Stand and Deliver Discussion


Pathfinder Online

51 to 100 of 1,727 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tuffon wrote:
Really hope the we do not carry coins thing is not true…

It has been in the design intent from practically day one. Money Changes Everything


Sepherum wrote:
My answer would be: Feuds can be declared against settlements, companies and factions. Your merchants are going to have individual storage, structures, harvesting, gathering and caravans? And if your unskilled mules are transporting valuable resources they'll get wiped by low rep alts with a little bit o' combat training. Do it!

My answer remains the same my mules have none of those. They are not in a faction, they are not in a player company, they are not in a player settlement, they are there purely to transport goods from one place to another and make sure you take the rep hit for attacking them as you cannot feud them. There is nothing to stop us providing guards for them which takes care of your low rep alts.

Declare a feud against the company the guards are in? No problem (remember feuds do not take immediate effect but have a lead time) we just disband the guards company and start another one.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Drakhan Valane wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
I had thought that we don't actually carry coin. Has this changed?
The devs have not indicated as such.

Money Changes Everything wrote:
Coin is a unit of account. Coin can be infinitely divided and combined. It is virtual and does not appear as an in–game object. When your character walks around, you're not lugging around a huge bag full of money. Coin has no weight and can be moved from place to place instantly. We may decide at some point to generate some in–game rationale for all of this using mystic hand–waving and such to "explain" the curious properties of coin, but for the sake of this dev blog we'll keep it relatively simple.

Goblin Squad Member

Here is my views on how SAD should work.

It should be designed in a way that should be preferred by bandits over just ambushing and killing/looting every caravan that travels through the bandit's territory. I am not sure of any other activities that fit in a bandit lifestyle that would generate rep, so I think SAD should do that, how ever in a limited fashion. Limits such as: no SADing characters from the same faction/settlement/company/account(alts). Also daily limits should be in effect, but I think all "roles" should have rep building daily limits.

Ambushing a caravan should be a calculated risk. It will incur all rep and alignment hits that come with attacking an unflagged non-hostile target, but allows looting as per the same. (I think that is all but threaded and the 25% destroyed on death.) SAD is the alternative, a rep gain instead of loss from ambushing.

I like the idea of SAD as a skill that increases the amount SADed for as you level the skill. I think coins and goods should be both viable SAD requests, or even a combination. Based on the skill level of either the leader of the group, or the person initiating the SAD. Maybe expressed as a GP value.

As for as "Stolen Goods", I think that any coin gained through a successful SAD should be an Item in your inventory (Sack of coins) and any good acquired should have a tag "Stolen" for a period of time. After that period of time, the sack of coins becomes able to be "deposited" by clicking on it. This moves it to the bank with the rest of the coins. Who ever has the sack of coins (leader or SAD issuer) would then split it by trading coins to the other bandits.

The benefits of having an "Item" for the stolen coins is that bandits who succeed in the SAD but at hunted down before the coins can be split up, can lose them to who ever kills the bandits and returned to the owner. (part of the stolen tag, list who they were stolen from) Maybe automatically returned or someway to have inform the owner who it was the "retrieved" their coins and goods.

Over all, I hope that SAD will be designed so that it is the primary tool of the bandit on the road. It also needs to be designed in a way that gives atleast a 50/50 acceptance from travelers. If there is never an incentive for the traveler to accept, they won't. I am not saying those subject to a SAD need to be rewarded or somehow compensated for accepted a SAD, but no SAD will ever be accepted unless there was a way to make it the desirable action for them. That is why I don't believe SADing for 100% should eve be allowed, I think absolute tops would be 50%.

Max SAD skill should cap out at 50% for a SAD request. Unless we are not using % and instead go for a straight GP value, in which case the % would be dependent on what and how much is being hauled. For example, if it is a straight value, and I SAD for 500GP but your only hauling total 500GP valued of Iron, then I picked a bad target to SAD and either the traveler will accept and pay coin hoping to get a better price at market, or fight and hope to win or lose it all anyway. The % way is "Safer" but it also gives away the true value of the haul. (I think if SAD by % is used, it should be the current value of the closest market for those goods being hauled.) If you are hauling diamonds and I ask for 25%, that is much more than if I SAD 25% of a haul of Iron bars. But honestly, SAD by GP value I think is more realistic and allows for more variable SADs.

@Tyncale, your suggestion baffled me. With that idea, who would honestly EVER accept a SAD? Bandits would always have -rep as no SAD would be accepted. If your guaranteed to lose at least 50 rep, even if you let them go after spitting in your face and saying no, then I see 0 incentive for anyone to accept a SAD, even for a 1GP or 1CP request. Unless you have an idea for a +rep ability or action that would counter all the -rep from SADing, I honestly don't see this idea being used at all. Im sorry if this is coming off as hostile, I just see no reason to even build that system into the game. It wouldn't be used. When I try to think of this system, even though I am the bandit, I think about it from the other side. Why would he accept my SAD, regardless of what I ask for.

Goblin Squad Member

On the issue of percentages of total liquid assets. I do not think that the case where the demand (the % of coin) is fair if it is more than the value of the goods that I am risking in that transport. In the case where I have little coin or just stash it on an ALT, it is useless.

Goblin Squad Member

Drakhan Valane wrote:
Tuffon wrote:
Really hope the we do not carry coins thing is not true…
It has been in the design intent from practically day one. Money Changes Everything

Doesnt mean its a good idea ..

Just seems like free travel and meaningless naked town runs(or only what you can thread..) Why would a merchant worry about his return trip at all ? why should the proud new owner of that swrod/armor worry about the return trip (one ding on his item decay if he gets mugged)?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the degenerate condition of being able to demand too much (or be immune to demands) is avoided by allowing the merchant, at their option, to give 75% of their non-equipped items to the bandit, or to negotiate with the bandit for any mutually agreeable amount of coin.

If we assume that the merchant is better at getting coin for stuff and is only carrying commodities, then everyone is better off finding an agreeable amount of coin.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would not enjoy lengthy negotiations if I were a bandit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here's a small idea: Deploying an SAD costs you X Reputation. If the SAD is carried out successfully (target pays up), you regain the Reputation, and possibly even get a tiny bit extra.

If, on the other hand, the target refuses, you do not get your Rep back, but the same effect that allows you to attack them without penalty now means you will regain the Rep you lost--if you're then able to kill them.

In other words, if you SAD someone and can't follow through, and they call your bluff, you are going to look very foolish.

DeciusBrutus wrote:

I think the degenerate condition of being able to demand too much (or be immune to demands) is avoided by allowing the merchant, at their option, to give 75% of their non-equipped items to the bandit, or to negotiate with the bandit for any mutually agreeable amount of coin.

If we assume that the merchant is better at getting coin for stuff and is only carrying commodities, then everyone is better off finding an agreeable amount of coin.

I love this idea.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
My solution up above was to try to tie the bandit's ability to demand coin to some multiple (2-4x) the amount of coin they were willing to put at risk, and their coin was at risk for a while, from pursuit or other bandits. If bandits didn't want to put coin at risk, they'd be limited to demanding goods. (One can't properly do a stand and deliver without the fine silk shirt and fancy hat)

@Urman, can you expand more upon how you see this working?

I am intrigued by this idea...maybe "hiring a caravan" entails choosing how much money to pay. The more money you put down, the less likely a bandit is able to "knock you out of travel". So, it becomes a contest between the money a merchant pays (the skill of the caravan) and the skill of the bandit (with SAD being a skill).

In this case, the money that can be SAD'd is the price you paid for the caravan...and of course the goods being shipped (as goods, not as gold...in which case they can only take what they can carry), that is the max the bandit can choose to SAD for.

The interesting thing is that if the bandit takes any large fraction of the goods, they will need a caravan to haul it...and they themselves become a target for SADing.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Here's a small idea: Deploying an SAD costs you X Reputation. If the SAD is carried out successfully (target pays up), you regain the Reputation, and possibly even get a tiny bit extra.

If, on the other hand, the target refuses, you do not get your Rep back, but the same effect that allows you to attack them without penalty now means you will regain the Rep you lost.

In other words, if you SAD someone and can't follow through, and they call your bluff, you are going to look very foolish.

Maybe the amount you can SAD for is bound by the amount of Rep you gamble?

EDIT: But, again, what if the merchant cannot pay? Assuming they will not have to pay it...If you do not penalize the merchant in this case, they will use their bank alts to never carry much...if you do penalize them, you are more heavily penalizing newer players who honestly might not be able to pay large SADs. There needs to be a way to realistically limit the SAD.


Forencith wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Here's a small idea: Deploying an SAD costs you X Reputation. If the SAD is carried out successfully (target pays up), you regain the Reputation, and possibly even get a tiny bit extra.

If, on the other hand, the target refuses, you do not get your Rep back, but the same effect that allows you to attack them without penalty now means you will regain the Rep you lost.

In other words, if you SAD someone and can't follow through, and they call your bluff, you are going to look very foolish.

Maybe the amount you can SAD for is bound by the amount of Rep you gamble?

That's a very inventive idea. Essentially, you're staking your evil name on either a) your target giving in or b) your ability to follow through.

The best part is that it rewards bandits who pay attention to their Reputation, hurting griefers masquerading as highwaymen. Those guys will have no choice but to fight every single merchant they want to rob. In addition, it lends the bandits credence--a merchant now can be sure that his attackers are confident.

Forencith wrote:
EDIT: But, again, what if the merchant cannot pay? Assuming they will not have to pay it...If you do not penalize the merchant in this case, they will use their bank alts to never carry much...if you do penalize them, you are more heavily penalizing newer players who honestly might not be able to pay large SADs. There needs to be a way to realistically limit the SAD.

That's what I was just thinking. Ultimately, the transferable nature of gold makes things difficult.

Goblin Squad Member

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Here's a small idea: Deploying an SAD costs you X Reputation. If the SAD is carried out successfully (target pays up), you regain the Reputation, and possibly even get a tiny bit extra.

If, on the other hand, the target refuses, you do not get your Rep back, but the same effect that allows you to attack them without penalty now means you will regain the Rep you lost--if you're then able to kill them.

In other words, if you SAD someone and can't follow through, and they call your bluff, you are going to look very foolish.

Doesn't that bolded bit mean that the 20th level robber can SAD the 1st level crofter and regain the rep he lost - if he's able to kill them? Is that no-rep-loss as long as you attack weak people?

Goblin Squad Member

Forencith wrote:
Maybe the amount you can SAD for is bound by the amount of Rep you gamble?

Now that is quite an interesting idea.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well I know I am going to get a storm of flak probably, but why not limit alts. A LOT of fairly successful MMOs do. I would suggest getting rid of the ability to have alts altogether unless the person wishes to buy another count, but that might be a bad thing to say. oops too late.

Goblin Squad Member

Alts make money for GW, and they will not stop the generation of alts anyway. A mere proliferation of email accounts gets around it easily. Might as well make a profit on it.

Goblin Squad Member

BrotherZael wrote:
Well I know I am going to get a storm of flak probably, but why not limit alts. A LOT of fairly successful MMOs do. I would suggest getting rid of the ability to have alts altogether unless the person wishes to buy another count, but that might be a bad thing to say. oops too late.

Because it is impossible to do, simply because they can buy another account.


Urman wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Here's a small idea: Deploying an SAD costs you X Reputation. If the SAD is carried out successfully (target pays up), you regain the Reputation, and possibly even get a tiny bit extra.

If, on the other hand, the target refuses, you do not get your Rep back, but the same effect that allows you to attack them without penalty now means you will regain the Rep you lost--if you're then able to kill them.

In other words, if you SAD someone and can't follow through, and they call your bluff, you are going to look very foolish.

Doesn't that bolded bit mean that the 20th level robber can SAD the 1st level crofter and regain the rep he lost - if he's able to kill them? Is that no-rep-loss as long as you attack weak people?

As opposed to no-rep-loss no matter what? No bandit with any brains is going to attack strong targets if he doesn't think they'll take his offer. Just ask UNC. :P

That being said, a "level 20" robber is not going to profit much if he only goes after unprotected wusses.

Goblin Squad Member

Forencith wrote:
Urman wrote:
My solution up above was to try to tie the bandit's ability to demand coin to some multiple (2-4x) the amount of coin they were willing to put at risk, and their coin was at risk for a while, from pursuit or other bandits. If bandits didn't want to put coin at risk, they'd be limited to demanding goods. (One can't properly do a stand and deliver without the fine silk shirt and fancy hat)

@Urman, can you expand more upon how you see this working?

I was thinking of it like this. Someone wants to be a bandit. They would withdraw 1000 coin from the bank, and have it as an item (bag-o-coins) in inventory. When they do a SAD, they could demand up to some multiple of that, 2-4x(?), let's say 3x. So a bandit carrying 1000 coin could demand up to 3000 coin in a SAD. There wouldn't be a check against the traveler's inventory, bank, or goods; 3000 coin would always be considered a reasonable amount. That 1000 coin pile would remain in the bandit's inventory until he goes back to the bank, as a lure for other bandits and counter-bandits.

It sort of puts them at special risk; I'm not sure if it's totally fair. But they are supposed to be rough men and women, living on the road and in the woods. They might not always be near a bank, you know; carrying their treasure with them.

Goblin Squad Member

But, again, what if the merchant only has 100g "in their bank" and the SAD is for 3000g? Is it an automatic decline? It then becomes that 100% SAD that everyone agrees is a path to consequence free PvP.

Goblin Squad Member

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

As opposed to no-rep-loss no matter what? No bandit with any brains is going to attack strong targets if he doesn't think they'll take his offer. Just ask UNC. :P

That being said, a "level 20" robber is not going to profit much if he only goes after unprotected wusses.

If the "level 20" "robber" is evil and he can kill a bunch of unprotected wusses with no rep loss, what if he does it just for amusement? If he's there for the killing, not the loot, why does he get the rep-free-kill just by calling it SAD. It's a huge loophole; that no-rep-loss, no matter what, is a major flaw in SAD as we know it, because the game can't discern the robber from the murderer.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DeciusBrutus wrote:

I think the degenerate condition of being able to demand too much (or be immune to demands) is avoided by allowing the merchant, at their option, to give 75% of their non-equipped items to the bandit, or to negotiate with the bandit for any mutually agreeable amount of coin.

If we assume that the merchant is better at getting coin for stuff and is only carrying commodities, then everyone is better off finding an agreeable amount of coin.

The more that I think about this suggestion on the SAD issue, the more that it is growing on me. It is only a small part of the overall puzzle of issues, but it is not bad.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to just deal with a small piece of my idea at this time.

The ability to use the SAD mechanic must be based on a slotted and trained skill.

The skill level of a character's SAD determines:

1. The maximum amount that the demand can be.

2. The amount of reputation either not lost, for lower levels, and for the amount of reputation gained at much higher levels.

The Demand:

The reason why I feel it is important to set both a minimum and maximum demand is to avoid two situations.

First, a SAD should never be the same or higher demand than the traveler would lose from death. This means that a SAD demand can not exceed 75%. This will benefit the merchant in that he could not be SAD'd for more than what he is carrying.

Likewise, a minimum should also be set at 10% of the total value carried, in order to avoid the "One Copper SAD".

Reputation:

At its lowest level, a SAD skill will have less impact on reputation, than at higher or maximum SAD level. The numbers can be tweaked, but they should basically work like this:

Level 1 - 5: Rep loss still occurs if SAD is rejected, but very small loss.

Level 6 - 10: Rep loss is Neutral if rejected, but no gain if accepted.

Level 11 - 15: Rep Loss is Neutral if rejected, but gain at X # if accepted.

Level 16 - 19: A small amount of Rep is gained if rejected. It is gained at 2 x X if accepted.

Level 20 + dedication Bonus: Same as 16 - 19 + Influence gain.

What I believe this would do is reward the bandit character by dedicating a substantial amount of training to it. On the flip side of that, it punishes the use of untrained alts to use as SAD machines.

In my next part I will touch upon the benefits for the traveler.

Goblin Squad Member

So, what I see as necessary is that the merchant must have some incentive to carry his money, or x money must be put in a SAD-able escrow. There must be an incentive for the merchant to put the money in said escrow.

What if the merchant/caravan gains Rep based upon successful shipments and the amount they gain is tied to the amount they placed in the escrow. This mirrors the bandits gamble described above.

Goblin Squad Member

Forencith wrote:
But, again, what if the merchant only has 100g "in their bank" and the SAD is for 3000g? Is it an automatic decline? It then becomes that 100% SAD that everyone agrees is a path to consequence free PvP.

That's true, the rich robber carrying a big bag-o-coin would be able to make demands that many would see as outrageous.

But - in my expectations bit, I expect that each SAD would have a timer, and after the SAD the bandits have to lay low - so the rich robber has an incentive to make his SADs worthwhile. He's also carrying a big bag-o-coin. If I demand 60,000 coin from a rich merchant, *everybody* in the surrounding 20 hexes knows I have a 20,000 bag-o-coin on my person that I can't get rid of and I have a PvP flag flying. I will be a hunted man for some time.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

First, a SAD should never be the same or higher demand than the traveler would lose from death. This means that a SAD demand can not exceed 75%. This will benefit the merchant in that he could not be SAD'd for more than what he is carrying.

Likewise, a minimum should also be set at 10% of the total value carried, in order to avoid the "One Copper SAD".

So how do you quantify the value of how much one is carrying? I assume you mean in goods or we run into the issue of merchants not carrying gold. So, in a player driven economy, how do you quantify the value of something that might be valuable in one region and worthless in another...when you are carrying it between the two?

EDIT: And, if we are talking about goods, I rented a caravan because I am carrying so many goods, what happens when you SAD me for more than you can carry? Will you just load up and walk away, leaving the rest for me...Or, are you suggesting you will have your own caravan ready to load? I support that logistical constraints this creates.

Goblin Squad Member

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Urman wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Here's a small idea: Deploying an SAD costs you X Reputation. If the SAD is carried out successfully (target pays up), you regain the Reputation, and possibly even get a tiny bit extra.

If, on the other hand, the target refuses, you do not get your Rep back, but the same effect that allows you to attack them without penalty now means you will regain the Rep you lost--if you're then able to kill them.

In other words, if you SAD someone and can't follow through, and they call your bluff, you are going to look very foolish.

Doesn't that bolded bit mean that the 20th level robber can SAD the 1st level crofter and regain the rep he lost - if he's able to kill them? Is that no-rep-loss as long as you attack weak people?

As opposed to no-rep-loss no matter what? No bandit with any brains is going to attack strong targets if he doesn't think they'll take his offer. Just ask UNC. :P

That being said, a "level 20" robber is not going to profit much if he only goes after unprotected wusses.

No, we will not SAD stronger targets that are likely to reject our SAD due to their strength and therefore we gave up our advantages of ambush / surprise attack for nothing.

A SAD is actually an act of mercy on a much weaker opponent who is foolishly in possession of more loot than they have the protection to be wisely carrying. (I know the "mercy" part will piss some off, but it really isn't arrogance that I say it).

We are not in the bandit business to fight fair fights, but neither are we in the business of wanton slaughter.

Goblin Squad Member

I'm trying to understand why a character wouldn't lose coin on death? What's the reasoning for that? It kind of makes me sad!

Goblin Squad Member

Forencith wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

First, a SAD should never be the same or higher demand than the traveler would lose from death. This means that a SAD demand can not exceed 75%. This will benefit the merchant in that he could not be SAD'd for more than what he is carrying.

Likewise, a minimum should also be set at 10% of the total value carried, in order to avoid the "One Copper SAD".

So how do you quantify the value of how much one is carrying? I assume you mean in goods or we run into the issue of merchants not carrying gold. So, in a player driven economy, how do you quantify the value of something that might be valuable in one region and worthless in another...when you are carrying it between the two?

Yeah. It really has to be based off of what is being carried. Otherwise it begins to get more and more complicated. I like Decius' idea, because it keeps things simple. The merchant can haggle for turning over some of his goods or he can just offer a straight amount of coin. I would assume that a bandit would prefer coin over anything but really precious commodities/items.

Goblin Squad Member

Forencith wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

First, a SAD should never be the same or higher demand than the traveler would lose from death. This means that a SAD demand can not exceed 75%. This will benefit the merchant in that he could not be SAD'd for more than what he is carrying.

Likewise, a minimum should also be set at 10% of the total value carried, in order to avoid the "One Copper SAD".

So how do you quantify the value of how much one is carrying? I assume you mean in goods or we run into the issue of merchants not carrying gold. So, in a player driven economy, how do you quantify the value of something that might be valuable in one region and worthless in another...when you are carrying it between the two?

The merchant could be required to carry enough gold up to 75% of the value of the goods being transported. Then when SAD'd the merchant and the bandits could negotiate how much the bandits will take in either gold or materials being hauled.

This would act sort of like a cargo insurance policy. If the cap for SADs is at 75% (same as death) there should be an issue of the merchant covering the cost, which would be reimbursed upon the successful delivery of the cargo.

This could actually lead to the need for an Aristocrat skill of money lending or insurance accounts.

It would make SADs a larger part of the player economic system.

Goblin Squad Member

I'm not saying alts won't happen.

I'm saying making alts more expensive to have.

@Forencith

I feel two things need to happen.

1) A limit must be set on the max. SAD that can be issued per level. An average level X player has an average amount of Y gold. Thus the max limits are placed.

2) If the player is SAD'd for more money than they own and they accept the SAD all the money they own is gone. It sucks, sure, but that is the decision. Do you fight the guys to protect the meager offerings that is all you have left, or do you sacrifice the little to ensure your safety? If the SAD uses up all that person's wealth it fulfills the contract as if it had been answered in full.

Problems?

1) Bank-account Alts: This is not a problem with SAD'ing actually, but rather its own problem that has to be solved. We are discussing mechanics of a viable SAD assuming person X and person Y. Alts affect this, yes, but so does many other factors such as the person's wealth, personality (agressive vs meek) and RP position (a lawman might not want to concede to the demands of a bandit as a matter of duty). This is kind of like the "Swiss Off-shore Accounts" for PfO (GW) to figure out.

2) How do you determine the SAD level max and what is "average"? Easy enough: GW monitors the players' money flow.

3) What if my character is poor? Tough. If you are poor you are poor. Again this is not directly influencing the SAD mechanic. If a bandit picks a poor target to SAD they have to deal with it, and the rep loss that might be associated it should they decide to kill the victim out of spite.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bandits should not be able to sad for coin full stop.

Allow them to issue a sad which covers only goods carried either threaded or unthreaded. Allowing a sad for coin just means even if you catch them you can't get the goods back

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It seems to me that potential reputation loss should vary in terms of the difference in levels/ power between the bandit and the traveller. A high level bandit should lose much more rep if he attacks a low level traveller.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BrotherZael wrote:

I'm not saying alts won't happen.

I'm saying making alts more expensive to have.

@Forencith

I feel two things need to happen.

1) A limit must be set on the max. SAD that can be issued per level. An average level X player has an average amount of Y gold. Thus the max limits are placed.

2) If the player is SAD'd for more money than they own and they accept the SAD all the money they own is gone. It sucks, sure, but that is the decision. Do you fight the guys to protect the meager offerings that is all you have left, or do you sacrifice the little to ensure your safety? If the SAD uses up all that person's wealth it fulfills the contract as if it had been answered in full.

Problems?

1) Bank-account Alts: This is not a problem with SAD'ing actually, but rather its own problem that has to be solved. We are discussing mechanics of a viable SAD assuming person X and person Y. Alts affect this, yes, but so does many other factors such as the person's wealth, personality (agressive vs meek) and RP position (a lawman might not want to concede to the demands of a bandit as a matter of duty). This is kind of like the "Swiss Off-shore Accounts" for PfO (GW) to figure out.

2) How do you determine the SAD level max and what is "average"? Easy enough: GW monitors the players' money flow.

3) What if my character is poor? Tough. If you are poor you are poor. Again this is not directly influencing the SAD mechanic. If a bandit picks a poor target to SAD they have to deal with it, and the rep loss that might be associated it should they decide to kill the victim out of spite.

I don't think that you should ever be robbed of more than you are carrying (putting at risk) by going "outside".

It totally goes against "never gear/carry/move/fly more than you can afford to lose", which is a staple of PVP sandbox play.


Urman wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

As opposed to no-rep-loss no matter what? No bandit with any brains is going to attack strong targets if he doesn't think they'll take his offer. Just ask UNC. :P

That being said, a "level 20" robber is not going to profit much if he only goes after unprotected wusses.

If the "level 20" "robber" is evil and he can kill a bunch of unprotected wusses with no rep loss, what if he does it just for amusement? If he's there for the killing, not the loot, why does he get the rep-free-kill just by calling it SAD. It's a huge loophole; that no-rep-loss, no matter what, is a major flaw in SAD as we know it, because the game can't discern the robber from the murderer.

Then why are you applying your complaint to my suggestion and not SAD as a whole?

Goblin Squad Member

I agree that you shouldn't be robbed for stuff you don't have on you, but I am pretty sure when I made that argument I was told that when you get SAD'd it takes from a not-at-hand "traveler bank"

Goblin Squad Member

Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
It seems to me that potential reputation loss should vary in terms of the difference in levels/ power between the bandit and the traveller. A high level bandit should lose much more rep if he attacks a low level traveller.

If merchant haulers require few skills than they would always be low level. Whereas bandits, especially the full time professional ones, will be higher level and will find themselves out of targets.

One thing we are not considering here is the impact of NPC factions. I know there will be the Brethren of Echo Wood (or something like that), but what of a merchant faction?

If faction conflict is the pathway to consequence free PvP, than SADs may become obsolete, for higher faction leveled bandits.

Goblin Squad Member

BrotherZael wrote:
I agree that you shouldn't be robbed for stuff you don't have on you, but I am pretty sure when I made that argument I was told that when you get SAD'd it takes from a not-at-hand "traveler bank"

Nothing has been detailed yet about what things come from a SAD. If someone wrote it, consider it speculation. :)

Goblin Squad Member

Combining my earlier suggestions, here is a proposal:

A merchant, (or better yet, PC caravaneer) when renting a caravan pays x amount into an escrow. The more they put into the escrow, the more potential Rep they get for completing their run. The more money they put in, the more difficult it is for a bandit to stop them.

A bandit, when they "work" they put x amount of Rep into escrow. Their chance of seeing a caravan is figured from the combination of their skill and the amount of Rep they gamble with.

Bandits, when they "see" a caravan and decide to stop it or not cannot see what is being carried, nor the value of the merchant. What they see is the differential created by the merchants gold escrow/the bandits Rep escrow. This is what they use to decide to stop the caravan. This will allow powerful bandits to only target the rich merchants.

Then, the bandit can SAD for up to the amount of the merchant escrow. Personally I hope there is an optional negotiation phase. If accepted, the bandit gains their gold and the normal restrictions apply. Additionally, they gain Rep based upon the Rep they had in escrow * the before mentioned differential. If the SAD is refused, the bandit losses what is in their escrow. They can regain their lost Rep by killing the caravan.

Finally, if the caravan arrives at their destination, they gain Rep based upon the size of their remaining gold escrow.

Bandits get lots of Rep for a "big score" and small amounts for "small scores", Caravans on the other hand, get lots of Rep for being that "big score".

This also removes the incentive to "hide your cash" with an alt...and removes the question of how much can be SAD'd. As for the goods, the only way a bandit has of taking the goods is to actual ambush the caravan (before or after the SAD) and taking the Rep hit...of course, they will also have to have a way on hand to move those goods if that is the route they choose to go.

High Rep bandits will be those who frequently use the SAD mechanic and choose their targets wisely and are willing to negotiate to find a solution acceptable to both parties.

EDIT: Actually, it makes sense for the caravaneer, who wants to keep their escrow for Rep bonus...to offer to buy it back with goods, if this is acceptable to both parties...so their is another way bandits can get access to the cargo.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
It seems to me that potential reputation loss should vary in terms of the difference in levels/ power between the bandit and the traveller. A high level bandit should lose much more rep if he attacks a low level traveller.

If merchant haulers require few skills than they would always be low level. Whereas bandits, especially the full time professional ones, will be higher level and will find themselves out of targets.

One thing we are not considering here is the impact of NPC factions. I know there will be the Brethren of Echo Wood (or something like that), but what of a merchant faction?

If faction conflict is the pathway to consequence free PvP, than SADs may become obsolete, for higher faction leveled bandits.

You might want to SAD me when you see me alone chipping adamantine ore.


Also, we might consider the simple measure of just making coins span all accounts. I mean, come on, people are gonna trade between 'em anyways, and it shuts down merchants who just use their coin bag alts as cheats to avoid measures like those that've been suggested.

Goblin Squad Member

@Kobold, I only applied that to your suggestion because you raised the point of level difference between the bandit and target, suggesting SAD will be driven only by profit.

I think the SAD system has to be designed to be murderer-proof, not bandit-proof, is all.

Goblin Squad Member

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Also, we might consider the simple measure of just making coins span all accounts. I mean, come on, people are gonna trade between 'em anyways, and it shuts down merchants who just use their coin bag alts as cheats to avoid measures like those that've been suggested.

But that is not really policable...and I can see guilds pooling money for a separate shared bank account.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Forencith,

Your system would punish the bandit for not killing the caravan with rep loss. If a SAD us rejected the bandits have the option not to attack, perhaps their bluff was called. They should not be punished for not killing.

In your previous post, you accurately described what the reputation system was a measure of. But in your most recent post the bandit must put rep on the line to perform their function as bandits. This goes against your previous argument that no one should lose rep for playing their role properly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, it is policeable in that it doesn't need to be policed--as long as they don't use other accounts, they can't pull it off. Since other accounts do exist, though, it doesn't work.

In other words, yeah, I'm wrong, but not for the reasons you said, so there. ;D

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

One thing we are not considering here is the impact of NPC factions. I know there will be the Brethren of Echo Wood (or something like that), but what of a merchant faction?

If faction conflict is the pathway to consequence free PvP, than SADs may become obsolete, for higher faction leveled bandits.

I thought faction warfare was dependent on the target's factional rank, not the attacker? So if you were rank 6 you'd be permanently flagged as a valid target to factional enemies. You wouldn't necessarily be able to attack unflagged rank 1-3 factional enemies at will, is the way I understood it.

Goblin Squad Member

The major upside of the SAD mechanic, and why it belongs in the game is that is that this game has loot drop. Loot drop means people will run around attacking other players for loot. Plain and simple it's going to happen.

The SAD gives people a reason to ask for loot rather than the general kill and then loot you see in other titles.

I think a simpler way though, would be to make it so that like in Darkfall and Pathfinder Tabletop you can be incapacitated without dying. Unlike Darkfall, they should be able to loot you in this state, and it should have lesser consequences than simply ganking you.

That's what I originally proposed before the SAD system was ever created, and I think it would be much simpler for the developers to execute and the players to understand. It's also one of those rare instances where the table top mechanics translate extremely well into an MMO environment as Darkfall has already proven.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

Forencith,

Your system would punish the bandit for not killing the caravan with rep loss. If a SAD us rejected the bandits have the option not to attack, perhaps their bluff was called. They should not be punished for not killing.

In your previous post, you accurately described what the reputation system was a measure of. But in your most recent post the bandit must put rep on the line to perform their function as bandits. This goes against your previous argument that no one should lose rep for playing their role properly.

Thanks for the debate...Good point, I am not sure it is valid. Let me think on it.

The emergent dynamic I was aiming for is that High Rep bandits...which become so by successfully negotiating and "winning" SADs, are able to more successfully target merchants with bigger purses while ignoring the smaller ones which will might be more trouble than they are worth. Less successful, or starting out, bandits, would only be able to target those smaller (or starting out) merchants. There is always a chance a small/new bandit could get lucky and find a high differential merchant, stop them, and win the SAD, giving a big Rep boost, but for the most part it should be as I described above.

I actually think I am right in how I laid it out, a bandit who does not play their role well is one who SADs for too much and cannot back it up. That is the one who should be penalized Rep. But, we also want to discourage using SAD for free murder, so I think any SAD loss should be penalized...with a chance to recover some by following through on their threat. I have no qualms with allowing bandits to recover their Rep escrow through violence while forcing them to take the normal alignment/Rep hits for murdering people.

EDIT: which...by the way...would be minimal or even a gain if you are targeting opposing factions...

Goblin Squad Member

Go back to square one. It is getting too complicated, adding additional problems at every turn. Keep it as simple and straight forward as possible or dump it.

It is only supposed to be an option designed for a particular role among many in this game.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
It is only supposed to be an option designed for a particular role among many in this game.

But its not...it takes at least two (bandit and caravaneer/merchant). Why not make it a contest between the two? Why not give them both incentive to participate?

51 to 100 of 1,727 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Stand and Deliver Discussion All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.