Stand and Deliver Discussion


Pathfinder Online

1 to 50 of 1,727 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
I will reiterate that we can't tell you anything definite about Stand and Deliver at this point, as it sits on top of all the other flagging and hostility systems and they're mid-implementation. It might be helpful if those of you that are most interested in and/or worried about the mechanic could give us a short summary of how you expect the system to work, what you think is good about that, and what you think is still a problem so we have that as a reference of the desirability and pitfalls surrounding the mechanic. Maybe in its own thread so it doesn't get buried in here?

Commence :)

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:
I will reiterate that we can't tell you anything definite about Stand and Deliver at this point, as it sits on top of all the other flagging and hostility systems and they're mid-implementation. It might be helpful if those of you that are most interested in and/or worried about the mechanic could give us a short summary of how you expect the system to work, what you think is good about that, and what you think is still a problem so we have that as a reference of the desirability and pitfalls surrounding the mechanic. Maybe in its own thread so it doesn't get buried in here?

Commence :)

Lol you beat me by less than a minute, I'll take mine down

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My understanding is that Stand and Deliver is intended to make Banditry a viable play style by creating situations where Bandits can steal from or even kill un-Flagged Characters without Reputation Loss. The ability to bypass Reputation Loss is extremely powerful, and therefore needs to be seriously constrained.

I think the only fair solution is to require Bandits to declare themselves as such to the game systems significantly prior to their Banditry. As a general rule, I don't think one Character should be able to bypass the Reputation System while at the same time enjoying its protections.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Lol you beat me by less than a minute, I'll take mine down

Quite honorable of you, thanks.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I do not expect SAD to be used in myriad situations outside Banditry. I do not expect it to be used to levy taxes. I do not expect it to be used to enforce borders. The goal of SAD should be to extort money and/or goods on pain of death, not to extort death without consequence.

Goblin Squad Member

I really agree. I think the Banditry flag needs to be a thing, somehow.

maybe a slight stealth bonus and disguise check bonus to counter the effects of the flag if they want to go to town.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:

My understanding is that Stand and Deliver is intended to make Banditry a viable play style by creating situations where Bandits can steal from or even kill un-Flagged Characters without Reputation Loss. The ability to bypass Reputation Loss is extremely powerful, and therefore needs to be seriously constrained.

I think the only fair solution is to require Bandits to declare themselves as such to the game systems significantly prior to their Banditry. As a general rule, I don't think one Character should be able to bypass the Reputation System while at the same time enjoying its protections.

Although lets not forget that initially bandits could gain Rep through successful SAD, as incentive to use the mechanic. That is different than simply avoiding a Rep hit.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The moment you SAD someone, your rep goes down 100; when your target accepts, your rep goes up 150. When your target refuses and you kill the target, no further rep loss, but no loot from the corpse either else bandits would automatically proceed to kill after a refused SAD since they already sustained rep-loss. When your target refuses but you do not kill him in the next 20 minutes, your rep goes up 50.

So, succesful SAD: rep gain of 50 and loot.
Unsuccesfull SAD, but you take no further action: rep loss of 50
Unsuccesfull SAD and you decide to kill the target: rep loss of 100 and no loot.

When Sad is accepted, you both become unattackable by eachother for 20 minutes; and you can not SAD him anymore for 24 hours realtime to avoid exploit rep-farming with alts.

Victim *can* be sadded/killed by another player though: I see no way around this, else players will start to take a SAD as some sort of immunity buff when they go on the road.

Personally I would accept a SAD if they are occasional.

Off course when the bandit proceeds to killing you when you refuse, and you kill him instead then no rep-loss for you, as he is the one that initiated it. That would leave the bandit with a rep loss of 100, some loss of inventory to the victor and a pretty large loss of ego, I'd say.

So lots of cowardly players would mean banditry is lucrative; lots of brave players, not so much. And lots of brave, victorious players, even less so.

A few things: the fact that a bandit may proceed to kill you after a refused SAD mayb be to instill fear in people; even though they do not get loot from the kill, the death is still a setback for the victim and thus the bandit may gain notoriety by acting like this. A more cautious bandit(concerning rep) may let the target live but he faces the possibility that he will get more refused SAD's in the future when people learn about this. Hopefully the fact that some bandits will lose the fight from their target will balance this further.

The reason why the bandit does not get even more rep-loss when he proceeds to kill is because I want to give the bandit a tool to reinforce the SAD: if a kill after a refused sad would give even more rep-loss then no-one would accept a SAD anymore since they would know that the bandit is looking at even more rep-loss if he proceeds to kill you. The SAD-mechanic would be trumped by the "severe rep-loss through unsanctioned kill" mechanic.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tyncale wrote:

Personally I would accept a SAD if they are occasional.

And reasonable.

Goblin Squad Member

In order for the SAD to be effective (and I think Bludd mentioned this before in another thread) certain issues most happen:

It must benefit both parties.

It must be reasonable demands.

The SAD must be respected by both parties.

The SAD system needs to be represented accurately to players both new and old (when it gets finalized).

It must be able to be effectively used (if you cannot catch up to a caravan via SAD but can if you just attack them, you are not likely to use the SAD).

Bandits need a way to ambush (peacefully) people.

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.

As far as I understand SAD at the moment you can use it to walk up to anyone in the game and demand up to (undetermined and potentially unlimited) amount of money. If they refuse, you can kill them without consequence. It's undetermined if there will be good-evil rep slide for this action. Really all that's known is it will be a chaotic action, and that if you happen to be in a settlement where it's against the law it grants you a criminal flag.

My concern is that this could potentially become a tool where players can walk up to anyone in the game and demand ridiculous sums of money with no real expectation of getting paid. Basically it becomes the method those seeking to kill whomever they desire can use to do so. When you've got 5 level 10-20 guys and you come across 1-5 level 1-9s revealing yourself before the attack is not a major drawback. That only becomes an issue when people are actually seeking out competitive targets which will be the opposite of what most bandit groups actually do.

Should this be the case that is frankly a tool too powerful to be allowed in this game, and certainly too powerful to allow one side of an alignment axis unlimited consequence free use of, while only allowing the other rare usage of it.

My other concern is even used for it's primary intent, to attempt to extort money from others, that this is the only non-conditional way to engage anyone in PvP without consequence. With a short delay, you can walk up to anyone or demand money or death. With other mechanics:

• They must belong to a specific group you have paid influence to get kill rights for.
• They must have done something to provoke you such as initiating an attack.
• You must have a contract or some form of kill rights on them.
• They must have violated a law in territory you hold official sovereignty over.
• They must have voluntarily joined an opposing NPC faction and gained the appropriate rank or put up the appropriate flag.

These are MUCH stronger conditions then "You must reveal yourself and wait for them to accept or refuse your demand of coin."

I'm not saying the SAD doesn't belong in game. I like general idea of the SAD. But we need the limitations and downsides spelled out. Here are the questions we need to know:

• Just how much will you be able to extort through SADs? Will it be a set cap or based on the targets carried or total wealth?
• How long is the target going to have to refuse or comply?
• How quickly will SADs cause you to slide toward chaotic? Will they also cause evil drift if you murder your targets after they refused to comply?
• What will lawful and neutral forces have to balance this out?
• What kind of flags will you incur and how long will they last? In territory where SADs are outlawed? In territory where they are not? In neutral territory?
• What tools will groups looking to protect people from SADs have at their disposal?

Or really. To sum it all up, how are you going to stop the SAD from being such a powerful mechanic that everyone goes chaotic and everyone uses it constantly to engage in PvP whenever and wherever they want as though there were no reputation system at all?

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm chomping at the bit..... Probably end up writing a freaking Thesis Paper when I get home.

I think like any system, the SAD system will have to meet the following requirements:

1. It must have a cost (skill, slotting, equipment, etc)

2. It must benefit both the bandit and the traveler, in a meaningful way.

3. It must not outright circumvent another system, but it may buff or debuff one.

4. It must make an economic sense in the overall player generated economy. Changing who brings the items to market has no economic impact on the overall market.

5. It must be a system that many people would use, and be used often in order to make it worth the development time to make it.

6. If it could create other needs for other roles, that would also be ideal (ie. Fencing Stolen Goods; Specialized Crafting of Wagons w/ hidden compartments; Marshals have special detection skills for a SAD in progress, etc .....

That is all I can do from work......

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's how I expect the SAD system to work (roughly):

1. One individual ("the Robber") makes a "Stand and Delivery" demand on another individual ("the Traveler"). Although not an attack, the SAD is an aggressive action and immediately flags the Robber and the Robber's party for PvP by the Traveler, the Traveler's Party or anyone else in the vicinity. [This is because the old SAD could only be used by Outlaws flagged for PvP].

2. The SAD opens a trade-type window for the Robber and the Traveler. The Robber can demand coin or goods. He might or might not have the ability to inspect the Traveler's party - that might be the function of the Hideout, or subject to the skills of his party members.

3. The trade window is timed for both parties in turn. The Robber has some short amount of time to make his demands; if he fails to do so quickly enough the trade window vanishes, the SAD limits lift from the Travelers, and the Robbers are standing flagged for PvP. Once the Robber makes his demands, the Traveler has a short amount of time to Accept or Refuse or counter-offer, but when the timer runs out, that is effectively a Refusal. At the moment the SAD is issued, a visible zone or area is placed around each member of the Traveler's party - if a Traveler leaves this area, that is effectively a Refusal. If any member of the Travelers attacks a Robber before the timer has expired, that is effectively a Refusal.

4. If the demand is Accepted, the Robbers gain their loot and can leave. Their PvP flags remain for some period of "hot pursuit" time, at least as long as a normal criminal flag would last, perhaps twice as long. For a successful SAD, the Robbers gain Reputation comparable to other activities. [I think this is still problematic - I don't know how to prevent buddies from SADing each other for free Rep. No SADs against fellow townsmen/nationals?]

5. If the demand is Refused, the Robbers can freely attack the Travelers for the next five minutes. While they will have Attacker flags and will take Good/Evil hits for any kills, they suffer no Reputation losses for the attacks on the Travelers. At the end of combat, the victors can loot the other party as normal. The Robbers' PvP flags will remain for some period of "hot pursuit" time, at least as long as a normal criminal flag, but perhaps a multiple of that based on the number of Travelers slain.

6. If any member of the Robbers attacks a Traveler before the timer has expired, the SAD trade window vanishes, the Robbers are flagged as Attackers, and if the Robbers attack a second time they take the full Reputation hits for an attack. Their PvP flags remain for some period of "hot pursuit" time, as long as a normal criminal flag. A SAD demand *cannot* be made by a character who is already flagged as an Attacker.

7. After a successful SAD, the Robbers must lay low for some time (20 minutes or the duration of their hot pursuit time, whichever is lessmore). During that time they cannot issue SADs or be in a party that issues a SAD. Any attacks during that time will result in double Reputation losses. Attacks that result in no reputation losses (war, feuds, factional fights) are permitted. [This is a departure from the old SAD/Outlaw rules, but limits the Robber from subsequently SADing or attacking the Traveler, while also making it impossible for friendly "robbers" to immunize the Travelers].

Goblin Squad Member

A caveat to #2, and the ability of the Robbers to demand coin. I find the one-directional risk of coin loss problematic, as there is no other mechanic in the game that allows coercive taking of coin (at least not announced so far). I find it especially problematic that a Robber could take coin and be killed two minutes later, but the coin would have already been safely banked.

Here's how this might be dealt with: a Robber Party can demand as much coin as they want - up to (some) multiple of what they collectively have banked (I expect Robbers to not store most of their money in their own banks). Rich Robbers can then demand more coin, poor Robbers have smaller appetites. If a Robber is killed during the hot pursuit time, he drops his share of the coin loot, plus any money in his bank.

Stolen goods should also automatically drop as loot during the hot pursuit time; they should not be thread-able until that timer has passed.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's the basis of my position:

Suppose that there is no Reputation or SAD or Contract system at all. A group of greedy bandits comes across a weaker group of greedy merchants who are carrying valuable commodities. It is virtually certain to both parties that the bandits will prevail utterly in any fight. The merchants have comparative advantage in getting coin in exchange for those resources (because that's what merchants do). If the bandits kill the merchants and take their stuff, some of the stuff will be destroyed.

(Further assumptions: neither party is able to credibly precommit to a course of action, and each holdup is considered independently of any others)

Those conditions are sufficient to show that there is an outcome to this one encounter that both the bandits and the merchants would prefer to the case of slaughter and looting, and at least one such outcome is "The merchants provide some amount of coin to the bandits and the bandits don't attack."

However, there is a trust problem: If the merchant pays the extortion while still within the power of the bandit to kill, the bandit still gets the same reward from killing the merchant and taking their stuff. If the bandit agrees to escort the merchant or leave them alone in exchange for a payment after the merchant leaves the power of the bandit, then the merchant (once outside the power of the bandit) has no reason to pay the extortion.

This is almost isomorphic to what Games Theory describes as the Isolated Prisoners' Dilemma: While the "best outcome" (Jargon: Pareto Optimum) occurs when the Merchant pays and the Bandit lets them by, if each party makes a decision that strictly dominates (The bandit always kills the merchant regardless of the outcome of the extortion, or the merchant never pays after he is safe), then we end up in a different spot (Jargon: Nash Equilibrium).

Various factors can produce the "Extortion Paid and Passage Granted" outcome, but all of them either require that one or both parties are not strictly rational, can credibly precommit, or some other change to the assumptions set forth above.

Enter the world with Reputation and SAD:

Now the bandit has two options to start: Issue a SAD, demand extortion without issuing a SAD, or attack without doing either.

Assume that the SAD can be issued for an amount in the region where both parties would prefer the extortion be paid and passage granted:

Issuing a SAD strictly dominates attacking without demanding coin: If the SAD is refused, then the outcome differs from the bald attack only by the improved Reputation.

Demanding extortion without issuing a SAD puts us in a similar situation as the original case, except now the bandit has a smaller reward for killing and looting (The same +Coin but added -Rep). Issuing a SAD is superior to demanding extortion without the SAD for the bandit in two cases, equal in one, and only inferior in the case where the merchant pays and the bandit kills the merchant anyway. (If the merchant refuses and the bandit allow the merchant to pass, he breaks even; in either 'honorable' case, the bandit has a higher reputation for choosing SAD over demanding without the SAD.)

The rational merchant will know this, and will therefore conclude that any bandit who could issue a SAD but chooses to demand extortion without one expects a higher reward from doing so, and will therefore attack even if the extortion is paid. Therefore the merchant will never pay such a demand, and issuing a SAD dominates demanding extortion without issuing a SAD.

If the reputation penalty for breaking a SAD is high enough, then one the extortion is paid, the bandit no longer has sufficient incentive to attack (the -Rep is greater in magnitude than the +Coin). That, combined with the merchant having to act first, moves the point where nobody would unilaterally change their mind (Nash Equilibrium) to the point where nobody can do better without anybody doing worse (Pareto Optimum), and allows rational agents to demand and pay the SAD.

That the SAD also creates an interesting narrative and fosters other forms of meaningful player interaction is a trifecta.

Goblin Squad Member

@Urman

There is already a system in-place that causes major rep loss if you start attacking/in-fighting with someone in your own faction/party/settlement/whatever. It should be a simple manner to make it so those same people cannot SAD each other.

As for the Bandit-Coin issue, I do not see your problem, and I think that your solution is seriously flawed. The money a bandit has in-bank is in-bank. It shouldn't be able to be destroyed if it is in-bank (though thievery that take it from the bank is possible eventually I'll assume). It is wrong to say that your actions over here affect the bank over there, and vice versa. As for the original problem, I don't see how one-sided coin loss is a problem. That is the whole idea behind SADs, and indeed behind most banditry as a whole.

If a robber can SAD someone then get to a bank and deposit it within two minutes, then all I have to say is I'm impressed. Considering they are going to be flagged as criminal (hopefully) they will be attacked by the guards. If they do it far enough away where criminality isn't a factor, then they are far away. If they are in a place where SADs are within the law, well if they manage to get to the bank they almost deserve the money...

Goblin Squad Member

@DB -do you think that SADs should be for just coin? It would make it a lot simpler and faster I'd expect. The traveler has an idea of what his loot is worth. And any ideas how we could prevent the demands for "one million coins" that are just excuses for free-rep kills?

@BZ -If someone SADs a traveler for 300 coin, it comes out of the travelers bank; he's not carrying it. I would expect that it instantly gets put into the robber's bank unless there is some rule that says it stays on the bandit, because the robber isn't carrying his coins, either. So a robber might take coin in a SAD, get killed, but the coin doesn't drop - it's already magically in the Thornkeep bank.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My understanding of what SAD is …
SAD is meant as a way to allow a bandit ( chaotic character) to interact with those around them without out sliding into the dreaded chaotic evil alignment shift.

I think the skill needs to be slotted in order to use it and the skill level is what should increase what the bandit is able to request.

It should be a way for that person to gain reputation to a point, but in doing so restrictions need to placed on how that happens or you end up with bandits SADing each other in order to increase reputation (This is why I think what you can request should be skill based and not reputation based)

In a RP sense I view the bandit as having caught a character with their pants down, they are basically extorting them instead of fighting them outright, giving the victim a chance to see they possibly made a mistake in wandering in a place that they should not of been.

In regards to the bandit that accepts a SAD from a character, I feel it should be a requirement for that person/group to become a guard for the person/ group that gave them the requested payment. This will keep that bandit group from logging in more characters and treating the person as their personal toll booth till they get to where they feel they are safe. If you make them honor the extortion payment for like 10-15 min, you should tie the reputation increase to that protection or repuation hit if they are unable to protect them.

The flags the bandit receives should be tied to the SAD that is accepted.
1(Bully). Give me 10 gp and ill be on my way. Bandits get no reputation for bully level SAD and don’t get protection detail for 10 min but immediately gets a hostile flag for double that time. But at the bully level they also don’t get to request outrageous amounts of gold or inventory( think like give me your lunch money). I cant think of a reason a bully should gain reputation for something like this, (perhaps 10 points with a limit of 40 points raised this way every day…)

2(extortion). give me 40%-50% of your cargo in that wagon, ill protect you for 10/15 min or till you get to someplace safe. Bandit receives no criminal flag as the victim is agreeing they made a mistake, Bandit will also get a Large bonus to reputation for completing this SAD. If the victim feels the need for retribution at this point there is always the bounty system..(You would have to put a fairly long time limit on reissuing a SAD on this type to make sure it is not abused to just raise reputation, but you should make the increase 100 or so and something you can do every hour or something like that with a high daily cap of 500 or so)

3. Any SAD denied bully or extortion would result in appropriate flag showing that they are criminals. If the bandit is killed or runs away they should suffer a rep hit. if the Bandit kills the victim or the victim runs away the bandit should gain reputation (given the rep increase if the victim escapes and the ability to abuse the rep system , running should be a small rep increase with a small daily limit)

I guess my biggest concern is the ability for bandits to abuse a reputation gaining system using SAD’s. which is why I feel the ability to ask for things should be skilled based and not rep based.

Same fear of abuse exist for lawful characters creating a CE alt to log in and kill each day to increase lawfulness though, so I get bandits need a way to raise reputation, just as good characters need a way to raise lawful reputation (but I believe in long time limits and daily limits to what can actually be gained by doing the same action over and over.. regardless if your SADing or killing CE bad guys..)

Think the bigger question is how are you going to handle groups of bandits, will all the players in the group take an average skill level to determine what they can request? Or is only the leader of that group responsible for slotting the skill… One on one options are easy to think about but we probably will have groups of 6 v6 or more in these situations .. guess the post this discussion request came from said groups were being talked about/reworked so I can’t really comment on that till I learn more about groups…

Anyway I know my views aren’t how things are written up as of now, but since this is a discussion and what we want to see out of the system figured id share my 2 coopers..

edit -- * As I quickly skim others thoughts, I think I need to amend some of my own.
At no time other than when you are in your town with your bank Do I feel there should magically moving gold or items around or trading goods into coin.
Half the point of the game is to move things from one place to another, requesting 40-50% of goods on a wagon should mean those guys have to carry that stuff to a safe place. They inherit the same risk I am taking trying to bring it back to town. You should only be able to trade things you have on your person unless you are in a place that has access to your bank….

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The SAD should be designed and used as a highway robber's tool. It should not be used to collect taxes or control territory beyond that. If there are needs for such other mechanics, they should require different skills. A "Marshal" should not patrol his settlement one moment and go into the wildlands to rob people with the same skill.

It should be used to spare the victim from death and full loss by bandits that want to avoid reputation loss or just don't want to kill for some reason (robin hoods, etc...).

Bandits should have an easy "hand wave" system that destroys pilfered goods, that removes them from the system, and turns them to coin. Perhaps starting at 20% average local value and growing when skills/hideouts are applied.

How I see SAD working as an operation:

I will leave that up to you. ;P

Concerns:

1. SADs should not be able to be used to force a fight that gets the bandit around reputation loss. No SADs for 100% because it is better to fight in that case. No SADs for more than the target has on his person/caravan. No SADs for a percentage of a target's "ethereal gold" total. That would quickly ruin a character and make not having to carry gold redundant.

2. On average the SAD should be as much worth the bandit's time as any other money making endeavor. Adjust that (roughly) for levels of challenge between targets and bandits.

3. Controversial Incoming: A SAD should not reward reputation. It should only help to avoid loss. It should not be "workable" for free rep gain unless all well defined "roles" have a comparable vehicle to gain reputation.

4. You need a way to prevent a low minimum SAD from being used as an immunity buffer between friends/"employees".

5. It is a powerful skill that allows the user to bypass the faction, feud, war mechanic. Like any powerful skill, it needs a counter. It may be that "he with the most swords" could be the counter, but I hope that something better can be designed.

Goblin Squad Member

@Urman

I think it shall go onto the bandit. That way if they are caught up in the X amount of hot pursuit time the goods can be returned to the original owner, as well as opening the bandit to be the target of bandit-banditry (if you follow).

@Tuffon

The ole' One gp for Services rendered eh?

We fought and I lost and you took all my loot but gave me a gold coin in return. Technically I sold it all to you, so noone can dispute your honor eh? XD I love middle-ages traditions.

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.

The SAD mechanic should be scrapped. There, I said it. Complicated, clunky and ripe for spoofs and abuse. A venture company should have the option of declaring a one, two, or three day feud against a rival, spending influence, as normal. A single company can only initiatate one at a time. You can attack members, caravans and structures of sponsoring companies. Adventuring groups gain the hostility flags of all members. Just be careful of who you pal around with for the afternoon.

Goblin Squad Member

@ Sepherum

I like that, or something along those lines, best so far.

+1

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the SAD mechanic is necessary to support Banditry, and I think Banditry is important enough to be supported. I completely agree with Bringslite that SADs should not increase Reputation, but that's largely because I think Reputation should only ever increase over Time.

Goblin Squad Member

BrotherZael wrote:

@Tuffon

The ole' One gp for Services rendered eh?

We fought and I lost and you took all my loot but gave me a gold coin in return. Technically I sold it all to you, so noone can dispute your honor eh? XD I love middle-ages traditions.

Not following Brother Zeal ?

You mean if the bully decides to attack after accepting his 10gp ? Think that would be an almost instant CE hit.. As long as I am not his first victim I would just prepare for a fight right away as CE folks are pretty much going to be flagged that way( at least I thought they were..)

IF you are referring to my extortion example, I wouldn’t pay you till the time ran up or I made it to safety then the pre arranged quantities would transfer(as long as we aren’t in active combat at that time), and if we die in that time frame I may lose my stuff but you didn’t gain anything and died as well.. Ill know better than to accept your SAD next time

In my third option, no money changed hands unless its just normal PvP fighting and looting

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I see several problems with SAD, at least as it has been most commonly described, and if I adequately understood those descriptions.

If any character is walking along the road a group of thugs pull a SAD on him, then if there are other non-bandits nearby they should be able to assist the victim without paying reputation penalties. In fact it should work the opposite: if they assist the victim they should gain reputation instead.

The bandit should not be able to set his own price as a fixed amount. He should be able to set a modest percent of the coin the traveler is carrying. If the victim always has access to all his coin wherever he goes, then the amount the bandit can set should be an even smaller portion.

Otherwise it isn't robbery, but ransom. You can object that the bandit will want to avoid overfishing the pond and so will always make his SADs reasonable, but it will not fall out that way in practice.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

And really I think that reputation should have an opposite, which I would call notoriety. The bandit should not gain reputation for banditry, he should gain notoriety.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Being wrote:
The bandit should not be able to set his own price as a fixed amount. He should be able to set a modest percent of the coin the traveler is carrying.

Wouldn't this simply result in Merchants never carrying Coin?

Goblin Squad Member

I wonder if we are over complicating the issue, as we tend to do. A simple flag that marks the bandit for PVP and allows him to issue SADs. The cost to run it in some currency (perhaps influence) that is well worth the possible reward (goods or coin from goods). The bandit is at risk while he hunts targets. No "unaffiliated" merchant rep bomb problems.

Edit: Flags don't need to be tied to alignments or scrapped because they distract from the other PVP system in all cases.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
I think the SAD mechanic is necessary to support Banditry, and I think Banditry is important enough to be supported. I completely agree with Bringslite that SADs should not increase Reputation, but that's largely because I think Reputation should only ever increase over Time.

A bandit company wouldn't use a feud unless it sees a juicy, therefore meaningful, target. There would be no rep loss on either side. There is no need to give anyone a special dispensation; I can see a lot of bandit companies in our future. Oh, and especially not a dispensation that is complicated, clunky and ripe for spoofs and abuse.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I had thought that we don't actually carry coin. Has this changed?

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Being wrote:
The bandit should not be able to set his own price as a fixed amount. He should be able to set a modest percent of the coin the traveler is carrying.

Wouldn't this simply result in Merchants never carrying Coin?

Travelling merchants not carrying coin are either not merchants or are carrying goods to sell. If the latter they will return with money because banks are only local, and do not transfer wealth magically, last I heard. True, the merchant might be able to build accounts in every town he travels to unless there is also a rule that only a citizen can maintain a bank account.

Of course that mechanic will build a shadow banking system among certain players, but hey that's content for ya.

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Well remember Reputation as defined by GW is not reputation as defined by everyone else. It is not a measure of your status in the "in-game" society, it is strictly a meta-gaming measure of how well you play your role as GW has defined it.

So, bandits gain Rep for doing bandit stuff as GW has encouraged them too. I agree, by this precedence, they will need to create a mechanic based Rep funnel for many conceivable roles.

At the same time, we cannot forget the importance of banditry to the setting. At the same time, one of my biggest issues with SAD is that I really do not see how it is not a toll if you have a geographic base of operations (hideout)...which is setting frowned upon. If necessary, have a SAD mechanic, but make sure the rest of the community has a way to down the "Curse of Heibarr" down on their heads.

Goblin Squad Member

@Bringslite so it would be a small percentage of total coin worth.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
I had thought that we don't actually carry coin. Has this changed?

No, I do not think it has or is likely to change. One always has access to all their money.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
I had thought that we don't actually carry coin. Has this changed?

The devs have not indicated as such.

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
@Bringslite so it would be a small percentage of total coin worth.

Will there be enough guards in the world to protect the very most wealthiest of merchants in that case? ;)

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bringslite wrote:
Being wrote:
@Bringslite so it would be a small percentage of total coin worth.
Will there be enough guards in the world to protect the very most wealthiest of merchants in that case? ;)

They would just create bank alts.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Forencith wrote:
Well remember Reputation as defined by GW is not reputation as defined by everyone else. It is not a measure of your status in the "in-game" society, it is strictly a meta-gaming measure of how well you play your role as GW has defined it.

If reputation as used by GW is not understood as reputation by the people playing the game then reputation is poorly named and confusing. Players need to understand the game they are trying to play. It is more intelligible, I offer, that a 'good' act gains reputation and a 'not-good' act gains either nil or notoriety.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My understanding is that Coin isn't stored in your Inventory, to be lost or looted, but that it can still be on your Character, for immediate access at all times.

That said, it seems there are some very difficult problems to solve to make SADs work, and since I have no intention of ever utilizing the system, my personal interest in solving those problems is waning.

My only real concern, as I said above, is that those who bypass the Reputation system - be that via SADs, or via embracing a Low Reputation play style - should not enjoy its protections.

Goblin Squad Member

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Forencith wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
Being wrote:
@Bringslite so it would be a small percentage of total coin worth.
Will there be enough guards in the world to protect the very most wealthiest of merchants in that case? ;)
They would just create bank alts.

There is something wrong with a game (IMO) when the "go to" for solving every problem and getting around every obstacle is to create more ALTS.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I don't see Reputation as being a measure of "how well you play your Role", but rather as your actual Reputation with the other players. Low Reputation generally means "jerk", "rude", "disruptive", "non-contributing".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sepherum wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
I think the SAD mechanic is necessary to support Banditry, and I think Banditry is important enough to be supported. I completely agree with Bringslite that SADs should not increase Reputation, but that's largely because I think Reputation should only ever increase over Time.
A bandit company wouldn't use a feud unless it sees a juicy, therefore meaningful, target. There would be no rep loss on either side. There is no need to give anyone a special dispensation; I can see a lot of bandit companies in our future. Oh, and especially not a dispensation that is complicated, clunky and ripe for spoofs and abuse.

And the counter to all my merchants being instructed not to be members of a company would be?

Limit things to feud and all you do is encourage people not to affiliate certain characters simple as that. All I need is non affiliated mule characters that require no training and under your suggestion they are now bandit proof and can freely traipse through the daffodils in the knowledge that any intercepting them takes a nice rep hit

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
And the counter to all my merchants being instructed not to be members of a company would be?

Ryan pondered one potential counter fairly recently.

Remaining in an NPC Settlement is an indication that you don't want to be bound by the social norms of the rest of the game world. Maybe they shouldn't be bound to you either.

Goblin Squad Member

@Nihimon (since I have no intention of ever utilizing the system, my personal interest in solving those problems is waning).

Yeah. I'm still wondering what the solution is to the 1 million coin demand that makes every SAD attack acceptable. I think tying goods to coin isn't quite right, since prices fluctuate and can be made to fluctuate. At some point in the game, Bringslight *will* be rich enough that 1 million coin will be a reasonable demand on him. :) But even then it's unreasonable to let a robber use that on a new player and get away with a free-rep kill.

My solution up above was to try to tie the bandit's ability to demand coin to some multiple (2-4x) the amount of coin they were willing to put at risk, and their coin was at risk for a while, from pursuit or other bandits. If bandits didn't want to put coin at risk, they'd be limited to demanding goods. (One can't properly do a stand and deliver without the fine silk shirt and fancy hat)

Goblin Squad Member

Really hope the we do not carry coins thing is not true…

The purpose of the game is to go out in the world, find things and bring them back to town. Gold I find in a dungeon 5 hexes away should not be instantly in my settlement bank. I should be required to carry them back to where I live.

If I am a merchant and taking my goods to another location to sell them at a higher price, I should at least having traveling money for food and drink, and wagon repair .. as well as the goods I intend to sell.
Once I sell those things and am ready to return to my own settlement, my money should not get a free pass back to my bank. I would just scrap the wagons, sell my stuff and try a naked run back home, if I die, no biggie I didn’t have anything on me and all my valuables were in my magic bank…

Carrying coins I feel is a requirement as is only being able to use your bank in your settlement to access your stuff.

If settlement X which is like 10 hexes away and has a good market for swards/ armor at half the price the price of mine and I want to buy something there.., if I don’t carry coins or worry about where my bank is …. all I have to do is put on nothing, empty my pockets and try to run over there and get my sword/ armor. Put it in my magic bank and make my way back… That makes no sense and involves no risk and is pretty meaningless..

If I only can carry x amount of coins and have to make my way back to my home, that follows what I view is the idea of going out into the world, getting items and returning safely it has risk and has meaning…


Nihimon wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
And the counter to all my merchants being instructed not to be members of a company would be?

Ryan pondered one potential counter fairly recently.

Remaining in an NPC Settlement is an indication that you don't want to be bound by the social norms of the rest of the game world. Maybe they shouldn't be bound to you either.

When a dev blog comes out stating that members of npc settlements can be freely killed with no consequences then I will take the statement seriously until then Dancey is talking from what is more commonly thought of as an egress only orifice for the benefit of the cult following who believes every word he says.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Sepherum wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
I think the SAD mechanic is necessary to support Banditry, and I think Banditry is important enough to be supported. I completely agree with Bringslite that SADs should not increase Reputation, but that's largely because I think Reputation should only ever increase over Time.
A bandit company wouldn't use a feud unless it sees a juicy, therefore meaningful, target. There would be no rep loss on either side. There is no need to give anyone a special dispensation; I can see a lot of bandit companies in our future. Oh, and especially not a dispensation that is complicated, clunky and ripe for spoofs and abuse.

And the counter to all my merchants being instructed not to be members of a company would be?

Limit things to feud and all you do is encourage people not to affiliate certain characters simple as that. All I need is non affiliated mule characters that require no training and under your suggestion they are now bandit proof and can freely traipse through the daffodils in the knowledge that any intercepting them takes a nice rep hit

We don't yet know what all of the benefits and drawbacks will be for affiliation or non. Perhaps no caravans. No fast travel. Less ability to list items in markets. Higher taxes...

Still, I am more in favor now of a simple system. A skill that allows a bandit to flag and issue SADs but he is vulnerable to PVP while doing so.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Sepherum wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
I think the SAD mechanic is necessary to support Banditry, and I think Banditry is important enough to be supported. I completely agree with Bringslite that SADs should not increase Reputation, but that's largely because I think Reputation should only ever increase over Time.
A bandit company wouldn't use a feud unless it sees a juicy, therefore meaningful, target. There would be no rep loss on either side. There is no need to give anyone a special dispensation; I can see a lot of bandit companies in our future. Oh, and especially not a dispensation that is complicated, clunky and ripe for spoofs and abuse.

And the counter to all my merchants being instructed not to be members of a company would be?

Limit things to feud and all you do is encourage people not to affiliate certain characters simple as that. All I need is non affiliated mule characters that require no training and under your suggestion they are now bandit proof and can freely traipse through the daffodils in the knowledge that any intercepting them takes a nice rep hit

My answer would be: Feuds can be declared against settlements, companies and factions. Your merchants are going to have individual storage, structures, harvesting, gathering and caravans? And if your unskilled mules are transporting valuable resources they'll get wiped by low rep alts with a little bit o' combat training. Do it!


Bringslite wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Sepherum wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
I think the SAD mechanic is necessary to support Banditry, and I think Banditry is important enough to be supported. I completely agree with Bringslite that SADs should not increase Reputation, but that's largely because I think Reputation should only ever increase over Time.
A bandit company wouldn't use a feud unless it sees a juicy, therefore meaningful, target. There would be no rep loss on either side. There is no need to give anyone a special dispensation; I can see a lot of bandit companies in our future. Oh, and especially not a dispensation that is complicated, clunky and ripe for spoofs and abuse.

And the counter to all my merchants being instructed not to be members of a company would be?

Limit things to feud and all you do is encourage people not to affiliate certain characters simple as that. All I need is non affiliated mule characters that require no training and under your suggestion they are now bandit proof and can freely traipse through the daffodils in the knowledge that any intercepting them takes a nice rep hit

We don't yet know what all of the benefits and drawbacks will be for affiliation or non. Perhaps no caravans. No fast travel. Less ability to list items in markets. Higher taxes...

Still, I am more in favor now of a simple system. A skill that allows a bandit to flag and issue SADs but he is vulnerable to PVP while doing so.

Doesn't matter bringslite under Sepherums suggestion the advantages of non affiliation are you can't be easily robbed and bandits will tend to go for targets with an affiliation if they are available.

Stack that against fast travel or increased capacity and I will take the relative immunity any time

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Urman wrote:

@DB -do you think that SADs should be for just coin? It would make it a lot simpler and faster I'd expect. The traveler has an idea of what his loot is worth. And any ideas how we could prevent the demands for "one million coins" that are just excuses for free-rep kills?

With the assumptions I made, (where the merchant has comparative advantage, and the carried items are commodities) SAD demands for carried items are not sensible choices.

Demands for excessive coin are a degenerate condition, as would be the ability to be immune to SADs by having no coin.

1 to 50 of 1,727 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Stand and Deliver Discussion All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.