A Few Simple Ways to Make NRDS Viable


Pathfinder Online

501 to 550 of 1,127 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Proxima Sin wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Proxima Sin wrote:
It's the thoughtlessness of absolutism I see as problematic. An automatic blood doctrine echoing the behavior that you despised from the low rep person.

It is absolutely, 100% certifiably not an echo of their behavior.

They have consistently engaged in PvP with folks who were not even flagged Hostile.

You're automatically killing everyone you think you can get away with which sounds a lot like your fear of low rep characters automatically killing anyone they think they can get away with.

I can't speak for Nihimon but I know this is not my intent. Whether I kill or spare a low rep player will be highly dependent on a combination of how accurate the mechanic is at measuring bad behavior, my knowledge of the player and their group, and how they are behaving.

There was more than one time in the original Darkfall I let a red off the hook because they appeared to be non-threatening. Not often due to the nature of that game. But it did happen.

Generally if I have no knowledge of them and they appear to be hesitant to engage me in combat but don't flee, I'll talk to them about why they are red before engaging, and may make the choice at that point to let them go. If they open fire or are flying a UNC tag I'll just put them down. If they run I'll make a judgement call.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Drakhan,

I believe they see it as a threat to thier prefered modus operandi. They know that most prosperous settlements will see members of thier company as generaly undesirable due to thier prefered vocations. That means they'll be exiled/tresspassed from most such hexs. That takes away the huge advantage they have to engage defenseless targets entirely at thier own leisure. They now have to deal with the fact that local Law Enforcement or Millitary patrols can engage them at a time not entirely of thier own choosing.

Essentialy they want to live the Outlaw lifestyle but not have to deal with the natural consequence of being Outlaws.

The thing is they are still perfectly free to engage in thier prefered behavior with the full advantage of engaging at thier liesure in every other hex on the board aside from the settlement hex's that people OWN. Sorry guys, seems perfectly balanced to me.

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Proxima Sin wrote:
It's the thoughtlessness of absolutism I see as problematic. An automatic blood doctrine echoing the behavior that you despised from the low rep person.

It is absolutely, 100% certifiably not an echo of their behavior.

They have consistently engaged in PvP with folks who were not even flagged Hostile.

You're automatically killing everyone you think you can get away with which sounds a lot like your fear of low rep characters automatically killing anyone they think they can get away with.

What is the purpose of the "hostility" flag?

Goblin Squad Member

A hostility flag indicates to you that there will be no alignment or reputation shifts if you attack that character. That's all it says.

Its presence speaks nothing to whether or not attacking is a good idea or the most beneficial short-term or long-term action you can take.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Proxima Sin wrote:

A hostility flag indicates to you that there will be no alignment or reputation shifts if you attack that character. That's all it says.

Its presence speaks nothing to whether or not attacking is a good idea or the most beneficial short-term or long-term action you can take.

So it is not also to indicate someone that is of enemy faction, feud, war, an attacker, a recent criminal possibly against you and your interests, or currently heinous?

Interesting.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Proxima Sin wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Proxima Sin wrote:
It's the thoughtlessness of absolutism I see as problematic. An automatic blood doctrine echoing the behavior that you despised from the low rep person.

It is absolutely, 100% certifiably not an echo of their behavior.

They have consistently engaged in PvP with folks who were not even flagged Hostile.

You're automatically killing everyone you think you can get away with which sounds a lot like your fear of low rep characters automatically killing anyone they think they can get away with.

You're glossing over a world of context with that statement. I'm killing people who have made a habit of attacking unflagged characters while they're flagged to me. It's almost like you're doing everything you can to ignore that part, and paint a false equivalency.

Goblin Squad Member

All those things you said are learned from additional information besides a name in red. Effective responses to characters labeled as hostile will be as varied as the reasons for the hostility, and depend on the context of your situation and the institutions involved.

If you see a name in red and (estimating you can win the fight) automatically attack it, every time, no exceptions, how is that not making PO into a murder simulator?

Goblin Squad Member

I think this is all just another way for the anti-pvp crowd to mask themselves once again as just anti-griefers. This whole system is exercise in repetition. If someone has a low-rep...they are already flagged to other characters because of their low-rep. This doesn't sound to me like a defensive mechanism against griefers as much as a way for people pretending to be righteous finding a way of consequence free PVP for themselves.

And before long the whole mechanism will fail because their would be more LG settlements banning other LG players out of greed and politics and then that too would have to be monitored since in a role-playing sense.....it makes no sense.

Low Rep characters already have low rep. This proposed added mechanic is just more work for the developers to institute something that is just begging to be abused and in the end does nothing.

Keep it simple...if someone has a low rep...that should be consequence enough. If a settlement or guild wants to be able to fight a whole other group...then fueds and wars is the way to go where both sides have consequence free PVP.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

It requires exactly two things. Those two things will be readily available at a single glance. Hostility (the name is red) and Reputation (Ryan says Rep will be visible).

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
It's almost like you're doing everything you can to ignore that part, and paint a false equivalency.

Do not even pull me into the swamp of questioning motivations the half-dozen of you (plural; collectively) get into every other thread.

I have a multi-year history of chasing after griefers and in-character bandits in EVE. I've put forward ideas on these forums that are much tougher on newbie killers than anything GW has said they're going to do (and got shot down).

I already wrote why I don't validate your profiling of low reps. It's self-appointed vigilantism that ignores the whole "consequences and repercussions of engagement" part of meaningful pvp. I already explained why I view that as an invalid difference between their and your thoughtless killings. You already disagreed. Don't fling muck at imaginary secret motivations you assign to me.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Proxima Sin wrote:
If you see a name in red and (estimating you can win the fight) automatically attack it, every time, no exceptions, how is that not making PO into a murder simulator?

Are you talking to me? Because I never even hinted that I would do that.

But, to answer your question, it's not a murder simulator because everyone who's not red doesn't get killed all the time.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Proxima Sin wrote:

All those things you said are learned from additional information besides a name in red. Effective responses to characters labeled as hostile will be as varied as the reasons for the hostility, and depend on the context of your situation and the institutions involved.

If you see a name in red and (estimating you can win the fight) automatically attack it, every time, no exceptions, how is that not making PO into a murder simulator?

Exactly how can there be PVP with consequences and not PVP when you see a "hostile"? That does not mean that you are obligated to attack everyone that you see as "hostile". Of course you should weigh your decision. Certainly you don't object that anyone would be wrong to attack a "hostile" if they choose to, do you?

Why is it worse to attack a "hostile" with a low reputation? Should they be rewarded for low rep with a "protected species" sticker? All the while, they are roaming around and attacking "non hostile" players.

I don't get the reasoning here.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Proxima Sin wrote:
It's self-appointed vigilantism that ignores the whole "consequences and repercussions of engagement" part of meaningful pvp.

I reject your conclusion.

It is very meaningful to me, because I believe it serves the community interest in discouraging meaningless PvP.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Proxima Sin wrote:
It's self-appointed vigilantism that ignores the whole "consequences and repercussions of engagement" part of meaningful pvp.

I reject your conclusion.

It is very meaningful to me, because I believe it serves the community interest in discouraging meaningless PvP.

The original post made no mention of considering contextual factors (not even the reason for hostility), and I haven't heard anything of that in the discussion since. It has always presented in the connotation of low rep, think you can win, won't take a rep hit for it, kill kill kill. It's a murder simulator on a subsection of the population.

Low rep is your Green Hat.

-----

To contrast with myself:

CG combat character sees blatantly obvious dirty business going on and I have a reasonable cost:benefit chance of winning, I'm diving in regardless of Rep meters or hostility switches. If the shady guys aren't flagged for me I'm going to shift chaotic which is awesome, and towards evil and lower rep which is double notsome. But I don't think that situation would happen often enough to have a meaningful affect on my character sheet so it's not an obstacle to me.

The main difference: I label people I see making trouble as trouble makers. Nihimon Doctrine trusts a computer algorithm to be a moral judge and Rep/Alignment shifts are too high a cost to support the "feedback loop". It's all very just this side of Lawful, isn't it?

Also my opinion: that whole other people's content quote is way too vague to draw the conclusion Ryan was asking for vigilant low rep death squads.

Goblin Squad Member

Low Reputation means something. It means something significant.

Green Hat is just a code for Random.

It's probably the most common accusation that bad actors make against the good guys who resist them: you're just as bad!

It's utter BS.

Goblin Squad Member

Drakhan Valane wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:
Xeen wrote:

Now that Ive posted, let me rephrase it...

No

At least in my case, if you exile me and make me consequence free to kill... then you should be consequence free to kill as well.

Why do you assume that you have some inherent right to enter territory that you don't own? and that the owners of the territory should have no right to expel you from that territory...or should be considered criminals, chaotic and evil for enforcing millitary control over thier own territory?

The very definition of Ownership implies the right to exclude others from access or use of the Property Owned. By seeking entry when you have been prohibited, you are engaging in a criminal act.

They pay lip service to the river freedoms, but as soon as someone tries to hold what they have, they get upset. Defending your territory is wrong, didn't you know?

I have the right to enter any territory I wish. You must force me out.

Lip service, lol.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
Proxima Sin wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Proxima Sin wrote:
It's the thoughtlessness of absolutism I see as problematic. An automatic blood doctrine echoing the behavior that you despised from the low rep person.

It is absolutely, 100% certifiably not an echo of their behavior.

They have consistently engaged in PvP with folks who were not even flagged Hostile.

You're automatically killing everyone you think you can get away with which sounds a lot like your fear of low rep characters automatically killing anyone they think they can get away with.

I can't speak for Nihimon but I know this is not my intent. Whether I kill or spare a low rep player will be highly dependent on a combination of how accurate the mechanic is at measuring bad behavior, my knowledge of the player and their group, and how they are behaving.

There was more than one time in the original Darkfall I let a red off the hook because they appeared to be non-threatening. Not often due to the nature of that game. But it did happen.

Generally if I have no knowledge of them and they appear to be hesitant to engage me in combat but don't flee, I'll talk to them about why they are red before engaging, and may make the choice at that point to let them go. If they open fire or are flying a UNC tag I'll just put them down. If they run I'll make a judgement call.

You wont put anything down... Oh wait, thats right, when you see a known PVPer you lead your group over a cliff.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:


I have the right to enter any territory I wish. You must force me out.

Lip service, lol.

No, you have the right (under the River Freedoms) to enter any territory that you CAN. If you can't, you don't have any right to.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
Xeen wrote:


I have the right to enter any territory I wish. You must force me out.

Lip service, lol.

No, you have the right (under the River Freedoms) to enter any territory that you CAN. If you can't, you don't have any right to.

Um yeah, thats what I said.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:

Low Reputation means something. It means something significant.

Green Hat is just a code for Random.

It's probably the most common accusation that bad actors make against the good guys who resist them: you're just as bad!

It's utter BS.

So what is it when a goody two-shoes bandit hunter says it? That I actually need an identifiable reason to go after someone instead of attacking for some characteristic or other.

Feedback loop is your big reason, but remember training dogs and small children: you have to apply the feedback while they're doing the behavior or the cause and affect doesn't connect for them. If you only attack hostiles and it's three days after this guy's last rep loss event how's he supposed to know it's his low rep that got him attacked and not whatever association that was making him red to you? You feel better for having attacked somebody you think might have griefed a noob at some point, but does he even know he was supposed to feel cycled through a feedback loop?

Shadow Lodge Goblin Squad Member

The use of the Green Hat is meant to role play Chaotic Evil / Neutral, but it does not have to be a reputation costing event.

The Green Hat is the representation of alignment, potentially a whole separate mechanic from the reputation system. You can play CE and do that within the rules if the game. Character and Player are not one in the same. The player cares about reputation, the character cares about alignment.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

@Proxima Sin, it sounds like you're saying that the players running low rep characters only have the mental faculties of a dog or small child. They can't string together facts and consequences?

Goblin Squad Member

We also don't know if the rep mechanic may be flexible enough in some situations.

I'm an unaligned PC wandering by and I see a bunch of merchants being attacked by a group of guys in black cloaks, my first instinct is to run over and defend the merchants.

After the Black Cloaks have been run off, the merchants show their gratitude by giving me ... a slave.

Oh jeebus fark, I just saved Slavers from a group of Paladins.

Not only did I just get a massive rep-hit for running in and attacking without a S.A.D. or a declaration of war, but I 'fought' Lawful Good (High Rep) players and then 'accepted' a gift that gives me the Hienous Flag.

Now, this is an exaggeration to be sure, but Low Rep and Flagged doesn't mean an absolute K.O.S., but it does mean I am going to watch your ass like a hawk.

If your name is that of a known Griefer, you can be damn sure I'm going to shadow you and see where you go. Who knows, you might just lead me to your Stronghold, so I can go back to town, tell your victims where you're shacking up and come back with the required amount of torches or pitchforks.

If you're a bandit ... maybe you're on your way to town to try and pay off your bounty. Maybe you've just raided a caravan. Maybe you've tried to leave the Bandit Company and they've punished you by using Mechanics to flag you up so that you get killed and lose everything you're carrying. Assuming you don't look like you can murder me with a thought, I'll approach you, hand on my weapon, but I'll talk to you, at least at first.

Mouth off, you're dead. Attack me, you're dead. Talk to me ... you'll live.

I'd argue that unless you've physically seen a 'Red' Target commit a crime it might pay twice to avoid outright slaughter. While the game won't punish you for the slaying of a Criminal, At-War or Heinous-flagged Player, you might get more out of it by either S.A.D.ing them, or offering them a hand and getting a potential ally or favour out of them at a later date.

Goblin Squad Member

@HalfOrc, in your example you actually probably wouldn't take any reputation penalties; the Paladins will be flagged as Attacker, and per the blog there's no rep hit for attacking a character flagged as such. You will still take alignment hits though.

I don't think that an example of the rep system being too inflexible in the least; you ran into a situation you aren't involved in and attacked characters who you are not feuding, warring, etc., so you should probably expect significant alignment and/or reputation penalties. The whole point to the system is so you don't run around willy nilly killing people, and instead evaluate potential fights more carefully. The fact that they are Evil slavers and their antagonists were Good paladins has nothing whatsoever to do with Reputation (unless the point to it was that you'd become Heinous by taking the gift of slaves, but there's an easy solution in not accepting a gift that makes you Heinous if you can't handle the flag).

I get however that the example was just an attempt to show that low rep + flagged does not mean they have to die; I agree with that notion, for instance if someone affiliated with your own settlement (through in-game or out-of-game means) is low-rep + flagged, you shouldn't kill them. However, I do think they will be killed by others far more often than others would. I mean, why wouldn't an Evil guy take advantage of the opportunity? It's the consequence for letting your reputation plummet.

This whole notion that "maybe I'm flagged up for being a good guy so you shouldn't kill me" just seems totally bass-ackwards. If you take an action that flags you as attackable by anyone, be prepared to be attacked by anyone. Don't like it, don't take actions to flag you as such, and don't complain when people follow through with the intended consequences for the actions you took. If you throw in Ryan's constant assurances that the game won't give us any unexpected PvP flags, I really don't see why killing flagged people is an issue.

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin wrote:
Feedback loop is your big reason, but remember training dogs and small children: you have to apply the feedback while they're doing the behavior or the cause and affect doesn't connect for them.

Players are a lot smarter than dogs and small children. Besides, I'll tell them I killed them because they're Low Reputation, if they bother to ask me. Again, the burden is on them, not me.

Goblin Squad Member

Good luck with that Nihimon

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
@Proxima Sin, it sounds like you're saying that the players running low rep characters only have the mental faculties of a dog or small child. They can't string together facts and consequences?

I'm actually talking about psychology and classical conditioning but thank you for latching onto 4 or 5 words and completely ignoring the entire point in the very next sentence.

Quote:
If you only attack hostiles and it's three days after this guy's last rep loss event how's he supposed to know it's his low rep that got him attacked and not whatever association that was making him red to you? ...does he even know he was supposed to feel cycled through a feedback loop?

Goblin Squad Member

And yet, for all these hilarious comments, no one has explained to me how this NBSI system will not be completely abused. Speaking for myself...I have no problem with low-rep characters being targeted by high rep characters (although I do not think low-rep characters should get another rep hit for simply defending himself since it will lead to no one ever being able to fix their rep.)

But a system where players/communities, at no cost to themselves, can designate whole other guilds to "kill on sight" in their lands is, as I said before...repetitious at best when dealing with low-rep characters and counter alignment base role-playing. To my understanding...a known dishonorable criminal is already flagged. Adding this NBSI or exile system isn't really for dealing with low-lifes and evil characters...it sounds like a way for Lawful Good characters who want to play counter to their alignment to abuse a rule set and allow them to act in Chaotic Evil ways.

So, let me repeat it again...it sounds to me like with an NBSI system LG settlements can declare other LG guilds that they are competitive with and engage in complete consequence free slaughter....which sounds to me like the very thing that most of the people arguing the merits of this system have been whining against since he beginning of these forums.

Unless we want the developers to waste more time developing more rule sets to deal with the brand new rule sets that were just proposed. Maybe an NBSI monitor to make sure it is being used properly. Then we can have a monitor monitor the monitor to make sure Lawful settlements are not exiling other similarly aligned guilds for no reason.

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin wrote:
Urman wrote:
@Proxima Sin, it sounds like you're saying that the players running low rep characters only have the mental faculties of a dog or small child. They can't string together facts and consequences?

I'm actually talking about psychology and classical conditioning but thank you for latching onto 4 or 5 words and completely ignoring the entire point in the very next sentence.

Quote:
If you only attack hostiles and it's three days after this guy's last rep loss event how's he supposed to know it's his low rep that got him attacked and not whatever association that was making him red to you? ...does he even know he was supposed to feel cycled through a feedback loop?

I have a feeling that Reputation will be so important that it will be present in a very prevalent way in all aspects of the game and community. In literature, constant discussions, and freely given advice. I doubt that it will be possible to NOT know about it.

Goblin Squad Member

@Nihimon The burden is on the low rep character and you expect them to faithfully execute this responsibility because... they're such upstanding citizens?

As I originally said, problematic.

I want to put my part of the bickering to rest.

Nihimon and like-minded are so lawful they trust GoblinWork's (still unwritten?) computer code to be an infallible judge of moral fiber* and trust their victims will want to know specifically why they were attacked.

I don't hold either of those faiths. I'm going to catch dipwads in the act and smash their faces when possible whether or not they're flagged hostile to me so they feel an instinctive causal connection between acting like a jerk and getting beat up and losing their stuff.

Neither of us are bad people.

*GW's CEO doesn't think it will be an infallible indicator of toxic behavior. He mentioned multiple nuances in a recent interview and posted about squads of low-rep alts having a legitimate game use for settlements.

Goblin Squad Member

Valtorious wrote:
Speaking for myself...I have no problem with low-rep characters being targeted by high rep characters (although I do not think low-rep characters should get another rep hit for simply defending himself since it will lead to no one ever being able to fix their rep.)

I don't think anyone wants to see a Character ever lose Reputation for defending themselves once they've been attacked.

Valtorious wrote:
So, let me repeat it again...it sounds to me like with an NBSI system LG settlements can declare other LG guilds that they are competitive with and engage in complete consequence free slaughter...

Does it matter at all that they can only this in their own territory?

Does it matter at all that they can do the same thing eveywhere by declaring War?

Goblin Squad Member

@ Proxima Sin

Cool! You should play in the way that you think is right for you. Both ways described seem like they will get the message across, pretty well.

When you talk about a main character that is played the most, and "stand by" characters that are used in select situations, you are not speaking the same language.

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin wrote:
@Nihimon The burden is on the low rep character and you expect them to faithfully execute this responsibility because... they're such upstanding citizens?

The burden is on them because they're the ones who will benefit from it. I expect them to carry through on that because they're the ones who will benefit from it.

Proxima Sin wrote:
Nihimon and like-minded are so lawful they trust GoblinWork's (still unwritten?) computer code to be an infallible judge of moral fiber*.

You're 100% wrong. I don't think it will be infallible, and I don't think it has to be. I think it's a simple system that will work as part of a complex, layered approach to a very serious problem. I think my planned actions are in-line with that approach.

Don't fling muck at imaginary secret motivations you assign to me.

Goblin Squad Member

I'm talking about using my CG destiny's twin (based on TT character Ive had for 15 years), is that "main" enough for ya? :o)

If it wasn't clear before I don't think Nihimon's random feedback loop plan will have any measurable effect (except when interrupting jerk-in-progress) because if he doesn't get them in the act the genuinely bad guys won't care what his reasons are for attacking, and he wont do anything at all if they're not somehow flagged hostile.

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin wrote:
... [Nihimon] wont do anything at all if they're not somehow flagged hostile.

That's not a reasonable conclusion to draw based on what I've said. Just because I've been talking lately about what I'll do when someone is Hostile doesn't mean I haven't thought about or don't have any plans for how to deal with someone who isn't Hostile.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
You're 100% wrong. I don't think it will be infallible, and I don't think it has to be. I think it's a simple system that will work as part of a complex, layered approach to a very serious problem. I think my planned actions are in-line with that approach

If you don't think the Reputation score is infallible how can you tell the difference if you're justified or making a mistake to attack them based on it?

And I'm only speaking to the doctrine you've put forward already and advocated everyone should do, which only included action against hostiles.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Valtorious wrote:
Speaking for myself...I have no problem with low-rep characters being targeted by high rep characters (although I do not think low-rep characters should get another rep hit for simply defending himself since it will lead to no one ever being able to fix their rep.)

I don't think anyone wants to see a Character ever lose Reputation for defending themselves once they've been attacked.

Valtorious wrote:
So, let me repeat it again...it sounds to me like with an NBSI system LG settlements can declare other LG guilds that they are competitive with and engage in complete consequence free slaughter...

Does it matter at all that they can only this in their own territory?

Does it matter at all that they can do the same thing eveywhere by declaring War?

Why does a low-rep character who is already flagged a violent criminal need to be flagged again? It is repetitious...It does nothing. On the other hand...sounds to me like this system is begging to be misused.

As far a warfare goes...you are right, I don't know how you get past the obvious alignment conflicts that would come from "good" characters declaring war on other "good" characters.

But then again, maybe I like your guys idea...but it needs some refinement.

Since it seems that evil and low-rep characters are already being penalized in this game....I think that they should be the only ones to implement NBSI in their lands. I can see from a D&D standpoint how an Lawful Evil settlement could exercise the practice of killing all un-authorized foreigners.

On the other hand...if you are a LN, LG, NG, CG or N community, I think that the use of NBSI against any person or guild other than low-rep should garner a reputation hit for the entire settlement....unless someone wants to explain to me how a LG Paladin decided that it was morally justifiable to enable a law (NBSI) that permitted the murder of any of the NG merchants who lived in a neighboring settlement.


Valtorious wrote:


On the other hand...if you are a LN, LG, NG, CG or N community, I think that the use of NBSI against any person or guild other than low-rep should garner a reputation hit for the entire settlement....unless someone wants to explain to me how a LG Paladin decided that it was morally justifiable to enable a law (NBSI) that permitted the murder of any of the NG merchants who lived in a neighboring...

We don't need to justify it alignment is merely a mechanic. Choosing one gives you mechanical advantages or disadvantages that is all. Justification on moral grounds is merely rp and therefore totally unimportant

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Proxima Sin wrote:

I'm talking about using my CG destiny's twin (based on TT character Ive had for 15 years), is that "main" enough for ya? :o)

If it wasn't clear before I don't think Nihimon's random feedback loop plan will have any measurable effect (except when interrupting jerk-in-progress) because if he doesn't get them in the act the genuinely bad guys won't care what his reasons are for attacking, and he wont do anything at all if they're not somehow flagged hostile.

You were referring to Ryan's suggestion that settlements might keep low rep toons on stand by. Thus they are viable. If you use them to do dirty work only in "select situations", they are not exactly equivalent with full time low rep characters that roam about everywhere and constantly do dirty deeds.

I do see that you don't think that approach will be affective. I am not sure, myself, if anything will be. With EVERYTHING piled on in a multilayered fashion, I have to try and see if it does though. As a player, making it unpleasant to willfully play "low rep" is one of my parts in that layered approach.

I find it amusing that you believe that you will catch these guys "in the act" as often as you will run across them just flagged hostile. At least then you eliminate the minor penalty, allowing yourself to do it more often. (if that even pans out to matter)

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin wrote:
If you don't think the Reputation score is infallible how can you tell the difference if you're justified or making a mistake to attack them based on it?

It doesn't need to be infallible, and neither do I.

If I felt that even a significant number of my "victims" would be in fact innocent, I would abandon the policy. However, I'm extremely confident that the vast majority will not be innocent. I have serious doubts whether your hypothetical will ever be the reality.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bringslite wrote:
Proxima Sin wrote:

I'm talking about using my CG destiny's twin (based on TT character Ive had for 15 years), is that "main" enough for ya? :o)

If it wasn't clear before I don't think Nihimon's random feedback loop plan will have any measurable effect (except when interrupting jerk-in-progress) because if he doesn't get them in the act the genuinely bad guys won't care what his reasons are for attacking, and he wont do anything at all if they're not somehow flagged hostile.

You were referring to Ryan's suggestion that settlements might keep low rep toons on stand by. Thus they are viable. If you use them to do dirty work only in "select situations", they are not exactly equivalent with full time low rep characters that roam about everywhere and constantly do dirty deeds.

I do see that you don't think that approach will be affective. I am not sure, myself, if anything will be. With EVERYTHING piled on in a multilayered fashion, I have to try and see if it does though. As a player, making it unpleasant to willfully play "low rep" is one of my parts in that layered approach.

I find it amusing that you believe that you will catch these guys "in the act" as often as you will run across them just flagged hostile. At least then you eliminate the minor penalty, allowing yourself to do it more often. (if that even pans out to matter)

The only thing that will be effective with true jerks is what I have detailed before and what we would do to people who get on the jerk list.

If they are in unaligned kill them every time you see them

If they are in a company you tell that company ditch the jerk or you can have an everlasting feud

If they are in a settlement you tell that settlement expel the jerk or we will come burn you to the ground.

Repeat as necessary

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Valtorious wrote:


On the other hand...if you are a LN, LG, NG, CG or N community, I think that the use of NBSI against any person or guild other than low-rep should garner a reputation hit for the entire settlement....unless someone wants to explain to me how a LG Paladin decided that it was morally justifiable to enable a law (NBSI) that permitted the murder of any of the NG merchants who lived in a neighboring...
We don't need to justify it alignment is merely a mechanic. Choosing one gives you mechanical advantages or disadvantages that is all. Justification on moral grounds is merely rp and therefore totally unimportant

And now my point has been made. NBSI is a mechanic high-rep/good characters are going to exploit so they can slaughter people consequence free.

501 to 550 of 1,127 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / A Few Simple Ways to Make NRDS Viable All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.