Stand and Deliver Discussion


Pathfinder Online

1,501 to 1,550 of 1,727 << first < prev | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Broken_Sextant wrote:
Jiminy wrote:
Secondly, as soon as you slot the S&D skill, you gain the criminal flag which makes you a legitimate target for everyone in the game.
Is this confirmed?

No, you actually have to initiate the SAD demand, but it is still a major consequence to be criminal flagged and open to attack by anyone willing to intercede.

However, being in a faction at level 4+ with that faction will open you up to attack! anytime and anywhere by your level 4+ faction enemies.

So if SADs and Caravans were attached to level 4+ of faction, then these opponents will be able to conduct their roles without reputation consequences.

I haven't read from any players looking to use SADs to complain about their skill being tied to a faction. Is that the same for merchants if caravans were tied to faction?

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Broken_Sextant wrote:
Jiminy wrote:
Secondly, as soon as you slot the S&D skill, you gain the criminal flag which makes you a legitimate target for everyone in the game.
Is this confirmed?

No, you actually have to initiate the SAD demand, but it is still a major consequence to be criminal flagged and open to attack by anyone willing to intercede.

However, being in a faction at level 4+ with that faction will open you up to attack! anytime and anywhere by your level 4+ faction enemies.

So if SADs and Caravans were attached to level 4+ of faction, then these opponents will be able to conduct their roles without reputation consequences.

I haven't read from any players looking to use SADs to complain about their skill being tied to a faction. Is that the same for merchants if caravans were tied to faction?

How exactly is that a "major consequence" ? Worst case scenario you get killed, however since you are initiating the conflict you will be prepared for that and won't be carrying anything that's a big deal to lose. And how often are people going to "intercede"...it's not like the world is a tiny fish bowl and there will be groups riding by every 10 seconds. It's entirely likely that most encounters will be over before anybody else happens upon the location. And how long does the criminal flag last anyway....10 or 15 minutes I think it was? Again, not exactly a big deal. Barely even a minor inconvenience.

It seems you basically risk nothing. All the risk is on the merchants/victims.
Where are you getting this level 4+ stuff from?

Goblin Squad Member

Broken_Sextant wrote:
Where are you getting this level 4+ stuff from?

Level 4+ in faction unlocks the faction warfare status, making you eligible time attack or be attacked by faction enemies "for the cause".

Question: what would you propose the risk for merchant / caravans be?

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Broken_Sextant wrote:
Where are you getting this level 4+ stuff from?
Level 4+ in faction unlocks the faction warfare status, making you eligible time attack or be attacked by faction enemies "for the cause".

Ah, I see. In that case, it seems to me that that should be one of the consequences of being a bandit group. People don't like bandits. It makes sense that you would make a lot of enemies and probably have to deal with good aligned groups who want to hunt you down.

Quote:


Question: what would you propose the risk for merchant / caravans be?

Isn't their risk obvious? They are open to attacks/SAD from groups such as yourself

Goblin Squad Member

Broken_Sextant wrote:
Jiminy wrote:
Secondly, as soon as you slot the S&D skill, you gain the criminal flag which makes you a legitimate target for everyone in the game.
Is this confirmed?

Apologies, as Bludd stated, a character only receives the criminal flag when they activate a S&D.

I was getting myself confused because of the 'if you don't ultimately issue the S&D' path from Stephen's quote below. I was taking issue to mean activate.

Stephen Cheney wrote:
Activating it, even if you don't ultimately issue the S&D, is always a Crime (i.e., no "he was just lookin'"; assessing a target as to whether he's worth robbing isn't fair just because you decided he didn't have anything you wanted to steal).

Goblin Squad Member

Broken_Sextant wrote:
Quote:


Question: what would you propose the risk for merchant / caravans be?
Isn't their risk obvious? They are open to attacks/SAD from groups such as yourself

But, some people have been arguing against the SAD skill, and against merchants vs. bandits being a faction conflict.

If the only non reputation loss methods of attacking merchant caravans is through feud or war, then merchants will use unaffiliated alts as their haulers.

As I have shown, using the rough numbers of reputation loss, an attack comprised of 6 vs. 6 will result in a loss of reputation of between - 4200 to -4800 per attack, for everyone in the attacker's party. Attack two caravans, one per day, and every bandit will be stuck at -7500 in just two days and remain at low rep for months ( if they do not attack anyone again for that time).

So far there has not been one suggestion on how to remove the incentive for merchant / caravans to opt out through the use of alts.

It also creates the incentive for bandit companies to use low rep alts to do their attacks outside of SADs, feuds, faction or wars.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Broken_Sextant wrote:
Quote:


Question: what would you propose the risk for merchant / caravans be?
Isn't their risk obvious? They are open to attacks/SAD from groups such as yourself

But, some people have been arguing against the SAD skill, and against merchants vs. bandits being a faction conflict.

If the only non reputation loss methods of attacking merchant caravans is through feud or war, then merchants will use unaffiliated alts as their haulers.

As I have shown, using the rough numbers of reputation loss, an attack comprised of 6 vs. 6 will result in a loss of reputation of between - 4200 to -4800 per attack, for everyone in the attacker's party. Attack two caravans, one per day, and every bandit will be stuck at -7500 in just two days and remain at low rep for months ( if they do not attack anyone again for that time).

So far there has not been one suggestion on how to remove the incentive for merchant / caravans to opt out through the use of alts.

It also creates the incentive for bandit companies to use low rep alts to do their attacks outside of SADs, feuds, faction or wars.

So you're concerned that, as a bandit, you'll have a low reputation? I guess I'm not seeing why this shouldn't be the case. People don't like bandits. I don't see how using low-rep alts to carry out attacks accomplishes much...what exactly do your bandit "mains" do if they don't act as bandits?

I don't understand the desire to both be a bandit, and have a good reputation. You are, after all, threatening to murder people if they don't give you their stuff. What am I missing here?

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Broken_Sextant wrote:
I don't understand the desire to both be a bandit, and have a good reputation. You are, after all, threatening to murder people if they don't give you their stuff. What am I missing here?

Robin Hood

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Robin Hood only attacked low Rep targets, so his Rep losses were minimal.

The Merry Men? Those were his 20+ alts that he used on high Rep targets.

Goblin Squad Member

CBDunkerson wrote:
Broken_Sextant wrote:
I don't understand the desire to both be a bandit, and have a good reputation. You are, after all, threatening to murder people if they don't give you their stuff. What am I missing here?
Robin Hood

Uh huh. I'm curious how many bandits actually want to be bandits for altruistic reasons. Probably pretty close to 0% in game I would wager. It isn't particularly relevant anyway. I could go try and rob a bank with the intention of giving away all the money to the poor, but I'm still going to jail because robbing banks is not acceptable behavior in society. Period.

That said, if they really wanted to make robin hood scenarios possible, I'm sure they could do so without giving all bandits the ability to avoid reputation loss despite threatening to murder people, actually murdering people, and robbing people.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What you are missing is the point to the Reputation mechanic. It's not a measure of how likeable a chum you are, it's a measure of whether you are playing in the proper playstyles that Goblinworks wants you to play in. Goblinworks wants to have bandit-merchant interactions in their game; they and I feel that taking out bandits detracts from the game rather than adds to it. That's why bandits shouldn't be penalized for doing what bandits do.

-Totally different topic now-

Earlier you made a comment along the lines of "Why would people do a boring job like caravan guarding? Won't there be many more bandits because that is more fun?" My answer to that is that yes, especially initially, I myself expect a lot of players to try their hands at banditry. I expect a lot of those players to fall off in effectiveness because they don't play by the rules, so that the number of bandits you actually have to worry about goes down with time (or at least the ratio of scary bandits-to-caravans goes down). Furthermore the system is self-correcting in that if there are too many bandits than the profit each bandit can expect to make goes down, and some of the bandits go to pursue other tasks which are more profitable (for example, outpost raiding).

So now I suppose the issue is how do we convince people to guard our caravans. Besides the fact that there are a significant number of people who like to play this type of PvP (where they can feel constructive by protecting their friends rather than always destructive by killing people and taking stuff), I do realise that there will be more voluntary bandits than merchant guards. That's supposed to happen, due to the nature of how the two types of groups work, otherwise the caravans would never run into threatening bandit groups. Still, if you think you're guard numbers are too skimpy... chat up your allies, or neutral mercenary companies looking for work. Drop some healthy coin on your settlement's guards and other hired guards to keep them coming back.

Goblin Squad Member

Broken_Sextant wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Broken_Sextant wrote:
I don't understand the desire to both be a bandit, and have a good reputation. You are, after all, threatening to murder people if they don't give you their stuff. What am I missing here?
Robin Hood

Uh huh. I'm curious how many bandits actually want to be bandits for altruistic reasons. Probably pretty close to 0% in game I would wager. It isn't particularly relevant anyway. I could go try and rob a bank with the intention of giving away all the money to the poor, but I'm still going to jail because robbing banks is not acceptable behavior in society. Period.

That said, if they really wanted to make robin hood scenarios possible, I'm sure they could do so without giving all bandits the ability to avoid reputation loss despite threatening to murder people, actually murdering people, and robbing people.

You do understand that this is an Open World Sandbox PVP MMO, correct?

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Broken_Sextant wrote:
Uh huh. I'm curious how many bandits actually want to be bandits for altruistic reasons. Probably pretty close to 0% in game I would wager.

Well, let's see... one of the in game factions is going to be the Bellflower Network. Which works to free slaves. Slaves are property... so taking them away from their owner's by force is banditry... for altruistic reasons. I'm sure they wouldn't have any qualms about taking money away from Hellknights either. Yes, they'd be criminals... to the Hellknights. To those they freed they're heroes.

In any case, there is going to be an entire in game faction dedicated to doing the thing you wagered near 0% would do. I'm thinking you're gonna lose that bet. :]

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Speaking of altruistic bandits. Wasn't there a mechanic that was supposed to allow people to "donate" reputation, the same way it could be used to lower someone's reputation at the cost of your own? In that case the "Robin Hood" type bandit could still hold merit. I mean, if you steal something and loose rep, but then give away some of those stolen goods to needy people or a poor settlement who reward your selfless ways by donating some of their rep to you?

I think it might work. Or maybe I'm just being daft. ^^

Goblin Squad Member

Another thing that us being over looked is that settlements will use banditry to not only get the resources they need for themselves, but also deny those resources from their rivals.

Bandits can be many things:

They can be cutthroats, out for themselves and willing to kill anyone who refuses to give up what they have.

They can be can be privateers, working exclusively for their settlement and taking from feud and war targets.

They can be mercenaries, hired to attack a rival's supply lines, but secretly so as not to cause a feud or war.

They can be Chaotuc Good, and direct their robberies against Evil aligned companies, settlements or others engaged in Slavery or Smuggling.

They can be like customs agents, interdicting all traffic in and out of their settlement's lands, seeking contraband or collecting tolls.

This is partly why the act of robbery in the River Kingdoms is not considered an evil act. It is certainly chaotic, but also neutral on the good vs evil spectrum.

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Shane Gifford wrote:
What you are missing is the point to the Reputation mechanic. It's not a measure of how likeable a chum you are, it's a measure of whether you are playing in the proper playstyles that Goblinworks wants you to play in.

I'm not sure where this is coming from, and would very much appreciate a link to a dev quote that says anything about Reputation being tied to "how well you play your role". On the other hand, I've seen several statements along these lines, that indicate Reputation really is more about how much other players enjoy playing with you.

Also, while actions that lose Reputation are related to actions that reduce alignment, they're not locked to one another. It should be possible to go all the way Chaotic Evil while still maintaining a high Reputation. You'd have to be fun to game with (so other players give you a Reputation salute more often than a rebuke) and try to focus most of your PvP attention on low-Rep targets. Challenging people to "stand and deliver" and pay a toll* rather than jumping them without warning is probably a good way to maintain that (so if you do kill them, they're less likely to feel it was unfair), and there may be others. If you gathered enough players doing that, you could put together a highly functional CE settlement as well.

And just because I stumbled upon it while researching this post, I'd like to point out something else:

At the end of the day, if you're killing other players that are uninterested in PvP for no benefit, we want to make the costs significant enough to convince you to do something else, as that's the kind of thing that drives players away. However, if they know they have something valuable and fighting or fleeing from you is the price of profit, suddenly it's worthwhile for everyone. And those opportunities should be worth risking the consequences.

Yes, PFO is a PvP game. There will be lots of PvP, and being "uninterested" in it won't stop it from happening to you, nor should it. But there is a very specific (if small) subset of PvP that is really annoying and I'm really glad that Goblinworks has identified minimizing that type of PvP as an important design goal.

It may only be a 2% reduction in overall PvP, but it might well be more like an 80% reduction in the number of players who quit because they don't care to be slaughtered in meaningless, random PvP over and over by everyone they meet. And yes, those numbers are completely made up, but that gives you a sense of the scale of my imagining of the problem, which might explain why such a minor detail is so important to me personally.

Goblin Squad Member

Vaienna wrote:

Speaking of altruistic bandits. Wasn't there a mechanic that was supposed to allow people to "donate" reputation, the same way it could be used to lower someone's reputation at the cost of your own? In that case the "Robin Hood" type bandit could still hold merit. I mean, if you steal something and loose rep, but then give away some of those stolen goods to needy people or a poor settlement who reward your selfless ways by donating some of their rep to you?

I think it might work. Or maybe I'm just being daft. ^^

Originally that was mentioned, but it is highly exploitable.

Goblin Squad Member

Dev Blog wrote:
if you're killing other players that are uninterested in PvP for no benefit"

I have not seen anyone (in close to a year) on these boards ever suggest that they want to PvP against anyone for a purpose that would not be beneficial to themselves, their company, settlement, faction or the game as a whole.

Psycho Monk was perhaps the first and only that I can recall, and he was looking to Awox, but that is often a benefit for oneself.

Goblin Squad Member

Although there are random individuals that suggest they want PvP for no stated reason.

Debrio wrote:
I will take great pleasure in killing you all. How do you know what good is?

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Dev Blog wrote:
if you're killing other players that are uninterested in PvP for no benefit"
I have not seen anyone (in close to a year) on these boards ever suggest that they want to PvP against anyone for a purpose that would not be beneficial to themselves, their company, settlement, faction or the game as a whole.

Sure. It's just that some folks seems to think "learning how to kill newbs" (or some other equally specious rationale) is a "benefit".

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Dev Blog wrote:
if you're killing other players that are uninterested in PvP for no benefit"
I have not seen anyone (in close to a year) on these boards ever suggest that they want to PvP against anyone for a purpose that would not be beneficial to themselves, their company, settlement, faction or the game as a whole.
Sure. It's just that some folks seems to think "learning how to kill newbs" (or some other equally specious rationale) is a "benefit".

To my recollection, I have not seen anyone specifically target noobs. The NPC Settlement hexes, along with its NPC Wardens (Fast and Invincible Responders) will provide complete protection to New Players. New Players can't even be looted after the kill, because a criminal flag in the NPC Settlement hexes will bring the same NPC Warden response (No Suicide Gank).

The concern for New Players borders on a specious argument in light of what GW has already stated. It is also an overblown issue in many other MMOs, bordering on a mythology created by players who do not agree with risks created by non consensual PvP.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The specific benefit discussed in the past was the "public service" of teaching new players that they are targets.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
The concern for New Players borders on a specious argument...

Please note that I wasn't suggesting the game should "protect newbs". I merely referenced "newbs" in an example of the kinds of arguments I've heard folks make about why it's meaningful whenever they kill anyone.

Bluddwolf wrote:
... It is also an overblown issue in many other MMOs, bordering on a mythology created by players who do not agree with risks created by non consensual PvP.

Your insistence that this is the case is a clear indication that you don't understand the problem, as if another such indication were needed...

There are a lot of folks who want to play any PvP game like it's Halo, where the whole game is about killing everyone who's not on your team. There are also a lot of folks who want to play a game with lots and lots of meaningful PvP, but don't want to have to endure a lot of petty, random, meaningless PvP to get to it. Count me in that second group.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
The specific benefit discussed in the past was the "public service" of teaching new players that they are targets.

No, that was not the case. Players new to an open world PvP MMO benefit from having it explained to them that there are dangers involved in not being wary or taking reasonable precautions when traveling. It was never said that they would be specifically targeted., certainly not while in the NPC Settlement Hexes.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddolf wrote:
Bringlite, you have still not proposed a solution for the merchant that opts out.

All speculation, so bear with this. I will just mention a few things instead of a bunch, let your imagination run with more if it interests you. :P

What would make the merchant, gatherer, traveler suck if they "opt" out of faction affiliation? Factions and possibly Companies are all that they can choose for "opting" out of. They are still targets for war, well rep managing killers, poor rep managing killers, and a S&D via /tell.

S&D Via /tell: Bandits hunt in groups of more than one. (assumption) Unaffiliated targets have zero reason to group or guard themselves. If they did, they might as well be in the Faction. In a randomly pulled scenario, how many times will 1 gatherer(unaffiliated) escape 3 bandits? They stop him with "blind" (I still like blind, but it should be a faction skill) they "/tell" him: 'you have 30 secs to put "x" in this trade window' Player must choose to pay or possibly die and lose all. I am guessing that at this point he will be thinking more about his: 1. goodies, 2. time and 3. *life* (gear damage) than the bandits' reputation. When it comes to "rep suicide bombers", I will bet they will be few. The bandit can always choose to not attack. The target will usually choose to pay. Yet there will be more meaningful choices all around.

Why not opt out? Just some quick ideas:

*No fast travel.
*No caravans for merchants.
*Less "market listing spaces" for merchants.
*No "pack trains or mules" for gatherers.
*No bonus to gathering, personal encumbrance, ...
*No special faction tools.
*Less general storage.
*Can't create contracts.
*Higher market listing fee "taxes".
*Some "undisclosed" skills, buffs, debuffs, etc... only available at certain faction levels.

To work well, "opting out" of Factions would need to be pretty much of a self handicap. It would not let you "opt out" of danger or PVP. Yes, bandits that choose those targets will sometimes wind up with medium or low rep. That will be because they "choose" to attack refused S&D /tell targets. There should be plenty of faction targets for faction bandits. Bandits that "opt out" of faction will just have to suck as bad as their targets that do so too.

Think about what the small percentage of players that just want to hassle and maybe kill others for fun will do... If there is a S&D mechanic that gets them around consequences, they will use it to make this game an FFA PVP game without consequences for themselves.

I fully admit that with so few details, about any of this, it is all speculative. All of these numbers and scenarios are also purely on the fly. I don't think that alone (without more info) they can be used to great purpose. Just use the general ideas that they imply.

Goblin Squad Member

I guess that my biggest question is: If you are designing/allowing so many ways to avoid consequences, why bother designing consequences at all?

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure why "opting out" is considered such a crime and why bandits need to be protected from the goodie goodies.

Goblin Squad Member

Drakhan Valane wrote:
I'm not sure why "opting out" is considered such a crime and why bandits need to be protected from the goodie goodies.

My point of view is that they don't. Certainly not as much as has been hinted at. It may be a play style for a small percentage, but is definitely not widely popular with the masses. If the game is FULL of bandits, we have a problem Houston...

There probably should be bandits and the danger that they bring to "the game", but there is no reason that they should have it easy. Not if GW wants a subscriber base above some of these other games that lack players.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
I guess that my biggest question is: If you are designing/allowing so many ways to avoid consequences, why bother designing consequences at all?

A really good question. As you perhaps could gather from my earlier post/suggestion, I'm not of the belief that bandits "need" anything to avoid the rep loss. It comes with the job I'd say. Same as being a merchant carries the risk you might become the target of bandits.

I believe that any S&D mechanic should be more of an assurance to the person who pay the required money, that said bandit will not just murder him anyway. Such a mechanic will just happen to also benefit the bandits, as people might be more likely to pay up.

That's what I think anyway.

Goblin Squad Member

The opt out hauler alt is designed to not be concerned with the benefits from any of the things that come along with joining company, settlement, faction, etc. They serve one purpose, to avoid being a feud, faction or war target. Once they get to the settlement, they transfer all goods to the merchant character.

The only two ways to counter their use, is the SAD or low rep alts to attack and kill them. The SAD via chat window is not necessary when using low rep alts, they will just attack and kill any unaffiliated caravan. The SAD via chat window will likely not work for the main character, because that unaffiliated hauler alt probably has specific instructions to turn down any SAD. It benefits merchants more for bandits to take rep hits than it does for them to complete every delivery.

Instead of your arguments leading towards more meaningful interactions between main characters, you are reenforcing the use of alts to circumvent virtually all of the systems.

In EvE we use a system to support low sec pirates with a high sec corporation. It's a good system, but I thought the desire for PFO was for it to be different.

Goblin Squad Member

@ Bluddwolf

How can a hauler opt out of war?

What good is an unaffiliated hauler that can't carry much more than what a brand new character can? Can't avoid detection. Can't form a caravan. Can't fast travel...

Low rep alts, for getting around consequences, are one of the major flaws. When the door is open for them, the system becomes meaningless. Unless they are of little value vs. PVP skilled defenders.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
I guess that my biggest question is: If you are designing/allowing so many ways to avoid consequences, why bother designing consequences at all?

and

Bringslight wrote:
Think about what the small percentage of players that just want to hassle and maybe kill others for fun will do... If there is a S&D mechanic that gets them around consequences, they will use it to make this game an FFA PVP game without consequences for themselves.

Well, if that small percentage of players will turn to low-Rep alts (or mains) every time their goals otherwise get frustrated, there's certainly an argument for skipping ever so many steps and just going to the space where low-Rep characters are the bandits.

Or from a development-during-EE viewpoint, maybe it makes sense to see how much impact that small fraction of players has with their alts before adding more PvP into the mix with fully supported S&D in addition to /tell S&D.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Which is worse? Opt-out-hauler alt or monster-in-the-basement alt?

Goblin Squad Member

I think the hauler alts will encourage killer alts, but I think we'll always have killer alts. They'll be used for lots of things besides banditry.

(added to explain:) Yes, we'll be able to spend Influence to get into feuds and DI to get into wars. But we sometimes/usually/almost always won't have enough Influence and DI to enter every combat we might wish - that's what forces/encourages us to keep our combat meaningful. People will get around the Influence and DI limits with additional characters.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am not sure what GW can do to counter the person that is willing to have/pay for a low rep "monster in the basement". Except make them suck at PVP (no training available), make them pay when they want to play, and if they are used "against" the system that GW wants - boot them.

Goblin Squad Member

Vaienna wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
I guess that my biggest question is: If you are designing/allowing so many ways to avoid consequences, why bother designing consequences at all?

A really good question. As you perhaps could gather from my earlier post/suggestion, I'm not of the belief that bandits "need" anything to avoid the rep loss. It comes with the job I'd say. Same as being a merchant carries the risk you might become the target of bandits.

I believe that any S&D mechanic should be more of an assurance to the person who pay the required money, that said bandit will not just murder him anyway. Such a mechanic will just happen to also benefit the bandits, as people might be more likely to pay up.

That's what I think anyway.

Being Chaotic in alignment comes with the job. Chaotic Evil if they kill a lot.

Being Criminal Flagged comes with the job.
Being hunted by guards or bounty hunters comes with the job.

Being gimped through the reputation system does not.

I get that some of you want merchant caravans to go untouched by non consensual PvP. I'm sure that when the time comes and you are either feuded or war dec'd, some of you will switch to alts rather than risk loss.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bringslite wrote:
I am not sure what GW can do to counter the person that is willing to have/pay for a low rep "monster in the basement". Except make them suck at PVP (no training available), make them pay when they want to play, and if they are used "against" the system that GW wants - boot them.

And with all of that - such characters will have some impact. I think GW is wise to figure out how much impact before they proceed with S&D.

If 3% of the characters are low rep (mains or alts - the game doesn't discern) and that 3% introduces enough mayhem to force us to group up and armor up, then the mission may be accomplished without adding mechanical S&D.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If there are few bandits (because it is a tough racket) there will be many fat, factioned merchants that take chances. The cost for fast travel and forming/crafting/Influencing caravans (whatever those may be) could easily encourage profit mongers to go "guard light".

If there are TONS of bandits (because it is easy and totally consequence free: S&D), the system will spiral into uselessness.

Why go to all the trouble when you have a small team and limited budget to make a game?

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
I get that some of you want merchant caravans to go untouched by non consensual PvP.

Har!

#Winning

Goblin Squad Member

@ Bluddwolf

Criminal flag: I am curious. Why do you "seem" to suggest that death is any more inconvenient for bandits than it is for anyone else? That is, if you are even tracked down before your timer expires?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:

Being Chaotic in alignment comes with the job [of being a Bandit]. Chaotic Evil if they kill a lot.

Being Criminal Flagged comes with the job.
Being hunted by guards or bounty hunters comes with the job.

Being gimped through the reputation system does not.

I'm actually in favor of game mechanics that allow Bandits to ply their trade without trashing their Reputation, but it's not like the alternative would be unplayable. I always felt like the choice of whether to knock over a fat merchant and steal his stuff was one of those meaningful choices that PFO was all about. I have to admit I'd be inclined to take the Rep hit every once in a while if the payoff was large enough. In fact, I expect there will be a number of opportunistic bandits (lower-case "b") who don't actually build their characters to optimize Banditry, and who just occasionally take the Rep hit to reap a huge reward.

That said, "dealing with a crappy reputation" doesn't necessarily equate to being "gimped" as a Bandit. You might be "gimped" in other ways that none of us really understands yet, but it probably won't make you ineffective as a dedicated Bandit.

Being a highwayman is hard freakin' work. That's why there's not a lot of them. Always on the run, hunted by those who seek rewards, dealing with a crappy reputation; this is the life you choose.
Members of NPC Settlements will be able to train and use exotic character abilities linked to maximizing banditry operations.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:

If there are few bandits (because it is a tough racket) there will be many fat, factioned merchants that take chances. The cost for fast travel and forming/crafting/Influencing caravans (whatever those may be) could easily encourage profit mongers to go "guard light".

If there are TONS of bandits (because it is easy and totally consequence free: S&D), the system will spiral into uselessness.

Why go to all the trouble when you have a small team and limited budget to make a game?

You keep on saying that caravans will be attached to factions. I know I had suggested it, but that has not been stated by a Dev. But let us assume that it is,

I'm a merchant I choose not to join the faction. It now takes me twice as long to haul my goods, but I have no risk from faction enemies.

I'm in a company, and it falls under a feud or my settlement under war. I use my alt hauler to move my goods to avoid being a feud target, or even a war target as well.

To answer Drakhan's question, I think hauler alts and monsters in the basement are both equally bad. Even though alt haulers are avoiding more systems than the MIB.

@Bringslite, MIBs will have the same access to skills / training as any other starting character.

A settlement will arise that caters to lower rep characters, simple supply and demand. The amount of suck will have to be measured against numbers. In all cases so far, numbers wins the day, it is just simple mathematics. GW can try to mitigate numbers, but then they throw out their more level power curve, and veterans will be much more powerful than new players.

Like many things, can't have it both ways.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
some of you will switch to alts rather than risk loss.

Says the advocate for the use of "monsters in the basement".

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
To answer Drakhan's question, I think hauler alts and monsters in the basement are both equally bad. Even though alt haulers are avoiding more systems than the MIB.

I strongly disagree. Those poor, victimized monsters-in-the-basement are far more likely to cause grief and directly affect a player's experience. Those vile and loathed caravaners . . . not so much.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

Being Chaotic in alignment comes with the job [of being a Bandit]. Chaotic Evil if they kill a lot.

Being Criminal Flagged comes with the job.
Being hunted by guards or bounty hunters comes with the job.

Being gimped through the reputation system does not.

I'm actually in favor of game mechanics that allow Bandits to ply their trade without trashing their Reputation, but it's not like the alternative would be unplayable. I always felt like the choice of whether to knock over a fat merchant and steal his stuff was one of those meaningful choices that PFO was all about. I have to admit I'd be inclined to take the Rep hit every once in a while if the payoff was large enough. In fact, I expect there will be a number of opportunistic bandits (lower-case "b") who don't actually build their characters to optimize Banditry, and who just occasionally take the Rep hit to reap a huge reward.

That said, "dealing with a crappy reputation" doesn't necessarily equate to being "gimped" as a Bandit. You might be "gimped" in other ways that none of us really understands yet, but it probably won't make you ineffective as a dedicated Bandit.

Being a highwayman is hard freakin' work. That's why there's not a lot of them. Always on the run, hunted by those who seek rewards, dealing with a crappy reputation; this is the life you choose.
Members of NPC Settlements will be able to train and use exotic character abilities linked to maximizing banditry operations.

These two points are new to me, and some how I missed the Dancey quote. If both hold true, then why would a dedicated bandit use SAD, other than as a show of mercy?

What I got from the Devs, the purpose of the SAD was to make the option not to kill a viable option. Whether it is an alignment consideration, a role playing consideration or a "PFO is not a murder sim" consideration, makes little difference. I believe they are all valid.

Even if I can be as effective a bandit with a low reputation vs a high reputation, I would still prefer conducting banditry in a reputation neutral or positive manner.

Goblin Squad Member

Forencith wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
some of you will switch to alts rather than risk loss.
Says the advocate for the use of "monsters in the basement".

Actually if you read what I have been writing more carefully, you would understand I'm not advocating their use. I'm saying that they will be used in response to other equally undesired actions.

@Drakhan,

Tell that to the merchant that has to compete against the merchant that is dodging all of the systems designed to add risk.

I suspect many of you may be thinking that the economic warfare is going to be limited to merchant vs, banditry. We bandits might be more brazenly vocal, but I know of groups (pretty large ones) that will be very involved in the land rush and will try to corner the market on a number of sky metal sites that are within "their region". I'm sure many companies are having their secret talks.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
You keep on saying that caravans will be attached to factions. I know I had suggested it, but that has not been stated by a Dev. But let us assume that it is,

You do me a disservice there, Sir. I KEEP saying that it is speculation (on my and other's part) of what could be a solution.

Perhaps there could be faction/feud/war actions to cover consensual PVP (you sign up for the possibility when you join) and there could be consequences for non consensual PVP. It would still be possible, but would have some drawbacks. That is meaningful. IMO, anything that minimizes work/effort, but maximizes goals/vision is the best route.

Bluddwolf wrote:
Even if I can be as effective a bandit with a low reputation vs a high reputation, I would still prefer conducting banditry in a reputation neutral or positive manner.

How does a /tell S&D prohibit that? I get that you enjoy being a bandit. I can accept that in the game that I play. Why though, should it be "easy street" (just like in other games) if this game is supposed to be different?

What/where/when will there be consequences? Killing and robbing should be in the game. If done within the "best circumstances" it should not penalize. Outside of those, there should be consequences. What else is the whole system for?[

Edit: Actually, I do not feel that robbing without killing should have ANY reputation consequences. Just wanted to clear up that up as it could be misunderstood. :)

Goblin Squad Member

@Bringslite

I already explained the reasons why the / Sad would be ineffective.

Why /SAD won't work

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

@Bringslite

I already explained the reasons why the / Sad would be ineffective.

Why /SAD won't work

It won't be as good if a non faction hauler is as effective as a faction hauler. At least I agree with that.

I still don't see why that non faction hauler can't be stopped/surrounded/cut off and issued a demand to pay or die.

Goblin Squad Member

@ Bluddwolf

Is it a concern to you that there will be some percentage that choose to refuse and you will have to make the choice to kill and maybe lose reputation if you want their stuff?

1,501 to 1,550 of 1,727 << first < prev | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Stand and Deliver Discussion All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.