Stand and Deliver Discussion


Pathfinder Online

1,601 to 1,650 of 1,727 << first < prev | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Robbor wrote:

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.

Actually, Xeen wrote "You could be killed at any time for any reason", he never said "should". His statement is accurate based on what an Open World PvP Sandbox MMO is.

Consequences are not part of that statement, they are not a factor of it. Xeen's arguments usually revolve around one premise, "Consequences only apply to those that care about them." That is also a true statement and it is why GW has never claimed that the Reputation System is an anti griefing system. The Reputation System will not curb griefers, because they won't care about the consequences of low reputation, or alignment, or limits on training or even having their accounts banned. They will just re roll a new toon, on a new account if needed, and return to griefing. They will gladly pay a subscription fee to grief with a noob toon. Their enjoyment comes from the griefing, not from playing the game.

Fortunately, true griefers are very few in number. They can be very easily countered by being aware of them and taking a few precautions on your part.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As I understand it, at the heart of the S&D mechanic is the idea that bandits should give their targets a "fight or fine" type choice, as opposed to straight up killing people when they want to see what you have, which is what bandits would do without any S&D mechanic. Bandit characters will be in the game, and should be in the game, so we need a way to make that gameplay more agreeable than random ganking "just in case he had something". S&D was proposed as a step in this direction.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:

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.

And now you're telling people what games you think they should play, how courteous of you. You seem to hold the absolute truth of what Pathfinder Online should, and will be. Who needs developers to explain their game when we have your infinite wisdom to turn to?

In all seriousness, I think you should do a little more research into developers thoughts and outlooks of Pathfinder - and try not to hear only what you want to.

Goblin Squad Member

Nevy wrote:
Xeen wrote:

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.

And now you're telling people what games you think they should play, how courteous of you. You seem to hold the absolute truth of what Pathfinder Online should, and will be. Who needs developers to explain their game when we have your infinite wisdom to turn to?

In all seriousness, I think you should do a little more research into developers thoughts and outlooks of Pathfinder - and try not to hear only what you want to.

Nevy, did you bother to read Robbors post or did you just jump after mine? Looks like the latter of the two.

I have been following Pathfinder and what they have talked about for 2 years now, how about you? All I have stated is what they have told us, and what I have seen in other Open World Sandbox PVP games. Dont like that? Oh well.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Greetings, Robbor and Broken_Sextant. I'm glad to see you posting and I hope you'll consider what I'm saying as it's coming from a kindred spirit.

There is a significant amount of PvP in some Open PvP Sandbox games that I really hate, even if it's a fairly small percentage of the overall PvP in those games. It's the PvP that pounces on new characters as soon as they leave the starting areas, and it's the kind of PvP that Ryan has identified as "the kind of thing that drives players away". Like you, the fact that Goblinworks has focused design effort on minimizing this kind of PvP (however small it really is) is one of the most compelling things about the whole game for me.

The leap of faith I'd ask you to take is that Banditry does not fall into this category. Please understand I'm not suggesting you meekly submit to bandits, far from it. "Millions for Defence, Not One Copper in Tribute!" That's my rallying cry, but it's not because I don't want Bandits in the game; it's because I want to kick bandit ass.

The most compelling argument I can make for why you should consider Banditry overall a good thing for the game is that there won't be much in the way of interesting PvE content in PFO for quite a while, and even then, let's not kid ourselves, it's not going to be that interesting. The really interesting content in PFO is going to come from PvP.

You're absolutely right that the folks who generally want to play full-time Bandits are probably over-represented by folks who get off on the kinds of PvP that make me not want to play most Open PvP Sandbox games. And you're absolutely right that Wars, Feuds, etc. will provide lots of interesting and meaningful PvP. However, if Banditry is not viable, then a large part of the game becomes a fairly boring grind. Gathering and Transporting goods becomes low-risk, and low-reward.

On the other hand, with the real risk of Bandits, PFO will create a strong incentive for players to become a part of a larger community. You probably would need to hire a bunch of guards if you really wanted to go out on your own and harvest far from home. However, if you're part of a larger community, you should be a lot safer solo-harvesting close to home, and then there's a fantastic opportunity for fun by getting a group of guards together with other friends from your community and transporting those goods. That's not going to be four hours of boredom for those guards, it's going to be 20-30 minutes of awesomeness!

It's going to be a paradigm-shift for a lot of folks. You simply can't go out into "the wild" and solo-harvest like you can in other games. You'll die. But you absolutely can solo-harvest close to home (if your Community is effective) with a greatly reduced risk.

I hope you'll find a home in Pathfinder Online, and I hope you'll seriously consider becoming a part of a large community that is devoted to "positive game play" that is generally "good to other players". The Seventh Veil and The Empyrean Order are dedicated to these very things, and we're always looking for friends and partners to help us.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
Nevy wrote:
Xeen wrote:

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.

And now you're telling people what games you think they should play, how courteous of you. You seem to hold the absolute truth of what Pathfinder Online should, and will be. Who needs developers to explain their game when we have your infinite wisdom to turn to?

In all seriousness, I think you should do a little more research into developers thoughts and outlooks of Pathfinder - and try not to hear only what you want to.

Nevy, did you bother to read Robbors post or did you just jump after mine? Looks like the latter of the two.

I have been following Pathfinder and what they have talked about for 2 years now, how about you? All I have stated is what they have told us, and what I have seen in other Open World Sandbox PVP games. Dont like that? Oh well.

I'm still not understanding? Oh well what? I'm glad it will be an Open World Sandbox with meaningful choice and consequence. How about you?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pax Shane Gifford wrote:
As I understand it, at the heart of the S&D mechanic is the idea that bandits should give their targets a "fight or fine" type choice, as opposed to straight up killing people when they want to see what you have, which is what bandits would do without any S&D mechanic. Bandit characters will be in the game, and should be in the game, so we need a way to make that gameplay more agreeable than random ganking "just in case he had something". S&D was proposed as a step in this direction.

I believe there is a serious problem with the current iteration of S&D, as outlined by Stephen Cheney back on page 15.

Once the bandits have issued a demand to their potential target, the bandits have already suffered all of the mechanical consequences from the S&D, as they have gained the Criminal flag and the S&D cooldown timer. If the bandits have no qualms about killing, there is very little incentive in the current S&D mechanic to not proceed to a killing by demanding excessive S&D.

I think that if S&D is not intended to be widely used an an excuse to simply attack and kill targets, it needs to have at least one more consequence point built in, probably at the point of attacking or at the target's death. That second consequence point was in the original S&D (the Rep gain in case of success). While I think there were good reasons for removing the Rep gain and using time-based Rep gains across the board, I think that there is now no incentive in the current S&D for the robber to reach an acceptable exchange.

Goblin Squad Member

Reading through some of this stuff makes me wonder if it would be possible to add infamy or 'negative' reputation, where upon if a player gets a high enough infamy, they start geeting npc bounties on their heads, and once they. Get to x point, npcs will actively start sending out bounty hunters.

Goblin Squad Member

Zoronarn wrote:
Reading through some of this stuff makes me wonder if it would be possible to add infamy or 'negative' reputation, where upon if a player gets a high enough infamy, they start geeting npc bounties on their heads, and once they. Get to x point, npcs will actively start sending out bounty hunters.

What was that game that had "revenant" NPC ghosts? Very tough and would chase the killer everywhere. Meridian 59? Can't remember for sure...

Goblin Squad Member

Nevy wrote:
Xeen wrote:
Nevy wrote:
Xeen wrote:

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.

And now you're telling people what games you think they should play, how courteous of you. You seem to hold the absolute truth of what Pathfinder Online should, and will be. Who needs developers to explain their game when we have your infinite wisdom to turn to?

In all seriousness, I think you should do a little more research into developers thoughts and outlooks of Pathfinder - and try not to hear only what you want to.

Nevy, did you bother to read Robbors post or did you just jump after mine? Looks like the latter of the two.

I have been following Pathfinder and what they have talked about for 2 years now, how about you? All I have stated is what they have told us, and what I have seen in other Open World Sandbox PVP games. Dont like that? Oh well.

I'm still not understanding? Oh well what? I'm glad it will be an Open World Sandbox with meaningful choice and consequence. How about you?

Function Abort, Send Home, Restart Program

Goblin Squad Member

Zoronarn wrote:
Reading through some of this stuff makes me wonder if it would be possible to add infamy or 'negative' reputation, where upon if a player gets a high enough infamy, they start geeting npc bounties on their heads, and once they. Get to x point, npcs will actively start sending out bounty hunters.

There is a player based bounty system. You can hire a bounty hunter to kill someone who has "harmed" you (they show up on your enemies list).

You can also hire an assassin to kill anyone you wish. This is of course going to be quite expensive.

You can finally, place a Death Curse on someone. This will cost you some of your reputation, but should they be killed by you, you will have access to some (or all, I forget) of their threaded gear.

Retribution in any of its forms is a meaningful human interaction.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Zoronarn wrote:
Reading through some of this stuff makes me wonder if it would be possible to add infamy or 'negative' reputation, where upon if a player gets a high enough infamy, they start geeting npc bounties on their heads, and once they. Get to x point, npcs will actively start sending out bounty hunters.

There is a player based bounty system. You can hire a bounty hunter to kill someone who has "harmed" you (they show up on your enemies list).

You can also hire an assassin to kill anyone you wish. This is of course going to be quite expensive.

You can finally, place a Death Curse on someone. This will cost you some of your reputation, but should they be killed by you, you will have access to some (or all, I forget) of their threaded gear.

Retribution in any of its forms is a meaningful human interaction.

Yes, I remember these aspects of retribution, but i was thinking along the terms of having meaningful interaction among npc's as well. Most of the later posts in this thread seem ( and call me out if i'm wrong) scared about S & D being a griefing tool ( in its current form, anyway). What i was thinking is with an infamy system, you get an additional way of interaction with npcs, and that could open ways of both punishment and reward. E.G, at a certain infamy, you have a bounty on your head, and can't enter some towns without being disguised, but some NPC's react to you differently; if there are npc caravan's, they're more likely to give you what you want if you S &D them, or if there are NPC run shady establishments, you can get things cheaper etc.

Essentially, giving people benefits and drawbacks for being a bandit, besides just having all the glorious pvp for profit. Or maybe i'm in over my head, regardless, should be interesting to see how the game actually plays out.

Goblin Squad Member

I think Bludd would rather stand up alone against an army of players, then to be one-shotted by some unkillable NPC, through a game-mechanic.

Am I right? ;)

Goblin Squad Member

@ Zoronon

I hate to be blunt, but you can't have a meaningful interaction with an NPC.

Those that see SAD as a griefing tool, have a perception of griefing that is not in line with the Developers. They are perhaps suffering from the hyper materialism created by Theme Park MMOs, where end game is nothing but the acquisition of the next "colored" gear. So the very thought of losing possessions, no matter how easily gained, is capable of causing them grief.

Their over reliance on game mechanics protecting them is also a condition created by Theme Park MMOs. Theme Park MMOs are designed to actually favor solo play for 90% of its content! and only requires you to actually group up for raid dungeons. However, the raid dungeons are not required content for those who care little about gear. So in a system designed mostly for solo play, players need to be reliant on game mechanics to protect them from other players. This is done through a variety of gating mechanisms but mostly through consensual only PvP.

In an Open World PvP Sandbox MMO, these two conditions do not translate well. Players are being told to "only carry what you can afford to lose" and "you can be attacked anywhere, at anytime, for reasons probably unknown to you."

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zoronarn wrote:
... Most of the later posts in this thread seem ( and call me out if i'm wrong) scared about S & D being a griefing tool ( in its current form, anyway). ...

I'm not worried about S&D being used as a griefing tool. I'm concerned that S&D might be used as the primary means of initiating PvP at the expense of the other PvP like feuds and wars. If the total costs to engage in S&D are significantly less than the costs for other forms of PvP, then S&D will be the primary method of PvP.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
Zoronarn wrote:
... Most of the later posts in this thread seem ( and call me out if i'm wrong) scared about S & D being a griefing tool ( in its current form, anyway). ...
I'm not worried about S&D being used as a griefing tool. I'm concerned that S&D might be used as the primary means of initiating PvP at the expense of the other PvP like feuds and wars. If the total costs to engage in S&D are significantly less than the costs for other forms of PvP, then S&D will be the primary method of PvP.

It sure will. What do you have to lose, if looked at from a rabid PVPer's point of view?

Goblin Squad Member

Quote:
They are perhaps suffering from the hyper materialism created by Theme Park MMOs, where end game is nothing but the acquisition of the next "colored" gear. So the very thought of losing possessions, no matter how easily gained, is capable of causing them grief.

Well, you want their shinies for yourself, so it is understandable that they want to keep them. I am sure you would not complain about it as much if you lost items yourself, but the underlying mechanism is the same: ownership. You both like to be owners. And if it is not about ownership, then what is it? Would you keep playing a bandit if a succesfull SAD would destroy the items you can loot, but hey, the SAD was succesfull?

The moment items lose their attractiveness to players, the whole SAD mechanism does not make sense anymore. The "meaning" of it is lost.

So you can not blame players for wanting to hold on to their stuff: it is necessary for items to have value.

I agree that sense of ownership is strong amongst PvE-folk though. I am curious if PFO's rich Economy can change around a few things here.

Goblin Squad Member

Before i post further, i need a check up on current S & D mechanics. As far as I'm aware, it amounts to basically stopping a traveling player and either getting some % of what that player is carrying, or initiating combat with a criminal flag, right?

Or is it something that is currently in a nebulous area where it may not be implemented depending on how banditry works out in EE?

Goblin Squad Member

Zoronarn wrote:

Before i post further, i need a check up on current S & D mechanics. As far as I'm aware, it amounts to basically stopping a traveling player and either getting some % of what that player is carrying, or initiating combat with a criminal flag, right?

Or is it something that is currently in a nebulous area where it may not be implemented depending on how banditry works out in EE?

Going out on a limb here, not verifying my para phrasing. The last and best Dev comment was along the lines that they were intrigued by the idea of "factions' for bandits and targets. That most of the best stuff for joining will be TBD. That S&D will be "played by ear" after that. Whether it is needed or not.

That is so lazy to write so much possible misinformation rather than looking it up for direct quote!

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bringslite wrote:
Zoronarn wrote:

Before i post further, i need a check up on current S & D mechanics. As far as I'm aware, it amounts to basically stopping a traveling player and either getting some % of what that player is carrying, or initiating combat with a criminal flag, right?

Or is it something that is currently in a nebulous area where it may not be implemented depending on how banditry works out in EE?

Going out on a limb here, not verifying my para phrasing. The last and best Dev comment was along the lines that they were intrigued by the idea of "factions' for bandits and targets. That most of the best stuff for joining will be TBD. That S&D will be "played by ear" after that. Whether it is needed or not.

That is so lazy to write so much possible misinformation rather than looking it up for direct quote!

This is just Bringslite's fumbling way of the Summon Nihimon spell! :)

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:


Those that see SAD as a griefing tool, have a perception of griefing that is not in line with the Developers. They are perhaps suffering from the hyper materialism created by Theme Park MMOs, where end game is nothing but the acquisition of the next "colored" gear. So the very thought of losing possessions, no matter how easily gained, is capable of causing them grief.

I think you are assuming way too much here. I fail to see why you and Xeen continue this smug assessment of where others are "wrong" in their understanding of what this game is or should be. We're all giving our opinions here on what we'd like to see and what our concerns are with certain mechanics. This is the time for that and the purpose of these threads.

I am *worried* that banditry and SADs will feel like griefing and I want the developers to implement its systems with the highest regard to preventing this. They've stated they want to dissuade meaningless, random pvp and I feel that the effects of large amounts of bandits will add that same undesirable feel to the game if it's not very carefully done. Banditry is fairly shallow. "See player, rob player" isn't particularly "meaningful" in my eyes.
I feel that there should be a high cost and significant consequences to choosing to engage in banditry.
Note that I am NOT saying that bandits should not exist, or that nonconsensual pvp should not exist which are strawmen that seem to be set up over and over.
There is obviously a balance the devs want to achieve in this game in regards to how many bandits there are, how at-risk your coin or goods are in various situations, what tools they provide for bandits, what tools they provide to defend against bandits, what the costs and consequences are for engaging in banditry, what the potential profits are in being a bandit, and so on. These are some of the dials the devs will be turning in order to encourage the amount of banditry they envision.
That some people want the dials ending up in different positions than you doesn't mean that they "lack understanding" about sandbox MMOs
This is the time to give opinions and share concerns. Nothing is set in stone yet.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:

The last and best Dev comment was along the lines that they were intrigued by the idea of "factions' for bandits and targets. That most of the best stuff for joining will be TBD. That S&D will be "played by ear" after that. Whether it is needed or not.

That is so lazy to write so much possible misinformation rather than looking it up for direct quote!

You're probably remembering this.

The idea about creating a merchant and bandit faction set was a winner around here. It should be easy enough to implement that we won't be using any major programming time that could be used to get other features online, which means that we can get it earlier than we'd get the whole S&D system. So it seems likely that what will happen is:

  • We get a bandit and merchant faction working around the same time as the other factions become available. (My gut is that we set up the merchant faction in such as way as it makes sense for both merchants and guards to join, rather than inventing a third faction to guard the merchants.)
  • We may not have all the high-rank perks yet, so we wait until we have enough attractive high-rank merchant perks before ruling on how well it's working out. (That is, we expect merchant adoption to be gradual as more "carrots" come online, so expectations shouldn't be for many merchants to be members as soon as it's available.)
  • We use feedback from how the faction system is working to revise our goals for what the S&D system needs to accomplish, and figure out where that fits into the schedule.

______________________________________________________________

Tyncale wrote:
This is just Bringslite's fumbling way of the Summon Nihimon spell! :)

Yeah, I noticed that :)

Goblin Squad Member

I feel that there should be adequate costs and appropriate consequences for banditry, and any other role in the game.

Why is it that the more PvP focused players are the ones who will bear all of the consequences of the reputation system?

I made a statement directed at Ryan, that he was like a Traffic Cop handing out speeding tickets at a Nascar event.

You can't say "I want to see this, but it must be punished to the point that no one does it." and be taken seriously, that you want to see bandits.

If there are too many bandits and not enough merchants, the bandit population will decline naturally. Just as, if there are too many merchants you will begin looking for bandits to hinder your competition.

No one has said, "See player, rob player". You need to give our usage of time a little bit more credit. Our target selection will be anything but random and we will factor in many different considerations.

Just because you don't see banditry as particularly meaningful, doesn't mean that it can't be conducted professionally and with a level of tactics and precision that is equal to any formation or siege combat situation.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Those that see SAD as a griefing tool, have a perception of griefing that is not in line with the Developers.

Yeah, this is the kind of thing that irritates people, Bluddwolf. You clearly don't understand other folks' perceptions, but your confidence (I'm being generous) that you do leads you to make horrendously wrong statements.

_____________________________________________________________________

Broken_Sextant wrote:
I am *worried* that banditry and SADs will feel like griefing and I want the developers to implement its systems with the highest regard to preventing this.

This should give you some comfort.

Our difficulty in setting up a straightforward S&D system is in making sure we don't open up exploits. It's going to be hard for us to tell the difference between "a company engaging in an economically healthy bit of banditry in a way that shouldn't ruin their reps" and "a company trying to kill a bunch of people without consequences by leading off with a false flag of the S&D system" so our compromise is more likely to fall on making banditry more complicated to pull off without a rep hit to avoid the potential false flag situation.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

I made a statement directed at Ryan, that he was like a Traffic Cop handing out speeding tickets at a Nascar event.

You can't say "I want to see this, but it must be punished to the point that no one does it." and be taken seriously, that you want to see bandits.

If you can't differentiate between healthy Banditry on one hand and random, meaningless killing of players who are uninterested in PvP for no reasonable benefit to yourself on the other, then you're not likely to be a very successful Bandit.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:


Our difficulty in setting up a straightforward S&D system is in making sure we don't open up exploits. It's going to be hard for us to tell the difference between "a company engaging in an economically healthy bit of banditry in a way that shouldn't ruin their reps" and "a company trying to kill a bunch of people without consequences by leading off with a false flag of the S&D system" so our compromise is more likely to fall on making banditry more complicated to pull off without a rep hit to avoid the potential false flag situation.

I remember "liking" that post. I could only work the button once, though...

Nice to see it reposted now and again!

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

I feel that there should be adequate costs and appropriate consequences for banditry, and any other role in the game.

Why is it that the more PvP focused players are the ones who will bear all of the consequences of the reputation system?

I made a statement directed at Ryan, that he was like a Traffic Cop handing out speeding tickets at a Nascar event.

You can't say "I want to see this, but it must be punished to the point that no one does it." and be taken seriously, that you want to see bandits.

If there are too many bandits and not enough merchants, the bandit population will decline naturally. Just as, if there are too many merchants you will begin looking for bandits to hinder your competition.

No one has said, "See player, rob player". You need to give our usage of time a little bit more credit. Our target selection will be anything but random and we will factor in many different considerations.

Just because you don't see banditry as particularly meaningful, doesn't mean that it can't be conducted professionally and with a level of tactics and precision that is equal to any formation or siege combat situation.

I feel like, so far, GW is going out of it's way to give PVPers as much as they can and at the same time attract a wider audience than this sort of game normally gets and is able to maintain. They are actually giving attention to banditry instead of just making it "Holy Hel" to play or to suffer.

For me, it isn't so much you or UNC that I am concerned with (not if your standards are as you describe). It is others that wreck games even though they are just a small percentage of players. Some of the proposed "balances" (at least mine) aren't given because I think that YOU will wreck the game. You are not Every Bandit or PVP Enthusiast.

Is that clear enough?

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Why is it that the more PvP focused players are the ones who will bear all of the consequences of the reputation system?

Probably because the Reputation system is entirely dedicated to being consequences for undesired PvP.

Goblin Squad Member

I think that the best thing to do at the moment is see how it plays out, as bludd mentioned earlier, there are ways to retaliate should one get killed, and some of the mentioned methods of retaliation could be pretty devastating, assuming they don't get abused.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
I feel like, so far, GW is going out of it's way to give PVPers as much as they can and at the same time attract a wider audience than this sort of game normally gets and is able to maintain.

This, and then some. The game has to be successful as a PvP game, and that means there has to be lots of PvP. I think it also has to have more appeal than most PvP games. I've really bought into Ryan's vision that PFO can restore PvP as one of the pillars of all successful MMOs, just like Harvesting and Crafting and Dungeon Crawls are.

But yeah, lots of PvP :)

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:


There is a significant amount of PvP in some Open PvP Sandbox games that I really hate, even if it's a fairly small percentage of the overall PvP in those games. It's the PvP that pounces on new characters as soon as they leave the starting areas, and it's the kind of PvP that Ryan has identified as "the kind of thing that drives players away". Like you, the fact that Goblinworks has focused design effort on minimizing this kind of PvP (however small it really is) is one of the most compelling things about the whole game for me.

The leap of faith I'd ask you to take is that Banditry does not fall into this category. Please understand I'm not suggesting you meekly submit to bandits, far from it. "Millions for Defence, Not One Copper in Tribute!" That's my rallying cry, but it's not because I don't want Bandits in the game; it's because I want to kick bandit ass.

The most compelling argument I can make for why you should consider Banditry overall a good thing for the game is that there won't be much in the way of interesting PvE content in PFO for quite a while, and even then, let's not kid ourselves, it's not going to be that interesting. The really interesting content in PFO is going to come from PvP.

You're absolutely right that the folks who generally want to play full-time Bandits are probably over-represented by folks who get off on the kinds of PvP that make me not want to play most Open PvP Sandbox games. And you're absolutely right that Wars, Feuds, etc. will provide lots of interesting and meaningful PvP. However, if Banditry is not viable, then a large part of the game becomes a fairly boring grind. Gathering and Transporting goods becomes low-risk, and low-reward.

On the other hand, with the real risk of Bandits, PFO will create a strong incentive for...

Hi Nihimon. I don't disagree that banditry has a place in PFO. I'm glad it does. My only point has been it shouldn't be easy, and should have significant challenges and consequences. Especially at first, it should be a serious challenge because I think enabling "bad" behavior too much has the potential to sabotage the success of the game more so than erring on the side of caution and then adding more functionality for bandits later, if needed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Broken_Sextant wrote:
Hi Nihimon. Hi Nihimon. I don't disagree that banditry has a place in PFO. I'm glad it does. My only point has been it shouldn't be easy, and should have significant challenges and consequences. Especially at first, it should be a serious challenge because I think enabling "bad" behavior too much has the potential to sabotage the success of the game more so than erring on the side of caution and then adding more functionality for bandits later, if needed.

It'll get real interesting when wars start and characters from a settlement get killed again and again and again and then their city razed so they have nowhere to train or live and have to go back to an NPC city.

A group of six bandits mugging a single merchant is going to look pretty soft then. That will be regarded as good behavior by the game also.

Goblin Squad Member

Monty Wolf wrote:

It'll get real interesting when wars start and characters from a settlement get killed again and again and again and then their city razed so they have nowhere to train or live and have to go back to an NPC city.

A group of six bandits mugging a single merchant is going to look pretty soft then. That will be regarded as good behavior by the game also.

They may also not know, or may be forgetting, bandit companies such as our own will be hired by settlements to feud against their rivals, while keeping the employer's hands clean.

What they might think are a string or random acts, could be the prelude of war.

Influence will be an exchangeable commodity. I'm wondering what the going rate for a feud would be?


Monty Wolf wrote:
Broken_Sextant wrote:
Hi Nihimon. Hi Nihimon. I don't disagree that banditry has a place in PFO. I'm glad it does. My only point has been it shouldn't be easy, and should have significant challenges and consequences. Especially at first, it should be a serious challenge because I think enabling "bad" behavior too much has the potential to sabotage the success of the game more so than erring on the side of caution and then adding more functionality for bandits later, if needed.

It'll get real interesting when wars start and characters from a settlement get killed again and again and again and then their city razed so they have nowhere to train or live and have to go back to an NPC city.

A group of six bandits mugging a single merchant is going to look pretty soft then. That will be regarded as good behavior by the game also.

Why is there this notion that people who are rooting for harsher consquences for random agressive behaviour don't understand that the game is centered around PvP. Yes you can get your assets destroyed in a war, but you know who is warring you and the sword can swing both ways. If ''banditry'' is easy to play there will be lots of bandits attacking everyone and anyone, some seem to have the target bar as low as ''kill him to check if he has anything valuable''. If that kind of behavior is rampant then this game would be no different than any other sandbox mmo that is barely keeping alive (eve online being the only exception).

You're saying people can fight back against bandits, but there's a difference between commiting yourself to killing everyone you see indiscriminately creating situations that fit your advantage and trying to fight the same behavior.

The second being much harder and fruitless since getting killed will not stop anyone from targeting merchants.

If a group of 4 people attack and kill a merchant and take most of their items they profit much more than 4 people that escort same merchant for a cut of the profit. The risk is pretty much equal, profits completely unequal, hence there must be harsher consequences!

Goblin Squad Member

Why is there the notion that banditry?

1. Has no up front costs.

* SAD must be trained and slotted.
* Blinds may have to be trained, but will have to be purchased (materials) and set up (time)
* Faction will have to be joined and leveled to gain access to higher level banditry skills
* A hideout may have to be used for other necessary abilities.
* Time will have to be spent waiting for a valuable target (see below)

2. Is a random act

* once a blind is deployed, it does not get triggered by the first passerby, but will only be triggered when the bandits spot a target that will at least cover the cost of the blind, and still turn a profit. The target will also have to justify the time spent in setting up the blind. These two factors taken into account, then there is the risk presented by the target as well.

It is anything but random, it is calculated to the same extent that any PvP is calculated. Of course some will not consider these things, but repeated failure has a way of weeding out the stupid, the lazy and the incompetent.

3. Has too few consequences

* A bandit hideout can be detected, looted and destroyed. (Need more details)
* As members of a Faction, bandits will be PvP enabled at all times to their enemy faction (at level 4+)
* The use of a SAD flags the bandits as criminals, and they are PvP enabled for everyone
* An attack without SAD, and against an Unsanctioned target (not faction, feud, war, or criminal) will result in alignment shifts and reputation loss.
* The bandits could have overestimated their strength or underestimated their target's strength, or an unseen 3rd party could enter the fight, and the bandits lose!
* Bounty Hunters can be hired to track down bandits.
* Assassins can be hired to kill bandit leaders.
* A feud can be waged against bandit companies.

The consequence of loss is always present. The bandits are at a disadvantage (perhaps an equal one) in that they will only be certain what force they have on hand. They will never really know what force they will face, because of the unknown that is 3rd party interference.

This is offset by the disadvantage that the traveler has in not being able to pick the time and the place for when he is attacked. So the traveler (usually a merchant caravan) will have to be on alert and prepared at all times.

This may be why some question your understanding of PvP. I would be a bit more specific and ask if you have looked at the systems that GW has been thinking about? Do you realize that banditry is being steered in a direction that is anything but "random" or carried out without thought and without calculating risk vs. reward?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just to throw more fuel on the fire, there are also the ever present PvP consequences of bounties, assassination contracts and manual reputation hits.

We probably need more information on these, but from memory, some of the ideas around them (or some of them) were the recipient of these mechanics had to be on your enemies list - meaning they had to have either attacked you or killed you. I'm not sure where this all stands right now, but they are definitely consequences of PvP that players deem not to their liking.

Goblin Squad Member

Jiminy wrote:

Just to throw more fuel on the fire, there are also the ever present PvP consequences of bounties, assassination contracts and manual reputation hits.

We probably need more information on these, but from memory, some of the ideas around them (or some of them) were the recipient of these mechanics had to be on your enemies list - meaning they had to have either attacked you or killed you. I'm not sure where this all stands right now, but they are definitely consequences of PvP that players deem not to their liking.

I have added those and a few more.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While the game is in the process of development and alot of the mechanics are speculative at best my ''understanding of pvp'' might be hindered just as much as anyones. But if you mean it generally i'll dismiss that comment as the self-gratitous garbage it was meant to be.

Maybe me describing the actions as ''banditry'' is where our views are different and we're not even talking about the same thing, yours is a romanticized version while mine is the rampant douchebaggery that is making people quit many sandbox mmorpgs out of frustration.

Goblin Squad Member

Robbor wrote:

While the game is in the process of development and alot of the mechanics are speculative at best my ''understanding of pvp'' might be hindered just as much as anyones. But if you mean it generally i'll dismiss that comment as the self-gratitous garbage it was meant to be.

Maybe me describing the actions as ''banditry'' is where our views are different and we're not even talking about the same thing, yours is a romanticized version while mine is the rampant douchebaggery that is making people quit many sandbox mmorpgs out of frustration.

In these other MMOs, do the bandits have mechanics leveraged against them such as being in a faction that has an ever present opposition and being flagged to the entire playerbase when they commit a crime? Are there also several player based solutions as per Bluddwolf's above post that can be used by the aggrieved players to exact their revenge? Can the combat also be moved to a higher level, being that of the entire company the bandit belongs to being feuded, or even their settlement sieged?

These are the differences that I've seen planned in PFO that a handful of other MMOs I've played do not have. I'm interested to see what your experiences are.

Goblin Squad Member

"Why is there the notion that role x?

1. Has no up front costs.

* Relevant skills must be trained and slotted.
* Relevant equipment may have to be trained, but will have to be purchased (materials) and set up (time)
* Faction will have to be joined and leveled to gain access to higher level role skills
* Relevant PoIs may have to be built and used for other necessary abilities.
* Time will have to be spent waiting/looking/searching/mining/transporting for a valuable resource (see below)

2. Is a random act

* role x must choose to utilize its resources wisely...or it results in net loss.

It is anything but random, it is calculated to the same extent that any PvP is calculated. Of course some will not consider these things, but repeated failure has a way of weeding out the stupid, the lazy and the incompetent.

3. Has too few consequences

* A PoI can be detected, looted and destroyed. (Need more details)
* As members of a Faction, roles will be PvP enabled at all times to their enemy faction (at level 4+)
* The use of a special mechanics and skills might flag the role PvP enabled for everyone
* An attack without special mechanic y, and against an Unsanctioned target (not faction, feud, war, or criminal) will result in alignment shifts and reputation loss.
* Anyone in the game could have overestimated their strength or underestimated their target's strength, or an unseen 3rd party could enter the fight, and the they lose!
* Bounty Hunters can be hired to track down anyone.
* Assassins can be hired to kill anyone.
* A feud can be waged against any companies.

The consequence of loss is always present. Everyone initiating PvP is at a disadvantage (perhaps an equal one) in that they will only be certain what force they have on hand. They will never really know what force they will face, because of the unknown that is 3rd party interference.

This is offset by the disadvantage that the a defender has in not being able to pick the time and the place for when he is attacked. So everyone will have to be on alert and prepared at all times.

[cut the content free part out]"

Yeah...I don't get it. What does any of this have to do with bandits specially when it is also true of everyone generally? Do you think there is a role that won't be participating in PvP, that won't have these same concerns? Do you really feel you are being handicapped or discriminated against because you will have to deal with the same difficulties everyone else will?


Jiminy wrote:
In these other MMOs, do the bandits have mechanics leveraged against them such as being in a faction that has an ever present opposition and being flagged to the entire playerbase when they commit a crime?

Usually they are flagged as murderer/criminal making them a generally allowed target for everyone along with a certain penalty to disallow such behavior. The penalties are usualy trivial and easy to avoid and only slightly frustrating, definitely uncomparably so to the frustration of their victims. That's why that playstyle is predominant.

Jiminy wrote:
Are there also several player based solutions as per Bluddwolf's above post that can be used by the aggrieved players to exact their revenge?

Not via in-game mechanics, just theoretical options via sandbox and player interaction. I like those ideas alot, vengeance would do much to aleviate the sense of frustration in many players, PO would truly be unique in that sense.

Jiminy wrote:
Can the combat also be moved to a higher level, being that of the entire company the bandit belongs to being feuded, or even their settlement sieged?

Yes, it usually can, but with a majority of players viewing the game as basicaly a murder simulator there's a bigger pool of people that will help the anti-social people and entire servers would gang up on even newly forged communities, especialy those of ''good'' people. But if odds are stacked against them they would abuse any game mechanics to avoid consequences, disbanding guilds, making specific war-dec guilds for that specific attack, etc.

I like the part in MO where your character ability is linked with your settlement however since many of those tactics are made obsolete.

To sum it up, I am optimistic about PO very much and I'm looking forward to the interactions between different groups of people be it friendly or unfriendly. I've read posts from the staff and I know they're trying to make something unique here. Just can't help pointing out the traps of open unsanctioned pvp!

Goblin Squad Member

Robbor wrote:
Some good stuff...

I've said it in a previous post somewhere, but I hope banditry slots into a similar role as feuds, factions and wars. They're basically all PvP, just increasing in scale and the number of participants that get involved.

Like you, I hope none of them is too dominant, but I also hope they're all participated in to some degree.

Goblin Squad Member

@ Forencith

When a Paladin uses his Smite Evil ability, will that flag him for PvP for all evil characters for a time period of roughly 15 minutes?

What special abilities should a crafter have that makes him an open PvP target?

Will the use of a caravan make a merchant / driver and it's guards an open target for PvP?

Will a Cleric that uses Know Alignment be similarly flagged? (It is a religiously intrusive act, and possible to consider it an attack).

Other than Bandits and Necromancers,mew know of no other role / class abilities that flag for open PvP. To say that my list above applies to everyone is false, based on our current knowledge.

I'm not saying to get rid if the criminal or heinous flag, I kind of like them, and will have fun wearing them. But let us not say that these two roles do not have additional and at this time unique consequences.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Broken_Sextant wrote:
Hi Nihimon. I don't disagree that banditry has a place in PFO. I'm glad it does. My only point has been it shouldn't be easy, and should have significant challenges and consequences. Especially at first, it should be a serious challenge because I think enabling "bad" behavior too much has the potential to sabotage the success of the game more so than erring on the side of caution and then adding more functionality for bandits later, if needed.

I think you and I are in agreement then. And I'd like to think we're on the same page as Ryan Dancey, too.

This conversation seems to be happening in several different threads, so forgive me for repeating myself, but I'm coming 'round to the position that having a combination of Faction-based Banditry with no Reputation loss, and normal Reputation loss for Banditry outside of Factions (and for Bandit-Hunting outside of Factions) makes the most sense.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
... while keeping the employer's hands clean.

Oh, I think that ship has sailed...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

How many times will a Paladin attack a random person to see if he's carrying any juicy loot?

Will crafters issue a S&D against a fellow crafter just to take his materials and make more swords?

Will a merchant leading a caravan use his mules to trample someone returning from a monster camp and take his stuff?

Unique consequences for behavior that is deemed by many players as intrusive and frustrating and not ''content generation''

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Broken_Sextant wrote:
Hi Nihimon. I don't disagree that banditry has a place in PFO. I'm glad it does. My only point has been it shouldn't be easy, and should have significant challenges and consequences. Especially at first, it should be a serious challenge because I think enabling "bad" behavior too much has the potential to sabotage the success of the game more so than erring on the side of caution and then adding more functionality for bandits later, if needed.

I think you and I are in agreement then. And I'd like to think we're on the same page as Ryan Dancey, too.

This conversation seems to be happening in several different threads, so forgive me for repeating myself, but I'm coming 'round to the position that having a combination of Faction-based Banditry with no Reputation loss, and normal Reputation loss for Banditry outside of Factions (and for Bandit-Hunting outside of Factions) makes the most sense.

That is music. Only 99.9% of the forum posters and 100% of the Dev team to go... ;)

Unless I misread your meaning. It is early where I live...

Goblin Squad Member

@ Bluddwolf & Jiminy

We all (roles) have character investment costs in skills and operations. I agree there. What we each risk IN day to day operation is not equal. The chance of getting killed is shared by everyone. What we will lose if robbed or killed is not equal.

Throwing in the flagging is just a waste of time, though. Flags apply to EVERYONE that commits the action that triggers them.

If your role may trigger flags, it is part of the balance. They are poor defense as arguments. They exist in almost all other sandboxes. Even your EVE.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
... I'm coming 'round to the position that having a combination of Faction-based Banditry with no Reputation loss, and normal Reputation loss for Banditry outside of Factions (and for Bandit-Hunting outside of Factions) makes the most sense.

That is music. Only 99.9% of the forum posters and 100% of the Dev team to go... ;)

Unless I misread your meaning. It is early where I live...

Well, just in case there was any misunderstanding...

I think there should be Merchant and Bandit Factions who can freely attack each other (at Rank 4 or when flying the colors). I think any other Banditry (or Bandit-Hunting) should include Reputation loss.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
... I'm coming 'round to the position that having a combination of Faction-based Banditry with no Reputation loss, and normal Reputation loss for Banditry outside of Factions (and for Bandit-Hunting outside of Factions) makes the most sense.

That is music. Only 99.9% of the forum posters and 100% of the Dev team to go... ;)

Unless I misread your meaning. It is early where I live...

Well, just in case there was any misunderstanding...

I think there should be Merchant and Bandit Factions who can freely attack each other (at Rank 4 or when flying the colors). I think any other Banditry (or Bandit-Hunting) should include Reputation loss.

Do you mean dropping the "criminal" flag? Or to be more clear, non faction targets can not freely get revenge?

1,601 to 1,650 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.