Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. I don't like to assume innocent until proven guilty if every person is allowed to wipe clean their slate at any time.
2. I think other protections for noobs will already be in place, and a +7500 starting rep can do more harm than good compared to these other protections. The starter areas will be hard to attack people in in the first place, GW can give a buff to noob accounts which further protects them in starter zones if that doesn't seem enough already, and if people persist in attacking noobs for no reason GW has told us they will punish those people out-of-game, with bans or whatever else they want. These all sound like sufficient protections to me, and a lot less abusable than a free +7500 rep.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Congratulations on making this only the second 1000-post thread on the boards. How odd (not at all) that the previous one was PVP-oriented as well.
Yes, they both are based on PVP, but from opposite perspectives. This thread I find to be of an agenda to "label" and then "limit" PVP, while the thread:
PVP and Settlement Politics Pre EE - Early EE
Was meant to define and then potentially expand PVP based on political aspects of the game (both meta and in-game).
Since that older thread we have had an expansion of PVP through:
Feuds
Factions
Raids of Outposts
POIs
Caravans (potentially same as outposts?)
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Regarding new character rep penalties: I think that new players, virtually all of which will have new characters, are much more likely to not understand the etiquette and expectations within PFO. That makes them more likely to do things which would warrant a reputation-loss murder, such as ignoring instructions to refrain from over mining an area.
I would like to see reputation penalties based on the ratio of positive to negative reputation, rather than the sum. The new player that has -1(overmining) and +0 would have very little rep penalty.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A system that is one size fits all is harder to game then one that has a sliding rule set based on who breaks the rules against whom.
Min / Maxers and Griefers are going to pick apart these systems to find the optimum alignment, class features, and reputation and then they will grind to it and then spree kill to their hearts content. As soon as their consequences get bad enough, character wipe and start from scratch.
These guys get their enjoyment for causing grief, not developing characters over time. The threat of negative, long term consequences means nothing to them. They are content with being individually weak, but traveling in packs to compensate for it... IE. Suicide Gank Squads
If your primary concern is for the new player being protected from non consensual PVP, then do the following:
1. Starter NPC Settlements: No PVP; Very Limited Training; Limiting Monetary Cap on Sale Items; Limited Bank Slots and Balance Limit; No Entry for Level > X; No Entry for Settlement Titled Character Y; No Entry with an Assassination, Bounty or Death Curse contract on one's head; No Entry for active Feud or War target.
Once a new character reaches level X, they find themselves logged in at an Inn, just outside the border of that settlement. That Inn will have a bank, so they can gather what they need to travel.
Also in the bank will be a note:
"Now your adventure really begins!"1. Do not believe you are safe
2. Do not travel solo, unless you enjoy great risk.
3. Do not carry what you can't afford to lose.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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?
The system was outlined in the I Shot a Man in Reno Blog (the one that addressed the various flags). It that blog entry they gave us three data points:
1. Killing an average high-reputation player (5,000 Reputation) will cost about 2,400.
2. Killing a player with Reputation 0 who has no flags will cost about 500 Reputation.
3. Killing an average low-reputation player (-5,000 Reputation) will cost about 16 Reputation.
If that system is still in place and new players star with 0 Reputation, the cost for killing a brand new character would be 500.
After Jerky NewPlayer kills 10 of his neighbors with a 500 hit for each one, it now costs anyone else only 16 rep to put him out of our misery. The 500 point hit is high enough that farming 0 Rep new players is going to be expensive.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
@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.
I'm not being naive here. I'm fully aware that many people who intend to play PFO have no intention of role-playing or keeping in-game and out-of-game separate. But as the head of one of the larger guilds, a community leader, and one of the more prolific posters on this forum, I think there is a relevant distinction to be made. After all, we aren't talking about killing toxic, Goon Swarm-ish style players here. If you plan on targeting people from the forums, you're potentially talking about players who have an equally vested interest in the PFO community and may have been as productively active on the forums as yourself. Their only crime and the reason for their character's death...as a player, they aggravate you. What meaning does this have in-game? How is this truly any more meaningful in the context of the game than someone who kills simply because they feel like it?
Recently, there has been an attempt - not always successful, but noticeable - to reduce the toxicity of the forums by keeping arguments focused on the topic, rather than on the posters - to respect a fellow player, even if you greatly dislike their position on a given subject. So when the context of our behavior as players changes from the forum to the game itself, will you be playing the game for the game - responding to game events/actions/etc. while still respecting the players behind the character - or will you be using it as a vehicle for getting back at players who aggravate you out-of-game? To do the latter nearly sounds like killing another's character simply to get back at the player by making their game experience miserable...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Let me re-affirm since you left it out, I won't be killing targets because I "don't like them" though I would be a liar to state I won't pursue targets I both have just cause to kill and dislike a little more vengefully. The only players who I'm aware of that will be hunting people purely based on dislike are not TEO or TSV members, and at least one of them has stated he will be targeting me.
I'm defending the right of players to do so without being labeled "toxic". Just like friendships based on interactions here are generally assumed to transfer into IC relationships I think we can assume OOC rivalries and enmity will as well. And many players won't care at all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Let me re-affirm since you left it out, I won't be killing targets because I "don't like them" though I would be a liar to state I won't pursue targets I both have just cause to kill and dislike a little more vengefully. The only players who I'm aware of that will be hunting people purely based on dislike are not TEO or TSV members, and at least one of them has stated he will be targeting me.
I'm defending the right of players to do so without being labeled "toxic". Just like friendships based on interactions here are generally assumed to transfer into IC relationships I think we can assume OOC rivalries and enmity will as well. And many players won't care at all.
Well there goes my post about about taking your previous post as a hypothetical and not a philosophy. I am sad to say that I am a little disappointed in your idea of meaningful gameplay.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But I did not say you were killing them because you didn't like them. I quoted your own words..."for instance if I killed anyone who aggravated me on the forums."
From a positive, community building standpoint, I don't believe attacking a player's character as payback for aggravating you on the forums does much for fostering an atmosphere where posters feel free to voice their opinions and disagree with one another in a productive manner. More likely (because it has happened in nearly every other game), it will increase the toxicity of the forums, rather than help diminish them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The plain reality is, targeting people that disagree with you here over philosophy or speculative hypotheticals rather than in-game actions/opportunities is toxic.
The good thing is that if you pursue it much, it will consume so many resources, play time, and so much effort that it will likely be just as toxic for you as the persons that you chase down.
Edited for clarity of opinion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Recently, there has been an attempt - not always successful, but noticeable - to reduce the toxicity of the forums by keeping arguments focused on the topic, rather than on the posters - to respect a fellow player, even if you greatly dislike their position on a given subject.
These forums are 9.5/10 very good. Compared to other forums dropping to 5/10 and even 2/10. That said I look forward to the Goblin Squad sub-forum so that this high standard can continue either due to larger numbers of forumers or drop in standards for some reason.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Dear lord. I was holding the names back in the interest of not smearing people but if we're all going to start jumping on me and talk about how disappointed we are in the fact that I will not be killing people based purely on insults but support a player's right to do so...
I wrote up what I think a medium-rep character should be with Deacon Wolf of Pax Golgotha in mind, based on a conversation we had on PFO Fan TS in which he told me as a lawful-evil overlord he feels he should be able to kill people who insult him. To be fair, I don't believe he specified if that's on the forums or in-game but I don't see how it makes much difference.
It was a perfectly civil conversation and I fully support his right to do so. I agree, it is perfectly meaningful within the context of this game and very in-character for an evil overlord.
It is not a policy I support within TEO, because it's not in keeping with our alignment. But I do support the right of evil (as a character alignment) players like Deacon to kill those who offer them insult.
This is something that is GOING to happen in-game. Like I said, I already know of an assassin hunting me because they don't like my stances I've voiced on the forums. This is not a thing that benefits me, or that I condone within TEO. But I know why they are after me and what I could have done to stop it. They aren't there for the "lol" factor. They are there because they perceive that I have provoked them, and I am fine with that.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
A policy of trying to win arguements by combat in-game, when thise arguements are about fact or opinion and originated on the fora, is not only toxic but pointless.
That us different, however, from arranging an enmity or rivalry on the forums and carrying it into the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A policy of trying to win arguements by combat in-game, when thise arguements are about fact or opinion and originated on the fora, is not only toxic but pointless.
I don't believe it has anything to do with winning the argument, it's about letting off steam. And it's not about people's opinions, it's about the tone in which they are conveyed.
If you put things out there in an aggressive tone I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume it will spark aggression that will likely spill into the game. That's human nature. Anyone claiming they can keep all emotions a player sparks in them OOC completely out of their IC interactions is either a liar or a robot. I find it easier to assume something has happened IC to change my opinion of that person.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair Andius, anyone that goes after or targets anyone else for forum opinions is acting in a toxic manner. Anyone that states that they will, is acting in a toxic manner. They should have been called out as well. Apologies to you for being the focus here when it should be anyone that does so.
Most are not so easily intimidated, but if such threats serve to stifle anyone from posting their ideas, opinions, or thoughts (in as friendly a manner as we can) then we all lose.
Of course this is all just MY opinion anyway.
@ Everyone
Have a Happy Thanksgiving if you celebrate it anywhere! :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A policy of trying to win arguements by combat in-game, when thise arguements are about fact or opinion and originated on the fora, is not only toxic but pointless.
That us different, however, from arranging an enmity or rivalry on the forums and carrying it into the game.
I agree with this.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A policy of trying to win arguements by combat in-game, when thise arguements are about fact or opinion and originated on the fora, is not only toxic but pointless.I don't believe it has anything to do with winning the argument, it's about letting off steam. And it's not about people's opinions, it's about the tone in which they are conveyed.
If you put things out there in an aggressive tone I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume it will spark aggression that will likely spill into the game. That's human nature. Anyone claiming they can keep all emotions a player sparks in them OOC completely out of their IC interactions is either a liar or a robot. I find it easier to assume something has happened IC to change my opinion of that person.
So, what if a new player comes on the forums and calls someone out, pisses them off...will you support the right of the offended person to kill noobs or the noobs right to be unmolested by vets?
Also, I must ask...what is the fundamental difference between this...and player x suggesting doing/wearing arbitrary thing y upsets them....then simply "letting off steam" when they see y.
This, to me, at least as currently presented, is the epitome of unmeaningful interaction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'll submit again, this isn't about opinion but tone. It's not about winning an argument, but about being pissed off.
Anyone who wants to avoid making forum enemies shouldn't censor their opinion but worry about how they put it across, because whether you consider it meaningful or not people will war dec you, and feud you, and hunt you down in-game if you piss them off on the forums.
It's a universal truth of MMO's and one which I've always found 1000% more acceptable than people running around slaughtering each-other because "lol."
There is no point fighting it or trying to amend my opinion on it because even if you 100% win me over and I rebrand TEO as an organization that's sole purpose is stopping forum aggression from becoming IC aggression and am joined by every other EE backer we would be fighting human nature itself. And we would lose.
So, what if a new player comes on the forums and calls someone out, pisses them off...will you support the right of the offended person to kill noobs or the noobs right to be unmolested by vets?
Depends on what the newb said. If it was vulgar / provocative enough I will probably just stand back and let them get what's coming to them. I'm not going to help the vet beat them up if that's what you're asking, but I'm not going to intercede to save a troll.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel that Andius is being misrepresented here, and that the discussion is being pushed into an area where basically everyone agrees and instead a straw-man is being attacked. Andius is not saying that people he has a differing of opinions immediately go onto his s&$&-list. Rather he is saying that those people that he has a differing of opinions with, who ALSO act in an aggressive and untoward manner while discussing those opinions, should expect in game retribution. Which is not toxic.
“So, what if a new player comes on the forums and calls someone out, pisses them off...will you support the right of the offended person to kill noobs or the noobs right to be unmolested by vets?”
If a new player comes onto the forums and acts in an aggressive manner towards me, I believe that I have the right to seek retribution in game, yes. That he is new has nothing to do with it; if you act like a dick towards me out of game I will respond in kind in game. I won't grief you, I won't corpse camp you. But if I can I will feud your company, or I will SAD you if I come across you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair Andius, anyone that goes after or targets anyone else for forum opinions is acting in a toxic manner. Anyone that states that they will, is acting in a toxic manner. They should have been called out as well. Apologies to you for being the focus here when it should be anyone that does so.
Most are not so easily intimidated, but if such threats serve to stifle anyone from posting their ideas, opinions, or thoughts (in as friendly a manner as we can) then we all lose.
Sorry, I've always figured that the forum is merely an extension of the game. No one is limiting their discussions to IC or OOC, though some might claim that they are completely separate from their characters when they get called on something.
I've already tempered my discussions in the forums, as well as not discussing my intentions in-game because my view is that forums and the game are and will be connected. This is the public square in the pre-starter town as far as I'm concerned. There's no reason at all for people's IG characters start with a clean slate; people are welcome to use a different name to hide their forum past, of course.
If we worry about someone killing a character in game for something that was said in the forums, maybe what was said in the forums was toxic, and the character killing was an appropriate response. The new character that gets loud and obnoxious here - well, if he gets his comeuppance in game maybe he'll learn to be more polite on the boards.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
lol
It is anyone's right to let someone that has offended them know that "I am gonna git you sucka!".
It is also important that some people point out that they feel it only adds to and escalates the hostility to do so. Neither the Ahole that posts mean things, nor the person that threatens them with in-game revenge is doing much good.
I sure hope that there is some kind of KOS recording mechanic in the game. I mostly use them for reference. I can assure you that no one will be on mine though, until they do something in-game to deserve it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Deinira: Just some good old-fashioned sabre-rattling going on... the traders will trade, the sailors will sail.
Be that as it may,
I was reading this earlier: CCP Six Month[s] Update
- "Murder Incorporated""EVE Online Fraud nets "Bad Bobby" £42,000"
- ""EVE Online player loses a spaceship approximately $9,000"
- "A Virtual Bank With Real Woes"
- "Billions Stolen in Online Robbery"
So I think it's a two way street.
|
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?
I see how it matters--this is very comparable to what we do in public policy: sometimes we try to improve outcomes by affecting individual behavior (e.g. personal choices about risk, like smoking or unprotected sex), and sometimes through interventions at the population level (e.g. changing diagnostic criteria or information sharing policies).
Andius, you don't see how it matters because you're operating at too low a level of analysis, and more more importantly, looking at the wrong object of analysis. Ryan is trying to affect social structures at the population level, not the individual level, by giving social structures actionable information. The goal is to create certain kinds of like-aligned social structures, not to protect high risk members of a population (newbs).
I want to challenge you here to stop repeating yourself over and over again, and instead to start listening and doing complex, critical thinking. The lead dev just laid out one of the biggest design nuggets we've got so far, and instead of trying to understand it, you're saying stuff like "we're really just debating terms."
How are you going to be a successful political leader if you don't/can't pick up on this kind of critical stuff? There's no doubt you have the commitment and the desire to lead, but if you lack the critical thinking skills to do analysis, or more likely, you're so enamored of your own voice you don't give yourself the chance to do analytical work, you're going to fail. If you misunderstand systemic relationships, you will be repeatedly surprised by outcomes: repeatedly smacked across the face with a 2x4 of reality.
This matters to me, as I want other good-aligned entities to succeed.
|
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.
As someone else stated the "I Shot a Man in Reno Just to Watch Him Die" blog.
If you read back over the past few pages you will find that I am in-fact strongly opposed to the -2400 hit. But if it applies to anyone it should apply to newbs.
|
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.
As someone else stated the "I Shot a Man in Reno Just to Watch Him Die" blog.
If you read back over the past few pages you will find that I am in-fact strongly opposed to the -2400 hit. But if it applies to anyone it should apply to newbs.
I've posted elsewhere on how GW can protect noobs, without having those concerns spill over into the rest of the game world, applying a chilling effect on PvP overall.
Morbis and I (along with Hobs as well) had a discussion earlier and he planted I thought that none of us have actually discussed or it wasn't picked up on. I will give him the opportunity to post it first. Besides if I post it the response would be immediately negative, different messenger.... Same message = different reception.
I'd rather just Fav his point than make it and cite his thoughts.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I see how it matters--this is very comparable to what we do in public policy: sometimes we try to improve outcomes by affecting individual behavior (e.g. personal choices about risk, like smoking or unprotected sex), and sometimes through interventions at the population level (e.g. changing diagnostic criteria or information sharing policies).
Andius, you don't see how it matters because you're operating at too low a level of analysis, and more more importantly, looking at the wrong object of analysis. Ryan is trying to affect social structures at the population level, not the individual level, by giving social structures actionable information. The goal is to create certain kinds of like-aligned social structures, not to protect high risk members of a population (newbs).
I get the point you're going for. But my point is it all boils down to character behavior in the end. Instead of targeting a single player and giving them consequences based on their actions it's targeting a community of players and delivering them consequences based on the overall actions of their community.
What we have outlined here is that when a player kills someone in unsanctioned PvP they lose reputation proportional to their target's reputation. I mean, that's a fact unless something has changed and I missed the announcement. So what you are saying is rather than the consequences being directly placed upon that player, they are placed upon their settlement and the settlement's reputation as a whole is a reflection of how that settlement behaves.
I'm boiling it down back to the base level, which is that player committing an action that at some level sparks a consequence. If the penalty is lesser for killing a newb on an individual level, then that player is more likely to kill newbs. If the penalty is lesser for killing newbs on a settlement level, that settlement is less likely to discourage their members from killing newbs.
The end outcome, is that killing newbs will be more common than killing veterans who strive for a high alignment. That as a whole, the outcome will be "Well I can't kill Xeen's crafting alt that grinded rep because that will put me below X rep and my settlement will get mad at me... but I can kill 3 newbs because that will keep me within the accepted alignment."
The point is the entire purpose of reputation is to curtail certain outcomes. Chief among them rampant abuse of unsanctioned PvP / killing for the sake of killing. I'm afraid that the system as described will not produce the desired outcome if the penalties for killing newbs are too low because players are smart enough to pick and choose their targets based on the penalties they will receive. If players desiring to kill for the sake of killing killed all players equally regardless or reputation status it could work, but I think they're going to be smart enough to realize "Hey we can kill X high rep players before we suffer serious consequences or X times 5 newbs! Let's go kill X times 4 newbs!!!"
My fear is that in the currently outline system the outcome generated will be "Don't mess with people who grinded up their rep because if we do that very much it will penalize our settlement" and I don't see that as a desirable outcome. Perhaps your argument would make more sense to me if you outlined the outcome you are trying to achieve.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The end outcome, is that killing newbs will be more common than killing veterans who strive for a high alignment.
I don't think this has to be the case. New players will begin in the starter towns, where the penalty for killing others will be quick and draconian. By the time they're ready to leave, they probably will have encountered two or three recruiters or other agents who will be trying to fit them with a settlement where they will be protected.
New players aren't free to attack, and the drops are going to be pitiful. High rep veterans will have better drops compared to the rep losses, even if the rep loss is 2-5x that of killing a new player.
Anyone farming new players for lulz more than a few times will have a low rep. And *they* will be hunted by other players, if only to advertise to new players that "you'll be safe if you move to settlement X".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If they were in it for the profits, they would issue a Stand and Deliver as if I recall right someone who rejects and SAD and dies leaves behind a higher % of recoverable loot on-top of not incurring a rep slide. Outside the few meaningful reasons for unsanctioned PvP such as eliminating untagged scouts it's going to be all about the "lol" factor.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that young characters will end up being targets far less in PfO than they ever have been in previous similar PVP games.
1. They have the protected starting areas
2. They are still pretty much valueless targets
3. There is a penalty (and it is not really light) for killing them in unregulated PVP which really hasn't been implemented in the same way that it is proposed to be in PfO. (never done this way before)
Even with all of the advertising, rule write ups, etc... it will still take awhile for people to catch on that it is stupid to do so, but they will.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not so sure. With reputation being on a scale, the rich "high value" targets will probably be those that have been around for awhile and have the skills and power needed to become fat targets. There will be plenty of fat targets with all manner of reputation scores. We are encouraged to mostly (if we must choose those not covered by regulated PVP) to choose those fat, juicy cases with lower reps.
Clearly, it is the strategy of the designers to try and influence behavior at a higher social level than to try and adjudicate it on a micro managed, situational, individual level. Too many variables to try and manage every action at the individual level and some small (hopefully) percentage will fall through the cracks.
The neat thing is that with their system, both are achieved.
Remember, profit seekers create meaningful PvP. Discouraging the killing of high value targets has never been a purpose of reputation as far as I understood it. If anything the penalty should be lowered if your target is high value.
Yup.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Remember, profit seekers create meaningful PvP. Discouraging the killing of high value targets has never been a purpose of reputation as far as I understood it. If anything the penalty should be lowered if your target is high value.
I think we are envisioning Rep as different things. You see it as a synchronic metric that hurts the individual on the short term...so if it falls, you simply grind it back up. I for one, and I assume some others, see it as a diachronic measure that does little to the individual but instead changes the opportunities available to the organization(s) the individual belongs to. The choice of how those opportunities are distributed to it's member individuals then falls exclusively upon the organization.
Reputation should not be something that moves quickly, except when you do grievous acts...like killing high rep people. The only people who will be high rep will be those who exclusively participate in what was previously referred to as "sanctioned PvP"...exclusively. Most of us, because we occasionally interact with the environment/other people in "less than sanctioned" ways, will have less than perfect Rep. But, this does not mean we are less than righteous. Reputation is a scale for a reason. I actually think +7500 - +4500 will be high rep, those who rarely if ever participate in any PvP not faction based, +4500 - -4500 will be "normal", those who play the game their own way and utilizing formal and less than formal ways to interact with others, -4500 - -7500 will be low rep, those who simply play the game their way.
Lets not get lost in this false dichotomy of high rep and low rep. It is a gradient for a reason. There is a lot more meaning to the scale than simply the ends.
In my opinion, the reason it is more damaging to Rep to kill "high rep" characters is because the only ones who will have high rep do not participate in most forms of PvP...hence, killing a high rep character is killing a character who has essentially opted out of PvP. No, they are not safe, no they should not be safe, no one is claiming they should be. But, this is incentive for those of us who do want to PvP to leave those who don't, alone.
In my opinion, the reason it is more damaging to Rep to kill "high rep" characters is because the only ones who will have high rep do not participate in most forms of PvP
Not trying to pick holes in your argument and it may be correct however as I understand reputation as detailed it is a pvp measurement. This to me says that high rep is gained through pvp actions as is low rep. If this is correct (which given the devs havent spoken much of rep gaining methods I may not be) then the above statement is false
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Not trying to pick holes in your argument and it may be correct however as I understand reputation as detailed it is a pvp measurement. This to me says that high rep is gained through pvp actions as is low rep. If this is correct (which given the devs havent spoken much of rep gaining methods I may not be) then the above statement is false
In my opinion, the reason it is more damaging to Rep to kill "high rep" characters is because the only ones who will have high rep do not participate in most forms of PvP
Lol ZenPagan,
Mordis and I had this very discussion and I just started a thread on this very subject.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not trying to pick holes in your argument and it may be correct however as I understand reputation as detailed it is a pvp measurement. This to me says that high rep is gained through pvp actions as is low rep. If this is correct (which given the devs havent spoken much of rep gaining methods I may not be) then the above statement is false
In my opinion, the reason it is more damaging to Rep to kill "high rep" characters is because the only ones who will have high rep do not participate in most forms of PvP
True, but what they do participate in...exclusively is what was previously referred to as "sanctioned PvP".
EDIT:
And, I agree with Bluddwolf and Mordis. If I may, I would like to rephrase my previous post (although nothing changed in my intent or what I was originally trying to say):
Reputation should not be something that moves quickly, except when you do grievous acts...like killing high rep people. The only people who will be high rep will be those who exclusively participate in what was previously referred to as "sanctioned PvP", those acts GW encourages us to use...exclusively. Most of us, because we occasionally interact with the environment/other people in not specifically encouraged ways, will have less than perfect Rep. But, this does not mean we are less than righteous. Reputation is a scale for a reason. I actually think +7500 - +4500 will be high rep, those who rarely if ever participate in any non-encouraged behaviours, +4500 - -4500 will be "normal", those who play the game their own way and utilizing a balance of encouraged and not-specifically encouraged ways to interact with others, -4500 - -7500 will be low rep, those who simply play the game their way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Andius, look at your post right above your latest. If you have a high-value target, SAD them or use other rep-positive methods to attack them (depending on why they are a valuable target). The rep system still allows you to "take from the rich", or eliminate key players in enemy settlements, with no penalties.
@Pagan, the idea of reputation only raising with rep-positive PvP sounds like a very promising idea. I wonder what advantages and disadvantages such a system would have compared to rep over time (or "time tax" rep gains with a cap per day).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While the metric rep for a thief may be how successful they have been at SAD; the rep for a city builder may be how many/grand the structures are; for a merchant, how week they have played cost value across different markets; for a crafter, how superior their product; for a harvester, how high end their product.
There is PvP for each of the efforts, even if the primary interaction (the harvester, for instance) is PvE. THe completion is very much related to what they gain from interaction with players.
Thievery and combat is not the definition of all PvP. If you think so, I will provide UNC with a crafter member who will rob you blind.
Lam
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I refuse to operate as if the Reputation system will be a failure. A lot will depend on how much Reputation new chars start with. If it's zero, then the idea that someone could kill a dozen newbies every day and maintain a high Reputation is appalling.I'm certainly not operating from that perspective either. To me, there is absolutely no point to the reputation system and sanctioned/unsanctioned PvP beyond minimizing meaningless/toxic PvP at minimal expense to meaningful/beneficial PvP. I'm sure we both agree on that point?
Indeed.
The assumption I'm operating under is that the sanctioned/unsanctioned PvP won't be able to achieve perfection, with perfection meaning all possible forms of meaningful PvP is sanctioned and all meaningless forms of PvP are unsanctioned. There will be some overlap of the two categories and hard systems just can't account for every possible scenario.
Therefore I think the most perfect reputation and sanctioned/unsanctioned PvP system allows players a bit of wiggle room outside the sanctioned/unsanctioned PvP system before they get nerfed through the floor for meaningful kills that aren't sanctioned. I'm sure this system will require constant tweaking and adjusting but the idea of one kill a month as my wiggle room makes me feel claustrophobic.
First of all, it's not "one kill a month". It's one kill of a High Reputation a!**!+! every month. If there are so many High Reputation a+#*++~s that you personally need to dispatch one every month, then something has gone terribly wrong.
As to the last point, I think newbs should start at +7500 rep since your rep will effect your group. I expect most groups will have a minimum accepted rep rule because of this. For instance I anticipate TEO's will be +5000 but I can pretty much guarantee it won't be lower than the starting rep for newbs. You don't want a system that creates in any group the temptation not to accept newbs because their starting rep put them too low.
Also I would note that minimum rep hit is for killing a -7500, not a 0. At least as far as I understood it when I suggested the numbers I did.
Yeah, there's a bit of a conundrum with respect to Newbies and Reputation. I think Reputation is meant to be a meaningful measure in both directions (High and Low), so it's really not appropriate to give a newbie a High Reputation out of the box. I think this might be part of the reason Ryan feels so strongly about the combination of Reputation and Alignment for the purpose of funneling the a%~+$~&s away from the rest of us.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No, the question is how to acceptably remove the individual from a sensitive location...not to prevent spying. For instance, say Pax and TSV are at war...Golgotha, decides to remain "neutral" but floods TSV settlement/battle lines/formations with high-rep Golgothians. Their neutrality extends only so far as PvP goes...they have no qualms with providing real-time intel to Pax. TSV cannot formally engage the members of Golgotha without then accepting the consequence of fighting on two fronts. TSV has no way to force them to leave if the the engagement is occurring on neutral ground (such as to avoid collateral damage to TSV POIs or outposts). TSV cannot "accidentally" kill them without taking Reputation hits....I have not yet seen a proposed mechanic that will prevent this behaviour.
Disclaimer: All CCs/Settlements/Nations listed in the above are fictional, any similarity to real CCs/Settlements/Nations is purely coincidental (point being, I am not saying any of these groups would do as I hypothesized, so no slight intended).
Did I clarify the point?
Why would it not be appropriate to declare a Feud? Or better yet, have an ally declare a Feud/War?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hmm...
Nihimon wrote:
First of all, it's not "one kill a month". It's three kills of High Reputation a!@&@~*s every month. If there are so many High Reputation a%%%&@+s that you personally need to dispatch more than three a month, then something has gone terribly wrong.
What are you implying? Terribly wrong with the game system or terribly wrong with his choices? I personally think I should be able to kill at least 5 people before I become a murderer. I definitely can picture wanting to kill at least 5 " innocent " jerks a month. Ultima Online worked that way and it was perfect.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why would it not be appropriate to declare a Feud? Or better yet, have an ally declare a Feud/War?No, the question is how to acceptably remove the individual from a sensitive location...not to prevent spying. For instance, say Pax and TSV are at war...Golgotha, decides to remain "neutral" but floods TSV settlement/battle lines/formations with high-rep Golgothians. Their neutrality extends only so far as PvP goes...they have no qualms with providing real-time intel to Pax. TSV cannot formally engage the members of Golgotha without then accepting the consequence of fighting on two fronts. TSV has no way to force them to leave if the the engagement is occurring on neutral ground (such as to avoid collateral damage to TSV POIs or outposts). TSV cannot "accidentally" kill them without taking Reputation hits....I have not yet seen a proposed mechanic that will prevent this behaviour.
Disclaimer: All CCs/Settlements/Nations listed in the above are fictional, any similarity to real CCs/Settlements/Nations is purely coincidental (point being, I am not saying any of these groups would do as I hypothesized, so no slight intended).
Did I clarify the point?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As to the last point, I think newbs should start at +7500 rep since your rep will effect your group. I expect most groups will have a minimum accepted rep rule because of this. For instance I anticipate TEO's will be +5000 but I can pretty much guarantee it won't be lower than the starting rep for newbs. You don't want a system that creates in any group the temptation not to accept newbs because their starting rep put them too low.
Also I would note that minimum rep hit is for killing a -7500, not a 0. At least as far as I understood it when I suggested the numbers I did.
Yeah, there's a bit of a conundrum with respect to Newbies and Reputation. I think Reputation is meant to be a meaningful measure in both directions (High and Low), so it's really not appropriate to give a newbie a High Reputation out of the box. I think this might be part of the reason Ryan feels so strongly about the combination of Reputation and Alignment for the purpose of funneling the a+~@!%+s away from the rest of us.
It's not a conundrum--Andius and others just don't understand the operational level or the purpose of the policy intervention. Ryan has said explicitly that this has nothing to do with protecting newbies, and Nihimon you've made the connection that this is about helping settlements select, and so rep has to cut both ways, to aid that steering mechanic.
But Nihimon, I'd point out that it isn't just about funneling a-holes away from the rest of us. It's more holistic, funnelling like playstyles together (which includes sending the a-holes to low rep CE dumps).