Of course you should be able to attack players in your social graph. Not being able to do so leaves for no method of discipline for a settlement short of expulsion.
Examples of when you may want to engage in blue killing
player A decides to attack a friendly that while not blue will cause a diplomatic incident. Are you really suggesting that the settlement forces acting to stop the attack by killing player A should get a rep hit?
Player A has decided to take a cargo to sell at a settlement despite that settlement currently being embargo'd by the settlement leadership. Are you really suggesting the settlement forces acting to implement the lawful edict should have to take a rep hit?
Despite being told that running instances is forbidden due to being at a wartime footing a party of players has decided they know better. Are you suggesting that a settlements forces should be penalised by rep loss for enforcing this?
I suspect that the reason you suggest this is because of the presence of AWOXXING in Eve. While I agree AWOXXING is a pretty low trick and pretty near if not over the griefing line the main thing causing the problem is not actually blue on blue being free even in hisec it is the fact that even when someone has shown their intentions to do so that they cannot be then removed from the corporation until such a time as they dock or are offline. This enables the AWOXXER to often remain in the corporation picking off targets at will for long periods of time, days or even weeks in some case.
Blue on Blue fire has several good uses and as long as you ensure someone abusing it can be removed from settlement/chartered company etc immediately then the AWOX problem should not occur
Goblin Squad Member
|
...leaves for no method of discipline for a settlement short of expulsion.
How does fighting or killing a transgressor in your organisation impose discipline? If they don't die, they'll heal or be healed in moments, and if they do, Pharasma will return them to the world the same as anyone else.
It feels as if there's not a lot of scope for a lesson in behaviour. Perhaps requiring members being disciplined to wear a special tabard, cloak, or headgear would aid the cause, as shame may affect some people where momentary combat wouldn't.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The example was: I am in a social graph with A, and A gains the Attacker flag, I can attack A without penalty.
Mea culpa. I didn't intend for the example to be read that way, but on re-reading realized I could have been much clearer. Thanks for the clarification; it does support the way I envisioned it.
...leaves for no method of discipline for a settlement short of expulsion.How does fighting or killing a transgressor in your organisation impose discipline? If they don't die, they'll heal or be healed in moments, and if they do, Pharasma will return them to the world the same as anyone else.
It feels as if there's not a lot of scope for a lesson in behaviour. Perhaps requiring members being disciplined to wear a special tabard, cloak, or headgear would aid the cause, as shame may affect some people where momentary combat wouldn't.
It serves as a first warning rather than expelling them on the first offence. Secondly it also curtails the activity they are doing and ensures they do not profit from it.
In the first example the friendly neutral doesn't get killed
In the second example the merchant loses his cargo to the settlement
In the third example the instance runners lose any loot they collect
Would you really rather have the only choice be to expel these people on the first offence? Bearing in mind that doing so will make it harder for them to find a place in any competently run settlement in the future.
I fully expect Companies and Settlements that are serious about the territorial game to follow the Eve model on recruitment in as much as when someone applies you talk to their old corporation(s) about why they left and being expelled for such reasons would certainly make most think twice before recruiting them.
Hell even Eve university will kill its own members for breaking war time regulations and like most organisations they raise the tax rate to 100% during wartime to discourage activities such as PVE.
If you limit discipline to expulsion then that is what people will use.
Of course you should be able to attack players in your social graph.Right. Of course. Did something give you the impression this would not be the case?
[Edit] Since you didn't quote anyone, I made the assumption you were replying to Ryan's post 5 hours prior to yours.
That seems weird to me. You shouldn't be able to attack people in your social graph without penalty.
Admittedly misworded by myself it is the bolded part of Danceys statement that I find objectionable. (I am assuming, as social graph is such a meaningless term inasmuch as it means completely different things to different people, that currently we define it as people in my settlement).
This is a settlement internal matter and decent settlements will have grievance procedures in place to review attacks and pass judgements on their worthiness or not. This is something that should be left to players to decide not some mechanical system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Situation: A attacks B, B defends itself; A has attacker flag, B does not
1) If the social graph of B is allied with the social graph of A, then it seems reasonable that A's social graph should get some indication that A has gone "rogue" (so to speak). This would give A's social graph an opportunity to address the issue, but possibly not in time to prevent adverse political repercussions.
2) I support the idea of line-of-sight limits on any of A's social graph seeing that A now has the Attacker flag. It doesn't make sense to me (even with the handwaving, "it's magic") that any social graph group should have instantaneous knowledge of a graph member's actions regardless of distance.
3) I support the idea of line-of-sight limits on any of B's social graph seeing that B is now engaged for the same reason as above.
4) In situations where members of A and B's social graph are within line-of-sight of the A/B fight, I accept that out-of-game-mechanic communication will occur such that all of their respective graphs will become aware of the situation regardless of game mechanic.
5) Members of B's social graph within line-of-sight that become aware of A's Attacker flag should be able to attack A, but not necessarily A's social graph aware of A's Attacker flag. If members of A's social graph engage in the combat in support of A attacking B, then those "A" members should the receive the Attacker flag and may now be engaged by B's social graph members as long as those "B" members are also within line-of-sight.
6) If 4) above occurs, then reinforcements from both social graphs may arrive while the fight is still engaged. I support that they can be included in 5) above only when they come within line-of-sight of the (possibly now larger) fight.
My support of the line-of-sight delimiter is based primarily on the fact that line-of-sight calculations will already be done as a result of multiple characters able to be seen in the GUI display.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If A attacks B, and then B engages A, people in A's social graph should not see the Attacker flag on B. B's action against A isn't Attacker flagged.
Everyone in B's social graph should see A as Attacker flagged. We don't want B's allies to stand around doing nothing while B responds to A. But we don't want A's allies to stand around doing nothing while B's allies fight A.
Under the old Involved flag, A's allies could only join in if they adopted the same flag as A.
If A has an Attacker flag (and rep hit) from his attack on B, then any of A's allies that join in should be considered accessories to that attack. They are now attackers as much as he is and should have the same consequences.
If A committed an illegal act and got the Criminal flag (and the chaos hit), and members of social group B attack him, then A's allies that join in against B should be considered either accessories to the criminal act (flagged as Criminals, with chaos hits) or considered attackers (ie, flagged as Attackers, with rep hits). I think that it would probably be easiest to tag them as attackers, since the B forces are not rendered as Hostile.
An alternate way would be to always treat local members of a party as accessories. So when A committed the illegal act in the second example, everyone in his party and in the same location gets the Criminal flag and the chaos hit for the act.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You shouldn't be able to attack people in your social graph without penalty.Admittedly misworded by myself it is the bolded part of Danceys statement that I find objectionable.
Are you suggesting it would be better if you could always attack members of your Group (or Settlement) without penalty?
The way I read it, you can attack members of your Group (or Company or Settlement or Kingdom) the same way you can attack anyone else. I think Ryan was just saying that if someone in your Group suddenly got flagged as a Criminal, they wouldn't automatically be free kills the way they would if they were out of your Group. You can still attack them if you want.
You shouldn't be able to attack people in your social graph without penalty.Admittedly misworded by myself it is the bolded part of Danceys statement that I find objectionable.Are you suggesting it would be better if you could always attack members of your Group (or Settlement) without penalty?
Yes I am suggesting exactly that. The settlement has to have means of controlling its members. The all or nothing option of expulsion is not fine grained enough.
A settlement that allows members to capriciously kill each other will not long keep its members so the ability to attack will be used sparingly. Eve corps and alliances have this ability and it is not routinely abused (except for as I mentioned in AWOX style and that is more down to CCP's idiocy in making it impossible to expel someone while they are in space)
Having a word with people doesn't work unfortunately, in the three examples I gave of when a settlement may use the power for example if the reaction wasn't to kill them but to send them a whisper then I would fully expect that a percentage would just reply "lol" a further percentage would cease but then reoffend again in short order.
A short sharp shock lets them know that actually those rules they agreed to when joining the settlement weren't just window dressing but were actually meant and actually ends up in fewer needed expulsions at a later date.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the player should have the option, when his 'buddy' commits a criminal act, to respond just as if it wasn't his buddy. The Criminal's Hostile flag might be muted or secondary (say yellow instead of red), but it should still be there.
I agree. We already know* that the general design is that if a group member gets flagged then the group leader will have an opportunity to kick him from the group (and if the leader doesn't then each other member will have an opportunity to leave the group) before the rest of the group is also tarred by that action. If the flagged group member is booted before the flag spreads to the rest of the group, then the group should be able to attack the flagged former group member just as if he'd never been in the group.
* Having trouble finding the reference if anyone else can help dig it up.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually agree for different reasons. If a member of your settlement is so insubordinate that they will break the rules and then refuse to accept the punishment you assign them then they are of no value to your group anyway, and /boot is perfectly sufficient. I mean I suppose it depends on what kind of group you are trying to run, but I rarely have to boot anyone for behavior issues.
However, I have never had to kick anyone for killing other members even though it was possible to do so without consequence in both Freelancer and Darkfall.
The main application I've always put friendly fire to is training exersizes. Letting your troops beat up on each other is a great way to keep them both entertained and continually improving. We tended to do both organized events where we divided ourselves into teams and went all out on each other, as well as random attacks where we straight up ambushed eachother and let things devolve into an all out brawl. The first enhances teamwork skill and general competency, the second teaches them not to panic during sudden/unexpected PvP. If allowed to do the same in PFO all of TEO outside our declared pacifists will see the first kind of PvP, and everyone in our more elite militant groups will see the second.
The other application is tactical. Let's say you have a bunch of wizards/sorcerers who specialize in fire based nukes. Then you specifically gear up your front line troops to have incredible resistance to fire damage and AoEs to allow those nukers to be a bit more careless in their AoE placement. If you get flagged for hitting allies those nukers are going to get huge rep penalties for using tactics the front liners were ok with.
For me the upsides of allowing consequence free friendly fire way outweigh the downsides. I feel like this should be a choice the leaders of companies / settlements / kingdoms / alliances / parties should be able to make themselves. Neither option should be forced on any group by the mechanics but if a choice were forced I'd say make it that friendly fire is enabled.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
@Steelwing - I think your desire for more finely grained tools of discipline is meritous. But I don't think killing a character without penalty really does what you want it to do and it does open a huge series of loopholes (fratricide as a griefing tactic being the most obvious case.). Still, see below, I think that's what I'm advocating at the end of this post.
@All - I am most focused on the Attacker flag and the weirdness of being able to use it by a character's social graph. The other flags I think are less weird. I've got no problems with other sorts of flags putting the character in jeopardy.
One thing to remember is that the social graph has one layer of inheritance - from Settlement to Kingdom. Your social graph does not include the social graphs of other members of your ad hoc party - just those members.
This is potentially meaningful in this case:
A attacks B and gets Attacker flagged. C is in A's ad hoc party, AND is in a Settlement with B. C is therefore in A's social graph, and B's social graph AT THE SAME TIME. But C doesn't join the two social graphs for A and B.
This puts C into a weird place. Should C see A's attacker flag (via B's social graph?) or should (in the case of universal flags and flag hiding lists) should C not see A's Attacker flag (via being in A's social graph?)
That case alone seems to imply that the weirdness should be accepted and that (if universal) there should not be hiding lists for the Attacker flag.
@Steelwing - I think your desire for more finely grained tools of discipline is meritous. But I don't think killing a character without penalty really does what you want it to do and it does open a huge series of loopholes (fratricide as a griefing tactic being the most obvious case.). Still, see below, I think that's what I'm advocating at the end of this post.
I addressed fraticide as griefing when I talked about the AWOX scenario. As I said the problem that Eve has with that is due not to being allowed blue on blue fire but because once someone does it they can continue to their hearts content until someone can manage to log on before them after the daily downtime.
@Andius we too rarely have to kill our corp or alliance members. We do however ensure when recruiting new members that they know what the rules are and we emphasise they aren't optional and we do expect them to be obeyed. We also explain the rationale behind them.
When we do have to kill it is usually because we have absorbed a corporations that had been mainly hisec or losec players and decided they want to transition. Normally even then once a couple have been killed for transgression the rest usually get the message.It remains my view that just having a word does little to emphasise how serious you are about the rules need to be followed, using a death usually seems to get the point across however and it is rarely we end up expelling a member for a second offence
I repeat settlements and companies that routinely have to kill their own as a form of griefing will not manage to survive for long.
I would be happy with Andius's suggestion however that the allow friendly fire could be set on a company and settlement level that way those who think they don't need it don't have to.
@Steelwing - I think your desire for more finely grained tools of discipline is meritous. But I don't think killing a character without penalty really does what you want it to do and it does open a huge series of loopholes (fratricide as a griefing tactic being the most obvious case.). Still, see below, I think that's what I'm advocating at the end of this post.
@All - I am most focused on the Attacker flag and the weirdness of being able to use it by a character's social graph. The other flags I think are less weird. I've got no problems with other sorts of flags putting the character in jeopardy.
One thing to remember is that the social graph has one layer of inheritance - from Settlement to Kingdom. Your social graph does not include the social graphs of other members of your ad hoc party - just those members.
This is potentially meaningful in this case:
A attacks B and gets Attacker flagged. C is in A's ad hoc party, AND is in a Settlement with B. C is therefore in A's social graph, and B's social graph AT THE SAME TIME. But C doesn't join the two social graphs for A and B.
This puts C into a weird place. Should C see A's attacker flag (via B's social graph?) or should (in the case of universal flags and flag hiding lists) should C not see A's Attacker flag (via being in A's social graph?)
That case alone seems to imply that the weirdness should be accepted and that (if universal) there should not be hiding lists for the Attacker flag.
Going to have to agree with the big man on Campus here. You shouldn't be allowed to attack those in your own Social Graph, doesn't make sense. There needs to be a sense of pride, and of course social cohesion within these social graphs, and I think being able to kill your those in social graph only serves to take away from that. If someone is causing too much of a problem, tell them to stop, if they continue, you can simply remove them from the guild. That's how guilds have worked for years, and it's worked totally fine.
There are also other punishments you can implement as well, such as if there's a "Settlement Chat", or "Company Chat", you can shut off their privileges to speak and/or listen to it. There are other examples you can come up with as well.
Going to have to agree with the big man on Campus here. You shouldn't be allowed to attack those in your own Social Graph, doesn't make sense. There needs to be a sense of pride, and of course social cohesion within these social graphs, and I think being able to kill your those in social graph only serves to take away from that. If someone is causing too much of a problem, tell them to stop, if they continue, you can simply remove them from the guild. That's how guilds have worked for years, and it's worked...@Steelwing - I think your desire for more finely grained tools of discipline is meritous. But I don't think killing a character without penalty really does what you want it to do and it does open a huge series of loopholes (fratricide as a griefing tactic being the most obvious case.). Still, see below, I think that's what I'm advocating at the end of this post.
@All - I am most focused on the Attacker flag and the weirdness of being able to use it by a character's social graph. The other flags I think are less weird. I've got no problems with other sorts of flags putting the character in jeopardy.
One thing to remember is that the social graph has one layer of inheritance - from Settlement to Kingdom. Your social graph does not include the social graphs of other members of your ad hoc party - just those members.
This is potentially meaningful in this case:
A attacks B and gets Attacker flagged. C is in A's ad hoc party, AND is in a Settlement with B. C is therefore in A's social graph, and B's social graph AT THE SAME TIME. But C doesn't join the two social graphs for A and B.
This puts C into a weird place. Should C see A's attacker flag (via B's social graph?) or should (in the case of universal flags and flag hiding lists) should C not see A's Attacker flag (via being in A's social graph?)
That case alone seems to imply that the weirdness should be accepted and that (if universal) there should not be hiding lists for the Attacker flag.
No there aren't other effective punishments we can use cutting off chat or teamspeak privileges makes them useless to the settlement. What we will be doing is just taking the first offence to be a boot.
scenario will be player A commits offence
player A's company leader will be contacted (by phone if he is not on line) and be told to either remove you or his company from the settlement his choice.
If you think that is harsh there are already many Eve alliances that take that harsher route. We tend to be a mellower lot and believe people are allowed one mistake but if given only a choice of the boot or a wagging finger of disapproval we would go straight to the boot
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This whole social graph thing is getting a bit complex. It is not hard to be in a situation where A and B are both friends on my social graph and then A and B have a falling out and one decides to attack the other. Being able to know who the aggressor is would certainly impact my decision on if and how to get involved.
I'd vote for the simple universal attacker flag. If A attacks B in a way such as to gain the Attacker flag, then B's allies should be free to step in. A's allies only see folks with the Involved flag and do not get to assist freely. This is part of A's penalty for rep-loss style aggression. It is simple and easily understood. If B goes around trying to verbally provoke A into attacking, then A better be pretty darn sure of what they are doing before attacking.
If B goes around trying to verbally provoke A into attacking, then A better be pretty darn sure of what they are doing before attacking.
Sorry I have to disagree here, frankly more griefing is chat related than any other action in my experience. While repeatedly killing someone may not be pleasant it descends to a whole new level when coupled with verbal abuse. Indeed it is almost a trade mark of the true griefer that they can't keep their idiot mouth to themselves
Indeed verbal abuse on its own can be more than enough to ruin someones gaming experience.
Verbal abuse is one thing I would actually support Andius's idea of getting your rep back after a report and kill.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If A attacks B in a way such as to gain the Attacker flag, then B's allies should be free to step in. A's allies only see folks with the Involved flag and do not get to assist freely.
I would actually like it if A's allies could freely attack A in this situation, too.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sorry I have to disagree here, frankly more griefing is chat related than any other action in my experience. While repeatedly killing someone may not be pleasant it descends to a whole new level when coupled with verbal abuse. Indeed it is almost a trade mark of the true griefer that they can't keep their idiot mouth to themselves
Indeed verbal abuse on its own can be more than enough to ruin someones gaming experience.
Verbal abuse is one thing I would actually support Andius's idea of getting your rep back after a report and kill.
I do not see how verbal abuse is solved with violence in game, unless all chat is local-only. Killing usually does not silence speech or ability to send messages. Furthermore, if the verbal abuse is truly griefing then we should be able to report it as such and let GW handle it with actual punishment.
Also, the person using these tactics is probably looking for you to fight them, so why would you give them what they want?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If A attacks B in a way such as to gain the Attacker flag, then B's allies should be free to step in. A's allies only see folks with the Involved flag and do not get to assist freely.I would actually like it if A's allies could freely attack A in this situation, too.
Agreed. In the highly unlikely case a TEO member decides to engage in random slaughter or robbery in my presence, they should be more concerned about what I'll do to them than that player's allies.
I've always clearly stated that policy and never had to enforce it, but having the option to is nice.
Sorry I have to disagree here, frankly more griefing is chat related than any other action in my experience. While repeatedly killing someone may not be pleasant it descends to a whole new level when coupled with verbal abuse. Indeed it is almost a trade mark of the true griefer that they can't keep their idiot mouth to themselves
Indeed verbal abuse on its own can be more than enough to ruin someones gaming experience.
Verbal abuse is one thing I would actually support Andius's idea of getting your rep back after a report and kill.
I do not see how verbal abuse is solved with violence in game, unless all chat is local-only. Killing usually does not silence speech or ability to send messages. Furthermore, if the verbal abuse is truly griefing then we should be able to report it as such and let GW handle it with actual punishment.
Also, the person using these tactics is probably looking for you to fight them, so why would you give them what they want?
Because reporting them generally does nothing, even if they get a temporary ban they regard it as a merit badge. On the other hand when there rants end up making it more difficult to play the game because as soon as they leave a settlement they end up being hunted down then they actually start to modify their behaviour.
There is plenty of mileage in addition between friendly and acceptable banter and bannable language. I am firm in my belief that the most effective way to make a better community is to allow the players the tools to police themselves.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If A attacks B in a way such as to gain the Attacker flag, then B's allies should be free to step in. A's allies only see folks with the Involved flag and do not get to assist freely.I would actually like it if A's allies could freely attack A in this situation, too.Agreed. In the highly unlikely case a TEO member decides to engage in random slaughter or robbery in my presence, they should be more concerned about what I'll do to them than that player's allies.
I've always clearly stated that policy and never had to enforce it, but having the option to is nice.
*Looks upon a blood-soaked Andius with horror.* Andius, they were training them! We gave everything that was being stolen up front so that we could all be familiar with the systems!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sorry I have to disagree here, frankly more griefing is chat related than any other action in my experience. While repeatedly killing someone may not be pleasant it descends to a whole new level when coupled with verbal abuse. Indeed it is almost a trade mark of the true griefer that they can't keep their idiot mouth to themselves
Indeed verbal abuse on its own can be more than enough to ruin someones gaming experience.
Verbal abuse is one thing I would actually support Andius's idea of getting your rep back after a report and kill.
I do not see how verbal abuse is solved with violence in game, unless all chat is local-only. Killing usually does not silence speech or ability to send messages. Furthermore, if the verbal abuse is truly griefing then we should be able to report it as such and let GW handle it with actual punishment.
Also, the person using these tactics is probably looking for you to fight them, so why would you give them what they want?
Because reporting them generally does nothing, even if they get a temporary ban they regard it as a merit badge. On the other hand when there rants end up making it more difficult to play the game because as soon as they leave a settlement they end up being hunted down then they actually start to modify their behaviour.
There is plenty of mileage in addition between friendly and acceptable banter and bannable language. I am firm in my belief that the most effective way to make a better community is to allow the players the tools to police themselves.
I have heard this argument before from other Eve players. From what I have heard it has been pretty effective.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In the highly unlikely case a TEO member decides to engage in random slaughter or robbery in my presence, they should be more concerned about what I'll do to them than that player's allies.Exactly what I had in mind :)
I don't think it will be a common necessity in our case either, but very reasonable positions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sorry I have to disagree here, frankly more griefing is chat related than any other action in my experience. While repeatedly killing someone may not be pleasant it descends to a whole new level when coupled with verbal abuse. Indeed it is almost a trade mark of the true griefer that they can't keep their idiot mouth to themselves
Indeed verbal abuse on its own can be more than enough to ruin someones gaming experience.
Verbal abuse is one thing I would actually support Andius's idea of getting your rep back after a report and kill.
I do not see how verbal abuse is solved with violence in game, unless all chat is local-only. Killing usually does not silence speech or ability to send messages. Furthermore, if the verbal abuse is truly griefing then we should be able to report it as such and let GW handle it with actual punishment.
Also, the person using these tactics is probably looking for you to fight them, so why would you give them what they want?
Because reporting them generally does nothing, even if they get a temporary ban they regard it as a merit badge. On the other hand when there rants end up making it more difficult to play the game because as soon as they leave a settlement they end up being hunted down then they actually start to modify their behaviour.
There is plenty of mileage in addition between friendly and acceptable banter and bannable language. I am firm in my belief that the most effective way to make a better community is to allow the players the tools to police themselves.
On that front, I believe there are settlement bans and actions a company or settlement could take if one of their members are reported for such behavior. Running solo in this game is not an effective way to play. If the whole settlement or company is toxic or at least tolerant of the behavior, then other settlements and companies will be able to use the war mechanics against them. If the behavior is that bad, they will get theirs.
If reporting players doesn't ever do anything, then what is so different about a report and kill system that would make it work out?
There is already a lot of recourse to take, so I do not see the need to make special exceptions here. I know how terrible it is to not have immediate gratification in this day and age, but this is not an area where I see us needing to complicate systems to provide for it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do not see how verbal abuse is solved with violence in game...Because reporting them generally does nothing...
I think your experiences in EVE with respect to CCP's efforts to manage toxic players will not accurately forecast what you can expect from Goblinworks in PFO. Ryan has repeatedly and consistently made it clear that they will take a much more active role in dealing with players who engage in harassment of any kind, including verbal.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Eh. There will be verbal abuse in PFO. There's a lot I would consider to be verbal abuse I see flying around on these forums and not getting dealt with. Some coming from my own mouth, but I've set my tone to the level of insults I see people get away with when I report them.
So far I've noted that to include:
- Bashes on people's intelligence.
- Bashes on people's competency in various areas.
- Insinuations people are pathetic or not worth bothering worth.
- Fat jokes.
The worst stuff tends to get dealt with though.
On that front, I believe there are settlement bans and actions a company or settlement could take if one of their members are reported for such behavior. Running solo in this game is not an effective way to play. If the whole settlement or company is toxic or at least tolerant of the behavior, then other settlements and companies will be able to use the war mechanics against them. If the behavior is...
Sorry I have to disagree here, frankly more griefing is chat related than any other action in my experience. While repeatedly killing someone may not be pleasant it descends to a whole new level when coupled with verbal abuse. Indeed it is almost a trade mark of the true griefer that they can't keep their idiot mouth to themselves
Indeed verbal abuse on its own can be more than enough to ruin someones gaming experience.
Verbal abuse is one thing I would actually support Andius's idea of getting your rep back after a report and kill.
I do not see how verbal abuse is solved with violence in game, unless all chat is local-only. Killing usually does not silence speech or ability to send messages. Furthermore, if the verbal abuse is truly griefing then we should be able to report it as such and let GW handle it with actual punishment.
Also, the person using these tactics is probably looking for you to fight them, so why would you give them what they want?
Because reporting them generally does nothing, even if they get a temporary ban they regard it as a merit badge. On the other hand when there rants end up making it more difficult to play the game because as soon as they leave a settlement they end up being hunted down then they actually start to modify their behaviour.
There is plenty of mileage in addition between friendly and acceptable banter and bannable language. I am firm in my belief that the most effective way to make a better community is to allow the players the tools to police themselves.
It has nothing to do with instant gratification. It has however to do with company intervention being ineffective except in the most egregious cases. Blizzard has a massive budget to spend on moderators compared to Goblinworks and I don't think many would claim that many of there chat channels are pretty toxic.There is a reason the phrase "barrens chat" is famous even among mmo players that have never player Wow. If blizzard can't manage to keep the chat toxicity down do you really think Goblinworks with a much more limited budget is going to do so?
I am sure Pax Charlie George who I believe is one of the higher level Pax officers will probably confirm that a lot of intra guild disputes and bad feeling is caused by things that occurred in chat.
Dismissing chat as a source of griefing in its own right without it reaching ban worthy levels of language or content is naive. You may personally be unable to fathom it but I have known many instances of people dropping out of games in guilds I have been part of due to in game verbal harassment that GM's seemed unwilling to act upon.
Chat griefers generally do it because there is no come back, mostly they are even worse cowards than the other griefer types. They do it because there is no comeback on them.
There is however a reason for the quote "An armed society is a polite society" and a lot of truth to it. I have certainly seen player actions succeed where GM's have not
I cannot help but wonder to be honest.
Here is the big bad eve null sec alliance player stating that we should be able to tackle a particular type of griefer in addition to the types already discussed and I appear to be being opposed by the Anti griefer faction....
Did I wander into an alternative universe at some point today or something? Or is it that the messenger is the problem?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I cannot help but wonder to be honest.
Here is the big bad eve null sec alliance player stating that we should be able to tackle a particular type of griefer in addition to the types already discussed and I appear to be being opposed by the Anti griefer faction....
Did I wander into an alternative universe at some point today or something? Or is it that the messenger is the problem?
For the record I agree. If a moderator actually established you had a strong verbal provocation the rep penalty of the kill should be removed. Might be evil but they're the ones being toxic. Not you.
Not a fight you stand a chance of winning though, so I personally am not going to bother joining in.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Eh. There will be verbal abuse in PFO. There's a lot I would consider to be verbal abuse I see flying around on these forums and not getting dealt with. Some coming from my own mouth, but I've set my tone to the level of insults I see people get away with when I report them.
So far I've noted that to include:
- Bashes on people's intelligence.
- Bashes on people's competency in various areas.
- Insinuations people are pathetic or not worth bothering worth.
- Fat jokes.The worst stuff tends to get dealt with though.
I have a feeling that several large groups will do their own internal moderation, using social pressure, shaming, and ostracism to establish norms more restrictive than the GW moderators will or should enforce.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I cannot help but wonder to be honest.
Here is the big bad eve null sec alliance player stating that we should be able to tackle a particular type of griefer in addition to the types already discussed and I appear to be being opposed by the Anti griefer faction....
Did I wander into an alternative universe at some point today or something? Or is it that the messenger is the problem?
To say that the anti-griefer faction is entirely united would be a bit of a stretch. I do feel that chat griefing should be dealt with through greater moderator action though. If a player based kill and report system could refund reputation, then the line between grief-chat and trash-talking could be difficult to discern. Though, I would like to distill my points for easier dialogue (reference of point by numbers)...
1) My concern is in the Chat-Griefer using his words to provoke an attack whereupon previously hidden allies will come out to his defense in a reputation free assault against the griefed party who lost his cool. This could involve dozens of players and would be an unholy mess to sort through via a reporting system.
2) Learning to ignore verbal griefing is a life-skill. We have to do it all the time in the real world to avoid going to prison, so why can we suddenly not do so in a game?
3)Barrens Chat was a map-based chat channel that included a significant amount of space right between two major settlements and across a wide-level range.
3a) If we have a Regional chat channel, killing someone is not likely to remove them from the channel for long. If you are going to spend the time and resources repeatedly killing this player, then you are giving them exactly what they wanted in the first place. Your attention is on them and they are getting you worked up.
3b) If we do not have a Regional chat channel, the damage a verbal griefer can do is going to be more limited and immediately local. They will be unable to do it through a sense of security of your not knowing their exact location. Their only defense at that point is that your rep might get dinged. Do they risk that you'll take it?
4) What do you do when you report and fight then lose? Do you then expect gear refunds from trying to assault a griefer? These behaviors come from a confidence in lack of consequences. They will only be doing so if they do not feel threatened. Then they win twice by getting you angry and causing you to lose stuff.
5) This is not Fantasy EVE. There have been statements about how they intend to take more proactive measures against toxic community elements. And while yes, WoW had many more moderators, they also had millions of players. We've probably got some time before we even reach a hundred thousand. As the game goes live, I trust that staffing will be scaled as appropriate.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Here is the big bad eve null sec alliance player stating that should be able to tackle a particular type of in addition to the types already discussed and I appear to be being opposed by the Anti griefer faction....
In general, my understanding is that the players are not supposed to "deal with" griefers. Only the mods are authorized to identify someone as a griefer and deal with them.
If player A decides player B is a griefer and begins taking action against player B in order to change their behavior, it's quite possible the mods might decide that player A is the real griefer.
I have a feeling that several large groups will do their own internal moderation, using social pressure, shaming, and ostracism to establish norms more restrictive than the GW moderators will or should enforce.Eh. There will be verbal abuse in PFO. There's a lot I would consider to be verbal abuse I see flying around on these forums and not getting dealt with. Some coming from my own mouth, but I've set my tone to the level of insults I see people get away with when I report them.
So far I've noted that to include:
- Bashes on people's intelligence.
- Bashes on people's competency in various areas.
- Insinuations people are pathetic or not worth bothering worth.
- Fat jokes.The worst stuff tends to get dealt with though.
I expect that to be the case as well and should my lot come we have some fairly strict guidelines on what is acceptable. My concern though is not so much the large groups but the small groups in hisec or whatever PfO choose to call it. I certainly see more examples of verbal griefing in low and hi sec in Eve than I see in null sec where most of the smack talk is between groups that know each other quite well and have you might say a friendly rivalry.
@Lifedragn I am willing to (in Nihimon vein) have a gentlemans bet with you that the ration of moderators to players will be better in wow than PfO.
I think we all agree player actions should have consequences. Well player speech is a player action and if you want to take that action then you had better accept there may be repercussions to your misogyny/homophobia/racism/misandry/pejorism (delete as applicable or add your favorite bugbear to taste)
In my view if we can start cracking down on what is acceptable there then we will also avoid some of the more physical action griefing as well under the broken window principle.
Here is the big bad eve null sec alliance player
Just for clarity, you're referring to yourself as the "big bad eve null sec alliance player", right?
Here is the big bad eve null sec alliance playerJust for clarity, you're referring to yourself as the "big bad eve null sec alliance player", right?
I am referring to how I suspect I am perceived more than how I perceive myself to be given the number of times people on these forums have raised fears about eve null sec alliances coming here. The bits that I believe apply to me are "eve null sec alliance player"
. I am quite surprised that I haven't been accused of being a goon precursor as yet :)
Here is the big bad eve null sec alliance playerJust for clarity, you're referring to yourself as the "big bad eve null sec alliance player", right?I am referring to how I suspect I am perceived more than how I perceive myself to be given the number of times people on these forums have raised fears about eve null sec alliances coming here. The bits that I believe apply to me are "eve null sec alliance player"
. I am quite surprised that I haven't been accused of being a goon precursor as yet :)
Ah, I see np. As a comfort to those here who're worried about large EVE null-sec alliances coming to PFO, I would mention that the actual combat experience gained in EVE (with the ships and such) probably won't apply too much to a Fantasy MMO like PFO. They may have numbers, but, I think a lot of groups will have numbers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Having not played Eve, I can imagine reasons beyond getting yourself attacked. I do know that Eve is not exactly a slow-turn based game. I imagine even friendly banter between passing neutrals is minimal, if only because time spent typing messages is time not spent doing other things. And not doing things in dangerous territory prolongs your need to remain there. I am also assuming that Eve doesn't have integrated voice comms, which is what enables massive verbal griefing in the Battlefields and Calls of Duty in the world. But would explain such trash talking between groups that know each other and may have out of game channels.
Please feel free to correct any of my above assumptions. As I said, I have not played the game.
As for ratio of moderators, I would not be willing to say whether the ratio is better or worse. Because of how much players can already do to moderate each other, I do not feel that we would need as many. But I think we would need many more to sort through Report and Kills.
I will have to point back to Nihimon's post about players trying to take griefer management into their own hands by griefing the griefers.
Ah, I see np. As a comfort to those here who're worried about large EVE null-sec alliances coming to PFO, I would mention that the actual combat experience gained in EVE (with the ships and such) probably won't apply too much to a Fantasy MMO like PFO. They may have numbers, but, I think a lot of groups will have numbers.Here is the big bad eve null sec alliance playerJust for clarity, you're referring to yourself as the "big bad eve null sec alliance player", right?I am referring to how I suspect I am perceived more than how I perceive myself to be given the number of times people on these forums have raised fears about eve null sec alliances coming here. The bits that I believe apply to me are "eve null sec alliance player"
. I am quite surprised that I haven't been accused of being a goon precursor as yet :)
While it is true that the space ship combat will not have much in common there is a wealth of experience that is totally transferrable.
Fleet discipline will make formation warfare discipline a lot easier to attain
Managing large scale conflicts particularly being able to quickly assess rapidly changing tactical situations. In particular I expect PfO tactical situations to be less fluid through the absence of such items such as hot drops which can radically alter the state of a battleground in seconds
Eve alliance players are used to putting the group before self (A problem I think many themepark players are going to struggle with)
Eve alliances also generally have a cadre of theoreticians who love nothing more than spending time with spread sheets to work out how to maximize fleet performances.
There are of course other games that will bring similar skills and it certainly shouldn't be felt that Eve players will be uncatchably ahead of the learning curve. I suspect though for at least the first year that settlement warfare is live in game they will be some of the tougher opponents to go against.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Here is the big bad eve null sec alliance playerJust for clarity, you're referring to yourself as the "big bad eve null sec alliance player", right?I am referring to how I suspect I am perceived more than how I perceive myself to be given the number of times people on these forums have raised fears about eve null sec alliances coming here. The bits that I believe apply to me are "eve null sec alliance player"
. I am quite surprised that I haven't been accused of being a goon precursor as yet :)
The Goon scare has either died off or been relegated to organizational forums elsewhere.
That said if you work on the assumption that this game will be successful, it becomes fairly likely we will end up seeing those folk here (Eve Alliance folk, Goons or otherwise).
That isn't something to be afraid of, but it is something to be aware of and preparing for.
Ah, I see np. As a comfort to those here who're worried about large EVE null-sec alliances coming to PFO, I would mention that the actual combat experience gained in EVE (with the ships and such) probably won't apply too much to a Fantasy MMO like PFO. They may have numbers, but, I think a lot of groups will have numbers.
I am not as confident a lot of groups on these boards will have Eve nullsec alliance numbers anytime soon. I am hopeful that might end up the case, but I don't see it right now.
I am not as confident a lot of groups on these boards will have Eve nullsec alliance numbers anytime soon. I am hopeful that might end up the case, but I don't see it right now.
Ah, I see np. As a comfort to those here who're worried about large EVE null-sec alliances coming to PFO, I would mention that the actual combat experience gained in EVE (with the ships and such) probably won't apply too much to a Fantasy MMO like PFO. They may have numbers, but, I think a lot of groups will have numbers.
Coming from someone in PAX, I'm surprised to hear that. But I wasn't just referring to people on these boards, no doubt people will come from other games before or during EE. I have a feeling there are people in large groups keeping an eye on this game that we may not have heard from as yet.
Ah, I see np. As a comfort to those here who're worried about large EVE null-sec alliances coming to PFO, I would mention that the actual combat experience gained in EVE (with the ships and such) probably won't apply too much to a Fantasy MMO like PFO. They may have numbers, but, I think a lot of groups will have numbers.Here is the big bad eve null sec alliance playerJust for clarity, you're referring to yourself as the "big bad eve null sec alliance player", right?I am referring to how I suspect I am perceived more than how I perceive myself to be given the number of times people on these forums have raised fears about eve null sec alliances coming here. The bits that I believe apply to me are "eve null sec alliance player"
. I am quite surprised that I haven't been accused of being a goon precursor as yet :)
While it is true that the space ship combat will not have much in common there is a wealth of experience that is totally transferrable.
Fleet discipline will make formation warfare discipline a lot easier to attain
Managing large scale conflicts particularly being able to quickly assess rapidly changing tactical situations. In particular I expect PfO tactical situations to be less fluid through the absence of such items such as hot drops which can radically alter the state of a battleground in seconds
Eve alliance players are used to putting the group before self (A problem I think many themepark players are going to struggle with)
Eve alliances also generally have a cadre of theoreticians who love nothing more than spending time with spread sheets to work out how to maximize fleet performances.
There are of course other games that will bring similar skills and it certainly shouldn't be felt that Eve players will be uncatchably ahead of the learning curve. I suspect though for at least the first year that settlement warfare is live in game they will be some of the...
I wouldn't deny that there are a lot of things someone would benefit from coming from EVE. Just pointing out that oftentimes, it's direct combat which has to be feared, and that part will be difficult to translate.
There are of course WoW players who would have the opposite advantages/disadvantages. If they spent a lot of time in WoW PvP, they'll be able to transfer a lot of those skills to PFO combat, but, will lack the discipline, and basically everything else you mentioned. Of course, the vast majority of people from WoW (even WoW "PvP" servers) will be PvE-loving nubs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Pax has a total membership of 1923. That is every member we have, not excluding not so active members. That is spread over all our active MMO's, virtual tabletop groups, FPS's, and online private server rosters.
I am confident we can make a strong second push, and we actually are doing alright in that regard internally. That said there are Eve alliances that have the same numbers in a single sandbox MMO.
To say we are equal in that regard to those alliances would just be unnecessary arrogance.
As far as the EE buy ins not announced, I have no idea if they are represented by large groups or by smaller groups of Paizo patrons. We just don't have the information to say either way.