Goblin Squad Member
|
Moral relativism - Not applicable to the PFO universe. ;)Good- Selfish. Acts out of their own self-interest and thereby gives the most to the world and moves it forward.
Evil - Altruistic. Drags down the world and pulls it backwards by punishing those who produce for the sake of those too weak or lazy to provide any real value.
Hence why you take the same evil hit as Bludd for killing after an evil-doer rejects your SAD. ;)
True. But it's good to remind ourselves on occasion that D&D and by extension Pathfinder chose to label their definitions of Good and Evil as the inverse of the actual definitions, lol. But I agree that how much you do in PFO that they considered "Unsanctioned" behavior determines whether you're Good or Evil, and determines your rep
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There has to be a certain level of disconnect between the tabletop's alignment and PFO's alignment.
To summarize the alignments in the tabletop.
Good- Benevolent. Acts selflessly in the interest of others. Generally believes the innocent must be sheltered and assisted.
Neutral- Act's in one's or self interest without harming others balances the harm they do with benevolence. Generally believes the welfare of those outside their social circles is none of their concern.
Evil- Selfish. Acts in one's own self interest at the expense of others. Generally believes the weak deserve to be dominated or weeded out.
We can argue this elsewhere, but I do not agree that the above is even the general case. It seems to me as it would be the alignment system from the perspective of good.
I would argue that the core rules actually suggest the amount compassion factors into judgements, if it does not, you are evil, if it is paramount, you are good, if it is tempered by other considerations such as logic, then one is neutral.
So in PFO alignments need to look like this instead.
Good- Very seldomly commits actions that the game considers evil.
Neutral- Occasionally commits actions that the game considers evil.
Evil- Frequently commits actions that the game considers evil.
If this is the case, then it will cause lots of confusion from the RP crowd...for instance my desire to be militantly TN, to combat the censorship of the extremes. I intend to do not evil, yet also do not intend to be good. Your system does not allow this. Of course, just modifying my expectations to fit the system is a viable solution, one I am ready to embrace, but it will be very unintuitive to many TT gamers.
I would be LG in such a system.
As for movement of alignment and justifications...there is only one justification for alignment movement, some god in another alignment is pleased by your action(s). I hope the alignment system finds its final state as such. Gods should have positions on the alignment plane, performing actions which please a god (whether you know it or not) should slowly pull you toward their position on the alignment plane. This means GW should have a big (ever expanding) table of god pleasures. This also plays well into the faction system. This system is RP reasonable and accomplishes Ryan's desire for people who play together to be "grouped" together.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Areks
If what you mean is that if I kill person A, or Bluddwolf kills person A we take the same alignment hit, I agree that is appropriate.
What I want is that if person A is good and person B evil that killing person A prompts a larger drift toward evil than killing person B. It can even still be considered an evil act in both situations. Just not AS evil.
As to how to evil can become good, unfortunately do the the ability to create a good system for measuring benevolence, the best answer is "stop doing evil things". At that point there should be methods to slowly drift up to good.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@KitNyx
One thing that exists that I forgot to mention is core alignments. Because you choose to be true neutral you would constantly drift toward that alignment instead of LG just like I would drift toward NG instead of LG.
Yeah, I no longer see the relevance of the "core alignment" mechanic when the following is also true:
If this is the case, then it will cause lots of confusion from the RP crowd...for instance my desire to be militantly TN, to combat the censorship of the extremes. I intend to do not evil, yet also do not intend to be good. Your system does not allow this. Of course, just modifying my expectations to fit the system is a viable solution, one I am ready to embrace, but it will be very unintuitive to many TT gamers.
I would be LG in such a system.
And, if LG offers more mechanical benefits, why would anyone not just abandon their RP, set their core to LG, and do what they can to fight/atone for every other shift?
EDIT: I am definitely not a min/maxer, but when the IC justifications are already out the window, what else is there to embrace?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Good- Selfish. Acts out of their own self-interest and thereby gives the most to the world and moves it forward.
Evil - Altruistic. Drags down the world and pulls it backwards by punishing those who produce for the sake of those too weak or lazy to provide any real value.
Also, in defense of Good. We do not target out those who produce. We target those who take for themselves through violence or oppression what other's produce.
A master carpenter who sells his creations for less than he could charge if wanted to is good.
The hooligan teenager who steals his money and burns down his shop is evil.
Evil does nothing but drag down what society is capable of by wasting resources on committing violence, convincing others of lies, and re-diverting resources to those who did not gather or create them, and do not appreciate them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Areks
If what you mean is that if I kill person A, or Bluddwolf kills person A we take the same alignment hit, I agree that is appropriate.
What I want is that if person A is good and person B evil that killing person A prompts a larger drift toward evil than killing person B. It can even still be considered an evil act in both situations. Just not AS evil.
As to how to evil can become good, unfortunately do the the ability to create a good system for measuring benevolence, the best answer is "stop doing evil things". At that point there should be methods to slowly drift up to good.
Glad we agree on the first part.
My only objection to the second part is what you wrote in the third part =)
I'd be fine with different alignment hits based on targets alignment, if there was a better answer for how evil becomes good. Slow drift to good doesn't work if I want play an evil Chelixian barbarian who finds salvation and tries to redeem himself. There are people who want to play those stories out and Pathfinder Online should be THE PERFECT GAME to do that in... but it doesn't look that way.
Don't get me wrong I'm not looking for a "change your alignment to lawful good" card. I'm looking for something that I can do in game that affects my alignment in a positive way. I agree that it needs to be something that isn't gameable, as alignment isn't hair color or wardrobe.
Maybe if grouping for extended periods of time with people of a particular alignment increases the rate of speed at which your alignment shifts. IDK. Hopefully Tork has some good news for me when he revisits alignments.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I can see a fast alignment gain if it requires something that will always be meaningful to every player who engages in it. Unfortunately doing good acts for other players does not qualify as people will just give their buddy some gold which the buddy then gives right back.
The pilgrimages you touched on earlier may be a good way to seek atonement. For example:
"Go from point A to point B on foot carrying nothing but these items." It will be similarly challenging and time consuming for everyone if the mechanics are properly set up so that you fail if you mount a mount, hop in a cart, or pick up an item not on the list there would be pretty much no way to game it.
At that point it's just a question of how much time exploring the map in sackcloths with a walking stick make up for weeks, months, or years of evil behavior.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah, I no longer see the relevance of the "core alignment" mechanic when the following is also true:If this is the case, then it will cause lots of confusion from the RP crowd...for instance my desire to be militantly TN, to combat the censorship of the extremes. I intend to do not evil, yet also do not intend to be good. Your system does not allow this. Of course, just modifying my expectations to fit the system is a viable solution, one I am ready to embrace, but it will be very unintuitive to many TT gamers.
I would be LG in such a system.
And, if LG offers more mechanical benefits, why would anyone not just abandon their RP, set their core to LG, and do what they can to fight/atone for every other shift?
EDIT: I am definitely not a min/maxer, but when the IC justifications are already out the window, what else is there to embrace?
For some, RP isn't so easily cast aside. If he is "militant" true neutral, I don't see him staying lawful good for long. This is someone who will likely use chaotic tactics whether or not they are legal, bouncing him out of Lawful. He'd probably confront engage Andius or Bluddwolf or both simultaneously, regardless if it were "forced PvP" or "meaningful PvP". That would bounce him from Good.
Then we go back to how does he maintain this "militant" behavior if there is no way to actively shift back to good.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For some, RP isn't so easily cast aside. If he is "militant" true neutral, I don't see him staying lawful good for long. This is someone who will likely use chaotic tactics whether or not they are legal, bouncing him out of Lawful. He'd probably confront engage Andius or Bluddwolf or both simultaneously, regardless if it were "forced PvP" or "meaningful PvP". That would bounce him from Good.
Then we go back to how does he maintain this "militant" behavior if there is no way to actively shift back to good.
True, but my point was that RP/IC justifications and intentions are out the window when Evil means frequently hurting people and neutral means only sometimes hurting people. This system does not equate to that of the TT, so trying to keep holding on to the traditional system is absurd.
I will never practice unsanctioned PvP...instead utilizing the faction and feud systems to engage in faction and settlement conquest (hence militant). As such, alignment would naturally tend toward LG which gives additional benefits anyways. If that is what it means to be LG, then why would I not just embrace that?...RP aside?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hmmm..... I see that some how my name keeps on coming up, as if I'm a mouth piece for evil. To be honest, I don't give a rats arse about alignment .
There was one comment that like "like the Hellknights, Bluddwolf is not compelled to follow the River Freedoms." (Paraphrased).
That us actually not true. The River Freedoms are actually a major part of the UNC's guiding principles.
Back to the Title of this thread Could PFO Thrive Without Unsanctioned PvP?
I finally have an answer to that. "It depends on what is the eliminating factor".
If GW makes virtually all circumstances of PvP sanctioned, and only obvious briefing is Unsanctioned, then: "Yes, PFO will most likely thrive without Unsanctioned PvP".
If GW has a broader spectrum of activities that they declare Unsanctioned, and this leaves those that wish to PvP often feeling too constrained, then: "PFO might actually struggle to thrive, but it could still be successful in the short term. Long term it might suffer the typical MMO drift that we have all seen too often."
If GW has too narrow view of what is Unsanctioned PvP, then the pendulum will swing the other way, and it will lose the non PvP enthusiast. It will likely do well in the short term, but will suffer the same MMO drift fate that so many others halve had.
My advise for GW.... Balance, balance, balance, balance, and then when you think it is done, balance one more time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can see a fast alignment gain if it requires something that will always be meaningful to every player who engages in it. Unfortunately doing good acts for other players does not qualify as people will just give their buddy some gold which the buddy then gives right back.
The pilgrimages you touched on earlier may be a good way to seek atonement. For example:
"Go from point A to point B on foot carrying nothing but these items." It will be similarly challenging and time consuming for everyone if the mechanics are properly set up so that you fail if you mount a mount, hop in a cart, or pick up an item not on the list there would be pretty much no way to game it.
At that point it's just a question of how much time exploring the map in sackcloths with a walking stick make up for weeks, months, or years of evil behavior.
Yeah, meaningful challenging stuff like that is all I'm asking for. Just a variety of things like that to do. Base it around the deity in charge of the alignment you are trying to reach.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And, if LG offers more mechanical benefits, why would anyone not just abandon their RP, set their core to LG, and do what they can to fight/atone for every other shift?
Some factions that appeal to the player might require other than LG core alignment.
Some skills might not be available for the L or G characters.
Even if L and/or G had some mechanical benefits at the settlement level, parties and companies might certainly have advantages or flexibility by including people other than LG.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There was one comment that like "like the Hellknights, Bluddwolf is not compelled to follow the River Freedoms." (Paraphrased).
That is not at all what I said, paraphrased or not. I was not actually saying anything negative about you or UNC, so my apologies if you took it so. I was equating the Hellknights belief that they were justified in taking my possessions with force (via toll with big swords...as presented by another debater), with your self proclaimed philosophy that what you can take is yours as justification for being a bandit and utilizing SADs. I meant no offense or judgement, I was trying to draw parallels between SADs and tolls...not saying anything at about your position.
It was, for better or worse, simply a reference to your proclaimed philosophy, no connotation, nothing more, nothing less.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And, if LG offers more mechanical benefits, why would anyone not just abandon their RP, set their core to LG, and do what they can to fight/atone for every other shift?Some factions that appeal to the player might require other than LG core alignment.
Some skills might not be available for the L or G characters.
While L and/or G might have some more mechanical benefits at the settlement level, parties and companies might have advantages or flexibility by including people other than LG.
Okay, I am willing to agree to disagree, but I still have to admit I am confused. Alignments each mean something in Pathfinder PnPRPG, if you remove or change the meaning in PFO then those who decide to still stick with the PnPRPG paradigm are actually playing with the lore from a different game...one of my pet peeves...like people who RP being Klingon or Borg (or Jedis) in EVE.
If TN means I only sometimes do evil, and sometimes break the law...that is not at all what the RP of my character is...not at all what I think TN means. Forcing the position with the core alignment mechanic does not even give me that, so why gimp myself mechanically to make myself appear to be an alignment I clearly am not...in story or mechanics?
Also realize, I am not trying to argue that people should not play their RP intended alignments. Quite the contrary, I am arguing that GW should insure the alignment system be designed to fit the expectation of Pathfinder players/consumers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There was one comment that like "like the Hellknights, Bluddwolf is not compelled to follow the River Freedoms." (Paraphrased).
That is not at all what I said, paraphrased or not. I was not actually saying anything negative about you or UNC, so my apologies if you took it so. I was equating the Hellknights belief that they were justified in taking my possessions with force (via toll with big swords...as presented by another debater), with your self proclaimed philosophy that what you can take is yours as justification for being a bandit and utilizing SADs. I meant no offense or judgement, I was trying to draw parallels between SADs and tolls...not saying anything at about your position.
It was, for better or worse, simply a reference to your proclaimed philosophy, no connotation, nothing more, nothing less.
No worries, I did not take it as an insult, I was just clarifying for those that might have misread it as well. If I paraphrased what you had written out of context and meaning, my mistake.
Back to the Title of this thread Could PFO Thrive Without Unsanctioned PvP?
If Pathfinder Online was set to be a PvE-focused Theme-Park MMO, then I would say, temporarily yes (unless it achieved the coveted prize of WoW-killer).
For a PvP-focused Sandbox MMO? No, there's not a chance that it could actually "thrive".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...and reap tons of rep.How is it that GW's data-miners won't spot the pattern and break it, through whatever means they choose to use? There's no possible way they won't be watching for exactly that sort of thing.
Although I'm not going to pull up the quote, it was written referring to an accepted SAD offer that the bandit would receive a rep bonus "up to the daily maximum."
This tells me that there is likely a daily maximum that anyone can increase their reputation. This amount could then be easily managed (adjusted) by GW to control the "reaping of tons of rep".
Sure you could game the reputation system, pretty hard to stop it from happening. But, GW can control the impact of it by setting a universal cap to the amount that can be gamed (or gained if you wish) per day.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...and reap tons of rep.How is it that GW's data-miners won't spot the pattern and break it, through whatever means they choose to use? There's no possible way they won't be watching for exactly that sort of thing.Although I'm not going to pull up the quote, it was written referring to an accepted SAD offer that the bandit would receive a rep bonus "up to the daily maximum."
This tells me that there is likely a daily maximum that anyone can increase their reputation. This amount could then be easily managed (adjusted) by GW to control the "reaping of tons of rep".
Sure you could game the reputation system, pretty hard to stop it from happening. But, GW can control the impact of it by setting a universal cap to the amount that can be gamed (or gained if you wish) per day.
Yes but we must remember that there are a goodly portion of ppl that are opposed to "daily grind" that is available. They feel that they will be missing out or almost that they are obligated to log in every day to take advantage of the "daily max".
It would be a solution to limiting the possible gaming of some of these metrics, but is opposed for other reasons.
Edit: lol That is not intended to be snarky towards anyone's concerns about anything. Only to illustrate that there really is no way to please everyone.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes but we must remember that there are a goodly portion of ppl that are opposed to "daily grind" that is available. They feel that they will be missing out or almost that they are obligated to log in every day to take advantage of the "daily max".
If you are not in the game on any particular day, why is your reputation on that day a particular concern?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes but we must remember that there are a goodly portion of ppl that are opposed to "daily grind" that is available. They feel that they will be missing out or almost that they are obligated to log in every day to take advantage of the "daily max".
If you are not in the game on any particular day, why is your reputation on that day a particular concern?
I can only imagine that ppl that can't or don't want to play each day or have limited time to play, have previously objected to similar things because they don't want to feel that they are not maximizing potential. Perhaps they feel obligated in some way and do not appreciate that.
I am sure that you can remember discussions along these lines previously, and the objections to "daily maximums"?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am sure that you can remember discussions along these lines previously, and the objections to "daily maximums"?
Actually I don't, but there is a difference IMO between daily maximums and grinding to achieve the daily maximum or for some other purpose.
Let us for the sake of argument say that the daily maximum for Reputation is +500 Rep.
Discovering a new resource node = 50 Rep
Participating in the completion of an escalation cycle = 100 Rep
Issuing a SAD that is accepted = 100 Rep
Raiding an Outpost = 200 Rep
Crafting a set of armor = 50 Rep
Total = 500 Rep
That does not mean that you are done playing for the day. There are other activities more important than just accumulating Reputation.
But, to your point, there is no way to make someone not feel they are missing something when they are not playing, unless the game has no meaning when you are playing it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You are right that there is no way to do that if the game is good enough. :) There also isn't anyway to please everyone's particular preferences.
I like the idea of things lost through actions requiring actions to recover. I also like the idea of some in-game metrics being increased through meaningful in-game actions. IMO, the fewer the gains realized for logged out time, the better.
As I have pointed out in other threads, that is simply just my opinion. I am used to earning things through doing things. What is best for the overall game and the player population I will leave to GW to decide. It is their baby and their success/failure at stake and I am sure that they have far more knowledge about what is likely best, overall, than I do. :)
You are right that there is no way to do that if the game is good enough. :) There also isn't anyway to please everyone's particular preferences.
I like the idea of things lost through actions requiring actions to recover. I also like the idea of some in-game metrics being increased through meaningful in-game actions. IMO, the fewer the gains realized for logged out time, the better.
As I have pointed out in other threads, that is simply just my opinion. I am used to earning things through doing things. What is best for the overall game and the player population I will leave to GW to decide. It is their baby and their success/failure at stake and I am sure that they have far more knowledge about what is likely best, overall, than I do. :)
If you can log in get much higher rep gains, then why would you stay logged out? It's just if you can't play your toon one day, or you want to log on an alt.
There should be several ways to gain rep, and no daily limit imo. Gaining rep over time for being logged out should be one of them, because if it isn't the casual gamers would be at a huge disadvantage.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You are right that there is no way to do that if the game is good enough. :) There also isn't anyway to please everyone's particular preferences.
I like the idea of things lost through actions requiring actions to recover. I also like the idea of some in-game metrics being increased through meaningful in-game actions. IMO, the fewer the gains realized for logged out time, the better.
As I have pointed out in other threads, that is simply just my opinion. I am used to earning things through doing things. What is best for the overall game and the player population I will leave to GW to decide. It is their baby and their success/failure at stake and I am sure that they have far more knowledge about what is likely best, overall, than I do. :)
If you can log in get much higher rep gains, then why would you stay logged out? It's just if you can't play your toon one day, or you want to log on an alt.
There should be several ways to gain rep, and no daily limit imo. Gaining rep over time for being logged out should be one of them, because if it isn't the casual gamers would be at a huge disadvantage.
I suppose that I kind of look at it a little bit like this. Just a very bland example and certainly not quite equal but:
If I play checkers with someone, and they choose to only take their turn 3/5ths of the time, should that not result in a huge advantage?
I suppose that I kind of look at it a little bit like this. Just a very bland example and certainly not quite equal but:
If I play checkers with someone, and they choose to only take their turn 3/5ths of the time, should that not result in a huge advantage?
Yea, that's a pretty far off analogy man. But in reality, the person in the MMO who plays more, will still have a huge advantage, but I don't see some small consistent rep gains over time to be such a bad thing.
In principle I agree with you, but MMO's are terribly addicting as it is, so it's nice when they implement a few things which allow people to play a big more casually, and/or focus on alts as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes but we must remember that there are a goodly portion of ppl that are opposed to "daily grind" that is available. They feel that they will be missing out or almost that they are obligated to log in every day to take advantage of the "daily max".
It would be a solution to limiting the possible gaming of some of these metrics, but is opposed for other reasons.
Edit: lol That is not intended to be snarky towards anyone's concerns about anything. Only to illustrate that there really is no way to please everyone.
Cap intervals may be much better off being something other than every day. Every 15 minutes or every hour might make it more of a pain to game since you would have to go find your rep dummy every hour rather than just farming him once a day.
It doesn't stop you from using a rep dummy though, which is why any interaction based rep bonus should basically be considered a time based rep bonus. You can assume that they will be getting easy gains from it on a regular basis in a way that is not intended.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I suggest in another thread that limiting the number of times a dummy can be used per month, per quarter, per half, and per year limits the value of dummies. If the devs provide similar limits on "network" dummies (where network is a mathematical construct taught more than 4 decades ago in sophomore maths) that can also be limited.
lam
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like the idea of actively gaining rep, with a daily cap. I think an easy response to people who will feel like they're missing out if they don't log in every day is to tell them not to do so many rep-lowering actions. Only people who will be needing to increase rep on a very regular basis or in a large amount (i.e. frequent instigators of "unsanctioned" PvP) will likely feel compelled to log in every day, and that is by far not the only way to play PFO. Certainly, I'd rather they have to log in every day and actively participate in "sanctioned" PvP to atone for the "unsanctioned" PvP, rather than passively gaining rep. Who knows, they might find the "sanctioned" PvP quite fun and decide to do more of it. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If good reputation is something worth having, then it's something worth working to gain. If having money is something worthwhile, I have to spend time doing things to earn money - it isn't going to be handed to me. If becoming better at PvP is of value to me, I have to spend time practicing the tactics of PvP. Why then, for all that high reputation gains you in PFO, would we want to make it available (or recoverable) for no more effort than gains over time?
As for casual players, I have compassion in other regards for those with little play time, but much of the typical MMO grind has already been removed from the game (experience gain, hands-on crafting, etc.). In my opinion, paying your subscription doesn't ensure you things you want, such as a good reputation - that's something you need to earn by being in-game and doing things that affect your reputation in a positive way, especially if you've been purposely acting in ways that have reduced it. Redemption should be an active process, not a waiting game. In some regards, if reputation gains accrued over time, the casual player would be at an advantage. If the gains over time are significant enough, or the casual gamer is away from game long enough, the reputation recovery period may be relatively painless for them - they're not in game anyway. However, the daily player has to actually live with the repercussions of their poor reputation until it rises back to respectable levels.
My last issue with gains over time deals with what reputation is supposed to be - a visible metric of the player's behavior that can then be easily judged by other players. In a manner of speaking, reputation is a measure of community trust - how well do we trust you if the number GW's system has assigned you (your rep score) shows that you have not been playing the game the way they desire you to play. If you have been acting that poorly, it's going to take more than time for me to trust you. I have a long memory, so if you have done wrong by me or mine (including the community), then visible deeds are going to be what changes my view and earns back my trust, not a passive passing of time as you wait for the opportunity to act poorly again.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
reputation is supposed to be - a visible metric of the player's behavior that can then be easily judged by other players. In a manner of speaking, reputation is a measure of community trust
Which is why I think there should not be an automatic recovery of reputation over time.
I also think that there should be reputation loss from activities other than just combat based PVP. Economic PVP should also have the potential of lowering reputation, as a trade off for making unreasonably high profits (price gauging, node exploitation, contract violations, etc).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
+1 for contract violations lowering rep. I think price gouging would be much harder to quantify, or I'd also say that that sounds reasonable.
I could also see strip mining a node to a complete state of depletion could also reduce reputation.
Price gouging would be hard to detect or even to punish, but I think there should be some possible activity to reduce rep other than just combat based PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...there should be some possible activity to reduce rep other than just combat based PvP.
I agree wholeheartedly, Bluddwolf. Given that the game is all about economics...because everything is all about economics...there has to be some sanction attached to inappropriate PVP not conducted at the point of a sword.
The players who plan to play only as crafters, administrators, money-men, and other settlement homebodies shouldn't be exempt from the need to keep track of acceptable and unacceptable play, as defined and enforced by both the community and the game itself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
cheating and gaming the factor "time" can be very tricky or impossible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It does seem true that a straight "rep gained for paid exp time" would be the most difficult to game. It is a matter of whether difficulty in finding playtime solutions, or the easiest solution is best for the game.
Some think that it is and some don't. Ryan has repeatedly made comments that rep recovery will likely be onerous and require in-game action. At least that was my take away from some of his posts on the issue.
Like all things said, it is assumed malleable and not as set in stone as core principles.
Solutions to earning rep from in game actions and botting or gaming those actions could probably be achieved by the clever minds at GW and here. Nihimon proposed an idea of "potential" earned through time followed by actions, in-game to realize those gains. Andius proposed small in-game time caps with periods between that make it very boring to hang around and wait between. Both please forgive me if I am paraphrasing your ideas incorrectly. Other people have given other ideas.
Areks has made it clear that any systems imagined will be difficult without other known factors, such as economy and player behavior.
We would need something fairly simplistic, workable, minimally game-able, and that could be adjusted as things develop.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean really, we need to know where the "jerk" line is, REP wise. Is -2500 considered slight jerk behavior or is -7500 full on jerk mode?
Once we find out where that is, some people are going to flock to that line.
The only thing GW could do is make that line dynamic.
In the end, GW is going to have to decide where moderate REP ends and Low REP begins. Once "jerk" players discover where that line is, there will be a great many of them that straddle it. If one week low REP is -3000 then next week it's -1000, a player straddling the -2500 line is going to keep closer to the averaged high.
In the end, through control of character advancement (and possibly abilities, not sure if I would turn off abilities for low REP but I'm sure it's an option) you trend "jerk" players to mid-REP behavior patterns out of necessity.
Where this does not work is with a subtle power curve. If four new characters with decked out gear can take down a high level character with average gear, then six could take down a character with max gear.
It then becomes a numbers game.
Where I see the solution is that a steeper power curve in the beginning to lessen the "zerg" potential and then tie tier 2 abilities and beyond to moderate and high rep. Then you keep the low REP line dynamic.
This throws a wrench in the plans of low REP organizations going to war. Will we be able to use our tier 2 and tier 3 abilities tomorrow? Will our abilities go out in the middle of combat?
If they want to be any kind of successful, they have to have at least a minimal investment in their character and their settlement. They also have to be minimally invested in their own REP if they don't want to get beat down every time.
If you get them invested in the habit of paying attention to their REP by tying it to their abilities and advancement that are necessary to be successful, it becomes second nature. They are going to pay attention to it and they are going to care about it, because if not, then they loose a lot more then they would otherwise.
It'd be up to GW to decide where that line is and how dynamic they want Low REP to be.
Ryan hit it on the head when he said banning is going to be equivalent to a mine field. Same principle applies here. If you are a boarder line jerk, you are still a jerk SOME of the time... so in return, you can only use advanced abilities SOME OF THE TIME. Borderline jerks are going to straddle that line, unless you significantly blur it. Then they stay closer to the high average of the blur... which if GW does it right, should fall within the lower spectrum of mid REP.
Also, I should note that I only advocate this system being enacted once ALL the kinks of the REP system are worked out. Once that system is thoroughly vetted and there are no ways that result in your REP dropping for illegitimate reasons that are not the intention of GW.
Frankly before talking about punishment for low reputations we should be seeing what they are proposing to gain reputation.
Speaking for myself in Pathfinder I will not be partaking in activities which do not interest me. An example of this is PVE I will not be touching it with a barge pole. Another example is the faction system. If all rep gains were through PVE or the faction system therefore then I would never gain any rep and while not partaking in griefing or jerk behaviour (all PVP I engage in will have an in character reason and I will not be concerning myself whether it is sanctioned or unsanctioned) I would nevertheless slowly over time drop in rep until I hit rock bottom.
Now while I do not suggest for the moment that PVE will be the only method of gaining rep it is quite possible that all of the potentials for rep gains are either tied to things I want no part of or are tied to things that I do so rarely that they won't offset any reputation loss I suffer.
I suspect many will find themselves in this situation to be honest and I fully expect reputation to impact a lot more heavily on some of those who are most for the punishment of low rep than they believe will be the case.
I don't like all these suggestions for insane punishments for "jerks", because some of the low-rep characters who we're grouping in with the "jerks" aren't jerks at all, simply people who enjoy PvP, and look for as many opportunities to engage in it as possible. They may never corpse camp or do any of the other "jerkey" behaviors that people don't like (though I can't really say what those behaviors are other than corpse camping, the only other one I can think of is killing someone far below your level, but they said the power curve was relatively small, so I don't think that that applies here).
If I see some random person running through the forest and I've never seen them before, I'll want to kill them. Why? Because I enjoy the opportunity for a nice PvP sesh. By PFO standards, this would be considered "bad", get me a rep loss, AND doing this enough would get me labeled as a jerk, and may even get me the banhammer... causing me to lose so much that I worked so hard for.
@ ZenPagan
I would not assume that those turn out to be the only ways to gain Rep. It would be a shame if all activities that are considered desirable did not increases it in some measure.
Would be nice to read what GW's current thinking is along those lines.
While I am confident you are right bringslite I am just cautioning that we should wait to ensure that we aren't being forced to do things we don't want to in order to regain reputation before we consider punishing those that have low reputation.
I am pretty sure frankly that there are going to be a considerable number of very low rep people who didn't get there via undesirable behaviour but due to failures of the alignment and reputation system to differentiate between meaningful and meaningless behaviour
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Reputation basically measures a character's recent killings of unflagged characters, weighted based on the Reputation of the victims.
Influence measures a company's members' accumulated deeds and achievements. Some of the Influence may be obligated (like claiming a wilderness hex) and some may be lost (like the cost of a feud). It hasn't been explained if/how lost Influence will be recovered.
So Reputation is strictly PvP based at this time. Influence is based on character advancement and other achievements.