Passive or active rep gains?


Pathfinder Online

151 to 200 of 203 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

I actually agree with you that you don't need a coded mechanic for control of your own group. I just thought it might be some "meaningful interaction" within the game that serves more than one purpose, as well as allows granular control of internal settlement PVP instead of just all or nothing as far as rep/align hits within your own group. I'm sure there are better ways to do it and it may never even be wanted as part of this game. What would your suggestion be to allow for the most fun and players who would want to play the game?

I've never played EVE and most of what i have learned of it is on this forum so is skewed by the opinion of the one who stated it, but it seems as though its system for allowing this is not universally liked and allows for loopholes that griefers use. Is there a better system?

I really couldn't care less if the mechanic or a like one is in the game, as I will happily play even if there is greifing rampant throughout. It is a game and I plan to play for fun in what little spare time I have, if someone calls my character names, kills him over and over, gangs up on him or anything else, I will take it as a challenge and part of the game to overcome and have fun with. I've never been the least bit bothered by those sorts of things in MMORPGs. For this game I won't be bothered by it either, but a Justice system could be fun for other reasons as it allows another layer of "meaningful interaction", consequences for you, the player, if you don't follow the rules you have agreed to.

Anyway, you are right that it would most likely be a waist of coding time but as things progress and the system fleshes out, we may find that this or a similar mechanic could add a whole new level of game play. I look forward to finding out.

Goblin Squad Member

I think it's extremely important that Settlements and Companies have tools that allow them to impose constraints on their Members behavior. The Members would be free to leave if they don't want to play under those constraints.

The constraints might be as simple as restricted access to Training, being removed from a POI or Outpost Management position, or a temporary demotion in rank. Or they might be as complex as the contract system can imagine, with various perks being tied to completing a contract and various punishments being tied to breaking the contract.

Goblin Squad Member

@ Nihimon

I will have to agree here in principle. The infraction could easily be minor and the goal could simply be to educate without having to expel. I assume that most Organizations would prefer to keep their membership numbers?

Death, especially a ritualized death, that is known about before hand (or even known as imminent) is a pretty small penalty in this game.

Expulsion is drastic.

Something in between. At least make something in between possible, even if it is not necessarily a hardwired mechanic.

Goblin Squad Member

courts should never happen. In general actions have consequences and IN GAME if you piss someone off the consequence of that is that he can come back with a 100 people and destroy you. The consequence is that he can declare war on you and campaign to destroy all you have created.

He can pay bandits, mercs, and assassins to target you specifically so that you can never make a profit and that every time you step foot outside you are worried you will get killed.

The alignment and rep systems in game are what GW wants to use to encourage (and thats all it will be it will encourage a style of play) people to not turn this game into the ffa that EVE is. Outside of that GW plans on taking an active role against griefers and people who cheat/exploit.

Let GW handle all of that. The only "court" system should be something like LoL's tribunal for players who BM, BUT not players who pvp.

There is a difference between griefing someone and you just being a target.

Goblin Squad Member

leperkhaun wrote:
courts should never happen. In general actions have consequences and IN GAME if you piss someone off the consequence of that is that he can come back with a 100 people and destroy you. The consequence is that he can declare war on you and campaign to destroy all you have created.

Would you suggest the same approach to contracts? That is, would you suggest the contract system as described is unnecessary because players can always resort to wars to punish those who break them?

I think the desires expressed by folks like Wexel Daventry can be implemented as an aspect of the already-planned contract system. If it becomes cumbersome to tie specific Settlement or Company Management actions directly into the system, then it might be worth considering something like a Settlement or Company Scrip that can be placed in Escrow just like Coin or Trade Goods. Ideally the Settlement or Company would be able to create several different kinds of Scrip with different rules about how it can be traded.

Goblin Squad Member

Are there 2 different approaches to alternate corrective punishment being discussed here?

One: General population behavior applied regardless of affiliation?

Two: Intra organizational behavior of individual members?

I think that if you are creative, there are plenty of possible punishments that an Organization could apply to individual in that Org that are better than Death or Expulsion. (depending on the infraction)

If GW allows crazy contracts, finite control over training/crafting queues, some company chat controls, etc...

Goblin Squad Member

whats the contract system, i think i may have missed that so i cannot comment on that.

courts are a hoopla that will bog down the system. If someone does something allowable in the game your options are to take them on head on, hire an assassin or mercenary company to do it for you, or to ruin them financially, or go deep cover then ruin them in a couple of years. All of those options are enough a court system will not avoid anything or really solve anything because there will be folks who will make you pay for taking them to court, or their friend, or their friends alt....

then also there is the issue of how do you get them to court? when can you take someone to court? what will the court do that alignment/rep/and real reputation wont do?

I just think its too much for too little when there are better ways to do it.

Goblin Squad Member

leperkhaun wrote:

courts should never happen. In general actions have consequences and IN GAME if you piss someone off the consequence of that is that he can come back with a 100 people and destroy you. The consequence is that he can declare war on you and campaign to destroy all you have created.

He can pay bandits, mercs, and assassins to target you specifically so that you can never make a profit and that every time you step foot outside you are worried you will get killed.

The alignment and rep systems in game are what GW wants to use to encourage (and thats all it will be it will encourage a style of play) people to not turn this game into the ffa that EVE is. Outside of that GW plans on taking an active role against griefers and people who cheat/exploit.

Let GW handle all of that. The only "court" system should be something like LoL's tribunal for players who BM, BUT not players who pvp.

There is a difference between griefing someone and you just being a target.

It doesn't have to be a court system, as Nihimon says, it could be included in the contract system. I'm not even set on having anything, just adding thoughts, ideas and options. The devs will make what they make, but we have the chance to effect that with our ideas. I'm just interested in seeing fun game mechanics that allow lots of meaningful interaction and as that is the goal anyway, ideas that further that, add depth to it, give systems for the players to have more of it, I think we should all throw our ideas at it and if it isn't worth the time, they won't implement it.

What I would love to see is the Devs post challenges to the community to design theoretical systems for feature concepts that they could implement (or not) based on the community consensus. It seems there is more arguing on these boards about who's opinion is right than creative ideas to further the game design (although it has had these as well).

My goal is to play this game and have fun, we all have a unique opportunity to effect what that game is in the end. I would love to see this forum rise to the occasion and really add to that creation instead of spend the time arguing. We might get a lot more out of the game that way.

By the way, I agree that you could use any or all of those systems as retribution or harassment but I think it would be fun to have other systems too.

Goblin Squad Member

Qallz wrote:
Going to have to agree with the big man on Campus here. You shouldn't be allowed to attack those in your own Social Graph, doesn't make sense. There needs to be a sense of pride, and of course social cohesion within these social graphs, and I think being able to kill your those in social graph only serves to take away from that. If someone is causing too much of a problem, tell them to stop, if they continue, you can simply remove them from the guild. That's how guilds have worked for years, and it's worked...

Seems enabling a synthesis/compromise of the two positions, i.e. prohibiting the killing of an ally but permitting aggression below a threshold amount of damage might serve both positions and also enable sparring. full contact training, and 'red flag' exercises.

Goblin Squad Member

leperkhaun wrote:
whats the contract system, i think i may have missed that so i cannot comment on that.

Signed... in Blood

Goblin Squad Member

I think what's needed here is simply the ability of a settlements leadership to simply explicitly declare an individual criminal within thier own territory, regardless of that individuals actions (aside not being in that territory). That puts a criminal tag on them and allows them to be attacked and looted by the settlements enforcers consequence free within territory owned by that settlement.

Anything else can really be handled manualy by the players....and I'm sure those of us who are on the Lawfull side of things and into RPing might support some sort court/trial system (RPed) by which an individual be accused, offer thier own defence and a judgment be rendered against. The player can honor the judgment, whatever it is (pay a fine, make restitution, perform some sort of service, etc) to avoid the criminal tag....or can ignore it and risk attack when in that settlements borders.

Outside a settlements borders, it's laws wouldn't really logicaly hold any force anyway....aside from diplomatic agreements with freindly/allied settlements that choose to honor them...which again could be handled manualy by the players who control that settlement.


Contracts will be frequently broken just as they are in Eve. Simple reason is many set up contracts in order to ensure the contract is broken.

For example a common practise is to have a transport contract of goods from point A to point B with 100 million collateral. You select point B in such a way that they have to traverse a known pipe and set up an ambush in the pipe. Courier appears and gets destroyed contract is failed and the collateral is forfeit. Profit.

Of course in PfO contracts will be even more useful. If we know we are going to war with you we will first of all get rid of your transportation people using the issue and ambush system. Each contract failed drops your reputation. Soon it is too low to remain a member of your settlement. Job done.

Before anyone says anything naturally we will be using unconnected third parties to ambush so good luck pinning it on us

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
For example a common practise is to have a transport contract of goods from point A to point B with 100 million collateral. You select point B in such a way that they have to traverse a known pipe and set up an ambush in the pipe. Courier appears and gets destroyed contract is failed and the collateral is forfeit. Profit.

Ryan has already commented on this exact scenario, and said folks who abused the contract system this way would be dealt with harshly.

If you set up a contract for the purpose of luring someone into an ambush, we'll consider that griefing. Don't do it. It causes more problems than whatever fun you might get out of making it happen.


Nihimon wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
For example a common practise is to have a transport contract of goods from point A to point B with 100 million collateral. You select point B in such a way that they have to traverse a known pipe and set up an ambush in the pipe. Courier appears and gets destroyed contract is failed and the collateral is forfeit. Profit.

Ryan has already commented on this exact scenario, and said folks who abused the contract system this way would be dealt with harshly.

If you set up a contract for the purpose of luring someone into an ambush, we'll consider that griefing. Don't do it. It causes more problems than whatever fun you might get out of making it happen.

And how exactly is Ryan going to tell. You aren't thinking we would be stupid enough to do it via in game systems surely? These things will get organised over out of game channels and may be as simple as letting various bandit companies they can expect increased haulage activity along certain routes. You will find it very difficult pinning it down as someone doing this because they will hide it well.

Or are you suggesting that if you raise a contract and it gets ambushed 3 times in a row then it should be assumed that you are exploiting? Good luck with that as I am sure you wont get more than about 50% false positives.

Short answer Ryan can say what he likes but he has to find a way of catching people first

Goblin Squad Member

ehhh i dont really see putting a court system into the contract system since the contract system does not seem to be a system built to control behavior, its a system that allows player interactions for rewards without the worry that someone is going to scam you.

However the thing is lets say you dont set up the contracts, however you have a mole or heck just someone you paid off to let you know what contracts so and so person has taken, then you hire someone to ambush, you still complete your goal without griefing, its just a bit more work. And yes it will happen.

I think a lot of folks need to take a look at what kind of things steelwing is saying when he comments, because thats the kind of things serious organized groups WILL do, and for the most part its what will be expected of those groups to do.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steelwing wrote:
And how exactly is Ryan going to tell.

So, it's okay to grief as long as you don't get caught?

Folks will generally only sign Contracts with folks who have a decent Reputation. That means you're not going to get away with using disposable alts to set up the Contracts. You might get away with this a few times, but every time it happens, it strengthens the connection between the characters you use to ambush and the character(s) you use to create contracts.

But sure, go ahead and try. It's no skin off my back if you get banned :)


leperkhaun wrote:

ehhh i dont really see putting a court system into the contract system since the contract system does not seem to be a system built to control behavior, its a system that allows player interactions for rewards without the worry that someone is going to scam you.

However the thing is lets say you dont set up the contracts, however you have a mole or heck just someone you paid off to let you know what contracts so and so person has taken, then you hire someone to ambush, you still complete your goal without griefing, its just a bit more work. And yes it will happen.

I think a lot of folks need to take a look at what kind of things steelwing is saying when he comments, because thats the kind of things serious organized groups WILL do, and for the most part its what will be expected of those groups to do.

There are certainly already a lot of moles in place in some of the bigger (landrush wise) organisations and ready to go come EE.(Not referring to from my group here btw, we won't bother until we decide to play :) )

Indeed one of the pre war tactics would be to flood an enemy hex with unaligned bandits to waylay shipping. That would make any contract exploits even harder to detect.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steelwing wrote:
Short answer Ryan can say what he likes but he has to find a way of catching people first

So it's not cheating if you don't get caught? This is part of why their policy on punishment is intentionally arbitrary. Additionally, if you are hoping to make meaningful impacts with this situation then the number of coincidences may be higher than you expect.

It is true that not everyone will get caught, but I look forward to seeing what kind of capricious punishment comes about when it happens.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
For example a common practise is to have a transport contract of goods from point A to point B with 100 million collateral. You select point B in such a way that they have to traverse a known pipe and set up an ambush in the pipe. Courier appears and gets destroyed contract is failed and the collateral is forfeit. Profit.

Ryan has already commented on this exact scenario, and said folks who abused the contract system this way would be dealt with harshly.

If you set up a contract for the purpose of luring someone into an ambush, we'll consider that griefing. Don't do it. It causes more problems than whatever fun you might get out of making it happen.

And how exactly is Ryan going to tell. You aren't thinking we would be stupid enough to do it via in game systems surely? These things will get organised over out of game channels and may be as simple as letting various bandit companies they can expect increased haulage activity along certain routes. You will find it very difficult pinning it down as someone doing this because they will hide it well.

Or are you suggesting that if you raise a contract and it gets ambushed 3 times in a row then it should be assumed that you are exploiting? Good luck with that as I am sure you wont get more than about 50% false positives.

Short answer Ryan can say what he likes but he has to find a way of catching people first

It's really not much of an issue anyway. Part of the key to being effective in commerce in the long term is establishing long term trusting relationships with people you can work with. A merchant who takes a huge contract from someone they don't know and trust is engaging in terribly risky behavior.... and one who is repeatedly taking contracts that fail due to hostile action by unkown parties such that thier reputation is in jeporday would have to be deliberately obtuse not to know something fishy is going on.

What you are doing is telegraphing toward your target settlement that hostilities may be imminent against it and that it should raise it's state of readiness. It may not know the source of hostile action but it certainly should be aware of threat potential and the need to beef up security for commerce within it's territory.

Edit: Frankly if I were intending to engage in Commerce in PFO, which I'm actualy not, I would likely eschew the contract system for the most part and work on an "out of pocket" basis. I would also, regardless of the contract system or not, expect to write off a certain amount of shipments due to loss or fraud as part of the regular overhead of doing business....not doing so would be simply unrealistic. For larger scale merchants, it also might be a reasonable expense to pay a retainer to some of the intelligence groups that exist within the game (I can think of one or two) to help deal with situations where they were being explicitly targeted beyond what normal overhead would provide for.


Lifedragn wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Short answer Ryan can say what he likes but he has to find a way of catching people first

So it's not cheating if you don't get caught? This is part of why their policy on punishment is intentionally arbitrary. Additionally, if you are hoping to make meaningful impacts with this situation then the number of coincidences may be higher than you expect.

It is true that not everyone will get caught, but I look forward to seeing what kind of capricious punishment comes about when it happens.

What I am saying is it will be difficult to detect because in a pre war situation you will both be flooding the hex with legitimate bandits and also tipping off that particular routes are worth watching using messaging routes that GW hasn't got access to.

This makes it very difficult to be sure about anything when there is already a state of increased ambushes. This translates into a situation whereby it is very difficult to enforce this rule. Rules that are difficult to enforce are routinely ignored by all just as they are in real life.

In other words people will use this then everyone else will feel they have to use it to compete. Before long it becomes a standard tactic and GW either has to let it drop or ban everyone. My money is on the former.

Evidence? Many other games have had exploits that became widespread. When it is widespread they decide not to ban for it

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steelwing wrote:
Evidence? Many other games have had exploits that became widespread. When it is widespread they decide not to ban for it

Evidence? They only need strong suspicion.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
leperkhaun wrote:
I think a lot of folks need to take a look at what kind of things steelwing is saying when he comments, because thats the kind of things serious organized groups WILL do...

For my part, I trust Ryan has a pretty good handle on the kinds of scams folks used in EVE. Heck, I imagine seeing them up close was a major motivator for him to imagine systems that would counter them.

There's a lot of room for automated consequences in a game like PFO, but there's no substitute for human discernment. The kind of players who are likely to try this kind of fraud are also likely to try other forms of "bad behavior", and will likely end up on the mods' radar anyway.

Steelwing wrote:
Sounds like a well thought out idea to me and will not be abused in the least
Seems ridiculously easy to impose arbitrary and capricious penalties for intentionally abusing game mechanics.
The people who are likely to find our moderation of the game and it's community capricious and arbitrary to the point where it becomes an issue for them are also likely the source of many problems. If those people decide to leave, that's a win.

No rule? Arbitrary enforcement? Playing favorites for people with good reputations and social credibility? That makes it hard and not fun to jerk people's chains for the lulz, and even removes the post-ban 3rd party forum whines about unfairness and developer misconduct, and how one's rights have been violated, etc.

Pathfinder Online will be judged on its actual community tenor, not its theoretical limits. And I'm very confident that it will be graded highly by the kind of people interested in a healthy, reasonably non-toxic, mutually respectful, vibrant society we want as customers.

I hope the folks who might not have spent the past two years paying way too much attention to these forums appreciates that I've heard Ryan say certain things over and over, and it's left an impression on me, and I generally try to produce quotes that might help someone who hasn't had that exposure make up his or her own mind about whether that impression is valid.


Lifedragn wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Evidence? Many other games have had exploits that became widespread. When it is widespread they decide not to ban for it
Evidence? They only need strong suspicion.

Evidence referred to what evidence do I have if it is used in a wide spread fashion that it will quietly become accepted.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Lifedragn wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Evidence? Many other games have had exploits that became widespread. When it is widespread they decide not to ban for it
Evidence? They only need strong suspicion.
Evidence referred to what evidence do I have if it is used in a wide spread fashion that it will quietly become accepted.

That would be the design philosophies that have been part of the development dialogue to we the backers and future consumers for the entirety of the production thus far.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
And how exactly is Ryan going to tell.

Contracts and their mechanisms are to be part of the game rather than meta.

Certainly there will agreements in meatspace but those won't count in game terms that provide PFO rewards tied to the fulfillment of in-game contracts or run the risks of failure to fulfill.

example #1
So Merchant A posts a contract for some guards for his wagontrain. The mission is to safeguard the transport from Big town to middleton. These are measureable objectives.

Guards escort the merchant and his wagon train deep into a forest. Out pops the dread bandit Steelwing who singlehandedly trounces the guards handily, finishing with a flourish, and the Unnamed Company applauds their handsome hero.

The guards did their duty and pick up their pay from escrow because the merchant is satisfied they fulfilled their obligation even though they died.

example #2 (caveat: some elements are purely speculative)
So Merchant A posts a contract for some guards for his wagontrain. The mission is to safeguard the transport from Big town to middleton. These are measureable objectives.

Guards escort the merchant and his wagon train deep into a forest. One of them removes his lifelike mask revealing the visage of the dread bandit Steelwing. Such is his notoriety that the rest of the guards, newbs all, flee without a fight. Being the peerless gentlebandit, Steelwing nobly issues his SAD and the shaken Merchant, none the worse for wear, gladly pays his toll. However when he reaches town he files breach of contract against those cravenly newb guards and, perhaps reaps their reputation, or perhaps issues a bounty on them for breaking their agreement. He would not try to file breach of contract on the disguised Steelwing of course, since beneath his disguise he was proudly flying his banditry signet and was only doing his job.

So what makes us so sure the merchant will not abuse his contract? He has to invest reputation to offer it.

What makes us think the guards might honor their contract? Players have to invest reputation to take a contract.

Why on earth would anyone then make or take a contract? Because a contract fulfilled returns an increase in reputation as a reliable business person.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Being wrote:
Being the peerless gentlebandit...

I had no idea...

</evergreen>

Goblin Squad Member

Peerless I say!

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If lots of shipments in general are being intercepted, only a fool or very confident merchant would accept transportation contracts at all. The big risk-takers will operate on a cash basis, and tell their potential customers to issue a buy order where they want it delivered.

And any transportation contract targeted to a small group with a high collateral from a stranger that is on a short time schedule as well as a tight route is going to be suspected to be a trap. The best transporters will refuse the contract for business reasons; the next tier will have the manpower to clear the route in advance, and won't run the cargo if they can't beat the ambush.

Goblin Squad Member

This is what I'm getting from you Steelwing: I'm glad that there'll be an in-game contract system so that myself and others don't fall for out-of-game scam contracts like the one you described. I'm also glad that I'll have groups of people to trade to that I can hold accountable for actions, and I won't have to resort to dealing with shady people who want me to run across the entire map and need me to put a ridiculous collateral for it (in other words, I'm glad I won't have to accept such shady contracts).


Pax Shane Gifford wrote:
This is what I'm getting from you Steelwing: I'm glad that there'll be an in-game contract system so that myself and others don't fall for out-of-game scam contracts like the one you described. I'm also glad that I'll have groups of people to trade to that I can hold accountable for actions, and I won't have to resort to dealing with shady people who want me to run across the entire map and need me to put a ridiculous collateral for it (in other words, I'm glad I won't have to accept such shady contracts).

Erm I didn't describe an out of game scam contract. I described using out of game methods to contact people to ensure the in game contract was failed.

In game contracts will indeed be as you described...asking you to run across the map for ridiculous collateral. Your choice of course to accept them or not.

In Eve collateral asked for is often more than the value of the cargo. This is not because they are trying to scam you it is purely because if they put collateral at less than the value of the cargo it means you can make a profit by just stealing the cargo and selling it.

Reputation may change the balance on this or may not

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Does it make sense to apply a Reputation hit to both sides of any failed Contract?

Goblin Squad Member

Im not talking about scams. If ryan says that making contracts then ambushing is considered griefing, then its griefing. No argument there. but things like targeting a settlement's (or person's) contracts so they cant fill them as part of a pre war deceleration......thats fair game. Planting moles deep into another organization in order to be able to know whats going on (not take overt action just say...know that such and such contracts or alliances or alliances broken or who they want to go to war with or if they are weak at the moment), using 3rd party characters to hire raiders to raid and attack certain hexes. To hire bandits to target trade going in and out.....all those things will happen and that will be a normal accepted part of the game (as it should be).

I think a lot of folks need to realize that conflict isnt just going to be settlement A declaring war on settlement B and being all open about it. Sure a lot of that will happen, but the top organizations will make sure they have EVERY single advantage going into a fight, AND thats even if they have to actually fight to accomplish their goal. Imagine if you were a trade town who all of a sudden everyone who wants to trade in your town is getting robbed for months...by a bunch of CE folks who dont care about rep or alignment hits. Your settlement will quickly bleed off players until its a shell.

People need to be prepared for these kinds of things, the stuff steelwing and other are talking about isnt stuff thats made up, its stuff that happens already in a sandbox mmo.

Sure PfO wont be the free for all EVE is, but i bet a lot of the same tactics will work in pfo. And if people do not realize this then when people like steelwing and others hit OE most of the EE folks are going to find themselves pushed out of their nice suburban settlements and they will have no idea what just happened.

Goblin Squad Member

Sorry, I reread and realized I did misread the first time.

I just don't understand why people would be hiring people they don't even know to do such a job in the first place, or why the person accepting it would accept such a massive collateral with the potential looming for scam. Maybe I'm just less of a risk-taker than them. :)

My idea for merchant contracts was moreso along the lines of a buy or sell order, rather than transportation. Transportation, I would think, could be handled better by a PvP group who can protect your assets, but obviously I'm missing a lot of info from EVE that no doubt makes running the risky job worth it.

EDIT: leperkhaun, very good points.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Does it make sense to apply a Reputation hit to both sides of any failed Contract?

it could be, but it depends. If you are an attacking settlement, you might not care about either side unless one of them was someone in a large settlement who you didnt want to piss off.

If they are not, then just hire some CE mercs and tell them to go to town.

So who says they dont know each other? the key part is to not have any in game interaction.

For example payment can be made by arranging to have a merchant you control deliver a bunch of goods and get jumped and looted. No one can prove that that was a payment, and all it cost was an alt merchant's one death. Or it could be a favor down the road. As long as you dont coordinate ANYTHING in game, then they cant find out.

Goblin Squad Member

leperkhaun wrote:
I think a lot of folks need to realize that conflict isnt just going to be settlement A declaring war on settlement B and being all open about it.

It's been incredibly clear to some of us since very shortly after February 20th, 2012.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:
Does it make sense to apply a Reputation hit to both sides of any failed Contract?

This could happen, but depending upon how well articulated the metrics for the contract end up (figure EE will see many revisions)it should usually be measurable where there is a breach of contract. If the merchant alleges the guards failed in the first scenario (because he lost whatever the SAD was for, then surely the guards could file breach of contract for failure to honor the agreement since they did 'die trying'.

Assuming there really will be a robust escrow system it will be tricky to automate all the success/fail nuances possible, but once they have that down then the rest (reputation gain/loss) should fall into place nicely.

I'm imagining a contract issuance/acceptance GUI with button/checkbox selectables for refining the contract before issuing/accepting. I'm thinking the particulars should be negotiable with offers for each part of the contract and a way for the guards to request greater compensation for a particularly dangerous element. The investment of reputation and coin for both parties should increase with the complexity, and the payoff in reputation and coin should be commensurate.

Alternatively if there is time, competition, and everyone wants your offered contract, maybe I and the others should bid on it if your offer is attractive enough, and you should pick your service provider. High rep trade escort services will probably command a premium. Other kinds of escort services do...

Goblin Squad Member

leperkhaun wrote:

Im not talking about scams. If ryan says that making contracts then ambushing is considered griefing, then its griefing. No argument there. but things like targeting a settlement's (or person's) contracts so they cant fill them as part of a pre war deceleration......thats fair game. Planting moles deep into another organization in order to be able to know whats going on (not take overt action just say...know that such and such contracts or alliances or alliances broken or who they want to go to war with or if they are weak at the moment), using 3rd party characters to hire raiders to raid and attack certain hexes. To hire bandits to target trade going in and out.....all those things will happen and that will be a normal accepted part of the game (as it should be).

I think a lot of folks need to realize that conflict isnt just going to be settlement A declaring war on settlement B and being all open about it. Sure a lot of that will happen, but the top organizations will make sure they have EVERY single advantage going into a fight, AND thats even if they have to actually fight to accomplish their goal. Imagine if you were a trade town who all of a sudden everyone who wants to trade in your town is getting robbed for months...by a bunch of CE folks who dont care about rep or alignment hits. Your settlement will quickly bleed off players until its a shell.

People need to be prepared for these kinds of things, the stuff steelwing and other are talking about isnt stuff thats made up, its stuff that happens already in a sandbox mmo.

Sure PfO wont be the free for all EVE is, but i bet a lot of the same tactics will work in pfo. And if people do not realize this then when people like steelwing and others hit OE most of the EE folks are going to find themselves pushed out of their nice suburban settlements and they will have no idea what just happened.

I'm sure alot of the economic warfare stuff will happen...and hopefully be good fun for all parties involved.

I'm not sure it will always be the optimal path though. There is a reason why the soldiers who fought on D-Day weren't told about where they were going until after they were already on the planes and ships to get there. Involving alot of 3rd parties to pull clandestine stuff in advance of hostilities always runs a risk of information leaks. Heck, even just a significant increase in bandit activity stands a good chance of raising red flags, and also gives your target reaction time to try to counter those efforts.

It's not really clear to me whether it would end up being better to gradualy wear down your target through economic attrition as a prelude to hostilities or to simply hit it all at once out of the blue one day with no forewarning and leave it scrambling to figure out a plan of action under the full force of attack. Probably ends up being a situational thing.

Heck, if you really want to play the economic warfare game to weaken someones economy....you don't even need to go the bandit/raider route. You could just use your own merchants to sell to it's trading partners at discounted prices....disrupt part of the supply chain vital to it's economy without every raising a sword....or for that matter, use your diplomats and the simple threat of force to enact an embargo against it.
Offer tax and training incentives or other rewards to steal it's crafters, tradesmen and cargo transporters (or even warriors and guards) away from it. There are probably about a thousand different ways to go about approaching conflict.

Sovereign Court Goblin Squad Member

Since the thread related to the December reputation blog was locked, I figured this thread was the next best place to post this plot on reputation gains.

Rep Gains

Note that the color scale is on a (base 10) log scale. White areas are where you already have more than your desired rep. Code to produce the plot can also be found in the folder (requires ROOT and python to run).

Goblin Squad Member

Nightdrifter wrote:

Since the thread related to the December reputation blog was locked, I figured this thread was the next best place to post this plot on reputation gains.

Rep Gains

Note that the color scale is on a (base 10) log scale. White areas are where you already have more than your desired rep. Code to produce the plot can also be found in the folder (requires ROOT and python to run).

So am I correct in it taking about 42 days of game time (1000+ hours) to go from -7500 to +7500?

Sovereign Court Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Nightdrifter wrote:

Since the thread related to the December reputation blog was locked, I figured this thread was the next best place to post this plot on reputation gains.

Rep Gains

Note that the color scale is on a (base 10) log scale. White areas are where you already have more than your desired rep. Code to produce the plot can also be found in the folder (requires ROOT and python to run).

So am I correct in it taking about 42 days of game time (1000+ hours) to go from -7500 to +7500?

Ya, over 1000 hours. If we simplify the math considerably and just assume everyone gets the max of 10/hour, then 15000 rep takes 1500 hours (62.5 days), ie. halfway to the first logarithmic tick past 1000.

I should point out that the assumption is made that the bonus for every 4 hours isn't reset when you log out. If it is reset, then much longer. I also assumed that the cap is 10 rep/hour for everyone, regardless of current rep.

Edit: Had to update the code for a minor bug that the penalty for having negative rep wasn't changing as your rep improved. It's now fixed, but on the log scale the changes are fairly insignificant as it only affects the first ~40 hours, since after that you're getting 10 rep/hour regardless of current rep.

Goblin Squad Member

Nightdrifter wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Nightdrifter wrote:

Since the thread related to the December reputation blog was locked, I figured this thread was the next best place to post this plot on reputation gains.

Rep Gains

Note that the color scale is on a (base 10) log scale. White areas are where you already have more than your desired rep. Code to produce the plot can also be found in the folder (requires ROOT and python to run).

So am I correct in it taking about 42 days of game time (1000+ hours) to go from -7500 to +7500?

Ya, over 1000 hours. If we simplify the math considerably and just assume everyone gets the max of 10/hour, then 15000 rep takes 1500 hours (62.5 days), ie. halfway to the first logarithmic tick past 1000.

I should point out that the assumption is made that the bonus for every 4 hours isn't reset when you log out. If it is reset, then much longer. I also assumed that the cap is 10 rep/hour for everyone, regardless of current rep.

Edit: Had to update the code for a minor bug that the penalty for having negative rep wasn't changing as your rep improved. It's now fixed, but on the log scale the changes are fairly insignificant as it only affects the first ~40 hours, since after that you're getting 10 rep/hour regardless of current rep.

You also have to consider that this is 1000 hours of game time, even at 10 hours per week, it would take 100 weeks to go from -7500 to +7500.

There would have to be active ways to recover reputation, through PVP, otherwise the unintended consequences may hit extremes.

Sovereign Court Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I would assume the long time is intentional by the devs. We're likely to see some tweaks to those numbers, but the message is that if you want to kill random people then you're going to need a very long time to recover. 1500 hours of game time can be an eternity for some people, but there are many who play several hours a day. So some may take years to gain that much while others maybe half a year. If you only play a few hours a week and have -7500 rep, then it's pretty clear what your play style is ;).

Even reaching -2500 (the minimum to enter NPC settlements) can take 100s of hours from -7500. Player settlements are likely to want to have T2/T3 training and that means setting higher rep requirements to enter. We don't have those numbers, but it's safe to assume that they're certainly higher than -2500. This has always been my understanding of rep: if you have low rep, kiss your chances of getting good training goodbye.

So the question I see is how do low rep (below -2500) characters get any training? It's not from NPC settlements. Maybe some PC settlements will set their rep requirement low enough, but that requires sacrificing any chance of getting T2/T3 training for the whole settlement. Based on crunching numbers in other threads I can't help but conclude that a settlement with only T1 will be easy pickings for a T2/T3 settlement. Being known as a home of low rep players who attack non-combatants for fun is like painting a target on that settlement. If you don't (easily) stomp that settlement and take its land while removing the annoyance of having all the nearby low rep characters then someone else will. So such settlements don't strike me as having long lifetimes without a massive number of supporters. Such a "hive of scum and villainy" would be cool to see, but whether it happens in game is another matter.

The only option I can see for low rep training is from the PoI training sites (and maybe hideouts). Likely this will be gated based on rep set by the PoI owner and have very limited training available. So at some point there may be enough demand that people set up PoIs with the intention of selling training to low rep characters. It's not hard to imagine that even that limited training could be set to be very expensive by people looking to fleece those who have no choice but to train there.

Goblin Squad Member

@ Nightdrifter,

That is exactly what will happen, which I said is the extreme that will be struck.

Some characters will hit rock bottom, and have no incentive to recover.

The same player, will have other characters, that play a very different role.

Some Kingdoms will be expansive enough to dilute the negative impacts of one settlement of low reputation and it will unleash those low rep, chaotic evil characters onto their enemies.

But that is still not the extreme, yet...

What can't be done in game, will be done meta game. What can't be done by some in either game or in meta game, will be denied to those who can do them.

We are perhaps 50 people talking here on the forums. There are a hundred thousand or more on the door step. You can rest assured, everything you say in your post will come to pass.

Sovereign Court Goblin Squad Member

Just one quibble: I think most people underestimate how steep the power curve will be in PFO. Sure, it's nothing like most games where a thousand newbies couldn't even harm the top players, but there's still a big difference between a T2/T3 player and someone with T1. So I'm not sure that unleashing low rep players onto your enemy will be anything more than a nuisance.

If it's intended to be a nuisance, then sure it'll work and is probably what the low rep players are good at. However, a formation of low rep T1 characters is like PFOs equivalent of farmers with pitchforks, ie. barely worth bringing to a large fight between well geared/trained opponents.

Anyways, is there still a plan for an Outlaw Council (sorry, I forget the exact name) where people who don't want to be part of settlements can rove around? I could see that council setting up semi-permanent PoIs for their members to train at. They'll almost certainly lose PoIs to various settlements as those settlements expand, but a network of such PoIs would be cool to see. Seedy taverns, dark shrines, a manor with known connections to bandit gangs ... is it Q3 2014 yet? ;)

CEO, Goblinworks

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nightdrifter wrote:
So the question I see is how do low rep (below -2500) characters get any training?

We think there needs to be some NPC Settlement that will take them. Probably not Thornkeep but someplace else. Access to minimum character support only. All details TBD.

Sovereign Court Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Nightdrifter wrote:
So the question I see is how do low rep (below -2500) characters get any training?
We think there needs to be some NPC Settlement that will take them. Probably not Thornkeep but someplace else. Access to minimum character support only. All details TBD.

So then the question is how much overlap is there between those NPC settlements which allow low rep training and PoI training? Also, how many such NPC settlements are there? If there's only one or two on the map, then low rep PCs will gather there or else have to rely on PoIs. If there's sufficient number of such low rep NPC settlements and PoI training offers nothing they can't already get from the NPCs then that would nix what I said above about offering PoI training to low rep PCs.

Goblin Squad Member

Nightdrifter wrote:
Anyways, is there still a plan for an Outlaw Council (sorry, I forget the exact name) where people who don't want to be part of settlements can rove around? I could see that council setting up semi-permanent PoIs for their members to train at. They'll almost certainly lose PoIs to various settlements as those settlements expand, but a network of such PoIs would be cool to see. Seedy taverns, dark shrines, a manor with known connections to bandit gangs ... is it Q3 2014 yet? ;)

There was the Outlaw Council and the Brethren of the Wild Lands, both potentially being sponsored (meta gamed) by the UnNamed Company.

There are likely to be NPC factions that serve the same purpose or at least I hope so. With the numbers of settlements and particularly POIs and outposts being thrown around as of the last blog, I'd say it is likely those with lower rep will find avenues of support.

I'm also pretty confident that you would have to go out of your way to get really low rep, and there is no real purpose or benefit in doing that.

Sovereign Court Goblin Squad Member

It's easier than you think to get really low rep if there's no active way to gain rep. I don't know whether the old numbers for rep cost are even remotely applicable anymore, so I treat the cost as an unknown variable. After all, the recent blog mentions differing costs based on a variety of conditions.

So to figure out how easy it is to get really low rep, consider the following question:

For a given rep cost for killing someone who is not hostile to me, how long does it take to get back to my current reputation via passive gains?

Remember that rep gain largely depends upon how long you've been gaining rep. Kill someone and you're at 1 rep/hour or less for four hours.

Time between kills to retain your current reputation (look for reploss.png)

For example, if the rep cost of killing someone is 50, then it takes ~30 hours to get that reputation back.

Goblin Squad Member

Nightdrifter wrote:
...limited training could be set to be very expensive by people looking to fleece those who have no choice but to train there.

Also remember Ryan's told us that dealing with low-rep folks will hurt a character's rep; one might imagine that could extend to settlement rep as well, thus potentially acting as yet another barrier for those settlements concerned with their reputations.

CEO, Goblinworks

Nightdrifter wrote:
So then the question is how much overlap is there between those NPC settlements which allow low rep training and PoI training?

TBD. The ideas for training in PoIs is rough at this point.

Quote:
Also, how many such NPC settlements are there?

They're going to have to be seeded along with everything else added to the map as it expands. Number and ratio to space TBD.

151 to 200 of 203 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Passive or active rep gains? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.