Goblin Squad Member
|
@Xeen: The issue as I see it is that you are evaluating benefit in-game using personal values rather than in-game values.
You are bright, nobody I know questions that. This should not have to be laid out for you.
The game values the characteristics of your potential intended target according to information that will be available to you. If information is not available to you, such as what that character is carrying if they are not flagged, not of a hostile faction, where no war is declared, etc. then that is not a factor of value or benefit for the game. If only one of a constellation of flags is showing that gives your intended action meaning, such as hostile faction, traveler flag (open for PvP), and similar then the game evaluates your act as meaningful. Otherwise it matters not in the slightest what your target is carrying, your intended act is meaningless in game terms.
|
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.
My read is that the anger of the target will be irrelevant. It will not matter if the target squeals in dismay to the GM. What will matter is faction and flag, and who knows what else. If they are fair game you will have cause to know, according to my understanding of all the countless flags and faction standings. If they are not fair game what the target carries is irrelevant, except in the case where you value what you think they are carrying more than the game is willing to count. In the latter cases you picks your targets and you pays your bills.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The issue as I see it is that you are evaluating benefit in-game using personal values rather than in-game values.
You are bright, nobody I know questions that. This should not have to be laid out for you.
The game values the characteristics of your potential intended target according to information that will be available to you. If information is not available to you, such as what that character is carrying if they are not flagged, not of a hostile faction, where no war is declared, etc. then that is not a factor of value or benefit for the game. If only one of a constellation of flags is showing that gives your intended action meaning, such as hostile faction, traveler flag (open for PvP), and similar then the game evaluates your act as meaningful. Otherwise it matters not in the slightest what your target is carrying, your intended act is meaningless in game terms.
Oh, I do understand what you are saying. If you go against that you gain a rep hit. Thats it. Thats the consequence of it. Anyone is allowed to do that and still be within the games rules. They just have the consequence of a rep hit and everything that comes with it.
But when Ryan says that if you intend to anger the other person that is a problem. Where I agree with that, it sets a precedence to allow people to complain to the GM's about griefing. Even when they just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Even though they have no proof of it. People who do not like to PVP will complain about it if they are hit in the wilds. There are people who will do that, since the CEO says dont purposely make someone angry.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Oh, I do understand what you are saying. If you go against that you gain a rep hit. Thats it. Thats the consequence of it. Anyone is allowed to do that and still be within the games rules. They just have the consequence of a rep hit and everything that comes with it.
But when Ryan says that if you intend to anger the other person that is a problem. Where I agree with that, it sets a precedence to allow people to complain to the GM's about griefing. Even when they just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Even though they have no proof of it. People who do not like to PVP will complain about it if they are hit in the wilds. There are people who will do that, since the CEO says dont purposely make someone angry.
Isn't that a pretty good rule of thumb? You will have all those flags and factions identifying that your purpose is demonstrably and measurably meaningful regardless of the lamentations your victims. Their ire will be irrelevant until you fail to pay attention to those other in-game metrical qualifiers. If you got greedy and hit somebody outside the game's meaningful spectrum then you not only get a rep hit, you also self-identify as fair game for a moderator's version of ganking.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...dont purposely make someone angry.
I believe you're reading him too narrowly; there's a world of difference between "don't purposely make someone angry", and "don't be a jerk".
You attacking someone in the wilderness with no witnesses--except the Gods--can be just a fight, or it can be accompanied by insults, taunts (not related to combat), misuse of emotes, and such, all of which, it's hard to argue, cross a line between "one of us is going to die" and "one of us is being a jerk".
The nice part is that some mis-behaviours are going to leave a record for capricious and arbitrary action by the Gods. I'll not be surprised if there's some sort of penalty for crying wolf to the Gods too often, as well, starting with them being strangely silent, but possibly also incurring their arbitrary and capricious attention upon the often-complainer as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.
If it is a matter of one person clobbering another in the woods I'm pretty sure that a GM recieving a report about it will write it off as the game working as intended; the aggressor lost reputation and the victim learned a lesson that the woods are dangerous. No matter how the report was worded.
I believe you are saying that the burden of evidence should be on the "victim" to prove that the "attacker" was griefing, rather than on the "attacker" to have to defend himself against such claims.
It could be argued that the game environment would be better off with a pragmatic view: If some player is repeatedly ruining the experience for several other players through excessive, seemingly random and unprovoked, aggressive and insulting behavior, the game environment will be better off without that player, no matter how eloquently he is able to word his defense speech.
I believe that GW should have the right to deny their services (the game) to any player they feel is harming their product. The GMs may uproot any weeds they don't want (after proper investigation and deliberation), for the good of the garden. They would of course be very foolish to abuse that power and overreach.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe you're reading him too narrowly; there's a world of difference between "don't purposely make someone angry", and "don't be a jerk".
Yep, and there's an even bigger difference between "don't purposely make someone angry" and "[d]on't do things that make people angry to make them angry".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Xeen, I don't think you have anything to worry about. If you do kill them don't also take actions to make them angry, such as sending taunting messages or dancing on their body or anything like that, and the GM's should have no issue (provided you aren't also going out of your way to target the same person or anything). Just use common sense and don't be a jerk.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
na its just that GW doesnt want you doing things that are getting around the rules and just because there is a hole in the mechanics doesnt mean that its allowed.
Finding a something that allows you flag someone when doing that normal activity does not allow them to be flagged should be treated as a BUG and reported to be fixed, not an open season to flag people without the person purposely engaging in an activity that flags them.
So someone is flinging fireballs around at random while they are walking around. You send someone in stealthed who gets hit by a fireball and the player is now flagged so you gank them. No issues, the player knows that if his attack spell hits another player it flags him as an attacker.
Finding a way to cause attacking a NPC monster to flag someone is not a feature its a bug and not to be abused. so dont do that.
I think the key here is "when the player performs such and such action should she know that this will flag them?" In general players shouldnt be tricked into getting flagged, they should perform a deliberate action and as a result of that they get flagged. Not someone adding loot to a corpse they killed and then all of a sudden getting the criminal flag.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So someone is flinging fireballs around at random while they are walking around. You send someone in stealthed who gets hit by a fireball and the player is now flagged so you gank them. No issues, the player knows that if his attack spell hits another player it flags him as an attacker.
This actually led to quite a long lasting argument between those that felt that the unintended victim was griefing the caster or that the caster bears the responsibility for casting AOE attacks.
The Developers had to clearly state several times, that casters could not use AOE spells as "Stealth Character Depth Charges", and the caster would get the Attacker Flag.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
With power walks responsibility.With weakness, one bears responsibility as well.
@ Being, Not that you had questioned this, I'm sure there will be some people who do.
What I mean by the weak bearing some responsibility is that they should not project that weakness too loudly or too far. Secondly, when they are victimized, think of ways to prevent it from happening again.
What I found to be extremely valuable is to spark up a chat with the player that just killed my character. Sometimes you might even catch them in chat before they have a chance to ridicule you (griefing), and you set them up (mentally) into an instructional frame of mind. You also immediately gain their respect (at least this has been my experience). Most people respect those that try to learn from their misfortune or mistakes, rather than the victim whine and cry about it.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Blaming the victim of griefing for being grieved is itself a toxic behavior. Don't do it.
Making players who experience a losing portion of the game understand what they could have done differently to lose less is part of good game design.
Sometimes it's hard to tell which of those two behaviors a given action is.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think Bludd's position is an extension from the principle that a human being can have no liberty unless they take responsibility. That seems pretty fair, isn't it Decius? I didn't pick up on the part about blaming the victim.
Victim-hood is pure the first time an unfortunate event is brought to you. Thereafter, the victim does bear some responsibility to learn from the experience; to expect that it can happen again; to take precautions to not place him/herself into similar circumstances; etc....
Simply put, this is the "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think Bludd's position is an extension from the principle that a human being can have no liberty unless they take responsibility. That seems pretty fair, isn't it Decius? I didn't pick up on the part about blaming the victim.
I caught on to the same thing Decius did, I believe. There is a line between 'Reasonable Precaution' and 'Expecting others to not mistreat you'. In a game, the line is a little more fluid. But ultimately instead of taking responsibility to create your liberties, you are using your precautions to build your own fences.
Instead of trying to fix the problem of culprits existing, we force all potential victims to sacrifice their freedoms.
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on our societal systems for not correcting your behavior properly the first time."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So the reaction I am picking up is that there is a sentiment that governance is a shared responsibility, that together we should work to minimize difficulty, and that an affront to one is an affront to all. In my model then that works out to no liberty but common liberty in the sense of a social contract.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on our societal systems for not correcting your behavior properly the first time."
Without personal responsibility, you have no personal freedom. This philosophy that you express above, enables victim-hood to be perpetual. It is the welfare state, that leaves the individual systematically and generationally weak, a virtual slave to the societal system.
The same societal system that Ryan above has tried to absolve itself of its responsibilities as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My personal model is basically: You can do whatever you like as long as it doesn't hurt others.
You know kids, I wish every mom and dad would make a speech to their teenagers and say kids, be free, be whatever you are, do whatever you want to do, just so long as you don't hurt anybody. And remember kids, I am your friend.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My personal model is basically: You can do whatever you like as long as it doesn't hurt others.You know kids, I wish every mom and dad would make a speech to their teenagers and say kids, be free, be whatever you are, do whatever you want to do, just so long as you don't hurt anybody. And remember kids, I am your friend.
And that is where "Parenting" has failed. I love my children dearly; I would kill or die for them. I would suffer any fate that can be imagined, in their stead. But, I am not their "Friend". I'm their parent, their father, and never to be mistaken for their friend.
Maybe when I'm 90 and they are in their 60's, we can be "friends", but even then... I doubt it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My personal model is basically: You can do whatever you like as long as it doesn't hurt others.You know kids, I wish every mom and dad would make a speech to their teenagers and say kids, be free, be whatever you are, do whatever you want to do, just so long as you don't hurt anybody. And remember kids, I am your friend.And that is where "Parenting" has failed. I love my children dearly; I would kill or die for them. I would suffer any fate that can be imagined, in their stead. But, I am not their "Friend". I'm their parent, their father, and never to be mistaken for their friend.
Maybe when I'm 90 and they are in their 60's, we can be "friends", but even then... I doubt it.
Okay: 'Friend' is about as inadequate a word as there is when it comes to the ability to carry clear meaning. It's right up there with the 'G' word.
As an experienced Dad with three magnificent grown kids (I didn't ruin them at least), may I recommend that the conscientious parent will cultivate their children's estimate of wisdom, so that they might look to you as their mentor and ask your advice? Life is hella tough. Your 'Dad' can make a crucial difference in their lives.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on our societal systems for not correcting your behavior properly the first time."Without personal responsibility, you have no personal freedom. This philosophy that you express above, enables victim-hood to be perpetual. It is the welfare state, that leaves the individual systematically and generationally weak, a virtual slave to the societal system.
The same societal system that Ryan above has tried to absolve itself of its responsibilities as well.
The truth, as always, is somewhere in between the two-extremes. And I contend that the quote I stated does not relate to a welfare state.
At the highest ideal of freedom I envision: Do as you will, so long as you are not harming others. (It gets more complex with caveats about what constitutes harm IE: taking some corn from a farmer's field without permission and the very nature of private ownership, but let's keep it simple for now.)
As soon as you begin limiting what you do, for fear that others will harm you, you have sacrificed your freedoms for safety.
Personal responsibility is about survival, not liberty. You are free to spend your days lazing about without being productive, but you will starve. No other person inflicted starvation upon you. Your inaction inflicted it upon yourself. There is, in this instance, no welfare state obligated to feed you. The lack of a welfare state is not an infringement upon your freedoms. There is no victimization, unless you count self-victimization.
This is entirely different from saying... You are free to wander down the road with a large chunk of cash visible in your hand, but you may get robbed. Your inaction may have provided the motive, but another person was required to act for the consequences to be inflicted. The fact that you were acted against is how you were victimized. The fault here lays entirely with the person doing the robbing, not with the person being robbed. To expect the person being robbed to take precautions to prevent being robbed in the future is limiting his freedom. In my mind, it is ludicrous to imagine that the victim has any blame. In my mind, the man should feel comfortable wheeling a wheel-barrow full of cash down the street without fear of being accosted. That is freedom.
The world does not operate as such, and probably never will. But to claim steps in that direction are wrong or creating a worse/weaker world to live in seems absurd to me. As I have already said though... it is a little more fluid in a game, because we desire conflicts in games that we would not necessarily want to see acted out in real life. We all just have different ideas of how much and what kind of conflict.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My personal model is basically: You can do whatever you like as long as it doesn't hurt others.You know kids, I wish every mom and dad would make a speech to their teenagers and say kids, be free, be whatever you are, do whatever you want to do, just so long as you don't hurt anybody. And remember kids, I am your friend.And that is where "Parenting" has failed. I love my children dearly; I would kill or die for them. I would suffer any fate that can be imagined, in their stead. But, I am not their "Friend". I'm their parent, their father, and never to be mistaken for their friend.
Maybe when I'm 90 and they are in their 60's, we can be "friends", but even then... I doubt it.
That wasn't spoken from the perspective of a parent. I very much agree with you that it's more important for parents to be parents than to be friends. And I very much agree with you that embracing victimhood is self-destructive. I guess I balk at the implication that anyone who complains about being victimized is automatically embracing victimhood.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a community we have a joint problem. The joint problem is that toxic behavior in previous sandbox MMOs has damaged the general public's ability to discriminate between a game mechanic and obnoxious behavior.
If we are to succeed in our quest to rehabilitate PvP and restore it to its rightful place next to crafting, questing and exploring in the list of features people desire in their MMOs we need to go far beyond the minimum to recover that audience.
Again, I don't want to encourage "everything that is not forbidden is permitted" thinking. I want to encourage people to actively work towards taking personal responsibility for collectively fixing a big problem - that too many people think "PvP" means "the game will be filled with jerks doing jerky things to me to a level that is intolerable".
Don't spend time trying to figure out where the line is between ok and not ok. There isn't one. Spend time instead playing far away from the line and encouraging everyone you play with to do the same. Our actions, as a community, are what will allow us to rise above and past the old assumptions that PvP means the game will be toxic.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I don't think that "embracing victimhood" is a real behavior that needs to be addressed.
And it doesn't cease to be your personal responsibility after you victimize the same person on multiple occasions. That is not really open for discussion; if you disagree, don't bother to try to convince me otherwise.
As a consequentialist, I acknowledge that victims can take actions which reduce their expected victimness. As a virtue ethicist, I think it is insane and absurd to value someone less because they were victimized. As a rules ethicist, I notice that there are rules against victimizing others, but fewer rules requiring active actions preventing victimization.
I might be a little more sensitive than usual on this kind of subject right now due to current events.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My personal model is basically: You can do whatever you like as long as it doesn't hurt others.
That's basically the model I'm aiming for within TEO. Our model is based on this:
Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradually induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful.
Some may use buzz words like "personal responsibility" but those words were written by a man who championed that value, to justify a document written to govern a young nation who held it as a core principle. Being personally responcible never stopped them from opposing injustice. In fact it drove them to protect eachother from injustice and respect their neighbor's personal property rights.
That's because personal responsibility is about building yourself up and creating your own success. Not tearing others down and stealing their success.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If we are to succeed in our quest to rehabilitate PvP and restore it to its rightful place next to crafting, questing and exploring in the list of features people desire in their MMOs we need to go far beyond the minimum to recover that audience.
Our actions, as a community, are what will allow us to rise above and past the old assumptions that PvP means the game will be toxic.
So you are saying that PVP needs to be elevated to be equal to crafting, questing and exploration? Or is it to be diminished to be equal?
I ask this in all seriousness, because I can't think of a sandbox MMO, where PVP was not the end game.
To be perfectly fair, THE MOST TOXIC BEHAVIORS, in any MMO I have every seen involved PVE Raid Dungeons and the negative interactions that those engendered among the player community.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't look at it in too narrow a context. He's saying that there's a large portion of people who only play themeparks because of the horrible stories that always go around about PvP games. To these people, PvP is not only unimportant but actually undesirable; they believe PvP will inevitably lead to griefing, hostilities, and an unfun experience.
What Ryan was driving at is that the MMO playerbase as a whole needs to dispel this belief that PvP is undesirable because it is always linked to griefing. And to dispel that myth, we need more PvP MMO's which highlight just how positive and enjoyable such games can be. He wants PFO to be such a game, where the players are all enjoying the experience, playing respectfully with each other, and demonstrating an awesome PvP community.
To accomplish such a goal, we should each hold ourselves individually accountable for how enjoyable a game we are making for the other players. It's really as simple as this principle. If each of us puts out more good vibes into the game then bad, then overall we will have a great experience, which will draw in those hesitant players with stories of how fantastic a game it is.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan i think there is one thing that GW needs to make sure that people understand as the roles from EE to OE and new players are added and that is that PvP is central to the game. That this is a PvP game with some pve elements, not that its a pve game with some pvp elements.
There is only one way to take territory and keep it, and thats to fight other players for it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As a community we have a joint problem. The joint problem is that toxic behavior in previous sandbox MMOs has damaged the general public's ability to discriminate between a game mechanic and obnoxious behavior.
If we are to succeed in our quest to rehabilitate PvP and restore it to its rightful place next to crafting, questing and exploring in the list of features people desire in their MMOs we need to go far beyond the minimum to recover that audience.
Again, I don't want to encourage "everything that is not forbidden is permitted" thinking. I want to encourage people to actively work towards taking personal responsibility for collectively fixing a big problem - that too many people think "PvP" means "the game will be filled with jerks doing jerky things to me to a level that is intolerable".
Don't spend time trying to figure out where the line is between ok and not ok. There isn't one. Spend time instead playing far away from the line and encouraging everyone you play with to do the same. Our actions, as a community, are what will allow us to rise above and past the old assumptions that PvP means the game will be toxic.
Sorry buddy (and I dont say that as a negative) but from my themepark and sandbox gaming experience PVE'ers are just as toxic. "Oh great another newb, you cant join us on this raid as you are not enough of a power gamer to have the high end equipment we require."
Most of the toxicity I have seen with PVP in other sandbox games... Or I should say the cause of that perception... is that people in general have lost their competitiveness and hate the fact that they will lose something. In fact it makes them angry... enjoying a sandbox pvp game, then having to pvp when it doesnt suit their schedule.
The biggest complaints I have ever seen on the Eve forums is the fact they lost their shiny ship fit out with all that shiny equipment. Hey lets put a years worth of money into one ship and take it out during a war.
Lack of Competitiveness and the possibility of losing what someone has worked for is the big factor that keeps people in themeparks.
More often then not, the toxic smack talk in local chat came from the "victims" who ran their mouths about getting killed. Then yammer on about how only weaklings would use a small gang to kill one solo battleship.
I know in the fleets I ran, no talk in local or you will be kicked from fleet. No exceptions. No one wanted to fly 25 jumps home solo, and no one wanted to be left out of the next days fleet.
Sandbox games are competitive games, on many levels, and in many cases you will be competing in areas you dont want to whether you like it or not. I can sure tell you that I dont want to be competitive in crafting... but I will be forced to unless I want to pay serious prices for equipment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you are saying that PVP needs to be elevated to be equal to crafting, questing and exploration? Or is it to be diminished to be equal?If we are to succeed in our quest to rehabilitate PvP and restore it to its rightful place next to crafting, questing and exploring in the list of features people desire in their MMOs we need to go far beyond the minimum to recover that audience.
Our actions, as a community, are what will allow us to rise above and past the old assumptions that PvP means the game will be toxic.
Elevated. There is what it is, and then there is the popular mythos about it. The popular myth-quality most people have of crafting, questing, and exploring, three pillars of the genre, have favorable rep. The fourth pillar, PvP, has a poor rep. Many players avoid it.
Ryan is suggesting, if I adequately understand, that it would be beneficial, something to be desired by all players and especially with PvP enthusiasts, were the popular mythos around PvP to be elevated to its rightful place in the general community rather than only your and Xeen's and Steelwing's worldview.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the developers are willing to work with us, in the diversity of our personal preferences and experience, to create a game where PvP is done so well that it can overcome the stigma of PvP's many historical failures then we will have contributed to a wonderful advance in game design which we will all benefit from into the future.
That means keeping our minds open to trying something new and different, to contributing honestly to a greater cause than mere personal advantage.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the developers are willing to work with us, in the diversity of our personal preferences and experience, to create a game where PvP is done so well that it can overcome the stigma of PvP's many historical failures then we will have contributed to a wonderful advance in game design which we will all benefit from into the future.
That means keeping our minds open to trying something new and different, to contributing honestly to a greater cause than mere personal advantage.
That would be fine, I'm waiting for the blog that tells PVE content oriented players there will be negative consequences for avoiding PvP. I'm waiting for examples of toxic PVE behavior to be expressly shunned and have attached to it negative reputation consequences.
So shall we expect to see "Need a fighter, must be level 20, have tier 3 gear and Taunt, for Dungeon Raid X".... Will that toxic chat be flagged as such and given negative reputation?
How about a group of four LG merchants, of maximum reputation, not attached to any settlement or faction. Not attached to any company, but clearly working together. Virtually immune to PvP attack because their numbers will dish out -9000 reputation and maximum shift towards CE. They know they can not be feuded, war deced, faction warfare, or attacked outside of those without incurring negative consequences on the attackers that will take years to recover from.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How about a group of four LG merchants, of maximum reputation, not attached to any settlement or faction. Not attached to any company, but clearly working together. Virtually immune to PvP attack because their numbers will dish out -9000 reputation and maximum shift towards CE. They know they can not be feuded, war deced, faction warfare, or attacked outside of those without incurring negative consequences on the attackers that will take years to recover from.
I'm not sure where your -9000 rep comes from. There would be no requirement that you have to attack all four at once, since they aren't attached by settlement, company, or faction, right?
edit to add: and there's nothing that requires that they be subject to PvP combat if it's too costly for the attackers. People have said on the board that in a sandbox, everything is PvP. If that's true, you can use economic leverage, you can cut them off from their trade sources, you can kill their contractors. Not every job calls for the PvP combat hammer.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If they're merchants they should be safe as long as they stay in or very close to a settlement, just like everyone else. While travelling from one settlement to another with their vastly rich transports on the other hand, they can be SAD'd and killed if they refuse, just like everyone else.
I don't see the huge advantage in a group running an informal merchant business as compared to a company. Possibly it could be worse, depending on whether influence (which they would have none) can be used for anything they might want or not.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That would be fine, I'm waiting for the blog that tells PVE content oriented players there will be negative consequences for avoiding PvP. I'm waiting for examples of toxic PVE behavior to be expressly shunned and have attached to it negative reputation consequences.
So shall we expect to see "Need a fighter, must be level 20, have tier 3 gear and Taunt, for Dungeon Raid X".... Will that toxic chat be flagged as such and given negative reputation?
How about a group of four LG merchants, of maximum reputation, not attached to any settlement or faction. Not attached to any company, but clearly working together. Virtually immune to PvP attack because their numbers will dish out -9000 reputation and maximum shift towards CE. They know they can not be feuded, war deced, faction warfare, or attacked outside of those without incurring negative consequences on the attackers that will take years to recover from.
I'm not picking up anything constructive from your questions, Bluddwolf. Perhaps if you rephrase we will find something to work with there. The merchants should have some affiliation with a faction or two, and this will provide you with your excuse to prey upon them. There won't be a raiding dungeon in PFO, so the toxic behavior you are concerned with is precluded.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Bluddwolf
Of course there are examples of griefing in theme parks. Many in fact.
-There is the ever present chat channel grief.
-There is the raid "perfect specced toon" exclusion grief.
-There is the trade scam grief.
There are many more ways that griefing gets accomplished in non combat PVP and we have visited them all. There are many, many examples in previous blogs where some of these issues have been discussed.
By far though, there is a greater weight in the minds of the majority of the MMO player community that revolves around unexpected and unwanted PVP and getting your toon killed. The trick here is going to be convincing them that PVP combat is more fun and interesting when it is for a reason. Even sometimes when it is just the reason that "someone wants your stuff".
So far it looks like it will be possible to role as you wrote it: Unaffiliated to any org or faction to be a less attractive target. What will be the price of that? What will those players be missing out on if they do? How much will that slow their progress? It will be up to GW to make that less attractive than affiliation (and it's benefits) are.
And you still have the SAD for those situations, as far as we know about SAD.
And even if it is not a great loss to run that way, at least those players from that hefty demographic will have something to attract them to the game. Once in, it is up to GW and the community to show them that PVP combat (with meaning behind it) is not a terrible thing but a very important part of maximum enjoyment of the potentials that this game will offer.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Being
So shall we expect to see "Need a fighter, must be level 20, have tier 3 gear and Taunt, for Dungeon Raid X".... Will that toxic chat be flagged as such and given negative reputation?
I think that calling the example 'toxic chat' is pure exaggeration. I don't see much difference between asking for specific levels, skills, and gear for a raid and expecting members of my hard-core settlement to be ready to defend the settlement at 3 am using the prescribed arms and skills they need to work in our formations.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not picking up anything constructive from your questions, Bluddwolf. Perhaps if you rephrase we will find something to work with there. The merchants should have some affiliation with a faction or two, and this will provide you with your excuse to prey upon them. There won't be a raiding dungeon in PFO, so the toxic behavior you are concerned with is precluded.That would be fine, I'm waiting for the blog that tells PVE content oriented players there will be negative consequences for avoiding PvP. I'm waiting for examples of toxic PVE behavior to be expressly shunned and have attached to it negative reputation consequences.
So shall we expect to see "Need a fighter, must be level 20, have tier 3 gear and Taunt, for Dungeon Raid X".... Will that toxic chat be flagged as such and given negative reputation?
How about a group of four LG merchants, of maximum reputation, not attached to any settlement or faction. Not attached to any company, but clearly working together. Virtually immune to PvP attack because their numbers will dish out -9000 reputation and maximum shift towards CE. They know they can not be feuded, war deced, faction warfare, or attacked outside of those without incurring negative consequences on the attackers that will take years to recover from.
I have yet to see where anyone will be forced to be a part of any faction. So Bludd is correct, a group of LG max rep characters will be a massive blow to your alignment and rep if you attack them. Sure we have SAD, but as said before that will throw off any surprise tactics that could be used. Which makes them a limited target at best.
@urman and Being: There will be raiding dungeons, called escalations. Its no exaggeration. I have joined many raid groups in SWTOR and was promptly kicked with the excuse I do not have the best of the best equipment to run the raid... with the added effect of "Learn to play newb." Granted you have to be able to run these raids to get the equipment they require. Most of these people have run the same raids over and over and over again, they have every piece of equipment from them... Not sure how its fun at that point, but thats a different subject.
There is a massive difference between being kicked from a raid group, and having to defend a settlement. If you die or fail to complete a raid, you lose nothing (except in sandbox games where you can lose equipment if you die). If you lose your settlement then you have actually lost something for your entire Kingdom. You lost training areas, crafting areas and etc.
BLUDD IS EXACTLY RIGHT!!! There is nothing I have seen that will give consequences for the rest of the negative behavior we see in games, just PVP.
And no this is not a call out to remove consequences from PVP, but lets not pretend that PVP is the sole toxic behavior in MMO's.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being
So shall we expect to see "Need a fighter, must be level 20, have tier 3 gear and Taunt, for Dungeon Raid X".... Will that toxic chat be flagged as such and given negative reputation?I think that calling the example 'toxic chat' is pure exaggeration. I don't see much difference between asking for specific levels, skills, and gear for a raid and expecting members of my hard-core settlement to be ready to defend the settlement at 3 am using the prescribed arms and skills they need to work in our formations.
I disagree, because this type of chat permeates the entire system of raid running in almost every Theme Park MMO.
The message is simple: "If you don't have this, you can't play". Then you could wait hours to finally find a group that will show sympathy on your sorry ass and let you join. If the quest fails, even if they don't say it, you will be the scapegoat.
That is far more toxic than having a can flipped and getting ganked, probably once in your entire gaming experience.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Bringslite,
You say that GW is trying to change the minds of non PvPers to be more accepting of PvP, by changing the practices of PvP through limitations, and negative consequences attached to PvP.
That does nothing to change the bin pvpers mind on PvP. It does nothing to modify the non pvpers behavior, to encourage them to be more accepting of PvP. It dies not encourage them to engage in PvP themselves.
The question is, why is a game that has been described as having PvP at its core, trying to move pvpers to meet on the terms of non pvpers, where they stand currently?
It seems to me that a case needs to be made, through presenting advantages for PvP, to move the reluctant towards the game's self described core.
For example: When there was a Traveler Flag, there were clear advantages for merchants to voluntarily flag for PvP.
Perhaps we need to here if that will still be a part of the caravan system? Perhaps operating a caravan without using the PvP flag could cost a merchant reputation and shift their alignment to chaotic evil?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It sounds to me like the same problem that pervades PvP also infects the political player organization in raid systems of PvE games.
I suspect that if we took a poll we would discover there is similar antipathy to what you describe in elements of PvE Raiding practices as there is for PvP more generally, with the additional delta that in PvP the consequence is character death and humiliation.
In both cases there is a measure of humiliation. In both cases there is an element of domination. In both cases some players will conform to the needs of the dominator to find peace and solace, and other players will attempt to avoid circumstances of personal humiliation, even if that means leaving the game (which I think is a least desirable outcome). A few will likely embrace and enjoy their own humiliation because masochism is not unknown.
If these inferences were to be found valid, and we determine that it would be 'better' to moderate the effects and frequency of those player behaviors, is there any game device we have seen or can think of that might ameliorate the tendency for dominator types to humiliate non-dominator types?
Would it be 'better' to reduce or eliminate interplayer domination/humiliation? If so we can potentially begin approaching a solution. If not, then there is no need to try.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am having a hard time believing that your example of non inclusion equates to griefing, or that it is a toxic situation that could not be mollified (a bit) with in game systems that are planned for (a bit).
a: Player crafted gear. Your best, easiest chance of gearing is through affiliation. Not dungeon raiding. Dungeons will hardly be a factor and escalations will only require top lvl gear if left unchecked. If escalations are milked, you could be a part of it if you are affiliated with the milkmaids.
b: They are trying to build the system so that lower skill point toons can contribute.
None of that stands as high, in the collective world's resistance to PVP, as the seemingly random gank (roving murderers) or the tricks players use to make the inexperienced flag themselves unintentionally.
Not sure what all of the crying is about. There will be plenty of PVP combat for those that like it. If you use your noggin to find it you will never run short. If you get impatient and attack everything that you see, you might suffer for it.
These current concerns seem like misdirection whether determined or just subconscious reflex reaction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ Bringslite,
You say that GW is trying to change the minds of non PvPers to be more accepting of PvP, by changing the practices of PvP through limitations, and negative consequences attached to PvP.
That does nothing to change the bin pvpers mind on PvP. It does nothing to modify the non pvpers behavior, to encourage them to be more accepting of PvP. It dies not encourage them to engage in PvP themselves.
The question is, why is a game that has been described as having PvP at its core, trying to move pvpers to meet on the terms of non pvpers, where they stand currently?
It seems to me that a case needs to be made, through presenting advantages for PvP, to move the reluctant towards the game's self described core.
For example: When there was a Traveler Flag, there were clear advantages for merchants to voluntarily flag for PvP.
Perhaps we need to here if that will still be a part of the caravan system? Perhaps operating a caravan without using the PvP flag could cost a merchant reputation and shift their alignment to chaotic evil?
I'm not Bringslite, nor do I play one on TV, but there will be few ways to avoid PvP for most players, and there will not be much of anything to play in th game that doesn't at least open the player up for PvP. Unless I miss my guess, everyone will join at least one faction and every faction is surely hostile to some other faction. Characters will surely leave the few miniscule and limited semi-safe zones eventually. The people you are anguished over will be pretty much be unable o be in the game and also avoid PvP, but PvP enthusiasts aren't being forced to make pottery.
The idea is to provide a PvP system that works well for both dedicated competitors and also those PvE players. To reconstruct the image of PvP so that it can fulfill its promise in online gaming.
You won't have to scrape wood and pick ore all day, but they'll have a tough time avoiding PvP and still play. Yet you are complaining how unfair it is to PvPers. GW is trying to provide you with players to fight that aren't the same few you've been fighting for the last decade and not just save, but nurture online fantasy PvP games as a genre while they're doing it. All it takes is a bit of constraint, some self-control, and self-discipline. Are you up to it or not?