Goblin Squad Member
|
So, as you envision it, what exactly does the SAD mechanic do that is not already there?
Should SAD be party to party? If so, only between party leaders? Does this suggest that when a SAD is issued party leaders have access to the entire parties inventory to negotiate with?
Remember, many caravans will be done via merchant hiring a driver (team) to make a delivery. And many guards for said caravan might be contracted for this job only. The merchant might not even be present. Wagons will probably be a mount with cargo space...meaning it belongs to an individual. Who has the right to negotiate their collective belongings in combination with the merchant's?
Reposting this older model of understanding conditions on how much of a SAD can be demanded such that merchants are still profitable. (It's older and based on the model of SADs at the time.)
Looks like a very much more detailed explanation of what I was saying. In light of this discussion though you need another page for completeness which is the fleeing success graph which I did not see mentioned as an option in your otherwise excellent dissection. My assumption is that the higher the chance of fleeing is the lower the sad needs to be to compensate and make in worthwhile for the sad to be accepted rather than refused. I suspect the reason it is missing is that at the time you drew that up the prospect of fleeing from combat had not been brought up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what exactly does the SAD mechanic do that is not already there?
Should SAD be party to party? If so, only between party leaders? Does this suggest that when a SAD is issued party leaders have access to the entire parties inventory to negotiate with?
Remember, many caravans will be done via merchant hiring a driver (team) to make a delivery. And many guards for said caravan might be contracted for this job only. The merchant might not even be present. Wagons will probably be a mount with cargo space...meaning it belongs to an individual. Who has the right to negotiate their collective belongings in combination with the merchant's?
Sad should not be restricted to party to party. You should be able to do it as either an individual or as part of a party. Many merchants may decide it is worthwhile trying to run high value low bulk goods to a settlement on their own on the grounds that many bandits may be concentrating on caravans.
If the merchant is in a party the group leader negotiates for the merchant group. If the bandits are in the party the group leader negotiates for the bandits. If your party leader is not negotiating good deals do not let him/her be party leader next time. It doesn't need to be complicated
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sad should not be restricted to party to party. You should be able to do it as either an individual or as part of a party. Many merchants may decide it is worthwhile trying to run high value low bulk goods to a settlement on their own on the grounds that many bandits may be concentrating on caravans.If the merchant is in a party the group leader negotiates for the merchant group. If the bandits are in the party the group leader negotiates for the bandits. If your party leader is not negotiating good deals do not let him/her be party leader next time. It doesn't need to be complicated
Sorry, I see this as much more complicated then what I proposed and removes any interest I had of contracting to a caravan. One does not have to be a griefer to want to look out for their best interests...no party leader will ever have access to my inventory to save their own.
You argue all the time (rightfully) that you and yours have the right to defend yourselves and your belongings to the expanse of all. If you were the party leader...what would I as a nobody guard walk away with if you could save your gear and your guilds cargo at my expense?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, I see this as much more complicated then what I proposed and removes any interest I had of contracting to a caravan. One does not have to be a griefer to want to look out for their best interests...no party leader will ever have access to my inventory to save their own.
Sad should not be restricted to party to party. You should be able to do it as either an individual or as part of a party. Many merchants may decide it is worthwhile trying to run high value low bulk goods to a settlement on their own on the grounds that many bandits may be concentrating on caravans.If the merchant is in a party the group leader negotiates for the merchant group. If the bandits are in the party the group leader negotiates for the bandits. If your party leader is not negotiating good deals do not let him/her be party leader next time. It doesn't need to be complicated
While I am not trying to change your mind your proposal instead gave the access to your inventory to the bandit who told you what he wanted with no option to haggle. In a caravan party leaders who routinely give away everyone elses stuff to save their own will soon get a bad meta reputation and be known as caravan masters to avoid.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
While I am not trying to change your mind your proposal instead gave the access to your inventory to the bandit who told you what he wanted with no option to haggle. In a caravan party leaders who routinely give away everyone elses stuff to save their own will soon get a bad meta reputation and be known as caravan masters to avoid.
First, in mine, I had a choice to accept the SAD...each person does since I proposed SAD be a character vs. character touch attack. Also, the loot mechanic already avoids your threaded stuff and coin. So I walk away with at minimum 25% of my unthreaded gear...and all my cargo, threaded items and coin. If I, as the wagon driver, want to trade some of my cargo (or threaded items or coin) to get my gear back...that is my choice. If I trade too much, I will not be hired again as a driver. If I die and loose the whole cargo, I will not get hired again.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Looks like a very much more detailed explanation of what I was saying. In light of this discussion though you need another page for completeness which is the fleeing success graph which I did not see mentioned as an option in your otherwise excellent dissection. My assumption is that the higher the chance of fleeing is the lower the sad needs to be to compensate and make in worthwhile for the sad to be accepted rather than refused. I suspect the reason it is missing is that at the time you drew that up the prospect of fleeing from combat had not been brought up.Reposting this older model of understanding conditions on how much of a SAD can be demanded such that merchants are still profitable. (It's older and based on the model of SADs at the time.)
If movement rates are a factor at all, I have my doubts that fleeing with cargo will be much of an option. That is assumption, of course.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If movement rates are a factor at all, I have my doubts that fleeing with cargo will be much of an option. That is assumption, of course.
Entirely agree. But...what I proposed...SAD as character vs character, leaves open the option of part of a caravan sacrificing themselves to a SAD while the rest flee. It is not an all or none thing.
It might even be a tactic to always have a few wagons full of trash to sacrifice...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah. Those are details that have not been revealed, but I am sure are a concern. I have a feeling that caravans will have one Master, whether the cargo is one merchant's or a few. That Master will make the call for expediency. Party groups of gatherers/travelers I am not sure. Perhaps that will be an individual thing with each requiring a separate SAD.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If movement rates are a factor at all, I have my doubts that fleeing with cargo will be much of an option. That is assumption, of course.Entirely agree. But...what I proposed...SAD as character vs character, leaves open the option of part of a caravan sacrificing themselves to a SAD while the rest flee. It is not an all or none thing.
It might even be a tactic to always have a few wagons full of trash to sacrifice...
I certainly would not mind your option. I hope that in such a case, the other's could get away. It could even be one of the counter tactics to the seeming defenselessness vs. a SAD. :)
Edit: Why not form several caravans and travel together? The bandits have to hit each Master with a separate SAD. String them out until the numbers are divided enough to refuse and be dangerous to the bandit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, a caravan is group of wagons. One can assume that someone noted as the Master will have command...but command is only as good as those who can follow it. Just as I would not propose the leader of a formation be able to coordinate and control the members of that formation, I will not give Caravan Masters any ability to control the actions of the caravan members.
Just as those who do not follow orders in a formation and decrease efficiency will not be asked back (if not out right booted), those who cannot follow orders in a caravan should not be asked back (that metagame reputation). The best military leaders will know good soldiers; the best Caravan Masters will know good wagon drivers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If movement rates are a factor at all, I have my doubts that fleeing with cargo will be much of an option. That is assumption, of course.Entirely agree. But...what I proposed...SAD as character vs character, leaves open the option of part of a caravan sacrificing themselves to a SAD while the rest flee. It is not an all or none thing.
It might even be a tactic to always have a few wagons full of trash to sacrifice...
We do not actually know as yet how caravans or Sads will work in detail it is worth pointing out. If you are in a caravan of five wagons I see no reason why they should not all be able to run in different directions and it may well be that the bandits can only catch 2 of the 5.
Assuming caravans are parties it makes more sense for their to be a single point of contact for the sad. I would therefore suggest that caravans are careful to discuss how things are done prior to setting out just like parties in other games discuss looting rules.
As an example if I were to be a merchant (hugely unlikely :) ) and joining a caravan here are some things I would like to see discussed prior to setting out.
1) What value are we going to refuse at
2) What is the codeword for get ready to run
3) In the event of us being sadded or running we should all lose prorata to the total value thus pooling or risk (see example at the end)
(Example at the end)
Players A,B,C,D form a caravan their goods are of value (4000,3000,2000, and 1000 respectively). They get sadded for 50%. The bandits however only want the goods from A's wagon and D's wagon(5000 coins worth).
On arrival B and c sell their goods receiving 5000 coins. They then put it in a pot which then gets split so that A,B,C and D get in order 1500,1000, and 500 coins.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If movement rates are a factor at all, I have my doubts that fleeing with cargo will be much of an option. That is assumption, of course.Entirely agree. But...what I proposed...SAD as character vs character, leaves open the option of part of a caravan sacrificing themselves to a SAD while the rest flee. It is not an all or none thing.
It might even be a tactic to always have a few wagons full of trash to sacrifice...
We do not actually know as yet how caravans or Sads will work in detail it is worth pointing out. If you are in a caravan of five wagons I see no reason why they should not all be able to run in different directions and it may well be that the bandits can only catch 2 of the 5.
Assuming caravans are parties it makes more sense for their to be a single point of contact for the sad. I would therefore suggest that caravans are careful to discuss how things are done prior to setting out just like parties in other games discuss looting rules.
As an example if I were to be a merchant (hugely unlikely :) ) and joining a caravan here are some things I would like to see discussed prior to setting out.
1) What value are we going to refuse at
2) What is the codeword for get ready to run
3) In the event of us being sadded or running we should all lose prorata to the total value thus pooling or risk (see example at the end)(Example at the end)
Players A,B,C,D form a caravan their goods are of value (4000,3000,2000, and 1000 respectively). They get sadded for 50%. The bandits however only want the goods from A's wagon and D's wagon(5000 coins worth).
On arrival B and c sell their goods receiving 5000 coins. They then put it in a pot which then gets split so that A,B,C and D get in order 1500,1000, and 500 coins.
Preplanning like that is MANDATORY, at least for anything that I will be a part of. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We do not actually know as yet how caravans or Sads will work in detail it is worth pointing out.
Nor does GW...which is why they asked us to debate it...so they get ideas. From what I got of their response, they are currently debating whether it will even be in-game because of the number of issues that have been brought up here and in-house. I get the impression that are not looking for a description of how it was going to work...but some ideas about how they can change it to make it work.
If you are in a caravan of five wagons I see no reason why they should not all be able to run in different directions and it may well be that the bandits can only catch 2 of the 5.
Assuming caravans are parties it makes more sense for their to be a single point of contact for the sad. I would therefore suggest that caravans are careful to discuss how things are done prior to setting out just like parties in other games discuss looting rules.
As a Caravan Master, I would prefer the simplicity of being able to communicate with my caravan by all being in Party. If this means my decision to accept a SAD will be all of nothing, I would think there is something lacking in the mechanics.
What do you feel you gain by SAD'ing the whole party as opposed to an individual...and, in the case of a guard checking for contraband, why would I want to SAD anyone but the individual I have before me? How does the SAD'er choose between those two when the person targeted and SAD'ed is in a party? Or does it default to one or the other? Sorry, again I think it is much less complicated my way.
As an example if I were to be a merchant (hugely unlikely :) ) and joining a caravan here are some things I would like to see discussed prior to setting out.
1) What value are we going to refuse at
2) What is the codeword for get ready to run
3) In the event of us being sadded or running we should all lose prorata to the total value thus pooling or risk (see example at the end)(Example at the end)
Players A,B,C,D form a caravan their goods are of value (4000,3000,2000, and 1000 respectively). They get sadded for 50%. The bandits however only want the goods from A's wagon and D's wagon(5000 coins worth).
On arrival B and c sell their goods receiving 5000 coins. They then put it in a pot which then gets split so that A,B,C and D get in order 1500,1000, and 500 coins.
This could/should be the case with both our advocated models.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For 5 caravans and travel together. If a SAD must target the Master of each, the bandit might be too busy to get them all.
In the end, any trick will only work so many times against any one group. ;)
True, but in my proposal, it also makes bandits always consider their resources. Otherwise, a single bandit, and a rogue Caravan Master can capture a caravan of arbitrary size.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We do not actually know as yet how caravans or Sads will work in detail it is worth pointing out.Nor does GW...which is why they asked us to debate it...so they get ideas. From what I got of their response, they are currently debating whether it will even be in-game because of the number of issues that have been brought up here and in-house. I get the impression that are not looking for a description of how it was going to work...but some ideas about how they can change it to make it work.
If you are in a caravan of five wagons I see no reason why they should not all be able to run in different directions and it may well be that the bandits can only catch 2 of the 5.
Assuming caravans are parties it makes more sense for their to be a single point of contact for the sad. I would therefore suggest that caravans are careful to discuss how things are done prior to setting out just like parties in other games discuss looting rules.
As a Caravan Master, I would prefer the simplicity of being able to communicate with my caravan by all being in Party. If this means my decision to accept a SAD will be all of nothing, I would think there is something lacking in the mechanics.
What do you feel you gain by SAD'ing the whole party as opposed to an individual...and, in the case of a guard checking for contraband, why would I want to SAD anyone but the individual I have before me? How does the SAD'er choose between those two when the person targeted and SAD'ed is in a party? Or does it default to one or the other? Sorry, again I think it is much less complicated my way.
...As an example if I were to be a merchant (hugely unlikely :) ) and joining a caravan here are some things I would like to see discussed prior to setting out.
1) What value are we going to refuse at
2) What is the codeword for get ready to run
3) In the event of us being sadded or running we should all lose prorata to the total value thus pooling or risk
The simple reason to sad you as a group is because you are in a group. If you do not want to be sadded as a group travel as 5 separate caravans in the same formation. Grouping up gives you some advantages it also gives you disadvantages. Being treated as a single entity is one of them.
You have the option to travel together as a caravan without being grouped. It will however mean that while the bandits have to sad you all individually you will not be able to defend your friend if for example they only sad one of you. That is the trade off and it is your choice of which to do.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Likewise, the bandits need to decide if they operate separately or together. If they group, once the leader of a bandit party commits them, they're all committed. If they operate separately, though, and the merchant refuses the SAD, only the bandit(s) involved in that SAD get the rep free attacks. Any bandits that want to jump in later would take full rep hits for attacking.
(Of course, there might be a squad or two of low-rep ruffians ready to jump in in support.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Haven’t given this one much thought, and its late .. but it is an idea..
Give the caravan master the ability to load stuff in a way that it aligns with % chance to be discovered prior to the caravan moving.
Think of it as hiding the T2 ore under the barley and Hops. Or under the layer of wooden planks. Or in the middle of stacks of T1 ore. The point is the caravan master can set up items in a designated order and give all the contents a percentage value 1-100. Usually higher value = better concealed.
Come up with a mechanic that will compare the skill of the SAD bandit with the skill of the caravan master ,
to determine the items the bandit finds during a couple min looking through the wagons. Give the bandits check against the caravan master to determine a starting spot 1-100.
Take that number as the start point in the caravan inventory. Add the percentage the bandit skill is able to request or was agreed upon to that starting point.
You now have a quick way to work out the items the SAD grants but bandits woudlnt like it if they always found barley and hops and no good ore.. but then again how long would it take to search 5 wagons for everything they contain.. if your are out in the open and robbing someone?
Anyway just a thought..
Players would have to delegate bags and slots as a % for when the skill is not used on caravans.. so may not work but was worth mentioning..
Likewise, the bandits need to decide if they operate separately or together. If they group, once the leader of a bandit party commits them, they're all committed. If they operate separately, though, and the merchant refuses the SAD, only the bandit(s) involved in that SAD get the rep free attacks. Any bandits that want to jump in later would take full rep hits for attacking.
Seems perfectly fair to me that both sides get treated the same and both can choose to
a) group up and be treated as a single entity with all the advantages and disadvantages or grouping
or
b) Act inidividually and each person acts according to his whims and suffer neither the disadvantages nor advantages of grouping
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The simple reason to sad you as a group is because you are in a group. If you do not want to be sadded as a group travel as 5 separate caravans in the same formation. Grouping up gives you some advantages it also gives you disadvantages. Being treated as a single entity is one of them.
By this example, formation combat should involve joining the formation and giving up your autonomy to be controlled by Formation Masters. And combating a formation should involve attacking said Formation Master.
You have the option to travel together as a caravan without being grouped.
And give up the communication and combat benefits of being partied. No thanks.
It will however mean that while the bandits have to sad you all individually you will not be able to defend your friend if for example they only sad one of you. That is the trade off and it is your choice of which to do.
I do not see how this follows at all. If I accept a SAD and happily loose 5 healing potions...while my buddy says in party that he forgot to drop off his uber armor. He can turn down his SAD, if the bandit SAD'ing him decides it is worth it to attack him in front of us. Then when he strikes and gets the attacker flag, we are all welcome to engage him.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
True, but in my proposal, it also makes bandits always consider their resources. Otherwise, a single bandit, and a rogue Caravan Master can capture a caravan of arbitrary size.For 5 caravans and travel together. If a SAD must target the Master of each, the bandit might be too busy to get them all.
In the end, any trick will only work so many times against any one group. ;)
What is wrong with a traitor caravan Master leading out his group and betraying them to his friend the bandit? Sounds like content to me and a throw away character. but certainly not unheard of in fiction or history.
Definitely infuriating, but only good once for a trained "teamster" invested toon.
Edit: I know Conan could turn such treachery around!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Forencith
Just so that I am sure I understand: your proposal is that a SAD should be for each individual in a group, whether they are partied/caravanned together or not?
If so, that would be fine by me. Anything that makes it more difficult for the bandit. As long as it all adds up fairly in final sum.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
True, but in my proposal, it also makes bandits always consider their resources. Otherwise, a single bandit, and a rogue Caravan Master can capture a caravan of arbitrary size.For 5 caravans and travel together. If a SAD must target the Master of each, the bandit might be too busy to get them all.
In the end, any trick will only work so many times against any one group. ;)
What is wrong with a traitor caravan Master leading out his group and betraying them to his friend the bandit? Sounds like content to me and a throw away character. but certainly not unheard of in fiction or history.
Definitely infuriating, but only good once for a trained "teamster" invested toon.
Because I would not do it...as a wagon driver I would bolt if they tried. It is absurd to even think it as possible. And that is not all it means...you are saying at anytime, your party leader can give away all your stuff, SAD is not limited to caravans. This would definitely prevent any PUGs in PFO. You just get done raiding a dungeon, walk out...your party leader "accidentally" runs into a bandit and boom...you just got SAD'd and your stuff is gone.
And again, considering we are trying to define SAD as a generic mechanic, and assuming Steelwing's proposal, when and how it is used on a party versus single character? What is the range on the party SAD? The questions that need to be addressed to explore this as a viable SAD mechanic are not being so.
@ Forencith
Just so that I am sure I understand: your proposal is that a SAD should be for each individual in a group, whether they are partied/caravanned together or not?
If so, that would be fine by me. Anything that makes it more difficult for the bandit. As long as it all adds up fairly in final sum.
So to give you both an example
10 bandits jump out on a caravan of 5 merchants. Each bandit issues an individual SAD demand to each of the 5 merchants.
This is what you want?
Naturally the chances of the 50 sad demands is more than likely several times more than the caravan is carrying
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Forencith
Just so that I am sure I understand: your proposal is that a SAD should be for each individual in a group, whether they are partied/caravanned together or not?
If so, that would be fine by me. Anything that makes it more difficult for the bandit. As long as it all adds up fairly in final sum.
So to give you both an example
10 bandits jump out on a caravan of 5 merchants. Each bandit issues an individual SAD demand to each of the 5 merchants.
This is what you want?
Naturally the chances of the 50 sad demands is more than likely several times more than the caravan is carrying
I don't think it likely that it will be individual targets among formed parties. I would be fine if it was, but I think for simplicity of mechanics they will go with leader/Master.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
There's a difference between leading someone into an ambush that gets them killed and leading them into a situation where they are forcibly stripped without their assent.
Some kind of perception ability to see/estimate what characters are carrying is a must, and then simply make the SAD default to the maximum some percentage of carried items- which the target can accept, ending the negotiation, or adjust (adding coin and removing carried items, or some such).
A perception ability to see what's being carried is sufficient to cover any cases of 'smuggling' that might arise, and allowing the target to leave their carried items in lieu of any coin prevents the worst abuses that I've considered.
As far as I am concerned, the goal of the game mechanic should be to bring the Nash Equilibrium (where no player does better by changing their strategy) in line with a Pareto-Efficient location (where no player can do better unless another player does worse). The basic way to do that is to add a reputation penalty for attacking someone after they've paid a SAD demand that is greater than the value gained by attacking them, and by allowing the SAD demand to find a fair valuation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And again, considering we are trying to define SAD as a generic mechanic, and assuming Steelwing's proposal, when and how it is used on a party versus single character? What is the range on the party SAD? The questions that need to be addressed to explore this as a viable SAD mechanic are not being so.
I could also see a SAD being an AOE action. Maybe "STAND AND DELIVER!" with a bunch of crossbowmen stepping from behind trees should apply to anyone and everyone within some range.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
True, but in my proposal, it also makes bandits always consider their resources. Otherwise, a single bandit, and a rogue Caravan Master can capture a caravan of arbitrary size.For 5 caravans and travel together. If a SAD must target the Master of each, the bandit might be too busy to get them all.
In the end, any trick will only work so many times against any one group. ;)
What is wrong with a traitor caravan Master leading out his group and betraying them to his friend the bandit? Sounds like content to me and a throw away character. but certainly not unheard of in fiction or history.
Definitely infuriating, but only good once for a trained "teamster" invested toon.
Because I would not do it...as a wagon driver I would bolt if they tried. It is absurd to even think it as possible. And that is not all it means...you are saying at anytime, your party leader can give away all your stuff, SAD is not limited to caravans. This would definitely prevent any PUGs in PFO. You just get done raiding a dungeon, walk out...your party leader "accidentally" runs into a bandit and boom...you just got SAD'd and your stuff is gone.
And again, considering we are trying to define SAD as a generic mechanic, and assuming Steelwing's proposal, when and how it is used on a party versus single character? What is the range on the party SAD? The questions that need to be addressed to explore this as a viable SAD mechanic are not being so.
I just don't know. The more that it is dug into and little parts are objected to, the more cumbersome and ridiculous it gets....
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes, as described below. From
SAD should be a single-target, skill-based touch attack (very short range).
...
[b]SAD should be usable anywhere and in any situation one is willing to go "Attacker". It should be considered from that generic perspective versus simply as a caravan mechanic.
Additionally, I would add that yes, I think SAD should utilize the loot mechanic. If you agree to let me...and I am searching you for loot, I am going to find what I find. I propose it is some fraction of your belongings, with that fraction tied to both my skill level and the number of bandits in my party...with a max of 75%. The benefit I see is that it is a random selection of your belongings minus anything threaded and coin. The bandit does not have to take what he finds...but cannot take what he does not find.
10 bandits jump out on a caravan of 5 merchants. Each bandit issues an individual SAD demand to each of the 5 merchants.
This is what you want?
Naturally the chances of the 50 sad demands is more than likely several times more than the caravan is carrying
*laugh*...Awww, how is the result of that interaction any different than having 10 unpartyed bandits traveling together SAD your entire party as you propose. Exact same result.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Forencinth & @Bringslite
Both of your worries seem to be predicated on a bad apple being leader of your group.
I do not think you are appreciating the degree to which an individuals reputation actually spreads on a single server game if they act like a douche bag
In every situation where you party you are at risk from party members. You will never get around that and the answer is community. Develop a friends list of people who you know to be reliable to play with for certain activities.
I think you also over estimate the number of pugs that will occur in PfO. I fully expect once people get used to the game that Pug's will be a tiny proportion of groups (much as they are in Eve). Instead people will be realising the importance of being in a good settlement and company where they can get trusted party members. Pugs are a product of themeparks they have little role to play in pvp orientated sandbox games
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I just don't know. The more that it is dug into and little parts are objected to, the more cumbersome and ridiculous it gets....
Which, I think, is why GW gave us this challenge. I think they ran into the same problems. Which is why I simplified it to just being character vs. character and utilizing the loot mechanic...and everything else is simple PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Steelwing
What is wrong with a traitor caravan Master leading out his group and betraying them to his friend the bandit? Sounds like content to me and a throw away character. but certainly not unheard of in fiction or history.
Definitely infuriating, but only good once for a trained "teamster" invested toon.
Edit: I know Conan could turn such treachery around!
What worries?
Yes, as described below. From
SAD should be a single-target, skill-based touch attack (very short range).
...
[b]SAD should be usable anywhere and in any situation one is willing to go "Attacker". It should be considered from that generic perspective versus simply as a caravan mechanic.
Additionally, I would add that yes, I think SAD should utilize the loot mechanic. If you agree to let me...and I am searching you for loot, I am going to find what I find. I propose it is some fraction of your belongings, with that fraction tied to both my skill level and the number of bandits in my party...with a max of 75%. The benefit I see is that it is a random selection of your belongings minus anything threaded and coin. The bandit does not have to take what he finds...but cannot take what he does not find.
*laugh*...Awww, how is the result of that interaction any different than having 10 unpartyed bandits traveling together SAD your entire party as you propose. Exact same result.10 bandits jump out on a caravan of 5 merchants. Each bandit issues an individual SAD demand to each of the 5 merchants.
This is what you want?
Naturally the chances of the 50 sad demands is more than likely several times more than the caravan is carrying
The point I was making was if you want to be partied but sadded individually then that works for the bandits too. In normal circumstances bandits have sufficient advantages by being grouped to make ungrouped bandit groups uncommon.
You want all the benefits of grouping for merchants but do not wish to have the downsides to go with it. My answer fair enough but that means the bandits get the same options. That means everytime you get sadded every merchant is going to get multiple sads.
@ Steelwing
What is wrong with a traitor caravan Master leading out his group and betraying them to his friend the bandit? Sounds like content to me and a throw away character. but certainly not unheard of in fiction or history.
Definitely infuriating, but only good once for a trained "teamster" invested toon.
Edit: I know Conan could turn such treachery around!
What worries?
I hadnt read that post when I wrote mine :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I hadnt read that post when I wrote mine :)@ Steelwing
What is wrong with a traitor caravan Master leading out his group and betraying them to his friend the bandit? Sounds like content to me and a throw away character. but certainly not unheard of in fiction or history.
Definitely infuriating, but only good once for a trained "teamster" invested toon.
Edit: I know Conan could turn such treachery around!
What worries?
It's cool. :)
Which, I think, is why GW gave us this challenge. I think they ran into the same problems. Which is why I simplified it to just being character vs. character and utilizing the loot mechanic...and everything else is simple PvP.I just don't know. The more that it is dug into and little parts are objected to, the more cumbersome and ridiculous it gets....
And your simple solution failed to address the issues I raised about it nor have you addressed them as yet and shown why any merchant ever will not just run for it. If a Sad gets rarely accepted then there is absolutely no point them wasting time coding it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Forencinth & @Bringslite
Both of your worries seem to be predicated on a bad apple being leader of your group.
Not mine, I am simply trying to find a way to make SAD viable because I think it is an important generic mechanic...except I do not think it will work in its current form (and I do not think GW does either). I am trying to solve mechanical problems I see. The party to party SAD has questions I cannot answer and have not seen answers for...so in the failure of that, I am looking for other ways. We know we want it to also be available person to person, and that avoids many of the problems party to party runs into...so seems like a logical default position.
From this default position, I have asked many questions about how the party to party would work as an option. I have not seen responses to those questions. I do not have solutions either so I am stuck advocating for the more workable base position (which has many RP elements that are growing on me).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... So to give you both an example
10 bandits jump out on a caravan of 5 merchants. Each bandit issues an individual SAD demand to each of the 5 merchants.
This is what you want?
Naturally the chances of the 50 sad demands is more than likely several times more than the caravan is carrying
I think that's a great place to raise an old quote from
In general, I think we're way more worried about "a half dozen guys work together to stop a single player and SAD him in sequence until he's bankrupt or cancels a trade and is therefore freely attackable" than we are organized groups of merchants moving from settlement to settlement and conspiring to get the Fleeced flag cheaply. The people most in danger from bandits are solo or small group explorers and resource gatherers out in the wilds trying to return home with full pockets, and they'll have a harder time arranging for their own bandit quisling when they need one.
What mechanism should be there to prevent multiple SADs?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Which, I think, is why GW gave us this challenge. I think they ran into the same problems. Which is why I simplified it to just being character vs. character and utilizing the loot mechanic...and everything else is simple PvP.I just don't know. The more that it is dug into and little parts are objected to, the more cumbersome and ridiculous it gets....
The parts that I like about your suggestion are:
1. that it forces more individual bandits to invest in the skill and slot it.
2. that it is not an all or nothing thing for everyone in a group. Some could flee, fight or accept as they wish.
I am concerned how all of the "hostility" flags and "attacker" flags would play out in the situation where some of a party did one thing and others did another, at the same time.
@Forencinth & @Bringslite
Both of your worries seem to be predicated on a bad apple being leader of your group.
Not mine, I am simply trying to find a way to make SAD viable because I think it is an important generic mechanic...except I do not think it will work in its current form (and I do not think GW does either). I am trying to solve mechanical problems I see. The party to party SAD has questions I cannot answer and have not seen answers for...so in the failure of that, I am looking for other ways. We know we want it to also be available person to person, and that avoids many of the problems party to party runs into...so seems like a logical default position.
From this default position, I have asked many questions about how the party to party would work as an option. I have not seen responses to those questions. I do not have solutions either so I am stuck advocating for the more workable base position (which has many RP elements that are growing on me).
But you haven't shown a system that will work in my opinion nor have you shown why you think my reasoning for why it won't work are invalid nor have you shown nightdrifter.s figures which show losing 75% on a sad is going to drive merchants to bankruptcy in job lots.
I tend to agree a lot of what Goblinworks has postulated for pvp interaction has huge gaping holes in it especially where sad's are concerned. The system you propose however I genuinely believe is worse than what GW last proposed because I really believe it will in the vast majority of cases result in a refused sad.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bringslite, Just my view - the Robbers are hostile to the Travelers as soon as they say "Stand and Deliver" - the Travelers can legitimately attack then. The Travelers don't appear as hostile to the Robbers until the Travelers attack, flee, or refuse the SAD demand. At some point the Robbers should gain a Criminal flag that exposes them to attack by anybody, but that might not be until after the travelers Accept/Refuse the SAD and a hue and cry can be raised.
In my view if one teamster decides to run for it, or one guardsman decides to fight his way out, the negotiations are effectively refused for the entire party. At that point the Robber party can attack all of the Travelers without risk of losing Rep (at least for the next 5 minutes). It might not be the caravan master that never travels with the group again.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is what I proposed:
SAD should be a single-target, skill-based touch attack (very short range).
SAD should be usable anywhere and in any situation one is willing to go "Attacker". It should be considered from that generic perspective versus simply as a caravan mechanic.
1. Being SAD'd should involve nothing more than a pop-up saying "Bluddwolf has just commanded you to Stand and Deliver, do you comply?"
2. If you accept, the normal "loot timer" appears, after which he can take what he wants in a loot window. He can choose a random selection of your unthreaded items.
If the SAD skill is "advancable", I think the percentage of items should be tied to the SAD skill. I also think the number of bandits in your party should give you a significant bonus to your SAD ability. This is to give bandits incentive to stay in team and get the bonus as opposed to SAD'ing multiple times unteamed.
Notice, bandits get a carrot for being in team...a bonus to their percent found based upon the number of local party members.
3. After Bluddwolf takes what he wants, he alone finishes the SAD with Accept or Cancel. An Accept gives him and everyone in his party a "SAD timer" buff and a hostile flag.. A Cancel nullifies the SAD.
This is the start of the stick...everyone in the party gets a timer for each person looted.
4. Once the SAD has been completed, normal social interaction occurs. One is free to talk, suggest trades, etc. If the Bluddwolf does not feel threatened and thinks he can increase his crews profit, he will probably do so.
5. When a "SAD timer" ends without the victim having not since died, it provides a very small transfer of Rep from the victim.
Alternately, if the victim or Sad'er die before the "SAD timer" ends, there is a very small transfer of Rep to the victim.
And this last is both carrot and stick...if you have a timer going from me being SAD'd (by yourself or another in party), not only do you get the bonus Rep when it runs out (carrot), but you get a rep hit if either of you die before the timer runs out...making attacking the victim of SAD a bad idea for you...no matter who wins. I did just realize that I neglected to make clear that I also intended that the previous restrictions on SAD'ing someone you just SAD'ed would still be in-effect and controlled by the SAD timer. I did not mention it because that is what I meant by the SAD timer. I should not have assumed it would mean such to everyone.
EDIT: The above "normal social interaction" includes all PvP, faction warefare, feuds, etc...with normal consequences (plus #5).
So, I have significant incentives and penalties built into my proposal. None of these exist except the SAD timer keeping you from SAD'ing the same person twice in the traditional model...including no incentive to party (which I do have). In fact, in the traditional model (and the one advocated by Steelwing), it is a much better deal for the bandits to not be in party and be able to each SAD the entire party at once. There is no reason to not and no incentive to do otherwise.
This is what I proposed:
SAD should be a single-target, skill-based touch attack (very short range).
SAD should be usable anywhere and in any situation one is willing to go "Attacker". It should be considered from that generic perspective versus simply as a caravan mechanic.
1. Being SAD'd should involve nothing more than a pop-up saying "Bluddwolf has just commanded you to Stand and Deliver, do you comply?"
2. If you accept, the normal "loot timer" appears, after which he can take what he wants in a loot window. He can choose a random selection of your unthreaded items.
If the SAD skill is "advancable", I think the percentage of items should be tied to the SAD skill. I also think the number of bandits in your party should give you a significant bonus to your SAD ability. This is to give bandits incentive to stay in team and get the bonus as opposed to SAD'ing multiple times unteamed.
Notice, bandits get a carrot for being in team...a bonus to their percent found based upon the number of local party members.
3. After Bluddwolf takes what he wants, he alone finishes the SAD with Accept or Cancel. An Accept gives him and everyone in his party a "SAD timer" buff and a hostile flag.. A Cancel nullifies the SAD.This is the start of the stick...everyone in the party gets a timer for each person looted.
And this last is both carrot and stick...if you have a timer going from me being SAD'd (by yourself or another in party), not only do...4. Once the SAD has been completed, normal social interaction occurs. One is free to talk, suggest trades, etc. If the Bluddwolf does not feel threatened and thinks he can increase his crews profit, he will probably do so.
5. When a "SAD timer" ends without the victim having not since died, it provides a very small transfer of Rep from the victim.
Alternately, if the victim or Sad'er die before the "SAD timer" ends, there is a very small transfer of Rep to the victim.
The original SAD does indeed carry a single SAD timer. Once you have been in a SAD refused or accepted you may not be sadded again for twenty minutes. If you accept the SAD and the bandits kill you anyway then they lose double normal rep.
This is more penalty and timer than you suggest.
You however once more missed the huge and looming elephant in the room.
The merchant has to accept a sad for potentially 75% without knowing how much the bandit will take. The merchant is completely and utterly better off refusing and running every time simple as that. Your suggestion means and SAD will be accepted so rarely they may as well put out a server announcements to give people a sense of novelty.
Until you address that part the rest of your system is totally and utterly irrelevant because it will never be used.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bringslite, Just my view - the Robbers are hostile to the Travelers as soon as they say "Stand and Deliver" - the Travelers can legitimately attack then. The Travelers don't appear as hostile to the Robbers until the Travelers attack, flee, or refuse the SAD demand. At some point the Robbers should gain a Criminal flag that exposes them to attack by anybody, but that might not be until after the travelers Accept/Refuse the SAD and a hue and cry can be raised.
In my view if one teamster decides to run for it, or one guardsman decides to fight his way out, the negotiations are effectively refused for the entire party. At that point the Robber party can attack all of the Travelers without risk of losing Rep (at least for the next 5 minutes). It might not be the caravan master that never travels with the group again.
But one of the things we are trying to do is open up the mechanic for more uses. It does not need to be and should not be such a narrow function.
A guard using SAD to inspect a shady character for contraband should not get a criminal flag. Quite the contrary in fact if contraband is found.
Then again, if we are going to use SAD as party to party:
- What is the range for either side?
- Who negotiates? The party leader or person SAD'd? (For instance, if I initiate a SAD on a caravan guard)
- How much of each party members personal stuff is visible to the negotiator? available to the negotiator to negotiate with? How about contracted goods?
- What if my wagon is full of goods from multiple contracts but the "Caravan Master" is only head of one of those contracts? Should they be able to take my goods from other contracts?
- What options does someone have to leave the team during negotiations?
- How long are they required to be stuck while negotiations occur?
- How does a SAD'er choose between initiating a SAD on an individual or party?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bringslite, Just my view - the Robbers are hostile to the Travelers as soon as they say "Stand and Deliver" - the Travelers can legitimately attack then. The Travelers don't appear as hostile to the Robbers until the Travelers attack, flee, or refuse the SAD demand. At some point the Robbers should gain a Criminal flag that exposes them to attack by anybody, but that might not be until after the travelers Accept/Refuse the SAD and a hue and cry can be raised.
In my view if one teamster decides to run for it, or one guardsman decides to fight his way out, the negotiations are effectively refused for the entire party. At that point the Robber party can attack all of the Travelers without risk of losing Rep (at least for the next 5 minutes). It might not be the caravan master that never travels with the group again.
Need more info on "hostility" parameters, "attacker" parameters, hierarchies for both, etc..., etc...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But one of the things we are trying to do is open up the mechanic for more uses. It does not need to be and should not be such a narrow function.
I disagree with this. It is not what the OP asked for. Get this worked into something viable and then adapt it to different uses with different names and results.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The original SAD does indeed carry a single SAD timer. Once you have been in a SAD refused or accepted you may not be sadded again for twenty minutes. If you accept the SAD and the bandits kill you anyway then they lose double normal rep.
This is more penalty and timer than you suggest.
No, the timer only keeps the party that SAD'd you from doing it again.
You however once more missed the huge and looming elephant in the room.
The merchant has to accept a sad for potentially 75% without knowing how much the bandit will take. The merchant is completely and utterly better off refusing and running every time simple as that. Your suggestion means and SAD will be accepted so rarely they may as well put out a server announcements to give people a sense of novelty.
Until you address that part the rest of your system is totally and utterly irrelevant because it will never be used.
I have addressed it several times. In the system I proposed, the most they can take from you, assuming the bandit is a god among bandits, is 75% of your person gear as if you had been looted; this excludes anything threaded, coin, and anything excluded from being looted at death. It also excludes goods on your mount/wagon. I argued that there was no reason to not use normal negotiation/intimidation/PvP mechanics for that...especially following a SAD (jump to step 5 of my proposal).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But one of the things we are trying to do is open up the mechanic for more uses. It does not need to be and should not be such a narrow function.
I disagree with this. It is not what the OP asked for. Get this worked into something viable and then adapt it to different uses with different names and results.
Gotcha, I agree to disagree.
EDIT: To me, especially in a sandbox, a multi-use tool is always a better development investment than a single-use one. If we are defining SAD so narrowly, I could not really care less about how or whether it works. I see banditry as an insignificant part of the game of kingdoms and can think of many more important things to focus on (in my opinion of course).