Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes there are some real problems. I hadn't thought about "free harvesting" or "free transport of goods", for instance (until just now). I suppose that would be possible if the unaffiliated couldn't attack or be attacked. I am sure that would not work out well.
Hmmm....
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What exactly is there to deal with?It is what it is at this point. We cannot just plan out ways to nerf unaffiliated characters due to fears that they may be used to PVP.Right. There should be no plan to deal with scenarios that people are already actively planning.
Have you honestly missed this entire thread? The one you're posting in here?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Agreeing with Xeen on that one: the unaffiliated alts will suffer a lack of training and ability to effectively use gear if they remain unaffiliated and/or low rep alts. That's the consequences built into the rep system, not being avoided in any way but instead being accepted. Doesn't seem like an abuse to me yet, until there's some way to make the alt just as effective in combat without affiliation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreeing with Xeen on that one: the unaffiliated alts will suffer a lack of training and ability to effectively use gear if they remain unaffiliated and/or low rep alts. That's the consequences built into the rep system, not being avoided in any way but instead being accepted. Doesn't seem like an abuse to me yet, until there's some way to make the alt just as effective in combat without affiliation.
I'd agree if I knew it'd be enough. It might be. I'm not making that assumption.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Doubling rep loss and disabling pvp for unaffiliated characters is well... Lets just go with a bad idea.
No disabling PVP for anyone, period. GW said it wont be done, and lets not make an exception for it.
Doubling rep loss is for things like breaking a SAD or other type deals.
Here it is, Unaffiliated characters will have no access to high end training. That is their gimp. Lets not add to it.
Unaffiliated alts do not get around consequence PVP. The training they have will be training that is taken away from another character, or training someone paid extra for. It really doesnt need to be more complicated then this.
Edit: You want no consequences for killing unaffiliated PC's? Thats fine, so long as they have no consequences for killing affiliated PC's.
One of the problem with "unaffiliated's", Xeen, is that one of the big consequences that the PFO designs in for engaging in hostile activities like robbing merchants and raiding is that your company/settlement can in turn be feuded or declared war against allowing for lawfull targeting in PvP as a consequence of those actions. "Unaffiliated's" circumvent that because there is no target to DoW or Feud in return.
Now if the target was truely "unaffiliated" then suffering all the negatives of not having any supporting settlement/company might help counter-balance that. However, as I currently understand the proposed mechanics...a player can circumvent all that by simply being officialy "unaffiliated" as far as the game system can understand but largely circumvent the mechanical drawbacks by having a supporting organization provide him most of the benefits of affiliation without formerly declaring such...in fact the unaffiliated could simply be an ALT of an affiliated character and working in collusion.
So, IMO, either way have to have some way of lawfully targeting the unaffiliated character in a way that actualy has consequence to them or we have to have some way of ensuring they can't be provided with ANY of the benefits of affiliation while still remaining officialy unaffiliated.
The problem I see with the latter approach is I think it would likely be really difficult to do mechanicaly and might end up too much of a gimp to characters legitimately starting out unaffiliated or trying to recover from loss of settlement organization. The former approach I would argue is better.....but I would want to see some controls placed around it that limit the circumstances under which it is applied to keep it from being an open hunting season on unaffiliated's. Which is why I've argued that settlement owners be given the ability to manualy mark such characters as "tresspassers"....giving the character sufficient time to leave the settlements territory or become hostile.
If SAD is seen as a legitimate mechanism for responsible banditry (which I think a solid arguement can be made for) then surely something like this which is far more limited in scope and application should be considered a legitimate mechanism for law enforcement within a settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Have you honestly missed this entire thread? The one you're posting in here?What exactly is there to deal with?It is what it is at this point. We cannot just plan out ways to nerf unaffiliated characters due to fears that they may be used to PVP.Right. There should be no plan to deal with scenarios that people are already actively planning.
1) Ryan stated that throw away alts will not be effective.
2) THEY WILL NOT BE CIRCUMVENTING THE REP SYSTEM, THEY WILL BE SUFFERING CONSEQUENCES3) Why are we still trying to nerf play styles? I do not understand it one bit.
4) People will be PVPing in a PVP centered game. Get used to it.
5) You will be required to sink XP into those characters
6) Sure you can put them on the side and rebuild rep... but does anyone remember how long that takes? I figured almost a year if they are -7500 from passive gain.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreeing with Xeen on that one: the unaffiliated alts will suffer a lack of training and ability to effectively use gear if they remain unaffiliated and/or low rep alts. That's the consequences built into the rep system, not being avoided in any way but instead being accepted. Doesn't seem like an abuse to me yet, until there's some way to make the alt just as effective in combat without affiliation.I'd agree if I knew it'd be enough. It might be. I'm not making that assumption.
That will be the key. It still remains that these guys will be effective vs. low level characters and "ideally" there should be no easy way around the system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Toxic play styles should not be accommodated. A "play style" is not a sacred defense. They are not "suffering" consequences if they don't care about the consequences. If your intent is to throw away a character or simply do not care about your reputation, it simply doesn't matter how long it takes to "recover." I highly doubt anyone who makes it to -7500 ever intended to have their character have any reputation at all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are not getting around the system, you will take rep and alignment hits and you will not have high end training.
@Grumpy Mel - Sure, they can not be feuded. Im not sure that matters anyway... Those will be the guys you do not want to feud anyway... as it will just cost you.
I suppose that I can wait and see if it works as planned, or what they will do if it doesn't. I am in it for the long haul and I do have confidence in GW "evolving" the system. Some of the concerns have been detailed (boy howdy they have!) and GW is more invested in making the game work well, than any single one of us.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
2) THEY WILL NOT BE CIRCUMVENTING THE REP SYSTEM...
You are not getting around the system...
You're switching to a less capable alt (please, spare me the hypothetical where your main has no combat expertise) in order to accomplish a particular goal with the clearly expressed intent of avoiding the Reputation hit on your main. And you're going to say that's not "circumventing" or "getting around" the system?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You WILL be spending XP on the character.
It will get the consequences.
Each of you will have multiple characters, are all of you going to sit there and tell me that you will not have a combat character and a "other" (crafting/gathering) character?
It actually amuses me that you Nihimon would chime in on this. Ryan said this will be in the game, and is part of the game... Normally you bow at whatever he says.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Who said not much? Do you really think the character will be effective with a couple months XP? Ryan said that throw away alts will NOT be effective. He said this many times for over a year.
So Ryan has said they're going away from a relatively flat power-curve? He's always said that a few months of training is all you need to become useful in PvP. That said, being restricted to Tier 1 gear limits you to the worst dice. However I'm sure you've heard the term "Zerg Rush" or of an organization known as the Goonswarm. One low effectiveness character? Sure, laugh at them as you stomp them. 1000? More? Maybe you can bat off 50 before you succumb to their numbers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are not getting around the system, you will take rep and alignment hits and you will not have high end training.
@Grumpy Mel - Sure, they can not be feuded. Im not sure that matters anyway... Those will be the guys you do not want to feud anyway... as it will just cost you.
The point is Xeen, they won't be ENGAGE-ABLE by Law Enforcement while operating in Law Enforcement's territory no matter how many past crimes they've commited in that territory.
What I want to prevent is this scenario...
Day 1 - Bandit SAD's non-PvP merchant in owners territory. Escapes before Law Enforcment can respond.
Day 2 - Bandit SAD's non-PvP merchant in owners territory. Escapes before Law Enforcment can respond.
Day 3 - Bandit SAD's non-PvP merchant in owners territory. Escapes before Law Enforcment can respond.
(All of the above perfectly fine so far....the problem comes the next day)
Day 4 - Law Enforcement intercepts bandit skulking in thier territory.
- Law Eforcer "Get out. If you've commited banditry in this territory every day this week. You aren't welcome here"
- Bandit "You can't make me. I haven't commited a crime in the last 20 minutes in this territory so as far as the system is concerned I'm completely innocent...and I'm unaffiliated with any settlement or company so you can't lawfully target me...hence you have nothing you can do to PROTECT your merchants from me. I'll hang out until you logoff then attack a merchant when I feel like it...and the only way you can stop it is become a criminal in your own territory"
What I want to stop is the above scenario. It's patently absurd that a settlement owner has no ability to exersize soveriegnty over who is allowed into thier territory without being subject to hostile action by thier millitary/law enforcment. They have that ability if the intruder is affiliated with a company or settlement (through War or Feud).....they lose it once the intruder is not. It's patently absurd that they can't effectively enforce the law in thier own territory without becoming a criminal there themselves.
If we really wanted to make this realistic....once a person commited a crime in a territory they'd remain a criminal there forever after...unless absolved by the settlements own justice system or laws. While not advocating to do so....as banditry should be a viable path within the game.....law enforcment/millitary should not become automaticaly handcuffed simply because a character chose to remain unaffiliated.
Finally the bandit really doesn't suffer much due to lack of high level training because thier desired prey will usualy be merchants/crafters with no PvP training or experienced....once they run into people with serious combat capacity, most of them will not want to engage in the first place or run if they are already engaged.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
The method of implementing the penalty for low-Rep characters with a settlement is to make their settlement kick them out (or "suck").
The penalty for not being in a PC settlement is identical to the penalty for getting kicked out of a PC settlement. If the way to evade the consequences of low Reputation is to embrace them proactively, then I don't see the problem.
Keep in mind that there's no reason for even the worst PC settlement to be a step down from the NPC settlements. That would remove the factor that drives low Rep characters to those settlements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@All - power curves
I've always thought that the way the power curve will likely work is this:
Newbies
When you are a "new" character, you'll be fragile and weak. That does two things:
1: It encourages you to stay in reasonably safe areas and focus on learning how the game works, rather than trying to be Conan on day one.
2: It makes "disposable alts" a less viable option. Making a new character is not an "I win" button for PvP if you do it with a herd of your friends.
Average
At some point, you move into the "normal" power curve of the game; what we've talked about being equivalent to the kind of power you typically see from about 6th level to about 10th level (what I call the "heroic adventuring" part of a Pathfinder tabletop RPG character's career).
This is where you find that the development of your character becomes a process of being very good at a wide range of activities. You'll be able to "catch up" to a character that's older than you in a given activity given a few months of dedicated play and training, but that older character will have the advantage of being very good at a variety of things, not just one thing.
This is essentially what happens in EVE Online.
A small group of reasonably experienced "heroic adventurers" should be able to fight off a horde of new characters, A heroic adventurer should be able to beat a small number of new characters fairly easily.
Balance comes when you have conflict between groups of heroic adventurers. In such encounters, the absolute age of the characters should be less important than their tactics, gear, coordination, and player skill.
Old Vets
There will likely be a small number of old, experienced, wealthy, well equipped PCs who will be really dangerous. You won't want to cross them.
If they show up in a fight, they can tip the balance quickly. If they act in concert as a group, it will take a lot of Heroic Adventurers to keep them in check.
Moderating the power of these Old Vets is an obvious long-term challenge for the game designers and I'm sure we'll have lots of ideas on how to keep them from getting out of hand. But I'm also sure that it will be pretty fun to play one too. :)
If 20th level is 2 years, then 6th to 10th level is what 6 months to a year?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The method of implementing the penalty for low-Rep characters with a settlement is to make their settlement kick them out (or "suck").
The penalty for not being in a PC settlement is identical to the penalty for getting kicked out of a PC settlement. If the way to evade the consequences of low Reputation is to embrace them proactively, then I don't see the problem.
Keep in mind that there's no reason for even the worst PC settlement to be a step down from the NPC settlements. That would remove the factor that drives low Rep characters to those settlements.
It's not a REP issue...and with SAD and the way RAIDING is setup, bandits won't need to suffer REP loss in order to engage in banditry.
The issue is that part of what is built into the game is that if an organization engaged in repeated hostilities against another organization through methods such as banditry it COULD be lawfully subject to hostilties in return. This means that the agressor can't ALWAYS dictate the time and circumstances of any engagement. If the agressor sent a raiding force or a bandit force into the territory of the defender that force COULD be intercepted and engaged by the defenders forces before they do any damage. This no longer holds once the agressors force is made up of unaffiliated ALTS.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Keep in mind that there's no reason for even the worst PC settlement to be a step down from the NPC settlements. That would remove the factor that drives low Rep characters to those settlements.
The Dec 18 blog stated: Having a negative Reputation will mean that certain settlements will be off limits to you. Having a Reputation below -2500 means you cannot safely enter most NPC or starter settlements.
- Characters must be a member of a settlement (fact)
- Characters under -2500 rep cannot enter most NPC settlements (fact)
- Characters can enter the settlement they belong to (assumption)
- There will be some NPC settlements with rep limits below -2500 (assumption)
Depending on how many NPC settlements are there for the really low rep characters, there might be some PC settlements with rep limits between -7500 and -2500. They might often be pets of other settlements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The method of implementing the penalty for low-Rep characters with a settlement is to make their settlement kick them out (or "suck").
The penalty for not being in a PC settlement is identical to the penalty for getting kicked out of a PC settlement. If the way to evade the consequences of low Reputation is to embrace them proactively, then I don't see the problem.
Keep in mind that there's no reason for even the worst PC settlement to be a step down from the NPC settlements. That would remove the factor that drives low Rep characters to those settlements.
It's not a REP issue...and with SAD and the way RAIDING is setup, bandits won't need to suffer REP loss in order to engage in banditry.
The issue is that part of what is built into the game is that if an organization engaged in repeated hostilities against another organization through methods such as banditry it COULD be lawfully subject to hostilties in return. This means that the agressor can't ALWAYS dictate the time and circumstances of any engagement. If the agressor sent a raiding force or a bandit force into the territory of the defender that force COULD be intercepted and engaged by the defenders forces before they do any damage. This no longer holds once the agressors force is made up of unaffiliated ALTS.
That is where Ryan talked about... You will have to take a hit for the good of your settlement. If you want you can use an alt for this right?
Although other then feuds, im not sure how your example only holds true for unaffiliated alts.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the way to evade the consequences of low Reputation is to embrace them proactively, then I don't see the problem.
My objection is to the double standard: I don't care if you're flagged, because I've proactively embraced being Low Reputation, but you should still care whether or not I'm flagged. It's like a compulsive liar who expects others to be truthful.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Xeen,
If your purpose building ALTS to prey on merchants/crafters and non-PvP characters then any advanced combat training would be completely superflous if not entirely wasted. Why would you need advanced PvP skills to engage characters who had no PvP skills slotted and little to no experience using them if they did?
I believe this notion is even fully supported by Bludd's comments about running around in EvE flagged Red and never getting engaged by non-PvPers.
Under this paradigm....the only characters that advanced PvP training would be usefull against (Law Enforcement/Millitary) can't legaly force a combat engagement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the way to evade the consequences of low Reputation is to embrace them proactively, then I don't see the problem.My objection is to the double standard: I don't care if you're flagged, because I've proactively embraced being Low Reputation, but you should still care whether or not I'm flagged. It's like a compulsive liar who expects others to be truthful.
If someone embraces their low reputation, they will be flagged. Its like talking about a double standard where there is none...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Xeen,
If your purpose building ALTS to prey on merchants/crafters and non-PvP characters then any advanced combat training would be completely superflous if not entirely wasted. Why would you need advanced PvP skills to engage characters who had no PvP skills slotted and little to no experience using them if they did?
I believe this notion is even fully supported by Bludd's comments about running around in EvE flagged Red and never getting engaged by non-PvPers.
Under this paradigm....the only characters that advanced PvP training would be usefull against (Law Enforcement/Millitary) can't legaly force a combat engagement.
You dont need the high end skills in that situation, but when you run into someone who does you will die.
The thing is, with your arguments, the characters that are built for this very subject will be perma flagged for PVP. So Law Enforcement will be fully capable of engaging them consequence free.
If you cannot engage consequence free... Then engage with consequences, If Law Enforcement will not enforce the law, no matter what... Then I suggest finding someone else to enforce the laws.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The method of implementing the penalty for low-Rep characters with a settlement is to make their settlement kick them out (or "suck").
The penalty for not being in a PC settlement is identical to the penalty for getting kicked out of a PC settlement. If the way to evade the consequences of low Reputation is to embrace them proactively, then I don't see the problem.
Keep in mind that there's no reason for even the worst PC settlement to be a step down from the NPC settlements. That would remove the factor that drives low Rep characters to those settlements.
It's not a REP issue...and with SAD and the way RAIDING is setup, bandits won't need to suffer REP loss in order to engage in banditry.
The issue is that part of what is built into the game is that if an organization engaged in repeated hostilities against another organization through methods such as banditry it COULD be lawfully subject to hostilties in return. This means that the agressor can't ALWAYS dictate the time and circumstances of any engagement. If the agressor sent a raiding force or a bandit force into the territory of the defender that force COULD be intercepted and engaged by the defenders forces before they do any damage. This no longer holds once the agressors force is made up of unaffiliated ALTS.
That is where Ryan talked about... You will have to take a hit for the good of your settlement. If you want you can use an alt for this right?
Although other then feuds, im not sure how your example only holds true for unaffiliated alts.
So instead of doing economic damage to a settlement due to banditry you knock out thier millitary by forcing them to Alignment/Rep bomb themselves into oblivion. You are presenting a no win situation for a settlement. In no way does that represent any sense of game balance.
The only alternative would be for a settlement to resort to using thier own set of unaligned criminal ALT's to enforce law in thier own territory. Which while it may end up being functional is patently absurd from a world logic standpoint.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If someone embraces their low reputation, they will be flagged.They'll be often flagged, but only at times of their own choosing. I would be perfectly content if they were actually flagged at all times.
If someone embraces their low rep...
Then they will be low rep right? Probably not spending any time to increase their rep since they have embraced it correct?
At some magic number, you will be perma flagged as hostile.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Xeen,
If your purpose building ALTS to prey on merchants/crafters and non-PvP characters then any advanced combat training would be completely superflous if not entirely wasted. Why would you need advanced PvP skills to engage characters who had no PvP skills slotted and little to no experience using them if they did?
I believe this notion is even fully supported by Bludd's comments about running around in EvE flagged Red and never getting engaged by non-PvPers.
Under this paradigm....the only characters that advanced PvP training would be usefull against (Law Enforcement/Millitary) can't legaly force a combat engagement.
You dont need the high end skills in that situation, but when you run into someone who does you will die.
The thing is, with your arguments, the characters that are built for this very subject will be perma flagged for PVP. So Law Enforcement will be fully capable of engaging them consequence free.
If you cannot engage consequence free... Then engage with consequences, If Law Enforcement will not enforce the law, no matter what... Then I suggest finding someone else to enforce the laws.
How exactly will they be perma-flagged for PvP?
...and under what logic is a Soveriegn entity not legaly allowed to enforce who is allowed into it's territory?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So instead of doing economic damage to a settlement due to banditry you knock out thier millitary by forcing them to Alignment/Rep bomb themselves into oblivion. You are presenting a no win situation for a settlement. In no way does that represent any sense of game balance.
The only alternative would be for a settlement to resort to using thier own set of unaligned criminal ALT's to enforce law in thier own territory. Which while it may end up being functional is patently absurd from a world logic standpoint.
Its not at all from a world logic standpoint.... It is done right here in the US on a daily basis. We use mercenaries to fight our wars. The police proactively arrest people for crimes they planned to commit.
Your not going to alignment or rep bomb yourselves into oblivion. The guys that use the tactics you suggest will not be in mass numbers. To think that is more absurd then crime prevention.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you cannot engage consequence free... Then engage with consequences, If Law Enforcement will not enforce the law, no matter what... Then I suggest finding someone else to enforce the laws.
So is your solution to ensure that law enforcement is kicked from their settlement because they must frequently engage those intentionally circumventing the system? If they do, they'll become less effective at their role.
Or is it that this should be a very rare occasion and rarely occurs?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
At some magic number, you will be perma flagged as hostile.
I'm flattered that you've taken my suggestion to that effect as if it were an official statement from Ryan or the devs, but that's not the case. At least, I'm not aware of any official statement that anyone will be perma-flagged even at -7,500 Reputation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How exactly will they be perma-flagged for PvP?
We are talking about throw away low rep alts right?
...and under what logic is a Soveriegn entity not legaly allowed to enforce who is allowed into it's territory?
Im kinda missing this point... I said if you have people in your settlement who will not proactively enforce the laws, then fire them and find someone else who will.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If someone embraces their low reputation, they will be flagged.They'll be often flagged, but only at times of their own choosing. I would be perfectly content if they were actually flagged at all times.If someone embraces their low rep...
Then they will be low rep right? Probably not spending any time to increase their rep since they have embraced it correct?
At some magic number, you will be perma flagged as hostile.
Citation Please?
Furthermore....we've seen Bludd argue correctly that bandits using SAD and/or RAIDING need suffer no reputation losses....so that kinda kills the idea that an unaffiliated character engaging in hostilities will end up with low reputation in the first place.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If someone embraces their low reputation, they will be flagged.They'll be often flagged, but only at times of their own choosing. I would be perfectly content if they were actually flagged at all times.If someone embraces their low rep...
Then they will be low rep right? Probably not spending any time to increase their rep since they have embraced it correct?
At some magic number, you will be perma flagged as hostile.
Citation Please?
Furthermore....we've seen Bludd argue correctly that bandits using SAD and/or RAIDING need suffer no reputation losses....so that kinda kills the idea that an unaffiliated character engaging in hostilities will end up with low reputation in the first place.
Mel, we are arguing 2 subjects at once...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
At some magic number, you will be perma flagged as hostile.I'm flattered that you've taken my suggestion to that effect as if it were an official statement from Ryan or the devs, but that's not the case. At least, I'm not aware of any official statement that anyone will be perma-flagged even at -7,500 Reputation.
Thats because its logical. If they are going to use the rep system as stated, it makes sense.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I know they havent said it officially, but do you really think someone at -7500 rep will not be perma flagged?
If they didnt do that it would shock the hell out of me.
Yes. Mostly because that's an unfounded assumption. If it turns out to be something the developers deem beneficial, they'll implement it. And as you've been pointing out, they may decide that lack of high level training is enough punishment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How exactly will they be perma-flagged for PvP?
We are talking about throw away low rep alts right?
Im kinda missing this point... I said if you have people in your settlement who will not proactively enforce the laws, then fire them and find someone else who will.
...and under what logic is a Soveriegn entity not legaly allowed to enforce who is allowed into it's territory?
No your arguement is that Law Enforcment must resort to continualy breaking the laws in order to enforce them, which will result in thier inability to enforce the law within thier own settlement. You are arguing for a catch-22 situation which is unresolvable and I'm rather suspecting you know it at this point.
The only effective recourse a settlement will be left at enforcing it's laws under this paradigm is to utilize UnAligned Criminal Alts to do so.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How exactly will they be perma-flagged for PvP?
We are talking about throw away low rep alts right?
Im kinda missing this point... I said if you have people in your settlement who will not proactively enforce the laws, then fire them and find someone else who will.
...and under what logic is a Soveriegn entity not legaly allowed to enforce who is allowed into it's territory?No your arguement is that Law Enforcment must resort to continualy breaking the laws in order to enforce them, which will result in thier inability to enforce the law within thier own settlement. You are arguing for a catch-22 situation which is unresolvable and I'm rather suspecting you know it at this point.
The only effective recourse a settlement will be left at enforcing it's laws under this paradigm is to utilize UnAligned Criminal Alts to do so.
I disagree that they will not be able to enforce their laws in their own land.
If it gets crazy, then they have the monsters to rely on. Which do not have to be unaffiliated but should be.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes. Mostly because that's an unfounded assumption. If it turns out to be something the developers deem beneficial, they'll implement it. And as you've been pointing out, they may decide that lack of high level training is enough punishment.I know they havent said it officially, but do you really think someone at -7500 rep will not be perma flagged?
If they didnt do that it would shock the hell out of me.
? Are you kidding?
Rep is similar to security status, Ever go to -5 in Eve? Being that you can reach -10, and at -5 you are kill on site for everything in the game.