So you're making a PvE game for all the sissy millennial kids who never learned to grow some skin?
Yep! One where PVP mentalities get left at the door.
People can love this or hate this but at least you are picking your audience and being totally up front about it. too many damn games telling people "O we have rides for everyone!" as far as im concerned pick either pve or pvp and the devs should eat,sleep and breathe that shit!
every other mmo has pve and pvp and yep the pvp is a complete joke and an after thought.
So you're making a PvE game for all the sissy millennial kids who never learned to grow some skin?
Yep! One where PVP mentalities get left at the door.
People can love this or hate this but at least you are picking your audience and being totally up front about it. too many damn games telling people "O we have rides for everyone!" as far as im concerned pick either pve or pvp and the devs should eat,sleep and breathe that shit!
every other mmo has pve and pvp and yep the pvp is a complete joke and an after thought.
I should add a true story of a chick who was dating a gm in FFXI.She got several players banned including chicks she didn't like.How about that episode of a DEV cheating inside of Eve online,then they claimed they got rid of that employee but never did. Quite a few stories going around like this.Oh yes the infamous FFXI GM,the LEAD GM who banned a chick just because he said "the next person that asks me a dumb question is getting banned".Then he bragged about it on reddit.
aimbot cheat accused a 10 year old of aimbotting after he got accused.Find out later he was a buddy of the GM,so the 10 year old kid got banned by an asshat GM.
So yeah tell me again how GM's are going to fix this play nice?
I'm surprised you said "chick" instead of "broad" or "dame"
I bet you're the guy in the office that still calls it xeroxing lol.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
No way to do it fairly without in the moment context. Find a way to reward good behavior, you’d have a better chance.
your welcome.
You mean like XP and quest rewards attained by working together with others towards the common goal instead of attempting to derail others' progress?? Genius! Why hasn't anyone thought of this before?!?
No way to do it fairly without in the moment context. Find a way to reward good behavior, you’d have a better chance.
your welcome.
Genius! Why hasn't anyone thought of this before?!?
What was that stuff about a common sense of decency again?
Where did I impede his ability to post?
Also, I never said I wasn't an asshole. I just know when I'm being an asshole that, well... I'm being an asshole, and will be treated as such. Fair's fair.
MadFrenchie said: Not only that, but that you think players should he allowed to evade or exploit gameplay mechanics because of it is quite silly.
What I am stating is that punishing customers for breaking some arbitrary rule from some hidden / out of view long lists of other unknown rules that people from a broad demographic must somehow remember in their heads and abide by mainly just because you 'expect them to because this is how we should behave in the real world therefor it is how we should expect people to behave in a digital world..I decided'.........is probably not the best way to develop and design a game world.
What would be better is if developers take more responsibility for their designs and try to provide all physical boundaries / restrictions needed to control the behavior they want to foster within their world and when a system available is found to be lacking, fix it. Not just rely on punishments to customers 'because ToS' and leaving them feeling rightfully robbed to cover up developer inadequacies.
No way to do it fairly without in the moment context. Find a way to reward good behavior, you’d have a better chance.
your welcome.
Genius! Why hasn't anyone thought of this before?!?
What was that stuff about a common sense of decency again?
Where did I impede his ability to post?
Also, I never said I wasn't an asshole. I just know when I'm being an asshole that, well... I'm being an asshole, and will be treated as such. Fair's fair.
Well it is a good job this site is designed well with an 'ignore' function to protect me from this kind of toxic attitude if I decide you offend me and not have to rely on some random ban hammer judgement to protect me.
MadFrenchie said: Not only that, but that you think players should he allowed to evade or exploit gameplay mechanics because of it is quite silly.
What I am stating is that punishing customers for breaking some arbitrary rule from some hidden / out of view long lists of other unknown rules that people from a broad demographic must somehow remember in their heads and abide by mainly just because you 'expect them to because this is how we should behave in the real world therefor it is how we should expect people to behave in a digital world..I decided'.........is probably not the best way to develop and design a game world.
What would be better is if developers take more responsibility for their designs and try to provide all physical boundaries / restrictions needed to control the behavior they want to foster within their world and when a system available is found to be lacking, fix it. Not just rely on punishments to customers 'because ToS' and leaving them feeling rightfully robbed to cover up developer inadequacies.
Messy, sloppy and lazy!
That's why the first offense normally results in a warning. If you continue engaging in the behavior afterwards, you have no one to blame but yourself.
EDIT- I should also add that if you literally can't abide by "don't harass, stalk, grief, etc." Without having someone review it with you before you play any new game, you're exactly the type of person that shouldn't be playing online games.
I should add a true story of a chick who was dating a gm in FFXI.She got several players banned including chicks she didn't like.How about that episode of a DEV cheating inside of Eve online,then they claimed they got rid of that employee but never did. Quite a few stories going around like this.Oh yes the infamous FFXI GM,the LEAD GM who banned a chick just because he said "the next person that asks me a dumb question is getting banned".Then he bragged about it on reddit.
aimbot cheat accused a 10 year old of aimbotting after he got accused.Find out later he was a buddy of the GM,so the 10 year old kid got banned by an asshat GM.
So yeah tell me again how GM's are going to fix this play nice?
I'm surprised you said "chick" instead of "broad" or "dame"
I bet you're the guy in the office that still calls it xeroxing lol.
No way to do it fairly without in the moment context. Find a way to reward good behavior, you’d have a better chance.
your welcome.
Genius! Why hasn't anyone thought of this before?!?
What was that stuff about a common sense of decency again?
Where did I impede his ability to post?
Also, I never said I wasn't an asshole. I just know when I'm being an asshole that, well... I'm being an asshole, and will be treated as such. Fair's fair.
Well it is a good job this site is designed well with an 'ignore' function to protect me from this kind of toxic attitude if I decide you offend me and not have to rely on some random ban hammer judgement to protect me.
Thank goodness for good design!
Your better analogy would've been reporting, but since that works exactly how Renfail is describing their system will work, that wouldn't have exactly been stellar material to support your argument, would it?
No way to do it fairly without in the moment context. Find a way to reward good behavior, you’d have a better chance.
your welcome.
Genius! Why hasn't anyone thought of this before?!?
What was that stuff about a common sense of decency again?
Where did I impede his ability to post?
Also, I never said I wasn't an asshole. I just know when I'm being an asshole that, well... I'm being an asshole, and will be treated as such. Fair's fair.
Well it is a good job this site is designed well with an 'ignore' function to protect me from this kind of toxic attitude if I decide you offend me and not have to rely on some random ban hammer judgement to protect me.
Thank goodness for good design!
Your better analogy would've been reporting, but since that works exactly how Renfail is describing their system will work, that wouldn't have exactly been stellar material to support your argument, would it?
I don't see why? The ignore function instantly allows me to prevent having to deal with people if I don't want to interact with them which is exactly how good design should work in an environment that wan'ts to promote this preferred option. Pressing report would require waiting ages and then having to wait for some random judgement as to weather or not you should be punished. Reporting and flagging would be something I don't really have much time or love for.
That's why the first offense normally results in a warning. If you continue engaging in the behavior afterwards, you have no one to blame but yourself.
"The most interesting aspect to the study is that their research subjects preferred to give themselves electric shocks rather than experience boredom."
Curiuos how would they handle such plicy (policy being right and nice).
Johny wants to kill Stinky Rat. Peter comes, kills Rat, goes away. Somehow developers knows, Peter gets banned.
Johny wants to kill Stinky Rat. Alas, no rat there, only Peter wanders. Johny tells developers Peter killed Rat (who else could? - thinks angry Johny). Peter gets banned?
Johny wants to kill Stinky Rat. Peter rides nearby, sees Johny in trouble, yet rides away. Johny gets killed, quest failed. Johny tells developers Peter was bad. Peter gets banned?
Johny wants to kill Stinky Rat. Peter instructs how to do that. Alas, Peter forgot to mention weapon should have Rat Slayer damage. Johny fails. Peter to be banned?
Peter collects metal ore, mining and fighting off enemies. Johny sends tells, like "u are big, helpme plz". But Peter is busy with mining, when he is free to aid, Johny killed, Rat killed by someone. Peter gets reported.
Peter goes through swamp, wants to attack spider (which drops Stinky Sticky Filth, used for crafting). By accident Peter kills Stinky Rat. Peter gets reported.
Peter stands in the swamps being de facto AFK. Maybe chatting with someone or checking inventory. He is too busy to see Johny is in need of help. When Peter - a healer - is done, he sees what happened. Ohmygosh - he thinks - what have I missed! Yet some kind sould reports Peter.
Another situation.
Global chat. Johny tells he would hang or impale all Orcs, because they are of such ugly skin colour and very dumb. Peter accuses on hidden racism.
Johny roleplays Elven knight and (perhabs from Tolkien perspective) tells - we, Elves, are superior, we are immortal, we are always nice, we have pointy ears...all other game races are inferior. Johny gets reported on racism.
Johny wants to buy Great Shiny Armour and asks for price. Peter jokingly tells: only 1 million coins. Jacob immediately offers armour for just 0,5 million, Johny buys...only to know armour market price was, say, 5000 coins. Peter gets reported for scamming, Jacob too.
In short, it would require hundreds of admins, tens of thousands hours to check who was telling the truth. Doable while game is small. Impossible if game is popular.
If people act too nice, they come across as weird assholes who are no fun. Hopefully they aren't too strict with those rules, but idc, I probably won't play the game. Although that Alpha screenshot does look kinda nice...
If people act too nice, they come across as weird assholes who are no fun. Hopefully they aren't too strict with those rules, but idc, I probably won't play the game. Although that Alpha screenshot does look kinda nice...
Someone posted the Elder Scrolls TOS here earlier in the thread. They have a fairly strict play nice policy buried within as well, one that is standard to the industry (no racism, no harrasment, etc.) and can be found in just about every single TOS one cares to read, for any game out there.
The only difference with us is that we plan on being a little more hands on with enforcement than many modern games are, much like in the old days of EQ when GM staff were involved in regular policing of the policies.
We aren't rewriting the wheel here (it kind of makes me chuckle how a play nice policy seems like such a big deal to so many people here on these forums, considering they are actively included in just about every TOS out there), we are simply stating we plan on enforcing things rather than letting toxic players persist.
If people act too nice, they come across as weird assholes who are no fun. Hopefully they aren't too strict with those rules, but idc, I probably won't play the game. Although that Alpha screenshot does look kinda nice...
Someone posted the Elder Scrolls TOS here earlier in the thread. They have a fairly strict play nice policy buried within as well, one that is standard to the industry (no racism, no harrasment, etc.) and can be found in just about every single TOS one cares to read, for any game out there.
The only difference with us is that we plan on being a little more hands on with enforcement than many modern games are, much like in the old days of EQ when GM staff were involved in regular policing of the policies.
We aren't rewriting the wheel here (it kind of makes me chuckle how a play nice policy seems like such a big deal to so many people here on these forums, considering they are actively included in just about every TOS out there), we are simply stating we plan on enforcing things rather than letting toxic players persist.
Ok, so just more of an in-your-face version where people are told straight up that there are consequences that will be enforced regularly, rather than leaving it all hidden in the ToS. Works for me. Thanks for taking the time to respond on here, I'll have to throw SoL on my radar and see how it progresses, methinks.
If people act too nice, they come across as weird assholes who are no fun. Hopefully they aren't too strict with those rules, but idc, I probably won't play the game. Although that Alpha screenshot does look kinda nice...
Someone posted the Elder Scrolls TOS here earlier in the thread. They have a fairly strict play nice policy buried within as well, one that is standard to the industry (no racism, no harrasment, etc.) and can be found in just about every single TOS one cares to read, for any game out there.
The only difference with us is that we plan on being a little more hands on with enforcement than many modern games are, much like in the old days of EQ when GM staff were involved in regular policing of the policies.
We aren't rewriting the wheel here (it kind of makes me chuckle how a play nice policy seems like such a big deal to so many people here on these forums, considering they are actively included in just about every TOS out there), we are simply stating we plan on enforcing things rather than letting toxic players persist.
Ok, so just more of an in-your-face version where people are told straight up that there are consequences that will be enforced regularly, rather than leaving it all hidden in the ToS. Works for me. Thanks for taking the time to respond on here, I'll have to throw SoL on my radar and see how it progresses, methinks.
Cheers.
Honestly, players should already expect Terms of Service to be regularly enforced, it's just that most companies have grown lax in doing so.
The whole point of our post on the topic was to let players know that unlike most other companies, we will be actively enforcing.
As that thinking goes the best case scenario, of a game not like EVE or Lineage 2 or darkfall or "pick your poison" is that it's not the type of community the developers want and they take steps to curb it. Worst case scenario you have laws that are going to be applied if one does something illegal.
This is exactly where I am trying to lead, developers taking responsibility in shaping the environment they want and not passing the buck to the client. I honestly feel when a developer is banning people from their games for something that are not obvious glitches / exploits / hacking etc. then something has gone horribly wrong on the development side yet it is the client who must suffer?
But again, you are going to have to give an example as I've been playing online games since 2004 (doesn't make me the end all be all but that's 14 years of observation) and I've never encountered a glitch/exploit/hacking that wasn't painfully obvious.
So either video games are filled with the most stupid of people (that's a huge shame if that's true) or people just want to play dumb and indulge when they can.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
As that thinking goes the best case scenario, of a game not like EVE or Lineage 2 or darkfall or "pick your poison" is that it's not the type of community the developers want and they take steps to curb it. Worst case scenario you have laws that are going to be applied if one does something illegal.
This is exactly where I am trying to lead, developers taking responsibility in shaping the environment they want and not passing the buck to the client. I honestly feel when a developer is banning people from their games for something that are not obvious glitches / exploits / hacking etc. then something has gone horribly wrong on the development side yet it is the client who must suffer?
But again, you are going to have to give an example as I've been playing online games since 2004 (doesn't make me the end all be all but that's 14 years of observation) and I've never encountered a glitch/exploit/hacking that wasn't painfully obvious.
So either video games are filled with the most stupid of people (that's a huge shame if that's true) or people just want to play dumb and indulge when they can.
For starters I don't see how that reply is a reply to that post? Whether through ignorance or enjoyment it is irrelevant. Is it in the interest of the developers to discriminate against certain types of customers? As Renfail is doing here, creating partisan lines, insulting and dividing people? to be insinuating - This type of person is an inherently bad type of person a toxic person and this type of person is a good person. Sure they may hold those positions (wrongly) internally but is it helpful to them to promote this position and remove customers from the equation who may in a correctly guided environment just fit right in? Or do we really believe that people who grief or exploit are actually really bad horrible scum of the earth child killer types who don't deserve any place or thought within game design and should simply be discriminated and discarded?
I think it is beyond wishful thinking that this is good design. Like providing a bouncy castle to children then telling them when inside they are not allowed to jump or out they go! Why not just give them something that doesn't bounce?
I find it a very strange argument that Renfail uses here about ToS - 'it's in most other mmo's that you play, we will just be enforcing ours'. ToS are just catch all legal docs to cover a companies ass, not instructions that players need to read to understand how to play the game (once again lets ignore how a court would rule here because that is exactly the point of it being a cover ass, it is not something players do as it is separate from the game world and VERY boring).
Companies include things in ToS they have no intention of enforcing, it is not that they got 'lax' or lazy or where unable, they just never cared about that aspect in their game but like any good legal document that is there to protect your ass you include it for the 'just in case'.
So here in this case Renfail is not going to design out the issues he does not want in his game, the plan is to freely allow the actions in the game but then come along with a moderator and make punishments for being able to do them (and perhaps throw in an insult about them being toxic while doing it!). Some others have all ready pointed out that there are already resource issues with this kind of design plan, game is successful? how do you keep up? game hits the rough? can you keep it up?. This smells to me like poor design all over. Even if on the surface it only seems to be a promotion angle for 'carebears are safe here!'.
Developers of course are free to do what ever the hell they want, as I often do you could call this debate an exercise of thought and not something I am fully convinced of myself. However I think I have made some strong arguments and points that some of the things Renfail is engaged in here might not be the best strategy from a development PoV.
I doubt it matters that some players' freedoms are curtailed because the majority of players will enjoy a better game as a result. It may be seem unfair and even contrary to certain principles but ultimately bad behaviour in games should not be tolerated . I don't tolerate them in real life and I prefer not seeing them in the games I play either.
Comments
every other mmo has pve and pvp and yep the pvp is a complete joke and an after thought.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
your welcome.
Also, I never said I wasn't an asshole. I just know when I'm being an asshole that, well... I'm being an asshole, and will be treated as such. Fair's fair.
What would be better is if developers take more responsibility for their designs and try to provide all physical boundaries / restrictions needed to control the behavior they want to foster within their world and when a system available is found to be lacking, fix it. Not just rely on punishments to customers 'because ToS' and leaving them feeling rightfully robbed to cover up developer inadequacies.
Messy, sloppy and lazy!
Thank goodness for good design!
EDIT- I should also add that if you literally can't abide by "don't harass, stalk, grief, etc." Without having someone review it with you before you play any new game, you're exactly the type of person that shouldn't be playing online games.
Aloha Mr Hand !
"The most interesting aspect to the study is that their research subjects preferred to give themselves electric shocks rather than experience boredom."
better design is needed, not punishments!
Johny wants to kill Stinky Rat. Peter comes, kills Rat, goes away. Somehow developers knows, Peter gets banned.
Johny wants to kill Stinky Rat. Alas, no rat there, only Peter wanders. Johny tells developers Peter killed Rat (who else could? - thinks angry Johny). Peter gets banned?
Johny wants to kill Stinky Rat. Peter rides nearby, sees Johny in trouble, yet rides away. Johny gets killed, quest failed. Johny tells developers Peter was bad. Peter gets banned?
Johny wants to kill Stinky Rat. Peter instructs how to do that. Alas, Peter forgot to mention weapon should have Rat Slayer damage. Johny fails. Peter to be banned?
Peter collects metal ore, mining and fighting off enemies. Johny sends tells, like "u are big, helpme plz". But Peter is busy with mining, when he is free to aid, Johny killed, Rat killed by someone. Peter gets reported.
Peter goes through swamp, wants to attack spider (which drops Stinky Sticky Filth, used for crafting). By accident Peter kills Stinky Rat. Peter gets reported.
Peter stands in the swamps being de facto AFK. Maybe chatting with someone or checking inventory. He is too busy to see Johny is in need of help. When Peter - a healer - is done, he sees what happened. Ohmygosh - he thinks - what have I missed! Yet some kind sould reports Peter.
Another situation.
Global chat. Johny tells he would hang or impale all Orcs, because they are of such ugly skin colour and very dumb. Peter accuses on hidden racism.
Johny roleplays Elven knight and (perhabs from Tolkien perspective) tells - we, Elves, are superior, we are immortal, we are always nice, we have pointy ears...all other game races are inferior. Johny gets reported on racism.
Johny wants to buy Great Shiny Armour and asks for price. Peter jokingly tells: only 1 million coins. Jacob immediately offers armour for just 0,5 million, Johny buys...only to know armour market price was, say, 5000 coins. Peter gets reported for scamming, Jacob too.
In short, it would require hundreds of admins, tens of thousands hours to check who was telling the truth. Doable while game is small. Impossible if game is popular.
http://www.mmoblogg.wordpress.com
The only difference with us is that we plan on being a little more hands on with enforcement than many modern games are, much like in the old days of EQ when GM staff were involved in regular policing of the policies.
We aren't rewriting the wheel here (it kind of makes me chuckle how a play nice policy seems like such a big deal to so many people here on these forums, considering they are actively included in just about every TOS out there), we are simply stating we plan on enforcing things rather than letting toxic players persist.
Honestly, players should already expect Terms of Service to be regularly enforced, it's just that most companies have grown lax in doing so.
The whole point of our post on the topic was to let players know that unlike most other companies, we will be actively enforcing.
Shocking, apparently.
So either video games are filled with the most stupid of people (that's a huge shame if that's true) or people just want to play dumb and indulge when they can.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I think it is beyond wishful thinking that this is good design. Like providing a bouncy castle to children then telling them when inside they are not allowed to jump or out they go! Why not just give them something that doesn't bounce?
I find it a very strange argument that Renfail uses here about ToS - 'it's in most other mmo's that you play, we will just be enforcing ours'. ToS are just catch all legal docs to cover a companies ass, not instructions that players need to read to understand how to play the game (once again lets ignore how a court would rule here because that is exactly the point of it being a cover ass, it is not something players do as it is separate from the game world and VERY boring).
Companies include things in ToS they have no intention of enforcing, it is not that they got 'lax' or lazy or where unable, they just never cared about that aspect in their game but like any good legal document that is there to protect your ass you include it for the 'just in case'.
So here in this case Renfail is not going to design out the issues he does not want in his game, the plan is to freely allow the actions in the game but then come along with a moderator and make punishments for being able to do them (and perhaps throw in an insult about them being toxic while doing it!). Some others have all ready pointed out that there are already resource issues with this kind of design plan, game is successful? how do you keep up? game hits the rough? can you keep it up?. This smells to me like poor design all over. Even if on the surface it only seems to be a promotion angle for 'carebears are safe here!'.
Developers of course are free to do what ever the hell they want, as I often do you could call this debate an exercise of thought and not something I am fully convinced of myself. However I think I have made some strong arguments and points that some of the things Renfail is engaged in here might not be the best strategy from a development PoV.