Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what you actually meant to say is that you have decided to make a few core assumptions on how undefined systems are going to interact with other undefined systems, and then speculate on how our lack of information means that it won't be required. You aren't even speculating on information received from the developers, rather layman suggestions from random people on the forums?
We don't know how the markets are going to work. We don't know how long map travel is going to take. We don't know how the fast travel will mechanically function. We don't know how the fast travel will interact with other systems. We don't know how flexible the fast travel system will be.
I'm all for speculation on mechanics. There isn't really anything else we can be doing right now. But making absolute statements about things we literally have no idea about is stupid. It stifles discussion, makes the developers less likely to pay attention to us, and appears short-sighted as all hell.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Now that I know what it is you're talking about:
I agree with you that a worldwide teleportation system (whether instant or requiring some amount of time in transit, but always making you uninteractable) would likely be detrimental to the concept of exploration, and would also likely make any system for meaningful local markets more difficult to design. However, I would really like a "fast travel" system which involves player created and controlled wagons or other vehicles that travel on the roads.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to see Fast Travel work like this:
You are in Settlement A and want to go to Settlement B. You can select Settlement B in some type of Fast Travel UI. Your character will automatically travel to Settlement B using roads at whatever your maximum speed is based on your mode of travel. By foot, mount, or vehicle. However your Fast Travel can be interrupted by monsters, bandits, etc...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It stifles discussion, makes the developers less likely to pay attention to us, and appears short-sighted as all hell.
Fast travel in my opinion is unneeded and takes away from the expansive feel of the world. It limits exploration and reduces potential interactions.
I've never heard of expressing an opinion, especially one clearly stated as such, to stifle discussion.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, given what we already "know" about fast travel:
Fast Travel
Fast travel is a mechanism that allows a character to move from place to place in the game world faster than it would take to walk. Typically, fast travel in MMOs is "hands free," meaning players don't have to interact with the game while their character is traveling.
In general, fast travel in Pathfinder Online will not be instantaneous. Instead, characters that are using fast travel are assumed to be moving at a rate of up to five times normal speed (that is, 20 times real time). Traversing a hex at this rate requires less than a minute. During fast travel, you will not have to direct your character—it will simply move to the destination you've selected.
To engage in fast travel, you'll need to start at a defined location; you can't just be wandering in the wilderness. And you'll need to know the location of your destination. These locations are discoverable as you explore the world, and can be shared by members of social organizations as well. To initiate fast travel, you'll access the in-game map, find your destination, and select it.
Your map has several levels of magnification. At the highest magnification, you can see a fairly detailed visualization of the hex you're currently in (or as much of it as you've explored). Zooming out, you can see the region surrounding your current hex, and the locations you know of in that region. You'll be able to use fast travel on this level. At the lowest magnification, you'll be able to see the whole Crusader Road area, with only certain kinds of locations visible—likely settlements—enabling you to make the longest journeys.
Typically, a long-distance journey would start by setting your map to the lowest magnification and fast traveling to the settlement nearest your final destination, then zooming in and fast traveling in a series of hops towards the closest defined point that you're aware of near your destination, and then walking the rest of the way if need be.
During fast travel you may be ambushed (see our previous dev blog to read about hideouts and how ambushes are triggered). If you're ambushed, you'll drop out of fast travel and will have to take control of your character and navigate to a place of safety where you can initiate fast travel again. You won't be able to enter fast travel while you're engaged in combat, or for a while after you've engaged in combat.
You can't use fast travel if you've been flagged as a criminal.
There are likely to be other effects that restrict or negate your ability to enter fast travel or have the capability to force you out of fast travel into normal movement. So even though it's a "hands free" method of movement, there will be a risk to your character. If you leave your computer or don't pay attention to what's happening, you could find that you've been ambushed, attacked, and killed while you thought you were moving from place to place.
Why would you think that fast travel is a bad idea?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it is a dangerous thing to let exploiters off the hook in the short term.
I think this is also true for the long term. As the devs are the only ones that determine what is "using as intended" I really hope that if someone abuses a system for anything other then recreating it for documentation they get straight up banned, regardless of the age of the abuse or bug.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would like to see Fast Travel work like this:
You are in Settlement A and want to go to Settlement B. You can select Settlement B in some type of Fast Travel UI. Your character will automatically travel to Settlement B using roads at whatever your maximum speed is based on your mode of travel. By foot, mount, or vehicle. However your Fast Travel can be interrupted by monsters, bandits, etc...
This is not fast travel as described, it is autopilot. I do not see the same issues with autopilot as I do with fast travel. As a matter of fact, I think autopilot is even better, especially if you can independently control your camera view.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think it is a dangerous thing to let exploiters off the hook in the short term.I think this is also true for the long term. As the devs are the only ones that determine what is "using as intended" I really hope that if someone abuses a system for anything other then recreating it for documentation they get straight up banned, regardless of the age of the abuse or bug.
Exploits and bugs can be two different things. The can flipping example is not a bug, but it can be construed as a system exploit (using the mechanics for something they were not intended). Issuing a blanket statement of 'someone abusing a system should be banned' therefore becomes a very slippery slope, and an expectation could fall back on the coders to take some effort to remediate the exploits (and bugs).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Instantly banning someone for making use of an 'exploit', especially one for which it isn't immediately apparent that it has been declared off limits, is incredibly dangerous, in my mind. It depends on a degree of attentiveness on the part of every player that I don't think is fair in the long run.
Lets say that someone discovers a method for extracting extra resources from mining nodes. They post their method on the forums, and a developer comes into the thread and declares it off limits, it's a bug, please don't use it, we are working on a fix. Someone else, someone that doesn't read the forums because they are god awful (as most game forums are), comes along and uses the same method that they have been using for a few months. Their method happens to be the one that has now been declared off limits.
That person is exploiting a bug for material gain. A zero-tolerance policy would have the second player banned. The GM dealing with their case cannot have knowledge that the player is aware that what they are doing is now a banable offence. That player does not deserve to be banned.
They should be informed that they need to stop what they are doing, told that they are performing a banned action, and sent on their way with a note in their player log that they know about the bug. If they are caught a second time, sure, ban away. But zero-tolerance policies fail in virtual environments just as much as they do in the real world.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think it is a dangerous thing to let exploiters off the hook in the short term.I think this is also true for the long term. As the devs are the only ones that determine what is "using as intended" I really hope that if someone abuses a system for anything other then recreating it for documentation they get straight up banned, regardless of the age of the abuse or bug.Exploits and bugs can be two different things. The can flipping example is not a bug, but it can be construed as a system exploit (using the mechanics for something they were not intended). Issuing a blanket statement of 'someone abusing a system should be banned' therefore becomes a very slippery slope, and an expectation could fall back on the coders to take some effort to remediate the exploits (and bugs).
Can Flipping in EVE was also completely acceptable in the eyes of CCP. It may have been a minor exploit, but they decided it fell within the realm of what they did not mind too much.
The only fix they did, if you want to call it that, is that they made using Jet Cans obsolete. It was somewhat rare to see anyone using them 6 or 8 months ago when I was roaming belts looking for prey. Plus, ninja looting / salvaging is more profitable and at the same risk level.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
for fast travel i would like to see the following.
Fast travel must go on roads. The person fast traveling cannot cancel it. When a person if fast traveling they can be knocked off/killed/SAD'd...etc by other players.
I would like to see mounts that are faster than running but only maybe 20-30%ish.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My point was that the consequences would not depend on the age of the bug OR abuse and I'm fine with a one or two strike(s) system. What I'm not fine with is the "abuse" status expiring after a certain time.
I agree with this provided that the "abuse status" has been established by the Developer in the first place.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This would be an easy solution to the jet-can exploit: If you add to a can you didn't create you forfeit rights to the ore and get a pop=up stating so. The creator of the can can always remove from it without going hostile. If you want to steal, steal. Don't "taint" a can and pretend you're helping them by making it so they can't draw their own ore out without you getting to shoot them down.
But EVE won't change that and PFO won't have jet-cans, so I guess it's pointless to talk about.
Stop with the exploit... Its not an exploit, it is in fact working as the designers made it. It has been part of the game from day 1... It will remain part of the game till it dies.
THAT IS NOT AN EXPLOIT
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Can flipping did not always work, especially not with experienced players who had seen the trick before.Very well put. It's a tactic specifically targeted at newbs. A newb engages in an action that they believe to be perfectly safe, pulling ore from their own can, and suddenly they are getting flagged as a thief. Experienced players or people with friends who explained this to them like mine did will probably never get hit by this tactic.
That's exactally what makes it, and anyone who engages in it so despicable.
Nonsense
It doesnt take a newb to fall for the tricks. I have fallen for some tricks even after I have played the game for several years.
You learn from them and move forward.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Lots of comments to make.
@Bluddwolf - I played hundreds of hours of EVE. Everyone in Marketing who worked on the game did, or I made sure to know why they wouldn't. You can't sell what you don't understand. And that's a 10x multiple to the time I spent reading forum threads. My opinions about the game and its toxic community are extremely well grounded.
@All - the can flipping examples are perfect illustrations of the different in approach we're going to take compared to CCP.
CCP's most basic rule is that if the players find a way to do something interesting and unexpected with the game, CCP will remain "hands off" unless that thing breaks a core game system like the economy, or crashes servers, or compromises player account security. They basically feel that finding advantages from the game system that are opaque to other players is a reward for being clever.(*)
The whole can-flipping scheme derives from a user interface failure, compounded by a game system design flaw. The design flaw is that the contents of objects can be manipulated to change the flags they generate when characters interact with them in illogical ways. The user interface failure is that there was little done to communicate the risk a character is taking when they interact with one of those game objects.
The players who got hurt by this system didn't get hurt because they did something "dumb" within the context of the game world. They got hurt because there was this bizarre corner case where they could effectively be blind to the risk they were taking by doing something that appeared otherwise completely ordinary and routine. CCP sees that as a virtue. I see that as a mistake. The damaged player wasn't making bad choices. The damaged player got hurt because the game had structural flaws. Saying that those flaws might engender some future sense of caution, or that they could be learned by reading extensive and arcane websites and wikis doesn't fix the fundamental problem.
Taking a risk, and...
Alot of the UI issues have been changed.
I will disagree on the part that... They did in fact do something dumb within the context of the game world.
They left their unsecure Space Containers and came back to them.
They didnt use secure containers to begin with.
They expected that their unsecure containers would be secure.
This is not just a corner case with hidden issues. It is blatant in your face problem of the player. They failed to use truly secure containers for convenience and nothing more.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This would be an easy solution to the jet-can exploit: If you add to a can you didn't create you forfeit rights to the ore and get a pop=up stating so. The creator of the can can always remove from it without going hostile. If you want to steal, steal. Don't "taint" a can and pretend you're helping them by making it so they can't draw their own ore out without you getting to shoot them down.
But EVE won't change that and PFO won't have jet-cans, so I guess it's pointless to talk about.
Stop with the exploit... Its not an exploit, it is in fact working as the designers made it. It has been part of the game from day 1... It will remain part of the game till it dies.
THAT IS NOT AN EXPLOIT
Funny game mechanic creates a lot of toxicity among players. What a drag!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Can flipping did not always work, especially not with experienced players who had seen the trick before.Very well put. It's a tactic specifically targeted at newbs. A newb engages in an action that they believe to be perfectly safe, pulling ore from their own can, and suddenly they are getting flagged as a thief. Experienced players or people with friends who explained this to them like mine did will probably never get hit by this tactic.
That's exactally what makes it, and anyone who engages in it so despicable.
Nonsense
It doesnt take a newb to fall for the tricks. I have fallen for some tricks even after I have played the game for several years.
You learn from them and move forward.
Lol...
Point stands.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Can flipping did not always work, especially not with experienced players who had seen the trick before.Very well put. It's a tactic specifically targeted at newbs. A newb engages in an action that they believe to be perfectly safe, pulling ore from their own can, and suddenly they are getting flagged as a thief. Experienced players or people with friends who explained this to them like mine did will probably never get hit by this tactic.
That's exactally what makes it, and anyone who engages in it so despicable.
Nonsense
It doesnt take a newb to fall for the tricks. I have fallen for some tricks even after I have played the game for several years.
You learn from them and move forward.
Lol...
Point stands.
Lol what? New tricks are invented and non newbs learn them the hard way? Maybe Lol that I just showed your point as targeting newbs to be false?
Your point of what stands? The point that anyone who doesnt PVP in your little box is despicable?
You act like this is real life. Its a game, get over yourself.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Can flipping did not always work, especially not with experienced players who had seen the trick before.Very well put. It's a tactic specifically targeted at newbs. A newb engages in an action that they believe to be perfectly safe, pulling ore from their own can, and suddenly they are getting flagged as a thief. Experienced players or people with friends who explained this to them like mine did will probably never get hit by this tactic.
That's exactally what makes it, and anyone who engages in it so despicable.
Nonsense
It doesnt take a newb to fall for the tricks. I have fallen for some tricks even after I have played the game for several years.
You learn from them and move forward.
Lol...
Point stands.
Lol what? New tricks are invented and non newbs learn them the hard way? Maybe Lol that I just showed your point as targeting newbs to be false?
Your point of what stands? The point that anyone who doesnt PVP in your little box is despicable?
You act like this is real life. Its a game, get over yourself.
LOL, don't waste your time Xeen. He can feel it is despicable all he likes. He can feel that it is toxic. If it drove him away from EvE, and CCP is O.K. with that, than that is all the EVE players needed to know.
Just as GW has stated, there are certain players or play styles they would rather not have in PFO, CCP has made the same calculation. EVE is a game where those with resilience, the awareness for danger, and a wariness of strangers will survive. Those that can't will unsubscribe, and CCP says good riddance (or at least they should).
The "hands off" model has worked very well for CCP / EVE Online. It remains to be seen / proven if PFO's will work as well for GW.
I certainly hope PFO will be as successful, and still hold to its preferred model. But, if it does not, then I hope GW is agile enough to make changes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Xeen
Your own leader admitted it was a tactic mainly targeted at inexperienced players. The fact you fell for it after having played long enough to know better says something about you but it doesn't challenge that assertion.
What? Who said I fell for that tactic?
You have absolutely no clue.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I wonder how they can prevent it if they don't know about it. It doesn't seem logical.Its only toxic to the players who do not use what is available to them (for convenience reasons) to prevent it.
Yep, What a drag!!
There are jet cans, which is what we are referring to here, which are open to everyone to take from. A jet can is formed by jettisoning your cargo to space.
Then there are secure containers, which you buy off the market, launch into space, and then anchor.
Jet Cans hold more cargo, which is why miners use them... They dont have to switch ships to haul their cargo as often... The trade off is that you are leaving it out there for anyone to manipulate.
People who do not know about Secure Containers are probably new enough to be mining in their hauler ship... so it doesnt apply. If they are in a mining barge and dont know about secure containers, then they have done nothing to research their profession.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Xeen
Your own leader admitted it was a tactic mainly targeted at inexperienced players. The fact you fell for it after having played long enough to know better says something about you but it doesn't challenge that assertion.
Different connotation of inexperienced. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you understand that and just being disingenuous.
You could have been a player in the National Football League for 12 years, and yet never experienced having to field an onside kick. That does not make you a noob, it just means you had not experienced that situation before.
I can't tell you the first time I had a can flipped on me, it was likely sometime after my first 6 months and definitely before my third character, after having played for over a year.
There are a number of tactics that are used in EVE that you won't be aware of, until they happen to you. It is how you respond to them that makes the difference.
1. You can whine and complain about it, and get a deaf ear from CCP
2. You can learn from it and be wary that it could happen again, try to prevent it.
3. You can learn from it, research how it was done, and use it yourself.
4. You can rage quit because of #1.
I personally did #3 with one of my alts. I read a great blog called "Ore Theft 101 EVE Guided", learned all of the tricks and tips of the trade and set out to begin a career at it.
So Andius, you have the right to feel it is despicable or toxic, and choose to either try to stop it, don't fall victim to it, use it yourself or quit over it.
I couldn't care less, which choice you choose. I will only avoid what the game designers feel is toxic, not some individual player.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stealing ore from jet cans is not in any way unintended or despicable. It's just taking advantage of someone else's risk/reward decision.
Planting ore in jet cans, as part of a specific effort to cause a target to accidentally flag themselves as stealing from you, is the kind of thing that should not be done in PFO.
Consider the hard-to-distinguish behavior of having a warship steal the ore, then put it back in the same container, but who is waiting for a friendly/allied/alt hauler to arrive and empty out the container. If the miner is mistaken about the relative combat strength of his vessel and attempts to reclaim his ore, it looks exactly like the second scenario. If the miner brings obviously superior firepower in-system and has them 'steal back' the ore to put back into the same cans (I'm not sure why the reinforcements arrive before the hauler in this case, just roll with it), we enter a different state. Since there are a huge number of permutations of how the situation could go from there, including payment of ransom for the material, it does not make sense to change the mechanics to close the hole in 'Taking ore that someone else put into a can marks you as stealing from them.' combined with 'You will be destroyed for initiating hostilities in hisec.'. Since there is no general-case solution, we have to fall back on what CCP does in similar cases.
In similar cases, CCP declares that it is up to individual players to not fall for scams and tricks.
Goblinworks has declared that it is up to individual players to not offer up similar scams and tricks.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stealing ore from jet cans is not in any way unintended or despicable. It's just taking advantage of someone else's risk/reward decision.
Planting ore in jet cans, as part of a specific effort to cause a target to accidentally flag themselves as stealing from you, is the kind of thing that should not be done in PFO.
Yes, that's exactly right. The severe, immediate negative consequences that attach to taking someone else's ore out of a can you think is yours is the problem. The risk is not connected to a meaningful choice. You just get whacked by surprise.
It's even worse though because what message does this design failure send? It sends the message that sometimes opening things gets your ship destroyed. As a rookie player the game is transmitting the following information: don't open things and take the contents. Horrible, horrible message to send in a game filled with times when you open things and take the contents. It also sends the message some of the stuff you think belongs to you is dangerous. OMG what a crappy feedback loop that engenders.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In similar cases, CCP declares that it is up to individual players to not fall for scams and tricks.Goblinworks has declared that it is up to individual players to not offer up similar scams and tricks.
"No", it is the responsibility of GW to identify and declare activities they do not wish to see.
The nature of a sandbox is for the player to NOT ask, "if I can do it, should I?" The player does the activity that they can do, and then if told it is not to be done again, they don't do it again (or risk sanctions).
Edit: This does not apply to activities that GW has already clearly identified as actions they do not want to see.
Players also bear responsibilities:
1. To report activities that they feel maybe griefing, exploits, hacks, etc.
2. To be informed about specific activities that are not desired.
3. Don't do those known activities that are not desired.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
In similar cases, CCP declares that it is up to individual players to not fall for scams and tricks.Goblinworks has declared that it is up to individual players to not offer up similar scams and tricks.
"No", it is the responsibility of GW to identify and declare activities they do not wish to see.
They have already said that they will not do so proactively in every case. I'm not talking about abstract 'responsibilities' that aren't attached to anything concrete, I'm speaking about revealed policies.
I bet that you are smart enough to determine what patterns of behavior will be identified as 'abusive' by the people responsible for doing so, with a high degree of accuracy. I believe that is why you are objecting so much to their policies.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I bet that you are smart enough to determine what patterns of behavior will be identified as 'abusive' by the people responsible for doing so, with a high degree of accuracy. I believe that is why you are objecting so much to their policies.
I don't object to any stated policy, only to any suggestion that there is not shared responsibility.
If they reveal an activity that they do not wish to see, I will not do it.
If I have an action committed against me, that I feel was griefing, an exploit or the possible use of a hack, I will report it.
If I discover an action that gives me some advantage and it is not identified as an example of griefing, exploiting or scamming, I will continue to use it unless told to stop by GW.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The nature of a sandbox is for the player to NOT ask, "if I can do it, should I?" The player does the activity that they can do, and then if told it is not to be done again, they don't do it again (or risk sanctions).
I don't agree. That's "everything that is not forbidden is permitted" thinking. We don't want that thinking.
We want people to think "is this thing I am contemplating within the spirit of the rules and the community ethics of this game?" Most people can self-guide. They know what the spirit is and what the community ethics are. The handful who can't or won't will either learn or be excluded.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The nature of a sandbox is for the player to NOT ask, "if I can do it, should I?" The player does the activity that they can do, and then if told it is not to be done again, they don't do it again (or risk sanctions).I don't agree. That's "everything that is not forbidden is permitted" thinking. We don't want that thinking.
We want people to think "is this thing I am contemplating within the spirit of the rules and the community ethics of this game?" Most people can self-guide. They know what the spirit is and what the community ethics are. The handful who can't or won't will either learn or be excluded.
I understand "within the spirit" and "in the same vein" to be equivalent. So if I'm aware that one action is not desired, then a similar action is likewise not desired. However, "Within the Spirit" is a bit nebulous without a few concrete examples to establish parameters.
For example: if killing someone that is at a crafting station is considered Unsanctioned. Then it is likely that killing someone while scrolling through the market windows is likewise Unsanctioned.
By not knowing the first, there is nothing to indicate what the "spirit" of the Unsanctioned action is.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't do things that make people angry just to make them angry. Don't use bad design elements to trick people into doing things they wouldn't do if they understood the consequences of their actions. Don't do things that make the game servers work slowly or incorrectly. Don't take advantage of an error in the game that gives you more information than you should have, makes you more powerful than you should be, rewards you more than you should be rewarded or puts the game into a condition that generates errors and inconsistencies for yourself or other players.
Don't be a jerk.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
On a different topic....
It is understood that player settlements grant the highest tier training.
The starter (NPC) settlements grant the lowest.
Are POIs and or Factions going to provide intermediate tier training?
Or perhaps the combination of both: Faction Rank + POI = Intermediate Training.
This could have some political implications and create a viable option for some players who don't want to get too embroiled in the Alliance vs. Alliance game.
The PoI Blog said that social/trade/aristocrat skills would have "some" training at PoIs.
I would guess that goes beyond what is available in NPC Settlements for it to enough importance to mention.
Either that equals mid-tier training, or is a type of training simply not offered in NPC Settlements.
Either way, with how it is qualified, I wouldn't say this will be relevant to most general or class role type training, just social/metagame.
Elsewhere I posted on Shrine PoI and links to religions or religion-specific Factions, specifically noting CE Religions' tendency to have less friendly Settlement to site within... Shrine training of Religious skills to Intermediate levels may possibly alleviate that to a limited degree? Of course, if you don't have de facto protection from a Settlement or two, defending your Shrine to her Unholiness that Everybody Loves to Hate against all her ill-wishers that would want to destroy it might be tough to pull off... Not to mention that depleting your Faction's Influence (has that been mentioned yet?) MAY be easier compared to taking on a Settlement head-on and destroying it's Religious buildings (or perhaps a fairer comparision is taking on ALL the Settlements which are affiliated with X Faction and destroying ALL of their equivalent buildings).
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't do things that make people angry just to make them angry.Yeah I get it, I'm hoping that system works, and I don't have to give a dissertation on why I killed someone.
I'm now imagining having to fill out an extended questionaire (in triplicate, of course) whenever you kill someone. :-)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm now imagining having to fill out an extended questionaire (in triplicate, of course) whenever you kill someone. :-)Don't do things that make people angry just to make them angry.Yeah I get it, I'm hoping that system works, and I don't have to give a dissertation on why I killed someone.
I hope not... but the precedence is being set for that.
"I just got killed in the wilderness, now Im mad. So I guess I will fill out a ticket to GW for griefing."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Don't get absurd. The idea is that if you gain an in-game advantage as a consequence of a kill then it is an okay kill, but if it doesn't provide any in-game benefit it is a meaningless act characteristic of jerkism.
Speaking of absurd.
How does the person out hunting for said in game advantage know whether or not the kill they are going for will or will not provide the in game benefit?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By being aware of what is or is not beneficial in-game of course. So your next question would be how should I know what is or is not beneficial in-game? And the obvious answer to that is by understanding rather than protesting ever damn thing you dislike about the rules of the game, Xeen.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Excuse me? Who is protesting every damn thing I dislike about the game? The only thing that GW is doing with the game that I will protest till the game dies is the MTX store.
I will be fully aware of what is or is not an in game benefit.
The question I asked is how would I know that the kill I am going for can provide that advantage? Does the character I am looking to attack have items I want? Is that character a neutral alt of an enemy? Is the character trespassing in territory I claim?
All someone has to say in a ticket is that "I think they were trying to make me angry." Whether that is the case or not.
That is the precedence being set. That an opinion someone has can cause you problems.
Maybe before going off on a rant and attacking me, you should fully read what I said.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think what has to be integrated into the discussion is not that there is an "in game advantage" to be gained, but that there is the "perceived in game advantage" to be had.
If it is acceptable for the victim to "perceive" that my motives were meant to anger, then it is equally acceptable for me to "perceive" that there was an in game advantage to be had by killing the victim. Either of our perceptions could turn out to have been wrong. The only way to prevent them from being wrong on a regular basis is for more information to be made available when viewing each other.
The other way to prevent false positives is to tie certain activities to being permissible (sanctioned) and remove the need to justify perceptions.
Example: If you are operating a caravan, you are perceived to have lootable items. You as the caravan operator will perceived that any attack on you is motivated by the desire to steal from you.
There should be no questions or assumptions left unanswered as to the relationship of this interaction.