DeletedUser
not to mention when you get into higher levels the percentage base of catching someone will be very high.
DeletedUser
I think tactics applies there, rather than animal instinct. All things considerd, we do seem pretty much in agreement here.
Theory seems fine, I'm just a bit curious about itemization.
If it favours the one, or the other that is.
Theory seems fine, I'm just a bit curious about itemization.
If it favours the one, or the other that is.
DeletedUser
if this proposal is ever implemented it will add a whole new level to the game. this could lead to the organization of outlaw bands that can raid towns or forts (since one job is guarding forts). of course the organization of posses would have to be adopted as well.
ive read this thread as well as the previous thread that this discussion originated in and from what i can tell everyone seems to be in agreement. i do have to agree with Ulthor that we cant penalize the duelists. I think that a 3% or 5% per hiding point or tactics or both can be used in the evasion of the town guard. the attacker should not be penalized by the loss of energy or motivation. if some penalty is to be incurred it should not be to the same level as a generic duel. as far as experience or money earned by the guardian. regardless of a duel actually being intercepted or not the pay ahould be the same (yes they should be paid, real soldiers and lawmen were, it wasn't only about the honor of defending the innocence), and experience should be given for duels and if no duel occur then maybe 1 or 2 xp points per hour spent on patrol.
something else i was thinking about: what if a town is within say 5 minutes of a fort? could the soldiers guarding fort be brought into a skirmish with outlaws. i know we are trying keep the actual historic west and this game seperate but we have to consider that some towns nearby these forts and this would seemingly add a sense of security.
the forts idea may be something for the future. the guarding town job creation is an idea that should be implemented as soon as possible. after reading this idea from its birth to where it is know i felt i needed to compliment the posters for the brainstorming and their problem solving abilities. just my 2 cents. thanks.
ive read this thread as well as the previous thread that this discussion originated in and from what i can tell everyone seems to be in agreement. i do have to agree with Ulthor that we cant penalize the duelists. I think that a 3% or 5% per hiding point or tactics or both can be used in the evasion of the town guard. the attacker should not be penalized by the loss of energy or motivation. if some penalty is to be incurred it should not be to the same level as a generic duel. as far as experience or money earned by the guardian. regardless of a duel actually being intercepted or not the pay ahould be the same (yes they should be paid, real soldiers and lawmen were, it wasn't only about the honor of defending the innocence), and experience should be given for duels and if no duel occur then maybe 1 or 2 xp points per hour spent on patrol.
something else i was thinking about: what if a town is within say 5 minutes of a fort? could the soldiers guarding fort be brought into a skirmish with outlaws. i know we are trying keep the actual historic west and this game seperate but we have to consider that some towns nearby these forts and this would seemingly add a sense of security.
the forts idea may be something for the future. the guarding town job creation is an idea that should be implemented as soon as possible. after reading this idea from its birth to where it is know i felt i needed to compliment the posters for the brainstorming and their problem solving abilities. just my 2 cents. thanks.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser2708
Well, if keep them TOO separate, then there's no reason to call this game "the West" -- after all, if you're not going to let in any of what made the real West what it was, then there's no real point to calling this a Western game, right?
DeletedUser6744
I like this ideal, I can't add much but I think the luck should a higher than 0% I would say no higher than 15% but the chance at finding a item should be the lowest chance in the game.
DeletedUser
many jobs have a 0% luck.
one thing i would add to it.... a 1% chance of finding a sherrifs badge product that could be used for a later quest
or as a badge of pride for the soldier...
one thing i would add to it.... a 1% chance of finding a sherrifs badge product that could be used for a later quest
or as a badge of pride for the soldier...DeletedUser
we dont want to keep them too seperte. i agree.
id like to be able to found towns next to forts. i mean..thats one of the reasons forts where there, for the protecion of the town. above i mentioned the possibility of raids on towns by bandits and outlaw gangs. another possibility would be to introduce native americans as a class with their own villages and towns. it would give us another reason to have soldiers. to think we only have NA's represented as 2 class portraits is disheartening. im not sure how we could do this but it would add a new level to the game.
prostitution...not likely. an entertainer class would be nice to add. "work saloon" as a job. the bigger the town the more $ and xp you get over specified time.
im going off topic so ill stop now.
id like to be able to found towns next to forts. i mean..thats one of the reasons forts where there, for the protecion of the town. above i mentioned the possibility of raids on towns by bandits and outlaw gangs. another possibility would be to introduce native americans as a class with their own villages and towns. it would give us another reason to have soldiers. to think we only have NA's represented as 2 class portraits is disheartening. im not sure how we could do this but it would add a new level to the game.
prostitution...not likely. an entertainer class would be nice to add. "work saloon" as a job. the bigger the town the more $ and xp you get over specified time.
im going off topic so ill stop now.
DeletedUser1105
I think the guard for link would be something to discuss after implementation, as it would add too much to the idea.
I agree with Oakley's summary, but we just have to make sure that you cannot have a situation where a dueller is guarenteed to not be intercepted by getting 100% in hiding.
I agree with Oakley's summary, but we just have to make sure that you cannot have a situation where a dueller is guarenteed to not be intercepted by getting 100% in hiding.
DeletedUser
I don't mind a "dueler" having a greater than 100% chance of evasion . Just as I don't mind a "guard" having a better than a 100% chance at interception . If You build Your character to avoid the "guard" You should be able to , unless there is a "guard" who is built specifically to intercept "duelers" .
To clarify , Dueler A , has 130% chance evade ,Guard A , has 50% chance to intercept . This gives the "Dueler" a 80% chance to evade . If the percentages were reversed the "Guard" would intercept nearly all the time . It's all balanced and You just have to spend points to improve You chances for the desired effect .
To clarify , Dueler A , has 130% chance evade ,Guard A , has 50% chance to intercept . This gives the "Dueler" a 80% chance to evade . If the percentages were reversed the "Guard" would intercept nearly all the time . It's all balanced and You just have to spend points to improve You chances for the desired effect .
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser1105
Ah I see, I didn't quite get that bit.
I'm fully on board with this then
I'm fully on board with this then
DeletedUser
one thing i would add to it.... a 1% chance of finding a sherrifs badge product that could be used for a later quest
That would be cool.
Also, yes soldiers do get paid
Is it just my imagination, or are we in agreement now?
We've summed it up, and no major disagreements has come fort.
I had some issues, but Oakley Jones made good sense about whatever you specc for should allow you to either intercept or sneak by very well.
Is there more that ought to be added, or investigated, before we ask this to be moved to vote?
DeletedUser1105
We have to consider if it can be abused, and how. And then how we can prevent that.
I can't think of any, but I assume there will be something.
I can't think of any, but I assume there will be something.
DeletedUser
OK well having heard what you guys say how about there is NO motivation cost to either party on an intercepted duel?
As to the balance between stealth/capture we are really just guessing how it will pan out. Therefore can we agree that if more than 50% of duellers are getting through a guarded town then this has to be tweaked to make it around 50%? Vice versa if more than 50% are sneaking through.
As to being able to be 100% certain of sneaking. Well that ought to be possible....but remember that the dueller will not have his good duelling clothes on so the challenged player will have A much better chance of winning.
In the example of my case I have an intrinsic 10 sneak points. if i put my best sneak clothes on then it is 15. So to gain that extra 5x5=25% reduction in the chance of getting caught I've had to weaken myself considerably
As to the balance between stealth/capture we are really just guessing how it will pan out. Therefore can we agree that if more than 50% of duellers are getting through a guarded town then this has to be tweaked to make it around 50%? Vice versa if more than 50% are sneaking through.
As to being able to be 100% certain of sneaking. Well that ought to be possible....but remember that the dueller will not have his good duelling clothes on so the challenged player will have A much better chance of winning.
In the example of my case I have an intrinsic 10 sneak points. if i put my best sneak clothes on then it is 15. So to gain that extra 5x5=25% reduction in the chance of getting caught I've had to weaken myself considerably
DeletedUser1105
That's a good point Ulthor, or you can spend points on hiding, which again weakens whichever area you would normally spend those on.
As for motivation, I don't have a problem with there being none.
As for motivation, I don't have a problem with there being none.
DeletedUser
So we are in favour of the 100% sneaking through should be possible, but we want an average of 50% intercepts? Sounds right to me.
As for abuse, I really don't see any possibilities, not even the "power-level" abuse has any practical application here.
Edit: No motivation cost is fine by me. This would potentialy increase the number of duels, if the participants could take the punishment.
As for abuse, I really don't see any possibilities, not even the "power-level" abuse has any practical application here.
Edit: No motivation cost is fine by me. This would potentialy increase the number of duels, if the participants could take the punishment.
DeletedUser
Average of 50% on GUARDED towns.
DeletedUser
I took that as a given. If none are there to do the actual guarding, then duelers are free to walk in and do their stuff. Anything else would be severely lacking in logic.
DeletedUser
In collating the statistics of how successful sneaking is i mean. Yes I'm sure you meant that but just reinforcing it for the devs so it's crystal clear.
DeletedUser1105
It can't just be a 50% thing though, as it depends on people's builds. If the guards of TOWN A don't have many points for the job, and the duellers from TOWN B have lots of hiding points, then you cannot expect 50% return of interceptions.
Not sure how it could be monitored to ensure that it is fair.
Not sure how it could be monitored to ensure that it is fair.
DeletedUser
What I'm saying is that we are just guessing what the effect of these suggested changes will be. If it turns out that there's some hat you can buy for $100 that means you never get caught then we have to tweak things. So what I'm saying is that we are not at all committed to any of these values we have assigned to things but to the idea that;
Sometimes people get caught and sometimes they don't and the amounts that these outcomes happen is enough to be significant within the game. I'm just a little worried that we set up this clever system but because the values are wrong it ruins the game. We will need a level of ongoing feedback from the devs that has hithertoo been absent to permit this.
Sometimes people get caught and sometimes they don't and the amounts that these outcomes happen is enough to be significant within the game. I'm just a little worried that we set up this clever system but because the values are wrong it ruins the game. We will need a level of ongoing feedback from the devs that has hithertoo been absent to permit this.