What is the line between PvP and Griefing?

Okay, I'm reopening this now. I've reviewed the latest posts and removed quite a few of them.

Making accusations for issues like cyberbullying towards another player is extremely unacceptable and will not be permitted on these forums. Especially these days, an accusation like that is not something that can or should be taken lightly by anyone as true cyberbullying can cause massive psychological stress with people who are put into those situations.

That said, let us get back to the topic, please.

 

I would like to thank the moderator for reopening my thread. I have to agree that comments on either side of the cyber bullying question must be taken seriously. Bullying in any form should be unacceptable. Whether it occurs in game, out of game, forums, school, work, or anywhere for that matter there is no reason or excuse for it.

I am asking everyone to be civil and promote the discussion on what constitutes griefing and where does the line stop with regards to PvP. If we as a community can not come up with a solution then the devs eventually will. At that point there could be irreparable harm to the game in terms of donations, purchases, and a continuing player base. No matter how much we want the world to be the way we want it, we have to work together.

 

This does not surprise me. I saw this coming from day one. I believe I even pointed this out.

Spawn killing used to be more common in FPS games until they removed a singular spawn point and added multiple ones or random ones depending on the size of the map.

That this game didn't take into consideration the lessons an entire genre has learned is disappointing but not surprising.

 

Uhm? Chris has already said they would implement a spawn point solution. He has spoken of several different solutions which all combined sound good to me. But that it is part of one of the last passes of a scene.
Since this was the very first shardfall, in its very first release, during (pre)alpha...well that isn't even close to a last pass of that scene.

 

Spoon, I definitely agree with your post. But there are potentially new mechanisms as yet untried. I hope we can utilize some of these ideas.

 

What happens if someone is spawn killed continuously, they are trying to run away, and all they can do is cuss and scream at the killer? Does this mean, under some definitions, that the spawn-killed individual is greifing the attacker? I'm not sure that's a healthy definition.

 

Two wrongs do not make something right. If you feel you are victimized take the appropriate actions by reporting it to Portalarium rather than by lowering yourself to the level of the individual doing the continuous spawn/res killing.

If you have a better idea to prevent that sort of behavior lets hear them. If you think some of those brought up have worth or should be investigated further please comment on them. And, if some of them have problems or would not satisfy you, tell us why.

 

^^ Great points.

First, you can zone into Shardfall in single player and set up somewhere then switch.

Second, You can log out as a ghost and log back into single player.

Third, if someone establishes zone control and thereby controls the better resources and works to keep others out to maintain their advantage why should you be allowed to enter and have free roam of their territory. They are the big fish and they get to claim the prize.

Fourth, there is an open competition on that zone line by some of the best PvPers in the game. For you that is bad timing but for them somebody has to be fresh meat.

Fifth, you are not required to participate.

 

Why?

I've always been told that the main attraction of participating in PvP was the thrill of competing with a real live opponent rather than a predictable AI.
Is that true, or is the real thrill being able to exert dominance and control over another human being, even if they are severely disadvantaged?

 

Why can't it be a combination of both?

 

Why do you find the second entertaining, and do you suppose it is entertaining for the other person? Do you consider the feelings of others and the affect you might have on the other human being through your actions?

 

I didn't say 50/50, it could be like a 99/1% combination.. But realistically, most social questions (as what you are asking) simply defy dichotomy.

 

The split is irrelevant... whether it's 50/50, 99/1, or 1/99... if entertainment value of the second option is greater than 0, which you imply by suggesting it can be both options, then you should be able to answer my questions.

 

If a player is emotionally affected by participating in "consensual" PvP.....it's time they found a new hobby.

 

It is a bit ridiculous to try to simplify "why" into a line or two. There are as many whys as there are players. Also, take note that we are in Pre-Alpha, there is almost no support for PvP yet and still half the events or more are PvP. The demand is there and it is strong. It is a huge misconception that one style of PvP is going to satisfy even a majority of the players.

 

Again avoiding the question. Consensual has no bearing on the questions. Here... I'll supply my answers:

Why do you find the second entertaining, and do you suppose it is entertaining for the other person?
In general, I do not. Though not entirely guiltless, I have, on occasion, in a fit of rage taken advantage of a situation to exact revenge for wrongs done to me on another player over whom I had an unfair advantage. I do not believe it to have been entertaining for the other player, as the intent was that they not enjoy the experience.
I can only think of one particular incident that fits this description in my nearly 20 years of playing online games, and after the fact, upon reflection, considering the possibility that the game both allowed and encouraged behavior that could make me that angry was not something I wished to participate in, or most especially pay for. I then quit.

Do you consider the feelings of others and the affect you might have on the other human being through your actions?
Yes. Always. It is one of the tenets I live my life by. It is always in the back of my mind. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." While I am not myself a Christian, I have chosen to incorporate that idea into my own personal code of ethics. Moreover, save in the exceedingly rare and ultimately troubling for me episodes as detailed above, I generally go out of my way to do no harm to others, and consider how my actions might adversely affect others and NOT do those things that would. My freedom to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose.

 

I think most MMO TOS's would define repeatedly "res-killing" someone (after they have asked you to stop) as "griefing". Ultimately, to enforce acceptable conduct (as defined by a game's TOS, for example), you probably need to have some kind of an online GM system where the dispute could be handled in game (*ahem* UO). If there is no game mechanic being exploited (res-killing, while definitely antisocial, may not technically involve an "exploit"), then it becomes more a code of conduct/morality issue... Coincidently, the whole concept of an in-game "justice system"- hot topic many releases back- would seem to be a great way of handling players who repeatedly misbehave in-game, without having to break immersion by calling for "outside enforcement". The (now-defunct) Wizardry MMO had a very basic framework resembling this idea (pk bounty boards).

 

You've still not answered the questions, Your Grace.

 

Yes I find PvP/Pking entertaining. No I don't consider their feelings, if they don't like PvP they shouldn't be in a PvP area.

 

While terms of service define what is acceptable or not, legally, there are also issues of relativism to consider. For example, is the man who steals a loaf of bread a thief? Some would say that it is thievery only if it is stolen for personal profit; others would submit that thievery is thievery no matter the cut of the cloth. Does that answer clarify my question for you any?