The Purpose of Reputation


Pathfinder Online

1 to 50 of 172 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

My personal understanding is that Reputation is the easy way to determine whether another player is generally a "jerk". That is, they frequently break contracts, or attack other players for no real reason, etc.

Is it reasonable for me to plan to use Reputation this way?

Specifically, my current plan is to generally attack and try to kill any Flagged Characters I see that are also Low Reputation. If they have a High Reputation, I'll base the decision on a lot of other factors like alliances, etc.

I'd very much appreciate any input from Ryan or the devs on whether Reputation is intended to serve as a signal to other players about the kinds of things a Character is prone to do.


Low reputation is definitely not an indicator of either

a) It may well be the breaking of the contract is not deliberate. Example you hire a hauler to take a cargo for you. He is waylaid by bandits and robbed of that cargo. He has broken the contract and will get a reputation hit.

b) Because a killing gets you a reputation hit does not in anyway shape or form mean that the killing had no meaning. Example you see some bandits attacking someone. You leap into be the good guy. The bandits however aren't flagged to you (as we currently understand the rules. I believe there is even a Dancey quote somewhere to support that stance). You lose reputation. Example 2 A group have set up a harvesting camp that you aren't in feud or war with in a wilderness hex. You need that resource for your settlement.

Meaningful pvp =/= reputation free pvp

Meaningless pvp =/= reputation costing pvp

(In case you want an example of the latter statement a company can declare feud on another company for absolutely no reason other than they feel like it, perhaps a member of the company was once seen wearing a green hat)

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Your reputation is an indicator of how you have chosen to balance pure altruism with pure selfishness. It says absolutely nothing about you or your character's skills or abilities.

I struck through the later part because it was the result of Ryan's misinterpretation of my use of the term "Good" player.

I mean "Good" in terms of playing within the rules of the game, or prescribed means of "sanctioned" pvp.

He took "good" as a measure of character skills or a players skill.

So we should focus on Ryan's stated belief that Reputation is an indicator of pure altruism vs. pure selfishness.

Goblin Squad Member

@ Steelwing

The definitions are pretty tricky. I feel like GW is defining "meaningful" mostly as what they have decided it is for their game. That includes doing it in the ways that they encourage (penalty free situations).

Your examples are meaningful and non (and they illustrate contradictions), but they can also be done with their system, penalty free. Definitely not perfect, but something different than FFA.


Bringslite wrote:

@ Steelwing

The definitions are pretty tricky. I feel like GW is defining "meaningful" mostly as what they have decided it is for their game. That includes doing it in the ways that they encourage (penalty free situations).

Your examples are meaningful and non (and they illustrate contradictions), but they can also be done with their system, penalty free. Definitely not perfect, but something different than FFA.

Given that many including yourself have argued SAD's need to be strongly restricted due to their ability allow consequence free pvp

Could you describe how within the system without using SAD

Haulers will be able to avoid reputation loss when robbed off cargo they are contracted to carry

How you will deal with a gathering camp harvesting the resource you need.(Bear in mind I expect many will do as I have already stated we would do which is make our gatherer characters be in no company or player settlement to remove the threat of war or feud)

How you will intervene in a fight where neither the attacker nor defender are flagged to you.

Apart from all that I was merely answering the OP's question which was

"My personal understanding is that Reputation is the easy way to determine whether another player is generally a "jerk". That is, they frequently break contracts, or attack other players for no real reason, etc.

Is it reasonable for me to plan to use Reputation this way?"

I think it is quite clear that low rep does not automatically mean jerk. Sometimes it will sometimes it won't. In other news high rep will not necessarily mean non jerk either. I really see no reason to assume griefers or jerks are going to be either CE or low rep as I have stated before I firmly believe that the jerk tool of choice will be the feud.

Goblin Squad Member

@ Steelwing,

Not all "meaningless" PVP will cost you reputation.

Not all "meaningful" PVP will be exempt from reputation loss.

The measure of meaningful or meaningless is not whether or not it impacts reputation, but your motivation in engaging in PVP to begin with.

Because it involves the unknown motivations, GW will never even try to give a concrete definition of what either term means. It is the same reason they will not define "Griefing". It is why they have the "Shift to Core Alignment" because they can not monitor or categorize every action.

Once it becomes known, what actions cost reputation and what actions gain reputation, let the see-saw begin!!

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Even if a low rep is meant to indicate that this player has done bad things (behaved toxic?) I would not just act on that low rep or the criminial flag he may be wearing. If I am not in direct conflict with that player at that time, if I do not have a personal beef with him at that time, I will not attack him no matter his CR. It would just feel to random to me. Pointless, at least to me, and, well, bad, at that moment.

I see some function of the Reputation mechanic for me: I would certainly become wary around a low-rep players, and I can certainly see how Company - and Settlementleaders may have directives about these sort of players and would want their members to act accordingly: like kill any low-rep, criminally flagged players on sight. But I would never do that on such grounds and thus better not join such a Company/Settlement.

This is how I, as a *person* would react to that mechanic. If the rep-mechanic is meant so that others would start to punish these players then the mechanic will not work as intended with me. I hope the punishment will lie in the gimping of their characters. I just can not be that tool of punishment, its not me.

On the alignment axis, this would probably put me somewhere neutral/goodish and that is exactly what I would choose for my character.

I will defend myself, and I will defend my Settlement, also if this means taking back a valuable PoI that has been taken from us. That will be the extent of my PvP experiences. That, and fleeing and paying for a SaD when I have zero chance. :)

Goblin Squad Member

The policy I've always pursued in the past in game like Mortal where the reputation is at least semi-meaningful is if they are from a neutral group + low rep I may or may not kill them. Depends on where I meet them / how threatening they are acting toward myself and others. Neutral group + high rep means I won't kill them unless provided a very good reason to do so. Wary/hostile group + low rep = say your prayers.

I've never played a game where low rep didn't = consequence free kill though, so we'll see how I do it here.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Bringslite wrote:

@ Steelwing

The definitions are pretty tricky. I feel like GW is defining "meaningful" mostly as what they have decided it is for their game. That includes doing it in the ways that they encourage (penalty free situations).

Your examples are meaningful and non (and they illustrate contradictions), but they can also be done with their system, penalty free. Definitely not perfect, but something different than FFA.

Given that many including yourself have argued SAD's need to be strongly restricted due to their ability allow consequence free pvp

Could you describe how within the system without using SAD

Haulers will be able to avoid reputation loss when robbed off cargo they are contracted to carry

How you will deal with a gathering camp harvesting the resource you need.(Bear in mind I expect many will do as I have already stated we would do which is make our gatherer characters be in no company or player settlement to remove the threat of war or feud)

How you will intervene in a fight where neither the attacker nor defender are flagged to you.

Apart from all that I was merely answering the OP's question which was

"My personal understanding is that Reputation is the easy way to determine whether another player is generally a "jerk". That is, they frequently break contracts, or attack other players for no real reason, etc.

Is it reasonable for me to plan to use Reputation this way?"

I think it is quite clear that low rep does not automatically mean jerk. Sometimes it will sometimes it won't. In other news high rep will not necessarily mean non jerk either. I really see no reason to assume griefers or jerks are going to be either CE or low rep as I have stated before I firmly believe that the jerk tool of choice will be the feud.

1. I don't think that it is right to lose rep for failed contracts. Stated plainly. I think that it is even suspect to lose Law, but you need somehow to account for willful failure. However they guard against willful failure, I hope that it does not punish failure beyond the person's control.

2. Gatherers and Harvesters. I hope that not being "affiliated" is enough of a punishment in the quality of the resources that you CAN gather as to make them not worth a rep hit to try and take away. If they are "affiliated" you have an avenue to do something about it, penalty free.

3. Interfering. No idea if it will be possible, penalty free. I hope that there does end up being a sensible way.

I really like the idea of it being costly and penalizing to kill targets that don't fit in the system as "legitimate targets", if only so that the interested player base will be larger.

So, since we know little, we voice concerns. What we do know looks pretty unpolished as yet. As far as things stand, I think: Low Rep = Jerk is probably too broad, as there will be exceptions. That does not mean that it will not be a pretty good indicator of actors outside of preferred playstyles.

Most of your points do make sense from the point of view of a wargame. I guess that I am holding out that they will be addressed with some kind of balance where everyone does not have to play a wargame, all the time.


@Bringslite

Ok turn it around for a moment

Why do you think anyone who wants to be a jerk is likely to be low rep (or CE). When they can declare a feud against any company they like? Just as in Eve you will find "feud griefing" will be one of the favourite tools and they will lose neither rep nor alignment for it.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
My personal understanding is that Reputation is the easy way to determine whether another player is generally a "jerk". That is, they frequently break contracts, or attack other players for no real reason, etc.

From the 18 December blog, there's no indication that we lose Rep for failing contracts - only for certain types of PvP or for unsocial behavior in game:

Reputation is our system for measuring how a player behaves in game. We want to provide a means by which a player can judge the aggressiveness of other players at a glance, get some idea how likely they are to attack, and get an idea as to their social behavior. Reputation only affects your interactions with other players; it has no bearing on your interactions with NPCs, quests, escalation cycles, or other PvE content. A character with a high Reputation is likely someone who only engages in PvP via feuds, wars, or factional combat (if he engages in PvP at all), while a character with low Reputation likely attacks people regardless of those PvP structures or is rude or abusive to other players. Reputation has no direct effect on combat, crafting, or skills, but does limit availability of training, facilities, and social interactions.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Why do you think anyone who wants to be a jerk is likely to be low rep (or CE). When they can declare a feud against any company they like? Just as in Eve you will find "feud griefing" will be one of the favourite tools and they will lose neither rep nor alignment for it.

Out of curiosity, is there a currency requirement in EVE to do feud griefing? Does it just cost ISK, or have no cost, or what?


Urman wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Why do you think anyone who wants to be a jerk is likely to be low rep (or CE). When they can declare a feud against any company they like? Just as in Eve you will find "feud griefing" will be one of the favourite tools and they will lose neither rep nor alignment for it.
Out of curiosity, is there a currency requirement in EVE to do feud griefing? Does it just cost ISK, or have no cost, or what?

War decs cost isk

Goblin Squad Member

Thanks. I'd think feud griefing will certainly be possible in PFO, but possible less common than in EVE, if it costs Influence instead of readily available coin. It depends on how easy it is to get Influence, I imagine.

Goblin Squad Member

One of the big things in PFO is they are designing the system to make it more expensive to feud newer companies.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Reputation is not unary. One can lose Reputation, even on a recurring basis indefinitely, without ever becoming "Low Reputation".

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:

@Bringslite

Ok turn it around for a moment

Why do you think anyone who wants to be a jerk is likely to be low rep (or CE). When they can declare a feud against any company they like? Just as in Eve you will find "feud griefing" will be one of the favourite tools and they will lose neither rep nor alignment for it.

Hmmm... I suppose that the way GW defines being "a jerk" falls into actions that garner really low rep. That is not the same as middling or temporary low rep. Real chaotic evil behavior definitely fits "My" definition of jerky. Claiming to be CE and maintaining high rep, not so much.

I am fully aware that there will be ways to grief others and still maintain great alignment and rep. I hope those are addressed with as much enthusiasm as any other griefer.

I don't think that low rep and griefing are the same thing, necessarily.


Urman wrote:
Thanks. I'd think feud griefing will certainly be possible in PFO, but possible less common than in EVE, if it costs Influence instead of readily available coin. It depends on how easy it is to get Influence, I imagine.

Influence gain is as yet an unknown but I cannot see it being that hard to gain. I assume that they wish people to use feuds that they are not going to price it prohibitively versus influence gain.

It should also be remembered that generally being a jerk or griefer does not mean you don't partake in the other parts of the game so I can certainly forsee a group doing normal stuff for a week then spending the influence on a random feud for a week etc.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
Reputation is not unary. One can lose Reputation, even on a recurring basis indefinitely, without ever becoming "Low Reputation".

Oh, please explain in detail


Bringslite wrote:
Steelwing wrote:

@Bringslite

Ok turn it around for a moment

Why do you think anyone who wants to be a jerk is likely to be low rep (or CE). When they can declare a feud against any company they like? Just as in Eve you will find "feud griefing" will be one of the favourite tools and they will lose neither rep nor alignment for it.

Hmmm... I suppose that the way GW defines being "a jerk" falls into actions that garner really low rep. That is not the same as middling or temporary low rep. Real chaotic evil behavior definitely fits "My" definition of jerky. Claiming to be CE and maintaining high rep, not so much.

I am fully aware that there will be ways to grief others and still maintain great alignment and rep. I hope those are addressed with as much enthusiasm as any other griefer.

I don't think that low rep and griefing are the same thing, necessarily.

And how will you distinguish between a company that spends a lot of time in feuds for good meaningful reasons and those that spend a lot of time in random feuds just to be a jerk?

I personally can't imagine why any jerk would end up ce or low rep frankly. I can certainly imagine many haulers ending up low rep (not that I disagree with you they shouldn't be getting a rep loss for breaking a contract but unfortunately if you suggest it you will get others telling you its essential else others will use contracts to be a jerk)

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Xeen wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Reputation is not unary. One can lose Reputation, even on a recurring basis indefinitely, without ever becoming "Low Reputation".
Oh, please explain in detail

I'm on my phone right now, so no links, but the first sentence follows from the definition of Reputation and the second follows from the existance of a recovery mechanic.

I did not make the claim "One can engage in all patterns of behavior which reduce Reputation without becoming low Reputation"

You can draw water from a lake forever without the lake every drying out, but it's not impossible to pump a lake dry.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
And how will you distinguish between a company that spends a lot of time in feuds for good meaningful reasons and those that spend a lot of time in random feuds just to be a jerk?

A pair of magical powers that some refer to as observation and judgement.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Reputation is not unary. One can lose Reputation, even on a recurring basis indefinitely, without ever becoming "Low Reputation".
Oh, please explain in detail

I think it has to do with what you spend your time doing. Reputation is cumulative, not a one-off. Using Nihimon as an example, if he kills one non-hostile low-reputation character per day (and takes a reputation hit for it), but spends all the rest of his game time helping little old ladies cross the street, rescuing kittens from trees, and other wholesome, reputation-positive acts, he will have at worst middling reputation. To be a "low reputation" character, you would need to repeatedly, and largely exclusively, engage in behavior that results in a reputation penalty.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Steelwing wrote:
Urman wrote:
Thanks. I'd think feud griefing will certainly be possible in PFO, but possible less common than in EVE, if it costs Influence instead of readily available coin. It depends on how easy it is to get Influence, I imagine.

Influence gain is as yet an unknown but I cannot see it being that hard to gain. I assume that they wish people to use feuds that they are not going to price it prohibitively versus influence gain.

It should also be remembered that generally being a jerk or griefer does not mean you don't partake in the other parts of the game so I can certainly forsee a group doing normal stuff for a week then spending the influence on a random feud for a week etc.

The Company that spends a week collecting I influence and building equipment to feud for lulz of the weekend will be weaker than a company that does whatever maximizes their power. Settlements are more likely to subsidize the equipment of companies that benefit the settlement more, and feuding random targets is very likely not the action most beneficial to your settlement.


DeciusBrutus wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Urman wrote:
Thanks. I'd think feud griefing will certainly be possible in PFO, but possible less common than in EVE, if it costs Influence instead of readily available coin. It depends on how easy it is to get Influence, I imagine.

Influence gain is as yet an unknown but I cannot see it being that hard to gain. I assume that they wish people to use feuds that they are not going to price it prohibitively versus influence gain.

It should also be remembered that generally being a jerk or griefer does not mean you don't partake in the other parts of the game so I can certainly forsee a group doing normal stuff for a week then spending the influence on a random feud for a week etc.

The Company that spends a week collecting I influence and building equipment to feud for lulz of the weekend will be weaker than a company that does whatever maximizes their power. Settlements are more likely to subsidize the equipment of companies that benefit the settlement more, and feuding random targets is very likely not the action most beneficial to your settlement.

Griefers of this type will be targeting companies of gatherers haulers and merchants just as they do in Eve they do not go after people who can fight back and they are unlikely to be part of a settlement as such.

Most people will not be part of a player settlement just as in Eve they are not part of null sec.

Goblin Squad Member

Deianira wrote:
Xeen wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Reputation is not unary. One can lose Reputation, even on a recurring basis indefinitely, without ever becoming "Low Reputation".
Oh, please explain in detail

I think it has to do with what you spend your time doing. Reputation is cumulative, not a one-off. Using Nihimon as an example, if he kills one non-hostile low-reputation character per day (and takes a reputation hit for it), but spends all the rest of his game time helping little old ladies cross the street, rescuing kittens from trees, and other wholesome, reputation-positive acts, he will have at worst middling reputation. To be a "low reputation" character, you would need to repeatedly, and largely exclusively, engage in behavior that results in a reputation penalty.

The way he said it left no room for rep gains. The way I read it anyway.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
Steelwing wrote:

@Bringslite

Ok turn it around for a moment

Why do you think anyone who wants to be a jerk is likely to be low rep (or CE). When they can declare a feud against any company they like? Just as in Eve you will find "feud griefing" will be one of the favourite tools and they will lose neither rep nor alignment for it.

Hmmm... I suppose that the way GW defines being "a jerk" falls into actions that garner really low rep. That is not the same as middling or temporary low rep. Real chaotic evil behavior definitely fits "My" definition of jerky. Claiming to be CE and maintaining high rep, not so much.

I am fully aware that there will be ways to grief others and still maintain great alignment and rep. I hope those are addressed with as much enthusiasm as any other griefer.

I don't think that low rep and griefing are the same thing, necessarily.

And how will you distinguish between a company that spends a lot of time in feuds for good meaningful reasons and those that spend a lot of time in random feuds just to be a jerk?

I personally can't imagine why any jerk would end up ce or low rep frankly. I can certainly imagine many haulers ending up low rep (not that I disagree with you they shouldn't be getting a rep loss for breaking a contract but unfortunately if you suggest it you will get others telling you its essential else others will use contracts to be a jerk)

I am not sure how that will be possible. I honestly am not a programmer or have given it much thought. Off the top of my head, I would say it would be a conversation with GW to explain "why" it is legit, if there is a question/complaint, and a decision by GW. Just as most other griefing will be.

You are probably not an "average" player and will avoid the ways that "average" players will get sucked into the funnel of love. Most idiots will find themselves there because they are idiots.

Why do you assume that contractual failure = rep loss? I believe that was an originally mentioned thing, but I don't think it will pan out. Collateral security could mitigate willful failure a bit, for a start. Much like a contractor must provide a "bond" to be credible. If that is too much hassle then you takes yer chances and spread word about the person.


Bringslite wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
Steelwing wrote:

@Bringslite

Ok turn it around for a moment

Why do you think anyone who wants to be a jerk is likely to be low rep (or CE). When they can declare a feud against any company they like? Just as in Eve you will find "feud griefing" will be one of the favourite tools and they will lose neither rep nor alignment for it.

Hmmm... I suppose that the way GW defines being "a jerk" falls into actions that garner really low rep. That is not the same as middling or temporary low rep. Real chaotic evil behavior definitely fits "My" definition of jerky. Claiming to be CE and maintaining high rep, not so much.

I am fully aware that there will be ways to grief others and still maintain great alignment and rep. I hope those are addressed with as much enthusiasm as any other griefer.

I don't think that low rep and griefing are the same thing, necessarily.

And how will you distinguish between a company that spends a lot of time in feuds for good meaningful reasons and those that spend a lot of time in random feuds just to be a jerk?

I personally can't imagine why any jerk would end up ce or low rep frankly. I can certainly imagine many haulers ending up low rep (not that I disagree with you they shouldn't be getting a rep loss for breaking a contract but unfortunately if you suggest it you will get others telling you its essential else others will use contracts to be a jerk)

I am not sure how that will be possible. I honestly am not a programmer or have given it much thought. Off the top of my head, I would say it would be a conversation with GW to explain "why" it is legit, if there is a question/complaint, and a decision by GW. Just as most other griefing will be.

You are probably not an "average" player and will avoid the ways that "average" players will get sucked into the funnel of love. Most idiots will find themselves there because they are idiots.

Why do you assume that contractual failure...

Goblinworks will not have enough gm's to go around asking people why they declared every little feud nor will it be difficult to come up with a plausible reason for the feud such as "They were harvesting in an area we had been clearing". The gm will just nod sagely and go away.

As to the rep loss for contracts as I said no good telling me go convince the people who want it. (Hint the easy way around it is for all the companies that wish to do hauling as their main thing to get together and refuse to touch contracts with a barge pole and ensure any company breaking ranks gets punished by repeated contract failure *hands bringlite a business card for low rep ce mercs* )

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steelwing wrote:
Most people will not be part of a player settlement...

Extremely unlikely in PFO. Being a member of an NPC Settlement will carry a stigma. I think the vast majority of experienced players will be members of a PC Settlement.

Goblin Squad Member

It seems somewhat likely to me that Reputation will be impacted by the Contract System.

I think that rep will be a fractal system like many others and while it may initially have some clear association with PvP, it will over time mutate and become associated with many other aspects of the game. Reputation should reflect the consensus of everyone you have interacted with not just the characters you interacted with in PvP.

It just seems weird to think that "[h]aving a reputation of strictly upholding contracts" isn't going to be reflected in the Reputation system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:
Steelwing wrote:
Most people will not be part of a player settlement...
Extremely unlikely in PFO. Being a member of an NPC Settlement will carry a stigma. I think the vast majority of experienced players will be members of a PC Settlement.

Extremely unlikely in my opinion that you are correct in the long term

It will start off that way but over time settlements will become less and less casual as the inefficient settlements get taken over by those that are prepared to be more efficient. As they do so those who only have a couple of hours a couple of nights a week will find that they do not want to accomodate what settlements are asking for. Where do I get this feeling? *Points at the 3AM thread*

Quite happy for you to put this down on your list of predictions but until the game is a couple of years old this is just one opinion against another so I suggest we just leave the two predictions on your list and not pollute the forums with an argument over the non provable :)

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
Goblinworks will not have enough gm's to go around asking people why they declared every little feud nor will it be difficult to come up with a plausible reason for the feud such as "They were harvesting in an area we had been clearing". The gm will just nod sagely and go away.

It is all back and forth. Every point has a counter. We will have to wait and see how they deal with complaints of griefing. I doubt that they will actively look for it as much as investigate reports. I do think that they will do a bit of both.

All that I can be sure of is that GW has promised to try and eliminate the things that they do not like about EVE. How they will do that and what they will consider "unacceptable", we will have to wait on release of more detail.

Part of this is that they won't exactly define "everything" that is unacceptable, but will act on it when they see it, and THEY will make that call. I hope that will include warnings first, for less terrible things, but I don't know.

But all of this is mixed now. Low rep does not necessarily mean grief-like behavior, but can.

Goblin Squad Member

Not all hits to rep will be the -2500. That -7500 low rep guy might just be a -500 or less vs the +7500 or newbee. Ryan did say that LE CC will actively seek out and kill CE players for the badges and advanced skill involved. As well as something to the effect that they would be quit powerful as a result.

Haulers that fulfill contracts more often than not will still have positive rep. Haulers that fail to fulfill contracts more often than not will get fewer contracts. Sounds like a good system to me even if it is meta only. The same can be said of any contracted service.

To that earlier example of a harvesting node? Attacking someone who took the time to find the node, and is extracting it should carry a rep hit. You are describing theft unless it is within your settlement hex. It is MEANINGFUL that your settlement needs that rare deposit, but it is still murder for profit.

Influence the way I read it is not a portable currency it is local? "Influence for clearing a hex would allow a CC to build...." comes to mind. What have I missed? If that it is true random companies will have to set up someplace to do their feuds each time they move they have to start again on the scale. If they stay put then settlements or other local CC with respond. It could even be the local bandits that push them out to preserve there milking cow(s).

Again Ryan said NPC settlements are designed to push players out into the world as they will max out training and trade skill faculties and will need to branch out join a CC or form one to advance. Not exact words but I am sure most of you read the same thing not that long ago. I have yet to see anything that said you would be prohibited from returning to the NPC settlements, but I did read all players will be part of some settlement meaning NPC or PC. I assume that means if you are kicked by settlement A you will be defaulted to the NPC settlement you came from.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:
... I suggest we just leave the two predictions on your list and not pollute the forums with an argument over the non provable :)

Sure thing.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:

It seems somewhat likely to me that Reputation will be impacted by the Contract System.

I think that rep will be a fractal system like many others and while it may initially have some clear association with PvP, it will over time mutate and become associated with many other aspects of the game. Reputation should reflect the consensus of everyone you have interacted with not just the characters you interacted with in PvP.
It just seems weird to think that "[h]aving a reputation of strictly upholding contracts" isn't going to be reflected in the Reputation system.

Personally, I thought that bit from Ryan was a bit... curious? Reputation should reflect the consensus of everyone you have interacted with not just the characters you interacted with in PvP. Elsewhere I believe he has said that reputation is an extension of the alignment system, and that alignment is objective, not subjective. Yet he says reputation is a reflection of player/character consensus? That doesn't make sense to me - I look forward to more information.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:

It seems somewhat likely to me that Reputation will be impacted by the Contract System.

I think that rep will be a fractal system like many others and while it may initially have some clear association with PvP, it will over time mutate and become associated with many other aspects of the game. Reputation should reflect the consensus of everyone you have interacted with not just the characters you interacted with in PvP.
It just seems weird to think that "[h]aving a reputation of strictly upholding contracts" isn't going to be reflected in the Reputation system.

Well that's the thing. Whether I consider it fair, or a legit reason to lose rep, is not really going to make much difference. If I engage in contracts and fail enough (through no fault of my own) to seriously damage my character, I will find a way to "meta game" contracts and make the system useless to my play, at least. You will wreck it for any but the most well guarded (wealthy) haulers.

If it is not too punishing, (because of thought, planning, and caution) I will use it.


Vwoom wrote:


To that earlier example of a harvesting node? Attacking someone who took the time to find the node, and is extracting it should carry a rep hit. You are describing theft unless it is within your settlement hex. It is MEANINGFUL that your settlement needs that rare deposit, but it is still murder for profit.

Fighting over resources is the very substance of meaningful pvp, it is certainly no less meaningful then fighting a war of expansion where you steal someones entire settlement. War carries no rep loss why should fighting for resources?

Vwoom wrote:


Again Ryan said NPC settlements are designed to push players out into the world as they will max out training and trade skill faculties and will need to branch out join a CC or form one to advance. Not exact words but I am sure most of you read the same thing not that long ago. I have yet to see anything that said you would be prohibited from returning to the NPC settlements, but I did read all players will be part of some settlement meaning NPC or PC. I assume that means if you are kicked by settlement A you will be defaulted to the NPC settlement you came from.

Ryan can say what he wants however if my prediction is closer to truth than Nihimon's then people can move out of npc settlements all they like but it doesn't mean they will find a settlement that will take them. Sucessful null sec alliances expect on the whole a certain amount of commitment from those that join them. This level of commitment is more than some on these boards wish to commit themselves to.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Being a member of an NPC Settlement will carry a stigma.

Beyond that--or perhaps beside it--they'll also not have access to the best training or crafting. We'll have to see how much GW makes that matter.

Goblin Squad Member

Jazzlvraz wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Being a member of an NPC Settlement will carry a stigma.
Beyond that--or perhaps beside it--they'll also not have access to the best training or crafting. We'll have to see how much GW makes that matter.

They will be able to buy the best crafted items. Crafting them on the other hand is for sure.

The stigma is meaningless. The skill training is up in the air. The high end skills may not matter as much as is thought.

There are tons of Eve veterans that got tired of the sov grind and moved to NPC space (null NPC) where they can enjoy their game.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
Jazzlvraz wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Being a member of an NPC Settlement will carry a stigma.
Beyond that--or perhaps beside it--they'll also not have access to the best training or crafting. We'll have to see how much GW makes that matter.

The will be able to buy the best crafted items.

The stigma is meaningless. The skill training is up in the air.

Hasn't it been revealed that you can buy and equip an item but not be able to use any feature that is not trained and you can slot? The weapon/armor/wand is only as good as the use YOU can get out of it, despite what utility is has.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
Xeen wrote:
Jazzlvraz wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Being a member of an NPC Settlement will carry a stigma.
Beyond that--or perhaps beside it--they'll also not have access to the best training or crafting. We'll have to see how much GW makes that matter.

The will be able to buy the best crafted items.

The stigma is meaningless. The skill training is up in the air.

Hasn't it been revealed that you can buy and equip an item but not be able to use any feature that is not trained and you can slot? The weapon/armor/wand is only as good as the use YOU can get out of it, despite what utility is has.

Yeah, probably right. Still kinda sits with, it may not matter over all. We shall see I guess.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
Xeen wrote:
Jazzlvraz wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Being a member of an NPC Settlement will carry a stigma.
Beyond that--or perhaps beside it--they'll also not have access to the best training or crafting. We'll have to see how much GW makes that matter.

The will be able to buy the best crafted items.

The stigma is meaningless. The skill training is up in the air.

Hasn't it been revealed that you can buy and equip an item but not be able to use any feature that is not trained and you can slot? The weapon/armor/wand is only as good as the use YOU can get out of it, despite what utility is has.
Yeah, probably right. Still kinda sits with, it may not matter over all. We shall see I guess.

Very true.

Goblin Squad Member

@Steelwing

I did not say it was not meaningful, I said it should carry a rep hit if people engage in murder for profit.

Perhaps I was not clear. "I assume that means if you are kicked by settlement A you will be defaulted to the NPC settlement..." I was at least partially agreeing with you. If the same people (harvesters) stay in the NPC settlements they will have to stay below level 4 or be open for faction PvP in any case. They are going to harvest the lowest quality whatever, so they will have to move up or be in a different funnel of suck. Any group can work out who (faction wise) is the right person is to attack the harvester without a rep or alignment hit, or I guess break out their CE alt.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
If I engage in contracts and fail enough (through no fault of my own) to seriously damage my character...

I expect the primary way that you will lose or gain Reputation through the Contract System will be by being Saluted or Rebuked by the Character with whom you made the Contract. If you're consistently getting Rebuked for failing through no fault of your own, I would suggest you find better folks to make Contracts with.

Goblin Squad Member

The more valuable the cargo the more specific the contract will be. Guards, a representative of the merchant etc.

Goblin Squad Member

For me.

The purpose of reputation isnt to see who is good and who is bad. Reputation serves as a means to provide actions with consequences that can directly impact the character. Reputation is needed to be part of various settlements with different ones having different thresholds for membership or even being allowed in.

If your rep drops too low you lose access to everything in your settlement. For most people this means a lot, more so if the character still requires training. I would not be surprised if a settlement requires a higher and higher reputation requirements to provide training to the more advanced skills.

The result is that engaging in activities that GW doesnt want you to do a bunch of ends up with serious consequences. Players now have to decide if such risks are worth something that serious.

So me and my company preemptively killing some unflagged bandits on a road is something that GW wants to allow, HOWEVER they dont want us to do it all the time. So we can do it, take the rep hit, then spend a while building our rep back up to the point where we are not in danger of losing our settlement benefits.

I think that one way to balance this (meaning settlements making their rep requirement so low as to make it a non factor) is to require a settlement have higher and higher rep requirements to be able to train the more advanced skills.


Vwoom wrote:

@Steelwing

I did not say it was not meaningful, I said it should carry a rep hit if people engage in murder for profit.

Perhaps I was not clear. "I assume that means if you are kicked by settlement A you will be defaulted to the NPC settlement..." I was at least partially agreeing with you. If the same people (harvesters) stay in the NPC settlements they will have to stay below level 4 or be open for faction PvP in any case. They are going to harvest the lowest quality whatever, so they will have to move up or be in a different funnel of suck. Any group can work out who (faction wise) is the right person is to attack the harvester without a rep or alignment hit, or I guess break out their CE alt.

It is no more murder for profit than it is murder for profit when I burn your settlement to the ground so I can use the land. It is ensuring that my settlement gets the resources it needs to grow.

As to the NPC settlement and training I believe what Dancey said is you would lose access to some skills when you change settlement not all skills.

Our gatherers will train their skills at our settlement then revert to npc settlements. I suspect gathering skills will not necessarily be the skills affected by losing your settlement. No doubt if I am mistaken Nihimon will have a quote handy saying it is all skills. My impression currently however it is skills which require access to buildings to make continuing use of such as manufacture of assassins masks, some cleric skills and some paladin skills.

Goblin Squad Member

Steelwing wrote:

As to the NPC settlement and training I believe what Dancey said is you would lose access to some skills when you change settlement not all skills...

No doubt if I am mistaken Nihimon will have a quote handy saying it is all skills.

We're talking a lot about what happens when a Settlement is destroyed, what happens to a character's abilities when it changes Settlements, and how to provide some manageable transitions without unrecoverable setbacks. I'd say at this point that I think the direction of the discussions is good, and we will likely blog about it when it is more developed,but I can't give you an eta on when that will be yet. Suffice it to say: we don't want you to be able to become awesome by being a good member of the community, then become toxic and remain awesome. And we don't want you to lose everything you've gained without a path to recovery in a reasonable timeframe if your Settlement is lost or you are kicked out of a Settlement (for whatever reason). We're working on it.


leperkhaun wrote:

For me.

The purpose of reputation isnt to see who is good and who is bad. Reputation serves as a means to provide actions with consequences that can directly impact the character. Reputation is needed to be part of various settlements with different ones having different thresholds for membership or even being allowed in.

If your rep drops too low you lose access to everything in your settlement. For most people this means a lot, more so if the character still requires training. I would not be surprised if a settlement requires a higher and higher reputation requirements to provide training to the more advanced skills.

The result is that engaging in activities that GW doesnt want you to do a bunch of ends up with serious consequences. Players now have to decide if such risks are worth something that serious.

So me and my company preemptively killing some unflagged bandits on a road is something that GW wants to allow, HOWEVER they dont want us to do it all the time. So we can do it, take the rep hit, then spend a while building our rep back up to the point where we are not in danger of losing our settlement benefits.

I think that one way to balance this (meaning settlements making their rep requirement so low as to make it a non factor) is to require a settlement have higher and higher rep requirements to be able to train the more advanced skills.

The more impact that reputation has of course the more likely that reputation loss is to be used as a tactic prior to declaring war. Under current information I already have several tactics available to reduce an enemies reputation is it becomes desirable to do so. Frankly I expect however they will be unnecessary as I fully expect a watering down of the rep system when it makes player contact.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
If I engage in contracts and fail enough (through no fault of my own) to seriously damage my character...
I expect the primary way that you will lose or gain Reputation through the Contract System will be by being Saluted or Rebuked by the Character with whom you made the Contract. If you're consistently getting Rebuked for failing through no fault of your own, I would suggest you find better folks to make Contracts with.

That is a totally different way of the loss being applied. Do you have an easy find quote that supports this? That would not be so bad as "auto loss" for failure.

1 to 50 of 172 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / The Purpose of Reputation All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.