All this talk about what exactly greifing will be in SMP has me wondering what all of you define as greififing, and what you consider as survival gameplay.
Consider the following situation:
I join a server with about eight friends. We work underground for a while, building and gathering resources. After a while, we emerge from the deaths with full diamond and bows and lots of arrows. We take over a peaceful town, construct a GIANT swastika and defend it for hours, mowing down anyone who tries to enter the town with 9 person arrow spam.
So my questions are:
-Is that situation greifing?
-If yes, does the swastika have anything to do with your opinion.
-would you ever participate in something like this? (i would)
Yes, you have nothing to gain except for amusement at the expense of people who were there before, minding their own business.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Survival" is a film/literature/video game genre about survival and self-sufficiency in the wild.
"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase used to paraphrase natural selection.
Now, that's a bit of a problem for me. I'm gonna go off of everything in your post rather than ask questions, but as it seems, you and your friends have no real purpose or objective of taking that town. If you commandeered it to steal the resources, now that would anger us, however it's not necessarily griefing in my eyes. I would just consider that a bit of a pillaging for a game server with multiple teams of players in it.
Since you seem confused on the matter, my own personal definition of griefing would be:
Griefing: Verb
1.) to purposely destroy or ruin someone's creation or fun causing the person to be unhappy for your own amusement.
2.) the act of demolishing another's work for one's own happiness, causing the constructor anger-related emotions.
Although others may see it a different way, that would be the definition for me.
Now, that's a bit of a problem for me. I'm gonna go off of everything in your post rather than ask questions, but as it seems, you and your friends have no real purpose or objective of taking that town. If you commandeered it to steal the resources, now that would anger us, however it's not necessarily griefing in my eyes. I would just consider that a bit of a pillaging for a game server with multiple teams of players in it.
Since you seem confused on the matter, my own personal definition of griefing would be:
Griefing: Verb
1.) to purposely destroy or ruin someone's creation or fun causing the person to be unhappy for your own amusement.
2.) the act of demolishing another's work for one's own happiness, causing the constructor anger-related emotions.
Although others may see it a different way, that would be the definition for me.
That's what I agree with, but in survival, most of the time it isn't actually griefing, because some people will just get over it and move on because it's survival. Like me. If I was playing SMP and someone destroyed my house, I would just walk off and build another.
"But you'll lose all your resources!" You say.
I won't care, as long as I have a sword I'll be fine.
@OP, Sorry for the rude words, its just all theese 4channers overrunning the forums with their xD and LULZ and OVER NEIN THOUSAAAND crap.. So i usually asume people on this forum with opinions i think are bad are a part of theese guys.
Ill edit out soe of the rude words. But still, you gotta accept the """greifers"""
SMP is a free for all game, not a deathmatch game, nor a co-op game, you decide. Calling people greifers for using things that are parts of the game for their own gain (Not counting bugs or hacks) is being a bad looser, and bad loosers are bad sport, and bad sport makes a bad mood. Laugh when you see your neighbour getting burned to death inside is house, ingame. Maybe do some offensive banner somewhere, to make people go near it, and chop the **** outta them. THAT is good sport.
Also, kill people all you want, if they don't like it, then they shouldn't even be on that server. And yeah, like I said, as long as you have a sword, you're fine.
SMP is a free for all game, not a deathmatch game, nor a co-op game, you decide.[/u][/i]
Says who? The only thing Notch has said on the topic was a blog post a year ago saying he was making survival as co-op with separate PvP modes, and Notch's teddy bear personality makes it seem unlikely he's making another Darkfall or Ultima online. Doesn't really matter, anyway, because it'll be up the to admins to decide what kind of game it is on their servers.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Survival" is a film/literature/video game genre about survival and self-sufficiency in the wild.
"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase used to paraphrase natural selection.
SMP is a free for all game, not a deathmatch game, nor a co-op game, you decide.[/u][/i]
Says who? The only thing Notch has said on the topic was a blog post a year ago saying he was making survival as co-op with separate PvP modes, and Notch's teddy bear personality makes it seem unlikely he's making another Darkfall or Ultima online. Doesn't really matter, anyway, because it'll be up the to admins to decide what kind of game it is on their servers.
I was about to say something almost exactly like this.
No offense whatsoever to you, Onforty, but Notch implies SMP to be a co-op mode.
HOWEVER, people can decide to play it however they would like. So if free for all is your wish, then you can play it free for all, but that does not mean [i]everyone[/i] has to play it like that.
Yes, you have nothing to gain except for amusement at the expense of people who were there before, minding their own business.
We get their town, all of their pre-construed defenses, and resources. does that make a difference?
Quote from Onforty »
Maybe do some offensive banner somewhere, to make people go near it, and chop the **** outta them. THAT is good sport.
i feel like that should be an actual sport, like spleef but with killing and the other person does not consent, and people die. Get some friends and take turns to see who can get the best kill that way. Sort of like hunting but with real people. *rubs hands mischievously*
Yes, you have nothing to gain except for amusement at the expense of people who were there before, minding their own business.
We get their town, all of their pre-construed defenses, and resources. does that make a difference?
Quote from Onforty »
Maybe do some offensive banner somewhere, to make people go near it, and chop the **** outta them. THAT is good sport.
i feel like that should be an actual sport, like spleef but with killing and the other person does not consent, and people die. Get some friends and take turns to see who can get the best kill that way. Sort of like hunting but with real people. *rubs hands mischievously*
If you had all the diamond gear, chances are you were already far better off than them in the first place. And since they most likely haven't been on the sever as long, all hey can do is either build crude little homes underground or be forced to abandon their town every time you feel like taking over.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Survival" is a film/literature/video game genre about survival and self-sufficiency in the wild.
"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase used to paraphrase natural selection.
My opinion is no body fought each other then that would make things rather boring.
I mean if you all teamed up, put a torch on every corner, eventually you will get bored from slaying countless monsters over and over again. If you have other human players attack you strategically, that would make it all the more fun. You can never predict what a human player would do. But I guess it all depends on the server owner. I would find it fun if it were Team vs Team. OR (If you ever read the Hunger Games) Make it like the Hunger Games, where it's free for all and people can choose to team up if they wish.
My opinion is no body fought each other then that would make things rather boring.
I mean if you all teamed up, put a torch on every corner, eventually you will get bored from slaying countless monsters over and over again. If you have other human players attack you strategically, that would make it all the more fun. You can never predict what a human player would do. But I guess it all depends on the server owner. I would find it fun if it were Team vs Team. OR (If you ever read the Hunger Games) Make it like the Hunger Games, where it's free for all and people can choose to team up if they wish.
That's just my opinion on this o.o
That's going to happen whether people like it or not. Unless the server rules say otherwise.
If you had all the diamond gear, chances are you were already far better off than them in the first place. And since they most likely haven't been on the sever as long, all hey can do is either build crude little homes underground or be forced to abandon their town every time you feel like taking over.
considering that by raiding their towns we gain all the resources they got in the time between raids, i would see this as strategic game play. if we never let them build the things we have, they can never rise against us.
^So very very true. AND they won't be expecting a raid, so even if they have Iron stuff and we have stone stuff, we'll still dominate them because they won't be expecting it.
If you had all the diamond gear, chances are you were already far better off than them in the first place. And since they most likely haven't been on the sever as long, all hey can do is either build crude little homes underground or be forced to abandon their town every time you feel like taking over.
considering that by raiding their towns we gain all the resources they got in the time between raids, i would see this as strategic game play. if we never let them build the things we have, they can never rise against us.
And what's the point making sure they don't get anywhere? If they wanted to PvP, you probably wouldn't have caught them unprepared in the first place, and if they don't want to, they're going to find another server and you'll just have to kill each other.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Survival" is a film/literature/video game genre about survival and self-sufficiency in the wild.
"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase used to paraphrase natural selection.
No we won't, we'll just wait for more people and terrorize them.
So basically you just sit around and waiting for people to come?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Survival" is a film/literature/video game genre about survival and self-sufficiency in the wild.
"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase used to paraphrase natural selection.
Constantly killing defenseless people sounds boring. I'd rather have two powerful enemies battle it out than one uber-empire fight a loner in a wooden shack.
No we won't, we'll just wait for more people and terrorize them.
So basically you just sit around and waiting for people to come?
no, we will be fortifying our defenses, they were easy to raid because they were not on guard, we will have the upper hand because we will be ready for an attack.
There's a couple major issues at hand here.
One is, co-op vs PvP. Survival's current problem right now is the fact that the monsters are weak.All players tend to be attracted to the greatest conflict. If the current version of Infdev was made into multiplayer RIGHT NOW at the current version, the biggest possible conflicts would be between players. That's PvP. But if notch makes some new monsters and buffs up the existing ones, suddenly, the biggest threat to players in survival is the monsters. Players would rather fight against the hordes than each other.That's co-op. There'll always be bandits, and there'll always be cooperative players, how many of each just depends on the conflict.
The next issue is the "There will/won't be greifers in survival!" Most person's definition of griefer (from what I see) would be a person who destroys the work of someone else for no personal gain (other than a couple laughs at the other person's expense) So,busting into someones house and stealing their iron is NOT griefing. Busting into somebody's house, burning all of the wooden and cloth parts, destroying all the doors and tearing down all the torches intentionally is what I'd consider griefing, even if that person gets some torches and doors from the loot. Because griefers are not doing it for the items, they're doing it to get anger out of people. And in Survival, where items and buildings have much more value and time staked in them than creative, people might get even MORE angry than in creative servers.
Consider the following situation:
I join a server with about eight friends. We work underground for a while, building and gathering resources. After a while, we emerge from the deaths with full diamond and bows and lots of arrows. We take over a peaceful town, construct a GIANT swastika and defend it for hours, mowing down anyone who tries to enter the town with 9 person arrow spam.
So my questions are:
-Is that situation greifing?
-If yes, does the swastika have anything to do with your opinion.
-would you ever participate in something like this? (i would)
"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase used to paraphrase natural selection.
Now, that's a bit of a problem for me. I'm gonna go off of everything in your post rather than ask questions, but as it seems, you and your friends have no real purpose or objective of taking that town. If you commandeered it to steal the resources, now that would anger us, however it's not necessarily griefing in my eyes. I would just consider that a bit of a pillaging for a game server with multiple teams of players in it.
Since you seem confused on the matter, my own personal definition of griefing would be:
Griefing: Verb
1.) to purposely destroy or ruin someone's creation or fun causing the person to be unhappy for your own amusement.
2.) the act of demolishing another's work for one's own happiness, causing the constructor anger-related emotions.
Although others may see it a different way, that would be the definition for me.
That's what I agree with, but in survival, most of the time it isn't actually griefing, because some people will just get over it and move on because it's survival. Like me. If I was playing SMP and someone destroyed my house, I would just walk off and build another.
"But you'll lose all your resources!" You say.
I won't care, as long as I have a sword I'll be fine.
Ill edit out soe of the rude words. But still, you gotta accept the """greifers"""
SMP is a free for all game, not a deathmatch game, nor a co-op game, you decide. Calling people greifers for using things that are parts of the game for their own gain (Not counting bugs or hacks) is being a bad looser, and bad loosers are bad sport, and bad sport makes a bad mood. Laugh when you see your neighbour getting burned to death inside is house, ingame. Maybe do some offensive banner somewhere, to make people go near it, and chop the **** outta them. THAT is good sport.
Also, kill people all you want, if they don't like it, then they shouldn't even be on that server. And yeah, like I said, as long as you have a sword, you're fine.
Says who? The only thing Notch has said on the topic was a blog post a year ago saying he was making survival as co-op with separate PvP modes, and Notch's teddy bear personality makes it seem unlikely he's making another Darkfall or Ultima online. Doesn't really matter, anyway, because it'll be up the to admins to decide what kind of game it is on their servers.
"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase used to paraphrase natural selection.
I was about to say something almost exactly like this.
No offense whatsoever to you, Onforty, but Notch implies SMP to be a co-op mode.
HOWEVER, people can decide to play it however they would like. So if free for all is your wish, then you can play it free for all, but that does not mean [i]everyone[/i] has to play it like that.
We get their town, all of their pre-construed defenses, and resources. does that make a difference?
i feel like that should be an actual sport, like spleef but with killing and the other person does not consent, and people die. Get some friends and take turns to see who can get the best kill that way. Sort of like hunting but with real people. *rubs hands mischievously*
If you had all the diamond gear, chances are you were already far better off than them in the first place. And since they most likely haven't been on the sever as long, all hey can do is either build crude little homes underground or be forced to abandon their town every time you feel like taking over.
"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase used to paraphrase natural selection.
I mean if you all teamed up, put a torch on every corner, eventually you will get bored from slaying countless monsters over and over again. If you have other human players attack you strategically, that would make it all the more fun. You can never predict what a human player would do. But I guess it all depends on the server owner. I would find it fun if it were Team vs Team. OR (If you ever read the Hunger Games) Make it like the Hunger Games, where it's free for all and people can choose to team up if they wish.
That's just my opinion on this o.o
Some guy.
That's going to happen whether people like it or not. Unless the server rules say otherwise.
considering that by raiding their towns we gain all the resources they got in the time between raids, i would see this as strategic game play. if we never let them build the things we have, they can never rise against us.
And what's the point making sure they don't get anywhere? If they wanted to PvP, you probably wouldn't have caught them unprepared in the first place, and if they don't want to, they're going to find another server and you'll just have to kill each other.
"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase used to paraphrase natural selection.
So basically you just sit around and waiting for people to come?
"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase used to paraphrase natural selection.
You heard that, green and red.
no, we will be fortifying our defenses, they were easy to raid because they were not on guard, we will have the upper hand because we will be ready for an attack.
One is, co-op vs PvP. Survival's current problem right now is the fact that the monsters are weak.All players tend to be attracted to the greatest conflict. If the current version of Infdev was made into multiplayer RIGHT NOW at the current version, the biggest possible conflicts would be between players. That's PvP. But if notch makes some new monsters and buffs up the existing ones, suddenly, the biggest threat to players in survival is the monsters. Players would rather fight against the hordes than each other.That's co-op. There'll always be bandits, and there'll always be cooperative players, how many of each just depends on the conflict.
The next issue is the "There will/won't be greifers in survival!" Most person's definition of griefer (from what I see) would be a person who destroys the work of someone else for no personal gain (other than a couple laughs at the other person's expense) So,busting into someones house and stealing their iron is NOT griefing. Busting into somebody's house, burning all of the wooden and cloth parts, destroying all the doors and tearing down all the torches intentionally is what I'd consider griefing, even if that person gets some torches and doors from the loot. Because griefers are not doing it for the items, they're doing it to get anger out of people. And in Survival, where items and buildings have much more value and time staked in them than creative, people might get even MORE angry than in creative servers.