Goblin Squad Member
|
First off the Reputation System is not an anti-griefing mechanic. It's an anti-RPK mechanic, and as Xeen keeps quoting, RPKing is not griefing. It's toxic, but only griefing if causing grief is the intent.
I never said RPKing is not griefing, I said RPKing is a useless term with no real backbone for an RPG.
If reputation is an anti RPKing mechanic, then it has already failed... Leaves no room for the RPG in an MMORPG.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"Open World PvP" can be read as "Open"-"World PvP" which would imply "World PvP" that is "Open", i.e. free-for-all unrestricted PvP in the world.
I read it as "Open World"-"PvP", that is the PvP in the game takes place in the "Open World", not in instanced battlegrounds. This interpretation does not imply that the PvP will be unrestricted and free-for-all.
It's easy to miss it, but KitNyx included a link to a thread from November of 2011 that he started in order to talk about "open world PvP". I expect he was simply trying to make sure he understood Bluddwolf's definition.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually think the option to disable pvp reinforce greifing... Jedi's openly preaching their message in Sith academy's trying to turn them to the light side (a crime punishable by death in lore) and being untouchable.
I saw it from the other side quite a while ago.
In my mind, it's a half-orc hanging out on the steps of a temple to Iomedae spouting vile blasphemies, and no way for a good Paladin to shoo them away.
I agree, and have since I started posting on these forums in January of 2012, that non-consensual but consequential PvP is absolutely critical in order to minimize griefing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
First off the Reputation System is not an anti-griefing mechanic. It's an anti-RPK mechanic, and as Xeen keeps quoting, RPKing is not griefing. It's toxic, but only griefing if causing grief is the intent.I never said RPKing is not griefing, I said RPKing is a useless term with no real backbone for an RPG.
If reputation is an anti RPKing mechanic, then it has already failed... Leaves no room for the RPG in an MMORPG.
*cough*
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Right you are sir! Couldn't have said it better myself.I agree, and have since I started posting on these forums in January of 2012, that non-consensual but consequential PvP is absolutely critical in order to minimize griefing.
Actually I can say it better:
It is absolutely critical for there to be severe consequences for griefing,in order to minimize griefing.
If we want to stop highway accidents caused by speeding, we don't slow the cars down at the Daytona 500 to do it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
First off the Reputation System is not an anti-griefing mechanic. It's an anti-RPK mechanic, and as Xeen keeps quoting, RPKing is not griefing. It's toxic, but only griefing if causing grief is the intent.I never said RPKing is not griefing, I said RPKing is a useless term with no real backbone for an RPG.
If reputation is an anti RPKing mechanic, then it has already failed... Leaves no room for the RPG in an MMORPG.
*cough*
Did the doctor just ask you to turn your head?
Killing someone because I can is not RPKing nor griefing. Which does not make RPK and Grief equal.
How about that one for you? I have a reason, because I can, which is not random.
Yeah I know, by your definition it is RPK... My definition is, RPK is a topic that has no place in an Open World Sandbox PVP MMORPG.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It appears that many posters have experiences with "griefing" and "RPK-ing" that differ one from the other. I may be wrong but many of the solutions offered to address these issues seem to revolve around a min/max approach to game mechanics in that rules are wanted to minimize the impact of "grief/RPK" while maximizing the penalty for those who "grief/RPK". For me these options appear to take away my character's free will and range of choice. If I chose to engage in these practices, then I will have to accept the consequences of my actions. These consequences may derive from PFO game mechanics, but I expect those consequences to derive from player interaction. Playing against game mechanics is a poor substitute for playing against player characters.
|
One thing that used to bother me in other game someone who was minding there own busness would get ganked/greifed/gave camped... you name it.
And then the back and forth chat would go on untill the guy who was the victium would yell some profanity and then he would get Banded for doing something.
yea yea i know the blah blah what ever says you cant swear but so is acting like a jerk. I just wish some Civilized people would actualy act a bit better. when you can see someone is getting ramped up instead of still "role playing" back out and give the guy some room.
Would love to have a game mech where you meet at Gencon every year and solve the problem :) but i know that can't ever happen either.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually think the option to disable pvp reinforce greifing. I use to play on SWTOR's one and only RP server, where you had to flag yourself for PvP to be attacked. What this meant is that as a PvPer, I could never find any open world PvP, unless I was really lucky.
What it mostly meant, was that griefers started abusing this flagging system. Jedi's openly preaching their message in Sith academy's trying to turn them to the light side (a crime punishable by death in lore) and being untouchable. Raids on cities going unpunished because none of our players could touch the unflagged attackers.
Well perhaps they could make it so that you flagged when attacking cities, I hear you say?
Maybe. But that is a very flimsy solution. My character for example, as a Cleric of Lamashtu will stand to defend goblins and wolves. If he sees you attacking either of those, he'll likely to kill you.
And what danger would it be in a merchant anymore? Grab all your goods, unflag pvp and run to the marker three towns over. No robber will be able to touch you.
He said it in the original post, and clarified it for people after the original post: with his idea you need to flag to start PvP yourself. Not being flagged means you can't be the one to initiate PvP. It doesn't mean you can't be attacked, nor does it mean you can't attack back when someone decides to attack you. It just means you can't be the one to start a fight.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually think the option to disable pvp reinforce greifing.
I think you're right. I'd expect the "unflagged cannot attack" rule to often be used this way:
2-3 flagged toughs find a target who isn't grouped with anybody, though others may be nearby. They don't want to attack him when he's unflagged because they don't want to suffer those consequences.
So they taunt him ("your momma does this, that, and the other thing") until he flags, then kill him. No consequence PvP. If lots of people start flagging up, the bravos can run. They might just unflag themselves - that can be done as quickly as others flag up.
I'll assume this suggestion isn't a thinly disguised attempt to weaken the reputation system. I doubt the OP has a twisted imagination like mine; he probably thinks it inconceivable that people would misuse his suggestion this way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I actually think the option to disable pvp reinforce greifing.I think you're right. I'd expect the "unflagged cannot attack" rule to often be used this way:
2-3 flagged toughs find a target who isn't grouped with anybody, though others may be nearby. They don't want to attack him when he's unflagged because they don't want to suffer those consequences.
So they taunt him ("your momma does this, that, and the other thing") until he flags, then kill him. No consequence PvP. If lots of people start flagging up, the bravos can run. They might just unflag themselves - that can be done as quickly as others flag up.
I'll assume this suggestion isn't a thinly disguised attempt to weaken the reputation system. I doubt the OP has a twisted imagination like mine; he probably thinks it inconceivable that people would misuse his suggestion this way.
All systems will be misused and abused. There isnt much anyone can do about it.
Sure Fixes are made, but new exploits will be found.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I actually think the option to disable pvp reinforce greifing.I think you're right. I'd expect the "unflagged cannot attack" rule to often be used this way:
2-3 flagged toughs find a target who isn't grouped with anybody, though others may be nearby. They don't want to attack him when he's unflagged because they don't want to suffer those consequences.
So they taunt him ("your momma does this, that, and the other thing") until he flags, then kill him. No consequence PvP. If lots of people start flagging up, the bravos can run. They might just unflag themselves - that can be done as quickly as others flag up.
I'll assume this suggestion isn't a thinly disguised attempt to weaken the reputation system. I doubt the OP has a twisted imagination like mine; he probably thinks it inconceivable that people would misuse his suggestion this way.
/ignore is your recourse in that situation.
Nihimon will attest to my near total disinterest in anything remotely related to chat channels. I could never be taunted into doing anything I don't want to do. I have too high a tolerance and too much will power to be manipulated by such shenanigans.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Nihimon The one thing that I've seen elsewhere that really raised complaints from the verbally abusive was when they were muted in all of their chat channels for extended periods. "I was only randomly cursing in global - I shouldn't be muted in guild chat, too!"
/ignore only penalizes the abusers' targets; it's not effective in curbing abuse. And under the current flagging/reputation rules, if a crowd of people get tired of the abuse, they don't need to flag up - they can just kill Mr. Pottymouth and shut him down that way. I like PFO's thinking.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon The one thing that I've seen elsewhere that really raised complaints from the verbally abusive was when they were muted in all of their chat channels for extended periods. "I was only randomly cursing in global - I shouldn't be muted in guild chat, too!"
That sounds truly fantastic!
/ignore only penalizes the abusers' targets; it's not effective in curbing abuse.
That is exactly what I hand in mind, thanks for pegging it so directly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I sincerely doubt GW will turn off 'friendly' fire which is how I read Bludd's suggestion... did I get you wrong there Bludd?
If so, then Bludd's solution isn't in the cards and we have so far come up with no additional means of both encouraging 'meaningful' player interaction (which includes PvP as one form of expression) and discouraging (I really detest the term random player killer RPK because no human action is truly random) Merciless and Sadistic Predation. MSP.
So if reputation is to be the primary inhibitor, what would give it teeth?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon The one thing that I've seen elsewhere that really raised complaints from the verbally abusive was when they were muted in all of their chat channels for extended periods. "I was only randomly cursing in global - I shouldn't be muted in guild chat, too!"
/ignore only penalizes the abusers' targets; it's not effective in curbing abuse. And under the current flagging/reputation rules, if a crowd of people get tired of the abuse, they don't need to flag up - they can just kill Mr. Pottymouth and shut him down that way. I like PFO's thinking.
If PFO relies on peer input (the way LotRO allows players to report a gold seller by right clicking their in-game name in the chat bar and select 'gold seller', say) I'm afraid all it would take is a large organization (whether formal or informal) to unravel that as they all 'report' the same innocent for "verbal abuse" for da lulls and get him or her silenced.
That system seems too prone to abuse.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Being I've seen that done; some system where a lot of /ignores would mute someone - I thought it was rife for abuse. I've also been a chat mod and got to watch global for the periodic misanthrope that got his chuckles by going into local and saying "FILTH FILTH FILTH," if you know what I mean and I think you do.
What if whoever 'owned' a hex had the moderation controls for local chat? So that's either a settlement being able to designate some group to handle the controls, or a company holding a POI. I personally think that Inns and Taverns should have their own chat channel, controlled by the Innkeep, of course. That would reduce GWs moderation requirements and let local player authorities control it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
/ignore is your recourse in that situation.I think that allowing players to get away with being abusive to other players and telling the victims to "ignore it" is very, very bad for the game.
Apparently you don't understand the function of typing /ignore followed by the name of the person you wish to silence.
It means that you can no longer see any of his chat posts, ever, unless you remove him off of your ignore list. You have effectively silenced him for yourself.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
/ignore is your recourse in that situation.I think that allowing players to get away with being abusive to other players and telling the victims to "ignore it" is very, very bad for the game.Apparently you don't understand the function of typing /ignore followed by the name of the person you wish to silence.
It means that you can no longer see any of his chat posts, ever, unless you remove him off of your ignore list. You have effectively silenced him for yourself.
It also means that if the community becomes highly toxic/abusive and you just start /ignoring everyone polluting the comms, public channels will become nearly unusable as you're going to be missing significant chunks of the conversation.
A better solution is targeting the game at an audience less inclined to be toxic, and moderating the more severe cases that pop up. My personal favorite is when finding the toxic players I go ahead and /their throat. Yes, global chats are always going to contain a certain element of toxicity. Even the best communities I've played have it at times. But the inability to solve a problem entirely is no reason to ignore it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I sincerely doubt GW will turn off 'friendly' fire which is how I read Bludd's suggestion... did I get you wrong there Bludd?
If so, then Bludd's solution isn't in the cards and we have so far come up with no additional means of both encouraging 'meaningful' player interaction (which includes PvP as one form of expression) and discouraging (I really detest the term random player killer RPK because no human action is truly random) Merciless and Sadistic Predation. MSP.
So if reputation is to be the primary inhibitor, what would give it teeth?
No... I have no intention of turning off friendly fire, I'm a big fan of unintentional carnage.
As far as being against the consequences of the Reputation System, that is not accurate either. As a matter of fact, my recent post clearly reaffirms this:
My suggestions:
1. All flag vs. flag interactions grants Reputation to both parties. The values must be equal, to avoid anyone throwing the match for a higher reputation boost.
2. Merely flying a PVP flag will not grant Reputation boost over time, only when it is put to use.
3. Attacking an Unflagged target, while not flagged, gains you a reputation hit.
4. Attacking an Unflagged target, while flag, still gains a reputation hit, but less so than if you too were unflagged.
5. Certain activities can only be done through the use of PVP Flags (ie. SAD from Outlaw; Caravan from Traveler; etc.)
6. When a player's character reaches -7500 Reputation a report is automatically generated, to be reviewed by a GW GM. While at this -7500 the character is tagged with a semi permanent flag "Suspect". This "Suspect" flag will fly for a minimum of 1 hour of game time, and until the -7500 is returned to -7499.
During the period that the "Suspect Flag", any flagged player can attack the "Suspect" with a double reputation bonus for(the Suspect gets zero), and no Alignment shift unless he/she chooses.
If after investigating the GM decides that the "Suspect" was griefing, then the "Suspect Flag" can be left in place for a 24 hour time period.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Looking at Bluddwolf's system, I can see how once again, he's pushing to be able to engage players in PvP on his terms, but not let them engage him on theirs.
He wants unflagged characters not to be able to engage in PvP. What this means is that Bluddwolf can run up and SAD non-flagged characters at no reputation loss, but if those same players see Bluddwolf they are not free to engage.
This also means for me that I can run around killing evil players as a champion with no alignment loss, but those evil players can only engage me if flagged.
In both cases I think this is horribly unbalanced. I want Bludd to feel the wrath of his victims, and I want evil players to have the chance to show me how they feel about my piousness. Even though I can't actually engage evil players without rep loss unless I have additional justifications.
The currently outlined system allows both those things, and is a much better system. Here is a system I prefer:
1. Stick with most of what GW has already outlined except for the changes listed below.
2. Implement a "challenger" flag. It can be turned on and off instantly while not in combat. All it does is allow people to attack you without consequence. This can stack with other flags.
3. All currently outlined flags must be active for three hours of ingame time before they bestow any abilities, and remain three hours after abilities are deactivated. This means if I flag champion/outlaw/enforcer/assassin I get the penalties without the benefits for three hours before and after I take it off.
4. In-game time is considered time spent in-game outside safezones while not marked as afk. Using macros to avoid being marked afk is punishable by serious administrative action including bans or forcing the flag's penalties on you for a much longer time. Even a first time offence earns 48 in-game hours of additional flag penalty time.
5. All currently outlined flags allow players to attack you without reputation loss. However, alignment shifts may still occur depending on your flag and alignment.
6. Killing or assassinating players unlawfully as a champion moves you towards chaotic. Killing good aligned players as an enforcer or bandit moves you toward evil (Even after a rejected SAD.)
7. The benefits of currently outlined flags take a long time to build. The highest levels take over 200 hours of in-game time flagged to achieve.
8. Some increased benefits for PvP flags that don't give direct PvP advantages. For instance free "detect evil / detect chaos" for champions and enforcers that doesn't need to be slotted after 200+ hours, or abilities that allow bandits / assassins to detect the volume of goods carried by their target / their armor rating without unstealthing.
The point of this system is to really set apart players who want to be engaged in PvP. It gives them additional tools to seek PvP but it also doesn't allow them to go and take advantage of those tools, then deflag the moment they want to PvE.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Could people not use this to also farm rep then? since it gives double bonus. Just use a free account, with no training, to get to -7500, then use your main account to farm up your own rep. Or am I missing something else that was said?
It seems to me almost explicitly designed to make it easy to recover from acts that cause Reputation loss. This seems contrary to the design principle embodied in Ryan's axiom: "don't let people make easy recoveries from evil acts".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
He wants unflagged characters not to be able to engage in PvP. What this means is that Bluddwolf can run up and SAD non-flagged characters at no reputation loss, but if those same players see Bluddwolf they are not free to engage.
Do you make statements without bothering to read what I wrote?
I mean, I numbered them to make the easy to read!
@ Tigari and Nihimon..
During the period that the "Suspect Flag", any flagged player can attack the "Suspect" with a double reputation bonus for(the Suspect gets zero), and no Alignment shift unless he/she chooses.
Once the "Suspect" get to -7500, he can not kill to get Rep, it clearly states he gets "Zero".
As far as farming Rep, the Devs (Ryan to be specific) suggested that rep can be sold as a commodity. So the exchange between one character and another is already being thought of.
All my suggestions add to the current system is that Rep can now be gained when two PVP flagged character engage each other.
It also does not allow for the passive rep boost of the PVP flags. You must actively participate in meaningful PVP for those flags to grant their Rep Boosting stacks.
@ Andius / Nihimon is your objection against PVP vs. PVP granting Rep Bonuses? or do you feel that any PVP should either lead to Rep loss or at the very least no Rep gain?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Andius / Nihimon is your objection against PVP vs. PVP granting Rep Bonuses? or do you feel that any PVP should either lead to Rep loss or at the very least no Rep gain?
Personally, I would be happy if Reputation could only be gained over time. That would make it a much more valuable resource, which would make players less likely to squander it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Andius, the main thing I see with that, the time. 3 hours is a long time, and as a family man, sometimes I don't have that long. Sometimes it's just a quick hour or so I have and I want to hop on, and maybe hit some PvP.
The point is that all of the outlined flags give increased ability to engage I flagged characters as they PvE. Some with rob mechanics, and others based on their alignment. Because of this your flag shouldn't be something you can easily flip off when you go to PvE. Flags should be a central part of your character's identity, not something you flag on and off at a whim.
So I is not "I want to go PvP for an hour" it's "I want to become a champion / enforcer / outlaw / assassin." That's what the three hours is about.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
First off the Reputation System is not an anti-griefing mechanic. It's an anti-RPK mechanic, and as Xeen keeps quoting, RPKing is not griefing. It's toxic, but only griefing if causing grief is the intent.I never said RPKing is not griefing, I said RPKing is a useless term with no real backbone for an RPG.
If reputation is an anti RPKing mechanic, then it has already failed... Leaves no room for the RPG in an MMORPG.
*cough*
Did the doctor just ask you to turn your head?
Killing someone because I can is not RPKing nor griefing. Which does not make RPK and Grief equal.
How about that one for you? I have a reason, because I can, which is not random.
Yeah I know, by your definition it is RPK... My definition is, RPK is a topic that has no place in an Open World Sandbox PVP MMORPG.
That's not the way I perceive the local consensus is using that term. Why do you think that your usage is dominant?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf. For once you're right. I responded about an hour after reading your post and I must have misremembered what you said.
Still. In your system the way to get high rep faster:
Killing people, which may be your friend's alts.
In my system the way to to get rep faster:
Adopting a role that exposes you to PvP. There is a lot of gravity involved in choosing that role.
In your system you get reputation which you can use to get greater leeway in who you can kill without bottoming out by... killing people. In mine you get it by accepting a greater level of danger over a prolonged period of time.
I don't really see the point to your system. The point of mine is that greater freedom to PvP comes with greater exposure to PvP, making it easier for your enemies to seek revenge.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's not the way I perceive the local consensus is using that term. Why do you think that your usage is dominant?First off the Reputation System is not an anti-griefing mechanic. It's an anti-RPK mechanic, and as Xeen keeps quoting, RPKing is not griefing. It's toxic, but only griefing if causing grief is the intent.I never said RPKing is not griefing, I said RPKing is a useless term with no real backbone for an RPG.
If reputation is an anti RPKing mechanic, then it has already failed... Leaves no room for the RPG in an MMORPG.
*cough*
Did the doctor just ask you to turn your head?
Killing someone because I can is not RPKing nor griefing. Which does not make RPK and Grief equal.
How about that one for you? I have a reason, because I can, which is not random.
Yeah I know, by your definition it is RPK... My definition is, RPK is a topic that has no place in an Open World Sandbox PVP MMORPG.
Dominate? Didnt say that
My usage, yep... Im not sure if you noticed yet, but when the consensus says go right, Im headed left.
"Follow the herd, just another cow."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hmm, I think I agree that the system could be easily gamed if all flagged PvP led to rep gains. However, I also see the bonuses over time as something that could be gamed. It's pretty easy to imagine people AFK'ing their Champion or whatnot in their faction's main base to accrue rep at no risk or penalty. Perhaps there should be some sort of middle ground?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hmm, I think I agree that the system could be easily gamed if all flagged PvP led to rep gains. However, I also see the bonuses over time as something that could be gamed. It's pretty easy to imagine people AFK'ing their Champion or whatnot in their faction's main base to accrue rep at no risk or penalty. Perhaps there should be some sort of middle ground?
This is why I suggested make Rep gains based on actions, and not just the passage of time.
I also maintain the Rep loss for attacking non-flagged players.
What I added was Rep gain for anyone who engages PVP flag vs. PVP Flag. This uses the Reputation system for the encouragement of meaningful interactions through PVP.
Andius does not like this idea because it rewards PVP focused players, regardless of alignment or whether they are the aggressor or the defender.
He wants the deck stacked in the favor of the Lawful and the Good, because he knows that they will be disadvantaged, by choice, in PVP. He claims that he wants PVP, and that he will defend others, but at every step he avoids making PVP more of a focus. He needs a mechanic to punish what he can not or will not.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hmm, I think I agree that the system could be easily gamed if all flagged PvP led to rep gains. However, I also see the bonuses over time as something that could be gamed. It's pretty easy to imagine people AFK'ing their Champion or whatnot in their faction's main base to accrue rep at no risk or penalty. Perhaps there should be some sort of middle ground?
This is why I suggested making Reputation gains based solely on the passage of time, rather than on actions. If it's based on actions, then people can grind those actions to make it easier to recover from evil acts.
Andius does not like this idea because it rewards PVP focused players, regardless of alignment or whether they are the aggressor or the defender.
I seriously doubt that's true.
For my part, I don't like it because it gives jerks an easy way to get their Reputation back after behaving like a jerk.
He wants the deck stacked in the favor of the Lawful and the Good...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This does raise the issue of why there aren't 24-hr versions of long-term PvP flags for good and lawful. If evil and chaotic must be branded with 24-hr flags for dedication to their chaotic and evil actions, I think there should be equal 24-hr flags for those characters who are dedicated to their beliefs by wearing long-term lawful and good PvP flags.
I believe I can support a system where Rep is also accumulated proportional to length of time wearing PvP flag. However, I think that the proportion of Rep gained should be less than Rep gained from actions. But I would prefer to support this with the addition of corresponding long-term PvP flag (24-hr version) for lawful or good characters.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Harad, that's what I was thinking of as well; Rep gained both through time and through actions, available for people of any alignment with the right PvP flag. The time-based one would have to be lesser than the action one, because you wouldn't want AFK'ing in town to be rewarded heavily enough that it's a good alternative to acting on your PvP flag. After all, the flag is there so you participate actively in PvP.
At the same time, some precaution would have to be set in place to prevent people from farming rep back up, as Nihimon is concerned will happen. The Killed flag helps that a little bit, but I think an additional decrease to Rep gained by PvP for killing the same target should be applied. It's a hard balance to strike, preventing people from gaming it but at the same time allowing people who regularly clash against each other in PvP to actually gain benefits from it. I'm not sure of the best solution for this.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This does raise the issue of why there aren't 24-hr versions of long-term PvP flags for good and lawful. If evil and chaotic must be branded with 24-hr flags for dedication to their chaotic and evil actions, I think there should be equal 24-hr flags for those characters who are dedicated to their beliefs by wearing long-term lawful and good PvP flags.
I think those long term flags certainly can apply to good and lawful just like they apply to evil and chaotic. Not heinous, of course, but the Murderer or Brigand flag could be picked up by a Lawful or Good.
Look at the Attacker/Murderer flag:
Attacker
The character has attacked another character outside of a war situation, and the target character did not have a PvP flag. It denotes which character is the aggressor in PvP combat.
- Anyone killing a character with Attacker does not suffer reputation or alignment loss.
- Attacker is removed if the character is killed.
- The Attacker flag lasts for one minute after combat ends.
-- If the character gets the Attacker flag he gets an Aggressor buff that lasts for 24 hours that has no effect besides being a counter. Each time he gets Attacker increases the stack of Aggressor by one.
-- If the character gets a high enough stack of Aggressor, determined by his Reputation, he gets the status Murderer, which lasts 24 hours and does not disappear on death. It acts the same as Attacker, allowing repeat offenders to be hunted down for longer periods of time.
So say some self-righteous person decides that there is no huge penalty for killing low rep evil, and he goes off on a spree - but not flagged as a Champion. Every time he kills a low rep evil, he takes small hits to evil and rep. But he's also accumulating those Aggressor flags - so when he gets enough, he's got that 24-hour Murderer flag to deal with. And it doesn't matter that he is 'good'; as far as I see, he can still get that flag.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
(Added in edit: If the very long term flags you're proposing are rewards, not penalties, I misunderstood your proposal.)
The Murderer and Brigand flags that exist now are penalties for excessive killing of unflagged characters or for lots of criminal activity - they aren't counterparts to Outlaw or Assassin. What you're proposing is a long-term flag for performing legal kills against flagged characters. Should there also be a very long-term flag for Outlaws after 5 successful SAD demands? A flag against successful Assassins?
I'm not against your very long-term flags, not really. I'm just not sure that acting according to the flags needs to be penalized, not much more than the flags have built in. For example the Champion has a huge flaw in that she loses the flag if she attacks an unflagged neutral or good. Note also that Enforcers and Champions get no rep gains unless they really fly that flag for an hour. If they drop it early to escape combat - boom, no rep bonus for the cowards.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hmmm, I last saw him say LN
No, Bluddwolf said I was. I've never claimed to be anything other than neutral good, though I've made a few mentions of having a chaotic good past.
He claims that he wants PVP, and that he will defend others, but at every step he avoids making PVP more of a focus.
My proposed system makes it so you can't gain rep in safe areas, and you stop gaining it the moment you are marked afk. Some people may still macro it, and in doing so expose themselves to administrative action but it is far less subject to abuse than your system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My proposed system makes it so you can't gain rep in safe areas, and you stop gaining it the moment you are marked afk.
I would very much like to see Reputation Gain work the same way as Experience Gain, possibly even tied so that you can't gain Reputation unless you're also gaining XP. It needs to be difficult to recover from actions which reduce your Reputation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would very much like to see Reputation Gain work the same way as Experience Gain, possibly even tied so that you can't gain Reputation unless you're also gaining XP. It needs to be difficult to recover from actions which reduce your Reputation.
Thinking of an example with two characters, Hubert and Dubert, evenly matched alignment and reputation. They kill a pair of unflagged newbies and take equal hits to alignment and reputation. (And they take the newbies' starter green hats).
Hubert is in a break in school, and for the next week he's playing a good 8 hours a day. Dubert is out all week and manages only 4 hours of play on the weekend. So one plays something like 40 hours, the other plays 4 hours.
If Hubert is playing 10 times as much as Dupert, should he also be able to kill 10 times as many unflagged green hats? Or is the number of green hats they can kill a realtime bag limit?
I usually prefer that timers (say, the 24-hour murderer flag, or a 1 hour chat mute for spewing F-bombs into global) only run down while the character is online. But I'm really on the fence here; I'm not sure that Hubert gets to kill 10 times as many unflagged people just because he has time to spend in game.
Aside - I do like the idea that reputation doesn't recover (or recovers at a reduced rate) when character is not gaining experience.
(edit to correct flag/unflag issues)