There Must Be Fifty Ways... to Game Reputation


Pathfinder Online

1 to 50 of 62 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

The intent of this thread is to gather in one place those methods that could be used to game (or are perceived to game) the reputation system in PFO.

1. Buying, selling, and manipulating reputation gifts. Early indications were that a person could gift some of his rep to boost or degrade another character's rep. Settlements of 1000s might transfer rep this way to their worst actors. Or transfer rep to those with coin. Crafters who never leave a settlement are going to have spare rep to burn.

2. PvP Flags that give rep gains over time. While the alignment based PvP flags have been removed, the functions of Champion and Enforcer are to be moved to factional PvP. Those flags gained rep over time; a character could flag while remaining safe behind town walls, for example.

3. SADing friends for Rep gains. The Outlaw flag has been removed, but Stand and Deliver will remain as a feat. Since successful SADs give rep gains, it might be easy to SAD friends to gain rep without risk.

4. Use Settlement size to ignore the few low rep members. Settlement improvements will be based in some degree on the settlement rep. If the rep is based on an average of all citizens and the great majority of citizens are high rep, the town can include a good number of low rep characters without affecting settlement advancements.

I'll encourage others to add to the list; if we keep them in a numerical sequence, it might be easier for GW to see the methods we can come up with. I think the 4 above are the most obvious. Only 46 more to go, but we aren't limited to 50.

Goblin Squad Member

I'm definitely against 1 and 4.

Reputation should not be bought or given. It should only be gained or lost do to your character's actions.

Goblin Squad Member

5. Heinous strawmen. Make disposable alts with appropriate flags as rep-fodder for your friends.

psst Banesama: the purpose is a list of holes to close, not a menu.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would argue that 4 is not gaming the a reputation system but a product of it working as intended. Any time you are using an average to represent anything, you have to accept that the larger the population the less each individual affects the average.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Depending on how cynical you are, you could argue that many real-world modern democracies practice (4) already. Several powerful Western countries maintain small but highly effective contingents of special operations forces that do all sorts of stuff that would cause reputation hits. Luckily, the "settlements" are big enough to absorb those low-rep chartered companies with nary an ill effect.

Goblin Squad Member

6. Saintly strawmen: Use high rep meatshields in PvP scenarios.

I agree that number 4 isn't really gaming it.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
I would argue that 4 is not gaming the a reputation system but a product of it working as intended. Any time you are using an average to represent anything, you have to accept that the larger the population the less each individual affects the average.

And any time you are using statistics, you can manipulate it to prove whatever point you have.

My opinion:
* It is not gaming it if you fill the settlement with players.
* It is gaming it if you fill the settlement with hordes of 'saintly strawmen' alts made for the purpose of manipulating the average.

But I expect there will be mechanisms in place so that inflating a settlement population with zero-xp alts isn't a good business model (but filling it with new players is). The influence system seems to be a good beginning.

7. Bounty club (potentially). If fulfilling bounties gains more rep than the cost of creating them, there's a rep grinding business right there (at the cost of a few heinous strawmen). No idea if this will be the case. Potentially this could also grind lawful alignment.

Goblin Squad Member

High rep spies, such as unflagged individuals in warzones. Kill them, take a rep hit, let them live, they provide intel to your enemies.

Goblin Squad Member

KitNyx wrote:
... unflagged individuals in warzones.

It is my sincere hope that this is an oxymoron.

Goblin Squad Member

I believe if the ability to execute #1 is still plausible in-game by OE it could be ruinous. It would be silly of any player organization to not take advantage of rep gifts to implement a system of 'reputation dump' characters and go-between actors and actions that a create black market as well as a means to repair your wetboy's reputation for the next mission.

Goblin Squad Member

Sorry, too late to edit. Repeat of my previous:

8. High rep spies, such as unflagged individuals in warzones. Kill them, take a rep hit, let them live, they provide intel to your enemies.

@ Nihimon, It is also my sincere hope that this is an oxymoron...but how do you keep someone from leveling fame in the faction they are at war with...specifically to be a spy in warzones? They might be flagged, but not for the faction they are spying on, etc.

Sovereign Court Goblin Squad Member

9. Assassinating your own alts. Best done with 3 characters (all yours) who are of evil alignment. PC #1 issues an assassination contract to PC #2 to kill PC #3. PC #2 gains rep for the assassination. If contracts can be issued anywhere then have all 3 go to their common bind point and take turns being 1/2/3 ... naked with only a single weapon between them being traded to the one doing the assassination. No loot gear lost or damaged and endless free rep with no time being spent running back from the bind point. If contracts can't be issued anywhere, variations on this can still be done.

Partial counter to this: a limit on how often you can take an assassination contract on a specific target. Still that allows you to treat this as something you can do once a day/week/whatever the period between contracts on a specific target is. A limit on active contracts (ala EVE) won't limit this at all. A limit on contracts per day still allows this to be grinded.

Goblin Squad Member

10. Play as a low rep at least part way through EE. If low rep only affects what buildings/training facilities a PC settlement can build, but PCs won't build settlements until near the end of EE, characters can be played without worrying about reputation for most of EE. In fact, reputation won't matter until the PC settlements have the capability to build structures that are affected by reputation.

11. Low level characters can ignore rep, because they can't use high level/high rep skills. As newer characters will not need access higher tier training - that training that will be limited by PC settlement rep - they may be able to effectively ignore reputation penalties from their actions. This could allow numbers of low level, very low rep characters to zerg high level, high rep characters.

Goblin Squad Member

#1 is just word-of-mouth propaganda. Someone ticks you off and you spend rep to slander them. You take a hit (what you spent) because folks are a bit suspicious of a habitual gossip, but they'll repeat some part of some version of what you say, which ends up affecting the public perception of the target (making them lose one or more points).
On the other hand, someone might be pretty twisted as an individual, but provide a sort of 'useful evil'. I mean, I might not want to be best friends with a Dexter-like assassin, but I wouldn't mind him doing some wetwork for my community if it means lives are saved by enemy leaders being taken out. The fact that my character is rationalizing an assassination means he'd lose a little rep (the point I spend), but it shores up the reputation of the assassin a little because he has the backing of a community willing to say the ends are for the best even if his means are nasty. That would be more along the lines of intimidating respect reputation, like what the extortion mechanic is supposed to produce.

It's effectively a currency, and if there's a drain to it due to bad actions, there also must be a faucet to it, or else it eventually drains away. That would work about as well as if coin were being removed by the system but no new coin were coming into it - the economy slows down as people trade commodities but don't have any 'grease' to cut some of the friction where things don't line up perfectly.

Goblin Squad Member

12. Wearing Low Rep as a Badge of Honor

I have even seen people posting on forums, how many games and forums they had been banned from. Then others comment how awesome that was.

13. Low Rep acts as a minor PVP shield, making a would-be attacker hesitant. This is because of the possible false reality that the Low Rep character is a more skilled (player skill) PVPer.

I think it is nearly impossible to break players from having this perception. In most cases the "red" is more experienced compared to the "white".

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

14. Alternate between Low and High Rep for periods of training.

Depending on rep recovery rates, it could be possible for someone to a!@#$% binge for a while and just hang onto their XP to save up a large amount. Then they stop to recover Reputation and do a training binge to burn through their XP store. Rinse and repeat.

Goblin Squad Member

randomwalker wrote:
psst Banesama: the purpose is a list of holes to close, not a menu.

Or, a list of reasons why Reputation is unworkable and unnecessary for an Open World PVP MMO.

Now I don't know if this list of ours will ever get to 50, but it should be clear by now it doesn't have to. We have already proven the point that I have made all along.

Reputation based a game mechanic is rife with ways for it to be gamed, redning it one of those things the Devs have said "We won't spend development time and money on creating a system, to do something that players could or should do for themselves." (paraphrased).

Want to prevent being victimized:

1. Fight
2. Flee
3. Hire
4. Group
5. Revenge / Avenge
6. Report - In extreme cases of true griefing

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

Or, a list of reasons why Reputation is unworkable and unnecessary for an Open World PVP MMO.

Now I don't know if this list of ours will ever get to 50, but it should be clear by now it doesn't have to. We have already proven the point that I have made all along.

Reputation based a game mechanic is rife with ways for it to be gamed, redning it one of those things the Devs have said "We won't spend development time and money on creating a system, to do something that players could or should do for themselves." (paraphrased).

Ye of little faith. :)

I think that of the gaming methods we have listed here, some are based on our misunderstanding. Others may already be closed.

For example, #2. Those alignment-based flags like champion or enforcer? We have been told that they'll migrate to faction warfare. We have not been told that they'll still get a reputation bonus.

Which leads to #3. If the lawful, good, evil and neutral alignment flags no longer get their rep bonus, then why in the name of Pharasma would the chaotic alignment ability, SAD, still gain a rep bonus? I think avoiding the rep penalty for killing after a SAD demand might stand, but the rep bonus for a successful SAD might now be unbalanced.

We don't know what they're doing, but I'll bet they adjust and clean up reputation rather than scrap it.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
randomwalker wrote:
psst Banesama: the purpose is a list of holes to close, not a menu.

Or, a list of reasons why Reputation is unworkable and unnecessary for an Open World PVP MMO.

Now I don't know if this list of ours will ever get to 50, but it should be clear by now it doesn't have to. We have already proven the point that I have made all along.

Reputation based a game mechanic is rife with ways for it to be gamed, redning it one of those things the Devs have said "We won't spend development time and money on creating a system, to do something that players could or should do for themselves." (paraphrased).

Want to prevent being victimized:

1. Fight
2. Flee
3. Hire
4. Group
5. Revenge / Avenge
6. Report - In extreme cases of true griefing

If we throw out every aspect that might be 'gamed' we won't have much of a game left. Why throw away what you can fix? The reputation system adds a lot of value for many of us.

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:
The reputation system adds a lot of value for many of us.

Does it really? Or does it make it so you don't have to do certain things for yourself?

Fighting for yourself, adds value.

Managing to escape, with evasion skills or just pure luck, adds value.

Hiring PC guards, adds value.

Grouping up with a team of trusted friends, adds value.

Revenge or Avenging, by hiring a Bounty Hunter or Assassin, adds value.

Reporting the most extreme or frequent cases of griefing also adds value.

Having an automated, catch all, and easily gamed system does not add value. Mark my words, it will be gamed and it will negatively impact unintended targets.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, it does really add value. A lot of it, in my opinion. Measuring up to and even surpassing some of your examples.

Which is why it is worth discussing how it can be gamed to close the holes. Just because it does not provide value to the way you wish to play the game does not mean it is worthless to the ways that other people wish to play the game.

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:

Yes, it does really add value. A lot of it, in my opinion. Measuring up to and even surpassing some of your examples.

Which is why it is worth discussing how it can be gamed to close the holes. Just because it does not provide value to the way you wish to play the game does not mean it is worthless to the ways that other people wish to play the game.

Could you elaborate as to what value you hope to gain from

It?

Or how you could not provide that value for yourself or through your own group of friends?

Goblin Squad Member

15. Use of excessive SAD demands. Using an excessive SAD demand, a highwayman can force a robbery to become a killing - and the killer avoids the reputation loss of what is actually just simple murder.

One possible counter to #15: Instead of giving the robbery victim just two options, [accept SAD amount] and [refuse SAD and prepare to fight], give the victim 4 options. Add [pay SAD, but flag as excessive] and [refuse SAD, but flag as excessive]. Any flagging is invisible to the robber.

At some threshold of complaints against an individual, GW personnel see the latest flag, the amount of the SAD, and whatever key details. If they deem the character has been making demands outside of how SAD is intended to work, they can levy reputation penalties against the robber (like treble the normal loss from killing that victim).

But! At some threshold of complaints by any individual, GW personnel can also decide that the robbery victim is just a whining sniveler and levy a reputation penalty against the robbed.

I think the goal of the reputation system is to minimize GW involvement, but I don't see how an automated system can judge excessive or reasonable SADs.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Lifedragn wrote:

Yes, it does really add value. A lot of it, in my opinion. Measuring up to and even surpassing some of your examples.

Which is why it is worth discussing how it can be gamed to close the holes. Just because it does not provide value to the way you wish to play the game does not mean it is worthless to the ways that other people wish to play the game.

Could you elaborate as to what value you hope to gain from

It?

Or how you could not provide that value for yourself or through your own group of friends?

The value is in not having to do everything for yourself 100% of the time. The value is that systems will exist regardless of general apathy and 'not my problem' mentalities that frequently take root. The value is that settlements can choose not to do business with players based on a more accurate metric of how they play than what other players might be able to report. The value is providing for a more positive (in my opinion) environment than what would exist without an automated system.

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
randomwalker wrote:
psst Banesama: the purpose is a list of holes to close, not a menu.

Or, a list of reasons why Reputation is unworkable and unnecessary for an Open World PVP MMO.

Now I don't know if this list of ours will ever get to 50, but it should be clear by now it doesn't have to. We have already proven the point that I have made all along.

If we throw out every aspect that might be 'gamed' we won't have much of a game left. Why throw away what you can fix? The reputation system adds a lot of value for many of us.

Exactly, should we make a new thread about how banditry/assassination/stealth/the market/harvesting/raiding/crafting/etc might be gamed...no more than a few speculative examples necessary to support the conclusion that the aspect should be removed from the game?

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:


Having an automated, catch all, and easily gamed system does not add value. Mark my words, it will be gamed and it will negatively impact unintended targets.

Which is exactly why the rep system shouldn't be automated, catch-all and easily gamed. But making that good system is hard. Hopefully threads like this can help a little.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For some parties there seems difficulty remembering that as free individuals the values of each of us may differ. It does no good to invite a debate over whether what one values is or is not of value to another. It is enough that one of us says 'This is, to me, valuable'.

I should have thought that would be obvious to anyone interested in personal liberty.

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:

For some parties there seems difficulty remembering that as free individuals the values of each of us may differ. It does no good to invite a debate over whether what one values is or is not of value to another. It is enough that one of us says 'This is, to me, valuable'.

I should have thought that would be obvious to anyone interested in personal liberty.

I don't believe that my question was questioning what he values, I was asking what it was that he values. I also know and did not question that what has value to me, may not be what someone else values.

I don't believe LifeDragn tried to make the claim that what he values, I should share that same value.

I'm not aware that either of us invited the debate you are speaking of. Would you care to point out where we might have?

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Lifedragn wrote:

Yes, it does really add value. A lot of it, in my opinion. Measuring up to and even surpassing some of your examples.

Which is why it is worth discussing how it can be gamed to close the holes. Just because it does not provide value to the way you wish to play the game does not mean it is worthless to the ways that other people wish to play the game.

Could you elaborate as to what value you hope to gain from

It?

Or how you could not provide that value for yourself or through your own group of friends?

The value is in not having to do everything for yourself 100% of the time. The value is that systems will exist regardless of general apathy and 'not my problem' mentalities that frequently take root. The value is that settlements can choose not to do business with players based on a more accurate metric of how they play than what other players might be able to report. The value is providing for a more positive (in my opinion) environment than what would exist without an automated system.

I did not suggest that you should have to. That is what a group of friends, company mates or belonging to a settlement is for. Joining a group of some kind is how you won't have to do everything for yourself, and it also adds value in that it is the pinnacle of human interaction (cooperation and support) in my opinion.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Those things certainly do add value. But I do not believe the reputation system otherwise detracts from the value they add. Additionally I believe the reputation system serves the desired functions much more broadly and without personal bias.

You can get by having a group of friends with a good sense of direction. But I would still rather have a compass and a map if one can be made available.

Also, a large group of people could play the game as total jerks and still probably do quite well if everything was left to be dealt with by groups of players alone. That would quickly destroy the wealth of the game and boil everything away that wasn't, in essence, Lord of the Flies.

Goblin Squad Member

I admit I am not sure the reputation system will be successful in its aim to curb the behaviors it is being designed to lesson.

I am a little more sure that fighting the premise inside of threads supporting / defining it will be unsuccessful in getting the premise removed from the final product.

Both opinions are based on past games. The system might be gamed, but I have yet to see a company remove an idea before live testing of the system has even taken place on the advice of a few of its patrons.

I don't mean to be confrontational, it just seems like wasted effort.

Goblin Squad Member

They did excessively change the whole flagging system. So who knows?

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:
They did excessively change the whole flagging system. So who knows?

That is a fair point, I suppose. Especially if it was changed due to resistance from the community, and not from crunching the numbers.

Goblin Squad Member

Charlie George wrote:

I admit I am not sure the reputation system will be successful in its aim to curb the behaviors it is being designed to lesson.

I am a little more sure that fighting the premise inside of threads supporting / defining it will be unsuccessful in getting the premise removed from the final product.

Both opinions are based on past games. The system might be gamed, but I have yet to see a company remove an idea before live testing of the system has even taken place on the advice of a few of its patrons.

I don't mean to be confrontational, it just seems like wasted effort.

I think a common miss-perception I see is that if a system can be gamed that it isn't effective. It's only ineffective if it is so easy to game it that it might as well not exist, or if it creates problems nearly as bad or worse than what it solves. If it just slows people down and makes it harder, it's still a worthwhile system.

I have no doubts any version of the reputation system released will be gamed, but I think if they are spend much time perfecting the system and closing gaps it will easily help reduce the problems it aims to deal with.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:

I think a common miss-perception I see is that if a system can be gamed that it isn't effective. It's only ineffective if it is so easy to game it that it might as well not exist, or if it creates problems nearly as bad or worse than what it solves. If it just slows people down and makes it harder, it's still a worthwhile system.

I have no doubts any version of the reputation system released will be gamed, but I think if they are spend much time perfecting the system and closing gaps it will easily help reduce the problems it aims to deal with.

That's a fair point. It's not all or nothing.

Many systems within any game will be manipulated/gamed by players. Combat, trade, alignment - players will test everything to find the limits and corners where they can get an edge.

Goblin Squad Member

Really, any system that's supposed to define something outside of what you can kill or build, can and will be gamed to some extent. Players will always find the shortest path to the cheese and run that path repeatedly.

Goblin Squad Member

Keovar wrote:
Really, any system that's supposed to define something outside of what you can kill or build, can and will be gamed to some extent. Players will always find the shortest path to the cheese and run that path repeatedly.

True, but if the objective is to minimize the amount of cheese that gets eaten then a plan the makes the shortest path harder and eliminates a few of the mice is a better deal than doing nothing at all, even if you can't keep all the mice away from the cheese 100% of the time.

Goblin Squad Member

Keovar wrote:
Players will always find the shortest path to the cheese and run that path repeatedly.

Which is why there can't be an easy path to the cheese.

The most important thing is not that characters can kill other characters. The most important thing is that there are consequences for doing that. And it's a corollary of that statement that the more often a character kills other characters, or helps a character killer, the harder it must be for that character to recover from doing so.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
Keovar wrote:
Really, any system that's supposed to define something outside of what you can kill or build, can and will be gamed to some extent. Players will always find the shortest path to the cheese and run that path repeatedly.
True, but if the objective is to minimize the amount of cheese that gets eaten then a plan the makes the shortest path harder and eliminates a few of the mice is a better deal than doing nothing at all, even if you can't keep all the mice away from the cheese 100% of the time.

I don't think the goal is to keep the mice (or the rats) from finding the path. The game is called 'Pathfinder', after all. The goal is to make it so there's not a single path, nor one that is so much easier that it may as well be the only path. I'm not arguing for the removal of reputation, nor alignment, nor mental and social skills, though all of those can be gamed because they can't fully separate player perspective from character perspective.

Say the game has an intelligence challenge, like solving a puzzle. If the answer is the same every time, then it'll just end up on a wiki. If it changes but is solvable without dumb luck, then a calculator will be developed by which you can input the known data and the best next move is given. I used to have memorized the first few guesses necessary to get all the information you need to solve a typical 4-peg 4-colour Mastermind code, but there's no point anymore as there are calculators for that online. The only way I can see by which such a puzzle could be targeted at the character's decoding skill rather than the player's is to give stupid characters some wrong guesses at the start and smart characters some chance of bypassing the puzzle as if they'd already solved it. Doing that would still 'feel' wrong to many players, though it's valid if your goal is to test character ability.

Nihimon wrote:
Keovar wrote:
Players will always find the shortest path to the cheese and run that path repeatedly.
Which is why there can't be an easy path to the cheese.

It's about relative ease of one path as compared to another, not how easy or hard the achievement is perceived to be on its own.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
Keovar wrote:
Really, any system that's supposed to define something outside of what you can kill or build, can and will be gamed to some extent. Players will always find the shortest path to the cheese and run that path repeatedly.
True, but if the objective is to minimize the amount of cheese that gets eaten then a plan the makes the shortest path harder and eliminates a few of the mice is a better deal than doing nothing at all, even if you can't keep all the mice away from the cheese 100% of the time.

Holy Hell

So why exactly have the cheese at all? If your trying to minimize the amount of cheese that gets eaten then just take away the cheese. You will keep the mice away from the cheese 100% of the time.

Yes, if the system can be gamed and repeatedly so, then the system needs to be re-evaluated. It has already been pointed out many times that reputation takes away from meaningful human interaction as much as it is supposed to support it.

When the definition for using something has limited value then it is time to re-evaluate using that something.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, when I envision the game environment with Rep...and without Rep, I much prefer the one created by having the rep system...much prefer - All silly metaphors and other strawmen aside.

Nothing here has convinced me that the game is worse for having a Reputation mechanic, and arguments made elsewhere have convinced me that the game is better for it. I will keep watching the thread in case someone does present a compelling case.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
Charlie George wrote:

I admit I am not sure the reputation system will be successful in its aim to curb the behaviors it is being designed to lesson.

I am a little more sure that fighting the premise inside of threads supporting / defining it will be unsuccessful in getting the premise removed from the final product.

Both opinions are based on past games. The system might be gamed, but I have yet to see a company remove an idea before live testing of the system has even taken place on the advice of a few of its patrons.

I don't mean to be confrontational, it just seems like wasted effort.

I think a common miss-perception I see is that if a system can be gamed that it isn't effective. It's only ineffective if it is so easy to game it that it might as well not exist, or if it creates problems nearly as bad or worse than what it solves. If it just slows people down and makes it harder, it's still a worthwhile system.

I have no doubts any version of the reputation system released will be gamed, but I think if they are spend much time perfecting the system and closing gaps it will easily help reduce the problems it aims to deal with.

I think I might have misrepresented my thoughts. I am not advocating the usefulness or uselessness of the reputation system. I am saying advocating its removal might be a wasted effort. I am saying the system will likely be perfected or removed based on its mechanical merits.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:
Andius wrote:
Keovar wrote:
Really, any system that's supposed to define something outside of what you can kill or build, can and will be gamed to some extent. Players will always find the shortest path to the cheese and run that path repeatedly.
True, but if the objective is to minimize the amount of cheese that gets eaten then a plan the makes the shortest path harder and eliminates a few of the mice is a better deal than doing nothing at all, even if you can't keep all the mice away from the cheese 100% of the time.

Holy Hell

So why exactly have the cheese at all? If your trying to minimize the amount of cheese that gets eaten then just take away the cheese. You will keep the mice away from the cheese 100% of the time.

Because in this case the cheese is the ability for PvEers to enjoy the game, and the mice are PvPers seeking to find combat. Removing either stops the problem but destroys the intent of the game. Reputation / sanctioned PvP is the process that makes it harder to get to the cheese, and provides a quick and easy path to another food source that we want to get eaten.

Goblin Squad Member

Reputation does not in any way make it harder to get to the cheese...

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

No, but eat too much cheese too quickly and your reputation will give you indigestion.

Goblin Squad Member

and gas

Goblin Squad Member

7 people marked this as a favorite.

For a future PFOwiki:

"Reputation: much like lactose intolerance, reputation limits how much of a good thing you can have before you face serious quality-of-life-impairing consequences. Other players are likely to shun overindulged characters due to the effects they have on their surroundings, referred to by some as "toxic atmosphere"."

Goblin Squad Member

Lhan wrote:
No, but eat too much cheese too quickly and your reputation will give you indigestion.

This reminds me of a quote from the movie Tombstone:

Quote:

Wyatt Earp: What makes a man like Ringo, Doc? What makes him do the things he does?

Doc Holliday: A man like Ringo has got a great big hole, right in the middle of him. He can never kill enough, or steal enough, or inflict enough pain to ever fill it.

Wyatt Earp: What does he need?

Doc Holliday: Revenge.

Wyatt Earp: For what?

Doc Holliday: Bein' born.

We (UNC) can never eat too much cheese. Greed, Gluttony and Debauchery are our core values. We are the types that burn "the candle at both ends."

Although unlike the cliche, "Burn Twice as Bright, but Half as Long", we are as immortal as the rest who choose not to burn "Twice as Bright."

We will not limit our actions unless it does not serve our greed better to do so. Sanctioned vs. Unsanctioned.... Which will pay us more in the moment? Short term? Long term?

High Reputation vs. Low Reputation.... Which will pay us more in the moment? Short term? Long term?

This faction or That Faction... Which will pay us more in the moment? Short term? Long term?

This Deity or That Deity... Which will pay us more in the moment? Short term? Long term?

All of our calculation will come down to "How much gold do we put in our pockets"?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Being wrote:

For some parties there seems difficulty remembering that as free individuals the values of each of us may differ. It does no good to invite a debate over whether what one values is or is not of value to another. It is enough that one of us says 'This is, to me, valuable'.

I should have thought that would be obvious to anyone interested in personal liberty.

I don't believe that my question was questioning what he values, I was asking what it was that he values. I also know and did not question that what has value to me, may not be what someone else values.

I don't believe LifeDragn tried to make the claim that what he values, I should share that same value.

I'm not aware that either of us invited the debate you are speaking of. Would you care to point out where we might have?

Up there where was said:

Bluddwolf wrote:
Lifedragn wrote:
The reputation system adds a lot of value for many of us.

Does it really? Or does it make it so you don't have to do certain things for yourself?

Fighting for yourself, adds value.

Managing to escape, with evasion skills or just pure luck, adds value.

Hiring PC guards, adds value.

Grouping up with a team of trusted friends, adds value.

Revenge or Avenging, by hiring a Bounty Hunter or Assassin, adds value.

Reporting the most extreme or frequent cases of griefing also adds value.

Having an automated, catch all, and easily gamed system does not add value. Mark my words, it will be gamed and it will negatively impact unintended targets.

You are saying what adds value for you, and I do not argue that those add value for you, but then you asserted that what Lifedragn said he values was not valuable when you characterized it as something it is not, a straw argument constructed for the convenience of only your preference. A dishonest rhetorical ploy that devalues the opinions of your interlocutor.

So you should see that indeed you did too devalue what others value without substantiating your subjective opinion. Everything will be gamed, Bludd and you know it.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lhan wrote:
No, but eat too much cheese too quickly and your reputation will give you indigestion.

And you shouldn't go swimming for at least two hours.

1 to 50 of 62 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / There Must Be Fifty Ways... to Game Reputation All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.