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.
That's a possible use of rep in a PvE context, but that example would tend to show that using rep in such a way is not exactly behaving with the good of the community at heart, but rather that you are being (for want of a better word) selfish. Not that there is anything particularly wrong with this idea, though I do think it is getting perilously close to the start of the kind of scams so common in EvE that Ryan has categorically stated he does not wish to see in PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A better use of reputation in commerce would be the creation of advance-payment contracts. If you fail to complete a contract that you accepted, suffer reputation loss proportional to the amount of the advance payment.
How could you see crafters suffering reputation loss from the use or misuse of their skills?
Gathering may see reputation loss from strip mining or depleting a resource to zero. That that is fairly easy to conceive.
Trade and reputation loss could be connected to moving contraband (smuggling) which could have a positive or negative for the settlement being supplied.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
How could you see crafters suffering reputation loss from the use or misuse of their skills?A better use of reputation in commerce would be the creation of advance-payment contracts. If you fail to complete a contract that you accepted, suffer reputation loss proportional to the amount of the advance payment.
Failing to complete an advance-payment contract that they accepted, which would include failing to make a margin call when due, failing to meet a futures obligation, or any other breach.
I think that it's very meaningful to allow characters to fail to meet their contractual obligations, but if there is no cost to doing so it will be widely perceived that advance-payment contracts are for chumps, and they won't be used.
One example of what I hope is a typical advance-payment contract would be: "Accept delivery of X units of logs in advance, and deliver Y units of lumber within 24 hours for a payment of Z coin on delivery."
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that at the top end of rep, there's a thing you have to do every day at a certain time to gain a point or two of rep unattainable any other way. The is just hypothetical so don't read anything more into it.
Now imagine that there is something really important that the Settlement needs done that conflicts with fulfilling that rep gaining activity.
Doing the necessary thing implies you don't maximize your rep. Maximizing your rep implies you put that number ahead of your collective obligation to your Settlement.
That is the kind of meaningful choice that I'd be interested in when vetting a potential recruit: do they play "for a number" or for the team?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Putting all thoughts of reputation aside, I really hope that GW are not toying with the idea of fixed times for things, given the international nature of the community, and that there will be no one time period that will be "fair" for all. I know the above is just a hypothetical, but I just wanted to make the point.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hrm, coming out of leftfield and randomly commenting if rep was some sort of points system, then some ideas from Islamic Banking (Sharia-Compliant Finance to be specific) such as "risk-sharing vs risk transferring" and basing raising capital on profit-sharing from trade not from interest on loans (ie making money to make money only goal). Etc.
Could "rope" people into sharing the Rep system and it's more a question of trust/faith in who you give rep pts to to both raise rep and raise capital.
I know that borking the subject at hand with a random subject but raising rep to raise rep sounds very capitalist as Ryan's eg vs "other goals" eg teamwork. If you can combine the two maybe that is better?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that at the top end of rep, there's a thing you have to do every day at a certain time to gain a point or two of rep unattainable any other way. The is just hypothetical so don't read anything more into it.
Now imagine that there is something really important that the Settlement needs done that conflicts with fulfilling that rep gaining activity.
Doing the necessary thing implies you don't maximize your rep. Maximizing your rep implies you put that number ahead of your collective obligation to your Settlement.
That is the kind of meaningful choice that I'd be interested in when vetting a potential recruit: do they play "for a number" or for the team?
This seems pretty straightforward. It's from the perspective of effective settlement vs. settlement competition, and since you envision effective settlement level competition as inherently involving getting your hands dirty to a degree, players who are fully invested in helping their settlement advance can't have snow white hands.
I think this is another example of us as players going to our habitual level of analysis (the level of the player), when the design framework is operating one level higher (at the level of the settlement). Instead of working at the level of the individual ("How does this choice affect my character?), we need to go up one level of analysis to the collective ("How does this affect my settlement?").
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If there are only ways to expend reputation through PvP, then the system is biased and therefore broken.
That makes no sense at all. If a researcher is primed to notice some things and not other, that's bias. In a more folk sense, if Mr. McGillicutty has better social relationships with girls than boys, and systematically gives them higher grades because of that like, that's also bias.
If a designer decides that X works better than Y, that's a purposeful design choice. It's the opposite of bias.
Are you trying to complain and just expressing the sentiment poorly? Something like "I don't think design choice X doesn't give me a competitive advantage and so I'm complaining about it"?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Now imagine that there is something really important that the Settlement needs done that conflicts with fulfilling that rep gaining activity.
This makes a lot of sense to me, and answers some questions I had. My preconceptions had me stuck in a rut where the only thing I could imagine that would fulfill the criteria of "taking one for the team instead of maximizing Rep" was actually losing Rep by attacking an unflagged character. If that kind of thing was commonplace, I would worry that the Rep & Alignment systems weren't really meaningful. However, this example really opened my eyes to a host of other ways in which being a good Settlement member can frequently conflict with "maximizing" Rep without actually requiring you to engage in "semi-jerky behavior".
Thank you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If there are only ways to expend reputation through PvP, then the system is biased and therefore broken.That makes no sense at all. If a researcher is primed to notice some things and not other, that's bias. In a more folk sense, if Mr. McGillicutty has better social relationships with girls than boys, and systematically gives them higher grades because of that like, that's also bias.
If a designer decides that X works better than Y, that's a purposeful design choice. It's the opposite of bias.
Are you trying to complain and just expressing the sentiment poorly? Something like "I don't think design choice X doesn't give me a competitive advantage and so I'm complaining about it"?
Let me explain it clearer:
If the only way to lose reputation is through PVP activities, then the system is slanted against those players who seek to spend most of their time PVPing.
If the Rep system is as Ryan says, a measure of the balance between selfishness and altruism, in the view of the settlement, than there are PVE activities that are purely selfish.
It also strikes me that the reputation system is reversed in that view. A characters should gain reputation from being altruistic towards placing the needs of the settlement over their own. Those activities should not cost reputation, but gain it.
The other counter intuitive relationship is how over all reputation of the citizenry and the settlement's DI are in conflict.
In one way having a high reputation benefits the settlement and its citizens, but it also reflects more selfish behavior.
I just see so many problems with the system, particularly with the possibility that it can not fairly measure player actions. I still have not seen the issue of the "Holding Company" addressed, or the "Min-Maxer" issue addressed.
Holding Company: Minimum required settlement managers, alts, never actually play with these characters. They just hold the desired alignment and reputation and commit no act that can change them.
All "citizens" are meta gamed, treated as citizens outside of the game mechanics and as visitors within the game mechanics.
Settlement can achieve optimal alignment and reputation without making meaningful decisions.
MinMaxer: Once an optimal alignment and reputation are discovered, these power gamers will flock to that combination and disregard all other aspects of the game (ie. Role Playing Alignment in true sense; Will use cookie-cutter skill sets to maximize achievement..etc.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bludd recommend focusing a little closer.
Even if reputation could only be lost through PvP, which is not the known case, then only some types of PvP would lose reputation in the described model. Other types of PvP would not lose reputation. So the system would be slanted against those who engage in those 'some types of PvP' but not the rest of the types of PvP. That sounds fairly WAI.
But I don't believe that Rep can only be lost in PvP. We haven't heard everything yet. It may be that the economic game is realized as PvP as well: trade warfare. It is too early to reach your quasi-conclusion.
If the Rep system were only a measure of balance between altruism and selfishness from the PoV of the settlement then there is still no necessary linkage described to PvE. You have a leap in your logic there.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Being,
I understand and agree with every point that you have made. It is especially true about not having all of the information, yet.
We know now that there are certain circumstances of PVP that will cost reputation.
We know, based on Ryan's statements, that rep gain will come from PVE and perhaps gain from passage of time as well.
We do not know if reputation gain will come from other forms of PVP.
We do not know if reputation loss can come from certain forms of PVE.
What I am hoping for is that there will be reputation gains and costs from both PVP and PVE actions.
Although it is not often mentioned, experience with EVE has shown that PVE can be extremely exploitative and equally toxic when compared to any form of non consensual PVP, including griefing.
If you don't believe me, try strip mining every rock in every belt in a high sec system on a frequent basis. Your corporation will get wardec'd real fast, and for a really long time.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Everything you do has an opprutinity cost. If you are doing PvE activities which provide no change to reputation instead of +rep activities, one of the differences in outcome is a difference in Reputation.
Since every player has finite time, any time spent not maximizing Reputation has an opprutinity cost of some amount of Reputation. I think that's what Ryan was saying about the player who gets the highest Reputation being selfish- they spend all of their time on Reputation, which is as selfish as spending all of your time accumulating coin in your personal account.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Everything you do has an opprutinity cost. If you are doing PvE activities which provide no change to reputation instead of +rep activities, one of the differences in outcome is a difference in Reputation.
Since every player has finite time, any time spent not maximizing Reputation has an opportunity cost of some amount of Reputation. I think that's what Ryan was saying about the player who gets the highest Reputation being selfish- they spend all of their time on Reputation, which is as selfish as spending all of your time accumulating coin in your personal account.
I believe what Ryan was saying was that there will be circumstances when your settlement needs you to do something that will cost you reputation. Not that it will prevent you in that moment to not earn reputation with some other activity, but to actually cost you reputation.
The settlement will need you to perform some unsavory or dirty deed. "Taking one for the team" would mean that you accept the consequences of rep hit and or alignment shift, and you do what your settlement needs.
I'm hoping that there are a variety of these moral / ethical calls that need to be made, because that would be making meaningful choices. Sometimes the choice to lose rep / alignment has to be the better choice, not just the most expedient. Other times it has to be the lesser of choices, otherwise everyone would choose them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I believe what Ryan was saying was that there will be circumstances when your settlement needs you to do something that will cost you reputation. Not that it will prevent you in that moment to not earn reputation with some other activity, but to actually cost you reputation.
Ryan's latest statement is exactly the opposite of this. He's explicitly talking about your Settlement needing you to do something instead of gaining Reputation.
Now imagine that there is something really important that the Settlement needs done that conflicts with fulfilling that activity.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bluud,
Let's assume you're right about rep being lost only thorough PvP.
That doesn't mean it's "slanted against those players who seek to spend most of their time PVPing." Ryan has laid out a pretty clear concept for reputation: a proxy measure of a player's willingness to place settlement concerns above their own concerns. It's purpose is to inform Settlement leaders' decisions on membership.
As he's pointed out, it's not a measure of gooderishnes or badyness. So a metric that gives settlement leaders proxy visibility about play-style isn't "slanted" against a group. Maybe you don't like the idea of settlement leaders having that kind of information about you, but that's not an issue of good game decision, but a position of self-interest.
If my LG Paladin has too high a rep for a given settlement, it's not punitive, but rather an aspect of gameplay as our play-styles create segregation and interaction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bluud,
Let's assume you're right about rep being lost only thorough PvP.
That doesn't mean it's "slanted against those players who seek to spend most of their time PVPing." Ryan has laid out a pretty clear concept for reputation: a proxy measure of a player's willingness to place settlement concerns above their own concerns. It's purpose is to inform Settlement leaders' decisions on membership.
As he's pointed out, it's not a measure of gooderishnes or badyness. So a metric that gives settlement leaders proxy visibility about play-style isn't "slanted" against a group. Maybe you don't like the idea of settlement leaders having that kind of information about you, but that's not an issue of good game decision, but a position of self-interest.
If my LG Paladin has too high a rep for a given settlement, it's not punitive, but rather an aspect of gameplay as our play-styles create segregation and interaction.
I wouldn't mind if the settlement leaders have a detailed account of every action I have taken in the game. I'd be able to point to every action with a clear conscience that there was good reason for every act and that it they were meaningful in some aspect.
I'm in favor of a system where both gains and losses that are based on our actions. But also a system where the most meaningful choice might include a negative reputation hit. That should be a rare instance, but it should still be an available action for a settlement leader to decide.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf
PvP is not just COMBAT PvP. It has many forms of player interaction. Crafters failing to meet promises or selling second rate product (do you "know" that two keyword swords in the lot of 50 all have the keywords you can use?) lose rep.
Consider that maximum play PvE maybe gains 10 rep day ( or may be 1).
PvP can lose 500 gain 250, to gain 100 or 50 or lose 24 or …. Even is there is a maximum 100 per day, gain 100, lose 500, gain 50, gain 70 and gain 250, maybe even gain another 100 that same day -- even thought there was a minus 500, overall is gain 70!
PvP has losses and gains that far out dwarf PvE. Invest in the market or put your money in a bank account earning 0.001% maximum return per day.
Right now PUtting your retirement package in a daily saver account gains little but does not lose. OR invest wisely in the market. Or make aggressive investment!
lam
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Bluddwolf
PvP is not just COMBAT PvP. It has many forms of player interaction. Crafters failing to meet promises or selling second rate product (do you "know" that two keyword swords in the lot of 50 all have the keywords you can use?) lose rep.
Consider that maximum play PvE maybe gains 10 rep day ( or may be 1).
PvP can lose 500 gain 250, to gain 100 or 50 or lose 24 or …. Even is there is a maximum 100 per day, gain 100, lose 500, gain 50, gain 70 and gain 250, maybe even gain another 100 that same day -- even thought there was a minus 500, overall is gain 70!
PvP has losses and gains that far out dwarf PvE. Invest in the market or put your money in a bank account earning 0.001% maximum return per day.
Right now PUtting your retirement package in a daily saver account gains little but does not lose. OR invest wisely in the market. Or make aggressive investment!
lam
There are also activities in some games that involve multiple players that are more like theme park PvE than anything genuinely PvP.
A good example of this is suicide ganking as you undock which is prolific in EVE hisec. This activity involves players against players and basically is no different whatsoever to PvE.
There is no "risk" and the gankers do it all day everyday over and over, the victim always dies, the perpetrators also die but have done their figures beforehand and know they will gain more than they lose.
Despite being smug and boasting in forums about being pro-pvpers these guys might as well be killing the EVE equivalent of goblins in a cave, they never attack anyone that can fight back. To my mind this sort of stuff is technically "PvP" but in reality is just another form of PvE as the are not really playing against the other player they are playing against the game system and its restrictions,
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Reputation Points are negative or positive mathematically, but when assessed as an indicator of altruism, selfishness, being a jerk or not being a jerk, they take on a social meaning.Bluddwolf,
reputation is negative or positive mathematically, not morally or personally.
Bluddwolf, yes reputation has social meaning, because it is a proxy for for self- vs. settlement interest ("altruism" vs. "selfishness" in Ryan's words): am I generally focused on improving my rep, or improving my settlement's position?
However, you are adding in a "jerk" measurement, and since that directly contradicts Ryan's recent comments, I have good reason to think you misunderstand reputation conceptually.
The jerk funnel is not simply reputation. It is the combination of low reputation, evil, and chaotic behavior.
So once you drop that misunderstanding, and get back to what Ryan has said reputation really is (a proxy for part of your play-style) then you can see how this is not a bipolar reward/punishment scale for PvP.
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.
...
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.
Does that make sense?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Reputation Points are negative or positive mathematically, but when assessed as an indicator of altruism, selfishness, being a jerk or not being a jerk, they take on a social meaning.Bluddwolf,
reputation is negative or positive mathematically, not morally or personally.
Bluddwolf, yes reputation has social meaning, because it is a proxy for for self- vs. settlement interest ("altruism" vs. "selfishness" in Ryan's words): am I generally focused on improving my rep, or improving my settlement's position?
However, you are adding in a "jerk" measurement, and since that directly contradicts Ryan's recent comments, I have good reason to think you misunderstand reputation conceptually.
So once you drop that misunderstanding, and get back to what Ryan has said reputation really is (a proxy for part of your play-style) then you can see how this is not a bipolar reward/punishment scale for Pvp.
I was not adding the "jerk measurement", just stating that it exists for some people.
It is also important to note that Ryan had not always described the "a$$h*l#" as being CE + Low Rep, but either or was being an "a$$h*l#".
Ryan's more detailed framing of Rep using "Altruism vs. Selfishness" is also new, or at least new to our eyes. I believe that it is a vast improvement over his previous posted views.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan's more detailed framing of Rep using "Altruism vs. Selfishness" is also new, or at least new to our eyes. I believe that it is a vast improvement over his previous posted views.I expect it's actually very consistent with his previously posted views.
You may actually be alone in that view, as is evidenced by the hundreds of posts that followed Ryan's first mentioning of the terms altruism and selfishness as what may be measured or reflected by one's reputation score.
Old, stated views rarely spark that much new posting. This discussion he has generated is more akin to the reaction that a revelation creates.
However you may still be correct in that he has held these views for a while, but as I said, he had only revealed them to us recently.
Regardless, the conversation has changed from questions of sanctioned vs. unsanctioned and now it is (at least in my mind):
What choices will GW present settlement managers with that will make them decide between rep gaining or rep costly activities?
If anything the game for settlement managers may have gotten a whole lot more interesting, or at least I hope it has.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that Ryan was pointing out what we seem to be in consensus about Reputation. I do not think that he was saying that taking a combat hit or forgoing a chance at rep gain to do a needed task will mean that you will wind up with really low rep or that it is suddenly not going to be detrimental to have low rep.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You may actually be alone in that view.Ryan's more detailed framing of Rep using "Altruism vs. Selfishness" is also new, or at least new to our eyes. I believe that it is a vast improvement over his previous posted views.I expect it's actually very consistent with his previously posted views.
Unlikely.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan's more detailed framing of Rep using "Altruism vs. Selfishness" is also new, or at least new to our eyes.
I assume you mean UNC when you say 'our'.
It is sometimes difficult, but what a person interprets someone else to mean frequently does not mirror what that someone else actually meant. Ryan has spoken of 'jerks' for quite awhile. The relationship between Altruism and Selfishness is most likely indicative of what is meant when a jerk is so named.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ryan's more detailed framing of Rep using "Altruism vs. Selfishness" is also new, or at least new to our eyes. I believe that it is a vast improvement over his previous posted views.I expect it's actually very consistent with his previously posted views.
I think that's it is consistent with his previous statements, but inconsistent with my previous understanding of his previous statements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that's it is consistent with his previous statements, but inconsistent with my previous understanding of his previous statements.Ryan's more detailed framing of Rep using "Altruism vs. Selfishness" is also new, or at least new to our eyes. I believe that it is a vast improvement over his previous posted views.I expect it's actually very consistent with his previously posted views.
As I described a "more detailed" framing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I really don't think the question has moved as you suggest, Bludd, to the roles of settlement leaders. Those worthies will have something to do with it but only down the road a ways. Here and now the aware player will consider how they play the game and whether the way they will play will be an environmentally comfortable fit.
For me, I have this thing about freedom. Freedom isn't the relationship of action and reaction. There are many points in life, and in a game, when I can choose, and I have a choice not fully driven by need. To choose well I have values, those things I choose for. Those things I value as my investment of self, and without them I lose a share of identity.
A non-free state is where I must make choices for other virtues than mine. Where my values and those of the nation where I live are congruent and well aligned I live free, within the law by my own nature. Were I to live in a nation out of value alignment one or another of us (myself or my nation) must not be free. I will be outlaw in a nation where values are unaligned.
The rules of the game are like the laws of a nation, then, and the aware player will seek to understand whether his or her values align. That is a very much prior question to whether settlement leaders decide one way or another.
Can I live free in this game, or would I be oppressed.
Nihimon: Could PFO Thrive with No Unsanctioned PvP?
Qallz: No, but I guess we'll find out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that at the top end of rep, there's a thing you have to do every day at a certain time to gain a point or two of rep unattainable any other way. The is just hypothetical so don't read anything more into it.
Now imagine that there is something really important that the Settlement needs done that conflicts with fulfilling that rep gaining activity.
Doing the necessary thing implies you don't maximize your rep. Maximizing your rep implies you put that number ahead of your collective obligation to your Settlement.
That is the kind of meaningful choice that I'd be interested in when vetting a potential recruit: do they play "for a number" or for the team?
I've been in this situation before.
Funny thing is, that "really important thing the settlement needs done" always turns out the be the irrelevant thing a few select greedy (guild leader/settlement leader/company leader, whatever term you choose to use) people WANT done for there own personal enrichment.
I'm curious as to what sort of balancing "power" the general membership will have against the settlement "leaders" given that membership in a settlement will most likely be required to advance training, etc. in this game.
Is the 99% basically signing up to play your game as little more then virtual slaves to do the whim of the 1% who have all the real power via settlement management? Your comment above certainly seems to imply that is your intent and desire.
This was the one redeeming feature you didn't bring over from eve, the ability to buy training pretty much anywhere. perhaps you should re-evaluate that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I've been in this situation before.
Funny thing is, that "really important thing the settlement needs done" always turns out the be the irrelevant thing a few select greedy (guild leader/settlement leader/company leader, whatever term you choose to use) people WANT done for there own personal enrichment.
I'm curious as to what sort of balancing "power" the general membership will have against the settlement "leaders" given that membership in a settlement will most likely be required to advance training, etc. in this game.
Is the 99% basically signing up to play your game as little more then virtual slaves to do the whim of the 1% who have all the real power via settlement management? Your comment above certainly seems to imply that is your intent and desire.
This was the one redeeming feature you didn't bring over from eve, the ability to buy training pretty much anywhere. perhaps you should re-evaluate that.
I'm sorry you've had such a bad time with guild-mates and leaders before, but if you are part of a community and get to know them as people rather than just text and avatars in a game, the perspective changes a lot.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This was the one redeeming feature you didn't bring over from eve, the ability to buy training pretty much anywhere. perhaps you should re-evaluate that.
The theory is, if you can get training from "anywhere" then many players will opt out of joining PC settlements to avoid unwanted PVP potential as it is in EVE being a member of an NPC corporation.
However, they could use the Factions to do what you want and still not allow you the opt-out.
If Factions also trained, and you needed to rise up in ranks within the faction to unlock upper tier training, while exposing yourself to the PVP of equally dedicated opposing faction players, this might work.
Then what are the settlements for?
NPC settlements would only offer tier 1 crafting, a market for tier 1 goods and Faction training halls.
PC settlements would offer all levels of crafting, a market to handle all goods,as well as training and access to Faction Hall(s) of the settlement's choice.
There are trade offs for being a member of one and not the other.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry you've had such a bad time with guild-mates and leaders before, but if you are part of a community and get to know them as people rather than just text and avatars in a game, the perspective changes a lot.
Yet Summersnow made a cogent point. Not all PvP involves stabbity-stabbiness. Some PvP is actually internal politics. If a settlement's leadership turned out to be self-serving tyrants, what recourses beyond abandoning your citizenship (and turning yourself into a homeless refugee in a predatory environment) does the citizen have?
I think what the question intends to ask is for an idea of any mechanical systems of recourse, as opposed to ephemeral RP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If a settlement's leadership turned out to be self-serving tyrants what recourse beyond abandoning your citizenship (and turning yourself into a homeless refugee in a predatory environment) does the citizen have?
I think what the question intends to ask is for an idea of any mechanical systems of recourse, as opposed to ephemeral RP.
This is why Faction Training and the limited, but present, NPC settlements needs to be a viable option.
If the settlements are the sole source of high tier training, their leaders (managers) will always be tyrants to a varying degree.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the settlements are the sole source of high tier training, their leaders (managers) will always be tyrants to a varying degree.-People face tradeoffs.
-The cost of something is what you give up to get it
I suggested a trade off, so what is your point?
NPC settlements would only offer tier 1 crafting, a market for tier 1 goods and Faction training halls.
PC settlements would offer all levels of crafting, a market to handle all goods,as well as training and access to Faction Hall(s) of the settlement's choice.
There are trade offs for being a member of one and not the other.
May I suggest you read this:
-People face tradeoffs.
-The cost of something is what you give up to get it
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My point is that the trade off you quoted is not enough for the freedom of not associating with a PC settlement.
You should have said that then. But, what exactly is not enough about it?
In an NPC settlement I propose you can only craft tier 1 gear, only purchase tier 1 gear and the Faction Trainer can train you up to your faction level's worth of training.
If you want higher tier training from the Faction, you have to rise in rank with the faction to unlock it. Once you pass beyond level 4 with Faction, you are exposed to PvP vs. equally dedicated enemy faction members.
If you want higher tier gear, you have to go to a PC settlement. If you want to craft higher tier gear, same, can only be done at settlement. The settlement will also provide the same high tier training or perhaps even higher than your faction standing might allow. The PC settlement is a one-stop shop.
The trade off is the you may have to frequently travel from the NPC settlement to get or repair gear. Travel in the wilderness is dangerous, even more so for someone with PvP enabled faction enemies.
The benefit is, if you find yourself not aligned with any given settlement or none if the settlements have the training level capacity or slot available you want or need, the NPC faction / settlement is a fallback.
I do not see the lack if trade offs.
I would say I am with Papaver that the trade off proposed is not enough.
If you are in a player settlement your entire worldly goods are at stake. Being able to live and train in an NPC settlement allows you to keep the bulk of your wealth safe and only risk that which you are currently carrying.
Faction warfare frankly should not be in my view any bigger part of the game than it is in Eve. It is PVP for no gain and therefore meaningless and you are killing people for being on the "other side" not because they have things you want such as territory/goods/control of trade routes/market monopolies.
Faction warfare is just playing wow/swtor/rift etc in the river kingdoms. It teaches you nothing important about pvp, it changes the world not one jot, it is the epitome of meaningless in a mechanical sense (yes I know some will argue it adds rp flavour but then most people aren't rp'ers)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The problem I'm having is that as a member of the NPC settlement you can't get your skills taken away from you. While I may be mistaken in the interpretation of this Rayn, hinted at the fact that a character only has access to the higher level skills he trained ( not only the training of them ) as long as he is a member of the correlating training facilities.
If a settlement gets taken over the former defenders are not members of that settlement anymore and there fore no longer have access to the higher level skills. aka. the way it looks to me you can take away a characters skills by taking away his settlement. This is not the case with NPC settlements IIRC.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The problem I'm having is that as a member of the NPC settlement you can't get your skills taken away from you. While I may be mistaken in the interpretation of this Rayn, hinted at the fact that a character only has access to the higher level skills he trained ( not only the training of them ) as long as he is a member of the correlating training facilities.
If a settlement gets taken over the former defenders are not members of that settlement anymore and there fore no longer have access to the higher level skills. aka. the way it looks to me you can take away a characters skills by taking away his settlement. This is not the case with NPC settlements IIRC.
I'd love to see the rationale for this...
Wizardly type: Hurry up and get that lock open!
Rogueish fellah: Well I have my picks with me, but ever since they burnt down Home-town I seem strangely unable to remember how to use them.
Brooding fightery dude: Yeah, same here. Now if only I could work out how to bash that door down like I used to...
The problem I'm having is that as a member of the NPC settlement you can't get your skills taken away from you. While I may be mistaken in the interpretation of this Rayn, hinted at the fact that a character only has access to the higher level skills he trained ( not only the training of them ) as long as he is a member of the correlating training facilities.
If a settlement gets taken over the former defenders are not members of that settlement anymore and there fore no longer have access to the higher level skills. aka. the way it looks to me you can take away a characters skills by taking away his settlement. This is not the case with NPC settlements IIRC.I'd love to see the rationale for this...
Wizardly type: Hurry up and get that lock open!
Rogueish fellah: Well I have my picks with me, but ever since they burnt down Home-town I seem strangely unable to remember how to use them.
Brooding fightery dude: Yeah, same here. Now if only I could work out how to bash that door down like I used to...
I vaguely remember Dancey mentioning it once but as I remember the impression was it was only certain skills that it applied to and it was more about losing access to specific building types due to lost of citizenship than anything. Some paladin skills for example seem a candidate or maybe the ability to create an assassins mask
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Losing skills you have trained, if even only the use of them, is a pretty lame mechanic.
I hope that is one thing that falls off the shelf.
Some people may play for a couple years doing settlement stuff and decide that they dont want to be a part of it anymore, but they do enjoy other aspects of the game... Just for that they lose the ability to use certain skills?
Id happily deal with the alignment and reputation issues we have been discussing then that nonsense.