[ QUOTE ]
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
[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks, Rheticus, for the clarification. I was basing my assumptions on recent posts and misread you.
[ QUOTE ]
spawn camping
[/ QUOTE ]
Does this mean killing someone who has just rezzed?
If i defeat someone and they dont take a trip to the hospital and instead Rez on the spot, i am going to send them straight back into the dirt... is that spawn camping?
Spawn camping(aka load killing) refers to killing someone as they spawn into the area, such as at a zone boundry. This is unfair because generally your avatar will load into a zone while the loading screen is still up, leading to a several second delay between when you can first be attacked, and when you can first defend yourself.
Killing someone that rezzed themself is different because they are already loaded into the world. It may seem the same because theres still a delay before disorient wears off(if using a rez insp) but the person in question knows that they will have a delay before they can defend themself and are putting themselves at risk.
Zoning is different because theres no other way to get into a different area other then zoning and you should be guarenteed that you will at least have control of your avatar before you have to defend yourself. Rezzing offers no such guarentee.
Edit: Reading back through several posts i seem to detect a bit of confusion on res killing. I am assuming that the hospital is NOT in the PvP area. If you die, it should not force you to stay in a PvP area, thats just dumb. Also, if you are going to be rezzed by someone else you have to consent to it, there no such thing as a non-consentual rez. The ONLY way to continue the PvP experience after you die is to return to the PvP area, allow someone to rez you, or rez yourself. In all 3 conditions you are consenting to PvP again.
all i know is that i hope they keep it either 2 separate games or the ability no not have to play in PVP if you do not want to.
Look folks, if I can only fight someone a max of one lvl above or below me, I have a fighting chance = no griefing. He may have some better enhancements than me or a few more inspirations, but he will never dominate me. As a side note, take a run though Atlas Park as a lvl 10 or above and you will notice that the lvl 1, 2, and 3 baddies don't even notice you until you attack them. If you go to TI or IP as a low lvl, you better give everthing a wide birth or you'll be taking a dirt nap, but they are bots and are not out hunting for easy heroes to kill. I have no problem pvping someone in any zone as long as I know I can give as good as I get.
"Samual_Tow - Be disappointed all you want, people. You just don't appreciate the miracles that are taking place here."
I just thought of a great idea...
I was contemplating the difficulties of implementing a 'consented random PvP' system(you know that youre going to be PvP but not necessarily who you will be fighting) in a game with seperate factions. There is no equilibrium of higher players protecting lower players from being killed unfairly(this leads to a point where all fights are consented, about even, or are revenged) because no matter what your level your supposed to be killing the other team. RP demands it, that level 10 villain is still a villain, you cant say 'oh il leave him alone cuz hes only level 10'. Well I mean you COULD but i doubt many would.
So how do you maintain the excitement of random PvP encounters without putting every noob at a disadvantage? I call it Rise to the Challenge!
Lets say your level 20 blaster decides to go to the PvP area. Your walking around and some level 30 controller sees you and tries to put a hold on you... In the Rise to the Challenge system, your blaster would get a popup, You are being attacked by a powerful Villain! Do you Flee or Rise to the Challenge? If you choose to flee either it kicks you out of the PvP area, or combat is not initiated, whatever works. If you rise to the challenge, your blaster would have his level artificially raised to that of the attacker, much like a sidekick. The attackers first power would then go through and combat would be initiated. The attacker still gets the first attack but the defender doesnt get cought completely by surprise.
Lets say the attacker is in a group of 3. The popup should tell you that 3 villains higher level then you are attacking. That way you will know whether or not you will be outnumbered and need to get backup. If you invite 2 more people and then accept, it should prompt the attacking group to confirm that they are attacking a group of 3 heroes. If both parties confirm the levels of each member will be raised appropriatly to make an even match. Once a side initaites battle, or confirms the assault, no more members should be able to join.
There are some difficulties with this, id like to get some feedback on it.
Should the feature be available to everyone or just within a certain level range?
Should combat be off by default unless its confirmed or only confirm if youre out of their level range?
Should the confirmation tell you what level is attacking you or just that they are higher then you?
What other problems, questions, or exploits can you forsee with this system?
Hehe .. here's my thought. I think PvP will be hard to implement, for many reasons, and mostly, I have no want to even particpate in it, at all, unwillingly, ever.
PvP has no purpose, really, unless it's just a duel with friends, outside of RP, and even then it's kinda silly, but, meh, I wont get into the whole true RP would be perma death.
Either way, I dont want to be forced to particpate in it, at all. They should have Seperate PvP servers, or something, but I do like the above mentioned idea. That could work, and I do like the rise to the challenge idea. But you should throw in 'Run, Rise, or Stay at current level'.
Plus i'm kinda sour on it, because there are alot of annoying twits that do PvP outside of RP, and think that since their 'the [censored]' and your 'not', that somehow the fact they just beat my [censored] in a fight, really matter's in the grand scheme of life, to me or anyone outside of their own kind.
Peace.
Rise to the Challenge would be cool, but someone once posted the idea of having an automatically set "PvP level" that everyone fights at all the time, which would basically accomplish the same thing. Everyone in the zone is effectively sidekicked to the same level (or exemplared, but without the loss of powers/slots).
Or a more confusing system, just adjust the level of any power to match its target. Everyone keeps their level, and so they can keep fighting NPC's, but a level 10 will never get hit for level 50 magnitude damage. Say a level 30 fires a power at a level 20, but it deals damage as if it the two players were at the same level. A level 20 reacts to all incoming attacks as if they were level 20, etc. Downside is it'd be kinda confusing seeing your strongest attacks doing tiny amounts of damage against a low level player, and I have no idea what other exceptions there might be that would complicate things. What about debuffs, for instance? I dunno.
Either way though, I think it's a nice basis for a system. High level players get more powers, more slots, better enhanements and all, but no inherent advantage for their level differences. So fighting a level 32 Fire Controller as a level 12 would be similar to fighting a level 12 Lead Scorcher with Fire Imps. Yeah, they've got a bit of an advantage, but they're still defeatable.
[ QUOTE ]
You were probably awaiting my dissenting vote here, camdar, didn't want to keep you waiting.
[/ QUOTE ]
Lol, no. I was hoping to bait Lord Recluse into commenting. But he's so dang reclusive!
Camdar
[ 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."
[/ QUOTE ]
And herein lies one issue. In actuality, of course you can. And should. Honest error followed by apology and (if possible) amends is clearly distinguishable from bullying behavior. Motive, demeanour, and behavior determine griefing in games just like in life.
Parsing griefing too tightly under specific rules leads to the (roughly) seven-year old mentality that "You told me not to put the puppy in the washer, but you didn't say not to put it in the dryer."
Problem is, the warning-suspension-ban process by a staff of GMs in a hundred player MUD isn't feasible in a 200,000 player MMOG. Policing is stretched too thin. But judging people by their actions and their demeanour when challenged about those actions will, when it can be brought to bear, distinguish the griefer from the hardcore player quite clearly.
My scrapper doesn't need an AoE. She IS an AoE.
My definition of griefing pretty much matches that of Lord Recluse.
(Gah, conspiring with a villain! Will my hands ever be free of the stain!?) 
-=-
On a related note, another term that needs definition is "consensual".
A PvP zone that had non-PvP mission doors in it, for example, would not be consensual to me unless that was **clearly** pointed out ( BOLD RED CAPITAL LETTERS , for example) prior to mission acceptance, and utterly outside any mission arc. (That would be what I would refer to as "herding the lambs to the wolves", not "consensual".)
Badge/plaque locations in a PvP zone would be somewhat more acceptable, on the other hand, although they would represent a potential PvP camping spot, as well...
To be "consensual" in my opinion, it needs to be entirely possible to play the entire non-PvP aspects of the game, existing and future, without the slightest PvP interaction. Otherwise, you've made PvP participation a gateway mechanism, and the term "consensual" no longer applies.
Griefing is basically any form of computer related sociopathic behavior.
ie. abuse, harassment, persistant and deliberate annoyance, entrapment, destroying or stealing assets (items/characters)
LordRecluse really put it in succinct well defined terms.
Then you get the people who try to RP it, (like that somehow makes it ok) now that is Griefing to a power of 10.
[ QUOTE ]
PvP has no purpose, really, unless it's just a duel with friends, outside of RP, and even then it's kinda silly, but, meh, I wont get into the whole true RP would be perma death.
Either way, I dont want to be forced to particpate in it, at all. They should have Seperate PvP servers, or something, but I do like the above mentioned idea. That could work, and I do like the rise to the challenge idea. But you should throw in 'Run, Rise, or Stay at current level'.
Plus i'm kinda sour on it, because there are alot of annoying twits that do PvP outside of RP, and think that since their 'the [censored]' and your 'not', that somehow the fact they just beat my [censored] in a fight, really matter's in the grand scheme of life, to me or anyone outside of their own kind.
[/ QUOTE ]
Statesman told me personally at E3 that there's no way anyone will ever be forced into PvP, he told me face to face, you don't have to worry about it.
And, damnit, there are different types of PvP. You didn't just ambush some guy buying his morning groceries in Dark Age of Camelot, you went into specific zones, got in a group (in a safe area), made a plan, and went out to engage the enemy. It was a hell of a lot of fun (and I'm sure still is). You can't just dismiss all PvP as pointless except for dueling with friends, that's insane.... ;P
I have an interesting story to share on the topic of greifing:
When my Rad/Rad defender was around lvl 25, I was on a team of 4-5 people also in their mid 20s and we recieved a mission in Perez Park. The flyer in the group decided to stop and sell so we had been waiting for several minutes. So we were standing around the mission door waiting for the team to regroup before we entered. We were standing around boomboxing, dancing, playing with emotes and socializing... generally just doing whatever we could to entertain ourselves as we waited.
In an effort to entertain myself and my team, I herded some of the lvl 7-8 Hellions or Skulls(don't really remember) over to my teammates using my Radiation debuffs. They found it quite amusing. I was standing in the middle of 20-30 debuffed mobs using emotes and some of my teammates joined in and we were "surfing" on the mobs heads. Then the final member of the team joined us, so I killed all the mobs with a single AoE, which is pretty amusing and we entered the mission.
After we'd been in the mission for 5-10 minutes I recieved a tell from someone I'd never heard of calling me a jerk-off among other less pleasant things. So I reply asking who he is and why he's messaging me. He responds with more profanity and asks why I decided to come all the way to Perez just to greif the newbies. I tell him I do not and have not ever greifed anyone. He responds that it doesn't matter that I'm lying because he had taken screenshots of my alleged griefing and reported me, telling me that I will soon be banned for this "griefing".
So I ask what exactly he had screenshots of, and I get no reply. I had figured by then that he saw me herding mobs and leading them over to my team. He probably saw my level and figured that lvl 25 would only ever come to Perez with the intention of harrassing lower level characters. I just wonder if he noticed that "griefed lowbies" were also around my level and that were surrounded by mobs not dying or being injured, all the while not making any attempt to run or fight back.
I would have explained all of this to him, but he refused to reply questioning as what sort "griefing" I was guilty of.
Please note that all of the mobs I aggroed were on my screen the entire time and there was no possible way that they injured or killed any players. Had I noticed my mobs starting to aggro a toon that was low enough to be injured by them, I would have killed the mobs long before it happened.
Point being is that this guy saw me herding mobs in a zone that was too low for me to hunt in and made a stupid assumption that I must be greifing. My opinion is that no one has a right to file a greifing petition on behalf of another player and that only the player who was allegedly greifed has a right to file that petition against the greifer. Even if one witnessed death or several due to an alleged greifing, they have no right to file a petition based what they assume to be an unpleasant experience for that player.
I was peeved that he verbally harrassed me. I was peeved that he had the gall to ignore me before before I explained myself. I was assured by my team and other friends who were online that the time that nothing would happen to me, but still there was a nagging feeling that I couldn't shake off. I couldn't get it out of my head becuase I wasn't sure how his screenshots would portray my actions. I wasn't sure how persuasive or misleading his petition might have been. And it was certainly possible that an overzealous GM might see the screens and ban my account.
It was an extremely unpleasant interaction that left me troubled for several hours and reoccurred for several days whenever I thought of it.
If you ask me, I was the one that had been greifed not anyone else.
What's frustrating is that I'm the type of hero that goes out of his way to help lower level heroes. I offer a buff or a heal if it looks like a hero is havinga tough fight. I offer a rez to people that I see dead. Sometimes I'll use my debuffs to help a hero take down a group he wouldn't normally fight. Note: not doing damage so thus not leaching XP or kill stealing.
I wonder if someone will post here saying that I shouldn't have been herding those mobs simply for amusement. I would reply that if I shouldn't be allowed to play with lower level mobs, then I shouldn't get missions in Perez Park at level 25. You can't send people to lower level areas and expect players to tip-toe around being careful not to interact with their environment.
What do you guys think of that experience?
just as a quick point about why the person might have been pissed off. I was in boomtown once with a group, hunting 5th. All of a sudden, we could not find a single group and we were wondering why, eventually we say a level 50 dude jumping around leading off all the mobs. Because of him, we could not gain xp for like 20 minutes cause he just kept gathering all the mobs of around our level to him. Maybe he didn't think you were leading mobs to kill the other people, but mearly leading mobs away from people legitimatly trying to fight them.
Rheticus
[ QUOTE ]
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 ]
Well said. This thread is obvoiusly nothing more than a griefer trying to find out what his future boundaries will be so he can exploit them to the max. I have faith cryptic will create a system to keep good players happy and griefers in line though.
[ QUOTE ]
Well said. This thread is obvoiusly nothing more than a griefer trying to find out what his future boundaries will be so he can exploit them to the max. I have faith cryptic will create a system to keep good players happy and griefers in line though.
[/ QUOTE ]
ah, nothing like bringing out the old name calling, just goes to show you that not all the players to be avoided are PvPers doesn't it?
[ QUOTE ]
just as a quick point about why the person might have been pissed off. I was in boomtown once with a group, hunting 5th. All of a sudden, we could not find a single group and we were wondering why, eventually we say a level 50 dude jumping around leading off all the mobs. Because of him, we could not gain xp for like 20 minutes cause he just kept gathering all the mobs of around our level to him. Maybe he didn't think you were leading mobs to kill the other people, but mearly leading mobs away from people legitimatly trying to fight them.
Rheticus
[/ QUOTE ]
No. This could be true. The door mission was the entrance to one of the larger buildings and I ran behind the building and collect two groups from the narrow alley by the zone barrier. As we stood by the mission door, there were at least 4 groups of mobs standing un aggroed whithin sight range.
Even if that had been the case, I really don't think that would justify a rude tell with name-calling and a petition filed for greifing. I assume, Rheticus, that you did not file a petition against that lvl 50 in Boomtown.
I realize that griefing is a problem for some people, but I feel like people that are quick cry, "GRIEFER!!" isn't far behind.
I relate it something my parents told me:
They own some apartment buildings and when they recieve a series of noise complaints from the same person, they find that it's often the complainer being too sensitive rather than the offender being too loud. Often the complainer complains about several of the adjacent renters while none of the other neighbors complain about the alleged noise makers. When a person genuinely is being too noisey, they often recieve several complaints about the same tenent.
The way I see it, if you're very sensitive to noise move into a house. You can't live in an apartment and expect absolute silence. By the same token, if you're very sensitive to being "griefed", play an offline game.
I think greifing is better defined by the griefer's intention and not the griefee's reaction.
ok, I obviously wasn't there . But I do agree with you, people in games I think in general are becoming very sensitive to "griefing"
random bump
[ QUOTE ]
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
[/ QUOTE ]
To interfere in my enjoyment of the game for no other reason than to be interfering. 
================================================== ===
AE Story Arc #536752: Torn Asunder
An army from far, far away has been driven from their homeland and landed on Earth. They desperately need a new home and they're liking the look of ours.
================================================== ===
I've not read the whole thread but I will state what could be griefing in my experience of CoV:
A player is in a PvP zone, ENGAGED outdoor against NPC's.
Attacking him at this moment would be griefing imho.
Attacking him stealthed would be griefing AND cowardice.
I don't care if the zone is so called free for all.
Now, if the player is in a PvP zone and not engaged, I have no problem if he is attacked.
2 examples:
I was fighting a shivan lieut in bloody bay, and this stalker (three fingers was his name) constantly came to me stealthed to assassin strike me and run away, I consider it griefing.
Still in bloody bay, I was stupid enough to stop and watch some henchmen dancing on a roof, another stalker attacked me...no problem, I should have been more careful.
[ QUOTE ]
A player is in a PvP zone, ENGAGED outdoor against NPC's.
Attacking him at this moment would be griefing imho.
[/ QUOTE ]
Youre wrong.
If you are in an open PvP zone, and get attacked, it is NEVER griefing.
[ QUOTE ]
A player is in a PvP zone, ENGAGED outdoor against NPC's.Attacking him at this moment would be griefing imho.
Attacking him stealthed would be griefing AND cowardice.
[/ QUOTE ]
Eh, I don't care for PvP at all really. I have played games in which it was not a choice though. If you enter into an area that is labeled as Free For All. As in "You" can attack someone else at anytime given any situation. Those are the rules you are accepting upon entering that zone.
Being struck from behind with an Assassins strike, is neither griefing or cowardice. If I play a class called a Stalker, and my class plays out the best when I prey on the weak. It would prove advantageous for me to strike you when you are exhausted, or otherwise engaged. That's not anything other than smart tactics.
Show your enemy no-quarter.
[ QUOTE ]
I don't care if the zone is so called free for all.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's your personal choice then. They entered the zone to PvP, in a Free For All area. I doubt many will give you time to prepare for their "ambush".
[ QUOTE ]
Now, if the player is in a PvP zone and not engaged, I have no problem if he is attacked.
2 examples:
I was fighting a shivan lieut in bloody bay, and this stalker (three fingers was his name) constantly came to me stealthed to assassin strike me and run away, I consider it griefing.
Still in bloody bay, I was stupid enough to stop and watch some henchmen dancing on a roof, another stalker attacked me...no problem, I should have been more careful.
[/ QUOTE ]
I guess I just don't understand. How it is griefing to do what my class is best at? If I am best at taking advantage of your disadvantages, how is it cowardly to attack you when you are engaged? If you are my enemy, I will show you no mercy. I will do whatever I have to do to over-come you.
Also, if this has to do with debt caused by mobs. Statesman himself posted that is not griefing, as there is an answer to it, in a PvP zone. In PvE training mobs is griefing.
Then again, I don't PvP much, so take that for what you will. 
I have a pretty simple definition of griefing. Let's see what you guys think. Griefing is-
1) Unpleasant
2) Unstoppable
3) Undesigned
So if some villain accosts a hero and sets up a friendly (or unfriendly) rivalry it's perfectly okay to the degree that both of them enjoy the relationship on some level. When one player feels picked on, asks the other to stop but the other refuses, then it is not only harassment but griefing as well.
On a slightly more subtle level, think includes level 50 people ganking level 10's. There's nothing a 10 can do to stop a 50, and the 50 can do it before the 10 has any chance to protest or get away. So that gets to be griefing too, unless for some reason the 10 consents to it ahead of time somehow.
One way would be for the lowbie to step into the Gank National Arena (per rule 3). Likewise, according to rule 3, the Devs are not griefing you by forcing you to have debt every time you're sent to the hospital.
This allows for a variety of different villain-hero relationships depending on the boundaries of the players involved, and also sets a clear rule of when to stop - when the player (opposed to the character) asks you to. Hopefully the Devs will put in place a few more concrete barriers as well, from toggles to turn on and off 'enemy mode' to definite 'safe' and 'danger' areas.
___
I'm Doctor Why and I approved this message.