Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf
Instead of they have got hung up on debating how they don't like about the details OF A TREATY THAT HAS NOT BEEN WRITTEN!!!
This is why this debate is closed to the public. Too many people wander in, read a fragment of what is said and then offer their opinions without understanding the full situation.
I want to take a group of people of a small size and debate the issue. Not have people on the forum skim the OP and then skip to the last page and start giving their opinions on points that they misunderstood or already were addressed.
Most people posting here simply do not understand the issue. It's not offering incredible power to any group or individual. It doesn't have poorly defined terms on what is and isn't griefing. It doesn't police the every action of every player of PFO.
Do you remember Matthew Peck who kept attacking Pathfinder Online and would only run from a thread insulting it when Ryan Dancey would appear and question his motives? I see someone very similar in this thread.
Someone who skips over every post of actual relevance and seeks only to fuel the people who regurgitate their opinion without reading any of the thread.
All the while claiming it was "Discussion" as he gets off to all of the misdirection. He even got praised for his straw man "clear" arguments and trolling, and does it ever make him feel special.
The only time he concedes a point is when directly called out on it, then he goes back as if he didn't know that point so that new thread readers will be ignorant and make assumptions about what was actually talked about.
The irony of this all is that a thread about initial discussions on an alliance against the games end was hijacked by someone who wanted to spread grief to other people for his own sick pleasure.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have framed my arguments and am open to discussion on them.
1. Griefing needs to be defined
2. Alignment needs to be considered for role playing purposes.
3. Professions need to be exempt for the proper application of their profession.
4 Infinite Bounties must be included as part of the pact. If we agree to not grief ourselves, we must also agree not to issue infinite bounties. These in my view are as excessive as the griefing they are meant to discourage.
5. There should be no retaliation for not participating in this treaty. This includes the retaliation of omission or indifference, otherwise you lose the perception that the treaty is for the good of the whole community.
I will keep it at those five for now. Please feel free to explain how these are not raising legitimate topics for discussion.
Hey Bluddwolf, Andius is out. I'm in. AKA ignore him because you are talking to me, and I'm talking to you. Just two people talking. Because him and I are talking about two different things or might as well be as far as you are concerned.
1. No it does't. See the word "griefer"? Notice I've never used it in my posts. Let's take that word and tell it to diaf. Hell, I shouldn't of used "goon" but it was for example sake. My bad. We need to define, "What is a great threat?". That's a fair a VERY legit question.
2. Hmm, I'm not a RP but I can see your concern there. That WOULD require more knowledge on things like the war mechinca and how it would affect alignment.
3. I don't understand could you expand on that? I apologize. Do you mean farmers stay on the farm?
4. This should be a non-issue with what I have in mind but I can agree to that with what we know so far.
5. ABSOF*$%INGLUTELY. It wouldn't be "Good" to do otherwise.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being
Then they could be informed, that yes what you did GW considers griefing, and mark it/record it. Then if reporeted for it again (and its obvoiusly true) they get perma-banned.
And maybe insta-banning people is a bit too harsh? IDK? Maybe something like a 3 strike system? I see what you are saying, but you know when people are genuinely confused or blowing smoke up your @ss most of the time. But to account for Idiots that truly dont get it a 3 strike system could give them a chance to be more informed/careful in the future.
Lets say that GW gives a general definition of what griefing is every time you log in. That way its always on the minds of people.
Then lets say that they have a mechanic in place to prevent certain types of griefing. Lets say the game doesnt allow you to kill the same person more than 2 times in a row or 8 times in a month (not including contracts, duels, war, or self-defense).
But Bob Griefer desides that he will steal 1 carrot from John Farmer's prize crop every day for 15 days straight. Bob knows hes obviously harrassing John. It might seem innocent, but its annoying and abusive and any reasonable person knows it. So I wouldnt accept Bob saying, "Dur, I didnt know I was griefing", because its a lie.
No on the other hand, If Bob had simply, killed John, took his loot, and harvested his entire crop, but MOVED ON. Then thats just being a bandit. Harsh? yes. Griefing? no.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Players will always be better equipped to handle some issues the devs simply cannot touch.
For instance University of The River Kingdoms builds a settlement next to Fort Riverwatch. This is a group dedicated to teaching new players how to play the game. It has no political affiliation with any group. All of its assets are used for research, the results of which are revealed to the public, and the instruction of new players. All of its members are instructors, researchers, and students. (As many of you may have caught on I just described EVE University and NEW Academy.)
A major group in the game then declares war on them, declares their members kill on sight, and takes their settlement for their own. The stated reason is because "The faculty was using their neutrality to protect private business ventures that funnel funds to our enemies." The real reason is this group already had an extensive training program, so an equally good training program that is available to everyone diminishes their power. Again, this scenario isn't entirely made up.
Is this such a clear cut case of griefing the admins should involve themselves? Does this act have a negative enough impact on the community players should involve themselves?
I would say a resounding no to the first question, and a resounding yes to the second. Having a group of organizations that could all vote on whether to deal with this problem at the first sign of aggression rather than after the academy is already in ashes would be helpful though.
Having a group of players come to you and say "Give solid evidence, back down, or be utterly destroyed." Is a much better solution than admin involvement, and potential bans.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Waruko
For #3, I think he means more like a Bandit should be aloowed to be a bandit. Being a Bandit does not automatically constitute greifing.
Pardon me Bluddwolf, If I got that wrong.
Oh if that's the case then that loops back into my reply to 1. F%++ the word "griefer". Bandits be bandits and can do what they want. This treaty should have NOTHING to do with them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Pardon my EVE ignorance as well, but I am having a hard time seeing what is wrong in the above scenario Andius just layed out. Maybe there is something that I am missing, but to me it seems just fine and the only acton it should require is anyone who wants vengeance, or their territory back, and any Allies they can muster. But it doesnt seem like something the entire community should get involved with. Regardless of the intentions, they declared war on them did they not? Whats the problem?
As I said Im ignorant of the specific details of that event so maybe Im missing something? Like even after they took over their settlement, did they continue to kill all members on sight, kicking them when they were down, taking advantage and abusing the weak? Anything like that? If not then I dont see a problem. Was it a bit underhanded? Yes, but its just mafia style business tactics. But they did declare war.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The scenario was a combination of something a certain powerful group only considered on EVE, and something that actually happened on Mortal Online.
The problem was an extremely positive group that was absolutely neutral dedicated to making a complicated game more understandable to new players was destroyed. Many new players left as a result.
No rules were broke but the community was deeply harmed. That is why the community itself needs the tools to handle these kind of problems when they arise.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Oh if that's the case then that loops back into my reply to 1. F%#$ the word "griefer". Bandits be bandits and can do what they want. This treaty should have NOTHING to do with them.@Waruko
For #3, I think he means more like a Bandit should be aloowed to be a bandit. Being a Bandit does not automatically constitute greifing.
Pardon me Bluddwolf, If I got that wrong.
Yes, that is what I meant. Professions such as bandits, mercenaries and assassins need to be exempt from being declared griefers solely based on their performing their role.
Assassins are hired to kill. If a level 50 ( yes I know there are no levels) is hired to kill a level 2 player, and paid handsomely for the deed, would this constitute griefing or ganking. I would say no, because the act is clearly within the realm of being an Assassin.
Bandits will attack caravans. This does not mean they have to slaughter all, I concede that. However, is there or will there be a game mechanic in place to allow bandits to plunder a caravan without killing everyone? If there is no mechanic allowing it, than bandits have little choice but to kill all. That in my mind is not griefing, it's doing what they do.
Mercenaries would likely be acting under the banner of war, and so no griefing or ganking charges should apply.
I will address the issue with Infinite Bounties here for discussion.
I see that infinite bounties, even though a game mechanic, will produce the very thing this treaty is supposed to discourage.
If I rob a very rich merchant, and he decides to issue infinite bounties, I would have no other choice but to make him my sole source of raiding. I could not afford to have multiple, infinite bounties, so I would have to repeatedly attack him.
Or, I would only attack the caravans owned by smaller, less rich merchants, to avoid the infinite bounty scenario. This favors the fat cat merchant over the little guy, something I believe this treaty is supposed to prevent.
Therefore my argument remains, this treaty must include a clause that also discourages the use of infinite bounties.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Things were said.Oh if that's the case then that loops back into my reply to 1. F%#$ the word "griefer". Bandits be bandits and can do what they want. This treaty should have NOTHING to do with them.@Waruko
For #3, I think he means more like a Bandit should be aloowed to be a bandit. Being a Bandit does not automatically constitute greifing.
Pardon me Bluddwolf, If I got that wrong.
Sounds fine and reasonable to me. Thank you for a civil and will written response.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Assassins are hired to kill. If a level 50 ( yes I know there are no levels) is hired to kill a level 2 player, and paid handsomely for the deed, would this constitute griefing or ganking. I would say no, because the act is clearly within the realm of being an Assassin.
Unless those assassins are part of a group or coalitions that controls multiple settlements or wields a similar amount of power to those who do, and that group/coalition is killing level 2s on a CONSISTENT basis as well as displaying other overly aggressive tendencies, then that scenario is entirely irrelevant to the Treaty of Rovagug. It is meant to deal with MAJOR issues that require a multi-organization response. Not police every action of every individual group.
So individual signers of The Treaty of Rovagug would get to deal with it, or not deal with it however they see fit. Just like we can, and will, right now.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Players will always be better equipped to handle some issues the devs simply cannot touch.
For instance University of The River Kingdoms builds a settlement next to Fort Riverwatch. This is a group dedicated to teaching new players how to play the game. It has no political affiliation with any group. All of its assets are used for research, the results of which are revealed to the public, and the instruction of new players. All of its members are instructors, researchers, and students. (As many of you may have caught on I just described EVE University and NEW Academy.)
A major group in the game then declares war on them, declares their members kill on sight, and takes their settlement for their own. The stated reason is because "The faculty was using their neutrality to protect private business ventures that funnel funds to our enemies." The real reason is this group already had an extensive training program, so an equally good training program that is available to everyone diminishes their power. Again, this scenario isn't entirely made up.
Is this such a clear cut case of griefing the admins should involve themselves? Does this act have a negative enough impact on the community players should involve themselves?
I would say a resounding no to the first question, and a resounding yes to the second. Having a group of organizations that could all vote on whether to deal with this problem at the first sign of aggression rather than after the academy is already in ashes would be helpful though.
And you are assuming that something like the PF University will do something like that? just to point some flaws out in your thinking.
Eve University has never been and never will be a space holding corp. They operate in Hi or occasionally in Low-Sec. They get the war decs and they handle them as per corp agreement. They actually enjoy the war decs as it will allow them to train recruits for the future of eve!
Also, a recruit remains roughly 2 to 4 weeks in the Uni, and then move to other corps.
And I will state this once more, you have only come here to the forums with a suggestion of a treaty, what have you done, as a guild so far and what have you achieved as a guild so far that would warrant us to align ourselves with you?
Claims like we are the biggest guild, I will remember this and will not aid you are also a good way to establish relations.
And you are starting to sound more like SirMolle or TheMittani.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And you are starting to sound more like SirMolle or TheMittani.BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! You are giving him WAY too much credit. Please please, /wipes tears. Keep your digs realistic.
I wanted more to compare him to the Curse Alliance from the days old... but I couldn't remember the leader from that time :(
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Andius,
So this treaty will only apply to dealings vs large organization. That is what I'm getting from you.
How about the issue I raised about infinite bounties, what is or maybe the stance of this treaty on that point?
I hope you can see I incorporated your concern that bandits not rob from the poor in my argument, but I don't see a way around that.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Players will always be better equipped to handle some issues the devs simply cannot touch.
For instance University of The River Kingdoms builds a settlement next to Fort Riverwatch. This is a group dedicated to teaching new players how to play the game. It has no political affiliation with any group. All of its assets are used for research, the results of which are revealed to the public, and the instruction of new players. All of its members are instructors, researchers, and students. (As many of you may have caught on I just described EVE University and NEW Academy.)
A major group in the game then declares war on them, declares their members kill on sight, and takes their settlement for their own. The stated reason is because "The faculty was using their neutrality to protect private business ventures that funnel funds to our enemies." The real reason is this group already had an extensive training program, so an equally good training program that is available to everyone diminishes their power. Again, this scenario isn't entirely made up.
Is this such a clear cut case of griefing the admins should involve themselves? Does this act have a negative enough impact on the community players should involve themselves?
I would say a resounding no to the first question, and a resounding yes to the second. Having a group of organizations that could all vote on whether to deal with this problem at the first sign of aggression rather than after the academy is already in ashes would be helpful though.
Having a group of players come to you and say "Give solid evidence, back down, or be utterly destroyed." Is a much better solution than admin involvement, and potential bans.
The example you gave is simply not griefing, it is pretty much the definition of meaningful player interaction. It should be handled by simple (and complex) emergent politics: So many other organizations value URK enough that anyone who declares war on URK is subject to wardecs by everybody, and they lose everything to the mostly united forces of the rest of the world.
If you wish to suggest a non-mutual aid agreement toward certain specific beneficial organizations or unorganized categories of character, that would be a significantly different proposal. I think 'non-mutual defense pact' is exactly the term you want for something which handles the specific scenario you outlined.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Andius,
So this treaty will only apply to dealings vs large organization. That is what I'm getting from you.
How about the issue I raised about infinite bounties, what is or maybe the stance of this treaty on that point?
I hope you can see I incorporated your concern that bandits not rob from the poor in my argument, but I don't see a way around that.
The issue of infinite bounties would be dealt with like any other issue. If it is being used consistently by large organizations in a way that majorly effects the community in a negative fashion then there would be a vote on whether or not to deal with it.
If it is a minor issue / being used by a minor group / not having a major negative effect then each individual signer would be able to take the actions they deem appropriate.
Ideally the Treaty of Rovagug would rarely be envoked. When it was, it would prompt either negotiotions / an ultimatum delivered to the group in question, or full scale war on a massive scale.
Nobody would run around policing based on the terms of The Treaty of Rovagug. Policing is for groups that choose to make that part of their role.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The issue of infinite bounties would be dealt with like any other issue. If it is being used consistently by large organizations in a way that majorly effects the community in a negative fashion then there would be a vote on whether or not to deal with it.
If it is a minor issue / being used by a minor group / not having a major negative effect then each individual signer would be able to take the actions they deem appropriate.
.
Infinite Bounties have global impact vs the person they are placed on because anyone can act upon that bounty. It is issued by one person, but is executed by the whole community.
Therefore we would have no choice but to respond to an infinite bounty by returning upon the person, infinite grief.
The treaty as it is being proposed is not providing equal justice. It is creating a two tiered system, one for small and one for large sized organizations. This then opens up several questions, about size.
1. If none of the treaty applies to small organizations or to individuals, then what is the incentive for them to sign?
2. What constitutes "small" or. "Large"? Given the aversion to defining terms, I won't count on an answer here.
3, a great deal of the writing here, from the pro treaty side, has been focused on protecting one large community from the emergence of another. What stake do smaller, neutral leaning companies have in choosing your side?
Yes I know you will claim your side is not TEO, but the PFO community's side, but to be honest you have not won on that argument yet.
My company's case in point. I can see the opportunity of making great wealth from this impending conflict you seem to be preparing for. Why wouldn't we play both sides off of each other?
I recall the Devs saying, this is a sand box where player actions will shape the world. Perhaps a war between giants will be a desirable event.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Do you anticipate all of the signatories to the treaty being bound to the results of a majority/super majority/unanimity of other signatories?
Not really in truth the vote is mainly to bring the issue before the groups involved and get them discussing whether action is needed. After the vote is cast individual groups can refuse to take action, or go make their own agreements without the consent of the rest of the group.
Without some form of council already organized it would take much longer to bring these kinds of issues to the attention of the community.
Given the course this topic has taken I would be unwilling to sign anything that could bind me to in-action.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Assassins are hired to kill. If a level 50 ( yes I know there are no levels) is hired to kill a level 2 player, and paid handsomely for the deed, would this constitute griefing or ganking. I would say no, because the act is clearly within the realm of being an Assassin.Unless those assassins are part of a group or coalitions that controls multiple settlements or wields a similar amount of power to those who do, and that group/coalition is killing level 2s on a CONSISTENT basis as well as displaying other overly aggressive tendencies, then that scenario is entirely irrelevant to the Treaty of Rovagug. It is meant to deal with MAJOR issues that require a multi-organization response. Not police every action of every individual group.
So individual signers of The Treaty of Rovagug would get to deal with it, or not deal with it however they see fit. Just like we can, and will, right now.
What if those level 2s are actively entering territory that a group has designated as no tresspassing and attacking the settlement. Does the group of higher level people not have the right to defend thier territory by killing them?
What if those low levels are bandits attacking caravans should higher level players ignore this behavior and do nothing, because it violates your treaty?
There are people who would feel justified in placing infinite bounties on another player. It would be in character for them to do so. See Calistria...
I can not approve of a treaty which allows players to act as judge, jury and executioner.
That has far more in common with Hellknights then with a lawful good organization.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Infinite Bounties have global impact vs the person they are placed on because anyone can act upon that bounty. It is issued by one person, but is executed by the whole community.
Incorrect, bounties are not set for the whole PFO community to collect they are limited.
Pathfinder Online's bounty system is a lot more selective. When you are murdered—that is, killed unlawfully—you will have the option to place a bounty on your killer's head. The twist is that you can specify who can redeem the bounty: a specific character, a chartered adventuring group, or members of a specific player organization. Everyone who is eligible to earn the bounty receives a notification, and if they encounter a character with a price on his head, they'll be reminded of the bounty outstanding on that character. You'll be able to put a bounty on any character who inflicted damage on you within a limited time preceding your character's death, and on their companions and those who rendered them assistance, so you can ensure that a gang of criminals suffers as much as a lone assassin.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1. If none of the treaty applies to small organizations or to individuals, then what is the incentive for them to sign?
It is not used AGAINST small groups or individuals, but they recieve more protection from it than perhaps any other group as usually large organizations use their strength to abuse smaller ones.
Suppose for a second a group the size of TEO decided to run around randomly killing all other factions and randomly destroying their assets for the fun of it. Who would need more protection? TEO with their equivalent size and military strength, or small groups and individuals?
Also I am not really targeting this at individuals.
2. What constitutes "small" or. "Large"? Given the aversion to defining terms, I won't count on an answer here.
I would say a group or coalition that has 3 or more settlements, or equivalent wealth and strength to one that does. For now though I would say any group with 40 or more members on the leaderboard.
3, a great deal of the writing here, from the pro treaty side, has been focused on protecting one large community from the emergence of another. What stake do smaller, neutral leaning companies have in choosing your side?
See the answer to question one. If you don't choose our side we aren't going to kill you. We won't claim your land or burn your settlement. We won't force you to pay tribute or proctection money. We likely won't even ban your passage through our territory or toll you to do so unless you do something against us. The same surely can not be said of those this treaty is meant to defend against.
My company's case in point. I can see the opportunity of making great wealth from this impending conflict you seem to be preparing for. Why wouldn't we play both sides off of each other?
Because if we lose, then once we are gone, who do you think they will come for next? Do you think these sorts of groups will spare you just because you did the job they paid you to do? You'll get to experience first hand what real tyrants are like, because I guarantee you they'll have a lot more to say than "I'll prioritize you last when rendering free aid."
I recall the Devs saying, this is a sand box where player actions will shape the world. Perhaps a war between giants will be a desirable event.
Sure, as long as the giant left standing in the end isn't the one who will turn around and destroy everything in sight as soon as the other giant falls.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Stuff
Obviously you haven't been reading anything I've been saying so I won't waste my time developing response you will also fail to read.
To attack a treaty based on the premise of players being able to use DISCRESION to deal with MAJOR threats with a question like "What if level 2 bandits attack a merchant caravan and the high level merchants kill them?!" is... I'm at a loss for words...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Incorrect, bounties are not set for the whole PFO community to collect they are limited.Pathfinder Online's bounty system is a lot more selective. When you are murdered—that is, killed unlawfully—you will have the option to place a bounty on your killer's head. The twist is that you can specify who can redeem the bounty: a specific character, a chartered adventuring group, or members of a specific player organization. Everyone who is eligible to earn the bounty receives a notification, and if they encounter a character with a price on his head, they'll be reminded of the bounty outstanding on that character. You'll be able to put a bounty on any character who inflicted damage on you within a limited time preceding your character's death, and on their companions and those who rendered them assistance, so you can ensure that a gang of criminals suffers as much as a lone assassin.
b]The twist is that you can specify who can redeem the bounty: a specific character, a chartered adventuring group, or members of a specific player organization.[/b]
Who "can" redeem, not who must or who can't. There is not indication that the bounty can only be collected by a specific group, only that it can be limited to one if the person chooses.
My assessment that bounties can be global has not been refuted by this quote.
Further more, if anyone should place a bounty on my entire company, for the actions of one is the equivalent of a declaration of war and will be treated as such.
In a related note.... I fully expect that The UnNamed Company will have at least 40 members if not closer to 100 by the time the game reaches
beta. So we will qualify as a "large" organization in Andius' definition.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I took the next line
Everyone who is eligible to earn the bounty receives a notification, and if they encounter a character with a price on his head, they'll be reminded of the bounty outstanding on that character.
to mean that only people who were assigned the bounty would know about the bounty. Again limiting the bounty to not the whole PFO server.
Also, I don't know where you are getting placing bounties on an entire company. It specifically says
You'll be able to put a bounty on any character who inflicted damage on you within a limited time preceding your character's death, and on their companions and those who rendered them assistance
So unless you have your entire company attacking the player at the same time this wouldn't be an issue.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Infinite Bounties have global impact vs the person they are placed on because anyone can act upon that bounty.
My assessment that bounties can be global has not been refuted by this quote.
I know this is somewhat picking nits, but your original quote very much gave the impression that "anyone" could always "act upon that bounty".
I'm fairly certain it's true that players can open a Bounty up to the whole community, but in practice I expect that to almost never happen. It's also quite possible that Ryan will make it impossible, just to make sure low-information players don't accidentally reward the guy who killed them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would expect most companies will be self policing. Those that are not or are made specifically to grief will probably be policed by the ones that have made it a goal to ride the world of their ilk. If EVE is an example to be cited then we can all see that a little bit of griefing here and there will not kill the game and when a company or corporation is founded upon that type of gameplay ultimately their own discontent will lead to their downfall. Also, personally I am very much against a meta-game super-government.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Okay, I finally have to chime in here. Maybe I'm a bit late on the draw, maybe it's already been covered, but I have to speak my mind.
EvE has survived griefing by getting the game's player culture to accept it as a reality of life in EVE.
Forgive me if I seem ignorant or naive, but that's a terrible way to play.
Just accept griefers, whose sole mission is to make you as miserable as possible, and do nothing? Never try and make a stand against them or even believe that things could be better? Obviously griefers will come, obviously they will do whatever they can to make playing as terrible an experience as they can for people, but that doesn't mean we should just bend over and take it. To me, the treaty is more of a sign of the fact that we, the players, are willing to do something, anything we can, to counteract these people; it doesn't matter what you do in game because griefers aren't happy until you aren't happy.
Fighting and failing is way better than to do nothing at all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Goblinworks is already on record saying they will make a very defiant stand against griefers.
However, harassing players because they're "griefers" (as defined by this Treaty) - when Goblinworks has already ruled that they're not "griefers" - might very well count as "griefing" in the eyes of Goblinworks.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Okay, I finally have to chime in here. Maybe I'm a bit late on the draw, maybe it's already been covered, but I have to speak my mind.
EvE has survived griefing by getting the game's player culture to accept it as a reality of life in EVE.Forgive me if I seem ignorant or naive, but that's a terrible way to play.
Just accept griefers, whose sole mission is to make you as miserable as possible, and do nothing? Never try and make a stand against them or even believe that things could be better? Obviously griefers will come, obviously they will do whatever they can to make playing as terrible an experience as they can for people, but that doesn't mean we should just bend over and take it. To me, the treaty is more of a sign of the fact that we, the players, are willing to do something, anything we can, to counteract these people; it doesn't matter what you do in game because griefers aren't happy until you aren't happy.
Fighting and failing is way better than to do nothing at all.
To be fair Eve players are not guilty of the charge "doing nothing about griefing". They just don't do what is proposed in this thread.
I won't speak for Bluddwolf, but that is an important difference.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Okay, I finally have to chime in here. Maybe I'm a bit late on the draw, maybe it's already been covered, but I have to speak my mind.
EvE has survived griefing by getting the game's player culture to accept it as a reality of life in EVE.Forgive me if I seem ignorant or naive, but that's a terrible way to play.
Just accept griefers, whose sole mission is to make you as miserable as possible, and do nothing? Never try and make a stand against them or even believe that things could be better? Obviously griefers will come, obviously they will do whatever they can to make playing as terrible an experience as they can for people, but that doesn't mean we should just bend over and take it. To me, the treaty is more of a sign of the fact that we, the players, are willing to do something, anything we can, to counteract these people; it doesn't matter what you do in game because griefers aren't happy until you aren't happy.
Fighting and failing is way better than to do nothing at all.
Well, EVE is a bad example, although it is often brought up here. Few reasons for that, sandbox being one and one of the Devs coming from CCP is another. Also, a lot of players from EVE will come here, or have already.
EVE is a bad example because the map is so unimaginably huge (in MMO standards) that what grieifng does take place can easily be avoided.
Even the Goons can be avoided, I have not seen them in years (since 2004). But, I don't go to Jita or 0.0 space.
In EVE we adopted these three rules, for dealing with griefers:
1. You are never safe
2. Don't fly what you are unwilling to lose
3. It is all about the Isk (gold).
The same principals can be followed in PFO, even with its much smaller maps.
1. You are never safe
2. Don't carry what you are unwilling to lose
3. It is all about the gold
If all you lose is some gold, no big deal. A bit of time and you get that gold back anyway.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Okay, I finally have to chime in here. Maybe I'm a bit late on the draw, maybe it's already been covered, but I have to speak my mind.
EvE has survived griefing by getting the game's player culture to accept it as a reality of life in EVE.Forgive me if I seem ignorant or naive, but that's a terrible way to play.
Just accept griefers, whose sole mission is to make you as miserable as possible, and do nothing? Never try and make a stand against them or even believe that things could be better? Obviously griefers will come, obviously they will do whatever they can to make playing as terrible an experience as they can for people, but that doesn't mean we should just bend over and take it. To me, the treaty is more of a sign of the fact that we, the players, are willing to do something, anything we can, to counteract these people; it doesn't matter what you do in game because griefers aren't happy until you aren't happy.
Fighting and failing is way better than to do nothing at all.
I don't think he means that the EVE community just started to bend over and take it, just that it is a matter of fact. You go to the shady side of the universe you will get killed... habitually. So, you just steer clear of that system/group of systems. Most of the kills in highsec that could be considered griefing was more of holidays that show how great a game EVE is. I know that seems odd but Hulkagedon was some of the most fun I had in that game. It proved what the game stood for and continues to stand for: a vast, uncaring universe that you have to stand up for yourself in if you want to succeed. PFO doesn't have to follow that exact model but the community as a whole may suffer from it. If there is no risk to traveling outside of a town with all of your goods to the next town over, then when you get there you will find that all the tradesmen had the same ease of getting there. If they had no risk then you will over saturate the market with commodities lowering your profit margin. If you allow for the occasional griefer so that the regular bandit may keep his job then you add risk. With that risk you may get attacked, or the guy before you got attacked allowing you to sell your items to a market that is in need of what you have because no one else was able to get there. Heck, you could just higher a bunch of dudes to be bandits on a road and kill every caravan but yours that passes through, eliminating your competition. That is the true beauty of a sandbox.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Andius: Assuming that a loose group of bullies (or sociopaths if you prefer) will actually band together to form their own guild, don't you think that they will be (as individual players) already in early enrollment laying in wait until open enrollment? In order for them to have the ability you postulate in your example the individual players will have to have been playing for a while. What I seem to be missing with this proposed treaty is where this treaty protects those of us in the early enrollment period when we all are just trying to survive?
I fully expect to die many times just learning how to survive. I may even be subject to the antisocial behavior you appear to have such a hatred and fear of. I would not want a mad dog to walk down my street. If I couldn't keep it out I would kill it. But I would still have compassion for the poor animal so diseased as to be a threat to those I care about. If a herd of mad dogs descends on my town, then I will move heaven and earth to raise up my neighbors to fight them with me. Coming together against a common threat is what community does.
What you resist, persists. If you must always be on guard for this behavior in others, eventually that will be the only behavior you see.
Going back to your proposed scenario, it might just appeal to me to form an underground resistance to over through the Tyrant. I might even become Kawasaki.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The same principals can be followed in PFO, even with its much smaller maps.
1. You are never safe
2. Don't carry what you are unwilling to lose
3. It is all about the gold
If all you lose is some gold, no big deal. A bit of time and you get that gold back anyway.
And I'm okay with that. I may not be comfortable with it, because admittedly my only MMO experience has been more or less exclusively PvE, but I'm still okay with it because that's a reality of this kind of game. What isn't something I'm okay with is letting dick-bags run rough-shot through something I use for personal enjoyment, left unchecked and unchallenged by anyone (which, as you mentioned, may or may not happen, depending on how big the game world is, but it's not gonna be that big at launch).
I want to be able to enjoy the video game I'm paying $15 a month playing. I can enjoy that if I'm having meaningful player interaction, even if it's outside of my comfort zone. I can't enjoy it if I can do nothing else but get stressed out over those same dick-bags who aren't interested in meaningful player interaction, who are only interested in making me suffer as much as possible in any and every conceivable way possible.
If something like this, something that tries to stop people who try to hurt other people simply for the sake of hurting them, keeps me enjoying the game, keeps me subscribed to the game, and keeps me willing to have meaningful player interaction with other people, that's a win for everyone and something that we should all be willing to support.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... it might just appeal to me to form an underground resistance to over through the Tyrant. I might even become Kawasaki.
...so we need to lobby GW to give us the ability to post parchment declarations on all the settlement message boards and leave persistent manifesto scrolls on park benches and Inn tables.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To make discussions go a bit faster, I have set up a separate thread here to solely discuss the issue of infinite bounties, so they need not bog down this thread and because it is an important discussion in its own right.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
..I might even become Kawasaki.I meant kamikaze. Darn autocorrect, and my own lack of review.
From the previous post I thought you were talking about making your own settlement, then you go and say you wanted to become a suicide pilot? I'm lost. Is flight going to be in this game? It would be awesome if it is.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This treaty is is of no concern to me, nor would I be part of it.
What is interesting is that The Empyrean Order is going out of its way to ensure that Goonswarm targets them first and foremost. Saying things like "We are the enforcers of good" and "We are the biggest guild in PFO" is just red rags to a bull for them.
You're not the biggest guild, they are. They're just not here yet.
That being said, if TEO can get itself organised, the fighting could be the stuff of legends. Maybe you could finally do what no-one else in any game anywhere ever has managed. Maybe you could finally stop the Goonswarm.
It will be interesting.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Tirithael- I've been avoiding comparing this to the UN even though it's a pretty good comparison in a lot of ways, because I don't want people to associate this with the negative opinions they hold of the "Useless Nothing."
To be fair Eve players are not guilty of the charge "doing nothing about griefing". They just don't do what is proposed in this thread.
I won't speak for Bluddwolf, but that is an important difference.
Oh a minority of EVE players are working against griefing for sure. I'm very familiar with the members of the Open World PVP games currently on the market trying to combat griefing and the "if it isn't blue(allied), it's dead" culture so prevalent in those games. I've been fighting on the front lines of it for over decade.
EVE does not have a culture I would wish to emulate here. What the people saying "just stick to the safer areas" of space aren't telling everyone is those safer areas are protected by NPC's that pop out of nowhere and one shot you if you try to RPK.
If you go to null sec, AKA 100% player policed space, almost everyone you see will try to kill you if they aren't allied to you.
That isn't my vision for PFO, and I don't think that's a culture that is going to keep around many of the people who are here to give Open World PVP another chance because they were told it will be different this time.
GW will be making some mechanics to help make this game a different experience from EVE, but already, right here in this thread, you can see people coming out of the woodwork who have it in-grained in them that this kind of behavior is acceptable.
I'm fine with robbers, and bandits, trying to rob people. I'm fine with enemy organizations and their hired thugs trying to kill eachother. I'm even fine with a very small minority of players that kill people just because they can.
I am not fine with a game culture that is so toxic that it is EXPECTED most strangers you see will try to kill you just because. And I will fight tooth an nail to ensure that isn't what PFO becomes.
If people don't share that vision, they are welcome not to take part in it.
Goblinworks is already on record saying they will make a very defiant stand against griefers.
However, harassing players because they're "griefers" (as defined by this Treaty) - when Goblinworks has already ruled that they're not "griefers" - might very well count as "griefing" in the eyes of Goblinworks.
What treaty? I don't see a written treaty. Do you?
I really doubt Goblinworks is going to ban people for RPKing people, targeting newbs (since newb is a subjective term.) or frequently raiding people's settlements taking/destroying their assets.
If I'm right that means that several of the anti-social behaviors I wish to prevent are possible. It also means we can fight back by declaring people "Kill on Sight" and taking the fight to their settlments, and destroying their assets. We can hurt them just as badly as they are allowed to hurt us.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That isn't my vision for PFO, and I don't think that's a culture that is going to keep around many of the people who are here to give Open World PVP another chance because they were told it will be different this time.
Well, then it's a good thing that you don't get to decide the vision for the game...
Anywho, here's a chart that should tell you that the devs should take notes from CCP and EVE:
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If I'm right that means that several of the anti-social behaviors I wish to prevent are possible. It also means we can fight back by declaring people "Kill on Sight" and taking the fight to their settlments, and destroying their assets. We can hurt them just as badly as they are allowed to hurt us.
We could do that, or we could address that issue when it arises. A temporary alliance of necessity is better than an overarching proposal for a Cops: River Kingdoms Edition.
It also might be better for public relations.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, I have been watching this train wreck of a thread from the beginning. So I am not a "random person" wandering in, "read a fragment of what is said and then offer their opinions without understanding the full situation."
To start off I want to say to Bluddwolf, I am seriously impressed so far with what you have said and think you will do wonders for yourself and your company.
One thing I think everyone needs to realize is truly what this "Treaty" is. It is fear, plain and simple. People are afraid that some "evil" organisation is going to pop up and ruin everything and it will just be a nightmare. So what is their reaction? They are going to create a treaty that turns them into what they most despise, griefers. Once/if these griefers show up, they are going to go up to them and say, "You shall not play here!" and start griefing them.
Taking from Ryan Dancy's blog post, griefing is thus explained, "Loosely defined, griefing means taking actions within the game that are designed to harass another player to elicit bad feelings without any other reasonable purpose."
So these members of this Treaty are going to go out and try to harass these players so that they leave. It is essentially the same thing, it is only wrapped up in a prettier packaging with a nice title to it. Am I the only one who sees this?
Now then, to top it off I will have to agree with Tiran Kenja. You are all really just playing into their hands, I mean, if you want them to leave you alone, Nobody likes being ignored, and they most certainly do not like it if the person they are trying to get a rise out of it, does not respond. It confuses them, they don't understand why you didn't put a $5k bounty on their head for killing your entire party, or killing your sheep for no reason.
Welcome to dealing with Jerks 101, I hoped you liked the seminar!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Tirithael- I've been avoiding comparing this to the UN even though it's a pretty good comparison in a lot of ways, because I don't want people to associate this with the negative opinions they hold of the "Useless Nothing."
To be fair Eve players are not guilty of the charge "doing nothing about griefing". They just don't do what is proposed in this thread.
I won't speak for Bluddwolf, but that is an important difference.
Oh a minority of EVE players are working against griefing for sure. I'm very familiar with the members of the Open World PVP games currently on the market trying to combat griefing and the "if it isn't blue(allied), it's dead" culture so prevalent in those games. I've been fighting on the front lines of it for over decade.
EVE does not have a culture I would wish to emulate here. What the people saying "just stick to the safer areas" of space aren't telling everyone is those safer areas are protected by NPC's that pop out of nowhere and one shot you if you try to RPK.
If you go to null sec, AKA 100% player policed space, almost everyone you see will try to kill you if they aren't allied to you.
That isn't my vision for PFO, and I don't think that's a culture that is going to keep around many of the people who are here to give Open World PVP another chance because they were told it will be different this time.
GW will be making some mechanics to help make this game a different experience from EVE, but already, right here in this thread, you can see people coming out of the woodwork who have it in-grained in them that this kind of behavior is acceptable.
I'm fine with robbers, and bandits, trying to rob people. I'm fine with enemy organizations and their hired thugs trying to kill eachother. I'm even fine with a very small minority of players that kill people just because they can.
I am not fine with a game culture that is so toxic that it is EXPECTED most strangers you see will try to kill you just because. And I will fight tooth...
I'm sorry, but so far from what I've seen you are part of the if I don't like I'm going to get my buddies together and burn it to the ground group.
Which is something I'm completely against.
You want to defend settlements that are being attacked great.
If you want to limit the damage of bandits awesome.
The moment you begin to create an alliance of people to wipe out people you personally don't like the playstyle of I have an issue with you.
You are only perpetuating the very form of conflict you supposidly don't like.