What would YOU class as grief play?

[Thadius]

Ok, this whole shenanigans regarding GOA vs half the playerbase, I was just wonder what people class as griefing?

Is it stealing an artifact, greyganking in df or simply adding on 1 vs 1 fights?

Would be nice to keep this civilised people, I know some of you dont like certain members of this forum but for once, can we have an adult convosation about this?

*waits for Hell to freeze over*

 

[Esselinithia]

Grief play is: If when you do more harm for others than you benefit yourself (or for your group) intentionally or knowingly.

So when the dominant result of your action is hurting other players game / feelings.

 

[Thadius]

Grief play is: If when you do more harm for others than you benefit yourself (or for your group) intentionally or knowingly.

So when the dominant result of your action is hurting other players game / feelings.

Ah, does that mean taking your fullgroup and rolling a 1 vs 1 fight?

 

[Esselinithia]

No, since the benefit for you is just as much (RP, activity, etc) as much harm you do to them.

But if you would follow a soloer with an FG constantly, and would add everytime he tries to fight: You do a lot of harm and benefit far less from it So doing something once, or doing something repeatedly, etc. can be different.

 

[Ctuchik]

Grief play is: If when you do more harm for others than you benefit yourself (or for your group) intentionally or knowingly.

So when the dominant result of your action is hurting other players game / feelings.

possibly the most on the spot description ive seen in a long time

 

[Ingafgrinn Macabre]

One mid and one hib are fighting, 2 albs, 2 hibs and 3 mids are watching, another Mid comes down, joins the fight shouting "For Eirik!!", other mid is stepping down, and 2 albs and 3 hibs all bash on that one mid that ran in later, and all the other mids just watch him get smushed...

that's griefplay imo..

 

[Raven]

grief play is when you play with the sole intention of ruining others enjoyment of the game.


Thats 90% of the players left on the server then....

 

[Corran]

One mid and one hib are fighting, 2 albs, 2 hibs and 3 mids are watching, another Mid comes down, joins the fight shouting "For Eirik!!", other mid is stepping down, and 2 albs and 3 hibs all bash on that one mid that ran in later, and all the other mids just watch him get smushed...

that's griefplay imo..

I call that a learning experience in which the person that comes and joins the fight learns that not everyone plays the same style as them and that in future if they see them people fighting it is in his best interests to leave them be.

Oh, and adding on fights can be greif play. I done it before with my theurg. If someone has annoyed me then I saw them in an area with other people and they were fighting I would throw in a few nukes or pets. Quite comical, works on both own realm and enemy realm as you know it would annoy both parties

 

[kivik]

No, since the benefit for you is just as much (RP, activity, etc) as much harm you do to them.

But if you would follow a soloer with an FG constantly, and would add everytime he tries to fight: You do a lot of harm and benefit far less from it So doing something once, or doing something repeatedly, etc. can be different.

Hey again Essel.

The harm for us isn't that we lose precious RPs (I understand many do play just for this sole reason, NO NAMES MENTIONED MATE), we are harmed because our fight got fucked up. Dig?

Otherwise your statement is pretty much correct in my eyes.

 

[Esselinithia]

kivik: Yes, but the fg wins some fights, etc. as well, some activity, some reward they earned for roaming and not just joining iRvR.

So far iRvR is one of the biggest problems, and it is hard to do anything against it. But if people who avoid iRvR, and roam (with any group size) any fight they earn is a big bonus.

And since GOA thinks dueling circles are harmfull (for many reasons) and their value is low, the benefit / damage ratio looks good.

And if a siege crew just visits the same keep, and take action there, and revitalize the siege scene and drag many casual players to RvR, etc, the benefit can be even bigger

This is why GOA should be on the side of adds

 

[kivik]

kivik: Yes, but the fg wins some fights, etc. as well, some activity, some reward they earned for roaming and not just joining iRvR.

So far iRvR is one of the biggest problems, and it is hard to do anything against it. But if people who avoid iRvR, and roam (with any group size) any fight they earn is a big bonus.

And since GOA thinks dueling circles are harmfull (for many reasons) and their value is low, the benefit / damage ratio looks good.

And if a siege crew just visits the same keep, and take action there, and revitalize the siege scene and drag many casual players to RvR, etc, the benefit can be even bigger

This is why GOA should be on the side of adds

<Writes some lines of total nonsense>

This is why GOA should be on the side of soloers

(Is this a bad or good thing?)

 

[Sollac]

One mid and one hib are fighting, 2 albs, 2 hibs and 3 mids are watching, another Mid comes down, joins the fight shouting "For Eirik!!", other mid is stepping down, and 2 albs and 3 hibs all bash on that one mid that ran in later, and all the other mids just watch him get smushed...

that's griefplay imo..

thats arranged duelling and you should all be banned.

FOR ARTHUR!!!!:england:

 

[Dard]

kivik: Yes, but the fg wins some fights, etc. as well, some activity, some reward they earned for roaming and not just joining iRvR.

So far iRvR is one of the biggest problems, and it is hard to do anything against it. But if people who avoid iRvR, and roam (with any group size) any fight they earn is a big bonus.

And since GOA thinks dueling circles are harmfull (for many reasons) and their value is low, the benefit / damage ratio looks good.

And if a siege crew just visits the same keep, and take action there, and revitalize the siege scene and drag many casual players to RvR, etc, the benefit can be even bigger

This is why GOA should be on the side of adds

Your logic is kinda flawed, i think what you are saying is ..

iRvR = Bad but ..

Sieging/taking keeps (which quite often leads to iRvR) = Good

Or do i misunderstand your post ?

 

[Thorwyn]

As a rule of thumb, griefplay is anything that´s done with the purpose of "because I can do it and you can´t stop me from doing it". This stretches from adding to flaming people for adding, from duelling to crushing a duelling circle with a fg. In my opinion, griefplay is not bound to the action. Instead, it´s connected to the intention behind it.
Instead of trying to find definitions of griefplay, I´d rather stick to the good old common sense. If people want to duel, hey, let them have their fun. As long as they´re not affecting my way to play, that´s ok.


p.s. oh.. and why is iRvR such a big problem?

 

[Esselinithia]

A good siege can quickly stop iRVR

If there is iRvR in alb land? No problem, Albs should stop hibs/mid from porting there, and take a few of their keeps and make them worried about relics. Primetime. That is good siege action.

Losing a keep to 3 people because albs want irvr in alb land => no siege fun.

 

[Conway]

Very tricky to define grief play in a way that would cover all possibilities and you couldn't pick holes in.

Hmmm.

'Deliberately acting in a way which would cause annoyance to most players in order to gain pleasure or personal advantage.'

It has to be deliberate rather than an accident. You can do the wrong thing, wipe a ml raid of 100+ people for example, in pure innocent incompetence.

It has to be something that would annoy almost anyone rather than something some people would like and some wouldn't.

I can't think of any reason you would do it other than personal gain or having the sort of mind that thinks its fun.

I had an example of what I would regard as grief play in another game than DAOC the other day. Someone made a level 1 player and was threatening people. He wanted quite a lot of money or he would follow you round harrassing you until he got it. I thought it had to be a joke, but it was serious. I wouldn't give him money, so he was following my character round for ages, jumping up and down on them, swearing and making extreme sexual remarks. He kept on saying if I gave him the money he would go away. Eventually I got fed up and pointed a GM at him.

So stealing loot would be grief play. Deliberately killing a ml raid because you have a fight with the leader would be grief play. Coming across a fight and joining in might not be grief play even if one of the parties fighting didn't like it, because some people in some fights would like help. Deliberately following someone round for a long time and repeatedly joining in their fights when politely asked not to might well be grief play.

 

[Flimgoblin]

Deliberately following someone round for a long time and repeatedly joining in their fights when politely asked not to might well be grief play.

Though you could also argue that asking someone to stop attacking perfectly legitimate targets in RvR is griefing them... tricky one

Personally I'd agree that if they were stalking you and following you around purely to annoy you by adding on your fights that'd be griefing.

If they just happened to be playing in the area where you're fighting I'd say it's not.

e.g. if you're in an RvR hotspot around a bridge and they keep joining in on your fights I'd not class that as griefing.

If you moved around zones and they followed you to join in on your fights I'd consider that to be griefing.

 

[Conway]

Though you could also argue that asking someone to stop attacking perfectly legitimate targets in RvR is griefing them... tricky one

Personally I'd agree that if they were stalking you and following you around purely to annoy you by adding on your fights that'd be griefing.

If they just happened to be playing in the area where you're fighting I'd say it's not.

e.g. if you're in an RvR hotspot around a bridge and they keep joining in on your fights I'd not class that as griefing.

If you moved around zones and they followed you to join in on your fights I'd consider that to be griefing.

Well exactly, joining a fight by chance is one thing. Its legal in the game and someone shouldn't really throw fits about it. I'd consider deliberately following someone round to cause trouble when they kept moving area very different. That would be griefing because its going out of your way to stalk them purely to annoy them.

 

[Cromcruaich]

Ok, this whole shenanigans regarding GOA vs half the playerbase, I was just wonder what people class as griefing?

Is it stealing an artifact, greyganking in df or simply adding on 1 vs 1 fights?

Would be nice to keep this civilised people, I know some of you dont like certain members of this forum but for once, can we have an adult convosation about this?

*waits for Hell to freeze over*

Shark said a lot about this, he had a nice reference he oft used - worth looking that up for what I consider to be the definitive definition.

 

[lpep]

seems here on eu servers people are less flexible on the game style.... u see constantly arranged duells on US servers .....unfortunatly adding/helping is a 2 edged knife.. ure dammed if u do, dammed if ya dont.. tbh people should be a lil more tolerant of others would be less griefing then...

 

[Awarkle]

Well as you claim half the playerbase ill just edit your original post to read goa vs a small minority of players.

Either way grief play is when you go out your way to ruin the gaming experience of another player.

The problem with the EU servers is that there are certain forum warriors/trolls who beleive that they represent the will and wishes of EVERYONE on the server when in fact they represent a small minority of players.

By logging on to an alt and swear and abuse another person is grief play. To /rude spam someone is grief play. (although you dont think so).

Griefing is much harder in daoc than in other games however for some reason people still manage to do it. Either way i wish people would stop thinking that freddyshouse is the majority of players because it isnt.

 

[kivik]

Either way i wish people would stop thinking that freddyshouse is the majority of players because it isnt.

Keep going, eventually, one day the Dyvet population has suffered so much that the FH users are indeed a majority.

 

[Manisch Depressiv]

One mid and one hib are fighting, 2 albs, 2 hibs and 3 mids are watching, another Mid comes down, joins the fight shouting "For Eirik!!", other mid is stepping down, and 2 albs and 3 hibs all bash on that one mid that ran in later, and all the other mids just watch him get smushed...

that's griefplay imo..

No, that's one bad roleplayer with the intelligence of crispbread dead. Why? He didn't analyze the situation correctly and his poor assumptions got him killed.

 

[Flimgoblin]

No, that's one bad roleplayer with the intelligence of crispbread dead. Why? He didn't analyze the situation correctly and his poor assumptions got him killed.

Yep, a poor assumption that the game is RvR and not just a l33t 0ld bo1s club

 

[Vladamir]

Adding on fights or just ganking people in stupid numbers (hi SH).

Thats my classification

 

[Esselinithia]

Awarkle: The biggest group of players in DAOC is probably the casual players. And while they are minority on the forum, and most of them are less vocal about their oppinions (don't waste time on discussing them) they are the key to build a good community, and some casual players are here.

And sometimes they speak with ex guildies from old daoc times, they often speak with friends who are still in daoc, etc. before posting

 

[Septima]

The problem with the EU servers is that there are certain forum warriors/trolls who beleive that they represent the will and wishes of EVERYONE on the server when in fact they represent a small minority of players.

Pointing at yourself?

Or trying to appear as the white Knight that will save the oppressed from the bad bad "trolls" of FH?

In both cases you are putting in a too simplistic way a more complex question. Guess its tells a lot about you.

 

[kiliarien]

grief play is when you play with the sole intention of ruining others enjoyment of the game.


Thats 90% of the players left on the server then....

Not being funny here Rav as I know you're a top bloke, but why do you insist on posting this negative stuff all the time? That Northants air is getting you down

Apart from your 8 day freebie I haven't seen you in Dyvet recently - are you playing another toon? At a loss as to how you can comment so often when you're not playing.

Give me your powers to see into the server without actually playing! Or is there some new WoW-DAoC spy server link, that's it isn't it!! WoW are out to get us WAAAAAH!! :touch:

 

[Esselinithia]

Septima: The question isn't about the majority of players either.

Why?

We have less than 100 active people on FH.

We speak about less than 500 people prime time on dyvet, maybe we have 1000 or so active players on the cluster then.

If we compare current playerbase to the full playerbase of DAOC (ex players who can come back) we see that the current playerbase is a minority. And we can compare previous dominant behavior (what people who played before liked) and current one (what the current players like) and the differences can speak a bit more.

If we add other potential players who never played for more than a trial because they were unhappy, and might play daoc if a few things change, so about the potential players, we see a very different picture.

And for GOA the goal is to get as big share of this potential playerbase as active subscribers as they can.

And most current daoc players can't say when casuals left (when they left in droves) why the friends invited to daoc by them left as well (bigger number), why people who got trials on irc networks, forums from them left as well (even bigger number), but casuals who left and seen such friends deciding against DAOC have some experiences about it.

One can represent the guilds who left about same time, and started to play other games as a team, based on the knowledge of motives and decisions. One can represent the friends and random people invited based on the feedback.

But a single daoc player without any such information can't represent everyone.

It is funny that some fg or solo people think their ideas can represent why people left daoc more than the oppinions of people who left, when they discussed the reasons when their whole guild and many friends left at same time.

But somehow I doubt that Awarkle as an E&E team member, etc. can represent these groups well.

 

[Septima]

@ essi: Pointing fingers and blaming others for a problem is never a way to solve it. That was the only thing i wanted to point about awarkles post.

Daoc is not a democracy, and no one was designated to represent anyone. Only one Master here and it's GOA. If they want to fuck up with their customers they sure can do so. As we are free to show them a finger and spend our money somewhere else.
The fact is, there is no direct line, as an official forum, between GOA and their Daoc customers, and most of the problem lies there imho.