Originally posted by Malathoos Could have done something else for awhile till the other guy got bored. I opt for less safe zones, or no safe zones with npc guards that can only be attacked while on your land and than will attack you if your on the land.
Exactly.
If OP would have logged out for 30min - the guy would have gotten bored and moved on.
Also the title of this is total BS sensationalism that you would see tabloids "Sanctions harassment" - there is no game company that sanctions harassment - everyone knows this.
If you are getting bullied - go somewhere else or just log out for 15min - being a target only fuels their behavior.
Getting bullied in RL is hard to avoid sometimes - but getting bullied in game is ridiculously easy to avoid.
If not playing a game is the best way to avoid certain rude players' activities, then I won't be playing this game. I was only mildly interested in the game, but it sounds like it is just the next haven for trolls, bullies, and gankers to get their jollies off by causing maximum frustration for other players.
Originally posted by Malathoos Could have done something else for awhile till the other guy got bored. I opt for less safe zones, or no safe zones with npc guards that can only be attacked while on your land and than will attack you if your on the land.
Exactly.
If OP would have logged out for 30min - the guy would have gotten bored and moved on.
Also the title of this is total BS sensationalism that you would see tabloids "Sanctions harassment" - there is no game company that sanctions harassment - everyone knows this.
If you are getting bullied - go somewhere else or just log out for 15min - being a target only fuels their behavior.
Getting bullied in RL is hard to avoid sometimes - but getting bullied in game is ridiculously easy to avoid.
If not playing a game is the best way to avoid certain rude players' activities, then I won't be playing this game. I was only mildly interested in the game, but it sounds like it is just the next haven for trolls, bullies, and gankers to get their jollies off by causing maximum frustration for other players.
You know logging off is one possibility - he could also have just gone and done something else in game for 30min away from his land - same end result - the guy with a cart would have moved on.
It would have been a lot faster than escalating to CS.
CS at any game launch is swamped with account / payment issues - getting a cart on your land is going to be bottom of the list of their priority.
If the fire department and police department are swamped with life/death major emergency issues - someone calling in to report a noisy neighbor is not going to get a lot of attention.
But since this is a game - OP can just quit if this is too much to handle for him.
I'd love to see a lawsuit about this - Judge - I couldn't plant my Azelias in game.....
It's funny how PVP zones are safer than safe zones. Whats the point of the later? If you have safe zones, they should be just that. No PVP; no griefing, no trolling etc. Of course you can not prevent people calling you names or whatever unless you disable chat there, but the behaviour described could obivously easily be prevented by Trion and even more so, they could act upon hearing things like this.
If you want to grief someone, go in a PVP zone. Kill them, loot them, destroy their farms, whatever. If you're not willing to take a risk, you should not be able to annoy others like that. What the OP could have done is totally irrelevant, it should not happen like this in the first place.
If stuff like that is both possible and acceptable in a "safe" zone there is no point to having them, so just get rid of them and remove all limits whatsoever. Everyone would know what he's up for when playing and can retaliate in any way he sees fit.
That is why open world/FFA PVP games are not all that succesful. Those games are all about trolling and griefing, instead of more or less open warfare between willing participants. Thats why games add safe zones in the first place, the problem is that just like in AA, it often doesn't work like intended. Instead of the griefing and trolling etc. moving to the PVP zones, where it would escalate to open warfare sooner or later, as people can strike back, the griefing and trolling moves to the safe zones, and PVP happens more or less only occasionally, given that the people who are supposed to make most use of it are busy in the safe zones..
I'll wait to the day's end when the moon is high And then I'll rise with the tide with a lust for life, I'll Amass an army, and we'll harness a horde And then we'll limp across the land until we stand at the shore
It's absolutely poor design. I can't believe people are so fanatic about this game they are blinded from the obvious. If the system allows a player to grief or block access to another point, it is faulty design. Do the defenders here work for Trion or XL?
Pretty uncool how people are bashing the op because he was getting grief and couldn't retaliate.
The point of suggesting the op to log out or do something they didn't want to do at the time is just...sensible
You know, I could probably forgive AA just anything.
The one thing I can't forgive it though is that it turned Kano, our flagship for harsh but valid criticism, into a White Knight.
Had to correct that for you.
Look, being in a sandbox world means you get to do what you want to do. It also means I get to do what I want to, and if griefing you to the point of driving you off your land is permitted by the rules of the games, then you have to be willing to accept it, or not play.
I don't believe they ever advertised AA as having "safe zones", I believe they are PVP free zones, there is a difference.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Originally posted by grimal It's absolutely poor design. I can't believe people are so fanatic about this game they are blinded from the obvious. If the system allows a player to grief or block access to another point, it is faulty design. Do the defenders here work for Trion or XL?
No, they are just people who understand how to handle themselves in a more free form game world where yes, someone may try to make your life miserable, within the rules, and you better be able to respond appropriately, even if it means walking away.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I actually think you could pull the farm carts off of your land with a harpoon clipper.
In any case, they can only do it for so long.
This kind of thing allowed a guild called "The Somali Coast Guard" to block a bridge on popular trading routes from other farm carts being able to pass.
Thing is you could call your guild in to help, harpoon the tractors with a harpoon clipper, or use rider's escape (although some people were saying you couldn't use it there).
Anyway, this is a PVP-centered game and Trion has pretty much stated that anything you can do using in-game mechanics is allowed.
You're going to have to expect some griefing as the potential is defintely built into the game. It's part of what makes the game so fun (and frustrating).
Other examples include the ability to steal people's vehicles if they don't have owner's mark on them and to jump on the harpoon on a harpoon clipper and sink it or make it flip out of the ocean.
***
Anyway, it makes for drama and pretty funny memories. I'll probably always remember the time this guy stole my farm cart (I hadn't yet perfected the time I needed to leave it without owner's mark) and drove it silently and deliberately into the ocean.
There is a very good reason why MMOs don't use player collisions in places where you can't attack people. This was a problem that I remember from the early days of EQ. Honest to God, sometimes it seems as if the Archeage designers were determined to ignore everything that we know about MMO player behavior. From rewarding AFK behavior (and being surprised that people gamed the system) to setting up an unlimited land rush at launch (with utterly predictable results) to nurturing and encouraging risk-free griefing, they could have made simple choices that avoided huge problems. In football terms, there are multiple own goals here.
There is a very good reason why MMOs don't use player collisions in places where you can't attack people. This was a problem that I remember from the early days of EQ. Honest to God, sometimes it seems as if the Archeage designers were determined to ignore everything that we know about MMO player behavior. From rewarding AFK behavior (and being surprised that people gamed the system) to setting up an unlimited land rush at launch (with utterly predictable results) to nurturing and encouraging risk-free griefing, they could have made simple choices that avoided huge problems. In football terms, there are multiple own goals here.
The potential to grief is part of the appeal of sandbox games. Yeah it's annoying when it happens, but that annoyance is part of the fun!
Honestly, what people are doing here is not game breaking. It would take like 10 people devoting their time to standing on your land to completely eliminate your chance to plant. If they want to that bad, well, you must've really pissed them off somehow.
There is a very good reason why MMOs don't use player collisions in places where you can't attack people. This was a problem that I remember from the early days of EQ. Honest to God, sometimes it seems as if the Archeage designers were determined to ignore everything that we know about MMO player behavior. From rewarding AFK behavior (and being surprised that people gamed the system) to setting up an unlimited land rush at launch (with utterly predictable results) to nurturing and encouraging risk-free griefing, they could have made simple choices that avoided huge problems. In football terms, there are multiple own goals here.
Any game which allows more freedom of action will naturally create the conditions for "harassment." This is easily cured by not allowing people to build near anyone elses properties; Don't have PvP; Don't allow stealing; Don't have enemy factions; Don't allow.....
The list is endless. I err on the side of more freedom and dealing with the negatives, than being more restrictive and removing these potentials. There are many games which fall into the restrictive category and I would recommend one of them. It will be a better fit I think. Archeage, really will appeal more to the crowd that enjoys the more cutthroat type of game play. (Before I get blasted, by cutthroat I mean having the potential for players being bad and affecting the lives of others. I don't mean it in the sense that you are constantly in fear of attack and losing things).
And this is why there should be no safe areas in game... everyone should be attackable everywhere... it's a PVP game... there are no rules in war... the spoils go to the victors. But then I doubt there would be any PVErs in game... which would probably be an improvement.
Originally posted by grimal It's absolutely poor design. I can't believe people are so fanatic about this game they are blinded from the obvious. If the system allows a player to grief or block access to another point, it is faulty design. Do the defenders here work for Trion or XL?
No, they are just people who understand how to handle themselves in a more free form game world where yes, someone may try to make your life miserable, within the rules, and you better be able to respond appropriately, even if it means walking away.
Some games are just like that......
And that's an apologist remark. A game does not have to be that way.
Originally posted by Pepeq And this is why there should be no safe areas in game... everyone should be attackable everywhere... it's a PVP game... there are no rules in war... the spoils go to the victors. But then I doubt there would be any PVErs in game... which would probably be an improvement.
Full PVP would end up with more potential to grief. This seemingly nice-couple in the OP just trying to plant their roses on their farm-
Well, they still wouldn't be able to and what's more they'd be killed repeatedly.
There is a very good reason why MMOs don't use player collisions in places where you can't attack people. This was a problem that I remember from the early days of EQ. Honest to God, sometimes it seems as if the Archeage designers were determined to ignore everything that we know about MMO player behavior. From rewarding AFK behavior (and being surprised that people gamed the system) to setting up an unlimited land rush at launch (with utterly predictable results) to nurturing and encouraging risk-free griefing, they could have made simple choices that avoided huge problems. In football terms, there are multiple own goals here.
The potential to grief is part of the appeal of sandbox games. Yeah it's annoying when it happens, but that annoyance is part of the fun!
Honestly, what people are doing here is not game breaking. It would take like 10 people devoting their time to standing on your land to completely eliminate your chance to plant. If they want to that bad, well, you must've really pissed them off somehow.
There is a very good reason why MMOs don't use player collisions in places where you can't attack people. This was a problem that I remember from the early days of EQ. Honest to God, sometimes it seems as if the Archeage designers were determined to ignore everything that we know about MMO player behavior. From rewarding AFK behavior (and being surprised that people gamed the system) to setting up an unlimited land rush at launch (with utterly predictable results) to nurturing and encouraging risk-free griefing, they could have made simple choices that avoided huge problems. In football terms, there are multiple own goals here.
The potential to grief is part of the appeal of sandbox games. Yeah it's annoying when it happens, but that annoyance is part of the fun!
Honestly, what people are doing here is not game breaking. It would take like 10 people devoting their time to standing on your land to completely eliminate your chance to plant. If they want to that bad, well, you must've really pissed them off somehow.
It's appealing to sociopath behavior.
It's appealing to me and I don't grief. Farming and trade runs are pretty boring. It's fun to me when someone mixes it up by trying to mess with you.
Keep in mind this is not game-breaking stuff here. OP had some trouble planting some things which would've given a small profit, I wasted about 10 minutes chasing down the guy that stole my farm cart.
It's minor inconvenience for the sake of freedom and spontanious player interaction.
I can't believe the GM didn't even contact the offending players. Maybe they did and didn't say anything, but what a Customer Service fail this was. You should continue to pursue this ticket until you get a result that is satisfying. If Trion keeps this position they will end up in the same situation as EVE, and will have to get their lawyers activated when players start upping the ante on harassment.
Fans of this game who don't approve of this mentality should make their voices known to Trion.
MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
There is a very good reason why MMOs don't use player collisions in places where you can't attack people. This was a problem that I remember from the early days of EQ. Honest to God, sometimes it seems as if the Archeage designers were determined to ignore everything that we know about MMO player behavior. From rewarding AFK behavior (and being surprised that people gamed the system) to setting up an unlimited land rush at launch (with utterly predictable results) to nurturing and encouraging risk-free griefing, they could have made simple choices that avoided huge problems. In football terms, there are multiple own goals here.
The potential to grief is part of the appeal of sandbox games. Yeah it's annoying when it happens, but that annoyance is part of the fun!
Honestly, what people are doing here is not game breaking. It would take like 10 people devoting their time to standing on your land to completely eliminate your chance to plant. If they want to that bad, well, you must've really pissed them off somehow.
It's appealing to sociopath behavior.
It's appealing to me and I don't grief. Farming and trade runs are pretty boring. It's fun to me when someone mixes it up by trying to mess with you.
Keep in mind this is not game-breaking stuff here. OP had some trouble planting some things which would've given a small profit, I wasted about 10 minutes chasing down the guy that stole my farm cart.
It's minor inconvenience for the sake of freedom and spontanious player interaction.
I can't believe the GM didn't even contact the offending players. Maybe they did and didn't say anything, but what a Customer Service fail this was. You should continue to pursue this ticket until you get a result that is satisfying. If Trion keeps this position they will end up in the same situation as EVE, and will have to get their lawyers activated when players start upping the ante on harassment.
Fans of this game who don't approve of this mentality should make their voices known to Trion.
Seriously you think someone's going to sue cause they couldn't plant a few roses?
I can't believe the GM didn't even contact the offending players. Maybe they did and didn't say anything, but what a Customer Service fail this was. You should continue to pursue this ticket until you get a result that is satisfying. If Trion keeps this position they will end up in the same situation as EVE, and will have to get their lawyers activated when players start upping the ante on harassment.
Fans of this game who don't approve of this mentality should make their voices known to Trion.
Seriously you think someone's going to sue cause they couldn't plant a few roses?
People have sued for less. Read the papers lately?
I can't believe the GM didn't even contact the offending players. Maybe they did and didn't say anything, but what a Customer Service fail this was. You should continue to pursue this ticket until you get a result that is satisfying. If Trion keeps this position they will end up in the same situation as EVE, and will have to get their lawyers activated when players start upping the ante on harassment.
Fans of this game who don't approve of this mentality should make their voices known to Trion.
Seriously you think someone's going to sue cause they couldn't plant a few roses?
With all the attempts at "realism", I'm surprised a developer hasn't come up with a way for players to sue each other in game, where the system takes a cut of the "pain and suffering" payouts.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Comments
If not playing a game is the best way to avoid certain rude players' activities, then I won't be playing this game. I was only mildly interested in the game, but it sounds like it is just the next haven for trolls, bullies, and gankers to get their jollies off by causing maximum frustration for other players.
Next time you may want to place your farm in a pvp zone . Just a thought.
lol ^
It's funny how PVP zones are safer than safe zones. Whats the point of the later? If you have safe zones, they should be just that. No PVP; no griefing, no trolling etc. Of course you can not prevent people calling you names or whatever unless you disable chat there, but the behaviour described could obivously easily be prevented by Trion and even more so, they could act upon hearing things like this.
If you want to grief someone, go in a PVP zone. Kill them, loot them, destroy their farms, whatever. If you're not willing to take a risk, you should not be able to annoy others like that. What the OP could have done is totally irrelevant, it should not happen like this in the first place.
If stuff like that is both possible and acceptable in a "safe" zone there is no point to having them, so just get rid of them and remove all limits whatsoever. Everyone would know what he's up for when playing and can retaliate in any way he sees fit.
That is why open world/FFA PVP games are not all that succesful. Those games are all about trolling and griefing, instead of more or less open warfare between willing participants. Thats why games add safe zones in the first place, the problem is that just like in AA, it often doesn't work like intended. Instead of the griefing and trolling etc. moving to the PVP zones, where it would escalate to open warfare sooner or later, as people can strike back, the griefing and trolling moves to the safe zones, and PVP happens more or less only occasionally, given that the people who are supposed to make most use of it are busy in the safe zones..
I'll wait to the day's end when the moon is high
And then I'll rise with the tide with a lust for life, I'll
Amass an army, and we'll harness a horde
And then we'll limp across the land until we stand at the shore
Pretty uncool how people are bashing the op because he was getting grief and couldn't retaliate.
The point of suggesting the op to log out or do something they didn't want to do at the time is just...
You know, I could probably forgive AA just anything.
The one thing I can't forgive it though is that it turned Kano, our flagship for harsh but valid criticism, into a White Knight.
Had to correct that for you.
Look, being in a sandbox world means you get to do what you want to do. It also means I get to do what I want to, and if griefing you to the point of driving you off your land is permitted by the rules of the games, then you have to be willing to accept it, or not play.
I don't believe they ever advertised AA as having "safe zones", I believe they are PVP free zones, there is a difference.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
No, they are just people who understand how to handle themselves in a more free form game world where yes, someone may try to make your life miserable, within the rules, and you better be able to respond appropriately, even if it means walking away.
Some games are just like that......
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I actually think you could pull the farm carts off of your land with a harpoon clipper.
In any case, they can only do it for so long.
This kind of thing allowed a guild called "The Somali Coast Guard" to block a bridge on popular trading routes from other farm carts being able to pass.
http://forums.archeagegame.com/showthread.php?69363-Bridge-toll-in-safe-zone
Thing is you could call your guild in to help, harpoon the tractors with a harpoon clipper, or use rider's escape (although some people were saying you couldn't use it there).
Anyway, this is a PVP-centered game and Trion has pretty much stated that anything you can do using in-game mechanics is allowed.
You're going to have to expect some griefing as the potential is defintely built into the game. It's part of what makes the game so fun (and frustrating).
Other examples include the ability to steal people's vehicles if they don't have owner's mark on them and to jump on the harpoon on a harpoon clipper and sink it or make it flip out of the ocean.
***
Anyway, it makes for drama and pretty funny memories. I'll probably always remember the time this guy stole my farm cart (I hadn't yet perfected the time I needed to leave it without owner's mark) and drove it silently and deliberately into the ocean.
My first thoughts were can you kill them too, Then I thought about AA has straight up no attack zones. I think they GM was here.
There is a very good reason why MMOs don't use player collisions in places where you can't attack people. This was a problem that I remember from the early days of EQ. Honest to God, sometimes it seems as if the Archeage designers were determined to ignore everything that we know about MMO player behavior. From rewarding AFK behavior (and being surprised that people gamed the system) to setting up an unlimited land rush at launch (with utterly predictable results) to nurturing and encouraging risk-free griefing, they could have made simple choices that avoided huge problems. In football terms, there are multiple own goals here.
The potential to grief is part of the appeal of sandbox games. Yeah it's annoying when it happens, but that annoyance is part of the fun!
Honestly, what people are doing here is not game breaking. It would take like 10 people devoting their time to standing on your land to completely eliminate your chance to plant. If they want to that bad, well, you must've really pissed them off somehow.
hehe well said !
Any game which allows more freedom of action will naturally create the conditions for "harassment." This is easily cured by not allowing people to build near anyone elses properties; Don't have PvP; Don't allow stealing; Don't have enemy factions; Don't allow.....
The list is endless. I err on the side of more freedom and dealing with the negatives, than being more restrictive and removing these potentials. There are many games which fall into the restrictive category and I would recommend one of them. It will be a better fit I think. Archeage, really will appeal more to the crowd that enjoys the more cutthroat type of game play. (Before I get blasted, by cutthroat I mean having the potential for players being bad and affecting the lives of others. I don't mean it in the sense that you are constantly in fear of attack and losing things).
I self identify as a monkey.
And that's an apologist remark. A game does not have to be that way.
Full PVP would end up with more potential to grief. This seemingly nice-couple in the OP just trying to plant their roses on their farm-
Well, they still wouldn't be able to and what's more they'd be killed repeatedly.
It's appealing to sociopath behavior.
It's appealing to me and I don't grief. Farming and trade runs are pretty boring. It's fun to me when someone mixes it up by trying to mess with you.
Keep in mind this is not game-breaking stuff here. OP had some trouble planting some things which would've given a small profit, I wasted about 10 minutes chasing down the guy that stole my farm cart.
It's minor inconvenience for the sake of freedom and spontanious player interaction.
I can't believe the GM didn't even contact the offending players. Maybe they did and didn't say anything, but what a Customer Service fail this was. You should continue to pursue this ticket until you get a result that is satisfying. If Trion keeps this position they will end up in the same situation as EVE, and will have to get their lawyers activated when players start upping the ante on harassment.
Fans of this game who don't approve of this mentality should make their voices known to Trion.
I'd argue it is for the OP.
Seriously you think someone's going to sue cause they couldn't plant a few roses?
People have sued for less. Read the papers lately?
With all the attempts at "realism", I'm surprised a developer hasn't come up with a way for players to sue each other in game, where the system takes a cut of the "pain and suffering" payouts.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.