Goblin Squad Member
|
It would also provide you with a list of all of Bluddwolf's settlement associations, venture company associations, and so on....
There are easy solutions such as making all changes at a single given time in a day or even every few days...this way all changes for that time, by all people involved, occur simultaneously.
Besides, 2 big assumptions with Bluddwolfs claim. One) that there will be a measure of anonymity to begin with. GW might have already decided it should be possible to see all a persons associations. Two) we have access these rep scores. I personally have no issues with not knowing their actual values as long as it serves its purpose.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Interesting. That seems to contradict statements (somewhere) that reputation will likely be visible to all and purely a PVP based metric.
For the record...and for those confused, I am personally talking about two different systems, one the official system GW has already proposed and another that I proposed should compliment the first. Please be careful not to confuse the two.
EDIT: @Bringslite, as far as I can tell you did not confuse the two, sorry if I seemed to be saying so. I was just clarifying in general.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Nihimon
I read the Blog and have two comments to make specific to it:
1. It is old (Aug 2012)
2. Was not a good idea to begin with
If Reputation is a measure that GW may use to ban a player, then other players have no business playing a role in it. Players can report behaviors,but it is up to a GM to actually assign a reputation penalty.
Reputation should be based solely on PVP interactions, with preset penalties for certain actions. They should not have some sliding rule, where it is OK to break the rules against one character, but less so against another.
Reputation should not be impacted anyway by PVE activities. GW should not be introducing content that could get a player banned.
Under what circumstances would a bandit, bounty hunter or assassin, who plays by the rules, would ever not be rebuked by their victim? Even more rare would they ever be praised by their victim. So GW will be introducing what they claim will be legitimate player activities, but if they are really good at doing them, you could be banned.
Solutions:
1. Remove all Rep consequences from PVE content
2. Remove Rebuke / Praise
3. Attach Rep penalties only to those activities GW does not want to see.
4. Have equal treatment based on the activity, not based on the reputation of the offender vs. the reputation of the victim.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Interesting. That seems to contradict statements (somewhere) that reputation will likely be visible to all and purely a PVP based metric.For the record...and for those confused, I am personally talking about two different systems, one the official system GW has already proposed and another that I proposed should compliment the first. Please be careful not to confuse the two.
EDIT: @Bringslite, as far as I can tell you did not confuse the two, sorry if I seemed to be saying so. I was just clarifying in general.
:)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Can SAD be abused? Could one of your friends charge you "one wafer-thin copper", and you get the "I paid" flag for whatever period of time?
That's so obvious that someone's already thought of why that won't work, but I'm no bandit... :-)
I thought of that exploit months ago, and there has been no word from GW how that may be prevented.
Since banditry seems to be taking on such a prominent role in our discussions, I'm hoping there is a dev Blog dedicated to Banditry, just as there was one for Assassination.
Banditry is obviously a complex system. It is PVP; Player Looting; SADs; Hideouts; Reputation; Fast Travel Slow Down; Negotiation; Intimidation; Ambush; Economic Redistribution; Stolen Goods.... and probably many other issues.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If Reputation is a measure that GW may use to ban a player...
How did you get to that? That's quite a stretch from anything that was said in the blog.
And I know it's old. That's the point. The way Reputation was initially introduced to us a year ago, it led a lot of us who were paying attention at the time to believe it would work a certain way - very much like what KitNyx and Gedichtewicht described.
3. Attach Rep penalties only to those activities GW does not want to see.
The whole point was to give the Players a tool for social engineering.
Your character will have a reputation as well. As your character undertakes various actions for others, those others will have the opportunity to provide feedback on the results, and you will have the opportunity to do the same in reverse.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
In addition to the current reputation system, I would like there to exist an 'opinion' system.
Essentially, such a system would allow any person to assign an opinion of any person or organization as 'favorable', 'neutral', 'unfavorable' or 'no opinion'. They would also be able to see aggregate numbers (x people have a favorable opinion of this company), or for any subgroup of which they are also a member (x people in your settlement have a neutral opinion of this person). Individual people could also choose to make their opinions public, and any person would be able to choose to see such opinions (Andius has an unfavorable opinion of this person). Each person would also be able to set a persistent opinion of each other, to help their memory.
I'm pretty sure that the server load would be pretty high for the general case implementation; each request for a detailed inspection would require cross-referencing up to thousands of rows (answering the question "How many of the people in my settlement have rated this settlement each of these ratings?" requires either iterating all of the people in my settlement or everyone that has rated the target.)
A simpler method would be to only be able to view your own opinion, the aggregate opinion of everyone, and the opinions of characters who have chosen to publish their opinions.
As suggested, there would be no mechanical effects of opinion ratings.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Can SAD be abused? Could one of your friends charge you "one wafer-thin copper", and you get the "I paid" flag for whatever period of time?
That's so obvious that someone's already thought of why that won't work, but I'm no bandit... :-)
If you do it this way, people can have an untagged bandit friend run alongside the demanding a SAD every few minutes to give a caravan complete SAD immunity.
If you leave no cool down then bandit companies can rob the same individual over and over again. Not only can this lead to abuse of traders, having to deal with SAD demands spammed one after another could be quite a huge annoyance, and a very effective form of griefing.
In scenario one the bandits could just forgo the SAD, take the rep loss, and slaughter the whole caravan. Also by reporting such actions to good aligned groups, they could see individuals who did this outcast even among their own alignment. I'm sure I'm not the only good aligned player who would find such forms of exploitation incredibly dishonorable.
In scenario two, people simply stop meeting the SAD demands of groups who use such dishonorable tactics. As the game grows and people are less familiar with each individual group however, this could lead to nobody complying with SAD demands at all, like how I would never pay a ship ransom in EVE because pirates can't be trusted.
In both situations I hope that kind of behavior is reportable, and that it earns one warning, and then discipline, as both are obvious explorations of game mechanics.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Can SAD be abused? Could one of your friends charge you "one wafer-thin copper", and you get the "I paid" flag for whatever period of time?
That's so obvious that someone's already thought of why that won't work, but I'm no bandit... :-)
Charging the toll requires being flagged for PvP. The 'real' bandits find and kill the person providing the false 'I paid' flag.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Under what circumstances would a bandit, bounty hunter or assassin, who plays by the rules, would ever not be rebuked by their victim? Even more rare would they ever be praised by their victim. So GW will be introducing what they claim will be legitimate player activities, but if they are really good at doing them, you could be banned.
My understanding is that to either rebuke or praise my opponent costs *me* reputation. So the garden variety bandit probably gets neither, unless I'm flush with reputation.
The "Dandy Highwayman" who robs me while filling local chat with lyrics from Adam Ant's "Stand and Deliver" might get grudging praise.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The 'real' bandits find and kill the person providing the false 'I paid' flag.
His "sacrifice" might still have saved the caravan. This'll get interesting in a "this isn't meaningful human interaction" way.
On the other hand, it's the most-obvious loophole in the world, so GW's going to do *something* about it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
She might have more combat power than the bandits guessed. He might be able to conceal some fraction of the most valuable cargo and avoid losing that (wild guess on my part; I doubt the particulars have been determined). Paying some SADs might be considered a business expense, so maybe it's a draw. Paying an exorbitant SAD or getting killed is a loss. Getting names of bandits and settling accounts later might let the merchant consider it a win. Being the dummy caravan, pulling in the bandits, and the valuable caravan getting thru is a win.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For clarification's sake: What ways, besides having the military power with him himself or in the form of bodyguards, will a trader have to "win" a SAD?
If your out in the wilds gathering, or running a caravan in the wilds... None, you need to defend yourself. If you cannot, then give me your money and be on your way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For clarification's sake: What ways, besides having the military power with him himself or in the form of bodyguards, will a trader have to "win" a SAD?
Short answer.. Luck!
I like to think of it like this. When you are driving down the highway, and you see a police officer has already pulled someone over. You can speed up a little bit, because you know that the number of officers are limited. At least that one was already occupied.
Same will go with PFO and bandits vs. merchants. If I am already engaged in a SAD or combat, you will be able to keep on traveling along and perhaps not be caught, this time.
Although I'm pulling numbers from thin air, I'd guess you'll only get pulled over with a SAD or attack, 20% of the time. It will probably be far less likely than that though.
I think there may be a bit of overestimating the impact that bandits will really have, when comparing the merchant to bandit ratio.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For clarification's sake: What ways, besides having the military power with him himself or in the form of bodyguards, will a trader have to "win" a SAD?Short answer.. Luck!
I like to think of it like this. When you are driving down the highway, and you see a police officer has already pulled someone over. You can speed up a little bit, because you know that the number of officers are limited. At least that one was already occupied.
Same will go with PFO and bandits vs. merchants. If I am already engaged in a SAD or combat, you will be able to keep on traveling along and perhaps not be caught, this time.
Although I'm pulling numbers from thin air, I'd guess you'll only get pulled over with a SAD or attack, 20% of the time. It will probably be far less likely than that though.
I think there may be a bit of overestimating the impact that bandits will really have, when comparing the merchant to bandit ratio.
In the beginning I think you will be right there. There will not be many and most of the time merchants will just cruise on. Once the game gets the word out a bit better about open world pvp then I suspect... The Merchants will just cruise on by two groups of bandits fighting over who will be able to pull them over for SAD.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's not the way I saw it. Or the way Ryan described it in RESPECT: Find Out What It Means to Me!:
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. If some of my social connections know you, I will know what they know about your reputation. Treat my friends well or you may find it hard to do business with me.
Thank you, I brought this up back here but could not recall the details. Glad to see my mind made the right connections.
I love this discussion guys/gals! It seems to have come a long ways (over 100 posts in a day as well).
I would just like to remind everyone here that Go Rin No Sho will be glad to assist with transport protection and bounty hunting related contracts among many others. ;)
I am definitely in favor of a social form of tracking where reputation is concerned. However, as I have stated before, a blanket system will be fine for EE. Though I imagine this would be tough to RE-implement once a system is in place without throwing away a lot of data.
@Decius
Handling thousands of records is insignificant for big data tools. Many systems regularly handle millions of records without issue, and that's exactly what I expect a well developed rep system would require.
One thing to note, I have seen a lot of ePeen wagging about how whoever is going to do whatever they please and whatever others think be damned. If you are engaging in forms of gameplay that garner strong player reaction, and if you are doing something that objectionable, there is a better than average chance it involves players as content. That content can and most certainly will change depending on your actions. Try not to let your fun end up coming at your own expense.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm thinking of a way to give bandits crates that look like they contain some valued recourse but in reality is filled with trash. Otherwise this is not a balanced engagement. Because the bandit has more ways to win then the trader has once the SAD is engaged. This should absolutely not be the case.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not pro-bandit, but SAD is the compromise option. Without SAD they can only kill and loot you. You can always refuse the SAD in order to get this outcome.
I do expect that SAD will have to be balanced, between the people doing a SAD for 1 copper coin (to immunize a convoy) and the people demanding "One miiillion dollars" (to give themselves a no-rep-loss kill).
I don't think we *need* bandits, but we certainly will need caravan predation mechanics for settlement vs. settlement conflict. Bandits are a bonus; they'll keep it real between towns. If it was strictly PvE half of the characters wouldn't need to bother with armor.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For clarification's sake: What ways, besides having the military power with him himself or in the form of bodyguards, will a trader have to "win" a SAD?
Never getting SADed in the first place. I don't mean that sarcastically, merchants who travel unsafe roads without a suitable guard should never take the beaten path, and even if you travel safe roads with an escort you should know alternate routes you can take if you run into trouble.
If you do get SADed, and are clearly outmatched, there is still always the option to run.
So you options are:
Sneak, run, & hire guards. Or any combination of the three.
I'm not pro-bandit, but SAD is the compromise option. Without SAD they can only kill and loot you. You can always refuse the SAD in order to get this outcome.
Right you are. Lack of a SAD system encourages RPKing because one of the number one reasons you will hear to justify RPKing is... "They might have had something valuable on them."
The SAD system removes all validity from that excuse. It replaced meaningless player interaction with meaningfull player interaction.
The SAD is really a great system for everyone. Not just bandits.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One thing to note, I have seen a lot of ePeen wagging about how whoever is going to do whatever they please and whatever others think be damned. If you are engaging in forms of gameplay that garner strong player reaction, and if you are doing something that objectionable, there is a better than average chance it involves players as content. That content can and most certainly will change depending on your actions. Try not to let your fun end up coming at your own expense.
Since I am directly involved to this statement, I will comment.
In a PVP game, it is not a matter of will you do something that garners strong player reactions it is a matter of when.
As the settlements are built up, people are out making loads of gold either PVEing or crafting/gathering. These same people will be territorial about their money making spots. Even the LG settlements will not like it when other groups move in and farm their areas. Which will garner strong player reactions.
One group will get mad at another for whatever reason, war will start, and a settlement will fall. The people who built up that settlement will have spent countless hours of game time making the resources and money needed for it. They will be upset once it is lost. Which will garner strong player reactions.
All content will change over time.
People will get mad at me for SADing them. People will get mad at me for killing them.
I plan to play a CN character. Someone else may play a CE character. If we are even going to bother with a Sandbox Open World PVP game with alignments, then why try to make an issue out of it? You know what the game will be, you know what that involves, every game play type should be acceptable and expected.
Dont get me wrong, I dont like griefing, and do not plan to do it. Purposely and repeatedly making the game not fun for others is not cool at all. On the other hand, if someone kills me or I kill someone else in the wilds, it may make someone mad but I dont see that as ruining the game. Even if it as seen as "random" to someone else.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay then what about the time needed for the bandit to go through the victims stuff to figure out what he will demand? Does the bandit sees the victims cargo instantly or does it take some time to display?
Also how much time does the victim have to respond to the SAD proposal?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Here is the problem Xeen. If you are the only one running around killing anyone you feel like killing, it isn't a problem at all.
When your organization are the only ones doing it, it isn't worth worrying about.
When 5% of the game is doing it, it's a minor problem.
When 25% of the game is doing it, it's a real concern.
When 50%+ of the game is doing it, you have Darkfall, and the community sucks.
When 100% of the games is doing it, there is no meaningful player interaction left, as the game has devolved into a giant brawl.
In all similar titles I've observed the majority of players coming into the game are anti-RPK, and a huge majority of the verteran community are RPKers.
My hypothesis is the reason for that is the vast majority of players prefer meaningful player interaction, and not getting killed by everyone they meet, but as they grow in power, using it to abuse others becomes more appealing, and as the community grows more abusive those seeking meaningful player interaction leave. Once the majority of the veteran population has turned RPK they continually cull the incoming players of almost anyone looking for a deeper experience.
There is one cure, and one cure only that I've ever seen work. A hard drive to wipe out the RPKer population by those holding the power. You can never get all of them, but it is possible to maintain a low enough % that they don't drive off the crowd seeking meaningful player interaction.
As happened before on my Freelancer server, this should cause massive population growth because as stated earlier, the vast majority of players prefer meaningful player interaction. RPKers are a cancer draining the life out of PVP titles. We will never achieve great success until that cancer is contained.
Every time you kill someone without cause you strike a blow against the cause of self moderating communities, and in favor of PVP restricting mechanics.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Which is why, please, build up the LG community.
It will keep me in check and having fun... why? If it becomes too easy then I will be bored and join you for the difficult play.
I know PFO will have plenty of safe areas for people to do their thing. They are doing alot of basis off of Eve. It will not be absolutely safe, but it will be relatively safe.
Granted, everything is up for change.
Meaningful play will be in the game, even from the likes of me. Yes, I will be doing what you will call RPKing. I wont consider it random, but the other guy may.
In the end, my real question has never been answered.
From who's point of view does it need to be considered RPK?
It may have meaning to me, but none to the other guy's point of view. Vice versa etc etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Which is why, please, build up the LG community.
It will keep me in check and having fun... why? If it becomes too easy then I will be bored and join you for the difficult play.
I know PFO will have plenty of safe areas for people to do their thing. They are doing alot of basis off of Eve. It will not be absolutely safe, but it will be relatively safe.
Granted, everything is up for change.
Meaningful play will be in the game, even from the likes of me. Yes, I will be doing what you will call RPKing. I wont consider it random, but the other guy may.
In the end, my real question has never been answered.
From who's point of view does it need to be considered RPK?
It may have meaning to me, but none to the other guy's point of view. Vice versa etc etc.
Even if I were lawful good this isn't an alignment thing. Though random slaughter is strictly the domain of chaotic evil, you can play every alignment including CE without being an RPKer. A game can have a thriving PVP community bursting with conflict and players of every alignment without a single RPKer having every tried it.
The only real safe area they have talked about is the area around the starter cities. If you look at the map, and how close you can settle to those cities, you'll realize that even if you are safe all the way out to the settleable hexes that isn't much space. EVE's high sec space is gargantuan by comparison.
The definition of RPKing is universal, not relative to your point of view. It's when your killing of people is not driven by any meaningful purpose or desire to achieve any goal beyond their death. And no "I was bored" is not a meaningful purpose. If your so bored you want to kill random people, just log put and go play Halo.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Xeen
Try not to let your fun end up coming at your own expense.
I think you missed the point. I was not imploring you or anyone not to play as you please, merely offering some insight ahead of time for those that are gearing up to ruin their own lands, because you will not be ruining mine.
If you have to ask where the line is drawn for RPKing, you will probably be crossing it a lot. Add to this that it will largely be a community defined term. As in, the community coming after you with torches, pitchforks and the occasional dead chicken; because you crossed someone's line. Again, not in the slightest bit trying to dissuade anyone from playing how they will, just thought that old adage "if you have to ask..." was particularly apt there.
I, for example, will be a facilitator. I wish to make it easier for people to see their goals achieved, and for my settlement to mature. I am sure a half dozen people can off the top of their heads think of several reasons this will not end well for me, that does not change that I will go about it regardless.
@Papavar
I do not believe they have said, though I think one of the devs has implied "enough time to call your friends for backup" or something along those lines.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Xeen,
It is actually not the Lawful Good companies / Settlements we need to worry about, it's the Lawful Evil ones.
If we remain a CN organization, then LG will be less likely to want to take the shift towards evil for killing neutrals. Whereas the LE will gain what they consider to be positive shifts in alignment towards LE for killing any Chaotic + G, N or E.
To the point some were making about players setting Global Reputation scores.
In EvE Online, you can set the standing of another for yourself. You can also set their corporation's standing for yourself. If you are a CEO of either a Corp or an Alliance, you can set it for your corp or alliance.
A player can see what that character's or corporation's standing is in the eyes of the entity that set it. However, that individual player can set his or her own standing if he/she chooses. The CEO can not see what individual members in his corp or alliance have set that standing to. This allows player-characters to have secret and independent thoughts about others.
My objection is to the idea that any person can set the standing towards one person, for other people or organizations. I also don't like the idea that by setting one individual's standing you can see every association they have, and then set their standing.
Online in EvE, I'm hoping the PFO allows us to toggle off such viewable information. I don't want someone to be able to look at my character and view the standings I have set for others.
If you want to know what I think of player x or company y, ask me. If you ask me what you should set their standing to, I'll tell you, "Whatever you want, it's how YOU feel about them".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
When 5% of the game is doing it, it's a minor problem.
When 25% of the game is doing it, it's a real concern.
Every time you kill someone without cause you strike a blow against the cause of self moderating communities, and in favor of PVP restricting mechanics.
GW can control it somewhat with mechanics that don't restrict PvP, but don't reward it too much. I think random partial loot is a good example - they don't want PK to be the best or fastest way to get rich. Reputation loss for certain types of killing is another. I look forward to seeing how it will all balance out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In EvE Online, you can set the standing of another for yourself. You can also set their corporation's standing for yourself. If you are a CEO of either a Corp or an Alliance, you can set it for your corp or alliance.A player can see what that character's or corporation's standing is in the eyes of the entity that set it. However, that individual player can set his or her own standing if he/she chooses. The CEO can not see what individual members in his corp or alliance have set that standing to. This allows player-characters to have secret and independent thoughts about others.
My objection is to the idea that any person can set the standing towards one person, for other people or organizations. I also don't like the idea that by setting one individual's standing you can see every association they have, and then set their standing.
Online in EvE, I'm hoping the PFO allows us to toggle off such viewable information. I don't want someone to be able to look at my character and view the standings I have set for others.
If you want to know what I think of player x or company y, ask me. If you ask me what you should set their standing to, I'll tell you, "Whatever you want, it's how YOU feel about them".
I would be satisfied with this system (although I still prefer the one I offered for the reasons Nihimon and I have argued). But, I do want to reiterate that my system does not necessarily require:
...setting one individual's standing you can see every association they have...
There is no reason these "inherited" player-driven rep values need to be visible...which is the only way one would be able to tell (by watching for small changes in the global rep values when you change the rep of player x). The rep values only need to all the restriction of resources/facilities...and I would be happy if it allowed me to color coordinate individuals that I personally have marked + or -.
Either way, fixing that anonymity in association seems to me to be a much smaller problem than the issue of player policed community. I would much rather have to decide how something will be displayed on the UI than how to create player-driven social engineering tools...after the fact.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not answering for KitNyx, mind you, but I want to answer these questions anyway.
What is your specific goal, for your settlement?
I want to be able to exclude characters from my Settlement if a significant number of my friends and allies consider those players untrustworthy.
What is the least complex way to achieve your goal?
Let my friends and allies rate the trustworthiness of characters. Then allow me to set entry requirements to my Settlement based on those ratings.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
For clarification's sake: What ways, besides having the military power with him himself or in the form of bodyguards, will a trader have to "win" a SAD?
Trickiness: Send an empty caravan out first, with instructions to run away from the road when bandits are encountered. Presumably, they will chase the decoy, missing the actual caravan.
Alternately, pay.
To the point some were making about players setting Global Reputation scores.In EvE Online, you can set the standing of another for yourself. You can also set their corporation's standing for yourself. If you are a CEO of either a Corp or an Alliance, you can set it for your corp or alliance.
A player can see what that character's or corporation's standing is in the eyes of the entity that set it. However, that individual player can set his or her own standing if he/she chooses. The CEO can not see what individual members in his corp or alliance have set that standing to. This allows player-characters to have secret and independent thoughts about others.
My objection is to the idea that any person can set the standing towards one person, for other people or organizations. I also don't like the idea that by setting one individual's standing you can see every association they have, and then set their standing.
If your companies and settlements are a thing, why do you think they should be immune from having their standing set?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Kitnyx
Lets try to simplify things, because there is too much to read and analyze on this subtopic.
What is your specific goal, for your settlement?
What is the least complex way to achieve your goal?
Well, I cannot speak for my "settlement", so I will generalize:
1) I want all social communities (of any size/structure) to have access to social engineering tools allowing them to restrict access to their resources/facilities based upon a metric of trustworthiness and/or favourability. The scope of this metric should only be the community in question.
2) I want the satisfaction of promoting and/or discouraging behaviours via participation in a system as described in 1.
3) I want social groups to be held responsible for the actions of their members. This is the only way to promote internal policing (which is more effective than external policing...and of course only if the social group being held responsible cares, which they may not). Similar to the system described in 1, the metric used in this system should only be local to the communities in question.
Realize, this last cuts both ways. It is not just about interactions with other groups. Messing with the rep of another effects your entire group (the bigger the group, and the higher ones standing within that group, the larger the effect). So any given group might also have an interest in policing the "rumor mongers" within their own community. If community A is trying to create a relationship with community B and internal factions keep undermining it with negative votes, there is a real interest there in perhaps having to either warn or remove the internal group. Community A might have to make a decision about which is more valued, the internal group or the relationship with community B. This is a tool not only for social engineering...but also politics and maybe even political unrest (but, to clarify, my primary interest is the local promotion of behaviours desired by an areas community, as I described in 3).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Messing with the rep of another effects your entire group (the bigger the group, and the higher ones standing within that group, the larger the effect). So any given group might also have an interest in policing the rumor mongers within their own community.
If I were in a company or settlement where the leaders "set" my standings towards another individual, outside of war, and I did not have the ability to ignore it or counter it by setting my own standing for that individual, my reaction would be quite harsh.
I would immediately resign from that settlement / company and hire an assassin to kill the leader who dared to set my standing without my expressed permission.
I would vehemently rail against any such game mechanic that allowed the arrogant few to set the standings for those companies or settlements outside of their control.
Your so called social engineering is nothing more than an attempt to control how others behave, based on your decisions, and that is not your domain. As I have stated my opinion, the Reputation should be a mechanical measure of how we play within the rules, and not be based on any other players's input.
You as a Settlement / Company Leader can deny any Individual Character or Company from entering your settlement. I don't see why any would allow you to make their standings for them?
If you feel someone is acting against the rules, report to a GM and let them decide.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Messing with the rep of another effects your entire group (the bigger the group, and the higher ones standing within that group, the larger the effect). So any given group might also have an interest in policing the rumor mongers within their own community.If I were in a company or settlement where the leaders "set" my standings towards another individual, outside of war, and I did not have the ability to ignore it or counter it by setting my own standing for that individual, my reaction would be quite harsh.
I would immediately resign from that settlement / company and hire an assassin to kill the leader who dared to set my standing without my expressed permission.
I would vehemently rail against any such game mechanic that allowed the arrogant few to set the standings for those companies or settlements outside of their control.
Your so called social engineering is nothing more than an attempt to control how others behave, based on your decisions, and that is not your domain. As I have stated my opinion, the Reputation should be a mechanical measure of how we play within the rules, and not be based on any other players's input.
You as a Settlement / Company Leader can deny any Individual Character or Company from entering your settlement. I don't see why any would allow you to make their standings for them?
If you feel someone is acting against the rules, report to a GM and let them decide.
What you read was not what I read. What I read is that everyone could contribute to a weighed average overall settlement standing, with some people having a higher weight than others.
There's no proposal to make the settlement standing have any mechanical effect with the effect of stopping a member of the settlement from dealing with someone with whom the settlement had a low standing.
This is also something orthogonal to the existing reputation system, not an extension of it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Messing with the rep of another effects your entire group (the bigger the group, and the higher ones standing within that group, the larger the effect). So any given group might also have an interest in policing the rumor mongers within their own community.If I were in a company or settlement where the leaders "set" my standings towards another individual, outside of war, and I did not have the ability to ignore it or counter it by setting my own standing for that individual, my reaction would be quite harsh.
I would immediately resign from that settlement / company and hire an assassin to kill the leader who dared to set my standing without my expressed permission.
I would vehemently rail against any such game mechanic that allowed the arrogant few to set the standings for those companies or settlements outside of their control.
Yep, that is the way social groups work. Don't like who your nation is going to war with...you have the option of leaving your nation or fighting your friend. If you don't like it...then your issue is with the dynamics of social groups, not with my suggestion.
You don't think GW currently intends to make it so your CC leaders, settlement leaders, or even nation leaders have the power to declare war on others? How then do you think war is going to occur in PFO?
Finally, my system did nothing but restrict access for others to the resources and facilities of the member's social group. You are welcome to go play with whomever you want, just don't invite them home for dinner.
Your so called social engineering is nothing more than an attempt to control how others behave, based on your decisions, and that is not your domain.
Yeah, ummm no disagreement from me...And how would you define social engineering? But I do not agree it is not the communities job to police itself...and I as a member of the community should be welcome ot offer my vote.
As I have stated my opinion, the Reputation should be a mechanical measure of how we play within the rules, and not be based on any other players's input.
Agreed.
As I have stated my opinion, there should be another player driven "reputation" that should be a mechanical measure of how our interactions are perceived by the community.
You gave your opinion, I gave mine.
You as a Settlement / Company Leader can deny any Individual Character or Company from entering your settlement. I don't see why any would allow you to make their standings for them?
If you feel someone is acting against the rules, report to a GM and let them decide.
Can we currently?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Where I qualified my statement was in this
What you read was not what I read. What I read is that everyone could contribute to a weighed average overall settlement standing, with some people having a higher weight than others.There's no proposal to make the settlement standing have any mechanical effect with the effect of stopping a member of the settlement from dealing with someone with whom the settlement had a low standing.
This is also something orthogonal to the existing reputation system, not an extension of it.
"If I were in a company or settlement where the leaders "set" my standings towards another individual, outside of war, and I did not have the ability to ignore it or counter it by setting my own standing for that individual, my reaction would be quite harsh."
My question is, could a member of this company / settlement set their own standing towards the individual / company that is in conflict with settlement leader's?
Would that settlement leader know what settings the individual members of that settlement have, in other words, is it a secret ballot?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For clarification's sake: What ways, besides having the military power with him himself or in the form of bodyguards, will a trader have to "win" a SAD?Trickiness: Send an empty caravan out first, with instructions to run away from the road when bandits are encountered. Presumably, they will chase the decoy, missing the actual caravan.
Alternately, pay.
I like this. Creative, within the spirit of the game, with no unsportsmanlike malice just to spite the bad guys.
This would be an awesome tactic, and if I fell for it I would probably give a tip in reputation and laugh at myself.
DeciusBrutus, I like you very much friend. Come kill me anytime you need some good PvP fun ^.^
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Where I qualified my statement was in this
What you read was not what I read. What I read is that everyone could contribute to a weighed average overall settlement standing, with some people having a higher weight than others.There's no proposal to make the settlement standing have any mechanical effect with the effect of stopping a member of the settlement from dealing with someone with whom the settlement had a low standing.
This is also something orthogonal to the existing reputation system, not an extension of it.
"If I were in a company or settlement where the leaders "set" my standings towards another individual, outside of war, and I did not have the ability to ignore it or counter it by setting my own standing for that individual, my reaction would be quite harsh."My question is, could a member of this company / settlement set their own standing towards the individual / company that is in conflict with settlement leader's?
Would that settlement leader know what settings the individual members of that settlement have, in other words, is it a secret ballot?
If you are choosing to contribute to the overall picture, I think it is reasonable that everyone knows what your contribution is. I think that it's entirely consistent for you to have a personal 'standing' which is different from the 'standing' which you contribute to your settlement's standing, and your personal standing should be visible only through your expressed preferences.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
For clarification's sake: What ways, besides having the military power with him himself or in the form of bodyguards, will a trader have to "win" a SAD?Trickiness: Send an empty caravan out first, with instructions to run away from the road when bandits are encountered. Presumably, they will chase the decoy, missing the actual caravan.
Alternately, pay.
I like this. Creative, within the spirit of the game, with no unsportsmanlike malice just to spite the bad guys.
This would be an awesome tactic, and if I fell for it I would probably give a tip in reputation and laugh at myself.
DeciusBrutus, I like you very much friend. Come kill me anytime you need some good PvP fun ^.^
The "unsportsmanlike malice" comes when I have a send out a large force on a route paralleling the decoy, just out of detection range, with the intention of being noticed by the scouts which are right there to detect this ploy, and using that to convince the bandits not only that the decoy is real, but in which direction it will run. When it runs the other way, I expect the bandits to recognize it as a decoy and let it get away in order to ambush... the other decoy.
As soon as you believe that there is a bean under one of the shells, you lose the shell game.