Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!

Dev Discussion #39 - Griefing



  • AeriusAerius Member
    edited January 14
    I am making this comment prior to reading any other comment on these forums, Reddit, or Discord, in order to minimize their influence on my brief thoughts.

    I very much enjoy the thought of the current system in theory. I would like PvP to be a present risk and opportunity throughout the world, save for some few sanctuary locations and protected pockets available at key locations; perhaps city temples, one's own freehold outside of war-time, a noob-spawn location, etc.

    I would consider "griefing" to be repeatedly killing a player or otherwise continuously or significantly hindering their progress and presence. I do not suggest that griefing should be eliminated, and I do not consider standard sporadic PvP to be griefing. The current system of punishment for the non-consensual slaying of non-combatant players appears, on paper, to be sufficient. If a player is personally motivated, to such an intense degree, to kill another player that they willingly accept incurring increasing penalties while putting themselves at risk and placing a target on their back, this should be reasonably permitted.

    Players should not be able to simply tick a toggle to entirely evade all PvP content and risk. They should be able to seek aid from others, rely on a bounty system, relocate, and make an effort to avoid hostile oafs when a situation presents itself. Let the world live. Sharding/phasing is not a tolerable solution as is evidenced by games such as WoW.

    Where would I draw the line? I would not appreciate if there were a quick or easy way to remove corruption from oneself or a friend, effectually permitting beast-brained savages to run rampant, annihilating lowbies or travelling in unopposed hordes to commit regional genocide on a regular basis. This should not be an efficient method for such aggressors to farm anything, and it should result in undesirable corruption consequences.

    In contrast to the above, I would advocate for shorter-term negative impacts for a measly murder or two of one's unsavoury adversaries when spotted in the field. As I understand it, this is how the current concept is designed.

    •On a related note, non-combatants should be able to accidentally strike their attacker a few times or inflict a small portion of overall damage to the attacker's health before their state converts to combatant. Having a combatant run into your AoE directed at some rodent shouldn't change this.
    •There is also a possible issue of combatants getting themselves to very low health, jumping into your attack, converting your status to combatant, and giving their buds the green light to murder you without risk.
    •More than exact enemy player health uncertainty, there should be a system guard in place to prevent aggressors from reducing you to very low health and having a mob finish you off, keeping the aggressor clear of corruption.
  • maouwmaouw Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    For me, griefing only exists where the victim is powerless to retaliate.
    As long as the community has access to tools to exact justice, I think it's best to allow communities to establish their own standards.
    This allows the community the freedom to establish a spectrum of standards - maybe these standards could be governed by each node?

    Of course, give GM's the ability to step in to pause/suspend any big situation that gets out of hand (i.e. if players start exploiting loopholes, etc.) for situations where the in-game systems cannot handle (yet).

    I struggle the most on this topic when it comes to Trash Talking - for some people, it's fun to try to get under other people's skin and undermine their mental state (try to make people crack). For others this is a really negative behaviour that doesn't contribute to their play at all. There is no rule you can enforce that will please both parties - this is why I suggest giving tools for subcommunities to establish their own standards.
    I wish I were deep and tragic
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    CROW3 wrote: »
    My answer depends on the context of the game. In AoC, the vast majority of the game environment is pvx. I think there's a contract formed when you create a character that this is the world you're asserting yourself into, and thus take on the knowledge that you are fair game.

    So, in that context 'griefing' seems like the repeated killing of 'innocents' (greens) where they are not posing a threat to your objectives. Killing other gatherers in an area with necessary material for your crafting / guild objectives is totally understandable.
    That's not really the way social contracts work.
    I'd give a couple very easy irl examples, but the mods always get mad when I do that.
  • CROW3CROW3 Member
    Dygz wrote: »
    CROW3 wrote: »
    My answer depends on the context of the game. In AoC, the vast majority of the game environment is pvx. I think there's a contract formed when you create a character that this is the world you're asserting yourself into, and thus take on the knowledge that you are fair game.

    So, in that context 'griefing' seems like the repeated killing of 'innocents' (greens) where they are not posing a threat to your objectives. Killing other gatherers in an area with necessary material for your crafting / guild objectives is totally understandable.
    That's not really the way social contracts work.
    I'd give a couple very easy irl examples, but the mods always get mad when I do that.

    Pm me we can discuss.

  • on an mmo, the most painful is the leveling stage, I would like to not have this chore, start the game directly at the maximum level.
    I hate being low level, and only enjoy the game at max level.
    if on top of that i'm prevented by pvp players i get angry and leave the game.
    I would love the idea of a tag or some other form of protection, which would allow me to level my character quietly.
    Novus ordo seclorum
  • NerrorNerror Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    edited January 14
    Body-blocking doors and NPCs in a regular non-combatant setting I consider griefing actually. I suppose there could be some fringe cases where it serves a gameplay purpose. I think the game will be better if you allow people to pass through each other in building areas in nodes. Basically remove collision detection when within the footprint of a building and the player is non-combatant. It's just way to easy for people who like to grief to just stand there and play innocent while griefing for the luls.
    Dygz wrote: »
    CROW3 wrote: »
    My answer depends on the context of the game. In AoC, the vast majority of the game environment is pvx. I think there's a contract formed when you create a character that this is the world you're asserting yourself into, and thus take on the knowledge that you are fair game.

    So, in that context 'griefing' seems like the repeated killing of 'innocents' (greens) where they are not posing a threat to your objectives. Killing other gatherers in an area with necessary material for your crafting / guild objectives is totally understandable.
    That's not really the way social contracts work.
    I'd give a couple very easy irl examples, but the mods always get mad when I do that.

    If one of your examples is about sex, then it's not comparable at all :wink:

    I am with @CROW3 on this one. There is always an option to play another game where the intended gameplay doesn't include being ganked at random.
  • KovrmKovrm Member
    Superplus wrote: »
    on an mmo, the most painful is the leveling stage, I would like to not have this chore, start the game directly at the maximum level.
    I hate being low level, and only enjoy the game at max level.
    if on top of that i'm prevented by pvp players i get angry and leave the game.
    I would love the idea of a tag or some other form of protection, which would allow me to level my character quietly.

    Can't tell if joking or serious... I hope it's a joke.
  • Griefing = Anyone using Stuffertons or that fricking Corgi.
  • NerrorNerror Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    daveywavey wrote: »
    Griefing = Anyone using Stuffertons or that fricking Corgi.

    The corgi is fine! Fite me.
  • Nerror wrote: »
    daveywavey wrote: »
    Griefing = Anyone using Stuffertons or that fricking Corgi.

    The corgi is fine! Fite me.


    And, it's called "That Fricking Corgi".
  • In my opinion, ashes is going to have a hard time defining grieving as it threats on the wery thin line wich is open world combat. In this setting, active agression against other players is a natural cause of circumstances and it would be unfair to punish people for doing what the game indirectly suggest you to do.

    That said. I consider greaving when the behavior of one person ruins the experience of on or more players over an extended duration of time.

    In my experience the worst offenders of this are spawncampers and high lvl. players tormenting low lvl. players. I don't believ I need to further elaborate the bain of existance which are spawncampers XD. What makes high lvl. players so annoying is that they feel, and most of the time are, impossible to deal with on your own. This is usually to an extend where I, and many other players abandone a area of the game for good, since we have no desire to face a "hardcor pvp player" during our casual playthroug of the game. This notion is further enhanced, since we are all smart human beings and know that the other person has so much more experienc fighting players that even once we reach a simmilar in game power lvl. we wont even try to face them.

    Some of the most common responses I've seen from greavers acussed of their behavior is either: "get good noob" or "well its a multiplayer game, its part of the game". So here are a few Ideas to takel these two issues:

    1. Make different worlds with different descripions
    Birds of a feather flock together, so said, make like three different worlds, and make clear that one is for hardcore pvp, one for peacfull colaberation and one somwhere in between. This seperation would alow you to finetune the curuption system for the different player bases in accord to what they wish for most. And after a few months, a year at most, you will see where the majority of your players stand.

    Since suggestion 1 is probably way to expensive and time consuming from a dev. perspective.

    2. Make lvl. ranges a thing.Killing people outside of your lvl. range should be treated special. If you kill a higher lvl. person, make it rewarding to the point where you feel properly windicated to beating your newest nemessis, and appropriat for the great feat you just achieved. On the other side of this coin, killing some one in a lower lvl. range should bring next to no benefits and only pile up the negative consequences. This should prevent the tormant of new, or casual players until they know how to defend themselves.
    (actually quit simmilar to killing low lvl mobs and high lvl ones, now that I've stoped to read my stuff XD)

    3. Ease the process of getting help. As the greavers declaired, its an multiplayer game, Implemeant featrures that make it easy, to get ingame help from other players. maby if you died to the same player while you are in a non pvp mode, you get the abillity to post a help request on a local scale which is treated much like a NPC quest with a timelimit. In order for this system to work, the UI must be easy to acces and the feature prominently shown and explained to every one.

    Congrats you read through a post wich way to long (^^)/
  • NishUKNishUK Member
    edited January 14
    I really feel this topic is unnecessary.

    All this results in, is people saying of how they or others have been the victim of a games flaws in design but only from their word of mouth (ie players could be disliked or "in the way" of others for whatever reason and attacked as a result, which is all fine and dandy in the games rulesets).

    I'm not one for denying villanous or uncharacteristic actions, if a person wants to play like that or is infact like that personally I have no problem with them and they shouldn't be punished.

    Just create a good "growing up" phase for the player where they also naturally learn about how the game functions that is free of PvP and then afterwards it's all game, the corruption system will work just like it did in Lineage 2 and that is that!

    P.S. - not all player playthrough's are equal, if I bump into player conflicts on my playthrough I ask for help, join a guild, look for other avenues, resolve the issue, that is how an MMO should function and I'm not up for any silly FF14 like quest and solo playthrough!
  • reading though all the great comments it really comes down to what will your harvesters will do if there grieved. As a gatherer I can say its very simple I wont log in. Other MMO's use a PVP active model. I know this isn't really what Ashes is going for and the idea of having you become more corrupted and losing durability.. will likely not stop griefers. So what is the answer, this is a MMORPG that we are all looking forward to I would suggest you set up environments that the entire player base will enjoy playing. How about skill trees that include "Peace of Mind" talent (player is no longer PVP active while Peace of mind talent is in use) you make a talent tree so that in order to get this, the player has really committed to becoming a harvester /crafter for the game
  • MerekMerek Member
    Most of this thread is coming from people that want to enjoy the game... as a single-player experience. Sorry, this is an MMO. Unfairness is part of any open-world game, as long as it isn't an exploit or directly in violation of the ToS, it shouldn't be an issue. If someone decides to target a player and proactively hunt and kill them, that may be considered "griefing", but if it's all being done within the games toolset, so be it. If a player were to punished via external means for doing this, that's where I'd draw the line. Don't call a game open-world if you intend to put players on rails. (This doesn't include corruption, I'm talking about external moderation.)

    Now, you can ask a thousand players their definition of "griefing" and it will range from minor things, such as being PK'd while leveling ( :'( ) all the way to exploiting a bug, etc. You shouldn't have used that term in the OP. Before I get told, "That's what they wanted!", that's possible, but look at the replies, people are complaining about core mechanics calling it "griefing", ridiculous.
  • NerrorNerror Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Merek wrote: »
    Now, you can ask a thousand players their definition of "griefing" and it will range from minor things, such as being PK'd while leveling ( :'( ) all the way to exploiting a bug, etc. You shouldn't have used that term in the OP. Before I get told, "That's what they wanted!", that's possible, but look at the replies, people are complaining about core mechanics calling it "griefing", ridiculous.

    I think it's smart of them to use that word, because they are the ones having to deal with thousands of player reports about griefing, and getting a good idea in advance what their playerbase thinks is only a good thing. That way they can better mitigate and prevent a lot of the reports and feelings of outrage. At least in theory. It requires them to actively inform the playerbase of their design choices and what is or isn't griefing in their game, in language the players understand and use themselves.
  • TechieManTechieMan Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    One of the greatest experiences I had in a PvP environment greatly encapsulates what I believe makes the aspect of PvP fun in a game.

    Myself and 4 other teammates went into an enemy city looking for nothing more than a fun fight! The best parts about this here is that we had to dodge the insanely high and strong city guards (took us about 2 hours to get into the middle of the city) and then once we were there we couldn't actually attack anything but those guards until someone attacked us. The first thing that made this feasible for us was that we were amongst the greatest clan on the server and my wards and heals were unmatched (game was EQ2 and I was a defiler {Nykkon if anyone knows :no_mouth:}). Once the alarms were sounded by random adventurer's regarding our encroachment on their city some worthy clans began forming raids to come and try and wipe up; once we had 40ish people coming after us we had some reinforcements called in because it was for nothing but fun and we were having a blast!

    My group and I found an optimal spot that made it so we could not be hit from behind by assassins (nearly instant kill) and they couldn't tab target between all of us (you had to have definitive vision to tab to the next target) as we all stacked on each other. We fought for ~4hours before calling it a day and everyone had a blast and the opposing team was SUPER excited to not only banish us from their city with ~100 vs 20 people but we also spoke of this great battle for a number of years to come!

    This was my most favorite experience in the realm of PvP (which I usually despised as a healer/warder) and would gladly do something like this again!
  • SweatycupSweatycup Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    edited January 14
    When player versus player becomes player vs defenseless person. It might seem like griefing at first if said pvp'er stumbles upon a player gathering something. However not so if said player is part of a pvp guild, no matter level or inadequacy to fight back by himself. If said non pvper doesnt come back with a pvp party, well its prolly griefing. Its really up to the community to stand up for each other, specifically guilds. It'd be like bandits roaming around your lands just picking off the unfortunates in Ashes with nodes. It's hard to directly define griefing because all games work out a little differently, whether forced mechanics or socially and communally. In Asherons Call on Darkside server we had two main guilds. Blood if i remember right and Chaos. So basically the pure cold blooded murders would end up joining Blood and the people who believed they attack first then you can fully self-defend were part of chaos. It did real well to help the average player decipher who was going to gank you endlessly vs who was somewhat respectable in pvp. This was socially and communally setup. It does good to be able to see the player was blood if your not looking for a fight to steer clear of them.
  • Griefing in my eyes is any action a player takes to intentionally ruin another player's experience that is not motivated by an existing game mechanic. In my eyes, a lot of griefing takes place around PvP/economics. There are a lot of situations where proper PvP is completely fine: PvP for a quest objective, mob drop/farming location, caravan/trade-related, etc. The main issues I've personally seen with griefing is when game mechanics encourage players to kill other players in towns/cities, corpse camp a player until they log off, intentionally harass, and form large groups to focus single players to ruin their gaming experience. A perfect example of how to not frame your game in regards to PvP is classic World of Warcraft. Having played that game for the entirety until TBC its one of the worst systems I've seen. It encourages players to grief by camping players, grief towns, camp quest objectives, form large groups to make that griefing easier.

    While that is just bad game design that's another discussion, but my point in mentioning that is I think ashes should be mindful of what game mechanics and systems will encourage what type of interactions players will have. Especially with today's MMO culture people will find any way to min-max any mechanic or system which could encourage griefing type behavior. I think Ashes is on a good track with the mechanics and systems they have covered so far.

    Since most griefing is around PvP I personally would like to see a PvP flagging system where it gives players an opt-in/opt-out option for PvP, but also restricts the systems they can interact with while not flagged for PvP. That way it gives players the consent for PvP, but doesn't mess with any other mechanics. You could even have a system where the PvP flagging is based on location rather than character preference, making PvP zones have higher value resources/mobs, but also letting players know if you want to try and get these high-value resources or enter certain locations then you are opting into PvP.

    Looking at griefing from an economics point of view, my concern is that large groups/guilds will use their mass player's size and influence to intentionally gouge markets and exploit systems to get ahead in the market. This could be anything from gold buying, item duplication, purposefully inflating prices on items to make them either inaccessible or way too expensive for the average player. I am still undecided when thinking about economic topics as I feel it would hurt the game to cap items at specific values or have staff influence/control the markets, but i've also seen large guilds grief markets by inflating prices of necessary items then controlling the mobs that drop them and causing price increases of 200-300% to the point where most players couldn't afford it.
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Griefing to me is any situation in which the negative effect caused to player A cannot be reciprocated to player B, and player B is allowed to continually create this negative effect. Obviously this hinges on the definition of 'cannot' and that's up to the designer.

    A pair of players who kills me and takes my gathered items, when I had no chance of defeating them, and gives the items to the one that didn't get the last hit and therefore the corruption, has performed what I consider to be a very light form of 'griefing', in that I have been caused grief, but if the game sanctions it, then it's fine. It's not necessarily fun, but it's fine.

    A player who gets online, ganks a bunch of lowbies for laughs, and logs off before the bounty hunters can be summoned to the area, forcing those Bounty hunters to sit around and wait 'just in case that player logs back in and someone sees them in time', is griefing. They'll be punished later probably, but the lowbies not only can't punish them, they also can't 'enact their punishment' necessarily. To me, this is less fine and I object to it being sanctioned, but I understand that there are fewer solutions.

    A player who, because they are the head of a big guild with good PvPers, can do whatever they want in terms of killing or harassing others, and explicitly does so to provoke others into attempting to attack them, to be cut down, is griefing. Again, the game almost explicitly sanctions this, it's supposed to 'drive conflict'. It might, assuming that the usual snowball effect doesn't happen.

    A player stealing information through any means and using it to cause other players to fail at an activity in the game because of time restrictions on their play is a form of griefing that I consider absolutely unavoidable in MMOs and something we all just have to live with, but depending on exactly how that information was stolen, I feel like there should be a concept of a penalty applied by GM staff that comes up explicitly because of the combination of the two things, if you could even manage to prove it.

    A player group 'deciding that a single person is Kill On Sight and just hunting them' in a game where reputation and server actually matter is griefing, and it's the type I'm most likely to directly engage in personally, along with some members of my group. We won't necessarily 'hound you' but sometimes we'll go out of our way to find and kill you if you're not doing anything else just because you're annoying or we have a grudge in some way. This is griefing that I don't want to be allowed to do, by the game. I want something to prevent this, particular when we decide to just have a specific player who is completely ok with being Corrupt or dropping gear always be the last hitter when we go a-murderin'. We play enough teamwork games that I don't expect us to 'miss' this requirement more than 20% of the time. And then we'll just wait for the 'party of bounty hunters' to show up, because if the game's balanced it should require a party to stop us from just protecting our one 'mistakenly Corrupt' player.

    My friends and I actually are in that section of a playerbase that 'will PvP you, will hunt you, will take out frustration on you', and the only thing that prevents us from being griefers is that whole 'realizing that you're literally killing the game'. We don't 'get bored of killing some annoying person on sight'. We don't 'stop because some bigger force shows up and punishes us for doing it'. We don't care what level you are if you run your mouth to the wrong person in the wrong way, and we don't care if the fight is 6v1 because 'fair fights' are for fun, and ganking is for 'not having to see someone's stupid face for more time than it takes to break it'.

    Griefing is what you get when I no longer care how your game experience improves through interactions with me, and your effort to bring them to even or do anything about that, massively outweighs mine. Everyone's breaking point is different, so people won't agree on what griefing is, but in the technical sense, if you offer 'Well why don't you just go gather up a party of 5 friends with X amount of game skill to take on Azherae's gang and make sure you never log in without those people nearby, or get out of town because that gang doesn't want you around here' as a solution to someone who we kill on sight every time, I think you're 'condoning griefing', and I don't think it's right that just because I dislike someone enough to get my group together and kill them every time I see them, that their game experience should depend on 'having to watch their step every moment'. This game isn't for everyone, but there are definitely people out there worse than us, and I'm pretty sure we're griefers by my own definitions, I just haven't often encountered a game that didn't say 'No that's perfectly acceptable'.

    tl;dr I think games that have too loose a stance on griefing and also too lax mechanics to protect people from others ruining their playtime are not good games, and I think -I- should be reined in, far less 'the psychos out there worse than me'.
    Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
  • skafftarussskafftaruss Member, Phoenix Initiative, Hero of the People, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    This can be reduced IF the Bounty Hunter system is properly fleshed out and implemented. It's better to reduce the load put on in-game DMs by using players to police themselves. Let's keep in game moderators out of the game as much as possible Intrepid. Hey @Karthos - nice to see you have an opinion. Be safe. ;)
  • NishUKNishUK Member
    edited January 14
    What do you consider acceptable behavior in an MMO or PvP-based situation, and where do you draw the line at “griefing”?

    Some posters : This gives me license to write the book "Griefing : A Victims Tale".

    (sorry! but 500 words or less come on :| )
  • George_BlackGeorge_Black Member, Intrepid Pack
    Excessive foul language is the only griefing. The rest is part of a video game.

    It's a massive multiplayer. If someone attacks you, make friends and fight back. The tools are there.

    Handing out punishments for anything beyond foul language and cheating is wrong.
  • ParkoParko Member
    Vaknar wrote: »

    Glorious Ashes community - it's time for another Dev Discussion! Dev Discussion topics are kind of like a "reverse Q&A" - rather than you asking us questions about Ashes of Creation, we want to ask YOU what your thoughts are.

    Our design team has compiled a list of burning questions we'd love to get your feedback on regarding gameplay, your past MMO experiences, and more. Join in on the Dev Discussion and share what makes gaming special to you!

    Dev Discussion - Griefing
    What do you consider acceptable behavior in an MMO or PvP-based situation, and where do you draw the line at “griefing”?

    Keep an eye out for our next Dev Discussion topic regarding RNG!

    I only draw the line at someone at significant advantage in their personal capabilities, what I mean by that is mostly a person at significant level advantage say a level 50 corpse camping a level 10.
    I'd only ever call it griefing when the other person has literally 0 chance of living in a situation where they should have a chance to live for example I wouldn't consider getting rushed by 40 people griefing because you know you have no chance. I wouldn't consider getting corpse camped by a dude at or near your level griefing because if you play it right you have a chance to survive are these things frustrating to the victim, of course but they aren't nescessarily bad enough to be called griefing.
    You've got to remember that in mmo's Bad
    People make the world feel alive just as much as the good people. And if there were no players that annoyed everyone, who would we have to be mad at?

  • arfarf Member
    A moderate amount of griefing should be OK, can't please everyone and risk/consequence plays a vital role in making a game feel rewarding. Sometimes "griefing" is for a purpose even if doesn't appear that way to the person being griefed... to get a defense force rallied for more world pvp, to encourage bounties, to avenge a friend or rustle a hostile clan, to secure resources, farming or trade route, to take out a bot, etc. There should definitely be a sort of diminishing return on killing the same persons repeatedly if they aren't defending themselves. Perhaps at a certain point, a griefer overdoing it could be fully lootable and/or marked hostile to all NPCs for a time.
  • If a player has been killed, has re-spawned, then continues to try to leave the area without any aggressive behavior but cannot because of being continuously targeted, I consider that griefing. Being killed once is fine, you take risks exploring the world in a game with PvP. But when a player continuously tries to leave without aggression, it can be quite frustrating. The issue is when players have something to gain (i.e. loot) from killing you over and over which makes it a valid thing to do and not inherently toxic/griefing. So personally, I think having strong diminishing returns on killing a player would be a good way to prevent repeat kills (aka camping) for legit reasons. If there are no real rewarding or viable reasons to repeatedly kill someone, the players have a more enjoyable experience and griefing behavior can be more easily identified and punished.
  • JustVineJustVine Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    edited January 15
    Griefing to me is any situation in which the negative effect caused to player A cannot be reciprocated to player B, and player B is allowed to continually create this negative effect. Obviously this hinges on the definition of 'cannot' and that's up to the designer.

    You can't design a solution for every problem, but some situations can 'be better'. As a gathering focused individual who likes consensual PvP, I currently consider Karma Bombing griefing in the current design of corruption. I am in the category of people who Karma Bomb.

    The reason I am a Karma Bomber, is because when someone pks me and causes me to lose progress, I want to make a positive game play experience out of it for myself. This usually means I want to either 'mitigate my losses' or 'gained enough loot that it's equal to the time lost doing my usual activity (gathering/hunting mobs.)

    Currently, if I get jumped, end up at disadvantage, and then choose not to fight back, I lose a death's worth of resources. I have earned nothing from not fighting you. However if I fought you in the disadvantaged state, I lose less than a death's worth of resources. So to 'recoup' the time I lost from doing the things I find fun, it's best for me to stay green and then repeat the proccess until you have enough corruption that I have a significant advantage against you in PvP. Corruptions's combat penalty is good. This let's me both regan all my stuff, and some of your belongings as profit. If you removed Karma Bombing, you would remove this strategy from being possible and I would no longer have recourse for you wasting my time and resources with your harassment.

    The above loop is bad design in my opinion, but it DOES allow me to make profit and fun out of a situation that would otherwise not be. Still I would like for this to NOT be how this goes. If there was no difference in the death penalty between greens and reds in this situation, I might feel less inclined to bomb you, because there is no longer an incentive difference in me fighting you vs not. I would be more likely to just shrug off the loss and let the fact that you are purple mean that if I see you next time, we might be on a more even footing.

    Thank you for your time.
  • vixirixvixirix Member
    edited January 15
    Griefing is when you're repeatedly killed, either in an unfair manner, or by camping/sitting on player corpse; or by blocking certain doorways when body collision is enabled; (kiting large world bosses to cities is acceptable as this adds a gameplay element of a special world event)

    Having limitations on PVP has historically made games feel limiting, boring and like there are no consequences to actions. Games where item drops occur on death are far more thrilling.
    Neutering PVP elements in the game makes the game more of a singleplayer experience and absolutely should not be done. WoW classic was so much more popular than retail WoW because of the non-neutered PvP elements and PvP focus. Runescape is still one of the most popular mmos 20 years to this date because its a game with consequences such as item loss on death and choices, making every interaction have more meaning and more risk/implications rather than a meaningless game with no consequences.

    On the note of the demise of WoW - Automated looking for group systems destroy the multiplayer element in games, and the need to socially engage to look for groups should be a requirement for a multiplayer game as thats what makes multiplayer games stand out to singleplayer games, the social experience. Automating groups with group finders remove all social elements from games and should be avoided, as this is what partially caused the downfall of WoW into a singleplayer-esque game where no social components are noticeable, nor required to play the game in its current modern state and form.

    A good way to combat griefing, without limiting in game freedoms and gameplay elements, would be to do as follows:

    1. Repeated player killing causes you to be kicked out of faction, where guards in towns become aggressive and obtaining NPC services becomes far harder as punishment, after being tried in Court and found guilty and serving multiple hundred hour sentences in real-time like in ArcheAge.

    2. Only allow players to attack each other within 5 levels of each other, unless the player has a PKing debuff, then they can be attacked by all higher level player pvpers and player bounty hunters. This makes it so "twink guilds" or "twink" characters can't become unkillable.

    3. Hide player levels from each other when PVP flag is on, but only allowing players with PVP flag on to engage each other if they are + or - 5 levels between each other, this way every PVP scenario becomes more risky in terms of consequences they might entail and PVPers may think twice before engaging in fights.

    4. Have a player bounty hunting system. People who PVP and engage someone who has no PK/PVP debuff can appear on the map of bounty hunters who activate a bounty hunting skill such as "Detect wanted criminals/Tracking" and then PVP flagged players with a PKing debuff obtained by attacking other players will show up on the map/minimap of bounty hunters.

    5. People who have been griefed can pay a sum of gold to a bounty hunting auctioneer who will make a reverse auction in an auction house, allowing gold to be claimed in exchange for the named players ear whom a bounty hunter listing has been made and paid for by the griefed player to a bounty hunting auctioneer NPC.

    6. Players drop "nose/dogtags of playername" on death by script generating dogtags or the players nose/ear if they have a PKing debuff, which can then be redeemed/exchanged for gold from bounty hunting auctioneer if a bounty hunting auctioneer listing is made for that PKers ears/nose/dogtags (A listing may be automatically generated by the State/NPC auctioneer upon killing 5-20 player characters within 1 hour of playtime with a gold reward tag scaling to the PKers level)

    7. Only enable item loss on death of player gear (not just menial items/trash loot) in specific PVP areas. (such as a Wilderness like in in Runescape), and first starting zones and towns are strictly pvp-disabled "safety zones"

    8. Only enable player fighting between players who have PVP mode enabled, allowing people who do not want to pvp to have that option. (This would not be an option in forced PVP flag specific areas which have item drop on death enabled such as a wilderness)

    These are the best ways to limit griefing in my opinion whilst also not limiting gameplay elements or stunting player freedoms.

    On a side note, could you please pass this special request on to Stephen and whoever works on Camera/UI?
    Please please please allow for a first person camera without body clipping where the player character's body and/or just the arms are visible, simply by allowing the camera to be zoomed in the whole way through the player model to sit in absolute minimum zoom right outside the forehead of the playermodel. I'm not suggesting altering player animations at all to accomodate such a first person mode in any way, so this should be an easy thing to do (even possible with Cheat Engine just by altering camera positioning)
    Having the camera able to be positioned in such a place would allow for VR mods to exist, such as those made with VorpX and other mods, and such mods would be far much more immersive. Such a small feature which is able to be achieved just by altering the minimum camera zoom position by adjustment, would allow for such a rich usecase with VR mods and will enable Ashes of Creation to have far far much more public engagement, better public perception when people realise that Ashes is in fact VR compatible (not natively by design, but with a Leap Motion and VorpX it can be made so if the camera may be placed just outside the player models forehead to avoid body clipping issues to ensure the playermodel body is visible within 1st person, and to give the right perspective of height.)
    (Otherwise without this slight camera adjustment, you risk also segregating all VR users who are willing to use cheat engine to privately hosted servers of the game which is not ideal, and the game would compete with ESO and take more of their userbase if there is an option for first person camera where the body and/or just the arms are visible)

    Thanks for your consideration.
  • OkeydokeOkeydoke Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Griefing is when a player does something that is not intended by the game creator or against the game's rules to irritate, harass or disadvantage another player.

    Examples - purposefully shooting/killing allied players in shooter games. Purposefully attacking allied players in Chivalry. Joining pvp scenarios/battlegrounds in a game like WoW and purposefully sabotaging your team by afking or otherwise "throwing" the match. Exploiting bugs/RMT/game mechanics in ways unintended.

    It should be very hard to grief in Ashes because based on what we know, it will be an ongoing competition over finite resources. War. Everything is fair game at all times. Ashes is going to allow killing in cities/towns. Not griefing. But the killer is sitting in a glitched spot that no one can get to or attack him at. Griefing.

    There will be legitimate reasons why one group of players might want to kill another player on sight, every time, at all costs. Not griefing. But there will be instances where a particular group has gone too far, it's no longer kosher, it's griefing. That'd be a case by case thing that'd have to be rooted out when a player feels he's being targeted for harassment for no legitimate reason.
  • AargothAargoth Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    As several people has mentioned: balance out corruption.
    I have no issues with corruption, but I think it should be very well balanced out as good as possible.
    I feel like 10 PKs is too little to basically get all weakened down i.ex, but thats just me. I'd totally sit with a total of 20PKs and get worn down if that works. I like to trigger fights, but yeah

    World PvP should be World PvP regardless of what (I'm sorry for this) casuals think. There will be players who aren't good at pvp in the game, and there will be players who are good. This cannot be avoided.

    I've done my fair share of world pvp, as some of my fellow WoW veterans here. And the ones who knows, they know what world pvp is and what it stands for.

    Griefing (Take it from one who's done this, willingly, repeatedly, without the consequences of it - I also apologize if I fall into your scumbag category)
    Griefing to me, is continuously killing the same guy. I would use abilities that was triggered by a mob and kill low levels with it (Snake trap for hunters back in the days) in Durotar.
    I would be all over stranglethorn and fight/kill anyone I saw, because I knew they'd log onto their mains and they would then fight and die.
    If there are methods abilities, trinkets, tools, mechanics, whatever that is triggered by the world and does some kind of damage, you know for sure someone will find a way, even if its just for that 1 specific time and moment. It'll happen, not only once but multitudes of times.
    I'd camp dungeon entrances with traps or pop flasks, cds, buffs and just Explosive trap (Wotlk period) into a group of people, watch them get 100 to 0'd, because i would outgear them. (also because this ability then was broken)
    I reckon most of this falls under the category of griefing and is it avoidable? No, I dont think so. Even if I quit a long time ago doing this, I don't think it's avoidable as people will find ways to grief, regardless.

    What can we do then? Back in the days, at least in my Battlegroup as we called it then, we would name the offenders in the Server forums. People used to hangout there at one point, and name offenders, ninja looters, anything. Im not saying this is an option, but the bounty board is a great method to basically put the offending player on the list to get hunted.

    But, ones corruption should very much be balanced. I havent gotten the chance to test this and I am waiting for Alpha 2 to release, so I can give this a go.
  • RintaRinta Member
    edited January 15
    The most encompassing definition of griefing is:
    An action by player / players that prevents another player / players from enjoying the game.

    But how do you define "enjoying the game"? It is entirely player-dependent, everyone enjoys different types of games in different ways, and a single game won't be able to accomodate all of these ways. Hell, for some people their way to enjoy a game is what others would consider directly counter to their own enjoyment.

    It is essentially for the developers to choose which ways of enjoying their game they approve of, and would want to protect, either by ingame mechanics or by the rules.

    So this Dev Question is really "How do you  like enjoying your games, and what you  would want to be protected from? Tell us, and we will pick and choose which ways we accept and which we do not."

    Now, we already know in part where the developers stand, such as:
    • There will  be world PvP
    • There will  be a corruption system to prevent fully unrestricted PvP
    • Player's materials, freeholds, levels and stats will not  be safe

    With this in mind, here's where I stand on PvP:
    • Personally I don't care for world PvP, but I don't mind it either; Some aspects of it look like they could be fun.
    • I like all the orchestrated ways to engage in PvP that Ashes intend to provide (sieges, caravans, etc.), they alone are quite enough to satisfy my murder fantasies.
    • I like the idea of fighting for bosses (true PvX, where you are pressured from both PvP and PvE sides).
    • I like the idea of being able to have a friendly skimrish with one / several people on the spot, without having to go to an arena.
    • I like the idea of guild wars in open world, as long as there is a limit to number of declared wars, and one guild can't simply war everyone they see; Perhaps a complex quest, similar to what we hear about the siege declaration quest, could be added, to further facilitate these guild wars being a commitment, rather than an easy way to avoid PvP penalties.
    • I am mildly interested in the idea of figthing for farming / gathering areas, but also would not care if it was all but eliminated, and only be viable in higher-end dungeons doubling up as higher-end gatherables locations.
    • I don't like the idea of being attacked and/or killed for no ingame reason (valid ingame reasons listed above), simply to cause me as a person an inconvenience / annoyance. I'd like it if such behavior was killed in the crib, and such players were plainly told they are not welcome. If it is not done - I'll take it as such players and behaviour being welcome and encouraged, and will likely not stick with the game.
    • I don't like that the resources drop can be used as an easy excuse for the above; Yes, anyone might have some resources on them, but that's a lousy justification for randomly attacking passer-bys; Perhaps, an indicator of some sort could be added, to show whether a person is carrying many and/or valuable resources, to make this a more valid mechanics. Perhaps, their bag can be bustling with goodies, or their posture slightly hunched under the weight of all the invisible logs they just chopped down, the more logs - the hunchier the pose.
    • The corruption and bounty hunting systems might somewhat work for the aforementioned "problems", but I imagine it would be hard to balance well enough to both prevent "random act of violence" open world PvP, and still encourage resource-driven PvP. I'd prefer if the former was forbidden entirely via rules.

    Non-PvP grief:
    • Scamming
    • Chat misuse (bigotry, harassment, real-life threats, spam, etc.); "Mute" is a great functionality to protect oneself, but such actions should also be reportable / punishable, to discourage copy-cats.
    • Unintended applications of game engine limitation / bugs that prevent others from normal ingame actions (could be things such as body-blocking to prevent passage, dropping off monster trains on players, etc.; depends on whether these are considered unintended applications by developers / Game Masters).
    • etc.
    Honestly this is all pretty standard, world PvP is a much more contended topic.

    Another comment that resonated with me:
    Karthos wrote: »
    I love these types of discussions because the line is different for everyone. But there is some common ground on what is obvious griefing.

    For me at least, it's any action (not just PVP) that is done with the sole intent to annoy, and harass a player, for little to no gain for the offender other than their enjoyment in upsetting the other person. If a person is attacking a player over and over, knowing full well they don't have loot to drop, and knowing full well that person is not going to fight back, they are doing it JUST to harass and annoy the other player.

    Meaningful PVP doesn't just mean consent from both parties, it also means it has a purpose within the game world, whether that be securing an objective (world boss), gaining supplies, stopping your opponent's progress (trade run ambushes), and having open war between guilds.

    Anytime a person takes actions that are motivated only out of a desire to piss off or harass another player, that's griefing, regardless of if they do it one time, or 100 times. I'm not saying you "shouldn't kill people just for fun" what I'm saying is your intent is key. PVPing for the sake of meaningful PVP, such as for fun or enjoyment is 100% all good. But if you are doing it "for the luls" and in hopes the other person "uninstalls the game", then you stepped into "Over that Line".


    A more theoretical take on the issue:
    In theory, anything allowed by the rules and possible within the game mechanics is not griefing.

    As it is impossible for such a complex game to fine-tune game mechanics to disallow each specific type of behaviour developers don't intend for / don't condone - statements such as "If I can do it - it is not griefing" make no sense. Rules external to game mechanics will still need to be in place.

    Below I explore two opposite approaches to it on example of world PvP system:

    Approach #1:
    Have developers list the intended ways for world PvP system to be used, and then as players explore the game and work out other reasons for PvP - these uses can be incorporated into evolving rules system. This means that all reports of non-intended PvP uses would be accepted and considered by GMs.

    For example, it can start with -
    "World PvP is intended for:
    - Contesting farming resources
    - Consensual fights in the open world
    - ..."
    And when later on a guild arranges a PvP-blocade of a quest NPC to prevent another guild from completing a complex guild quest - they might be reported, and it would be for Game Masters to decide if this is going to be a new acceptable use, or an offense.

    This approach is on the safe side: a person attempting a non-intended PvP action always risks repercussions, even if they believe they follow the spirit of the law.

    Approach #2 is the opposite:
    Have a list of explicitly forbidden PvP practices, accept reports for everything players consider a grief, and then add additional forbidden practices as more surface, without retroactive application.

    This is a non-safe approach:
    Players can expect to be exposed to all kinds of unpredictable grief behaviour, and no guarantee that any of these will be considered as such by Game Masters.

    It will also most likely result in more reports than Approach #1, i.e. more work for GMs.

    Approach #3:
    Combine both of the above.
    Have a list of acceptable practices and forbidden practices. Accept reports for anything inbetween, process them and sort each reported behaviour into one or the other, without retroactive application.

    New ways to grief would only occur once, and afterwards everyone will know for sure if behaviour is acceptable or not. Players, especially new players, can make an educated decision whether the permitted behaviors are something they want to deal with in their game. At the same time, due to no retroactive application, players won't be afraid to experiment with new ways to explore PvP conflict.

    This might result in very detailed ruleset, somewhat of a rule bloat, but would also help all types of players to know where exactly they stand, and whether their chosen way of enjoying the game is allowed / protected.

Sign In or Register to comment.