Goblin Squad Member
|
Situationally you need to describe what is happening and what the consequences are rather than labeling some action with an adjective. Saying that an action has a negative consequence is not the same as saying it is "unsanctioned" or "greifing".
It sounds like you'd rather we not focus on being High Reputation as an end in itself, and that you'd rather we not attach on form of righteousness to maintaining a High Reputation.
Or I'm just failing to grasp the motivation you have for making these statements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In fact, I was struck by his prior statement that someone with a High Rep might be more interested in maintaining a Rep Score than in doing what is necessary to secure a Settlement.
In many games, the win condition isn't based on the "currency" the player holds at the end. In such games, currency is the stuff used to achieve something, not a victory condition itself. If we're just sitting on Reputation and Influence, instead of judiciously using them to advance our company and settlement goals, then we're not doing as much as we could within the spirit of the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am very curious whether there will be any value in having max Reputation, or if there will only be breakpoints at which certain opportunities appear. Will the only real value in having a very High Reputation be that you're freer to engage in PvP that has Reputation and Alignment consequences when such a situation presents itself?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Fruben generally that seems so but how do you apportion rep/alignment without recourse to in this case or context a SAD?
Alignment: I do not see any real difference between declaring your intent to maim and rob someone beforehand and letting your victim know this is your intent by committing the deed. In my opinion the laws of the land should dictate whether there is any hit on the law-chaotic axle. GW needs to decide whether attacking/killing/robbing someone merits a shift in the good-evil axle. Of course, no alignment hit if you get what you wanted without spilling blood.
Reputation: Until it is clearly defined what reputation should measure, I cannot really comment on this. Ryan's latest comments once again suggest that reputation could simply be a "non-aggression" measurement (in which case it would be difficult to see why imposing your will with the threat of immediate bodily harm should increase you “non-aggression” rating). If reputation is supposed to measure something completely different (such as active "meaningful player interaction" participation), this would of course be a different story (but in this scenario the bandits should have reputation in abundance and should be able to afford to miss a little by not beating their surrendering victim to a pulp).
In general I am very skeptical of creating any game mechanic that would by a press of a couple of buttons turn otherwise "not encouraged" action into "encouraged" (I am assuming here that seemingly random killing of strangers would be "not encouraged"). Does not seem to make much sense to me (but then again, I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The thing about this that worries me is, with increases in the number of contexts in which the "right" thing to do is to lose Reputation & Alignment, there are corresponding decreases in the value of Reputation & Alignment scores.
That is because you are still thinking of it in a moral context, rather than in the context Ryan had placed it in.
Engaging in combat that may cost you reputation may be what you have to do in that situation to server a higher need than your own reputation score.
Let's take this scenario for a moment. A swarm of high rep, LG, noob characters enter into your settlement's territory and relentlessly strip mine every node they find. They then haul off the cargo to their own settlement elsewhere. No amount of negotiations would get them to stop. Your settlement is at a disadvantage, not being able to harvest its local resources.
War is an option, but a lot of innocents will die in that exchange. Having a small band of warriors, who care little for their alignment or reputation, will take care of the nuisance. A far more pragmatic approach, and it solves the problem.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am very curious whether there will be any value in having max Reputation, or if there will only be breakpoints at which certain opportunities appear. Will the only real value in having a very High Reputation be that you're freer to engage in PvP that has Reputation and Alignment consequences when such a situation presents itself?
Good question. If they make breakpoints, I am hopeful that they are still high. Let the opportunity cost of using your Rep to do things that are necessary, but draining, be an interesting choice. Not so severe as to be a "no brainer", but to be interesting nonetheless.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It sounds like there is structured PvP, with some sort of formal, built in game support, e.g. raiding or warfare. And then there seems to be unstructured PvP, more ad hoc without specific situational game support. Or maybe you could use the word formal and informal--the difference between formal, institutionally sanctioned training that happens at military schoolhouses, or the informal, ad hoc training and learning that makes up a huge amount of how military members learn (or nurses and doctors, or shift-workers, etc).
It's not like one is good and one is bad--structured and unstructured PvP will be situational and contextual.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The thing about this that worries me is, with increases in the number of contexts in which the "right" thing to do is to lose Reputation & Alignment, there are corresponding decreases in the value of Reputation & Alignment scores.
Having more will be useful in some situations, less useful in others. The value in having +7500 Rep vs. +2500 Rep may not be as significant as the difference between +2500 Rep and -2500 Rep.
And if you're at -7500 Law/Good/Rep... freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Urman, I get all that, but it doesn't really address the part you quoted.
My previous understanding was very simple.
1. Alignment & Reputation served to identify sociopathic a~!@$$+s who couldn't restrain their impulse to randomly kill other players.
2. "Sanctioned" PvP would never reduce a character's Alignment or Reputation.
3. There would be room for normal players to occasionally venture outside of that "sanction" without serious impact for special circumstances.
4. If a context were identified in which players were regularly violating that "sanction" in ways the developers thought were actually justifiable, then some effort would be made to bring that PvP into the "sanctioned" fold.
I'm struggling to understand how Ryan's statements should make me alter that understanding.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that rep will be a fractal system like many others and while it may initially have some clear association with PvP, it will over time mutate and become associated with many other aspects of the game. Reputation should reflect the consensus of everyone you have interacted with not just the characters you interacted with in PvP.
Therefore it does not indicate anything about your character's combat skill, the character's past behavior in combat, it's tactics in combat, or anything else that specific.
Reputation will also likely be relative. In certain areas of the map "high rep" and "low rep" will be defined differently by the local inhabitants than in others. In an area trying to be very high rep lawful good, you might find that even small lapses place you at a social disadvantage. In an area filled with murderous jerks, you might find that even a small amount of rep places you above the seething mass of random gankers.
Mechanically there will almost certainly be clearly defined ranges within which your reputation has meaningful consequences to your Settlement in terms of access to various structures and the implications that has on the Settlement's character's abilities. Those won't be dependent on the local social environment they will be server-wide absolutes.
The jerk funnel is not simply reputation. It is the combination of low reputation, evil, and chaotic behavior. My opinion is that it will be virtually impossible to be chaotic, evil and have a high reputation, and I'm OK with that. I fully expect there will be high reputation lawful evil Settlements, and low reputation chaotic good settlements, and every other combination in the matrix you can imagine. Mechanically the closer your Settlement gets to low rep, chaotic and evil, the less powerful your characters will be.
You will have to choose between a wide variety of variables to find the place that best meets the desires and needs of the community - how stringently will you attempt to enforce border security, how dangerous do you want the surrounding territory to be for harvesting and exploring, how often do you want to go to war, to what extent will you venerate gods of law, chaos, good and/or evil, do you honor or abrogate contracts, will you have an expansionist or a defensive posture vs. your neighbors, etc. etc. etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the point being made is that some decisions that pull you toward chaotic/evil/low-rep will be meaningful and not just things people do to be jerks even though many of them will be.
Players will have to decide for themselves whether each action they take is really worth dragging down their rep/alignment which in turn drags down their settlement.
Each group will have to decide for itself what balance of chaos/evil/low-rep is worth the freedom they desire to fight in the manner they wish or how much freedom to act they'll sacrifice for the benefits of good/law/high-rep.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that rep will... become associated with many other aspects of the game. Reputation should reflect the consensus of everyone you have interacted with not just the characters you interacted with in PvP.
Okay, thanks :)
It's easy to see that you keep saying the same things over and over. I guess it's also fairly easy to see that none of us really grok it all.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
That's exactly what I'm saying. Having a high reputation just means you did whatever it takes to get rep and avoided doing the things that subtract rep. It's your weight, not your morals.
Are you saying that reputation will be a currency spent on things, to the exclusion of a capital good which has value when simply accumulated?
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
Are you saying that reputation will be a currency spent on things, to the exclusion of a capital good which has value when simply accumulated?
That doesn't make much sense to me.
Reputation is not a unit of account or a store of value. You can't exchange it with someone for a good or service. I can't spend your reputation.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
The thing about this that worries me is, with increases in the number of contexts in which the "right" thing to do is to lose Reputation & Alignment, there are corresponding decreases in the value of Reputation & Alignment scores.
At least part of the value of reputation is the things that can be purchased with it. Increasing the number of things that can be bought with reputation cannot diminish value- if more people spend reputation as a result, it is because the things bought with rep are more valuable to them.
I also think that accumulating rep will have benefits beyond spending, and that is what makes spending reputation inherently costly.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Are you saying that reputation will be a currency spent on things, to the exclusion of a capital good which has value when simply accumulated?That doesn't make much sense to me.
Reputation is not a unit of account or a store of value. You can't exchange it with someone for a good or service. I can't spend your reputation.
If I can lose reputation and perform an action, I am spending it just as much as I am spending a potion when I drink it.
I'm probably misusing economics jargon quite badly, but losing reputation to perform actions is pretty core to the idea of reputation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Economics jargon might be a better way to talk about it.
I'd always assumed your Reputation was kind of like your Credit Score. It doesn't make sense to think in terms of "spending" your Credit Score. Or at least, that's a very dishonest thing to do since it basically involves taking on a bunch of debt and not paying it back.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
@Decius, that's kind of my point. I'd always assumed Reputation would have value in itself rather than as you "spent" it.
I've figured that since there are things you want to DI that cost rep, it has value in the spending in addition to value which accrues directly from having accumulated reputation.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having a high reputation means that you can unlock the most advanced structures which give you access to the most advanced training and enable your characters to use the most advanced character abilities. (And probably a lot of other stuff too).
But the most advanced dagger is not the best weapon to take to a fight where your opponents have crappy shotguns. Being a kung-fu master doesn't help the wheat grow faster. A horde of mooks that are willing to die for their cause, and then be bored for a while over and over and over will be a credible threat to a small group of knights who won't take the war to their enemy for fear of sullying their honor.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A horde of mooks that are willing to die for their cause, and then be bored for a while over and over and over will be a credible threat to a small group of knights who won't take the war to their enemy for fear of sullying their honor.
That's surprising to me, unless "take the war to the enemy" is used in a very broad sense. Do you mean "take the war to the enemy" in the sense of "mounts an attack against the enemy in a declared war," or more in the sense of "willing to attack a nearby neutral party as part of the larger war strategy?"
It's hard to wrap my head around the idea that a group of knights couldn't actively fight a declared enemy in a war.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... a small group of knights who won't take the war to their enemy for fear of sullying their honor.
Yeah, there's something about this that seems odd to me, too. Aren't there going to be ways to take the war to their enemy without sullying their honor?
I would think I can either declare War if my enemy is a Settlement, or start a Feud if my enemy is a Company, or use Local Laws if my enemy isn't even a Company. If none of those three are applicable, I'm at a loss to why I should care about them very much at all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... a small group of knights who won't take the war to their enemy for fear of sullying their honor.Yeah, there's something about this that seems odd to me, too. Aren't there going to be ways to take the war to their enemy without sullying their honor?
I would think I can either declare War if my enemy is a Settlement, or start a Feud if my enemy is a Company, or use Local Laws if my enemy isn't even a Company. If none of those three are applicable, I'm at a loss to why I should care about them very much at all.
What if the mooks are burning our crops...and we do not have enough influence to buy into a feud or war? Or, if we are saving influence for another reason? At that point our reputation and settlement influence become something to balance.
Just as an example that makes sense with Ryan's description.
...we asked for consequences...
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guarantee you that a tactic someone will use is putting the horde of mook Settlement inside a ring of mildly neutral moderate rep Settlements who will be vassals of the mooks. To take the war to the mooks, you'll have to carve a path through the "neutrals".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... a small group of knights who won't take the war to their enemy for fear of sullying their honor.Yeah, there's something about this that seems odd to me, too. Aren't there going to be ways to take the war to their enemy without sullying their honor?
I think you are missing the point.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guarantee you that a tactic someone will use is putting the horde of mook Settlement inside a ring of mildly neutral moderate rep Settlements who will be vassals of the mooks. To take the war to the mooks, you'll have to carve a path through the "neutrals".
I was just thinking the other day about how one might leverage the CE low rep "hordes" that are going to be in game. I guess this is one way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Any system that allows you to take un-provoked aggressive actions without getting flagged is incredibly flawed. I would hope when the mooks are burning your field you can go stop them without losing rep or alignment, I would hope when the mooks are burning your neighbors field you can go stop them without burning rep or alignment, and I would hope that when the mooks are robbing and attacking people in the nearby (uncontrolled) forest you can go stop them without losing rep or alignment.
What should separate the knights from the mooks is that if you aren't put there taking un-provoked aggressive actions, the knights can't touch you without sullying their honor but the mooks can and will. That's what makes them mooks.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I guarantee you that a tactic someone will use is putting the horde of mook Settlement inside a ring of mildly neutral moderate rep Settlements who will be vassals of the mooks. To take the war to the mooks, you'll have to carve a path through the "neutrals".
Right--that's what I was getting at. TY.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
and I would hope that when the mooks are robbing and attacking people in the nearby (uncontrolled) forest you can go stop them without losing rep or alignment.
I don't understand this position. You don't control that territory. Why should you be able to act within that territory without consequence? Everyone else is taking consequences for doing so, why shouldn't you? If you want to extend your influence within an area you either do so with the mechanics provided (claim it) or take the consequences for doing so without those mechanics.
You are free to police your own territory how you see fit, but you are not the globally sanctioned police force for the entire server. If you want to be that police force, impose your will mechanically by taking that territory and holding it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
and I would hope that when the mooks are robbing and attacking people in the nearby (uncontrolled) forest you can go stop them without losing rep or alignment.
I don't understand this position. You don't control that territory. Why should you be able to act within that territory without consequence? Everyone else is taking consequences for doing so, why shouldn't you? If you want to extend your influence within an area you either do so with the mechanics provided (claim it) or take the consequences for doing so without those mechanics.
You are free to police your own territory how you see fit, but you are not the globally sanctioned police force for the entire server. If you want to be that police force, impose your will mechanically by taking that territory and holding it.
Let's take this out of the context of the game.
You, or someone you love is getting robbed at knife point, brutally attacked, or even killed by a random attacker in a back alley in Chicago.
I, not knowing you, intercede using the level of force needed to stop the attack. Remember this is a real life scenario, and I just saved you, your spouse, your grandparent, your child, whatever. I am a hero am I not?
Change the setting to a desert island with now government or laws. Am I still a hero?
Change the setting to Nazi Germany, and you're a Jew being lawfully abused by a Nazi. Am I still a hero?
Don't answer from your characters perspective. Answer from your real perspective. When someone stops a random/violent attack on someone else, does it not make it even more noble if they do not know the person, and does the setting change the morality at all?
The only axis this should possibly effect is law/chaos because it is a good action and very meaningful PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
and I would hope that when the mooks are robbing and attacking people in the nearby (uncontrolled) forest you can go stop them without losing rep or alignment.
I don't understand this position. You don't control that territory. Why should you be able to act within that territory without consequence? Everyone else is taking consequences for doing so, why shouldn't you? If you want to extend your influence within an area you either do so with the mechanics provided (claim it) or take the consequences for doing so without those mechanics.
You are free to police your own territory how you see fit, but you are not the globally sanctioned police force for the entire server. If you want to be that police force, impose your will mechanically by taking that territory and holding it.
Let's take this out of the context of the game.
We can't. It's a game. This makes no sense at all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I threw it put there because Pathfinder is identical to how most of you will answer this. Using violence to intercede and stop a worse violence is always commendable, and the setting doesn't matter. That's why paladins carry weapons. Anyone trying to force a pacifist view or lawful perspective on the PFO morality system does so in error.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Andius, under the old Attacker flag (which still may exist or not) you could intervene against the attacker, within a very short amount of time.
If you just heard of the attack, and weren't present, and took it upon yourself to find and kill the alleged attacker, then you're just dispensing rough justice. You're not actually saving anyone; it's no longer a defensive act, but an aggressive act.
But yeah, I hope the Attacker flag still exists as it did.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is really being over thought at this point and dissected when there aren't any guts inside to pull out and look at yet.
Ryan has simply offered us the reality that low rep and high rep will not be as easily judged as we seem to assume. That the mechanical advantages/disadvantages will be the same, buy we may have to make choices for the well being of our settlement or Org that make Highest rep not always the best way to look at the best way to play.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Realistically, The tentative information is shaping up to a few truths.
1. Chaotic Evil is likely to be attributed to low rep, and will suck. It is an intentional design for this alignment to suck. If this remains the case when the game launches then non good settlements will likely come to the conclusion that supporting CE characters is a bad choice. Gamers will be asked to aim for another alignment that is more in line with settlement goals. If such is not possible then dissolution of terms might be called for. No settlement wants to voluntarily hit the lose button. If CE is a likely lose condition, then CE will be rare or disallowed.
2. This is a game has a strong settlement warfare element. A good portion of the game will be devoted to taking or defending territory. That is one of the larger areas we have been told the game wants to foster. The ability to be a map wide defender will likely carry a consequence in reputation. Unless new information comes in taking on that role will mean taking on the consequence.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Andius, under the old Attacker flag (which still may exist or not) you could intervene against the attacker, within a very short amount of time.
If you just heard of the attack, and weren't present, and took it upon yourself to find and kill the alleged attacker, then you're just dispensing rough justice. You're not actually saving anyone; it's no longer a defensive act, but an aggressive act.
But yeah, I hope the Attacker flag still exists as it did.
I am a big fan of the attacker flag, as well as the more long-term murder flag you get if you get it enough times.
I am also a fan of the nearly identical criminal flag for actions like SADs. If some similar flag is attached to any unprovoked aggressive action outside feuds, wars, and the policing if your own territory I will be content.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I threw it put there because Pathfinder is identical to how most of you will answer this. Using violence to intercede and stop a worse violence is always commendable, and the setting doesn't matter. That's why paladins carry weapons. Anyone trying to force a pacifist view or lawful perspective on the PFO morality system does so in error.
To play along:
Under your analogy my mind assumes that these situations are happening in my own country, state, city, perhaps even back yard.
In the River Kingdoms being a defender in the wilds would be similar to fighting seal hunters in the arctic. Similarly you would likely not go out to fight injustice in the middle east.
Now taming the wild lands in the name of justice, or going to war with an evil settlement for the same reason makes sense. I would expect that to be mechanically supported.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
and I would hope that when the mooks are robbing and attacking people in the nearby (uncontrolled) forest you can go stop them without losing rep or alignment.
I don't understand this position. You don't control that territory. Why should you be able to act within that territory without consequence? Everyone else is taking consequences for doing so, why shouldn't you? If you want to extend your influence within an area you either do so with the mechanics provided (claim it) or take the consequences for doing so without those mechanics.
You are free to police your own territory how you see fit, but you are not the globally sanctioned police force for the entire server. If you want to be that police force, impose your will mechanically by taking that territory and holding it.
Let's take this out of the context of the game.
You, or someone you love is getting robbed at knife point, brutally attacked, or even killed by a random attacker in a back alley in Chicago.
I, not knowing you, intercede using the level of force needed to stop the attack. Remember this is a real life scenario, and I just saved you, your spouse, your grandparent, your child, whatever. I am a hero am I not?
Change the setting to a desert island with now government or laws. Am I still a hero?
Change the setting to Nazi Germany, and you're a Jew being lawfully abused by a Nazi. Am I still a hero?
Don't answer from your characters perspective. Answer from your real perspective. When someone stops a random/violent attack on someone else, does it not make it even more noble if they do not know the person, and does the setting change the morality at all?
The only axis this should possibly effect is law/chaos because it is a good action and very meaningful PvP.
Duergar are LE, some settlements already announced for PFO are LE, do you think they would find your choices moral or stupid? Morality on Golarion is either based on natural law or divinity...and there are lots of choices for divinity.