Non Violent forms of PVP

[Dontaze_Mebro]

1. Eco Terrorism - Cut down and haul off all the trees surrounding the enemy.

2. Totem Terrorism - Accept all the quests on the totem pole.

3. Homestead Terrorism - Use multiple homesteads to surround and wall in an enemy with terraforming.

Who can think of more ways to hurt people without actually hurting them?

[Saorlan]

Do caca near their totem.

[jumpshot]

If they are a terrible zerg recruiting clan (you know who you are, terrible zerg recruiting clans), you could join and then terraform their area to look like a giant schlong while they sleep?

[Commissar123]

You should give us some examples of these zerg clans.

[STAR_GOD]

1. Eco Terrorism - Cut down and haul off all the trees surrounding the enemy.

2. Totem Terrorism - Accept all the quests on the totem pole.

3. Homestead Terrorism - Use multiple homesteads to surround and wall in an enemy with terraforming.

Who can think of more ways to hurt people without actually hurting them?

We have thought of all those things before unfortunatly all of them are against TOS and can be percieved as harrasment ^^ not that we care

[d3m0nd0]

Jump wouldnt the game need enough people to form a Zerg, to actually have a zerg like tribe? I mean theres like 10 people on the server atm lulz. Zerg Patching clan? :D

[noiseed]

3rd one not gonna work.

1,2 pretty funny :D

[Dontaze_Mebro]

I see 2 and 3 could be considered violation of TOS unless you declare war then 3 would be ok. 2 Is just plain Dickish.

[d3m0nd0]

4. Psychological - Make fun of there Tiny E-Peens and make them Roid Rage, While Displaying Your Own Immense, Oversized, Godzilla Like E-Peen.

[jumpshot]

. Zerg Patching clan? :D

I lol'd at this.

And also your sig... did you know that badgerbadgerbadger.com is our official clan website?

[Dubanka]

There are a couple more...but not quite ready to go there yet.

i've said for a long time, that there are worse things than pvp...

every restriction that is made to limit/reduce pvp usually has a more serious side effect that requires further dev intervention, which results in greater potential for abuse, etc. etc. THis occurs until you remove any ability to affect anybody else's game- hence why 'instanced content' is all the rage...players don't actually ahve to interact with each other on a persistent basis.

Just take off the blinders and let her rip. After things sort themselves out, the environment will be much more manageable, and in many cases, predictable.

[d3m0nd0]

lol Against the ToS....

APPARENTLY PEOPLE ARE PRETTY POLITE AFTER THE APOCALYPSE.

Didn't you know Ol'Chum? Only us Upper Class Englishmen Survived! Society has never know such extreme amounts of politeness and smugness.

[Plague]

All of those actions are called griefing (although quest one is just plain silly as no one should be able to block quests).

[Sirius]

OP forgot #4, which is violently murdering a chosen target.

[Redus]

lol Against the ToS....

APPARENTLY PEOPLE ARE PRETTY POLITE AFTER THE APOCALYPSE.

I am pretty sure that after and apocalypse they not going to troll there enemies by building a wall around there town while there offline or even take all there quests.

[Sirius]

Oh yeah? I'm pretty sure you're wrong!

[Dubanka]

All of those actions are called griefing (although quest one is just plain silly as no one should be able to block quests).

So harvesting trees not in my immediate vicinity is 'griefing'?

Gathering trash outside of my immediate vicinity is 'griefing'?

get a grip.

Now, if i made a concerted effort to terraform the area around your camp to look like the moon...well, you might be able to claim it...but prove it? I just needed the dirt for some home improvement projects and didn't want to mess up my back yard. Is me just being selfish griefing? I'm doing things within MY homestead, for purposes that suite ME. Do we have to agree to deed restrictions on our plots now?

you folks kill me. really.

[AlexTaldren]

So harvesting trees not in my immediate vicinity is 'griefing'?

Gathering trash outside of my immediate vicinity is 'griefing'?

get a grip.

Now, if i made a concerted effort to terraform the area around your camp to look like the moon...well, you might be able to claim it...but prove it? I just needed the dirt for some home improvement projects and didn't want to mess up my back yard. Is me just being selfish griefing? I'm doing things within MY homestead, for purposes that suite ME. Do we have to agree to deed restrictions on our plots now?

you folks kill me. really.

You're forgetting that combat is turned off. Sure, under normal circumstances, gathering just outside of someone's area wouldn't be considered griefing. However, since combat is off and the owners of that land couldn't go out and stop you or fight for the territory, I'm inclined to think it is.

[maelwydd]

There are a couple more...but not quite ready to go there yet.

i've said for a long time, that there are worse things than pvp...

every restriction that is made to limit/reduce pvp usually has a more serious side effect that requires further dev intervention, which results in greater potential for abuse, etc. etc. THis occurs until you remove any ability to affect anybody else's game- hence why 'instanced content' is all the rage...players don't actually ahve to interact with each other on a persistent basis.

Just take off the blinders and let her rip. After things sort themselves out, the environment will be much more manageable, and in many cases, predictable.

I changed a small part of what you wrote...

"players don't actually ahve to interact with 'pricks' on a persistent basis."

[Sirius]

I changed a small part of what you wrote...

"players don't actually ahve to interact with 'pricks' on a persistent basis."

Could you please explain exactly what you mean by this? Speak into the microphone, please.

[maelwydd]

Could you please explain exactly what you mean by this? Speak into the microphone, please.

In this context a prick is someone who basically has no social skills and relies on their online anonymity to act in a way that, in the real world simply gets them a fist in the face. For that reason people wish to have a mechanic in place to seperate themselves from this minoity as they spoil what is for most (except the few people lacking social skills, the capacity to understand the larger ramifications on their actions or simply the people that crave attention even if it is negative attention which I would call a 'prick') a universally accepted balance between enjoing a fun mechanic such as PvP and striving to 'win' said mechanic.

Clearer?

[niccoli00]

You're forgetting that combat is turned off. Sure, under normal circumstances, gathering just outside of someone's area wouldn't be considered griefing. However, since combat is off and the owners of that land couldn't go out and stop you or fight for the territory, I'm inclined to think it is.

That's right, all you homesteaders, make sure you stay on your 10 yards of land and don't harvest anything outside of it.

So, what you are saying is you should only be harvesting within your totem radius. Otherwise, it's grief...

OR since both sides are limited the same way, and no one OWNS that non claimed area, then it should be open game.

If someone goes outside of their tribal area, just past the line, and harvests a tree, who are they griefing?

How about 10 feet?
20 feet?
200 feet?
2 miles?

"Just outside" of a tribal area is very subjective. What if I have a homestead next to your tribal area, we're both equally close to a resource, no one gets it? How are you going to enforce that? How will the game determine "who" is in the wrong?

[Sirius]

In this context a prick is someone who basically has no social skills and relies on their online anonymity to act in a way that, in the real world simply gets them a fist in the face. For that reason people wish to have a mechanic in place to seperate themselves from this minoity as they spoil what is for most (except the few people lacking social skills, the capacity to understand the larger ramifications on their actions or simply the people that crave attention even if it is negative attention which I would call a 'prick') a universally accepted balance between enjoing a fun mechanic such as PvP and striving to 'win' said mechanic.

Clearer?

Well, you certainly seem to have a firm opinion on the subject. Do you have any reason to believe anybody matching that description actually plays Xsyon? Because it really kind of sounds like some concocted, hyperbolic boogeyman to me.

[Dontaze_Mebro]

In this context a prick is someone who basically has no social skills and relies on their online anonymity to act in a way that, in the real world simply gets them a fist in the face. For that reason people wish to have a mechanic in place to seperate themselves from this minoity as they spoil what is for most (except the few people lacking social skills, the capacity to understand the larger ramifications on their actions or simply the people that crave attention even if it is negative attention which I would call a 'prick') a universally accepted balance between enjoing a fun mechanic such as PvP and striving to 'win' said mechanic.

Clearer?

I argue that those unable to deal with forced social interactions are the ones who lack social skills as well as the ability to cope with life's little situations.

[maelwydd]

I argue that those unable to deal with forced social interactions are the ones who lack social skills as well as the ability to cope with life's little situations.

I agree. And those that are unable to deal with forced social interactions are the ones who act like pricks when confronted with such an envirnoment.

We are all taught it when we are small children, you know...how to play in the sandpit with other kids.

Problem is, in real life having poor social skills results in a punch in the face. In online games it results in changed game mechanics to lessen the disruption of these kids that think just because no one is around to slap them when they can act like pricks, they are above following normal social interaction.

[Sirius]

Maelwydd,

Do you see the irony of hiding behind internet anonymity while talking about how you'd love to facepunch people who hide behind anonymity and play in a way you don't like? I think you might find that in real life, other people punch back. You'll also get arrested for punching someone just for acting like a "prick", as you say.

No offense, but your postings give me the impression of a passive-aggressive sociopath who lets rage at the outside world build up inside him until it boils over in a completely inappropriate (and perhaps shocking) outburst of anger. I'd suggest killing people in a video game as a way of letting off some of that tension ;)

[Rougie]

Problem is, in real life having poor social skills results in a punch in the face. In online games it results in changed game mechanics to lessen the disruption of these kids that think just because no one is around to slap them when they can act like pricks, they are above following normal social interaction.

People have the right to engage in PvP in whatever manner the game mechanics allow. If you're unable or unwilling to beat your enemy through combat, then try beating/hindering your enemy through the deprivation of resources - It's a perfectly legitimate tactic during war, but is sadly being misdiagnosed by those who are egregiously using the extremely arbitrary term "griefing", which can seemingly be applied to anything and everything.


What better way to simulate a postapocalyptic neoprimitivist society than to have an invisible nanny to make sure we all behave? Once you start restricting player freedom to control behavior, one of two things happens. You either blunt the societal interaction and make it a theme park, or those very restrictions are used to abuse people even further and without probable recourse. Leave the policing to the hands of the players. They're far more apt for it than rules born of whining that are enforced by part-time GMs.

Red, I must admit, you sound quite libertarian there! :D

I like it.

[AlexTaldren]

That's right, all you homesteaders, make sure you stay on your 10 yards of land and don't harvest anything outside of it.

So, what you are saying is you should only be harvesting within your totem radius. Otherwise, it's grief...

OR since both sides are limited the same way, and no one OWNS that non claimed area, then it should be open game.

If someone goes outside of their tribal area, just past the line, and harvests a tree, who are they griefing?

How about 10 feet?
20 feet?
200 feet?
2 miles?

"Just outside" of a tribal area is very subjective. What if I have a homestead next to your tribal area, we're both equally close to a resource, no one gets it? How are you going to enforce that? How will the game determine "who" is in the wrong?

Reading comprehension... heard of it? What I was saying is that with combat turned off, it doesn't allow people to defend resources they want that are nearby. I wasn't saying people shouldn't gather resources outside their area. It's up to the developers what "griefing" is, and they have stated they will not allow it.

[Dubanka]

I changed a small part of what you wrote...

"players don't actually ahve to interact with 'pricks' on a persistent basis."

So anyone that does not play the game exactly as you'd have them play it is now a 'prick'.


You're forgetting that combat is turned off. Sure, under normal circumstances, gathering just outside of someone's area wouldn't be considered griefing. However, since combat is off and the owners of that land couldn't go out and stop you or fight for the territory, I'm inclined to think it is.
THis actually made me chuckle. I guarantee that, even with pvp active, if i show up and blockade an area outside your town, while i bring in my l337 harvesting team to chop down all the trees outside your area, you're going to scream griefer. Depriving you of the ability to enjjoy the game, etc.

Actually i'm not sure what kind of non-consensual hostile action would be tolerated, under any circumstances, by a fair portion of the playerbase. Their definition of griefing is:
Griefing: any action or activity outside of my control, whether or not due to my action or inaction, where the result is anything other than that which is as was planned, anticipated, expected or otherwise desired. Any activity that does not provide direct benefit to me.

We, the 'anti social' pvp players, expect to win some, lose some, make allies, make enemies, sometimes the two may interchange. We fully expect to deal with jerks, but will also meet some good folk...whether they be enemy or ally. We view the game as a contact sport...where jsut because we are punching each other in the face today, doesnt mean we wont shake hands and grab a cerveza after the whistle blows....since in the end, we do recognize it's a game.

[Sirius]

It's up to the developers what "griefing" is, and they have stated they will not allow it.

I don't think that they meant to encourage the playerbase to sit around thinking of new things to complain about and cry for people to get account banned. Just that they saw no need to attempt to tie themselves down to some kind of explicit definition.

Besides, did you notice that tribes also couldn't use force to defend the totem spots they wanted? Yeah.. I highly doubt the devs are going to be banning anyone for whatever the hell you're talking about.

[maelwydd]

LOL why don't all you angry PvP'ers go find a game with pvp. Too much pent up agression here...as usual. Go get laid guys.

[Sirius]

Who's angry? And if you don't want to PVP, why did you purchase an MMO whose description includes the words "full loot" ?

[Dubanka]

LOL why don't all you angry PvP'ers go find a game with pvp. Too much pent up agression here...as usual. Go get laid guys.

what's with the personal attacks?

I'm here making a perfectly logical explanation to back up my stated position, and i get called a 'prick', and now evidently, i need to 'get laid'.

I mean seriously...and you call us antisocial. You don't want to play in the same sand box with us, AND you call us names.

Really, just not very nice at all.

[Sirius]

We ... expect to ... make allies ... We ... will also meet some good folk... jsut because we are punching each other in the face today, doesnt mean we wont shake hands and grab a cerveza after the whistle blows....since in the end, we do recognize it's a game.

Man, I'm going to have fun backstabbing this carebear whenever he steps outside his tribe radius! :cool:

[ifireallymust]

What's that I hear? Is that....wait a minute, I think it is! It's a great pvper outcry for a chaos server! Yes, I'm sure that's what I'm hearing. It got so quiet in here for awhile, too. But now they're back, so please, give them what they want. Their own special server with their own special ruleset.

Oh, you guys don't want your own server? Whyever not? Is it perhaps because you would like to form up in packs of obnoxious little ethugs to find unwilling victims to play with? Would you also perhaps like to coerce other players into joining your ethug pack and participating in your idea of 'fun'? Would you like that?

Too bad. You can't have it both ways. If you want no restrictions at all, then go play with others who want the same, and leave the rest of us alone. You don't have the right to force your nasty zergs on everyone else. You don't have the power to force it on us, either.

And for whatever reason, you aren't playing any of the games that would allow you to do what you want, so you've come here. Fair enough, perhaps there are features here that you can't get anywhere else that you're interested in aside from the pvp. But some of us are interested in a certain feature Xsyon has that other games with a heavy pvp element don't. Which is a little break from pvp in one small area of the map. Just one. That's all.

And you can't stand it, can you? It drives you insane. It's not that safe zones drive you crazy, either, if it was just that, you'd be hollering for your seperate server to play on. No, it's all the happy players you can't grief in their one small area that makes you nutty with rage and gets the spittle bubbling at the corners of your mouths.

Actually, it's kinda entertaining to watch you foam. Carry on.

[maelwydd]

Who's angry? And if you don't want to PVP, why did you purchase an MMO whose description includes the words "full loot" ?

Please quote where I stated I didn't wat to PvP or enjoy PvP.

I changed a quote where someone glossed over the fact that in every single PvP game I have played where the mechanics have been changed due to the few people who act like pricks, abuse they annoimity to do so and in turn force the developers to deal with their antisocial abuse of their system.

You can try (and keep trying) to throw out the assumption that I don't like PvP or am a 'carebear' or any other name, it wont change the fact that it isn't me forcing developers to change a system, it is those few who act like pricks. If that offends you because you associate your self with that small minority then that is your problem.


what's with the personal attacks?

I'm here making a perfectly logical explanation to back up my stated position, and i get called a 'prick', and now evidently, i need to 'get laid'.

I mean seriously...and you call us antisocial. You don't want to play in the same sand box with us, AND you call us names.

Really, just not very nice at all.

It is only a personal attack if you think my referencing a minority of people who have an antisocial playstyle applies to you. I wasn't pointing a finger at you but if you think I was then perhaps you should ask yourself why you made that assumption.


This game does have pvp, as did the game that inspired it-- UO. I don't know why you have such a problem with other players' playstyles. I don't care what anybody else does to try to make this game fun.

The ONLY playstyle I personally have a problem with is one where the individual, through selfish desires, acts in such a way that the majority of people who do enjoy the game as intended are reused that ability because the game developers are forces to change the game because of their actions. I enjoy PvP, over half of my 200+ games are PvP in nature. And unlike you I DO care what others do to make this game fun, or rather I care about what people do to make the game LESS fun.

[Dubanka]

What's that I hear? Is that....wait a minute, I think it is! It's a great pvper outcry for a chaos server! Yes, I'm sure that's what I'm hearing. It got so quiet in here for awhile, too. But now they're back, so please, give them what they want. Their own special server with their own special ruleset.

Oh, you guys don't want your own server? Whyever not? Is it perhaps because you would like to form up in packs of obnoxious little ethugs to find unwilling victims to play with? Would you also perhaps like to coerce other players into joining your ethug pack and participating in your idea of 'fun'? Would you like that?

Too bad. You can't have it both ways. If you want no restrictions at all, then go play with others who want the same, and leave the rest of us alone. You don't have the right to force your nasty zergs on everyone else. You don't have the power to force it on us, either.

And for whatever reason, you aren't playing any of the games that would allow you to do what you want, so you've come here. Fair enough, perhaps there are features here that you can't get anywhere else that you're interested in aside from the pvp. But some of us are interested in a certain feature Xsyon has that other games with a heavy pvp element don't. Which is a little break from pvp in one small area of the map. Just one. That's all.

And you can't stand it, can you? It drives you insane. It's not that safe zones drive you crazy, either, if it was just that, you'd be hollering for your seperate server to play on. No, it's all the happy players you can't grief in their one small area that makes you nutty with rage and gets the spittle bubbling at the corners of your mouths.

Actually, it's kinda entertaining to watch you foam. Carry on.

my nasty zerg is 18 players. F34r them.

and really, you protest a lot.

I don't think any of us are desiring anything more than to play the game as the feature set on the front page declares it to be. That's the game we want to play. That is the vision we've signed up for.

What we don't want, is to see that vision dumbed down, and restricted to become some mamby pamby bubble wrapped kiddie land where nannies make sure the little kiddies can't hurt themselves. Safe this, safe that, protect me from those mean people mr. dev, i don't wanna play with them they talk scary, i know there's only two of them, but they're MEEEEEANies.

[maelwydd]

Yeah but Dub, in all fairness the devlopers have stated PvP is not a priority for the game. It has PvP but it is not the focus. Perhaps down the line it might be but for the near future the game isn't going to be a mindless gankfest like some other 'open sandbox FFA PvP' games have become. That is waht attracted me. I love PvP but I want a game that places more priority on WHY we PvP then WHERE.

[ifireallymust]

Dubanka and RedMorgan, no matter how hard you try, you cannot insult me enough to make me defend, much less embrace, your play style. And Dubanka, round out your talk radio a bit, would you? I swear, you're channeling Rush Limbaugh. Kinda funny, but I doubt you wanted me to laugh. Try being a bit more subtle. Oh dear, never mind, it's probably considered trolling to ask someone to insult me better! ;)

Don't ban me, I'll be good!

Seriously, you two, I have a deep loathing for packs of bullies, in games or anywhere else. Now, if this game really is going to be funded by bullies, with every other player a minority, I guess monetary considerations might get you the game you want. In 6-9 months, according to the timeline that has existed since well before my filthy february join date. But I really don't think you're the majority. I just think you're very, very loud and determined.

Actually, I rather approve of loud and determined, it shows something matters to you. I just don't like people who are loudly determined to bully and harass other people. That's just my stance on the issue. I assure you, being insulting will no more alter my stance than me insulting you is going to change yours.

[maelwydd]

Anyone who wants a mindless gankfest would just play Darkfall. Which btw, I did play and quit when I realized how meaningless everything was.

Meaning and conflict aren't neceassarily at odds with eachother. Which is evidenced by, again, by UO.

That is cool then and perhaps you know what I mean by refering to a small minority or PvP'ers who just want to do their upmost to remove the "WHY" from PvP which in turn not only reduces the games PvP to a mindless gankfest but also forces game mechanics to be introduced to be fair for all participants. I mean, for example, if people didn't do things like attack enemy outposts and destroy them when their enemy were in bed due to timezone differences, then game developers wouldn't be forced into introducing mechanics to prevent it from taking place.

If people could act reasonably then it wouldn't be required, but some people do act like "pricks" and so these measures eventually Do get introduced. And anyone REALLY interested in keeping free and open PvP in the game would understand and accept the need for self moderation to ensure external moderation is not neccessary. The problem is, some people are just unable to self moderate, and imho these people are the ones I refer to as "pricks" and spoil the game for everyone else.

[Sirius]

[mindless wall of text]

TRANSLATION: Anyone who engages in non-consensual PVP is a mean nasty griefer who doesn't play the way I want to play. These people have no business telling me how I should play. However, if they don't play the way I want them to play, I will cry to the devs until those players get banned for not playing the way I want them to play and for having the nerve to try to tell me how I should play.

Irony: it ain't just something de wife do to de shirts.

[LordTenacious]

But if pvp's on it might distract us from making useless armor, useless weapons, and useless buildings.

[kergan]

Yeah but Dub, in all fairness the devlopers have stated PvP is not a priority for the game. It has PvP but it is not the focus. Perhaps down the line it might be but for the near future the game isn't going to be a mindless gankfest like some other 'open sandbox FFA PvP' games have become. That is waht attracted me. I love PvP but I want a game that places more priority on WHY we PvP then WHERE.

I can understand it may not be the priority for the devs...but it IS the priority for many of us who want to pay them to play it. That's the fun of a 'sandbox' to us...the ability to kick that sand in other's faces. The crafting, building, etc. are very cool in this game and make it more worthwhile, but in the whole of our playstyle they are only a means to the end of being able to kick more sand faster. I'm not talking about griefing just to ruin someone elses day...rather conquering, pillaging, and killing others to make mine. That's what I like in a game and if it has a cool world and other fun features then so much the better. There are plenty of ways for the peaceful playerbase to thrive amidst the warlike if they care to work at it intelligently, but simply wanting to be left alone isn't one of them. Many here need to, and will, learn that lesson sooner or later. Pure griefing will certainly happen and we will all have to deal with it...and simply wishing it weren't so won't work there either.

So those of you who rage at the PvP'ers should turn your complaints to the devs where they might do some good. Tell them you really don't like all the sand and ask them to take it away. Maybe they'll listen. If so we'll all leave for sandier pastures and you can be left to play FarmyCraftville in peace. Untill then, and especially if you're the proverbial 98-lb weakling, get ready for a facefull of sand...or be willing to play the politics required to minimize it. It can be done you know.

[Dubanka]

Yeah but Dub, in all fairness the devlopers have stated PvP is not a priority for the game. It has PvP but it is not the focus. Perhaps down the line it might be but for the near future the game isn't going to be a mindless gankfest like some other 'open sandbox FFA PvP' games have become. That is waht attracted me. I love PvP but I want a game that places more priority on WHY we PvP then WHERE.

You know, you guys keep saying that..like a mantra.
Are we sure this isn't star wars?
This is not the pvp you were looking for
There is no pvp here, move along

While i would agree 100% that pvp is not the primary focus of the game, it is the ultimate outcome given the game design we've been exposed to.
- Scattered and depleteable resources: Check
- Economic system that consumes resources at a rapid pace: Check
- World building design that providers for player/guild ownership of assets: Check
- Player interaction model that minimally restricts player behavior: Check
- Extensive crafting models for armaments: Check

All these elements point towards conflict. You've got a reason (depleteable resources, that you need to make stuff), you have a motivation (keep your stuff, get the other guys, protect your turf), and you have the means (weapons, armor, lightly restricted pvp environment). Voila. A pvp game is borne.

Now, we are all in this knowing:
-the combat system is currently fubar. It sucks and it needs to be fixed. we know this and are here to help. who better to help make an awesome combat system than people who enjoy fighting each other
-there is a lot that still needs to be implemented. bows, 2h weapons, seige mechanics, territorial control models...we get it, we're here to help, and wiat for it.
-you can't pvp all the time. we get it. we know it. most of us have been doing this a long time, and understand crafting, logistics, etc. Heck, we even understand we need to play nice in the sandbox, lest we scare all the other kids away.

The problem is not 'us', it's 'you'. 'You' don't want 'us' here...period...no love, at all.

However, we don't particularly care how you feel, we're here because of the devs vision, and we feel that is complimentary to our purpose. Contrary to popular belief, we're not here to carry out a scorched earth policy...most of us have done that before and understand the consequences are generally negative to all...and in those games where we did do it...the GAME ENCOURAGED US TO DO IT...it was the game. Anyway, we're here because we want to be, we're here because we think our goals are in line with the devs vision...regardless of how you interpet it.

We come in peace, always.

[Soulwanderer]

But if pvp's on it might distract us from making useless armor, useless weapons, and useless buildings.

Don't forget the useless walls. =P

I agree that the main focus of the game shouldn't be PvP as the devs have stated. That doesn't mean it should be Crafting/PvE either. They seem to be trying to make this game as realistic as possible, and imo that's a much better goal. That's going to mean a world where Crafting, City Building, PvP, and Sieges all go hand in hand.

You want to PvP? Well you need to craft some weapons and armor first if you don't want to get slaughtered.

You want to Siege? Well first you need to build some Siege equipment and make sure you have enough in case your enemy destroys it.

You want to Craft? You're gonna need to be able to protect yourself and your resources to do that.

You want to build and keep your city? You're going to have to fortify it and invest in defenses in case some one decides to siege it.


That's a game that doesn't have a focus on anything but creating a real world style sandbox. They started off in the right direction. Let's just hope they can get where they need to fast enough to keep and gain some players.

[ifireallymust]

TRANSLATION: Anyone who engages in non-consensual PVP is a mean nasty griefer who doesn't play the way I want to play. These people have no business telling me how I should play. However, if they don't play the way I want them to play, I will cry to the devs until those players get banned for not playing the way I want them to play and for having the nerve to try to tell me how I should play.

Irony: it ain't just something de wife do to de shirts.

You could get away with that much better if I'd ever had a word of complaint against open pvp everywhere except in safe zones. You'd also have a more valid point if I hadn't been one of the first people to say I would try the war server and wait to try the peace server when that was still being kicked around. It's not pvp I have a problem with, even non-consensual pvp. It's the endlessly inventive, nasty, rotten things people come up with to ruin games for other people.

The zerg is my biggest peeve. Zergs don't just ruin games for players, they ruin games period. You can disagree with me on that if you want, what you can't do is paint me as pure carebear and pure anti-pvp. In light of my other posts, that will never hold up. I was sad the war server didn't happen, because I wanted to build something so difficult and annoying to crash through that it wouldn't ever be worth the bother just to grief one solo homesteader. Or anyway, I wanted to try. And I really do want the trenches and walls and moats we can make to have a purpose at some point.


And thanks, RedMorgan, but I can protect myself. Besides, I suspect, and I could be wrong on this one, that your 'protection' comes with strings attached.

[maelwydd]

Sorry, the problem isn't an 'us' vs 'you' thing. The developers have stated what kind of PvP they want. End of conversation really. And it isn't a mindless gankfest. If that means you won't enjoy it then all I can say is, sorry you don't agree with the vision the game developers have.

And I can be pretty sure that a game designer would only consider changing a mechanic in a game if it didn't deliver on it's design purpose or has an adverse effect of the games overall design. And I can also be pretty sure that a game designer will initially design something they see as balanced and it is the players who abuse or misuse the balance provided that mean the mechanic fails to meet the design purpose.

So ultimately, as much as people can continually blame the PvE'ers or carebears for these design changes, ultimately it is the very people who get so outraged at the changes that are the actual cause of the changes.

If I had to choose between: -

A brutally open PvP system with people that abuse the system
or
An artificially restricted system with people that just want to have fun while PvP'ing

I will choose the later.

Not because I think that the system is better, but because given the choice I prefer self moderation and playing with those that do too, even if the moderation is somewhat enforced.

[Surly]

PvP isn't a feature, it's the byproduct of a well made sandbox. Anyone who follows around indie games that advertise PvP as a feature will either wind up in a consensual PvP arena, or a game so completely devoid of every element of good gameplay that PvP is the only thing to do. In either case, there is no conflict, no reason for fighting, just a shallow gameplay experience identical in spirit to playing Call of Duty on an XBOX.

There are such people buzzing around practically every game out there, this one included. But if you're being called a carebear, and feel comfortable in the camp of players who just want to craft all day, try not to lump everyone who sees PvP as a means to creating a richer, deeper gaming experience into a pile with all the same sorts you associate with spawn camping and griefing all day. A sandbox is not a sandbox with artificial restrictions, and that goes both for combat and non-combat activities. If a game allows you to be spawn-camped and griefed, it is not a problem of lack of safezones or other restrictions, but lack of tools for you to deal with it. PvP is just a tool players can use to solve a certain set of problems, just as a shovel is a tool for solving the problem of uneven terrain for placing your stupid chief tent. Don't look at it as anything else, and certainly not as a threat to sandbox environments. It's quite the opposite.

[Redemp]

I think you folks are letting VD troll you a bit to obviously, note the immediate spin to make it an argument that you just hate pvp and because you hate pvp you think they are nasty griefers. ( Yeah I'm paraphrasing, but you get the gist )

Classic PvP troll : 1. I want this in PvP 2. Refute rebuttals with some form of " You're a carebear " insult. 3. Claim that any arguements for the latter, or justifications for said arguments are spurned by a deep seeded prejudice against all who pvp.

4. Thread locked by a Moderator

Edit : 5. Call said Troll on being a troll, and then claim its because they too hate pvp.

[ifireallymust]

I'm not going to say that those strings are attached to brutally demeaning acts of abusive carnality, but I ain't they're not either.

Oh hey! In that case, I'm bringin pizza!

[Rougie]

every single PvP game I have played where the mechanics have been changed due to the few people who act like pricks, abuse they annoimity to do so and in turn force the developers to deal with their antisocial abuse of their system

There are player solutions to player problems, but you're either too damn lazy or unwilling to think of them.

Rather than crying to the dev team to change the entire game mechanics to suit your fears and inadequacies, and consequently making the game less fun for everyone else; try sitting down and thinking "What can I do, as an individual player, to solve this problem?". If you can't think of a solution, then ask someone smarter than you, or just deal with it.


You can try (and keep trying) to throw out the assumption that I don't like PvP or am a 'carebear' or any other name, it wont change the fact that it isn't me forcing developers to change a system, it is those few who act like pricks

No, it is people like you, whining and crying and ranting on the forums to change the entire system, who (unfortunately) ultimately change the system. You'd be surprised, or not, that MMO developers actually care what their playerbase says, and if a ton of whiney carebears keep complaining about pvp, then developers tend to 'do something', and rest of us suffer because of it.

So, how dare you claim that the moral stature of pk'ers is at the mercy of your actions and the actions of people like yourself, who whine and moan to devs to get the game changed.

[Surly]

I think you folks are letting VD troll you a bit to obviously, note the immediate spin to make it an argument that you just hate pvp and because you hate pvp you think they are nasty griefers. ( Yeah I'm paraphrasing, but you get the gist )

Classic PvP troll : 1. I want this in PvP 2. Refute rebuttals with some form of " You're a carebear " insult. 3. Claim that any arguements for the latter, or justifications for said arguments are spurned by a deep seeded prejudice against all who pvp.

4. Thread locked by a Moderator
I don't think you could have made a more inaccurate or debased post. You practically set up an army of straw men and lit them on fire. Do you want a cookie or something? Go engage in debate with a sign post if you're just going to try and derail discussions.

[Redemp]

I wonder if Rougie is attempting to be ironic .... or if that was an unintentional affect.

+ or - 1 Good Sir.



I don't think you could have made a more inaccurate or debased post. You practically set up an army of straw men and lit them on fire. Do you want a cookie or something? Go engage in debate with a sign post if you're just going to try and derail discussions.

Hi there Mr. Debate team coach ... hows the wiki link for "strawman" these days?

[maelwydd]

There are player solutions to player problems, but you're either too damn lazy or unwilling to think of them.

Rather than crying to the dev team to change the entire game mechanics to suit your fears and inadequacies, and consequently making the game less fun for everyone else; try sitting down and thinking "What can I do, as an individual player, to solve this problem?". If you can't think of a solution, then ask someone smarter than you, or just deal with it.



No, it is people like you, whining and crying and ranting on the forums to change the entire system, who (unfortunately) ultimately change the system. You'd be surprised, or not, that MMO developers actually care what their playerbase says, and if a ton of whiney carebears keep complaining about pvp, then developers tend to 'do something', and rest of us suffer because of it.

So, how dare you claim that the moral stature of pk'ers is at the mercy of your actions and the actions of people like yourself, who whine and moan to devs to get the game changed.

I haven't asked for anything to be changed. The only changes I have seen since joining have been requested by the PvP'ers (or at least changes that are not simple improvements of existing mechanics).

And it is obvious that you didn't read my last post otherwise you would have commented on my point about why game changes are made by developers and designers.

[Sirius]

You could get away with that much better if I'd ever had a word of complaint against open pvp everywhere except in safe zones....

Your previous post in this thread consisted of little more than mindless name-calling. At no point did your rambling, incoherent comments resemble an argument, much less a sensible one. All of us in the audience are dumber for having heard it.

I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

And: to whoever accused VD of "trolling".. it's pretty clear that we're the ones contributing to sensible, on-topic discussion. Most of the rest of you are getting lost in fanatical raving about "pricks", "obnoxious little e-thugs", and how pvpers get "nutty with rage" and have "spittle bubbling at the corners of your mouths" when they can't "grief" all those "happy players". You know, people with "no social skills" who deserve to be "punched in the face"?

Seriously, take a step back from the invective and try to be reasonable.

[ifireallymust]

Your previous post in this thread consisted of little more than mindless name-calling. At no point did your rambling, incoherent comments resemble an argument, much less a sensible one. All of us in the audience are dumber for having heard it.

I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

And: to whoever accused VD of "trolling".. it's pretty clear that we're the ones contributing to sensible, on-topic discussion. Most of the rest of you are getting lost in fanatical raving about "pricks", "obnoxious little e-thugs", and how pvpers get "nutty with rage" and have "spittle bubbling at the corners of your mouths" when they can't "grief" all those "happy players". You know, people with "no social skills" who deserve to be "punched in the face"?

Seriously, take a step back from the invective and try to be reasonable.

I'd like you to point to the specific person I called a mean awful name. Or any name.

Can't, can you?

Case closed. It was a rant, but it was a deliberately general rant. And it wasn't intended to change the minds of those who may think they fit that foam at the mouth pvp griefer description, either. Really, a true griefer is a useless creature to debate with. Griefers grief because they like making others miserable. Do you like make other people miserable, in a game or anywhere else? If so, that wasn't directed at you. I wouldn't waste my time. If not, then we can discuss it, now that I'm over my rant, and you're over your *cough*RushLimbaughStockInsults*cough* rant.

Edit: BTW, I'm an atheist.

Oh, and why is it that I typed a c and got an o in 'Can't, can you?'

[Sirius]

Lol. So now I'm a Rush Limbaugh ditto-head. Does this train of thought you've got going on ever get anywhere, or does it just go around in circles?

Serious question: these evil, hellspawn griefers you keep talking about. Do they exist? Do any of them play Xsyon? If so, who are they, and why are you making general complaints instead of specific, direct complaints? And if they don't exist, what are you complaining about in the first place?

Because once again, this whole big-bad-griefer thing sounds like a ridiculous, hyperbolic boogeyman for you to point and scream at.

P.S. Your self-righteous sig is, itself, a troll attempt. But I don't suppose you've noticed that.

[Surly]

*cough*RushLimbaughStockInsults*cough* rant.

Edit: BTW, I'm an atheist.
What the fuck? I think I'm presently wearing the most perplexed expression I've ever had.

Do you actually think? I don't mean that rhetorically. Are you capable of thought?

[ifireallymust]

Lol. So now I'm a Rush Limbaugh ditto-head. Does this train of thought you've got going on ever get anywhere, or does it just go around in circles?

Serious question: these evil, hellspawn griefers you keep talking about. Do they exist? Do any of them play Xsyon? If so, who are they, and why are you making general complaints instead of specific, direct complaints? And if they don't exist, what are you complaining about in the first place?

Because once again, this whole big-bad-griefer thing sounds like a ridiculous, hyperbolic boogeyman for you to point and scream at.

P.S. Your self-righteous sig is, itself, a troll attempt. But I don't suppose you've noticed that.

No seriously, that was vintage Rush Limbaugh right there. namby pamby this and nanny state parallel that. It was classic. It's just, that doesn't work on me. And to be honest, it was a bit over the top to work on anyone. You gotta dial it back a bit.

*Breaks down and sobs on your shoulder*

I can't pick up a damn piece of scrap plastic and here I am back in the forums arguing the same pvp argument over and over and over again because I can't pick up a damn piece of plastic, or drink, or fish, or eat, or do anything and I'm getting really frustrated!

Ahem. Okay. Anyway, Zergs. They kill games. They really do.

[Sirius]

Nothing you post makes sense.

[ifireallymust]

Well, it does if you and Dubanka are the same person.

In any case, would you guys mind telling me again why you don't want your own pvp ruleset server to play on?

I must be a little slow, I never did really figure out why that wouldn't make you guys happy. Please, do explain it to me.

[Sirius]

Dubanka and I are not the same person. Even if we were, I'm not sure how that would affect the overall sensibility of your comments.

Regarding a PVP server, I"m not sure why this is relevant since it's not up to us whether there is one or not. Please don't blame us for the lack of a peace-only server.

But as for my own personal opinions on that subject, I wouldn't be interested in splitting up the player base if it means we end up with 2 nearly empty servers. I think you'll agree that even with no PVP at all, the game would be pointless without a large number of other players inhabiting the same world. That's what puts the "Massively" in "Massively Multiplayer", and that's a big part of what makes these games fun.

[Dubanka]

I think you folks are letting VD troll you a bit to obviously, note the immediate spin to make it an argument that you just hate pvp and because you hate pvp you think they are nasty griefers. ( Yeah I'm paraphrasing, but you get the gist )

Classic PvP troll : 1. I want this in PvP 2. Refute rebuttals with some form of " You're a carebear " insult. 3. Claim that any arguements for the latter, or justifications for said arguments are spurned by a deep seeded prejudice against all who pvp.

4. Thread locked by a Moderator

Edit : 5. Call said Troll on being a troll, and then claim its because they too hate pvp.

actually i don't think i've made any of your points.
1. I haven't asked for anything. I've merely supported what the developers have already stated is coming, and further nodded in understanding about the current state of combat mechanics (fubar).
2. I have not insulted anyone, despite insults being thrown in this direction.
3. I have made a rational arguement for a style of playing being an integral and logical component of this game.
4. not locked.
5. has not come to pass.

and i'm sorry, but this is just pure comedy:

If I had to choose between: -

A brutally open PvP system with people that abuse the system
or
An artificially restricted system with people that just want to have fun while PvP'ing

I will choose the later

Uh, if i had to choose between:
a) getting stabbed in the chest by a hairy fella with yellow teeth and really bad breath
and
b) sitting on the beach with a beautiful woman, while drinking a corona from a bottomless cooler of beer
I would uhh.
decisions.
choose...uhh...b i think. yeah b.

How about choosign between:
a) a complex economic, crafting and political game design that gives the player the ability directly impact the world, its players, and its economy.
b) a complex economic and crafting model that gives players the ability to craft items and build cities.

and finally

And it isn't a mindless gankfest. If that means you won't enjoy it then all I can say is, sorry you don't agree with the vision the game developers have.
Where have i said anything about a gankfest? The gank crowd will be in and out in a week or two...there just isnt enough here to hold them, which is not a bad thing. Everything i have posted about has been relevant to purpose driven pvp. Protecting my territory and resources, pillaging yours. In the end its the resources that drive the pvp. More territory = more resources = better stuff. That's the game design. Now, as those resources deplete, you can hold hands and just be sad when you run out...or you can go grab someone elses. Or you can be proactive and grab someone elses before you run out. Again i realize that any type of non-consensual pvp will be viewed as 'ganking' and 'griefing'...but until they they take the sand out of the sandbox, it's in the game as a means exercise control over resources.


Well, it does if you and Dubanka are the same person.

In any case, would you guys mind telling me again why you don't want your own pvp ruleset server to play on?

I must be a little slow, I never did really figure out why that wouldn't make you guys happy. Please, do explain it to me.

I honestly don't care. Dev decision, not mine. obviously.
It wouldtn seem too bright to split the pop...but seeing as the server dies when more than 10 folks are on it, it probably isn't a bad idea jsut from a functionality standpoint. But, again, honestly dont care.

[ifireallymust]

Who can think of more ways to hurt people without actually hurting them?

I believe this phrasing is what got my panties in a wad more than anything specific you came up with. It seems less about denying an enemy tribe or player resources or initiating conflict that will create pvp for you later on than it seems to be about...welll, hurting people. Not literally, of course. But your wording makes it seem that your goal is to alter how the anonymous person controlling their character feels rather than to carry out an ingame goal.

I get that it's just pixels. Remember, I'm not going around complaining about getting killed when I'm out exploring the game world. It doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that I get the sense that you want it to bother me, or that you want to find something you can do taht will bother me, not me in particular, but me, a player in the same game you're playing.

Now tell me if I'm wrong.

[Dontaze_Mebro]

What's that I hear? Is that....wait a minute, I think it is! It's a great pvper outcry for a chaos server! Yes, I'm sure that's what I'm hearing. It got so quiet in here for awhile, too. But now they're back, so please, give them what they want. Their own special server with their own special ruleset.

Oh, you guys don't want your own server? Whyever not? Is it perhaps because you would like to form up in packs of obnoxious little ethugs to find unwilling victims to play with? Would you also perhaps like to coerce other players into joining your ethug pack and participating in your idea of 'fun'? Would you like that?

Too bad. You can't have it both ways. If you want no restrictions at all, then go play with others who want the same, and leave the rest of us alone. You don't have the right to force your nasty zergs on everyone else. You don't have the power to force it on us, either.

And for whatever reason, you aren't playing any of the games that would allow you to do what you want, so you've come here. Fair enough, perhaps there are features here that you can't get anywhere else that you're interested in aside from the pvp. But some of us are interested in a certain feature Xsyon has that other games with a heavy pvp element don't. Which is a little break from pvp in one small area of the map. Just one. That's all.

And you can't stand it, can you? It drives you insane. It's not that safe zones drive you crazy, either, if it was just that, you'd be hollering for your seperate server to play on. No, it's all the happy players you can't grief in their one small area that makes you nutty with rage and gets the spittle bubbling at the corners of your mouths.

Actually, it's kinda entertaining to watch you foam. Carry on.

Battered Carebear Syndrome?

[Surly]

I believe this phrasing is what got my panties in a wad more than anything specific you came up with. It seems less about denying an enemy tribe or player resources or initiating conflict that will create pvp for you later on than it seems to be about...welll, hurting people. Not literally, of course. But your wording makes it seem that your goal is to alter how the anonymous person controlling their character feels rather than to carry out an ingame goal.

I get that it's just pixels. Remember, I'm not going around complaining about getting killed when I'm out exploring the game world. It doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that I get the sense that you want it to bother me, or that you want to find something you can do taht will bother me, not me in particular, but me, a player in the same game you're playing.

Now tell me if I'm wrong.

What's wrong with mercantilism?

[Kiriath]

From reading this thread its obvious who grew up in UO and who grew up in WoW. Im sorry WoW guys, but if you didnt play UO back in pre 2k your dont have the faintest idea how a playerenforced, free, openended pvp system works. And you obviously fail hardcore at imagining it.

You dont need a ton of rules to prevent people from griefing eachother. With the right tools at their disposal the people will police themselfs. The problem remains though, that these kinda tools require possibilities for harsh penalties, wich instantly makes the nonhardcore players scream in fear.

Ever since the casual crowd who wont commit 20+ hours a week to a game startet playing this genre, it has all gone downhill. The casuals scream, the devs listen and restrict, then the casuals screams some more cause doh, their still getting owned by the hardcores, the devs restrict some more, and on and on and on. Untill we got the WoW themepark parade where everyone runs around in hes own little restrictet instanced bubble. WoW, WAR, AoC, Aion, Rift just off the top of my head.

The point of this post is, stop your fucking whining. If somebody is out there stealing all your resources, deal with it. Kill them, move away, steal it back, be creative, whatever it takes, adapt to the situation and come out on top. For once we have a game where the devs actually have some balls and tries to go with an open environment, if you dont like it, go back to a themepark, stop crying, and stop trying to ruin it for the rest of us.

[ifireallymust]

What's wrong with mercantilism?

That's not mercantilism. That's griefing. And your sig is causing me to lose IQ points, yet I can't stop staring at it!

[Soulwanderer]

I believe this phrasing is what got my panties in a wad more than anything specific you came up with. It seems less about denying an enemy tribe or player resources or initiating conflict that will create pvp for you later on than it seems to be about...welll, hurting people. Not literally, of course. But your wording makes it seem that your goal is to alter how the anonymous person controlling their character feels rather than to carry out an ingame goal.

I get that it's just pixels. Remember, I'm not going around complaining about getting killed when I'm out exploring the game world. It doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that I get the sense that you want it to bother me, or that you want to find something you can do taht will bother me, not me in particular, but me, a player in the same game you're playing.

Now tell me if I'm wrong.

I think the difference between the OPs post and your viewpoint of it is mostly intent.

E.G. If we as a guild plant in a territory, want the territory to be ours, and want to kick other people out, the mechanics that will let us siege and remove/take over some one else's totem aren't currently in place. So we have to make use of the mechanics that are currently in game to achieve the same goal. There is a reason behind the attacks (in whatever form they come) to us, but the totems we target may just see it as you posted.

I'm not saying that it's horrible for a couple of determined people without a clear goal to play the game as they see fit though, even if that means being a jerk just to be a jerk. They're paying $15 a month the same as everyone else. But that's all the more reason to implement siege mechanics as quickly as possible. If you catch the people doing something on your land that you don't like, you pay a visit and evict them from theirs. Most people tend to act a lot more politely when what they do can end in a war.

[Kiriath]

I believe this phrasing is what got my panties in a wad more than anything specific you came up with. It seems less about denying an enemy tribe or player resources or initiating conflict that will create pvp for you later on than it seems to be about...welll, hurting people. Not literally, of course. But your wording makes it seem that your goal is to alter how the anonymous person controlling their character feels rather than to carry out an ingame goal.

I get that it's just pixels. Remember, I'm not going around complaining about getting killed when I'm out exploring the game world. It doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that I get the sense that you want it to bother me, or that you want to find something you can do taht will bother me, not me in particular, but me, a player in the same game you're playing.

Now tell me if I'm wrong.

Your right!

When I kill you I want it to bother you, I want you to get angry, I want you to feel the pain of wastet hours.

What else would the point be?

Explain the point of full loot? Explain the point of cityasset destruction?

[Redemp]

actually i don't think i've made any of your points.
1. I haven't asked for anything. I've merely supported what the developers have already stated is coming, and further nodded in understanding about the current state of combat mechanics (fubar).


So harvesting trees not in my immediate vicinity is 'griefing'?

Gathering trash outside of my immediate vicinity is 'griefing'?


Which was in response to this :



1. Eco Terrorism - Cut down and haul off all the trees surrounding the enemy.

2. Totem Terrorism - Accept all the quests on the totem pole.

3. Homestead Terrorism - Use multiple homesteads to surround and wall in an enemy with terraforming.


Which is griefing, as it serves no purpose other than to piss someone off. You didn't argue that the above wasn't griefing, but you immediately jumped to the wild conclusion that stepping outside of your tribe range and felling a tree was griefing. Hence .. it was trolling, or just a knee-jerk because someone didn't agree with you.




2. I have not insulted anyone, despite insults being thrown in this direction.




Actually i'm not sure what kind of non-consensual hostile action would be tolerated, under any circumstances, by a fair portion of the playerbase. Their definition of griefing is:
Griefing: any action or activity outside of my control, whether or not due to my action or inaction, where the result is anything other than that which is as was planned, anticipated, expected or otherwise desired.
Any activity that does not provide direct benefit to me.


You could have sumed this up with a "Carebear" , its clearly what you were implying.





3. I have made a rational arguement for a style of playing being an integral and logical component of this game.


Rational arguements do not immediately dive into fanatical misinterpretations of one post, clearly illustrating your fear that the "Carebears" are out to get you, and every
other respected pvper.




4. not locked.

In time.



5. has not come to pass.

One of you Vds did in more words.


I like most of you Vd folks, but really stop turning every argument into a "The carebears think we are all griefers" regurgitation. I am a pvper thats all I do, I also understand the need for policies to prevent the few who choose to play purely to piss people off. Which is mainly what the people in this thread have been discussing, before you and others turned into the typical Carebear vs PvPer rhetoric.

[ifireallymust]

From reading this thread its obvious who grew up in UO and who grew up in WoW. Im sorry WoW guys, but if you didnt play UO back in pre 2k your dont have the faintest idea how a playerenforced, free, openended pvp system works. And you obviously fail hardcore at imagining it.

You dont need a ton of rules to prevent people from griefing eachother. With the right tools at their disposal the people will police themselfs. The problem remains though, that these kinda tools require possibilities for harsh penalties, wich instantly makes the nonhardcore players scream in fear.

Ever since the casual crowd who wont commit 20+ hours a week to a game startet playing this genre, it has all gone downhill. The casuals scream, the devs listen and restrict, then the casuals screams some more cause doh, their still getting owned by the hardcores, the devs restrict some more, and on and on and on. Untill we got the WoW themepark parade where everyone runs around in hes own little restrictet instanced bubble. WoW, WAR, AoC, Aion, Rift just off the top of my head.

The point of this post is, stop your fucking whining. If somebody is out there stealing all your resources, deal with it. Kill them, move away, steal it back, be creative, whatever it takes, adapt to the situation and come out on top. For once we have a game where the devs actually have some balls and tries to go with an open environment, if you dont like it, go back to a themepark, stop crying, and stop trying to ruin it for the rest of us.

1. Griefing isn't allowed in this game. The devs go with that, too.

2. I play more than 20 hours a week. I shouldn't, as it tends to cut rather heavily into my sleep time, but I do.

3. I would play a safe zone PKer if permadeath the next time someone or something killed me were the penalty. That would be a challenge. Zerg pvp is not a challenge.

4. I wanted to go to the War server because I wanted to build walls and moats and trenches to keep hostile players out of my homestead area. Those are the type of tools you're talking about, are they not? And I'm all for using them. What I'm not all for is an automatic win for zergs that can knock down any wall, destroy any defense, and pretty much destroy all reason to bother defending oneself at all, since, if superior numbers always win in the end, there's no reason to build any defenses at all, is there? (Okay, maybe just for the fun of seeing how long they last, but how many times will anyone find that amusing before it gets old?).

5. I'm not trying to ruin anything for you. I'm fine with the current pvp mechanics and 6-9 months before they evolve into new ones. No problem at all here. It's not the so-called carebears who keep complaining about safe zones and restrictions on their sand box freedom. It's the pvp crowd. The environment isn't completely open, obviously, or there would be no safe zones. Yet you try to claim it is an open environment. How?

[bruisie159]

Maelwydd,

No offense, but your postings give me the impression of a passive-aggressive sociopath who lets rage at the outside world build up inside him until it boils over in a completely inappropriate (and perhaps shocking) outburst of anger.

although im aware its a bit anal of me i just want to make a point that your example does not describe someone who is being passive aggressive. If the person was being passive aggressive they would simply be refusing to engage with you. Staying quiet, ignoring you that kind of thing.

[Banano]

Don't make the same mistake Rolf did.

[Surly]

That's not mercantilism. That's griefing. And your sig is causing me to lose IQ points, yet I can't stop staring at it!

Mercantilism is real life economic griefing too, then. At least from the perspective of the have-nots.

[ifireallymust]

Your right!

When I kill you I want it to bother you, I want you to get angry, I want you to feel the pain of wastet hours.

What else would the point be?

Explain the point of full loot? Explain the point of cityasset destruction?

Fair enough, and since I'm such a petty, tit for tat person when I'm grouchy over lag, I want the safe zones to stay for a long, long time, so I can stand just inside mine and emote and laugh at you as you prowl about outside in obvious frustration. And if you do something that's obviously griefing, I want to report you and get you banned, because I bet that will really make you mad!

I would say the point of full loot and city asset destruction is tactical, it's a game that can be (very loosely) compared to chess or any other competitive game where taking assets out of the hands of your opponent is a good thing.

When I play chess, I never take a piece to make my opponent mad. I don't even understand why that would ever be a motivation in any game, except as petty revenge such as I described above for behavior meant to make me mad.

I truly don't get why someone would buy a game and play it with one of their primary goals being to piss other people off.

[Kiriath]

1. Griefing isn't allowed in this game. The devs go with that, too.

2. I play more than 20 hours a week. I shouldn't, as it tends to cut rather heavily into my sleep time, but I do.

3. I would play a safe zone PKer if permadeath the next time someone or something killed me were the penalty. That would be a challenge. Zerg pvp is not a challenge.

4. I wanted to go to the War server because I wanted to build walls and moats and trenches to keep hostile players out of my homestead area. Those are the type of tools you're talking about, are they not? And I'm all for using them. What I'm not all for is an automatic win for zergs that can knock down any wall, destroy any defense, and pretty much destroy all reason to bother defending oneself at all, since, if superior numbers always win in the end, there's no reason to build any defenses at all, is there? (Okay, maybe just for the fun of seeing how long they last, but how many times will anyone find that amusing before it gets old?).

5. I'm not trying to ruin anything for you. I'm fine with the current pvp mechanics and 6-9 months before they evolve into new ones. No problem at all here. It's not the so-called carebears who keep complaining about safe zones and restrictions on their sand box freedom. It's the pvp crowd. The environment isn't completely open, obviously, or there would be no safe zones. Yet you try to claim it is an open environment. How?

It remains to be seen how the devs are going to enforce the no griefing policy. Im praying very loosely.

To balance the zerg is a huge task, but one that should be undertaken instead of placing wierd restrictions on who you can or cant siege in my oppinion, its a opportunity for the devs to show some skill.

The guys who reports for someone stealing "hes" resources for example are the ppl I think should go back to their themeparks, since it would simply suit them better.

[Redemp]

Anyone who reports someone for stealing their resources obviously doesn't need to be playing this game. On the other hand, as I gleam from the first post in this thread, any person or group of people who dilberately go to anothers land with the intentions of clear cutting, terraforming, or otherwise destroying their property .... just to piss them off, should be reported.

[ifireallymust]

Mercantilism is real life economic griefing too, then. At least from the perspective of the have-nots.

Oh don't be silly. There are greedy, sadistic scum who will kill and harm others to have the power and resources they crave and who will also enjoy the pain they cause others for its own sake, and there are also greedy scum who will kill and harm others to have the power and resources they crave but will take no enjoyment from the pain they cause others, rather, they will either justify it to themselves and others as necessary, or good in the long run, or better than it was before, or they will simply dismiss it as unimportant compared to their own wants and needs.

[Kiriath]

Fair enough, and since I'm such a petty, tit for tat person when I'm grouchy over lag, I want the safe zones to stay for a long, long time, so I can stand just inside mine and emote and laugh at you as you prowl about outside in obvious frustration. And if you do something that's obviously griefing, I want to report you and get you banned, because I bet that will really make you mad!

I would say the point of full loot and city asset destruction is tactical, it's a game that can be (very loosely) compared to chess or any other competitive game where taking assets out of the hands of your opponent is a good thing.

When I play chess, I never take a piece to make my opponent mad. I don't even understand why that would ever be a motivation in any game, except as petty revenge such as I described above for behavior meant to make me mad.

I truly don't get why someone would buy a game and play it with one of their primary goals being to piss other people off.

The report game is taking it to a whole new lvl, once it startet its just another form of pvp. But since it effectively ends the game for the loser, I dont like playing it. Of couse it is the ultimate form of griefing, so its not 100% out of the question if ppl just ask enough for it (ie start it themselfs).

If you were any good at chess you would know that if it pissed your opponent off if you took one of hes pieces, it would be a very smart thing to do. This is pretty obvious in a game of poker too btw.

I guess it all comes down to why you play.

Ps. im up for a game of chess if you like, I got an account on chess.com

[ifireallymust]

The report game is taking it to a whole new lvl, once it startet its just another form of pvp. But since it effectively ends the game for the loser, I dont like playing it. Of couse it is the ultimate form of griefing, so its not 100% out of the question if ppl just ask enough for it (ie start it themselfs).

If you were any good at chess you would know that if it pissed your opponent off if you took one of hes pieces, it would be a very smart thing to do. This is pretty obvious in a game of poker too btw.

I guess it all comes down to why you play.

Ps. im up for a game of chess if you like, I got an account on chess.com

Why would you waste time honing your game against less than the best person you can find to play against, who is also playing their best against you?

Edit: I'll have to see about signing up for an account there, after I've had some sleep. I'm a bit behind!

[Kiriath]

Why would you waste time honing your game against less than the best person you can find to play against, who is also playing their best against you?

Cause I like winning?

edit; although I dont like playing against ppl who dont play their best, thats a waste of time.

Okay, if you get around to it send me a messege there, username is same as here.

[Dontaze_Mebro]

Don't forget the useless walls. =P

I agree that the main focus of the game shouldn't be PvP as the devs have stated. That doesn't mean it should be Crafting/PvE either. They seem to be trying to make this game as realistic as possible, and imo that's a much better goal. That's going to mean a world where Crafting, City Building, PvP, and Sieges all go hand in hand.


Sounds like we're being told how to play again... I prefer guerrilla warfare so your argument is invalid.
You want to PvP? Well you need to craft some weapons and armor first if you don't want to get slaughtered.

You want to Siege? Well first you need to build some Siege equipment and make sure you have enough in case your enemy destroys it.

You want to Craft? You're gonna need to be able to protect yourself and your resources to do that.

You want to build and keep your city? You're going to have to fortify it and invest in defenses in case some one decides to siege it.


That's a game that doesn't have a focus on anything but creating a real world style sandbox. They started off in the right direction. Let's just hope they can get where they need to fast enough to keep and gain some players.

Sounds like you are trying to tell us how to play... I prefer Guerrilla Tactics. Squatting under a Totem. My bare fists covered in Carebear blood.

[Sirius]

although im aware its a bit anal of me i just want to make a point that your example does not describe someone who is being passive aggressive. If the person was being passive aggressive they would simply be refusing to engage with you. Staying quiet, ignoring you that kind of thing.

My understanding is that it's more like being quiet while stuff you don't like is happening around you, then blowing up in a rage at something unrelated, or after it's too late to change anything.

In other words, passive at the wrong time, then aggressive at the wrong time.

[maelwydd]

Anyone who reports someone for stealing their resources obviously doesn't need to be playing this game. On the other hand, as I gleam from the first post in this thread, any person or group of people who dilberately go to anothers land with the intentions of clear cutting, terraforming, or otherwise destroying their property .... just to piss them off, should be reported.

As always, and this is the difficult bit to identify, INTENT is usually what causes the problems. Some people want open PvP to have fun and a challenge. Others seem to desire getting a negative reaction from others to somehow make them...happy (I don't understand the mentality myself so I could be wrong but happy is the best I can come up with). I hope anyone who engages in PvP does so for fun and a challenge but as you say, if people have another intent then it should and will be dealt with accordingly. I do worry about these types of people though.

[RogueBagel]

Playing this game is a non violent form of pvp.

[Dontaze_Mebro]

Anyone who reports someone for stealing their resources obviously doesn't need to be playing this game. On the other hand, as I gleam from the first post in this thread, any person or group of people who dilberately go to anothers land with the intentions of clear cutting, terraforming, or otherwise destroying their property .... just to piss them off, should be reported.

All of those things are legitimate strategies in War.Taking all of a tribes totem quest is a "Trade Embargo" Harvesting all their trees is simply the act of claiming enemy resources for your own, and building walls around your enemy is simply nullifying a potential threat. I'm sorry but pvp isn't restricted to player killing.

[maelwydd]

My understanding is that it's more like being quiet while stuff you don't like is happening around you, then blowing up in a rage at something unrelated, or after it's too late to change anything.

In other words, passive at the wrong time, then aggressive at the wrong time.

Well you have me wrong then if that is what you think I am. Not that I expect you to realise as you don't know me. While I have tried to remain general about things I have been accused of aiming things directly at people when I haven't and in your post above had a finger pointed directly at me. If by association you think anything is directed at you then I can't really take the blame for it.


All of those things are legitimate strategies in War.Taking all of a tribes totem quest is a "Trade Embargo" Harvesting all their trees is simply the act of claiming enemy resources for your own, and building walls around your enemy is simply nullifying a potential threat. I'm sorry but pvp isn't restricted to player killing.

Well strictly speaking PvP is whatever the game designers allow. If they don't allow it then no, those things are not PvP but seen as griefing.

[mrcalhou]

If there is a way to grief someone, there should be an in-game measure to undo it. Someone digs holes around your tribe? You should be able to dig down and up through them, build a bridge over it, or fill it in.

[ifireallymust]

Oh, and surly? Nice one. I relied on my faulty memory for the definition of mercantilism as a synonym for free market capitalism, and it's not.

You're real clever. Really. ;)

Damn it.

[Sirius]

Well you have me wrong then if that is what you think I am. Not that I expect you to realise as you don't know me. While I have tried to remain general about things I have been accused of aiming things directly at people when I haven't and in your post above had a finger pointed directly at me. If by association you think anything is directed at you then I can't really take the blame for it.

It's plainly obvious that your comments have been directed at us. This "if the shoe fits, wear it" BS is just that -- a BS excuse.


Well strictly speaking PvP is whatever the game designers allow. If they don't allow it then no, those things are not PvP but seen as griefing.

No one here is talking about using tactics that have been banned, but you seem to be campaigning to get the devs to ban tactics you don't like.

[maelwydd]

It's plainly obvious that your comments have been directed at us. This "if the shoe fits, wear it" BS is just that -- a BS excuse.

lol I make a comment (post 20 if you care to check) about how it is only those that abuse a system that actually force it to be changed and since then, certain individuals have taken it upon themselves to assume it is reference to them. That isn't my fault. If I shout "Wolf!" and you say "Yes?" don't accuse me of pointing the finger!


No one here is talking about using tactics that have been banned, but you seem to be campaigning to get the devs to ban tactics you don't like.

Actually the entire thread has been about this very thing. The OP started by coming up with ways he could pervert the INTENT of the system to intentionally "HURT PEOPLE". As was pointed out early on, those actions could be seen as being against the TOS (post 5 by someone who obviously wants full on PvP). Since the start the argument has been trying to point (or at least I have) out that the reason these changes are made if because people abuse the systems in place for selfish gain without realising their actions will force the developers to chamge the game. Not because people complain but because, if a game developer has a deisgn for a system in place and it doesn't work, they have to change it. If these people used a bit of self moderation then the system could be open and requiring few mechanical restirictions to control PvP. But some people don't, abuse the system, and force the game to be changed.

So please do not ever say it is people complaining against those that abuse a system that forces change, as it is actually to people crying the most about the changes who are usually the cause of the change. If that happens to be you then you can only blame yourself for what happens. Either learn to self moderate or live with the consequences.

[ifireallymust]

maelwydd is better at staying on topic than I am, but I'll have another go at it, since I got some sleep.

Maybe the end goal of a lot (most?) pvpers isn't to anger the person controlling the character as much as to manipulate players into behaving in a way that makes the game more fun for pvpers. IE, to pvp, to craft for pvpers, to join pvp guilds, to join in the zergs (for those pvpers who like zerging), and to gather and craft and build things that can be stolen and destroyed.

If that is true, what the pvpers doing the manipulating don't understand is, a lot of players won't allow themselves to be manipulated in this way. They'll simply quit playing the game. They'll quit because they don't like to pvp, or they don't like to pvp in groups, or they don't like to zerg, or they don't like having to do everything with groups in order to play.

I sympathize with wanting the most fun for you sub money, but I think you're just going to have to learn to compromise a bit. Do I go around crying when I die to someone out pvping in the open world? No. Do I like dying to some naked guy who can kill me in two hits? No. The pvp isn't even remotely balanced yet, so there's very little point fighting back (although I do try).

But it's okay, I can put up with 6-9 months of getting ganked whenever I'm outside my safe zone and a pvper runs across me. Eventually, I'm sure the combat system will get a good overhaul, and then I'll be able to participate as something besides a loot pinata. Meanwhile, I don't mind you pvpers having what fun and getting what loot you can from me. Go for it. But at the same time, you should compromise with the less-pvp inclined until the means to defend everything from a homestead to a max size tribe are in place. And that means not pissing people off in an attempt to get them to behave in a way you would prefer.

[Sirius]

Regardless of what you say, maelwydd, it's obvious you intended the insulting comments to refer to those specific "pvpers" who were debating you in this thread, or at least to be interpreted as if they were intended to refer to them. Kinda like if we were having this same debate and I randomly started referring to "whiny carebear pussies", it would be obvious that I was either using the term to refer indirectly to you, or that I was dropping the label to imply that it applied to you, in order to get you riled up. See how that works?

Despite your protestations, these stupid attitudes are confirmed elsewhere in your comments, e.g.


LOL why don't all you angry PvP'ers go find a game with pvp. Too much pent up agression here...as usual. Go get laid guys.

And nothing you can say is going to change the fact that people in this thread are talking about complaining to the devs to criminalize conduct that they don't like. Your response is this:



So please do not ever say it is people complaining against those that abuse a system that forces change, as it is actually to people crying the most about the changes who are usually the cause of the change.

Which is just brilliant, really. The people asking devs to ban something aren't the cause of the change, you say, it's the people doing the things that the people are complaining about. I suppose you don't notice that the logic behind this conclusion unravels once people start complaining unreasonably and expect crackdowns on whatever behavior they don't like..

[Raizure]

Just going "slightly" back on topic here, but is anyone besides me looking forward to POISON ;) I definitely have some plans that would force carebears to leave their little pieces of 'heaven' and face the real world

[Dubanka]

you really have this thing about the zerg dont you? We get it. We all hate it.

most competent pvp entities are anti-zerg...why share the credit with our l337 skillz?

The zerg occurs for two primary reasons:
1. I LOVE MY PIXELS. ake pixel whores. the thought of losing pixels drives them to call up every ally they can muster in the attempt to ensure they don't lose pixels. usually justified as l337 political skillsz, alliances are part of the game, managing a bazillion people is a tough job mate.
2. I'M A WINNER! Everyone likes to be a winner. Nobody likes to lose in their free time. Unless the dominant side is very disciplined about their recruiting (as in shutting it down), they will see their numbers swell...because everyone wants to say they were there when they 'won'.

Neither of these are exclusive to either pve or pvp centric gameplay...it's a human nature thing...Fear and WINNING!


The pvp isn't even remotely balanced yet, so there's very little point fighting back (although I do try).
I do not understand this statement. COMBAT MECHANICS ARE HORRIBLE! everyone gets that...but they are horrible for everyone. Everyone has access to the same crazy overpowered preorder weapons. It's actually pretty balanced...in that it sucks equally for everyone. And with the current mechanics, there is absolutely no reason to not fight big...luck > skill and 2-3 strikes with an axe in close succession...voila, dead guy. woo hoo take his stuff.


I can put up with 6-9 months of getting ganked whenever I'm outside my safe zone and a pvper runs across me.
Again i don't understand this. If you're situationally aware, don't let folks you don't know get too close to you, and don't pile so much crap on yourself that you can't move...there really isn't a reason you should die. We don't have any way to slow a char down, so once you start sprinting, unless you're overloaded, no one is going to be able to catch you. I don't understand the 'ohhh noooo, guesss i'm just gonnnna diiie...' thing going on here.

anyway zerg = bad.
zerg is relative.
there are a couple of zergs presently in game (imo).
most of your pvprs are not zerged up...we'd actually rather fight each other.
i'm curious to see how things evolve once combat gets turned on.

[maelwydd]

Regardless of what you say, maelwydd, it's obvious you intended the insulting comments to refer to those specific "pvpers" who were debating you in this thread, or at least to be interpreted as if they were intended to refer to them. Kinda like if we were having this same debate and I randomly started referring to "whiny carebear pussies", it would be obvious that I was either using the term to refer indirectly to you, or that I was dropping the label to imply that it applied to you, in order to get you riled up. See how that works?

I was refering to a SUBSET of the generic PvP'er, namely those who intentionally engage in PvP for the purpose of pissing other off. Again, if that is a good fit for YOUR playing style then I make no appology to you as you are not worth the effort. If however you are part of the large majority of PvP'ers that engage in PvP for fun and the competative element of it then it isn't directed at you. And you using the term "whiny carebear pussies" wouldn't bother me personally as I am not one. Either way your point is at best moot, at worst self incimination from you.



Despite your protestations, these stupid attitudes are confirmed elsewhere in your comments, e.g.

Yeah unfortunately comments made as a bit of fun can are easy to be misunderstood. Would this have made my point clearer: -

LOL why don't all you angry PvP'ers go find a game with pvp. Too much pent up agression here...as usual. Go get laid guys. :)


And nothing you can say is going to change the fact that people in this thread are talking about complaining to the devs to criminalize conduct that they don't like.

Actually would me saying "you totally missed the point of the thread if that is your opinion" change it? I personally don't think the thread has been about people complaining to the devs, just a few comments that the devs themselves have stated what THEY think is unacceptable. You can argue with me all you want just you don't have a leg to stand on when trying to argue with the devs.



Your response is this:

It is a shame you didn't actually get the point I was trying to make here. Put simply, a system would not be introduced if the system that the devs introduced was done so in good spirit. Unfortunately some people, this small subset of PvP'ers, abuse their system, the devs don't like how it is being abused and so change it. Again, if people played within both the system restrictions and ALSO within social restrictions (that we should all have learnt as children about how to play with others) then these changes would NEVER be required.


Which is just brilliant, really. The people asking devs to ban something aren't the cause of the change, you say, it's the people doing the things that the people are complaining about. I suppose you don't notice that the logic behind this conclusion unravels once people start complaining unreasonably and expect crackdowns on whatever behavior they don't like..

If the people who were complaining were making invalid requests or the devs didn't agree, the changes wouldn't take place. I cannot make it any clearer then that. The REASON for these changes is because the game design the devs have is not working as intended. And unfortunately asking people to "please don't act like an arse, play hard but play fair" just does't work. So they introduce hard coded restrictions.

ANY competative activity requires an enforced set of rules, not because people don't understand the reason for them, but because some people just do not have enough self control to stay within them. And PvP, despite it's virtual setting, is a competative activity.

[Sirius]

I like how your posts mix the painfully obvious with the patently ridiculous..

[Raizure]

I was refering to a SUBSET of the generic PvP'er, namely those who intentionally engage in PvP for the purpose of pissing other off. Again, if that is a good fit for YOUR playing style then I make no appology to you as you are not worth the effort. If however you are part of the large majority of PvP'ers that engage in PvP for fun and the competative element of it then it isn't directed at you. And you using the term "whiny carebear pussies" wouldn't bother me personally as I am not one. Either way your point is at best moot, at worst self incimination from you.




Yeah unfortunately comments made as a bit of fun can are easy to be misunderstood. Would this have made my point clearer: -

LOL why don't all you angry PvP'ers go find a game with pvp. Too much pent up agression here...as usual. Go get laid guys. :)



Actually would me saying "you totally missed the point of the thread if that is your opinion" change it? I personally don't think the thread has been about people complaining to the devs, just a few comments that the devs themselves have stated what THEY think is unacceptable. You can argue with me all you want just you don't have a leg to stand on when trying to argue with the devs.




It is a shame you didn't actually get the point I was trying to make here. Put simply, a system would not be introduced if the system that the devs introduced was done so in good spirit. Unfortunately some people, this small subset of PvP'ers, abuse their system, the devs don't like how it is being abused and so change it. Again, if people played within both the system restrictions and ALSO within social restrictions (that we should all have learnt as children about how to play with others) then these changes would NEVER be required.



If the people who were complaining were making invalid requests or the devs didn't agree, the changes wouldn't take place. I cannot make it any clearer then that. The REASON for these changes is because the game design the devs have is not working as intended. And unfortunately asking people to "please don't act like an arse, play hard but play fair" just does't work. So they introduce hard coded restrictions.

ANY competative activity requires an enforced set of rules, not because people don't understand the reason for them, but because some people just do not have enough self control to stay within them. And PvP, despite it's virtual setting, is a competative activity.

2 words: Sandbox mmo. Now deal with it. If i want your stuff, i shall take it. If i can't, i shall destroy it. If you want to defend it, i shall destroy you :) Nothing personal, it's just the way the game is played

[Sirius]

GRIEFER!

You are a prick, have poor social skills, can't interact with people normally, crave attention, are nutty with rage, have spit bubbling from the corners of your mouth, and you are only able to act this way because Maelwydd isn't there to punch you in the face in real life! I hope you are proud of yourself, because you're a horrible person who doesn't deserve to play this video game.

[Surly]

The only griefer problem that can ever exist in an MMO is having too many restrictions to deal with them in-game, such as safe zones to abuse, or looting restrictions. Contrary to basically everything I hear from people who have an irrational fear of a system they've never experienced, griefers can't grief in non-consensual, no-restriction environments. The only griefing I've ever been personally annoyed by is abuse of in-game restriction features like PvP blocks, because there's nothing you can do about it.

If you can't handle some guy coming around killing you, get better at the game.

[maelwydd]

I can't hold a rational discussion here so I will leave it to you.


Oh and to keep you all happy...you guys win, I will go cry now, I am so very very upset.

[Dontaze_Mebro]

They react this way out of fear you know. Maybe if the average carebear didn't instantly start hurling childish obscenities when confronted by a pvp'r they would live longer.

[Sirius]

I can't hold a rational discussion

WAIT, SRSLY?? I don't think anyone needed that BREAKING NEWS FLASH

[ifireallymust]

If your fun comes at the expense of someone else's, they will quit the game.

Disregarding all possible wishes of the devs for a moment, the only possible way you will be able to have fun at the expense of other players is to convince the devs of two things:


1. You will quit if you can't have fun at someone else's expense.

2. There are so many more of you than there are of the players who are quitting because you've made the game no fun that it is financially smart to allow you to drive other players away.


Even if you do convince the devs of this, you will still lose the ability to have fun at other players' expense, because they will all quit. (With the possible exception of a crazy one here and there, but those will be rare).

So what is it you hope to turn Xsyon into with the ability to drive out the players who don't want to pvp with you, or don't want to pvp the way you want to pvp, or don't want to pvp as often as you do?

[Sirius]

Nice theory. In reality, I'm going to kill a bunch of people, many of whom were not specifically out looking for a fight, and the vast majority of them will sack up and take it rather than running away and quitting.

/thread

[ifireallymust]

Nice theory. In reality, I'm going to kill a bunch of people, many of whom were not specifically out looking for a fight, and the vast majority of them will sack up and take it rather than running away and quitting.

/thread

No they won't. If the game isn't fun for them because that's just not what they find fun, they're just going to quit.

[r4NGe]

No they won't. If the game isn't fun for them because that's just not what they find fun, they're just going to quit.

Stop saying "they".

[Sirius]

Who said it won't be fun for them? They're going to love it. I'll have a fan club.

[ifireallymust]

you really have this thing about the zerg dont you? We get it. We all hate it.

most competent pvp entities are anti-zerg...why share the credit with our l337 skillz?

The zerg occurs for two primary reasons:
1. I LOVE MY PIXELS. ake pixel whores. the thought of losing pixels drives them to call up every ally they can muster in the attempt to ensure they don't lose pixels. usually justified as l337 political skillsz, alliances are part of the game, managing a bazillion people is a tough job mate.
2. I'M A WINNER! Everyone likes to be a winner. Nobody likes to lose in their free time. Unless the dominant side is very disciplined about their recruiting (as in shutting it down), they will see their numbers swell...because everyone wants to say they were there when they 'won'.

Neither of these are exclusive to either pve or pvp centric gameplay...it's a human nature thing...Fear and WINNING!


I do not understand this statement. COMBAT MECHANICS ARE HORRIBLE! everyone gets that...but they are horrible for everyone. Everyone has access to the same crazy overpowered preorder weapons. It's actually pretty balanced...in that it sucks equally for everyone. And with the current mechanics, there is absolutely no reason to not fight big...luck > skill and 2-3 strikes with an axe in close succession...voila, dead guy. woo hoo take his stuff.


Again i don't understand this. If you're situationally aware, don't let folks you don't know get too close to you, and don't pile so much crap on yourself that you can't move...there really isn't a reason you should die. We don't have any way to slow a char down, so once you start sprinting, unless you're overloaded, no one is going to be able to catch you. I don't understand the 'ohhh noooo, guesss i'm just gonnnna diiie...' thing going on here.

anyway zerg = bad.
zerg is relative.
there are a couple of zergs presently in game (imo).
most of your pvprs are not zerged up...we'd actually rather fight each other.
i'm curious to see how things evolve once combat gets turned on.

Right now the pvp is simplistic, no means of destroying defenses are in place, and no one has built any effective defenses yet, anyway. So numbers rule. from 2v1 to 20v4. Which is why I hope to see an end to safe zones put off until pvp involving property is completely worked out and implemented by the devs.

As for combat mechanics, a naked bare handed guy risks nothing if her victim kills her, while the victim probably has something to lose. I've yet to see any argue that naked bare handed fighters should not be at a severe disadvantage in pvp, though, and I doubt you would argue it either.

I am not lacking in the ability to take precautions when I'm out of my safe zone, I was just lazy and didn't type out all the things I do to prevent being seen, to keep my energy bar high enough to sprint away, to not carry what I can't afford to lose, and so on. When I said 'ganked' I should have said 'caught and killed' to be honest, so your criticism is fair enough, and your suggestions are good and reasonable.

[Jadzia]

People will report things that they find as a method of griefing. After that it will be up to the developers to decide if they want it to be in game or not. Its not up to the players (any type) to define what is considered as griefing in the game.

[ifireallymust]

Stop saying "they".

Why? Am I wrong in thinking that most players of a game will cease to play that game when the game is no longer enjoyable for them?

[Dontaze_Mebro]

Why? Am I wrong in thinking that most players of a game will cease to play that game when the game is no longer enjoyable for them?
When they realize they are in a game that isn't designed for their playstyle, and go back to WoW you mean?

[Sirius]

No, you're wrong in thinking people will have such thin skins and quit at the drop of a hat after someone kills them without permission. And in fact, many people will find the experience to be a pleasant introduction to a playstyle that is new and interesting to them.

People who think like you will find themselves in the minority. Book it.

[r4NGe]

Why? Am I wrong in thinking that most players of a game will cease to play that game when the game is no longer enjoyable for them?

It is obvious you are talking about yourself.

[maelwydd]

http://www.xsyon.com/forum/showthread.php/32-Conflict-Death-Consequences-and-Decisions?p=223&viewfull=1#post223

Good reading, especially points made by the game developers.

[Sirius]

Can you give a Cliff's Notes of its relevance to this thread or any of the arguments made herein? Otherwise it's just a distraction.

[maelwydd]

Can you give a Cliff's Notes of its relevance to this thread or any of the arguments made herein?

lol no, read it. 100% relevant as all points made and raised here have already been raised and discussed. With developer input.

[Dubanka]

Here's where i'm forced to forcibly bash forhead to desk.

There are all these tears about being forced to engage in pvp...but that IS THE DEVS VISION:


11.) Will there be PvP?

Yes, the game is open PVP with consequences and a sparring / training combat mode. In the early Prelude towns will be safe zones.


open pvp...outside of your mud hut it's a dangerous place.

i mean it's in the faq. you're buying into a game, where outside of your little area, you can have your head smashed in.

Anybody who has bought this game, has to at least have a semblance of suspicion that there are likely to be some not nice people running around.


So what is it you hope to turn Xsyon into with the ability to drive out the players who don't want to pvp with you, or don't want to pvp the way you want to pvp, or don't want to pvp as often as you do?
We don't want to turn xsyon into something that isn't already stated in teh design. We WANT the game the devs said they want to build.

The players of the Prelude begin as scavengers, hunters and gatherers. By uniting as clans and building towns, they will cultivate civilizations, establish trade, forge alliances and develop enmities. They lay the foundations for future generations of Xsyon dwellers.
We're going to build
we're going to craft
We're going to seek to spread and expand our influence through assisting or resisting other entities.
We are going to protect that which we claim, and thus consider ours.

That is the game we intend to play. If you don't like it. Well, sorry.

[Sirius]

lol no, read it. 100% relevant as all points made and raised here have already been raised and discussed. With developer input.

In other words, it doesn't support whatever arguments and conclusions you have been making here.

[mrcalhou]

Excellent post Dubanka.

[ifireallymust]

It is obvious you are talking about yourself.

Is it? Well it is true, if the game becomes unfun, I will cease to play it. I'm not crazy, and I don't get paid to play.

It is also true, as Sirius pointed out, that some people may find they enjoy more pvp than they thought they would and will discover this through the warm attentions of a persistent PKer. :p

However, many will never find certain styles of pvp enjoyable. It seems that the style this game currently has, and is scheduled to have for the next 6-9 months at least is not enjoyable for some of the people in this thread due to restrictions on their actions. I perfectly understand this, and fully support your right to express any lack of enjoyment you may experience.

I have noted in my calendar that on today's date, at 12:46 pm eastern, you have predicted that people like me will find ourselves in the minority. However, I require clarification. What exactly constitutes 'people like me'. I know it has to do with a pvp ruleset and our enjoyment of it, or lack thereof, could you specify, in some detail, the ruleset that the majority will find themselves approving of?

[maelwydd]

In other words, it doesn't support whatever arguments and conclusions you have been making here.
Be ignorant if you want, at least we know why you are like you are now.

[r4NGe]

I have noted in my calendar that on today's date, at 12:46 pm eastern, you have predicted that people like me will find ourselves in the minority. However, I require clarification. What exactly constitutes 'people like me'. I know it has to do with a pvp ruleset and our enjoyment of it, or lack thereof, could you specify, in some detail, the ruleset that the majority will find themselves approving of?

By no means do I think that people like you will be in the minority, but if majority rule determined every game, they would all be the same. I just think people like you are the lowest common denominator. You want stuff easier and easier until a game is a Staples Easy button. That is when you quit.

[ifireallymust]

Dubanka, who exactly is calling for an end to open PvP outside our 'mud huts' as you say?

I have yet to see anyone argue for an end to open PvP.

Griefers, however, are not tolerated. It is up to the staff and not the players, however, to determine what constitutes griefing. Dontaze's OP is a perfect example of why it's the staff of Notorious who decide whether or not something is griefing.

Dontaze ended the post with: Who can think of more ways to hurt people without actually hurting them?

The sentence has at least four possible interpretations:

1. Dontaze wants to find ways to hurt people without actually hurting them means Dontaze wants to make the person controlling the character angry in ways other than killing their character, since he can't get to their character in their safe zone, and since at the moment, pvp is entirely off. This might be considered griefing, since it is aimed at the player and not the character and is intended to evoke a negative emotional reaction in the player. And Dontaze intended to communicate his intention to evoke those emotions in people and did so in his post.

2. Dontaze wants to find ways to evoke a negative emotional reaction in other players but did not intend to be so up front about it in his wording.

3. Dontaze neither wants to evoke negative emotional reactions in other players, nor did he intend to mislead others into thinking he does want to.

4. Dontaze does not want to evoke negative emotional reactions in other players, but he did intend to mislead others into thinking that he does want to. (This might be considered trolling, depending on his reasons for being misleading.)

As a player, I have no way of knowing which of the four applies. But the staff has access to information I don't, such as who is Dontaze in game, what other accounts are owned by Dontaze and/or members of his household, what else has Dontaze said on this issue, what has Dontaze done in game?

If Dontaze is actually accused in game of griefing, I'm sure his posts will be taken into consideration when it's time to determine if the accusation has merit.

[Sirius]

Be ignorant if you want, at least we know why you are like you are now.

LOL after reading it I can see it doesn't even come close to supporting the silly arguments you're making.

Now I understand why you were hoping to just post it without having to explain how it shows you're right. It doesn't.

[ifireallymust]

By no means do I think that people like you will be in the minority, but if majority rule determined every game, they would all be the same. I just think people like you are the lowest common denominator. You want stuff easier and easier until a game is a Staples Easy button. That is when you quit.

I take from this two things:

1. You believe that I am typical in what I do and don't find enjoyable in an MMO.

2. You have a negative opinion about what typical MMO players find to be enjoyable.

[Dubanka]

http://www.xsyon.com/forum/showthread.php/32-Conflict-Death-Consequences-and-Decisions?p=223&viewfull=1#post223

Good reading, especially points made by the game developers.

What points made by developers?

The only one of note, besides xsyon laying out the proposed system was:

if you wish to not PVP in this game it is suggested that you stay in or around the village. or when you go somewhere have an armed escort.

otherwise it was just virtus telling people to stay on topic or to be nice.

It's obvious from the initial post (a year ago) that there was still some uncertainty as to what penalties would be...we haven't seen anything definitive about that. I mean

Unconsciousness results in very minor skill loss and in general the victor will be allowed to loot an item of choice as a reward for a fight well fought. - Not implemented


- Killing or looting a person that is not in an enemy tribe will cause severe reputation loss with the other tribe and within your own tribe. - not implemented...heck can't even declare a tribe enemy.


Players from an evil tribe are free to loot and pillage and will gain reputation within their own tribe for doing so, but they will also be vulnerable to attacks from all players who will be able to attack evil players without negative consequences. Players in good or neutral tribes will be allowed to put bounty quests on known evil players. In essence, if a tribe chooses to be evil they become the ‘monsters’ of the world. - this is cool, but not implemented


Tribes can choose different levels of diplomacy with each other.

Players from friendly or allied tribes can fight each other, but only to unconsciousness and without looting capability.

Players from rival tribes can fight each other to unconsciousness with partial loot to the victor. Potentially the amount of looting can be agreed upon by rival tribes. (Setting the amount of looting is not currently implemented, but it’s something I am considering).

Players from enemy tribes at war can fight to the death with full looting (Potentially tribe leaders can come to a looting agreement for this as well). - not implemented and not realistically possible (I WANT TO MAKE YOU MY ENEMEY. no. PLEASE. no.) and not implemented.

I mean the entire initial post had some neat concepts, but ones that would be really tough to implement in the game world. The general gist behind it all tho, is the pvp, or tribal conflict, is an integral part of the game...he is jsut trying to mitigate (based on alignment) the extent to which a player woudl be vulnerable to its negative side effects. Again, real tough road to walk there, since the more negative you make it to be a killer, the more incentivized the killer becomes to not lose.


Anyway, the only difference between that discussion, and this one, is it's obvious that beta world 1 year ago was populated by a lot few players who favored pvp oriented gameplay...so of course that discussion was controlled by the pve proponents who mostly shouted down the pvp types (my favorite line was, ...how is it a sand box if i can't craft and build in peace....

[Sirius]

I take from this two things:

1. You believe that I am typical in what I do and don't find enjoyable in an MMO.

2. You have a negative opinion about what typical MMO players find to be enjoyable.

Though I don't speak for that guy, I assume his response would be YES, AND BTW games with non-consensual PVP and full loot are not built for "typical MMO players".

[r4NGe]

Though I don't speak for that guy, I assume his response would be YES, AND BTW games with non-consensual PVP and full loot are not built for "typical MMO players".

Agreed.


...

[Kietharr]

Griefers, however, are not tolerated. It is up to the staff and not the players, however, to determine what constitutes griefing. Dontaze's OP is a perfect example of why it's the staff of Notorious who decide whether or not something is griefing.


This sort of paternalistic mindset of 'we must let the powers that be decide how to create a safe and prosperous world' is depressing within the context of a video game. Who's to say the rules that a Guide enforces are any better than the rules of a PK's world? In the end this comes down to a game of tattling on fellow players to the guides, who are not omnipresent nor omnipotent, and making the guide take often only partly informed stances on said 'griefing' in order to stem the flow of tears. Not to mention the fact that many guides, GMs, and other authority figures within games have their own motives within said game and will not hesitate to abuse their power to further these motives.

What this truly amounts to is an imbalanced and arbitrary reassignment and redistribution of power to whatever clans are most effective at swaying GM opinion. It discourages actually playing the game and encourages gaming the game. Most people who fear this 'chaotic' world without guides are those who have never experienced them. Chaos does not reign. Where there are PKs who want to cause chaos there will always be Anti PKs to punish them, provided the system provides incentive to do so (Darkfall being an example of a system that failed to provide incentive to stay blue/penalties for being red, thus turning the game into Quakefall).

tl;dr Anarchism produces a more just society than a decentralized, often corrupt, police state, which is what most MMO internal policing systems amount to.

[ifireallymust]

Though I don't speak for that guy, I assume his response would be YES, AND BTW games with non-consensual PVP and full loot are not built for "typical MMO players".

So, you do not want me to book anything about me being in the minority regarding my play style after all? Or are you saying that Xsyon will attract the atypical MMO player in large numbers, soon turning the typical MMO player into a minority?

How puzzled I am that I immensely enjoy Xsyon with its current pvp ruleset, since, as a typical MMO player, these non consensual pvp and full loot feature should not be enjoyable to me. I am obviously still too ignorant to grasp what you meant when you said that people like me will find ourselves in the minority.

[Surly]

So, you do not want me to book anything about me being in the minority regarding my play style after all? Or are you saying that Xsyon will attract the atypical MMO player in large numbers, soon turning the typical MMO player into a minority?

How puzzled I am that I immensely enjoy Xsyon with its current pvp ruleset, since, as a typical MMO player, these non consensual pvp and full loot feature should not be enjoyable to me.
Then what's the problem with turning off all safe zones and removing all PvP restrictions? Especially once sieging is enabled.

[Dubanka]

Dubanka, who exactly is calling for an end to open PvP outside our 'mud huts' as you say?

I have yet to see anyone argue for an end to open PvP.

Griefers, however, are not tolerated. It is up to the staff and not the players, however, to determine what constitutes griefing. Dontaze's OP is a perfect example of why it's the staff of Notorious who decide whether or not something is griefing.

Dontaze ended the post with: Who can think of more ways to hurt people without actually hurting them?

The sentence has at least four possible interpretations:

1. Dontaze wants to find ways to hurt people without actually hurting them means Dontaze wants to make the person controlling the character angry in ways other than killing their character, since he can't get to their character in their safe zone, and since at the moment, pvp is entirely off. This might be considered griefing, since it is aimed at the player and not the character and is intended to evoke a negative emotional reaction in the player. And Dontaze intended to communicate his intention to evoke those emotions in people and did so in his post.

2. Dontaze wants to find ways to evoke a negative emotional reaction in other players but did not intend to be so up front about it in his wording.

3. Dontaze neither wants to evoke negative emotional reactions in other players, nor did he intend to mislead others into thinking he does want to.

4. Dontaze does not want to evoke negative emotional reactions in other players, but he did intend to mislead others into thinking that he does want to. (This might be considered trolling, depending on his reasons for being misleading.)

As a player, I have no way of knowing which of the four applies. But the staff has access to information I don't, such as who is Dontaze in game, what other accounts are owned by Dontaze and/or members of his household, what else has Dontaze said on this issue, what has Dontaze done in game?

If Dontaze is actually accused in game of griefing, I'm sure his posts will be taken into consideration when it's time to determine if the accusation has merit.

I kind of feel like the NRA here...while banning assault [style] semi-auto weapons may seem reasonable, it's a slippery slope of where that leads once you allow the precedent.

The problem with regulating this, or regulating that is where does it end. In our current discussion, my 'oh this is gonna suck' spidee sense starts activitating when folks start talking about grief behavior. Why? because we have yet to get a definitive response (besides by wholly non definitive) about what griefing is (by the devs). Typically, griefing is directly tied to abusing a game mechanic, whereby the abusee has no recourse but to be subjected to the harassment of the abuser (ie. rez killing) or, is tied to using an exploit to gain and advantage over another player or, utilizing a mechanic in a manner that while allowable by code has been expressed stated as 'bad' by the devs.

The problem of applying griefing to the point of the original poster, is that the activities unto themselves are perfectly acceptable...i meand are you going to get banned for digging a hole on your homestead? i'd think not. even if these activities are done maliciously, i believe they are valid as an offensive economic element of conflict. blockades, trade embargos. The romans plowed salt into the fields of carthage after the 3rd (??? history is failing me) punic war. The game allows the mechanisms. The tactics are valid....and the discussion is, from my pov, to drive a real solution...which IS NOT to restrict the activity. You can't restrict it. It's too subjective, and rules that are unable to be enforced equally should nto be enforced (if you want to have a product that people actually buy).

Instead, we as the players need to be able to counter it.

We need to be able to plant seeds to replace trees cut down by raiders.
We need to be able to knock down walls terraformed up around us.
We need to have the tools to deal with agression.
We do NOT need the aggression to be regulated (because only makes controlling it harder).

so i guess what i'm trying to get out there is think, how would i counter that versus 'he shouldnt be able to do that to me'.

AND this is my major problem witht he homestead safet net...there is no way to stop someone from doing something on their homestead.

[ifireallymust]

This sort of paternalistic mindset of 'we must let the powers that be decide how to create a safe and prosperous world' is depressing within the context of a video game. Who's to say the rules that a Guide enforces are any better than the rules of a PK's world? In the end this comes down to a game of tattling on fellow players to the guides, who are not omnipresent nor omnipotent, and making the guide take often only partly informed stances on said 'griefing' in order to stem the flow of tears. Not to mention the fact that many guides, GMs, and other authority figures within games have their own motives within said game and will not hesitate to abuse their power to further these motives.

What this truly amounts to is an imbalanced and arbitrary reassignment and redistribution of power to whatever clans are most effective at swaying GM opinion. It discourages actually playing the game and encourages gaming the game. Most people who fear this 'chaotic' world without guides are those who have never experienced them. Chaos does not reign. Where there are PKs who want to cause chaos there will always be Anti PKs to punish them, provided the system provides incentive to do so (Darkfall being an example of a system that failed to provide incentive to stay blue/penalties for being red, thus turning the game into Quakefall).

tl;dr Anarchism produces a more just society than a decentralized, often corrupt, police state, which is what most MMO internal policing systems amount to.

The game that springs to mind after reading this is Eve. Where outright ripping other players off isn't just permitted, it's encouraged. You have complete freedom to grief in Eve, so far as I recall.

And yet hisec continues to exist, and it protects most players, the vast majority of the time. In order to attack a player in hisec, the attacker must be willing to lose their ship to Concord. This usually means that players who are not high value targets have nothing to fear from PKers. A certain week out of each year being a noted exception!

A certain segment of Eve's population has argued, continues to argue, and probably will continue to argue until Eve ceases to exist or until humanity does (whichever comes first) that hisec should not exist. But it continues, nontheless.

[Sirius]

How puzzled I am that I immensely enjoy Xsyon with its current pvp ruleset, since, as a typical MMO player, these non consensual pvp and full loot feature should not be enjoyable to me. I am obviously still too ignorant to grasp what you meant when you said that people like me will find ourselves in the minority.

Well, I'm glad you like non-consensual PVP and full loot, but since you've already said that these things will make people quit in droves, it seems you must be in agreement with me that this game is not built for such people, who will not enjoy it. Like I said, such people will be in the minority. If you're not part of this demographic, fabulous – but then I'm puzzled as to what you're trying to prove here?

[maelwydd]

You missed this one Dubanka (not that I don't expect you to either ignore it or try and gloss over it. You sure some of you guys are not Jcanto, sure use the same logic): -

http://www.xsyon.com/forum/showthread.php/32-Conflict-Death-Consequences-and-Decisions?p=3087&viewfull=1#post3087

Re:Conflict, Death, Consequences and Decisions
Xsyon's Response to my questions about death and PvP during
Prelude. Prelude is bolded to avoid confusion.

Xsyon:
Here's the current set up for the early Prelude:

Tribes can set the level of PVP in their town. It can be set to
protected and not allow PVP at all within the village, so villages will
likely be safe zones until they have time to build walls and we
implement more safe guards that players can control.

Evil tribes can't be set to protected, so evil players are open to being
attacked at all times.

Perma death is something for the future, but it's not just from old age.
This will have to be explained later. :-)

The overall goal will be to constantly balance things so that both good
and evil can enjoy the game. A PVP gankfest will definitely not be
allowed if that starts to happen.

I hope that answers the question. I know I'm a bit vague about some
planned features, but that's the fun of the game. :-)

[ifireallymust]

I kind of feel like the NRA here...while banning assault [style] semi-auto weapons may seem reasonable, it's a slippery slope of where that leads once you allow the precedent.

The problem with regulating this, or regulating that is where does it end. In our current discussion, my 'oh this is gonna suck' spidee sense starts activitating when folks start talking about grief behavior. Why? because we have yet to get a definitive response (besides by wholly non definitive) about what griefing is (by the devs). Typically, griefing is directly tied to abusing a game mechanic, whereby the abusee has no recourse but to be subjected to the harassment of the abuser (ie. rez killing) or, is tied to using an exploit to gain and advantage over another player or, utilizing a mechanic in a manner that while allowable by code has been expressed stated as 'bad' by the devs.

The problem of applying griefing to the point of the original poster, is that the activities unto themselves are perfectly acceptable...i meand are you going to get banned for digging a hole on your homestead? i'd think not. even if these activities are done maliciously, i believe they are valid as an offensive economic element of conflict. blockades, trade embargos. The romans plowed salt into the fields of carthage after the 3rd (??? history is failing me) punic war. The game allows the mechanisms. The tactics are valid....and the discussion is, from my pov, to drive a real solution...which IS NOT to restrict the activity. You can't restrict it. It's too subjective, and rules that are unable to be enforced equally should nto be enforced (if you want to have a product that people actually buy).

Instead, we as the players need to be able to counter it.

We need to be able to plant seeds to replace trees cut down by raiders.
We need to be able to knock down walls terraformed up around us.
We need to have the tools to deal with agression.
We do NOT need the aggression to be regulated (because only makes controlling it harder).

so i guess what i'm trying to get out there is think, how would i counter that versus 'he shouldnt be able to do that to me'.

AND this is my major problem witht he homestead safet net...there is no way to stop someone from doing something on their homestead.

I was a card-carrying NRA member during the time period this issue was headlined in the news.

If you are saying that the fair and effective enforcement of a griefing policy is in the hands of the Notorious staff, I agree.

Your idea for tools are intriguing.

As for the homestead safenet, it applies equally to bands, clans, and tribes. I note your specific singling out of homesteads, however. So I ask you, how would you prevent numbers from being the ultimate Iwin button in a world with no safe zones? Or would you want to counter the power of numbers? And if you would not want to counter the power of numbers, then won't the game world eventually be populated only by zerg tribes?


Well, I'm glad you like non-consensual PVP and full loot, but since you've already said that these things will make people quit in droves, it seems you must be in agreement with me that this game is not built for such people, who will not enjoy it. Like I said, such people will be in the minority. If you're not part of this demographic, fabulous – but then I'm puzzled as to what you're trying to prove here?

I do not believe these will make people quit in droves. I believe a lack of both safe zones and the tools to create safe (or relatively safe) areas that player groups of all sizes can use will cause people to quit.

[Dubanka]

i was using homesteads generically to keep from writing homestead/band/clan/tribal area :p


You missed this one Dubanka (not that I don't expect you to either ignore it or try and gloss over it. You sure some of you guys are not Jcanto, sure use the same logic):
I have no idea who jcanto is.
I didn't reference that because it was a heresay, and not a direct post from the devs. See, i can do it to...here is a post i just got from xsyon:
Xsyon:
The current set up for Prelude is as follows:
- open pvp.
- full asset destruction

obviously i just typed that. Just to prevent any future misquoting.


The overall goal will be to constantly balance things so that both good
and evil can enjoy the game. A PVP gankfest will definitely not be
allowed if that starts to happen.
I guess you havent read anything i've written. In no place have I advocated a gank fest. In no place have i advocated that there isn't room for 'good' and 'evil' players (there are 'good' pks too btw...they hunt the evil ones). Of course, i realize that you view a 'gank fest' as any environment where there is open pvp. So we have a fundemental impass...*shrug* Ill get over it.

[niccoli00]

I want to add to the original list of ways to do non violent pvp:

Roll back server 24 hours. Lap up the delicious tears of woe.

[ifireallymust]

Then what's the problem with turning off all safe zones and removing all PvP restrictions? Especially once sieging is enabled.

You actually asked three separate questions:

1. Problem with turning off all safe zones now.

No one has had time to build defenses.

2. Problem with turning off all safe zones (after players have had time to build defenses but before sieging is enabled).

Nothing wrong with turning them off before sieging is enabled, after players have time to put defenses up and so long as using /unstuck won't allow anyone to gain access through defenses.

3. Problem with turning off all safe zones (after sieging is enabled).

Nothing, I just hope the devs come up with a sieging and other property pvp ruleset that will not allow superior numbers to trump all defenses because if they don't, I believe that Xsyon will end up empty except for a few giant zerg tribes, with no room in it for solo players, bands, clans, or even most tribes.

[maelwydd]

i was using homesteads generically to keep from writing homestead/band/clan/tribal area :p

I have no idea who jcanto is.
I didn't reference that because it was a heresay, and not a direct post from the devs. See, i can do it to...here is a post i just got from xsyon:
Xsyon:
The current set up for Prelude is as follows:
- open pvp.
- full asset destruction

obviously i just typed that. Just to prevent any future misquoting.

I guess you havent read anything i've written. In no place have I advocated a gank fest. In no place have i advocated that there isn't room for 'good' and 'evil' players (there are 'good' pks too btw...they hunt the evil ones). Of course, i realize that you view a 'gank fest' as any environment where there is open pvp. So we have a fundemental impass...*shrug* Ill get over it.

lol gloss over it you did. Thanks

[Surly]

You actually asked three separate questions:

1. Problem with turning off all safe zones now.

No one has had time to build defenses.

2. Problem with turning off all safe zones (after players have had time to build defenses but before sieging is enabled).

Nothing wrong with turning them off before sieging is enabled, after players have time to put defenses up and so long as using /unstuck won't allow anyone to gain access through defenses.

3. Problem with turning off all safe zones (after sieging is enabled).

Nothing, I just hope the devs come up with a sieging and other property pvp ruleset that will not allow superior numbers to trump all defenses because if they don't, I believe that Xsyon will end up empty except for a few giant zerg tribes, with no room in it for solo players, bands, clans, or even most tribes.Well that's cool. Glad to see you're just being aprehensive instead of having a poor conception of what the game needs to eventually be. I don't think anyone wants to turn the game into a massive zerg-fest. In fact, if the past is any indication of the future, not even zerg clans want zerg-benefiting mechanics because it just leads to an arms race where people are the only useful commodity.

I think some of your aprehension is a little misplaced, of course, and that you've got an unreasonable fear of griefing which prompts you to think that mechanics which will only aid griefing are good... but I guess in the long run it won't matter much as long as you aren't a fan of permanent safe zones.

This whole "Prelude" thing is, to me, a big paid beta where we're supposed to build up the world. The only reason I'm taking part in it is to eventually see a real sandbox, one with no restrictions, where solutions to problems are found by giving players more tools, not more restrictions.

[Redemp]

This thread is still going on?
You folks are either A. Trolling B. Lack reading comphrension or C. Understand that no one in this thread has labeled all pvp as griefing, that everyone in this thread agrees to pvp, and that the post in regards to griefers do not apply to the normal pvpers ; Yet still want to argue it for the sake of argueing something completely pointless, that everyone agrees on ... because they are bored.


Pick one ...

[ColonelTEE3]

This thread is still going on?
You folks are either A. Trolling B. Lack reading comphrension or C. Understand that no one in this thread has labeled all pvp as griefing, that everyone in this thread agrees to pvp, and that the post in regards to griefers do not apply to the normal pvpers ; Yet still want to argue it for the sake of argueing something completely pointless, that everyone agrees on ... because they are bored.


Pick one ...

Arguing about the game is better than playing it right now, imo.

edit: double post

[ifireallymust]

Well that's cool. Glad to see you're just being aprehensive instead of having a poor conception of what the game needs to eventually be. I don't think anyone wants to turn the game into a massive zerg-fest. In fact, if the past is any indication of the future, not even zerg clans want zerg-benefiting mechanics because it just leads to an arms race where people are the only useful commodity.

I think some of your aprehension is a little misplaced, of course, and that you've got an unreasonable fear of griefing which prompts you to think that mechanics which will only aid griefing are good... but I guess in the long run it won't matter much as long as you aren't a fan of permanent safe zones.

This whole "Prelude" thing is, to me, a big paid beta where we're supposed to build up the world. The only reason I'm taking part in it is to eventually see a real sandbox, one with no restrictions, where solutions to problems are found by giving players more tools, not more restrictions.

You are being shockingly unsurly today.

But your sig is still draining my IQ.

Here is what fuels my apprehension:

Devs come up with a way for homesteaders, bands, clans, and small to medium size tribes to indefinitely fend off a zerg tribe (provided the defenders have the appropriate skills high enough and are willing to put in the time, effort, and intelligence to build properly).

Zerg tribes complain that this is in no way realistic, no matter how well the defenders built and that it is tantamount to a safe zone. (Same will be applied to any magical or pet property defenses when magic and taming is in the game.)

The complainers will be correct. It isn't realistic.

However, if sufficient numbers will always prevail in all pvp situations, including sieges, then the first goal a new player should have is to join the largest tribe or the largest alliance in the game. All other attempts to defend property are pointless. If enough people want the location you live on or what you keep in that location, you will not be able to defend it.

My greatest apprehension, therefore, is that superior numbers will always triumph in pvp, and that the end of safe zones will mean the eventual end of homesteads, bands, clans, and small and medium tribes.

Two servers with different rule sets, one that keeps safe zones in some form and one that does not would allow the continued existence of solo players and people playing in small groups.

A safe zone area that is maintained after Prelude and additional areas that do not have safe zones would allow the continued existence of solo players and people playing in small groups.

Defenses that will hold indefinitely against a zerg would allow the continued existence of solo players and people playing in small groups.

A mechanic such as Eve's hisec, where the attacker loses something of theirs in order to kill another player would make many solo players and small tribes unlikely targets of attack if properly implemented. For example, a siege against even a homestead might take several days to succeed (if the homesteader(s) have built well), and cost a huge amount of effort and materials. But the moment any tribe becomes wealthy and organized enough to absorb the costs of a siege when nothing of equal or nearly equal value will be obtained, the mechanic becomes broken and no longer serves its purpose. Also, new players would either need temporary protection or the means to build at least a temporary barrier that is costly to remove, or new players will be huge targets.

The devs might come up with a way to maintain diversity of tribe size that isn't on this list, or they may decide diversity of tribe size isn't as important as realism. Either way, though, my concern is with my ability to play solo in Xsyon in the future. I might not choose to, but I want to be able to, and the end of safe zones could mean the end of solo play (and small tribes, bands, clans, etc.)

[Soulwanderer]

You are being shockingly unsurly today.

But your sig is still draining my IQ.

Here is what fuels my apprehension:

Devs come up with a way for homesteaders, bands, clans, and small to medium size tribes to indefinitely fend off a zerg tribe (provided the defenders have the appropriate skills high enough and are willing to put in the time, effort, and intelligence to build properly).

Zerg tribes complain that this is in no way realistic, no matter how well the defenders built and that it is tantamount to a safe zone. (Same will be applied to any magical or pet property defenses when magic and taming is in the game.)

The complainers will be correct. It isn't realistic.

However, if sufficient numbers will always prevail in all pvp situations, including sieges, then the first goal a new player should have is to join the largest tribe or the largest alliance in the game. All other attempts to defend property are pointless. If enough people want the location you live on or what you keep in that location, you will not be able to defend it.

My greatest apprehension, therefore, is that superior numbers will always triumph in pvp, and that the end of safe zones will mean the eventual end of homesteads, bands, clans, and small and medium tribes.

Two servers with different rule sets, one that keeps safe zones in some form and one that does not would allow the continued existence of solo players and people playing in small groups.

A safe zone area that is maintained after Prelude and additional areas that do not have safe zones would allow the continued existence of solo players and people playing in small groups.

Defenses that will hold indefinitely against a zerg would allow the continued existence of solo players and people playing in small groups.

A mechanic such as Eve's hisec, where the attacker loses something of theirs in order to kill another player would make many solo players and small tribes unlikely targets of attack if properly implemented. For example, a siege against even a homestead might take several days to succeed (if the homesteader(s) have built well), and cost a huge amount of effort and materials. But the moment any tribe becomes wealthy and organized enough to absorb the costs of a siege when nothing of equal or nearly equal value will be obtained, the mechanic becomes broken and no longer serves its purpose. Also, new players would either need temporary protection or the means to build at least a temporary barrier that is costly to remove, or new players will be huge targets.

The devs might come up with a way to maintain diversity of tribe size that isn't on this list, or they may decide diversity of tribe size isn't as important as realism. Either way, though, my concern is with my ability to play solo in Xsyon in the future. I might not choose to, but I want to be able to, and the end of safe zones could mean the end of solo play (and small tribes, bands, clans, etc.)


I like that post, and I get some of your concerns. The blunt answer is... there really is an advantage to numbers. The only ways to completely stop that from being the case aren't very desirable (hard coded guild limits, instanced number-limited PvP, no asset destruction, etc). What can be done is to both give players the tools to not be trampled (defensive fortifications, wall mounted anti-siege weaponry, npc city guards) and, if it comes to it, implement prohibitively costly measures to having too many members.

In Shadowbane for example, the resources needed to make the best weapons were highly contested and very limited. Lot of guilds would fight over them, and when the small guild won and got the resources (which happened as often as not, even solo players would win the resources sometimes) they'd be able to equip a whole lot more of their member base out of it than those with more people. There was also maintenance in that game, and an idea that was kicked around by the players to prevent zerging was to raise the cost of that maintenance per account tagged.

Back to defensive sieges though. The advantage should always rest with the defender given equal skill and numbers, and it's up to the devs to make sure the tools are available to make that the case. As defenders we've taken those advantages and won against some majorly impressive odds.

EDIT: The music might not be appropriate for all ages... or work. ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGBuNmobGFo

We've also lost to zergs and even numbers who just outplayed us. That's the part a lot on the forums seem to have trouble with. In order for a fight to mean anything, there has to be a risk of losing and losing has to mean something. If sieges are implemented, everyone has to face up to the fact that at some point you will lose your city. It may not be in a fair fight, it may have been because it was a Saturday and your membership decided to go bar hopping instead of defending, or it might have just been to a smaller group of people who were more experienced. It will happen though. And it's fine. You regroup, you learn, you get revenge. And seeing your enemies city burn after they took yours is going to be way more memorable years down the road than creating your umpteenth basket, winning some PvE raid, or even ganking some one for a sweet piece of armor.

I also agree that attacking a city or homestead needs to have a cost involved with it. Maybe you have to construct an offensive totem, and to do that you need so much of certain resources that take some time to collect. Maybe later on you can use crafting and resource collection to improve your totem (rank it up), and as you do your enemies would have to build larger and more elaborate offensive totems requiring more resources. That way each attack involves some time and effort from the attacker rather than just throwing wave after failed wave at you with no cost to the attacking guild.

Once they open up a Siege talk forum I'm sure a lot of solid ideas for ways to make the experience fun for both PvPers and Crafters will come out. Let's hope it's sooner rather than later.

[Jadzia]

If sieges are implemented, everyone has to face up to the fact that at some point you will lose your city. It may not be in a fair fight, it may have been because it was a Saturday and your membership decided to go bar hopping instead of defending, or it might have just been to a smaller group of people who were more experienced. It will happen though.


You know that becoming a warring tribe ( aka being siegeable) will be optional, don't you ?

[Dontaze_Mebro]

You know that becoming a warring tribe ( aka being siegeable) will be optional, don't you ?

No it won't. It will be optional to do it early.

[Jadzia]

No it won't. It will be optional to do it early.

No, lol. It will always be consensual.


What I imagine is:
- Tribes choosing to become warring on non-warring, not as an on / off switch but as a permanent or difficult to reverse decision, likely based on tribal actions.
- Warring tribes would be able to conquer and raid others, but they will also become susceptible to war. Non warring tribes would keep their area safe, but don’t gain the ability to raid or conquer other tribes.
- Both warring and non-warring tribes could claim resources that would be up for contest by both types of tribes.
- Some expansion zones being open to more conquest without safe zones, while in others tribes would retain the choice to war or not.

[Dubanka]

No, lol. It will always be consensual.

Everything in the expanion lands will be contestable and one would assume Seigeable

[Soulwanderer]

No, lol. It will always be consensual.

Yeah... because everything has been written in stone so far.

It may be that it ends up staying that way, but I really doubt it. It allows for too many griefing opportunities.

[Jadzia]

Yeah... because everything has been written in stone so far.

It may be that it ends up staying that way, but I really doubt it. It allows for too many griefing opportunities.

Ok. But if it stays this way don't complain later, since you know now that this is what is planned.

[Soulwanderer]

Ok. But if it stays this way don't complain later, since you know now that this is what is planned.

He said what he is imagining. He also imagined a more sandbox style server than the Peace server. We'll see what plays out over the next two months. ;)

[Dontaze_Mebro]

No, lol. It will always be consensual.
I stand corrected, but you won't be able to hide in your shark cage for very long. You will run out of resources quickly and have to leave.

[Jadzia]

I stand corrected, but you won't be able to hide in your shark cage for very long. You will run out of resources quickly and have to leave.

Of course. All I said was that the main city being siegeable will be optional.

[ifireallymust]

I like that post, and I get some of your concerns. The blunt answer is... there really is an advantage to numbers. The only ways to completely stop that from being the case aren't very desirable (hard coded guild limits, instanced number-limited PvP, no asset destruction, etc). What can be done is to both give players the tools to not be trampled (defensive fortifications, wall mounted anti-siege weaponry, npc city guards) and, if it comes to it, implement prohibitively costly measures to having too many members.

In Shadowbane for example, the resources needed to make the best weapons were highly contested and very limited. Lot of guilds would fight over them, and when the small guild won and got the resources (which happened as often as not, even solo players would win the resources sometimes) they'd be able to equip a whole lot more of their member base out of it than those with more people. There was also maintenance in that game, and an idea that was kicked around by the players to prevent zerging was to raise the cost of that maintenance per account tagged.

Back to defensive sieges though. The advantage should always rest with the defender given equal skill and numbers, and it's up to the devs to make sure the tools are available to make that the case. As defenders we've taken those advantages and won against some majorly impressive odds.

EDIT: The music might not be appropriate for all ages... or work. ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGBuNmobGFo

We've also lost to zergs and even numbers who just outplayed us. That's the part a lot on the forums seem to have trouble with. In order for a fight to mean anything, there has to be a risk of losing and losing has to mean something. If sieges are implemented, everyone has to face up to the fact that at some point you will lose your city. It may not be in a fair fight, it may have been because it was a Saturday and your membership decided to go bar hopping instead of defending, or it might have just been to a smaller group of people who were more experienced. It will happen though. And it's fine. You regroup, you learn, you get revenge. And seeing your enemies city burn after they took yours is going to be way more memorable years down the road than creating your umpteenth basket, winning some PvE raid, or even ganking some one for a sweet piece of armor.

I also agree that attacking a city or homestead needs to have a cost involved with it. Maybe you have to construct an offensive totem, and to do that you need so much of certain resources that take some time to collect. Maybe later on you can use crafting and resource collection to improve your totem (rank it up), and as you do your enemies would have to build larger and more elaborate offensive totems requiring more resources. That way each attack involves some time and effort from the attacker rather than just throwing wave after failed wave at you with no cost to the attacking guild.

Once they open up a Siege talk forum I'm sure a lot of solid ideas for ways to make the experience fun for both PvPers and Crafters will come out. Let's hope it's sooner rather than later.

As for losing my city-or in my case, homestead-once in a great while (or even fairly frequently if I lived on a spot that had resources so valuable it would be worthwhile to repeatedly retake and rebuild there or build on a similar site after a successful siege destroyed my homestead). Sure, okay. Gives me motivation to build as smart as I can and maintain what I build as well as I can so that either I won't lose my homestead next time, or at least it will cost the attackers a great deal of time, effort, and resources to successfully siege me. Sounds fun, actually.

My issue is when there is no point in building at all, either because numbers are so dominant that they are the only real consideration, making defenses meaningless, or because the cost of attacking smaller groups of players is so negligible that the weekend destruction of a week's worth of time and effort is a regular occurance.

You are the first poster I have seen who has not suggested politics as the only real alternative to being run out of a game by a zerg. Thank you! While joining with nearby neighbors to defend each other in times of siege would be an enjoyable part of the game, I don't find joining the largest tribe or largest alliance or making 'friends' with large tribes in the region for the sole purpose of securing a degree of safety all that challenging or all that entertaining.

Some players do find in game politics extremely entertaining, and try to make it meaningful and complex, and I have no problem with them, I just don't want to have to play like they do. And it's also too easy in an MMO (which after all has no real life consequences) to just grab some pals and recruit every new player who stumbles into the game, then to go around attacking whoever you feel like and destroying whatever you can. Very low maintenance relationships are easy to maintain, and this game, like many others, already has some well-established cross-game guilds in it, joining them isn't a challenge (they tend to recruit heavily) and the challenge of running them and maintaining alliances between them is probably long over by now. It's true that the complex relationships sometimes found in Eve touches the edges of the true complexity the word 'politics' evokes, but most games don't, and I don't know that this one is ready for the second coming of Machiavelli yet. It sure isn't ready for the second coming of various Goon incarnations.

I could also see a place for thieving in this game down the road. If a siege will take a city, why can't a soloer sneak in and steal from players' baskets and homes? A skilled thief might even make a large Tribe regret successfully sieging a homestead, if said thief decides to spend some time sabotaging and stealing in the newly built city of his victorious enemies! This also sounds like a great deal of fun, and maybe to keep thieving from becoming too commonplace and annoying for random players, thieving could be ridiculously difficult and rarely successful, but somewhat more likely to succeed on land that used to belong to the thief. After all, the thief would know that land better than anyone else, although as time passed, any home turf advantage for the thief could fade.

There just has to be some way to prevent everything from boiling down to tribe size. And there has to be some way to defend property when one is asleep in real life. Automated defenses, traps, patrolling pets, all would make it so not being online doesn't automatically mean losing everything. And if a siege takes enough time to destroy a well-fortified homestead, band, clan, or tribe, it's also more likely that the owner(s) will return in time to participate in defending their home. And that could do away with the need for timers and vulnerability/invulnerability windows.

Well, I'm a bit tired, so this isn't the most organized thing I've ever written, but you get the idea.

Added after 24 minutes:

And then there is assassination. If tribe leaders (from Chiefs on down to lesser ranks) suffered stat loss when assassinated (the more powerful the leader and the more difficult the assassination, the greater the stat loss), and if stat regain was sufficiently difficult, then attacking even a solo player would have potentially severe longterm consequences for even the most powerful tribe. So assassinating the Chief of the largest, wealthiest tribe in Xsyon within the Chief's own city or outpost, with added bonuses for every tribe member in the area and a large bonus for escaping alive would render the chief personally weak for some time after the assassination. Perhaps successful assassinations could also add to the assassin's own skills, and failed attempts (especially failed attempts that end in death) could cause stat loss for the assassin.

[Soulwanderer]

As for losing my city-or in my case, homestead-once in a great while (or even fairly frequently if I lived on a spot that had resources so valuable it would be worthwhile to repeatedly retake and rebuild there or build on a similar site after a successful siege destroyed my homestead). Sure, okay. Gives me motivation to build as smart as I can and maintain what I build as well as I can so that either I won't lose my homestead next time, or at least it will cost the attackers a great deal of time, effort, and resources to successfully siege me. Sounds fun, actually.

My issue is when there is no point in building at all, either because numbers are so dominant that they are the only real consideration, making defenses meaningless, or because the cost of attacking smaller groups of players is so negligible that the weekend destruction of a week's worth of time and effort is a regular occurance.

You are the first poster I have seen who has not suggested politics as the only real alternative to being run out of a game by a zerg. Thank you! While joining with nearby neighbors to defend each other in times of siege would be an enjoyable part of the game, I don't find joining the largest tribe or largest alliance or making 'friends' with large tribes in the region for the sole purpose of securing a degree of safety all that challenging or all that entertaining.

Some players do find in game politics extremely entertaining, and try to make it meaningful and complex, and I have no problem with them, I just don't want to have to play like they do. And it's also too easy in an MMO (which after all has no real life consequences) to just grab some pals and recruit every new player who stumbles into the game, then to go around attacking whoever you feel like and destroying whatever you can. Very low maintenance relationships are easy to maintain, and this game, like many others, already has some well-established cross-game guilds in it, joining them isn't a challenge (they tend to recruit heavily) and the challenge of running them and maintaining alliances between them is probably long over by now. It's true that the complex relationships sometimes found in Eve touches the edges of the true complexity the word 'politics' evokes, but most games don't, and I don't know that this one is ready for the second coming of Machiavelli yet. It sure isn't ready for the second coming of various Goon incarnations.

I could also see a place for thieving in this game down the road. If a siege will take a city, why can't a soloer sneak in and steal from players' baskets and homes? A skilled thief might even make a large Tribe regret successfully sieging a homestead, if said thief decides to spend some time sabotaging and stealing in the newly built city of his victorious enemies! This also sounds like a great deal of fun, and maybe to keep thieving from becoming too commonplace and annoying for random players, thieving could be ridiculously difficult and rarely successful, but somewhat more likely to succeed on land that used to belong to the thief. After all, the thief would know that land better than anyone else, although as time passed, any home turf advantage for the thief could fade.

There just has to be some way to prevent everything from boiling down to tribe size. And there has to be some way to defend property when one is asleep in real life. Automated defenses, traps, patrolling pets, all would make it so not being online doesn't automatically mean losing everything. And if a siege takes enough time to destroy a well-fortified homestead, band, clan, or tribe, it's also more likely that the owner(s) will return in time to participate in defending their home. And that could do away with the need for timers and vulnerability/invulnerability windows.

Well, I'm a bit tired, so this isn't the most organized thing I've ever written, but you get the idea.

I'm all for soloing. I spent a lot of my time in Shadowbane in that role before I joined VD, and the Thief was actually my main. You just need to have different goals as a solo toon. When I did have a home as a solo Thief I hid it well. It wasn't in a convenient location, but I knew I couldn't hold it when the people I was ticking off scouted out the location. As a soloer, imo homes need to be mobile. You drop a homestead, kick a tent out, do what crafting you need to do but don't put too much effort into the home. If some one ticks you off, you can launch your own mini-war against them and relocate to be in a better position to do that.

I claimed whole zones as mine and killed anyone who came out into it when I was around. It wasn't the same game as larger scale guilds were playing, but I still had fun and hopefully the devs will keep the soloer in the back of their minds when adding the larger scale activites. If a home steader thinks of themselves more as a group of nomads than settlers I'd think it'd be a whole lot more fun and realistic of what to expect from larger guilds once sieges go live. In some ways that actually gives them a bit more power as they don't have as much to lose.

[ifireallymust]

I'm all for soloing. I spent a lot of my time in Shadowbane in that role before I joined VD, and the Thief was actually my main. You just need to have different goals as a solo toon. When I did have a home as a solo Thief I hid it well. It wasn't in a convenient location, but I knew I couldn't hold it when the people I was ticking off scouted out the location. As a soloer, imo homes need to be mobile. You drop a homestead, kick a tent out, do what crafting you need to do but don't put too much effort into the home. If some one ticks you off, you can launch your own mini-war against them and relocate to be in a better position to do that.

I claimed whole zones as mine and killed anyone who came out into it when I was around. It wasn't the same game as larger scale guilds were playing, but I still had fun and hopefully the devs will keep the soloer in the back of their minds when adding the larger scale activites. If a home steader thinks of themselves more as a group of nomads than settlers I'd think it'd be a whole lot more fun and realistic of what to expect from larger guilds once sieges go live. In some ways that actually gives them a bit more power as they don't have as much to lose.

Added an idea for assassination to my previous post, too.

As for a different style of gameplay for the solo player, if either the game world were larger (as it will eventually be) or it were easier to hide in it (such as in caves-with entrances hidden by waterfalls or brush is an old classic-and the ability to modify cave structures to increase size and defensibility), a solo player, without building traditional defenses, but perhaps constructing more camoflauged defenses, such as walls and structures that blend in to the terrain), could remain quite some time in one location. Of course, a wise solo player (or for that matter, anyone, come to think of it) will have tools and supplies hidden in other, scattered locations, in case a siege on the main location is successful. And of course players who really enjoy exploring and wandering around in the game world would be more likely to find those locations than those who tend to stay put. Want to solo but still want to stay put for a bit and craft or cause trouble in a nearby location? It shouldn't be impossible, if a player is willing to use some time and intelligence to figure out how to do it.

Edit: Right now I could pick any of a half dozen places in the mist to live in if I chose to, and although someone would stumble across my totem eventually, it might take awhile.

[maelwydd]

A cave behind a waterfall would be sweet!

[Soulwanderer]

Added an idea for assassination to my previous post, too.

As for a different style of gameplay for the solo player, if either the game world were larger (as it will eventually be) or it were easier to hide in it (such as in caves-with entrances hidden by waterfalls or brush is an old classic-and the ability to modify cave structures to increase size and defensibility), a solo player, without building traditional defenses, but perhaps constructing more camoflauged defenses, such as walls and structures that blend in to the terrain), could remain quite some time in one location. Of course, a wise solo player (or for that matter, anyone, come to think of it) will have tools and supplies hidden in other, scattered locations, in case a siege on the main location is successful. And of course players who really enjoy exploring and wandering around in the game world would be more likely to find those locations than those who tend to stay put. Want to solo but still want to stay put for a bit and craft or cause trouble in a nearby location? It shouldn't be impossible, if a player is willing to use some time and intelligence to figure out how to do it.

Edit: Right now I could pick any of a half dozen places in the mist to live in if I chose to, and although someone would stumble across my totem eventually, it might take awhile.

I was taking note of small ridges in the mountain areas myself that I thought would be good to tuck a homestead away in once they implement a way to carry water. Camouflage tents aren't a bad idea... in fact, doing away with the totem for homesteaders all together and replacing it with a tent that serves the same purpose and can be deconstructed for moving would be pretty awesome.

It'll be great when they get past the game play destroying bugs going on right now and can get a couple more forums opened up so that player ideas on things like this can be kicked out.

[ifireallymust]

I was scoping out some of the more difficult mesas today, and wishing like crazy there was a way to dig a well or something. Portable tents would be great too, and when pack animals are in game, there's always the potential for players and tribes to become even more nomadic.

I just had a dungeon siege flashback. Excuse me while I go see what killed my poor donkey this time!

Back to assassination, if any profession/play style should merit permadeath for failure, assassin would be it. It would keep the number of assassins to a minimum if it took months to create a good one. I would so play an assassin if that ever happened.


A cave behind a waterfall would be sweet!

Who doesn't love the idea of a hidden cave entrance?

[Belight]

I fully intend to destroy resources and "grief" my unwanted neigbors and enemies as much as possible.

You know why? Because I am a roleplayer. A good one at that... I plan to utilize real life war tactics in leading my band of apocolyptic bandits and ruffians.

Historically there are many instances where "Scorched Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorched_earth)" military strategies have been utilized by both attackers and defenders. Beating your enemy isn't always about man on man combat.... Sometimes you have to starve them out. Why would I leave you trees to build walls and weapons with? Why would I leave your crops intact so you can have well fed and hearty warriors to fight me with? Why would I leave your rivers flowing and unpoisoned?

"In the Harrying of the North, William the Conqueror's brutal conquest and subjugation of the North of England, William's men burnt whole villages from the Humber to Tees, and slaughtered the inhabitants. Foodstores and livestock were destroyed so that anyone surviving the initial massacre would soon succumb to starvation over the winter. The survivors were reduced to cannibalism, with one report stating that the skulls of the dead were cracked open so that the brains could be eaten. Between 100,000 and 150,000 perished and the area took centuries to recover from the damage."

I will leave a wake of smoking ruin in my path... Why? Because I can. Because I want to. And that's well within the realm of good roleplaying.

History has provided us with many "griefers". Did people sit around and wait for "God" to put artificial limitations on Adolf Hitler? No, people banded together, built a war machine, and whooped his ass. Mind you that many of these people were dirt poor uneducated peaceful farmers like my Grandfather.

----------------------------------------------
Murder Herd's role in DarkFall was a great example of this. We constantly harrassed everyone that was not in our guild. We killed people by the hundreds on a daily basis. We refused every single offer to ally, to change our ways, and to submit to the massive alliances. CoC offered us elite positions, our own holdings, treasures, etc... Yet we still told them to stuff it up their asses because we had integrity and stuck to our chosen roleplay and playstyle despite it's downfalls.

This resulted in about 30 guilds equaling about 300 people sieging our city. It was an epic battle. If it weren't for the general douchebaggery of the CoC I'd say it was a perfect example of the player base governing itself and absolutely a great example of the politics that can evolve in an open world. Unfortunatly Darkfall turn out to be poopy not long after that and almost everyone quit... but that's beside the point.
----------------------------------------------

So enough with this whiney griefing shit. There are people in the world that want to hurt and destroy for no other reason than to watch their victims suffer. That's reality, and Xsyon should be no different. You can't have good without evil. So learn deal with it in game, learn to appreciate it for the dynamics it can bring, or find something else to play.

[maelwydd]

You know why? Because I am a roleplayer...

While I understand the point you are making, the developers have stated that using the excuse or justification you are roleplaying will not be accepted. I am a roleplayer and accept that stance and understand it.

Also, there will eventually be very heavy penalties to those who decide to play "evil". Personally I would only ever consider playing evil WHEN these rules are itroduced and as long as people do not complain about it then all is good.

On a side note, seeing as this is a sandbox game, would you accept having your character put into a jail if caught comitting a crime on my land? Just out of interest?

[Belight]

While I understand the point you are making, the developers have stated that using the excuse or justification you are roleplaying will not be accepted. I am a roleplayer and accept that stance and understand it.

Also, there will eventually be very heavy penalties to those who decide to play "evil". Personally I would only ever consider playing evil WHEN these rules are itroduced and as long as people do not complain about it then all is good.

On a side note, seeing as this is a sandbox game, would you accept having your character put into a jail if caught comitting a crime on my land? Just out of interest?

If rolepalying is not an acceptable reason for being evil then this game will amount to shit... Hope the devs keep that in mind.

Jail? Absolutely not. Why would I pay for a game that I'm not able to play?

I fully support penalties for being evil. However, if the penalties are not there, who's fault is it but the devs? Am I supposed to regulate my chosen playstyle because of poor or broken game design?

[Dubanka]

On a side note, seeing as this is a sandbox game, would you accept having your character put into a jail if caught comitting a crime on my land? Just out of interest?

Only if i could kidnap you, hold you for ransom, or just hold you because i felt like it.

actually...you know what. sure.
you could put me in jail.
and you know what would happen? an entirely new level of pain.

Are you willing to be subjected to constant raiding and harassment (ie. killing and resource destruction)?
we'd be in your backyard so often that we'd feel like neighbors.
Ever been afraid to walk out your door? you would.
You want to imprison me or one of mine? you'll wish you hadn't.

I'd even go one further, I would make it my mission, to protest the imprisonment of any who were wrongfully imprisoned for crimes, large or small, on the basis that they did not receive due process under the legal system and were in fact discriminated against based upon their political beliefs. You put someone is prison, be prepared to be held accountable for your actions. Although, i'm sure you're going to say this is griefing and I shoudl be banned :p

[maelwydd]

This is what always makes me laugh about this type of debate, the complete and utter one sided and selfish attitudes of people who want sandbox FFA PvP.

They WANT sandbox but only for THEIR idea's.
They WANT FFA but not if you suggest a way to hurt THEM back.
They WANT PvP but only if it is THEM winning.

Added after 5 minutes:


If rolepalying is not an acceptable reason for being evil then this game will amount to shit... Hope the devs keep that in mind.

Unfortunately we are BOTH a very small minority in today's MMO world. Roleplaying is about as popular are testicular cancer. So unfortunately even though I respect your roleplaying stance, you are wrong that not supporting a certain type of roleplaying will cause the game to fail.

Roleplaying is just not that popular except in very niche and usually privately run games such as Neverwinter (and even there griefing is not accepted).


Jail? Absolutely not. Why would I pay for a game that I'm not able to play?

If you are griefing me for your roleplaying ideals are you not stopping me from playing?


I fully support penalties for being evil. However, if the penalties are not there, who's fault is it but the devs? Am I supposed to regulate my chosen playstyle because of poor or broken game design?

Well, at the moment you can't do jack because safe zones are in. Accept it or move on.


Only if i could kidnap you, hold you for ransom, or just hold you because i felt like it.

actually...you know what. sure.
you could put me in jail.
and you know what would happen? an entirely new level of pain.

Are you willing to be subjected to constant raiding and harassment (ie. killing and resource destruction)?
we'd be in your backyard so often that we'd feel like neighbors.
Ever been afraid to walk out your door? you would.
You want to imprison me or one of mine? you'll wish you hadn't.

I'd even go one further, I would make it my mission, to protest the imprisonment of any who were wrongfully imprisoned for crimes, large or small, on the basis that they did not receive due process under the legal system and were in fact discriminated against based upon their political beliefs. You put someone is prison, be prepared to be held accountable for your actions. Although, i'm sure you're going to say this is griefing and I shoudl be banned :p

The question was directed at someone who was at least offering the fact that they are a true roleplayer as a REASON for being evil. So it is directed at someone who roleplays. If you are indeed a roleplayer (and not just saying you are to elicite and reply) then I will answer you, otherwise the question was not for you.

[Dubanka]

This is what always makes me laugh about this type of debate, the complete and utter one sided and selfish attitudes of people who want sandbox FFA PvP.

They WANT sandbox but only for THEIR idea's.
They WANT FFA but not if you suggest a way to hurt THEM back.
They WANT PvP but only if it is THEM winning.

Not sure what you point is.

I'm fine with you having your little jail.
In fact i'd DARE you to use it.

I haven't waivered in my stance - more restrictions = more extreme retributional behavior.

If you make me lose half my stat points when i die? well, i'm just going to do my best to ensure that I don't die.
You want to lock me in jail if you 'catch me'. Sure. Dare ya. We'll see about what my friends think about that.
You want to give heavy penalties for 'playing evil'. Great. Ill start out as good, and work my way there, wash rinse repeat.
You make the restrictions/penalties too egregious? Been fun. Later. You'll get that game of patty-cake you always wanted.

Bottom line: you want want to live in a beautiful coastal somalian villa...well attended by pleasant servants, friends and family; but want a guarantee to not be bothered by any of the chaos surrounding you. Unless you invest in the appropriate level of protection, that is simply not gonna happen...and even if you do invest in it, the odds of it happening to at least a small degree at some point, are quite large. sorry.

*edit*

The question was directed at someone who was at least offering the fact that they are a true roleplayer as a REASON for being evil. So it is directed at someone who roleplays. If you are indeed a roleplayer (and not just saying you are to elicite and reply) then I will answer you, otherwise the question was not for you.
ooh elitist too. and yes, I can qualify as a role player...as one who led a strict lore temple guild in a fully arac (any race any class) ffa pvp game (shadowbane), and did so competently enough to thrive even while enduring self imposed restrictions the significantly hampered our combat capability when compared to our opponents.
Ordo Castum Carnifex (http://www.theburninghorde.com/viewforum.php?f=4)

[maelwydd]

Bottom line: you want want to live in a beautiful coastal somalian villa...well attended by pleasant servants, friends and family; but want a guarantee to not be bothered by any of the chaos surrounding you. Unless you invest in the appropriate level of protection, that is simply not gonna happen...and even if you do invest in it, the odds of it happening to at least a small degree at some point, are quite large. sorry.

Actually bottom line is....I want balance and to play with people that realise a game is ment to be FUN FOR ALL> Not selfish people.

I have played on fully enforced NWN servers where the game was about as sandbox as you can get because there was always a GM present for any PvP that took place. There you could be Evil and kill another player...permanently. But you WOULD suffer the consequences, one of which was, permanently being imprissoned. What that actually ment was, for every level of the character you killed you would have to spend a real life day in prison before your character was permanently killed and you were allowed to make a new character.

People played and ccepted this because 1 they were roleplayers and 2 they knew there would be consequences and 3 they knew that if they didn't like it and tried to grief others (and yes, tehy had very good rules on the distinction between playing evil and griefing) they would simply be banned from the game (the beauty of a free game).

SO I am totally up for jail of you are.

[Dubanka]

what you're describing isnt a sandbox.
that is called a 'managed event'.
the world you describe is a nanny state...where you have someone watching your every move to make sure you don't step outside of some preordained set of rules/laws/restrictions...and if you did there were severe consequences. That is not a sandbox.

sandbox is make your own rules. make your own laws. and of course figure out how to enforce them.

it's a sandbox because the player shapes their reality...they don't just fall into someone else's pre-set version of it...and if you don't like the reality you've dropped into, then you have the power to change it. The key concept is that the players have the power to enforce whatever vision they want. It's up to the devs to deliver us a (working) game that gives the tools to the players to effectively control and manage the world. There are alread a ton of games out there where you get to play in a dev imagined reality with preset rules and standards.

oh, and to your question...i will absolutely not play a game that dictates how i have to play it. If i want to play an evil entity...great i should be able to. If i want to play as the good guy...great i should be able to. The funny thing is, we typically try to allign ourselves to the side that stands the have the most fighting to do. In this game that very well may be protecting the crafter states. You just can't do a game like this then try to shove it into some pre-conceived box.

[maelwydd]

what you're describing isnt a sandbox.
that is called a 'managed event'.
the world you describe is a nanny state...where you have someone watching your every move to make sure you don't step outside of some preordained set of rules/laws/restrictions...and if you did there were severe consequences. That is not a sandbox.

sandbox is make your own rules. make your own laws. and of course figure out how to enforce them.

it's a sandbox because the player shapes their reality...they don't just fall into someone else's pre-set version of it...and if you don't like the reality you've dropped into, then you have the power to change it. The key concept is that the players have the power to enforce whatever vision they want. It's up to the devs to deliver us a (working) game that gives the tools to the players to effectively control and manage the world. There are alread a ton of games out there where you get to play in a dev imagined reality with preset rules and standards.

oh, and to your question...i will absolutely not play a game that dictates how i have to play it. If i want to play an evil entity...great i should be able to. If i want to play as the good guy...great i should be able to. The funny thing is, we typically try to allign ourselves to the side that stands the have the most fighting to do. In this game that very well may be protecting the crafter states. You just can't do a game like this then try to shove it into some pre-conceived box.

Sorry but the game was totally sandbox. They just didn't allow dicks to play.

Official Griefing Rules
I. Definition of Griefing

Grief-style playing, or grief-ing, is illegal. Grief-ing is defined by any style of play that makes the person playing a character feel legitimate and genuine distress and anger through disruption of their gaming session.

A. PvP, CvC

The primary area where the team gets griefing complaints is when one character kills another. On #, we will make an important distinction: Player versus Player (PvP) is prohibited. Character versus Character (CvC) is allowed. A "player" is defined by the person sitting behind the screen playing the game. A "character" is defined by the alternate personality you portray within the game. Characters can have disagreements and fight over them, but as soon as it becomes a personal matter between the players behind the characters, it is no longer justified.

B. What counts as griefing?

As you can see from the definition above, what counts as griefing is somewhat vague. The team will not attempt to define every conceivable instance of griefing. We can give both rules and guidelines for how to conduct yourself in CvC combat.

The most important aspect of the definition of griefing is the phrase "legitimate distress." Stress is a natural part of any game. There are always things we don't like, things that frustrate us, and things that make us angry. None of these things are "legitimate distress" and none of them are griefing. But where does it cross the line from natural stress into legitimate distress? Genuine and Legitimate Distress is generally any kind of stress that exceeds the expected IC vision of #.

Example 1: Your character is involved in a faction war and gets killed by an opposing player. The Player doesn't RP the situation great but at least made an attempt. The player took some potions and arrows from your corpse amounting to about 1000 gold. No griefing.

Example 2: Your character is a completely new level 1, unknown to anyone. A level 18 character hits you with a death spell and then loots you. Just for kicks they meet you on the way back to your corpse and kill your character again. The player sends no tells, and doesn't say a thing IC. Griefing.

Example 3: You exchange tells regularly with other players. One of the players sends numerous tells. None of them are benign or threatening but you're beginning to get annoyed with them. You ask them to stop but they continue. You send an email to the Team who politely asks them to stop as well. They continue. Guilty of both griefing and disobeying the Team, A ban is highly probable.

1. Burden of Proof

The burden of proof in any CvC encounter rests primarily upon the initiating and/or victorious character or party. It is your responsibility to take steps necessary to ensure the fun of the other person.

2. The Dislike Setting

Prior to initiating any CvC, the attacker should set his prey to hostile. The prey should not use this as an OOC warning to start buffing or run away. Setting hostile allows the defender to react properly and for spells and feats to operate properly once the battle starts. Yes, it is easy for a person to forget every once in a while, but flagrant or consistent disregard of the rule will be punished by vault jail.

3. 24 hour cooldown between fight-encounters

If two characters engage in a fight that ends in either a trip to the death-plane or a bleeding script, the two characters should not engage in another fight in the same 24 hour period. For example, the death planed character should not immediately try to kill the second character upon returning from the death plane. Both characters are free to pursue fights with different characters provided there is IC justification and both characters are free to relate the situation ICly to other characters who may take action on their own, but no two characters should engage in a multiple CvC fights in the same 24 hour period.

4. Proper IC motivation

The attacking character must show that their character had proper motivation for attacking (and presumably killing the defending character). You cannot use the excuse “because my character is evil.” Proper IC motivation means something that is deep, well-defined. If you can describe your motivation in a single sentence, then your IC-motivation is insufficiently developed. The goal of this rule is not to encourage people to develop elaborate justification, but to encourage them to immerse themselves in the world-setting and to meet many characters and develop relationships with them, some of which may be antagonistic.

5. In addition to having an IC motivation, it is the burden of the attacking-player to state the IC motivation to the opposing player. This can be done IC, through a battle-cry and conversation in the bleeding script (preferred), or by sending tells to the other player. A player who fails to make his IC motivation clear to the other player is in danger of grief style play.

6. Team Investigations of Griefing

Log files are imperative to investigations of griefing. Without any log files, the team is very limited in what they can do to follow-up griefing reports. Consequently, all players are encouraged to save log follows from CvC incidents.

7. Retribution by the victim

If the victim is able to discover through IC means the identity of their assailant, either they or their friend may retaliate against the assailant or any of their known friends. This meets the requirement for an IC justification. Any further battle is still subject to the other requirements of CvC encounters, i.e. setting hostile, providing IC justification to the opposing player. All players are strongly encouraged to avoid allowing the need for retribution to get out of hand by either widening the scope of the encounter or conducting retribution disproportionately. Remember, in CvC encounters, it is the responsibility of the players involved to look out for each other's fun.

8. Logging out to avoid consequences Any player who logs out of the server to avoid the IC consequences of their actions specifically in relation to a CvC encounter but this also applies to other situations is committing an Exploit. First offense will be a 2 week term of Vault Jail. Second offense is Banning.

II. Policy on Role-playing sexuality and Pregnancy

A. Adult Server

is considered an adult server. Players are free to explore any of a number of issues that might or might not be appropriate to children. We have seen fit however to place important restrictions on some aspects of sexuality. While some players may feel that non-consensual sexuality is a standard feature of most mythologies and many good works of literature, we have deemed it inappropriate for #.

B. Roleplaying Sex Crimes in # or any owned ## medium is expressly forbidden

1. A sex crime is defined as: a. Any non-consensual In-Character sexuality of any kind b. Any non-consensual Out-of-Character sexuality of any kind c. Any form of sexuality that involves a person under the age of eighteen whether consensual or not.

2. Roleplaying sexuality includes: a. Physically role-playing specific acts. b. Generating any story involving any such sexual acts. c. Making IC accusations or spreading IC rumors about sexual acts. d. Including Sex Crimes in your character's background.

3. Punishment: There is a zero-tolerance policy for Role-playing sex crimes. Punishment will be immediate ban from the server. Please do not look for any loopholes. If what you are caught doing is considered to be in violation of the spirit of the rule, you will be banned.

C. Roleplaying Pregnancy

1. Pregnancy will not be allowed on ## in any form. The Team recognizes that two players may have their characters get married, but the players are not to Role-play pregnancy.

2. PCs will not have any children until they are permanently retired and become NPCs, and those children are not playable as PCs.

3. After you have permanently retired your PC, Do not roll up any PC’s child as a character. PCs do not have children, either before becoming a PC, nor during their time as a PC, nor do they have playable children after retirement. This is to avoid either cheesy backgrounds or cheesy new characters.

4. Punishment for the first infraction is a simple warning, followed by vault jail and/or banning.

III. Policy on Pickpocketing

A. Do not repeatedly target the same PC, especially Newbies. This is considered unrealistic. This will be considered griefing.

B. Do not pickpocket a PC engaged in the crafting script. The menus prevent them from reacting appropriately.

C. When using pickpocket on a PC, you must set hostile before making the attempt. While this does make the attempt more difficult, the other person is forced to set you to hostile before responding appropriately.

D. Rules on Items Taken: Sometimes the engine may permit you to take items that should not be pickable. Examples include items bigger than a pocket, such as shields, armor, and most weapons, or plot items. If you receive such an item by accident, you are immediately required to return it in inconspicuous OOC way and you may not use any knowledge of the item in an IC way.

IV. You may be griefing if…

These are the most common things that are reported to the Team concerning griefing. Incidents are judged on a case by case basis, but in almost all the cases below, you will probably be considered griefing...Let the griefer beware.

A. You participate in some form of faction war (guild or other) and kill people who are not participating in the war

B. You kill an opposing faction player, and then kill them again when they retrieve their corpse and have only 5 hitpoints.

C. You kill the same person multiple times in a short span of time.

D. You kill someone in the faction war without giving any indication of which side you are on before killing them. A small battlecry would suffice. But simply walking up and killing without warning is borderline.

E. You repeatedly loot the same player in a short period of time.

F. You loot dry any player.

G. You say that any of the above mentioned cases do not apply to you because you are an "evil character".

H. You attack a PC who is defenselessly stuck in the crafting script (or any other ###### script that renders them defenseless).

I. You harass another player in tells: This includes but is not limited to sending numerous unsolicited Tells,failing to stop sending tells when instructed by another player to stop, sending tells that contain inappropriate content such as sexual or racial slurs, sending otherwise disrespectful or insulting tells to other players.

J. You threaten another player with griefing charges in order to duck out of IC responsibility for your character's actions.

K. You use racial slurs, curse excessively, use sexist language, taunt excessively or otherwise denigrate another player.

[Dubanka]

Sorry but the game was totally sandbox. They just didn't allow dicks to play.

again with the name calling. tisk tisk.

logical rational response, get called names. hrmph.

[maelwydd]

You got in before my edit, forgot to add ruleset...see above

[Redemp]

Person 1 : Geez, people who steal old ladies purses are assholes.
Person 2 : You calling me an asshole
Person 1 : No , unless you steal old ladies purses.
Person 2 : Well I don't, but it sure sounds like you're calling me an asshole simply because I admired her purse.
Person 1 : .......
Person 2 : So you ARE calling me an asshole!


....... Yeah

[Vicid]

How is it a sandbox if you're penalized (with your character being deleted essentially) for doing what the game's mechanics let you?

[Dubanka]

sorry...nanny state.

the game is dictating when i can, or can not do something. and if i violate those arbitrary constraints i'm banned.

ok johnny, wait for jimmy to be ready...jimmy are you ready? Ok johnny, go try to steal from him now that he's ready. Oh nice try *clap clap*. Oh, now dont you bows talk mean to each other...cmon now, be nice. Oh jimmy, why did you have to kill johnny...i know he just said some mean things to you, but you didn't need to kill him. Now i have to ban you for killing him when he wasn't ready to be killed.

ick.

[maelwydd]

sorry...nanny state.

the game is dictating when i can, or can not do something. and if i violate those arbitrary constraints i'm banned.

ok johnny, wait for jimmy to be ready...jimmy are you ready? Ok johnny, go try to steal from him now that he's ready. Oh nice try *clap clap*. Oh, now dont you bows talk mean to each other...cmon now, be nice. Oh jimmy, why did you have to kill johnny...i know he just said some mean things to you, but you didn't need to kill him. Now i have to ban you for killing him when he wasn't ready to be killed.

ick.

It is called playing with others in a social game. I guess you also didn't read the rules otherwise you would make a joke about something that doesn't happen. Guess you don't get it because the game requires a certain level of maturity. Guess you just don't get it.

[Vicid]

For the record we would love you to build a jail in game and try to force us in to it. It wouldn't be very good right now without asset destruction but assuming one day the devs have asset destruction and no safe zones an in game jail would be very welcome.

[maelwydd]

How is it a sandbox if you're penalized (with your character being deleted essentially) for doing what the game's mechanics let you?

It only penalises you if you abuse the level of freedom given by being an unreasonable arse.


For the record we would love you to build a jail in game and try to force us in to it. It wouldn't be very good right now without asset destruction but assuming one day the devs have asset destruction and no safe zones an in game jail would be very welcome.

I hope they do introduce it.

[ifireallymust]

I fully intend to destroy resources and "grief" my unwanted neigbors and enemies as much as possible.

You know why? Because I am a roleplayer. A good one at that... I plan to utilize real life war tactics in leading my band of apocolyptic bandits and ruffians.

Historically there are many instances where "Scorched Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorched_earth)" military strategies have been utilized by both attackers and defenders. Beating your enemy isn't always about man on man combat.... Sometimes you have to starve them out. Why would I leave you trees to build walls and weapons with? Why would I leave your crops intact so you can have well fed and hearty warriors to fight me with? Why would I leave your rivers flowing and unpoisoned?

"In the Harrying of the North, William the Conqueror's brutal conquest and subjugation of the North of England, William's men burnt whole villages from the Humber to Tees, and slaughtered the inhabitants. Foodstores and livestock were destroyed so that anyone surviving the initial massacre would soon succumb to starvation over the winter. The survivors were reduced to cannibalism, with one report stating that the skulls of the dead were cracked open so that the brains could be eaten. Between 100,000 and 150,000 perished and the area took centuries to recover from the damage."

I will leave a wake of smoking ruin in my path... Why? Because I can. Because I want to. And that's well within the realm of good roleplaying.

History has provided us with many "griefers". Did people sit around and wait for "God" to put artificial limitations on Adolf Hitler? No, people banded together, built a war machine, and whooped his ass. Mind you that many of these people were dirt poor uneducated peaceful farmers like my Grandfather.

----------------------------------------------
Murder Herd's role in DarkFall was a great example of this. We constantly harrassed everyone that was not in our guild. We killed people by the hundreds on a daily basis. We refused every single offer to ally, to change our ways, and to submit to the massive alliances. CoC offered us elite positions, our own holdings, treasures, etc... Yet we still told them to stuff it up their asses because we had integrity and stuck to our chosen roleplay and playstyle despite it's downfalls.

This resulted in about 30 guilds equaling about 300 people sieging our city. It was an epic battle. If it weren't for the general douchebaggery of the CoC I'd say it was a perfect example of the player base governing itself and absolutely a great example of the politics that can evolve in an open world. Unfortunatly Darkfall turn out to be poopy not long after that and almost everyone quit... but that's beside the point.
----------------------------------------------

So enough with this whiney griefing shit. There are people in the world that want to hurt and destroy for no other reason than to watch their victims suffer. That's reality, and Xsyon should be no different. You can't have good without evil. So learn deal with it in game, learn to appreciate it for the dynamics it can bring, or find something else to play.


Epic battles are nice. So are successful assassinations with real penalties for the targets. Like permadeath or severe, difficult to regain stat loss.

You mentioned Hitler, so I'll mention my favorite assassin (it's just a shame he failed):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Elser

Elser chose the next anniversary of the Hitler Putsch, when Hitler would return to Munich, and decided to kill him with a bomb during his speech.

Long story short, this guy worked entirely alone to construct a bomb in a pillar where Hitler would be giving a speech. He built it perfectly and concealed it perfectly, and it went off exactly when it was supposed to. But Hitler got lucky and wasn't there when he was supposed to be. Now I'm not a fan of bombs for assassination, because there's too much chance of killing an innocent bystander, but Elser had brains and courage, and he was motivated by the belief that what he was doing was right. And he didn't need a zerg to back him when he finally decided to take action. Elser was just unlucky, and sometimes that's how it goes.

And I bring Elser up because, with proper mechanics to prevent tribal leaders from losing their vulnerability to assassination by swapping out leadership roles or confining leadership roles to low level alts or to one player without regard to tribe size, an assassination penalty could counterbalance the numbers game in many ways. Powerful leaders of large groups should always fear the the shadows, poison, or an arrow from a nearby ridge. Just as everyone from homesteader soloers to other large tribes would have to work hard and smart to defend themselves against your numbers in the picture you've painted of your ideal MMO world, so you and all leaders and all their followers should have to work hard and smart to prevent assassination, theft, and sabotage from within and without. Want realism, then look past numbers. There are other ways to win wars.

[Soulwanderer]

It only penalises you if you abuse the level of freedom given by being an unreasonable arse.



I hope they do introduce it.

An unreasonable arse by whose definition? In a sandbox, the devs add the sand and let the players make what they will of it. By those rules, that game was not a sandbox. Griefing is defined as anything that causes another player distress? ~gag~

I find myself very distressed by by your concept of what a sandbox is. I guess that makes you a griefer. ;)

[Banano]

The most effective form of non-violent PvP is also known as "General Chat."

[Belight]

If you are griefing me for your roleplaying ideals are you not stopping me from playing?

No, unless I'm exploiting some game mechanic that litterally stops you from playing the game then, absolutely not. (I absolutely do not support exploiting)

If I chose to wage war on you, and destroy your resources or dam your rivers... That doesn't stop you from playing the game. It mearly creates dynamic game content and a hurdle that you must over come. If you can't find a way to stop me or defeat me then that is your problem, not mine, nor the dev's, nor the game's.

That is the whole point of this thread.

[maelwydd]

An unreasonable arse by whose definition?

Exactly the same as EVERY game out there, the people who own it. They owned the servers, they decided who is being unreasonable (as outlined in their very detailed and even ruleset) and who they don't wish to come back.

Unsuprisingly the community was amazing and the fantastic and complex fight between good and evil far surpasses ANYTHING I have ever seen in a commerically run game.


In a sandbox, the devs add the sand and let the players make what they will of it. By those rules, that game was not a sandbox.

Well I disagree and so do the 20,000 odd people who play the game. The fact the game had a firm set of standards by which you had to play by (The basic rule is fun for all. And not suprisingly people who lacked any maturity or self control were quickly banned leaving a very high class of playerbase with some of the most evil characters I have ever had the pleasure to fight against).


Griefing is defined as anything that causes another player distress? ~gag~

Maturity....not for everyone.


I find myself very distressed by by your concept of what a sandbox is. I guess that makes you a griefer. ;)

And that statment just makes you sound retarded.

[Vicid]

Maeldydd you're calling people immature because they want the players to sort out their problems rather than some all powerful GM. It isn't that we dislike consequences for being a dick in game... we want that very much! We just want to deal with it as players. Someone being a dick in game and pissing you off is why we have a political forum. Once players can actually find others accountable (I.E. no safe zones) then the player base can police itself.

Why is it that you need some GM to police a server for you? Do you think you or your friends will never be able to?

[ifireallymust]

Maeldydd you're calling people immature because they want the players to sort out their problems rather than some all powerful GM. It isn't that we dislike consequences for being a dick in game... we want that very much! We just want to deal with it as players. Someone being a dick in game and pissing you off is why we have a political forum. Once players can actually find others accountable (I.E. no safe zones) then the player base can police itself.

Why is it that you need some GM to police a server for you? Do you think you or your friends will never be able to?

So, just out of curiosity, would you have a problem with assassination as a valid mechanic for weakening tribal leaders with permadeath, or, if you're against permadeath, with severe stat loss that takes a long time to recover from?

[maelwydd]

No, unless I'm exploiting some game mechanic that litterally stops you from playing the game then, absolutely not. (I absolutely do not support exploiting)

If I chose to wage war on you, and destroy your resources or dam your rivers... That doesn't stop you from playing the game. It mearly creates dynamic game content and a hurdle that you must over come. If you can't find a way to stop me or defeat me then that is your problem, not mine, nor the dev's, nor the game's.

That is the whole point of this thread.

So by that logic, if I am free to build a jail and create my own laws on my own land to enable me to put you in jail (i.e. not exploiting a game mechanic) you should not have an objection, and yet you do. Please explain why?

[Soulwanderer]

Exactly the same as EVERY game out there, the people who own it. They owned the servers, they decided who is being unreasonable (as outlined in their very detailed and even ruleset) and who they don't wish to come back.

Unsuprisingly the community was amazing and the fantastic and complex fight between good and evil far surpasses ANYTHING I have ever seen in a commerically run game.



Well I disagree and so do the 20,000 odd people who play the game. The fact the game had a firm set of standards by which you had to play by (The basic rule is fun for all. And not suprisingly people who lacked any maturity or self control were quickly banned leaving a very high class of playerbase with some of the most evil characters I have ever had the pleasure to fight against).



Maturity....not for everyone.



And that statment just makes you sound retarded.

I'm sure it's very easy to find a group of people who agree with you if the penalty for not agreeing is banishment. I love the thought process here. "if I eliminate everyone with a differing viewpoint then I can't help but be right!"

I get that you want to think that the game you liked was a sandbox, and I'm not going to get dragged into the whole definition of a sandbox rhetoric that people love to debate on the boards. A game with arbitrary rules that are not hard coded into what the game does and does not allow seems a little lacking to me though. I'm sure you and your 20,000 friends had a lot of fun with it, but I'm also hopeful that this game won't be following in your vision of a sandbox. If we end up with that much of a nanny system you won't get to enjoy nearly so many players company as you're used to. ;)


So, just out of curiosity, would you have a problem with assassination as a valid mechanic for weakening tribal leaders with permadeath, or, if you're against permadeath, with severe stat loss that takes a long time to recover from?

Bounties on any players are just another game mechanic. If it's done right, it'll work well. If not, it won't. If you just target tribal leaders and penalties are too harsh though you'll only end up with decent guilds creating separate accounts and only logging in the place holder tribe leader when only that toon can do something.

[Vicid]

Of course I am. Perma death is new to me to be honest but as long as players are able to find the assassin/his friends accountable (or try to) then it is fine

[Soulwanderer]

So by that logic, if I am free to build a jail and create my own laws on my own land to enable me to put you in jail (i.e. not exploiting a game mechanic) you should not have an objection, and yet you do. Please explain why?

If it's a mechanic built into the game and done well, then whatever. It's up to the devs to decide if it's a reasonable choice or not. I wouldn't see them letting it last for more than five minutes or so for fear of boring players into logging off... but I'm not in charge of the game. Still... it seems pretty useless with killing already a viable option.

[maelwydd]

If it's a mechanic built into the game and done well, then whatever. It's up to the devs to decide if it's a reasonable choice or not. I wouldn't see them letting it last for more than five minutes or so for fear of boring players into logging off... but I'm not in charge of the game. Still... it seems pretty useless with killing already a viable option.

Well you see you do make a valid point here.

"It's up to the devs to decide if it's a reasonable choice or not"

As I pointed out above where this idea of a 'nanny state' came in, the people in charge are in control of what will or will not be allowed irrespective of them hardcoding their desire or personally managing it.

And they will do the same on ANYTHING within their control, including "griefing" which is something they have already addressed and stated will be carefully managed to maintain a balance and if it becomes unbalanced (either way) they will take action.

SO the really important thing to remember here is, whatever I think and whatever you think is balanced is irrelevent because ultimately (and this is one of the early points I made in this thread) the devs have the ultimate decision.

And just to pick up on this last comment: -


Still... it seems pretty useless with killing already a viable option.

If I am NOT allowed to have this option then surely, using your own deffinition, the game wouldn't be a sandbox game. I should have as much freedom to imprission you if I am able just as you are free to grief someone. If you don't think that is fair then agree it shouldn't be allowed, but you must remove both sides to maintain balance. Of course that is if you actually want balance and not, as you seem to imply, you only want to keep your side of it.

[Sirius]

I was unable to attend today's discussion. Can somebody bring me up to speed on what I missed in 8 words or less? (Bonus points if it's a haiku).

[maelwydd]

I was unable to attend today's discussion. Can somebody bring me up to speed on what I missed in 8 words or less? (Bonus points if it's a haiku).

Carebear wants to imprision gankers, gankers no likey!

[Soulwanderer]

If I am NOT allowed to have this option then surely, using your own deffinition, the game wouldn't be a sandbox game. I should have as much freedom to imprission you if I am able just as you are free to grief someone. If you don't think that is fair then agree it shouldn't be allowed, but you must remove both sides to maintain balance. Of course that is if you actually want balance and not, as you seem to imply, you only want to keep your side of it.

If it's in the code to be able to put some one in jail at any time for any reason, but then rules are arbitrarily made that you can only use that mechanic on weekends and only if the person you want to jail first crosses their eyes and dances a jig or you get banned regardless of what the mechanics allow you to do... then I would consider that playing under a nanny's supervision. It's also fairly amateurish, as most games from experienced companies will code in what you can and can't do. Griefing gets replaced with harassment which is usually pretty clearly defined as verbal abuse or stalkerish type behavior and you rarely see cases of it.

I get that they don't have the resources of a major company atm to implement everything they'd like and so they're going to try to manually respond to complaints... but how they handle those situations is going to give them a reputation one way or another among their own gaming community and others.



Or the short response to that would be that if you jail me, then to maintain balance you should have to be in jail too. Otherwise it wouldn't be balanced whereas PvP gives both players a chance to either kill or escape each other, after which it's over.

[maelwydd]

Or the short response to that would be that if you jail me, then to maintain balance you should have to be in jail too. Otherwise it wouldn't be balanced whereas PvP gives both players a chance to either kill or escape each other, after which it's over.

Sorry you arre wrong because you fail to understand (or are doing it to try and make your view appear stronger but it doesn't work) the balance.

YOU want to be able to PvP me. I can defend myself by PvP'ing back.
I want to be able to jail you. You should also be able to jail me.

There is a difference and if you cannot see it then there is little point (as always seems to happen when trying to explain balance to people who seem to see no problem with griefing) in continuing.

[Soulwanderer]

Sorry you arre wrong because you fail to understand (or are doing it to try and make your view appear stronger but it doesn't work) the balance.

YOU want to be able to PvP me. I can defend myself by PvP'ing back.
I want to be able to jail you. You should also be able to jail me.

There is a difference and if you cannot see it then there is little point (as always seems to happen when trying to explain balance to people who seem to see no problem with griefing) in continuing.

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I said. You jail me, then I jail you as well. What we're in disagreement about is time frames. ;) PvP is engaged by two parties at the same time until one or the other party is done engaging in it (death or escape). If you're really all hyped up on a duplication of that result for some reason, then the comparison would need to be two opposing parties in jail at the same time until their bromance is over. Congratulations! You won the jail game! 0.o

If I wanted to stop answering rationally and swoop down to meet you on your implied insults level, I'd say something along the lines of people who are too narrow minded to be able to see the whole picture of a game and the consequences of mechanics are naturally going to need this many posts to be able to understand why they're incorrect... but I think I'll stay above it. Your level is sticky.

[maelwydd]

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I said. You jail me, then I jail you as well. What we're in disagreement about is time frames. ;) PvP is engaged by two parties at the same time until one or the other party is done engaging in it (death or escape). If you're really all hyped up on a duplication of that result for some reason, then the comparison would need to be two opposing parties in jail at the same time until their bromance is over. Congratulations! You won the jail game! 0.o

If I wanted to stop answering rationally and swoop down to meet you on your implied insults level, I'd say something along the lines of people who are too narrow minded to be able to see the whole picture of a game and the consequences of mechanics are naturally going to need this many posts to be able to understand why they're incorrect... but I think I'll stay above it. Your level is sticky.

I swear if I were to ask you if this was a captial D you would disagree.

[Soulwanderer]

Sorry you arre wrong because you fail to understand (or are doing it to try and make your view appear stronger but it doesn't work) the balance.

YOU want to be able to PvP me. I can defend myself by PvP'ing back.
I want to be able to jail you. You should also be able to jail me.

There is a difference and if you cannot see it then there is little point (as always seems to happen when trying to explain balance to people who seem to see no problem with griefing) in continuing.


I swear if I were to ask you if this was a captial D you would disagree.

Not even a pretense of point/counter-point? Winning in PvP on the forums is more fun than doing it in game right now. =D

[maelwydd]

Not even a pretense of point/counter-point? Winning in PvP on the forums is more fun than doing it in game right now. =D

OK last time I will try and get you to understand, if you don't then big yourself up for winning at forum pvp....

I am in my village, you attack. (offensive action)
I capture you and put you into my jail. (defensive action)

You choose to attack and either
capture my village (reward)
or
get captured (risk)

If you decide to attack me I have a deterent against you, but you have the ultimate defence by not attacking. YOU have the choice to attack my village but have to balance that attack with the chance I put you in jail which is MY choice.

If I were to attack you we would simply use the same mechanics.

Balance here is risk vs reward. You risk jail by attacking me but could be rewarded by gaining my village. I have the same risk/reward choice in reverse.

Does that help you?

[Dontaze_Mebro]

The most effective form of non-violent PvP is also known as "General Chat."

You have no idea how true that turned out to be today.

[Soulwanderer]

OK last time I will try and get you to understand, if you don't then big yourself up for winning at forum pvp....

I am in my village, you attack. (offensive action)
I capture you and put you into my jail. (defensive action)

You choose to attack and either
capture my village (reward)
or
get captured (risk)

If you decide to attack me I have a deterent against you, but you have the ultimate defence by not attacking. YOU have the choice to attack my village but have to balance that attack with the chance I put you in jail which is MY choice.

If I were to attack you we would simply use the same mechanics.

Balance here is risk vs reward. You risk jail by attacking me but could be rewarded by gaining my village. I have the same risk/reward choice in reverse.

Does that help you?

It's not that I don't understand what you're saying, it's just that what you're saying is either not going in depth enough for the mechanic your envisioning or, if it's pretty much covered by what you're saying, then it is... bluntly, stupid. It'd be the equivalent of permadeath with the side hassle of either not being able to or needing to recreate your character at the whim of another player. I'm not much for complaining about griefing, but a mechanic like that would be the epitome of it. At least a PvP fight results in either a brisk escape or a quick death and a bit of a run before it's over. You either want to permanently be able to stop another player from playing or you haven't bothered to think through/post the rest of your thoughts on this kind of mechanic. Then you try to make out that those who don't agree don't understand? Way to keep it classy.

[maelwydd]

It's not that I don't understand what you're saying, it's just that what you're saying is either not going in depth enough for the mechanic your envisioning or, if it's pretty much covered by what you're saying, then it is... bluntly, stupid. It'd be the equivalent of permadeath with the side hassle of either not being able to or needing to recreate your character at the whim of another player. I'm not much for complaining about griefing, but a mechanic like that would be the epitome of it. At least a PvP fight results in either a brisk escape or a quick death and a bit of a run before it's over. You either want to permanently be able to stop another player from playing or you haven't bothered to think through/post the rest of your thoughts on this kind of mechanic. Then you try to make out that those who don't agree don't understand? Way to keep it classy.

A few points then: -

1 - If cant be griefing as you took the offensive and know the risk (Just as attacking another player in open pvp and losing is not griefing).
2 - Sandbox game. Use politics, diplomacy, peace negotiations, a rescue attempt...freedom to chose a resolution.
3 - I have thought it though. I have been thinking it through for the last 6 years and the last year in actual game design.

Sorry but this isn't about disagreeing as the point is what you propose is unbalanced. That is ALWAYS the complaint. The complaint against griefing (legitimate complaints that is) is always that it is an unbalanced scenario where risk/reward are not equal.

[Soulwanderer]

A few points then: -

1 - If cant be griefing as you took the offensive and know the risk (Just as attacking another player in open pvp and losing is not griefing).
2 - Sandbox game. Use politics, diplomacy, peace negotiations, a rescue attempt...freedom to chose a resolution.
3 - I have thought it though. I have been thinking it through for the last 6 years and the last year in actual game design.

Sorry but this isn't about disagreeing as the point is what you propose is unbalanced. That is ALWAYS the complaint. The complaint against griefing (legitimate complaints that is) is always that it is an unbalanced scenario where risk/reward are not equal.

So your request is that you be able to permanently put another player's character in jail. It is understood, and it is horrible. If I have 50 players and you have 15 and I decide I don't like you and throw you in jail, what then? My city fortifications are going to keep your players out unless they siege. If they siege, we will kill them and defeat the siege. We're not going to play a nice game of politics, we're going to keep you locked in our jail until you either delete your character or quit the game.

But that's fair and good gameplay because you knew the risks? I know the risks of a lot of things. Once they get to a certain point I don't do them. Your vision of a jail has got to be one of the worst things for player retention I've heard in over a decade. Nothing would happen unless victory was ensured which would promote zergs and penalize solo or small scale players, and it would drive players caught to quit on top of it.

If you're going to suggest an idea that you want to be taken seriously, try to see the big picture rather than just what would be cool to you.

[maelwydd]

So your request is that you be able to permanently put another player's character in jail. It is understood, and it is horrible.

So are you now saying if there was a hard coded mechanic for eventual automatic release enforced by the devs you would be ok with it. That would mean taking away the actual sandox part of it wouldn't it?

And effectively isn't tha was someone can do in open PVP if they so choose. To grief someone else so remoresely that they can't take it and quit?

You grief me through constantly attacking till I quit.

I grief you by putting you in jail till you quit.

They are the same.

You see you are happy having YOUR freedom to do what YOU want but when I propose something that give ME the freedom to do what I want you object. Can you not see the problem here?


If I have 50 players and you have 15 and I decide I don't like you and throw you in jail, what then?

How would you do that? How can you FORCE me to enter into YOUR tribal lands so you can put me in jail if I don't want to? If I was foolish enough to enter your land then I am just that. Foolish. You couldn't throw me in YOUR jail because I wuldn't step a foot on YOUR land.

You see this just tells me again you are just NOT getting it.


My city fortifications are going to keep your players out unless they siege. If they siege, we will kill them and defeat the siege. We're not going to play a nice game of politics, we're going to keep you locked in our jail until you either delete your character or quit the game. But that's fair and good gameplay because you knew the risks?

That is the RISK of attacking. NO RISK no REWARD!!!! But in this example, being the carebear who only wants to protect themselves from potential griefing they wouldn't attack you. If you wanted to FORCE PvP onto them you will have to either take them on open land or RISK being put into jail if you attack their village and lose.




I know the risks of a lot of things. Once they get to a certain point I don't do them. Your vision of a jail has got to be one of the worst things for player retention I've heard in over a decade. Nothing would happen unless victory was ensured which would promote zergs and penalize solo or small scale players, and it would drive players caught to quit on top of it.

Do YOU WANT a sandbox game or not? Do you want the freedom for anyone to be able to do what youwant when you want it? If so then you can't stop me and defend your position. Either accept there has to be a balance or accept sandbox does not mean 'free from rules or mechanics to promote open and freee play'.


If you're going to suggest an idea that you want to be taken seriously, try to see the big picture rather than just what would be cool to you.

You see you are so blinkered here you are only seeing YOUR point of view. Think about it.

[Soulwanderer]

So are you now saying if there was a hard coded mechanic for eventual automatic release enforced by the devs you would be ok with it. That would mean taking away the actual sandox part of it wouldn't it?

And effectively isn't tha was someone can do in open PVP if they so choose. To grief someone else so remoresely that they can't take it and quit?

You see you are happy having YOUR freedom to do what YOU want but when I propose something that give ME the freedom to do what I want you object. Can you not see the problem here?



How would you do that? How can you FORCE me to enter into YOUR tribal lands so you can put me in jail if I don't want to? If I was foolish enough to enter your land then I am just that. Foolish. You couldn't throw me in YOUR jail because I wuldn't step a foot on YOUR land.

You see this just tells me again you are just NOT getting it.



That is the RISK of attacking. NO RISK no REWARD!!!! But in this example, being the carebear who only wants to protect themselves from potential griefing they wouldn't attack you. If you wanted to FORCE PvP onto them you will have to either take them on open land or RISK being put into jail if you attack their village and lose.





Do YOU WANT a sandbox game or not? Do you want the freedom for anyone to be able to do what youwant when you want it? If so then you can't stop me and defend your position. Either accept there has to be a balance or accept sandbox does not mean 'free from rules or mechanics to promote open and freee play'.



You see you are so blinkered here you are only seeing YOUR point of view. Think about it.

You replying with more detailed descriptions of how you think you should be able to imprison people forever and why you think you should be able to wasn't really necessary. I get that you think you that's the way it should be, and it's no less a horrible idea for you repeating it over and over again. Fortunately you're on a lonely little island waving that flag, so you're inconsequential enough that I don't really need to be bothered with it anymore. ;)

[Dubanka]

So are you now saying if there was a hard coded mechanic for eventual automatic release enforced by the devs you would be ok with it. That would mean taking away the actual sandox part of it wouldn't it?

And effectively isn't tha was someone can do in open PVP if they so choose. To grief someone else so remoresely that they can't take it and quit?

You grief me through constantly attacking till I quit.

I grief you by putting you in jail till you quit.

They are the same.

You see you are happy having YOUR freedom to do what YOU want but when I propose something that give ME the freedom to do what I want you object. Can you not see the problem here?



How would you do that? How can you FORCE me to enter into YOUR tribal lands so you can put me in jail if I don't want to? If I was foolish enough to enter your land then I am just that. Foolish. You couldn't throw me in YOUR jail because I wuldn't step a foot on YOUR land.

You see this just tells me again you are just NOT getting it.



That is the RISK of attacking. NO RISK no REWARD!!!! But in this example, being the carebear who only wants to protect themselves from potential griefing they wouldn't attack you. If you wanted to FORCE PvP onto them you will have to either take them on open land or RISK being put into jail if you attack their village and lose.





Do YOU WANT a sandbox game or not? Do you want the freedom for anyone to be able to do what youwant when you want it? If so then you can't stop me and defend your position. Either accept there has to be a balance or accept sandbox does not mean 'free from rules or mechanics to promote open and freee play'.



You see you are so blinkered here you are only seeing YOUR point of view. Think about it.

Again the assumption that any non-consensual pvp is griefing.

let me say it slow.

WE DONT WANT ANYONE TO QUIT.

OUr goal is to have the players set up the world in any state they choose.

concepts like prison and assassinations are really cool mechanics that could be implemented in really unique and interesting ways to enhance gameplay...not 'grief' someone into abandoning a playstyle

and balance we desire is the ability of players determining the course of action.
Code that autoimprisons a char for 'murder' for an indeterminate amount of time...that is not player action.
A player get his tribe to go burn down the house of the person that killed him...that is player action.

I don't think this conversation is going to meet in the middle tho, so at this point, it's just a post count exercise.

[maelwydd]

Again the assumption that any non-consensual pvp is griefing.

Let me throw out a quote here...."simply by joining a FFA PvP server you are consenting to PvP". I hear that often quoted. And I DO agree with your statement above is invalid. However, please bear in mind that it is the DEVELOPERS descision what constitutes griefing. If they say you are griefing...you are.


let me say it slow.

WE DONT WANT ANYONE TO QUIT.

OUr goal is to have the players set up the world in any state they choose.

concepts like prison and assassinations are really cool mechanics that could be implemented in really unique and interesting ways to enhance gameplay...not 'grief' someone into abandoning a playstyle

Well to be honest, I highly doubt a jail idea would be used as a means for someone to force another person to quit unless they acted like dicks (and the same rules about griefing apply so it would mean a ban potentally if abused). And as I mentioned earlier, there are ways within the confimes of SANDBOX to deal with this and entirely withing the control of the players. [/QUOTE]


and balance we desire is the ability of players determining the course of action.
Code that autoimprisons a char for 'murder' for an indeterminate amount of time...that is not player action.

I agree and that was entirely my point about the fact that introducing hard coded release mechanisms remove the SANDBOX element involved in the idea. But it stands that if you allow a mechanism such as being able to permanently camp another player though legitimate means to quit (i.e. open unrestricted PvP) then you have to also accept that being a player could also, through those same freedoms, use a mechanism to permanently jail another player. Both have ways that out of the predicament - in open PvP it is "get some friends and fight" or "run away" and in a jail system it is "get some friends and break them out or "negotiate a deal".



A player get his tribe to go burn down the house of the person that killed him...that is player action.

A player gets his tribe to break the jailed tribe member out of jail of the person that jailed him....that is player action


I don't think this conversation is going to meet in the middle tho, so at this point, it's just a post count exercise.

Well only because people are either ignoring my side of the argument or just don't get it. But either way it is pointless....guess i will have to wait till I get my game out :)

[ifireallymust]

Bounties on any players are just another game mechanic. If it's done right, it'll work well. If not, it won't. If you just target tribal leaders and penalties are too harsh though you'll only end up with decent guilds creating separate accounts and only logging in the place holder tribe leader when only that toon can do something.

That one is easy to get around, when the highest ranking tribe member is offline, the responsibility, power, and potential penalties falls to the second highest, and everything else moves down the ranks with it. I suppose if all tribal leaders wanted to log out, then it would fall to the senior tribe members. Bonuses of some kind to every tribe member based on the character age and stats of the chiefs and penalties for putting a new, low skilled character in charge of an established tribe could also encourage the real leadership to stay in game. 'Retired' tribe leaders would also face the same stat loss from assassination as they would have when they were 'active' for some time after they 'retire'.

The assassin should also suffer the same stat loss as the target would have if the assassin is killed while carrying out the assassination or while making her escape, whether the actual assassination is successful or not.

[Sirius]

Lol @ the guy tossing around the words "permanently jail a character" also complaining that his idea is being rejected only because it's so misunderstood.

[maelwydd]

Lol @ the guy tossing around the words "permanently jail a character" also complaining that his idea is being rejected only because it's so misunderstood.

Well if you understood is so completely why use the word permanently?

[Sirius]

Well if you understood is so completely why use the word permanently?

Because those were the exact words you used just 4 posts above on this very same page. I'll QFT it:


use a mechanism to permanently jail another player

[Dontaze_Mebro]

If you can imprison trespassers then Evil tribes should be able to take you as slaves out in the wilds. I've played a game with kidnapping, and most people have a shit fit when it happens. I however enjoyed anytime I was captured because I would usually escape or see it as a roleplay opportunity. I quit playing because I found out the admins were releasing my prisoners minutes after being captured if they cried. I always assumed they were cheating, but the designers were marketing a product for "hardcore gamers" and catering to the carebears. Now that playerbase has all but vanished because of this. We need to find a good solid medium ground so that things like that don't happen over here.

[maelwydd]

Because those were the exact words you used just 4 posts above on this very same page. I'll QFT it:

Are you serious?

I used that as an EXAMPLE to show how people saying in a sandbox game they should not have restictions and so could grief someone till they quit. The example was to show how STUPID it is and to show that, if I asked for the same ability how you would RAGE about it. And you have.

Tell me, which of you VD guys is next on the list to come in and try to win the discussion by numbers rather then convincing argument? How many of you guys left or will it rotate back to the first guy again?

[Sirius]

1. There are currently no restrictions on camping people, and if you think "permanent character imprisonment" is even remotely a balanced solution to that, I have a bridge to sell you.
2. I'm not raging – nor are the other VD, who have been systematically demolishing your warped gameplay vision by means of rational and persuasive argument. We view it as an opportunity to educate certain members of the player-base.

[maelwydd]

Originally Posted by maelwydd
Well if you understood is so completely why use the word permanently?
Because those were the exact words you used just 4 posts above on this very same page. I'll QFT it:



use a mechanism to permanently jail another player

It helps if you post using the correct context and the ENTIRE statement.


I agree and that was entirely my point about the fact that introducing hard coded release mechanisms remove the SANDBOX element involved in the idea. But it stands that if you allow a mechanism such as being able to permanently camp another player though legitimate means to quit (i.e. open unrestricted PvP) then you have to also accept that being a player could also, through those same freedoms, use a mechanism to permanently jail another player. Both have ways that out of the predicament - in open PvP it is "get some friends and fight" or "run away" and in a jail system it is "get some friends and break them out or "negotiate a deal".


You are talking crap, trying to make your point by lying, perverting what is said and basically doing everything you can to make a point by evading my points.


1. There are currently no restrictions on camping people, and if you think "permanent character imprisonment" is even remotely a balanced solution to that, I have a bridge to sell you..

lol this is actually unny while being annoying as you all just seem to be TOO STUPID to understand. It was to show how TOTALLY UNBALANCED your opinion is that I used this example and you STILL DO NOT FUKCKING GET IT :(


2. I'm not raging – nor are the other VD, who have been systematically demolishing your warped gameplay vision by means of rational and persuasive argument. We view it as an opportunity to educate certain members of the player-base.

You haven't done anything but prove your stupidity, lack of reading skills and biased opinion to try and keep an unbalanced system in place because you are all sad muppets.

[Sirius]

Ok. You're cursing in all-caps, but we're the one's raging. Got it.

And you claim to be presenting this "prison" idea to highlight how unbalanced it would be if the devs adopted "our" idea of having no restrictions on killing and camping people. But this wasn't our idea. This is how they made the game.

Finally, the example itself is silly. If you're getting killed, you have the freedom to kill back. The freedom is already there. There is absolutely no comparison to this hypothetical ability to permanently jail another players, which is neither balanced nor proportional to the supposed "problem" it is supposed to fix. This gameplay concept of yours is nothing more than a get-out-of-pvp-free button.

[maelwydd]

Ok. You're cursing in all-caps, but we're the one's raging. Got it.

And you claim to be presenting this "prison" idea to highlight how unbalanced it would be if the devs adopted "our" idea of having no restrictions on killing and camping people. But this wasn't our idea. This is how they made the game.

Finally, the example itself is silly. If you're getting killed, you have the freedom to kill back. The freedom is already there. There is absolutely no comparison to this hypothetical ability to permanently jail another players, which is neither balanced nor proportional to the supposed "problem" it is supposed to fix. This gameplay concept of yours is nothing more than a get-out-of-pvp-free button.

OK, thanks for the chat, can't be arsed trying to talk to retards when there is a game to play.

[Zenmaster13]

Ok. You're cursing in all-caps, but we're the one's raging. Got it.

And you claim to be presenting this "prison" idea to highlight how unbalanced it would be if the devs adopted "our" idea of having no restrictions on killing and camping people. But this wasn't our idea. This is how they made the game.

Finally, the example itself is silly. If you're getting killed, you have the freedom to kill back. The freedom is already there. There is absolutely no comparison to this hypothetical ability to permanently jail another players, which is neither balanced nor proportional to the supposed "problem" it is supposed to fix. This gameplay concept of yours is nothing more than a get-out-of-pvp-free button.

You venereal disease folks are quite entertaining in your attacks. Any intelligent person can see through them. It's the same old BS over and over. "We want to keep the ability to grief, and not be punished for it". "Any punishment you suggest will be shot down by us with alot of conjecture and hypotheticals." I have a hard time taking any of you serious "All up in yo grillz". I have seen more badasses at an over 50s bar.

[Soulwanderer]

OK, thanks for the chat, can't be arsed trying to talk to retards when there is a game to play.

Still pimping that "If you think my idea is stupid it must be you and not me." angle? I was kinda hoping you were just plastered last night and you'd have slept it off by now.

Added after 7 minutes:


You venereal disease folks are quite entertaining in your attacks. Any intelligent person can see through them. It's the same old BS over and over. "We want to keep the ability to grief, and not be punished for it". "Any punishment you suggest will be shot down by us with alot of conjecture and hypotheticals." I have a hard time taking any of you serious "All up in yo grillz". I have seen more badasses at an over 50s bar.

What are you blabbering about? There hasn't been an in depth discussion of griefing for quite a while in this thread, whether it be defining it or talking about potential repercussions. The past one to two dozen posts have been about one horrible mechanic suggestion.

[Sirius]

I can assure you that I'm quite intelligent, bro. And all this "conjecture and hypotheticals" actually = experience seeing how things play out in a PVP game and the ability to predict the practical consequences of suggested gameplay mechanics. I think you're going to be surprised at the dev's unwillingness to drive away thousands of paying customers by creating ubiquitous happy safe-zone mechanics that only a few players want, and which would ultimately even make the most hardcore crafters numb with boredom.

This game has the potential to be very interesting, and we're trying to keep it that way. Thanks for playing.

[Zenmaster13]

I can assure you that I'm quite intelligent, bro. And all this "conjecture and hypotheticals" actually = experience seeing how things play out in a PVP game and the ability to predict the practical consequences of suggested gameplay mechanics. I think you're going to be surprised at the dev's unwillingness to drive away thousands of paying customers by creating ubiquitous happy safe-zone mechanics that only a few players want, and which would ultimately even make the most hardcore crafters numb with boredom.

This game has the potential to be very interesting, and we're trying to keep it that way. Thanks for playing.

Anyone who puts "All up in yo grillz" as a location is not, by definition, very intelligent. You may think you are, but your comments show differently.

Please don't try to profess game theory to me. I will beat you with many years of experience every time. It's quite funny when trolls like yourself try to act all serious and intelligent. I mean look at your sig, it's really funny in the sense that you made it so you could look tough and leet. But listen here fool, it is just a game.

Perhaps you would like to educate yourself before you make the "only a few people want" comment. More people want safe zones than not. Do you understand that? Or is your numbering system unique to your own little fantasy world? Safe zones are in the game already. Thanks for being dumb.

[Sirius]

Ever heard of an ironic comment before? I don't even listen to rap. My sig, like many sigs, is all part of the fun. You see the sig text above and below? It includes a silly joke and a freaking Kefka reference. I'm here to have fun.

I find it funny when someone who either can't support his position via debate, or who doesn't realize he's chosen the wrong position, resorts to childish name-calling while professing his own maturity and intelligence.

I never said there are no safe zones or that players don't want safe zones. Please look up the word "ubiquitous". I think you'll find that not only does the game currently lack ubiquitous safe-zone mechanics, but with the advent of sieging and war they're planning on scaling back the safe-zone mechanics that already exist. And that, friend, is what most people want, rather than an increase in safe-zone security.

You're going to be disappointed if you're expecting more, rather than less, safety and invulnerability in this game.

[ifireallymust]

If you can imprison trespassers then Evil tribes should be able to take you as slaves out in the wilds. I've played a game with kidnapping, and most people have a shit fit when it happens. I however enjoyed anytime I was captured because I would usually escape or see it as a roleplay opportunity. I quit playing because I found out the admins were releasing my prisoners minutes after being captured if they cried. I always assumed they were cheating, but the designers were marketing a product for "hardcore gamers" and catering to the carebears. Now that playerbase has all but vanished because of this. We need to find a good solid medium ground so that things like that don't happen over here.

As long as the max time was not too long, I would find this pretty funny myself. I could try out my Igor impressions. Yeth marthar. *Shuffles off at a walk* But this game doesn't have an NC17 rating. I don't think anyone wants to deal with the mother of a 13 year old taken captive by some of the more obscenely creative players wandering around in game. Come to think about it, 13 year olds are often also obscenely creative and shouldn't be allowed to take captives, either!

[Zenmaster13]

Ever heard of an ironic comment before? I don't even listen to rap. My sig, like many sigs, is all part of the fun. You see the sig text above and below? It includes a silly joke and a freaking Kefka reference. I'm here to have fun.

I find it funny when someone who either can't support his position via debate, or who doesn't realize he's chosen the wrong position, resorts to childish name-calling while professing his own maturity and intelligence.

I never said there are no safe zones or that players don't want safe zones. Please look up the word "ubiquitous". I think you'll find that not only does the game currently lack ubiquitous safe-zone mechanics, but with the advent of sieging and war they're planning on scaling back the safe-zone mechanics that already exist. And that, friend, is what most people want, rather than an increase in safe-zone security.

You're going to be disappointed if you're expecting more, rather than less, safety and invulnerability in this game.

Ahh the irony defense. I'm having fun too. I can resort to calling you as I see it. You don't see it, because you surround yourself with the same type of people. You can claim your sig is tongue in cheek, but we all know differently. You just want attention.

I can support any of my arguements, but I resort to call it like it is sometimes. I followed a few arguments you have been involved with, and had to bite my tongue a number of times because I just assumed you were a troll. I was right. Now if you want to get all hurt feeling about it, my question to you is who is the carebear now?

By the way, I am not expecting, hoping, or making predictions for anything from this game. I am not trying to change it. I like it, and I play it. It is just a game. It will evolve, while you most likely will not. I know for sure, if they do add more safety mechanisms, that you and the rest of the disease trolls will be the loudest and most emo of all the people in here.

[Vicid]

Hmm... so if I say something like "player's not GMs should police the server" that means "I want to be able to grief you till you rage quit with nothing ever happening to me."

Is that how you guys are reading this?


Ahh the irony defense. I'm having fun too. I can resort to calling you as I see it. You don't see it, because you surround yourself with the same type of people. You can claim your sig is tongue in cheek, but we all know differently. You just want attention.

I can support any of my arguements, but I resort to call it like it is sometimes. I followed a few arguments you have been involved with, and had to bite my tongue a number of times because I just assumed you were a troll. I was right. Now if you want to get all hurt feeling about it, my question to you is who is the carebear now?

By the way, I am not expecting, hoping, or making predictions for anything from this game. I am not trying to change it. I like it, and I play it. It is just a game. It will evolve, while you most likely will not. I know for sure, if they do add more safety mechanisms, that you and the rest of the disease trolls will be the loudest and most emo of all the people in here.


You've found us out. Our sigs are to scare you. Take them seriously. Also we seriously all thing VD stands for different names. Really.

[Sirius]

"Calling it like it is"? (This is shorthand for "personal insults are teh win", right?)

Ok. I guess if you're calling the shots I'll try to play along. You are short-sighted, can't think things through to their practical consequences, can't take a joke, take yourself way too seriously. Self-assured, self-righteous, and utterly deluded as to what will make this game fun over the long term. Vastly over-estimate your own intelligence. Dish insulting personal comments as a substitute for making helpful suggestions or laying out an attractive and coherent vision of what the gameplay should be like. And obviously, REAL fun at parties.

Once again, I suspect you'll be disappointed when you find that the game isn't turning out to be quite so cuddly and boring as you thought.

[Zenmaster13]

"Calling it like it is"? (This is shorthand for "personal insults are teh win", right?)

Ok. I guess if you're calling the shots I'll try to play along. You are short-sighted, can't think things through to their practical consequences, can't take a joke, take yourself way too seriously. Self-assured, self-righteous, and utterly deluded as to what will make this game fun over the long term. Vastly over-estimate your own intelligence. Dish insulting personal comments as a substitute for making helpful suggestions or laying out an attractive and coherent vision of what the gameplay should be like. And obviously, REAL fun at parties.

Once again, I suspect you'll be disappointed when you find that the game isn't turning out to be quite so cuddly and boring as you thought.

See, I knew you would resort to leet speak. Man you are so predictable.

Conjecture much? You make many assumptions, but have zero to back it up. Clearly you know what I think, I mean it is all there in your statements. I suspect you will be disappointed when you can't have an all out grief fest.

Again, please don't tell me what I think of this game. I have already stated how I feel about it, but in your blind leet ignorance, you passed over that.

You guys must be super sensitive. I hope no RPing carebear kills your char, because honestly, I don't think the community could stand more emo-griefers tears. You have already filled the lake.

And to Mr. Pipedream above you. Have you ever played a MMORPG where players actually police the game? I highly doubt it, considering most people want to play and have fun, not go around keeping griefers in check. Get your head out of your ass

[Vicid]

yes I have. It is clear you have not had the chance.

[Sirius]

Lol nothing you say makes sense. Leet speak? "Emo griefer tears"? Try for a coherent thought instead of unhinged invective.

And yea, we've played MMOs where players police the game.. as a matter of fact, VD has repeatedly been insulted as the "server police" by people who didn't like getting stomped in retaliation for their lameness.

[Zenmaster13]

yes I have. It is clear you have not had the chance.

Please back that up. Which game do you speak of? I have had many chances, don't assume anything, it just makes you look even more dumb, and does nothing to hurt me or enrage me. I am laughing at you VDs the whole time. I just came in here to help the other person "whom I don't know btw", that you guys were ganging up on with your emo-grief logic. He was speaking of a hypothetical punishment system for griefers, and none of your arguments really discounted what he was saying. You just didn't get it. But it was a very good device to find out who some of the emo-griefers are. You came in here all defensive. Very funny stuff. See what I am doing here is called "non'violent" PVP. It is what the thread is about. I'm just playing you fools.

[Vicid]

I assume you have already played it.

[Zenmaster13]

I assume you have already played it.

Why won't you state the game which had players policing the game at all times? You seem very confident that you guys were the police on this game. Tell the community, so you can be properly dismissed as being full of it.

[Vicid]

We only mention it in every other thread we've posted in.

[Zenmaster13]

We only mention it in every other thread we've posted in.

Except not here for some reason. I am not interested in your other threads. Just say what it is, so the community can point out how false it is. Otherwise you are just trolling.

[Vicid]

I did a search and it is in this thread

Added after 41 minutes:

*sigh* I was hoping to drag him around a little longer.

At least two games have had a system that allowed players to find people accountable for their in-game actions. I personally saw this in Shadowbane where doing something annoying/exploitive (Like teleporting into a solid object and capturing resources) got your city burnt to the ground.

What a lot of people think of, however, (and what this game reminds them of) is UO before they added a safe zone... you can read about that in the following blog I spent 2 seconds searching for.

http://tobolds.blogspot.com/2005/09/ultima-online-pre-trammel.html

[Sirius]

Lol this is like playing chess with pigeons, as they say.

[Belight]

Please back that up. Which game do you speak of?

Uh, ever hear of Eve Online? One of the greatest sandbox games ever made? Where players are the police force?

[Sirius]

EVE must not be a very popular title, or must not have this player-policing you speak of.

Otherwise, clearly ZENMASTER would know about it, since he's a bona fide expert on the subject rather than some twit who has zero clue what he is talking about.

[Dubanka]

In shadowbane on the Vindication server, we were labeled the 'server police' because, well, we did what we thought we needed to do to keep the server healthy. ie. we worked to keep big people form smushing small people, and if someone got too big, would engage the war machine to (often times fighting against signicantly higher numbers) to force them to 'break'. We were ble to do this because we were competent and persistent on the offense, and one of the best on defense.

Not everyone liked our brand of justice and it got us in more than a few fights...and it came back to bite us on a server wipe, where we were welcomed to a server united against us...that didn't go well (but they got what they deserved, since their unholy alliance effectively destroyed the server...)

anyway sig to prove it. And yes, we typically make themed sigs around whichever game/guild tag we're using.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v233/sdalberts/Games/serverPolice.jpg

and just because it still makes me laugh
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v233/sdalberts/Signatures/beavis-tbh-copy.gif

[Sirius]

The above post is all a lie, part of an elaborate hoax intended to fool Xsyon players into thinking that PVP can be fun even when you didn't see it coming.

Unfortunately, none of what Dubs and Vicid are saying ever happened.

[Kietharr]

It's nice to see that we don't have to be camping the forums as the sole defenders of open PvP around here, and that our comrades in arms are also able to deliver skilled arguments. Though unfortunately they seem to be hitting the brick wall of willful ignorance that the sheepish masses have built up around themselves. It's easy to say 'OPEN PVP IS COMPLETE CHAOS' when you've never experienced a world with open PvP. The hisec/lowsec split of EVE represents an acceptable way for both the sheep and the wolves to coexist. It is a 'safer' zone rather than a safe zone. It is a discouraging mechanic rather than a forceful one. You can skill PK in hisec but it comes with much, much greater risk.

It's not even as if we're sitting here advocating for zero penalties for PvP, quite the opposite actually because while randomly gutting people is amusing, it's not the sort of thing that keeps us hooked on a game for long. If I wanted to run around doing nothing but killing people all day I'd play Counterstrike. But RPKing and dickish tactics should be punished by game mechanics and players, not by the devs acting as divine intervention. It is said that he who governs best, governs least and I believe that this philosophy also carries over into a WELL DESIGNED virtual world.

[Haphazard]

good post Kietharr

[Zenmaster13]

EVE must not be a very popular title, or must not have this player-policing you speak of.

Otherwise, clearly ZENMASTER would know about it, since he's a bona fide expert on the subject rather than some twit who has zero clue what he is talking about.

Haha, you guys are so predictable. I knew you were shadowbane fanboys. That game is dead btw, so obviously player policing didn't help, plus I highly doubt you guys policed the server 24/7. You are just making up stuff now.

Hmmm EVE online, let me see. Yes, I have heard of that one. I was wondering what that icon on my desktop was for, oh and I can remember installing it as well. That game has NPCs idiots.

Why don't you bring in a few more tribe members for the forum zerg. Shadowbane is dead get over it.

[Doc]

Nobody wanted to play Shadowbane for free, let alone pay for it.

[Kietharr]

How typical of someone who never played it to assume that Shadowbane died because of its ruleset rather than because of its shitty launch, its shitty bugs, and its shitty balance. The ruleset was the LEAST of shadowbane's problems, in fact it was the only thing that kept SB alive as long as it lasted because by all metrics Shadowbane was an IMMENSE piece of shit.

Yet many people still look back upon it fondly because of the intrigue, the wars, the drama of a more or less unregulated world. PvP is meaningless in and of itself. Without assets, resources, ect. to fight and die over it's all just WoW arena, killing each other for dickwaving rights. And again, if that was what I truly enjoyed I would play Counterstrike.

[Soulwanderer]

How typical of someone who never played it to assume that Shadowbane died because of its ruleset rather than because of its shitty launch, its shitty bugs, and its shitty balance. The ruleset was the LEAST of shadowbane's problems, in fact it was the only thing that kept SB alive as long as it lasted because by all metrics Shadowbane was an IMMENSE piece of shit.

Yet many people still look back upon it fondly because of the intrigue, the wars, the drama of a more or less unregulated world. PvP is meaningless in and of itself. Without assets, resources, ect. to fight and die over it's all just WoW arena, killing each other for dickwaving rights. And again, if that was what I truly enjoyed I would play Counterstrike.

Shadowbane lasted over six years. That's pretty solid for an mmo. It's launch was pretty bad which resulted in a lot of the boxes that were sold not resulting in a lasting subscription base, but it still had plenty to make a solid long term run. If you didn't play it you missed out on some amazing experiences and it's ruined me for every game since. What it did well, it did better than anything I've seen before or since.

[Sirius]

Haha, you guys are so predictable. I knew you were shadowbane fanboys. That game is dead btw, so obviously player policing didn't help, plus I highly doubt you guys policed the server 24/7. You are just making up stuff now.

Lol, yea, because VD didn't prevent every murderous act that could have taken place, there was no policing. That makes tons of sense! And anyway, NEWSFLASH, the game had siege windows and mine windows. It was completely unnecessary for anyone to "police the server 24/7", and the fact that you phrased it that way just shows you're thinking of something completely different. Fact is, VD and countless other players helped bring balance to the game, and that type of self-regulation turns out to be a much better system than "cry to a GM when something naughty happens".


No one I know wanted to play Shadowbane, because we were powder puffs & mainly into fashion

fixed that for ya <3

[Zenmaster13]

Lol, yea, because VD didn't prevent every murderous act that could have taken place, there was no policing. That makes tons of sense! And anyway, NEWSFLASH, the game had siege windows and mine windows. It was completely unnecessary for anyone to "police the server 24/7", and the fact that you phrased it that way just shows you're thinking of something completely different. Fact is, VD and countless other players helped bring balance to the game, and that type of self-regulation turns out to be a much better system than "cry to a GM when something naughty happens".
<3

What kind of nonsense are you spewing now? Who said anything about calling GMs? I was pointing out that player policing, while good in theory, is not now, nor has it ever been actually used to full effect in any game. You have not disproved this. In fact you lost the argument for yourself when you stated the fact that shadowbane had other mechanics besides player policing for control. You SB fanboys are quite delusional. Let it go, it was just a game. Sure a few things worked in that game. However, the same thing can be said for many other dead games.

I know it hurts, but let it go Sirius, the game is dead, this is not SB, and it is not the place to suggest ideas for Xsyon either. Good luck fluffy

[Vicid]

Keep changing your argument Z. Are you really going to claim victory over a game mechanic that let players sleep and go to work? I think you're the one who needs to let it go.

[Zenmaster13]

Keep changing your argument Z. Are you really going to claim victory over a game mechanic that let players sleep and go to work? I think you're the one who needs to let it go.

Do you and the other VD know how to read and comprehend what you are reading? I'm very sure you do not. I did not change any argument. I was disproving your argument about player policing and you guys did nothing to back up your BS about your feats as server police.

Vicid SB is dead. Let it go. I will probably run a couselling session for you and the other emotionally damaged SB leftovers. Apparently you guys cannot let go of your hurt feelings about that game, so much so, that you come in to other game forums to defend it.