Xeen had crunched some numbers, although I have not verified this yet. According to his calculations it would take 36 days to go from -7500 Rep to 0 Rep.
What Xeen failed to calculate, was that this is PLAY time. Meaning that if you faithfully play 8 hours a day, 7 days a week, and don't do even one thing (intentionally or otherwise) that would lower your rep, than you're looking at 118 days from -7500 to 0.
Goblin Squad Member
|
What you are calling 'unsanctioned' PvP is, I think, a subset of actions broadly classified as PvP. The significant characteristic of that subset is that it is a kind that harms players instead of characters. All the rest are PvP actions that only harm characters and not players, and is by far the more comprehensive and important subset of the two.
Using naked newb characters as human shields does not harm players, only characters.
What you are calling 'unsanctioned' PvP is, I think, a subset of actions broadly classified as PvP. The significant characteristic of that subset is that it is a kind that harms players instead of characters. All the rest are PvP actions that only harm characters and not players, and is by far the more comprehensive and important subset of the two.
Using naked newb characters as human shields does not harm players, only characters.
I'm starting to realize that the point of peoples' counter-arguments are just to wear me down in hopes that I'll stop arguing, as opposed to making any ACTUAL valid points.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't really see a problem with them being an aoe shield, as they will be ineffective as one. At best, a single aoe will take them to half health, although seventy five percent seems more likely. They then have to die with 30 seconds for you to take the rep hit. If you don't attack them again, your hostile flag will turn off.
Because of the magical turbulence effect, you will want to switch to single target after your initial boom, so you won't be hitting the naked noob meat shields again in that period.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm starting to realize that the point of peoples' counter-arguments are just to wear me down in hopes that I'll stop arguing, as opposed to making any ACTUAL valid points.
Interesting. I had believed mine wasn't a counter-argument, but rather an observation. Your values are not mine, therefore our evaluations of validity vary similarly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really see a problem with them being an aoe shield, as they will be ineffective as one. At best, a single aoe will take them to half health, although seventy five percent seems more likely. They then have to die with 30 seconds for you to take the rep hit. If you don't attack them again, your hostile flag will turn off.
Because of the magical turbulence effect, you will want to switch to single target after your initial boom, so you won't be hitting the naked noob meat shields again in that period.
What if the first strike does kill the naked noobs?
I know the Devs have said they have worked the numbers so that any attack won't produce a 1 shot kill. But that is if the players don't intend for their characters to be 1-shot killed.
I know the Devs have devised this system that a number of players can't just hit the player once each and avoid getting the intentional kill. If the toon dies from that final hit, that final hit still brings the Rep hit.
So in my scenario above, the Naked Noobs self inflict enough falling damage (undetectable?), before they enter the formation or group.
So if one or two AOEs hit this group, several or perhaps more NNs could die, passing on hundreds or even a thousand or more negative rep hits to the attacker and his or her settlement, thus my expression The Naked Noob Rep Bomb!
How to protect from this?
The NNRB is most likely going to be used during a siege or large raid. In the case of a siege, an active war zone, making all targets in an active war zone consequence free would avert this.
"All is fair in love and war". There should be sufficient warning prior to a hex going "hot" for war, for any disinterested parties to get out. After the zone goes hot, you have given consent to be a war target.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The newb bomb issue could be solved with some kind of a warzone or a feudzone flag. "Entering a warzone. Proceed at your own risk." What kind of character actions could be deemed to trigger a warzone? When at least 2 characters that are at war approach each other. They would not get the warzone flag but any third parties would... killing someone with a warzone flag would not yield reputation losses.
edit. or something like that :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The newb bomb issue could be solved with some kind of a warzone or a feudzone flag. "Entering a warzone. Proceed at your own risk." What kind of character actions could be deemed to trigger a warzone? When at least 2 characters that are at war approach each other. They would not get the warzone flag but any third parties would... killing someone with a warzone flag would not yield reputation losses.
edit. or something like that :)
Feuds are not zoned, but a system of Company vs. Company PvP. The same goes for Faction Warfare.
A War Zone is a location based (Settlement Hexes) Open PvP zone. I use that last part intentionally, "Open PvP Zone" is meant to imply, open to all and all within it are subject to PvP.
A War Target, outside if the active war zone, is still subject to PvP at the hands if their enemy. They however would not be an open target to a third party, outside of the war zone.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Xeen had crunched some numbers, although I have not verified this yet. According to his calculations it would take 36 days to go from -7500 Rep to 0 Rep.What Xeen failed to calculate, was that this is PLAY time. Meaning that if you faithfully play 8 hours a day, 7 days a week, and don't do even one thing (intentionally or otherwise) that would lower your rep, than you're looking at 118 days from -7500 to 0.
Where in the blog does it say play time? Seriously, enlighten me as I didnt read that.
Edit: Hmmm yep, I did not read that... but it does say for each hour of play time you do not lose rep. Now what it doesnt say, is that does not continue when you are offline... Skills and other things continue when your offline. Its not like your going to lose rep when offline, so they may have specified that as you have to get it started while online.
Kinda vague.
If they do it the way you suggest, I will expect to see people online and afk to build up their rep.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The newb bomb issue could be solved with some kind of a warzone or a feudzone flag. "Entering a warzone. Proceed at your own risk." What kind of character actions could be deemed to trigger a warzone? When at least 2 characters that are at war approach each other. They would not get the warzone flag but any third parties would... killing someone with a warzone flag would not yield reputation losses.
edit. or something like that :)
Parties to the war should be able to attack inside the warzone without rep losses. So that's the settlement that declared war, their target, and both side's mercenaries. Neutrals should take normal rep losses while being valid targets inside the territories of the parties. A side effect of this would be that the neutrals are encouraged to un-ass the war zone so they don't add to the lag.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Parties to the war should be able to attack inside the warzone without rep losses. So that's the settlement that declared war, their target, and both side's mercenaries. Neutrals should take normal rep losses while being valid targets inside the territories of the parties. A side effect of this would be that the neutrals are encouraged to un-ass the war zone so they don't add to the lag.The newb bomb issue could be solved with some kind of a warzone or a feudzone flag. "Entering a warzone. Proceed at your own risk." What kind of character actions could be deemed to trigger a warzone? When at least 2 characters that are at war approach each other. They would not get the warzone flag but any third parties would... killing someone with a warzone flag would not yield reputation losses.
edit. or something like that :)
As I said earlier, neutrals in the war zone after the warning that the hex was about to go hot, have consented to be war zone targets.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...if you faithfully play 8 hours a day, 7 days a week, and don't do even one thing (intentionally or otherwise) that would lower your rep, than you're looking at 118 days from -7500 to 0.
Ryan's previously said that, given his experience, he believes the people GW's working to control have neither the discipline nor the patience to make it 118 days under those conditions. Perhaps he also thinks that if someone can make it through those 118 days they'll've changed from their prior nature?
Xeen had crunched some numbers, although I have not verified this yet. According to his calculations it would take 36 days to go from -7500 Rep to 0 Rep.What Xeen failed to calculate, was that this is PLAY time. Meaning that if you faithfully play 8 hours a day, 7 days a week, and don't do even one thing (intentionally or otherwise) that would lower your rep, than you're looking at 118 days from -7500 to 0.Where in the blog does it say play time? Seriously, enlighten me as I didnt read that.
Edit: Hmmm yep, I did not read that... but it does say for each hour of play time you do not lose rep. Now what it doesnt say, is that does not continue when you are offline... Skills and other things continue when your offline. Its not like your going to lose rep when offline, so they may have specified that as you have to get it started while online.
Kinda vague.
If they do it the way you suggest, I will expect to see people online and afk to build up their rep.
Yes, I thought of that, but no doubt GW will see that as "an attempt to manipulate the reputation system" and that will entail it's own risks. Even if you were right to begin with, the rep system would still be a joke.
...banning them does nothing. They'll simply make new accounts...Has banning IP addresses ever helped with this problem? I seem to recall it can be done, but I don't know how many peripheral problems are involved.
No peripheral problems, it's just useless. People can use a VPN, which switches their IP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, I thought of that, but no doubt GW will see that as "an attempt to manipulate the reputation system" and that will entail it's own risks. Even if you were right to begin with, the rep system would still be a joke.Xeen had crunched some numbers, although I have not verified this yet. According to his calculations it would take 36 days to go from -7500 Rep to 0 Rep.What Xeen failed to calculate, was that this is PLAY time. Meaning that if you faithfully play 8 hours a day, 7 days a week, and don't do even one thing (intentionally or otherwise) that would lower your rep, than you're looking at 118 days from -7500 to 0.Where in the blog does it say play time? Seriously, enlighten me as I didnt read that.
Edit: Hmmm yep, I did not read that... but it does say for each hour of play time you do not lose rep. Now what it doesnt say, is that does not continue when you are offline... Skills and other things continue when your offline. Its not like your going to lose rep when offline, so they may have specified that as you have to get it started while online.
Kinda vague.
If they do it the way you suggest, I will expect to see people online and afk to build up their rep.
No argument here
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What if the first strike does kill the naked noobs?
I know the Devs have said they have worked the numbers so that any attack won't produce a 1 shot kill. But that is if the players don't intend for their characters to be 1-shot killed.
I know the Devs have devised this system that a number of players can't just hit the player once each and avoid getting the intentional kill. If the toon dies from that final hit, that final hit still brings the Rep hit.
So in my scenario above, the Naked Noobs self inflict enough falling damage (undetectable?), before they enter the formation or group.
So if one or two AOEs hit this group, several or perhaps more NNs could die, passing on hundreds or even a thousand or more negative rep hits to the attacker and his or her settlement, thus my expression The Naked Noob Rep Bomb!
How to protect from this?
The NNRB is most likely going to be used during a siege or large raid. In the case of a siege, an active war zone, making all targets in an active war zone consequence free would avert this.
"All is fair in love and war". There should be sufficient warning prior to a hex going "hot" for war, for any disinterested parties to get out. After the zone goes hot, you have given consent to be a war target.
I like that. A server message like "you feel war in the air"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There may be a way for settlements to implement conditional measures: If player-character, call him Ira Newb, approaches within X meters of the walls or gate during a siege, or in a war zone, they shall be terminated. Flag them when appropriate conditions are met (if my example is unfit).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Feuds are not zoned, but a system of Company vs. Company PvP. The same goes for Faction Warfare.
A War Zone is a location based (Settlement Hexes) Open PvP zone. I use that last part intentionally, "Open PvP Zone" is meant to imply, open to all and all within it are subject to PvP.
A War Target, outside if the active war zone, is still subject to PvP at the hands if their enemy. They however would not be an open target to a third party, outside of the war zone.
Yep. I didn't read your post that carefully, but something has to trigger the warzone. And this warzone concept still might have ways for people to exploit it. And newb bombs are a threat to feuds and raids etc also. There are few places in PFO that are outside PVP, so that is not the problem.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like that. A server message like "you feel war in the air"
I like the less subtle message: "Hey, dumb arse, you see that smoke... The circling vultures in the sky.....the train of refugees going the other direction... Think about it!"
Reminds me of that US Marine add, "There are those that run from the sound of gun fire, and those who run to it."
If you run to the sights, sounds and smells of war, that is consent! No rep loss for killing you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Perhaps rising smoke, circling buzzards, and NPC trains of refugees should be a part of the landscape at a warzone or siege.
That is the kind of atmospheric role playing that should take place. The atmosphere of the war zone would encourage certain acts not found off the battlefield.
Scavengers stripping the dead of their shoes. Roving groups of bandits, attacking the refugees. Third party Necromancers seizing the opportunity to create the undead from the fresh corpses, in a consequence free zone.
A war zone should be nothing less than "Organized Chaos" and a place of carnage, mayhem, greed and depravity.
That begs the question: When a settlement falls actively into war, does its laws change (to Martial Law settings) or switch off (Become unenforceable during a siege)?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How do you know which organization is using them? By those protected? If so, a malicious company would surround their target with noob bombs, then AOE them, and cry foul. Suddenly, their target gets sanctioned by GW.
This is where IP correlation, along with things such as agent string analysis, come into play. Yes, easily subverted by anyone that knows basic technology, but you would be surprised how many people it catches that have far more at stake than simply playing games.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
GW sanctioning is not the issue, besides that likely won't happen for a number of reasons. The NNRB is not violating any system, it is working as designed. If three is a flaw with it, it is caused by the flawed reputation system.
Ryan had said, the reputation system is not meant as a protection for new characters, however the cost for killing a character with a +1000 Rep is nothing to sneeze at. +1000 seems to be an arbitrary number. If everyone started at 0, it would make more sense and the cost related to the NNRB would be lessened.
So how does GW protect noobs? Well, first we need to clarify the difference between New Player Experience (NPE) and a New Character.
I could see a NP in the starter settlement having maximum reputation and limited immunity from being killed by characters of much higher experience. This would allow them to learn the game in relative safety or at least make it very costly for a higher skilled or group of characters to specifically prey on noobs.
After a certain point in time the NPE will end. The character is then deposited outside of the starter area, with a 0 Reputation and hopefully an idea of where he/she is looking to go.
A New Character, on an account that has already experienced the NPE, will be deposited outside of the zone immediately upon completion of character creation. The character will have whatever gear or experience gained during the normal running of the NPE.
Recruiting Noobs:
Charter Companies and Settlements can grant the title of "Recruiter" to have access to the Starter Settlement. These are the only characters able to return to the starter area, and inky for the professed purpose of recruitment. Any killing of noobs by a Recruiter violates that trust and should be devastating to that character's reputation and standing.
This would also solve the issue of characters trying to flee / Hideout in the starter zones to avoid feuds, wars, assassinations or bounties. They can't enter, unless they are a recruiter. A recruiter can't enter if he or she is under any of the aforementioned statuses.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How do you know which organization is using them? By those protected? If so, a malicious company would surround their target with noob bombs, then AOE them, and cry foul. Suddenly, their target gets sanctioned by GW.
By using industry-standard techniques that are both too complicated for me to explain and use a measure of obscurity to work. Each individual piece of evidence can be subverted, but at increasing cost.
The simple and cheap way would be to say that characters with no training purchased don't cause reputation loss. That has unfortunate implications regarding how those characters would experience the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The simple and cheap way would be to say that characters with no training purchased don't cause reputation loss. That has unfortunate implications regarding how those characters would experience the game.
That is something I had not thought of. The unfortunate implication is only fully realized if PFO switches solely to a F2P model. Otherwise a completely untrained Noob is likely an alt of a trained PC on the same account. Quite frankly, I'd be more concerned for true New Player Experience rather than New Character Experience.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How do you know which organization is using them? By those protected? If so, a malicious company would surround their target with noob bombs, then AOE them, and cry foul. Suddenly, their target gets sanctioned by GW.By using industry-standard techniques that are both too complicated for me to explain and use a measure of obscurity to work. Each individual piece of evidence can be subverted, but at increasing cost.
The simple and cheap way would be to say that characters with no training purchased don't cause reputation loss. That has unfortunate implications regarding how those characters would experience the game.
I've taken courses on computer security, hacking, digital evidence retrieval, etc. I highly doubt that Goblin Works could manage to totally block that from happening.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I've taken courses on computer security, hacking, digital evidence retrieval, etc. I highly doubt that Goblin Works could manage to totally block that from happening.How do you know which organization is using them? By those protected? If so, a malicious company would surround their target with noob bombs, then AOE them, and cry foul. Suddenly, their target gets sanctioned by GW.By using industry-standard techniques that are both too complicated for me to explain and use a measure of obscurity to work. Each individual piece of evidence can be subverted, but at increasing cost.
The simple and cheap way would be to say that characters with no training purchased don't cause reputation loss. That has unfortunate implications regarding how those characters would experience the game.
Ah, but you don't need perfect detection to be effective- you need to make the perceived consequences of being detected times the perceived probability of being detected greater than the perceived rewards of exploiting. That can be done with a very small detection rate.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If there is a small detection rate, then the percieved probability of being detected will rapidly trend towards the actual detection rate. Further, since the noobs need to do nothing but exist and die, they are ideal candidates for free-to-play accounts. You cannot effectively punish them, as they will quickly create new accounts linked to new email addresses.
If there is a small detection rate, then the percieved probability of being detected will rapidly trend towards the actual detection rate. Further, since the noobs need to do nothing but exist and die, they are ideal candidates for free-to-play accounts. You cannot effectively punish them, as they will quickly create new accounts linked to new email addresses.
Which brings up a good point Mr. Damocles.
I believe Ryan has every intention of allowing people to play for free, which I think's a bad idea (and there's yet another reason for it). I think people should at least be forced to pay $5 a month to get bare access with no other benefits, and say, $20 gets you access with the whole kitchen sink.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't really see blue blocking with newbs being very big issue. In the games I've seen blue-blocking become an issue of note (not a major issue, but one worth mentioning) there are three things that you had to worry about that you won't have to worry about in PFO:
1. They were 100% manual aim games, your attacks were not targeted at all. So if I fire at Bob the Bandit and Phil the Priest is standing near him, I might hit Phil instead. With any attack at all, not just AOEs.
2. You could heal and buff people without getting flagged. So Phil the Priest can be sitting there the entire battle healing Bob, and he still remains unflagged to me.
3. The GMs didn't care. There was no attempt made to stop blue blocking, no rules against it, they really just didn't care at all.
In PFO it's 99.99% sure we will be using some for of targeting (tab being the most likely based on developer comments) so if you aren't using AoEs and Bob is your target, you won't be hitting Phil period. In PFO, Phil the Priest is going to get flagged if he heals and buffs Bob while he's involved in combat so he can sit there and serve absolutely no purpose other than being an AoE shield, and finally the devs do give a damn. So Phil will probably get reported and banned.
So the question left is it worth it for Phil and Phil's organization. Phil's organization could have him playing his main as a regular soldier, or they could have him sitting there making free account after free account that gets banned after a bit.
The organization opposing Phil is going to have their players learning player skills, earning merit badges for their character skills, and building up resources / using them to create and obtain usable gear.
When they square off in combat, they will have the additional firepower and healing/buffing capabilities of those players who trained up as a player, built up as a character, and have decent equipment to use. To avoid rep loss from Phil they probably won't be dropping aggressive AoEs anywhere near Phil. This may hurt their performance a bit, but Phil's group is down the number of Phils they have so unless they have a very statistically small number of Phil's, they've likely put themselves at the disadvantage.
The place where they will have a statistically small number of Phils is formation combat, because that's where you are going to see huge blobs of players. I'm pretty comfortable saying that when you have a massive group of players crawling around in formation, probably with loud marching noises, banners, and fanfare to announce their presence... everyone should be moving the hell out of the way unless they are involved in the battle. Beyond the blue blockers this neutral just standing there staring at a formation is probably an untagged spy. So there isn't really any need for rep loss in formation IMO.
If with all these factors, blue blocking with newbs is still an issue you could always just throw out a "Freshly marked" condition that makes players immune to AoEs used by players but unable to take certain actions for their first X hours in game or until they've spent X cash in the cash shop. X cash preferably being the cost of one month of training time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also. As a sidenote. If any major group does become known for blue blocking or any other form or cheating / exploitation. It might be a wise idea to go to a bakery known for solving problems, and talk about how nice it would be if someone infiltrated them, then gathered evidence on the people promoting these behaviors and quietly exposed them to the GMs.
Might even be nice if the GM's themselves offered rewards to whistleblowers inside organizations that promote cheating. Say, half the bank of the people who get banned.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not going to dig up the quote right now, but Ryan has said in another post than if you catch the person who committed a crime in your lands it negates the corruption.
I'll see if Nihimon remembers the quote...
I do :)
That sort of sounds like each crime that occurs in a settlement adds to the settlement's corruption. So more laws => more crime => more corruption?We'll hopefully go into more detail on this (and other tweaks to our ideas on settlement alignment) soon, but the basic idea is that higher Chaos creates a higher minimum Corruption, but having laws broken can temporarily increase Corruption (). A Lawful settlement with laws that it can't enforce could become worse off than a Chaotic settlement that played it cool and didn't make any laws in the first place; in the Lawful city, all the crooks know for sure they can get away with anything.
[Edit] And I see Urman quoted the same statement in a much more timely fashion...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The simple and cheap way would be to say that characters with no training purchased don't cause reputation loss. That has unfortunate implications regarding how those characters would experience the game.That is something I had not thought of. The unfortunate implication is only fully realized if PFO switches solely to a F2P model. Otherwise a completely untrained Noob is likely an alt of a trained PC on the same account. Quite frankly, I'd be more concerned for true New Player Experience rather than New Character Experience.
This I think is the solution, and so I repost it once again. It is not often I agree and Favorite one of DeciusBrutus' posts, but when I do, I twice mark it with praise!
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
This I think is the solution, and so I repost it once again. It is not often I agree and Favorite one of DeciusBrutus' posts, but when I do, I twice mark it with praise!The simple and cheap way would be to say that characters with no training purchased don't cause reputation loss. That has unfortunate implications regarding how those characters would experience the game.That is something I had not thought of. The unfortunate implication is only fully realized if PFO switches solely to a F2P model. Otherwise a completely untrained Noob is likely an alt of a trained PC on the same account. Quite frankly, I'd be more concerned for true New Player Experience rather than New Character Experience.
Really? I think that my proposed solution has so many holes, perverse incentives, and bad implications that it needs more than 50% exceptions...
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect that what will happen is that when a Settlement's PvP window is open, there won't be reputation effects within some diameter of the Settlement walls. Not only will that remove the fear of naked noob meat shields but it also represents a reduced load on the database during times which may generate a huge spike in rep calculations otherwise.
I suspect that what will happen is that when a Settlement's PvP window is open, there won't be reputation effects within some diameter of the Settlement walls. Not only will that remove the fear of naked noob meat shields but it also represents a reduced load on the database during times which may generate a huge spike in rep calculations otherwise.
Why only when the Rep Window is open? Shouldn't people at least be able to TRY to take out a settlement when the window's closed, if they deem it a good strategy (like at 4 am when no one expects it)??
I suspect that what will happen is that when a Settlement's PvP window is open, there won't be reputation effects within some diameter of the Settlement walls. Not only will that remove the fear of naked noob meat shields but it also represents a reduced load on the database during times which may generate a huge spike in rep calculations otherwise.
So all we need to do is find out the relevant pvp windows for each of the settlements. Roll up mob handed at the right time and enjoy unlimited killing rep free.
Sounds like a well thought out idea to me and will not be abused in the least
I suspect that what will happen is that when a Settlement's PvP window is open, there won't be reputation effects within some diameter of the Settlement walls. Not only will that remove the fear of naked noob meat shields but it also represents a reduced load on the database during times which may generate a huge spike in rep calculations otherwise.So all we need to do is find out the relevant pvp windows for each of the settlements. Roll up mob handed at the right time and enjoy unlimited killing rep free.
Sounds like a well thought out idea to me and will not be abused in the least
And to think... I had hope for you.
And to think... I had hope for you.I suspect that what will happen is that when a Settlement's PvP window is open, there won't be reputation effects within some diameter of the Settlement walls. Not only will that remove the fear of naked noob meat shields but it also represents a reduced load on the database during times which may generate a huge spike in rep calculations otherwise.So all we need to do is find out the relevant pvp windows for each of the settlements. Roll up mob handed at the right time and enjoy unlimited killing rep free.
Sounds like a well thought out idea to me and will not be abused in the least
Stfu. Steelwing is right. When I'm in my settlement, I want to be able to bravely craft, and bravely talk to my NPC's without having to worry about PvP.
Pssst..QallzBrave Sir Robin .... when people mouse over your avatar name, it tells us who's alt it is.
No one's denying it. Brave Sir Robin is my new Carebear alter-ego.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I suspect that what will happen is that when a Settlement's PvP window is open, there won't be reputation effects within some diameter of the Settlement walls. Not only will that remove the fear of naked noob meat shields but it also represents a reduced load on the database during times which may generate a huge spike in rep calculations otherwise.
Exactly. Now tell me that a settlement cannot codify instant death to all trespassers and all this starts to make sense.