Fix the damn PvE rules!

[Yamuliss 105]

These threads are getting absurd.  Someone stupidly leaves a cart unlocked and starts a 20 page flamefest of Wurm and the GM's and acts like the game is broken. 

 

Yes please Devs, turn this game into a Theme Park MMO where we toss out the whole "sandbox" thing to placate a few people who don't understand permissions (claiming they are "hard" is hilarious).  Or because a few A-holes found ways to grief someone.

 

And yeah like Cista pointed out....  A lot of you were VERY unkind to me and others who were against removing the enclosure rule.  You threw "deed it or lose it" in our faces all freaking day.

 

So now you can just suck on it.  You made your bed so you can lay in it.  This is how you wanted the game to be!!!

The enclosure rule was good and bad.

 

The Bad- To many greedy people thought that huge land grabs for free was ideal to a good game play experience leaving less for new arrivals. I seen it my self on release, celebration, deli and else where. The enclosure rule had to end so that the new and great server Xanadu wouldn't fall prey to greedy land grabbers. It became almost like an exploit. Much the same way that traders was used. Btw i seen a thread as of recent where Xanadu was calling for traders to be used on the server. It was some those same players that called an end to traders now they want them back and on Xanadu seeing how hundreds play on xanadu. It's greed! All or nothing is how i see it. The grand experiment Xanadu failed! It didn't get what they hoped for in the way of new players. It has had and continues to have many issues.  So you claim many threw those like you under the bus about the enclosure rule but my question for you is how many rule changes have you supported that many did not agree with. It goes both ways.

 

The Good- It kept griefing to a minimum on the freedom servers. People thought long and hard before bashing fences.

 

Sometimes change is not good. I wasn't for or against the enclosure rule being removed just like i wasn't for a huge change involving traders but i do feel that if you want something you should pay for it and if you want in game currency you should earn it or pay for it not exploit it or think your entitled to it. Most games require you to pay for everything almost. I for one am thankful the game not like most games.

Edited July 23, 2015 by Yamuliss

[Proximo 402]

Sometimes change is not good. I wasn't for or against the enclosure rule being removed but i do feel that if you want something you should pay for it or it's not yours to have.

 

Dude this is a sandbox, not an economy simulator. 

 

Anyway this is a very old argument I don't feel like revisiting.  The self-entitled "deed it or lose it" crowd won, and now that they got what they wanted, are finding out they don't like the results. 

 

Karma.

[Yamuliss 105]

Dude this is a sandbox, not an economy simulator. 

 

Anyway this is a very old argument I don't feel like revisiting.  The self-entitled "deed it or lose it" crowd won, and now that they got what they wanted, are finding out they don't like the results. 

 

Karma.

This is a sand box and last i check it has or rather had an ingame economy based on trade mechanics and real currency so it has both aspects. It's not a entitlement to say deed it or lose it. It's the opposite saying hey you want something you better plan on paying for it. An entitlement would be to suggest your owed something thus your entitled to it. Example- Im a new player i feel im entitled to 12x12 deed for free because im new. Your use of entitlement doesn't do your argument justice. Simple to say you was against rule change and those that felt rule change was in order gave rise to this issue that is now a problem. But it wasn't an issue of entitlement how you have explained it.

 

You could argue and say at the home page under terms of service  it clearly states that you own nothing in the game and club code reserves all rights which makes the argument that just because you pay for it doesn't mean you own anything because in truth according to how that reads, you own nothing!

 

TOS

Creation of this account allows you the exclusive use of this account for playing the Wurm Online game by accessing the service provided by Code Club AB pursuant to the terms and conditions in this agreement. You acknowledge and agree that you shall have no ownership or other property interest in the Account and that the account is under the sole ownership of Code Club AB.

 

But i do agree its an old argument one i don't really want to revisit with you and others.

Edited July 23, 2015 by Yamuliss

[Audrel 2,223]

Proximo and Cista are right in that many of the people against the current state of affairs were all for the removal of the FCC. While lining their boots up to plant them squarely on the buttocks of the little person in front of them, someone else was lining their boots up for their buttocks. When the kick came to them, they didn't like it.

[Yamuliss 105]

Proximo and Cista are right in that many of the people against the current state of affairs were all for the removal of the FCC. While lining their boots up to plant them squarely on the buttocks of the little person in front of them, someone else was lining their boots up for their buttocks. When the kick came to them, they didn't like it.

Im not really disagreeing with Proximo but he saying it was a entitlement mentality correct me im wrong how he worded that. Im saying it was those that whined and advocated for rule change that created the scenario that is being experienced over all not a entitlement mentality. Two posts up i said change is not always a good thing.

[Proximo 402]

Man I don't care how you phrase it.  The removal of that rule basically told the community that it was ok to grief fellow players.  And that just because the rules say you can do something, means it's cool if you do it.  No matter how rude, impolite, or just plain cruel to others it is.

 

I don't care if someone didn't pay for virtual land in a damn video game.  Telling a gaming community that you can bash into someone's fences and kill all their animals because "deed it or lose it"...I mean just..and people actually wonder why we have problems?  Hello!?

 

How many new players do you think Wurm lost because of that by the way?  All because the self-entitled vocal majority couldn't stand that they "paid" for land and others didn't. 

[Yamuliss 105]

Man I don't care how you phrase it.  The removal of that rule basically told the community that it was ok to grief fellow players.  And that just because the rules say you can do something, means it's cool if you do it.  No matter how rude, impolite, or just plain cruel to others it is.

 

I don't care if someone didn't pay for virtual land in a damn video game.  Telling a gaming community that you can bash into someone's fences and kill all their animals because "deed it or lose it"...I mean just..and people actually wonder why we have problems?  Hello!?

 

How many new players do you think Wurm lost because of that by the way?  All because the self-entitled vocal majority couldn't stand that they "paid" for land and others didn't. 

Well it doesn't do any good to agree with you or disagree as long as you keep calling it entitlement mentality so this is my final thought on it. You had some who whined and wanted the rules changed to stop greed and land grabbing. 1000 tiles of fencing for some with a tiny shack popping up all over became really insane after a while especially when it was combined with attempts to grief others. This was being done all over the place. I see both sides to it. Your correct it did hurt new players by the change in the rules limiting protection for the new players and mainly free to play players. But when you get down to it nothing in life is ever really free. Free to play is like an intro into the game for one to decide if they like or dislike the game with the encouragement to purchase premium time to continue to play the game and enjoy the "entitlements" as you would say. We are in the same book Proximo but on a different page is all. I detest change myself but only if it's truly damaging. The rules regarding fences and enclosures should not have seen a fast rapid change. They should have substituted for some sort trial deed for newer players to see if they like the game at which point they could premium and pay to continue. They sort of did that with the Tent idea and stakes. You will not get me to agree that massive free land grabbing was over all good for the game. That i will disagree on.

[Proximo 402]

Can we please stop pretending that those who used this rule to secure "1000 tiles" were ever anything other than extreme statistical outliers and not the norm?

[Cista 429]

Just to clarify why I used the word "entitlement" in my post above.

 

I use that word because I see some people putting forward the notion that they should be protected from any losses because they have paid for their deed, that's all.

The mantra that evolves is that no matter how they have set their deed settings, and who they let into their village or alliance, they should be refunded any losses, because they have paid money, so Code Club owes them that or they will stop paying.

 

On the other side of the fence stand myself and others that love that this is a sandbox and we have the freedom to be responsible for ourselves and our assets in the game, and we have the mechanics to entrust others with access to our deeds and so on - it is our own responsibility. And the only problem we see is that some deed settings for example have been opaque for many of us and are due for simplification. Some really bad exploits happened, including in my own alliance.

Edited July 23, 2015 by Cista

[Zundy 99]

Well it doesn't do any good to agree with you or disagree as long as you keep calling it entitlement mentality so this is my final thought on it. You had some who whined and wanted the rules changed to stop greed and land grabbing. 1000 tiles of fencing for some with a tiny shack popping up all over became really insane after a while especially when it was combined with attempts to grief others. This was being done all over the place. I see both sides to it. Your correct it did hurt new players by the change in the rules limiting protection for the new players and mainly free to play players. But when you get down to it nothing in life is ever really free. Free to play is like an intro into the game for one to decide if they like or dislike the game with the encouragement to purchase premium time to continue to play the game and enjoy the "entitlements" as you would say. We are in the same book Proximo but on a different page is all. I detest change myself but only if it's truly damaging. The rules regarding fences and enclosures should not have seen a fast rapid change. They should have substituted for some sort trial deed for newer players to see if they like the game at which point they could premium and pay to continue. They sort of did that with the Tent idea and stakes. You will not get me to agree that massive free land grabbing was over all good for the game. That i will disagree on.

Yamuliss, Prox is using the term correctly, his implication is that the people who argued "deed it or lose it" had a false sense of entitlement (and still do) because they believe they are entitled to better protections and the ability to have their own way because the pay for the game.

[Proximo 402]

I think the belief that you can step on your fellow gamers throat, because you paid for something and he didn't, is the very definition of "entitlement".

[Yamuliss 105]

I think the belief that you can step on your fellow gamers throat, because you paid for something and he didn't, is the very definition of "entitlement".

it could be considered that way "yes" doesn't make it right and most are not like that. Select few are.

[rixk 830]

These threads are getting absurd.  Someone stupidly leaves a cart unlocked and starts a 20 page flamefest of Wurm and the GM's and acts like the game is broken. 

 

Yes please Devs, turn this game into a Theme Park MMO where we toss out the whole "sandbox" thing to placate a few people who don't understand permissions (claiming they are "hard" is hilarious).  Or because a few A-holes found ways to grief someone.

 

And yeah like Cista pointed out....  A lot of you were VERY unkind to me and others who were against removing the enclosure rule.  You threw "deed it or lose it" in our faces all freaking day.

 

So now you can just suck on it.  You made your bed so you can lay in it.  This is how you wanted the game to be!!!

No, it is not a real sandbox, because in real sandbox no player has immunity and has to face the consequences of their actions. Everyone, even the the people, who can't play nice, have consequences.. you are trying to argue, that people, who forget something, should have consequences. Fine, I am all good with it, but only, if the offenders also have consequences. No sandbox has criminals(or people who target ohter players) running around immune to any kind of retaliations like people on wurms freedom servers do.. If you are saying, that adding consequences to criminals would turn the game into a theme park, I say you haven't played any sandbox games before.

Even on pvp servers in Wurm players have consequences, when they target fellow kingdom members.. I mean hunted status, how effective it is, is another thing, don't know that, but the mechanic is there.. yet on freedom you can target ( I don't mean here to kill ) fellow players without any consequences.. This is NOT a sandbox.

[Haverstrom 22]

enable pvp

problem solved

 

(JK )

[Arronicus 641]

Even on pvp servers in Wurm players have consequences, when they target fellow kingdom members.. I mean hunted status, how effective it is, is another thing, don't know that, but the mechanic is there.. yet on freedom you can target ( I don't mean here to kill ) fellow players without any consequences.. This is NOT a sandbox.

Not to disagree with the point you are trying to make, I agree with your general concepts, however, hunted status is not a consequence any more than a 'please do not steal from us' sign deters theft. The 'tracking' skill is your only real way to tell who did what to you, except when griefers like sirjacksonhunz leave their catapult IN your deed still. (Yes, he broke into my deed on desertion and left his catapult behind). If they could improve the duration tracks can be discovered, say a few days even, it would greatly help on epic with managing our griefing in-house.

[Battlepaw 585]

There is a difference between "consequences" and trying to punish everyone who ever interrupts your little corner of farmville heaven.    There are rules, and there are game mechanics in place to help keep players from being harassed or griefed.   I've never seen many circumstances that have led to players getting away with breaking those rules, and not being punished.   

 

I honestly think, if anyone considers "sandbox" to mean you should control the actions of every player and have godlike powers to make your existence in that world perfect, then you are fooling yourself.  No one would want to play in a world like that except you and perhaps anyone you deemed "worthy" enough.   

 

Part of the sandbox experience is actually applying a few of your braincells to protecting your enviroment, maning locking stuff, watching your village politics to see if you may need to premtively change permission, or kick someone out who may cause issues.   

 

 

No, it is not a real sandbox, because in real sandbox no player has immunity and has to face the consequences of their actions. Everyone, even the the people, who can't play nice, have consequences.. you are trying to argue, that people, who forget something, should have consequences. Fine, I am all good with it, but only, if the offenders also have consequences. No sandbox has criminals(or people who target ohter players) running around immune to any kind of retaliations like people on wurms freedom servers do.. If you are saying, that adding consequences to criminals would turn the game into a theme park, I say you haven't played any sandbox games before.

Even on pvp servers in Wurm players have consequences, when they target fellow kingdom members.. I mean hunted status, how effective it is, is another thing, don't know that, but the mechanic is there.. yet on freedom you can target ( I don't mean here to kill ) fellow players without any consequences.. This is NOT a sandbox.

 

I do think that rixk, is on the right track here.   The reason I think Freedom has this issues it does, is because they can't self-regulate.    I'm not saying they nessiarly need PvP, but they have players, why not create control zones for alliances?    Let them put down territory, that can only extend from their captials, and chained by deeds?   People who steal or break laws in alliances, are KOS in the whole area of influence.    This means guards, etc.  And if they are set as hostile, they can't deed within it.   

 

This means you have to get along with the alliance you are living in, or else you can't live there, you can't deed over people's ###### there, or anything.   This is one of the few alternatives that may work.   Self-regulation and alliance politics.        Hell it does open a whole new bag of worms, but there really arn't many other choices other than trying to make GMs solve everything.  In this case, the alliances would regulate things, and GMs could simply be brought in if an alliance is on a power-trip or disrupting the server.   The ability to have your alliance disbanded should be a decent incentive to behave properly.   

 

The reason I play on Chaos is because of the community, and that the servers are self-regulating.    Contrary to popular belief no one ever randomly gets stabbed in the back while they are crafting.  If you are part of a village, you are generally safe within it as long as you can defend it.  If you can't live in a community on Chaos, then that is because you are a jerkwad no one wants, not because your not a bloodthirsty little bastard.    When I recruit players, I do look for aggressive players, but more importantly I look for people that can work as a part of a team, and have the tools needed to do so, such as motivation, a good attitude and a mic.    

 

 

Not to disagree with the point you are trying to make, I agree with your general concepts, however, hunted status is not a consequence any more than a 'please do not steal from us' sign deters theft. The 'tracking' skill is your only real way to tell who did what to you, except when griefers like sirjacksonhunz leave their catapult IN your deed still. (Yes, he broke into my deed on desertion and left his catapult behind). If they could improve the duration tracks can be discovered, say a few days even, it would greatly help on epic with managing our griefing in-house.

 

And yes... they should improve tracking on the PvE servers.    That also goes along with adding more ability to self-regulate.   

Edited July 23, 2015 by Battlepaw

[Cista 429]

Territory control in Wurm.  Would. Be . Awesome. 

[Audrel 2,223]

I honestly think, if anyone considers "sandbox" to mean you should control the actions of every player and have godlike powers to make your existence in that world perfect, then you are fooling yourself.  No one would want to play in a world like that except you and perhaps anyone you deemed "worthy" enough.   

 

Not disagreeing here, Battlepaw, but I think you have to go to Epic or Chaos to get true "Sandbox." There you can throw sand back. PvE here is not a true sandbox and never will be. It's a beach with lifeguards instead of a "Swim At Your Own Risk" sign.

[Battlepaw 585]

Not disagreeing here, Battlepaw, but I think you have to go to Epic or Chaos to get true "Sandbox." There you can throw sand back. PvE here is not a true sandbox and never will be. It's a beach with lifeguards instead of a "Swim At Your Own Risk" sign.

 

Heh, yea.  The isssue here is do we make the GM's more invasive or do we let the players have more "lifeguard" powers over their environment?    

[Audrel 2,223]

Heh, yea.  The isssue here is do we make the GM's more invasive or do we let the players have more "lifeguard" powers over their environment?    

 

Which is the catch-22 here. If you do unto others as they have done unto you (retaliate), it is deliberate and intentional and 100% griefing.

[rixk 830]

Not to disagree with the point you are trying to make, I agree with your general concepts, however, hunted status is not a consequence any more than a 'please do not steal from us' sign deters theft. The 'tracking' skill is your only real way to tell who did what to you, except when griefers like sirjacksonhunz leave their catapult IN your deed still. (Yes, he broke into my deed on desertion and left his catapult behind). If they could improve the duration tracks can be discovered, say a few days even, it would greatly help on epic with managing our griefing in-house.

Can't find anywhere full list, what hunted status actually means. So I only assume it is similar to "lawless" status in other games(doesn't matter how they are named), where you become free game for everyone and you can be attacked without any penalties(correct me when I am wrong). If it is like that, then it is a consequence, as because of your actions you have even your own kingdom after you and you can't be safe even in your own home. So before doing anything bad, you always have to think "is that really worth it".

But yeah.. I agree with what you said about tracking, one prerequisite to everything would be useful tracking.

Was looking for info about hunting status and stumbled on this.

Things, which are legal on freedom, are illegal on PvP servers.

"Anti Griefing: Most hostile same kingdom actions is now illegal on home servers (unless they were already) and will now cause you to receive the hunted status on other servers. These actions include catapulting, lockpicking, killing mounts or branded animals on deed etc. Does not apply to HOTS."

http://www.wurmonline.com/2013/07/10/anti-lag-and-anti-griefing-measures/

[Mordraug 2,542]

Thing is "Deed it or lose it" has "evolved" into "Deed it and fortify it and pray no bug or mechanic change opens a gap... and lose it anyways because it's a sandbox and we should be free to screw you AND you should NOT be free to retaliate".

 

[Arronicus 641]

Things, which are legal on freedom, are illegal on PvP servers.

"Anti Griefing: Most hostile same kingdom actions is now illegal on home servers (unless they were already) and will now cause you to receive the hunted status on other servers. These actions include catapulting, lockpicking, killing mounts or branded animals on deed etc. Does not apply to HOTS."

http://www.wurmonline.com/2013/07/10/anti-lag-and-anti-griefing-measures/

Thing is, I don't think the hunted status has ever deterred anyone. I've seen a variety of cases of griefing on desertion of MR against MR, and have heard about it on JK home. Nothing like what goes on over on BLH, but still every once in a while all of someone's horses are killed or stolen, house is wrecked, deed is broken into etc, by same kingdom. Not that it's generally a big deal, but the only thing really blocking it from happening is you can't be super bad as a deed owner. (Game mechanics block deed owners from performing actions that lower alignment)

[Arronicus 641]

whelp, internet 

 

Edited July 24, 2015 by Arronicus

[Raybarg 442]

It is indeed curious as we in recent past have had funny things happening which "void" deed security, but those were clear flaws and devs did react quickly to fix it and made plans to remake permission systems to avoid future loopholes as those that were abused. Perhaps upcoming changes make everything more secure ultimately, and in the process we might encounter few loopholes and have few drama wars. Eventually it will be way better than it ever was.

 

Its quite long list of curiosities what has transpired in Wurm when it comes to actual flaws in the permission managements, which often lead to these "deed it ore lose it" / "blame the victim" debates. Its crap to be on the sore end of it, losing something by outrageously obvious bug with no reimbursement/compensation for assets or emotions and watch the "perpetrator" walk free with stuff and smug smile on their face. Its bitter thing to swallow and let go off, for a reason.

 

When it comes to "PvE rules needing fixing", some players make other players more miserable, it is indeed more gray area. But we do have general rules already in place, dont we? Like "if its not yours, dont destroy it" sort of rules, and in general "be nice to other players" rule(s).

 

This "be nice" rule is two edged blade, if there is dispute between two players where A hurt B by doing things which would break "only destroy things that are yours"/"be nice" rules and GM is called to the scene and emotions are heated. Mostly it seems that GM can only see current situation where player A seems to "be nice" and "not destroy whats not theirs" where angry player B is spitting venom and digging up some pavings player A laid to their annoyance. Now that is an exaggerated simple scenery, but mostly the problem transpires from construct as such.

 

In such scenarios the victim would be best adviced to muster up all diplomacy and refrain from doing anything. Use polite and respectful language towards both the GM and other player(s) and when it comes to those heated emotions, talk about them. Its perfectly legitimate to say "This is making me very very very very angry!", where in comparison "This is f...g s... aargh f... you all you f.... .... ..... ..... ...... .....!" is often for the victim ending up being the one who is wrong, which is very good starting point for proper level of unrevertable insanity.

 

 

So in this reply I did talk about two different reasons why we have issues; First the game mechanics, second the actively causing grief.