Goblin Squad Member
|
As I currently understand it, all reputation measures is "how much unsanctioned PVP has this character initiated."
Reputation measures negative/positive gameplay, unsanctioned PVP is no more than a single example of negative gameplay.
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.
Once more "types" of gameplay (other than just PvP, which is only a single aspect of PfO) have been explored, it can be safely assumed comparable positive/negative types of gameplay will be identified.
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?
Reconsider from the more general perspective of positive and negative gameplay?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So lowering ones REP so long as they are not "mindlessly killing" should be equally slow. Do you not agree?Slow time.@Nihimon - What other ways could you see as viable for raising ones REP?Time.
No, I am personally of the belief that since the system is intended to not only be a measure, but a deterrent, it should be fast down, slow up...very slow up.
EDIT: At least as I currently understand it...I am open to discussion of other views and revision of my understanding.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Once more "types" of gameplay (other than just PvP, which is only a single aspect of PfO) have been explored, it can be safely assumed comparable positive/negative types of gameplay will be identified.
I'm not sure.
I think having a number that measures only one thing is very helpful. Reputation = amount of unsanctioned PVP initiated is clear, simple, and possible for the game system to easily measure.It also targets the specific behavior that we are attempting to penalize.
What other examples of "negative gameplay" do you think should be lumped into reputation?
Destroying the production of a hex by over-mining it?
What else besides intiating unsanctioned PVP meets all the following criteria?
1) Doesn't reach the level of "griefing" that requires action against the account.
2) Needs to be a possible action for characters to keep the game exciting and vibrant.
3) Needs to be penalized enough that it doesn't become the default player behavior.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And lots of things are hard to break and easy to repair... what's your point?
My point is that there is no logical inconsistency in holding the position that going from high-rep to low-rep can take a few actions in a short time, while going from low-rep to high-rep should take many actions over a long period of time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So lowering ones REP so long as they are not "mindlessly killing" should be equally slow. Do you not agree?Slow time.@Nihimon - What other ways could you see as viable for raising ones REP?Time.No, I am personally of the belief that since the system is intended to not only be a measure, but a deterrent, it should be fast down, slow up...very slow up.
EDIT: At least as I currently understand it...I am open to discussion of other views and revision of my understanding.
I disagree for the simple fact that once you go down a dark path it's almost like you can never return. Playing a barbarian character, once enraged I'm no longer fully in control of my own actions. That's part of the character concept. It is as ingrained into the Barbarian as a strict moral code is ingrained into the paladin.
So if I rage and kill innocents I will take REP hits. This means all barbarians are likely to have a natural chaotic evil low rep shift. This will completely hinder the abilities of my character... making me nothing more than a glorified fighter who can't wear full plate. In the mean time, because the paladin has certain choices that lead to "limitations" they would be free to use their class specific abilities all they want. This is clear archetype favoritism in my opinion.
So are the actions of barbarians while raging going to be ignored when it comes to alignment rep hits? Or is this another case of "well you chose to play that class"?
How about we ensure friendly fire is on for all casters so they take rep and alignment hits for using magic and tie it to ranged attacks with the chance that if they miss, they hit a friendly. All AOEs hit friend and enemy alike. Then we let all the casters take those rep and alignment hits. That would be fair would it not? Using class abilities that have a possibility of hurting friendlies should be all around the board. Pretty soon, just like Barbarians, Wizards and Sorcerers won't be able to train anywhere because of REP restrictions on training.
Most of that is just me ranting and I get what you guys are saying, but with so many unknowns, I can't get behind it.
We don't know all the actions that will lower your rep. Will doing business with a low rep character lower your rep? If so, Callambea is screwed. There may be some specific low rep people we white list. Does every citizen take a rep hit for that? Is it just the individual merchant?
Too much is unknown about the REP system right now for me to say once they go down that road, there should be almost no coming back.
If it's simply unsanctioned PVP that lowers REP, then make it very hard to come back from low REP, mid REP is half as hard as that, and good REP recovers as normal. That way you reward those making an effort to be "less of an unsavory character". That is something I could get behind.
People might argue that well it should be even all the way around, but if Low rep means people are being pricks, then Mid Rep shouldn't be held to the same standard, because they aren't being pricks, they are just engaging in unsanctioned PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And lots of things are hard to break and easy to repair... what's your point?My point is that there is no logical inconsistency in holding the position that going from high-rep to low-rep can take a few actions in a short time, while going from low-rep to high-rep should take many actions over a long period of time.
As long as we are dealing in a fantasy setting, yes there is. Batman. Artemis Entrari. Boromir. Frodo. Sauroman. Gollum. Darth Vader. Etc etc. Each character has a varying " how much of a prick am I" meter and it bounces all over the place as the story progresses. Does Boromir die with Low REP? What about Vader? What is Entrari's REP at right now?
There is PLENTY of logical inconsistency in holding that position.
If Reputation is going to be player based, (thus gameable by multiple accounts), it is flawed but would be more towards what we are looking for.
If it is going to be character based, then it should follow fantasy trends, not real world trends.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think that recovering should be easy. But it shouldn't be insanely difficult. It should take significant work to bring your character out of Low Rep standing... even more so if you are -6000, less if you are -2500, even less if you are -100. It should be scaled to get easier as you go along, encouraging good behavior patterns.
If GW decides that people are getting away with mindless killing at -5000, then shift the scale appropriately.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How about we ensure friendly fire is on for all casters so they take rep and alignment hits for using magic and tie it to ranged attacks with the chance that if they miss, they hit a friendly. All AOEs hit friend and enemy alike. Then we let all the casters take those rep and alignment hits. That would be fair would it not? Using class abilities that have a possibility of hurting friendlies should be all around the board....
Last I checked, this was in fact the case.
The specific example was throwing an AOE at a bunch of goblins with an invisible rogue standing near them, and the conclusion was that the attacker would get the same penalties as if he directly targeted a non-invisible bystander.Maybe the reason most berserkers tend to not live in urban areas is that they are well aware of the social consequences of the indiscrimiate killing caused by their rage?
The barbarian class in pathfinder has evolved on the lines of heightened abilities from channeled anger. There is no chance of a standard pathfinder barbarian accidentally hitting a friendly because of their rage.
If you want to play a character concept that frequently requires you to engage in non-sanctioned PVP, then you should accept the consequences of that decision, whether that concept is "mage that fireballs squirrels" or "I kill people to steal their jewelry."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As long as we are dealing in a fantasy setting, yes there is. Batman. Artemis Entrari. Boromir. Frodo. Sauroman. Gollum. Darth Vader. Etc etc.
I think your examples support my position.
Batman kills one person and spends years and dozens of heroic acts to win his way back into the populace's good graces.Anakin Skywalker goes on one murderous rampage, stays low rep for the remainder of his life until finally he sacrifices himself in an attempt at redemption.
Boromir, Frodo and Gollum all were corrupted by the ring, and made huge sacrifices to atone: boromir and gollum died in attempts to atone, and frodo's life was so altered he "left the game world".
None of those examples became low rep and then spontaneously recovered their previous standing with minimal effort or time involved, and most of them went from very high rep to very low rep with a single action.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I usually stay out of these debates, but something about this topic worries me. If the intent is to find a means by which "thrill-killers" can be penalized to the point of quitting the game, I think we need to find a mechanic that doesn't simply put a pretty face on the same ugly behavior. I've seen too many instances of people who claim to be anti-griefers/anti-noob-killers/anti-RPKers/etc., being every bit as PvP hungry as the people they hunt and ending up hoping for more "bad" players so they can keep roaming the server in search of their next sanctioned PvP fix. Reputation is the one part of PFO that I would rather have totally controlled by the game. Honestly, I just don't trust players being given the badge of reputation police, and at that point, I would say toss out the reputation system all together.
I also don't want to see a mechanic meant to quell a problem behavior turn into an incentive for that same behavior. I can see these undesired players racing for the bottom of the reputation scale so as to bolster their chance for PvP...why spend the effort looking for victims when they can make themselves a sanctioned target and opponents will flock to them?
If we want to disincentivize low rep, then we need to remove all access to the incentives that make the game worth playing...even that make the game possible to play with any measurable success. Accessibility to training, to markets, to threading items (the gods are tired of your low rep - no threading for you)...the lower the rep of the member of a settlement, the bigger the index hit to the settlement's costs and indexes. The argument will be made that a settlement welcoming low rep characters will pop up and all these undesirables will live there...but how well, if everything costs outrageously more and no NPC trainers are willing to set up shop?
I'm sure there's a hundred far more punitive ways to make low reputation behavior undesirable (even stat loss or experience loss upon death when at the very lowest levels), but turning every high reputation player into a sanctioned PK hunter seems to me the wrong approach. "We don't like how you behave, so we'll do the same things to you until you leave," isn't the direction I hope GW would consider taking.
Nihimon, you and I have discussed this topic before. I respect your desire for a game free of the behaviors I know you hope to minimize in PFO (I think we all would love a game free of such antics), and I know how strongly you feel about not letting another good game be ruined by the same yahoos that have ruined other games in the past. However, I can't get behind this solution. I'll be more than happy to help generate others and work with you to promote them.
Hobs
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this debate missed the point entirely which is why I havent joined in
We want meaningful PVP.
We don't want pvp for the sake of it
some sanctioned PVP is pvp for the sake of it
some unsanctioned PVP is meaningful PVP
Therefore low reputation does not necessarily equate to negative play styles nor does high rep equate to positive play styles
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Playing a barbarian character, once enraged I'm no longer fully in control of my own actions.
This is confusing the player and the character. Of course you are in charge of your character's actions. Saying anything else is simply ridiculous, unless GW is going to institute a mechanic where when a barbarian rages a red mist descends on the the screen, you truly lose control of your character, and a couple of minutes later the screen clears and you regain control. I don't think that's very likely, do you?
You can make as much noise as you want about how this is part of your character concept and that this is how you want to play the game; the fact is you are not playing in isolation, and your concept, mine, and everyone else's has to be tempered by that realisation. It's all very well for a barbarian to rage at the table in PnP, the collateral damage is limited to monsters, NPCs or (hopefully) understanding PCs played by your friends. This is emphatically not the case in an MMO. It is a limitation that will also be faced, as you rightly point out, by wizards and sorcerers lobbing fireballs around, but also by necromancers, by rogues who want to be thieves (no pick pockets - how's that for a cramp on character concept for some people? At least you can still rage), in fact by a whole slew of roles and concepts.
If your barbarian rages you will have to bite a bullet. Either it will have to be a selective rage and only used when it is safe to do so rep wise ("my honour dictates that I cannot go berserk when there are innocents around") or it will be the bullet of lowered rep. But that's the thing about game balance - we will all have to bite some bullets in one area or another.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So lowering ones REP so long as they are not "mindlessly killing" should be equally slow. Do you not agree?Slow time.@Nihimon - What other ways could you see as viable for raising ones REP?Time.
No way would they agree with that. They want meteoric decline and glacial movement type recovery, unless of course you are High Rep (from doing virtually nothing interactive in the Open World) and then you should have no consequences for having your own bloody rampage against a certain class of people.
The big difference between our two sets of belief is that Nihimon wants game mechanics to protect those that don't want to PvP, and I say let the players protect and respond for themselves.
Ryan Dancey does not appear to have faith in an MMO community to protect itself from the ravages of griefing (real or contrived). He does not appear to accept that the community will develop its own culture, regardless of what his vision is. If in the end, the majority feels inhibited to have the culture it is looking for, it will leave and the game might very well fail.
The challenge is to balance the two camps (PvP vs. PvE). This should be done by incentivizing both, not adding consequences for one and not the other. If reputation is a measure of how a player is playing with others, that gaining reputation via time flies in the face of any meaningfulness of that goal.
Reputation gain should be granted by the participation of desired game play. If they desire PFO to be an Open World PvP game, than almost every instance of PvP should be sanctioned and should gain reputation.
Reputation loss should be equal for all. What message is being sent by," it is not ok for you to break the rules, but he can."?
Goblin Works, give all of us the tools to take care of griefers. When someone hits -7500 and it has been determined by a GM to be the result of griefing.......
Curse of Pharasma: The accursed is flagged for the longevity of that character. He or she can not thread items or have choice in respawn area. The accursed's bank account is seized by local authorities (NPC Faction).
Now when the griefer respawns, he has a Griefer Bounty placed on his head. This bounty is paid from the griefers own bank account. Any character not of the same account, company or settlement can pick up this bounty and they will find that the griefer is full loot enabled. The bounty hunter that scores the kill will receive a reputation boost, and the contents of the griefer's bank account.
The griefer can only partially recover from this status. They will regain ability to use a bank, upon being killed. They will no longer have Griefer Bounty on their head. However, they will not regain the ability to thread items.
In most cases this will lead to the player just deleting the toon and starting over.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If reputation is a measure of how a player is playing with others,
This is not how I, and others discussing the issue in this thread are defining reputation.
Based on the latest PVP blog, which gave us the very useful terms of "sanctioned" vs "unsanctioned" to replace the ill-defined "meaningful",
I've been assuming that Reputation measures one thing only: How much has this character initiated unsanctioned PVP.
I find this very useful, because it avoids all sorts of discussion about values and intentions and player vs character separation.
If you do X in game, this number on your character sheet goes down.
We can then discuss what should happen if that number gets low enough, and how that number should go back up, without attaching a lot of metagame emotions to the situation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...if I rage and kill innocents...
When I've played barbarians in tabletop, I work quite hard on minimising the damage I'm going to do to innocents if something triggers my rage against my will, and I've spent hideous amounts of time--far more than I spent raging--atoning for my actions when I fail. Ryan's mentioned atonement in discussion of paladins, so I'm sure atonement will be available for all who consider themselves needy of it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...I've been assuming that Reputation measures one thing only: How much has this character initiated unsanctioned PVP.This then implies we all start at +7500. I'd been thinking it'd be zero, but in your assumption I'm unsure of what action we'd take to improve our score.
Or we start at 0 and work up. A person with the starting 0 hasn't initiated unsanctioned pvp, but he hasn't had the chance to avoid sinning yet. Just an innocent, not a paragon. The person with +7500 has gone a long time since he last engaged in unsanctioned PvP.
We have been told that reputation goes up by an accelerating rate each day players don't lose reputation for their actions. It might also go up from gifts from other players (which many see as problematic). When we had alignment-based PvP flags, all long-term flags also gave rep through playing their role, but it's unclear what replaces those effects since those flags were removed. Perhaps faction pvp will be a source for some rep gains.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Goblin Works, give all of us the tools to take care of griefers. When someone hits -7500 and it has been determined by a GM to be the result of griefing.......Why jump through all those hoops first? Ban them. Simples.
The bottom line Lhan is, a griefer's $15.00 per month is the same as anyone else's.
Companies are loath to ban customers, even those that have been found to exploit the system (ie Gold Buyers) are frequently just fined. Hackers usually get banned as soon as they are detected. Simple griefers, rarely if ever get banned.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The bottom line Lhan is, a griefer's $15.00 per month is the same as anyone else's.
I understand what you are saying with the $15 a month (if the player is paying a sub) - but 1 griefer who stays may equate to 10 other players who leave because, in their eyes, the griefer has ruined the game for them. That's $150 a month and/or lost microtransactions. One bad apple and all that. I have no idea at what point this becomes true, but I suspect that GW probably do.
Simple griefers, rarely if ever get banned.
Got any evidence for this, outside of EvE (CCP is different in its treatment of griefers)? It's not my experience - but then both of our claims so far are purely anecdotal.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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?
And as he himself has said, he can see the Devs right across the room from him, but he doesnt know what they are working on.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I disagree for the simple fact that once you go down a dark path it's almost like you can never return. Playing a barbarian character, once enraged I'm no longer fully in control of my own actions. That's part of the character concept. It is as ingrained into the Barbarian as a strict moral code is ingrained into the paladin.
So if I rage and kill innocents I will take REP hits. This means all barbarians are likely to have a natural chaotic evil low rep shift. This will completely hinder the abilities of my character... making me nothing more than a glorified fighter who can't wear full plate. In the mean time, because the paladin has certain choices that lead to "limitations" they would be free to use their class specific abilities all they want. This is clear archetype favoritism in my opinion.
No. Many people play barbarians who rage, kill the targets at which they raged, and then end their rage. You CHOOSE to play a character who loses control when he rages, and kills innocents. There's a great character arc in that, whether or not your character feels remorse about the 'collateral damage' he inflicts- but it's not a arc that can be told in a MMO about territorial control.
Most people who play barbarians use their class ability as one that prevents their character from using any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, and Ride) or any ability that requires patience or concentration. Only a few people play barbarians who lose track of friend/foe/neutral status while raging.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
As long as we are dealing in a fantasy setting, yes there is. Batman. Artemis Entrari. Boromir. Frodo. Sauroman. Gollum. Darth Vader. Etc etc. Each character has a varying " how much of a prick am I" meter and it bounces all over the place as the story progresses. Does Boromir die with Low REP? What about Vader? What is Entrari's REP at right now?And lots of things are hard to break and easy to repair... what's your point?My point is that there is no logical inconsistency in holding the position that going from high-rep to low-rep can take a few actions in a short time, while going from low-rep to high-rep should take many actions over a long period of time.
Boromir never got to low-rep; he had a lifetime of good deeds marred by a single case of attempted theft. Batman is all over the place- you need to specify an author and arc to discuss. I see no reason why Artemis Entrari would ever lose rep, but I'm only looking at a summary of the books.
Frodo? Are you saying that he lost all of his rep for killing Shelob? Gollum was never really bad rep (he cheated on the riddle game, that's it), but he was also never much better than neutral rep. Likewise Sauroman never recovered from the rep hit that occurred when he caused the attack on the civilians, and Anakin is still generally better known for killing Jedi than for killing Palpatine.
Reputation isn't how much the protagonists like you, it isn't alignment, and it isn't "how much of a prick" you are, except in a limited sense. Reputation is a measure of the expectation of the typical rational person with whom you have no specific reason to be hostile or friendly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I suspect that a genuine griefer is not part of the Kickstarter. Too much work. Too long to get payoff. Some later entries to EE, maybe. EE can presents a time for monitors to set base line on what is not griefing.
From Kingdom level play, griefers went after solos, but not after those active players entered coalitions (who would respond and protect each other).
In GW it is not only CC, it is settlements which can respond.
It may also be others more loosely associated. I do not know how the game will handle groups 10 players adventuring together because times (RT) are convenient. There will be other groupings, some short term some repeating, that are not CC, not settlements, not faction, but still companions.
That will happen in temporal regions where fewer players are on at same time (e.g. UT -8 to UT +8). The current plan has factions, settlements, CC. What about a "current" party? They do not have a formal commitment (or would there be single session contract?). They may have a history of doing adventures together. Initially this is PvE. later its is still PvE to attack escalations.
Eventually it could be to take out griefers that are bothering all.
<deleted>
R
lam
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I propose a counterproposal.
If a player gets a massive rep hit in a single day, that character becomes unplayable while a GM determines whether this character can be classified as a griefer, a hacked account, or a bugged character.
During this time, the player may switch to another character (who will not be training skills unless they got that perk in the kickstarter, so you don't have to worry about zero-day trolls farming players like this).
end result: far less likelihood of characters being ruined by hackers, far less likelihood of characters becoming notorious griefers, far less likelihood of game-breaking reputation bugs destroying your progression.
does that sound better to you?
|
I guess all the thing of PvP was focused so much in Rep-wide and not enough in Align-wise.
Killing inocents are in a matter of RP an evil act. Agreed.
Killing bandits are in a matter of RP an good act. Killing evil-doers are in a fact an good act?
But what was running here is the punishment of being evil, not only being a griefer.
In the actual Good/Evil - Law/Chaos - Low/High Rep, system. The game punish the Chaos/Evil/Low Rep, instead punishing only the Low Rep.
Considering that the CE player chose to play that way, and behave to play that way. He will be punished 3 times for being that way: Corruption, Unrest and Unable to train Skills. And you are forgeting the social balance that will be exist inside the game: a LG player will like to strike and LE/CE foe, because at least RP reasons (at least I will).
Are you really like to all player are on one step away from LG? Why are you permiting players being CE at all then?
Chaos or Evil concepts exists because there was some benefits in it. And these benefits are not present in the explanation of alignements we have now.
Look, i´m not defending CE because I will or not be one (not decided yet). I´m defending the freedom to everyone play the game the way they chose they alignements without being labeled as "bad player take this debuff".
Per exemple, what is the "up" of being Chaotic in the game today? Lawful start the settlement with low corruption already. Maybe high corruption of an chaotic settlement means better profits in trades.
By now, I can´t imagine how a player choose to play CE, behavior CE and keep high reputation.... And that is not being Grief.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The Reputation System isn't a "punishment". It's a measurement. Specifically, it's a measurement of how often someone engages in PvP with opponents who don't show as Hostile.
If Bob has very Low Reputation, then Bob has shown that he doesn't care if his opponent shows as Hostile. What I'm asking is, if that's the case, why should anyone else care if Bob shows as Hostile?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Because that creates opportunities for meaningless, consequenceless PvP, which is contrary to stated design goals. There should always be some assessment of trade-off before anyone initiates a gank on anyone.
Yeah, I think that's very much in line with what Ryan's said. That's not a satisfying answer to me, but I've learned to live with it :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The people that want to play a CE character can just set their alignment to that at the start. They could then do absolutely nothing (that shifts alignment) and always be CE.
Now for purposes of RP, it would be nice if the were more described chaotic and evil activities that would not carry rep penalties also, just so you could RP a good guy sliding into evil, (for example).
Yet actually, there are activities (if you START C and/or E) through the use of faction, feud and war mechanics. You RP your CE band's feud or war with anyone you want. GW has simply just identified some of those (outside of the mechanics) as the activities that they want to see less of in this game.
As for making the "low rep" content, well they ARE. The penalties vs. killing them have been described as lower already. IMO, if you did remove those too, you could have a reverse grief problem.
That won't stop me from going after a person that I know by character name (for past misdeeds), with a low rep, just because they are not flagged at the moment. Like all people, I will have to manage how OFTEN I can do that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I recall some comment from Ryan to Andius, or perhaps Mbando, explaining the difference between killing a bandit caught red handed (or showing hostile) - such a killing is not an evil act, and killing a known bandit for past crimes (ie, the bandit isn't currently hostile), which is merely a vengeance or vigilante killing and is an evil act. (if manageable)
As for sliding into CE - a slave-owner or necromancer (Heinous, evil hit) who fails to fulfills contracts (chaos hit) might very well be able to slip into CE while maintaining a good rep.
|
|
I wrote a long post, but lost it... ¬¬
"Punishment is the authoritative imposition of something undesirable or unpleasant upon an individual or group by law enforcement, in response to behaviour that an authority deems unacceptable or a violation of some norm. The unpleasant imposition may include a fine, penalty, or confinement, or be the removal or denial of something pleasant or desirable."
In these context Chaotic, Evil or Low Rep players suffer unpleasant penaulty only by being that. Corruption, Unrest and Unacess to Skills.
Thus I´m agree partialy with the Rep system to avoid grifers. I still failed to see why being Chaotic or Evil or both in a Sandbox RPG are a matter for suffer penaulty of any kind.
EDIT: I´m really really acting as CG/CN or CE here? Defending the bad guys the liberty of being bad guys??? :) I am losing reputation by now... hehehe
| 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.
Why? It's not like it's realistic. Even Rorschach earned a bad rep after a while. It's a small penalty. If bandits have to deal with penalties for legitimate strategies like surprise attacks, why shouldn't you have to deal with penalties for legitimate playstyles like hunting down people you think are griefers?
And this is me speaking as someone who will probably be doing his fair share of grieferganking.
Oh, this thread es viejo...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's my basic issue/motivation/source of distaste:
Say I'm walking around with some bandits I've allied with. We're going after merchants, but they're bullying these two players in particular both in-game and in-chat. So I turn on the guys and help the players kill them.
I lose Rep doing this. Rightly so—it's not just evil acts that make you mistrusted, after all. But the thing is, I'm doing the same thing Nihimon wants to do—punishing people for playing the game "wrong". 'Cause like it or not, if your Rep is that low, there is definitely something you've f#%~ed up.
So I guess it kind of rankles simply because I think Nihimon's being a wuss about this. Eat that 16 Rep Hit. Sometimes, that's the consequence for doing what's right. :P
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
KC, I'm not sure the only possible course of action there is killing the bullies and taking the rep-hit. If their bullying rises to actionable levels, that's precisely what the GM-staff wants to know about, and they'll take far more effective action against them than you costing them some equipment while hurting your rep even by a small amount.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@KC while I agree with your overall point, I think Nihimon is not at all a wuss. Instead he is sincere. That might look timid to someone daring, such as a swashbuckling Kobold seeking to ignite a popular uprising. The things we propose today will become magnified later, possibly exponentially, but here we can state our desires.
Just as a bandit would like to let the community police itself, so does Nihimon want to not suffer for exacting vengeance for the community he wishes to serve.
That isn't being a wuss, it is being transparent.
I feel that the responsible Roseblood affiliate should be willing to eat a rep hit at the drop of a green hat, as it were, for the good of something greater than himself (or herself), namely PFO. If Nihimon really disagreed, in the fullness of understanding, then he opens himself to an argument that he contradicted himself (when he said Reputation is a measurement rather than a punishment). I think he was expressing his want without really thinking through some of the consequences to riskless activity.
It is noble to take a hit for the sake of the greater good. It would be less noble were there no risk or negative to performing the action. Like every hero, the avenger has a flaw.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Mr. Being,
As much as Nihimon is contradicting what he said as an affiliate of the Roseblood accord, this is not a thread of Nihimon the Roseblood affiliate, but rather just of Nihimon. It is a sever distinction, for everyone has multiple ideas and supports various causes.
I can assure you in all things done for the RA, as a member of the RA, Mr. Nihimon will endeavor with his full heart, mind, and body. But while he does do RA-affiliated actions, he is not entirely RA himself, and he is capable of stepping away from the interests of the group to recognize the interests of himself.
In short, they are two seperate entities, one is Roseblood, and one is personal Nihimon, and to mix the two in this setting should be warned against, as he is not trying to speak for, from, or even about the RA. This is done for himself, by himself, as a part of himself, completely disjointed from the Roseblood entity within him, though there is some connections it is true.
Thank you
KC, I'm not sure the only possible course of action there is killing the bullies and taking the rep-hit. If their bullying rises to actionable levels, that's precisely what the GM-staff wants to know about, and they'll take far more effective action against them than you costing them some equipment while hurting your rep even by a small amount.
Maybe, but if a problem can be handled by the community, so much the better. I might report them after I've made sure they've been stopped for the time being, too.
That isn't being a wuss, it is being transparent.
Gee, when I woke up to loud squawking outside my bedroom window, I assumed it was the psycho Barred Rock again.
Also, let's keep this in mind: If you make low-Rep characters killable on sight, everyone will kill them. They will have no reasonable way to recover their rep.