Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Again I would generally agree.  The one thing that holds me back from completely agreeing with the idea that how you act in an anonymous situation is what you are really like is the way I behave online.

In MMO's I tend to solo mostly because I just want to relax, not be depended upon or depend on anyone else. In RL I am extermely goal oriented and very rarely relax.

Although I still do hate depending on other people haha.  That doesn't change.

Regardless the idea is that since I behave differently online - which is the real me, and the question then goes to the griefers. 

Venge

edit - I sense a thread hijack coming.

Well, I was coming at it from more of how one behaves towards others in a situation where they are anonymous and believe they are free from harm. So rather, in such a setting a person's true moral compass (or lack there of) tends to show

If someone still behaves politely and respectfully toward others he or she meets (exceptions apply for those who have wronged them), then he does so because he has a developed super-ego.

If on the otherhand under the same situation, said gamer devolves into well... a jackwad for lack of a better term... it's because they operate mainly on an ego level outside of a virtual setting, and lack a structure of morals to guide them when there isn't adequate pressure giving them the expectation to behave.

Wow, a lot of armchair psychologists in this thread. They're almost as bad as armchair economists, only slightly less smug, because they're taken less seriously.

People in groups create social norms; we all have a good idea of what they are, based on experience, though everyone has a slightly different interpretation. There is a social contract that binds all of us as citizens of our respective countries, that at it's farthest edges is bound by law, and further in is defined by morality. For example, legally there's nothing to stop me from having sex with my best friend's girl, but morally, it would be the wrong thing to do. Hopefully at this stage you get the picture. A random person running into a scratch match and stealing the ball isn't necessarily violating the law (to begin with), but he is certainly violating basic social etiquette. If he causes enough of a public disturbance, police will get involved, and it won't be a problem anymore, because there is a limit to how much of a public nuisance one can be before the law is invoked.

Now here's the important part: this is because we all share this world together as mortal men and women, and as such, one person's rights cannot violate another's, particularly where doing such would cause harm. There is a limit to how free any single person can be, because without laws and restrictions to that freedom, we would live in chaos. This is the basic foundation of government, and the reason we are lucky enough to live in a world in which we can walk down the street without having to bow down to a lord. In the real world, this sort of system makes sense.

However, MMOs at their inception were forms of escapism. There are no laws or social norms in MMOs that prevent anyone from killing another player, aside from artificial ones coded by the programmer. The range of abilities and options within the game encompasses the parameters of the social contract that binds the players. In other words, if you play a game with PVP in it, you should expect that at some stage, someone will kill you when you are at your weakest. But you should also expect that you can do this to another person as well. There is nothing wrong with this, because these are valid options set by the game, and exercising such behaviour isn't doing any harm to another person; ergo, griefing behaviour is playing the game as it was intended to be played. There may be less formal social agreements between players that prevent griefing from occurring (i.e. a guild that polices a particular portion of territory), but in general, you cannot expect that at any given time your rights as a person in the real world are applicable to this new social environment.

Secondly, it's important that people express these behaviours in MMOs, because it allows them to express very real character flaws in an environment that doesn't harm others (and we all have flaws). The alternative is much, much worse. Finally, if you're angry that  someone killed you and stole all of your online equipment, you're just as culpable as the person who did it in the first place, because you failed to recognize the social parameters of the game that you were playing. If your attachment to virtual goods with no tangible or meaningful value is such that it ruins your experience of the game, you were playing the wrong game to begin with. It's closer to a gambler complaining about the casino stealing his money than your initial example of a football scratch match, because the player made a conscious decision to play a game with PVP. If you don't want a game in which the social 'dickhead' factor might ruin your day, don't play a social game. It's a pretty simple choice really, but the social factor is what makes MMOs such a potentially powerful experience. You can't have it both ways, unless you have a predominantly PVE game that limits social interaction.

One more thing: you should all play a few rounds of a hardcore PHP bulletin board game like Planetarion or Empirequest, or Planetia. It's hard nowadays, because there aren't many of them around anymore, but those were some of the best games I've ever played. Brutal economic simulators in which you could be attacked at all hours of the day, bashed by players 100, 1000, even a million times your size (literally); they forced players to group together to survive, and the social experiences I had in those games were some of the most powerful I've had in any game, period. I'm talking being under attack for weeks on end, defending allies and getting defense yourself, no sleep, staging counterattacks at ungodly hours to catch your opponents napping, annihilating their fleets and stealing their resources to use against them, and inevitably, losing everything in a game where only an arcane combination of determination and luck will see you through to the top. Once you've done that, you'll understand, and griefing won't be a big deal anymore.

Originally posted by Brakedancer                                                                                                                                                         "and exercising such behaviour isn't doing any harm to another person; "
 

Nice post but unfortunately this line sums up most peoples feelings on both side in a way that makes it true for only one group.  People that are pro PVP use this argument to have a freak out over how someone would have a problem  getting killed in a game by antoher human.

People that dont like PVP will tell you that no you have hamed them,, not physically but on a number of levels:

You have disrupted their experience

You have in the case of full loot taken something of theirs that they spent TIME aquring TIME is the real issue here, time and character progression.  So yes you have hurt this players ability to progress and wasted their time.

So we cant simply say that the things people do in games mean nothing, that their time means nothing, and the things they lose mean nothing, they are tied back to both time and emotions.  If we we're just robots with infinite life spans and no emotions then that stateement above would be true for both parties, but we are human.

ya, i'd respond to ye olde wall-o-text, but i just don't have the energy today.

Originally posted by Brakedancer

However, MMOs at their inception were forms of escapism. There are no laws or social norms in MMOs that prevent anyone from killing another player, aside from artificial ones coded by the programmer. The range of abilities and options within the game encompasses the parameters of the social contract that binds the players. In other words, if you play a game with PVP in it, you should expect that at some stage, someone will kill you when you are at your weakest. But you should also expect that you can do this to another person as well. There is nothing wrong with this, because these are valid options set by the game, and exercising such behaviour isn't doing any harm to another person; ergo, griefing behaviour is playing the game as it was intended to be played. There may be less formal social agreements between players that prevent griefing from occurring (i.e. a guild that polices a particular portion of territory), but in general, you cannot expect that at any given time your rights as a person in the real world are applicable to this new social environment.

You've described how open PVP games work, while carefully avoiding whether most people feel they should work that way.

People seek certain play experiences, and the game which provides those experiences most consistently will outperform a game which doesn't.

In regards to PVP games:

• Pure PVP. If PVP is the only activity in a game then only players who want PVP will play the game and players will always get what they want.  This is good.
• Cordoned PVP.  If PVP and other activities exist, but they're isolated from one another, players who want PVP can immediately find it in the PVP section of the game and players who want the other stuff can find that stuff in those sections of the game.  This is good.
• Open PVP.  In this case there is cordoned and a player who logged in expecting to do Activity A can instead be forced -- by another player -- to engage in PVP.  This is not good. 

Originally posted by robert4818

Its funny to see how serious some people are about thier Leisure games. If you really care so much that it makes you angry when someone comes ruins your beach volley ball game, park flag football game, little league baseball game, then you need help. No, people who do this  do not have low self esteem. No, they do not have 'issues' in real life. It's honestly just funny to hear the raging that follows.

We see this defense for video games, why don't we hear it in the self same type of "pointless" games that happen in real life?

I mean, why don't people just grab a foot ball/volleyball/etc and just kick it as far away from the game as possible?  Why don't people simply run a football in the wrong direction?  Why don't people try to run the bases in reverse?

I mean, it is "just a game" right?  The world "allows" you to do it, so why don't we see it all the time.  People should not choose to play in a public spot, if they do, they should simply expect this stuff to happen and not be upset when it does.

But in the real world, trying tough guy stuff could end with you in the hospital or the morgue.

To really put this to the Real World Scenario Test first you have to have a few items.

1) A person who no one knows and does everything you say

2) You are no where near this said event when it takes place

3) You are the only one giving the commands

Now that you have those items, you can put it to the real world test. You tell this person to go to this Public Little League game, and walk to the field and steal all their bats and baseballs, and punch the pitcher. Then run away.

You ruined the children's games, you ruined the parents that was so proud of their kids that play in the game, and you destroy and made all those hard working kids cry. But because you weren't anywhere close to that event, you can still show up and reak your rewards. But are you really happy because of what you did, are those kids that cried wrong to cry. Are the parents wrong to be angry because its just a game.

NO, because its an event that they worked hard in, an event that they enjoy. To you its just a game, to them its more than a game, its hard work, its the experiences that they cherished. And by ruining their game, you just ruined those cherised memories.

Now put Kidnapping and murder into those same situations and you are now a criminal mastermind. Althought you didn't do the deed yourself you orchestrated it and you controlled it. Therefore you are as guilty as the ones that did.

Originally posted by robert4818

Its funny to see how serious some people are about thier Leisure games. If you really care so much that it makes you angry when someone comes ruins your beach volley ball game, park flag football game, little league baseball game, then you need help. No, people who do this  do not have low self esteem. No, they do not have 'issues' in real life. It's honestly just funny to hear the raging that follows.

We see this defense for video games, why don't we hear it in the self same type of "pointless" games that happen in real life?

I mean, why don't people just grab a foot ball/volleyball/etc and just kick it as far away from the game as possible?  Why don't people simply run a football in the wrong direction?  Why don't people try to run the bases in reverse?

I mean, it is "just a game" right?  The world "allows" you to do it, so why don't we see it all the time.  People should not choose to play in a public spot, if they do, they should simply expect this stuff to happen and not be upset when it does.

Incorrect.  I dare someone to come and interrupt my group when we're trying to do Boxing or BJJ class.  Hey, it's just for fun, right?

Originally posted by Brakedancer

... griefing behaviour is playing the game as it was intended to be played. 

This is another one of the weakest arguments I've heard.  I hear it alot, but often game rules and systems show that no, its not the way the game was intended to be played.

Take Darkfall, the current epitome of the "gankfest" pvp game.  Even from the get-go there was a vision of the game.  This vision was Guild V Guild and Faction V Faction PVP.  This vision is clear from the immediate systems in the game.  "Enemy factions" were red, and as such were safe to kill.  "Friendly Factions" were blue, and killing them resulted in penalties that were fairly hard to counteract.  The game left open the idea of potentially ganking newbs, but it made the penalties severe.  

But of course, Griefers didn't really play the game as INTENDED, they just found ways to circumvent the systems that were in place.  Instead of simply being murderers, they would run in front of new players, get hit by them so that they could kill the players without a consequence.  PLUS as an added bonus, if they lost they forced their victim to suffer the penalty THEY should have had.  Its clear from the system, that this style of Griefing isn't what was intended in the play, even in a game that caters to PVP playstyle.

---

People that dont like PVP will tell you that no you have hamed them,, not physically but on a number of levels:

 

You have disrupted their experience

You have in the case of full loot taken something of theirs that they spent TIME aquring TIME is the real issue here, time and character progression.  So yes you have hurt this players ability to progress and wasted their time.

So we cant simply say that the things people do in games mean nothing, that their time means nothing, and the things they lose mean nothing, they are tied back to both time and emotions.  If we we're just robots with infinite life spans and no emotions then that stateement above would be true for both parties, but we are human.

---

Honestly, this argument boils down to the reasons why people play games, and what their expectations are. The real problem is not the games themselves, but people foisting their own expectations onto games, and then being annoyed that it's not what they imagined. Personally, I can't play any online game that doesn't have an element of risk to it, because I honestly don't care about gear or progression. For players like myself, the game is it's own reward, and not the other way round. The game is worthwhile because I am spending time playing it, rather than doing something else, and the items and progression are independent of that. If you feel that losing a bit of time and progression doing something that you enjoy is tantamount to harm, then I honestly can't help you. Maybe you should broaden your horizons a bit?

I think what a lot of players who don't like open PVP want is not an MMO at all, but more of an open-world co-op environment, in which players only engage one another in fair, pre-arranged contests, and most of the gameplay is gear-driven character progression. The thing is, that game already exists, and I'm tired of playing it. It bores me, because the best times I've ever had in any game were the times when someone was actively trying to kill me, and there was something on the line; maybe the odds were unfair, and maybe I would lose some progression, but those were small prices to pay for that rush of fun. That's what I want as a player, and I understand that it's not for everybody, but it's frustrating that people get angry because players like myself apparently deprive them of their hard earned time. Honestly, if the game is such a chore, and the progression matters to you that much, play a single player game. I'm content to invest time in a game because it engages me, and I don't expect to be rewarded by the game for playing it, because playing it is the reward.

As for whether or not games should be designed like this is an irrelevant argument, because ideally, developers should be making games that they (and people like themselves) want to play. The reason there is such a huge divide in the MMO playerbase (particularly among those that want a game like the old UO, or even something closer to EVE) is that there are no AAA sandbox MMOs, because apparently there's no market for them. People like myself know that this is bullshit, because we're begging for one, and this is why nearly every other indie MMO that is announced is FFA PVP. We don't want another dungeon runner, we want a world simulator, where you can have your own house, run your own tavern, craft gear that isn't shit compared to 'phat lootz', and where you don't have to farm the same tired old bosses again and again just to sit around Orgrimmar waiting for your next BG to pop. I don't care if someone ganks me for an hour or two and steals all my shit, because the amount of fun I could make for myself in such a game far outweighs the cost of having to deal with a few dickheads.

Originally posted by robert4818

Originally posted by Brakedancer

... griefing behaviour is playing the game as it was intended to be played. 

This is another one of the weakest arguments I've heard.  I hear it alot, but often game rules and systems show that no, its not the way the game was intended to be played.

Take Darkfall, the current epitome of the "gankfest" pvp game.  Even from the get-go there was a vision of the game.  This vision was Guild V Guild and Faction V Faction PVP.  This vision is clear from the immediate systems in the game.  "Enemy factions" were red, and as such were safe to kill.  "Friendly Factions" were blue, and killing them resulted in penalties that were fairly hard to counteract.  The game left open the idea of potentially ganking newbs, but it made the penalties severe.  

But of course, Griefers didn't really play the game as INTENDED, they just found ways to circumvent the systems that were in place.  Instead of simply being murderers, they would run in front of new players, get hit by them so that they could kill the players without a consequence.  PLUS as an added bonus, if they lost they forced their victim to suffer the penalty THEY should have had.  Its clear from the system, that this style of Griefing isn't what was intended in the play, even in a game that caters to PVP playstyle.

 

That's not a behavioural problem, that's a problem with the game's parameters. The ruleset allows for that type of gameplay to exist; if it wasn't intended, it clearly needs to be fixed by the programmers. Pretty simple, really. In any game, players will engage in gameplay that is both intended and unintended. Where unintended gameplay is detrimental, you remove it. The problem in your example is not the fact that newer players are being killed, it's the fact that the players perpetrating it are circumventing the natural repercussions for doing so.

As for everything else I've written, take it home, read it, think about it, and maybe one day you'll get it. You're clearly pretty militant about the whole ganking and griefing thing being wrong, so I wouldn't expect you to understand where I'm coming from. You don't really have much to complain about though, because there are any number of AAA games in which ganking and griefing are either dificult or impossible, and relatively inconsequential to the person being ganked. I mean, this whole thread reeks of smugness when you consider that you have a vast array of big budget choices that cater to your gaming tastes, whereas players who genuinely want an open sandbox game are limited to a few indies, an extraordinarily engaging spreadsheet, and a 13 year old game run on hacked servers.

Originally posted by Ceridith

Originally posted by Kyleran
...

RL games like softball have no such expectation or design for PVP, so this analogy really falls apart IMO.

RL sports are by their very definition what PvP is. Sure you're not trying to harm or kill each other (well, depends on the sport, lol), but you are very much competing against one or more other players to win, hence Player versus Player.

It's a perfect analogy because there are explicit rules in most such games that explicitly disallow and even penalize "poor sportsmanship", which is what most griefing behavior would fall under.

You can't divorce the last sentence in my post from the 2 paragraphs that preceeded it, takes it totally out of context.

If they don't want ganking, they make a PVE server where no one can attack anyone, so it logically makes sense that if they permit you to kill other players, they expect some people to do so.(and even behave like asshats) 

In fact, I'll bet in this PVP scenario the big surprise to developers every time is how seldom people on the side of "good" gang up to defend themselves against the forces of evil.  We're all too busy soloing to really help one another out.

Sure, within the context of the sport/game itself, it is totally a PVP experience, but real world games don't have a provision /expectation for random people to come along and join in the 'combat' or interfere with the activities of those who do.

In MMO's that isn't true, the developer's design the game so that people who enjoy 'griefing' can get their money's worth, they pay their money same as you and developers have to cater to their desires.

For anyone who joins a PVP server/game, you've just agreed to the rules to permit them to try and interfere with your activities and if you don't like it, stay on a PVE only server.   Most games have them, and for those that don't, probably not a good game for you to play . (such as EVE)

I'm actually a carebear, but always play on PVP servers because I enjoy trying to liven up the PVE leveling experience by evading their ganks and on occasion turn the tables on them.  Heck, once in a while I actually find people that like to band together to battle griefer (rare though they are) and that's when it can be the most fun.

Originally posted by Axehilt

 

You've described how open PVP games work, while carefully avoiding whether most people feel they should work that way.

People seek certain play experiences, and the game which provides those experiences most consistently will outperform a game which doesn't.

In regards to PVP games:

• Pure PVP. If PVP is the only activity in a game then only players who want PVP will play the game and players will always get what they want.  This is good.
• Cordoned PVP.  If PVP and other activities exist, but they're isolated from one another, players who want PVP can immediately find it in the PVP section of the game and players who want the other stuff can find that stuff in those sections of the game.  This is good.
• Open PVP.  In this case there is cordoned and a player who logged in expecting to do Activity A can instead be forced -- by another player -- to engage in PVP.  This is not good. 

With Cordoned PVP, the player can choose which feature(s) to engage with.  With Open PVP, the player choice usually becomes "I choose to stop playing this stupid game."

 

Obviously some players on the Venn Diagram of Gaming Interests are interested in all activities, all the time.  But in the grand scheme of things it's a pretty small group.  So while games exist for that group (and will continue to be made) they'll inevitably be rarer, with smaller budgets.  And you'll always have a lot of players arguing against their existence, because those players would rather have more games for themselves.

 

Your game examples still game made all the time.  From BBS Door Games like Solar Realms Elite, to Travian, Freesky Online, Lords of Ultima, and more, that genre of games is extremely long-running (since 1987 with Space Empire Elite, another BBS door game) and shows no signs of stopping.

 

Your game examples are bad examples though.  In those games, PVP is the primary focus.  It's the core of the game.  Whereas Open PVP systems are most frequently criticized because PVP isn't the core of the game, and someone was ganked while trying to enjoy a different part of the game.

I skipped over design for a reason; there's no one solution, and everyone has their own varying opinions on the matter. Like I said in a previous post, this all boils down to what people expect from their games. My issue is with players who feel that ganking is in some way causing them harm and wasting their time and effort, when they expressly agree to the social conventions of whatever game they are playing every time they log in. I don't believe that players should be gang-raped as soon as they start the game, but by the same token, I don't believe it's a huge inconvenience to be killed from time to time by an asshat, because that's the price of playing a social game. Hell, I've been corpse-camped, killed in creative ways that forced me to repair my gear, one-shot by people far beyond my level, and blown apart by people that I couldn't even see because they were cloaked. Sure, most of the time it was annoying, but it wasn't the gross injustice that some people would have you believe, and every now and again, I enjoyed the challenge of being in a fight that I knew I couldn't win. Playing a game without that danger would be boring for me; if I wanted to collect gear and jerk myself off, I'd go play Diablo II or TitanQuest with some mates. 

As for BBS games, they're still around because they're remarkably simple to code, and they tend to be purely about the gameplay. There aren't many economic simulators like the ones I described that are still around, and the ones that are tend to be sped up variations. That's neither here nor there, though. Maybe if I get the time I'll try making one myself.

Originally posted by robert4818

No, people who do this  do not have low self esteem. No, they do not have 'issues' in real life. It's honestly just funny to hear the raging that follows.

Sure, tell yourself that.

But why your at it, also ask yourself WHY is it funny to hear other people raging and upset by your actions.

I would say it is because it's 'fun' for griefers to control the behaviours of others and makes them feel some kind of power in their life, if only for a minute or two. I would say it gives the griefer a kick and makes them feel a little better about their impotency and lack of self worth in their own lives, even for a minute or two.

So, yes, very much down to low self esteem and other issues.

It actually shares much of the same mindset and motivations of bullying.

I agree with alot of people here.Grief me on the Web ...No big.It doesn't even make me mad. I played games where open gank and griefing is encouraged.And back then it was fun online. Its not fun unless its a game that encourages that sort of behavior to the entire population.Even on normal games it doesn't bother me.But I don't doit to others.

                Try it in real life , and I will bust your ass.You WILL show me respect if you are in my presence . And thats the bottom line. I teach this to my children also. Don't worry about things you can't control.But If you can then do so.

                  Most people who doit online  in family oriented games and such are suffering low self esteeem , or are retaliating for being bullied  as a youth.Some are just low lifes ..no big.But in the case of games like EvE , Rubies of Eventide,  etc where its the norm I don't see anything wrong with it.

Wrong. People who seek gratification/negative attention by ruining other people's fun are sadistic pr-cks.

And just because our society tries to let its citizens have the freedom to socialize among themselves, that doesn't mean bullying is OK. You know this, because everyone does; it's common sense. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. We learned this in kindergarten.

What if you come over and ruin our volleyball game and I pull out a gun and shoot you? By your sociopathic rules, that is OK because I CAN do it. See, once you start letting people victimize others with the excuse that what they are doing was unimportant, then someone else will take it a step further; someone always does. And then the rules of engagement will continually escalate until we have everyone murdering each other.

So, yes, ruining someone's volleyball game makes you a loser. And doing it online makes you a coward too because at least the jerk doing it in person knows he might have to face consequences for it.

Originally posted by Brakedancer

I skipped over design for a reason; there's no one solution, and everyone has their own varying opinions on the matter. Like I said in a previous post, this all boils down to what people expect from their games. 

Well yeah that was mostly my point.

Complaints of open PVP come from the fact that (a) customer expectations aren't clearly established that the game is purely about PVP, which can include (b) that there are a number of non-PVP activities which distract from PVP, and (c) there is no "end".

My real point regarding the old BBS games was that old BBS games clearly establish (a), (b), and (c).  That's why those games work so much better and people rarely complain about others attacking them.

Originally posted by Sigilaea

Wrong. People who seek gratification/negative attention by ruining other people's fun are sadistic pr-cks.

 

And just because our society tries to let its citizens have the freedom to socialize among themselves, that doesn't mean bullying is OK. You know this, because everyone does; it's common sense. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. We learned this in kindergarten.

 

What if you come over and ruin our volleyball game and I pull out a gun and shoot you? By your sociopathic rules, that is OK because I CAN do it. See, once you start letting people victimize others with the excuse that what they are doing was unimportant, then someone else will take it a step further; someone always does. And then the rules of engagement will continually escalate until we have everyone murdering each other.

 

So, yes, ruining someone's volleyball game makes you a loser. And doing it online makes you a coward too because at least the jerk doing it in person knows he might have to face consequences for it.

Seriously, grow up. The whole point of online games is competition, and being able to do things we can't do in real life. If being killed a few times is causing you this much grief, maybe you need to harden up? What does it cost you do die a few times? A bit of time and gold? Maybe you couldn't finish the quest you wanted to today? So what? If you go clubbing, you might get into a fight, and if you play sports, someone might foul you. Who gives a shit? Get over it, it has no impact on your life in the wider scheme of things. Get a mate and go corpse camp the guy back, it's not exactly rocket science.

And its clear from these posts that some of you have never really played team sports at a decent level of competition if you think this shit doesn't happen in real life. God forbid some of you ever step out onto a hockey or football field. Even the girls bully each other to get an edge on their opponents. Hell, I've seen people get ankle tapped, get shoulders dropped into them, verbal threats, I've had friends eat hockey sticks, and watched my 14 year old sister go through middle-aged women who were trying to bully her off the ball by playing to physically hurt her. I've personally tackled people with the intention of hurting them, and I've been pushed around, mouthed off to guys, and had it all thrown back at me. It happens in any competitive environment. That's part of life, and if you don't learn to deal with it, you end up crying about it on the internet.

Maybe the real issue is that you shouldn't be playing these games?

Originally posted by just1opinion

Sorry....I'm not buying the "asshats tend to be fat and depressed" bit.  Nope.  I know plenty of skinny and gregarious asshats and plenty of nice fat people.  I think you just said that because you PERSONALLY don't like fat people.  lol

LOLOL's

As for the OP's post as to why people try to ruin other peoples pass times or why people get upset when their pass times are messed with is probably tied into a deeper social / economical issue that trickles down and happens to affect us in a negative way. I mean if you had 1 Billion Dollars how hard would it be to ruin your day?

For me +1 Billion? you could probably cut my parachutte string and if I made it out ok it would probably MAKE my day lol

Originally posted by Kyleran

Originally posted by Ceridith

Originally posted by Kyleran
...

RL games like softball have no such expectation or design for PVP, so this analogy really falls apart IMO.

RL sports are by their very definition what PvP is. Sure you're not trying to harm or kill each other (well, depends on the sport, lol), but you are very much competing against one or more other players to win, hence Player versus Player.

It's a perfect analogy because there are explicit rules in most such games that explicitly disallow and even penalize "poor sportsmanship", which is what most griefing behavior would fall under.

You can't divorce the last sentence in my post from the 2 paragraphs that preceeded it, takes it totally out of context.

If they don't want ganking, they make a PVE server where no one can attack anyone, so it logically makes sense that if they permit you to kill other players, they expect some people to do so.(and even behave like asshats) 

In fact, I'll bet in this PVP scenario the big surprise to developers every time is how seldom people on the side of "good" gang up to defend themselves against the forces of evil.  We're all too busy soloing to really help one another out.

Sure, within the context of the sport/game itself, it is totally a PVP experience, but real world games don't have a provision /expectation for random people to come along and join in the 'combat' or interfere with the activities of those who do.

In MMO's that isn't true, the developer's design the game so that people who enjoy 'griefing' can get their money's worth, they pay their money same as you and developers have to cater to their desires.

For anyone who joins a PVP server/game, you've just agreed to the rules to permit them to try and interfere with your activities and if you don't like it, stay on a PVE only server.   Most games have them, and for those that don't, probably not a good game for you to play . (such as EVE)

I'm actually a carebear, but always play on PVP servers because I enjoy trying to liven up the PVE leveling experience by evading their ganks and on occasion turn the tables on them.  Heck, once in a while I actually find people that like to band together to battle griefer (rare though they are) and that's when it can be the most fun.

 

Per the highlighted, why then are most developers doing the opposite?

it seems to me that the vast majority of game developers are explicitly going out of their way to restrict, deter, or otherwise punish griefing behavior. Even in modern MMO PvP servers there are several additional measures taken to mitigate noob characters from being corpse camped all the way to the unsubscribe button. Why? Because a griefing gamer's ability to "get their money worth" infringes on every other players ability to maximize their enjoyment of the game. And it is for that very reason that griefing behavior is shunned, because their enjoyment comes at the expense of every other player's enjoyment.

And yes, I do agree that these days there is choice in MMOs, and accept that choosing to join such a server is agreeing to having to deal with being griefed via PvP. And yet, is it any wonder to any one at all as to why sandbox games with FFA are so damn unpopular?

These FFA PvP sandbox games appeal mainly to the fringe subsect of ganking PvPer. They're trying to re-create something that has only, and will only ever exist in Ultima Online's past. Yet they fail horribly to do so. Why? Because extremely few players willingly chooses to play a game where other players are given an open invitation and full excuse to corpse camp noob players,'because it's just part of the game's design.' That's what made Ultima Online (pre-Tram) such a great game for griefers, because they got to play wolves in a FFA PvP environment with other players who wanted no part in PvP, but had to because there was no other game like UO out at the time.

But back to my point -- Using the cop out that players willingly choose to subject themselves to a particular ruleset, does not change the fact that certain player behavior is in bad taste. Just because the game mechanics allow for something, does not mean it's okay. If that was all the logic needed to justify behavior, than every player that exploits a bug, dupes, etc, isn't doing anything wrong because they're just doing what the game mechanics allow them to do... and yet, most players would consider such behavior as bad and something that should be punished.

It doesn't matter if someone tells you that you're allowed to be a jackass; you'd still be a jackass.