Goblin Squad Member
|
Anecdotal: I picked up a Pathfinder novel by Dave Gross (Prince of Wolves, quite the nice read so far, but the Pathfinder vision of evil I find therein makes what we have so far described as 'evil' pale in comparison. What we have been discussing as 'The psychology of evil' is hardly more than a schoolyard tussle.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think Hobs has the right of it here. Alignment is a measure of the (IC) view of one character toward another character in the world. Reputation is more a measure of the view of one player toward another player.
For example: If you were playing a RTS game...and one player was playing the AXIS powers or the Aliens bent on destroying humanity. Clearly, the other side wouldn't have a very positive view of the forces of that side....but as a player that other player might be your best freind, and therefore have a sterling reputation with you. Even if that opposing player pulled a brilliant manuver which was causing you to lose the game, you certainly wouldn't be happy about losing the game, but you wouldn't hold that against your opponent. On the other hand, if you caught your opponent cheating or using an exploit or violating a house rule you guys had setup...THAT would effect the players reputation.
So even if you are getting curb stomped by a bandit....that bandit is playing the game the way it was intended according to the spirit of the rules. Now if that bandit turned around and started logging off anytime a bandit hunter who could fight them came around...that would be a completely different case, even though the bandit might not be technicaly exploiting a bug, they are violating the spirit of how the game was intended to be played.
Edit: So Reputation functions as an incentive system to mechanicaly control undesirable play. Part of that undesired play is EXCESSIVE PvP in contexts which the Dev's want PvP to be rare. Example they want SOME risk of PvP in NPC Starter Towns, but they don't want a ton of it...so hitting folks that engage in PvP there with a Rep hit acts as a disincentive which hopefully keeps that behavior at a minimum. A player might do something like that once for an exceptional circumstance...and take the Rep hit....but if they repeated it on a frequent basis, thay'd be living with the consequence of low Rep.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think Hobs has the right of it here. Alignment is a measure of the (IC) view of one character toward another character in the world. Reputation is more a measure of the view of one player toward another player.
For example: If you were playing a RTS game...and one player was playing the AXIS powers or the Aliens bent on destroying humanity. Clearly, the other side wouldn't have a very positive view of the forces of that side....but as a player that other player might be your best freind, and therefore have a sterling reputation with you. Even if that opposing player pulled a brilliant manuver which was causing you to lose the game, you certainly wouldn't be happy about losing the game, but you wouldn't hold that against your opponent. On the other hand, if you caught your opponent cheating or using an exploit or violating a house rule you guys had setup...THAT would effect the players reputation.
So even if you are getting curb stomped by a bandit....that bandit is playing the game the way it was intended according to the spirit of the rules. Now if that bandit turned around and started logging off anytime a bandit hunter who could fight them came around...that would be a completely different case, even though the bandit might not be technicaly exploiting a bug, they are violating the spirit of how the game was intended to be played.
Edit: So Reputation functions as an incentive system to mechanicaly control undesirable play. Part of that undesired play is EXCESSIVE PvP in contexts which the Dev's want PvP to be rare. Example they want SOME risk of PvP in NPC Starter Towns, but they don't want a ton of it...so hitting folks that engage in PvP there with a Rep hit acts as a disincentive which hopefully keeps that behavior at a minimum. A player might do something like that once for an exceptional circumstance...and take the Rep hit....but if they repeated it on a frequent basis, thay'd be living with the consequence of low Rep.
As long as this is an automated system, I think it works great as described...but I still cannot correlate it with Reputation. Perhaps my difficulty stems from the fact that I tend to play IC, making OOC information meta-gaming (usually something one attempts to avoid while RPing). And, I still hope they give us an actual character-driven reputation tool that empowers us to police ourselves. For instance, I hope towns can keep out all know bandits, not just those with bad "Rep".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would hope that a settlement would have the ability to set their own standings with individuals and other settlements, and have the ability to permit only those with good standings to enter.
"Papers please!"
At that point you start down the road the disguise and anonymity discussion has taken. Could one forge entrance papers into a town? Can you hide your poor standing, or give yourself a good standing with a disguise? Think of someone donning a guard's tabard to gain entry into a town.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That does bring up a clash of in-character and out-of-character information. If I have a bad reputation (out-of-character info) and I am being kept out of a settlement because of it, could I don a disguise (an in-character skill) to circumvent it?
If yes, then you're using in-character skills to negate out-of-character measures designed to punish poor player behavior.
If no, then you're making certain skills far less meaningful due to an out-of-character system.
Thoughts?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am all for disguises being used to "circumvent" systems in place to prevent some people from accessing areas they aren't meant to. If I am CE assassin type, I can't normally stroll into a LG city, but if I disguise myself as a LN monk from a nearby temple, then I am good, assuming they don't see through my disguise. There is a risk there in order to balance the "power" of that skill. After all, How could I, being the assassin, fulfill my contract to kill the LG Pally leader of this town who never leaves the comforts of his home, unless I have disguise and stealth to get me in, close to him, and back out again?
Reward vs risk. This concept needs to be throughout the game. PVP, PVE, PC interaction, NPC interaction. If there is no risk, why reward it? Great risk, great reward. Is the reward worth the risk?? That there lies the question.....
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As it stands now, a settlement can bar access based on alignment and reputation. It would be interesting to see if they could also bar a specific character, by name.
But that ay bring in the use of other mechanics as well, as mentioned disguise, invisibility or just stealth and trespassing.
Hmm I just had a deviously interesting idea, but I'll torture you all and keep it to myself.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Possibly settlements have valid alignment rules, but a disguise depending on the level of skill vs level of protection of the settlement has "disguise burn" meter - the longer in the settlement the more it burns out and is regulated rate by the disguise skill vs protection rating of the settlement?
I can't see too many exceptions to alignment rules however for settlement entry requirements. And what actions/activities would be possible/useful under a limited time entry, disguise degradation? Assassination for one and thieving or sabotage for others?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That is an interesting idea, and would reward having higher skill vs having upgrades settlement. My "Counter" idea would be instead of it based on time, have a base DC set when you don't the disguise. This would be the disguise roll when using it. That becomes the DC for any and all perception checks made to interact with the disguise. So if I have a +20 and roll a 10 (Using TT numbers) I have a DC 30 to see through my disguise. The guards at the gate get one, say they have a +15 perception but only roll a 10, so I get into the gate. But every interaction (not just running by, though you could maybe do a "spot" check at like -5 or something) like the tavern keeper when I order a drink, a trainer if I get training, the palace guard as I enter the palace, and finally the leader/mayor gets one before I show him the purpose for my visit. if ANYONE beats the DC (Which BTW would need rerolled each "Application" of the disguise) then they see through me, and maybe be given the option to cry out that I am not who I claim to be or something. Maybe make it like a chat dialog or something. Maybe I get a perception to see if I have been spotted and then I decided what to do about it. (silence the person spotting me before they let out the truth perhaps LOL)
The point being, give it a small variation (in TT is the dice roll) added to the skill level so that maybe this time it works, but on the way out, the guards notice me (Cause they rolled a 15 with their +15) and attack me as I leave. This adds risk to me, but makes it fun for me to try and see what I can get away with, but also reward, meaning I did what I came to do, steal training, maybe fulfill a contract, whatever.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I know this is a dying cause but I still believe reputation should be tied to each disguise/character. Just like a name should be tied to a disguise. Think of it like an alter-ego. If I am Milo the CE assassin normally, but I have a disguise that makes me Mervin the LN Monk, and a 2nd disguise as Lady Bella the LG fighter, then "my" reputation should be based on the guise I am wearing. Meaning that if I allow Milo's rep to become low because of all the murdering I do, but I don the Mervin guise and am able to pass into a town and acquire sanctuary because I have earned a decent rep with the town as Mervin. Now if someone saw through my disguise and saw that Mervin really is Milo the murderer, then the Mervin disguise is mostly useless and I lose the rep he had.
That again, this is considering rep as more of a fame/infamy scale of how known you are throughout the town, area, world, instead of the "currency" that GW wants it to be. Even so, I personally intend to run Milo the assassin, but will maintain a high reputation so that no matter which guise I use, I will have plenty of rep to access whatever I want. Now if it is alignment based, like pally Lay on Hands power, then my rep could be over 9000 and I still wouldn't be the LG to use it. One could argue I could possibly train it, given the right rep and exp cost and a guise that passed me off as LG, but I would not be able to use it, nor would I personally want it, unless I repented my sins and became LG.
Side note, I would LOVE!!! some sort of a world wide reputation, the kind to see how well know you are, as I think that would be cool. If EVERYONE knew my name and feared me, that would be cool, even if I never visited that part of river kingdoms. Not needed for the game, but would be cool.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
With this being an mmo, I think that a hidden countdown with a semi-variable time (based on skill?) would be a valid way to simulate/abstract the many, many NPC checks vs the disguise, and the fact that disguises themselves break down over time. A LG settlement who purchased some additional anti-disguise training for their guards might be too difficult to sneak into at all for most people, and if you do get in the amount of time you could remain might be really short.
Regardless of the actual methods, it should be expensive (time, skill, spell, coin, or contact-wise) to steal into a settlement that's trying to keep you out normally.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I know this is a dying cause but I still believe reputation should be tied to each disguise/character. Just like a name should be tied to a disguise. Think of it like an alter-ego. If I am Milo the CE assassin normally, but I have a disguise that makes me Mervin the LN Monk, and a 2nd disguise as Lady Bella the LG fighter, then "my" reputation should be based on the guise I am wearing. Meaning that if I allow Milo's rep to become low because of all the murdering I do, but I don the Mervin guise and am able to pass into a town and acquire sanctuary because I have earned a decent rep with the town as Mervin. Now if someone saw through my disguise and saw that Mervin really is Milo the murderer, then the Mervin disguise is mostly useless and I lose the rep he had.
That again, this is considering rep as more of a fame/infamy scale of how known you are throughout the town, area, world, instead of the "currency" that GW wants it to be. Even so, I personally intend to run Milo the assassin, but will maintain a high reputation so that no matter which guise I use, I will have plenty of rep to access whatever I want. Now if it is alignment based, like pally Lay on Hands power, then my rep could be over 9000 and I still wouldn't be the LG to use it. One could argue I could possibly train it, given the right rep and exp cost and a guise that passed me off as LG, but I would not be able to use it, nor would I personally want it, unless I repented my sins and became LG.
Side note, I would LOVE!!! some sort of a world wide reputation, the kind to see how well know you are, as I think that would be cool. If EVERYONE knew my name and feared me, that would be cool, even if I never visited that part of river kingdoms. Not needed for the game, but would be cool.
I posted something very similar in the Anonymity and Disguise thread, basically the ability to have a separately identifiable disguise that is tied to your character, but i disagree with the ability to disguise reputation.
From my understanding negative reputation means you have been doing things that the Devs have decided is against the spirit of the PVP that they want. I feel that if you have been undertaking such activity, you shouldn't just be able to put on a new face and go and train those skills in places that would normally be prohibited to you.
The ONLY leaderboard type thing I would be supportive of is one that shows POSITIVE reputation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@wiseman, I agree and you are prolly right. I was referring to low or negative rep as more of an infamy thing, not the in game mechanic they want it to be. I agree that "putting on a new face" would defeat the whole purpose of the in game mechanic. I was more meaning the disguise giving access to a city that normally wouldn't be allowed, due to war or alignment. I am not sure if reputation would be on the list of ways to deny entry. If it is, then maybe that will be the one "end all be all" for keeping people out. But then again, if your right and rep is the way of telling people who "follow the rules" set by GW and those that do not, then I am ok with that, because I intend to prove being CE with a high rep is possible. Keep people out based on rep, but allow disguise to circumvent alignment and war/unfriendly restrictions to settlement entry. Reward those training in those skills. Otherwise, we can't sabotage or fulfill assassination/BH contracts in towns we can't enter. I want the threat of not being safe anywhere, weather they actually are or not.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...The ONLY leaderboard type thing I would be supportive of is one that shows POSITIVE reputation.
I agree with this. Again, when I was referring to rep, it was fame vs Infamy, not the in-game mechanic they want it to be. I wanted to see who the most "famous" and well known "good" guy is, and who is the most well known and feared "bad" guy is. I wanted to know if people throughout the land know my name, or just the people in my settlement? Have my deeds of contract kills giving me a name to those I have never met? Have the names of those doing good deeds been passed along to those who have never met these "champions" of good?
That is what I meant.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@wiseman, I agree and you are prolly right. I was referring to low or negative rep as more of an infamy thing, not the in game mechanic they want it to be. I agree that "putting on a new face" would defeat the whole purpose of the in game mechanic. I was more meaning the disguise giving access to a city that normally wouldn't be allowed, due to war or alignment. I am not sure if reputation would be on the list of ways to deny entry. If it is, then maybe that will be the one "end all be all" for keeping people out. But then again, if your right and rep is the way of telling people who "follow the rules" set by GW and those that do not, then I am ok with that, because I intend to prove being CE with a high rep is possible. Keep people out based on rep, but allow disguise to circumvent alignment and war/unfriendly restrictions to settlement entry. Reward those training in those skills. Otherwise, we can't sabotage or fulfill assassination/BH contracts in towns we can't enter. I want the threat of not being safe anywhere, weather they actually are or not.
I think a high rep will cover both fame and infamy, as bhunters/assassins/thieves still gain positive reputation as long as they use the right flags, which is why i think it's a good idea. I intend on having at least one alt as a CE or NE, so I am still hanging out to hear how one can move along the G----N----E axis without losing reputation.
I am 100% in favour of everything else being disguisable. Race/class/alignment/faction colours, you name it. IMO Assassins and BH should gain a bonus to their stealth AND disguise skills over time, instead of the improved crit chance. It signifies the time spent studying a mark and planning out how to take him down. I would then give him an ability that does heavily increased damage to anyone that is unaware of his presence/true identity to allow him to have the capacity to quickly take down a target.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That is a fair and well thought out idea to counter the 1 shot kill, but still allow for "fast" kills that the assassin needs to apply his trade. I could work with that. I still think my suggestion is better. (The one in the assassin thread about requiring flag on + contract on target + long CD on the ability to 1 shot, and it still not be 100% kill) I would be happy with either of these ideas. Thank you for working with me (us) and finding the compromise on this topic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ha, well that is what these forums are for!
The death penalties as they are (mostly non-existant), the pain from one shot kills wouldn't be too bad anyway.
Does it state anywhere that you need to have a contract to assassinate someone? Or can you kill someone randomly under the assassin flag? This is where I think your idea is maybe slightly better, as it prevents random ganking.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ha, well that is what these forums are for!
The death penalties as they are (mostly non-existant), the pain from one shot kills wouldn't be too bad anyway.
Does it state anywhere that you need to have a contract to assassinate someone? Or can you kill someone randomly under the assassin flag? This is where I think your idea is maybe slightly better, as it prevents random ganking.
An assassin who gains the attacker flag resets his time-based bonus to stealth and critical. Other than that, there is no limitation to who the assassin flag can be used against.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if the disguise provided a disguised reputation that players see, but it does not fool the NPC trainers? Then a disguise could only be used for role-play purposes (infiltration of a settlement, etc.) and not to circumnavigate the punitive nature of reputation when it comes to things like training.
To me, a disguise is most often worn to fool people in a quick "drive-by" sense...to hide your real identity for short periods (e.g. sneaking past guards), but not to fool people when under close and/or prolonged scrutiny, especially if they know what you look like to begin with. Given this view, I agree with the reduction of its effectiveness over time. A disguised assassin, unless finding a safe hiding spot in an enemy settlement, is running against the clock to get in, do his job, and slip out without being detected.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Other than war, assassination, bounty hunting and trade, I don't see a purpose of disguising your way into a settlement. Training will likely not be your purpose.
Example: A settlement that is Lawful Good and Reuires High Reputation to enter. Lets say it bars Chaotic, Evil and Low reputation. By this very set up the settlement only trains, to its maximum: Lawful and Good.
What CE Assassin with a low reputation is going to need Lawful or Good training, at their highest level?
That CE Assassin w/ LR is going to seek out the highest training in Chaos and in Evil. But, likley won't find them in the same place because that would require a CE settlement with high rep, which will be rare.
So our nasty little assassin is going to get his Chaos training in a CN settlelemt. And his Evil training in a NE settlement. He will never have to risk entry into Lawful (Good, Neutral or Evil) or Good (Lawful, Neutral of Chaotic) to get what he needs.
The real issue is the low reputation. Although most settlements may resrict membership into their settlements based on reputation, fewer will restrict visitors, and some will have a hard line on it.
But, I have detailed in other threads, and perhaps in this one as well, there are ways to still play your character in any profession and with any alignment and still have a moderately good or even high reputation score.
Just use the flags correctly, stick to the "meaningful interactions" that the devs have said they want to see, and you can still steal and even kill your way through the River Kingdoms and still have a good reputation score.
I know there are some who can not wrap their minds around that last part. Reputation has nothing to do with morality, it has nothing to do with you and it has nothing to do with your settlement's views. It is a relection of how a character is behaving in accordance with the Devs' concept of what is good for the game and its total community.
So until they say otherwise:
My Bandits and I robbing from your caravans, is good for the game.
Your hunting us down and killing us, is good for the game.
Some small settlement (regardless of alignment) getting wiped out is good for the game.
Some large settlement (regardless of alignment) getting attacked from a small coaltion of smaller ones, and getting torn to bits, is good for the game.
The only major thing that is not good for the game is:
The lack of conflict on the part of players vs. other players in a meaningful and consequential way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I understand some of you feel chaotic and evil players shouldnt get reputation. Hell it doesnt make any sense to me either. The problem is if chaotic and evil have no way to get rep, then they cant get training. And therefore cant be competitive. Unless y just want lawful and good to just be able to face stomp the chaotic and evil?
Personally, id be in favor of finding new anti griefing tactics and re doing the reputation system to include a negative spectrum of rep that worked well with things and training chaotics and evils need.
Short of tha, if you take away things like SAD and a couple flags, then there isnt much left to give you rep being chaotic or evil other than war. That really only leaves gaming the system by refusing positive alignment shifts as you do "good deeds" to gain rep. Which is just dumb, id rather gain reputation as silly as this sounds through doing criminal behavior, totally natural for a bandit.
Im open to other suggestions, but basically those suggestions have to include ways to ensure bad guys can get the settlements, support, and training they need. And if your first reaction is that bandits and the like shouldnt be able to progress or that it should be ridiculously hard, then just dont even respond. If I am a bandit and do not grief, then I should be able to have that playstlye, and not at the expense of progression.
I’ve been lurking and following this thread with some interest and some interesting points have been raised.
My suggestion (which matches some prior suggestions) would be to allow a positive and negative reputation scale from -100 to +100, with everyone starting on 0. In regards to training, there could be three classes of buildings; normal (-50 rep to 50 rep), reputable (75 rep to 100 rep) and shady (-100 rep to -75 rep). To build a reputable blacksmithing building a community would need a high average reputation score, while to build a shady blacksmithing building a community would need a lower reputation range.
The upkeep/efficiency cost of the three types of building is dependent on the ‘quality’ of the building. Reputable training centres are harder to qualify for (and retain), but are more efficient and cheaper to run, while shady buildings are less efficient and cost more to run. Also the actual reputation of a community would decide how efficient and costly a building is to run maintain. The more disreputable a community the greater the costs to run these buildings. If a communities reputation falls outside of the range required reputation then the building become inoperable. They could either tear it down and build something else, or pay an cost to change the quality of the building.
Another factor could be to require characters to have a certain level of personal reputation to qualify to use a building. So a shady weapon training building may decline a stuck-up Paladin who wants to train there.
If you want to be a bandit, necromancer, or slaver then you could do so, as long as there is a community with the right kind of training facilities for you. So a bandit who uses SAD wouldn’t need a reputation increase as they would have access to buildings and communities that would allow them to train and be competitive with the goodly counterparts. Perhaps using SAD would negate alignment penalties if any for robbing people, but still impact on their reputation.
Having a reputation from -100 to 100 would also allow bragging rights. So you want to join Bluddwolfs band or merry bandit? Go back to school Mary Poppin’s, until you’re man enough (i.e. you have low enough reputation) to play with the grown-ups.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Gah, Zimbardo. What a grotesque hack--he's literally the opposite of science. "Oh Hai guys I am going to ask privileged children at Standord to pretend they are prison guards/prisoners to find out about prison guards/prisoners. Oh wait wut this isn't naturalistic empirical work and is worthless (plus unethical)? Oh then really wut I was doing was exposing evil."
I mean seriously, this guy has been flogging this nonsense for decades, making money out of telling people anecdotes they want to hear ("Who know what eveil lurks in the hearts of men? Zimbardo knows!").
You don't get to pick your data arbitrarily in science. You do pick your data, collection method, analytical methods, etc., but it can't be just random, arbitrary cherry-picking: "Humans are fundamentally evil...umm...let me see...right there, Abu Ghraib!" What is the scientifically plausible reason for taking detention facility A, which used EIT and had amateur custodians who violated civil rights of detainees as data, but NOT taking detention facility B, which used coffee and skittles (literally) for interrogations? There could be a reason, but absent a well articulated data selection rationale, I'm left with "cherry-picking to get confirmatory evidence."
Ultimately Zimbardo's work is worthless in a scientific sense because he makes unsupported generalizable claims. If he wanted to pick out Abu Ghraib and do qualitative analysis, to understand with precision what happened there so as to gain portable insights, ok great. But don't cherry pick one example, ignore all the counter-examples, generalize broadly, and then pretend that's science.
Thanks, Mbando.
I've since looked into this more and I think you're right.I do still think anonymity has an intoxicating effect, but the prior link was a poor example.
Maybe this article will balance things a little.
