Blatant contradictions in Blog: Alignment and Reputation

[Tyncale]

I wonder about corruption and Unrest too.

[Ravenlute]

Being wrote:

You are suggesting that settlements are entities, which they are not. A settlement's reputation is an aggregate of the player characters in it.

Perhaps you mean other wording because this was posted by Ryan here.

Quote:

Quote:

1.) Can the founding company of a settlement share control with other groups, mechanically, other than by adding them to the founding company?

The act of creating a Settlement creates a new entity separate from the company. The two entities then diverge as their members desire. Companies don't run Settlements.

This statement was in relation to a different question but clearly states that Settlements are their own entities.

[Bluddwolf]

Nihimon wrote:

@Lee Hammock, did you intend to give this impression?

Tyncale wrote:

Yes, so no direct mechanical influence of a character that is becoming low-rep to the Settlement he belongs to: he just will not be able to enter his own city anymore as long as the Leaders of that city keep the reputation treshold(and thus the quality of the buildings) on the same level.

Good thing to know that members going Low rep will not be able to disadvantage their fellow Settlement members in a direct way.

I did not get that impression.

I did however see within the design that Lee described the unwritten downside to setting a settlement threshold too high.

A settlement setting its entry level reputation too high will obviously limit the population size. It will also, more likely than not, also reduce the PvP focused demographics of its settlement as well.

[Forencith of Phaeros, TSV]

Bluddwolf wrote:

It will also, more likely than not, also reduce the PvP focused demographics of its settlement as well.

What about using feuds, war decs, and other non-Rep negating routes to engage in PvP makes you think those who prefer it are somehow less PvP focused than you?

EDIT: As ex-front-line military myself, I know I was not less "mission-oriented" when I was actively training for the mission as opposed to performing the mission. Both kept me "mission-oriented" and ready for the next one.

[Bluddwolf]

Forencith of Phaeros, TSV wrote:

Bluddwolf wrote:

It will also, more likely than not, also reduce the PvP focused demographics of its settlement as well.

What about using feuds, war decs, and other non-Rep negating routes to engage in PvP makes you think those who prefer it are somehow less PvP focused than you?

EDIT: As ex-front-line military myself, I know I was not less "mission-oriented" when I was actively training for the mission as opposed to performing the mission. Both kept me "mission-oriented" and ready for the next one.

Not all gamers that are PvP centric players are going to have the patience for accumulating influence to feud. That is not saying they are griefers or random player killers, it is just that they may be less concerned about reputation and more concerned about mission objectives.

What many settlements will do is:

1. Set the minimum reputation to what ever level still allows for the highest training.
2. Compare the difference between the highest level of tier to skill versus the tier 3 skill.
3. Try to determine how much of the available population that minimum reputation level is barring from their settlement.
4. Continue to adjust until optimal minimum reputation is discovered.

Here is the good news, once that optimal level is discovered, that will become the server standard, and anyone below that rep level will find themselves with few PC settlements to go to.

[Forencith of Phaeros, TSV]

Bluddwolf wrote:

Forencith of Phaeros, TSV wrote:

Bluddwolf wrote:

It will also, more likely than not, also reduce the PvP focused demographics of its settlement as well.

What about using feuds, war decs, and other non-Rep negating routes to engage in PvP makes you think those who prefer it are somehow less PvP focused than you?

Not all gamers that are PvP centric players are going to have the patience for accumulating influence to feud. That is not saying they are griefers or random player killers, it is just that they may be less concerned about reputation and more concerned about mission objectives.

So, in this case, what is the mission of your ADD gamer versus the mission of a player that has saved the influence and war dec'ed? If the ADD gamer does not have the patience to build some influence before acting, what does that say about their level of preparedness and combat readiness? Unfortunately, will alone is often insufficient to win a fight.

I have to admit, I am not really concerned about your ADD gamers as a threat in the conquest game for the reason I hinted at above. I think it is safe to assume, their lack of patience, coordination, and foresight will be evident in the long term...rather, my only concern is how their unpreparedness and lack of utilization of mechanics will make their PvP be perceived as griefing and RPKing...and well, do we really need to have another debate about perception and reality?

[Bluddwolf]

Forencith wrote:

I think it is safe to assume, their lack of patience, coordination, and foresight will be evident in the long term...rather, my only concern is how their unpreparedness and lack of utilization of mechanics will make their PvP be perceived as griefing and RPKing...and well, do we really need to have another debate about perception and reality?

I believe you are jumping to a conclusion that all instances of not expending the time or the influence before taking an action is the result of a mental disorder. I find that characterization to be a bit insensitive to be honest.

Not having the patience could also be the result of the immediacy of the action that is demanded. I also state in a previous post, these instances should be rare.

Apparently there still needs to be a discussion on perception and reality.

[Audoucet]

Bluddwolf wrote:

Not all gamers that are PvP centric players are going to have the patience for accumulating influence to feud.

Yeah, young people these days, they want everything now now now, they don't want to work for it.

[Lee Hammock]

Nihimon wrote:

@Lee Hammock, did you intend to give this impression?

Tyncale wrote:

Yes, so no direct mechanical influence of a character that is becoming low-rep to the Settlement he belongs to: he just will not be able to enter his own city anymore as long as the Leaders of that city keep the reputation treshold(and thus the quality of the buildings) on the same level.

Good thing to know that members going Low rep will not be able to disadvantage their fellow Settlement members in a direct way.

That is currently the plan. We don't want to let one shmuck with a bad attitude go on a PvP murder spree and ruin your town for you. As with everything we may change our minds once we see how things are playing out.

[Nihimon]

Thanks for the clarification, Lee.

[Ravenlute]

Lee Hammock wrote:

Nihimon wrote:

@Lee Hammock, did you intend to give this impression?

Tyncale wrote:

Yes, so no direct mechanical influence of a character that is becoming low-rep to the Settlement he belongs to: he just will not be able to enter his own city anymore as long as the Leaders of that city keep the reputation treshold(and thus the quality of the buildings) on the same level.

Good thing to know that members going Low rep will not be able to disadvantage their fellow Settlement members in a direct way.

That is currently the plan. We don't want to let one shmuck with a bad attitude go on a PvP murder spree and ruin your town for you. As with everything we may change our minds once we see how things are playing out.

Yup, good to have that stated.