Reputation parameter reflecting player's actions

[Koltes]

Would be a very welcome idea to add Reputation parameter sort of like StarWars light side vs dark side.

Then allow other players to place their opinion of your specific actions. The Reputation status is... well reputation. Affects nothing in terms of mechanics but shows other players who they are facing. I believe this will add more interactive depth to players.

For example Surrender in battle should allow the winner to make certain decisions, not deny him something. So when one player surrendered and the winner had spared his crew thats a noble action. The lost player would give him a thumb up that would work towards his light side. If the winner spared his crew AND let him go with his ship, then the lost player might even give him two thumbs up. The opposite actions would obviously cause negative response.

Imagine seeing a noble pirate. People will be more trusting to accept his word if his reputation is high or the other way around will make sure to run and never surrender.

[Liq]

+rep good trader 

good idea.

[Prater]

I don't think reputation should be enemy player driven (they get to decide the thumbs up or thumbs down) but be hard coded into actions the player takes.  How many times do you fight someone and all the person does is trash talk in chat?  Such people will never give a thumbs up even in an honorable fight but do everything they can to cause maximum thumbs down.  We've had several threads on reputation ideas.  At this point I don't know if they will be added to the game, but who knows?  A reputation system would be nice.  Do too much bad stuff and you become an outlaw.  Anyone (even same nation) can attack them.  All AI hunt them down.  They can't enter major ports of their nation and alliance.  They can't vote.  Outlaws (pirates??) can't take part in port battles but they can do raids and have other features.  Maybe a pirate clan can create one "secret" outpost someplace that for all intents and purposes acts as a port.  If discovered the nationals can attack it port battle style.  But now I'm off topic.  Anyway, I think we need a reputation system.  Pretty much every Age of Sail game has a reputation system with the different nationalities.

Edited January 16, 2017 by Prater

[Koltes]

9 minutes ago, Prater said:

I don't think reputation should be enemy player driven (they get to decide the thumbs up or thumbs down) but be hard coded into actions the player takes.  How many times do you fight someone and all the person does is trash talk in chat?  Such people will never give a thumbs up even in an honorable fight but do everything they can to cause maximum thumbs down.

Have a faith in people Prater!
Reputation should be done both ways with an option to change or response to feedback change like feedback on online auctions. While there is always will be an asshole who will drop some of your reputation, but the majority of players will keep it fair so your reputation will stay true.
Making it game coded is not an easy task and asks for more exploits.

 

29 minutes ago, Prater said:

Do too much bad stuff and you become an outlaw.

You are talking about dynamic tags granted by the game for personal actions. Yes we need this too, but its a separate purpose. Reputation is only there for other people to be able to tell who is in front of them, who are they dealing with. That is all.

The outlaw tag needs to be as part of game coded mechanic. I have almost done a write up on this as well, but will polish and post as a whole NA gameplay system redone post. Dont really want to discuss it in this topic because its way bigger than the reputation meter suggestion which can be done anytime by the devs

[Koltes]

3 minutes ago, Wraith said:

I proposed a similar idea in conjunction with a revamp of nation mechanics. I'd like to see this done as it would add a lot of depth to the way that players interact within and between nations, and change the way that diplomacy and alliances are handled as well:

See again more mechanics gonna open another can of exploit worms. I agree for the nation politics needs changes. I also agree that anyone could join the battle, but disagree that your actions IN the battle will affect your reputation.
Reputation proposed in the OP as a meter of player's character and gameplay behavior. Nothing else. This is a simple feedback from other players. Nothing else.
In terms of nation politics I believe it should be storyline driven not by the players. But we also need to have clan based politics that are player driven.

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

from a very old thread of mine, just to fuel imagination

Of a captain’s credibility and Reputation

A captain career is filled with the successes and failures and everything in between. This is measurable and for a game it is perfectly moldable into a abstract system simulating a real life counterpart sequence of events.

Any assignment that a captain takes should have a base Reputation for success. Anything beyond the scope of that, sideline activities should count towards the Reputation as well as failures are accounted as well and decrease the standing.

This translates into a positive/negative Reputation span. Good conduct or Bad conduct are the very basic, assignments being the normal ways to gain or lose points and all the extras that each captain sees fit to do can also participate into the Reputation level.

 

Reputation is universal. A captain will have its name recognized by all nations, for good or for bad.

Reputation cannot be bought nor spent, but can be gained or lost. As a balancing factor the loss of Reputation should be increased in relation to the winning of it but winning Reputation through major feats should outdo any possible top scenario losses.

Reputation can be used as “coin” to “buy” special commissions in the Navy. The player spends Reputation by “buying” into these commissions and gain access to specific ships but he will be locked for a certain time to that Navy ship doing whatever the Admiralty of that Nation requires. The higher rate of commission the longer the time of service.

 

In such case the gains or losses of Reputation also apply. So a fall from grace is totally possible as much as a heroic feat of seamanship or become a national hero with a resounding victory somewhere.

 

Captains that do not wish to pursue a Navy career can also use the Reputation level to “buy” entry into prestigious trading companies with more interesting deals such as preferential ship for specific cargo, meaning the player will always get the opportunity to transport highly valuable cargo or passengers before the low reputation captains.

If these are forfeit, then the missions roll down the Reputation ladder.

 

As you can reason the Reputation system will limit the possibility of freelancing in and out of Navy service while giving every captain the same opportunities for wealth.

Reputation gains are immediate, contrary to wealth mechanics.

[Sir Texas Sir]

I thought a good way to do pirates/Privateers would be a reputation system.  You can get contract for a nation and when you get enough points you can become a privateer and use there ports.  

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

Also, and this is a might feat of necromancy but, imo, needs also to be here

 

[Koltes]

2 hours ago, Hethwill said:

from a very old thread of mine, just to fuel imagination

 

  Hide contents

Any assignment that a captain takes should have a base Reputation for success. Anything beyond the scope of that, sideline activities should count towards the Reputation as well as failures are accounted as well and decrease the standing.

 

I suggest the purpose of Reputation as a meter of how other players measure player's action and character. Its a real reputation that has real people feedback.
Reputation that you mentioned here is a meter of how well player plays the game which not what I intended to do.
Reason why I want reputation to be a simple feedback from people is because this will let others know what to expect from this person when they meet him in the OW.

Edited January 17, 2017 by koltes

[Guest]

On 1/16/2017 at 1:43 PM, koltes said:

Would be a very welcome idea to add Reputation parameter sort of like StarWars light side vs dark side.

Then allow other players to place their opinion of your specific actions. The Reputation status is... well reputation. Affects nothing in terms of mechanics but shows other players who they are facing. I believe this will add more interactive depth to players.

For example Surrender in battle should allow the winner to make certain decisions, not deny him something. So when one player surrendered and the winner had spared his crew thats a noble action. The lost player would give him a thumb up that would work towards his light side. If the winner spared his crew AND let him go with his ship, then the lost player might even give him two thumbs up. The opposite actions would obviously cause negative response.

Imagine seeing a noble pirate. People will be more trusting to accept his word if his reputation is high or the other way around will make sure to run and never surrender.

I like the idea, but am concerned that the vast majority of enemies will simply thumbs down (or equivalent) if they lose.

How were you invisioning the implementation of  a reputation system? Getting an opportunity to vote after an engagement on all participants? Would we only vote about our enemies? Or would we be able to give feedback about allies as well.

[SirSamuelHood]

I agree with the general sentiment of the replies- reputation should not be in the hands of your foes. For every good, honest, decent person playing this game, there is at least one wretch who's going to 'thumbs down' everyone he fights just because he can. 

[Koltes]

1 hour ago, EliteDelta said:

I like the idea, but am concerned that the vast majority of enemies will simply thumbs down (or equivalent) if they lose.

How were you invisioning the implementation of  a reputation system? Getting an opportunity to vote after an engagement on all participants? Would we only vote about our enemies? Or would we be able to give feedback about allies as well.

Once battle is over you get the opportunity to click on feedback from the battle screen. From -2 to +2. All negatives will go to the "dark side" while positives counts towards the "light side".

There will be a list of things to place your feedback. Items on the list such as fairness, trustworthy, generosity, combat skill etc etc. Each have -2, -1, +1,+2 option. You have say 3 points to spend on feedback and its up to you how you do it.

Yes while there will be people that just give everyone negative feedback, but majority I believe will be fair. The will be a meter that goes towards light/dark side of each parameter. Everyone is able to see the general reputation meter, but also those specific characteristics on its own. 

[Koltes]

1 minute ago, SirSamuelHood said:

I agree with the general sentiment of the replies- reputation should not be in the hands of your foes. For every good, honest, decent person playing this game, there is at least one wretch who's going to 'thumbs down' everyone he fights just because he can. 

I have faith in people. While there always will be some scumbag he will be out voted by the majority of fair people. This easy to try and test. This feature will not affect any mechanics. If wont work due to players behavior it can easily be removed without consequences. 

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, koltes said:

Once battle is over you get the opportunity to click on feedback from the battle screen. From -2 to +2. All negatives will go to the "dark side" while positives counts towards the "light side".

There will be a list of things to place your feedback. Items on the list such as fairness, trustworthy, generosity, combat skill etc etc. Each have -2, -1, +1,+2 option. You have say 3 points to spend on feedback and its up to you how you do it.

Yes while there will be people that just give everyone negative feedback, but majority I believe will be fair. The will be a meter that goes towards light/dark side of each parameter. Everyone is able to see the general reputation meter, but also those specific characteristics on its own. 

Sounds like a fun system. I wonder if it would be good to have some kind of delay on the voting/feedback? I know that directly after losing to someone I usually feel disgusted with myself, and will want to take that anger out on those who sunk/captured/defeated me. However within about 10 minutes I am clear headed enough to be civil once again. Just a thought, but I realize it doesn't make sense to delay such a vote too far as I would probably forget the details of the fight. 

Edited January 18, 2017 by Guest

[Taranis]

I really like the idea of a reputation system and agree with Koltes that more than just a +1 or -1 system, a rating on various attributes would be important.  Perhaps as a means to limit any trolling, the point allocation might work like the political system (ie: any negative marks would require a positive one as well on a different attribute)?  That said, I would also suggest that (1) fellow players may be given the chance to rate a player on their own side as well (not just the adversaries), and that (2) a player may rate an adversary with a  few drop down selections/criteria.  Taking EliteDelta as an example (whom I have traded shots with on a couple of occasions back in the fall), I might want to convey that he is quite skillful with his Santa Cecilia and seems more likely to carry Mediums or Longs.  Then, there is always the possibility of having the player themselves help build their reputation card with attributes they may have unlocked.