Goblin Squad Member
|
If someone quite clearly and in a final fashion states that A, B and C would make a game not fun and I identify PFO as having A, B and C as described by this someone, may I present my conclusion that this someone will in fact, by my estimates, not have fun playing PFO?
You may do whatever you want.
I would ask you to read the entirety of the post, and be open to the possibility that the poster's concerns can be addressed.
I will oppose you if you choose to attack the people who are attempting to address those concerns.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If someone quite clearly and in a final fashion states that A, B and C would make a game not fun and I identify PFO as having A, B and C as described by this someone, may I present my conclusion that this someone will in fact, by my estimates, not have fun playing PFO?
That is a valid point. I sincerely doubt anyone will be completely insulated from the consequences of pvp.
It is really why I think the two requests are the agreeable aspect. I can agree to not call someone a carebear. I can agree to not tell people to leave the game, or thank them from doing so.
Letting them know that pvp will be a danger, that exploration will come with edge of your seat consequences in some regards, should be acceptable.
I hope no one is proposing it isn't.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If someone quite clearly and in a final fashion states that A, B and C would make a game not fun and I identify PFO as having A, B and C as described by this someone, may I present my conclusion that this someone will in fact, by my estimates, not have fun playing PFO?
The idea is to be constructive, not destructive.
For example, here are two different ways to go about it.
Destructive: "Well, the game has A, B, and C so live with it or go."
Constructive: "What is it that drew you to the game?" If you can get an answer... "If we take steps D and E to reduce your exposure to A, B, and C would you still find it enjoyable? We cannot promise that A, B, and C will not happen but if we work together we can minimize that exposure."
In the event of PvP, this includes pointing out the extra disincentives available for attacking unflagged characters (Reputation hit, Bounties, Death Curses, etc.) as well as potentially guiding the person towards organizations that are more willing to travel with and protect folks. Some of our groups will do it for a price. And I'm sure some of them will do it for free for other members or allies of their groups.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Letting them know that pvp will be a danger, that exploration will come with edge of your seat consequences in some regards, should be acceptable.
Absolutely!
Ideally, we'll all attempt to give them an honest picture of the game design.
Minimally, I think it's fair to demand that no one try to silence or shout down those attempts.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Letting them know that pvp will be a danger, that exploration will come with edge of your seat consequences in some regards, should be acceptable.Absolutely!
Ideally, we'll all attempt to give them an honest picture of the game design.
Minimally, I think it's fair to demand that no one try to silence or shout down those attempts.
Then I suppose it is important to identify what is considered shutting down.
If that is telling them to go home, or thanking them for doing so I can agree. It was asked of us by GW after all.
If it is disagreeing that any company will be able to make their members immune from pvp, I would disagree. Keep in mind I am not saying anyone has said that. It is just an example addition.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If it is disagreeing that any company will be able to make their members immune from pvp, I would disagree.
I'm with you on this one.
I even think it's acceptable to express your opinion that Goblinworks will fail in its stated desire to create a game free of toxic douchebaggery.
... it is important to identify what is considered shutting down.
Do you agree that this statement from Bluddwolf qualifies?
@ 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....
Not only did he try to make the case that the posts we were trying to show Realmwalker were deceptive, he completely twisted our argument from "PvP in PFO will be different" to "you won't be exposed to PvP".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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,...
to add something to that and as he is still doing it, bludd was alwaays focusing on parts of Realmwalkers post, never recognising the whole post, even when the points he overlooked were quoted to him.
if i would to the same, and please sess this as it is intended, as an example, i would focus on this post...
There is no "just leave"..... Even if you destroy all of your items, before the SAD is issued, and we inspect your inventory and see you are naked. We will assume you cheated us out of our SAD and accept the Attacker Flag; the CE alignment shift; and the Reputation hit when we kill you! Then take screen shots or Fraps of ourselves tea bagging your corpse and post them on our forums for the Lolz!!If push comes to shove, we will be chaotic evil and low rep for that specific event and thank you for the meaningful interaction. You may not see the meaning through your tears, but we will.
Oh and before you say that is griefing or RPKing, it's not! It is well within the behaviors we want to see, that the Devs have laid out.
and before someone points that out.
yes, i know that he said afterwards that he was just making a point, but if i keep quoting just this what would someone think who doesn´t know the whole story?
also, i think the fact that realmwalker did not leave but read about the game shows that bludd and others misjudged him.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I suggest again, we leave this as an irreconcilable difference of opinion , and we move along. Can we perhaps try this?
Are you prepared to acknowledge that honest people believe that your actions are unacceptable, and respect us as individuals even as we try to either change your mind or remove you from the community?
Because I'm convinced that you have acted and stated the intent to act in a manner incompatible with a good community.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Gedichtewicht, I was going to take issue with your quoting an unrelated post from Bluddwolf, but that was because I didn't immediately understand the point you were making.
I think you're absolutely right that, if we fixate on one statement and completely ignore the rest of the context, we can use that to justify bad behavior.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is a highly sarcastic answer, I can give you that.
I am not interested in community policing sarcasm, or even meanness. We have all been guilty of it as we have posted in the past. The fact that the target in this case is a new interested player does not make it any better or worse in my eyes.
The anti open pvp call is one we have had on these forums every so often, but added up over the time we have been here we have seen it many times. We will see it many more. I can understand being frustrated that it keeps coming up. I have been as well. I have also posted things under frustration instead of sticking with points.
To be honest, I am not personally concerned with forum policing. I can agree to reasonable requests from forum mods. It seems like pretty good logic to accept the request and avoid the moderation.
In this case it is the two requests by Ryan. I don't mind looking for people to agree with that. They can accept that or not, as they wish. We certainly don't have the forum powers to moderate them ourselves.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no evidence that PVP will be different in PFO. There may be a desire for it to be different, but no implementation of that desire has ever been successful.
Even if the reputation system is strictly enforced, no one has said what the consequences are for hitting -7500.
Even if they temporarily ban the character or even the account. There is no impact on a separate character and certainly not to another account.
There is not even a uniform definition of griefing, and even GW has not set a hard definition for PFO.
So to tell anyone that PVP in PFO WILL be different is pure speculation, on even the Devs part it is. They won't know until OE, what the nature of PVP will be.
I wrote the above post, dripping with sarcasm, because I felt you were doing realmwalker a disservice. You were selling him a bill of goods that you, nor even the devs can deliver on... yet, or perhaps, ever.
It is kind of like giving someone stock advice. If they buy it on your advice, and they lose, are you going to pay them back? No, you are going to walk away and say, well I didn't force him to buy it.
I hope that Realmwalker does try the game, on your advice. I hope for his sake that you are right about everything you said. I know right or wrong, my advice will have cost him nothing. If you're wrong, and PFO does turn into a game that it is no different than the other PVP MMOs, and he quits, will you have the integrity to apologize to him?
I hope Realmwalker joins the Seventh Veil, so you can look out for him.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you're wrong, and PFO does turn into a game that it is no different than the other PVP MMOs...
That's a real danger. Ryan has acknowledged it. Pointing that out is a good thing.
Pointing out that we - the community - will have a lot to do with whether or not that happens is also a good thing.
As Ryan has said, if we succeed in creating a community that is "intolerant of a*$~~##s", the "anonymous a&!!%*&s of teh interwebz" will go somewhere else to satisfy their sociopathic impulses.
Ultimately, whether we think we will succeed in creating a different kind of Open PvP, or whether we think we will fail, we're going to be right.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I suggest again, we leave this as an irreconcilable difference of opinion , and we move along. Can we perhaps try this?
Are you prepared to acknowledge that honest people believe that your actions are unacceptable, and respect us as individuals even as we try to either change your mind or remove you from the community?
Because I'm convinced that you have acted and stated the intent to act in a manner incompatible with a good community.
I have a difference of opinion, is that a bannable offense?
I posted the request already, can we move on?
drop the issue and I will not respond in this thread on it again. If you or Nihimon keep on pulling out quotes, that is not letting it go.
Let us have a moratorium on the subject..... let it goooo!
I will not mention the subject again....
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There is no evidence that PVP will be different in PFO.
Except for the entire plan laid out and every issue on the statement of alignment. There will be meaningful consequences for PVP outside some acceptable conditions, and the further outside those conditions you are, the harsher the consequences.
Other titles offer little to nothing in the way of those meaningful consequences. For instance in EVE, kills made in Null Sec don't even affect your security rating.
Because of this, we can say with confidence, that the issues of those games will in fact be less pronounced in PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is the "battle for the soul of this community" that I'm talking about.
On one side are the folks who support Ryan's vision of meaningful PvP, with meaningful consequences. That's the side that I want to win. That's the side that has to win in order for PFO to be a success.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Everyone is on this side.
I wish that were true.
It's clear to me that there are a number of people in this community who would be perfectly content if Ryan failed in his desire to make PvP in PFO different than in other games. It's also clear to me that there are people who are convinced he is going to fail, and they want to play in that failure.
That kinda creeps me out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is the "battle for the soul of this community" that I'm talking about.
On one side are the folks who support Ryan's vision of meaningful PvP, with meaningful consequences. That's the side that I want to win. That's the side that has to win in order for PFO to be a success.
Everyone is on this side.
What exactly is meaningful PvP and meaningful consequences , that is the question that separates people in different camps.
Exactly. Very few people feel that their personal desires for the game are outside the vision that has been laid out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm extremely curious now. How do you believe that what you just proposed differs from the Treaty of Rovagug?
What I proposed is essentially that each individual group can find game lore and game context reasons for a choice of action; for them to shout "No, I'm Spatragus!" It is a reason why, not a method how. It is not a treaty.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly. Very few people feel that their personal desires for the game are outside the vision that has been laid out.
Dude, you are my hero. So this ^^^. So ^^^ this. We all believe we are within what the devs envision as the game. That's why so many of us argue about who's right and who's wrong. We all feel our beliefs are in the spirit of what was envisioned with they started this whole thing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well I am firmly on the side of Ryan vision of meaningful PvP, with meaningful consequences. I believe that many who do not post on the forums are in our camp.
A thing to remember is we also have the developer on our side. I am sure Ryan will do everything in his power to make his vision a reality.
That is our strongest hope that he wants the game to have meaningful consequences. It is what set this game apart from other open world pvp games, where the developer either do not care or believe that toxic pvp is part of the game world.
We have groups who have stated they will protect those in the world from those who do not care about the consequences of their actions. This is another brick in the defense of meaning full pvp with consequences over pvp without.
What if this does not happen, we are all adults here, we have all read the blogs, or can be pointed to the blogs of what this game hopes to be. We should all be informed consumers and make up our own minds about if this is a game we wish to support. I think each of us can make the decision on if we wish to place our hard earned cash on this dream.
As for me I will place my trust in Ryan and this community, even if the game is more pvpish then I would wish.
There is so much this game has to offer to counter balance the pvp aspect that I have to take the chance it will be a game where pvp has meaningful consequences.
On a final note:
Exactly. Very few people feel that their personal desires for the game are outside the vision that has been laid out.
I hope this game will be inclusive enough that most every ones personal desires will be inside of the vision that is laid out.
ps hey I managed to do a quote does happy poster dance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Exactly. Very few people feel that their personal desires for the game are outside the vision that has been laid out.I hope this game will be inclusive enough that most every ones personal desires will be inside of the vision that is laid out.
The problem is some of those desires are mutually exclusive, so a balance has to be struck. PVE with overly effective safeguards against unwanted PVP vs. PVP with overly open license to destroy other people's game.
In a system where absolutely everything is ok, PVE, and even meaningful PVP suffers. In a system with massive amounts of solid "The game won't let you do this" restrictions, PVP is strangled.
There is a fine area somewhere in the middle that PVP actually enhances the PVE experience and PVE enhances the PVP experience. That's the balance we need to be seeking.
Most games before have either gone one way or the other. Seeking balance is part of what makes PFO unique.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Andius
I fully agree with what you say that is why I said most. I understand that some of those desires are mutually exclusive. I believe that we all have to work towards that fine area somewhere in the middle that PVP actually enhances the PVE experience and PVE enhances the PVP experience.
I know that I am fully willing as a non-pver to meet the pvper half way in that middle ground. I hope that the pvper will be willing to meet me there.
I hope that we as a community will be willing to work though the birthing pains of the game where that middle ground is not reached in the hopes that if we try hard enough and are willing to compromise it will be.
I hope that for those who do not wish to meet in the middle ground for those who come to wreck rather then create we as a community will meet them head on. That in game we use the tools we have to correct the error of their ways and as Vailla said we do have those tools.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Almost any restrictions the devs place in the game will be bypassed and many of them will actualy be used against your goals.
One of the many reasons it's so critically important for the community itself to censure certain behaviors, and even certain viewpoints (such as arguing that griefing is actually good for the game).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Everyone is on this side.I wish that were true.
It's clear to me that there are a number of people in this community who would be perfectly content if Ryan failed in his desire to make PvP in PFO different than in other games. It's also clear to me that there are people who are convinced he is going to fail, and they want to play in that failure.
That kinda creeps me out.
He *will* fail, mechanical restrictions are weak defence against human intellect.
Almost any restrictions the devs place in the game will be bypassed and many of them will actualy be used against your goals.
That's an incredibly cynical, and not highly realistic viewpoint. Yes, no matter what mechanics are set up to reduce and restrict abusive behaviors people will find a way around them.
Where your logic fails is that your argument assumes the way around them will not be consequential, and that the same number of people will use these loopholes as would have engaged in abusive behavior if no preventative measures were present. That is a demonstrably false assumption.
Players alone will not be able to prevent this community from becoming highly abusive if there is no effort from moderators and developers to implement programs that also reduce abuse as been shown by all other large scale unrestricted PVP titles. If developers implement mechanics that reduce abuse, moderators ban the most blatant abusers who the mechanics don't stop, and players mop up those who slip through the cracks, then you have a very good chance to have a non-abusive community.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think anybody here really feels that what they want is drastically different from what has been announced. The people who feel that way have all left to find what they want (along with some people who misunderstood what was being said).
We've all been self-selected for interest in the game that's been announced. That's at least some common ground, even if we have different opinions about what has been announced. Our similarities are orders of magnitude greater than our differences, but sometimes being so similar can drive the fiercest battles.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Spamming towns will not be an option. They are too labor intensive.
They are not saying characters will be hard to attack, they are saying there will be consequences for killing everyone on sight. Yes, you may have a company that is fiercely expansionistic, and that is in the purview of the game. A company that wants to kill every living thing that isn't a part of their company, the instant they see them? That is far more problematic and what they are trying to avoid.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Andius
I don't think you see the whole picture.
The rules apply to all, if devs make the towns hard to destroy for example your foes will just use it and spam towns .If the unflaged characters are hard to engage ,your enemies will use unflaged miners to steal your resources.
Abusive behavior can take many forms.
As Alex said settlement/structure spamming would cost a fortune.
The solution to unflagged miners is the ability to kick them out, without rep loss, in territory you own. If you don't own that territory, they aren't flagged, you aren't at war with them, and they aren't of an alignment you can use champions/enforcers to engage and you aren't willing to go outlaw... you're just going to have to deal with it. Or hire Blaeringr/Bluddwolf/Bloody Hand to deal with it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
you can use champions/enforcers to engage and you aren't willing to go outlaw... you're just going to have to deal with it. Or hire Blaeringr/Bluddwolf/Bloody Hand to deal with it.Exactly, player response. That's better than the mechanical one.
And players, mechanics, and moderators working together is better than any response on it's own.
A solution that attempts to rely fully on any one part won't work.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Players alone will not be able to prevent this community from becoming highly abusive if there is no effort from moderators and developers to implement programs that also reduce abuse as been shown by all other large scale unrestricted PVP titles. If developers implement mechanics that reduce abuse, moderators ban the most blatant abusers who the mechanics don't stop, and players mop up those who slip through the cracks, then you have a very good chance to have a non-abusive community.
If the moderators or developers don't have a mechanic that inhibits an action, by definition that action is not "abusive".
A player's perception of what is "abusive" is unique to him or her. This is why no one here will qualify what their definition is of:
Griefing
Care bear
Ganking
Fair
Meaningful
Unmeaningful
intolerant of a%~!%%$s
anonymous a$@!!!@s of teh interwebz
The Soul of the Community
Once these have a clear definition, that I agree with to a reasonable extent, then I will go onto this:
@ ALL Don't Tell People Not To Try the Game
@ ALL Don't Call Players Griefers, Care Bears, Gankers, or any other derogatory names.
@ ALL Don't Say any Alignment is Prone to be a%~!%%$s
@ All No Part of this Game Will Suck
@ All No More Requests for PVE Only Servers
@ All No More "Deal Breakers or I Quit Threads / Posts"
@ All No More I want to be a Griefer
@ All No More Mocking Players for wanting to Play Solo
@ All This is an Open World PVP MMO, where PvP can not be entirely avoided.
I am willing to follow these @ Alls, as my part of defending The Soul of the Community (once I get a definition of that).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the moderators or developers don't have a mechanic that inhibits an action, by definition that action is not "abusive".
Like you say, perceptions may vary on whether something is abusive or not. Some might find something totally reasonable when they're doing it to someone else, but abusive when its done to them.
But if the developers don't have a mechanic that inhibits an action, it just means that there isn't an in-game mechanic. The absence of code doesn't make an action abusive or not abusive; it's just an absence of code.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the moderators or developers don't have a mechanic that inhibits an action, by definition that action is not "abusive".Like you say, perceptions may vary on whether something is abusive or not. Some might find something totally reasonable when they're doing it to someone else, but abusive when its done to them.
But if the developers don't have a mechanic that inhibits an action, it just means that there isn't an in-game mechanic. The absence of code doesn't make an action abusive or not abusive; it's just an absence of code.
If you trust that the developers are working to limit abusive game play, and they do not code it, then you must assume they did not consider it to be abusive.
Example: CCP does not consider "NBSI" to be abusive in 0.0 space. However, in High sec space they you will get Concorded for the same activity.
In PFO, being at war, removes the negative consequences of non consensual PVP (on the individual level). You can kill the same enemy character, over and over again and it not be griefing, because you are at war.
Outside of war, that same activity may be considered griefing by a GM / Dev.
I trust the Programmers of PFO to code various game mechanics to limit actions that they consider abusive.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am lurker. Not all places are open for opinion to express. Keep that freedom close and enjoy. Do not forget freedom to say your heart is great freedom. Please do not ruin what you have. Do not make peoples movement to any to limit freedom to speak if board moderators do not stop it is allowed.
Bad things begin with most group that try to limit other persons freedom to speak with pressure of many.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I trust the Programmers of PFO to code various game mechanics to limit actions that they consider abusive.
This gets my hopes up pretty high:)
I am willing to follow these @ Alls, as my part of defending The Soul of the Community (once I get a definition of that).
I´ll ignore the more negativ(or is it merely sceptical, i wonder?) start of the post, because i want you to ask:
-do you acknoledge that is will take time to talk about and the willingness to comprise one all sides?-i really believe that we, as a community can define at least some of your points, if we are willing to listen to others arguments with an open mind.
But that means we have to find a middle ground.
And, for the record, i don´t mean to single you out bludd, but as you say yourself you are one of the most vocal/passionate pro-pvp people on the forum.
And i wouldn´t wonder if quiet a few people consider you to be their voice, even if you don´t presume that yourself.
so, would you be willing/interessted to talk about these points to find a middle ground?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bad things begin with most group that try to limit other persons freedom to speak with pressure of many.
Welcome Bravura Khan! Nice to hear a new voice in this discussion. I very much appreciate the opinion you share in your post, especially the reminder of the last part I quoted above. There are some current posters on this board who, at first glance of their initial posts, their tone, etc., I would have considered potentially "abusive" or at least rude. But over time, either they have changed in how they express their opinion, I have changed in my understanding of what they were expressing, or both. If the community had met them with an initial swift response of intolerance, we may have lost what turned out to be a very valuable member of the community.
And i wouldn´t wonder if quiet a few people consider you to be their voice, even if you don´t presume that yourself.
so, would you be willing/interessted to talk about these points to find a middle ground?
Exactly this. A willingness to make a personal effort, even beyond the limits of this board, to better understand another poster's position and find common ground. Your willingness to make such an effort to better understand a fellow poster and thereby expand your potential boundaries of what constitutes "the community" is admirable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Not all places are open for opinion to express. Keep that freedom close and enjoy. Do not forget freedom to say your heart is great freedom. Please do not ruin what you have.
Welcome, Bravura Khan, and thank you for your simple, clear reminders. Many times we take the most-basic things for granted, and fail to notice.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the moderators or developers don't have a mechanic that inhibits an action, by definition that action is not "abusive".
I do not believe this is consistent with Ryan's vision for the game. Much of what will count as "abusive" will be determined by Goblinworks - arbitrarily - in real time. This is part of what makes this game different; they won't be bound by delineated rules.
@ ALL Don't Say any Alignment is Prone to be a%~!%%$s
To the extent that this is Ryan's stated message, and to the extent that he hasn't given us clear instructions not to spread this message, I think it's perfectly reasonable to continue pointing it out, and will do so.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
do you acknowledge that is will take time to talk about and the willingness to comprise one all sides?
To understand my point of view, I should clarify a few of the definitions I work with:
Griefer: Someone who is high level and harvests noob characters, or repeatedly the same character, in the starter zone, or camping the respawn or corpse of their victim.
* Notice, I do not wonder about the motivation. Once you interject the question of motivation, you create the room for great argument. If you limit the declaration of griefing to just "What is being done" in very specific actions, then you will find that common ground definition.
Care Bear: Someone who agrees to play a game that has Open World PVP, and then complains that it happens to them and wants that "offense" to be considered abusive (excluding the Griefer, which is).
Or, someone who will not consider playing a game if there is no option to opt out of the PVP, and complains that the game should not be designed that way.
Ganker: The use of superior force or numbers to shift the risk vs. reward of an action to a more favorable result. Lowering risk and maintaining reward is the goal.
Example: I see two caravans. Both have 100 gold pieces worth of loot. One caravan has two guards, the other four guards. I attack the two guard caravan, and let the other pass. I have taken the easier target for the same reward. That is not cheating, griefing or unfair, it is just smart.
I don't have a definition for those other things myself. That was the point of putting them there, they are without an answer that is not subject to a vast range of opinions. I acknowledge that even my definitions above, can be disputed and legitimately so. I may be willing to add actions to them, but not take actions from them.
_______________________________________________________________________
Now to the apparent new focus of this thread, because it has changed from the OP to what is being discussed now. Or the issue has become confused, or at least in my mind it has..
If we are discussing the "Community" as in the "Forum Community" then I will start with this:
There has to be some acknowledgement that certain words or phrases trigger strong responses. There is also a difference between saying something is "like" and saying something "is".
So how do we treat each other on the forums?
When a new poster arrives:
1. Welcome the person
2. Answer the person's questions about the game in an unbiased manner, "just the facts please, just the facts".
3. If that person begins with a negative comment, towards the game or an individual, correct that new poster and explain, this is not the forum atmosphere we wish to have.
4. Let us all stop sniping quotes out of context or using selective quotes that only support your argument. You can focus on your interpretation, but link the original post. Or if the post you are referencing is short enough, quote the entire post and then focus on your interpretive section.
5. Be critical of CEO / Dev responses that also violate these behaviors.
Not to single him out, but he has done this more so than others (actually I'd say exclusively). Ryan Dancey needs to stop assuming certain alignments, play styles or whatever are more prone to as.hattery or the more derogatory "a-holes". He needs to stop saying parts of PFO are going to "suck" by design. Or, that, "if you don't like the direction of the game, go develop your own game."
Then when he comes and says @ ALL, don't tell others to leave or use the word "Care Bear"..... He has ZERO credibility, unless he owns up to the fact that he has done the same.
So when these things happen, point it out to them. Say the same thing that you would say to anyone. "I think you should know that that type of a response does not enhance the atmosphere we want on these forums."
_______________________________________________________________________
To the notion of taking what is developed here as a "Forum Culture" may not appropriately translate to what takes place within the game and its culture.
I believe they should be dealt separately because they are dramatically different. You can not be a Chaotic Evil Assassin on the forums, can you?
________________________________________________________________________
Final note: The Soul of the Community is not black or white, it is diversity.
Be Welcoming
Be A Good Visitor
Be Helpful
Be Instructive
Be Firm
Be Open
Be Honest
Be Brave
________________________________________________________________________
Final, Final note....
We need a shorthand code for when someone violates one of these... A "23 - 19" of sorts....
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... [about Bluddwolf] as you say yourself you are one of the most vocal/passionate pro-pvp people on the forum.
For the record, and because there seems to be a concerted effort to equate "anti-meaningless PvP" with being "anti-PvP", I want to point out that I have been a very consistent pro-PvP voice as well.
And when Bluddwolf was trying to give Realmwalker an honest and accurate picture of PFO, I backed him up completely on the points that were actually honest and accurate:
* Yes, you can flag or unflag PvP but not being flagged for PvP does not protect you from being the victim of a PvP attack. It just means that the attacker will incur the negative hit to reputation and possibly to alignment ( depends on the alignment of the attacker).
* No there will be no PvE only server.
* This is an Open World PvP Sandbox MMO, that will have just one server and no complete way to shield yourself from unwanted PvP. If you are unwilling to change and play in a game with those facts, you are best served to continue your search elsewhere.
.
I would also add:
* PvP in PFO will be significantly different than any PvP experience you've had in other MMOs.
* Goblinworks is making great efforts to ensure that players in PFO are not subjected to griefing.
I just wish he, or even some of his defenders, would do me the favor of backing me up in the honest and accurate points I added.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
* Notice, I do not wonder about the motivation.
And that is where you part ways with Goblinworks. They are interested in the motivation, and will use their best judgment to determine it.
Oh, and by the way? The tactic of saying someone said something that's blatantly false (or at least a wild exaggeration or clearly out of context), then complaining about that false post as being unfair/hurtful/dodging/etc, then commenting that someone in authority shouldn't post things like that, then commenting about how shocked one is about such a post? Seen that before.
So, just to be clear: My point is that if you give people a rule about what is or isn't permitted in social interaction, some folks will treat that as a license to act out in harmful ways right up to the very edge of that line, and if they go over a bit to plead ignorance/passion/misimpression/etc. .
No rule? Arbitrary enforcement? Playing favorites for people with good reputations and social credibility? That makes it hard and not fun to jerk people's chains for the lulz, and even removes the post-ban 3rd party forum whines about unfairness and developer misconduct, and how one's rights have been violated, etc.
Pathfinder Online will be judged on its actual community tenor, not its theoretical limits. And I'm very confident that it will be graded highly by the kind of people interested in a healthy, reasonably non-toxic, mutually respectful, vibrant society we want as customers.
[Edit] Decided to include the first part of the post as well, and just highlight the most relevant bit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1. Welcome the person
2. Answer the person's questions about the game in an unbiased manner, "just the facts please, just the facts".
3. If that person begins with a negative comment, towards the game or an individual, correct that new poster and explain, this is not the forum atmosphere we wish to have.
4. Let us all stop sniping quotes out of context or using selective quotes that only support your argument. You can focus on your interpretation, but link the original post. Or if the post you are referencing is short enough, quote the entire post and then focus on your interpretive section.
100% agree on each and every point, except your #5.
I would also add:
5. When other posters also present "just the facts", don't lie and say those "facts" are untrue.