It goes without saying that reputation is something that is meant to carry weight in Pantheon. A system that I suggest should be more than a means of tagging the scammers, deviants or undesirables to avoid.
What if, your reputation was a reflection of your deeds, a measurement of your fame/infamy and carried with it bonues or penalties based on your position in the scale. A scale that for example, and simplicity could be measured as Total Villain -10 to Hero +10, with a commoner being at 0.
To calculate your position on the scale, every completed Quest/Raid, invite, PVP kill, Heal, @mention in chat, Number Players Buying/using your crafted items, ect.. could be used as a measurement of your “Fame” against other players on a curve, Making the difficultly of reaching absolute -10 or +10 based on the collective efforts of players.
Some Examples: NPC’s could mention at random hearing stories of your deeds to other players as they stroll though town. Prices of items could be discounted or hiked based on your level of fame, assuming villains would have a Pantheon equivalent of thieves landing. A Hall of Deeds could display statues of the players characters, and mob Aggro could increase as your fame rises, or lesson as your infamy rises. Fame Score, Could be displayed like your health and stamina.
Food for thought.
Then reputation simply becomes a measure of how large a guild you have joined.
Trying to quantify player reputation is a fool's errand at best. I don't see any benefit to trying to do so that isn't outweighed by how easy it is to corrupt and circumvent the system.
The idea of Community (capital C) in a game is a lovely ideal, but attempting to force it to happen or enforce its existence is not going to result in the desired outcome.
There will always be bad actors in games, and they will always mostly get away with their bad behavior. The true measure of a game's community is in discrete moments of helpfulness and compassion toward each other. Be a helpful player. Be a compassionate player. Turn the other cheek when you encounter bad behavior. Don't feed into it. Trolling works because people get upset about it and bent out of shape and this is all the exact point of the trolling in the first place. They want to see you having a bad time.
Just don't give them the satisfaction.
We don't need complicated and arcane systems to enforce good behavior. That's what GMs are for. If VR allocates the resources to have a robust and effective GM presence in their game that does not otherwise inhibit legitimate play, the game will be successful and the community will thrive. If they are not willing to do that, the game and its community will be dead on arrival.
Chanus said:Then reputation simply becomes a measure of how large a guild you have joined.
Trying to quantify player reputation is a fool's errand at best. I don't see any benefit to trying to do so that isn't outweighed by how easy it is to corrupt and circumvent the system.
The idea of Community (capital C) in a game is a lovely ideal, but attempting to force it to happen or enforce its existence is not going to result in the desired outcome.
There will always be bad actors in games, and they will always mostly get away with their bad behavior. The true measure of a game's community is in discrete moments of helpfulness and compassion toward each other. Be a helpful player. Be a compassionate player. Turn the other cheek when you encounter bad behavior. Don't feed into it. Trolling works because people get upset about it and bent out of shape and this is all the exact point of the trolling in the first place. They want to see you having a bad time.
Just don't give them the satisfaction.
We don't need complicated and arcane systems to enforce good behavior. That's what GMs are for. If VR allocates the resources to have a robust and effective GM presence in their game that does not otherwise inhibit legitimate play, the game will be successful and the community will thrive. If they are not willing to do that, the game and its community will be dead on arrival.
Right, Because i was certainly talking about player enforcement and GM's
HemlockReaper said:It goes without saying that reputation is something that is meant to carry weight in Pantheon. A system that I suggest should be more than a means of tagging the scammers, deviants or undesirables to avoid.
What if, your reputation was a reflection of your deeds, a measurement of your fame/infamy and carried with it bonues or penalties based on your position in the scale. A scale that for example, and simplicity could be measured as Total Villain -10 to Hero +10, with a commoner being at 0.
To calculate your position on the scale, every completed Quest/Raid, invite, PVP kill, Heal, @mention in chat, Number Players Buying/using your crafted items, ect.. could be used as a measurement of your “Fame” against other players on a curve, Making the difficultly of reaching absolute -10 or +10 based on the collective efforts of players.
And just how do any of those things correlate to being a good or bad person? A complete arsehole, if in a strong guild, could still complete far more quests, have more PVP kills, heal more often, etc, on done the line, than a 'good' person in a very small guild (or not guilded at all). And what does 'invite' actually mean? invited to groups?
It seems your assumptions are based upon an individual without any connections..no solid friend list nor guild.
Vandraad said:HemlockReaper said:It goes without saying that reputation is something that is meant to carry weight in Pantheon. A system that I suggest should be more than a means of tagging the scammers, deviants or undesirables to avoid.
What if, your reputation was a reflection of your deeds, a measurement of your fame/infamy and carried with it bonues or penalties based on your position in the scale. A scale that for example, and simplicity could be measured as Total Villain -10 to Hero +10, with a commoner being at 0.
To calculate your position on the scale, every completed Quest/Raid, invite, PVP kill, Heal, @mention in chat, Number Players Buying/using your crafted items, ect.. could be used as a measurement of your “Fame” against other players on a curve, Making the difficultly of reaching absolute -10 or +10 based on the collective efforts of players.
And just how do any of those things correlate to being a good or bad person? A complete arsehole, if in a strong guild, could still complete far more quests, have more PVP kills, heal more often, etc, on done the line, than a 'good' person in a very small guild (or not guilded at all). And what does 'invite' actually mean? invited to groups?
It seems your assumptions are based upon an individual without any connections..no solid friend list nor guild.
Your Fame or Infamy, not a Measure of Good Vs Evil exactly. Rather a Measure of How well known your are, so the invite is a measure of how well desired you are for groups.
HemlockReaper said:Chanus said:Then reputation simply becomes a measure of how large a guild you have joined.
Trying to quantify player reputation is a fool's errand at best. I don't see any benefit to trying to do so that isn't outweighed by how easy it is to corrupt and circumvent the system.
The idea of Community (capital C) in a game is a lovely ideal, but attempting to force it to happen or enforce its existence is not going to result in the desired outcome.
There will always be bad actors in games, and they will always mostly get away with their bad behavior. The true measure of a game's community is in discrete moments of helpfulness and compassion toward each other. Be a helpful player. Be a compassionate player. Turn the other cheek when you encounter bad behavior. Don't feed into it. Trolling works because people get upset about it and bent out of shape and this is all the exact point of the trolling in the first place. They want to see you having a bad time.
Just don't give them the satisfaction.
We don't need complicated and arcane systems to enforce good behavior. That's what GMs are for. If VR allocates the resources to have a robust and effective GM presence in their game that does not otherwise inhibit legitimate play, the game will be successful and the community will thrive. If they are not willing to do that, the game and its community will be dead on arrival.
Right, Because i was certainly talking about player enforcement and GM's
Literally every suggestion you made is dependent on other players and easily exploitable with a large enough group of people.
Chanus said:HemlockReaper said:Chanus said:Then reputation simply becomes a measure of how large a guild you have joined.
Trying to quantify player reputation is a fool's errand at best. I don't see any benefit to trying to do so that isn't outweighed by how easy it is to corrupt and circumvent the system.
The idea of Community (capital C) in a game is a lovely ideal, but attempting to force it to happen or enforce its existence is not going to result in the desired outcome.
There will always be bad actors in games, and they will always mostly get away with their bad behavior. The true measure of a game's community is in discrete moments of helpfulness and compassion toward each other. Be a helpful player. Be a compassionate player. Turn the other cheek when you encounter bad behavior. Don't feed into it. Trolling works because people get upset about it and bent out of shape and this is all the exact point of the trolling in the first place. They want to see you having a bad time.
Just don't give them the satisfaction.
We don't need complicated and arcane systems to enforce good behavior. That's what GMs are for. If VR allocates the resources to have a robust and effective GM presence in their game that does not otherwise inhibit legitimate play, the game will be successful and the community will thrive. If they are not willing to do that, the game and its community will be dead on arrival.
Right, Because i was certainly talking about player enforcement and GM's
Literally every suggestion you made is dependent on other players and easily exploitable with a large enough group of people.
The only thing Ive suggested is a Visible measurement of what going to happen anyway. Players will become well known for their skills/actions, be it in crafting or adventuring. They may not receive any direct bonues in game like discounts, but Their status will certainly provide other bonues like priority to raids ect..
Anyhow this was more of a exercise in thought.
I'd prefer a system that tracks the individual players sacrifice of time, xp, and items. If you want to add that to a persons Fame score? Sure.
But it can only be positive, and it's only used as measure of desirability to have people in your guild. You may want to add decay to it, as well, depending on design goals.
Why? Because your guilds current rank could be the immediate sum of all the top 'x' Fame scores of your most sacrificing guild members. If they all leave, your guild rank immediately returns to and is zero. If a particularly Fame-ous person leaves? Your guild rank might drop considerably. Guild recruiters would be a particularly interesting position to hold, with a mechanic like that in play.
You can either reward players for playing the game, or not. :)
It seems like positive reinforcement would be better than not having it, if history is any indication.
Playing at all, yet sacrificing a portion of that gold, xp, and items, could gain you fame.
Heck, you don't even need player guilds. Use NPC guilds (your class guild, by default) if you want.
I just don't want to see a system where players can directly affect each other's standing and also will be used to determine which players are most desirable to group with.
Because what you will end up with is large groups of players determining who is least desirable to group with.
HemlockReaper said:Your Fame or Infamy, not a Measure of Good Vs Evil exactly. Rather a Measure of How well known your are, so the invite is a measure of how well desired you are for groups.
That is an irrelevant statistic if you are in a guild of any decent size. You would be in groups nearly constantly, if not every minute of every hour you are online, if your guild has a policy of 'guildmates first' when it comes to grouping.
Chanus said:I just don't want to see a system where players can directly affect each other's standing and also will be used to determine which players are most desirable to group with.Because what you will end up with is large groups of players determining who is least desirable to group with.
Personally, I would never recommend a system that let another player affect my Fame. Or your Fame. That's insane, for all the reasons enumerated in this thread and others. Right there with you.
Each players Fame (or whatever standing/rank/tier/thing) should be the result of their actions alone.
Vandraad said:HemlockReaper said:Your Fame or Infamy, not a Measure of Good Vs Evil exactly. Rather a Measure of How well known your are, so the invite is a measure of how well desired you are for groups.
That is an irrelevant statistic if you are in a guild of any decent size. You would be in groups nearly constantly, if not every minute of every hour you are online, if your guild has a policy of 'guildmates first' when it comes to grouping.
Do you have alternative suggestions to measure it?
HemlockReaper said:Vandraad said:HemlockReaper said:Your Fame or Infamy, not a Measure of Good Vs Evil exactly. Rather a Measure of How well known your are, so the invite is a measure of how well desired you are for groups.
That is an irrelevant statistic if you are in a guild of any decent size. You would be in groups nearly constantly, if not every minute of every hour you are online, if your guild has a policy of 'guildmates first' when it comes to grouping.
Do you have alternative suggestions to measure it?
Do we have adequate justification for your assertion we need to measure it?
HemlockReaper said:Do you have alternative suggestions to measure it?
No, because there isn't a single metric you can devise that could not be exploited in one manner or another by the playerbase. Just being in a guild, as has been mentioned above, provides enough of a benefit to artifically inflate a person's 'fame' statistics and offset to a great degree attempts by others to inject negatives into that person's statistics. An individual, by contrast, is very much subject to the whims of others, unable to do anything to offset efforts by a group to falsly downgrade their fame into infamy territory.
Vandraad said:HemlockReaper said:Do you have alternative suggestions to measure it?
No, because there isn't a single metric you can devise that could not be exploited in one manner or another by the playerbase. Just being in a guild, as has been mentioned above, provides enough of a benefit to artifically inflate a person's 'fame' statistics and offset to a great degree attempts by others to inject negatives into that person's statistics. An individual, by contrast, is very much subject to the whims of others, unable to do anything to offset efforts by a group to falsly downgrade their fame into infamy territory.
Whatever methods of measurement used, I’m not suggesting they be known publicly, or even that they each carry they same weight. I would agree with a statement above about making it a positive score, further specifying it about your Fame level, regardless of moral status.
This fame idea reminds me of the fame system in Ultima Online. I would say that fame should have no weighted system on how you interact with the world other than having a cool title. In UO they had a sliding scale of good/evil deeds and then a notoriety level behind it.
What we could potentially tie it to is killing named mobs or high notoriety mobs that might have a reputation of killing many Players or even a PVPing that did so. The more of them you kill, the higher the notoriety. As far as a good/evil scale that could be subjective but let's say if you're an evil race like a Skar, killing Dwarf NPCs might slide that scale in your favor. I would then say that if you die, you lose your notoriety levels or exp. It could be a good representation of showing that a player dies alot or is very successful at taking risks, both arriving at the same experience level. Obviously different classes just have less survivability then others, but it could be another mechanic to impress your peers that you reached level 30 with 10 deaths vs. an individual with 100 deaths.
Again, I would leave it at a mechanic that would just allow for varying for titles, but the amount of work and effort to develop this type of system might be better suited for a later phase.
I will say it was cool in UO though to have the title of Glorious Grandmaster Mage or Blacksmith.
jstsunami said:What we could potentially tie it to is killing named mobs or high notoriety mobs that might have a reputation of killing many Players or even a PVPing that did so. The more of them you kill, the higher the notoriety. As far as a good/evil scale that could be subjective but let's say if you're an evil race like a Skar, killing Dwarf NPCs might slide that scale in your favor.
You know what you just describe? The faction system. Kill stuff and your faction (notoriety for lack of a better term) of those you killed goes down and those in opposition goes up.
The only notoriety that matter is that between the NPCs in the world and the character. As your standings go up, your opportunities (i.e. access to quests, vendors, etc) increase, the price you pay for items goes down and the price you get selling goes up. That is all that matters.
What one player thinks of another player is wholly immaterial for anyone not just into seeing whose e-peen is bigger and has no bearing at all in the grand scheme of things.
HemlockReaper said:Whatever methods of measurement used, I’m not suggesting they be known publicly, or even that they each carry they same weight
Eveb a hidden metric will, in short order, be identified and exposed by a determined enough playerbase. EQ1 faction changes had no visible amounts associated with them, only some vague message stating that your faction either went up or down, yet quite quickly players figured out exactly the exact numerical spread of each tier. There will be a sizeable subset of the playerbase that will literally tear apart the client application to data mine everything they can and will develop packet sniffers to analyze the datastream between client and server. Nothing will remain hidden for long which, as was pointed out above, will only lead to people gaming the system to their own benefit and/or the detriment of others.
Yes, If a player is given direct feedback on their actions, it stands to reason they will eventually figure out the causes for their gains, However, it is not necessary to give a message or any feedback.
A Delay could also be put in place to to increase the difficulty, In fact one game is already doing this with regards to Experience gains.
That said I don't expect everyone to like it, you seems to not, and thats certainly fine. I do however like the idea of displaying your Fame Level, even if its just a measure of your total faction kills for bragging rights.
I'm fine with things like titles for X kills achievements or faction level achievements or things like that. That's not at all the impression I got as to what you were talking about.
I am absolutely against the idea of a displayed or hidden rating based on interactions with other players. Especially one that can be easily manipulated and exploited for ill intended purposes.