Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it should be easy to take over or destroy a settlement, I just don't think it should be harder if you don't already have title of a settlement.
Settlement control should be determined in the field, and anyone with a large enough army should be allowed to participate.
If your assembled thousands of individuals can pool sufficient resources between them to equal or preferably exceed the economic estate of a settlement such that they can field and maintain an effective siege then sure, I'll concede. If they cannot they should learn in (in-game) real terms why it is foolhardy to throw your body into a stone wall whether a thousand sacks of meat and blood or only one.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
If your assembled thousands of individuals can pool sufficient resources between them to equal or preferably exceed the economic estate of a settlement such that they can field and maintain an effective siege then sure, I'll concede. If they cannot they should learn in (in-game) real terms why it is foolhardy to throw your body into a stone wall whether a thousand sacks of meat and blood or only one.I don't think it should be easy to take over or destroy a settlement, I just don't think it should be harder if you don't already have title of a settlement.
Settlement control should be determined in the field, and anyone with a large enough army should be allowed to participate.
Well, yeah. It should be significantly harder to conquer a settlement than to manage and defend one.
I choose the phrase 'have title to' rather than 'have' carefully; I think that settlements will be instrumentally useful in waging war, and that not having access to the benefits of a settlement (bind points, equipment production and storage, training, &tc.) will be a very tough disadvantage to overcome.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was thinking about the poor sim peasants that will be burned alive when you destroy a settlement , they are gonna hate you after that. Can you kill 100 peasants and still have a good reputation?
Reputation doesn't really represent NPC interactions. Reputation appears to be purely a factor of Player-to-Player interactions, focused on encouraging consensual PvP and discouraging non-consensual PvP. A number of game mechanics provide incentives for those who consent (such as the ability to build more impressive settlements by having larger PvP windows or individual skill boosts for flying certain pvp flags).
Personally, I feel that Reputation is a poor name for what is being represented. It is a Meta-Game mechanic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If your assembled thousands of individuals can pool sufficient resources between them to equal or preferably exceed the economic estate of a settlement such that they can field and maintain an effective siege then sure, I'll concede. If they cannot they should learn in (in-game) real terms why it is foolhardy to throw your body into a stone wall whether a thousand sacks of meat and blood or only one.I don't think it should be easy to take over or destroy a settlement, I just don't think it should be harder if you don't already have title of a settlement.
Settlement control should be determined in the field, and anyone with a large enough army should be allowed to participate.
Well, yeah. It should be significantly harder to conquer a settlement than to manage and defend one.
I choose the phrase 'have title to' rather than 'have' carefully; I think that settlements will be instrumentally useful in waging war, and that not having access to the benefits of a settlement (bind points, equipment production and storage, training, &tc.) will be a very tough disadvantage to overcome.
I think a settlement itself is akin to the advantage of formation combat. A settlement allows a smaller force to be strong.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If your assembled thousands of individuals can pool sufficient resources between them to equal or preferably exceed the economic estate of a settlement such that they can field and maintain an effective siege then sure, I'll concede. If they cannot they should learn in (in-game) real terms why it is foolhardy to throw your body into a stone wall whether a thousand sacks of meat and blood or only one.I don't think it should be easy to take over or destroy a settlement, I just don't think it should be harder if you don't already have title of a settlement.
Settlement control should be determined in the field, and anyone with a large enough army should be allowed to participate.
Certainly if treachery or a surprise attack does not deliver to a foe a well fortified settlement then a siege camp should be expensive and time consuming; great siege engines that take time and expertise to construct and costly components expended in mighty spells! However if we take to its' logical conclusion the idea that a siege is more expensive in effort and resources than building the fortress itself, then we are not only being ahistorical but also making a game of conquest nobody will want to play. Settlement takeover and destruction cannot be too difficult or there is no warfare, diplomacy, intrigue, supply lines, etc. to fuel the conflict we want in the game.
@Kitnyx
Account wide reputation would only encourage people to have separate accounts for their characters unfortunately. Much the same reason as people create a new account in Eve to use as a spy alt.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Kitnyx
Account wide reputation would only encourage people to have separate accounts for their characters unfortunately. Much the same reason as people create a new account in Eve to use as a spy alt.
Sorry for being dense, I am not sure of the relevance. I do not see anything wrong with alternate accounts.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Reputation doesn't really represent NPC interactions. Reputation appears to be purely a factor of Player-to-Player interactions, focused on encouraging consensual PvP and discouraging non-consensual PvP. A number of game mechanics provide incentives for those who consent (such as the ability to build more impressive settlements by having larger PvP windows or individual skill boosts for flying certain pvp flags).
Personally, I feel that Reputation is a poor name for what is being represented. It is a Meta-Game mechanic.
Lifedragn, I believe that they have a lot of those systems in place to see how they work out during EE. Hell, they may even change before that. It will be interesting to see if it's still a vote system honestly. I would much rather see it automated, but even then, both systems are would be open to manipulation.
Have they even announced what system they are going to use to gauge NPC interactions? I would think that the REP system would be tied to this as well.
Sorry for being dense, I am not sure of the relevance. I do not see anything wrong with alternate accounts.@Kitnyx
Account wide reputation would only encourage people to have separate accounts for their characters unfortunately. Much the same reason as people create a new account in Eve to use as a spy alt.
I didn't mean to imply there was anything wrong with alternate accounts, I was merely saying that account wide reputation would not be useful because those that it would impact would avoid the impact by using separate accounts.
If a mechanism does not achieve it's aim then the mechanism is redundant was the point I was trying to make
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ah, understood. I guess I took it for granted that it was impossible to track actual people (with GW's resources or will to use it). I suppose I should have more accurately phrased it as tracking the largest discrete yet meaningful user subdivision that GW can and will track...the account. Anything beyond that is absurd to consider.
I am not sure how you can claim account wide reputation would not be useful for dissuading. Yes, they can make alternate accounts; is keeping track of multiple accounts a small nuisance? I think so, some might not...but if I think so, I am sure some others do too. Since this change requires no additional information beyond that which GW will already have, the return, no matter how small, is a positive one.
For me, every small nudge toward positive gameplay, especially when it incurs no difficulty onto the gameplay of those already participating in "desired gameplay" as prescribed by GW, is a plus for the holistic system.
@Kitnyx
Many rp'ers will be playing two entirely different characters, for instance holy paladin and bandit. As long as they are not griefing in their bandit role should reputation hits they get doing so reflect on their paladin character who has been nothing but a paragon of virtue?
I remain unconvinced. I won't be running more than the one character anyway and haven't even got a destinies twin so it is no big deal to me either way. I am sure there are some who would have legitimate objections however to the idea.
Many systems such as this catch not only the guilty but the innocent in their net and that has to be weighed in considering such idea's. As I said I think the guilty will simply sidestep it whereas the innocent won't see it as a problem until it bites them which is my concern
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Then the hypothetical "they" do not understand the use and purpose of the current "Reputation" system. It is solely a meta-gaming measure of how well the player is playing within the bounds of what GW has designated as "preferred game play".
Anything not within these bounds is to be actively dissuaded by game mechanics and community intervention (such as using the meta-game metric to restrict access to resources). Increasing the efficacy of their announced system can only promote positive game play. Bandits, paladins, and even assassins will all have viable play styles that fall within GW announced "preferred game play". Some styles of play, such as con-men who manipulate the contract system to their benefit, have already been announced as having no viable game play options. This is the system GW is building to promote the game play they want to see. I do not see the validity of your objections.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Sorry for being dense, I am not sure of the relevance. I do not see anything wrong with alternate accounts.@Kitnyx
Account wide reputation would only encourage people to have separate accounts for their characters unfortunately. Much the same reason as people create a new account in Eve to use as a spy alt.
Having 'reputation is account-wide, because it is about the player' and 'negative reputation can be easily avoided by making a new account for an alt' yields the state where nobody who cares enough has negative reputation consequences on their account.
I also see the expected result of one player who 'grinds' reputation on multiple alts for the purpose of 'spending' it on their main.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I also see the expected result of one player who 'grinds' reputation on multiple alts for the purpose of 'spending' it on their main.
Good point, thank you, I had not considered this as an obvious flip-side. I am not sure it is a strong enough counter that it negates the benefits, but it is a good point for GW to take into account if they consider making rep account-wide.
As for the other arguments mentioned so far, I am not convinced the deterrent for the few who do not want to bother with creating multiple accounts would not be worth the null cost.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Have they even announced what system they are going to use to gauge NPC interactions? I would think that the REP system would be tied to this as well.
I believe there is a Faction Reputation system for Hellknights, Pathfinders, Knights of Iomede, etc envisioned. But I don't know if interacting with Joe Vendingmachine will impact much at all. Possibly a reputation hit for killing him, as it deprives other players access to him.
As mentioned, Reputation is a Meta-Mechanic divorced from how societal reputation works, but is more a factor of whether the character is being played within the system GW is envisioning. The perfect example is Outlaw flag and SAD. In a real society, people hate others taking their stuff. Issueing SADs would lead to poor reputation, albeit more slowly than murdering folks and taking their stuff. However, because GW wants there to be an element of banditry, doing so does not reduce reputation and may even increase it.
However, we are starting to get off topic. Let us get back to the issue at hand which is discussing how to protect against groups that just want to come in and wreck our stuff for the purpose of Kill Points. It is looking, expectedly so I believe, that consensus is going to be hard to get.
Alliances will form as they will to protect common and shared interests. I think the best thing to do at the moment is create a list of companies that are willing to lend a hand in defense of these groups. Being on this list does not compel a group to act. It serves more as a list of groups that are willing to hear case by case as these issues come up so that they can decide to lend a hand.
Being able to talk to 30 companies and plea for aid through non-binding agreements is likely to get you more support than getting 5 companies to promise to help you up front before being able to evaluate the situation.
I believe I can safely say that The Empyrean Order is very willing to listen to requests for aid. We are very interested in protecting others from wanton destruction. Though we cannot promise right this moment to jump into any fight that happens before details are known.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reputation should not bleed over onto other characters on the same account. The only account-wide punishment should be the account ban. That way, everyone who decided there's no reason not to just use one account is on a little bit better behavior because they know all their characters will be effected if they get their account banned.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That way, the only people who are creating new accounts for characters are people who know they're liable to get their account banned.
This is a huge leap of supposition Nihimon, there are many reasons to create a separate account for alt characters other than "I expect to be banned"
Should I create another character at some point I would almost always create a new account for it. Why would I do that? Simple because then if my son wanted to play when he comes to visit I can simply give him the second account to use.
Another reason to create separate accounts is if you feel that you may want to sell surplus characters when you leave the game at some point. Character sales being a legitimate part of Eve I have no reason to think they won't be here. I do not expect Goblinworks to be able to answer the when or if questions about selling a single character off of an account in the near future.
I also expect there to be some sort of API check facility in the future. Perhaps my character is an in game spy...why would I want him to be tied to my other character?
Another reason to have characters on separate accounts...should I get hacked there is a reasonable chance I will only lose one character and not all my stuff on all characters.
The final reason is also of course....there is absolutely no advantage to having all characters on the same account so it will boil down to personal preference at the end of the day. Some will have multiple accounts....some will put all their characters on one.
Assuming all people with multiple accounts are the ones who expect to be banned is a huge stretch
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...stuff about multiple accounts...
My moral alarms start going off when you talk about selling characters (because then you open up the gain in stealing characters...and just because), but I suppose if it is impossible to police, might as well not bother discouraging it.
Other than that, I personally agree on all accounts and would probably do as you do.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Another reason to create separate accounts is if you feel that you may want to sell surplus characters when you leave the game at some point. Character sales being a legitimate part of Eve I have no reason to think they won't be here.
I will warrant there are many reasons to create multiple accounts. But I really think we need to get away from the thoughts of "EVE does X so PFO will do X." These assumptions may lead to disappointments (or pleasant surprises). PFO is inspired by EVE. High level staff have come from an EVE background. But they are not trying to build EVE 2, or EVE the medieval fantasy game. This has been stated multiple times.
The topic of account sales being allowed under Terms of Service is very speculative. I would like to know which way they will go, but I don't think we have enough information to say it will be either allowed or disallowed. This question should be asked to GW in a new thread.
We are still quite far off-topic though.
@Kitnyx
I would hope that they would take a leaf out of CCP's book. They regulate and run the character Bazaar.
In an MMO like PfO will be where a character can spend years skilling up there will be a trade in characters whatever you do. Making that legitimate and regulated goes a long way to getting rid of the problem of black market activity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't get me wrong Kit....not over fond of it myself and certainly wouldn't do it.
But being pragmatic I would rather if it is going to happen anyway that it is regulated than left to people on EBay
@Nihimon
No problem just wanted to clarify the account situation
@Lifedragn
Yes I have no reason to think account sales will be allowed. On the other hand I am sure they will happen. The point was more that people have reasons to use multiple accounts that are unrelated to their in game behaviour
Heh trust Nihimon to have a link
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...if my son wanted to play when he comes to visit I can simply give him the second account to use.Ryan's said you can also let him play another character on your first account, at the same time as you play your main, if that's any simpler.
That would be very cool! Got a link? I'd like to read up on it more. Thanks!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well going back to the original topic about being prepared for the Goonsquad type of guild. Right of the bat is don't sugar coat to people about PvP. It's going to happen. DOn't assume that because you think something is good or right others will agree. Don't be so stuck to your vision you put on blinders to everything. I've been playing mmo's and tt games for going on 20 years now and have seen these sorts of things happen on small scale (like 3 new people joining a tt group and completely twisting the established game to suit them) to seeing it happen with guilds of hundreds in games like WoW and EQ.
As much as a lot of people seem to dislike Bluddwolf, sometimes he's right. And I feel the advice he has, people are ignoring because he doesn't fit into what they feel the game should be. You know, ignore the message because you don't like the messenger?
Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire, or something you have to fight organized PvP guilds with organized PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right of the bat is don't sugar coat to people about PvP. It's going to happen.
Do you think anyone's given the impression that there won't be non-consensual PvP? Or can you see that what we're actually saying is that Griefing will not be tolerated the way that it is in other games.
Yes, PvP will happen, and it will be against your will. But the idea that that means it's okay to say "I'm going to kill you just because I can and there's nothing you can do about it so you better get used to it or go find another game" is just plain wrong.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...Certainly if treachery or a surprise attack does not deliver to a foe a well fortified settlement then a siege camp should be expensive and time consuming; great siege engines that take time and expertise to construct and costly components expended in mighty spells! However if we take to its' logical conclusion the idea that a siege is more expensive in effort and resources than building the fortress itself, then we are not only being ahistorical but also making a game of conquest nobody will want to play. Settlement takeover and destruction cannot be too difficult or there is no warfare, diplomacy, intrigue, supply lines, etc. to fuel the conflict we want in the game.
To be sure: However it is fact that a force attacking a fortified position should not attempt it unless (all else being equal) they have at least a 2:1 if not 3:1 advantage. This presumes you haven't an undiscovered traitor/infiltrator at the gate lever.
Speaking of that last, it should take time to open such a main gate, take less time to close, and should close with great power upon anyone standing beneath it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...Certainly if treachery or a surprise attack does not deliver to a foe a well fortified settlement then a siege camp should be expensive and time consuming; great siege engines that take time and expertise to construct and costly components expended in mighty spells! However if we take to its' logical conclusion the idea that a siege is more expensive in effort and resources than building the fortress itself, then we are not only being ahistorical but also making a game of conquest nobody will want to play. Settlement takeover and destruction cannot be too difficult or there is no warfare, diplomacy, intrigue, supply lines, etc. to fuel the conflict we want in the game.To be sure: However it is fact that a force attacking a fortified position should not attempt it unless (all else being equal) they have at least a 2:1 if not 3:1 advantage. This presumes you haven't an undiscovered traitor/infiltrator at the gate lever.
Speaking of that last, it should take time to open such a main gate, take less time to close, and should close with great power upon anyone standing beneath it.
Yep, we as players should have great latitude in how we can construct and staff gates, towers, etc. and siege warfare ought to have the customary advantages offered to defense.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To be sure: However it is fact that a force attacking a fortified position should not attempt it unless (all else being equal) they have at least a 2:1 if not 3:1 advantage. This presumes you haven't an undiscovered traitor/infiltrator at the gate lever.Speaking of that last, it should take time to open such a main gate, take less time to close, and should close with great power upon anyone standing beneath it.
Boiling oil. I'd like boiling oil. The animation where the halfling melts like the dude from the Raiders of the Lost Ark would be icing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Boiling oil. I'd like boiling oil. The animation where the halfling melts like the dude from the Raiders of the Lost Ark would be icing.
To be sure: However it is fact that a force attacking a fortified position should not attempt it unless (all else being equal) they have at least a 2:1 if not 3:1 advantage. This presumes you haven't an undiscovered traitor/infiltrator at the gate lever.Speaking of that last, it should take time to open such a main gate, take less time to close, and should close with great power upon anyone standing beneath it.
Yeah, nasty traps should be part of the fort-building options. But why you hatin' on the Hobbits, dawg?
Well going back to the original topic about being prepared for the Goonsquad type of guild. Right of the bat is don't sugar coat to people about PvP. It's going to happen. DOn't assume that because you think something is good or right others will agree. Don't be so stuck to your vision you put on blinders to everything. I've been playing mmo's and tt games for going on 20 years now and have seen these sorts of things happen on small scale (like 3 new people joining a tt group and completely twisting the established game to suit them) to seeing it happen with guilds of hundreds in games like WoW and EQ.
As much as a lot of people seem to dislike Bluddwolf, sometimes he's right. And I feel the advice he has, people are ignoring because he doesn't fit into what they feel the game should be. You know, ignore the message because you don't like the messenger?
Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire, or something you have to fight organized PvP guilds with organized PvP.
this, the goons will come with all alinments, if we want to get the upper level in the situation we will need "bad" guys to harass not only their "bad guys", but also their "good guys".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Although I greatly appreciate the support that I have received in this thread, that is not my goal.
The point of the OP is to set up a community committee to create a response to such an invasion during OE.
Others have sought to make this forum a more civil place, and that would by some means, convince the invaders that they should not act the way that they might.
Another has said that if the agenda is simply to protect the Good Ol' Boys from the Newcomers, that is not a moral position.
All of these have merit in their own way
What I suggest, and I'll do with my own company, is the following:
1. Prepare character(s) with basic survival and combat skills as a minimum (even crafters, gatherers, settlement managers, everyone.....)
2. PvP in PFO often, and really learn the system.
A. Learn my skills and skill combination
B. Test them out in "Live Fire", not in scripted combat.
C. Test out various key binds and UI configurations to make PvP efficient
3. Learn to PvP in small squad, preferably using a combined arms approach. Mixed classes; mixed PvP flags; mix of melee, ranged, and magic attacks.
A. A Voice Program is required for PvP communication. If you don't have it and you face someone who is using it, you will likely lose.
B. As before, configure your UI specific for grouped or large scale PvP
C. Field Command: Communicate clearly and calmly; Commands should be confirmed for understanding or clarification should be requested.
D. Simple rule: Shoot, Move, Communicate.
4. Open World PvP Mindset
A. Wolf or Lamb, which will you be? There is no Sheepdog in PvP (no offense).
B. Offense, Defense, Premptive, Retaliation all require a different mindset. All have their place in combat.
C. Do not wage war fairly, or politely. There are no gentlemen's agreements. Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, track them down and slaughter them, find their village and torch it, slaughter their livestock, seize their coffers, enslave their peasants, leave them nothing but a scorched field where their settlement once stood.
D. When defending and losing, fight to the last person. Scorched earth policy if you can, leave them nothing.
E. If you lose your settlement, enter Insurgency mode right away. Do what damage that you can. Ganking them if you can, grief them if you must. Find their weakest link and repeatedly exploit / kill it. You need to dampen their morale, even if it is just a little bit.
5. Prepare for PvP in PFO to be almost exactly like any other Open World PvP MMO out there. GW hasn't proven otherwise yet, so better to be prepared then caught off guard.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... The entire land rush poll has fewer than 700 respondents. There are 1165 guild-level first-month EE slots used, and a metric ass-load of people in the first month of EE (Virtually all of the KS backers).
OK, I having trouble with understand which 'guild to join. but beyond that, I thought there was only 4000 characters per month in EE, which means 3 months to bring in KS 1 (????) and KS 2 (8000+). I don't think this is big disadvantage (I expect I am 3rd month because I discovered the concept of Kickstart at the very end of PFO). After the first 3 months, non-kickstart alpha/beta testers will be added. I am not sure where they come from. I have correspondents from evony, but that was years back and their lives have moved on (e.g. small children). Evony was not RPG, but was PvP. I think as we look for skills in the PvP (not RPG skills but skills in playing the game), there are other games and experiences.
SO, in addition to "will the guilds talk", how do we recruit like minds. EE does not support 4000per moth for more than a year (and some attrition).
Lam d' Cork
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
All of these have merit in their own wayWhat I suggest, and I'll do with my own company, is the following:
1. Prepare character(s) with basic survival and combat skills as a minimum (even crafters, gatherers, settlement managers, everyone.....)
2. PvP in PFO often, and really learn the system.
A. Learn my skills and skill combination
B. Test them out in "Live Fire", not in scripted combat.
C. Test out various key binds and UI configurations to make PvP efficient3. Learn to PvP in small squad, preferably using a combined arms approach. Mixed classes; mixed PvP flags; mix of melee, ranged, and magic attacks.
A. A Voice Program is required for PvP communication. If you don't have it and you face someone who is using it, you will likely lose.
B. As before, configure your UI specific for grouped or large scale PvP
C. Field Command: Communicate clearly and calmly; Commands should be confirmed for understanding or clarification should be requested.
D. Simple rule: Shoot, Move, Communicate.4. Open World PvP Mindset
A. Wolf or Lamb, which will you be? There is no Sheepdog in PvP (no offense).
B. Offense, Defense, Premptive, Retaliation all require a different mindset. All have their place in combat.
C. Do not wage war fairly, or politely. There are no gentlemen's agreements. Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, track them down and slaughter them, find their village and torch it, slaughter their livestock, seize their coffers, enslave their...
OK, first ability to fight in formation.
second ability for formation to maneuver.third formations supporting each other
Now smaller formations
and finally mixed capabilities in small squads.
there is a progression in army skills.
Initially mixed skills is no different form the typical RPG PnP game. When you shout medic three times for Medic for a hang nail, some stop responding. Part of training is triage and when to call medic and when to call hearse! I think the concept of looting needs to be changes to allow a call of hearse. (sorry Bluddwolf)
Lam
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Lam
The last thing GW should be thinking of is lessening the death penalty ( ie looting). First of all, GW has built their economy on the loss being an item sink. 75 gets looted, 25 destroyed, threaded decays.
The decay supports crafters, to repair.
The 25, supports crafter / merchants to replace
The 75, is the faucet for bandits, who will spend that loot = helps merchants and crafter.
More bandits = more work for guards, enforcers and bounty hunters.
Anything that will prevent the looting (ie hearse) shuts down the whole economic system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Lam
The last thing GW should be thinking of is lessening the death penalty ( ie looting). First of all, GW has built their economy on the loss being an item sink. 75 gets looted, 25 destroyed, threaded decays.
The decay supports crafters, to repair.
The 25, supports crafter / merchants to replace
The 75, is the faucet for bandits, who will spend that loot = helps merchants and crafter.
More bandits = more work for guards, enforcers and bounty hunters.
Anything that will prevent the looting (ie hearse) shuts down the whole economic system.
I am not objecting to the 25/75 when you win the field. Rather if you are driven off. My team should be allowed to load my body and its 75% into wagon, whatever and bring it back without getting flagged (don't leave friends behind). They should not need to stand around waiting for our spirits to return.
OK, if they remove items from the corpse and keep, ..., but maybe that is more than 25% loss and the suffer a different reputation loss (or maybe they do get flagged).
Lam