Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not user this question has been asked, nor answered, but it could lead to some very good solutions for stopping unwanted behavior.
If it is possible to design the system where a player can not attack another player, unless flagged for PVP, then there is a simple way for GW to stop a griefer from repeat offending (in the short or long term).
Once GW determines a player has been griefing others, GW can disable the griefer's ability to use PVP flags. This can be a short term flag (hours), or even a long term flag (a day or even longer). This would also mean that GW does not have to ban a player account, they are just banning the player's ability to initiate attacks on others.
If the player decides to just roll a new character, that too is a punishment. This will eventually become tedious for the griefer, and his/her toon will be further hindered by the lack of skill development.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would think if it gets to the point where Goblinworks has identified a griefer, then that character will be on a timeout (ban) ranging from minutes to forever. It seems unnecessary to remove their ability to flag/attack. It's important to keep in mind that "griefing" isn't only via attacks.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would think if it gets to the point where Goblinworks has identified a griefer, then that character will be on a timeout (ban) ranging from minutes to forever. It seems unnecessary to remove their ability to flag/attack. It's important to keep in mind that "griefing" isn't only via attacks.
If the time-out / ban will be so effective, than wouldn't that make the Reputation System unnecessary?
I also think there maybe a benefit to having just the ability to flag, switched off. This would force the griefer to just play the game in PvE mode and perhaps he/ she will learn to enjoy that or gain a greater appreciation for the game and its community.
The only meaningful form of griefing is the misuse of the combat mechanics. Griefing in the chat channels is easily dealt with, by the player, by using the /ignore function.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bludd, so you're suggesting that if someone behaves badly enough, GW should turn off their ability to PvP?
Yes, if the source of their griefing is PvP based, then disable their ability to initiate PvP. If it is based on abusive chat, either players should /ignore them or GW could also disable the griefer's ability to post in the global chat channels or to send /tells.
This pairs up the negative behavior with a very effective ban directed specifically at the type of infraction. It completely prevents the continued negative behavior.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the griefer can be identified well enough for an automated system to prevent their characters' ability to harm another character in-game, then their characters will be rendered unable to PvP by removing his characters from play, and I believe it will not be automated but personal.
Beyond that, the central rule for this game's design is that anything the players can do GW will not attempt to automate. One consequence of this general but all-pervasive rule is that the players are expected to moderate their own behavior voluntarily. If they will not, then they will be excluded from play altogether.
Additionally, turning off PvP for infractions removes friendly-fire rules and in cases may give the perpetrator advantages that compliant players don't get. It seems therefore completely imbecilic for them to so reward malefactors.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Copy and Pasted from another thread with the same suggestion in it:
If the person is being such an obvious pain that GW would turn off their PvP ability, why not just ban their account? True, they can make a new one, but it's more hardship for them to have to start a new account (and lose all their alts, destiny twin, etc.) than it is to simply reroll that one character.
I could also envision a group of griefers using their PvP banned member for several purposes we would rather not promote. First, he could become a practice dummy for PvP, since attacking him would likely earn his friends no penalties. This perma-red toon (old UO term) could also become a scout for their work, since he would likely carry nothing valuable and would have nothing to lose (you mentioned no threading) if he got killed. Actually, since there would likely be some way for people to tell he was perma-red, he might become a perfect piece of bait for a griefer party...ride through an area, do-gooders chase after him, and get led right into a trap.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Copy and Pasted from another thread with the same suggestion in it:
If the person is being such an obvious pain that GW would turn off their PvP ability, why not just ban their account? True, they can make a new one, but it's more hardship for them to have to start a new account (and lose all their alts, destiny twin, etc.) than it is to simply reroll that one character.
I could also envision a group of griefers using their PvP banned member for several purposes we would rather not promote. First, he could become a practice dummy for PvP, since attacking him would likely earn his friends no penalties. This perma-red toon (old UO term) could also become a scout for their work, since he would likely carry nothing valuable and would have nothing to lose (you mentioned no threading) if he got killed. Actually, since there would likely be some way for people to tell he was perma-red, he might become a perfect piece of bait for a griefer party...ride through an area, do-gooders chase after him, and get led right into a trap.
The two possibilities you suggest could happen, can already be done with the long term 24-hour flags. The Aggressor (Murderer), Criminal and Heinous flags all remain active, even after death, and end in 24 hours.
GW has also stated, and experience with many MMOs have shown, that the ban hammer is rarely used. Like it or not, the griefer or gold farmer or whatever negative game play player, is a paying customer.
By directing the punishment more specifically to the crime, GW will stop the unwanted behavior and force the griefer to play a different way or to just log off for the period it takes to pass the penalty time. Yes they could reroll, but that is also tedious. After a reroll, will they be more or less likely to return to the same behavior that caused them to reroll?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Don't we already have a lot of tools to deal with jerks? Let's say character Joey Jerk is doing some action that angers or annoys us. Griefing or not, he's a jerk in our view.
- If we're in the wilderness, we can attack and kill him and he respawns in some city and has to run back to annoy us again. Yes, we suffer the consequences, but any decent company or settlement will have plenty of spare reputation. We might have to take turns driving him off.
- If he's in *our* controlled lands, we ask him to desist or go away. If he doesn't, we flag him criminal (assuming kill on sight lists exist) and anybody can kill him without alignment/rep hits. We continue to tell him to desist, though, just to give GW reason to punish him if they need ammunition.
- If the jerk is a member of a settlement or company, we can contact them to deal with the problem. If he isn't a member of a player settlement or company, he's a citizen of the starter town. Which makes GW his overlord, and gives us reason to contact Them.
Note that everything before that point can be done by players, within the reputation system, and without involving GW. A big benefit of the reputation system, I think, is to reduce our need to run to GW with problems.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the time-out / ban will be so effective, than wouldn't that make the Reputation System unnecessary?
I understand your compatriot Xeen is quite convinced this "layered approach" is specifically meant to combat "naked PvP", but on the chance you don't share the same conviction...
There's no one tactic that makes that happen. It has to be a layered approach.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think what may be helpful is for me to explain what prompted this thread:
So I am curious whether anyone can imagine anything other than the reputation system, or any modification of the reputation system that seems it would be effective, given the flat power curve as Xeen pointed out?
So I began to think about the Reputation System, and at the moment it has its most common application when a PVP Flagged player attacks a player that is not PVP flagged.
A new question sprung to my mind, "Has it been written or discussed if a non PVP flagged player can initiate PVP, or is a PVP flag required in order to initiate an attack?"
So now I have these wonderings:
* If a PVP Flag is required to initiate PVP, then griefing can be stopped by GW switching off a griefer's ability to flag for PVP.
If this is in fact a possibility, than the Reputation System is not a necessary Anti-Griefing measure.
* If PVP can be initiated without requiring PVP flag, I believe that is something that GW should consider doing.
Having this requirement would be beneficial to those who are not actively seeking PVP because they would see via the flags, those that are.
This was the system that was used in Star Wars Galaxies, Fallen Earth, and I'm sure other Open World PVp Sandbox MMOs.
It is also a value to the player seeking PVP, because he/she would see clearly those who also seek PVP.
If no one could jump, instantly, from PVE to PVP (without requiring a PVP flag first), that would lend to the paranoia that people like Andius, Nihimon and others did not want.
Yes someone could switch from PVE to PVP, but it would take 30 seconds (flag activation time as of now). If there was a visual queue of that flagging up, no one could be "sucker punched" by someone intent on griefing with surprise.
For my fellow bandits and assassins out there, this does not take away the art of ambush either. You are already flagged for PVP, and the ambush is a concealment skill (which is not automatic).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... griefing can be stopped by GW switching off a griefer's ability to flag for PVP.
1. Not all griefing is PvP related.
2. Once identified by GW, the griefer can be completely stopped from griefing by being banned for some period of time.The Reputation system was never meant to be a perfect solution. It's one of many pieces to a layered approach. There will be times when it is most appropriate to take the Reputation hit. But - in general - it should serve to get people to avoid killing other players just because the game allows them to.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... griefing can be stopped by GW switching off a griefer's ability to flag for PVP.1. Not all griefing is PvP related.
2. Once identified by GW, the griefer can be completely stopped from griefing by being banned for some period of time.The Reputation system was never meant to be a perfect solution. It's one of many pieces to a layered approach. There will be times when it is most appropriate to take the Reputation hit. But - in general - it should serve to get people to avoid killing other players just because the game allows them to.
Would you please identify the other types of griefing you suggest exist, and need to be curtailed.
If you are writing of griefing via Global Chat, I have addressed that. Briefly, here are the player actions to counter it:
1. Minimize or Don't use Global Chat
2. /Ignore the Offensive Player
3. Report Truly Offensive remarks that violate the rules to a GM
4. Grin and Bear it. Sometimes you will be exposed to unpleasant language when playing an MMO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Briefly, here are the player actions to counter it...
I am well aware that you have a much higher tolerance for "toxic" behavior than I do. I am even well aware that you think everyone should be "trained" to have the same tolerance you have, by repeated exposure.
I consider that toxic in itself. This is why you and I seem to always disagree so strenuously.
I believe Ryan's intent is to create a game where that kind of "unpleasantness" is not common and accepted. I might be wrong. I hope I'm right.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the time-out / ban will be so effective, than wouldn't that make the Reputation System unnecessary?I understand your compatriot Xeen is quite convinced this "layered approach" is specifically meant to combat "naked PvP", but on the chance you don't share the same conviction...
There's no one tactic that makes that happen. It has to be a layered approach.
I wont say what I would like to, as it will just be deleted.
I did not say his entire post was about naked PVP, just the part you quoted in another thread...
Now, why dont you leave garbage from other threads where they were...
If you want to discuss TOXIC, then look in the mirror and come back after that.
Edit: It would be a good idea to stop thinking you know what Ryans intent is. Unless he comes into a discussion and remarks specifically about that discussion... You dont know and Your quotes are off topic.
Perspective means everything
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
* If PVP can be initiated without requiring PVP flag, I believe that is something that GW should consider doing.
Having this requirement would be beneficial to those who are not actively seeking PVP because they would see via the flags, those that are.
...
If no one could jump, instantly, from PVE to PVP (without requiring a PVP flag first), that would lend to the paranoia that people like Andius, Nihimon and others did not want.Yes someone could switch from PVE to PVP, but it would take 30 seconds (flag activation time as of now). If there was a visual queue of that flagging up, no one could be "sucker punched" by someone intent on griefing with surprise.
There is nothing in the blog posts on flags that suggest characters must be flagged before entering PvP. I think that changing that and making people be flagged before entering PVP allows more abuse than it prevents.
I'm imagining a simple situation. 20 harvesters and guards working unflagged. Group of 10 flagged outlaws appear. They attack one guy - 10:1 seems like fair odds for these types, and they can kill him fast and run off. The other 19 harvesters and guards, under your proposal, can't attack the bandits for at least 30 seconds. Under the flag system as it stands now, they can counter-attack immediately.
There are probably a lot of other ways to abuse people under your proposal. I think you might be trying to fix a problem with the reputation system that isn't broken.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Briefly, here are the player actions to counter it...I am well aware that you have a much higher tolerance for "toxic" behavior than I do. I am even well aware that you think everyone should be "trained" to have the same tolerance you have, by repeated exposure.
I consider that toxic in itself. This is why you and I seem to always disagree so strenuously.
I believe Ryan's intent is to create a game where that kind of "unpleasantness" is not common and accepted. I might be wrong. I hope I'm right.
Your view of what is toxic, to the point of quitting a game, is so disproportionate to real toxicity that I wonder what draws you to an MMO to begin with.
If Ryan feels, and I can't imaging that he does, that what is said in chat channels will drive players away then perhaps he should be developing a Single Player PVE RPG.
I don't expect that all players need to be trained to tolerate "unpleasant" language from time-to-time in an MMO, I had never said that. What I would hope is that they put it in the proper perspective and use the tools that they have to ignore it or shield their exposure from it.
Is PFO being developed to be a rated "G" game? It is not even being developed to be a "PG" rated game. It has been suggested that if it were to be rated by ESRB, it would probably be considered "Mature", just because the player contribution to the game can not be fully controlled.
You will taint the reputation of PFO based solely on what some random, small minority of players might type in a chat window??
This is why I so vigorously argue against your definitions of "toxic", "griefing" or what is the "Soul of the Community". You are too sensitive to very easily avoided unpleasantness.
So now that we have spent some moments on discussing the non issue of chat channel griefing, I'd like to return to the question that Being had asked, and a mature audience discussion of it.
If you wish to actually address the points I made in my previous post, you are welcome to do so. The discussion was revolving around the opinion that:
If a griefer using PVP combat to grief, can be stopped by linking PVP initiation to having an active PVP Flag, should that be something that GW should consider?
Yes, I understand the griefer would first get some griefing in, before the penalty could take affect. But, that is how the proposed Reputation System works as well. But, I believe that my idea may get to that penalty (PVP Flag Ban) a lot quicker than getting a Reputation of -7500. Even with that -7500, it was never confirmed by GW that that level of low rep would lead to a ban.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm imagining a simple situation. 20 harvesters and guards working unflagged. Group of 10 flagged outlaws appear. They attack one guy - 10:1 seems like fair odds for these types, and they can kill him fast and run off. The other 19 harvesters and guards, under your proposal, can't attack the bandits for at least 30 seconds. Under the flag system as it stands now, they can counter-attack immediately.
You misread my proposal. I clearly and intentionally stated "Initiate PVP". Your group of 20 harvesters and guards would be able to defend themselves instantly and would be consider "Involved" with no "Attacker" flag.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You misread my proposal. I clearly and intentionally stated "Initiate PVP". Your group of 20 harvesters and guards would be able to defend themselves instantly and would be consider "Involved" with no "Attacker" flag.
I don't think I misread your proposal. I think you misunderstand the flagging rules.
Restating the situation, based on the existing rules:
-If 10 bandits show up with Outlaw flags, they are flagged for PvP. Under current rules, they are open for attack just like if they rode in wearing Attacker flags from a fresh attack on someone else. (By open for attack I mean their attackers won't gain attacker flag or suffer rep/alignment hits).
-If Harvester 1 is attacked by the 10 flagged bandits, then the bandits now have Outlaw and Attacker flags. Harvester 1 has an Involved flag. Harvester 2-15 and Guards 1-5 do not have the Involved flag because they haven't been attacked.
-Under current rules, the harvesters can openly counterattack the bandits because the bandits are flagged, as Outlaw and Attacker. Jumping in against Harvester 1 is not legit unless the new attacker is also flagged as an Outlaw.
-Harvesters 2-15 and Guards 1-5 do not have a Involved flags because they haven't been attacked. So they aren't flagged. Under your proposal they are not flagged, so they can't initiate PvP. They can't attack a flagged or unflagged character, they can only defend when they are attacked.
Perhaps your misunderstanding is in assuming there is a difference between the short-term flags like Attacker and the long-term flags like Champion or Outlaw. The person using a long term flag is making a choice to gain some reward or benefit; in return they are open to attacks by flagged and unflagged characters, just like an Attacker is open to attacks.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess whether they could defend themselves or not in the above example depends on how we are able to group. It's a good thing to note that in most MMO's, the maximum group size where you're considered a "party" and are basically a single entity for initiating PvP is much smaller than the size that would be required for the kinds of operations planned.
On a different note, when a bandit attacks a gatherer, who is then considered "involved"? Is it everyone at that specific gathering location? Everyone from that company in a certain radius? Although I'm sure that, if the devs were to use a form of the proposed system, they could design with this in mind and it wouldn't be an issue.
Overall, I don't see an issue with the "initiating only when flagged" idea, except in some niche cases which could be handled individually. For example, a burglar hasn't initiated PvP, but you could make it so that as soon as someone steals an item or enters your building without permission they're open for PvP by the owner of the building and guards (this is of course assuming burglary is a thing at some point). However, I acknowledge that my own imagination is limited, so I'm curious as to what situations could lead to this system breaking down and being abused?
To be more clear, I support Bluddwolf's idea. Obviously as with any idea it would probably be extensively tweaked before implementation, but I like the base idea.
EDIT: Urman, that seems like an easily fixed oversight in most cases. Through the use of grouping, both freeform and groups tied to structures, I'm sure they could develop a system which would allow the guards to assist the gatherers. And I think the basic idea, that the guy standing next to you can't randomly start killing people with at least a little warning, is a solid one.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Urman,
What is usual for an MMO, particularly an Open World PVP one, is that an attack on one member of a group, allows for all in the group to defend.
Your scenario also includes guards, whom if I understand correctly, would not be taking advantage of their PVP flag stacks? I think that would be very unlikely. If I were the harvesters hiring this group of "guards" I would require that they flag Champion or Enforcer, so they have advantages in defending me.
You have to remember that PVP flags are not used to just enable PVP. They should be used strategically in order to maximize the groups combat effectiveness.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Shane Gifford It's not at all clear how flagging rules and grouping rules intersect; any assumptions made at this point are merely assumptions.
For example, is an entire party flagged Outlaw, or can individuals flag separately?
If I have 15 harvesters partied with 5 guards, can the guards be flagged for PvP and the harvesters not be flagged? (Would I want my guards flagged as open targets for every wannabe gangster that passed by? That might not be the harvest I want today.)
If members of a party attack another character, does the every member of the attacking party now have the Attacker flag and an Aggressor buff?
If one member of a group (company, party, or non-party gaggle) of harvesters gets attacked, do all the harvesters acquire Involved flags? Does that mean the attackers can attack the rest of the the group without gaining additional Aggressor flags?
In all of these cases, I don't think we players don't know - we haven't been told yet. If anyone thinks we have been told, let me know where to read it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...so if the harvester attacked is only near the nineteen but is not grouped with them...
Then he is solo, not part of the group, so if they are attacked he would not be involved or vice versa.
The point of what I'm trying to come up with is a way that can prevent a griefer from continuing to grief, once he or she has been identified by GW.
But hey, if a group of harvesters want to hire guards, that won't flag up for PVP advantages, all the power to them. I'll be happy for them not to be building up those 10 hour stacks.
If a bunch of harvesters want to be in an area and not group up for common defense, by all means.
If some of you are OK with the Reputation System allowing a griefer to kill 20, 30...50 before the system finally stops him (maybe?), fine by me too.
As a Bandit, I have tools to keep myself within good standing in regards to the Reputation System and my alignment will be exactly what i want it to be.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a good thing to try, but I think you are just making the flagging system more complicated for no real benefit.
The point of what I'm trying to come up with is a way that can prevent a griefer from continuing to grief, once he or she has been identified by GW.
If he's been identified by GW as a griefer, what's he doing playing the game? He should either be perma-banned, or banned for a period of time. If the latter and his ban is over, he has paid his dues and should now be free from punishment.
Sometimes you can overthink things.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If some of you are OK with the Reputation System allowing a griefer to kill 20, 30...50 before the system finally stops him (maybe?), fine by me too.
According to the blog post on flagging, if your notional griefer attacks an unflagged character who is at (0,0,0) on the alignment diagram, he takes a 500 point hit to evil and reputation. (Chaos hits depend on local laws). If he starts at neutral himself, with only 15 kills he is bottomed out at (-7500, ?, -7500) unless he really tempers his 'griefing' with long bouts of restraint.
If he ever belonged to a settlement, they might have kicked him to prevent the rep hemorrhage from affecting the town. In any case, he's practically free game - killing him when he's unflagged results in less than 16 point hit to evil and rep. And if he killed enough people in a 24-hour time period he gets the 24-hour Murderer flag, so it's open season.
I think the flag and reputation system has considered this type of player; we don't need to disable all attacks by unflagged actors just to deal with this notional griefing fiend.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And all the "griefer" has to do is run around with his usual posse until one of their griefees either accidentally hit him or use an AoE. Similarly, if not being teamed makes you "solo" what is to just keep one of the "griefer's" posse from unteaming, hitting him to activate a PvP flag...and reteaming, before engaging their target?
Also, the Reputation system has many additional aspects such as as a tool for the community to use to restrict low Rep characters access to settlement resources.
EDIT: TO try to understand your motivation, can you explain why you think declawing griefers is better than removing them from the community?
On a side note, Bluddwolf, you keep using the term Open World PvP game. Does "Open World" hold some significance to the PvP? In other words, are you claiming PFO is a game with Open World PvP, or a game with an Open World and PvP? I ask because as far as I know, "Open world" simply refers to the ability in some games to run from end to end with no invisible walls. I don't understand how that changes the meaning of PvP. If Open World does not modify PvP, then I am curious why you feel it is worth mentioning, why not Sandbox PvP game, or Crafting PvP game...or Sandbox Open-World PvP Crafting Conquest City-Building Harvesting Processing Social Guilds-called-Companies game? Or am I totally mis-parsing and you are saying it is a game that will be open and with World PvP?
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I'm confused about what advantages you see to your proposal; you say that it allows for a simple step which is intermediate between a warning and a ban. Do you believe that being flag-restricted for a period of time is more likely to make a toxic player a contributing one than a short account ban or a warning? If not, why would such a system ever be used; if so, can you explain your reasoning?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A very confusing response, I can't follow your logic or lack of it in the first paragraph. It appears we are back to the AOE question again. AOE users have the burden of not hitting unintended targets. That is where Ryan Dancey had left that debate.
As for the order in which I use the various descriptions of the game genre, I use the order in which I have seen it most commonly used.
Open World PvP Sandbox MMO RPG.
First I will start with the last, "RPG". This is the game type or genre and all other terms are adjectives of it.
MMO is the basic type of RPG. I have never seen these in reverse order.
Sandbox could be placed before or after the Open World, or the PvP, and it will not lose its meaning or importance.
I link Open World PvP as one term. The reason being, you never see Open World PvE games, because it is understood that PvE can take place anywhere in the game. Historically speaking, PvP is sometimes limited to specific areas (arenas for example) and so "Open World" becomes and adjective of PvP.
As I said "SandBox" can be placed anywhere before or after the OWPvP. It is just more customary to start off with "Open World".
Now before you take offense at the PvP being put in there at all, it has been repeatedly said by the Devs that PvE content will be limited. They have never described PvP in a similar fashion. Yes that have tried to convince us that PvP is not the only focus or even the main focus, and I would agree it is not the ONLY focus. I do believe that their development trend does support the idea that PvP is a main focus. No they won't say that as directly as I did, but they have good reason not to. They may be concerned that if PFO is primarily billed as a PvP title, many will stay away, fearing that means FPS style PvP.
I will stand by my opinion as to the type if game PFO is and the order I place the adjectives in. You may choose to describe the game however your opinion drives you to do.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm confused about what advantages you see to your proposal; you say that it allows for a simple step which is intermediate between a warning and a ban. Do you believe that being flag-restricted for a period of time is more likely to make a toxic player a contributing one than a short account ban or a warning? If not, why would such a system ever be used; if so, can you explain your reasoning?
This thread is an attempt to answer the question posed by Being, which I cited above (can't cut and paste, iPhone).
I am presenting an alternative. It may not be fully developed, but this is brain storming.
I thought to keep it conceptually simple. If you tie PvP (attacking another player) to PvP, then by denying a griefer the ability to flag for PvP, you prevent him from griefing other players without having to go with the very rare ban.
Bans and especially permabans are very because they cut of the development company's revenue. It will be interesting to see just how many players are banned from PFO. Short of an entire company that uses an exploit (ie BoB in EvE) a doubt the number will not break into the hundreds. Perhaps I'm being too optimistic?
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Ah. Skyrim and Morrowind are open world games, because you can wander around and do or not do stuff; the Tribunal Expansion to Morrowind added some sections that are linear, because you have to unlock them in order, while Skyrim has some pretty big linear elements.
The first possible contrast to "open world" is "linear".
Everquest wasn't intrinsically linear at first, although there were lots of gates and quotas. However, due to what I believe are technological reasons, it was created as a number of discrete chunks that only interfaced at zone boundaries; only characters could cross those zone lines, and they had a loading screen as the client loaded new terrain from hard disk and connected with different server-side hardware.
The second contrast to "open world" is "zoned".
For reference, DCUO is a linear, zoned, instanced, theme park MMORPG.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No, my point was not about AoEs, it was pointing out what I saw to be ways to game your proposed system.
Skyrim is an Open World PvE game...and why would I take offense to a PvP descriptor? I have always been an advocate for unrestricted PvP in PFO.
As for the rest...I was just curious about your use, I was not telling you what or how to use language. Again, simple curiosity. I do not really understand your response or reasoning, but I think I must accept it and be happy to just check that off as my own failure. Thanks for the the reply.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This thread is an attempt to answer the question posed by Being, which I cited above (can't cut and paste, iPhone).
I am presenting an alternative. It may not be fully developed, but this is brain storming.
I thought to keep it conceptually simple. If you tie PvP (attacking another player) to PvP, then by denying a griefer the ability to flag for PvP, you prevent him from griefing other players without having to go with the very rare ban.
And that is what I was addressing with some examples of ways your proposal could be gamed.
And all the "griefer" has to do is run around with his usual posse until one of their griefees either accidentally hit him or use an AoE. Similarly, if not being teamed makes you "solo" what is to just keep one of the "griefer's" posse from unteaming, hitting him to activate a PvP flag...and reteaming, before engaging their target?
In the case above "the griefer" is the person who was not-banned but who can not "initiate" PvP.
Also, the Reputation system has many additional aspects such as as a tool for the community to use to restrict low Rep characters access to settlement resources.
I also addressed another (irreconcilable) consequence (intended or not) of your proposal, the removal of tools intended to empower the community to police itself.
Bans and especially permabans are very because they cut of the development company's revenue. It will be interesting to see just how many players are banned from PFO. Short of an entire company that uses an exploit (ie BoB in EvE) a doubt the number will not break into the hundreds. Perhaps I'm being too optimistic?
Finally, this last from you answers this question I asked:
TO try to understand your motivation, can you explain why you think declawing griefers is better than removing them from the community?
Thank you for explaining. Personally however, I am more interested in the game community than I am about GW bottom-line...I also find it encouraging, when the company who runs the game I want to play states policies that seem to suggest they are at least giving consideration to the community even if doing so hurts their bottom-line. I might just keep playing that game.
This of course does not in itself make banning necessarily the best solution, but in light of the other concerns mentioned above, to me it seems the best so far proposed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Kitnyx
But the Reputation System has never been described by the Devs as the system that would determine banning someone. I had once asked, what happens when a character hits -7500 and there was no definitive answer. The only vague answer we have gotten was a low rep character will suck, and even that was / is vague.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Kitnyx
But the Reputation System has never been described by the Devs as the system that would determine banning someone. I had once asked, what happens when a character hits -7500 and there was no definitive answer. The only vague answer we have gotten was a low rep character will suck, and even that was / is vague.
Then I withdraw that particular objection. Thank you for pointing out my error.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I'm confused about what advantages you see to your proposal; you say that it allows for a simple step which is intermediate between a warning and a ban. Do you believe that being flag-restricted for a period of time is more likely to make a toxic player a contributing one than a short account ban or a warning? If not, why would such a system ever be used; if so, can you explain your reasoning?This thread is an attempt to answer the question posed by Being, which I cited above (can't cut and paste, iPhone).
I am presenting an alternative. It may not be fully developed, but this is brain storming.
I thought to keep it conceptually simple. If you tie PvP (attacking another player) to PvP, then by denying a griefer the ability to flag for PvP, you prevent him from griefing other players without having to go with the very rare ban.
Bans and especially permabans are very because they cut of the development company's revenue. It will be interesting to see just how many players are banned from PFO. Short of an entire company that uses an exploit (ie BoB in EvE) a doubt the number will not break into the hundreds. Perhaps I'm being too optimistic?
iPhone copypasta: tap and hold on text to select, adust the slection, copy, tap and hold to paste. It's slightly harder than on a full desktop, mostly because of the difficulty is making selections precise.
Suppose we limit the search space to solutions for players who have characters who kill other characters, especially new ones, such that neither the victims nor experienced players nor GW moderators understands a motivation that isn't griefing. (I will use the term RPK only to describe that type of behavior, until I find a better term or definition)
A system of graduated punishments, starting with "your character sucks", passing through various warnings, temporary bans, then permanent bans, could include restrictions on character actions between warnings and temporary bans. It could be applied very simply as "your character cannot perform an action that would grant the attacker or involved flag for a week", without any change to what characters not so affected could do. That, combined with instructions indicating how to play the game as intended with those restrictions, could indeed be more productive at reducing recidivism than an outright time-out, because you're not restricting the player from the behavior that is desired.
Noting again that we are limiting the discussion to solutions to RPKers, that could be a more useful tool than I originally thought. I wouldn't suggest restricting characters by default, because that's what reputation is intended to incentivize; I might even allow the character in question to flag for PvP, even while restricted from initiating it. Certainly such a corrective measure should not provide the advantage of being immune to other players, nor should it remove the ability to retaliate during an attack.
I'm cautiously considering a system where multiple death curses from different characters would have this effect, rather than a CSR applying it. I think that the potential for abuse of such a game mechanic is too high, and that it should stay in the metagame- mostly because I think it is much less effective when seen as a timeout to be waited through, and not combined with instructions and assistance with playing the game as intended.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
@ Kitnyx
But the Reputation System has never been described by the Devs as the system that would determine banning someone. I had once asked, what happens when a character hits -7500 and there was no definitive answer. The only vague answer we have gotten was a low rep character will suck, and even that was / is vague.
It has been specifically said that the system for banning will be arbitrary and capricious; reputation will probably be observed during such a process, but a numerical value visible to the participant with well-defined change conditions is the polar opposite of arbitrary and capricious.
Arbitrary and capricious is far better than any well-defined system that can be played.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Kitnyx
But the Reputation System has never been described by the Devs as the system that would determine banning someone. I had once asked, what happens when a character hits -7500 and there was no definitive answer. The only vague answer we have gotten was a low rep character will suck, and even that was / is vague.
It has been specifically said that the system for banning will be arbitrary and capricious; reputation will probably be observed during such a process, but a numerical value visible to the participant with well-defined change conditions is the polar opposite of arbitrary and capricious.
Arbitrary and capricious is far better than any well-defined system that can be played.
Understood and agreed. Thanks.
EDIT: While I am being corrected, can anyone clarify that PFO is not currently expected to be a game with Open World PvP (with zero non-PvP zones)? That was the source of my question to you Bluddwolf, I was wondering if I missed an announcement/blog that stated there will zero safe zones. In the confusion I have started questioning what I "know".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Kitnyx
But the Reputation System has never been described by the Devs as the system that would determine banning someone. I had once asked, what happens when a character hits -7500 and there was no definitive answer. The only vague answer we have gotten was a low rep character will suck, and even that was / is vague.
It has been specifically said that the system for banning will be arbitrary and capricious; reputation will probably be observed during such a process, but a numerical value visible to the participant with well-defined change conditions is the polar opposite of arbitrary and capricious.
Arbitrary and capricious is far better than any well-defined system that can be played.
Understood and agreed. Thanks.
EDIT: While I am being corrected, can anyone clarify that PFO is not currently expected to be a game with Open World PvP (with zero non-PvP zones)? That was the source of my question to you Bluddwolf, I was wondering if I missed an announcement/blog that stated there will zero safe zones. In the confusion I have started questioning what I "know".
No zone is completely free of PvP. Even in the NPC starter zone: War, Assassination, Bounty and Death Curse can be visited upon you.
This is why I don't separate "Open World" from "PvP", but instead join them as "Open World PvP".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Then I agree with you...sorry you took it as an attack, I was really curious if that was the case now...and yay.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Haven't the dev's already stated they were leaning towards friendly fire?
So after that long insight into the design process, and a few other minor back and forths, here is where our current thoughts are regarding AoE attacks:
- Arcane sources will have a pretty deep well of AoE options, divine sources will have a decent collection of them, and mundane sources will use them very sparingly (generally with a requirement of getting into melee range or using up a lot of arrows).
- Melee-range and some other point-blank AoEs may not have friendly fire (as it's hard enough to deploy them and hit a lot of people anyway), but most AoE attacks will hit any target regardless of friendliness.
- Hitting a target with an AoE will be treated exactly like a single-target attack for purposes of flagging, reputation, alignment, and so on (except possibly for members of your party, as those have the easiest recourse to deal with you if you start team killing). You'll need to be careful with your AoEs if you think there are hidden targets in the area just waiting to trick you into hitting them with an AoE you used on someone else, and AoEs may be harder to use around allied NPCs that don't know not to chase enemies into your fireball target area.
- Arcane and divine AoEs apply stacks of the Magical Turbulence buff to all targets hit by the AoE. These stacks provide additional damage resistance to all other damage from arcane and divine AoEs, and decay over time. Effectively, targets hit by several AoEs in succession take less and less damage until they're given a few rounds of breathing room.
- All these limitations mean that AoEs will generally be very powerful to remain attractive for use. You might not be encouraged to hit a target with an AoE over and over, but that first time you hit him, he's going to feel it.
- We're looking into various technical features like how exactly targeting will look, what the animation timing is like, and whether red circles on the ground will give you some early warning to try to escape before you get hit. We'll have more information on those (and possibly changes to the notes above) once we have a prototype to the state we can evaluate them for fun and impact to the server.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bans and especially permabans are very because they cut of the development company's revenue.
While this is true, it has to be offset against the number of players leaving PfO because of the perception of being griefed. Given that one griefer can ruin the game experience of several other players, it would seem that a little pruning here and there might actually be better for the whole crop. Banning a few people may not directly result in more revenue, but it will probably result in a smaller loss. Also, if PfO becomes known as a game that doesn't treat griefing lightly, that may encourage many who are still on the fence about whether to join the game or not to do so.
Please note that I am not an advocate of banning people left, right and centre; it should only be used for the truly incorrigible, and bans should be no concern of ours but something solely between GW and the player as a last resort. I just feel your proposed solution is a) over-complicated, and b) rife with opportunities for exploits. If we should accept, as you suggest, that GW will define what is and what is not griefing, then perhaps we should accept that they will define the consequences of said griefing as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would think if it gets to the point where Goblinworks has identified a griefer, then that character will be on a timeout (ban) ranging from minutes to forever. It seems unnecessary to remove their ability to flag/attack. It's important to keep in mind that "griefing" isn't only via attacks.If the time-out / ban will be so effective, than wouldn't that make the Reputation System unnecessary?
I also think there maybe a benefit to having just the ability to flag, switched off. This would force the griefer to just play the game in PvE mode and perhaps he/ she will learn to enjoy that or gain a greater appreciation for the game and its community.
The only meaningful form of griefing is the misuse of the combat mechanics. Griefing in the chat channels is easily dealt with, by the player, by using the /ignore function.
First off the Reputation System is not an anti-griefing mechanic. It's an anti-RPK mechanic, and as Xeen keeps quoting, RPKing is not griefing. It's toxic, but only griefing if causing grief is the intent.
Some of the most clear cut cases of griefing I can think of do not involve initiating combat:
- In the original Darkfall, surround a mounted player so they can't move. Sit there and wait until they get off the mount, and then steal it. Keep in mind, this method takes enough people / time per mount that it's easier to make or buy one if your intent isn't using faulty mechanics to piss people off.
- In Mortal Online, if a blue player accidentally does damage to you, you commit suicide so that they get the alignment hit associated with murdering you. Sometimes used to grief people, but always a gross exploitation of the game mechanics.
- Blueblocking original DF and MO. When someone is fighting someone else that they can kill without an alignment hit, a blue player jumps in-front of them hoping to get hit. Very common in/near towns with defenses that kill grey and red players on sight. Again, sometimes used for griefing, always exploitation.
- Dust 514. During a match a teammate blocks the path for other teammates unable to push them out of a way. In one match there was a corner we were spawning into with an exit 1 man wide. Someone blocked half the team in until they killed us all with a tank. This was in a random match, where there was no chance the enemy team paid him to do it.
I would really hope all behavior like this would generate a warning, and then discipline. As would any overly toxic behavior in public chat. There is no reason to tolerate certain behaviors.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"Open World PvP" can be read as "Open"-"World PvP" which would imply "World PvP" that is "Open", i.e. free-for-all unrestricted PvP in the world.
I read it as "Open World"-"PvP", that is the PvP in the game takes place in the "Open World", not in instanced battlegrounds. This interpretation does not imply that the PvP will be unrestricted and free-for-all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is what it means, PvP in an open world setting. Even PvP servers on WoW or the Ettenmoors from LotRO are considered Open World PvP.
A more specific term we could use to talk about PFO and similar titles is "Non-Factional Open World PvP."
This means that unlike WoW, LotRO, SWTOR etc. that you aren't locked into NPC factions that disable friendly fire.
We also know we won't be able to "opt out of PvP." What this term really means is that you don't need to be flagged in order to be attacked, and there is no flag that makes you un-attackable. Anyone can walk up to anyone and take a swing at them and potentially hit.
It does not mean that if you take that swing in a starter zone, that you don't have a 99.9999999% chance of being slaughtered by the guards, or that there will be no consequences for taking that swing.
In fact, some form of alignment system that blocks you from accessing newb areas if you drop too low is pretty standard to these kinds of games. PFO is just taking it a step further and giving some consequences veterans will actually care about. This doesn't make PFO any less of an Open World PvP title.
No zone is completely free of PvP. Even in the NPC starter zone: War, Assassination, Bounty and Death Curse can be visited upon you.
Dev quote please. Also I'm assuming that what you're saying there isn't just that they can happen, but that they can happen without provoking the guards?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I actually think the option to disable pvp reinforce greifing. I use to play on SWTOR's one and only RP server, where you had to flag yourself for PvP to be attacked. What this meant is that as a PvPer, I could never find any open world PvP, unless I was really lucky.
What it mostly meant, was that griefers started abusing this flagging system. Jedi's openly preaching their message in Sith academy's trying to turn them to the light side (a crime punishable by death in lore) and being untouchable. Raids on cities going unpunished because none of our players could touch the unflagged attackers.
Well perhaps they could make it so that you flagged when attacking cities, I hear you say?
Maybe. But that is a very flimsy solution. My character for example, as a Cleric of Lamashtu will stand to defend goblins and wolves. If he sees you attacking either of those, he'll likely to kill you.
And what danger would it be in a merchant anymore? Grab all your goods, unflag pvp and run to the marker three towns over. No robber will be able to touch you.