Goblin Squad Member
|
One great way to avoid abuse of F2P accounts such as gold-spamming is to simply have volunteer player chat mods. It does wonders for a game. They keep the chat channels civil and can mute spammers or other trouble makers and send notice to a GM who can take corrective action as needed. They also tend to be experienced players who can offer help when people have questions about how something in the game works.In most MMOs I have played, you can as an individual /ignore any user you wish in the chat channel. This is both a personal ability and a personal choice.
I would be wary of any player being the decider for others, what they can see and can't see in a chat channel.
It's an authority thing. /ignoring doesn't doesn't help anyone but the person ignoring. When someone that has the ability to actually do something about it tells you to stop, there's a much better chance it will happen by that player's willingness.
One of the reason so much crap happens on the internet and MMO's is because no one can do anything about it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One great way to avoid abuse of F2P accounts such as gold-spamming is to simply have volunteer player chat mods. It does wonders for a game. They keep the chat channels civil and can mute spammers or other trouble makers and send notice to a GM who can take corrective action as needed. They also tend to be experienced players who can offer help when people have questions about how something in the game works.In most MMOs I have played, you can as an individual /ignore any user you wish in the chat channel. This is both a personal ability and a personal choice.
I would be wary of any player being the decider for others, what they can see and can't see in a chat channel.
It's an authority thing. /ignoring doesn't doesn't help anyone but the person ignoring. When someone that has the ability to actually do something about it tells you to stop, there's a much better chance it will happen by that player's willingness.
One of the reason so much crap happens on the internet and MMO's is because no one can do anything about it.
/ignore and /report
Leave it up to employees of Goblin Works to take care of silencing and banning players.
Ask Ryan how mixing Devs - GMs and players worked out at CCP?
It has been proven to lead to abuses, in both directions, and is not good for the game. Imagine the power you are suggesting gets put into the hands of a player. He or she can silence another player out of self interest. If that happened, you think GW would admit they made a mistake in their vetting process?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And yet EVE has 400k+ Subs? They're doing it right!
Oh I don't think it was a shining moment for CCP, having to fire its employees (Devs / GMs) and having to ban hundreds of accounts.
....... I just realized how far off the OP topic we are. Why are we discussing the policing of chat channels?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
/ignore and /report
Leave it up to employees of Goblin Works to take care of silencing and banning players.
Hrm... Let's see what Ryan says on the subject:
If people who want to be griefers find that its a huge hassle, they only get to do it once, the rest of the community tells them their a&*!~$+s instead of celebrating their cleverness/a$**$##ry, and there's not much in-game reward for doing it anyway, there will be a lot fewer griefers than there are in FFA open world PvP games that don't take a hard line against it.
My argument is that the past decade of history gives us the context we need to see how to avoid the problems that cause sandboxes to degenerate. And the NUMBER ONE thing is to build and nurture a culture in the community that is intolerant of a~@%!%*s.
Sounds like Ryan doesn't just want us to shrug our shoulders and punt to the moderators. But rather to be active members of a community that works to instill shared values about fair play and civility.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sounds like Ryan doesn't just want us to shrug our shoulders and punt to the moderators. But rather to be active members of a community that works to instill shared values about fair play and civility.
It's not a punt to report chat that violates EULA rules, it is what we are supposed to do. Why argue with someone who is going to use racist or vulgar language directed at someone, try to open a dialogue with them and they will typically just laugh and insult you. Then you end up reporting them anyway. Just cut to the chase and report.
If I see anyone using racial slurs or directed insults about gender, orientation, disabilities, etc. I'm just going to report them. If I see chat channel that is simply annoying, like spam, I'm just going to ignore them.
You won't ever, ever, ever see me using language like that in a chat. You'll likely rarely see me chatting in a chat except for an occasional comment in a help chat.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes, /report, absolutely. It's important, and I'm not saying don't.
I'm saying I don't like your idea that we shouldn't - as a community - use peer pressure to try to get them to change their behavior and stop being a jerk.
Have you ever tried to engage them in chat? 90% or more of them will just get worse. How naive are you really? I think some of you have drank so much of Ryan's koolaide you're convinced he can "Fix the Internetz".
Your best bet is to report abusers, not engage them. They will just realize they got under your skin and openly mock you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is a double edged sword, as Bluddwolf suggests, in almost all of my own personal experience. Very much depends on how you approach it, but it is (usually) futile with the very worst cases. I do feel like it is worth trying, so long as you don't let yourself get caught up in it and: 1. Feed them just what they want, and 2. mind wasting your efforts 90%+ of the time.
If you can change one person though, by doing it in a positive way, it IS worth the trouble. Isn't it?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One great way to avoid abuse of F2P accounts such as gold-spamming is to simply have volunteer player chat mods. It does wonders for a game. They keep the chat channels civil and can mute spammers or other trouble makers and send notice to a GM who can take corrective action as needed. They also tend to be experienced players who can offer help when people have questions about how something in the game works.In most MMOs I have played, you can as an individual /ignore any user you wish in the chat channel. This is both a personal ability and a personal choice.
I would be wary of any player being the decider for others, what they can see and can't see in a chat channel.
It's an authority thing. /ignoring doesn't doesn't help anyone but the person ignoring. When someone that has the ability to actually do something about it tells you to stop, there's a much better chance it will happen by that player's willingness.
One of the reason so much crap happens on the internet and MMO's is because no one can do anything about it.
/ignore and /report
Leave it up to employees of Goblin Works to take care of silencing and banning players.
Ask Ryan how mixing Devs - GMs and players worked out at CCP?
It has been proven to lead to abuses, in both directions, and is not good for the game. Imagine the power you are suggesting gets put into the hands of a player. He or she can silence another player out of self interest. If that happened, you think GW would admit they made a mistake in their vetting process?
Reports go to GM's who tend to be pretty busy dealing with all the wonderful issues an MMO presents anyway. It's not very helpful to have a bunch of reports about the same person stack up. The Chat Mods would be able to issue warnings and temporarily silence someone who is causing issues while sending their own report to the GM who can then take the time to review, discuss and take whatever action needs to be taken with the potentially abusive player.
Any Chat Mod found abusing their position would be stripped of it. Records of a Mod would be kept to not only ensure this but also as evidence that the Mod took the appropriate steps with the abusive player that the GM dealing with it can review.
Power isn't just given to a random player and then they are let loose to do as they choose. A Chat Mod would have their peers and GM's keeping tabs on them as well. It's not nearly as doom and gloom as you're suggesting.
I've seen this work wonderfully in Wurm. Not only do the regular players inform abusive players (normally newbies) that their actions won't be tolerated but if the abusive player continues then the Chat Mod is there to tell them how it is. If the abusive player continues even after that then they are usually silenced and a GM is tagged to deal with them as needed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think some of you have drank so much of Ryan's koolaide you're convinced he can "Fix the Internetz".
I keep trying to figure out what you think you will gain by convincing people that Ryan will fail in his stated intentions. Why you think it's so important to ensure that people get the wrong idea about what this game will be like.
It's absolutely clear to me that you do it intentionally. I just don't get why.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think some of you have drank so much of Ryan's koolaide you're convinced he can "Fix the Internetz".I keep trying to figure out what you think you will gain by convincing people that Ryan will fail in his stated intentions. Why you think it's so important to ensure that people get the wrong idea about what this game will be like.
It's absolutely clear to me that you do it intentionally. I just don't get why.
First, I have little faith in what is being envisioned here. A near Utopian view of what the community is going to be like in PFO, but still have the freedoms of a sandbox MMO. You might argue it is a Pre-Colombian "The Earth is Flat" mentality, but if you view at the MMO landscape, the landscape is pretty darn flat.
I'm ok with the "Hope for the Best" mentality, as long as there is also an accounting for the "Prepare for the Worse", so that an expectation can be set somewhere in between.
I think its important that people get a realistic idea of the game. It is one thing to say what is intended or hoped for, but another to say what it will be.
Here is a question for you Nihimon, what is your threshold or breaking point where you decide you will play PFO or not?
This question is based on a percentage of Ryan's vision of behavioral controls (alignment, reputation, skills tied to settlement, character tied to settlement, etc.)
Let us also stipulate the the game mechanics of all other systems are better than average (80+).
I'm not sure if I should say what mine is, for fear it might taint the result, but one of us has to go first...
I would be satisfied with between 60 - 70% (65) and I could see myself playing PFO for years.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
First, I have little faith in what is being envisioned here. A near Utopian view of what the community is going to be like in PFO, but still have the freedoms of a sandbox MMO. You might argue it is a Pre-Colombian "The Earth is Flat" mentality, but if you view at the MMO landscape, the landscape is pretty darn flat.
I'm ok with the "Hope for the Best" mentality, as long as there is also an accounting for the "Prepare for the Worse", so that an expectation can be set somewhere in between.
I think its important that people get a realistic idea of the game. It is one thing to say what is intended or hoped for, but another to say what it will be.
Here is a question for you Nihimon, what is your threshold or breaking point where you decide you will play PFO or not?
This question is based on a percentage of Ryan's vision of behavioral controls (alignment, reputation, skills tied to settlement, character tied to settlement, etc.)
Let us also stipulate the the game mechanics of all other systems are better than average (80+).
I'm not sure if I should say what mine is, for fear it might taint the result, but one of us has to go first...
I would be satisfied with between 60 - 70% (65) and I could see myself playing PFO for years.
That's why I believe in fighting "tooth and nail" for Nihimon's vision. Because if I get 70% of that, it's closer to yours and I can play through the flaws. Shoot for what you want, and it will surely be 70% of that, which will suck...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The 70% was not 70% of my vision or Nihimon's vision, it was 70% of Ryan's vision.
If Ryan got everything he wanted in the game, but the alignment system, would that be a deal breaker for you?
If Ryan got everything he wanted in the game, but the SAD system, would that be a deal breaker for me?
Since both alignment and SADS are part of Ryan's vision, it doesn't matter percentage wise which one is removed. It only matters which one you as an individual cares about.
Nihimon's breaking point is not something that we can measure or question. I do in fact respect his measure greatly, because it is placing his wife's interests at least equal to his own, but probably a bit above his own I would expect.
His perspective of gaming is significantly different from mine, because he has to consider his wife's concerns. That I'm actually envious of. My wife's perspective on gaming is .... WTF, your 47 years old!! and "You're killing monsters!".
I don't have a computer she and the kids did not get me for a present, and most of my games come to me that way as well.
I think when you sift through all of the bickering, it comes down to us wanting a great game. We just have a slightly different idea of what that is or how to get there.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
We just have a slightly different idea of what that is or how to get there.
While I appreciate your attempt to sound reasonable, I want to make it clear that I am 100% adamantly opposed to many of the things you have either stated outright that you would do, or have said people shouldn't get upset about.
I expect I'll be quite happy with 20-30% of Ryan's vision for several years.
But just to reiterate, in case you missed it.
The most important thing is not that characters can kill other characters. The most important thing is that there are consequences for doing that. And it's a corollary of that statement that the more often a character kills other characters, or helps a character killer, the harder it must be for that character to recover from doing so.
This is my red line. If you can threaten everyone you see to hand over their goods or else, and still have all the benefits I get from playing the "positive game play" game, then I think the system will have failed, and I'll probably find somewhere else to spend my money.
I really want a game where I face the real challenge of other human beings when things that are really important to me are on the line. But if I can't run around the map exploring without having to expect that everyone who sees me is going to try and kill me, then I just won't bother.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really want a game where I face the real challenge of other human beings when things that are really important to me are on the line. But if I can't run around the map exploring without having to expect that everyone who sees me is going to try and kill me, then I just won't bother.
Perfectly worded.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is my red line. If you can threaten everyone you see to hand over their goods or else, and still have all the benefits I get from playing the "positive game play" game, then I think the system will have failed, and I'll probably find somewhere else to spend my money.
I really want a game where I face the real challenge of other human beings when things that are really important to me are on the line. But if I can't run around the map exploring without having to expect that everyone who sees me is going to try and kill me, then I just won't bother.
Very much this - on both points.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We just have a slightly different idea of what that is or how to get there.While I appreciate your attempt to sound reasonable, I want to make it clear that I am 100% adamantly opposed to many of the things you have either stated outright that you would do, or have said people shouldn't get upset about.
I expect I'll be quite happy with 20-30% of Ryan's vision for several years.
But just to reiterate, in case you missed it.
The most important thing is not that characters can kill other characters. The most important thing is that there are consequences for doing that. And it's a corollary of that statement that the more often a character kills other characters, or helps a character killer, the harder it must be for that character to recover from doing so.This is my red line. If you can threaten everyone you see to hand over their goods or else, and still have all the benefits I get from playing the "positive game play" game, then I think the system will have failed, and I'll probably find somewhere else to spend my money.
I really want a game where I face the real challenge of other human beings when things that are really important to me are on the line. But if I can't run around the map exploring without having to expect that everyone who sees me is going to try and kill me, then I just won't bother.
You cant have it both ways. You cannot have a game with human conflict over "things that matter" and at the same time be scott free when running around the wilderness. What do any of you really expect from a PVP centered game?
No risk, No Reward
Whats the point of running around the map exploring, if everyone else can do the exact same thing with little or no risk?
Sure GW is trying for that, by mitigating things with reputation and making anyone with low rep suck. It will curb things a bit, but dont expect for one minute that will be the end all be all answer.
I would expect that you will see exactly what you want, for about 2 years. Once some people have their characters trained up how they want them... they will no longer give a damn about reputation or alignment. They will have already ground through all the PVE content available, they will have already played the settlement game, they will have already used the faction system... And now they will now want the freedom a sandbox is supposed to offer.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Xeen I think the idea is that those people then would quickly lose the tools to play in that sandbox if they would not care about reputation anymore. I am curious to which extent their character would become inefficient though.
I do agree with the no risk no reward thing though. I think most things that yield big rewards in this game will be done in groups. When you are going at it solo I think you should be prepared for a NBSI type world when you encounter someone that is not affiliated to any of your causes.
There are a few things that could help the solo adventurer:
- the world is so big that there are vast stretches of land that can not be dominated/monitored becuase there simply aren't enough players;
- ways to flee an encounter or avoid an encounter (Stealth/Hiding);
- SAD (pay money and go on your way);
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
According to what we know so far, if they're unable to find a settlement to join which can train the high-level abilities they've spent XP on, they'll no longer be able to slot those abilities. Since Chaotic Evil settlements will find it difficult to offer high-level training, there may be room to expect those who consider those abilities of importance to continue caring about their alignment, and possibly their reputation as well.
An interesting side-note to that thinking: imagine a group decides to split--for whatever reason--from their current settlement and head off into the wilderness to start a new one. I can see that, if they sever ties to their old settlement, they'll be using only lower-level abilities until they get their own training facilities built. That could be interesting in a variety of ways.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Xeen
The argument will be that if they train for 2 years and then turn "bad", they will not gain access to upper tier training or they may lose what upper tier training they did have, and will begin to suck.
That might all be true, if:
1. It is actually implemented that way.
2. It actually matters
I will give GW the benefit of the doubt and say that they get all of #1.
#2 however is something that is not in their control. If I have just played the game for 2 years, without upper tier training and skills, will I really be missing that much in not having access to it after 2 years?
Does the play style of those more accustomed to the sandbox MMO, really depend on upper tier training?
None of the sandbox MMOs that I have played require the highest levels of training, gear or abilities.
Again, we would have to believe that GW will create systems that are so ground breaking that they revolutionize the genre of Sandbox MMOs. I'm not trying to imply that they can't, I'm just saying it is a potentially unreasonable expectation and a standard I would bet they would not want to be held to.
Having a vision is great, but it means nothing more than an unfulfilled desire until it is actually done. If they pull it off kudos to them!!!! If they don't, it's ok as long as the game is playable (good combat system, economy, crafting, etc..).
In another thread there is the unfortunate title of "How to make PFO better than EVE" (or something like that). I say "unfortunate" because PFO has not yet proven that it will be as good as EvE. Once they have proven that (and we will know in EE), then the focus can be on making it better.
