Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm disagreeing with Nihimon that there was a cue for him to drop the subject. And I want him to continue to contribute to this topic even if for that to continue it would be necessary he would need to not engage your points. Also: I didn't say that I agree with you either, Bludd.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm disagreeing with Nihimon that there was a cue for him to drop the subject.
I appreciate that, and believe me I'm not shy about speaking my mind, but I have nothing new to add and don't feel that anything positive could be accomplished by pointing out where I disagree with Bluddwolf.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had suggested this and volunteer to do it. I was however met with two responses:
1. "That would be griefing and there should be no tolerance of griefing, even if it is described as "testing" the system.
2. The purpose of EE is not to test the system, it is to set up the game world in preparation for OE.
It sure would be nice if everything just worked perfectly from the start but the chances of that happening are... slim. Adjustments, changes and perhaps overhauls to systems will likely need to see implementation before everything is running smoothly and satisfactorily.
I would argue that the usefulness of running "experiments" in EE outweighs the toll it takes on people's wishes to just play the game. Setting the game world and establishing a good community will certainly be big parts of the goal of EE but testing the limits of the systems will benefit both those projects rather than hinder them, at least in the long term.
What will happen when unscrupulous, PKing powergamers join in OE if the low-rep playstyle hasn't been tested? That will be impossible to say, hence we need to test the system.
I support a douchbaggery test initiative for EE.
Screw you guys. I don't wanna be the content! ;-(
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Wurner,
I completely agree with you, and I would suggest that "testing" goals be clearly identified by GW and set within certain time frames.
Example:
Day 1 - 3 Testing NPC Settlement Warden Response:
Purpose is to determine proper response time and strength of warden reaction. Do times have to be adjusted? Is the Warden strength meant to match the PC opponent, exceed PC opponent in one encounter or escalate over time to eventually overwhelm a PC opponent?
Tweak the system to match desired result of encounter.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As someone who is likely to be one of those low reputation individuals (through necessity rather than pure dickishness)May I ask what you think you will be doing that will lead to you being low rep?
Anyone can end up with low rep (especially one set at -2500) by engaging in unsanctioned PVP, that might still be meaningful, but will carry with it a reputation hit.
Example of Meaningful, but unsanctioned PVP:
My Bandit Company and I see a lightly guarded, caravan that we had observed leaving a silver mine. Rather than giving up our advantage of surprise, we ambush and attack the caravan. We had decided that the reputation loss was worth the value of taking 75% of the caravan, rather than accept what might be agreed to in a SAD.
During the fight, we kill 7 PCs, and we suffer a -3500 reputation hit.
The problem with Nihimon's idea, regardless if it is a cynical attempt to flame or not, is that it will lead to the "Tyranny of the Good" and a massive gaming of all the he supposedly holds dear.
Griefers will play it smart and roll their characters as CG aligned, weekend killing machines. They will grind reputation and alignment Monday through Friday, and then at the stroke of Midnight (Fri/Sat) they "Unleash Hell"!!
I have not read any suggested system for PFO that will prevent this from happening. To the contrary, I've read quite a bit that would encourage this type of gaming the system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As someone who is likely to be one of those low reputation individuals (through necessity rather than pure dickishness)May I ask what you think you will be doing that will lead to you being low rep?Anyone can end up with low rep (especially one set at -2500) by engaging in unsanctioned PVP, that might still be meaningful, but will carry with it a reputation hit.
Example of Meaningful, but unsanctioned PVP:
My Bandit Company and I see a lightly guarded, caravan that we had observed leaving a silver mine. Rather than giving up our advantage of surprise, we ambush and attack the caravan. We had decided that the reputation loss was worth the value of taking 75% of the caravan, rather than accept what might be agreed to in a SAD.
During the fight, we kill 7 PCs, and we suffer a -3500 reputation hit.
Thanks for the response Bluddwolf.
The problem with Nihimon's idea, regardless if it is a cynical attempt to flame or not, is that it will lead to the "Tyranny of the Good" and a massive gaming of all the he supposedly holds dear.
I get that this is your opinion, however I do not see how it follows. What does follow (in my opinion) is that it will lead to a "Tyrrany of the Positive Rep", which is not the same thing...and for me at least is a positive thing...and seems to be working as intended.
Griefers will play it smart and roll their characters as CG aligned, weekend killing machines. They will grind reputation and alignment Monday through Friday, and then at the stroke of Midnight (Fri/Sat) they "Unleash Hell"!!
This, I think, is one place we have a different view of the game. I think, or perhaps only hope, that rep cannot be grinded like this. I would like to see negative actions have fast rep movement, positive actions should have very slow...very, very slow rep movement. If this is possible, I do not really see the point of having rep at all.
I have not read any suggested system for PFO that will prevent this from happening. To the contrary, I've read quite a bit that would encourage this type of gaming the system.
I have suggested many times that Rep should be as I described it above, fast down, very slow up...like 1 day of negative to go all the way down, months of grinding to go all the way up (without considering other relevant effects like diminishing returns and a parabolic shaped curve). What do you see as the "bad" consequences of such a system?
As far as what has been officially stated, I am not sure I have seen anything one way or the other...just lots of speculation (and a few attempts at theorycrafting) on intent and implementation on our end. I do not see how solid claims about what will work and will not can be made from that...especially since everything has been caveated as mutable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I had suggested this and volunteer to do it. I was however met with two responses:
1. "That would be griefing and there should be no tolerance of griefing, even if it is described as "testing" the system.
2. The purpose of EE is not to test the system, it is to set up the game world in preparation for OE.
It sure would be nice if everything just worked perfectly from the start but the chances of that happening are... slim. Adjustments, changes and perhaps overhauls to systems will likely need to see implementation before everything is running smoothly and satisfactorily.
I would argue that the usefulness of running "experiments" in EE outweighs the toll it takes on people's wishes to just play the game. Setting the game world and establishing a good community will certainly be big parts of the goal of EE but testing the limits of the systems will benefit both those projects rather than hinder them, at least in the long term.
What will happen when unscrupulous, PKing powergamers join in OE if the low-rep playstyle hasn't been tested? That will be impossible to say, hence we need to test the system.
I support a douchbaggery test initiative for EE.
Simply because there are a plethora of systems that will be initiated during EE, of necessity there is going to be a great deal of testing and retesting and changes in EE-that's what it's for. This is preparing for OE. And, Sir, it's Douchebaggery. Lord Sepherum does not appreciate his middle name being misspelled.
Good can be content for the Evil (and the reverse), this faction for that faction, this settlement for that settlement, etc. But reputation is a much different thing than alignment or allegiance for this purpose.
It seems like a combination of an in-game credit score and a way to measure your social stature.
Saying that you want low-reputation characters to be your "content"...
The parallel to this idea is a church bishop being allowed to beat the hell out of a hobo because one has high reputation and another has low reputation. It doesn't make any sense. It's like someone with a good credit score being able to horribly murder someone with a low credit score in the middle of the streets.
It just means you can beat the hell out of Chaotic players at will as a Lawful player and make them your content since Chaotic players will have much lower reputation than a Lawful player. (Reputation seems to be measured by the same things that the Lawful/Chaotic index will often be measured by.)
Ex: I'm CG, you're LN. I spent the last three weeks in the territory of a LE nation whilst freeing slaves and aiding rebellion, then fighting for survival in the wilderness against bandits to get here. My reputation sucks. Oh look, you walk down the road that leads a few miles back to the town. I walk up to greet you, and suddenly you pull out a sword and jam it through my skull. You take no reputation penalty as you loot my body, then walk back to the city. This is what you're asking for in a nutshell.
Actually, that example is somewhat muddled with other variables. Here's a better one.
Ex: I'm NN and you're NN. I just walked into your store to buy a Mighty Steel Greatsword of Fire +2. I'm about to pay and you see my "credit score" (aka reputation) isn't that high. You immediately take that Mighty Steel Greatsword of Fire +2 and rip my eyes out of their sockets, then decapitate me. You take the money I was about to buy that sword with and begin dragging my dead body to the back. Another customer walks in during and screams "By Desna! What are you doing to that poor man?" to which you reply, "Oh, low credit score". The customer sighs in relief and you two proceed to haggle over the greatsword as you clean my blood off the blade.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The parallel to this idea is a church bishop being allowed to beat the hell out of a hobo because one has high reputation and another has low reputation. It doesn't make any sense. It's like someone with a good credit score being able to horribly murder someone with a low credit score in the middle of the streets.
Ex: I'm CG, you're LN. I spent the last three weeks in the territory of a LE nation whilst freeing slaves and aiding rebellion, then fighting for survival in the wilderness against bandits to get here. My reputation sucks. Oh look, you walk down the road that leads a few miles back to the town. I walk up to greet you, and suddenly you pull out a sword and jam it through my skull. You take no reputation penalty as you loot my body, then walk back to the city. This is what you're asking for in a nutshell.
A-men. And if you've got serious amounts on the Good-Evil scale that LN killer should take the evil hit. Oh, and the criminal/chaos hit if you're in/near a settlement space.
A player that embraces a Chaotic Evil and Low Reputation play style already suffers no ill effects for killing other players. Why should they be protected by the very systems they ignore?
Because the system is stupid. Lawfulness and Goodness are impediments and should be treated as such.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A player that embraces a Chaotic Evil and Low Reputation play style already suffers no ill effects for killing other players. Why should they be protected by the very systems they ignore?
I think that they will suffer ill effects from choosing to be low rep. People might insist that it won't be an impediment, but until the game starts we don't know that for a fact.
When Dancey points approvingly to the example of an EVE character needing to spend one full month to go the equivalent of -7500 rep to +(?) rep, I tend to think that (a) recovering rep will take a while and (b) there will be reasons - read game mechanisms - that make it worthwhile to not stay low rep.
A player that embraces a Chaotic Evil and Low Reputation play style already suffers no ill effects for killing other players. Why should they be protected by the very systems they ignore?
How does being Chaotic Evil and having low reputation protect them?
When you choose to be Chaotic Evil and to not care about reputation, you limit yourself by being incapable of reaping the benefits of being Lawful and/or Good and having High Reputation.
When you choose to be Lawful Good and to care about reputation, you limit yourself by being incapable of reaping the benefits of being Chaotic and/or Evil and disregarding reputation.
In both, there are benefits and downsides. However, there are more downsides to being evil. When you choose to be good, you're likely surrounding yourself with other good people and get protection from other good people. When you choose to be evil, you don't get extra protection. In fact, it just means you can't get protection from good characters, and so you have to stick with Neutral or other Evil characters who don't care about you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's this that Nihimons question boils down to for me:
Would there be more or less griefing in the game if high reputation characters could dispose off low reputation characters without reputation or alignment shifts despite hostility?
I don't know the answer to that question. But I do know that my stand point as it is now, it might change though, is that, allowing high reputation characters to dispose off low reputation characters without reputation or alignment changes despite hostility wouldn't be that meaningful. I'd rather hunt them down using bountyhunters contracts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A player that embraces a Chaotic Evil and Low Reputation play style already suffers no ill effects for killing other players. Why should they be protected by the very systems they ignore?I think that they will suffer ill effects from choosing to be low rep. People might insist that it won't be an impediment, but until the game starts we don't know that for a fact.
When Dancey points approvingly to the example of an EVE character needing to spend one full month to go the equivalent of -7500 rep to +(?) rep, I tend to think that (a) recovering rep will take a while and (b) there will be reasons - read game mechanisms - that make it worthwhile to not stay low rep.
If I recall correctly, a certain reputation level is a requirement for entry into factions and settlements (should they choose to enforce such a rule). In addition, if someone is going to make a deal/contract with you and you have a low reputation they will deem you untrustworthy and choose someone else. These are the downsides.
It's this that Nihimons question boils down to for me:
Would there be more or less griefing in the game if high reputation characters could dispose off low reputation characters without reputation or alignment shifts?
I don't know the answer to that question. But I do know that my stand point as it is now, it might change though, is that, allowing high reputation characters to dispose off low reputation characters wouldn't be that meaningful. I'd rather hunt them down using bountyhunters contracts.
Why does everyone assume that all low reputation characters are deserving of punishment and bounties? Yes, griefing and being a jerk will lower reputation, but so will things that are nothing of the sort.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why does everyone assume that all low reputation characters are all worthy of punishment and bounties? Yes, griefing and being a jerk will lower reputation, but so will thinks that are nothing of the sort.It's this that Nihimons question boils down to for me:
Would there be more or less griefing in the game if high reputation characters could dispose off low reputation characters without reputation or alignment shifts?
I don't know the answer to that question. But I do know that my stand point as it is now, it might change though, is that, allowing high reputation characters to dispose off low reputation characters wouldn't be that meaningful. I'd rather hunt them down using bountyhunters contracts.
It's not what you think. I want this game to be griefless.
It's not what you think. I want this game to be griefless.Why does everyone assume that all low reputation characters are all worthy of punishment and bounties? Yes, griefing and being a jerk will lower reputation, but so will thinks that are nothing of the sort.It's this that Nihimons question boils down to for me:
Would there be more or less griefing in the game if high reputation characters could dispose off low reputation characters without reputation or alignment shifts?
I don't know the answer to that question. But I do know that my stand point as it is now, it might change though, is that, allowing high reputation characters to dispose off low reputation characters wouldn't be that meaningful. I'd rather hunt them down using bountyhunters contracts.
That would be nice, but treating everyone without a high reputation as being on the same level as a griefer isn't going to help with that. The suggestion in question does just this (in addition to using the mentality that griefing justifies more griefing in return).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ex: I'm CG, you're LN. I spent the last three weeks in the territory of a LE nation whilst freeing slaves and aiding rebellion, then fighting for survival in the wilderness against bandits to get here. My reputation sucks.
Why would this last be true? Reputation is not a social measure, it is a metametric based entirely upon how well/much one plays inside (or outside) the bounds GW has determined as positive gameplay. Do you feel there will not be positive ways to fight evil, freeing slaves, aiding rebellion, surviving in the wild, and/or defending oneself from bandits?
Oh look, you walk down the road that leads a few miles back to the town. I walk up to greet you, and suddenly you pull out a sword and jam it through my skull. You take no reputation penalty as you loot my body, then walk back to the city. This is what you're asking for in a nutshell.
Again, this would only be true if your reputation "sucked"...which would only occur if you spent time partaking in what GW has determined to be negative gameplay. The entire purpose of the reputation system is to carrot the positive gameplay by providing benefits to those who play within the manner determined positive, and the stick by making life difficult for those who do not play as they intend. Assuming, there are positive ways for you to pursue all the interests enumerated up top, why would we want it to work any other way?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why does everyone assume that all low reputation characters are deserving of punishment and bounties? Yes, griefing and being a jerk will lower reputation, but so will things that are nothing of the sort.
Because reputation is exclusively a measure of how well/often someone utilizes "desired" gameplay as dictated by GW. It sounds to me as if low rep being deserving of punishment is true by definition. The design of the entire system is ideally intended to push everyone into having positive rep and exclusively utilizing "positive gameplay".
Ex: I'm CG, you're LN. I spent the last three weeks in the territory of a LE nation whilst freeing slaves and aiding rebellion, then fighting for survival in the wilderness against bandits to get here. My reputation sucks.Why would this last be true? Reputation is not a social measure, it is a metametric based entirely upon how well/much one plays inside (or outside) the bounds GW has determined as positive gameplay. Do you feel there will not be positive ways to fight evil, freeing slaves, aiding rebellion, surviving in the wild, and/or defending oneself from bandits?
Oh look, you walk down the road that leads a few miles back to the town. I walk up to greet you, and suddenly you pull out a sword and jam it through my skull. You take no reputation penalty as you loot my body, then walk back to the city. This is what you're asking for in a nutshell.Again, this would only be true if your reputation "sucked"...which would only occur if you spent time partaking in what GW has determined to be negative gameplay. The entire purpose of the reputation system is to carrot the positive gameplay by providing benefits to those who play within the manner determined positive, and the stick by making life difficult for those who do not play as they intend. Assuming, there are positive ways for you to pursue all the interests enumerated up top, why would we want it to work any other way?
If a LE settlement decided that murder was not legal and then I killed those who were Lawful Evil in their territory (as a good character), would I not then lose reputation? If I were wandering through the forests and I spotted someone I know to be part of a CN bandit company, and decided to preemptively attack first, would I not then lose reputation?
If the reputation system can punish me when I'm not griefing, then how will someone's reputation only "suck" when they're a griefer? And if they ARE a griefer, is the GM supposed to intervene?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A player that embraces a Chaotic Evil and Low Reputation play style already suffers no ill effects for killing other players. Why should they be protected by the very systems they ignore?
What you are asking for in your OP is for High Rep characyers to be able play in a way that is Chaotic Evil + Low Rep, against characters with just Low Rep, without the consequences.
The system already gives an advantage to High Rep individuals when they attack Low Rep individuals. You are now asking for them to have open season, removing the very consequences you used to champion.
This strikes me as a desperate attempt to get Unsanctioned PvP to be categorized as "rules breaking" or griefing. I can assure you, this will backfire on what you intend. Griefers will game the system through rep grinding or alt wipe to work around it.
Yet another misconception about griefers. They don't care about character advancement or wipes. They only care about griefing, this is what they are paying for. They don't care about not having access to Settlents or upper tier training, they can grief as a "naked noob" and still get their monies' worth Lolz.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If a LE settlement decided that murder was not legal and then I killed those who were Lawful Evil in their territory, would I not then lose reputation? If I were wandering through the forests and I spotted someone I know to be part of a CN bandit company, and decided to preemptively attack first, would I not then lose reputation?
There are ways to minimize and even nullify reputation hits for various actions...in effect either making the behaviour "less negative" or "not negative"...why not utilize them?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That would be nice, but treating everyone without a high reputation as being on the same level as a griefer isn't going to help with that. The suggestion in question does just this (in addition to using the mentality that griefing justifies more griefing in return).It's not what you think. I want this game to be griefless.Why does everyone assume that all low reputation characters are all worthy of punishment and bounties? Yes, griefing and being a jerk will lower reputation, but so will thinks that are nothing of the sort.It's this that Nihimons question boils down to for me:
Would there be more or less griefing in the game if high reputation characters could dispose off low reputation characters without reputation or alignment shifts?
I don't know the answer to that question. But I do know that my stand point as it is now, it might change though, is that, allowing high reputation characters to dispose off low reputation characters wouldn't be that meaningful. I'd rather hunt them down using bountyhunters contracts.
To me the suggested game mechanic smells like a source of griefing, but I don't suggest that every one that has a low reputation is a griefer.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A player that embraces a Chaotic Evil and Low Reputation play style already suffers no ill effects for killing other players. Why should they be protected by the very systems they ignore?How does being Chaotic Evil and having low reputation protect them?
In the same way that choosing to play a High Elf protects you from any punishment that takes the form of forcing you to play a High Elf.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A player that embraces a Chaotic Evil and Low Reputation play style already suffers no ill effects for killing other players. Why should they be protected by the very systems they ignore?What you are asking for in your OP is for High Rep characyers to be able play in a way that is Chaotic Evil + Low Rep, against characters with just Low Rep, without the consequences.
No, what he was asking for (by my interpretation) was for the community to be able to participate in discouraging negative gameplay.
Yet another misconception about griefers. They don't care about character advancement or wipes. They only care about griefing, this is what they are paying for. They don't care about not having access to Settlents or upper tier training, they can grief as a "naked noob" and still get their monies' worth Lolz.
And what exactly do you think your army of naked noobs is going to do to grief well geared, well seasoned veterans?
There are ways to minimize and even nullify reputation hits for various actions...in effect either making the behaviour "less negative" or "not negative"...why not utilize them?
Again, this would only be true if your reputation "sucked"...which would only occur if you spent time partaking in what GW has determined to be negative gameplay.
Either the system should guarantee I never lose reputation when I'm not griefing, or people should not assume that everyone with low reputation is a griefer.
Otherwise, people WILL end up with low reputation when they are not griefers while the entire system assumes they are.
Note: Fill in "griefer" with "those who take part in and promote negative gameplay aspects as determined by GW".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why does everyone assume that all low reputation characters are deserving of punishment and bounties? Yes, griefing and being a jerk will lower reputation, but so will things that are nothing of the sort.
Because of statements like this:
If you want to PvP without consequence in PFO you will have to do it in one of the following ways:
1) Catch a flagged character (criminal, heinous, etc).
2) Start a feud, literally giving you the chance to choose which enemies are meaningful to you.
3) Start a war, again giving you the chance to choose with whom to fight.
4) Join one or more factions in order to take on one or more enemy factions.
5) Stand and Deliver (within its limitations).
6) Assassination (again, within its limitations. More on that another time!)
7) Pick up some bounties.
8) Take ownership/management of one or more elements of a PoI and defend them from attackers (who have initiated an attack).Any other PvP is griefing [[ edit - too dogmatic/incendiary a term - its not 'griefing' but its PvP behaviour that only has meaning for the killer... ]]
And countless other examples where Ryan and the devs have consistently talked about using the Reputation system (and other tools) to minimize anti-social behavior.
A player that embraces a Chaotic Evil and Low Reputation play style already suffers no ill effects for killing other players. Why should they be protected by the very systems they ignore?How does being Chaotic Evil and having low reputation protect them?In the same way that choosing to play a High Elf protects you from any punishment that takes the form of forcing you to play a High Elf.
What I get out of that comparison is "choosing to be Chaotic Evil and disregarding reputation protects you from being forced to be a Chaotic Evil character who disregards reputation."
Well... why does that matter? If I choose to do X why do I care about being forced to be X since I want to be X? And why is that somehow a major problem that you see as them being "protected"?
It seems you're saying that the very act of not caring about being Lawful Good is the problem, and that in the very act of not caring, you are protected from caring about not being able to be Lawful Good. Am I understanding this?
The problem with that assertion is that they are still unprotected from the downsides that not being Lawful Good with good reputation brings.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There are ways to minimize and even nullify reputation hits for various actions...in effect either making the behaviour "less negative" or "not negative"...why not utilize them?Again, this would only be true if your reputation "sucked"...which would only occur if you spent time partaking in what GW has determined to be negative gameplay.Either the system should guarantee I never lose reputation when I'm not griefing, or people should not assume that everyone with low reputation is a griefer.
Otherwise, people WILL end up with low reputation when they are not griefers while the entire system assumes they are.
Note: Fill in "griefer" with "those who take part in and promote negative gameplay aspects as determined by GW".
Agreed. The system should guarantee I never lose reputation when I'm not participating in negative gameplay.
Agreed. People should assume that everyone with low reputation is participating in negative gameplay.
Therefore, the argument was made, those with positive reputation should be able to both promote positive gameplay and/or preemptively defend themselves.
(To clarify, I for one am not sure of the status of alignment as a positive/negative gameplay metric so am making no claims about how Chaotic or Evil should be treated, I am currently of the personal opinion it should be an in-game RP metric with some semblance of balance in opportunity between them).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the reputation system can punish me when I'm not griefing, then how will someone's reputation only "suck" when they're a griefer? And if they ARE a griefer, is the GM supposed to...
You should understand that the nature of griefing is determined case by case. I don't think anyone is assuming that low reputation equals exclusively griefing. That's why I think Nihimons suggestion doesn't fit into GW vision.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Either the system should guarantee I never lose reputation when I'm not griefing, or people should not assume that everyone with low reputation is a griefer.
The practical effect of this demand is that no one can ever judge anyone else as being a griefer, unless they have direct personal experience of the griefing. (Feel free to substitute "meaningless PvPer" for "griefer")
Either the system should guarantee I never lose reputation when I'm not griefing, or people should not assume that everyone with low reputation is a griefer.The practical effect of this demand is that no one can ever judge anyone else as being a griefer, unless they have direct personal experience of the griefing. (Feel free to substitute "meaningless PvPer" for "griefer")
Which is perfectly logical, acceptable, and should be obvious from the beginning. The only way you can ever identify someone as a griefer is if you see them do it and know why they did it. If indentifying when someone is griefing was always so easy and objective then it wouldn't ever be a problem.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Agreed. People should assume that everyone with low reputation is participating in negative gameplay.
I disagree with you. If reputation is only a measure of negative gameplay, then GW should ban players instantly when they reach a certain reputation, for example -5000 or -7500. And that just doesn't make sense because they aren't doing that. At least they haven't said that.
Agreed. People should assume that everyone with low reputation is participating in negative gameplay.I disagree with you. If reputation is only a measure of negative gameplay, then GW should ban players instantly when they reach a certain reputation, for example -5000 or -7500. And that just doesn't make sense because they aren't doing that. At least they haven't said that.
Exactly. In addition, if at any point when you are playing you lose reputation for any reason, it would mean you are most certainly a griefer.
Unless you (Kitnyx) are saying that it is a statistical impossibility that someone could have low reputation while not being a grifer due to how often you would need to do things on the line between griefing and not griefing. To which I would argue is more probably that it would seem for any non-griefing character who routinely engages in any sort of PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do not necessarily think griefer and equals negative gameplay as defined by GW. There are obviously other non-universal connotations.
I have to admit I have no idea what a griefer is...nor what griefing is. If I cannot give an example of one by description of observable actions only, I do not think it is quantifiable and ambiguous...therefore I will not use the term, even for my own use.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do not necessarily think griefer and equals negative gameplay as defined by GW. There are obviously other non-universal connotations.
I have to admit I have no idea what a griefer is...nor what griefing is. If I cannot give an example of one by description of observable actions only, I do not think it is quantifiable and ambiguous...therefore I will not use the term, even for my own use.
Hence this:
Note: Fill in "griefer" with "those who take part in and promote negative gameplay aspects as determined by GW".
I'm using the word because reputation is more specifically tied to PvP, and loss of it is tied to the act of griefing, however it may be described. In general I'm using this word in place of that longer and more specific phrase for efficiency and convenience.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do not necessarily think griefer and equals negative gameplay as defined by GW. There are obviously other non-universal connotations.
I have to admit I have no idea what a griefer is...nor what griefing is. If I cannot give an example of one by description of observable actions only, I do not think it is quantifiable and ambiguous...therefore I will not use the term, even for my own use.
Neither do I. Only the GM, who is listening to a player explaining what happened in the game, knows and generally speaking GW. But what I do know is that griefing shouldn't be allowed in any form. And that defines griefing enough for me and helps me to determine what gameplay mechanics I consider meaningful.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The idea here is that there are a whole lot of ways players can participate in PvP, and a whole lot more qualifiers which will flag the PvP as 'good gameplay' or 'harmful gameplay' depending on who you're talking to. There are so many possibilities that GW can't deal with every scenario and somehow codes rules for every specific "what if" that we can come up with. So they make a system that blankets every possible action.
Every PvP scenario is regarded as 'harmful gameplay', unless otherwise denoted as sanctioned. However, the system admits that this is unnecessarily restrictive on player actions, which is why it permits you to participate in unsanctioned PvP. What the system does however is give you a warning: "I'm okay with it now; I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this one unsanctioned action is not actually harmful gameplay. But if you keep doing it I will then assume you're harming other people's experience and mete out punishment as necessary."
So you can go and free slaves; if that action necessitates unsanctioned PvP, you cannot then go and ambush a bunch of bandits. Yes, that's restricting your behavior, and yes, that's what the system is supposed to do. The system doesn't care about your motives, or what you personally regard as being good or harmful gameplay, and that's the way it should be, in my opinion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Exactly.Agreed. People should assume that everyone with low reputation is participating in negative gameplay.I disagree with you. If reputation is only a measure of negative gameplay, then GW should ban players instantly when they reach a certain reputation, for example -5000 or -7500. And that just doesn't make sense because they aren't doing that. At least they haven't said that.
I do not necessarily disagree...Except, that is where their points about toeing the line come in, and perhaps where I invoke the spirit of Bluddwolf and suggest a little bad rep might possibly help keep things interesting and keep people on their toes.
We know there will be people who will not care about playing "within the rules", people who probably even flaunt their ability to. We also know that we need fodder content for the game, challenges for the heroes, good and evil, lawful and chaotic, to overcome.
Part of good system design is embracing the inevitable and the side effects; utilizing them and finding positives uses for them. This, in my opinion is why GW is not auto-booting anyone with negative rep, they have a place and a role for the lesser offenders...with the line between greater and lesser blurred to keep the offenders on their toes...and to at least offer the possibility of...rehabilitation.
Trying to wrestle with the term "griefer" is futile.
Any character with Low Reputation has engaged in a significant amount of Unsanctioned PvP. To me, it follows as the night the day that such a person should always be considered a Sanctioned target.
In which case, low reputation should easily be a reason for a ban from the game since you assert it is a definitive fact that they are taking part in ban worthy activities.
BUT IF THEY ARE NOT then why do you believe it is the player's duty to literally punish them? You're advocating the idea that if someone does something bad, the same thing should be done to them. An eye for an eye, a grief for a grief?
That ignores the examples I gave before where this doesn't even make any sense in-game, let alone the moral implications.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do not necessarily think griefer and equals negative gameplay as defined by GW. There are obviously other non-universal connotations.
I have to admit I have no idea what a griefer is...nor what griefing is. If I cannot give an example of one by description of observable actions only, I do not think it is quantifiable and ambiguous...therefore I will not use the term, even for my own use.
Hence this:
Note: Fill in "griefer" with "those who take part in and promote negative gameplay aspects as determined by GW".I'm using the word because reputation is more specifically tied to PvP, and loss of it is tied to the act of griefing, however it may be described. In general I'm using this word in place of that longer and more specific phrase for efficiency and convenience.
Understood, I agree with you, was just clarifying that for anyone who might be trying to understand my previously stated opinions.
The idea here is that there are a whole lot of ways players can participate in PvP, and a whole lot more qualifiers which will flag the PvP as 'good gameplay' or 'harmful gameplay' depending on who you're talking to. There are so many possibilities that GW can't deal with every scenario and somehow codes rules for every specific "what if" that we can come up with. So they make a system that blankets every possible action.
Every PvP scenario is regarded as 'harmful gameplay', unless otherwise denoted as sanctioned. However, the system admits that this is unnecessarily restrictive on player actions, which is why it permits you to participate in unsanctioned PvP. What the system does however is give you a warning: "I'm okay with it now; I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this one unsanctioned action is not actually harmful gameplay. But if you keep doing it I will then assume you're harming other people's experience and mete out punishment as necessary."
So you can go and free slaves; if that action necessitates unsanctioned PvP, you cannot then go and ambush a bunch of bandits. Yes, that's restricting your behavior, and yes, that's what the system is supposed to do. The system doesn't care about your motives, or what you regard as being good or harmful gameplay, and that's the way it should be, in my opinion.
I agree with everything you said except whether or not its the way it should be. Regardless, my point is that many people will not have the intention of griefing, but not comply with the game when it says that it IS griefing.
Personally, I don't like the idea of griefing. However, I do not mind the idea of preemptively defending myself. I do not mind the idea of roleplaying and fighting for more reasons than "I really want that +2 Greatsword you got there, bro". I also don't mind the idea of killing based on alignment and actions. I find it strange that people see that as "negative gameplay" and yet killing indiscriminately based on faction isn't? They're basically the same thing, neither would be done by me for griefing reasons. However, that's not to say that the game won't label me one via low reputation.