I have a few examples i'd like to discuss depending on whose still interested in ol' Miner Joe BoB;

A) lets say for example that I want a monopoly on a particular mineral, Iron lets say, and when I go to mine it, I find Miner Joe in the same place. Do you feel it would be fair game to Kill him / Hire an assassin to make sure that he doesn't try to get my Iron so that I can maintain my monopoly? Because this kind of situation may be seen as griefing as I'm not doing this for an actively evil reason, I just want to make my money and maintain control of my income.

This could also be viewed as a one time thing, since once I kill the unarmed miner, he may get the idea to not to go there.

B) Lets say that someone else thats this approach and the assassin is hired to keep killing him if he comes there, would the assassin be in violation of griefing? His contract is clearly telling him that the miner must be killed if he comes to the mine. Not to mention, the contract isn't targeting miner Joe out of the mine, simply in this place as to protect an asset, so would this mean that the employer is griefing?

I feel like that either of these scenarios are going to be quite consistent during the game as its a valid strategy to keep your own assets in check, and everyone has a price (especially in a game where you can be anything you want)

Posted By Auralin_Valia at 6:05 PM - Mon Oct 22 2018

A) lets say for example that I want a monopoly on a particular mineral, Iron lets say, and when I go to mine it, I find Miner Joe in the same place. Do you feel it would be fair game to Kill him / Hire an assassin to make sure that he doesn't try to get my Iron so that I can maintain my monopoly? Because this kind of situation may be seen as griefing as I'm not doing this for an actively evil reason, I just want to make my money and maintain control of my income.

Congratulations, you're a captialist! XD

Posted By Vandal Savant at 09:55 AM - Sun Oct 28 2018

There's nothing stopping that rival miner from hiring bodyguards to protect him from your assassin.

omfg this is mimicking real life too much, stop! hahaha

Evil: Playing this MEOW as intended, in all it's Open world PVX consequential glory.

Griefing: Playing this MEOW and demanding the DEVS/Players to cater to your play-style, because you wanted to play a PVX 'MMO' with pretty graphics like it's single player.

/Thread

Posted By Faendra at 12:51 AM - Mon Oct 29 2018

Posted By Auralin_Valia at 8:05 PM - Mon Oct 22 2018

I have a few examples i'd like to discuss depending on whose still interested in ol' Miner Joe BoB;

A) lets say for example that I want a monopoly on a particular mineral, Iron lets say, and when I go to mine it, I find Miner Joe in the same place. Do you feel it would be fair game to Kill him / Hire an assassin to make sure that he doesn't try to get my Iron so that I can maintain my monopoly? Because this kind of situation may be seen as griefing as I'm not doing this for an actively evil reason, I just want to make my money and maintain control of my income.

This could also be viewed as a one time thing, since once I kill the unarmed miner, he may get the idea to not to go there.

B) Lets say that someone else thats this approach and the assassin is hired to keep killing him if he comes there, would the assassin be in violation of griefing? His contract is clearly telling him that the miner must be killed if he comes to the mine. Not to mention, the contract isn't targeting miner Joe out of the mine, simply in this place as to protect an asset, so would this mean that the employer is griefing?

I feel like that either of these scenarios are going to be quite consistent during the game as its a valid strategy to keep your own assets in check, and everyone has a price (especially in a game where you can be anything you want)

I don't think either of these would constitute griefing and that both should be allowed. Provided that the assassin, in this case, is not guarding the lawfully owned mine of his employer and is just killing poor old miner Joe to keep him out... and the assassin receives his just desserts if caught by Johnny Law (spirit loss penalty)... then I say slay on! Not griefing.

If he wasn't hired by anyone and was just sitting outside the mine to kill for funsies... eeeeeyah maybe a bit more grief-ish. So long as the penalty is steep enough but fair then I guess more power to him. The caveat there is the steep. Most open world games haven't been steep enough and so bored killers run amok.

that second example is not griefing either as the assassin may not be working for an employer but for self interest on collecting goods via murder to sell on the black market or for self use and finds it easy to kill for the good than wast money buying them.

Faendra Spirit loss is already part of the system and it can not be too punishing unless it's a actual case or you lose the villeins of the game and basically make a game where it will only be a civilization builder but like it has been stated killing someone over and over which would be griefing will have steep spirit loss penalties to it as in a role-play or robbery scenario when you have killed and looted the player would you need to kill them again within a set time limit after the first as you know they have nothing or you have done what you planned to do.

Take the Dras as a race there warfare is bio and chemical weapons and even after use or at the time there will be mass casualties and also people caught up in the attacks that were not meant to be but some people will see that as griefing as attacks that basically kill everything in a area and could leave areas unable to be traveled for a time depending on how the systems are so if a war happens and the Dras basically use bio weapons to cut off supply routs that lasts past the war people could see that as a person griefing them as it is blocking a rout that out of war time could be a trade route or if you play a Dras you could be doing that to trade routs to affect trade between places.

The game has many systems that under the right conditions anyone can say that a person is griefing them but the only one that i see as being a legitimate one is the body camping as why would a player need to kill someone more than once as you can do all you need with the one kill to fill any form of pk'er aspect if you don't wanna be a griefer but if they do then multiple kills of the same guy within lets say 12 hours real time would flag a griefing tag on the player and when caught they get the griefing punishment for spirit loss as you can not judge why a player has done something unless they have a full court system and playercan't prove why they did it and convince people that they are not a griefer.

I wonder if this discussion would be easier if we used "camping" instead of "griefing" because honestly, that's what seems to be what most people get angry over. And it's the most common thread in defining griefing.

Kill some poor sap once or twice, fine. Sit there for chunks of time waiting for said poor sap to return JUST to kill him, well, not so fine.

I am personally surprised that this thread has been continuing this long. I have seen some answers in here that I thought summed everything up pretty neatly.

If it is a viable game mechanic then it is not griefing. If you leave the safety of the city to go trade goods with another and make a profit, you are taking a risk. If someone ambushes you and then keeps killing you until permadeath, sure he is a jerk, but you took that risk.

You can hire guards, travel in a caravan, only travel on roads that are patrolled by the capitol, and mitigate that risk,

If it takes advantage of a game breaking exploit or bug, it is griefing. If players do game breaking glitches or exploits that ruin the game for you, then that is griefing.

My example is going way back to sims 1. If the players here do the equivalent of building a house with no doors around you, or deleting the only way out of the pool while you are in it, then they force you to be stuck in a box, or in the pool and waiting for your untimely death.

Same with CoE. If you can't feasibly fight the harsh treatment that is being thrust upon you, then it is an exploit and should be treated as griefing. For example, let's say someone takes over an orphanage and then builds a manor surrounding said orphanage that doesn't give Wards of the state that spawn in the ability to leave because of access privileges. This would be an exploit as the developers never intended for someone to be trappable in the orphanage, someone found a work around.

Posted By Soliloquy at 03:17 AM - Mon Oct 29 2018

I wonder if this discussion would be easier if we used "camping" instead of "griefing" because honestly, that's what seems to be what most people get angry over. And it's the most common thread in defining griefing.

Kill some poor sap once or twice, fine. Sit there for chunks of time waiting for said poor sap to return JUST to kill him, well, not so fine.

yeah that exactly it but i think after killing someone once in a 6-12h time slot and then kills the same guy in that slot should attach a tag to the player that when they are caught they get a harsher punishment as if you attack and kill someone in game and loot them why do you need to kill them a second time till a mi of 6 hours go by as they will have nothing of value and would not be worth the spirit penalty if you get caught.

Posted By Viktoriusiii at 10:34 PM - Sun Oct 28 2018

Both types are NOT griefing.

Griefing WOULD be, if the a.i. miner has a fixed rythm and you knock him out every day after his shift without beeing seen. The A.I. is too stupid or even too poor to hire bodyguards, so you can get all that mined gold for yourself.

THAT is an exploit. Big advantage due to an unintended use of a system.

But its not against the rules either.

I disagree entirely, but I suppose I can see why this thread continues, due to arguments like this.

If you knock out a gold miner and steal his days haul, that is not griefing or an exploit. It is simply banditry at that point. And if the mine produced no gold, and they still did not hire security then you can't really blame the bandits from hitting it more than once.

Something I would consider griefing would be my above example. Building a rectangular building around an orphanage and setting it so Wards of the state could not enter that building, thus trapping them from the start of the game in the orphanage.

It breaks the game and was not intended to be a mechanic. That in conjunction with ruining other players fun is what makes it griefing.

Posted By Labbe at 4:57 PM - Mon Oct 29 2018

Posted By Viktoriusiii at 10:34 PM - Sun Oct 28 2018

Both types are NOT griefing.

Griefing WOULD be, if the a.i. miner has a fixed rythm and you knock him out every day after his shift without beeing seen. The A.I. is too stupid or even too poor to hire bodyguards, so you can get all that mined gold for yourself.

THAT is an exploit. Big advantage due to an unintended use of a system.

But its not against the rules either.

I disagree entirely, but I suppose I can see why this thread continues, due to arguments like this.

This thread and threads like it, will continue until the end of time. For one simple reason, everyone has their own meaning of griefing.

There isn't even really a point to trying to have a discussion in one, mostly cause people can never really agree on any point. It just goes around in circles all day long.