|
Post by Yojimbo on Mar 20, 2014 18:16:20 GMT
I am with chirality on the confusion of where this is coming from either hence my defense against this "rule" as well it seems short of reading chat logs, and if the communication happened in game not over skype or something else, little can be done to prove that someone was actually blacklisted. I am not saying that people should be blacklisting and I really don't know of any black listing outside of some vets blacklisting other vets and majority on each side are guilded or at least fairly friendly with those of a particular guild or two.
|
|
|
Post by theultimatesin on Mar 20, 2014 18:55:57 GMT
What if there are 2 players with 2 characters each? Do they have to accept anyone, or are they still counted as 2?
|
|
|
Post by fallenwizard on Mar 20, 2014 23:53:47 GMT
What if there are 2 players with 2 characters each? Do they have to accept anyone, or are they still counted as 2? This topic says more than 2 players but the mod update info says clearly 2 characters, also noting that party over 2 characters can't go invisible and therefor must accept party join requests.. On the other hand what interests me is how long in the run you're supposed to accept joiners: 1/3rd - aka first map in hells? half of it - aka often what you need to get for kill count, some runs it can be even little less. In abyss when you leave pazunia? or perhaps instantly when you leave workshop? Say you're doing some LL farming at PoM and someone wants to late join when you've cleared 4/5 of the run and you're supposed to give them equal chance of winning the good stuff. I dunno, lots of things here stinks IMHO. While I'm a known (or at least used to be) soloer/supporter of small groups - I had reasons to do so. It was how I liked to play the game. Chalenge my self and my friends to do better with less. It wasnt really about disliking or blacklisting people, it was purely about playing with the ones I liked to hang out with. Now, personaly, if a person I'd have blacklisted would ask to join the run me and my friends are doing/starting. We'd be forced to invite him/her, but I'm telling you that 95% of times we'd also cancel the run and go do something different. He/She join again - repeat it. Or as others have mentioned, what's there to stop you not resurrecting unwanted company? Would've be good mannered action? Definetly not, but how many times you thikn the said blacklisted guy would then ask to join you? Unless doing it on purpose to try annoying the other. I've seen some really mindblowing actions that people spend their free time with to bring misery to others for little or even no reason. Better solution? Do a grandgrand re-scaling on the mod of targeting party size of 4-5, cap at 6. All runs should be doable by 2-3, some requiring 4-5. But definetly drop all the runs that requires 5 people (Tia, princes) or even two simultanous levers (Dis, Malad, pyramid, lolth etc). Not so tell you to waste your time and effort of making the best co-op server in NWN history, but just to rescale it to require less people to do runs so even the less geared people would get by. I think many might think that this would'nt resolve anything. But if you only needed to make 2-3 friends, not 6-7 it'd be a whole lot easier to progress. Sure, all the current content is soloable with lvl 80's except the said couple that requires 5 to start boss fight with. But if all would scale down, the same soloers could still solo, but those who needed the assistance of other 6-7, for what ever reason, would now only need a couple. How much work it'd be? I dont even dare to guess it. Scaling down HP's and regen's of tougher spawns/bosses would alone be most what I think it'd need. Maybe also some Oinos -type of scaling of spawn size. 2-3 people wouldn't get randoms of 12 enemies, instead 6 or so. Well, also removal of many scripted death-attacks would propably need to go, since they aren't really player-side errors that kills one, just badbad luck. While I like having some luck factor ingame, I'd rather leave it be on occasional 20's/1's on crits, disables and most importantly, lootwise. But being unable to protect your self from instant death even with optimal play is something I dislike quite a bit. Getting lootdrop from boss that uses the instantkill to protect from it does you no good. I'd must rather have it drop on earlier area, which when you've (if played if safe) farmed enough to obtain, you then progress onwards - or take risk, rely on big team and strive onwards with chance of failure. And by chance of failure I mean even if you do things perfectly it'd still result a failure. There is and should always be penalty for misplays, just rolling 1 vs something you cant possibly be immune or heck be disabled without a save cus the enemy is a badass demon/devillord/god/goddes/kitten or what ever, is very frustrating. Now I do underestand and respect the mindset of keeping things hard so you wont be given everything free. But there's currently quite a few things in mod for what I know zero counterplay other than spamming immute - which cant be the only solution here, or atleast shouldn't IMHO. tl;dr rescale the mod to be playable in smaller groups instead of forcing big groups being formed between people who don't want each other around.
|
|
|
Post by tyranlthixis on Mar 21, 2014 2:11:47 GMT
This rule does not supersede other rules, like those against leeching xp without permission. Rather, it will be enforced in light of them, using what’s known in the law as a ‘totality of the circumstances’ test. We will be enforcing this rule, similarly to other rules against player behavior (PK, etc.): with screenshots and common sense. On a more personal note, this is something I’m doing not because I want to, but because a few disruptive players are forcing my hand. The situation has grown so absurd that even some of the players engaging in blacklisting are now afraid to post advocating nerfs, however appropriate such nerfs may be. What it boils down to, ladies and gents, is that I would rather lose the blacklisters than the good players they’re costing us. If you don’t like it, you’re more than welcome to vote with your feet. If we become a called-run server only, so be it. My time is increasingly scarce and precious, and I’m not going to spend it catering to a small number of players lording it over the rest of the playerbase. I’m leaving this thread open to comments, much as an administrative agency does whenever they propose a new rule. If you can think of ways to clarify or improve this new policy, I’m all ears. Like I said, I don’t particularly like doing this; I just don’t see a better alternative. If you post criticizing the new rule, however, I ask that you follow the first rule of critical theory - you must propose a better alternative, instead of just complaining. Thanks for reading. Funky The management has a long history of respecting player autonomy and individual preference. There will be no micromanaging of runs on a large scale here. This is not a license for DMs to go looking for problems. There has to be a documented and consistent pattern of behavior. Just as you would with any "griefing" type activity that is not wanted by the affected player. Basically we have a small number of bullies on HG and it is not fair to ask you, the player base, to address them on your own. The rule allows the server to take a much needed break from toxic players... either through them changing their patterns of behavior or by DMs simply banning a player(s) for a period of time. If they don't comply by altering a negative behavior, those bans will grow more frequent and greater in length. Eventually they will become increasingly irrelevant to HG. Either way the server wins.
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Mar 21, 2014 4:46:51 GMT
Better solution? Do a grandgrand re-scaling on the mod of targeting party size of 4-5, cap at 6. All runs should be doable by 2-3, some requiring 4-5. But definetly drop all the runs that requires 5 people (Tia, princes) or even two simultanous levers (Dis, Malad, pyramid, lolth etc). Not so tell you to waste your time and effort of making the best co-op server in NWN history, but just to rescale it to require less people to do runs so even the less geared people would get by. I applaud you for being, apparently, the only critic of the rule who actually read my post and posted an alternative. Sadly, your alternative smacks of someone with no clue or appreciation for the amount of work that would take. If I had that kind of time, we'd be three or four paragon areas in at least, and would have enough players that this kind of rule would not be necessary. Funky
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Mar 21, 2014 4:55:34 GMT
What happens if a guild run is formed, and someone from a guild that is warring with said guild wants to join? Read the section on the rule of reason. In all likelihood, we'd do away with guild wars. More to the point, is this seriously the most pressing concern on your mind? Do you even remember what year the last guild war was declared? The fact that you have to strain this hard to come up with 'problems' with the rule as written makes me think it's pretty sound. The notion that this kind of rule is somehow unenforceable is silly enough to hardly merit a response, at least to someone with knowledge of how the law works. Our entire legal tradition has relied on standards like 'totality of the circumstances' and 'reasonable person' for centuries. I'm guessing, based on your post in Thoughts and Ideas, that you think you're being clever. Rather the opposite. Funky
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Mar 21, 2014 5:07:18 GMT
I had no idea this was such a big issue...? Where is all this coming from? I'm pretty confused as to what spurred this. Have players been complaining about being blacklisted and threatening to leave the server? The practice was becoming widespread, and was not limited to 'inexperienced' players or vets 'not willing to learn'; rather, players were being blacklisted for daring to disagree with certain people on the forums. I'm not going to name names unless some of the blacklisted players want to speak up, but they included some of the server's most experienced players (and at least one DM, though I had to hear it from someone else, as he had too much integrity to complain to me about it). Given a choice between them, and the group doing the blacklisting, I know which way I'm going to decide, every time. That kind of behavior is not welcome here, and I feel no obligation whatsoever to spend my increasingly limited time tacitly supporting it. Funky
|
|
|
Post by chirality on Mar 21, 2014 6:27:35 GMT
Well, with that said I suppose it becomes a bit more clear what was at stake here in your thoughts.
I'm not really sure what else to say except that the cases I ranted about are, as far as I know, not quite the same as what I can only infer you're concerned with (differences of degree).
I've never considered blacklisting, but to be clear I don't mean to defend such behavior as much as offer my understanding of why it's done.
This is very bizarre but I still don't see why players blacklisting eachother is a matter for legal enforcement.
Why would you want to play with someone who blacklists you anyway?
Who stands to benefit from a relationship like this? Sounds like no fun for anyone.
|
|
|
Post by chainlink on Mar 21, 2014 9:20:08 GMT
I remember Tragik.
Took blacklisting to a whole new level!
Back to the original post if somebody calls a run then they have somebody they previously 'blacklisted' who gets invited through the new rule so the run caller then decides they don't want to go and in doing so take a required item Hellstone etc so the run collapses I guess they've not broken the rules as they stand?
I also remember very small party successes for specific LL runs is it now illegal to do this as if somebody asks to join you have to take them and are no longer able to say this is an X person only run (the X being a number above 2 but below 10)?
I can understand what the primary purpose of the rule is and why you put it into place but there seem to be so many ways of achieving effective blacklisting whilst not actually falling foul of the rule it will be extremly difficult to police effectively.
|
|
|
Post by desocupado on Mar 21, 2014 11:58:52 GMT
Better solution? Do a grandgrand re-scaling on the mod of targeting party size of 4-5, cap at 6. All runs should be doable by 2-3, some requiring 4-5. But definitely drop all the runs that requires 5 people (Tia, princes) or even two simultaneous levers (Dis, Malad, pyramid, lolth etc). Not so tell you to waste your time and effort of making the best co-op server in NWN history, but just to rescale it to require less people to do runs so even the less geared people would get by. I applaud you for being, apparently, the only critic of the rule who actually read my post and posted an alternative. Sadly, your alternative smacks of someone with no clue or appreciation for the amount of work that would take. If I had that kind of time, we'd be three or four paragon areas in at least, and would have enough players that this kind of rule would not be necessary. Funky Well, maybe a couple of runs could be scaled to smaller parties. Right now we have: If enemies could scale up better (difficulty and loot) those runs could be more popular. A few issues to work with: Could some runs have a different party limit? Could set loot scale to player party size? (Let's say I'd rather not do a Black Pyramid run with more than 4 people, due low chance to win a wisdom artifact)
|
|
|
Post by chirality on Mar 21, 2014 17:26:07 GMT
So judging from Tyran's post it seem like this whole shebang is basically cooked up to deal with a couple players who are viewed as bullies? I'm pretty sure I'm at least 1/2-way onto the situation here, so let me say this: regardless what these players are perceived to have done in regards to hurting the game, it's a bit ridiculous to go to lengths as this for the sake of personal foibles. The notion of actually choosing to purposefully drive players away shouldn't be considered unless the most extreme circumstances such as Rockcutter. If the players in question here can be demonstrated to warrant such extreme measures, then just ban them if that's the ultimate goal? It seems pretty hurtful to the mod (and for dubious gain) to tell anyone to go take a hike because they demand to enjoy a sense of entitlement about voluntarily playing with who they want to play with (no more and no less). I'm not sure how I feel about this as some matter of prime importance for anyone's time or effort. Isn't there actual game-related updates that we could be discussing right now , and let the DMs who're concerned with this (such as Tyran apparently) carry out their secret anti-bullying missions as they wish without, involving public scrutiny over a "scary looking" "new rule". I think this seems like a serious matter yet regarding only a few of the (few dozen) players we have, so I'm not sure what positive end this post and rule achieves except to be a serious tickler; 99% of readers are 100% clueless about what prompted this, what personalities are involved, and why it's such a big deal. Take this back to DM forums where it belongs, or at any rate off of radar screen for causing mass panic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2014 18:45:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by amano666 on Mar 21, 2014 19:45:37 GMT
I don't much like the idea of arbitrary rules, I much prefer the method of coding around unwanted behavior.
What if only the party leader (the one with the crown under the portrait) could invite people to the run, but the party could vote to change the crown holder.
So lets say player X wanted to do a run, players Y and Z join up, then player A comes along, this player does not get along with player X but Y and Z are both ok with him joining, player Y does something like !opt party vote and then all the players in the party can vote who should have the crown, player Y wins the vote and can now invite player A.
This way if the majority of players in the party don't want someone in the party then they don't have to spend their free time catering to that unwanted player. This also removes the need for a debate, it can be done without saying anything.
Just an idea, overall I like the non elitist stance of being inclusive, but I don't like the idea of being forced to party with undesirables (who deserve it) just because they want to tag along.
|
|
|
Post by CataclysmicDeath on Mar 21, 2014 20:57:17 GMT
Well if this new rule includes leaving a run when some one I refuse to party with joins rather than refusing them a place I guess I see some bans coming my way if I ever log in then.
Anyway, just wanted a quick clarification if you wouldn't mind. Areas like Hells are designed for 10 mans groups. However, if people want to do them, simply for the challenge/bragging rights in smaller parties, like the series of 5 man hell runs I did some time ago, is refusing entry to people on these grounds OK?
These type of runs are usually planned in advance by friends and people don't refuse entry because they dislike or to bully others.
Cata
Sent from my Nexus 7 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by tyranlthixis on Mar 21, 2014 21:01:57 GMT
So judging from Tyran's post it seem like this whole shebang is basically cooked up to deal with a couple players who are viewed as bullies? I'm pretty sure I'm at least 1/2-way onto the situation here, so let me say this: regardless what these players are perceived to have done in regards to hurting the game, it's a bit ridiculous to go to lengths as this for the sake of personal foibles. The notion of actually choosing to purposefully drive players away shouldn't be considered unless the most extreme circumstances such as Rockcutter. If the players in question here can be demonstrated to warrant such extreme measures, then just ban them if that's the ultimate goal? It seems pretty hurtful to the mod (and for dubious gain) to tell anyone to go take a hike because they demand to enjoy a sense of entitlement about voluntarily playing with who they want to play with (no more and no less). I'm not sure how I feel about this as some matter of prime importance for anyone's time or effort. Isn't there actual game-related updates that we could be discussing right now , and let the DMs who're concerned with this (such as Tyran apparently) carry out their secret anti-bullying missions as they wish without, involving public scrutiny over a "scary looking" "new rule". I think this seems like a serious matter yet regarding only a few of the (few dozen) players we have, so I'm not sure what positive end this post and rule achieves except to be a serious tickler; 99% of readers are 100% clueless about what prompted this, what personalities are involved, and why it's such a big deal. Take this back to DM forums where it belongs, or at any rate off of radar screen for causing mass panic. That's a pretty warped way at looking at the situation. There is no secret anti bullying missions going on. If you read what Funky wrote, he's already addressed all of the concerns you've brought up in this post. Everything from the magnitude of the problem to how former players like a "Rockcutter" will be handled if they cry injustice. If there is something specific you don't like about the wording suggest improvements.
|
|