Territorial Control and Griefing.

[Destroyer]

kill at will you cant get banned for killing people.

[jumpshot]

In both scenarios you are in the right imo.

That is territory control. A tribes sphere of influence does not end at it's borders, it ends where it can no longer win the fights.

The only exception I could see is if you're trying to engulf the starting spawn points in your sphere.

[jokhul]

The final decision on what constitutes "griefing" will always lie with the GM's/devs, because no game has ever implimented a perfect rule-set that cannot be manipulated in some way.

We have not seen the full effects of the alignment system on the game, because it has not been completely implemented yet. The alignment system and penalties for PK'ers are clearly meant to reduce rampant PK'ing, so the game rules are already "biased" against PK'ers and tribes that choose an evil alignment. The game rules will try and make it "difficult" for them to thrive.

Undoubtedly, both "good" and "evil" players will try to exploit loopholes in the rules to their own advantage. Both sides will push the limits, claiming that they are just doing what the game allows. That's the point where a subjective decision by a GM/dev will be the final call.

[wolfmoonstrike]

In both scenarios you are in the right imo.

That is territory control. A tribes sphere of influence does not end at it's borders, it ends where it can no longer win the fights.

^This I agree with.

In all honesty I don't think fighting over resources should be counted as griefing. This is a game where resources are supposed to be limited, so I think you should be prepared to fight for them if you need them. Griefing to me is going after others repeatedly for no other reason than to seem like the big guy on top.

Don't get me wrong I plan to kill random players here or there but not over and over again. (Unless they are mouthing off and won't leave me alone.)

But fighting over resources seems to me about the only Legitimate reason to engage in PvP right now. In other words the only PvP that has a purpose. Plus if you want to figure out a way to share or be diplomatic with your aggressors then do so. Give up some of your resources, bribe, or hire a mercenary tribe. Offer them a reason to leave you alone. If you are a PvE tribe, good the game needs you, but don't act like just because you're PvE means you should be safe and able to go where you want, hire a PvP tribe and help one another out. Remora and Shark.

[jokhul]

Griefing is mostly subjective, because everyone has a different definition of what constitutes "fun", both in RL and in game.

There's a patch of trees between tribe A and tribe B, but it's closer to tribe A. Does that give tribe A more "rights" ? Both want it, but neither side can harvest it without getting killed by the other. So tribe B chops down the trees one by one (during combat sessions) and just destroys the wood instead of hauling it home, knowing they could never get it safely back due to the longer distance they have to travel.

Has tribe B griefed tribe A ? Or have they just "denied resources to the enemy" ?

Evil tribe X sets up near a junk pile, but the pile is outside their actual tribe border. They don't harvest it, preferring to "save it for later", when resources will be scarce. They kill anyone that comes near it, and they loot the corpses, but instead of keeping the loot, they simply delete it (how many grass pouches does anyone need ?). Are they griefing the victims, or are they "discouraging" them from trying to loot "their" junk pile ? Seems legit, they're just protecting their local resources, aren't they ?

Two months later, tribe X moves their camp site to the other side of the lake, abandoning their precious junk pile without harvesting it. They say it's for political reasons, because they want to join a new alliance. Were they actually just using that junk pile as "bait" so they could grief people ?

Tribe A sets up camp near a very scarce resource (but it's just outside their tribal border). Five other tribes form an alliance to drive tribe A away from the resource. Tribe A is attacked relentlessly for a month. They cannot leave their safe zone without out being killed, because they are always outnumbered 5 to 1. Eventually they run out of resources, they can't make new weapons or armour to replace their losses, so tribe A packs it in and moves to the other side of the lake. Were they griefed, or was it a successfull and legitimate siege ?

There are shades of gray in all these examples.

[Mims44]

I don't see shades of gray with griefing.
The only way to grief is repeatedly killing someone who is actively trying to get away.


The problem with all these scenarios is your making the guy getting killed the victim, when thats not exactly the case.
IE: I run to a junk pile, so does someone else. We fight, I win. Now, I don't want to PK at this point, I just want to gather some resources. The other player continues to spawn right beside me and attack me, I kill him each time, the only problem is I can't gather resources since I'm having to defend myself every 30 seconds.
I am the one doing the killing in the scenario, but i'm the one being hassled as I can't gather resources.
...
It's not griefing!

If I could see him in ghost mode and followed him till he respawned and continually killed him as he tried to get away, then that is griefing. Only that.
If I run into and enemy town and die in the town center, then never mash WASD again and just continue to spawn in the same location for 12 hours and die, I'm not being griefed because I'm not actively trying to escape.

[blackzilla]

I'm concerned that the griefing policies are 'situational' and that banning is not necessarily going to be something that is deemed in violation of the TOS. ie. it will be a subjective decision.

Primary to my concern is the concept of limted resources and territorial control.

Scenario 1: My Giant JUnk Pile.
- at launch my tribe gets its preferred spot...in the vicinity is a fairly glorious pile or three of junk. Our junk. Becaue of the relative scarcity of trash, and hte fact that it depletes, we decide this is our trash and our trash alone. All interlopers will be dealth with severely. We even post this in a tribe profile in the section below: Come into our self proclaimed area of influence and expect to me met with a high level of hostility.

So in comes the pacificist crafter. we explain to him our territorial policy and advise him to leave. he gives us the bird and says he can do what he wants. We kill him. He comes back. We kill him again. He keeps coming back...eventually we kill him 20-30 times because he is just plain hard headed. Well, he reports us for griefing. Question: are we tagged as griefers and banned for merely enforcing a territorial claim?

Scenario 2: I want your Junk.
So we've depleted our giant junk pile...but alas, no fear, we've spotted another one. So our merry band tromps over there to start a harvestin. We are met with a chilly gaze and a carebear stare! Carebear stare counter: axe between the eyes. So, we go about scroungin'. Alas, our fearless defender and his band of noobs, keep coming at us, attempting to kick us off their junk. Of course we don't let them kick us off and we kill them. Quite a few times. Question: are we tagged as griefers and banned for 'invading' someone elses territory to take their trash?

In both these scenarios, note that the person(s) dying, have a choice...they are choosing to walk into a scenario where they know they are going to meet hostile action and mostly die. What burden does the individual player have avoid being 'griefed'?

thoughts/

If some guy keeps running into a brick wall, should the brick wall move or the person stupid enough to continuosly run into it maybe stop? Just sayin...

[BigCountry]

kill at will you cant get banned for killing people.

/this

[Honelith]

A brilliant thread Dubanka and I've always thought about this. In both scenarios 1 and 2, it's simply a part of game mechanics and fits in with tribal warfare and neither of the scenarios imply griefing of anykind. It's simply the gameplay and resources provide the games content, without the resources, you can't do much in the game, so there's going to be alot of killing over these resources, which is a brilliant thing in my eyes.

I hope the griefing policy won't get abused by players who try to avoid PVP but find themselves caught up in it simply because of where they are or the tribe they are with are under constant threat. For a player to recieve a warning or a ban should only because it's something serious, such as name calling, personal threats or using the forums for serious slander.

[BigCountry]

For a player to recieve a warning or a ban should only because it's something serious, such as name calling, personal threats or using the forums for serious slander.

/this

You guys are all over it today.