Cookies Disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.

Bad vs Wrong

Rynnik
A break off conversation from the 'Asymmetrical Warfare' thread: https://goblinworks.com/forum/topic/2419/?page=6#post-24343

Nihimon
The devs have always said that PFO needed a community that was intolerant of certain types of behavior. I think a fair number of folks in the community see deliberately targeting Characters who aren't interested in PvP as "semi-jerky". The fact that it also reduces Reputation is a fair sign that the devs agree with that assessment.

I think one of the biggest challenges folks will face when playing PFO is differentiating between things that are "bad" and things that are "wrong", and I wish I had better words for them. Things that are "wrong" should probably either be banned by Goblinworks policy, or have game systems implemented to make them ineffective. Things that are "bad" should not be banned, but they will hurt other people's feelings and cause them to view you as an enemy, and probably to seriously dislike you as well.

Deliberately targeting Characters who aren't interested in PvP isn't "wrong", but it is "bad".
I can get behind that terminology split.

For me as a remarkably simple person (dumby) it makes an easy and clear divide: wrong is not allowed by the community in any case for anyone. It is your typical griefing behaviours. For my personal opinions, spawn camping falls into that category.

Bad however is exactly as appropriate for the game as its inverse, 'good', is. 'Good' players are no further or closer to wrong behaviour then bad players are. That was part of the issue for me viewing Phareos actions recently. Shielding those who don't want PvP from PvP is a 'good' player action but it doesn't weigh against wrong behaviours in any spectrum of allowable actions. 'Good' doesn't cancel out or even effect perspectives of wrong. Wrong is wrong for everyone at all times.

On the other side of the coin is 'bad' play. Bad is as essential for the game and community as good is. Bad players are no closer to wrong behaviours then good are. I would even argue that recently the opposite seemed true where the bad player organizations seemed more concerned about wrong behaviours then the 'good' organizations were! While this seems counter intuitive perhaps, when you accept the split that wrong and bad are separate in the game context it is perfectly reasonable. There is no real correlation between good and bad behaviours and those that are wrong.

I personally believe that this community gets confused about that at times and there are players who closely associate the bad and the wrong together. So much so that they allow, condone, or even conduct harassment or direct hate towards bad players. That is a real shame. The righteous indignation from good players towards bad players is a great and healthy thing, but it should never cross the line of allowing actions that would be instantly condemned if conducted by bad players towards good. Wrong behaviours.

If more people get behind this difference between bad and wrong in the context of PFO we will be a happy community with a great basis to enjoy the content we provide for each other regardless of where we fall as players on the good/bad spectrum.
Not a member, representative, or supporter of Brighthaven Alliance.
Ryan Dancey
Yeah I agree with this distinction very much. (Although we have to be careful not to drift too far in the direction of telling others they're having "bad wrong fun"smile.
Nihimon
Rynnik
I would even argue that recently the opposite seemed true where the bad player organizations seemed more concerned about wrong behaviours then the 'good' organizations were!

I don't think that's helpful, and I'm not going to respond to it other than to say that.
Nihimon murmurs in sheer ecstasy as the magic courses through his veins
Rynnik
Nihimon
Rynnik
I would even argue that recently the opposite seemed true where the bad player organizations seemed more concerned about wrong behaviours then the 'good' organizations were!

I don't think that's helpful, and I'm not going to respond to it other than to say that.
Oh.

Well I wasn't trying to insult you - it is just an opinion and a perception I have. You can discount it as wrong, and just write it off as me being incorrect. Again it is only a personal opinion.

If it will be the sticking point that stops the discussion from proceeding constructively in this thread I'll just delete it. Let me know as I would much rather have the discussion then air an illustrative opinion that I am not all that concerned about convincing others of.
Not a member, representative, or supporter of Brighthaven Alliance.
Nihimon
I think it's also important to accept that a good number of folks are going to react badly when they experience unwanted PvP that, to them, seems utterly random and meaningless. That reaction isn't "wrong" either.
Nihimon murmurs in sheer ecstasy as the magic courses through his veins
Rynnik
Nihimon
I think it's also important to accept that a good number of folks are going to react badly when they experience unwanted PvP that, to them, seems utterly random and meaningless. That reaction isn't "wrong" either.

Absolutely.

If that indicates some apparent truth though you will have to detail it for me because I am not tracking relevance.
Not a member, representative, or supporter of Brighthaven Alliance.
Decius
Rynnik
Nihimon
Rynnik
I would even argue that recently the opposite seemed true where the bad player organizations seemed more concerned about wrong behaviours then the 'good' organizations were!

I don't think that's helpful, and I'm not going to respond to it other than to say that.
Oh.

Well I wasn't trying to insult you - it is just an opinion and a perception I have. You can discount it as wrong, and just write it off as me being incorrect. Again it is only a personal opinion.

If it will be the sticking point that stops the discussion from proceeding constructively in this thread I'll just delete it. Let me know as I would much rather have the discussion then air an illustrative opinion that I am not all that concerned about convincing others of.

The philosophy of bad and wrong can be discussed without using even indirect references to actual scenarios. When the principles involved in the discussion are on different sides of the real world, it can be hard to step around the tribal affiliations

With negligible exceptions, nobody thinks that they are bad or wrong. In their own narrative, people are generally the protagonist or sidekick, and almost never the villain or henchman.
tribuzio
Let's make a borderline example:
- you like to PvP, to win and want to get something from it. A logic target are gatherers. Bad but absolutely not wrong behavior.
- I am a gatherer and don't want to play pinata for you. So I want to show you that picking on me and my friend is a bad idea. Neither bad or good, nor wrong, only logic, seeing my goals.

What are my available instruments?
a) taking away the towers of your settlement if your settlement care about that, but it will likely escalate into an all out war
or
b) kill you so many times that you chose easier picking.

So I chose b)

Your character enter one of the of the hexes where my friends and I normally gather and attack one of us, so we gather together and start hunting you.
We kill your character.
If we stop here after a few minutes you will be back attacking another of us as soon as he is alone. If we gather together again to hunt you you are actually disrupting the game for 3-4 players with only 1 character.

So the second time this happen we don't stop after killing you once, we hunt you and kill you again and again. Probably after the first couple of deaths we are so near the nearest shrine that there is no actual difference from spawn camping you. Hopefully after a couple of death you would log off and log in with an alternate character and, after a time, we will go away to do what we were doing.

We were doing something that you have defined as wrong, but that was the only way to stop you from doing bad things to us.
So it is "wrong" or it is "the only available solution with the current mechanics"?

GW could ameliorate a bit that situation giving our characters a small window of invulnerability or untargettability after logging in and respawning, so that you would have a chance to run away.
In the above scenario my goal isn't to kill a defenseless character, it is to kill a bandit and degrade his gear. I would be perfectly happy if the bandit had the capability to defend himself.
Possibly if forced in the above scenario I would wait a few seconds before attacking after a enemy has respawned, but I wouldn't allow him to go away scott free unless he start running like mad.
Tyv Blodvaerd of Aragon
@ Tribuzio,

You can do as you describe now, but you have chosen to make the meaningful choice of sacrificing your reputation to do that.

The territorial control system is not in place, where you would be able to mark someone as a trespasser and thus make them a reputation free kill.

Also, it is important to note that when that system is in place, you will have to maintain a Holding in every one of those hexes you claim that territorial control exists.
Aragon (CN) a settlement founded on the principles of the River Freedoms: Say What You Will; Oath Breakers Die; Walk Any Road, Float Any River; Courts are for Kings; Slavery is an Abomination; Have What You Hold.

Settlement Focus: Fighter and Rogue Training
Game Play: Escalations / Refining / Crafting / Defensive PVP
Tyv Blodvaerd of Aragon
Nihimon
I think it's also important to accept that a good number of folks are going to react badly when they experience unwanted PvP that, to them, seems utterly random and meaningless. That reaction isn't "wrong" either.
It may not be a wrong reaction, or a correct reaction, but it could possibly a misinformed reaction. Let's look at the recent events as example. Golgotha invaded the areas near Phaeros and began to kill everyone they could find and tackle. There motivation for doing this was known, therefore not random. Their reason for doing this was in retaliation, and they targeted the economic engine of your settlement. That made it meaningful. So the question is, were those PvP adverse gatherers and crafters informed?

On another point, in your Asymetrical Warfare thread you had mentioned that it was unfun for you to have to choose tween maintaining your reputation or to enforce your claims to mechanically unclaimed territories. The likely tactic being used of "don't go red" being the cause of reputation loss. Isn't that the very "making meaningful choices" Ryan had mentioned and you have been pointing out for many years now?

I'm going to guess that you will say, there will be those tools for settlement control in the future. However, that control will require the placement and maintainace cost of holdings in order to establish that control. That cost will likely be prohibitive of allowing for the control of as many hexes as EAB claims as their's now.
Aragon (CN) a settlement founded on the principles of the River Freedoms: Say What You Will; Oath Breakers Die; Walk Any Road, Float Any River; Courts are for Kings; Slavery is an Abomination; Have What You Hold.

Settlement Focus: Fighter and Rogue Training
Game Play: Escalations / Refining / Crafting / Defensive PVP
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post