Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Grace, I meant to imply that EBA and Xeilias forces would not use each others' trainers, not that we would not use any trainers. And of course, if there were a huge bug that makes it so Golgotha has the only working X trainer on the server we'd certainly make him available to everyone for the duration of the emergency.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'll try to lay out some guidelines that I'd ask you to seriously consider.
1. Don't send your warriors into enemy Settlements, because eventually you know those Settlements will have you marked KOS and you wouldn't be able to anyway. (Spies are fine, of course)
2. If someone reacts with obvious emotional distress when you kill them, leave them alone for at least 4 hours to give them a chance to cool down and to give their allies a chance to talk them through the distress and try to teach them how to handle it next time. Maybe even reach out to me and let me know who it was if it was in EBA territory.
With the caveat that I don't unilaterally set policy, I'd certainly be willing to propose to my leadership that we establish a mutual no-banking no-training no-auction posture with EBA. I don't think simply entering a hostile settlement hex should be off limits until we know more about how KOS will actually work once implemented, but I think we can be confident that using infrastructure services will be off the table.
While your second request looks reasonable at first glance, I don't see any way to draw a bright line which couldn't be abused: any such agreement could very easily turn into "throw a tantrum to get a free pass." With that said, we're all very aware of the negative outcomes of the BWG incident and would prefer to avoid repeats. I strongly encourage experienced PVP gamers in every faction to take the time to educate their novice allies on how to cultivate a security mindset and how to properly react to hostile activity.
Thank you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If some one repeatedly returns to empty husk, Golgothat is happy to repeatably kill the worthless noob and this is game. No return, but an easy kill. It is about killing, not about return or profit. OK. Provide really difficult play to discourage newbie play. No challenge fish in barrel -- be proud of that worthless kill. Be happy that that kill did not develop to a greater harvest 2 weeks or a month from now. Be happy that you have driven future targets away until it will only be wolves vs wolves. No new sheep players. Be happy., but it is your game. I thought you were about challenge and not easy purposeless game. Note my alt has left Golgotha. At this point there is no sale.
Killing bunnies is no challenge, but continue to take pride (OK there is now a target on me just a Andius had before.
Yay you are gong to come after and kill me for objecting to you policy of killing just for the pleasure of killing. That is what you want. That is what you want the game to be. THe sheep harvesting will go away. the sheep dogs will go away, the wolves will remain to eat each other, with limited production at low tier two.
Or NOT.
If some one repeatedly returns to empty husk, Golgothat is happy to repeatably kill the worthless noob and this is game. No return, but an easy kill. It is about killing, not about return or profit.
We almost never know if the person is a noob, or just stubborn. Thod describes an Emerald Lodge member who keeps coming back just to waste the bandit's time and make it less rewarding.
Currently, the return or profit *is* pretty low. But we won't know if no one does banditry, plus a lack of banditry means the one guy who finally does some banditry may find that people have grown fat and lazy carrying up to 200 recipes/spells/maneuvers at a time.
By the way, I plead guilty. I did this 2 weeks ago on a character because banditry is so da*n rare. I did it without an escort, because I felt the increased attention/intel risks were higher than doing it by myself. I *did* however use comms to find out where my mates were and that they weren't busy, so if someone HAD ganked me, I could have lots of people AND ME show up to interfere with their one recipe/spell/maneuver at a time looting. But a 6, 12 or 18 man gank squad would have liked my husk... a lot.
I cannot be the only person who takes such risks on rare occasions, and I'll bet the others take fewer precautions than I did.
I thought you were about challenge and not easy purposeless game.
There are as many reasons for an activity as there are participants.
You want to know one common reason for the things *I* do?
Curiosity. What will happen if I do this?
Although I attack people near Golgotha out of territoriality, I did my first banditry far from home last Tuesday and Wednesday and if I had to write about it, the title of my story would be:
"Oops we accidentally your whole settlement".
And in a world where people are making lists, my simple curiosity could have years long consequences. But as crowdforgers we need to try things out.
Yay you are gong to come after and kill me for objecting to you policy of killing just for the pleasure of killing.
Look at the levels of horrid forum behavior Ortallus engaged in. He not only disagreed with us but was just horrid. And yet I only heard of one person putting some arrows into him.
You can certainly try and provoke your own martyrdom, but past experience shows the devs have far less patience than we do with the levels of horrid behavior needed to provoke people.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yay you are gong to come after and kill me for objecting to you policy of killing just for the pleasure of killing.
Look at the levels of horrid forum behavior Ortallus engaged in. He not only disagreed with us but was just horrid. And yet I only heard of one person putting some arrows into him.
You can certainly try and provoke your own martyrdom, but past experience shows the devs have far less patience than we do with the levels of horrid behavior needed to provoke people.
One should radiate etiquette before professing it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One should radiate etiquette before professing it.
*I* can log into my account. That other guy... not so much.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Saturday evening Savage Grace arrived at Keeper's Pass to surrender herself to stand trail for her crime in that area.
While checking out Golarion Mumble to see if it was already under heavy use, I bumped into Hoffman on comms and explained what was happening and Hoffman offered his services as my legal counsel. Frankly I wouldn't mind allowing him to be the judge/arbitrator, instead, if others agree.
I'd be interested in hearing the name of my accuser as well as the charge.
Before giving up on waiting for K.P. leadership to respond to my repeated surrenders on general there were over a dozen people from at least 3 settlements on Golarion Mumble's Keeper's Pass channel who seemed interested in hearing how justice is done in Keeper's Pass, as well as 13 folks at the bank who may or may not have been around for the same reason.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This list is maintained solely by the Keepers of the Circle as a service to our settlement members and those visiting the area. The Keepers want you to be off the list and back in good standing with us so that all begin to see the better path of non-aggression.
Those believing their names are erroneously added may contact me at any time for correction.
Those rightfully on the list after having engaged in non-consensual conflict within Keeper territory or against Keeper members and friends in other territories* may bring offers of reconciliation to me at any time. The Ring of Gold is hospitable to all, even enemies, and our ultimate goal is always to minimize aggression by maintaining positive relationships. There is no elaborate system of judgement--most conflict ultimately is between individuals and must be resolved by those individuals.
We do not believe in eternal sentences--all things can be made right, and both parties must do the hard work necessary at a personal level to achieve reconciliation. Offered reparations are taken to the Settlement Council, where I will ask if there are any that still believe the aggressor should remain on the list. If a grievance still remains, the aggrieved party must meet with the aggressor and determine what steps will lead to reconciliation--both are responsible for coming to a reasonable solution. The Ring of Gold actually also exists to serve as mediators and we're happy to serve in this role. Both parties may also involve any they wish for support.
Those that are removed from our list, however, and then are rightfully added back for a new aggression will find the task of making amends much harder. It is the exact same process, but you will find many more unwilling to accommodate easy repair of the relationship. Our eagerness for grace and reconciliation will not stand abuse by those looking to take advantage for their own amusement or benefit.
*Yes, that means attacking a Keeper or one of our settlement members/trusted friends in Marchmont can get you on the list.
.
As a public service to those traveling in the southern lands, Keeper's Pass maintains a list of known bandits and ne'er-do-wells* in the region. If you are heading home from gathering, going up the Pass for trade, or just travelling through the area and happen to see these folks, you're best bet is to run away. On the other hand, for those valiant defenders of the common folk that are looking to do some protecting, you might instead run toward them...
I've highlighted a part of your Original Post because the people discussed there suffered no losses from my actions near your mountain pass. They weren't sent to a shrine, they didn't have items destroyed or looted.
What's the going rate of compensation for causing one person use a run buff?
What's the going rate of compensation for causing a person to whip out weaponry, win a fight, and send me fleeing?
I'm willing to be held accountable for those actions. It should also be obvious that I have dialed non-consensual PvP back immensely, even though the day after your O.P., Ryan's post about banditry was pretty much the opposite of the dial-it-back post that some seemed to expect.
I am curious if there are claims from travelers/traders other than the two unharmed folks I listed above.
Also, I hope the last bit about Marchmont (in your latest post) wasn't directed at me, but to some wider audience. I'll remind you that I'm one of the original proponents of the crowdforged and widely accepted concept that not only Marchmont but the 6 hexes surrounding Marchmont should be safe for new players (and I haven't attacked anyone old or new in those hexes, ever), and in fact today (on voice-comms) I declined to chase someone once they had reached one of those hexes, and when I declined that caused the person who invited me to the chase to rethink and desist, also).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It sounds like you are coming at this from a transaction perspective, a weregild of sorts. That is not our way. We aren't seeking to make conflict something one can purchase. The ultimate goal is a change in action, so the aggressor seeks other ways of supporting their needs.
The going rate of getting off the list after initiating conflict is reconciling with the involved parties. Now, in the process of discussing the conflict with the other party, it may come about that some form of compensation is deemed appropriate--we do not mandate that or codify it in any way. It may also be that no aggrieved party comes forward. If that is the case you are removed from the list with no further action required.
As for the Marchmont comment, it's aimed at letting everyone know our list isn't simply about folks traveling near Keeper's Pass or attacking Keepers. If a trusted friend of ours is attacked by bandits anywhere in the River Kingdoms and reports the activity to us, we would add the aggressor to the list. This is not restricted to any region on the map. Reputations are an important thing to maintain, and they follow Characters around. The Keepers desire to minimize conflict in this entire region.
Also, this is entirely in-character. I, as a Player, fully support bandits being a part of PFO. I've been very consistent in my support on this front. However Erian, as a Character, does not support non-consensual conflict of any sort. Being on this list doesn't make you a Bad Player. It makes the Player's Character a bandit.
A worldwide bandit list where no one can be sure who is and isn't a trusted friend of yours (yet, due to no IFF) would be an impossible list for me to stay off of, if I, at any time, try to exert territoriality against those I deem to be poachers, or when I transact justice against kill-stealers (like friends of your power bloc that I encountered on Friday).
Keeping in mind that that your own organization is part of a powerbloc that apparently reserves the right to exert permanent 23/7 territoriality over 138 hexes...
it seems like whenever OTHERS exert territoriality or contest territoriality (even temporarily over a single hex) through non-consensual PVP they will sooner or later become additions to what will in essence become nothing but a very detailed list of PvPers who aren't allied to you.
While I concede the impropriety of my ineffectual experiment at far flung banditry, I can't imagine that everyone but the PvP averse (and your settlement's friends) won't eventually wind up on that list, and thus it probably isn't worth the effort to get off it just to be added onto it again anytime your settlement's friends manage to provoke a response from me somewhere in the world.
So your folks have my apologies for any adrenaline rush caused by my experiment at far flung banditry, as well as my assurance that I didn't find it particularly appealing, and my admission of it's impropriety, but that will have to suffice for now.
Have a good week, my friend.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's an acceptable position to take--those that intend to use aggression as a standard means of resolving issues are indeed likely to stay on the list. However, I think you perhaps misunderstand in what we'd accept as a reason for addition. If someone is imposing on Golgothan territory and you defend your territory, that is not grounds for being added to the list. We actually tell our members, "if you go into this area, you might get killed." Writing up known hostile areas in their entirety, like saying Everyone In Golgotha, is not of interest to us as that would provide no value to the community at large.
I'm happy to carry a request for removal forward to the Settlement Council, and my guess at present is there will be no aggrieved party to oppose removing you from that list. If you have indeed determined that a life of banditry is not for you, I see chances of you getting back on the list as minimal to nonexistent. However, if you do not wish for me to carry that forward I can accommodate that as well.
Having tried far flung banditry and deemed it a pursuit unworthy of me, I imagine I'll reserve non-consensual PvP for the expected territorial responses of my Settlement, as well as issues of justice (like kill-stealing which should never involve travelers and traders).
The far flung adventures that landed me on the list were entirely optional and I'm better served spending my time otherwise.
So yes, I'd like to be removed from the list. Thank you.
Awww we aren't friends?Frenemies?
Friends with benefits maybe ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The ultimate goal is a change in action, so the aggressor seeks other ways of supporting their needs.
Also, this is entirely in-character. I, as a Player, fully support bandits being a part of PFO. I've been very consistent in my support on this front. However Erian, as a Character, does not support non-consensual conflict of any sort. Being on this list doesn't make you a Bad Player. It makes the Player's Character a bandit.
But, through the force of your superior numbers, and your global contempt for any act of banditry, you as players are effectively making every effort of playing a bandit non viable.
This double speak of "I support banditry or non consensual PVP, but I will only allow it when, where, how and against whom I wish", is going to drive what very few players that wish to play that role away. "Hard is fun" but relentlessly hunted down and killed on sight is not. "Hard is fun" but not when the rules of the sandbox are reduced to "you can play, but only over there, and never with us or with any of our friends."
I'm afraid that if GW does not add some PVP features in SOON (like in a week or two) and certainly if not before the 4 month drop, they may never recover.
@ Ryan,
Crowfall Alpha is coming in Q4 15 or Q1 16, you are going to lose a good portion of PFO's PVP population when that happens (and that is if they last that long, many have not).
You will even lose some of the crafters, because they will hit the crafting caps and have no one to sell to and no one who really needs to replace the gear they have.
A group of five players can easily handle any group of Mobs in the game. With fully threaded gear, and durability loss set at 5%, there is no risk in PFO.
Boooooring!!
I can get the same social interaction playing, much more developed, free-to-play games that are actually entertaining. IE: Titan Fall, LotRO, SWTOR, or D20 TT along with TS3 access.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As always, I am open to any constructive feedback as to how I as an individual or we, the Keepers, can best support this game. I personally speak up in support of PvP whenever I see the opportunity. Indeed, if any are making a case for some PvP issue and desire support, send me a PM and I'm happy to assist. Do note, however that folks will find my support less available if the position is couched in unnecessarily aggressive or hostile terms. This applies equally to PvP and anti-PvP folks. I have RL friends that are permanently disabled due to fighting terrorism; I will not support anyone that throws that term around lightly with regard to a video game as it diminishes the sacrifice he made to keep me free. Humans demonize (be relabeling, making folks something other than People) as an easy means of supporting a position. It's not just easy slang, it's a way of distancing one position from another artificially, i.e. without other substantive characteristics.
Now, as for the Keepers we actively support PvP in the game by: (1) informing all new Players that PvP is an integral part of this game and not a form of Bad Player action by default, (2) providing PvP training so that Players are better equipped to survive it, (3) providing this very list so that Players can make informed decisions about social interactions with folks they otherwise do not know, and (4) not supporting Kill On Sight or Open Bounty approaches for the people on this list as a default state. As I say above, if anyone has some additional action(s) we can take I will readily take ideas back to our Inner Circle for consideration and implementation.
Further, as you note I believe much of the current frustration on both sides is from yet-to-be game mechanics that will support the play style advocated by GW. I think PFO is going to be a training ground for both PvP and anit-PvP Players, as both groups must come to see how they, as Players, can Play Well while one side has "Bad Guys" as Characters. This takes effort on both sides--any call from leaders that they cannot influence individual Player actions is ultimately going to be problematic. All major leaders in this game must take on the role of shifting Players into this different mind-set.
Ultimately, I think new mechanics and ways of thinking would help "positive PvP" considerably. I see the Lawful Evil side as being the Territorial Conflict contender. They will function on a daily basis mostly like other settlements, harvesting, crafting, building up infrastructure, etc. rather than engaging in regular conflict. Their "Evil" will show when resource constraints start to make some real impact into the ability to advance, as their response (such as taking out easier targets, sabotaging other settlement holdings, etc.) will differ from Neutral and Good (rather, trying diplomacy, sharing resources, making trade agreements, etc.).
I don't see Bandits being, openly, part of Lawful Evil. Indeed, ideally Bandits wouldn't be a settlement at all. What happens when a settlement becomes known as "the Bandit Settlement?" All the settlements targeted by those Bandits attack the settlement to stop the bandits. That's a natural reaction, and it will destroy the Bandit Settlement due to shear numbers. Bandits don't live in settlements out in the open (until such time as some settlement is powerful enough to fend off most attacks). They live in Hideouts out in the wilderness, working under disguise and secrecy. Lawful Evil might secretly support these groups as one of many elements to keep their enemies weak. This all, of course, would rely on game mechanics that simply don't exist. I hope that it's giving GW some things to think about on how they can make playing Bad Guys mechanically feasible in a world where doing so puts a giant target on the individual/company/settlement, without tipping the scale too far and making the Bad Guys too powerful or too hard to counter.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The ultimate goal is a change in action, so the aggressor seeks other ways of supporting their needs.
Also, this is entirely in-character. I, as a Player, fully support bandits being a part of PFO. I've been very consistent in my support on this front. However Erian, as a Character, does not support non-consensual conflict of any sort. Being on this list doesn't make you a Bad Player. It makes the Player's Character a bandit.
But, through the force of your superior numbers, and your global contempt for any act of banditry, you as players are effectively making every effort of playing a bandit non viable.
This double speak of "I support banditry or non consensual PVP, but I will only allow it when, where, how and against whom I wish", is going to drive what very few players that wish to play that role away. "Hard is fun" but relentlessly hunted down and killed on sight is not. "Hard is fun" but not when the rules of the sandbox are reduced to "you can play, but only over there, and never with us or with any of our friends."
I'm afraid that if GW does not add some PVP features in SOON (like in a week or two) and certainly if not before the 4 month drop, they may never recover.
@ Ryan,
Crowfall Alpha is coming in Q4 15 or Q1 16, you are going to lose a good portion of PFO's PVP population when that happens (and that is if they last that long, many have not).
You will even lose some of the crafters, because they will hit the crafting caps and have no one to sell to and no one who really needs to replace the gear they have.
A group of five players can easily handle any group of Mobs in the game. With fully threaded gear, and durability loss set at 5%, there is no risk in PFO.
Boooooring!!
I can get the same social interaction playing, much more developed, free-to-play games that are actually entertaining. IE: Titan Fall, LotRO, SWTOR, or D20 TT along with TS3 access.
Then fight back. Get more people to fight back. Or be annoying bandits who are training capped until you can recruit enough people to completely stand on your own. I'm sorry you aren't happy but this is the game working as intended. You don't get to cry for freedom to do whatever you want to other players and then complain when someone else uses that same freedom against you. Did you really think that everyone would just be like 'sigh, another bandit, just give them what they want and move on with our day'? This is meaningful player interactions, if everyone just took bandits as a defacto state of life and there were no real repercussions mechanically or socially, then it wouldn't be a meaningful choice. Your complaint is basically coming across as 'They won't let me win!'.
Edit: I'll add that I also agree with Erian, we just don't have the mechanics yet to make some of this more palatable. I'm openly declared Lawful Evil, yet the mechanics for me to really capitalize on that don't exist yet. When they do I expect people to not necessarily like that, and I may very well choose targets or present my stance for certain activities with that in mind.
As to Crowfall, it's looking to be more like a real competitive MMO to some degree than a persistent world. Which is totally the reason I backed it. I can commit as little or as much time as I want to it in exchange for little meaningful persistence but with some of the trappings of that persistence. I'm intrigued, but it's a very different game and if all you want to do is fight players for things they've built (with the periodic resets they probably won't mind as much) than it's probably a better choice. Ultimately there will be very little meaning behind the interactions in that game, but it will be a competitive MMO which is not a common thing right now.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I will admit to some confusion at present over one consistent statement coming from the PvP side--they don't like the response from attacked parties (and their allies) of being put on a list and targeted as bad guys. This confuses me because I'm not sure how else we're supposed to react. We can't, as Duffy notes, simply shrug it off as "oh well, the bandits got my stuff" and move on. Continued bandit actions from a Character would result in that Character gaining a reputation as a Bandit, and then those that hunt Bandits would target that Character all the time.
This expands out to "Bandit Settlements" and of course also gets back around to what I was saying earlier about disguise mechanics--having your identity 100% confirmed across the server as a Bandit is not a feasible long-term solution. Bandits have to be able to operate in some amount of secrecy to be successful, or they'll just get destroyed. But the solution cannot be that the victims just let the Bandits get away with their actions by turning a blind eye.
I'm honestly interested in hearing opinions on how we, as Players, can reasonably respond to Bandits under the current mechanics, and also in discussing new mechanics that GW could offer to support a better implementation of Bandits that doesn't shift the power too far to them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When training and character power was tied to settlements it killed the bandits. I myself wanted to lead a group of assassins that worked for anyone who wanted us. Now I lead the only large evil group in the game because in order to get training I have to be in a city. As long as bandits are definitively tied to a hard location they will get smushed. If they become big enough to defend themselves from large groups they aren't really bandits any more.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes, that's the problem as I see it. I mean, the Forty Thieves of Ali Baba fame didn't live in some city with a big sign saying "Thieves' Den" over it.
fwiw I don't mind being on a bad guy list. I am a bad guy.
But if those bandit activities lead the majority of the server to come and burn down all the holdings of Golgotha? Because that's a valid and logical way of keeping bandits out of their lands. Operating as a Bad Guy is good for the game, and we need Players able to handle that responsibility well. But those Bad Guys must, as you do above, understand that owning that reputation openly invites the Good Guys to seek you out. Bandits shouldn't be as easy to find as "oh, they're all up in that city right there." or that city will get sacked.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
When training and character power was tied to settlements it killed the bandits. I myself wanted to lead a group of assassins that worked for anyone who wanted us. Now I lead the only large evil group in the game because in order to get training I have to be in a city. As long as bandits are definitively tied to a hard location they will get smushed. If they become big enough to defend themselves from large groups they aren't really bandits any more.
Truth.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If bandits are going to be forced to be tied to communities, then, at the very least, they should be able to hide their membership. Perhaps not absolutely, but it should take a lot more work to figure out what community they are in than looking their name up in the list of companies.
Perhaps we should all have the option of having our settlement affiliation private from all but the leadership. People who want to figure out where we are banking and training can follow us around, or expend DI to discover it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If bandits are going to be forced to be tied to communities, then, at the very least, they should be able to hide their membership. Perhaps not absolutely, but it should take a lot more work to figure out what community they are in than looking their name up in the list of companies.
Perhaps we should all have the option of having our settlement affiliation private from all but the leadership. People who want to figure out where we are banking and training can follow us around, or expend DI to discover it.
Bluff vs. Sense Motive. This is actually one of the things that have been specifically addressed by the devs, if I'm remembering correctly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A player belongs to a settlement which is officially at war with my settlement. He would ordinarily show as red to me. However, he has a high enough bluff skill to successfully conceal his settlement affiliation.
* Should he show as red or white?
* If he shows as white, should I be able to attack him without consequence if I gamble correctly that he's a valid war target?
* Or should character knowledge trump player knowledge and penalize me for attacking someone my character does not have the skill to recognize as an enemy?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He should show as indicated by his Bluff (otherwise the Bluff is useless).
Your consequences should be based on what is real (Bluff can't trump Reputation).
Just my off-the-cuff thoughts, I'm sure there is more to consider. I think it would be neat, for instance, if a successfully Disguised bandit that is subsequently slain grants a re-check with a bonus to identify his true identity.
And there is still the problem of "here's Bandit Settlement right here on the map. Bandits operating as independent Companies, with a Hideout supporting their needs (at less capability than a settlement) seems to be a good route for that, but again I'm sure there are lots of details to consider.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Duffy,
It's not that it is impossible to find targets. It's not that the reputation system really penalizes me all that much. It is that there is nothing in between:
Easy Target, Little Loot and Impossible Target, No Loot.
On that line of thinking, what situation would constitute 'ideal' as far as targets are concerned?
Their are only two possible outcomes, either you win or you don't. How that happens is not important, what's important is if you 'win' and what you get out of it. Which means you are always looking for a fight that is heavily in your favor.
Is the problem that no one is moving expensive things? Or is it the problem that those who do are so well guarded or connected that targeting them is impossible or not worth it? Isn't that kinda the point and something everyone has been saying you'll have to do when moving valuable things since day 1?
If you are saying that every fight you can win is not worth winning and every fight you can't win is the one worth winning what exactly is suppose to happen? Did you expect player responses to be different?
I honestly don't really know where to go with this conversation, as a secondary observer interested in some of the eventual evil oriented systems it seems like everything is working as intended, albeit some systems are making it worse. (WoT is more handicapping than promoting PvP, etc...)
Is it just a matter of not enough systems to promote the nuances yet? Will feuding/wars/sieges be enough of a commitment that trying to do the equivalent of tower starving a settlement would just not be feasible without huge expenditures of resources and effort? Giving lots of time to hit back and possibly allowing bandit/evil havens to flourish a bit as they are just not worth trying to remove if they aren't your neighbor? Would things like the proposed disguise, criminal flagging, and assassination systems being added ease a lot of this?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A player belongs to a settlement which is officially at war with my settlement.
And not just to be converse, what if he should be white to me but successfully bluffs that he is red? Do I lose rep for killing him? Do I get flagged red for hitting him? Bandits could make good money from pretending to be Golgothans/Brighthavenites until the first blows are struck.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Your consequences should be based on what is real (Bluff can't trump Reputation).
This seems wrong to me, given that Reputation is kinda/sorta a measure of how the invisible "smallfolk" see you. It matters less that you know he deserved to die; it's all about whether the smallfolk think you were justified.
[Edit]
I think it would be neat, for instance, if a successfully Disguised bandit that is subsequently slain grants a re-check with a bonus to identify his true identity.
I could get behind this. After you slay the foul bandit, you reveal his true identity to the smallfolk, thus saving your own Reputation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Your consequences should be based on what is real (Bluff can't trump Reputation).This seems wrong to me, given that Reputation is kinda/sorta a measure of how the invisible "smallfolk" see you. It matters less that you know he deserved to die; it's all about whether the smallfolk think you were justified.
I'm not sure this follows. The small folk don't know if he was flagged red to you or not. Is this assuming that the slain character automatically makes a bluff against every npc in the area, or that the character automatically fails their bluff against every npc in the area? Neither one seems reasonable to me. Either you are right by an invisible metric, or you are only right to go with what you think is true. The audience can't contribute.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The small folk don't know if he was flagged red to you or not.
It's not an official explanation, but my own way of thinking about why you lose Reputation for killing an unflagged Character in the wilderness is that the invisible smallfolk saw you do it - and they spread that information.
In that paradigm, it makes sense to me that, if you kill a Character that appears to be unflagged, then you would face the same Reputation loss you would if they were actually unflagged.
That paradigm may be wrong, but it's worked for me :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like the idea of using a bluff check to check an identification vs sense motive for characters interacting or in a local (80m) area to the character…
Only issue with this is it will make it way too easy to rip off new players who will have no sense motive and will not see through the disguise ... "Hi my name is Ryan from Goblin Works and we are upgrading new player packs, transfer me yours and I will arrange for you to get sent the better version."
EVE, despite generally not caring whether new players are rorted of everything they own, had to eventually take the step of making imitating devs and other well known in-game personalities a bannable offence.