Could PFO Thrive with No Unsanctioned PvP?


Pathfinder Online

701 to 750 of 2,166 << first < prev | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Qallz wrote:

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.

Honestly Qallz, I am not in favor of Evil or chaotic toons (that maintain a descent Rep) being punished in the same ways, i.e. training, trading, social opportunities. Ryan has stated that if those individuals fall into the "funnel" of consequence, so be it. He seems (from what I understand) to feel that it is a small price to pay. I really don't agree with it but, I am not the DECIDER.

On the other hand, if the way that you want to play does not fit in well with the way that GW want's you to play and your toon suffers for it, that is on you. Especially if it is clearly defined.

There are some trends and things that I do not forsee enjoying as much as others. I will make compromises, I guess. If they become "unfun" enough, I will shop elsewhere.

But I do fully understand frustration at not getting it they way you would like.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:

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.

So the downside that you are pointing out is that to merge them, you feel that they are for different things? I can see that. Except that Influence seems like it will mostly be used to initiate regulated PVP. Reputation seems like it will mostly be used to discourage unregulated PVP.

It almost seems that with a little work, they could be merged.

Not sure that I am sure yet if it would be good or bad to do so. Can anyone think of anymore reasons that Reputation and Influence could not be merged?

Goblin Squad Member

For PvP combat focused companies, Influence might mostly be used to initiate feuds. For crafting companies? PvE combat focused companies? Harvesting/gathering? Trading? The bit from the blog on Influence spelled out lots of ways it could be used:

All companies may use influence to forge alliances with other companies or settlements, usually to establish trade arrangements or provide mutual security.
For empire-builders, influence is spent to claim territory in the Crusader Road region. When a company clears the dangerous inhabitants from wilderness hex, they may spend their influence to claim that location for their own.
For mercenaries, bandits, and agitators, influence can be used to declare a feud—a state of PvP hostilities like a war between settlements, but at shorter notice and for a shorter period—against another company or settlement.
For traders and crafters, influence can be spent on boons to help dominate an economy or profession, and on shoring up caravan defenses when transporting goods across the lands.
Finally, for adventuring companies, influence can be spent to claim great rewards from successful escalation cycles, either for the benefit of the company itself or for its sponsoring settlement.

So maybe it could be reworked to make Influence and Reputation be the same thing. I think they're further apart than you might think.

Goblin Squad Member

ZenPagan wrote:
Bringslite wrote:

@ 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

There could very well be. I hope that the design is not so screwed up as to be non viable. A lot of the things PfO is attempting are either new or being approached in new ways. I am sure that there will be some (at least) temporary casualties until it is balanced enough to work. Hopefully they will stick through the situation long enough to see it come to "working" order. Hopefully GW will be all over fixing and tweaking things that need it.

That would be a nice change from many slow moving MMO's. :)

Goblin Squad Member

ZenPagan wrote:
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

While I agree with you Pagan, I see one way that GW can avoid the unintended being tagged with low reputation.

1. Limit the definition of what constitutes Unsanctioned behaviors to truly disruptive activities.

2. Clearly identify these behaviors, so that all will know they are forbidden.

3. Limit access to Starter Zone to characters below level 10. Allow for a company / settlement title of "Recruiter", who could be granted access regardless of level. That recruiter loses access if his or her affiliation is in a feud, at war, or has a bounty or assassination contract against him or her.

4. Character wipe can take place at any time between - xxxx and -7500. To be determined by GW.

If GW severally limits the circumstances where someone can get a low reputation, we will know for a fact that anyone with a low rep was deservedly at that status.

For any that needs this explained in simple terms, GW make 95+% of all PvP sanctioned! leaving only the griefing / griefers standing out like a sore thumb.

Goblin Squad Member

ZenPagan wrote:

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.

Again, my opinion is based on a working REP system where REP can be regained, to an extent, through meaningful actions, both PvP and PvE.

Also, note that GW has to internally decide where the "jerk" line is. Doing behavior that is not "jerk-like" should not affect your REP in a working REP system.

Qallz wrote:

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.

This is why I am an advocate for FFA hexes. There should be a no-man's land, and the most valuable resources should be there. That is yet to be determined whether or not it will be in the game. Engaging in "forced PvP" aka unsanctioned is an undesired behavior.

PvP for the sake of PvP doesn't fall within the realm of "meaningful human interaction". While I may have qualms with this, such as "PvP for loot", GW has told us that it will have consequences. One of those consequences is going to be reputation loss. Ways to mitigate that are known as sanctioned PvP or as I call it, "meaningful PvP". GW says you'll suffer lessened or no consequences for this PvP because it has meaning in game.

GW from day one has said that the game will be built on meaningful human interaction and PvP with consequences. Low REP sucking is part of that. If you want to keep your battle prowess, you should engage in meaningful PvP to offset the hits you take from forced PvP.

I have no issue with you dropping randomguy in the forest... but its completely against the premise of the game that I backed for you to be able to do that and NOT suffer consequences.

Forced PvP isn't a flaw in the game... it's a vital part. If its not there, this is just a sparring session, not a fight. But if you plan on running around and forcing PvP on everyone and NOT utilizing constructive means to engage players in PvP, then all you are doing is PvPing for the sake of PvPing... and as I said, just doing that isn't part of the program.

You've got to feud, you've got to raid, you've got to SAD, assassinate, bounty hunt, and so on and so forth. That is part of players BEING the story. Otherwise it's just one big cluster.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:


Honestly Qallz, I am not in favor of Evil or chaotic toons (that maintain a descent Rep) being punished in the same ways, i.e. training, trading, social opportunities. Ryan has stated that if those individuals fall into the "funnel" of consequence, so be it. He seems (from what I understand) to feel that it is a small price to pay. I really don't agree with it but, I am not the DECIDER.

On the other hand, if the way that you want to play does not fit in well with the way that GW want's you to play and your toon suffers for it, that is on you. Especially if it is clearly defined.

I completely agree. That is why if Settlement REP is low, training facilities should close and if character REP is low, they should be handicapped. CE wouldn't HAVE to suck if this were the case.

Goblin Squad Member

It seems that all they would have to do would be to code skills requiring a certain level of reputation to train and a certain level to maintain. The same as they plan to do with settlements and buildings in the first place.

I suppose that the most efficient settlements being Lawful makes some sense. I could see Chaos being offered other things to offset that though.

Let's have some variety, but let's have some "equalish" opportunity cost variety.

Edit: I am sure that I am missing part of the big picture here.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
ZenPagan wrote:
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
For any that needs this explained in simple terms, GW make 95+% of all PvP sanctioned! leaving only the griefing / griefers standing out like a sore thumb.

Again, harsh penalties SHOULD NOT be emplaced until the system WORKS.

What you run into with sanctioning 95% of all PvP is that you leave a computer to decide the following.

If player A and player B keep fighting WILLINGLY, and player A keeps winning is that griefing or is that consensual?

Outside of any system GW has that has been deemed "meaningful" how is the computer to tell whether player A killing player B 5 times in 20 mins isn't just player A griefing player B?

If they are at war, it's fine. Feud, fine. Opposing factions, fine. So on and so forth.

If you don't have consequences for Forced PvP, you leave it up to a piece of code to decide what is griefing and what is ok... without any other mitigating factors, that code will get it wrong almost all the time. People are going to complain that its either too harsh or too lenient.

This is WHY they have "meaninful PvP". There has to be jerk penalties and they have to be harsh. People that PvP for PvP in Forced PvP for their primary means of play and don't take an interest in their REP are just going to have to deal with it. I don't care honestly if people get upset because they've got harsh penalties or not when REP is concerned as long as REP stays a measure of how much of a jerk you are, because to me, this is Pathfinder with PvP.

The story matters. The story is told by the players, through war, raids, feuds, SADs, ambushes, escalations, etc. If you aren't contributing to the story, then you don't matter to me unless I know you. I don't want to play "PvP Online- starring Pathfinder".

Again, this is once the system is working as intended or as close to working as possible.

So to answer the OP, "Could Pathfinder survive with no unsanctioned PvP?"

No. The possibility of you being able to be attacked and killed and your stuff being gone has to be there for this game to be credible. Otherwise, its not PvP with consequences.

Meaningful PvP doesn't have the claws that Forced PvP does when it comes to consequences. If there was only meaningful PvP, there would be very little consequences for the individual.

People have a right to attack who they want, when they want. Period. It doesn't mean that they won't suffer consequences, but it would be a much safer place if you could only be attacked when at war or feuding or being raided. The River Kingdoms isn't a safe place. If we want it to be, we've got to make it that way.

Goblin Squad Member

Let there be some kind of score that goes up over time, but caps at 1 week's worth of gain. The character must perform certain in-game actions to "spend" that in order to achieve actual Reputation gain.

Goblin Squad Member

I'd prefer a daily static gain that is accented by in-game actions up to a daily maximum. This static gain is decreased exponentially when rep is low.

Goblin Squad Member

Would it be arguable that with the training of the SAD skill, you would have virtually no limits to PVP? I mean SAD as far as has been described to us?

What am I missing here?

Goblin Squad Member

If a lowered rep score comes about from doing stupid s+~~*, would it not be a good idea to reward people for being online and no longer doing stupid s&$#*. That is, they're online and not being a jerk anymore, thus their reputation recovers to a degree. I could see this having some cap per week or month, but does allow people to recover a little without being forced through other means.

While it could be abused by idlers, it does force them to be online for extended periods of time which therefore has flow on repercussion to their settlement and allows them open for PvP retribution (which may not be the case if they grind back their rep quickly).

*Stupid s*&% specifics yet to be determined.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:

Would it be arguable that with the training of the SAD skill, you would have virtually no limits to PVP? I mean SAD as far as has been described to us?

What am I missing here?

SAD still has alignment repercussions if rejected and violence ensues. This is also one of my points for inhibiting CE characters in some other way. They can issue SADs and murder without any worry of rep or alignment repercussions, thus this needs to be balanced out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bringslite wrote:

Would it be arguable that with the training of the SAD skill, you would have virtually no limits to PVP? I mean SAD as far as has been described to us?

What am I missing here?

The element of the ambush. With PvP being confined to SAD's, you can't just see someone out in the wild and attack them from a group of trees, it always has to be formal like a duel. You walk up to them, instead of attacking them from a range (a huge disadvantage for people who rely on ranged attacks, like mages or archers), you propose the SAD, and if they decline, you fight.

This is a HUGE advantage to melee'er tanks and a huge disadvantage to anyone who wanted to gain the element of surprise and/or attack from a distance. That's the difference.

Also, if they accept the SAD, you get a bit of money, but you don't get to PvP without a massive rep loss afterwards.

Goblin Squad Member

I wouldn't say it is limitless PvP. You'd probably start taking REP hits if you SAD the same person numerous times in a 24 hour period in different hexes, ie following them around to SAD them. Probably take REP hits for SADs over 75%. You still take the evil hit for killing if the SAD results in conflict. SAD is probably going to have a longer refresh time to prevent abuse.

Other then that, SADs are likely to be common but I wouldn't consider it limitless.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:

Would it be arguable that with the training of the SAD skill, you would have virtually no limits to PVP? I mean SAD as far as has been described to us?

What am I missing here?

A SAD is done at the expense of an ambush attack, and therefore we take on more risk for either less reward or the same reward as we would have had.

Goblin Squad Member

LOL, we (Qallz, and Areks) were all on the same page.... Ambush is a big advantage to give up.

Goblin Squad Member

Jiminy wrote:

If a lowered rep score comes about from doing stupid s~*+*, would it not be a good idea to reward people for being online and no longer doing stupid s@@@*. That is, they're online and not being a jerk anymore, thus their reputation recovers to a degree. I could see this having some cap per week or month, but does allow people to recover a little without being forced through other means.

While it could be abused by idlers, it does force them to be online for extended periods of time which therefore has flow on repercussion to their settlement and allows them open for PvP retribution (which may not be the case if they grind back their rep quickly).

*Stupid s&%@ specifics yet to be determined.

Some of the biggest jerks in the game will have high rep, rarely PVP, but will complain the most about not getting whatever those that risk more have access to.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Good answer guys. Thank you. I suppose that I should have worded it in a different way. I consider the SAD to be a form of PVP also. Whether it results in a fight or not.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Let's say engaging in meaningful player to player interaction increases reputation: Completing contracts, taking part in wars, feuds, faction warfare, raids, building settlements, harvesting, gathering, SAD, etc, etc all the mechanics GW builds for player to player interaction. But the reputation increase from those activities should be so slow that compared to engaging in a one random "unsanctioned" killing should have a devastating effect on a characters reputation.

Lets say reputation is a five star scale. Engaging in one random "unsanctioned" killing of a group or of an individual would decrease the reputation of a character by one star or even more.

Edit: To contrast, playing PFO two weeks in a "sanctioned" way 5 days a week 8 hours a day might bring a reputation increase of a half a star.

Goblin Squad Member

Aeioun Plainsweed wrote:

Let's say engaging in meaningful player to player interaction increases reputation: Completing contracts, taking part in wars, feuds, faction warfare, raids, building settlements, harvesting, gathering, SAD, etc, etc all the mechanics GW builds for player to player interaction. But the reputation increase from those activities should be so slow that compared to engaging in a one random "unsanctioned" killing should have a devastating effect on a characters reputation.

Lets say reputation is a five star scale. Engaging in one random "unsanctioned" killing of a group or of an individual would decrease the reputation of a character by one star or even more.

Edit: To contrast, playing PFO two weeks in a "sanctioned" way 5 days a week 8 hours a day might bring a reputation increase of a half a star.

Let us start with dropping the terms "sanctioned" and "Unsanctioned", as Ryan had said it is really not the best reflection of their intended meaning.

If all of the meaningful interactions in the game generated reputation, I could see that as few as one act of true griefing could cost a 20% hit to your reputation. I would also like to see that this number be equally applied to all players.

High Rep players should not be given license to be jerks versus low rep players. A jerk is a jerk and if GW wants to have fewer jerks than your average MMO, then enforce the policies equally, strictly, swiftly and harshly.

Goblin Squad Member

I agree with that, Bludd. We really do need other terms, but I can't think of a better one, try as I might. I also agree high rep characters should suffer the normal reputation penalties no matter their target. Although I like the concept of "less evil shift for killing evil characters", I think that everyone should be punished for "unsanctioned" PvP regardless of their target; if we call killing a high rep character in an unsanctioned way an undesirable behavior, we should say the same of killing a low rep character. Being able to act like more of a jerk because you have a high rep just seems backwards to me, because the point to the system is that nobody is using "unsanctioned" PvP like a jerk.

Goblin Squad Member

@ Shane,

The same argument you agreed to for Reputation also applies to alignment (Good vs. Evil), it is the same principle.

If killing is evil, then killing anyone is equally evil.

Goblin Squad Member

Shane Gifford wrote:
... if we call killing a high rep character in an unsanctioned way an undesirable behavior, we should say the same of killing a low rep character.

The fact that you lose less rep for killing a low rep character is there to encourage us all to keep our rep high and discourage us from doing things that lower it. Killing unflagged characters lowers it, especially high rep ones, those people who very rarely kill unflagged characters. I think of it as karma - anyone with low rep went out and killed a lot of people who were unflagged. They tacitly accepted that they would become a cheaper target in PvP even when they are unflagged.

edit echoing Nevy below: is killing unflagged characters undesirable behavior? Not always. It can be a check on people who would use unflagged status to avoid consequences for their own behavior. The key is to use it when it matters.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here is an example on why it is important to have the ability to kill a random guy in the woods:

Random super high reputation lawful good paladin comes into the forest and starts killing the camp of profitable zombies you've been killing for 30 minutes. You ask nicely for said paladin to give you 20 more minutes and then he can have the camp as you're going to bed. Instead of agreeing, the paladin keeps killing the spawn and also starts attacking your mobs that you are already in combat with.

Need I say more? Kill that "high reputation" paladin and kill him good.

And this is where Goblinworks needs to figure out what they really want. Do you really want "high rep" "innocent " "unflagged" players greifing other players and the true innocent people having to take a reputation hit to deal with it? Maybe so, I mean I'd take a reputation hit to kill a guy bothering me or my friends. But should that rep hit cause me future problems or a poor game experience because I can't get the best good and services? I daresay not.

What say you?

Goblin Squad Member

Nevy wrote:

Here is an example on why it is important to kill random guy in the woods:

Random super high reputation lawful good paladin comes into the forest and starts killing the camp of profitable zombies you've been killing for 30 minutes. You ask nicely for said paladin to give you 20 more minutes and then he can have the camp as you're going to bed. Instead of agreeing, the paladin keeps killing the spawn and also starts attacking your mobs that you are already in combat with.

Need I say more? Kill that "high reputation" paladin and kill him good.

At no point in your scenario was the Paladin a "Random Guy". Also he was always a meaningful target because you were in effect competing for the same resource. Furthermore, as soon as he started killing your engaged mobs, that made him a kill stealer. Finally, if you loot him after killing him, that in itself gave the entire event meaning.

So.... Kill on.... "Brethren on the Wild Lands" .... Kill on!

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Nevy wrote:

Here is an example on why it is important to kill random guy in the woods:

Random super high reputation lawful good paladin comes into the forest and starts killing the camp of profitable zombies you've been killing for 30 minutes. You ask nicely for said paladin to give you 20 more minutes and then he can have the camp as you're going to bed. Instead of agreeing, the paladin keeps killing the spawn and also starts attacking your mobs that you are already in combat with.

Need I say more? Kill that "high reputation" paladin and kill him good.

At no point in your scenario was the Paladin a "Random Guy". Also he was always a meaningful target because you were in effect competing for the same resource. Furthermore, as soon as he started killing your engaged mobs, that made him a kill stealer. Finally, if you loot him after killing him, that in itself gave the entire event meaning.

So.... Kill on.... "Brethren on the Wild Lands" .... Kill on!

I have no idea what meaning your response is trying to convey? Are you in support of what I said or not? You also didn't address my point - just because a person has high reputation doesn't mean he is "good." Reputation systems are limiting.

I'm confused.

Goblin Squad Member

@ Nevy

I agreed that you should kill the guy. I didn't agree with your characterization of him being a "Random Guy".

There us no such thing as Random Player Killing, so long as there is a motivation for it. Since motivation can be anything, even irrational, no killing can truly be random. My now infamous example demonstrates this:

If I decide that on Tuesdays I will kill anyone wearing a "Green Hat", my killing has meaning to me. My victim does not have to know my motivation, understand it or agree with it. The victim's ignorance of my motivation does not strip the event of its meaningfulness.

So I agree with you, kill that Paladin. If he loses, he deserved it, loot him and carry on.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:

@ Nevy

I agreed that you should kill the guy. I didn't agree with your characterization of him being a "Random Guy".

There us no such thing as Random Player Killing, so long as there is a motivation for it. Since motivation can be anything, even irrational, no killing can truly be random. My now infamous example demonstrates this:

If I decide that on Tuesdays I will kill anyone wearing a "Green Hat", my killing has meaning to me. My victim does not have to know my motivation, understand it or agree with it. The victim's ignorance of my motivation does not strip the event of its meaningfulness.

So I agree with you, kill that Paladin. If he loses, he deserved it, loot him and carry on.

I believe you are unintentionally biting my point with your example. The point of my post was to show that "innocent", high reputation players can trick the system and perform evil deeds. And, because of this, the real innocent player, when attacking this innocently flagged evil-doer, will be the one getting punished all the while defending good. Your posting that on Mondays you will be killing green clad players (good or bad) doesn't help my point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The point Nevy was making and one that several including myself have made in the past is that "unsanctioned" PVP does not equal random player killing or jerk behaviour necessarily.

In my view this is perfectly meaningful PVP done to secure a resource (in this case PVE mobs and escalations I believe will be jealously guarded and a source of being fought over :) )

His/her point was in addition that because the system classes it unsanctioned even though it is actually the sort of PVP we want that he/she would suffer a reputation hit and if there are punishments for low reputation handed out by the game then he/she may find themselves exposed to them despite not having partaken of jerk behaviour.

This sort of situation will not become one that ever becomes sanctioned in my view unless they make non controlled hexes ffa.

Before everyone leaps in and shouts feud I would point out I would fully expect feuds to have a notice period much as Eve war dec's do before they come into force. This is to prevent my group spotting your group and thinking "Aha a rich target we outnumber quick declare a feud and we can kill them without consequence"

In addition to the above debunking of why a feud won't work in this situation also consider feuds are at the chartered company level. Now consider this situation is more likely to be a small group than a single paladin. That small group may well belong to more than one chartered company. Even if you could declare an immediate feud you now have to declare it against several companies.

Thirdly to debunk the use of feuds for this situation, I would presume only one or two members of a company can declare a feud, influence is a valuable resource and I am sure you don't want it wasted

Goblin Squad Member

Nevy wrote:

The point of my post was to show that "innocent", high reputation players can trick the system and perform evil deeds. And, because of this, the real innocent player, when attacking this innocently flagged evil-doer, will be the one getting punished all the while defending good. Your posting that on Mondays you will be killing green clad players (good or bad) doesn't help my point.

Which exactly why we have the reputation system, so players can make the judgement call when they think someone else is using the unflagged status unfairly. Of course, if I do this a lot, my reputation will get low, and I'll need to reexamine if I need to kill the Pally or if I can share kills with him.

(A little aside with background history - well before the rep system was announced, people were adamant that they needed options to deal with unflagged jerks like your example paladin. 100s of posts of ways people could abuse unflagged status and demands that we could sometimes take matters into our own hands. Sha-zaam - the rep system.)

Goblin Squad Member

Just a question, not a position. Given the competition over resources, especially those on the scale of harvesting/gathering camps, should setting up such a camp automatically make you "sanctioned" for PvP?

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
Nevy wrote:

The point of my post was to show that "innocent", high reputation players can trick the system and perform evil deeds. And, because of this, the real innocent player, when attacking this innocently flagged evil-doer, will be the one getting punished all the while defending good. Your posting that on Mondays you will be killing green clad players (good or bad) doesn't help my point.

Which exactly why we have the reputation system, so players can make the judgement call when they think someone else is using the unflagged status unfairly. Of course, if I do this a lot, my reputation will get low, and I'll need to reexamine if I need to kill the Pally or if I can share kills with him.

(A little aside with background history - well before the rep system was announced, people were adamant that they needed options to deal with unflagged jerks like your example paladin. 100s of posts of ways people could abuse unflagged status and demands that we could sometimes take matters into our own hands. Sha-zaam - the rep system.)

As I take it though one innocent kill will really hurt your rep and impact your game experience, yes?

Goblin Squad Member

@Hobs, I don't see why. The types of PvP that were "sanctioned" were only those that are semi-legitimate even in our own world. Killing in wars, or killing opposing gang members (but scrupulously avoiding civilian) like old-school mobsters (which correlates to feuds and factions).

If some company is harvesting where your company wants to harvest, that's exactly the kind of things that should boil up to a feud. If everything is permitted, then what drives us to feuds and wars?

Goblin Squad Member

Nevy wrote:

Here is an example on why it is important to have the ability to kill a random guy in the woods:

Random super high reputation lawful good paladin comes into the forest and starts killing the camp of profitable zombies you've been killing for 30 minutes. You ask nicely for said paladin to give you 20 more minutes and then he can have the camp as you're going to bed. Instead of agreeing, the paladin keeps killing the spawn and also starts attacking your mobs that you are already in combat with.

Need I say more? Kill that "high reputation" paladin and kill him good.

And this is where Goblinworks needs to figure out what they really want. Do you really want "high rep" "innocent " "unflagged" players greifing other players and the true innocent people having to take a reputation hit to deal with it? Maybe so, I mean I'd take a reputation hit to kill a guy bothering me or my friends. But should that rep hit cause me future problems or a poor game experience because I can't get the best good and services? I daresay not.

What say you?

I see your point, although I don't see your reason for attacking the paladin, he was only trying to help you. But If you say you don't need help and he still tackles along and doesn't leave you alone, I can see a problem. I wonder how the devs are gonna tackle this... Maybe some kind of duel challenge, so you won't lose all your rep? I remember there has been some talk of such a mechanism...


Aeioun Plainsweed wrote:

Let's say engaging in meaningful player to player interaction increases reputation: Completing contracts, taking part in wars, feuds, faction warfare, raids, building settlements, harvesting, gathering, SAD, etc, etc all the mechanics GW builds for player to player interaction. But the reputation increase from those activities should be so slow that compared to engaging in a one random "unsanctioned" killing should have a devastating effect on a characters reputation.

Lets say reputation is a five star scale. Engaging in one random "unsanctioned" killing of a group or of an individual would decrease the reputation of a character by one star or even more.

Edit: To contrast, playing PFO two weeks in a "sanctioned" way 5 days a week 8 hours a day might bring a reputation increase of a half a star.

The thing you're forgetting is that GW actually WANTS people to engage in "rep-lowering" PvP sometimes, they just don't want people doing it so often that the game turns into a corpse-camping blood bath.

For example, somebody who you'd lose Rep for killing comes out of an area that has some very profitable resources, and is all alone. You and your group have 4 people, and you can easily bring him down and take his stuff.

This is what GW would consider "meaningful" PvP because you're killing him for a REASON (he likely has precious resources on him) though this would still lower your Rep...

So, let's look at reputation not as something that "should never be lowered under any circumstances, and the less it's lowered the better" and more as a "balancing act". Allowing players to engage in rep-lowering PvP enough so that they can do it in a meaningful way while still minimizing the "pointless" non-consensual PvP.

That's how GW's designed it. They want rep to be something that people play with and spend wisely on things that matter. Not something they keep at +7500 24/7/365.

Goblin Squad Member

Aeioun Plainsweed wrote:
I see your point, although I don't see your reason for attacking the paladin, he was only trying to help you. But If you say you don't need help and he still tackles along and doesn't leave you alone, I can see a problem. I wonder how the devs are gonna tackle this... Maybe some kind of duel challenge, so you won't lose all your rep? I remember there has been some talk of such a mechanism...

Nevy shouldn't lose any rep, his attack on the Paladin was precipitated by the Paladin kill stealing (see Nevy's original post). Once both the Paladin and Nevy began to compete for the same resource, then any PvP resulting is justified.

If the Paladin was behaving in a truly lawful good, he would have announced his presence and requested an invite to group. If denied, he should have moved onto another monster spawn point.


Bluddwolf wrote:
Aeioun Plainsweed wrote:
I see your point, although I don't see your reason for attacking the paladin, he was only trying to help you. But If you say you don't need help and he still tackles along and doesn't leave you alone, I can see a problem. I wonder how the devs are gonna tackle this... Maybe some kind of duel challenge, so you won't lose all your rep? I remember there has been some talk of such a mechanism...

Nevy shouldn't lose any rep, his attack on the Paladin was precipitated by the Paladin kill stealing (see Nevy's original post). Once both the Paladin and Nevy began to compete for the same resource, then any PvP resulting is justified.

If the Paladin was behaving in a truly lawful good, he would have announced his presence and requested an invite to group. If denied, he should have moved onto another monster spawn point.

Yea, but there's no way for the game to really know that... which is why rep losses should be minimal enough to account for these sort of things happening, and allow Nevy to blow the Pally out of the water, and recover from it an hour later, with no character defects or anything in the interim...

Goblin Squad Member

The only way to segregate unflagged kills are by creating more mechanics to null/diminish rep/align consequences or to proportionate rep/align consequences to the killers/killed ones current rep/alignment.

Goblin Squad Member

@Bludd, though I wouldn't agree that "killing anyone is equally evil", I do agree that killing even the most heinous of villains is an evil act.

I for one certainly hope that reputation penalties for killing are not too harsh; it's no use permitting occasional killing outside the system if a single kill is too much of a penalty for 95% of cases. I don't know enough about how much sanctioned PvP encompasses, or how necessary killing will be outside the system, so I'm not gonna try to throw in numbers, but I hope someone's entire play experience is not ruined by overly constricting systems.

Goblin Squad Member

Shane Gifford wrote:

@Bludd, though I wouldn't agree that "killing anyone is equally evil", I do agree that killing even the most heinous of villains is an evil act.

I for one certainly hope that reputation penalties for killing are not too harsh; it's no use permitting occasional killing outside the system if a single kill is too much of a penalty for 95% of cases. I don't know enough about how much sanctioned PvP encompasses, or how necessary killing will be outside the system, so I'm not gonna try to throw in numbers, but I hope someone's entire play experience is not ruined by overly constricting systems.

This was addressed to Bluddwolf but I would like to reply.

I hope that anyone engaging in undesirable play has a terrible experience and quits.

I hope that anyone engaging in unregulated, but coded PVP (in healthy moderation) has a wonderful time and a fair shake at success in the game, proportional to the balance they maintain.

I hope that anyone playing the game that does not appreciate PVP as much as others, can use common sense and strategy to minimize/mitigate/or succeed despite having to deal with (undesired) PVP. I hope that they can come to enjoy the sense of danger and learn to excel despite it.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Aeioun Plainsweed wrote:
I see your point, although I don't see your reason for attacking the paladin, he was only trying to help you. But If you say you don't need help and he still tackles along and doesn't leave you alone, I can see a problem. I wonder how the devs are gonna tackle this... Maybe some kind of duel challenge, so you won't lose all your rep? I remember there has been some talk of such a mechanism...

Nevy shouldn't lose any rep, his attack on the Paladin was precipitated by the Paladin kill stealing (see Nevy's original post). Once both the Paladin and Nevy began to compete for the same resource, then any PvP resulting is justified.

If the Paladin was behaving in a truly lawful good, he would have announced his presence and requested an invite to group. If denied, he should have moved onto another monster spawn point.

That's totally backwards--the whole point is that those kind of decisions--I'm taking your stuff from you, I'm not taking any more crap from you--involve estimating risk and making a tradeoff. If you every once in a while use force, if you're judicious, then you're not going to loose your alignment or rep, giving you a chance to make contextually appropriate, judicious trade-offs. But if every day you're meeting "jerks" who you "just know" need to be attacked, you're going to be a low rep, CE character pretty quickly.

That's the idea.

Goblin Squad Member

Mbando wrote:

That's totally backwards--the whole point is that those kind of decisions--I'm taking your stuff from you, I'm not taking any more crap from you--involve estimating risk and making a tradeoff. If you every once in a while use force, if you're judicious, then you're not going to loose your alignment or rep, giving you a chance to make contextually appropriate, judicious trade-offs. But if every day you're meeting "jerks" who you "just know" need to be attacked, you're going to be a low rep, CE character pretty quickly.

That's the idea.

Agree.

Goblin Squad Member

Mbando wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Aeioun Plainsweed wrote:
I see your point, although I don't see your reason for attacking the paladin, he was only trying to help you. But If you say you don't need help and he still tackles along and doesn't leave you alone, I can see a problem. I wonder how the devs are gonna tackle this... Maybe some kind of duel challenge, so you won't lose all your rep? I remember there has been some talk of such a mechanism...

Nevy shouldn't lose any rep, his attack on the Paladin was precipitated by the Paladin kill stealing (see Nevy's original post). Once both the Paladin and Nevy began to compete for the same resource, then any PvP resulting is justified.

If the Paladin was behaving in a truly lawful good, he would have announced his presence and requested an invite to group. If denied, he should have moved onto another monster spawn point.

That's totally backwards--the whole point is that those kind of decisions--I'm taking your stuff from you, I'm not taking any more crap from you--involve estimating risk and making a tradeoff. If you every once in a while use force, if you're judicious, then you're not going to loose your alignment or rep, giving you a chance to make contextually appropriate, judicious trade-offs. But if every day you're meeting "jerks" who you "just know" need to be attacked, you're going to be a low rep, CE character pretty quickly.

That's the idea.

But how badly am I losing reputation on the murder of the lawful good paladin? Is that one kill enough to alter my reputation and make my game life harder? If not, how many killings of the innocent foes it take for me to become chaotic evil and have to face the consequences of my evil deeds?

I understand decision making, but if my one kill of said lawful paladin is going to ruin my game life I am not sure I like this proposed system.

Goblin Squad Member

Nevy wrote:

But how badly am I losing reputation on the murder of the lawful good paladin? Is that one kill enough to alter my reputation and make my game life harder? If not, how many killings of the innocent foes it take for me to become chaotic evil and have to face the consequences of my evil deeds?

I understand decision making, but if my one kill of said lawful paladin is going to ruin my game life I am not sure I like this proposed system.

Specific answer: *casts Summon Nihimon*

General answer: if the system is so over the top punitive that you can't effectively exercise judgement, then I guess it would kind of suck as a system to promote meaningful choices and the use of judgement. Kinda havta assume that the devs aren't completely moronic, and that whatever the parameters are, a single choice doesn't one-shot you.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
...precipitated by the Paladin kill stealing...

Does kill-stealing violate the River Freedoms, or the laws of the Gods, or is it strictly a meta-game impolite-thing-to-do? If it's only the latter, I'm not sure it can be judged or controlled by the alignment-and-reputation mechanics we've been discussing, which have, so far, been pretty-well anchored in in-game reasoning.

Goblin Squad Member

It depends on the notional paladin's rep. It could be somewhere between 500 (if he has average rep) and 2400(!!) (if he has high rep). A loss of 2400 rep could hurt, depending where you started on the scale between -15000 and 15000, so you wouldn't want to do it every day. If the paladin has to be killed multiple times, make sure your friends do their share of the work.

BUT. All number should be read as tentative. Figure that the numbers are subject to tweaking through EE.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
...on the scale between -15000 and 15000...

I thought the scales ran -7500 to +7500?


Jazzlvraz wrote:
Urman wrote:
...on the scale between -15000 and 15000...
I thought the scales ran -7500 to +7500?

Yea, that's right. It's 15k total, not 15k each way.

701 to 750 of 2,166 << first < prev | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Could PFO Thrive with No Unsanctioned PvP? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.