Stand and Deliver Discussion


Pathfinder Online

1,451 to 1,500 of 1,727 << first < prev | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Here is a question that has not been asked. Does it matter if the "bandits" are affiliated with a settlement or is it somehow worse if they are not?

Hmmm... If you are asking how I feel about it, it is moot. They will have to be "affiliated" somewhere, even if it is NPC country. Conceptually I suppose that it doesn't matter one way or the other and TBH, I think that it only bothers me because it is a way around the rest of the system. Like I have said, I intend to go forth in strength and fight for my "berries" (so long as I can still make a decent profit). It won't be much concern for me, unless that is unmanageable somehow.

You can pick your own... =)

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Here is a question that has not been asked. Does it matter if the "bandits" are affiliated with a settlement or is it somehow worse if they are not?

Hmmm... If you are asking how I feel about it, it is moot. They will have to be "affiliated" somewhere, even if it is NPC country. Conceptually I suppose that it doesn't matter one way or the other and TBH, I think that it only bothers me because it is a way around the rest of the system. Like I have said, I intend to go forth in strength and fight for my "berries" (so long as I can still make a decent profit). It won't be much concern for me, unless that is unmanageable somehow.

You can pick your own... =)

PvP is no less a system than reputation or alignment, in fact it is probably more central to the game. If merchants choose not to join a company or settlement, or players use unaffiliated alts for the purpose of moving goods and resources, the SAD is the only system that makes them vulnerable.

The SAD really does eliminate the use of alts meant to avoid a number of systems. Merchants will use them to avoid PvP, and attackers will use them to avoid reputation loss on their main characters.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

PvP is no less a system than reputation or alignment, in fact it is probably more central to the game. If merchants choose not to join a company or settlement, or players use unaffiliated alts for the purpose of moving goods and resources, the SAD is the only system that makes them vulnerable.

The SAD really does eliminate the use of alts meant to avoid a number of systems. Merchants will use them to avoid PvP, and attackers will use them to avoid reputation loss on their main characters.

Absolutely I feel that if part of the problem is solved with the faction ideas, it must be really great to be factioned up and really sucky to not be. Again, TBH, I was hoping for someway that {b]some[/b] people could choose to play and be rep penalty targets. In other words they would suck because they are not factioned, but they would maybe be less attractive targets because of that.

It may be too far outside of the game's core ideas, as you have pointed out. I just "guess" many more people might be attracted to the game that way. I don't "personally" know enough to be sure they are of significant numbers to make a difference.

Another concern is that the S&D is going to be a MONSTER to code and balance. It may not be needed if the faction thing works out. I still hold that demand to S&D could be handled with /tell.

Goblin Squad Member

Something else to think about. If it is not difficult to get the ability to S&D, many people will get and use it. Between faction, feud, war, S&D, why would we really need the reputation system?

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

PvP is no less a system than reputation or alignment, in fact it is probably more central to the game. If merchants choose not to join a company or settlement, or players use unaffiliated alts for the purpose of moving goods and resources, the SAD is the only system that makes them vulnerable.

The SAD really does eliminate the use of alts meant to avoid a number of systems. Merchants will use them to avoid PvP, and attackers will use them to avoid reputation loss on their main characters.

Regarding bolded bit: that assumes attackers choose to use S&D. If they just want to kill the target and take 75% of the loot, I imagine they'll often use alts to avoid rep loss whether S&D is present in the game or not.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
Something else to think about. If it is not difficult to get the ability to S&D, many people will get and use it. Between faction, feud, war, S&D, why would we really need the reputation system?

Because the rep system ensures we use those methods, rather than turning the game into a free-for-all.

Would S&D allow a lot of attacks, yes. With an associated Criminal flag, it might not be the best thing to use in crowded areas. Or NPC-patrolled areas. It might also require the bandits to already be flagged 'for the cause' before it's used, and the Merchant faction might not be the Bandit faction's only enemy.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's all highly speculative anyway. We will have to see how long the S&D system gets put off if the faction system does a good job. Heck, that is just the "idea flavor" at this time also...

Edit to add: I will still wonder how much GW will consider that they have "shoot themselves in the foot" if they labor on all of these systems and the result is that no one's rep goes anywhere but up.

Yeah, mission accomplished. What was the development cost?

Goblin Squad Member

Jiminy wrote:

You keep saying bandits are the 'victimizers' and that merchants are the 'victims'. When a group of merchants corners a lucrative section of the market and they price gouge and restrict the trade of others (maybe even via bandits) with their massive profits, are they then 'victimizers'? What is their risk in those cases, and what is the reward of those trying to enter that market? Should merchants lose reputation when competing in this aspect of the game?

You're limiting your view of PvP to combat only. The economic and social aspects of the game will be just as important and need to be balanced just as much as combat does.

I would agree if the restriction on combat PvP where the same as on market PvP or PvP through social engineering.

But they are not. It was explicitly stated that:

1) the initial design of the market was to place several layers on interaction between the market and the player to make market PvP harder if not impossible.

2) if any "cornering of the market" would actually happen the devs would step in and correct that.

and IIRC Rayan specifically state that if they made it possible to succeed through social engineering they would consider PFO a failure.

So I have to say that as from what it looks to me the game design itself makes it unreasonably harder to fight back or how you put it "victimize" through other means then combat PvP it is absolutely reasonable to assume that combat PvP is the main thing to be regarded as the main potential victimizer.

So unless there is actually a way to defeat a bandit without swinging a sword, casting a spell or shooting an arrow I will absolutely not accept the "merchants can be victimizers too" argument as valid.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
Something else to think about. If it is not difficult to get the ability to S&D, many people will get and use it. Between faction, feud, war, S&D, why would we really need the reputation system?

/unleashes the fire storm

Short answer, "We may not".

First remember, reputation is not an anti griefing system. It is meant to limit the use if certain methods, but not griefing methods. Those will be handled outside if any game system, in a capricious and arbitrary manner.

Secondly, if GW gets the reasons for PvP correct ( "For a Cause" not "For the Cause"), then having negative reputation consequences for PvP is actually counter productive.

Thirdly, I believe the reputation system as described is by far the most complex system in the game and will cost more to create than any other. It will also require the most tweaking. In my opinion the opportunity cost of it does not justify it. I am also not convinced GW can actually pull it off. Their game design model is based on MVP.

Here is the test... The reputation system will not be in place at the start of EE, just like the SAD. I believe that if GW sees that neither are really needed, they won't find their way into their development queue.

Goblin Squad Member

Papaver wrote:
So unless there is actually a way to defeat a bandit without swinging a sword, casting a spell or shooting an arrow I will absolutely not accept the "merchants can be victimizers too" argument as valid.

Just to clarify one point, when I was discussing the multiple facets of PvP, I was not simply referring to bandits. In a few months/years time, we may very well be discussing the paladin ability that allows them to initiate combat against evil characters with as much vigor as we have banditry. My thoughts will still hold true - there are several other aspects of PvP besides combat.

I guess we shall have to wait and see how PFO treats those other aspects and how players utilize them for their own ends.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Here is the test... The reputation system will not be in place at the start of EE, just like the SAD. I believe that if GW sees that neither are really needed, they won't find their way into their development queue.

That's a prediction on your part, or a statement of fact?

Back in January, in another thread, Ryan interjected with this:

Ryan Dancey wrote:

While the four of you say the same thing over and over to each other without any chance of advancing the discussion I feel compelled to respond to this just in case one of the other hundred thousand plus users of these forums wanders by on accident:

Bluddwolf wrote:
They (Ryan) had already said that neither system [alignment & rep - rsd] will be in place through most if not all of EE.
No, I can't recall ever saying that. It will be in at the start barring technical problems.

Goblin Squad Member

I know Stephen said that SAD will not be implemented for EE as fact.
Ryan I believe just stated Rep will not be implemented for EE in another thread recently. (I would have to reread it to be sure)

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:

I know Stephen said that SAD will not be implemented for EE as fact.

Ryan I believe just stated Rep will not be implemented for EE in another thread recently. (I would have to reread it to be sure)

I found this quote from Ryan:

About Reputation during EE

Quote:

The problem I see is that even if alignment and rep is in the game on day one of Early Enrollment, it may be irrelevant. The only way to train skills will be to access trainers at the NPC settlements which will have to be open to all characters because there won't be enough diversity in the initial terrain to have lots of them. There won't be much to do against the environment besides kill groups of monsters which don't offer much threat. So the most interesting thing to do will be to fight other characters, and I expect that to happen quite a bit.

The challenge is that the message that sends to everyone is that the game is just a PvP free for all with zero consequences. If that becomes the accepted norm, the game will fossilize around those assumptions and we'll never be able to change them. Having alignment and rep doesn't mean anything if there are no consequences attached to changes in them.

Therefore I think that we may need to impose some external forces on the game environment to rationalize the PvP until enough other features have been deployed to give alignment and rep meaningful consequences.

It was in answer to the posts above where EE was discussed and how reputation could come into play then. The quote *could* suggest that Reputation may not be in but he does not specifically say so: I could not find other quotes either where he sais that.

A little higher up in the thread Ryan states how barebone EE will be at the start.

Goblin Squad Member

Tyncale wrote:
Xeen wrote:

I know Stephen said that SAD will not be implemented for EE as fact.

Ryan I believe just stated Rep will not be implemented for EE in another thread recently. (I would have to reread it to be sure)

I found this quote from Ryan:

About Reputation during EE

Quote:

The problem I see is that even if alignment and rep is in the game on day one of Early Enrollment, it may be irrelevant. The only way to train skills will be to access trainers at the NPC settlements which will have to be open to all characters because there won't be enough diversity in the initial terrain to have lots of them. There won't be much to do against the environment besides kill groups of monsters which don't offer much threat. So the most interesting thing to do will be to fight other characters, and I expect that to happen quite a bit.

The challenge is that the message that sends to everyone is that the game is just a PvP free for all with zero consequences. If that becomes the accepted norm, the game will fossilize around those assumptions and we'll never be able to change them. Having alignment and rep doesn't mean anything if there are no consequences attached to changes in them.

Therefore I think that we may need to impose some external forces on the game environment to rationalize the PvP until enough other features have been deployed to give alignment and rep meaningful consequences.

It was in answer to the posts above where EE was discussed and how reputation could come into play then. The quote *could* suggest that Reputation may not be in but he does not specifically say so: I could not find other quotes either where he sais that.

A little higher up in the thread Ryan states how barebone EE will be at the start.

Well played Sir Tyncale! I am most curious to see how GW deals with this concern. I think that it is valid.

Not that I am qualified to judge whether they could get their "wanted" number of EE customers if the public judgment is that the game is FFA PVP heavy

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for the find, Tyncale. As Bringslight pointed out in that other thread, there certainly could be consequences.

An example of consequences: if GW chose to limit training in those NPC settlements to -2500 rep or better, we'd each get a handful of PvP kills, just a taste, then have to stop and let Rep regen above -2500 to get more training.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:

Thanks for the find, Tyncale. As Bringslight pointed out in that other thread, there certainly could be consequences.

An example of consequences: if GW chose to limit training in those NPC settlements to -2500 rep or better, we'd each get a handful of PvP kills, just a taste, then have to stop and let Rep regen above -2500 to get more training.

I have said that (sans your wonderful detail) in a post or two. Why can't there be some basic avenues for preferred PVP and some consequences for excessive PVP outside of that?

Goblinworks Game Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The core of the reputation system is in already. I don't think it has any exceptions in it (since factions, wars, feuds, etc. aren't in yet), and Ryan's right that there probably won't be rep gates to cities for some time, but it should decrement rep correctly when you attack someone.

I don't believe alignment is in yet, and I don't know how easy it will be to add.

Goblin Squad Member

@ Stephen

Straight from a Goblin's mouth. Thank you, Sir.

Edit: Would it be difficult to get something consequential into EE or is it not worth your effort?

Goblin Squad Member

Interesting... I'd wonder if even without rep gates players might temper their behavior to a degree, in anticipation of the gates' arrival. (Or they could play with total abandon, hoping for at least one complete reboot of the system, and temper behavior after that reboot.)

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
"Bluddwolf wrote:
The question is, if you feel it is a closed issue, what brings you here?

Because part of the price of freedom is vigilance. I wish people would stop rehashing the same old thing without adding anything, and would much rather never opening this thread on this topic ever again, but if I don't keep an eye on even such a pointless conversation I might someday be unpleasantly surprised to have missed pointing out a critical error.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
Interesting... I'd wonder if even without rep gates players might temper their behavior to a degree, in anticipation of the gates' arrival. (Or they could play with total abandon, hoping for at least one complete reboot of the system, and temper behavior after that reboot.)

That might just be the hope of those that play with abandon. :)

GW must be dripping some kind of "skull sweat", so that the EE flows and projects as much of the picture (that they want) as is possible.

Goblin Squad Member

I do not think they are sweating anything. They have a year and a half before any worry is needed.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
I do not think they are sweating anything. They have a year and a half before any worry is needed.

Well we know that Ryan, at least, is concerned about how the game comes off to public impression (during EE). In a nutshell, he has written as much at least twice (that I can remember) recently.

So someone is "concerned", maybe sweating, maybe not.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Reading though some of the immense amount of posts in this thread (because reading though all of them would take the better part of a day), I find a lot of innovative and curious ideas as how the S&D system should work.

While each and every one seem to have their own merit, I can't help but to wonder why it needs to be so complex. I believe a simpler system would be most effective.

Allow me to elaborate:

Rather than employing some different system one can simply use the trading system. Let's say you "craft" a stand and deliver note that holds whatever people is in your groups name on it. This note is essentially a promise to not attack the "buyer" and his/her traveling companions (group).

When you open a trade with someone and place that in your trade window, you and your group becomes attack able by the victim and their group without a rep loss. The vital thing here is that you do not receive a rep loss either for proposing the S&D so if they decide to attack you, you are of cause able to attack back without a rep loss. This will allow for aggressive retorts from the victims of the S&D, and leave the proposers free of any repercussions. (Other than death if they underestimated their victims).

Now assuming the victims do not instantly attack let's look at their options.
1: They can pay the fee.
2: They can try to haggle. (It's a trade window after all. Maybe you do not have the money, but you might have something else they might want instead)
3: You can call their bluff and refuse to pay.

If the trade goes though both parties revert to non hostile and anyone noted on the S&D note will receive double rep penalty for attacking anyone from the buyer's party for a set amount of time. (After all you did promise to not attack) Also since the victim can read the names on the note during the S&D it should be easy to notice if only half the bandits are on there. Buyer beware and all that.

If the trade did not go though and the victims did not attack, it's in the hands of the bandits now. They called your bluff, will you prove to them that you weren't bluffing, rep penalty be damned? Or will you let them go, they did not seem wealthy enough to be worth the hassle after all?

Now let's look at a few issues with this system in a Q/A format:

Q: Wait if we use this system I cannot freely attack people who refuse to pay me?
A: Very true. It only means you will not loose rep if you come to an agreement or that the victim attacks you first.

Q: Why would I use the system at all then? I could just demand their money and not give anything in return.
A: Also very true. You must understand that the S&D system in this form would not be a direct benefit to you but rather a "service" to your victims. They might be more inclined to accept your demands with some form of assurance that you won't simply attack them anyway. In that way it'll indirectly benefit you. (Also some trigger happy merchants might think they stand a chance and attack. Thereby netting you a kill free of repercussions.)

Q: With a S&D system build like this I won't receive any rep benefit from using it will I?
A: Actually you will. Not in the sense that you'll get a reward for each S&D or something like that, but instead by the virtue that you are not actively doing any actions that causes loss of rep. And as the rep system is build right now the more time you go without loosing rep the more rep you'll gain. In that sense you're rewarded for using S&D and should still have enough spare rep to "make an example" out of an uncooperative merchant now and again.

Well that's my take on a possible S&D system. Sorry about the wall of text, I know it seems awfully complicated when you look at it but it's really simple. I swear! I'm probably overlooking a few things or there is stuff I forgot to mention. Not to mention places where I'm outright wrong, but that's what a forum is for right? Discussing ideas and finding the merits and flaws for the betterment of a game we're all passionate about.

Also, this is my first post. Please be nice to me. ^^'

Goblin Squad Member

Welcome, Vaienna. I'll just point out that you can click on someone's name in the forums and then check on their posts. It's not so useful with the more chatty types, but Stephen Cheney and other developers actually have relatively few posts. Most useful information per post read, imo.

Goblin Squad Member

That's really good advice actually. Thankies!

Goblin Squad Member

Tyncale wrote:
Xeen wrote:

I know Stephen said that SAD will not be implemented for EE as fact.

Ryan I believe just stated Rep will not be implemented for EE in another thread recently. (I would have to reread it to be sure)

I found this quote from Ryan:

About Reputation during EE

Quote:

The problem I see is that even if alignment and rep is in the game on day one of Early Enrollment, it may be irrelevant. The only way to train skills will be to access trainers at the NPC settlements which will have to be open to all characters because there won't be enough diversity in the initial terrain to have lots of them. There won't be much to do against the environment besides kill groups of monsters which don't offer much threat. So the most interesting thing to do will be to fight other characters, and I expect that to happen quite a bit.

The challenge is that the message that sends to everyone is that the game is just a PvP free for all with zero consequences. If that becomes the accepted norm, the game will fossilize around those assumptions and we'll never be able to change them. Having alignment and rep doesn't mean anything if there are no consequences attached to changes in them.

Therefore I think that we may need to impose some external forces on the game environment to rationalize the PvP until enough other features have been deployed to give alignment and rep meaningful consequences.

It was in answer to the posts above where EE was discussed and how reputation could come into play then. The quote *could* suggest that Reputation may not be in but he does not specifically say so: I could not find other quotes either where he sais that.

A little higher up in the thread Ryan states how barebone EE will be at the start.

I hope the starting trainers/quest givers represent factions found in Pathfinder lore and pvp is linked to likely combatants; for instance, Pathfinder Society vs. Aspis Consortium. It could be a fatal blow to the game if, in addition to a barebones EE experience, one signs up to be 'red' so you can kill 'blue.' You would not even need buildings just npcs who grant quests, training and possible faction status for, say, the Hellknights. Then even a visible reputation number would at least show how far a bozo has strayed from the faction-based fighting. I'd rather see an extension of alpha and perhaps the pit-fight implemented and a delay for EE than see the game flounder from the beginning.

Goblin Squad Member

@ Sepherum I agree. I do not think you will have to worry though that they will not use Pathfinder Lore whenever they can: it is a great foundation that gives immediate substance to the game, even though 99% of the systems and content have not been implemented yet. They would be fools not to use it.

Every time Stephen or Lee explain something about a system or feature(the map being a very obvious example), it has links with Pathfinder and it always gives me the good feeling that there is already this entire world waiting for us.

Goblin Squad Member

I think there was a post where Mr. Dancey stated the 'external forces on the game environment' may include red vs. blue or somesuch.

Goblin Squad Member

Stephen Cheney wrote:

The core of the reputation system is in already. I don't think it has any exceptions in it (since factions, wars, feuds, etc. aren't in yet), and Ryan's right that there probably won't be rep gates to cities for some time, but it should decrement rep correctly when you attack someone.

I don't believe alignment is in yet, and I don't know how easy it will be to add.

That is fine to read about the core of the reputation system, but that says nothing about when it will be implemented.

If implemented before any of the other systems (ie feuds, SADs, Factions or Wars), than all PvP will result in reputation loss (for the attacker). If in fact it will take months or years to recover reputation, than no one will be the attacker until those other systems are in place.

So in the earliest days of EE (maybe weeks) we will just be twiddling our thumbs?

I would hope that all of the related systems are brought on at the same time. Or there may have to be a reputation reset for when the other systems are finally brought online.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Stephen Cheney wrote:

The core of the reputation system is in already. I don't think it has any exceptions in it (since factions, wars, feuds, etc. aren't in yet), and Ryan's right that there probably won't be rep gates to cities for some time, but it should decrement rep correctly when you attack someone.

I don't believe alignment is in yet, and I don't know how easy it will be to add.

That is fine to read about the core of the reputation system, but that says nothing about when it will be implemented.

If implemented before any of the other systems (ie feuds, SADs, Factions or Wars), than all PvP will result in reputation loss (for the attacker). If in fact it will take months or years to recover reputation, than no one will be the attacker until those other systems are in place.

So in the earliest days of EE (maybe weeks) we will just be twiddling our thumbs?

I would hope that all of the related systems are brought on at the same time. Or there may have to be a reputation reset for when the other systems are finally brought online.

I believe the 'external forces' that govern pvp at launch will be factions of some kind. I think Mr. Cheney was saying that rep will be a visible number with as of yet no in-game mechanical effects. Except to let people know who's attacking outside of the beginning pvp construct.

Goblin Squad Member

Sepherum wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Stephen Cheney wrote:

The core of the reputation system is in already. I don't think it has any exceptions in it (since factions, wars, feuds, etc. aren't in yet),and Ryan's right that there probably won't be rep gates to cities for some time, but it should decrement rep correctly when you attack someone.

I don't believe alignment is in yet, and I don't know how easy it will be to add.

That is fine to read about the core of the reputation system, but that says nothing about when it will be implemented.

If implemented before any of the other systems (ie feuds, SADs, Factions or Wars), than all PvP will result in reputation loss (for the attacker). If in fact it will take months or years to recover reputation, than no one will be the attacker until those other systems are in place.

So in the earliest days of EE (maybe weeks) we will just be twiddling our thumbs?

I would hope that all of the related systems are brought on at the same time. Or there may have to be a reputation reset for when the other systems are finally brought online.

I believe the 'external forces' that govern pvp at launch will be factions of some kind. I think Mr. Cheney was saying that rep will be a visible number with as of yet no in-game mechanical effects. Except to let people know who's attacking outside of the beginning pvp construct.

Stephen Cheney stated that he did not think there were any exceptions to it, and specifically included factions as one of the systems we would have to wait for.

Even without Rep Gates being in place, few players who care about such things will engage in PvP. I'm not going to be an attacker, defeat a group of players and then everyone in my group are at -5000 ( for example) and spend the next few months recovering from that one instance.

If Goblin Works says it is FFA until the sanctioned methods of PvP and the gates are in, then fine. Otherwise, I'll roll my characters (main and DT ) let them start gaining xp and roll a third character to "test out the PvP". On the third I will hit -7500 within minutes and probably keep that toon handy, as a "Monster in the Basement".

Goblin Squad Member

If our new characters in EE start at 1000 Rep, the Rep loss for attacking another character may be in the neighborhood of 700-800 Rep. Not cheap, but not the end of the world. That's 4 attacks before we drop below -2500.

Maybe the key is to make them meaningful. Kill some solo sap who you watched harvesting for 30 minutes before he went afk on a bio break. Use 1:1 or 2:1 odds rather than 8:1 to maximize the number of times you can score.

Or head to the basement. Maximize your training in EE in case you can't train for a while.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:

If our new characters in EE start at 1000 Rep, the Rep loss for attacking another character may be in the neighborhood of 700-800 Rep. Not cheap, but not the end of the world. That's 4 attacks before we drop below -2500.

Maybe the key is to make them meaningful. Kill some solo sap who you watched harvesting for 30 minutes before he went afk on a bio break. Use 1:1 or 2:1 odds rather than 8:1 to maximize the number of times you can score.

Or head to the basement. Maximize your training in EE in case you can't train for a while.

The odds makes no difference, the numbers stack. If my 6 attack your 6, we lose between 4200 - 4800 in just one fight. If we have a second fight, even matched, again another - 4200 - 4800. Once at -7500, might as well attack everything that walks or crawls.

So no one will initiate any PvP with a character they actually care about. Unless there are ways to avoid the reputation loss, with meaningful interactions, PvP will either not occur or it will have no meaning. It can not be both ways.

Goblinworks Game Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.

We're going to try to get at least some of the exceptions in by EE, they're just not in right now. We definitely don't want to make it seem like a free-for-all but then everyone who engaged in PvP realizes that they've tanked their reps to a point that'll be hard to recover from, so we'll figure out something to do to prevent that if it's an issue by the start of EE.

Goblin Squad Member

Stephen Cheney wrote:
We're going to try to get at least some of the exceptions in by EE, they're just not in right now. We definitely don't want to make it seem like a free-for-all but then everyone who engaged in PvP realizes that they've tanked their reps to a point that'll be hard to recover from, so we'll figure out something to do to prevent that if it's an issue by the start of EE.

I certainly hope so. The sooner we can engage in meaningful PvP and not suffer the same consequences as if it did not have meaning the better.

Goblin Squad Member

Tyncale wrote:

I found this quote from Ryan:

About Reputation during EE

Yeah, that's the same post I remember linking the first time Bluddwolf claimed Ryan had "stated" that Rep wouldn't be in during EE.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Tyncale wrote:

I found this quote from Ryan:

About Reputation during EE

Yeah, that's the same post I remember linking the first time Bluddwolf claimed Ryan had "stated" that Rep wouldn't be in during EE.

And that has been nuanced several times since then. Now we have Reputation in, but it won't have an immediate effect on anything for a while.

Statements seem to have a short shelf life during the development process, and we are not even in EE.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Now we have Reputation in, but it won't have an immediate effect on anything for a while.

Actually, the Reputation system will have an immediate effect, even without actual mechanical penalties on day 1 of EE. The threat of lasting or future Reputation effects will cause some players to avoid or reduce the use of Rep-harming attacks with their favorite characters.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Now we have Reputation in, but it won't have an immediate effect on anything for a while.
Actually, the Reputation system will have an immediate effect, even without actual mechanical penalties on day 1 of EE. The threat of lasting or future Reputation effects will cause some players to avoid or reduce the use of Rep-harming attacks with their favorite characters.

That was precisely my point. Stephen already responded to that point. They don't want a free for all with non rep caring alts, but they do want PvP. They have to have at least one system in place to allow for PvP that won't cost reputation.

My guess is, faction is the easiest to implement. Lee had developed a pretty good faction system in Fallen Earth, so he has experience with faction systems.

I would think feuds would be next. Again, fairly simple system of declaring hostility against another company. Next I would guess, SAD, and finally settlement warfare. Thus woukd save the largest scale and most complicated for last.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I have to say that I'm *extremely* skeptical about this SAD concept. I see it adding more frustration for the robbed than fun for the bandits. Maybe I am misunderstanding how it works, but IMO any act of banditry should shift a character towards evil. Whether that's a straight up attack, or issuing a SAD, regardless of the outcome of the SAD, with the possible exception of robbing from evil characters.
I do not buy the "hire guards" argument right now as a way to deal with it. I simply don't see dozens of characters sitting around able and willing to guard a caravan while it transports goods. That's boring. And if it's NOT boring, meaning there's bandits often enough to make it not boring, then I'll find that absurdly high number of bandit attacks extremely un-fun as well. When I ship goods, I should not expect a bandit attack 80% of the time. That simply isn't fun.
I'm very wary of this.
If a character wants to attack or rob others, fine, but I fail to see why they shouldn't have to suffer alignment/reputation hits every single time for doing so.
Again, I might not fully understand how this is currently projected to work, and I'd love to be convinced that this simply won't be a tool for griefers to get away with griefing.

Goblin Squad Member

Jiminy wrote:
Papaver wrote:
So unless there is actually a way to defeat a bandit without swinging a sword, casting a spell or shooting an arrow I will absolutely not accept the "merchants can be victimizers too" argument as valid.

Just to clarify one point, when I was discussing the multiple facets of PvP, I was not simply referring to bandits. In a few months/years time, we may very well be discussing the paladin ability that allows them to initiate combat against evil characters with as much vigor as we have banditry. My thoughts will still hold true - there are several other aspects of PvP besides combat.

I guess we shall have to wait and see how PFO treats those other aspects and how players utilize them for their own ends.

@ Jiminy

There are multiple facets to PVP. Anytime you craft something or dig something or kill someone, you are doing PVP. That is not the issue because that is all understood and based a bit on choice with consequences. I craft for my friend or myself and another crafter can't sell that item to us (this time). I dig here and another must wait to dig here. I kill someone and I either lose reputation or I don't.

Let's not distract from the issue and the subject.

I decide to be a bandit or anyone that can train and slot S&D. Now I can accost ANYONE that I like without consequences. I get that you are ok with that. I am not. There are plenty of other ways (supposedly in the pipeline) to get targets (for small numbers or large groups). This takes away one person's choice to "affiliate" and be a more likely target (with all the goodies that may include) or to run wretchedly "unaffiliated" (with all of the drawbacks that may include) yet be a less likely target.

Whether it may seem like "opting" in or out, the ability to do that might be attractive and draw a larger crowd than say: DFUW's active 2000 - 5000 customer base (I am being generous with that estimate).

Edit: As for the hand waving thing to "supposedly indicate friendliness", I am also skeptical of it working well (and being enforceable) without major work. Still would rather see that than S&D, which I feel will wreck the game.

Goblin Squad Member

Broken_Sextant wrote:

I simply don't see dozens of characters sitting around able and willing to guard a caravan while it transports goods. That's boring. And if it's NOT boring, meaning there's bandits often enough to make it not boring, then I'll find that absurdly high number of bandit attacks extremely un-fun as well. When I ship goods, I should not expect a bandit attack 80% of the time. That simply isn't fun.

I think here lies Goblinworks biggest challenge: in order for the Game of Settlements and accompanying Economy(based on resources) to work, it needs to take time and risk to transport goods across the world.

I can see how a haul of goods can be fun for a merchant, if it succeeds and pays off big time: a bit like winning the lottery every time. Any guards that the merchant has managed to convince to come along seem to have a conflicting interest in the journey though: they probably will want some action, unless the pay-off for the guards is also of lottery-proportions. Anything less and it will feel like doing a menial task for chump change.

Now the variables of Pay-out per journey and Danger I can see get balanced by the mechanic of Supply and Demand. Extreme danger creates large Demand over time causing substantial Pay-off.

So in the end I think it will come down mostly on a single variable: how long will an average journey take? I think all of this can be made fun by making sure the average traveltime of a "hop" is not too long.

I expect traveltime to be tweaked big time during EE.

When the average haul between settlements is only like 10-15 minutes, I can see this mechanic of transporting goods work: it will be short enough to create a lot of traffic, and will appeal to the "one-armed bandit factor": lots of chances, quick results. Because of the short duration, I think even solo-people will try their hand at doing a few runs, even it they can not take much with them. The longer a haul takes, the fewer journeys will be made and the bigger the chance is that Bandits will set up some trap(up to a 100% chance). So many short-duration hauls >> fewer long duration hauls, for balance and fun-factor.

Short-duration hauls also benefit the concept of making friends/alliances with other settlements: this way you can "hop" your goods in 15-minute increments across Friendly Settlements.

Settlements that isolate themselves will have a harder time, since they may have to do much longer duration hauls. They can be fun too, since you are almost 100% sure of a fight. :)

So, traveltime! :) I am pulling the 10-15 minutes out of my hat, but once the resource economy takes off, I expect a lot of feedback from the players about this.

Goblin Squad Member

Tyncale wrote:
Broken_Sextant wrote:

I simply don't see dozens of characters sitting around able and willing to guard a caravan while it transports goods. That's boring. And if it's NOT boring, meaning there's bandits often enough to make it not boring, then I'll find that absurdly high number of bandit attacks extremely un-fun as well. When I ship goods, I should not expect a bandit attack 80% of the time. That simply isn't fun.

I think here lies Goblinworks biggest challenge: in order for the Game of Settlements and accompanying Economy(based on resources) to work, it needs to take time and risk to transport goods across the world.

I wouldn't mind seeing a way for merchants to hire NPC caravan guards. I think it's unrealistic to think that players are going to guard caravans the majority of the time and it will be a major turn-off for a lot of their playerbase if that is required. There are going to be way more bandits than there are players who want to follow people around acting as guards. So I wouldn't mind seeing a "caravan guard" skill for merchants, where the higher level the skill is, the more NPC protection your caravans innately have. The highest levels of which having very significant protections.

Alternatively, NPC guards could be hired with coin instead of having a fixed amount of protection from a skill. If a merchant wanted a lot of protection, they could buy a lot. If they wanted to risk a shipment with little, they could do that too. They could buy NPC guards with each caravan, buy them for X caravan trips, for X amount of time, or whatever the devs see fit.

Or, instead of an innate skill which provides protections (or in addition to), the merchant could have a skill which mitigates the loss they sustain when hit with a SAD or attacked.

The ability to provide protections without the, in my view, unfun and probably unrealistic suggestion that players follow you around like puppy dogs protecting you would alleviate my concerns to some degree.

When it comes to SADs on individuals, in non-caravan situations, I'm not sure. I think there might have to be different mechanics for caravan assaults versus player assaults.

Goblin Squad Member

Broken_Sextant wrote:
When it comes to SADs on individuals, in non-caravan situations, I'm not sure. I think there might have to be different mechanics for caravan assaults versus player assaults.

Any ideas?

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
Broken_Sextant wrote:
When it comes to SADs on individuals, in non-caravan situations, I'm not sure. I think there might have to be different mechanics for caravan assaults versus player assaults.
Any ideas?

Caravans can only be used by faction players. SADs can only be used by faction players. Problem solved?

Bringlite, you have still not proposed a solution for the merchant that opts out.

If you join a company, join a settlement and join a faction you will be at a disadvantage (safety wise) to a merchant / caravan that has remained unaffiliated.

Well organized and sizable merchant companies will use unaffiliated alts to do their hauling (immune to SAD, Feud and War).

How are they forced to take the same risk that you would be?

Goblin Squad Member

I'm wondering....

A settlement can build faction halls. If that be the case, if a settlement chooses to build a faction hall for the Outlaw Council (PF River Kingdoms Faction)which would cater to all types of outlaws (bandits, thieves, assassins, smugglers, etc), then....

Outlaws could then get all of their training needs from those settlement based faction halls, regardless of reputation. However due to the outlaw's low reputation, he or she would probably be barred from most of the settlements.

Anytime a low rep outlaw (or other individual) enters a settlement hex that does not support an Outlaw Council Faction House, that character would be flagged a trespasser (kill on sight).

Outlaws would have to be members of the faction house in order to gain access. In order to enter any other settlement, that does not support this faction house, they would have to use disguise skill or be tagged a trespasser and immediately attacked by NPC wardens and other PCs if they choose.

A Good Aligned settlement would not want to support faction houses (Outlaw Council or Red Mantis) and therefore would not be a sanctuary. They would also not be able to ustilize the services of bandits, thieves, assassins, smugglers as well. That is the trade off.

Now if someone attacks a caravan or other traveler, they always lose reputation (unless feud, war or faction). With that lower reputation they will end up limiting their access to just a few settlements, being barred from many or even most.

In the event that most settlements decide to build these faction halls, then that was a meaningful choice. No less meaningful than if most decided not to build those faction houses.

This to me sounds like it fits well into the setting of the River Kingdoms. I think many people here on these forums forget, or they really don't understand it, the River Kingdoms is not a nice place to raise your family. It is run by Bandit Kings and other unlawful and unsavory types.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
I decide to be a bandit or anyone that can train and slot S&D. Now I can accost ANYONE that I like without consequences.

There are consequences though. Firstly, you now need to be part of a faction to slot S&D. You now have an opposing faction (or multiple) able to attack you. Secondly, as soon as you slot the S&D skill, you gain the criminal flag which makes you a legitimate target for everyone in the game.

This is a pretty big deal, as no other flag gives this repercussion for actually doing nothing but slotting a skill. The Mass Murderer and Heinous flags will have similar consequences, but the character has to have actually done something to earn those flags.

Goblin Squad Member

Jiminy wrote:
Secondly, as soon as you slot the S&D skill, you gain the criminal flag which makes you a legitimate target for everyone in the game.

Is this confirmed?

Goblin Squad Member

Broken_Sextant wrote:
Maybe I am misunderstanding how it works, but IMO any act of banditry should shift a character towards evil.

Crime/Banditry moves a characters alignment along the ethics axis, that is lawful-chaotic. While the morality alignment axis (good-evil) can come into play, such as if violence ensues, the nature of criminal acts is neither good nor evil.

1,451 to 1,500 of 1,727 << first < prev | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Stand and Deliver Discussion All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.