| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is designed to get better feedback on non-consensual PvP.
1) On the Paperdoll, please indicate where the bad Midnight character touched you with her arrows.
2) Please indicate whether you won or lost the engagement. (Please be aware that since Midnight has far more points in gathering than combat that you will be forever ridiculed if you didn't win against that bloodthirsty but horribly-inept-at-combat gatherer).
3) Based on your experiences, how can Midnight add more tears to future engagements?
We'd like to remind you that tipping your attacker will no longer be required, beginning Wednesday. Your husk is your tip.
This thread is designed to get better feedback on non-consensual PvP.
1) On the Paperdoll, please indicate where the bad Midnight character touched you with her arrows.
2) Please indicate whether you won or lost the engagement. (Please be aware that since Midnight has far more points in gathering than combat that you will be forever ridiculed if you didn't win against that bloodthirsty but horribly-inept-at-combat gatherer).
3) Based on your experiences, how can Midnight add more tears to future engagements?
We'd like to remind you that tipping your attacker will no longer be required, beginning Wednesday. Your husk is your tip.
<3
*points at paperdoll, crying*
Goblin Squad Member
|
The expression "harvesting one's tears" does not necessarily identify the user as a griefer, although it could. It could equally be a suggestion that the victim is an emotionally weak care bear, although it may not.
Often times these emotionally charged expressions are used "tongue in cheek" and meant to get an emotional rise out of people.
I believe that is the primary purpose of the thread. As a secondary purpose it may be pointing out the dangers (for the game) of giving too much credence and voice to overly sensitive players.
PvP must be a balance of risk, engagement and reward. Either extreme, griefer or care bear, can ruin it and ruin the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, I'm pretty sure Uncanny Saline Tears are used in crafting Refined Delicious Tears +3.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It could equally be a suggestion that the victim is an emotionally weak care bear...Griefing.
Often times these emotionally charged expressions are used "tongue in cheek" and meant to get an emotional rise out of people.Griefing.
No and No.
In the first possibility the victim is not prepared for any loss. He or she was not griefed, but instead may have shown that a non consensual PvP game is not meant for them.
In the second, writing for the purpose of sparking controversy or satirically exposing flaws is a subject for debate. If this creates undue grief, again, perhaps this is not the place for one to be.
It could equally be a suggestion that the victim is an emotionally weak care bear...Griefing.
Often times these emotionally charged expressions are used "tongue in cheek" and meant to get an emotional rise out of people.Griefing.
No and No.
In the first possibility the victim is not prepared for any loss. He or she was not griefed, but instead may have shown that a non consensual PvP game is not meant for them.
In the second, writing for the purpose of sparking controversy or satirically exposing flaws is a subject for debate. If this creates undue grief, again, perhaps this is not the place for one to be.
I like this guy, I think we would make a great team.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It could equally be a suggestion that the victim is an emotionally weak care bear, although it may not.
The use of the phrase emotionally weak care bear is in itself a very derogatory statement and seems to show a rather high level of disdain for players with that play style. PFO is not a murder sim .. at least it isn't supposed to be but I'm honestly beginning to believe that is exactly what it will end up being if the attitude is either build your character to survive or go somewhere else as we don't need/want "care bears". The constant, incessant adherence to "you have what you hold and if you can't hold it, then to bad" attitude that seems to be expressed by some really does strike a nerve with me (nah .. you probably couldn't tell).
Some of us look forward to playing this game for RP, community, relaxation and not just to add more stress in our lives or the lives of others. I've seen more than my fair share of "bad things" in life to not go seeking it out in a virtual world.
Not sure that outing/documenting yourself as a griefer was a pro move there, little buddy ;)This thread is designed to get better feedback on non-consensual PvP.
3) Based on your experiences, how can Midnight add more tears to future engagements?
The vast majority of my non-consensual PvP is me gathering stuff and trying to chase off the competition.
Iron (or any resource) can go to MY settlement's war machine, or theirs.
If they aren't crying over missed opportunities to gather, then I obviously need their feedback in order to up my game.
ALL gathering is PvP, even when no one attacks anyone. Can you buff speed and gather faster? Can you bring more friends? Can you nodestrip a hex so your competitors can't access as many resources?
The devs are welcome to invisibly watch my every move for days on end. Besides Tower PvP, solo PvE, and escalation PvE in groups, what they will see is a gatherer who has a high tendency to shoot other gatherers to chase them away. That strategy is actually ineffective against determined gathering opponents (though husks may change that dynamic) but many (most?) gatherers just aren't as determined as me, so even being bad at combat I gather way more resources than I would gather by trying to just outrace them to resources. Instead of 2 or 3 people in a hex, there's ONE.
I have favorite hexes and many of my gatherer neighbors now run away at the sight of my name on their mini-map. But they also know I'll fill up and be gone, and until then they probably just find another hex or even just logout and make a sandwich until my bag fills.
And if you'll look elsewhere on the forums you'll see me crowdforging for territoriality controls. Wednesday's implementation of husks may be all that's needed. We'll see.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It could equally be a suggestion that the victim is an emotionally weak care bear, although it may not.
The use of the phrase emotionally weak care bear is in itself a very derogatory statement and seems to show a rather high level of disdain for players with that play style. PFO is not a murder sim .. at least it isn't supposed to be but I'm honestly beginning to believe that is exactly what it will end up being if the attitude is either build your character to survive or go somewhere else as we don't need/want "care bears". The constant, incessant adherence to "you have what you hold and if you can't hold it, then to bad" attitude that seems to be expressed by some really does strike a nerve with me (nah .. you probably couldn't tell).
Some of us look forward to playing this game for RP, community, relaxation and not just to add more stress in our lives or the lives of others. I've seen more than my fair share of "bad things" in life to not go seeking it out in a virtual world.
Being a care bear is a play style, being an emotionally weak care bear is a syndrome. I have no issue with PvE'res or Crafters, just with whiners who want to label any instance of loss as grief.
As for your trepidation concerning "Have What You Hold", you claim to be a role player and should know that the River Freedoms are part of the lore of Pathfinder. If the setting is going to make a difference and have meaning than it should be the basis for player interaction, as role players.
There are no Hallmark stores in Mordor (or Golgotha in PFO terms), there are no Hull Houses in Aragon.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have to admit it's kind of funny.
Here's a game where the lead dev has said like a million times that his #1 priority is to not allow people to get their smiles from other people's frustration--that he and Lisa would tank the game before they allowed that to be viable.
The OP may not be the sharpest tool in the shed ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I tried to keep my comment generic because there are plenty of people who evidence no sign of anger and I have no desire to accuse anyone of being so.
I was just joking, you know,,, being the sarcastic SOB I occasionally love to be.
OOC: I'm sitting in a parking lot of a gym, waiting for my kids to come out from dance class. Been here for two hours!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
They took a taxi home already, griefing their dad. lulz
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Mbando
Actually, I share Ryan and Lisa's vision, and many people on Golgotha's voice-comms have heard me say that *I* don't want to play a murder sim, either. I was even saying it again this weekend.
I want MEANINGFUL PvP. Hence my crowdforging for territoriality controls.
But meaningful PvP is going to mean that people take losses and yes there just might be tears.
I don't know what it is like to lose a Titan or Mothership in Eve. Tears? Am I a bad person if I say I hope so?
But I do know how it feels to help kill 4 Titans and 9 Motherships, and that's a feeling that has earned thousands of my dollars over the years.
I also know what it's like to have my Scorpion Battleship get one-shot by a Titan who decided I was more more irritating (due to blocking his reppers ability to lock) than any of the 500 other opposing ships on his grid.
But frankly, my little Non-Consensual PvP Reporting thread is really just a humorous little poke in the ribs at that other thread.
Can you imagine the amount of tears that will flow if/when the first settlement gets burned down?
Some serious rage-quitting will ensue.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think in the long run we will loose more people than we gain if the game becomes too heavily weighted toward non-consensual PvP. We certainly need some, but the Devs need to be very careful what side of the line they initially come down on, especially (as others have said) right up around the end of month 4.
And let me be clear, by territoriality controls I mean an ability to chase people away from resources you claim, even if that claim is just for the next 30 minutes.
One way might be if I can plant a warning sign that can be read by everyone in the hex and entering the hex and expires after X minutes, and those signs, of course should cost resources and crafter time to make, and longer lasting signs (like an entire settlement might want to plant) would be more costly than the short duration signs I will want to plant.
I don't want a game mechanic that physically prevents others from gathering, just one that puts others on notice that they aren't currently welcome to gather and will be engaging in SANCTIONED PvP if they don't exit the hex.
So far my favorite gathering hexes are those with War of Towers active PvP flags. My rep has been near max since WoT because I haven't had to engage in "unsanctioned PvP" to chase people off. But I can't count on a game mechanic that the devs have announced is temporary, for the long term.
I don't know if devs INTENDED those PvP flags to affect gathering by players who don't even care about that particular tower, or if my behavior is just another example of unintended emergent gameplay.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I can't tell if the OP was being truthful or not in their OP. Either way I'm not too worried. I have a lot of confidence that we will get robust PvP over resources of all kinds AND people who get their jollies from someone else's misery will, to quote Ryan and other devs: "suck."
All gathering is PvP.
That should actually be so abundantly clear to people that I shouldn't have to write it... except for the fact that the player population is incredibly low right now. Quadruple this population and it will be quite obvious.
Would you prefer that instead of firing arrows that I petition GW and have my competition banned from the game because clearly I was gathering in that hex first? That mean player engaged in non-consensual PvP by grabbing that Iron before I could. Boo-hoo, perma-ban them. :-)
LOL
Yeah, I agree the devs will give us robust combat PvP over resources. It already happens in the WoT PvP windows, I just wonder if they foresaw that.
But in the meantime, for non PvP flagged hexes they gave me a bow, and reputation points to use as wisely or poorly as I choose.
I think things are working out nicely and my fellow players are remarkably well behaved and resilient compared to the worst case scenarios I might have imagined.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
The expression "harvesting one's tears" does not necessarily identify the user as a griefer, although it could. It could equally be a suggestion that the victim is an emotionally weak care bear, although it may not.
Often times these emotionally charged expressions are used "tongue in cheek" and meant to get an emotional rise out of people.
I believe that is the primary purpose of the thread. As a secondary purpose it may be pointing out the dangers (for the game) of giving too much credence and voice to overly sensitive players.
PvP must be a balance of risk, engagement and reward. Either extreme, griefer or care bear, can ruin it and ruin the game.
The "victim"? Unless griefing is happening, there is no victim. There are only players who are moving in a winning or losing direction so long as the game is being played.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
All gathering is PvP.
That should actually be so abundantly clear to people that I shouldn't have to write it... except for the fact that the player population is incredibly low right now. Quadruple this population and it will be quite obvious.
Would you prefer that instead of firing arrows that I petition GW and have my competition banned from the game because clearly I was gathering in that hex first? That mean player engaged in non-consensual PvP by grabbing that Iron before I could. Boo-hoo, perma-ban them. :-)
LOL
Yeah, I agree the devs will give us robust combat PvP over resources. It already happens in the WoT PvP windows, I just wonder if they foresaw that.
But in the meantime, for non PvP flagged hexes they gave me a bow, and reputation points to use as wisely or poorly as I choose.
I think things are working out nicely and my fellow players are remarkably well behaved and resilient compared to the worst case scenarios I might have imagined.
You're hiding the lede.
Settlement-level competition is the desired and intended level of PvP. It goes beyond leaving husks. Gathering is one aspect of the big game, so of course it's important. Being the only person gathering a resource means being a very important part of a major team effort- meaning that if one one character is supplying a major resource to a rival, interfering with that character is an efficient way to improve relative standings. (Like building a road to block an opponent's when playing Catan.)
Yes, Decius, much of that applies to our own situations. I'll just add that (as crowdforgers) we shouldn't forget there are also going to be G.D.I.s and neutrals who simply sell to the high bidder.
They too, may want to initiate (or avoid) combat during resource gathering, and they certainly risk becoming collateral damage of settlement or company warfare.
Though they probably view *us* as the collateral damage in their economic warfare.
There is definitely an argument to be made that spit's actions constituted griefing. For it to carry much weight, Scorch would need to be the one making it though.
It would be kind of funny (ironic?) if Scorch submitted a griefing report on Spitfire in Spitfire's griefing non-consensual pvp reporting tool. :p
No argument here. I've played the Eve Auction House.
The problem with our philosophy is that there are players who still just want to PvE and don't realize that even in selling their monster loot they are (at least peripherally) combatants and thus are (arguably) legitimate targets even while fighting monsters for loot.
I've wondered in some other thread, if PFO will actually have room for "civilian" play.
Get with time, guys. "Griefer" is hip slang now. Yo, dude, that guy's totally griefer, is what we kids say to each other on the playground college place.
Griefing just doesn't interest me.
I face the problem though, that I can't be sure that if I leave someone alone, that the iron they are gathering won't be used to fashion weapons for those who mean me harm.
It could equally be a suggestion that the victim is an emotionally weak care bear...Griefing.
Often times these emotionally charged expressions are used "tongue in cheek" and meant to get an emotional rise out of people.Griefing.
Being rude in the game (or game forums) is not griefing. It's bad manners. It's unnecessary, It's being a dick, even. But it's not griefing. It's trolling, which is a whole other animal. Griefing is generally defined as an action that has an impact on the game—unless you pursue abuse to the point that someone quits their settlement, it's not griefing.
Trolling ain't good, but misusing a controversial buzzword isn't helpful either. :P
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
—unless you pursue abuse to the point that someone quits their settlement, it's not griefing.
That might be a bit restrictive. I think if you spoil the game for them, even if it's not enough to drive them completely away right now, it probably counts. Maybe they just reduce to only participating once a week in raids with their buddies instead of nightly gathering for crafters. I imagine it's a tough line, though. I suspect Bluddwolf would have to die a lot of times for no good reason before it would start to make him not enjoy things. Before that, he'd likely consider it a challenge. It wouldn't take very many of those to hamper my participation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But it's not griefing. It's trolling....
Sophistry!
Griefing is generally defined as an action that has an impact on the game...
Hrm...
Griefing is doing something to another player with the intention and primary outcome of ruining that player's experience.
I don't really care what word you use to describe it. All that matters is what Goblinworks thinks about it, and I trust their judgment a lot more than I trust yours. Calling someone "an emotionally weak care bear" or intentionally trying to "get an emotional rise out of people" is bad/wrong regardless of the label you use.
I think you're misinterpreting Ryan's statement, but viewing trolling and griefing as one and the same for practical purposes has some weight to it. They're still different words that mean different things. Hitler =/= Stalin, griefing =/= trolling.
Also, what Midnight is doing is called trashtalking. You handle it by trashin' back, setting it in the school parking lot (tracking him down ingame), or rolling your eyes and turning up your nose at such amateurish nonsense. Harruuumph!
—unless you pursue abuse to the point that someone quits their settlement, it's not griefing.That might be a bit restrictive. I think if you spoil the game for them, even if it's not enough to drive them completely away right now, it probably counts. Maybe they just reduce to only participating once a week in raids with their buddies instead of nightly gathering for crafters. I imagine it's a tough line, though. I suspect Bluddwolf would have to die a lot of times for no good reason before it would start to make him not enjoy things. Before that, he'd likely consider it a challenge. It wouldn't take very many of those to hamper my participation.
Rudeness is not generally griefing. People can be driven away from a game for very minor things. If I banditize a guy and he leaves because of it, yes, my action sort of drove him away, but it's nowhere near griefing. Simple words must be taken to an especially active level—i.e., harassment—before they can be considered anything like griefing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rudeness is not generally griefing. People can be driven away from a game for very minor things. If I banditize a guy and he leaves because of it, yes, my action sort of drove him away, but it's nowhere near griefing. Simple words must be taken to an especially active level—i.e., harassment—before they can be considered anything like griefing.
But I think we were talking about intention. I won't hold you responsible if the first (or probably even fifth) time you attack someone, they leave the game. But if they change from a four-times a week-player to a once-a-week player because you stalk them every time they log in unless they're in a big group, you're still a griefer, whether they leave the game or not.
If you logged onto PFO, you've, by definition, consented to PVP. If you don't agree with this... you're playing the wrong game.This thread is designed to get better feedback on non-consensual PvP.
I know, I'm just mocking another thread.