Actual fix for reputation system

[Shadowmist]

First of all all standings should be x3:

Min -25 ----> -75
Max 40 ----> 120

When you kill someone the rep loss scales with the victims's current Murder Counts.

Victim 0 MC = -4 Standing
Victim 1 MC = -3 Standing
Victim 2-3 MC = -2 Standing
Victim 4 MC = -1 Standing
Victim 5+ MC = 0 Standing loss


Task Reward = 5 - MC standing
(If you have 3 murder counts your task reward is +2 instead of 5)



With the above system it would be really easy to work up a high standing BEFORE you start murdering people since each completed task would give you +5 standing and you could go higher than you can currently.
It also means that players who frequently pvp and kill will rack up a couple of MC's which means when the PVP players kill each other they only lose a few points of standing so they can keep pvping without having to farm tasks over and over.
However, when they kill "innocent" players who have no MC's at all they loose standing much faster.

I genuinely believe this system works for BOTH pvp and pve players alike since it makes it easyer for pvpers to keep fighting each other without re-grinding tasks, but it also makes you think twice before murdering innocents for the lulz, unless you have actually prepped for it in advance.

 

[SilentPony]

This makes thing worse instead of fixing anything.

 

[Shadowmist]

This makes thing worse instead of fixing anything.

Please explain how it makes things worse? it would be way easier to get standing.

 

[[CTX] Contractor]

I don't really agree with this idea either.

The system doesn't need to be puffed up in numbers, or over complicated.

1.) Higher standing caps.
2.) More & Different Tasks for standing.
3.) The NPC is located both in and outside of towns.
4.) No RNG to rewards.

That's it. That's all they really need to do.

 

[Shadowmist]

I don't really agree with this idea either.

The system doesn't need to be puffed up in numbers, or over complicated.

1.) Higher standing caps.
2.) More & Different Tasks for standing.
3.) The NPC is located both in and outside of towns.
4.) No RNG to rewards.

That's it. That's all they really need to do.

What I'm trying to accomplish here is a system that allows for PVP for those who want that but aslo most importantly DISCOURAGE players from murdering noobs and innocents just for the hell of it.

If a group of 5 players ride past a solo player there is absolutely nothing stopping them from just killing him. Numbers in this game is everything, so there needs to be something in place to keep big guilds from just stomping on anyone and everyone moving in smaller groups.

I cannot tell you how often I ride past a group of players and they just turn around and kill me for aboslutely no other reason than for griefing me. I'm not in a rival guild, I don't carry valuables or good gear and I defenitely don't pose a threat. If this game is ever to be anything more than the GRIEF PVP Death Match Arena where the biggest group wins, we need to make this game enjoyable by PVE and solo players too, and then we need systems to protect them.

 

[SilentPony]

I don't consider killing other players "riding past" as griefing, simple as that. Any system that protects blue players from PvP is a bad system. If there need to be "noob zones", make special highly safe zones, it is very simple to do that. Turning whole wilderness into a no-PvP zone is stupid.

Your proposed system divides players further into murderers and non-PvP players, who never kill anyone. The reputation will still be dumped for PvP players. Blue players will gain unreasonable protection.

 

[Shadowmist]

I don't consider killing other players "riding past" as griefing, simple as that. Any system that protects blue players from PvP is a bad system. If there need to be "noob zones", make special highly safe zones, it is very simple to do that. Turning whole wilderness into a no-PvP zone is stupid.

Your proposed system divides players further into murderers and non-PvP players, who never kill anyone. The reputation will still be dumped for PvP players. Blue players will gain unreasonable protection.

I will never understand how players claim to be pvpers when they in fact move in large groups killing defenseless outnumbered players. HOW is that pvp?


My suggestion would allow pvpers to fight other pvpers with less limitation, but would restric the killing of noobs and outnumbered players.
Note that it wouldn't prohibit it. It wouldn't make them untouchable at all. It just means you have to think a bit before you just kill people for the lulz.

 

[SilentPony]

I will never understand how players claim to be pvpers when they in fact move in large groups killing defenseless outnumbered players. HOW is that pvp?


My suggestion would allow pvpers to fight other pvpers with less limitation, but would restric the killing of noobs and outnumbered players.
Note that it wouldn't prohibit it. It wouldn't make them untouchable at all. It just means you have to think a bit before you just kill people for the lulz.

What is the point of open-world PvP if you don't fight in uneven numbers? Arena games are for "equal" PvP. Also, I didn't talk about large groups. The current system is quite unpleasant even if you roam and kill alone.

 

[Shadowmist]

What is the point of open-world PvP if you don't fight in uneven numbers? Arena games are for "equal" PvP. Also, I didn't talk about large groups. The current system is quite unpleasant even if you roam and kill alone.

Uneven numbers?!?! 5vs1? Is that really open world pvp?

No, it's murder, and that's OK, but there needs to be a limit to murder, while allowing pvp.

 

[Emdash]

If you wanna put in some wack numerical system for standing, then do it, but make it so that the guild owning the town can put people on a list where they will never be KoS. I prefer... y'know earning your rep by playing the game and interacting with people. You have rep when people trust your decisions. Like if you say I killed dude because... they are like no doubt. When you have that level of trust, you have reputation in a city.

the fact that some guy who spawns into the city looking to grief is in the same position as a citizen is... weird to me.

STOP SAYING MURDER AIYEEE. If your experience in MO ever ends in being murdered you are putting yourself thru undue psychological trauma and should seek therapy immediately.

Edit: 1 (one) time in my entire life someone I knew said that word (murder) to me, and they didn't even say it, they texted it lol. The connotation of that word is SO REAL. And I took it like that, so that when our eyes met it's like... u still think that bud??? Normal people don't speak that way. Say I'ma kill u, I got kilt, but murder implies a lot more. It is like a premeditated act. People who are getting off on believing they are murdering people in MO, you res and say ohi. If you believe you are being murdered, you are playing right into their hands. No system is gonna protect you from that feeling, as I said in MY GUIDE, ever played hard rpgs where you get an instant death roll? Imagine it as that.

 

[KermyWormy]

I don't know if the math is right, but I think I agree with the purpose of your suggestion and I think it's probably a pretty clean way to do it.

Like you said the purpose of the system is to solve what many agree the main problem with the rep system is, that anyone who engages in pvp regularly whether it's out in the middle of nowhere or say defending a town or whatever, are heavily penalized under a system which can never really understand context or intent in a satisfactory way.

At least in this scenario people who engage in pvp with others who also engage in pvp, both will have some number of murder counts and the resulting standing loss to either side would be far less impactful.

It also makes the choice to kill some naked random something to consider, there should be consequences. You still have the freedom to do whatever you want, you just also have to wear your big boy pants and take the consequences along with it.

 

[[CTX] Contractor]

Your proposal puts in place more weight on an already arbitrary system that should be player ran from the get-go.

I already don't like the reputation system, but it at least stifles people from griefing you in towns. That's the one solid thing it does.

Making it have more of an impact already drives power away from players and into the hands of a system.

If it were up to me, there would be no reputation system. Just the murder count system like MO1 was; but with a timer that burned offline (and perhaps less hours per MC).

But the key difference in my hypothetical MO2 world would be anywhere outside of a town is lawless, unless controlled by a guild which enforced it to abide by 'the law'.

 

[Dracu]

The system cant differentiate from killing noobs and killing ppl in high end areas cause a regional system doesnt exist. What needs to be added is regions where pvp is very strongly discouraged, areas where its encouraged and areas for inbetween.

 

[2Op4Scrubs]

Yeah I also agree with the above statements of OP.
I like the Idea of an outstanding citizens getting murdered for any reason (to take his shit, to grief, to fuck with, or just because you want to kill someone) bearing more weight on a know villain. That man you killed for any reason could be bringing back supplies to the town/city to grow its wealth.
I personally do not think any Guild should ever run an actual city. I feel like that is the emperors land and should remain under his rule. Im not sure how the territory control worked in MO1 or how it will work in MO2. But I feel like if owning a city will be in. The only way for a guild to take control of a City should be with sieging, and it should be harder to siege an actual town then a player built keep. I dont want to see players being able to purchase the city with money, rep, anything. It should have to be taken with force!


It will not give "Blue players unreasonable protection."

I don't consider killing other players "riding past" as griefing, simple as that. Any system that protects blue players from PvP is a bad system. If there need to be "noob zones", make special highly safe zones, it is very simple to do that. Turning whole wilderness into a no-PvP zone is stupid.

Your proposed system divides players further into murderers and non-PvP players, who never kill anyone. The reputation will still be dumped for PvP players. Blue players will gain unreasonable protection.

This is why, The standing with reputation will be acquired more easily as he stated, and you are still free to kill someone at any time. It just makes you think (Rp) more and evaluate if killing a poor bastard trader is worth smearing your name for a few thousand Rye.

The system cant differentiate from killing noobs and killing ppl in high end areas cause a regional system doesnt exist. What needs to be added is regions where pvp is very strongly discouraged, areas where its encouraged and areas for inbetween.

The post is not about killing noobs or hard core vets, Its about killing honest and villainous players. The regions idea not for this game at ALL.

 

[Wollkneul]

I like the idea.

The answers of some people that claim to be PvP players just shows that they don't have any interest in a solution, but just want to continue their asshole play style

 

[Jatix]

What I'm trying to accomplish here is a system that allows for PVP for those who want that but aslo most importantly DISCOURAGE players from murdering noobs and innocents just for the hell of it.

I keep seeing new players say this game is a sandbox, not a pvp game. But they want to take away the sand of pvp players. Innocent players need to defend themselves. This game already totally sucks for pvp players, they dont need to do any more discouraging. When all the pvp players leave the pve players wont have anything to do. Because they arent getting killed and nobody needs to buy anything because gear is worthless if theres no pvp. You dont need ogh to fight walkers in the gy.

We need a system thats actually good. and promotes people fighting over places that pve players can not go if they dont want to have to fight.

 

[Shadowmist]

Your proposal puts in place more weight on an already arbitrary system that should be player ran from the get-go.

I already don't like the reputation system, but it at least stifles people from griefing you in towns. That's the one solid thing it does.

Making it have more of an impact already drives power away from players and into the hands of a system.

If it were up to me, there would be no reputation system. Just the murder count system like MO1 was; but with a timer that burned offline (and perhaps less hours per MC).

But the key difference in my hypothetical MO2 world would be anywhere outside of a town is lawless, unless controlled by a guild which enforced it to abide by 'the law'.

How does it stop people from killing in towns? That is already taken care of by city guards, so this system only affects the open wild. The problem with a fully player controlled system is that the guild in control could just make everyone their b***h and kill people to their hearts content, and although I'm sure that would be super fun for them, the rest of the server would quit.

The system cant differentiate from killing noobs and killing ppl in high end areas cause a regional system doesnt exist. What needs to be added is regions where pvp is very strongly discouraged, areas where its encouraged and areas for inbetween.

The standing system IS regional, that's the whole point, and although implementing something similar to what I described wouldn't be able to understand context, it would at least be able to tell who kills other players often, and who doesn't which I think is the closest to fair you can get in this game.

 

[Jatix]

The standing system IS regional, that's the whole point, and although implementing something similar to what I described wouldn't be able to understand context, it would at least be able to tell who kills other players often, and who doesn't which I think is the closest to fair you can get in this game.

the current regional system is a joke. You can kill someone at the sator dungeon and they can home priest to meduli and give you standing loss. Thats not a real regional system. This gmae needs a system where when you get into the region, it now says you are in a lawless area and cant give standing loss. And then after they add areas liek this, they can be as annoying as they want with standing loss near towns.

 

[Shadowmist]

I keep seeing new players say this game is a sandbox, not a pvp game. But they want to take away the sand of pvp players. Innocent players need to defend themselves. This game already totally sucks for pvp players, they dont need to do any more discouraging. When all the pvp players leave the pve players wont have anything to do. Because they arent getting killed and nobody needs to buy anything because gear is worthless if theres no pvp. You dont need ogh to fight walkers in the gy.

We need a system thats actually good. and promotes people fighting over places that pve players can not go if they dont want to have to fight.

How does this take away form pvpers? I'm literally saying it would make it EASIER for pvpers to fight each other without having to worry as much about losing rep.

Please explain how an innocent solo player is supposed to "learn how to defend himself" against a group of 5? You can't.

It's funny how you believe this game to die without the pvpers when I think in fact it's the opposite. If this game turns into a pvp death match it will discourage a VERY large portion of players, but even if they made the pvp rules even more restrictive than what I described I'm certain the game would thrive.


I want to fear pkers. I want to run for my life if they try to kill me. But I also want to know that they had to make a sacrifice and and least think twice before going for the kill, and not just doing it because they have nothing better to do.

 

[SilentPony]

I want to fear pkers. I want to run for my life if they try to kill me. But I also want to know that they had to make a sacrifice and and least think twice before going for the kill, and not just doing it because they have nothing better to do.

No, you don't. You want to think that maybe there is danger when there really isn't since no one will bother to kill you because they will lose access to all guarded cities and brick their character. And if they do, you want to at least feel the triumph of them suffering because of an artificial NPC system even though you lost at PvP.