Of course not. Quebec is on the same planet as us.
Of course not. Quebec is on the same planet as us.
Zing!
((For those unfamiliar with Canadian "culture" that was about the worst possible insult you could fling at any English Canadian))
Last edited:
Then don't buy from them.
Or don't put your eurodollars in player-run banks.
Easy peasy,
Oh yeah?
What's the rate of unresolved murders in the USA?
So when are you guys going to execute Sonny Barger again?
And I just hate that there is no recourse to their behavior other then becoming a bigger dick than they are, and I refuse to do that because unlike them I have some morals and self respect.[/QUOTE]
OK this is starting to get a bit weird.
Each time you bring up the subject of you being "harrassed" (which is euphemism you use to really say you're losing and plain don't know hwo to play the game) in online games, you make it sound like it's the hindenburg that is being set ablaze.
Suhiir, you do know you're being trolled by 13 years old upper-middle class boys, eh?Often they are quite geeky and they are not likely to be high school bullies or the criminals you dealt when you were wearing a badge.
If you really believe that wealthy 13 years old well, simply beats you at a video game because you have little reflexes is cause for moral outrage.
All I can say is "Oh, the humanity."
Last edited:
Oh I know how to play lots of games, baseball, football, chess, wargames ... and they all have one thing most internet PvP lacks. Rules.
So you're saying you'd prefer a world where anarchy reigns supreme? Unfortunately most of the human race disagrees, why we have nations, militaries, and police forces ... and yes ... rules of behavior the majority use force to make the minority comply with.
So you're saying you'd prefer a world where anarchy reigns supreme? Unfortunately most of the human race disagrees, why we have nations, militaries, and police forces ... and yes ... rules of behavior the majority use force to make the minority comply with.
It is completely irrelevant to the equation because this is a game
The rules are inherent in the game.
The rules are inherent in the game.
Last edited:
Ahhh I see ... you're one of those "If it was against the rules the game would be hard coded to prevent it - I'm not cheating when I exploit" types.
No, I do not mean to be rude. But
A world where anarchy runs supreme? How in the world did you dream up that's what I actually believe? Please tell me how you arrived to that contrived conclusion?
so amenable to reason? There is no reason to respond to to begin with.
and what's this about "exploits" or what not.
That's what I just told you! The rules are inherent in the game!
So what's the point in parroting what I said? How does that promote your pov?
To rephrase my curt comment:
All I'm asking you to do is to please tie up the loose ends in your argument.
Last edited:
The problem with rules is that rules can be broken. Some people have no rules while others do and in a game there should be a strong incentive to adhere to the most basic of them and suffer consequences if you don't. Unless you're good enough to avoid being caught. "Dark Souls 1" tried to add a mechanic that'd be used by other players (basically the police) to hunt down the sinners (basically the murderers), but other mechanics (like being able to summon other players) resulted in making this system flawed a bit. You could invade a murderer that was too strong for your level, or it was plain and obvious cheater or he had a group of friends on him and they all were notified about your arrival... It had good principles in place, but execution left much to be desired.
EDIT:
I will leave an idea here. Let's say that you try to shoot someone in the Night City. AI and player cops will be notified to respond to the particular zone. They'll arrest anybody who owns a gun in the area and kill those who won't surrender. The goal of the killer will be to leave the zone in one piece. Another idea is that if there are witnesses then each kill and found body would be added to your tally and you'd have to avoid police, be on the run.
Still, such punishments aren't solving the issue of people who would create an entirely new character just for the sake of killing while others would lose their precious character. Get over it? Trauma Team? How would you make players indispensable for the other players while still retaining strong single-player experience? How you add weight to betrayal or murder for the one who's planning to betray or murder?
EDIT:
I will leave an idea here. Let's say that you try to shoot someone in the Night City. AI and player cops will be notified to respond to the particular zone. They'll arrest anybody who owns a gun in the area and kill those who won't surrender. The goal of the killer will be to leave the zone in one piece. Another idea is that if there are witnesses then each kill and found body would be added to your tally and you'd have to avoid police, be on the run.
Still, such punishments aren't solving the issue of people who would create an entirely new character just for the sake of killing while others would lose their precious character. Get over it? Trauma Team? How would you make players indispensable for the other players while still retaining strong single-player experience? How you add weight to betrayal or murder for the one who's planning to betray or murder?
Last edited:
Unfortunately the only way to do that is to "punish" the player rather then the character.
I recall one game (still in alpha I believe) that allows characters to be put on trial, a number of currently active players are selected, the crimes are listed (PKing, theft, harassment, whatever) the perp and victims are given the chance to speak, then a jail term is voted on. From what I gather being in jail (for up to 400 minutes) means basically "don't bother to log on as you can't really do anything".
Nothing, of course, prevents logging on an alternate character during this period. But obliviously an account-wide punishment would be unreasonable because other characters might be perfectly law/rule abiding.
The real issue is this sort of anti-social behavior is not directed at other characters but the player behind them.
Actually an account-wide punishment sounds both reasonable and doable while not excluding multiplayer component. It's the best idea I've read about solving the issue so far. Law-abiding characters and players would have nothing to fear at all. It would make you think twice before killing somebody and you'd double your efforts to avoid being caught. If someone couldn't be able to troll without significant repercussions then we either limit that behavior and/or suppress it in case of special (player) characters.
Oh I agree it's probably the most practical solution, and the one even some MMOs are starting to implement (account banns).
I guess my problem is (to the great surprise of some I'm sure) I have no issues with limited, character directed "crime".
For instance, when EverQuest first got started I was playing a Dark Elf Rogue and according to game lore everyone hated them and they hated everyone else so I was one very anti-social little bitch. At that time there was basically no PvP component to the game so it was limited "verbal harassment" (I refused to kill-steal or train MOBs to kill other players as those were too "gamey"). In 90% of cases other players went along with this and it added to the game experience. But I was once contacted by a GM for harassment (fortunately I'd kept a log of that particular encounter as I noted the player didn't quite seem to "get" that this was IC not OOC) and merely asked not to do this sort of thing in the future.
Now you'll say this was obviously a clear case (supported by logs) of IC behavior and perfectly within the lore of the game. But if for whatever reason it was decided I'd "crosses the line" should my entire account, and other character who had no part in the behavior be punished?
There's no reason single-character punishment's can't be implemented, but at the same time account-wide activity can easily be tracked (since each character is linked to an account) and once a number of characters from a single account have been "found guilty" then things can escalate from character to account level repercussions.
But of course ALL this is possible only because it was a pay-to-play game, with free-to-play trolls can usually create accounts by the dozen (i.e. look at what the gold sellers do) so the banning of any single account is irrelevant. Not an easy issue to deal with, the main reason many game companies pretty much ignore it.
I don't really understand the point you're trying to make. It's not about someone deciding that you've crossed the line. It's about setting rules into place that'd serve specific function. In this case - discouraging players from killing other players for the sake of it. While it might be considered doable (to kill other players), the existence of safeguards is important to limit the extent of it somehow. We don't see people killing other people on the street in broad daylight that often. There are reasons for that. If I want to run a mission with someone who's on the verge of cyber-psychosis or has dubious reputation and might run off with the prize (or kill me, when he calculates it works out better for him than splitting the money), it's my call and it adds to the experience and value of my choice. If someone blows my head off "just because" and I roll another character who's going to die the same way - because it's so easy and that's cyberpunk, etc. - it's just cheap, unfun and calls for lockdown of my game from the outside interference. But if a player is disabling a feature from his or her experience, then it's a failure from the design perspective as features are supposed to be enjoyed (like playing with people who actually want to cooperate).
Last edited:
In a nutshell - Should a players entire account (i.e. access to the game as a whole) be penalized if one of the characters associated with that account breaks the law/rules? Or should be handled on a character-by-character basis unless the entire account activity history indicates a pattern of misbehavior?
This sort of behavior is actually fairly common in many PvP settings, and exactly the sort of thing I for one don't want to see in CP2077. Some will argue that by not permitting such behavior we're ruining their ability to play the game as they choose, but of course they totally ignore that their "freedom" is at the cost of some/everyone else's.
Last edited:
The point of PvP is killing or stealing from other people. Economic and strategic incentives force others to cooperate
If you don't like PvP just play on a no-PvP server.
Everyone happy, problem solved.Easy peasy,
If you don't like PvP just play on a no-PvP server.
Everyone happy, problem solved.Easy peasy,
Such is generally my approach, as well. PvP servers should be PvP for all - although in the interests of realism and depth, I'd like to see consequences such as Suhiir suggests in-game.
I would disagree the point of PvP is killing or stealing from other people. The point of PvP is to have fun, of course, and I have fun both from the challenge of other players, the complexities they create and the joy of working with my team to defeat their team.
I don't actually give a darn about harming someone else in any way, nor making them unhappy. That's just pathetic. Well, usually. SOME players I take great pleasure in unhappying. Ooh, a new word.
The problem with PvP only servers is that the game has to offer you that option, of course.
The other problem, for me, is that open PvP often breaks immersion pretty fast, if it's the general I'm-14-and-I-can-do-whatever-I-want-yay-me crap. Let's see that happen in a server with simulated real-world consequences. Want to be a bandit and renegade? Great! It's tougher than Hollywood leads you to think.
I would disagree the point of PvP is killing or stealing from other people. The point of PvP is to have fun, of course, and I have fun both from the challenge of other players, the complexities they create and the joy of working with my team to defeat their team.
I don't actually give a darn about harming someone else in any way, nor making them unhappy. That's just pathetic. Well, usually. SOME players I take great pleasure in unhappying. Ooh, a new word.
The problem with PvP only servers is that the game has to offer you that option, of course.
The other problem, for me, is that open PvP often breaks immersion pretty fast, if it's the general I'm-14-and-I-can-do-whatever-I-want-yay-me crap. Let's see that happen in a server with simulated real-world consequences. Want to be a bandit and renegade? Great! It's tougher than Hollywood leads you to think.
I agree. Without making it competitive, competition is pointless.
I'd agree to such the kangaroo court, if the corruption of its members are considered part of the game. one (or two) paid employee might be a judge and thus 'uncorruptible' so the corrupt members/players at least try to hide their tracks lest they be replaced. It could be very interesting if a political system of sort is in place.
In my experience, the demographic a game attracts has more to do with the type of game then it does with PvP.
It's a different crowd that plays say CS 1.6, and WWII Online.
I have never seen any of the childish trolling on the Hearts of Iron forums. No doubt because the game itself weeds out those who do not have the patience to play the game and it appeals to WWII history buffs.
And even if the kids become problematic... what of it? Honestly, let them be. Video games are at the base for kids. We adults (and I use this term very lightly) are (or at least should be) visitors at best. Even if some of us are fairly frequent visitors.
It is far more pathetic to see "grown ups" complain about kids being kids and even comparing them to sociopaths then the other way around.
But let's say we don't want kids , what do we do? . Make it hard. Like ArmA. Make it appealing to the cerebral player
which would mean amongst other things a dynamic economy.
I'd agree to such the kangaroo court, if the corruption of its members are considered part of the game. one (or two) paid employee might be a judge and thus 'uncorruptible' so the corrupt members/players at least try to hide their tracks lest they be replaced. It could be very interesting if a political system of sort is in place.
In my experience, the demographic a game attracts has more to do with the type of game then it does with PvP.
It's a different crowd that plays say CS 1.6, and WWII Online.
I have never seen any of the childish trolling on the Hearts of Iron forums. No doubt because the game itself weeds out those who do not have the patience to play the game and it appeals to WWII history buffs.
And even if the kids become problematic... what of it? Honestly, let them be. Video games are at the base for kids. We adults (and I use this term very lightly) are (or at least should be) visitors at best. Even if some of us are fairly frequent visitors.
It is far more pathetic to see "grown ups" complain about kids being kids and even comparing them to sociopaths then the other way around.
But let's say we don't want kids , what do we do? . Make it hard. Like ArmA. Make it appealing to the cerebral player
which would mean amongst other things a dynamic economy.
Last edited: