Goblin Squad Member
|
..Telling them how you found happiness in a random gank-fest, and how they can find happiness in random gank-fests too, isn't going to do much good..Not sure what you definition of "random" is. Targets are almost never selected randomly, as a matter of fact, "selection" removes all randomness.
Yeah, telling them "there's no such thing as random killing" is equally unhelpful.
..Telling them how you found happiness in a random gank-fest, and how they can find happiness in random gank-fests too, isn't going to do much good..Not sure what you definition of "random" is. Targets are almost never selected randomly, as a matter of fact, "selection" removes all randomness.
It's the kind of thinking that i expect to be governed by the chaotic/alignment sink that makes your character unviable (or significantly less viable) in PvP.
If i go around killing everyone it's not random because i have to click a person first to attack him... WHUT?!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
..Telling them how you found happiness in a random gank-fest, and how they can find happiness in random gank-fests too, isn't going to do much good..Not sure what you definition of "random" is. Targets are almost never selected randomly, as a matter of fact, "selection" removes all randomness.It's the kind of thinking that i expect to be governed by the chaotic/alignment sink that makes your character unviable (or significantly less viable) in PvP.
If i go around killing everyone it's not random because i have to click a person first to attack him... WHUT?!
You obviously don't realize that target selection is not a simple matter of clicking on the target.
But hey, by all means, go about thinking you're a random target. If you do that, you will likely not modify your own behaviors and you will increase the likelihood that you will be "randomly" targeted again.
I am curious what is gained by labeling attacks as "random", independent of knowing the motivation of the attack(er) or the thought of why you as a specific target was chosen?
Does it give some kind of a sense of occupying a moral high ground, so that a meta game condemnation of the attack(er) would be more believable or accepted?
Is it a defense mechanism, being that it is less embarrassing to be killed by a random killer, because you take yourself off the hook for not being prepared?
Target Selection is not simply "point and click", that is Target Acquisition. Target selection involves a risk vs reward calculation. Then there is the decision of what tactics to use against the target. Before the first strike is landed, an exit strategy should have been thought about. Then and only then, should the attack begin.
Now that might seem over complicated, but with strict adherence to those principles, and practice, they become routine and really quick to do. This is where a quality Field Commander (FC) truly shines.
I'm not saying there will never be a truly random attacker out there. However, he or she will fail more times than not, and will adopt a more selective process before attacking future targets.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It isn't that PvP is bad. PvP is competition. But I, maybe we, would rather channel that competition so that somehow it will be fun for everyone who plays, such that there will be a prevalent characteristic of 'game' throughout.
Some descriptor words are really inadequate to convey clear meaning. One person says a word intending to mean one thing, but in another player's life/gaming context that same word means something different from what was intended. So when I say 'game' I intend that there is fairness to the competition. There is no fairness to real life, really, except for what we mutually engineer for one another by regulating and protecting one another and the like.
In contrast to real life games have artificial but mandatory rules. Violating or exploiting a game's rules is called 'cheating'. Removing rules from a game removes the 'game' from the equation.
Approaching rules like a shyster intending to twist them to advantage is contrary to the spirit of the game. So is engineering or overwhelming rules seeking unfair advantage.
What I think we should be doing here is conversing to try and help the devs figure out how the game can endure the players and remain a fair game.
Instead it looks like some, primarily the Unnamed Company and some few others are attempting to counter any attempt to make the virtual reality we intend to inhabit 'fair'. It is as if the UNC wishes it to be devoid of meaningful rules that maintain fairness for all.
There are the rules of the game but there is also a spirit of the game. The UNC should work with the rest of us toward helping construct the game to further that spirit. But telling us how we have to play UNC's game isn't helpful. That breeds antipathy. You don't get that authority.
And the rest of us should try and help the UNC work toward that with us rather than attempting to change the nature of the UNC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for the lesson of common sense in PvP and personal insults! I don't understand what kind of self-assurance you need when you keep trying to compare PvP skill whenever anyone makes a stand towards behaviour that will target every person or consider targeting it (and not doing it because the odds are against him) indiscriminately (since random is a concept you don't want to or can't understand)
I am not scared of my character being killed, actually PvP is why I play mmo's since Ultima Online. Sure I play good characters now since it is recently been more appealing and challenging to me but in UO i played a red character and loved it. I got lots of kicks from other peoples misery, since the group i was with outmatched our victims in both understanding of game mechanics and tactics. People like me then (and you now) were the reason EA made trammel to save their then sinking game. The game I loved was lost forever and I played on free servers alot after that for the same thrill, but now that I got more experience playing MMOs i realised games that are appealing to me are never commercialy successful because behaviour I described goes unchecked.
Eve online is often brought up, but 90% of the people there stay in high sec systems and only sometimes venture into low sec for the thrill it can be. But if Eve online disabled high sec the game would tank in about one month.
I want a sandbox mmo where communities matter, where interaction is meaningful and where you CAN attack anyone, anywhere for whatever reason you see fit. But I also want the reprecussions for targeting targets that don't want to be targeted SEVERE.
Why do you refuse to understand this?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
..Telling them how you found happiness in a random gank-fest, and how they can find happiness in random gank-fests too, isn't going to do much good..Not sure what you definition of "random" is. Targets are almost never selected randomly, as a matter of fact, "selection" removes all randomness.It's the kind of thinking that i expect to be governed by the chaotic/alignment sink that makes your character unviable (or significantly less viable) in PvP.
If i go around killing everyone it's not random because i have to click a person first to attack him... WHUT?!
You obviously don't realize that target selection is not a simple matter of clicking on the target.
But hey, by all means, go about thinking you're a random target. If you do that, you will likely not modify your own behaviors and you will increase the likelihood that you will be "randomly" targeted again.
I am curious what is gained by labeling attacks as "random", independent of knowing the motivation of the attack(er) or the thought of why you as a specific target was chosen?
Does it give some kind of a sense of occupying a moral high ground, so that a meta game condemnation of the attack(er) would be more believable or accepted?
Is it a defense mechanism, being that it is less embarrassing to be killed by a random killer, because you take yourself off the hook for not being prepared?
Target Selection is not simply "point and click", that is Target Acquisition. Target selection involves a risk vs reward calculation. Then there is the decision of what tactics to use against the target. Before the first strike is landed, an exit strategy should have been thought about. Then and only then, should the attack begin.
Now that might seem over complicated, but with strict adherence to those principles, and practice, they become routine and really quick to do. This is where a quality Field Commander (FC) truly shines.
I'm not saying there...
Dude, the rest of the world wasn't born yesterday. There are tons of players for whom "target selection" is little more than "Hey, there's a player I can kill" You have this constant habit of making it about YOU and how YOU'LL act in-game which is rather irrelevant when it comes to discussing game design.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I want a sandbox mmo where communities matter, where interaction is meaningful and where you CAN attack anyone, anywhere for whatever reason you see fit. But I also want the reprecussions for targeting targets that don't want to be targeted SEVERE.
What do you want these repercussions to be?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I want a sandbox mmo where communities matter, where interaction is meaningful and where you CAN attack anyone, anywhere for whatever reason you see fit. But I also want the reprecussions for targeting targets that don't want to be targeted SEVERE.What do you want these repercussions to be?
This is probably going to be one of the most debated topics when crowdforging starts.
I think goblinworks has an idea what they want to do so I'll go from what I read in the various blogs. Attacking targets that are not flagged for you to kill without consequences will drop your alignment and reputation and if they drop low enough (through constant murder of such targets) you will not be able to access skills that are necessary to make you viable in PvP.
This can be balanced easily based on how popular said behavior is, but my personal sentiment is that it's better to go overboard on this than make it trivial.
That brings us to a point where someone to actively target people would basically have to initiate a war with that community and that means there would be possible player induced repercussions in the means of fighting back since the agressor would be known and their assets/settlements could be destroyed. Which to me is meaningful pvp since both groups likely have an agenda at a higher level than ''lulz''
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as I can see of the many systems proposed in the game to formalize the expressions of PvP, banditry is the weakest and least desirable.
Economic PvP is mutually beneficial and personally challenging for those who prefer to engage that way. Settlements, territory control, and Warfare engender community, constructivism, and interplayer coordination with what should be a healthy mix of negotiation to boot.
But banditry looks like nothing more than a necessary evil we are just going to have to put up with because some few people will find a way to hurt others no matter what we attempt to do, so it is better to provide a system for that with a hope of making it contribute more constructive than destructive.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm thinking it would be better to convert banditry into a mechanism of guerilla or asymmetric warfare. Under the aegis of warfare it is protected behavior.
Then I'd reinstitute the severest penalties for unsanctioned banditry, just like 'ganking', or killing others for the lullz.
Further I think I would remove chaotic evil's status as a penalty box and instead put the penalty box in another alignment axis I'd call 'entropy', the antithesis of which is 'nature' or 'life', or what we have been referring to as 'true' neutral. This seems to me more elegant. This schema would be more holistic, symmetrical where the current two-axial system seems artificial, unbalanced and asymmetric.
But that's just me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I want a sandbox mmo where communities matter, where interaction is meaningful and where you CAN attack anyone, anywhere for whatever reason you see fit. But I also want the reprecussions for targeting targets that don't want to be targeted SEVERE.What do you want these repercussions to be?This is probably going to be one of the most debated topics when crowdforging starts.
I think goblinworks has an idea what they want to do so I'll go from what I read in the various blogs. Attacking targets that are not flagged for you to kill without consequences will drop your alignment and reputation and if they drop low enough (through constant murder of such targets) you will not be able to access skills that are necessary to make you viable in PvP.
This can be balanced easily based on how popular said behavior is, but my personal sentiment is that it's better to go overboard on this than make it trivial.
That brings us to a point where someone to actively target people would basically have to initiate a war with that community and that means there would be possible player induced repercussions in the means of fighting back since the agressor would be known and their assets/settlements could be destroyed. Which to me is meaningful pvp since both groups likely have an agenda at a higher level than ''lulz''
So it seems you're advocating either the removal of S&D, or the inclusion of reputation loss with S&D? Either way effectively removes banditry from the game, as you state that a low reputation would make PvP non-viable.
What it seems to me is you want large scale PvP only? Wars between settlements or companies? This is a perfectly valid point of view to have - not one I agree with, but valid nonetheless.
What are your views on the other small scale PvP - Assassination and bounties?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
..Telling them how you found happiness in a random gank-fest, and how they can find happiness in random gank-fests too, isn't going to do much good..Not sure what you definition of "random" is. Targets are almost never selected randomly, as a matter of fact, "selection" removes all randomness.
Whenever I start seeing arguments like this, it always reminds me of President Clinton's infamous definition of "is" argument in the Grand Jury Hearings.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Economic PvP is mutually beneficial and personally challenging for those who prefer to engage that way. Settlements, territory control, and Warfare engender community, constructivism, and interplayer coordination with what should be a healthy mix of negotiation to boot.
It's odd, but in my view, I see banditry as exactly what you just stated.
But banditry looks like nothing more than a necessary evil we are just going to have to put up with because some few people will find a way to hurt others no matter what we attempt to do, so it is better to provide a system for that with a hope of making it contribute more constructive than destructive.
I don't agree about the 'evil' part of necessary, but agree with you that banditry needs to incorporated within a system that minimises the harm it can potentially cause. That is, the abuse of using S&D simply to attack someone purely to avoid repercussions. While this needs to happen sometimes, some controls need to be in place to limit it being the primary reason it is used. I've posted numerous times over the last 18 months stating that this should be something like a cost - the same as the more acceptable forms of PvP (feuds and wars) have.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
While the question wasn't addressed to me, IMV assassination is an instrument of war, of political competition, and/or of economic competition.
Bounty is only a defense of community versus anti-community individuals, i.e. murderers who have only the most shallow of motivations. This isn't to say someone has to be a member of a settlement to make a bounty, but wanton murder is simply contrary to the community spirit and the intent of the game.
Bounties should only find expression when deserved, determined mechanically (exclusively a reaction to every out-of-sanction killing).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Banditry is economic PvP, it is faster access to resources that a settlement may not have access to.
When a group of bandits raid an outpost or caravan, and they now have 1000 units of "X", what then?
They sell it of course. Where is the best place to sell it? Not where it is easily found.
I have said previously, change the name from "bandit" to "privateer" and all of a sudden, there is a new found acceptance of the activity of robbery. Adding "for the cause" as part of faction, suddenly changed the perception. The activity itself has not changed, just the naming and perception.
Part of the challenge I believe GW has to overcome, on the issue of SAD being accepted, is that they have to make death less palatable than loss of gear through a non death causing action.
Maybe threading, which we haven't discussed much, is both the root of the problem and the solution.
My understanding of threading is that it is primarily a function to protect the New Player Experience (NPE), by their not losing gear they could not easily replace. The fact that the better gear uses more threads, and therefore less gear can be threaded at higher levels, supports that assumption. Through tweaking the threading system, GW will make SADs more or less desirable for all parties concerned.
Now to Alignment and Reputation (OP issue). First off, I couldn't care less about alignment. I don't care what my character ends up as, something chaotic to be sure. Reputation increases should be tied to any action in association with "sanctioned" PvP.
Thus would mean that there is added incentive to focus on PvP that is faction, feud, war or self defense based. This incentive would not be high enough to compensate for actions outside of "sanctioned" PvP, but it would be just enough to say, "that is what we're looking for."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Whenever I start seeing arguments like this, it always reminds me of President Clinton's infamous definition of "is" argument in the Grand Jury Hearings...Telling them how you found happiness in a random gank-fest, and how they can find happiness in random gank-fests too, isn't going to do much good..Not sure what you definition of "random" is. Targets are almost never selected randomly, as a matter of fact, "selection" removes all randomness.
Which is a reason we need clear indications of what is acceptable and what is not in game, specifically with PvP. Sending incidents to GM's with such subjectiveness involved will only cause varying rulings and decisions. One rule for all.
I wouldn't say large scale PvP is the only thing I'm after. I think the current system of a settlement deciding when it will have it's siege opportunity window will limit most of the really large battles to that time.
I think small scale PvP will be at it's best when raiding a rivals outpost, resource spots, etc. You can easily utilize guerilla tactics and a small mobile unit would work great.
As far as assassinations are considered i think there needs to be a condition that must be satisfied before one can be given out:
- kill right towards someone that attacked you without cause
- oathbreakers
- being at war with someone lets you issue assassination contracts
Bounties are a great way for someone to formalize revenge but if you place a bounty on someone i think there still should be a cause for it. Bounty griefing wouldn't be fun.
It should bring meaningful interaction against people that sometimes do bad things but are careful not to go too deep into the rep hole.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not going to go digging for quotes but the picture I formed of how assassinations are going to work is that only characters in certain 'positions' within settlements could be targeted.
A settlement can select individuals to be persons of importance, maybe master of the guard, construction master, master of treasury, you get the idea. Those persons provide benefits to the settlements through increasing DI, buffing defense or crafting or whatnot. Only those individuals could be targeted for assassination and the consequence of being assassinated would be greater for the settlement than the individual and could include DI reduction, reduced NPC defense force, stuff like that. Influence and unrest were not invented back then but they seem like good systems to affect through "important persons" and assassinations.
In short, assassinations are meant to hurt a settlement, not an individual and only select settlement officials can be targeted.
I wouldn't be surprised if some of this is wrong and just me jumping to conclusions. It's kind of hard to tell apart what is fact and what is my own imagination when I read about it so long ago.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So it seems you're advocating either the removal of S&D, or the inclusion of reputation loss with S&D? Either way effectively removes banditry from the game, as you state that a low reputation would make PvP non-viable.
Being Low Reputation will not make PvP non-viable. NPC Settlements will allow Career Bandits to acquire the Exotic Skills they need to be excellent Bandits.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Which is a reason we need clear indications of what is acceptable and what is not in game, specifically with PvP.
And Ryan has clearly laid out the reasons why there must not be "clear indications" of what is and is not acceptable - because it inevitably leads to ne'er-do-wells skirting right up to the line of acceptable behavior and then demanding that their "rights" not be violated because they didn't cross that line.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Banditry is economic PvP, it is faster access to resources that a settlement may not have access to.
When a group of bandits raid an outpost or caravan, and they now have 1000 units of "X", what then?
They sell it of course. Where is the best place to sell it? Not where it is easily found.
I have said previously, change the name from "bandit" to "privateer" and all of a sudden, there is a new found acceptance of the activity of robbery. Adding "for the cause" as part of faction, suddenly changed the perception. The activity itself has not changed, just the naming and perception.
To be fair, a privateer is different from a bandit than a name change. In fact you go on to describe the primary difference.
I can understand that not effecting the conversation regarding mechanics or restricting systems. Those arguments have to live or die on their own.
As far as how a community perceives you go, "for the cause" makes all the difference. Xeilias won't be denying ourselves the tactics of taking or denying our enemies vital supplies, but we see no reason to harbor bandits either.
You are essentially missing the difference between a wide net of possible targets, and a surgically narrowed area of targets.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To be fair, a privateer is different from a bandit than a name change. In fact you go on to describe the primary difference.Banditry is economic PvP, it is faster access to resources that a settlement may not have access to.
When a group of bandits raid an outpost or caravan, and they now have 1000 units of "X", what then?
They sell it of course. Where is the best place to sell it? Not where it is easily found.
I have said previously, change the name from "bandit" to "privateer" and all of a sudden, there is a new found acceptance of the activity of robbery. Adding "for the cause" as part of faction, suddenly changed the perception. The activity itself has not changed, just the naming and perception.
I'm aware of the actual differences, what I was arguing was that the result has very little difference for the victim.
Whatever the name or motivation, the end result for the victim is still robbery, death or both.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm aware of the actual differences, what I was arguing was that the result has very little difference for the victim.
Whatever the name or motivation, the end result for the victim is still robbery, death or both.
I don't know about that. Being targeted because you are a member of an opposing power should feel different to the victim than if he is targeted in the wilds.
At the very least the end result should be very different for the victim pool itself just by the difference of scope between privateers and bandits.
Don't get me wrong, I am not against bandits. I am just having issue seeing no difference between privateers and bandits besides perception or name.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Privateers are typically viewed as bandits (or pirates) by any group not sponsoring them. The thing that makes a privateer a privateer is legal sanction by one political entity to engage in what is normally considered illegal activity so long as such activity is restricted to whatever terms are laid out.
Insiders view this as using any and all means at their disposal. Outsiders view it as sanctioned banditry. It tends to be expected for these arrangements to crop up during times of war. Or immediately preceding to do a little softening before official declarations. Though your opponent will usually catch onto that pretty fast.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Being targeted because you are a member of an opposing power should feel different to the victim than if he is targeted in the wilds.
This.
Being attacked by agents of my declared enemies is always meaningful.
Being attacked by bandits is meaningful when I might reasonably be suspected of transporting valuable goods.
Being attacked by folks who enjoy hanging out just outside the secure areas around starting towns waiting for newbies to show up so they can kill them is utterly meaningless.
The first case should never result in Rep Loss. The last case should always result in Rep Loss. Because of the difficulty in distinguishing between the 2nd case and the last case, and because Banditry shouldn't be easy mode, I'm coming 'round to the position that Banditry should always result in Rep Loss (unless the target is already flagged for some other reason).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Out of curiosity, do you expect bandits to be low rep given where your thoughts are trending?
Part of what's making me think this way is this from Ryan:
A lot of Bandits will be chaotic evil. They'll cope.
Members of NPC Settlements will be able to train and use exotic character abilities linked to maximizing banditry operations.
Related:
I suspect that you won't see a lot of bandit on bandit violence. You will see people who pray on bandits (post looting) though. On the other hand you'll see lots of folks carrying inventory. Most of the time, in most of the places they go, they won't be under threat. The occasional loss gets factored into their costs to do whatever it is they're doing. As they progress as characters they become more and more capable of defending themselves, running away, avoiding the fight, calling in help, etc.
[Edit] It's this last bit that seems to be most controversial. I don't know how much Banditry is "right", but I trust Ryan and the devs to get it reasonably right. The only thing I've ever wanted is for it not to be the case that most of the time, most of the people you meet try to kill you even though you're not Hostile to them. To me, that's seriously not fun.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Out of curiosity, do you expect bandits to be low rep given where your thoughts are trending?
The way that I see it: If S&D is in the game as it has been previously described, I see no reason for any bandit to have less than "high rep" or at worst, "moderate rep". There will be no reason to have low rep, unless the bandit deliberately wants it. A case of killing the other system: making it obsolete through easy workarounds.
If factions work out and S&D could be a simple "/tell", the same applies as above. Assuming that factions present enough targets AND your average "/tell" S&D target cares more about their cargo than the bandit's rep score.
If factions work out and S&D simply MUST be a mechanic, make it cost 1/2 the normal rep penalty for killing the target after a refusal to pay. Full penalty for outright ambush, and 2x penalty for attack after a successful S&D.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Out of curiosity, do you expect bandits to be low rep given where your thoughts are trending?The way that I see it: If S&D is in the game as it has been previously described, I see no reason for any bandit to have less than "high rep" or at worst, "moderate rep". There will be no reason to have low rep, unless the bandit deliberately wants it. A case of killing the other system: making it obsolete through easy workarounds.
If factions work out and S&D could be a simple "/tell", the same applies as above. Assuming that factions present enough targets AND your average "/tell" S&D target cares more about their cargo than the bandit's rep score.
If factions work out and S&D simply MUST be a mechanic, make it cost 1/2 the normal rep penalty for killing the target after a refusal to pay. Full penalty for outright ambush, and 2x penalty for attack after a successful S&D.
Having a rejected SAD cost only half the rep loss, will result in no SADs being issued. Reason being, reaching -7500 will be very quick even if just a few SADs are rejected. The half off only delays the inevitable by just one or two encounters.
@ Nihimon,
Ryan said that a lot of bandits will be CE, and they will cope. He was not referring to low rep or CE + low rep (which is what Stephen said we will want to avoid).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Nihimon,
Ryan said that a lot of bandits will be CE, and they will cope. He was not referring to low rep or CE + low rep (which is what Stephen said we will want to avoid).
I suggest you read the post I linked when I quoted Ryan.
Being a highwayman is hard freakin' work. That's why there's not a lot of them. Always on the run, hunted by those who seek rewards, dealing with a ; this is the life you choose.
[Edit] It's certainly possible that things have completely changed, we'll have to see how it turns out, etc., etc., yada, yada.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Having a rejected SAD cost only half the rep loss, will result in no SADs being issued. Reason being, reaching -7500 will be very quick even if just a few SADs are rejected. The half off only delays the inevitable by just one or two encounters.
Don't twist the idea or it's intent. A target refusing a S&D demand would not cause rep loss. The bandit deciding it is worth a rep loss and attacking the target, after the refusal, would cause the rep loss.
No more high demand S&Ds to enable PVP and escape rep loss...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Still, I see a lot more of where your thought process is coming from now. In the end I am a proponent of playing the game you are given, not playing the game we are wishing we were given.
In my mind, playing the highwayman is hard work independent of mechanical penalties anyhow. I don't see many settlements being thankful that their hexes are being targeted. That was my primary argument on privateering and banditry. Privateers are trusted, targeted rapscallions. Bandits on the other hand are a nuisance to be minimized or eradicated. The difference to the settlement is huge.
As for mechanical hindrances, they will be what they will be. Unless there are developer quotes to the contrary, it seems reasonable to expect they might also be experiencing reputation sinks.
Thanks for the clarification.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In the end I am a proponent of playing the game you are given, not playing the game we are wishing we were given.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Shirley Surely you're not suggesting we shouldn't engage in Crowdforging. Or are you merely suggesting that we shouldn't complain after the fact once the devs have made their decisions?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Having a rejected SAD cost only half the rep loss, will result in no SADs being issued. Reason being, reaching -7500 will be very quick even if just a few SADs are rejected. The half off only delays the inevitable by just one or two encounters.Don't twist the idea or it's intent. A target refusing a S&D demand would not cause rep loss. The bandit deciding it is worth a rep loss and attacking the target, after the refusal, would cause the rep loss.
No more high demand S&Ds to enable PVP and escape rep loss...
So we have gone from:
1. both bandit and traveler having to be PvP flagged, no rep.
2. SAD is accepted getting double rep bonus, no rep loss for rejection
3. No flags, for merchants, criminal flag for bandit, no rep loss for rejection
4. No rep gain for SAD being accepted
5. Factional conflict between merchant / guards and bandits, no rep gain or loss
6. 1/2 rep loss for rejected SAD, followed by attack
Too many changes and the trend is all in one direction from your side of the argument. As I stated above, if low rep is inevitable then so be it.
If Ryan holds to what he was quoted as saying, and bandits won't need high rep or PC settlements to have access to the highest tiers of banditry, then I have to ask myself....
Why am I trying to play within sanctioned PvP? Why am I trying to use SADs at all?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think in most cases, contrary to Ryan's believe, solo explorers or even harvesters will be fairly safe from professional banditry.
If you are solo and are ganked by bandits in a territory that the UNC is operating in, feel free to drop us the name of the person(s). We will shoo them off, train them, absorb them or kill them. I'd of course prefer to absorb or at least train them.
Who are you, and what have you done with Bluddwolf? Seriously, I leave the boards for a while and the doppelgangers take over ... :)
I think a few people may have missed this little remark, but I think it's extremely important. If (and it's a big if) this is going to be the prevailing ethos of banditry in PfO, then I think we have far less to worry about the "randomness" of banditry than many seem to think. Despite his protestations to the contrary that it doesn't matter, it would seem that, given the above, Bludd too is not altogether in favour of arbitrary PvP (to choose a word other than random) either.
Being targeted because you are a member of an opposing power should feel different to the victim than if he is targeted in the wilds.
Another +1 for this. This is where the PvP system will win or lose acceptance with a large number of players. It seems to me that we should be trying to find ways to train people to understand and accept the reasons for them becoming the "victims" of PvP rather than either regulating it out of existence or loosening the reins and telling everyone to "man (or woman) up!". Of course training players in this way includes training the bandits too to understand that if their actions do come across as being arbitrary, bad things may happen to them (such as rep loss).
Glad to see that after so many months of being away the same topics are still being rehashed by the usual suspects. /wave @ Bringslite.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In the end I am a proponent of playing the game you are given, not playing the game we are wishing we were given.I'm not sure what you mean by this.ShirleySurely you're not suggesting we shouldn't engage in Crowdforging. Or are you merely suggesting that we shouldn't complain after the fact once the devs have made their decisions?
I either didn't explain myself enough or we might have different opinions on what crowdforging is. I don't know which is the case.
To me crowdforging is a combination of discussions on when something is released with ongoing conversations that impact how systems are put into place. It is not the community pushing for systems or the removal of systems by popular vote.
So, in my mind, an idea is adopted into a proposed mechanic when the developers decide it adds to their vision of the game.
That in mind that quoted sentence is a view that there are things Goblinworks will not add, or will not remove, because it is antithetical to the type of game they want to create.
I hope that clarifies that a little bit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Having thought about it for all of oh, about 15 seconds, is there any reason for S&D to include the negotiation process?
It's still perfectly possible to create a S&D skill that will pull travellers out of fast travel and allow the bandits to appraise what their victim is carrying to a reasonable degree of accuracy, thus giving them the not inconsiderable advantage of making an informed choice of whether to follow through or not. The actual transaction itself could be carried out using /tell as Bringlite suggests. No special rules about rep necessary.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I either didn't explain myself enough or we might have different opinions on what crowdforging is. I don't know which is the case.
I think it's just a failure to communicate.
To me crowdforging is a combination of discussions on when something is released with ongoing conversations that impact how systems are put into place. It is not the community pushing for systems or the removal of systems by popular vote.
I have the exact same understanding of crowdforging as a general process, with the further understanding that Crowdforging (capital "c") as an official process will involve the community voting for what they'd like the devs to prioritize from a short list of clearly identified choices.
That in mind that quoted sentence is a view that there are things Goblinworks will not add, or will not remove, because it is antithetical to the type of game they want to create.
Does it carry with it some implied advice to the reader?
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, a privateer is different from a bandit than a name change. In fact you go on to describe the primary difference.Banditry is economic PvP, it is faster access to resources that a settlement may not have access to.
When a group of bandits raid an outpost or caravan, and they now have 1000 units of "X", what then?
They sell it of course. Where is the best place to sell it? Not where it is easily found.
I have said previously, change the name from "bandit" to "privateer" and all of a sudden, there is a new found acceptance of the activity of robbery. Adding "for the cause" as part of faction, suddenly changed the perception. The activity itself has not changed, just the naming and perception.
I'm aware of the actual differences, what I was arguing was that the result has very little difference for the victim.
Whatever the name or motivation, the end result for the victim is still robbery, death or both.
One major difference lies in that the set of possible victims is different.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Bluddwolf
Let's say, for fun, that S&D turned into a "/tell" (or heck, a real mechanic) with a penalty for killing (whatever that is). Do you expect that a very large % of targets will reject your demand? Why would they refuse a reasonable demand over dying and losing all?
Same % as before....
The difference is this, If the bandit is going to take a rep loss for attacking someone who refuses a SAD. Then there is no point in making the offer to begin with. Just kill them and take all.
If you do not kill someone for rejecting a SAD, then everyone will just reject.
As I said in the other thread with the exact same discussion...
- No rep gain from accepted SAD
- Rep loss for attacking with rejected SAD
- Loss of all surprise effects
- Time wasted with SAD, allowing the cavalry to arrive
- Time wasted with SAD, allowing the cavalry and hit the loot on its way to town
Sounds like there isnt enough incentive to use SAD to begin with.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Too many changes and the trend is all in one direction from your side of the argument.
This might be more a consequence of how skewed is the position from which you've been arguing, rather than (to paraphrase)'being right is OP and must be nerfed'.
The validity of differing opinions are not often equal where they are about facts.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The only advantage (for the bandit) to the /tell SAD is that it will not trigger a Criminal Flag.
The advantage for GW is, they don't have to code anything.
The advantage to the merchant, "Nothing". There will be no limitation to what is demanded, including threaded gear. There is no incentive for the bandit, not to demand nearly all.
Because there is no absolution from Rep Hits for using the SAD, bandits will have to manage the number of members of target group, so as to limit the overall rep hit. This means that small groups (2 or 3) or solo characters will be SADed more frequently. Larger groups (that are not flagged) will be ignored. It also means that lower reputation characters (including new characters) will become higher priority for use of SAD, because they carry less of a rep hit.
This seems to be working in opposite direction of what the intent is or was.
Faction, Feud, War and other PvP enabled targets will never receive a SAD demand, but this was always the likely case.
This is all ok with me, as long as Ryan is correct and holds to his statement that bandits will be able to train their banditry skills to maximum in the NPC settlements, regardless of low reputation or alignment (I'm assuming that will be in Thornkeep).