whom you call "innocent".

I understand completely though I don't see the need to explain every subtle nuance. It's not that complicated. I'm aware that every criminal action will not result in reputation loss, I'm also aware that some will. What am I misunderstanding?

Goblin Squad Member

Nevy wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

@ Nevy

You still don't get what reputation loss is meant for, or how it is to either be suffered or avoided.

Gaining the criminal flag in and of itself does not imply reputation loss. Banditry and even murder can be conducted without reputation loss, even against whom you call "innocent".

I understand completely though I don't see the need to explain every subtle nuance. It's not that complicated. I'm aware that every criminal action will not result in reputation loss, I'm also aware that some will. What am I misunderstanding?

It generally sounds that you are not missing anything. I don't think that Bluddwolf is either. He seems aware that some actions will penalize rep and is planning a balanced approach to managing that as a bandit.

Edit: There are apparently going to be plenty of ways to go about banditry without losing rep at all. That has always been the little rub (for me) about S&D.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
Nevy wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

@ Nevy

You still don't get what reputation loss is meant for, or how it is to either be suffered or avoided.

Gaining the criminal flag in and of itself does not imply reputation loss. Banditry and even murder can be conducted without reputation loss, even against whom you call "innocent".

I understand completely though I don't see the need to explain every subtle nuance. It's not that complicated. I'm aware that every criminal action will not result in reputation loss, I'm also aware that some will. What am I misunderstanding?

It generally sounds that you are not missing anything. I don't think that Bluddwolf is either. He seems aware that some actions will penalize rep and is planning a balanced approach to managing that as a bandit.

Edit: There are apparently going to be plenty of ways to go about banditry without losing rep at all. That has always been the little rub (for me) about S&D.

Yes, I'm hoping that preying on the week won't be an easy thing to accomplish without usually receiving reputation loss. We shall see. :)

Goblin Squad Member

Nevy wrote:
And will he receive a criminal flag followed by reputation loss for preying on the weak? Surely.

Actually, no it won't be assured. This is why I believe you are not understanding the various systems the Devs have expressed an interest in putting in the game.

SADs
Faction
Feuds
Wars

All of these will provide the ability to perform either banditry or killing, without reputation loss. These are all part of GWs plans to generate meaningful player interaction through PVP conflict.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Nevy wrote:
And will he receive a criminal flag followed by reputation loss for preying on the weak? Surely.

Actually, no it won't be assured. This is why I believe you are not understanding the various systems the Devs have expressed an interest in putting in the game.

SADs
Faction
Feuds
Wars

All of these will provide the ability to perform either banditry or killing, without reputation loss. These are all part of GWs plans to generate meaningful player interaction through PVP conflict.

Is this some kind of way of saying "I'm right, your wrong?" I'm sure you will be able to prey on the weak using those systems; I'm so glad for you. But there will be situations where preying on the weak will result in reputation loss. Again, it's not complicated.

Goblin Squad Member

@ Bluddwolf

The thing is, the game was supposed to be a bit different from other open PVP FFA choices. I am not sure if the impression is "crowd manufactured" by us or developer intent at this point.

The fact is, (as far as we know) you can "gate" your character into FFA PVP with the S&D skill purchase. It makes the game exactly the same for any that train and use it. There is not a counter (yet) except traveling in strength, which has always been an option in all of these other games already.

Nothing different here.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
It generally sounds that you are not missing anything. I don't think that Bluddwolf is either. He seems aware that some actions will penalize rep and is planning a balanced approach to managing that as a bandit.

Exactly, I think the difference is just that you, Nevy, look at Bluddwolf's plans and see an at least average gradual decline to the dark side...Bluddwolf on the other hand, thinks he will be able to toe the line and play as he wants within the mechanics of the game, maintianing whatever Rep and alignment he wants...and as Bringslite suggests, balance declines with any available sources of increase (even if only the base - overtime).

I do not think even GW knows where they will need to draw the line yet.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

which brings me to question why this thread is still active xD or is it just to trolls about until EE?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BrotherZael wrote:
which brings me to question why this thread is still active xD or is it just to trolls about until EE?

It has been our experience that sometimes the Devs reveal points in long standing threads and sometimes new issues arise that spawn new but related issues.

The question is, if you feel it is a closed issue, what brings you here?

Goblin Squad Member

I always click on threads that have been talked in and do a cursory read of at least the first page. O: checking to see if anything progressed here specifically, which I feel it hasn't which leads me to wonder why keep creating "new" content in an "old" setting.

Goblin Squad Member

Because people have thoughts they want to share or want feedback on.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:

@ Bluddwolf

The thing is, the game was supposed to be a bit different from other open PVP FFA choices. I am not sure if the impression is "crowd manufactured" by us or developer intent at this point.

The fact is, (as far as we know) you can "gate" your character into FFA PVP with the S&D skill purchase. It makes the game exactly the same for any that train and use it. There is not a counter (yet) except traveling in strength, which has always been an option in all of these other games already.

Nothing different here.

Sorry it took me a while to get back to this point, but GW (Devs) never said that open world PvP, that has no negative consequences, would not take place. What they said, and I'm speaking mostly of Ryan, is that you won't have the griefing and meaningless killing that are frequently found in other PvP focused MMOs.

The SAD is meaningful because it has a cost of training and slotting, and it involves an interaction between players where the victim can still decide what the outcome is. The counter is, as you point out, to travel in a group large enough or strong enough to discourage attacks.

The motivation of a SAD is always to attempt to rob the target of their equipment or goods. That activities has been deemed by the Devs to be an important part of the overall economy of the game.

I fully expect most settlements to deploy / employ characters with the abilities to set up blinds and to SAD their rivals.

Here is a question that has not been asked. Does it matter if the "bandits" are affiliated with a settlement or is it somehow worse if they are not?

1,401 to 1,450 of 1,727 << first < prev | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Stand and Deliver Discussion All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.