|
Given all of the commentary by others, it would seem that the concensus is that players aren't to be trusted to evaluate each other objectively.
So use the most objective of all tools: the computer!
Example: You group with someone, which implies a certain amount of trust. You go hunting with them. During the hunt, they rescue you from imminent death a few times (+trust combat points), split the gold every time (+money trust points), and don't get you killed (also +trust combat points). You invite them into your clan (+ social trust points/combat trust points/everything trust points). Then they pk you (big ole -trust points.) But the code does all of the work; you set up a bunch of measuring rods, decide on total values and increments those values are increased/decreased by when things happen. Take the players who have interacted with this character, take the mean of their total trust points towards the guy, and write funny descriptions about whether he/she is trustworthy or not.
If you wanted it REALLY resource intensive, you could even keep track of all interaction between all players, and in doing so allow a "biased" opinion of the char: I evaluate Bob, but I only know 15 out of the 250 people Bob has interacted with. So the report I get is based on how those 15 people view Bob, not how EVERYONE does. This is a tad more accurate in volatile situations, where my particular posse might really hate the guy, but that's because everyone hates us.
-Visko
|