Goblin Squad Member
|
I am all for having PC Bandits, so long as they reciprocate by allowing me to play a character who objects to being robbed and does all in her power to defeat them.
You have that already. In many different forms and layers.
1. Train Some Combat Skills to Defend Yourself
2. Hire NPC guards to protect you
3. Hire PC guards to protect you
4. Run like Hell
5. Accept the SAD offer
6. Fight / Defend Yourself
7. Rebuke those that kill you
8. Place Bounty
9. Contract an Assassin
10. Death Curse
11. Search for Hideout and destroy it
12. Hunt Down the entire company of bandits
13. Ban the individual bandit from your settlement
14. Ban the Bandit Company from your settlement
15. Ban all Outlaws from your settlement
16. Declare war on bandits settlement, if there is one
Do you honestly believe there needs to be more?
The funny or pathetic thing is, you can do all of these things if the bandit kills you and steals just one copper piece.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I gotta say I am with you Bluddwolf. There are plenty of mechanisms already in the game between reputation and alignment and PvP. I am seeing some pretty inane suggestions to over complicate this game for things that get resolved pretty quickly the old fashioned way...player to player interaction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Kitnyx, you should stop referring to your proposal as reputation, it's obviously confusing certain people.
I know, my apologies. I have tried to reiterate that point several times and have used the term "fame" to try to differentiate the two.
To clarify my position again:
1) I entirely support full open world PVP and was probably the biggest advocate for it on the early forums. I argued against any safe areas and for full loot. My opinion on PvP has not changed.
2) I entirely support banditry as a PVP mechanic. I entirely support SAD as a possible bandit mechanic. I think bandits in game are content that should be there.
3) I think the currently proposed reputation system as described by GW is necessary for the reasons everyone here has outlined, it encourages "playing as intended". I fully support it, as described, including for banditry.
4) Yes, I think there needs to be a 3rd metric that allows my character to privately define how he/she views others. This 3rd metric, "fame" or "standing" (although "reputation" fits this metric better than GWs system), is aggregated for social groups, essentially creating measure of how that group views the party(s) in question.
5) Finally, communities can use all 3 metrics as they see fit to set access to their goods and facilities. This might not seem like a big deal, but it is the only tool GW has offered us as of yet to discourage behaviours.
I am not trying to take away anything, I am actually advocating additional content.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think you are very carelessly proposing something that makes sense for EVE, where Reputation is the one and only backbone mechanic for social interaction, but makes absolutely no sense for PFO, where we already have 2 social mechanics.
Have you even bothered to read any of the blogs the last 6 months? Alignment is already broken up into its own 2 axis system, has two alignments PER PLAYER and another for the settlement you are in. Alignment is the backbone social system of PFO, not Reputation. Your proposal takes Reputation to the same complexity of Alignment and in aggregate makes a game of micro managed social interactions that I can't belive anybody would want to play. Not to mention the more webs, the more loopholes.
And for what? Just to hard code things that happen naturally? Word gets around very fast on who is playing shennanigans, which guilds are falling from grace etc. I see zero, none, nada need for this proposal.
If anything I think PFO should DITCH reputation, and make everything work on the already complicated alignment axises.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Anethema
Thanks I appreciate the support. I hope it isn't mandatory. But some of the talk in this thread is killing my mood.
@ Urman
Im all for balance. But that also means I shouldn't be stripped of my ability to train because of LOW rep. Just because I am a Bandit. SAD is my ticket to playing as a bandit and getting positive rep for training and getting access to higher level training.
And yes I do think some people want to spite me. Not me personally. What I mean is bandits in general. How else am I supposed to take this statement, "let's make it a rallying cry! "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!" If it is an individual or settlement philosophy, then I don't have an issue as its more of an honor thing. If it was pushed as a server wide agenda (hence the rallying cry), then its no longer about the honor of the individual or settlement and more about actively gaming the system to bar rep from bandits. In which case Id say it should be a ban worthy offense.
Now I doubt anyone could do this because it would take server wide agreement. But this is a niche game, with a small population, and a lot of people that are carebears or are just paranoid about griefing. So I wont laugh it off as not possible.
All that being said, as long as there is a way for me to train and buy/sell goods, then I could care less if the reputation system was turned on its head, added too, or destroyed.
Now the devs have said that we can use disguise to sneak into places and there is always the idea of a fence. So that takes care of buying/selling goods. But as reputation is tied to training, if the game is built in such a way that there is no way for me to receive access to training (particularly mid-high level training) due to low reputation, then that hampers my gameplay. I don't mind settlement progression being tied to reputation. But I do mind it being tied to personal progression, if there is no way for me to get it due to being a bandit.
So as long as rep is either not required to get good training or there is SOME kind of method, any kind of method to get rep for good training. That is all that matters to me. However it is balanced.
@ KitNyx Could you explain so that I understand more fully how the data will get into the system. Will I need to enter data for every encounter with every other non allied player?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Kitnyx, you should stop referring to your proposal as reputation, it's obviously confusing certain people.I know, my apologies. I have tried to reiterate that point several times and have used the term "fame" to try to differentiate the two.
To clarify my position again:
1) I entirely support full open world PVP and was probably the biggest advocate for it on the early forums. I argued against any safe areas and for full loot. My opinion on PvP has not changed.
2) I entirely support banditry as a PVP mechanic. I entirely support SAD as a possible bandit mechanic. I think bandits in game are content that should be there.
3) I think the currently proposed reputation system as described by GW is necessary for the reasons everyone here has outlined, it encourages "playing as intended". I fully support it, as described, including for banditry.
4) Yes, I think there needs to be a 3rd metric that allows my character to privately define how he/she views others. This 3rd metric, "fame" or "standing" (although "reputation" fits this metric better than GWs system), is aggregated for social groups, essentially creating measure of how that group views the party(s) in question.
5) Finally, communities can use all 3 metrics as they see fit to set access to their goods and facilities. This might not seem like a big deal, but it is the only tool GW has offered us as of yet to discourage behaviours.
I am not trying to take away anything, I am actually advocating additional content.
+1
Evil-Good:
Atm, Alignment adds both flavor of lore for people that makes sense in the PFO world as well as which mobs react friendly or hostile or neutral to you and further which religion you bend the knee to and equally what sort of favours inform your skills. That's a lot of leg-work for that Alignment to fit CHARACTER -> WORLD
Chaotic-Lawful:
I have not tabulated all the current flags set out but this regulates actions of players particularly according to where they are in a lawful hex or not: So really this is dependent on LOCATION a lot (I forget momentarily other factors). Which is still powerful but it's contextual info.
Reputation:
Gets closer to WHO you can afford to attack and how much house-keeping you have to do to consider who and when and in what context to attack. It's also got some relative weighting if you have high reputation stashed, then you your rating in an interaction has more credibility for assigning to another player and then other players cueing off that.
Another Level
But possibly a RELATIVE relationship could be added that weighs according what people you rate highly rate someone as etc...
Final Level: Player Discretion: Just player experience and grapevine the old fashioned way. Take a chance, do some research etc etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So as long as rep is either not required to get...
I really don't understand why we need the Reputation mechanic in the first place. It seems like a holdover from EVE that just doesn't belong. If you break a contract or turn to banditry, you should move Chaotic. If you kill people you are not at war with, you gain evil. Your actions have implications individually and socially.
We already have like half a dozen side systems revolving around Alignment; hienous, assassinations, training, SAD, War, class features...
I really don't see why reputation should be anything more than maybe another side system that compliments ALIGNMENT, the real social metric of the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sorry, but by that logic, there's no need for Alignment or Reputation, either.... things that get resolved pretty quickly the old fashioned way...player to player interaction.This.
Balance my friend, balance. I don't think people have a proper grasp of just how complicated alignment is because we are not actually playing yet. It's really complicated and for it to work right it has to be present in most player to player interactions. As soon as you start throwing in non congruent systems things get pretty crazy pretty fast.
I mean how many social systems are we proposing be affected by a single bandit to caravan encounter?
|
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.
That only works if Outlaw is a permanent flag. Which I do not think it should be.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I really don't understand why we need the Reputation mechanic in the first place. It seems like a holdover from EVE that just doesn't belong. If you break a contract or turn to banditry, you should move Chaotic. If you kill people you are not at war with, you gain evil. Your actions have implications individually and socially.
Ryan goes into the why of reputation here: I Shot a Man in Reno Just To Watch Him Die
Alignment is a major part of the PF game (I wonder if it's a non-negotiable part of the PFO license). GW introduced reputation to complement the alignment system and encourage/discourage certain behaviors. As one example: if one player is chaotic evil and another lawful good, each should not be able to abuse the other without limit or recourse. GW apparently didn't think alignment alone would prevent abuse.
Is it complex? Well, we couldn't do it at a TT game. But as Ryan has explained, it's easy for computers to track this stuff.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Reputation if it's major flagging for PvP, then in that case it's a major impact on meaningful interaction of PvP that is conducive to great gameplay of open gradated world pvp, as opposed to griefing using PvP as a powerful tool for that motivation.
A system that recommends the sort of relationship you might confer on a new acquaintance based on your trusted friend's ratings of said unknown individual to you, would serve another useful purpose - Reputation from PvP might or might not be relevant on that sort of decision ie a great schemer of the markets and contracts for eg?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sorry, but by that logic, there's no need for Alignment or Reputation, either.... things that get resolved pretty quickly the old fashioned way...player to player interaction.This.
There is no need for alignment or reputation. I can't think of any MMOs that use alignment. There are very few PnP RPGs that use it. It was unnecessary in 1974 and its is so now.
Thee is no reputation system in most MMOs, and yet players can still be banned for breaking rules. Not really needed here to do what GW needs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan goes into the why of reputation here: I Shot a Man in Reno Just To Watch Him Die
Alignment is a major part of the PF game (I wonder if it's a non-negotiable part of the PFO license). GW introduced reputation to complement the alignment system and encourage/discourage certain behaviors. As one example: if one player is chaotic evil and another lawful good, each should not be able to abuse the other without limit or recourse. GW apparently didn't think alignment alone would prevent abuse.
Is it complex? Well, we couldn't do it at a TT game. But as Ryan has explained, it's easy for computers to track this stuff.
I just don't see how that couldn't be done within alignment. CE is supposed to be pretty unplayable, bad behavior makes you go there. I don't understand why they need a 3rd axis which is actually like a 12th axis since every character has so many different alignments going on.
We're barely touching all the flags that affect alignment hits as well!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sorry, but by that logic, there's no need for Alignment or Reputation, either.... things that get resolved pretty quickly the old fashioned way...player to player interaction.This.There is no need for alignment or reputation. I can't think of any MMOs that use alignment. There are very few PnP RPGs that use it. It was unnecessary in 1974 and its is so now.
Thee is no reputation system in most MMOs, and yet players can still be banned for breaking rules. Not really needed here to do what GW needs.
No, here is where we part. Reputation systems make a big difference in the type of PvP a game has. Wild west v.s apocolypse, yadda yadda, I agree with all of that. PFO is trying to make a pretty ambitious reputation type system called: alignment that is in tune with the Pathfinder game rules. I'm all for that too.
Then on top of maybe the most ambitious social MMO mechanic ever seen, they want to pile on EVE's reputation system.
Here's where they lose me.
On top of that we have a player base that wants the FULL EvE reputation system.
Hell No!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan goes into the why of reputation here: I Shot a Man in Reno Just To Watch Him Die
Alignment is a major part of the PF game (I wonder if it's a non-negotiable part of the PFO license). GW introduced reputation to complement the alignment system and encourage/discourage certain behaviors. As one example: if one player is chaotic evil and another lawful good, each should not be able to abuse the other without limit or recourse. GW apparently didn't think alignment alone would prevent abuse.
Is it complex? Well, we couldn't do it at a TT game. But as Ryan has explained, it's easy for computers to track this stuff.
I just don't see how that couldn't be done within alignment. CE is supposed to be pretty unplayable, bad behavior makes you go there. I don't understand why they need a 3rd axis which is actually like a 12th axis since every character has so many different alignments going on.
We're barely touching all the flags that affect alignment hits as well!
The problem is Alignment is allowing players to role-play Pathfinder universe/world/lore. It's already shouldering that responsibility. So CE needs to be a VIABLE path or at least EVIL or CHAOTIC; with EVIL-CHAOTIC, then maybe a bit less viable from the point of view of measuring POWER and INFLUENCE which in tern affect ECONOMICS which rules motivation. Now EVIL-CHAOTIC with High Reputation is a very interesting result we don't know how that will handle, but it could be revolutionary in terms of a worthy foe you RP's your enemy in a sporting way. Combine with low rep and they're likely high-pvp any which way they can be it at the end of a sharp blade, a clever scam and more.
That's why Alignment cannot be bidden to do more on the especially the pvp scales of knowing what you're up against, which is critical for regulating lord of the flies.
I think this was something GrumpyMel was very adamant about, without completely misrepresenting his input on the topic: That Alignment needs RP air to breathe for players as well as dictating game systems ie power and not being completely at a sore disadvantage because your character concept of C/E is part of the anti-griefing/social scales ie you COULD be INDIRECTLY social being C/E if played to benefit the game. Something like that...
-
@Bludd, to boil it down: You have POWER (char level, skill, numbers, the best settlement the lot) and ECONOMY (Resources to sink) and the thing that completes the triangle: SOCIAL.
If you think about it, a lot of mmorpgs have virtual economy with a lot of work on that and a lot of work on the power eg pvp, pve gear, skill trees etc. But SOCIAL is sorely neglected. At least I think that must be the case.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, but by that logic, there's no need for Alignment or Reputation, either.... things that get resolved pretty quickly the old fashioned way...player to player interaction.This.There is no need for alignment or reputation. I can't think of any MMOs that use alignment. There are very few PnP RPGs that use it. It was unnecessary in 1974 and its is so now.
Thee is no reputation system in most MMOs, and yet players can still be banned for breaking rules. Not really needed here to do what GW needs.
There is no need for deities. There is no need for healing magic. There is no need for...
You can take almost any one aspect and make a case for how you would have a fun game without it. Alignment is more of a story tool for this world setting, and I feel that it adds a lot in this case. It establishes a world where Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are clearly defined and have forces working to those ends. My only complaint about tabletop alignment is when a character's alignment does not match their actions (which means the GM should be telling them their new alignment) because of the way spells like Holy Word or Unholy Blight work.
Alignment certainly is not needed for all worlds and universes. But it is an interesting concept and a value add in Pathfinder.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The problem is Alignment is allowing players to role-play Pathfinder universe/world/lore. It's already shouldering that responsibility. So CE needs to be a VIABLE path or at least EVIL or CHAOTIC; with EVIL-CHAOTIC, then maybe a bit less viable from the point of view of measuring POWER and INFLUENCE which in tern affect ECONOMICS which rules motivation. Now EVIL-CHAOTIC with High Reputation is a very interesting result we don't know how that will handle, but it could be revolutionary in terms of a worthy foe you RP's your enemy in a sporting way. Combine with low rep and they're likely high-pvp any which way they can be it at the end of a sharp blade, a clever scam and more.
That's why Alignment cannot be bidden to do more on the especially the pvp scales of knowing what you're up against, which is critical for regulating lord of the flies.
I think this was something GrumpyMel was very adamant about, without...
But CE has been stated as not being a viable path. They said it's going to suck, as it should! LE and CN however, should be viable and I don't see why they don't do that with the alignment system + PvP flags. The LE flags let you kill people under more circumstances, the chaotic flags let you take peoples assets without killing them, etc etc.
The Flags can also serve as the "public mechanic" if you want to keep alignment hidden. Ten different ways to do that.
Sorry I just see better work arounds within the alignment/flag system that could do everything reputation is supposed to do.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Agree, CE is a corner extreme on the Alignment punit table (!) and probably already means you're keen on pvp'ing and squabbling etc. But nonetheless if those players love doing that TO EACH OTHER, then they recognize a different code of conduct with other players that accords with only in the Wild Hex a random attack instead of actively attacking other players anyhow, I see Reputation possibly moderating that by being High ie they do what they say they do and maybe are reliable as hard mobs that act in a rational way by virtue of their characters being scumbags instead of the actual player being a total *bleep*. Honest & reliable signal of "Evil" intent is better than Dishonest gaming of systems and testing the limits to damage other players as much as possible.
Therefore Low Reputation would really have potentially a multiplier effect on Alignment?
The key distinction I think is:
Alignment = Set by the game
Reputation = Set by the game but with players able to increase/decrease per interaction according to their score.
Particularly if Reputation moderates PvP interactions: I get ambushed by a bandit I'm having a fun "tiff" with and award or don't bash them with high rep loss, the reverse. Conversely, I heard from another player player x is a donkey's rear and so I get ganked by them and hit them hard with all the rep I can muster both because of my interpretation and because of what I heard, so it will cause that player to be well known as anti-social.
I think that is roughly how it would work particularly coming to PvP where it could greyer than the system can deal with - by itself.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But CE has been stated as not being a viable path. They said it's going to suck, as it should!
Ryan didn't say that CE wasn't viable. He said CE will be at a substantial mechanical disadvantage. "Their settlements will suck".
He also said Lawful Good will be at a substantial mechanical disadvantage. "Keeping that alignment in the face of temptation to use force to solve problems will be hard".
My own opinion: I think Ryan is looking forward to settlement wars and he wants lots and lots of LE settlements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
EvE's reputation system, called Security Status, bears little resemblance to what is being proposed in PFO.
I'm just going by what I always read around here, everybody compares it to the EVE system. Mayne it's from the preliminary discussions for WoD.
Wherever it's from I have never liked it and I think GW is playing with fire because the alignment system with the flags in and by itself is weighty and experimental enough to sink this game if they don't get it right.
For the most part I'd rather wait and see this in action during crowdforging before voicing off, but this thread is going completely down the rabbit hole!
@avenaoats
That's what they say it's going to do but I'm having a real tough time figuring out what exactly is this perfect alignment of stars-one in a million play style that leads to high rep/CE that is so important we need an entire system to defend it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ KitNyx Could you explain so that I understand more fully how the data will get into the system. Will I need to enter data for every encounter with every other non allied player?
Sure.
The alignment system is completely automated and decides your place in the god driven war, good vs evil...order vs chaos.
GWs reputation system is also entirely automated and shows how well you stick to behaviour GW has deemed favourable (and avoid doing what GW has deemed unfavourable).
The fame system I proposed has both a personal component, which allows you, if you want to, to mark someone else as acting in a way you approve of or not. The second aspect aggregates and shows the votes from everyone in your social groups (which are voluntary). This system is intended to fulfill the job of GWs claimed social engineering tools. Societies (social groups) should have a way to dictate their own rules and locally encourage and discourage those who violate those rules.
So, yes...if you want to discourage a behaviour you see, you would need to "vote that person down". If you want to encourage behaviours, "vote the person up". But you do not need to vote everyone up or down, you will not care what most people do.
To finish with a brief summary, settlement X can declare their place in the divine war by restricting access to opposing alignment, they can promote favourable gameplay by restricting access to those of a given reputation or higher, and finally, I think they should be able to locally promote their own values with a system such as my proposed fame system. These 3 metrics work complimentary. Of course, settlements may decide to not use one or any of the systems.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Kitnyx,
You are describe a new system that duplicates what the Devs have already said you will be able to do.
You can deny entry into your settlement based on:
Alignment
Reputation
Flags
Settlement
Company
Individual
My question again is, what else is it that you want?
From one if your earlier posts it seemed to me that you wanted to have some kind of global system where you would be aware of what a Characters's fame is globally. You would then try to convince those PCs or settlements that they to should ban those that you have, as part if a server wide social engineering project.
When I return home tomorrow I will be able to accurately quite you and point out the specific passages that gave me this impression.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Kitnyx,
You are describe a new system that duplicates what the Devs have already said you will be able to do.
You can deny entry into your settlement based on:
Alignment
Reputation
Flags
Settlement
Company
IndividualMy question again is, what else is it that you want?
From one if your earlier posts it seemed to me that you wanted to have some kind of global system where you would be aware of what a Characters's fame is globally. You would then try to convince those PCs or settlements that they to should ban those that you have, as part if a server wide social engineering project.
When I return home tomorrow I will be able to accurately quite you and point out the specific passages that gave me this impression.
I would appreciate that because I have repeatedly argued that fame should be local, I have no interest in a global system, some societies might want to discourage banditry, others might want to encourage it...who am I to dictate anyone's values.
While you are finding that quote, I would appreciate any references you can offer that support your claim that settlements can deny access based upon: Flags, Settlement, Company, Individual.
I would welcome this last from anyone who can link/quote it...Nihimon?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would welcome this last from anyone who can link/quote it...Nihimon?
Lol. I don't pretend Nihimon's skill at finding things, but I have looked. Hopefully He can clear this up.
I am starting to wonder if it is one of those things: speculation, turned to myth, turned to fact (haha). :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You are describe a new system that duplicates what the Devs have already said you will be able to do.
You can deny entry into your settlement based on:
[...]
Settlement
Company
Individual
Can we really already do these things using what GW's proposed? Maybe I've missed some information but I wasn't aware of these options, I thought such restrictions were limited to being alignment- and reputation-based.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Alignment is invisible. It must be actively revealed to be seen at all by others. It determines a lot of background stuff that goes on with your character, as well as setting the guidelines for a lot of other things your character can make use of.
Reputation is a numeric representation of how well you have been playing with other players within the rules set forth, as reckoned by those players.
The concept of SAD is a great example of a tool that GW is providing us, the players, in an effort to deliver on the emergent gameplay that seems to have attracted so many to this stage. Players use otherwise agnostic tools to create their own meaning. Simple as that. You do not have to like the tool, you just have to decide how you are going to handle exposure to it, or if your efforts will be spent in not being exposed to it.
I have not seen anything so far from GW that made me think that they are not striking an appropriate balance with the tools they are providing us.
For my own curiosity, I ask: will a player be able to be hired to run alongside a wagon, as if guarding it, issuing a SAD for 1 copper asap? Obviously not a desired outcome if we are trying to encourage bandits to use the less bloodthirsty of options..
Would it not be sufficient to allow players to write notes about other players? Target > /note This guy is a dick. /rapport dislike .. /note This guy helped me out .. /rapport friendly ... does not seem like there needs to be a system to manage your personal feelings, just a means of recording them at the time of interaction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@avenaoats
That's what they say it's going to do but I'm having a real tough time figuring out what exactly is this perfect alignment of stars-one in a million play style that leads to high rep/CE that is so important we need an entire system to defend it.
Haha, it's probably not realistic to consider CE-high-rep if CE from what we know of CE. Unless that character chooses CORE ALIGNMENT and does not do anything that increases that but neither does particularly a lot of PvP. Then we can only speculate I suppose for now? In fact they are CE let's imagine, and very good at organising the CE's into raiding parties on other C/Es or attacking in the wild L/G/N's and generally making the CE experience very fun. For CEs even if not for L/G/N's then that character potentially is "good to know" and perhaps for different reasons, eg they're really good at pvp or organising other players or arbitrating disputes ie "You two will have a fight to the death; with only daggers allowed to be equipped/used" to resolve this dispute. :)
The fame system I proposed has both a personal component, which allows you, if you want to, to mark someone else as acting in a way you approve of or not. The second aspect aggregates and shows the votes from everyone in your social groups (which are voluntary). This system is intended to fulfill the job of GWs claimed social engineering tools. Societies (social groups) should have a way to dictate their own rules and locally encourage and discourage those who violate those rules.
So, yes...if you want to discourage a behaviour you see, you would need to "vote that person down". If you want to encourage behaviours, "vote the person up". But you do not need to vote everyone up or down, you will not care what most people do.
To finish with a brief summary, settlement X can declare their place in the divine war by restricting access to opposing alignment, they can promote favourable gameplay by restricting access to those of a given reputation or higher, and finally, I think they should be able to locally promote their own values with a system such as my proposed fame system. These 3 metrics work complimentary. Of course, settlements may decide to not use one or any of the systems.
I think at first devs will need to tweak the alignment and rep systems... then I support something like this as the "the next phase" of allowing players to use in-game tools to reflect and shape their social environments (local and subjective) more strongly for others in their circles to interact with for whatever reasons in game that could be conceived of. Maybe the political system will take a leaf out of this idea above, in particular?!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sorry, but by that logic, there's no need for Alignment or Reputation, either.... things that get resolved pretty quickly the old fashioned way...player to player interaction.This.
Some of us agree with that sentiment, and think roleplay and player interaction is how things should be sorted out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Some of us agree with that sentiment, and think roleplay and player interaction is how things should be sorted out.Sorry, but by that logic, there's no need for Alignment or Reputation, either.... things that get resolved pretty quickly the old fashioned way...player to player interaction.This.
I think players probably need to be modelled as parts of social networks that in turn feed into other game systems. I think this is the basis for why it's interesting development to use Alignment and Reputation etc towards this goal.
The key is that players can still perform as individuals, but if they act individualistically that needs to counter-balance to their relationship with their group: Friends (party), CC, Settlement (it's alignment) against your own and equally against other alignment players who perhaps like to take things by force as a preference.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You can deny entry into your settlement based on:
Alignment
Reputation
Flags
Settlement
Company
Individual... I would appreciate any references you can offer that support your claim that settlements can deny access based upon: Flags, Settlement, Company, Individual.
I would welcome this last from anyone who can link/quote it...Nihimon?
I am not aware of any official statement to that effect. Put It in Writing mentions "Changing the access permissions for a settlement" as one of the things on which the Settlement can Vote, but doesn't go into detail about those access permissions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am not aware of any official statement to that effect. Put It in Writing mentions "Changing the access permissions for a settlement" as one of the things on which the Settlement can Vote, but doesn't go into detail about those access permissions.
You are correct that there is not one official source providing details. What we do have is a number of pieces of vague, official sources. I believe there was even mention of settlement permissions in the Gobbocast with the Devs.
But, Settlement Tools is an important piece of information for a variety of discussions. I'm hoping we get a DEV Blog on them soon.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What I would like to know is how do you identify an enemy supply caravan through the war mechanic? Are caravans designated by settlement or destination? If the entire supply caravan destined for your war enemy is comprised of members of other settlements you are neutral to, do you get hit on the alignment/rep scale?
I dunno seems like all of this is very, very complicated and intricate as is. I really have no clue how GW's is going to actually pull off this alignment biz. Only reason I'm on board is because I will be there crowdforging it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Are caravans designated by settlement or destination? If the entire supply caravan destined for your war enemy is comprised of members of other settlements you are neutral to, do you get hit on the alignment/rep scale?
At a start, in a time of war both parties might have carte blanche to attack both enemies and neutrals within their enemy's territory. So if there is a "neutral" caravan that just happens to be traveling in the direction of the enemy settlement, it's fair game as soon as it's in their territory. Real neutrals will stay out of war zones.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
At a start, in a time of war both parties might have carte blanche to attack both enemies and neutrals within their enemy's territory. So if there is a "neutral" caravan that just happens to be traveling in the direction of the enemy settlement, it's fair game as soon as it's in their territory. Real neutrals will stay out of war zones.Are caravans designated by settlement or destination? If the entire supply caravan destined for your war enemy is comprised of members of other settlements you are neutral to, do you get hit on the alignment/rep scale?
Or maybe caravans have set destinations/depratures as opposed to being driven freely. You would be able to attack any caravan destined or coming from to an enemy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Avena
I think you are still confusing alignment with reputation. As in, they have nothing to do with each other. A CE player has as many chances for playing well as any other, it has nothing to do with the alignment of the actions, but rather how they are carried out.
@KitNyx
Fame and Infamy will already be organic. Anyone that played EverQuest (and other games where players relied so much on others) for any great length of time knows and probably still remembers a few names that everybody on the server knew.
I still remember the names Ssassy and Dreamkatcher, I remember the guilds The Seekers, Hoss, L'malla and Novus Invictus. I have not seen those names in the better part of 8 years.
That is the very essence of fame and infamy. You earn a name for yourself among your peers, be it good or bad.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think some are misquoting what the Devs said about playing CE or having CE settlements.
What was said was that if you are both CE + Low Rep, you will have a difficult time.
The other thing that I feel needs to be mentioned is, we can set our Core Alignment to whatever we wish, but we can play very differently and essentially ignore alignment. They did not say we must change our core if we stray from it often, only that we should consider changing it..... I believe I am remembering this correctly?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@KitNyx
Fame and Infamy will already be organic. Anyone that played EverQuest (and other games where players relied so much on others) for any great length of time knows and probably still remembers a few names that everybody on the server knew.I still remember the names Ssassy and Dreamkatcher, I remember the guilds The Seekers, Hoss, L'malla and Novus Invictus. I have not seen those names in the better part of 8 years.
That is the very essence of fame and infamy. You earn a name for yourself among your peers, be it good or bad.
As I prefer it, I am just asking for a way to limit my settlement's facilities based upon that fame/infamy...as we see fit. Others can do as they want with those who are famous/infamous to their society.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The other thing that I feel needs to be mentioned is, we can set our Core Alignment to whatever we wish, but we can play very differently and essentially ignore alignment.
I think you'll be able to try to ignore alignment.
What They said was: "Failing to live up to your standards can have serious consequences. While your character's core alignment determines which alignment-restricted skills he or she can train, the character's current active alignment determines which alignment-specific feats or abilities can be slotted. ... Characters who spend a lot of time with their active alignment and core alignment out of sync may find it easier to change their core alignment to match the alignment they're actually demonstrating."
What did you think was a misquote about CE settlements? If it was mine I can probably find a quote.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Avena
I think you are still confusing alignment with reputation. As in, they have nothing to do with each other. A CE player has as many chances for playing well as any other, it has nothing to do with the alignment of the actions, but rather how they are carried out.
My bad, my English was terrible yesterday (sleepy) and to be truthful I've been going on hazy memory on these systems. I admit I am hazy on some of the interactions. I do realize albeit not in very good working order, that Reputation and Alignment are on different axis. The CE corner case, I think can have High Reputation, as I mentioned before, I also see Avari3's point of view that if you are CE you may find it tough to keep your Reputation high, however! If you were thinking that my support for an additional system was perhaps due to lacking in understanding what Reputation does, then to explain where I'm thinking on that some more:
Reputation measures your PvP Danger rating seemingly and is a social construct: You know the Reputation of what your friends' know of someone only ie how much they stick to pvp rules of engagement. Now what Kit suggests is knowing your standing in your own settlement with your friends, which is another social measure which is perhaps more about inclusive instead of exclusive. There's a point made that players know who are the big kahunas in the group without a system, but a system nonetheless seems useful to allow players to input that knowledge into game information, relative per settlement, as below. Maybe politics will fulfill this system with "permission levels" aka "Trust levels"? That is different to High Reputation which follows upstanding pvp conduct or treacherous pvp conduct.
We know you'll likely pay a higher price for contracts if your Reputation is low. But I wonder if there is a system around contracts such that a sort of eBay User Rating level of trust is used ie if people you trust have done trades with that player and they've rated that person's contracts similar to eBay - in addition to a total rating which could be a stooge rating. Another thought for the system:
PvP - Reputation
Politics - Fame
Contracts - Trust Rating
etc.
I know it makes you go to "Chaotic" if you mess around with contracts, but other things can make you go chaotic, so as a measure it's more muddy. Maybe that is good for the game that that chaotic measure has ripples across systems so you can't isolate your behaviours to perfectly suit your methods (being criminal in one area and an esteemed trader in the auction house?)? I'll leave that for the devs.
As I prefer it, I am just asking for a way to limit my settlement's facilities based upon that fame/infamy...as we see fit. Others can do as they want with those who are famous/infamous to their society.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As I prefer it, I am just asking for a way to limit my settlement's facilities based upon that fame/infamy...as we see fit. Others can do as they want with those who are famous/infamous to their society.
Would not a system that averaged the settlement's inhabitants as the basis from which to bar entry to a player accomplish this?
I do not know if this is how they plan it, but if your base reputation rating for another player is acquired from your associates, it stands to reason that a settlement as a whole would also judge it so, perhaps with weight given to those in charge. You would be able to specifically set that if the average rep of a person among all of your settlement's inhabitants is not >= 2500, they are not welcome.
It just seems like this is already where things are on track to end up, though it would be nice if we could get some kind of confirmation on how reputation as it relates to settlements and laws.
I also see Avari3's point of view that if you are CE you may find it tough to keep your Reputation high
...
other things can make you go chaotic, so as a measure it's more muddy
You can do chaotic actions in keeping with intended behavior, as well as evil actions. Not to be confused with being punished with chaotic or evil points AND reputation loss for doing actions that are not in keeping with desired gameplay.
Killing someone is Evil, if it is illegal to kill in that region then it is also Chaotic. Depending on how you kill them you may lose or gain reputation, as it stands within desired behavior.
Breaking a contract is Chaotic. It is also considered undesired behavior. These are separate calculations. One can just as easily maintain CE alignment and high reputation as CE with low rep, it all depends on how they play.
Nothing involving programming is muddy (unless you get into loosely typed languages, then it can be). Things always happen in a specified order, follow that order and you have your answer. ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But I wonder if there is a system around contracts such that a sort of eBay User Rating level of trust is used ie if people you trust have done trades with that player and they've rated that person's contracts...
first i like to relink something:
i wroteBluddwolf wrote
i wrote
applying your trust-rating to contract-prices,... i have to give that more thought, but i think i like the idea.
But i think we have to the proposed systems as they are now, so we can get a better understanding of what some are felling is missing. because i feel a lot of the time that people are not having the same conversation.
please correct me if i`m wrong:
-Reputation: it is there to promote wanted pvp-behaviour and to discourage unwanted pvp-behaviour. people showing a lot of unwanted behavoiur will get low reputation which will push them out of the main player societies.
-Alignment: apart from fitting the setting,matters for dealing with NPCs, equipping certain magic items, alliances and settlements a character can join, abilities you may use.
it is a tool for the player to notice the consequences of his characters actions. And it is a tool to enforce limitations. so you may try to play a Paladin randomly killing people, but after a few murders your active alignment will turn to evil and wyou will be striped of your paladin powers.
-fame/infamy & trust: i think they are essentialy the same, or might fit into the same system at least. and it might be a system to limit peoples access to my settlement the people in the settlement would have direct control about. -because as proposed so far, how would we ban certain alignemts from a settlement? i certainly don`t want to be able to see another characters alignment, unless i work for a way to get this ability.
-apart from that, this system could be used to schoose who to do buisness with(contracts)
-it could play a role in politics
...