Could PFO Thrive with No Unsanctioned PvP?


Pathfinder Online

1,051 to 1,100 of 2,166 << first < prev | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Mbando wrote:
Nihimon wrote:


Andius wrote:

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).

One way to isolate negative behavior players, is to reward those players that play the game in a positive way. This will make the differential even greater, and demonstrate what the possibilities are for positive game play. These positives will benefit the individual character, his or her company and his or her settlement.

Goblin Squad Member

Nevy wrote:
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.

You can very easily kill 5 people a month (choosing targets with care) if you like and not suffer too badly. If you choose to fight within the many systems provided, you could kill many more than that. If you choose to kill everyone that you see you will likely end up paying the consequences.

It is your choice.

CEO, Goblinworks

17 people marked this as a favorite.

Many MMOs with PvP develop a degenerate culture where any character that can be killed is killed. This then drives people who don't like dying pointlessly out of the game, leaving only people who are ok with pointless killing.

I have said from day one that our goal is a game with lots of PvP and little meaningless PvP. Killing newbies "just because" is the ultimate definition of meaningless PvP. We'll just work and work and work, with in game mechanical systems, community management and supervisory authority to keep punishing people who kill meaninglessly, especially if they're meaninglessly killing newbies.

I just don't know how much more plainly I can state this. I'd rather shut down the game and quit than run a simplistic murder simulator for the enjoyment of a tiny fraction of sociopaths.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:

Many MMOs with PvP develop a degenerate culture where any character that can be killed is killed. This then drives people who don't like dying pointlessly out of the game, leaving only people who are ok with pointless killing.

I have said from day one that our goal is a game with lots of PvP and little meaningless PvP. Killing newbies "just because" is the ultimate definition of meaningless PvP. We'll just work and work and work, with in game mechanical systems, community management and supervisory authority to keep punishing people who kill meaninglessly, especially if they're meaninglessly killing newbies.

I just don't know how much more plainly I can state this. I'd rather shut down the game and quit than run a simplistic murder simulator for the enjoyment of a tiny fraction of sociopaths.

Ryan,

No one is asking for that, I have not seen any poster who has (at least not in months and he was driven off).

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Dancey wrote:

Many MMOs with PvP develop a degenerate culture where any character that can be killed is killed. This then drives people who don't like dying pointlessly out of the game, leaving only people who are ok with pointless killing.

I have said from day one that our goal is a game with lots of PvP and little meaningless PvP. Killing newbies "just because" is the ultimate definition of meaningless PvP. We'll just work and work and work, with in game mechanical systems, community management and supervisory authority to keep punishing people who kill meaninglessly, especially if they're meaninglessly killing newbies.

I just don't know how much more plainly I can state this. I'd rather shut down the game and quit than run a simplistic murder simulator for the enjoyment of a tiny fraction of sociopaths.

Unfortunately, until we get the details in hard crunchy numbers, you will be seeing all of this back and forth. The principles that you have laid out seem very clear to me, and very clear to others that want to interpret them in their own fashion.

None of that means that you have to keep repeating the same things. but we will settle down after the first "tester mechanics" details come out and the wailing and hand wringing from that subsides. :)


Ryan Dancey wrote:

Many MMOs with PvP develop a degenerate culture where any character that can be killed is killed. This then drives people who don't like dying pointlessly out of the game, leaving only people who are ok with pointless killing.

I have said from day one that our goal is a game with lots of PvP and little meaningless PvP. Killing newbies "just because" is the ultimate definition of meaningless PvP. We'll just work and work and work, with in game mechanical systems, community management and supervisory authority to keep punishing people who kill meaninglessly, especially if they're meaninglessly killing newbies.

I just don't know how much more plainly I can state this. I'd rather shut down the game and quit than run a simplistic murder simulator for the enjoyment of a tiny fraction of sociopaths.

As a sociopath myself, I must say I'm offended...


Bluddwolf wrote:

Ryan,

No one is asking for that, I have not seen any poster who has (at least not in months and he was driven off).

Actually, that was what I was asking for initially.

Goblin Squad Member

Qallz wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

Ryan,

No one is asking for that, I have not seen any poster who has (at least not in months and he was driven off).

Actually, that was what I was asking for initially.

You are not whom I'm writing of, and I'm unaware of your initial intentions.

There was a poster many months ago who came from EVE and wanted to openly grief players. His favored method was to join a corporation and then kill its low skill members, and not dock to prevent himself from getting removed from the corp once they figured him out.

That was the only one I know of, and he has been gone or under a new identity since then.


Bluddwolf wrote:
Qallz wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

Ryan,

No one is asking for that, I have not seen any poster who has (at least not in months and he was driven off).

Actually, that was what I was asking for initially.

You are not whom I'm writing of, and I'm unaware of your initial intentions.

There was a poster many months ago who came from EVE and wanted to openly grief players. His favored method was to join a corporation and then kill its low skill members, and not dock to prevent himself from getting removed from the corp once they figured him out.

That was the only one I know of, and he has been gone or under a new identity since then.

I'm not that bad. I only grief newbies when I'm in a bad mood and can't find my stress ball. Normally I just walk by them and focus on those worth killing...

Goblin Squad Member

Qallz wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Qallz wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

Ryan,

No one is asking for that, I have not seen any poster who has (at least not in months and he was driven off).

Actually, that was what I was asking for initially.

You are not whom I'm writing of, and I'm unaware of your initial intentions.

There was a poster many months ago who came from EVE and wanted to openly grief players. His favored method was to join a corporation and then kill its low skill members, and not dock to prevent himself from getting removed from the corp once they figured him out.

That was the only one I know of, and he has been gone or under a new identity since then.

I'm not that bad. I only grief newbies when I'm in a bad mood and can't find my stress ball. Normally I just walk by them and focus on those worth killing...

There is often a little bit of true belief in every bit of humor.


Bringslite wrote:
There is often a little bit of true belief in every bit of humor.

Or in this case, a lot of truth.

Goblin Squad Member

Qallz wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
There is often a little bit of true belief in every bit of humor.
Or in this case, a lot of truth.

Just a couple of questions here. Don't take offence

Do you intend to play PfO that way or differently?

If you intend to play that way, how often do you misplace your stress ball?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Qallz wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Qallz wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

Ryan,

No one is asking for that, I have not seen any poster who has (at least not in months and he was driven off).

Actually, that was what I was asking for initially.

You are not whom I'm writing of, and I'm unaware of your initial intentions.

There was a poster many months ago who came from EVE and wanted to openly grief players. His favored method was to join a corporation and then kill its low skill members, and not dock to prevent himself from getting removed from the corp once they figured him out.

That was the only one I know of, and he has been gone or under a new identity since then.

I'm not that bad. I only grief newbies when I'm in a bad mood and can't find my stress ball. Normally I just walk by them and focus on those worth killing...

Why do you think griefing is an effective way to relieve stress? I can't understand you well enough at this point to make any constructive suggestions.

Goblin Squad Member

Only the best kind of person makes others miserable if they are miserable themselves.


Bringslite wrote:
Qallz wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
There is often a little bit of true belief in every bit of humor.
Or in this case, a lot of truth.

Just a couple of questions here. Don't take offence

Do you intend to play PfO that way or differently?

If you intend to play that way, how often do you misplace your stress ball?

OK, I'll bite:

1- I honestly don't know how I intend to play PFO tbh, I'm used to solid faction type games where red is dead, and FFA bloodbaths, so this is kind of new for me. I know I'll be engaging in a lot of PvP, which is why I play these games, but, not sure exactly how. I may end up just playing the Settlement power game GoT style. Not sure.

2- Not that often, maybe once a week I'll go on a killing rampage and just obliterate everything in my path regardless of level. I never really target lowbies specifically. Just get a little GTA sometimes.

A side story. I used to play DAoC on Mordred (The FFA PvP server) and I had a class called the Vampiir. The Vamp had a Power (mana) drain spell that just stole a little bit of Power from people (since he didn't start off with max power, he earned his power by damaging opponents, typically). I remember rolling through crowded areas and hitting lowbies with that spell just to get a little bit of Power before I went into the real battles. Most of them were OK with it, and just let me snatch a bit of their Power and went on their merry way (it usually regenerated quickly anyways)...

A few of them though, made the mistake of doing a /rude, (which in Dark Age was a type of F U gesture you do with your arms). I remember I would just stroll past them, and as I was going by, I'd hit them with insta-cast Power drain and continue on my way. Then I would see the text pop:

NewbieIdiot makes a rude gesture at you.

...

Oops. I would stop dead in my tracks, and turn around. Slowly. Somehow I could see the look of sheer horror on their faces when this happened. They would just stop dead in their tracks and stare at me, wondering what I was going to do. A few of them tried to run, but not too often.

A couple of them apologized as I made my way over. They usually lived. The rest got completely destroyed and roflstomped.

The moral of this story?

If someone who can 2-shot you wants a tiny bit of your power bar... do the sensible thing. Let them have it.

Goblin Squad Member

Qallz wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
Qallz wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
There is often a little bit of true belief in every bit of humor.
Or in this case, a lot of truth.

Just a couple of questions here. Don't take offence

Do you intend to play PfO that way or differently?

If you intend to play that way, how often do you misplace your stress ball?

OK, I'll bite:

1- I honestly don't know how I intend to play PFO tbh, I'm used to solid faction type games where red is dead, and FFA bloodbaths, so this is kind of new for me. I know I'll be engaging in a lot of PvP, which is why I play these games, but, not sure exactly how. I may end up just playing the Settlement power game GoT style. Not sure.

2- Not that often, maybe once a week I'll go on a killing rampage and just obliterate everything in my path regardless of level. I never really target lowbies specifically. Just get a little GTA sometimes.

A side story. I used to play DAoC on Mordred (The FFA PvP server) and I had a class called the Vampiir. The Vamp had a Power (mana) drain spell that just stole a little bit of Power from people (since he didn't start off with max power, he earned his power by damaging opponents, typically). I remember rolling through crowded areas and hitting lowbies with that spell just to get a little bit of Power before I went into the real battles. Most of them were OK with it, and just let me snatch a bit of their Power and went on their merry way (it usually regenerated quickly anyways)...

A few of them though, made the mistake of doing a /rude, (which in Dark Age was a type of F U gesture you do with your arms). I remember I would just stroll past them, and as I was going by, I'd hit them with insta-cast Power drain and continue on my way. Then I would see the text pop:

NewbieIdiot makes a rude gesture at you.

...

Oops. I would stop dead in my tracks, and turn around. Slowly. Somehow I could see the look of sheer horror on their faces when this happened. They would just stop dead...

I honestly feel bad for you.


Bringslite wrote:
Qallz wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
Qallz wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
There is often a little bit of true belief in every bit of humor.
Or in this case, a lot of truth.

Just a couple of questions here. Don't take offence

Do you intend to play PfO that way or differently?

If you intend to play that way, how often do you misplace your stress ball?

OK, I'll bite:

1- I honestly don't know how I intend to play PFO tbh, I'm used to solid faction type games where red is dead, and FFA bloodbaths, so this is kind of new for me. I know I'll be engaging in a lot of PvP, which is why I play these games, but, not sure exactly how. I may end up just playing the Settlement power game GoT style. Not sure.

2- Not that often, maybe once a week I'll go on a killing rampage and just obliterate everything in my path regardless of level. I never really target lowbies specifically. Just get a little GTA sometimes.

A side story. I used to play DAoC on Mordred (The FFA PvP server) and I had a class called the Vampiir. The Vamp had a Power (mana) drain spell that just stole a little bit of Power from people (since he didn't start off with max power, he earned his power by damaging opponents, typically). I remember rolling through crowded areas and hitting lowbies with that spell just to get a little bit of Power before I went into the real battles. Most of them were OK with it, and just let me snatch a bit of their Power and went on their merry way (it usually regenerated quickly anyways)...

A few of them though, made the mistake of doing a /rude, (which in Dark Age was a type of F U gesture you do with your arms). I remember I would just stroll past them, and as I was going by, I'd hit them with insta-cast Power drain and continue on my way. Then I would see the text pop:

NewbieIdiot makes a rude gesture at you.

...

Oops. I would stop dead in my tracks, and turn around. Slowly. Somehow I could see the look of sheer horror on their faces when this happened.

...

LOL. But you have to admit, it was an engaging story.

Goblin Squad Member

I will admit that it helps me understand you a little bit better, it was written well enough; and that it kinda had a beginning, a middle, and an ending. :)


Bringslite wrote:
I will admit that it helps me understand you a little bit better, it was written well enough; and that it kinda had a beginning, a middle, and an ending. :)

Lol, whatever you think you can "gather" about me from that story, it's pretty far off most likely.

Goblin Squad Member

Qallz wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
I will admit that it helps me understand you a little bit better, it was written well enough; and that it kinda had a beginning, a middle, and an ending. :)
Lol, whatever you think you can "gather" about me from that story, it's pretty far off most likely.

I don't see any further benefit in discussing this in public, as it is of little use to the thread. The possibility that what I "gather" from your posts and what you have shared certainly could be way off. :)

I doubt it though.

Whatever the case, let's just drop it here, agreed? You can PM me if you want to continue the discussion and show me I am mistaken.


Bringslite wrote:
Qallz wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
I will admit that it helps me understand you a little bit better, it was written well enough; and that it kinda had a beginning, a middle, and an ending. :)
Lol, whatever you think you can "gather" about me from that story, it's pretty far off most likely.

I don't see any further benefit in discussing this in public, as it is of little use to the thread. The possibility that what I "gather" from your posts and what you have shared certainly could be way off. :)

I doubt it though.

Whatever the case, let's just drop it here, agreed? You can PM me if you want to continue the discussion and show me I am mistaken.

I hope you're not under the impression that you and I are in an argument. But yea, we did side-track the s&~@ out of this thread...

And no, I don't really care to show you that you're mistaken. If you think I'm a racist, sexist, homophobic greifer and a bully that hates everyone and everything, that's cool. It makes no difference to me...

Goblin Squad Member

Mbando wrote:
It's not a conundrum--Andius and others just don't understand the operational level or the purpose of the policy intervention.

What I understand is that you are wrong. Flat out straight up wrong. If it costs -2400 rep to kill one player and -500 to kill another then the character then the first character is enjoying a higher degree of protection, provided that reputation is meaningful.

I get the point is trying to get settlements control their members. I get that you want higher reputation as a reward for acting in a high rep manner.

What I have been saying for several pages now is if you want the rewards from 0-7500+ rep then those rewards should be something other than a higher rep cost to kill you. They don't need to be wrapping high rep characters in swaddling and making us a special protected class of citizen. The additional skill training is enough.

What I've been asking you is "Why the hell do we need this protection that newbs don't even receive?" and the answer you've been giving me is "It's not a protection mechanic, it's all about the bigger picture... you're stupid!"

I'm sitting here saying "What the hell are you doing putting crappy worn down off-road tires on this vehicle? They aren't fit to drive on!" and the only answer I'm getting from you is "It's not an off road vehicle! It's a street racer! Look at the whole you idiot!" Which just leaves me saying "That doesn't explain why the **** it's got crappy off-road tires. If this is vehicle won't be off-roading why don't we replace them with some decent racing tires?"

So how about a straight answer this time instead of more not-so-veiled insults because I'm about ready to just start flagging your responses.

Goblin Squad Member

Isn't having new characters starting out with +7500 Rep a swaddle?

Isn't a slide rule granting less penalty to high rep for killing low rep a swaddle?

Isn't the NPC starter area enough of a swaddle for noobs?

Isn't Rep Recovery over Time a swaddle for characters that don't interact with other players?

All of these encourage settlements to bring on players that have multiple accounts and a handful of untrained, max rep alts to flood their settlement citizens roster to artificially boost the settlement's reputation and DI.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:

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.

Ryan,

Wouldn't it be fair to say that a settlement is better served by characters that have earned their high reputation through positive, active interactions rather than from reputation developed from the passive, passage of time?

As you stated in a previous post, Noobs can not start out with High Rep, otherwise you will end up with High Rep ALT Noob Zerg Armies.

Goblin Squad Member

Nevy wrote:

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.

Terribly wrong with the game system. If there are that many High Reputation a+*%+&@s, then the game systems are failing to properly funnel a&!$@@*s into Chaotic Evil & Low Reputation, and the mods are failing to limit the ability of a@**&+~s to cause grief.

Goblin Squad Member

KitNyx wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
KitNyx wrote:

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?
Agreed. Concern Withdrawn.

Sorry if I missed a post that already covered that; I skimmed over about 100 posts trying to catch up.

Goblin Squad Member

Mbando wrote:
Ryan has said explicitly that this has nothing to do with protecting newbies...

First, I think you're probably right in most of your analysis, and I'm not trying to gainsay any of that.

But you said something like the above elsewhere when I was only trying to keep up on my phone and I couldn't respond to it. I think it's important to point out that, while a particular statement might not have been directed at protecting newbies, that doesn't mean Ryan is not concerned with protecting newbies.

I'm especially concerned with ensuring that new players are able to learn how to play the game, gain some mastery of basic gameplay features, have some fun, and have a great experience without having to worry about someone intentionally ruining it for them by scamming them, killing them, taunting them, or otherwise disrupting their attention which should be focused on dealing with the sensory overload of going into a new virtual world.

I'm secondarily concerned with ensuring that people who choose a low risk / low reward course of play are able to do so without regular interruption by those seeking to gain enjoyment from interfering with them as they go about their business.

As for what I called a "conundrum", I think it might be more appropriate to have an Innocence score in addition to Alignment & Reputation, such that it makes sense to give new players a maximum Innocence rating, and factor in the Innocence rating of the victim when calculating the costs to the killer.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:

Many MMOs with PvP develop a degenerate culture where any character that can be killed is killed. This then drives people who don't like dying pointlessly out of the game, leaving only people who are ok with pointless killing.

I have said from day one that our goal is a game with lots of PvP and little meaningless PvP. Killing newbies "just because" is the ultimate definition of meaningless PvP. We'll just work and work and work, with in game mechanical systems, community management and supervisory authority to keep punishing people who kill meaninglessly, especially if they're meaninglessly killing newbies.

I just don't know how much more plainly I can state this. I'd rather shut down the game and quit than run a simplistic murder simulator for the enjoyment of a tiny fraction of sociopaths.

Ryan,

No one is asking for that, I have not seen any poster who has (at least not in months and he was driven off).

Maybe "some people" are asking for things that would inevitably lead to that. You know, asking for things like easy ways to recover from meaninglessly killing newbies.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
KitNyx wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
KitNyx wrote:

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?
Agreed. Concern Withdrawn.
Sorry if I missed a post that already covered that; I skimmed over about 100 posts trying to catch up.

No worries, always excited to have an opportunity to fail at explaining my position *grin*.

Goblin Squad Member

KitNyx wrote:
No worries, always excited to have an opportunity to fail at explaining my position *grin*.

Self-deprecating humor is flat-out the most admirable feature I can imagine :)

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:

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.

Ryan,

Wouldn't it be fair to say that a settlement is better served by characters that have earned their high reputation through positive, active interactions rather than from reputation developed from the passive, passage of time?

As you stated in a previous post, Noobs can not start out with High Rep, otherwise you will end up with High Rep ALT Noob Zerg Armies.

It strikes me as not too far fetched that you can have new people not starting off with high rep but still be a net positive addition to a settlement.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:
Maybe "some people" are asking for things that would inevitably lead to that. You know, asking for things like easy ways to recover from meaninglessly killing newbies.

Because we all know nothing says "meaningful or difficult" like passive recovery over time.

Why not entertain Kitnyx's idea of taking whatever the maximum recovery of reputation you would have gained from passive inactivity. Same rate of recovery, just you have to participate in positive game play to earn it.

This reward could be tied to all activities that are positive (Sanctioned PvP, PVE, Crafting, Trade, Exploration, etc).

Inactivity (ie not logging in) is not positive or negative interaction, there for it is not meaningful enough to recover reputation.

Unsanctioned or other negative activity still receives the same consequences as the system has now.

Again for those that are "slow on the uptake", not any more gain that was possible with the recovery over time. Just a requirement that rep only recovers from positive game play. The end result will be exactly what GW wants. More positive game play and Settlements could then make even better, informed decisions about their member's interactions with the rest of the community. It is a win all around unless you want to grief players and never have to contribute anything positive to recover.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bludd's argument here seems reasonable and even commendable in my view.


Bluddwolf wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Maybe "some people" are asking for things that would inevitably lead to that. You know, asking for things like easy ways to recover from meaninglessly killing newbies.

Because we all know nothing says "meaningful or difficult" like passive recovery over time.

Why not entertain Kitnyx's idea of taking whatever the maximum recovery of reputation you would have gained from passive inactivity. Same rate of recovery, just you have to participate in positive game play to earn it.

This reward could be tied to all activities that are positive (Sanctioned PvP, PVE, Crafting, Trade, Exploration, etc).

Inactivity (ie not logging in) is not positive or negative interaction, there for it is not meaningful enough to recover reputation.

Unsanctioned or other negative activity still receives the same consequences as the system has now.

Again for those that are "slow on the uptake", not any more gain that was possible with the recovery over time. Just a requirement that rep only recovers from positive game play. The end result will be exactly what GW wants. More positive game play and Settlements could then make even better, informed decisions about their member's interactions with the rest of the community. It is a win all around unless you want to grief players and never have to contribute anything positive to recover.

the problem is, in my eyes, with rep recovery through active positive gameplay is that can be easily gamed/exploited using alts.

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
Bludd's argument here seems reasonable and even commendable in my view.

I have to agree. As long as it is raked over so that unsanctioned actions are not easily recovered from. He has stated repeatedly that he feels that way. If it could be designed in a way with the least amount of "farming" it up, I don't understand the objections.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Why not entertain Kitnyx's idea of taking whatever the maximum recovery of reputation you would have gained from passive inactivity. Same rate of recovery, just you have to participate in positive game play to earn it.

I've already expressed support for this idea.

Goblin Squad Member

Kabal362 wrote:

the problem is, in my eyes, with rep recovery through active positive gameplay is that can be easily gamed/exploited using alts.

If someone is spending their time grinding reputation through positive interactions, they can not be spending that same time committing negative acts against others. The net result is less negative activity.

If the behaviors to grind back reputation loss is positive, it really isn't an exploit, it's working as intended. But if GW wants to declare that alt farming is an exploit, then they certainly have the power to detect it, and then punish for it.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Why not entertain Kitnyx's idea of taking whatever the maximum recovery of reputation you would have gained from passive inactivity. Same rate of recovery, just you have to participate in positive game play to earn it.
I've already expressed support for this idea.

I think the posts are rolling in too fast. I have already credited and re credited you with the idea multiple times in multiple threads. :)

Either that, or we are all getting senile.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Why not entertain Kitnyx's idea of taking whatever the maximum recovery of reputation you would have gained from passive inactivity. Same rate of recovery, just you have to participate in positive game play to earn it.
I've already expressed support for this idea.

Then I don't see what the problem is, because Kitnyx and I came to the same conclusion and are in agreement. There is actually overwhelming support for positive game playing being rewarded with reputation gains.

If you still want yo have the passive, daily increase in rep, so casual players don't "miss out" I would entertain that idea and support it. I just feel that it is a tougher argument to make. If Reputation is a measure of player interaction, then how is being logged off a positive interaction?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:
Kabal362 wrote:

the problem is, in my eyes, with rep recovery through active positive gameplay is that can be easily gamed/exploited using alts.

If someone is spending their time grinding reputation through positive interactions, they can not be spending that same time committing negative acts against others. The net result is less negative activity.

If the behaviors to grind back reputation loss is positive, it really isn't an exploit, it's working as intended. But if GW wants to declare that alt farming is an exploit, then they certainly have the power to detect it, and then punish for it.

Do you really think that it is easy or even possible to tell the difference between non-arranged and arranged PvP activity accurately enough to punish one but not the other, or do you have plans to coordinate the rep restoral?

Goblin Squad Member

My final pint about why there has to at least be an active component to Rep gain...if Rep can be transferred, people will just have Rep alts...who have high Rep only because they are not played and gain Rep over time, and they will use this(these) Rep alts to "refill" their mains.

(Can anyone link any relevant official quotes about transferring Rep? I do not remember seeing, it other than the few references here.)

And to clarify, my position has shifted a bit based upon discussion in another thread. I now advocate something similar to the experience system, the potential for Rep is gained over time, but must be actively claimed by in game actions, positive gameplay.

Goblin Squad Member

There is a blog that says REP can be gifted. Nihimon quoted it earlier.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I shot a man in Reno: "Reputation goes up by an accelerating rate each day players don't lose reputation for their actions, from gifts from other players, and through playing their role in the PvP flags described below."

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:


What I understand is that you are wrong. Flat out straight up wrong. If it costs -2400 rep to kill one player and -500 to kill another then the character then the first character is enjoying a higher degree of protection, provided that reputation is meaningful.

I get the point is trying to get settlements control their members. I get that you want higher reputation as a reward for acting in a high rep manner.

No, that's not what I want. What I want is for people to listen to the devs, understand the implications of design choices, and then make their arguments with that understand as context. You guys were having this sprawling, ginormous thread about how best to do x, and then the lead dev told you that you were wrong and the design goal is y and not x. And you guys are still having the exact same discussion. That's facepalmingly dumb.

Andius wrote:


What I've been asking you is "Why the hell do we need this protection that newbs don't even receive?" and the answer you've been giving me is "It's not a protection mechanic, it's all about the bigger picture... you're stupid!"

I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you're ineffective--this is a rhetorical failure. It's just like people who come to these boards and argue the game shouldn't have open world PvP: a complete rhetorical failure that will have no traction. It's only after you account for the underlying assumptions, and then frame your feedback within that context, that you can have any traction. So to be rhetorically effective, you should 1) stop arguing and be quiet for a while, 2) think through and understand this new, critical information, and then 3) make a contributory response that better helps achieve the ends. "So, I get now that reputation is a population level intervention that has little to do (at least directly) with my concern of protecting newbs. But I know that protecting newbs is also a game end, so I'd like to propose [blank]..." Given that Ryan has explicitly talked about how critical scaffolding newbs into the game is, you'll likely get a hearing.

Andius wrote:


So how about a straight answer this time instead of more not-so-veiled insults because I'm about ready to just start flagging your responses.

How could you possibly mistake direct criticism for veiled insult?

Every time I submit my research to peer-review, most of the feedback I get is direct (sometimes harsh) criticism. Instead of being butt-hurt, I frame that criticism as valuable feedback, revise, and resubmit.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Kabal362 wrote:

the problem is, in my eyes, with rep recovery through active positive gameplay is that can be easily gamed/exploited using alts.

If someone is spending their time grinding reputation through positive interactions, they can not be spending that same time committing negative acts against others. The net result is less negative activity.

If the behaviors to grind back reputation loss is positive, it really isn't an exploit, it's working as intended. But if GW wants to declare that alt farming is an exploit, then they certainly have the power to detect it, and then punish for it.

Do you really think that it is easy or even possible to tell the difference between non-arranged and arranged PvP activity accurately enough to punish one but not the other, or do you have plans to coordinate the rep restoral?

The same characters entering into combat and over and over to the same result with the winner never at the threshold of death. The target character not wearing any gear. The same outcome of combat between groups of characters plotted over a month. Checking the IPs of these characters. Patterns will begin to emerge. If 3 of the 4 are present it yellow lights the characters, for closer review. Those characters get plotted for 3 months. If the pattern continues, I would say it's evident enough to consider the possibility that they are gaming the system.

While none by itself is conclusive, as humans, we are creatures of habit. Those habits can be tracked. GW just has to come up with the criteria.


Pax Areks wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Kabal362 wrote:

the problem is, in my eyes, with rep recovery through active positive gameplay is that can be easily gamed/exploited using alts.

If someone is spending their time grinding reputation through positive interactions, they can not be spending that same time committing negative acts against others. The net result is less negative activity.

If the behaviors to grind back reputation loss is positive, it really isn't an exploit, it's working as intended. But if GW wants to declare that alt farming is an exploit, then they certainly have the power to detect it, and then punish for it.

Do you really think that it is easy or even possible to tell the difference between non-arranged and arranged PvP activity accurately enough to punish one but not the other, or do you have plans to coordinate the rep restoral?

The same characters entering into combat and over and over to the same result with the winner never at the threshold of death. The target character not wearing any gear. The same outcome of combat between groups of characters plotted over a month. Checking the IPs of these characters. Patterns will begin to emerge. If 3 of the 4 are present it yellow lights the characters, for closer review. Those characters get plotted for 3 months. If the pattern continues, I would say it's evident enough to consider the possibility that they are gaming the system.

While none by itself is conclusive, as humans, we are creatures of habit. Those habits can be tracked. GW just has to come up with the criteria.

i like the idea of reputation cap from the other thread but i believe regarding this post that GW doesnt have the resources, manpower, means or time to keep policing this kind of thing and add the fact that a lot of mistakes can be made enforcing it.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

@kabal, if you prefer rep gain over time, think of it this way: instead of gaining 100 rep every day automatically (just an example number), you gain 25 Rep for every SAD or sanctioned kill, up to 100 per day. This would mean that a person playing with this system can only gain as much rep per day as they could just by doing nothing in the first instance. Yes, someone could log in and get 4 SAD's on an alt of a buddy of your clan so that it's hard for a GM to track down the abuse, but they cannot go higher than that daily rep cap. Rep gain through actions with a daily cap should have the same effect as rep over time, but require the person to at least log on and experience the game.


Shane Gifford wrote:
@kabal, if you prefer rep gain over time, think of it this way: instead of gaining 100 rep every day automatically (just an example number), you gain 25 Rep for every SAD or sanctioned kill, up to 100 per day. This would mean that a person playing with this system can only gain as much rep per day as they could just by doing nothing in the first instance. Yes, someone could log in and get 4 SAD's on an alt of a buddy of your clan so that it's hard for a GM to track down the abuse, but they cannot go higher than that daily rep cap. Rep gain through actions with a daily cap should have the same effect as rep over time, but require the person to at least log on and experience the game.

true.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Kabal362 wrote:

the problem is, in my eyes, with rep recovery through active positive gameplay is that can be easily gamed/exploited using alts.

If someone is spending their time grinding reputation through positive interactions, they can not be spending that same time committing negative acts against others. The net result is less negative activity.

If the behaviors to grind back reputation loss is positive, it really isn't an exploit, it's working as intended. But if GW wants to declare that alt farming is an exploit, then they certainly have the power to detect it, and then punish for it.

Do you really think that it is easy or even possible to tell the difference between non-arranged and arranged PvP activity accurately enough to punish one but not the other, or do you have plans to coordinate the rep restoral?

Yes, I know it can be done. A GM can see exactly what circumstances you have found yourself in. They can see how you were killed, who killed you, what gear you lost, whether or not you got stuck in the environment, if you were respawn or corpse camped, etc.... They can see everything!

1,051 to 1,100 of 2,166 << first < prev | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 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.