Shane Gifford wrote:
That being said, I don't really think crafters should be expected to participate in direct combat PvP beyond defending from settlement assaults. As I said before, I think their time is better spent making the equipment for PvPers (or building the defenses for the settlement, or doing whatever their role is) and making money to hire someone more competent in arms ...
Bolder that one bit for emphasis. One thing we've been told about crafting (and building construction) is that they will be based on queues. The forge-master queues up 10 jobs and monitors them, maybe needing to get involved to solve a logjam. But the majority of the scut work is done by the commoner scuts.
If a settlement has 3 separate forges and 6 or 9 or whatever queues going, how many master and journey men are really needed to run it? Will there be an effective upper limit on crafters that can be gainfully employed by a settlement? Producing stuff for export while the ram is smashing at the settlement gate seems... optimistic.
Is it an assumption when the design described represents a flat power curve? That the difference between a veteran character and a new character is more in the breadth of trained skills than the depth of effective power?
I'm not sure the power curve as described is all that flat. It's a lot flatter than the TT range of power between a Level 1 and Level 20 of any class, but isn't everything in comparison? PFO Tier 1 weapons do ~40 damage, Tier 2 do ~80, Tier 3 do ~120. Expect armor protection to ramp up in a similar fashion. But those advances in damage are available based on the users' skills. Without the skills to use the higher tier keywords, the character is effectively using a lower tier weapon.
So 4 veterans doing ~120 points, and 8 green characters doing ~40, and equivalent armors on all?
People wanting to PvP are a dime a dozen.
Just curious - is that really true? When I think of all the times I looked at PvE vs. PvP server populations, I'd expect that solid PvPers are actually a minority of the total MMO population. Crafters/PvE seem to be out there in abundance compared to PvPers.
and @Nightdrifter - I thought the same thing. Just a matter of time before a neighboring settlement takes advantage of that policy.
They look like additional roles, Shane. It sounds like they'll have dedication bonuses, for example (bolding for emphasis).
Blog: Are you experienced? wrote:
Very cool, good info.
This bit: In PvP, any expendables the player has slotted have a chance to appear as additional loot if the implement they were slotted in was not threaded (the original character does not forget the expendable, it is merely copied into a loot item).
It seems like there is some potential of deliberate PvP to spread the knowledge of a expendable between a group of allies. I was thinking that that would probably not be a big deal, because of the alignment and rep consequences... But could it be spread under the aegis of a feud, back and forth between two normally allied companies? Or would expendables spread like wildfire through CE low rep communities? Just curious; it would depend on the "drop" P% for expendables, of course.
I'd offer these words from Ryan: I think that people are going to find that what they thought would be fun isn't fun and what they thought would not be fun is fun.
I'm avoiding getting set on a given character concept until we know much more about how things will work in the game. As things will change between now and EE, and between EE and OE, I expect my initial character concept will change as we go along.
But yeah, I hope that there's some place that crafters aren't 2d class cits. But in the end, it's up to the players to create such a place. And by players I mean the crafters need to carve out such a place.
@Bringslight I think it's the nature of the games. (1) If the game is at a macro-level about companies and settlements fighting for resources, then it's about those groups. Individual miners, smiths, and traders are only as useful as they further the groups goals. (2) Those who are most committed will matter most to the settlements - and that's almost always the combatants. (3) but who knows - maybe emergent gameplay will develop that surprises Ryan.
Now if we can only get rid of the idea that reputation loss should be based on the reputation differential between the attacker and the defender.
It isn't based on the reputation differential. Never has been. Reputation loss is based entirely on the victims reputation.
A low rep victim costs less rep to kill. It costs the exact same amount for a low rep killer as for a high rep killer.
A high rep victim costs more rep to kill. It costs the exact same amount for a low rep killer as a high rep killer.
"The Goodfellow" wrote:
"The Goodfellow", the use of "currency" to describe Rep/Influence/DI was mine; I thought Ryan wasn't buying into that use and haven't seen him use it.
However, when he says You can't exchange it with someone for a good or service, I wonder if reputation gifting is now off the table.
@Andius, under the old Attacker flag (which still may exist or not) you could intervene against the attacker, within a very short amount of time.
If you just heard of the attack, and weren't present, and took it upon yourself to find and kill the alleged attacker, then you're just dispensing rough justice. You're not actually saving anyone; it's no longer a defensive act, but an aggressive act.
But yeah, I hope the Attacker flag still exists as it did.
The thing about this that worries me is, with increases in the number of contexts in which the "right" thing to do is to lose Reputation & Alignment, there are corresponding decreases in the value of Reputation & Alignment scores.
Having more will be useful in some situations, less useful in others. The value in having +7500 Rep vs. +2500 Rep may not be as significant as the difference between +2500 Rep and -2500 Rep.
And if you're at -7500 Law/Good/Rep... freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.
In fact, I was struck by his prior statement that someone with a High Rep might be more interested in maintaining a Rep Score than in doing what is necessary to secure a Settlement.
In many games, the win condition isn't based on the "currency" the player holds at the end. In such games, currency is the stuff used to achieve something, not a victory condition itself. If we're just sitting on Reputation and Influence, instead of judiciously using them to advance our company and settlement goals, then we're not doing as much as we could within the spirit of the game.
@"The Goodfellow" "Meaningful" is an adjective applied to PVP, so - if I'm reading Ryan correctly - it all depends on the context and situation.
I'd offer that successes in PVP will lead to in-game rewards. Control of resource gathering zones. Safe roads. Loot from interloping merchants. With DI, Influence, or Reputation "currencies" being spent to draw other players into PVP, all PVP has some cost to somebody. If someone is using those currencies to engage in PVP that doesn't yield sufficient rewards (or doesn't deny someone something), then it will be inherently discouraged by the cost to engage in that PVP.
Rather than attempting to define all types of PVP to be encouraged and all types of PVP to be discouraged, GW seems to be developing a system that will reward or penalize PVP variably, depending on a lot of things. Sometimes a murder will be the right choice in the game. Sometimes it won't. Likewise wars and feuds.
(edit to add: Alignment might also be considered a currency used in PVP)
@Azure_Zero A training requirement, and a need to stay in good standing with the trainer, so a 'level' and a reputation requirement. A low rep/skill character can use that sharp, silver, vorpal, masterwork sword. Just not as effectively as it deserves.
It will be interesting to see how 3:1 or 4:1 "weak" rogues work against a "superior" foe, when most of the rogues can use sneak attacks.
I suspect the reason bandits won't choose to operate within our territory isn't because they expect every merchant to be surrounded by a small army but because there will be nowhere for them to operate from.
In the end, that's part the question of the day - do bandits need a hideout to launch attacks from, do they have some other limitation, or can anybody effectively become a bandit at anytime, as long as they spent some XP for training the SAD skill?
Drakhan Valane wrote:
Because we're discussing how to make a game that will be fun for all sides out of game?
You might be interested in a game that will be fun for all sides. Do you think everyone is? Me, I'm not sure everybody is.
I am certainly not going to give up any of the speculative advantages to the roles that I am speculating on playing, if not forced. I am not even contemplating playing a character on the Dark Side either. :)
And that's the counter to my cynicism. What I see as bad for the game, another person might see as an advantage for their role, but not really a game-breaker. And it's not like other players have much leverage to force any of us to move from our positions.
That's been met with strong resistance by much of the evil community, because apparently they think they should be able to SAD whoever they want an unlimited amount, but it should make anyone who uses it against them evil, even if they strictly target evil players.
If someone self-identifies as wanting to do evil things to their neighbors in game, why do you expect that they will concede any advantage it gives them? I mean, one might argue that someone else isn't arguing or negotiating in good faith. But if you're dealing with someone who plans to be a murdering bandit in game, how long will you negotiate before you decide that murdering bandit and good faith might be mutually exclusive terms?
If that seems too harsh, just consider your counter-party. How likely are they to give up anything in negotiation? If they've rarely given up any concessions so far, then in future negotiation you might expect that they'll continue to rarely offer any concessions.
Pax Morbis wrote:
I could see actually killing the person should the SAD fail being an evil act. Taking things against a persons will isn't an evil act, in my mind. It definitely isn't a good act, but it could be done for good. Robin Hood would be an example of 'good' use of the SAD mechanic. But murdering a person when they refuse you really is.
Maybe it worked for Robin Hood because he exclusively targeted people who had gotten rich from unjust means. (The equivalent of evil + low rep in his story.)
Drakhan Valane wrote:
We don't know, Drakhan. Under the old rules for Outlaws, there was an implication that Andius, in your example, would take an alignment hit but not a rep hit. But we haven't seen anything about the new SAD, except that it's a trainable skill rather than alignment- or faction-based.
To be perfectly clear, the failure I think you should see is the disincentive for characters to hunt down bandits after they hit someone.
Under the old flagging rules, there was a flag for killing your victim (though I think some disputed that), and the killing flags lasted 10 minutes, +10 minutes for each victim.
But if a character demanded and got a SAD, they could shed their alignment-based Outlaw PVP flag pretty quickly and totally escape pursuers that way. Which was odd - if merchants are content for bandits and bandits are content for anti-bandits, you'd think the bandits would have to remain flagged for some amount of time after a robbery. Or maybe it's not strictly time-based, but can be dropped if they get to a hideout to reset it, or it expires in some time if they have no hideout... (edited a couple times)
I think it actually might be useful to have a common trainable skill, perhaps called something other than SAD, perhaps called "Threaten" or "Intimidate", maybe with some STR prerequisite. There will be times where people of any alignment might choose to threaten a target to achieve some outcome, whether it is extorting goods or coin, or forcing some action, like someone leaving the area.
Why would people use Threaten instead of just killing the target? Because killing has rep penalties, issuing a threat doesn't. But if the person ignores the threat, and the Threat user has to escalate to an attack, that should have full rep penalties, just like any other killing.
Likewise, if I issue a Threat and my target complies (gives me goods or coin, or leaves the hex), I don't necessarily earn Rep for this - that is an interaction that is entirely game-able with friends or alts.
Why do I need a formal threat, rather than just using chat? Because chat is ignored. A threat pop-up has to be addressed. (But should not appear if someone is already in combat.) The formal threat might also make the Threat issuer a legitimate target for a short time, like a minute, to prevent pop-ups being spammed.
I do think SAD can be dropped onto the dust-bin of design, and replaced with another mechanism like Threaten, if only because SAD now has an accumulation of perceived powers and effects. The devs could drop it and start anew, with a new name, when they have the new mechanics ready for launch.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
I was going back through Dancey's comments from yesterday and parsing them for information. I realized last night last night I read the bit above as:
"I don't know (about rep gain over time). I think that (ie, the fact that he doesn't know) is a part of the plan."
I thought it was amusing, that there was a hint of the design team deliberately keeping him in the dark. Now I see that I need to read a little closer, reading that:
"I don't know (about rep gain over time). I think that (rep gain over time) is a part of the plan."
I think SAD is going to get used and abused, early and often. I'm not sure you'll be able to use it for double rep forever, nor am I sure you'll be able to kill your victims free of rep hits. Once GW figures that you're just using it as an excuse to do the killing you want to do anyway, they'll close off that loophole, don't you think?
Oh yea, btw I think the most important Rep mechanic we can have is rep rewards for players who kill 1) evil characters 2) Evil outsiders 3) Undead creatures.
I think it could be reasonable to get rep rewards while flagged as a (faction) Enforcer, but only during the *closed* PvP window time. During the *open* PvP window, defending the settlement is its own reward. Defending it while it has max NPC guards approaches onerous.
The flagged Enforcer can attack anybody flagged for PvP, such as criminals. But he can't leave the settlement hex, and might not be able to enter the settlement proper to craft, etc. He might get an hourly reward.
I think there are undoubtedly other ways that factions could reward characters with rep. Fighting evil outsiders or undead could be a (faction) Champion-like task for characters of any alignment, and have the advantage that killing pure evil creatures (effectively -7500 on good/evil scale) could logically result in no alignment hit for a good character or an evil character.
I think there can be (at least) two types of training facilities in settlements.
Some facilities could/might be based on the lowest rep of the settlement members. Such facilities' low rep threshold could be between -7000 (for a outlaw trainer, maybe) and maybe 0 (for general beginning healer training, for example.) As long as no one is below the threshold, the facility remains open. These facilities would be available even when Newbie vonNewbieland joins the settlement with 0 Rep.
Those facilities could/might also have other training available, for characters that individually were above other Rep thresholds. The advanced healing trainer might require +1500 Rep, for example, but could be available as long as the settlement requirement of 0 Rep was met.
The other type of facility would be those, maybe linked to factions, that disregarded settlement rep, and offered training strictly on character Rep or faction rank, or both. This also would not be affected by 0 Rep new characters.
The brand new character should be able to join and be an asset immediately. If they start with 0 rep, 0 rep might be the lowest threshold for training facilities. >0 rep might be required for advanced training, or for special training like Pax Morbis suggested - training to allow more threads, respawning at shrines rather than temples, etc. Things like that could easily be tied to higher Rep requirements, without requiring a settlement to maintain a >0 standard for membership.
Okay: how about rep gained while outside game has to be 'claimed' with in-game deeds like conducting an escalation patrol or producing crafted products or harvested resources?
Any meaningfull reputation system needs to have a cost measured in something that is actually costly to people who would choose to spend as little as possible.
Riffing off of DeciusBrutus; any grinding actions that people want to do anyway are hardly costly for those people. (PvP for Bluddwolf? Gathering/Crafting for Bringslight? Other preferred actions for other people)(I'm not sure of your goals in PFO, BL.) They'll do them anyway. These are all good gameplay things, and the players earn loot or produce value, or achieve strategic gains for their settlements. But it's not costly at all.
Time away from their preferred gaming style is costly. Killing PvE enemies that drop almost no loot is costly. Walking endless patrol loops in the starter towns where you'll never see combat is costly.
Like I said, I don't know what is driving it. If you think it's about jealousy, maybe it is.
If Hobs spends 8 hours chatting with people, or handing out care packages to new players, what discrete actions of his are rewarded? Or are your actions more worthy than his? Or take a settlement leader - those poor blokes are spending 8 hours a day in teamspeak coordinating stuff. Do they contribute less to the game than you do?
If Hobs' chats and handing out care packages are counted at good play actions and can be captured by the game as such, it seems trivial to game it so a character can do this while effectively afk.
I think it's even simpler to just do the rep gain over time, with the multiplier like you say, but I could go either way. It depends on how fast they expect rep to regain, but if it's 15000 Rep/mo, there are 720 hours in a month and we could get hourly Rep gains instead of daily. They might/will be fractional, which is fine. Computers keep track of it.
I'm not sure what is driving the need for check-in actions. Are we worried that "The Goodfellow" who expects to play only a few hours a day around other commitments regains as much Rep as I do when I'm playing 6-8 hours a day? It doesn't hurt me that much, frankly. PFO will be about so much more than the effort to keep Rep up. Resource collection, looted kills, trading, crafting, wars and feuds and so much more. The people who have more game time will be rewarded in lots and lots of ways.
We know the ways to lose rep, the question is, "What is the best way to earn it?"
My preference is accelerated rep gain over time, for the time where no rep losses are incurred. So basically the character is played and spends his time in game and does "sanctioned" pvp or craft or exploring or chats in taverns. And his Rep recovers, as long as he doesn't do rep-loss actions. Which would be killing unflaggeds, at this point in time.
No types of (meaningful) gameplay are favored over any other with a time-based regain. Hobs can just chat in local, mongering his fish, while his reputation regains from that horrible incident he was involved in last week. You can be involved in a feud, Andius can be guarding his flocks, someone else can be killing gobbos in PvE. Everyone is playing the meaningful game and regaining rep.
Can someone have a stable of alts and just cycle them into inactive status? Sure. Rep regain over time should require the character be in a XP-gaining status: subscription or PLEX. That way the guy with the 8 alts cycling through rep regain can do it, if he maintains 8 subscriptions. Any character not in a XP-gain mode should walk the straight and narrow path and not lose rep.
Can someone just log off from the game and come back in a month when he's high rep again? Sure. He misses out on all of the other rewards, social connections, loot, enjoyable game time. And maybe he gets tired and just stays away for 2-3 months. His settlement isn't getting much value from that guy.
Perhaps. It could or it should. But the reality of what has been explained so far is this: no one will have negative reputation unless they killed an unflagged character. Have we been told of any other way to lose reputation?
And the context of my statement in reply to Being, was that Julius Ceasar and Napoleon may have had great reputation as military leaders, but that has nothing to do with PFO Reputation as it has been defined so far.
Personally, I believe there should be gains in rep for meaningful PvP. Napoleon has a tremendous reputation even today. Similarly Julius Caesar, and Charlemagne and Alexander the Great. Similarly it seems to me great generals and leaders in PFO should certainly gain rep. Had the ancient world been virtual, Leonidas and the 300 would have stood against the Persians in...
Which is why PFO Reputation should be renamed. It has nothing at all to do with fame or notoriety or reputation as you just used it. It is about how many unflagged people you've killed and how recently.
No disagreement, but the limited training available from any starter town will probably still need to be tiered by Reputation so that whatever training is available allows a differentiation between low rep and high rep characters.
If we have no player-made settlements in the beginning of EE and one of the primary reasons to maintain high rep is to access better training, then there is little reason to not have low Rep in the beginning of EE. The beginning of EE is exactly when GW needs to start coaxing us to keep our rep high and not turn their new game into all PvP all the time. So unless they have other ways to coax players, I think they'll need to limit some of the training in the starter towns by rep, whether they have 1 starter town or 3.
If low rep sucks for training then the low rep will be incentivised to raze settlements on a frequent and ongoing basis
I think that the three (or more) starter towns don't all need to support the same reputation ranges. Training opportunities in the starter towns can also be gated based on character rep instead of settlement rep. Very low rep? We'll teach you the following things. More rep, you can learn more things. Even more rep? Even more things to learn.
I think they'll actually need to do this from the start, in order to encourage mid-high rep behavior in the period before we get player settlements. So low rep will be at a training disadvantage, even if there are only starter towns on the map.
From the Darkfall Lessons Learned thread:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Allowing PVP-centric players to run down their Reputation with kills of unflagged characters and then allowing them to continue PvP-centric play in running their Reputation back up through participation in wars and feuds is completely counter to the above post of Ryan's.
PVP-centric players want PVP in any form. Allowing them to jump back and forth between reputation damaging and reputation rewarding PVP is rewarding them for all of their undesired behavior. To prevent it, reputation gaining actions should have nothing to do with PvP. It should be onerous, mind-numbing activity. It might have no combat at all. Because PVP-centric players want to avoid having to do those kinds of things.
The end outcome, is that killing newbs will be more common than killing veterans who strive for a high alignment.
I don't think this has to be the case. New players will begin in the starter towns, where the penalty for killing others will be quick and draconian. By the time they're ready to leave, they probably will have encountered two or three recruiters or other agents who will be trying to fit them with a settlement where they will be protected.
New players aren't free to attack, and the drops are going to be pitiful. High rep veterans will have better drops compared to the rep losses, even if the rep loss is 2-5x that of killing a new player.
Anyone farming new players for lulz more than a few times will have a low rep. And *they* will be hunted by other players, if only to advertise to new players that "you'll be safe if you move to settlement X".
Sorry, I've always figured that the forum is merely an extension of the game. No one is limiting their discussions to IC or OOC, though some might claim that they are completely separate from their characters when they get called on something.
I've already tempered my discussions in the forums, as well as not discussing my intentions in-game because my view is that forums and the game are and will be connected. This is the public square in the pre-starter town as far as I'm concerned. There's no reason at all for people's IG characters start with a clean slate; people are welcome to use a different name to hide their forum past, of course.
If we worry about someone killing a character in game for something that was said in the forums, maybe what was said in the forums was toxic, and the character killing was an appropriate response. The new character that gets loud and obnoxious here - well, if he gets his comeuppance in game maybe he'll learn to be more polite on the boards.
The system was outlined in the I Shot a Man in Reno Blog (the one that addressed the various flags). It that blog entry they gave us three data points:
1. Killing an average high-reputation player (5,000 Reputation) will cost about 2,400.
If that system is still in place and new players star with 0 Reputation, the cost for killing a brand new character would be 500.
After Jerky NewPlayer kills 10 of his neighbors with a 500 hit for each one, it now costs anyone else only 16 rep to put him out of our misery. The 500 point hit is high enough that farming 0 Rep new players is going to be expensive.
Hobs the Short wrote:
If you want to look at Reputation, the mechanic in place is the same as good/evil. Rep loss is based on the victim's rep, the same as the evil hit is based on victim's good/evil score. High Rep is still discouraged from attacking other high Reps (ie, people who rarely attack unflagged). Everyone takes the same hit for attacking low reps - the people who have killed lots of unflagged characters. And if very low reps want to try to attack a high rep, they have nothing to lose.
High Reps can't "kill whomever they want," they'll take serious hits for attacking other high Reps. And everyone has more leeway in killing low reps - that's part of the stick to discourage us all from being low rep. I don't think I've advocated for high Rep players to pay less than other players for poor behavior.
I'm in favor of alignment shifts and reputation gains and loses being universal or equal, without regard of whom you commit your acts with or against.
The varying of alignment and rep losses based upon the alignment or rep of the victim is actually quite elegant. Just looking at good and evil: good takes a big hit for attacking other good outside of war. Good can attack evil because they take a small hit. Evil can attack good or evil because they can ignore hits. It's actually well balanced and within the alignment strictures of the Pathfinder world.
Every time you exile someone, your security index will take a hit because that person will instantly and successfully commit a crime in your territory.
The explanation or warning on criminalizing raiding is that the settlement must enforce its laws or it will gain corruption.
If the criminal/exile is killed, the settlement doesn't gain corruption, or immediate corrects it which is basically the same thing. More laws are fine as long as they are enforced.
My only concern is the previously discussed non-PvP high-rep characters being used as spies in wars or feuds. My concern is specifically related to my inability to find a solution I think is acceptable...but I do not mind caveat-ing that with a "yet".
I'm not sure spies can be totally avoided in feuds. When the Capulets and the Montagues start stabbing each other in the streets, there will be plenty of uninvolved companies. Even the allies of the two companies aren't automatically drawn in to their feud.
In wartime, my vote is that all hexes owned by the involved settlements become a war zone. The members of the two settlements and any allied or mercenary companies are free to attack anyone in the war zone, consequence free. Neutrals don't have the same permissions; they can defend themselves, of course, but are subject to normal consequences if they start a combat.
Sometimes I think N ramps up the hyperbole, but I think he's on the money here. I was thinking of 4 rage-filled kills per week as reasonably acceptable. With that 500 rep hit on an average rep person, it's 30 bad kills a month or 7.5 per week, if the rep bars refills in a month's time.
(But I wonder if anyone will be average; 500 to 2400 is a large step. I wonder if a squared function would be better than cubed.)
"about" 2400 could be +/- 5% or 10%. Like you say, we can't be sure.
I'm actually more worried about the top end than the bottom end. If it's 2400 rep hit on a average high rep (+5000 R), then it might be a 4000 or 5000 point hit for killing a 7500 rep Paladin who's hiding behind being unflagged while begging for a killing with his behavior. 2400 is steep enough for the max hit, imho.
A rough approximation might be:
RepLoss = ((Rep + 7500)/7500)^3 * 500
Against a target with -7500 Rep there may indeed be no rep hit (I think it should be a nominal amount). Likewise a target of -7500 on good-evil scale may have no evil hit (again, I think it should be a nominal amount).