Is using collision mechanics considered griefing

So I'm curious to know to what degree can you use collisions mechanics before its considered griefing. i want to play out a scenario.
There is a caravan coming up to a bridge and players have lined up and potentially are using there mounts to block a bridge.
they tell the caravan to stop they ask what guild they are a part of, what they are transporting and say they can't use this bridge or continue safely down this path without paying a fee.

is this considered exploitive/ griefing? is this not why you would put collision mechanics in the game? if not, what other purpose would you put this mechanic in the game? I would like to know in what instances it is appropriate to use collision mechanics to your benefit. I understand that using them to prevent players from accepting a quest or preventing them from using the storage house are considered griefing.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Azherae

(un?)fortunately this is probably going to end up being a case-by-case basis with some equivalent of 'court' being involved same as in RL.

I think collision is probably one of the safest things to do in terms of not being labeled as griefing since you could probably always argue that controlling or blockading territory isn't really preventing anyone from playing the game as a whole, and those being blocked always have the recourse to at least attempt to resolve it by combat.

Since many individual Archetypes have ways around collision, that mostly leaves caravans, which is almost certainly a place where collision mechanics are 'allowed' to be used however.

If you wanted a concrete answer and not my rampant speculation, we don't have one atm.

Its_Me

Your scenario is thought-provoking.

While the current mechanics allow for engagement and the destruction of the caravan, the example you provided was using an unintended mechanic (horses for blocking movement) to prevent the players from continuing on a path. If there is only one path possible for the caravan and the group is preventing progression, I think an argument could be made for griefing.

Steven has stated that using exploits will not be tolerated and one common definition of exploit is using an unintended game mechanic to gain an unfair advantage over others. I think one could argue that this is an example of one group using a mechanic to stop progression of another group with an unintended mechanic.

I guess the blocking group could argue that the caravan group could kill the mounts but the way the current corruption system works, they would gain corruption for doing this so not certain this would be a legitimate argument?

As the other poster suggested, this is a bit subjective and will likely be addressed if/when reported.

majinash

It's an interesting scenario to be sure. People blocking the way for a caravan seems very inline with the intentions of the game however being able to do so while not flagging against the caravan crew seems to be the issue.

Possible that the solution here which would keep the scenario as a possibility while removing the exploity part would be to remove collision between caravans and people who haven't selected attacker/defender and allow the caravan owner to boot people out of the defender group.

Now attackers could still block and use the block as a "threat" of violence (as they can attack the defenders if they wish) but give them the avenue to extort merchants, but this would also allow the defenders to just kill them if they feel strong enough to do so.

I think it's important to also keep defenders experiencing collision, lest you see hijinks on that side like stacking caravans on top of each other or some weird trojan horse scenario. Only 3rd parties should be exempt to prevent interacting with caravans while not being included in the caravan PvP system (triggered by declaring yourself attacker or defender)

Blocking while listed as an attacker doesn't feel like an exploit whatsoever, and blocking as a defender would be impossible if you can be manually kicked off the team (ideally locked out of selecting either side after that)

unknownsystemerror

Like most things "Ah HA! I have discovered a loophole in their system!" that people are "discovering," these scenarios were already gamed out and ruled out by Intrepid. Now, will it take them some time to get everything working with flagging, corruption, collision and other gameplay systems? Sure. But it is in their development "bible" as where they want to get to.

Mounts and players cannot stop caravans and other vehicles from moving. Nothing can move or block ships.[7]
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Collision

Kilion

To my knowledge this is within the expected, intended and acceptable gameplay loop options of the game.

Furthermore, its not like this is something where the caravan is simply a victim without any ways to prevent any of that. They could have scouts to see the blockade, they could go around the blockade, with enough guards ore the artifact from the Caravan Livestream they could break through the blockade etc etc.

It is one of the risks of running a caravan and there are multiple methods to account for that risk.

Depraved

they said caravans would push people away. will probs work with mounts too

Saabynator

Gosh_of_war wrote: »

So I'm curious to know to what degree can you use collisions mechanics before its considered griefing. i want to play out a scenario.
There is a caravan coming up to a bridge and players have lined up and potentially are using there mounts to block a bridge.
they tell the caravan to stop they ask what guild they are a part of, what they are transporting and say they can't use this bridge or continue safely down this path without paying a fee.

is this considered exploitive/ griefing? is this not why you would put collision mechanics in the game? if not, what other purpose would you put this mechanic in the game? I would like to know in what instances it is appropriate to use collision mechanics to your benefit. I understand that using them to prevent players from accepting a quest or preventing them from using the storage house are considered griefing.

I am very sure, that Steven would see this as marvelous. This kind of playing would be right up his ally, I think.

On another note, I think there is something about weight? Some things pushes others out the way? Not sure. But then he must find another route. Maybe if you keep following ther caravan, so keep hindering it, no matter where it goes, it would be harrassment. But ther bridge scenario itself, would prolly fly.

Child Item