[Mega Thread] Player Griefing - Part 4
-
@unf8ted
Because you had to go and say in your other post that pve servers wont effect us. I explained why. Your ship is sinking mate. Time to bail some water -
@personalc0ffee said in [Mega Thread] Player Griefing - Part 4:
@unf8ted said in [Mega Thread] Player Griefing - Part 4:
@nwo-azcrack
When? And if so they why even bother arguing with me if it definitely isn’t happening anyways?How about you pay attention to the way they address things, the topics they put out, the blog posts they write, the patch notes, the important and highlighted posts in future parts of megathreads.
Anything really....
I swear you people are stuck in your own echo chamber.
Looks like you’re stuck in here with me then. -
@nwo-azcrack said in [Mega Thread] Player Griefing - Part 4:
@unf8ted
Because you had to go and say in your other post that pve servers wont effect us. I explained why. Your ship is sinking mate. Time to bail some waterYou actually never did say why. No on has ever explained why losing PvEs is better then letting them play on another server. Because there really isn’t any good argument other then you like sinking them while they do play.
Anyways this thread has because example how to to grief people on a forum ironically enough. Peace out.
-
@unf8ted
Believe what u want. Still not griefing. Btw you made no valid argument for pve servers anyway -
Alright, slightly humorous griefing story.
(I have only been the victim of the infamous spawn killing type situation one time myself. Yes its annoying as all you can do is scuttle and kiss everything goodbye..)Was playing on a galleon with some rando's. Hit a skull fort, ships kept coming back after getting sunk, you know, the usual.
Well we finish the fort and grab the key, plunder away and head to an outpost. Sloop follows. We get to outpost and the sloop tries to roll up on us.The random people i am playing with, all jump aboard the sloop and literally say they are going to grief and make him scuttle as punishment for attempting to even take us on in the first place. The part i didn't even know was an option was:
They would kill the guy, then while he was respawning, they would patch the guys own boat for him and bail water to purposefully keep it afloat so they could spawn kill the guy longer.
He did finally scuttle, but even then they kept patching and bailing water to attempt to make the person wait as long as possible. I didnt even know that you could patch other peoples boats nor would it have ever occurred to me to do that to someone as it seemed a bit of a d**k move.
If your a sloop rolling up on a galleon 4v1 your probably going to get wrecked, but i thought what they were doing was a little excessive even if it did give me a slight chuckle. People DO grief out there.. -
Myself and five or so friends of mine started playing at launch. Sailing was fun. Content was light. Spent every second running from PvP...being killed in PvP.
We never came back. I uninstalled. I come back occasionally to see if they're toning down PvP. They're not. So I guess "This is not the game for us".
Same end result, none of us are there on your servers to shoot at. But Rare gets nothing from us either. Nothing that might also help to improve the game you love, which is shooting people who don't want to be shot. No doubt.
-
@unf8ted said in [Mega Thread] Player Griefing - Part 4:
@personalc0ffee said in [Mega Thread] Player Griefing - Part 4:
@veisenberg No I'd rather lose a few thousands players that don't understand this is a shared world that continue to stamp their feet and demand that Rare abandon all of their ideas, their core principles, and design decisions just so they can be catered with their little carebear and easy modes, to leave the game.
Get it correct. Same goes with PvP.
I'm honestly passed the point of caring and pretending I want these kind of people here. I do not. If you want splits in the community, I do not welcome you here.
SoT is a shared world, where PvP and PvE play together at the same time.
Get with the program or get out.
Rare can not and will not make every single group happy. It is not possible.
The problem with this whole argument is that adding the PvE only option literally does nothing to hurt you or anyone else. People that hate the PvP will stop playing it anyways. The only thing you do by excluding them from playing the game is limit revenue generation thus limiting any future development.
Let people say what they want and let Rare decide if they want them buying a playing the game or not.
If you don’t want a PvE version then it’s a self correcting problem and you’re the one that needs to stop complaining.
It’s like I try to order a cheese pizza from a place that makes only pepperoni pizza and someone comes in yelling that I should eat it with pepperoni or I get no pizza at all. I’m asking for a cheese pizza let the restaurant (Rare) decide if I get it or not. The decision won’t impact you at all.This is a great analogy. I sure hope there are no douchebags hanging out in pizza places yelling at people that ask for cheese pizza.....
-
@caladanguard said in [Mega Thread] Player Griefing - Part 4:
Myself and five or so friends of mine started playing at launch. Sailing was fun. Content was light. Spent every second running from PvP...being killed in PvP.
We never came back. I uninstalled. I come back occasionally to see if they're toning down PvP. They're not. So I guess "This is not the game for us".
Same end result, none of us are there on your servers to shoot at. But Rare gets nothing from us either. Nothing that might also help to improve the game you love, which is shooting people who don't want to be shot. No doubt.
This is the type of post that will make Rare pay attention and do something. Thank you.
-
There is no player griefing. There are player choices.
- You can choose to stick to your own ship and get killed repeatedly, or scuttle it and move on.
- You can choose to play it safe on a Galleon with more players, or risk it going solo.
The game is designed around a multiplayer PvP environment where there is a constant threat of danger.
Be more pirate!
-
@admiral-tweedle said in [Mega Thread] Player Griefing - Part 4:
There is no player griefing. There are player choices.
- You can choose to stick to your own ship and get killed repeatedly, or scuttle it and move on.
- You can choose to play it safe on a Galleon with more players, or risk it going solo.
The game is designed around a multiplayer PvP environment where there is a constant threat of danger.
Be more pirate!
Well, that's it folks, this solves this problem. No more need for an official megathread about griefing. Let's lock it and consider the problem solved, as it never existed to begin with.
-
https://gyazo.com/eb76017900e1ab72caec8ce343dec88c the man admitted to griefing. Me and my crew sunk them 4 times and they kept coming back after the 4th sunk they teamed with another galleon and still got sunk. this went on for about 2-3 hours.
Rare Needs to make it so if you get sunk 1-2 times the ship that got sunk should get migrated to a different server! if there are no active Forts!
-
@personalc0ffee said in [Mega Thread] Player Griefing - Part 4:
@veisenberg No I'd rather lose a few thousands players that don't understand this is a shared world that continue to stamp their feet and demand that Rare abandon all of their ideas, their core principles, and design decisions just so they can be catered with their little carebear and easy modes, to leave the game.
Get it correct. Same goes with PvP.
I'm honestly passed the point of caring and pretending I want these kind of people here. I do not. If you want splits in the community, I do not welcome you here.
SoT is a shared world, where PvP and PvE play together at the same time.
Get with the program or get out.
Rare can not and will not make every single group happy. It is not possible.
I don't really care who you want here and who you don't. It's not up to you how this game turns out. It's certainly not up to you who comes here and who doesn't so wind your neck in.
There are lots of shared world games on the market that cater for pve and pvp. There's no reason why Rare can't cater for both.
And yes Rare can make players happy. Wouldn't you be happier with a pvp server to play on? I mean, what difference would it be to you if there was a pvp/pve split? Hey there would be lots of pvp minded players to battle with on a pvp server or are you one of these pvp bullies that only prey on the easy kill pve players because you're really not that good?
-
@veisenberg
I wouldnt be happy. I would rather them spend the time adding content to the game i bought. You know the one thats PVPVE like they said it would be. -
@nwo-azcrack said in [Mega Thread] Player Griefing - Part 4:
@unf8ted
Believe what u want. Still not griefing. Btw you made no valid argument for pve servers anywayYes he did. You obviously didn't want to read it. He said, and I'll quote it for you
"I don’t see what the problem with them adding a PvE only option is when the result of not having it is those people stop playing anyways"
So there you go, from a business stand point that's a valid enough argument for ANY game developer to think again. Get pve servers or watch your player base dwindle as those who don't like pvp stop playing and don't recommend the game to friends which in turn would see sales numbers dwindle too.
-
@nwo-azcrack said in [Mega Thread] Player Griefing - Part 4:
@veisenberg
I wouldnt be happy. I would rather them spend the time adding content to the game i bought. You know the one thats PVPVE like they said it would be.Why not? The content is already coming (Roadmap) So what would the difference be if Rare said 'okay we're making a pve server'?? Unless it really is as unf8ted said and you just like sinking pve players coz it's ez. What's the matter? Scared of having an all out PVP server?
-
@veisenberg
Ummmmm no mate. Did u not read my post? Ya the roadmaps comming, so what? That doesnt mean they have the time or money for pve servers. Like i said i just wanna see them work on the game that they released. If it was an older game with a fully fleashed out world it wouldnt be so bad. As of right now any delay that doesnt help us ALL is gonna be bad for them -
@personalc0ffee said in [Mega Thread] Player Griefing - Part 4:
@veisenberg No, because that is not the point of the game.
The point of the game is to be in the world with other players from BOTH aspects. Not just one or the other. Knowing how other ships are going to respond to you or act defeats one of the greatest core tenants of this game.
It's not all about ship battles though is it. It's also about going on an adventure with a few friends, finding treasure, seeing what the would has to offer. But that's pretty much been forgotten with the shoot first make friends second mentality that so many players have adopted.
-
@nwo-azcrack said in [Mega Thread] Player Griefing - Part 4:
@veisenberg
Ummmmm no mate. Did u not read my post? Ya the roadmaps comming, so what? That doesnt mean they have the time or money for pve servers. Like i said i just wanna see them work on the game that they released. If it was an older game with a fully fleashed out world it wouldnt be so bad. As of right now any delay that doesnt help us ALL is gonna be bad for themYou're talking like Rare are a small indie studio who wouldn't be able to manage the extra work load that implementing a PVE server would introduce. Do you work for Rare? Are you their accountant? If not, how exactly would you know what kind of time and money they do and don't have? Stop trying to talk for Rare and go play the game. If PVE servers happen then they happen, It's not going to affect you is it? You'll still have PVP servers to play in.
-
Sloops only allowing a maximum of 2 players is necessary as the ship mechanics would be overpowered if more than 2 players were assigned to a sloop.
If it were made possible to crew a sloop with 4 players, it would be preferable in most cases to operate a sloop with 4 than a galleon with 4. This relates to the amount of water bailed, etc. If you had two people on a sloop bailing, with two others steering the ship and firing the cannon, the sloop would be nigh unsinkable and also more maneuverable than a galleon.
-
Part of the problem with any complaint of griefing includes the concept of griefing itself.
What is griefing?
It's not griefing to kill players, steal their loot, or sink their ships.
If you can do it once, why would doing it multiple times be considered griefing?
If players are allowed to respawn too close to you--by that design--they are able (and allowed) to kill you repeatedly.
If the ability to respawn and kill players repeatedly is possible through game design, it would be incorrect to label it as "griefing."
The ability for crews' ships to respawn too close to where they were sunk is not actually griefing, but a game design flaw.
Griefing is often very subject to personal opinion. What you consider griefing might be deemed as completely acceptable pirate behavior by the game developers.
The main problem with griefing is to prevent it without negatively impeding normal gameplay.
Unfortunately for most people complaining about "griefing," what they are complaining about is often not actually griefing. This is because Sea of Thieves is an open world PvP-based pirate game where killing players and stealing their loot is actually encouraged. As I stated earlier, if it's allowable to kill a player and steal their loot once, then why would it be griefing to do it multiple times?
The only way you can change the practices of players is by designing the game so that players are encouraged to engage in activities that may compete with, but not intentionally conflict with other players. If actions that many would incorrectly call "griefing" are not the desired or optimal method of play, they would be less commonplace.
Unfortunately, there isn't much to do beyond killing players and stealing their loot, completing voyages, and clearing skull forts. All of those activities are allowed.
Actual griefing would include things like intentionally refusing to cooperate with your crew, removing loot from the ship and dropping it in the ocean, hiding loot from your crew, dropping anchor repeatedly, messing with the sails to impede the function of the crew's voyage(s), removing supplies from the ship, firing the cannon balls to prevent the ability to defend against other ships, screaming, yelling, or otherwise making unwanted and unnecessary noises in voice chat, steering the ship into rocks or islands to intentionally damage the ship, shooting barrels of gunpowder in the hold of your ship, shooting barrels of gunpowder that your other crew mates are carrying to kill them, marking the map inappropriately, removing marks from the map, or holding the map so that players can't access it, etc.
Unfortunately, because players can engage in this type of behavior, some will. It definitely takes a cynical mind to create a game that prevents or limits griefing. Online society is only getting more toxic as the years pass. In order to prevent griefing, there has to be a more favorable alternative that is more fun than griefing other players.
-
@xzevae
The preferred way of handling this in a nongame breaking way would be for Rare to give players more options so they wouldn’t get bored and empower the crew by making unwanted crew members walk the plank. However I don’t believe that all people do this because they’re bored, I’m afraid a large number does it because they get their enjoyment from knowing they’re annoying others and ruining other people’s experience.While offering more content is preferred and might stop some of the behavior, I think it’s important to figure out the real reasoning behind these actions in order to find the best approach. A good example of that is the reasoning behind most of the brig abuse, adding private crews will probably make this a nonissue. The freedom in the game is important, so anything that would limit that would be a bad indeed, however I think most of the suggestions I made were suggestions that wouldn’t negatively alter gameplay.
There’s always people just here to see the world burn though, wouldn’t it be the preferred way to hold up a mirror to them by matching them with others with a similar bad reputation, while at the same time preventing them from ruining the experience for others?
-
Myself and three other of me mates obliterated a sloop that attacked our Galleon at port... we boarded it, repaired it... we all did our best Owen Wilson "Wow" impressions into game chat as we drove these dudes Sloop around spawn killing them...
They messaged me "Wow" in xbox message after they scuttled their ship after enjoying our dynamic impressions of Owen Wilson saying "Wow" for about ten minutes.
Fear the S.S Owen Wilson.
-
@wkd1337 said in [Mega Thread] Player Griefing - Part 4:
Myself and three other of me mates obliterated a sloop that attacked our Galleon at port... we boarded it, repaired it... we all did our best Owen Wilson "Wow" impressions into game chat as we drove these dudes Sloop around spawn killing them...
They messaged me "Wow" in xbox message after they scuttled their ship after enjoying our dynamic impressions of Owen Wilson saying "Wow" for about ten minutes.
Fear the S.S Owen Wilson.
Wow, what a victory.
-
In response to players using workarounds to avoid Lazybeard, and in the absence of a Vote-to-Kick mechanic, I recommend a maximum brig sentance that, when served, will force kick the abuser. Most people who leech off other players use a 3rd party client to help them. By doing this, they would give the crew reassurance that in X amount of time their problem will be gone. I'd also recommend an in world animation where the player being kicked is forced to walk the plank, and upon hitting the water, sharks eat him and he despawns and exits server. AFK griefer problem solved, you're welcome Rare.
-
My experience so far :
My friends did not choose to buy the game because of its price or content.
I decided to play it alone.(If a matchmaking wich can make me automaticaly join a crew is created I will use it but I do not have the courage to search players on Discord.)
Playing alone is not really a problem for me I do not play a lot and the physics of the navigation entertain me.
My grief is that I am always overtaken by crews. When I want to sell my chests, skulls or animals to NPC a ship awaits me in the harbor and stole me.
With two players it is manageable, one sells the items the other protect the ship.
Alone, you can only sell one item before they steal you the rest (and for that you need to be good in stealth) or navigate until you lost them (and it is difficult because alone your efficiency is lower than them, they will probably catch you in less than one hour).
I have the same problem when I search a wreck or an island. Every time I come back on my ship a crew awaits me because nobody watch my ship.
My only choice is to bring back one treasure at a time to the NPC or hope that I will not cross the road of other players.
I like pvp game but 4v1 is frustrating.
(sorry for my english)
-
I do not like a system that judges your kill to sink ratio etc.
Sometimes Im agressive when I need to deliver to an outpost that someone is at, or someone who looks like low hanging fruit crosses my path.
For the most part I just stick to my business. But my crew KD ratio and especially our sink ratio is positive heavy. Should we be punished?
I like to be left alone for the most part, but the only Galleon we ever teamed up with at a skull fort was a crew that we couldnt sink, and they couldnt sink us. After 30 min we teamed up and pushed back 2 other Galleons and 2 sloops.
I solo play also. I have only been sunk by a Galleon once. I learned from my mistakes.
I will watch spawns and kill as needed until the ship is gone and the threat is gone. No apologies. No punishments.
Victims could stand to be moved a bit further.
As far as AFK players rubberbanding, make a timer on the ferry solid at 5 minutes no matter what actions you are taking. Boot to lazy beard.
Kick from crew also nedds to happen. I have had trolls who just sat in the brig or ferry after they had fire bombed our ship. Free troll loot.
And add handheld bombs. Only availible for purchase at an outpost 3-5 max inventory. Small gun powder explosion to help deal with cave pistol skeletons, player choke holds, and putting one he in a ship to facilitate the sinking.
-
How about letting the dead see the scene before they respawn... so they can choose when to return? Griefers stick around to kill you again and again long after they have looted. They know solo-me is coming back to my little sloop. I may want revenge or to a chance to get my hidden loot. Being a popup target isn't fun... but if they don't sink my ship and sail away I might stand a chance to avenge myself. Long odds at 4 to 1 but at that point it is my choice to risk my neck again.
I like suggestions 2 and 3 in particular. Suggestion 1 is acceptable.
Suggestion 4: Shame becomes a badge of honor, so no. Gold loss is a better penalty. -
@sweltering-nick said in [Mega Thread] Player Griefing - Part 4:
Incorrect, griefing is defined by intention + action, not just action. Hence why basic PvP interaction is not considered griefing. :P
Basic pvp interaction is not griefing, I agree, but your action is spawn camping + your intention is to prevent the owner of the ship you are looting, from fighting back. Hence griefing.
At this point you are using griefing as a buzzword to further your argument, which is intellectually dishonest.
It is intellectually dishonest to contradict yourself.
What if your ship doesn't have any cannonballs left and are just trying to shake off someone chasing you? What if the only way to do that is to board the enemy ship, drop their anchor and spawn camp them for a bit in order to get away from them?
Resource management is a big part of this game; it sucks that you ran out of cannonballs, maybe you should just board the ship, shoot the crew, loot the cannonballs and continue running instead of exploiting a mechanic in the game.
Not all spawn camping is griefing... By labeling ALL spawn camping as griefing, you are forbidding the ones trying to escape their chance to fight back, because if they do, they'll get banned. ._.
Yet it is ok to forbid the owner of the ship a chance to fight back, which is a contradiction. :(
You can't just use your own definition of spawn camping, mate, that's not how this works. You don't get to cherry-pick your arguments like that, that's a logical fallacy. xD
I assume that you mean greifing here, which is fine, but it is a logical fallacy to not understand that spawn camping is an exploitation of a system flaw.
Griefing is defined as sabotage that is intended to cause grief... That's action + intent... not just action, not just intent... That's the difference between griefing and PvP.
Preventing the owner of the ship to fight back and take control his own ship causes grief. Forbidding someone to defend what what is theirs causes grief. To deliberately destroy, damage, or obstruct (something), especially for political or military advantage is sabotoge. (dictionary definition)
In order to label something griefing, you need to prove intent within the context of action.
Proven!
-
@guy4231 "Basic pvp interaction is not griefing, I agree, but your action is spawn camping + your intention is to prevent the owner of the ship you are looting, from fighting back. Hence griefing."
You do realise preventing the enemy from getting the chance to fight back is a VALID STRATEGY IN REGULAR PVP, RIGHT?!
Wow you are clueless... o_o
"It is intellectually dishonest to contradict yourself."
How interesting you should say that, given you've contradicted yourself... But not because of intellectual dishonesty, but because of how little you understand PvP. xD
"Resource management is a big part of this game; it sucks that you ran out of cannonballs, maybe you should just board the ship, shoot the crew, loot the cannonballs and continue running instead of exploiting a mechanic in the game."
Is there something wrong with your reading comprehension? ._.
"Yet it is ok to forbid the owner of the ship a chance to fight back, which is a contradiction. :("
You're not forbidding them with spawn camping, you are PHYSICALLY challenging them, with nothing but your guns and sword... The victim actually does have a chance to fight back, but the spawn campers do have an advantage, yes... Please use your head, 'cus i'm seriously tired of debunking arguments that are irrelevant by default here. ._.
"I assume that you mean greifing here, which is fine, but it is a logical fallacy to not understand that spawn camping is an exploitation of a system flaw."
... In the very quote you posted, i said "You can't just use your own definition of spawn camping"... How could you assume i meant griefing when i specifically referred to spawn camping?! Oh my god, get your act together mate... There's definitely something wrong with your reading comprehension. : /
"Preventing the owner of the ship to fight back and take control his own ship causes grief."
ANYTHING CAN CAUSE GRIEF... If you so much as drop your icecream on the ground, immediate greif flows through you, does that mean the guy who scooped your icecream INTENDED TO CAUSE GRIEF?!?!?!?! NO!!!!
Griefing is not defined by something that CAUSED grief, but the INTENTION of causing grief.
"To deliberately destroy, damage, or obstruct (something), especially for political or military advantage is sabotoge. (dictionary definition)"
Dictionary definition of sabotage, sure... Not the definition of GRIEFING you-... You are testing my patience, mate.
"Proven!"
Not even close... you haven't proven anything except your lack of understanding of griefing, spawn camping, AND PVP... Your emotional bias is preventing you from properly understanding them...
-
@xzevae said in [Mega Thread] Player Griefing - Part 4:
What is griefing?
There is no official definition of griefing as it is a term that was used to describe players that would abuse game mechanics to intentionally annoy or obstruct others from gameplay.
It's not griefing to kill players, steal their loot, or sink their ships.
No it is not, agreed. But, this discussion is about spawn camping. Let's say that pirate A grabs a chest off of his ship, almost gets it to the trader and gets killed by pirate B, then before pirate B sells it, pirate A respawns and kills pirate B. Is this an acceptable outcome in game? If so then your logic is faulty. Players should have a chance to defend what is theirs that is why they are spawned on their ship. By spawn camping you are preventing them to do so.
If you can do it once, why would doing it multiple times be considered griefing?
Consider the context, if you find a ship and sink it, it is a part of the game. If you continually go after the same ship and sink it, then yes that is griefing. If it is unintentional then that is not.
If players are allowed to respawn too close to you--by that design--they are able (and allowed) to kill you repeatedly.
If the ability to respawn and kill players repeatedly is possible through game design, it would be incorrect to label it as "griefing."
The ability for crews' ships to respawn too close to where they were sunk is not actually griefing, but a game design flaw.
You say that it is by game design that you are able and therefore allowed to kill someone repeatedly; yet later you describe a whole list of things that are designed into game but are not allowed. Just because it is part of the design or possible to do does not mean that it was meant to be allowed or that you should do it.
The main problem with griefing is to prevent it without negatively impeding normal gameplay.
Another thing that we agree on, but how negatively would it impede normal gameplay if say they spawned in a place that you can't predict. Or spawn camping was a bannable offense? It would deter people from sticking around on other peoples ship. It would motivate people to be better pirates not abusive ones.
The only way you can change the practices of players is by designing the game so that players are encouraged to engage in activities that may compete with, but not intentionally conflict with other players.
And another thing we agree on, as long as it does not intentionally conflict with other players.
If actions that many would incorrectly call "griefing" are not the desired or optimal method of play, they would be less commonplace.
Actually they are less commonplace but are almost impossible to prevent, that is why it is our responsibility to not do them.
Unfortunately, because players can engage in this type of behavior, some will. It definitely takes a cynical mind to create a game that prevents or limits griefing. Online society is only getting more toxic as the years pass. In order to prevent griefing, there has to be a more favorable alternative that is more fun than griefing other players.
Agreed!
