Could PFO Thrive with No Unsanctioned PvP?


Pathfinder Online

1,101 to 1,150 of 2,166 << first < prev | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think a minimally viable product will also include a minimally viable dev team. Personally I prefer paid staff spend their time adding content/polish to the game as opposed to mopping up jerks.

As such, I think we should be exploring solutions that require as little dev oversight and judgement as possible, such as deigning the system so we the in-game communities can police ourselves and reduce the long-term efficacy of negative gameplay.

Goblin Squad Member

I like that outlook and I hope that it can be so.

Goblin Squad Member

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.

Shane, I'd suggest you and others look at Urman's posts in the Carrot thread--he's cracked the code pretty much.

What you're missing here is that the above system would perversely encourage the kind of toxic play we want to avoid. Bluud is advocating rep gain through Structured PvP precisely because it would allow him complete freedom to PvP without consequences. He could kill in Unstructured PvP to rep threshold Rt, and then switch back to Structured PvP until he has rep cushion Rc, and go back and forth forever, always doing what he wants to in game: PvP.

Ryan's powerful insight into player behavior is that it is tied to their in-game motivations. PvP-centric players are more than happy to grind for enormous lengths of time, if it's their kind of grind, so having to get back in the Structured PvP lane for T time is no burden. But make them have to gather herbs, or chat, or deliver care packages or whatever--no way. The transactional cost is too high.

That's why any attempt to link rep to participation in Structured PvP is a fail. And thanks Urman for the keen analysis :)

Goblin Squad Member

@ Mbando

How do you feel that rep should be gained? If you don't mind the question. :)

That is too general. How do you feel that rep should be gained by positive actors in-game?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If behavior is considered sufficiently toxic, it should be a bannable offense.

Having a grinding system that accounts for positive rep gain (even if it is tied into an over time system) works more towards encouraging positive pvp behavior when there is a sufficient multiplier involved.

It does not bother me if player X does not mind doing 3,4,5 times the "sanctioned" pvp to balance out his score. In the end the result is more time was spent with pvp the designers want than ones they want less.

A pure time scale system is easily gamed as well. Nothing is stopping toxic players to maintain two accounts. One for their low rep character and one for their high rep one. That is a good arrangement for GW coffers, but it offer no real improvement for the player base.


Mbando wrote:
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.

Shane, I'd suggest you and others look at Urman's posts in the Carrot thread--he's cracked the code pretty much.

What you're missing here is that the above system would perversely encourage the kind of toxic play we want to avoid. Bluud is advocating rep gain through Structured PvP precisely because it would allow him complete freedom to PvP without consequences. He could kill in Unstructured PvP to rep threshold Rt, and then switch back to Structured PvP until he has rep cushion Rc, and go back and forth forever, always doing what he wants to in game: PvP.

Ryan's powerful insight into player behavior is that it is tied to their in-game motivations. PvP-centric players are more than happy to grind for enormous lengths of time, if it's their kind of grind, so having to get back in the Structured PvP lane for T time is no burden. But make them have to gather herbs, or chat, or deliver care packages or whatever--no way. The transactional cost is too high.

That's why any attempt to link rep to participation in Structured PvP is a fail. And thanks Urman for the keen analysis :)

With a low daily rep recover cap there wont be much to grind and at the same time forces them to log in and play, but we have to wait more till they design this part and tell us the details.

Goblin Squad Member

@Mbando. I'm going to try one last time. A higher rep loss for high rep players still does not make sense. It makes even LESS sense if this system is not about protection mechanics, and designed not to reward/punish on an individual level.

That is specifically what I've been attacking. I reframed it from starting newbs at +7500 to not giving additional rep slide for killing anyone with a rep above 0 based on Ryan's feedback. That's what I'm arguing about, and that's what you have yet to address in any of your responses.

How is THAT SINGLE COMPONENT useful to a system which is not a protection mechanic, and not meant to control the behavior of individual players? Because if you cut that single component out, I don't have a problem with any of the rest of the system.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:

@ Mbando

How do you feel that rep should be gained? If you don't mind the question. :)

That is too general. How do you feel that rep should be gained by positive actors in-game?

I'm not sure that the GWS model of rep gain over time/alignment return won't work--they said in the blog they wanted to avoid meaningless grinding.

However, if it does make sense to increase rep gain, it would have to be through player gifting from a finite pool. At least then it could potentially meaningful in a sociocultural sense, in that it would involve contextual human judgement. But the moment I can think of ways it would work, I think of ways to game that system.

So I would turn it around--GW has laid out a pretty thoughtful system for having alignment and rep be time-gained rather than grind-gained, and for how those system would incentivize players to self-sort by play style at the community or population level. So I'd like to hear a well-supported argument for why that model is insufficient.

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Areks wrote:
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."

Unless this quote was deliberately edited, it looks as though there is already a system planned that involves in game reputation gains through PvP flags.

I think that system will work fine, I am not against a time element. The devil is in the details, and that is what I thought was up for discussion.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:

@Mbando. I'm going to try one last time. A higher rep loss for high rep players still does not make sense. It makes even LESS sense if this system is not about protection mechanics, and designed not to reward/punish on an individual level.

That is specifically what I've been attacking. I reframed it from starting newbs at +7500 to not giving additional rep slide for killing anyone with a rep above 0 based on Ryan's feedback. That's what I'm arguing about, and that's what you have yet to address in any of your responses.

How is THAT SINGLE COMPONENT useful to a system which is not a protection mechanic, and not meant to control the behavior of individual players? Because if you cut that single component out, I don't have a problem with any of the rest of the system.

Andius,in your previous post you wrote:

Andius wrote:

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?"

Does this mean you're now modifying your position, and no longer asking about differing protection levels? I want to make sure I fully understand your position and your question.

Goblin Squad Member

@ Charlie George. The PvP flags described below were flags like champion that were all removed.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
@ Charlie George. The PvP flags described below were flags like champion that were all removed.

Ah! Then the disconnect makes sense. I suppose nothing has replaced that as a vehicle for positive pvp and rep gain? Have they stated that the new stance is to avoid any in game vehicles for rep gain?

Thank you for the clarification :)

Goblin Squad Member

@ Mbando

Hehe. I was going to cherry pick a bunch of quotes to demonstrate that even the Devs are considering alternatives to that, but it does not really address your challenge.

At this time, and with as little as we know about what they are cooking, I don't think that I can give any arguments that one system is better than any other, much. It really comes down to "feel" and "opinion" with so little information available.

Thx for answering. :)

Goblin Squad Member

@Mbando. I'm specifically addressing differing consequence levels of players with reps higher than newbs. So 0 through +7500. The current outline puts higher consequence on killing players with very high reputations but does not start newbs at that level.

How does this benefit a system not intended to protect people or control individual actions?

Goblin Squad Member

Andius: I feel like giving you a glass of water every time I see you in that state. Hang in there buddy.

Goblin Squad Member

Mbando wrote:


What you're missing here is that the above system would perversely encourage the kind of toxic play we want to avoid. Bluud is advocating rep gain through Structured PvP precisely because it would allow him complete freedom to PvP without consequences. He could kill in Unstructured PvP to rep threshold Rt, and then switch back to Structured PvP until he has rep cushion Rc, and go back and forth forever, always doing what he wants to in game: PvP.

If this is the result of your brilliant analysis, you are not as brilliant as you seem to think you are. You are completely off base, and you have no insight into my motives at all.

You do not know me, my motivations, my concerns, my likes nor dislikes. But you can continue your childish rhetoric all you wish, you are only discrediting yourself in the process.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andius wrote:

@Mbando. I'm specifically addressing differing consequence levels of players with reps higher than newbs. So 0 through +7500. The current outline puts higher consequence on killing players with very high reputations but does not start newbs at that level.

How does this benefit a system not intended to protect people or control individual actions?

Ahh, I see--that's a different position entirely.

I think the main reason you want to make rep gain take some time is that it removes an obvious path for gaming the system: instant high rep newbs. The last thing in the world I want to give low rep, CE scum in this game is instant access to high rep alts.

Whereas for actual new players, I think the current system accounts for them starting off in high security territory and gradually move into higher risk/reward territory. So by the time they are exposed to PvP, they have some skin in the rep game.

Does that make sense? Happy to hear an alternative analysis.

Goblin Squad Member

Mbando wrote:
Andius wrote:

@Mbando. I'm specifically addressing differing consequence levels of players with reps higher than newbs. So 0 through +7500. The current outline puts higher consequence on killing players with very high reputations but does not start newbs at that level.

How does this benefit a system not intended to protect people or control individual actions?

Ahh, I see--that's a different position entirely.

I think the main reason you want to make rep gain take some time is that it removes an obvious path for gaming the system: instant high rep newbs. The last thing in the world I want to give low rep, CE scum in this game is instant access to high rep alts.

Whereas for actual new players, I think the current system accounts for them starting off in high security territory and gradually move into higher risk/reward territory. So by the time they are exposed to PvP, they have some skin in the rep game.

Does that make sense? Happy to hear an alternative analysis.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I agree with limiting vehicles for instant high rep newbs.

What if new players start at 0 on the scale, and the consequences for killing them are the same as killing a high rep character?

I would also agree to the killing of low rep characters as a free or rep gaining action, especially if it also does so for evil aligned characters as well.

Edited for clarity

Goblin Squad Member

Mbando,

You do realize that Chaotic Evil characters can still play to their alignments and still have High Reputation, under the current system, right?

You do realize that the devs have said that alignment and reputation are separate functioning mechanics, although Ryan believes in theory that they may turn out to be connected (in most cases)?

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

Mbando,

You do realize that Chaotic Evil characters can still play to their alignments and still have High Reputation, under the current system, right?

You do realize that the devs have said that alignment and reputation are separate functioning mechanics, although Ryan believes in theory that they may turn out to be connected (in most cases)?

To be fair the developers suspect that CE characters will likely also be low reputation.

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Charlie George wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

Mbando,

You do realize that Chaotic Evil characters can still play to their alignments and still have High Reputation, under the current system, right?

You do realize that the devs have said that alignment and reputation are separate functioning mechanics, although Ryan believes in theory that they may turn out to be connected (in most cases)?

To be fair the developers suspect that CE characters will likely also be low reputation.

The bolded pretty well covered what the Devs have also communicated.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
Pax Charlie George wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

Mbando,

You do realize that Chaotic Evil characters can still play to their alignments and still have High Reputation, under the current system, right?

You do realize that the devs have said that alignment and reputation are separate functioning mechanics, although Ryan believes in theory that they may turn out to be connected (in most cases)?

To be fair the developers suspect that CE characters will likely also be low reputation.
The bolded pretty well covered what the Devs have also communicated.

I completely missed that. Apologies

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Charlie George wrote:


I don't have a dog in this fight, but I agree with limiting vehicles for instant high rep newbs.

What if new players start at 0 on the scale, and the consequences for killing them are the same as killing a high rep character?

I would also agree to the killing of low rep characters as a free or rep gaining action, especially if it also does so for evil aligned characters as well.

Edited for clarity

If the zero Rep Noob has the same protections of a high rep character, what is the noob's incentive to either have higher rep or to no longer be a noob?

Remember, Ryan's warning that this sort of thing could lead to High rep Noob Zergs and the cost of killing them would be high, even if you had a valid reason for doing so.

ZenPagan had described a scenario where these noobs under protection of their "protected status" could reap havoc on a settlement's DI.

I would just rather have the starting Rep be zero, and it count as zero. When you look at me several weeks or months down the road and you see me at +5000 you will know that I had earned that reputation through positive game play.

That even though I'm a bandit and a raider, I stuck to sanctioned PVP and contributed to my community in other ways to gain the reputation. Not that I did whatever I wanted to do, then took a vacation from my character and came back to a +5000 Rep.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That is a pretty solid point. In the end I suppose the best protection a new player could have is either settlement or high security protections. Anything else is too easily gameable.

Goblin Squad Member

Mbando wrote:

I think the main reason you want to make rep gain take some time is that it removes an obvious path for gaming the system: instant high rep newbs. The last thing in the world I want to give low rep, CE scum in this game is instant access to high rep alts.

Whereas for actual new players, I think the current system accounts for them starting off in high security territory and gradually move into higher risk/reward territory. So by the time they are exposed to PvP, they have some skin in the rep game.

Does that make sense? Happy to hear an alternative analysis.

I think that's along the same page as something I hinted at a few pages back. Making the content a newb runs through get them to whatever level where people will suffer max consequences for killing them before shoving them outside the start zone.

Basically the general tutorial and a few tasks you can complete in your starter city help teach you about the game, set you up with some starter equipment, and bump up your rep to wherever the penalty cap is.

That way if you start a new character skip all that content, and go out to start screwing with people, you don't have high rep. If you're going to run each of your new characters through a few hours of content just to get the rep to screw with people then you do.

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Charlie George wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
Pax Charlie George wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

Mbando,

You do realize that Chaotic Evil characters can still play to their alignments and still have High Reputation, under the current system, right?

You do realize that the devs have said that alignment and reputation are separate functioning mechanics, although Ryan believes in theory that they may turn out to be connected (in most cases)?

To be fair the developers suspect that CE characters will likely also be low reputation.
The bolded pretty well covered what the Devs have also communicated.
I completely missed that. Apologies

I did not mean that to come across harshly if it did Pax Charlie. :)

Goblin Squad Member

It didn't :)

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:

I think that's along the same page as something I hinted at a few pages back. Making the content a newb runs through get them to whatever level where people will suffer max consequences for killing them before shoving them outside the start zone.

Basically the general tutorial and a few tasks you can complete in your starter city help teach you about the game, set you up with some starter equipment, and bump up your rep to wherever the penalty cap is.

That way if you start a new character skip all that content, and go out to start screwing with people, you don't have high rep. If you're going to run each of your new characters through a few hours of content just to get the rep to screw with people then you do.

What happened to "Slow Up and Fast Down" for reputation? Ryan specifically said this, and warned about noobs having max rep too soon.

My gosh for all of your harping at me, you will be the "Harbinger of the Goons". You would have the system give them or their ilk the very tools they would need to steamroll veteran (EE) settlements or at the very least reduce the overall average DI of every settlement to the point that no settlement would have high tier training capability.

Again I have to wonder what your agenda is to not want people to actually earn their high reputation? The only thing I can think of is that you are not convinced the way you want to play will result in you having a High Reputation.

I on the other hand am completely confident that I can play my way and have a high reputation. I would have it even easier if it were passive, over time reputation gains, but to me that is a lame indicator of what it is to be high reputation.

I'll say it again, when I see someone that has a +5000 > reputation, I want to think, "Wow, that guy is playing the game in a positive way." What I would rather not think is "Hmmm... Did he just come off a 6 month break?"

Question for settlement managers: Which thought would you rather have in your mind?

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

Mbando,

You do realize that Chaotic Evil characters can still play to their alignments and still have High Reputation, under the current system, right?

But Bluud, you that's not really accurate or fair, right? Strictly speaking, Ryan has acknowledged that it's [b]possible[/i] to be CE and have good rep, but that the majority of the time they'll be turds, and he's ok with the alignment/rep funnel flushing down the occasional non-turd as well.

Bluddwolf wrote:

Mbando,

You do realize that the devs have said that alignment and reputation are separate functioning mechanics, although Ryan believes in theory that they may turn out to be connected (in most cases)?

Yes, I realize the devs have proposed distinct but interlocking systems.

Goblin Squad Member

The thing that people concerned with a newb-apocalypse don't seem to realize is that if the newbs do much more than observe us or thumb their noses at us, we can kill them consequence free. What's Goon Swarm going to do with a bunch of newbs if they can't attack us?

As to observation, the solution to that is make the skills available to an experienced scout living in a settlement more valuable than an unaffiliated newb scout. If your scout can use stealth to observe the situation undetected and has skills that allow them to identify abit about the gear people have at a range much like a ship scanner from EVE that can be used while cloaked, the tactical advantage of an experienced scout your enemy doesn't even know about will be much higher than a newb running up and openly examining their defenses and making their best guess as to what the enemy is wearing.

That pretty much that leaves newbs to stick their tongues out at us and generally be annoying. The exile mechanic can handle that.

Also "Whatever level where people will suffer max consequences for killing them" should not equal "high rep."

Goblin Squad Member

Mbando,

If it was acknowledged as being possible, then it is both accurate and fair. I could very easily role my main character CE and achieve High Reputation under the current system.

Set aside your former and faulty analysis of my motivations and instead read what I have posted in response to you and others.

I want High reputation to actually mean what it is supposed to mean. Which is, "There goes a good player." Conversely, I want a Low reputation player to be viewed as a detriment to themselves, their company and their environment.

You were in the military. Did you ever want a "bad soldier" in your squad? I'm not talking about someone that was lazy or an incompetent, worse, someone who didn't give a sh&t.

So you don't need to analyze me or my motives.... There you have it. I want Reputation to matter, and I don't want an easy way to get it.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I still don't really see anything to indicate that new toons will be at any more risk from veteran players than they are in any other game. This game also has built in consequences, so I would say less. A hit for 500 rep (as detailed so far) is not small potatoes. Add that to the swift justice of Marshalls and GM intervention for persistent newb killing Aholes and I think it will be very minor.

Newbs that run willy nilly into the wilderness are taking the same chances that we all are. Or they should be.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Again I have to wonder what your agenda is to not want people to actually earn their high reputation? The only thing I can think of is that you are not convinced the way you want to play will result in you having a High Reputation.

My agenda is what it's been from the start. Protecting people who actually need and want it, chief among them being newbs. I don't fall into that category, but unlike you I'm capable of seeing beyond what's good for my specific playstyle and looking at what's better for the game as a whole. Just because you want this game to be EZ-Mode For Bandits Online doesn't mean I suffer from a similar problem.

The fact someone working outside their own self-interest is so inconceivable to you really kind of highlights who you are as a person.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf 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?
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!

Bringing a human into the loop costs cash. You know that; you also have some idea about the number of times per day there will be a reputation increase. You know, for a fact, that the affordable manpower can check 0% of all reputation gains, making it absolutely useless as a way to identify abusive behavior.

A secret algorithm which flags specific actions for review based on likely abuse can reduce the number of cases which require review, but such an algorithm is either useless (because it has too many false positives or false negatives), unfeasible (because the development and testing costs exceed budget), or both.

Back on the tangent: I could see a mechanic where all +rep activities also cost influence getting widespread support; It's reasonable to me that participating in a declared war or feud should be +rep, and SAD offers are already posited as +rep, with widespread concurrence that they could be -influence.

Goblin Squad Member

I will laugh my a$# off when I hit +7500 Rep while being one of the most prolific bandit / raiders in the game.

Every form of PVP I need is sanctioned. And when it is not initially sanctioned, I'll SAD it into sanctioned and either take no hit or get a double bonus to rep when it is accepted.

*{note} Bandit EZ Mode is when I will also receive reputation over time, rather than actually having to earn it.

* I actually believe that the Devs will announce that Sanctioned PVP will grant Reputation bonuses, because it just makes sense and supports their goal(s).

Goblin Squad Member

I predict that if they use a system that doesn't carry heavy components of time/resource based limitations working together like the system I described in your topic, and instead go with a wide open barn door of all sanctioned PvP gives rep and a simple daily cap as the primary means of enforcement, your system won't last a month before it is drastically altered, or thrown out for an entirely new system. If it does last much longer than that, this game will never be much more successful than Darkfall or Mortal Online.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
I could see a mechanic where all +rep activities also cost influence getting widespread support; It's reasonable to me that participating in a declared war or or feud should be +rep, and SAD offers are already posited as +rep, with widespread concurrence that they could be -influence....

I would also add Raids on Outposts and POIs as part of that Rep gaining list. I also would not mind having to spend influence to engage in certain activities, and I have posted on that topic previously.

I would only argue that every play style has:

1. Low level activities that require no influence to engage in, and actually grant influence when you successfully complete them.

2. The success in all activities generates enough influence to offset the initial cost, and to work towards funding the next activity. Kind of like a "Buy 2, get 1 Free" system.

3. Have Activities Tiers, so that lower tier activities cost no influence, and upper tier activities cost significantly more.

This goes for banditry as well, so much for me wanting Banditry EZ mode, I guess.

CEO, Goblinworks

Bluddwolf wrote:
I want High reputation to actually mean what it is supposed to mean. Which is, "There goes a good player."

Where did you get that idea? Totally wrong.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
I want High reputation to actually mean what it is supposed to mean. Which is, "There goes a good player."
Where did you get that idea? Totally wrong.

When I used the term "Good" it was not meant to be referring to alignment, or player skill. I meant it to mean that the player was someone who engaged frequently enough in positive game interactions to earn his/her high reputation.

Goblin Squad Member

Hmm I had a mis-type:

My comment was supposed to read: "I want High reputation to actually mean what it is supposed to mean. Which is, "There goes a good player." Conversely, I want a Low reputation player to be viewed as a detriment to themselves, their company and their settlement"

@ Ryan,

I also wanted to add this to clarify the above:

when I see someone that has a +5000 > reputation, I want to think, "Wow, that guy is playing the game in a positive way." What I would rather not think is "Hmmm... Did he just come off a 6 month break?"

I view High Reputation as being a reflection of positive game play. Just as I see low reputation as being the result of frequent unsanctioned PVP or other more detrimental activities.

If I still have this wrong, how so?

Goblin Squad Member

I'd instead be asking after Ryan's meaning than make any assumptions. It might clarify much to understand his idea of a 'good' player.

CEO, Goblinworks

Your reputation is an indicator of how you have chosen to balance pure altruism with pure selfishness. It says absolutely nothing about you or your character's skills or abilities.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Your reputation is an indicator of how you have chosen to balance pure altruism with pure selfishness. It says absolutely nothing about you or your character's skills or abilities.

I was not using it to reflect character skill or ability, I was using it to reflect positive player interaction.

It was from the perspective of a settlement manager, looking at someone with a high reputation.

Could you perhaps describe how you would view a character of high reputation in the eyes of a company or settlement leader?

I doubt one would say, "Well you seem to be an altruistic sort".

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Your reputation is an indicator of how you have chosen to balance pure altruism with pure selfishness. It says absolutely nothing about you or your character's skills or abilities.

With a goodly amount of "sanctioned" PVP available and the SAD option, could you elaborate on your view of "pure altruism"?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:

I will laugh my a$# off when I hit +7500 Rep while being one of the most prolific bandit / raiders in the game.

Every form of PVP I need is sanctioned. And when it is not initially sanctioned, I'll SAD it into sanctioned and either take no hit or get a double bonus to rep when it is accepted.

I think SAD is going to get used and abused, early and often. I'm not sure you'll be able to use it for double rep forever, nor am I sure you'll be able to kill your victims free of rep hits. Once GW figures that you're just using it as an excuse to do the killing you want to do anyway, they'll close off that loophole, don't you think?

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

I will laugh my a$# off when I hit +7500 Rep while being one of the most prolific bandit / raiders in the game.

Every form of PVP I need is sanctioned. And when it is not initially sanctioned, I'll SAD it into sanctioned and either take no hit or get a double bonus to rep when it is accepted.

I think SAD is going to get used and abused, early and often. I'm not sure you'll be able to use it for double rep forever, nor am I sure you'll be able to kill your victims free of rep hits. Once GW figures that you're just using it as an excuse to do the killing you want to do anyway, they'll close off that loophole, don't you think?

If people abuse SADs by demanding too much, they will get rejected and the bandits won't get the reputation bonus. If the bandits issue a reasonable SAD amount, and the caravan does not accept it, the caravan will lose all of its cargo and the bandit will lose no reputation. It is pretty balanced otherwise I think the Devs would have developed a different system.

Goblin Squad Member

I think if the SAD was delivered as has been promoted by Bluddwolf it would probably last all of a week before a major nerf.

As far as I understand it he wants a mechanic where you can run up to anyone, demand as much of you want of what's in their inventory, gain reputation for doing so and do it all without alignment slide, long-term flagging, or having a bounty put on your head.

There is no downside. There's no reason that everyone in the game won't go bandit. There's no reason that everyone in the game won't always deliver 100% SADs. People can go SAD whoever they want on one day and go adventure or craft unflagged the next. Hell if SAD's were designed by Bluddwolf I'm not even sure paladins wouldn't go around SADing everyone they meet.

I imagine that this vision is not what the developers have in mind, and if it is, it won't take long before it's amended. I was one of if not thee first person to propose ways of robbing people without killing them, but his take on it just doesn't have any downsides.

Goblin Squad Member

I am not going to whine about the SAD system, especially since I know that the Devs are not idiots and will not try to design a system that is too unbalanced.

It would be nice to get a confirmation that a bandit, issuing a SAD, is opening himself to consequence free PVP directly following a refusal, by me, to accept it.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

I will laugh my a$# off when I hit +7500 Rep while being one of the most prolific bandit / raiders in the game.

Every form of PVP I need is sanctioned. And when it is not initially sanctioned, I'll SAD it into sanctioned and either take no hit or get a double bonus to rep when it is accepted.

*{note} Bandit EZ Mode is when I will also receive reputation over time, rather than actually having to earn it.

* I actually believe that the Devs will announce that Sanctioned PVP will grant Reputation bonuses, because it just makes sense and supports their goal(s).

1. I have confidence GW can design a game where you can have a ton of fun Bluud, and actively engage in certain kinds of PvP to your heart's content.

2. I have confidence they won't design mechanics you can abuse or that give you a mechanical advantage.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:

I think if the SAD was delivered as has been promoted by Bluddwolf it would probably last all of a week before a major nerf.

As far as I understand it he wants a mechanic where you can run up to anyone, demand as much of you want of what's in their inventory, gain reputation for doing so and do it all without alignment slide, long-term flagging, or having a bounty put on your head.

There is no downside. There's no reason that everyone in the game won't go bandit. There's no reason that everyone in the game won't always deliver 100% SADs. People can go SAD whoever they want on one day and go adventure or craft unflagged the next. Hell if SAD's were designed by Bluddwolf I'm not even sure paladins wouldn't go around SADing everyone they meet.

I imagine that this vision is not what the developers have in mind, and if it is, it won't take long before it's amended. I was one of if not thee first person to propose ways of robbing people without killing them, but his take on it just doesn't have any downsides.

You live in fantasy land. I have always been the biggest proponent of issuing reasonable SADs. My numbers have typically been between 20 - 25%, and that was after it was revealed that a bandit could loot 75% from a defeated merchant / caravan.

There are two purposes of issuing a reasonable SAD. First the goal is to get the merchant to agree. This is the only way for the bandit to get the rep bonus. In return the merchant not only moves on with between 75 - 80% of his cargo! but he also gets 20 minutes of protection from getting SADd or ambushed, without the bandits getting a double reputation loss. What the bandit loses by this exchange is the advantage of ambushing a victim he could likely have beaten easily and giving up 75% of the loot.

I can't believe this still has to be explained. You seem to be a fairly intelligent person, so it must be that you hope to gain something by misrepresenting the design of the system.

1,101 to 1,150 of 2,166 << first < prev | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 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.