Will settlements and kingdoms have their own reputation?

[Hardin Steele]

It occurs to me as we are discussing the structure of settlements, buildings that make up a settlement and the member companies that are part of the settlement (and eventually multiple settlements forming a kingdom), companies can do things that individual players cannot, and settlements can do things that companies cannot. But individuals will have a reputation system to encourage their cooperation regarding the alignment system, and companies will be encouraged to behave a certain way through the faction system.

What system will be in place to encourage settlements to do things like honor non-aggression pacts, peace treaties, mutual defense treaties, rights-of-passage agreements, ect? Sure, other settlements can go to war against the violator (just as factions can fight, and individuals can fight). But short of that, should settlements and kingdoms have a reputation system or alignment system (or even a security system like the one to be used by individuals)?

Andius presented an argument for settlement security statuses last year in this thread: Reputation at the Settlement Level

Planning for settlement design and role/crafting training and support means this system should get another look.

[Guurzak]

At the political/social level, of course settlements will have reputations. Settlements with a history of consistently behaving in certain ways will have a different political standing from those who behave in the opposite way, or whose behavior is unreliable and unpredictable.

We don't need a mechanic for that, and it would be very difficult to code a mechanic which would accurately evaluate behaviors this scale without creating massive incentive and opportunity for gaming the system.

[Banesama]

If Settlement A does something that breaks Treaties or angers Settlement B. Settlement B could declare war, break off trade agreements, and deny access to Training facilities as starters. No need to provide a Reputation-like system to Settlements/Kingdoms.

[Urman]

Hardin Steele wrote:

What system will be in place to encourage settlements to do things like honor non-aggression pacts, peace treaties, mutual defense treaties, rights-of-passage agreements, ect? Sure, other settlements can go to war against the violator (just as factions can fight, and individuals can fight). But short of that, should settlements and kingdoms have a reputation system or alignment system (or even a security system like the one to be used by individuals)?

Non-aggression pacts or peace treaties might be pretty easy: two settlements make such a pact, officially/in-game, with some obligation of DI. While the pact is in place, attacking a member of the other settlement could be treated the same as if you had attacked a member of your own party - you earn the betrayer flag and all of the benefits that come with it. Such agreements should have some basic parts: feuds and faction warfare should be permissible or not, depending on the the wishes of the two settlements. There could also be a counter - some number of violations of the agreement renders it null and void. A similar system could be used to allow for company agreements.

Requiring some obligation of DI to create such agreements would limit the number of official agreements any settlement might enter into. They could have a lot of agreements, but not an unlimited number. It also serves as the guarantee - if one party cancelled the agreement without some fair warning, their own DI could remain obligated/locked up for some time, while the other party might have immediate use of their share of that DI.

[Ravenlute]

Any mechanical setting for such an idea could just be meta-gamed around. There's no good reason to have it and it hinders more than promotes enjoyable gameplay.