Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
PVP discussion with DEV and Guides
Snailtrail
Member Posts: 258
I recently had some conversations with in game guides and a lead developer on the FFA PVP that was a bit disturbing.
Xyson has a no-griefing policy, however what is determined as griefing is what is somewhat disturbing.
Normal, one encounter pvp is not the issue. The issue has really two parts, one involves a certain population of the game who will eventually know how to get people banned through griefing, the other is carrying out orders to uphold KOS lists and protect areas from non tribe members.
The guide described griefing as killing someone around 20 times in about an hour. This is a pretty agregious act imo, however the situations i provided, that i do see happening still result in the griefer label, with a warning followed by account ban.
Lets say its your job to protect a junk pile outside of the tribe safezone from all non tribe members. Along comes someone with the "you cant tell me what to do, you cant make me, and i have a right to use this area" attitude. You kill them (even with warning them of the situation), they can then return over and over again, racking up kills, send in a report, and your now a griefer.
Lets say an in game enemy of sorts (as we all know happens) is aware of this policy. It would take little effort for them to create a situation that they are repeatedly killed, submit a ticket for griefing, then repeat the process untill the player is then banned.
This is not a "your on your own" pvp game with this policy, as daddy guide can step in and make people play nice. Rather then let the community band together to deal with griefers, as what happend in darkfall, the guides will step in, and remove them.
We will have to see how this policy plays out, and if it will really be enforced (despite the guides and developer say it should be enforced) however it opens the door to limiting what you can protect, how you can protect it, limits upholding KOS list (that person if they hang around that area long enough will certainly be killed enough to warrent a grifer warning or ban) and also opens the door to abuse.
We all know the comunity is currently a mix of darkfallers and pve people. Try to stop someone from using an area, stalk and kill people, or really do anything to someone who refuses to say "hey i better go somewhere else this area is well protected" and prepare yourself for an eventual ban.
Im not suggesting this sucks because i cant camp noobs and repeatedly kill them, im more worried about in game conflicts that would otherwise have to be resolved in game, now being resolved by a guide with desaterous results.
Any thoughts on this? Is this something that fits the game? Will the effect future PVPers and what sandbox pvpers are allowed to do? Will this create a game where the pvp centric tribes move on? Is this what people want?
Comments
This was talked about in chat ingame by one or two people last night and I think the rules are fairly clear. DONT camp someone. Thats what the guides ingame was saying, thats what it states in the FAQ. If you are constantly stalking someone killing them repeatedly for no reasion what so ever / griefing someone then by all rights you deserved to be warned and banned from the game. This is not a FFA pvp game where you can do anything and everything you want.
Just like do you really think its fun to have a group of people sit outside your Tribe border or Homestead border and just camp it 24/7 waiting for you to walk out of the safe area? No, and that is considered Griefing.
Honestly it really doesnt matter what we think and Jookie will be the final say in who gets banned for doing what. It's HIS game and HIS company. You play by HIS rules or you dont play at all. It's really just that simple.
And just for the record a KOS list that does nothing but promote griefing of another player (even if that player has killed members of your tribe) and all you end up doing is forming a party and wandering around killing that guy over and over. Yes, thats griefing and yes I think you should be punished for it.
Like i said (you did read the post you quoted right?) i have nothing against rules to prevent camping someone for no reason.
I do have a problem with not being able to protect an area from someone who refuses to give up and find somewhere else to go.
I already had that issue, my tribe is near a small junk pile, no neighbors, but plenty of people stopping by and scavanging this pile. The guy was killed, and then returned about 5 or 6 times even after i told him what i was doing and to just find another spot. Luckily lag and a server crash ended it, but the guy would have easily been killed 20 times in an hour, his attitude was "you cant make me leave, its not YOUR junk pile, i can do whatever i want" this was before i knew that this qualified as grifing, despite i felt like i was the one being harassed.
see how this can be an issue in a world with very limited resources?
on top of the fact that once this policy becomes known, its will open the door for abuse. I just have to keep comming back to someone who has me on a kos list, keep comming back and daddy guide will remvoe them from the game for me....
when i laid out these scenarios to the guide and the developer, they both agreed, i would have been labeld a griefer.
i really want to see how this effects the large darkfall community, many of them who thought this was a game where you were on your own...
Hope everyone is ready to share the limited resources with anyone who is deterimend to get them on their own..
Devs can check logs to see what happened, you think they will just instantly ban without seeing what exactly happened?
Im confused, 2 replies, but im sure they didnt read the post.
These scenarios were given to both the developer and the guide, they said in both cases you would be a griefer. All someone has to do is come back 20 times in an hour and they get their way. They dont want you protecting areas outside your safe zone. Get ready to share.
This only becomes an issues if you want to keep other people off your small junk pile, or have an enemy on your KOS list that keeps comming back to you...
I did read it and that's why I replied that.
I think you should read what you wrote, your saying people can abuse this anti griefing policy but you seem to forget that admins can check logs I'm sure they wouldn't ban without checking if it's true.
Yeah it will be interesting how they handle this especially when prelude is over and towns are no longer safe zones. . There won't be any "camping the border" it will be people waltzing right in and killing you.
Wa min God! Se æx on min heafod is!
ill repeat myself
i present the scenario about protecting a junk pile from a determined player, the result was i was the griefer.
If you cant protect resources in a world with limtied resources, i see a problem.
never did the developer or guide suggest that the player who wanted to resources that were protected should have returned with more people, as should happen in a sandbox pvp game, the suggestion was that i would be removed for protecting that area.
that is the issue
I'm aware that I'm quoting you out of context.
If what I am hearing is true, it does cause some concern. If this scenario crops up, and the community makes a stink about it, I think the devs will rethink how they work the issue of griefing.
I self identify as a monkey.
They are open to player ideas and concers hopefully that won't happen.
I haven't played the game as without a trial I'm not going to spend $ 40 as I'm short of money.
Absolutly in correct context. You are forced to share, unless the person who wants your resources jsut moves on after a kill or two.
Believe me, once this gets widely known, people will know exactly what to do to get rid of competing tribes...bleed their resources dry or get them banned trying to do so. You could easily convers the plan in email so it looks like an innocent act in game as well, for the guy that sugested that chat logs would be read.
People are evil, i know at least 2 tribes that remain nameless that will use such policies to their advantage. And they are aware of this policy.
Id much rather the community band together to prevent griefing. However what if the community does band together to keep a grifer at bay, and then they become the griefers?
In my opinion there is an easilly defineable line between Greifing and good ol'PvP.
In griefing the "griefier" will follow his target who is clearly trying to get away. Alternately the griefer is camping a spot and not allowing the target to get away. When this happens over and over again.. that is griefing.
What seems to be described here is that the target.. keeps coming back to the same area thus he in fact is actively choosing to prolong the conflict. That's not griefing at all as the player has the option to avoid further conflict.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
yes that first definition is clear and is not what i was talking about unfortunatly.
the situation i presented to both the guide and developer was a situation of protecting resources from a determined player, a player who was unable to beat me in combat, thus died every attempt to take what i had claimed. In this situation (i even said i gave warning that this was a protected area) BOTH the developer and the guide said i fit their definition of a griefer.
I had reason to kill, the other guy had oppertunity to leave without incident, and a heads up on the situation. The guy chose to be stubborn and kept comming back, and was killed every time. Had the servers not gone down, i maight have gotten a warning for griefing, as he seemed like the type that would report someone for not sharing the resources.
I was the griefer in this situation.
Right.. as long as he was given the option of disengaging and moving away at some point that isn't griefing. At least not to me. That's called PvP.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
EDIT: deleted because I hadn't seen all previous messages when writing this /EDIT
Well, you ARE the griefer in this scenario, little doubt about it. You are actively hindering other people from playing the game.
How do you come upon the idea that you have the authority to define that this junk pile is yours? It isn't and you have no authority whatsoever to claim otherwise.
Instead you demand that you should be allowed to repeatedly kill another player who does not more than play the game. One could call that griefing.
I maintain this List of Sandbox MMORPGs. Please post or send PM for corrections and suggestions.
If the junk pile in your example is on tribal land..then it shouldn't be griefing. All who have played have seen the "your are encroaching on tribal grounds" (or whatever) message. That should be plenty of notice. If the Junk pile is not on tribal lands then it should be griefing...as no one has exclusivity to the junk pile. Still..there should be a 3 warning system even if it lay on tribal land...Ask them nicely 3 times to leave..then let em have it if they refuse. We are trying to rebuild a CIVILization after all. Granted..a civilization that nearly killed itself to extinction the first go around..but still. lol.
A core feature of the game is resource control. Preventing the other person from playing the game? They're both playing the game as designed. By your definition, the winner of 'King of the Hill' is a griefer.
The more I see these odd perceptions of territory control and conquest gameplay, the more I wonder if anyone plays games like Monopoly and RISK anymore or if those games died decades ago and some of us old farts just didn't get the memo.
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
What is the system to protect/control resource nodes?
Villages are a safehaven for players and containers. While they can overlap resource nodes, they do not appear to be intended as a way to claim resource nodes. Or is there more to the villagesystem that has been relayed but not implemented yet?
Are you really suggesting that war for control over a node is not intended gameplay? If so, if a tribe was controlling a node that you wanted access to, would you fight them for it or would you petition a GM to make them move so you could have it?
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
Snail, i would say that if a tribe is put in a position of having a player come along over and over and gets killed, then just keep track. What i mean is this, say someone of the "you can't tell me what to do or where to go" attitude (as you used as an example) comes along a scrap pile your tribe is attempting to control. While i would ay that person is kinda asking for it and has a death wish, it seems the rules are in play to protect his ability to scav from wherever he wants.
Here is your simple solution. Rotation. guy X comes along, you keep a tally of how many times you kill him. write it down on a piece of paper or something. Once it gets to about 5 kills on him, give your tribemates a little jingle and ask someone to come out and assist you. Have your tribe mate just stay off a little way while you slowly keep killing him as he keeps coming back. Keep in mind the magic griefing number is 20, so kill him say.. 15 times, then "tag out" so to speak with one of the people you asked to come assist. There ya go, no possible ban at that point.
While i understand the worry that is in place for some people about getting banned for protecting a scrap pile for their tribe and whatnot, think of it this way.. yes you can put your tribe close to a scrap pile, but can you put your tribe totem on the scrap pile? how about in the middle of it so your tribe borders cover the biggest area of scrap? I ask because on that front i'm not sure, but i don't think you actually can, or you would have tribes camped right on top of them.
Anyways, with (my assumption of) not being able to set your totem ON the scrap pile, makes it not actually your scrap pile. yes you can defend it like it is yours, but it isn't really. If someone is that determined to get a bit of scraps when you;ve killed them over 10 times and had the ability to loot stuff from him each time, most people will clue in that the gain does not exceed the cost of gaining access to that scrap pile at the current time.
While i think that the fears and concern may be warrented to a degree, i think the only people it will end up really effecting is those peopel that actually sit there and camp someone, ganking them over and over. Is it worth getting banned to protect your scrap pile? not really. It may seem so to some tribes, but you can always get another tribe member to come help you chase him off as well, spreading the killing out between the two or three of you. you have three people with you? that's near 80 times you can kill this one guy between the 4 of you before any ban consideration comes into effect.
While i've met some stubborn people in games over the years, i highly doubt someone will sit there and be stubborn enough to come back almost 80 times just to get a little bit of scrap.
I think the solution of wait till they've gathered some scrap and then kill them, loot the scrap each time is a better method to deter them. sure, you can come gather some stuff from the junk pile my tribe is using, but as soon as you finish gathering it, we're taking it from you will be a deterrence for most in game.
Yes i went off topic a bit, but my point is this. you are worried that people will exploit this and purposely get people banned. Just use the same thinking towards them. If it looks like they are purposely getting you to kill them to start something like that, call in a tribemate or two. Trump that person's request for a ban and take screenshots warning him etc. show the devs this person was intentionaly using the system to try and get you banned. If you submit, with details and proof that you were not griefing this person, but just protecting your borders etc and giving them warnign time and time again, then i highly doubt they would ban someone for it.
If players must do this... they are being forced to fight the game mechanics.. which is a bad thing.
If this is a PvP game... then there should be no problem with someone "defending" whatever piece of pixel property they claim. That's kind of the point to PvP in a sandbox game.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Safe zones go away once they patch in defensive structures and npc guards and stuff.
Im thinking the only way to change their minds on this terrible definition on grifing, is to use their own policy as a form of harassment.
I , and many others, now know that all i have to do is show up about 20 times in an hour, get killed, submit a report, now i own the area and you cant do a thing about it, despite it might be on your doorstep, and your guild memebers built combat specific characters for protection, its all null and void after the grief warning goes out. All you have to do is keep comming back.
This all has nothing to do with griefing, but more destroying the pvp mechanics in favor of whiny pvers who are choosing a ffa pvp game to play...but thats just my opinion.
Its going to get messy once the game launches and everything is for keeps. Since you now have no right to defend or claim anything...in a game with scarce resources.
We understand each other perfectly. I am still eager to hear your answers to my questions.
1) Are you suggesting that war for control over a node is not intended gameplay?
2) If a tribe is guarding a particular resource node outside their village boundaries, will you fight them for it or will you petition the GMs to make them move so that you can have it?
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
Nail on the head. This game is centerd around territory and resource control.
If i really want that junk pile, i dont have to fight for it, i can just get killed 20 times in an hour and send in a ticket, now that junk pile is mine, and all your combat specific characters, specifically built for defending territory, are null and void.
Why not just roll a defenseless crafter and use the grief policy to conquer?
Im really hoping someone on the Xyson team comes here and says its all wrong, that you can protect resources, as its not griefing, even if the guy trying to take those reources defenseless and stubborn. However this was run by a guide in game and a lead developer, so perhaps everyone should know about it... Protecting territory agaisnt a stubborn opponent is griefing in xyson...apparently. For developers that have been getting so many things right, i find it hard to believe that this is what they want.