Syntax: reputation

This command will give you some idea of where you fall in the cabal wars that
rage across the face of Thera. There are various things you can do to sway
your reputation with a specific faction.

                |   Hated  | Disliked |  Neutral | Friendly | Renowned |
FORTRESS        |**********|**********|*****     |          |          |
OUTLANDER       |**********|**********|**********|********  |          |
BATTLE          |**********|**********|******    |          |          |
HERALD          |**********|**********|*****     |          |          |
EMPIRE          |**********|*****     |          |          |          |
SCION           |**********|*****     |          |          |          |
NEXUS           |**********|**********|*****     |          |          |
TRIBUNAL        |**********|***       |          |          |          |

Currently there is nothing that happens because of your reputation with a certain faction, but I expect that to change over time.

If only there were a "Gotham" slot. I'd rule.

nt

Is this retroactive at all, or will it just build on things a character does after the reputation command was added?

>Is this retroactive at all, or will it just build on things a
>character does after the reputation command was added?

Somewhat retroactive (for things we've tracked, I'd guess about half). The other half is new stuff that will adjust your reputation as you do them.

Sounds kinda nifty.

I'll second the idea of making reputation available to certain characters. Maybe just make members of a cabal able to see a given characters reputation in reference to them? (Ie, an Imperial would know if your character is Hated/Renowned/whatever by the Empire) Seems like it'd make sense.

Also.. please tell me this info will be in the PBF?

Sorry if it's already added.. I haven't actually checked on this new feature yet.

Cool idea though, whatever you decide to do with it.

Would you be willing to let leaders check the reputations of those under their command? I think this would be a good check to see if they are worth keeping around.

>Would you be willing to let leaders check the reputations of
>those under their command? I think this would be a good check
>to see if they are worth keeping around.

I'm open to various uses for reputation, this is just the foundation for what could be.

I'm curious what you think you would see, and what you would do with that information. Are you thinking reputation with your cabal, with your enemies cabal, with all cabals? I doubt the way it's set up would tie closely to "see if they are worth keeping around".

If it's up on the positive end, they probably aren't doing much of what they should be.

Silver for stories, gold for silence.

and less 'human factor' in leader's decisions now. Is it worse or better - I dont know.

A bar graph makes it look like you start at hated and can build up to renowned. Maybe this should be represented by 4-5 stars at your reputation level. That would show better that its something that starts at 0 - neutral, and moves + or -.

>A bar graph makes it look like you start at hated and can
>build up to renowned.

Everyone starts at Neutral and can move up or down the chart.

>Maybe this should be represented by 4-5
>stars at your reputation level.

Every star on the chart actually means something.

Here is another example

                |   Hated  | Disliked |  Neutral | Friendly | Renowned |
FORTRESS        |**********|**********|**********|**********|**        |
OUTLANDER       |**********|*******   |          |          |          |
BATTLE          |**********|**********|******    |          |          |
HERALD          |**********|**********|*****     |          |          |
EMPIRE          |**********|*         |          |          |          |
SCION           |**********|****      |          |          |          |
NEXUS           |**********|**********|*****     |          |          |
TRIBUNAL        |**********|**********|****      |          |          |

>That would show better that
>its something that starts at 0 - neutral, and moves + or -.

I don't actually get what you're saying. I think the chart is pretty understandable as is.

The chart could be interpreted as everyone starts at Hated and builds stars up from there. For the type of information it represents the chart makes more sense like this.

                |   Hated  | Disliked |  Neutral | Friendly | Renowned |
FORTRESS        |          |          |          |         *|****      |
OUTLANDER       |          |   *****  |          |          |          |
BATTLE          |          |          |  *****   |          |          |
HERALD          |          |          | *****    |          |          |
EMPIRE          |       ***|***       |          |          |          |
SCION           |          |*****     |          |          |          |
NEXUS           |          |          |  *****   |          |          |
TRIBUNAL        |          |          |****      |          |          |

I understand now, though I don't think that's any better or worse than what currently exists there.

I actually thought he meant something like this:

              Hated                Neutral              Renowned
FORTRESS        |                    |**************      |
OUTLANDER       |             *******|                    |
BATTLE          |                    |*****               |
HERALD          |          **********|                    |
EMPIRE          |       *************|                    |
SCION           |                    |*************       |
NEXUS           |                    |                    |
TRIBUNAL        |               *****|                    |

So basically just show the amount you're over or under zero, with zero being neutral. In the above example, the guy has a neutral rep with Nexus.

n/t