Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

RPG Superstar 2015

Allowing PvP but not griefers...


Pathfinder Online

51 to 73 of 73 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Mbando wrote:
As a very crude example, if people could wink in and out of existence at will, it would greatly enable those who wanted to act in antisocial/sociopathic ways, and greatly retard the efforts of those who wanted to build social arrangements. That's the kind of thing designers need to think through.

This is exactly why I would prefer to see every character actually being in-game at all times, even when the player is offline.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chuck Wright wrote:

My only serious misgiving is the looting rule, where you lose everything if your corpse gets looted.

People WILL form large ganking groups to raid areas with security just for the joy of killing you and making sure you lose your stuff. I'm sure that this will even happen in high security zones, unless guard response is INSTANT and there's no chance for ANYONE to loot your husk.

so you dont want your RPG(Role Playing Game)to be realistic? im in favor of a realistic system of not carrying 8k gold and 6 different max level awesomesauce swords in my inventory, unless im a merchant.

i like the idea of having to party to go explore.

i love the idea of playing a bandit and ganking players for cash.

and i especially love the idea of having a penalty for failure, and a reward for success in pvp, other then just gear currency. im looking at you wow,& swtor.

Layout and Design, Frog God Games

Jupp wrote:
Chuck Wright wrote:

My only serious misgiving is the looting rule, where you lose everything if your corpse gets looted.

People WILL form large ganking groups to raid areas with security just for the joy of killing you and making sure you lose your stuff. I'm sure that this will even happen in high security zones, unless guard response is INSTANT and there's no chance for ANYONE to loot your husk.

so you dont want your RPG(Role Playing Game)to be realistic? im in favor of a realistic system of not carrying 8k gold and 6 different max level awesomesauce swords in my inventory, unless im a merchant.

i like the idea of having to party to go explore.

i love the idea of playing a bandit and ganking players for cash.

and i especially love the idea of having a penalty for failure, and a reward for success in pvp, other then just gear currency. im looking at you wow,& swtor.

Yes, the only way to fix this is for the gaming system where you can throw fireballs and you resurrect to be unrealistic.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth to justify spouting your pet grievance.

I also like your assumption that I'm talking ONLY about people with lots of stuff... or your hyperbole to jump to that conclusion.

I for one, don't want to lose my meager belongings because I'm strolling through the city and 5 guys jump me, kill me, and loot me before I can return to my husk.

I don't know how looting is going to work, I don't know how fast guards are going to respond. The fact that you are going to love ganking players for cash pretty much tells me where your incentive lies, and it's not with fairness, it's with gaming the system to get what you want.

In my opinion.

Goblin Squad Member

Chuck Wright wrote:


I don't know how looting is going to work, I don't know how fast guards are going to respond. The fact that you are going to love ganking players for cash pretty much tells me where your incentive lies, and it's not with fairness, it's with gaming the system to get what you want.

Perhaps then, it's best if we don't get all fired up and confrontational about a system that hasn't been confirmed yet.

People's love, or hate of full loot PVP is more than adequately covered by the last 20 years of game development, so I think it's safe to assume the developers are aware of people's concerns.

It's probably also a good idea not to bait each other, and just try and keep the discussion constructive. :)

Goblin Squad Member

Chuck Wright wrote:
Jupp wrote:
Chuck Wright wrote:

My only serious misgiving is the looting rule, where you lose everything if your corpse gets looted.

People WILL form large ganking groups to raid areas with security just for the joy of killing you and making sure you lose your stuff. I'm sure that this will even happen in high security zones, unless guard response is INSTANT and there's no chance for ANYONE to loot your husk.

so you dont want your RPG(Role Playing Game)to be realistic? im in favor of a realistic system of not carrying 8k gold and 6 different max level awesomesauce swords in my inventory, unless im a merchant.

i like the idea of having to party to go explore.

i love the idea of playing a bandit and ganking players for cash.

and i especially love the idea of having a penalty for failure, and a reward for success in pvp, other then just gear currency. im looking at you wow,& swtor.

Yes, the only way to fix this is for the gaming system where you can throw fireballs and you resurrect to be unrealistic.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth to justify spouting your pet grievance.

I also like your assumption that I'm talking ONLY about people with lots of stuff... or your hyperbole to jump to that conclusion.

I for one, don't want to lose my meager belongings because I'm strolling through the city and 5 guys jump me, kill me, and loot me before I can return to my husk.

I don't know how looting is going to work, I don't know how fast guards are going to respond. The fact that you are going to love ganking players for cash pretty much tells me where your incentive lies, and it's not with fairness, it's with gaming the system to get what you want.

In my opinion.

Both view points are valid but from opposite positions: One from safety and one from danger. As Southraven is saying, there's a lot of data to reference for how other mmorpgs with "limited-open pvp" have turned out too dangerous and hence why the right balance should be achieveable between: (1) Ganking/griefing become gaming the system in FFA pvp (2) Conversely many themepark mmos have become too safe and = boring.

I personally think griefing can fall on Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi area of challenge being too high vs skill: Anxiety/Worry - because griefers destabalise the challenge/control of the victim. I mean if the victim could instantly redress the result with proportional interest, they would feel back in control and fairness as well as justice would be the new goal achieved all within the bounds of the game. And cut down the level of future griefing, if the penalised player is successfully deterred or persuaded.

I like to see PfO be more like how in a large city you know there are areas you should avoid after dark, you can still go there but you know they have a reputation for assaults/muggings more than other areas etc or you go under certain conditons: With a large group of people and specific route. Additionally you know gangs that run drugs often end up shooting each other in such cities and you're generally safe if you don't associate with these people (unless it's a drive-by at a busy public area), they generally only go for their rivals. The exception is often drug addicts in real-life who if caught burgling homes may sometimes panic and knife a home-owner in their desperation/addled disassociated state).

The difference in mmorpgs is that player characters are expected to die a lot as part of the gameplay. So imo as long as you, as a player, can see a pattern in how you got pk'd and you feel it was within the spirit of the game with repercussions, either it was fair game or I was ganked, and both outcomes have proportional repercussions, then I think it should majority be a lot more interesting gameplay than either too safe or too dangerous.

Extra note: Apparently even though there was more violence in cities during Medieval times than today (lack of centralised authority able to police consistently etc), they were still considered much, much safer than forests and roads in the country (esp. after dark) where bandits and others were frequently lying in wait.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
As I've said before, grief is in the eye of the beholder - it cannot be absolutely defined.

I agree but I think there is a pretty good loose definition.

Griefing, is when your main motivation for an action is to cause another player grief.

So raiding a wagon convoy because they have items you want is not griefing. Your main motivation was profit.

Raiding him 9 more times even though you got all his stuff the first time, just for the hell of it... is griefing.

Waging a war against a kingdom because of opposing role-play, they have territory that you want, you want a good fight, or you just don't like eachother... is not griefing. Waging war on a tiny little company that has nothing you want, can't put up a good fight, and has done nothing to provoke you... is griefing.

That is the definition GL will be following when we are deciding whether to classify an enemy as an honorable rival, or wipe them from the face of PFO.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:

That is the definition GL will be following when we are deciding whether to classify an enemy as an honorable rival, or wipe them from the face of PFO.

I do wonder if "wiping someone from the face of PFO" could itself be classified as "griefing". After all deciding to do it because "I don't like how they play the game" is kind of a grey area.

Goblin Squad Member

Southraven wrote:
Andius wrote:

That is the definition GL will be following when we are deciding whether to classify an enemy as an honorable rival, or wipe them from the face of PFO.

I do wonder if "wiping someone from the face of PFO" could itself be classified as "griefing". After all deciding to do it because "I don't like how they play the game" is kind of a grey area.

It is a grey area for sure, and I'll really let people decide how they feel about it themselves.

I very carefully select my targets and show them as much respect as they show the community. Someone just looking for a fight or profits, I'll give them a fight. Someone looking to ruin other's experience, I'll ruin theirs. We are better off without people like that, and I have no intention of letting an infection like Goon Swarm(EVE) or The Gentlemen(Darkfall) take root in our community. The fact that my motivation is to protect weaker members of the community, and the fact that I need a reason to really come down on someone with full force, and am actually helpful to people who have not given me a reason is how I consider myself different than a griefer.

That may not be your morality, but it is mine, and I'm not asking for anyone's approval. Some of you may have noticed by now that I'm not particularly soft spoken or concerned what people think. ;)

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:


It is a grey area for sure, and I'll really let people decide how they feel about it themselves.

I very carefully select my targets and show them as much respect as they show the community. Someone just looking for a fight or profits, I'll give them a fight. Someone looking to ruin other's experience, I'll ruin theirs. We are better off without people like that. The fact that my motivation is to protect weaker members of the community, and the fact that I need a reason to really come down on someone with full force, and am actually helpful to people who have not given me a reason is how I consider myself different than a griefer.

That may not be your morality, but it is mine, and I'm not asking for anyone's approval. Some of you may have noticed by now that I'm not particularly soft spoken or concerned what people think. ;)

Firstly, yes I believe I have noticed ;)

Secondly, my point is not so much directed at you yourself Andius, but rather at the grey end of "what is motivating people". Someone could claim they are acting to benefit the greater good, but that may not be their intention at all, merely what they say to cover their tracks. I'm sure Mbando could give us some in-depth analysis of the societal impacts such behaviors would have.

Some people may in fact go to great lengths to ruin the fun of others for a myriad reasons, some altruistic, some nefarious, and there is little way to tell some of them apart.

It will be part of an ongoing challenge that the GW people will have to maintain. I am personally a fan of the 'let the players sort it out' gameplay, EVE is an excellent example of a well run game where justice is handled for the most part, by the players.

I'm looking forward to seeing how it all pans out :)

Goblin Squad Member

Southraven wrote:

Secondly, my point is not so much directed at you yourself Andius, but rather at the grey end of "what is motivating people". Someone could claim they are acting to benefit the greater good, but that may not be their intention at all, merely what they say to cover their tracks. I'm sure Mbando could give us some in-depth analysis of the societal impacts such behaviors would have.

)

I think the motivation can generally be revealed through careful scrutiny of the actions. Unlike a single act of murder with companies and kingdoms we will be able to analyze their morality based on a long list of actions taken as a whole.

If Great Legionnaires consistently comes down hard on companies with a reputation for consistent griefing, fights companies known as random player killers, bandits, or corrupt, and leaves alone or renders aid to all other companies, kingdoms and individuals. Then that will say something about our motivations.

If we are digging up charges of grief and corruption for companies that are not known for doing such, and always happen to end up with goods or territory when we attack them... then that will say something else.

I don't think the kind of people I am targeting with my recruitment will sit around and tolerate the second kind of behavior.

(Just using GL as an example. The point can be applied to other scenarios.)

And I agree with you. I would really like to see minimal GoblinWorks involvement in policing player interaction. I prefer to see players do it for themselves. I prefer if GoblinWorks focuses on preventing blatant meta-game abuses like how BOB was disbanded, to running around deciding who is and isn't a griefer and punishing them.

Goblin Squad Member

Ideally "envoys" will be a career that should see a lot of important use on this subject of player's policing their companies and associates, so that disputes and dialogue and consensus can be reached. Maybe even reparations aka "blood money" could be decided in lieu of vendettas so everyone is satisfied?

There probably will be a range in behaviour where as andius says, precedent is a good indication of intention. So considering all the above I think griefing should be identifiable above a low-level incidence. & how goblinworks's is able to flag such behaviour via the game itself.

The only serious challenge to this would be a community with a tyrant of a leader who somehow convinces everyone to put a settlement to the sword "because he did not like it's name". A true story of one of Russia's Czars iirc!

Layout and Design, Frog God Games

I have a pretty simplistic view of griefing. If your fun only starts when someone else's stops. Than you're a griefer.

Goblin Squad Member

Chuck, that's probably true, though I'm no expert. But unless someone has complete access to another's thoughts, then how to describe their intention from another's perspective becomes the secondary method of establishing if someone is a griefer or not. This article has an interesting way of describing this, I came across most recently:

HEARTS, CLUBS, DIAMONDS, SPADES: PLAYERS WHO SUIT MUDS

Richard Bartle wrote:

The four things that people typically enjoyed personally about MUDs were:

i) Achievement within the game context.

Players give themselves game-related goals, and vigorously set out to achieve them. This usually means accumulating and disposing of large quantities of high-value treasure, or cutting a swathe through hordes of mobiles (ie. monsters built in to the virtual world).

ii) Exploration of the game.

Players try to find out as much as they can about the virtual world. Although initially this means mapping its topology (ie. exploring the MUD's breadth), later it advances to experimentation with its physics (ie. exploring the MUD's depth).

iii) Socialising with others.

Players use the game's communicative facilities, and apply the role-playing that these engender, as a context in which to converse (and otherwise interact) with their fellow players.

iv) Imposition upon others.

Players use the tools provided by the game to cause distress to (or, in rare circumstances, to help) other players. Where permitted, this usually involves acquiring some weapon and applying it enthusiastically to the persona of another player in the game world.

That was written in 1985. Opinion has generally develpoped towards players are a morphous mixture of these types at any one time with a tendency to some more than others and that might itself be a reflection of the game apart from anything about the individual per se.

What I think is also interesting is the ratio of types of players leading to increasing or decreasing other types of players as a basic model. In fact I think PfO would be a better game the more "socialisers" there are in it; which is ironical given that this "category" might be more deterred by the pvp than other categories; but actually more of this type would make the pvp work better I'm sort of thinking! Anway always good to read articles that are ahead of their time and I never knew where the Bartle Test originated from before.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This whole thread is absurd.

Pathfinder Online is going to implement a system where griefers become wanted men and entire organizations will be designed to punish them.

To say that griefers shouldn't be "allowed" just doesn't make any sense. They can't keep doing what they do with impunity and will probably end up being squashed by a world that appraises them as immoral and untrustworthy people.

Goblin Squad Member

For me one of the attractions of the game is the freedom to do what you want, so many games try to handhold the reality is that the world is a big scary place. However, it is also true that there are consequences for actions.

Personally I would like to see safe zones, towns, villages or player built settlements that are designated your home area. All the time you are in your home area if you are killed then you can only lose a limited amount of items say one or two. This should protect crafters and individuals who want to stay in their home area for safety. However, if you are outside your home territory, then you are fair game.

World player kills carry risks and rewards, deliberately attacking towns gives you limited awards and high risks. You can still do it but there are greater consequences if you are killed. Whilst you cannot stop griefing you can change the risk / reward balance

I do think there would also be room for war declarations with mutual agreement. If you are at war then hey your fair game.

It not a perfect solution

Goblin Squad Member

but its a suggested solution

Goblin Squad Member

My interest lies in what crime and punishment will be like in a broad sense.

The game will in some respects live or die on how much risk vs. how much reward there is.

If you risk a lot in committing a crime, you will have less wanton ganking/thievery. If you risk relatively little, the world will descend into lawlessness.

Some of this can be handled by players, but systems which codify crimes and mete out (even if it is player dispensed) justice are imperative to having an ordered society.

The question is, how "lawful" does the world want to be . . . and to what extent does proximity to "civilization" play a role.

Look to EVE's CONCORD for examples of a sliding scale of enforcement. It goes from near instant destruction to no intervention by the game whatsoever as you slide from 1.0 to 0.0 . . .

Goblin Squad Member

People want consequences for evil players but none for good ones? I'd like to see a security system that prevents good-aligned players from entering evil settlements as well.

The law can only be enforced by NPC guards so it'd be nice if "lawful" settlements could ultimately hire some. LE settlements could then screen any good-aligned players from their territory.

To prevent abuse, the NPC guards should only be hired in a "capital hex". And a PC alliance can only have one such hex and only if they control 3-4 touching hexes. So any opposing faction could fight in the 2-3 surrounding hexes to make the capital lose its guards.

On the other hand, "chaotic" settlements would not have the option of hiring NPC guards. They would instead screen players on a reputation basis. Reputation that the alliance leader can give or take from players/companies/alliances. CG could flag E players as criminals and CE would flag G ones.

Goblin Squad Member

CaptnB wrote:

People want consequences for evil players but none for good ones? I'd like to see a security system that prevents good-aligned players from entering evil settlements as well.

The law can only be enforced by NPC guards so it'd be nice if "lawful" settlements could ultimately hire some. LE settlements could then screen any good-aligned players from their territory.

To prevent abuse, the NPC guards should only be hired in a "capital hex". And a PC alliance can only have one such hex and only if they control 3-4 touching hexes. So any opposing faction could fight in the 2-3 surrounding hexes to make the capital lose its guards.

On the other hand, "chaotic" settlements would not have the option of hiring NPC guards. They would instead screen players on a reputation basis. Reputation that the alliance leader can give or take from players/companies/alliances. CG could flag E players as criminals and CE would flag G ones.

Fully agreed, there should be pros and cons to both routes. Evil as a fringe 5% of the population, won't do much. Evil organization moves out takes one town, 14 good alliences squash evil into a bug... The world needs a balance of each, the key is ensuring that both sides make a fun competition between eachother, and neither side eliminates the existance of the other.

Goblin Squad Member

It should take more effort to stay Good. Evil should be the easy, fast way to achieve your goals.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Tom Cadwell and James Portnow have something tangentially relevant to the subject.

Goblin Squad Member

Excellent link, Decius. Most really good ideas sound simple and obvious when someone finally says them out loud.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

You know, I hate griefers, and my interest in the game will plummet if PvP looting is even possible.

I don't like PvP. I'm not good at PvP. I don't want to go out exploring / dungeon crawling / questing only to find that some "bandit" (I guess that's what some would call them, I have more colorful terms for them) kills me, tea bags me, and then strips me of all my shiny stuff. That's just not my kind of game.

Ryan said that this game would be different from Eve, despite his background. While that seems true in some aspects, if these rumors hold true, it would seem the very things that keep me away from Eve will be added to PFO. I'm beginning to feel a fool for backing this on kickstarter.

But we will see how things play out. It's too early for final judgments.

51 to 73 of 73 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Paizo Licensed Products / Pathfinder Online / Allowing PvP but not griefers... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.