My Own Debt Alternative: Reputation
An interesting idea, and could possibly open the door for "man on the street" missions depending on how it's done.
Sadly, I don't see it happening without a complete revamp of the contact network both sides (and blueside needs one badly), and despite wanting one so bad I'm not sure how likely it is to happen.
"You don't lose levels. You don't have equipment to wear out, repair, or lose, or that anyone can steal from you. About the only thing lighter than debt they could do is have an NPC walk by, point and laugh before you can go to the hospital or base." -Memphis_Bill
We will honor the past, and fight to the last, it will be a good way to die...
An interesting idea, and could possibly open the door for "man on the street" missions depending on how it's done.
Sadly, I don't see it happening without a complete revamp of the contact network both sides (and blueside needs one badly), and despite wanting one so bad I'm not sure how likely it is to happen. |

"You don't lose levels. You don't have equipment to wear out, repair, or lose, or that anyone can steal from you. About the only thing lighter than debt they could do is have an NPC walk by, point and laugh before you can go to the hospital or base." -Memphis_Bill
We will honor the past, and fight to the last, it will be a good way to die...
Before I read the OP's suggestion, I thought "reputation" was going to be tied somehow to influence/infamy. For example, every time you die, or drop a mission, prices go up/down by 10% to a maximimum of 100%.
In other words, if you die three times in a mission, when you go to sell the recipies and enhancements that dropped, the store will only give you 70% of the normal value for them. Or, if you need to replace the enhancements you've outleveled, they charge you 130% of the normal going rate.
The two problems I see with this though, are that there's no fair way to make it affect the market, and I don't have any idea how you'd improve your reputation - one completed mission to offset each death? That might be a little too harsh.
(Sometimes, I wish there could be a Dev thumbs up button for quality posts, because you pretty much nailed it.) -- Ghost Falcon
My only concern about this system would be that my defeat is not always my fault.
We've all teamed with overzealous zergonauts responsible for numerous team wipes. Why should I be penalized for their style of play?
Even if the team leader kicks the zergonaut from the team, or if I quit the team, the reputation has already been applied. I think I'd have a problem with that.
Maybe have the death proportional to the mission? I.E: You effectively gain back 50% percent of reputation lost in the mission. It would still lower your reputation but it means that people who die frequently won't be restricted to Paper/Radio missions.
Also, how about it affects inf(luence/famy) and Prestige? Afterall, a hero with a good reputation would be more influential and get a better name for his/her SG.
Aside from slight balancing issues I think this idea would be fantastic.
You start a mission, but find that you die 10 times along the way. This will take 10 points off your reputation; if you were at 0, you're now at -10, and if you're at 10, you're now at 0. Let's say you finish the mission, and you gain 1 Reputation for completing it, so the net loss is -9.
|
One: the harder the mission, the more you're likely to die. A person who does weak, no-boss at level -1 missions is going to have a better reputation than a solo monster who does +3x8 missions and dies once in a while. This doesn't seem right.
Two: ramping up the effective punishment for defeat changes the behavior of risk-averse players. They'll lower the difficulty, slow down, approach even small groups with hit-and-run tactics, and ... this is the terrible part ... run away when things get bad. Is this the kind of behavior that you want to encourage in a superhero game?
Three: if the entire group is punished every time somebody on the team dies, you'll see teams start to shun and exclude the "weaker" archetypes. They won't invite Blasters or Dominators, knowing they're more likely to die and Blasters and Dominators take more teamwork to keep 'em alive. You don't want that kind of behavior either.
I think this needs to go back to the drawing board.
My only concern about this system would be that my defeat is not always my fault.
We've all teamed with overzealous zergonauts responsible for numerous team wipes. Why should I be penalized for their style of play? Even if the team leader kicks the zergonaut from the team, or if I quit the team, the reputation has already been applied. I think I'd have a problem with that. |
Reputation would be as fair (ie. unfair) as anything else - lie down with dogs you get up with fleas, team with the inept, be tarred with that same brush.
Mind you, when debt still had teeth, as it were, I would see people quit teams for one death (their own or a wipe), get very antsy at anything but the safest play, or even in more than on case, type 'I can't take more debt!" and disconnect on the spot.
At the time (and to this day) one of my measures of a good gamer is someone who takes a defeat in stride, preferably with good humor. If they offer a tactical suggestion, they do it with courtesy and grace, not demanding or playing the u-got-me-killd victim card. Sportsmanlike, as Fezzik would put it.
My scrapper doesn't need an AoE. She IS an AoE.
Let's face it, Photon, at the moment Blasters are popular out of proportion to their survivability, and Tankers the reverse. If everybody were suddenly punished for having a Blaster on the team, because Blasters die more often, it'd be harder for them to get teams than it is now.
Those archetypes that are already shunned may continue to be, but for different reasons.
Upon reaching a high-enough reputation, it will unlock contacts, depending on what zone you're in, and your level range! That's right... Say, you've done 9 successful missions without fault? The word's gonna spread, and more people are gonna want YOUR help! These people can offer SO much new content to the game for EVERY level group, and every zone!
|
Arc#314490: Zombie Ninja Pirates!
Defiant @Grouchybeast
Death is part of my attack chain.
Upon reaching a high-enough reputation, it will unlock contacts, depending on what zone you're in, and your level range! That's right... Say, you've done 9 successful missions without fault? The word's gonna spread, and more people are gonna want YOUR help! These people can offer SO much new content to the game for EVERY level group, and every zone!
|
Yeah... no. Directly tying contacts to your willingness to abandon your team or exclusively solo, or a player's understanding of the game's systems and mechanics (i know, it sounds shocking to experienced players, but there are actually new players joining every day, players who have no idea what X does or how to use it, which can lead to defeat quite frequently), not to mention emphasizing solo-friendly builds over team-oriented builds even more than the game already does, and making normal game content potentially inaccessible to new, unlucky or just plain bad players (who still enjoy playing, despite being debt-capped, because they like the stories/missions/enemies), just doesn't seem like a wise course.
And then you discover that you out-leveled those contacts because you were stuck doing scanner missions and dying frequently, resulting in you missing out on practically all of the content in the game. Awesome!
|
I'm not saying that this idea is perfect-- far from it, but something NEEDS to replace debt, some sort of penalty.
Yeah... no. Directly tying contacts to your willingness to abandon your team or exclusively solo, or a player's understanding of the game's systems and mechanics (i know, it sounds shocking to experienced players, but there are actually new players joining every day, players who have no idea what X does or how to use it, which can lead to defeat quite frequently), not to mention emphasizing solo-friendly builds over team-oriented builds even more than the game already does, and making normal game content potentially inaccessible to new, unlucky or just plain bad players (who still enjoy playing, despite being debt-capped, because they like the stories/missions/enemies), just doesn't seem like a wise course.
|
This is terribly discriminatory against flame mastery blasters, you know. In fact, any character with Rise of the Phoenix available ought to *gain* reputation for throwing themselves into the middle of the fight, nuking, then rising from defeat in a blaze of fiery awesomeness to smite their enemies. I'm supposed to forego a chance to deliver an extra 600 points of delicious sizzling AoE damage because of some poxy civilian contacts' narrow-minded ideas about appropriate hero behaviour? Feh, I say! Forwards, for death AND glory!
|
But it's ALSO 'discriminatory' (by the way, LOVE the use of wording, there) to: Regeneration, Willpower, Empathy, Pain Dominance, Dark Miasma, Poisons, Dark Armor, because they all have a resurrection power. Aside from Self-Destruct, having yourself purposely die in combat? It's a cognitive dissonance.
Once again; this is a very rough-sketch idea. This isn't the finished product, nor anything close to it.

Y'know, they added the option to disable XP in... What? I13? I12?
|
I'm not saying that this idea is perfect-- far from it, but something NEEDS to replace debt, some sort of penalty. |
I wouldn't be opposed to a penalty system which encouraged the player to avoid dying, but I strongly oppose any system which restricts players from experiencing content fairly simply because they're not as skilled, or focused on team-oriented powers, or just got screwed by bad teammates, or were murdered by a bug, or logged in right when an invasion started and couldn't get under cover in time, or had a slow computer (resulting in them being slaughtered by a patrol while they were still at the loading screen after entering a mission (yes, it does still happen)), or any of countless other reasons players are defeated. It's too binary and too unforgiving of problems outside of the player's control.
Wait-- what? How is this tying anything to any particular build style? If you have a lousy reputation, you can still team with someone to do THEIR missions, and use their help to gain your own reputation. I'm trying to figure out how you managed to associate the 'Reputation' system with preference to a specific style of play. The only style of play it would discriminate against is 'Die a lot', which the game already does (just very poorly.) |
So now you've got a hard line being drawn between the team players and the solo players. The team players restrict themselves to playing only with people they know and can rely upon to keep them alive, because they don't want to risk being potentially permanently locked out of their own story arcs and missions by bad luck, and the solo players either avoid teams in order to maintain as much control as possible over the circumstances which may result in them being defeated, or they're deliberately avoided by team players because they're random elements which represent increased risk of dying, and therefore locking them out of missions.
Then you have the question of solo viability for different builds, and even different ATs. Some builds and ATs frequently and easily work through tight situations, whereas others struggle, or sometimes fail outright regularly (blasters before the Defiance revamp, for example). A blaster, for example, doesn't have a team build and a solo build, a blaster has a "MAEK DED" build, and it either works or it doesn't, teamed or solo. Should this blaster suffer the same penalties that a scrapper has to face, when the scrapper has significantly better survival tools and the option to switch between team and solo focus? Is that fair? Doesn't seem like it to me.
Point is, your system doesn't reward team play, it doesn't promote teaming, and it doesn't reward solo play equally, so it leads to the potential of some players being ostracized for not having "the right" builds or ATs and for not being known quantities. It may solve the problem that you perceive, that of a light penalty system for failure, but it compounds existing problems enormously, in ways which make the game less enjoyable for many more people.
Locking people out of content for not having appropriate builds, not knowing how the game works from day one or not having perfect teammates is terrible design. Take it back to the drawing board and try again. Maybe inf* loss would be a more reasonable option (after all, losers are usually less influential/infamous than winners), and I suspect that would be a disturbing enough prospect for many players to encourage them to avoid defeat, but without the potential for making it impossible to experience any of the content, because it wouldn't make it impossible for them to progress or acquire missions, it would simply make it difficult for them to acquire enhancements/temp powers/goodies.
Your strategy is just 'Kill me so I can do lots of damage', which I don't think should be rewarded to begin with.
|
Anyway, the real point is - I got the impression that wanted your system to have an in-world flavour to a system that penalises character deaths. I think it spoils that goal if NPCs are penalising certain characters who are actually doing something effective. It makes the NPCs look stupid, which to me seems like a bad thing.
But it's ALSO 'discriminatory' (by the way, LOVE the use of wording, there) to: Regeneration, Willpower, Empathy, Pain Dominance, Dark Miasma, Poisons, Dark Armor, because they all have a resurrection power.
|
Anyway. Does your proposed system especially penalise characters with those powers if they use them effectively? I shouldn't think it would, if they're either self-ressurects that don't have spiffy side-benefits, or they rez others. If it does, though, then, yes, I think that's also a bad idea. The more cases in which it applies, the more opportunities there will be for NPCs to look stupid.
Aside from Self-Destruct, having yourself purposely die in combat? It's a cognitive dissonance.
|
I guess, fundamentally, I just don't have that cognitive dissonance where we're talking about a character that has a power which means death can have a beneficial outcome. Then, there's no logical reason for them to avoid it. Maybe I've just been watching too much Torchwood lately. :-)
Arc#314490: Zombie Ninja Pirates!
Defiant @Grouchybeast
Death is part of my attack chain.
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
Please, PLEASE hear me out! I'm not requesting a WoW-style system of Reputation!
Debt, in the world of Paragon City, is a joke. I don't mean to offend anyone when I say that, but between debt reduction, the fact it's not much of a punishment to begin with, and Patrol XP? Debt is no more frightening than an issue of MAD Magazine.
No, I'd like to suggest Reputation as a form of 'Debt' alternative... But what exactly IS reputation?
Reputation is how Paragon City perceives you. It is what distinguishes the good from the bad, the better from the worse, and the Heroic from the Average.
Reputation is a variable that your character will have based upon successful missions vs. defeats, and depending on how your reputation is, on a scale of -10 to 10, will determine how the city reacts to you. Every character will start out at 0 -- a neutral point in the Reputation.
Let's go through some examples...
You start a mission, but find that you die 10 times along the way. This will take 10 points off your reputation; if you were at 0, you're now at -10, and if you're at 10, you're now at 0. Let's say you finish the mission, and you gain 1 Reputation for completing it, so the net loss is -9.
Now, your contact notes this, and he/she's disappointed... This is Paragon City, darnit! You're not the only Hero running around looking to help them, and they're gonna see about other inquiries until you've got the proper reputation.
Now, let's say you've got -9... Your contact no longer wants to speak to you at your current level of reputation, nor do... Any contacts, for that matter! You're trapped, until you open up your contact list and find the scanner just aching for some action!
Therefore, you are able to raise your reputation via scanner missions, up to where your contact will take your help on further tasks, as you've 'redeemed' yourself. You go on with your life, and chalk that last mission of 10 defeats as a fluke, and you're off!
But wait, there's more!
Upon reaching a high-enough reputation, it will unlock contacts, depending on what zone you're in, and your level range! That's right... Say, you've done 9 successful missions without fault? The word's gonna spread, and more people are gonna want YOUR help! These people can offer SO much new content to the game for EVERY level group, and every zone!
This system would work for Heroes AND Villains, as you might've noticed, and I think would make the game a great deal better. I hope you'll consider Reputation, and see all it has to offer Paragon City.