Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan's reference (above) relates not only to power gamers but to 5 styles of RPG players, TT and computer. These are the elements he found (from his questionnaire/survey) need to be in games:
These 8 core values are:
- Strong Characters and Exciting Story
- Role Playing
- Complexity Increases over Time
- Requires Strategic Thinking
- Competitive
- Add on sets/New versions available
- Uses imagination
- Mentally challenging
(my reformatting for this environment).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would put myself somewhere in that fifth category (center 12%) although the only MMO I played long enough to have an evolving life career is EvE (over 9 years, 7 on current character), so Storytelling has been a little less so a focus.But from the inside, the difference is very meaningful. The role playing is about crafting life and story around the other in-game actions. Providing motivations and reasons for why the characters do what they do beyond simply "winning the game".I don't view playing a role, and role playing as the same thing.I would suggest to you that from the outside looking in, there is no observable or meaningful difference.
I can't make people care about that. The people Bluddwolf is referring to don't care. They are "power gamers" in our 2-axis player segmentation study. They aren't interested primarily in "role playing" but in maximizing their power.
So what? As they go about maximizing their power, everyone who interacts with them can't tell the difference between what they're doing and "role playing", so they're a net positive to the Roleplaying segments. By actually playing a role, they're meaningfully creating content for people who want to role play.
If storytelling and strategic maneuvering both have significantly less focus, that puts you firmly into quandrant 1. I'd guess that the EvE equivalent to strategic storytelling would be planning the major events, while the strategic combat would be sov warfare.
Keep in mind that in 2000, "Power Gamer" was not yet an insult.
No, I believe I would fall within this:
There is a fifth type of player, who does not express a preference along any of the four axis. This person is a "basic roleplayer", who finds enjoyment from strategy, tactics, combat and story in rough equilibrium.
I'm certainly not a min-maxer, as I said in an example of Age of Conan, I wear armor and weapon that match the Cimmerian "look", but are inferior to what I could use.
I'm a "min-mocker" to a certain degree. When I come across a system that I feel is flawed, and I point out those flaws, but they are retained. I quickly look for a way to gain advantage in using that system as a form of mockery.
I see the alignment system as very much that kind of a system. I will play my character the way that I had planned on playing him, but if I see that an alignment is clearly advantaged, I will select it as my core, disregard it and play the way I intended anyway.
If Alignment were an aspect of role playing in PFO, I would actually care about it. But, as a mechanic, I simply see it as something to be gamed and mocked.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me it's highly dependent on the type of game I am playing. In a tabletop RPG I really like the roleplay aspect. I've played entire campaigns where we only fought a single battle, and I tend to like a character that is as useful out combat as they are inside it.
In am MMO I play a role much more than I "roleplay". Don't get me wrong, I'll have a backstory and go to occasional RP events, but it is not nearly as easy to stay constantly in character as it is in a tabletop RPG. I focus a lot more on the role I'm filling in the community than constantly doing everything fully in-character.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me it's highly dependent on the type of game I am playing. In a tabletop RPG I really like the roleplay aspect. I've played entire campaigns where we only fought a single battle, and I tend to like a character that is as useful out combat as they are inside it.
In am MMO I play a role much more than I "roleplay". Don't get me wrong, I'll have a backstory and go to occasional RP events, but it is not nearly as easy to stay constantly in character as it is in a tabletop RPG. I focus a lot more on the role I'm filling in the community than constantly doing everything fully in-character.
This +1. I'm the exact same way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Keep in mind that in 2000, "Power Gamer" was not yet an insult.
I'd say power gamer was always a bit of a slight (munchkins), but became something worse as MMO's became more popular. The 2 xis grid from WOTC that Ryan posted was once evenly distributed among the RP community and everyone was the better off for it. Now the "Power Gamer" makes up a disproportionate amount of the players who call themselves RPG'ers. The thinker runs a close second, the character actor RP's in the corner in small niches and the storyteller does not exist because the game mechanics of a theme park don't allow for it.
That's where I think PFO can be different. I think we can bring back the storyteller.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's where I think PFO can be different. I think we can bring back the storyteller.
I'm afraid there won't be enough mechanical support, GW developed story, player freedom of action or a malleable setting to allow for this.
PFO is shaping up to be a complex version of capture the flag. Perhaps told from the point of view from each settlement, but the song remains the same.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's where I think PFO can be different. I think we can bring back the storyteller.I'm afraid there won't be enough mechanical support, GW developed story, player freedom of action or a malleable setting to allow for this.
PFO is shaping up to be a complex version of capture the flag. Perhaps told from the point of view from each settlement, but the song remains the same.
I guess what I'm asking for is if GW has a story arc planned. Why are these marked by Pharasma adventurers suddenly appearing in the River Kingdoms? I GW doesn't give us an answer we can make up our own.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why are these marked by Pharasma adventurers suddenly appearing in the River Kingdoms? I GW doesn't give us an answer we can make up our own.
I have my own answer, I paid $20.00 extra for each of my characters to be twice marked, on faith that it would actually mean something really beneficial.
All kidding aside, if GW comes up with any reason for it, it will be generic and not answer your character's question, "Why have I been chosen"? That answer won't be unique, but shared by everyone who bought Twice Marked.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why are these marked by Pharasma adventurers suddenly appearing in the River Kingdoms? I GW doesn't give us an answer we can make up our own.I have my own answer, I paid $20.00 extra for each of my characters to be twice marked, on faith that it would actually mean something really beneficial.
All kidding aside, if GW comes up with any reason for it, it will be generic and not answer your character's question, "Why have I been chosen"? That answer won't be unique, but shared by everyone who bought Twice Marked.
All characters in Pathfinder Online are marked by Pharasma and are thus able to return from the dead at the soulbinding points. You bear the same mark as all other characters but you have a second, distinctive mark
as well. None know why you bear this mark, nor what it may portend in the future, but be sure that Fate has many surprises in store for those who are Twice-Chosen by the Lady of Graves. The bearer of this second Mark
will have access to content and mechanical benefits distinct to those who are "Single-Marked"!
I'd like Twice-Marked to be able to travel in or across different planes to the material plane using their spirits. Their spirit-avatars representation and abilities could be radically different in such a world-plane.
Likewise, I'd like characters that "somehow" lose their "Mark Of Pharasma" to be subject to perma-death. This could be the result of some form of player-policing in combination with the devs. I could imagine the elect Paladin's having this potent weapon via their Holy Orders.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I had thought that the word, so far, was that "twice marked" individuals would be necessary for constructing bind points and would be eligible for "special" extra content?
I think that is right. I'd like to see more done with the concept of "mark of pharasma" - more revolutionary social ideas for the mmorpg if possible and more fantastical experiences as well than normal fantasy mmorpgs deliver. Demanding customer!
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The 2 xis grid from WOTC that Ryan posted was once evenly distributed among the RP community and everyone was the better off for it. Now the "Power Gamer" makes up a disproportionate amount of the players who call themselves RPG'ers. The thinker runs a close second, the character actor RP's in the corner in small niches and the storyteller does not exist because the game mechanics of a theme park don't allow for it.
My operating theory for the last 10 years is that the segmentation has shifted substantially.
MMOs in general are a better fit for the Power Gamers and the Thinkers than tabletop RPGS are. Many people in those segments have quit playing tabletop RPGs or play only very occasionally and the impact broke up a lot of the social graph on the tabletop. The stupendous collapse of the TRPG business during this period is a reflection of that breakdown.
This situation has stabilized. My assumption is that most people who are going to exit regular tabletop play have done so. The graph is slowly healing itself as the people who are left connect with each other and form stronger networks, but the tables now have new segmentation ratios. The challenge now is how to reconfigure the products to match the new segmentation reality, with few Power Gamers and fewer Thinkers. My opinion is that this is why 4e failed; it was built to bring back those lapsed players, and that is never going to work.
On the MMO platform, Character Actors and Storytellers are still better served with tabletop RPGs than MMOs. We are still 20 years from having the kind of tools and AI needed to match the tabletop experience for the Stoytellers. Tools for the Character Actors are coming faster but they're still no where as good as the tabletop. The biggest challenge is that the platform is dominated by Power Gamers, Thinkers, and an older segment which had already left the tabletop when we did that segmentation study, the Killers. Character Actors have to punch their way into the development plans of the MMO space against stiff either/or resistance factors. It is an uphill battle, especially in a landscape of cookie-cutter Themeparks.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well the bone the storytellers (obviously my camp) need that you can throw us is a plot. Stories need a story arc. Just by establishing that we are adventurers with a special gift (marked by pharasma) that have been somehow gathered by the Gods to the River Kingdoms for unbeknownst purposes gives us a launching pad to start the story off of.
I mean that's just something you write up and put on the back of the box. No batteries required. Throw in a couple comments from NPC beginner quests and wallah.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that we want the plot to be derived from the actions of the players. It's a sandbox: we give you tools and ways to interact, then you tell stories with those tools.
The "Storyteller" segment wants that sandbox. The segment you are referring to is Character Actors; they want to play a role in a defined story with constraints imposed by some editorial authority. That isn't our goal at this juncture.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the main reason I focus on story in tabletops, and combat in MMO's is because in a tabletop you generally get the chance to talk before a fight. There are those scenarios where combat just opens up with someone taking a shot at you, but there are also plenty of scenarios where that isn't the case. There is also the mid-battle call for parley, where as the battle is raging you can shout for your opponents to stop and listen to you. And sometimes they do.
In MMOs combat almost always opens up with the firing of a shot, and there is not time to sit there and type to your opponent in the middle of a battle.
Also the reduced consequences for killing and dying just create an environment where nobody really feels like negotiating.
While SAD's are a good start, I'm not really sure there is anything you could do to make MMOs as friendly to storytelling as a table top.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thinking of the After-Action Reports one finds on Paradox's forums for their incredibly detailed strategy games, as well as those so lovingly crafted by Dwarf Fortress players, it's clear that with sufficient creativity and passion, one can find a narrative in essentially any game-format.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I love a good story/plot and subplots. But can really only get those in single player RPGs and some tabletop rpgs.
I got into roleplaying games back in the early 80's for the social interaction of sitting around a table with friends and telling a good story with all of us working together.
I play MMORPGs for the social interaction too, but unfortunately when it comes to story/plot they are either lacking or pretty much non-existent. Until the technology and AIs become better, don't see this changing anytime soon.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thinking of the After-Action Reports one finds on Paradox's forums for their incredibly detailed strategy games, as well as those so lovingly crafted by Dwarf Fortress players, it's clear that with sufficient creativity and passion, one can find a narrative in essentially any game-format.
Here's a good eg of a comic + text Dwarf Fortress one: Bronzemurder
So the simulation is complex enough to form a cohesive narrative post-hoc. I don't play DF but I enjoy reading some of the stories such as, "A dwarf that loses it's legs and has various ribs and bones crushed and an eye but manage to bite the vampire lord in the kneck and kill," it etc!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A few things that may enhance the storyteller are:
1. Character Bio (brief accounting of our character's backstory).
2. Many, Many "story based" accolades that are either standalone and others in story chains, that are earned upon completion.
3. Dungeons and unique Bosses are all "One and Done".
4. Many, Many achievement based accolades (more meaningful then killing 10,000 goblins), but something to fill in the time between GW generated content.
5. A journal that records the accolades in the sequence that they were completed, and with the ability to copy your journal and export it to a document file to be added to if desired.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A good story is about at least one memorable character, within a setting, who must confront if not overcome a significant conflict. The character solves a problem. More memorable characters is usually better. The heroism involved, if any, (or antiheroism for those so inclined) is a function of conflict, and conflict is part of the setting. The conflict may have an agent, the villain. The greater the villain or conflict, the greater the hero who overcomes it/him/her. And the story is also its resolution.
Now I believe the characters are almost wholly the mission of the player, though GW can enhance our efforts with furniture like cosmetics, distinctive clothing and armor and the like. But it is primarily the function of the players to be interesting and memorable.
What is left is the conflict and the setting. For conflict our incessant warring will be a large portion, but GW is also providing us with Factions. For setting GW is building Golarian, and I believe significantly, the Emerald Spire.
GW has also said they would like to build a system by which we can craft special settings for one another, namely dungeons, where 'dungeon' may mean more than an old underground prison...
So when we are requesting tools it would be well if we were specific about the kinds of tools we will need for an appropriate story element.
I don't think all problems to be solved by memorable characters should only be other characters, ut neither do we want to turn our sandbox game into Disneyland.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why are these marked by Pharasma adventurers suddenly appearing in the River Kingdoms? I GW doesn't give us an answer we can make up our own.I have my own answer, I paid $20.00 extra for each of my characters to be twice marked, on faith that it would actually mean something really beneficial.
All kidding aside, if GW comes up with any reason for it, it will be generic and not answer your character's question, "Why have I been chosen"? That answer won't be unique, but shared by everyone who bought Twice Marked.
All characters in Pathfinder Online are marked by Pharasma and are thus able to return from the dead at the soulbinding points. You bear the same mark as all other characters but you have a second, distinctive mark
as well. None know why you bear this mark, nor what it may portend in the future, but be sure that Fate has many surprises in store for those who are Twice-Chosen by the Lady of Graves. The bearer of this second Mark
will have access to content and mechanical benefits distinct to those who are "Single-Marked"!I'd like Twice-Marked to be able to travel in or across different planes to the material plane using their spirits. Their spirit-avatars representation and abilities could be radically different in such a world-plane.
Likewise, I'd like characters that "somehow" lose their "Mark Of Pharasma" to be subject to perma-death. This could be the result of some form of player-policing in combination with the devs. I could imagine the elect Paladin's having this potent weapon via their Holy Orders.
I think this increasing death-penalty idea could work for PvP. Perhaps you lose your mark's efficacy so you lose some skill-training, no if's no but's... if you sink to a certain place it's a a matter of time a goner. And/or your spirit has to navigate a very boring maze or something.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ok, I honestly tried to read all 330 + 639 posts of this thread and the one following up the last blog post on Alignement and Reputation. I can't say I read *all* of the posts, so maybe I missed the answer to my concern.
It's about the fact that CE settlements, because of low rep rules, won't be able to offer high level training and facilities. I don't understand the rationale behind it (apart from the fact of discouraging people from choosing CE as their alignment). After all, a CE settlement might offer excellent training and facilities for a small subset of skills or equipment, specializing in what a CE character might want to do best (assassination, poisoning, commando type disruptive activities, stealth etc, that's only a list of what in my opinion could be offered).
I would probably choose some NG alignment for my first character, since I have a tendency through the different MMOs I played to go naturally along this line. But I think "evil" and even more "chaotic" characters are essential for fun and interesting content in a PvP sand-box MMO. They provide "content" for good, neutral and lawful/chaotic characters to fight against. Nothing is more thrilling than having to do your business in dangerous areas of the game world. It's something I loved in Shadowbane, and found again in EvE, when having to go through infested low-sec or null-sec areas is really fun because of the pirates hanging around and the danger they represent. In the same line of thought, having your POS and POCOS (a sort of EvE equivalent of settlements) attacked by some unknown enemy is part of the fun, and provides opportunities for your corp (aka Guild) to band together and fight.
In short, I'm in favor of letting CE settlements provide high-end training facilities and equipment crafting because it will provide worthy opponents for the whole PFO community.
Here's some quotes about this subject, that illustrate my comment:
Higher end structures, like tier 2 and 3 training and crafting facilities, require the settlement have its minimum Reputation set to certain levels to function. So if you want your town to have awesome training and crafting facilities, you have to set a high minimum Reputation to enter the settlement. This means characters that do a lot of PvP outside of wars, feuds, and such will be forced to visit less developed settlements that are wretched hives of scum and villainy.
-> the original part of the blog that raised my concern
But, to come back to what I think we know about PFO training systems: It costs some of your DI to maintain training facilities. Chaotic settlements are likely to have lower DI than equivalent Lawful settlements. Nothing will stop a Chaotic settlement from offering the highest level training in stealth, archery or melee combat, it just might mean they have to invest a higher percentage of their DI to do so.
-> this what I would like to see in the game: be sure CE settlements can offer these high-level training facilities
What would be a better way of saying it is, "CE settlements will have different advantages and disadvantages that other alignment based settlements will not have, nor suffer from".
-> this too I fully support.
Seeya hopefully soon in PFO,
Moonbird
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Reputation is separate from alignment. While most actions that lower reputation will be chaotic and evil it is possible to have a high reputation character who is one or both of those things. It may even be possible to have a lawful good character with a low reputation.
Basically, reputation is lowered through random slaughter, but there are still aggressive actions such as robbery and assassination that make your character more chaotic/evil without lowering reputation.
Low rep is absolutely designed to make your character suck. Random slaughter is something the majority of the community does not want to be prevalent, and the head of this project has gone so far as to say that they would rather not make this game than produce a murder simulator. So people who do it much will find themselves with terrible characters that live in terrible cities.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... my concern.
It's about the fact that CE settlements, because of low rep rules, won't be able to offer high level training and facilities. I don't understand the rationale behind it (apart from the fact of discouraging people from choosing CE as their alignment).
I think the idea is that chaotic evil settlements will find it challenging to cooperatively build toward an orderly, constructive, cooperative civic organization that efficiently builds much of anything beyond the basics necessary to stay alive. Lawful settlements are by definition lawful and stable which is ideal for mercantile operations. Laws protect private property so there is assurance that your neighbor is less likely to take all your stuffs, which in turn encourages to get more stuffs.
After all, a CE settlement might offer excellent training and facilities for a small subset of skills or equipment, specializing in what a CE character might want to do best (assassination, poisoning, commando type disruptive activities, stealth etc, that's only a list of what in my opinion could be offered).
I would think chaotic settlements would have their own excellences as well. More interesting bars, for one thing, and maybe better beer.
... I think "evil" and even more "chaotic" characters are essential for fun and interesting content in a PvP sand-box MMO. They provide "content" for good, neutral and lawful/chaotic characters to fight against.
No argument from me on that. I just wanted to reveal for you how I see the reasoning works regarding the inefficiencies of chaotic cultures. They tend to be war torn, unreliable, and poor. Other hand they also tend to produce better thieves. But as far as assassins go, I believe the better assassin training will be in lawful evil settlements just because to be successful an assassin must have great self discipline, and discipline is not chaotic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Big construction projects don't work out so well when your co-workers are likely to brain you with a shovel if you don't give them your lunch money.
I really, really hate to take alignment into real world discussions, especially slapping alignments on real world nations.
That said, Chaotic Brazil seems to be doing better than Lawful North Korea.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I see it as a choice:
1. Freedom to "invest" in more permissible PvP with other players of a similar bent; let's call these peeps CE.
2. Choice to "invest" in settlement infrastructure options shared by all cooperatively. Let's call these peeps LG.
I can see 1. as being very fun, log in ambush someone and steal their goods then get together with a pack of players and take on a bigger fish.
I can see 2. as a bit more boring but sense of achievement in the long-run and more time to chat and discuss and organize stuff that needs doing.
Both have their merits. Particularly if they both come with different options for settlements as well as the freedom or expectation of regular and "anything goes" vs "by the book" PvP forms of interaction.
Of course CE/LG are just eg in extremis and perhaps maybe be more exceptional black vs white than the greyer alignments in between that differ less.
But CE beams out the message: Come enjoy PvP! Whereas LG beams out the message, let's build something awesome together!
That's how I see it at the moment. And I hope there's many more egs of horses for courses.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another point made on the subject is that CE has more freedom of action than any other alignment when it comes to attacking their enemies; they have less to lose, and thus warfare is easier for their alignment. I feel this rationale may have also contributed to the lower training for CE. You can have maximum freedom of action (CE), or maximum training available (LG), or go for a mixture of the two (some alignment in between).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Big construction projects don't work out so well when your co-workers are likely to brain you with a shovel if you don't give them your lunch money.I really, really hate to take alignment into real world discussions, especially slapping alignments on real world nations.
That said, Chaotic Brazil seems to be doing better than Lawful North Korea.
I would say North Korea is a lot more evil than Brazil is choatic.
It definately has been demonstrated there is such a thing as too much law even in terms of economic success but for the sake of balance I think it's best to assume law is using sound economic policies. No one will play an alignment with a higher level of restrictions unless they have some incentive.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No one will play an alignment with a higher level of restrictions unless they have some incentive.
No one will play an alignment with a higher level of limitations unless they have some incentive.
CE has both restrictions and no incentive. Don't give me that tripe that they have freedom of action, to a level no one else has. They still have the reputation system that will severally restrict their actions, no one chooses to have their characters suck.
If GW wants to limit CE growth and power, then limit it, but give them absolute freedom of action as well. Have the alignment limit their power, but reputation only contributes to their power the lower it goes.
CE + Low Rep > CE + Mod Rep > CE + High Rep.
CE + Low Rep > CN or CG + Low Rep
CE + Low Rep = CN + Mod Rep < CG + Mod Rep
CE + Low Rep < Any Non Chaotic with Any Rep Level.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Remember that both your core and active alignments must be within one step of your settlement.
It could be that they are designing the whole system in such a way that the only way to be and or remain CE is to either do chaotic and evil things or do nothing. It could just be design that doing those things also carries reputation penalties, a good deal of the time.
Whether it is universally popular is not an issue. It is their game.
That is why they may believe that while playing CE you will almost always suffer from a lower than average reputation. Exceptions may be possible, but are they really doing chaotic and evil things?
The one step rule may be part of what prevents gamming that or any alignment.
Remember that both your core and active alignments must be within one step of your settlement.
Sorry Bringlite that statement according to the blog is incorrect here is the statement where I have bolded the relevant parts
Each settlement has an Alignment that is set by the founding company when the settlement is created. It must be within one Alignment step of the leader of the founding company and the company itself. Once set it can only be changed by leaders of the settlement with sufficient permissions. Only characters within one Alignment step in both their Core and Active Alignment can join the settlement, and if your Core Alignment falls out of that range you are forced out of the settlement.
To summarise what I understand for that
My active and core have to be within one step to join
I can remain a member as long as my core does not deviate
So to use fictional LG settlement I can join as long as my core and active alignments come from the following selection LG,NG,LN
I can remain a member as long as my core remains one of LG,NG,LN even if my active became CE
Thanks Pagan. I should have reviewed that before I wrote the above.
What will it take to involuntarily change your core? Can you actually set at LG and play NE? It would seem that at some point your core should change.
The blog implies that core alignment is changed purely at the owners behest
Core Alignment is chosen at character creation and is the intended Alignment of the character. It is set at the middle of the ranges for the selected Alignment, so a Lawful Good character will have with 5000 in both Lawful and Good. Core Alignment can be changed by players at any time, but only to match the character's current Active Alignment
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So I suppose that the only reason (from info released so far) to keep your core and actives close is to be able to use some of the skills that require them to be so.
There is far less restriction on the range of inclusion for a settlement than I had previously understood. That is, if the alignment specific abilities are of not too much importance to you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thinking about Core vs. Active Alignment, I'm wondering if it makes sense to make changes to your Active Alignment raise in magnitude relative to how far it is from your Core.
For example, a character who has a Lawful Good Core Alignment but a Lawful Neutral Active Alignment would take an increased Evil hit if they performed an Evil act. The same character with a Lawful Evil Active Alignment would take an even bigger Evil if for each Evil act.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No one will play an alignment with a higher level of restrictions unless they have some incentive.No one will play an alignment with a higher level of limitations unless they have some incentive.
CE has both restrictions and no incentive. Don't give me that tripe that they have freedom of action, to a level no one else has. They still have the reputation system that will severally restrict their actions, no one chooses to have their characters suck.
If GW wants to limit CE growth and power, then limit it, but give them absolute freedom of action as well. Have the alignment limit their power, but reputation only contributes to their power the lower it goes.
CE + Low Rep > CE + Mod Rep > CE + High Rep.
CE + Low Rep > CN or CG + Low Rep
CE + Low Rep = CN + Mod Rep < CG + Mod Rep
CE + Low Rep < Any Non Chaotic with Any Rep Level.
This post is based entirely off assumptions except where it's wrong. We know for a fact SADs are a chaotic action and assassinations are an evil action and neither cost reputation so right there we know as a fact that you are wrong in denying CE + high rep has more freedom to act than LG. That's where you are just straight up wrong.
You're also assuming there won't be any other actions that are beneficial to you and considered chaotic/evil actions that don't cost reputation. I'm going to go out on a limb and say this assumption will be proven wrong and you are the one feeding people "tripe".
You didn't make it clear if you equations at the bottom are a suggestion or how you are saying the system works but I'm assuming nobody would suggest "CE + Low Rep > CE + Mod Rep > CE + High Rep."
So assuming they are your calculations of how the current system works you get an F- for presuming to know the quantities of unknowns.
- You don't know how stong the training denied to low reputation settlements is.
- You don't know how much less corruption/unrest lawful/good settlements can potentially achieve than chaotic/evil ones.
- You don't know how much greater the effects that generate corruption/unrest will be in lawful/good hexes than chaotic evil ones.
- You don't know how long it will take lower your corruption/unrest back to the desired levels after it's been generated.
- You don't know how strong the effects of corruption/unrest will be.
You're assuming Goblinworks will be incompetent in balancing all these factors. I see no reason to make that assumption at this point.