Goblin Squad Member
|
Unless you attack first but I doubt you would except getting antsy.Not sure what you mean.
If you're flying a Flag that lets you issue a SAD, then you're fair game, and I can kill you without losing Reputation.
I didnt realize you had to have a certain flag up that lets you use SAD.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Is it that you do not want to be subject to that action? Or that you honestly believe such an action has no place in the game.Don't kid yourself. There will be tons of Bandits, regardless of whether they gain Reputation for it.
I want there to be bandits. I want to be at risk of being attacked by them. I just don't want them to thank this endears them to me, and I'd like to be able to keep them out of my Settlement if they choose to prey on me and mine (without having to blacklist each and every single one of them).
I would think you could blacklist the group. UNC for instance. I will have to agree with that, but it shouldnt be an automatic mechanic other then rep as intended.
I will have to agree with Darcnes on that one as well though. There should be a mechanic that will tell you whether you can trust a bandit will or will not keep their word.
Another for instance: Nihimon, if you are transporting goods by yourself, and your character has combat skills and gathering skills. I show up and SAD you. You will have a few things to think about, will he honor the SAD or will he kill me anyway? If I refuse and attack him can he beat me in combat?
I can tell you that if the above is true, there is a higher chance that I can beat you in combat (not guaranteed though) as my character will be focused combat.
Thoughts to consider anyway.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.
Hmmm... in all honesty, the SAD mechanic is nice... but Id almost take the hit just for the surprise factor.
Thanks for the find, I havent read that blog since it came out.
Although, it does not say that I am flagged for you to attack without rep loss yourself.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Although, it does not say that I am flagged for you to attack without rep loss yourself.
Actually, it does...
These flags work like other PvP flags: A person targeting the character unprovoked gains the Involved flag and does not lose any reputation or alignment upon fighting/killing the target.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Somehow, to me at least, it will rest better in my mind to resist any attempt to take things from me by threat of force or intimidation. If I have to fight and die 1000 times, at least I did not just knuckle under.
What other's choose to do, and what they value more, is really up to them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I see no reason that the bandit should be able to be reasonably sure of your strength. There should certainly be deception skills that can be deployed to fool the bandits into thinking you are weaker or stronger than you are.
If the bandits can know your strength accurately then there is no risk on the part of the bandits and they deserve no reward
I hereby surrender all points I made in our conversation in teamspeak about interpersonal informat warfare and declare that I am hence forth [sic?] in 100% agreement with you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Don't kid yourself. There will be tons of Bandits, regardless of whether they gain Reputation for it.
Totally was not directed at you. We are both detail oriented and so far as I can tell we have not interpreted things where there is room much differently.
We might not agree on how we would like things to be in some cases, but that is merely a matter of opinions. ;)
I was referring to what seems like a semi-frequent misunderstanding of something that to my eyes has been clearly addressed by the devs.
Carry on.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Although, it does not say that I am flagged for you to attack without rep loss yourself.Actually, it does...
These flags work like other PvP flags: A person targeting the character unprovoked gains the Involved flag and does not lose any reputation or alignment upon fighting/killing the target.
Hmmm, so from what I take from that is... anyone with any of these flags can be attacked without rep or alignment loss...
I would suggest hauling your stuff without traveler, which may not be a good idea either. (I mean, traveler may be required to haul everything you gather)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As for the skill focus thing I said above. It doesnt really state in Commoners, Experts, Aristocrats if these skills will be separate. My guess is they are not, everyone will start with some and have to train up from there from the pool.
I was wondering if the starter skills would be something we could build on. If they are mandatory and limited. If we could have other options if we don't want to gather, or whatever..
Edit: Oops. Misunderstood your meaning there.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Oh yeah, Im sure we can build on them quite a bit. They will be the basic skills we start with then go on from there. So effectively we will start as commoners and then become adventurers. Which does not mean we cannot build up our commoner skills.
Looks like at the moments the commoner skills are based on:
Gathering
Crafting
Leadership
What I meant from above is that, to be a good gatherer you would need to build up the commoner skills, which will take away from your combat skills a bit.
So you have a choice, be a jack of all (or two) trades or you can focus.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Kitnyx, you should stop referring to your proposal as reputation, it's obviously confusing certain people.
If I follow what is being suggested here, by a few, what they want is no reputation save or gain from issuing a SAD.
No, you aren't following at all.
Then there is another desire to bar our entry, not only to one settlement, but from associated settlements. Better yet, as some massive social engineering project, to bar outlaws from all settlements.
The only desire expressed is to have some kind of player-controllable standings system which can be used to control access to settlements. The specific one proposed relies on a decentralized aggregate standings value based on individual member standings (because that would be more interesting, and less micromanagement for settlement governors), but a monolithic standings value controlled by the settlement's governing body would probably be sufficient.
Just like in EVE, though, such standings would only impact settlement-level stuff - individuals would be free to ignore their settlement's standings, just like a pilot can ignore his corp's standings in EVE and freely associate with whoever he likes (but if his buddy with -10 standings to the corp warps to the corp's nearby death star, too bad.)
As for "massive social engineering projects" - if you piss off enough people to get all settlements to set you to negative standings and deny you access, or you piss off groups powerful enough to lean on everyone else to do so, that's your own damn fault.
Solution:
Sometimes the only way to convince those who can't see the benefits of moderation, is to have them suffer the extreme worse case scenario.
Right, so your solution to other players resisting banditry is to attempt blackmail. Ho hum.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sometimes the only way to convince those who can't see the benefits of moderation, is to have them suffer the extreme worse case scenario.
Right, so your solution to other players resisting banditry is to attempt blackmail. Ho hum.
"I do not think it means what you think it means."
Bludd has it right. The success of this open PvP model rests solely on the players' ability to moderate themselves.
It is more than possible for players to ruin the game for others, the mere existence of that choice is what grants meaning to your decision not to.
It is also pointless to argue the simple truth that some only come to value what they once had when it is gone. This is no less true of moderate behavior and the environment it embodies than anything else.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Right, so your solution to other players resisting banditry is to attempt blackmail. Ho hum.
"I do not think it means what you think it means."
Threatening the playerbase with importing bloodthirsty killers to terrorize them if the players don't collectively bend knee and let bandits run free without consequences isn't blackmail?
Ah, you're right - it's extortion. My bad.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If I had to pick a word right now it would be melodramatic.
I have not seen Bludd offer to import anyone to terrorize anyone else. Mind you, if he thought he could make a profit from it he very well might. As always, I welcome a reminder of something I may have missed; but as it is, from where I am standing (sitting) you just blatantly put words into someone's mouth.
How is that in any way constructive?
If people do not decide that moderation is worthwhile, they will quickly get the chance to see first hand the results of no moderation. Left unchecked they will soon see the worst case scenario for themselves.
There is nothing sinister about that, it is an oft repeated caution about the paramount importance of not acting like a prick just because you can.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The answer to all this is surely just to organise regular and effective bandit hunts. After all, it is always open season on bandits. Given all the great gear they are stealing, it might well turn out to be profitable as well.
A solution that works within a meta-game and in-game logic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Darcnes
You made an excellent point in reminding us that Reputation is not a measure of character relationships being positive or negative, but a measure of our relationship with the behaviors the DEVS want to see and don't want to see.
The devs want us to SAD unflagged merchants, rather than outright attack them.
The devs want us to fight flagged opponents.
The devs don't want us to kill someone after they have accepted a SAD.
There you have the Positive Rep, the Neutral Rep and the Negative Rep.
What the target feels about it is up to him. He is either in line with the Dev's thinking or he is not.
@ Tuoweit
What I was trying to illustrate with my statement:
"Sometimes the only way to convince those who can't see the benefits of moderation, is to have them suffer the extreme worse case scenario."
Is that some people can not appreciate what they have until it is taken away. This Open World PVP MMO can have three kinds of tones:
1. Peaceful and boring
2. Moderately Peaceful, Moderately Dangerous and Dynamic
3. A Brutal Killfest, Complete Anarchy
I'd prefer number 2, but I can play number 3, what I don't want is number 1.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
SAD is not moderation. It's a way for the bandit to get his stuff without any penalty.
It is also a way for you to still deliver a greater portion of what you have, instead of losing it all.
But let me ask this, now that Darcnes reminded me of it.
What incentive should GW provide to players for playing to the behaviors they want to see?
When players harvest resources far from civilization and then transport them home, they will be at an elevated risk of being engaged by hostile forces. They'll have to worry about monstrous creatures from the surrounding area, and they'll need to be especially worried about other players seeking to profit from their hard labor.
This creates a powerful game dynamic. Going out to get those resources is a pathway to wealth. But to succeed, you'll need help to protect your harvesting crew and your logistics and transport system. Folks who try to extract wealth without effective protection will likely find themselves beset on all sides by those who would forcefully take what they've harvested.
Ultimately, we feel that it should be pretty likely for players transporting valuable goods to be attacked by other players, with an increasingly likelihood as the value and distance they're transporting goods increases. The game economy will make getting into town with a big haul valuable precisely because there are people out there who want to take it from you: if you can get it to market, you get to charge a premium because of all the people that couldn't.
Deciding how much to carry, how many guards to bring, and whether to fight or try to flee when you see a bandit should be significant choices as a traveler. Conversely, player bandits should have to decide whether attacking just anyone is worth it, and whether it's better to make a surprise attack or actually try to extort goods from the traveler first (if they stand and deliver, it triggers none of the consequences).
If you're interested in PvP, this will be a way for you to constructively pursue that style of play without worrying about being condemned by the community for being a jerk, or facing significant mechanical penalties imposed by the game systems.
At the end of the day, if you're killing other players that are uninterested in PvP for no benefit, we want to make the costs significant enough to convince you to do something else, as that's the kind of thing that drives players away. However, if they know they have something valuable and fighting or fleeing from you is the price of profit, suddenly it's worthwhile for everyone. And those opportunities should be worth risking the consequences.
I am not entitled to your loot without hard work and risk. You are not entitled to your profit without hard work and risk.
You receive a Reputation Bonus, just for flying the Traveler flag.
I only get a Reputation Bonus if someone agrees to my SAD offer.
By both of us playing our roles the way that GW hopes we will, everyone benefits.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If I had to pick a word right now it would be melodramatic.
I have not seen Bludd offer to import anyone to terrorize anyone else.
I only quoted the one phrase as a shortcut to quoting the whole section, allow me to quote the more directly relevant bit:
We shall become a naked, rusty dagger wielding, Zerg / blob, flying Outlaw and Assassin flags, Chaotic Evil and low reputation. We will travel in such a large number, that none but those able or willing to hire dozens will stand a chance.
This reign of terror will last until the social engineers figure out they were better off leaving well enough alone.
I can play this way, I've done it before. I have on tap a few dozen players from EvE who are not happy with how the Care Bears had ruined the small gang PvP there. They'd not need too much encouragement to come to PFO during OE, and take part in the ganking.
My description:
Threatening the playerbase with importing bloodthirsty killers to terrorize them
Sounds like a pretty succinct summary to me. Any melodrama you perceive does not originate in my post.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We shall become a naked, rusty dagger wielding, Zerg / blob, flying Outlaw and Assassin flags, Chaotic Evil and low reputation. We will travel in such a large number, that none but those able or willing to hire dozens will stand a chance.
This reign of terror will last until the social engineers figure out they were better off leaving well enough alone.
I can play this way, I've done it before. I have on tap a few dozen players from EvE who are not happy with how the Care Bears had ruined the small gang PvP there. They'd not need too much encouragement to come to PFO during OE, and take part in the ganking.
My description:
Threatening the playerbase with importing bloodthirsty killers to terrorize themSounds like a pretty succinct summary to me. Any melodrama you perceive does not originate in my post.
You do understand that my statement was designed to show a contrast?
I clearly stated that it is not what I prefer to do, or hope to do, it was just something that is possible.
In general, I have noticed that my main points are often bypassed and instead side issues are focused on. That can be explained with avoidance, confusion or a more willful ploy to deflect away from a true agenda.
My agenda has been and will remain that PFO does not become ruled by the tyranny of those that really don't like open world PvP MMOs but come to them in an effort to slowly wear the Devs down to make them care bear paradises.
I have seen this in EvE Online, where the HI Sec criminals have been virtually wiped out (ie Ore Thieves and Ninja Looters), not through combat between the thief and the victim and or his fleet, but by the entire population of the system if they choose to interfere. Even the small gang PvP has been sorely diminished, and replaced almost exclusively with large fleets.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose the important take away here is that:
Reputation is an almost meaningless value to me. It is close, but not quite there.
Seeking to play a character on the scale from chaotic good to neutral good, the alignment system is my first measure of whether do business with someone (any non-evil). Unfortunately, there is no way to tell if the character is engaged in banditry, or other unsavory behavior, from alignment alone.
Character A spends 50% of their time doing PvE content earning Good points and 50% of their time issuing SADs earning Chaotic points. This could well leave them as Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Good. CN is something to be wary of, but I would gladly party with CG characters.
But not if they are bandits acting purely for fun and profit. I want to play with characters that are "good from my perspective" and not simply "Game Mechanics Good". I want to play against bandits, because my character views them as a pox on the world, twisting what it means to be free into 'immoral' actions. We are simply one more point of reference from having a system to meet the criteria I would need to establish points of view on others.
We can even call them bear points if you like. Folks who always cooperate and 'play nice' would gain points toward Care. Those who 'take from and harm others' would lose points, drifting towards Scare.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Character A spends 50% of their time doing PvE content earning Good points and 50% of their time issuing SADs earning Chaotic points. This could well leave them as Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Good. CN is something to be wary of, but I would gladly party with CG characters.
One of the things that I think has the most potential is the alignment system. Most of us have picked our alignments for characters in the TT games with the view of "this is what I am, what does this allow me to do?" PFO turns this on its head, to "because of what I have done, this is my alignment."
While we will revert to our chosen core alignments, I think that beginning in EE people will start to reappraise alignments. If someone doesn't play his character like a CG, he might decide, "well, I like doing this stuff and my alignment is trending NG. I think I'll just shift alignment." And like you say, the neutrals are going to be seen as people who might be skirting the edge of the law (or the chaos, or the evil, or good) and it might just be smart to be wary of them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Lifedragn
You may not be able to readily view someone's alignment but you should be able to see their flags. Outlaw in this case would likely be of most interest to you. Simple enough matter to party only with the Chaotic players that are not choosing to flag themselves Outlaw.
As Ryan has reminded us many a time, there is no way to please everyone. The best they can do is to create mechanics that players can use to keep the world at a happy medium.
If you want carebear, exert your energy to effect as much of a change in that direction over your surroundings as possible. If you travel with the right people and avoid appearing too much like a victim you will likely avoid much of the unsavory content that turns you off.
Bludd made a very good point earlier about bandits worth their salt picking their targets well. Make sure that the first and last thing to cross their minds when they see you is "nope". That is one way you can actively participate in making sure the game you play is the game you want to play.
Remember though: the night is dark, and full of terrors. ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As always, I welcome a reminder of something I may have missed;I have on tap a few dozen players from EvE who are not happy with how the Care Bears had ruined the small gang PvP there. They'd not need too much encouragement to come to PFO during OE, and take part in the ganking.
@Tuoweit
Thank you for pulling that up, I gladly stand corrected.@Bludd
Based on your description it sounds like maybe you were not terribly effective in your endeavors? ;)
Either way, the original point stands: moderation is key.
And now we know Bludd will probably have an influx of fresh blood at OE once they hear how much fun he is having Stealing At Dagger-point.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Im starting to get really annoyed with this thread.
Let me say this. If all some of you want is an additional reputation system that is based more on personal feelings and the need to better manage your settlement. Then I don't think its necessary but if the devs put it in great, fine whatever.
Now to everyone that wants to do away with positive rep from SAD, do away with SAD altogether, or actually work together in a massive effort to effectively make it useless to even try...... Could you please stop this insanity. I hear people saying they want meaningful PvP and they want the excitement and danger of PvP, but they want to cut off any chance for rep gain (the existing system)from SAD. Because you are either IC or OOC opposed to Bandits.
I get that you don't like Bandits and don't think they should get rep gain. But if you take away SAD (actually or functionally)then you are taking away meaningful PvP when it comes to Bandits. This means that I have no real reason to try to be a "good" bandit or to even try to be CN. At this point you are hampering my gameplay purposely to spite me, and are leaving me little choice but to play as a "bad" bandit and as CE. In other words, not because I want to but because you have forced it upon me by effectively castrating SAD. It will de-evolve just as Bluddwolf has said. And the crazy part is you were the very ones to bring it upon yourselves. I frankly just don't even understand this, it seems a French fry short of a happy meal.
I personally wont be griefing, but are you trying to attract THAT type of Banditry? Do you want what Andius and others have been worried about for a long time? With the current restriction on what reasonable PvP is most of the crazy KoS RPKing will all but disappear. Even bandits will see the merits of playing better through SAD to gain rep so that they can progress in the game. Trust me, I want to gain training and such. If I wanted to play Call Of Duty online..... I would go play that. Scary, but I think I just channeled Andius.
DEVS!!!! Are you monitoring this thread? You should be.
What will you do to fix reputation for bandits or work around the need for it (can get training at NPC Bandit Faction for example) if the community collectively convinces you to take away rep gain from SAD? Or worse if the community works together en masse to undermine SAD? Purposefully exploiting intended game systems seems like a ban worthy offense to me!!!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
On the issue of alignment, I've never been a fan of it. My characters have always been too complex to fit within just two axis of alignment. In 1977 my D&D group started using three ie. CN(E). By 1980 we discarded alignment all together and never went back.
In PFO they have created the idea of Core Alignment and Active Alignment. What we don't know is which of the two will be used for flags, settlement access and company membership.
Ideally in my opinion, it will be the Active Alignment that is judged. If that is the case I will roll a Paladin type character with a Core Alignment of Chaotic Evil and an Active Alignment of Lawful Good. From an RP perspective this is a true Paladin, having to actively work against his natural urges.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ideally in my opinion, it will be the Active Alignment that is judged.
Agreed. Active alignment is what the character is. Core alignment is what she wants to be, the natural tendencies over the long term. I think the core/active was a pretty clever way for GW to deal with that difference.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You do understand that my statement was designed to show a contrast?I clearly stated that it is not what I prefer to do, or hope to do, it was just something that is possible.
Pure FUD.
In general, I have noticed that my main points are often bypassed and instead side issues are focused on. That can be explained with avoidance, confusion or a more willful ploy to deflect away from a true agenda.
The irony is monumentally staggering.
My agenda has been and will remain that PFO does not become ruled by the tyranny of those that really don't like open world PvP MMOs but come to them in an effort to slowly wear the Devs down to make them care bear paradises.
I have seen this in EvE Online, where the HI Sec criminals have been virtually wiped out (ie Ore Thieves and Ninja Looters), not through combat between the thief and the victim and or his fleet, but by the entire population of the system if they choose to interfere. Even the small gang PvP has been sorely diminished, and replaced almost exclusively with large fleets.
You have a habit of tarring everyone who isn't interested in petty crime as being against Open World PvP, yet some of us who are against making banditry easy are all for Open World PvP. But I don't believe that specific forms of Open World PvP should somehow have an endangered species status where they don't have real, mechanical consequences within the game's societal framework (which is NOT THE REPUTATION SYSTEM). We shouldn't have to all smile and nod as bandits first steal from us and then make full use of the town facilities that we scraped together out of what the bandits left behind.
The idea that a majority of players who frown on particular activities shouldn't be able to work together to stamp out or at least make that activity "hard freakin' work" (thanks, Jazzlvraz) whether they're directly victimized or not at any given moment is folly - that's the fundamental basis of human society, establishing standard rules of behaviour and having the necessary tools to enforce them.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
SAD is a way to mechanically recognize that paying tribute can be better for everybody involved (the tribute paid can be less than the expected losses of fighting and greater than the expected gains from attacking).
The concept of tribute is both thematically appropriate and meaningful interaction, so it makes sense to encourage it. If Reputation is the wrong method to encourage charging tribute, what mechanism is appropriate?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In case it's not clear, I'm not advocating against SAD. I agree it's a positive gameplay mechanic for everyone. I'm advocating for KitNyx's proposal of (for lack of a better term, and to replace KitNyx's confusing referral to it as reputation) a standings system.
@ Greedalox If some well meaning but misguided system comes into being that prevents meaningful gameplay for the alignments supported by Acheron then Acheron will re evaluate it's policies on membership and visitor status. If there is an Acheron there will be a place to do business and to train for you.
It is not clear to me that that is the goal of these proposed systems so it is difficult to judge.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
At this point you are hampering my gameplay purposely to spite me, and are leaving me little choice but to play as a "bad" bandit and as CE. In other words, not because I want to but because you have forced it upon me by effectively castrating SAD. It will de-evolve just as Bluddwolf has said. And the crazy part is you were the very ones to bring it upon yourselves.
Do you *really* think anyone on this thread is hampering your gameplay to spite you?
I think most people agree that there will be bandits and there is a place for them. GW has been pretty clear this will be; to think there won't be bandits and rules supporting them is idiocy. The various game mechanics need to be balanced before launch, as much as possible, and both sides are weighing in. I hope they get it pretty well balanced before launch. But even if GW makes some adjustment in anything they've written so far, it's just to balance the game as best as they can. It isn't intended to spite me, or you, or anyone else.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In case it's not clear, I'm not advocating against SAD. I agree it's a positive gameplay mechanic for everyone. I'm advocating for KitNyx's proposal of (for lack of a better term, and to replace KitNyx's confusing referral to it as reputation) a standings system.
You want THREE coexisting social metrics? Are you nuts? It's going to take tons of crowdforging and play testing just to get Alignment and reputation to work in stand alone fashion, much less overlapping as they will. A third one is madness.
Alignment all by itself is a bloated cow. You got core alignment, active alignment, settlemnet alignemet, kingdom alignment...
Concentrate people. These forums get way too carried away with suggestions that would make an unplayable, bogged down, over complicated mish-mash.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If Reputation is the wrong method to encourage charging tribute, what mechanism is appropriate?
I think Reputation is the right method - provided SAD is being used legitimately; as intended.
Andius raised the issue up thread of one SAD exploit - the 1 copper SAD demand to immunize a caravan against real bandits. His view was that any caravans using that exploit would not be covered by his guards. I think mechanically preventing it might be better.
The other obvious SAD exploit is the excessive demand that basically forces the target into a fight where the bandits lose no reputation. I'm generally fine with SAD; I'd like this exploit to be addressed mechanically. Defining excessive is the tricky bit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You want THREE coexisting social metrics? Are you nuts? It's going to take tons of crowdforging and play testing just to get Alignment and reputation to work in stand alone fashion, much less overlapping as they will. A third one is madness.In case it's not clear, I'm not advocating against SAD. I agree it's a positive gameplay mechanic for everyone. I'm advocating for KitNyx's proposal of (for lack of a better term, and to replace KitNyx's confusing referral to it as reputation) a standings system.
I believe there needs to be a way of expressing a settlement's relations with/opinion towards other players and player groupings outside of alignment, because (a) alignment + reputation is too coarse, (b) alignment is gameable, (c) Lawful Stupid, Neutral Self-centered and Chaotic Random aren't on the alignment chart, and (d) alt spies.
(The specific case of shutting out bandits as indicated in this thread falls under (a) and (b).)