Goblin Squad Member
|
Through the blogs, GW tells us there will be a reputation system (see blog Screaming For Vengeance under alignment and reputation). Reputation will be "clearly" visible to players, and low reputation will come with penalties regarding quality of settlement you can build, and settlements you can enter.
The same blog talks about how reputation loss will be greater when killing someone with a high reputation, and lower when killing someone with a low reputation.
So far it just sounds like a system that provides consequences that are mild for engaging in some PvP, but higher for engaging in a lot of PvP (other than wars).
So then we get to the next blog (I Shot a Man in Reno Just To Watch Him Die) which talks about different PvP "flags".
First concept regarding reputation, is they introduce to the system a way for bandits and assassins to not lose reputation if they follow a code of conduct while doing their thing. And that kinda makes sense to me, and kinda not. Following a code of conduct while committing disreputable acts is not reputably neutral.
My suggestion there would be to put a cap on how much reputation can go down while following such a code of conduct. A good upstanding citizen can't continue to be seen in said light while he goes around mugging caravans, just because he's only making threats and not actually killing people. And it would be an absolute scandal if it were found out that your mayor were sneaking around in the night assassinating people. The scandal would not disappear simply because he pointed out that he was following a contract. Well, unless you live in Evilville.
Which brings us to the second point from said blog (I Shot a Man in Reno Just To Watch Him Die) that mentions the following:
If an Assassin has had his flag active for at least an hour and kills a character with an active bounty or assassination contract, the Assassin gains bonus reputation up to a daily max.and
When an Outlaw receives a ransom from stand and deliver, they get reputation up to a daily max.
?!?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So maybe they're using the word "reputation" here to mean different things?
Maybe in these latter cases they're talking about the kind of reputation you get as being good at what you do, and not the kind of reputation by which people judge whether or not they want you setting up a daycare in their neighborhood.
If that's not what they meant, then maybe, just maybe they better start meaning it that way.
But that's two separate systems we're talking about now. Would be lovely to get some feedback on what GW thinks about this.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What I have been inferring is that there is a reputation numberline. At center it is zero. as your reputation decreases due to nefarious breadmaking your reputation grows more and more notorious, until you are infamous. Or, as your reputation increases due to selfless gifting, smiling, gaiety, flower tossing, and similar industries your reputation grows in renown until you are adulated.
If you wish to train in assassination 204b or 205 you will have to be at least disreputable, and your tutor might or might not be found in an evil place, likely chaotic but possibly neutral evil or even lawful evil.
If you wish to train in flower tossing 204b or 205 you will likely need adored status or better.
So either way you see reputation gain, it is only a question of which polarity it is gaining: positive or negative.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So you're suggesting that an assassin would have the same opportunities to train, based on the same spectrum as a bandit?
In any case, Stephen Chaney has confirmed in the evil thread that that isn't the case.
Reputation gating isn't really about what your town wants. There are just buildings that you can't install or keep running if they're going to have disreputable folks around them. For whatever reason, they don't have any problem with charming bandits and gentleman assassins, but don't want to deal with kill-happy paladins. Maybe the people that you have to hire to work there just hate drama, and don't care about ideology.
At the highest level, though, we will often do things that maybe don't make total sense from a simulationist view because what would make more sense would also be way less fun (e.g., permadeath and prison).
Do note that the Outlaw and Assassin flags are designed as something you won't want to reset very often (because then you have to restart accumulating bonuses), so you're still often going to want to go to an Outlaw or Assassin-friendly settlement because lawful and/or good ones may happily slaughter everyone they see with such flags even if they can technically pass the reputation gate.
We're also in a fantasy realm, and fantasy stories are full of places where outlaws and assassins are admitted, if not appreciated, into polite society if they're not indiscriminate killers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Blaeringr,
First off you are looking at reputation as good vs. bad, as in moral vs immoral. The Devs are looking as how we interact with others, while playing within the mechanics given to our roles.
Reputation gating isn't really about what your town wants. There are just buildings that you can't install or keep running if they're going to have disreputable folks around them. For whatever reason, they don't have any problem with charming bandits and gentleman assassins, but don't want to deal with kill-happy paladins. Maybe the people that you have to hire to work there just hate drama, and don't care about ideology.
At the highest level, though, we will often do things that maybe don't make total sense from a simulationist view because what would make more sense would also be way less fun (e.g., permadeath and prison).
Do note that the Outlaw and Assassin flags are designed as something you won't want to reset very often (because then you have to restart accumulating bonuses), so you're still often going to want to go to an Outlaw or Assassin-friendly settlement because lawful and/or good ones may happily slaughter everyone they see with such flags even if they can technically pass the reputation gate.
We're also in a fantasy realm, and fantasy stories are full of places where outlaws and assassins are admitted, if not appreciated, into polite society if they're not indiscriminate killers.
Then remember from the Dev Blogs, what they have said the consider to be "Meaningful PvP" vs. "PVP they don't want to see".
I have said it a number of times, in a number if threads, and the Devs ( Stephen and Ryan) have reaffirmed their vision as well.
They want bandits to rob players, Assassins to assassinate players, Bounty Hunters to track down and kill Murderers, Enforcers to hunt down Criminals, Paladins to crush great evil forces, etc....
All of these roles have equal value in their eyes. I think this is what some people are struggling with. Some are so used to Theme Park MMOs pushing the good guy, first, good guy now, good guy always, mentality that they struggle with the idea that the bad guy has an equally important place in the story. Not just someone that has to be stomped out, but someone that has to be supported by the designers and allowed to equally thrive with the good characters in the setting.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
From my understanding, reputation does not have to do with whether they want you setting up a daycare. Reputation has to do with your overall good to the community at what you do.
The wonderful breadmaker doing his bread deliveries, will have the same sort of reputation as the flower deliverer, which will be positive reputation.
The person who mindlessly kills everyone he see's for no reason or motivation, will have extreme negative reputation.
Both the breadmaker and the mindless murderer will have an evil alignment most likely, but the breadmaker is providing a service to the community, even if it is a service that some customers would rather not have delivered to them.
The biggest key difference in reputation, is the breadmaker could run the daycare if he wanted. When his flag is down, you pretty much know he's off duty.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ya, Stephen's comments clarified it up a bit.
It helps me to think of it as similar to what reputation meant in the real world in medieval times, as opposed to how poets of the time described it, or modern day concepts of reputation. Knights could still be considered reputable but still be a thug and a jerk at the same time.
Vebelenist "reputability" if you will.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being,
Sir, I believe you have that incorrectly. Negative is not a good Reputation in any settlement or other player's view, good or evil, chaotic or lawful.
What I take from what the devs have said, especially in the ones posted by Stephen Cheney, Reputation is a measure of how well you play a role, while interacting with other players, and that interaction is beneficial to the game community.
I could be an Assassin and kill people every day, and as long as I used an Assassin's flag and only killed characters that I have an active contract on; or only those that my settlement is at war with; or only those that are PVP flagged and have a lower reputation than me.... I will have a high reputation.
The Devs have designed the game mechanics to see me as a positive force in the game world. Positive does not mean, moral or "Good", but beneficial.
Assassins, Thieves, Paladins, Clerics, Fighters, Mages... or should I say the roles of those professions are all equally needed for a healthy game world.
@ Iron Vanguard,
Just a slight addition to what you wrote:
"I assumed Reputation was supposed to be more OOC, related to how the player is interacting with others."
Player Character plays in a role, within the rules and systems of the game, while meaningfully interacting with other players = High Reputation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So you're suggesting that an assassin would have the same opportunities to train, based on the same spectrum as a bandit?
...
Where both have the same reputation and access to equal tier training sites I don't see how it could be otherwise. If one did not have access to a same-tier training then no, but not because they couldn't were that training available.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being,
Sir, I believe you have that incorrectly.
Sounds like it, doesn't it. I was in the same good/bad spectrum in my thinking and could only find footing using the numberline that goes both ways. Instead what you have ensorcelled from out of the miasma of unknowing from the devs is that reputation has to do with how valuable you are to the game environment. The good/bad spectrum does not account for the mechanic of players awarding one another reputation, or expending reputation in order to curse someone (because that could be anyone, good or evil or lawful, etc.).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Reputation is a measure of how well you play a role, while interacting with other players, and that interaction is beneficial to the game community.
So, when you take the goods my community has worked hard to produce...or the resources my community needs for the construction of our next building, you think that is beneficial the the "game community"? It does not seem very beneficial to our community.
I do not get how what you are talking about has anything to do with any possible stretch of the definition of "reputation"...and I am going to be really annoyed if I have to answer a survey after every "ganking" or "theft" about how pleased I was by the encounter. Clue...I will not be.
I only see a bunch of people who want to destroy what others are building...trying to justify their position. Fine, I support your right to play as you wish, and I understand you are technically "adding content" to the game, by the same token so does making training more difficult. As long as it is not impossible, who cares if it takes you longer, or the challenges are more onerous when it comes to training...that just means you get to enjoy more of the game! You should not be complaining, you should be thanking GW...at least that is how I see it...by your own logic. I after all, am being asked to thank you with a rep bonus when you make our game more difficult, time consuming, and onerous...
Again...I will accept your right to play as you wish, as long as you accept the consequences of your choices.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There are countless infamous murders, thieves, scammers, and very bad people in the history of the real world and fiction. They have really bad reputations.
There are also countless lovable, admirable, dashing, and intriging bandits, rouges, jewel thieves and pirates that have great reputations.
There is alot of precedent for frustrating but admirable rouges.
The reputation mechanic is nothing more than a way that allows people to play bandits, assassins, thieves, ect... and be viable characters in the world. It gives them incentives not to grief players but still get to play the rascal.
That is all that it really is. It doesn't make sense when you look at it from all angles but it will, possibly work. Time will really tell. If you think about it, insta-ressurection, magical healing, and dragons don't make alot of sense either, but they make the game funner for everyone.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Understood Blaeringr. I have read the blogs and the discussions here, the logic here is just too counter intuitive for me to accept. I think it is more likely that something was either said incorrectly in the blogs/posts or we have interpreted it wrong.
But, my logic stands that if I am suppose to thank bandits for making my life more difficult, and they want to argue this is the correct direction for the game, and they want to claim this is all a good thing...then they have no leg to stand on when they complain about difficulties faced by their choices...those difficulties after all are added content and they should be thanking GW for making their life more difficult, and they should argue this is the correct direction for the game, and they should claim this is all a good thing. I am only pointing out what I see as a logical inconsistency.
And I admit, I am building a bit of a straw man by hybridizing two debates/topics. To fix that:
One, if GW has stated that this is what reputation will be and that is beyond reproach, I am very confused because it has no connection with the the semantic content of the word "reputation". No amount of logical broadening of the term gets me close. As I stated above, I must assume we are in err.
Two, bandits claiming it is acceptable for them to make others life more difficult while getting upset over someone making their life more difficult...need I say more?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Understood Blaeringr. I have read the blogs and the discussions here, the logic here is just too counter intuitive for me to accept. I think it is more likely that something was either said incorrectly in the blogs/posts or we have interpreted it wrong.
But, my logic stands that if I am suppose to thank bandits for making my life more difficult, and they want to argue this is the correct direction for the game, and they want to claim this is all a good thing...then they have no leg to stand on when they complain about difficulties faced by their choices...those difficulties after all are added content and they should be thanking GW for making their life more difficult, and they should argue this is the correct direction for the game, and they should claim this is all a good thing. I am only pointing out what I see as a logical inconsistency.
I absolutely agree with some of your post Kit. They really should not complain if it is hard to gain/keep a high rep if they want to play that way.
One thing I do not agree with: You really don't have to like bandits or thank them. I know I won't. I will accept that they do exist and chaulk it up as part of the cost of doing business. I will dream of the day when I will outnumber or outsmart them and they will be made unhappy. =D
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One thing I do not agree with: You really don't have to like bandits or thank them. I know I won't. I will accept that they do exist and chaulk it up as part of the cost of doing business. I will dream of the day when I will outnumber or outsmart them and they will be made unhappy. =D
I have no qualms with bandits, I accept they will be present...I am having serious issues with the current understanding for the reputation system that will require me to give them a rep bonus if they play a bandit well. What's the difference? All we are going to care about is the fact that we just lost our 8 hours of work. That does not contribute positively to the community I am part of.
Let me give them bad rep because I do not like them or want them in my town and I will accept their presence without complaint. I will accept that their quick material gains (and my loses) are countered by difficulties elsewhere...and my long (honest) efforts at material gain are balanced by quicker training and such.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Understood Blaeringr. I have read the blogs and the discussions here, the logic here is just too counter intuitive for me to accept. I think it is more likely that something was either said incorrectly in the blogs/posts or we have interpreted it wrong.
But we've asked that question - that maybe we've misunderstood the blogs. Read Stephen's response quoted near the top of this thread.
If you want to make it fit with the definition of reputation, I suggest substituting Veblen's "reputability". Or think of high school, where some (not all) of the most popular kids were also some of the meanest. Maybe not the best analogy of what they're going for, since they don't want griefers, but I think the high school analogy at least clears it up a little.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Understood Blaeringr. I have read the blogs and the discussions here, the logic here is just too counter intuitive for me to accept. I think it is more likely that something was either said incorrectly in the blogs/posts or we have interpreted it wrong.
But we've asked that question - that maybe we've misunderstood the blogs. Read Stephen's response quoted near the top of this thread.
If you want to make it fit with the definition of reputation, I suggest substituting Veblen's "reputability". Or think of high school, where some (not all) of the most popular kids were also some of the meanest. Maybe not the best analogy of what they're going for, since they don't want griefers, but I think the high school analogy at least clears it up a little.
I see and understand your argument, thank you for attempting to clear it up for me. Unfortunately, I must admit you have not swayed my position...and I realize I am probably wrong like so many times before. But, my position is stated here for GW and community to read, I do not need to continue the debate, we can agree to disagree.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Disagree on what?
I agree that it doesn't make sense in terms of reputation, or other ways.
What you're disagreeing with is a stance GW has stated, and then clarified in the exact same context of the objections you're now presenting. I really don't see where you think there was room for disagreement in the first place.
When I suggested we get on the same page before moving on, that's what I was talking about.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I will wait for confirmation/clarification from GWs...then you can tell me you told me so.
Done.
So first, I said this (and there were other comments along the same line)
To which Stephen Cheney, "Goblinworks Game Designer", replied:
Perhaps brushing up on the latter contents of this thread will bring you up to speed:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pmbi?And-Evil-Shall-Inherit-the-World|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Stephen Cheney gave an ambiguous response to a situation posited by you that begs the question. You provided a scenario that already in its formation assumed the truth about how reputation was going to work...it is all very illogical, uncomfortable, and outright odd in my opinion. I know I would never say those things.
Stephen Cheney responded as best he could to an odd scenario.
I still think that the reputation system as understood by those at the top of this thread is not rational and would be confusing to a large portion of the community...and hence misused, so why bother implimenting? I still argue that a misunderstanding took place somewhere, you have only provided evidence that the misunderstanding might have begun even further up, on GWs part when trying to understand questions from the community.
But...even if the interpretation is correct, I still think it is irrational and misleading and will be misused. I will just need to expand my willingness to disagree to GW and bow out of the discussion.
EDIT: And I would have to admit my first serious game design disappointment. Reputation is the only thing we, the community, have to police ourselves. This model removes (or at least limits) that ability.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Kitnyx,
I'm going to try to address a few points with you, from several of your posts. This reflects my understanding of what the Devs have said, and I'm pretty sure I understand correctly though maybe not at 100%.
1. Reputation is not a reflection of morality. It reflects the player character acting within a certain role, within the rules and mechanics of the game, creating meaningful PVP interactions. Because a player does these three things, they will earn a positive reputation, not from you or your settlement, but from the game's mechanics.
2. The Devs never said the being Chaotic, or Evil or even having low Reputation will be a significant hinderence. But, if you are all three, then you will have difficulty finding a community that will accept and train you. The major detractor is the low reputation.
3. The way to end up with a low reputation is to do the activities that the Devs have said are behaviors they do not want to encourage or even see at all. Griefing and random player killing are the two major ones as far as PVP is concerned. There are also at least two PVE activities, raising dead and using slaves that lowers Reputation. I don't agree that they should, but since I'm not a Necromancer or plan on using slaves, I'll let those people fight their own battle.
4. This last point is a bit tricky for me to write, and I'm sure you will greatly disagree with it and perhaps deny it.
You said that you should not be thankful that others will undo what you worked so hard to build. That is not really a big picture view of what PFO is designed to be. PFO is designed to be an Open World PvP Sand Box MMO. What that means is that player actions are in conflict with the actions of other players and the pursuit of building and potentially hindering others is the content of the game. Yes, the game is about building settlements, but they are competing for limited space and resources, this will breed the conflict.
If the game were designed following what you have said, you and your community would collect its resources virtually unhindered, build your settlement free of conflict or the fear of conflict, and there would be little or no content ..... Without the PVP, meaningful PVP, the game would die (according to what Ryan Dancey has said in recent posts).
So it is not you giving positive reputation to the bandits or assassins or raiders storming your settlement's walls when you are at war. It is the game system that is rewarding those players for properly using flags, playing roles and interacting with other players in what the designers feel us a positive way, for an Open World PvP Sand Box MMO.
You and those others that agree with you might not like that, but it is what it is. If Open World PvP is not your cup of tea, I'm not sure what your looking for here in PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm cross posting this from another thread, not because I think my opinion needs to be pasted everywhere, but because this post likely belongs here more than on the "[Meta] the Psychology of Evil" thread that got side-tracked by a discussion of reputation.
I'll also preface it by paraphrasing Jiminy by saying that "reputation" may not have been the best name for this system in that it does cause players to have the wrong conception of what the system is tracking.
Quoting myself:
I know I had as different a take on reputation as other posters here seem to have. It caused me to wonder why we needed both alignment and reputation.
The difference seems to be that alignment is more of an in-character measurement of your character's behavior while reputation is an out-of-character measurement of the player's choices and behavior provided for all players to see. Alignment has in-character repercussions, where as GW's view of reputation is a means of controlling player behavior.
Before understanding the difference, I was also in the camp of thinking, "Why would robbing me give anyone positive reputation?" In a fully fleshed out world (i.e. all possible roles being played by players), GW sees the need for there to be people playing the role of bandits who rob people - rob, not kill as their only/favorite means of gaining the target's coin/goods. To incentivise such role-playing, they've created the Outlaw flag which provides you bonuses for playing the role correctly (i.e. the way GW believes it should be played). If played this way, the risk of travel is increased so as to make other roles equally important (e.g. personal bodyguards, caravan guards, road patrols, etc.), the economy has another factor in play, harvested/refined/crafted goods have another means of leaving the game, etc. Not only does it provide incentives for playing a the role of a bandit, but it disincentivizes people from stealing from each other via random player-killing - a behavior that plenty of people have complained about on this forum and GW wishes to control, if not totally remove from the game due to its detrimental effect on player fun and canceled subscriptions.
So as odd as it seemed to me before, to give someone positive reputation for their stealing, I need to keep reminding myself that we're not rewarding the character with positive reputation, but the player for playing a role the way GW has outlined it. As I said during my Team Speak discussion with several players the other night (two of whom plan to play bandits), my character might get robbed by them in-game and I might be upset in-character over my loss, but out-of-character, I definitely want them in the game, playing their role - it's a richer, more realistically dangerous world with them in it. More importantly, knowing that the person siting at the computer, controlling that bandit, is a player who still cares about me as a fellow player and with a concern for the PFO community, rather than a yahoo trying to make my life as a player miserable, makes all the difference. That I can hop into game chat or onto team speak, say, "Good job, you got me that time," and know there's nothing hateful or malicious coming from the bandit player reassures me that the bandit player will be right there beside me in any discussion of what's best for the game and the community.
That's my take on reputation - trying to reward the player for playing their role without trying to ruin the game, while penalizing those who don't and, by making reputation obvious to all players, making it harder for for them to hide from the rest of us.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Hobs,
Well said, and I hope others realize the same. It is not really a matter if us taking away from them, out of some malicious desire for lolz. We are playing a role within the realm of player vs. player competition.
What some may not realize is that those of us who will be playing the less savory types, will not be monolithic in our play style. I may play as a bandit most if the time, but I will also be clearing out hexes of monsters, guarding caravans that I've been hired to protect, questing against the creatures found in dungeons, and fighting wars against the enemies of my settlement or as a mercenary against the enemies of my employer.
Interestingly enough, I think it will be more difficult to not become Chaotic Good, than it will for me to slip into Chaotic Evil. I'd also hope and work hard at maintaining a positive reputation, by "playing a bandit right".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Then call it role points or something...because it obviously has nothing to do with reputation. As described, it will be used wrong.
Unless, as mentioned in another thread, it is an entirely automated process....then I could not care less and I still hope GW gives we the players some means to rate/police ourselves...because this is not it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There are also at least two PVE activities, raising dead and using slaves that lowers Reputation. I don't agree that they should, but since I'm not a Necromancer or plan on using slaves, I'll let those people fight their own battle.
I haven't seen anything suggestion that. The heinious flag doesn't seem to say it lowers reputation, and if it did that'd be silly, being flagged heinious is enough reason to do it with caution. It does make you evil.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
There are also at least two PVE activities, raising dead and using slaves that lowers Reputation. I don't agree that they should, but since I'm not a Necromancer or plan on using slaves, I'll let those people fight their own battle.I haven't seen anything suggestion that. The heinious flag doesn't seem to say it lowers reputation, and if it did that'd be silly, being flagged heinious is enough reason to do it with caution. It does make you evil.
In addition, I don't think raising dead should have any penalties at all, unlike animating dead or raiding UNdead...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And now for my next trick: I will attempt to keep my posts in the relative threads.
Have I been understanding what I have been reading correctly:
1. Bandits that stop people and offer SAD will gain rep if the person pays up?
2. Bandits offer SAD, person refuses SAD, bandits attack and kills person. No one gains or loses rep?
3. Bandits offer SAD, person refuses, person attacks and kills bandits. No one gains or loses rep?
4. Bandits offer SAD, traders pay, bandits kill traders, bandits lose double reputation? (This is courtesy of Nihimon)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Im not so sure about #3. Is there not a Good or Law flag that could ne used and then someone doing SAD could get killed by victim. Victim of SAD gets rep, and obviously bandit wouldnt get any, but wouldnt loose any either. I dont have all the flags in front of me so I might ne wrong.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So, here's a question. If banditry is illegal where the SAD is occuring, do they get the criminal flag the moment they issue the SAD, or does it wait to see how it resolves first?
At the very least, it would have to wait until the SAD had been resolved. If the SAD was accepted, no crime was actually committed, so no attacker flag would be triggered. Without the attacker flag, there is no criminal flag.
Again, there is a misconception taking place in this thread. Attacker flags only convert to criminal flags where there are laws in that settlement against unauthorized attackers. Banditry, SADs or out right Attacks will likely not be taking place in settlement hexes. Banditry is designed to take place farther from settlement hexes, to add response time from NPC wardens and to shield the activities from laws.
What some of you believe is that bandits would be so bold as to rob the bank, across the street from a police station, and an FBI field office.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To an extent 'Reputation' can be viewed as an aspect of the player, not the character, whereas alignment is wholly a character aspect. Think of reputation as a measurement of how big of a jerk the person is. It could be that they want to play out being a big jerk, which is their choice, but more often than not it will be someone who is being a jerk 'for the lulz'. Definitely not something that GW wants to encourage, and so the jerk character must as a result operate under the same restrictions as the jerk player.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Greedalox The only flag my merchant is likely to be flying is Traveller. I do see your point though. For instance a guy flagged "Enforcer" might get rep for the kill?
@Nihimon Thank you. I should have included that also.
@Dario By logic, a criminal act gets a criminal flag where ever the act is illegal. Whether the criminal act is succesful or not. We will see if they work that in. Good question.
@Anyone
So, on the one hand (SAD issued, SAD paid, merchant defeated, no merchant killed) the bandit gets rep.
On the other hand (SAD issued, SAD refused, bandit defeated i.e. killed or driven off) the merchant gets no rep?
Doesn't seem equal. I know that it is a mechanic to allow people to play bandits, etc. and not have to grief. I get that. Say though that I want to play a character that does not pay bandits. I will make my character well able to contest bandits that accost me. Well and good.
My "Player" recognizes that his merchant character is going to need rep just as much as that "Player's" bandit character. Shouldn't both Players have equal # of ways to earn rep?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not every encounter must, or should, end with the potential for reputation shift on either side. Your merchant could be gaining rep by delivering goods as part of a contract. The bandit (unless they want to deliver the goods for the contract) gains no such opportunity for their actions. By rejecting the SAD, the merchant is accepting a PVP flag, and as a matter of course normal PVP doesn't generate positive or negative reputation.
Each profession should have their own ways of generating reputation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Im not so sure about #3. Is there not a Good or Law flag that could ne used and then someone doing SAD could get killed by victim. Victim of SAD gets rep, and obviously bandit wouldnt get any, but wouldnt loose any either. I dont have all the flags in front of me so I might ne wrong.
I re-read the Flags, and didn't see anything that would give you +Rep for attacking Outlaws. Champions and Enforcers do get a Reputation bonus (similar to Outlaws and Assassins) but it's tied to time with the flag on, rather than individual kills.
Champions gain +Good for killing "evil" characters. Enforcers gain +Lawful for killing characters with the Criminal Flag.
I am not aware of any mechanic that would give someone +Rep for killing an Outlaw. My understanding is that you only gain Reputation in one of three ways:
1. Direct Reward from another player;
2. Reward tied to a long-term PvP Flag;
3. Built-in Reward tied to not losing Rep.