Goblin Squad Member
|
Again, "The only good Red is a dead Red" system has been attempted in other games. It has always failed and I think that GW knows this. They don't seem keen about attempting mechanics that have been proven as failures.
Wouldn't some discussion about what the negative aspects of having a low Rep, how low it can be to be punitive, and how to play within the design that they are attempting to work out be a better approach?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with everything you said except whether or not its the way it should be.
Yeah, I was just clarifying how it is currently, as least as far as I know it to be. Wanted to make sure we're on the same page for that.
What method do you think is better than the system GW has developed so far? Do you think there are more PvP scenarios which will be bread-and-butter for the game's core concepts, and thus should be sanctioned? Any specific ones in mind?
(Just facilitating discussion on it. Anyone should feel free to answer any or none of these questions.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Wouldn't some discussion about what the negative aspects of having a low Rep, how low it can be to be punitive, and how to play within the design that they are attempting to work out be a better approach?
Well, at any one moment, all we can do is discuss our various interpretations of the information we have been given. I think this is what we are doing.
I agree that waiting for more complete/accurate information before interpretation and discussion is always a "better" option...but that would lave these forums a bit dead...don't you think?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with everything you said except whether or not its the way it should be.Yeah, I was just clarifying how it is currently, as least as far as I know it to be. Wanted to make sure we're on the same page for that.
What method do you think is better than the system GW has developed so far? Do you think there are more PvP scenarios which will be bread-and-butter for the game's core concepts, and thus should be sanctioned? Any specific ones in mind?
(Just facilitating discussion on it. Anyone should feel free to answer any or none of these questions.)
I suggested a magical plague by Pharasma. A debuff that gets worse the lower the characters reputation drops. Maybe first implication of the plague could come at -1. I know this would lead to more meta playing for those that want to balance with the plague, but otherwise it would keep a lot of players on the plus side. Of course the debuff power could easily be tweaked to suit the needs of GW and/or players, which makes it ideal in my eyes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
(On a side note, thank you everyone for the civil discussion on a usually emotionally charged topic...I actually think there are some gems of logic on both sides of the debate and I hope it was as constructive for others as it was for me...I need to think more on the "implications" of allowing the negative rep players to remain at all. I like what Shane had to say because it allows me to keep my current conclusions, but I need to probably reconsider my own position in light of my previous failure to consider that question.)
I agree with everything you said except whether or not its the way it should be.Yeah, I was just clarifying how it is currently, as least as far as I know it to be. Wanted to make sure we're on the same page for that.
What method do you think is better than the system GW has developed so far? Do you think there are more PvP scenarios which will be bread-and-butter for the game's core concepts, and thus should be sanctioned? Any specific ones in mind?
(Just facilitating discussion on it. Anyone should feel free to answer any or none of these questions.)
I agree with everything you said except whether or not its the way it should be.And, there is possibly a world of differece between "how GW has decided it will be" and the more ultimate "the way it should be".
Out of curiosity, how would you prefer it be?
I think the idea behind many of their systems is good. I think making griefing difficult and dangerous with downsides for obvious griefing is good. Mainly though, the thing they've done the best is that it is clearly better to spend your CE murdering days to your own advantage through other means than random player killing. That's all good, but...
They're trying to take the stance of not defining griefing with words, but defining them through reputation loss. I don't think they should do either.
They already have a system where any person who is drawn to griefing will find an outlet for themselves via productive means. It is a clear choice for them. For anyone else you have the GMs ready to listen to things on a case by case basis.
They can't foresee every scenario with reputation, nor can they always determine if player actions are driven by malice or not. If you try, you just limit genuine players and tell them to play a specific way. If they don't comply, they they will be labeled through the same system originally intended to target griefers.
Things like Roleplaying or preemptively defending yourself can easily reduce reputation because GW didn't specifically put systems into place to determine whether or not it is griefing, and they won't because they can't. I don't believe it helps, and I don't think they should keep such a restriction in the game.
The reputation system is designed to punish griefers for engaging in "negative gameplay aspects" but it is not perfect and it is impossible to be. I don't believe reputation should have anything to do with PvP.
I think the idea of reputation should be entirely focused on what other people literally think of you and how reliable you are in your agreements. That aside...
Imagine, if you will, two different kinds of griefers:
1.) Someone who does it out of boredom or because they are truly RPKing
2.) Someone who does it because they are literally sadists who enjoy making others suffer
#1 Is already taken care of by giving them plenty of productive outlets for their PvP desires. And, let's be honest, losing a bit of reputation will never prevent their random desire to kill someone once in a while if they find someone standing there alone and AFK in the middle of a forest.
#2 Will not be affected by reputation loss. They play the game to grief. For them, you can only stop them with a GM or by physically preventing them from fighting. Obviously, GM intervention needed.
So I don't believe you need reputation at all.
However, I can deal with the system they have in place. Although I still think people should realize even anti-griefers who like PvP can have low reputation. Chances are, as a CG player I probably will. Killing bandits as I find them (not like a moron waiting to be robbed before I attack), fighting LE settlements, ambushing ambushers, randomly helping people who are being robbed or attacked, helping friends who are in faction battles with another group, etc. All of which will involve lost reputation at certain points, none of which will be done for a ridiculous reason like griefing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Although, I think people should realize even anti-griefers who like PvP can have low reputation.
I would actually submit that these "anti-griefers" with low reputation are actually griefers who prefer to feed off their own.
I don't believe reputation should have anything to do with PvP.
I think the idea of reputation should be entirely focused on what other people literally think of you and how reliable you are in your agreements.
I could not agree more, I argued this very point many times when the system was introduced. At best, it was simply confusing, at worst it outright misleading. But...I got over it because I just accepted that my argument was semantic and what they were redefining as Reputation, was simply something different than the idea of reputation I was familiar with. As such, I do think that the metagaming metric they are keep track of is a good thing to measure, even if it really has nothing to do with in-game social reputation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I could not agree more, I argued this very point many times when the system was introduced. At best, it was simply confusing, at worst it outright misleading. But...I got over it because I just accepted that my argument was semantic and what they were redefining as Reputation, was simply something different than the idea of reputation I was familiar with.I don't believe reputation should have anything to do with PvP.
I think the idea of reputation should be entirely focused on what other people literally think of you and how reliable you are in your agreements.
Yup. When I read "reputation" I just use my substitute: "karma".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think we need to work harder at maintaining the distinction between "griefing" and "participating in non-sanctioned PVP".
You can grief someone with sanctioned pvp, or without pvping at all. Griefing is usually impossible for game mechanics to identify and resolve, and should result in bans or suspensions on a case by case basis by goblinworks employees.
Non-sanctioned pvp is a option that should be available to characters. It should carry a set of consequences imposed by game mechanics. It can readily be identified and those consequences imposed by game mechanics.
One consequence of initiating non-sanctioned pvp is a reduction in reputation.
If someone has a low reputation, all that tells you is that they frequently participate in non-sanctioned pvp.
I don't think a low-rep character should be a sanctioned target for everyone.
I do think they should be shunned by most player-created social groups, and incur some significant mechanical penalties, mostly related to access to training, markets and npc settlements. I don't think they should get across the board debuffs.
I think the game does need a small population of low-rep characters to add challenge and diversity to gameplay, while making the life of a low-rep character difficult enough that being high-rep is the easier path to a successful, powerful character.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Non-sanctioned pvp is a option that should be available to characters. It should carry a set of consequences imposed by game mechanics. It can readily be identified and those consequences imposed by game mechanics.
One consequence of initiating non-sanctioned pvp is a reduction in reputation. If someone has a low reputation, all that tells you is that they frequently participate in non-sanctioned pvp.
I can imagine a situation where for whatever reason, I have to tell some high-rep individual from another company or settlement to move along. Perhaps my company/settlement is doing something and we're concerned about spies - and high rep alts have value as spies because of the consequences from killing them. Anyhoo, Mr. Possible Spy refuses to move along and forces me to make my request in more forceful terms. I take the rep hit and other consequences and resume my sentry patrol.
Sure as anything, Mr. Probable Spy shows up in 20 minutes and again refuses to leave. I take another reputation hit. And again in another 20 minutes.
We're both playing by the rules. I'm getting lower rep. I'm already flagged as an attacker for 10 minutes after each killing. I'm not sure I need to be a sanctioned target for a week if my rep gets to a low enough point that it will take a week to recover.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What if your average bozo, a few months into OE, is, say +2500 - +5500 rep? I mean the largest slice of the statistical pie. The next largest slice is -1000 - +1000 rep. The next group is the over 5500 crowd. And so on. I don't think the exact numbers are important to my point: We have for a while now, framed every discussion/debate as if the bulk of the server population will be negative 5500 (and down) against positive 5500 (and up) and I think it's a crucial error that distorts the argument. I believe most players that are active in pvp will hover in the low-moderate plus side, always keeping an eye on their score and measuring actions taken on a scale; rep on one balance, the interests of their faction/company/settlement on the other.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I can imagine a situation where for whatever reason, I have to tell some high-rep individual from another company or settlement to move along. Perhaps my company/settlement is doing something and we're concerned about spies - and high rep alts have value as spies because of the consequences from killing them. Anyhoo, Mr. Possible Spy refuses to move along and forces me to make my request in more forceful terms. I take the rep hit and other consequences and resume my sentry patrol.
Sure as anything, Mr. Probable Spy shows up in 20 minutes and again refuses to leave. I take another reputation hit. And again in another 20 minutes.
I think it's a very good thing to try to identify as many of these scenarios as possible. However, this particular scenario is likely already accounted for: if you have a legitimate ownership stake in the hex you're in, then you should be able to flag that individual as a Trespasser, making him a Sanctioned target. If don't have that legitimate ownership stake, then what you're doing really is questionable, and it's appropriate for you to lose Reputation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Non-sanctioned pvp is a option that should be available to characters. It should carry a set of consequences imposed by game mechanics. It can readily be identified and those consequences imposed by game mechanics.
One consequence of initiating non-sanctioned pvp is a reduction in reputation. If someone has a low reputation, all that tells you is that they frequently participate in non-sanctioned pvp.
I can imagine a situation where for whatever reason, I have to tell some high-rep individual from another company or settlement to move along. Perhaps my company/settlement is doing something and we're concerned about spies - and high rep alts have value as spies because of the consequences from killing them. Anyhoo, Mr. Possible Spy refuses to move along and forces me to make my request in more forceful terms. I take the rep hit and other consequences and resume my sentry patrol.
Sure as anything, Mr. Probable Spy shows up in 20 minutes and again refuses to leave. I take another reputation hit. And again in another 20 minutes.
We're both playing by the rules. I'm getting lower rep. I'm already flagged as an attacker for 10 minutes after each killing. I'm not sure I need to be a sanctioned target for a week if my rep gets to a low enough point that it will take a week to recover.
Very good example. thank you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Again, "The only good Red is a dead Red" system has been attempted in other games. It has always failed and I think that GW knows this. They don't seem keen about attempting mechanics that have been proven as failures.
Wouldn't some discussion about what the negative aspects of having a low Rep, how low it can be to be punitive, and how to play within the design that they are attempting to work out be a better approach?
I would argue that it's not a completely failed system. It's just failed in two major areas:
1. The methods of measuring whether a player is "red" or "blue" have been traditionally horrid. Mortal Online is the only game I've ever seen in which that designation has some real meaning and even that is pretty rough around the edges.
2. It's never been a strong enough disincentive on it's own. That does not mean it does not have any value, it just means more systems are needed in addition to it.
Pathfinder Online will have to address point 1 in order to realize their vision as it is. It really shouldn't be hard it's just that most titles pay very little attention to balancing their reputation systems because they don't see them as major priorities. It can take literal years and dozens of combat patches to see a single tweak to reputation. The vision they outline also addresses point 2.
So if they do a good job of balancing the currently confirmed systems, then I do not see why we should expect it to suffer the same failures it has in other titles.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If don't have that legitimate ownership stake, then what you're doing really is questionable, and it's appropriate for you to lose Reputation.
Precisely. Well, sort of. If my company is doing something in an uncontrolled wilderness hex, we might not have an ownership stake, but I'm not sure it's questionable. No one else has an ownership stake; we're not trespassing. But yes, if we kill unflagged people, it's appropriate that we lose Reputation and suffer the normal consequences that GW has spelled out to date, including being sanctioned targets for some period of time (up to 24-hours if we kill enough people to gain Murderer). We don't need to be sanctioned targets for having low rep, but from the actions that take us to low rep. That's already in the rulebook.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are two players. We'll call the first Dread Overlord and the second Sociopathic Slaughterer.
Dread Overlord takes no crap off of anyone. If you insult him, he kills you. If he thinks you are working for an enemy organization or spying on him, he kills you. If he feels like your presence is a threat, he kills you. However dread Overlord does not run around just killing everyone he thinks he can get away with killing. He kills everyone who he feel stands in the way of his Dread Empire or who has provoked him to do so.
Sociopathic Slaughterer kills absolutely everyone he sees that isn't in the Sociopathic Slaughter Club as long as he feels like he can get away with it. If you exist, and he's capable of doing so, he kills you.
It's my hope that the rate at which we regain reputation keeps Dread Overlord as medium to medium low reputation character. He's going to be able to accomplish a lot of his goals through sanctioned PvP, and while some of his goals require unsanctioned PvP, it's an unsanctioned kill here and there instead of leaving a trail of unsanctioned PvP victims thick enough to walk on without touching dirt everywhere he goes.
Sociapathic Slaughterer is the kind of character I would hope ends up low reputation. For him, unsanctioned PvP is his mode of operation. He kills whoever he feels like, whenever he feels like it, as frequently as he feels like it. That's going to mean a constant stream of reputation hits which is what keeps him at low reputation. It seems like a pretty reasonable request to be able to kill him without penalty. To me it seems hard to over-penalize playing the game in this manner.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A player that embraces a Chaotic Evil and Low Reputation play style already suffers no ill effects for killing other players. Why should they be protected by the very systems they ignore?
This is false. They still suffer the same ill effects as everyone else. They look at those effects as the cost of playing their play style. Them not caring about the loss of REP and shift to CE does NOT mean they suffer no ill effects. They suffer the same ill effects as everyone else until they reach MAX CE and -7500 REP.
Them accepting punishment by a system doesn't mean they should be free reign.
I'd also like to point out that statements like this have brought this thread back to the same thing both sides of this argument have already argued about at least two times before.
I am not trying to say that you, Nihimon, have done this, I was just stating the fact that your statement of those embracing a play style suffering no ill effects was fundamentally wrong. Those effects still happen, it's just that the player doesn't care.
Again, this is the same thing we continue to argue about. *sighs*
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Alarox, I was going to reply about the distinction between unsanctioned PvP and griefing but that's already been done by Gaskon. Unsanctioned PvP is punished mechanically, but will not be punished in the metagame, whereas griefing may or may not be punished mechanically (depending on exactly what one person is doing to grief another), but will be punished in the metagame through warnings, bans, restrictions, or whatever else GW's mods will use. In my opinion griefing and unsanctioned PvP are two separate topics that, while related, are definitely not the same thing.
Unsanctioned PvP is tolerated by the system; that's why it isn't expressly forbidden. However, excessive unsanctioned PvP from a single character is not. We will all have to shape our behaviors to keep our rep at acceptable levels while also advancing the needs of our companies, settlements, nations, and our own personal needs. What level you personally find acceptable is your own opinion.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are valid playing styles that include regular unsanctioned PvP. It may even be that the 'best' (by whatever metric you choose) playing styles include regular unsanctioned PvP.
I hope that Reputation ends up being a measure of what fraction of a character's activities are unsanctioned PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A player that embraces a Chaotic Evil and Low Reputation play style already suffers no ill effects for killing other players. Why should they be protected by the very systems they ignore?This is false. They still suffer the same ill effects as everyone else.
You're right. I shouldn't have said "no ill effects". Really, all I was trying to say is that the Alignment and Reputation hits are meaningless to them, if not actually prized.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I hope that Reputation ends up being a measure of what fraction of a character's activities are unsanctioned PvP.
+1 to that. I hope that player companies/settlements will take into consideration a player's reputation when evaluating new members, but I hope not many (if any) make a hard and fast denial zone. At the same time, I'd encourage people to look carefully at a very low rep applicant to find out why they have such a reputation score. It should serve as a warning flag, but not something deserving of immediate acceptance or denial, unless something specific denied by low rep is required for your company's needs (I would be very surprised indeed if any group denied based on high rep, unless they misunderstood the reputation system).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're right. I shouldn't have said "no ill effects". Really, all I was trying to say is that the Alignment and Reputation hits are meaningless to them, if not actually prized.A player that embraces a Chaotic Evil and Low Reputation play style already suffers no ill effects for killing other players. Why should they be protected by the very systems they ignore?This is false. They still suffer the same ill effects as everyone else.
That's exactly what I'm getting at. IMO Alignment should be a choice that you have to live with. You simply have to keep your actions in line with that choice.
Reputation on the other hand is what they really have to work on to ensure that if they want it to be valued. While I'm not in favor of no penalties for killing low REP, significantly lessoned penalties would be a way to make having low REP a bit more painful.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think it's a very good thing to try to identify as many of these scenarios as possible. However, this particular scenario is likely already accounted for: if you have a legitimate ownership stake in the hex you're in, then you should be able to flag that individual as a Trespasser, making him a Sanctioned target. If don't have that legitimate ownership stake, then what you're doing really is questionable, and it's appropriate for you to lose Reputation.
The Trespasser flag is still pretty vaguely described in the blog except for the low reputation part.
Trespasser: Entering a settlement city that has forbidden you entry (due to too low reputation or other mechanics) applies the Trespasser flag, which persists while you're in the area and briefly after leaving. This might also be applied for entering other areas where your simple entry is sufficient to allow you to be attacked and driven off.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You're right. I shouldn't have said "no ill effects". Really, all I was trying to say is that the Alignment and Reputation hits are meaningless to them, if not actually prized.A player that embraces a Chaotic Evil and Low Reputation play style already suffers no ill effects for killing other players. Why should they be protected by the very systems they ignore?This is false. They still suffer the same ill effects as everyone else.
If such persons are at the bottom of the reputation and alignment chain they are suffering ill effects if not rep and alignment shifts and those with high rep aren't suffering ill effects but rep and align shifts. I think there's a big difference.
These ill effects might be: bountyhunting, low rep settlement debuffs, ce settlement debuffs.
Low rep settlement debuffs might be: you can get instantly killed and kill without anyone experiencing major rep and align shifts. Well, it's difficult for me to know what is happening in a wretched hive of scum and villainy, but those, who have played other open world pvp games without similar mechanics as GW is planning, might know. I've just heard it's a blood fest.
CE settlement debuffs: Less npc guards, weaker settlement palisade, gate and buildings, no high end training. This should be a peace of cake to take over by a decent sized well organized army.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ya know, I don't actually have a problem with this as long as it works both ways, in fact, it kinda makes a lot of sense to me, as long as both players CHOOSE to pursue a path and they are required to make a CONCIOUS, DEDICATED AND LONG effort to get there rep high enough or low enough and they have warnings along the way.
Something as subtle as a bar patron whispering to his buddy as Nihimon walks by "hey look, isn't that Nihimon? He's getting quite a rep, if he keeps it up every lowlife in the cities going to be gunning for him!" or one of the "just working for cash to pay for magic academy" dancers at the local den on inequity whispering as they snuggle up to someone of low rep, lets say Bluddwolf "Oh Bludd baybee you're so bad, if you keep it up your going to draw attention of the cities elite guardians"
If this doesn't work we can always go with something less subtle until the warning is received.
Maybe something as blunt as a immersion crushing pop-up "THIS ACTION WILL GIVE YOU LEGENDARY HERO STATUS. BE ADVISED THAT THIS WILL MAKE YOU A SANCTIONED TARGET FOR ANYONE WITH THE LEGENGARY VILIANOUS STATUS AND THEY WILL BE SANCTIONED TARGETS FOR YOU" DO YOU WISH TO CONTINUE YES/NO?
We're not talking days or even weeks, we're talking months or years of dedicated effort to achieve this status, not something you can easily farm or "accidentally" get to.
To me its like the comics, if a new superhero comes to town what does he do, go after the big bad guy and if a new supervillan comes in he takes out the local superhero.
That's how it should work in PFO IMHO and the players who CHOOSE this path and are dedicated enough to achieve the status should be rewarded for it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ summersnow
I see reputation more like a metagame feat. Ryan depicted it as similar to e-bay seller rating meaning it indicates how trustworthy a player is in his player to player interaction.
And secondly I'm against Nihimons proposition because it seems to evoke opinions about the opposite being also true. That is that low reps should also be able to hunt high reps without alignment/rep shifts and that is a very bad idea in my opinion and would turn the whole system GW has designed up side down. And that doesn't seem ideal in any way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And secondly I'm against Nihimons proposition because it seems to evoke opinions about the opposite being also true. That is that low reps should also be able to hunt high reps without alignment/rep shifts and that is a very bad idea in my opinion and would turn the whole system GW has designed up side down.
I appreciate the response, and I'm trying to talk about it with as little acrimony and bluster as possible.
There is no good reason to play a chaotic evil character except if you like being other people's content.
Since then, there have been some clarifications made that Chaotic Evil will be viable if you're also High Reputation. I'm merely redirecting that quote from Ryan to be explicitly about Low Reputation characters, instead of Chaotic Evil characters.
As we currently understand, the system is already going to make Low Reputation characters much more of a desirable target than High Reputation characters. In the former case, killing them costs you 16 Reputation, in the latter 500. The idea that seems to be totally at odds with what Goblinworks has designed is the idea that High Reputation characters should be sanctioned targets for Low Reputation characters.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As we currently understand, the system is already going to make Low Reputation characters much more of a desirable target than High Reputation characters. In the former case, killing them costs you 16 Reputation, in the latter 500. The idea that seems to be totally at odds with what Goblinworks has designed is the idea that High Reputation characters should be sanctioned targets for Low Reputation characters.
Your OP is to remove even the smallest of rep hits that the High Reputation character did have, reducing them to zero, and setting the the threshold of what is low rep too easily attained with only a couple of unsanctioned kills.
What GW might end up with is an Open World PVP MMO with no Open World PVP taking place. "Open World" is not just a geographic term, it is a conceptual one as well.
If all PVP that takes place is contrived within a "hard set" grouping of circumstances, it is no longer Open World PVP and PVP can easily be opted out of.
Feuds, wars and the belonging to factions will be without meaning and will just be used to open access to as many targets as possible to allow for the Open World PVP aspect of the game. GW will end up with PVP for the sake of PVP.
Players will min/max whatever combination they need to open up those gates. They will roll alignments, but not live up to them. They will grind rep, and then piss it away in killing sprees. They will join multiple factions, with no rhyme or reason, other than to increase their target population. They will feud everything that walks or crawls, with no sense of purpose, history or rationale.... other than to have "sanctioned" PVP against them.
GW should focus on the reasons to engage in PVP, and not so much what the consequences of engaging in it should be. The only meaningful consequence for PVP should be losing the fight. This will naturally limit frivolous PVP.
Something I had written months ago, I will bring back here now.... The Critical Hit!
If a "Day One" character has the slightest, even miniscule chance, of one-shotting a Ten Year veteran, that veteran will never enter a frivolous fight without that "seed of possibility" planted in his head.
I was in a fight once in High School, and I was getting pummelled badly. The boy was bigger, stronger and I had no chance straight up. I landed one lucky punch to his throat and put him in the hospital. 99 out of a hundred fights he would have kicked my butt, but that time I got lucky.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... setting the the threshold of what is low rep too easily attained with only a couple of unsanctioned kills.
I don't think that's fair. Even if you took the higher value from my OP of -2,500, that would require 20 Unsanctioned kills of High Reputation characters.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... setting the the threshold of what is low rep too easily attained with only a couple of unsanctioned kills.I don't think that's fair. Even if you took the higher value from my OP of -2,500, that would require 20 Unsanctioned kills of High Reputation characters.
Perhaps as few as 5, and on average 10, but only 20 if you started at + 2500.
Maybe what needs to be considered is that the growth of reputation should occur in ways that are not passive.
Why would someone have high reputation for spending all of their game time crafting green hats? Meanwhile, someone else has moderate or even low reputation for going out into that world and exploring, fighting, robbing, etc...
Does one play style really have more value than the other?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Does one play style really have more value than the other?
Clearly.
The number of humans who really enjoy mindlessly killing others is much smaller than people think it is, but the damage they can do to a community or to a game design that doesn't anticipate their actions is massively disproportionate to their numbers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You... you do understand that Ryan Dancey isn't infallible right? Just because he believes that one has more worth than another doesn't actually make it true.
I'm not making a statement about a universal truth.
I'm making a statement about the design of Pathfinder Online.
You do understand Ryan Dancey is the CEO of Goblinworks, and that his vision will be the guiding force for the development of Pathfinder Online, don't you?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Maybe what needs to be considered is that the growth of reputation should occur in ways that are not passive.
Why would someone have high reputation for spending all of their game time crafting green hats? Meanwhile, someone else has moderate or even low reputation for going out into that world and exploring, fighting, robbing, etc...
As I currently understand it, all reputation measures is "how much unsanctioned PVP has this character initiated."
Thus, yes, a character that has spent all their game time avoiding PVP would presumably have never initiated unsanctioned PVP, and would have a high reputation.
You could also spend all your game time exploring, fighting and robbing and never initiate unsanctioned PVP.
The only way you get low reputation is by attacking someone that is not a sanctioned target for you.
What active methods of reversing that reputation loss would you suggest? What is the opposite of initiating unsanctioned PVP?
Stopping someone from initiating unsanctioned PVP?
Maybe the way to get active rep gain is to kill someone who has an attacker flag?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Does one play style really have more value than the other?Clearly.
The number of humans who really enjoy mindlessly killing others is much smaller than people think it is, but the damage they can do to a community or to a game design that doesn't anticipate their actions is massively disproportionate to their numbers.
I believe Bludd was speaking to the two examples he gave. Neither of which contained anything remotely similar to "mindless killing".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What active methods of reversing that reputation loss would you suggest?Something tells me his preferred answer would be "winning those Unsanctioned PvP engagements" :)
[Edit] My preferred answer would be "killing Low Reputation characters".
This is actually very much akin to what I was referring to in my "link CE development to the CE vs CE due to their chaotic nature" argument.
In order to raise your REP, you've got to kill low rep characters, Linking the rise from low REP to mid REP to low REP vs low REP characters.
Ironically, I think this would lead to the exact same thing Bludd mentioned earlier. REP factions. High low and mid.
@Nihimon - What other ways could you see as viable for raising ones REP?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I almost think rep loss should be permanent.
You just murdered someone, that's not something that society usually treats casually.
"Oh, its been over a week since he murdered someone, lets just forget about it."
"Everyone is allowed to commit 1 murder per month for stress relief."
I think the process for going from low-rep back to moderate-rep should be long, involved and require the average murderer to completely change their playstyle.
Maybe something like:
Build something for the public good to show remorse, (maybe donating resources to the npc settlements), refrain from any activity that would give an attacker flag, sanctioned or not, for at least a month, and then any future non-sanctioned pvp would give 10x the rep penalty to that character.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I believe Bludd was speaking to the two examples he gave. Neither of which contained anything remotely similar to "mindless killing".I was under the impression he was talking about High Rep vs. Low Rep. "Mindless killing" is the primary means of becoming Low Rep.
Why would someone have high reputation for spending all of their game time crafting green hats? Meanwhile, someone else has moderate or even low reputation for going out into that world and exploring, fighting, robbing, etc...
Clearly he was talking about much more than that. Irregardless, the definitions of "mindless killing" and "unsanctioned PvP" should not be synonymous. While mindless killing is a behavioral pattern that involves unsanctioned PvP, one could engage in mindless killing in sanctioned PvP as well. In a war/feud situation, put a field of enemies in front of my main, a barbarian, and he will begin mindlessly killing. Rage often has a draw back of not being able to tell friend from foe.
So, while mindless killing can happen in both sanctioned and unsanctioned PvP, unsanctioned PvP is much more than just mindless killing. If I choose to not use the bounty system because I consider it too expensive or too restrictive, and someone pays me money to go out and kill someone who may or may not have just killed them. If I accept the money and go kill that person, I am one... engaging in "unsanctioned PvP" and two... still playing within the spirit of the game, as either I am collecting a bounty or committing an assassination... both of which are in the spirit of the game, neither of which are "mindless killing" despite not being supported by the mechanics.
People will go this route. They will get low REP and they WILL NOT be simply "mindlessly killing". Hence my argument that unsanctioned PvP is more than just "mindless killing".