Goblin Squad Member
|
The actual lyric goes, "We will teach you how to make boys next door out of..."
This is a survey to find out what the forum goers think we should do about low Reputation characters once we have some.
Should we aspire make the game so unbearable to anyone who dips into each player's personal estimation of "low" Reputation (that will vary from person to person) that they just don't want to be in the game anymore?
Should we try some way to salvage them into beneficial participants of the community? What could that be?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
TBD. If reputation 100% accurately reflects players who engage in plentiful amounts of random slaughter then I say kill them all every time you see them.
If not, then I'll use my judgement as to when it is and isn't justified to kill a low rep player.
Also how are we defining "Low rep"
Anything <0? <-2500? <-5000? -7500?
When I use the term I mean about -5000 to -7500.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We should do what we can to change them. If they are marked "hostile" and "low rep" kill them and then PM them and explain that "rep" that low is not ok with you and your group and probably some others. Then offer some advice as to how they can turn their rep around if they choose to.
If they are not marked "hostile", I think that I might take a chance and open a dialogue with them. Talk about a few things. All you can do is try. In a game that could have 1000s of players online at one time, you have very few chances to make more than a few "impressions" on any one stranger. Those "impressions" are better if they are direct.
Way before that though, it should be clear to all players what causes rep loss and when, as well as the effects, and how to manage it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I did a long post in your other thread, and I don't want to rewrite it all, so I'll so a short one.
Depending on how the rep system end up like, Don't base your sole decision on the rep the game gave them, but use it to assist your decision of the experiences YOU have with that character, or even experiences you've heard about from friends, or allies.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I feel the most decisive victory over your enemy is to make him your friend.
If I see any players making their characters do stuff that makes the game less fun, or get recent reliable reports, I'm all for making them some content in that moment so newbies aren't griefed etc.
I would like to see most of the effort go into a robust system of mechanics, player culture, and GM direction combining into an effective reclamation effort. I'm low on specifics to make that happen so I started a thread.
People who come to PO thinking they need to use EVE mindset to survive would probably be the most common and easiest players to demonstrate and educate the differences in game culture to. The easiest reclamations.
I think a challenging but effective tool would be to keep a critical mass of the player base actively reinforcing the meaningful pvp mantras so there's actual social inertia pushing against finger-on-the-trigger play sessions. Combined with adding limited new accounts each month, the player base has some time to instill those values into a new larger player base that reinforces those ideas to the new New Account holders. The more we can get it internalized in PO players that certain things just aren't done here that's the best possible result of social influence; don't even need extra mechanics then.
Of course there will be a few incorrigibly selfish and ill-willed players that start to emerge from player reports. While I have a hope we make the best effort to reform everyone into the broadest group of players possible, if they won't change they won't change and those are the people we need to cut loose for the overall good.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am all for movements that change cultures for the better. What I differ on is how it will likely have to be done here. Your general PVP fan will be perfectly happy working within the systems provided and never be a problem. Your general PVP "trouble maker" will not and their Rep score is going to reflect this.
A multi layered approach of complete "suckage", detailed foreknowledge, exclusion from the best settlements and their opportunities, GW oversight, and being some "content" will get the message across quickly and in no way "wishey-washey". If they can't change after that then, buh bye!
I don't wish this on anyone of middling or even reasonably low rep. If rep is a good indicator of least desired play, then I do wish it on the worst of the low rep players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think we can all agree that the first thing to do to change a griefer is to stop them from griefing. If they are content with what happens to them if they grief then they wont stop, so killing them a lot will help them, maybe. If they never wanted to play the game as intended then they will quit, if they are interested in non-griefing gameplay then some one can help them get involved . But it all starts after they give up griefing behavior, so getting killed a lot is what they seem to think ruins the game , that is why they do it to others, when it happens to them they will be ready for something different.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would hope there's a pathway to redemption, but obviously not one that's easy enough to make it cyclic. I would like to see some way to break up the tendency for the smurfhat end of the spectrum to unify. In old UO, the red/PK types would treat each other as potential allies first, while the blue/PvE players didn't bother each other but also didn't support one another. Of course if the path to redemption is primarily about whacking other low-reps, then there will just be dummy characters made for the purpose of enabling a redemption & rampage cycle. If the consequences of whacking low-reps are so minor that there's essentially nothing to lose by doing so (if you win), but still something to gain economically (dummy characters would not be useful here) that will aim those who are low-rep at each other often enough. Then if the path to redemption is long, boring, and not player-driven, it's possible to cycle redemption & rampage but the climbing end of the cycle will take them out of the action long enough that they aren't a threat to the general populace very often.
Imagine a minor version of the Worldwound, more like a Worldscratch. Out of this, there is a constant flow of minor demons like quasits. They don't have any stuff and they don't escalate to anything useful, so the average player has no reason to spend time whacking them. They are, however, good for a little Good, Law, and Rep. Those who are looking to redeem themselves could go there and slowly do so, but since the location isn't portable, others looking to use the site or just take what little they can from other players would know where to find them. Perhaps a few paladin and Lawful and/or Good cleric merits could ask for a number of demon kills, giving some high-rep players reason to form groups and take over the site now and then. If redeeming yourself or guarding the site from interlopers as someone else redeems themselves is an exercise in boredom tolerance and economic loss (using resources but not gaining any) then that should limit people's willingness to facilitate someone else's redemption & rampage cycle, and if they are willing, the process still takes long enough to keep them out of the way most of the time.
I am sure it is merely coincidence but I cannot help noticing that there is a strong correlation between those "sheepdogs" arguing that low rep people should be consequence free pvp targets and those arguing that low rep people should be made to suck skills and gear wise by the mechanics. If I was a cynical man, which of course I am not, I might infer a thing or two from such a coincidence.
*Walks off whistling innocently hands in pockets*
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am sure it is merely coincidence but I cannot help noticing that there is a strong correlation between those "sheepdogs" arguing that low rep people should be consequence free pvp targets and those arguing that low rep people should be made to suck skills and gear wise by the mechanics. If I was a cynical man, which of course I am not, I might infer a thing or two from such a coincidence.
*Walks off whistling innocently hands in pockets*
Who is arguing that low rep should equal consequence free?
Who is arguing that low rep should equal consequence free?I am sure it is merely coincidence but I cannot help noticing that there is a strong correlation between those "sheepdogs" arguing that low rep people should be consequence free pvp targets and those arguing that low rep people should be made to suck skills and gear wise by the mechanics. If I was a cynical man, which of course I am not, I might infer a thing or two from such a coincidence.
*Walks off whistling innocently hands in pockets*
It has been suggested many times on these boards
Bringslight, Nihimon has, I believe, in other threads. Maybe he only wants them to be no rep loss. But I'm not sure if anyone one else has pushed for it.
I was purposely avoiding quoting or naming to keep the conversation non personal
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It has been suggested many times on these boardsWho is arguing that low rep should equal consequence free?I am sure it is merely coincidence but I cannot help noticing that there is a strong correlation between those "sheepdogs" arguing that low rep people should be consequence free pvp targets and those arguing that low rep people should be made to suck skills and gear wise by the mechanics. If I was a cynical man, which of course I am not, I might infer a thing or two from such a coincidence.
*Walks off whistling innocently hands in pockets*
You are right. I remember seeing something along those lines.
You are right. I remember seeing something along those lines.It has been suggested many times on these boardsWho is arguing that low rep should equal consequence free?I am sure it is merely coincidence but I cannot help noticing that there is a strong correlation between those "sheepdogs" arguing that low rep people should be consequence free pvp targets and those arguing that low rep people should be made to suck skills and gear wise by the mechanics. If I was a cynical man, which of course I am not, I might infer a thing or two from such a coincidence.
*Walks off whistling innocently hands in pockets*
PM'ed you
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a stupid point really. The intent from the beginning laid out by Goblinworks and echoed by others such as Nihimon and myself is that low rep characters are meant to suck and not be competitive.
Low reputation is not a way in which one is intended to play the game. It is not a playstyle to be given equal validity to those who engage in PvP the way it's intended.
Becoming low rep isn't a tradeoff. It's a punishment for being a dick.
The War/Feud/Factional Warfare etc. systems provide meaningful competition between characters that don't suck.
Basically low rep characters aren't meant to be our content. Ideally, they aren't even meant to exist.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that low rep will have two things to worry about.
The first is access to settlements. Depending on how low your rep is, you might be limited in what settlements you can be a part of and as a result be limited in the advanced skill training, crafting, banking that you have access to.
The second is that I do think that low rep folks should basically be free targets for people.
As to making low rep have mechanical disadvantages like reduced stats/damage....etc, im not sure something like that is needed.
Now I do hope that people who have very very low rep can get themselves back in good graces if they try hard. The rep system could put people into a situation where they go, well im tired of this and they play start to play in a style where they dont suffer rep lose, which is what i think the goal of the system should be.
I thought we were talking about people flagged as hostile to everyone because of griefer activity and they also have low rep. If there are low rep characters that aren't flagged hostile that is two different things.
My comment was admittedly a mild divergence from the topic at hand but not totally unrelated I feel
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What if it's not an intent to grief but rather years of open pvp paranoia?What, the kind of accidental paranoia that somehow gets them to -7000 rep?
Illustrates my point about the cloudieness of what "low Rep" means person to person.
Not every player will have been following two years of blogs. They'll hear EVE with swords and try it. EVE instincts kick in outside the NPC wardens range and maybe get to -1000 Rep a few hours after the tutorial.
You are a year old and come across this guy in the wilderness hex next to the NPC town. Is stomping him into the dust going to achieve anything useful?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if it's not an intent to grief but rather years of open pvp paranoia?What, the kind of accidental paranoia that somehow gets them to -7000 rep?Illustrates my point about the cloudieness of what "low Rep" means person to person.
Not every player will have been following two years of blogs. They'll hear EVE with swords and try it. EVE instincts kick in outside the NPC wardens range and maybe get to -1000 Rep a few hours after the tutorial.
You are a year old and come across this guy in the wilderness hex next to the NPC town. Is stomping him into the dust going to achieve anything useful?
Is he flagged hostile to me? If so, then yes. He is being reminded that the acts he committed are wrong. If not, then no.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I thought we were talking about people flagged as hostile to everyone because of griefer activity and they also have low rep. If there are low rep characters that aren't flagged hostile that is two different things.
Yup, flagged low reps (maybe not a griefer).
Type 1. Low Rep = history of maybe being a jerk.
Type 2. Flagged as hostile + low rep = maybe aggressively being a jerk right now, but who cares - he's hostile, fight or run.
You can discuss salvaging a Type 1, if you believe that people are inherently good and can be salvaged. A Type 2, it's probably safest to send him to his respawn point before you open the chat window.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I thought we were talking about people flagged as hostile to everyone because of griefer activity and they also have low rep. If there are low rep characters that aren't flagged hostile that is two different things.
Hostile and low rep is the derailment from the NRDS thread.
This thread is about low rep. Just low Reputation score, how they got there, if we want to try/how we can get them to want to be a more positive effect on PO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought we were talking about people flagged as hostile to everyone because of griefer activity and they also have low rep. If there are low rep characters that aren't flagged hostile that is two different things.My comment was admittedly a mild divergence from the topic at hand but not totally unrelated I feel
So if you can get hired as a merc because you are low rep and kill players that go where someone doesn't want them to it is different than griefing, it's all about the why and not the what. That would be one way to help griefers to be more useful to the community, turn them into a mercenary company.
So if you can get hired as a merc because you are low rep and kill players that go where someone doesn't want them to it is different than griefing, it's all about the why and not the what. That would be one way to help griefers to be more useful to the community, turn them into a mercenary company.I thought we were talking about people flagged as hostile to everyone because of griefer activity and they also have low rep. If there are low rep characters that aren't flagged hostile that is two different things.My comment was admittedly a mild divergence from the topic at hand but not totally unrelated I feel
But all people with low rep got there by being jerks. Did you not receive the memo?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if it's not an intent to grief but rather years of open pvp paranoia?What, the kind of accidental paranoia that somehow gets them to -7000 rep?Illustrates my point about the cloudieness of what "low Rep" means person to person.
Not every player will have been following two years of blogs. They'll hear EVE with swords and try it. EVE instincts kick in outside the NPC wardens range and maybe get to -1000 Rep a few hours after the tutorial.
You are a year old and come across this guy in the wilderness hex next to the NPC town. Is stomping him into the dust going to achieve anything useful?
That is why the message is and needs to be repeated, over and over, about rep and consequences and all of that.
Not likely for me. Unless he is flagged hostile to me and I am playing the toon that responds to such situations. If it is war/feud/faction: Stomp! If he hurt my friend, CC, or settlement and is still flagged: Stomp! If he is a known killer by rep and flagged: Stomp!
I probably will never attack an unflagged player except under very needed circumstances. (taking one for the team)
Do you now feel like it is playing the game incorrectly if a player chooses to engage a "hostile" player?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But all people with low rep got there by being jerks. Did you not receive the memo?So if you can get hired as a merc because you are low rep and kill players that go where someone doesn't want them to it is different than griefing, it's all about the why and not the what. That would be one way to help griefers to be more useful to the community, turn them into a mercenary company.I thought we were talking about people flagged as hostile to everyone because of griefer activity and they also have low rep. If there are low rep characters that aren't flagged hostile that is two different things.My comment was admittedly a mild divergence from the topic at hand but not totally unrelated I feel
They are only a jerk or griefer if they waste their talent for doing dirty deeds on selfish pleasure, they can fit in with expected and sanctioned gameplay with minimal change required , join the evil military. They can play the goon squad and kill people and the righteous can find them all in one place to smite them more easily.
So I would say forming merc companies of low rep characters is what the OP could be looking for, seriously.
But all people with low rep got there by being jerks. Did you not receive the memo?So if you can get hired as a merc because you are low rep and kill players that go where someone doesn't want them to it is different than griefing, it's all about the why and not the what. That would be one way to help griefers to be more useful to the community, turn them into a mercenary company.I thought we were talking about people flagged as hostile to everyone because of griefer activity and they also have low rep. If there are low rep characters that aren't flagged hostile that is two different things.My comment was admittedly a mild divergence from the topic at hand but not totally unrelated I feelThey are only a jerk or griefer if they waste their talent for doing dirty deeds on selfish pleasure, they can fit in with expected and sanctioned gameplay with minimal change required , join the evil military. They can play the goon squad and kill people and the righteous can find them all in one place to smite them more easily.
So I would say forming merc companies of low rep characters is what the OP could be looking for, seriously.
I think what the OP is railing against is the assumption that a player that is low rep must be a jerk and should therefore be killed on sight.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think what the OP is railing against is the assumption that a player that is low rep must be a jerk and should therefore be killed on sight.But all people with low rep got there by being jerks. Did you not receive the memo?So if you can get hired as a merc because you are low rep and kill players that go where someone doesn't want them to it is different than griefing, it's all about the why and not the what. That would be one way to help griefers to be more useful to the community, turn them into a mercenary company.I thought we were talking about people flagged as hostile to everyone because of griefer activity and they also have low rep. If there are low rep characters that aren't flagged hostile that is two different things.My comment was admittedly a mild divergence from the topic at hand but not totally unrelated I feelThey are only a jerk or griefer if they waste their talent for doing dirty deeds on selfish pleasure, they can fit in with expected and sanctioned gameplay with minimal change required , join the evil military. They can play the goon squad and kill people and the righteous can find them all in one place to smite them more easily.
So I would say forming merc companies of low rep characters is what the OP could be looking for, seriously.
The whole thing got out of whack, forgetting that the first condition was that the person was a "hostile". As in marked "hostile" to you for some reason. I see little difference in the rep factor, but some of us will want that as an added "flavor" context. At least from my point of view, I will feel more like I am attacking and killing someone that did a lot of naughty things. YMMV
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The assumption Ryan has given us is that the player with (very) low rep will likely be hunted and killed as a low-rep-loss target of opportunity by some character that wants PvP achievements, and they won't really care if he was a jerk or not. If he's currently flagged, even better: no rep loss at all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The assumption Ryan has given us is that the player with (very) low rep will likely be hunted and killed as a low-rep-loss target of opportunity by some character that wants PvP achievements, and they won't really care if he was a jerk or not. If he's currently flagged, even better: no rep loss at all.
There is even more reason to shoot for something above -5000, or whatever the best cut off for the least rep loss is. You will be a target for many more than those concerned about the general community.
Me, I am just not the kind of guy that will attack and kill other players without a reason. I do not count "loot" as a reason. War, etc... sure. It is just going to be that kind of game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Someone who is hostile but high rep that you aren't feuding with or at war with might have a good reason. The low rep person has shown a long history of not having good reasons to PvP.
Or they have the rep to spare to do something that causes them to lose rep.
Anyway im of the opinion that someone's rep shouldnt be visible as that should be part of the risk of attacking someone, however if they are hostile its a non factor since you can get them without any lose on your part.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Dear OP, Such a positive frame on a negative aspect that fills the thread with happy butterflies and cuddly clouds - well played @Proxima.
It is so hard to find a thread that is high on rational thought and _almost_ free of trolling ;-)
TLDR; If you like shooting red things, throw some rocks. For everyone else, keep doing what you like doing unless the red thing looks at you funny... then, shoot it full of holes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Anyway im of the opinion that someone's rep shouldnt be visible as that should be part of the risk of attacking someone, however if they are hostile its a non factor since you can get them without any lose on your part.
I am the opposite opinion. A person's rep should be easily seen. It represents if they are being a 'jerk' or not within GW's rules. And if they are being a 'jerk' how much of a 'jerk'.
However, I think alignments should be hidden as well as Settlement/Charter unless they opt to make it shown.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I dont, and the reason why is that it puts people at risk. People with higher rep will cause more rep lose if killed while unflagged, I think it would be best that rep is hidden so that you dont know if you will take a huge rep lose if you kill that person.
Perhaps if someone's rep goes really low, then they can get a flag that shows them as having really low rep.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
However, I think alignments should be hidden as well as Settlement/Charter unless they opt to make it shown.
When you declare a war or feud, do the people show up as hostile, even if you can't see their settlement/company? Also, there seems to be many situations where you wouldn't be able to war/feud a group because their company/settlement isn't visible so you don't know who to declare against.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I thought we were talking about people flagged as hostile to everyone because of griefer activity and they also have low rep. If there are low rep characters that aren't flagged hostile that is two different things.Hostile and low rep is the derailment from the NRDS thread.
This thread is about low rep. Just low Reputation score, how they got there, if we want to try/how we can get them to want to be a more positive effect on PO.
Ok I get it now , it is about how low rep can become useful instead of just the bottom of the barrel scum who need to be murdered because it wont cost much rep to murder a murderer. Some people will end up low rep but they need to find a role that is at times positive for the community, assuming that they aren't going to give up being low rep. Ryan mentioned the need for a low rep type goon squad to defend your settlement in ways that high rep wont be able to. So organizing them into merc companies as a tool for settlement conflict would keep them from being random jerks doing who knows what. We could use low rep mercs to counter other low rep mercs , keeping them busy so they aren't off doing stuff that chases off newbs. So I am saying hire them and put them to work where you need some muscle.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
"Sin eater" characters who take all of the Rep hits so that other characters don't have to occupy an interesting space on the very edge of exploitative behavior.
But a 'brute squad' that hires itself out and simply accepts the consequences of being low reputation is in a different category than an in-house squad that uses metagame behavior to completely avoid the consequences of low Reputation (because they only ever interact with targets or their own main).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ok I get it now , it is about how low rep can become useful instead of just the bottom of the barrel scum who need to be murdered because it wont cost much rep to murder a murderer. Some people will end up low rep but they need to find a role that is at times positive for the community, assuming that they aren't going to give up being low rep. Ryan mentioned the need for a low rep type goon squad to defend your settlement in ways that high rep wont be able to. So organizing them into merc companies as a tool for settlement conflict would keep them from being random jerks doing who knows what. We could use low rep mercs to counter other low rep mercs , keeping them busy so they aren't off doing stuff that chases off newbs. So I am saying hire them and put them to work where you need some muscle.I thought we were talking about people flagged as hostile to everyone because of griefer activity and they also have low rep. If there are low rep characters that aren't flagged hostile that is two different things.Hostile and low rep is the derailment from the NRDS thread.
This thread is about low rep. Just low Reputation score, how they got there, if we want to try/how we can get them to want to be a more positive effect on PO.
If that were to become common practice, I wonder if trading with low rep characters will still be an issue and what affect it would have. Or has that been abandoned as a discouragement?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"Sin eater" characters who take all of the Rep hits so that other characters don't have to occupy an interesting space on the very edge of exploitative behavior.
But a 'brute squad' that hires itself out and simply accepts the consequences of being low reputation is in a different category than an in-house squad that uses metagame behavior to completely avoid the consequences of low Reputation (because they only ever interact with targets or their own main).
My thinking is that the low rep characters wont be going away and there might be a lot of them so using them to fight as merc companies would make them a positive thing in the settlement conflict aspect of the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If that were to become common practice, I wonder if trading with low rep characters will still be an issue and what affect it would have. Or has that been abandoned as a discouragement?Ok I get it now , it is about how low rep can become useful instead of just the bottom of the barrel scum who need to be murdered because it wont cost much rep to murder a murderer. Some people will end up low rep but they need to find a role that is at times positive for the community, assuming that they aren't going to give up being low rep. Ryan mentioned the need for a low rep type goon squad to defend your settlement in ways that high rep wont be able to. So organizing them into merc companies as a tool for settlement conflict would keep them from being random jerks doing who knows what. We could use low rep mercs to counter other low rep mercs , keeping them busy so they aren't off doing stuff that chases off newbs. So I am saying hire them and put them to work where you need some muscle.I thought we were talking about people flagged as hostile to everyone because of griefer activity and they also have low rep. If there are low rep characters that aren't flagged hostile that is two different things.Hostile and low rep is the derailment from the NRDS thread.
This thread is about low rep. Just low Reputation score, how they got there, if we want to try/how we can get them to want to be a more positive effect on PO.
I think they will all need their own run down low rep settlement to go buy rusty swords and moldy armor.
