Goblin Squad Member
|
If they initaite combat I welcome them to throw themselves on my blade as it will be at no cost to me. If they don't intiate combat then what are they going to do? Stare me to death???
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Andius
#1: I think that new players deserve protection if they are being abused. Definitely.
#2: This question confuses me. I do not grasp where it is coming from. At face value I will answer, NO. Did I suggest that you should? I think that I have made it clear in other posts that I am in favor of earning rep through in-game actions just as it is lost through in-game actions. I do not like the idea of rewards coming from being logged off.
I do not remember saying anything about targeting new players. I do remember suggesting that new players (with lower rep) on your territory could be exploring rather than spying.
I will say that I do think that you should be able to kill a person on the road, in an unregulated PVP manner, (just because it is safer for you) but it should carry consequences for you. I also think that it is toxic if you do it just to protect your location when they may be out there for any reason.
As for the rep starting score. That is a matter of opinion. I just don't like the idea of starting with the maximum for the reasons that I laid out above. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Starting with max Rep kind of changes the meaning for me. I understand the argument Andius is making...and agree that is the purpose of the Rep system. It seems however, as if it turns Rep into a measure of "Innocence". I fear we are warping the holistic effect of the system by trying to force the system to solve our insular concerns.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To a certain point it is a measure of innocence. If the rep system is intended to protect people like me then it's probably a waste if time. That's not what I want. If someone wants me dead then "Come at me bro!" I want people like Homes and Watson to be protected.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The point is what does +7500 rep give you? A lack of penalties for toxic behavior. Why should that have to be earned unless it was somehow lost?
You seem, IMO, to be looking at "0" rep as bad rep. I look at "0" as "lack of" and unproven rep. Correct me if I am miscomprehending you.
By the time that reputation affects settlements and training, the reputation will be established. Low level skill training should absolutely be possible with slightly negative, "0", or slightly positive rep. (for the basics at least). It is my belief that "0" reputation will not affect a settlement in a positive or negative way at all. New players coming in will either harm or help their settlement's average as their reputation falls or rises through play.
They will be a commodity for their potential. Not for signing on.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf. If you exile all "greys" I imagine it would hurt your settlement quite a bit. But not exiling a few troublemakers.
I have said it elsewhere. As a prelude to war a settlement"s territory will be flooded with "grey" troublemakers, profiteers, mercenaries, opportunists, scavengers, etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Andius
A thought occurs. *ding!* Are you advocating that starting with high rep would be better because it will protect new players?
That is how I interpreted Andius' intent.
We also have to remember that Reputation as defined by GW is not reputation as defined by Webster. It is not a community driven metric, rather a metagame measure of how well you "play with others".
I can see the argument either way, you start class with an A, a perfect grade, because you have 100% of the possible points.
Likewise, I can see the argument that there can be no measure of how well one plays with others if there is not history to base it on.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf. If you exile all "greys" I imagine it would hurt your settlement quite a bit. But not exiling a few troublemakers.I have said it elsewhere. As a prelude to war a settlement"s territory will be flooded with "grey" troublemakers, profiteers, mercenaries, opportunists, scavengers, etc.
The exiles still won't hurt trade if you opt to use a lot of players with exile rights rather than a "block all greys" policy.
Also at that point the group under attack will probably recall their offensive (and likely most elite) forces to defend so they might not be left unable to enforce their laws.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes.@ Andius
A thought occurs. *ding!* Are you advocating that starting with high rep would be better because it will protect new players?
Hmmm... Another thing then: Are "ready to role" full rep players a good idea, considering the ease with which they can be pumped out and the havoc they could cause? The havoc that you described earlier?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
NBSI seems Lawful Evil. We should think about how to make that work.
Hi rep newbies turns newbie characters into exploitable zergs.
Two follow up questions.
1. Will recruiting newbs harm settlements trying to maintain high reputations?
2. Who is reputation supposed to be protecting?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm more in favor of characters starting out as True Neutral and with a 0 Reputation, a complete clean slate.
I'd rather see no automatic recovery of either alignment or reputation.
I'm in favor of alignment shifts and reputation gains and loses being universal or equal, without regard of whom you commit your acts with or against.
Every choice you make will have meaning. All redemption is actively earned. Your alignment is a true reflection of what you have done.
Having both alignment and reputation work this way is far easier for GW to implement as well. No need for a slide ruler to determine what impact an action will have, you'll know what it will cost before you do it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
NBSI seems Lawful Evil. We should think about how to make that work.
Hi rep newbies turns newbie characters into exploitable zergs.
Two follow up questions.
1. Will recruiting newbs harm settlements trying to maintain high reputations?
2. Who is reputation supposed to be protecting?
1. The influence you gain from recruiting and training new players will outweigh the marginal negative impact of admitting large numbers of 0 Rep noobs. It is doubtful that any settlement has an average Reputation of + 7500, unless it sacrifices population.
2. Reputation is not meant to protect anyone, it is an indicator of how someone has been interacting with others. But, as an indicator, it is only accurate at either extreme. Those that are in the middle would give you no insight as to if they are on their way up or down.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1. The influence you gain from recruiting and training new players will outweigh the marginal negative impact of admitting large numbers of 0 Rep noobs. It is doubtful that any settlement has an average Reputation of + 7500, unless it sacrifices population.
2. Reputation is not meant to protect anyone, it is an indicator of how someone has been interacting with others. But, as an indicator, it is only accurate at either extreme. Those that are in the middle would give you no insight as to if they are on their way up or down.
Amusingly, I could not not agree more on the first...nor disagree more on the second. We have odd overlaps and discords in our thinking. I suppose it keeps things interesting.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Amusingly, I could not not agree more on the first...nor disagree more on the second. We have odd overlaps and discords in our thinking. I suppose it keeps things interesting.1. The influence you gain from recruiting and training new players will outweigh the marginal negative impact of admitting large numbers of 0 Rep noobs. It is doubtful that any settlement has an average Reputation of + 7500, unless it sacrifices population.
2. Reputation is not meant to protect anyone, it is an indicator of how someone has been interacting with others. But, as an indicator, it is only accurate at either extreme. Those that are in the middle would give you no insight as to if they are on their way up or down.
That just means that one of us is crazy, or maybe we both are?
But actually, what is it about 2 you disagree with?
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would be a huge mistake to make recruiting newbies hurt a Settlement. In fact we want the opposite to be true - you should get an advantage for adding newbies.
Reputation isn't a protection mechanism. It's a mechanism for allowing Settlements to make informed meaningful tradeoffs between various types of actions and developing character abilities.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It would be a huge mistake to make recruiting newbies hurt a Settlement. In fact we want the opposite to be true - you should get an advantage for adding newbies.
Reputation isn't a protection mechanism. It's a mechanism for allowing Settlements to make informed meaningful tradeoffs between various types of actions and developing character abilities.
I'm not even going to say more than, thanks.....
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
NBSI seems Lawful Evil. We should think about how to make that work.
Might as well just use the trespass mechanic. Then, as someone proposed in another thread, have the loss from corruption recoverable. In this case, trespassers must be killed to recover influence loss from corruption. People would be given a UI warning before they moved into such a hex, that settlement x which owns the hex the traveler is moving into has closed its borders. Or, more preferably, there would be subtle environmental clues. This would deter all but those who specifically seek to mess with the owners of settlement x...those looking for conflict.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Reputation isn't a protection mechanism. It's a mechanism for allowing Settlements to make informed meaningful tradeoffs between various types of actions and developing character abilities.
Would it not be a fair statement that the reason certain actions lower reputation is to protect the community from rampant abuse of those actions and that a greater reputation penalty for killing someone is a form of protection?
I mean we're really just debating terms but the heart of the question is why should killing someone who's advanced in the game in a high rep manner be more highly penalized than killing a complete newb? That is the group that is most vulnerable to being lost if they experience a toxic atmosphere.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Reputation isn't a protection mechanism. It's a mechanism for allowing Settlements to make informed meaningful tradeoffs between various types of actions and developing character abilities.Would it not be a fair statement that the reason certain actions lower reputation is to protect the community from rampant abuse of those actions and that a greater reputation penalty for killing someone is a form of protection?
I mean we're really just debating terms but the heart of the question is why should killing someone who's advanced in the game in a high rep manner be more highly penalized than killing a complete newb? That is the group that is most vulnerable to being lost if they experience a toxic atmosphere.
What I pulled out of Ryan's post is that the "settlement" is unit of leverage. I think what Ryan's getting at is the the leverage isn't at the individual level--they're not trying to (directly) influence actors. Rather, they're trying to influence behavior at the level of collectives, who have contextual, local info to make informed choices.
So they really aren't trying to protect players, newb or veteran. They're trying to leverage social structure, so that those social structures have stakes in how PvP interactions are conducted.
Is that analysis close, Ryan?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I could definitely see the benefits to making new characters higher rep than +0. But perhaps not max reputation to start, and instead something like +3750? I'd like for a place to go up from the start, though I can't really articulate well why that is. I think the reasons are twofold: first, having fresh characters at max rep right out the gate could see some potential abuses; second, the meaning of a +7500 character is somewhat degraded by having every character start there.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Reputation is meant to be a measure of what the character has been done.
I you want to protect newbies, mark them as newbie. And make it a big rep hit if "inappropriate" actions if they are unfledged. This could be manipulated (hordes of newbies -- esp. if there is a free trial period). Hmm, free trial, but must be against credit card -- not charged for first (???). Only "first" charters get free time. That starts the clock for all connected to that card. after that (??week??) all characters are no longer newbie, just inexperienced.
Who am I to say GW should offer free trial or how it should happen.
lam
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm going to hold firmly to the position: whatever the reputation newbs start at should be the reputation where penalties for killing you should be maxed. Maybe if some of the newbie content puts you there before you would generally leave the safezones it will be ok but there should never be a class of players who incur a higher penalty when killed than newbs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It would be a huge mistake to make recruiting newbies hurt a Settlement. In fact we want the opposite to be true - you should get an advantage for adding newbies.
I could see Rep contribution to a settlement be proportional to the "experience level" of the character, so low "experience" characters have a much lower impact on the average Rep of the Settlement. Vets reps effect the Reputation of the Settlement much more.
I would counter that (and also fulfill the second half of Ryan's point) by making Influence inversely proportional to the "experience level" of the character. Low experience characters provide more Influence for their achievements.
This actually has some cool correlations with real social structures.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you want to protect newer players (like how Lam said) put some sort of tag or something on them that marks them as such and keeps them protected or something until they hit some exp spent threshold. Maybe while they are under this protection, to prevent abuse, they are limited in some manor. Just something not horrible but enough that people don't stay "new" for ever for the protection.
Reputation (as others have said) should be a measure of how a player interacts and follows the in-game rules set by GW. Basically what ryan said.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A medium rep player will deal with most of these and sometimes kill off people they "just don't like" for instance if I killed anyone who aggravated me on the forums.
That's how I would like it anyway.
First, my bolding for emphasis. Also, I included the last part because it seems to reference your whole post (including the first quoted portion above), which would lead me to believe that the first portion above is not a hypothetical, but your possible intended action.
Question - are you saying you intend to potentially kill people in-game because they aggravate you on the forums?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Andius, don't use rep (standing in community) to protect newbies. DO I trust trading with newbies who may be clueless vs knowing they are clueless?
If you want to protect them, then protect them as newbie, not create artificial rep. A newbie with negative rep, gets little or no protection. But do not gift rep. Rep is what the character does in game.
Suppose I create 100 newbies with middle to high rep. You trust them; and they have your tail end and all your friends. It will take a while for them to burn rep, but you trusted them. and they take all you have.
If they start with newbie mark, but have low rep, you will know better.
You are using rep in a way not intended for a feature not intended.
I am throwing out a new concept, a marked character. computers can handle that. Maybe hard to do TT (FtF to P&P). Flagged charters can be PvP for "reasons". Marked characters may have consequences for PvP. I throw this to the debs for balancing those who should have some protection. If debs chose to go this way, how is it protected from being gamed.
lam
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A medium rep player will deal with most of these and sometimes kill off people they "just don't like" for instance if I killed anyone who aggravated me on the forums.
That's how I would like it anyway.
First, my bolding for emphasis. Also, I included the last part because it seems to reference your whole post (including the first quoted portion above), which would lead me to believe that the first portion above is not a hypothetical, but your possible intended action.
Question - are you saying you intend to potentially kill people in-game because they aggravate you on the forums?
No. You can see another part of the thread where I said I hoped to make TEO's minimum rep +5000, though I'm likely to amend that if newb rep is 0. It's a hypothetical. The idea is a medium rep player should regenerate rep fast enough to kill you if you tick them off or give them a reason. A low rep player kills you because "lol!"
Suppose I create 100 newbies with middle to high rep. You trust them; and they have your tail end and all your friends. It will take a while for them to burn rep, but you trusted them. and they take all you have.
If you trust someone because they are high rep you will get taken for all you have anyway. I trust a high rep to generally not attack me. But I'm not going to ask them to hold my back or guard and important shipment based on rep alone.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would agree with those who believe that characters should begin the game with 0 Reputation. First, not all new characters are played by new players. Giving new characters 750 positive Reputation points to potentially burn through with undesired behavior seems contrary to the purpose of the Reputation system. If Reputation represents a visible measurement of player behavior (at least those that can be tracked by the game), I want positive Reputation to be generated by performing positive actions in-game. Gifting new characters with that much positive Reputation strikes me as both getting something for nothing and providing a false representation of that player. Seeing 750 Rep on a character because their actions are that positive means something completely different from seeing 750 Rep on a new player, but unless new players are marked as such, no one will know the differences. Put another way, the player who earned their 750 Rep will be much more trustworthy, at least based on their game-tracked behavior. The New player's 750 Rep doesn't tell me a thing about their play style.
Furthermore, by starting at 0 Reputation, players must make good choices about their actions right off the bat, lest they fall into the negative range. They should need to build up that positive buffer that allows for a bad actions once in a blue moon. Those bad action shouldn't be occurring so often we need a buffer on day one of rolling a new character.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No. You can see another part of the thread where I said I hoped to make TEO's minimum rep +5000, though I'm likely to amend that if newb rep is 0. It's a hypothetical. The idea is a medium rep player should regenerate rep fast enough to kill you if you tick them off or give them a reason. A low rep player kills you because "lol!"
I was not questioning your intended Rep guidelines for TEO or what level of Rep a character needs to have to afford being able to kill people simply because those people tick them off.
My question was about what you included as a reason for killing someone in-game - that they aggravated you on the forums.
In that you have seemed to be a very vocal supporter for meaningful PvP and meaningful killing in-game, that you seemed to be suggesting that being ticked off by posts on the forum was an acceptable reason for killing someone's character struck me as rather odd.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm in favor of alignment shifts and reputation gains and loses being universal or equal, without regard of whom you commit your acts with or against.
The varying of alignment and rep losses based upon the alignment or rep of the victim is actually quite elegant. Just looking at good and evil: good takes a big hit for attacking other good outside of war. Good can attack evil because they take a small hit. Evil can attack good or evil because they can ignore hits. It's actually well balanced and within the alignment strictures of the Pathfinder world.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm in favor of alignment shifts and reputation gains and loses being universal or equal, without regard of whom you commit your acts with or against.The varying of alignment and rep losses based upon the alignment or rep of the victim is actually quite elegant. Just looking at good and evil: good takes a big hit for attacking other good outside of war. Good can attack evil because they take a small hit. Evil can attack good or evil because they can ignore hits. It's actually well balanced and within the alignment strictures of the Pathfinder world.
But what you describe is alignment, which is a role-played metric. Reputation is measuring player behavior. Are we now saying that if I'm usually well behaved, it isn't as bad if I act badly? That seems to be giving licence to high rep players to kill whomever they wish, for whatever reason, as long as they don't do it too often. Strikes me as rewarding good behavior with the ability to act poorly.
The fact that you may have high Rep already allows you to drop every now and again. Charging high Rep players less for their poor behavior seems likely to prompt even more bad behavior.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Hobs
Killing someone because you don't like them is meaningful. I can and will be targeted out in-game because of people I've aggravated on the forums. If not by ambushes then by assassination attempts, feuds, and war declarations. A great deal if this game's content will come down to grudges and personality differences.
Meaningless is when someone kills a newb because "lol" and that newb is left standing there saying "How the hell did that even benefit him? How could I have even avoided that?" When they ride up and the newb spits at them and insults their mother then that newb will be very aware of why their head is rolling on the ground and what they could have done to prevent it.
I'm not saying it's lawful, good, or even a high rep action but it's not meaningless or toxic. I think the lesser penalized medium rep should afford enough rep for such behavior.
If I intend to stay neutral-good / high rep there's absolutely no way I could kill unsanctioned targets just because I don't like them but just because a policy is actually bad for me doesn't mean I don't support it if it's good for the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm in favor of alignment shifts and reputation gains and loses being universal or equal, without regard of whom you commit your acts with or against.The varying of alignment and rep losses based upon the alignment or rep of the victim is actually quite elegant. Just looking at good and evil: good takes a big hit for attacking other good outside of war. Good can attack evil because they take a small hit. Evil can attack good or evil because they can ignore hits. It's actually well balanced and within the alignment strictures of the Pathfinder world.But what you describe is alignment, which is a role-played metric. Reputation is measuring player behavior. Are we now saying that if I'm usually well behaved, it isn't as bad if I act badly? That seems to be giving licence to high rep players to kill whomever they wish, for whatever reason, as long as they don't do it too often. Strikes me as rewarding good behavior with the ability to act poorly.
The fact that you may have high Rep already allows you to drop every now and again. Charging high Rep players less for their poor behavior seems likely to prompt even more bad behavior.
It is fairly clear that high end reputation needs to be difficult to achieve, maintain, and coded somehow against abuse.
The system, as described, is pretty much in favor of High Rep and to the detriment of Low. That is how it should be, IMO. So long as my own actions, choices, decisions put me at either end of the scale or somewhere in the middle.
If anything, I could possibly get behind a little bit heavier penalties for unregulated PVP vs. players with any rep at or above "0". That might help the newer players a bit as Andius suggests.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But what you describe is alignment, which is a role-played metric. Reputation is measuring player behavior. Are we now saying that if I'm usually well behaved, it isn't as bad if I act badly? That seems to be giving licence to high rep players to kill whomever they wish, for whatever reason, as long as they don't do it too often. Strikes me as rewarding good behavior with the ability to act poorly.
The fact that you may have high Rep already allows you to drop every now and again. Charging high Rep players less for their poor behavior seems likely to prompt even more bad behavior.
If you want to look at Reputation, the mechanic in place is the same as good/evil. Rep loss is based on the victim's rep, the same as the evil hit is based on victim's good/evil score. High Rep is still discouraged from attacking other high Reps (ie, people who rarely attack unflagged). Everyone takes the same hit for attacking low reps - the people who have killed lots of unflagged characters. And if very low reps want to try to attack a high rep, they have nothing to lose.
High Reps can't "kill whomever they want," they'll take serious hits for attacking other high Reps. And everyone has more leeway in killing low reps - that's part of the stick to discourage us all from being low rep. I don't think I've advocated for high Rep players to pay less than other players for poor behavior.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I'm going to hold firmly to the position: whatever the reputation newbs start at should be the reputation where penalties for killing you should be maxed. Maybe if some of the newbie content puts you there before you would generally leave the safezones it will be ok but there should never be a class of players who incur a higher penalty when killed than newbs.
You realize that this position is also "There should not be any way for a new player to increase the reputation cost associated with murdering them."?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You realize that this position is also "There should not be any way for a new player to increase the reputation cost associated with murdering them."?I'm going to hold firmly to the position: whatever the reputation newbs start at should be the reputation where penalties for killing you should be maxed. Maybe if some of the newbie content puts you there before you would generally leave the safezones it will be ok but there should never be a class of players who incur a higher penalty when killed than newbs.
Yes. Innocent until proven guilty.
Put yourself outside the shoes of a EE backer and think about how you would feel if you had to sit and wait or grind a stat to make the penalty for killing you higher. As long as you aren't doing anything wrong it should assume you're doing things right.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I suppose I don't see how it matters if it's the player's settlement being punished for it's members overall behavioror if it's the player being punished for each kill.
If they system is -2400 for killing someone at +5000 and -500 for someone at -5000, then assuming it follows a straight line or a curve from there 0 is not a good starting rep for newbs IMO.
I don't see why at any level, killing some veteran crafter or a vet PvPer who never fights unsanctioned should be considered less acceptable than killing a newb, and I say this as someone intending to have a +7500-5000 rep. If newbs start at 0 then it should be -2400 (or whatever number we go with) for +7500-0 and give a different benefit for that alignment range because making it more costly to kill people certainly is a protection mechanic.
Unless the 2400-500 rep loss for unsanctioned kills has been amended?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Where did this -2400 rep hit for one kill come from? Such an extreme penalty for killing just one character who may have incited the incident will lead to Noob Alts Rep griefing their rivals or even griefing random players.
You have to remember, even griefers will be noobs and as a matter of fact, most will almost always be noobs (xp point wise). Being a new character in and if itself is not a virtue that needs to be protected at all costs.