Stand and Deliver Discussion


Pathfinder Online

1,551 to 1,600 of 1,727 << first < prev | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | next > last >>
Goblinworks Executive Founder

Scenario: A new player looks at the buy and sell orders for their location and nearby locations. They buy up a disproportionately low-priced resource locally and heads out to a nearby settlement where people are offering to buy it at a higher price.

1.) So far, is this working as intended, or should it be hard for this scenario to come about accidentally?

2.) If that our new player meets another player who is occupying the 'bandit' niche, what outcomes are positive and what outcomes are negative for PFO?

3.) How can the positive outcomes be made more common (without changing the basic premises)?

Goblin Squad Member

I will wait to see more details on the Faction system and see how caravans are tied into that, if at all.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:


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

Who ever said this? Let's not argue strawmen. My basic position is that there needs to be a sufficient cost associated with choosing the life of a bandit. Sufficient enough to where bandit PC groups aren't common and running around all over the place. Reputation seems like an obvious cost a bandit should pay. A system in place to allow the bandit not only to avoid reputation losses, but to actually gain reputation, makes absolutely no sense.

Like I said, you're threatening to murder people who don't give you their stuff. These are not actions that make people like you.

And I still think this idea that there will be PC groups ready and willing to follow you around as guards is unrealistic and is not going to happen without in-game motivations to make it happen.

Crafting and gathering are going to be a core part of gameplay for virtually everyone, so targets for bandits should not be in short supply. As long as there is a sufficient cost associated with this (a cost of being a bandit), and people have a way to defend themselves beyond the unfun and unreasonable suggestion to have packs of PC guards following you around, I'm ok with it.

Otherwise, if there's little to no cost to be a bandit, I think this game is going to be a lot less fun than it could be. I shouldn't expect 5 SADs a day even if I'm out gathering and shipping all day, that's simply an unfun amount of this type of interaction.

At this early juncture, I'm more skeptical than optimistic about the banditry. I think it's really easy for systems like this to cause a lot more grief than enrichment.

Nonconsensual pvp, robbing, that kind of stuff is fine...in the proper quantities and in the proper contexts. Like it or not, a LOT of people are going to be turned off to this game if that quantity is too high.

Goblin Squad Member

@ Broken_Sextant

Some people will argue (despite the actual definition) that reputation is not a measure in that way. I hold that as another Strawman because it is both. It is a measure of praise/rebuke (if that idea makes the cut, how you operate faithfully within the game system, and direct Moderator penalty for some behavior. It fits both.

Love all of the post, though.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:

Scenario: A new player looks at the buy and sell orders for their location and nearby locations. They buy up a disproportionately low-priced resource locally and heads out to a nearby settlement where people are offering to buy it at a higher price.

1.) So far, is this working as intended, or should it be hard for this scenario to come about accidentally?

2.) If that our new player meets another player who is occupying the 'bandit' niche, what outcomes are positive and what outcomes are negative for PFO?

3.) How can the positive outcomes be made more common (without changing the basic premises)?

I would hope that (done right) factions will go a long way. It seems gimmicky and unpopular to some, yet solves some real issues.

1.) Mostly right place at the right time. An opportunity thing that requires lots of attention if the markets are close in proximity.

2.) If the stars align for the bandit, he will have agency to rob/kill the new player. If he hasn't agency, the bandit should have to make a decision. IMO it is important that there be a meaningful cost beyond a skill and a criminal flag that the "new player" can understand and appreciate.

3.) All players should understand that affiliating makes you a possible target (to more people), but there should be significant incentive to do so. Unaffiliated should have less ability (in their chosen roles) so be less attractive targets (in general). Signing up = "consent". Not signing = "non consent". Possible penalties for the aggressor (meaningful choices, whether to kill or not), choices for the target (pay or possibly die/lose all), consequences for choices made.

Goblin Squad Member

Broken_Sextant wrote:
And I still think this idea that there will be PC groups ready and willing to follow you around as guards is unrealistic and is not going to happen without in-game motivations to make it happen.

I think the in-game motivation is expected to be the price increase per hex moved from a source settlement or POI. Moving goods any distance will have either direct losses, coin costs for caravans, or transit costs through others' guarded hexes. (Not tolls, of course. Gifts to friends.)

Goblin Squad Member

Broken_Sextant wrote:
And I still think this idea that there will be PC groups ready and willing to follow you around as guards is unrealistic and is not going to happen without in-game motivations to make it happen.

I'd add to what Urman said above.

If you rephrase it slightly, I think it will be extremely common. That is, I think there will be plenty of PCs in your group ready and willing to follow you around as guards. Given that your group is either your Company, Settlement, or Nation.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
I will wait to see more details on the Faction system and see how caravans are tied into that, if at all.

Yeah. Good idea. Just some thoughts on what could be a good, easier system that "might" solve some issues.

If caravans are something for non faction haulers/merchants, they would be reputation mega bombs in my proposed "world". I do get that.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Broken_Sextant wrote:
And I still think this idea that there will be PC groups ready and willing to follow you around as guards is unrealistic and is not going to happen without in-game motivations to make it happen.

I'd add to what Urman said above.

If you rephrase it slightly, I think it will be extremely common. That is, I think there will be plenty of PCs in your group ready and willing to follow you around as guards. Given that your group is either your Company, Settlement, or Nation.

I might agree, if the world looked like a lot of adventurers/soldiers, few merchants/craftsmen, and the average shipment were extremely large and valuable. But I'm picturing a world where most people participate in crafting and gathering whether they view themselves as primarily merchants, combatants, bandits, or anything else, and goods flying to and from various locations with regularity. In that kind of world, you can't expect high numbers of players to be running back and forth just to dissuade or defend against PC bandits.

People want to play the game and pursue their own interests...you are not setting up a fun game if you expect it to be "extremely common" for players to follow around other players (or their caravans) to defend them in the event they get attacked. That's not fun, that's just a chore. Making it a necessary chore doesn't make it fun.
I think the possibility of substantial gains for bandits is fine, but I think it has to come at very substantial costs.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
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.

I'm not sure if these two were meant to be linked, in the same train of thought, but if bandits can receive all of the banditry skills that they need from NPC settlements and be at low or even the lowest level of reputation, in exchange for being persona non grata, I'm open for that trade off.

I'm hoping that we could have the same access to banditry training and other martial skills through faction as well.

Goblin Squad Member

Broken_Sextant wrote:

People want to play the game and pursue their own interests...you are not setting up a fun game if you expect it to be "extremely common" for players to follow around other players (or their caravans) to defend them in the event they get attacked. That's not fun, that's just a chore. Making it a necessary chore doesn't make it fun.

I think the possibility of substantial gains for bandits is fine, but I think it has to come at very substantial costs.

In my book there's not much difference between grinding out mining nodes and grinding out a transport guard mission, but there are likely sets of players that like one or the other. In the end, if there aren't enough players willing to do transport guarding for fun, then prices and profits will rise to the point that some players will do it for the coin. That coin differential between source and destination will drive a lot of action and content, including banditry.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
Broken_Sextant wrote:

People want to play the game and pursue their own interests...you are not setting up a fun game if you expect it to be "extremely common" for players to follow around other players (or their caravans) to defend them in the event they get attacked. That's not fun, that's just a chore. Making it a necessary chore doesn't make it fun.

I think the possibility of substantial gains for bandits is fine, but I think it has to come at very substantial costs.
In my book there's not much difference between grinding out mining nodes and grinding out a transport guard mission, but there are likely sets of players that like one or the other. In the end, if there aren't enough players willing to do transport guarding for fun, then prices and profits will rise to the point that some players will do it for the coin. That coin differential between source and destination will drive a lot of action and content, including banditry.

I disagree. I think it' more likely that the level of coin people will want to do something unfun like follow another player or his caravan around in case he gets attacked will be higher than anyone is willing to pay.

How many guards would you suggest someone hire for reasonable safety, anyway? Bandit groups are exactly that, groups. It's a lot easier for them to gather up 6, 8, 10 people to go harass people. No different than grouping up for a dungeon in other games.
If I'm out harvesting and want to make sure my time isn't wasted and I get to keep what I'm spending my time harvesting, I'm supposed to what...hire 6 guards? 10? Every time? Every day? Seriously?
Unfun.
I guess I'm more on board the concept of a SAD if that system protects people from losing their goods. If I get jumped by some bandits and have to pay 100 coin, that's reasonable if my lootable inventory is worth considerably more than that. But if I spend a few hours harvesting...whatever...and I or my caravan get attacked and it all gets looted, that is extremely unfun if it's anything more than an extremely rare occurrence.
Honestly, at this point I just want to hear more from the devs about SAD, caravans, encumbrance as it relates to harvesting, whether you personally carry harvested materials back to town or whether you have to use some type of caravan, how at risk those goods are, and so on.
My concern is losing hours of harvesting or other crafting related work in one swoop from bandits without there being tools existing to prevent it, and with there being little cost or risk for the bandits to make this rare.
"Hire players" is not even close to a sufficient response.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Broken_Sextant wrote:
"Hire players" is not even close to a sufficient response.

This is a fun quote addressing that (Thanks, Nihimon!):

Can I play the game Solo

LH: [laughing] That is a fantastic - I love that question.

SC: [laughing] You shouldn't do that, you're going to die.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
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.

I must have phrased my sentence poorly. I didn't mean to say it's a measure of how well you are playing your role, but instead whether or not you are playing in ways that are encouraged/discouraged. More specifically whether you are using the available systems such as Feud, S&D, etc. when you want to attack someone, or whether you ignore all that and attack whoever, whenever. The point to the system is to get people to PvP more inside the structured systems, and less outside the systems, while still acknowledging the rep system isn't perfect by letting people occasionally act outside it.

This is opposed to saying the main purpose of the rep system is to gauge what other people think of the target, which I don't believe is the main purpose of the system. I could be wrong.

Goblin Squad Member

@Sextant, there are people who want to be caravan guards. Just because you find a task unfun does not mean others do as well.

You still seem to be thinking in terms of other MMO's, where you play as an individual instead of a group. You will not have a group of guards following you around all day, because you are only one gatherer and that would be silly. But when you, as a gatherer, group together with your settlement's other gatherers to go out gathering, you will bring along the settlement guards. You see, it's worth it to bring along 10 guys as guards if they're guarding 8 gatherers who are gathering more than 20 individual gatherers could take in if they went alone. Settlements are groups of people in the hundreds, and you also have other settlements in your nation, and other nations in your alliance, and other alliances who are your allies. With that many people that you can call on, you really think you can't find 20-30 people who will either gather with you or take a decent (not ridiculously high) wage to guard your gathering group from bandits?

Goblin Squad Member

Broken_Sextant wrote:

If I'm out harvesting and want to make sure my time isn't wasted and I get to keep what I'm spending my time harvesting, I'm supposed to what...hire 6 guards? 10? Every time? Every day? Seriously?

Unfun.

Short answer, "Yes".

PFO is an open world PvP sandbox MMO. There will be very little PvE content, so the content comes from player interactions. But rather than this being an MMO that creates little reason to actually play it as a a Massively Multiplayer game, PFO will give you a seriously hard time if you're looking to play it solo.

I as a bandit can not seriously think of playing my role solo, and neither can a guard on the road or a merchant / gatherer running a caravan through the wilderness. Ryan has said it a number of times, you will die and that will happen often.

Goblin Squad Member

Drakhan Valane wrote:
Broken_Sextant wrote:
"Hire players" is not even close to a sufficient response.

This is a fun quote addressing that (Thanks, Nihimon!):

Can I play the game Solo

LH: [laughing] That is a fantastic - I love that question.

SC: [laughing] You shouldn't do that, you're going to die.

There's a big difference between "playing solo" and thinking that having half a dozen players follow you around to protect you every time you harvest is a bit excessive. Obviously this is not a "solo" game though it shouldn't be unreasonable to perform certain tasks solo without the expectation of being robbed every time, either.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Broken_Sextant wrote:

If I'm out harvesting and want to make sure my time isn't wasted and I get to keep what I'm spending my time harvesting, I'm supposed to what...hire 6 guards? 10? Every time? Every day? Seriously?

Unfun.

Short answer, "Yes".

PFO is an open world PvP sandbox MMO. There will be very little PvE content, so the content comes from player interactions. But rather than this being an MMO that creates little reason to actually play it as a a Massively Multiplayer game, PFO will give you a seriously hard time if you're looking to play it solo.

I as a bandit can not seriously think of playing my role solo, and neither can a guard on the road or a merchant / gatherer running a caravan through the wilderness. Ryan has said it a number of times, you will die and that will happen often.

If that's how the game actually is designed, I feel like banditry will probably be the dominant focus of the game which isn't going to work IMO. "Player interactions" come from settlement interaction, trade, factions competition over resources, and banditry should just be one more avenue in which players can interact.

It should not be what my character is overwhelmingly concerned with every time I log in.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Broken_Sextant wrote:
I disagree. I think it' more likely that the level of coin people will want to do something unfun like follow another player or his caravan around in case he gets attacked will be higher than anyone is willing to pay.

The magic of supply and demand is that if enough players aren't willing to transport some good for a given price, the price goes up because of scarcity. As the price goes up, more players try to make that trip, even bandits turning to running caravans. Some players will enjoy that part of the game. They'll get the cargoes from one end of the map to the other, invisible to most of us.

But I agree that banditry cannot and should not be the dominant focus of the game.

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Shane Gifford wrote:

@Sextant, there are people who want to be caravan guards. Just because you find a task unfun does not mean others do as well.

You still seem to be thinking in terms of other MMO's, where you play as an individual instead of a group. You will not have a group of guards following you around all day, because you are only one gatherer and that would be silly. But when you, as a gatherer, group together with your settlement's other gatherers to go out gathering, you will bring along the settlement guards. You see, it's worth it to bring along 10 guys as guards if they're guarding 8 gatherers who are gathering more than 20 individual gatherers could take in if they went alone. Settlements are groups of people in the hundreds, and you also have other settlements in your nation, and other nations in your alliance, and other alliances who are your allies. With that many people that you can call on, you really think you can't find 20-30 people who will either gather with you or take a decent (not ridiculously high) wage to guard your gathering group from bandits?

I think people are really setting up expectations for this game that just aren't realistic. I DO think gathering will be more like it is in standard MMOs than the way you describe. People are going to be going about their business (in whatever size group they prefer), and gather as they go unless the game mechanics make that impossible. Sometimes they will gather a lot, sometimes a little, but it will be more organic and continuous than organizing groups of 8-20 gatherers along with an equal number of guards.

I seriously doubt gathering will be a 25 person production. Nor do I think it'd be fun to have to organize one every day if it were.

EDIT: Well to be clear, I mean I don't think it'd be fun if bandits were so common that taking 25 people just to gather were necessary. If multiple people were needed because say, you needed a number of different skillsets to effectively harvest, and each harvesting trip had a pretty high yield, then that'd be a different situation.

Goblin Squad Member

@ Broken_Sextant

All of this is speculation and personal opinion.

The truth is, we don't know how things will develop as far as SOP for merchants, guards and gatherers. We speculate from experience in other MMOs and common sense. Will the general way to operate be a "socialist" worker bee for your settlement/kingdom, an individual "me first" approach, or a mixture?

As far as gathering, there will be a few ways to operate, as far as I can tell, and at least two area types. Some inside areas that your own group "controls and patrols" and some in areas "outside" your home hexes. Inside you will be safest if your settlement does a good job of control. Outside will likely be wilderness, but could also be "poaching" another group's. Outside you will need some skills, some protection, or some luck. How often luck will serve remains to be seen, but the map is not large. There is no recall mechanic for a quick trip home when loaded or the area gets "busy" with dangerous others.

Bandit's will not be the only threat to gathering, transport, PVE, or just traveling. Enemy factions, Company feuds, Settlement wars also pose danger. One of the things about this game that will be different is that all of that IS a major part of the content and drive of the play (at least a major part for a few years).

Will it be easy to find enough guards for a 4 hour gathering day? I doubt it. Maybe it could be done in shifts... Most likely, it will be a matter of "shares" or something. Will there be some people willing to guard your caravan for a 15 minute trip? I am guessing that for coin/friendship/duty, you will find them willing.

Will all of this be enough fun for enough people? We will have to see. Certainly it is different than a theme park MMO.

Edit: Just saw your edit. I agree that if banditry is too common, much joy will die for those that are not keen on PVP. That goes for all types of threats. I hope that a playable, fun balance can be achieved. Otherwise, I worry for the game.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:


Bandit's will not be the only threat to gathering, transport, PVE, or just traveling. Enemy factions, Company feuds, Settlement wars also pose danger.

Those things have a level of richness to them that banditry does not. Everyone understands wars and settlement conflicts and the like, those features are a big reason why people are going to play this game. Banditry is basically "Oh look a player, lets take his stuff". It's not especially deep and the slippery slope to just feeling like the random pvp they've stated they want to avoid is, in my eyes, of concern. I hope they tread very carefully.

Goblin Squad Member

Broken_Sextant wrote:


And I still think this idea that there will be PC groups ready and willing to follow you around as guards is unrealistic and is not going to happen without in-game motivations to make it happen.

I think the recent posts from Ryan about how long an average "hop" (settlement to nearest other settlement)will take should make this more likely. When you look at the map, Settlements are never more then 2-4 hexes away from eachother. Now caravans will have to take roads so such a trip would likely cover more hexes. Even then Ryan was talking about 10-15 minute increments for travel between Settlements. He also said they are likely to tweak this big time during EE. He mentioned Fun, not physics

And: 10-15 minutes

I totally agree with you that there will be no "dedicated player-Guards" waiting around untill they can take off with some caravan for an hour-long journey, for some coin. Those "guards" will be friends from the merchant, or members of the same Settlement that happen to be there and may offer to join the trip for coin, or for their own reasons (like wanting to hit the next town). And because the next town will be at most 5-15 minutes away, this is not a large undertaking.

Now if you are in a Settlement that has isolated itself, and has nothing but unfriendly (does not have to be outright War, there will be settlements that simply do not allow strangers)settlements around them, then the merchant will have a bigger problem since he may have to make a longer haul. That is why such settlements will probably have a harder time to get resources to their settlements.


I have to agree with Broken Sextant though, unconsensual PvP should be heavily penalized so that anyone has to weigh the reprecussions of his actions if you don't want a toxic community.

You may propagate playing a bandit should be just as viable as any other playstyle but the people who would be toxic to the community are the people who will see playing a bandit most appealing. I consider SAD's just as agressive as outright attacking someone and so will alot of other people.

I don't think a mechanic that lets you force people to give you stuff or fight you should be that consequence free (or even lets you gain rep).

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:


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

I've seen quotes like this a lot and quite frankly they're incorrect. A more suitable description would read: You do understand this is an Open World Sandbox PVP MMO with meaningful choices and consequences, correct?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As to the SaD mechanism: I feel that a player should have to fear more from the actual political landscape of the region he plays in, then from bandits. Wars and Feuds should provide that. I basically see a group of players which settlement is in a War with another Settlement, and is roaming the lands in between, looking for a fight, as bandits already. Same with Feuds. Merchants will already have to fear those groups, unless their company and settlement manages to keep friends with *everybody*.

Factions is a bit more complicated: I hope that players of opposing factions do not immediately run at eachothers throats. Even though some factions may be Arch-enemies to eachother, and the (lore-based) hatred runs deep, I feel that this is still an individual player choice.

So I am not sure if a Bandit/Merchant faction dichotomy is a good idea: it leaves little to the imagination when it comes to motives. Bandits want money, Merchants do not want to give it up. I mean, they are bonafide factions all right, but it would make more sense to me if maybe another Merchant faction would make up the dichotomy (like an evil merchant faction).

If they want to SaD eachothers caravans, it would make more sense, and would create a more even playing field. Now both sides have to skill up in Merchant before they can SaD their opposing Faction without rep-loss. Some of them would most likely concentrate on combat skills, others on merchant skills. The advantage is, both can dole out the hurt if they want to.

Goblin Squad Member

Robbor wrote:

I have to agree with Broken Sextant though, unconsensual PvP should be heavily penalized so that anyone has to weigh the reprecussions of his actions if you don't want a toxic community.

You may propagate playing a bandit should be just as viable as any other playstyle but the people who would be toxic to the community are the people who will see playing a bandit most appealing. I consider SAD's just as agressive as outright attacking someone and so will alot of other people.

I don't think a mechanic that lets you force people to give you stuff or fight you should be that consequence free (or even lets you gain rep).

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

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Robbor wrote:
I have to agree with Broken Sextant though, unconsensual PvP should be heavily penalized so that anyone has to weigh the reprecussions of his actions if you don't want a toxic community.

There is no such thing. Logging into the game implies consent.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
Robbor wrote:

I have to agree with Broken Sextant though, unconsensual PvP should be heavily penalized so that anyone has to weigh the reprecussions of his actions if you don't want a toxic community.

You may propagate playing a bandit should be just as viable as any other playstyle but the people who would be toxic to the community are the people who will see playing a bandit most appealing. I consider SAD's just as agressive as outright attacking someone and so will alot of other people.

I don't think a mechanic that lets you force people to give you stuff or fight you should be that consequence free (or even lets you gain rep).

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

This "point" really isn't one and I don't get why it keeps getting repeated. Are you trying to imply that Open World Sandbox PvP games should be total free-for-alls? Just because someone thinks the line should be drawn in a different place than you do doesn't mean they don't understand that this is a sandbox game which allows for pvp.

Goblin Squad Member

Nevy wrote:
Xeen wrote:


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

I've seen quotes like this a lot and quite frankly they're incorrect. A more suitable description would read: You do understand this is an Open World Sandbox PVP MMO with meaningful choices and consequences, correct?

My statement is correct. By saying meaningful choices and consequences, you take away from the truth.

The truth is, you could be killed at any time for any reason. That is a fact of the game. If you do not believe me, then refer to Ryans statements in this thread.

Meaningful choices are on the players to make, and meaningful consequences are on the players to determine. Sure there is rep, but if someone does not care about it then it isnt exactly a meaningful consequence for them now is it.


Right now the SAD mechanism reminds me of something we used to do in Ultima Online.

We would trick people into flagging grey so we could kill them without consequence:

Making them angry enough to make them attack us
Polymorph into a ratman so they would accidentaly attack us
Lure them into houses so they would be trespassing

whatever just to flag them ''grey'' and make them a non-consequence target.

All these tactics are toxic and borderline griefing, they don't seem fun to the victim and being bullied then murdered by the bullies without consequence is VERY frustrating.

SAD make tactics like this pointless since you can SAD someone and if he gives you money you highfive your fellow bullies and if he doesn't you proceed to murder them.

Is the frustration on the victim part any lesser when he realises this is just game mechanics?

Goblin Squad Member

I so loathe this forum-warring. Unproductive clutter. It happens a LOT on these forums, I must say.

Goblin Squad Member

Broken_Sextant wrote:
Xeen wrote:
Robbor wrote:

I have to agree with Broken Sextant though, unconsensual PvP should be heavily penalized so that anyone has to weigh the reprecussions of his actions if you don't want a toxic community.

You may propagate playing a bandit should be just as viable as any other playstyle but the people who would be toxic to the community are the people who will see playing a bandit most appealing. I consider SAD's just as agressive as outright attacking someone and so will alot of other people.

I don't think a mechanic that lets you force people to give you stuff or fight you should be that consequence free (or even lets you gain rep).

You do understand that this is an Open World Sandbox PVP game, correct?
This "point" really isn't one and I don't get why it keeps getting repeated. Are you trying to imply that Open World Sandbox PvP games should be total free-for-alls? Just because someone thinks the line should be drawn in a different place than you do doesn't mean they don't understand that this is a sandbox game which allows for pvp.

Allow me to help you a bit. PFO does not just allow PVP. The game has its basis in PVP.

Goblin Squad Member

Robbor wrote:

Right now the SAD mechanism reminds me of something we used to do in Ultima Online.

We would trick people into flagging grey so we could kill them without consequence:

Making them angry enough to make them attack us
Polymorph into a ratman so they would accidentaly attack us
Lure them into houses so they would be trespassing

whatever just to flag them ''grey'' and make them a non-consequence target.

All these tactics are toxic and borderline griefing, they don't seem fun to the victim and being bullied then murdered by the bullies without consequence is VERY frustrating.

SAD make tactics like this pointless since you can SAD someone and if he gives you money you highfive your fellow bullies and if he doesn't you proceed to murder them.

Is the frustration on the victim part any lesser when he realises this is just game mechanics?

You miss the point of SAD then.

SAD is meant to give bandits a choice other then just outright killing someone. I could kill you and take all your stuff, or I could SAD you and take some of your stuff. If I kill you, then you lose all but your threaded items and end up back in town.

Which would you prefer?

Goblin Squad Member

Robbor wrote:

Right now the SAD mechanism reminds me of something we used to do in Ultima Online.

We would trick people into flagging grey so we could kill them without consequence:

Making them angry enough to make them attack us
Polymorph into a ratman so they would accidentaly attack us
Lure them into houses so they would be trespassing

whatever just to flag them ''grey'' and make them a non-consequence target.

All these tactics are toxic and borderline griefing, they don't seem fun to the victim and being bullied then murdered by the bullies without consequence is VERY frustrating.

SAD make tactics like this pointless since you can SAD someone and if he gives you money you highfive your fellow bullies and if he doesn't you proceed to murder them.

Is the frustration on the victim part any lesser when he realises this is just game mechanics?

Unlike UO however, once a bandit issues a S&D, every other single player in the game can then attack the bandit consequence free.

Also, if a person rejects the S&D, you don't get to murder them. You get to attack them and TRY to murder them. Just like factions. Just like feuds. Just like wars.

Goblin Squad Member

Tyncale wrote:
I so loathe this forum-warring. Unproductive clutter. It happens a LOT on these forums, I must say.

Well, if people do not understand that the game is based on PVP, then they will join up and quit because someone attacked them. Instead they can join with an open mind.

That is what most of the forum warring is about here.

Which is not unproductive at all. Ryan was trying to tell us exactly that in this thread.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:
Broken_Sextant wrote:
Xeen wrote:
Robbor wrote:

I have to agree with Broken Sextant though, unconsensual PvP should be heavily penalized so that anyone has to weigh the reprecussions of his actions if you don't want a toxic community.

You may propagate playing a bandit should be just as viable as any other playstyle but the people who would be toxic to the community are the people who will see playing a bandit most appealing. I consider SAD's just as agressive as outright attacking someone and so will alot of other people.

I don't think a mechanic that lets you force people to give you stuff or fight you should be that consequence free (or even lets you gain rep).

You do understand that this is an Open World Sandbox PVP game, correct?
This "point" really isn't one and I don't get why it keeps getting repeated. Are you trying to imply that Open World Sandbox PvP games should be total free-for-alls? Just because someone thinks the line should be drawn in a different place than you do doesn't mean they don't understand that this is a sandbox game which allows for pvp.
Allow me to help you a bit. PFO does not just allow PVP. The game has its basis in PVP.

And despite that, they don't want it to be a murder sim. They want to discourage certain types of pvp. So again, somebody thinking that the line should be in a different place than you doesn't imply a lack of understanding that this is a pvp sandbox game.


Well there's a consensus that open world sandbox means you can kill everyone you see, take their stuff, try to humiliate them with teabagging the corpse via some creative use of character crouching then post the video on the game forum and have a good laugh with everyone else.

Hopefuly Pathfinder Onlines aspirations are a little higher

Goblin Squad Member

Robbor wrote:

Well there's a consensus that open world sandbox means you can kill everyone you see, take their stuff, try to humiliate them with teabagging the corpse via some creative use of character crouching then post the video on the game forum and have a good laugh with everyone else.

Hopefuly Pathfinder Onlines aspirations are a little higher

That would be classed as griefing and will see the account banned by GW. Nothing at all to do with S&D though.

Goblin Squad Member

Broken_Sextant wrote:
And despite that, they don't want it to be a murder sim. They want to discourage certain types of pvp. So again, somebody thinking that the line should be in a different place than you doesn't imply a lack of understanding that this is a pvp sandbox game.

They also want S&D to be a part of the game.


Xeen wrote:
Tyncale wrote:
I so loathe this forum-warring. Unproductive clutter. It happens a LOT on these forums, I must say.

Well, if people do not understand that the game is based on PVP, then they will join up and quit because someone attacked them. Instead they can join with an open mind.

That is what most of the forum warring is about here.

Which is not unproductive at all. Ryan was trying to tell us exactly that in this thread.

I think it's cute that you make assumptions about what people understand and don't understand so easily then propose that other should join the game with an ''open-mind''.

I know this game is about PvP, if my community joins it we will enforce our vision of how we want our settlement to be ran via politics, wardecs, asset destruction, whatever means necessary. But there's a difference between an active war based on meaningful player interaction and competition and a horde of douchebags that just wants to ruin other peoples experience given mechanics that can help in griefing.

You're looking at SAD through some romanticized goggles while I see it more as a helpful griefing mechanic.

Goblin Squad Member

Jiminy wrote:
Broken_Sextant wrote:
And despite that, they don't want it to be a murder sim. They want to discourage certain types of pvp. So again, somebody thinking that the line should be in a different place than you doesn't imply a lack of understanding that this is a pvp sandbox game.
They also want S&D to be a part of the game.

The details of which are undecided. That's the point of expressing our opinions about them now. Nothing is set in stone right now.


Broken_Sextant wrote:
Jiminy wrote:
Broken_Sextant wrote:
And despite that, they don't want it to be a murder sim. They want to discourage certain types of pvp. So again, somebody thinking that the line should be in a different place than you doesn't imply a lack of understanding that this is a pvp sandbox game.
They also want S&D to be a part of the game.
The details of which are undecided. That's the point of expressing our opinions about them now. Nothing is set in stone right now.

Exactly, we're just expressing our concerns and wishes to how we want the mechanic to work. No need to insult us for doing what the thread was created for!

Goblin Squad Member

Robbor wrote:

Well there's a consensus that open world sandbox means you can kill everyone you see, take their stuff, try to humiliate them with teabagging the corpse via some creative use of character crouching then post the video on the game forum and have a good laugh with everyone else.

Hopefuly Pathfinder Onlines aspirations are a little higher

You extrapolate all of this from the inclusion of the SAD mechanic?

Secondly, some of you are under the old impression that SADs grant reputation bonus, it no longer does that.

SADs will not be implemented during the early part of EE. Before GW actually puts it in, we will see just how much resource interdiction (banditry to some) we can engage in through Faction, Feud, Rep Losing Attacks, and later War.

If Ryan's early post that was quoted by both Nihimon and I stands, dedicated Bandits can still reach the height of their banditry skills from NPC settlements, and while being low reputation.

That really is an argument changer! The way I can see that pan out is:

Most dedicated Bandits:

* will be Chaotic Neutral or Evil
* will have no need for SAD mechanic
* will be connected to NPC settlements
* will be barred from entering most other PC settlements
* will be low reputation
* will be in Faction (bandit / outlaw)
* will be criminal flagged a majority of the time
* will use Feuds as often as possible
* will flock to battle fields (wars) to get hired or to exploit the
chaos.

We may not have access to the best gear, made in PC towns, but alts can always be used to gain access to those markets.

I wouldn't mind this at all, it is very similar to EvE's low sec piracy corps.


Bluddwolf that didn't actually have anything to do with SAD's but more with the ''sandbox PvP mmo'' argument Xeen brought up that means anyone could and should be killed anywhere at anytime.

Goblin Squad Member

Its not an argument, it is a fact.

Also what you replied with has nothing to do with my statement. You are pulling in garbage and saying that is what PVP is...

PFO is based on PVP, non-consensual pvp is a big part of the game. Once you get over that, you will be fine and have an "open mind."

If your "community" joins the game. You can run your settlement however you wish. Thats your part in the sandbox. That will not stop anyone from war decing you. You may not consent to being raided, war deced, SADed, or just plain ganked on the highway but you will be subject to it.

Ryan told everyone a year or more ago. If you want to practice up a bit for this game, play Eve. Granted most at the time played Darkfall instead because he also said he would like to to try the game.

I suggest you look at Ryan's posts in the link I posted.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:

Its not an argument, it is a fact.

Also what you replied with has nothing to do with my statement. You are pulling in garbage and saying that is what PVP is...

PFO is based on PVP, non-consensual pvp is a big part of the game. Once you get over that, you will be fine and have an "open mind."

If your "community" joins the game. You can run your settlement however you wish. Thats your part in the sandbox. That will not stop anyone from war decing you. You may not consent to being raided, war deced, SADed, or just plain ganked on the highway but you will be subject to it.

Ryan told everyone a year or more ago. If you want to practice up a bit for this game, play Eve. Granted most at the time played Darkfall instead because he also said he would like to to try the game.

I suggest you look at Ryan's posts in the link I posted.

You come across quite crude, sadly it just makes poor points, poorer.


Xeen wrote:

Its not an argument, it is a fact.

Also what you replied with has nothing to do with my statement. You are pulling in garbage and saying that is what PVP is...

PFO is based on PVP, non-consensual pvp is a big part of the game. Once you get over that, you will be fine and have an "open mind."

If your "community" joins the game. You can run your settlement however you wish. Thats your part in the sandbox. That will not stop anyone from war decing you. You may not consent to being raided, war deced, SADed, or just plain ganked on the highway but you will be subject to it.

Ryan told everyone a year or more ago. If you want to practice up a bit for this game, play Eve. Granted most at the time played Darkfall instead because he also said he would like to to try the game.

I suggest you look at Ryan's posts in the link I posted.

You are the kind of person that makes sandbox mmorpgs commercialy unsuccessful :) Mortal Online is a superb game for you!

Goblin Squad Member

Nevy, nothing I said there can be defined as crude. If I said something crude, then the post would end up deleted. The feeling is mutual on the poor points.

Robbor, go and tell that to CCP. I think WOW is your game of choice.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
Meaningful choices are on the players to make, and meaningful consequences are on the players to determine. Sure there is rep, but if someone does not care about it then it isnt exactly a meaningful consequence for them now is it.

That's true, but only to a point. Consequences can be meaningful even if someone decides they don't care about them. If very low rep reduces some capability by 1-5% that might not seem like much. Say 2%. But then spread that across each of 16 slots of equipment and abilities, and the effect might be a 10-20% drop in effective combat power. Maybe that isn't important to the player if the character only hunts in a group, and can choose low skilled targets for banditry. It may be quite meaningful to the counter-bandit forces.

Until the various effects of low Reputation are implemented, we won't really know how meaningful those consequences are. We won't know how many characters will drift to a life of banditry even without S&D.

1,551 to 1,600 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.