Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having debated off on a tangent on another thread, I thought it best to carry the discussion over to a dedicated one.
We were discussing Reputation. I was concerned that we haven't really had a lot of information about what actions or behaviours would affect it. In particular, I am concerned that there will be software-driven factors as with the 'Heinous' tag, where there is no chance to argue about mitigating circumstances.
As far as I know, all we have at present is that Reputation will be mainly a social construct, voted for by other players. A similarity to the eBay system was mentioned. I have heard the phrase 'bad play' brought up to describe what should attract a bad reputation.
In an ideal world, where all players (players not characters) shared the same understanding of what constituted 'bad play' and conscientiously voted good or bad for every PC they dealt with, this might work. However, what is to stop a player being voted as a 'bad player' because he used a trick that the voter didn't approve of (blade venom where the player doesn't like poisons, magic which looks like cheating to the victim, and so on).
I know that the occasional rogue (not Rogue) vote will be subsumed in the mass of votes you get over time, but that assumes others will be bothered to vote positively for your routine and uneventful play. Unless you stand out or starting touting for votes, the chances are that nobody will vote for you at all - having better things to do than go around looking for PCs to vote for.
There is also the tricky problem of alignment. We may happily vote positively for the LG healer who has just stopped to save our lives, but what about the CE vulture who lives by preying on wounded characters in the wilderness? That sounds like a big win for LG in reputation terms, but has nothing to do with 'fair' or 'unfair' play.
I'd like a list of guidelines from PFO if possible, but I realise they have other things to do at present (or should have!).
In the absence of Words From On High, what do the rest of you think?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Good post, it's been a while since Rep was in the blogs as no doubt concrete things have been happening since then. :)
Here's a summary of the Reputation Blogs for ease of reference:
Reputation
That the person you're taking a contract from is known to be someone who is safe to do business with raises a high bar for folks who want to engage in shenanigans. Your reputation will have a big effect on the price paid for hiring services—the worse your rep—or the absence of a rep—the higher the price people will demand for taking the risk of dealing with you. And without a decent rep, many people won't deal with you at all.
RESPECT: Find Out What It Means to Me!
I Don't Give A Damn 'Bout My Bad Reputation
A "reputation economy" is a method of giving weight to people's actions. Earning a good reputation is valuable, and having a bad reputation can close a lot of doors. eBay's buyer and seller ratings are an example of a reputation economy.
Your character will have a reputation as well.
Reputation is a social construct, and your reputation will flow through your social contacts. If nobody I know knows you, I will not have access to any of your reputation information.
We've also considered the idea that one could buy and sell reputation information about other characters.
Reputation extends to social organizations as well.
Alignment and Reputation
Each player has three axes of personality: law vs. chaos, good vs. evil, and reputation. A player's reputation is clearly visible to others, while alignment is harder to determine at a glance. All three have limited direct effect on the player, but large effect on that player's social life
If you have the Attacker flag, when you kill a target you lose reputation proportional to the reputation of the target (it's less disreputable to murder targets that have low reputation). Additionally, the target might further choose to rebuke you (even if it didn't result in a kill), expending some of his or her reputation to lower yours.
Characters with low reputations may also find they're not wanted in certain places. Settlements can set a minimum reputation to enter the city
I Shot a Man in Reno Just To Watch Him Die
Goals
The alignment and reputation system exists for three primary reasons:
- Behavioral incentives and disincentives.
- Player identification.
- The Pathfinder RPG legacy.
Behaviors we don't want:
- Players cooperating to game reputation and alignment systems to their advantage.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To summarise the above with a quick sketch [Note: Accuracy may be limited]:
1. Reputation acts as a "social credit" ratings system for contracts eg similar to company credit ratings agencies in rl.
2. Individual and social organisations have reputation
3. Reputation is necessary for some types of interactions
4. Reputation networks determine which reputation information is available to perform a check against when dealing with a new player/"business a/c".
5. Reputation is clearly visible to other players [edit: note: Assuming 4. applies?]
6. PvP Interactions allow players to assign reputation. A range of reputation pts is available to assign in this key interaction with greater scope for high reputation individuals.
7. Low reputation can bar a player from access to player controlled locations eg settlements
8. Reputation acts as a Social axis to influence and be influenced by Power and Money axis.
=
I like the description of groups' network of reputation knowledge.
I wonder if a weighting for reputation could also be added to groups as it seems to be added to individuals. IE if your affiliated group is 100 players and say 7 of them have rated a player's reputation over a measure of certain interactions, does that provide you with an estimate only for those interactions of their reputation and you use other associates' ratings for other interactions, as well as pooling all interactions for a general rating? IE the players who you trust and their opinions are more emphasised over or additional to a general reputation rating ie relative rating with general rating/reputation?
There's also the key factors of temporal and spatial factors. Let's go into those next:
1. Time: If dates are provided on ratings (again eerily similar to credit ratings agencies of companies accounts), this information needs to be considered and sifted.
2. Randomness: Some mistake could creep in, and this sort of data as anomoly would be useful to target and then actually send a message to this person who rated this extreme pts for further recommendation or condemnation.
3. Space:
Here's an idea concerning the network of groups that players have. Generally if we look at player's individual reputation lists and groups lists it might be a solid system if groupings of reputation of individuals can be regrouped according to:
(i) How much time players are in proximity with each other (and distance)
(ii) How much those players aggregate distance and time spent with each other clocks up
(iii) How many interaction types and contracts they have had with each other including if possible talking/messaging though with voip I can't see how that could be included, though obviously how you talk to and how long you talk to them is a high indication of how "close" your relationship is with them. Eg mobile phone data in rl.
Closing: Just some sketched thoughts on this rich vein of social information that PFO is aiming to tap successfully for the better experience of everyone.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ AvenaOats
Excellent presentation.... I would just include the entire passage.
Behaviors we want:
Large PvP wars. (Thus wars eliminate all reputation losses.)
Players able to defend themselves without concern. (Thus the Attacker flag.)
Players to attack each other over resources, money, territory, etc.
Most PvP to occur outside of settlements where there are no guards, laws, etc.
Players who are not PvP combat machines having some ability to discourage attacks via bounties, death curses, reputation loss, etc., but these should not be so onerous as to prevent PvP if the profit potential is there.
Players able to play their alignment, but at the same time not grief players of opposite alignment. If one player is chaotic evil and another lawful good, each should not be able to abuse the other without limit or recourse.
Behaviors we don't want:
PvP conflicts where the death of the target means no gain for the attacker, i.e. randomly killing people for no reason.
Abuse of new players.
Players cooperating to game reputation and alignment systems to their advantage.
Players willfully committing crimes or evil acts under the shield of reputation or alignment penalties so onerous no one would try and stop them.
There are other behaviors aside from these, but this hopefully gets you the idea.
This is from: First, a Bit of Math
Reputation and both alignment axes (law vs. chaos and good vs. Evil) break down to numerical scales, running from -7,500 to 7,500*. The exact numbers cited here will likely change, but this will give you some of where we are going. The scales break down thusly:
-7,500 to 2,501 -2,500 to 2,500 2,501 to 7,500
Reputation Poor Average Good
Law vs. Chaos Chaotic Neutral Lawful
Good vs. Evil Evil Neutral GoodReputation is entirely a PvP-based metric, and it only changes through interaction with other players. Reputation goes down through PvP against people who aren't flagged for it (through flags like Attacker, Criminal, or the PvP flags below described below). It can also be lowered by people who lower their own reputation to try and lower yours, if theirs is higher to begin with, so be careful who you treat badly. Reputation goes up by an accelerating rate each day players don't lose reputation for their actions, from gifts from other players, and through playing their role in the PvP flags described below.
Looking at the chart above, it reminds me of how much leeway we actually have to be just a bit disreputable or reputable and still be considered "Average".
A settlement barring access to the lower portion of this rating (-1 to -2500) might in fact be cutting off its nose to spite its face. The same would hold true if an evil aligned den of criminals were looking to bar the +1 - +2500 range.
@ Bluddwolf If the Reputation rating of -1 thru -2500 fits into the average range as your quote shows it to and average Reputation does not damage a settlements D.I. then I can not see a reason why any settlement should ban players in that range. Any except the most strict that is.
It would seem to me that criminal behavior and PVP centric play can skim the boundaries of average rating if managed well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Bluddwolf If the Reputation rating of -1 thru -2500 fits into the average range as your quote shows it to and average Reputation does not damage a settlements D.I. then I can not see a reason why any settlement should ban players in that range. Any except the most strict that is.
It would seem to me that criminal behavior and PVP centric play can skim the boundaries of average rating if managed well.
Skimming the boundaries is exactly my intent. I will also skim the boundary between neutral and evil, for those times I may wish to have access to the Assassin Flag.
In my line of work, there is a benefit in having my potential victims understand that I'm willing to do anything, but prefer to resort to less violent means to feed my greed. I really won't let alignment shifts or reputation dips place too much restraint on my freedom of action.
However I hold the interactions we want to see and don't want to see (above) as gospel!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Reputation and both alignment axes (law vs. chaos and good vs. Evil) break down to numerical scales, running from -7,500 to 7,500*. The exact numbers cited here will likely change, but this will give you some of where we are going. The scales break down thusly:
-7,500 to 2,501 -2,500 to 2,500 2,501 to 7,500
Reputation Poor Average Good
Law vs. Chaos Chaotic Neutral Lawful
Good vs. Evil Evil Neutral Good
Is it coincidence that Alignment and Reputation are linked here?
It could be read as Reputation being integral to the Alignment system (or vice-versa), yet others have said that Alignment will not affect Reputation.
Players able to play their alignment, but at the same time not grief players of opposite alignment.
Again, Alignment is brought into the Reputation discussion, albeit in a way suggesting that Alignment will not be an excuse to avoid gaining a poor Reputation.
It is going to be tricky, because people interpret game Alignment in different ways. Your definition of Evil may be (and probably is) different to mine, and both are different to that set in place for PFO.
'Acting within alignment' is also going to be easier to define for those choosing to play Good. We know that beating up a defenceless old woman will be evil, but what about an Evil character who chooses not to beat up a helpless old woman? Can an Evil character not have friends with whom he is kind and thoughtful without losing Reputation?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is going to be tricky, because people interpret game Alignment in different ways. Your definition of Evil may be (and probably is) different to mine, and both are different to that set in place for PFO.
What is tricky? What PFO defines as behavior types, will in the end, be the definitions. It would be ridiculous to leave the final mechanics up to personal definition.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
PFO cannot possibly list out all the actions that are Good and all that are Evil, plus all the possible circumstances in which they will apply. In a PnP game this is not so much of an issue, because the player will explain to the DM and other players why he feels the interpretation works. This is not going to be possible in the majority of cases online.
It is possible to list a finite number of key actions that might trigger Alignment conflict - a LG character torturing a suspect is an obvious example, but where do the borderline cases fit a limited list?
How about my example of the Evil character who performs good deeds for his immediate companions? He might give them money, go out of his way to heal them, and otherwise look out for their welfare. That is not Evil by game definitions because Evil is associated with selfish actions. Yet maybe the Evil character is being good because he is selfishly cultivating his companions' trust and friendship, or maybe even an Evil character is capable of loving a limited number of people.
That's where I see potential problems in an online game where acting against Alignment can have secondary repercussions - there is just no realistic way that all potential actions or behaviours can be catered for with an official list.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We know that beating up a defenceless old woman will be evil, but what about an Evil character who chooses not to beat up a helpless old woman? Can an Evil character not have friends with whom he is kind and thoughtful without losing Reputation?
Perhaps you missed this in the wall of text?
Reputation is entirely a PvP-based metric
What you describe above is an alignment shift question, not reputation. The Devs have said that since there are too many actions (particularly PVE actions) that they can not measure, they won't. This is why they came up with the Core Alignment and Active Alignment compromise.
Your CE aligned character can show an act of kindness towards a PVE old lady, and it won't impact his or her remaining CE. Furthermore, even if that act does have a small impact on the Active Alignment, the drift to Core Alignment will eventually make up for that.
Personally, I have thought about rolling a Paladin that is Chaotic Evil at his core, but must continuously and actively perform acts of Lawful and Good to maintain his standing as a Paladin.
I called this the "Order of the Corrupted Soul". I feel that this is a purer form of Lawful Good, because it is not as automatic as having a LG core and LG active alignment pairing. The player-character will always be fighting the eternal struggle within himself.
I can only hope we will have the flexibility in having core and active alignments be at polar opposites.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I didn't miss the text, I was describing the potential for Alignment impacting upon Reputation, as hinted at by a few GW posts that mention the two together. The Alignment and Reputation scale I quoted, for example, is the sort of thing that makes me want to ask the question. That the two are apparently on the same chart and are mentioned together in the same post makes me wonder if they have a link.
The reason I went into more detail on what would constitute Alignment conflict, was that Bringslite posted that he believed that there would be no potential problems with interpreting Alignment-based actions, because there would be a set list of Alignment-friendly actions.
If a player decides that your character is acting outside their Alignment, then they may decide that you are playing badly and give you a negative Reputation vote.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The reason I went into more detail on what would constitute Alignment conflict, was that Bringslite posted that he believed that there would be no potential problems with interpreting Alignment-based actions, because there would be a set list of Alignment-friendly actions.
My statement was very broad and could have been better written. I think that GW will establish what exact actions will + or - rep score. Also alignment.
Getting into things like feeding a beggar or rescuing the old lady from the tree. Helping the cat cross the street and blocking it so it gets hit. Those will not, likely, be measured as they are open to personal opinion. The permutations of good deeds and bad deeds are endless. Why try to measure the infinite?
I believe that rep and alignment were described together to simplify. They both use similar (or exact) measurement scales in the example.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The alignment and reputation scales are provided to show what scales they may use, but not that they are connected in any way.
You are not more likely to have a high or a low reputation, based on your alignment. Two separate measures, and they should stay that way, otherwise there will be a built in bias towards Lawful and or Good alignment.
Reputation: A measure of meaningful player to player interaction or the lack thereof.
Alignment: A measure of how the character behaves within the world's perception of law vs. chaos and good vs. evil.
It is important to note, the "World's Perception", in other words the setting's perceptions. What goes for good and evil, and lawful or chaotic, in the River Kingdoms may be dramatically different than what you might expect.
For example, the majority of settlements in the River Kingdom, and their rulers, are Chaotic Neutral. Yet, many of the forum members here have a hard time thinking of chaotic settlements being viable.
Slavery may be evil, but it is not unlawful. Theft may be chaotic, but it is not evil. Killing criminals, may be good, but it is not lawful.
One of the Devs (forget which one, maybe Baker) described the River Kingdoms as being like the "Wild West". Yep, the Hollywood version, not the reality.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If Alignment and Reputation are not linked in any way, then my mind is somewhat set at rest over potential problems.
I am very much in favour of player-defined behaviour limits, which is why I have the problem with software-driven tags such as Heinous, and I hope that in general terms Alignment will be based how others perceive the character. I know that some spells and abilities will require a 'hard' Alignment system, but I hope that we will not have a glowing Alignment tag hovering above us all the time!
We still have the issue of rogue votes impacting out of proportion to their number. I assume that we will start with a 0 Reputation. If I take my shiny new character into the world and get voted down by a passing PC who dislikes the fact that my Cleric isn't praying all the time, I may have to live with this for a while.
The fact is that we only tend to vote on something that we take particular notice of. We will have hundreds, possibly thousands, of PCs wandering up and down around us and won't want to (or have occasion to) vote on their Reputation. It would be asking much even of PC merchants to vote on each and every transaction. Short of standing on a street corner touting for positive votes, therefore, your PC has negative Reputation and is going to get refused entry to places, charged more, or whatever the Reputation mechanic affects.
Could there be a way by which the player could alter the Reputation (only by a small amount) without having to remind everyone to vote for them in each transaction (or am I the only one who hates those eBay follow-up emails).
Maybe your local temple could offer a Reputation Repair service through the local (PC) priest? Sort of like the medieval Catholic system of selling Indulgences. The priest would be authorised by the local council to offer such services, and have a larger-than-normal range of positive vote 'boxes' he could use. Needless to say, if the priest saw the same character coming back hour after hour, day after day, to mend his negative Reputation, he might get suspicious and refuse. However, a sufficiently high price (not necessarily financial) would probably weed out serial troublemakers who thought that it was a great way to be a bad player but not suffer.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm sure some of the Reputation ideas are still in flux: The Core vs Active Alignment system iteration seems to suggest this is possible. For eg the quote "Reputation is entirely a PvP-based metric" Bludd includes above suggests:
1. Alignment PvE -> integral to pathfinder
2. Alignment Core vs Active -> allow flexibility for non-measurable for players short-term actions and longer-term "intentions".
3. Reputation for PvP itself perhaps needs a very specific robust player-rating system (it only takes a small bit of salt to turn drinking water brakish)
4. Possibly split current Reputation system ie PvP = 100% Reputation and introduce:
5. Recommendation System for Contracts?
Though retaining with some cross-references.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm 'stuck' with it here because that is the purpose of the thread.
I started the thread because there hasn't been as much information as I would have liked about how it will be managed. I also thought it would be interesting to hear the views of other members of the forum. In the consequent discussion, maybe some good ideas about its implementation will come up.
Reputation sounds like it will be a large part of the game, affecting your character's interaction with the world in several ways. I'm therefore interested in knowing how it will work under less-than ideal circumstances.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Really it needs to model in the case of pvp the problem of griefing (de-claw) vs pvp predilection (assort your gameplay preferences to other mutually conducive players seeking "similar").
In the case of (in-game) social mobility, it needs to model (player and person) networks and relationships.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Sadurian
No disrespect or slight was intended. I am really grumpy lately or coming off that way...
I was just wondering. You have mentioned the problems, you perceive, with "voting" and rep score in your posts about rep.
It is clear to me, from the scant info available, that it will be mostly scored by PVP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No problem. We all have 'off' days and occasionally our posts don't read as they were intended to. It's amazing how looking at someone smile (or grin wickedly) as they speak alters the tone of the words.
The problems I have (actually, questions about potential problems) are mostly down to the PvP aspect. If we can take as gospel that the software will not be involved then it will all be player-led, but we may have to wait until the game launch before that is finalised.
My biggest issue with any sort of player voting is the possibility for numpty players to screw it up for others. If I decide that I don't like the fact that you (perfectly legitimately) ambushed and killed me, stealing my cartload of top-grade turnips and gerbil-skin +1 Cloak of Burrowing, I might vote down your Reputation in revenge. The old teenage cry of "it's so unfaaaair" when not getting their way might manifest in some players as voting down the Reputation of anyone who they perceive to be bettering them.
Okay, when we are talking about thousands of votes, a single vote might not be of importance, but it might be that you don't have many votes in the first place, so a single vote has more impact. You might also be on the cusp of a 'Reputation break-point' and that vote has pushed you into the worse category.
What I am suggesting, therefore, is a system to rectify that single misapplied vote. A way to pay your way out of a single situation. Priced highly enough or monitored, it would not be an answer to a truly unfair player's behaviour, because I imagine few players will be unlucky enough to be on the receiving end of a numpty-player vote more than a few times a week at the very most, so anyone needing the rectifying positive vote more than once a day is obviously going to stand out.
I suppose the alternative would be a complaint direct to the game moderators, but I can't see that working out well. Aside from anything else, the moderators will not know what has been happening for that vote to get cast, and so the situation will degenerate into a 'he said', 'she said' argument.
I am interested in how GW are intending to cope with the numpty-player Reputation vote, but also in how other people think it could be tackled. If, indeed, they think it needs to be tackled.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I also have a problem with legitimate PvP being penalized by reputation loss. I certainly don't like the way the rebuke system supposedly works, which does not even require you actually killing or otherwise harming the victim.
This leads the door open for abuse, where an entire guild could pool their rebuke and slam someone with a -10,000 reputation because of some disagreement on the forums.
You should have to appear on the person's individual enemies list, and only that person can rebuke you. Further more the cost of rebuking should not be 1:1, but it should cost enough to not make it standard and not so much that no one ever does it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It would seem that at least two effects are: some settlements will forbid entry and trainers will ignore you. Those are personal.
I believe that I read, somewhere, that Settlements will suffer from low collective rep?
Those are some effects.
Will legit (proper flags flying vs. proper flagged) really lower rep? Or even unflagged vs. criminal/attacker flags?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Reputation is entirely a PvP-based metric, and it only changes through interaction with other players. Reputation goes down through PvP against people who aren't flagged for it (through flags like Attacker, Criminal, or the PvP flags below described below). It can also be lowered by people who lower their own reputation to try and lower yours, if theirs is higher to begin with, so be careful who you treat badly. Reputation goes up by an accelerating rate each day players don't lose reputation for their actions, from gifts from other players, and through playing their role in the PvP flags described below.
To give you an idea of how much these things will cost or grant in terms of reputation, killing a player with Reputation 0 who has no flags will cost about 500 Reputation, while killing an average low-reputation player (-5,000 reputation) will cost about 16 reputation and killing an average high-reputation player (5,000 reputation) will cost about 2,400. Note that killing Criminals, Attackers, people in wars, people with bounties, etc., all reduce or eliminate these reputation hits. So a high-reputation character who kills a low-reputation character without any flags is not going to suffer much for it, but if he does it repeatedly, the reputation hits will accumulate.
If you have the Attacker flag, when you kill a target you lose reputation proportional to the reputation of the target (it's less disreputable to murder targets that have low reputation). Additionally, the target might further choose to rebuke you (even if it didn't result in a kill), expending some of his or her reputation to lower yours.
Any player that hurts you shows up on your enemies list. This list allows you to salute or rebuke the enemy (granting or reducing reputation, at the cost of your own). The entry disappears if you aren't hurt by that enemy again within several days (exact time frame to be determined). If you died within a certain window (also TBD) after someone's entry was refreshed on your enemies list, that person is noted on the list as one of your killers (those who injured you right before you died may be a bigger factor in your death than whoever made the final blow). If you want to get even, you can establish a bounty on anyone listed as a killer on your enemies list.
Refresher. It does not look so bad if you work within the system. The rebuke could hurt, but it costs the giver also.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If I am understanding the old blogs right, I see something I like. Looks like a non flagged person given a SAD, refuses, and is killed the bandit will suffer rep loss? Am I reading and piecing that together right?
Edit: Wrong again Bringslite. So the SAD, bounties, assassin contracts are the only mechanics allowing no rep loss for killing unflagged PCs?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If I am understanding the old blogs right, I see something I like. Looks like a non flagged person given a SAD, refuses, and is killed the bandit will suffer rep loss? Am I reading and piecing that together right?
No, that is incorrect. If a bandit offers a SAD, and it is refused, and the bandit chooses to kill the merchant, the bandit will suffer no reputation penalties.
Outlaw (Chaotic)
The Outlaw flag is for players who want to rob other players, commit acts of banditry, etc. It can be used by chaotic evil players to be brigands, or by chaotic good players to be Robin Hood-style robbers. Outlaws use a new mechanic we are working on developing called stand and deliver, which allows the Outlaw to demand money from their victim through a trade window. If the victim refuses, the Outlaw gets to carry out his threats of force without losing reputation.
You have to remember, the offer of a SAD is not an attack, it opens a trade window. It is a conversation / negotiation. The fact that the bandit must have an Outlaw flag active, only means that he is chaotic, but not necessarily a criminal.
Criminality only takes place in settled hexes that have laws against that particular action. Some settlements may have laws against raising the Outlaw Flag, making that flag a criminal offense even if it is not used. Other settlements might do the same with the Enforcer Flag.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thanks Bluddwolf. You know, I think I got that wrong once long ago and was corrected then too. Funny, senility at 47 seems young. :(
On the point, it looks like PVPers are being given ample options for legit play and the system does allow some dipping into non flagged action. I don't see what you guys are concerned about. Unless you see exploits.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thanks Bluddwolf. You know, I think I got that wrong once long ago and was corrected then too. Funny, senility at 47 seems young. :(
On the point, it looks like PVPers are being given ample options for legit play and the system does allow some dipping into non flagged action. I don't see what you guys are concerned about. Unless you see exploits.
The concern, if you want to call it that, is that "rebuke" can be exploited. I would assume the same could hold true for "praise" as well.
In one of the Dev posts or perhaps in a Blog, it was said that you don't actually have to kill someone or directly harm them in order to be rebuked. Without the requirement that you must be on the victim's enemy list (you have killed or harmed them in a known (game mechanic) way, it really can be exploited in a large scale.
Lets say I have 20 friends, and you piss me off. I can convince them to spend 500 reputation to rebuke you, even though you did nothing to them. You will now lose 10,000 reputation points.
In similar fashion, and I can definitely see this happening, the settlement leaders (10 of them) don't wish to venture from the settlement, placing themselves at risk, so they charge a reputation tax on their subjects.
YES... I'm COINING THAT... REPUTATION TAX!!
Each subject gives a weekly tithe of 100 points of Reputation in the form of praises for the 10 leaders of the settlement.
It is really ripe for exploitation, thinking about it. GW should dump the praise / rebuke portion of the reputation system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Behaviors we don't want:
PvP conflicts where the death of the target means no gain for the attacker, i.e. randomly killing people for no reason.
Abuse of new players.
Players cooperating to game reputation and alignment systems to their advantage.
Players willfully committing crimes or evil acts under the shield of reputation or alignment penalties so onerous no one would try and stop them.
I think that they have those concerns in mind. Anything else?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that they have those concerns in mind. Anything else?Behaviors we don't want:
PvP conflicts where the death of the target means no gain for the attacker, i.e. randomly killing people for no reason.
Abuse of new players.
Players cooperating to game reputation and alignment systems to their advantage.
Players willfully committing crimes or evil acts under the shield of reputation or alignment penalties so onerous no one would try and stop them.
Well, I'm not really sure the Reputation Tax is "gaming the system". In a way, Reputation is a currency, a commodity, and therefore it can be bought, traded or even extorted (stolen).
I could see settlement managers making the argument that they tax their settlers, not in coin but in praise. This actually would make sense in an RP way as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Avena
Interesting idea. Imagine the yoyo action of dedicated PVPers and how many would have to be tracked.
I can see it being more telling, for the more sedate type players. If people change their ways, with honest endeavor to improve, their past would be "readable" and damaging in interactions.
Would it be relevant and worth the resources to track?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah, there's an overhead, that much is obvious, but with all the analytics in mmorpgs these days, I think it's possibly information GW should be tracking. The real question is manipulating the data for players to use and that could be a pain in the butt for bespoke lists (sql "join" tables urgh!) or personal views of each player magnifying the problem. Maybe if there are episodic data capture for players to use eg every 3 months or so instead of on the spot?
Idk, could be do-able in EE with smaller numbers of players and less data to store?
But I'd assume track-record is as interesting as current status eg "His Reputation is beyond reproach ; Her reputation precedes her". etc. :) Having people in game that are (in)famous because of their reputation etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Two things:
Merchants are supposedly going to be able to open themselves to PvP in order to travel faster. This will likely not carry a reputation cost for killing them.
I don't see any reason you should be able to rebuke or praise someone that hasn't interacted with you in some way. (Not the reverse, where you poke them and then vote them down because you interacted with them.) If they assist with a mob or rescue you from bandits, if a settlement leader raises taxes, if you are attacked or you attack someone, if you fail a contract. Sending someone a gift shouldn't automatically raise their reputation, only if you've interacted with each other, once per interaction, no more than once per day as an example time period limitation.
It's a workable system methinks. Leaders will get feedback based on their actions, players will get feedback based on interactions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...It is really ripe for exploitation, thinking about it. GW should dump the praise / rebuke portion of the reputation system.
Doesn't the 'rebuke' part only become available when a victim has been killed outside of a PvP flag state? I seem to recall that the victim of a murder has an opportunity open to rebuke the murderer.
My understanding also is that older players were to be able to 'gift' reputation to new players. For example if you value RP then you might encourage good RP in the new player with a reputation award. If it works out that between two players only the one with higher rep can gift part of his rep to the player with less reputation then this too should serve to mitigate your exploitation worry.
Finally in commerce trade may open up an opportunity to award rebuke or praise for contract completion, job well done, or fraud/scam.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I was thinking about different concepts of Honour Systems in cultures around the world, eg Japanese "giri" and Hindustani "izzat" etc etc. There's various emphasis and cultural specifics that arise. But those curiosities aside in the wiki entry for:
Cultures of honour will often arise when three conditions exist:
- A lack of resources
- The benefit of theft and crime outweighs the risks
- A lack of sufficient law enforcement (such as in geographically remote regions)
Evidently these three conditions seem HIGHLY applicable to MMORPGs and hence a Reputation system seems a suitably natural inclusion?!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Avena
Interesting find! Makes it seem very appropriate. What is rep if not Honor?
It is not dishonorable to kill in combat. Especially since pvp will be limited to combat vs. characters that have the opportunity to defend themselves (personally or through hired help).
If it is dishonorable to attack those that are not PVP flagged, then is in not equally dishonorable not to flag for PvP while passing through the wilderness hexes?
This last point reminds me of my days in Fallen Earth. That is another Open World PvP MMO. There I was "Bludd Cleaver" a Sergeant in the Iron Sights MC. We decided, because we could, whenever we rolled out we flew the PvP flag. Sometimes we would roll in 30 strong. Even if we were not looking to PvP, it became a badge of honor and a form of intimidation. Some players were so upset that we rolled so strong and ready for a fight, they would flee the bar when we rolled up.
Point of the story, when you leave the settled hexes, don't hide behind not being PvP flagged. Cowardice is not a reflection of honor. Don't walk outside those settlement gates and feel entitled to safety.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I think that they have those concerns in mind. Anything else?Behaviors we don't want:
PvP conflicts where the death of the target means no gain for the attacker, i.e. randomly killing people for no reason.
Abuse of new players.
Players cooperating to game reputation and alignment systems to their advantage.
Players willfully committing crimes or evil acts under the shield of reputation or alignment penalties so onerous no one would try and stop them.Well, I'm not really sure the Reputation Tax is "gaming the system". In a way, Reputation is a currency, a commodity, and therefore it can be bought, traded or even extorted (stolen).
I could see settlement managers making the argument that they tax their settlers, not in coin but in praise. This actually would make sense in an RP way as well.
If those managers have any residents, it's because they're doing something right.
I'm more worried about the RMT market for reputation. But that's something that can be identified with a prepaid card and a ringer character.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf
Again, an interesting extrapolation from misunderstanding. Or perhaps another "Nemesis" commercial?
No I understood it perfectly. The equating of high reputation and honor can be made. However, the presence of a lower reputation does not automatically equal dishonorable behavior.
My argument is that the mere fact that you kill often in a PvP game should not equal dishonorable behavior, but that character will have a lower reputation for it. What really creates that circumstance is non PvP flagged travelers, traveling through hexes not governed by laws and not PvP flagged themselves.
Maybe there should be reputation loss for traveling in PvP zones and not being flagged for PvP?
This commentary is not specifically directed at you Bringslite, it is just that your post earlier brought this to my mind. It is not an attack but it is seeking a discussion, which is why I posed the question earlier.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It really depends who we're talking about. For eg the concept of Chivalry was more of a nobility thing, where waiting for the opposite army to cross a river before attacking them, showed a general's regard for the opposite number. I seem to recall similar code of conduct with Naval Officers during the age of sail.
Now if the Reputation system flourishes it would be very cool to see High Reputation characters known far and wide and to have "influence" on how players' make decisions or what they decide to attack. Some sort of emergent intangible like that would be very interesting for the politics of the game where usually the rules of expediency are what people rely on to determine which decisions are made, alone.
Possibly that might come about in LG /high rep populations dealing with each other.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't worry too much about the RMT market for Reputation. My understanding is that they'd have to have an extremely broad base of players with High Reputation in order to offer it, and would have to have some way of earning it back afterwards. Ryan has also said it'll be analyzed on social network lines so that circular Reputation Rewards won't work very well.
On a side note, I thought the Social Network analysis they're planning to do for this purpose would lend itself well to the Identity problems we discussed elsewhere. Yes, it will take some fairly complex storage to track in-game that Adam is known as "Bob" to Chuck, and as "Dave" to Edward. But isn't that the same type of structure you'll need to track relative Reputations in-game?
If Adam has a High Reputation with Bob and a Low Reputation with Chuck, then isn't my assessment of Adam's Reputation going to be modified by my own assessment of Bob's and Chuck's Reputation?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... the presence of a lower reputation does not automatically equal dishonorable behavior.
It was my understanding that the intent of the Reputation system was to do exactly that.
My argument is that the mere fact that you kill often in a PvP game should not equal dishonorable behavior, but that character will have a lower reputation for it. What really creates that circumstance is non PvP flagged travelers, traveling through hexes not governed by laws and not PvP flagged themselves.
Maybe there should be reputation loss for traveling in PvP zones and not being flagged for PvP?
It sounds like you're trying to say that it's not "dishonorable" to stop a caravan, kill the guards, and steal all the valuables.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf
Again, an interesting extrapolation from misunderstanding. Or perhaps another "Nemesis" commercial?
No I understood it perfectly. The equating of high reputation and honor can be made. However, the presence of a lower reputation does not automatically equal dishonorable behavior.
My argument is that the mere fact that you kill often in a PvP game should not equal dishonorable behavior, but that character will have a lower reputation for it. What really creates that circumstance is non PvP flagged travelers, traveling through hexes not governed by laws and not PvP flagged themselves.
Maybe there should be reputation loss for traveling in PvP zones and not being flagged for PvP?
This commentary is not specifically directed at you Bringslite, it is just that your post earlier brought this to my mind. It is not an attack but it is seeking a discussion, which is why I posed the question earlier.
You would have it be dishonorable to not flag for PVP? Doesn't that defeat the whole Rep system and make it useless? You have written that you are for the system and that you don't want to see PFO as nothing more than a FPS.
Risk vs. reward makes it your risk to attack or SAD everything you see.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I see two different Reputations emerging here.
One is the old and much misunderstood chivalric code, which was a way of behaving towards ones noble and knighted peers. That would take into account such things as 'hiding' behind a non-PvP flag when moving through unsettled areas. It is essentially saying that the character is afraid to fight, something that would probably earn a negative Reputation for knights, barbarians and other such warriors.
However, it shouldn't be dishonourable for traders and other basically non-combatant characters to refuse to fly a PvP flag. They are not wanting to get into a fight, they are simply moving from place to place. They can expect to be hit by the occasional Bandit group or PvE dangers, but why should they be open to every PC who wants an easy kill? It shouldn't damage the Reputation of a merchant to decide he doesn't want to be casually attacked by all and sundry.
Conversely, a merchant would be expected to trade fairly and keep contracts and deals. Their Reputation might be affected by cheating and breaking faith in trade deals(alignment notwithstanding), but a barbarian might not suffer the same sort of penalty. Contracts for mercenary work and so on would obviously be a different kettle of fish if the warrior wanted to get hired.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This commentary is not specifically directed at you Bringslite, it is just that your post earlier brought this to my mind. It is not an attack but it is seeking a discussion, which is why I posed the question earlier.
Sometimes my enthusiasm to wrestle with you gets out of hand. I will tone down my comments and read them to see what they look like from another's shoes.
Big promises, but I will try. ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You would have it be dishonorable to not flag for PVP? Doesn't that defeat the whole Rep system and make it useless? You have written that you are for the system and that you don't want to see PFO as nothing more than a FPS.
Risk vs. reward makes it your risk to attack or SAD everything you see.
Short answer to the first question, "Yes, I think it is dishonorable to travel through a PvP area and not be flagged for PvP." It is as dishonorable as attacking and killing all in a caravan, not PvP flagged in a Settlement hex with laws against such activities.
I specifically asked: Are they not Equally dishonorable? @ Nihimon
Short answer to second question. "No, it does not defeat the rep system. What it does do is support the idea that some areas are reserved for or at least bear the inherent risk of PvP. To enter these areas and expect not to be attacked, or to claim that it was dishonorable to be attacked, because you were not PvP flagged is an expression of cowardice.
In these specific areas, and in settlement hexes that are in a state if war, these hexes should be FFA PvP. When you enter one if these hexes you should be given a warning, and 30 seconds, to get out. If you don't, you are automatically flagged for PvP. There should be no reputation losses for PvP in these zones.
To get to your final comment: Risk vs reward is not just a calculation for the bandit. When someone enters a PvP hex, they should demonstrate their honor by flying a PvP flag. This is a statement of my belief, not a proposed mechanic. A game mechanic does not dispense honor, nor does it take it away.
Maybe the mistake was made to use the word "honor" as part of the reputation system discussion?