Goblin Squad Member
|
I believe the characterization of Ryan's message to this community has been filtered through such a narrow view that it is almost completely disconnected from what his warning was.
Nothing being suggested here by the OP addresses the threat that Ryan spoke of. If you believe for a moment that Goonswarm is goung to respond to your warm and fuzzy welcome, you're in for a rude awakening and a swift path to your settlements being reduced to smoldering ruin.
Ryan and Goonswarm does not have a good relationship. The Goons are coming here to piss in his Cheerios.
To be perfectly honest, the best way for the EE community to greet the Goons when they arrive in OE, is for them to be greeted by 15, well developed and unified LE settlements, armed to the teeth and overflowing with PFO PvP experienced wolves.
That obviously won't happen, but we should not divorce ourselves from the true motivation of Ryan's warning. It is not how we welcome new posters to these forums. It is about how will we welcome a force that will come here looking to destroy everything we built in the game
If Goonswarm gave a rat's arse about these forums, don't you think they would be here by now? If they were I'd bet they'd be encouraging everyone to say and do exactly what the OP is calling for. The Goons would just love to find a non PvP oriented server of sheep to slaughter.
well, im mostly a lurker here, but i have been observing that some ppl like to "disregard" bluddwold posts here on boards cause he wants to roleplay a bandit. i already saw in these boards some ppl posting "if it is open PvP i wont play it" and after 80% of the forum users trying to convince the guy to stay pointing some fair new points of view on the matter, but usually the guy is so closed minded thats refuse to hear any suggestion and just keep repeating "open pvp im out". its so irritating to see all goodwilled ppl ideas get shunned by the carebear that makes me reach the only reasonable conclusion "the game really isnt for him cause refuse to listen or discuss or even try, just complain".And if we spent less time telling them why this game isn't for them, and more time clearly expressing our points on why it could actually be enjoyable for them, we might still be able to get a few more to stay.
The attitude of "This game isn't for you" toward everyone who has a slightly different take on PVP than the "kill everything that isn't an ally" crowd is what has turned most of these people off to Open World PVP titles, and created highly toxic communities in them.
What we need to be doing instead is giving these people reasons PFO will be different because it will be different. I know some of these people can be stubborn and frustrating but if you don't have any comments more constructive than telling them to go away, it's time to step away from the debate.
i really like and support ur idea of "be patient and tell them why this can be diferent and be ur game", but we must be also realistic a and honest with them. Their playstyle may be viable but they have to accept one way or another the open PvP to avoid future frustations.
Realmwalker wrote:
Unless there is a way to flag or unflag PVP or at least set up "no PVP" servers then it is a deal breaker to me.
we all know this prolly isnt happening.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon and @Andius, allow me to approach this from another angle. From the OP:
But there's something else that's even more important, and that's defining and defending the standards of behavior that will keep this community from devolving into a toxic wasteland like most other Open PvP games.
I consider this to be an "outside the game" approach. By that I mean approaching the players directly (OOC) about their play style rather that the characters actions (IC) within the context of the game. If this is not what you intended then the following may not be relevant.
The "goons" live "outside the game". They are very experienced in living there. They have developed communications and social connections that give them an advantage that has nothing to do with the context of the game. It is one of their strengths and they use that greatly to their advantage. They know and exploit that territory very well, have the high ground so to speak, while we don't because we are not goons.
Why are you proposing to confront them where they are strongest?
You fight your enemy not where they have their strengths, but where they have weaknesses. I may be naive but I see them as having two large weaknesses: one, they will be (I hope) only a small percentage of the expected PFO population, and two, they have no interest in the context of the game, only in wreaking havoc on the game.
I think that it makes more sense to build an "in-game" (IC) mechanic to oppose the player behavior you describe in the opening.
1) Would not the paladins of Ioemeda want to defend the realms against a "spawn of Rovagug" type ravaging hoard trying to lay waste to settlements and sweep all from their path? Would they not try to rally the people to join them in this fight, to follow their code of ethics and stem the tide of evil?
2) Would not the leaders of the bandit groups take great umbrage at those who want to drive a stake through the heart of the very settlements they are hoping to slowly drain over years? Would they not try to disrupt and hinder that hoard at every turn.
3) Would not the clerics of Abadar see the destruction of settlements as being a direct attack on what their god stands for? Would they not want to inspire the leaders and the people of those settlement to follow the principles of civilization to resist this cancer of behavior?
4) Would not the 36th Order want to resist those who are depriving people of the means to walk the path to the enlightened perfection of their god Irori? Would they not want to see a change in the behavior of these harbingers so that they may be given the mercy of Sarenrae?
I think that if we offer that vast majority of players the opportunity to be part of something greater within the context of the game, to offer them a chance to not feel like they are nothing more than the collateral damage of the behavior of these interlopers, then we will have that community you seek.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...to be greeted by 15, well developed and unified LE settlements, armed to the teeth and overflowing with PFO PvP experienced wolves.
If you were able to put together such a greeting somehow, it's hard to imagine there'd be much worthwhile play elsewhere in the game. So many powerful Lawful Evil settlements would need to fill so many hours everyday, in both prep and practice for invasion, that they may endanger the game-interest of many others who are more care@#$%-like, but inevitably preyed-upon.
It feels a bit like hiring a bear to guard your cooler while you go fishing. The bear eats everything in the cooler, then comes after you...and the fish :-).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First off, welcome Algrimbeldabar! I'm heartened to find another player whose PvP strategies will include fetching a sandwich. :)
Second, I believe any new poster should be provided a warm welcome (Ixiolander of TEO is superb at this), treated civilly, and directed to all the available official blogs and posts to gain the most educated view of the game. If they have questions, we should endeavor to provide answers (based on those same blogs and posts) as free of bias as possible. At that point, the choice is theirs. Certainly, we would like to grow the community, but to do so by presenting what the game will be based on our personal bias may lead to misrepresentation of the game. There is nothing wrong with stating, "I believe the game will be ______ based on _______" as long as you make it clear that this is only your opinion, or again, you can point the new poster to an official blog or post to back up that description.
In short, warm welcome, educate with official facts, and clearly identify opinion as opinion.
Third, Bluddwolf, I believe you may be mixing two different topics - how we treat new posters and how we prepare, as a community, for an influx of game destroying jerks. Though I and several others misunderstood Nihimon's original intent with this thread, he has clarified it as being about the former - how we treat new posters. The discussion of Ryan's advice/warnings dealing with the latter could probably be better served in AvenaOats' "Confederation of Communities" thread or in a new thread if you feel it warrants one.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This game is about competition.That may well be true for you, and perhaps for many. I very much doubt it will be true universally.
For me at least it will be about community and cooperation. As for the conflict parts, I play with in-game rationales so there is no difference between PvE and PvP. THe sole purpose of any conflict is to help build a stronger community.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For me at least it will be about community and cooperation. As for the conflict parts, I play with in-game rationales so there is no difference between PvE and PvP. THe sole purpose of any conflict is to help build a stronger community.
Right there with you. This is why I'll be playing as well. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This game is about competition.
Competition, to me, is neither relaxing nor fun. It's a quite-unpleasant, but major, part of everyday life, so after dealing with that I need escape.
I hope for, and plan to make, plenty of space in-game for cooperation and even altruism.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would hope that we would discourage this same a@*@&%*ry among existing members, just as I would hope to extend existing members the same good will and respect that we extend new posters.
I completely agree. And if you go back to the thread that includes the quotes from Bluddwolf and Xeen, you'll see me being very respectful of Bluddwolf, and trying gently to remind him to be respectful of new posters a number of times. I think it's also clear that I've been respectful of him in this thread. I am not attacking him, calling him names, or mocking him. I am holding him to a standard that I would hope others would hold me to. In fact, others have, and in general I've been very receptive of hearing it. I know I'm not perfect, and I'm not trying to hold myself up as the exemplar of behavior on these forums. All I'm trying to do is get the community to rally around the principle that certain forms of behavior are - literally - "unacceptable". If we turn around and accept that behavior because we happen to like the person doing it, or we think "it wasn't that bad", then we've de facto made it "acceptable".
The only noticeable difference I see from our exchange on this topic is that your posts have been focused on the community's treatment of new posters, whereas I am hoping we are extending our desire and expectation for mutual respect to the existing community as well...
What you're proposing is completely admirable, and I think it ranks right up there with Harad Navar's truly excellent post as something we can aspire to for ourselves. Self-restraint, resolving to respect and treat with civility everyone on these forums - these are admirable, noble, and something I think we should all aspire to.
However, that is inward-focused, and no amount of making ourselves better will actually do anything to stop others from being abusive to new posters, and driving them away from the game. I'm focusing on that because that's the Big Bad Thing that actually happened, and because there's a Very Bright Line about it with Ryan explicitly admonishing us "Don't use the term 'Care Bear'; Dont' encourage people to leave".
Bluddwolf is mostly civil, and I'm not trying to make this all about him, but he's the one who keeps coming back in and insisting that there's nothing wrong with what he did. I think if you look back through that thread, you'll see a number of people trying very hard to gently encourage better treatment of Realmwalker, and that was completely ignored and eventually resulted in (for these boards) epic rudeness. I believe the latter was a result of intransigence in the face of the former.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think it is highly wrong to say that with that kind of a situation that PFO is anything but as Bluddwolf called it, an open world PvP game.
No one is arguing that PFO isn't an Open World PvP game. No one is arguing that players won't be attacked and killed against their will. No one is arguing that this isn't an integral part of the game design.
No one is even arguing that you and Bluddwolf shouldn't make clear to new posters that they understand that PFO is all of those things.
We're just repeating the exact same points Ryan Dancey has made again and again, that PvP in PFO will be different than it is in other Open PvP games, because the PvP will have consequences.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So I feel Bluddwolf was right in telling Realmwalker that this wasn't the game for him. If anyone is dead set against PvP this isn't the game for them.
Realmwalker wasn't "dead set" against PvP. He was "dead set" against the kind of PvP he's experienced in other games. PFO will be different.
In addition, Ryan Dancey has explicitly asked us not to encourage people to leave. So, please, don't do that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Because as everyone seems to deliberately ignore here the clarification that the dude in question is even willing to try PFO and the change to a milder construction of his concerns came later.
Here is Realmwalker's very first post in the thread:
After reading this forum, the level of PVP that is going to be used means I am highly unlikely to support it, play it or spend money on it. Many of my friends feel the same way. Unless there is a way to flag or unflag PVP or at least set up "no PVP" servers then it is a deal breaker to me. Not every one enjoys PVP and most of the time I have played in mmo's that included it out there that , no matter what the level difference, . Most of the time ruin the fun I have when in a mmo.
There was an opportunity to explain to Realmwalker that "these types of players" .
At least, they won't be tolerated if we're able to rally the community to actually be intolerant of them, which is what Ryan has clearly expressed he wants us to do.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There will be PvP and unless you never leave the big NPC cities you will have to deal with it.
And that's a great thing to tell them.
But hiding the fact that Ryan is building a game explicitly designed to drive away Griefers is just as bad as hiding the fact that there will be PvP and you will have to deal with it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This seems an accurate observation.That said, I've read this thread and your replies in other threads when asked about this one. Here is my question - what exactly do you mean "Building a Community"?Based on his extensive posting history it seems clear to me he is not talking about a community in the sense of buildings and people, but in the sense of a PFO "shared sense of belonging, goals, and wish to see this game succeed" for PLAYERS to work together against those who wish to "destroy everything and watch the world burn", which RD warned us is out there and will make there presence felt.
Quite so, and my apologies to George Velez for not acknowledging that sooner.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If Goonswarm gave a rat's arse about these forums, don't you think they would be here by now? If they were I'd bet they'd be encouraging everyone to say and do exactly what the OP is calling for. The Goons would just love to find a non PvP oriented server of sheep to slaughter.
I'm not at all convinced that they're not already here.
I do not for one second believe that Goonswarm or any similarly motivated organization would attempt to rally the community to be intolerant of a$@@!&+s. If I were going to hazard a guess as to their tactics, I expect they would be more the Wolves in Sheeps' Clothing types, trying to ingratiate themselves to the community in order gain access and make their eventual betrayal that much sweeter.
You continually insist that the only alternative to a server full of a##~+&+s is a server full of sheep for the slaughter. This flies in the face of everything Ryan has said he's trying to do here.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Right there with you. This is why I'll be playing as well. :)
For me at least it will be about community and cooperation. As for the conflict parts, I play with in-game rationales so there is no difference between PvE and PvP. THe sole purpose of any conflict is to help build a stronger community.
To strengthen my position, I would be excited for PfO even with zero PvP elements, for instance if all combat was like crafting, done through NPC cohorts (read NPC formations), and the game contained all other aspects already discussed except for PvP content...I would be very excited about that game.
Were GW to remove the cooperative nation building aspects, I would not be.
Were GW to remove the social engineering aspects, I probably would not be.
Etc...
Don't get me wrong, I am very excited for the PvP aspects too, especially the use of formations. However, these things are not necessary or sufficient for me to enjoy a game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That is exactly what I intended.
The "goons" live "outside the game". They are very experienced in living there. They have developed communications and social connections that give them an advantage that has nothing to do with the context of the game. It is one of their strengths and they use that greatly to their advantage. They know and exploit that territory very well, have the high ground so to speak, while we don't because we are not goons.This seems to me to be an exceptionally insightful and relevant analysis.
Why are you proposing to confront them where they are strongest?
You fight your enemy not where they have their strengths, but where they have weaknesses.
An excellent question. My answer would be a variant of the dictum "You go to War with the Army you have, not the Army you would like to have."
In other words, this is a hill worth dying for.
I think that it makes more sense to build an "in-game" (IC) mechanic to oppose the player behavior you describe in the opening.That would require me to surrender this territory to them here and now. As Ryan stated, the community is it's best defense. If we are intolerant of the type of personal behavior we can expect from them, and if we can rally the community to stand together on that principle, then we stand a chance. If instead we allow them (or others) to turn these boards into something awful, something toxic, something unwelcoming and uninspiring, then we won't have anyone to join us once we fight them in-game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Third, Bluddwolf, I believe you may be mixing two different topics - how we treat new posters and how we prepare, as a community, for an influx of game destroying jerks. Though I and several others misunderstood Nihimon's original intent with this thread, he has clarified it as being about the former - how we treat new posters. The discussion of Ryan's advice/warnings dealing with the latter could probably be better served in AvenaOats' "Confederation of Communities" thread or in a new thread if you feel it warrants one.
The two are inextricably linked.
If we develop standards of behavior that are intolerant of treating new posters like crap and telling them to take a hike, then we are at the same time developing standards of behavior that make the community resistant to manipulation by a#$%##@s (goons or otherwise).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't get me wrong, I am very excited for the PvP aspects too, especially the use of formations. However, these things are not necessary or sufficient for me to enjoy a game.
To clarify my own position, though I hope to have my character live in a game where there is community and cooperation and, as Jazzlvraz put it, "even altruism", that does not mean I wish the game to be one giant kumbaya experience. I wish to have Hobs exist in a fully realized and realistic fantasy world, which includes all the harsher bits that attract those who will play for competition, PvP, etc.
If the game does not include the challenges and hardships for which cooperation is needed to overcome, then there is little need for cooperation. We have seen this trend often enough in theme park games.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While PFO is not a 100% PvP or die game, to downplay or try and say that PvP isn't the main thrust of the game is misleading. It seems more and more the main thrusts of the game (like the territory control and the ability to attack anyone especially if you don't care about flags) are PvP focused. Now we also have the games designers saying that while yes there will be PvE quests and elements, they going to be limited. You want to mine the best ores? Go out far away from all the safe zones and mine it.... but you can get ganked by anyone who wanders by weather you like it or not.
Unless you stay in the starting towns you cannot avoid it. I think it is highly wrong to say that with that kind of a situation that PFO is anything but as Bluddwolf called it, an open world PvP game.
There also exist a great many PwP (Player with Player) aspects to the game as well. Even without any wars at all, a settlement will not thrive without multiple participants working together to contribute to a greater whole project.
PvP adds an element of competition to the game. But everyone focuses on that so much that the huge cooperative foundation of the game is basically ignored outside of 'We need to fight in groups to prevent being easy targets.'
The name of the game is Player Interaction. Both cooperative (non-PvP) and competitive (PvP).
When you call it a PvP game, you are practically claiming that it is the only way to approach the game, which is just untrue. I fully understand that PvP will come upon me even if I do not wish for it. But that does not mean I am playing the game incorrectly if I do my best to avoid those scenarios.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That is exactly what I intended.Then indead I am talking oranges to your apples.
I think that it makes more sense to build an "in-game" (IC) mechanic to oppose the player behavior you describe in the opening.That would require me to surrender this territory to them here and now. As Ryan stated, the community is it's best defense. If we are intolerant of the type of personal behavior we can expect from them, and if we can rally the community to stand together on that principle, then we stand a chance. If instead we allow them (or others) to turn these boards into something awful, something toxic, something unwelcoming and uninspiring, then we won't have anyone to join us once we fight them in-game.
I concur that a civil "advise and consent" attitude here on the boards would be beneficial to open debate. I also think that text communication is not the most helpful in keeping a civil mindset. As others have suggested I think a verbal dialog would be better in doing that. Face to face, although highly impractical here, would be even better still. I suggest that improving the community here on the boards may require techniques other than the boards themselves. Many times I find that I am well served by speaking my thoughts rather than writing them. Hearing them rather than writing them gives me a better chance to see for myself that they may not be the best of ideas, or that I am not presenting them in the best of ways.
I support the use of things like the PFOfan TS venue.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
@Nihimon and @Andius, allow me to approach this from another angle. From the OP:But there's something else that's even more important, and that's defining and defending the standards of behavior that will keep this community from devolving into a toxic wasteland like most other Open PvP games.I consider this to be an "outside the game" approach. By that I mean approaching the players directly (OOC) about their play style rather that the characters actions (IC) within the context of the game. If this is not what you intended then the following may not be relevant.
The "goons" live "outside the game". They are very experienced in living there. They have developed communications and social connections that give them an advantage that has nothing to do with the context of the game. It is one of their strengths and they use that greatly to their advantage. They know and exploit that territory very well, have the high ground so to speak, while we don't because we are not goons.
Why are you proposing to confront them where they are strongest?
We fight the enemy where they are, not where we wish they were. They will attack where they have the advantage, and we cannot decline to defend there. We also have a counter to their experience and connections if we want to win more than they do, because will to win is the only significant resource in that field.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Then indead I am talking oranges to your apples.
Hrm, I thought I was affirming that we were talking apples to apples.
I suggest that improving the community here on the boards may require techniques other than the boards themselves.
...
I support the use of things like the PFOfan TS venue.
That's probably a very good suggestion, although I must say I find comfort in having a written record to reference, so that neither party can get away with pretending they didn't say something they clearly said.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My thoughts on communal behavior:
I have worked in the retail industry for over 12 years. I have learned from dealing with the public that there are folks who joys to be around and others that have you thinking of ways to maul, mug and mutilate them. There will be those who will come to our forum and cause mayhem either deliberately or through ignorance.
How should react to those who come in making demand of the way they want the game to be? It does not matter what game stopper feature they either need or do not need in the game is One of the problems we face so far is that there so little information and what we have will likely changed between now and EE and between EE and OE. It only human nature to try to fill in the gap from our own point of view, history and expectations, we are like the blind men describing an elephant. While each from their perspective is correct the image of the whole only the developers can say what it will be like. Luckily Ryan has given us two good posts on what the community at large should expect from the game and what those who wish to build settlements should expect. I believe if we use those two posts we will count down on a lot of the arguing about what the game is or is not. I think it will be easier to describe what the game will be as more information is out.
How should we treat those who fall under the label of a@*#$%~s and help influence them to have a better approach to our community?"
I know how I will the same way I deal with any difficult customers. I believe the saying is to kill them with kindness. Treat them like any other poster there is no need to judge, categorize or label them. No need to tell them the game is not for them but instead explain what they can expect from the game and what the developers expect from the community. I believe the best way to do this is with the developers own words.
Do I feel we as a community need to decide what exactly counts as a@*#$%~s remark? In most forums that is the job of the forums moderator or developer of the game. We do have a forum mod, I hope? I believe we should be polite to even those who do not deserve it even those who are of a@*#$%~s and let the developers or forum mods deicide on when to step in and tell the offending forum poster to go. I believe if we treat each other as we wished to be treated we will be on the right road to keeping the atmosphere nontoxic here.
Well there is my 2 copper worth..
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I believe we should be polite to even those who do not deserve it even those who are of a@*#$%~s...
I completely agree.
... the attitude that causing pain to another person is acceptable won't be tolerated.
What I really want to see happen is that members of the community... will reach out to players who come in with that attitude and help influence them to have a better approach to our community.
I think that quote is extremely important, and I hope I live up to Ryan's expectations in that regard.
It's not just about making new posters feel welcome, and being intolerant of a@+~%#!s. It's also about finding a way to reach the people who have a fundamentally different outlook to PvP than we have, and trying to draw them into this community's outlook on PvP - non-toxic, non-abusive, and above all meaningful.
I don't mean to pick on Bluddwolf, but he is the most vocal in defending his actions, and in drawing support from others to defend his actions. Nothing would please me more than to convince him that simply calling someone a "care bear" or telling them "this isn't the game for you" is unacceptable.
But there's something else that I think needs to be addressed, especially in the context of giving new posters an accurate and non-misleading idea of what Pathfinder Online will really be like.
As I've already pointed out, there were a number of people who were engaging Realmwalker in a positive way, trying to convey the same message that Ryan has conveyed to us, that PvP will be fundamentally different in PFO because griefers won't be tolerated.
But the truth is that Bluddwolf wasn't simply presenting another point of view. He was actively attacking the idea that "PFO will be secure from the griefing, unwanted PVP that you may have experienced in other MMOs". Obviously, it won't be 100% secure. But it is Ryan's intention, and I hope this Community's intention, to make it as secure as possible from those things.
@ Realwalker
It seems there are a few here that are comfortable to try to convince you that your experience in PFO will be secure from the griefing, unwanted PVP that you may have experienced in other MMOs.
If you read the provided links, I'm sure you will be convinced that your fears will be assuaged and you will be able to play in PFO with virtually no unwanted PVP.
Oh, and don't worry about needing a PVE Only server, the few here can guarantee you will never be forced into unwanted PVP.
As a matter of fact, when the next Kickstater is offered, you should kick in as much as you can, because PFo will offer you everything you were never able to get from those other MMOs.
Wow, you guys were right, that feels so much better....
This was the first post of Bluddwolf's in that thread that I directly challenged him on, and I am confident that I did so in a "gentle reminder" way, rather than as an aggressive attack. And you'll also notice that I didn't harp on it after Bluddwolf said he'd moved on from it.
Again, I'm not trying to pick on Bluddwolf. I am happy he's a part of this community, and I hope he stays and contributes meaningful content for everyone.
But I also thinks it's vital that we acknowledge that this is not acceptable, and that we try - in whatever way each of us individually can - to convince everyone to avoid this kind of behavior.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If a person trying the game is killed over and over in the starting area, whether the perpetrator is subsequently killed by Marshalls or not, the system is broken. If a crafter can gather expensive resources with impunity, the system is broken. If a low-rep, chaotic evil bozo can't get access to rogue, barbarian or cleric of Lamashtu training, the system is broken. If some Flags checkmate other Flags, the system is broken. What needs to be explained is that player conflict will be generally and ultimately unavoidable; ganking will be rife in many situations. Griefing will be severely marginalized but not, as Mr. Dancey has stated, gotten rid of because you just can't do it. The line between the two (ganking/griefing) is what we're really talking about here. It will indeed be a challenge to form a community that knows the difference. My lawful evil settlement can certainly make a truce with your good one to fend off the barbarian horde whatever they call themselves-that's called content. Now, if Lord Sepherum, He Who is Soaked in Whiskey, sees some powerful goons corpse camping resource gatherers just out of reach of the Marshalls, He just might stop to dance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Bluddwolf. Ryan's reply that Nihimon keeps quoting had nothing to do with Goons. It was actually directed at an established member of the community who had lost their temper and should have stepped out of the debate:
The pie-in-the-sky goals of for this PvP plan are a gedanken experiment. If it could be done, it would have been done already.It has been. If what you mean is a successful single sever non-consent based PVP MMO. Darkfall was also quite successful if you consider how many problems there are with that game in terms of bugs, balance issues, lack of dev oversight or ANY effort made to restrict griefing (Or even macroing and hacking), the fact it was made by a tiny basement company, misses every release date by years, and it's unholy grind.
Bye.
I'm going to go remove my pledge. This design plan sounds worse every time I read about it.
--------------------------------------
Bye.Thank you for making my case.I have simply lost my patience for carebears coming in here, throwing temper tantrums, and then loudly announcing they are leaving.
Most of this games current fan-base would leave if your demands were met. Or they would produce a watered down version of their vision neither side would be happy with.
GoblinWorks and this community are bending over backwards to ensure this game won't be a gankfest. I offer training on survival to everyone I see expressing reservations about the PVP rather than crocodile tears and dramatic "I quit" posts.
You aren't getting what you want so you are leaving? Fine. Nobody cares. Just quit the drama and go.
--------------------------------------
@All - lets not use the term carebear.
@All - lets not tell people to leave, encourage them to do so, or thank them for leaving.
PvP rises strong emotions because its the original sin of Ultima Online, and no MMO has really spent the time and effort to figure out a good resolution. I think we have the history and the experience to be the game that does so. But it's a legit issue to say "why should I trust you". A lot of hearts have been broken.
So, tread lightly, and do no more harm to the cause.
Here's the link the the whole debate.
i really like and support ur idea of "be patient and tell them why this can be diferent and be ur game", but we must be also realistic a and honest with them. Their playstyle may be viable but they have to accept one way or another the open PvP to avoid future frustations.
Realmwalker wrote:
Unless there is a way to flag or unflag PVP or at least set up "no PVP" servers then it is a deal breaker to me.we all know this prolly isnt happening.
No, that isn't going to happen, but they would not be the first person to come into the community making statement's like that, who was convinced to rethink their position based off nothing but facts.
This isn't the most extreme example, and the individual is actually very reasonable, but it's the only one I could remember their name / which topic it happened in. Mainly because this person is now a TEO member.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Nihimon,
I can't clip that post above, it is too large....
That quote of mine, I see you obviously missed the rhetorical sarcasm in what I wrote. I sometimes forget that sarcasm is lost in translation, or there could be other reasons why the written word and its intent is lost. As a matter of fact it was really not even addressed to @Realmwalker, or at least not meant for his consumption. That is another advanced document analysis tool that a reader uses to descern if a document was meant to be received and consumed by the same party. Perfect example, the American, Declaration of Independence, was never meant for the King of England to actually read. It was meant for local, colonial consumption.
I know it might upset you that some have come in here and supported, even partially, my point of view. I was hoping we could settle on a draw, but you can't let go......I knew you would have to respond and "set them straight."
I will grant you the win, you so desperately seem to need. You have Won!!! There is no need for us to continue this back and forth. I'm sure you will but I give you permission to post this.....
@ Nihimon, You Have Won"
.... You can make that your sig. On the internetz.
Lol.... Yah I can be an evil, sarcastic bast..d..... Can we move along now?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What I get from reading Hobbun's posts is that we really should have a clear description of 'sandbox' as we want it to find expression in PFO.
It should be something we can say clearly, a statement that might describe the crippling effect of PvE-only rules on multiplayer role play, and underscore the measures that will have to be implemented in order to make a multiplayer RPG-without-behavioral-borders actually work in the internet environment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I see you obviously missed the rhetorical sarcasm in what I wrote.
Not at all. In fact, it was the sarcasm that made it obvious you were attacking the idea.
... it was really not even addressed to @Realmwalker...
I didn't imply that it was addressed to Realmwalker. I stated clearly that you were '... actively attacking the idea that "PFO will be secure from the griefing, unwanted PVP that you may have experienced in other MMOs".' That idea, by the way - the idea that you attacked - is one of the fundamental ideas about PFO, that Ryan has been pushing from the beginning.
I know it might upset you that some have come in here and supported, even partially, my point of view.
Not really. As I tried to make clear, I'm glad you're here. There are some things you say that I wholeheartedly support. My objections are to the support for the idea that it's okay to attack or dismiss new posters because they've had bad experiences with PvP in other games, and to the support for your attempt to attack the people who were trying to echo Ryan's message about why PvP in PFO will be different.
Can we move along now?
Will you acknowledge that what you did is wrong, and that as a community we should consider it unacceptable? And I mean sincerely acknowledge that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think I have a better handle on the new player issue now.
@All - lets not use the term carebear.
Seems pretty cut and dry. I don't find the term nearly as insulting but my opinion, and really no one else's really matters in this regard. I agree a hundred percent with Nihimon on this issue. We have been asked by a member of the GW staff to stop using the term. Everyone should agree on that point now.
@All - lets not tell people to leave, encourage them to do so, or thank them for leaving.
I notice this statement isn't conditional. Until it is I would take it at face value. No matter if the person wants no pvp, or pvp with no mechanical consequences telling someone to leave this game alone should be avoided.
Regardless of the extreme being presented, if you can't add constructive posts it is probably a good time to leave the thread alone. Seventh Veil and especially TEO have offered some level of insulation from exposure to pvp elements to such members in the past. While I don't think complete insulation is possible, I think such offers are constructive first steps and opens the possibility to teach new players the realities of sandbox pvp in a friendly atmosphere.
I would say in turn, when presented with someone who desires free reign to kill as they will be presented with the same level of consideration. Steer them from their current point towards the areas where they can engage in pvp (more competitive pvp at that) through avenues like bounty hunting, banditry, etc. UnNamed could be a good home for them, if they can be content to work outside of the starting areas where the rewards are higher.
That won't sway a true prick, but then again telling them to not play this game won't either.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hrm, I thought I was affirming that we were talking apples to apples.
Ah, ha. You are right, I did misread your comment. However, I do believe that my "oranges" would be a technique for EE and after while your "apples" would be a technique to be applied now.
That's probably a very good suggestion, although I must say I find comfort in having a written record to reference, so that neither party can get away with pretending they didn't say something they clearly said.
My support of the PFOfan TS venue was to assist in developing direct player-to-player connectedness which would foster the use of civil discourse. My times in that venue have enhanced my appreciation of posters as people in real life.
We fight the enemy where they are, not where we wish they were. They will attack where they have the advantage, and we cannot decline to defend there. We also have a counter to their experience and connections if we want to win more than they do, because will to win is the only significant resource in that field.
I may be misinterpreting your comment and also my concept of the fight may be a little skewed. As I see it, the fight will occur in PFO. The goons have techniques (out-of-game communications, long experience operating together, a well established social network, etc.) which gives them an advantage in the fight. The community attitude as I see it described in this thread would give us an advantage in the fight. Who can say if these advantages will have parody. They may try to play assassin here on the boards to cause dissension, but that is just another technique to gain advantage. My recommendation for an "in-game" mechanic built on game lore and story context is also just another technique to gain advantage rather than an actual arena for conflict itself. It is more along the lines of "why" rather than "how". I think this contextual motivation would gain us an advantage in a way that the goons, by their very nature, could not make for themselves. We will, of course, have to apply that advantage where ever conflict occurs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... we really should have a clear description of 'sandbox' as we want it to find expression in PFO.
That's a tall order. I linked AvenaOats' post on the subject of PvP, but there's so much to say and the design is still being worked on, so changes are inevitable.
I think what we really need is the freedom to make the case in the moment. And the support from the community that is necessary in order to redirect the forces that would attempt to silence or shout down that case.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You fight your enemy not where they have their strengths, but where they have weaknesses. I may be naive but I see them as having two large weaknesses: one, they will be (I hope) only a small percentage of the expected PFO population, and two, they have no interest in the context of the game, only in wreaking havoc on the game.
I think that it makes more sense to build an "in-game" (IC) mechanic to oppose the player behavior you describe in the opening.
1) Would not the paladins of Ioemeda want to defend the realms against a "spawn of Rovagug" type ravaging hoard trying to lay waste to settlements and sweep all from their path? Would they not try to rally the people to join them in this fight, to follow their code of ethics and stem the tide of evil?
2) Would not the leaders of the bandit groups take great umbrage at those who want to drive a stake through the heart of the very settlements they are hoping to slowly drain over years? Would they not try to disrupt and hinder that hoard at every turn.
3) Would not the clerics of Abadar see the destruction of settlements as being a direct attack on what their god stands for? Would they not want to inspire the leaders and the people of those settlement to follow the principles of civilization to resist this cancer of behavior?
4) Would not the 36th Order want to resist those who are depriving people of the means to walk the path to the enlightened perfection of their god Irori? Would they not want to see a change in the behavior of these harbingers so that they may be given the mercy of Sarenrae?I think that if we offer that vast majority of players the opportunity to be part of something greater within the context of the game, to offer them a chance to not feel like they are nothing more than the collateral damage of the behavior of these interlopers, then we will have that community you seek.
I'm extremely curious now. How do you believe that what you just proposed differs from the Treaty of Rovagug? As far as I'm concerned you just described it's intent to the letter.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Dak, thank you. From the very bottom of my battle-weary heart, thank you.
I struggled honestly for a reply that was true to my opinion (for clarity I do not lead or represent an organization) while still being constructive.
I had feared that my addition and agreeaing with Bludd on also not stating "go home" to fans of non consequential pvp might negate everything else I said in some eyes. I am glad that fear in unfounded.
Also to be fair, I think the apolagy part of your sheep dogging is probably non constructive. Agreeing to not participate in non constructive comments should be sufficient. We should not be looking for personal wins here, but how we can move forward as a community less venomously.
We will disagree on many issues, and have. If we can agree as a whole to avoid certain language we can at least hope to continue to disagree constructively.
Also as a nerdy side note, I am deliberately avoiding using the word griefer, not because it is also considered a derogatory term, but because it means different things to different people.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Also to be fair, I think the apolagy part of your sheep dogging is probably non constructive.
Well, to be fair, I didn't call for an apology. I called for an acknowledgement. Given his prior insistence that what he did was right, and that he'd gladly do it again, I don't think that request is out of line.
Agreeing to not participate in non constructive comments should be sufficient.
And it would be, in my eyes anyway. I am happy to leave open a face-saving exit, but "I'd do it again" doesn't cut it. Nor does a hyper-sarcastic "You win".
I'm not here for a personal win. Quite the contrary, I'm well aware that my insistence on not letting this go has lowered my Reputation among quite a few neutral parties. I regret that, but I believe the end result is worth the cost.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...I believe the end result is worth the cost.I'm uncertain of that, as any such acknowledgement, or other statement, may be worded "properly", or "sincerely", without, given that this is teh Innerwebz, containing either meaning, truth, or value.
I was referring to the end result (hopefully) that the community will present a united front against such behavior in the future, rather than the end state of any acknowledgement from anyone involved.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Will you acknowledge that what you did is wrong, and that as a community we should consider it unacceptable? And I mean sincerely acknowledge that.
Absolutely not. You can learn to deal with that or not. I gave the individual my honest opinion. I do not have to apologize for that.
You have to learn that you are not the "community", only one voice of it. You do not even have consensus on this thread, which I know upsets you to no end. Especially since the individuals that have stood up for my position (in some cases partially) actually have no connection to me in any way. It is for this latter point that I appreciate their speaking up even more.
I suggest again, we leave this as an irreconcilable difference of opinion , and we move along. Can we perhaps try this?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also to be fair, I think the apolagy part of your sheep dogging is probably non constructive.Well, to be fair, I didn't call for an apology. I called for an acknowledgement. Given his prior insistence that what he did was right, and that he'd gladly do it again, I don't think that request is out of line.
Agreeing to not participate in non constructive comments should be sufficient.And it would be, in my eyes anyway. I am happy to leave open a face-saving exit, but "I'd do it again" doesn't cut it. Nor does a hyper-sarcastic "You win".
I'm not here for a personal win. Quite the contrary, I'm well aware that my insistence on not letting this go has lowered my Reputation among quite a few neutral parties. I regret that, but I believe the end result is worth the cost.
I looked back, you never used the word apology that I could find. I just read into it when it was not there.
Moving forward can everyone agree to not engage in these two requests?
@All - lets not use the term carebear.
If you have used the word carebear before, can you agree not to do so moving forward?
@All - lets not tell people to leave, encourage them to do so, or thank them for leaving.
If you have ever told someone (anyone) to leave the game, can you agree not to do so moving forward?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Absolutely not. You can learn to deal with that or not.
I will deal with it in my own way, I'm sure.
I gave the individual my honest opinion. I do not have to apologize for that.
I'm not asking you to apologize for giving your opinion. I'm asking you to acknowledge that it was wrong to ridicule and mock those of us who were trying to constructively engage him. I'd settle for having someone unrelated to T7V or TEO back me up on that.
But even if I'm walking down that dusty street all alone, watching the shopkeepers and townsfolk shutter their windows and close their doors, I'll keep opposing that kind of behavior.