UNC Definition of "In Good, Bad and Ugly Standing"


Pathfinder Online

51 to 100 of 142 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Stubborn? Check.
Vocal? Check.
Passionate? Check.

Sounds like faction leadership to me!

My primary character will be freedom-loving and morally ambivalent. I can see him running the gamut from +7500 to -7500 in both Good/Evil and Reputation, but honestly I'm pretty bad at playing a jerk. If I do hit -7500 it's going to be from attacking neutral trespassers rather than from randomly selecting targets just outside an NPC settlement.

If, for example, UNC is hired to blockade a settlement, especially one that receives a lot of traffic, it's a fair bet that a bulk of the traffic we'd interdict would be unflagged for us. That's a bunch of rep hits for a contract, and as such the cost for that contract would likely be adjusted north. It would also likely mean a bunch of us, even the non-jerks, would end up -7500 while participating in valid, content-generating activities.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sintaqx wrote:
If, for example, UNC is hired to blockade a settlement, especially one that receives a lot of traffic, it's a fair bet that a bulk of the traffic we'd interdict would be unflagged for us. That's a bunch of rep hits for a contract, and as such the cost for that contract would likely be adjusted north. It would also likely mean a bunch of us, even the non-jerks, would end up -7500 while participating in valid, content-generating activities.

Shhhhh, there is no valid reason to have a negative Rep.

Goblin Squad Member

Dick-o-meter. How has this thread gone so long without using that word?

Goblin Squad Member

Conscious effort?

Goblin Squad Member

Sintaqx wrote:


If, for example, UNC is hired to blockade a settlement, especially one that receives a lot of traffic, it's a fair bet that a bulk of the traffic we'd interdict would be unflagged for us. That's a bunch of rep hits for a contract, and as such the cost for that contract would likely be adjusted north. It would also likely mean a bunch of us, even the non-jerks, would end up -7500 while participating in valid, content-generating activities.

This is exactly what Nihimon is not taking into consideration. It is much easier to label you as a jerk or a dick and not think you had a legitimate reason for being low reputation.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Sintaqx wrote:


If, for example, UNC is hired to blockade a settlement, especially one that receives a lot of traffic, it's a fair bet that a bulk of the traffic we'd interdict would be unflagged for us. That's a bunch of rep hits for a contract, and as such the cost for that contract would likely be adjusted north. It would also likely mean a bunch of us, even the non-jerks, would end up -7500 while participating in valid, content-generating activities.
This is exactly what Nihimon is not taking into consideration. It is much easier to label you as a jerk or a dick and not think you had a legitimate reason for being low reputation.

He knows all about it. He just does not want PVP that is not on his own terms... You know, Open World Sandbox PVP type PVP.

So instead he just insults people who disagree.

LOL

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
... a legitimate reason for being low reputation.

If there is "a legitimate reason for being low reputation", then the Reputation system will have failed.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
... a legitimate reason for being low reputation.
If there is "a legitimate reason for being low reputation", then the Reputation system will have failed.

It already did

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
... a legitimate reason for being low reputation.
If there is "a legitimate reason for being low reputation", then the Reputation system will have failed.
It already did

Where?

Goblin Squad Member

Sintaqx wrote:
If, for example, UNC is hired to blockade a settlement, especially one that receives a lot of traffic, it's a fair bet that a bulk of the traffic we'd interdict would be unflagged for us. That's a bunch of rep hits for a contract, and as such the cost for that contract would likely be adjusted north. It would also likely mean a bunch of us, even the non-jerks, would end up -7500 while participating in valid, content-generating activities.
KitNyx wrote:
Where?

Over there

Legitimate war contract to close down a city that lets anyone and everyone into its walls.

There will be tons on starter NPC alts that never join any company or faction... but will still be legitimate targets in a war.

Goblin Squad Member

I think, instead of decrying the Reputation system in this instance, your posts should be more along the lines of "when you develop the reputation system, please consider situations like x". I'm pretty sure at this point the Reputation system is all but guaranteed to be in game. Instead of saying that it's a failure before it even launches, why not try to help push it in a direction that can accomodate your character's and your company's needs (and the needs of others with such a play style)?

For the specific example given, if there's any way for a CC to declare some sort of pseudo feud/war against a Settlement itself I don't see your company as having to take major hits in blockading it. This seems like a needed mechanic for other specific cases too, most of them involving messing with your enemy's friends while at war with said enemy. Because a settlement will have trouble declaring war on many targets at once, it would seem prudent that it could do something to at least harass enemy settlements even if it can't declare another war.

Off to class now, but I'll come back and try to make my no doubt muddled thoughts a bit clearer later tonight.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:
Sintaqx wrote:
If, for example, UNC is hired to blockade a settlement, especially one that receives a lot of traffic, it's a fair bet that a bulk of the traffic we'd interdict would be unflagged for us. That's a bunch of rep hits for a contract, and as such the cost for that contract would likely be adjusted north. It would also likely mean a bunch of us, even the non-jerks, would end up -7500 while participating in valid, content-generating activities.
KitNyx wrote:
Where?

Over there

Legitimate war contract to close down a city that lets anyone and everyone into its walls.

There will be tons on starter NPC alts that never join any company or faction... but will still be legitimate targets in a war.

Crowdforged rebuttal: implement the ability to siege or blockade an area, making all within the area part of the war. This is already a necessary part of the war system, to prevent abuse by people using 'clean' characters to contribute to a war effort.

I think it's premature to say that a system has failed because of a case which has happened zero times.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Loss of reputation is fine, there will be times where it's difficult, if not impossible, to programatically distinguish between a valid, desirable situation and an undesirable situation, especially as different metagame tactics evolve. What is less clear is how those who do participate in these false positive activities can recover from them, without making the same recovery as applicable to those who are actively involved in unwanted activity.

We have a general idea of what will cause a loss of reputation, but far less clear is what will cause a recovery of reputation. We also don't know the rate at which different activities will cause this loss or gain, and we probably won't know until during or after alpha.

On potential thing to reduce the impact of a false positive is a 'cooldown' of sorts after performing an activity that causes reputation loss. If another activity that causes rep loss is undertaken before the cooldown expires, the cooldown resets and a more severe loss occurs.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:


Crowdforged rebuttal: implement the ability to siege or blockade an area, making all within the area part of the war. This is already a necessary part of the war system, to prevent abuse by people using 'clean' characters to contribute to a war effort.

I think it's premature to say that a system has failed because of a case which has happened zero times.

One small problem I can see with this is not all blockades will occur within the war zone boundary, and not all blockades will occur during war footing. It could be more effective for a smaller group to hire a third party, like UNC, to perform a blockade so they can manipulate the market, wear down morale, drain the coffers, and generally make a larger target more manageable when they do declare war.

Another case where neutrals will result in negative rep is an interdiction on a resource. Suppose someone wants to drive up prices of iron in a region. To this end they hire UNC to attack all unapproved mining operations in an area. This is another valid activity that a declaration of war really can't (and shouldn't) cover, and that will affect a large number of neutral, unflagged targets.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

If you consider unsanctioned PvP to be something that it is undesirable to have many players doing most of the time, rather than something that it is undesirable to happen at all, I think the intent becomes clear.

Someone who occasionally (exact frequency TBD) ganks a gatherer has a moderate reputation; someone who frequently (again, undefined) kill unflagged characters will have a low reputation, while someone who constantly does so will have the reputation that makes the character suck.

If it is constantly necessary, for a good reason, to incur reputation loss, then there is a necessary patch to the reputation system. If it is occasionally advantageous to incur a reputation hit in order to get something particularly juicy, that is a success of the reputation system.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Sintaqx wrote:

Another case where neutrals will result in negative rep is an interdiction on a resource. Suppose someone wants to drive up prices of iron in a region. To this end they hire UNC to attack all unapproved mining operations in an area. This is another valid activity that a declaration of war really can't (and shouldn't) cover, and that will affect a large number of neutral, unflagged targets.

I think that offering a SAD of "your iron and your picks" is a reasonable way to patch that perceived hole, in indeed market manipulation through killing competition is not 'being a jerk.'

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
It already did

Given the reputation system appears to be a key part of GW's mechanism to attempt correcting the abuses that drive many players away from PVP, I'm concerned, if you're right, that we've another Darkfall in the making. If so, I'm glad GW's investors, including Kickstarters, didn't put more resources on a possible road to failure.

Goblin Squad Member

Thats pretty much it, we do not know enough at this point. From the info we have though, I can say that there will be rep hits for participating in "sanctioned" (hate this term) PVP activities.

But whatever, I can handle rep hits so long as there is a way to recover.

If recovery is made slow, drawn out, near impossible, then it will need to be fixed.

But if we want to keep throwing around terms like a&@$#&*s or dicks. Then I will happily be one.

Goblin Squad Member

Jazzlvraz wrote:
Xeen wrote:
It already did
Given the reputation system appears to be a key part of GW's mechanism to attempt correcting the abuses that drive many players away from PVP, I'm concerned, if you're right, that we've another Darkfall in the making. If so, I'm glad GW's investors, including Kickstarters, didn't put more resources on a possible road to failure.

It only fails because its been termed as a low rep is being a dick...

Or how Ryans says things like CE players are a%!~&*#s...

When you have examples like Syntaqx has written that are viable and acceptable game tactics for NON PVPERS (highering the UNC), which will destroy the Rep and Alignment if the job is done correctly.... And then you have the CEO and a Dev saying they are dicks and a%&*~@%s... for playing the game using the rules they created... Then we have a failure waiting to happen.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
Crowdforged rebuttal: implement the ability to siege or blockade an area, making all within the area part of the war.

Sounds vaguely familiar. Was it really over a year and a half ago that I first suggested that War Zones should auto-flag everyone who enters the Hex?

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Crowdforged rebuttal: implement the ability to siege or blockade an area, making all within the area part of the war.
Sounds vaguely familiar. Was it really over a year and a half ago that I first suggested that War Zones should auto-flag everyone who enters the Hex?

Really? Force people to stay online?

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
Jazzlvraz wrote:
Xeen wrote:
It already did
Given the reputation system appears to be a key part of GW's mechanism to attempt correcting the abuses that drive many players away from PVP, I'm concerned, if you're right, that we've another Darkfall in the making. If so, I'm glad GW's investors, including Kickstarters, didn't put more resources on a possible road to failure.

It only fails because its been termed as a low rep is being a dick...

Or how Ryans says things like CE players are a~#~@&$s...

When you have examples like Syntaqx has written that are viable and acceptable game tactics for NON PVPERS (highering the UNC), which will destroy the Rep and Alignment if the job is done correctly.... And then you have the CEO and a Dev saying they are dicks and a$$@&%~s... for playing the game using the rules they created... Then we have a failure waiting to happen.

So correct me if I am wrong...I am having a hard time understanding your hypothetical. You are suggesting that if "group A" goes to war with "group B" the system is broken because "group A" can hire a mercenary group to attack "group B"...and your concern is that the mercenary group will take rep hits when it should be considered legitimate PvP?

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
... a legitimate reason for being low reputation.
If there is "a legitimate reason for being low reputation", then the Reputation system will have failed.

No, just your perception of it has failed. What you are trying to get is an agreement to your argument that any negative reputation is the result of griefing. yes, you are smart enough to know not to say that, because it would backfire on you and you would look as softcore as Andius does. But, you are still seeking that condemnation of that you expect to see directed at PVP that you do not agree with.

Sintaqx's example is the perfect one to explain how legitimate gameplay can lead to negative reputation, and you have no detailed counter to it.

@ Kitnyx,

Taking a rep hit from PVP that is unsanctioned is an acceptable consequence. Accepting that consequence and carrying out the attack, even with a rep hit, does not make the attack illegitimate.

If we are willing to accept the consequences, and the devs have allowed for that to occur, than it is perfectly legitimate.

Goblin Squad Member

Then I must just admit I do not understand why some are claiming the reputation system is broken.

Goblin Squad Member

KitNyx wrote:
...and your concern is that the mercenary group will take rep hits when it should be considered legitimate PvP?

It is legitimate PVP, PFO already said that they consider it "sanctioned" as meaningful interaction between players.

Meaningful interactions between players is not supposed to cause a rep hit.

We will get around most of the rep hits through the warfare system, but there WILL be alts that are either never a part of said company or any other "war deccable" company. I guess we can just do 1gp bounties and etc.

Goblin Squad Member

So if I hire a bunch of mercs to fight for me, they are effectively joining the war, why not declare it and not take any hits? It seems to be working correctly to me. If you are involved in a conflict, flag as such.

The motivation for your conflict - conquest, philosophy, or money...it is irrelevant.

Goblin Squad Member

KitNyx wrote:
Then I must just admit I do not understand why some are claiming the reputation system is broken.

You will have to ask Nihimon why he feels it is broken, he is the one that suggested it is.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

No, he said if there is a legitimate reason to have low rep...then the system is broken. At this point I must I agree with him that that would be the case, however I have not seen any evidence that there is a legitimate reason to have low rep.

It was Xeen who claimed the system already broke.

Goblin Squad Member

KitNyx wrote:

So if I hire a bunch of mercs to fight for me, they are effectively joining the war, why not declare it and not take any hits? It seems to be working correctly to me. If you are involved in a conflict, flag as such.

The motivation for your conflict, conquest, philosophy, or money...it is irrelevant.

How do we respond to merchants or harvesters, operating within our borders without authorization, whom we do not have an active feud, faction conflict or war with?

WE have three choices:

1. Ignore them and let them continue to harvest or trade within our lands without permission or tax.

2. Issue a SAD offer that gives up our opportunity for surprise attack (ambush), and of which the offer can still be rejected.

3. Ambush / Attack and accept the rep loss and alignment shifts as intended by the game mechanics and loot the victims.

All of these are legitimate choices, and will be selected based on the potential victim's standing with UNC.

Goblin Squad Member

KitNyx wrote:

So if I hire a bunch of mercs to fight for me, they are effectively joining the war, why not declare it and not take any hits? It seems to be working correctly to me. If you are involved in a conflict, flag as such.

The motivation for your conflict - conquest, philosophy, or money...it is irrelevant.

It's not the Mercs not declaring it that they have a prob with, it's the other side using Unflagged alts, who have no affiliation with anyone being used to move stuff into the kingdom, then they killing them knowing they are being used as unmarked mules, then they take the rep hit.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
KitNyx wrote:

So if I hire a bunch of mercs to fight for me, they are effectively joining the war, why not declare it and not take any hits? It seems to be working correctly to me. If you are involved in a conflict, flag as such.

The motivation for your conflict, conquest, philosophy, or money...it is irrelevant.

How do we respond to merchants or harvesters, operating within our borders without authorization, whom we do not have an active feud, faction conflict or war with?

WE have three choices:

1. Ignore them and let them continue to harvest or trade within our lands without permission or tax.

2. Issue a SAD offer that gives up our opportunity for surprise attack (ambush), and of which the offer can still be rejected.

3. Ambush / Attack and accept the rep loss and alignment shifts as intended by the game mechanics and loot the victims.

All of these are legitimate choices, and will be selected based on the potential victim's standing with UNC.

4. Mark the trespasser as trespassing, then kill them.

If the gatherer is outside of the territory that you control enough to declare them trespasser, then killing them and taking their stuff is also being a jerk.

Oh, and there's a difference between being a jerk and griefing, the ONLY system that I look to solve griefing is customer service. The Reputation system is intended to provide the incentive structure such that there are fewer jerks.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Tigari wrote:
KitNyx wrote:

So if I hire a bunch of mercs to fight for me, they are effectively joining the war, why not declare it and not take any hits? It seems to be working correctly to me. If you are involved in a conflict, flag as such.

The motivation for your conflict - conquest, philosophy, or money...it is irrelevant.

It's not the Mercs not declaring it that they have a prob with, it's the other side using Unflagged alts, who have no affiliation with anyone being used to move stuff into the kingdom, then they killing them knowing they are being used as unmarked mules, then they take the rep hit.

How is that not covered by the War Zone concept?

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Crowdforged rebuttal: implement the ability to siege or blockade an area, making all within the area part of the war.
Sounds vaguely familiar. Was it really over a year and a half ago that I first suggested that War Zones should auto-flag everyone who enters the Hex?
Really? Force people to stay online?

Not "people"; characters. It's an idea I've been going on about for quite some time.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf, could you please elaborate how alignment plays into all of this?

Goblin Squad Member

Alignment really doesn't play into this. The mercs will likely slide toward CE, depending on how they go about fulfilling their contract.

Wars are all well and good, but I suspect that many wars will be fought outside the system, using a third party to weaken or disrupt the actual target without expending your influence until the timing is right.

As Bludd stated, we should have tools with which to operate. If we don't need the element of surprise, SAD is the preferred method, even if the request made is ridiculous. There will definitely be times where Ambush is preferable. If the target is neutral, then we take the rep hit. Cost of doing business, and the client WILL be billed for this. If the client doesn't want to pay the rep premium, then we probably won't use ambush if it's not worth it.

I expect some of the work UNC is hired for will take place outside of the faction/war/feud system. We are the ones doing the client's dirty work, we're being the 'jerks' so that they can go about their business as they see fit. Generally we don't care who or what the client is doing as long as we get paid... and defaulting on payment is a good way to end up on the UNC naughty list!

I don't think there will be many UNC members who will shy away from residing in the low-rep range during much of their career. Sure, some may call us jerks for the work we do, but the real 'jerks' may very well be the ones who hired us. Most of what will result in rep hits aren't going to be activities we undertake without a client, Generally when left to our own devices we'll be robbing high value targets via SAD and raiding.

As far as wars go, if two settlements are in a state of war with each other, they both have defined borders and entering those borders should render anyone open to attack. If you need to be on the other side of the war zone you can either risk being exposed to open PVP, or you can go around. If you need to go into the war zone, be prepared.

Goblin Squad Member

KitNyx wrote:

No, he said if there is a legitimate reason to have low rep...then the system is broken. At this point I must I agree with him that that would be the case, however I have not seen any evidence that there is a legitimate reason to have low rep.

It was Xeen who claimed the system already broke.

And we pointed out legitimate reasons to have a low rep, that falls into what the devs have developed as "sanctioned" PVP.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Xeen wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Crowdforged rebuttal: implement the ability to siege or blockade an area, making all within the area part of the war.
Sounds vaguely familiar. Was it really over a year and a half ago that I first suggested that War Zones should auto-flag everyone who enters the Hex?
Really? Force people to stay online?
Not "people"; characters. It's an idea I've been going on about for quite some time.

Eve does this, so to speak, If you were involved in PVP then you have a 15 minute period where if you log off in space, your ship will warp 1 million KM from its current location and finish off that timer.

Others can scan you down and kill you.

That is done to prevent people from just logging off after a kill to hide.

Anything past that is kinda lame. People have legitimate or "sanctioned" reasons to log off.... If PFO is setting them up for the fall while they are offline then they will be looking for another game to play.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
KitNyx wrote:

So if I hire a bunch of mercs to fight for me, they are effectively joining the war, why not declare it and not take any hits? It seems to be working correctly to me. If you are involved in a conflict, flag as such.

The motivation for your conflict, conquest, philosophy, or money...it is irrelevant.

How do we respond to merchants or harvesters, operating within our borders without authorization, whom we do not have an active feud, faction conflict or war with?

WE have three choices:

1. Ignore them and let them continue to harvest or trade within our lands without permission or tax.

2. Issue a SAD offer that gives up our opportunity for surprise attack (ambush), and of which the offer can still be rejected.

3. Ambush / Attack and accept the rep loss and alignment shifts as intended by the game mechanics and loot the victims.

All of these are legitimate choices, and will be selected based on the potential victim's standing with UNC.

4. Mark the trespasser as trespassing, then kill them.

If the gatherer is outside of the territory that you control enough to declare them trespasser, then killing them and taking their stuff is also being a jerk.

Oh, and there's a difference between being a jerk and griefing, the ONLY system that I look to solve griefing is customer service. The Reputation system is intended to provide the incentive structure such that there are fewer jerks.

Is your company going to give the UNC rights to mark trespassers in your territory?

Killing them and taking their stuff, knowing full well that they are an alt of a target, is meaningful human interaction, which is defined by PFO as not being a jerk.

the OH part, tell that to your buddy Nihimon... according to him being a jerk is griefing.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:
[...]And we pointed out legitimate reasons to have a low rep, that falls into what the devs have developed as "sanctioned" PVP.
According to this
Tork Shaw wrote:
sanctioned PvP (i.e., PvP that won't cause alignment or reputation losses)

it would be impossible to do "sanctioned" PvP that lowers rep. I think sanctioned and unsanctioned may be useful terms to distinguish between the kinds of PvP that does and doesn't lower reputation. Note: unsanctioned does not necessarily mean 'bad' or 'not allowed', at least not from my simple grasp of the english language.

On the whole though, I don't like this nitpicking and word-wrangling that's going on. The gist of the system is laid out in plain sight: plenty of PvP activities won't negatively affect reputation, others will. The kind that does negatively affect reputation isn't necessarily 'outlawed', 'griefing' or 'toxic'. It is reputation-lowering, plain and simple.

Is throwing the term 'jerk' and other negatively loaded ones around helpful? I don't think so.

Goblin Squad Member

No, its not helpful, but the CEO said CE players are a$&+$#$s and the Dev Tork said Low Rep players are dicks. So here we are...

Sanctioned PVP, like wars, can lower your rep. Example: Being hired by another group to shut down a trade route, which is meaningful human interaction, and is sanctioned by GW, can and will likely lower your reputation.

Now, I will participate in meaningful human interaction in most cases. The exception being when I decide to just kill someone. For instance, someone who refuses a nice SAD offer on every occasion. I will want the surprise attack next time.

Goblin Squad Member

Anyway, the more I and everyone else talks, the more off topic we are... If anyone would like to discuss this further, make up a thread and I will happily reply.

Until then...

Does anyone know what standing they want to be towards us?

For some its too late.

Goblin Squad Member

Actually, I have a question. Bluddwolf said in his first post that defamation of the UNC will result in "Ugly" standing. If I call you a bunch of robbing, lying murderous bastards I will simply be stating the truth, so how do I defame a bunch of bandits? Does it involve flowers, kittens and helping old ladies to cross the road? :-)

Goblin Squad Member

Lhan wrote:
Actually, I have a question. Bluddwolf said in his first post that defamation of the UNC will result in "Ugly" standing. If I call you a bunch of robbing, lying murderous bastards I will simply be stating the truth, so how do I defame a bunch of bandits? Does it involve flowers, kittens and helping old ladies to cross the road? :-)

"Lying"..? We have always been brutally honest, more so than many. There are no hidden agendas with UNC, "We want to steal your stuff, and we will kill you if we have to." The only way around that is to be in OUR "Good Standing."

We are in fact a bunch of greedy, robbing, potentially murderous, bastards. There is no defamation there.

We will not be griefers, jerks or a$$holes in-game whether Nihimon, Andius or Ryan Dancey wish to believe it or not.

If the Devs allow for the attacking of unsanctioned targets, at the expense of reputation, then that is a legitimate action.

If the Devs do not use Reputation as a means to ban a player-character, even one at -7500, then reputation is not a measure of griefing, breaking rules, being a jerk, a dick or an a$$hole. It is solely a measure of whether or not the player-character participates in sanctioned vs. unsanctioned PVP.

If however, the Devs choose to use such negative terminology to describe the players that are using the game mechanics that the Devs have designed, then that is a poor reflection on the Devs and perhaps on their product.

This is what I consider to be "The Ugly". If ugly named calling is coming from the top, then they have no complaint that it can be used on the forums.

The @ All "Don't Use the Term Care Bear" comes to mind..... Really?? That is the only ban on language that they can think of? But it is ok to throw around: Jerk, Dick, A$$hole, Griefer, etc...

Goblin Squad Member

I was referring to lying in game, Bludd, along the lines of "Of course that path is safe, guv, would I lie to you?" not lying on the boards. I may be totally naive but I like to see the best in people; their characters are a different matter.

No imputation meant against you or any of the other members of UNC irl. I'm sure I will as Lhan have plenty of nasty things to say about your toons in game, though.

Goblin Squad Member

Lhan wrote:

I was referring to lying in game, Bludd, along the lines of "Of course that path is safe, guv, would I lie to you?" not lying on the boards. I may be totally naive but I like to see the best in people; their characters are a different matter.

No imputation meant against you or any of the other members of UNC irl. I'm sure I will as Lhan have plenty of nasty things to say about your toons in game, though.

Nice LOL

The company you keep may also have an impact on your standings, mainly if that company has a standing.

Bluddwolf wrote:
We will not be griefers, jerks or a$$holes in-game whether Nihimon, Andius or Ryan Dancey wish to believe it or not.

But we may be dicks according to Tork

LOL

Regardless it will be all based off of our standings. I doubt I will have this character in any faction once the game is past EEE... That way the full impact of any wars or contracts can be present.

Goblin Squad Member

If it's possible to join and leave factions via temporary contracts or arrangements, that would be ideal.

This whole conversation brings to mind a line from 'Broken Arrow':

Riley Hale: You tried to kill me!
Vic Deakins: Well that doesn't mean I don't like you.

One of the more enjoyable, and amusing things about being somewhat mercenary in your business deals is you can be hunting down members of a group one day and fighting alongside them the next. Just because UNC might be trying to kill you doesn't mean we don't like you!

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

I'm confused by the people who are hating on those who will have a low repuation. Given that they won't have access to the best training, they're hurting themselves. Yes, perhaps in the beginning when the power level is fairly even then randomly attacking individuals will prove profitable. As soon as people get organised, and get access to training the gankers don't, they'll quickly find themselves being killed in kind.

I'm not seeing a problem in that respect.

As for the rest of the political hoo-haa, I'll leave you guys to it. Far too involved at this stage of the game, you run the risk of burning out.

Goblin Squad Member

I do not see anyone who is hating on those who will have low-rep. I think the case is more about resisting calls to remove the repercussions of low-rep (Calling the system broken might not be an explicit call, but it is definitely implied).


I really don't see what the big deal about RPking is. Griefing, in a nutshell, is targeting the person behind the keyboard IMO. RPKing is just killing random characters, whether out of boredom, for fun, for role-play reasons, practice, or to get lucky and loot good stuff.

If you get randomly killed by someone then you shouldn't be upset for any reason other than the fact that you're dead. Unless someone goes slaughtering people in the middle of a settlement, you recognize that you can be attacked at almost any time and that setting foot outside a settlement is an action full of risks. And if someone does try slaughtering people in the middle of the city, they're probably new and will get slaughtered themselves. If they were any regular player then their reputation would be too low and their alignment would be too opposed to even be in the settlement.

Goblin Squad Member

Sintaqx wrote:

Stubborn? Check.

Vocal? Check.
Passionate? Check.

Sounds like faction leadership to me!
...

Almost any child is stubborn, vocal, and passionate. This is not to say any of us is childish, but I would point out those characteristics are wide of the target.

51 to 100 of 142 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / UNC Definition of "In Good, Bad and Ugly Standing" All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.