Goblin Squad Member
|
If you keep killing low rep characters, how will they ever have the time to do rep raising things? As someone already pointed out, if low rep characters keep getting killed before they can change their rep, it is easier to scrap that character and start over with a new one. Where then will your supply of low rep cannon fodder come from?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1) Do you kill a low rep character simply because their rep is lower than yours?
2) If a low rep company saves a settlement because they are willing to use low rep tactics, isn't that helping the settlement and eligible for a rep raise?
1, If they weren't flagged hostile you're rep is closer to theirs now. Even if they are hostile, you have to get them in the act of doing low reppy things for it to register to them, if that's how you meant it.
2, No. Rep reducing actions are explicitly defined. It does make that company kind of useful to the settlement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"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).
Not according to Dancey I draw your attention to
Or it may require the Settlement to have a small cadre of unaffiliated characters on standby to do the dirty deeds when required. These might be characters of players unaffiliated with the Settlement who serve as a fast-reaction force that the Settlement can call on when necessary in exchange for some in-game benefit like mercenaries, or they might be alt characters of Settlement members that are kept idle to be switched to when needed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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*
I am. Please Let Us Make Low Reputation Characters Our Content
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hostile and low rep is the derailment from the NRDS thread.
Really? That's the derailment?
Nihimon has advocated a stance that if a character is 1.)hostile and 2.)low Reputation we should all don the robes of righteous Death and cleave the chaff from the wheat with an unrelenting fury...
Should we instantly make the game so unbearable to anyone who dips into each individual's differing personal estimation of "low" Reputation that they just don't want to be there anymore or should we try to salvage them into beneficial participants of the community? Is Kill! Kill! Kill! a good way for PO supporters to refine the best of the possibilities from those wayward players?
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?
You started one thread in direct response to my stance about Hostile and Low Reputation, then started this thread to ask the exact same question again.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What if it's not an intent to grief but rather years of open pvp paranoia?
What if the guy who's flagged Hostile to you because you're Company is in a Feud with his - or your Settlement as at War with his - but he's just a poor innocent newb who just joined that Company or Settlement to play with his friends, and you're just going to kill him? How cruel...
Don't you see? You shouldn't kill anyone, even if you're at War or in a Feud with them. You should simply let them spy on you and deceive you and stage their attack, but you should definitely not act against them. Baa.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Proxima Sin , So you are asking do people want to try to help others that seem hard to help or kill, kill , kill them. I think wanting to help them to be 'beneficial participants of the community' fits right in with what Ryan has been saying about how to change the toxic perception of PVP mmos. It isn't just kill them or help them but some of both that will change things. It will take time for some people to adjust to a new kind of PVP gameplay that isn't a FFA but allows you to kill anyone anyway. People are going to experiment with the game systems.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Proxima Sin , So you are asking do people want to try to help others that seem hard to help or kill, kill , kill them. I think wanting to help them to be 'beneficial participants of the community' fits right in with what Ryan has been saying about how to change the toxic perception of PVP mmos. It isn't just kill them or help them but some of both that will change things. It will take time for some people to adjust to a new kind of PVP gameplay that isn't a FFA but allows you to kill anyone anyway. People are going to experiment with the game systems.
We can always help people to learn how to kill people. Win Win!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oops!Gah! Did I get moderated again?The first rule of moderation is, you don't talk about moderation. ;-P
My theory is that bringslite has a bit of a crush on Chris Lambertz and getting moderated is his way of drawing her attention :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Proxima Sin , So you are asking do people want to try to help others that seem hard to help or kill, kill , kill them. I think wanting to help them to be 'beneficial participants of the community' fits right in with what Ryan has been saying about how to change the toxic perception of PVP mmos. It isn't just kill them or help them but some of both that will change things. It will take time for some people to adjust to a new kind of PVP gameplay that isn't a FFA but allows you to kill anyone anyway. People are going to experiment with the game systems.We can always help people to learn how to kill people. Win Win!
I meant beat them into submission and then put them on the black budget payroll. 'Help them' sounds better.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The concept of Sin-eater is more interesting that Bluddwolf "I am going to be a bandit." Bandit does not speak to the community, just self. But there are needs the community has to do some low rep things (Visit settlement B and take out the settlement team A Merchant/Lead/General Before we declare war.) Sometime it is an assassin, but more often it is the scout or the "first landing party". Get in there, accomplish mission, probably with losses. Losses are avoided in RL, but with no perm death, … Still I can see times that I may be low rep. -- and hostile if I get away, but ….
Bluddwolf is right: the great things about being the attacker is one gets to choose target. Sometimes that target is too far, but it is for the community. Even if you survive, low rep and hostile are the consequence. Don't think I am easy if low rep and hostile!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The concept of Sin-eater is more interesting that Bluddwolf "I am going to be a bandit." Bandit does not speak to the community, just self. But there are needs the community has to do some low rep things (Visit settlement B and take out the settlement team A Merchant/Lead/General Before we declare war.) Sometime it is an assassin, but more often it is the scout or the "first landing party". Get in there, accomplish mission, probably with losses. Losses are avoided in RL, but with no perm death, … Still I can see times that I may be low rep. -- and hostile if I get away, but ….
Bluddwolf is right: the great things about being the attacker is one gets to choose target. Sometimes that target is too far, but it is for the community. Even if you survive, low rep and hostile are the consequence. Don't think I am easy if low rep and hostile!
I certainly don't doubt that you will be any easier than any other opponent that is low rep and hostile, Sir Lam. ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Indeed, you are not cynical but sarctastic.
'Coincidence' is strictly speaking a correct mathematical term, but this is not 'merely' coincidence but correlation. There are a lot of players who simply think low-rep behaviour should be a losing tactic in the long term. And we are willing to have asymmetric rules to make that happen.
Similarly, the people who think low-rep behaviour should be a viable/competitive playstyle have a similarly strong correlation in their arguments.
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.
Indeed, you are not cynical but sarctastic.
'Coincidence' is strictly speaking a correct mathematical term, but this is not 'merely' coincidence but correlation. There are a lot of players who simply think low-rep behaviour should be a losing tactic in the long term. And we are willing to have asymmetric rules to make that happen.
Similarly, the people who think low-rep behaviour should be a viable/competitive playstyle have a similarly strong correlation in their arguments.
Yes or in other words you would like them to be easy kills which is exactly the point I was making.
We want to kill them because we dont like the way they play
We want them to be easy to kill
Sounds to me like the sheepdogs do not have confidence in their abilities.
Before you go on about how I don't want to be an easy kill bear in mind I don't anticipate being low rep nor do I anticipate any of our settlement members being low rep.
Nor as I have pointed out numerous times do I anticipate those people you think of as griefers and rpkers being low rep because as I have said the feud will be their griefing tool of choice.
The people who will most likely suffer from low rep are roleplayers who put rp before mechanics and the vigilante types who like to jump in to a fight believing they are the good guys.
The people you despise just do not have any need to be low rep to get their fun.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds to me like the sheepdogs do not have confidence in their abilities.
Sounds to me like you want to ignore everything Ryan says and pretend that PFO is going to be EVE with swords.
Sounds to me like you're afraid that Ryan will succeed in making it suck to be a random player-killer, and want to project that fear onto the players who intend to help him succeed.
Sounds to me like the sheepdogs do not have confidence in their abilities.Sounds to me like you want to ignore everything Ryan says and pretend that PFO is going to be EVE with swords.
Sounds to me like you're afraid that Ryan will succeed in making it suck to be a random player-killer, and want to project that fear onto the players who intend to help him succeed.
Sounds to me like you have no clue about me. Sheepdogs aren't my problem I am not a bandit nor an rpker and killing sheep isn't generally worth the effort.
As to Dancey succeeding frankly it isn't going to happen. I have seen nothing as yet that is going to stop those players you fear nor have I seen anything that is going to cause me any concern in playing the settlement warfare game.
It hasn't been me asking for changes it has been you and your ilk. That suggests to me that the people lacking confidence aren't those on my side of the fence.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As to Dancey succeeding frankly it isn't going to happen. I have seen nothing as yet that is going to stop those players you fear...
Despair! Surrender now! It's hopeless!
Oh, and please stop making suggestions for mechanics that might work, because they won't, and you're stupid for even trying.
I don't "fear" those players, I just think they're jerks and don't want to play with them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Wouldn't it make more sense to first define exactly what a griefer will be in this game and what exactly will give a person lower rep? Personally, if we had in implement mechanics...I think we can all agree that the first people we need to worry about being griefed is the noob. I don't want to make this game easy or anything, but I want the game to succeed.
I think that the core of the question comes down to people who want to just play a meaningless character that just roves in unaffiliated groups ganking people.
I would rather see a system that balances all play styles, from conquerors, bandits and monks to merchants. I know there is some debate about the SAD mechanic, but tweaked correctly, I think it could make the game fair.
We can't lump in people who want to play and outlaw or bandit into the category of "jerk" anymore than we could call settlement conquerors jerks for taking other peoples land. So, speaking for myself, I don't think a bad idea would be for SADS to only work for people who are affiliated with each other. If a group of outlaws belonging to the same guild waylay a merchant and SAD him, ok. Maybe a mechanic we could use for the sad is based on percentages. A bandit can SAD a person for a certain percentage of their gear/gold and gets no rep hit. Taking more than this lowers rep. The higher the percentage you take, the higher the rep hit. If you strip them naked....biggest rep hit.
Also, and I am just throwing this out there...what if third unaffiliated parties that interfere on behalf of the bandit get massive rep zingers and a very long criminal timer that flags them for combat from anyone else. Maybe it would cut down on the unaffiliated bandits, forcing them to guild up, and then giving the settlements/guilds the ability to declare a meaningful war on them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Wouldn't it make more sense to first define exactly what a griefer will be in this game and what exactly will give a person lower rep? Personally, if we had in implement mechanics...I think we can all agree that the first people we need to worry about being griefed is the noob. I don't want to make this game easy or anything, but I want the game to succeed.
I think that the core of the question comes down to people who want to just play a meaningless character that just roves in unaffiliated groups ganking people.
I would rather see a system that balances all play styles, from conquerors, bandits and monks to merchants. I know there is some debate about the SAD mechanic, but tweaked correctly, I think it could make the game fair.
We can't lump in people who want to play and outlaw or bandit into the category of "jerk" anymore than we could call settlement conquerors jerks for taking other peoples land. So, speaking for myself, I don't think a bad idea would be for SADS to only work for people who are affiliated with each other. If a group of outlaws belonging to the same guild waylay a merchant and SAD him, ok. Maybe a mechanic we could use for the sad is based on percentages. A bandit can SAD a person for a certain percentage of their gear/gold and gets no rep hit. Taking more than this lowers rep. The higher the percentage you take, the higher the rep hit. If you strip them naked....biggest rep hit.
Also, and I am just throwing this out there...what if third unaffiliated parties that interfere on behalf of the bandit get massive rep zingers and a very long criminal timer that flags them for combat from anyone else. Maybe it would cut down on the unaffiliated bandits, forcing them to guild up, and then giving the settlements/guilds the ability to declare a meaningful war on them.
Are you suggesting more mechanics after all of that? Are you suggesting tweaks to the proposed (barely detailed) mechanics like almost all of the other suggestions really have been?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Are you suggesting more mechanics after all of that? Are you suggesting tweaks to the proposed (barely detailed) mechanics like almost all of the other suggestions...Wouldn't it make more sense to first define exactly what a griefer will be in this game and what exactly will give a person lower rep? Personally, if we had in implement mechanics...I think we can all agree that the first people we need to worry about being griefed is the noob. I don't want to make this game easy or anything, but I want the game to succeed.
I think that the core of the question comes down to people who want to just play a meaningless character that just roves in unaffiliated groups ganking people.
I would rather see a system that balances all play styles, from conquerors, bandits and monks to merchants. I know there is some debate about the SAD mechanic, but tweaked correctly, I think it could make the game fair.
We can't lump in people who want to play and outlaw or bandit into the category of "jerk" anymore than we could call settlement conquerors jerks for taking other peoples land. So, speaking for myself, I don't think a bad idea would be for SADS to only work for people who are affiliated with each other. If a group of outlaws belonging to the same guild waylay a merchant and SAD him, ok. Maybe a mechanic we could use for the sad is based on percentages. A bandit can SAD a person for a certain percentage of their gear/gold and gets no rep hit. Taking more than this lowers rep. The higher the percentage you take, the higher the rep hit. If you strip them naked....biggest rep hit.
Also, and I am just throwing this out there...what if third unaffiliated parties that interfere on behalf of the bandit get massive rep zingers and a very long criminal timer that flags them for combat from anyone else. Maybe it would cut down on the unaffiliated bandits, forcing them to guild up, and then giving the settlements/guilds the ability to declare a meaningful war on them.
You know...I tried to think long and hard about the ideas I come up with....and you guys just keep coming back wanting to argue...not about the ideas, but in a game of he said/ she said. If you guys want to engage in a debate forum....I have a few I could link to you. If you just want to argue...get married. I never once said I am against all mechanics. I just think we should start with approaches that make sense and are equal to all. The SAD sounds reasonable to me since all would be able to use it. I am an outlaw....I SAD you to rob you. You are a Baron and want me off your land...SAD me. It seems pretty equal.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Valtorious
Your ideas are not bad at all. One of the main contentions here is the debate over more mechanics or less. Almost all of the proposals have been modifications of proposed mechanics (as yours was). That I think is the basis of crowdforging (not that I am saying new ideas are not also).
A big point has been that people are trying to add new things, while in fact most have actually been ideas to tweak what is already proposed to prevent some of the "get around" ideas that have sprung from them. Trying to find fixes for these is not a bad thing.
Now having said all of that, I did come across in a poor way and apologize if I offended you. I am just as frustrated that much of this has degenerated into useless back-and-forth as anyone here.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Valtorious
Your ideas are not bad at all. One of the main contentions here is the debate over more mechanics or less. Almost all of the proposals have been modifications of proposed mechanics (as yours was). That I think is the basis of crowdforging (not that I am saying new ideas are not also).
A big point has been that people are trying to add new things, while in fact most have actually been ideas to tweak what is already proposed to prevent some of the "get around" ideas that have sprung from them. Trying to find fixes for these is not a bad thing.
Now having said all of that, I did come across in a poor way and apologize if I offended you. I am just as frustrated that much of this has degenerated into useless back-and-forth as anyone here.
It's cool, I don't get offended easily and I wasn't here. It's not as if I am not guilty of coming off harshly sometimes.