Social Graphs in PFO

[Nihimon]

This came up in a conversation elsewhere, but I wonder how Goblinworks will use Social Graphs to make PFO better.

RESPECT: Find Out What It Means to Me! wrote:

Reputation is a social construct, and your reputation will flow through your social contacts. If nobody I know knows you, I will not have access to any of your reputation information. If some of my social connections know you, I will know what they know about your reputation. Treat my friends well or you may find it hard to do business with me.

I was really excited when I first read that highlighted portion. I envisioned a system where my default opinion of another character would be based on my friends' opinions, and where a change in my opinion of that character might influence my friends' opinions, too.

I don't have a strong intuitive understanding of how Social Graphs are created or maintained, I'm not entirely sure how they can be utilized, and I have no idea how they might be manipulated. Are there others here who are better informed or more experienced in these matters that would care to offer their insights?

[Andius]

Let me make sure I'm understanding this correctly. Let's say there are 4 measures for people:

1. Good-Evil
2. Law-Chaos
3. Reputation
4. Personal Opinion

With personal opinion being a display only available to you / members of your organization showing your opinion of certain players factions. Much like contact standing in EVE.

Basically what you are saying is when you rate people with high standing, their standing toward other players affects your default opinion toward that player?

If that's what you mean that could be pretty cool if you had the option to enable/disable this either entirely or for certain players/groups.

[Being]

Perhaps it works similarly to setting your intended alignment but having an active alignment. You can set your opinion of someone but your relationship with them, and their real reputation, is only influenced by whatever you set as your 'esteem' for them. If I have a high esteem for Andius but many of my friends think him a brutal tyrant my esteem will be more changed than his rep. If I have high esteem for Andius and my settlement also has high esteem for him his rep will be more changed than my esteem.

Maybe?

[Ryan Dancey]

Social graph mechanics:

You allow an a+!@~*@ into your social structure. That a&~~~%$ ruins your social structure's reputation with allies and strategic partners. People retaliate by kicking your asses and taking your stuff. You have to decide to let the a#+#+&+ ruin your hard work, or boot the a%%+$+&.

Your social structure is akin to a shared character maintained by everyone who is a member. It reflects the behavior collectively of its membership. Being an a&~&@&~ should make it hard to find a home, and likely to cost you a home if you persist in being an a&~#!~!. A group will act collectively to remove an irritant, parasite, or disease.

Pretty soon, a@$~%$+s discover that it is not much fun to be an a#%!*%*. They quit, or change their behavior.

[KitNyx]

Ryan Dancey wrote:

Social graph mechanics:

You allow an a!!!%@@ into your social structure. That a!!**!$ ruins your social structure's reputation with allies and strategic partners. People retaliate by kicking your asses and taking your stuff. You have to decide to let the a&%&*+! ruin your hard work, or boot the a@*~@#+.

Your social structure is akin to a shared character maintained by everyone who is a member. It reflects the behavior collectively of its membership. Being an a$@@&$% should make it hard to find a home, and likely to cost you a home if you persist in being an a@+$+*~. A group will act collectively to remove an irritant, parasite, or disease.

Pretty soon, a~#!$%*s discover that it is not much fun to be an a@*@%#%. They quit, or change their behavior.

Sounds like it works like intended.

[Bringslite]

Ryan Dancey wrote:

Social graph mechanics:

You allow an a@@#!&% into your social structure. That a&&$@!$ ruins your social structure's reputation with allies and strategic partners. People retaliate by kicking your asses and taking your stuff. You have to decide to let the a*+@*~# ruin your hard work, or boot the a*&$~+@.

Your social structure is akin to a shared character maintained by everyone who is a member. It reflects the behavior collectively of its membership. Being an a&$~$~& should make it hard to find a home, and likely to cost you a home if you persist in being an a!@$&#~. A group will act collectively to remove an irritant, parasite, or disease.

Pretty soon, a$!##+*s discover that it is not much fun to be an a*%~**#. They quit, or change their behavior.

Lol! Please don't hold back! Tell us how you really see it.

If anyone doubts that there will be mechanics in the design to curb or minimize "asshattery", I hope that they won't find themselves disappointed!

[Nihimon]

I'm sure I'm a fanboi or something, but Ryan I really do love the way you talk :)

[Bluddwolf]

Ryan Dancey wrote:

Social graph mechanics:

You allow an a~$&$~@ into your social structure. That a#%%*!~ ruins your social structure's reputation with allies and strategic partners. People retaliate by kicking your asses and taking your stuff. You have to decide to let the a$+&~#$ ruin your hard work, or boot the a~&*%@*.

Your social structure is akin to a shared character maintained by everyone who is a member. It reflects the behavior collectively of its membership. Being an a@*++*$ should make it hard to find a home, and likely to cost you a home if you persist in being an a*+*@%#. A group will act collectively to remove an irritant, parasite, or disease.

Pretty soon, a~&%$~$s discover that it is not much fun to be an a%%!&*$. They quit, or change their behavior.

Unless you get a large enough population of players who just don't care about those consequences. Who will be the first to whack the hornet's nest with a stick?

At what point will population size outweigh low DI? Ar what point will inhibiting a characters growth (skill levels) impact someone who intends to dispose of his character anyway?

Pretty soon after OE, we may all find out exactly how woefully inadequate the stick is in curbing those behaviors you don't want to see.

[Jazzlvraz]

Bluddwolf wrote:

Unless you get a large enough population of players who just don't care about those consequences.

I look forward to watching the real-world escalation cycle triggered by that :-).

[Qallz]

Ryan Dancey wrote:

Social graph mechanics:

You allow an a@+$@*@ into your social structure. That a$~$!!+ ruins your social structure's reputation with allies and strategic partners. People retaliate by kicking your asses and taking your stuff. You have to decide to let the a@!@$%% ruin your hard work, or boot the a#&@*#@.

Your social structure is akin to a shared character maintained by everyone who is a member. It reflects the behavior collectively of its membership. Being an a!&@!*# should make it hard to find a home, and likely to cost you a home if you persist in being an a@~@$%+. A group will act collectively to remove an irritant, parasite, or disease.

Pretty soon, a*!!&@+s discover that it is not much fun to be an a&%~~#*. They quit, or change their behavior.

I would be happy about this if not for the fact that enjoying PvP just for the sake of enjoying playing the Most Dangerous Game makes me an "a$$hole" in PFO.

[Jazzlvraz]

Qallz wrote:

...enjoying PvP just for the sake of enjoying playing the Most Dangerous Game...

I have no doubt whatsoever that there'll be a distinction that'll allow you to avoid falling into that category, should you choose to avoid it.

[AvenaOats]

@Qallz I fairly sure you don't fall into that category and I'm fairly sure players who want high pvp will be rewarded for pursuing that goal all too easily in fact.

edit: ninja'd^!

[Qallz]

I hope so guys. Hope so.