Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is the Betrayal Flag?
There should be certain covenants that one can define with other players with certain conditions ("We will not kill each other, we will not steal from each other, we will divide our loot according to certain rules", etc.). Some of these conditions may be enforced through game mechanics (for example loot division), others through social coercion. The idea is: break the covenant and you become a Betrayer/Traitor, etc.
Of course, these covenants may be explicit or implicit. Should you group up with a fellow player and you get killed by him, there is an implicit covenant that has been breached and it gets you branded a traitor/criminal/etc.
Who can issue it?
I would think, a priori, that it is not issued by players against other players, but rather it is defined by the system automatically.
At what cost is it issued?
These covenants should have some kind of collateral (money, armor, etc.) to be enforced and require both parties to agree to dissolve it (unless it dissolves after a certain time specified in the contract).
What offenses should earn it?
Death/Robbery/Looting by teammate, companymate against teammate/companymate/company assets.
What proof of betrayal is required?
I would assume the breaching of the covenant is registered automatically by the game, and requires no player input.
What should the consequences of it be?
As Betrayal is beyond the scope of law and is more of a personal issue, I would think that what it entails is that Betrayers may be subject by those who have been betrayed of certain actions that usually entail reputation hits, at a reduced cost, solely against the betrayer and no one else. The idea behind this is: the Law provides for certain conditions that diminish your degree of guilt in the eyes of the judge(like passion crimes).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What offenses should earn it?
Death/Robbery/Looting by teammate, companymate against teammate/companymate/company assets.
If I am in a party and get killed, I would want to be looted by my team-mate with the understanding that he returns the loot when I reappear. The alternative might be that the enemy loots me instead, something I would be miffed about.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Betrayal Flag is a name scribbled on a piece of paper on my desk, that reads "do not trust".
Hehe, Bluddwolf, I think you are baiting us to concoct up some convoluted game-mechanic, just so you can rip it to pieces.
I think Dorgans post already shows how utterly unimplementable and unworkable such a flag would be.
We are talking the ultimate subjective, non-enforcable sort of "violation" plus punishment here.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If I am in a party and get killed, I would want to be looted by my team-mate with the understanding that he returns the loot when I reappear. The alternative might be that the enemy loots me instead, something I would be miffed about.What offenses should earn it?
Death/Robbery/Looting by teammate, companymate against teammate/companymate/company assets.
Sure, that's why I introduced the concept of covenants. I did not list mandatory causes of betrayal, rather possibilities.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The Betrayal Flag is a name scribbled on a piece of paper on my desk, that reads "do not trust".
Hehe, Bluddwolf, I think you are baiting us to concoct up some convoluted game-mechanic, just so you can rip it to pieces.
I think Dorgans post already shows how utterly unimplementable and unworkable such a flag would be.
We are talking the ultimate subjective, non-enforcable sort of "violation" plus punishment here.
On the comment of utter unimplementability, I agree that a system that seeks to codify the full meaning of betrayal is unworkable. What I tried to do was define a system that can be verified by the game automatically, that addresses the most common causes of betrayal.
I agree that a Betrayal system can be subjective, but I did not define a subjective system at all. Parties agree on conditions that can be verified by the game (death, looting, etc.). It is not entirely non-enforceable: should you break a covenant you lose your collateral immediately, plus the affected is not overly penalized by retribution.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The Devs have mentioned the Betrayer / Traitor flag and I always assumed that would be the consequence of buddy killing (blue on blue). This would be easy enough for the game system to detect and verify. So the trigger could be both systematic and immediate.
Other actions could be tied to the group / company / settlement mechanics, including both automatic triggers and leadership decisions.
Here are a few suggestions:
1. Stealing from Company Bank
2. Dissolution of Contracts or Treaties without permission
3. Criminal acts within own settlement or against own members
I'm sure there would be plenty of others.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The Devs have mentioned the Betrayer / Traitor flag and I always assumed that would be the consequence of buddy killing (blue on blue).
The "Betrayer" trait is a faction thing. It doesn't look like it has anything to do with player-to-player interactions.
Players can choose to join a single alliance that they have gained rank 2 with...
You may choose to leave an alliance at any time, or you may be automatically forced out if your alignment is more than one step from the alliance's alignment.
- If you choose to leave an alliance on good terms, or are forced out, your rank is reduced to 2 and your rating is reduced to be in the middle of the range for rank 2.
- If you choose to betray your alliance, you immediately go to rank 0 and a negative rating with the alliance you are leaving, but gain half your old rating with a new alliance (that must be selected from your old alliance's enemies and with whom you must be within one alignment step of). You gain a trait, Betrayer, which means you can be killed by members of your old alliance without repercussion in terms of reputation or alignment for a period of time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have no objection to bouncing ideas. I was specifically responding to you saying you "always assumed that would be the consequence of buddy killing (blue on blue)".
Fair enough, but I do think at a minimum there should be some way to "tag" a blue killer as a traitor and something that goes beyond that player taking a huge reputation hit.
I have also seen dozens of example of guild bank thieves, whole guild thieves, space station thieves and whole alliance thieves.
Yes I know the Devs have said they have ideas on how to put those things in check, but without details it has me wondering.
Also, with our collective vast experience in gaming, we can probably present a few ideas of our own that perhaps the devs have not thought of.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
So, consider the possibility of a Traitor flag, which is for roughly the same things with player organizations.
What would the requirements to apply such a flag, how long should it last, and what should the effect be?
Also, is there better terminology than Traitor? It seems hard to distinguish from Betrayer and I could understand confusion about the differences.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So, consider the possibility of a Traitor flag, which is for roughly the same things with player organizations.
What would the requirements to apply such a flag, how long should it last, and what should the effect be?
Also, is there better terminology than Traitor? It seems hard to distinguish from Betrayer and I could understand confusion about the differences.
Hmm... Traitor by definition is just another way to call a person that is a betrayer.
But perhaps another term for Traitor could be Oathbreaker.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would offer that killing a member of one's own party might not rise to the level of "Betrayer". The minimum penalty for killing a party member could be the normal Reputation loss one would get from killing an unflagged/non-hostile. You might have good reasons for killing the party member: faction or company hostility for starters, but those aren't excusable once you're both in a party. You should also be flagged, in case the rest of the party wants to kill you in return.
I'd think that this Rep loss and flagging should apply even in cases of an accidental or tactical-necessary killing (since the server can't see all nuances). The party can decide if it is justified and if they'll seek revenge. But the Rep loss for a comrade dying under your hand, accidentally or otherwise, might always apply.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You might have good reasons for killing the party member: faction or company hostility for starters, but those aren't excusable once you're both in a party.
Yeah, I believe Stephen has told us that being in a Party with someone always means you see them as Friendly, even if they'd normally have flags that would make them appear Hostile. So, I think you'll always lose Rep and Alignment for killing a member of your Party.
You should also be flagged, in case the rest of the party wants to kill you in return.
I think the simpler approach is to make the party kick you if they want to kill you, or if you're the leader, the other party members can drop first. I think it best to avoid trying to create situations where party members are flagged to other members of the same party.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That would be fine, too. The key is that the party should be able to take revenge on the character if they think the death wasn't reasonable, and they should be able to do it without a Rep loss. It shouldn't be an automatic kick from the party, because there will be times where someone gets killed in the melee, and simply paying for his repair costs might be acceptable to all concerned.
I don't think the Criminal flag is appropriate - since anyone can kill a criminal. I think it should be a flag that lets the party (or party+ over-group) take revenge, but not others.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I don't think that at the party scale there's anything better than the freedom to kill the offender and boo his Reputation through the universal Reputation rules.
I wonder if there's an appropriate place for some kind of flag applied by a Settlement's leaders to an ex-member of the settlement...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I wonder if there's an appropriate place for some kind of flag applied by a Settlement's leaders to an ex-member of the settlement...
While there maybe could be such a thing, it's somewhat reversed from the Betrayer trait. The Betrayer character left one faction and joined an enemy faction; the player made a decision that directly resulted in the trait, knowing that that was a consequence.
If a settlement has an equivalent flag/trait, maybe it would be best if it were applied automatically, as the result of some decision the player made. Like perhaps leaving/abandoning a settlement during a declared war might earn a character the 'Coward' flag or trait. That might be a bit harsh of a name, but maybe those that stayed and fought bear reasonable enmity to those that fled.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think that at the party scale there's anything better than the freedom to kill the offender and boo his Reputation through the universal Reputation rules.
I wonder if there's an appropriate place for some kind of flag applied by a Settlement's leaders to an ex-member of the settlement...
I have witnessed more than a few circumstances where the corp leader, or a member of the leadership, was the betrayer / traitor.
It would be interesting is whatever system of PC generated flagging could account for that as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think that at the party scale there's anything better than the freedom to kill the offender and boo his Reputation through the universal Reputation rules.
I wonder if there's an appropriate place for some kind of flag applied by a Settlement's leaders to an ex-member of the settlement...
I have witnessed more than a few circumstances where the corp leader, or a member of the leadership, was the betrayer / traitor.
It would be interesting is whatever system of PC generated flagging could account for that as well.
Couldnt that be handled under the governance rules that were discussed a while back? For example, the system of governance includes an option where if X number of leadership members vote to remove the 'boss', then hes out. Wouldnt help if that option isnt selected in the governance of the settlement/corp, but then it could be a plus point and/or point of negotiation to bring people into the group.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Couldnt that be handled under the governance rules that were discussed a while back? For example, the system of governance includes an option where if X number of leadership members vote to remove the 'boss', then hes out. Wouldnt help if that option isnt selected in the governance of the settlement/corp, but then it could be a plus point and/or point of negotiation to bring people into the group.
It could be, but I'm not convinced how complex settlement management will actually be.
There is still the issue of administrative rights / functions for the creator of a company or settlement. This mechanical functionality is usually held in the hands of just one person, and I have never seen a system implemented that can oust or strip the powers from the administrator.
The only power the lesser members of the organization typically have is the power to vote with their feet.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have witnessed more than a few circumstances where the corp leader, or a member of the leadership, was the betrayer / traitor.I don't think that at the party scale there's anything better than the freedom to kill the offender and boo his Reputation through the universal Reputation rules.
I wonder if there's an appropriate place for some kind of flag applied by a Settlement's leaders to an ex-member of the settlement...
I get the impression that kind of thing isn't going to be significant in PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I get the impression that kind of thing isn't going to be significant in PFO.I have witnessed more than a few circumstances where the corp leader, or a member of the leadership, was the betrayer / traitor.I don't think that at the party scale there's anything better than the freedom to kill the offender and boo his Reputation through the universal Reputation rules.
I wonder if there's an appropriate place for some kind of flag applied by a Settlement's leaders to an ex-member of the settlement...
You linked quotes say nothing to the issue of settlement leaders running off with the settlement bank contents and wallet. Nor do they say anything about colluding with a supposed war enemy to fracture their own alliance, because an internal vote did not go the alliance leader's way.
Don't get me wrong, I'm hoping these kinds of interactions (political intrigues) can take place. I would also like for there to be suitable opportunities for retaliation as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I get the impression that kind of thing isn't going to be significant in PFO.You linked quotes say nothing to the issue of settlement leaders running off with the settlement bank contents and wallet. Nor do they say anything about colluding with a supposed war enemy to fracture their own alliance, because an internal vote did not go the alliance leader's way.
Don't get me wrong, I'm hoping these kinds of interactions (political intrigues) can take place. I would also like for there to be suitable opportunities for retaliation as well.
Really?
The toxicity comes from tolerating harassment, sexism, racism, rampant homophobia, and communications in open channels of the worst sort of content. It flowers in an environment where scamming is rampant and unpunished. It is amplified when CCP appears to not only condone, but promote acts like breaking huge Alliances out of fits of pique, or betraying organizations from within by stealing incredibly valuable shared assets after winning the trust of the target organization...
I mean, sure, Ryan didn't use your words exactly, but then neither did I.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Really? What is the difference?There is a difference between a member, even an officer, sabotaging or stealing from within and the Settlement / Guild leader / Admin of the player organization doing it,
In every case that I know, and that includes dozens of MMOs, the admin of a player organization can not be kicked from that organization. They also can not be locked out of the admin tools (obviously), even if the membership did not want to kick him / her out.
In the event of aggregious malfeasance on the part of an administrator of a player group, the only real recourse the membership has is to leave that grouping, perhaps to create a new one.
In most MMOs, leadership skill training is either non existant or not very intensive. Even in EvE, alliance leadership can be trained to minimum in less than 2 months. So even if abandoned this player will just transfer all assets and stolen cash to another character, perhaps on another account, and wipe that tainted toon.
TLDR: Admin Powers makes the fifference
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In most MMOs... Admin Powers makes the difference
In PFO, Ryan has explicitly addressed this as a "problem" that he intends to fix. Settlements will be able to define the methods which are used to secure resources. Some probably will choose to have a single player in charge. Others will likely choose to require a vote, either of a number of trusted players, or of every member of the Settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In most MMOs... Admin Powers makes the differenceIn PFO, Ryan has explicitly addressed this as a "problem" that he intends to fix. Settlements will be able to define the methods which are used to secure resources. Some probably will choose to have a single player in charge. Others will likely choose to require a vote, either of a number of trusted players, or of every member of the Settlement.
Democracies are so efficient, especially in war time when quick decisions are needed. I remain skeptical on several points.
1. That such a system will or can be created
2. That many would choose this model
3. That putting up every important decision to a vote won't be unwieldy and inefficient
I suspect that admin rights will be the same as every other MMO out there. Even if they are not, all of the meta game structures (Websites / Forums, VOIPs, Blogs, etc) will be.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think councils and oligarchies will prove to be popular. They serve as a solid mid-point between democracies and dictatorships. Power is not isolated in one person, but the number of people required to make decisions is sufficiently small to provide for quick turn-arounds.
I agree with this, which is why the UNC uses a council of three (active) and two (alternates). Any major idea only requires 2 more votes.
However, the mechanics may still be tied to just one person (Admin), and it remains to be seen if GW will somehow program a system that breaks from the norm.