I dont mind the gank. If im playing a pvp game or have wondered in to a pvp area thats my fault. I should be ganked. If i am a dumb ass and go back in I should be ganked again. If i dont want to pvp I should roll on a pve server and or stay out of pvp areas.
In games like EVE and Aion they pvp games. So if its not someones flavor then they should prol not play it. The responsibility of an informed purchase is on the buyer.
Personally I do enjoy persistant world pvp when there is a in game benifit to it. What I cant stand is farming folks. But that is me. Some really like being on both ends of it and accept that that is the gameing experience they will have. If im in to the game enough reguardless of the farming ill find a way around it. If im not then I walk.
If its not your flavor then dont whine about it thinking that it will convince a dev to rule set change or a different option in game. Most companies do not care about anything other that the bottom line. Instead vote with your feet and find something that you feel is worth your time and money. That is where the real impact is. In the wallet.
Wow, I love all the feedback! My experience was after I had just finished a PvE mission, and somehow, opened myself up to being attacked by the other faction. I had no idea I was in this state. I was at a terminal reading my next mission when I was brutalized...I lasted almost 3 full seconds before my reading glasses shattered across my face. As I laid there, still having no idea what happened, I saw the, um...assailant..., attack and kill my docile beast steed. Really? That was not fun. No adrenaline rush there...it ruined my opinion of PvP and I haven't recovered. I played in a subdued manner after that and didn't experience the game as I am sure it was intended, and it gradually became more like work than play, so I picked a new game. Now, if I can't avoid PvP, I just find another game that suits me. I am glad for PvPers and PvEers that the industry is trying to meet both playing styles...helps keep the gaming industry healthy.
To the guy who said that ganking doesn't add anything of value to a MMO....I beg to differ. It wasn't too long ago that things like ganking gave way for guilds and alliances to develop to fight the resistance. Said group of people end up getting to know eachother really well and friendships are made. Thats what MMOs used to be about.
If its the grouping part that your not too keen with......then maybe Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games isn't the gaming venue for you. I don't mean that to come off the wrong way. I know FPS games have dynamics that don't fit with my play style....so I don't play FPS games. If uninterupted fantasy adventuring is what your after.....then any console or single player PC RPG game should do the trick I think.
I think it's important to note that getting ganked or evern griefed is not an issue for players who clearly understand the rules of the game world and are there precisely because those rules exist.
But if players don't want to be tackled they shouldn't be playing full contact football.
The proper analogy would be 'If players don't want to get tackled by a freight train while playing football, they shouldn't be playing a hackneyed version of football where older athletes can drive vehicles on the field.'
Though I guess you'd leave out accuracy for the sake of making a point.
Just come out and say it.
'I like being able to savagely beat to death people that don't have a chance. I'm satisfied every time I see a new corpse of an otherwise innocent bystander left in my wake, because I have no emotional or rational connection to other people that makes me understand that I just ruined someone's day and committed to what in the real world would be homicide.'
Is it so hard to say it?
I personally love playing PvP games because I love fighting people. It's not a fight if there's a clear victor before the fight even starts, then it's just boring. Part of the reason I've always loved doing SCA and tournaments in real life, because it's just more satisfying to me to have a challenge.
Ganking annoys me not because I die, but because there's no challenge. There's no tactical or quantitative value in games generally to beating people outside my level range, so I don't do it.
When people do it to me I suck it up and keep going. If they continue, I'm forced to wonder just what is wrong with them, because they obviously lack respect for other people, and definitely aren't doing PvP for any real combat or reward external to the glee they get from murder.
Just because a high level player can park themselves in the middle of a town full of new players and go on a killing spree doesn't mean that was the intentions or design of the game. That simply means that there is some assumption of self regulation and value judgement.
Rather the reason I made that post before inquiring about the progressive degradation of player quality in PvP games. I remember playing Planetside and having plenty of respect for other players. Playing on full PvP servers in DAoC and AC I had the same experiences. I've come back to those games and sen marked degradation, and it's obviously in part due to a new generation of gamers as much as it's older gamers just caving in.
And again why I make my point on skill centric games being my preferred PvP type. People just can't be as homicidal, because there's no one clearly below some 'level' to pick on.
Your sarcasm is unwarranted.
You make too many assumptions.
Tell me when "I" have ever ganked any individual? Tell me when I have ever camped an individual?
If the game is an all out ffa free-for-all kill-athon then that is the game. End of subject. If people want to play the game they should know the rules. If they don't like the rules then don't play. It's not for you. This is ok. Not everything has to be for everyone.
At the time during my stint in Lineage 2 I had a lvl 78 Storm Screamer. At this point in time that's not too high but at the time I was only two levels from cap and there weren't many players in that upper level range.
I could have easily taken control of any of the starter cities and there would be nothing that those new players could have done about it.
But I didn't because that's not who I am. However, I don't begrudge players who did that in L2 because that was the game. Not quests but player interaction that would then spawn additional player interaction and consequences.
You may point your finger elsewhere though I suspect that your finger shouldn't be in these types of games to begin with.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Actually I didn't agree. The statement 'pvp'ing in a pvp zone' is meaningless since pvp by definition can only take place in a pvp zone. I mean if you're in a non-pvp zone, how can their be pvp. I'm saying there is a huge difference between getting ganked and getting griefed.
When I mention a PvP zone, I mean a zone in which the main purpose of players being in the zone is to compete over some form of objective or resource.
This does not necessarily encompass all areas in which PvP can occur between players.
A game or server with a FFA ruleset is not necessarily an explicit server wide "PvP zone" for lack of better terms. A FFA ruleset is meant to allow players the opportunity to attack other players, and is not necessarily an encouragement to do so indiscriminately. That is the major misconception a lot of the 'ganker' PvPer make, that just because they can do something, that they are fully entitled and by no means in the wrong for perpetrating such actions.
Take Ultima Online for example. It was a FFA ruleset in part as a social experiment to see if players would 'play nicely' together. Needless to say, a number of players failed, enough to prompt the developers to introduce a PvE ruleset to all servers. It was hardly shocking that after this happened, 90+% of players quickly flocked out of the old FFA PvP land and into the new PvE land. Simply put, players were sick of being 'content' for the minority of abusive players. It's not necessarily that they had a problem with PvP or the FFA ruleset itself, but rather they had issue with the fringe minority of players who made playing the game miserable for everyone else from their, here's the magical term, indescriminate ganking.
So yes, ganking is actually an extremely negative contribution to any MMO. Sure, your fringe gaming population may like to gank, or have the possibility of being ganked or fighting back, but it's obvious that the majority of MMO gamers simply decry it. Why else do you think that MMOs that have explicit FFA rulesets throughout the game, end up being nothing more than footnote MMOs with niche player bases?
I'm not trying to make you think ganking is good. You don't like being ganked, you think it sucks. Fine, I can appreicate that. But its not the same as griefing. Your definition of griefing seems to be any pvp that you don't think is justified and that is simply not the case.
I would generaly argue that "ganking" is generaly against the spirit of PvP that most game designers who put PvP into thier games intended. Game designers usualy provide PvP options in order to provide for greater competition in the game.
However with "ganking" in the traditional sense, there is pretty much zero competition. It usualy takes the form of 1 or more very high level players attack 1 very low level player, usualy while that player is distracted. The low level player usualy has no chance to even do significant damage to a high level player...or even run from the situation. In FFA games, the low level player may not even have any reason to suspect the higher level player(s) as hostile...as they will often not intiate the encounter as flagged...and may even have come by offering the newbie "advice" or "help" or some similar ruse.
Now in side vs side games where the activity is occuring within what is clearly intended as a conflict area....one can forgive some ganking.... as the compitition is not between individual players but between 1 team and another.... and arranging unequal encounters within the overall conflict is part of the strategy. However, that is NOT the form that most traditional "ganking" takes place in. Usualy there is no competition. Attempts to disguise it as such, fall flat.
Most level 50 players would not go after level 1 or 2 mobs.... there would be no fun in that for them. So what motivation could there be to go after players that have the combat abilitty of a level 1 or 2 mob? It seems pretty clear to me that for the "gankers" it's all about ruining someone elses day.
I would generaly argue that "ganking" is generaly against the spirit of PvP that most game designers who put PvP into thier games intended. Game designers usualy provide PvP options in order to provide for greater competition in the game.
However with "ganking" in the traditional sense, there is pretty much zero competition. It usualy takes the form of 1 or more very high level players attack 1 very low level player, usualy while that player is distracted. The low level player usualy has no chance to even do significant damage to a high level player...or even run from the situation. In FFA games, the low level player may not even have any reason to suspect the higher level player(s) as hostile...as they will often not intiate the encounter as flagged...and may even have come by offering the newbie "advice" or "help" or some similar ruse.
Now in side vs side games where the activity is occuring within what is clearly intended as a conflict area....one can forgive some ganking.... as the compitition is not between individual players but between 1 team and another.... and arranging unequal encounters within the overall conflict is part of the strategy. However, that is NOT the form that most traditional "ganking" takes place in. Usualy there is no competition. Attempts to disguise it as such, fall flat.
Most level 50 players would not go after level 1 or 2 mobs.... there would be no fun in that for them. So what motivation could there be to go after players that have the combat abilitty of a level 1 or 2 mob? It seems pretty clear to me that for the "gankers" it's all about ruining someone elses day.
I would argue that it comes down to the "meta game".
It's true that attacking a lower lvl player who cannot defend themselves or outnumbering another player does not take any skill.
Using Lineage 2 for example and regardless of one's motivations because there are obviously players who get their jollies from "surprising" other players or just obliterating players who can't defend themselves, "ganking" feeds into the creation of a larger type of conflict.
For instance, if an alliance were to take over Cruma tower with high level players and "gank" any indiviudal who spawned at the starting point they would essentially be sending out a message that the tower is ours and for our lower lvl alliance members to use. This actually happened on several occasions.
Eventually other clans/alliances would hear of it and they would come and try to take the tower. The offending alliance would then be known as a hostile alliance and going forward there would be wars, skirmishes, etc.
It is a greater offense to take out the weaker members of an opposing alliance and this creates hostile emotions that feed into the conflict.
Same thing with taking over a lower lvl city. Eventually the lower lvl players will have to find clans and alliances that can protect them. This way, if they are harrassed, that will bring higher lvl players to the fray.
If a game pretty much weaves in the ability to have this type of conflict then I don't think it's unfair. It's one tool in creating conflict.
Just like if a game offered stealing from another player then that would be considered sanctioned by the developers.
For people who don't like this type of brutal world then the game isn't for them.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Actually I didn't agree. The statement 'pvp'ing in a pvp zone' is meaningless since pvp by definition can only take place in a pvp zone. I mean if you're in a non-pvp zone, how can their be pvp. I'm saying there is a huge difference between getting ganked and getting griefed.
When I mention a PvP zone, I mean a zone in which the main purpose of players being in the zone is to compete over some form of objective or resource.
This does not necessarily encompass all areas in which PvP can occur between players.
A game or server with a FFA ruleset is not necessarily an explicit server wide "PvP zone" for lack of better terms. A FFA ruleset is meant to allow players the opportunity to attack other players, and is not necessarily an encouragement to do so indiscriminately. That is the major misconception a lot of the 'ganker' PvPer make, that just because they can do something, that they are fully entitled and by no means in the wrong for perpetrating such actions.
Take Ultima Online for example. It was a FFA ruleset in part as a social experiment to see if players would 'play nicely' together. Needless to say, a number of players failed, enough to prompt the developers to introduce a PvE ruleset to all servers. It was hardly shocking that after this happened, 90+% of players quickly flocked out of the old FFA PvP land and into the new PvE land. Simply put, players were sick of being 'content' for the minority of abusive players. It's not necessarily that they had a problem with PvP or the FFA ruleset itself, but rather they had issue with the fringe minority of players who made playing the game miserable for everyone else from their, here's the magical term, indescriminate ganking.
So yes, ganking is actually an extremely negative contribution to any MMO. Sure, your fringe gaming population may like to gank, or have the possibility of being ganked or fighting back, but it's obvious that the majority of MMO gamers simply decry it. Why else do you think that MMOs that have explicit FFA rulesets throughout the game, end up being nothing more than footnote MMOs with niche player bases?
I'm not trying to make you think ganking is good. You don't like being ganked, you think it sucks. Fine, I can appreicate that. But its not the same as griefing. Your definition of griefing seems to be any pvp that you don't think is justified and that is simply not the case.
"Griefing" is any activity in a game which is undertaken with the INTENTION of causing another PLAYER distress or purposefully detracting from another players enjoyment of the game.
I would argue that most "ganking" is, in fact, griefing. It does not neccesarly have to be griefing, as in some circumstances the "ganker" may have some other motivation. But if we are being brutaly honest, most ganking is pure and simple griefing.
I would generaly argue that "ganking" is generaly against the spirit of PvP that most game designers who put PvP into thier games intended. Game designers usualy provide PvP options in order to provide for greater competition in the game.
However with "ganking" in the traditional sense, there is pretty much zero competition. It usualy takes the form of 1 or more very high level players attack 1 very low level player, usualy while that player is distracted. The low level player usualy has no chance to even do significant damage to a high level player...or even run from the situation. In FFA games, the low level player may not even have any reason to suspect the higher level player(s) as hostile...as they will often not intiate the encounter as flagged...and may even have come by offering the newbie "advice" or "help" or some similar ruse.
Now in side vs side games where the activity is occuring within what is clearly intended as a conflict area....one can forgive some ganking.... as the compitition is not between individual players but between 1 team and another.... and arranging unequal encounters within the overall conflict is part of the strategy. However, that is NOT the form that most traditional "ganking" takes place in. Usualy there is no competition. Attempts to disguise it as such, fall flat.
Most level 50 players would not go after level 1 or 2 mobs.... there would be no fun in that for them. So what motivation could there be to go after players that have the combat abilitty of a level 1 or 2 mob? It seems pretty clear to me that for the "gankers" it's all about ruining someone elses day.
I would argue that it comes down to the "meta game".
It's true that attacking a lower lvl player who cannot defend themselves or outnumbering another player does not take any skill.
Using Lineage 2 for example and regardless of one's motivations because there are obviously players who get their jollies from "surprising" other players or just obliterating players who can't defend themselves, "ganking" feeds into the creation of a larger type of conflict.
For instance, if an alliance were to take over Cruma tower with high level players and "gank" any indiviudal who spawned at the starting point they would essentially be sending out a message that the tower is ours and for our lower lvl alliance members to use. This actually happened on several occasions.
Eventually other clans/alliances would hear of it and they would come and try to take the tower. The offending alliance would then be known as a hostile alliance and going forward there would be wars, skirmishes, etc.
It is a greater offense to take out the weaker members of an opposing alliance and this creates hostile emotions that feed into the conflict.
Same thing with taking over a lower lvl city. Eventually the lower lvl players will have to find clans and alliances that can protect them. Whent hey are harrassed then that will bring higher lvl players to the fray.
If a game pretty much weaves in the ability to have this type of conflict then I don't think it's unfair. It's one tool in creating conflict.
Just like if a game offered stealing from another player then that would be considered sanctioned by the developers.
For people who don't like this type of brutal world then the game isn't for them.
The same purpose could simply have been served by declaring "This Tower is Ours" without the actual "gank" or by threatening other players to leave first rather then just killing them outright....or by only killing members of the "Guild or Alliance" that you wanted to draw into conflict.
Honestly, I think alot of verbage is wasted trying to rationalize what is really nothing more then plain and simple anti-social behavior. You can try to put whatever window dressing you like on it...but really it looks like pretty much the same animal underneath to me.
I'm not trying to make you think ganking is good. You don't like being ganked, you think it sucks. Fine, I can appreicate that. But its not the same as griefing. Your definition of griefing seems to be any pvp that you don't think is justified and that is simply not the case.
Ganking that has no justification outside of enjoyment for the person perpetrating it, is very much griefing.
As I've stated, if you are competing with other players over an objective, resources, etc that benefit you, or you are doing to to exact revenge over them having wronged you in some way, it's not griefing.
If however, you gank another player who is minding his own business and is in no way impeding you or in direct competition with you over some objective or resource, and you have no justifiable motivation to gank them other than "it's easy and/or it's fun", then you my friend, are griefing.
I would generaly argue that "ganking" is generaly against the spirit of PvP that most game designers who put PvP into thier games intended. Game designers usualy provide PvP options in order to provide for greater competition in the game.
However with "ganking" in the traditional sense, there is pretty much zero competition. It usualy takes the form of 1 or more very high level players attack 1 very low level player, usualy while that player is distracted. The low level player usualy has no chance to even do significant damage to a high level player...or even run from the situation. In FFA games, the low level player may not even have any reason to suspect the higher level player(s) as hostile...as they will often not intiate the encounter as flagged...and may even have come by offering the newbie "advice" or "help" or some similar ruse.
Now in side vs side games where the activity is occuring within what is clearly intended as a conflict area....one can forgive some ganking.... as the compitition is not between individual players but between 1 team and another.... and arranging unequal encounters within the overall conflict is part of the strategy. However, that is NOT the form that most traditional "ganking" takes place in. Usualy there is no competition. Attempts to disguise it as such, fall flat.
Most level 50 players would not go after level 1 or 2 mobs.... there would be no fun in that for them. So what motivation could there be to go after players that have the combat abilitty of a level 1 or 2 mob? It seems pretty clear to me that for the "gankers" it's all about ruining someone elses day.
I would argue that it comes down to the "meta game".
It's true that attacking a lower lvl player who cannot defend themselves or outnumbering another player does not take any skill.
Using Lineage 2 for example and regardless of one's motivations because there are obviously players who get their jollies from "surprising" other players or just obliterating players who can't defend themselves, "ganking" feeds into the creation of a larger type of conflict.
For instance, if an alliance were to take over Cruma tower with high level players and "gank" any indiviudal who spawned at the starting point they would essentially be sending out a message that the tower is ours and for our lower lvl alliance members to use. This actually happened on several occasions.
Eventually other clans/alliances would hear of it and they would come and try to take the tower. The offending alliance would then be known as a hostile alliance and going forward there would be wars, skirmishes, etc.
It is a greater offense to take out the weaker members of an opposing alliance and this creates hostile emotions that feed into the conflict.
Same thing with taking over a lower lvl city. Eventually the lower lvl players will have to find clans and alliances that can protect them. Whent hey are harrassed then that will bring higher lvl players to the fray.
If a game pretty much weaves in the ability to have this type of conflict then I don't think it's unfair. It's one tool in creating conflict.
Just like if a game offered stealing from another player then that would be considered sanctioned by the developers.
For people who don't like this type of brutal world then the game isn't for them.
The same purpose could simply have been served by declaring "This Tower is Ours" without the actual "gank" or by threatening other players to leave first rather then just killing them outright....or by only killing members of the "Guild or Alliance" that you wanted to draw into conflict.
Honestly, I think alot of verbage is wasted trying to rationalize what is really nothing more then plain and simple anti-social behavior. You can try to put whatever window dressing you like on it...but really it looks like pretty much the same animal underneath to me.
But again "that's the game".
At least that was L2.
I just think that there is a contingent of players who can't understand or sign on to this type of game world. That's fine, I can more than understand that. Heck, I was only in L2 for the sieges.
but in a game world where scamming is allowed, stealing allowed (in certain circustances such as guild leader kicking everyone and takeing the guild bank) and open pvp AND this is the intention of the developers, then I don't see the issue. Either sign into the game or not.
People who willingly sign into these types of games tend to be the types of players who like this type of play. Why is it bad to allow this type of game to exist as long as it's up front with what its' about?
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Actually I didn't agree. The statement 'pvp'ing in a pvp zone' is meaningless since pvp by definition can only take place in a pvp zone. I mean if you're in a non-pvp zone, how can their be pvp. I'm saying there is a huge difference between getting ganked and getting griefed.
When I mention a PvP zone, I mean a zone in which the main purpose of players being in the zone is to compete over some form of objective or resource.
This does not necessarily encompass all areas in which PvP can occur between players.
A game or server with a FFA ruleset is not necessarily an explicit server wide "PvP zone" for lack of better terms. A FFA ruleset is meant to allow players the opportunity to attack other players, and is not necessarily an encouragement to do so indiscriminately. That is the major misconception a lot of the 'ganker' PvPer make, that just because they can do something, that they are fully entitled and by no means in the wrong for perpetrating such actions.
The misconception is held by the player that is in a PvP-enabled area and expecting to be safe from PvP. By your definition, outiside of strategic control points, the world environment in Lineage 2, UO(Felucca) and Shadowbane are not PvP Zones. That is, without a shadow of a doubt, a false statement. Whether it makes any logical sense to relentlessly kill players who have no chance of fighting back is another story entirely, but the fact remains that if there are any misconceptions or delusions, it's on the part of the person in a PvP zone who expects to be free from PvP.
Aion is a great example of this. I'd really like to level past 30 in that game. It's difficult because level 60's of the opposing faction attack regularly. I can dislike the game design and wish it was something else, however it would be unrealistic and irrational for me to fault others for playing the game as it was designed just because it interferes with how I want to play the game - a desire that is in direct contract to the actual mechanics of the game. Of the people that feel as I do, there are usally two courses of action that they take - some cancel and play another game, and others stay/pay and complain about the players who are playing the game as it was meant to be played.
We can use the state of UO from over a decade ago all we want as an example of what the majority doesn't want, but it's moot as long as the contemporary game worlds are designed to facilitate and encourage the same type of behaviour.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Both sides - and the Middle - of the subject have been covered in the previous posts. Lets look at the OP. If the purpose of the OP was to create a controversy and get lots of people involved in the 'discussion' then it seems to be a bang up success. Along with that he might be giving us a glimpse of his moral and ethical makeup as a person. People who enter a game with the express or side desire to gank or grief, whatever the spin they use to justify this, exist and all of us who play in the game have to deal with them, like it or not. Some games work out ways to deal with the player problems that result from ganking and griefing, to some extent. Others don't try or don't care.
Player base numbers are vitally important to ALL MMORPG games. That is how they make their money, what they do for a living in the real world. Griefing and ganking drives people out of games, period. For example I won't even bother with a game where PvP is centric (another subject worthy of a discussion), not because I don't approve of PvP, but because, like an evil miasma, it carries along with it the ethically challenged. Bully mentality can ruin other players enjoyment and drive them from a game. What would make gankers and griefers happiest, give them the greatest 'adrenaline rush'? Driving some noobie out of the game, whether or not they got any ingame profit. Result? Steady loss of players supporting the very game the gankers play. Do they care? Hell no, there are always other games they can invade and corrupt.
There are some honest PvP players who really love a challenge, either at someone a few levels higher and somewhat better equipped and also enjoy facing a player who is a little lower and is eager to try. Both are both fun and support the game. PvP needs to be in a game in some way because these players pay and support the game with enthusiasm. They can also be some of the best helpers to noob and other players in the game. I know this from experience over a dozen games I have tried or am still playing.
The point is that the OP certainly wanted to create a post that brings a lot of response, which he did. But it also, from both tone and content, left the impression that he was somewhat 'naughty' and dabbled in the morally and ethical corruption of gaming PvP (adrenaline rush) but seems to not know or care about the loss of player base resulting from this type of behavior. Gankers and griefers have a contemptuous attidude toward the rest of us (see some of the above posts). Do they (or the OP) care what I say? LOL, no they do not. Have I made some of them angry? LOL, yes I have and guess what - I don't care. This is a post and I stand behind the content. Vote for me, not the other guy!
I used to be a bit of a ganker, it is fun for a while but for me it got old and I didnt like killing new players so I stopped it.
The killer was ofc not everyone else on that server stopped and I found that while I was ganking I acepted that now and then id have to take it back but once I'd stopped I hated getting ganked and finaly moved to a pve server.
I generaly roll on pve now my feeling is pvp servers are for people who like to gank if you dont.... simply roll pve.
The point is that the OP certainly wanted to create a post that brings a lot of response, which he did. But it also, from both tone and content, left the impression that he was somewhat 'naughty' and dabbled in the morally and ethical corruption of gaming PvP (adrenaline rush) but seems to not know or care about the loss of player base resulting from this type of behavior. Gankers and griefers have a contemptuous attidude toward the rest of us (see some of the above posts). Do they (or the OP) care what I say? LOL, no they do not. Have I made some of them angry? LOL, yes I have and guess what - I don't care. This is a post and I stand behind the content. Vote for me, not the other guy!
It still should be a non-issue.
An example.
When Lineage 2 was close to launch I would see info about it on the web and game magazines. At the time the only online games I had heard of were EQ and Shadowbane.
I had never picked up an mmo before but was really enjoying neverwinter nights and morrowind and wondered what it would be like to be in a game similiar to those but a game that kept going. Of course, online games aren't similar to those but i had no experience in them.
So I read up on Lineage 2 which looked amazing but quickly found out it had a hard money grind and was a griefer/ganker/pk'er's paradise.
Still, It looked great to me.
So, armed with the knowledge that at any minute I would be obiterated I purchased the game with the idea that I would get a week's entertaiment out of it and most likely no more as "a game like this couldn't possibly be for me".
Every time I left town I would cautiously look at the people to the right and left of me expecting an attack. That never came.
What I learned about the game was that people created their own reputations. People got on sides, joined groups/clans/alliances, fought against "evil" clans, took over areas, were known as good crafters, as scammers, as a person who would help you.
In short it became a very real world with very real characters both "good" and "evil".
Even though I had been ganked, scammed once, pk'ed, etc it gave me incentive to work harder to drive my character to greater heights until I had the chance to easily take out attackers or to help those who needed it.
I knew what the game world was and signed up to be a postive force.
So where is the issue? People keep saying 'no matter how one spins it' or 'people with issues' etc. Great, fine there are people with issues, no doubt about it.
But why are people signing into games that are clearly not for them? If a game was to be called "gankers paradise: An epic journey into Scamming and Griefing" and there are people who want that type of game, what is the issue?
You either join or you don't.
Even if a person has nothing but disgust for people who would play such a game that doesn't keep them from not joining.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I love gankers and their cowardice, very rarley is a it a fair fight with them but then again for the most part their all frusterated chldren (literally and figuratively) who feel the world has dropped shit upon them and their dreams and of course that translates perfectly into their playstyle. I htink their funny, in a sad way but still funny.
Just to clearify, Im not lumping real pvpers with virtual spine upright in to the same category as gankers so dont get your panties in a wad.
Actually I didn't agree. The statement 'pvp'ing in a pvp zone' is meaningless since pvp by definition can only take place in a pvp zone. I mean if you're in a non-pvp zone, how can their be pvp. I'm saying there is a huge difference between getting ganked and getting griefed.
When I mention a PvP zone, I mean a zone in which the main purpose of players being in the zone is to compete over some form of objective or resource.
This does not necessarily encompass all areas in which PvP can occur between players.
A game or server with a FFA ruleset is not necessarily an explicit server wide "PvP zone" for lack of better terms. A FFA ruleset is meant to allow players the opportunity to attack other players, and is not necessarily an encouragement to do so indiscriminately. That is the major misconception a lot of the 'ganker' PvPer make, that just because they can do something, that they are fully entitled and by no means in the wrong for perpetrating such actions.
Take Ultima Online for example. It was a FFA ruleset in part as a social experiment to see if players would 'play nicely' together. Needless to say, a number of players failed, enough to prompt the developers to introduce a PvE ruleset to all servers. It was hardly shocking that after this happened, 90+% of players quickly flocked out of the old FFA PvP land and into the new PvE land. Simply put, players were sick of being 'content' for the minority of abusive players. It's not necessarily that they had a problem with PvP or the FFA ruleset itself, but rather they had issue with the fringe minority of players who made playing the game miserable for everyone else from their, here's the magical term, indescriminate ganking.
So yes, ganking is actually an extremely negative contribution to any MMO. Sure, your fringe gaming population may like to gank, or have the possibility of being ganked or fighting back, but it's obvious that the majority of MMO gamers simply decry it. Why else do you think that MMOs that have explicit FFA rulesets throughout the game, end up being nothing more than footnote MMOs with niche player bases?
I'm not trying to make you think ganking is good. You don't like being ganked, you think it sucks. Fine, I can appreicate that. But its not the same as griefing. Your definition of griefing seems to be any pvp that you don't think is justified and that is simply not the case.
"Griefing" is any activity in a game which is undertaken with the INTENTION of causing another PLAYER distress or purposefully detracting from another players enjoyment of the game.
I would argue that most "ganking" is, in fact, griefing. It does not neccesarly have to be griefing, as in some circumstances the "ganker" may have some other motivation. But if we are being brutaly honest, most ganking is pure and simple griefing.
Since yu can never know the intention of a person who's ganked you, you can't call it griefing. Only if their actions indicate their intentions can you make the claim you're being griefed, as in if a ganker camps you repeatedly not letting you play the game. If you're running thru a pvp zone and another higher level char sees you and kills you, then goes on their way, you've been ganked, but you've not been griefed.
I'm not trying to make you think ganking is good. You don't like being ganked, you think it sucks. Fine, I can appreicate that. But its not the same as griefing. Your definition of griefing seems to be any pvp that you don't think is justified and that is simply not the case.
Ganking that has no justification outside of enjoyment for the person perpetrating it, is very much griefing.
As I've stated, if you are competing with other players over an objective, resources, etc that benefit you, or you are doing to to exact revenge over them having wronged you in some way, it's not griefing.
If however, you gank another player who is minding his own business and is in no way impeding you or in direct competition with you over some objective or resource, and you have no justifiable motivation to gank them other than "it's easy and/or it's fun", then you my friend, are griefing.
The fact that your definition of griefing requires that you presume to know the intent of the other person without actually knowing it invalidates it. If someone kills you for no reason you've been ganked. If they target you specifically, killing you repeatedly, not letting you play or progess, then you're being griefed. The difference is huge.
It is a greater offense to take out the weaker members of an opposing alliance and this creates hostile emotions that feed into the conflict.
Same thing with taking over a lower lvl city. Eventually the lower lvl players will have to find clans and alliances that can protect them. This way, if they are harrassed, that will bring higher lvl players to the fray.
Ugh, sounds like prison sex online. I can see how there are people out there that would get their kicks from this and the rush it would give but it seems to me that it's as much of a niche as forced grouping or RPing, at least in MMORPGs.
It is a greater offense to take out the weaker members of an opposing alliance and this creates hostile emotions that feed into the conflict.
Same thing with taking over a lower lvl city. Eventually the lower lvl players will have to find clans and alliances that can protect them. This way, if they are harrassed, that will bring higher lvl players to the fray.
Ugh, sounds like prison sex online. I can see how there are people out there that would get their kicks from this and the rush it would give but it seems to me that it's as much of a niche as forced grouping or RPing, at least in MMORPGs.
well I suppose that's one way to put it.
Essentially, in a game like Lineage 2, it was about finding/making your own faction and using your power how you saw fit.
And interesting social effct, at least on the old hindemith server, was that the server would only put up with nonsense from very hostile clans/alliances for so long.
Then they would rise up and remove them from their castles.
It worked this way for quite a while and actually created some incredible sieges.
But again, this type of game is not for everyone and that's "ok".
I could easily see why players wouldn't want it. But it did create a very palpable, very real game world. I recall signing off of LOTRO in order to attend a huge siege on one evening.
When I logged into Lineage 2 and saw everyone running around preparing, saw the sides mustering I could really feel the energy and the sense of urgency that this event created.
It felt like what was going to go down mattered more as it affected, in this case, most of the server.
This is a far cry from games like LOTRO where you just log on, have some fun and log off.
It's just a completely different experience.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Essentially, in a game like Lineage 2, it was about finding/making your own faction and using your power how you saw fit.
And interesting social effct, at least on the old hindemith server, was that the server would only put up with nonsense from very hostile clans/alliances for so long.
Then they would rise up and remove them from their castles.
It worked this way for quite a while and actually created some incredible sieges.
But again, this type of game is not for everyone and that's "ok".
I could easily see why players wouldn't want it. But it did create a very palpable, very real game world. I recall signing off of LOTRO in order to attend a huge siege on one evening.
When I logged into Lineage 2 and saw everyone running around preparing, saw the sides mustering I could really feel the energy and the sense of urgency that this event created.
It felt like what was going to go down mattered more as it affected, in this case, most of the server.
This is a far cry from games like LOTRO where you just log on, have some fun and log off.
It's just a completely different experience.
Oh, I agree with you on the differing of the experiences and I'm grateful that there are these types of positive PvP experiences- I have only found them very few and far between.
Especially of late in the fantasy MMOs with the combination of gear dependence as well as being level-based there's just too much disparity in the players. To put it bluntly I just haven't found any modern fantasy MMO that does PvP well or with a purpose. FPS games do it better for me, so I play those for the PvP fix. Games that allow you to murder players tha have no chance to defend themselves are bad games.
Essentially, in a game like Lineage 2, it was about finding/making your own faction and using your power how you saw fit.
And interesting social effct, at least on the old hindemith server, was that the server would only put up with nonsense from very hostile clans/alliances for so long.
Then they would rise up and remove them from their castles.
It worked this way for quite a while and actually created some incredible sieges.
But again, this type of game is not for everyone and that's "ok".
I could easily see why players wouldn't want it. But it did create a very palpable, very real game world. I recall signing off of LOTRO in order to attend a huge siege on one evening.
When I logged into Lineage 2 and saw everyone running around preparing, saw the sides mustering I could really feel the energy and the sense of urgency that this event created.
It felt like what was going to go down mattered more as it affected, in this case, most of the server.
This is a far cry from games like LOTRO where you just log on, have some fun and log off.
It's just a completely different experience.
Games that allow you to murder players tha have no chance to defend themselves are bad games.
Or just games that aren't for everyone.
If a game allows players to murder people who have no chance but there is some sort of consequence such as the player going red (in L2 a red player with a certain amount of kills can drop gear if killed) and everyone who signs into the game likes this type of gameplay then how is it a bad game?
you see, the problem I have with this discussion is that there are people who catagorically hate this type of game play but for some reason have a problem with it existing for those who like it.
Now, these games are niche games. But if the game can garner enough subs so that it can keep it's doors open and the players who sign on like the experience then I don't see the issue.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
To answer your question, if you run up to a ganker and cant hurt him, he will kill you, over and over and over. He doesnt care that you cant hurt him. He needs to increment his kill ratio. I know because I tried it in Rift. I died 30 times in about 2 mins. I would die, respawn, run up to them and stand there, and theyd kill me. I would die, respawn, and attack them, and they would kill me. I would die, respawn, and just stand at the respawn location not moving, theyd run up and kill me. Eventually, I just stopped respawning and went afk.
I like your tenacity. Its good for the kill-ratio.
Comments
You missed one ...
4. To cry like a little baby as a result of a failed gank
I dont mind the gank. If im playing a pvp game or have wondered in to a pvp area thats my fault. I should be ganked. If i am a dumb ass and go back in I should be ganked again. If i dont want to pvp I should roll on a pve server and or stay out of pvp areas.
In games like EVE and Aion they pvp games. So if its not someones flavor then they should prol not play it. The responsibility of an informed purchase is on the buyer.
Personally I do enjoy persistant world pvp when there is a in game benifit to it. What I cant stand is farming folks. But that is me. Some really like being on both ends of it and accept that that is the gameing experience they will have. If im in to the game enough reguardless of the farming ill find a way around it. If im not then I walk.
If its not your flavor then dont whine about it thinking that it will convince a dev to rule set change or a different option in game. Most companies do not care about anything other that the bottom line. Instead vote with your feet and find something that you feel is worth your time and money. That is where the real impact is. In the wallet.
Wow, I love all the feedback! My experience was after I had just finished a PvE mission, and somehow, opened myself up to being attacked by the other faction. I had no idea I was in this state. I was at a terminal reading my next mission when I was brutalized...I lasted almost 3 full seconds before my reading glasses shattered across my face. As I laid there, still having no idea what happened, I saw the, um...assailant..., attack and kill my docile beast steed. Really? That was not fun. No adrenaline rush there...it ruined my opinion of PvP and I haven't recovered. I played in a subdued manner after that and didn't experience the game as I am sure it was intended, and it gradually became more like work than play, so I picked a new game. Now, if I can't avoid PvP, I just find another game that suits me. I am glad for PvPers and PvEers that the industry is trying to meet both playing styles...helps keep the gaming industry healthy.
To the guy who said that ganking doesn't add anything of value to a MMO....I beg to differ. It wasn't too long ago that things like ganking gave way for guilds and alliances to develop to fight the resistance. Said group of people end up getting to know eachother really well and friendships are made. Thats what MMOs used to be about.
If its the grouping part that your not too keen with......then maybe Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games isn't the gaming venue for you. I don't mean that to come off the wrong way. I know FPS games have dynamics that don't fit with my play style....so I don't play FPS games. If uninterupted fantasy adventuring is what your after.....then any console or single player PC RPG game should do the trick I think.
Your sarcasm is unwarranted.
You make too many assumptions.
Tell me when "I" have ever ganked any individual? Tell me when I have ever camped an individual?
If the game is an all out ffa free-for-all kill-athon then that is the game. End of subject. If people want to play the game they should know the rules. If they don't like the rules then don't play. It's not for you. This is ok. Not everything has to be for everyone.
At the time during my stint in Lineage 2 I had a lvl 78 Storm Screamer. At this point in time that's not too high but at the time I was only two levels from cap and there weren't many players in that upper level range.
I could have easily taken control of any of the starter cities and there would be nothing that those new players could have done about it.
But I didn't because that's not who I am. However, I don't begrudge players who did that in L2 because that was the game. Not quests but player interaction that would then spawn additional player interaction and consequences.
You may point your finger elsewhere though I suspect that your finger shouldn't be in these types of games to begin with.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I'm not trying to make you think ganking is good. You don't like being ganked, you think it sucks. Fine, I can appreicate that. But its not the same as griefing. Your definition of griefing seems to be any pvp that you don't think is justified and that is simply not the case.
I would generaly argue that "ganking" is generaly against the spirit of PvP that most game designers who put PvP into thier games intended. Game designers usualy provide PvP options in order to provide for greater competition in the game.
However with "ganking" in the traditional sense, there is pretty much zero competition. It usualy takes the form of 1 or more very high level players attack 1 very low level player, usualy while that player is distracted. The low level player usualy has no chance to even do significant damage to a high level player...or even run from the situation. In FFA games, the low level player may not even have any reason to suspect the higher level player(s) as hostile...as they will often not intiate the encounter as flagged...and may even have come by offering the newbie "advice" or "help" or some similar ruse.
Now in side vs side games where the activity is occuring within what is clearly intended as a conflict area....one can forgive some ganking.... as the compitition is not between individual players but between 1 team and another.... and arranging unequal encounters within the overall conflict is part of the strategy. However, that is NOT the form that most traditional "ganking" takes place in. Usualy there is no competition. Attempts to disguise it as such, fall flat.
Most level 50 players would not go after level 1 or 2 mobs.... there would be no fun in that for them. So what motivation could there be to go after players that have the combat abilitty of a level 1 or 2 mob? It seems pretty clear to me that for the "gankers" it's all about ruining someone elses day.
I would argue that it comes down to the "meta game".
It's true that attacking a lower lvl player who cannot defend themselves or outnumbering another player does not take any skill.
Using Lineage 2 for example and regardless of one's motivations because there are obviously players who get their jollies from "surprising" other players or just obliterating players who can't defend themselves, "ganking" feeds into the creation of a larger type of conflict.
For instance, if an alliance were to take over Cruma tower with high level players and "gank" any indiviudal who spawned at the starting point they would essentially be sending out a message that the tower is ours and for our lower lvl alliance members to use. This actually happened on several occasions.
Eventually other clans/alliances would hear of it and they would come and try to take the tower. The offending alliance would then be known as a hostile alliance and going forward there would be wars, skirmishes, etc.
It is a greater offense to take out the weaker members of an opposing alliance and this creates hostile emotions that feed into the conflict.
Same thing with taking over a lower lvl city. Eventually the lower lvl players will have to find clans and alliances that can protect them. This way, if they are harrassed, that will bring higher lvl players to the fray.
If a game pretty much weaves in the ability to have this type of conflict then I don't think it's unfair. It's one tool in creating conflict.
Just like if a game offered stealing from another player then that would be considered sanctioned by the developers.
For people who don't like this type of brutal world then the game isn't for them.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
"Griefing" is any activity in a game which is undertaken with the INTENTION of causing another PLAYER distress or purposefully detracting from another players enjoyment of the game.
I would argue that most "ganking" is, in fact, griefing. It does not neccesarly have to be griefing, as in some circumstances the "ganker" may have some other motivation. But if we are being brutaly honest, most ganking is pure and simple griefing.
The same purpose could simply have been served by declaring "This Tower is Ours" without the actual "gank" or by threatening other players to leave first rather then just killing them outright....or by only killing members of the "Guild or Alliance" that you wanted to draw into conflict.
Honestly, I think alot of verbage is wasted trying to rationalize what is really nothing more then plain and simple anti-social behavior. You can try to put whatever window dressing you like on it...but really it looks like pretty much the same animal underneath to me.
Ganking that has no justification outside of enjoyment for the person perpetrating it, is very much griefing.
As I've stated, if you are competing with other players over an objective, resources, etc that benefit you, or you are doing to to exact revenge over them having wronged you in some way, it's not griefing.
If however, you gank another player who is minding his own business and is in no way impeding you or in direct competition with you over some objective or resource, and you have no justifiable motivation to gank them other than "it's easy and/or it's fun", then you my friend, are griefing.
But again "that's the game".
At least that was L2.
I just think that there is a contingent of players who can't understand or sign on to this type of game world. That's fine, I can more than understand that. Heck, I was only in L2 for the sieges.
but in a game world where scamming is allowed, stealing allowed (in certain circustances such as guild leader kicking everyone and takeing the guild bank) and open pvp AND this is the intention of the developers, then I don't see the issue. Either sign into the game or not.
People who willingly sign into these types of games tend to be the types of players who like this type of play. Why is it bad to allow this type of game to exist as long as it's up front with what its' about?
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
The misconception is held by the player that is in a PvP-enabled area and expecting to be safe from PvP. By your definition, outiside of strategic control points, the world environment in Lineage 2, UO(Felucca) and Shadowbane are not PvP Zones. That is, without a shadow of a doubt, a false statement. Whether it makes any logical sense to relentlessly kill players who have no chance of fighting back is another story entirely, but the fact remains that if there are any misconceptions or delusions, it's on the part of the person in a PvP zone who expects to be free from PvP.
Aion is a great example of this. I'd really like to level past 30 in that game. It's difficult because level 60's of the opposing faction attack regularly. I can dislike the game design and wish it was something else, however it would be unrealistic and irrational for me to fault others for playing the game as it was designed just because it interferes with how I want to play the game - a desire that is in direct contract to the actual mechanics of the game. Of the people that feel as I do, there are usally two courses of action that they take - some cancel and play another game, and others stay/pay and complain about the players who are playing the game as it was meant to be played.
We can use the state of UO from over a decade ago all we want as an example of what the majority doesn't want, but it's moot as long as the contemporary game worlds are designed to facilitate and encourage the same type of behaviour.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Both sides - and the Middle - of the subject have been covered in the previous posts. Lets look at the OP. If the purpose of the OP was to create a controversy and get lots of people involved in the 'discussion' then it seems to be a bang up success. Along with that he might be giving us a glimpse of his moral and ethical makeup as a person. People who enter a game with the express or side desire to gank or grief, whatever the spin they use to justify this, exist and all of us who play in the game have to deal with them, like it or not. Some games work out ways to deal with the player problems that result from ganking and griefing, to some extent. Others don't try or don't care.
Player base numbers are vitally important to ALL MMORPG games. That is how they make their money, what they do for a living in the real world. Griefing and ganking drives people out of games, period. For example I won't even bother with a game where PvP is centric (another subject worthy of a discussion), not because I don't approve of PvP, but because, like an evil miasma, it carries along with it the ethically challenged. Bully mentality can ruin other players enjoyment and drive them from a game. What would make gankers and griefers happiest, give them the greatest 'adrenaline rush'? Driving some noobie out of the game, whether or not they got any ingame profit. Result? Steady loss of players supporting the very game the gankers play. Do they care? Hell no, there are always other games they can invade and corrupt.
There are some honest PvP players who really love a challenge, either at someone a few levels higher and somewhat better equipped and also enjoy facing a player who is a little lower and is eager to try. Both are both fun and support the game. PvP needs to be in a game in some way because these players pay and support the game with enthusiasm. They can also be some of the best helpers to noob and other players in the game. I know this from experience over a dozen games I have tried or am still playing.
The point is that the OP certainly wanted to create a post that brings a lot of response, which he did. But it also, from both tone and content, left the impression that he was somewhat 'naughty' and dabbled in the morally and ethical corruption of gaming PvP (adrenaline rush) but seems to not know or care about the loss of player base resulting from this type of behavior. Gankers and griefers have a contemptuous attidude toward the rest of us (see some of the above posts). Do they (or the OP) care what I say? LOL, no they do not. Have I made some of them angry? LOL, yes I have and guess what - I don't care. This is a post and I stand behind the content. Vote for me, not the other guy!
I used to be a bit of a ganker, it is fun for a while but for me it got old and I didnt like killing new players so I stopped it.
The killer was ofc not everyone else on that server stopped and I found that while I was ganking I acepted that now and then id have to take it back but once I'd stopped I hated getting ganked and finaly moved to a pve server.
I generaly roll on pve now my feeling is pvp servers are for people who like to gank if you dont.... simply roll pve.
GANK = gang kill
everyone uses it to describe 1 player killing you, that is called PKing not ganking
PLAY WURM ONLINE!! www.wurmonline.com
It still should be a non-issue.
An example.
When Lineage 2 was close to launch I would see info about it on the web and game magazines. At the time the only online games I had heard of were EQ and Shadowbane.
I had never picked up an mmo before but was really enjoying neverwinter nights and morrowind and wondered what it would be like to be in a game similiar to those but a game that kept going. Of course, online games aren't similar to those but i had no experience in them.
So I read up on Lineage 2 which looked amazing but quickly found out it had a hard money grind and was a griefer/ganker/pk'er's paradise.
Still, It looked great to me.
So, armed with the knowledge that at any minute I would be obiterated I purchased the game with the idea that I would get a week's entertaiment out of it and most likely no more as "a game like this couldn't possibly be for me".
Every time I left town I would cautiously look at the people to the right and left of me expecting an attack. That never came.
What I learned about the game was that people created their own reputations. People got on sides, joined groups/clans/alliances, fought against "evil" clans, took over areas, were known as good crafters, as scammers, as a person who would help you.
In short it became a very real world with very real characters both "good" and "evil".
Even though I had been ganked, scammed once, pk'ed, etc it gave me incentive to work harder to drive my character to greater heights until I had the chance to easily take out attackers or to help those who needed it.
I knew what the game world was and signed up to be a postive force.
So where is the issue? People keep saying 'no matter how one spins it' or 'people with issues' etc. Great, fine there are people with issues, no doubt about it.
But why are people signing into games that are clearly not for them? If a game was to be called "gankers paradise: An epic journey into Scamming and Griefing" and there are people who want that type of game, what is the issue?
You either join or you don't.
Even if a person has nothing but disgust for people who would play such a game that doesn't keep them from not joining.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I love gankers and their cowardice, very rarley is a it a fair fight with them but then again for the most part their all frusterated chldren (literally and figuratively) who feel the world has dropped shit upon them and their dreams and of course that translates perfectly into their playstyle. I htink their funny, in a sad way but still funny.
Just to clearify, Im not lumping real pvpers with virtual spine upright in to the same category as gankers so dont get your panties in a wad.
Since yu can never know the intention of a person who's ganked you, you can't call it griefing. Only if their actions indicate their intentions can you make the claim you're being griefed, as in if a ganker camps you repeatedly not letting you play the game. If you're running thru a pvp zone and another higher level char sees you and kills you, then goes on their way, you've been ganked, but you've not been griefed.
The fact that your definition of griefing requires that you presume to know the intent of the other person without actually knowing it invalidates it. If someone kills you for no reason you've been ganked. If they target you specifically, killing you repeatedly, not letting you play or progess, then you're being griefed. The difference is huge.
Ugh, sounds like prison sex online. I can see how there are people out there that would get their kicks from this and the rush it would give but it seems to me that it's as much of a niche as forced grouping or RPing, at least in MMORPGs.
well I suppose that's one way to put it.
Essentially, in a game like Lineage 2, it was about finding/making your own faction and using your power how you saw fit.
And interesting social effct, at least on the old hindemith server, was that the server would only put up with nonsense from very hostile clans/alliances for so long.
Then they would rise up and remove them from their castles.
It worked this way for quite a while and actually created some incredible sieges.
But again, this type of game is not for everyone and that's "ok".
I could easily see why players wouldn't want it. But it did create a very palpable, very real game world. I recall signing off of LOTRO in order to attend a huge siege on one evening.
When I logged into Lineage 2 and saw everyone running around preparing, saw the sides mustering I could really feel the energy and the sense of urgency that this event created.
It felt like what was going to go down mattered more as it affected, in this case, most of the server.
This is a far cry from games like LOTRO where you just log on, have some fun and log off.
It's just a completely different experience.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Oh, I agree with you on the differing of the experiences and I'm grateful that there are these types of positive PvP experiences- I have only found them very few and far between.
Especially of late in the fantasy MMOs with the combination of gear dependence as well as being level-based there's just too much disparity in the players. To put it bluntly I just haven't found any modern fantasy MMO that does PvP well or with a purpose. FPS games do it better for me, so I play those for the PvP fix. Games that allow you to murder players tha have no chance to defend themselves are bad games.
Or just games that aren't for everyone.
If a game allows players to murder people who have no chance but there is some sort of consequence such as the player going red (in L2 a red player with a certain amount of kills can drop gear if killed) and everyone who signs into the game likes this type of gameplay then how is it a bad game?
you see, the problem I have with this discussion is that there are people who catagorically hate this type of game play but for some reason have a problem with it existing for those who like it.
Now, these games are niche games. But if the game can garner enough subs so that it can keep it's doors open and the players who sign on like the experience then I don't see the issue.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I like your tenacity. Its good for the kill-ratio.
Free cookies at:
www.gankalicious.blogspot.com
Bring cookies.