Goblin Squad Member
|
I would like to see it programmable and implemented before 2020.
*laugh* okay, okay, you win...as long as bandits are not the only playable role. I have no interest in a bandit sim.
EDIT: Besides, I think I am looking at SAD in the old way...not as a skill. That gets into a whole mess, like...
As a skill:
Does only the leader of a bandit crew count or does every bandit in the crew count toward an average, mean, sum, etc?
Who must be the target of a SAD? Does it get applied to that person's whole party or just that individual?
What happens if a caravan/group is made of multiple parties?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would like to see it programmable and implemented before 2020.*laugh* okay, okay, you win...as long as bandits are not the only playable role. I have no interest in a bandit sim.
In all fairness, it can get more complicated when they have more time. I plan to protect myself, in any case, when I harvest or move goods and will do my darndest to never have to consider submitting to SAD. Who knows though, and I would like to see it available as early as possible for those that might feel SADs are a part of business that they can deal with. :)
|
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.
...
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.
Hm. Maybe 1/2 rep hits for the attack and 1/2 rep hits + all evil hits for the kill? Might that be possible, for 'lesser consequence'?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.
When I mentioned settlements, companies and factions I was speaking of your merchants; but you don't have those, you have unskilled mules with backpacks guarded by venture companies who 'just' disband when they're feuded. Then they 'just' reform, no problem, right? Where are the mules going? To the bank?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
When I mentioned settlements, companies and factions I was speaking of your merchants; but you don't have those, you have unskilled mules with backpacks guarded by venture companies who 'just' disband when they're feuded. Then they 'just' reform, no problem, right? Where are the mules going? To the bank?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.
I imagine that his mules would hover at destination while his merchants unload them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
When a dev blog comes out stating that members of npc settlements can be freely killed with no consequences...
I can only assume that your insistence on framing the general idea in the worst imaginable implementation means that you actually do see the potential effectiveness in it. Or perhaps I give you too much credit.
[Edit] To clarify "worst imaginable implementation":
Remember Nihimon who I gather epitomises all that is right and holy in the pathfinder vision was happy to make newbies kill on sight...
When a dev blog comes out stating that members of npc settlements can be freely killed with no consequences...I can only assume that your insistence on framing the general idea in the worst imaginable implementation means that you actually do see the potential effectiveness in it. Or perhaps I give you too much credit.
This was the intent of your quote and in fact what you argued for in the thread on which the subject came up even after I pointed out that would make new players effectively consequence free kills if they stepped foot outside the NPC areas.
It was you arguing for this kos system on players from npc settlements so don't start trying to pretend you meant anything else by your statement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I imagine that his mules would hover at destination while his merchants unload them.When I mentioned settlements, companies and factions I was speaking of your merchants; but you don't have those, you have unskilled mules with backpacks guarded by venture companies who 'just' disband when they're feuded. Then they 'just' reform, no problem, right? Where are the mules going? To the bank?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.
His merchants are unaffiliated. Where do they unload?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
His merchants are unaffiliated. Where do they unload?I imagine that his mules would hover at destination while his merchants unload them.When I mentioned settlements, companies and factions I was speaking of your merchants; but you don't have those, you have unskilled mules with backpacks guarded by venture companies who 'just' disband when they're feuded. Then they 'just' reform, no problem, right? Where are the mules going? To the bank?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.
The mules move the stuff to where he wants it. The mules trade it to any affiliated alt at the destination. He does have One Meeellion Alts.
His merchants are unaffiliated. Where do they unload?I imagine that his mules would hover at destination while his merchants unload them.When I mentioned settlements, companies and factions I was speaking of your merchants; but you don't have those, you have unskilled mules with backpacks guarded by venture companies who 'just' disband when they're feuded. Then they 'just' reform, no problem, right? Where are the mules going? To the bank?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.
Why do you think we will have trouble unloading? We aren't likely to be excluding our own mules from our settlement nor are those mules likely to be excluded elsewhere as most claim to be going NRDS
@ Nihimon: "worst imaginable implementation": Steelwing does that a lot.
Pointing out flaws in suggestions is now somehow bad?
Your suggestion was born out of wanting to limit SAD's I merely pointed out how people would use that to limit SAD's even further so it would end up that most cargo was being transported by unaffiliated mules.
This is exactly what happens in EVE. We use freighters that are part of the NPC corporations purely to avoid war decs. This enables us to run them around more or less risk free as long as we provide escorts for the low sec and null sec parts of the route.
I am not the one arguing for changes here it is you so don't lay this worst possible implementation thing at my door. You came up with a solution that is highly exploitable that shows your lack of foresight it says nothing about what I am arguing for whatsoever
This is why I wanted to play Chutes and Ladders.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why do you think we will have trouble unloading? We aren't likely to be excluding our own mules from our settlement nor are those mules likely to be excluded elsewhere as most claim to be going NRDSHis merchants are unaffiliated. Where do they unload?I imagine that his mules would hover at destination while his merchants unload them.When I mentioned settlements, companies and factions I was speaking of your merchants; but you don't have those, you have unskilled mules with backpacks guarded by venture companies who 'just' disband when they're feuded. Then they 'just' reform, no problem, right? Where are the mules going? To the bank?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.
So...your merchants are affiliated-they have a settlement! But you said..ah, to hell with it. However, your settlement better behave or your mules will be excluded. I mean, they'll be easy to recognize; unaffiliated, unskilled bozos carrying more sacks than the Grinch Who Stole Christmas guarded by venture companies who keep disbanding.
When a dev blog comes out stating that members of npc settlements can be freely killed with no consequences...I can only assume that your insistence on framing the general idea in the worst imaginable implementation means that you actually do see the potential effectiveness in it. Or perhaps I give you too much credit.
[Edit] To clarify "worst imaginable implementation":
Remember Nihimon who I gather epitomises all that is right and holy in the pathfinder vision was happy to make newbies kill on sight...
As you have now editted your post let me quote the post I am referring to and my response to it here note the bolded part where you specifically call for them to be free kill
So you would like all new players to be flagged as enemies and prey? Ok fine by me if that is what you want but don't go complaining when people kill every newbie that dares stick their head out of the npc zoneUnfortunately, that appears as if it will be the case for awhile.I really hope the devs latch onto Urman's idea from another thread.
Maybe the game should take a lesson from the good people of the New Guinea: people (alts or mains) that have no company can be presumed to have no friends, and can be moved into the category of enemy or prey if they move outside NPC controlled areas. (editted: I'm halfway serious. I think alts in general are a blight; a way to bypass meaningful interaction and avoid consequences.)@Urman that's not a halfway bad idea. Remaining in an NPC Settlement is an indication that you don't want to be bound by the social norms of the rest of the game world. Maybe they shouldn't be bound to you either.
So...your merchants are affiliated-they have a settlement! But you said..ah, to hell with it. However, your settlement better behave or your mules will be excluded. I mean, they'll be easy to recognize; unaffiliated, unskilled bozos carrying more sacks than the Grinch Who Stole Christmas guarded...Why do you think we will have trouble unloading? We aren't likely to be excluding our own mules from our settlement nor are those mules likely to be excluded elsewhere as most claim to be going NRDSHis merchants are unaffiliated. Where do they unload?I imagine that his mules would hover at destination while his merchants unload them.When I mentioned settlements, companies and factions I was speaking of your merchants; but you don't have those, you have unskilled mules with backpacks guarded by venture companies who 'just' disband when they're feuded. Then they 'just' reform, no problem, right? Where are the mules going? To the bank?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.
Sigh which part are you having trouble understanding here merchant buys stock in town A and wants to move it to town B. Hands stock to unaffiliated alt who can not be sadded under your system who takes it to town B where he hands it back to the merchant.
Oh and if the settlement isnt letting in my mules they are unlikely to be letting in my merchants either face it your system does not work.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Nihimon: "worst imaginable implementation": Steelwing does that a lot.Pointing out flaws in suggestions is now somehow bad?
Your suggestion was born out of wanting to limit SAD's I merely pointed out how people would use that to limit SAD's even further so it would end up that most cargo was being transported by unaffiliated mules.
This is exactly what happens in EVE. We use freighters that are part of the NPC corporations purely to avoid war decs. This enables us to run them around more or less risk free as long as we provide escorts for the low sec and null sec parts of the route.
I am not the one arguing for changes here it is you so don't lay this worst possible implementation thing at my door. You came up with a solution that is highly exploitable that shows your lack of foresight it says nothing about what I am arguing for whatsoever
In your answer to me you directly stated that a guard company could disband to avoid a feud-just like that!-and reform. If such a thing were indeed possible that would be terrible implementation of a game mechanic on GW's part. I believe that disbanding a Company (did you think one can do it in the middle of combat?) will have a number of consequences that can't be ignored: loss of influence, loss of control of storage, loss of funds, perhaps reputation, etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...So...your merchants are affiliated-they have a settlement! But you said..ah, to hell with it. However, your settlement better behave or your mules will be excluded. I mean, they'll be easy to recognize; unaffiliated, unskilled bozos carrying more sacks than the GrinchWhy do you think we will have trouble unloading? We aren't likely to be excluding our own mules from our settlement nor are those mules likely to be excluded elsewhere as most claim to be going NRDSHis merchants are unaffiliated. Where do they unload?I imagine that his mules would hover at destination while his merchants unload them.When I mentioned settlements, companies and factions I was speaking of your merchants; but you don't have those, you have unskilled mules with backpacks guarded by venture companies who 'just' disband when they're feuded. Then they 'just' reform, no problem, right? Where are the mules going? To the bank?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.
Does the merchant pass the mule on the way to town B? So now your merchant is once again unaffiliated (you said you had a settlement), there's no longer an army of alts (face it, you're not that popular) and there are no guards (which makes sense, their company kept disbanding).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Does the merchant pass the mule on the way to town B? So now your merchant is once again unaffiliated (you said you had a settlement), there's no longer an army of alts (face it, you're not that popular) and there are no guards (which makes sense, their company kept disbanding).
I am confused by this and do not understand if you do not get the concept or if you are yanking Steelwing's chain.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My random musings about SAD:
The use of a successful SAD should receive reputation IF other archetypes also receive reputation for their class cornerstone skills. Otherwise, reputation should ONLY be gained over time by everyone.
Issuing a SAD should immediately flag the character and their party as hostile.
The amount a bandit can SAD for is dependent upon skill level. This could be up to a maximum of 20% (value pulled from thin air) per bandit character within the party that is fully trained. This would ensure more 'bandit' characters are used as opposed to other archetypes just waiting in the wings for the rejected SAD and an easy kill.
A SAD should never be allowed to exceed 75%.
If SAD is a feat-style thing that can be brought up, here's an additional suggestion: A minimum amount of coin/gear be set for the bandit by his SAD "level" or whatever. This can be voluntarily turned off if the bandit chooses. As long as the merchant has this much, nothing can keep the bandit from demanding it.
I'm tired, so I'm sure this theory will be shot so full of holes it'll look like the faulty cheese of the Swiss by morning. G'night!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... note the bolded part where you specifically call for them to be free kill...
Maybe I was giving you too much credit. Maybe you really don't see how removing the benefits of the Reputation system from the Characters who bypass it would be a death knell to your idea that "unaffiliated alts!" is the workaround to every system Ryan envisions to curb your behavior.
Or maybe you're just full of bluster and I'm giving you way too much credit...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... note the bolded part where you specifically call for them to be free kill...Maybe I was giving you too much credit. Maybe you really don't see how removing the benefits of the Reputation system from the Characters who bypass it would be a death knell to your idea that "unaffiliated alts!" is the workaround to every system Ryan envisions to curb your behavior.
Or maybe you're just full of bluster and I'm giving you way too much credit...
I think it is possible that if Ryan and crew see that the use of unaffiliated Alts is rising to the level that it undermines the push for characters to join PC companies and settlements, you may see an easing on the penalties for killing unaffiliated Alts.
The question boils down to, which is a higher priority, Pressure to Join Player Groupings or a Reputation System to control Player Action vs. Unsanctioned Targets.
I'm certain there will be plenty of tweaking during EE to strike the proper balance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd counsel against any impetus to relax the reputation constraints against killing new unaffiliated characters. The reasoning behind reputation mechanics is sound, even if some dislike regulation.
There are reasonable alternatives to increasing aggression toward possible unaffiliated alts. For example, increasing defensive benefits to the affiliated.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have not really followed the unaffiliated Alt discussion, but I take it these are characters that are bound to an NPC town and not in any company?
Maybe every new character that is made should first choose a PC settlement from a list, that he then affiliates with, before they enter the world. Settlements could be listed with a short description, and requirements(alignment). I realize this list will grow to be in the hundreds. The new character would still start in an NPC town, but is now affiliated to a PC settlement. Newbies can change their affiliation to another Settlement (or get evicted, see below) Company membership still not required. We could call this state, where a new player is both affiliated to a PC settlement and a NPC settlement, the "sponosored" state.
I guess this would put a great burden on Settlement-leaders to see which new players have entered their roster. Hopefully leaders get a member-roster that includes things like current rep of a member.
If these new players do not behave, and engage in dubious "alt-activities"(lowering their rep and thus the settlements rep)the leadership can evict them and they now become "Vagrants" including a nasty Vagrant debuff (30% speed debuff) and a persistant hostile flag.
The moment some Settlement picks up these Vagrants they get a new affiliation and lose the debuff and flag.
This way, players are either linked to a Settlement, or seriously disadvantaged.
Undoubtedly there could be many nasty scenarios, but timers/cooldowns could counter some of them.
When a settlement gets destroyed players may get some sort of Temporary vagrant status(not debuffed or hostile flagged), while affiliated with an NPC town. The game should be able to discern between these two events: a single player evicted from a live settlement, and a settlement disbanding, creating unaffiliated players (the temporary vagrants). These temporary vagrants(not debuffed or flagged) could cause concern(though much less likely) and such a temp status should be on a timer. Players are urged to choose a new affiliation, or create a new settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have not really followed the unaffiliated Alt discussion, but I take it these are characters that are bound to an NPC town and not in any company?
Not as it is used in this concern. Unaffiliated Alts are characters of convenience for High Reputation Main characters allowing projectedly consequence-free behavior. For example if a high rep main character needs to murder someone it is proposed that all the mechanics to prevent the high rep main from doing so do not affect apparently unaffiliated, unaligned alternate characters.
So these aren't really newbs but proxy characters.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thanks Being. Ah,so not necessary newbies, but still unaffiliated? I think no character in PFO should be unaffiliated to be honest. I figured that characters affiliated to an NPC town at some point are "pushed" out of that state and are required to affiliate with any PC-settlement.
If it is truly possible to have Alts that can not be traced down to a Settlement, then that is asking for trouble indeed.
Unless I am not understanding the word "affiliated", we are talking membership of an NPC or PC settlement here, are we? If not then my entire post does not make much sense at all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... I take it [unaffiliated Alts] are characters that are bound to an NPC town and not in any company?Unaffiliated Alts are characters of convenience for High Reputation Main characters allowing projectedly consequence-free behavior.
Both of those statements are true.
They're alts of ostensibly High Reputation Mains that are used to take actions that would reduce the Reputation of the Mains. They're "unaffiliated" - meaning not affiliated with any PC Settlement or Company - so that other PCs won't have a means of Feuding or Warring against them. So, they're doubly intended to sidestep the Reputation system.
My own expectation is that they won't be all that effective unless they're used in large numbers in cohesive units.
Obviously, it's important to differentiate between these Unaffiliated Alts and New Players, but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that New Players will largely stay in the New Player Zones, and I don't think it's unreasonable to expect New Players to learn that they are basically Outlaws in the rest of the map until they become affiliated with either a PC Company or Settlement.
I also think it's reasonable that the mere presence of these Outlaws should add some negligible Corruption to any Settlement Hex they're in.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thanks Being. Ah,so not necessary newbies, but still unaffiliated? I think no character in PFO should be unaffiliated to be honest. I figured that characters affiliated to an NPC town at some point are "pushed" out of that state and are required to affiliate with any PC-settlement.
I suspect that may be something like what will be effected. There are too many invulnerabilities afforded for the sake of the new player that could be gamed by those more interested in the bottom line than play.
Unless I am not understanding the word "affiliated", we are talking membership of an NPC or PC settlement here, are we? If not then my entire post does not make much sense at all.
In the sense I believe we are using, 'affiliation' means an organizational relationship with a player-run settlement that can be attacked. If a character belongs to a player settlement, then that player has something to lose. They have something invested that can be lost, so they have an interest in practicing self-control.
An NPC town cannot be attacked, so a player only affiliated to an NPC town essentially has very little to lose. The relatively flat power curve intended in the game means that even new characters, in sufficient numbers, could overcome an invested and experienced player at least in theory. So rat-packs of unaffiliated alts could wreak havoc despite all the mechanics in place to prevent 'meaningless' misbehavior. And by 'meaningless' misbehavior it appears we are really talking about 'consequence-free' misbehavior.
If I have an adequate handle on the matter, then that describes fairly what it is at issue.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thanks Nihimon. So a group of low-rep Alts may be used to raid a Caravan, and the spoils will then be handed over to their high-rep Mains.
A lot of this depends on how hard a low-rep character will suck, indeed organized numbers are a key-phrase here. In this aspect, my proposal may not make that much of a difference, since a low-rep settlement may be operated for this purpose only (I called them Grimeytowns btw).
However, the requirement for them to hole up in their own Grimeytown(as per my proposal), does open them up for War. So then we get to the old question of, how does settlement reputation behave in a kingdom, and will a declaration of war extend to all settlements in a Kingdom and such.
Even if a High rep settlement can not come to the rescue of its Grimeytown, you can wonder how long it will take to just found a new Grimeytown, funded off course by the High-rep settlements.
I just remember why I let some of these discussion go by! :)
... note the bolded part where you specifically call for them to be free kill...Maybe I was giving you too much credit. Maybe you really don't see how removing the benefits of the Reputation system from the Characters who bypass it would be a death knell to your idea that "unaffiliated alts!" is the workaround to every system Ryan envisions to curb your behavior.
Or maybe you're just full of bluster and I'm giving you way too much credit...
1) Unaffiliated alts still get rep hits and all the consequences that brings so they are not bypassing the mechanic
2) Dancey didn't see anything wrong with the use of unaffiliated alts
3) As I have pointed out to you on numerous occasions even if they made unaffiliated alts free kills outside the npc zones it is not going to change our strategy. The only time you will see are unaffiliated alts is when they are going to attack you. Making them attackable isn't really therefore a big deal frankly. The only people you will actually hurt with your sledgehammer to crack a nut solution is legitimate players who for one of a number of reasons aren't affiliated with a settlement. Whether that is because they are new players, people who have just lost their settlement or people who want nothing to do with the settlement part of the game. I fully expect 30% to 40% of the player base to be npc affiliated at any particular point. This is why GW will never implement this solution.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1) Unaffiliated alts still get rep hits and all the consequences that brings so they are not bypassing the mechanic
Characters who willfully embrace becoming Low Reputation are bypassing the Reputation system and should not receive the benefit of its protections.
2) Dancey didn't see anything wrong with the use of unaffiliated alts
3) As I have pointed out to you on numerous occasions even if they made unaffiliated alts free kills outside the npc zones it is not going to change our strategy.
Would it change your strategy if the presence of those unaffiliated alts in your Settlement Hex increased your Corruption?
The only people you will actually hurt with your sledgehammer to crack a nut solution is legitimate players who for one of a number of reasons aren't affiliated with a settlement.
It's understandable why you call it a sledgehammer, it probably looks like it's going to hurt quite a bit from your current vantage point. But in reality it's a simple extension of a bright-line principle: Characters who ignore the Reputation system (including by embracing being Low Reputation) should not receive its protections.
The only people you will actually hurt with your sledgehammer to crack a nut solution is legitimate players who for one of a number of reasons aren't affiliated with a settlement.It's understandable why you call it a sledgehammer, it probably looks like it's going to hurt quite a bit from your current vantage point. But in reality it's a simple extension of a bright-line principle: Characters who ignore the Reputation system (including by embracing being Low Reputation) should not receive its protections.
Nope not going to hurt me at all. As to the corruption which part did you miss of me saying we would be using them to enforce our control in hexes which don't mechanically belong to our settlement.
Eg if a settlement mechanically is considered to control the ring of hexes surrounding it then we would be using the alts to control the hexes in the next ring out where mechanically we cannot set laws to allow us to kill you.
There is nothing GW can do to stop people finding ways of achieving their goals. You would be better off trying to work out how to deal with that in game than suggesting half cocked mechanics which not only fail to address the problem that you intend it to but cause huge amounts of collateral damage while failing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think we are worried too much about the power of the unaffiliated alt.
These alts are not going to be a problem for the rest of us outside GW and the users of these alts per se. To us they will be another person.
If they are used to grief, report em.
This is a problem on the GW side as mentioned earlier. They need to find the perfect balance between alts and reputation as is their responsibility. We cannot control this other than to say "it is bad" "please do something GW" and then not do it ourselves.
@BrotherZael you should note when Dancey acknowledged that alts would be used in this way Nihimon has been misleading. While it is true Dancey stated they were a problem to be solved it was not because he disagreed with what they were being used for and he accepted until they find a way of setting it up the alts were the only way to achieve perfectly fine aims.
At some point in the future therefore we may see the need for these alts disappear but it will only be because they have found a way to let us do that function without using alts
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There is nothing GW can do to stop people finding ways of achieving their goals. You would be better off trying to work out how to deal with that in game than suggesting half cocked mechanics which not only fail to address the problem that you intend it to but cause huge amounts of collateral damage while failing.
The laws of unintended consequences seem to be as powerful in MMOs as the laws of physics are in meatspace. I'm not in favor of GWs leaving holes in the rules open and expecting us to fill said holes with alts. But there will be holes, and alts will be used.
This entire back and forth started when someone said just scrap SAD and rely on feuds, war, and factions. Someone else said nah, you don't want to do that, there's a whole class of characters that aren't subject to such things. That's pretty much true.
I think we need something like SAD, to allow robbery, but I think it needs to have limits to prevent it from being widely used as a murderers tool.
I think we need to have other mechanism similar to SAD used for other roles: someone like the old Enforcer really needs the ability to challenge a trespasser and force him out of a settlement controlled space - but with limits so it doesn't turn into a tool widely used by murderers.
I'm all for discouraging the use of alts, but it's awfully hard to discern between an alt and a new character. And anyway, fantasy fiction is full of grim warriors that fight for their masters without us understanding their motivations. Those alt-armies will fit right in.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... Nihimon has been misleading...
I'm not sure if I should apologize that you failed to follow me where I was going. I've been crystal clear that I think the game systems should absolutely support your ability to enforce your control of your Settlement Hex and some swath of neighboring Hexes without having to resort to alts to avoid inappropriate Reputation loss. I have absolutely zero problem with the game supporting NBSI, even if I personally find it exactly the kind of thing I'm eager to oppose in-game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
... Nihimon has been misleading...I'm not sure if I should apologize that you failed to follow me where I was going. I've been crystal clear that I think the game systems should absolutely support your ability to enforce your control of your Settlement Hex and some swath of neighboring Hexes without having to resort to alts to avoid inappropriate Reputation loss. I have absolutely zero problem with the game supporting NBSI, even if I personally find it exactly the kind of thing I'm eager to oppose in-game.
Rereading what you said I was wrong in describing your statement as misleading. My apologies as it does on a second reading say that it is the reason that requires the alts that needs solving
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1) Unaffiliated alts still get rep hits and all the consequences that brings so they are not bypassing the mechanicCharacters who willfully embrace becoming Low Reputation are bypassing the Reputation system and should not receive the benefit of its protections.
2) Dancey didn't see anything wrong with the use of unaffiliated alts3) As I have pointed out to you on numerous occasions even if they made unaffiliated alts free kills outside the npc zones it is not going to change our strategy.Would it change your strategy if the presence of those unaffiliated alts in your Settlement Hex increased your Corruption?
The only people you will actually hurt with your sledgehammer to crack a nut solution is legitimate players who for one of a number of reasons aren't affiliated with a settlement.It's understandable why you call it a sledgehammer, it probably looks like it's going to hurt quite a bit from your current vantage point. But in reality it's a simple extension of a bright-line principle: Characters who ignore the Reputation system (including by embracing being Low Reputation) should not receive its protections.
@ Nihimon,
I find a conceptual flaw in your view that a character that embraces low reputation is somehow circumventing it. If the Reputation System is meaningful, than it is also a meaningful choice to have a Low Reputation.
They already receive a diminished protection from the Reputation System as well as the other limitations that come with being low reputation.
You can't have it both ways. If High Reputation is meaningful, than so too is Low Reputation. Both are equal choices that support the system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe every new character that is made should first choose a PC settlement from a list, that he then affiliates with, before they enter the world. Settlements could be listed with a short description, and requirements(alignment). I realize this list will grow to be in the hundreds.
I would imagine this will be a very short list indeed. No sensible settlement (in the long view) is going to accept random joiners. Indeed even Dancey says new players should be looked upon with deep suspicion.
I fully expect successful settlements to be as picky as Eve alliances and as cautious about who they take on board. Allowing all and sundry to join is just asking for trouble.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rereading what you said I was wrong in describing your statement as misleading. My apologies as it does on a second reading say that it is the reason that requires the alts that needs solving... Nihimon has been misleading...
There are few things that impress me more than the willingness to publicly admit when you're wrong. It may not mean much to you, but my respect for you (which was not really very low) has grown considerably.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My understanding is that Stand and Deliver is intended to make Banditry a viable play style by creating situations where Bandits can steal from or even kill un-Flagged Characters without Reputation Loss. The ability to bypass Reputation Loss is extremely powerful, and therefore needs to be seriously constrained.
I think the only fair solution is to require Bandits to declare themselves as such to the game systems significantly prior to their Banditry. As a general rule, I don't think one Character should be able to bypass the Reputation System while at the same time enjoying its protections.
Going back to this early post: I think that fiction is full of stories of bandits masquerading as ordinary people up to the point the robbery commences. For that reason, I think that robbers shouldn't need to declare themselves until the moment of the robbery - that makes the ambush built in to the SAD action.
Making the bandits subject to PvP for a significant time after the robbery might have much of the same effect. After a robbery, the bandits can't easily approach other travelers because the countryside is aware of them, ambushes take time to set up and depend on guards being less wary, etc.
I think having a SAD putting a long timer PvP flag on all members of the bandit party would do a lot to dissuade people from using SAD for casual murder. By long term I mean at least as long as a criminal flag for a successful SAD, and multiples of a criminal flag if the SAD is refused and people are killed.
edit to add: making the timer longer for failed SAD which result in kills put some impetus on the bandits to avoid that consequence. Excessive demands will result in kills and longer PvP flags. Reasonable demands - while it may be satisfying for the merchant to put a longer flag on the bandit, just paying a reasonable demand still flags the bandit and you can get back to your merchanting game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What if SAD coins, instead of being an immediate transfer of funds, put the amount in a system-generated escrow account, and was then released to the bandit only after the merchant reached his destination?
1) Bandit steps out of woods to accost Merchant. Using the SAD skill and SAD interface, he issues a demand for X gold.
2) Merchant either accepts, or counteroffers with Y gold. This continues until a offer acceptable to both parties is reached, or until Bandit gets sick of haggling and attacks Merchant. (If he attacks, he gets all the normal align and rep penalties, same as if he ambushed without warning.)
3) Once the SAD offer is accepted, the coins are automatically removed from Merchant's account and put into an escrow. Bandit immediately gains rep for negotiating an accepted SAD offer.
So at stage 3, the Merchant has lost the money, but the Bandit hasn't gained it yet.
4) Merchant continues on his way... time passes and if he reaches his destination safely, he clicks "complete" in the SAD interface. At this point the escrow funds are transferred to Bandit's account, and Merchant gains rep for honoring his commitment to complete the transaction.
5) If Merchant doesn't complete the transaction, Bandit can go in the SAD interface and click "failed", this destroys the coins in the escrow account (no one gets them), and Bandit loses the rep he gained in step 3. Merchant loses rep for not completing the transaction.
I think this would give both the Bandit and the Merchant some incentive to agree to a reasonable SAD. If either side is unable to reach agreement, then Bandit can always just attack Merchant as if there was no SAD mechanic at all. The benefit to Merchant of accepting is that presumably the SAD amount is lower than he would lose if Bandit kills and loots him. The benefit to Bandit is that the SAD will give him +rep and no align hits compared to just attacking.
Once the SAD is accepted, Merchant can now deny Bandit the coins and rep gain by refusing to "complete" the SAD. This is his leverage to ensure that Bandit doesn't simply go ahead and attack, or even to convince Bandit to now provide safe passage or guard against a third party. However, Merchant can never get those coins back, and if he refuses to release the funds out of spite, he's going to take a rep loss.
Worst case for Bandit is that he wasted time and effort to cost Merchant coins and rep, while gaining nothing.
Worst case for Merchant is that a Bandit fails the SAD immediately after it is accepted, attacks and loots the Merchant anyway. If this happens, the Merchant has lost coins and rep for the SAD, as well as being killed and looted. Merchant learns not to accept SAD offers from that group or person.
The key here is that a refused SAD offer never removes the rep penalties for Bandit attacking Merchant.
If the SAD is correctly completed by both sides, they both get a large benefit: coins and +rep for Bandit, reduced loss and +rep for Merchant.
If either side breaks the agreement, they both end up worse off then their best case scenario: successful ambush and full loot for Bandit vs an uneventful trip with no Bandit encounter for Merchant.
From a coding / development standpoint, creating the escrow account and interface would be some initial work, but the system could then be adapted to other transactions such as transport contracts, contract killings, bounties, etc.
The loophole that would have to be closed is two people using the SAD system to boost rep for both by continually offering, accepting and completing SADs. Some ideas to curtail this: Limit frequency of SADs? Have the escrow system take a percentage of the coins off to top, and link the amount of rep gain to the amount of coins transferred? This could let someone essentially "buy" rep if they are willing to lose the coins. Needs some more thinking to limit or stop that. (unless we are okay with converting coins to rep)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nothing of this is targeted toward recent posters, as the context is all throughout this thread:
I am still pretty sure that as long as "coin" is not an in-game object, we should try and train our thoughts away from it being a primary reward for the SAD. At least as much as we can. Perhaps it will be a possible part or option or perhaps not.
It seems important to me that what you risk losing should be what you take into a situation like that. Your goods and/or unthreaded items. Nothing more.
Part of the justification and selling point for SAD was that it would eliminate goods and items from the system. This was supposed to make it great, because it would encourage a brisk economy of risk to the goods and scarcity.
What happened to that?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Part of the justification and selling point for SAD was that it would eliminate goods and items from the system. This was supposed to make it great, because it would encourage a brisk economy of risk to the goods and scarcity.
What happened to that?
I think that was only ever a talking point, something people threw in to discussions. The reality was the stolen goods would remain in the economy and be sold in market, just by the robber rather than the traveler (or the robber would use them, decreasing the demand for goods from the economy. Same-same). So that point didn't hold up under examination. Maybe it finally died.