What happened to the Dangerous Wilds?


Pathfinder Online

101 to 138 of 138 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

I think that it may be short sighted to use comments from 6+ months ago, or to not read all of the context of that "comment" as a speculative opinion. One that has most likely evolved as much as other things have.

Goblin Squad Member

-Aet- Charlie wrote:

Right, I did not refuted there was never a stance to the contrary. It still doesn't add up with what has been posted or said lately.

Maybe developers can clear the air. If locust harvesting via skirting the accountability system is negative behavior how is doing the same different when it comes to player combat?

Additionally the context is reading to me like the unaffiliated low rep characters might be necessary for defending your own holdings. Does doing the same against someone else's holdings change anything?

Is the unaffiliated condition in that post specifically to remove the penalty for your settlement from removing trespassers, or to hide from retaliation from a target settlement?

I used the "unaffiliated Ninja Harvester" as an example to magnify the flaw that there is currently no reputation neutral access to PvP. As soon as Ryan said that the solo harvester will have the highest reputation, I knew I woukd use them as an example. They are completely untouchable within the current reputation system and so they are a better alternative for harvesting than any other known or proposed means ( ie small or large harvesting operations).

I threw in the "unaffiliated" because I know the proposed systems of feuds and wars will likely not be able to be used against NPC settlement based characters or companies. So feuds and wars are not the solution in the short term.

In some cases settlements may draft laws that make harvesting by non citizens illegal, and thus flag the non associated harvesters as criminals, trespassers, poachers, etc. in other cases where settlements have few laws, they may wish to use SADs to at least extract a "fee" for the ability to keep the rest that the harvester holds.

For those that harvesting as a solo or small group is low reward and so it should have low risk, that is not the case. It is currently no risk and dependent on what is harvested, the reward could actually be great.

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite of Fidelis wrote:
Blargh! I think that it will all work out. The most painful thing (for some) is just that it will be costly to attack anyone you see, all the time.

To me, the most painful thing is that EE is so very close, but not quite here yet.

Many of our longest-running debates / discussions / arguments will be settled during EE. Many new ones will emerge. The difference is that we'll be splitting our time between playing "Forum Warriors" and playing Pathfinder Online.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
-Aet- Charlie wrote:

Right, I did not refuted there was never a stance to the contrary. It still doesn't add up with what has been posted or said lately.

Maybe developers can clear the air. If locust harvesting via skirting the accountability system is negative behavior how is doing the same different when it comes to player combat?

Additionally the context is reading to me like the unaffiliated low rep characters might be necessary for defending your own holdings. Does doing the same against someone else's holdings change anything?

Is the unaffiliated condition in that post specifically to remove the penalty for your settlement from removing trespassers, or to hide from retaliation from a target settlement?

I used the "unaffiliated Ninja Harvester" as an example to magnify the flaw that there is currently no reputation neutral access to PvP. As soon as Ryan said that the solo harvester will have the highest reputation, I knew I woukd use them as an example. They are completely untouchable within the current reputation system and so they are a better alternative for harvesting than any other known or proposed means ( ie small or large harvesting operations).

I threw in the "unaffiliated" because I know the proposed systems of feuds and wars will likely not be able to be used against NPC settlement based characters or companies. So feuds and wars are not the solution in the short term.

In some cases settlements may draft laws that make harvesting by non citizens illegal, and thus flag the non associated harvesters as criminals, trespassers, poachers, etc. in other cases where settlements have few laws, they may wish to use SADs to at least extract a "fee" for the ability to keep the rest that the harvester holds.

For those that harvesting as a solo or small group is low reward and so it should have low risk, that is not the case. It is currently no risk and dependent on what is harvested, the reward could actually be great.

That is a different conversation. All I know right now is doing it with unaffiliated characters will possibly be punished by the developers. It will not be punished when it is individual new characters out exploring and harvesting in your territory. How that plays out I don't know, but all I really needed to know was that it was considered negative behavior. If GW expects me to not do a thing, I don't do it.

Additionally we don't know when SADs or individual laws will make it to the game. All I know is what I heard at GenCon, that when they bring it up in developer meetings their employees cry (paraphrased)

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

"We choose to implement SAD, and define settlement laws, and do all the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard!"

You can do it, GW. We believe in you.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The conversation 6 months ago quoted by Andius was in the context of settlements being able to practicaly enforce NRDS or NBSI policies. The remainder of what Ryan said in that post was this....

-----------

".....I don't know yet if we'll have some kind of granular territorial security policies so that Settlements can effectuate a NBSI or NRDS regime outside the Rep system and even if we do they probably won't be something that is implemented for quite some time even after PC Settlements are introduced. It's impossible to say for certain - such things will be subjected to intense Crowdforging.

This is clearly an area where the simple mechanic of the Reputation system is misaligned with meaningful player interaction. It's pretty damn meaningful to a Settlement to ensure it's security, but it's very hard mechanically to discriminate between someone who gets whacked for trespassing and someone who gets whacked for the lulz."

---------------

Essentialy this comes down to the granularity possible for setting permissions to access territory. The reputation system alone is way too blunt an object in order to meaningfully deal with settlement security... I think Ryan recognized that. If it's possible to have a more granular system, even down to the individual... that problem, at least in terms of being able to enforce a reasonable security policy in ones territory pretty much goes away.

That doesn't, however, address the point Bluddwolf brought up... which is not really about settlement security but of bandits essentialy being able to perform thier role. Traditionaly bandits don't engage thier targets on the basis of what faction or organization those targets belong to, they engage them on the simple basis of the target having something of value the bandit wants. Generaly the bandit wouldn't care who or what faction/organization the target belonged to, just what wealth they had. They are motivated not by politics, but by simple greed.

PFO's PvP controls don't really align very well with that. As Bludd pointed out, an unaffiliated target pretty much circumvents the war/feud mechanics in place for reputation neutral PvP... and even with an affiliated target, I suspect the cost for War/Feud will be sufficiently high as to severely limit the scope of the bandits availble targets.... such that the bandit isn't really operating as much a "bandit" as he/she is a "guerilla soldier" fighting for his faction/organization.

I'm not sure what the real solution is to address given PFO's current mechanics. Either a bandit has to have some mechanism to engage in reputation neutral PvP or that reputation loss needs to not be sufficiently punitive so as to make it not worth engaging targets for economic gain... or the bandit has to have some means to regain reputation lost.

From my standpoint, I think this last is probably the simplest and most straightforward solution to impliment. Let characters pay some sort of monetary penalty in order to recover lost reputation.... a little like the Papal Indulgences of old.

I think this would allow for meaningfull PvP whil discouraging meaningless PvP. A player who kills other players for the "lulz" isn't likely to gain very much material wealth from those players, especialy if they tended to be lower level. They might be able to do it once or twice but they certainly couldn't sustain it on a regular basis. Doing so, they would be engaged in a sort of "deficit spending" that would quickly bankrupt them and force them into all the negatives that having a bottom reputation should have associated with it.

However, a character that kills another character because that character has significant wealth on them and takes that wealth ISN'T engaged in meaningless PvP, he or she is doing so for a good reason... and in fact is following pretty much following the traditional role of banditry. A character doing that should be able to maintain net reputation neutral and net income positive....as long as they are being judicious about picking thier targets.

This also follows along the principle of players being able to avoid frequent PvP by eskewing high risk activities in favor of low risk ones.
Walking around with alot of wealth on your person outside a "safe" area is pretty much the definition of "high risk" in most peoples books.

The advantage this has is that it should be relatively simple to lay on top of PFO's existing systems without requiring any changes to those systems. You simply need to design a place (perhaps a type of shrine?) where a player can exchange X amount of coin for X amount of reputation.

If one wanted to be more sophisticated...one could scale it based on the characters level... with higher level characters needing to exchange more wealth for the reputation returned and/or... place upper and lower limits upon it... so that a player could never be truely HIGH reputation, just AVERAGE reputation... or so that a player who sunk below a certain very low reputation threshold couldn't use coin to buy thier way out of it.

Thoughts?


I like anything that makes banditry a reality. I think that there are sufficient deterrents to random PK in PFO. I still want the areas outside of local settlement security to be dangerous, and I want the security of a settlement to be something that a settlement works to provide. One of the services that comes from a well-run settlement.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GrumpyMel wrote:
Thoughts?

This seems right to me:

There will be bandits.

There won't be bandits on every trail, every 10 feet, comprised of newbie players and newbie characters in it for the lulz.

Bandits will be careful. They'll pick their targets well. They'll often ransom the cargos rather than kill the teamsters.

A lot of Bandits will be chaotic evil. They'll cope. They'll find ways to make that work for them. It's not an easy road - but it is a road. I doubt there will be any wilderness areas in the game where you will not constantly have to be on your guard, ready to fight or flee, should someone come at you with bad intent.

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 crappy reputation; this is the life you choose.

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Grumpy Mel and Ryan (channeled by Nihimon) just summed it all up.

Let's hope the application of human judgement in the banning process protects honest, hard-working bandits (heh heh) until a system like indulgences or SAD enters the game.

Without bandits, who would hire caravan guards? My first character will want to keep the roads safe in the name of Desna. Unless there are ogres at every crossroads, a world without bandits wouldn't need him.


Nihimon wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:
Thoughts?

This seems right to me:

There will be bandits.

There won't be bandits on every trail, every 10 feet, comprised of newbie players and newbie characters in it for the lulz.

Bandits will be careful. They'll pick their targets well. They'll often ransom the cargos rather than kill the teamsters.

A lot of Bandits will be chaotic evil. They'll cope. They'll find ways to make that work for them. It's not an easy road - but it is a road. I doubt there will be any wilderness areas in the game where you will not constantly have to be on your guard, ready to fight or flee, should someone come at you with bad intent.

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 crappy reputation; this is the life you choose.

I really hope it's EXACTLY the way Ryan described! I think this is what confused so many people when the paraphrased (and possibly mis-represented) statement came out about banning low-rep players. I'm hoping there are still players who will play bandits even if the reputation loss from it causes them trouble.

Goblin Squad Member

I expect we'll quickly find out (after we get our Settlements) what Training and Support Facilities can be maintained in a Settlement that allows -7,500 Reputation Characters to enter, and how powerful those Characters will be.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandits will be careful. They'll pick their targets well. They'll often ransom the cargos rather than kill the teamsters.

That actually clears up a lot for me. You can actually measure a bandit that is selective about his targets against a low reputation zerger that is not so selective.

Clears up how that will differentiate between banditry and negative player behavior, that is.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

There is a big difference between stupid "free PK", and banditry.

I really don't any similarity between UNC's objectives for example, and a low-rep band of guys killing lonely noobs at 4AM on a thursday.

Goblin Squad Member

"dealing with crappy reputation; this is the life you choose."

There it is right there. Some bandits will strive to maintain positive reputation and that will limit their targets a bit. Some will go all out or something in between. Those bandits will struggle with reputation maintenance.

What I wouldn't like to see is a system with no equal recourse for other roles to match a bandit's rep free killing ability (if one arrives).

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

Under the Alpha system, once a bandit started a fight, that bandit would be a valid target for everyone in the victim's party. If the bandit continued fighting, especially if he or she killed a high rep target, wouldn't that bandit be a legal target for everyone for a while?

When SAD does enter the game, I believe the bounty system and some sort of "champion of law" system are intended to be its counters. Plus, a caravan / gathering group with guards can always refuse an SAD and try to win the resulting fight.

Edit: This reminded me of the video from at least a year ago, where someone asked about playing solo. The question provoked laughter, followed by a statement along the lines of "Seriously, don't do that. You'll die."

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite of Fidelis wrote:

"dealing with crappy reputation; this is the life you choose."

There it is right there. Some bandits will strive to maintain positive reputation and that will limit their targets a bit. Some will go all out or something in between. Those bamdits will struggle with reputation maintenance.

What I wouldn't like to see is a system with no equal recourse for other roles to match a bandit's rep free killing ability (if one arrives).

I wonder if the big problem with an easy-to-use rep-free killing ability is that it likely erases the point about bandits being careful and picking their targets well.

A lot of things are abbreviated in the PFO mechanics: a settlement doesn't need a casus belli to declare war - they just need sufficient DI. The DI stands in for the casus belli. Maybe SAD could work where each bandit has a long (like 24-hour) cool down to represent the time they'd spend to carefully case the target and plan their ambush. Careful bandits get one rep-free SAD attack each day. Rash bandits take rep losses for each additional attack.


KarlBob wrote:


Edit: This reminded me of the video from at least a year ago, where someone asked about playing solo. The question provoked laughter, followed by a statement along the lines of "Seriously, don't do that. You'll die."

This is exactly what I'm talking about. I feel this is not true anymore. It's easy to go out and gather solo, or even go kill small bands of monsters solo. Is it as effective as doing it as a group? Of course not, but it's easy to do. That is unless they somehow make kiting the monster impossible by: ramping up the AI making them faster then characters, but this makes it impossible to run, or what I think should happen, is slow movement speed when casting or shooting a bow. (Sorry if this is already a plan in the works)

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
AI does not make games interesting, People do.

Arguably yes, but 'interesting' is subjective to the individual partaking: To me AI can be quite interesting if it is well done.

Especially from the inside.

Goblin Squad Member

Vrelx wrote:
KarlBob wrote:


Edit: This reminded me of the video from at least a year ago, where someone asked about playing solo. The question provoked laughter, followed by a statement along the lines of "Seriously, don't do that. You'll die."
This is exactly what I'm talking about. I feel this is not true anymore. It's easy to go out and gather solo, or even go kill small bands of monsters solo. Is it as effective as doing it as a group? Of course not, but it's easy to do. That is unless they somehow make kiting the monster impossible by: ramping up the AI making them faster then characters, but this makes it impossible to run, or what I think should happen, is slow movement speed when casting or shooting a bow. (Sorry if this is already a plan in the works)

I disagree. You will be tempted to lower your reputation when the bandito and his team are racing along ahead of you, exhausting the very resources you need for your own purposes. They aren't really interested in those resources, they are interested in inciting your reaction. And you will realize what they are about, but the temptation to do something about it will grow great, especially when they dare taunt you.

You will have to make interesting choices, and those choices are going to be dangerous. Problem solved: WAI.


I will? I actually would never think of it. If their racing along ahead of me, I will just turn around and go the other way. They're surrounding me? Wow, cool, so I have a who groups of bandits making sure I don't Gather. Ok, time to go back to settlement. Not really any "smart" choices there. Combat? sure, me and more then likely my group will be able to, as a choice. It wouldn't be smart tho. We're GATHERERS. Yes, we may have some combat experience and training. But I doubt its equal to theirs, and same with the gear. My gear will probably be focused on assisting me with gathering. I may have a spare set in my inventory that I can swap out in case..but that's less room for resources.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:
Thoughts?

This seems right to me:

There will be bandits.

There won't be bandits on every trail, every 10 feet, comprised of newbie players and newbie characters in it for the lulz.

Bandits will be careful. They'll pick their targets well. They'll often ransom the cargos rather than kill the teamsters.

A lot of Bandits will be chaotic evil. They'll cope. They'll find ways to make that work for them. It's not an easy road - but it is a road. I doubt there will be any wilderness areas in the game where you will not constantly have to be on your guard, ready to fight or flee, should someone come at you with bad intent.

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 crappy reputation; this is the life you choose.

I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with this if a bandit could still "learn" (be trained) to be a better bandit, a better sword fighter and or a better archer.

Reputation (not the game Reputation) is not connected in any to how skilled you can be in the things that you do.

Being hunted, that is expected. Being barred from most settlements, is also expected. Having to use fences or secret suppliers of support, yep it works that way.

Can't learn how to swing a sword better..... Why not? What is the rationale or common sense in that?

Goblin Squad Member

It is an incentive to modify behavior, to invite self-regulation.

I've found that reputation is regained verrrry slowwwwllllyy. In an hour of play I went from -7500 to -7486, and that was while adventuring PvE.

I lost all that rep with friendly fire while on our excursion with Bonny last time, not intentionally. Fact is, I was careless. But while adventuring I think that had I my smallhold I would have persisted in the wild until I regained enough rep to enter town once more.

I would have had a massive accumulation of xp and achievements. I think it is a viable behavioral instrument that taught me a lesson I will not soon forget.

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:

It is an incentive to modify behavior, to invite self-regulation.

I've found that reputation is regained verrrry slowwwwllllyy. In an hour of play I went from -7500 to -7486, and that was while adventuring PvE.

I lost all that rep with friendly fire while on our excursion with Bonny last time, not intentionally. Fact is, I was careless. But while adventuring I think that had I my smallhold I would have persisted in the wild until I regained enough rep to enter town once more.

I would have had a massive accumulation of xp and achievements. I think it is a viable behavioral instrument that taught me a lesson I will not soon forget.

Bandits are not supposed to modify their behavior away from banditry. If the game is to have the "bad guys", those bad guys should be able to develop their skills along those lines and remain being a challenge for the good guys.

I think a settlement should be able to service / deny training based on reputation. But instead of negative rep denying skill training universally, it should only be barred in the settlements that choose to. In turn, positive reputation should have similar limitations by the settlements that choose to,

Positive Rep = Honorable / Heroic
Negative Rep = Notorious / Unscrupulous

Neither are a reflection of skill.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:
Thoughts?

This seems right to me:

There will be bandits.

There won't be bandits on every trail, every 10 feet, comprised of newbie players and newbie characters in it for the lulz.

Bandits will be careful. They'll pick their targets well. They'll often ransom the cargos rather than kill the teamsters.

A lot of Bandits will be chaotic evil. They'll cope. They'll find ways to make that work for them. It's not an easy road - but it is a road. I doubt there will be any wilderness areas in the game where you will not constantly have to be on your guard, ready to fight or flee, should someone come at you with bad intent.

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 crappy reputation; this is the life you choose.

Hmmmmmm. I think Ryan may be underestimating the bandits a bit here. There are ways to be bandits without rep loss.

If I wanted to run a bandit crew it would sack outposts and do ransom feuds. Basically feud people until they pay you off to stop.

Rep penalties... none. Hell. You may actually be able to be lawful-good and do that. You can for sure do the latter part as a lawful good organization. I can see it now. "Paladins of Pay the **** Up."

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:


Can't learn how to swing a sword better..... Why not? What is the rationale or common sense in that?

Its the peasants and craftsmen, they don't want to work for bandits and build you a city that is the equal of what they could do in place you don't get robbed of all your hard earned coin. Bandits just don't understand how to be good politicians for honest workers who make the city function at a level that supports the best that humans can achieve.

Still you have a point, at some time maybe the balancing could shift from the individual having lower skill to making low rep bandit settlements easier to destroy, again because those peasants will be all for it.

edit. And two guys swinging swords next to a fire in the wilds and becoming expert only works in the movies.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What if you add a montage?

Sorry, Sorry.

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Paladins of Pay the @#$% Up must exist at some point!

Absolutely brilliant!

Goblin Squad Member

Vrelx wrote:
I will? I actually would never think of it. If their racing along ahead of me, I will just turn around and go the other way. They're surrounding me? Wow, cool, so I have a who groups of bandits making sure I don't Gather. Ok, time to go back to settlement. Not really any "smart" choices there. Combat? sure, me and more then likely my group will be able to, as a choice. It wouldn't be smart tho. We're GATHERERS. Yes, we may have some combat experience and training. But I doubt its equal to theirs, and same with the gear. My gear will probably be focused on assisting me with gathering. I may have a spare set in my inventory that I can swap out in case..but that's less room for resources.

Or, as you said in your OP, hire guards to handle that kind of danger.

ps
if they get you in combat, you cannot access inventory, so swap early.

Goblin Squad Member

Notmyrealname wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:


Can't learn how to swing a sword better..... Why not? What is the rationale or common sense in that?

Its the peasants and craftsmen, they don't want to work for bandits and build you a city that is the equal of what they could do in place you don't get robbed of all your hard earned coin. Bandits just don't understand how to be good politicians for honest workers who make the city function at a level that supports the best that humans can achieve.

Still you have a point, at some time maybe the balancing could shift from the individual having lower skill to making low rep bandit settlements easier to destroy, again because those peasants will be all for it.

edit. And two guys swinging swords next to a fire in the wilds and becoming expert only works in the movies.

This is assuming that that peasants and craftsmen in a bandit run settlement, would dislike their rulers more so than they would dislike the rule of any other form of politician.

Bandits are more likely to be freer spenders with their ill gotten loot, and would likely treat their craftsmen well for maintaining their needed gear.

If I lived in the city, I would much rather live next door to a mobster than a police station. My home, my children and my person would be much safer from crime.

As for your edit: Not if one of those two guys is an expert, and the other a pupil.

Again, the game is trying to connect combat skill to good reputation, and they have no relation to each other. They can certainly make it so, with the mechanics, but that doesn't make it suddenly make sense.

Goblin Squad Member

For training of abilities for low rep people, I can get behind a certain level of skill training but not the highest. What true master of Bonetti's Defense or Capa Ferro would stoop to teach a low-life bandit?

My main concern with the harsh reputation system is that a lot of the mechanics will have to go in at once for everything to work. Otherwise even those only interested in protection of others and their settlement (hoping that provides enough PvP...) will have their hands tied by reputation. Plunking in a giant module of mechanical systems at once seems a little counter to the gradual crowd forging process.

Goblin Squad Member

It isn't all that bad trying to rebuild rep if you have a smallhold to store your harvest while working off bad karma. Then once your rep climbs back to -2499 you can get back in town to train.

Although I have to wonder whether the xp training costs will scale with reputation?

Goblin Squad Member

I'd think that the XP costs wouldn't scale with Reputation. Reputation will serve as a gate - if you don't have sufficient Rep, you can't get town to train. iirc, a town's Rep requirements will also limit what training will be offered there; like Merkaile says, a master trainer NPC doesn't stoop to train the unbeknighted residents in some low-Rep town.

Goblin Squad Member

Some Points....

- The idea that bandits are always low skilled thugs doesn't jive with actual history. There were Knights that acted as bandits... "Raubritter" is a word for a reason, there were Samurai who turned bandits. Not infrequently, unemployed mercenaries (sometimes of high skill) turned to banditry when there wasn't mercenary work to be found.

- The game can impose any mechanic it thinks makes for good play but the idea that skill with a weapon is somehow tied to being an upstanding citizen has no basis as an arguement for realism... because that wasn't at all true. I'm not saying realism should matter in this arguement at all...but if you are trying to use that as a rationale to explain the mechanic... you are on really shakey footing.

- Reputation is supposed to be a mechanic used to control player behavior that is unwanted in the game... but selective banditry is actualy a behavior that is not only wanted but actualy NECCESARY for PFO to work well.

- Players should have some AGENCY ( I love that word, BTW...thanks Ryan) in thier exposure to PvP, clearly the way to do that is by choosing to engage in low risk/reward rather then high risk/reward behavior. You generaly want to discourage PvP against targets that are engaged in low risk/reward behavior and encourage it against targets engaged in high risk/reward behavior. Absent some other controls, I don't see how the current reputation does that... it really doesn't seem to discriminate between high risk and low risk on an individual basis at all.

- Personaly, I'm more interested in PvE then PvP... so the last thing I want to see is PFO become some sort of "murder simulator" but I do see the very valid point that Bluddwolf, Xeen and others have been raising.
Without something like SAD or similar mechanisms...PFO has a pretty serious flaw in it's reputation system. Sorry to be blunt...but it is what it is.

Goblin Squad Member

My first comment was mostly a joke, thus the quoting of a comedy movie. Bad people can be well trained, and no one suggested otherwise.

Alignment and rep are different however. I think of the evil guy as a crooked politician, lawyer or corporate VP (for comedy via stereotype). Generally productive members of society and generally well schooled. The low rep person is more like a known psychopath. Is it simple? Yeah, but we've already made things simple/unrealistic by having settlement membership based on alignment.

I'm not altogether convinced of the necessity of SAD to the success of the game given you'll hopefully have plenty of sink of equipment/resources from warfare/feuds. Granted I'm neither for nor against SAD. While I don't understand the desire to go out and take the fake stuff people worked/played for I understand that this is a desired thing for some. I personally am playing this game for PvP. I'll probably partake in some PvE but it doesn't sound anything more than lackluster from what I've seen and I'm only a crafter when it's a necessity.

All rambling aside I do think the reputation hit is tuned way too much to the harsh side. I don't want to see people killing others for giggles but I do want to be able to protect myself and my settlement when needed. There WILL be people that out-think the systems in game. There hasn't been a game yet where it hasn't happened.

Goblin Squad Member

My thought is that rare items will be rare. What most will carry around will be of little intrinsic value. That means, in my estimation, that there are only a few reasons to waylay and kill someone and those are fairly well covered by war, feud, and factional exemptions. The outlier, where there isn't a clear benefit to a bandit ambush, is that for some the winning is ample benefit in and of itself, and consideration for their fellow player is not a behavioral consideration unless you enjoy cruelty. So it seems reasonable to me that the consequences should be harsh. The other possibility is friendly fire, such as I committed through carelessness, and the consequences of the harsh rep loss taught me a lesson in self-control I will not soon forget. That is a 'learning experience' that also benefits the game in my view. The harsh consequences seem right to me. If you are going to use violence, do it intelligently.

I think that is a lesson worth learning.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:

Some Points....

- The idea that bandits are always low skilled thugs doesn't jive with actual history. There were Knights that acted as bandits... "Raubritter" is a word for a reason, there were Samurai who turned bandits. Not infrequently, unemployed mercenaries (sometimes of high skill) turned to banditry when there wasn't mercenary work to be found.

- The game can impose any mechanic it thinks makes for good play but the idea that skill with a weapon is somehow tied to being an upstanding citizen has no basis as an arguement for realism... because that wasn't at all true. I'm not saying realism should matter in this arguement at all...but if you are trying to use that as a rationale to explain the mechanic... you are on really shakey footing.

I don't think realism arguments ever work in arguments outside of possibly the survival horror genre. Some things are in a game for balance reason.

It is hard for me to take realism arguments seriously when you have magic and gods are empirically provable. It is not a realistic world we will be playing in.

I tend to make less friends when I make that argument :P

GrumpyMel wrote:


- Reputation is supposed to be a mechanic used to control player behavior that is unwanted in the game... but selective banditry is actualy a behavior that is not only wanted but actualy NECCESARY for PFO to work well.

- Players should have some AGENCY ( I love that word, BTW...thanks Ryan) in thier exposure to PvP, clearly the way to do that is by choosing to engage in low risk/reward rather then high risk/reward behavior. You generaly want to discourage PvP against targets that are engaged in low risk/reward behavior and encourage it against targets engaged in high risk/reward behavior. Absent some other controls, I don't see how the current reputation does that... it really doesn't seem to discriminate between high risk and low risk on an individual basis at all.

- Personaly, I'm more interested in PvE then PvP... so the last thing I want to see is PFO become some sort of "murder simulator" but I do see the very valid point that Bluddwolf, Xeen and others have been raising.
Without something like SAD or similar mechanisms...PFO has a pretty serious flaw in it's reputation system. Sorry to be blunt...but it is what it is.

I have very little interest in banditry as a primary focus, but I don't disagree with your position.

The problem comes in when you account for the time or effort involved in coding new systems. All we know about timelines for features comes from discussions with the devs. Some of the features that would address these concerns (laws, SADs, etc) have been strongly hinted to not be in the short to mid game. Then you have the issue of balance. You don't want to add in a feature that makes banditry the base line behavior in the game. You don't want it to be avoided as a primary function either, but I don't know where that balance will be.

When it comes to planning at an organizational level, I always trend towards what we are being told. I'd personally love to have a contingent of privateers for economic warfare. If the cost is too high, though, I won't have it. It's as simple as that.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:
Players should have some AGENCY ( I love that word, BTW...thanks Ryan) in thier exposure to PvP, clearly the way to do that is by choosing to engage in low risk/reward rather then high risk/reward behavior. You generaly want to discourage PvP against targets that are engaged in low risk/reward behavior and encourage it against targets engaged in high risk/reward behavior. Absent some other controls, I don't see how the current reputation does that... it really doesn't seem to discriminate between high risk and low risk on an individual basis at all.

If the faction system comes online, and it has incentives to participate, it will be your behavior seperator and your risk enhancer/mitigator.

Is it realist? No, but as has been pointed out, games can't function well (yet) without some unrealistic aspects.

101 to 138 of 138 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / What happened to the Dangerous Wilds? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Online