What challenges should guild alliances face?
-
Wow Gothix I'm not sure whose posts you are reading because I just went and reread mine to see if I had been toxic as you stated. I guess disagreeing with you is toxic. I never called pvp players dickheads, in fact, I never referenced pvp players at all. I did call griefers dickheads. I'm sure you have heard or even said/typed harsher words than those yourself. I already said this in my last post, but here it is again for you personally. Please open your eyes and read the exact words I type so you don't get confused.
I could care less what happens in the pvp lands.
That clear enough for you? With that said logic dictates that I'm not, in fact, trying to make sure the rules are meant for every player. Although in reality I guess that's not exactly true because every player is playing the same game so I guess every rule is actually for every player. There really isn't anyway around that argument for me so I guess you got me there.
I do not want to see rulesets that do carry over to the pve lands. Thankfully Specter hopped in and answered that for me. With that said I'm dropping from this thread because any other replies is not worth my time.
-
@Gothix said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
Interesting is that viewpoint, not seeing as toxic when PvE promoter directly insulting PvP players calling them dickheads, but you see as toxic someone else politely suggesting that this PvE player could read about a game a bit (and realize few things that he missed), and pointing out that he is not the only player playing this game, without using any tag, label or insult whatsoever.
I guess you feel that players that like to PvP (and kill other players, because that is PvP) should be free to be insulted (because you label them as worthless people by your standards), but when someone suggests that PvE player reads about a game a bit, your sensitivity level rises 1000%.
Well... I expected nothing different honestly, I've seen it so many times in MMO after MMO. That mighty attitude of PvE players considering themself so virtuous and considering people that like to kill other players in PvP lowly and deserving of all tags and insults.
You're really whaling on that strawman!
We were talking about griefers, not PvPers. Again, I find it interesting you see no difference between the two.I like PvP. I don't like griefing.
By the way, griefing is continuous, prolonged harassment, by systematically denying game play time to another player. Calling a single (or even few) AoE kill (karma or not) griefing is.. well, usual PvE player attitude I guess.
That's -your- definition, dude, not mine.
And "continuous, prolonged harassment", eh? So, you're ok with some harassment? Very interesting. Well, usual griefer's attitude, I guess.
-
@Roccandil yeah that's the problem.
Basically, calling griefers derogative terms... but then equaling a single PvP kill in some circumstances as griefing... this is basically calling every player that makes that single kill those derogative terms.
I will state that I'm certainly not a griefer, I never player in such way that I pick a person and continually harass him, ever.
I will however make a lots of dirrefent kind of kills on various different people. Some of those "single kills" may by your definition fall under griefing (for example kill inside a city, or I don't know whatever), and this is why I see those derrogative terms applied to me, and other (by my definition) normal PvP players.
-
@Gothix said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
@Roccandil yeah that's the problem.
Basically, calling griefers derogative terms... but then equaling a single PvP kill in some circumstances as griefing... this is basically calling every player that makes that single kill those derogative terms.
I will state that I'm certainly not a griefer, I never player in such way that I pick a person and continually harass him, ever.
I will however make a lots of dirrefent kind of kills on various different people. Some of those "single kills" may by your definition fall under griefing (for example kill inside a city, or I don't know whatever), and this is why I see those derrogative terms applied to me, and other (by my definition) normal PvP players.
My takeaway here is that you want to kill allies, but not be called names for doing it. "I killed an ally in an alley, and he called me a NAME! Meanie!"
Sounds like the definition of "crybully".
-
Couple more things on friendly fire and collisions:
While I don't think friendly fire will significantly deter huge alliances, and I wouldn't want to see it on Syndesia, I could see it on Tartaros, not only within alliances, but also guilds. A hellish free-for-all fits Tartaros.
No safe spaces anywhere, not even in home plots! (Syndesia, on the other hand, seems the place for honorable, lawful, structured warfare.)As to collisions between players, I don't want to see that at all, even on Tartaros. I've done work with colliders in Unity, and 1), they trigger many potential bugs to work through, thus consuming developer time and effort, and 2), they represent a significant performance cost in-game. Not using them would be a win for the poor servers!
-
this is a sandbox game. 1 planet will have no means to attack another friendly player. 2 planets will be PvX while 1 planet will be PvP full time.
This game will have friendly fire and will have collision. will some people make a wall so others can walk through, sure but that just means you use an ability that bypasses that like some of the few jumping skills.
-
@Jetah said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
This game will have friendly fire and will have collision. will some people make a wall so others can walk through, sure but that just means you use an ability that bypasses that like some of the few jumping skills.
Where have you seen information from developers on player collisions?
-
@Roccandil I belive Syndesia should be about ruling guilds setting rules for their own zones.
If "good guild" rules a city then this zone (city ZOI - zone of influence) can be adjusted by their wishes... guards instructed to attack evil aligned players on sight, NPCs refusing trading evil players, friendly fire set to OFF, and so on...
If "evil guild" rules a city, then they can adjust rules how they see fit in their own city ZOI... guards instructed to attack good aligned players, NPC not offering services to good players, friendly fire ON if they wish, and so on...
THAT is what would make sieges a lot more attractive and meaningful. An ability to really influence life in various zones.
-
@Roccandil said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
My takeaway here is that you want to kill allies, but not be called names for doing it. "I killed an ally in an alley, and he called me a NAME! Meanie!"
Sounds like the definition of "crybully".
Trust me I never cry about anything. Even if I have certain group of players following me around to continually target me. I simply adjust to circumstances, I play within good guild where we help each other so I will have allies in such times, and so on.
I also want to be able to use PvP action wherever it is allowed (regardless if it's an enemy or a member of alliance that i feel deserves such my action,... no one can call me a griefer for killing a target within a city and taking his "stuff" (if I can) because that city was an area where PvP action is available.
Griefing is continually harassing a same certain player, deliberately targeting only him personally.
@Roccandil said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
So, you're ok with some harassment?
Making an occasional single kill is not harassment. I bet now you will say, but yeah it is if that other player doesn't like it and this is where you are wrong.
This is game where PvP actions are allowed in certain world and areas. If hostile action within a city is possible and allowed by game mechanics, then killing any player within city walls is not harassment, it's simply game feature, and players should be aware and watch themselves within this city.
Certain players may be too sensitive and not wish be killed anywhere, but this is why they have a planet with huge zone where PvP isn't even possible at all. If they come to world where hostile actions are available, then they should not complain if they die anywhere, in any circumstance that is mechanically available.
Killing players is an intended feature of this game, stealing their stuff is as well. If anyone considers this a griefing and is too aggrevated by death happening to him, then honestly traveling PvP enable worlds isn't something that fits him. He can either play on safe space, or play something else. What he can't do is ask for changes that would make more worlds safe for him, because this is disrespecting all other players out there.
Also, calling any person out there derrogative terms (regardless of how they play) is also not OK. They are people playing a game. Using insults is always a poor taste and toxic, regardless how right you think you are.
-
@Gothix said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
@Roccandil I belive Syndesia should be about ruling guilds setting rules for their own zones.
If "good guild" rules a city then this zone (city ZOI - zone of influence) can be adjusted by their wishes... guards instructed to attack evil aligned players on sight, NPCs refusing trading evil players, friendly fire set to OFF, and so on...
If "evil guild" rules a city, then they can adjust rules how they see fit in their own city ZOI... guards instructed to attack good aligned players, NPC not offering services to good players, friendly fire ON if they wish, and so on...
THAT is what would make sieges a lot more attractive and meaningful. An ability to really influence life in various zones.
Hmm. Friendly fire being an option for Syndesian alliances and guilds is interesting; I rather like that. I'm not sure I'd tie it to karma, though.
@Gothix said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
Griefing is continually harassing a same certain player, deliberately targeting only him personally.
That's indeed one form of griefing, but not all. I also consider griefing to be exploiting game mechanics in order to inflict harm that the developers did not intend to be possible: i.e., stepping into friendly fire to inflict a penalty.
This happened in World of Tanks, even though stepping into friendly fire in World of Tanks is relatively difficult to do. The penalties for friendly fire were to prevent griefers from killing their own team (something the developers were clearly against), but some would exploit that to inflict penalties on their team.
One really nasty way to do that, as I recall, was to swing your tank's barrel over a friendly artillery piece's barrel as it fired; the hit explosion would then happen within the barrel, possibly killing the artillery piece AND inflicting the friendly fire penalty.
-
@Gothix said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
Also, calling any person out there derrogative terms (regardless of how they play) is also not OK. They are people playing a game. Using insults is always a poor taste and toxic, regardless how right you think you are.
Sounds like you want safe spaces from insults, but not from griefing. Thank you for introducing me to that delicious irony!
Incidentally, I much prefer people who play honorably and call people names, to those who play dishonorably and do not. Deeds are more important than words.
-
@Gothix said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
@Roccandil I belive Syndesia should be about ruling guilds setting rules for their own zones.
If "good guild" rules a city then this zone (city ZOI - zone of influence) can be adjusted by their wishes... guards instructed to attack evil aligned players on sight, NPCs refusing trading evil players, friendly fire set to OFF, and so on...
If "evil guild" rules a city, then they can adjust rules how they see fit in their own city ZOI... guards instructed to attack good aligned players, NPC not offering services to good players, friendly fire ON if they wish, and so on...
THAT is what would make sieges a lot more attractive and meaningful. An ability to really influence life in various zones.
Been thinking a bit more about this one: what if friendly-fire on Syndesia weren't a direct choice, but were instead tied to karma? Such that the more evil a city became, the more friendly-fire options were turned on.
-
Just wanna put this out there, I like griefing, I think it's part of pvp games, i have solo griefed big guilds before that like to harass people and picked off there shitty low level members, to stop em growing, griefing can be useful physiologic warfare and gorilla tactics forcing people to pk you then use the town guards as your allies, this is all fine.
Using game mechanics against people tricking people in to ganks Is all fine
stealing mobs jumping on drops, scummy (if they are not already your enemy ) but again all fine.
I dont think gms should monitor player behaviour even swearing and abusing, add a chat block function, and add a optional swear filter switch on and off.
The only things that should be moderated are illigal behaviours.
Scamming, cheating, hacking, duping
-
have you seen people walk through NPCs in the videos? There's lots of twitch vod you can watch.
I like that.. it's not griefing, it's gorilla tactics. and it's ethical! (some will get that reference.)
I think scamming should be ok in game too. Eve Online allows it and it's a great thing!
-
I think "scamming" shouldn't be sanction-able, unless it's done by exploit.
For example using UI exploit to fake placing gold into trade window and ending a trade without actually paying. That should be punishable.
On the other hand, making person believe something is rare and then selling it to him for lots of gold (while item is really common) is OK. It's that other players problem that he didn't do any research before buying something.
-
@Roccandil said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
Been thinking a bit more about this one: what if friendly-fire on Syndesia weren't a direct choice, but were instead tied to karma? Such that the more evil a city became, the more friendly-fire options were turned on.
It needs to be a choice, because game is supposed to offer guilds influence over their own zones to reward them for successful sieges. Whatever ruling guild chooses should then apply to everyone that is currently walking through that zone.
It would also be nice if there was some icon on player UI somewhere, notifying him about what kind of rules are active in his current area.
-
Been away from my desktop for almost the entire weekend, so I didn't wanna get into any responses that required formatting.
First and foremost, kudos to @Roccandil for finding time in between alternatively chastising @Gothix for his rudeness/then flaming him outright to make a series of insightful suggestions on one of the previous pages. Logistics and War of the Gods in particular would be excellent factors in challenging zerg guilds and alliances from projecting power casually.
Well done, Scarecrow!
@Xzoviac said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
Just wanna put this out there, I like griefing, I think it's part of pvp games, i have solo griefed big guilds before that like to harass people and picked off there shitty low level members, to stop em growing, griefing can be useful physiologic warfare and gorilla tactics forcing people to pk you then use the town guards as your allies, this is all fine.
Using game mechanics against people tricking people in to ganks Is all fine
stealing mobs jumping on drops, scummy (if they are not already your enemy ) but again all fine.
I dont think gms should monitor player behaviour even swearing and abusing, add a chat block function, and add a optional swear filter switch on and off.
The only things that should be moderated are illigal behaviours.
Scamming, cheating, hacking, dupingI personally loathe untrammeled griefing because I'd rather not see it drive away prospective players and kill the game, as has often happened in other MMOs. But I also believe assuming the role of a brigand, highwayman, murderer, etc. is part of the sandbox experience and can be a source of content creation.
But I think Fractured has an obligation to implement mechanics that deter mass griefing. You should be able to do it... but there should be consequences that make you think twice.
(This is similar to how I feel about zerg guilds and alliances. Fractured should allow for powerful empires and confederations to operate... but there should be consequences and challenges that make you think twice before attempting to rule ze world!)
-
@Roccandil said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
I also consider griefing to be exploiting game mechanics in order to...
Exploiting should be bannable if illegal methods are used to do anything non intended by the game, regardless if it is to kill people or to dupe items or whatever. I'm not talking about exploits, hacks or similar. Obviously those are instant bans in my view.
But if game allows you to kill a person in certain spot (standing in market place for example and using shopping UI), then that is not exploit, and that is also not griefing. It's a legit kill.
If alliance members aren't immune to friendly fire, then you should simply watch where you are shooting your AoEs at, specially if alliance member is low on HP. That's part of the tactics and awareness skills. If some alliance member is trying to deliberately go into your shooting zone (for whatever reason), then use diplomatic channels to request allied guild kick him for punishment, or break alliance with that guild if that other guild doesn't care about it's members behavior.
It's called social mechanics.
Game should not hand hold people and give them safety net against "bad things" happening to them (death, karma loss, whatever). People should be aware of their surroundings and act accordingly. If you do not care about being aware of where you are and where you are shooting, then deal with the consequences of hitting people with your AoE.
If some player deliberately tries to stand where you are shooting at then use other social means at your disposal to deal with him. For example, warn other people around about him and have ruling guilds order all guards to attack him on sight, and forbid NPCs to trade him etc.
That said, there should be personal options for ruling guilds to make list of specific people that guards should consider targets (regardless of those players alignment or guild affiliation). Same for NPC interactions. So this players can be punished for their actions, same as if they were going around and killing people.
Outright disabling all friendly fire is definitely not a solution. That would be like completely disabling all in game chat for everyone because some players are going around insulting people...
-
@Gothix said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
If alliance members aren't immune to friendly fire, then you should simply watch where you are shooting your AoEs at, specially if alliance member is low on HP. That's part of the tactics and awareness skills. If some alliance member is trying to deliberately go into your shooting zone (for whatever reason), then use diplomatic channels to request allied guild kick him for punishment, or break alliance with that guild if that other guild doesn't care about it's members behavior.
It's called social mechanics.
Game should not hand hold people and give them safety net against "bad things" happening to them (death, karma loss, whatever). People should be aware of their surroundings and act accordingly.
If some player deliberately tries to stand where you are shooting at then use other social means at your disposal to deal with him. For example, warn other people around about him and have ruling guilds order all guards to attack him on sight, and forbid NPCs to trade him etc.
That said, there should be personal options for ruling guilds to make list specific people that guards should consider targets (regardless of those players alignment or guild affiliation). Same for NPC interactions.
Outright disabling all friendly fire is definitely not a solution. That would be like completely disabling all in game chat for everyone because some players are going around insulting people...
I agree with all of this.
Enabled friendly fire and collision mechanics will force all guilds, armies, battalions, zergs, etc. of varying size that they need to be tactical about how, when, and where they deploy their assets. It will require them to carefully consider the terrain in ways that disabled friendly fire doesn't; they'd need to be careful not to let themselves be drawn into situations where their numbers are a hindrance. It's realistic, it demands greater tactics, and it might minimize the extent to which zergs can just blindly steamroll the opposition!
-
@Alexian said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:
Enabled friendly fire and collision mechanics will force all guilds, armies, battalions, zergs, etc. of varying size that they need to be tactical about how, when, and where they deploy their assets. It will require them to carefully consider the terrain in ways that disabled friendly fire doesn't; they'd need to be careful not to let themselves be drawn into situations where their numbers are a hindrance. It's realistic, it demands greater tactics, and it might minimize the extent to which zergs can just blindly steamroll the opposition!
Exactly. And if there is some alliance player deliberately going into your line of fire constantly, then use social mechanics to punish his behavior. Get him kicked out of alliance, have your town guards place him on "attack on sight list", have NPCs in your towns refuse to trade him. Have other people around you remember him and punish him by full extend of social methods.
