Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Forencith I think that if the guard has an Inspect ability, it should have an Inspect wrapper. Reuse part of the innards of SAD, perhaps, but I think using SAD for other uses will just make a hash of things.
When people get the message <JoeBob> says "Stand and Deliver", they should be able to act as if JoeBob is indeed a robber.
@Bringslite Aye, I'm about at the point that I need that diagram Stephen Cheney was going on about. And a few diagrams of where this SAD discussion is.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Forencith I think that if the guard has an Inspect ability, it should have an Inspect wrapper. Reuse part of the innards of SAD, perhaps, but I think using SAD for other uses will just make a hash of things.
When people get the message <JoeBob> says "Stand and Deliver", they should be able to act as if JoeBob is indeed a robber.
@Bringslite Aye, I'm about at the point that I need that diagram Stephen Cheney was going on about. And a few diagrams of where this SAD discussion is.
Would your point still stand if it had a generic name? SAF, Stop and Frisk?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It seems most of the ire comes from the fact that bandits are able to initiate a SAD (and possibly combat) against unflagged characters. Would giving them a longer than normal flag afterwards (criminal or hostile) serve to remove some of this ire? If the normal flag length is 10 minutes, make the SAD criminal flags 20 mins for example.
A SAD is in a way unilateral. The bandit has this power to initiate a transaction and the traveler has to be a passive victim or get the hostile flag. This is the unbalanced nature of the system, and it will not be enjoyable to be a victim held helpless by the system any more than imprisonment would be enjoyed by the criminal. Rejecting a SAD should give a Lawful boost and enhance reputation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will restate my opinion again.
If a Dev needs a diagram to understand the system, then the system is too complicated.
I think it is best we come up with ideas for a solution that is simple. We have been given a frame work previously, by the Devs.
In general those principles were:
The system needs to be useful for many, and be something they would want to do frequently.
The system needs to have costs, off sets and be balanced.
The system can not undermine another system, but can buff or debuff it's effects.
What we do know about the SAD mechanic is:
It was removed from the alignment based flag and placed into a trainable skill that must be slotted to use. (Cost)
What we can expect:
They are not looking to return to the flagging system, but a skill based system.
What we know about the role of Banditry:
That the Dev team believes it is an important role that will have an impact on the overall player generated economy.
In my opinion:
No character role, that is desired by GW, should result in undesired alignment shift or reputation loss if conducted in a proper way.
A bandit's role is to ambush or make SAD demands against targets involved in commerce.
A Law Enforcement agent's role is to protect the innocent and to seek out and prevent crime.
A Merchant's role is to acquire and deliver resources or finished product from one location to another, and sell their cargo for a profit.
Whatever system comes out of this thread and the Dev's final product needs to support those three roles.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A Law Enforcement agent's role is to protect the innocent and to seek out and prevent crime.
A law enforcement role must not undermine or reduce the purpose of banditry to the game, which in my understanding is providing for the employment of player guards. Measures that would discourage players from that employment (such as rep hits) must be systemically mitigated.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
okay got some rest..
The more I think about how to exchange items from a SAD, the more I like the idea that caravans and characters have high difficulty items they can hide on their person.
This stand and deliver, or stop and Frisk, is not a Stop and instant body cavity search. I still get the sense that these encounters should last no more than a couple minutes, searching the entire contents of a wagon could take 10 minutes itself. Doing that for 4 wagons would mean 40 minutes.
I really like the idea that groups can hide items in wagons and on their person that are hard to find with searches. Players and Caravan masters can pick out what those items are and place them in the inventory slots they want, basically they are hiding the best stuff they have making it hard to discover in a quick search of things.
If you set these values beforehand either manually or by the default order of how were placed in inventories/wagons. Then in order to make a quick streamlined search of items you can use a wagon masters hiding skill (or characters Int,Wis or Dex score) versus a bandits search skill to determine what items are found.
Think of the SAD as having 2 skill trees, the first is the ability to demand a % of goods. The second tree is the ability to find high valued items quickly.
Think of the inventory as a numbered list with the high valued items on top of the list and the low valued items on the bottom of the list.
When the SAD is initiated, a random skill roll versus merchants/ characters hiding skill can be completed to form a list of items that the bandit found, those items can appear in the window and the character/merchant can at that time if the bandit found too much stuff or if he missed the real stuff you are transporting. If SAD is accepted, the bandit can take all that stuff, some of that stuff, or none of it.
The skill roll determines at what inventory value the bandit starts listing items, his % SAD skill will determine how large the list is (compared to the total % of the inventory/wagons).
I just like to think that if I had a super valuable item in my inventory, or in the wagon I would of taken the time to hide it as best I could Just using the standard death loot % list may be easy but I don’t like the complete random feel of what is found, id like to think that I had a choice in making my best stuff hard to find. A very skilled SAD searcher with a really good roll could find that stuff, but the bandit that is on his 2nd raid of their lives probably is not going to hit the jackpot when he goes through my stuff.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems most of the ire comes from the fact that bandits are able to initiate a SAD (and possibly combat) against unflagged characters. Would giving them a longer than normal flag afterwards (criminal or hostile) serve to remove some of this ire? If the normal flag length is 10 minutes, make the SAD criminal flags 20 mins for example.A SAD is in a way unilateral. The bandit has this power to initiate a transaction and the traveler has to be a passive victim or get the hostile flag. This is the unbalanced nature of the system, and it will not be enjoyable to be a victim held helpless by the system any more than imprisonment would be enjoyed by the criminal. Rejecting a SAD should give a Lawful boost and enhance reputation.
I actually think this is the intent of the SAD system. It is there as a means to involve those that are not flagged for PvP (via whatever means) into that realm. It is passive at the beginning, yes, but there are several choices the victim (and indeed the bandit) can take once the SAD has begun.
I see it also a mechanic that will entice merchants to use guards and also maybe use other social mechanics to ensure their safety. Bribes spring to mind.
I would also make a leap in logic, that if the victim refused the SAD and immediately attacked the bandit, they will not receive a reputation hit as the bandits will have a hostile flag up. This is the role guards need to perform for merchants. You may be right in that they could receive a lawful alignment shift, but I'm not so sure about a reputation increase. Is not paying a SAD (a bribe or toll of sorts) a legitimate playstyle for merchants and therefore also within the spirit and rules of the game?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A Law Enforcement agent's role is to protect the innocent and to seek out and prevent crime.A law enforcement role must not undermine or reduce the purpose of banditry to the game, which in my understanding is providing for the employment of player guards. Measures that would discourage players from that employment (such as rep hits) must be systemically mitigated.
In my post I suggested that all three roles, being desired by GW, should be exempt from undesired alignment shifts or reputation loss if conducted properly.
There are two types of law enforcement / protection that I see.
1. Within a settlement hex, with laws. (Marshals)
2. Outside of settlement hexes, and the absence of laws. (Guards)
I would see a Marshal as having certain abilities, unique to patrolling his own settlement, and having guard abilities outside.
Whereas, a guard may not have the abilities of a Marshal (possibly less trained).
The same goes for Merchants. I could see a skill level system that eventually unlocks the ability to operate a caravan, where they could not do so at a lower level. However, with the advantages of being able to operate a caravan, also comes the greater risks of falling prey to bandits.
I'm not talking mechanics here, just concepts.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It seems most of the ire comes from the fact that bandits are able to initiate a SAD (and possibly combat) against unflagged characters. Would giving them a longer than normal flag afterwards (criminal or hostile) serve to remove some of this ire? If the normal flag length is 10 minutes, make the SAD criminal flags 20 mins for example.A SAD is in a way unilateral. The bandit has this power to initiate a transaction and the traveler has to be a passive victim or get the hostile flag. This is the unbalanced nature of the system, and it will not be enjoyable to be a victim held helpless by the system any more than imprisonment would be enjoyed by the criminal. Rejecting a SAD should give a Lawful boost and enhance reputation.
The attacker always has the initiative and the attacked is always non consensual (outside of agreed upon duels, training, feuds or wars), there is not changing that fact. Non consensual PVP implies that one party has not consented.
The bandit or other type of criminal, will not be flagged until they actually commit the act of a crime or the hostile act.
What can be adjusted is the length of time that the criminal flag or hostile state lasts after the conclusion of the event that triggered the criminal flag or hostile state.
Your idea of a rejected SAD giving Lawful and Reputation Boost is "impotent" to use your own words, because merchants will likely have maximum lawful and reputation anyway. The nature of their role is to fulfill contracts and nothing they do takes away from reputation gain over time.
If GW establishes a level that is considered, a reasonable SAD offer, and it is rejected then maybe that should incur a chaotic shift (greed)and a reputation loss (risking their cargo)?
I'm not saying this would or even should happen, I'm just saying... It would seem to be balanced.
I'd rather have a much more simplified system where the three roles are allowed to function as intended without negative consequences. Let the Bandit, Marshal / Guard, and Merchant play the roles they are meant to and take with that all of the risks and rewards for doing so in a balanced system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The defiance of chaotic behavior is appropriately lawful. The violation of property is chaotic and not lawful. The appropriate lawful response to an act of credible chaotic predation is to respond to the SAD offer with an immediate and unreserved attack in an effort to deny the bandit first strike capability. If the bandits dislike this response then they are only being subjected to non-consensual PvP.
The 'victim' should gain rep the same way a brainiac gains rep standing up to any common bully. Especially if he wins.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The defiance of chaotic behavior is appropriately lawful. The violation of property is chaotic and not lawful. The appropriate lawful response to an act of credible chaotic predation is to respond to the SAD offer with an immediate and unreserved attack in an effort to deny the bandit first strike capability. If the bandits dislike this response then they are only being subjected to non-consensual PvP.
I'm not speaking specifically of rewards to the defiant victim, here.
Under the old alignment flag system, the Enforcer got a law shift for killing Criminals (up to a daily max). The Enforcers also got a rep boost after an hour of being flagged. Enforcer is apparently moved to the faction system, so we'll see something like it again. I guess I could see some law shift for killing Criminals for everyone.
I'm not sure about the rep shift - I think rep play gains for characters should almost require that they are opting in PvP, not being dragged in to it, and not merely killing flagged players while not flagged themselves. The robber, in declaring a SAD, is opting in - whether the SAD is accepted or refused, he might likely gain a Criminal flag. He's getting a rep gain if the traveler accepts the SAD.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The motivation of those who opt-in is internal to the player. The bandit who sees a merchant has opted in for PvP before hand, in the absence of the old Traveler PvP flag, would rightly be toward skepticism. A merchant flagged for PvP is probably bait.
The rep shift acts as a reward for opting into PvP, even if the merchant and guards originally preferred to not partake in it by travelling unflagged. The merchant isn't transporting goods in order to risk his stock, he is moving his goods to market them. He should probably prefer to avoid predators altogether. The Bandit essentially forces the confrontation. The merchant's choice to opt-in as his response to the SAD is promoting content and a desirable element of game play.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Random loot is an idea I personally dislike in this situation.
Just skimmed 129 new posts, but this stood out to me. I think this might actually work very well.
SAD is a Skill. Merchants should have counter-Skills. When the Bandit issues a SAD, some random (based on Bandit and Merchant Skill) portion of the Merchant's loot is automatically placed in the Trade Window. The Merchant can counter-offer with different items or with Coin.
Random loot is an idea I personally dislike in this situation.Just skimmed 129 new posts, but this stood out to me. I think this might actually work very well.
SAD is a Skill. Merchants should have counter-Skills. When the Bandit issues a SAD, some random (based on Bandit and Merchant Skill) portion of the Merchant's loot is automatically placed in the Trade Window. The Merchant can counter-offer with different items or with Coin.
I wouldnt object if it was merely to kickstart the haggling. The premise though was that you get automatically 75% of the loot selected randomly just as if you had killed and looted and no further haggling was available.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The premise though was that you get automatically 75% of the loot selected randomly just as if you had killed and looted and no further haggling was available.
Again...that was not the premise...that was the max...for a bandit god getting bonuses from a whole raid.
Misrepresenting a position is not an argument.
EDIT: Quoting myself for the third time:
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.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The premise though was that you get automatically 75% of the loot selected randomly just as if you had killed and looted and no further haggling was available.Again...that was not the premise...that was the max...for a bandit god getting bonuses from a whole raid.
Misrepresenting a position is not an argument.
I think that I grasped your idea, finally, after you had to write it the third time. Apologies for not getting it sooner. The thread grew so fast! :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And that is only of your personal stuff...non-threaded and not coin. Which you can then try to haggle back trading whatever you have access too...mounts (wagons, horses, etc), goods (anything in your mounts inventory), coin, favors, debts...whatever.
Likewise, the merchant can say "hmmm...nice dagger I just took, trade you x goods from your wagon for it.
Bandits can also decide to just take your mounts (wagons, horses, etc) and the goods on it through normal PvP mechanics...taking the normal consequences for it (plus or minus the effects of any active SAD counters).
The premise though was that you get automatically 75% of the loot selected randomly just as if you had killed and looted and no further haggling was available.Again...that was not the premise...that was the max...for a bandit god getting bonuses from a whole raid.
Misrepresenting a position is not an argument.
EDIT: Quoting myself for the third time:
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.
And once again the objection is because the loot is random and can't be haggled over nor can the merchant know how much is going to be taken before accepting.
If merchants were to suggest that you should have to agree to buy their goods before you were allowed to know the price you would be soon up in arms. There is no incentive for a merchant to agree to a SAD when he does not know what he is going to lose full stop. That means SAD's will not be accepted which means it is pointless coding them in.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
SAD is a Skill. Merchants should have counter-Skills. When the Bandit issues a SAD, some random (based on Bandit and Merchant Skill) portion of the Merchant's loot is automatically placed in the Trade Window. The Merchant can counter-offer with different items or with Coin.I wouldnt object if it was merely to kickstart the haggling.
That's what I had in mind. The main problem with SADs seems to be in giving the system some idea of the value of the Cargo, and I think this solves this well but putting the actual Cargo itself at risk and allowing the Merchant to counter-offer with Coin in the Trade Window somehow. At least, this gives the Merchant a strong incentive to fairly value the Cargo.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The rep shift acts as a reward for opting into PvP, even if the merchant and guards originally preferred to not partake in it by travelling unflagged. The merchant isn't transporting goods in order to risk his stock, he is moving his goods to market them. He should probably prefer to avoid predators altogether. The Bandit essentially forces the confrontation. The merchant's choice to opt-in as his response to the SAD is promoting content and a desirable element of game play.
When the merchant attacks the bandit who issued the SAD against him, what happens at the end of the combat? If the bandit wins, he's still flying a Criminal flag, I think, and remains exposed to being attacked by others.
If the merchant or his guards win, they have no flags. They have barely opted into PvP. If they were to get any Reputation reward, it should be substantially less than the bandit who will be flagged for PvP for some amount of time after the encounter.
As a counter-example, if a character is traveling unflagged and is merely attacked (ie, no SAD) by another character - does the attacked person gain Reputation for fighting back? Why or why not? In my view, he doesn't; he hasn't opted in to PvP.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's what I had in mind. The main problem with SADs seems to be in giving the system some idea of the value of the Cargo, and I think this solves this well but putting the actual Cargo itself at risk and allowing the Merchant to counter-offer with Coin in the Trade Window somehow. At least, this gives the Merchant a strong incentive to fairly value the Cargo.SAD is a Skill. Merchants should have counter-Skills. When the Bandit issues a SAD, some random (based on Bandit and Merchant Skill) portion of the Merchant's loot is automatically placed in the Trade Window. The Merchant can counter-offer with different items or with Coin.I wouldnt object if it was merely to kickstart the haggling.
The system does not need to know the value of the cargo.
Bluddwolf sads a merchant who is carrying 100 iron bars, 5 diamonds, 3 longswords and 2 shields (as far as bluddwolf can tell)
Bludd opens up the haggling by moving 20 bars, 2 diamonds, and a longsword to trade window. The merchant responds by increasing the bars to 30 and removing the longsword and adding a shield. Bludd decides it is reasonable and accepts
The merchant got his preferred ransom. Bludd got a ransom he was happy with. At no point did the system need to know anything about the value of anything. A simple interaction between two players with the mechanic facilitating the interaction rather than dictating the action. If they couldn't agree the SAD goes to refusal state
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And once again the objection is because the loot is random and can't be haggled over nor can the merchant know how much is going to be taken before accepting.
If merchants were to suggest that you should have to agree to buy their goods before you were allowed to know the price you would be soon up in arms. There is no incentive for a merchant to agree to a SAD when he does not know what he is going to lose full stop. That means SAD's will not be accepted which means it is pointless coding them in.
Were I a bandit with the system you were advocating...I would just kill you and loot you. There is no incentive not to. UNC has rightfully argued that for months.
Why bother wasting resources developing a SAD mechanic when PvP suffices?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And that is only of your personal stuff...non-threaded and not coin. Which you can then try to haggle back trading whatever you have access too...mounts (wagons, horses, etc), goods (anything in your mounts inventory), coin, favors, debts...whatever.
Likewise, the merchant can say "hmmm...nice dagger I just took, trade you x goods from your wagon for it.
Bandits can also decide to just take your mounts (wagons, horses, etc) and the goods on it through normal PvP mechanics...taking the normal consequences for it (plus or minus the effects of any active SAD counters).
The part where the SAD is not for part of the cargo is where you start to lose me. Maybe it is a holdover from the assumption that was the whole reason for the caravan and the bandits, originally. I do recall a Dev saying something about the main targets would be lone or small groups of travelers and harvesters, so I will try and consider that.
And once again the objection is because the loot is random and can't be haggled over nor can the merchant know how much is going to be taken before accepting.
If merchants were to suggest that you should have to agree to buy their goods before you were allowed to know the price you would be soon up in arms. There is no incentive for a merchant to agree to a SAD when he does not know what he is going to lose full stop. That means SAD's will not be accepted which means it is pointless coding them in.
Were I a bandit with the system you were advocating...I would just kill you and loot you. There is no incentive not to. UNC has rightfully argued that for months.
Why bother wasting resources developing a SAD mechanic when PvP suffices?
Sorry system I was advocating? I haven't advocated any system I merely told you yours is unworkable and the original system was better than what you propose.
the original system was better than what you propose.I would call that advocating...but that aside, what about my proposal exactly is unworkable?
@Bringslite, in general or in the proposal I made?
Both myself and Nightdrifter showed you the maths showing you why (in my case) the merchant was better off trying to run each time and in nightdrifters case why your system would drive merchants into bankruptcy. You have failed to refute those figures.
Your system is also bad because it removes the player interaction from the SAD mechanic and replaces it with behind the scene mechanics. This is not a good thing for the game when player interaction is what we are aiming for.
Let the bandit and merchant work out for themselves how much each feels is reasonable and haggle as to what stays with the merchant and what goes to the bandit rather than taking the choice of what and how much out of their hands.
It is also bad because you somehow think that someone should agree to pay a ransom without knowing how much that ransom is going to be. In what universe is that a good idea? People agree to pay an unspecified price are what is technically known as an idiot.
I have done talking with you I spent a lot of time showing you why it was a bad idea last night and I am not going to go back over it all again.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The system does not need to know the value of the cargo.
Bluddwolf sads a merchant who is carrying 100 iron bars, 5 diamonds, 3 longswords and 2 shields (as far as bluddwolf can tell)
Bludd opens up the haggling by moving 20 bars, 2 diamonds, and a longsword to trade window. The merchant responds by increasing the bars to 30 and removing the longsword and adding a shield. Bludd decides it is reasonable and accepts
The merchant got his preferred ransom. Bludd got a ransom he was happy with. At no point did the system need to know anything about the value of anything. A simple interaction between two players with the mechanic facilitating the interaction rather than dictating the action. If they couldn't agree the SAD goes to refusal state
I think this could work.
The robber's SAD skill could/might drive what she sees as available. At 50%, it might be like your example: 100 iron bars, 5 diamonds, 3 longswords and 2 shields. At 25%, it might be 75 iron bars, 3 diamonds, 2 longswords and 5 potions. At 75% it could be some other random mix, but generally more items.
The bandit's skill drives what is available to be demanded, but it's up to the bandit and merchant to click on item icons in their interfaces to negotiate the actual accepted demand.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The system does not need to know the value of the cargo.
I completely agree. That was kind of my point. If the SAD were limited to Coin, then there would be a lot of problems that might be solved if the system knew the value of the Cargo, but with this system there's no longer a need for that.
Bluddwolf sads a merchant who is carrying 100 iron bars, 5 diamonds, 3 longswords and 2 shields (as far as bluddwolf can tell)
I don't think the system should try to give the Bandit any idea at all of the full Cargo. Rather, the relative Merchant and Bandit Skills would simply place a random portion of the Cargo in the Trade Window. The Merchant then has the opportunity to propose a swap of some of the items in the Trade Window with other items or Coins.
I expect this would require a special Trade Window that works a little differently than the normal Trade Window because it would have to show proposed changes. That might be more work than is warranted.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon I understood Steelwing's example to be that - a random portion of the cargo ('as far as the robber can tell'). But he's working with the idea that although the bandit might be able to see 50% or 75% of the cargo, a demand for 50-75% will almost never be an acceptable SAD. The robber will pick from among the items he can see to make his demand, which might end up being 10 or 15 or 25% of the total cargo.
As an example, the robber knows his skills. He knows that he can only see 50% of the cargo. So he might ask for 30% of what is visible to him, knowing that is close to 15% of the actual cargo, and therefore could be acceptable to the traveler.
The merchant might not want to part with some particular items, and might take them off the deal, but raise the total to 16-17% in hopes that satisfies the bandit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The robber will pick from among the items he can see to make his demand...
I got that. I'm suggesting that the initial demand should be be based on the relative Skills of the Merchant and the Bandit, without any real input from either of them. The Merchant will know whether there's something in the Trade Window that he doesn't want to lose, and can offer other things to replace it.
I think it's important that we not expect the Bandit to reasonably only demand a portion of what he sees. I also think it's important that the onus be on the Merchant to propose an acceptable counter-offer if something ended up in the Trade Window that he can't part with.
1. Some portion of the Cargo is automatically placed in the Trade Window.
2. Bandit automatically Accepts this Trade.
3. If the Merchant Accepts, it's a done deal.
4. If the Merchant counter-offers, the Bandit can choose whether or not to Accept.
5. At any time, the Bandit can demand resolution, at which point the Merchant has 10 seconds or so to accept the initial demand or be considered to have Refused.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1. Some portion of the Cargo is automatically placed in the Trade Window.
2. Bandit automatically Accepts this Trade.
3. If the Merchant Accepts, it's a done deal.
So do you see 'some potion of the cargo' being in the neighborhood of 10-15%? Or what kind of a fraction are you thinking?
(I personally think the bandit should have the option to make outrageous demands - he could/might be taking a Killer debuff, a evil shift for killing, and a longer Criminal flag for being too demanding, but that's his option.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So do you see 'some potion of the cargo' being in the neighborhood of 10-15%? Or what kind of a fraction are you thinking?
I really don't know what would be appropriate; I would defer to the devs' judgment there. I will say that a large Caravan of unskilled Merchants should probably lose more proportionally than a single unskilled Harvester, while a large Caravan of skilled Merchants should probably lose less.
I personally think the bandit should have the option to make outrageous demands...
I think that would be terrible. The main reason I previously saw a need for the system to be able to value the Cargo is to avoid this very thing. A Bandit shouldn't be able to make an outrageous demand and then kill the Merchant without losing Rep. I think if the Bandit wants to get more out of it, they should focus on training up their Skill.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would rather have the bandit be able to see the entire contents of the cargo, with one very important modifier!
Merchants should have a skill to hide a portion of their cargo, based on level.
A bandit also has a skill that can detect hidden cargo.
The two modifications are then compared, and that leaves what is viewed by the bandit.
Now the bandit can make a demand for a portion of what he or she sees (yes there are "Shes", the UNC has at least one female member and potentially two... I beam with pride, really!!!)
What does a "portion" mean?
How much of a portion?
The how much is also a factor of the bandit's skill level. The higher the level, the greater the portion. This could actually represent the bandit's greater skill at intimidation.
The maximum skill based portion should be less that 75%, otherwise the merchant would be inclined to always decline the demand.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Now the bandit can make a demand for a portion... The higher the level, the greater the portion.
This reintroduces the problem of the system being able to value the Cargo. If the Bandit can see everything (qualified), then they'll consistently demand the maximum value items up to their skill level. That demand might actually represent 90% of the value of the Cargo.
With a random selection (qualified), if a high value item does show up in the Trade Window, the Merchant knows they just got unlucky, or the Bandit just outclassed them in Skills. If everything shows up, the Bandit will always select the best stuff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The amount demanded can be controlled to a certain point by giving an incentive for the bandit to make the SAD successful.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
That's what I had in mind. The main problem with SADs seems to be in giving the system some idea of the value of the Cargo, and I think this solves this well but putting the actual Cargo itself at risk and allowing the Merchant to counter-offer with Coin in the Trade Window somehow. At least, this gives the Merchant a strong incentive to fairly value the Cargo.SAD is a Skill. Merchants should have counter-Skills. When the Bandit issues a SAD, some random (based on Bandit and Merchant Skill) portion of the Merchant's loot is automatically placed in the Trade Window. The Merchant can counter-offer with different items or with Coin.I wouldnt object if it was merely to kickstart the haggling.The system does not need to know the value of the cargo.
Bluddwolf sads a merchant who is carrying 100 iron bars, 5 diamonds, 3 longswords and 2 shields (as far as bluddwolf can tell)
Bludd opens up the haggling by moving 20 bars, 2 diamonds, and a longsword to trade window. The merchant responds by increasing the bars to 30 and removing the longsword and adding a shield. Bludd decides it is reasonable and accepts
The merchant got his preferred ransom. Bludd got a ransom he was happy with. At no point did the system need to know anything about the value of anything. A simple interaction between two players with the mechanic facilitating the interaction rather than dictating the action. If they couldn't agree the SAD goes to refusal state
I would also give the merchant the right to give the default and the SAD to be paid without regard to Bludd's opinion, but that's primarily to protect against the degenerate condition where a bandit refuses to accept any offer because what they really want to do is kill.
Oh, and to clarify: the merchant could also make a counter offer with fewer or no goods and some amount of coin, which Bludd would be able to accept or refuse as with any other counteroffer.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A list of possible incentive/disincentives(sp?), from the Robber's view. For comparison or modification.
Successful (Accepted) SAD:
+ Some loot
+ Rep gain (comparable to other Rep gains)
- Short (10/15/20 minute) criminal flag?
- Small chaotic shift (possibly?)
Failed (Refused) SAD with merchant escaping:
- No loot
- No Rep gain
- Short criminal flag?
- Small chaotic shift (possibly?)
Failed (Refused) SAD with merchant killed:
++ Full 75% loot
- No Rep gain
-- Longer Criminal flag
- Evil shift
- Killer debuff
For comparison, just murdering someone without SAD
++ Full 75% loot
--- Rep loss
- Evil shift
- Killer debuff
? No criminal flag; no mid/long term PvP flag at all
? No chaos shift
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A list of possible incentive/dissentives, from the Robber's view. For comparison or modification.
Successful (Accepted) SAD:
+ Some loot
+ Rep gain (comparable to other Rep gains)
- Short (10/15/20 minute) criminal flag?
- Small chaotic shift (possibly?)Failed (Refused) SAD with merchant escaping:
- No loot
- No Rep gain
- Short criminal flag?
- Small chaotic shift (possibly?)Failed (Refused) SAD with merchant killed:
++ Full 75% loot
- No Rep gain
-- Longer Criminal flag
- Evil shift
- Killer debuffFor comparison, just murdering someone without SAD
++ Full 75% loot
--- Rep loss
- Evil shift
- Killer debuff
? No criminal flag; no mid/long term PvP flag at all
? No chaos shift
Is killing someone outside of "consequence situations" really not a criminal act? Is it not chaotic if done within a hex with laws?
The biggest problem (for me) is that the killing is rep free in some of those circumstances.
Isn't it enough that the target would want to live and keep some of their goods?
Isn't it enough that the bandit can stop and accost the unflagged and probably get loot without rep loss, if they do not kill?
Is it really necessary that choosing to kill for refusal be penalty free?
If so, why is this the only case where it is so? It goes against one of the game's basic principles and that is the major problem with it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Bringslite - some of those just jump out as obvious questions, don't they?
True that murder is likely a criminal act in most settlement areas - so not in much of the map during EE. I wonder if killing some unflagged person without a SAD should be a universal crime - that is, a crime in the view of everyone *unless* it happens in a settlement that says murder is ok. I think settlements need to have a way to temporarily flag trespassers, to drive them off without killing, perhaps. (A criminal flag with a count-down timer? "You will be flagged as a criminal in 5 minutes...")
Likewise, I wonder if a SAD that results in the merchant be killed should have a smaller rep loss (any rep loss restarts the rep regain at 1 point per hour, so any rep loss is a downside.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bringslite - some of those just jump out as obvious questions, don't they?
True that murder is likely a criminal act in most settlement areas - so not in much of the map during EE. I wonder if killing some unflagged person without a SAD should be a universal crime - that is, a crime in the view of everyone *unless* it happens in a settlement that says murder is ok. I think settlements need to have a way to temporarily flag trespassers, to drive them off without killing, perhaps. (A criminal flag with a count-down timer? "You will be flagged as a criminal in 5 minutes...")
Likewise, I wonder if a SAD that results in the merchant be killed should have a smaller rep loss (any rep loss restarts the rep regain at 1 point per hour, so any rep loss is a downside.)
While I don't like having to make compromises as counters to flawed first ideas, ANYTHING is better than what was first described in that area. :)