Talk:New Attributes

Another way to lower repute

• What about adding that having idle estate lowers your repute? --M2rt 14:11, 9 August 2007 (CEST)

Purpose of page, suggestions

• It's not clear to me whether this page is for speculation about what changes these attributes, suggestions of ideas, or things that definitely change them. Clarification might help. --John 18:03, 9 August 2007 (CEST)
  • Also, some ideas: If possible, Adventurers should get chivarly points when they post monster/undead links that other people follow. One of my biggest problems with the adventurer class is how many people are selfish with those links and thus prevent everyone getting the larger prizes. For region commanders, just courts should either raise repute or lower notoriety. --John 18:03, 9 August 2007 (CEST)
    • Experimental features like this are usually things Tom is working on. He has already begun to implement this one, and the new attributes are actually displayed (or at least placeholders for them) in-game on testing islands. If you have any suggestions regarding these features, you should either add them to this Talk page, or send them to the Discussion List. --Indirik
      • I also don't think the ability to raise Chivalry through tournaments is an ideal one, tournaments shouldn't ever have anything negative about them or we'll be discouraging people from joining. Newcomers especially since new players ought to be encouraged to join to learn the culture of the island, get some experience and mix with other people generally and shouldn't be punished for doing this unless their is an option to join a tournament for a lesser fee to simply watch and not take part (perhaps you ought to be able to only place bets when you don't take part to encourage this?).
• Perhaps how you treat your men to entertainment should have an impact on these attributes. Taking your men to a rough bar might increase notoriety, brothels might lower chivalry, dancehall lower notoriety, etc. Soulblighter 00:31, 11 August 2007 (CEST)
• I think these new attributes are superfluous and are simply variations of honour and prestige. They do not reflect actual character and seem to be just more numbers to code. For instance my randy pirate character has quite high Chivalry while my noble and righteous prophet of a peaceful faith has a negative Chivalry. I would like to simply see honour and prestige being put to better use. Honour could be lost when looting and the like while prestige could be raised with gaining titles and the like. -Balewind
  • These attributes are designed to reflect your character's actual behavior, not your own concept of how your characters should be perceived. So, maybe your characters aren't acting according to your concepts very closely. :p Seriously, though, there has been a lot of discussion about the meanings of honor and prestige on the Discussion List, and many people have a very different idea of what all of these terms mean. These new attributes are an attempt to flesh out the system. Perhaps they can provide a better way to differentiate between different types of behavior. For now, they don't really do anything at all, so you can just ignore them. Perhaps by the time they actually have some kind of in-game effect, they will be more detailed, and have a wider selection of things that contribute to their values. --Indirik 15:06, 19 November 2007 (CET)

• • • As it stands the attributes are NOT indicative of my character's behavior. Much of the numbers I am seeing come from OUTSIDE sources such as Daimons sitting and looting in the capital. Ie: Stuff being done TO them and not BY them. Such attributes denote character yet as it stands do not actually have anything to do with the characters they are reflecting. As far as I'm converned 'Chivalry' and 'Integrity' are just other words for Honour while 'Repute' and 'Noteriety' are pretty much the same as Prestige. One is your moral standing in th world while the other is your standing in the eyes of nobility. The only attribue among the 5 that is actually 'new' is achievments... which can also be easily denoted by looking at a character's family history. Why not simply make Honour and Prestige more fluid numbers? For example you could gain prestige for gaining claims, positions, etc. or loose prestige for being accused of imposture, found wanting for vulgarity (already happening) etc. In the same way you could gain honour for doing civil work and the like (Not a noble like act but definately raises you in moral standing) or loose honour for looting. Which brings to mind a pet peeve of mine that has been showing up recently: People actually GAINING honour for looting?!? That makes NO sense at all. I think the only 'fleshing out' the system needs is in the battle and combat area. It IS called Battlemaster afterall and there are tonnes of places where the battles could be made more diverse and involved. I'd rather the role playing aspect of the game be left a little more free for us to do our own thing because adding more rules and numbers to that department (that may or may not have anything at all to do with the actual character) is just detrimental. -Balewind

Unclear

Will other players/characters be able to view your own characters' new attributes? Also, will these attributes have any tangible ingame effects? For example, Honor and Prestige dictate whether or not you can assume a position or change class. Regardless, these look very interesting! Elenar 18:23, 9 August 2007 (CEST)

Adventurers are reputable?

How is this calculated for adventurers? My adventurer capital has a repute of 7. I only saw this while returning from prison! How did he get those points? He cannot do any of the actions which gain repute (I know there might be more that those listed on the page but I can't think of any which might raise an adventurer's repute! AJ 08:02, 12 August 2007 (CEST)

It looks like everyone has a repute of 7. Probably a seed number that was give to everyone? --Indirik 13:49, 12 August 2007 (CEST)

I thinkdventurers should have very bad "stats", they are but commoners and should never be above the common (newbie) noble. That way, once they are knighted, they aren't instantly recognised as men of great deeds, and have to work hard to put their peasent history behind them. -Chénier 18:41, 12 August 2007 (CEST)

Why can't adventurers be reputable? Adventurers could get Achievement points for killing Undead and Monster leaders, they can duel others, and I suppose if you kill or hurt enough commoners in duels your repute, and chivalry will go down while notoriety will go up. The establish good reputations by killing off early threats, and selling rare artifacts to nobles and getting recommendations. I just think the stats should be harder to increase or decrease with adventurers.--Steve2609 06:17, 13 August 2007 (CEST)

Lots of things could be considered great achievements, but if the nobles don't care 'cause you were a smelly peasents and didn't do it the noble way, then it shouldn't be of any help. -Chénier 20:24, 13 August 2007 (CEST)

While adventurers can "duel", nobles do not consider such fights as real duels of honor. Rather, they are just commoners brawling with weapons. In any case, the new attributes have been removed from adventurers. Such things are not meant for those of such lowly birth and station. --Indirik 22:07, 13 August 2007 (CEST)

Actions on Adventurers

Capturing or beating adventurers could rise notoriety, while failing at it lower some of the other stats. -Chénier 00:03, 25 September 2007 (CEST)

No room for notoriety?

I like the second proposal better than the first, in general—but I do think that notoriety, or something very like it, is a good stat to have. People would notice if a particular noble had a strong predilection for brutally looting, beating commoners, or hanging rebels, or torturing prisoners, and I think that the game should have a way of keeping track of this. --Anaris 21:43, 19 November 2007 (CET)