A Few Simple Ways to Make NRDS Viable


Pathfinder Online

351 to 400 of 1,127 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:

Raiding outposts was described by Ryan (Dev Blog) as being "the most common form of PVP".

Something that is common place should not take that much time. Maybe if you are alone, or in a pair. The more you bring, the faster the shed should fall, inefficiency being factored in of course. There should be a set minimum time of about 30 minutes in my opinion.

Raiding is taking the goods from an Outpost. It is not the same as destroying an Outpost.

Goblin Squad Member

Drakhan Valane wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

Raiding outposts was described by Ryan (Dev Blog) as being "the most common form of PVP".

Something that is common place should not take that much time. Maybe if you are alone, or in a pair. The more you bring, the faster the shed should fall, inefficiency being factored in of course. There should be a set minimum time of about 30 minutes in my opinion.

Raiding is taking the goods from an Outpost. It is not the same as destroying an Outpost.

lol Good point! It is easy to miss these little differences when you get to casual reading and posting while working at the same time. :)

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vwoom wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Who is going to spend an hour and forty minutes destroying a shed?
Would you change your mind if during that 1:40 you were looting the contents of the shed, and had a wagon(s) big enough to take the contents?

As I've stated the system has changed since an hour and forty minutes. That was the original system.

They've removed profit from outpost destruction now. So I wouldn't be surprised to hear the destruction time has been shortened to an hour, or even half an hour.

The point is it was timer based, and it gave enough time to bring in reinforcements a few dozen times over. With that being the only detailed explanation we've ever been given for the destruction of a structure, and it being the system of destruction for the smallest / least permanent type of structure in the game... the idea of ninjaing POI's and settlements while the defenders protect an outpost is beyond a pipe dream.

We'd see save or die spells or commonplace / long range teleportation before we saw something as broken as that.

Goblin Squad Member

Outposts are also meant to be "semi-permanent".

A person might only have two hours to play in a given evening and they're supposed to spend 82% of that on a single outpost timer?

NIHIMON GET OUT YOUR PREDICTION PEN

If outposts stay in any similar form to their current iteration, they'll be tweaked so the timer starts at 10 minutes but each next 10% takes one minute less than the last. Attack, 10 minutes, reward, nine minutes, reward, eight minutes, reward, etc. As the outpost is raided, it's ability to physically resist raiding is also worn down.

In that form outposts lose 100% in 55 minutes, which is still a frick frackin eternity in pvp with plenty of opportunity for defense but doesn't consume potentially all your play session. And raiders get the last 40% in the last 10 minutes, which is a giant payoff for choosing to hold the ground for the first 45 minutes. Everyone loves a good race against the clock drama. Very exciting.

That logically implies the destruction option is a much shorter time span, certainly less than two raiding ticks maybe less than one so 8-15 minutes from a standard force?, without the material reward for stopping and holding ground. And there you get "semi-permanent".

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin wrote:
NIHIMON GET OUT YOUR PREDICTION PEN

As you wish :)

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:

@ Bluddwolf

Would you raiders be more willing to spend the time if the stakes were high reward? Would you prefer quick results for less reward?

We know that Tork is involved and how village theft/takeovers work in DFUW. I wonder if it will be a similar (fixed "village" hps), but mixed system.

Actually, others have hit upon this already. Destroying an outpost is a different matter than stealing from one.

As for the UNC, we actually have no desire in destroying outposts. What would we have to gain by doing that. I woukd rather steal your lunch money everyday for a month, than burn down the cafeteria and get just that week's worth of returns.

However, if we were specifically hired to destroy an outpost, we woukd do that, but the payment would be above and beyond what we loot from it first.

So, if you ever have an outpost razed by the Unnamed Company, you would be wise to suspect we were hired to do so.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
So, if you ever have an outpost raised by the Unnamed Company, you would be wise to suspect we were hired to do so.

If an Outpost was raised by the UNC, I would expect it to be undefended. That's what we're supposed to do, right? Leave our Outposts free for raiding unopposed?

I think you meant "razed," the one that means to burn to the ground. ;)

Goblin Squad Member

Drakhan Valane wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
So, if you ever have an outpost raised by the Unnamed Company, you would be wise to suspect we were hired to do so.

If an Outpost was raised by the UNC, I would expect it to be undefended. That's what we're supposed to do, right? Leave our Outposts free for raiding unopposed?

I think you meant "razed," the one that means to burn to the ground. ;)

Quite correct, wrong spelling.... Fixed.

No, it was not my suggestion that you leave your outposts unprotected. The suggestion was that you would have to pull guards from your POI to add more NPC guards to it. Or have PCs patrol your outposts on a fairly regular basis.

You are welcome to expend as many resources as you can afford to defending your outposts. That may be another way for your enemies to achieve a small economic and military victory as well.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Regarding the OP.

What if Red, Grey, and Blue status were automatically assigned based on your company's and settlement's official alliances?

So if Settlement A hasn't actually spent DI to form an alliance with Settlement B - it will show up as Grey, even if the two settlements are members of a meta-game alliance. Likewise, Settlement B might be able to spend DI in a foreign policy statement that flags A as a threat, and members of A as Red if they trespass.

Yes, Settlement A members can look at a Grey character and figure out if it is a meta-Blue or a meta-Red or even a meta-Grey. The game doesn't have to do it automatically; this isn't set far in the future and the gate-guard doesn't have a targeting computer.

Having the game automatically set the status colors might encourage more settlements to defer to the NRDS mode, if only because NBSI settlements might not have the resources to tag all possible Blues. NRDS might not have the resources to tag all Reds either, but can prioritize.

Goblin Squad Member

@Urman, are you suggesting that settlements should have to spend resources in order to flag enemies as friendly or hostile?

Goblin Squad Member

@Pax Shane Gifford, we've already been told:

"Declaring and maintaining a state of war requires a settlement to spend a large amount of coin and to set aside a portion of its Development Indexes (the measure of a settlement's advancement) and is expensive, so settlements will most likely declare a single war at a time. Declarations of war are one-sided, so settlements cannot refuse to be the target of a war, but the costs of the declaration are determined by the relative Development Indexes and Populations of the settlements." and

"Companies don't have DI (development index) to spend on feuds, so instead they spend their Influence. This Influence cost is a continuing drain over time, making it impractical to maintain more than one or two feuds simultaneously or for extended periods."

So yes - settlements, companies, and individuals are likely to have in-game ways of flagging others as hostile or not, and the ways we know of so far will cost resources. If a settlement can bypass the state of war or a company can bypass the feud mechanism and flag others as Red (or not Blue) at will... why would we spend the resources?

Goblin Squad Member

Realistically, unless you're flagged with either the Criminal or Heinous Flag, I doubt you'll find most people willing to shoot you on sight.

Give you fair warning to get the hell out of 'their' territory (unless you're trespassing, which might cause other flags, depending upon how Goblin Works decides to enforce that mechanic) and a set time limit.

After that time limit expires, they'll throw a S.A.D. at you, essentially a fine. Refuse to pay, it's go-time. Pay, and well there's not much they can do to stop you loitering, you've basically paid your way into the area.

So, again, unless they're trying for a Low-Rep, most folks are gonna be in the Not Red Don't Shoot category for fear of getting Criminal-flagged in a 'Settled' Hex, and in a Wild Hex where you might be able to get away with it, just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Combat could attract the attention of monsters, or worse still, other players.

Two groups fighting to the death weaken each other to the point that a third group can just sit back in stealth, wait until they've battered each other enough and just open up with a barrage, wipe out the healers and mop up the stragglers.

Goblin Squad Member

@Urman, as you've said, both these methods are one sided and you can't have more than one or two going at a time. Feuds and war declarations I see as what you use to go on the offensive, either going into your enemies' territory or fighting them in neutral territory.

However, if the only way to flag others inside your own territory is through costly wars or feuds than I feel that both NRDS and NBSI will be non-viable. Most times you will simply have too many enemies to maintain as flagged with these systems, especially if those enemies play smart. For example, they can posture like they are going to attack you, causing you to declare a feud, then back off and let your resources drain; then you either drop the feud to maintain your resources and they attack, or you run out of resources and they attack, or they switch accounts/get allies to aid in the attack so you have to further deplete yourself, etc.

It seems an impossibility to do NBSI if what you had in mind is the case; you simply cannot maintain a war or feud against everybody on the server besides your allies.

I think the defenders should be given the right to defend their owned territory in whatever way they deem fit, even without using the feud and war mechanics. As I said, I feel these mechanics' primary use should be identifying your enemies to the system in neutral or hostile territory; the fact that they use limited resources prevents a group from declaring everyone hostile outside their own territory and trying to effectively kill anyone indiscriminately. However, due to the necessities of security and having actual authority in our own territory, I feel it prudent to allow settlements to maintain a blue/grey/red list strictly for their own territory which allows them to police their lands without the "meaningless PvP" penalties.

Hopefully I effectively highlighted why I think a separate mechanic from wars and feuds is needed for settlement policing/defense.

Goblin Squad Member

HalfOrc with a Hat of Disguise wrote:
Realistically, unless you're flagged with either the Criminal or Heinous Flag, I doubt you'll find most people willing to shoot you on sight.

I've tested a similar theory out and you might be surprised.

Even with the criminal flag, you'll find most people won't shoot you on sight, unless you have directly harmed that individual or someone in their social group.

I flew around High Sec, as a new character in a low tier ship, and did nothing but ninja looting for 6 - 8 months. I spent almost that entire time in game (2 hours at a time per day) flagged as a criminal and an open target for any who chose to fire.

I was target locked twice, and killed once. I even stole from wrecks belonging to the mining companies while they were still in the asteroid belt.

Non PvPers don't pvp just because they can have a free shot at you.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Even with the criminal flag, you'll find most people won't shoot you on sight, unless you have directly harmed that individual or someone in their social group.

If I see someone Flagged, the most important thing to me is going to be their Reputation. If it's Low, I'll almost certainly try to kill them if I think I can. I would hope this becomes a common stance for most "positive game play" folks to take.

I think you're right that folks who are trying to specialize as Resource Gatherers probably won't attack in this situation, but I think the differences between EVE and PFO will mean that there are a lot more jerk-hunters nearby.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Non PvPers don't pvp just because they can have a free shot at you.

That is one of the weaknesses of previous titles in a system where being flagged Red is basically the only penalty for overly aggressive play. Non PVP players don't usually use the advantage. Those that like to PVP however, usually love to be informed (by others) where Red players are roaming around for free kills.

We will have to see (as you mention) how weak "lowest rep" really is and whether non PVPers will step up to make the suck funnel even more unpleasant. It will take mechanics AND player response, when these naughty toons roam about, or it probably won't work.

There will always (if the game is popular) be younger players coming up. They will be the "go to" targets of those that suffer from low rep if those penalties are real enough. It seems to me that a combination of sucking, a long haul to escape that, and other players hunting them all the time will have to be a "real deal" for it to work.

We will have to see whether it plays out as a customary way that the game is played or not.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:


If I see someone Flagged, the most important thing to me is going to be their Reputation. If it's Low, I'll almost certainly try to kill them if I think I can. I would hope this becomes a common stance for most "positive game play" folks to take.

Well, some could call that pointless PK-ing. You could argue that it is a roleplay thing but there's a lot of gray area there, also from the "evil" players viewpoint.

Goblin Squad Member

Tyncale wrote:
Nihimon wrote:


If I see someone Flagged, the most important thing to me is going to be their Reputation. If it's Low, I'll almost certainly try to kill them if I think I can. I would hope this becomes a common stance for most "positive game play" folks to take.

Well, some could call that pointless PK-ing. You could argue that it is a roleplay thing but there's a lot of gray area there, also from the "evil" players viewpoint.

When did any one say that they felt that aggressing against Red or "hostile" players was abusive PK-ing? Flagged does = down for PVP or at least legitimate because of faction, feud, war, or "criminal" activities doesn't it?

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
Tyncale wrote:
Nihimon wrote:


If I see someone Flagged, the most important thing to me is going to be their Reputation. If it's Low, I'll almost certainly try to kill them if I think I can. I would hope this becomes a common stance for most "positive game play" folks to take.

Well, some could call that pointless PK-ing. You could argue that it is a roleplay thing but there's a lot of gray area there, also from the "evil" players viewpoint.

When did any one say that they felt that aggressing against Red or "hostile" players was abusive PK-ing? Flagged does = down for PVP or at least legitimate because of faction, feud, war, or "criminal" activities doesn't it?

When they got the high and mighty stance of using RPKing... "Oh my god, he is flagged and low rep, he must be a murderer."

Of course, thats good enough of a reason. Then again, Ryan did say that people will lose reputation for doing things that are part of the settlement conflicts, and completely within his scope of normal PVP.

Just ignore that part.

Goblin Squad Member

Hmmm... I don't really see it as the same thing. No one can have it both ways, although they can chose not to attack "hostile" marked players if they like. I am not certain that "low rep" will make you red or hostile, as a single condition. I have never seen anything suggesting that.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimons response was, if they are flagged then he will look at their reputation.

Besides that, yes I agree. I would be surprised though if there isnt a rep number that automatically makes you hostile.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
Ryan did say that people will lose reputation for doing things that are part of the settlement conflicts, and completely within his scope of normal PVP.

Another twisted misrepresentation of what he actually said. The only concrete example Ryan gave was of foregoing the opportunity to gain Rep in order to help your Settlement.

What's your angle in consistently misrepresenting things like this?

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think Ryan suggested that a player who values his reputation higher than the good of his settlement has a problem. The 'good' player may have to make sacrifices in reputation in order to do his duty.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Xeen wrote:
Ryan did say that people will lose reputation for doing things that are part of the settlement conflicts, and completely within his scope of normal PVP.

Another twisted misrepresentation of what he actually said. The only concrete example Ryan gave was of foregoing the opportunity to gain Rep in order to help your Settlement.

What's your angle in consistently misrepresenting things like this?

What, do you think your going to be completely consequence free for doing settlement conflicts? Not every fight you have in settlement warfare is going to be a part of a feud. LOL and you talk about my twisted misrepresentation.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Xeen wrote:
Ryan did say that people will lose reputation for doing things that are part of the settlement conflicts, and completely within his scope of normal PVP.

Another twisted misrepresentation of what he actually said. The only concrete example Ryan gave was of foregoing the opportunity to gain Rep in order to help your Settlement.

What's your angle in consistently misrepresenting things like this?

What, do you think your going to be completely consequence free for doing settlement conflicts? Not every fight you have in settlement warfare is going to be a part of a feud. LOL and you talk about my twisted misrepresentation.

This has little to do with Nihimon's statement. I can't speak for him, but I believe that his first qualifier was a person flagged as in a state of hostility with him. That may or may not be enough to provoke him to attack. Hostility (legit target) + low rep + a rough guess that he can win are the other qualifiers for almost assured attack.

Is there something wrong with that? It looks pretty normal to me.

Edit: And all of this is stemming from a statement, from Bluddwolf, that most non PVPers won't attack a hostile flagged toon (usually). That is the context that it came from.

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
I think Ryan suggested that a player who values his reputation higher than the good of his settlement has a problem. The 'good' player may have to make sacrifices in reputation in order to do his duty.

Yes, that seemed to be the gist of what Ryan had said that time. He was basically cautioning against assuming high rep = positive member of the community and low rep = scum. Sometimes high rep could mean "unwilling to help his settlement when they needed him to take a penalty" and low rep could mean "willing to do what needs to be done for his settlement". I saw it as a caution from looking at the rep system as a black and white scale of good players vs. bad players.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
Xeen wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Xeen wrote:
Ryan did say that people will lose reputation for doing things that are part of the settlement conflicts, and completely within his scope of normal PVP.

Another twisted misrepresentation of what he actually said. The only concrete example Ryan gave was of foregoing the opportunity to gain Rep in order to help your Settlement.

What's your angle in consistently misrepresenting things like this?

What, do you think your going to be completely consequence free for doing settlement conflicts? Not every fight you have in settlement warfare is going to be a part of a feud. LOL and you talk about my twisted misrepresentation.

This has little to do with Nihimon's statement. I can't speak for him, but I believe that his first qualifier was a person flagged as in a state of hostility with him. That may or may not be enough to provoke him to attack. Hostility (legit target) + low rep + a rough guess that he can win are the other qualifiers for almost assured attack.

Is there something wrong with that? It looks pretty normal to me.

Edit: And all of this is stemming from a statement, from Bluddwolf, that most non PVPers won't attack a hostile flagged toon (usually). That is the context that it came from.

I agree, and yes Bludd is correct. I have seen it in Eve. Non PVPers will not attack you for any reason.

I agree there is nothing wrong with that. From me.

But when the High and Mighty deem that attacking people for no real reason, that is bad.

Hostile - Maybe he just killed off a known murderer.
Low Rep - May all be gained from doing settlement things, like killing off known Murderers.

So Nihimon, decides to attack this guy... Who just happens to be of a similar mindset as him. He has been a big supporter of his settlement, and only attacks known bad guys.

So he attacked this guy for no other reason then a couple numbers. Has no clue who he is, and doesnt care.

Im just calling out a BS stance.

Goblin Squad Member

I agree that Ryan seems to be telling us that Reputation alone isn't enough to base a decision on. It's the combination of being Low Rep and Chaotic Evil that indicates someone's "been bad". However, I likely won't be able to see someone's Alignment at a glance. I will be able to see their Reputation, though, so that's what I'll use to help me make my decision.

And I reject the idea that Ryan has indicated you'll have to lose Reputation in order to help your Settlement. When probed about that very topic, he gave an example where you might have to forego gaining Reputation in order to help your Settlement.

I have long maintained, and still believe, that if the game requires anyone to consistently lose Reputation in order to help their Settlement, then it's a failure.

Goblin Squad Member

It's going to be upto each settlement and individual to determine how they handle hostilities outside the scope of formaly declared Wars/Feuds and legitimate Law Enforcment in thier own territory. While there are very significant advantages to going "Black Ops" and conducting combat outside of formaly declared Hostilities and Rules of Engagement, the one advantage that you absolutely should have by not doing so is maintaining a High Reputation and favorable alignment.

But yes, if you are "flagged" by definition you are a legitimate target for PvP and are either a party to formaly declared hostilities or have initiated a hostile action of some sort (if only tresspassing against someone elses soveriegn territory where you are unwelcome) so there should be no reputation loss for characters engaging you that you are flagged against.

Goblin Squad Member

I never said you'll have to lose rep. I was just saying that you may on occasion... unless you avoid it and dont help your settlement when needed.

It will be consistent though.

I could likely stick an alt at your front gate to see who is coming and going. If you know its my alt, wouldnt you want to kill it even though youll lose rep?

Then you ban it, so you dont lose rep. (which will likely take time)

I bring a different alt... rinse and repeat

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
Hostile - Maybe he just killed off a known murderer.

If the "known murderer" was flagged, then the guy who killed him won't be Hostile to me.

If you're consistently killing folks who aren't flagged, then you're going to make yourself a target; you'll be "other people's content". If you don't want that, then don't go around consistently killing folks who aren't flagged.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think attacking someone who is flagged as attackable is an acceptable action. Not going into the morality or ethics debate, the whole point to having the person flagged as attackable by anyone is so that... well... they're attackable by anyone. This is put into the system as an intended consequence of their actions, and decrying someone for attacking the person seems to me to be nonsensical.

That's the key here; don't worry about why Nihimon wants to attack the Criminal, because we can't get the reputation system to quantify the why. All we worry about is whether he is using the proper channels to attack someone (SAD, feud, war, Criminal flag on target, etc), and if he isn't, he should be ready to face the consequences of attacking outside them. Plain and simple.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Xeen wrote:
Hostile - Maybe he just killed off a known murderer.

If the "known murderer" was flagged, then the guy who killed him won't be Hostile to me.

If you're consistently killing folks who aren't flagged, then you're going to make yourself a target; you'll be "other people's content". If you don't want that, then don't go around consistently killing folks who aren't flagged.

What's your angle in consistently misrepresenting things like this?

Who said the known murderer was flagged? Ever hear of preemptive attacks?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Key point: attacking someone who is flagged to you is Playing As Intended.

Tricking someone into becoming flagged to you might sometimes be different.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Xeen wrote:
Hostile - Maybe he just killed off a known murderer.

If the "known murderer" was flagged, then the guy who killed him won't be Hostile to me.

If you're consistently killing folks who aren't flagged, then you're going to make yourself a target; you'll be "other people's content". If you don't want that, then don't go around consistently killing folks who aren't flagged.

What's your angle in consistently misrepresenting things like this?

Who said the known murderer was flagged? Ever hear of preemptive attacks?

Yeah, I actually addressed this, but I suppose you didn't read past the first opportunity to make an attack.

Goblin Squad Member

And of course then you missed what I said, by consistently misrepresenting things.

Which of course proves my point of your hypocracy. The person I suggested, was playing in the intent of the game you want to enjoy. He took out a murderer before that known murderer could take out someone else. He fights for his settlement, and he fights for the people.

And you consider that kind of player content. Nice

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Prevenge in someone else's territory is one of the things that the defenders has a legitimate interest in preventing.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Xeen wrote:
Hostile - Maybe he just killed off a known murderer.

If the "known murderer" was flagged, then the guy who killed him won't be Hostile to me.

If you're consistently killing folks who aren't flagged, then you're going to make yourself a target; you'll be "other people's content". If you don't want that, then don't go around consistently killing folks who aren't flagged.

What's your angle in consistently misrepresenting things like this?

Who said the known murderer was flagged? Ever hear of preemptive attacks?

Then you are operating outside of the law...hence "outlaw" or outside the formaly accepted rules of engagement. In either case, if you are doing that in territory I'm charged with protecting then you have willingly made yourself a legitimate target and will be engaged unless doing so is outside the Rules of Engagement defined for me by my own settlement leadership.

If you are simply standing there unflagged, even if I think you are upto no good....I will not just attack you, as that would be illegal and wrong and open up the possibility that I mistakenly harm an innocent bystander, but hopefully the system will allow me to "tresspass" you which will give you fair warning to leave the territory or be forcebly ejected. If you want to make Alts, go for it....you could do the exact same thing if I killed you too....but I'm fairly positive I can "tresspass" you quicker then you can create a brand new Alt and run halfway across the map back to my territory...and I'll happily play that game with you for a full play session if you like.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:

And of course then you missed what I said, by consistently misrepresenting things.

Which of course proves my point of your hypocracy. The person I suggested, was playing in the intent of the game you want to enjoy. He took out a murderer before that known murderer could take out someone else. He fights for his settlement, and he fights for the people.

And you consider that kind of player content. Nice

I don't think that a killer, that has shed his Hostile flag, is a legit target. I really hope that such flags are long lasting so that this is a very uncommon issue. You should get them when they are flagged so you don't have to do it when they aren't. Failing that, you should be able to trespass them out of your lands. Failing that, you can chose to fix their wagon (if it is worth it) and open yourself to being flagged.

Flagged hostile is the very definition of a legitimate target. Whatever the reason is. It is your choice whether to engage them or not. No, it is not a perfect system that covers every scenario. Yes, it will cover most.

Goblin Squad Member

@Xeen, you'll never succeed in holding me hostage to my own virtues.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:

I agree that Ryan seems to be telling us that Reputation alone isn't enough to base a decision on. It's the combination of being Low Rep and Chaotic Evil that indicates someone's "been bad". However, I likely won't be able to see someone's Alignment at a glance. I will be able to see their Reputation, though, so that's what I'll use to help me make my decision.

And I reject the idea that Ryan has indicated you'll have to lose Reputation in order to help your Settlement. When probed about that very topic, he gave an example where you might have to forego gaining Reputation in order to help your Settlement.

I have long maintained, and still believe, that if the game requires anyone to consistently lose Reputation in order to help their Settlement, then it's a failure.

No link to Ryan's quote has me wondering why not?

Oh and the few questions that led up to it as well would be useful. I'll fetch them if I can when I get home.

Goblin Squad Member

Faster than I thought....

Ryand Dancey Wrote

No mention of "foregoing reputation gains". That seems to be your misinterpretation.

The implication is that you shouldn't worry about loss, if it is for the benefit or greater need of your settlement.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that at the top end of rep, there's a thing you have to do every day at a certain time to gain a point or two of rep unattainable any other way. The is just hypothetical so don't read anything more into it.

Now imagine that there is something really important that the Settlement needs done that conflicts with fulfilling that rep gaining activity.

Doing the necessary thing implies you don't maximize your rep. Maximizing your rep implies you put that number ahead of your collective obligation to your Settlement.

That is the kind of meaningful choice that I'd be interested in when vetting a potential recruit: do they play "for a number" or for the team?

From:Could PFO Thrive with No Unsanctioned PvP?

Posted on Dec, 11th, 2013. Which could cause some confusion, but is more recent than Nov, 29th, 2013.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
No link to Ryan's quote has me wondering why not?

Mostly because I've already linked to it a number of times in response to your attempts to misrepresent it. But here it is again:

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that at the top end of rep, there's a thing you have to do every day at a certain time to gain a point or two of rep unattainable any other way. The is just hypothetical so don't read anything more into it.

Now imagine that there is something really important that the Settlement needs done that conflicts with fulfilling that rep gaining activity.

Doing the necessary thing implies you don't maximize your rep. Maximizing your rep implies you put that number ahead of your collective obligation to your Settlement.

That is the kind of meaningful choice that I'd be interested in when vetting a potential recruit: do they play "for a number" or for the team?

Looking through some of Ryan's other posts in that thread, and trying my best to be generous to your general point, I found:

Having a high reputation means that you can unlock the most advanced structures which give you access to the most advanced training and enable your characters to use the most advanced character abilities. (And probably a lot of other stuff too).

But the most advanced dagger is not the best weapon to take to a fight where your opponents have crappy shotguns. Being a kung-fu master doesn't help the wheat grow faster. A horde of mooks that are willing to die for their cause, and then be bored for a while over and over and over will be a credible threat to a small group of knights who won't take the war to their enemy for fear of sullying their honor.

I believe this is the one that you're thinking of, and I believe this is what Ryan clarified with a concrete example of foregoing Rep gain[/i] instead of [b]losing Rep.

Bluddwolf wrote:
Could you perhaps describe how you would view a character of high reputation in the eyes of a company or settlement leader?
I wonder how good this character will be in a fight. I wonder if this player will do what it takes to withstand hostile incursions from unknown forces? I wonder how this player will react when called on to take one for the team.

I would also point this out:

A social norm requires two components: The transgressor needs to know they have transgressed; and the community needs to know who the transgressive person is.

The only readily available measure we have as players to know whether another player is "transgressive" is their Reputation. So yeah, I plan on using that.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that at the top end of rep, there's a thing you have to do every day at a certain time to gain a point or two of rep unattainable any other way. The is just hypothetical so don't read anything more into it.

Now imagine that there is something really important that the Settlement needs done that conflicts with fulfilling that rep gaining activity.

Doing the necessary thing implies you don't maximize your rep. Maximizing your rep implies you put that number ahead of your collective obligation to your Settlement.

That is the kind of meaningful choice that I'd be interested in when vetting a potential recruit: do they play "for a number" or for the team?

From:Could PFO Thrive with No Unsanctioned PvP?

Posted on Dec, 11th, 2013. Which could cause some confusion, but is more recent than Nov, 29th, 2013.

But it does not reject the previous post. Both conditions are forms of altruism. To either sacrifice your character's personal reputation score for the needs of the community, or to forego a potential reputation gain for yourself.

I won't bother arguing which is more altruistic or not, I have my own opinion on that and I'll let others decide for themselves.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

Ryand Dancey Wrote

No mention of "foregoing reputation gains". That seems to be your misinterpretation.

The implication is that you shouldn't worry about loss, if it is for the benefit or greater need of your settlement.

No mention of "loss" either. But you'll see the quote I provided does explicitly discuss "foregoing Reputation gains".

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that at the top end of rep, there's a thing you have to do every day at a certain time to gain a point or two of rep unattainable any other way. The is just hypothetical so don't read anything more into it.

Now imagine that there is something really important that the Settlement needs done that conflicts with fulfilling that rep gaining activity.

Doing the necessary thing implies you don't maximize your rep. Maximizing your rep implies you put that number ahead of your collective obligation to your Settlement.

That is the kind of meaningful choice that I'd be interested in when vetting a potential recruit: do they play "for a number" or for the team?

From:Could PFO Thrive with No Unsanctioned PvP?

Posted on Dec, 11th, 2013. Which could cause some confusion, but is more recent than Nov, 29th, 2013.

But it does not reject the previous post. Both conditions are forms of altruism. To either sacrifice your character's personal reputation score for the needs of the community, or to forego a potential reputation gain for yourself.

I won't bother arguing which is more altruistic or not, I have my own opinion on that and I'll let others decide for themselves.

I had thought that the point was whether having to consistently take rep hits "for the team" (to the point that you can't maintain decent rep at all) was the point. An occasional hit, when needed is fine. If your settlement expects it of you so often that you get booted, something is clearly wrong.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
I had thought that the point was whether having to consistently take rep hits "for the team" (to the point that you can't maintain decent rep at all) was the point. An occasional hit, when needed is fine. If your settlement expects it of you so often that you get booted, something is clearly wrong.

I agree with this. The need for you to take a reputation hit for the "team" on a regular basis would tell me, you should be looking for another team.

The discussion wasn't how often you would take the hit, but whether or not your were altruistic enough to take the hit if needed.

The point Ryan was making was that there are potentially very valid reasons to take an action that costs you reputation. It is also implied that they should not occur on a regular basis.

I argue that needed that kind of sacrifice on a regular basis is a sign of weakness on the part of the settlement, or at least its leadership.

Hmmmm That just reminded me of an idea that came from Black Sails (STARZ). A pirate captain that can not provide his crew with adequate, legitimate targets (merchants) and loot, can be voted out.

Settlements are kind of the reverse of that. If they can not defend themselves through legitimate means, than vote them out.

But on the Pirate Captain example, I'm going to use that for the UnNamed Company. Leadership goes to whomever can bring in the most loot, over a period of time (term of office).

I'm sure that will peak the interest of my cutthroat brethren!!

Goblin Squad Member

@ Bliddwolf

And I agree that it may be needed to do things that either keep you from gaining rep or losing a good chunk, once in a while. Yet there are plenty of other ways to do things that you need to do, too. At least I hope that there will be. They may not be the easiest way, but that is a meaningful choice also.

It still remains clear that the vast majority of players that are really low rep will have gotten there by choice. Again, if that is not the case then the system is broken, as it is supposed to be a "quasi" punishment to limit certain behavior. At least that is how I grasp it.

So, I don't think it is unreasonable to place low rep as one of the factors that help you decide who you will attack. Especially if you catch them when they read as "hostile" to you.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
So, I don't think it is unreasonable to place low rep as one of the factors that help you decide who you will attack. Especially if you catch them when they read as "hostile" to you.

I could not disagree more with your first point, and the second condition is not how the system actually works (for Hostility).

I would not look at low rep as being a factor for attacking someone unless I knew they got low rep by attacking me or my interests, including but not exclusive to my group.

Someone could have low reputation for attacking Pax outside of sanctioned PVP. That has no bearing on me, unless I'm contracted by Pax to care about that.

On the second point...

You will not see all low rep characters as "Hostile" to you. Having low reputation does not auto flag anyone as a "sanctioned PVP target". The only way you would see them as "Hostile" is if they did some action against you or your grouping.

351 to 400 of 1,127 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 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.