Make PVP opt-in only

[Vraatjuh]

They barely fix anything u expect them to fix every edge case pve grief there is? Literal tripple A companies struggle to do this.

Most certainly not. I expect them to fix very easily abusive systems if we would go to a PvP friendlier world.
It's not like there's nothing abusive in this game as of now that even PvP can't solve, I have no hope that they can fix everything anyway.

We are just trying to argue into trying out a more PvP friendly world. Maybe we are wrong and it can't be done because there are too many ways to abuse the system. Some of us just disagree that it would be that bad.
All we do here is offering Jorbtar a different perspective, trying to sway them into another direction.

[MagicManICT]

The whole point is that they DONT WANT TO MODERATE

I think it's a bit dishonest to simply say they don't want to moderate. I think jorb has stated clearly the reasons they choose not to.

And I quite agree: there's no point in beating a dead horse.

Isn't choosing not to a want?

No. I want to own a Porsche. I want to drive my Porsche down the highway at top speeds. Even though I don't own a high end sports car, I can still want to drive the car I own down the road as fast as the vehicle can take me. I choose not to do so because the insurance premiums get expensive after getting ticketed for speeding (particularly excessive speeding), not to mention paying the tickets and risk of losing driving privileges from too many tickets. Doesn't mean I don't want to do it.

From what has been discussed in the past, it's not clear if jorb would be willing to lead a GM team to police the game. Clearly they've said that they don't feel they can do it effectively and fairly with only two people, and aren't willing to set up such things for some sort of elevated privileges or super users to fill the role. In my past experience, "super user" players have always abused or has had accusations of abuse to the point of a significant number of community members packing up and leaving. it's not worth it.

[Zentetsuken]

We are already missing moderation in game. There are people abusing massive bugs practically every world.

The desire to be better than your enemy seems to be the main motivation keeping people looking for and abusing bugs.
PVP is easily the main catalyst for making players cheat.

One of the main arguments among the PVP-obsessed trolls in this thread is - "If you remove PVP I will dedicate my life to making noobs suffer without PVP"

The reason why I feel like this will be way easier to passively moderate for the devs is because most of the results of this behaviour will have tangible, noticeable things happening. Somebody can actually report a sweatlord using a bot army to build a palisade around their base. Jorb can straight up say that this behaviour is not allowed.

The current state of PVP-motivated toxic/abusive behaviour is very secretive. I think we only find out about it when somebody reports that a player seems to strong? Or it's found out entirely by mistake? It's near impossible to moderate whether a players stats seem to high, or if the materials they have seem too bountiful.

This is why opt-in-PVP only will likely make the game more fair across the board. Ofcourse sad little boys will use their time to try to break and bend the rules, abuse noobs with non-PVP trolling and griefing, but it will be WAY easier for the devs to passively react to. It will be WAYYYYYY easier for the devs to say exactly which behaviours are forbidden.

[Seriouskai]

Good words

I'm just leaving a +1 here, and still proposing my idea of an opt in system that makes a small area PVP rather than players per se. That would mean anyone staying in the area once timer reaches 0 are now in PVP mode, that includes buildings thus allowing a siege to happen still.

But it would give the person NOT interested in PVP time to pack up and leave atleast, unless they choose to defend themself or their area. That option is for each single player to choose.

Ps. It would work scaleable for small personal bases up to realm sieges, just saying.

Pps. https://i.imgur.com/LzZAerr.png

[meus]

"Abusing" as in "exploiting" seems no different than "fair play", as long as practically everyone has access to it. In HnH even using your own client and code, and bots or just better UI, is difficult to classify as "abuse" as long as it's >>technically<< available to anyone, and even encouraged. People even share their clients and extensions for the public to use.

Same with "abusing" PVP or other mechanics - as long as anyone can do it, it's quite fair play.

The conflicts stem from the fact that the game is a sandbox, i.e. you start within an environment with some possible interactions, available to everyone. Then what you make of it depends entirely on yourself. Being a sandbox game, it's not fun per se, you have to make it fun or not, so different people find the fun in different ways. Some people will manage to entertain themselves, other will feel lack of direction or content or competition - depending on their expectations.

What's important is that everyone knows it's not a game where you'll be treated the way you treat others. One may be a "decent" or "good" or "PVE" or "helpful" player, and still get rolled over by a "bad" "PVP" "unfair" "troll" "griefer" etc.

Here "good" and "bad", or "fun" and "not fun" is entirely based on the point of view and on what you make of it - it may be fun for one side, but not for the other - as long as conflict arises (and it will). It just won't be equal for everyone, being a sandbox game.

[Zentetsuken]

"Abusing" as in "exploiting" seems no different than "fair play", as long as practically everyone has access to it. In HnH even using your own client and code, and bots or just better UI, is difficult to classify as "abuse" as long as it's >>technically<< available to anyone, and even encouraged. People even share their clients and extensions for the public to use.

Same with "abusing" PVP or other mechanics - as long as anyone can do it, it's quite fair play.

The conflicts stem from the fact that the game is a sandbox, i.e. you start within an environment with some possible interactions, available to everyone. Then what you make of it depends entirely on yourself. Being a sandbox game, it's not fun per se, you have to make it fun or not, so different people find the fun in different ways. Some people will manage to entertain themselves, other will feel lack of direction or content or competition - depending on their expectations.

What's important is that everyone knows it's not a game where you'll be treated the way you treat others. One may be a "decent" or "good" or "PVE" or "helpful" player, and still get rolled over by a "bad" "PVP" "unfair" "troll" "griefer" etc.

Here "good" and "bad", or "fun" and "not fun" is entirely based on the point of view and on what you make of it - it may be fun for one side, but not for the other - as long as conflict arises (and it will). It just won't be equal for everyone, being a sandbox game.

I think a hopeful part of an opt-in-pvp system would be to establish a level of behaviour that is deemed abusive.

Using an obvious broken mechanic and exploiting bugs for unfair gain is an something we can all agree is abusive, and it he past it has absolutely been punished and patched when possible.

Using 20 fresh alts running off bot scripts to perform a task that ultimately hurts another player is just another unfair exploit. The shubla-boat stunt is an example of this, and I'm sure there have been many other instances of similar abuse from the sweatys of this world. Arguing against this is 100% dishonest.

If jorb establishes a base line of what sort of gameplay is abusive at the same time as implementing opt-in-pvp I think the number of people left in the game who are willing to risk their accounts just to get clout from their little circlejerk on discord would be manageably low.

[telum12]

I think you underestimate the ease of which HnH botting can be abused. There is no realistic way to distinguish 10 bots running on a headless server spamming pc's through 10 different IPs from any normal player, unless you have sophisticated bot-detection mechanisms. There is no threat to getting your real account banned.

Most companies dedicate a whole department for the detection and moderation of bots and exploits. This idea that you can just ban them and patch it away is incredibly naive. Making this type of thing more difficult would require a significant amount of work and moderation, which, holy shit I can't believe I'm still saying this, they do not want to put it (because it'd be basically meaningless effort, or w/e their reason is).

If you let people pc-claim spam with fresh alts, someone is going to do that. Any solution you guys are providing to that simply creates problems for players that want to create pc's for themselves...

[Zentetsuken]

I think you underestimate the ease of which HnH botting can be abused. There is no realistic way to distinguish 10 bots running on a headless server spamming pc's through 10 different IPs from any normal player, unless you have sophisticated bot-detection mechanisms. There is no threat to getting your real account banned.

I know how easily it can be abused. The question is, are the people abusing it willing to do so against the written direction of jorb? And if they are, I think that would be a very big and important event. These people would absolutely be making it known that they only want to hurt the game and break rules and play unfairly. I have a pretty strong feeling that most people would just walk away form the game rather than dedicate their time to playing cat and mouse with jorb. No people who actually like the game would give them clout for their actions. It would not be the same circlejerk we see today.

Most companies dedicate a whole department for the detection and moderation of bots and exploits. This idea that you can just ban them and patch it away is incredibly naive. Making this type of thing more difficult would require a significant amount of work and moderation, which, holy shit I can't believe I'm still saying this, they do not want to put it (because it'd be basically meaningless effort, or w/e their reason is).

Most companies are not developed by 2 random swedish guys and most companies have more than 100 active users for 8 months of the year.

This is not most companies, not by a long shot. We are not even within the realm of comparison here.

Jorb and Loftar have done an okay job managing exploits as they come along. There is no reason to believe that making pvp opt-in-only and creating a few guidelines for abusive behaviour would suddenly fuel any group of people to start actively breaking rules and trying to destroy the game. You are making wild, wild inferences here and it's just dishonest.

If you let people pc-claim spam with fresh alts, someone is going to do that. Any solution you guys are providing to that simply creates problems for players that want to create pc's for themselves...

Wild, wild inferences.

The reason the snail archetype is doing what they do is because they are a small circlejerk getting clout. I don't think any of these people are sad and pathetic enough to turn in to real villains within the community and start actively abusing rules and making new accounts after being banned and spending whole worlds just playing cat and mouse with jorb. They aren't shitty angry losers, they are just dummies having a laugh at the expensive of a very poorly made game.

[TheServant]

PvE world will only happen if haven turns into mainstream game with a huge playerbase, as long as there is only 1 world, devs wont do anything like this (which is good). When you suggest something like this at least present answers for stated questions regarding PvE world.

[Reinhard99]

Nein