Yeah, but they have nowhere they can go to wait out the recovery. Either they have to stay in an NPC settlement for who-knows-how-long, or they just give up on the character.
Not everybody with a low rep is a griefer. Sometimes they just make a mistake. Giving them gank-at-will flags is a bigger one, and will encourage the real griefers who are smart enough to keep their Rep fairly high.
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah, but they have nowhere they can go to wait out the recovery. Either they have to stay in an NPC settlement for who-knows-how-long, or they just give up on the character.
Not everybody with a low rep is a griefer. Sometimes they just make a mistake. Giving them gank-at-will flags is a bigger one, and will encourage the real griefers who are smart enough to keep their Rep fairly high.
Again, I've already accepted what I understand as Ryan's rationale for why this isn't going to happen. I don't mind continuing the conversation, but I wanted to make that clear.
Not everybody with a low rep is a griefer. They should not be treated as one.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Yeah, but they have nowhere they can go to wait out the recovery. Either they have to stay in an NPC settlement for who-knows-how-long, or they just give up on the character.
Not everybody with a low rep is a griefer. Sometimes they just make a mistake. Giving them gank-at-will flags is a bigger one, and will encourage the real griefers who are smart enough to keep their Rep fairly high.
A mistake ? To go from 0 to -7500 ? He destroyed a blind kitten hospital ?
Not everybody with a low repis a griefer.Did someone say they were?
As stated in my edit, your "I don't care if they get permanently stuck" policy is treating them as if they are.
A mistake ? To go from 0 to -7500 ? He destroyed a blind kitten hospital ?Yeah, but they have nowhere they can go to wait out the recovery. Either they have to stay in an NPC settlement for who-knows-how-long, or they just give up on the character.
Not everybody with a low rep is a griefer. Sometimes they just make a mistake. Giving them gank-at-will flags is a bigger one, and will encourage the real griefers who are smart enough to keep their Rep fairly high.
Or he didn't understand how bad rep would impact his character, or how low it was going to get, and now he's trying to get it back up.
Again, I've already accepted what I understand as Ryan's rationale for why this isn't going to happen. I don't mind continuing the conversation, but I wanted to make that clear.
Yeah, I'm aware. I'd like to talk this out, honestly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As stated in my edit, your "I don't care if they get permanently stuck" policy is treating them as if they are.Not everybody with a low repis a griefer.Did someone say they were?
Where did I say anything about anyone getting permanently stuck anywhere? I think you may have a significant misunderstanding.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd like to talk this out, honestly.
I'm game.
Let's start at the beginning. Do you accept that the Reputation System is designed primarily to stop people from engaging in toxic behavior?
Yeah, but they have nowhere they can go to wait out the recovery. Either they have to stay in an NPC settlement for who-knows-how-long, or they just give up on the character.
Not everybody with a low rep is a griefer. Sometimes they just make a mistake. Giving them gank-at-will flags is a bigger one, and will encourage the real griefers who are smart enough to keep their Rep fairly high.
Your sole response to this was:
And pardon me if I wouldn't shed tears when someone who indiscriminately killed a bunch of people suddenly faced being indiscriminately killed.
Poetic Justice is the term that comes to mind...
If you had had more to say, it mighta been helpful to hear it. :P
My feeling is, if you're so determined to gank anybody with low rep, be prepared to have your own rep lower a bit in turn. It's realistic, it's fair.
Do you accept that the Reputation System is designed primarily to stop people from engaging in toxic behavior?
What else would it be for? I do indeed accept that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah, but they have nowhere they can go to wait out the recovery. Either they have to stay in an NPC settlement for who-knows-how-long, or they just give up on the character.
Not everybody with a low rep is a griefer. Sometimes they just make a mistake. Giving them gank-at-will flags is a bigger one, and will encourage the real griefers who are smart enough to keep their Rep fairly high.
Your sole response to this was:
If you had had more to say, it mighta been helpful to hear it. :PAnd pardon me if I wouldn't shed tears when someone who indiscriminately killed a bunch of people suddenly faced being indiscriminately killed.
Poetic Justice is the term that comes to mind...
For what it's worth, that was not in response to what you had just written - I didn't even see it until after I'd posted that.
Do you accept that the Reputation System is designed primarily to stop people from engaging in toxic behavior?What else would it be for? I do indeed accept that.
Great. So, the next question is, do you accept that being Low Reputation is a clear signal that you've done a lot of indiscriminate killing, where you didn't care that someone was not showing Hostile to you?
No and yes. Obviously, you didn't care that someone wasn't Hostile, but indiscriminate? No [edit]GOOD[/edit] bandit or resource nabber is indiscriminate. They attack people who hass the moolah.
I'm not saying that it's wise to do this on a frequent basis, but it's not being done indiscriminately. Just wanted to make that caveat.
For what it's worth, that was not in response to what you had just written - I didn't even see it until after I'd posted that.
Ohhh. Alright, my total bad, then. I did kinda wonder about the "And".
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
If you had had more to say, it mighta been helpful to hear it. :P
My feeling is, if you're so determined to gank anybody with low rep, be prepared to have your own rep lower a bit in turn. It's realistic, it's fair.
Not that I necessarily agree with Nihimon on this particular subject, or disagree, because I didn't give it a lot of thought.
But from what the developers said, they don't want a game where you go around killing people that you don't know, but who are travelling in your territory.
But honestly, I wouldn't consider it very fair, to be minding my own business around my settlement, seeing a guy who killed 75 people this week without any sanctioned context arriving in my direction, and to not be able to frag him on sight, before he starts to fight.
Oh, I agree that this is something we want to discourage.
My main problem is I think Nihimon is being too harsh on it. Low rep is painful already, barring you from settlements and making it way easier for people to kill you with minimal consequences. We don't need to remove said consequences altogether. It's serious overkill.
But honestly, I wouldn't consider it very fair, to be minding my own business around my settlement, seeing a guy who killed 75 people this week without any sanctioned context arriving in my direction, and to not be able to frag him on sight, before he starts to fight.
Well, the guy won't be able to enter your settlement. And you'll lose minimal Reputation for killing him. Plus, you could always wait for him to attack someone.
Personally, I do see surprise attack bandits as providing "meaningful PvP". I think they are foolish to take on a long-term penalty for a short-term victory, but there's certainly a place for such cowards in the grand storyline. Killing someone solely for his gold is meaningful—just, well, sometimes not very smart.
Also, I'd like to add that if everyone who behaves well is constantly able to keep a max Rep without trouble, it might be a bit boring. I'd like to see everyone having to worry about Reputation, to some extent. The occasional teensy weensy penalty for murdering a murderer seems pretty fair to me.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Oh, I agree that this is something we want to discourage.
My main problem is I think Nihimon is being too harsh on it. Low rep is painful already, barring you from settlements and making it way easier for people to kill you with minimal consequences. We don't need to remove said consequences altogether. It's serious overkill.
Yep, why not, but keeping in mind that a character with the lowest reputation possible doesn't have anything to lose anymore.
Maybe a good compromise would be to make it so that when you hit -7500, you get a 3 days timer of free kill on your head, which is reseted if you start again to engage in un-sanctioned PvP before the end of the timer ?
3 days is not too much.
By the way, I added some stuff into that post.
Anyways:
Yep, why not, but keeping in mind that a character with the lowest reputation possible doesn't have anything to lose anymore.
This is kind of a good point. That being said, he'll have nothing left to lose either way.
Also, did Nihimon change his original figure?
Please consider making Low Reputation (less than -2,500 or perhaps less than -5,000)
Setting the Free Ganking Standard to the absolute bottom of the Rep barrel is a bit more okay with me, really. At that point, you've obviously had the chance to turn back, and you've ignored it.
I don't really mind the 3 days thing, in that case.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No and yes. Obviously, you didn't care that someone wasn't Hostile, but indiscriminate? No [edit]GOOD[/edit] bandit or resource nabber is indiscriminate. They attack people who hass the moolah.
Point taken.
So, let me address this part:
Either they have to stay in an NPC settlement for who-knows-how-long, or they just give up on the character.
This is your concern about the guy with Low Reputation - that he might have to "give up on the character" because he's getting killed a lot.
My concern is about the players who are generally not very familiar with PvP - or even MMOs - who are getting killed a lot because of people like the guy you're concerned about. I really don't want them to feel like they have to give up - not on their Character but on the game.
You may not have noticed this about me (*ahem*) but I really like to stand up for what I believe is right. It's just who I am. I need to feel like I'm fighting for something worthwhile - not just because it's mine, but because it's right. I feel a literal compulsion to stand up for people who are being bullied or oppressed; that kind of thing is gratifying to me on a very deep, personal level.
I expect I'll be doing a whole lot of PvP in PFO. I also expect it will be very gratifying to me because I will feel like I'm on the front lines of a life-or-death struggle where the beauty and simplicity of a peaceful life in the lands behind me hang in the balance. In a way, I'm grateful that there are players who are willing to be my foil; I just don't want them to benefit from the very system that was designed - but failed - to curb their behavior.
They aren't benefiting from it. Because of their stupidity, they are, in fact, suffering severely from it—you are losing a pittance in Reputation to wipe them out, while they are being rendered unable to train.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
Personally, I do see surprise attack bandits as providing "meaningful PvP". I think they are foolish to take on a long-term penalty for a short-term victory, but there's certainly a place for such cowards in the grand storyline. Killing someone solely for his gold is meaningful—just, well, sometimes not very smart.
If you are attacked in PvE, does it have value? The counter part in PvP, it they are inheirentally (sp?) more challenging. Now the game can make PvE "more challenging" by cheating. PvP opponents will be more creative in the challenges, or if not more creative, will fail!
Setting trap for UNC and cutting Bluddwolf's head off is so much more rewarding than defeating a PvE monster.And I expect that Bluddwolf would agree, except he expects his head will never be separated from shoulders. We are each others content and so much more imaginative.
EDIT: I have no personal animosity for Bluddwolf, nor do I expect he has for me. I understand that there are some who do feel animosity to others based upon this process, this forum. I hope they can gain maturity. Using OOC reasons for IC is <I do not want to have this post deleted by powers that rule, but you do know what I mean>.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
They aren't benefiting from it. Because of their stupidity, they are, in fact, suffering severely from it—you are losing a pittance in Reputation to wipe them out, while they are being rendered unable to train.
What is the purpose of having me take a Reputation hit for killing them except to discourage me from killing them? If I'm discouraged from killing them, they're receiving a benefit from the Reputation System - the very system that was designed, but failed, to curb the behavior that put them in the spot they're currently in.
What is the purpose of having me take a Reputation hit for killing them except to discourage me from killing them?
A symbolic Rep hit that won't really affect you at all? Probably to give the low-rep guy the benefit of the doubt.
So, yeah. It is a benefit. But they are not benefiting from the system, as you put it. They are dealing with massive drawbacks and getting a tiny bit of protection. That doesn't balance out to "Go griefers!" The system has not failed yet.
Especially since the only thing keeping you from helping the system out is the delay in saying, "Gee, 16 Rep isn't going to really affect me at all, but death is going to affect him a lot." Stabbystabby! -16 Rep, which you will recover speedily. He, meanwhile, has been sent back to an NPC settlement, his gear is breaking even worse, and anything he stole is lost.
inheirentally
Inherently. ;P
Using OOC reasons for IC is <I do not want to have this post deleted by powers that rule, but you do know what I mean>.
I've been seeing this sort of criticism come up a lot. Honestly, I think it's kinda silly. Of course my IC will be affected by people I don't like OOC. I'm not gonna ally with the character of Jerky McA~#@!%# just because his character is a paladin who hugs kittens and dances with unicorns.
Much more reasonable is to say I'm not going to be affected OOC by simple debates, just like two debating politicians like to pretend their relationship outside of work is perfectly cordial. It has nothing to do with IC vs. OOC.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Kobold Cleaver, I'm more concerned about the hordes of Low Reputation Characters who forego Feuds and Wars and sweep into the lands I am honor-bound to protect. Losing 16 points of Reputation isn't going to bother me; a system that puts me in the position of losing 16 x 50 points of Reputation anytime my enemies want to go out and wreak a little havoc is.
We could Feud them. Will they all be in the same Company? Will they form a new Company every time we Feud the old one?
We could declare War on their Player Settlement. Will they try to keep a Player Settlement?
Or am I really supposed to stand by twiddling my thumbs waiting for the horde to flag itself or land the first blow?
It's official: Nihimon plans on taking on the entirety of the griefer community solo. 'Cause he just that badass.
But in seriousness now. You make a worthy point. I'd like to see what Goblinworks plans to do about large groups of griefy jerks working in tandem.
However, keep in mind that these groups are probably going to be pretty ineffective, since most of them are going to be low-level. Letting them land the first blow won't hurt much.
And why wouldn't they use Feud? Don't you think they'll want to keep their Reps as high as possible while still basically griefing? They probably don't exist just to annoy you in particular, after all, and even griefers and trolls have to think long-term. And if they do exist to annoy you in particular*, well, they're gonna be even lower-level.
Bluddwolf: Morbis, Nihimon killed fifty more of our bandits.
Morbis: Damn that man! He's some kind of military genius!
Bluddwolf: Actually, this wasn't with his company. He's fighting solo.
Morbis: ...call in our allies in the Ambiguously Griefy Brigade. Have them make a hundred alts. No, five hundred! We end this now.
Bluddwolf: You realize I don't actually work for you, right? I'm just living here because Xeen burned down my house to deal with a cockroach infestation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And why wouldn't they use Feud? Don't you think they'll want to keep their Reps as high as possible while still basically griefing?
Let's keep in mind we're talking about Low Reputation Characters, not "griefers". The former has a quantifiable definition, the latter does not. So, since we're talking about Low Reputation Characters, arguments about why they would want to keep their Reputation "high" don't seem relevant.
My answer to why they wouldn't use Feuds is very much caught up in the system I think would prevail if there were Reputation Loss for killing them. Quite simply, if they declared a Feud, they'd lose the "benefit" of being able to hide behind the Reputation System that was discouraging me, for example, from killing them.
Above all, I don't want the Reputation System to put me on the horns of a dilemma where I must choose between taking large Reputation hits for protecting my friends and allies, or allowing my enemies to move freely through my lands and attack at a time of their choosing.
Let's keep in mind we're talking about Low Reputation Characters, not "griefers". The former has a quantifiable definition, the latter does not. So, since we're talking about Low Reputation Characters, arguments about why they would want to keep their Reputation "high" don't seem relevant.
True, but:
I'm more concerned about the hordes of Low Reputation Characters who forego Feuds and Wars and sweep into the lands I am honor-bound to protect.
It kind of follows that we're gonna have to address these specific examples. After all, if the examples are flawed or nonexistent, they're surely just as irrelevant.
My answer to why they wouldn't use Feuds is very much caught up in the system I think would prevail if there were Reputation Loss for killing them. Quite simply, if they declared a Feud, they'd lose the "benefit" of being able to hide behind the Reputation System that was discouraging me, for example, from killing them.
Then I guess it comes down to opinion. Personally, I think that losing the ability to train is a lot more painful than that small bit of annoyance to your enemies is helpful.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I really see no reason to punish the low-rep characters further by allowing anybody to attack them without consequence.
I think that those that want to dish out cold vengeance should resign themselves to not being the most reputable pinnacles of law and goodness.
We have an alignment system and a reputation system, let them work .
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I really see no reason to punish the low-rep characters further by allowing anybody to attack them without consequence.
I think that those that want to dish out cold vengeance should resign themselves to not being the most reputable pinnacles of law and goodness.
We have an alignment system and a reputation system, let them work .
I agree. I assumed that the intent of the reputation system is to cut both ways. Beyond the low-rep that everyone is talking about , there should be low-rep good represented by the exact behavior which Nihimon is advocating, wanting to summarily murder any "evildoers" (judged by whatever standard). Which is exactly the kind of behavior which LG characters are not supposed to engage in and which fuels the endless paladin threads we see on the Paizo forums.
I agree. I assumed that the intent of the reputation system is to cut both ways. Beyond the low-rep that everyone is talking about , there should be low-rep good represented by the exact behavior which Nihimon is advocating, wanting to summarily murder any "evildoers" (judged by whatever standard). Which is exactly the kind of behavior which LG characters are not supposed to engage in and which fuels the endless paladin threads we see on the Paizo forums.I really see no reason to punish the low-rep characters further by allowing anybody to attack them without consequence.
I think that those that want to dish out cold vengeance should resign themselves to not being the most reputable pinnacles of law and goodness.
We have an alignment system and a reputation system, let them work .
*Dances because he is not LG, but NG, the greatest of all good!
"Good law is good until it gets in the way, no honor for the honorless!"
<== Servant of the Dawnflower
A neutral good character will keep his word to those who are not evil and will lie only to evil-doers. He will never attack an unarmed foe and will never harm an innocent. He will not use torture to extract information or for pleasure. He will never kill for pleasure, only in self-defense or in the defense of others. A neutral good character will never use poison. He will help those in need and works well alone or in a group. He responds well to higher authority until that authority attempts to use the law to hamper his ability to do good. He is trustful of organizations as long as they serve his utilitarian purpose. He will follow the law unless more good can come from breaking the law. He will never betray a family member, comrade, or friend. Neutral good characters are indifferent to the concepts of self-discipline and honor, finding them useful only if they promote goodness. (5
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I really see no reason to punish the low-rep characters further by allowing anybody to attack them without consequence.
I think that those that want to dish out cold vengeance should resign themselves to not being the most reputable pinnacles of law and goodness.
We have an alignment system and a reputation system, let them work .
I don't think calling it punishing is justified.
Obviously, we are not talking about the lambda average bad rep' guy, but about the psychopathic obsessional serial murderer. The one already at the worst possible reputation.
This guy doesn't care : he doesn't have anything to lose anymore. It makes him a very big danger. He proved, by his attitude, that he will attack you.
Since he doesn't have any incentive to not kill me, why should I have any incentive to not kill him ? It should be a two-way street.
Obviously, this character won't be a great danger, but don't forget what Ryan said : you must always imagine what a feature will be, in a context with hundreds of thousands of players.
I already see entire companies of F2P alts, with absolutely no reason to pay a subscription, and with absolutely no reason to not attack everybody on sight.
I wouldn't consider it fair, to see 15 members of the "Low-rep F2P gankers united" company nicely surrounding me, buffing, targeting, and attacking, without the possibility of a pre-emptive strike for me, especially when one of the goals of this kind of company would be, obviously, to force people into losing reputation, which is 100% griefing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I already see entire companies of F2P alts, with absolutely no reason to pay a subscription, and with absolutely no reason to not attack everybody on sight.
This particular scenario doesn't seem likely, given Ryan and Co.'s statements regarding F2P. Basically they want to add it at some point to entice people in but they want to make sure people have to pay to play effectively, otherwise it's kinda shooting themselves in the foot. F2P with no/little restrictions also increases the likelihood of toxic behaviors such as the one you describe.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I have not read through this entire thread, so I'll limit my comments to the OP.
I don't care for PvP so I have historically stayed away from games where I was subject to it without my consent.
Even with my predilection against PvP, I'm not sure it would be fair to provide any sort of blanket open season on anyone with a pattern of behavior that leads to low rep. In PFO, such behavior might be reasonable e.g. caravan raiders and such.
With that said, I can definitely understand where you're coming from. I don't want a world where jerks can stand in front of my house and...well...be jerks, and me not able to do anything about it without lowering myself to their level.
I can't help but wonder...will someone with a low rep be KOS to NPC settlement guards? Can a serial murderer walk around Thornkeep with impunity? What about the NPC patrols on major roadways?
And sort of thinking in that same vein...has the possibility of a player territory-oriented mechanic been raised? I would think it not too hard to program some sort of slider for player settlements to set their "tolerance" level with. I think it is reasonable for a "good" settlement to be able to set tolerance level at their discretion so that any individual whose rep is below that level would be legally KOS to anyone in the territory. But this slider should only apply within hexes controlled by that settlement.
Constructive criticism welcome, gankers will be ignored :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... I'm not sure it would be fair to provide any sort of blanket open season on anyone with a pattern of behavior that leads to low rep. In PFO, such behavior might be reasonable e.g. caravan raiders and such.
My general position is that any in-game behavior that is "reasonable" (in the aggregate, not just having a hypothetical in which a particular instance might be reasonable) should have game mechanics that support it without Reputation Loss. This is one of the reasons I've been so consistent about support Stand & Deliver.
... will someone with a low rep be KOS to NPC settlement guards? Can a serial murderer walk around Thornkeep with impunity? What about the NPC patrols on major roadways?
We know that at least one of the NPC Starter Towns will have no minimum Reputation requirements. That will probably Thornkeep since it's been officially described as a "wretched hive of scum and villainy".
That's a very good question about the NPC Roads. My hunch is that there won't actually be NPC Guards wandering the roads, but that they'll be dispatched from a nearby NPC Settlement when trouble happens. So the question might be moot.
... has the possibility of a player territory-oriented mechanic been raised?
Settlements can set a Minimum Reputation, and they must set it fairly high to build some of the highest-tiered facilities. And while there's been a lot of discussion about the general topic of being able to enforce that kind of thing outside the Settlement walls, I don't think there's anything concrete enough to be worthwhile linking to.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...will someone with a low rep be KOS to NPC settlement guards?
I can see a tight-run Settlement keeping careful track of its members' Reputations, and then adjusting their thresholds on the fly to suit the needs of the moment. "I've got someone we need to get rid of now, what the lowest Rep we've got? Good, he's 300 points below that *presses a few keys*. Guards! Get him!".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ TEO Apyx
Reputation does limit your ability to enter towns across the board. All towns, both player and NPC, have a minimum Reputation that you need to enter safely without being attacked, denied services, etc. For NPC settlements, especially ones like Thornkeep, this is pretty low. For Fort Inevitable, it will likely be higher. For player settlements, the powers that be determine the minimum Reputation to access the settlement safely, but higher end buildings require higher minimum Reputation. Thus high Reputation players can get access to better training, better crafting facilities, etc, while lower Reputation players will have access to those settlements that wish to be "wretched hives of scum and villainy" that will have more moderate offerings. Low Reputation players will also be evident to other players so they can be appropriately wary.
Only interactions with players affect Reputation.
So yes, if you are a maniac who kills indiscriminately, you will soon find yourself without much in the way of places to call home.
Emphasis mine. I believe there are other quotes that more clearly state that "inside" player and NPC settlements, the NPC guards WILL attack characters below the settlement's minimum.
To answer part of your question.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bringslite, thanks for clearing that up. I was (somewhat incorrectly, with respect to Thornkeep) remembering this quote from Ryan. Lee's is much more recent, though.
So the question I see is how do low rep (below -2500) characters get any training?We think there needs to be some NPC Settlement that will take them. Probably not Thornkeep but someplace else. Access to minimum character support only. All details TBD.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bringslite, thanks for clearing that up. I was (somewhat incorrectly, with respect to Thornkeep) remembering this quote from Ryan. Lee's is much more recent, though.
So the question I see is how do low rep (below -2500) characters get any training?We think there needs to be some NPC Settlement that will take them. Probably not Thornkeep but someplace else. Access to minimum character support only. All details TBD.
I was actually addressing this:
I can't help but wonder...will someone with a low rep be KOS to NPC settlement guards? Can a serial murderer walk around Thornkeep with impunity?
The bolded. The non to a lesser degree. Yet it hits both I suppose...