Goblin Squad Member
|
or they can exploit the sh** out of it(without daily cap) and be a di** again ASAP.That's the million dollar question. I'm not aware of any method that doesn't have excessive drawbacks.What ways, besides slow recovery over time, do you see as acceptable for those that engage in PvP to actively gain positive REP?@ Nihimon,
Are you suggesting that there should be no way to gain reputation by playing in a positive manner?
I am suggesting it should not be easy to recover from evil acts. You might have seen me point this out before.
If REP loss is exponential and REP gain is flat rate, would this not solve the problem, given REP gain has a daily cap?
I know people say that they want people that do neg REP things to spend a lot of time making that up. If you do not provide them with a vehicle for rewarding positive behavior, they will accept and learn to play in their low-REP status and that will foster negative behavior patterns.
If their playing by the rules (as opposed to playing how they like) does nothing to better their situation, they will play how they like.
Hence the daily cap. Problem solved.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...From the Darkfall Lessons Learned thread:
The point I was replying to was the comment about "going Pirate, then becoming good again". The intent of the response was to say that people cycling in and out of Dredd Pirate Roberts territory and back is limited by the incredibly onerous time requirements and boredom required. It happens, but it happens infrequently. That's a good design from the standpoint of saying that you can do some edge-case thing, but the game system implies limits that few will bother to overcome the inherent challenge.
People do all sorts of incredibly time consuming and boring things in MMOs. Player boredom is the only truly meaningful resource in MMO design. However people who get off on the thrill of player-killing are temperamentally unsuited to long, boring intervals of grinding no-challenge content. They don't do it if they can avoid it.
There are other people, of a very different temperament, who are content to harvest resources using utterly boring mechanics for hour after hour. They are getting some pleasure just from seeing a number on a graph go up slowly over time. There is a reason Pachinko is a successful entertainment business. Some people find boring, repetitive behavior very soothing. Plus they can be super social while they do it; the resource extraction is just an excuse to log in and chat with friends.
These two people are fundamentally different and a game design can work at limiting the first behavior without limiting the second! even though that may seem counter-intuitive.
Allowing PVP-centric players to run down their Reputation with kills of unflagged characters and then allowing them to continue PvP-centric play in running their Reputation back up through participation in wars and feuds is completely counter to the above post of Ryan's.
PVP-centric players want PVP in any form. Allowing them to jump back and forth between reputation damaging and reputation rewarding
I agree, that is a really good point...except that as Ryan mentioned, the focus is not on the individual, it is on the greater social constructs, including, I would assume the community as a whole. The positive Rep actions are such because they contribute to desired content for the rest of the community. This I think should trump any petty desires to "punish" the individual.
What I would (and have) argued, is that rep down is fast and rep up extremely slow, this insures that this style of play, Rep down then Rep up...repeat, results in a much greater contribution to positive than negative content for the rest of the community .
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How can a brand new player earn rep
c: Fast enough that they can be an asset to the org. they join
I think there can be (at least) two types of training facilities in settlements.
Some facilities could/might be based on the lowest rep of the settlement members. Such facilities' low rep threshold could be between -7000 (for a outlaw trainer, maybe) and maybe 0 (for general beginning healer training, for example.) As long as no one is below the threshold, the facility remains open. These facilities would be available even when Newbie vonNewbieland joins the settlement with 0 Rep.
Those facilities could/might also have other training available, for characters that individually were above other Rep thresholds. The advanced healing trainer might require +1500 Rep, for example, but could be available as long as the settlement requirement of 0 Rep was met.
The other type of facility would be those, maybe linked to factions, that disregarded settlement rep, and offered training strictly on character Rep or faction rank, or both. This also would not be affected by 0 Rep new characters.
The brand new character should be able to join and be an asset immediately. If they start with 0 rep, 0 rep might be the lowest threshold for training facilities. >0 rep might be required for advanced training, or for special training like Pax Morbis suggested - training to allow more threads, respawning at shrines rather than temples, etc. Things like that could easily be tied to higher Rep requirements, without requiring a settlement to maintain a >0 standard for membership.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...a: by not committing acts which loose Rep and persistently acting in a way that contributes positively to the gaming community. They might only gain a bit each day, but the longer they go without a Rep hit, the more this daily bonus increases.
That will certainly help. I can also see that it might encourage them if they can affect the rate of rise through their actions rather than just abstaining from actions.b: Why is this relevant? A -5000 or even -7500 Rep person who decides to turn over a new leaf should gain at the same rate as a Rep 0 person. Each day they earn what they are allowed and each day that rate increases if they do not loose Rep. Of course, it will take the -7500 person a much longer time to get to 7500 simply because they have to gain 15000 as opposed to 7500.
You are right. I was temporarily senile about that factoid so it is not a good point. :)c: Their real contribution will be in Influence, the question should be how to minimize the fact that a new character has 0 Rep to the average Rep of the settlement. I hope:
I could see Rep contribution to a settlement be proportional to the "experience level" of the character, so low "experience" characters have a much lower impact on the average Rep of the Settlement. Vets reps effect the Reputation of the Settlement much more.
I would counter that (and also fulfill the second half of Ryan's point) by making Influence inversely proportional to the "experience level" of the character. Low experience characters provide more Influence for their achievements.
I really think that we are over complicating the entire subject. Ryan has indicated in his "Oft quoted post" that getting back rep lost will require onerous work. I guess that I have wailed about the subject enough and will wait and see what they come up with. :)
d: That simply comes down to GW giving us many ways to contribute content positively to the community.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I really think that we are over complicating the entire subject. Ryan has indicated in his "Oft quoted post" that getting back rep lost will require onerous work. I guess that I have wailed about the subject enough and will wait and see what they come up with. :)
I think I will join you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you don't like my idea of rewarding desired PVP actions with rep, then what incentive does anyone have for doing those desired PVP actions?
PvP is it's own reward. Any true PvPer doesn't need an incentive. That's even the rule I go by if the target's someone I'm comfortable attacking. But still as Nihimon said. PvP will be the means to many ends such as territory control in this game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you don't like my idea of rewarding desired PVP actions with rep, then what incentive does anyone have for doing those desired PVP actions?PvP is it's own reward. Any true PvPer doesn't need an incentive. That's even the rule I go by if the target's someone I'm comfortable attacking. But still as Nihimon said. PvP will be the means to many ends such as territory control in this game.
Exactly. And in addition to fun for PvP-centric players, and powerfully implicated in territory acquisition and control, it will have direct financial rewards.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think reputation should be tied to alignment that strongly. There should be viable methods of gaining reputation that do not involve "goodly" activities.
I don't expect lawful evil for example to be indicative of jerkish behavior. They should have vehicles for increasing reputation as well, beyond killing non lawful characters and NPC's
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Oh yea, btw I think the most important Rep mechanic we can have is rep rewards for players who kill 1) evil characters 2) Evil outsiders 3) Undead creatures.
I think it could be reasonable to get rep rewards while flagged as a (faction) Enforcer, but only during the *closed* PvP window time. During the *open* PvP window, defending the settlement is its own reward. Defending it while it has max NPC guards approaches onerous.
The flagged Enforcer can attack anybody flagged for PvP, such as criminals. But he can't leave the settlement hex, and might not be able to enter the settlement proper to craft, etc. He might get an hourly reward.
I think there are undoubtedly other ways that factions could reward characters with rep. Fighting evil outsiders or undead could be a (faction) Champion-like task for characters of any alignment, and have the advantage that killing pure evil creatures (effectively -7500 on good/evil scale) could logically result in no alignment hit for a good character or an evil character.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Now, it just so happens I plan on playing a character who will kill 1) evil characters 2) Evil outsiders 3) Undead creatures.
But that has nothing to do with why I'm arguing so steadfastly for a rep bonus ;)
To be clear, I completely agree with your criteria being viable for you to attain some level of positive rep gain.
It just shouldn't be the only vehicle :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Now, it just so happens I plan on playing a character who will kill 1) evil characters 2) Evil outsiders 3) Undead creatures.
But that has nothing to do with why I'm arguing so steadfastly for a rep bonus ;)
I agree that there should be Rep bonuses for all Sanctioned PVP, for all Market Trades closed, all caravans successfully brought to market, all items crafted, and all explorations that reveal new mapped areas to others.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Okay, I fell for it. :/Now, it just so happens I plan on playing a character who will kill 1) evil characters 2) Evil outsiders 3) Undead creatures.
But that has nothing to do with why I'm arguing so steadfastly for a rep bonus ;)
Are you saying you fell for an obvious troll post? He did wink ;)
With exception to the two PVE activities, I do agree with him though. Unless of course he is hoping that players can role Evil Outsiders or Undead creatures? ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think Ryan's most recent post in the other thread has me even more confused about the whole thing than before, so I guess I'll join the "give rep a rest" camp until the dev team fills me in more on their vision. :P
I think it might have been one of Ryan's Friday Night "lets Stirr the Crap up Posts".
On a side note, I just watched "Hammer of the Gods" on netflix. There were some inspiring Chaotic Neutral - Chaotic Evil characters in that movie. That will be recommended viewing for The UnNamed Company
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
If time is intended to grant 100 Rep per day, then why not have positive interactions do the same?
Where is this written? When has Ryan or any other dev said that rep gain would happen with time? Alignment shift back toward core, yes. Skill "points", yes.
Bur Rep? I have only seen that in the forum "Goblin Squad Member". This concept defeats what has been written in the blog as does concepts of newbies having other than non-zero rep.
o R
Lam
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Lam, the 100 Rep per day was a hypothetical I posed. I don't believe there's been an official word on the quantity of rep gain over time. I'm on my phone or I'd link the blog that listed the ways we'd gain rep.
In your thread, Ryan made it seem like there will be many different faucets for reputation gain. Many were PVP oriented and some we know are PVP oriented. There will also be Rep gain over time, or at least he was fairly certain there would be.
That is a positive thing I believe for all of us. There will be plenty of ways for us to participate in a positive way for our settlements.
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 harkens back to Ryan's "OtherBigTown" post about putting settlement ahead of ourselves. What is necessary for the settlements is to compete for those limited resources, and vigorously protect the resources that they do control. The unity of purpose of maintaining a settlement's high DIs is going to be a driving motivation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is "Lame" PVP if it is contrived (arranged PVP) where the losses are limited or the participants are hand picked. This is more akin to Arena PVP found in theme park MMos or Multi-player PC games. Again, very lame when found in an Open World PVP MMO.Those using such Lame PVP tactics are not using the game mechanics as intended and should be reported as using exploits.
Punishments for using Exploits:
First Offense: Massive Rep loss, maybe set to -7500
Second Offense: Set to -7500 and 24 Hour ban. No skill gain.
Third Offense: Set to -7500 and 1 week ban. No skill gain.
You're Out!: Character Wipe!These would apply to all participants in the exploit exchange.
By your definition any Company that tries to hold an organized pvp training session with a hand picked group of member participants and limited losses is exploiting and should be character wiped?
The point of the game is PvP. There shouldn't need to be an additional bribe to engage in pvp, that's what the games about and if you need extra incentive to engage in pvp you're probably looking at the wrong game.
The punishment for bad pvp is there to prevent abuses that would kill the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By your definition any Company that tries to hold an organized pvp training session with a hand picked group of member participants and limited losses is exploiting and should be character wiped?
I would hope, for training and teaching purposes, that there will be a mechanism for people to accept PvP without Rep and alignment consequences. I know Ryan dislikes duel mechanics (and wants to avoid the annoying "Dude, duel me," players that follow you about), but perhaps a party feature for those not in the same company/settlement/etc. and a toggle for those who are. A whole settlement being able to practice defense at once would be very helpful, I would think.
I'm sure there are those move versed in PvP and how to exploit such systems as I loosely describe above, who can work out the bugs of such a system better than I. I just don't think we can have a game so rooted in PvP with no way to train attacking/defending/raiding/etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
By your definition any Company that tries to hold an organized pvp training session with a hand picked group of member participants and limited losses is exploiting and should be character wiped?
The point of the game is PvP. There shouldn't need to be an additional bribe to engage in pvp, that's what the games about and if you need extra incentive to engage in pvp you're probably looking at the wrong game.
The punishment for bad pvp is there to prevent abuses that would kill the game.
1. As Hobs said, I could see GW disabling the Rep, Alignment and SAD mechanics for intra-Company or intra-Settlement war games.
I could actually see there being and influence cost for holding such training, but it should also increase a settlements "Security Index".
2. The reason I suggested, and it appears that there will be active reputation gains from PvP, that there be reputation gain from GW desired PvP interactions was fir the purpose of balance and settlement support.
What was previously though was that being PvP focused would at best limit the character to a middling level of reputation. This was due to most PvP at best incurring no reputation loss, but a greater risk as compared to non pvpers to end up engaged in reputation losing PvP.
Ryan hit on this in his recent post which I quoted above. He was responding to a question that asked how a settlement leader would look on a High Reputation character. Bottom line for him was, High Rep fir the individual sake of having High Rep is not the measure a settlement leader should look at.
Settlements want people that will do "what is necessary to make the settlement safe, powerful and cohesive."
I have a strong feeling that activities, including PvP, will increase reputation if those activities are related to supporting a settlement in its three major goals.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Actually, I request that devs consider a special "switch".
This is not minimal viable, but is need for settlement settlement actions.
THis is a practice switch. Players under the practice switch can fight or maneuver or soldier formation without risks. Combat occurs. The characters do not die and there are no consequence of the combat, though they may have temporary short term loss of action (seconds). Character knows they have 'hits' and are knocked out of game, but "n" seconds later they are fully functional. Characters who lose in practice may return to action (switch to REAL). They must switch out of practice (into REAL) )to engage in proper play. While in practice they receive and deliver no permanent damage. Those not in practice receive no harm at all. The master of the practice may dismiss all from practice mode to active.
Per requirements of debs, practice may or may not meet goals for skill advancement or merit badges.
This needs in game protection to prevent avoiding real SAD. E.g., practice can only be started ingraining halls, admin buildings or barracks -- more maybe just in settlements.
Also what happens when practice team isa hit by real bandits or ….
lam
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why not just have it so members of the same association (ie CC or settlement) can kill each other without incurring reputation (or alignment hits)? This decreases the consequences of friendly fire while still leaving it a concern in real combat. It would allow "training" and even dueling type events in-association.
The concern of course will then be being "griefed" by members of your own association, but you are free to associate or not. Staying in a community when you do not like the community is rather silly.
Why not just have it so members of the same association (ie CC or settlement) can kill each other without incurring reputation (or alignment hits)? This decreases the consequences of friendly fire while still leaving it a concern in real combat. It would allow "training" and even dueling type events in-association.
The concern of course will then be being "griefed" by members of your own association, but you are free to associate or not. Staying in a community when you do not like the community is rather silly.
I imagine settlements turning into bloodbaths... with no place ever being safe. I'm going to have to agree with KitNyx, I think it could work.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What ways, besides slow recovery over time, do you see as acceptable for those that engage in PvP to actively gain positive REP?@ Nihimon,
Are you suggesting that there should be no way to gain reputation by playing in a positive manner?
I am suggesting it should not be easy to recover from evil acts. You might have seen me point this out before.
I see none. Making it so that a player can push a button to "right all his/her wrongs" takes any and all sting out of a Reputation system. Time heals wounds and I believe should be one of the factors in Positive Reputation gain.
The more time you spend not doing Negative Reputation actions, then you are able to earn Positive Reputation. Positive Reputation should then be doled out on a daily basis in small amounts such that you can't "sin on Monday and be fully forgiven on Tuesday (or Wed-Sun) of the same week.
As an out of the air example, if you lose 100 Reputation Points on a day it (to me) should take you a month to earn those points back (if you desire to). By earn I mean your character "staying clean" and not committing any Negative Reputation activities.
Again, if you make it so players can click a button and grind out even 1 point back to the positive then (to me) the Reputation system has zero teeth as players can and will find a way to game it.
And no, PvPing against allies/friends/alts is completely not within the spirit of the Positive Reputation idea especially with regard to earning it back. It's completely a "I wanna be bad and mean to folks Monday, but want to be able to walk back into town and buy groceries on Wednesday."
Charles Manson can't go work in a soup kitchen and have his Reputation restored to Neutral(0) in a day. The person who gets drunk and beats their spouse can't gain that good reputation back with said spouse in a day or two. It takes time. And focusing on my specific examples is evidence my of missing my basic point: It takes time. Time is a premium item and makes one consider doing an action or not.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If there is not a "practice" switch, then death in a training skirmish would result in a loss of 25% of untreated goods and some damage to threaded goods. This makes practice expensive to the settlement.
Of course we have not seen how wounds, unconscious, dying and death/raise from death works.
lam
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I imagine settlements turning into bloodbaths... with no place ever being safe. I'm going to have to agree with KitNyx, I think it could work.Why not just have it so members of the same association (ie CC or settlement) can kill each other without incurring reputation (or alignment hits)? This decreases the consequences of friendly fire while still leaving it a concern in real combat. It would allow "training" and even dueling type events in-association.
The concern of course will then be being "griefed" by members of your own association, but you are free to associate or not. Staying in a community when you do not like the community is rather silly.
@Kitnyx, I could definitely see something like that as an option for groups that want it, but I would rather it were a toggle than always on. It would likely not be appropriate for many companies, for whom it just adds another layer of paranoia.
I guess my question would be for those people, "Why belong to an association full of people you do not trust?"
I think this actually makes it a better idea, it will force social groups to police themselves...or start atrophying more positive members who want to work toward the greater "good" of the social group.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If there is not a "practice" switch, then death in a training skirmish would result in a loss of 25% of untreated goods and some damage to threaded goods. This makes practice expensive to the settlement.
Of course we have not seen how wounds, unconscious, dying and death/raise from death works.
lam
Definitely an argument for [Durable] keyword (decreases all stats a little, increases HP/durability a huge amount) for training gear.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd say if GW wants PFO to thrive and do better than Darkfall (just as an example out of the market), they should stick to their guns and do something that doesn't already exist in the MMO space. It might result in a game that doesn't thrive, but it might also succeed far beyond what could be accomplished with the standard Open World PvP formulas.
This isn't an argument for Reputation in and of itself; if the rest of the game were unique enough to set it apart, then I'd say Reputation wouldn't be a strictly required piece. Just my 2cp.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I am not going to comment either way on whether I think it is a good idea that cc members are allowed to kill each other in the name of practise I would point out that eve allows free killing of corp and fleet mates in high sec without concord (the high sec npc police) intervention for exactly the reason of practise.
While in Eve this is used for practise it is more often used for the purpose of Awoxing. This is when someone joins a corporation with the sole intent on getting as many concord free kills as humanly possible before someone gets online and manages to kick them from the corporation.
1) Eve has a lot of tools to help corporations stay safe from Awoxing even though a lot of corporations do not use them and get caught by the Awoxers. PfO will not as far as we know have these tools available for at best quite a while.
2) Awoxing I personally feel is a pretty cheap trick and while it can be used to make a profit I tend towards the feeling that it is more a griefing tool than anything. It should be noted that we have already had a notorious Eve Awoxer on these forums expressing an interest in PfO and playing in exactly that way. I believe it was Bludd amongst others that spent time persuading him that his playstyle would not be supported in PfO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
While I am not going to comment either way on whether I think it is a good idea that cc members are allowed to kill each other in the name of practise I would point out that eve allows free killing of corp and fleet mates in high sec without concord (the high sec npc police) intervention for exactly the reason of practise.
While in Eve this is used for practise it is more often used for the purpose of Awoxing. This is when someone joins a corporation with the sole intent on getting as many concord free kills as humanly possible before someone gets online and manages to kick them from the corporation.
1) Eve has a lot of tools to help corporations stay safe from Awoxing even though a lot of corporations do not use them and get caught by the Awoxers. PfO will not as far as we know have these tools available for at best quite a while.
2) Awoxing I personally feel is a pretty cheap trick and while it can be used to make a profit I tend towards the feeling that it is more a griefing tool than anything. It should be noted that we have already had a notorious Eve Awoxer on these forums expressing an interest in PfO and playing in exactly that way. I believe it was Bludd amongst others that spent time persuading him that his playstyle would not be supported in PfO.
Thanks for the information. Sure does make one understand the need for social groups who care to have extended interview/trial periods.
As another note, there should not be any benefit to killing social mates either.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Kitnyx, I think it would be hard to grab a group of 50 random people from the internet and say that you trust them. And although you can get to know someone better, have chats with them, and so on, in the end most of one's company-mates will be random people from the internet. I think making friendly fire a toggleable ability of the company would allow groups to reduce the chances of getting burned or griefed while still allowing for inter-company PvP training if/when that should be desired.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Kitnyx, I think it would be hard to grab a group of 50 random people from the internet and say that you trust them. And although you can get to know someone better, have chats with them, and so on, in the end most of one's company-mates will be random people from the internet. I think making friendly fire a toggleable ability of the company would allow groups to reduce the chances of getting burned or griefed while still allowing for inter-company PvP training if/when that should be desired.
Perhaps, but I must admit, in MMOs I actually make friends with those in my social groups/guilds. I would not bother with any social group if I did not think the members of the group were worth my time to do so...and I do not see the point of joining a group that does not want me to. I do realize that is my own personal approach to MMO guilds and I know others are different.
As for, "And although you can get to know someone better, have chats with them, and so on, in the end most of one's company-mates will be random people from the internet." True, but you could replace internet with anyplace: work, school, pub, football team, etc...and it could still be true.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's true, I suppose. Maybe I'm just generally distrusting of people. However, I think that anonymity on the internet or in MMO's can lead people to acts they'd never commit on those who know them "in person", such as stealing or aggressive antagonizing. Especially in an environment where people are butting heads over limited resources, if I were the type who made a lot of enemies I'd be worrying about which of my new company applicants was actually someone's alt meant to infiltrate and do harm.
This is probably talking about like a 1% case though. Maybe I've seen too many articles about EVE and Darkfall where people pull shenanigans like carefully embedding themselves in a guild over a long period of time. As I do not have much experience with games of this nature, I could be overestimating the "enemy unseen".
Shane have no doubt that there are already people embedded in organisations. I can confirm that UNC have certainly rooted out one and we have an eye on a couple of suspicious people in other parts of the empire.
Add to that most organisations leak like a sieve currently with information being posted publiclly when it should be posted in private or disgruntled members sending info via PM to competing interests
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And those people will quickly get removed from their social groups...and after a few times, develop a name/rep that will precede them. I know if an obviously experienced person came to join TSV, I would ask for references...and probably approach their previous guilds and ask about circumstances of their departing. A falling out with previous groups would not be grounds for disqualification...but a sequence of...probably would be (for me anyways).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would see new characters as being more problematic then experienced ones, because settlements are being incentivized to recruit more newbs than in other games. Additionally, newbs are the riskiest demographic when recruiting; you have little to no history of their playstyle or interactions with other groups. These would likely be the key characters used in infiltration, as they are more disposable and more anonymous.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would see new characters as being more problematic then experienced ones, because settlements are being incentivized to recruit more newbs than in other games. Additionally, newbs are the riskiest demographic when recruiting; you have little to no history of their playstyle or interactions with other groups. These would likely be the key characters used in infiltration, as they are more disposable and more anonymous.
Good point and agreed, but that will be the case for any issue related to espionage.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The concern is always about reputation, certainly more so then alignment (which is really just an RP structure of it should be). So the question I pose is this:
Could PFO Thrive Without a Reputation System as a Game Mechanic?
Nope, no better than Shadowbane did. Next question?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think 'practice' combat-to-the-death would be beneficial to the game. I think practitioners should use willow switches with weights on their wrists as weaponry instead, given the rep hit only accrues on death when in combat with a member of your settlement. Mages should use 'Sleep' rather than 'Fireball'.