Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with what you are saying is the you want to be able to retaliate as a victim, before you have been victimized.
I didn't read it the way you describe, Bluddwolf. I read it as he would like to have a method equal to SAD allowing the prospective SAD victim to pre-empt your SAD. Typifying it as a victim desiring retaliation before the fact is an unwarranted construal. Your bandit has this special superpower allowing him to skim travelers. Travelers don't want to have to passively let you skim them. You want PvP, right? All for PvP? So support their proposal instead of pretending what they want is unreasonable, cowardly, or whiney. You should not have a free 'Crime is Fun! Crime is Fair!' ticket, but if you do then your prospective victims must also gain an effective and active counter.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not pretending that I know how things will play out yet, but SAD does need to be a good choice for bandits. Some balance so that they are not immune to consequences, but also not horrible so that they are thrashed at all times that they intend to hunt and use SAD primarily. Otherwise, I don't see why they would use it.
It certainly needs to better choice than murdering people outright.
I'd prefer that any timed PvP/criminal/whatever flag be applied at the moment the SAD is initiated, to allow the robbers to 'ambush' targets without needing a separate ambush mechanism. But they should be flagged at that point to allow the merchants to immediately attack before concluding negotiations, if the merchants desire - BUT that should also make the merchants legitimate within the spirit of a refused SAD. Flagging the robbers as soon as the SAD negotiation screen shuts might work just as well, what's a minute more or less?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"If the Hostility state works the way that Nevy wants, (you attack one, everyone in area sees you as hostile), then I will travel in what amounts to be a quasi zerg-Gank Squad of 20+." -Bluddwolf
It isn't what Nevy wants, it's what makes sense. If I'm in an innocent bystander in the city and I see a guy robbing an old woman it is perfectly reasonable for me to protect that old lady without fear of the police arresting me. Same goes for Pathfinder, if you choose to attack an innocent player, that's your risk to take. But other innocents will come to their aid - this isn't unreasonable...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Not pretending that I know how things will play out yet, but SAD does need to be a good choice for bandits. Some balance so that they are not immune to consequences, but also not horrible so that they are thrashed at all times that they intend to hunt and use SAD primarily. Otherwise, I don't see why they would use it.It certainly needs to better choice than murdering people outright.
I'd prefer that any timed PvP/criminal/whatever flag be applied at the moment the SAD is initiated, to allow the robbers to 'ambush' targets without needing a separate ambush mechanism. But they should be flagged at that point to allow the merchants to immediately attack before concluding negotiations, if the merchants desire - BUT that should also make the merchants legitimate within the spirit of a refused SAD. Flagging the robbers as soon as the SAD negotiation screen shuts might work just as well, what's a minute more or less?
There is still, and this is only so far, the general idea that SAD is the only described mechanic to get around the "preferred" PVP system. I am not sure if it matters much (personally not for me), but it is there like a big sore thumb.
I think that it is not so bad, all things considered. It is certainly better than always being killed and robbed for ALL of your goods. The problem is that as a "get around", it could be abused. That is what needs to be solved.
Though I have advocated for a "pre flag", I am not certain (after more thought) that it is a good idea. So, I suppose that I agree with you now. As long as the mechanic is not widely used for other things, that is. ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Related to murdering people outright...
Characters that lose Reputation for a kill are flagged with the stackable Killer debuff, which is only visible to the player that has it. It lasts for four hours, and, if you suffer Reputation loss due to killing a player character in that span of time, the timer resets and your Killer stack increases by 1. For every stack of Killer you have, your Reputation losses increase by 20%. If you reach Killer 10 you gain the Mass Murderer flag and become Hostile to everyone for 24 hours.
I think that robbers who kill in the course of a SAD should still accumulate these Killer debuff counters, even though they don't take the rep losses if they're killing as a result a refused SAD. A robber who rarely kills may gain public acclaim as a dandy highwayman. A robber with a trail of bodies behind him will be seen as a thuggish murderer and find it less easy to hide...
These Killer debuffs are likely to discourage random (non-SAD) murders. Including them for refused SADs will encourage robbers to make reasonable demands and discourage the use of excessive SADs to excuse murders.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"If the Hostility state works the way that Nevy wants, (you attack one, everyone in area sees you as hostile), then I will travel in what amounts to be a quasi zerg-Gank Squad of 20+." -Bluddwolf
I missed that. If Bluddwolf is not aware that this is indeed the way the Hostile state works, that surprises me.
Characters with the Attacker flag (or that are otherwise rendered Hostile) can be attacked by other players without suffering Reputation loss.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Related to murdering people outright...
Characters that lose Reputation for a kill are flagged with the stackable Killer debuff, which is only visible to the player that has it. It lasts for four hours, and, if you suffer Reputation loss due to killing a player character in that span of time, the timer resets and your Killer stack increases by 1. For every stack of Killer you have, your Reputation losses increase by 20%. If you reach Killer 10 you gain the Mass Murderer flag and become Hostile to everyone for 24 hours.I think that robbers who kill in the course of a SAD should still accumulate these Killer debuff counters, even though they don't take the rep losses if they're killing as a result a refused SAD. A robber who rarely kills may gain public acclaim as a dandy highwayman. A robber with a trail of bodies behind him will be seen as a thuggish murderer and find it less easy to hide...
These Killer debuffs are likely to discourage random (non-SAD) murders. Including them for refused SADs will encourage robbers to make reasonable demands and discourage the use of excessive SADs to excuse murders.
I am curious to find out if the "killer" count would work in that situation for each member of a party that is attacked or SADed and killed...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"If the Hostility state works the way that Nevy wants, (you attack one, everyone in area sees you as hostile), then I will travel in what amounts to be a quasi zerg-Gank Squad of 20+." -BluddwolfI missed that. If Bluddwolf is not aware that this is indeed the way the Hostile state works, that surprises me.
Characters with the Attacker flag (or that are otherwise rendered Hostile) can be attacked by other players without suffering Reputation loss.
Bluddwolf needs to figure out if being a random player-killer is really at all possible in Pathfinder Online. What are the penalties to killing innocents without using a SAD? How many times can a player murder innocents before the penalties against the murderer's character become too overbearing? Once those questions are answered then you can figure out what your game plan is going to be. You're seemingly jumping the gun my friend.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I know that this has been suggested already by a few people. Could a SAD just cost Influence, much like a feud but less costly - of less duration - immediately applicable (no wait). It would have to be for SAD only, and SAD would still need some rules (minimum and maximum, etc..).
Would that satisfy the fact that it is a work around of the regular PVP system?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No what im saying is that lets say you are a bandit.
You can walk up to the victim without the victim being able to do anything against you until YOU initiate the encounter.
So im asking that bandits can have the encounter initiated against them, AND yes preemptive clearing of bandits in areas.
What it looks like you want is a way to freely bandit people, without consequence. Ohhh sure the bandit can do this or that, but you are taking zero extra risk until you start the encounter.
I think its 100% fair that people can go after bandits, there is nothing wrong with that. I think it should be a risk of the CHOICE of playing a bandit.
Want to rob people who do the work, thats fine, but accept that you are at risk when you want to do so. Put yourself in danger too, because holding up single merchants/gatherers doesnt put the bandit at risk.
So if you want to be a bandit, be a bandit, but accept the risks that go along with it, because the things you describe are NOT risks for the bandits.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No what im saying is that lets say you are a bandit.
You can walk up to the victim without the victim being able to do anything against you until YOU initiate the encounter.
So im asking that bandits can have the encounter initiated against them, AND yes preemptive clearing of bandits in areas.
What it looks like you want is a way to freely bandit people, without consequence. Ohhh sure the bandit can do this or that, but you are taking zero extra risk until you start the encounter.
I think its 100% fair that people can go after bandits, there is nothing wrong with that. I think it should be a risk of the CHOICE of playing a bandit.
Want to rob people who do the work, thats fine, but accept that you are at risk when you want to do so. Put yourself in danger too, because holding up single merchants/gatherers doesnt put the bandit at risk.
So if you want to be a bandit, be a bandit, but accept the risks that go along with it, because the things you describe are NOT risks for the bandits.
I would be just fine with a persistent "hostile" flag, until the justice of "The Gods" (the only law in uncontrolled hexes) is satisfied once. I think that we are getting into dangerous waters if we try to establish intent before anything happens, though. I would be open (not that it counts for much) to reading how that could be achieved.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know that this has been suggested already by a few people. Could a SAD just cost Influence, much like a feud but less costly - of less duration - immediately applicable (no wait). It would have to be for SAD only, and SAD would still need some rules (minimum and maximum, etc..).
Would that satisfy the fact that it is a work around of the regular PVP system?
It would require all Bandits to be members of a Company. I'm not sure that's desirable, although it might be.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Leperkhaun et al.
The thing with this is they AREN'T bandits until they SAD the person, which is what Bludd is arguing. It is ambush tactics, pure and simple, and that is the whole point. The SAD is primarily to get people to avoid just ganking random parties, not for bandits to get money. The victim is not a victim until that person gets SAD'd. If you think the guys coming at you are Bandits, you can either run, prepare for a fight, or just keep normal until something happens. Or you can SAD them before they SAD you, if you really want to goes ballsy/medieval (yes, it happened more than a few times irl). For all you know that can be a merc company coming down to the settlement you left behind looking for work.
If it is a Bandit I'd rather get surprised SAD'd rather than just killed (though both will still happen). The current system in this regards is fine.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can walk up to the victim without the victim being able to do anything against you until YOU initiate the encounter.
This holds true of PvP in general; it's not a special trait of SADs, although it is complicated by the fact that SADs allow the aggressor to initiate potentially consequence-free PvP against an unflagged target...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It would require all Bandits to be members of a Company. I'm not sure that's desirable, although it might be.I know that this has been suggested already by a few people. Could a SAD just cost Influence, much like a feud but less costly - of less duration - immediately applicable (no wait). It would have to be for SAD only, and SAD would still need some rules (minimum and maximum, etc..).
Would that satisfy the fact that it is a work around of the regular PVP system?
That is true. They need the influence to spend, even if they are spending it on unaffiliated harvesters and merchants. I don't think that it would be bad if bandits needed a company, influence, and accountability therefore to prevent avoiding consequence. They certainly would be more loath to dissolve (when feuded) if they were to lose their influence pool....
@ Bluddwolf
Please don't think that this is all bent toward hampering the UNC. If you play the way that you say you will, I (personally) hope that your activities are as fair and fun as anyone's. I am more concerned about other bandits and how they will play. ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can walk up to the victim without the victim being able to do anything against you until YOU initiate the encounter.This holds true of PvP in general; it's not a special trait of SADs, although it is complicated by the fact that SADs allow the aggressor to initiate potentially consequence-free PvP against an unflagged target...
And this is part of why I think there should be a persisting flag after the SAD - a 'hot pursuit' timer where the country side is on edge and these particular individuals are known robbers and freely target-able as such. SAD doesn't have to be consequence-free. It's a no-reputation-loss attack, sure, but the consequence might be a lingering PvP flag.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not a big fan of all the bandits being in the same company *as a mandatory setup*. It happened plenty of times where a bandit group were just a bunch of low lives who met in a tavern the night before, heard about some cargo run, and all joined up that once to hit the run then go their separate ways.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not a big fan of all the bandits being in the same company *as a mandatory setup*. It happened plenty of times where a bandit group were just a bunch of low lives who met in a tavern the night before, heard about some cargo run, and all joined up that once to hit the run then go their separate ways.
I can see the realism of that point. You can't have everything always realistic though. If you want to have people accountable for actions, you have to have a vehicle to apply the accountability. If you are ok that they can escape the accountability, then that is different and none of this matters.
If an "after the fact" flag is good enough for the majority player base, then so be it. How long does it last? Are examples from other, similar, games good enough?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I can not from work, but if someone can paste the "Going-A-Viking" and "Hostility" portions of the Dev Blog.
Hostility requires some connection (agency) to the person being victimized by the hostile act.
Without this connection, any hostile act, even in the wilderness is the equivalent of a Criminal Flag.
Devil's Advocate Positions:
If hostility works the way that others believe, and any bystander can now attack without consequence, then I would use a larger group of bandits in my grouping (zerg) and potentially a bait alt.
I could also just search around for parties already engaged, wait to one or the other is weakened sufficiently, and then jump in. Take out the stronger of the two (helping the weaker), and then my second group would take out the weaker and we loot both sides. All of this would be consequence free.
I'm willing to give this system a try and if either of those Devil's Advocate positions are correct, we would maximize our skills and practices to work within that system.
It is quite honestly funny, how in an effort to prevent SADs, some of you are willing to ask that you be granted the ability to attack without consequences, forgetting that it can work both ways.
"Be careful for what you wish for, you just might get it."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How long does it last? Are examples from other, similar, games good enough?
I think it has to be in line with other PFO flags, balanced for severity.
The Criminal flag used to last 10 minutes, but could be stacked when additional criminal acts were performed before the flag wore off.
- Robbing someone with the threat of force might be more serious than a simple crime.
- Killing someone during the course of a robbery might be more serious than simple robbery.
- A stack of 10 Criminal acts turned into the 24-hour Brigand flag under the old rules.
The old SAD mechanic effectively flagged the target for 5 minutes when the SAD was refused.
The old SAD mechanic prohibited the Outlaw from attacking the target that paid the demand for 20 minutes.
added: Curiously, I don't think a murder (attacking and killing a unflagged target) has a long timer - not even as long as the basic Criminal.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not a big fan of all the bandits being in the same company *as a mandatory setup*. It happened plenty of times where a bandit group were just a bunch of low lives who met in a tavern the night before, heard about some cargo run, and all joined up that once to hit the run then go their separate ways.I can see the realism of that point. You can't have everything always realistic though. If you want to have people accountable for actions, you have to have a vehicle to apply the accountability. If you are ok that they can escape the accountability, then that is different and none of this matters.
If an "after the fact" flag is good enough for the majority player base, then so be it. How long does it last? Are examples from other, similar, games good enough?
The Criminal Flag in EvE lasted for 15 minutes after the end of the criminal act.
I'm fine with that. That would also make it much, much longer than the 1 minute the old attacker flag lasted.
But, I would also want Hostility only reserved for those characters actually connected to the victim of the hostile act.
Any 3rd party can still become involved, but they have to accept the same consequences that we did to earn our initial hostility state.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Still trying to wrap my head around how flags and SAD will work as things stand at this moment.
The attacker (bandits) issues a SAD, a form of an attack. They now can not physically assault the character/caravan for 30 seconds. If they do they get a hostile flag.
The merchant character perspective is the bandit just issued me a SAD(attacked me) he has the attacker flag, but is not hostile at this point. If I can kill him in 30 seconds I wont loose rep.. If I cant kill him I become hostile to him..
Any witnesses have the same view as the merchant….
If the SAD window closes without a deal being struck, all should now be hostile to each other (except the witness they haven’t really picked sides at this point). True the merchant didn’t attack twice but the SAD is meant as a way to say hey I think I have you where I want you and I could kill you..
If a deal is struck the attacker flag drops and the 2 parties go about their business? (I know my thought is the bandits should become guards for x time before they get paid, but that is not that relevant to the attacker flag discussion)
If a SAD is accepted why would there be lingering flags? if the SAD is not accepted the normal PvP flags should make things clear as to the reputation and level of criminal activity wouldn't it?
As to preemptive bandit hunts, not sure what to say other than if you are assigned to clear the thief’s forest by your king, how do you tell who is a thief and who is a peasant?
You can talk to folks, but I don’t think flags should play a part in that, if certain bandits have become a problem use the bounty system so you know who to look for.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to declare open war on bandits in an area you don’t control and expect the bandits to identify themselves on site. For Bandits that are truly notorious use the bounty system for what it was intended to be.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I can not from work, but if someone can paste the "Going-A-Viking" and "Hostility" portions of the Dev Blog.
Hostility requires some connection (agency) to the person being victimized by the hostile act.
Without this connection, any hostile act, even in the wilderness is the equivalent of a Criminal Flag.
Devil's Advocate Positions:
If hostility works the way that others believe, and any bystander can now attack without consequence, then I would use a larger group of bandits in my grouping (zerg) and potentially a bait alt.
I could also just search around for parties already engaged, wait to one or the other is weakened sufficiently, and then jump in. Take out the stronger of the two (helping the weaker), and then my second group would take out the weaker and we loot both sides. All of this would be consequence free.
I'm willing to give this system a try and if either of those Devil's Advocate positions are correct, we would maximize our skills and practices to work within that system.
It is quite honestly funny, how in an effort to prevent SADs, some of you are willing to ask that you be granted the ability to attack without consequences, forgetting that it can work both ways.
"Be careful for what you wish for, you just might get it."
I don't understand this.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can not from work, but if someone can paste the "Going-A-Viking" and "Hostility" portions of the Dev Blog.
We have briefly touched on raiding in a number of previous posts and, while some of the fine detail is still in development, we thought it would be helpful to expand somewhat on how raiding works and what it is used for. As ever, we welcome your feedback on the system so far!
Raiding in PFO is going to be one of the most common events that initiates PvP. Raids are executed on outposts. As you would expect from the title, they are fast, destructive strikes by small groups of players. The intention might be to disrupt outpost production of bulk goods for a nearby settlement or to hijack significant resources for the raiders' own gain.
Outposts produce goods each hour, so every sixty minutes there will something worth stealing. Goods are produced even when outpost owners are offline and moving bulk goods to a safe location is more than a one man job. Thus, there may be some accumulation of goods left in an outpost for a well-planned raid. These goods are the low-hanging fruit for raiders and will be their primary target.
Initiating a raid is as simple as gathering allies, choosing an outpost, and timing your strike. Raiders must first kill any NPC guards at the outpost in order to gain access to the outpost's bulk goods container. They may then load up on its contents (an action that can be interrupted, just as any type of looting can be) and make off with the bulk goods. By default, outpost guards are few and far between. A settlement or Point of Interest (PoI) is able to dedicate some of their own NPC guards to the outpost, but hard choices will have to be made about how comprehensively to protect your supply chain. Do you weaken your major holdings to make your outposts harder to raid?
Although raiding doesn't necessarily require careful organization, there are benefits to be gained from better planning. Watching a PoI or outpost for a while to learn its collection cycles, making pre-raids to disrupt these cycles, or feinting to distract the defenders all might result in a better payoff for your main raid. As well as just building your team for martial might, it is also worth considering bringing along a player with some skill in cultivating the resource found at your target outpost. The more skilled your group is in cultivation, the better they will be able to take advantage of a process we call "strip mining."
A lot of PvP complexity we were previously storing in flags is now summarized in the Hostile state. There are a variety of cases that can make a player appear hostile to another player (e.g., faction membership, being at war, criminal flags, etc.). If you see a player that is hostile to you, there is no alignment or reputation penalty for attacking or killing that player. Often, hostility will be reciprocal (i.e., both players appear hostile to one another because their settlements are at war or their factions are enemies) but this is not required. If hostility is not reciprocal (a player sees you as hostile but you see them as friendly or neutral), once you are attacked, your attacker now appears hostile to you as well. That is, you don't take reputation or alignment penalties for defending yourself, even if you were a sanctioned target for your attacker.
Attacking an outpost will make you and your group hostile to the members of that outpost's managing company (as well as the owners of the controlling PoI if that company has subcontracted outpost management). That means that they can attempt to stop you without penalties. Raiding does not automatically make you hostile to every member of the settlement that owns that territory, however.
To enable the whole membership to come to the aid of its outposts, a settlement might choose to make raiding a crime in its territory. In that case, initiating a raid will give all raiders the Criminal flag (making them more chaotic and making them sanctioned targets for anyone). However, like all crimes, Criminal flags from raiding may have a detrimental effect on the settlement; even lawful settlements may have to consider whether making raiding a crime risks that their enemies will steal their resources and increase their corruption from frequent raiding. Additionally, the criminal flag is always overcome by active feuds or wars, so raiding will be a legitimate action if you first declare a feud or war on the settlement, PoI, or management company associated with your target outpost.
Although this potentially seems complicated, the hostility system is designed and presented in game to simplify on-the-spot combat decision making. We will cover hostility (and related changes to PvP) in more detail in a later blog post.
Re-reading those portions of the dev blog, they're specifically talking about Raiding, and this part sticks out: "We will cover hostility (and related changes to PvP) in more detail in a later blog post."
That later blog post was the one I quoted above, Alignment and Reputation, which explicitly states that "Characters with the Attacker flag (or that are otherwise rendered Hostile) can be attacked by other players without suffering Reputation loss."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't understand this.I can not from work, but if someone can paste the "Going-A-Viking" and "Hostility" portions of the Dev Blog.
Hostility requires some connection (agency) to the person being victimized by the hostile act.
Without this connection, any hostile act, even in the wilderness is the equivalent of a Criminal Flag.
Devil's Advocate Positions:
If hostility works the way that others believe, and any bystander can now attack without consequence, then I would use a larger group of bandits in my grouping (zerg) and potentially a bait alt.
I could also just search around for parties already engaged, wait to one or the other is weakened sufficiently, and then jump in. Take out the stronger of the two (helping the weaker), and then my second group would take out the weaker and we loot both sides. All of this would be consequence free.
I'm willing to give this system a try and if either of those Devil's Advocate positions are correct, we would maximize our skills and practices to work within that system.
It is quite honestly funny, how in an effort to prevent SADs, some of you are willing to ask that you be granted the ability to attack without consequences, forgetting that it can work both ways.
"Be careful for what you wish for, you just might get it."
What part(s) don't you understand?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What part(s) don't you understand?I don't understand this.I can not from work, but if someone can paste the "Going-A-Viking" and "Hostility" portions of the Dev Blog.
Hostility requires some connection (agency) to the person being victimized by the hostile act.
Without this connection, any hostile act, even in the wilderness is the equivalent of a Criminal Flag.
Devil's Advocate Positions:
If hostility works the way that others believe, and any bystander can now attack without consequence, then I would use a larger group of bandits in my grouping (zerg) and potentially a bait alt.
I could also just search around for parties already engaged, wait to one or the other is weakened sufficiently, and then jump in. Take out the stronger of the two (helping the weaker), and then my second group would take out the weaker and we loot both sides. All of this would be consequence free.
I'm willing to give this system a try and if either of those Devil's Advocate positions are correct, we would maximize our skills and practices to work within that system.
It is quite honestly funny, how in an effort to prevent SADs, some of you are willing to ask that you be granted the ability to attack without consequences, forgetting that it can work both ways.
"Be careful for what you wish for, you just might get it."
Nothing you said reflects at all (as far as I know) how the current game design works. None of what you stated as being consequence free is actually consequence free? If a player gets the attacker flag he is free for anyone to attack and those people who attack him will still be innocent and not gain the attacker flag.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What part(s) don't you understand?I don't understand this.I can not from work, but if someone can paste the "Going-A-Viking" and "Hostility" portions of the Dev Blog.
Hostility requires some connection (agency) to the person being victimized by the hostile act.
Without this connection, any hostile act, even in the wilderness is the equivalent of a Criminal Flag.
Devil's Advocate Positions:
If hostility works the way that others believe, and any bystander can now attack without consequence, then I would use a larger group of bandits in my grouping (zerg) and potentially a bait alt.
I could also just search around for parties already engaged, wait to one or the other is weakened sufficiently, and then jump in. Take out the stronger of the two (helping the weaker), and then my second group would take out the weaker and we loot both sides. All of this would be consequence free.
I'm willing to give this system a try and if either of those Devil's Advocate positions are correct, we would maximize our skills and practices to work within that system.
It is quite honestly funny, how in an effort to prevent SADs, some of you are willing to ask that you be granted the ability to attack without consequences, forgetting that it can work both ways.
"Be careful for what you wish for, you just might get it."
Unless I am lost (no telling until the blog update), only the first aggressor would be open for free attacks. You would suffer any consequences for attacking the defenders, whether they were winning or losing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Some good points and things to consider. Whatever happens in the end, it is my opinion that the bandit should not be punished (rather they should be encouraged) if they use the SAD in the way that it is intended.
I agree. I really don't agree with people who say that the Victim should be flagged for pvp when they are SAD'd tho, or if they refuse the SAD... They are the victim... If the victim gets flagged, it would just open too many other problems (like 3rd party ganking, etc.) The Victim is innocent until when/if they decide to retaliate against the bandit. If/when that happens, all bets are off, both parties are flagged for pvp, go to town.
At most, I think that the SAD should simply nullify(or reduce) any rep loss the Bandit might get for attacking during/after the SAD. That way, if the Victim DOES decline the SAD, but does NOT attack (runs away, negotiate a different deal, etc.) then the ball is in the Bandit's court whether to attack the Victim (sans rep-loss) or to negotiate another deal.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Short summary of how I thought flags work, is this correct? Am I missing something in there?
The attacker flag as I understand it, the person that attacks once gets a flag. If they attack 2 times in 30 seconds they get a hostile flag. That player then looses reputation and if they kill someone they get the killer debuff.
The Hostile flag will allow you to defend yourself without rep hit, and without the killer debuff stacker.
The attacker flag changes to a hostile flag when you are attacked 2 times.
If you are attacked only 1 time and in response you hit that person you gain an attacker flag(if the original attacker has still only hit you one time).If you hit the original attacker a second time you gain the hostile flag(unless you can kill them in under 30 seconds..)
If you are hit by a player that is hostile, you can defend yourself and not take rep hits.(so I see a player as neutral and they see me as hostile, they hit me 1 time and become hostile to me. Ie they don’t have to gain the attacking flag first..)
Factions and settlement feuds wars etc.. can grant hostile flags without having the attacker flag being used at all..
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Victim is innocent until when/if they decide to retaliate against the bandit.
I don't think the Merchant should be flagged if he refuses a SAD, even if he attacks the Bandit.
I think the Bandit should immediately be flagged upon issuing the SAD, regardless of whether or not it's accepted by the Merchant.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you are attacked only 1 time and in response you hit that person you gain an attacker flag(if the original attacker has still only hit you one time).
I don't think so. Anyone can hit someone who has the Attacker flag without getting flagged themselves.
The rest sounds right, I think.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
At most, I think that the SAD should simply nullify(or reduce) any rep loss the Bandit might get for attacking during/after the SAD. That way, if the Victim DOES decline the SAD, but does NOT attack (runs away, negotiate a different deal, etc.) then the ball is in the Bandit's court whether to attack the Victim (sans rep-loss) or to negotiate another deal.
In the event that a SAD demand is refused, there has to be some marker or flag that allows that party of robbers to attack that party of travelers without reputation losses - if only for the next 5 minutes. (But this might not prevent the robbers from gaining attacker flags, killer debuffs, or evil shifts for the kills - it prevents reputation loss, which is no small thing).
Likewise, in the event that a SAD demand is accepted, there has to be some marker or flag that ensures that party of robbers does not attack that party of travelers in the next 20 minutes; if they do so they suffer double rep losses by the old SAD rules.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
If the SAD window closes without a deal being struck, all should now be hostile to each other (except the witness they haven’t really picked sides at this point). True the merchant didn’t attack twice but the SAD is meant as a way to say hey I think I have you where I want you and I could kill you..
....
I guess the one thing that I was wrong about is above..
I guess making each other hostile after the SAD window closes is too much of an advantage for a bandit. This is what folks are afraid of, letting bandits open up a SAD window, you decline and they get to kill you rep free without killer debuffs..
Perhaps when the window closes each side gets a fresh attacker flag( new 30 second timer), if the bandit attacks first after the window closes they become hostile, if the merchant is intent on attacking they become hostile to the bandit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you are attacked only 1 time and in response you hit that person you gain an attacker flag(if the original attacker has still only hit you one time).I don't think so. Anyone can hit someone who has the Attacker flag without getting flagged themselves.
The rest sounds right, I think.
Just curious why this would be the case, I always thought of it as the friendly fire rule. I set off a fireball and catch a few folks i didn't intend. They now can attack me and if they kill me with in 30 seconds they have no penalty....
if it is as you say why would 30 seconds matter at all?
I read it as, as long as i don't attack them again in that 30 seconds i don't get a hostile flag, they have 30 seconds to take me out or they get hostile flags ( if they hit me 2 times)..
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you are attacked only 1 time and in response you hit that person you gain an attacker flag(if the original attacker has still only hit you one time).I don't think so. Anyone can hit someone who has the Attacker flag without getting flagged themselves.
The rest sounds right, I think.
Just curious why this would be the case, I always thought of it as the friendly fire rule. I set off a fireball and catch a few folks i didn't intend. They now can attack me and if they kill me with in 30 seconds they have no penalty....
if it is as you say why would 30 seconds matter at all?
I read it as, as long as i don't attack them again in that 30 seconds i don't get a hostile flag, they have 30 seconds to take me out or they get hostile flags ( if they hit me 2 times)..
That is how I understand it. Except that you do get the flag. The penalties don't apply to either until you strike twice in 30 seconds, or you strike once and someone else finishes them in 30 seconds.
Lol I will edit all day it seems! :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guess it could mean that you are open game for anyone around you till your attacker flag wears off in 30 seconds,
after that 30 seconds if they continue to attack you they then become the aggressors..
sorry to get side tracked on this thread... but flagging came up and figured to understand this correctly before offering anymore thoughts on the issue..
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is so damn complicated, I'm getting dizzy trying to get the Dev blogs and posts, along with our ideas in order.
Point of order.... If the Dev (Stephen Cheney) needs a diagram to understand it, the KISS rule has been violated.
If we were able to tie these desired roles to factions, it would make the whole system a lot easier.
Faction to use SADs, and other Outlawry Skills.
Faction to use Caravans, and other Merchant Skills.
Faction to be a Marshal, and other Law Enforcement skills.
All other PvP is handled as part of Faction Rivalries, Feuds, And Wars.
No reputation loss, flags or other complications. Each role has its adversary, it's prey and it's charge.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Tuffon, Nihimon: With tab-targeting, I think anyone who attacks someone else "by accident" had one or more decision points where the attack could have been avoided.
Not so, even with tab-targeting AE spells can get messy. But yes, other than that it would probably be difficult.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like the factioning of this
That said, it probably would be the best.
I personally say keep this thread stopped here until we get the next blog, and then we can necro this and actually discuss it. unless SAD wasn't next... but I seem to remember reading it was.
Good luck with that! ;)
I think that, at best guess, the next blog will be our diagram and info about "attacker" and "hostility" order or their next favorite topic from Blog and Q&A Videos: Submit questions here. SAD seemed to be something for the far future.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The Victim is innocent until when/if they decide to retaliate against the bandit.I don't think the Merchant should be flagged if he refuses a SAD, even if he attacks the Bandit.
I think the Bandit should immediately be flagged upon issuing the SAD, regardless of whether or not it's accepted by the Merchant.
Agreed. I keep thinking in terms of EVE: when you PVP with someone you are 'flagged,' even if you are not the aggressor. I believe it is called a 'limited engagement.' That makes it so the defender does not get flagged criminal (or in our case, take reputation loss.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Moved from discussion on Coin:
I am actually starting to like the idea of it being a "living loot" with accepting the SAD essentially giving permission. So, threaded items are automatically excluded, and it again does not preclude coin and/or other goods from being a "side deal" during a SAD.
And this works well with the idea of SAD being a PvP skill with a character-to-character scope.