Goblin Squad Member
|
I believe the unsportsmanlike malice Greed was referring to was the stated intent by another, to dump and destroy all of their cargo, rather than give one copper piece in a SAD.
The use of decoys or other tricks will force us to be more careful in our selection process of our targets. The better you are, the better we must become.
That is good and meaningful player interaction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, am I understanding that the intent of SAD is to remove ALL reputation penalty? Offering a SAD should give a reduced penalty. I do not know where you guys all live, but folks around here tend to look down on people who give threats and ultimatums. If a bandit can SAD all day and not suffer Rep loss, then the system is broken. Bandits should, by nature, have pretty poor reputation. Bandits who exclusively use SAD should see a slower decline and thus quicker recovery.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...in which direction it will run. When it runs the other way...
Can't remember the game, but once upon a time I set up a small boobytrap designed to convince the enemy that he should've gone left instead of right, when the other way was a big boobytrap.
When he hit that, he said "Aha! I've been fooled!", and went back the original way, only to find the biggest boobytrap...and the minefield.
I hope PFO allows us, somehow, to get hideously complex both psychologically and physically.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So, am I understanding that the intent of SAD is to remove ALL reputation penalty? Offering a SAD should give a reduced penalty. I do not know where you guys all live, but folks around here tend to look down on people who give threats and ultimatums. If a bandit can SAD all day and not suffer Rep loss, then the system is broken. Bandits should, by nature, have pretty poor reputation. Bandits who exclusively use SAD should see a slower decline and thus quicker recovery.
No no!...if a bandit offers you a SAD...in your frustration you take it because you realize loosing 50% of your goods is "better" than loosing 100% of your goods...and then the reputation system rewards the bandits for playing their role "as intended".
Then, this "reputation" system, in combination with alignments comprises the metrics/tools we have for social engineering...by restricting access to our community's goods and facilities.
Currently, there is no player driven reputation system. To me, this feels like I am being forced to reward the bandits with rep for stealing from me; 50% loss or 100%, both are net losses. This is also the source of my concern and the rationale for my earlier proposal.
I would much rather be able to discourage and restrict those with whom my social group's interactions have resulted in negative gain than someone who might have negative "reputation" for PKing others in someone elses town but who has always followed the laws and perhaps even contributed in ours.
I do not know where you guys all live, but folks around here tend to look down on people who give threats and ultimatums.
Requoted for truth.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So, am I understanding that the intent of SAD is to remove ALL reputation penalty? Offering a SAD should give a reduced penalty. I do not know where you guys all live, but folks around here tend to look down on people who give threats and ultimatums. If a bandit can SAD all day and not suffer Rep loss, then the system is broken. Bandits should, by nature, have pretty poor reputation. Bandits who exclusively use SAD should see a slower decline and thus quicker recovery.
No offense intended, but this is a game and not intended to follow the same rules as where we live.
As far as the game setting is concerned, the SAD system makes complete sense for the River Kingdoms. I don't know if you read the source book for the River Kingdoms, but it is a region dominated by Chaotic Neutral settlements and rulers.
As Stephen Cheney described it, "it is the wild west", only difference is that in many cases the outlaws run the government. It is a bandit / river pirate's paradise.
Let me explain why the SAD grants reputation, as best as I understand it.
When a bandit spots you coming down the road. He/she has a choice to make, SAD, Attack or Pass? This choice will be made based on information by some means (unknown how at this time), that will let the bandit reasonably sure what your relative strength is.
If you are strong: Pass
If you are moderate: Attack or SAD
If you are weak: SAD or Attack
When the bandits give up their ambush opportunity, to SAD, they have give up the advantage if combat ultimately happens. They also give up some of the loot when they SAD. This is done in exchange for a reputation bonus.
I know this will tick some of you off, but the reality is, you should be grateful when a bandit does offer you a SAD.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I know this will tick some of you off, but the reality is, you should be grateful when a bandit does offer you a SAD.
"You should be thanking me!"
I'll grant you that we should think more highly of the bandit who constantly issues SADs to our merchant caravans than of the one who simply Ambushes us.
However, it's a far, far stretch from that to saying that we should think highly of the bandit who constantly issues SADs to our merchant caravans.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see no reason that the bandit should be able to be reasonably sure of your strength. There should certainly be deception skills that can be deployed to fool the bandits into thinking you are weaker or stronger than you are.
If the bandits can know your strength accurately then there is no risk on the part of the bandits and they deserve no reward
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As far as the game setting is concerned, the SAD system makes complete sense for the River Kingdoms. I don't know if you read the source book for the River Kingdoms, but it is a region dominated by Chaotic Neutral settlements and rulers.
Thats funny, I thought it was going to be a sandbox game world full of characters run by players who get to choose their PCs alignments/behaviours. Are you trying to claim that all characters who lead settlements/nations need to be CN?
Interestingly, I think the majority of announced social groups are Lawful and or Good leaning at the moment.
As Stephen Cheney described it, "it is the wild west", only difference is that in many cases the outlaws run the government. It is a bandit / river pirate's paradise.
Again, are you saying settlement leaders should to be bandits? Again, so far it seems the majority is not only not bandits, but are opposed to banditry...at best they are willing to tolerate it as a necessary mechanic. Either way...what is not true is that most announced groups are bandit groups led by outlaws.
Let me explain why the SAD grants reputation, as best as I understand it.
When a bandit spots you coming down the road. He/she has a choice to make, SAD, Attack or Pass? This choice will be made based on information by some means (unknown how at this time), that will let the bandit reasonably sure what your relative strength is.
If you are strong: Pass
If you are moderate: Attack or SAD
If you are weak: SAD or Attack
When the bandits give up their ambush opportunity, to SAD, they have give up the advantage if combat ultimately happens. They also give up some of the loot when they SAD. This is done in exchange for a reputation bonus.
I know this will tick some of you off, but the reality is, you should be grateful when a bandit does offer you a SAD.
I follow what you are saying here...and again, I agree with the need for the current "reputation" system, although I don't see what it has to do with reputation. What you have failed to convince me of is why I should be unable to restrict your access to things I own and run after you openly steal what I have spent my time to acquire.
If they do not implement a player run "fame" tool, then I will be forced to disagree with the totality of the system...what would exist (GWs currently proposed system) should include a way to limit your access based upon how much your gameplay benefits me, meaning it should not only not reward you, but should cause a reputation hit when you steal my goods.
I know this will tick some of you off, but the reality is, stealing the fruits of another's labour at knifepoint is not positive or desired behaviour anywhere. And if GW wants to make it so, then they can just leave out settlements, lawful societies, and the other trappings of civilization that are the other advertised aspects of this game. It is absurd to make those who are striving to build the latter to accept the former.
And I totally agree with Zen.
I see no reason that the bandit should be able to be reasonably sure of your strength.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Kitnyx,
You are taking my statement about the CN nature of the River Kingdoms out of context. I was addressing Lifedrgn's dismay that social rules would not match those of our real world communities.
I was not saying that the PC settlements or characters should be Chaotic Neutral.
Some how you missed this:
No offense intended, but this is a game and not intended to follow the same rules as where we live.
As far as the game setting is concerned, the SAD system makes complete sense for the River Kingdoms. I don't know if you read the source book for the River Kingdoms, but it is a region dominated by Chaotic Neutral settlements and rulers.
Have you read the River Kingdoms source book? It came to us as a free PDF if you KS'd at the $100.00+ level.
Now to this point you made:
"what would exist (GWs currently proposed system) should include a way to limit your access based upon how much your gameplay benefits me, meaning it should not only not reward you, but should cause a reputation hit when you steal my goods."
From my understanding it does and you will. If I steal from you, which means that I did not SAD you, but killed you, I will get a reputation hit for doing so. Even if you were PVP flagged, I still lose some reputation. I would lose much more if you were not PVP flagged, and twice as much if I kill you within 20 minutes of you having accepted a SAD from me.
Then if I end up on your enemies list, you have the ability to further reduce my reputation, by sacrificing some of your own to do it. Then if you still have not satisfied your vengeance, you can hire a Bounty Hunter, Hire an Assassin, issue a Death Curse, or all three!
If still, you are crying your tears... you can ask the members of your company or settlement, not to have dealings with me. Still not enough?
You can ban any with a low reputation from entering your settlement, forcing them to stay out or disguise themselves and risk the Trespasser Flag and possible death for entering and getting caught.
If all of these things are not enough to fulfill your need for vengeance against a relatively minor act of theft and killing in an Open World PVP game, then you may not have the emotional stamina for this type of a game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see no reason that the bandit should be able to be reasonably sure of your strength.
Knowledge of the value of the cargo should also be limited, subject to bandit infiltration of the caravan and the caravan master's deception skills.
Even after the caravan has been halted, the bandits might not know the actual value, unless they care to spend some time doing an inventory.
In my dream world the bandits would be given a range for their estimate of value of the caravan before they made their SAD demand. Their SAD demands would be compared to the actual value of the caravan in determining reputation loss or gain. Something like:
5% of actual value: Reputation loss. "He's a milktoast, not a self respecting bandit."
10% of value: Rep gain: "He's a bandit, but a fair one."
20% of value: Small rep gain: "He's a bandit, pure and simple."
30% of value: Small rep loss: "Bandits. Wish someone would do something."
40+%: Large rep loss: "This is too much. These guys deserve multiple hangings."
The %s are strictly examples.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe his point is that SAD and theft are really the same thing from a merchants point of view. Either way, you are taking by force or threat of force something they worked hard for. Having someone who constantly steals from you have a high reputation? That would just be salt in the wound.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I steal from you, which means that I did not SAD you...
No! If you issue a SAD and bully him into giving you his goods, then you "stole" from him.
If all of these things are not enough to fulfill your need for vengeance against a relatively minor act of theft and killing in an Open World PVP game, then you may not have the emotional stamina for this type of a game.
That was really unnecessary.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If I steal from you, which means that I did not SAD you, but killed you, I will get a reputation hit for doing so.
Stealing at knifepoint is still stealing. What do you think a SAD is? The rest of your argument is based upon me accepting the premise above, which I do not.
EDIT: My new definition for SAD is Stealing at Daggerpoint.
Then if I end up on your enemies list, you have the ability to further reduce my reputation, by sacrificing some of your own to do it.
Why would I need to sacrifice my reputation to inform my government that you stole the medicine I was delivering to the local hospital to help sick children? Why would anyone need to sacrifice their own reputation to restrict your access to the benefits of society...because you are being uncivilized?
You can ban any with a low reputation from entering your settlement, forcing them to stay out or disguise themselves and risk the Trespasser Flag and possible death for entering and getting caught.
Reputation of a social entity is an opinion about that entity, typically a result of social evaluation on a set of criteria.
What about the system you just described has anything to do with "reputation"? Especially considering that my society's criteria frowns upon stealing...including stealing at daggerpoint...and you are being rewarded with "reputation" from successfully stealing from us at daggerpoint?
EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I see why GW is calling it reputation, it is a desired behaviour from a metagaming perspective...they want you, the person behind Bluddwolf to do SADs over outright killing. I do not disagree, but the logic left behind when only given this metagaming metric and alignment...is severely lacking.
If all of these things are not enough to fulfill your need for vengeance against a relatively minor act of theft and killing in an Open World PVP game, then you may not have the emotional stamina for this type of a game.
Reading this last, I must conclude you have missed my points entirely. My apologies for not knowing how to better express myself.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the general feeling is that we need a way to allow someone to be our opponent and reward them for doing so "well". We also need a different way to recognizr our friends and allies. Using the same number for both purposes leads to insanity.
What is the difference between your high-Reputation enemy and you high-Reputation ally?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What is the difference between your high-Reputation enemy and you high-Reputation ally?
They might have different alignments.
They likely belong to different settlements.They very likely belong to different venture companies.
They certainly have different names.
So maybe a settlement can put reputation adjustments into their automated friend-or-foe-(or neutral who we watch closely) calculator. The adjustments stack, of course, and are applied to the character's rep to yield a local rep for that settlement. This is just a you get turned away at the gates check, not a kill for being criminal check. I think this is sort of what KitNyx is getting at.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see no reason that the bandit should be able to be reasonably sure of your strength. There should certainly be deception skills that can be deployed to fool the bandits into thinking you are weaker or stronger than you are.
If the bandits can know your strength accurately then there is no risk on the part of the bandits and they deserve no reward
I think this should be part of the disguise skill. Beyond the fact that there aren't real levels in this game so nobody can see your skills just by looking at you, it would be nice if you could conceal your weapons / armor under you clothing / cloak.
It would be awesome for highly trained / equipped soldiers to disguise themselves as a poorly equipped trade caravan.
Filling the carts with hidden soldiers would also be a fun tactic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the general feeling is that we need a way to allow someone to be our opponent and reward them for doing so "well". We also need a different way to recognizr our friends and allies. Using the same number for both purposes leads to insanity.
What is the difference between your high-Reputation enemy and you high-Reputation ally?
In games where I get to set reps I usually I use a low negative reputation to reflect enemies I respect. So while a -10 reflects a griefer a -5 would reflect just a general RP enemy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So, let me see if I have this right. YMMV (your mind may vomit)
"You can't get there from here."
1) It is my belief (which could be in error) that you can't build a settlement from nothing. I believe you have to have a starter building (possibly a fort) that can be upgraded/improved to a Town Hall when a settlement charter is issued.
2) If this is true, then if your venture company/chartered company wants a settlement they will have to initiate their claim with an initial structure. In early EE (0-3 months) this would most likely be a watchtower which can be upgraded to a fort, then to a town hall.
3) I am not sure if additional structures can be built around a starter building prior to its being upgraded to a Town Hall. It is entirly possible that until a structure becomes a town hall (neophyte settlement) that no additional structures could be built on the site. I am not in favor of this as it is not an organic way to grow a town. I hope we can build a number of structures close together before "incorporating" into a settlement.
"I think we are all bozos on this bus."
1) When a settlement charter is issued (presumably by GW as I doubt that we will have kingdoms until late EE, if then) I think that it makes more sense if only individuals are allowed to sign. That way no one is blindsided if their venture/chartered company leadership signs onto a settlement whose charter contains objectionable clauses to individuals of the company.
2) Each settlement charter will have to clearly state several things like: how the leadership is chosen, how the settlement can declare war, how it taxes, how it allows/denies access, how it can change its charter. If individuals sign the charter then they are giving specific consent to the way the settlement operates and by whom it is governed, and thus swear fealty to that settlement and its leadership. If you don't like it, don't sign the charter. If you sign, don't whine.
3) Being a signatory to a settlement charter obligates both the signer and the settlement (begging the question of a chaotic settlement having a charter in the first place). If a settlement expels a signer (irrespective of the reason) there may or may not be language in the charter for the expelled individual or company to contest said expulsion. This may probably be a reflection of the settlement's alignment. It will remain to be seen if this will work in the opposite direction. Can a settlement (let's say a LE one) compel you to remain a signatory if you want to quit?
"Hand over all your lupines!"
1) I am not sure that there will be wagons or carts available for traders to carry goods in early EE. Since the Traveler long term PvP flag grants individuals greater carrying capacity, it is possible in the absence of wagons that "trade caravans" could be one of two entities: venture/chartered companies, or individuals acting in cooperation but not with a formal structure. If the trade caravan is not a chartered/venture company, can a bandit venture/chartered company SAD a group of individuals?
2) This could mean that all bandit attacks will be one-on-one, or a number of one-on-ones. If you have three bandits and 6 travelers, can the three bandits SAD the 6 travelers, even if the bandits are a venture/chartered company? Conversely can a venture/chartered company of traders be SADed by a group of unchartered individuals?
3) If the bandit attack is against a group of individuals and the traders outnumber the bandits, it is possible that the some bandits could defeat their individual trader opponents, then in turn be defeated by the the remaining individual traders. If that is possible it makes no sense that the trader goods of the defeated traders be destroyed since the bandits were actually defeated.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Decius @Andius
It really doesn't seem like an issue. You can respect your enemies as well as respecting your friends. Nothing to do with being friendly or hostile, the situation alone will determine that. What reputation gives you is a way to determine how that player is likely to comport themselves.
If someone handles themselves poorly and loses your respect it does not really matter if they are friendly or not.
Note that the title of the blog about reputation was Respect.
@Bludd
I agree that you should be able to override values received from others and that you should be able to hide your values from being used by others.
That said, the rest of the system regarding pulling values from your associates is liable to be very helpful in most circumstances. The ability for a settlement to judge a player based on the mean/curved reputation rating its inhabitants have developed towards that person is invaluable. Black and white listing will still be necessary.
@Harad
Yes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The definition of RPKing is universal, not relative to your point of view.
I will agree to disagree on that. Everything is relative to a point of view. Sure you could have the "standard" definition. The problem is, what may be considered not random to me may be seen as random to the other guy. Killing someone because Im bored will not happen. Although I may decide to go out hunting to test out my skill and tactics.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Xeen,
It is actually not the Lawful Good companies / Settlements we need to worry about, it's the Lawful Evil ones.
If we remain a CN organization, then LG will be less likely to want to take the shift towards evil for killing neutrals. Whereas the LE will gain what they consider to be positive shifts in alignment towards LE for killing any Chaotic + G, N or E.
Good Point
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If I follow what is being suggested here, by a few, what they want is no reputation save or gain from issuing a SAD.
At the same time, another says, we should not have any reasonable means of knowing the relative strength and certainly not the value of what a merchant is or is carrying.
Then there is another desire to bar our entry, not only to one settlement, but from associated settlements. Better yet, as some massive social engineering project, to bar outlaws from all settlements.
Even though there are close to a dozen methods or actions that will limit PvP and result in stagnant or reduced reputation, these are still not enough.
Solution:
Sometimes the only way to convince those who can't see the benefits of moderation, is to have them suffer the extreme worse case scenario.
If you wish us to have no benefit for using SADs, we will not issue SADs. Ambush and Kill is all we will attempt.
If you wish us to not be able to have skills or methods of determining your strength or the rough value of your cargo, then we will attack blind, randomly and frequently.
Once we learn who is weak, we will have to focus on exploiting their area ( unlimited predation / similar to strip mining).
We shall become a naked, rusty dagger wielding, Zerg / blob, flying Outlaw and Assassin flags, Chaotic Evil and low reputation. We will travel in such a large number, that none but those able or willing to hire dozens will stand a chance.
This reign of terror will last until the social engineers figure out they were better off leaving well enough alone.
I can play this way, I've done it before. I have on tap a few dozen players from EvE who are not happy with how the Care Bears had ruined the small gang PvP there. They'd not need too much encouragement to come to PFO during OE, and take part in the ganking.
In the end I don't want to play this way. I don't think GW wants to see this either, even though nothing I just said breaks the rules. You certainly don't want to see this.
For the umpteenth time, you have so many ways to discourage or punish PvP that is directed at you or your company / settlement. What I reject is any attempt to create a culture here in PFO that does not support frequent, meaningful PvP that is a balanced risk vs. reward system.
I believe GW has been striking that balance. You will have a much easier job at earning money as a PvE focused merchant, gatherer, crafter, settlement manager or adventurer, than anyone making their living as an outlaw.
I no longer wonder who the more greedy are. The bandit, pirate, thief does not even come close to the gatherer, crafter, merchant or politician. Yes, I'm talking in gaming terms. There is no one more greedy than a PvE'r. Steal a copper from them and you've ruined their day.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...Chaotic Evil...
Some folks, I'm sure, will be okay with you being Chaotic Evil, because
"Chaotic Evil will be at a substantial mechanical disadvantage. (Their Settlements will suck)"
and...
"@All - There will be bandits.
There won't be bandits on every trail, every 10 feet, comprised of newbie players and newbie characters in it for the lulz.
Bandits will be careful. They'll pick their targets well. They'll often ransom the cargos rather than kill the teamsters.
A lot of Bandits will be chaotic evil. They'll cope. They'll find ways to make that work for them. It's not an easy road - but it is a road. I doubt there will be any wilderness areas in the game where you will not constantly have to be on your guard, ready to fight or flee, should someone come at you with bad intent.
Being a highwayman is hard freakin' work. That's why there's not a lot of them. Always on the run, hunted by those who seek rewards, dealing with a crappy reputation; this is the life you choose.
Now, how soon can we all get started? We need to game this out!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bludd
I knew I forgot something..Why would there not be a /consider mechanic? Until we have realistic characters with scars and bulk with weapons that have seen obvious use, in 1080p or better using a Rift... we have to have some intrinsic means of sizing up others.
That us exactly the question I had for ZenPagan...
Ryan said: "Bandits will be careful. They'll pick their targets well. They'll often ransom the cargos rather than kill the teamsters."
How can they pick their targets well if they can not use some skill or the hideout functions to determine relative strength and obvious contents of cargo?
I did not say "covered or hidden contents", I said obvious cargo (ie lumber, coal, limestone, other harvested building materials).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
we have to have some intrinsic means of sizing up others.
Why? There is no real need. You can size them up by numbers or maybe a D.O.B. Anything else is not needed.
Having a bunch of info on a character takes the fun out of it.
A buddy and I could find a gatherer on the road and think "Hey a lone target, lets make some quick loot." So we SAD him, and he refuses. In response we attack.... And he absolutely destroys us both.
We had no reason to think he was anything other then a crafting character, why change that?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The problem I have seen, and it can be fixed, is that those responses can be masked to make someone appear to be the opposite. Granted that may be wanted by many... I just prefer to be surprised when someone beats me up that I though I could take LOL.
We could have the wagon of herbs and boards animations. Who knows yet, they may add something like that eventually.
Probably an investigation or spot skill or something.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I follow what is being suggested here, by a few, what they want is no reputation save or gain from issuing a SAD.
Did you explicitly avoid mentioning KitNyx and me by name so that neither of us would have cause to tell you, again, "No, that's not at all what we're saying"?
Sometimes the only way to convince those who can't see the benefits of moderation, is to have them suffer the extreme worse case scenario.
If you wish us to have no benefit for using SADs, we will not issue SADs. Ambush and Kill is all we will attempt.
Any Bandit with sense who sees me in the Caravan will already be foregoing SADs, because he'll know I'll never pay it.
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In EvE Online, you can set the standing of another for yourself. You can also set their corporation's standing for yourself. If you are a CEO of either a Corp or an Alliance, you can set it for your corp or alliance.A player can see what that character's or corporation's standing is in the eyes of the entity that set it. However, that individual player can set his or her own standing if he/she chooses. The CEO can not see what individual members in his corp or alliance have set that standing to. This allows player-characters to have secret and independent thoughts about others.
My objection is to the idea that any person can set the standing towards one person, for other people or organizations. I also don't like the idea that by setting one individual's standing you can see every association they have, and then set their standing.
Online in EvE, I'm hoping the PFO allows us to toggle off such viewable information. I don't want someone to be able to look at my character and view the standings I have set for others.
If you want to know what I think of player x or company y, ask me. If you ask me what you should set their standing to, I'll tell you, "Whatever you want, it's how YOU feel about them".
I would like to come back to this if i may.
Two ideas for how a player-rep system might work.
-Individual player rate other players, as in eve, resulting in there personal standing towards that character.
on top of that
1. the average rating all players within a CC have towards said character will be the CC-standing towards said character.
or
2. this method would be a bit more detailed but still anonymous. the characters get ratings like articels on amazon.
you get to see the opinions other people in your CC have(5xgreat, 3xgood, 1xawful) but nothing additional.
That way, everyone is still entitle to there own opinion, but there is still a kind of fame/notority with a given CC, but the data sources remain anonymous.
that could work on settlement level too.
for example if 20% of the inhabitants think you are awful, you get the suspitious flag
at 50% you get flag as criminal, or just denied access.
needs some work, but i think something like taht could work.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have written of the abilities to seem different (in strength) than you actually are.
It is one way of PFO to integrate "Intimidation" without actually controlling the emotions of the PC.
It would essentially make the user appear to be more challenging than he/she actually was. Now if PFO uses a color coded name plate system, Grey = Very Weak to Violet = Nightmare, what the Intimidation skill would do is artificially increase the color level on a successful attempt.
The opposite skill could be called "Meekness", and would artificially reduce your projected strength.
One skill does not technically counter act the other. If they are both successful, than both parties would either over or underestimate their opponent.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If I follow what is being suggested here, by a few, what they want is no reputation save or gain from issuing a SAD.Did you explicitly avoid mentioning KitNyx and me by name so that neither of us would have cause to tell you, again, "No, that's not at all what we're saying"?
Sometimes the only way to convince those who can't see the benefits of moderation, is to have them suffer the extreme worse case scenario.
If you wish us to have no benefit for using SADs, we will not issue SADs. Ambush and Kill is all we will attempt.
Any Bandit with sense who sees me in the Caravan will already be foregoing SADs, because he'll know I'll never pay it.
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
SAD's will still be initiated so that you can forgo them allowing for no negative penalties place on the attackers.
It will be fun either way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I dont think any players should have a say in what standings effect NPC's or are generated by the system.
It all should be generated by the system, unless it is personal/company/settlement standings.
A settlement can set me as Red, and everyone who is a part of the settlement will see me that way, but no one else is effected by that in any way.
Now if Im out murdering people daily then I should get an Evil or Murderer flag.
That does not stop people from spreading the word on who I am and they set their own standings. But the game code should not be altered by that in any way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would like to come back to this if i may.
Two ideas for how a player-rep system might work.
-Individual player rate other players, as in eve, resulting in there personal standing towards that character.
on top of that1. the average rating all players within a CC have towards said character will be the CC-standing towards said character.
or
2. this method would be a bit more detailed but still anonymous. the characters get ratings like articels on amazon.
you get to see the opinions other people in your CC have(5xgreat, 3xgood, 1xawful) but nothing additional.That way, everyone is still entitle to there own opinion, but there is still a kind of fame/notority with a given CC, but the data sources remain anonymous.
that could work on settlement level too.
for example if 20% of the inhabitants think you are awful, you get the suspitious flag
at 50% you get flag as criminal, or just denied access.needs some work, but i think something like taht could work.
I have no problem with your proposed system, until you got to the flags at the end.
I'll deal with the flags first:
There are already Trespasser and Criminal Flags. A settlement can already bar individuals and or companies based on reputation, alignment, settlement or company.
Flags are reserved for actions taken in the immediate here and now; self selected long term flags; and long term flags punishing "bad" behavior (so far 24 hours is longest).
What you propose is a flag based on former actions, but more accurately a collective perception of your character that may not have been true at the time or it may no longer reflect your character's actions now.
Ryan Dancey has written, and I don't have the link now, that a Paladin can not kill a known Bandit if the bandit is not flying the Outlaw flag at that moment. The reason being, the Paladin would have no idea if the bandit was on the path of redemption in that moment, and so killing him would not be Lawful Good, but Chaotic Evil.
Now to the Individual / Company / Settlement Reputation system that you mentioned.
I agree if that is the way it works. That is exactly the way it works in EVE Online, but that is not the reason I like it. I like it because no one else knows how you feel about the character, but you can still see how the CEO had listed the person's standing with the corporation or alliance.
You can even have the average reputation score, as long as the "voting" remains a secret. Otherwise the company / settlement management can coerce the setting of the standing with threats of expulsion.
This is not what others have pitched as part of their social engineering. They wanted to take what you proposed, removed the anonymity of the voting and spread it beyond their domain and then attempt to coerce other settlement / player groupings to disassociate with the person the social engineers don't like.
Like I wrote earlier. If the Seventh Veil wants to ban me from their settlement, they have the right to do so. If they want to ban my company, they can do that too. If they want to ban Chaotics, sure they can do that too. But, when they say, we want to ban you and we will threaten to ban your known associates (not just from our settlement, but form others as well) if they don't police your actions, that will definitely spark a level of retaliation that would not end until "Regime Change" took place.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like I wrote earlier. If the Seventh Veil wants to ban me from their settlement, they have the right to do so. If they want to ban my company, they can do that too. If they want to ban Chaotics, sure they can do that too. But, when they say, we want to ban you and we will threaten to ban your known associates (not just from our settlement, but form others as well) if they don't police your actions, that will definitely spark a level of retaliation that would not end until "Regime Change" took place.
That's the price of being a bandit. Many companies/settlements won't want you nearby. Eventually, they'll know where you are getting support. They will want to deny you support. If you want everyone to like you, don't steal from them. If you want to live the bandit life, accept that you and your associates will become persona non grata in many settlements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
SAD's will still be initiated so that you can forgo them allowing for no negative penalties place on the attackers.
It remains to be seen whether the cost of issuing a SAD - in the form of the loss of surprise, and the vulnerability to a first strike from the caravan guards - is worth the benefit of no reputation loss. Keep in mind, I already won't suffer a Reputation loss for killing you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"If I follow what is being suggested here, by a few, what they want is no reputation save or gain from issuing a SAD."
I feel SAD should reduce reputation. You are still committing theft by threat of force. However, SAD should be a significantly reduced hit. For example, straight up attacking an unflagged individual might reduce your reputation by 100. Issuing a SAD would ideally only cost 10, regardless of whether the victim (for that is what they are) forgoes the option or not.
I was under the assumption that reputation was meant as a tool for how players treat other players to assist in setting limitations for settlements and determining contract trustworthiness. I would never consider being issued a SAD as a positive thing. It is less negative than being ambushed, but it is still performing a harmful action against another player.
It would be a very unlikely scenario where I would be grateful to a psychopath that only cut off my finger when he could have taken my whole arm. I am going to be relieved I still have my arm, but I won't be thinking about what a good fella he was for letting me off light.
It goes back to that whole good-evil argument as well. I still believe that killing someone, no matter how evil, should never EARN you good points. Particularly vile enemies may cause no loss of good points to kill, but the act of taking a life is evil at worst and neutral at best.
Issuing a SAD should be neutral at best (though I don't feel that is right either) but should never GRANT reputation points.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Issuing a SAD should be neutral at best (though I don't feel that is right either) but should never GRANT reputation points.
It is not Neutral, it is Chaotic. Having a SAD accepted means two things. First, it was offered in exchange for an ambush attack. Second, it was reasonable enough that the traveler accepted it. This second point is really key in explaining why there is a reputation gain.
Another reason why the SAD may grant a Reputation Bonus is that the devs want to encourage bandits to issue SADs.
This was a concession made to allow for Neutral Good Bandits (ala Robin Hood) so that they could steal, without resorting to killing everyone.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
SAD's will still be initiated so that you can forgo them allowing for no negative penalties place on the attackers.It remains to be seen whether the cost of issuing a SAD - in the form of the loss of surprise, and the vulnerability to a first strike from the caravan guards - is worth the benefit of no reputation loss. Keep in mind, I already won't suffer a Reputation loss for killing you.
Unless you attack first but I doubt you would except getting antsy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I meant neutral on the Positive Rep <-> Negative Rep scale.
Second, it was reasonable enough that the traveler accepted it. This second point is really key in explaining why there is a reputation gain.
That does not make any sense. "Give me 100 gold or I'll pound your face in?"
That is nowhere near 'reasonable', it is cruel and vicious. But the wise man realizes that his life is worth more than 100 gold and thus acquiesces.
The scale does not equal 0 at "You are being robbed". If it did, then I could understand the scenario you state being considered reasonable. But the scale equals 0 at leaving others alone. Issuing a SAD is not more beneficial to another character than is leaving them alone.
Positive reputation should only be earned through two ways. Actions that benefit other characters and the Return to 0 from Negative that happens slowly over time. Positive reputation gain from actions that negatively impact other characters (note my use of characters - not players) is nonsensical to my mind.
Another reason why the SAD may grant a Reputation Bonus is that the devs want to encourage bandits to issue SADs.
This was a concession made to allow for Neutral Good Bandits (ala Robin Hood) so that they could steal, without resorting to killing everyone.
If the purpose is that the devs wish to encourage it, then we need another name, as reputation is a poor match and a terrible descriptor.
In the Robin Hood scenario, the act of giving ill-gotten goods to the less fortunate would net the positive reputation mentioned above. The fact that a SAD would be a minor reputation hit would mean that the positive result (giving goods away) outweighed the negative (issuing the SAD) to create a Net Positive.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Having a SAD accepted means two things. First, it was offered in exchange for an ambush attack. Second, it was reasonable enough that the traveler accepted it. This second point is really key in explaining why there is a reputation gain.
Wait - that second point - the SAD demand being reasonable being key to the reputation gain. I haven't seen that before. But then if the SAD demand isn't reasonable and the traveler reasonably refuses it, what happens to your reputation?
Never mind - found it. You have 5 minutes to kill the target for no loss of rep if the unreasonable SAD is refused.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have no problem with your proposed system,
that´s a good start:)
until you got to the flags at the end.
I'll deal with the flags first:There are already Trespasser and Criminal Flags. A settlement can already bar individuals and or companies based on reputation, alignment, settlement or company.
Flags are reserved for actions taken in the immediate here and now; self selected long term flags; and long term flags punishing "bad" behavior (so far 24 hours is longest).
What you propose is a flag based on former actions, but more accurately a collective perception of your character that may not have been true at the time or it may no longer reflect your character's actions now....
the flags were just -one- idea of how social engeneering could work. I just think it’s better to have ideas. I mean, you can change an idea, changing a belief is trickier
sorry coudn`t resist.although one could argue that if through your line of work you upset a lot of people and they develop a bad opinion of you, then it will take time to change that opinion. so that would be something you earned.
but, as you said, flags aren`t needed here.
and spread it beyond their domain and then attempt to coerce other settlement / player groupings to disassociate with the person...
well, if you project my proposted system into the future of the game, where kingdoms and alliances are possible, the you might still become enemie of the state somewhere.
on the other hand, you might see that as an achievment;)|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I really want to tackle this concept that rep is a reward for doing good deeds. It is absolutely not that. It is a reward for playing well, being a good sport and adding value to the engagements you are involved with, whatever form they may take.
This does not mean you are being nice, it does not mean you are friends, it means your encounter was well played out.
The bandit did not SAD and then murder you anyways. The caravan did not take your goods and run. You did not cheat someone out of (contractually) promised rewards. These are why and how you get good reputation.
Assassins with your name are certainly not your friend that day, but they just as certainly deserve their recognition for a job well done.
Yes, a bandit Stealing At Dagger-point absolutely deserves to be recognized for playing a bandit as it was designed to be played.
What is not being rewarded, and in fact is actually being penalized, is the kind of behavior that GW does not want to see. They are actively disincentivising poor gameplay and bad sportsmanship.
This is critical. This is good. Please understand this when you say you do not want an action to award rep. Is it that you do not want to be subject to that action? Or that you honestly believe such an action has no place in the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it that you do not want to be subject to that action? Or that you honestly believe such an action has no place in the game.
Don't kid yourself. There will be tons of Bandits, regardless of whether they gain Reputation for it.
I want there to be bandits. I want to be at risk of being attacked by them. I just don't want them to thank this endears them to me, and I'd like to be able to keep them out of my Settlement if they choose to prey on me and mine (without having to blacklist each and every single one of them).