Reputation mechanics

[Whacker]

OK guys, I need a bit more insight here. Remember reading a few threads and tidbits on this in the past but most escapes me right now.

I don't understand how reputation works exactly. In my current campaign, I've waited for and had two other factions attack me first to initiate war. I am playing as Milan, my only ally is the Popester. I haven't allowed trade rights with ANYONE, and haven't been allied with anyone at all in the past except the Pope.

The two factions that attacked me first were France and the Moors. When each attacked me, I cheerfully annihilated them within a turn or two as I was waiting for it to happen. Problem is, my reputation has gone from Mixed to Untrustworthy. I don't get this. I haven't backstabbed anyone, they attacked me first, and I never had any diplomatic relations with them to begin with. This doesn't make any sense to me at all. Being trusthworthy in my mind means adhering to alliances and trade rights, and generally being a good neighbor to those whom you've established relations with. People whom you haven't established or won't establish trade/alliances/relations with, and on top of that THEN attack you, shouldn't have any impact on how reliable YOU are as a faction. Am I making sense here? This just seems broken to me.

Thoughts/comments/insight?

Cheers

[WhiskeyGhost]

Your reputation is based on many factors. If you have bad relations with other factions, it goes down (so you may have good standing with your allies, but if the rest of the world sees you as abysmal but not at war, your rep should go down). Also, i recall reading having a dreaded Faction Leader also lowers your reputation, among other actions.


You gotta think on a Global scale. Sure, "A" "B" and "C" love you, but if D-Z hate your guts because you never try to maintain relations with them, then theres way more people out there who definitely don't trust you

[Whacker]

Your reputation is based on many factors. If you have bad relations with other factions, it goes down (so you may have good standing with your allies, but if the rest of the world sees you as abysmal but not at war, your rep should go down). Also, i recall reading having a dreaded Faction Leader also lowers your reputation, among other actions.


You gotta think on a Global scale. Sure, "A" "B" and "C" love you, but if D-Z hate your guts because you never try to maintain relations with them, then theres way more people out there who definitely don't trust you

A valid post, but you have to differentiate trustworthiness vs. popularity. Just because someone dislikes me, doesn't mean I'm untrustworthy, and vica versa. Being well liked and popular is one thing. Being honorable and willing to honor agreements and bargains to others (even a small few) is another thing entirely.

[WhiskeyGhost]

A valid post, but you have to differentiate trustworthiness vs. popularity. Just because someone dislikes me, doesn't mean I'm untrustworthy, and vica versa. Being well liked and popular is one thing. Being honorable and willing to honor agreements and bargains to others (even a small few) is another thing entirely.

Although you have a point, theres still the fact that people that don't like you are bound to speak poorly of you when referring to you. You always say good things about your friends, but if its someone you don't like, your not gonna refer to them in a positive way.

Ever tried that little hearsay experiment where you tell one person something, and have them pass it on through a bunch of people (like say 20) and find the last person says something completely different from what was said at the start? Thats the point i was trying to make. You can gain a reputation as an honorable man, sure. But if people are told for generations that your countrymen all have big orgies with farm animals, then of course the vast majority (ignorant people) will believe it, despite it being nonsense.


Of course, i may be ranting a little bit, ive had a few drinks prior to this response

[andrewt]

I'm playing as the Moors currently. I attacked Portugal and Spain and was still mixed. I attacked Sicily and from what I remember, I was either still mixed or became untrustworthy. Milan attacked me and I counterattack them and I became dubious. It's odd how counterattacking a nation that declared war on me dropped my rep larger than me declaring war.

[Whacker]

It's odd how counterattacking a nation that declared war on me dropped my rep larger than me declaring war.

Exactly. This is what leads me to believe something is very broken.

[Tran]

Here's what I would like to know:

- When you conquer the enemy factions' city, do you sack, exterminate, or simply occupy it?
- When you got prisoners, do you ransom them, execute them, or just release them?
- Who's the ally of the Pope?

[Whacker]

As requested:

- When you conquer the enemy factions' city, do you sack, exterminate, or simply occupy it?

Almost all occupy, 2 sacks.

I have however exterminated all rebel cities, but that has not impacted my reputation, and I've done that with non-general stacks so my generals do not pick up dread traits.

- When you got prisoners, do you ransom them, execute them, or just release them?

Release always, which I've only fought 2 non-siege battles against non-rebel factions. Both times released.

- Who's the ally of the Pope?

Is and has only been me.

[Tran]

Actually your case is rather odd because it's completely different than my experience. In my game as Sicily, I have fought battles (only) against Milan and Moors, and just like you, made alliance with the Pope. I always release prisoners and occupy cities, and at one point, even declare war against Milan (first when they invade my land, and then after a crusade being called against them) then took Genoa (even though the Crusade target was the city of Milan itself). So far, my reputation never dropped and in fact, has increased twice, from mixed to reliable (this happened before the Crusade), and then became "very reliable".

But I agree, it's odd indeed...

[Kobal2fr]

Nothing's broken.

Reputation is based on three things.

1) global standing

Each turn you spend allied with one faction gives you +0.01 rep points, while each turn you spend at war with someone gives you -0.03. Also, reputation is normalized towards Mixed every turn. Since you're at war with the rebels by default, you need to have at least 3 allies at all times just to maintain your reputation, and 4 to slooooowly climb the ladder.
Unsavory thing : the factions you destroy are still technically at war with you, even if they don't exist anymore. The only way to avoid this is to make peace with them when they're down to their last province and let them die to rebels and/or another faction.

2) general behavior

helping an ally in battle gives you good points.
Breaking alliances either through diplomacy or outright betrayal, cancelling trade rights or mil rights, sending armies through allied lands without asking for mil rights first, breaking ceasefires (a ceasefire guarantees 4 turns of peace, after that it's fair game), all of this will give you bad points in huge amounts.
I believe captured assassination attempts and spies also make you untrustworthy, and even more so if you tried to kill a royal.

3) behavior in battle
liberating prisonners makes you trustworthy, ransoming gives you a few bad points, killing them a lot.
Same goes for cities : occupy gives you good points, sacking gives a few bad points, genocide tanks your rep.

BTW, all the things that give "good points" give them in trace amounts, while pretty much everything you do wrong earns you a big fat load of mistrust.

I may have forgotten some stuff, but them's the breaks : don't be an ass, be allied with as many factions as you can at all times, make one war at a time.

EDIT : oh, and getting back to your specific case, well there's your problem : you have two wars in progress (and they still are even if you destroyed the offending factions), and no allies. So your rep goes down overtime.

[Whacker]

Frenchie with the save! Thank you my good friend, that is also what I was looking for.

Those mechanics in my view are 'broken'. My being a war with a faction, esp. one that initiated war with me, should have nothing to do with my trustworthiness. I still think the game needs to great trust and likeability as separate mechanics. /shrug

Oh well, by this logic I'll probably never become trustworthy again, so I'll just have to continue "roleplaying", even though the game doesn't recognize that.

Thanks to everyone else as well for your input.

[Seymour]

Nothing's broken.

Reputation is based on three things.

1) global standing

Each turn you spend allied with one faction gives you +0.01 rep points, while each turn you spend at war with someone gives you -0.03. Also, reputation is normalized towards Mixed every turn. Since you're at war with the rebels by default, you need to have at least 3 allies at all times just to maintain your reputation, and 4 to slooooowly climb the ladder.
Unsavory thing : the factions you destroy are still technically at war with you, even if they don't exist anymore. The only way to avoid this is to make peace with them when they're down to their last province and let them die to rebels and/or another faction.

2) general behavior

helping an ally in battle gives you good points.
Breaking alliances either through diplomacy or outright betrayal, cancelling trade rights or mil rights, sending armies through allied lands without asking for mil rights first, breaking ceasefires (a ceasefire guarantees 4 turns of peace, after that it's fair game), all of this will give you bad points in huge amounts.
I believe captured assassination attempts and spies also make you untrustworthy, and even more so if you tried to kill a royal.

3) behavior in battle
liberating prisonners makes you trustworthy, ransoming gives you a few bad points, killing them a lot.
Same goes for cities : occupy gives you good points, sacking gives a few bad points, genocide tanks your rep.

BTW, all the things that give "good points" give them in trace amounts, while pretty much everything you do wrong earns you a big fat load of mistrust.

I may have forgotten some stuff, but them's the breaks : don't be an ass, be allied with as many factions as you can at all times, make one war at a time.

EDIT : oh, and getting back to your specific case, well there's your problem : you have two wars in progress (and they still are even if you destroyed the offending factions), and no allies. So your rep goes down overtime.

If that's really how reputation is designed, then design itself is broken. It sounds like this is a system rigged to drag down your reputation no matter what.

[hisn00bness]

I rather have the problem with it that if the system truly works this way; it's pretty impossible that in my current game as russia on H/VH ; i'm STILL very reliable....

- I use spies ALOT.
- I 've sacked some cities; especially lately (krakow; thessalonica; constantinople) to avoid running into religious problems.
- My faction leader has 9 dread; and my heir 8 dread.
- I've eradicated the Polish
- I was only allied with the papacy; denmark and HRE; but since HRE and the papacy decided to backstab me; I've now only the Byzantine empire as ally..
- I ransom/ release at a 3/1 ratio

so errm .... If I read that list i've done almost everything wong except for comitting recidivist genocide.

I still get to make peacefires with the HRE for 15000 gold + stettin because my rep is so high though

[crpcarrot]

i think the system is wuite ok. it will not work only if u intend to make war with everyone and still want to be trustworthy which shouldnt happen . so it works. maybe not to your specifications or own preferences but i think it works as the developers intended. if u make war and have no attempt to maintain allies you arnt trustworthy.