Griefing: To create pain, discomfort, anger, or any ill related feeling toward another person in game.
This means when a NPC kills you in game, we can call it a griefer because it has made us earn debt.. Darn griefing NPCs!
_________________________________________________
Okay, now that was sarcasm, but it seems that is how people look at it. To me presonally there is only few things I would take as griefing if done to me.
In UO there were teleporters. Some people loved to stay on them and not move just so lower level people would be stuck. No purpose, not for pVP reasons, just to be an a$$. Well to me that was annoying griefing.
I also think people that Rez-kill are griefers. For instance if we had people staged in the hospitals just to kill people that came through right after death. I guess its not griefing, but its lamer than lame and it would probably make me not want to be in a faction or PvPing type situation.
When a player deliberately (and consistently) makes the game unfun for other players.
Usually this consists of things like:
Harrassment
Deliberately preventing others from completing missions/gaining xp
Finding ways to kill/injure non-PvP players (training high-level mobs onto low levels, etc.)
Using exploits in the game system (things that weren't intended) to kill/injure/harrass players
Deliberately preying on players in PvP who are hopelessly outclassed (spawn camping/sniping newbies, for example)
Broadcasting insults about x player, x hero, lamers, etc.
Generally griefing is pretty obvious -- you step into an area, BLAM! get wasted before you can do anything, and then get a tell about how you are lame and so-and-so is superior because he just worked you because you are lame -- well, that's griefing. It can be a little trickier than this but it's like what Justice Stewart said about pornography -- "...I know it when I see it."
One of the goals as a designer is to create systems to make it hard to do griefing -- without being overly restrictive. It's not easy.
It is important to remember that we, as players, are a community and the game is about community play, even if you do nothing but solo. Just doing what you want at the expense of the enjoyment of other players (not characters, but actual account-holding players) is not in the spirit of the game.
Booyeah, straight from the Developer's keystrokes.
That's a Resonable explanation.
But I don't know if it fully delineates the difference between an Antagonistic relationship and a Bully-ing one =\
Considering that a Designer's primary job is to devise new ways of challenging the player, they should understand this delicate balance better than any one of us who choose to play as a Villian so I'd really like to see more commentary along that line, especially as to WHY we're at odds with a hero and vise-versa. ...Just because we CAN doesn't seem like a good enough answer to me and most times is precisely the reason that Griefers abound. Shouldn't PvP do more? like fuel the Economic engine, Politics, even the very structure of the world? ...I'd say that stuff contributes the most to deciding the intentions of the PVP community andhow Newbs are recieved into it. 
The key to the success of PvP in this game will be how griefing is managed. CoH is a great game right now, if adding PvP to it ruins aspects of the PvE game, it will be a disaster.
[ QUOTE ]
But I don't know if it fuly delineates the difference between an Antagonistic relationship and a Bully-ing one
[/ QUOTE ]
Cryptic's never going to give us an iron-clad definition of what is and what isn't griefing. You can't, because this sort of distinction really comes down to a judgement call. There is no right answer, except to say that you gotta have faith. Any issue between players that escalates to the point of involving Cryptic will be settled by Cryptic. When it comes to arbitration between players, I have trust that Cryptic will make decisions that they deem best for the community as a whole. Naturally, some players may be made unhappy or marginalized by these decisions, but I trust Cryptic to do their best to minimize the damage done to the decent members of thier community.
[ QUOTE ]
It can be a little trickier than this but it's like what Justice Stewart said about pornography -- "...I know it when I see it."
[/ QUOTE ]
That's fine advice for the average player, but if you plan on enforcing this, you MUST come up with something official about what is and is not griefing. You can't send people emails that say "you did something not very nice that seemed like griefing to me. Sorry, your account was banned for it."
Especially because in City of Villains, you are supposed to antagonize heroes, it's part of your character. You really need to define a solid line here.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It can be a little trickier than this but it's like what Justice Stewart said about pornography -- "...I know it when I see it."
[/ QUOTE ]
That's fine advice for the average player, but if you plan on enforcing this, you MUST come up with something official about what is and is not griefing. You can't send people emails that say "you did something not very nice that seemed like griefing to me. Sorry, your account was banned for it."
Especially because in City of Villains, you are supposed to antagonize heroes, it's part of your character. You really need to define a solid line here.
[/ QUOTE ]
The key element is- are you antagonizing the PLAYER or the character? There's a fine line between the two. You may thwart a hero's plans by engaging in a PvP mission against them- that's part of the play, but going out and training mobs on a hero trying to survive a hazard zone is interfering with the PLAYER.
I think some people are going to be unhappy to discover exactly what they're allowed to do while playing the bad guy- and personally, I'm glad. I'll use my villain to create scenarios and stories for people who WANT to be part of them- kinda like a GM- I'm not playing to win, I'm playing to entertain.
I figure that there will be specific areas for PvP when CoV comes out. For example, level 50 villains wont be able to go to atlas park and kill whatever noobs they see.
Keeping that in mind, ig you get killed in a PvP zone thats not griefing. If a hero keeps going back to the same danger zone and keeps getting killed by the same villain, he is not being griefed because he is making the choice to keep going back. This is a sensetive issue because there is a very good possibility that the devs will put important content that people will want to experience into the danger zones. Still, it is up to the hero whether or not they want to go into the zone to experience the content and by making the choice to enter a PvP area they are consenting to the possibility of being killed.
So... anytime you are consenting to being killed either by your actions or inactions(going afk in a PvP area is an example of inaction), you are not being griefed. If someone is going out of their way to make you upset by taking advantage of features in a way they were not designed to be used (exploiting) and theres nothing you can do about it, you are being griefed.
You shouldnt have to abort your mission or stop hunting in an area you have been in to avoid someone whose trying to kill you. The exception is if your in an area that is specifically designed for PvP.
They dont really need to clarify it any more, the key lies in the phrase 'non-consentual PvP'
If you enter a PvP area, you are consenting.
As for the harassment bit, if someone is roleplaying that they are a villain insulting a hero, i dont see a problem with that. If they are NOT roleplaying, thats harassment. How can you tell the difference? Besides context, you can always try this...
/tell Mean Villain, OOC: please stop insulting me, its bothering me
If they continue to insult you, thats harassment.
[ QUOTE ]
When a player deliberately (and consistently) makes the game unfun for other players.
Usually this consists of things like:
Harrassment
Deliberately preventing others from completing missions/gaining xp
Finding ways to kill/injure non-PvP players (training high-level mobs onto low levels, etc.)
Using exploits in the game system (things that weren't intended) to kill/injure/harrass players
Deliberately preying on players in PvP who are hopelessly outclassed (spawn camping/sniping newbies, for example)
Broadcasting insults about x player, x hero, lamers, etc.
Generally griefing is pretty obvious -- you step into an area, BLAM! get wasted before you can do anything, and then get a tell about how you are lame and so-and-so is superior because he just worked you because you are lame -- well, that's griefing. It can be a little trickier than this but it's like what Justice Stewart said about pornography -- "...I know it when I see it."
One of the goals as a designer is to create systems to make it hard to do griefing -- without being overly restrictive. It's not easy.
It is important to remember that we, as players, are a community and the game is about community play, even if you do nothing but solo. Just doing what you want at the expense of the enjoyment of other players (not characters, but actual account-holding players) is not in the spirit of the game.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh please say it ain't so... I am gathering from your response that you are considering allowing Villains to communicate with Heroes (and vice versa) in local and area channels. Please note, that many of the types of griefing you mentioned can't be pulled off without negative communication.
Or were you referring to other MMOs....
Camdar
I don't define griefing as merely bad language. It's definitely annoying but it's not at the grief level. Plus /ignore works wonders against the "you teh suck, you [censored]" comment.
I define griefing as uninvited actions by another player that result in my getting XP debt I would not have normally gotten. Debt happens, that's a part of the game. But debt that I didn't ask for and have no defense against -- that's griefing.
Example: training a lvl 40 mob onto a lvl 10 toon.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It can be a little trickier than this but it's like what Justice Stewart said about pornography -- "...I know it when I see it."
[/ QUOTE ]
That's fine advice for the average player, but if you plan on enforcing this, you MUST come up with something official about what is and is not griefing. You can't send people emails that say "you did something not very nice that seemed like griefing to me. Sorry, your account was banned for it."
Especially because in City of Villains, you are supposed to antagonize heroes, it's part of your character. You really need to define a solid line here.
[/ QUOTE ]
The problem with define too solid of a line is that people will look at what is called griefing, do something that isnt covered but is griefing and then claim that it was never defined as such.
In general I agree with Lord Recluse's break down on griefing.
The worry I see here is people saying "Villians are supposed to antagonize the hero."
Yes thats true and coming from an RP background in EQ I've had a lot of fun PvPing with people RPing bad guys.
The issue is that 90% of Dark Elf griefers who cry "RP" aren't they're just being foul mouthed jackasses (To use but one example.)
People on this forum are all leaning on "Roleplay" to say they should be allowed to do things that could be used to "grief". Saying that the bad apples need to be policed some other way.
The problem is guys if you give the bad apples an easy exploit they're going to use it.
Phosphorus
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When a player deliberately (and consistently) makes the game unfun for other players.
Usually this consists of things like:
Harrassment
Deliberately preventing others from completing missions/gaining xp
Finding ways to kill/injure non-PvP players (training high-level mobs onto low levels, etc.)
Using exploits in the game system (things that weren't intended) to kill/injure/harrass players
Deliberately preying on players in PvP who are hopelessly outclassed (spawn camping/sniping newbies, for example)
Broadcasting insults about x player, x hero, lamers, etc.
Generally griefing is pretty obvious -- you step into an area, BLAM! get wasted before you can do anything, and then get a tell about how you are lame and so-and-so is superior because he just worked you because you are lame -- well, that's griefing. It can be a little trickier than this but it's like what Justice Stewart said about pornography -- "...I know it when I see it."
One of the goals as a designer is to create systems to make it hard to do griefing -- without being overly restrictive. It's not easy.
It is important to remember that we, as players, are a community and the game is about community play, even if you do nothing but solo. Just doing what you want at the expense of the enjoyment of other players (not characters, but actual account-holding players) is not in the spirit of the game.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh please say it ain't so... I am gathering from your response that you are considering allowing Villains to communicate with Heroes (and vice versa) in local and area channels. Please note, that many of the types of griefing you mentioned can't be pulled off without negative communication.
Or were you referring to other MMOs....
Camdar
[/ QUOTE ]
You were probably awaiting my dissenting vote here, camdar, didn't want to keep you waiting.
The game NEEDS the banter between opponents to be anything more than a slugfest. I'll /ignore them if I need to.
Also, for dragonhunter's sake, I hilighted the part that counters his opinion. If I re-enter the PvP zone after you maul me, and you're waiting for me, and maul me again, and again... you're breaking the line between constructive gameplay and griefing. Camping "spawn sites" is the same as camping the entrance- it's effectively a spawn into the PvP realm
disagree 100% with your last statement. Camping spawn site = res killing = griefing in my mind (ok, there is a line even with that, in other games, if you ressed someone in the middle of a big battle, they would get killed, it was strategy, not griefing). Camping an entrence is not a spawn site! You are alive by then, have everything you need, and are stepping back into a zone designed for PvP. You are consenting to continuing the fight. If someone res kills you, you are not consenting to a continuing fight, because you have no choice.
In my opinion, it comes back to choice. If you choose to go to PvP, you are choosing the option of putting yourself on the line. This is where I disagree with one of Recluses statements (no offense.... please don't ban me.... ). The statement was thus:
Deliberately preying on players in PvP who are hopelessly outclassed (spawn camping/sniping newbies, for example)
Now, if he was talking about other games (which he might be) I agree with him. But if this is truly going to be a consentual PvP envrioment, I do not see how killing anyone can be considered griefing, as everyone availible in the zone to be killed has clicked the button that lets them into the zone.
1) the server often places you "online" before your PC loads completely, therefore, entrances are NOT places of fair game.
2) Repeatedly dying at the hand of the same person in a non-competetive fight is NOT fun. I'd have no problem if there were multiple entrances- he can't camp them all- I have a way to tactically avoid him, if I choose. With only one entrance, and that barrier to the rest of the PvP world- including friends I plan to meet... that's griefing.
In SWG- shuttleports were the problem. The game implemented a 1-minute "safe time" when you started to load to insure you had the ability to aviod the startport-hunter/griefer. That was fine- until people forgot and built their bases too close to the starport- giving the players the ability to run into the base before their immunuty was up... I recall defenders talking about ways to increase the load times (leave vehicles, pets, and noncombatants) around the shuttleport, just to create enough lag that they could still kill someone as he was loading.
Like I said- there's a fine line between griefing and constructive competetive play. You've got to ask whether this is something that will encourage participation or discourage it.
[ QUOTE ]
Also, for dragonhunter's sake, I hilighted the part that counters his opinion. If I re-enter the PvP zone after you maul me, and you're waiting for me, and maul me again, and again... you're breaking the line between constructive gameplay and griefing. Camping "spawn sites" is the same as camping the entrance- it's effectively a spawn into the PvP realm
[/ QUOTE ]
If youre killed as your loading, thats griefing. If they wait till your ready, even if they kill you over and over i dont consider that griefing. Youre choosing to enter the PvP area so that you can PvP. If youre entering for some other reason, like you have a mission there, and/or theres no other way to get into the zone, thats just poor design.
As for the hopelessly outclassed, i would imagine theres going to be different areas of PvP for different levels just like theres different areas for PvE. If a level 20 goes into a zone designed for level 40+ to PvP thats his own stupid fault.
Well said Lord Recluse, well said.
Most of my concerns about were put to rest with that one simple statement...
if the CoV Lead Designer and staff keep this in mind this promisies to be an intresting aspect of the game.. I hated PvP in UO, Loved it in DAOC, and No longer fear it in CoH.
Having played DAoC, I'm pretty damn convinced that Cryptic will take a similar tack. I'd imagine in PvP areas you'll load / spawn in a safe room / building, and then walk out when you're ready (without having to load, and get killed before you're done loading). The safe areas will likely be completely off-limits to the "other side." So unless for some insane reason, this isn't the case, I wouldn't worry.
I do think "banter" would be a lot of fun in PvP, I mean, it's a comic book game! Personally I'd suggest a new, "banter" channel. Or maybe just use broadcast / local, that way if someone's going too far, well at least they're not jumping all over channels. If they do, *ding* griefing. My $.02.
I also think it'd go a *long* way to have online support (during most or all hours) of at least one person per server monitoring PvP areas, ready to intervene quickly if necessary. I understand this may be economically impossible, but it'd go a long way to making people feel more safe I'd imagine. Hell I'm sure some players would love comp accounts to help do it for free, uhh, or something. I dunno, not me, just sayin'.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, for dragonhunter's sake, I hilighted the part that counters his opinion. If I re-enter the PvP zone after you maul me, and you're waiting for me, and maul me again, and again... you're breaking the line between constructive gameplay and griefing. Camping "spawn sites" is the same as camping the entrance- it's effectively a spawn into the PvP realm
[/ QUOTE ]
If youre killed as your loading, thats griefing. If they wait till your ready, even if they kill you over and over i dont consider that griefing. Youre choosing to enter the PvP area so that you can PvP. If youre entering for some other reason, like you have a mission there, and/or theres no other way to get into the zone, thats just poor design.
As for the hopelessly outclassed, i would imagine theres going to be different areas of PvP for different levels just like theres different areas for PvE. If a level 20 goes into a zone designed for level 40+ to PvP thats his own stupid fault.
[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed- and I wouldn't object to that, except in the models some people are advocating, PvP zones were our ONLY PvP locations. If my friends and I REALLY wanted a private, story-driven sparring match, we'd have to enter and find a secluded part of the server to spar. If someone has the ability to deny me access to the entire PvP area- REPEATEDLY, it interferes with my play. If I'm left without recourse- no game mechanic to aviod the repeat-attacker, it's gonna cross the line to griefing.
I'd prefer entrances- and a small area surrounding the entrance- be off-limits- just enough that if I decide to run, rather than fight, I have a small window of opportunity to do so.
Either that, or multiple entrances, so I can choose an alternate route past that one person.
Re: "Entrance camping" ...
Is there any reason to believe that each side won't have Police Drones waiting at their entrance to vaporize spawn campers? You know, like we have now?
few quick points:
I assumed we were talking about a zone with guarded entrences like hazard zones now, meaning there will be no load killing, sorry for the confusion.
Secondly, I have never advocated a PvP zone ONLY as PvP. I would mearly like to see it as one of the options, having arenas, guild wars, etc, is completely fine with me.
Rheticus
I agree with having lots of options for PvP. More options is always better, assuming they work out the bugs and exploits. Its also less likely to have griefing run rampant then if there was just 1 place or a couple places people could go to do general PvP. SG wars and Duels are good examples of alternate ways to PvP.
I didnt consider having drones guarding the entrances, strategically placed drones would definately limit possibilities for load-killing.
ok, I have read alot of posts on these forums, and the same topic keeps comming up "preventing griefing". Fine, good thought, however, I would really like to know the definition of griefing, because it seems that everyone has a different definition, and many fights ensue because of it. So please give your definition of griefing on this thread so we can see what different people think.
Rheticus