Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The evil and reputation hits already scale, so evil/low rep characters can already be attacked if unflagged with small penalties. Even vile low rep characters currently have some protections; if they are attacked when unflagged that might be a crime. And except for the most vile, every character has some good in them, and small rep and evil hits will add up for those characters who claim they are good and high rep.
Any character that falls into your low reputation class would have no refuge and probably a very slim chance of ever turning around. Is the intent that once a character falls into low rep he's just hounded as unclean until he leaves the game? I don't see the purpose or value in making low rep characters permanently flagged.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The evil and reputation hits already scale, so evil/low rep characters can already be attacked if unflagged with small penalties.
I seem to remember we'll lose around 16 points for killing a Low Reputation character. I'm asking them to remove that entirely for High Reputation characters.
I want to be able to kill every Low Reputation character I see and suffer no Reputation/Alignment consequences for doing so.
I don't see the purpose or value in making low rep characters permanently flagged.
I think it's consistent with Ryan's statement that "[t]here is no good reason to play a chaotic evil character except if you like being other people's content".
Players will become Low Reputation by engaging in Unsanctioned PvP, effectively by exposing others to significantly more PvP than they wanted. It seems to me entirely appropriate that this results in them being exposed to significantly more PvP themselves.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please tell me this thread's a stalking horse for some greater purpose, or else it'll just devolve into the typical warfare we've seen too often here already. No, it's going to do that one way or the other.
I believe Ryan's quoted statement pre-dates the split between Chaotic Evil and Reputation, as clarified a few times since.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I believe Ryan's quoted statement pre-dates the split between Chaotic Evil and Reputation, as clarified a few times since.
Which is why I tried to focus it directly on Low Reputation.
I don't feel like I'm sniping at anyone, or baiting anyone. If I see something that looks like someone felt I was sniping at them or baiting them, I'll drop it. I certainly didn't intend to start a flame war...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Please tell me this thread's a stalking horse for some greater purpose, or else it'll just devolve into the typical warfare we've seen too often here already.
I think the usual suspects have already stated their intent to utilize "good gameplay tactics" as determined by GW, therefore they will have positive reputation. I assume Nihimon is talking about the "others" who will inevitably come...and make all our experiences...ummm, less.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please consider making Low Reputation (less than -2,500 or perhaps less than -5,000) characters sanctioned targets for all High Reputation (greater than 2,500 or perhaps greater than 5,000) characters.
The Librarian! Fit to get medieval on somebody's a**! But seriously, N is proposing a game mechanic. As I believe Summersnow said in the group hug thread, we do need to be able to bring up subjects people care about without getting personal. Witness the speed and effectiveness of crowdforging in the outpost blog postings when we discussed and debated w/o nonsense.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you want people to be punished for PvP... so you can PvP freely?
These Low Reputation people... are just going to be people who enjoy PvP. So instead of taking the initiative and enjoying "unsanctioned", you'd rather wait for other people to do it, so that you can do is without consequences?
How about we just minimize the effect of "unsanctioned" PvP for everybody, and the punishment for engaging in this type of PvP will be that you risk losing the items in your inventory.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who is likely to be one of those low reputation individuals (through necessity rather than pure dickishness), I approve of this message. Most 'good' low reputation characters, those not simply interesting in griefing, will be highly interested in PvP. This acts as another avenue for meaningful PvP interaction.
I would, however, add the caveat that the high reputation character shouldn't just be able to roll up to the low reputation character and immediately begin wailing on them. I would instead prefer a mechanic somewhat similar to Stand and Deliver. For this example I shall call it Censure.
A high reputation character can Censure a low reputation character. They issue the Censure, and if accepted the low reputation character takes a large negative modifier for a reasonably substantial length of time (or until they can cleanse the debuff at a friendly town). If they refuse the Censure they are immediately flagged for PvP against all nearby high reputation characters.
This lets high reputation characters act as a policing unit, while also giving low reputation characters an iota of protection against entirely random surprise gankings. If the low reputation character accepts the Censure they are pushed off whatever area they aren't wanted in, or defanged such that they are meaningless. If they do not accept the Censure they can just be bonked over the head.
Edit: And this would hardly be an inventive subsystem. Most PvP games have some form of negative reputation mechanic that opens you up to PvP. EvE has its Security Rating thingy, for example.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I tried to be as clear as possible, and I'm not hiding any ulterior motives: I want to be able to kill Low Reputation characters without consequence.
Not that I agree with this. I like the way this particular mechanic stands the way it is. I think I've made clear I don't like the rep system itself-but since it seems like a done deal, no one should be able to kill with impunity-'becoming what you hate' and megalomania and all that. Yes, me, Lord Bozo, demands roleplaying! But I have to say I like the idea of Nihimon's alter ego the Sword of Justice. Did you get a super hero costume as part of your Kickstarter awards?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you want people to be punished for PvP... so you can PvP freely?
I think Morbis sees it closer to the way I do.
I don't want the folks who ignore Sanction to hide behind Sanction.
I would, however, add the caveat that the high reputation character shouldn't just be able to roll up to the low reputation character and immediately begin wailing on them. I would instead prefer a mechanic somewhat similar to Stand and Deliver. For this example I shall call it Censure.
I have no problem with this general principle. In fact, I would be inclined to apply it to most situations.
Honestly, I think people should be able to PvP 100% freely outside of Settlement and NPC hexes. When people are in the wilderness, all bets should be off. How can people keep track of somebody's reputation in the wilderness anyways? It doesn't even make sense.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Honestly, I think people should be able to PvP 100% freely outside of Settlement and NPC hexes. When people are in the wilderness, all bets should be off. How can people keep track of somebody's reputation in the wilderness anyways? It doesn't even make sense.
I agree in principle, but it isn't the way the game seems to be moving, and I don't think we can do much to push it that way. It is a better expenditure of our energy and time to try and convince the developers to use their currently in place systems to facilitate our play style. We can't have completely open world PvP, but we can try and keep the punishments to a reasonably acceptable (for us) level.
And this is a game. It doesn't have to make sense.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have severe reservations over this. I would not mind placing a long-term flag on low reputation characters when they commit acts that lower reputation further. Divide the Rep score by -1 to come up with a number of seconds the flag lasts. Positive rep scores would always be floored to 0 seconds / no flag.
Simply making them open targets at a set point leaves a couple huge gaping wholes.
1) Room for Redemption through corrective behavior. Being smacked down repeatedly can initially cause a desire to reform. But continuing to get smacked down while attempting to reform snuffs that desire pretty rapidly.
2) Skirting the line. A huge black and white line that players can game against to rest on but no go under will lead to a huge population sitting right there. A shades of gray system where crossing the line only opens to a tiny window will reduce the caution exercised by crossing the line. This lends to a more natural progression of bad players reaching the bottom, and makes them think much harder about how low they wish to go as opposed to having a solid line not to cross.
Honestly, I think people should be able to PvP 100% freely outside of Settlement and NPC hexes. When people are in the wilderness, all bets should be off. How can people keep track of somebody's reputation in the wilderness anyways? It doesn't even make sense.I agree in principle, but it isn't the way the game seems to be moving, and I don't think we can do much to push it that way. It is a better expenditure of our energy and time to try and convince the developers to use their currently in place systems to facilitate our play style. We can't have completely open world PvP, but we can try and keep the punishments to a reasonably acceptable (for us) level.
And this is a game. It doesn't have to make sense.
I don't think it's impossible. I'm not asking for completely FFA Open-World PvP. Regular rules should apply in the NPC and Settlement Hexes, and FFA PvP in the Wilderness and Monster hexes? Is that too unreasonable? I think not!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it's impossible. I'm not asking for completely FFA Open-World PvP. Regular rules should apply in the NPC and Settlement Hexes, and FFA PvP in the Wilderness and Monster hexes? Is that too unreasonable? I think not!Honestly, I think people should be able to PvP 100% freely outside of Settlement and NPC hexes. When people are in the wilderness, all bets should be off. How can people keep track of somebody's reputation in the wilderness anyways? It doesn't even make sense.I agree in principle, but it isn't the way the game seems to be moving, and I don't think we can do much to push it that way. It is a better expenditure of our energy and time to try and convince the developers to use their currently in place systems to facilitate our play style. We can't have completely open world PvP, but we can try and keep the punishments to a reasonably acceptable (for us) level.
And this is a game. It doesn't have to make sense.
I would say it is unacceptable. The current sanctioned/unsanctioned rules are very much acceptable to me. FFA zones should be minimal. You always have the opportunity to attack, but you also have to deal with the consequences if the attack is against an unsanctioned target.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I tried to be as clear as possible, and I'm not hiding any ulterior motives: I want to be able to kill Low Reputation characters without consequence.
I'd push for closer to the -5000 range, of course depending on how the final version of how REP can be regained.
I don't see a problem with this reputation wise. You shouldn't take a reputation hit.
Alignment is a different story that I think we've been over and over and over again. I'll not go there.
I may be incorrect in this assumption Nihimon, but previously weren't you an advocate of PvP have consquences to be in line with Meaningful Human Interaction? I'm not going to go quote digging to find it, but that was my interpretation of your stance. If I am wrong, that is fine, but if that is accurate, I would only ask, "Why the change?"
I think it's a possibility and not one I am completely opposed to, but I would caution that it would become a common tactic simply to raise your rep however possible in order to have free reign on low rep which could lead to griefing.
I do definately feel that it is a possiblity worth discussing as long as everyone is civil.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Why the change?"
I don't see it as a change. I see it as very much in line with what I understood from the beginning.
The "meaningful consequences" for unsanctioned PvP include the consequence that the more you ignore the systems designed to protect others, the less protected you are by those systems.
I appreciate your general support for the idea. I'm also very curious what others think.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This system has been adopted in other MMOs before. Specifically UO tried it at least for a time. They went so far as to have NPC guards kill Reds on sight in the towns.
It did not work as a solution. There will always be those willing to trade with low Rep players. It became a "Badge" to be Red and such accounts even fetched good prices on Ebay.
IMO, the best consequence would be impossibility at finding training. To prevent yo yo abuse of this consequence, make abilities purchased while in high standing unusable while in low.
It will certainly be tough to invent and balance a system that will be best for the highest player population. I do not envy GW in this.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want to be able to kill every Low Reputation character I see and suffer no Reputation/Alignment consequences for doing so.
I don't think any unsanctioned target should be a consequence free kill, and I don't think being low rep should automatically make you sanctioned.
The bandit has to decide if an unsanctioned target is worth the consequences to rob, and a paladin should have to decide if an unsanctioned evil-doer is worth the consequences to attack.
I hope that low-rep characters are penalized in other ways besides being pvp targets. They can lack access to the best training and markets. They can be distrusted and banned from settlements. These penalties can be either mechanical or social in nature.
Most of the people who are constructive players that want to have a low rep character will be doing it for reasons that make them sanctioned targets most of the time anyway.
Players that are low rep because they are griefing or attempting to abuse the game mechanics should be dealt with by bans or suspensions, not in-game actions.
Characters that are low-rep but not sanctioned targets might have made mistakes and be trying to redeem themselves, or be trying to change their character concept. They should be able to get a break and not be a completely consequence free target.
If you really need to do it, 16 rep is a small price to pay for attacking them anyway.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the larger advantage would be the ability to attack the low rep character in his own town without gaining a criminal flag, if it worked that way.
This should absolutely never the case. Player settlements set the laws they wish to. These laws should not be overridden by game mechanics. If a law is in place then you should get the criminal flag for breaking it with no exceptions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since it has been left unsaid that Reputation is a true measure of whether or not someone has been griefing or otherwise breaking any rule of the game, I would propose the following corollary to Nihimon's idea.
Characters with greater than +5000 Reputation can hunt down character with lower than -5000 Reputation, without reputation consequences. However, the opposite should also be true. A character with a -5000 Reputation can hunt down and kill a character with +5000 Reputation without those same consequences.
If there are interested parties that have a Reputation of true 0 or within the range of (-1250 to +1250) they can openly hunt down either end of the spectrum with no Rep consequences.
This would essentially create Reputation based factions. If the stated belief is to hold true that Chaotics in general have the most freedom of action, this system would support that.
Oddly enough, when I had suggested making a -7500 character, that had been determined by GW to be a griefer, to be a FFA target for all, I was called "Pro Griefer" for wanting to "Grief the Griefers".
I guess who the messenger is really does matter?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have the most awesome idea!!!!!! How about some incurable disease that gradually becomes worse when reputation drops. Let the wretched come they can hardly lift a sword. And the more the wretched have dealings with each other the worse the disease gets. Ha ha ha hah aaa. Heh :)
When a character gains reputation he is miraculously gradually cured from the disease. Oh It's a magical plague by Pharasma!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
On another point, and I don't mean to be confrontational....
@ Nihimon,
Are you dissatisfied with Goblin Works' reluctance or outright refusal to designate "unsanctioned PVP" as being harmful to the game or at most, griefing and a violation of the game's rules?
I get the impression that you are, but I may be reading your posts wrong. More specifically I get the impression that opening up more types of "sanctioned PVP" has moved PFO in a direction you were not expecting or hoping for. Stating that, "PVP is the core of PFO" was also counter to what you had been arguing against for months.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Since it has been left unsaid that Reputation is a true measure of whether or not someone has been griefing or otherwise breaking any rule of the game, I would propose the following corollary to Nihimon's idea.
Characters with greater than +5000 Reputation can hunt down character with lower than -5000 Reputation, without reputation consequences. However, the opposite should also be true. A character with a -5000 Reputation can hunt down and kill a character with +5000 Reputation without those same consequences.
If there are interested parties that have a Reputation of true 0 or within the range of (-1250 to +1250) they can openly hunt down either end of the spectrum with no Rep consequences.
This would essentially create Reputation based factions. If the stated belief is to hold true that Chaotics in general have the most freedom of action, this system would support that.
Oddly enough, when I had suggested making a -7500 character, that had been determined by GW to be a griefer, to be a FFA target for all, I was called "Pro Griefer" for wanting to "Grief the Griefers".
I guess who the messenger is really does matter?
Firstly, can we leave the past in the past? Please?
Secondly, the bolded portion of your suggestion I completely agree with. The portion in italics doesn't make sense to me, nor does the idea of reputation based factions.
Thirdly, what if Reputation hits were polarized by target? The larger the defficet the smaller the REP hit. I could see a -5000 killing a +5000 only knocking -5000 down to -5005, just as a +5000 would only go down to +4995. That seems reasonable and logical.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One thing is to ban unsanctioned pvp all together. We'll have a lot of pvp even if its banned. Though when you're chaotic neutral and someone walks on the road alone carrying a shiny sword you can't help that urge...
But otherwise I don't support low rep(or high rep) flags.
I think people forget, both those that want to play good guys and also those that want to play bad guys, that it's a free reign and as Bludd stated unsanctioned pvp hasn't been declared as griefing. If it would, GW could just remove that part from the game, no hostility, no attacking and then we wouldn't need reputation. Alignment would still work if players get to choose it for themselves in character creation etc.
One more thought. The bounties are there for chasing people who can't help but to take part in unsanctioned pvp.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Bluddwolf: Actually Mr. Dancey did post an exact list of sanctioned and unsanctioned pvp in a Blog past, he just called it 'encouraged' and 'discouraged' probably because consequences of griefing via the rep system are gradual and you can redeem yourself. I personally see no reason the collective 'we' can't grief the griefers-as long as this, even, has some cost to us. GW has set itself a tall order-to get large groups of organized pvp subscribers without rampant griefing. The game is in it's early stages and I don't mind them being coy about details while they develop the mechanics.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One thing is to ban unsanctioned pvp all together. We'll have a lot of pvp even if its banned.
I think people forget, both those that want to play good guys and also those that want to play bad guys, that it's a free reign and as Bludd stated unsanctioned pvp hasn't been declared as griefing. If it would, GW could just remove that part from the game, no hostility, no attacking and then we wouldn't need reputation. Alignment would still work if players get to choose it for themselves in character creation etc.
Some of the old, old threads go into to exactly this, for page after page after page. People were mostly concerned, back in the old days, of not having some ability to attack unflagged characters when any number of reasonable situations arose.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here is a question, perhaps for the Devs:
What will be the systematic response if it turns out that a majority of the target population for banditry or raids are unsanctioned?
Will a bandit / outlaw company have to feud the world or join multiple factions in order to increase their sanctioned target population?
Will there be sufficient ways for outlaws to build up influence, by committing crimes, to then fund multiple feuds?
Could we trade with a settlement, loot in exchange for influence, so that we could fund our own feuds?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What will be the systematic response if it turns out that a majority of the target population for banditry or raids are unsanctioned?
Since bandits always have the option of attacking an unsanctioned target, I'm sure "lack of potential targets" won't be a significant problem.
If a character is deliberately attempting to minimize their exposure to sanctioned pvp (not joining factions, not joining companies or settlements with active feuds) then I don't think it should be easy for a bandit to make a sanctioned attack upon them.
IMO, the difference between a "bandit" and a privateer or a mercenary is the willingness to incur the consequences of initiating unsanctioned pvp.
I think the systematic response to most potential targets being unsanctioned, is that most bandits will end up being CE, which makes sense since robbing and killing people motivated by greed instead of ideology is definitely NE or CE.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally see no reason the collective 'we' can't grief the griefers-as long as this, even, has some cost to us.
Because by griefing anyone, even a griefer, you become a griefer, and griefing is not cool. Any members found to have been griefing in my organization, even if it's griefers they're griefing, they get das boot from my organization.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel that the systems already stated in the blog concerning this (re: only 16 Rep loss for +5000 vs. -5000) would be okay. I'm not an advocate for anyone committing consequence-free PvP against anyone who hasn't signed up for that, even if that target is Low Rep. However, I think the consequences here will be so negligible that it's already pretty close to consequence-free (especially if the target is also CE). They will already be exposed to more unwanted PvP than normal because the penalties for killing them are reduced (impacting the risk portion of the attacker's risk vs reward measurements).
It's been said that low rep is going to be gimped already, so I trust that GW can handle the specifics of how they want to gimp it. I'd like to know whether the currently planned penalties will prove to be enough before requesting more penalties are added.
@Bludd, I don't see Reputation as being an even scale, like Good vs evil should be. Instead, I believe reputation will be more like a linear incline, with good reputation being better to have in every way than bad reputation. What impact would your proposed rep-hit-removal have, and why do you propose it? I'm not sure why the removal of further rep sliding would be a desired mechanic, so I'd like some clarification, please. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Here is a question, perhaps for the Devs:
What will be the systematic response if it turns out that a majority of the target population for banditry or raids are unsanctioned?
Will a bandit / outlaw company have to feud the world or join multiple factions in order to increase their sanctioned target population?
Will there be sufficient ways for outlaws to build up influence, by committing crimes, to then fund multiple feuds?
Could we trade with a settlement, loot in exchange for influence, so that we could fund our own feuds?
As it's been pitched so far, every target who refuses an SAD is sanctioned so there is no reason to drop a feud for banditry.
Raiding may require a feud but I would argue at a bare minimum, taking the resources in storage and defending yourself from those why try to stop you should be sanctioned PvP. I wouldn't mind seeing anyone within a hundred meters of an outpost being sanctioned as long as alignment loss still applied.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the solution to these problems (and really what they've been trying to do) is to make it so people can easily flag up for PvP, and be rewarded generously (for both PvE and PvP) simply because those players are playing a riskier game.
If players want to hide, and "wimp out" behind santions, they shouldn't be able to go wild and gather resources like crazy without having to worry about anything other than PvE...
They should be punished for not being flagged by being weaker, as the PvP'ers will be punished for killing them in "unsanctioned" PvP.
Note: This will create a meaningful decision for "miner" groups as to whether or not they should flag up. If they flag, they'll be more powerful, but also more likely to be attacked...
if not, they'll be less likely to be attacked, but more vulnerable if they are attacked.
What this will likely create is a situation where a mining expedition will have "miners" and "guards". The miners would likely stay unflagged, and the guards would flag up.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No Nihimon. Come back to the thread! Just ignore Bluud. It will be fine.
I fail to see your contribution of thought in this post. If you disagree with my idea, make a case for why it is bad or better yet present your own idea that you feel would be better.
If you ignore me or other posters that are not afraid to put their ideas out there, we will be left with nothing but non contributors with no ideas of their own.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Seeing how many times low reputation becomes a popular subject, I would appreciate it if a group of players would be willing to test out the low-rep end lifestyle during EE, with GW's blessing, as an experiment before the gates open and the horde arrives. How fast one can get to minimum rep, how long does it take to regain rep, how punishing it is being low-rep, how do "normal" players think and feel after interacting with the experimenters etc.
All to allow for necessary adjustments to the rules as well as to prepare the community before open enrollment when, potentially, all hell breaks loose.
EE covers many of the roles of other game's betas, let's make good use of it and push every system to the limits!
If it so turns out that the idea in the OP seems to be the best fix to some percieved flaw in the system, it could be implemented then.
This is not meant as a "stop crowdforging and wait for EE" post, I just wanted to express my hopes that players (and devs) consider the potential that EE brings for testing and adjusting systems. The more good ideas we (or rather YOU, since I am not a backer yet :) ) have with us (you) into EE, the better.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Seeing how many times low reputation becomes a popular subject, I would appreciate it if a group of players would be willing to test out the low-rep end lifestyle during EE, with GW's blessing, as an experiment before the gates open and the horde arrives. How fast one can get to minimum rep, how long does it take to regain rep, how punishing it is being low-rep, how do "normal" players think and feel after interacting with the experimenters etc.
All to allow for necessary adjustments to the rules as well as to prepare the community before open enrollment when, potentially, all hell breaks loose.
EE covers many of the roles of other game's betas, let's make good use of it and push every system to the limits!
If it so turns out that the idea in the OP seems to be the best fix to some percieved flaw in the system, it could be implemented then.
This is not meant as a "stop crowdforging and wait for EE" post, I just wanted to express my hopes that players (and devs) consider the potential that EE brings for testing and adjusting systems. The more good ideas we (or rather YOU, since I am not a backer yet :) ) have with us (you) into EE, the better.
I had suggested this and volunteer to do it. I was however met with two responses:
1. "That would be griefing and there should be no tolerance of griefing, even if it is described as "testing" the system.
2. The purpose of EE is not to test the system, it is to set up the game world in preparation for OE.