Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
These questions were drafted to get a sense of the potential politics between the big and the small or fringe companies of PFO. It is understood that this is largely an exercise that may well be very premature. I believe it is an interesting set of questions, and I hoping for some very insightful responses.
Disclaimer: These questions are written from the PVP perspective, however I have attempted to avoid them being rhetorical in any way. These are also being asked Out-of-Character, and so a player’s answers are requested.
Context: These questions arose from a series of debates, and an ongoing dispute of characterizations of views between Andius of TEO and Bluddwolf of The UnNamed Company; but they were reignited or spawned from the recent thread concerning the Settlement: Acheron.
Questions: The questions follow the context or rationale for them.
Random Player Killer has a wide range of potential meanings . In the context of PFO, I’m not even sure if the systems in place can even permit extensive occurrences of it happening. I remain very skeptical that it would have any sort of server-wide impact. However, in the event that it does happen with some frequency.
1. How would you determine a PVP interaction was a “random act”?
The issue of selecting a valid target also seems to be an underlying question. To clarify, I will present my view, and then follow up with a question.
“What will factor into our decision to attack a merchant or not, may be very different than what you are thinking. Not the wealth of the merchant, but the value of what he is hauling at the time. Not the experience of the target, but the ratio of risk vs. reward that he presents. Not our personal knowledge of who that merchant is, but how bored we might have become waiting for a target.”
2. If this is a bandit’s or other PVP players thought process, can any PVP interaction be truly called “Random”?
Having a powerful and well placed Chaotic Evil town that denies access to griefers is actually extremely advantageous to our vision for PFO even though I'm sure we will cross swords with your members on a frequent basis. The existence of this settlement significantly undermines those who would be griefers in PFO and so I wish it great success.
3. At what Reputation Point would you assume someone was a “Griefer” and should be denied access to someone else’s settlement?
If I were being attacked by a resident of a neighboring settlement I would approach the leadership of that settlement and request that the offending party's behavior be fixed, or that they evict them. If they failed to do so we would take actions up to and including a declaration of war against that settlement. This is against any settlement, of any alignment.
4. Does this apply to a settlement controlling its citizens (chartered members) or does it also include visitors that may or may not frequent that settlement often?
One view of dealing with banditry or other criminal activities was more limited to its effects upon their political, economic and or local geographic interests.
5. How far outside of your immediate (political and economic) and / or geographically local interests, do you see your company exerting its influence and power?
Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to respond. Feel free to answer any or all questions, and more importantly, feel free to pose additional questions.
@Bluddwolf
A) The quote from me has absolutely nothing to do with the question you have put it under.That answer was given to how would we treat a bandit company.
Please remove it
B) Frankly the answers to most of these questions aren't ones that can be given. Most of the answers depend largely upon the circumstances. So are not answerable
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf
A) The quote from me has absolutely nothing to do with the question you have put it under.That answer was given to how would we treat a bandit company.
Please remove it
B) Frankly the answers to most of these questions aren't ones that can be given. Most of the answers depend largely upon the circumstances. So are not answerable
Questions are under the rationale, but I will rephrase the question
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Explictly noting that I am not a sole policymaker, and that I expect to encounter new information that shifts my point of view:
1. I don't care if a PvP encounter is random or rational; I care firstly about how it affects my organization (both directly and indirectly) and secondarily about the costs and methods of changing that.
Shifting the risk/reward ratio of our caravans might be accomplished by having more guards, might be accomplished by paying some form of extortion or tribute, and might be accomplished by establishing a credible threat that we will wipe out anyone who messes with us too much.
2. A "random" factor for me is one that I cannot predict, attempt to predict, or determine post-hoc the method of determination in such a way as I can retrospectively predict the outcome.
But now we're quibbling over definitions.
3. At the point where allowing a particular reputation to enter has negative reputation, mechanical, or political consequences that outweigh the advantages of allowing more access.
This will probably end up being a number eventually, but it won't be set in stone for all time, and I expect many individuals and groups to become exceptions both ways.
Depending on the specific nature of the benefits and costs, we might even allow a particularly polite and abstemious group which was extorting our own trade to use our facilities provided that they chased off all of their competition. (Groups encouraged by this, note that you would have to undercut the cost of hiring someone to run everybody including you off, and we might have pressure from outside organizations to stop supporting anybody who was bothering them too much.)
4. If I can exert indirect influence on the behavior of a group which is impacting mine (for example, by threatening or offering changes to a 'preferred trade network' agreement in retaliation or exchange for supporting or withdrawing support from a company), I will consider it one of the possible ways in which to control what is happening. If, for example, a settlement was harboring raiders in exchange for not being targeted by them, and those raiders were bothering other settlements enough, there could be diplomatic, economic, or military retaliation against the harboring settlement.
5. I foresee that with the need for trade in resources to operate a settlement and the large trade networks, our immediate interests will extend beyond our direct power, and our total sphere of interest will be at least as large as our total indirect power. I don't see any reason that we would exert power somewhere that we weren't interested in.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I came across this and was reminded of Andius' Gobbocast interview. I'm curious how this impacts the concept of "Random Player Killing"?
Killing people in a sandbox is not griefing them. Even killing them just because you can is not griefing them.
This is why we don't have a "rule" for what constitutes grief. Because if we had a rule, people will just use that rule as a license to be "just slightly less than griefing" other people.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Would you guys say that killing people out of boredom is RPKing?
No, when someone implies that a killing was random, that suggests that it was without meaning or benefit.
Killing in a PVP game is what we are supposed to do, so it can not be without meaning.
Combat is a learning tool. You learn when you win, and when you lose, regardless of the ease of either outcome.
Boredom is the last feeling GW wants any player to feel. So any action that ends boredom is a good thing, provided it falls within what GW approves of.
@ Papaver Some questions. Do you feel that Champion flagged characters should run around and kill all of the evil characters that they come across in the wilds? Will the Champions be able to ascertain the relative level of these characters before they attack? Will they care? Would you consider that RPK?
@ Papaver Some questions. Do you feel that Champion flagged characters should run around and kill all of the evil characters that they come across in the wilds? Will the Champions be able to ascertain the relative level of these characters before they attack? Will they care? Would you consider that RPK?
If someone wants to play their character as an anti-evil crusader, why should that be considered griefing or undesired activity?
The difference between all the things that we are discussing and griefing is that the purpose of griefing is equivalent to "trolling" where the enjoying derived from it is in knowing you've angered someone else.
Playing the game as an assassin or a crusader and killing people based on alignment isn't griefing. Its simply them playing their character the way they want to play it, and getting enjoyment from playing it that way.
Other people may play as a bandit to make money, or a bounty hunter to make money. Those aren't griefing because the purpose of it is gain.
Other people may just want to enjoy combat and choose to fight players instead of NPCs.
The problem arises when you try to distinguish griefing from any of these things. The only way to determine this is through repeated action against an individual. If you do nothing but hunt me for the sake of killing me, for no real gain besides "lol, killing this dude, I bet he's pissed" then that's behavior that's undesirable. But even then, I would have ways of retaliation in-game and potentially from a GM.
Although, if someone was doing that to me I would just get revenge...
RPK can't be done in PFO as the poor git that got jumped by 6 guys just learned a lesson.
The 6 guys also got schooled
My point is precisely that. RPK can not really be considered griefing as by definition Champions riding about hunting evil or bandits seeking targets is fairly random encounter.
It benefits the bandit to SAD the unflagged, the PVPer to attack only flagged, and the Champion to attack any evil that is flagged or not. Logically it would seem then that Champions are or could be more abusive than bandits or wandering PVPers. At least toward the evil aligned.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I wasn't asking about griefing but about RPKing. Also if you choose the targets by alignment it's by definition not random.
Edit: Wait I'm really confused now. If a person GAINS enjoyment out of griefing others. And it's not griefing if there is a gain. Then griefing is by that definition not griefing.
Edit2: @NineMoons: Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees! :D
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I wasn't asking about griefing but about RPKing. Also if you choose the targets by alignment it's by definition not random.
I think it is safe to say the RPKing issue is resolved. It is either uncanny that Ryan Dancey described almost word for word the exact opposite of what Anduis said in his Gobbocast, as not being griefing.
If random poking does not equal a firm of griefing, then it is permissible. Not that I believe there is such thing as RPKing to begin with, but if it does occur, no foul.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Moving on.... It has been said by certain companies that their purpose is to patrol the new players areas to protect them from those that would prey upon them.
GW Devs have said that they would like most PVP to take place outside of the settlement zones, and that the NPC (starter cities) would be even more limited to PvP.
So my question is: what exactly will they be protecting the new players from?
There will also be NPC Wardens, that will respond very quickly, especially in the NPC zones.
If these same patrols are taking place outside of the settlement zones, then they are not so much "protection" patrols, but more akin to PvP roves. In that case the only difference between an Enforcer / Guardian and an Outlaw is alignment. Unless....
If these "patrols" defeat bandits flagged as Outlaws, will these patrols loot the dead bandits?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"Having a powerful and well placed Chaotic Evil town that denies access to griefers is actually extremely advantageous to our vision for PFO."
Well, I don't know about powerful, but If I have the numbers I plan to build One Myself.
Enter, enjoy your stay and ideally spend a lot of your money in all the debased entertainment we can provide ... but troublemakers are not welcome.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1) If the NPC wardens patrol wilderness areas outside of NPC settlement control, presumably trying to enforce that settlement's laws, would a champion killing evil within those areas be committing unlawful acts? Said in a different way, can PC settlement patrols of areas not claimed by the settlement (i.e., wilderness areas) enforce laws of that settlement within the game mechanics of those wilderness areas?
2) Can a chaotic settlement enforce laws at all? In light of the core alignment/active alignment issue, does than mean that they are moving toward lawful from chaotic?
3) Is indiscriminate killing random? Can it be criminal in a chaotic settlement?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just to share a bit of my confusion...
I came across this and was reminded of Andius' Gobbocast interview. I'm curious how this impacts the concept of "Random Player Killing"?
Killing people in a sandbox is not griefing them. Even killing them just because you can is not griefing them.
This is why we don't have a "rule" for what constitutes grief. Because if we had a rule, people will just use that rule as a license to be "just slightly less than griefing" other people.
Will PvP (player-vs.-player aggression) be allowed?Characters will be able to attack rival characters in most parts of the game world. In many circumstances, though, unprovoked aggression may carry severe in-game penalties.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Gedichtewicht,
The first quote concerns griefing, what GW will allow players to do before they decide it's too much and decide to take action.
The second concerns game mechanics. Killing random people may not in itself be griefing and warrant e.g. an account freeze but it may be 'punished' with "sever in-game penalties" in the form of reputation loss, leading to being unwelcome in many settlements etc. It's 'allowed' but you better be ready to accept the in-game consequences.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just to share a bit of my confusion...
I came across this and was reminded of Andius' Gobbocast interview. I'm curious how this impacts the concept of "Random Player Killing"?
Killing people in a sandbox is not griefing them. Even killing them just because you can is not griefing them.
This is why we don't have a "rule" for what constitutes grief. Because if we had a rule, people will just use that rule as a license to be "just slightly less than griefing" other people.
Will PvP (player-vs.-player aggression) be allowed?Characters will be able to attack rival characters in most parts of the game world. In many circumstances, though, unprovoked aggression may carry severe in-game penalties.
For starters, I would think that what is (basically) being said there is that rep penalties will discourage unprovoked aggression.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am thinking of the scenario in which an archetypical barbarian is looking to prove himself against the world. He rides to a local pass or bridge, somewhere traffic is more-or-less forced to use, and starts challenging anyone carry a weapons to fight him or be refused entry.
His victims are random in so much as he has no idea who is coming along, but obviously they are only getting into trouble by being on that road. Our antagonist barbarian does not go looking for victims, but his set-up is such that 'innocent' parties will be affected. He is not looking for money and is not tagged as a Bandit, so is not 'legally' allowed to ignore non-PvP, yet a non-PvPer will have to fight him to get by. The aggression is unprovoked, but good role-playing and might even be fun for some of the others affected.
Is he griefing? If he plays his role properly then he shouldn't be letting anyone through just because they are non-PvP tagged, and clearly the non-PvPers have a choice of going across the bridge or turning around so they are not exactly being forced into combat against their will.
It is good role-playing from the barbarian, but is a pain in the posterior for anyone just looking to travel - to the point where some may feel it is ruining their gameplay. Is that griefing?
Given his honourable motives (he may even be CG), he is not an automatic target for Champions to crusade against. The only way to shift him would be to have a superior force go and kill him. Which works right up until he sets up stall once more, after respawning and travelling back.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bluddwolf, it would be helpful if you could quote Andius so that we could have a comparison.
Gobbocast # 3 Interview with Andius
I want to say about 14 minutes in, but the whole interview is only 47 minutes or so, a good listen to really. I've listened to all of the podcasts at least 5 times, they are that good!!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1) If the NPC wardens patrol wilderness areas outside of NPC settlement control, presumably trying to enforce that settlement's laws, would a champion killing evil within those areas be committing unlawful acts? Said in a different way, can PC settlement patrols of areas not claimed by the settlement (i.e., wilderness areas) enforce laws of that settlement within the game mechanics of those wilderness areas?
2) Can a chaotic settlement enforce laws at all? In light of the core alignment/active alignment issue, does than mean that they are moving toward lawful from chaotic?
3) Is indiscriminate killing random? Can it be criminal in a chaotic settlement?
You have three questions here but I will answer them a bit indirectly, and not exactly in order.
Chaotic settlements can have laws, there will likely be just a few of them. They could also demonstrate their chaotic nature (subconsciously) by not enforcing them often or equally.
Chaotic Evil settlements would likely make it illegal to fly the Enforcer and the Guardian flags within their settlement limits. So to answer your question, yes, Lawful Enforcers and Good Guardians could end up being flagged as Criminals and suffer reputation losses for killing Chaotics or Evils within those settlement controlled hexes.
These lawful and or good interlopers would be subject to bounties, assassination contracts and death curses, just as criminals and outlaws may if operating in lawful / good settled hexes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cross-posted from The Seventh Veil.
@Bluddwolf,
I believe you're referring to PVP and Settlement Politics Pre EE and Early EE (0-3 months). I'll cross-post my reply there after making it here.
1. How would you determine a PVP interaction was a “random act”?
2. If this is a bandit’s or other PVP players thought process, can any PVP interaction be truly called “Random”?
3. At what Reputation Point would you assume someone was a “Griefer” and should be denied access to someone else’s settlement?
4. Does this apply to a settlement controlling its citizens (chartered members) or does it also include visitors that may or may not frequent that settlement often?
I make my living programming computers. I have an intuitive grasp of framing statements unambiguously, so that I have a natural affinity for instructing computers - as you might expect, this often makes me phrase things in ways that offend other human beings (often without trying).
As such, I would personally avoid ever creating a rule about how we would react to an in-game event that relied on ambiguous or untestable conditions. In other words, if I couldn't write a program to analyze the data from PFO to determine whether or not some in-game event met my criteria without generating a significant amount of false positives or negatives, then I probably wouldn't want a rule for it.
However, I think the heart of these questions has to do with whether or not we would be trying to police your actions, and generally, we won't. The Seventh Veil doesn't exist to make the world safe from Bandits. We exist to provide a safe haven (even in the Shadows) for our members. As such, we're much more interested in whether your actions are interfering with us, than whether they're "random".
5. How far outside of your immediate (political and economic) and / or geographically local interests, do you see your company exerting its influence and power?Our goals are to provide a safe haven and lots of organized activity for our members, and to support those members in documenting their adventures in PFO. To those ends, we will support adventure blogs and a wiki.
We are also committed to the principle of Individual Freedom. We won't require our members to participate in anything they don't want to, although we will probably insist that they be a net benefit in some capacity or other.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A quote please.
The pod cast was not transcribed. Do you not have access to listening to it? I would imagine as a TEO member, you may have listened to your leader's interview?
The specific part I referred to was the "RPKing is killing people, just because you can."
Ryan Dancey specifically said, killing people just because you can is not griefing. Either Ryan listened to that pod cast and disagreed with its characterization as griefing, or he independently held that view.
The purpose of stopping RPking is therefore not anti-griefing, but something else. I would argue it is the imposition of one's views upon the community and implemented by the threat of force or the application of force.
This is fine by me, but it makes those patrols nothing more than pvp roves, and the moral equivalent to bandit roves. As a matter of possibility, those enforcers may actually end up with a lower reputation than my bandits do.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The part you are referring to is andius describing TEO policy towards RPKing not if TEO regards RPKing as griefing. So no as those are two different topics they are not opposed to each other.
Also it is irrelevant if the source for your claim is publically available. You are the only one responsible for backing up your claims with sources and citing them properly. If you fail to do so the claim must be false.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The problem with a term like griefing is that it means different things to different people. To mean, the term is simply: To perform actions for the pure purpose of causing grief and frustration in other players.
The developers want people engaging in meaningful PvP. They want conflict over land and resources. They do not want, or so I have gathered, roving bands of killers getting their jollies from mass slaughter.
I think RPKing is actually an incorrect term for the problem. The folks TEO would take issue with (out of character) are not merely the ones picking random targets. They are picking very specific targets: namely anyone and everyone they think they can kill. And they are not picking them for no reason, they are picking them for a very specific reason: to make someone else upset. These folk frequently plague open-world open-pvp games. Additionally, it would take some time to determine whether this was the suspect's modus operandi, unless they state it outright. Players with a history of this behavior might come under scrutiny more quickly though. The appearance of randomness is merely from the victim's perspective of "getting killed for an unknown reason". And as Bluddwolf has pointed out, it is hard for a victim to know the motive behind his death.
TEO is also likely to come into conflict frequently with actual bandits and assassins, who are picking targets for resource and/or strategic gain. These conflicts are going to be driven more through in-character motivation and should hopefully not hold any malice or grudges against the players behind the opposing the character.
TEO is primarily interested in securing the region immediately surrounding our territory and trade routes with allied and friendly settlements, in addition to any outposts that are established for remote resource gathering. Additionally, should resources be available, we may come to aid allies or friendlies who are having issues with their own borders and request our assistance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The part you are referring to is andius describing TEO policy towards RPKing not if TEO regards RPKing as griefing. So no as those are two different topics they are not opposed to each other.
Clarification Request: Does TEO regard RPKing as griefing?
Also it is irrelevant if the source for your claim is publically available. You are the only one responsible for backing up your claims with sources and citing them properly. If you fail to do so the claim must be false.
I cited the source, it is public. The validity of the claim has nothing to do if the source is not specifically cited to the minute and second of the audio file. But, let us not quibble over off topic issues.
If you are claiming that TEO does not view RPKing as griefing, then you have clarified one of the questions that I and others have had, and that is the whole point of this thread.
We may actually all be in agreement that RPking is not griefing.
Regardless of whether it is called griefing or not the devs have expressly said they wish to discourage random player killing....
form They shot a man in reno blog
Behaviors we don't want:
PvP conflicts where the death of the target means no gain for the attacker, i.e. randomly killing people for no reason.
This is not in dispute. However, I explained that my reason may not reach the threshold of what another person would qualify as "reason enough", and therefore still claim there was "no gain" or "no reason" for my actions.
When you engage in any PVP combat:
1. Killing in a PVP game is what we are supposed to do. It is meeting the objective of a desired player interaction.
2. Combat is a learning tool. You learn when you win, and when you lose, regardless of the ease of either outcome.
3. Boredom is the last feeling GW wants any player to feel. So any action that ends boredom is a good thing, provided it falls within what GW approves of.
4. When a character is looted, a portion is taken (gain), some is protected from loss (threaded), and the remaining items are destroyed (reducing surplus, increasing need to replace lost items, good for economy). Dev Blog Blood on the Track: The Most Dangerous Game
So my question is, with these four points that I have suggested, can there really be a random killing that has gain or reason?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am thinking of the scenario in which an archetypical barbarian is looking to prove himself against the world. He rides to a local pass or bridge, somewhere traffic is more-or-less forced to use, and starts challenging anyone carry a weapons to fight him or be refused entry.
...
Given his honourable motives (he may even be CG), he is not an automatic target for Champions to crusade against. The only way to shift him would be to have a superior force go and kill him. Which works right up until he sets up stall once more, after respawning and travelling back.
With each "random" kill the barbarian's reputation will drop, if I understand the reputation mechanic correctly. As his rep decreases, the reputation hit some other character will suffer from attacking and killing the barbarian will get lower and lower. Eventually the barbarian's rep and related rep loss for the other guy will be low enough that someone will put an end to his bridge blockage. Well, multiple people will, if he respawns and goes back to his bridge.
I think lowering one's reputation so others suffer minimal rep loss for attacking you will be called "becoming game content".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
TEO is also likely to come into conflict frequently with actual bandits and assassins, who are picking targets for resource and/or strategic gain. These conflicts are going to be driven more through in-character motivation and should hopefully not hold any malice or grudges against the players behind the opposing the character.
TEO is primarily interested in securing the region immediately surrounding our territory and trade routes with allied and friendly settlements, in addition to any outposts that are established for remote resource gathering. Additionally, should resources be available, we may come to aid allies or friendlies who are having issues with their own borders and request our assistance.
This is completely expected and acceptable and an excellent clarification as well.
What it does not include, and I'm hopeful it remains that way, is the veiled threat of war to those settlements that may harbor criminals, even as visitors seeking training.
I have an analogy (RL):
In the U.S. the current administration and a variety of gun control fanatics have been desperately seeking ways to limit 2nd Amendment Rights. They of course can not pass legislation to do so, but they have discovered a backdoor route to their objective. The Dept. of Homeland Security has been purchasing billions of rounds of common handgun and certain long rifle ammunition to the point that you can own the firearm, you just have nothing to load it with.
TEO and other companies won't be able to stop bandits or other criminals, but if they remove our ability to train, they have taken away our "ammunition" (metaphorically of course).
I have said that my company will not charter with any settlement, specifically because we do not want our actions to be visited upon them. We also don't want to be placed into a position where we may feel compelled to comply with their directions.
This kind of manipulation is possible, only from the strongest and or largest settlement populations versus the smaller or less influential settlements. As I suggested in another post, in another thread perhaps, the Treaty of Rovagug was a response to the potential of an outside enemy invading our game an spoiling it for all of us. That same kind of a threat can come from within, and we as a community must first recognize that it can, and spot the slippery slope before any company or settlement takes that first step over the edge.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do not believe there is an overarching policy for declaring war against Evil-aligned settlements unless they...
1) Are located in our sphere of influence as I defined above.
2) Pose a direct challenge through action against us or our allies.
Andius can, as he admits himself, get a little gung-ho about tracking down the villains. Though a figurehead, we do have cooler heads in place to help keep him in check. But let us run down the specific scenario of going to war against a settlement that harbors "wanted individuals".
Let us say that your company has been effectively locking down trade routes between us and another ally for a month. You are operating out of another settlement N hexes away. Our first response is going to be to increase champion/guardian flagged patrols along the trade route. If you manage to outwit us for a prolonged period of time, we may request assistance from the settlement that has been harboring you in the fashion of cutting you off for a while in hopes that it gets you to move shop.
They refuse. We then coordinate with our allies to begin performing some economic sanctions. A number of independent players ignore this, making them not effective.
Your company is managing to survive and profit despite these endeavors. Our DIs are beginning to shrink. If we do not dislodge you, we may begin to suffer long-term consequences. It is at this point that war with a protectionist settlement may be considered. Your company has begun to pose a "direct challenge" over a prolonged period at this point. Our "war" against your company has failed because you have been hiding behind settlement X. X was made to know this and warned. We will not be in the business of allowing our settlement, or those of our allies, to decline because of long-term criminal safe-havens.
TLDR; We are only worried about "Prevention" in our immediate area of influence. More distant settlements may be dealt with in "Retribution" for obstructing our ability to defend ourselves.
We will not be judging settlements based on who they have chartered or sponsored. We will be judging them based on who they cater to and how that impacts us. If they harbor criminals that only pester us a few days here and there, then we are not likely to go knocking at the city gates. If criminals are constantly harassing us and then returning there for safety then they will likely draw our ire.
TEO is just as much about protecting those who do not wish to play "Cops and Robbers" as it is about those who do wish to play.
Again - my views as a member.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Keep in mind that if GW decides to go the EVE route, that means the players must step in to make sure griefing is stopped.
PFO will most definitely not be going "the EVE route" with respect to tolerating griefing.
I found the following posts illustrative of Ryan's intentions for PFO:
Goblinworks Blog: To Live and Die in the River Kingdoms #368
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a *player*, I see griefing as any action taken solely to annoy or harm another. Bandits taking on caravans, that has purpose. Evil being evil, has roleplay purpose. Well geared characters tearing through new players then running from the wardens, or killing them just outside town? That's where I have a problem.
As a *character*, I'll be acting to keep people safe from crime, ensuring people are free to do what they want as long as it doesn't hurt someone else.
As a *player*, I love the idea of bandit settlements, and I think they'll serve a valuable purpose. Bandits who are high reputation (aka not griefers) will be able to train, while griefers will be left out in the cold. That will create a regulatory valve, as it were.
As a *character*, I'll oppose bandit settlements loudly and often, citing what a scourge they are on the land.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm quite aware, Nihimon, and yet Mr. Dancey is coming pretty close to saying, "griefing isn't griefing," which is basically the EVE approach.
It is not our intention to create an "anything goes" world where players are subjected to endless scams, ganks, and immersion breaking behavior.
That's pretty much a direct repudiation of "the EVE way".
From the same post:
I'm especially concerned with ensuring that new players are able to learn how to play the game, gain some mastery of basic gameplay features, have some fun, and have a great experience without having to worry about someone intentionally ruining it for them by scamming them, killing them, taunting them, or otherwise disrupting their attention which should be focused on dealing with the sensory overload of going into a new virtual world.
I'm secondarily concerned with ensuring that people who choose a low risk / low reward course of play are able to do so without regular interruption by those seeking to gain enjoyment from interfering with them as they go about their business.
And with respect to TEO's stance on "anti-Griefing", I'll point out something that I think is significant.
There are three ways that behavior can be limited:
1: Game Mechanics - the game itself can establish limits on what can and cannot be done. It can also establish punishments for doing things that are considered poor behavior even if it does not outright restrict them.
2: Community Management - the humans who watch over the game can act to force certain kinds of behavior to cease when they are petitioned for help. Those same humans can escalate the matter to the point where a repeat or particularly egregious offender's accounts are closed.(*)
3: Social Engineering - the humans who play within the game can act to enforce certain norms of behavior by providing and withholding access to shared community resources in response to character behavior.
Note that the tools we players are expected to directly use in response to griefing are "providing and withholding access to shared community resources". We are not being asked or authorized to respond to griefing by "driving out griefers", and it's likely that those who attempt to do so would end up being considered griefers themselves.
This is the main point I tried to make in the Treaty of Rovagug thread, and I stand by it now.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Then there will be Greedalox's seemingly random but actually calculated:
Righteously Ravenous Rum Rampant Random Raid Runs!!!!!!!
Every 3rd Thursday of the month! Tickets available at box office, seating is limited!
P.S.(whispers) Im coming for you.....
But seriously folks there is:
1. RPKing with no real purpose. Randomly killing anyone and everyone you cross. At this point, youre just pissing people off with the goal to do just that.
and
2. RPKing with valid purpose. Im out exploring on my "day off" from banditry. In an area Im not familiar with. Normally I'd mind my own business and just kill mobs and mark interesting places on my map. But suddenly a PvP opportunity comes that is just too good to pass. This wouldn't be the norm for me, but it would be completely random. Yet would still hold purpose. Whether that be for glory, honor, or gold.
So in my mind Id definitely say that there is a difference, and RPKing is not exclusively griefing. It comes down to purpose or a lack there of.