Reworking Prestige/Honour, etc.

[Norrel]

We will have one and only one player-driven attribute. It will be called "Reputation". It will work a bit like the medals do, i.e. you can give other players points for good or bad reputation. They will be counted seperately so that you have a "total reputation" and then that total reputation is either good or bad depending on which value is higher. There will be limits so it can't be easily gamed.

Would reputation actually change any ingame attributes, or would it simply be something visible about your character that others can form a first impression off of?

[Foundation]

Would reputation actually change any ingame attributes, or would it simply be something visible about your character that others can form a first impression off of?

Likely the latter to reduce ways of gaming the system.

[Penchant]

I prefer the latter, its more of a roleplay stat in my mind. Do they have that character roleplaying someone evil or is it someone good. The negating is good because some people might do something that is evil but looks like a good thing to do. Or if a player is know for betrayal they will have lots of evil. Another scenario is a duke/lord combo doesn't get himself a giant unit but spreads the wealth among more than just his knights perhaps giving his entire tax away to help the army during a refit would earn him good marks showing he is a kind character.

[Norrel]

Likely the latter to reduce ways of gaming the system.

In that case, I think it would be better to tally both sides, rather than having them negate eachother. Someone who had lots of both would be seen as a controversial figure, while someone with a flat 0 would be seen as a nobody.

[Foundation]

In that case, I think it would be better to tally both sides, rather than having them negate eachother. Someone who had lots of both would be seen as a controversial figure, while someone with a flat 0 would be seen as a nobody.

When implemented, it would not be a simple tally.  It would need to be more than that to be robust.  I've seen a few research papers of trust models, including one Tom has on the dev wiki.  Don't worry about this value, it will be accurate.

[Tom]

In that case, I think it would be better to tally both sides, rather than having them negate eachother. Someone who had lots of both would be seen as a controversial figure, while someone with a flat 0 would be seen as a nobody.

That's exactly what I have in mind.

[Duvaille]

Could it be such that if the good and bad reputation were quite close to one another, it could be displayed as "controversial" instead of "good" or "bad"? It would seem rather strange if one or two votes were enough to change bad reputation to good.

[Anaris]

Could it be such that if the good and bad reputation were quite close to one another, it could be displayed as "controversial" instead of "good" or "bad"? It would seem rather strange if one or two votes were enough to change bad reputation to good.

Controversy should be abs(good-bad)-(good+bad) (assuming that good is positive and bad is negative).

Thus, if someone is mostly good or bad, their controversy will be low, but the more of both they have, the more controversial they will be.

[Tom]

Frankly, that's details.

[Duvaille]

Tom,

So you do not want very defined details at this point.  What we have now is a set of five stats (combat experience, fame, love-fear, largesse and then some sort of prestige). But what each of them accomplish is not at all clear. Combat experience helps you with the troops, and love-fear defines your success in related activities. But the rest of it seems to be hanging in the air still.

Are you aiming at all of them having an effect in the game? I suppose fame could be the one that did not have an effect (though I still hope it would have some), but what I am most concerned with is largesse and prestige. Would you like us to throw ideas about them at this time?

Also you mentioned that you wanted to have the stats "balance each other". What does that mean?

[Tom]

Yes, the next step is to have some kind of logical system for what each attribute gains you.

And I do think combinations are powerful. While troop things would be largely determined by the combat experience thing, some other attribute could also play in. Say, men are willing to sign up with an inexperienced but famous leader.

[Penchant]

So you want stats effects to have a bit of an overlap with other stat's effects?

[Longmane]

I'm wondering if Largesse or/and Prestige could be used boost any action/circumstance involving swaying others, ie more chance of engendering/maintaining loyalty of a regions population if it's lord and things involving diplomacy or leading/recruiting troops ect, as while the latter shows what a renowned noble you are, the former shows what a damn generous and all round nice sort you are.

[Penchant]

I can definently see how being generous would result in being able to have a larger recruitment size. The soldiers hope you will be generous with them and give them extra money.

[Duvaille]

Largesse could have disadvantages too if you have "too much" of it. If you have such reputation, it could very well be that most everything you do will cost you a little extra. Troops expect a little more in the ways of payment, buildings cost more etc. But then benefits would need to outweigh the disadvantage. Low largesse should have disadvantages too. It could be that your men start to get worried about their payments sooner and are more likely to desert. Someone with high largesse could get away with delayed payments longer.

There could be some minor disadvantage for having a high number in any of the stats, but so that the advantages still generally outweigh them. An experienced warrior could inspire too much fear at times, and being too famous sometimes closes some opportunities.