Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jumping into the discussion very late, I'll offer my opinion. "Griefing" is something that can be done in any game, even ones with no PvP... Chat Spamming to fill up someones screen and make it impossible to communicate with someone else is an example of such activity.
PKing, even non-consentual in itself is not "Griefing" but it is a tool often used by "Griefers" to "Grief".
Essentialy "Griefing" is interacting with another player for the express purposes of ruining their enjoyment of the game, not for any legitimate game-play purpose. It's actualy the INTENT that matters. It's not always easy to judge INTENT but in my experience true griefers make it blatantly and painfully obvious that it was thier intent (normaly with explicit OOC references toward the player not the avatar) because they usualy don't seem to be satisfied unless thier victem actualy knows they've been griefed and it was the griefers explicit intent to do so.
Like obscenity, it can be difficult to define but most reasonable people can easly reckognize it when they see it. YMMV.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lots of comments to make.
@Bluddwolf - I played hundreds of hours of EVE. Everyone in Marketing who worked on the game did, or I made sure to know why they wouldn't. You can't sell what you don't understand. And that's a 10x multiple to the time I spent reading forum threads. My opinions about the game and its toxic community are extremely well grounded.
@All - the can flipping examples are perfect illustrations of the different in approach we're going to take compared to CCP.
CCP's most basic rule is that if the players find a way to do something interesting and unexpected with the game, CCP will remain "hands off" unless that thing breaks a core game system like the economy, or crashes servers, or compromises player account security. They basically feel that finding advantages from the game system that are opaque to other players is a reward for being clever.(*)
The whole can-flipping scheme derives from a user interface failure, compounded by a game system design flaw. The design flaw is that the contents of objects can be manipulated to change the flags they generate when characters interact with them in illogical ways. The user interface failure is that there was little done to communicate the risk a character is taking when they interact with one of those game objects.
The players who got hurt by this system didn't get hurt because they did something "dumb" within the context of the game world. They got hurt because there was this bizarre corner case where they could effectively be blind to the risk they were taking by doing something that appeared otherwise completely ordinary and routine. CCP sees that as a virtue. I see that as a mistake. The damaged player wasn't making bad choices. The damaged player got hurt because the game had structural flaws. Saying that those flaws might engender some future sense of caution, or that they could be learned by reading extensive and arcane websites and wikis doesn't fix the fundamental problem.
Taking a risk, and losing is ok. Doing something that should not be risky, and then finding out post facto that it was risky, is not ok.
When we find the inevitable corner cases in our design where these things happen, we'll make an effort to fix them quickly and we'll tell the community not to exploit the problem at price of being sanctioned. And we'll take a very dim view to any claim that just because a thing is not forbidden that it is permitted.
(*) I've been told that since I departed there's been a lot more sympathy shown to people getting hurt due to systemic design and UI flaws, but as far as I know, there's still no policy against using them. CCP just tries to fix the flaws faster.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please quote where I resorted to name calling.
From #1259 on the previous page of this thread:
...in the dilussional mind of Andius.
It's hard to think how the word "delusional", in the absence of a psychiatric diagnosis, can be anything short of name-calling.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Please quote where I resorted to name calling.From #1259 on the previous page of this thread:
...in the dilussional mind of Andius.It's hard to think how the word "delusional", in the absence of a psychiatric diagnosis, can be anything short of name-calling.
It wasn't meant as name calling but pointing to the frequent misrepresenting of actions as grieving, which was the context of how it was used.
It is certainly not referring to anyone as a "prick", now is it. But, you are entitled to your definition I suppose, but I don't have to agree.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Lots of comments to make.
@Bluddwolf - I played hundreds of hours of EVE. Everyone in Marketing who worked on the game did, or I made sure to know why they wouldn't. You can't sell what you don't understand. And that's a 10x multiple to the time I spent reading forum threads. My opinions about the game and its toxic community are extremely well grounded.
@All - the can flipping examples are perfect illustrations of the different in approach we're going to take compared to CCP.
CCP's most basic rule is that if the players find a way to do something interesting and unexpected with the game, CCP will remain "hands off" unless that thing breaks a core game system like the economy, or crashes servers, or compromises player account security. They basically feel that finding advantages from the game system that are opaque to other players is a reward for being clever.(*)
The whole can-flipping scheme derives from a user interface failure, compounded by a game system design flaw. The design flaw is that the contents of objects can be manipulated to change the flags they generate when characters interact with them in illogical ways. The user interface failure is that there was little done to communicate the risk a character is taking when they interact with one of those game objects.
The players who got hurt by this system didn't get hurt because they did something "dumb" within the context of the game world. They got hurt because there was this bizarre corner case where they could effectively be blind to the risk they were taking by doing something that appeared otherwise completely ordinary and routine. CCP sees that as a virtue. I see that as a mistake. The damaged player wasn't making bad choices. The damaged player got hurt because the game had structural flaws. Saying that those flaws might engender some future sense of caution, or that they could be learned by reading extensive and arcane websites and wikis doesn't fix the fundamental problem.
Taking a risk, and...
There were ways to detect the seeding of another player' ore in your can. When or was placed in the can, the can flipper could not stack it with other ore, it was its own stack.
Can flipping did not always work, especially not with experienced players who had seen the trick before. Again, the "Fool me once, Fool me twice" saying.
That is the learning curve that I hope PFO has as well. Players become more savvy to hidden risks and so hidden risks become part of the overall cultural feel in the game.
This is the River Kingdoms, and I know the setting was chosen so it could be the "Wild West", but I believe it should be a bit more behind the scenes and cutthroat.
I'm glad that you expect to fix these things as quickly as possible. But, you won't change the perception that if it is not fixed after GW is made aware of it, it isn't "Working as Intended" your dim view not withstanding.
Final note on this, CCP did "fix" the can flipping problem by making the use of jet cans unnecessary. It is a rare thing to see anyone using jet cans in high sec, they were never seen in use by me in low sec and probably never used in 0.0.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Jumping into the discussion very late, I'll offer my opinion. "Griefing" is something that can be done in any game, even ones with no PvP... Chat Spamming to fill up someones screen and make it impossible to communicate with someone else is an example of such activity.
PKing, even non-consentual in itself is not "Griefing" but it is a tool often used by "Griefers" to "Grief".
Essentialy "Griefing" is interacting with another player for the express purposes of ruining their enjoyment of the game, not for any legitimate game-play purpose. It's actualy the INTENT that matters. It's not always easy to judge INTENT but in my experience true griefers make it blatantly and painfully obvious that it was thier intent (normaly with explicit OOC references toward the player not the avatar) because they usualy don't seem to be satisfied unless thier victem actualy knows they've been griefed and it was the griefers explicit intent to do so.
Like obscenity, it can be difficult to define but most reasonable people can easly reckognize it when they see it. YMMV.
This is a point not frequently made, but it is spot on!
True Griefers in my experience, always made it a point to make sure I knew I was being griefed. This was usually done in chat as you say, and coupled with the repeated action in game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It wasn't meant as name calling but pointing to the frequent misrepresenting of actions as grieving, which was the context of how it was used.
You may not have intended to run over that pedestrian while driving drunk, but he is still a pancake. Which is significant: What you intended or what was done? "I didn't mean to." will neither feed nor comfort his children.
Essentialy "Griefing" is interacting with another player for the express purposes of ruining their enjoyment of the game, not for any legitimate game-play purpose.
Griefing is less about what you intended and more about what you did. The victim and his perception of what you did is also involved and also a significant factor. Consider that you can do the same action to a friend and it will be perceived as 'okay', that you do to a stranger and it is not okay. What you intended makes no difference whatsoever if your behavior is chronic and it is invariably perceived as hostile.
It isn't that intentions are meaningless. It is that your world is not the only one that counts.
When I write a book I intend a story to be read, but I cannot foretell what every individual reader will get out of it, yet the experience of my reader is what I am trying to sell. I cannot know that my reader will understand what I intended to write unless I am careful and considerate. But my care and consideration may avail me nothing if the reader is offended but the words I set there.
We are responsible for the effects of our actions, whether those consequences are intended or unintended. Collateral damage is damage nonetheless.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can flipping did not always work, especially not with experienced players who had seen the trick before.
Very well put. It's a tactic specifically targeted at newbs. A newb engages in an action that they believe to be perfectly safe, pulling ore from their own can, and suddenly they are getting flagged as a thief. Experienced players or people with friends who explained this to them like mine did will probably never get hit by this tactic.
That's exactally what makes it, and anyone who engages in it so despicable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Being,
I am going to respectfully disagree with you. There is no such thing as a right to be free from offense. People are responsible for their own emotions. If I happen to take your Queen in a game of Chess and you are offended by it, then perhaps Chess is not the best game for you to play.
"Griefing" in gaming really does or at least used to have a very strict definitionn that people have tried to stretch to incorporate anything they don't like. It's not that, nor is it a simple rules infraction.
Real "Griefers" aren't playing the same game as everyone else. They are playing the "Ruin everyone elses day" game and they usualy let you know it because that is how they derive satisfaction from the game . That differs from honest accidents, misunderstandings and mistakes in play which do happen sometimes from legitimate players.
The key difference is that when such things happen they usualy can be worked out between the players themselves to everyones satisfaction without the need for outside involvement. It just requires a little maturity from the parties involved which most legitimate players posses because at the end of the day it's only a game and no one is trying to wreck it for anyone else. With actual "Greifers" that's not possible because thier goal IS to wreck it.
To give a quick example, I used to play a MUD where freindly fire from area of effect spells was possible. There was an established ettiquete to using such spells to try to minimize collateral damage. However in the heat of battle sometimes people did mess up or forget. I've gotten caught on more then one occasion myself by such freindly fire. However, you could tell with near certainty the difference between a "Griefer" and someone who just got a little careless by what happaned AFTER such an incident.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can flipping did not always work, especially not with experienced players who had seen the trick before.Very well put. It's a tactic specifically targeted at newbs. A newb engages in an action that they believe to be perfectly safe, pulling ore from their own can, and suddenly they are getting flagged as a thief. Experienced players or people with friends who explained this to them like mine did will probably never get hit by this tactic.
That's exactally what makes it, and anyone who engages in it so despicable.
Absolutely. Agreed.
There were ways to detect the seeding of another player' ore in your can. When or was placed in the can, the can flipper could not stack it with other ore, it was its own stack.
Can flipping did not always work, especially not with experienced players who had seen the trick before. Again, the "Fool me once, Fool me twice" saying.
That is the learning curve that I hope PFO has as well. Players become more savvy to hidden risks and so hidden risks become part of the overall cultural feel in the game.
This is the River Kingdoms, and I know the setting was chosen so it could be the "Wild West", but I believe it should be a bit more behind the scenes and cutthroat.
I'm glad that you expect to fix these things as quickly as possible. But, you won't change the perception that if it is not fixed after GW is made aware of it, it isn't "Working as Intended" your dim view not withstanding.
Final note on this, CCP did "fix" the can flipping problem by making the use of jet cans unnecessary. It is a rare thing to see anyone using jet cans in high sec, they were never seen in use by me in low sec and probably never used in 0.0.
Individual interpretations on what constitutes griefing or exploiting don't matter at this point. What matters is the stance of the PFO staff. In this case they have been extraordinarily clear.
When we find the inevitable corner cases in our design where these things happen, we'll make an effort to fix them quickly and we'll tell the community not to exploit the problem at price of being sanctioned. And we'll take a very dim view to any claim that just because a thing is not forbidden that it is permitted.
Players can very well maintain the stance that if a thing is not forbidden it is then accepted. What we are being told is that if caught the developers will discipline the action irrespective of that argument.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is the learning curve that I hope PFO has as well. Players become more savvy to hidden risks and so hidden risks become part of the overall cultural feel in the game.
This is the exact thing I don't want to see in game. What kind of cultural feel is it that there are established game mechanics which make it obnoxious and arduous to learn the game as a noob? What culture is being represented by players going out of their way to use tactics which are likely not fully explained to the noob victim beforehand and which punish him for not having comprehensive knowledge of the game right out of the gate?
Frankly, it seems to me to be an exclusionary culture whereby noobs are treated as the lowest people, and someone who wants to learn the game has to suffer through a lot of unnecessary trouble to do so. Seems like people already established in the culture actually taking steps to push new people out.
Though PfO undoubtedly will have a learning curve to its complex systems as well, it is my hope that risks hidden in seemingly innocuous actions are not something widespread, and that they are fully called out by the UI if they are present.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Can flipping did not always work, especially not with experienced players who had seen the trick before.Very well put. It's a tactic specifically targeted at newbs. A newb engages in an action that they believe to be perfectly safe, pulling ore from their own can, and suddenly they are getting flagged as a thief. Experienced players or people with friends who explained this to them like mine did will probably never get hit by this tactic.
That's exactally what makes it, and anyone who engages in it so despicable.
I was always grateful to find out the harsh realities of the EVE culture, regardless of how I discovered them.
Just as the definition of griefing is very individualized, so too is the definition of "noob" or the context of how it is used.
I differentiate between NPE (new player experience) and a new (young) character. I also differentiate between griefing, and learning hard lessons.
I am certainly hoping that there will be opportunities to deliver and learn "harsh realities" in PFO. Handholding and coddling of new players should be fairly brief and localized to a small zone. Once beyond that zone and brief time period, the player is now the representation of a "young character". Let the learning begin, through social networks or personal experience makes no difference.
There will always be unsavory tactics that do not violate the rules per say. In an MMO where there are good guys, bad guys and those that fall in between, that is a good thing.
I also hope there are equal opportunities to perform selfless acts, heroic acts or just simple acts of fairness or kindness.
You need to tone down your "griefing antenna", it is a bit too sensitive. I need to tone down my abrasive reaction to your calls of "griefing" but instead try to explain better the motivation behind the action.
Hopefully PFO will strike the balance, that has us both satisfied.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That is the learning curve that I hope PFO has as well. Players become more savvy to hidden risks and so hidden risks become part of the overall cultural feel in the game.This is the exact thing I don't want to see in game. What kind of cultural feel is it that there are established game mechanics which make it obnoxious and arduous to learn the game as a noob? What culture is being represented by players going out of their way to use tactics which are likely not fully explained to the noob victim beforehand and which punish him for not having comprehensive knowledge of the game right out of the gate?
Frankly, it seems to me to be an exclusionary culture whereby noobs are treated as the lowest people, and someone who wants to learn the game has to suffer through a lot of unnecessary trouble to do so. Seems like people already established in the culture actually taking steps to push new people out.
Though PfO undoubtedly will have a learning curve to its complex systems as well, it is my hope that risks hidden in seemingly innocuous actions are not something widespread, and that they are fully called out by the UI if they are present.
I'm curious how settlement laws will be handled and more importantly how they will inform a new arrival, crossing the border for the first time?
I would think the particularly "arbitrary and capricious" settlements will have a number of seemingly innocuous activities suddenly become apparently clear they were not.
Think of "Speed Traps" if you are familiar with them. They do exist, and when you become aware of them, you know how to respond before you get there. You don't avoid the town or the road altogether, you just self modify your own behaviors.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would think the particularly "arbitrary and capricious" settlements will have a number of seemingly innocuous activities suddenly become apparently clear they were not.
It seems exceedingly unlikely that Goblinworks will allow Settlements to work around the design goal to make sure players don't accidentally/unintentionally/unknowingly flag themselves.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would think the particularly "arbitrary and capricious" settlements will have a number of seemingly innocuous activities suddenly become apparently clear they were not.It seems exceedingly unlikely that Goblinworks will allow Settlements to work around the design goal to make sure players don't accidentally/unintentionally/unknowingly flag themselves.
Which is why I opened my comment with:
"I'm curious how settlement laws will be handled and more importantly how they will inform a new arrival, crossing the border for the first time?"
Concluding what GW probably won't do, doesn't address that curiosity.
Will there be a pop up?
Will there be no opt out of the pop up, unless you have seen if before?
Will you have to be proactive and before entering a settlement, look at an information window to learn of its laws and customs?
Will you have to train a feat (ie Local Knowledge) to gather that information?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just to be extra clear on this subject.
6.11 END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT: Most gaming companies have a clear end user license agreement (EULA) that every player signs when they begin playing a game. Pax vows not to use known bugs, exploits (as compared to game features), botting (as compared to creative macroing) or any other manner of cheating to our benefit. Any member who employs exploits as a part of their gaming strategy and is unwilling to follow the terms of a EULA will be expelled from the Community and their activities will be reported to the proper gaming company.
Pax Gaming has friends in the gaming industry. We have a few members (with separate identities of course) from developer pools. We have our reputation to maintain.
We are especially strict when it comes to breaking rules set by the game. Our thresh hold is set at what the game considers rule breaking. There is no debate on what the player considers rule breaking. It is entirely based on the parameters the developers set.
Any Pax member that feels like they might cross a line set by the developers should know that their membership is a hindrance towards that end. If we find out first we will turn you in quite happily before expelling you from our community.
I find myself often in disagreement on a lot of points, but on this subject I can not agree more.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Additionally,
What would happen if a settlement changes its rules for Trespassing, after you have already entered?
Will there be a delay in the implementation of new laws, to allow for adequate notification?
Trespassing should warn you the moment you enter the hex and not have any effect once you've left the hex.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Trespassing should warn you the moment you enter the hex and not have any effect once you've left the hex.Additionally,
What would happen if a settlement changes its rules for Trespassing, after you have already entered?
Will there be a delay in the implementation of new laws, to allow for adequate notification?
And if you're flagged as a Trespasser while you're already in the hex, you should have a reasonable opportunity to leave before you're subject to consequence-free attack.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Being,
I am going to respectfully disagree with you.
Much obliged for the honor of that respect. I intend to not betray your trust.
There is no such thing as a right to be free from offense.
We do not disagree on that point.
"Griefing" in gaming really does or at least used to have a very strict definitionn that people have tried to stretch to incorporate anything they don't like. It's not that, nor is it a simple rules infraction.
I have no intention of stretching a definition just to incorporate whatever it is I don't like. That wasn't my point, so it may or may not be that we disagree. I understand you don't agree with what you thought I was saying.
It is almost a case in point. I intended to say one thing and you understood another. Is all that matters what I intended to say, or does your interpretation matter as well?
I think both count. Part of the problem is that words do not universally carry the same content. Sometimes words are inadequate for expressing what is meant and not simply because the speaker is inept (though that is the common case). In my book I talk a bit about this where Steve, my protagonist, asks another of my heroes the Aldebar Tibs about God. The Aldebar are reputed fanatics of their religion yet Tibs never speaks of God, and at the end of a visit Steve asks Tibs why.
"I do not casually speak of God because I cannot comfortably use that noun in conversation. Too many people get too many different images in their heads when they hear it. I have my concept when I say it. You probably have a different concept when you hear it. That means the word we use is an inadequate vessel to carry clear and distinct meaning. Recognizing this, after many years of conversation, I do not commonly use it in public."
Similarly I would ask whether you have ever been able to adequately express the word 'Love'? I will assume that you have not, since poets and priests have been trying to say it for hundreds of years with little success. Possibly Shakespeare came closest.
I argue it is similar with our intentions. You may intend one thing but the people around you are not privy to your internal world events, only the shared world events. Griefing isn't something that happens internally, it is shared. Therefore Intentions, which are definitively internal, have little to do with whether or not you are griefing. External and shared characteristics must be what define griefing if griefing is a shared event.|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just to be extra clear on this subject.
6.11 END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT: Most gaming companies have a clear end user license agreement (EULA) that every player signs when they begin playing a game. Pax vows not to use known bugs, exploits (as compared to game features), botting (as compared to creative macroing) or any other manner of cheating to our benefit. Any member who employs exploits as a part of their gaming strategy and is unwilling to follow the terms of a EULA will be expelled from the Community and their activities will be reported to the proper gaming company.Pax Gaming has friends in the gaming industry. We have a few members (with separate identities of course) from developer pools. We have our reputation to maintain.
We are especially strict when it comes to breaking rules set by the game. Our thresh hold is set at what the game considers rule breaking. There is no debate on what the player considers rule breaking. It is entirely based on the parameters the developers set.
Any Pax member that feels like they might cross a line set by the developers should know that their membership is a hindrance towards that end. If we find out first we will turn you in quite happily before expelling you from our community.
I find myself often in disagreement on a lot of points, but on this subject I can not agree more.
May I ask, what is prompting this statement?
To my knowledge, no one, including myself has argued breaking the rules of the game, the Eula or using any third party hacks or unknown or clearly defined exploits.
I have also not seen any accusation against Pax Gaming that you promote such activities.
I can assure you and the rest here, my group does not ether. Nor do we condone briefing, by our definition of what griefing is (a common definition btw).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just to be extra clear on this subject.
6.11 END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT: Most gaming companies have a clear end user license agreement (EULA) that every player signs when they begin playing a game. Pax vows not to use known bugs, exploits (as compared to game features), botting (as compared to creative macroing) or any other manner of cheating to our benefit. Any member who employs exploits as a part of their gaming strategy and is unwilling to follow the terms of a EULA will be expelled from the Community and their activities will be reported to the proper gaming company.Pax Gaming has friends in the gaming industry. We have a few members (with separate identities of course) from developer pools. We have our reputation to maintain.
We are especially strict when it comes to breaking rules set by the game. Our thresh hold is set at what the game considers rule breaking. There is no debate on what the player considers rule breaking. It is entirely based on the parameters the developers set.
Any Pax member that feels like they might cross a line set by the developers should know that their membership is a hindrance towards that end. If we find out first we will turn you in quite happily before expelling you from our community.
I find myself often in disagreement on a lot of points, but on this subject I can not agree more.
May I ask, what is prompting this statement?
The conversation before Ryan's clarification of Goblinworks stance was aimed around whether canning was an exploit, griefing, or undesirable.
Ryan then came in and clarified that in the case of Pathfinder Online, such tactics would be considered an exploit, griefing, or undesirable.
My reply was explaining our charter stance on when our gaming community considers something rule breaking. Namely it is when those in charge of the game deem it so. The charter quote was just underlining that stance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being
I take your point but I would contend that we have the tool of communication available to us for the express purpose of arriving at some common understanding between parties and share what is internal to us with those external. I believe you and I are demonstrating that reasonably well here.
Thus a bad pull which ends up in a party wipe and a waste of an hours questing is still the same external event but goes from being a simple accident by expressing ones intent with a simple statement of "I'm really sorry, I didn't expect that to happen" to an act of "Griefing" when followed by "Ha, Ha, Got you fools!" that expresses a different intent.
It also tends to very significantly change the feelings of the other players involved in the event...even though the objective act was exactly the same in both cases.
@All - the can flipping examples are perfect illustrations of the different in approach we're going to take compared to CCP.CCP's most basic rule is that if the players find a way to do something interesting and unexpected with the game, CCP will remain "hands off" unless that thing breaks a core game system like the economy, or crashes servers, or compromises player account security. They basically feel that finding advantages from the game system that are opaque to other players is a reward for being clever.(*)
The whole can-flipping scheme derives from a user interface failure, compounded by a game system design flaw. The design flaw is that the contents of objects can be manipulated to change the flags they generate when characters interact with them in illogical ways. The user interface failure is that there was little done to communicate the risk a character is taking when they interact with one of those game objects.
The players who got hurt by this system didn't get hurt because they did something "dumb" within the context of the game world. They got hurt because there was this bizarre corner case where they could effectively be blind to the risk they were taking by doing something that appeared otherwise completely ordinary and routine. CCP sees that as a virtue. I see that as a mistake. The damaged player wasn't making bad choices. The damaged player got hurt because the game had structural flaws. Saying that those flaws might engender some future sense of caution, or that they could be learned by reading extensive and arcane websites and wikis doesn't fix the fundamental problem.
Taking a risk, and...
I think its perfectly fine to fix any issue that causes an incorrect/unfair game system to come about due to a bug.
However to punish players for using it, or to declare in an exploit against the ToS etc and that anyone using it will be reprimanded is an absurd position that a lot of developers take and I hope you dont.
The best example I can describe is a bug that was in Planetside 2 that I had many debates over. It was possible to reload a gun almost instantly if you performed a specific action.
My view is that the only way for there to be a level playing field when a bug exists that gives a player a distinct advantage is for everyone to use it and be informed about it until it is fixed.
I encountered a large portion of players who are "Scrubs", who I name after a little known book "Play to Win".
http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/intermediates-guide.html
They felt that anyone using this bug should be banned, regardless whether or not they had any knowledge of the developers stance on it, whether they knew it was an exploit or a mechanic and that it was "dishonourable".
This is an incredibly frustrating mentality and ideal to come up against coming from a background of extreme competitiveness and a mentality of no artificial limitations.
Fix your game, don't punish the player. If you broke the game you have no grounds to punish players from using a bug to their advantage as forbidding it just creates a scenario where the people who know about it, are competitive and aren't using it get very frustrated having to lose to the guys who are using it and not being punished for it. As its inevitable for at least a portion of the people using an exploit to go unpunished you basically give away a lottery system of free wins to people who otherwise don't deserve it. Let everyone use it, and make it a priority to fix it.
I will always follow the rules if the developers state them, but knowing that there are people out there who aren't and are winning when they shouldn't that will also go unpunished really grinds my gears.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
PotatoMcWhiskey:
I think that what you want is for the rules that exist to be enforced consistently; you would have no objection if it was either known that anyone caught using a specific exploit would be sanctioned (which might be a warning, or might be more severe, depending on specific circumstances), or if it were known that this exploit was permitted until it was fixed.
Goblinworks' position is that using what they deem to be an exploit in what they deem to be a harmful manner is subject to whatever sanction they deem appropriate. They will take every factor available to them into consideration when determining what sanctions to take against a player who has cheated, including their past history and whether or not they got a significant advantage from it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
PotatoMcWhiskey:
I think that what you want is for the rules that exist to be enforced consistently; you would have no objection if it was either known that anyone caught using a specific exploit would be sanctioned (which might be a warning, or might be more severe, depending on specific circumstances), or if it were known that this exploit was permitted until it was fixed.
"Can Flipping" in Eve is a known practice in the game, and has never been fixed even though it had been a known issue since at least 2004. A some point a flaw in programming goes from being an exploit to working as accepted. The responsibility ultimately falls on the Devs to fix issues and not just say "well we really don't like to see that, you shouldn't use it." Even if they say, "that is an exploit and this is your warning", they still have the responsibility to fix it.
Players also bear some responsibility as well. They need to first report what bugs or exploits they believe they may have stumbled upon.
Secondly, if it becomes clear that an exploit is known. Yet it is still widely used and the Devs don't care, it is the player's responsibility to mitigate its effects upon them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A some point a flaw in programming goes from being an exploit to working as accepted. The responsibility ultimately falls on the Devs to fix issues and not just say "well we really don't like to see that, you shouldn't use it." Even if they say, "that is an exploit and this is your warning", they still have the responsibility to fix it.
I really have to step in here and vehemently disagree with this sentiment. In fact, as a software developer myself I am going to just plain out state this is wrong as a fact. I wish the software life cycle were as cut and dry as you make it sound here.
All bugs and exploits will end up on a priority list. And those near the bottom almost never get fixed. They do not become "working as expected". They stay bugs. But they may not provide enough Return on Investment to spend developer resources on them when compared against other bugs and new features on the backlog.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A some point a flaw in programming goes from being an exploit to working as accepted. The responsibility ultimately falls on the Devs to fix issues and not just say "well we really don't like to see that, you shouldn't use it." Even if they say, "that is an exploit and this is your warning", they still have the responsibility to fix it.
I really have to step in here and vehemently disagree with this sentiment. In fact, as a software developer myself I am going to just plain out state this is wrong as a fact. I wish the software life cycle were as cut and dry as you make it sound here.
All bugs and exploits will end up on a priority list. And those near the bottom almost never get fixed. They do not become "working as expected". They stay bugs. But they may not provide enough Return on Investment to spend developer resources on them when compared against other bugs and new features on the backlog.
I'm not sure if it makes a difference, but I said "working as accepted", not "as expected".
What I meant by that is that when bugs, exploits, or whatever you want to call them go on for so long they become "accepted". Players resign themselves to the probability that the issue will never get fixed and they just play with it.
There are so many MMOs out there, that have been around for years and still have issues they had from the last month of beta.
For instance, SWTOR had graphic glitches in some of the starting cut scenes 8 months before the game released, and some of those glitches are still there today nearly 2 years after launch (or is it already 2 years?). Age of Conan still has a crash to desktop I recall for when it first launched.
I'm not expecting fixes to happen over night, or in weeks or even months. But I should think 2 - 5 years, you shouldn't be having issues with the same things from day one of launch.
So I'm happy to hear that Ryan expects to address these things as quickly as possible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And if you're flagged as a Trespasser while you're already in the hex, you should have a reasonable opportunity to leave before you're subject to consequence-free attack.Trespassing should warn you the moment you enter the hex and not have any effect once you've left the hex.Additionally,
What would happen if a settlement changes its rules for Trespassing, after you have already entered?
Will there be a delay in the implementation of new laws, to allow for adequate notification?
Or a reasonable amount of time to put up a disguise and lurk for a bit, take care of business or whatever you were up to before the laws changed.
I would much rather see a significant delay in new law implementation, perhaps an hour or more.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All bugs and exploits will end up on a priority list. And those near the bottom almost never get fixed. They do not become "working as expected". They stay bugs. But they may not provide enough Return on Investment to spend developer resources on them when compared against other bugs and new features on the backlog.
A prime example of this imo is SWTOR. All those small glitches that never get hammered down. They don't make playing unbearable, but just a little less more unattractive. I think it's just a great shame and gives the industry in general just a bit of a bad taste on the side.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm seeing a very uncomfortable parallel here.
-(ingame) if you are a merchant and I rob you at knifepoint and you can't do anything about it ( fight back, afford guards, ect.) you are SOL and you need to accept that.
-(out of game) if you are developer and I misuse your system and you can't do anything about it ( fix the issue, recreate it, don't have more critical issues pop up) you are SOL and you need to accept that.
If those two things are acceptable for the same reason it's really bad. Not saying anyone is making this explicit statement but this seems to be a subtext.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
*slaps Bluddwolf across the face with a gauntlet*
Consider yourself marked a dead fool. May your mouth ever continue to bring you hate and death.
So mysterious, so angry.... /faux shivers...... Good thing I am graced by God, twice marked and have a monument to remove any unwanted conditions.
Question, when someone throws down the gauntlet, do they pick it up or leave it there?
I would so pawn that sh..t if they left it there ;-P
Edit:
To "throw down the gauntlet" is to issue a challenge. A gauntlet-wearing knight would challenge a fellow knight or enemy to a duel by throwing one of his gauntlets on the ground. The opponent would pick up the gauntlet to accept the challenge. The phrase is associated particularly with the action of the King's Champion, which officer's role was from mediæval times to act as champion for the King at his coronation, in the unlikely event that someone challenged the new King's title to the throne.
Yep,I would pawn it.... Lol
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not sure if it makes a difference, but I said "working as accepted", not "as expected".
Not much of one. At least not in the light you put it. Working as accepted sounds more like a player stance than a developer one. Some overwhelmed or shoddy developers may just let an exploit go unenforced if they are not able to provide a quick fix. The examples you give though are purely development side. Graphics glitches are pretty minor in the grand scheme of things, though crashes to desktop are usually something that gets fixed if over X% of the population experiences them frequently. Exploits are unique in nature in that they can be examined and watched for by moderators which tend to be much less expensive to hire than programmers or artists.
At some point in size, it is easier and cheaper to police a minor exploit over a long time than it is to fix it in software.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm seeing a very uncomfortable parallel here.
-(ingame) if you are a merchant and I rob you at knifepoint and you can't do anything about it ( fight back, afford guards, ect.) you are SOL and you need to accept that.
-(out of game) if you are developer and I misuse your system and you can't do anything about it ( fix the issue, recreate it, don't have more critical issues pop up) you are SOL and you need to accept that.
If those two things are acceptable for the same reason it's really bad. Not saying anyone is making this explicit statement but this seems to be a subtext.
This is in fact true for the most part. When a glitch, bug, exploit remains unattended to for years it becomes part of the accepted conditions of the game. Or you could say it us either accepted or the player quits. When enough players quit because the game has too many issues, the doors close and the Devs are looking to their next project.
It is amazing or disturbing to think how bad some games are and yet they linger for years.
I think it is a dangerous thing to let Devs off the hook in the long term. I think it is a dangerous thing to let exploiters off the hook in the short term.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PVP and Settlement Politics:
I have come to the conclusion that Fast Travel is not necessary for the game (especially with its current projected map size) and is detrimental to many aspects of the game.
I'm somewhat expect that Fast Travel won't be part of the MVP and hope that the community decides that it is not needed and it may be detrimental.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
PVP and Settlement Politics:
I have come to the conclusion that Fast Travel is not necessary for the game (especially with its current projected map size) and is detrimental to many aspects of the game.
I'm somewhat expect that Fast Travel won't be part of the MVP and hope that the community decides that it is not needed and it may be detrimental.
As I've brought up the point before: fast travel can mean different things. Do you refer to an instant teleport to a distant location, an on-rails movement without interaction (like WoW) or with interaction, or do you simply think any travel faster than what a mounted character can achieve is detrimental?
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
PVP and Settlement Politics:
I have come to the conclusion that Fast Travel is not necessary for the game (especially with its current projected map size) and is detrimental to many aspects of the game.
I'm somewhat expect that Fast Travel won't be part of the MVP and hope that the community decides that it is not needed and it may be detrimental.
What line of thinking led you to that conclusion?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
PVP and Settlement Politics:
I have come to the conclusion that Fast Travel is not necessary for the game (especially with its current projected map size) and is detrimental to many aspects of the game.
I'm somewhat expect that Fast Travel won't be part of the MVP and hope that the community decides that it is not needed and it may be detrimental.
Having not seen any of the hard mechanics for how it might work, and only going off of outdated information that was always likely to change? I'm impressed by your ability to ignore mechanics that we haven't even heard about, rather than just ones that we have. You are improving.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If fast travel is like, as some have suggested, what you have in LotRO or WOW then yes I think that is detrimental.
I have spent the last week or so playing Fallen Earth. It is by no means a small map, and although it also has fast travel, I find that it is not overly excessive in cost of time to travel by normal means.
You can walk.
You can sprint.
You can have a mount. Some are faster than others.
You can have a vehicle. Some are faster than others.
You can fast travel.
Fast travel in my opinion is unneeded and takes away from the expansive feel of the world. It limits exploration and reduces potential interactions.
Hey, I can appreciate if some of you believe that Goblin Works is going to develop a Fast Travel system that is revolutionary or at least so highly innovative that we are all dumbstruck by its brilliance. But, I don't need a crystal ball to expect the usual we have seen in the past 12 or so years of MMOs and single player PC RPGs with fast travel.