Cookies Disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.

Pathfinder Online will be ending operations on November 28, 2021. For more details please visit our FAQ.

The Very Most "UnFun Thing"

Decius
Edam
I would add that as far as new groups go in a starter settlement, Keepers ( and most other groups with bulk in store) would quite happily trade bulk for iron/coal etc if the right offer was made. AS to how many iron equal one bulk? That would be up to the market.
I'll back that up as well. Exchange rates negotiable but amounts of coal in the 1k range would trade for bulk or t1/t2 recipies or equipment sets.

Coal might become the reserve currency of the Crusader Road.
Decius
On the subject of support, the basic idea that a settlement supports everything is a problem. Part of the general solution requires that Buildings support only what they train, which requires that settlements be able to determine who can gain support from its buildings, and there has to be some meaningful decisions relating to that.

I'll put out some more of my thoughts on that later, but I already know that what I have in mind won't be a small marginal change from the current position.
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Here is a thought…

Instead of tying support to a settlement how bout tying it to rep? Once you go below the stage where guard attack you ya then start graudually losing support to a minimum of somehwere between lvl 8–10.

Here is another thought…

Tie other "social control" mechanisms to rep besides random ganking, like faction mechanics and alignment based actions. That will get people to actually try to play their supposed alignment and it is very pathfinder-like (many classes either lose powers or cant advance if they drift too far from a certain alignment or belief).

Finally, to top it off give some way to initiate a rep free duel please. Seriously I would be more than happy to deal with a rep type system if wr had some way to throw down thr gauntlet voluntarily (Gauntlet of Throwing Down +1?). The fact that it cannot be done and even when rep hits are taken for PvP practice there are still bugs and quirks that dont show up when doing rep free pvp is a pretty big problem.

So with this we get a real dueling option that we dont have to set up crazy workarounds to do, we get a rep system with actual teeth that takes away something people will care about, and it can be implemented around a mechanic that is independent of any settlement. The last one allows us to move on from being forced into settlement life just to advance in the game or even be relevant at all, while not allowing everything to descend into the dreaded no social controls at all fear.
Paddy Fitzpatrick - Rí Ruírec of Fianna, roaming bands of noble warriors!
Member of Aragon Alliance and home of bandits, privateers, and anyone looking to get away from the shackles of law.
Find us on PFO Discord
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Also, to take care of folks who wanna work the rep system with throwaway alts to depower the other side in a fight, here is one other potential thought…

Make all combat in a hex with a pvp window rep free if the company who owns the hex has an active feud. Be up front about the mechanics change so folks know that if they run into an active warzone they do so at their own risk and then there you go.

This will prevent folks from trying to use rep hits to depower their opponent, but still keep the overall system intact so that newbie griefers who keep newbie griefing get depowered to the point where they are not much stronger than the very newvies they grief, giving the newbies the abulity to fight back.

On that front, becoming reduced to newbie levels and losing the ability to grief without getting ganked by the folks you are griefing (or anyone else) should be a good enough deterrent for your run of the mill psychopathic manchild looking to compensate for something. It is also more effective to do it at the individual level than this current setup of forcing everyone into a player settlement just to exist.
Paddy Fitzpatrick - Rí Ruírec of Fianna, roaming bands of noble warriors!
Member of Aragon Alliance and home of bandits, privateers, and anyone looking to get away from the shackles of law.
Find us on PFO Discord
Decius
Reputation interacting with support is an idea, but making it a fixed relationship does not create the social pressure that Reputation needs in order to work.

Fixing each edge case where people can be forced to lose Reputation is a different issue.
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Decius
Reputation interacting with support is an idea, but making it a fixed relationship does not create the social pressure that Reputation needs in order to work.

I think tying it down to hard mechanics and behaviors is actually more effective than anything any kind of social pressure could bring.

In the current system I hate to say this but we are all very lucky. This whole idea of a community of self policing player settlements that naturally pressure mewbie greifers out sounds like a wonderful ideal. However, I see no way it can ever possibly come close to reality. I have yet to see it in any open world pvp mmo I have played or seen friends play. Sure this community is a lot less cancerous than most but that dont mean we are anywhere near a self governing utopia nor does it mean such a lofty ideal is possible in the future.

Put it this way, what would have happened if Dun Baile or any of the other settlements up for grabs were run by newbie griefers like that zycor guy instead of us? If they were able to take one settlement and hold it, what can you or anyone else do to pressure or guilt them into not chasing newbies in T2+3 or T3 gear and ganking them into oblivion? If they had enough men to stand up to your armies, what sort of social or political thing could you possibly hold over them to deter them?

The answer is nothing.

There would be absolutely zero recourse with the current setup. You could have a large enough group in one settlement (or group of em) who would grief newbies, block them off from getting good escalations, be strong enough to kill all but the largest blobs (maybe become the largest?) who will have to devote all their time to defending them and still not accomplish anything other than fleeting relief. They will be able to severly hinder new players and groups from advancing and then you will have shown how ineffective community self policing is in preventing these kinds of things that can easily kill a low pop or struggling sandbox like this one.

So instead of hoping and praying a given community inexplicably finds a way to settle the matter themselves, but put in some hard anti newbie griefing mechanics to nip the problem in the bud before it becomes a bigger issue.

This dont even cover the other half of the social pressure problem. This kind of social pressure tactic only works if and only if the overwhelming majority of the community is on the same page. That can easily change once this game gets funding and more folks show up. Everyone currently playing can easily become the minority. In that scenario, the current social pressure system would be used against you in an almost tyrannical way to pressure the existing folks here into playing a style of game you may not want. It dont leave much room for diversity.

So, you make other ways for players to exist outside of this, such as factions, but put some additional hard mechanics around them that are also tied to rep and support so there is some hard and fast controls there as well. That way factions or any other system doesn't just become a get out of jail free card amd there are still some hard deterrents.

This way not only puts a hard cap on the worst kinds of behaviors that will kill a sandbox in its infancy, but removes the ambiguity and above all the human nature element from the equation. Social pressure is too much of a double edged sword to be relied upon as it can turn into a tyranny all its own. This removes that tyranny rather than encouraging it.
Paddy Fitzpatrick - Rí Ruírec of Fianna, roaming bands of noble warriors!
Member of Aragon Alliance and home of bandits, privateers, and anyone looking to get away from the shackles of law.
Find us on PFO Discord
Flari-Merchant
Factions as a method of rank/level support? Implications need to be thought through.

I like the idea of factions being great definers of character alignment, though there are interesting issues there as well. Things like… there could be a faction for each alignment(like listed in feats according to the available God's right now), making a tidy 9 total and perfect for a faction wheel, but then that makes things like a faction for "Banditry" or "Merchants" or "Greenpeace" or "Whatever More Specific" lose some distinction.
Edam
Bringslite of Oz
Factions as a method of rank/level support? Implications need to be thought through.

I like the idea of factions being great definers of character alignment, though there are interesting issues there as well. Things like… there could be a faction for each alignment(like listed in feats according to the available God's right now), making a tidy 9 total and perfect for a faction wheel, but then that makes things like a faction for "Banditry" or "Merchants" or "Greenpeace" or "Whatever More Specific" lose some distinction.

I assume the PFS factions like Grand Lodge will be part of it.

Does rep loss need to be an all or nothing thing? Could we have partial rep loss for attacking members of factions that are slightly but not entirely opposed to our own faction for example ? Or even no rep loss when attacking certain factions when a particular event is running in your current hex (even though you normally cannot attack them).
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Edam
Bringslite of Oz
Factions as a method of rank/level support? Implications need to be thought through.

I like the idea of factions being great definers of character alignment, though there are interesting issues there as well. Things like… there could be a faction for each alignment(like listed in feats according to the available God's right now), making a tidy 9 total and perfect for a faction wheel, but then that makes things like a faction for "Banditry" or "Merchants" or "Greenpeace" or "Whatever More Specific" lose some distinction.

I assume the PFS factions like Grand Lodge will be part of it.

Does rep loss need to be an all or nothing thing? Could we have partial rep loss for attacking members of factions that are slightly but not entirely opposed to our own faction for example ? Or even no rep loss when attacking certain factions when a particular event is running in your current hex (even though you normally cannot attack them).

Well sure there is plenty of room for flexibility and nuance in this. There can be varying degrees of rep loss for different things, maybe add some more exceptions and special cases where rep loss won't happen, and so on. Just gotta get a bit creative about it.

Also, again I have and always will advocate for factions being an alternate means of rank/level support. It should not be a thing that is monopolized by settlements. It opens up the game to having settlement independent guilds and companies as well as letting lone rangers have an ability to br unaffiliated. It opens up a lot more playstyles that would be very difficult or unnatural in a settlement context and will bring more diverse groups of players into the game. Plus with the addition of faction specific mechanics or perks you can gain other benefits and disadvantages. I also like the idea of interplay and rivalry between multiple factions and each of their alignments. You could develop a deep and rich system for it. It wont be for everyone but that is what the improved settlement system is for (especially if empire building and conquest is your thing).

I know we like our whole settlement control and social pressure thing but I think it is time to let it go to some extent in the interest of having a much more vibrant and diverse game population.
Paddy Fitzpatrick - Rí Ruírec of Fianna, roaming bands of noble warriors!
Member of Aragon Alliance and home of bandits, privateers, and anyone looking to get away from the shackles of law.
Find us on PFO Discord
Flari-Merchant
These are good ideas and do open things a bit to a wider audience. My concern is that support based on mechanical "reputation" has never shown itself to work well. I am unsure if that is because it has always been toothless in other games or because it just is not a strong enough negative feedback loop.

It is worth exploring, I suppose. Between feuds and factions there should be ample opportunity for PVP to satisfy all but the very most determined anti social behavior.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post