Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Need: Scammers and those that use poisonous language are players that GW wants to keep out of PO. They could roll LN and run rampant creating a toxic game environment; the fact that CE settlements suck won't impact them one bit (actually they can "drift" into the "strongest" alignment to have best access to training and markets) and I haven't read anything on how the Reputation system will concretely mitigate their negative affect on the game or reform their behavior.
A Solution: Reputation isn't from D&D. It's not from Pathfinder. It was invented by GoblinWorks to do one job in Pathfinder Online so let's accept that and use it that way.
* At -1500 Rep a character loses the ability to use most skills, feats, consumables, keywords, tricks, etc. Just about every new thing you can do with Tier 2 and 3 gear for sure. They can no longer be a part of any inter-player Rep transfers (to avoid their friends boosting them up or enemies sabotaging them against the intent of the Rep system). They also lose the ability to issue or accept any form of contracts (for scammers) including placing buy and sell orders (they have limits to complete orders that others placed). Stay in the upper 60% of Rep and you're golden; there's plenty of room for an honest misunderstanding or naked noob bomb before a mechanical behavior penalty kicks in. It's hard to assert you lost 2,500+ Rep before you understood what was going on.
* At -4000 Rep a character loses all but a fixed set of skills and stats equal to a new character. They are mechanically ejected from all factions, company, and settlement of which they were a member and cannot join any until they are above this threshold again. Maybe other stuff TBD to close loopholes that I haven't thought of.
For those that try to use PO as a murder simulator this system quickly makes that endeavor mechanically very difficult then near impossible even before human oversight can step in, protecting players. For scammers, inflammatory commenters and other toxic players repeated Rep penalties issued by humans for their behavior (of course with an explanation of what they did and why it's undesired in PO, whatever responsible and effective behavioral modification system we end up with) will dip them into DefCon 2 then DefCon 1 of not being able to do much of anything and probably not have fun in the game.
Malleable personalities will alter their behavior to what is community accepted and incorrigible ones will leave the game. Alignment of individuals and settlements is free to be only a role playing tool in a D&D fantasy game. And that, as far as I know, is what we all want.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm sure GW will balance the reputation system to perform how they want it to perform and it'll likely resemble very closely to what you have described if necessary, but there is no need to have an area of reputation no one will play in.
The challenge I'm thinking is how to meaningfully inform new players about the pros and cons of reputation and it's twists.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The problem I have with the reputation system is how instantly you can go from high reputation to low reputation in just one encounter. This creates a situation where high rep characters can travel in numbers with near impunity, without fear of being attacked.
Since it will be nearly impossible for merchants to lose reputation (being non pvpers in all likelihood) they will reach maximum reputation in the shortest period of time.
If a group does not have the influence to feud with the merchant company and their numbers are nearly equal to the bandits, even SADs are off the table. The only reasonable option is to let them pass without being engaged.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
but there is no need to have an area of reputation no one will play in.
The thing is Reputation as a mechanic isn't a part of character development that we want well-represented across the board as part of a rich D&D backdrop like Alignment. As it's been explained so far, numerically negative Reputation means that player has been a huge bag of d&#^s to other players. In the ideal world none of us dares to hope for there would be huge swaths of the Reputation scale (like -7500 to 999) with no player inhabitants. I would say there is a great desire and benefit to have big areas of Reputation that no one does play in.
The challenge I'm thinking is how to meaningfully inform new players about the pros and cons of reputation and it's twists.
My thinking is THAT of all things shouldn't be challenging or complicated at all.
Scamming, inflammatory language, killing of characters outside wars, feuds, or factional conflict and the like are undesirable behaviors in the game and will earn you lower Reputation which will eventually inhibit your ability to play the game. So play nice, relatively.
Simple.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The problem I have with the reputation system is how instantly you can go from high reputation to low reputation in just one encounter. This creates a situation where high rep characters can travel in numbers with near impunity, without fear of being attacked.
Since it will be nearly impossible for merchants to lose reputation (being non pvpers in all likelihood) they will reach maximum reputation in the shortest period of time.
If a group does not have the influence to feud with the merchant company and their numbers are nearly equal to the bandits, even SADs are off the table. The only reasonable option is to let them pass without being engaged.
Wow two posts before SAD was brought up! :oP
There's a lot we don't know about that, but the simplest way is it gives Chaotic, flags you upon issuance as hostile to the target's allies and in an area around the issuer so they have a fair shot to defend themselves, but doesn't impact Rep unless you kill them after they comply which is basic murder. That's how I'm hoping it turns out.
Anyone can travel in numbers with near impunity. You non-hostility kill a lot of beginner Rep characters in an encounter and you're still going to take a cumulatively big hit. If you want to fight them SAD them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Some interesting ideas and along the right train of thought.
One idea I read about on gamasutra a while ago was for eg only sub players can interact/trade economically (ie permissions). It should be easy to dig up the article, but it was mostly at the suggestions stage but it certainly sounded like one method to gimp players or control players out of a number of possibilities on players' impact on the game.
Maybe a player's avatar is a ghost for a while (one-shot from the right weapon)?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's my understanding that rep will be a bottleneck from joining the better settlements and learning the better skills.
low rep = little/no skill training
high rep = best skill trainingDo you feel that this isn't enough? or am I just not understanding what you're trying to say?
The two problems I see in this current way are
1.) Select alignments are being cherry picked and manipulated as a stick against one type of negative behavior (rpk murder gankmeister) and the skill training plan is dragging settlement alignment into the mess of player behavior control too not just player Rep which damages the concept of D&D Alignment. Meanwhile other types of negative behavior haven't even been publicly addressed and are in no way deterred by that alignment mess.
2.) Not being able to train tomorrow doesn't stop toxic players from using what they have today to harass players, scam, and be general d*%^bags that just aren't gaining the highest level skills. With the relatively flat power curve they won't need that last hard trained level to wolf pack, and the Reputation mechanic as currently described isn't doing a thing to mitigate the affects of their behavior today on other players.
The end goals of my idea are 1.) to simplify and preserve Alignment purely as a roleplaying tool (not player control) and 2.) make the real player control mechanic do something to curb the negative impacts of their actions on players today (make a decisively toxic character weaker so their negative affects are weaker and behaving badly isn't as fun) regardless of whether or not they can train even more skills in the future.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like the idea of extending the consequences of low rep to governing the useful tier of equipment but I am not sure about an acceptably reasonable way to explain it in lore terms.
In the lore it might be easier to ascribe the difference to the gods and accept deity-based alignment restrictions on gear. Higher tier gear requires some goodness, maybe other kinds of higher tier requires some law but all CE gear is no better than tier 1? Perhaps some rare high tier gear available to CE directly from CE deities but its use requires a significant commitment similar to a contract with the god we could call a vow.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Let them wear expensive stuff, actually no - encourage it! Make 'em pay...
If, rather than preventing usage of high tier equipment, a debuff is instead applied (-5, -10, -20 ... % to health and damage output as rep decreases) they will need to pay more to get gear to compensate for the weakness.
If I understand it, GW is trying to make life difficult for low-reps through social mechanisms (not accepted into settlements etc.), I don't see why it would be such a wrong idea to go about it through actual, tangible debuffs as well. They clearly want to discourage low rep...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the idea of extending the consequences of low rep to governing the useful tier of equipment but I am not sure about an acceptably reasonable way to explain it in lore terms.
Pharasma has noticed that you have been being a very naughty boy, and your link to her lets her directly influence you. Whenever you pick up a particularly strong magical item with intent to kill, she jabs you right in the side using her godly mojo. Sure, you can carry that nice magical sword about, but good luck hitting someone with it while your arm is numb.
That is about the best you can do without knowing how GW intends to explain Reputation within the lore. I still like my Favour of Pharasma thing, which would explain not being able to equip high tier items just fine.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like the idea of extending the consequences of low rep to governing the useful tier of equipment but I am not sure about an acceptably reasonable way to explain it in lore terms.
Your recent actions run contrary to Pharasma's designs.
(What are those? Yeah, I'm sure she's going to take the time to tell you... right after she explains why it is you keep coming back from the dead.)
In the lore it might be easier to ascribe the difference to the gods and accept deity-based alignment restrictions on gear. Higher tier gear requires some goodness, maybe other kinds of higher tier requires some law but all CE gear is no better than tier 1?...
NO NO NO!!! The whole point is so that we DON'T have to cherry pick certain alignments to screw over. Alignment isn't causing the problem so it's not the right place to enact the solution. We don't have to say all CE settlements suck and their training sucks so don't bother, just because rpk noob reaping machines will eventually end up CE. That is a myopic view on one facet of the bigger issue of poisonous behavior that ignores all the other toxic behaviors that can occur in any of the eight other alignments. That is why I believe so strongly in separating character roleplaying tools from player behavior tools.
We don't have to slap the faces of every community-positive CE character that wants to add their necromantic, assassin-filled, demon loving fun and content to our game. I don't want to be one, but having them around makes the game richer and more fantastic. If GW makes some alignments worse and others better the bags of d&@^s will come in the "stronger" alignments anyway so saying screw 40 years of D&D tradition we're not having THAT alignment in our game is a completely inadequate response to the problem.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The concern I have with having tangible, mechanical debuffs is how to ensure that it is not twisted to use it against 'weaker' players (weaker here being defined as having less popular support).
I dont recall exactly how reputation is gained or lost, but my understanding was that there would be some level of player choice in granting positive or negative rep to other players (dont know if this was changed in a subsequent dev post). Assuming that is still true, wouldnt it stand to reason that if some group wants to neutralise a champion of an enemy faction, all theyd have to do is save up whatever currency is used and then rep-nuke the champion so that he/she is debuffed and less of a threat?
On the flip side, if there is no player-decided mechanism for assigning positive or negative rep, then reputation becomes more akin to alignment by making it explicit what is acceptable behaviour and what is not (similar to a three-strike system). This is not necessarily good and its not necessarily bad. However it does make it very mechanically dependent and probably wouldnt catch alot of unwanted behaviour as the bad apples 'game' the system.
As such, I am rather leery of mechanical penalties based on reputation and would prefer that it remain a social mechanism and/or a tool for GM intervention.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Start out with a system too lenient and there may be a riot when you adjust the mechanics towards more controlling.
Start out with a system too strict and you may be praised as a savior when you loosen up the rules.
Both cases may end up with the same rule sets in the end but popular opinion may hate you for one and love you for another.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If characters of low reputation have mechanical disadvantages placed upon them, such as losing access to higher end gear and their skills, how do they ever manage to atone for their sins and increase their reputation?
-1000 Rep is low to me but still not experiencing any nerfs so I don't think my suggestion is draconian.
To answer your question they play like good boys and girls with their lowered skills. They can still contribute to community-positive gaming just not at their full potential for a while. All they have to do is not be awful people and passive rep ticks them upwards into the sunshine again.
I'm not advocating casting someone into the 7th Pit of Reputation Hell on their first infraction either. I imagine penalties starting around the 50 or 100 Rep level, gradually scaling up to 225, 350, etc. as the same person continues to engage in repeated negative behavior, with a robust behavior adjustment system in place at each step that is a separate post in itself. When a new character starts with 1000 Rep, losing 2500 Rep to get the first level of mechanical penalties took what, nearly a dozen repeated instances of misbehavior. Ten strikes and you're out, but not out just in the penalty box.
To earn -5000 Rep from the starting amount to get the worst mechanical penalty would take well over a dozen incidents with little time for passive rep gain in between. Or an intense killing spree of non-hostiles stopped only BY the mechanical penalty itself reducing the character's power to that of a newborn. And I think either of those situations deserves a very strict response.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Prayer and fasting, my son.Having to make an offering at every alter.
When a player gets themself nerfed for being an awful person, they make up for it by being a positive, constructive person.
Trust me I know atonement, sin is my middle name. Well... at least my last name.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The concern I have with having tangible, mechanical debuffs is how to ensure that it is not twisted to use it against 'weaker' players (weaker here being defined as having less popular support).
I dont recall exactly how reputation is gained or lost, but my understanding was that there would be some level of player choice in granting positive or negative rep to other players (dont know if this was changed in a subsequent dev post). Assuming that is still true, wouldnt it stand to reason that if some group wants to neutralise a champion of an enemy faction, all theyd have to do is save up whatever currency is used and then rep-nuke the champion so that he/she is debuffed and less of a threat?
On the flip side, if there is no player-decided mechanism for assigning positive or negative rep, then reputation becomes more akin to alignment by making it explicit what is acceptable behaviour and what is not (similar to a three-strike system). This is not necessarily good and its not necessarily bad. However it does make it very mechanically dependent and probably wouldnt catch alot of unwanted behaviour as the bad apples 'game' the system.
As such, I am rather leery of mechanical penalties based on reputation and would prefer that it remain a social mechanism and/or a tool for GM intervention.
What you're talking about is how Reputation gains and losses are assigned, and making sure they're in the spirit of the purpose of the system without being manipulated. That is a valid thing to wonder about, but not what THIS op is regarding. This is about giving the Reputation mechanic teeth and the ability to materially blunt the impact of negative players on other players in the game while leaving Alignment as a roleplay feature not changing it into a punishment/reward system.
To briefly address the points you raise (this should be a new thread to dig into it): There are three ways I can get behind reducing a player's Rep. An automatic algorithm after attacking a non-hostile player. A GM-assigned penalty as the conclusion of being reported and wrongdoing found. A player-populated Tribunal mechanic of an anonymous defendant that reviews low-grade reports with the ability for very limited, minor Rep penalties (serial offenders and serious incidents would go to GMs, Tribunals would take run of the mill busywork reports off their plate). Tweaks as necessary to make all that fair and workable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like the idea of extending the consequences of low rep to governing the useful tier of equipment but I am not sure about an acceptably reasonable way to explain it in lore terms.Pharasma has noticed that you have been being a very naughty boy, and your link to her lets her directly influence you.
Yup. Pharasma is an obvious lore-link in PFO. Certainly it/she can adjust our available threads based on low rep, for example, which I think was Morbis' idea?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
if the issue is scamming or toxic language I full expect to have those players reported and GW to take care of the issue. there is no need for a player driven system for those things. Report it and let GW handle it.
i think that linking abilities and skill use to reputation shouldnt happen. If a player is known for killing merchants (which is a valid thing to do) and he has low rep, he already will have issues, no need to compound them.
remember you dont want to eliminate unflagged pvp, that adds to the game by adding risk. you just want to prevent folks from killing people for the lulz or running around in 200 people groups and just destroying everything just because.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
If Pharasma helps mediate Reputation, it might make sense for lower-reputation characters to have fewer threads of fate (or, equivalently, be able to do less; or have higher-reputation characters get a bonus). That would gradually shift expected reward down as reputation dropped, as long as there was some chance of losing.
There's probably a huge economic difference between a character who can thread a t3 weapon and t3 armor (or a full kit of t2 gear), and wins 95% of the time with the expensive equipment, and the same player and character, but he can thread t3 armor and only t2 weapon, or a full kit of t2 gear.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That would really annoy a lot of the monkey-behaved players (frequently flinging metaphorical you know what) so I like it. And the incentive to maintain higher Rep is great.
It strengthens the case for removing character-driven Rep transfer though or that would be instantly gamed to maximize thread count or harm major enemies after respawn. But I LOVE the idea passive Rep gain as currently described is the ONLY way to increase your Rep. It's a system to measure bad player behavior and the only way to raise the number is an absence of that kind of behavior (the end goal of the game in this regard).
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I don't like the idea of rep not having any carrot behaviors. (Things that you do because they are +rep) If everything is stick (Avoid because -rep), then I think the resultant behavior will resemble learned helplessness.
But I think that the existence of repeatable and accessible actions which increase reputation is the necessary and sufficient condition for grinding.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree and hope that positive human interactions, including PvP, will be rewarded with active reputation gains.
So what if someone will grind it to recover reputation. The point is, they are grinding it through positive behaviors. The ration will not be 1:1, but something like 8:1 might be acceptable.
This does not open the door to griefing 20% of the time. Griefing is not handled through the reputation system, even though most Griefers will likely have low reputations.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't like the idea of rep not having any carrot behaviors. (Things that you do because they are +rep) If everything is stick (Avoid because -rep), then I think the resultant behavior will resemble learned helplessness.
But I think that the existence of repeatable and accessible actions which increase reputation is the necessary and sufficient condition for grinding.
Rep has carrot actions.
Look at stand and deliver. A bandit has two options, kill the merchant and loot everything, downside is alignment/reputation hits and getting flagged. If they use SAD, they get less goods, BUT they dont take any alignment hits AND they get MAX daily reputation gain. If the target refuses and fights, then the bandits are free to kill the merchant. So the system rewards a type of play. SAD also protects the merchant in that if they give up the goods other people suffer extra penalties if they kill them for a time.
Another example is assassins. When they complete a contract they gain rep.
The champion flag was moved to a faction flag but the functionality is being kept. Champions can kill certain flagged players for rep gain (i think its ones with the heinous flag).
I would imagine a merchant contract would also reward rep.
So you can grind out rep, it will take time since there is a max per day you can get, and in order to grind rep you have to engage in behavior that GW wants you to engage in.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This all still seems to be more trouble than its worth. The community will naturally police itself. The more we restrict players the less it looks like a sandbox
Really? A group of internet gamers? I think they'll naturally police themselves about || that much. If players are restricted too little, it'll look like Lord of the Flies.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This all still seems to be more trouble than its worth. The community will naturally police itself. The more we restrict players the less it looks like a sandboxReally? A group of internet gamers? I think they'll naturally police themselves about || that much. If players are restricted too little, it'll look like Lord of the Flies.
EVE has done a great job of showing what happens when you let players do what they wish with few restrictions.
EVE has done a great job of showing what happens when you let players do what they wish with few restrictions.This all still seems to be more trouble than its worth. The community will naturally police itself. The more we restrict players the less it looks like a sandboxReally? A group of internet gamers? I think they'll naturally police themselves about || that much. If players are restricted too little, it'll look like Lord of the Flies.
Most of what people like yourself deem toxic behaviour occurs in high sec where there are all sorts of rules and regulations to control player behaviour.
Wholly player policed sovereignty null sec tends to be a fairly well ordered place on the whole.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This all still seems to be more trouble than its worth. The community will naturally police itself. The more we restrict players the less it looks like a sandbox
A garden is more fruitful when cared for. A poem more lovely in meter. The rose climbs higher on a trellis. And rules are what make a game.
This all still seems to be more trouble than its worth. The community will naturally police itself. The more we restrict players the less it looks like a sandboxA garden is more fruitful when cared for. A poem more lovely in meter. The rose climbs higher on a trellis. And rules are what make a game.
A gardens fertility fails when over cultivated, A poem suffers when constrained to the wrong cadence, A rose grows weak and spindly when forced to extend it stem too far and a surfeit of rules turns a game into a beauracracy
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A gardens fertility fails when over cultivated, A poem suffers when constrained to the wrong cadence, A rose grows weak and spindly when forced to extend it stem too far and a surfeit of rules turns a game into a beauracracyThis all still seems to be more trouble than its worth. The community will naturally police itself. The more we restrict players the less it looks like a sandboxA garden is more fruitful when cared for. A poem more lovely in meter. The rose climbs higher on a trellis. And rules are what make a game.
Excess leads to regulation. If you don't like rules, don't make them necessary. Some are already known to be necessary.
Excess leads to regulation. If you don't like rules, don't make them necessary. Some are already known to be necessary.A gardens fertility fails when over cultivated, A poem suffers when constrained to the wrong cadence, A rose grows weak and spindly when forced to extend it stem too far and a surfeit of rules turns a game into a beauracracyThis all still seems to be more trouble than its worth. The community will naturally police itself. The more we restrict players the less it looks like a sandboxA garden is more fruitful when cared for. A poem more lovely in meter. The rose climbs higher on a trellis. And rules are what make a game.
Disagree completely frankly...you think they are necessary I don't and seems Pax Rafkin doesnt either
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Disagree completely frankly...you think they are necessary I don't and seems Pax Rafkin doesnt eitherExcess leads to regulation. If you don't like rules, don't make them necessary. Some are already known to be necessary.A gardens fertility fails when over cultivated, A poem suffers when constrained to the wrong cadence, A rose grows weak and spindly when forced to extend it stem too far and a surfeit of rules turns a game into a beauracracyThis all still seems to be more trouble than its worth. The community will naturally police itself. The more we restrict players the less it looks like a sandboxA garden is more fruitful when cared for. A poem more lovely in meter. The rose climbs higher on a trellis. And rules are what make a game.
The deal is you don't want rules imposed upon you, but you wish to impose your rules on others. To me, however, I prefer rules that apply equally to all to rules that only apply to those you wish to impose them upon. Rafkin can believe as he wishes. The case stands.
The deal is you don't want rules imposed upon you, but you wish to impose your rules on others. To me, however, I prefer rules that apply equally to all to rules that only apply to those you wish to impose them upon. Rafkin can believe as he wishes. The case stands.Disagree completely frankly...you think they are necessary I don't and seems Pax Rafkin doesnt eitherExcess leads to regulation. If you don't like rules, don't make them necessary. Some are already known to be necessary.A gardens fertility fails when over cultivated, A poem suffers when constrained to the wrong cadence, A rose grows weak and spindly when forced to extend it stem too far and a surfeit of rules turns a game into a beauracracyThis all still seems to be more trouble than its worth. The community will naturally police itself. The more we restrict players the less it looks like a sandboxA garden is more fruitful when cared for. A poem more lovely in meter. The rose climbs higher on a trellis. And rules are what make a game.
We have said we will apply our rules in our lands. So will every other settlement. What is your problem with that statement? Our lands consist of where we can enforce our rules nothing more and nothing less.
Don't like our rules feel free not to enter our lands. You have the ability to not be ever subject to our rules I suggest you use it. Goblinworks are not going to be telling settlements how they must be all nice and allow druids to go where they want whatever you think
Wow. In my last statement I did not mention anything about toxic behaviours or my opinion of whether or not EVE sucks. Where is that coming from? For the record, I enjoy EVE and have for 5 years.
you replied to another quote
EVE has done a great job of showing what happens when you let players do what they wish with few restrictions.
Really? A group of internet gamers? I think they'll naturally police themselves about || that much. If players are restricted too little, it'll look like Lord of the Flies.
That response whether you intended it to be so or not is affirming the opinion of Jasonfahy when he talks about unrestricted behaviour ending up as lord of the flies style. It is a short step therefore to infer that you consider some eve behaviours as toxic.
I would hazard a guess you would therefore have listed (with the inference I made)
Can flipping
Suicide ganking
Awoxxing
Miner bumping
ninja salvaging
Wardec griefing
as those toxic behaviours and all of those are hisec activities where there are lots of regulations to "protect" players from others
Feel free to put words into my mouth, I guess.
Given the quote you replied to I don't think my inference was actually unreasonable.
Feel free to explain what you actually meant however
EvE is very much like Lord of the Flies. That's part of what is desired, isn't it?
No actually it isnt. Go play in one of the null sec alliances and have a look where the players are in total control.
Go to hi sec where the system is relied on and thats where you find all the scammers,gankers and griefers
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, the problem with Highsec is that despite the "rules" in such a place, CCP chooses to leave alone anyone that does the behaviours you list. Lowsec is even worse and where a lot of the "Lord of Flies" becomes obvious in EVE. There's nothing to protect you (even half-assed measures) and there isn't any incentive to truly band together like in Nullsec.