Consequences for Griefing


Pathfinder Online

101 to 150 of 220 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Goblinworks Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:

EVE numbers:

Type Population Q3 2010 Population Q4 2010 Q3 % of Total Q4 % of Total
High Sec 553502 611732 79.56% 79.61%
Low sec 48346 51342 6.95% 6.68%
Null sec 76999 86487 11.07% 11.26%
Wormhole
Space 16846 18812 2.42% 2.45%

I.e. 79% of the characters are in the safeish (it is not safe, only more safe than the other areas) high sec.

21% in territories where might make right.

How is that any different from a themepark MMO where a small percentage of the population are endgame raiders and the rest aren't?

You see 79% of players in safe zones. I see 100% of players getting a game they enjoy.

EDIT: I think this thread has digressed too much. To those that actually had something interesting to say, thank you. I'm not going to continue to derail this anymore than it has.
EDIT 2: Unless it gets back on topic, then I might return :P

Goblin Squad Member

Diego Rossi wrote:


EVE numbers:

Type Population Q3 2010 Population Q4 2010 Q3 % of Total Q4 % of Total
High Sec 553502 611732 79.56% 79.61%
Low sec 48346 51342 6.95% 6.68%
Null sec 76999 86487 11.07% 11.26%
Wormhole
Space 16846 18812 2.42% 2.45%

I.e. 79% of the characters are in the safeish (it is not safe, only more safe than the other areas) high sec.

21% in territories where might make right.

I would be curious to see how many of these 80% in High Sec are active. Every person who has ever made a trial account is included there...or is this only active accounts?


KitNyx wrote:


- Geared for killing people and not animals...aka bandits
- Yeah, if they want to rob people with money (or things they can sell), they hit the trade routes where the nations do not patrol. That is why caravans hired additional guards...what you call a problem, I see as an employment opportunity.
- Camped on the route to the a holy site or other popular site. Once again, this is the reason for groups such as the Knights Templars.
- Camped in a monster lair? Yeah...that is how you hunt something when it is not in its den, you stake out the den.

I fail to see the problem with any of these actions. In fact, by doing these, they are RPing whether they realize they are RPing or not. And, I think the error with someone repeatedly doing the last one is a fault of the AI, not the players. AI that repeatedly gets killed in a given spot should migrate.

The motive is what he was getting at, Kit. The people he described were clearly doing these actions with the intent of griefing, not for the RP value. And that caravan example is not so strong when you consider that these so-called "caravan guards" (assuming now that they are griefers, which they most likely would be) attack people instead of actually GUARDING the caravan, which is what actual RPers would do? As for the monster example, it's one of the reasons I avoided PvP servers on World of Warcraft. I would never get a chance to solo that one rare monster without someone sneaking up on me and gutting me while I'm recovering from the battle or killing me in the middle of the battle and then stealing the kill from me while he's at it despite gaining no useful loot from the beast.


Diego Rossi wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Onishi, it's already been made pretty clear that 'double their power level' isn't going to be something you really see in this game, especially once you get past the first week or two of 'serious play' or the first month or two of 'casual play.'

But you will see:

"Geared for killing players and not monsters"
"Grouped on trade routes to kill people as soon as they leave the safe area"
"Camped on the route to the monster lair"
if possible
"camped in the monster lair so they can kill it as soon as it respawn and kill anyone trying to get to it"

I should add "Gate camp" to the dictionary in the other thread.

I don't like the idea of monsters 'respawning' anyway.

Spawning yes, let them continue to breed and fill the world, but 'respawning' just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Goblin Squad Member

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Onishi, it's already been made pretty clear that 'double their power level' isn't going to be something you really see in this game, especially once you get past the first week or two of 'serious play' or the first month or two of 'casual play.'

But you will see:

"Geared for killing players and not monsters"
"Grouped on trade routes to kill people as soon as they leave the safe area"
"Camped on the route to the monster lair"
if possible
"camped in the monster lair so they can kill it as soon as it respawn and kill anyone trying to get to it"

I should add "Gate camp" to the dictionary in the other thread.

I don't like the idea of monsters 'respawning' anyway.

Spawning yes, let them continue to breed and fill the world, but 'respawning' just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

100% agreed. If you hunt out an area, well that is your own fault. The ecosystems should balance themselves. If possible that is much preferable.

@Icyshadow. I do not know others intent and anyone who says they do is violating the personal nature of mind. As such, this illustrates an important aspect of RP. When I as DM tell you an Orc is coming at you with a axe, you attribute evil and murderous intent to the Orc. I am going to tell you, that is not what the Orc is thinking...the Orc is not real and therefore does not think anything. However you have just illustrated that it is possible to project an intent upon anything, even something imaginary. So, why not use this practice to turn your "gankers" into the intentional creatures I outlined above. Think you cant do this? Well you are doing it by assuming they are coming to kill you to wreck your fun.

Concerning the caravan guards, I meant they were people you hire in town to protect your little caravan or party while you travel the dangerous road. It is a job and someone will specialize in it.


So players who get quests to hunt down the local monsters should instead stay in the city in fear of other players showing up to gut them? Also, Kyrt-rider, did you just completely ignore my post on the second page of this thread? =(

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Diego Rossi wrote:

But you will see:

various asymmetric fights

Or just the good old three-on-one fight whenever possible.

Quote:

Here's a thought. What you see as a gang warfare simulator, others see it as a empire building simulator. I hope the game doesn't digress into a NBSI (Not Blue Shoot it) sandbox. I am hoping that trading between empires is such an important part of the game that people that are not part of the clan would be free to venture there to trade under the protection of the clan. I am also hoping that there would be an incentive to let adventurers that aren't a member of the clan be free to travel as long as they don't break the law.

Say one of these Clans (or Guilds) has built a city and within their borders is a dungeon that I might really want to investigate. Wouldn't it be cool if there was an incentive for the clan to hire non-clan or allied adventurers to investigate the dungeon or just keep the monster numbers low. The clan might have an ability to set a Tithe, completely invisible to the player, that allows a portion of the monetary treasure to go straight into their coffers.

Even when the game does rise above NBSI, if you're not in the winning gang (or even when you are and you're just caught between two gangs), you're meat. EVE is eight years old and it's currently at the loosely-affiliated gang stage, and even those gangs constantly just backstab each other just because it's amusing or they're bored or whatever. You just have no idea.

Those players have no incentive not to charge you 99% of your proceeds in order to access the dungeon at all. In fact, unless those players are super hard up for money, they have little incentive to let wandering scam artists scam you for the protection fees for access to the dungeon, then turn around and claim bounties on your stupid heads for ratting you out to people who then gank you on the way to the dungeon. They get paid twice, you get ganked and laughed at.

This is not a hypothetical situation that I am making up. Goonswarm totally does this crap in EVE all the time. They were just doing exactly this to ice miners in their highsec raid campaign last month. This is hilarious to them, and also super profitable for them. This is what they do on their alts to kill time between real campaigns.

This is not a few bad eggs, either. This is the largest, most successful corporation (analogous to a guild or clan) in EVE. The Mittani, its former leader and PR person, is a go-to person when someone is doing a news story on EVE. This is the actual gameplay in the most successful sandbox MMO ever, and also the game that Ryan Dancey was previously in charge of marketing.

Welcome to the persistent sandbox, where the primary driver of the experience is the winning players interacting with your hopeless grind by scamming you out of your meagre proceeds and ganking you anyway.

KitNyx wrote:

Wow, all four of these sound like valid RP paths for a story in early medieval Europe.

- Geared for killing people and not animals...aka bandits
- Yeah, if they want to rob people with money (or things they can sell), they hit the trade routes where the nations do not patrol. That is why caravans hired additional guards...what you call a problem, I see as an employment opportunity.
- Camped on the route to the a holy site or other popular site. Once again, this is the reason for groups such as the Knights Templars.
- Camped in a monster lair? Yeah...that is how you hunt something when it is not in its den, you stake out the den.

I fail to see the problem with any of these actions. In fact, by doing these, they are RPing whether they realize they are RPing or not. And, I think the error with someone repeatedly doing the last one is a fault of the AI, not the players. AI that repeatedly gets killed in a given spot should migrate.

You've confused RPers with gamers. Gamers (in this context) can be broken down into one of three rough motivations at any given time, although people will cheerfully shift between them opportunistically.

PVErs are looking for some sort of PVE task. This is really broad, but mostly it doesn't involve a zero-sum competition with another player.

Gankers are looking for easy kills. They are not interested in a fair fight ever, they just want either easy benefits from ganking or to ruin someone's day. They will flee from any fair fight if possible.

PVPers are looking for a fair(ish) fight. They don't actually like losing, but they generally won't actually admit that, so they're generally looking for someone they can brag about/feel good about beating. They will gank if it'll stir up a fight, but they're not actually out here to pick on lowbies unless they are also gankers.

The problem is that PVPers are not going to sit around and guard PVErs because it is super boring. (It was super boring in real life.) Gankers aren't going to fight them because it's not an easy mark. Other PVPers might fight them, but it'd be easier to fight other PVPers in pre-arranged meeting places.

So why the hell do you think that PVPers are going to want to escort your arrogant ass?

The Exchange

Reality Check

I have played PnP (pen n paper) since Greyhawk - 1970s. I started playing Everquest when it came out and moved to WoW. If I gotta tell you what WoW is then you likely do not have much time in MMORPGs.
Therez my story -

It is all about two things. Money and control.

It costs money to create a viable game online. Investors want to make money from their stake. Creditors want to get paid and the guy that runs the game wants to see a larger population this month than he had last month. In regards to control, the game is basically an internet or a microcosm of it. There are (the vendor hopes) millions of people on it. They come up with 'sploits, trix, bots and schemes. No matter what you do the landscape changes so fast that it soon becomes a process of tactical maneuvering on the part of the "GMs" in order to ensure that the game is as "fair" as it possibly can be.

On day one it starts out and the GMs display their righteous vengeance on all they which use foul language, bully the weak (both physically and mentally weak)or "grief" the populace. Soon however the number of complaints overwhelms the GM team and if sheer numbers don't decrease their "righteous fury" then the suits on the top floor will. The suits will not wish to do anything that will run off potential paying customers.

So in time what you will have is a place that is as much a business as it is outside the bounds of your lofty precepts. Face it, you cannot control the "Wildernet" and if you could you cannot trust the guys holding the bag.

Didn't a guy named Judas hold the bag?


Icyshadow wrote:
Also, Kyrt-rider, did you just completely ignore my post on the second page of this thread? =(

Guys, did you hear something? It almost sounded like a voice... must be the wind.

Spoiler:

Just kidding xD. Truth be told I somehow managed to glaze past it, might have subconsciously decided not to read that part when I saw it say it was off-topic or something lol.

You have my forgiveness Shadow. You explained the reason for your over-reaction in the other thread and it's perfectly understandable. I have friends who have been through the same experience as well.

I never said being a GM was easy, but I'm a purely spontaneous DM who lets the story go wherever it goes without any deliberate conscious direction on my part. My job- as I see it- is just to roleplay whatever the world delivers and to try to flesh that world out and make it as deep and real and tangible as possible. Sometimes that means I have to 'black out' a scene from my own mind that I know is happening because it's something I don't want to see. (This would probably include certain kinds of gore and/or torture, in addition to the previous issue.)

Goblin Squad Member

I read all that and only saw "Bandits are looking for easy kills. They are not interested in a fair fight ever, they just want either easy benefits from thieving or sometimes murder. They will flee from any fair fight if possible."

Sorry, I don't see the point of the rest. And I don't understand why no one gets:

"- Yeah, if they want to rob people with money (or things they can sell), they hit the trade routes where the nations do not patrol. That is why caravans hired additional guards...what you call a problem, I see as an employment opportunity. "

unless you are being purposely obstinate. The people you are hiring are the guilds who specialize in PROTECTING people from the "gankers".


Well, now I have nothing to worry about when it comes to off-topic discussions (since in the end, all DMs have their own styles as proven earlier), so I guess it's back to the topic at hand.

Anyway, anyone here other than me who thinks we should think about the consequences of dying in this game before going to the issue of players going over to kill you over and over? I mean, griefing would be even worse if PFO had perma-death (which I still kinda doubt) and would also be just a painful hassle if it was like World of Warcraft and thus enable people to camp on your corpse.

And Kit, we are talking PLAYERS, not their characters. Unless PFO had super-enforced RP (and even with that), there is no way to stop people from using "I am in-character" as an excuse to make other players feel miserable and/or just stop playing the game. The issue isn't "these guys and their RPing is ruining my gaming experience", it's "these guys are griefers and they are deliberately ruining my gaming experience".

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Raemann wrote:
On day one it starts out and the GMs display their righteous vengeance on all they which use foul language, bully the weak (both physically and mentally weak)or "grief" the populace. Soon however the number of complaints overwhelms the GM team and if sheer numbers don't decrease their "righteous fury" then the suits on the top floor will. The suits will not wish to do anything that will run off potential paying customers.

hahahaha what.

No, a player revolt isn't going to cause the "suits" to suddenly make griefing an allowable part of the game. That's not why people keep making games like this, it's not top-down investor pressure. When it comes down to it, game designers really do think it'll make for a better game and investors believe in that vision enough to back it, especially in an industry with its head so far up WOW's butt that it can't see straight.

The problem is that nobody has yet suggested a clear vision of how to make a game that won't turn into Escape From LA.


Man in Black, verbal griefing of Roleplayers in World of Warcraft is a problem everyone is aware of, yet nobody does much to stop it. You can send a ticket to a GM, but the guy gets off with just a small warning but never a real ban. It's because those griefers "are customers too", and as long as they pay to play, the officials won't care unless the griefing was a bit more serious, like that one guy in a PvP server who stalked one guy and killed him over and over in the course of two days. I wish I was joking, but I'm not. It started in Stranglethorn Vale, and ended in Stormwind.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
KitNyx wrote:
The people you are hiring are the guilds who specialize in PROTECTING people from the "gankers".

And you're under the impression that those guilds will actually exist. I don't think you understand. Guarding things is really tedious in the real world. It is absolutely the most tedious job you can possibly have. People are not going to pay money to do that in a video game, especially since they haven't ever done it in the history of ever in any of the other gang warfare video games. Almost always, caravans are composed themselves of fighty types carrying their own cargo, or fighty types with their own cargo-carrying bots/alts.

The people who actually like fighting other players are not going to be interested in your caravans ever.

Icyshadow wrote:
Man in Black, verbal griefing of Roleplayers in World of Warcraft is a problem everyone is aware of, yet nobody does much to stop it. You can send a ticket to a GM, but the guy gets off with just a small warning but never a real ban. It's because those griefers "are customers too", and as long as they pay to play, the officials won't care unless the griefing was a bit more serious, like that one guy in a PvP server who stalked one guy and killed him over and over in the course of two days. I wish I was joking, but I'm not. It started in Stranglethorn Vale, and ended in Stormwind.

Blizzard bans people for verbal harassment all the time if people actually file their stupid tickets. People just don't, so Blizzard doesn't have any documentation. Anyone who is tolerating griefers "because they're subscribers too" in this day and age is a two-bit operation.

As for the stalking and corpsecamping? That's perfectly okay on a PVP server in WOW, and it's an artifact of the PVP sandbox mentality, leftover from when Blizzard actually employed some PVP sandboxer designers. Players who are being corpsecamped are expected to turn to other players in their faction for help, not the GMs. Welcome to the persistent sandbox. Hope you like your interactions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
A Man In Black wrote:

So why the hell do you think that PVPers are going to want to escort your arrogant ass?

Speaking as a 'PvPer' as you put it, I would love to escort his arrogant donkey (and himself. I'll guard a packmule but I don't want to have to try to get the stubborn thing to move >.<) for a fee. Hell, I'd even help him with his quest for the right price, though I'm more interested in dealing with challenging players than AI.


I fear that you are alone on that, Kyrt. If not, then you are in a very small minority of players who would actually go through that.

And only now I noticed that there is a clear clash of ideals here. One group speaks as "Roleplayers" and the others as "Gamers" (add in the sub-categories of PvE player and the PvP player into the gaming group), and that is one problem on both sides for getting points across.

Goblin Squad Member

A Man In Black wrote:


As for the stalking and corpsecamping? That's perfectly okay on a PVP server in WOW, and it's an artifact of the PVP sandbox mentality, leftover from when Blizzard actually employed some PVP sandboxer designers. Players who are being corpsecamped are expected to turn to other players in their faction for help, not the GMs. Welcome to the persistent...

Well, easily solved...dont rez at your corpse. Rez at the local temple of your deity. I hope it is not WoW-like in this implementation.

@Icyshadow Yes, I agree with you. That is what kyrt started this thread to discuss I think....but it too has devolved into RP vs. limited-RP.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
A Man In Black wrote:
KitNyx wrote:
The people you are hiring are the guilds who specialize in PROTECTING people from the "gankers".

And you're under the impression that those guilds will actually exist. I don't think you understand. Guarding things is really tedious in the real world. It is absolutely the most tedious job you can possibly have. People are not going to pay money to do that in a video game, especially since they haven't ever done it in the history of ever in any of the other gang warfare video games. Almost always, caravans are composed themselves of fighty types carrying their own cargo, or fighty types with their own cargo-carrying bots/alts.

The people who actually like fighting other players are not going to be interested in your caravans ever.

I think it's funny that you think those guilds won't exist. Back in the day during Ultima Online (a game with open pvp except for cities and full looting) there were guilds dedicated to doing nothing but killing PKers (I refuse to call them greifers, because if you're playing the game you're taking the risk. And so are they.) I was on both sides of that war at times. There's plenty of people who want nothing more than to stick it to those people who kill others.

And while I'm speaking of UO, I enjoyed the system that they had in place. If you did some form of criminal act (stealing, looting someone innocent, stealing loot from another persons kill, attacking someone else without provocation) you were flagged and your character highlighted as grey to everyone else. That means that people could freely attack you without penalty. If you did any of those actions in town guards would come and whack you.

If you killed 5 people, you became a murderer and were flagged red. You could be freely attacked by anyone at any time. If you set foot in a town, guards would be after you. Now, in UO one of the main sources of secure storage were banks. Banks were only found inside of towns. So basically if you're a murderer, you lose out on that. There was a single "town" where murderers could go and access the bank, but that means you're there with a bunch of other murderers and it's an all out war.

Another downside to being a murderer was that your pets would instantly attack you. The first character I ever became a murderer with was an Animal Tamer. I had a dragon at the time. I went red, the dragon wailed on me. I died. Even my basic horse would go after me. It was pretty damn annoying. But it wasn't unreasonable. It also took a pretty long time for any of those murder counts to wear off. You had to spend 40 hours of in game time to remove a single murder count, so it was pretty brutal.

None of that ever stopped me from going red though. Honestly, being a murderer, being the bad guy that anyone could attack at any time... It was exciting. Even the most mundane tasks became a risk. You see a person pop up on the screen, and you immediately have to make that fight or flight choice. And you never know if he has buddies around. Or if he's just the advance scout for a guild of people coming to track you down.

I'd be incredibly sad if the PvP was restricted like most other games.

Goblin Squad Member

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Ryan Dancey's words on the matter.

Vic Wertz's words on the matter.


Blazej wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Ryan Dancey's words on the matter.
Vic Wertz's words on the matter.
Vic Wertz wrote:
I want to ensure that I can choose a place to live where the penalties for being an asshat can be strong enough that people simply won't find asshattery worthwhile.

Note the distinct fact that this 'asshattery' will still be there, it just won't be worthwhile in these zones.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Doggan wrote:
I think it's funny that you think those guilds won't exist. Back in the day during Ultima Online (a game with open pvp except for cities and full looting) there were guilds dedicated to doing nothing but killing PKers (I refuse to call them greifers, because if you're playing the game you're taking the risk. And so are they.) I was on both sides of that war at times. There's plenty of people who want nothing more than to stick it to those people who kill others.

Yeah. I remember them, too.

I also remember that they were hopelessly outnumbered by reds at the best of times, and that was back when people were still optimistic. It's been almost 12 years, and in those intervening 12 years we've had a number of games where everyone with any sense who would have played white has moved to games that aren't full of red players.

Then Trammel hit and everyone realized, "Hey, I don't have to put up with this crap any more! There's a better way!" and these games have had fanbases that are rabid dogs fighting rabid dogs ever since.

But it's a waste of my time to speculate further about this hypothetical caravan mechanic, based on comparisons to UO. We can talk about specific implications of game mechanics when we actually have game mechanics to talk about. The point is most people aren't much interested in protecting you for roleplaying reasons, even in the last open-world sandbox game where people made an effort to protect unaffiliated strangers for roleplaying reasons.

Goblin Squad Member

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Blazej wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Ryan Dancey's words on the matter.
Vic Wertz's words on the matter.
Vic Wertz wrote:
I want to ensure that I can choose a place to live where the penalties for being an asshat can be strong enough that people simply won't find asshattery worthwhile.
Note the distinct fact that this 'asshattery' will still be there, it just won't be worthwhile in these zones.
Vic Wertz wrote:
If you're an adventurer, I want you to be more afraid of the dangers *in* the dungeon than of the dangers in getting *to* the dungeon.

And I note this in response.


Blazej wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Blazej wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Ryan Dancey's words on the matter.
Vic Wertz's words on the matter.
Vic Wertz wrote:
I want to ensure that I can choose a place to live where the penalties for being an asshat can be strong enough that people simply won't find asshattery worthwhile.
Note the distinct fact that this 'asshattery' will still be there, it just won't be worthwhile in these zones.
Vic Wertz wrote:
If you're an adventurer, I want you to be more afraid of the dangers *in* the dungeon than of the dangers in getting *to* the dungeon.
And I note this in response.

I see no contradiction here.

Goblin Squad Member

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Blazej wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Blazej wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Ryan Dancey's words on the matter.
Vic Wertz's words on the matter.
Vic Wertz wrote:
I want to ensure that I can choose a place to live where the penalties for being an asshat can be strong enough that people simply won't find asshattery worthwhile.
Note the distinct fact that this 'asshattery' will still be there, it just won't be worthwhile in these zones.
Vic Wertz wrote:
If you're an adventurer, I want you to be more afraid of the dangers *in* the dungeon than of the dangers in getting *to* the dungeon.
And I note this in response.
I see no contradiction here.

Since a significant amount of the last bit of the thread has been about wanting PCs to be forced to be incredibly cautious going anywhere in the wilderness, I think it is very applicable.


A Man In Black wrote:

Yeah. I remember them, too.

I also remember that they were hopelessly outnumbered by reds at the best of times, and that was back when people were still optimistic. It's been almost 12 years, and in those intervening 12 years we've had a number of games where everyone with any sense who would have played white has moved to games that aren't full of red players.

Then Trammel hit and everyone realized, "Hey, I don't have to put up with this crap any more! There's a better way!" and these games have had fanbases that are rabid dogs fighting rabid dogs ever since.

But it's a waste of my time to speculate further about this hypothetical caravan mechanic, based on comparisons to UO. We can talk about specific implications of game mechanics when we actually have game mechanics to talk about. The point is most people aren't much interested in protecting you for roleplaying reasons, even in the last open-world sandbox game where people made an effort to protect unaffiliated strangers for roleplaying reasons.

Aaah, the joys of the online gaming community. And people here are optimistic (or naive if you are cynical) enough to think PFO will be an exception in this.

Goblin Squad Member

A Man In Black wrote:
Elth wrote:
Click on Ryans avatar and read his posts.
I've read his posts. He's talking about a sandbox PVP game, but hasn't yet addressed how this game will keep from being a gang warfare simulator, like every other sandbox PVP MMO before it.

To say nothing of the sandbox PvP MMO that was actually billed as a gang warfare simulator.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Scott Betts wrote:
To say nothing of the sandbox PvP MMO that was actually billed as a gang warfare simulator.

That's actually not a sandbox PVP MMO! (Can you imagine the PR nightmare of having gang warfare in a game with actual gangs? Aieeeeeeeeee.) That's all instanced team-versus-team scenario combat. It's a lot more like DAOC RVR/WOW battlegrounds/WAR scenarios, and like those games people are actually pretty chill about it. You get the standard online jerks, but since all you can do to people is beat them at the game, most people have the "gg" attitude towards the opposing team you see in most online games.

Goblin Squad Member

A Man In Black wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
To say nothing of the sandbox PvP MMO that was actually billed as a gang warfare simulator.
That's actually not a sandbox PVP MMO! (Can you imagine the PR nightmare of having gang warfare in a game with actual gangs? Aieeeeeeeeee.)

Well, I mean, it's an MMO. And it's got plenty of PvP. And Wikipedia lists its genre as Sandbox (among other things). I guess it's not really a gang warfare simulator (Nancy Grace's spine is tingling, somewhere), but my pointing it out was really more for the lulz than anything else.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

KitNyx wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:


EVE numbers:

Type Population Q3 2010 Population Q4 2010 Q3 % of Total Q4 % of Total
High Sec 553502 611732 79.56% 79.61%
Low sec 48346 51342 6.95% 6.68%
Null sec 76999 86487 11.07% 11.26%
Wormhole
Space 16846 18812 2.42% 2.45%

I.e. 79% of the characters are in the safeish (it is not safe, only more safe than the other areas) high sec.

21% in territories where might make right.

I would be curious to see how many of these 80% in High Sec are active. Every person who has ever made a trial account is included there...or is this only active accounts?

They are the active characters (an average of 2 and something for each account) at the time of the surveys.

Q3 2010 mean third quarter 2010, Q4 2010 fourth quarter 2010.

My experience in EVE is that the people "patrolling" the trade routes operate on the NBSI principle. you are not a friend you should be shoot on sight.
The end result is that in the players dominated empires market hubs are sparsely furnished.
All the players go to a few high sec hubs to trade and use what practically amount to teleport to return to the protected zones of their empires.

Similarly, as gathering (mining) activities are relatively boring and you need to be constantly alert if doing them in the not safe zones (even those where your alliance protect you) most of the character mining are actually controlled by bot programs that make them flee as soon as someone enter the area.

If an area is player controlled the "protectors" are spending a lot of time patrolling the entry points. A boring activity. The chance to do something exciting is too important to let someone pass if he is not a friend. Sometime they attack even members of allied corporations (it is rare, but it is done).
So the idea of a player owned city/territory that is open to non-hostile strangers seem very hard to implement. It would require big steps in the development of new game mechanics. The current PVP and sovereignty mechanics (at least in EVE) don't make that feasible.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Alright guys, so I'm seeing a HUGE loss of interest in Pathfinder Online due to fear of 'griefing' due to the Open World PvP intended of the game as recently disclosed.

No, you're seeing YOUR loss of interest along with perhaps some other under-informed posters. Apparantly Dancey is bringing the EVE Online model into this game, and EVE Online is pretty popular.

Also one more thing. This messageboard community is not going to be the main target audience for this game. It's no where big enough to support this kind of venture.

Goblin Squad Member

short story: Circle of protection from griefers, granted by npc and pc clerics. (point 3a below)

long story:

what about balancing the world so to make lawful good aligment more desireable than chaotic evil?

1) killing innocents/griefing is an evil act and makes your alignment shift towards evil and ultimately into 'pure evil'.
1a) killing someone who killed you before isn't necessarily evil
1b) killing someone at war with is not an evil act
1c) killing (even griefing!) someone who is evil is not an evil act
1d) changing back to good is much harder and requires more than doing pve quests.

2) alignment change should/could be undesireable for pve reasons. Paladins lose several abilities if become evil. cleric abilities and wizard summons may also change on alignment change. (For rogues and necromancers.. maybe not so undesireable).

3) high level/ pure evil players are tagged as EVIL and subjected to
3a) protection from evil / circle of protection from evil. This alone gives protection from proven griefers but not from others you are at war with.
3b) smite evil, holy weapons etc.
3c) the idea is that a paladin gets a real edge against griefers, but loses that edge (and more) if he becomes one.

4) alignment restricted goodies:
4a) alignment restricted items and rewards. If the 'best' items are good-aligned, this is a driving force.
4b) npc healing/restoration/curse removal cheap for the good and costly for the evil
4c) questgivers/raidzones/other content protected by vigilant npc paladins making it effectively off-limits for evildoers.

5) i'm focusing on evil now, but random ganking is surely also chaotic, and hellknight justice could also be a way to deal with grief.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

KitNyx wrote:

Wow, all four of these sound like valid RP paths for a story in early medieval Europe.

- Geared for killing people and not animals...aka bandits
- Yeah, if they want to rob people with money (or things they can sell), they hit the trade routes where the nations do not patrol. That is why caravans hired additional guards...what you call a problem, I see as an employment opportunity.
- Camped on the route to the a holy site or other popular site. Once again, this is the reason for groups such as the Knights Templars.
- Camped in a monster lair? Yeah...that is how you hunt something when it is not in its den, you stake out the den.

I fail to see the problem with any of these actions. In fact, by doing these, they are RPing whether they realize they are RPing or not. And, I think the error with someone repeatedly doing the last one is a fault of the AI, not the players. AI that repeatedly gets killed in a given spot should migrate.

The "bandits" most of the time are more interested in the killmail to pad the kill board than the loot.

The majority of them will fire against a noob frigate as easily as they fire against a industrial transport or a battleship.
In the past some of them were asking for a ransom in exchange for leaving the ship go away [there are ways to stop you from fleeing]. Now it is almost never done as, if he is prepared, the target can call for reinforcements and get them in very little time.

The "Knight Templars" in EVE don't clear the route from bandits, they kill everything that is not part of their group. so we again return to the starting point, there is no practical difference between the "protectors" and the "bandits".

Monster respawning: the fixed "dungeons" have been all removed and moved to locations that you find with exploration, but some player have learned that staying in the dungeon after completion will stop it from despawning, so it is a nice bait to get explorers and it stop the dungeon to respawn elsewere.
With he next expansion this kind of exploit will be pugged and after a time the completed dungeon will despawn even if someone is within it.

So if the Pathfinder game were to keep this kind of mechanics the gaming landscape will evolve the same way.

Goblinworks Founder

This thread is being griefed by carebears.

The thread title is Consequences for Griefing yet discussion on topic stopped on the second page when two people in particular hijacked the thread.

Can we please get on topic. If you want to cry about how sandbox PvP is a bad Idea, maybe you should create a thread on it.


Griefing has never been well dealt with in MMOs, but like so many things - one merely needs to look at how antisocial behaviour of such an extreme nature is dealt with in real life and translate it.

How about this rapidly thought up solution;

Every PC and NPC has a 'social standing' and 'reputation'. These are added up to a total 'importance' rating reflecting how important they are to the area they are in.

Witnesses also have a 'credibility' rating based on their 'importance' to the ruling group (nobles, priests, senators etc.). This is also true of PC's but only if NPCs wityness them being attacked....

These are all secret numbers for NPCs but should be obvious....

Each witnessed crime (theft, assault, murder) has a separate track based on severity/type. This resutls in a 'known criminal' number which gets added to the characters total - with trigger levels based on the amount accrued and the 'tolerance' of the local authorities.

Got a high 'Thief or Bandit' rating in the City of Thieves - the Guards don't give a damn. Got a low but above zero 'Assault Rating' in the Temple of the Immaculate Paladin? - expect to be arrested, fined and given a penance quest backed up by regular visits by Paladins looking to smite you up if you haven't done it within the set time-frame.

Found the right corrupt official in an area (a questline and the right contacts help....) then go and bribe your scores down with cash or items they want.

Bandit-like activities in the wilds are different. There should be regular caravans etc (heavily NPC gaurded with PC opportunities to Guard for cash) which may be attacked, not to mention attacking PCs. However, be careful who you mess with. A PC who is a lone wolf and not a member of any important groups is easy to hit as they are not 'socially important'. However, if they are a high ranking member of a powerful group (high 'importance' rating with them), or have done a zillion favours for the local villages - then this impacts NPC interraction and can even end up with 'bounties' being offered on those naughty PC's at quest hubs of the relevant factions or villages etc.

Recognition can be reduced with a 'disguise skill', and a criminal underworld can ease the pain of vendors not tolerating the naughty PC - but never make life 'as easy'.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Elth wrote:

This thread is being griefed by carebears.

The thread title is Consequences for Griefing yet discussion on topic stopped on the second page when two people in particular hijacked the thread.

Can we please get on topic. If you want to cry about how sandbox PvP is a bad Idea, maybe you should create a thread on it.

My point is that sandbox PVP is an absolutely horrible way to attempt to prevent or mete out consequences for activities that would be considered griefing in other games, such as financial scamming, killing grey-con players, blocking off services, and the like. It doesn't end up preventing people from being jerks. It just ends up causing people to form into hostile, murderous gangs who ruthlessly defend their territory from anyone with a red name. In practice, it's a license to grief.

If complaining about the policy of "We don't care if you're asshats to each other" makes me a carebear, then so be it.

Goblinworks Founder

randomwalker wrote:


short story: Circle of protection from griefers, granted by npc and pc clerics. (point 3a below)

long story:

what about balancing the world so to make lawful good aligment more desireable than chaotic evil?

1) killing innocents/griefing is an evil act and makes your alignment shift towards evil and ultimately into 'pure evil'.
1a) killing someone who killed you before isn't necessarily evil
1b) killing someone at war with is not an evil act
1c) killing (even griefing!) someone who is evil is not an evil act
1d) changing back to good is much harder and requires more than doing pve quests.

2) alignment change should/could be undesireable for pve reasons. Paladins lose several abilities if become evil. cleric abilities and wizard summons may also change on alignment change. (For rogues and necromancers.. maybe not so undesireable).

3) high level/ pure evil players are tagged as EVIL and subjected to
3a) protection from evil / circle of protection from evil. This alone gives protection from proven griefers but not from others you are at war with.
3b) smite evil, holy weapons etc.
3c) the idea is that a paladin gets a real edge against griefers, but loses that edge (and more) if he becomes one.

4) alignment restricted goodies:
4a) alignment restricted items and rewards. If the 'best' items are good-aligned, this is a driving force.
4b) npc healing/restoration/curse removal cheap for the good and costly for the evil
4c) questgivers/raidzones/other content protected by vigilant npc paladins making it effectively off-limits for evildoers.

5) i'm focusing on evil now, but random ganking is surely also chaotic, and hellknight justice could also be a way to deal with grief.

I never considered the Protection from Evil/Good spells from this point of view. I like it.

I would love to see table top alignments used as part of a consequence.

1) Killing innocents/griefing should be considered both a chaotic and evil act. A neutral evil personality tends to only kill things that stand in the way of their goal, while a Lawful Evil would usually frame their enemy for a crime or have someone else do the dirty work. (these are both just my interpretations of course).

1a)If Revenge Killing is okay it should be limited on a one for one basis.

1b) Already stated that there is no penalty for player killing when war is declared on their clan. I am assuming declaring war must be accepted by both parties.. we'll have to wait and see.

1c) I'm not sure that Killing (or Griefing)someone just for being Evil is fair. If it were, you would have Paladins using detect evil running around griefing players just because of their alignment without consequence, making them more of a tyrant than a crusader.

2) I'm not sure how this would work as we still don't know much information on archtypes and the skill system. I can't imagine a Necromancer of good alignment though. Clerics & Paladins of good and neutral deities should lose all of their holy powers if they shift too far from their Deities alignment, with a fairly lengthy atonement quest to regain favor or a corrupting line if they continue toward an evil deity. Rogues don't seem to rely on alignments, but not all rogues gravitate towards the ninja/assassin stream. I for one prefer the thieving style utility rogue, not the poison wielding assassin.

3) Again depends on how the class/skill/archtype system works. There might not be levels as we know it.

4)I'm definitely in favor of Alignment restricted goodies. I just hope that magical loot isn't going to determine whether someone can defeat an army or not. With great power comes great responsibility so to speak. A Chaotic Evil Barbarian munchkin with a +5 Greataxe of Evil might have an awesome time owning noobs of good alignment. It's not like his Axe can be useful against evil dragons now is it?

TL:DR pretty good idea Randomwalker. I love seeing Pen and Paper spells and abilities converted into MMO concepts.

Goblinworks Founder

A Man In Black wrote:
Elth wrote:

This thread is being griefed by carebears.

The thread title is Consequences for Griefing yet discussion on topic stopped on the second page when two people in particular hijacked the thread.

Can we please get on topic. If you want to cry about how sandbox PvP is a bad Idea, maybe you should create a thread on it.

My point is that sandbox PVP is an absolutely horrible way to attempt to prevent or mete out consequences for activities that would be considered griefing in other games, such as financial scamming, killing grey-con players, blocking off services, and the like. It doesn't end up preventing people from being jerks. It just ends up causing people to form into hostile, murderous gangs who ruthlessly defend their territory from anyone with a red name. In practice, it's a license to grief.

If complaining about the policy of "We don't care if you're asshats to each other" makes me a carebear, then so be it.

Well the current project leads have already said that they plan to make the consequences of asshattery harsh enough that it wont be worthwhile.

I am happy with that response for now and will continue to have an enjoyable time discussing childish fantasies on how things might turn out. I don't care for negativity, it adds nothing to the discussion and only serves to piss people off.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Elth wrote:
Well the current project leads have already said that they plan to make the consequences of asshattery harsh enough that it wont be worthwhile.

Why allow asshattery in the first place?

This is the part where I start going on about "Hope you like your interactions" again, but if an action is so obnoxious that we're describing it as "asshattery" and outright "evil", why is it a thing that you're allowed to do in the game? It's a game. Ultimately, every thing that you can do in the game is a thing a programmer had to be paid to allow you to do. You don't have to let people do a thing if you don't want to.

Why would you pay someone to allow players to do something that is so terribly obnoxious that you have to punish players for doing it?

Goblinworks Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
A Man In Black wrote:
Elth wrote:
Well the current project leads have already said that they plan to make the consequences of asshattery harsh enough that it wont be worthwhile.

Why allow asshattery in the first place?

This is the part where I start going on about "Hope you like your interactions" again, but if an action is so obnoxious that we're describing it as "asshattery" and outright "evil", why is it a thing that you're allowed to do in the game? It's a game. Ultimately, every thing that you can do in the game is a thing a programmer had to be paid to allow you to do. You don't have to let people do a thing if you don't want to.

Why would you pay someone to allow players to do something that is so terribly obnoxious that you have to punish players for doing it?

Are you kidding? because some of us players actually enjoy feeling threatened at every corner. I love playing in free for all PvP games. I do not gank or grief, I play these games as I would play all of my RPGs, I venture out and explore, I gather resources, I craft, I chop wood, I kill animals for leather and monsters for loot. The whole time I do this, I am spinning my camera around looking into the distance to see if someone is going to creep up on me and attack. I love the adrenaline this brings. You cannot understand this, I get it. But YOU need to understand that there is a lot of players just like me that do not have this satisfaction because players like you have cried so much that it gets removed. Is that clear enough?

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Elth wrote:
Are you kidding? because some of us players actually enjoy feeling threatened at every corner. I love playing in free for all PvP games. I do not gank or grief, I play these games as I would play all of my RPGs, I venture out and explore, I gather resources, I craft, I chop wood, I kill animals for leather and monsters for loot. The whole time I do this, I am spinning my camera around looking into the distance to see if someone is going to creep up on me and attack. I love the adrenaline this brings. You cannot understand this, I get it. But YOU need to understand that there is a lot of players just like me that do not have this satisfaction because players like you have cried so much that it gets removed. Is that clear enough?

No, I do get it. But open world PVP is not griefing. Why are you describing gameplay that you actually like as asshattery? When you mentioned asshattery, I thought you were actually talking about things that actively make the game less fun for you and less fun for me and less fun for everyone but the asshat.

Having scammers run free in the game because they are in the biggest, baddest gang/clan/guild/nation/corp, and having no recourse against them because you are not... how is that making the game more fun for you?

How is finding out that such-and-such game service is not accessible because you are not in the single gang with access to it... how is that making the game more fun for you?

How is finding out that the entire game is a death spiral of losing territory to the handful of early-founding juggernaut gangs who eventually dominate the entire server... how is that making the game more fun for you?

These are actual problems with previous games that tried to use sandbox PVP as a replacement for dealing with griefing with GM action or by taking action to remove the griefplay from the game.

Now, this is all speculative, caused mostly by Ryan Dancey namechecking previous games like EVE and Darkfall, which have horrifically bad approaches to preventing and dealing with griefplay. If ganking greycons is out, stealing from players is not a thing, territory play isn't a hopeless death spiral (as in Shadowbane and POTBS), and scamming and other griefplay just gets you banhammered, I'd be out there in the forest, stabbin' and being stabbed. I don't see any reason to repeat the last decade of Horizons/Shadowbane/Darkfall mistakes, though.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

kyrt-ryder wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:

So why the hell do you think that PVPers are going to want to escort your arrogant ass?

Speaking as a 'PvPer' as you put it, I would love to escort his arrogant donkey (and himself. I'll guard a packmule but I don't want to have to try to get the stubborn thing to move >.<) for a fee. Hell, I'd even help him with his quest for the right price, though I'm more interested in dealing with challenging players than AI.

LOL.

What percentage of the profit?

Sorry, I mean

What percentage of the wagonload of money the money grubbing carebear merchant is doing?

Oh, sorry still too little

How much above what I will make spending the same time raiding dungeons?

That is the point, doing guard duty is boring. A player can spend the same time and earn a lot of coins, so he would want at least as much for doing guard duty. But the tradesman don't have the possibility to increase his prices enough to pay for the guard, get a profit and still sell the stuff.

So, if possible, it become: send a alt scout ahead to see if the route is clear, teleport as much as possible, don't let anyone know when you are moving your stuff, use stealth, hope.

The PVPers want his adrenaline rush, doing guard duty for a caravan or a gathering operation is the opposite for 90% of the time. The PVPers will get bored very fast doing it.

Goblinworks Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
A Man In Black wrote:


No, I do get it. But open world PVP is not griefing. And, to my knowledge, that feature has yet to be removed from any game ever because of people whining about it!

Having scammers run free in the game because they are in the biggest, baddest gang/clan/guild/nation/corp, and having no recourse against them because you are not... how is that making the game more fun for you?

How is finding out that such-and-such game service is not accessible because you are not in the single gang with access to it... how is that making the game more fun for you?

How is finding out that the entire game is a death spiral of losing territory to the handful of early-founding juggernaut gangs who eventually dominate the entire server... how is that making the game more fun for you?

These are actual problems with previous games that tried to use sandbox PVP as a replacement for dealing with griefing with GM action or by taking action to remove the griefplay from the game.


  • You obviously dislike sandbox games because of horrible past experiences.

  • I do not have this problem.

  • Didn't you hear? Goblinworks have announced that they are making a Pathfinder sandbox MMO with themepark elements

  • I heard, and I haven't stopped thinking about it since the announcement.

  • I have enjoyed past experiences in Sandbox MMO's.

  • I find the political intrigue and espionage of large corporations in EvE to be fascinating.

  • I find the idea of infiltrating a corp intriguing and I wish I had the time (or someone would pay me) to infiltrate an organization in game and empty their coffers.

This is where I am confused. You're still here even though you dislike the concept of the game.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Elth wrote:
You're still here even though you dislike the concept of the game.

We don't actually know the concept of the game, to be honest. Right now, it's a fantasy game where you... do stuff. It's early enough that speaking out against the excesses of poorly-designed games that Ryan Dancey has namechecked might have some impact. Who knows?

If it turns out to be a game where you do fantastic stuff and do a bit of PVPing, then I'm excited. If it's a gang warfare simulator where the developers have a laissez-faire attitude towards any griefplay that isn't outright bug exploitation or GM cheating, then bleagh.

Quote:
  • I find the political intrigue and espionage of large corporations in EvE to be fascinating.
  • If you want, you can read the Mittani's not-at-all-exaggerated-and-self-aggrandizing column for free. I assure you, it'll give you more exposure to the subject than 1000 hours played in EVE Online.

    Quote:
  • I find the idea of infiltrating a corp intriguing and I wish I had the time (or someone would pay me) to infiltrate an organization in game and empty their coffers.
  • This has happened once. Ever. The fact that you expect to be paid for it means that you will never do it.

    Goblinworks Founder

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    A Man In Black wrote:
    Elth wrote:
    You're still here even though you dislike the concept of the game.

    We don't actually know the concept of the game, to be honest. Right now, it's a fantasy game where you... do stuff. It's early enough that speaking out against the excesses of poorly-designed games that Ryan Dancey has namechecked might have some impact. Who knows?

    If it turns out to be a game where you do fantastic stuff and do a bit of PVPing, then I'm excited. If it's a gang warfare simulator where the developers have a laissez-faire attitude towards any griefplay that isn't outright bug exploitation or GM cheating, then bleagh.

    Quote:
  • I find the political intrigue and espionage of large corporations in EvE to be fascinating.
  • If you want, you can read the Mittani's not-at-all-exaggerated-and-self-aggrandizing column for free. I assure you, it'll give you more exposure to the subject than 1000 hours played in EVE Online.

    Quote:
  • I find the idea of infiltrating a corp intriguing and I wish I had the time (or someone would pay me) to infiltrate an organization in game and empty their coffers.
  • This has happened once. Ever. The fact that you expect to be paid for it means that you will never do it.

    Okay bud. I've taken your bait enough for one day. To be honest I am finding your condescending attitude to be quite dreary at this time of night. Take care and I wish you all the best in your crusade against Ryan's sandbox.

    EDIT: Oh and I wouldn't expect to be payed for infiltrating a corp. The reason I haven't attempted it is because I have a mortgage to pay off and a family to feed. That is the only reason I mentioned payment.


    randomwalker wrote:


    Short story: Circle of protection from griefers, granted by NPC and PC clerics. (point 3a below)

    Also Long Story.

    This sounds good except for one thing. Some people probably want to play an evil character because the character they had at the table was evil and they had hella fun being a complete a** (or maybe not that much of an a**), whether the DM approved or not. And what of those who want to play more secretive evil characters, like a Cleric of Norgorber for example? Putting griefers into the same zone as the "evil is kewl" people can cause a bit of a mess if it's not done well enough.

    Also, almost all of Gorum's followers are of the "punch the guy in the face" type of people, and they would quickly turn from a Chaotic Neutral guy picking random fights and into a Chaotic Evil a-hole and a griefer for playing in-character unless the system has some clear-cut rules to avoid such a thing happening. Of course, using non-lethal damage on worthy foes (or if you are Chaotic Good, simply because) would work well to avoid this.

    Lastly, for some reason, this thread got me thinking more about that Lawful Neutral cleric of Zon-Kuthon (race being either human or a homebrew one) I had in mind.


    I think the thread title (not the intent) was set up wrong, which is leading to these strange arguments. The question is not "how to punish griefing so as to discourage it", it's "how to channel griefing into interesting gameplay." As a sandbox PvPish MMO, the game ultimately is about proving your individual self or clan/group to be better than everyone else and rub it in their face. Like every other PvP game then, the goal is to make that process for doing so interesting and compelling, whether that's on the side of ganking, organized player combat, economic or political development, etc.

    I also think using a D&D clone IP to build a non-D&D PvP game is very strange and will continue to confuse fans for a long time to come. Most of your existing base is frankly not interested in competitive gaming of any sort. There is a large group of players who are, but most of them aren't Paizo fans.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Yeah, you guys are delirious if you think this game will have open PvP. maybe some factional based or warfare based, but Dungeons and Dragons is a game about heroes doing heroic things, and pathfinder is framed in its spirit. I've never allowed a PC to attack another PC in a game, never met a GOOD DM who has either. And do you know what? this game is geared for them, not the silly retired ultima online sandbox fanatics.


    Out of curiosity, does anybody have experience in those MMOs where in game money is tradeable for real world money? They aren't common, but they do exist. The reason I ask is that I wonder...

    If they had a chance to gain real money, would a PvPer take on the "tedium" of guarding trade routes and caravans?


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Lord Psychodin wrote:
    Yeah, you guys are delirious if you think this game will have open PvP. maybe some factional based or warfare based, but Dungeons and Dragons is a game about heroes doing heroic things, and pathfinder is framed in its spirit. I've never allowed a PC to attack another PC in a game, never met a GOOD DM who has either. And do you know what? this game is geared for them, not the silly retired ultima online sandbox fanatics.

    First, I have been in plenty of games, on both sides of the GM screen, where players have attacked other players. I don't know if I can call myself a good DM (I will leave that to others' judgment) but I can attest that my DMs who allowed it were good. Second, the game is geared very much for sandboxers that like PvP if Ryan's comments are anything to go by.

    EDIT TO ADD:
    This is a game set in Golarion. Should someone in a Golarion MMO be able to play a follower of Achaekek, Besmara, Calistria, Gorum, Lamashtu, Norgorber, Rovagug, Urgathoa, or any number of other gods? Even if some of the actions of those gods is pretty much the definition of griefing?

    Let's make it more general. Should the game allow you to play an evil character? If so, are you limited to being evil only to NPCs?

    Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

    Elth wrote:

    This thread is being griefed by carebears.

    The thread title is Consequences for Griefing yet discussion on topic stopped on the second page when two people in particular hijacked the thread.

    Can we please get on topic. If you want to cry about how sandbox PvP is a bad Idea, maybe you should create a thread on it.

    If you want to speak only of the consequence of griefing you must first define what is griefing.

    On one extreme of the spectre I have seen people here or in the other thread advocating the right to kill people that speak of "inappropriate" things on the common chat, defining inappropriate as anything that is out of character, so from using leet speak to speaking of out of game subjects.
    On the other extreme there are people thinking that any action that will damage another player character is harassing.

    My position:

    1) what is said in the common chat is not something that a player has the right to sanction. If someone is disturbing the game with his messages we should have a way to report him and block him.

    2) similarly, the use of behaviour emoticons, like jumping, dancing and so on can be fastidious but it is not harassing. If necessary it should be reported for GM actions.

    3) Negating some other player access to game features that my character don't own is a form of harassing. The game developers should decide if and to what limit it should be possible and be very clear about those limits.

    4) targeting other player characters for constant abuse is harassing.

    - * -

    Purposefully going into harm way to damage other character reputation/alignment is harassing, but I don't see any way to automatically punish that if it is possible to damage other player characters (one example of this behaviour: I go around invisible and try to place myself into the area of effect of another player damaging spell to get aggro or kill rights for me and my guild against him).

    101 to 150 of 220 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Consequences for Griefing All Messageboards