Beitrag 11–20 von 70
Zurück « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 » Weiter
von
obi-vor 5 Jahre
Contrary to popular opinion... FIrefly is right, any solution we ever came up with gives the griefer as much power as it does to the builder or even more. We disscussed it in previous threads already. If you don't want to get grieffed...claim all the area you think you need and then double it to make sure, maybe even tripple it. If you need help with getting to the 64k I can offer you my area holo chargers...you'll get to that 64k in no time. For social builds like hubs that anyone can get to you can now build walls to the top and theres no way to get out and cause damage. As for incognito mode, if Firefly doesn't want to add it and make the game different from how he invisioned it, I think thats completely understandable.
von
Kamikaze Justicevor 5 Jahre
"The only clear way of signaling you don't want an area to be claimed is to claim it. Boom. Problem solved." Problems are not solved, unless players can do everything simultaneously. It takes time to claim land. A person can't make 500 claims simultaneously, and during the time we're claiming (and gathering up the gold needed for claiming), there are griefers roaming around the game. Sure... we can have our 10 new accounts, and enough gold to buy 64 claims on each account (costing $640,000 in gold), and buy up the land as fast as possible, but still fail to keep griefers from ruining our well thought up plans. New players don't know the dangers of claiming land, so it's much worse for them, since they don't know about the griefers that can ruin the game for them. What's to protect them? Why must we grieve for the griefers? What is wrong with deleting undeveloped claimed land that has been orphaned for 6 months? On a very popular game called Diablo II, Blizzard Inc. deletes accounts that haven't been logged onto for 3 months. It doesn't need to go to that extreme, but giving the undeveloped land back to the game, after 6 months, doesn't seem extreme to me... and there are a lot of claimed, undeveloped land, just sitting there for the last 2 years, next to players that have been playing for 3 years.
von
Fireflyvor 5 Jahre
I really hate to do this, but it's the only way I will ever get out of my world view. I can only change if I know where the errors in my thoughts are. So I will literally go through every statement to express my reasoning. Sorry Moniq, you're the first "victim" here. I'll use quote arrows (>) to cite you. It's not personal, but you're just the first one to express their thoughts here. You deserve a medal. > I disagree! Great. I'm listening. My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution. > Why did you add claiming before? I added claiming so that players can prevent their buildings from getting destroyed. In the olden days you could build something and players would blow it up with bombs or just shovel it away. Claiming adds a sense of ownership and prevents modification by unknown, outside sources. Claiming allows me to pinpoint builders behind undesired elements in the world and moderate it when it gets reported. Claiming lets players have multiple saved points in the world. Claiming allows the holo charger to work. Claiming allows me to implement wonders. My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution. > Why claiming is ok and a restriction about it is not? You present a false dichotomy. Claiming is OK and restrictions on claiming are OK. Claiming already has multiple restrictions right now. If you want to put words in my mouth about me saying restrictions not being OK, I'll vehemently defend that these restrictions are already in place: 1.) you need an active Angeldust account to claim 2.) you need 1,000 coins to claim 3.) you must have less than 64 claims 4.) you can not claim a land that is claimed 5.) you can not claim a land that is part of a wonder 6.) you can not claim in the game world village 7.) you can not claim in The Void I'm OK with restrictions as you can see. My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution. > Invisibility will not prevent griefers to ruin your build, in fact it will be almost same as it is now with my almost empty friends list. It helps for Ruan4K's scenario which coincidentally is the starting point of this forum thread. I presented the invisibility solution with an empty friends list as a similar, current alternative. My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution. > Claim all? Yes. Plan a build. Reserve all your land. I think Rob12 had great success with this method. My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution. > How can I claim all land when I have no idea how much space will I need? You do this by developing your idea first and then sticking to it. Real life city planning and zoning is done this way and is proven to be a good method for developing unclaimed areas. I think Rob12 and obi use similar solutions in the game. My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution. > And no, I will not spend next X months claiming all my lands, because it would take ages, will prevent spawn of animals and will prevent to claim others on places that are ok. You are free to do what you want. But note that you lay out a whole set of unwritten rules here. Keep in mind that these rules make sense in your world, but you can not force other players to abide the same rules. Angeldust lacks an actionable government with a monopoly on "coercive force" to enforce any laws about preventing animal spawns or considering places to be 'OK' for claiming or not. My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution. > btw, what was wrong with restrictions based on level? I'll share reasons that I can think of now. 1.) I literally asked space is green two weeks ago to level up a new account to level 20. Within an hour: done. So in one hour someone can start griefing 64 building projects. You only need one claim to ruin dozens of claims of work as Ruan illustrated. So that's one building project ruined per minute of playing. 2.) Angeldust is a building game. Building should be easy. I know, it's labeled an RPG, but the end-game is pretty much building. Many players are miffed that claiming (being able to build) costs coins. I don't want to add additional entry barriers for being able to build. Getting the game, making an account, getting your first coins, figuring out the UI, it's already hard enough. Rob12 is here partially because of the welcoming nature of Angeldust. 3.) You all have alts. You all claim with alts. That's already an administrative nightmare. I don't want to make it even worse by having to level these alts even further. And once we reach a point where leveling an alt is still easy to do, the same holds for a griefer account. My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution. > Ok, make there a time limit. I'm listening. My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution. > No one can claim next to your new claim sooner than a month after, unless you are friends. A griefer without friends claims one claim away from you. Now you are locked out from expanding for a month. After which you still have the same problem as today since the griefer can return and claim everything in-between. And you were forced to wait at least a month. That's not a solution, that's a step backwards. Time-based solutions are also not good because I experienced in real life that obi was away for more than a year and then came back to his same build. I can not and don't want to force players to continue playing according to an imaginary schedule that I decided for them. My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution. > We obviously look for some protection. I understand that. I'm on your side. Always have been. My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution. > How many more players have to complain? None. I dove into the topic very in-depth last time (so player "-1") and I'm doing it again now (player "0"). I can not help the fact that—in my view which we're deconstructing here—there is factually no solution. Complaining doesn't drive us closer to a solution except for the fact that we spend more energy trying to cover the solution space. My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution. > Or you wait us to leave? False dichotomy. It's no choice between 'players having to complain' or '[you] having to wait'. This is not a binary choice. I was already doing the third option where nobody complains and nobody waits. I'm trying to solve this. But it seems impossible. I'm trying to explain my reasoning why. My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution. > Honestly, I don't understand you. That's okay. At least we're trying to understand each other. My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution. > You refuse every suggestion because ... it works! I think this entirely mischaracterizes what I've been doing and am actively doing here. Up until now none of your statements proposed a suggestion that [works], feel free to point out where my verdict is wrong. You can continue giving suggestions and I will continue explaining why they do not improve anything. This way we can find the root of our misunderstanding. I'm 100% deconstructing my thoughts here so feel free to point out logic flaws anywhere, that allows me to learn. If you can not point out logical flaws, but do not like my conclusions that's a different problem. My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution. > At least there will be free claim buffer. A claim buffer lets a griefer amplify their efforts in a bigger way than you. With a 1-claim buffer/border a griefer can negate expansion for 8 surrounding claims. While (if you place them adjacently) you can only do the same for 3 adjacent claims. Instead of a 1:1 "equal" battle, this is now 8:3 in favor of the griefer. That is not a solution, that's a step backwards. My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution. > At this moment, he can simply claim right next to me which is even worse. That is what you think. You can currently also claim next to the griefer. Fair game. With a claim buffer/border the math gets skewed in favor of the griefer. Draw it on a piece of paper. If you have three claims next to eachother, you have 3 claims with 12 protections. If a griefer takes three disjoint claims, it's 3 claims with 24 protections. That's twice as efficient. You can (and I'm thinking this up right now, so progress is made!) use this method for yourself. Claiming disjoint 3x3 areas. But then you're just playing the same game with bigger pieces. So it technically doesn't solve anything. You're still 1:1 with the griefer like now. My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution. > We did this conversation before. Yes. I know. My conclusion is also still the same, but we're at least discovering new thoughts. My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution. > When we suggest anything, you always counter that (what a surprise) it works both way and that same rules will apply to a griefer as well. Yes. I am looking for a solution. A solution is (for me) an approach that improves the 1:1 odds against the bad guys. Otherwise I'm just doing work for no gain. Do you agree with this? If you have a different, measurable definition of "solution" please share it here so we can evaluate it. My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution. > Yes, it will. That's the problem. My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution. > I know. Then you now understand why I don't see it as a solution. My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution. > And? I am looking for a solution. An approach that solves the problem, tips the scale in favor of what we call "the good guys" (and girls). There are dozens of non-solutions that I can work on that would prevent me from doing anything else in my life ever again. But it would not improve or solve anything. I'm not looking for endless work while people continue having the same problem. I want to solve the problem. My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution.
von
Fireflyvor 5 Jahre
Next up: Kamikaze Justice, who also deserves a medal right here. Again—I hate doing this, but it's the most transparent and constructive form of making progress that I can imagine right now. KJ, I know we're in hot water. Like with Moniq this is not personal. This is exploring the problem-solution space in real-time. > Problems are not solved, unless players can do everything simultaneously. That is an intriguing statement, you've got my curiosity and attention. My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution. > It takes time to claim land. I fully agree. My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution. > A person can't make 500 claims simultaneously, and during the time we're claiming (and gathering up the gold needed for claiming), there are griefers roaming around the game. You're absolutely right about needing time to build up money and claim land. I disagree with the observation that we have [intentional] griefers roaming around [all the time]. New players, sure. Players who do not share "our" social norms and values, sure. Players who don't speak English, definitely. But for argument's sake I'll accept the proposition. But even if there exist griefers, having [griefers] roaming around the game does not imply they are able to actually grief you or anyone else in particular. Griefers are bound to game rules. They can not just go everywhere. Or appear everywhere out of nowhere. My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution. > Sure... we can have our 10 new accounts, and enough gold to buy 64 claims on each account (costing $640,000 in gold), and buy up the land as fast as possible, but still fail to keep griefers from ruining our well thought up plans. Do you agree with my following statement that: you need to actively add friends to your [10 new accounts] to get griefers to visit you while claiming? By default you get me as a friend and friend requests from the (GM)s. You can call me a griefer any day of the week, but I posit that I'm not one. So unless you add any other players as a friend to your [10 new accounts] you are 100%, absolutely, provably going to be able to not be visited by griefers. Unless you enabled a different way for griefers to visit. If you disagree on that, we need to find out why. I can not deduce a code path that leads to griefers visiting a new account when that account is claiming lands somewhere random. If the theory is that griefers visit not the [10 new accounts] but your old account that just so happens to be friends with the [10 new accounts] then this scenario would be mitigated by the incognito mode. If you placed holo chargers to the place where you are claiming, you are actively inviting everyone, including griefers, to pop up at any time. The desired behavior of the holo charger is to allow griefers to use them. There is no technical solution for detecting griefers stepping on a holo charger. My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution. > New players don't know the dangers of claiming land, so it's much worse for them, since they don't know about the griefers that can ruin the game for them. I think "dangers" is exaggerated. Many beginning players currently claim just one or two lands and move on to other pastimes. There is no danger in claiming a single area, building something with dirt and then moving on. If we look at Ruan4K's case we can also argue that new players are the "danger". People who build wonders, or bigger structures after getting to know the game, are perfectly capable of doing so. Rob12 was able to claim and build a gigantic kingdom just weeks after starting to play, without any prior experience of playing the game. There are two "grief" claims in the build, which Rob worked around. What happened to Ruan4K in this topic was a failure in the chain of trust due to the nature of the telecharger. That seems like a solvable problem with the incognito mode. My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution. > What's to protect them? I don't think new players in particular need protecting at the moment. My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution. > Why must we grieve for the griefers? We must nothing. Like I told Moniq: everyone is free to do what they want. My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution. > What is wrong with deleting undeveloped claimed land that has been orphaned for 6 months? By definition literally everything will cease to exist. Your City of Justice has claims that have been untouched for the past six months. It's a complete administrative nightmare to keep touching all of your stuff. If you mean only empty claims then we're making the problem even worse. You can then not reserve any land for any reasonable period of time for future expansion. Your reservations will expire, griefers come in, place a single block and you're forever blocked from accessing what was yours. For a griefer having to claim and then place a single block is easy. So I don't think this solves the problem. My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution. > On a very popular game called Diablo II, Blizzard Inc. deletes accounts that haven't been logged onto for 3 months. I am not an employee of Blizzard Inc. and I do not have a particular interest in their products or policies. My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution. > It doesn't need to go to that extreme, but giving the undeveloped land back to the game, after 6 months, doesn't seem extreme to me... and there are a lot of claimed, undeveloped land, just sitting there for the last 2 years, next to players that have been playing for 3 years. You are entitled to your opinion. I want land claims in my game to feel permanent since I've seen enthusiastic players like obi take a long break and then coming back. I would hate for them to come back to a swiss cheese of their claims intermixed with grief claims where they had originally claimed for expansion. Expiring claims is not a solution, it's a step backwards. Griefers will then get opportunities to claim expired claims. Place a block. Boom. Nobody can ever touch it again. 1:1 odds down the drain. My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution.
von
vor 5 Jahre
Firefly. I have some suggestions regarding this matter. What if, instead of making a claim free land, we, owners of a claim, get an authority to kick out or block unwanted players within our builds. It might not be easy when it comes to making that kind of program but it might just do its job of protecting these builder's claim.
von
Ruan4Kvor 5 Jahre
After almost 1 hour reading everything, I keep hitting the same key. As I said before, I don't blame anyone for what happened, it was my fault for allowing it to happen even though I knew about the grieffers. Grieffers are a problem without a solution, there is no way to stop grieffers without stopping other players, in the end grieffers are also players. But there are ways we can deal with grieffers. I like the idea of anonymity but I don't think that would solve the real problem. In my opinion I wish I could undo some of my claims. Not because I don't like them, but to make room for other players, trash from one can be treasure to the other. I like Angeldust the way it is, I don't think it should change, I'm sorry for what happened to Moniq. I think miscommunication is a problem, but it's no one's fault. And so no one finds the crux of the matter. Pointing your finger at each other will not solve the problem. About new players who are unaware of grieffes their experience is ruined throughout the game because of this, I have the solution, GMs should warn about grieffes for new players (I'm already warning new brazilian players about it) me seems a plausible solution to this question. Grieffes are ultimately players, if Firefly empowers all players, it will be giving the same power to grieffers. Here we are just beating our heads and we will never find a solution that satisfies everyone, we think a lot and feel less. Yes I should have claimed all the area needed before, but I think of the other players, if I claim an area that I don't end up using will hurt creature spawn, and maybe that space is useful for another player, so I would like to have the possibility of undoing some claims of my own. I like the idea of "kicking out" unwanted players from your claimed area, for example in the Civilization II in game another civilization can send a diplomat / spy to sabotage you, and any soldier can kick out such a diplomat to avoid damage, that might work and I think worth discussing about. I agree with Firefly about planning, we should all plan what we want and think about the odds of going wrong. As I said, we have fight days and glory days, I won't be whining, on the contrary I will look for a new place (as good as the last one) and claim as much as possible
von
vor 5 Jahre
@Firefly I think such long post was not necessary. Especially cutting it into whole sentences that breaks context, imho. You rule the game and you can deny whatever you dislike. But the problem remains and all threads about protection of builders always end in void. So, who will be next in tears?
von
vor 5 Jahre
I think you all focus too much on players who are "bad guys". They always will have a way to harm, unless AD become a movie. And every restriction working both ways works both ways. But you forgot about "new guys". I can clearly see the scenario, a newbie starts the game, getting tips, materials, few friends, some levels. After some time he/she gets to some friend of a friend, it looks nice there, other players are active there, game tells newbie to go in shop if he/she wants to claim here. Sounds like good idea... Can you at least remove the message that leads players to buy claim in case it is next to someone else? Does the game inform players in newbie tips about some behaviour related to this problem? Can a new user be informed on web?
von
Fireflyvor 5 Jahre
Up next: CynicalRubixCube. Another medal right here. I'll continue doing this so that anyone can clearly point out the logical fallacies in my thinking until my world view aligns with reality. > Firefly. Hey CRC! My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution. > I have some suggestions regarding this matter. Great, you're in the right thread for this! My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution. > What if, instead of making a claim free land, we, owners of a claim, get an authority to kick out or block unwanted players within our builds. I don't see why this would solve anything? The problem exists because you have no control *outside of* your claim. You can kick people off of your claim anytime, but then you literally end up with players outside of your claim. Exactly where you don't want them to be for grief claiming. Also there is no concept of a [build]. You can not block players from something that doesn't exist. But again, keeping players out of a [build] is exactly what you don't want. Quite the opposite: if griefers were actually confined to your [build] they wouldn't ever be able to claim next to it. My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution. > It might not be easy when it comes to making that kind of program but it might just do its job of protecting these builder's claim. The difficulty of a solution doesn't matter. Let's first find a solution, then we can decide how to implement it. My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution.
Beitrag 11–20 von 70
Zurück « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 » Weiter
IAS AMIR
