Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd think that rather than making factions targetable by companies, a similar anti-whatever campaign can be mounted by other factions.
So if the factions are arranged something like this:
Hellknights enemies: Knights of Iomedae, Bandits, Denizens of Echo Wood
Knights of Iomedae enemies: Hellknights, Bandits
Denizens of Echo Wood enemies: Hellknights
Bandit enemies: Knights of Iomedae, Hellknights
Merchant enemies: (none of the above)The Bandits can still use their faction power, S&D, on the Merchant.
The Merchants can still use their convoy powers.
The real faction vs. faction fight here is between the bandits and the big new factions pushing into the River Kingdoms, while Iomedae and Hellknights are also in direct competition.
The big reason that this was not my proposal was that in order to be a bandit-hunter in this scenario, you have to not only open up yourself to being attacked by bandits (which I think is fair enough) but also by the other big opposing factions.
It lacks granularity of choice.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm pretty happy with the opposed Merchant and Bandit Factions. But Bandits aren't going to just target Merchants who are their Faction enemies; they're going to target other travelers, too. If Bandits have the ability to attack non-Faction Merchants without losing Reputation, then Bandit Hunters need to be have the [b]similar ability to attack non-Faction Bandits without losing Reputation.[/b]
Or we could just keep the Reputation loss for non-Faction-based attacks and I think everything would sort itself out just fine. In fact, I think this would probably be both the simplest and the best solution.
They do, it is called Bounty Hunting. The victimized Merchant takes out a bounty contract on the bandit or bandits that have harmed him. Now the BH can hunt down and kill any of those bounties without reputation loss.
Bandit Hunter is included in the broader term Bounty Hunter. No need to create a separate system to do the same thing.
The merchant victim can also hire a mercenary company to feud the bandit company, if he wishes to. This too will place the bandits at additional risk.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
So what's the problem with bandits having exposure identical to the exposure of anyone standing next to him? Once every five minutes or so, anyone can demand that anyone with SAD slotted give up half of their unthreaded stuff. If the target refuses, he can be killed and looted for no penalty.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So what's the problem with bandits having exposure identical to the exposure of anyone standing next to him? Once every five minutes or so, anyone can demand that anyone with SAD slotted give up half of their unthreaded stuff. If the target refuses, he can be killed and looted for no penalty.
I can imagine the Chaotic Good character using SAD to try to retrieve stolen loot from bandits before outright attacking them.
"You are going to be ever so kind and return those items so I can get them to their rightful owners, or you'll be feeling the weight of my axe."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That would only be similar if Bandits could only attack Merchants they had a "contract" to attack.... then Bandit Hunters need to be have the similar ability to attack non-Faction Bandits without losing Reputation.They do, it is called Bounty Hunting.
Exactly. Acting like bounty hunters counterbalance banditry in some way isn't even close to accurate. Finding a specific bounty target would often be like finding a needle in a haystack, nevermind finding them in a location or situation where you could actually kill them. Meanwhile finding someone to rob for a bandit may be no harder than "look, I see a player"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Exactly. Acting like bounty hunters counterbalance banditry in some way isn't even close to accurate. Finding a specific bounty target would often be like finding a needle in a haystack, nevermind finding them in a location or situation where you could actually kill them. Meanwhile finding someone to rob for a bandit may be no harder than "look, I see a player"That would only be similar if Bandits could only attack Merchants they had a "contract" to attack.... then Bandit Hunters need to be have the similar ability to attack non-Faction Bandits without losing Reputation.They do, it is called Bounty Hunting.
So you don't want to hire guards, you don't want to hire bounty hunters, you want to collect hours worth of valuable ore and then bring it through the wilderness in an unprotected caravan.... And you're complaining you may get attacked too often by bandits!
Hell, I'll specifically look for a fat cat, greedy merchant like you every day. You may actually be the poster child for the greedy merchant I described, that Being had attacked me for describing.... Thank you, you have validated my point.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Exactly. Acting like bounty hunters counterbalance banditry in some way isn't even close to accurate. Finding a specific bounty target would often be like finding a needle in a haystack, nevermind finding them in a location or situation where you could actually kill them. Meanwhile finding someone to rob for a bandit may be no harder than "look, I see a player"That would only be similar if Bandits could only attack Merchants they had a "contract" to attack.... then Bandit Hunters need to be have the similar ability to attack non-Faction Bandits without losing Reputation.They do, it is called Bounty Hunting.So you don't want to hire guards, you don't want to hire bounty hunters, you want to collect hours worth of valuable ore and then bring it through the wilderness in an unprotected caravan.... And you're complaining you may get attacked too often by bandits!
Hell, I'll specifically look for a fat cat, greedy merchant like you every day. You may actually be the poster child for the greedy merchant I described, that Being had attacked me for describing.... Thank you, you have validated my point.
Guards are not a realistic solution and I don't think it'll materialize as a workable option in-game. They've stated that a lot of gathering will be like we've seen in other MMOs - the traditional "bang a pick axe against the vein of rock" type. That's a constant process. Guards are a silly proposal if you'd need them with you all the time. Now if you're sending a massive caravan from one town to another, representing a month's worth of crafting, maybe guards are a more realistic option. In your everyday situation, it's not.
"Hire guards" is this catch all people can use to justify any crappy, griefing, undesirable behavior they want in the game. Oh, you don't want to be ganked? HIRE GUARDS LOL. You don't want to lose your crafting mats? HIRE GUARDS.People's time is valuable and if you want to actually hire people to spend their time guarding you, it's going to be extremely costly. You can't just hire 6 people because you want to go collect crap for crafting, the price people would want for their valuable time probably wouldn't even cover the value of the crap you are collecting.
And I already explained why bounty hunters are also probably an insufficient solution, which you ignored.
I haven't seen any propositions out of you in terms of costs & consequences of banditry that amount to more than trivial drawbacks. Oh, a 15 minute flag, how awful for you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So you don't want... you don't want... you want...So, you'd still prefer to assign your own make-believe motives to folks rather let them speak plainly for themselves....
Broken_Sextant has repeatedly and plainly said this himself, look at the post above mine. It is not me assigning a motive, just restating it. Nothing make believe about it. He does not feel having guards is a viable solution. He does not feel hiring a bounty hunter is a viable solution. He has stated this, I didn't imagine it.
Perhaps you prefer not to assign the motives that are plain as day to what he is saying, for whatever reason, I don't know?
Maybe it is just to be contrarian towards anything I say on this issue?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So you don't want... you don't want... you want...So, you'd still prefer to assign your own make-believe motives to folks rather let them speak plainly for themselves....Broken_Sextant has repeatedly and plainly said this himself, look at the post above mine. It is not me assigning a motive, just restating it. Nothing make believe about it. He does not feel having guards is a viable solution. He does not feel hiring a bounty hunter is a viable solution. He has stated this, I didn't imagine it.
Perhaps you prefer not to assign the motives that are plain as day to what he is saying, for whatever reason, I don't know?
Maybe it is just to be contrarian towards anything I say on this issue?
Well you're both right and wrong here. You're right in that I don't think they are viable solutions. In the same manner I don't think releasing pretty butterflies to distract the bandits is a viable solution.
You're wrong in that you seem to be implying I am *unwilling* to take any effort to protect myself, or unwilling to accept that I will be at risk in certain situations, or unwilling to face the possibility of loss. That is incorrect. I simply think that the solutions you suggest are not good ones given the little we know about the game so far.|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Broken Sextant
To take some of the heat out of this discussion, I'm confident that if you do as you say, "Solo harvester, just picking what you need to craft", then you will not be a primary target for any serious bandits.
1 v 1, probably...2 v 1 maybe.... 3 v 1 hopefully they let you pass by... 4 v 1 how lame of them, they should be spending their time raiding an Outpost... 5 or 6 v 1, raiding caravans... Multiple groups of 6, raiding feud target's settlement outposts and merchant traffic.
You might say I have a glorified view of banditry, but it is also supported by the source material for the River Kingdoms.
The UNC will not be everywhere, but where we are, we will be selective of our targets.
The UNC will not represent every bandit, but the ones that we train will at least be taught through our perspective.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Broken Sextant
To take some of the heat out of this discussion, I'm confident that if you do as you say, "Solo harvester, just picking what you need to craft", then you will not be a primary target for any serious bandits.
1 v 1, probably...2 v 1 maybe.... 3 v 1 hopefully they let you pass by... 4 v 1 how lame of them, they should be spending their time raiding an Outpost... 5 or 6 v 1, raiding caravans... Multiple groups of 6, raiding feud target's settlement outposts and merchant traffic.
You might say I have a glorified view of banditry, but it is also supported by the source material for the River Kingdoms.
The UNC will not be everywhere, but where we are, we will be selective of our targets.
The UNC will not represent every bandit, but the ones that we train will at least be taught through our perspective.
Honestly, I expect solo players to be seen as opportunities by most bandits, not passed by. The easier the target, the quicker and easier the SAD/attack is. There will be bandits hunting solely for singles and pairs to take advantage of without a doubt.
Here's a thought that might alleviate that. Maybe the amount that a SAD can be issued for should not only be determined by the bandit's skill, but by the size of the group they are SADing. If you SAD one player, you can demand very little. If you SAD a player that's part of a larger group, the amount you can demand goes up accordingly. At a higher rate than double for 2, triple for 3...to make SADing a group much, much more valuable. For example you could get a 20% bonus or whatever per extra person.I think the target's level should probably be a factor too, to make higher level targets more desirable ones.
For example, you could SAD:
a solo level 1 for a max of 10 coin.
2 level 1's, 24 coin. (10+10)+20%
A solo level 2, 15 coin.
2 level 2's, 36 coin.(15+15)+20%
A solo level 3, 20 coin.
A level 1, 2, and 3 together, 63 coin (10+15+20)+40%
I'd think a bandit's skill could alter that as well, if it's a multiple-tier type skill.
On the other hand, it doesn't make sense to punish players for being in a larger group when they're hit with a SAD. The "group size" bonus could come in some other form...maybe in some form of reputation/influence. While I think that bandits should always lose reputation for doing what they do, some form of "notoriety" does make sense to me that serves some function. Maybe bandit-specific skills are affected by their notoriety value, for example.
Just throwing out some thoughts.
When SADing players, I don't think the value of what they're carrying should come into play. I think tying it to their level and party size (as well as the bandit's skill/notoriety, and possibly the merchant's counterskill if one exists, )like I mention above probably makes more sense.
Caravans are perhaps another story, though.
My main concern is the same as it's been, though...making sure the game is fun for everyone.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
When SADing players, I don't think the value of what they're carrying should come into play.What that notion leads to is people getting SAD'ed for more than they have in their inventory, making their options die or die or try to run and probably die.
I was talking about maximum values. The main point is to make higher-value targets more valuable, as a check on griefing and to dissuade preying on newbies. It's an "overall fun" concern. I'd also argue that dissuading attacks on soloers is worthwhile, but that's a matter of opinion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What about a nice reward of Influence for a successful S&D. The larger the target, the more reward. You might even "/tell S&D" against targets that you have PVP agency with if you want influence.
That aside, I fear that solo/small groups will just be too juicy as easy opportunities, one way or the other...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What about a nice reward of Influence for a successful S&D. The larger the target, the more reward. You might even "/tell S&D" against targets that you have PVP agency with if you want influence.
That aside, I fear that solo/small groups will just be too juicy as easy opportunities, one way or the other...
I think allowing companies to farm Influence that way would be a bad idea.
I don't doubt that there will be some character achievements for executing some number of SADs. I expect that there will also be achievements for killing people in PvP. The general flow that has been explained so far is that characters earn achievements, which earns Influence for the company; companies don't earn Influence directly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What about a nice reward of Influence for a successful S&D. The larger the target, the more reward. You might even "/tell S&D" against targets that you have PVP agency with if you want influence.
That aside, I fear that solo/small groups will just be too juicy as easy opportunities, one way or the other...
I think allowing companies to farm Influence that way would be a bad idea.
I don't doubt that there will be some character achievements for executing some number of SADs. I expect that there will also be achievements for killing people in PvP. The general flow that has been explained so far is that characters earn achievements, which earns Influence for the company; companies don't earn Influence directly.
Dang it! So many ways to abuse so many possibly cool mechanics! You are right. I hadn't thought about the farming potential...
Yeah. I think that it will just be what it is: Dangers of solo/small partying. We don't know yet HOW it will be exactly, nor exactly how they want it to end up after testing, tweaking, and players voting by staying/leaving.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Another really large difference is the exp earning setup. In some games you can grind harvesting and PVE to level. Not so here, excepting achievements (unknown how that will play out). You aren't encouraged, as much, to go solo to grind your experience. There is more time with less to do (alone) in a less safe world. You might as well look at ways to get involved and make friends...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Honestly, I expect solo players to be seen as opportunities by most bandits, not passed by.
I think players who are accustomed to playing solo (harvesting solo, etc.) are going to have to change for PFO. You're not going to log in, wander off into the wilds to harvest, and have the game systems protect you from loss. You're right that "hiring guards" is a nonsensical solution. "Bringing friends" or "staying in safe (whether NPC or PC) areas" is a reasonable, if inferior, solution.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Broken_Sextant has repeatedly and plainly said this himselfSo you don't want... you don't want... you want...So, you'd still prefer to assign your own make-believe motives to folks rather let them speak plainly for themselves....
Yeah, we've gone down this road before. Someone new comes along and makes a post trying to explain a complex issue from their perspective. They use examples that make sense to them, and you grasp onto some fairly trivial point in one of their examples and mercilessly attack it in a tone of ridicule. Good job.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Honestly, I expect solo players to be seen as opportunities by most bandits, not passed by.I think players who are accustomed to playing solo (harvesting solo, etc.) are going to have to change for PFO. You're not going to log in, wander off into the wilds to harvest, and have the game systems protect you from loss. You're right that "hiring guards" is a nonsensical solution. "Bringing friends" or "staying in safe (whether NPC or PC) areas" is a reasonable, if inferior, solution.
I expect solo play to be suboptimal, but not nonexistent. It's just the realities of game design IMO - you WILL have players that can only log in for short stretches and still want to do something. I don't think a game like this can succeed if you're stuck staying in town because you don't have the time to organize a large group activity. I also don't think you want to design a game where players say "well, my company doesn't have an activity planned right now, I may as well play something else"
"The basics" of the game should be available to even solo players. PvE, maybe you can't go clear an incursion (or whatever they're called) but you can go kill some goblins if you want. PvP you aren't raiding any settlements, but you might find another soloer of an opposing faction to take out. Crafting you may not be sending caravans of skymetal, but maybe you can swing the pickaxe at a few resource nodes and collect enough for a few swords.Group play encouraged and rewarded, of course. Required just for basic gameplay, I'd be very surprised. I'm a little worried people are putting these massive expectations into this game expecting every piece of it to be revolutionary, when in reality parts of it (maybe a lot of it!) are going to be very much in line with what we're used to. Just my opinion
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think a game like this can succeed if you're stuck staying in town...
There's an important distinction between "staying in town" and "staying in safe areas". I think you should be able to consider the wilderness hexes claimed by your Settlement as relatively safe from casual bandits unless your Settlement is being specifically targeted. You should be able to do some solo activity in these areas. It won't be without risk, but it should be less risky than going into someone else's claimed hexes and trying it.
So, realistically, I think you should expect to be able to go out and kill some goblins and harvest without having to join a larger group and without having to "hire guards" as long as you stay in the hexes your Settlement (or Alliance) has claimed (built up Points of Interest in). I also think you'll be at relatively less risk doing those same kinds of things in the Wilderness hexes right outside the NPC-patrolled hexes near the Starter Towns, mostly because the Bandits will expect you to be a low-reward target there. After all, you're not going to be getting the best resources. Although you should probably expect to be attacked by other new players who are just starting their life of crime.
As long as you don't think you should be able to run solo down to the nearest Meteorite Hex, spend a couple hours harvesting the rarest Sky Metal, and haul it back to town safely without being attacked, then I think you've probably got reasonably realistic expectations.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Honestly, I expect solo players to be seen as opportunities by most bandits, not passed by.I think players who are accustomed to playing solo (harvesting solo, etc.) are going to have to change for PFO. You're not going to log in, wander off into the wilds to harvest, and have the game systems protect you from loss. You're right that "hiring guards" is a nonsensical solution. "Bringing friends" or "staying in safe (whether NPC or PC) areas" is a reasonable, if inferior, solution.I expect solo play to be suboptimal, but not nonexistent. It's just the realities of game design IMO - you WILL have players that can only log in for short stretches and still want to do something. I don't think a game like this can succeed if you're stuck staying in town because you don't have the time to organize a large group activity. I also don't think you want to design a game where players say "well, my company doesn't have an activity planned right now, I may as well play something else"
"The basics" of the game should be available to even solo players. PvE, maybe you can't go clear an incursion (or whatever they're called) but you can go kill some goblins if you want. PvP you aren't raiding any settlements, but you might find another soloer of an opposing faction to take out. Crafting you may not be sending caravans of skymetal, but maybe you can swing the pickaxe at a few resource nodes and collect enough for a few swords.
Group play encouraged and rewarded, of course. Required just for basic gameplay, I'd be very surprised. I'm a little worried people are putting these massive expectations into this game expecting every piece of it to be revolutionary, when in reality parts of it (maybe a lot of it!) are going to be very much in line with what we're used to. Just my opinion
Can't speak for everyone. I can't even be absolutely positive that soloing in the wilds will be horrible more than successful. Statements and some clues lead me there, for sure.
Some of us would like it to play out that getting ganked is not the expectation. That is why I am vocal about considering a different outlook and approach to play in this game. In case it is similar to others. It is pretty clear that it will be rough during EE. I expect it to get better and better as that goes toward OE.
I feel confident that GW has a target "size" or rate that they would like to reach/grow into. I feel confident that they will try and make the game possible and fun for as many variations of style and available play-time as they can.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Honestly, I expect solo players to be seen as opportunities by most bandits, not passed by.I think players who are accustomed to playing solo (harvesting solo, etc.) are going to have to change for PFO. You're not going to log in, wander off into the wilds to harvest, and have the game systems protect you from loss. You're right that "hiring guards" is a nonsensical solution. "Bringing friends" or "staying in safe (whether NPC or PC) areas" is a reasonable, if inferior, solution.
I am also expecting this. However, I will admit that this is one of the main reasons I actually expect PFO to remain a relatively small MMO in the grand scheme of things. But that small player base is likely to be significantly more engaged with higher retention after prolonged periods. Those who are unable to adapt will drop out earlier, so the highest attrition will probably be within the first couple months of a new player's time here as opposed to at the end of some progression scheme as is common in other games.