Bericht 21–30 van 70
Vorige « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 » Volgende
door
Firefly4 jaren geleden
Moniq take two. > @Firefly I think such long post was not necessary. And that's why I'm doing this. By replying in detail and deconstructing my thought process you are able to exactly pinpoint where I am wrong. I need this so I can rectify my world view. It's no use talking at a high level if we're not agreeing on the fundamentals. My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution. > Especially cutting it into whole sentences that breaks context, imho. I assure you that I keep the context of full posts in mind when replying to individual sentences. This is just a convenient way of explaining and documenting why or why not I think a certain statement is a solution. My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution. > You rule the game and you can deny whatever you dislike. That is no reason for me to not listen to the community. I've always listened to the community, I'll give you examples dating back from release day if you want. The community has shaped the game more than I did myself. You can clearly, objectively see that I do not dislike anything in this thread. I only take an objective look at statements and decide if they are a solution according to my definition. I've offered everyone to write me alternative definitions for "solution" but so far I haven't received any. My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution. > But the problem remains and all threads about protection of builders always end in void. Exactly. So please point out where I am wrong. So far nobody has done this. I'm laying out my thoughts step by step. In my world my words and statements make sense. Point out where I am wrong so I can enter your world. Until you do I remain convinced that I am right about there not being a solution yet. My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution. > So, who will be next in tears? Your guess is as good as mine, but there's no need to be dramatic. My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution. > I think you all focus too much on players who are "bad guys". I'm going to assume that I'm part of [you all]. I am not focusing on "bad guys", I'm focusing on a solution for the "good guys". But "bad guys" are inherently part of the problem so focusing on the problem means focusing on the solution means focusing on the "bad guys". My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution. > They always will have a way to harm, unless AD become a movie. I agree. Bad guys will always be able to mess around. Some things are mentioned in the terms of use and I've banned players for certain behaviors in the past. My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution. > And every restriction working both ways works both ways. I disagree. There are asymmetrical restrictions in the game. If you claim land you decide who can change it and nobody else. A griefer will never be able to modify the contents of your claims unless you permit them to do so. A griefer can not force themselves as a friend upon you so can not spam your friend/private chat. I think there are more asymmetrical restrictions, but I think these are enough for showing they do exist. My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution. > But you forgot about "new guys" I didn't. In my reply to Kamikaze Justice I clearly stated that I don't think new players need protection from danger. In fact, I said, new players form the cause of this topic at all. New players are sort of "the danger". My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution. > I can clearly see the scenario, a newbie starts the game, getting tips, materials, few friends, some levels. That's what happens for a lot of players, yes. My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution. > 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. That's what happens yes. My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution. > Sounds like good idea... I agree. My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution. > Can you at least remove the message that leads players to buy claim in case it is next to someone else? I could remove it. I could do a lot of things. But players are allowed to claim next to an existing claim. I see no valid reason to hide the message. If a land is unclaimed, it means someone—including this new player—is allowed to claim it. If people didn't want that land to be claimed, it would have been claimed. That's the in-game language for communicating this. My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution. > Does the game inform players in newbie tips about some behaviour related to this problem? No, why should it? Unclaimed land can be claimed. I don't see why a new player should know more than that. If someone does not want a specific land to be claimed, they should have claimed it. I can not hold a new player accountable for the unwritten and imaginary rules that other players adhere to. They have the same right to an unclaimed land like any other player. My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution. > Can a new user be informed on web? No, there are restrictions on what I link in the app on a few operating systems. Players can seek out information themselves sure, but I can't link the website in-app everywhere. My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution.
door
Kamikaze Justice4 jaren geleden
Since you're the developer, I realize, you have every right to label all comments as null and void, and without solution, for whatever reason. Maybe, you don't want to tackle the problem, or perhaps... you don't know how to tackle the problem, so you leave it alone... or, you're a griefer sympathizer. I find it hard to believe, that a creator of a game, would leave the door open for people, in this case, griefers, to come into the game and ruin it for other players... and if they're obnoxious enough, could destroy the game altogether... even for the developer. I can guess what you're going to say..."this statement in itself is not a solution". Anyone can take a sentence out of context and devoid it of all sound reasoning. For example... in the Bible, Jesus is a loaf of bread, or a door, if people want to ignore the contexts. Usually, when debating, people will quote an entire paragraph, not just one sentence from the paragraph. That way there is context and the true thoughts/intentions of the person is known. I don't know if you're doing that intentionally, but that's not fair to the person you're quoting. For the life of me, I can't understand the love affair with griefers, while disenfranchising players that try to respect other players. Where's the monetary gain in that?
door
Hummm4 jaren geleden
I think a few of our key builders are completely missing what FF is trying to do. (perhaps, lost in translation) FF is being VERY transparent, and allowing us to "hear" his every thought as he reads your post, looking for a specific solution to the problem at hand. I agree w/ FF, I have not seen any concrete solution suggestions posted here that actually solve the problem without creating side effects deemed worst than the current problem. Much to most builders surprise, FF does not want to change the current system: "if you want to control a claim, you must first claim it." (and the obvious: first one to claim it, "owns" it.) I have to agree, this system works for "equally fair" for everyone ... everyone that wants to control a claim. (As a hunter, I hate ALL claims because they ruin the creature spawn) Here then is my solution suggestion: divide the world into multiple areas (similar to the PvP). One area has claims, the other does not. And no TP between them. Gamers that want to absolutely control, play in the "must claim" area. Gamers that want to build/destroy/hunt anywhere play in "chaos" area. If someone builds in the chaos zone, and someone else destroys it, you're free to repair it when the destroyer leaves. [this was my dream for PvP anyway] And if you want to switch "modes", you logout and log back in in the other mode.
door
Firefly4 jaren geleden
Hummm's second paragraph in post #24 perfectly captures what I do here. That means a lot to me. Thanks, Hummm. I think it helps if everyone here read it. I don't think I can be any more transparent, humble, or respectful to you all. I think we have no solution against griefers. Some of you explicitly say or implicitly imply that I am wrong. Instead of forcefully defending my position I actually do the opposite: lower all my defenses, bringing down my mental shields and fully open up my brain. I let you view my brains firmware, wetware, my source code, so you can tell me which thought that I have is wrong. Nobody has done this. Until you diagnose and repair my brain I will keep thinking the same thoughts. And now you know why. You have the advantage here. You now know me literally inside-out. You all have every right to demand whatever you want. You'll have more people and more energy to do so than I will have to reply. But I can not do the impossible, however much I sympathize with all your requests. I am convinced we have no solution. Solving the griefing (or any) problem *by definition* requires a solution. So debug me. You don't even need to convince me. You know my position, reasoning, facts and maths. Just point out the logical problem in my brain and I'm in your camp in a millisecond. I won't have a defense against the insights that you give me since my brain is very sensitive to logical errors and flaws. Especially in my own thinking. I have invested dozens of hours thinking and writing about the griefing problem. This is the ultimate moment. This is me at my most vulnerable. Either one of you steps up to point out where I am wrong (which you all imply is easy) or I will forever remain in a world where I think you ask the impossible. The least you can do is help me. I think I've earned your respect by making a game that a lot of you have played for a very long time. I'm not trying to be right. I even want to be wrong. Call me whatever you want. You can run away. You can dislike my conclusions. But you only need to point out the problem in my brain and you will be rewarded greatly. I've provided 100 or maybe 200 statements in this forum topic that you can analyze. If you think I am *that obviously* wrong, you can start by pointing out a single problem and we will go from there. You may even point to my typos and grammatical errors if you think that helps us progress. @Moniq: bye. Thanks for all the cool gameplay and block ideas that you shared and helped make the game better. I'll always admire the buildings you created. @KJ: I'm only doing a one liner: > Since you're the developer, I realize, you have every right to label all comments as null and void, and without solution, for whatever reason. Your realization is plain wrong I think. I like to believe I do not use such a right. I try to never claim "authority" as I think that is a very weak argument to make. Please point out where I did that and I'll apologize immediately. You know what? I'll even do it in advance: to anyone whom I ever disrespected by claiming authority in an argument, I'm sorry. You are the mental winner. I showed my weakness. Other than that I think I respectfully and thoroughly went over each and every sentence (yes, in context) of players implying that I am looking over, ignoring or labeling comments with solutions as void. I don't think I invoked authority for pointing out why a solution will not work. Authority isn't even part of my definition of a solution. I believe my definition of a solution is as purely mathematical as it gets. And I believe that I can not influence mathematics by virtue of being a game developer. I'm not sure if you are a programmer, but I'm sure you can spot a logical fallacy when you see one. So tell me which thought that I wrote down in this entire forum topic is wrong. Let me know in which statement I invoke developer privilege and wave away a proper solution. Point it out. Use this same '>' quote style to paste my sentence. Or two. Or three. Help me out here! And I'm really sorry to summarize this as you already hinted towards it, but for *full* transparency: my brain indeed concludes that neither the individual sentences nor the whole of your latest post (#23) offer a solution. @Hummm: you get a medal too. > Here then is my solution suggestion: divide the world into multiple areas (similar to the PvP). One area has claims, the other does not. The problem remains exactly the same in the "claiming" part of the world since that is a one-on-one mirror of the existing situation. Griefers will not magically gravitate towards the other part of the world however much we'd like them to. My verdict: this statement in itself is not a solution.
door
Rob124 jaren geleden
I know I haven't offered any solutions yet and I added my 5 cents worth by saying that griefing is the single biggest problem in the game. Well, I stand by that statement but I believe that one day a solution will be found that everyone will agree on. I've been following this subject with great interest but have been away from my computer a fair bit lately so I have not had time to write much. Hummm, your suggestion of two separate lands or worlds has great merits. Call them the Red and Green zones or Good and Badlands or whatever. In the Badlands, anything goes, if you win you win if you lose you lose, too bad. The Goodland is mainly for building and for peace and quiet, it is tightly administered and you have to stick to the rules or be kicked out. That sounds like a win-win to me. I talk to my wife about the game sometimes and I mentioned the griefer problem to her because It's happened to me before. She came up with a good suggestion too. A fence? A fence could be programmed to surround each property and be given properties that do not allow players to build a certain distance from another person's fence. The distance that is forbidden for the building would multiply with each new claim that was joined to the other. It would work differently to just adding a 1, 2 or 3 claim boundary around each claim. It would work like for between 1 and 9 joined claims it would create a 1 claim buffer. For 9 - 32 claims joined into any shaped zone would give a 2 zone buffer and so on in a mathematical equation. 32 - 64 claims = 3 zone buffer > 64 = 4 zone buffer. Or some similar idea? I realize I have not been playing for as long as some players and that my suggestions may have been suggested before.
door
4 jaren geleden
Sorry Firefly if I think you misunderstood my suggestion. What I meant about kicking players out of claim is that we get the authority to send them back to their Home Claim which is the Village. When we blocked them and they try to TP to their friends inside out claim, it would just tell them that "Sorry, this build is under construction" or "Sorry, This claim is restricted"
door
4 jaren geleden
I really don't understand, Firefly responded to you with respect and gave you a clear and fully transparent way to talk with him and gave you all the rights to give him constructive critisism. Yet neither of you responded in that way... For some reason to me you seem offended? I really don't know. You're all a bunch of B O O M E R S :)
door
Hummm4 jaren geleden
This will sound selfish... if so, please forgive me, I AM HUMAN. > > Here then is my solution suggestion: divide the world into multiple areas (similar to the PvP). One area has claims, the other does not. > The problem remains exactly the same in the "claiming" part of the world since that is a one-on-one mirror of the existing situation. Griefers will not magically gravitate towards the other part of the world however much we'd like them to. Yes, it doesn't completely solve the "claiming" part of the the world, but you forgot, I wasn't trying to solve that piece of the problem. I'm a hunter, I hate ALL claims. So it solves MY problem. And, if you make the new chaos world the default, most noobs won't even go to the claiming part... and with any luck they won't until they've learn some proper etiquette. (or will avoid it once they taste the freedom of claim-free building) You can also add some new tutorial pop-ups that explain the concepts and etiquette of claiming. Although that might be a translation nightmare! :(
door
space is green4 jaren geleden
To Obi: I feel you fellow-kidster! The old-heads here just aren't as cool and hip as us :P. Preface I would like to introduce the term: "Perfect solution fallacy" meaning (from wikipedia): A mistaken belief that occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it were implemented. Example: Posit (fallacious) These anti-drunk driving ad campaigns are not going to work. People are still going to drink and drive no matter what. Rebuttal Complete eradication of drunk driving is not the expected outcome. The goal is reduction. Main text Anybody can quote wikipedia and a quote proves nothing so here's what I'm getting at: Right now other players can telecharge (teleport) to my present location when I'm online and they will telecharge to my house when I'm offline. What if when I'm online I can toggle between having other players telecharging to my location or having other players telecharging to my house? When I select others to telecharge to my house I'll still be displayed as online and I can still use the chat options; The only difference is that other players can't telecharge to my present location. This way I can build and claim without worry for unwanted visitors. The toggle option will allow me to decide when people can visit me and when they can't. In other words: when my builds/claims are public or private. KJ's granddaughter can have in game friends. She can visit them in game and they can visit her when she is not building/claiming. Is this a perfect solution? No it is not. Complete eradication of griefing is not the expected outcome. The goal is reduction.
Bericht 21–30 van 70
Vorige « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 » Volgende
