Goblin Squad Member
|
Not to mention that a fully lawful state may be too strict. If chaotic towns can host a more broad spectrum of players but lawful only the lawful aligned, where neutrals can align but find themselves expelled for the slightest infraction, then it may be difficult for the settlement to retain its extremist status or else difficult to retain optimal numbers. Lawful settlements may be too rigid, demanding, austere, and unforgiving. The taxes may be ruinous because the costs are high. These and other characteristics may elevate truly lawful states into a rarity appropriate to elite organizations. In order to retain their substantial perks they may have to be incredibly selective with regards to admission.
Many would find the obligations onerous, and of those who are chosen some portion may choose to migrate away to a less rarified, more fecund environment.
We do not know how much control settlement leadership will have over their admission policies. There is an assumption that despite all the emphasis on alignment and faction characters will set their alignment however they choose and then behave willy-nilly without practical consequence. That assumption looks very unlikely to me. Though some have built their concept of alignment with the prejudice that it will be meaningless, bereft of teeth, there has been strong emphasis on alignment as well as reputation that seems it may counterbalance min-max preferences. I suspect alignment and reputation are creatures that will indeed have teeth that will bite some players deep and hard.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Isn't the trade off, that lawful settlements get higher corruption AND have to set more laws.
Which effectively means, it might be very easy to cripple a lawful settlement, by using guerilla tactics.
In theory, yes, but those acts that increase corruption and unrest are crimes, which are chaotic acts. So you are best off using chaotic tactics and chaotic characters to use against lawful settlements, but from what base of operations are these characters going to come from?
This creates the need for the unaffiliated, chaotic evil - low rep alts to be used. The alignment / reputation systems create the need to circumvent them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If everyone is trying to gain lawful status, but lawful towns have so many laws it's citizens can hardly help violating some of them, then corruption and unrest may be self-inflicted wounds. Those who violate a lawful town's rules may find themselves expulsed despite their own best efforts. The many will not be able to behave themselves adequately well to stay lawful. They will be forced to band together in more moderate communities.
Settlement alignment may well be a function of the mean active alignment of it's citizenry. If the population is not actively behaving consistently lawful the settlement will lose its alignment and drift toward chaos.
I suspect the greatest portion of the population will prefer to be able to relax and enjoy themselves in a neutral or chaotic town just like Ryan has assured us. I project that the number of characters who can maintain lawful status will be few, and that therefore the greatest number of settlements will not be extremely lawful.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If a town's defenses during the non-window period are manned by factional NPC soldiery and the settlement alignment changes away from the alignment of that faction, then the further from optimal the alignment shifts the more expensive the out-of-window defenses become and if it shifts too far I would expect the factional installation providing those defenses may be abandoned by the faction, the vulnerable window will widen until the settlement must woo a different faction to man their walls and build a new faction installation in place of the old.
So if a lawful town is defended by the Hellknight faction but the populace drifts into chaos the Hellknights may withdraw their protection leaving the settlement unsupportably vulnerable. Such a condition would argue for a more moderate expectation of community alignment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And what's even funnier...Valtorious is my Paladin's name which is what I originally was going to play.Come to think of it, if you look at Xeen's posts before he joined UNC and then those after, he has been twisted into a very different character as well.
I have been corrupting MMO players into a life of piracy / banditry since 2002.
LOL, I may have started out intending to play LG, because I honestly thought it would be the alignment with the fewest numbers, and I was always and avid PVPer... Small gang roaming was my forte in Eve. Valtorious and I did plenty of pirating and etc as well.
But then I saw that the majority here were spouting about playing the good guys, so I went the other way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Unless I'm missing something, you would pretty much create a catch-22 here Ryan for new organizations seeking to enter the game and establish a settlement or existing organizations seeking to recover from a lost settlement. In order to be effective in the things that are needed to begin to create a PC settlement you need to be a member of a company but if you are not already a member of a PC settlement you can't be a member of a company. See the problem?I see that people who want to form a Settlement might do the required things while being a member of a PC Settlement.
This makes little sense. Sure it has been done and can be done... But all you are doing is trying to steal away members of the current settlement. Waiting for the boot...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just need a way to make settlements accountable (in an alignment and reputation fashion) for the ways that they do things. Otherwise settlement alignment and rep really means a great deal less than individual alignment and rep.
Just because a good way to do that has not been thought up, does not mean that it can't be.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So if a lawful town is defended by the Hellknight faction but the populace drifts into chaos the Hellknights may withdraw their protection leaving the settlement unsupportably vulnerable. Such a condition would argue for a more moderate expectation of community alignment.
Based on what we've been told, can a settlement alignment shift organically? I thought it was set at founding; if citizens drift away from the settlement alignment they can still stay as long as their core alignment is within one step.
Or are you suggesting that if the (average?) active alignment of the citizens is out of wack, there could be repercussions, like guard factions reducing support?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So if a lawful town is defended by the Hellknight faction but the populace drifts into chaos the Hellknights may withdraw their protection leaving the settlement unsupportably vulnerable. Such a condition would argue for a more moderate expectation of community alignment.Based on what we've been told, can a settlement alignment shift organically? I thought it was set at founding; if citizens drift away from the settlement alignment they can still stay as long as their core alignment is within one step.
Or are you suggesting that if the (average?) active alignment of the citizens is out of whack, there could be repercussions, like guard factions reducing support?
It was suggested by Stephen Cheney that the issue of Core Alignment and Active Alignment being out of sync was still being discussed. At the time being one step out and having any real consequence for that was described as being possibly more trouble than it was worth. That does leave open some consequences for being two steps removed from your core alignment.
When I had questioned Ryan on this subject I had asked, if it were conceivable that I could set my Core Alignment to NG, and then play all the way through CG and into CN, but stop before CE. Then I would grind back up to NG, through the automatic shift and actions.
He said that that was 100% correct and "working as intended".
I plan on being like a yo-yo with alignment, figuring my average will be CN, and my core will be either NG or LG. Depends on which gives me the greatest advantage mechanically.
If I discover similar grinds for reputation, I'd clearly use those as well.
Whatever it takes to stay out of CE + Low Rep. If GW or Ryan wants to believe that is meaningful, I'm not going to argue the point anymore.
I can't wait until the encounter where I'm LG and putting the torch to a POI farm as a hired raider for a LE settlement.
Screw the Gods of Golarian, I'm the only God my character needs to be concerned about!!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So you're inflicting a grind upon yourself. Congratulations. I hope it works for you.
That is what I am waiting to see. How onerous all of these proposed ways of doing things will end up being? The more "grindy" or time consuming, or costly (IMO) the less people will care to bother with them. There will always be those willing, but there is probably no stopping those types anyway.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So you're inflicting a grind upon yourself. Congratulations. I hope it works for you.
Well I'm sure there will be other benefits to grinding. PvE is a gold faucet, and that does not include the materials that they drop as well. Then there is the added bonus of making a mockery of the systems. For those that care about the social construct of alignment, well they should be arguing my point. But, since it appears mist are happy with alignment as a segregation mechanic, I can work with that.
If on the other hand there is a significant penalty to having core / active alignment out of whack, then I'll use a CE - Low Rep "Monster in the Basement" to do my dirty work.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I had questioned Ryan on this subject I had asked, if it were conceivable that I could set my Core Alignment to NG, and then play all the way through CG and into CN, but stop before CE. Then I would grind back up to NG, through the automatic shift and actions.
He said that that was 100% correct and "working as intended".
Yes: You can perform some amount of C, E, and -Rep actions and still have your total be somewhere other than that corner.
How much/what percentage of those actions you can perform is not yet determined. In fact, it won't ever be determined, although I suspect you will be very vocal if/when it becomes harder for you to keep your desired alignment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A few posts up notice what Ryan said:So if a lawful town is defended by the Hellknight faction but the populace drifts into chaos the Hellknights may withdraw their protection leaving the settlement unsupportably vulnerable. Such a condition would argue for a more moderate expectation of community alignment.Based on what we've been told, can a settlement alignment shift organically?
There is no hard coded rule about city leaders being within a boundary for alignment but there is the clearly implied (but not mechanically present) idea that if the city and its leaders don't actually reflect the alignment of the city, the city's alignment is wrong.That says to me that a settlement's alignment will follow the alignment of its leadership at least, and probably the average of the population too.
I thought it was set at founding; if citizens drift away from the settlement alignment they can still stay as long as their core alignment is within one step.Interestingly to me Ryan above is saying that residence in a settlement may be more relaxed than I think we have been believing.
Or are you suggesting that if the (average?) active alignment of the citizens is out of wack, there could be repercussions, like guard factions reducing support?
That is what I'm thinking. I haven't a red phone hotline to the devs. But if I were designing it then that is one thing I'd consider.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting. A game being designed with PVP, but with choices that make it consequential. Something different than previous attempts at such.
Then come all of these "supposed" ways to play and get around the consequences. Somehow, I have a feeling (yes I still do) that the end product will not be like that at all.
A few posts up notice what Ryan said:
Based on what we've been told, can a settlement alignment shift organically?There is no hard coded rule about city leaders being within a boundary for alignment but there is the clearly implied (but not mechanically present) idea that if the city and its leaders don't actually reflect the alignment of the city, the city's alignment is wrong.That says to me that a settlement's alignment will follow the alignment of its leadership at least, and probably the average of the population too.
Have you forgotten this already?
The current thinking is that your alignment changes don't impact your settlement. Your settlement sets an alignment range for members and only changes if the leadership changes it deliberately.
from
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qj2u?Will-a-Settlements-Alignment-still-be
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A few posts up notice what Ryan said:There is no hard coded rule about city leaders being within a boundary for alignment but there is the clearly implied (but not mechanically present) idea that if the city and its leaders don't actually reflect the alignment of the city, the city's alignment is wrong.
Ah. I thought Ryan's comment was about alignments and settlements in the Golarian IP. He's saying (I think) that D&D established the concept of setting alignments for towns, cities, etc, and Pathfinder followed this. For the paper and pencil sourcebooks, I think Ryan is saying, if the leader and people's alignment don't match the settlement alignment, the settlement alignment is wrong.
Me, I'd go further than Ryan. I'd say it seems like a whole bunch of source-book writers were rushed and failed to apply intellectual rigor to what they were writing. They made CN towns full of NG and LN and their editors didn't ask them why. He's in the industry; I'm not ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that he was responding specifically to what Bluddwolf considered a rhetorical question in fact. I 'pushed' the principle beyond his evident intent, but still might be right. Might not be, too, it should be noted.
But several have pointed out difficulties with the design as we were considering it. Difficulties that might be addressed with this 'pushed' line of thinking. Only the developers can have everything laid out and integral so that problems and solutions can be mapped each part to every other, so for us it must be enough to surmise that nothing yet is set in stone, and habitual beliefs we have formed may be wide of the mark.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A few posts up notice what Ryan said:There is no hard coded rule about city leaders being within a boundary for alignment but there is the clearly implied (but not mechanically present) idea that if the city and its leaders don't actually reflect the alignment of the city, the city's alignment is wrong.Ah. I thought Ryan's comment was about alignments and settlements in the Golarian IP. He's saying (I think) that D&D established the concept of setting alignments for towns, cities, etc, and Pathfinder followed this. For the paper and pencil sourcebooks, I think Ryan is saying, if the leader and people's alignment don't match the settlement alignment, the settlement alignment is wrong.
Me, I'd go further than Ryan. I'd say it seems like a whole bunch of source-book writers were rushed and failed to apply intellectual rigor to what they were writing. They made CN towns full of NG and LN and their editors didn't ask them why. He's in the industry; I'm not ;)
That was the idea that I got from the context around the comment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I had questioned Ryan on this subject I had asked, if it were conceivable that I could set my Core Alignment to NG, and then play all the way through CG and into CN, but stop before CE. Then I would grind back up to NG, through the automatic shift and actions.
He said that that was 100% correct and "working as intended".
Except Ryan didn't actually say "working as intended" in that exchange, so your quote marks might not be correct:
If they want to play CE, choose CG and let their actions take them partly through CN, then stop, play CG for a while until they get to their core again.Right. They should roleplay a character that struggles against giving in to its darkest nature. 100% agree.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Despite repeated attempts to out those word in my mouth, I have never said the game is biased against Chaos or Chaotic characters. In fact I think you'll find me saying numerous times that I think there will be a lot of chaotic good characters based on how people tend to play most MMOs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That 'gate' could be closed by requiring allegiance and consequence to a responsible settlement (or company-with-investment) in order to engage in PvP at all. Unless you have a stake, the character cannot damage another player, but can be damaged if an invested character finds sufficient reason to sacrifice some of their reputation.
It seems much simpler to just remove the consequences of killing such characters than to block them from anything.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That 'gate' could be closed by requiring allegiance and consequence to a responsible settlement (or company-with-investment) in order to engage in PvP at all. Unless you have a stake, the character cannot damage another player, but can be damaged if an invested character finds sufficient reason to sacrifice some of their reputation.It seems much simpler to just remove the consequences of killing such characters than to block them from anything.
I'd think that a mechanic designed to discourage the use of throw-away alts for combat must also take in to account 'legitimate' new characters.
A new character who hasn't yet joined a sponsored company is likely indistinguishable from a combat alt that is deliberately not joining a sponsored company to avoid countermeasures.It isn't that I want them exposed to conflict, I want them to be invested in what they do in the game.
Hm. Idea: Double rep losses for uninvested/unaffiliated characters when they attack? Double timers on attacker flags, etc.?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd think that a mechanic designed to discourage the use of throw-away alts for combat must also take in to account 'legitimate' new characters.
A new character who hasn't yet joined a sponsored company is likely indistinguishable from a combat alt that is deliberately not joining a sponsored company to avoid countermeasures.
I completely agree. A legitimate new character isn't going to be rushing out of the NPC Starter areas. If it wasn't obvious, I think the Marshals should still protect these characters inside NPC Starter areas.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ Nihimon
A couple thoughts occur to me if I understand your point that unaffiliated characters should be consequence free PVP targets.
1. It is part of the design that there be consequences for PVP of some type, even if they are much less vs. low rep characters.
2. Players that intend to use "unaffiliated Alts", for ways to get around "consequential PVP", will be using them when they want and where they want. They will not be generally available targets. Being free targets probably won't affect their usefulness.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Nihimon
A couple thoughts occur to me if I understand your point that unaffiliated characters should be consequence free PVP targets.
1. It is part of the design that there be consequences for PVP of some type, even if they are much less vs. low rep characters.
2. Players that intend to use "unaffiliated Alts", for ways to get around "consequential PVP", will be using them when they want and where they want. They will not be generally available targets. Being free targets probably won't affect their usefulness.
That is correct Bringslite. It is also ineffectual to give them double rep losses, if they are throw away alts anyway.
There is also the opposite end of the spectrum in the way of alts. Settlement managers could also be alts, maintain a perfectly selected Core Alignment, and have maximum reputation. If these alts never set foot out of the settlement and never partake in any activity outside of their managerial duties, they will never stray from core alignment or lose reputation.
I expect this to be even more common then the "Monsters in the Basement" scenario I presented. These could be the "Lords of the Ivory Tower".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So after a quick huddle with Lee, I think it is time to nip this particular thread in the bud because it's way past the point where anything useful is coming from the discussion.
The plan as it stands now is that companies can be created and joined by anyone regardless of their membership or lack thereof in a PC Settlement.
I would challenge the community however, to reflect that the core problem at the root of this long digression into madness is the presentation of assumptions as facts, followed by the outline of how those assumptions then lead inexorably towards a conclusion which supports or denies various factions' desires with regard to the game design.
That's a problem.
The core of the Crowdforging idea is that we are going to work in conjunction with the community to define how significant parts of the game system works. If people begin to believe that they can alter the trajectory of that debate by convincing a sizable component of the community that their opinion on how something will be developed is a fact when it is not, we will lose our ability to have effective and wide-ranging discussions about those features.
Every day this project gets exposed to more people. Every day some of those people come here and encounter the discussion in media res. We want those people to hear the message loud and clear that this is a project where many many aspects of the design are undetermined at this time and will be worked on via a process where the community will have a deep and meaningful ability to shape those features including the ability to introduce new ideas and new variations on existing ideas.
@Ryan,
Clearly everything discussed here is based on assumption. Even you as Dev's can only be certain of what mechanisms you wish to create within the game, not neccesarly how the player base will react according to those mechanisms once they go live.
However, I do not think it is out of bounds to try to draw inferences about what we view as likely player behavior based on what we know so far of the mechanics GW has presented....and offer discussion about how (in our view) such behavior would negatively effect our enjoyment of the game and that of other like minded players.... along with offering potential mechanisms to address such issues? Is that not within the boundaries of what Crowdforging is supposed to be about? If not then perhaps I don't understand the term at all?
What I was attempting to INFER here is that there are very strong intrinsic advantages to bandits operating within a certain set of Modus Operandi.....absent any mechanisms dissuading such.
I would offer that there is an intrinsic advantage to the bandit operating without any official affiliation since that helps obscure the identity of the organization (if any) the bandit is working to support and makes it more difficult to hold that organization accountable.
Further, I would offer that if settlement owners are unable in some fashion to mark the individual unaffiliated bandit as hostile within thier own territory then it offers unaffiliated bandits another powerfull advantage, namely to only engage in hostilities only at a time and place of thier own choosing.
If the settlement suffers further economic harm (through corruption) from said activities beyond the direct harm already caused and bandits are able to avoid negative reputation consequences (through the use of SAD) of thier activities...then this would seem to start to become an untennable positions for settlements seeking to maintain law and order within thier own territory without resorting to using bandit/criminal ALTS for said law enforcement themselves.
I do believe, in the absence of other over-riding controls these are avenues that players will definately seek to persue and I for one, would see rampant use of this as a strong negative for the type of game I would be interested in playing, without some compensating control in place.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Nihimon
A couple thoughts occur to me if I understand your point that unaffiliated characters should be consequence free PVP targets.
1. It is part of the design that there be consequences for PVP of some type, even if they are much less vs. low rep characters.
2. Players that intend to use "unaffiliated Alts", for ways to get around "consequential PVP", will be using them when they want and where they want. They will not be generally available targets. Being free targets probably won't affect their usefulness.
As Being tried to make clear in the post to which I was responding:
... leaving it possible for your organization to field irregulars without game-integral ties, who can engage in PvP outside the auspices of settlement or company conflict, also entails opening the gate to those who will engage in wanton slaughter.
The primary design involves encouraging players to not "be bad" by making their Settlements/Companies in some ways accountable for their behavior. That primary design consideration must be at the forefront of any fine-grained design considerations. The system is not in place to protect random player-killers; it's in place to discourage them.
So, the problem to be solved is that unaffiliated alts would be able to bypass the primary means of moderating player behavior. The simple (simplest, in my mind) solution is to let that system also bypass them. In my mind, it's the same rationale for making Low Reputation Characters also be consequence-free kills - they've ignored the consequences for attacking others, so let them also be ignored by those consequences.
It's not terribly important that some alts will only be used in limited areas. What's really important is that there aren't huge gaping holes through for "wanton slaughter" enthusiasts to exploit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Grumpy Mel,
Your assumption that these tactics are solely "bandit modus operandi" is actually limiting the the scope of the usage.
Many settlements, particularly the more aggressive ones will use these "Monsters in the Basement."
A Bandit Company, made up of main characters, will use feuds and or faction to create their pool of consequence free targets. Raiding outposts will also be another source, where reputation loss is still unlikely and the alignment shifts if any are not undesirable as long as not paired with low reputation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Nihimon
I am going to have to agree with Being (if I understand his idea) that simply disabling PVP for unaffiliated characters, solves everything in one go. There is little room or affective use for such characters in PVP situations in that case. The other way does not really solve the problem. In fact it opens more problems and room for unfair treatment, workarounds, and greifing (by affiliated high rep players) in some cases.
It makes sense that if you can be involved in PVP you should have some investment/interest in effects and in consequences.
I agree that it would be great if players could police the problem ourselves, but it has never worked as an approach, yet.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is also ineffectual to give them double rep losses, if they are throw away alts anyway.
I'm not sure why it would be ineffectual.
- If the unaffiliated alt is a true throw away, intended to never be used again, the player spends some amount of RL money on training time, uses the character some limited number of times, then the character is done.
- I think it is much more likely that the player spends some amount of RL money on training time, plays the alt character as an unaffiliated thug until the reputation is borderline for whatever training it needs, then that character is set aside to regain rep.
Either way, doubling rep losses for unaffiliated alts makes such characters less useful. They'll reach cheap-to-attack reputation (or no-long-have-access-to-training reputation) twice as fast, requiring players who use such alts to have more thug alts in their 'stable'. At the same time, unaffiliated 'new' characters will be less likely to initiate PvP and are thus less likely to be hit with the double losses.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Doubling rep loss and disabling pvp for unaffiliated characters is well... Lets just go with a bad idea.
No disabling PVP for anyone, period. GW said it wont be done, and lets not make an exception for it.
Doubling rep loss is for things like breaking a SAD or other type deals.
Here it is, Unaffiliated characters will have no access to high end training. That is their gimp. Lets not add to it.
Unaffiliated alts do not get around consequence PVP. The training they have will be training that is taken away from another character, or training someone paid extra for. It really doesnt need to be more complicated then this.
Edit: You want no consequences for killing unaffiliated PC's? Thats fine, so long as they have no consequences for killing affiliated PC's.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Grumpy Mel,
Your assumption that these tactics are solely "bandit modus operandi" is actually limiting the the scope of the usage.
Many settlements, particularly the more aggressive ones will use these "Monsters in the Basement."
A Bandit Company, made up of main characters, will use feuds and or faction to create their pool of consequence free targets. Raiding outposts will also be another source, where reputation loss is still unlikely and the alignment shifts if any are not undesirable as long as not paired with low reputation.
My usage of "bandits" here is simply descriptive of the type of activity the character/alt was engaged in rather then the type of organization they are supporting.
I'm sure there will be some bandits and bandit companies that operate differently then described. They are not as problematic as those I describe since (at least in theory) they can be held accountable for thier actions...as they will pay a price for feuding and they can (theoriticaly) be held accountable for thier activities by being marked as targets of feud in return. There is some mechanism within the system as we currently understand it to make things work there.
What I infer, is that absent any other compensating control, there will be a very strong motivation for unaffiliated bandits precisely because they would circumvent some of the controls that would ordinarly be in place to help make them accountable for thier activities and allow settlement owners to counter-act said activities.
If your company starts raiding or engaging in banditry against a settlement then at least theoriticaly that settlement could feud or declare War upon you....and thus not have to wait until your company members initiate a first strike while raiding to engage them in battle. Then it's all about, IMO, whether the cost of Feuds is reasonable enough to give the average settlement some chance at counter-acting such tactics.
With no company affiliation and and an NPC settlement membership.... there is nothing one can target for feud or war.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am going to have to agree with Being (if I understand his idea) that simply disabling PVP for unaffiliated characters, solves everything in one go.That may well be true. It would certainly solve the additional problem of "throwaway alts" used as "monsters in the basement".
Yes. It is really only a possible solution for that or a few problems. Other "workarounds" will probably need other approaches.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree with Xeen's statement that PvP should never be disabled.
Since unaffiliated characters are subject to PvP attacks, then they should have the ability to initiate such attacks. Having people in companies able to attack with PvP and having people not in companies unable to attack with PvP... Sorry, it doesn't work for me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How is it an unaffiliated character is circumventing the rep system?Here it is, Unaffiliated characters will have no access to high end training. That is their gimp. Lets not add to it.Because if more is added, they might not be used to circumvent the rep system.
So these "monsters in the basement" aren't unaffiliated?