Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
With so much talk about the consequences of Unsanctioned PvP, and the general understanding that sanctioned PvP would not bear those consequences, most of us may have lost sight of "The Carrot".
Earlier this morning Morbis (aka Morbid according to my IPhone) brought up a possible oversight on the community's collective part. Rather than sanctioned PvP just not having reputation consequences for participation, instead it could be the source for Reputation gain.
I can think of no better way to encourage positive game play than to actually reward it. This will even entice the usual min maxer crowd into thinking in terms of: Sanctioned = Reputation = Power.
On the Settlement level, this would encourage settlement leaders to devise of ways that their citizens could engage in meaningful sanctioned PvP, to benefit the overall settlement, and to reject all but the most necessary instances of Unsanctioned PvP.
Of course the amount of gain would have to be balanced so as to not make the gain so large that it would allow for even uncommon instances of Unsanctioned PvP. However the fact that there is a Reputation reward for sanctioned PvP would make Unsanctioned PvP an even less desired activity.
This suggestion in no way means that Unsanctioned PvP should not retain it negative reputation costs. If the goal of GW is to encourage positive game play, having a system that is both "Carrot and Stick" will widen that social structure gap far more quickly than the current "No Consequence vs Consequence" system.
If they had a system where all meaningful PVP was sanctioned and all pvp for no reason except for pvp was unsanctioned the I would agree.
Sadly the reputation system will not reflect that nor is it likely to ever reflect that as I do not believe it possible to produce a system witht he current state of software engineering that can accurately discern one from the other with even a 70% accuracy rate.
If anyone believes they can code such a system could I mention I have a bridge I am looking to sell
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This system was implemented in Darkfall. It ended as a miserable failure because people just killed alts and alts of friends that were sanctioned.
So I'm issuing this challenge. Find a way to implement this that I can't find a way to game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
GW won't have to account for every instance of PvP. They will just declare which are sanctioned, which are not, and any in the grey area have no consequence or gain.
If any grey area instance of PvP takes place frequently enough, GW could then decide which category they would place it in.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
GW won't have to account for every instance of PvP. They will just declare which are sanctioned, which are not, and any in the grey area have no consequence or gain.
If any grey area instance of PvP takes place frequently enough, GW could then decide which category they would place it in.
The point is my alt/buddy SADs me, or we intentionally join opposing factions, or two friendly kingdoms go to war all for the purpose of feeding each other kills then it isn't grey. It's full on sanctioned and we can farm each other for rep that way. One kill-feed war between groups similar to Aeturnum and Golgotha or TEO and TSV would wipe out a lot of bad behavior.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
From what I have read, GW wants us players to PVP within the situations that are "Sanctioned PVP". They have alternately referred to "Sanctioned PVP" as positive interactions or meaningful interaction.
If you are engaged in Sanctioned PVP, against a rival or against a friend for training purposes, what difference does it really make? The result will be that you will be currently engaged in sanctioned PVP, and not have the opportunity to be engaged in unsanctioned PVP.
If GW gives everyone more reason to engage in sanctioned PVP, they will have fewer instances of unsanctioned PVP to focus their attention on. Unsanctioned PVP will become a rare event, and entered into only when there is not other choice (ie. killing an obvious spy in a warzone).
To focus on collective punishment is not only negative, it is toxic. It is not even done in the military any longer, and it has long been removed from the classroom. Wiser minds have realized that you reward positive behavior and punish negative behavior at the individual level.
Again, isn't the goal to move the majority of the community in-game to participating in positive game play?
Gain reputation from positive game play will widen the gap between those that play in a positive manner and those that do don't. If under that system someone hits -7500, there can be no doubt that they got there on purpose and through negative activities. If GW concludes that that is the circumstances, they should bAN them at the account level. Don't ban their IP address (which is mobile), ban tha game code they used to access the game. That way they could not just create a new account, they would have to buy a new game and pay for a new month, just to get back in again.
So reward players for NOT doing the wrong thing. Hope my local police are reading this- I can tell them all the bad things I have not done and walk away with a swag of loot,yep that will work.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So reward players for NOT doing the wrong thing. Hope my local police are reading this- I can tell them all the bad things I have not done and walk away with a swag of loot,yep that will work.
You missed the basic point. It is not rewarding you for not doing the wrong thing, it is rewarding you for doing the right thing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Iam under the impression that sanctioned PvP will be a major source of rep gain.
So we are on the same page... Must have been the way I read your first post.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To focus on collective punishment is not only negative, it is toxic. It is not even done in the military any longer, and it has long been removed from the classroom. Wiser minds have realized that you reward positive behavior and punish negative behavior at the individual level.
Don't get my debate wrong, I am fully in your court that "encouraged behaviour", previously referred to as "sanctioned behaviour", should be encouraged. Reputation is one way I had assumed this would occur.
However, referring to your quote above...I was US Infantry mid to late 90s and we were often collectively punished often for the infractions of the individual, have things so changed?...
..but that aside, my real issue is with the idea of "punishment". If punishment, collective or not, is routinely handed out by GW, none of us should play this game, unless of course we a group of sadists. Being given an extra challenge before being allowed to train...or even adding time to training, is not punishment. In fact, the only "punishment" I have seen GW threaten with so far is banning.
What I have seen is GW trying to design the system in such a way that we will make us, the collectives, want to discourage negative gameplay.
This said, I totally agree with you that the carrot works better than the stick. What we should be doing is exploring options for us, the people who intend to run and be part of settlements and CCs, how can we use the carrot? What mechanics do we want? Because I totally agree, I, as a prospective leader of a settlement, have only considered kicking/banning/threatening people with low rep, I have not considered rewarding good behaviour. I accept I might be looking at the problem from the wrong perspective.
Thank you for opening my eyes to another option.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To focus on collective punishment is not only negative, it is toxic.
The reputation system inflicts collective punishment for the behavior of individuals.
That's an interesting theory. It's not the RPK'ing a#@~+*&s that make the game "toxic", it's the devs who try to do something about it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Kitnyx
"However, referring to your quote above...I was US Infantry mid to late 90s and we were often collectively punished often for the infractions of the individual, have things so changed?.."
I served from 1990 - 1999 and the view of group punishment of doing pushups (for example) for the transgressions of the individual was not that we were being punished, it was "training".
When one soldier did something that warranted an Article 15, we did not all lose 2 weeks pay and face 10 days of confinement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To focus on collective punishment is not only negative, it is toxic.The reputation system inflicts collective punishment for the behavior of individuals.That's an interesting theory. It's not the RPK'ing a#&~##*s that make the game "toxic", it's the devs who try to do something about it.
You have missed the point of the thread. I did not say that the player that participates in unsanctioned PVP should not get the consequences of making that choice. I also did not say that the settlement that the perpetrator would not bear some of that burden as well.
I'm making the argument that having no carrot and only stick is toxic. I'm making the argument that having both, carrot and stick is more productive in meeting the stated goal of GW.
GW desires that most of the PVP in the game is what is considered by them to be "sanctioned PVP". Ryan has described briefly that certain activities will be sanctioned and will not bear with it any negative consequences (an example was raiding an outpost). What this thread is suggesting is that rewarding positive game play is yet another way to encourage more players to participate in meeting that goal.
You do not raise a well adjusted and orderly child by only punishing them when they do the wrong thing. You raise a well adjusted and orderly child by rewarding them with good behavior and punishing them for the bad. Good behavior is not just the absence of bad behavior, it should therefore be rewarded.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... the view of group punishment of doing pushups (for example) for the transgressions of the individual was not that we were being punished, it was "training".
Why can't you see it as "training" with respect to Reputation with Settlements? I don't know what an article 15 is, but I guarantee you Goblinworks isn't going to be taking away your paycheck just because you're an a%&$#$$.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see why people are having such an issue with this idea? It isn't rewarding you for doing nothing, it is rewarding behavior desired by the devs. What if GW makes the reward for doing desired PVP small, and the penalties greater. That would minimize the gaming of the rep system. Something in order of 1 unsanctioned PVP would cost 100 rep and the reward for doing sanctioned PVP would be 10. To use an example (using these hypothetical numbers) if SAD was sanctioned and ambushing a caravan is not, then it takes 10 SADs to make up the rep loss of doing 1 ambush. And that is just to maintain your current rep, in order to raise it would mean more SADing then just the 10 needed to recover. This means that more sanctioned activities would be happening as the desire is a high rep. Going on a RPK spree or constantly doing undesired actions will really hurt as those activities would only be maintained assuming that character took an extremely longer time "making up for" those actions as it took to commit them in the first place.
How does that sound as a potential system that provides rewards as incentive to do desired actions while punishing undesired actions?
Basic good behavior is expected and considered the norm and not rewarded. Exceptional good behavior is often rewarded-in pfo what is exceptional good behavior?.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I served from 1990 - 1999 and the view of group punishment of doing pushups (for example) for the transgressions of the individual was not that we were being punished, it was "training".
When one soldier did something that warranted an Article 15, we did not all lose 2 weeks pay and face 10 days of confinement.
Very true, but I have to agree with Nihimon here...why not look at the group repercussions and rewards from Reputation as training and individual banning as the Article 15? I actually think that metaphor is quite apt.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Very true, but I have to agree with Nihimon here...why not look at the group repercussions and rewards from Reputation as training and individual banning as the Article 15? I actually think that metaphor is quite apt.I served from 1990 - 1999 and the view of group punishment of doing pushups (for example) for the transgressions of the individual was not that we were being punished, it was "training".
When one soldier did something that warranted an Article 15, we did not all lose 2 weeks pay and face 10 days of confinement.
I did not say remove the negative rep hits for unsanctioned PVP, nor the implications that has on the company or settlement.
@ Nihimon,
Are you suggesting that there should be no way to gain reputation by playing in a positive manner?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you don't like my idea of rewarding desired PVP actions with rep, then what incentive does anyone have for doing those desired PVP actions? If the only "reward" is NOT losing rep, then that is just unacceptable IMHO. A passive gain is not the way to go. I wouldn't be encouraged to do anything desired if that was the case, I would simply calculate how long it would take for me to passively regain rep from a certain level and then RPK or do as my heart desires until I obtain that level, then log off for the weekend and come back to do it again.
If there is no incentive to do desired actions, desired actions won't be done. Basically, no carrot and all stick, then I will do only what must be done. In the case of passive gains, what must be done is nothing, just wait to regain it. Show me a carrot (do this and gain rep) and I will do those desired actions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Basic good behavior is expected and considered the norm and not rewarded. Exceptional good behavior is often rewarded-in pfo what is exceptional good behavior?.
So far we know of only one exceptional good behavior and that is to issue a SAD that is accepted, rather than to ambush and kill a target.
We also know that the following PVP activities fall within what GW defines as being positive PVP interactions:
Feuds
Faction Wars
Wars
Raiding of Outposts
Raiding of POIs
Bounties
Assassination of Important Settlement Functionaries
Ryan also eluded to the possibility (or probability, my hope) that Caravans will likely be added to the list of sanctioned targets for PVP.
As to your point, "Good Behavior" is not expected in an MMO, at best neutral (not alignment) behavior might be. Negative behavior is anticipated, and should be met with consequences. Good behavior should be rewarded with positives.
I don't understand the resistance to the idea of rewarding good behavior , using the metric of the Reputation System. All along the Devs have said, the Rep. System is a measure of how players interact with each other in positive and meaningful interactions.
If it's not sanctioned PvP(good) it's non-sanctioned PvP(bad) there is no middle/neutral that I can think of.
All sanctioned activities should earn rep,and all non-sanctioned activities lose rep.
Simple easy fair
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If it's not sanctioned PvP(good) it's non-sanctioned PvP(bad) there is no middle/neutral that I can think of.
All sanctioned activities should earn rep,and all non-sanctioned activities lose rep.
Simple easy fair
This sounds like you totally contradicted yourself. First you say (Bludd quoted you above) that "Basic good behavior is expected and considered norm and not rewarded." but now your saying that "All sanctioned activities should earn rep, and all non-sanctioned activities lose rep." I am confused. This last quote is exactly what I (and bludd) were saying. If this is the case, what is the "Exceptional-Good behavior" you spoke of before?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Basic good behavior is expected and considered the norm and not rewarded. Exceptional good behavior is often rewarded-in pfo what is exceptional good behavior?.So far we know of only one exceptional good behavior and that is to issue a SAD that is accepted, rather than to ambush and kill a target.
We also know that the following PVP activities fall within what GW defines as being positive PVP interactions:
Feuds
Faction Wars
Wars
Raiding of Outposts
Raiding of POIs
Bounties
Assassination of Important Settlement FunctionariesRyan also eluded to the possibility (or probability, my hope) that Caravans will likely be added to the list of sanctioned targets for PVP.
As to your point, "Good Behavior" is not expected in an MMO, at best neutral (not alignment) behavior might be. Negative behavior is anticipated, and should be met with consequences. Good behavior should be rewarded with positives.
I don't understand the resistance to the idea of rewarding good behavior , using the metric of the Reputation System. All along the Devs have said, the Rep. System is a measure of how players interact with each other in positive and meaningful interactions.
Sorry, I realize you are not speaking to me anymore since we agree on this point, but I just wanted to express the hope that all "encouraged" forms of interaction have profit vs reputation decision for all parties involved; even SADs should have a reputation vs reward decision in the interaction...that of course is determined by the decisions of all parties involved.
For instance, the example of a SAD, the encouraged behaviour, issuing SAD instead of outright ambushing (which is also a choice, but not "encouraged", resulting is standard PvP payouts and repercussions): Bandits choose the encouraged route, the victim then has two choices, one, assuming a loss the victim choices for the bandit profit or reputation by choosing to fight or pay. Fight has the chance of greatest loss for the victim, but that is balanced by a change to win, which should not only result in zero loss, but a gain. The victim, when winning an engagement resulting from a refused SAD should be able to choose the manner of their win, they should be able to loot the bandits with the same profit reward the bandits would have gotten, or they show mercy in some form and take the Rep bonus.
Either way, there has to be a net loss or the system will be gamed.
Perhaps the quantity of Rep gain is directly related to a fraction of the market value of the goods destroyed in the interaction. This would keep naked noobs from just SADing each other for Rep gain. It would allow a slow conversion of gold to Rep...but it would be a tedious process I am sure could be limited in other ways.
Returning to my original point, I hope everything on your list has like choices and consequences...determined by the choices of both sides in the interaction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The point is my alt/buddy SADs me, or we intentionally join opposing factions, or two friendly kingdoms go to war all for the purpose of feeding each other kills then it isn't grey. It's full on sanctioned and we can farm each other for rep that way. One kill-feed war between groups similar to Aeturnum and Golgotha or TEO and TSV would wipe out a lot of bad behavior.
Because this would be "Lame" and it is not real PVP. Blue vs. Red is not real PVP, it is training. GW can easily make the system recognize two parties belonging to the same company / settlement and deny them the ability to SAD or Feud / War against each other.
It is "Lame" PVP if it is contrived (arranged PVP) where the losses are limited or the participants are hand picked. This is more akin to Arena PVP found in theme park MMos or Multi-player PC games. Again, very lame when found in an Open World PVP MMO.
Those using such Lame PVP tactics are not using the game mechanics as intended and should be reported as using exploits.
Punishments for using Exploits:
First Offense: Massive Rep loss, maybe set to -7500
Second Offense: Set to -7500 and 24 Hour ban. No skill gain.
Third Offense: Set to -7500 and 1 week ban. No skill gain.
You're Out!: Character Wipe!
These would apply to all participants in the exploit exchange.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reputation goes up by an accelerating rate each day players don't lose reputation for their actions, from gifts from other players, and through playing their role in the PvP flags described below.
Although the old flag system is history, there is precedent for the basis of Bluddwolf's idea.
Not sure that Bluddwolf is suggesting this but, why shouldn't settlement's be able to run inter-group feuds etc... to gain rep for members, as long as there is a trade off cost such as influence and broken equipment?
I would like to see some rep gain possible for all manner of activities that GW wants to see (or deems as positive). Trading, harvest/gather, crafting. sanctioned PVP, governing, etc... It may be that some of these things are rewarded with Influence instead of reputation. We will have to wait for more details on how those two systems relate and why there is a need for both, IMO.
The thing is, you can, and should, broaden the appeal of your game by making all of it's metrics available to as wide a sample as possible. That is: Make as many play styles as viable as you can, without crippling any one too badly.
It is pretty clear that any game that mixed them in the best balance has been the most successful in the longer term.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Kitnyx
The one point I'll address now (it's getting late)...
Noob Alt SAD Rep Farming is an exploit and should be reported as such and punished as such.
I not only want all PVP interactions to be meaningful, have both risks and rewards, have both carrots and sticks, but most of all for them to be real and not contrived.
When I rob someone it will be because they presented a favorable risk vs. reward profile. The second determining factor would be that they were sanctioned, rather than unsanctioned (unless the reward also outweighed the consequences). The third factor would be if they were known to me and at what standing I hold them in. The final factor would be, where the interaction is taking place (in Pax territory, out of Pax territory or in a War Zone).
* Note: a Green Hat on Tuesday supersedes all other considerations!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The whole "it can be abused" thing is a terrible argument.
1- This abuse can be prevented. AKA, you kill someone's alt once, you get a bit of rep. You kill it again within 24 hours... no rep. Within 7 days 50% rep. Within 1 month 25% rep. Etc.
2- It can be detected. GW can look at statistics and have something pop up if a character is killing the same person to gain rep over and over.
3- It can be made to not be viable. By implementing #1, and GIVING more rep for a REK (Rep-Earning Kill) than you take away on an RDK, then you're preventing abuse because people will be better off killing a variety of people normally rather than wasting time logging on alts and having their friends log alts on for minimal gains.
The more you kill the same character over and over, the lower the rep. You can also lower the rep gains by account. So if someone logs off and on 10 different characters, after the 2nd or 3rd one, your cut off, and GW is pinged on account of your suspicious behavior.
This system of Reputation is all about PROMOTING desired PvP and PUNISHING less than desirably PvP, so if people are punished for partaking in undesirable PvP, then why should they not be REWARDED for enjoying desired PvP?
@'the goodfellow' I don't see the need for the 'carrot' as all sanctioned PvP already gets rewarded with rep-what more do we need?. My understanding is that asking for more is not needed- the default system rewards rep.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hmm, it does seem to me like "let the GM's sort out who is exploiting rep gains and who isn't" might be an acceptable solution; such things would be easy to spot out for someone with a history of a player's activity like I would expect a GM to have, unless the offending player puts in a whole lot of effort to disguise their farming (at which point they're likely putting in more effort than avoiding legitimate PvP is worth, and they could more easily just play the game as intended to gain rep).
I would think SAD'ing players who you have a "metagame" alliance with (that is, players who you do not have an in-game alliance with but whom you have good connections with) would be the most likely route for rep farming. Trading minimum cost SAD's seems like the simplest way to farm it. There could be a combination of reasonable limitations to SAD (for example, your character cannot SAD the same character more than thrice per day) and GM monitoring/intervention to curb this particular form of farming.
On the one hand, rep gains only through player interaction wouldn't favor the "weekend warrior" type players who are on less frequently, but on the other that's balanced by less rep hits due to less activity; the system becomes a ratio of your good vs bad PvP instead of bad PvP vs real time, which seems much better to me as a metric for a settlement to judge players by.
@Ninemoons, though I would agree with you, not everyone agrees that sanctioned PvP should grant rep, so the arguments being made for it are against people who feel sanctioned PvP should give no rep, not for larger rep gains or anything like that (as far as I can tell).
@Bludd, though I understand your objections completely, people do enjoy different things, and not everyone finds Arena-style PvP lame. I would like to see some option for people to engage in more "casual" PvP if they don't feel like running the risks on a particular day. This would of course come with a proportionate decrease to possible rewards. One idea in this regard: gladiatorial arenas where even teams fight and spectators bet on them. Basically I'd like an option to duel that sits completely neutral on the rep scale and doesn't have any inherent risk or reward.
(Little note for Bludd, some people would say open world PvP is lame, because there's no suspense to it; one side almost always has an overwhelming advantage, and it's less about who will win and more about can the little guy escape. Just food for thought.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@'the goodfellow' I don't see the need for the 'carrot' as all sanctioned PvP already gets rewarded with rep-what more do we need?. My understanding is that asking for more is not needed- the default system rewards rep.
The "bold" has not been stated by the Devs. What we do not is that sanctioned PVP at least does not cause the loss of Rep.
I like Bringslite above hope that there will be as many if not more ways to increase reputation via positive gaming interactions as there are for losing reputation. The only difference is the the loss of Reputation should be at a much, much faster rate than the gaining of it.
Unlike Bringslite, I do not think that intra-group (company, faction or settlement)PVP should result in the gains of either Reputation or Influence. PVP Training is not an in-game function of your character, it is a metagame function for the player.
The two (in-game and metagame) should not mix in any game mechanic or game system way, in my opinion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In general I agree rep needs to be earned not given, the rep is rewarded for sanctioned PvP that was an assumption, thanks for the update info.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From the Darkfall Lessons Learned thread:
The point I was replying to was the comment about "going Pirate, then becoming good again". The intent of the response was to say that people cycling in and out of Dredd Pirate Roberts territory and back is limited by the incredibly onerous time requirements and boredom required. It happens, but it happens infrequently. That's a good design from the standpoint of saying that you can do some edge-case thing, but the game system implies limits that few will bother to overcome the inherent challenge.
People do all sorts of incredibly time consuming and boring things in MMOs. Player boredom is the only truly meaningful resource in MMO design. However people who get off on the thrill of player-killing are temperamentally unsuited to long, boring intervals of grinding no-challenge content. They don't do it if they can avoid it.
There are other people, of a very different temperament, who are content to harvest resources using utterly boring mechanics for hour after hour. They are getting some pleasure just from seeing a number on a graph go up slowly over time. There is a reason Pachinko is a successful entertainment business. Some people find boring, repetitive behavior very soothing. Plus they can be super social while they do it; the resource extraction is just an excuse to log in and chat with friends.
These two people are fundamentally different and a game design can work at limiting the first behavior without limiting the second! even though that may seem counter-intuitive.
Allowing PVP-centric players to run down their Reputation with kills of unflagged characters and then allowing them to continue PvP-centric play in running their Reputation back up through participation in wars and feuds is completely counter to the above post of Ryan's.
PVP-centric players want PVP in any form. Allowing them to jump back and forth between reputation damaging and reputation rewarding PVP is rewarding them for all of their undesired behavior. To prevent it, reputation gaining actions should have nothing to do with PvP. It should be onerous, mind-numbing activity. It might have no combat at all. Because PVP-centric players want to avoid having to do those kinds of things.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
@ Kitnyx
"However, referring to your quote above...I was US Infantry mid to late 90s and we were often collectively punished often for the infractions of the individual, have things so changed?.."
I served from 1990 - 1999 and the view of group punishment of doing pushups (for example) for the transgressions of the individual was not that we were being punished, it was "training".
When one soldier did something that warranted an Article 15, we did not all lose 2 weeks pay and face 10 days of confinement.
But when one soldier in your squad failed to notice the blockage in his M203, you all died. When one soldier in a different branch of service raped a foreign civilian, your reputation and safety in that country was negatively affected.
The pushups and article 15 are punishments meted out internally, and do not change the consequences of your comrades actions when they affect you directly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But when one soldier in your squad failed to notice the blockage in his M203, you all died.
While possible, this is highly unlikely. The M203 has rifling that spins the munition and those munitions are specifically designed not to arm until the round has completed 70 or so rotations. This was specifically implemented to prevent what you just described from happening due to negligent discharges.
Call of Duty takes this into account in their games allowing you to DI or direct impact kill your opponents with grenade launchers without the explosion happening at all. The round would not have traveled far enough to arm.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think that it is particularly disagreeable for me to state that there will be times when the reputation mechanics fail. There will be times when otherwise legitimate PvP-active players will be 'forced' into conducting unsanctioned PvP, and they will be punished for doing so via reputation loss. Obviously in a perfectly designed system this wouldn't be the case, all possible meaningful PvP interactions would be considered sanctioned, however the reality of the situation is that this will be extremely unlikely. The developers aren't omniscient, they aren't omnipresent, and frankly the technological oversight required to build that perfect system likely doesn't exist quite yet (unless the GW developers have a Strong AI hidden in their back pocket?)
Similarly, I don't think that it is disagreeable for me to state that it will be the PvP-active players who are disproportionately punished by any failures in the reputation system. By simple levels of exposure to those potential failures this will be true. PvE-active players may occasionally be forced into those situations, but nowhere near as often as the PvP-active ones.
As such I believe that there must be a means for PvP players to adjust for this discrepancy while still allowing them to play the game they want to play. The best way to do that is to provide reputation gains for acts of sanctioned PvP. The alternative is unfairly forcing otherwise legitimate PvP players into playing a game they don't want to play.
Punishments for unsanctioned PvP should still be harsh. It should still take a considerable amount of effort on the part of the low reputation player to pull themselves back from the brink. But they should be able to do so by playing the game they want to play, in the ways that GW wants them to play it.
Potential exploitation of the system can be dealt with by the GM's. That is, after all, what they are paid to do. You should not design your game subsystems with the potential for exploit in mind, at least not to the point of simply not designing that subsystem. Some of the exploiters will be at least as smart as the developers. Some of the exploiters will be a fair bit smarter. You cannot build full proof systems. But you can use human oversight to punish those exploiters.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
.......
The problem with that is, if there is no way for rep gain through PvP and only the potential for rep loss, you limit PvP or at least put it at an unfare advantage in the eyes of a settlement when compared to a non pvper such as a dedicated crafter.
The Devs goal is to encourage meaningful PvP and that is not achieved by offering either no gain or loss of reputation.
When you leave the safety of a settlement the fear should not be that you may have to engage in PvP, but rather you may lose in a PvP encounter. There will be circumstances where you legitimately have to engage in Unsanctioned PvP.
In your statement there is only one resolution and that is to SAD at 100% to then convert the situation to sanctioned. Everyone who is PvP oriented will have to slot the SAD ability just to be effective.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Potential exploitation of the system can be dealt with by the GM's. That is, after all, what they are paid to do.
I want you to imagine a barn door open wide with cattle stampeding out and a couple guys with cattle prods trying to keep them all inside.
Thats my best analogy for trying to moderate such a grossly exploitable system. A LOT of gaps need to be closed in this idea before it's even halfway useable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Still not one valid reason why reputation can not be gained by participating in positive game play, including positive PVP interactions.
"Gaming the system" is not a valid reason because there will always be ways to game any system. Secondly, if the GMs treat gaming as exploiting the system, then the penalties should be far greater than simple unsanctioned PVP. Third, the Devs can disable the most common forms of gaming the system or at least mitigate them.
The system that Andius and his ilk want is a system that rewards those players that interact with others the least. They will take part in no activity that could lead to their losing rep, and so they will have an advantage over those that venture out into the wilds.
The passage of time is not a judge of player interaction, so it should play no role in building the metric used to represent player interaction.
If time is intended to grant 100 Rep per day, then why not have positive interactions do the same?
Wait, here comes the bogus argument, "Then you will have people grind positive interactions just to get their Rep recovery for the day".
WHAT!! So positive interactions are now a bad thing when players are given good reason to do them??
Here is a second question for you: Can't Reputation Recovery over Time be gamed?
The answer is "Yes"....
I am a settlement leader, and I tell every member of my settlement that they must have x number of untrained alts that do nothing but rise to maximum Reputation. Even if it requires second or third accounts, players will do it (they do in EVE). The settlement leadership becomes the EVE equivalent of a Holding Corporation, made up of characters that never play but just log in to "manage" the settlement or during sieges to grant their buffs to DI.
Every system can be gamed, because there is always a gamer out there that is smarter than the Devs, shear ratio difference can not be counter acted.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
All this back and forth I'm forgetting what Reputation was and currently is tbh.
What I vaguely recall is that any PvP will lower reputation over time. The reason being to regulate PvP Frequemcy of gameplay variable according to: Who, Where + How Often.
Obviously a little opportunistic PvP from a high Rep you can get away with by them why do so after time expense and following rules to spend it so frivolously? Contrasting high PvP and indiscriminate targets and times then you are pressuring your group and ultimately if you continue you end up with similar players and why not? That gameplay is telling the game to allow similar players to go by similar rules or preference for certain rules of play.
Coming finally on to Bludd's +ve Reputation for proactive PvP my guess it fits an outlier case for specific context eg under the guise of a Paladin or something? For what use? Perhaps GW provide the Paladin with "good work" to be done... Idk but I feel it would be a separate system and possibly more closed and hence (proportionally powerful but contained). Somewhat spewing ideas here as they surface.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"Gaming the system" is not a valid reason because there will always be ways to game any system.
Mostly correct. There are a few methods that are entirely ungameable such as rep gain for resource sacrifices but they have other problems such as being prohibitively expensive to poor newbs or entirely meaningless to rich vets.
However not all systems are barn doors. Some are just regular doors, and some are doggy doors.
Your system is a barn door. It's been proven a complete failure in other titles and I doubt you would be suggesting if you actually wanted to see the reputation system succeed. This is further confirmed by the fact you are trying to brush off legitimate concerns rather than coming up with solutions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you don't like my idea of rewarding desired PVP actions with rep, then what incentive does anyone have for doing those desired PVP actions? If the only "reward" is NOT losing rep, then that is just unacceptable IMHO. A passive gain is not the way to go. I wouldn't be encouraged to do anything desired if that was the case, I would simply calculate how long it would take for me to passively regain rep from a certain level and then RPK or do as my heart desires until I obtain that level, then log off for the weekend and come back to do it again.
If there is no incentive to do desired actions, desired actions won't be done. Basically, no carrot and all stick, then I will do only what must be done. In the case of passive gains, what must be done is nothing, just wait to regain it. Show me a carrot (do this and gain rep) and I will do those desired actions.
The reward is the game.
We will be able to express our individual visions of making a virtual life within a magical fantasy world replete with its own rules and social systems, unrestricted by artificial inabilities that would prevent all possibility of resorting to violent remedies, so long as we are cognizant of consequences. We will be able to pretend we are really interacting in Golarion restricted only by our own senses of social and diplomatic restraint.
I suggest that many of us are resisting the concept of what the game is intended to be and instead insisting that it will be one or more of the other games we used to play instead.
My question to those who conceive of PFO as a reincarnation of Shadowbane is "Why did Shadowbane fail?".
Personally, I believe there should be gains in rep for meaningful PvP. Napoleon has a tremendous reputation even today. Similarly Julius Caesar, and Charlemagne and Alexander the Great. Similarly it seems to me great generals and leaders in PFO should certainly gain rep. Had the ancient world been virtual, Leonidas and the 300 would have stood against the Persians in sanctioned PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Heres how you come up with solutions:
I want to gain reputation through sanctioned PvP.
Sanctioned PvP is incredibly gamable. There are a ton of different forms of it and it's incredibly easy to just exchange kills with an alt or buddy.
Then make it so you can't gain too much rep from killing the same few people over and over.
Most feuds will involve killing the same few people over and over. Requiring sanctioned PvP is going to limit your possible targets so you're really killing the idea with this solution.
Fine, lets tie it to resources lost by the enemy. That's not as gameable.
How would you measure that?
The value of the gear thats destroyed when you go to loot. Not what you pick up or what they had threaded but what's destroyed. That way if you do it to a buddy you lose something.
But how would you measure the value?
You could use the EVE system.
If you use the EVE system then people will just put out ridiculously overpriced sell orders that their buddies buy right back to artificially inflate the value of the gear being destroyed. Then slaughter their buddy in his moldy rags with a rusty dagger.
Well, what if you assigned each kind of resource a point value, and measure it based off the point value of the resources required to build the gear lost
That's not a very accurate measure of value
It's a good enough estimate.
Fine, but people are still going to produce a bunch of crap gear and kill sanctioned alts who are wearing it to get rep back real fast.
Cap how much rep can be earned every 15 minutes at a value that a legitimate PvPer isn't like to exceed very often.
Then people are just going to get exactally enough value in gear to max their rep and kill someone wearing it every 15 minutes.
Then put in a cap on how much rep you can gain in one day in addition to the 15 minute cap.
That's still gameable.
Yeah, but at this point you can run your calculations, and game it as much as you want. It's a lot of expense in hassle. People just naturally PvPing bypass the hassle and their enemies front the expense. It's not that gameable of a system.
Still. Everyone is going to grind it up the easy way on the crafting alt.
Then make rep constantly slide toward 0. That way keeping your crafter at a high rep is an upkeep instead of a one time expense.
Now your barndoor is a fence gate. You're welcome.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
PvP = energy/heat added to the system by players
Economic Engine = converts energy into useful work
Reputation = x1 mechanism to increase efficiency of conversion into useful work done
Naturally rep is some sort of valve or gear on PvP. It's absence lowers efficiency and it's presence improves.
Naturally energy added to the system must be balanced "heat entering" and "work done".
Lol, maybe that sketch isn't any good either?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we had to grind rep over time by participating in sanctioned PvP or other sanctioned acts, but lost rep at a very fast rate for any unsanctioned act PvP or other. 6 hours of sanctioned play earning rep gone in 30 seconds. If rep is hard to earn, easy to lose it has value.