Misuse of pets

[a.out]

fuck that, what the actual fuck. Like dudes said in this thread, stop changing the game because of griefers.

If anything BAN THEM. Every change made to get rid of griefing made the game worse, and that is an AWFUL change. WHY... WOULD ANYONE... WANT THAT? You have to carry stacks around town sometimes.

I joke about this w/ my dudes on ps4, but one of these days I'm just gonna be here and stroke out cuz of this stuff. If they do this, it will be proof Henrik is derpin'. /bank command... SMART THINKING... pets losing loyalty in town... just ridiculously stupid. One of the most stupid things I've ever heard and would impose great grief on people trying to do things, buy things off broker, craft, butcher, etc.

Delete the pet and ban the dude who did it, if he really did it on purpose. Stop changing game mechanics. Start banning people. It's simple! I still believe that's the ideal sandbox solution. Just like forums... if you are foul enough, you get banned. No need to add in bots to delete pieces of words cuz they think they are censoring swear words... just have an actual human ban them.

Calm down. I do not advocate for them to lose all loyalty within minutes. There has to be some sort of middle ground. If you think that banning is the ideal 'sandbox solution' think again. The ideal sandbox solutions are those that give us tools to avoid involving any GM's. Bring some useful ideas instead of just barking.

 

[Emdash]

Calm down. I do not advocate for them to lose all loyalty within minutes. There has to be some sort of middle ground. If you think that banning is the ideal 'sandbox solution' think again. The ideal sandbox solutions are those that give us tools to avoid involving any GM's. Bring some useful ideas instead of just barking.

that's the logic that has been adhered to, but it's faulty. Only free thinking humans can decide what is "abuse" in a sandbox, salty tears aside. There isn't a middle ground because if the horse doesn't lose loyalty fast, it's a bad solution, and if it does, it messes w/ people doing anything involving moving mats within town.

I will continue to defend "human arbiters" over sandboxes. The idea of sandbox = no intervention is v strange and I dunno how it got there. And it's not true, GMs have intervened many times when things were too crazy. Walling off MK etc. When people do toxic things that are against the nature of a sandbox, they should be warned then removed.

All of these guard rail mechanics could have been avoided if they just did that, and they'd probably have more subs, too, plus keeping the game hardcore. - shrugs -But nobody wants to take responsibility for the enforcement; they'd rather code half baked systems so they don't have to defend their choices. Let all the people who hate moderation quit, let all the people who play JUST to grief quit... the game will be better, and the people who play for real can get it on hardcore w/ no limits. MAKES SENSE TO ME.

But yea not gonna happen cuz of some idea that people have which, as I said, is not true. Some day people will realize that's the way to make a true and open sandbox, delete people who have no intention of playing the actual sandbox. Let everyone else go HAM. It's so easy... it makes you wonder, but yea, they don't wanna deal with the initial backlash. bla. O well.

These things, too, must happen. When someone does it tho everyone will be surprised how their game prospers, even w/ salty posts like I GOT BANNED FOR DOING (THIS!!) and everyone will be like o shit... damn... - goes back to playing the game relatively as intended -

 

[Xenom]

I just can't understand why the solution to most things seems to be just let everyone kill what he doesn't like... you all do realize that the anarchy you call for would just ruin the game.

I am all for the most freedom possible but in a game very much like in society there need to be rules too.

You like anarchy style, ask for zones where that is possible, don't like that kind of anarchy, ask for zones with rules... both are legitimate sandbox playstyles and yet every thread no matter the problem is full of want to kill everyone without anything interfering

I wonder which of these zones 99% of the game population would choose to live out of

 

[a.out]

that's the logic that has been adhered to, but it's faulty. Only free thinking humans can decide what is "abuse" in a sandbox, salty tears aside. There isn't a middle ground because if the horse doesn't lose loyalty fast, it's a bad solution, and if it does, it messes w/ people doing anything involving moving mats within town.

I will continue to defend "human arbiters" over sandboxes. The idea of sandbox = no intervention is v strange and I dunno how it got there. And it's not true, GMs have intervened many times when things were too crazy. Walling off MK etc. When people do toxic things that are against the nature of a sandbox, they should be warned then removed.

All of these guard rail mechanics could have been avoided if they just did that, and they'd probably have more subs, too, plus keeping the game hardcore. - shrugs -But nobody wants to take responsibility for the enforcement; they'd rather code half baked systems so they don't have to defend their choices. Let all the people who hate moderation quit, let all the people who play JUST to grief quit... the game will be better, and the people who play for real can get it on hardcore w/ no limits. MAKES SENSE TO ME.

But yea not gonna happen cuz of some idea that people have which, as I said, is not true. Some day people will realize that's the way to make a true and open sandbox, delete people who have no intention of playing the actual sandbox. Let everyone else go HAM. It's so easy... it makes you wonder, but yea, they don't wanna deal with the initial backlash. bla. O well.

These things, too, must happen. When someone does it tho everyone will be surprised how their game prospers, even w/ salty posts like I GOT BANNED FOR DOING (THIS!!) and everyone will be like o shit... damn... - goes back to playing the game relatively as intended -

Again, true and open sandbox would not have to involve GM's. I did not say no intervention at all, but I am of the opinion that in this case here there ought to be solutions that would minimize GM involvement. I think losing loyalty is not such a bad idea in crowded areas. I mean, it's a start. It could be proportional to the people surrounding them. At least it's a much better solution than what pet haters like Tzone demand. I think you underestimate the willingness of people to abuse the shit out of any sandbox - you'd need an armada of GM's if you solely rely on them.

 

[Jatix]

I just can't understand why the solution to most things seems to be just let everyone kill what he doesn't like... you all do realize that the anarchy you call for would just ruin the game.

I am all for the most freedom possible but in a game very much like in society there need to be rules too.

You like anarchy style, ask for zones where that is possible, don't like that kind of anarchy, ask for zones with rules... both are legitimate sandbox playstyles and yet every thread no matter the problem is full of want to kill everyone without anything interfering

I wonder which of these zones 99% of the game population would choose to live out of

I dont want anarchy and know that it would kill the game. My issue with the current standing system is it goes too far. Players cant punish griefers or anything because the punishment they get hurts them more than the person they are trying to punish. This is how griefing usually works. But in MO1 because punishment was much lower, you had much more room to try and kill the griefers, grief their pets, etc. I've watched my friend just walk to town blue encumbered in the loot of of group and they wont attack him because its not worth it. Which is retarded and means punishment for killing goes too far. MO1 you could just kill the guy and know your MC will tick down because you dont kill too many people so you arent really punished.

 

[Midkemma]

Again, true and open sandbox would not have to involve GM's. I did not say no intervention at all, but I am of the opinion that in this case here there ought to be solutions that would minimize GM involvement. I think losing loyalty is not such a bad idea in crowded areas. I mean, it's a start. It could be proportional to the people surrounding them. At least it's a much better solution than what pet haters like Tzone demand. I think you underestimate the willingness of people to abuse the shit out of any sandbox - you'd need an armada of GM's if you solely rely on them.

Losing loyalty is bad.
Yes it targets pet griefers but it also hits the crafters and extractors with consistent negatives.
That is a sign of a bad game mechanic.

If you wish to target actions then you need to investigate that action and look at the real issues caused.

In the case of blocking doorways then the map or AI can be updated to force AI out of those co-ords.
Or easier still could be to just remove the collision while within specified areas.
We could allow pushing of mounts to cause mounts to move. Move back if following a player or just stay slightly moved if set to stay. (This could be fun to try and push a mount miles away and grief the griefer...)

I feel it would be bad to put in a mechanic of losing loyalty like specified due to how us players need mounts when dealing with mats for crafting or extraction/refining. When players are dealing with multiple stacks then mounts are needed. They will have their pets out near crafting tables for a period of time while grinding up their skills... This would be on par with kicking fisherppl out for AFKing.

 

[Midkemma]

Players cant punish griefers or anything because the punishment they get hurts them more than the person they are trying to punish.

Until I get of my ass and do parcel runs.. I just wait to be hit (or mount) and then fight who I can. I do feel uneasy about initiating any aggressive action before getting my rep up a bit. I'm not playing a bandit or red lifestyle but I am content for PvP in this open world.

I've given up on blue being good. I've been killed more by blues then reds. I no longer know what this system is trying to accomplish anymore.

 

[Xenom]

I dont want anarchy and know that it would kill the game. My issue with the current standing system is it goes too far. Players cant punish griefers or anything because the punishment they get hurts them more than the person they are trying to punish. This is how griefing usually works. But in MO1 because punishment was much lower, you had much more room to try and kill the griefers, grief their pets, etc. I've watched my friend just walk to town blue encumbered in the loot of of group and they wont attack him because its not worth it. Which is retarded and means punishment for killing goes too far. MO1 you could just kill the guy and know your MC will tick down because you dont kill too many people so you arent really punished.

yeah sure but MO1 didn't work out so well too sadly. so wouldn't it be a better solution to find a different approach this time like something that doesn't invovle griefing back?
i still think the easiest way to fix this town blocking is to just disable collition when not in combat mode in towns...or something of this sort as this is a case where importance of gameplay > realism if you ask me.

 

[CrgHck]

Tamers like animals so they should live with them in the forest.
It makes no sense to take beasts in to a bank, role play a bit and gtfo.

 

[Piet]

Something needs to done to deal with people using pets to block access to NPC vendors and bank tellers. What is going on in Meduli is getting out of control. These people park their pets sideways to block the entire doorway or stair well then abandon the pet. Caster's are casting large portals just in front of the tellers so when people try to access they trigger the portal and die. There should be a 0 tolerance policy to this kind of nonsense.

Send a ticket in to a GM. I did that and within 5 minutes they killed the offending pets.

 

[Jatix]

yeah sure but MO1 didn't work out so well too sadly. so wouldn't it be a better solution to find a different approach this time like something that doesn't invovle griefing back?
i still think the easiest way to fix this town blocking is to just disable collition when not in combat mode in towns...or something of this sort as this is a case where importance of gameplay > realism if you ask me.

MO1 failed fort a lot of reasons tho. It took YEARS to even get a blue block mode. MO1 just felt liek they didnt try. Or if they were trying, they had no idea what they were doign and listened to all the wrong people. But honestly open PVP is pretty much destined to fail. Theres very few games that have open pvp that arent totally dead, and those games are boring. So they are fighting an uphill battle thats for sure. But TLDR I feel like MO1's more basic MC system wasnt completely hopeless. MO2 needs somethign closer to MO1's. A just MC or a just standing system. The current double system just feels like ass and sicks at its job anyway.

But yes they need to just give in and do unimmersive things like disable collision and pvp in town. Lets be honest. Theres infinite things in this game that have 0 immersion. Trying to keep it an immersive sandbox, when its not immersive and has very little sand, just makes way more roof for griefing and abuse of game mechanics.

 

[Albanjo Dravae]

Before the bullshit standing system they added in beta we could do justice and murder pets in town left and right now people is scared to lose a standing point to murder a pet. See what you do SV? Turn savages into scared lil bitches.

 

[Hodo]

listened to all the wrong people.

This right here....

This was the problem in MO1.

 

[Emdash]

Again, true and open sandbox would not have to involve GM's. I did not say no intervention at all, but I am of the opinion that in this case here there ought to be solutions that would minimize GM involvement. I think losing loyalty is not such a bad idea in crowded areas. I mean, it's a start. It could be proportional to the people surrounding them. At least it's a much better solution than what pet haters like Tzone demand. I think you underestimate the willingness of people to abuse the shit out of any sandbox - you'd need an armada of GM's if you solely rely on them.

I hard disagree and look at it more like a dnd game. Completely open but needs someone to step in and be like woah hold up. That will allow players the most freedom in the end, excepting for salty moments when people feel the decision rendered against them 'wasn't fair.' But appealing + warnings should fix that.

The loyalty thing, I thought about, and it makes sense for the people who just park their pet. People level their pets in town. But I assumed we were addressing the people who literally 'stay' their pet sideways to block a door not people who are just completely unaware, because that is annoying, too, but it's not GRIEF per se. It's griefy, but it's not misuse of game mechanics.

But I mean, if you just stay your pet somewhere and go somewhere else, maybe it would lose loyalty... but the problem w/ that is sometimes you farm and stay your pet so it doesn't get popped ( I hit pets on the back swing in mo2 now that they don't run in front, amazing me,) and losing loyalty for that could get nasty. I mean who is saying that people who put their pets sideways to block doors shouldn't be at least temp banned? That's extreme grief. And there is always a LoS, imo. Could def put a couple longbows on it. It's not about that. It's just about forcing people to do things that aren't supposed to be forced. It's actually not 'inventive' or anything, just like some of the things that have already plagued the game... haven gold farm, etc, risar. That shit should be nipped out.

THEN you let people play. Once you clearly establish rules, the intervention will be required less. I mean, I honestly think if someone could explain their action, gms should listen, but in general, what people are gonna say as to why they barricaded the door with their pet? It's not about whether or not we could band together to kill these pets, cuz we could lol. It's just, despite what people say, NOT sandbox. It's not an inventive idea. It's garbage. That kind of stuff should be removed so players CAN have more freedom in situations. Systems handicap the game way more than Gm intervention. It just somehow seems fair when they put up a system, but people will always find a way to exploit a system as well, as well as it will backlash to affect players who are just trying to play the game.

 

[a.out]

I hard disagree and look at it more like a dnd game. Completely open but needs someone to step in and be like woah hold up. That will allow players the most freedom in the end, excepting for salty moments when people feel the decision rendered against them 'wasn't fair.' But appealing + warnings should fix that.

The loyalty thing, I thought about, and it makes sense for the people who just park their pet. People level their pets in town. But I assumed we were addressing the people who literally 'stay' their pet sideways to block a door not people who are just completely unaware, because that is annoying, too, but it's not GRIEF per se. It's griefy, but it's not misuse of game mechanics.

But I mean, if you just stay your pet somewhere and go somewhere else, maybe it would lose loyalty... but the problem w/ that is sometimes you farm and stay your pet so it doesn't get popped ( I hit pets on the back swing in mo2 now that they don't run in front, amazing me,) and losing loyalty for that could get nasty. I mean who is saying that people who put their pets sideways to block doors shouldn't be at least temp banned? That's extreme grief. And there is always a LoS, imo. Could def put a couple longbows on it. It's not about that. It's just about forcing people to do things that aren't supposed to be forced. It's actually not 'inventive' or anything, just like some of the things that have already plagued the game... haven gold farm, etc, risar. That shit should be nipped out.

THEN you let people play. Once you clearly establish rules, the intervention will be required less. I mean, I honestly think if someone could explain their action, gms should listen, but in general, what people are gonna say as to why they barricaded the door with their pet? It's not about whether or not we could band together to kill these pets, cuz we could lol. It's just, despite what people say, NOT sandbox. It's not an inventive idea. It's garbage. That kind of stuff should be removed so players CAN have more freedom in situations. Systems handicap the game way more than Gm intervention. It just somehow seems fair when they put up a system, but people will always find a way to exploit a system as well, as well as it will backlash to affect players who are just trying to play the game.

Yeah, though, there is one significant difference between MO and DnD: one of them is not a DnD game. Maybe losing loyalty is a bad Idea, but so far you haven't managed to convince me that it is. To me it seems like a good solution. Cite one legit reason to keep your pet around the bank other than quick load/unload.

 

[Midkemma]

Maybe losing loyalty is a bad Idea, but so far you haven't managed to convince me that it is.

I spent a while chatting and sat at the bank, my mounts were outside the bank building (set to stay) as I feel it may annoy others and no hassle to show a little courtesy.
I would have lost loyalty for being polite?

 

[housemaster]

I really don't understand why this is so difficult to fix.
Pets should not be allowed in merchant zones. This can be highlighted with a fat sign. If someone does take their pet into those zones, other players may kill it. There should be real stable areas for pets, protected by arrows and guarded by two city guards, so that Krankone can't shoot them from a hill. There players can transfer their shit to the inventory and walk to the bank. It's starting to piss me off that SV can't just solve a problem for once.

 

[Deleted member 44]

Tamers like animals so they should live with them in the forest.
It makes no sense to take beasts in to a bank, role play a bit and gtfo.

But but but I want to sit in town all day and level my pet. Wahhhhhhh, buff pets, ban all people who kill my pet. Wahhhhhh

 

[Midkemma]

There players can transfer their shit to the inventory and walk to the bank.

Ehhh?

I go out with 2 mounts and fill them up with carcasses, take them back and butcher them, and I can have up to 12 stacks per run.
I do multiple runs when I farm.
In MO1 I used to butcher over 100 stacks a day easily with buy orders.

I've known extractors get through bags of stacks.

If people are going out into the wild then they are potential content for players who seek PvP. Now that we all can have combat skills then hopefully it'll mean better/more fun PvP for them... Once the MC/Rep thing gets better?

You punish them for processing those resources then they will spend that time walking back and forth due to your suggestion instead of getting their arses outside, gathering and putting themselves at risk.

 

[Najwalaylah]

TBH I think pet collision being ignored inside of towns is the best suggestion of a solution i've seen. It doesn't lower risk in town and it prevents pets from getting you stuck in crowded places.

It's so simple that it just might work. Bonus: park them all in the same space.