Is the reputation system complete/final?

  • Dreadstar wrote:

    Korn wrote:

    The reputation you lose per kill depends on the reputation of your victims. If your victims are of negativel reputation, so you kill them freely.

    Rep loss for kills is:
    neutral - 40
    reputable - 80
    virtuous - 160
    noble - 240
    glorious - 400

    I'd say on average, right now based on what I can see in Fort Sterling, you'd lose around 100 rep for killing a non-hostile player.

    That is a lot of kills to get to -2500.

    Now, take into account that negative rep can be gotting rid of by grinding mobs, but also will decay naturally, by 600 each day if you are below -1250.

    The reputation system encourges you to pick your targets wisely, and to focus on small scale engagements when hunting down peaceful players. It heavily discourages zerg vs zerg fights, but it does not discourage you from fighting players who are also flagged for hostile PvP.

    In your case, judging from the numbers you shared, you probably went around the red zone with a larger group and killed everyone you came across, hence the significant rep loss. We encourage this playstyle, but this is what the outlands / black zones are made for.

    By design, being a red zone bandit is more about running around solo or in groups of 2-4 players, and then carefully picking your targets, taking their reputation and possible loot into account. It's optimized for small scale PvP, and encourages the peaceful players / PKers and Anti-PKers dynamic.
    You are wrong on a lot of accounts. We killed two groups who came to our red dungeon. Both had around 8-10 people. We had two groups of 6 so 12 when we regrouped in dungeon. The third time we went to a neighboring dungeon to kill 10ish player who had ganked our group of 6 to recover their mounts. So these aren't your typical 100 rep Fort Sterling blue and yellow players. These are other red/black guilds maximizing fame. I would bet gold most were noble and glorious. We couldn't pick our targets in two cases they came to steal our dungeon or flag when we engaged as they did on the third if we don't initiate first. These were other red/black zone guilds. We didn't hunt down peaceful player, these were hostile players with the intent to wipe us on mobs or steal the fame by out DPSing. Not ganking small numbers of gatherers. The big thing is we were all 25k rep before all this started. How do we go from 25k rep to -4500 in some cases. That's too big of a swing.
    Rep system needs to be revamped big time. Shouldn't zero you out for flagging.. 10 ganking 1 should be more rep lost than 12 vs 10 in a dungeon. Honestly similar numbers in a dungeon in redzone should lose you very little rep.

    I am all for a rep system that punishes groups for hunting down loan PvE or gatherers but thats not what the system is currently doing. Its discouraging any and all pvp in non blackzones except alt account gankers. So funny enough it helps the gankers cause no 5+ pvp roaming group will ever go to redzone for PvP.. You've created a gankers paradise and hurt the exact people you were trying to help.
    I did not know about the 600 minus per day. This will help me to kill 600 less mobs per day. Which is a huuuge help, but doesnt fix the underlying problem here.. imo.

    We were a group of about 17 that were split farming a dungeon in groups of 6 6 5. So if a group comes in and tries to take our fame/kill our mobs (from another guild) we have to let them... or flag up and smash their faces in and take negative 2-3k hits to our rep, and all they have to do is walk back to the dungeon and start trying to farm again with new gear sets.. and if we kill them again.. bam another 2-3k hit to our rep.


    Are we supposed to share dungeons in red zones? Or are we supposed to fight over territory/dungeons/mobs/resources in this game? Because I am honestly confused.

    This is mainly a concern right now because we have not progressed to black zone territory yet, where we will most likely spend most of our time.. but it is still MAJORLY concerning to me that this sort of change could and does make it into the game.

    With this current system can anybody enlighten me as to how you can lockdown a red dungeon for your guild if another guild wants to farm it? Or do we just share red zone dungeons?
    :!:
  • Lucent wrote:

    With this current system can anybody enlighten me as to how you can lockdown a red dungeon for your guild if another guild wants to farm it? Or do we just share red zone dungeons?
    Fundamentally, it comes down to a choice: You can choose to share a dungeon, potentially reducing your rate of progression, and suffer no reputation penalty, or choose to not share, potentially increasing your rate of progression, and suffer a reputation penalty. This does indeed mirror the choice between "good" and "evil" fairly well. The "good" choice is to share and tolerate others, while the "evil" choice is to look out strictly for yourself and slay the intruders.

    There is nothing preventing you from accepting playing as a villain, which is exactly what going around killing people, regardless of whether you are protecting a dungeon or not, is. That is your choice, and that is what Albion Online is largely about.

    That is not to say the system is perfect, but in this case I do not see a fatal flaw with how it is working.
  • Sornin wrote:

    Lucent wrote:

    With this current system can anybody enlighten me as to how you can lockdown a red dungeon for your guild if another guild wants to farm it? Or do we just share red zone dungeons?
    Fundamentally, it comes down to a choice: You can choose to share a dungeon, potentially reducing your rate of progression, and suffer no reputation penalty, or choose to not share, potentially increasing your rate of progression, and suffer a reputation penalty. This does indeed mirror the choice between "good" and "evil" fairly well. The "good" choice is to share and tolerate others, while the "evil" choice is to look out strictly for yourself and slay the intruders.
    There is nothing preventing you from accepting playing as a villain, which is exactly what going around killing people, regardless of whether you are protecting a dungeon or not, is. That is your choice, and that is what Albion Online is largely about.

    That is not to say the system is perfect, but in this case I do not see a fatal flaw with how it is working.
    This actually makes a lot of sense to me... now that you explain it this way.
    Although I still hate this mechanic.. I can understand it now. Thank you.
    :!:
  • The main problem with reputation is:

    1. You lose reputation just for flagging. I would really like to know who thought of this brilliant idea. They lack common sense that is necessary to make decisions and should be put on coffee duty. Of course the orders will be wrong every time.

    2. You lose to much reputation for even sneezing on someone. Kill them? Yea might as well start a new character.

    3. Yellow and Red zone pvp. WHY DO THESE EVEN EXIST!? Can someone explain to me why even have pvp in yellow or red zones if someone can literally LOCK themselves out of a RED/YELLOW CONTINENT. I am sure most of the risk adverse carebears here do not understand this, but you can literally pvp so much you can get stuck in a port, and lock yourself out of an entire continent. What!? Im so confused. Do the AO devs want pvp in this game or do they just want to pretend there is? If a big fight happens in a yellow or red zone your members can literally get locked out if they lose to much rep. THIS MAKES NO SENSE.

    In eve online max negative status is -10. I can still traverse through high sec, the guards will kill me if i stop, but i can still travel. Low sec? No guards and I can move through? Why? Because low sec was designed for pvp and the developers do not have autism (Except CCP_Fozzie). This reputation system is what is wrong with pvp games today. Look at AO, promising awsome pvp and full loot gear but if you look closely enough at the mechanics you will clearly see this is NOT a pvp game. This is a CASUAL game at best.

    * Instancing in town! Never even have to leave the city to play the game and progress!

    *. Transmuting mats. Never even have to gather! Just buy mats with silver you get from botting the instance! Transmute it and profit!

    *. Trading the localized markets? No need to travel and put yourself in danger, you can just teleport from city to city using the porters. It costs silver you say? Just use the silver earned from botting the instances as a nice capital to trade and continue to fuck the market even more!

    Where is the pvp? Even the risk adverse caebears will wake up sooner or later and realize this is trash because there is virtually zero risk versus reward in this game at the moment.

    Also news flash to developers, flagging DOES NOT WORK IN PVP GAMES. Ever played any games with flagging? Is the pvp ever meaningful or fun? No, its a dance of trying to get a person to flag first or you find an exploit that makes someone flag. This game is no different. If a pvp zone is a pvp zone it should NOT require one to flag. What is even the point of having yellow, red, or black zones when flagging is still a thing? Im so confused by the developers design and mechanics choice around pvp in this game. Its like 1 guy on the team wants pvp but the others continue to water it down by developing mechanics to hinder and prevent pvp more than create it.

    If you have a game, that hinders or prevents PvP more than it creates it by designing mechanics designed to punish pvp....its NOT a pvp game. What you are really saying is, there is pvp in my game, but you will be so severely punished for it, that there will not be any pvp in my game. Why? So casuals can feel like they will lose something when they really have no risk at all. There is no risk in AO. There is no risk versus reward in AO. There is actually little point to the game without PvP. Once the masses realize this the game will be empty as Tom Clancy's "The Division."

    In most games you are NOT punished for pvping in pvp zones. You are punished for flagging and killing someone in a SAFE ZONE. You DO NOT PUNISH PEOPLE FOR PVPING IN PVP DESIGNATED ZONES. Its like everyone took crazy pills and did not play PvP MMO's before this game.
    The True Victor.

    Make Albion Great Again!

    The post was edited 6 times, last by Roor ().

  • TheNoseKnows wrote:

    It is SI's intent that the red zone be primarily a PVE zone

    SI wrote:

    Our ideal goal for the red zones is for them to be well used by lots of non-PvPers, thus providing ample targets for PvP players. For that to work out, the non-PvPers need to have valid escape and avoidance strategies, hence the introduction of the hostile counter and the nerfs to mobility abilities. So while it might be harder for a PvPer to catch a victim, there will be far more possible victims to be ganked, combined with a higher risk of being countered.
    Translation: By ganking those poor PVErs who willingly entered a PVP zone you stopped their free farm and we really can't have that as they are paying money and could quit so we put a cap on how many people you can kill in a day.
    Incorrect. The high end materials are in those zones. PvErs need to reach that. SBI found that people were NOT bothering progressing anymore because the risk vs reward of being in the Red/Black zones was NOT WORTH IT. So people stopped going. You no longer had targets to go after and for months people complained that PvP was dead in those areas. BECAUSE NO ONE WAS TAKING THE RISK BECAUSE THE REWARD WAS NOT WORTH IT.

    Where on the flip side, the attackers got ALL the reward and took little to no risk at all. Which was GREAT for the attackers, it made us feel like we were on top of the world. Now evil SBI has come to balance the scales and those guys that we were shiting on are just carebears for wanting to a chance at success...how dare they.

    oh wait...thats right. We ran out of prey when there was no reason for them to be there anymore. Y'know why the bears don't eat ALL the deer even though they can? Because they want to eat next season.

    If you make the game unfair for one party, they stop playing. You longer have a game to play. Your mouse is gone and now your just a lonely cat.

    SBI is putting cheese out for the mice, kids. You want mice to hunt...vote for the cheese...


    At the moment, its imbalanced...we are in Beta thats the fucking point of us being here, to balance this shit out. There is a risk vs reward for BOTH parties here, gatherers and gankers alike.

    Gatherer's risk vs reward: Getting Mats vs Losing it all
    Gankers's risk vs reward: Getting Mats vs Reputation Hit (possibly not getting to go home)

    These are the scales that need balancing currently. But its a correct direction, to those who think logically about both parties involved, at least.

    You go chopping off heads out in the lawless lands and word gets back to the city that your a heinous murderer and thief..then yeah, expect to not get to go home until you have proven to the city that you have changed your ways....

    But the heart of the issue is that needing to grind 2.5k monsters for a single 10vs10 fight is very imbalanced. It took a group to take the reputation hit, now its going to take that individual hours to undo it. There in likes the imbalance.



    again, you want a mouse to hunt...then give it a reason to be hunted. Unfair advantages lead to people NOT taking risks at all...becuase its the obvious and wise decision.
  • Bushy808 wrote:

    TheNoseKnows wrote:

    It is SI's intent that the red zone be primarily a PVE zone

    SI wrote:

    Our ideal goal for the red zones is for them to be well used by lots of non-PvPers, thus providing ample targets for PvP players. For that to work out, the non-PvPers need to have valid escape and avoidance strategies, hence the introduction of the hostile counter and the nerfs to mobility abilities. So while it might be harder for a PvPer to catch a victim, there will be far more possible victims to be ganked, combined with a higher risk of being countered.
    Translation: By ganking those poor PVErs who willingly entered a PVP zone you stopped their free farm and we really can't have that as they are paying money and could quit so we put a cap on how many people you can kill in a day.
    Incorrect. The high end materials are in those zones. PvErs need to reach that. SBI found that people were NOT bothering progressing anymore because the risk vs reward of being in the Red/Black zones was NOT WORTH IT. So people stopped going. You no longer had targets to go after and for months people complained that PvP was dead in those areas. BECAUSE NO ONE WAS TAKING THE RISK BECAUSE THE REWARD WAS NOT WORTH IT.
    You are full of shit.

    In beta 1, which was the beta with no rep and no gallop, there was the most PVP. During this time I could go out into the red and black zone and with nearly 100% certainty find someone gathering, grinding mobs, or looking for PVP. I COMMONLY found other players gathering around boneharbor, and those which were not gathering would try to kill me. Back then, there were PLENTY of ways to escape as a gatherer, with stealth juke, flee, mount you were safe 80% of the time you didnt get hit by a warbow stun or something similar.

    And of course the rewards were well worth it, gathering was far superior money to grinding mobs, unlike this beta. This is because people were actually losing gear to mob executes and PVP.
  • In my opinion it would be best if yellow zone became the new green zone and red zone became the new yellow zone.

    There is literaly no difference between green and yellow zone. And if you were to be killed the loss is so small. If you kill someone in yellow zone your literaly dumb, cuz it gives you nothing.

    Then they could add a new red zone ruleset that actually was risky. Perhaps like black zone with flagging.

    But guys, keep in mind that royal island is made for casuals. We more hc players will hang out in outlands, right! ;)
    "A delayed game is eventually good, but a rushed game is forever bad"
    - Shigeru Miyamoto
  • @Korn

    So we killed 1 dude out in redzone while protecting precious stone and our precious stone gatherers. From that one kill I went from 20k fame to -1 fame for flagging, then to -180 for killing the one guy. I find some T5 mobs to grind to get my rep back to 0 and this is what I get for solo killing a T5 mob.



    I need to grind 392 T5 mobs solo to reach rep 0 because I killed 1 person in the REDZONE while protecting rock gatherers and key nodes. This is a bit insane number wise. 20k to -180 for one dude and 392 mobs to get back to 0. I am glad he didn't come with a few friends.

    P.S. Now cause I am in ENVY I am gonna go power grind in an amazing spot and do this much quicker... BUT for your average player they are looking at 392 mobs to fix 1 kill when they had 20k fame.. Thats harsh.. Nobody will ever try PvP.

    edit- I realize at -180 it will decay in 24 hours but do you wanna force people to logoff and wait 24 hours.. That's a bad. Very bad.
  • Korn wrote:

    As a general note, we do not consider the reputation system numbers final. Based on data gathered this test, we'll make adjustments if and when required.
    It's not just the numbers though -- it's the penalties connected regardless of where you balance the numbers.

    People don't want to lose their reputation or access to their cities and so they are guided away from open-world PvP. And if they don't get the initial PvP experience on the Royal Island, then why why would they move to Outlands having never engaged in much PvP?

    The reputation system needs to be fundamentally overhauled and not just numerically balanced.

    I would suggest making it so that a negative rating increased your tax rate (or fees and such) in the cities. Additionally, you could put into place some sort of bounty system (similar to Eve Online's) where criminals would then also have to deal with bounty hunters if they victimize too many carebears.

    But the bottom line is that you should not be so harshly punishing PvP activities on the Royal Island. There are plenty of safe activities on the Royal Island already and you shouldn't try so hard to discourage people from engaging in open world PvP. The risk is what makes the game fun and if people can't take it then they can stay in the city, on their farm, or in the green zones. And that's not such a horrible thing if that's what people want to do. But you're closing off a big section of the world from the most exciting aspect of the game by making it excessively inconvenient to engage in open-world PvP. By the time people want to gather some T5 resources... there should be some risk involved with that activity. That doesn't mean you should make gathering impossible, but you shouldn't make it a cake walk either.
  • The developers have moved the game away from the core design aspect of full loot pvp more and more with each update. They really must be drinking their own kool-aid to think that discouraging PvP will help this game. This is a simplistic top down iso view left click a monster till it dies with 3 hotbar abilities game....with a built in farmville for clicking on resources. Your ONLY selling point is full loot pvp. You can spend all the time you want trying to improve the PvE or gathering, but it will never be the thing that gets and retains players. It's the full loot pvp.

    As developers you should simply ask yourself with every design decision...does this encourage participation in full loot pvp. If the answer is no, it should not be implemented.
    MyCatsInMyLap
  • The green zones, and the cities, and the islands... are for casuals and carebears who want to play farmville. And that's fine. It's good that they're there doing their thing.

    But THERE NEEDS TO BE ROOM FOR SMALL-SCALE HARDCORE PvP!

    Levels 1-4: The Green Zone = Carebear Town: farm and do dungeons all day without a care in the world.

    Levels 5-6: The Yellow Zone = Fine, punish people incrementally when they violate the King's law. (Don't banish them or lock them out of cities, but tax them in some way and put a bounty on their heads). Punish larger groups more harshly than smaller groups.

    Level 7: The Red Zone = Small scale hardcore PvP. Punish people for attacking in large groups, but let solo players and small groups engage fully without risk of being driven to the Outlands (where they won't survive against the larger guilds) and don't lock them out of their cities for wanting to participate in open-world PvP.

  • Korn wrote:

    As a general note, we do not consider the reputation system numbers final. Based on data gathered this test, we'll make adjustments if and when required.
    Here is the only adjustment you need to make:

    REMOVE. THE. ENTIRE. REPUTATION. SYSTEM.

    Its garbage. Come up with something better. Flagging and reputation have been done to death and they always hinder/prevent pvp. Think outside the box and come up with something that will actually be good for Albion online for once. Stop trying to replicate. Be original. You guys have made this game worse each beta. I would gladly take Beta 1 AO over this garbage casual game any day.

    Look at beta 1, take what people loved from it, and design a good pvp structure.
    The True Victor.

    Make Albion Great Again!
  • The Red Zone is still technically Royal territory, so people that choose to flag are considered criminals. This discourages people from flagging if they don't PvP and makes the red zones relatively safe for gatherers. However, enough people will choose to flag that it is not entirely safe, especially if they make themselves too big a target -- an ox full of supplies heading to Carleon may be worth the reputation hit. People that mostly play in the black zone won't care too much about reputation and will likely wander the red and/or yellow zones at least occasionally.

    Zones next to Carleon are probably going to be relatively dangerous.

    If you want to flag up in the red and yellow zones, you can. You just need to choose your targets wisely, rather than just killing everyone randomly. If there is no profit to be had from the kill (because it is just a T4 gatherer trying to get some logs), don't bother him.

    Noble and Glorious people don't flag. That's why they got to be Noble or Glorious.

    This means that people will experience PvP occasionally but probably won't lose all their gear very often -- however, they will eventually find out what it is like to PvP.

    If you want full PvP, you are supposed to go to the Outlands. At the moment, it is not entirely clear to most people how safe an option that is for non-guilded people. But at least now, people are clearly steered to living in Carleon in they want to PvP.

    I'm not sure if the numbers are right at the moment (including dungeons and small group vs small group), but I think the concept is ok.

    Yes, this makes the entire Royal continent pretty much carebear, but if you don't like carebear, there is lots of non-carebear land in the black zone.
  • Lucent wrote:

    Recently I was with a group of buddies and we flagged in a red zone dungeon and killed a big group. We all have -2500 rep now and we get +1 rep per mob kill.

    We need to farm 2500 mobs to get back into town, after a simple PVP engagement that I remember doing nonstop back in the days before the reputation system..

    I feel this ruins Albions PvP... as ganking is a biiiiig part of it and by ganking people with this current system you are actually screwing yourself over..


    Is this game even about pvp anymore? Thoughts?
    they have a whole continent for pvp.... why do you even bother going back to royal if you only want to pvp. I think the rep system is okay with ganking smaller group in red zone, if you encounter people in blue dungeon and their rep is glorious, just don't flag because it's not worth it... if you really want to pvp action, go to black blue dungeon
  • I ganked 5 people in red zone yesterday and made about 2 million silver and dropped my rep from 21000 to 16000. It's not super bad if you know how to choose target, i wasn't checking a t4 player and he was glorious, i should have just left him alone, instead i lost 1000 rep. Killed another gatherer on a ox with full 6.2 set and made more than half a mil and only lost 250 rep. Personally I think it works quite well, maybe bumping up the reputation gain a little bit but in general, I think it's in a good shape.
  • I've seen this argument so many times in so many games. There must be balance. Sheep must have a chance, or they wont ever take the risk. So if you're a wolf, and continually whine about being unable to exploit your likely higher game knowledge/skillset/gear/numbers on people whenever/wherever you want, you will go extinct because very soon there will be no sheep.

    People are not going to grind out resource collection just to have a group come gank them every 6 seconds. They didn't 15 years ago with UO (while many people didnt agree with it, including myself at the time, trammel and feluca split saved the game, it was dying fast as new games gave people choice) and they REALLY wont do it now that there's dozens of MMO choice to play.

    How hard is this to understand?