Duels promote griefing

Discussion in 'Saloon' started by Alex Liddell, Dec 28, 2018.

Share This Page

  1. Alex Liddell

    Alex Liddell Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2015
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    1
    Am I wrong?
     
  2. Pankreas PorFavor

    Pankreas PorFavor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2010
    Messages:
    798
    Likes Received:
    313
    Griefing is the act of chronically causing consternation to other members of an online community, or more specifically, intentionally disrupting the immersion of another player in their gameplay.

    My reply is - yes, you are wrong.
    Gameplay in The West IS dueling. It is also fort fighting, jobbing, questing, etc. But it is also dueling. This is a game with player vs. player elements. Complaining about duels in The West is like complaining that you can't swim and you'd like to play water polo. With one huge difference - you can play The West and avoid being dueled, it just takes some effort. Water polo without swimming? I don't think so.
     
    deiben, Snr Sarg, Nisa and 3 others like this.
  3. Iam Keyser Soze

    Iam Keyser Soze Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2012
    Messages:
    119
    Likes Received:
    41
    Agree with Pankreas.

    There are other games out there if you don't like being dueled and can't be bothered to self KO.
     
    Snr Sarg likes this.
  4. WanderingStranger

    WanderingStranger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2010
    Messages:
    180
    Likes Received:
    44
    Then you would be the one who is wrong. Almost every act of griefing in every game ever used an element of gameplay. Arguing that "Gameplay in The West IS dueling" has no bearing at all. Alex didnt say every duel is greifing as you try to make it seem but it certainly promotes it and arguing that it doesnt is patently ridiculous. The fact that a player is expected to suicide and drop to 0 health and energy in order to not even be potentially harassed shows just how ridiculous it is.
     
    Felicity Crumpet likes this.
  5. Pankreas PorFavor

    Pankreas PorFavor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2010
    Messages:
    798
    Likes Received:
    313
    I have to disagree. The fact that a player joins a pvp game and expects that everyone leaves them alone so they can pick berries is ridiculous. If you choose to play a pvp game, and you choose to be defenseless, and you choose to be duelable, and you're angry when someone duels you - you are not harassed. You're playing a game that's not for you.
    Yes, it is a trade off - if you want to maximize your labor points and you want to make cash on jobs or collect products, you need to accept that you'll be dueled or you should do something to be protected from duels. If you want to duel, you need to accept that you will suck at jobs, etc. etc. etc. If you want to be great at every part of the game, you need to accept that you'll have to use your credit card a lot.
     
    Snr Sarg and Nisa like this.
  6. WanderingStranger

    WanderingStranger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2010
    Messages:
    180
    Likes Received:
    44
    You can disagree but you would still be wrong. Your entire premise is wrong in fact because you are still treating it as if someone said every duel would be considered griefing and no one has said that. This is the second time I have said this. I would appreciate it if you stopped arguing against a point no one has made.

    This isnt a pvp game either. It is a game with pvp elements. Pvp is actually mostly voluntary. In fact, there is only one element of this game that lets you effect a player negatively without their permission.

    Having an element of the game that allows one player to negatively effect another player will almost always be opened up to abuse which was the point of the post since you seemed to have missed it.
     
    Felicity Crumpet likes this.
  7. Pankreas PorFavor

    Pankreas PorFavor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2010
    Messages:
    798
    Likes Received:
    313
    Wth?! Did you see the topic of this thread? "Duels promote griefing." Which part of this sentence excludes some duels? It's not my fault OP couldn't be bothered to describe his point.
    Duels. Not "duels against pure traders", "duels against workers" or any other ridiculous point where because of my build or class or level or whatever I am considered to be a special player who shouldn't bank their money or wear defensive gear etc.


    I would appreciate if you pointed out where in that point that was made someone excluded certain duels.


    "PvP element is mostly voluntary."
    "...almost always be opened up to abuse...."

    True. Which means - it's not completely voluntary, it's not always opened up to abuse. It is when you choose to play the game in that way. If you can't play the game in a way it was designed, maybe it's not for you. Duels are here since day 1. If you can't accept this part of the game, if you can't accept that benefit of joining a town carries the risk of being dueled, then you missed a big and important element of the game design. Sure, you can play chess by ignoring your knights, but don't expect that the other player will do that too and then argue that you're "harassed".
     
    deiben and Snr Sarg like this.
  8. WanderingStranger

    WanderingStranger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2010
    Messages:
    180
    Likes Received:
    44
    Do you know one way you can find someone arguing dishonestly? Look for them trying to shift the burden of proof. I will play your game however.

    "Duels promote greifing"

    Does that say all duels are greifing? NO! It uses the word promote.

    Promote - further the progress of (something, especially a cause, venture, or aim); support or actively encourage

    Does that definition say every instance of an activity is directly involved? Again NO! Drugs promote violence, is every instance of drug use violent? NO! Driving too fast promotes accidents. Does every person speeding cause an accident? NO!

    For the last time, it does not mean all. It doesnt have to "exclude" some duels because it never included all duels. Just because a duel could be involved does not mean it is involved. Is that more clear? I dont know how to explain it more clearly.

    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Ask yourself this, why have duel protection at all? Maybe because the people who designed the game knew it was open to being abused? The 1 hour wait times between duels? Same reason. Duel level restrictions? Ditto.

    The developers acknowledge it. They specifically put it in to curb (notice I didnt say stop, dont want you to argue that I did because you dont know the definition) the same behavior you are arguing magically doesnt exist because it is "part of the game". Who do you think you are to argue against it? You are arguing against something that even the makers of the game work to stop.

    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    I will not be replying again if you argue that same straw man argument or any other logical fallacy. I will simply point out every instance you use them like when you attempted to shift the burden of proof at the beginning.
     
  9. Pankreas PorFavor

    Pankreas PorFavor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2010
    Messages:
    798
    Likes Received:
    313
    "Dishonestly"? :( I don't know how I deserved this, because it was never my intention. I may understand something differently than you do, but accusations like this are really uncalled for.
    My understanding of this 3 word topic was that he is generally against dueling as part of the game - because that's an idea that comes up in the forum every now and then. And that's why I disagreed. Can dueling be abused? Yes. Can the player do something about it? Yes. Should the game be changed, or should the players use what's available to them to avoid the potential abuse? I vote for the second option because that's how the game is played for +10 years and I like it, and changing it would turn this game into something completely different. For me, duels promote griefing as much as the player who chooses not to protect himself in the hostile environment that The West is supposed to be.


    OK, so for you this is an exercise in logic and debate. For me it is not. Because I don't want duels in The West to end up illegal as drugs or driving fast in real life, I disagreed with the OP. My understanding of his post is not the same as yours. Accuse me for misunderstanding it or for making bad assumptions, but not for dishonesty, please.
    Did a player that is here for +3 years start a topic to ask if we think that duels can be abused? I assumed he did not, or he would call himself Captain Obvious, not Alex Liddell. ;)
    Is it possible that someone will abuse the dueling part of the game? Of course. But why discuss this?!? There's a lot that can be abused in a game like this. But I argue that players can and should do their part to prevent such abuse because they have the tools to do it. Some choose not to use them, and instead they want to turn this into a completely different game. :(


    Why have fort protection at all? Why increase the price of digging with each new battle?
    If we are going in that direction, then yes - practically every type of player interaction promotes griefing. Do you honestly think that this was the purpose of this topic?
    Duels promote griefing in a similar way fort battles promote griefing. Sure, you can play this game and ignore FFs. But, being a member of a fort brings the risk of having to defend them and waste your HP and energy in the process. And that's acceptable because it's voluntary. At the same time, being a member of a town brings a risk of being dueled. And for some reason that's not acceptable because it's not voluntary, a player can be attacked by another player and can't do much about it (actually, they can, but choose not to). Well, that's how this game is designed. If someone plays it for +3 years (like the OP) I'd expect them to accept this part of the game and not start topics as "do you agree that dueling can be abused"? I apologize for making an assumption that this was not the purpose of this post. I assumed that he wanted to start an age old discussion about making a dueling arena, or adding an option where one can turn duel participation on/off, removing duels completely and similar. Blame me for these assumptions, not for dishonesty. So I skipped a few steps in that discussion and went straight to - why aren't you doing something to prevent this abuse, why let them cause griefing?


    Too much hostility :( I apologize if what I wrote ticked you off so much.
    Who do I think I am? A player who thinks that duels are as responsible for the abuse as the players are. A player that thinks that the makers of the game did enough "to stop" or minimize the potential to abuse it and let players do the rest. Obviously, my exaggeration of this point is not to your liking, but there's nothing dishonest behind it. Maybe I should have replied to OPs 3 words with 3 pages of text instead of just saying "no". Or maybe I wanted to provoke his reply. Luckily, you were there to react first.

    Enjoy the holidays, and, hopefully - enjoy the game.
     
    Snr Sarg likes this.
  10. lulumcnoob

    lulumcnoob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2009
    Messages:
    319
    Likes Received:
    189
    I don't believe that duels are generally griefing, but they can be in very specific cases. You can target one player or town with all of your duels, wait for people to come out of KO to put them right back to sleep. This used to be called "raiding". You kids with your new names for things. *shakes fist angrily* Maybe complain for another 10 years and they'll make a PvE world for the Farmville players amongst us.
    Now, that player or town has the ability to duel you and your town back. They have the ability to spec into duels and PvP you in revenge. They also have the ability to "soft-opt-out" using various strategies.
    If you don't want to get duelled, and you do, it's pretty much entirely your own fault.

    Let's look at it another way, are fort fights greifing?
    An alliance can spend weeks gathering for and building a fort, and another alliance can come and take it.

    But of course it's not greifing, it's one of the 3 PvP aspects of this mostly PvP game.
     
    Al35ul likes this.
  11. WanderingStranger

    WanderingStranger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2010
    Messages:
    180
    Likes Received:
    44
    That was my point.

    Fort fights could be as well. We have literally had people banned for abusing the dig system, aka "griefing" others.
     
  12. Pankreas PorFavor

    Pankreas PorFavor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2010
    Messages:
    798
    Likes Received:
    313
    Duels actively encourage griefing. They support it and further the progress of griefing. (So do fort battles?)
    Does this sound like an accurate description of The West? Maybe it's because English is not my first language, but to me this doesn't sound right.
     
  13. WanderingStranger

    WanderingStranger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2010
    Messages:
    180
    Likes Received:
    44
    Yes it is correct. It allows a player to negatively effect another player without their explicit permission. That sort of system promotes abuse.

    Fort fights as a whole are not the same but the dig system is. It allows abuse as well by allowing another player to negatively effect the gameplay of others when abused.

    Both of these have already been acknowledged by Inno through either bans or restrictions added to help prevent it. A long as the system is in place it still promotes it.

    I am not saying change it. I am saying anyone who disagrees is wrong. The premise as presented by Alex is correct. Anything people decide to infer beyond it is their own fault.
     
  14. Pankreas PorFavor

    Pankreas PorFavor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2010
    Messages:
    798
    Likes Received:
    313
    Allow and promote (actively encourage) are synonyms?
     
    Snr Sarg likes this.
  15. WanderingStranger

    WanderingStranger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2010
    Messages:
    180
    Likes Received:
    44
    Nonsense question. They are not used as synonyms. You are either confused or are desperately trying to nitpick your way out of this with another straw man. Either way I will not explain again after this.

    Having a system that allows players to negatively effect another player without their explicit permission promotes griefing. Period.
     
  16. Pankreas PorFavor

    Pankreas PorFavor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2010
    Messages:
    798
    Likes Received:
    313

    You don't have to explain anything. It is visible from what you wrote so far and the definitions used.

    "Having a system that allows players to negatively effect another player without their explicit permission actively encourages players to intentionally disrupt the immersion of another player in their gameplay."
    Duels = a system that allows players to negatively effect another player without their explicit permission
    Promote = actively encourage
    Griefing = intentionally disrupt the immersion of another player in their gameplay.
    I still disagree. I don't see anything that actively encourages anyone to abuse the dueling part of the game.

    At the same time, by understanding how dueling works and how it can be abused and still playing the game without doing anything to protect yourself, you are giving permission to be negatively affected by actions of other players. It may not be explicit for each individual duel case, but you still know what you're into.
     
  17. Protasov

    Protasov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2014
    Messages:
    89
    Likes Received:
    21
    That would be true if there were no means of avoiding it.

    You are able to play this game 100% free of dueling, if you so choose. Period.
     
    Snr Sarg likes this.
  18. WanderingStranger

    WanderingStranger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2010
    Messages:
    180
    Likes Received:
    44
    Wrong. The only options that allow it also have a negative penalty. You either have to suicide for KO protection, lose health and possibly energy in the process, or not join a town losing access to forums, safer markets, chats, shops, etc.
     
  19. Protasov

    Protasov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2014
    Messages:
    89
    Likes Received:
    21
    No, I'm right. You don't like the answer, but that doesn't change the fact that it is 100% correct.

    This game can be played, perfectly well, 100% duel-free. If you aren't willing to do that, then the burden of being "griefed" is entirely on you.
     
    Snr Sarg likes this.
  20. WanderingStranger

    WanderingStranger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2010
    Messages:
    180
    Likes Received:
    44
    Ahh the classic "It is your fault I abuse you" argument. It is a garbage argument every time it gets trotted out.

    "Dont want to be griefed in online mode? Just play story mode."
    "Dont want to be intentionally shot by your teammates? Just play solo mode."

    It also conveniently ignores that the most popular anti-dueling method was added exactly to prevent abuse that people like to pretend is ok.

    Lets see if your logic works with other part of the game?

    You are able to play without a chat.... yet we have people banned all the time for things they do or say in chat.

    You are able to play without the eternal forums.... yet people can be banned for any number of actions.

    But dueling abuse comes up and it is suddenly "IT is A ParT Of THe GaME sO It iS Ok iF i dO It"

    The same old excuses get trotted out every time a system is able to be abused and they are always wrong.

    Bugs, spawn camping, harassment, spamming, smurfing. Abusing a system is abuse even if it is part of the game.