Goblin Squad Member
|
I am just one guy though.
Nope. I'll agree with you. :)
I would find it very odd if the best items don't require settlements for their creation. Like many have already posted, I was under the assumption that starter towns would have the basics for new characters, but anything advanced - training, crafting, etc. - was going to belong to settlements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I can think of one reason, but I am personally willing to endure the hardship of accepting it, and I DO plan to have at least one PVP oriented character and a crafter. Both would have to suffer a bit, for awhile.
There wouldn't be anywhere to craft anything above middling level for quite some time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Probably not corrct. You will probably need PC Settlement resources to access some keywords and use some materials, but you will probably be able to craft high quality stuff in NPC Settlements.
This likely hinges on the difference between "high quality" and "best."
If there's a significant difference--if on the one hand you can make high quality gear and have a good career in NPC settlements, but to really make the best magical gear and be a true master craftsman you need to be affiliated with a settlement--then this could be pretty cool.
This would allow the player base to self-sort in a meaningful way, and would also make for a much more meaningful social place for master craftsmen who choose to risk being part of the settlement world on the frontier.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Every item has quality. Quality is not de facto related to utility. Keywords will reflect utility. You'll want PC Settlements to get the ability to make items with beyond-basic keywords.
Even if you had to exclusively craft items in PC Settlements I can guarantee you they'd be available as commodities on easily and widely accessible markets. Even if every market was in a PC Settlement the same truth would obtain.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
In order to craft quality equipment, the crafter will need to be in a player settlement that is outside of NPC areas.Probably not corrct. You will probably need PC Settlement resources to access some keywords and use some materials, but you will probably be able to craft high quality stuff in NPC Settlements.
If I read that right, there are some things that cannot be crafted in NPC settlements, but people who craft only in NPC settlements aren't useless or excessively gimped?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to see the system laid out fully before I judge whether I like it or not. There are some things that I would point out but I am pretty sure that they are being or have been considered.
My Mantra "The Devs are not idiots... Have a little faith in the Devs."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I can see it, the crafters last stand:
Into the fore race the lightly armored master smiths who set, launch a mass of razor edged discus (will that be a PFO weapon?) into the approaching ranks, before falling back through ranks of skirmishers.
The skirmishers take advantage to the disarray caused by the lethal disks(were any poisoned), cast a few attacks and fall back; meanwhile behind the skirmishers the javelin team lets loose a volley and falls back with the skirmishers through ranks of burley journeyman smiths and builders in the best armor (threaded so if they die they take it with them). Behind these the master smiths and builders have regroup with the array of pole arms situated for their use, poles reaching beyond what that attacker has that reach that first rank. These superb weapons are threaded to the second rank. On the flanks, ranks of medium armored spearmen provide protection with ranks of AoE archers fire into the attackers. Hobbit and gnome crafters scoot and harry the edges pushing for flank when they can.
Killed to the last, but not without valuable threaded gear. Too bad they did no flee with 3 times as much craft as they dies with. If they had focused more on their trade maybe things would not have got so close. Still it was only a little time away from learn craft skills and some in-game time in the militia yard to get their formations right.
lam
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What happened?
Did I kill this?
Sorry 8-( . It was so active 8-(
srry
<wmpr>
Technically it's done, and has been for some time. The OP question was answered pages ago..... Could PFO Thrive with No Unsanctioned PvP?
Answer: There is no such thing as Unsanctioned PvP in PFO, as per Ryan Dancey.
Loss of Reputation =/= Unsanctioned =/= Toxic PvP or Griefing
High Reputation =/= Altruism; Low Reputation =/= Being a Jerk
There are no absolutes, there are no accurate assumptions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Answer: There is no such thing as Unsanctioned PvP in PFO, as per Ryan Dancey.This is incorrect, I think he just said he doesn't like the term and he also said he doesn't like the term sanctioned in this frame either.
The OP only concerns itself with Unsanctioned PvP, so that is what I answered. What Ryan meant was that there is PvP and there is griefing and reputation loss doses not necessarily equal griefing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In case anyone is worried about the serious imbalance in power between low skill combat characters vs. higher skilled ones...
Nighdrifter, in your T1 crafter vs T2 warrior, did you calculate averages or do a simulation? The system isn't linear, and while the average crafter swing is mostly ineffective, he occasionally gets lucky. I expect you've done enough nonlinear models to know how to implement it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
High Reputation =/= Altruism
I've put a few statements Ryan Dancey made in this thread - some alluded to by Bluddwolf - in chronological order. I hope this helps folks see more clearly what Ryan was trying to say.
I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the use of the words "sanctioned" and "unsanctioned" with regard to PvP.
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.
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 would also like to point out that the OP made no effort whatsoever to equate Loss of Reputation with Griefing.
@Nihimon
I can't help but notice you accidentally omitted some quotes from Ryan that support the High Reputation =/= Altruism statement
Could you perhaps describe how you would view a character of high reputation in the eyes of a company or settlement leader?I wonder how good this character will be in a fight. I wonder if this player will do what it takes to withstand hostile incursions from unknown forces? I wonder how this player will react when called on to take one for the team.
I would be worried that a high rep character was played by someone who cared more about a rep score than doing what was necessary to make e Settlement safe, powerful and cohesive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would be worried that a high rep character was played by someone who cared more about a rep score than doing what was necessary to make e Settlement safe, powerful and cohesive.
A player cares more for his own good than that of his settlement. That I believe is a direct statement that says the player lack altruism.
Altruim is no selfish behaviour. The bolded part says lacking altruism. How much more direct would you like him to be?
The statement from 1142 that you quoted says reputation measures the balance of altruism to selfishness. What it does not say is that altruism is at the high end of the scale. Taken with the quote I posted it seems to me the way to interpret quote 1142 is that either end of the rep scale denote selfishness and altruism is the space in the middle.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would also like to point out that the OP made no effort whatsoever to equate Loss of Reputation with Griefing.
Not blatantly so, but maybe there is a bit of the "baby steps" being taken or inadvertent "mission creep" that could lead to the same thing.
You can not argue that you were not under the impression that low reputation = being a jerk. Nor could you argue that you have not expressed that the loss of reputation was a sign of toxic behavior, deserving of at least social sanction. It would only be a matter of time before the the combination of conclusions would be packaged to say low reputation is a sign of griefing.
You and others, including myself, we're surprised at what Ryan's statements quoted above said. I would even venture the guess that you were disappointed by those quotes, because they were some of the rare Ryan quotes that did not get your favored vote.
As I said above, there may be the likelihood that there is no sanctioned or Unsanctioned PvP, there is just PvP. There will be no mechanical impact of griefing, there will just be bans for those who GW decides committed griefing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would also add that in quote 1138 Ryan too my use of the term "good" in the wrong context. He viewed as as being a skilled player or character, and nit as one who follows the desired game play as I meant it.
I'll admit I should have used a better term than "good", but he too took the word in a context that would not have made sense in the whole flow of the debate.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... it seems to me the way to interpret quote 1142 is that either end of the rep scale denote selfishness and altruism is the space in the middle.
That's how I read it as well. The location of the altruism zone is undefined, but it isn't at the ends of the scale. However, a middle rep score doesn't always indicate altruism is present.
One definition of altruism: behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species.
Sacrificing my Rep to help my settlement succeed sounds like it fits. Sacrificing my Rep to get phat lutz from other players isn't always altruism.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... it seems to me the way to interpret quote 1142 is that either end of the rep scale denote selfishness and altruism is the space in the middle.
That's an... interesting... interpretation.
You can not argue that you were not under the impression that low reputation = being a jerk.
Indeed. In fact, I'm still under that impression.
Nor could you argue that you have not expressed that the loss of reputation was a sign of toxic behavior, deserving of at least social sanction.
Utterly untrue. I have long believed that individual acts which cause the loss of Reputation cannot rightly be judged without a lot of information that not even both sides of that action are likely to possess. It is the cumulative effect of repeated loss of Reputation in the absence of acts which raise it that I would characterize as "toxic".
It would only be a matter of time before the the combination of conclusions would be packaged to say low reputation is a sign of griefing.
Having a Low Reputation is a sign of being a jerk. Being a jerk is not necessarily griefing, although you've consistently tried to make that argument. I have never called for Low Reputation characters to be banned as griefers, and I never will. All I want is to be able to kill them with impunity :)
You and others, including myself, we're surprised at what Ryan's statements quoted above said.
I struggled to understand what Ryan was trying to tell me. I assume he's being consistent and that my preconceptions stood in the way of my understanding.
@Urman completely agree.
I don't believe you can take the rep value and look at it as more than a general guide which may be wildly wrong and just a product of circumstance. I certainly wouldn't say you can't have high rep and be altruistic but like Ryan I would be suspicious that the max rep guy may not be ready to take the hit when necessary.
The caveat of course is we do not have information on the rep regain system. The speed of rep regain will determine where the probable altruism band falls. The slower it is the lower down the rep scale I would expect the probable altruism band to be and the faster the rep regain the higher on the rep scale it would be.
I believe Nihimon has advocated for Rep regain to take months for a single kill of a high rep player though so if his wish comes true I would certainly be expecting the band to trend towards the middle
... it seems to me the way to interpret quote 1142 is that either end of the rep scale denote selfishness and altruism is the space in the middle.That's an... interesting... interpretation.
Well it may be "interesting" as you put it but it looks like I am not the only one seeing it that way...see Urmans post.
How you justify your claim that quote 1142 says high reputation == altruism I find much more of a questionable interpretation when all it talks about is it measuring a balance between the two. That in no way implies the ends denote opposites and Ryan did not claim they did.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe Nihimon has advocated for Rep regain to take months for a single kill of a high rep player though so if his wish comes true I would certainly be expecting the band to trend towards the middle
Personally, I was thinking more along the lines of regaining 100 Reputation points per day, maximum, with the losses as currently defined. That means it would take over a month to work off a single kill of a Max Reputation character, and most of a week to work off a kill of a 0 Rep character.
I stand by my assertion that if there is a valid reason for you to be killing a High Reputation character every month, then there is something wrong with the way the Reputation system works.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...maybe there is a bit of the "baby steps" being taken or inadvertent "mission creep" that could lead to the same thing.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Searching for ulterior motives is something of an art-form, but I'm un-convinced there's always one to be found.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes I think people are on opposite sides of arguments for so long, that any argument becomes not about the subject at hand, but on the ongoing argument itself. I think that there isn't really much more use for this thread at this point, because the entire state of reputation as a mechanic is in flux. Ryan has already stated that there is disagreement between his view of reputation and that of the reset of the dev team.
The one thing I think we can agree on at this point is that there will be a consequence for engaging in PvP combat. What that consequence will be be is going to depend on many factors that we don't know yet, but at this point the biggest one is to be dragged into a funnel into a low-rep CE alignment where you won't have access to advanced skill training.
I believe Nihimon has advocated for Rep regain to take months for a single kill of a high rep player though so if his wish comes true I would certainly be expecting the band to trend towards the middlePersonally, I was thinking more along the lines of regaining 100 Reputation points per day, maximum, with the losses as currently defined. That means it would take over a month to work off a single kill of a Max Reputation character, and most of a week to work off a kill of a 0 Rep character.I stand by my assertion that if there is a valid reason for you to be killing a High Reputation character every month, then there is something wrong with the way the Reputation system works.
I wasn't commenting upon the rightness or wrongness of what you were proposing merely the effect of speed of rep gain on where rep would fall for characters occasionally taking the hit on rep for the benefit of their settlement.
The centre point of that zone will be defined by ((average rep hit per altruistic kill) * (average number of altruistic kills necessary per month)) / rep regain per month
We currently have no figures to plug in but I believe the equation is reasonable
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan has already stated that there is disagreement between his view of reputation and that of the reset of the dev team.
I don't really think that's true. I think the only disagreement is on the viability of characters that are Chaotic Evil and High Reputation, and I think there's a tendency to overstate the devs' opinion of that viability.
... we expect the majority of CE characters to also have very low reputation...
... we genuinely believe that there won't be very many CE players that maintain high reputation.
f the early enrollees manage to set up enough high-rep CE settlements to create and maintain an expectation of "playing CE but not being a jerk about it" among later players, that'd be great. Just don't get your hearts set on pulling it off :) .
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would be worried that a high rep character was played by someone who cared more about a rep score than doing what was necessary to make e Settlement safe, powerful and cohesive.
This reference does not appear to factor the conditions under which Ryan would so worry. Was it really in reference to all high reputation characters, every time, under the planned system or was it in reference to some specific hypothetical some was using to argue with?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe it's perfectly possible for someone to have a high rep and be giving their all to the settlement. Crafters are presumably not going to be off PvPing and losing rep to get their jollies in the "good times" and if they are defending their settlement in a time of war there will be no rep hits anyway.
I think the only thing this thread has proved about what we know about reputation is that there are no absolutes - that each toon's rep will have to be taken on its own merits and taking into account its own unique circumstances. Having a very high reputation is not always a good sign, and nor need having a very low one be a sign of being a jerk. That makes it a far more interesting system than a black and white polar system, and I think that means that whatever we say now, we'll have changed our minds what we think it means come OE.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What I took away from Ryan's statement, and follow ups, was that judging someone from their "immediate" reputation score is not as black and white or binary a determinate that the person is a "great" player.
How we will factor the tales of why the person has a low or middling rep score into our judgments, I am not so confident about.
I also took away that GW is not confident that once released, the reputation mechanic will cover what it needs to or survive Us and will need much tweaking.
Edit: reputation for alignment. Derp!
2nd Edit: That Darn Lhan! ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree with Being. In that statement Ryan is picturing himself as a settlement leader and thinking whether to recruit a high rep player or not. That's how I read it. There's more leeway in the playing style if you play high rep.
So high rep can mean altruism but it can also mean some kind of selfish behavior.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Loss of Reputation =/= Unsanctioned =/= Toxic PvP or Griefing
High Reputation =/= Altruism; Low Reputation =/= Being a Jerk
So this can also be:
loss of reputation = unsanctioned = toxic pvp or griefing
high rep = altruism
low rep = jerkBut there are no absolutes. :)
It can also mean:
High rep = selfish = being a jerk = toxic
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Loss of Reputation =/= Unsanctioned =/= Toxic PvP or Griefing
High Reputation =/= Altruism; Low Reputation =/= Being a Jerk
So this can also be:
loss of reputation = unsanctioned = toxic pvp or griefing
high rep = altruism
low rep = jerkBut there are no absolutes. :)
It can also mean:
High rep = selfish = being a jerk = toxic
Except it is not an absolute. If your crafting alt does nothing but crank out long swords for the War Machine, he will possibly have very high reputation, but I would not say that he is selfish or toxic.
The same goes for the other end of the spectrum.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
High rep doesn't mean someone is staying away from justified PvP. It means they are staying away from initiating PvP vs not-red characters. I could see anyone in a NRDS settlement having a high rep by only attack people that had made themselves red.
I don't see that as "selfish".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan also said that there will be ways to expend / cost reputation through PVE activities, I would assume also through crafting, trade or adventuring.
If there are only ways to expend reputation through PvP, then the system is biased and therefore broken.
I must have missed that bit. Do you have a link?
I'm not sure that not having such a system would make reputation "broken" since it is in my understanding a measure of how players interact with each other, but I agree that adding PvE to the mix might make it more interesting.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For what it's worth...
Could Pathfinder Online thrive as a successful game if everyone simply chose not to engage in Unsanctioned PvP?
I believe the answer is clearly "Yes", and conversely that the game would suffer immeasurably if the majority of PvP were Unsanctioned, but I'm curious to read others' arguments.
I now believe the answer is "No", although I still believe the game would suffer immeasurably if the majority of PvP were of the type that carried Alignment and Reputation penalties.
This statement from Ryan is probably what made me reconsider:
... every once in a while the CE people will rally behind some strong leader and come boiling out across the map ready to pillage, but that's just more great content for everyone else so I think it's a feature not a bug...
Mbando alluded to the same thing here:
"Hey guys, here's my great idea for a compelling new open world PvP sandbox: Everyone plays a LG Paladin and we all just chat!!!"
In essence, the game would be boring if there weren't any risk, and there's no real risk if the risk is only theoretical. And if the game is boring, it won't thrive.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I must have missed that bit. Do you have a link?Ryan also said that there will be ways to expend / cost reputation through PVE activities, I would assume also through crafting, trade or adventuring.
If there are only ways to expend reputation through PvP, then the system is biased and therefore broken.
I have no memory of such a statement from Ryan or any dev, and find it difficult to imagine how one could lose Reputation by Crafting.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have no memory of such a statement from Ryan or any dev, and find it difficult to imagine how one could lose Reputation by Crafting.
I could see loosing rep by failing to live up to a work order contract, but that would be from the break of contract, not from crafting
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
From a PM I sent to a friend, but reposted here in the interest of being open and honest.
For example...
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....
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.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.I just assume Ryan is being consistent, and I have some preconceptions that are causing me to fail to understand what he's trying to tell me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My mistake, I was remembering a list if activity types that Ryan affirmed would result in positive reputation gain, not loss or cost.
However, I would argue if there us a way to gain reputation from performing an activity, there should also be a way to spend or cost you reputation by performing the same activity.
Crafting for instance, you could spend reputation to make a marginally inferior product that would still appear to be the same quality it would have been hadc you used the same resources or spent the same time.
Example:
Silver dagger takes: 3 silver bars, 2 leather, 1 wood = QL 200 Silver Dagger
Silver dagger takes: 2 silver bars, 1 tin bar, 2 leather, 1 wood = QL 195 Silver Dagger, but it looks like the QL 200 Silver Dagger
The second dagger in the example would cost the crafter x reputation for producing the inferior silver dagger and passing it off for the full quality.