Missions and Reputation-mechanics

I propose to enter a reputation mechanics to (coming?) missions.
For the four factions the player may have a positive, neutral och negative reputation towards the faction. By completing missions the player receives positive or negative reputation towards a faction. Or both but to different faction.
Picture this: As a player receiving a mission from a merchant in Sepermeru. Say, it requires the player to retrieve stolen goods from the Black Ship. Completing the mission will give the player positive reputation in Sepmeru and negative reputation in the Black ship.
A player with high reputation receives no hostility in respective town and vice versa.

The missions done will give different reputation that can be seen in the character biography. Doing a lot of hard missions reputation may also give nicknames or reputation names, like Conan the barbarian and for a lot of easy missions the name might be Conan the mouse killer. In PvP attacking a low lvl character while being high lvl (easy win) would give the reputation Conan the coward (yea, that’s right all you griefers). Helping out a faction will give eventually give the dietyname, like Conan Set’s bane.

Three things with this;
First: Missions will give some variety to the game. Even in PvP the game is pretty static and at least myself would like a sense of purpose to the game since survival is comleted around lvl 20. Mission could also be some kind of season event: Basic event: Attack the Summoning place! Disrupt the summning! - or if a follower of Yog (high enough reputation for that faction) Defend the Summoning Place! At all cost!. On a PvP server that would be followers of Yog agains all other - great fun. On a PvE that would be much easier I guess since it would be sort of like a purge agains the summoning place. What ever the basic event is that road should be the hardest imo.

Second: Reputation will also give some dynamics since a player might change alliances with a faction during game play. Taking too many thralls from a faction will give negative reputation.

Third: Having a reputation name/phrase that is earned is fun. Almost like coloring the clothes. And a character should be able to have at least three of these suffixes. As when creating the character. There are some “deeds” the character is condemed for. Like “stealing of chickens, freeing slaves, taking slaves without a permit”. Seeing that reputation name under the character name would also be awsome.

I acknowledge that this probably is a lot of work since the mission has to randomized is some way to be replayable. Also the reputation counter is also probably a challange since a player may cross the reputation lvl while in a town. I guess that if players belong to a clan it is the clan reputation that matters. All in all, a lot to consider.

Still, reputation based on actions and that factions act towards players based on the reputation lvl towards that faction would be awsome. Think, having a specific hunt party (purge-like) going after the clan. Maybe even having their god with them if angry enough.
Also, in PvP, raiding a, by a faction, unliked clan might give positive reputation towards that faction.


Interesting case you have here. I like the reputation system linked with titles and consequences. They would bring another element of survival to a survival game.

Just a thought, but if the targeted faction doesn’t detect us doing their enemy a deal, why would they be any more hostile towards us than they currently are? If a faction doesn’t know that we did them a favour, why would they be any more friendlier toward us than they currently are? :thinking:

I with Shadoza on this … I like this game as a sandbox game … it’s nice to play one where you aren’t continuously sent on fetch/kill quests or chain quest of follow a game designers set of clues etc until quest completed … and need to do them for an end-of-quest reward.

I like that its on us the players to make up our own story as we go … or not if we chose to not do that.
I find that there is content within the game if you want to make it “quest” driven just without being given a “gold-star” by the game for completing it … traverse the map to find ghosts and learn their story, find recipes, fight bosses, master dungeons… I like that we are expected to use OUR imagination for a change rather than relying on the imagination & vision of a game developer.

PS: I do get that some people who suggest quest driven content do mean it to be optional for those of us who do not want to do them … but in general, if a quest is to be done the reward has to be attractive … who wants to go kill 20 darfari dancers because they offended a sanctimonious Mitra priest for 3 pieces of leather ? wouldn’t you feel cheated for investing the time doing a quest for bad rewards? (that’s been a major complaint about Age of Conan when so many quest rewards were pointless … items your class can not use or really bad gear). So IF the quest rewards are attractive enough for someone to bother doing, then it means it’s disadvantageous for those who don’t care to do them to ignore … hence drives them to do something they don’t want to…

If I’m not mistaken, that’s not the case here. This system presented is about reputation and related entitlement features, not typical fetch quests. I’m not sure if fetch quests are a must to have in this system. :thinking:


It’s more about the titles we get. Factions might behave similar to clans (with obvious differences), but what would make them differ more in essence is that perhaps they could behave like a real clan only in solo coop.

When doing solo, the factions provide a basic enough clan experience on top of the titles. When doing official servers, the factions focus on the title system alone.

Isn’t this a “fetch” quest ? so the reward is alteration in reputation rather than goods …but again it’s a gold-star with x faction for fetching a bunch of items … or substitute killing x of race or faction or animal …
What else do you see in this game that a quest system can be based around? major rewriting in code would be required to make it any different …
bring 1000 stone, make 20 explosives and deliver? bring 50 aloe soup? do x emote to target … its all fetch, kill, gather… very basic and linear and not very engaging as quest goals.
In an RPG game where there can be arcing storylines then it can be interesting. In solo games where the developers can divide your story path by the choices you make it’s more engaging …
BUT THIS game has not been designed with that back-bone …it’s meant to be an open sandbox where WE use OUR imagination to fill in the story … we can follow breadcrumbs of lore throughout the world if we like …there just isn’t a specific incentive/reward rewarded to us from the game for doing so. We can get rewards by hunting down recipes and being able to make more consumables and placeables by finding them and specific crafters …but it’s not quest-driven rewards …

It’s already a RPG, it’s just not marketed as such.

Create a character… check
Character improves by overcoming challenges (via experience to get levels and thereby feat & attribute points) … check

Those are the basic features of a RPG. Granted, a very basic one, but a RPG nonetheless.
You even have a main quest you can follow if you want. It’s just not blunt and obvious as in most cRPGs, but it’s definitely there.
Of course the sandbox nature is less focused on storytelling and the gameplay is mostly non-linear.

A reputation system with the ability to belong to one of the factions would not change that. It would, however, offer the player new options.


I tried to find that part before I wrote, but didn’t seem to find it. Maybe I’m too tired. Thanks for finding it for me.

Well, no matter. It’s okay coz I don’t think we need to base the system on these typical fetch quests. What we could do is simply make a foundation around the lore of the factions. Have the interest nodes pop up randomly around the place depending from their cultures, i.e. mingling behaviour pool.

For example we get to where the relic hunters are. We do our things as usual, but suddenly on our way back we stumble upon a relic hunter who had been attacked and left to die naked over a hot desert hill.

We have multiple options; help or pass.

If chosen to help, we decide how we want to help and it either works or fails. If it works, the hunter then thanks us and goes to spread the word of their good fortune. If it doesn’t, we would have three options; to try bring them to the closest friendly settlement for treatment, travel to the family and give them a farewell letter or yield and tell the hunter that we will honour them in the next feast. Each option works to provide the same reputation, but in a way that fits everyone’s pace of play and style. If we decide to pass them to begin with, nothing necessarily happens coz the hunter might die and therefore no one would know better. Only the good deeds count.

Another example is about yet another hunter. We stumble upon a fire late at night and a hunter sits next to it. We bid them no harm and join their small of a feast. They tell us about the lore of their faction and we get to fill our belly. They ask us a question and we answer them the way we see fit, and in the morning the hunter goes on to spread the word of a wanderer with a specific taste.

So in essence this reputation system could work thorough randomly built faction encounters that appear on a local biome basis, with options in each that fit the level of haste a player has. Only the good deeds count. To bring in negative deeds, one would need to simply kill the hunter instead, repeat the deed often enough in one place to build tension for local faction and wait them to send investigation parties to try find the source to these killings. You could also order an assassination when you happen to stumble upon an assassin on the way. No need to run anywhere. Just pay for the person and soon after it’s done. There would be a risk though. If the assassin gets caught and tells who paid them, you would be killed on sight and given negative reputation. Again if you kill the assassin instead or they are killed in action, nothing happens coz no one is wiser.

Coz we already do fetching for ourselves, it would be a breeze of fresh air to just do reverse quests. Instead of fetch quests, we pay for fetching. Instead of location fixed quests, we stumble upon random quests we succeed on the spot with a moment to spare.

Reverse quests… I kinda like the name. :smile:

On the most fundamental level, yes, most games are RPGs or at least have RPG elements.

Sandbox games are very closely related to what a good RPG is about: The freedom to tell your story within the game. The problem is that most people associate the term RPG only with storydriven cRPGs (themepark games) as opposed to the more open games (open-world, sandbox).

but still doing these tasks is to reward with a gold-star by the game for dong them … why do we need that?
Why not just design your own “quest”
Fighting your way into the Unnamed City to clear it of the undead skeleton plague you encounter fierce and hostile relic hunters.
You decide that their skill is impressive and decide instead of killing them all to knock them out and break their spirit and so enslave them. One fighter(/archer) is extremely powerful and resists all attempts to knock them out and so regretfully you have to kill him/her [obviously the mini boss].
In the next encampment of relic hunters whilst subduing the archers and fighters you recognise one as the brother of a friend back in your homelands who disappeared two years ago … you try to get him to recognise you but in the heat of battle he doesn’t listen or perhaps been brainwashed but once you have knocked him instead of enslaving him … you drag him away from danger and leave him unconscious next to a campfire with food in it … you quickly go and get some armour, weapons and a note page … you leave him a note near a wooden box holding the armour and weapons and directions to your fortress if he chooses to join you…
then you walk away…
You don’t get any well-done-you-reward from the game for doing so, but you’ve just made your own unique story/quest. Rather than following a scripted set of actions for specific reward.

What gold-star?

There’s nothing more on the table except the title you want to boost; Umberto the savage or Swali the klutz. Unless you’re doing solo, but honestly I don’t know how that would work and I am sleepy.

I think a better alternative is a optional quest chain… with primarily a simple points mechanic with the faction… positive reputation points for trading (if neutral or above) negative for killing/enslaving NPCs belonging to the faction. becoming an friend with one faction could cause negative points to another of the faction (a nemesis of sorts)

1 Like

Sorry perhaps that term is not specific enough.
When I went to school one way our teachers would reward completion of tasks was by small gold star that we could stick on our hand or put on our notebook to show off that our teacher was pleased with us
… nothing to do with grades but just a little morale boost and subtle pressure to comply with expectations so you weren’t the only one without it.
So in this context I’m using “gold star” to indicate what ever positive game outcome completing that scripted game quest gives us … whether it is reputation with faction, title, item …
That players wouldn’t embark on “saving” that NPC as part of story narrative they spontaneously created but players would only do it when Funcom has provided the start point (Eg in my example say a tablet on the ground saying “if anyone who knows x from the old world finds this please rescue me from these savages”) and will do because they want to gain the game reward that the developers created by completing the task. But why does Funcom have to write that story for us? Why do they have to provide a quest + reward system at all? We can use our own imagination to enrich our game.

PS: this is my response to most posts that ask Funcom to create more quest based content for the game not just specifically this suggestion. I just don’t tend to express myself so much on the topics (I usually just put a like on those who respond that they like the open sandbox without questing systems.)

Okay, now I got it. We had something similar too.


Typical quest chain does this. I’m suggesting the exact opposite… well, almost exact at least. I have a huge headache coz I slept in a bad position so bear with me.

Reverse questing is done with the same network, but turned the other way around. Instead of you getting a reward, you are the quest giver and reward the quest taker.

For example a typical fetch quest is provided by an npc and you are the one bringing in the goods. Reverse questing is where you provide the mission and pay the npc when they provide the goods.

Typical questing gives a reward based on the level of reputation and it changes your character. In reverse questing the level of reputation is the reward and it provides a change in the world.

Typical questing artificially forces us travel from place to place while reverse questing happens in the same range of space and time we already influence.

Typical questing breaks personal immersion in a worst situation and provides a vague Hero’s Road while reverse questing embraces our choices coz it happens where we are and takes advantage of local biometrics instead of forced (stretched) encounters.

They don’t have to provide anything. They want to provide is the answer. Same for reward systems. Depends from a game they want to make, but there is a risk though. As a developer I don’t want to make a game so vague that it needs one nor do I want to make a game with so rich story that players feel like it shouldn’t exist.

Yes, you can do that. I don’t want to force you to do that though. That’s the difference. I want you to use your imagination coz it further enriches your experience, not to fill a void I created.

It’s all about progression and pace.

I played WoW once upon a time. If I never have to grind faction reputation again it’ll still be too soon.

When done correctly, you wouldn’t have to grind.

Love this idea, its what I think its missing on Conan Exiles, Thral/Npc depth, if Funcom manages to get ppl working on A.I to get a level of Skyrim and that being Npcs having other reactions instead of just hostile but dialogues, random conversation, tasks that would ask for the player to do something and getting silver, gold or whatever in return, this would add so much to the game.

And since we got factions, it makes sense getting involved with them, the game would be more alive, because only running to point A to point B, grinding this, grinding that, checking clan X, clan Y, building here and there, it gets old.


I like the idea of reverse questing. Also love the idea of having nemesis between factions.
Reading the comments I think I need to clarify one thing with the reputation idea. Consequense.
The game does not force the player to eat or drink - but not doing so will cause consequenses (death). The game does not force the player to wear a sandstorm mask during a sandstorm - but if not there are consqueses (damage). If imagination is key why not remove the eating, drinking etc and just use imagination? Even swimming has a consequense (loose stamina).
The game sets a framework but the only part of the game without consequenses are actions against thralls and factions. You can treat them in the most awful way without consequense. There is only benefits (loot, thralls, etc). It is like chopping wood. The next day it is as if it never happened. Very static. And hard to tell your own story, at least in my head.
“-Remember when we almost whiped out Sepermeru?”
-“It re-populated over night and no one remeber us… Shall we do it again?”

Super-weird story.

To me that is a bit weird in a sandbox environment. There should be consequenses for messing around in a faction. Specially in survival game. Messing too much with a faction might be bad for survival. (I know basic survival game is about eating, environment and -like- sleep, but lets expand that shall we). Reputation is one way to add consequense to player actions against thralls/factions. Some factions start aggressive, some neutral and the fun part is that those states might change due to player actions.
With states comes new oppurtunities, like quest/mission that can only be taken if reputation is positive enough.

I would love to see faction based purges. Keep the global purge and add faction purges. I.e. the a meter is not based on building actions but instead of actions based against factions (reputation) and distance from base (closest one). So, in PvP you might not want to collect too many thralls from the nearby camps since that would increase having a nearby purge while also raided. Getting thralls from far away has the downside of being vulnerable to other players. Makes it more interesting imo.

Also, providing this tool of reputation to the modding community might open up many interpretations and uses.

The mission part is not necessary but would add some fun to it. As for now the only way to get loot is to kill, like everyone. No way to get loot for helping out. With missions the main thing wouldnt be loot, instead it mainly the social part of it - “Katla - the champion of Yog”. Loot would ofcourse be welcome. Instead of killing every living inhabitant you get loot for helping out. Has a nice touch to it.

Adding missions would also give the modding community something to really work with. Now it is mostly skins. There are some very creative people out there and I would love to see what they could do with mission mechanics.

For it to work it must be randomized in some way. It does not have to be by much. The recent addition to spawns with the occational elite version did a lot to improve the world. The same could be done for factions. Some spawns might be a mission thrall.


Excellent points. :smile:

This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.